Unit 1: International Relations: Conflict and Peace in the 20th
Century – Exam practice sample answers and comments
Chapter 1: The Origins of the Fist World War c. 1890–1914
Page 11
1. Which of the two Moroccan crises was the bigger threat to peace in the years 1900–14?
You must refer to both reasons when explaining your answer. (10 marks)
Sample answer: The first Moroccan crisis was important in worsening relations between Britain and
Germany because of British support for the French throughout the crisis. The Kaiser had challenged a
French takeover of Morocco believing this would drive a wedge in the Anglo-French Entente.
However, the British backed the French throughout the crisis and during the subsequent Algeciras
Conference. British support not only helped to defeat Germany but greatly strengthened the Entente.
Kaiser Wilhelm II was furious with the outcome of the crisis and the actions of the British.
However, the Agadir Crisis was of equal importance in worsening Anglo-German relations more
especially because of the reaction of Lloyd George. Germany sent a gunboat, the ‘Panther’, to the
port of Agadir in Morocco to try to force compensation from the French for the occupation of
Morocco. Germany was especially upset at the reaction of Lloyd George, the British Chancellor of the
Exchequer and a known pacifist, who, in a speech at the Mansion House, threatened war if Germany
bullied France. Once again, the British firmly supported the French and the Kaiser backed down.
Overall, each event is of equal importance in worsening Anglo-German relations. In each crisis, the
British fully backed France, actions which infuriated the Kaiser.
Comment: The candidate fully explains and makes a judgement on the importance of the each of the
Moroccan crises. In addition there is a final judgement on the relative importance of each factor. It
would be awarded a level 4 mark.
Page 14
1. Describe the main features of this arms race taking place at this time. (4 marks)
Sample answer: One feature of the arms race was competition in the size of armies. All the Great
Powers except Britain introduced conscription in order to ensure really large armies and ensured their
armies were well trained. By 1914 the armies of the Great Powers numbered more than 4 million
men. A second feature was Anglo-German naval rivalry, as each country competed to build the most
battleships, especially after the introduction of HMS Dreadnought in 1906.
Comment: This candidate has described the competition for larger armies and the arms race
between Britain and Germany. Notice the precise knowledge used on the size of the armies of the
Great Powers. This would impress an examiner. This answer would be awarded maximum marks.
1
© Hodder & Stoughton Limited
Page 17
1. Source 1 suggests reasons why Britain went to war in August 1914.
Do you agree that these were the main reasons Britain went to war?
Explain your answer by referring to
 the purpose of the source – what is it trying to make you believe?
 its content – what is it suggesting about British reasons?
 your own contextual knowledge – in other word, what do you know about the reasons for
Britain going to war in 1914? (6 marks)
Sample answer: Source A suggests that the British went to war for two reasons. The first reason was
to support France. The Times is right in saying that the Entente was not a written alliance but British
and French co-operation during the two Moroccan crises of 1905 and 1911 had brought the countries
much closer and, as the Times suggests, Britain had a moral obligation. Also, as Source 1 suggests,
Britain did not want Germany to defeat the French and dominate Europe, especially as the German
navy would be an even greater threat to Britain through its control of French Channel ports.
However, this source is from a newspaper which is trying to convince the public that Britain should go
to war and gives a one-sided view of the reasons why Britain eventually declared war on Germany
and ignores other factors such as Anglo-German naval rivalry. There were several important reasons
as to why Britain went to war in 1914.
Comment: This response bears the characteristics of a high-performing answer. The candidate uses
the content of the source and own knowledge to agree with the view but questions the provenance
of the source to disagree with the view and comes to a conclusion.
2. Which was the more important reason for worsening relations between Austria and Serbia?
 The murder at Sarajevo
 The Schlieffen Plan
You must refer to both reasons when explaining your answer. (10 marks)
Sample answer: The murder at Sarajevo was the immediate reason for the outbreak of the First
World War. This was because on 28 June 1914, Franz-Ferdinand, the heir to the Austrian throne, and
his wife Sophie, were assassinated by Gavrilo Princip, a member of the Serbian Black Hand terrorist
organisation whilst on a state visit to Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia. Although the Serbian
government denied all involvement with the terrorist organisation, the Austrian public was shocked
whilst the Austrian government now had the ideal excuse to declare war on Serbia. This set off a
chain of events which led to an Austrian declaration of war on Serbia and German declarations of
war on Russia and France.
The Schlieffen Plan was important because it brought Britain into the war. The British had no
intention of supporting Russia and it would have been for the British government to convince the
British public to go to war simply to support France. However, the Schlieffen Plan included the
German invasion of Belgium, which enraged the British public and provided the ideal reason for
intervention. Belgian neutrality had been guaranteed by the Great Powers including Prussia in the
Treaty of London, signed in 1839 which the Kaiser described as the ‘scrap of paper’.
2
© Hodder & Stoughton Limited
In conclusion, each reason was of equal importance in bringing about worsening relations. The
Schlieffen Plan bought Britain into the war. However, the murder at Sarajevo was far more important
because it led to war between four of the major powers and led to Germany invading Belgium.
Comment: The candidate fully explains and makes a judgement on the importance of the Schlieffen
Plan and the assassination. In addition there is a final judgement on the relative importance of each
factor. It would be awarded a level 4 mark.
Chapter 2: Peacemaking 1918–1919 and the League of Nations
Page 19
1. Describe how the aims of the Big Three differed. (4 marks)
Sample answer: The aims of the Big Three differed in how they wanted to treat Germany. One
difference was between Clemenceau and Wilson. Clemenceau wanted a harsh treaty which would
punish Germany and cripple its economy so it could not threaten France again. Wilson believed that
Germany was responsible for the war, but he did not want not want to impose a harsh treaty as this
would lead to a German desire for revenge and another war. Lloyd George also had different aims to
Clemenceau. He feared that a harsh treaty might lead to a German desire for revenge and possibly
another war. He also wanted Britain and Germany to begin trading with each other again.
Comment: This candidate has compared the different aims of Clemenceau and Wilson and Lloyd
George and Clemenceau and supported these differences with precise knowledge. This would impress
an examiner. This answer would be awarded maximum marks.
Page 22
1. Which was the most important reason for German opposition to the treaty?
 Reparations
 Military terms.
You must refer for both reasons in your answer (10 marks)
Sample answer: Reparations was an important reason for German objections to the treaty. The
Allies agreed that Germany had to pay compensation to France, Britain and Belgium for the damage
caused by the war. These payments were called reparations. Many Germans felt that these were
unfair and that Germany could not afford to pay as its economy had been crippled by the cost of
fighting the First World War. The exact figure of £6600 million was set by a reparations commission
in 1921.
The military terms were also an important reason for Germans objections to the Treaty. This was
because many Germans felt that the treaty left Germany weak and defenceless against more
powerful neighbours. The treaty had greatly reduced the size of the German armed forces. For
example conscription was banned, which meant Germany could not build up a stock of trained
soldiers, and the German army was restricted to 100,000. Moreover, Germany was not allowed
submarines and military aircraft.
