Download M5 History Exam - Norwich School

NORWICH SCHOOL
M5 History Exam
Revision Guide
Mr Grant
Summer 2016
REVISION GUIDE
 Your January mock exam will assess the material that you have covered in M5.
 There will be a choice of questions and you will have to answer TWO sets of a.) b.) c.) questions.
 It is advised that you revise all of the material that you have covered this year so that you have the widest
range of choice in the exam.
 Note that there will not be questions on every topic that you have covered.
 The exam is 1 hour and twenty minutes long. You should spend 40 minutes on each set of questions.
 Remember that those who put a lot of effort into their M5 revision, put themselves in a much stronger
position for the U5. You want to enter the U5 confident that you have your M5 work mastered.
 The following revision guide gives some guidance on how to structure your answers to the questions, lists of
past questions, and some example 10 mark essay plans for some of the most common essays.
 Your first port of call should be your notes and the Ben Walsh textbook. Test yourself by trying to answer the
past questions in this booklet.
 Best of luck!
1
QUESTION A: Question on simple data recall. E.g. What were Germany’s main territorial losses under the Treaty of
Versailles?
Level 0
No evidence submitted or response does not address the question
[0]
Level 1
One mark for each relevant point; additional mark for supporting detail
[1-4]
Tips:
-
-
Spend no more than 3-4 minutes on this question.
Ensure your points are directly relevant to the question and not just related to it. E.g. Given the exemplar
question on territorial losses at Versailles, there would be no credit for military restrictions, war guilt,
reparations, etc.
Make two-three points, each with an accompanying detail.
Make the points quickly; there is no credit for structure or style.
QUESTION B: Question inviting an explanation as to why something happened. E.g. Why was Clemenceau
dissatisfied with the Treaty of Versailles?
Level 1
General answer (lacking specific contextual knowledge)
[1]
Level 2
Identifies AND/OR describes reasons (one mark for each identification/description)
[2-3]
Level 3
Explains one reason: An explanation is when a reason/cause/motive is identified and has supporting detail, putting
the reason into context; a full explanation leaves no obvious supporting detail out
[4-5]
Level 4
Explains at least two reasons: An explanation is when a reason/cause/motive is identified and has supporting detail,
putting the reason into context; a full explanation leaves no obvious supporting detail out
[6]
Tips
-
Spend around 10 minutes on this question.
Provide at least two clear explanations – each of three or four sentences – focused on why the outcome
identified in the question happened.
Divide your answer into at least two clear paragraphs so that the examiner can see the different explanations;
start each paragraph identifying your key reason/cause/motive.
Use precise detail wherever possible, in clear support of the reason/cause/motive you stated at the beginning
of the paragraph.
There is no credit for writing an introduction or a conclusion so don’t waste time on one.
2
QUESTION C: Open question, often involving a quotation, to be assessed. E.g. “The Germans had genuine grounds
for complaint about the Treaty of Versailles”. How far do you agree with this statement?
Level 1
Unsupported assertions: General answer lacking specific contextual knowledge
[1]
Level 2
Identifies issues/relevant points: as Level 1, but with some accompanying detail; no sense of an explanation at this
level
[2-3]
Level 3
Explains ONE side of the argument: an explanation uses relevant and detailed points to illustrate an argument on one
side of the debate. Developed explanation to be given two marks within Level 3.
[4-6]
Level 4
Explains BOTH side of the argument: as Level 3, but both sides of the argument explained. Maximum of eight marks
for answer lacking balance.
[7-9]
Level 5
Explains both sides of the argument with an evaluative judgement of “how far”: a convincing judgement must explain
the logic behind it, rather than simply stating a judgement.
[10]
Tips
-
-
-
Spend a couple of minutes planning this question and around 25 minutes writing it.
Ensure you have a clear structure…
 Introduction - Answer the question and outline briefly the points for discussion
 A sequence of logical paragraphs that link together
 Conclusion – Restate your judgement on the question and justify it clearly
Divide the essay so that you clearly outline both sides of the debate at hand. Start with the least convincing
argument and finish the section by explaining why it less convincing than the alternative explanation(s),
which you should then go on to explain.
Use precise detail wherever possible to illustrate your arguments.
3
EXAMPLE ANSWERS:
a.) Describe American involvement in South Vietnam between 1954 and 1963. [4]
After the Geneva Agreements of May 1954, which divided Vietnam, the President Eisenhower supported
the Southern regime of Ngo Dinh Diem to prevent it falling to the communist North. After Kennedy was
elected President, US involvement increased with 16,000 military advisers being sent to support the
Southern Government. These advisers established the ‘Strategic Hamlets’ policy to secure Southern
villages from Vietcong influence.
b.) Why was the Vietcong an effective fighting force? [6]
The Vietcong was an effective fighting force as they used guerrilla tactics throughout the war. They knew
the land well and were able to hide in specially-constructed tunnels. They would harass US forces from
these, and then retreat to safety. They also secured support and sympathy from the local population who
were alienated by brutal US tactics and they were able to easily blend in with them.
