AS-Level History: Unit 3

Coursework

Life in Hitler’s Germany

Student Guide 2008

Contents
Section 1 – Requirements, Marking and Role
of the Teacher: Page 2

Section 2 – Coursework Level Descriptions

and Examples of Response Levels: Page 5

Section 3 – Course Content Guide: Page 16

Section 4 – Programme of Study: Page 18

Section 5 – Assignment Task: Page 19

Section 6 – Reading List and Other Resources:

Page 20

1
 Section 1 – Requirements, Marking and Role
of the Teacher

The Unit 3 coursework assignment

Requirements

AO1a and AO1b, 60 marks

The assignment should be designed primarily to assess a candidate’s ability to select

and deploy appropriate historical knowledge in order to present historical
explanations and to assess the significance, in their historical context, of events,
individuals, ideas, attitudes and/or beliefs and the ways in which these influenced
behaviour and action. The focus of the task should be on the causes and/or
consequences of a major event or development. The assignment should address the
content of at least two of the four bullet points which define the key issues of your
course.

Addressing AO1 in Unit 3 assignments

For Unit 3 the task should:

• require the exploration of an issue central to the programme you have defined

for the unit

• address cause or consequence: ‘what part did X play … why did X succeed in
…

how important was X in the overthrow of…?’

Word limits

The word limits for the coursework is: Unit 3 1750–2750 Candidates must provide an
accurate statement of the number of words in their assignment. Work that exceeds the
word limits must be returned to candidates for editing. Candidates whose work
continues to exceed the word limits will be penalising themselves under the
requirements of the mark scheme.

Quotations, appendices and word limits

2
Quotations taken from source material do count as part of the word limits — anything
which appears in the main body of the work counts. Footnotes and appendices do not
count, but neither will they be allowed to contribute directly to a candidate’s
attainment. Footnotes may be used for attributions or identification. They should not
be used to provide more information, or to develop points and arguments made in the
text. Footnotes will not contribute directly to assessment and should not be used to
make points central to the argument. For example: 1 J L and B Hammond The Age of
the Chartists (1930) p50. 2 The MP for Manchester. 3 A town in North Wales. 4
Appendix 2. Appendices may contain material to which candidates have made
reference in the text — for example, a speech or a map. The appended material would
serve to validate observations made in the body of the work. However, the reasoning
and supporting evidence necessary to substantiate a candidate’s claims must appear in
the body of the work. For example, a candidate may wish to claim that Louis XIV
strengthened the borders of France. Key acquisitions which strengthened the north-
east frontier should be identified and their significance discussed. A map may be
appended if the candidate wishes.

The marking of coursework

Coursework will be marked by the teacher and moderated by Edexcel. The

coursework of each student must be marked out of a total of 60 marks. Level
Descriptions for Coursework Assignments must be used. These level descriptions
must not be altered by teacher-markers, but should be interpreted in relation to the
content outlined in the centre’s coursework programme.

The moderation of coursework

A sample of candidates’ marked assignments will be required at the time of

moderation. In addition, the complete folder of work of one candidate will be
requested, to provide evidence that the full, approved course has been followed. This
is because the assignments eventually submitted by candidates will provide only a
small sample of the whole course they have followed. The folder required will be that
of the second highest scoring candidate in the moderation sample.

The role of the teacher

The coursework programme is a taught course. The coursework assignment should be

set at an appropriate point in the course. Once students are working on their
coursework assignment they become examination candidates. There are clear
limitations to the amount of assistance a teacher may give students once they become
candidates and are writing the piece of work that will be marked and submitted as
coursework.

The assistance that a teacher may give a coursework candidate can be summarised as
follows.

It is permissible:

• to clarify the meaning of a question

• to remind candidates of the qualities required in the general level descriptors

3
 • to return work that is over the word limit to candidates for editing, with a

warning that if it is not edited so that it conforms to the word limits they will be
penalised when it is marked, provided that these candidates are not given specific
guidance about which parts to remove.

It is not permissible:

• to supply words or phrases for candidates to use in their answer

• to provide question-specific writing frames or structures
• to supply detailed question-specific guidance on introductions and conclusions
• to take in drafts of work, comment on them and return them to candidates for

revision (the ability of candidates to redraft work after advice is not one of the skills
being tested in this History specification).