3
© Hodder & Stoughton Limited
Overall, the two reasons are of equal importance. Germany was forced to pay compensation at a
time when its economy was crippled, whilst the military terms greatly reduced the armed forces of a
proud military nation.
Comment: The candidate fully explains and makes a judgement on the importance of reparations
and military terms. In addition there is a final judgement on the relative importance of each factor. It
would be awarded a level 4 mark.
Page 23
1. Describe the main features of the organisation of the League. (4 marks)
Sample answer: The first feature of the organisation of the League was The Assembly which was the
debating chamber of the League. It had 42 members each with a vote in the Assembly, which met
once a year. A second feature of the organisation of the League was the Council which met up to
three times a year and in times of emergency. It had five permanent and four temporary members.
Comment: The candidate has described two features of the organisation of the League - the Council
and the Assembly - and supported each with precise knowledge. This would be awarded full marks.
Page 27
1. Source 1 suggests reasons for the failure of the League in the Abyssinian Crisis. Do you agree that
these were the main reasons?
Explain your answer by referring to:
 the purpose of the source - what is it trying to make you believe?
 its content - what is it suggesting about the League?
 your own contextual knowledge - in other words, what do you know about the failure of the
Abyssinian crisis? (6 marks)
Sample answer: Source 1 suggests that the actions of the British and French were the main reason
for the failure of the League to stop Italian aggression against Abyssinia. They acted too weakly and
were ignored by the League. This can be shown when the two countries drew up the Hoare-Laval
Pact which was leaked to the press in December 1935. The plan was to give Mussolini two-thirds of
Abyssinia if he agreed to stop fighting. This encouraged Mussolini to ignore the protests of the
League and continue his occupation. However, this source is from a cartoon in a newspaper which
deliberately exaggerates the actions of France and Britain. Therefore, it does not prove that this was
the main reason as there were other factors such as the long term weaknesses of the League,
including membership.
Comment: The candidate uses the content of the source and own knowledge to agree with the view
but questions the provenance of the source to disagree with the view and comes to a conclusion. This
would be awarded a mark in Level 4.
4
© Hodder & Stoughton Limited
2. Which was the more important reason for the failure of the League?
 Membership
 Lack of power.
You must refer to both reasons in your answer. (10 marks)
Sample answer: Membership was an important reason for the failure of the League because the
most powerful nation in the world, the USA, did not join because it did not want to be dragged into
European disputes and preferred isolation. Without the USA, the League was a much weaker
organisation. The defeated nations such as Germany were not initially allowed to join. This gave the
League the appearance of a club for victors. Russia was also excluded because it was a communist
country and the other powers feared communism. Germany, Italy and Japan also left the League in
the mid-1930s.
Lack of power was another important reason for the failure of the League. The League lacked ‘teeth’.
If a nation refused to accept the League’s decision it could apply economic sanctions. However these
were often half hearted and only applied to League members. As a last resort it could raise an army
and take military action. Britain and France were not prepared to do this. In addition both countries
put their own interests first rather than those of the League.
Overall, membership was the more important reason especially the absence of the Soviet Union and
the USA, the two most powerful nations in the world. This, in turn, gave the League even less power.
Comment: The candidate fully explains and makes a judgement on the importance of membership
and lack of power. In addition there is a final judgement on the relative importance of each factor. It
would be awarded a level 4 mark.
Chapter 3: Hitler’s foreign policy and the origins of the Second World War
Page 30
1. Describe how Hitler reoccupied the Rhineland in 1936. (4 marks)
Sample answer: On 7 March 1936, Hitler ordered his troops to march into the Rhineland. Hitler’s
troops were no match for the French army and he had ordered them to withdraw if there was any
sign of resistance. However, Hitler had judged things well. There was no opposition from France who
did not want to risk war to stop something that did not worry them. Although they condemned
Hitler’s reoccupation of the Rhineland, they took no action.
Comment: This candidate has described the German reoccupation and the reactions of France and
Britain. Notice the precise knowledge about the date of the invasion. This would impress an
examiner. This answer would be awarded level 3.
5
© Hodder & Stoughton Limited
2. Which was the bigger threat to European peace in the 1930s?
 German rearmament 1933–35
 The Anschluss of 1938.
You must refer to both threats in your answer. (10 marks)
Sample answer: German rearmament was important as a threat to European security because it
was the first challenge by Hitler to the Treaty of Versailles. In 1934 Hitler walked out of the
Disarmament Conference and the League when other powers refused to disarm to Germany’s level.
This destroyed the attempts at international disarmament. In the following year, Hitler announced a
peacetime army of 550,000, a breach of the Treaty of Versailles. Britain and France took no action
against Hitler.
The Anschluss of 1938 was an even greater threat to European peace because not only was this a
further breach of the Treaty of Versailles but, even though the French and British complained about
the German actions, they took no action. There was a feeling in Britain that the Treaty had been too
harsh and Britain should not defend it. Moreover, France would not act alone. This convinced Hitler
that he had nothing to fear from the British and French and encouraged him to continue to defy the
Treaty of Versailles.
German rearmament was important because it was the first serious challenge to the Treaty of
Versailles. However, the Anschluss was more important because it convinced Hitler that France and
Britain would not stand in his way if he continued to break the Treaty of Versailles and encouraged
him to turn to the Sudentenland.
Comment: This response bears the characteristics of a high-performing answer. The candidate fully
explains and makes a judgement on the importance of German rearmament and the German
occupation of Prague. In addition there is a final judgement on the relative importance of each
factor.
Page 32
1. Describe the main features of the Munich Agreement. (4 marks)
Sample answer: One feature of the Munich Agreement was that the Czechs were forced to hand
over the Sudetenland to Germany and a commission was set up to decide precisely which territory
the Czechs would lose.
A second feature of the Munich Agreement was its effect on Czechoslovakia. The Czech government
was completely humiliated and open to a German invasion as Czechoslovakia lost key defences in the
Sudetenland.
Comment: This candidate has described two key features of the Munich Agreement. Notice the
precise knowledge about the commission that was set up. This would impress an examiner. This
answer would be awarded level 3.
6
© Hodder & Stoughton Limited
Page 35
1. Which was a more important reason for the outbreak of war in September 1939?
 The collapse of Czechoslovakia, March 1939
 The Nazi-Soviet Pact, August 1939.
You must refer to both reasons in your answer. (10 marks)
Sample answer: The collapse of Czechoslovakia was a threat to European peace because it marked
the end of appeasement, of Anglo-French attempts to appease Hitler. In March 1939 German troops,
following the handing over of the Sudetenland to Hitler in September 1939, marched into Prague and
occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia. Hitler could no longer claim that he was restoring Germanspeaking people to their rightful homeland. Furthermore, Chamberlain, the British prime minister,
introduced conscription and began to prepare for war.
The Nazi-Soviet Pact was an even more important reason for the outbreak of war because the Pact
allowed Hitler to deal with the Polish problem without having to worry about a possible Soviet
attack. It prevented the possibility of an alternative alliance between the British and French and the
Soviet Union which would have probably prevented German aggression in Poland. Instead, the NaziSoviet Pact encouraged the German invasion of Poland on 1 September 1939.