In addition, the Vietcong received a lot of support from the North Vietnamese, as well as the USSR and
China. The USSR provided around 8,000 anti-aircraft guns and, in the late 1960s, total assistance from
these two powers has been estimated at over $2 billion. The Vietcong received all these supplies through
the secret Ho Chi Minh trail which linked the South with the North.
c.) ‘The Tet Offensive was the main reason for American withdrawal from Vietnam.’ How far do you
agree with this statement? [10]
The Tet Offensive was not the main reason for American withdrawal from Vietnam. Although symbolically
important, it was merely a symptom of the underlying US problems such as domestic opposition and, most
importantly, poor US tactics.
Certainly the Tet Offensive damaged the position of the US. The Vietcong use of conventional warfare on
the New Year holiday was spectacularly effective; many major towns and cities were captured and even
the US embassy in Saigon was (briefly) captured, as well as the major city of Hue which was held for 25
days. Although short-lived, these victories, broadcast back home to the American public, made many think
that the war was unwinnable. Yet, despite this spectacular display of US weakness, the Tet Offensive was
symptomatic of deeper problems with the US war effort.
It was primarily US tactics that caused the eventual American withdrawal. Chemical weapons such as Agent
Orange and napalm, and the indiscriminate ‘Search and Destroy’ missions, resulted in a destruction of
sympathy for the Americans throughout South Vietnam. Most infamously, the My Lai massacre in March
1968, where 347 innocent civilians were murdered by a US patrol, destroyed any moral authority the US
had and was seen as a symptom of failed US tactics. It was the US tactics themselves that turned the tide
of opinion against US involvement, both in Vietnam itself and at home in America. This then made it
impossible for them to win the war against the Vietcong.
Indeed, an additional reason for American withdrawal from Vietnam was the growth of opposition within
America itself. The Tet Offensive was only one of a series of events which encouraged Americans to call for
an end to the war. The US media kept civilians informed of the growing casualty lists and people were
4
increasingly made aware of the brutal realities of US tactics. Huge protests appeared in Washington and at
universities throughout the country. By the end of 1969, 34,000 draft dodgers were wanted by the police
and over 50% of Americans said that they were against continuing US involvement. All of this discontent
encouraged politicians of both parties to start looking for an exit from Vietnam as soon as possible.
Therefore, although the Tet Offensive seemed to mark the moment at which the war really started to go
against America, in reality American involvement had been inevitable for some time. It was the selfdefeating nature of the US tactics throughout the war, and the growing opposition within America that
resulted from this, which really made their withdrawal guaranteed.
5
WERE THE PEACE TREATIES OF 1919-23 FAIR?
Focus Points:




What were the motives and aims of the Big Three at Versailles?
Why did all the victors not get everything they wanted?
What was the impact of the peace treaty on Germany up to 1923?
Could the treaties be justified at the time?
Specified Content:
 the roles of individuals such as Wilson, Clemenceau and Lloyd George in the peacemaking process.
 the impact of the treaties on the defeated countries.
 contemporary opinions about the treaties.
Past Questions:
(a) What did Wilson hope to achieve from the peace settlement of 1919–20? [4]
(b) Why did Clemenceau and Lloyd George disagree over how to treat Germany? [6]
(c) ‘The Treaty of Versailles was a fair settlement.’ How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer.
[10]
(a) What military restrictions did the Treaty of Versailles impose on Germany? [4]
(b) Why did the ‘Big Three’ disagree over how to treat Germany? [6]
(c) How far could the Treaty be justified at the time? Explain your answer. [10]
(a) What did Lloyd George want to achieve from the peace settlement of 1919-20? [4]
(b) Why were German people horrified when they discovered the terms of the Treaty of Versailles? [6]
(c) ‘The Treaty of Versailles was too harsh on Germany.’ How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your
answer. [10]
(a) In what ways did the Treaty of Versailles weaken the German economy? [4]
(b) Why did the victors fail to get everything they wanted at Versailles? [6]
(c) ‘The Treaty of Versailles was unfair and unwise.’ How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer.
[10]
(a) What were Germany’s main territorial losses under the Treaty of Versailles? [4]
(b) Why did the Treaty of Versailles cause problems for Germany from 1919 to 1923? [6]
6
(c) How far did the ‘Big Three’ achieve their aims at the Paris Peace Conference? Explain your answer. [10]
EXAMPLE 10 MARK ESSAY PLAN: ‘The Treaty of Versailles was too harsh on Germany.’ How far do you agree with
this statement? Explain your answer. [10]
Introduction:
 Briefly outline the two sides of the debate and indicate your line of argument.