4
 Section 2 – Coursework Level Descriptions
and Examples of Response Levels

Coursework assignment level descriptions

Preliminary note Centres are no longer required to construct their own mark schemes
for coursework programmes. They must apply the following generic coursework level
descriptions when they mark candidates’ coursework. The level of these descriptions
must not be altered. The descriptions should be interpreted in relation to the content
outlined in the centre’s coursework programme (for instance, centres might find it
desirable to add specific examples relating to their own assignment titles). Edexcel
moderators will apply these level descriptions when they moderate the centre’s
marking. The level descriptions indicate the attainment characteristic of the given
levels of achievement for Unit 3. They give a general indication of the required
learning outcomes at each specified level. The level awarded will depend in practice
upon the extent to which the candidate has met the assessment objectives overall.
Shortcomings in some aspects of the assignment may be balanced by better
performance in others. Candidates must observe the word limits or they will risk
being penalised.

Level descriptions for the Unit 3 coursework assignment

AO1a and AO1b, 60 marks

The maximum word count for Unit 3 coursework is 2750 words. Candidates must
observe this word limit, and must provide an accurate statement of the number of
words in their assignment. The task is designed primarily to assess the ability to select
and deploy appropriate historical knowledge in order to present historical
explanations and to assess the significance in their historical context of events,
individuals, ideas, attitudes and/or beliefs and the ways in which these influenced
behaviour and action. The focus of the task should be on the cause and/or
consequence of a major event or development.

Level 1 (1–10)

Includes some knowledge which is relevant to the topic. Simple statements will
sequence events and there will be some limited ability to link causes and
consequences as appropriate. A descriptive, narrative approach will be followed,
relying on assertion without substantiation. There will be significant gaps and/or
inaccuracies. The response displays selection skills sufficient to enable the assignment

5
to be completed within the word limit. Responses at this level which exceed the 2750
word limit for the assignment may score marks only up to the mid-mark point of
Level 1 (ie 5 marks). Writing will be simple and comprehensible. There may be some
evidence of basic organisation. Frequent syntactical and spelling errors are likely to be
found.

Level 2 (11–26)

Includes knowledge which is relevant though lacking in range and depth. Treatment is
overly narrative or descriptive, with some limited substantiation. There will be some
limited evidence of the ability to make links between cause and effect, to begin to
create a hierarchy of importance or to establish basic criteria for identifying similarity
and difference. The response will show an understanding of the need for relevant
selection of historical material. It will be constructed sufficiently concisely to enable
the assignment to be completed within the word limit. Responses at this level which
exceed the 2750 word limit for the assignment may score marks only up to the
midmark point of Level 2 (ie 18 marks). Writing will begin to show some coherence
and organisation. Spelling and syntax will be generally secure.

Level 3 (27–43)

Includes knowledge which is accurate and relevant. An attempt has been made to fit
this knowledge to the question set. Although treatment may be unbalanced, or some
points insufficiently developed, the answer will show appreciation of the demands of
the question. The response will begin to show an analytical focus, although this focus
will not be maintained throughout the answer. Clear links between causes and/or
between causes and consequences, as appropriate to the question set, will be made
with some appropriate substantiation. The response will show an understanding of the
need for relevant selection of historical material. It will be constructed sufficiently
concisely to enable the assignment to be completed within the word limit. Responses
at this level which exceed the 2750 word limit for the assignment may be awarded
only up to the midmark in this level (ie 35 marks). Writing will show some degree of
both control and direction but these attributes may not be sustained throughout the
answer. Meaning will be conveyed serviceably, although some syntactical and/or
spelling errors may be found.

Level 4 (44–54)

Includes knowledge which is accurate and relevant and which is effectively deployed
to answer the question set. When the views of historians are incorporated they will be
deployed effectively to substantiate judgements. Analytical links will be clear and
supporting information will be appropriately selected. There will be some evidence of
the ability to explore links between cause, motive and intention, and an understanding
of the relationship between cause and effect in a given context will be shown. The
response will display the ability to select and deploy information effectively. Control
of material will enable the assignment to be completed within the word limit.
Responses at this level which exceed the 2750 word limit for the assignment may be
awarded only up to the mid-mark in this level (ie 49 marks). Writing will be
controlled and coherent, although some stylistic misjudgements may be found.
However, the candidate who can analyse historical phenomena of some complexity

6
will also be able to convey that analysis in logical, well-structured ways. Occasional
syntactical and/or spelling errors may be found.

