Responses

Version 1.
1011 updated
General Certificate of Secondary Education June 2011
GCSE History
Specification B
Unit 1 International Relations: Conflict and Peace in the Twentieth Century
Exemplar Responses
Copyright 2011 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT AQA retains the copyright on all its publications. However, registered centres for AQA are permitted to copy material from this booklet for their own internal use, with the following important exception: AQA cannot give permission to centres to photocopy any material that is acknowledged to a third party even for internal use within the centre. Set and published by the Assessment and Qualifications Alliance.
The Assessment and Qualifications Alliance (AQA) is a company limited by guarantee registered in England and Wales (company number 3644723) and a registered charity (registered charity number 1073334). Registered address: AQA, Devas Street, Manchester M15 6E
GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series
Paper 1: International Relations: Conflict and Peace in the Twentieth Century
0 1 In 1908 Austria-Hungary annexed the Slav state of Bosnia from Turkey. Describe the Bosnian Crisis, 1908-1909, which followed this annexation. Target: Description of key features and characteristics (AO 1 and 2) Candidates either submit no evidence or fail to address the question. MARK GENEROUSLY Level 1: Basic description Any general relevant comment. e.g. it led to a crisis which involved: Serbia; Russia; Germany (gives any correct power with A/H) etc. EITHER Detailed description of limited aspects e.g. develops one of the following: the annexation end of Turkish Empire why A/H carried it out; relationship between Serbia and Russia effect of annexation on them; attitude of Germany and its effect; answers may refer to crisis of 1914 reward these if they are made relevant to 1908. One accurate sentence which goes beyond simple/general (2 marks) Two for 3 marks. OR Limited description of a wider range of aspects e.g. outline description of A/H and the Bosnian Crisis. Level 3: Detailed description of several aspects e.g. at least two of the points mentioned in the first part of level 2. OR three accurate sentences on any point(s)
Level 2:
2-3
Question 1 Response 1 The Bosnian Crisis was one factor that increased the tension in Europe during the early 1900s and before the First World War. Austria-Hungary had aims to unite all the AustriaHungarians living in the Balkans and Bosnia. They wanted to take over Bosnia because they wanted to further expand their empire. As a result, this caused tension with Serbia because they also had ambitions to take over Bosnia. Level 2/ 2 Marks Question 1 Response 2 Austria-Hungary was one of the great powers, but unlike any other great power it was made up of different races e.g. Slavs, Czechs etc. This made Austria-Hungary a strong and powerful state, but it was also its weak point. Austria-Hungary was close to breaking up and losing all its power, this was because all the people wanted to return to their countries. Serbia was wanting to reunite all Slavs in a greater Serbia and to do this they were going to take Bosnia, but Austria-Hungary got there before them. Once Bosnia had been taken over by Austria-Hungary Serbia got very angry and
demanded that Austria-Hungary give Bosnia to Serbia. But Austria-Hungary was not going to and instead threatened Serbia with war. Luckily for Serbia they had a pact with Russia who came to back Serbia up but Austria-Hungary also had a pact with Germany who backed up Austria-Hungary. Russia was still weak from its revolution and knew it could not defeat Germany, so Russia backed down, this humiliated Russia and they promised next time they wouldnt back down. This led to a lot of tension and was one of the causes of the First World War. Level 3/ 4 Marks Question 1 Response 3 In 1908 Austria-Hungary annexed the Slav state of Bosnia. This was opposed by Serbia who also had aims to expand in the Balkans. Serbia were not happy about AustriaHungary taking over Bosnia and Russia told Serbia that they would support them. Germany found out that Russia were supporting Serbia, and Germany told Russia that if they declared war on Austria-Hungary, then they would declare war on Russia. Russia didnt want to go to war as they didnt have the resources. This left the Triple Alliance feeling confident and the Triple Entente feeling humiliated. Level 3/ 4 Marks
0 2 Study Source A. Source A suggests that Kaiser Wilhelm IIs main aim in his foreign policy was to stay friendly with Britain. Do you agree that this was the Kaisers main aim in his foreign policy? Explain your answer by referring to the purpose of the source, as well as using its content and your knowledge. Target: Use of knowledge and evaluation of source to reach a conclusion (AO 1,2 & 3) Candidates either submit no evidence or fail to address the question. General response relying on source or learned response. e.g. Kaiser caused the First World War so he could not have wanted peace. Kaiser said it so it must be true in a newspaper so it could be wrong. The answer demonstrates simple understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is generally coherent but basic in development Uses general knowledge to agree/disagree with the interpretation/ gives simple explanation of how the interpretation came about. e.g. shows awareness of Kaiser Wilhelms policies at a simple level he did not ally with GB he built a navy he went to war with GB in 1914 etc. OR simple comments on the provenance: an interview in a British newspaper therefore Kaiser may not have meant it or he may have been tricked by the interviewer etc. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is reasonably well organised and presented in a clear and effective manner. Level 3: Agrees/disagrees using either source or own knowledge e.g. EITHER Evaluation of provenance of source: interview was in Britain so Kaiser was trying to give a good impression of himself, trying to explain his policies to the British people and prevent their hostility could refer to date 1908 as one of the critical dates in the naval rivalry. OR Shows some understanding of the Kaisers character or policies by reference to German foreign policy Morocco; naval rivalry; attack on Belgium etc. to agree or disagree with the interpretation. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is well organised with an appropriate form and style of writing. Some specialist vocabulary is used.
Level 1:
0 1
Level 2:
2-3
4-5
Level 4:
Uses source and knowledge to reach conclusion Both parts of Level 3. The answer demonstrates highly developed/complex understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is well structured, with an appropriate form and style of writing. Specialist vocabulary is used effectively.
Question 2 Response 1 Source A suggest Kaiser Wilhelms main aims were to stay friendly with Britain. In some ways this is true, Germany never declared war on Britain but Britain still got involved even though they didnt have to. The only real reason Britain got involved was because of the Schlieffen plan which made Britain scared of Germany since it would leave Britain vulnerable if it worked. When Kaiser Wilhelm II put the Schlieffen Plan into action it was never intended to affect Britain, Britain just joined the war because it felt it needed to. Although in some ways Kaiser Wilhelms statement was not completely true. Kaiser Wilhelm II wanted to make Germany more powerful so even though he might not have attacked Britain directly then if he had won the First World War he could have then decided to attack Britain to further strengthen Germany. Level 2/ 2 Marks Question 2 Response 2 The provenance says that the interview had been taken out of a British newspaper called the Daily Telegraph and that it was published in 1908. This makes the source unreliable because during that time period Britain and Germany were constantly fighting each other and also the British newspaper, that would be published by the Government did not want to scare the British public, so therefore may have lied about what Kaiser had said. I do not feel that this was Kaisers main aim in his foreign policy due to the international relations during that time and also a majority of the foreign policy was to do with making Germany strong in terms of the navy and military and creating an empire. Level 3/ 4 Marks Question 2 Response 3 The Kaisers main aims in his foreign policy were to reverse the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, build up Germanys military forces and to expand into Eastern Europe in order to gain lebensraum for the growing German population. The source is contradicted by the Kaisers actions before and after this interview extract as he had challenged Britain many times increasing between the Anglo-German relationship. The first event was the naval arms race which eventually had begun in 1900 after the Kaiser ordered head of the German navy Admiral Tirpitz to build up the German navy. Britain were alarmed and had to defend its naval supremacy. Also during the two Moroccan crises, the Kaiser proved himself to be a selfish leader who only followed his aim of Weltpolitrik and to gain Germanys place in the sun, he aimed to break the EntenteCordiale of Britain and France. Also the second Moroccan crisis alarmed Britain as he sparked suspicion of a naval base at the port of Agadir. Therefore the evidence here contradicts with the source as he time after time wanted to challenge Britain rather than become close allies. The source is from a British newspaper and as this was during the events like the naval arms race and the Moroccan crises, it would suggest that it should portray a negative view of the Kaiser however it doesnt, maybe it was written like this as the Kaiser didnt want Britain to feel threatened however that would be proven wrong by his attempts at angering Britain. Level 3/ 5 Marks
0 3 Which of these reasons was more responsible for the outbreak of the First World War in 1914: the alliance systems that existed in 1914 the use of the Schlieffen Plan in 1914? You must refer to both reasons when explaining your answer. Target: Analysis and explanation of events leading to causation (AO 1 and 2) Candidates either submit no evidence or fail to address the question. Level 1: Simple descriptive comment and/or gives one reason. e.g. there were two rival alliances in 1914 which fought each other. The Schlieffen Plan was the German plan for war in 1914. MUST COVER BOTH BULLET POINTS FOR TOP OF LEVEL. The answer demonstrates simple understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is generally coherent but basic in development. Level 2: EITHER Develops one cause This starts with description at the bottom of the level, then explanation and obtains top of level for assessment and focus on the question. e.g. explanations could cover why the alliances opposed each other; why they had been formed and developed. Assesses the effect of the alliances on the outbreak of war could be an assessment of the role of the alliances after the assassination how they brought Europe to war. Explains the importance of the Schlieffen Plan why Germany used the plan in 1914, avoid 2 front war etc; Assesses how it led to the extension of the war in Europe why it brought GB into the war, sanctity of treaties, proximity to Great Britain, coastline etc . OR Covers both with some development or explanation This will involve description or explanation of both with no analysis or assessment and little focus on the question. N.B. An answer which explains both and supports the explanations with good depth and command of knowledge can be placed at the bottom of level 3. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is reasonably well organised and presented in a clear and effective manner.
10
0 1-2
3-6
Level 3:
A selective and structured account covering both bullet points, though one may be in greater depth, focused on the question or establishing some argument. e.g. assesses the part played by the alliances in the outbreak of war and explains the Schlieffen Plan. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is well organised with an appropriate form and style of writing. Some specialist vocabulary is used.
7-9
Level 4:
Balanced, well argued answer linking both parts, focused on the question. e.g. assesses both parts in depth with a reasoned judgement. The answer demonstrates highly developed/complex understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is well structured, with an appropriate form and style of writing. Specialist vocabulary is used effectively.