Evidence that the Treaty of Versailles was too harsh:
 The economic penalties imposed on Germany were too severe considering Germany’s economic state
(Keynes’ views)  it was vulnerable at the end of WWI and was struggling with a new political system that
needed support.
 The war guilt clause was unfair – other countries had borne much of the responsibility for starting the war
(e.g. Austria-Hungary and Serbia) and Germany should not have had to take all the blame.
 National self-determination (one of Wilson’s main ideas) was not applied to Germany  Germans were
separated from their homeland in Poland and Czechoslovakia and Germany was forbidden to unite with
Austria.
 Disarmament was applied to Germany but other countries didn’t restrict their armed forces leading to
imbalance.
 The Treaty was hated in Germany and seen to sow the seeds of the Second World War – it stored up
resentment and helped lead to the rise of the Nazi Party as people turned towards extremes and away from
the Weimar Republic.
 Many at the time considered the Treaty to be unwise as it weakened Germany when the greater danger
came from communist Russia in the east. Europe would have benefitted from a stronger Germany that could
have stood up to communist expansionism.
Evidence that the Treaty of Versailles was not too harsh:
 Germany had indeed borne much of the responsibility for starting WWI (the Schlieffen Plan had involved an
unprovoked invasion of Belgium and France and, prior to 1914, the Kaiser had been a key driving force
behind the militarisation of Europe). The limitations on Germany’s armed forces were similarly justified.
 The reparations were not as severe as many Germans claimed – by the end of the 1920s the German
economy was booming during the Stresemann era. Much of Germany’s debt at the end of the war was the
German government’s fault.
 Had Germany won the war, it would have been much harsher on the defeated powers. This is not just guesswork: the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk that they signed when Russia left the war in 1918, was extremely harsh on
Russia: they lost 34% of their population, 32% of their agricultural land, 54% of their industry and 89% of
their coalmines. They were also required to pay 300 million gold roubles.
 The rise of the Nazis and the Second World War cannot be blamed on the Treaty of Versailles; Germany was
a peaceful and successful country in the 1920s and WWII was caused by shorter-term factors.
Conclusion:
 Overall, do you think that the Treaty of Versailles was too harsh – reach a clear judgement.
7
TO WHAT EXTENT WAS THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS A SUCCESS?
Focus Points:




How successful was the League in the 1920s?
How far did weaknesses in the League’s organisation make failure inevitable?
How far did the Depression make the work of the League more difficult?
How successful was the League in the 1930s?
Specified Content:





strengths and weaknesses in the League’s structure and organisation
work of the League’s agencies/humanitarian work
successes and failures in peacekeeping during the 1920s
the impact of the World Depression on the work of the League after 1929
the failures of the League in the 1930s, including Manchuria and Abyssinia.
Past Questions:
(a) Describe the work of the Agencies of the League of Nations. [4]
(b) Why was the structure of the League a weakness? [6]
(c) How successful was the League of Nations in dealing with disputes in the 1920s? Explain your answer. [10]
(a) Describe the humanitarian work of the League of Nations in the 1920s. [4]
(b) Why was the League able to achieve some successes in the 1920s in dealing with international disputes? [6]
(c) How far can the Great Depression be blamed for the failure of the League? Explain your answer. [10]
(a) What were the main weaknesses in the structure and organisation of the League of Nations? [4]
(b) Why did the Depression make the work of the League more difficult? [6]
(c) To what extent was the League of Nations a success in its peacekeeping role? Explain your answer. [10]
(a) What methods were available to the League of Nations to settle disputes between countries? [4]
(b) Why did some major powers not join the League of Nations? [6]
(c) ‘The lack of an army was the main reason for the League’s failure in Manchuria.’ How far do you agree with this
statement? Explain your answer. [10]
(a) What were the peacekeeping successes of the League of Nations in the 1920s? [4]
(b) Why was the structure of the League a weakness? [6]
8
(c) How far was Mussolini’s invasion of Abyssinia in 1935 responsible for destroying the League as an effective
peacekeeping body? Explain your answer. [10]
(a.) Describe the main powers available to the League of Nations to sort out international disputes. [4]
(b.) Explain why the League of Nations did not impose sanctions against Italy during the Abyssinian crisis. [6]
(c.) ‘The League of Nations had failed before the Abyssinian crisis even started.’ How far do you agree with this
statement? Explain you answer. [10]
EXAMPLE 10 MARK ESSAY PLAN: How successful was the League of Nations in dealing with disputes in the 1920s?
