Anda di halaman 1dari 51

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

HIS3N Question Paper

p5

Question 1 Candidate A Response

p7

Question 1 Candidate A Commentary

p 10

Question 1 Candidate B Response

p 11

Question 1 Candidate B Commentary

p 14

Question 1 Candidate C Response

p 15

Question 1 Candidate C Commentary

p 18

Question 2 Candidate D Response

p 19

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

Candidate A

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

Candidate B

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

Candidate C

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

Candidate D

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

Candidate E

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

Candidate F

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

Candidate G

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

Candidate H

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

Candidate I

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