A Level History

Unit 3N Aspects of International Relations,

1945 - 2004

Exemplar Scripts and Commentaries

Version 1.0

1

Copyright 2010 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.

The Assessment and Qualifications Alliance (AQA) is a company limited by guarantee registered in England and Wales (company number 3644723). Registered address: AQA, Devas Street, Manchester M15 6EX

2

Contents

1 HIS3N Question Paper p 5

2 Question 1 Candidate A Response p 7

3 Question 1 Candidate A Commentary p 10

4 Question 1 Candidate B Response p 11

5 Question 1 Candidate B Commentary p 14

6 Question 1 Candidate C Response p 15

7 Question 1 Candidate C Commentary p 18

8 Question 2 Candidate D Response p 19

9 Question 2 Candidate D Commentary p 24

10 Question 2 Candidate E Response p 25

11 Question 2 Candidate E Commentary p 29

12 Question 2 Candidate F Response p 30

13 Question 2 Candidate F Commentary p 36

14 Question 3 Candidate G Response p 37

15 Question 3 Candidate G Commentary p 41

16 Question 3 Candidate H Response p 42

17 Question 3 Candidate H Commentary p 46

18 Question 3 Candidate I Response p 47

19 Question 3 Candidate I Commentary p 51

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Commentary

Question 1

To what extent was the Soviet Unions expansion into Eastern Europe the main cause of the intensification of the Cold War in the years 1945 to 1956?

Candidate A

The introductory paragraph suggests a good level of understanding. There is range and some comment but there is some lack of a well defined judgement. The answer adopts an orthodox interpretation in that it suggests containment was a response to Soviet expansionism however there is some sound analytical comment such as 1947 was a year that truly institutionalised the Cold War. The answer establishes clear links between the events. The candidate does not stop in 1949. There is a recognition that the factors underpinning the development of the Cold War extended beyond 1949 and beyond Europe. The answer shows some insightful understanding. It comments that The Cold War was a war based on security and power. This concept is linked to the nuclear arms race after 1949 and contributes to the view that although Soviet expansionism may have been a major causal factor before 1949 there was increased dual responsibility after 1949. This displays a keen understanding and developed synoptic thinking. There is a developed analysis of the importance of Germany and this is linked to ideological factors. The conclusion reaffirms to orthodox position taken by the candidate but then developed into a largely post-revisionist stance.

Overall there is very good understanding exhibited and the use of precisely selected detail to sustain and analysis and deliver well constructed synoptic detail. The answer would have move closer to the maximum mark had there been slightly more precision in defining the overall argument. This answer is a very good example of a sound level 5 response. It is contained, focused, analytical and synoptic in its characteristics.

10

11

12

13

Commentary

Question 1

To What extent was the Soviet Unions expansion into Eastern Europe the main cause of the intensification of the Cold War in the years 1945 to 1956?

Candidate B

The introductory paragraph is focused on the question but it offers a range of contributory factors rather than well defined judgement around which to construct and argument. It does suggest clear understanding of the key issues. There is some focus on ideological factors as the driving forces in the origins of the Cold War. A links made between US economic aid to Europe, the concept of economic imperialism and a structured assault against communist ideology which the Soviets were bound to react to. This could have been more analytically developed. The answer also develops nuclear issues and the importance of containment. The conclusion is based on the post-revisionist interpretation and it is consistent with the introduction and the detail included in the main body of the answer.

Overall the answer is mostly analytical and there are some synoptic links but they have some limitations in their development. There is relatively little descriptive detail and the answer remains focused. There is a reasonable range of evidence. Given these strengths and limitations it is appropriate to place this answer in the middle of Level 4. The analysis is not sufficiently developed, nor it the degree of judgement, to warrant placing it closer to Level 5 or, indeed, in Level 5. However, the analysis is sufficiently developed and of sufficient range to prevent it drifting back into Level 3.

14

15

16

17

Commentary

Question 1

To what extent was the Soviet Unions expansion the main cause of the intensification of the Cold War in the years 1945 to 1956?