Explain your answer.
Introduction:
 Briefly outline the two sides of the debate and indicate your argument.
Arguments that the League of Nations was a success in dealing with disputes:
 1921 dispute between Germany and Poland over the Upper Silesia region – the League oversaw a peaceful
plebiscite and divided the region between the two countries. Both countries accepted this.
 1921 dispute between Finland and Sweden over the Aaland Islands. Both sides threatened to go to war but
Sweden accepted the League’s ruling that the islands should belong to Finland.
 1924 dispute between Turkey and Iraq over the Kurdish province of Mosul. The League investigated and
found in favour of Iraq. Turkey accepted the decision and backed down.
 1925 dispute between Greece and Bulgaria: Greece invaded Bulgaria after an incident on the border. The
League reacted quickly and decisively – they demanded that both sides back down, investigated and found
in favour of the Bulgarians. Greece had to pay £45,000 compensation or face sanctions. Greece obeyed and
the League was fully supported by Britain and France.
Arguments that the League of Nations was not a success in dealing with disputes:
 1920: Poland took control of Lithuanian capital, Vilna. Lithuania appealed to the League which protested to
Poland but Poland did not pull out. Britain and France not prepared to act as they supported Poland as a
barrier against Soviet communism.
 Corfu Crisis, 1923: Mussolini occupied Greek island of Corfu in revenge for murder of Italian general. Greece
appealed to the League which condemned the invasion  Mussolini refused to recognise the decision and
appealed to the Conference of Ambassadors. France was not prepared to act as it was involved in the Ruhr
dispute at the time. The British were not prepared to act alone, particularly against a significant power such
as Italy. In the end Greece had to pay compensation to Italy and Mussolini withdrew boasting of his triumph.
 Ruhr Crisis, 1923: Germany defaulted on its reparations payments and the matter should have been referred
to the League. Instead, France and Belgium acted independently in occupying the industrial Ruhr region –
this confirmed in some minds that the League was a victors’ club and not interested in applying international
justice.
Conclusion:
 You could note that, of the 66 international disputes the League was involved in between the wars, it was
successful in half of them. However, did the failures outweigh the successes? You might comment that the
9
League was successful in dealing with smaller powers but, when faced with disputes involving larger powers,
it was not capable of acting. Ensure you reach a clear judgement.
WHY HAD INTERNATIONAL PEACE COLLAPSED BY 1939?
Focus Points:






What were the long-term consequences of the peace treaties of 1919–23?
What were the consequences of the failures of the League in the 1930s?
How far was Hitler’s foreign policy to blame for the outbreak of war in 1939?
Was the policy of appeasement justified?
How important was the Nazi–Soviet Pact?
Why did Britain and France declare war on Germany in September 1939?
Specified Content:










The collapse of international order in the 1930s
The increasing militarism of Germany, Italy and Japan
The Saar
Remilitarisation of the Rhineland
Involvement in the Spanish Civil War
Anschluss with Austria
Appeasement
Crises over Czechoslovakia and Poland
The Nazi-Soviet Pact
The outbreak of war
Past Questions:
(a) Describe the remilitarisation of the Rhineland in 1936. [4]
(b) Why did Hitler want to unite Germany and Austria? [6]
(c) How far was the policy of appeasement followed by Britain and France responsible for the outbreak of war in
1939? Explain your answer. [10]
(a) What happened at the Munich Conference in 1938? [4]
(b) Why did Stalin sign the Nazi-Soviet Pact? [6]
(c) How far was Hitler’s foreign policy to blame for war in 1939? Explain your answer. [10]
(a) What did Hitler achieve by the Anschluss? [4]
(b) Why did Hitler want to take over Czechoslovakia? [6]
(c) ‘The policy of appeasement was a mistake.’ How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer. [10]
10
(a) What were the aims of Hitler’s foreign policy? [4]
(b) Why did Britain follow a policy of appeasement towards Germany in the 1930s? [6]
(c) ‘Events in Czechoslovakia in 1938–9 played a greater part in causing war in 1939 than did the Nazi-Soviet Pact.’
How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer. [10]
(a) What measures had Hitler taken by 1938 to prepare Germany for war? [4]
(b) Why did Hitler want to take over Czechoslovakia? [6]
(c) How far was the policy of appeasement justified? Explain your answer. [10]
(a) What actions did Hitler take between 1933 and 1937 to destroy the Treaty of Versailles? [4]
(b) Why was Hitler able to unite Germany with Austria in 1938? [6]
(c) ‘The Nazi-Soviet Pact played a greater part in causing war in 1939 than did the policy of appeasement.’ How far
do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer. [10]
EXAMPLE 10 MARK ESSAY PLAN: How far was Hitler’s foreign policy to blame for war in 1939? Explain your
answer.