10
Question 3 Response 1 During the early 1900s, two armed camps existed in Europe, the Triple Entente and the Triple Alliance. In 1905 Britain and France had already formed an alliance known as the entente cordial. In 1907, Russia joined with them forming the triple entente. Another alliance system existed alongside the triple entente, the Triple Alliance. The Triple Alliance consisted of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Japan. Both alliances were very secretive of each other as well as defensive. This increased the tension in Europe because now there were two armed camps who did not trust each other and kept secrets from one another. Another reason that may have been responsible for the outbreak of war was the Schlieffen Plan. During the 1900s Germany felt that war with Russia was extremely likely so in 1900, Alfred von Schlieffen came up with basis of the Schlieffen Plan. The plan meant that Germany would focus their attack on France in order to give them a knockout blow using 90% of their military force and the remaining 10% would defend the East German border. The plan was launched on 3rd August 1914. They assumed that Russia would take 6 weeks to mobilise where as in fact they took 10 days as a result Kaiser had to withdraw his troops from France in order to defend the East German border from Russias attack. This meant that Germany now had to face a war on two fronts which put them at a huge disadvantage. The more responsible reason for the outbreak of the First World War was the alliance systems that existed in 1914. The alliance systems meant that if one country got attacked or invaded by another then the other two countries would help them out and because of the Schlieffen Plan in 1914 all countries involved the triple entente were brought into the war. Additionally, the two alliances increased tension because they both secretive and defensive of each other and they did not trust each other at all. Level 2/ 5 Marks Question 3 Response 2
The Alliance systems made it possible for war, as it divided Europe up into two armed camps that were ready for war due to the arms race of France and Russia raising conscription and Germany having the most powerful army. The Franco-Russian Alliance of 1894 proved to be a threat to Germany as they did not like the idea of close relations with the Soviets, this also made both countries stronger increasing the threat to Germany as France still wanted revenge after Alsace and Lorraine were taken in 1871. Also the fact that Germany had made an alliance with Austria-Hungary very early on in 1879 suggests that the Kaiser was hoping for a war, he was sure to plan ahead. Britain and France, the Entente-Cordiale was something the Kaiser hoped to break yet his attempts failed, however these attempts made war more likely as the tension increased all the more after each attempt. Also the tying of the Triple Entente 1907 officially made it clear that Europe had two sides, the Triple Entente and the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy (1882). The Schlieffen Plan was a plan that the Kaiser devised up long before the outbreak of WW1. He ordered Von Schlieffen to plan an attack on Russia or France in order to reduce the risk of fighting a war on two fronts. His aim was to attack France first by invading through Belgium as it would take Russia longer to mobilise a it was large, and then deal with Russia afterwards. Belgiums resistance had sparked German aggression and they invaded none-the-less, this alarmed Britain who were keen to maintain Belgiums neutrality of the Treaty of Land on 1929. The evidence here suggests that the more likely reason was the alliance systems because it made it possible for war as each country would back their ally which would increase the tension between countries which eventually led to Britain officially declaring war on Germany 4th September 1939. Level 2/ 6 Marks Question 3 Response 3 In 1914 there were two alliance systems in Europe; the Triple Entente and the Triple Alliance. The Triple Entente consisted of Britain, France and Russia. The Triple Alliance consisted of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy. Both alliance systems had been set up to support each other, but only help each other in emergency. The Triple Entente was set up in 1907, but in 1904 Britain and France were already allies, after signing the Entente Cordiale (friendly agreement). Tension rose in Europe as both the alliances began to dislike each other. The alliance systems worked, as shown in Morocco, where Britain supported France and opposed Germany. This is an important reason why the First World War broke out because it made tension in Europe rise considerably. During each crisis the two systems showed their hate for each other by supporting their allies. Without these two armed camps, Germany wouldnt have declared war on Russia and France, which ultimately kicked off the First World War. The Schlieffen Plan was a plan designed by Alfred Von Schlieffen, and was made to knock France straight out of the war. The plan was originally designed by Alfred Von Schlieffen in 1904, but altered later by Von Molke. The idea was to quickly knock France out of the war, and then they could concentrate on Germany. This was to prevent Germany getting attacked from both sides, which would make them much weaker. Germany would attack France, marching through Belgium and Luxemburg. They thought
Russia would take 6 weeks to mobilise, so Germany left 10% of her army on the Eastern border. Russia only took 10 days and France found themselves attacked from 2 sides, the plan hadnt worked. This is an important reason why the First World War broke out because its the reason Britain got involved with the war. It also meant that Russia had to mobilise and France had to defend themselves. Without the Schlieffen Plan less countries would have got involved. Britain would have stayed out of things. Germany made assumptions so the plan didnt work. Maybe without the plan, Germany would have been stronger as they wouldnt have been attacked from 2 sides. I think that the most important reason for the outbreak of war is the Schlieffen plan. The armed camps were important, but if they caused war why didnt it happen before 1914? The Schlieffen plan was the spark as it got so many countries involved in the war, without the Schlieffen plan Britain wouldnt have got involved. The treaty of London, signed 1839, claimed that if Germany invaded neutral Belgium, then Britain must declare war on Germany. The Schlieffen plan got Russia, France and Britain all involved in the war. Level 3/ 8 Marks Question 3 Response 4 Up until the start of the First World War 1914, there were 2 main camps in Europe. The Triple Entente, made up of Britain, France, and Russia, and the Triple Alliance made up of Germany, Italy and Austria-Hungary. Also there were non-military agreements such as the Entente Cordiale between France and Britain to help settle disputes overseas. The Schlieffen plan devised by Von Schlieffen head of the German army was a plan to invade France through Belgium and defeat them quickly before Russia could mobilise their forces to prevent a battle on 2 sides. The alliance systems were significant as they caused unease between the 2 main groups. For example, the terms of the Entente Cordiale were kept secret, which led Germany and Kaiser Wilhelm to test the alliance, causing the Moroccan Crises in 1905 and 1911. Also, in 1908, when Austria-Hungary annexed Bosnia, the Alliance system obliged Germany to back Austria-Hungary up, turning a possible negotiable event into a hostile threat. Finally, when Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia on 28th of July 1914, it forced Russia to go to war and forced Germanys involvement with Germany declaring war on Russia, and on France on 3rd August 1914, beginning the First World War. The Schlieffen plan was significant because it influenced Germanys actions to start the war. Firstly, confidence in the Schlieffen plan caused Germany to declare war on France before France could, believing their plan would bring success. However, the biggest reason why the Schlieffen plan brought about WW1 was because they invaded through Beligum. By the treaty of London, Belgium was to remain a neutral state and, when they were invaded Britain was forced to join. In conclusion, although the Schlieffen plan caused Britain to get involved and boosting confidence, the alliance system was a source of long standing unease that forced everybody to become involved in any conflict and eventually a war. Although Britain had no other reason to join the war apart from the invasion of Belgium, they would have eventually. To conclude, the Schlieffen plan caused the war to become what it was with Britains involvement, but the alliance system made a large war inevitable. Level 4/ 10 Marks
10
11
0 4 In January 1918 President Woodrow Wilson of the USA published the Fourteen Points which were his aims for peace. Describe the main features of the Fourteen Points. Target: Description of key features and characteristics Candidates either submit no evidence or fail to address the question. MARK GENEROUSLY Level 1: Basic description. Any general, relevant comment. e.g. they aimed to bring about a fair peace etc. EITHER Detailed description of limited aspects e.g. covers one of the following: names any three of the Fourteen Points; develops any one of them such as the League of Nations, self determination; the attitude of other countries (GB, Germany and France) to them etc. One accurate sentence which goes beyond simple/generous (2 marks) Two for 3 marks. OR Limited description of a wider range of aspects e.g. outline description of the Fourteen Points or their contents in general terms. Level 3: Detailed description of several aspects e.g. at least two of the points mentioned in the first part of level 2. OR three accurate sentences on any point(s)
Level 2:
2-3
Question 4 Response 1 The fourteen points were a series of peace making points, by Woodrow Wilson, aimed at restoring peace to Europe. One of the main features of the fourteen points was to ensure that after war had ended, there would be no ill-intention towards victorious nations by defeated ones. Woodrow Wilson started trading with Europe and another of the fourteen points was a policy of free trading between all nations. This would allow countries to recover faster, help America out in the process and encourage other nations to trust each other. Finally, another main fourteen point was to make sure that Germany didnt suffer too much after the war because, in relation to the first point, crippling Germany would lead to a weak country that hated the winners of the war. Level 2/ 3 Marks Question 4 Response 2 The Main points of Wilsons 14 points were to encourage peace and improve working conditions. One of these points was self-determination which encouraged countries to govern themselves. Another point was the League of Nations, a group of powers dedicated to the prevention of war, encouragement of co-operation, disarming and improve working conditions. Together, Wilsons 14 points were made to prevent another war like WW1 from happening. Level 3/ 4 Marks
12
Question 4 Response 3 One of the main aims was for there to be free trade between all countries so that no conflict could arise because of it; and because it would improve national relations. He also wanted disarmament to occur so there could be no possibility of another war. Another aim was to give self determination to all the people, so they could decide who they were by. This would prevent the need for people to fight for their freedom. Finally he wanted no secret treaties so treaties like the Triple Alliance would not happen again. Level 3/ 4 Marks
13
0 5 Study Source B Source B suggests that the main result of the Treaty of Versailles was the destruction of Germany. Do you agree? Explain your answer by referring to the purpose of the source, as well as using its content and your knowledge. Target: Use of knowledge and evaluation of source to reach a conclusion Candidates either submit no evidence or fail to address the question. General response relying on source or learned response. e.g. France did want to destroy Germany; Source German therefore biased. The answer demonstrates simple understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is generally coherent but basic in development. Uses general knowledge to agree/disagree with the interpretation/ gives simple explanation of how the interpretation came about. e.g. shows awareness of what happened to Germany in general terms Germany was not destroyed, remained but with less land was destroyed by reparations with no development etc. OR simple comments on the provenance: German cartoon, meant to be funny, not serious, biased because Germans hated Versailles etc. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is reasonably well organised and presented in a clear and effective manner. Level 3: Agrees/disagrees using either source or own knowledge e.g. EITHER Evaluation of provenance of source: German therefore trying to evoke sympathy after the treatment of Germany in the Treaty; reflecting German antipathy towards the French supported by cartoon (guillotine, Clemenceau etc.). OR Uses any specific knowledge of the peace settlement which is explained to support or reject the idea that Germany had been destroyed by it (Diktat; war guilt; reparations; military settlement; details of land lost etc.). Could comment on the role of Wilson and/or Lloyd George. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is well organised with an appropriate form and style of writing. Some specialist vocabulary is used.
Level 1:
Level 2:
2-3
4-5
Level 4:
14
Question 5 Response 1 I do agree. The source shows Germany represented by the prisoner about to be killed, symbolising their destruction. In the source we also Clemenceau and Lloyd-George looking very sinister, perhaps suggesting they were the main reason for the Treaty of Versailles being so harsh. Whereas Wilson seems to have distanced himself since he thought it should be less harsh. However, the purpose of the source is to represent the German peoples views in a propaganda format. This means that is does contain bias since it only takes into account their view. I also agree with statement because of information I know from my own knowledge. For example, I know Germany lost 10% of its land; which includes places like the Saarland, Eupen, and the Polish Corridor. They also had to pay a massive sum of money (6.6 billion) in reparations. This will of destroyed Germany economically. Another point to make is that they were only allowed 100,000 men in their army and six destroyers. They were allowed no air force, tanks, submarines etc. This severely weakened Germany since they could no longer stand up for themselves. Level 3/ 5 Marks Question 5 Response 2 The Treaty of Versailles was made in aims to establish peace, it was a peace settlement. The terms of the Treaty were mainly established by the big three Wilson (USA), Clemenceau (France) and Lloyd George (UK), the Germans had called it a diktat as they were not invited to discuss the terms set. I agree that the Treaty of Versailles was particularly aimed at Germany however there were harsher terms on Austria-Hungary and Turkey. The result was that Germanys army be limited to 100,000 men, all their colonies given back or to Britain and France, 7 million people to neighbouring countries, no tanks, no submarines and only 6 battleships, and the Rhineland was to be a demilitarised zone. This hit Germany the hardest as they took pride in their armed forces. The forbidden Anschluss and Article 231 also were huge grievances of Germany. George Clemenceau believed Germany had to be crippled, he wanted all the punishment on Germany in order for France to feel safe again. The source shows the Big three. Clemenceau is the one holding the larch for the guillotine suggesting that he inevitably wanted Germany to pay, he needed to be the one to let go and kill Germany. Lloyd George is by the side and holding maybe the Treaty of Versailles suggesting that he stuck with the terms but did not necessarily crush Germany entirely, suggesting Britains inch of sympathy for Germany. Wilson is away from the guillotine and his subjective hand gesture suggests he is trying to negotiate the problem at hand but is in no real position to do so. Level 3/ 5 Marks Question 5 Response 3 The Source suggests the main result for the Treaty of Versailles was the destruction of Germany. However the source is a peace of German propaganda and only represents a German view of the treaty. The source was produced in 1919 just after the Treaty was signed and so people may have been resentful of losing World War One and want to show the Treaty in a bad light. The purpose of the source is to discourage support for the Treaty of Versailles. Germany felt like the Treaty was a diktat, they had to pay 6,600 million in reparations which crippled their economy as well as this much of their land was taken such as the Saar coalfields, Alsace-Lorraine was given to France and an Anschluss with Austria was also forbidden. I agree with the source to an extent because
15
many of the clauses were too harsh, particularly the reparations which was particularly difficult to pay back with main industrial land like the Saar coalfields taken away. However equally the Saar coalfields were returned on plebiscite after 15 years and many of the terms of the Treaty were broken in the 1930s and Germany did recover, so the destruction of Germany wasnt the main result although this is what Clemenceau wanted, shown holding a rope next and keen to execute Germany in the diagram. The League of Nations was also set up from the Treaty, one of Woodrow Wilsons 14 points shown reasoning in the cartoon because he didnt want to totally destroy Germany. Equally Lloyd George did want some revenge but wanted to KEEP GERMANY STOP ENOUGH as a buffer against communism. Therefore although the Treaty destroyed in some respects it was not the main result of the Treaty. Level 4/ 6 Marks
16
0 6 Which of the following reasons was more responsible for the failure of the League of Nations: the absence of the USA from the League the actions of Britain and France during the Abyssinian Crisis 1935-1936? You must refer to both reasons when explaining your answer.