Candidate C

The opening paragraph lacks any developed statement of an argument that is to flow through the answer. There is some limited analysis but this lacks depth and development. Although, for example, a link is made between the USAs involvement in the Korean War and its quest for global superpower status the link with the contribution to the development of the Cold War is relatively superficial. Similarly a link is established between the Marshall Plan, provocation of the USSR and Soviet expansionism but this is largely undeveloped analytically. The explanation of the USSRs relationship with Poland from 1945 is not clear. The evidence base underpinning the comments also lack development. The reference to reparations from Germany leading to Soviet expansionism is vague. The candidate is aware of the view that the USA wanted to become a global superpower and this was a significant contributory factor in the development of the Cold War but its significance is not evaluated analytically.

Overall the answer does show understanding beyond the basic level. There are attempts to develop some analytical comment but these lack range and depth. Synoptic links tend to be implicitly rather than explicitly stated. The overall range of the answer is limited. Given these strengths and weaknesses it is appropriate to place this response towards the middle of Level 3.

18

19

20

21

22

23

Commentary

Question 2

The Cuban Missile Crisis was a triumph for the Soviet Union. How valid is this assessment with reference to the years 1962 to 1964?

Candidate D

The answer begins with a clear judgement focused on the question. There is a clear understanding of the long term outcomes of the crisis. The Soviet defeat in Cuba is linked to the Berlin Wall fiasco and Khrushchevs fall from power in 1964. This is balanced against Kennedys victories through the crisis. The candidate evaluates these outcomes and argues that the Soviet defeats were superficial in their significance. A sustained analysis emerges. The successful defence of Cuba is analysed and synoptic links are established through the analysis. Very good understanding is displayed through an awareness of the implications for the foundation of US Cold War foreign policy that emerge from the missile crisis. Again the candidate makes skilful links with dtente. This synoptic linkage and analysis continues through the references to China and the Soviet Unions role as a global communist power. Further links are made through reference to European decolonisation and the impact of the crisis in terms of that process. The answer ends with a well structured and focused judgement.

Overall this answer clearly reflects the characteristics of a Level 5 response. There is a sustained analysis and developed synoptic references. The answer sustains a clear judgement based on a wide range of well selected evidence. The answer is coherence and balanced and not restricted by extensive descriptive sections.

24

25

26

27

28

Commentary

Question 2

The Cuban Missile Crisis was a triumph for the Soviet Union. How valid is this assessment with reference to the years 1962 to 1964?

Candidate E

The introduction is focused on the question and does offer some judgement, albeit not particularly developed. The answer progresses to focus on some factors which suggest successes for both the USA and the USSR. The reference to China and the analytical link to the Soviet Unions status the global communist power suggest a synoptic element and a breadth of understanding. This level of understanding is further developed through the candidates recognition that the basis of US foreign policy, containment, had been fundamentally undermined. The concluding paragraph reviews the key points made. Overall the answer is focused on an analytical approach and there is a good range established. The range of analysis ensures this response does not fall into Level 3. However the analysis lacks some depth and some range. The synoptic links are present but are not extensive and sustained. The candidate clear knows something of the issues but this has not been formulated into a well defined judgement upon which the analysis hangs. This prevents the answer entering Level 5.

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

Commentary

Question 2

The Cuban Missile Crisis was a triumph for the Soviet Union. How valid is this assessment with reference to the years 1962 to 1964?

Candidate F

The introductory paragraph is focused on distant background material rather than any specific argument relevant to the question. The answer drifts into some confusion and a lack of clarity in terms of what it is actually arguing. There is some knowledge displayed, for example the reference to US missiles being removed from Turkey and this is linked to the idea of an America defeat.

The presence of some synoptic linkage is evident through the connection made between the removal of Soviet missiles from Cuba and the restoration of Kennedys reputation after the abortive Bay of Pigs incident. This is consistent with the criteria for Level 3. There is no indication as yet that this answer would extend beyond that level. Equally there is some awareness of the historical debate through the candidates reference to Berlin. This also suggests some synoptic development. Further understanding is illustrated through the candidates recognition that Cuba remained communist after the removal of the missiles. There are descriptive sections in this answer, particularly the section dealing with the realisation by both sides that they should compromise.

Overall the answer is largely focused on the question. It lacks analytical depth and development. These characteristics comfortably fit Level 3. The descriptive content suggests that it should be placed in the lower half of that level.

36

37

38

39

40

Commentary

Question 3

In the years 1969 to 2004 the United States consistently placed its own global self-interest above any consideration for international co-operation. How valid is this assessment of US foreign policy?