Introduction:
 Indicate that, as well as Hitler’s foreign policy, other factors were also responsible for the outbreak of the
Second World War in 1939. Be clear which factor you think was the most significant.
The importance of Hitler’s foreign policy:
 It is difficult to see how there could have been a war without Hitler. As set out in Mein Kampf, it was Hitler’s
vision for a united Germany, lebensraum in the East, and the destruction of what he regarded as JudeoBolshevism which led directly to war.
 Hitler was determined to overturn the Versailles settlement from his appointment as Chancellor in 1933. He
consciously built up Germany’s armed forces with the intention of talking his country to war.
 At each stage of the road to war between 1933 and 1939 it was Hitler’s actions and wilful disregard for
international law that caused the conflict.
Other factor: The legacy of the Treaty of Versailles:
 In the longer term the existence of the Treaty of Versailles made the war inevitable. The Treaty was
manifestly unjust on Germany and created a dangerous situation in Europe.
 It was only a matter of time before Germany tried to seek revenge and overturn the Treaty. Many
commentators at the time believed that it was a question of when rather than if a new war would take place.
Other factor: The impact of the Great Depression:
11
 The Depression weakened the League of Nations and destroyed the spirit of international cooperation that
had existed in the 1920s. Countries became increasingly hostile to each other and raised trade barriers to
protect their own workers.
 During the Depression, Britain and France became reluctant to get involved in international disputes and
were more focused on domestic matters. They were reluctant to impose economic sanctions on countries
that broke international law.
 The Depression led to increasingly extreme and aggressive politics in Germany and Japan as people turned to
extreme solutions for the economic disaster. Hitler would not have come to power were it not for the impact
of the Depression on Germany.
Other factor: The impact of appeasement:
 Britain and France could have stopped Hitler in 1936 when he remilitarised the Rhineland. However, their
failure to act led Hitler to believe that he could get away with anything.
 Throughout the 1930s Hitler continued to gamble and win; the Anschluss with Austria and the conquest of
Sudetenland were not stopped by Britain and France who reached an accommodation with him.
 As a result of appeasement, Hitler did not believe the British and French would stop him when he invaded
Poland in 1939.
[Other factors you could mention: The failure of the League of Nations, the importance of the Nazi-Soviet Pact]
Conclusion:
 Reach a clear judgement. You might conclude that, although Hitler’s aggressive foreign policy was the
primary cause of WWII, he could not have gone as far as he did were it not for the other factors such as the
Depression and Appeasement that made it possible for him to act.
WHO WAS TO BLAME FOR THE COLD WAR?
Focus Points:





Why did the USA–USSR alliance begin to break down in 1945?
How had the USSR gained control of Eastern Europe by 1948?
How did the USA react to Soviet expansionism?
What were the consequences of the Berlin Blockade?
Who was the more to blame for starting the Cold War: the USA or the USSR?
Specified Content:




The 1945 summit conferences and the breakdown of the USA–USSR alliance in 1945–46
Soviet expansion into Eastern Europe to 1948, and American reactions to it
The occupation of Germany and the Berlin Blockade
NATO and the Warsaw Pact.
Past Questions:
(a) What decisions, in relation to Germany, were agreed at Yalta and Potsdam? [4]
(b) Why was the Truman Doctrine significant? [6]
12
(c) ‘It was the Soviet expansion in Eastern Europe that caused the Cold War.’ How far do you agree with this
statement? Explain your answer. [10]
(a) What was agreed at the Yalta Conference of February 1945? [4]
(b) Why did the USA introduce the Marshall Plan? [6]
(c) How far was the Cold War caused by Truman’s hostility towards the Soviet Union? Explain your answer. [10]
(a) What was decided at the Yalta Conference of February 1945? [4]
(b) Why was it difficult to reach agreements at the Potsdam Conference? [6]
(c) Which country had the more successful policies towards Europe between 1945 and 1949: the USA or the USSR?
Explain your answer. [10]
(a) What did Stalin gain from the Yalta conference? [4]
(b) Why did tensions between the USSR and the Western Allies increase at the Potsdam conference? [6]
(c) Who was more to blame for starting the Cold War, the USA or the USSR? Explain your answer. [10]
(a) What was the ‘Iron Curtain’? [4]
(b) Why was Berlin a cause of tension between East and West after the Second World War? [6]
(c) How successful was the West in containing communism in Europe up to 1949? Explain your answer. [10]
EXAMPLE 10 MARK ESSAY PLAN: Who was more to blame for starting the Cold War, the USA or the USSR?