The collapse of Czechoslovakia was important because it was a short term cause of the outbreak of
the Second World War. Within weeks of the German occupation, Britain and France guaranteed the
independence of Poland. However, the Nazi-Soviet Pact was even more important because it the
immediate reason for Hitler’s invasion of Poland which was followed by the Anglo-French declaration
of war.
Comment: This is a top level answer. The candidate fully explains and makes a judgement on the
importance of the collapse of Czechoslovakia and the Nazi-Soviet Pact. In addition there is a final
judgement on the relative importance of each factor.
2. Source 1 shows one reaction to the Munich Agreement. Do you agree that this was the main
reaction?
Explain your answer by referring to:
 the purpose of the source - what is it trying to make you believe?
 its content - what is it suggesting are the immediate reactions to the Agreement?
 your own contextual knowledge - in other words, what do you know about the reactions to
the Agreement? (6 marks)
Sample answer: Source 1 suggests that the Munich Conference was a great success for Britain and
Chamberlain because they had succeeded in preventing a war. This was true as Hitler withdrew his
threat to invade Czechoslovakia when the four powers at the Munich Conference, Britain, France,
Italy and Germany, agreed that the Sudetenland should become part of Germany. As the newspaper
suggests, there was much relief in Britain. However, this is a British newspaper report immediately
after the Conference which reflects the general sense of relief by the majority of the British people. It
gives a one-sided view of Munich and fails to mention the reaction of opponents such as Churchill.
7
© Hodder & Stoughton Limited
Comment: The candidate uses the content of the source and own knowledge to agree with the view
but questions the provenance of the source to disagree with the view and comes to a conclusion. This
would be awarded a mark in Level 4.
Chapter 4: The Origins of the Cold War 1945–1960
Page 38
1. Describe how ideological differences increased rivalry between the USA and the USSR in the years
after 1945. (4 marks)
Sample answer: Ideological differences increased rivalry between the USA and the USSR because
they believed in totally different political systems. The USA believed in a democratic system of
government with free elections. The USSR believed in a one party state with the country was
controlled by the Communist Party with no free elections. Economic ideological differences also
worsened relations with the USA supporting a capitalist economy with privately owned businesses
and the USSR believing in a planned economy in which the government owned all businesses.
Comment: This is a very strong answer with the candidate describing how two important ideological
differences, political and economic, increased rivalry between the USA and the USSR and supporting
these with precise knowledge.
Page 43
1. Which was the more important reason for the development of the Cold War in the years 1945-49?
 Soviet expansion in Eastern Europe
 The Truman Doctrine.
You must refer to both reasons in your answer. (10 marks)
Sample answer: Soviet expansion was an important reason for the growth of tension between the
USA and the USSR in the years 1945–49 because it convinced Truman and the USA that the Soviet
Union aimed to spread communism to the whole of Europe. Roosevelt and Churchill had agreed that
Eastern Europe should be a ‘Soviet sphere of influence’ and that Stalin would heavily influence the
region. However, they had not expected such complete Soviet domination. In the years 1945–47,
Stalin ensured the establishment of Soviet controlled communist regimes in most Eastern European
countries.
The Truman Doctrine was an even more important reason for the growth of tension. This Doctrine
stated that the USA would support countries in danger of a communist take-over with economic and
military aid. This became known as the policy of containment and suggested that the USA, rather
than the United Nations, had a responsibility to protect the world. This commitment was shown
when the USA sent aid to prevent a communist takeover in Greece and committed resources to
Marshall Aid.
The Truman Doctrine was important because it was a direct challenge to communism and the Soviet
Union. Overall, however, Soviet expansion was the most important reason because it confirmed
Truman’s fears of communism and made him determined to resist the Berlin Blockade in 1948–49
and Stalin’s attempts to force the Allies out of Berlin.
8
© Hodder & Stoughton Limited
Comment: This is a top level answer. The candidate fully explains and makes a judgement on the
importance of Soviet expansion in Eastern Europe and the Truman Doctrine. In addition there is a
final judgement on the relative importance of each factor.
2. Source 1 suggests possible reasons for the Cold War. Do you agree that these were the main
reasons? (6 marks)
Sample answer: Source 1 suggests that it was the Soviet expansion in Eastern Europe which was the
main reason for the Cold War. This was certainly a very important reason as the Soviet Union
imposed communist governments on several countries in this part of Europe. The USA developed a
policy of containment, more especially the Truman Doctrine, to prevent further Soviet expansion into
Western Europe, which increased rivalry with the USSR.
However, this source is a US cartoon with the purpose of highlighting the Soviet actions and will
exaggerate the threat posed by the USSR to Eastern Europe. It makes no mention of other reasons for
the Cold War, such as the Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan as well as Soviet desire for security
after the devastation of the Second World War.
Comment: A high performing answer. The candidate uses the content of the source and own
knowledge to agree with the view but questions the provenance of the source to disagree with the
view and comes to a conclusion.
Page 46
1. Describe how the nuclear arms race developed in the years 1949–56. (4 marks)
Sample answer: The nuclear arms race heated up in 1949 with news that the USSR had tested its first
atomic bomb several years earlier than the USA had expected. This led to even greater rivalry
between the two superpowers as they competed to develop ever more destructive nuclear weapons.
In 1952, the USA detonated its first hydrogen bomb. Within a year, the USSR had its own hydrogen
bomb.
Comment: This is a very good answer with the candidate describing how the nuclear arms race
developed. An examiner would be particularly impressed with the precise dates for each
development.
Page 48
1. Describe how the USSR dealt with the Hungarian uprising. (4 marks)
Sample answer: Khrushchev became alarmed when Nagy demanded the right for Hungary to
withdraw from the Warsaw Pact and follow a neutral role in the Cold War. This was too much for the
USSR. If Hungary withdrew from the Warsaw Pact, there would be a gap in the Iron Curtain; the
Soviet buffer zone with the West would be broken.
Soviet troops and tanks moved into Hungary to crush the rising. Nagy appealed to the West for help
but none came. Two weeks of street fighting followed but the Hungarians were no match for the
Soviet forces. Nagy was captured and later shot.
9
© Hodder & Stoughton Limited
Comment: This is a very strong answer with the candidate describing how the USSR used force to
deal with the Hungarian Uprising and supporting this with precise knowledge.
Chapter 5
Topic 5: Crises of the Cold War and Detente 1960–1980
Page 52
1. Which was more important as a reason for worsening relations between the USA and the USSR in
the early 1960s?
 The U-2 Crisis
 The building of the Berlin Wall?
You must refer to both reasons in your answer. (10 marks)
Sample answer: The U-2 crisis was important because it greatly worsened relations between
Eisenhower and Khrushchev and led to the failure of the Paris Summit Conference of 1960. This was
when the Soviets shot down an American U-2 spy plane over the USSR and captured its pilot, Gary
Powers. The Soviets claimed that Gary Powers had admitted to spying. This was denied by the USA.
Eisenhower eventually agreed to stop spying flights but refused to apologise. Khrushchev, in
retaliation, stormed out of the Paris Peace Conference which was supposed to bring improved
relations between East and West and to discuss arms limitations.