10
Target:
Analysis and explanation of events leading to causation (AO 1 and 2) Candidates either submit no evidence or fail to address the question. 0 1-2
Level 1:
Simple descriptive comment and/or gives one reason. e.g. the USA never joined the League; USA was a strong country etc.; GB and France did not support the League in the crisis. MUST COVER BOTH BULLET POINTS FOR TOP OF LEVEL. The answer demonstrates simple understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is generally coherent but basic in development.
Level 2:
EITHER Develops one cause This starts with description at the bottom of the level, then explanation and obtains top of level for assessment and focus on the question. e.g. explanations could cover why the USA did not join; why lack of the power of the USA weakened the Leagues sanctions etc. Assesses the effect of the absence of the USA on the failure of the League could not enforce its decisions because the only permanent members were GB and France and they were weakened by war and then Wall St Crash etc. Explains how/why GB and France were reluctant to act against Mussolini. Assesses how this failure to act over Abyssinia discredited the League and led to its failure could use the hypocrisy of GB and France or their betrayal of the League and its policy of sanctions by the Hoare Laval Pact. NB both parts could overlap must allow reward for both. OR Covers both with some development or explanation This will involve description or explanation of both with no analysis or assessment and little focus on the question. N.B. An answer which explains both and supports the explanations with good depth and command of knowledge can be placed at the bottom of level 3. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling,
3-6
17
punctuation and grammar. It is reasonably well organised and presented in a clear and effective manner.
18
Level 3:
A selective and structured account covering both bullet points, though one may be in greater depth, focused on the question or establishing some argument. e.g. assesses the part played by the absence of the USA in the failure of the League and explains the actions of GB and France in the crisis. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is well organised with an appropriate form and style of writing. Some specialist vocabulary is used.
7-9
Level 4:
10
Question 6 Response 1 Both the absence of the USA and the Abyssinian crises led to the failure of the League of Nations. The USA was a massive influence on the economy of the world since it exported so much to all different countries. When the USA wasnt involved in the League of Nations it already made them weak. Since the USA is one of the made traders it already destroyed the League of Nations policy that no country should trade with the aggressive country. The USA was also one of the great powers and since they didnt join it already made the League weak. The Abyssinian crisis was also a big reason for the Failure of the League since it showed how weak the League were. When Ethiopia begged the League for help the League just turned their backs to the problem. This showed the whole world that the League was weak. The crisis also led to one of the members leaving and the League doing nothing about it. Altogether, I believe that the Abyssinian crisis was the main failure of the League it showed the world that the league was weak and so were Britain and France. The absence of the USA also had an impact on the strength of the League but I believe that the Abyssinian crisis was the main reason for the Leagues failure. Level 2/ 4 Marks Question 6 Response 2 When the League of Nations was formed the USA failed to join. This was considered a huge weakness for the league because now they did not have the military or economic support of the USA. Additionally, the league was beginning to look like a winners club for those who triumphed in the war. Britain and France were the two leading powers of the League of Nations. The USA public did not want the USA to join the League of Nations because they did not want to get involved in anymore European issues in the future. As a result, the League was not taken seriously. Another reason for the failure of the league was the actions taken by Britain and France
19
during the Abyssinian crisis. In 1935, the Italian dictator, Mussolini, wanted to invade Abyssinia to create living space for 10 million Italians and also secure raw materials, oil and coal. Britain and France sent Hoare and Laval to investigate the crisis. They came up with the Hoare Laval pact which meant giving part of Abyssinia to Italy. However this was kept secret from the public and when the public found out there was a big uprising and the league was completely destroyed. The League felt they had been stabbed in the back but also everyone felt that Britain and France had to power to stop it. The Abyssinian crisis was the more responsible reason for the failure of the League of Nations because people within their own organisations could no longer be trusted and were forced to resign. Also, everyone felt that this crisis could have been prevented and stopped, however and France did nothing and because of all the previous failures of the league, no one took the league seriously. Even though the USA was not a member, the league gad a couple of successes during the 1920s so there was no guarantee that even with the support from the USA, the League would have been any more successful than they were. Level 2/ 6 Marks Question 6 Response 3 The absence of the USA and the actions of Great Britain and France in the Abyssinia incident both had big effects on the failure of the League of Nations. The absence of the USA meant that the League of Nations lost a large economic and military power. This was important because in situations like Manchuria and Abyssinia, one could argue that they could have stopped the aggressor. Whereas Great Britain and France could not afford a war and hence the aggressor got away with the crime. Another problem with the USA not joining the League was that it meant the League lost a lot of geographical coverage. One could argue that if the USA were members they could of dealt with Manchuria since they were far closer to Japan than France and Great Britain. Furthermore because the USA did not join the League it meant that they could trade with countries even if economic sanctions had been imposed. A good example is Abyssinia where they continued to trade with Italy, making economic sanctions put in place by the League far less effective. Finally, the USA came up with the idea of a League of Nations, and because they were missing it meant that many countries had no moral obligation to the League. However, the actions of Great Britain and France was also a big reason for the failure of the League of Nations. The first reason was because of the Hoare-Laval Pact. This stated that Italy could have two thirds of Abyssinia despite the League not agreeing to this. This pact was then exposed and caused a lot of controversy. Once again, it seemed as though the promise of collective security was not real since the aggressor had won again. Collective security would only work if countries were prepared to fight; which they werent. Furthermore, their actions also showed that they were only interested in themselves because they refused to attack Italy since they wanted to remain on good trading terms with Italy. Great Britain also failed to block the Suez Canal which they owned. Had they done this would have quickly stopped Italy. Furthermore, France agreed Italy could invade Abyssinia which was a betrayal to all the smaller nations. This highlighted that the League was not able to actually stop a nation that large since they had no army and the countries that could stop the war, were not
20
prepared to for personal reasons. In conclusion, I think the absence of the USA was the main reason why the League failed. This is because it meant they could trade with countries despite economic sanctions being imposed which weakened the League authority. Moreover, USA were probably the only country who could of afforded to go to war and hence could have stopped incidents like Manchuria. Level 3/ 8 Marks Question 6 Response 4 I think that the USAs absence from the league was more responsible for the failure of the League. Ultimately the League was doomed to fail from the beginning because the USA was not a member. The idea for the League was originally Woodrow Wilsons as part of his 14 points, however because America was not part of the League he could not offer his knowledge and guide the League in the correct direction to fulfil its original purpose to maintain peace. USA was one of the most powerful countries in the world also and so the League were without its resources in terms of money and military which would have been extremely helpful, events such as the Manchurian Crisis could have been prevented as the League could not apply effective economic sanctions on Japan as the USA, who wasnt a member, was its main trading partner. Furthermore, as the USA is so powerful it would have had huge influence and helped to maintain peace this way also, as well as helping in the extremely slow decision making as the League. Without America the League became very much a Western Europe affair with Britain and France the only permanent members of the League from the beginning to when is disbanded. However Britain and France were only concerned in their own affairs and so ultimately this doomed the League to Failure defeating the point of international co-operation. The actions of Britain and France in the Abyssinian Crisis were also significant in the failure of the League because it proved the League ineffective as an organisation for keeping peace and therefore resulted in its failure. Britain and France were only concerned with their own agenda and not interested in that of the League, as they wanted to keep Italy as an ally against Hitler. This was shown in the economic sanctions placed on Italy which didnt include raw materials such as oil and coal, or the use of the Suez Canal and so made very little difference. No military action was sanctioned either and so collective security was also proved ineffective. Britain and France then made a secret treaty known as the Hoare-Laval pact which gave Italy two thirds of Abyssinia. This not only showed the League had little concern for minor nations but also as a secret treaty violated the terms of the League and again showing it as ineffective. Italy left the League in 1937, and was a permanent council member so the League was also shown weak in this way, Britain and Frances actions therefore marked the end of the League of Nations as a peace keeping organisation. The absence of USA from the League was more important for the Leagues failure because it meant the League was handicapped from the beginning and proved a long term cause for the failure across the time the League was active. Key events such as the Manchurian Crisis could have been avoided and also Abyssinia because the USA would have prevented Britain and France ???? the League. Furthermore the USAs resources in terms of an army also would of helped as collective security would not have failed, therefore to an extent the Abyssinian Crisis only proved the League weak because the USA wasnt a member. Level 4/ 10 Marks
21
22
0 7 In 1934 Hitler signed an agreement with Poland and in 1935 he signed a naval agreement with Britain. Describe the main features of these two agreements. Target: Description of key features and characteristics (AO 1 and 2) Candidates either submit no evidence or fail to address the question. MARK GENEROUSLY Level 1: Basic description. Any general, relevant comment. e.g. Hitler recognised Poland or agreed to limit the size of his navy. Both these examples would be L2 even though they are general. EITHER Detailed description of limited aspects e.g. develops one of the following: a non aggression treaty with Poland Hitler accepted Polish Corridor peaceful solution to eastern frontier of Germany etc. Terms of naval treaty: 35% of British navy; no submarines etc. Effects of the two agreements on Germany, GB and Poland e.g. Hitler believed GB had accepted re-armament of Germany etc. One accurate sentence which goes beyond simple/general (2 marks) Two for 3 marks. OR Limited description of a wider range of aspects e.g. outline description of both agreements. Detailed description of several aspects e.g. at least two of the points mentioned in the first part of level 2. Must refer to both agreements for this level. OR three accurate sentences on any one point(s)
Level 2:
2-3
Level 3:
Question 7 Response 1 The agreement with Poland was an agreement of peace with Poland. Hitler promised that he would not show any aggression towards Poland. The main feature of this agreement was to show peace between the two nations. The naval agreement Germany signed with Britain was also made to show peace between Britain and Germany, this agreement made Britain and Germany agree to peace by not allowing either nation to become too powerful. Both agreements were to show peace and that Germany was not aggressive. The main feature of both agreements was for Germany to show peace to other nations. Level 2/ 2 Marks Question 7 Response 2 The naval agreement with Britain in 1935 said that Germany could have a navy a third the size of Britains. This went against the Treaty of Versailles as it said that Germany could have only six battleships. The agreement with Poland said that Hitler could use the Polish Corridor for himself once again, another breach of the Treaty of Versailles. Level 2/ 3 Marks Question 7 Response 3
23
In 1934, Hitler signed a non-aggression pact with Poland to help reassure Poland and other countries in Europe that Hitlers intentions were good. The Non-aggression pact was not a permanent one and was restricted to 10 years but it showed the world how much of a nice guy Hitler was. In 1935 Hitler signed the Anglo-naval pact with Britain. This pact helped to reassure Britain that Germanys remilitarisation of its naval forces wouldnt affect British global interests and home defence. To ensure that the German navy was always weaker that the British one, Germany was allowed to have 35% of the amount of naval forces Britain had. This way, Germany would gain a strong navy and the British navy would remain unopposed to any other forces. Level 3/ 4 Marks
24
0 8 Study Source C. Source C gives one reason why Britain did not oppose Hitlers remilitarisation of the Rhineland in 1936. Do you agree that this was the main reason? Explain your answer by referring to the purpose of the source, as well as using its content and your knowledge. Target: Use of knowledge and evaluation of source to reach a conclusion (AO 1,2 & 3) Candidates either submit no evidence or fail to address the question. Level 1: General response relying on source or learned response. e.g. Rhineland was German so Hitler was only marching into his own country; Source from a British politician so he will know the reason. The answer demonstrates simple understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is generally coherent but basic in development. Uses general knowledge to agree/disagree with the interpretation/ gives simple explanation of how the interpretation came about. e.g. shows awareness in general terms of why GB did not act by referring to such things as fear of war, injustice of Versailles etc but with little explanation. OR simple comments on the provenance: a British politician speaking at the time explaining reality of situation etc. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is reasonably well organised and presented in a clear and effective manner. Level 3: Agrees/disagrees using either source or own knowledge e.g. EITHER Evaluation of provenance of source: trying to excuse GBs failure to support Versailles, League of Nations etc. OR Develops ideas of why Britain ignored the remilitarisation: distracted by Abyssinian Crisis; legitimacy of Hitlers action; why GB did not want a war etc. to agree or disagree with the interpretation. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is well organised with an appropriate form and style of writing. Some specialist vocabulary is used.