Introduction:
 Outline the two sides of the debate and give an indication as to what your argument will be.
Evidence suggesting the USA was to blame:
 The USA had always been hostile to the USSR and to communism: during the Russian Civil War the
Americans had opposed the communists and, throughout the inter-war period, they had been hostile to
communism.
 Before WWII ended, the USA was uncooperative with the USSR; it delayed opening a ‘second front’ against
Germany until 1944, despite the millions of Soviet dead, it developed the atomic bomb in secret and was
reluctant to acknowledge Stalin’s demands in relation to Poland and German reparations, despite the huge
sacrifices the USSR had made. The USSR lost around 20 million citizens compared to the USA which lost less
than half a million. The desire of the Soviets for a buffer zone and some influence in Germany was
understandable considering they had been invaded twice in the first half of the 20th Century.
13
 Truman was particularly hostile to Stalin at Potsdam and, after the British struggled to contain communism
in Greece, he formulated the Truman Doctrine to halt the spread of communism in Europe. This was seen as
an aggressive move by the USSR. The creation of NATO was also seen as an aggressive rather than as a
defensive act.
 American policy was seen by the Soviets as being designed to keep Western Europe in its sphere of
influence; Marshall Aid was seen by the Soviets as a tool to create a market for US goods and to ensure the
preservation of the capitalist system.
 The creation of merging of the Western zones in Germany in 1946 and the introduction of a new currency
there in 1948 was against the spirit of the Potsdam agreement; it was seen by the USSR as highly provocative
and designed to isolate the USSR.
Evidence suggesting the USSR was to blame:
 The West believed that communist ideology was expansionist and that, during WWII, Stalin planned on
using the defeat of Germany as a way to expand his influence in Eastern Europe and spread his ideology.
 Throughout the conferences that ended WWII Stalin was aggressive and manipulative. Truman (and
Churchill) were only responding to his tone.
 Stalin did not abide by the agreements he had made at Yalta and Potsdam; he installed puppet communist
governments throughout Eastern Europe and there were no free and fair elections. Political opposition was
banned and opponents were frequently jailed or murdered. For example, in March 1948, anti-Soviet leaders
in Czechoslovakia were purged; Jan Masaryk, a minister, was found dead below his open window. It was this
that prompted the US Congress to introduce the Marshall Plan.
 COMINFORM was established to undermine democratic societies and keep an eye on the communist parties
of Eastern Europe. COMECON was clearly designed to control the economies of Eastern Europe.
 The blockade of Berlin in 1948 was a clear act of aggression that broke the agreements reached at Potsdam.
In the eyes of the West, it was a clear attempt by the USSR to expand its influence and undermine the
Western position. Furthermore, it was a ruthless act that could easily have led to war.
 The Truman doctrine was clearly a defensive reaction to Soviet expansion. The Western countries were
democratic and freely chose to come under the USA’s protection and they welcomed the aid from the
Marshall Plan. The countries of Eastern Europe had no such freedom.
Conclusion:
 You might conclude that one country was more to blame than the other. Alternatively, you might conclude
that it was one (or both) political leaders that were to blame. You could also conclude that the clash of
ideologies (capitalism and communism) made it inevitable that tension would develop between the two
countries and that neither country should bear particular responsibility.
HOW EFFECTIVELY DID THE USA CONTAIN THE SPREAD OF COMMUNISM?
Focus Points:
 America and events in Korea, 1950–53
 America and events in Cuba, 1959–62
 American involvement in Vietnam
Specified Content:
 American reactions to the Cuban revolution, including the missile crisis and its aftermath
14
 American involvement in the Vietnam War, e.g. reasons for involvement, tactics/strategy, reasons for
withdrawal
 American reactions to North Korea’s invasion of South Korea, involvement of the UN, course of the war to
1953
Past Questions:
(a) What did the Geneva Agreements of 1954 decide about the future of Vietnam? [4]
(b) Why did Johnson increase American involvement in Vietnam? [6]
(c) How successful was American foreign policy towards Cuba and Vietnam? Explain your answer. [10]
(a) Describe how relations between the USA and Cuba became worse when Castro took power. [4]
(b) Why did the Bay of Pigs invasion take place in April 1961? [6]
(c) ‘Khrushchev gained a victory in the Cuban Missile Crisis.’ How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your
answer. [10]
(a) Describe relations between the USA and Cuba from 1959 to the Bay of Pigs invasion of 1961. [4]
(b) Why did the Cuban Missile Crisis cause so much alarm? [6]
(c) Which leader, Kennedy or Khrushchev, handled the Cuban Missile Crisis better? Explain your answer. [10]
(a) Describe the Bay of Pigs incident. [4]
(b) Why did the Soviet Union place missiles on Cuba? [6]
(c) ‘The USA gained more than the USSR from the Cuban Missile Crisis.’ How far do you agree with this statement?