Level 5 (55-60)

Includes knowledge that is both relevant and predominantly critical in its deployment,
and is analytical in approach. When the views of historians are deployed, they will be
used with discrimination in order to substantiate judgements. There will be clear
evidence that the question has been understood in its entirety and a focused attempt
has been made to meet all its demands. In some parts of the answer, developed
evaluation will be present. There will be evidence of the ability to understand the
relationship between motives, causes and consequences and to distinguish between
sufficient and necessary causes when constructing explanations. The response will
select and deploy material with control and precision. Responses which have
exercised insufficient control of material and have exceeded the upper limit of 2750
words, but which have met the remainder of the criteria for this level, should be
awarded the top mark point of Level 4 (ie 54 marks). Writing will be controlled, well-
directed, lucid and coherent throughout. The candidate’s ability to analyse complex
historical ideas will be fully matched by an ability to convey that analysis with
confidence and cogency. Syntax will be secure throughout and only very occasionally
will spelling errors be encountered.

Exemplification of assessed coursework

Marking coursework assignments and making use of the level
descriptions

The level descriptions and the exemplification together indicate the qualities and
standards necessary to achieve the marks allocated to each level. The descriptions
contain a number of different attributes and it is appreciated that not all of these may
be present in a single assignment. The commentaries on the marked examples in this
section are designed to convey a sense of level by amplifying the statements in the
descriptors and applying them to passages in candidates’ work.

When marking an assignment, the first stage is to decide the overall level and then
whether the work represents high, mid or low performance within the level. Within
any one piece of work there may well be evidence of work at two, or even three
levels. One stronger passage at Level 4 would not by itself merit a Level 4 award but
it would be evidence to support a high Level 3 award — unless there were also
substantial weaknesses in other areas.

To decide position within a level covering a wide range of marks, the following
factors should be taken into account:

• selection and deployment of material

7
 • the range and depth of coverage of issues
• the amount and accuracy of supporting information
• the consistency with which the standard is maintained throughout the work
• the quality of writing
• observation of stated word limit.

Unit 3 Coursework Example - Level 2

Assignment
What part did German nationalism play in the outbreak of World War One?

Student Response (extracts)

The First World War caused such massive losses this still shocks the world today. This
of course has lead to the want of responsibility of such extensive tragedies. After the
war was over the victorious countries declared in the Treaty of Versailles, Germany
was responsible and were made to pay extensive war reparations due to the war guilt
clause. However, as time has passed historians have questioned this theory and asked
if German nationalism was truly the only factor. So who really was responsible for the
most horrific war that involved the most nations of the world.

German nationalism, however, it is not easy to define, but my opinion is that it is the
German nation being totally selfish and caring only how to make itself strong and
powerful, not contemplating what effects its actions may cause as long as Germany
remained united.

Germany was still extremely young as Bismarck only created the state in 1870 and it
was already facing mass internal problems. There were strong divisions between left
and right of the country. Bismarck a Junker created the country causing the elite in
power to be anti-democratic and anti~modern. However, the industrialisation of
Germany created a new working class which increased the left base in Germany with
the Social Democrats. The regime recognised this threat and refused to begin to
compromise with the left. So to maintain public opinion they resorted to an aggressive
foreign policy. The reason for this was because Germany had been united by war,
therefore, they felt this method was the most effective. This was the first decision by
Germany that put European peace in jeopardy for the sake of Germany. Wehler state.
‘It was not the alignment of forces outside its borders which imposed a certain course
of action on Germany but … this was primarily a product of the decisions arising
from its internal political situation.’ Therefore Bismarck fostered nationalism as a
means of keeping the country together.

The regime’s first step to try and prove that Germany was a strong nation and could
compete on the same scale as the rest of Europe was shown by the Anglo-German
naval race. This did achieve the German people’s respect and pride in the strength of
the country and it’s ability to defend itself However, it caused extreme tension
between Great Britain and itself. It turned Great Britain into a rival causing the two

8
different sides of the war to form. As Great Britain now felt insecure as Germany
could reach and invade its shores for the first time.

Despite Germany’s naval policy, it still felt very insecure, this was due to
encirclement as its rivals due to past wars and events were on Germany’s both fronts.
(Russia and France) So as other countries such as Russia and France became friends
Germany felt more alone and vulnerable. Germany began to feel scared by
isolationism and as Wood realised: ‘Diplomatic arrogance in previous years had to
leave her utterly dependant on her alliance with Austria Hungary.’ German
nationalism became apparent again as Germany wanted to be a prominent member in
Europe and be involved in European affairs. This lead to Germany declaring; ‘You
can be certain I stand behind am ready to draw the sword whenever your action makes
it necessary.’ (William II) Again Germany’s nationalist insecurity came into play as
they basically offered Austria Hungary a ‘blank cheque’ which was their complete
support for them whatever the matter and whatever the consequences. This shows the
nationalism again caused yet more tension as Germany in its quest to be the best
exaggerated problems that resulted in the war that could have been just localised as
done in the Serbian crisis.