0 1
Level 2:
2-3
4-5
Level 4:
25
Question 8 Response 1 Source C suggests that Britain did not oppose the remilitarisation of the Rhineland because it was only moving troops into their own land. I partly agree with the source because I know that Britain viewed the Treaty of Versailles as harsh and encouraged Germany to undo some wrongs of the Treaty. Also, when France appealed to Britain about the remilitarisation, they refused to act, believing it to be fair for them to remilitarise. However I partly disagree with the source because I know another reason for Britains lack of involvement was their policy of appeasement. Britain wanted to stay on good terms with Germany and Hitler to prevent another war as long as his demands were reasonable. The provenance of the source strengthens it because it is a famous quote accurately displaying Britains attitude towards the remilitarisation. From own knowledge, I know that the sources provenance makes it credible. In conclusion, I agree with the source because I know that although the lack of action may have been caused by appeasement or being preoccupied with the Abyssinian crisis, II know Britain viewed the Treaty of Versailles as harsh and encouraged Germany to make advances for itself. Level 3/ 4 Marks Question 8 Response 2 Source C refers to the German remilitarisation of the Rhineland in 1936 by saying that the Germans are, after all, only going into their back garden. This suggests that Britain did nothing about the remilitarisation of the Rhineland because it was so small an all, it wasnt even worth commenting upon. The source has been made by a senior official of the British government and so we could say that the source reflects the general public attitude towards Germany at the time. May people in Britain thought the Treaty of Versailles was too harsh on Germany and they saw the remilitarisation as Germany breaking away from the old order and growing up. However another reason that Britain didnt interfere with the actions of Germany at this time was because they were distracted currently by the Abyssinian crisis which was going on between the League of Nations and Italy. In a way, Hitler used the smokescreen of the Abyssinian crisis to carry out the remilitarisation. Source Bs purpose is to inform the world about what the British government thinks about the remilitarisation of the Rhineland. It can be seen as an accurate version of what Britain thought about the move by Hitler. But we know, from hindsight, that this was not the main reason for the remilitarisation of the Rhineland, it was to show the world that Germany wasnt weak a symbolic move, and to see what the reaction from other nations towards the remilitarisation would be. Level 3/ 4 Marks Question 8 Response 3 Source C shows that Britain and France didnt oppose Germanys remilitarisation of the Rhineland because it was still German land, despite it being a direct breach of the Treaty of Versailles. However, at this point Hitler didnt know how Britain would react, and warned his generals to retreat if they came under opposition. However, this wasnt the only reason. Britain was in a depression and economic hardship and didnt have the money to rearm. Also Britain was more afraid of communism than they were of Hitler and fascism. Therefore Chamberlain wanted to
26
keep Hitler onside and as an ally so they appeased him. The reason this source presents this appeasement by saying it was only German land, as if that was the only reason, is because they wanted to keep morale up. They wanted the public to support the government, and it wouldnt if they said they were afraid of communism and the USSR. It is propaganda. The purpose is to justify their actions to the public. Overall then, I believe the reason presented in source C was a factor, however I believe that the lack of money, and a fear of communism were bigger reasons for appeasing Hitler over the remilitarisation of the Rhineland. Level 4/ 6 Marks
27
0 9 Which was more important as a cause of the Second World War: Hitlers aims in foreign policy Neville Chamberlains policy of appeasement 1938-1939? You must refer to both causes when explaining your answer. Target: Analysis and explanation of events leading to causation (AO 1 and 2) Candidates either submit no evidence or fail to address the question. Level 1: Simple descriptive comment and/or gives one reason. e.g. Chamberlain gave in to Hitler to avoid war. Hitler wanted lebensraum which was bound to lead to war. MUST COVER BOTH BULLET POINTS FOR TOP OF LEVEL. The answer demonstrates simple understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is generally coherent but basic in development. Level 2: EITHER Develops one cause This starts with description at the bottom of the level, then explanation and obtains top of level for assessment and focus on the question. e.g. explanations could cover why Hitlers aims could lead to war nature of his aims and how they would cause opposition e.g. lebensraum. Assesses how Hitlers aims caused the war reference to March 1939 and September 1939 flexibility of Hitlers aims Nazi Soviet Pact etc. Explains why Chamberlain followed a policy of appeasement etc. Assesses the effect of appeasement on the outbreak of war could be an assessment of the encouragement it gave to Hitler by not opposing Anschluss and at Munich impression that Munich gave Hitler of Chamberlain etc. OR Covers both with some development or explanation This will involve description or explanation of both with no analysis or assessment and little focus on the question. N.B. An answer which explains both and supports the explanations with good depth and command of knowledge can be placed at the bottom of level 3. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is reasonably well organised and presented in a clear and effective manner.
10
0 1-2
3-6
28
Level 3:
A selective and structured account covering both bullet points, though one may be in greater depth, focused on the question or establishing some argument. e.g. assesses the part played by appeasement in the outbreak of war and explains Hitlers aims in foreign policy. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is well organised with an appropriate form and style of writing. Some specialist vocabulary is used.
7-9
Level 4:
10
Question 9 Response 1 Both Hitlers aims in foreign policy and Neville Chamberlains policy of appeasement were causes of World War Two. I will see which one is more important. Hitlers aims for foreign policy were to restore Germanys power and to do this he felt that Germany was owed equal right, and that Germany should get their land back. This led to Hitler taking back land that was taken away from her in the Treaty of Versailles. This meant Hitler was going against the Treaty of Versailles, which led to other countries becoming wary of Germanys growing power and tension began to grow. Chamberlains policy of appeasement also led to the outbreak of the Second World War. The reason Hitler took back so much land was because Chamberlain allowed it to happen. Chamberlain was also fooled by Germany when he came back from a meeting with Hitler and held a piece of paper which was a promise of peace from Hitler. Because Chamberlain let Hitler get away with so much Germany grew stronger and became more of a threat. I believe that Chamberlains policy was a greater reason for the outbreak of war, this is because Chamberlain allowed Germany to grow and gave Hitler the idea that he could get away with almost anything. Hitlers aims were one cause for the outbreak of the Second World War but I do not believe they were important as Chamberlains policy of appeasement. Level 2/ 4 Marks Question 9 Response 2 Hitlers foreign policies involved lebensraum, improving living space for the German people which resulted in sometimes hostile acts to gain territory. Also his policies involved undoing the terms of the Treaty of Versailles which could also result in conflict. These territorial advances included the Sudeten land in 1938, Czechoslovakia, and the undoings of the Treaty of Versailles included the remilitarisation of the Rhineland in 1936 and Anschluss with Austria in 1938.
29
Neville Chamberlains policy of appeasement meant that if Hitlers demands were reasonable, he would not oppose. This involved both territorial advances made by Hitler and undoings of the Treaty of Versailles. Hitlers foreign policy was significant as it was extremely hostile, especially when it came to territorial advances. This could have caused an outbreak of war because his aggressive actions could have had retaliation or opposition. Also, succeeding with his plans boosted his confidence. Chamberlains appeasement was significant because it allowed Hitler to get away with his unreasonable policies for fear of angering him. Every time an action was appeased, Hitlers confidence grew, and lead him to try for more demands, until his invasion of Poland in 1939, causing WW2. In conclusion, Hitlers policies were unreasonable and made him more power-hungry with each attempt, but they were only possible because of appeasement. For example, if Britain had not appeased Hitler during the remilitarisation of the Rhineland in 1936, he may not have had the confidence to try for more. To conclude if appeasement had not been in effect, Hitler would have been stopped before his confidence grew and it would be too late, meaning the long term cause of WW2 is appeasement as the problem of his policies could have easily been avoided. Level 2/ 6 Marks Question 9 Response 3 Hitlers aims in foreign policy helped to start the Second World War because it was an aggressive foreign policy. Hitler wanted to reverse the effects of the Treaty of Versailles, make Germany a great power again and provide living space for the German people in the east. He started by remilitarising the Rhineland, then the Anschluss, the invasion of the Sudetenland and finally, the invasion of Poland which caused the start of the Second World War. Because Hitler wanted to unite all German speaking people under the German flag, his policy consisted of annexing many old and new countries. If Hitler had not committed to his policy of German domination, then the Second World War wouldnt have started in 1940. If Hitler didnt want living space in the east, then Czechoslovakia wouldnt have been invaded. The policy of appeasement did little to help peace. The word appeasement means to appease someone with what they want so they dont want any more. In 1939 when Hitler invaded the Sudetenland, the Munich agreement tried to resolve the problem. Neville Chamberlains policy of appeasement came into action. By giving Hitler vast amounts of many and the Sudetenland, they hoped that now Hitler had what he wanted, he would stop his aggressive nature towards Czechoslovakia. However, by giving into Hitler, he became more ambitious. Up to the Second World War, neither Britain or France opposed him and in some ways, they even helped him. The policy of appeasement was a failure, Hitler invaded the whole of Czechoslovakia shortly after the Munich agreement. In my opinion, Hitlers foreign policy was a more important cause for the Second World War. Although the policy of appeasement is a big reason, it only looks at one isolated incident. On the other hand, Hitlers foreign policy looks over a period between 1932 1940 and including many other incidents. Each success made Hitler more ambitious and if he hadnt followed this aggressive policy, or was stopped by force early on, then the Second World War wouldnt have happened in 1940. Level 3/ 8 Marks Question 9 Response 4
30
Hitlers aims were an important cause of the Second World War. One of his foreign policies was to destroy the Treaty of Versailles. This meant that he had to make provocative moves such as making an Anschluss and remilitarising the Rhineland. These actions will have made countries very aware of Hitler and did increase tensions in Europe. Another one of Hitlers Foreign Policies was to build an empire in Eastern Europe. This made Stalin very afraid and was one of the main reasons why the Nazi-Soviet Pact was signed. This means that Hitler will have had far more confidence to go to war since now he had the USSR as an ally and he would no longer have to fight on two fronts. This pact in the long term was perhaps a major cause of World War Two and it was all because of Hitlers Foreign Policy. An additional foreign policy Hitler had was to unite all speaking Germans. This led to the Sudetenland issues in which war very nearly occurred. After this event Hitler ended up invading the whole of Czechoslovakia and this triggered the pact between Great Britain and Poland; which was also a major cause of World War Two. However, the policy of appeasement was also a major factor for the causes of World War Two. The policy of appeasement meant that Great Britain would not act upon German aggression and that peace would be kept at all costs. This will of given Hitler a lot of confidence to invade placed like Poland. The policy of appeasement also made Stalin very suspicious of the West. This was because he felt they were directing Hitler towards the USSR by appeasing. This meant Stalin had to make an alliance which would protect him and because Great Britain were perceived to look weak because they never stopped Hitler, Stalin ended up signing the Nazi-Soviet Pact which was a major cause of World War Two. The failure of appeasement came after Hitler had invaded the whole of Czechoslovakia unlawfully. The end of appeasement led to the pact where Britain would protect Poland if they were attacked. This treaty was also a major cause of World War Two since this triggered it. In conclusion, I think Hitlers aims in foreign policy were the main cause of WW2 because it led to him invading many countries which built up tensions because it directly led to the Nazi-Soviet pact. Level 3/ 9 Marks
31
1 0 In February 1945, the leaders of the USA, the USSR and Britain met at Yalta to decide what to do with Germany when the Second World War was over. Describe what was decided about Germany at the Yalta Conference.