Explain your answer. [10]
(a) What was the ‘Gulf of Tonkin’ incident? [4]
(b) Explain the methods used by President Nixon in an attempt to gain ‘peace with honour’ in Vietnam. [6]
(c) ‘America withdrew from Vietnam because of military failure.’ How far do you agree with this statement? Explain
your answer. [10]
(a) Describe American involvement in South Vietnam between 1954 and 1963. [4]
(b) Why was the Vietcong an effective fighting force? [6]
(c) ‘The Tet Offensive was the main reason for American withdrawal from Vietnam.’ How far do you agree with this
statement? Explain your answer. [10]
15
(a) What was the Ho Chi Minh trail? [4]
(b) Why did the USA become increasingly involved in Vietnam in the years up to 1965? [6]
(c) ‘The USA lost the Vietnam War because its military strategy and tactics were wrong.’ How far do you agree with
this statement? Explain your answer. [10]
EXAMPLE 10 MARK ESSAY PLAN: ‘The USA gained more than the USSR from the Cuban Missile Crisis.’ How far do
you agree with this statement? Explain your answer.
Introduction:
 Outline the two sides of the debate and indicate which country you think did gain more from the Cuban
Missile Crisis.
Arguments that the USA gained the most:
 The Soviets agreed to publically remove their missiles from Cuba. This was a clear victory and the world
stepped back from the brink of nuclear war.
 Kennedy came out of the crisis with an enhanced reputation as a statesman, both in his own country and
throughout the West. He had stood up to Khrushchev and made him back down.
 Kennedy got Khrushchev to agree that the US removal of missiles from Turkey was to be kept secret so he
was unable to use it for propaganda purposes.
 The Soviets felt humiliated at having to back down; they were forced to put the missiles on the decks of their
ships so that the Americans could see them being removed.
 The Americans still had more missiles than the Soviets and the USSR felt it had to continue to develop its
stockpile of weapons at great cost.
 For Khrushchev personally, the crisis was something of a humiliation and he was forced from power in 1964.
Arguments that the USSR gained the most:
 Cuba remained communist and an ally of the USSR’s. This was an important victory and it was humiliating for
the US to have a communist country right on their doorstep. Cuba remained a supporter of communist
movements in other parts of Latin America and Africa.
 The Americans did agree to remove their missiles from Turkey and this was a clear strategic victory.
 The Soviets had divided America from many of its NATO allies who felt that the USA had acted recklessly
during the crisis. Some NATO allies were unhappy that Kennedy had removed the missiles from Turkey
without consulting them.
 To an extent, Khrushchev was able to pose as the responsible statesman who had avoided a nuclear
catastrophe (although many in his country didn’t see it this way).
Conclusion:
 On balance, which side benefitted most from the crisis? Make a clear judgement. You might conclude that
both sides benefitted to an extent as the crisis led to improved relations between the two countries and a
more cooperative phase of the Cold War.
16
HOW SECURE WAS THE USSR’S CONTROL OVER EASTERN EUROPE, 1948–C.1989?
Focus Points:
 Why was there opposition to Soviet control in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968, and how did the
USSR react to this opposition?
 How similar were events in Hungary in 1956 and in Czechoslovakia in 1968?
 Why was the Berlin Wall built in 1961?
 What was the significance of ‘Solidarity’ in Poland for the decline of Soviet influence in Eastern Europe?
 How far was Gorbachev personally responsible for the collapse of Soviet control over Eastern Europe?
Specified Content:




Resistance to Soviet power in Hungary (1956) and Czechoslovakia (1968)
The Berlin Wall
‘Solidarity’ in Poland
Gorbachev and the collapse of Soviet control over Eastern Europe.
Past Questions:
(a) Describe the Soviet response to events in Hungary in 1956. [4]
(b) Why was the Soviet Union worried by developments in Czechoslovakia in 1968? [6]
(c) ‘The inspiration provided by Solidarity was more important in bringing about the collapse of Communism in
Eastern Europe than the policies of Gorbachev.’ How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer. [10]
(a) Describe events in Hungary in October and November 1956. [4]
(b) Why did Warsaw Pact forces invade Czechoslovakia in 1968? [6]
(c) How far were the policies of Gorbachev responsible for the collapse of Soviet control over Eastern Europe?