The consequences of inferiority complex was again displayed by aggressive foreign

policy Germany appeared to be ready for war these fears, were confirmed by
statements such as ‘Our aim is the creation of a powerful, world-embracing German
empire.’ Wrote Edward Weber in 1913 ‘... if England stands in the way, then let the
cannon speak.’ Again Germany’s foreign policy showed that their selfish nationalism
was going to cause tension and they were well aware of this. So instead of
discontinuing these policies it just began to protect itself by creating the Schlieffen
plan which meant they were ready to fight on both fronts.

Examiner's Notes

This extract contains examples of work with passages at Level 1 and with some
passages at Level 2. Paragraphs two and five exemplify Level 1. The candidate’s
concept of nationalism in paragraph two is simplistic; the passage in paragraph five
dealing with Germany’s diplomatic position and policy — ‘Germany began to feel
scared by isolationism … as done in the Serbian Crisis’ — offers a set of
undeveloped statements and the connections are not made clear. The link between
isolation and alliance and the accurate identification of the allies is sufficient for
Level 1.

Paragraph three is slightly stronger and moves into Level 2. Though predominantly
assertive in its treatment of the basis of German foreign policy, the linkages within the
paragraph are clearer and there is some attempt to tie the paragraph into the
framework of a response to the question as a whole: ‘aggressive foreign policy …
put European peace in jeopardy.’ The answer is attempting analysis, albeit with
inadequate substantiation. Exemplification here would have strengthened the points
made. Lack of grasp or development of key points (the purpose of the Schlieffen
plan, for example) also suggests a Level 1 rather than Level 2 award. A borderline
Level 1/2 mark is appropriate here. (Level 2, 11/60)

9
Unit 3 Coursework Example - Level 3

Assignment
What were the reasons for the failure to defeat the North Vietnamese in the second
Vietnam War?

Student Response (extracts)

The reasons for the North Vietnamese victory are diverse, however they revolve
around the four main issues I will explore, the strengths of the North Vietnamese, the
weaknesses of the US, the weaknesses of the ARVN and Saigon and finally the
influence of the Press/media on the outcome.

The first issue to be explored is what were the features and advantages of the North
Vietnamese army that enabled them to overcome the so-called formidable and
powerful America. The first key issue must be the communist ability to win the hearts
and minds of its people. The Vietnamese way of life was very different to that of the
visiting American troops. Whole families worked together in the rice fields, there was
little electricity and homes were made of simple bamboo and mud. The great
difference in culture and lifestyle provoked Americans to treat the Vietnamese as
somehow sub-human, understandably leading to the inability of the U.S. forces to
gain their support.

The Vietnamese way of life however suited Communism and the Communists worked
hard to exploit this and win over the peasantry with promises such as the fairer
distribution of land. The Communists were certainly better at winning the support of
the essential peasantry although their methods were often brutal. However as
Vivienne Sanders explains, their style and treatment achieved the gains it required. ‘A
mixture of ruthlessness and frequent good behavior gained the VC the sullen
acquiescence or support of the peasants which was vital in guerrilla warfare’. Another
factor linked to this was the political awareness of the Vietnamese peasantry. In reality
they were unaware of what communism actually was and most of the time simply
supported whichever force was in their area at the time. The issue of the Communist
appeal is also explored by Francis Fitzgerald who explains that Marxism-Leninism,
whether a destructive ideology or not ‘was none the less, a way to national unity and
independence, and, by the end of the American war,still the only way the Vietnamese
knew.’ The unity created by the support was also a key factor in explaining the North
Vietnamese victory. The leadership of Ho Chi Minh also provided a vital advantage
especially over the divided South Vietnamese. It is words like the following, which
show the importance of leadership and the way it led to the gain of vital support. ‘Our
people and army, united as one man, will resolutely fight until complete victory,
whatever the sacrifices and hardships maybe’ (Ho Chi Minh 1966).

10
Communist determination, heroism and ingenuity appropriately label another large
factor in the outcome of the war. The Vietcong even received admiration from the
Americans in their ability to overcome the terrible circumstances. They suffered skin
diseases, malaria, bites and dirty water, struggling for their existence. This however
only made them stronger, tougher and even more determined. A determined force was
essential in a war such as Vietnam and maybe more importantly determination was
something their American opposition desperately lacked. The Vietnamese were
fighting a war that was rooted way beyond American intervention, and more
importantly they were fighting for their home country, their home soil. A Vietnamese
veteran wrote (1971) ‘so when in thirty years from now our brothers go down the
street without an arm, without a leg, and a small boy asks why, we will be able to say
‘Vietnam’ and not mean a filthy obscene memory, but mean instead the place where
America finally turned and where soldiers like us helped in the turning’.