Target:
Description of key features and characteristics (AO 1 and 2) Candidates either submit no evidence or fail to address the question. MARK GENEROUSLY 0
Level 1:
Basic description. Any general, relevant comment. e.g. Germany was divided up. EITHER Detailed description of limited aspects e.g. develops one of the following: the nature of the division of Germany and Berlin into 4 zones. Decisions on war criminals and reparations etc. Decisions re eastern Europe free elections etc. One accurate sentence which goes beyond simple/general (2 marks) Two for 3 marks. OR Limited description of a wider range of aspects e.g. outline description of the decisions made at Yalta. Detailed description of several aspects e.g. at least two of the points mentioned in the first part of level 2. OR three accurate sentences on any point(s)
Level 2:
2-3
Level 3:
Question 10 Response 1 In February 1945 the leaders of the USA, USSR and Britain decided to split Germany into four. They soon decided to make three parts of Germany into a new country called West Berlin, it would be capitalist and the Soviet Union had to other quarter communist. Level 2/ 2 Marks Question 10 Response 2 At the Yalta conference USA, President Roosevelt, Britain, Prime Minister Churchill and USSR President, Stalin decided to divide Germany into four sectors. A sector each for France, Britain, USA and the USSR. Level 2/ 3 Marks Question 10 Response 3 At Yalta the division of Germany was decided, it would be divided into 4 zones and USA, Britain, France and USSR would each have a zone. Berlin would be divided up similarly. Free elections in Eastern Europe were agreed also as well as the UN was set up. Level 3/ 4 Marks
32
1 1 Study Source D. Source D suggests that the USA was trying to take over North Korea during the Korean War. Do you agree that this was the main reason why the USA took part in the Korean War? Explain your answer by referring to the purpose of the source, as well as using its content and your knowledge. Target: Use of knowledge and evaluation of source to reach a conclusion (AO 1,2 & 3) Candidates either submit no evidence or fail to address the question. Level 1: General response relying on source or learned response. e.g. The USA sent troops to Korea and invaded North Korea; a Soviet source therefore biased. The answer demonstrates simple understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is generally coherent but basic in development. Uses general knowledge to agree/disagree with the interpretation/ gives simple explanation of how the interpretation came about. e.g. shows general knowledge of why the US sent forces to Korea acting for UN defending S Korea from an attack by N Korea, but little explanation. OR simple comments on the provenance: from a book published in Moscow by a Soviet therefore would be opposing the USA. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is reasonably well organised and presented in a clear and effective manner. Level 3: Agrees/disagrees using either source or own knowledge e.g. EITHER Evaluation of provenance of source: disparaging the USA during the Cold War nature of Soviet state, censorship etc. OR Uses knowledge of the US intervention to agree or disagree with source reasons for intervention, role of UN; role of US troops; MacArthurs advance into N Korea, Trumans response etc. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is well organised with an appropriate form and style of writing. Some specialist vocabulary is used.
0 1
Level 2:
2-3
4-5
Level 4:
33
Question 11 Response 1 This source is written by a Soviet writer, so he is likely to be a bit biased towards the Soviets, and opposed to the USA. He also writes with hindsight, so he knows what actually happened at the end of the war. The purpose of this source is to discredit the American actions in Korea 1950, and he accuses them of trying to take control of the whole country. I dont agree this was the main reason the USA took part in the Korean War, they didnt want to take over Korea, they just wanted to contain communism and stop it spreading to the south of Korea and into the rest of the world. This was the USAs policy of containment of communism. The USA didnt get directly involved in the fighting, but they supplied the South Korean troops with tanks and weapons. They also put pressure on NATO to send in troops to help the south which they did because the USA had a lot more influence and gave a lot more money to NATO than the USSR did. Level 2/ 3 Marks Question 11 Response 2 I believe that this isnt the main reason why the USA landed in South Korea. I believe that the source is biased towards the Soviets and are trying to make the USA seem like the bad guys. I believe that the source is biased as it is written by a Soviet who were involved in the Korean War. His view may be influenced by his views and what the Soviets made of the situation. I believe that the main reason why the USA intervened was in aid of South Korea as they had asked for the help of the UN. Another reason is that they were trying to stop the spread of communism, so they had to help South Korea against the North Koreans. I believe that the writer was influenced by Soviet propaganda who tried to fault the Americans in almost every opportunity. Also the USA wouldnt want another war, as the civilians didnt want any more deaths, so there would be no need for them to invade only to gain control of the country. The title of the book The Roots of Expansion could also imply that the writer was also against America and wasnt willing to look past his communist views. Level 3/ 4 Marks Question 11 Response 3 The main purpose of source D is to show how evil America is source D is essentially Soviet propaganda. Much propaganda focused on the greed of capitalists often portraying them as fat in cartoons. Source D is no exception, Nekrasov certainly tries to depict the USA as taking too much land and being greedy. The Korean War was certainly an example of the USA taking too much land. The agreed border of North and South Korea was called the 38th Parallel American troops headed by General McArthur pushed the North Koreans back to the 38th Parallel this was standard protocol set out by the Truman Doctrine. However after the initial advance General McArthur pushed the North Koreans as far back as the border of China. The intention of the Korean War was to enforce the Truman Doctrine and not to gain control of the whole country, however it certainly seemed like it was the intention of General McArthur who was later sacked following a request to drop nuclear bombs on the communists. Level 4/ 6 Marks
34
35
1 2 Which was more important in causing the Cold War: the Soviet expansion in East Europe, 1945-1948 the Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan, 1947? You must refer to both causes when explaining your answer. Target: Analysis and explanation of events leading to causation (AO 1 and 2) Candidates either submit no evidence or fail to address the question. Level 1: Simple descriptive comment and/or gives one reason. e.g. USSR took over many countries in East Europe and made them communist which annoyed the USA. The Marshall Plan gave money to West Europe and not to East. MUST COVER BOTH BULLET POINTS FOR TOP OF LEVEL. The answer demonstrates simple understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is generally coherent but basic in development. Level 2: EITHER Develops one cause This starts with description at the bottom of the level, then explanation and obtains top of level for assessment and focus on the question. e.g. explanations could cover the methods used by USSR to spread communism in East Europe and why this annoyed the USA; why Stalin wanted a communist barrier etc. Assesses the effect of this on the start of the Cold War betrayal of Potsdam - the fears of the USA why they responded how they responded etc. Explains the nature and purpose of the Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan; Assesses the effect of this on Stalin his fear of dollar imperialism his response, Cominform, Berlin Blockade, start of Cold War? OR Covers both with some development or explanation This will involve description or explanation of both with no analysis or assessment and little focus on the question. N.B. An answer which explains both and supports the explanations with good depth and command of knowledge can be placed at the bottom of level 3. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is reasonably well organised and presented in a clear and effective manner.
10
0 1-2
3-6
36
Level 3:
A selective and structured account covering both bullet points, though one may be in greater depth, focused on the question or establishing some argument. e.g. assesses the part played by the Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan in causing the Cold War and explaining the part played by Soviet expansion. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is well organised with an appropriate form and style of writing. Some specialist vocabulary is used.
7-9
Level 4:
10
Question 12 Response 1 The Soviet expansion in Europe posed a great threat to capitalism, at the start of the Soviet expansion in 1945 tensions grew because as the Soviet empire expanded the world was uncertain as to what action the USA would take against the Soviets. When the Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan were introduced in 1947 it dissipated any uncertainty over what action the USA would take to contain communism not only in Europe but in the whole world. However the mystery still remained as to what action the Soviets would take if the USA had to declare war on Soviet troops invading a satellite country. The Marshall Plan was not a violent plan and contained the spread of communism peacefully in East Europe. However, the Truman doctrine came very close to beginning World War Three; in Korea, North Korea (communists) invaded the capitalist South Korea, due to General McArthur US troops pushed the North Koreans back past the North-South border and then all the way back to the border of China this could have easily been seen as an act of war as it breached the Truman Doctrine. A peaceful result of the Truman Doctrine was the formation of NATO the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, it assured huge losses on either side should there be a war between communism and capitalism. Level 2/ 4 Marks Question 12 Response 2 I believe that the Soviet expansion in Eastern Europe was a more important reason to cause the Cold War. The Soviets gained a lot more support due to the expansion and the spread of communism took a big step. This would already increase the tension dramatically between the USSR and the USA, as Truman was against communism completely. The tension was shown when the Iron Curtain speech had been made. Due to the expansion they would turn from allies into enemies, as they now had nothing to keep them allies. The buffer had been created for Stalin and the Soviets and this gave him confidence and a good platform to spread communism all across Europe.