The building of the Berlin Wall was important in worsening relations between the USA and the USSR
because it could have led to armed conflict between the two superpowers. For several days Soviet
and American tanks faced each other across divided Berlin streets. The Wall became a symbol of the
division between the capitalist West and the Communist East. These divisions were further worsened
by Kennedy’s visit to Berlin in 1963 in which he declared that the city was a symbol of the struggle
between the forces of freedom and the Communist world.
Overall, however, the greatest threat came from the building of the Berlin Wall. The U-2 crisis caused
a short-term deterioration in East-West relations. The Wall led to long term tension and divisions
between the USA and the USSR.
Comment: A strong answer. The candidate fully explains and makes a judgement on the importance
of the U-2 crisis and the building of the Berlin Wall. In addition there is a final judgement on the
relative importance of each factor.
Page 54
1. Describe how the USA and the USSR reached a solution over the Cuban Missiles Crisis. (4 marks)
Sample answer: The USA and USSR were able to reach a solution over the Cuban Missiles Crisis
because of an exchange of letters between Khrushchev and Kennedy. On 25 October 1962, Kennedy
wrote to Khrushchev asking him to withdraw missiles from Cuba. Khrushchev replied to Kennedy’s
letter. He said to would withdraw the missiles if the USA promised not to invade Cuba and withdraws
missiles from Turkey.
10
© Hodder & Stoughton Limited
On 27 October, Robert Kennedy (brother of the President) agreed a deal with the Soviet Union. The
USA would withdraw missiles from Turkey as long as it was kept secret and Khrushchev accepted the
deal.
Comment: This candidate has described how the USA and USSR reached a solution over Cuba
supported by precise knowledge especially the dates. This would impress an examiner.
Page 56
1. Source 1 suggests possible consequences of the Cuban Missiles Crisis. Do you agree that these
were the main consequences?
Explain your answer by referring to:

The purpose of the source - what it is trying to make you believe?

Its content - what is it suggesting about the consequences of the Cuban missile crisis?

Your own contextual knowledge - in other words, what do you know about the
consequences of the Cuban missile crisis? (6 marks)
Sample answer: Source 1 suggests that it was the USSR which benefited the most from the Cuban
Crisis as it was a triumph for Soviet foreign policy and maintained the independence of Cuba. This
was certainly a very important consequence of the crisis as the Soviet Union had maintained
communism in Cuba as well as its influence over a country which was very close geographically to the
USA. The crisis also led to the withdrawal of US missiles from Turkey. In this respect it was, as
Khrushchev suggested, a diplomatic triumph.
However, this source is an extract from the memoirs of Khrushchev with the purpose of promoting his
own role in the crisis and will exaggerate the consequences for the USSR. It makes no mention of
other consequences of the crisis such as the Soviet Union having to withdraw its missile sites as well
as the setting up of the hot line between Moscow and Washington.
Comment: A high performing answer. The candidate uses the content of the source and own
knowledge to agree with the view but questions the provenance of the source , especially the motives
of Khrushchev to disagree with the view and comes to a conclusion.
Page 58
1. Describe how the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan ended the policy of Détente. (4 marks)
Sample answer: The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan ended Détente because President Carter was
furious at Soviet aggression and took action. He pulled the USA out of the 1980 Olympics in Moscow
and he told the USSR that the US Senate would not ratify the SALT II treaty that was ready to sign
and would have further limited the number of nuclear weapons. Relations worsened further when
Carter cut trade between the USA and the USSR. For example, he prevented food and computers
being sold to the USSR.
11
© Hodder & Stoughton Limited
Comment: A very good answer. This candidate has described how the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
ended the policy of Détente. This is supported by precise knowledge about the reaction of Carter
which would impress an examiner.
Chapter 6
Topic 6: The collapse of Communism and the Post-Cold War World,
1980–2000
Page 60
1. Which was a more important reason for worsening relations between the USA and the USSR in the
years 1979–1984?
 The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
 The policies of Ronald Reagan
You must refer to both reasons in your answer. (10 marks)
Sample answer: The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was an important reason for worsening relations
between the USA and the USSR because it ended the policy of Détente and infuriated President
Carter. Relations worsened when he pulled the USA out of the 1980 Olympics in Moscow and he told
the USSR that the US Senate would not ratify the SALT II treaty that was ready to sign and would
have further limited the number of nuclear weapons. Relations worsened further when Carter cut
trade between the USA and the USA. For example, he prevented food and computers being sold to
the USSR. The USA also gave military support to the Mujahidin who opposed the Soviet invasion.
Overall, however, the greatest threat came from the building of the Berlin Wall. The U-2 crisis caused
a short-term deterioration in East-West relations. The Wall led to long term tension and divisions
between the USA and the USSR.
The policies of Reagan were also important in worsening relations between the USSR and the USA
because he was determined to get tough and, in a speech of 1983, referring to USSR as ‘that evil
empire’. He began a new arms initiative, the Strategic Defence Initiative, which was nicknamed ‘Star
Wars’, which he hoped would force the USSR to disarm. It was intended to be a satellite anti-missile
system that would orbit the earth to protect the USA from any Soviet missiles. The USSR was furious
because it could not compete with SDI because of its failing economy and lack of progress in
computer technology.
Reagan’s policies were important in worsening relations with the USA because he was determined to
get tough with the USSR. However, the Soviet invasion was more important because it brought an
end to the period of cooperation known as detente, and led to policies from Carter which were
further developed by Reagan.
Comment: A high-performing answer. The candidate fully explains and makes a judgement on the
importance of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the policies of Reagan. In addition there is a
final judgement on the relative importance of each factor.
12
© Hodder & Stoughton Limited
Page 62
1. Source 1 suggests possible consequences of Gorbachev’s changes. Do you agree that these were
the main consequences?
Explain your answer by referring to:

the purpose of the source - what it is trying to make you believe?

its content - what is it suggesting about the consequences of Gorbachev’s policies?

your own contextual knowledge - in other words, what do you know about the
consequences of Gorbachev’s policies? (6 marks)
Source 1 suggests that Gorbachev’s changes which led to the pulling down of the Berlin Wall ended
the Cold War and opened up Eastern Europe to the rest of Europe, creating a more united Europe.
These changes did eventually lead to the end of the iron curtain and the East-West divisions in
Europe. In 1991 East and West Berlin were reunited and East and West Germany became a single
country.
However, this source is an extract from a British newspaper, written in November 1989, so it does not
have the benefit of hindsight about the effects of Gorbachev’s changes in the years that followed. It
gives a very optimistic view of the possible consequences but does not anticipate problems such as
those that occurred in Yugoslavia, where the Serbs refused to accept a Croat as leader and there was
civil war.
Comment: A very good answer. The candidate uses the content of the source and own knowledge to
agree with the view but questions the provenance of the source, especially when the source was
written, to disagree with the view and come to a conclusion.
13
© Hodder & Stoughton Limited
Unit 2: Twentieth-Century Depth Studies – Exam practice sample
answers and comments
A sample answer has been provided for each type of question in Chapters 7–14. This advice will help
you with the other questions for which answers have not been included below.
In the sample answers below, you will find good answers for the 4 mark and 10 mark questions,
which illustrate how these should be answered.