The final main advantage of the Communists was their incredible ingenuity, which
most definitely was a vital factor in their ability to successfully fight out the war.
Repeatedly numerous documents show the ability of the North to recover and adapt to
the specific circumstances and enemy strategy. The most important example is found
even within the ‘Central Intelligence Agency’s Assessment of the Bombing Campaign
1967’ which states, ‘North Vietnamese ability to recuperate from the air attacks is of
high order’ and goes on to say ‘Damage to bridges and lines of communication is
frequently repaired within a matter of days, if not hours’. The resourcefulness meant
the Vietnamese adapted to the constant air attacks. For example they employed a
50,000 strong workforce of women to simply fill in the trenches along the whole of
the Ho Chi Minh Trail, in order to keep it in function and supplies running. Much
amazement also surrounded the almost city of underground passages and networks.
Another important advantage was the fact that the Vietnamese were fighting on
familiar home territory and could therefore carry out their guerrilla tactics of simply
disappearing after attacks etc. These tactics led to complete disturbance of the
American forces who were therefore forced into a policy of ‘search and destroy’. It
meant that the N. Vietnamese, to an extent, dictated location and/policy which must
be an advantage.

American weaknesses and disadvantages were almost certainly equally to blame for
Communist victory. If we immediately look at the political aspect in America, V.
Sanders states: (about Johnson) ‘privately and frequently he admitted that he did not
know what to do about Vietnam. More often than not, he responded to advice and the
pressures of events’. This argument sets the tone of the main factor when looking at
US political failure. Vietnam was certainly an extremely controversial issue in
America from initial involvement and Johnson faced criticism from all angles. Larry
Berman states ‘the presidents advisors were in bitter disagreement’. As the war
developed so did the controversy and disagreement. Few people were sure a specific
policy was correct and there were numerous cabinet meetings that showed a lack of
consensus within the administration. If the government could not come up with a firm
policy, what chance did the Americans really have? The fact that the aim developed
from stopping Communist expansion to the more truthful one of simple security of
prestige emphasises this. McNamara states ‘It is of vital US concern to maintain our
honour as an ally and our formidability as an opponent’.

11
Another important reason that added to American failure was the fact that Johnson
was insistent that the US could not enter a full scale offensive, which would have
surely meant victory, due to the fear that it may provoke offensives from the USSR
and China. A skeptic Kearns states ‘(Johnson) lived in constant fear of triggering
some imaginary provision of some imaginary treaty’. Whether Johnson was correct or
not, a reluctant US force could not have helped the generals on the front line knowing
they could beat their opponents if not for the policy. Linked to the Politics at home
was the public at home. As the war escalated, so did its brutality in clear view of this
pubic and anti-war organisations became strong and influential. Melvyn Small
importantly states ‘The contest for the public’s support between the government and
its opponents was an important element in the making of Vietnam policy’ and that
‘anti-war protests... took a physical and emotional toll on the White House’. This must
surely be a factor of weakness. Also in the basic sense, a country at war without a
large support surely cannot be expected to succeed.

American tactics and situation within Vietnam also proved a disadvantage. There was
disunity within the forces with marines refusing to take orders from the army and US
distrust of its so-called ally, the ARVN. Disunity was an obvious disadvantage,
however the low morale of the soldiers was vital, Soldiers served a short 365-day
service and were never in posts long enough to develop the essential team spirit
boasted by the enemy. Frustration of the forces led to a need to seek comfort else
where, in this case either to drugs and prostitutes which both became an unfortunate
norm. The policy of a comfortable war in which soldiers were catered for as well as
possible with shops, sports facilities, weeks away in air conditioned hotels, clubs and
cinemas and even on occasions, chilled beer flown in to the battle scene! Although
Westmoreland believed it was the only way to get them to fight, Nixon realised (too
late) that ‘we soften them up rather than harden them up for the battle’.

Maybe the final main fault of the Americans was their dealings with the Vietnamese
civilians and as a consequence, their lack of support. The American treatment of the
civilians was brutal. One marine explained how they stormed into a village burning
homes and beating families. He went on to importantly state ‘if they weren’t Vietcong
before we got there, they sure as hell were by the time we left’. The weapons used by
the Americans were also brutal, refining chemical ones for maximum trauma. The
whole image of the Americans was a disadvantage during the war with little support
that also led to the greater likelihood or rebellion within the south, a Communist
advantage. This leads us to the issue of the South Vietnamese and the disadvantages
of their forces and government weakening their chances of victory.