37
America grew frustrated with Stalin and his plans, so they introduced the Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan in 1947, to counter Stalin and prevent him spreading communism. Stalin was targeting Greece, but as the British couldnt hold any longer in protecting the Greeks, Truman stepped in with his plans. This infuriated Stalin, as due to the Marshall Plan, Europe gained a better economy and the Truman Doctrine gave money to countries in need to fight communism. I believe that if the Soviet expansion had not occurred, there would be no Truman Doctrine or Marshall Plan as the Soviets would not be as strong and powerful, or have that buffet protecting them. As it did it happen they gained confidence and better access to Europe, through countries such as Albania, Hungary, Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia. This was a huge bonus, as it would be easier to spread communism. The Truman Doctrine in my opinion only increased the tension that was already there due to the expansion, so I believe that if it wasnt for the expansion, the Doctrine would not have happened. Level 2/ 6 Marks Question 12 Response 3 The Soviet expansion in East Europe at the end of the war in 1945 helped cause the Cold War because they had gained much land and power while also disobeying the terms set about in the Potsdam and Yalta conferences. It was agreed that the USSR could keep a Soviet sphere of influence over these countries but on the terms that there had to be democratic elections in these countries to decide where the people wanted to belong. Particularly Poland was under discussion at Yalta and Potsdam because no independent democratic elections had been held there. It was suspicious for the allies to see nearly all the Eastern European countries full under new communist governments after the war. This tension caused by the acts of the Soviet government started the Cold tension between America and Russia. The Americans fought back against this policy by using the Marshall Plan and the Truman Doctrine. The Truman Doctrine was the policy of containing communism within the known communist countries at the end of the war. The Marshall Plan was an economic strategy to help European countries recover from the war. The countries of Europe had owed approximately 100 billion dollars to America, so the Marshall Plan helped to pay off these debts and help restore the economies in Europe. However, to Stalin these policies seemed directly aggressive against communism, which they were, and called the Marshall Plan dollar imperialism. The Truman Doctrine helped countries like Greece and Turkey remain capitalist. In my opinion, the Marshall Plan and the Truman Doctrine were more important in causing the Cold War. Because the Cold War was simply a period of time in which the countries were suspicious of each other, there never was a start date for the Cold War but actions like the Truman Doctrine was an act of containing the soviet sphere of influence and was aggressive. The Marshall plan prevented countries from becoming communist by helping them recover and split up nations because of the growing differences between wealth. Level 3/ 8 Marks Question 12 Response 4 Both the Soviet expansion which started in 1945, and the Truman Doctrine caused and developed the Cold War. However, I believe that the Soviet Expansion was the more important. The Truman Doctrines main policy was containment. It was to actively resist any aggressive move by the communists. This showed that the USA was ready to stand up
38
to communism this caused tension and led to the Cold War. The Marshall Aid was financial help to any country wishing to oppose communism. Stalin felt threatened by this and didnt allow any of his satellite states in Eastern Europe to accept it. It led to an economic gap between the East and the West. The West were prospering, while the East was in poverty. It led to the introduction of Cominform/Comecon which was Stalins response to Marshall Aid. It was for the USSR to take resources from its satellite states. It also led to the Berlin Blockade the first incident of the Cold War. Stalin condemned the Marshall Aid as enslaving Western Europe. He said this because once a country had accepted the aid they were indebted to the USA. They then had to support the USAs actions. It was a way of pulling all of the West together and uniting them against communism. Stalin felt vulnerable and threatened. The Soviet expansion, however, started much earlier. It started before Potsdam and in his expansion, Stalin didnt allow proper democratic elections, as agreed at Yalta. A good example of this is Poland, where the Lublin Poles gained power. This created huge tension at Potsdam and also was a huge point of contention. It led to the Truman Doctrine, as the USA didnt want the USSR to expand anymore. Stalin described his expansion as an act of defence while the West saw it as a move against capitalism. This caused tension and meant that both sides were extremely suspicious of each other. It led to the breakdown of the wartime alliance. It also led to the formation of the Iron Curtain the border between East and West. This caused both sides to come together and increased tension; it also produced many potential points of conflict which would turn the war hot. A great example of this is the Berlin Blockade. Overall then, despite it leading to a financial gap between the two sides, and uniting the West, I believe that the Truman Doctrine would never have come about without the Soviet expansion. It came first and pushed both sides up against each other and caused the policy of containment to come about. For these reasons, I believe that the Soviet expansion was the more important of the two in causing the Cold War. Level 4/ 10 Marks
39
1 3 In 1968 Alexander Dubcek, the leader of the Czech Communist Party, introduced reforms, known as the Prague Spring, in Czechoslovakia. Describe how Brezhnev and the Soviet Union responded to the Prague Spring.
Target:
Level 1:
Basic description. Any general, relevant comment. e.g. USSR sent in tanks. EITHER Detailed description of limited aspects e.g. develops one of the following: nature of the Prague Spring and why Brezhnev opposed it attempts to persuade Dubcek. Invasion of Czechoslovakia and Czech response etc. Results fate of Dubcek, Brezhnev Doctrine etc. One accurate sentence which goes beyond simple/general (2 marks) Two for 3 marks. OR Limited description of a wider range of aspects e.g. outline description of the reforms/intervention.
Level 2:
2-3
Level 3:
Detailed description of several aspects e.g. at least two of the points mentioned in the first part of level 2. OR three accurate sentences on any point(s).
Question 13 Response 1 In 1968 Dubcek introduced Prague Spring this was letting free elections and more freedom in Czechoslovakia and some other countries. Brezhnev and the Soviet Union hated this because it had totally gone against their one party controlled government. Level 2/ 2 Marks Question 13 Response 2 At first the Soviets were letting the reforms take place, Czechoslovakia was an independent communist country and Brezhnev was allowing a few reforms but when protests began it got out of hand. The Soviets invaded Czechoslovakia but Czechoslovakia only used peaceful demonstrations, they put flowers in the tank turrets. Level 2/ 3 Marks Question 13 Response 3 In 1968 when Dubcek introduced reforms known as Prague Spring, Brezhnev created the Brezhnev Doctrine which prevented Warsaw Pact countries from leaving the Warsaw Pact. Dubcek wanted to make communism with a human face and change the face of COMMUNISM to improve it, there was freedom of speech and the unemployment problems were sorted out, also freedom to protest but the Soviet Union didnt approve of the new face of communism- they sent tanks into Czechoslovakia but
40
the Czechs didnt want war and there was no fighting. Western Europe would have intervened but it was too near Russia and they were distracted by problems at Suez in Egypt to get involved in Czechoslovakia. Level 3/ 4 Marks
41
1 4 Study Source E. Source E claims that the launching of Sputnik 1 showed that communist USSR was more powerful than capitalist USA. Do you agree with this view of the importance of the launching of Sputnik 1? Explain your answer by referring to the purpose of the source, as well as using its content and your knowledge. Target: Use of knowledge and evaluation of source to reach a conclusion (AO 1,2 & 3) Candidates either submit no evidence or fail to address the question. General response relying on source or learned response. e.g. Sputnik was the first, so they were ahead of the USA; Source Soviet therefore biased. The answer demonstrates simple understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is generally coherent but basic in development. Uses general knowledge to agree/disagree with the interpretation/ gives simple explanation of how the interpretation came about. e.g. shows awareness of the importance of sputnik and how the USA had appeared to be ahead previously, or points out that that they were soon able to catch up. OR simple comments on the provenance: by the Soviet leader and reported in a Soviet newspaper to explain bias etc. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is reasonably well organised and presented in a clear and effective manner. Level 3: Agrees/disagrees using either source or own knowledge e.g. EITHER Evaluation of provenance of source: trying to emphasise the achievements of the USSR and communism during the Cold War and boost Soviet morale; could it have been exaggerated by Khrushchev or Pravda considers audience for source? OR Uses knowledge to show understanding of the place of the launching of sputnik in the arms race and space race etc. Could refer to events before or after 1957 to support or reject interpretation. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is well organised with an appropriate form and style of writing. Some specialist vocabulary is used.
0 1
Level 1:
Level 2:
2-3
4-5
Level 4:
42
Question 14 Response 1 The purpose of this source is to make communism sound better than capitalism by this he means USSR is better than USA. This source is biased as it is a communist USSR person saying it, and the leader at that, so of course he would say that communism is better. However, he does have a point because USA at that point did not have anything in space, so that they were at a disadvantage, especially if the USSR could fire missiles from it. I think that at this point USSR was more powerful, because though the USA had many more nuclear bombs and was much richer, the USSR had a satellite in space which meant that, if they could, they were able to fire a missile at anywhere on earth, and the Americans wouldnt see it until it was too late. Level 2/ 3 Marks Question 14 Response 2 The launching of Sputnik I was very significant because it shifted the balance of power between the USA and the USSR hugely. The Americans were now in fear because now the Soviets could fire missiles from space because they had the technology. This increased the dynamics of the arms race too because it had extended to space and so now the pressure was on for America to catch up. Source E is a speech for the Soviet leader and so it is very subjective because he is trying to convey the things in his speech: the weakness of the American forces and the boost of morale for his own country. Therefore, this source is unreliable because it is hugely one-sided and therefore cannot be trusted for accuracy. That said, however, I do agree with his views because the launching of Sputnik was not only significant for the Soviets technological advances but also in the huge change of dynamics they had created in the arms race. By this point, both superpowers had created their own atom bombs but now that the USSR had the power to fire one from space at any time to anywhere, the Americans were, indeed, much weaker in comparison to the damage the Soviets could cause. Level 3/ 4 Marks Question 14 Response 3 Source E is an extract from a speech by Khrushchev in 1957 after the USSR launched the first satellite into space Sputnik I. The source claims that this launch meant that the USSR was now supremely more powerful than the USA because their advanced technology had allowed them to launch a satellite into space before the Americans. However, this was a speech made by the communist leader and reported in the official communist newspaper. This means that Khrushchev would clearly want to place great importance on the launch of Sputnik, as he wanted to ensure that everyone in the USSR believed that the USSR was a more powerful country this would strengthen and secure Khrushchevs own position in the USSR, and so it was in his interests to exaggerate somewhat the important of launching Sputnik. In terms of the space race, the launch of Sputnik did make the USSR seem to be a more powerful country. It seemed to prove that they had superior technology and so were more powerful. However, the power of the two superpowers was not only determined by the space race, which somewhat reduces the great importance Khrushchev has attached to it. The arms race was another major factor, and at this point in time the USA seemed to be leading the arms race. They had developed the atomic bomb and the Hbomb before the USSR, and were already developing new Polaris missiles which could
43
be fired from submarines. In this sense, it seemed that while the USSR had greater technology in the development of spacecraft, the USA was superior when it came to military technology. In this way, the USSR was not more powerful than the USA. The launch of Sputnik I was indeed a very important event in the cold war space race. It was the first ever satellite in space and demonstrated the highly advanced technology of the USSR. However, Khrushchev in this source has stated that the launch proved that the USSR was more powerful which is not necessarily the case when other factors, such as the arms race, are considered. The launch of Sputnik I was indeed very important, but not necessarily entirely for the reasons presented by Khrushchev in this source. Level 4/ 6 Marks
44
1 5 Which of the following was the greater threat to world peace: the U2 Crisis, 1960 the Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962? You must refer to both crises when explaining your answer. Target: Analysis and explanation of events leading to causation (AO 1 and 2) Candidates either submit no evidence or fail to address the question. Level 1: Simple descriptive comment and/or gives one reason. e.g. the U2 crisis was a danger because the USSR shot down an American spy plane/ because the USA were proved to be spying on the USSR. The Cuban Missile Crisis nearly led to nuclear war between USA and USSR. MUST COVER BOTH BULLET POINTS FOR TOP OF LEVEL. The answer demonstrates simple understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is generally coherent but basic in development. Level 2: EITHER Develops one cause This starts with description at the bottom of the level, then explanation and obtains top of level for assessment and focus on the question. e.g. explanations could cover American reaction to the shooting down of the U2, Khrushchevs demands and Eisenhowers refusal to apologise etc. Assesses the effect of the crisis on peace could explain how it ended the policy of peaceful co-existence; effect on Paris Summit etc. Explains Khrushchevs reasons for putting the missiles on Cuba explains the danger of these to the USA. Assesses the danger of nuclear war and the possible results of this the American blockade and Soviet response. OR Covers both with some development or explanation This will involve description or explanation of both with no analysis or assessment and little focus on the question. N.B. An answer which explains both and supports the explanations with good depth and command of knowledge can be placed at the bottom of level 3. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is reasonably well organised and presented in a clear and effective manner.