For the 6 and 8 mark questions that involve knowledge and explanation, you will find mostly
‘medium’ answers which make basic points but do not elaborate with facts. This is deliberate
because, as a revision exercise, it is easy for you to use the skeleton answers and add details to get to
the top level.
For the 12 mark questions, you will find mostly very good answers to show the type of response
anticipated, or indications of how the answer could be improved.
Chapter 7: From Tsardom to Communism: Russia, 1914–1924
Page 68
1. Explain the reasons why there was opposition to Tsar Nicholas II in 1914. (6 marks)
Sample answer: The Tsar had become very unpopular by the time that the First World War broke out
in August 1914. He lived in luxury while millions of peasants starved. His family and a small number
of nobles had huge palaces and many servants. They were remote from ordinary people. There was
hardly any contact between the social classes. The Tsar claimed to have complete power.
The Tsar was married to a German, Alexandra, and they had four daughters and one son.
Unfortunately the son, Alexis, suffered from haemophilia and was often sick. Rasputin gained much
power at court because he appeared to be able to stop the boy’s internal bleeding.
There were several political parties that were opposed to Romanov rule. One was the Bolsheviks led
by Lenin and they planned to have a revolution that would overthrow the Tsar.
Comment: This answer is not very good. The second paragraph is just description and not really
answering the question. The first paragraph begins to explain why there might be opposition to the
Tsar, but it is very limited in details – e.g. places, numbers, the Tsar’s actual powers (in relation to the
Duma which had been established). The last paragraph also suggests a reason for the Tsar to face
opposition, but again it lacks details. E.g. Lenin’s beliefs, other political parties such as the S.R.’s who
had more support in 1914 than the Bolsheviks. The answer would gain a low mark within Level 2–3
marks.
14
© Hodder & Stoughton Limited
Page 75
1. What does Source 3 suggest about the methods used by the Whites during the Civil War?
(4 marks)
Sample answer: Source 3 suggests that the Whites were brutal (by killing Bolshevik members) and
showed no consideration for the local peasants (by stealing their best animals and food).
Comment: This answer has two clear inferences from the source. It does not waste time describing
the content of the source (which is only Level 1). This answer would gain Level 2, 4 marks.
Page 76:
1. Study Source 5 or Source 6. [The candidate in this case is answering on Source 5] How useful is
this source for studying the achievements of Lenin? Use the source and your knowledge to explain
your answer. (10 marks) (+ 3 SPaG)
Sample answer: This source is extremely useful. The content hints at Lenin’s huge achievements. He
had worked tirelessly before 1917 to achieve a revolution, often being forced to live in exile to avoid
imprisonment and punishment. His party’s takeover of Russian in October/November 1917 was one
of the key events of the twentieth century, achieved with a minimal number of active supporters. He
defeated all his enemies in the Civil War that followed with ruthless determination. Although it is not
clear whether he personally instructed the deaths of the Romanov family at Ekaterinburg, he
certainly approved of this dreadful act of brutality in order to make it virtually impossible for the
Whites to restore Romanov rule. To Lenin, individuals did not matter; what mattered to him was the
establishment of Communist rule along the lines predicted by Karl Marx.
The source is somewhat coloured in its judgement. The death of Lenin had just been announced. The
Times, like other newspapers, published an obituary. Obituaries tend to emphasize the achievements
of the deceased rather than their faults or weaknesses. However, British people had been shocked at
some of Lenin’s actions, especially the death of the Tsar, a cousin to George V of Britain. This
obituary, whilst not giving details of actions, certainly does not present Lenin as a person in an
attractive light, merely acknowledging his achievements.
Therefore the source is extremely useful for studying what a leading newspaper thought of Lenin at
the time of his death, without any opportunity to view his achievements with a longer perspective
that is possible for later historians.
Comment: This is an excellent answer. The first paragraph provides some precise details to back up
what is said in the content of the source in order to show its usefulness. The second paragraph
evaluates the likely reliability of the source, bearing in mind its provenance - i.e. written after the
announcement of Lenin’s death.
Each paragraph would gain Level 3. As such, with two Level 3 paragraphs, the answer would merit
Level 4, 10 marks. SPaG would be 3 marks.
(If Source 6 was used, the answer would follow similar lines, except that Source 6 presents a much
more favourable view of Lenin as a person. This reflects the attitudes of many left-wing supporters in
Britain and the views of the newspaper, the Daily Herald).
15
© Hodder & Stoughton Limited
Chapter 8: Weimar Germany, 1919-1929
Page 81
1. Study Source 1 or Source 2 [The candidate in this case is answering on Source 2]. How useful is
this source for studying the role of the German Communists (the Spartacists) in 1918–1919?
(10 marks) (+ 3 SPaG)
Sample answer: Source 2 is very useful in showing how much the Spartacists in Germany were feared
in early 1919, just at the time when the Weimar government was being established, Indeed, one
reason why the meetings were being held at Weimar rather than in Berlin was the violence stirred up
by the Sparticists who saw their opportunity to copy what Lenin had succeeded in achieving in Russia
just over a year before. For a while they controlled Berlin and some of the Baltic ports and were seen
as a real threat to the new democratic government.
The source is clearly biased and has no sympathy with Liebnecht’s and Luxemburg’s aims. This
newspaper appears to support the abdication of the Kaiser, and because it is a governmentsponsored newspaper it supports the new constitution with a President (elected for 7 years) and a
democratic government headed by a Chancellor, elected by popular vote with membership decided
by proportional representation.
Comment: This is a good answer, which shows understanding of the content of the source and its
provenance, and also shows some own knowledge.
The first paragraph reaches Level 3 in terms of using knowledge to test utility.
The second paragraph hits on ‘bias’ but does not fully explore the provenance of the source, relying
instead on providing a little more knowledge.
The first paragraph reaches Level 3, the second paragraph perhaps not quite so. Therefore, overall it
would get a mark high in level 3 - 8 or 9. SPaG would be 3 marks.
Page 82
1. What does the graph suggest about industrial output (shown in red) in the 1920s in Germany?
(4 marks)
Sample answer: The graph shows that industrial output made a recovery by the end of the 1920s.
However, the recovery was not steady. There was a big drop in 1923, and in the later 1920s there
was steadiness but no further rise.
Comment: This answer makes deductions from the red line of the graph, and certainly goes beyond
merely describing it. It would gain a mark in Level 2 - 4 marks.
Page 83:
2. Explain Stresemann’s successes in international relations, 1924–1929. (6 marks)
Sample answer: Gustav Stresemann worked hard to get Germany back on its feet after the disasters
of 1923 with hyperinflation and the invasion of the Ruhr. He managed to persuade the USA to loan
Germany a lot of money in order to re-establish German industry. He got Germany admitted to the
League of Nations. He promised that Germany would not invade France, so that helped to get better
relations between the two countries. Germany also agreed not to go to war in the future.
Germany became a much stronger country under Stresemann and began to regain respect.
16
© Hodder & Stoughton Limited
Commentary: This answer has some good points - but they lack detail. Exact details (and preferably
dates) are needed for high marks - Dawes Plan, Young Plan, Locarno Pact, Kellogg-Briand Pact, etc.