Saigon deteriorated during the American years, which meant other problems also,
increased. The Saigon government was weak and unstable (80% of the population was
Buddhist and only 5% of the government was). Most importantly however it lacked
the firm leadership of the Communists and the charisma and appeal of Ho Chi Minh.
It could not create a united South Vietnam that may have made the difference in the
war. The ARVN also proved corrupt and mismanaged. Americans were unimpressed
with their tactics labeling them as ‘search and avoid’ and deeply mistrusted them, The
ARVN also suffered a vicious circle of decreased confidence whose low morale and
therefore weak performance proved a major factor in the Communist victory. The
main point in the question is that it was not simply communist strength or American
weakness that led to the outcome of the war, many other factors must be considered.

12
Vietnam was the first televised war and the press played a key role for each side in the
war and may be to a large extent responsible for the war outcome.

The press/media issue is always debated in answer to this question and I think that the
majority concludes that the press benefited the Communists. Johnson’s policy,
collapse of the US home front and terrible US morale can all be seen as stemming
from the issue and conduct of the press. The press/media was of course by no means
the main factor; it is simply an important one of many. R. Elegant stated ‘As long as
‘Vietnam Syndrome’ afflicts the media, it seems to me it will be virtually impossible
for the west to conduct an effective foreign policy’. Similarly, P. Brestrup concludes
‘those initial journalistic reactions set the tone and supplied the themes assigned to the
crisis over the entire period’.

In answer to the question, there are many overlapping and differing reasons for each
side’s outcome in the war and no one can definitely be defined as the most important.

Examiner's Notes

This assignment represents secure Level 3 work at AS. The concluding statement
indicates the key weakness of the work, which seeks to deal with a number of points
in a listing approach. This is also evident in the introduction. This prevents the
candidate from dealing effectively with the interrelationship of the factors identified
and from being able to explore effectively their significance.

However, there is clear analytical linkage of each point to the question. The paragraph
beginning ‘The final main advantage of the Communists…’ is an example of
borderline Level 3/4 work. The points are developed and sustained with appropriate
examples, and the answer begins to tease out the implications of North Vietnamese
‘advantages’ for the US tactics: ‘adapted to the constant air attacks … American
forces [were] forced into a policy of…’. But the points made in this and the preceding
paragraph would need to be harnessed to a more developed analysis of just how these
qualities of ‘determination heroism and ingenuity’ rendered the war effort of North
Vietnam’s opponents ineffective. Instead, the candidate simply chooses to introduce
minor factors of lack of determination etc.

The paragraph beginning, ‘Another important reason that added to American failure
was the fact that Johnson…’ begins to introduce the interrelationship of factors here
which, if sufficiently developed in the answer as a whole, would have moved the
response into Level 4.

The answer introduces comment and views from appropriate sources to support
points, but their use is illustrative. Throughout the answer, more identification and
examination of issues, and critical deployment of material would have lifted the work.

The work has range, and basic relationships between causes, motives and effects are
established in dealing with a range of valid aspects of the conflict. However, this
candidate could have developed his/her response more effectively. The number of
quotations used illustratively could be reduced, as could the amount of additional and
incidental detail included when describing a situation (such as conditions for US

13
servicemen in ‘a comfortable war’). This work would have been strengthened had the
candidate developed his/her reasoning and argument. (Level 3, 40/60)

Unit 3 Coursework Example - Level 4

Assignment
What were the reasons for the failure to defeat the North Vietnamese in the second
Vietnam War?

Student Response (extracts)

One of the major factors which gave so much strength to the Vietcong was the support
of the people. They had an immediate advantage over their enemies because
Vietnamese culture had instilled a sense of collective endeavor and discipline, and the
view that the individual interest should be sacrificed in favour of the community
interest. This meant that the feeling of nationalism was high. This feeling of
nationalism encouraged everyone to work towards North Vietnamese victory.

The Americans on the other hand were weakened by the lack of support from the
peasants in the South. Their military tactics, which included bombing, aroused
antagonism, and forced many peasants to leave their homes, crops, and ancestral
graves. The failure of Diem’s strategic hamlets policy also created disillusionment
amongst the people. In many areas subject to Saigon’s control there were highly
efficient nationalistic organisations which encouraged opposition to South Vietnam
and the Americans. In some cases the South Vietnamese even hid troops from the
North and a large web of informants passed on important information.