10
0 1-2
3-6
45
Level 3:
A selective and structured account covering both bullet points, though one may be in greater depth, focused on the question or establishing some argument. e.g. assesses the threat to peace posed by the missile crisis and explains the U2 Crisis. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is well organised with an appropriate form and style of writing. Some specialist vocabulary is used.
7-9
Level 4:
10
Question 15 Response 1 In the 1960s Khrushchev made a speech about his policy of peaceful co-existence. It was to try make some peace towards the two powers. Things were happening like USSR played China at their town which became known as ping pong diplomacy. They had space craft meetings in space and it all seemed to be working out. However, there were some great threats towards this peace. The U2 crisis in 1960, an American spy plane shot down over Russia. David Hunters was captured and admit to be on a spying mission on live TV. This caused a massive uproar in China. The Cuban Missile Crisis 1962. When America was supporting Cuba they were fine but when America decided to not aid them no more they were in big trouble so they asked USSR for help. The Russians made a deal with will support you as long as you let us put our missile sites in Cuba. This was because Cuba was very close to America mostly Florida which USSR could then easily bomb America. Cuba accepted. However, when US found out about this they started a naval blockade to stop any Russian ships delivering missiles to Cuba. All ships were stopped and searched if not used were blown up. The Soviet leader Khrushchev made a deal with America in saying if you lift the blockade then we shall take away the missile sites that we have. Deal agreed and crisis was ended. The greater threat to world peace was the Cuban Missile Crisis because at this time America and Russia were very close to war and there was a lot of tension. They believed this could have started a Third World War. However, U2 was a great threat but not as much because although America was angry and frustrated with USSR because their spy plane had been captured but there wasnt no missile or threats for nuclear weapons to be used. Level 2/ 5 Marks Question 15 Response 2 In the early 1960s, the Cold War was as its coldest the tensions were high and
46
everything one of the superpowers did bring them closer to a nuclear holocaust, it was the most dangerous part of the entire cold war. The U2 was a spy plane that was sent over Russia to take some pictures of Russia because at this time they did not know much of what was going on behind the iron curtain. However, it was shot down over Russia, America claimed it was just a weather plane but most of the plane was still intact and the pilot (Gary Powers) was captured alive, he told Russia everything. It destroyed international relations and the Paris Summit ended up with the USSR leader storming out. The Cuban Missile Crisis saw the world on the brink of a nuclear holocaust. USA had sent U2 spy planes over Cuba and scientist saw what they believed to be evidence of nuclear sites being built. Kennedy tried to invade at the Bag of Pigs but failed, this almost led to Disaster. Castro, the Cuban leader, built relations with Khrushchev after Khrushchev agreed to buy supplies from Cuba. Castro agreed to have Russias nuclear weapons on Cuba. Kennedy had 5 options; invade Khrushchev warned this would lead to war, nuclear bomb this would surely start WW3, Blockade Khrushchev said this would start a war, do nothing this would make Kennedy look weak, bomb with conventional weapons this would start a war. He decided to Blockade Cuba and secretly told Khrushchev he would dismantle the nuclear missiles from Turkey. I think the Cuban Missile Crisis was a greater threat to world peace because every option ended in war, it was only when they made an agreement in secret that the world wouldnt end. But if the U2 Crisis wouldnt have happened tensions wouldnt be as high. Level 2/ 6 Marks Question 15 Response 3 The Cuban Missile Crisis was more important as a threat to world peace than the U2 Crisis as many lives were at stake. In the U2 Crisis only Gary Powers life was at stake. The Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 was when Castro, a known communist overthrew Battista who was corrupt but friendly with the Americans. Castro was friendly with the USSR and soon an American U2 plane discovered that Khrushchev was building missile bases in Cuba. Kennedy did not want to look weak so set up a blockade around Cuba. He told Khrushchev to turn his incoming ships with missiles around. Khrushchev worked with the UN and agreed to but only after a while. During a short time the world was on the brink of a nuclear war and this was a great threat to world peace. If Khrushchev had not worked with the UN or if Kennedy had not lifted the blockade many lives would be at stake. A hotline was set up between the Kremlin and the White House so that the Cold War would never be so close to being hot again. The U2 Crisis in 1960 was when a U2 spy plane was shot down over Russian airspace. At first the Americans pretended it was an accident but then photos were found on the plane. Khrushchev demanded an apology and cancelling of all U2 flights. All U2 flights were cancelled but Eisenhower refused to apologise and so Khrushchev stormed out of the Paris Peace Conference. This meant the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was never confirmed and the problem of Berlin still remained leading to the Berlin Wall. Although the U2 Crisis meant that tensions rose between the two powers and ended the thaw that had built up since Khrushchevs policy of de-Stalinisation, the Cuban Missile Crisis was the closest the war had to becoming nuclear and was the bigger threat to world peace. Level 3/ 8 Marks
47
Question 15 Response 4 Two of the greatest threats to world peace occurred in the early 1960s- the U2 Crisis and the Cuban Missile Crisis. The U2 Crisis occurred in the May of 1960. Khrushchev suspected that the USA were using spy planes to conduct espionage missions. However, he did not have the evidence to prove this, until a U2 spy plane was shot down by Soviet anti-aircraft missiles. The pilot, Gary Powers, was arrested. The US President, Eisenhower, refused to apologise to Khrushchev, and so Khrushchev stormed out of the Paris Peace Summit. The USA were embarrassed and Khrushchev was furious at the reaction of the US President. The U2 Crisis was a threat to world peace because it caused Khrushchev to storm out of crucial peace talks which could have possibly solved some of the problems facing the superpowers. Arms reduction treaties were not signed, and the problem of Berlin had not been resolved, which was a major area of tension between the superpowers and led to further crises later on in the war. The U2 Crisis deepened the hostilities of the two powers and caused an increase in the tensions between them. It entrenched their suspicions and disagreements. Due to this, the U2 Crisis certainly had a great impact on world peace, and prevented some solutions being made at the Paris peace talks which may have resolved some issues which were to become crucial in the later stages of war. The Cuban Missile Crisis occurred in October 1962. The USA spy planes had taken pictures of missile sites being places on Cuba by the Soviets. Soviet ships carrying advanced nuclear missiles were coming towards Cuba. Kennedy, the US President, knew that he could not let missiles be placed so close to US soil. He therefore placed a quarantine 800km around Cuba. The Soviet ships did not try to cross, and Khrushchev demanded that the USA should lift the quarantine and leave Cuba alone. JFK agreed, the blockade was lifted and the USSR dismantled the missile bases. JFK also secretly promised to dismantle missiles in Turkey. This crisis was the closest the world has ever come to nuclear war. There were a number of incidents where it seemed as though war might break out for example, crates containing nuclear missiles were opened on one of the Soviet ships, and a USA U2 spy plane was shot down over Cuba. During the two weeks of the Cuban Missile Crisis, nuclear war seemed like a real possibility in this way, the crisis was a major threat to world peace. In conclusion, both of these events impacted greatly on world peace. However, the Cuban missile crisis was, at the time, a greater threat to world peace. The U2 Crisis may have had a great long term impact, but it did not put the world on the brink of all-out nuclear war as the Cuban Missile Crisis did. This is why the Cuban Missile Crisis certainly was a greater threat to world peace; since then, the world has never come quite as close to dealing with the threat of a hugely destructive nuclear war. Level 4/ 10 Marks
48
1 6 In 1985 Mikhail Gorbachev became the leader of the USSR. Describe the policies of Glasnost and Perestroika introduced by Gorbachev.
Target:
Level 1:
Basic description. Any general, relevant comment. e.g. they were attempts to change communism in USSR. EITHER Detailed description of limited aspects e.g. develops one of the following: Glasnost openness changes introduced and their effect - open debate people made more aware of the past etc.; Perestroika restructuring changes introduced and their effect etc. Causes and aims of policy stagnation of communism, increased corruption, Gorbachev trying to give people a share in government etc. One accurate sentence which goes beyond simple/general (2 marks) Two for 3 marks OR Limited description of a wider range of aspects e.g. outline description of glasnost and perestroika.
Level 2:
2-3
Level 3:
Detailed description of several aspects e.g. at least two of the points mentioned in the first part of level 2. OR three accurate sentences on any point(s).
Question 16 Response 1 Glasnost is the belief of freedom. Perestroika is the belief of a two party state. Level 2/ 3 Marks Question 16 Response 2 Perestroika was freedom in business, this meant business owners could get paid more as their business got bigger instead of being on a fixed wage. Glasnost meant freedom of speech, everyone had the right to speak up and debate. Level 2/ 3 Marks Question 16 Response 4 Gorbachev realised the economic failures of the Soviet Union and he realised drastic action was needed. The Russian people didnt trust the government and many turned to alcoholism. Glasnost was to solve this problem. Gorbachev raised liquor prices and banned drinking in public. Glasnost was openness, he wanted the people to trust the government. They were allowed to criticise it and there was much less censorship. Perestroika was restructuring. It was to stop the stagnation of the USSR government. Gorbachev split up big state owned factories and put them into smaller ones. He
49
introduced private profit and he realised that the economy would fail unless they had foreign investment, so he really encouraged companies to get this. Level 3/ 4 Marks
50
1 7 Study Source F. Source F shows the people of Berlin celebrating the end of the Berlin Wall. The main reason for the ending of the Berlin Wall as a barrier between East and West Berlin was the opposition and actions of the people of Berlin. Do you agree? Explain your answer by referring to the purpose of the source, as well as using its content and your knowledge. Target: Use of knowledge and evaluation of source to reach a conclusion (AO 1,2 & 3) Candidates either submit no evidence or fail to address the question. Level 1: General response relying on source or learned response. e.g. the people of Berlin did march to the wall and tried to take it apart; Source western therefore biased. The answer demonstrates simple understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is generally coherent but basic in development. Uses general knowledge to agree/disagree with the interpretation/ gives simple explanation of how the interpretation came about. e.g. shows awareness of events in East Europe in 1989 in general terms with little explanation. OR simple comments on the provenance: a western photographer, general problems of photographs etc. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is reasonably well organised and presented in a clear and effective manner. Level 3: Agrees/disagrees using either source or own knowledge e.g. EITHER Evaluation of provenance of source: a western photographer trying to show that the end of the Berlin Wall was a popular movement to indicate the unpopularity of communism, so could have been selective. OR Uses knowledge of the events of 1989 to agree or disagree with the interpretation Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia; Gorbachev and the Red Army; weakness of Soviet economy; Honecker and East Germany etc. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is well organised with an appropriate form and style of writing. Some specialist vocabulary is used.