With these details included the answer could easily have gained Level 3. As it stands it is in Level 2 - 3
or 4 marks.
Chapter 9: The Roaring 20s: USA, 1919–1929
Page 90
1. Explain how the USA controlled immigration in the 1920s. (6 marks)
Sample answer: There had been a lot of concern about immigrants even before the 1920s. There was
a lot of racial prejudice against those who did not speak English or come from northern Europe.
Many who had arrived in the USA in the early 20th century lived in ghettos within certain cities. Some
led lives of crime, and this helped to prejudice many Americans against all immigrants.
So in the 1920s laws were passed that limited immigration to the USA. This was done through
literacy tests and by putting quotas from different countries, organised in such a way as to favour
north European countries.
Comment: The first paragraph of this answer is really just background. The second paragraph begins
to address the ‘how’ of the question, but it lacks specific details. It would get a mark within Level 2,
probably 3 marks. To get a Level 3 mark specific details about the 1921 Immigration Quota Act and
the 1924 National Origins Act would be looked for.
Page 93
2. Read Source 5. How useful is this for studying the consequences of prohibition in the USA in the
1920s? Use the source and your own knowledge to answer the question. (10 marks) (+3 SPaG)
Sample answer: The source with evidence from Detroit in the mid-1920s is typical of many cities in
the USA during the period of prohibition. Many policemen took bribes and the specially-appointed
agents to catch criminals were often in league with the bootleggers and the owners of speakeasies.
There were some exceptions to this, such as Izzy Einstein and Mo Smith who worked tirelessly to
catch breakers of the prohibition law, using a variety of disguises to get evidence for an arrest. But
people like these faced overwhelming odds. Liquor was brewed or distilled in people’s homes or was
imported from Mexico, Canada or the West Indies. Many criminal gangs (the most famous being led
by Al Capone) ‘protected’ the evaders of prohibition, and there were many deaths in gun battles,
often between rival gangs.
However, the source is not necessarily painting a true picture. Many people in rural areas agreed
with prohibition. After all, a majority of individual states had voted for it to be introduced before the
federal-wide ban on alcohol consumption. Some cities were worse than others. It was Chicago that
was the most notorious. Also the situation got more desperate as the decade progressed as more
people gained courage to break the law. The actual magazine report starts with statistics, but then
moves into generalisations that are not backed up with facts. The magazine was clearly intending to
provide an exciting story for its readers and is not based on detailed research. Therefore it cannot be
taken as providing a detailed analysis of the consequences of prohibition.
Comment: The first paragraph provides some detailed own knowledge to analyse how useful the
content of the source is likely to be. Note that time is not wasted in stating at length the content of
the source (which would only secure Level 1). This paragraph is developed and reaches Level 3.
17
© Hodder & Stoughton Limited
The second paragraph examines the provenance of the source, with factual information provided to
back up the points made. It examines the purpose of the magazine (without the word ‘purpose’
actually being used). This also reaches Level 3. Therefore, overall the answer would gain Level 4, 10
marks. SPaG mark 3.
Page 94
1. What does Source 6 suggest about the effects of the Wall Street Crash of October 1929?
(4 marks)
Sample answer: Union Carbide and Carbon shares dropped in value by over half. Electric Bond and
Share dropped by much more than that. However New York Central did not drop by as much. In fact,
Union Carbide and Carbon had already suffered a big drop in the value of share in the year before the
Wall Street Crash, so the Crash was not totally responsible for the Depression that started then.
Comment: This answer contains several inferences - half of them would have been sufficient for
getting full marks - Level 2, 4 marks.
Chapter 10: Stalin’s dictatorship: USSR, 1924–1941
Page 104
1. Explain the effects of collectivisation in the USSR in the 1930s. (8 marks)
Sample answer: During the 1930s virtually all the land was collectivised. Many peasants and kulaks
killed their animals and destroyed their crops rather than hand them over to the state. The kulaks
were rounded up and either killed or put in labour camps. Because a lot of the food was being
exported, there was a very serious famine in parts of the USSR. By the end of the 1930s food
production had recovered and more was being produced with the help of machinery such as tractors.
Comment: This answer is going in the right direction, but it is really a summary of what happened
under collectivisation. The wording of the answer does not focus on ‘effects’. In addition, every
sentence in this answer could have been more precise - with statistics or other details.
Because several aspects are mentioned the answer would get a mark within Level 2. It could easily
be improved to make it worth Level 3. All that is needed is at least two developed explanations of
effects. Level 2, 4 marks.
2. ‘Stalin’s Five-Year Plans in the years 1923–1941 were a huge success for the USSR.’
Do you agree with this interpretation? Explain your answer. (12 marks)
Sample answer: It is true that in the long term the Five Year Plans were a huge success for the USSR
and its people. The USSR was able to begin to catch up with the major industrial countries of the
world. Vast projects were completed at amazing speed, especially in the Ural mountains - for
example, the huge metalworks at Magnitogorsk. Many foreign workers were encouraged to come
and use their expertise in the construction of vast projects and advise in their running. Local people
were educated to read and to understand basic engineering.
The focus at first was on heavy industries - first the production of the factories and equipment, then
the production of vast quantities of coal, iron, steel and electricity. Only in the later 1930s did the
focus shift a little towards consumer goods - and this did not last long when the threat of German
invasion was taken seriously. Statistics tell the story of success. For example, steel production
18
© Hodder & Stoughton Limited
increased from 4 million tons in 1928 to 17.7 million tons in 1937. The USSR became better able to
defend itself when invasion actually occurred in June 1941.
There were some benefits eventually for ordinary Russians. For example, in cities such as Moscow
and Leningrad new housing had electricity and other basic conveniences. Education and health care
was free to loyal Communists. Russians could be proud of the achievements in architecture - for
example, the Moscow underground railway system.
However, all this was achieved at a huge cost. There was no regard for safety. Many workers died in
accidents. Many more suffered from extremes of weather and died of illnesses and diseases.
Many peasants were uprooted from their farms to work on industrial projects, moving from a mud
hut to multi-storey industrial complexes, leaving behind candles and oil lamps and using electricity.
The interpretation is, of course, one that is pro-Soviet. It would be typical of what was found in
history books published in the USSR in the Communist era. These books praised Stalin and only
included the positive achievements of Communism in the USSR. Stalin’s policy of Socialism in One
Country had to be shown as an unqualified success. The reality, of course, was more mixed.
Comment: This answer is well-focused on the question. It provides arguments in support of the
interpretation as well as ones that are opposed to it. (The latter is in less detail!). It also shows
awareness, at the end, of how and why interpretations can be different at the time and afterwards.
There are at least three developed arguments in the answer (developed in terms of explanation and
factual back-up) and therefore Level 4 is achieved. However, the ‘balance’ between agreeing and
disagreeing is not fully achieved, and therefore it would be worth Level 4, 11 marks (not 12). SPaG 3
marks.
Chapter 11: Hitler’s Germany, 1929–1945
Page 108
2. ‘Hitler became Chancellor because of the activities of the SA.’ How far do you agree with this
interpretation? Explain your answer. (12 marks) (+ SPaG 3)
Sample answer: Hitler became Chancellor of Germany on 30 January 1933. President Hindenburg
very reluctantly offered the post, but with Von Papen as Vice-Chancellor.