This contrast shows a juxtaposition in the two forces. The North Vietnamese on the
one hand derived great strength from the support of the peasants, a strength that
without doubt was influential in the outcome of the war, while the Americans were
weakened by their inability to respect and utilise the South Vietnamese….

The North Vietnamese as individuals were also more determined than their American
counterparts. This was because the Vietcong were ‘inspired by Communism and
nationalism.’ The Americans were impressed by the Vietcong’s determination. One
American soldier was amazed by some besieged Communists ‘who didn’t even give
up after their eardrums had burst (from American firepower).... and blood was pouring
out of their noses,’ Their will to win gave them patience in the face of adversity.

Why though was this important? The importance of this patience is best illustrated in
a quote from Giap ‘We were not strong enough to drive out half a million American
troops, but that was not our aim. Our intention was to break the will of the US
government to continue the war.’ The ability and willingness of the North Vietnamese
to continue the war for as long as it took was undoubtedly an important reason for

14
their victory and meant that they could continue their protracted warfare in an attempt
to break the will of the Americans …

Therefore, in conclusion it is my belief that the North Vietnamese derived their

strength from the mass support of the people and their protracted warfare. Their
ability to take advantage their geographical surroundings gave them an advantage
over the Americans. They benefited too from Chinese and Russian aid, but it was the
strength of their guerrilla army and their traditional army and the strong feelings of
nationalism that drove them that made North Vietnam so strong and gained them
victory. Kissinger said 'The conventional army loses if it does not win — the guerrilla
wins if he does not lose.’ This eventually proved to be correct. The Americans on the
other hand were largely responsible for their own weaknesses. Their inability to gain
support in South Vietnam and the policies of the 365 day tour of duty and R and R
meant that in comparison to the North Vietnamese the will of the army to win was
much less. Perhaps the most influential factor though was the loss of support of the
American people which made continuance of the war a virtual impossibility.

Examiner's Comments

These extracts show the ability to develop the analysis of the implications of the
attitudes and tactics of the North Vietnamese. There is also evidence of the ability to
interrelate factors and apportion significance that was lacking in the Example 1
answer. This candidate can show that the significance of the North Vietnamese
support and tactics was that they enabled them to fight a protracted war. Example 1
deals with these issues in terms of strengths and weaknesses of the two sides; this
candidate can analyse the significance of this factor to the conduct of the war as a
whole. (Level 4, 50/60)

15
 Section 3 – Course Content Guide

Key Topic Units

• The Nazi Economic Recovery
• Women and Children in National Socialist Germany
• Treatment of non-Aryans and other minorities
• NSDAP beliefs and policies

Course Content
The main focus of this option is on the society, economy and ideology of peacetime
Nazi Germany and on the ways in which the Nazi Party policies impacted on the
dayto- day living and working experiences of men, women and children in Nazi
Germany. The phrase ‘Nazi economic solutions’ in the specification refers to the work
of Hjalmar Schacht and, later, Herman Goering in implementing Hitler’s Four-
Year Plan.

Candidates should have knowledge and understanding of ‘autarky’ as a concept and

should understand how this concept applied in practice. Candidates should have
knowledge and understanding of the ways in which Hitler organised and used the
German workforce through the Reichsarbeitsdienst, the DAF, the Schonheit der
Arbeit and the Kraft durch Freude, as well as the ways in which the rearmament
programme was implemented, overtly and covertly. The phrase ‘the social impact of
Nazism on social classes: the role and status of women’ relates to the impact of
Nazism on social classes in general terms and more specifically on the role and status
of women.

Candidates should have knowledge and understanding of Hitler’s efforts to identify

with youth and of the function of the youth movements, Nazi education policies in
theory and practice, and Nazi policies toward the promotion of the family and women
within the family as wives and mothers. The phrase ‘the treatment of minorities’ refers
to Nazi treatment to 1939 of all those they considered to be social outcasts —
gypsies, the mentally ill, tramps and beggars, homosexuals, trade unionists and
alcoholics. Candidates should have knowledge and understanding of Nazi policies
towards the Jews, including the impact of the Nuremberg Laws, the activities of
Julius Streicher and Der Sturmer and Krystallnacht.

Under ‘Nazism and Nazi beliefs’, candidates should have understanding of both the
‘Fuhrer principle’ and racist beliefs and attitudes. They should also understand how

16
these ideas impacted on German citizens in their everyday life. ‘Religious beliefs and
attitudes’ relates to the Nazi attitude to religion and religious beliefs and the
harassment of religious groups. It does not relate to opposition to the Nazi regime
from religious groups. Questions will not be set on Nazi policies after the outbreak of
war in 1939 and knowledge of the Holocaust is not required.