Candidate G

The introduction is balanced and focused and shows clear understanding of the broad issues involved in responding to this question. The answer develops some sound linkage between conflicts that the US was involved in, particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq. This shows some rather sophisticated understanding and judgement. The economic theme for US interventionism is developed analytically and linked to dtente. There are some insightful analytical comments on the impact of a developing EC in terms of the USAs regional and global economic interests. The candidate is able to develop some balance in the answer by focusing on the humanitarian involvement in the Yugoslav crisis during the 1990s. This theme of co-operation is further enhanced through a careful analysis of the Nixon-Gorbachev relationship and the ending of the Cold War.

Overall the answer displays some keen understanding and analytical depth. It sustains an argument based on the changing nature and developing motives underlying US co-operation or lack of it. It is not a chronological narrative and there are clear and sustained synoptic links established. It is a good example of a sound Level 5 response.

41

42

43

44

45

Commentary

Question 3

In the years 1969 to 2004 the United States consistently placed its own global self-interest above any consideration for international co-operation. How valid is this assessment of US foreign policy?

Candidate H

The introduction focuses on the apparently changing nature of the USAs foreign policy. This overview immediately suggests an awareness and understanding by the candidate although the introduction does not clearly define an argument or judgement upon which the body of the answer will be based. The 1970s are dealt with very briefly and the answer move into the 1980s. There is some reasonable analysis of the Afghan conflict and the USAs approach to it. The view developed is that the USA wanted to adopt a policy focused much more on their own self-interest than on any form of international co-operation. Similarly, the answer goes into some developed comment on the nature of the Reagan administration and its foreign policy priorities. There is a reasonable evidence base to support the comments. The detail linked to moves towards co-operation during Reagans presidency is less well developed and does not offer solid substantive support thereby leaving the analysis somewhat lacking in depth. By this point the answer clearly has variable degrees of analytical depth and supporting detail. The penultimate paragraph is rather generalised and very limited in detail and analysis. The conclusion is focused and shows understanding but narrow. Overall the answer suggests that the candidate has a good level of understanding and has attempted to develop an analysis. To this extent it enters Level 4 but only at a low level because the detail is variable in depth as is the analysis. Organisationally the answer is chronological and relatively well-organised.

46

47

48

49

50

Commentary

Question 3

In the years 1969 to 2004 the United States consistently placed its own global self-interest above any consideration for international co-operation. How valid is this assessment of US foreign policy?

Candidate I

The introductory paragraph does not define a clear line of argument. There is some implicit suggestion that the United States focused on both its own global interests and a commitment to international co-operation. The answer incorrectly has the Berlin Wall being created in 1969. The answer attempts to suggest that the USA tolerated the Berlin Wall because it enabled the USA to strengthen its influence in western Europe. The end of the second paragraph lacks clarity and suggests that the candidate has only limited understanding of the key issues.

The response then moves on to consider SALT I. There is a link established between US co-operation in negotiations and the question. The candidate uses SALT I to challenge the premise of the question but does so with very limited analytical development or depth of detail. Reference is made to SALT II to support the idea of US self-interest being the primary motive. The answer suggests that the Anglo-American alliance during the Reagan administration illustrates the USAs commitment to international co-operation. Again, the depth of analysis is limited as it is through the references to Reagans co-operation with Gorbachev. The concluding paragraph suggests that the focus of US international relations was on self-interest and goes on to illustrate this through the US intervention in Iraq from 2001.

Overall this answer is a mid-Level 3 response. The candidate has displayed an understanding of the demands of the question. The answer is focused on the specifics of the question and it is not heavily undermined by irrelevancy. There is clearly a lack of depth in the detail and the analysis. It is reasonably well organised chronologically.

51

(1a) HIS3N Front Cover.pdf(1b) HIS3N - Copyright Page (2).pdf(1c) HIS3N - Contents Page.pdfAQA-HIS3N-W-QP-JUN10.pdf

Text1: Candidate AText2: Text3: Text4: Text5: Text6: Text7: Candidate BText8: Text9: Text10: Candidate CText11: Text12: Text13: Text14: Candidate DText15: Candidate EText16: Text17: Candidate FText18: Text19: Text20: Candidate GText21: Text22: Text23: Text24: Text25: Candidate HText26: Text27: Text28: Text29: Text30: Candidate I