0 1
Level 2:
2-3
4-5
Level 4:
51
Question 17 Response 1 Source F shows a picture of Berlin Wall taking from the West side showing Berlins celebrators bringing down the wall between East and West. I do not agree that the ending of the wall between Berlin was the opposition and actions of the people. I think it was to do with the ending of communism and more freedom in places this is because, why the Wall was built is the Soviet Union was embarrassed of the West side so many of the East professional workers and high classed people were escaping across to the West so East Berlin isolated them and put the Wall up around the western boards. So now there was no rivalry between East and West there was no point in the Wall so it was put to an end then the celebrating crowds brought it down. Level 2/ 2 Marks Question 17 Response 2 One of the main reasons for the end of the Berlin Wall was the actions of the people. However the policies of Gorbachev also helped. In East Germany, Honecker was not putting any of Gorbachevs reforms into action. Therefore this angered to people of East Berlin and Germany and there were many protests and strikes. Many families had been separated and many tried to escape to West Berlin through tunnels and even hot air balloons. When Honecker did not put any reforms in action people went to the West German embassy in Prague. These protests and successful escapes put pressure on Honecker. When Gorbachev visited however, the people appealed to him. Therefore he replaced Honecker with Krenz. Gorbachevs lighter attitude to communism meant that people were able to start pulling down the Berlin Wall like in source F. Source F is useful as it is objective and gives a clear image of the will of the people. However the protests of the people would not have been tolerated without Gorbachevs more lenient attitude. Overall Gorbachevs policies and the will of the people worked together as the main reason for the end of the Berlin Wall. Level 3/ 4 Marks Question 17 Response 3 The Berlin Wall was pulled down by the people of Berlin in 1989. The source shows people from Berlin celebrating at the destruction of this barrier which had signalled the might of the Soviet Union. The ending of the Berlin Wall was indeed largely due to the actions of the Berliners themselves. They had opposed Honeckers strict rule in East Germany for a long time and by 1987 they had had enough; the Brandenburg Gate was opened and then eventually, fuelled by their opposition to the restrictions in East Germany and the separation of the county, they took it upon themselves to destroy the Wall on their own. This photograph seems to imply that the destruction of the Berlin Wall was entirely down to the actions of the Berliners. However, there were other reasons involving the policies of Gorbachev, which are not referenced in the photograph perhaps because a western person would not want to acknowledge openly that the actions of the Soviet leader himself allowed this to happen in the first place. Gorbachev revoked the Brezhnev Doctrine and then warned that the Red Army would not support any leaders of the satellite states if they faced opposition. In this way, without Gorbachevs policies of relaxing the USSRs iron control over the satellite states, the people of Berlin would probably never have succeeded in destroying the wall. If Gorbachev had not stated that the Red Army would not come to the aid of communist leaders threatened by opposition, the Berliners who tore down the wall may well have
52
been stopped, their rebellion crushed by the Soviet troops (as had happened in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968). Without Gorbachevs relaxation of control, the actions of the Berliners alone may have not been enough to destroy the wall. Gorbachev also introduced glasnost and perestroika, which helped fuel the opposition of the Berliners. They saw the more liberal reforms of the USSR and wanted them in their own countries. Once again, the policies of Gorbachev greatly assisted the destruction of the wall. The Berlin Wall was ended as a barrier due to a number of things. Clearly the opposition and actions of the people of Berlin were important as it was them that actually tore down the wall. However, unless Gorbachev had relaxed his control and not sent in the Red Army to intervene, the people would probably have been stopped by Soviet troops. In this way, the policies and actions of Gorbachev certainly were a major factor in the destruction of the Berlin Wall. Level 4/ 6 Marks
53
1 8 Which was the greater threat to the USSR in the 1980s: the Solidarity Movement in Poland the policies of the United States President, Ronald Reagan? You must refer to both threats when explaining your answer.
10
Target:
Analysis and explanation of events leading to causation (AO 1 and 2) Candidates either submit no evidence or fail to address the question. 0 1-2
Level 1:
Simple descriptive comment and/or gives one reason. e.g. Solidarity was a trade union which opposed Soviet communism in Poland. Reagan opposed the USSR because he regarded them as evil. MUST COVER BOTH BULLET POINTS FOR TOP OF LEVEL. The answer demonstrates simple understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is generally coherent but basic in development.
Level 2:
EITHER Develops one cause This starts with description at the bottom of the level, then explanation and obtains top of level for assessment and focus on the question. e.g. explanations could cover why Solidarity was opposed by the Soviet Union and why it was supported by the West and became popular in Poland. Assesses the effect of Solidarity on the Soviet Union its survival and eventual success etc. Explains the importance of Reagans policies for the USSR end of MAD Soviet economy could not keep up etc. Assesses how it led to the end of the Cold War and changes in the USSR which led to the collapse of the Soviet Union etc. OR Covers both with some development or explanation This will involve description or explanation of both with no analysis or assessment and little focus on the question. N.B. An answer which explains both and supports the explanations with good depth and command of knowledge can be placed at the bottom of level 3. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is reasonably well organised and presented in a clear and effective manner.
3-6
54
Level 3:
A selective and structured account covering both bullet points, though one may be in greater depth, focused on the question or establishing some argument. e.g. assesses the threat posed by Solidarity to the USSR and explains the part played by Reagans policies. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is well organised with an appropriate form and style of writing. Some specialist vocabulary is used.
7-9
Level 4:
10
Question 18 Response 1 During the time of the Solidarity Movement and the policies of Ronald Reagan, the USSRs economy was falling as a result of the Vietnam War and Afghanistan. They were also spending too much money on the arms race this was causing loss of money. The Solidarity Movement in Poland was a threat to the USSR as it seemed to be changing into a capitalist state as the free trade union was offering freedom of speech and private ownership. This later caused the Soviet leader to arrest the leader of the movement, Lech Walesa. The policies of United States President, Ronald Reagan was a threat to the USSR as Reagan was extremely against communism and the Soviet Union feared what may happen if he gets provoked. This may be from missiles, to invasions, these would have made USSR fearful of Reagan. Overall I feel that the Solidarity Movement in Poland was the greater threat to the USSR as it was reforming the way the Communist Party was, into a capitalist democracy. This eventually caused the first free elections in Poland since the communists took over, and Lech Walesa was the leader. Level 2/ 3 Marks Question 18 Response 2 The Solidarity Movement was a significant part in the Cold War because it looked as if the USSR were losing power and influence over its satellite states. This weakened the stance of the USSR because they were being threatened by another uprising. The Soviet leader did not get involved in the protests as much to avoid direct blame. The 21 demands put forth by the shipyard workers included better living conditions and no censorship. This reflected badly on the Soviets when they gave into the demands because the USSR were having these problems too and its people get ideas. Ronald Reagans policies were a threat to the USSR because they mostly consisted of an increase in military funding. The increase in missiles and the invention of IBMs (star
55
wars) meant that the arms race was hugely in the favour of the Americans. The Soviets could no longer keep up with Reagans policies of increased arms because their economy had collapsed. I believe the Solidarity Movement in Poland was a greater threat to the USSR because it meant that the actions of the Soviets towards the rebellion may have inspired other satellite states to rebel. This would mean the status of the Soviets influence over East Europe would weaken greatly. Although the Americans increased arms supplies were a threat, Reagan had no intention of using them because they were more as a strategic defence. Level 2/ 6 Marks Question 18 Response 3 In the 1980s there was renewed tension in the Cold War. The eleven year long dtente had failed, after the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. It was also revealed that dtente was nothing more than a period of failed summits, unkept promises and propaganda stunts. In 1980, due to food shortages and low pay, a shipyard in Gdansk went on strike. The workers asked for reforms, including ones such as the right to strike and the right to have trade unions. The Polish Government allowed these reforms to take place. Though the USSR was horrified, it was busy in Afghanistan and couldnt act. Then, ex-army man Jaruzelski, became the Polish Prime Minister. He made Solidarity (the name of the trade union set up by the Gdansk strike, led by Leach Walesa) illegal, arrested Walesa and introduced martial law, where the country is ran by the army. Less than a year later, Walesa was released. He was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. Then Gorbachev became Soviet leader. He granted reforms and allowed Poland free elections. On March the 1st 1989, Solidarity became the main party of Poland and Walesa, the first non-communist leader in a satellite state. This was a threat to the USSR as one of its satellite states was no longer communist, therefore not completely under its control. At the same time, Ronald Reagan became American President. He was strongly anticommunist and called the USSR, the evil empire. He invested billions of dollars in the arms race, developing H-bombs, ICBMs, and neutron bombs, as well as more conventional weapons. He also supplied the mujahidin, who the Soviets were currently fighting in Afghanistan, with powerful, modern conventional weapons. He restarted strong American hatred of the USSR and communism, and often wanted to invade Russia. This was a threat to the USSR because American and Russian tensions were re-ignited, and America was restarting the arms race when Russia couldnt afford to join in. Both crises threatened the USSR in the 1980s, however I feel that the Solidarity Movement in Poland was the greater threat. I believe that the USSR had lost its stronghold in its closest and most powerful satellite state and this could cause them to lose power in the others. As the USSR had no money to fight, it seemed the end for the USSR. However, some people see Reagans policies as the greater threat as tensions between the superpowers were running high and if Reagan got his way, there would have been direct confrontation between the USA and the USSR for the first time and it could have escalated into a global nuclear war. Level 3/ 7 Marks Question 18 Response 4 In the 1980s the USSR was threatened by two things: Solidarity in Poland and the
56
policies of the US President, Ronald Reagan. Solidarity was the first independent trade union in the USSR and was led by Lech Walesa. The aims of Solidarity were to improve the working and living conditions of the average worker in Poland, and more widely to introduce more liberal reforms such as freedom of speech, the removal of censorship and greater freedom for the church. Solidarity presented a big problem for the USSR; even when it was banned, it continued underground, gaining great support from the West and from Polish people. Lech Walesa even won the Nobel Peace Prize. The aims of Solidarity were taken up by many across the USSR, and their show of opposition to the strict communist rule in the Soviet Union fuelled the opposition of many other opposition groups and leaders. This was a great threat to the USSR in the 1980s as they had never faced such strong opposition with such great support from the West. Martial law was declared in Poland, but even that did not weaken Solidarity. Eventually, Poland became the first country with free elections and Solidarity was all the MORE available to it. These events helped spell the beginning of the end of communist rule in the USSR and contributed significantly to the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union. In these ways, Solidarity greatly threatened the control of the communists in the USSR in a way no other opposition groups had before. The US President Ronald Reagan was a hard-line communist hater who promised peace through strength. He adopted a tough attitude with the USSR and famously called it the evil empire. Reagan announced the launch of the policy of SDI, or star wars. This was the idea that the USA would use lasers in space to destroy Soviet missiles. The plan did not come to fruition, however it really concerned the USSR. Furthermore, Reagan continued to put a lot of US money into the arms race, even stationing Cruise and Pershing missiles in Europe very close to the USSR. This was another major concern for the USSR. They could simply not keep up with the huge cost of the arms race, and the arms race was a massive drain on the economy of the USSR; eventually leading to its economic stagnation and demise in the early 1990s. Reagan did not offer to stop the arms race for the first few years of his presidency, and this was a major threat to both the economy and stability of the Soviet Union not to mention their fears regarding SDI and the missiles placed nearby in Europe. In conclusion, Solidarity was the greater threat to the USSR in the 1980s. Solidarity cultivated growing opposition to restricted freedoms, not only in Poland but in other satellite states too. It was the first serious opposition the Soviet Union faced, and operated underground meaning it was not easy to dissolve. Coupled with Solidaritys support from the West, it seemed to spell the end for the iron control the USSR had on its satellite states, and helped fuel the eventual demise of the Soviet Union. This is why Solidarity presented a greater threat than the policies of Reagan to the USSR in the 1980s. Level 3/ 8 Marks
57

Responses

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Responses

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Version 1.

General Certificate of Secondary Education June 2011

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

Paper 1: International Relations: Conflict and Peace in the Twentieth Century

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 1 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

Вам также может понравиться