Explain your answer. [10]
(a) What was the ‘Prague Spring’? [4]
(b) Why did Berlin remain a focus of Cold War tensions during the 1960s? [6]
(c) How significant was the part played by Solidarity in the loss of Soviet control in Eastern Europe? Explain your
answer. [10]
(a) Describe the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. [4]
(b) Why was Solidarity formed in Poland in 1980? [6]
(c) How far was the collapse of Soviet control over Eastern Europe due to the reforms of Gorbachev? Explain your
answer. [10]
17
EXAMPLE 10 MARK ESSAY PLAN: How significant was the part played by Solidarity in the loss of Soviet control in
Eastern Europe? Explain your answer
Introduction:
 Identify that there were a range of factors that led to the collapse of Soviet control in Eastern Europe and
that Solidarity was only one of these. Be clear which factor you think was the most significant. You wouldn’t
need to comment on all the factors below, but it is important to discuss a couple other than Solidarity.
The significance of Solidarity:
 Solidarity protested against the Communist government in Poland and highlighted the failure of communism
to provide good living standards for ordinary people. It also criticised the inefficiency and corruption within
the communist system.
 Membership of Solidarity peaked at 9.4 million in 1981, more than a third of all Polish workers. Many of
these workers were communist members and worked in industries that were particularly important to the
Government such as shipbuilding.
 It had the support of the Catholic Church and many people in the West. Lech Walesa, its leader, was also
careful to avoid provoking a reaction from the USSR as had happened in Hungary and Czechoslovakia.
 They forced the government into negotiations and, until it was suspended in 1981, Solidarity demonstrated
that they could force the communists to change. Solidarity demonstrated that communist governments
could be resisted by ‘people power’
 Solidarity was much more popular than the Communist Government and had more legitimacy; it was clear
that the Polish people no longer trusted the Communists and the only thing that kept them in power was the
threat of force.
The significance of events in other Eastern European countries:
 Popular movements against communism were not confined to Poland. After seeing what was possible in
Poland, people in other countries began to pressure for change. Arguably, Soviet control only collapsed in
Eastern Europe because there were popular movements in several countries:
 Hungary adopted a ‘democracy package’ which allowed for trade union rights, less censorship and more
political freedoms. They also allowed people to cross the border into Austria and the West.
 In East Germany, a popular movement was inspired by Gorbachev who urged the Communist Party there not
to crush it. It was the people of East Berlin who descended on the Berlin Wall in 1989.
 In Romania, a popular movement challenged the government of Nicolae Ceaucescu in 1989 and the military
refused his order to fire on the crowds. After this, he was overthrown.
The significance of Gorbachev:
 Mikhail Gorbachev realised that the USSR needed to reform and change. Had it not been for his policies, the
popular movements in Eastern Europe would not have stood a chance of success and would have gone the
way of the Hungarian Uprising and the Prague Spring:
 His policies of glasnost and perestroika didn’t just change the USSR as he realised that Eastern European
countries had to be free to choose their own destiny. He made it clear that he would not stand in the way of
attempts to introduce democracy in Eastern Europe and that, unlike in the past, he would not use troops to
keep countries loyal to the USSR. Indeed, his reduction of Soviet defence spending sent a clear message that
the country could not afford to maintain its control over Eastern Europe.
The significance of the USSR’s weaknesses:
18
 The reforms of Gorbachev were only necessary because of the huge problems that the USSR faced in the
1980s. In short, the USSR was in no position to maintain its control over Eastern Europe:
 Its economy was extremely weak and living standards were poor. Most Soviet consumer goods were of a
poor quality. Alcoholism was a huge problem and there was a great deal of cynicism amongst the Soviet
public. It was apparent that communism had failed to create the ‘workers’ paradise.’
 It was spending far too much money on the arms race and its military and this was crippling its economy.
Furthermore, its endless war in Afghanistan (that started in 1979) was an enormous drain on resources and
cost many lives. It has been described as ‘the USSR’s Vietnam’ and led to much discontent within the Soviet
Union.
The significance of the role of the West:
 While the USSR was crumbling, the West was booming. Living standards increased and it was clear that the
West’s model of capitalist democracies was much more successful.
 In addition, the USA was led by President Ronald Reagan who saw the USSR as an ‘evil empire’ and sought to
end the Cold War. He did this in two ways:
 Firstly, Reagan dramatically increased spending on defence by a third (e.g. the ‘Star Wars’ missile defence
system). It was obvious that the USSR could not respond in the arms race and that they had to find ways of
ending the Cold War through diplomacy.
 Secondly, he made treaties with Gorbachev to limit nuclear weapons and encouraged popular movements
like Solidarity.
 Arguably, therefore, it was the pressure from the West that caused the decline of Soviet power.
Conclusion:
 Be clear how important you think Solidarity was relative to the other factors that you have considered. Be
sure to make a clear judgement.
19