The SA had helped him to gain support, especially in the years 1929–1933. After the Wall Street
Crash of 1929, many discontented and unemployed German workers were turning to the Communist
Party. The SA worked hard to discredit the Communists, disrupting their meetings and painting anticommunist slogans. They also raised the profile of the Nazis through marches, parades, banners and
posters. Thus the support of the SA was one important reason why Hitler was able to become
Chancellor.
There are, however, other interpretations. Firstly, the consequences of the Wall Street Crash. This
event led to large-scale unemployment (6 million by 1933) and homelessness. People were looking
for scapegoats such as the Jews and the Weimar politicians. Many were attracted by the more
extreme parties who wanted to destroy the Weimar Republic.
The Nazis had policies which were popular. Many Germans of all social classes wanted to see the
dismantling of the Treaty of Versailles. Germans believed that its provisions were unfair with loss of
territory and industry, and their consequences were worse as the Depression developed. Many right19
© Hodder & Stoughton Limited
wing business leaders were happy to support the anti-Communist stance of the Nazis. There was also
a lot of prejudice against the Jews, especially the wealthy bankers.
It wasn’t just the SA that used violence. Hitler’s private army, the SS (the blackshirts) were also
active. They were always in evidence as Hitler’s bodyguards when he gave rousing speeches with
simple oft-repeated slogans. Hitler also made use of modern technology by flying in a private plane
across Germany so that many groups of people in an age before television could actually see and
hear him.
Hindenburg was also partly responsible. The aged President was not capable of using presidential
decrees to solve the country’s economic problems. He was faced with a succession of weak coalition
governments. Bruning made the government unpopular in 1930-32 by making cuts in wages and
welfare. Von Papen and Von Schleicher could not hold their coalition governments together
successfully in order to get laws passed. Only Hitler promised decisive government. The extent of his
support was seen in summer 1932 when he polled 13 million votes against Hindenburg’s 19 million in
the Presidential election.
In the Reichstag elections of 1932 the Nazis gained the largest number of seats - 230 in July and 196
in November. By January 1933 Hindenburg had no-one else to turn to except Hitler.
The interpretation supporting the importance of the SA may reflect the attempts by German people
after World War Two to shift blame for the election of Hitler from themselves to other factors. Many
did not want to admit to themselves or anyone else that they had supported Hitler’s policies
voluntarily. Hence, the argument that the activities of the SA made resisting Hitler practically
impossible. However, this is only a small part of the interpretation of modern historians.
Comment: This is a high-quality answer. It is clearly structured. It explains several aspects of an
interpretation in depth. It includes some precise accurate details. As it contains at least three
developed factors, it gets a mark within Level 4. However, it might be judged that the ‘balance’ is not
particularly good, and it might receive the lower mark within the level. Level 4, 11 marks. SPaG 3
marks.
Page 111
1. Explain how Hitler was able to become a dictator by summer 1934. (8 marks)
Sample answer: Hitler used the Reichstag Fire to discredit the Communists. This allowed him to move
towards a one-party state. In the election the Nazis did not get a majority but Hitler used force to
stop many other Reichstag members from turning up and this allowed him to pass a law giving him
full powers. Other political parties were banned. Many were imprisoned. The power of the SA (the
brownshirts) ended with the Night of the Long Knives when Roehm, a homosexual, was killed along
with many other SA leaders. After President Hindenburg died, Hitler declared himself Fuhrer, being
both Chancellor and President.
Comment: This answer provides an outline of the main steps to Hitler becoming a dictator by
summer 1934. However, it lacks precise details throughout and oversimplifies some of the steps.
It would therefore get a mark within Level 2 - probably 5 marks. It would be easy to re-write this
answer and add details that provided a fuller explanation.
20
© Hodder & Stoughton Limited
Chapter 12: Depression and the New Deal: USA, 1929–1941
Page 122
1. Explain why F. D. Roosevelt won the Presidential election of 1932. (8 marks)
Sample answer: Roosevelt won the election of 1932 because Hoover had been unpopular as
President. In the previous three years the effects of the Wall Street Crash had led to a huge
depression with 12 million people unemployed and many homeless. Many industries had gone
bankrupt, as had many banks. Hoover had tried some measures, but they had not had much impact
on the problem.
On the other hand Roosevelt had promised a New Deal. As Governor of New York during the
Depression he had gained a reputation for action. He was also very approachable, always wanting to
meet people and listen to their problems. He suffered from the effects of polio and people admired
his courage. He gained a landslide victory.
Comment: This answer contains the main outlines of a good answer. Various reasons are mentioned,
but are not developed much, either with detailed explanation or facts. As such it would fall into Level
2. Level 2, 5 marks.
Page 128
1. ‘The New Deal failed to achieve its three main aims.’ How far do you agree with this
interpretation? Explain your answer. (12 marks) (+3 SPaG)
Sample answer: The three main aims of the New Deal were Relief, Recovery and Reform. Roosevelt
achieved some success in the 1930s, but not a total recovery from Depression.
Relief was one main aim. FERA provided lots of money - 500 million dollars - to help relieve suffering
and create new jobs. The CCC provided jobs for unemployed young men who sent a lot of the money
they earned home to their families. These and other agencies worked hard to provide relief for the
12 million unemployed. However, unemployment remained stubbornly high, especially in 1937 when
Roosevelt made cuts to New Deal spending. Unemployment only really fell to low numbers after the
start of the Second World War. Many of the black Americans were still living and working in very
poor conditions. In the countryside many farming families suffered from low prices for their crops and
also from dust-storms.
Another main aim was recovery. The New Deal did help with this in various ways. For example, the
PWA spent 3.3 billion dollars on public works, such as roads, dams, hospitals and schools. It was
hoped that massive building projects would stimulate other areas of the economy and provide jobs
across a range of industries. The PWA was responsible for building 50,000 miles of road and 13,000
schools. Another agency took over in 1935 - the WPA (Works Progress Administration). This carried
on the work of building better public facilities such as hospitals and schools as well as roads.
However, the recovery throughout the 1930s relied on massive federal government spending. When
this was reduced in 1937 the economy plunged downwards towards where it had been at the
beginning of the New Deal. Roosevelt had to start spending again.
The other main aim was reform. For example, the USA had had no system of relief for the sick and
the unemployed. The Social Security Act of 1935 provided federal aid for the elderly and set up an
unemployment insurance scheme. It did not do enough (and mostly did not start until 1940) but it
was a start. It was a big step away in principle from rugged Individualism and laissez faire.
21
© Hodder & Stoughton Limited
So in the 1930s Roosevelt achieved progress in all three main aims, but the policies were not a total
success. Roosevelt himself remained very popular, winning a landslide victory in 1936, with 46 out of
48 states. This was in spite of opposition from those who thought Roosevelt was departing from
traditional American values of individualism and from those who thought that the New Deal policies
did not go far enough. Indeed, the interpretation provided in the question reflects an anti-Democrat
view, suggesting that the New Deal was an expensive waste of money. However, the USA did avoid a
revolution or a dictator in the 1930s, and recovered fully during the Second World War when demand
for war goods escalated rapidly.
Comment: Each of the paragraphs contains a developed argument. In this answer the
‘agree/disagree’ element is present within the first three paragraphs for each of the three aims. The
last paragraph provides a clear conclusion and shows some awareness of why different
interpretations may come about. As there are at least three developed aspects, the answer would get
into Level 4, and gain either 11 or 12 marks. SPaG 3 marks.
Chapter 13: Race Relations in the USA, 1945–1968.
Page 131
1. Explain the importance of events at Little Rock High School in 1957. (8 marks)
Sample answer: Events at Little Rock High School were shown on TV all over the USA and beyond.
This made the events important because viewers could see what was happening outside the school
and the violence and intimidation that was happening each morning. The nine black students did
eventually get into the school and it showed that desegregation was starting to happen. This was
after the Supreme Court ruling a few years earlier that made segregated schooling illegal. All this
showed that very slowly black Americans were moving towards equality.
Comment: The answer contains some excellent points - but they are not developed or detailed. There
are no specific names - such as Governor Faubus. The Supreme Court case of 1954 is referred to
vaguely. (Brown v Board of Topeka). The role of President Eisenhower sending in Federal troops is
omitted. This shows that the President was willing to act to enforce desegregation. Although short
and lacking detail, at least the answer does not fall into the trap of merely describing the events.
There is analysis - but only at Level 2. Level 2, 4 or 5 marks.
Page 136
1. ‘The passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 meant that Martin Luther King had achieved his goals.’
How far do you agree with this interpretation? Explain your answer. (12 marks) (+3 SPaG)
Sample answer: The passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was very important. It outlawed racial
discrimination in all public areas of life. This meant that Martin Luther King had achieved a major
victory.
However, it did not mean that he had achieved all his goals. For a start, after the passing of the act
many years passed before it was fully observed all over the USA. More laws had to be passed on
voting and on house purchases to help to achieve the aims.
Black Americans were still seen as inferior and often treated as such. And many black Americans
were becoming fed up with the slow progress and started supporting groups that were willing to use
violence in order to get a faster rate of change. Race riots broke out in northern cities of the USA
(where many black Americans had moved to) e.g. Los Angeles, Chicago and Detroit.
22
© Hodder & Stoughton Limited
Martin Luther King had certainly not achieved his goals. The 1964 Act was just an important step,
made possible by all the publicity he had achieved in previous years, especially the march on
Washington.
Comment: This answer contains some good ideas, but they are not properly developed into
arguments, and they mostly lack exact factual support. The details on 1964 are brief; they are not
put into context. Other factors are mentioned. Level 2, 6 marks. SPaG 3 marks.
Chapter 14: War in Vietnam, 1954–1975
Page 143
1. Explain why the conflict in Vietnam was taking place in the late 1960s. (8 marks)
Sample answer: The problem started when the French withdrew from Vietnam after their defeat in
1954. This left the country divided between a Communist-controlled north and an anti-communist
south. The division of the country was meant to be temporary.
The USA was worried about the expansion of Communism around the world, especially with the huge
threat of China. This led the USA to get involved in helping the government of S. Vietnam to stop the
domino effect of Communism spreading to areas where there was poverty and widespread
discontent with the government.
The US sent in military advisers to help the south - then troops. But there were many communist
supporters in South Vietnam, and they used guerrilla tactics that the Americans found difficult to deal
with.
During Kennedy’s time as President more and more American soldiers were sent to Vietnam.
Comment: This answer contains some valid points, but it is written from the American viewpoint. It
says very little about the views of the Vietnamese - or the Communist governments of China and the
USSR. A really good answer would give reasons for each government involved. On the US side there
would be a specific reference to the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 which was used to persuade
Congress to give the President powers to wage war without its specific approval. It would also
contain details on how and why President Johnson escalated the war in the later 1960s. This answer
would get Level 2, 4 or 5 marks.
Page 148:
2. ‘American public opinion was the main cause of US defeat in Vietnam.’
How far do you agree with this interpretation? Explain your answer. (12 marks)
Sample answer: The American public was mostly enthusiastic about the war in Vietnam at the
beginning, but during the late 1960s and early 1970s many Americans turned against it and argued
that US involvement had been a huge mistake.
American public opinion changed because of images on TV screens. Scenes of horror and suffering
were shown daily - and, for those who could afford it, in colour. Many badly injured soldiers
(physically and mentally) were returning to their homes across the country, and they painted a
picture of a war that was unwinnable in the jungle of South Vietnam. Specific TV reports provided
23
© Hodder & Stoughton Limited
haunting images - such as the naked girl fleeing a napalm attack with skin ripped off her body. Why
was a civilised country such as the USA using tactics that involved Napalm and Agent Orange? The
exposure of the My Lai massacre 18 months after the event made many Americans disbelieve what
they had been told about progress in the war. It was noticeable that TV commentators such as the
respected Walter Cronkite turned against the war, after earlier being a keen supporter of US
involvement.
However, there are also other interpretations. It was not just American public opinion that caused US
defeat. The guerrilla tactics used by the Viet Cong in jungle conditions made it very difficult for US
troops. The Viet Cong built thousands of miles of tunnels and complex underground shelters to avoid
US air attacks. They set up booby traps which killed or injured thousands of US troops. Many of the
Vietnamese villagers actually supported the Viet Cong and the Communist ruler of North Vietnam, Ho
Chi Minh, rather than the dictatorial government of Ngo Dinh Diem. The Viet Cong were well supplied
from North Vietnam via the Ho Chi Minh trail. Other Communist countries such as the USSR and
China were helping by giving the North huge quantities of supplies.
The USA also lost the war because of the US government decision that the war was unwinnable. The
cost to the US economy was huge. President Johnson’s plans for social reforms had been put on hold.
Also there were lots of protests within the USA. These included singers and writers; demonstrations
and protest marches; and actively avoiding being conscripted (draft dodgers). By 1968 the mood of
the nation was anti-war, and President Nixon was chosen as the Republican candidate for the
Presidency after having promised to bring the war to an end. Thereafter, American policy was to deescalate the war, leading to the Paris Peace Conference in 1973 where it was agreed that all US
armed forces would leave Vietnam. Only US advisers stayed, and these were airlifted from Saigon in
1975.
Therefore, it was not just American public opinion - but it was convenient for politicians to emphasize
the strength of public feeling as a justification for adopting a policy that was going to be needed
anyway. US military leaders could not see a way to achieve victory over the Viet Cong even with the
huge allocation of resources that had been made. The Fullbright Hearings of 1971 set up by the US
Senate provided the platform for all these other considerations to be fully aired, thus allowing
decisions which were reflecting the will of the voters. Public opinion was used as a justification for
accepting defeat.
Comment: This answer is very thorough and detailed. It has four long paragraphs. The first three
provide balanced and detailed explanations - hence there are at least three factors that are
developed, and this allows the mark to be within Level 4. The last paragraph provides an excellent
judgement on the interpretation by linking the reasons together. Hence the answer is worth full
marks. Level 4, 12 marks. SPaG 3 marks.
24
© Hodder & Stoughton Limited