Questions will not be set directly and exclusively on Nazi foreign policy although
candidates should have knowledge and understanding of how the changing
international scene in the 1930s affected Nazi economic and social policies within
Germany. Questions will not be set specifically on the political structures of Nazi
Germany, although how these influenced the development of economic policies and
anti-semitic measures should be known.

17
 Section 4 – Course Programme of Study

Scheme of Work
NSDAP economic solutions

Construction and industrial progress, work programmes and rearmament

• Hjalmar Schacht and the running of the German economy

• Funding the economy.
• Autarky in theory and practice
• Solving unemployment
• Workers rights
• Strength Through Joy and other schemes

The social impact of National Socialism

Including the impact on women and children

• Women and work

• Marriage and parenthood
• Education system
• The Hitler Youth movement

Racism, citizenship and the treatment of minorities

• Hitler’s ideas about Jews

• Jews in German history and in Weimar
• Anti-semitic propaganda inc Der Sturmer
• Nuremburg Laws
• Kristallnacht
• Gypsies, homosexuals and the handicapped.

The beliefs and aims of the NSDAP

• Racial theory
• Nationalism and lebensraum
• Totalitarianism
• Purge of anti-capitalists
• National Socialism and organised religion
• Fuhrer cult

18
 Section 5 – Assignment Task

Assignments
• 1. ‘On balance, Nazi policies improved the life of the
German family in the years 1933-39.’ How far do you
agree with this opinion? (60 marks)

• 2. 'The People's Community'. How far did Nazi policies

between 1933 and 1939 go towards creating a national
community of unified mind, will and spirit - the
volksgemeinschaft? (60 marks)

Students will attempt Assignment 1.

If, in Year 13, a resit is required, Assignment 2 will be

attempted.

19
Section 6 – Reading List and Other Resources

Reading List
Edexcel List

• Boxer A — Hitler’s Domestic Policy (Collins, Questions in History, 1997)

• Collier M and Pedley P — Germany, 1919–45 (Heinemann, Advanced
History, 2000)
• Culpin C and Henig R — Modern Europe, 1970–1945, chapter 18 (Longman,
1997)
• Evans D and Jenkins J — Years of Weimar and the Third Reich (Hodder
Murray, 1998)
• Farmer A — An Introduction to Modern European History, 1890–1990
(Hodder Murray, Access to History Context, 2000)
• Fulbrook M — Hitler (Book 1) (Collins Education, Flagship Historymakers,
2004)
• Fulbrook M — Hitler (Book 2) (Collins Education, Flagship Historymakers,
2005)
• Hite J and Hinton C — Weimar and Nazi Germany (Hodder Murray, 2000)
• Johnson R — Hitler and Nazi Germany (Studymates Publishing, 1999)
• Kitson A — Germany, 1858–1990: Hope, Terror and Revival (Oxford
University Press, 2001)
• Laver J —Nazi Germany, 1933–1945 (Hodder Murray, History at Source,
1991)
• Layton G — Germany: The Third Reich, 1933–1945, Third Edition (Hodder
Murray, Access to History, 2005)
• Lee S — Hitler and Nazi Germany (Routledge, Questions and Analysis in
History, 1998)
• Murphy D and Morris T — Europe, 1870–1991 (Collins Educational, Flagship
History, 2004)
• Noakes J and Pridham G — Nazism, 1919–1945: Volume I, The Rise to
Power, 1919–1934 (University of Exeter Press, 1998)
• Todd A — The European Dictatorship (Cambridge, 2002)
• Traynor J — Europe, 1890–1990, chapter 11 (Macmillan, Challenging History,
1991)

Further Reading

20
Other Resources
Historical journals and internet sites

In addition to the books listed in the following reading lists and the individual topic
websites noted here, a number of historical magazines and journals which are aimed
at a sixth-form audience are on the market. Perhaps the most valuable are History
Review, New Perspective and Modern History Review. The first two are best
accessed, in the first instance, via the internet.

The address of the History Review website is www.historytoday.com/historyreview.

Articles which have been published in past issues of the History Review can be traced
through an easy-to-use topic search facility, and a number of articles are available
online. These include Barry Coward, ‘Why was Charles I executed in 1649?’ (1998),
John Walton, ‘The Impact of the Second Reform Act’ (1998), Roger Eatwell, ‘What Is
Fascism?’ (1996), and Robert Pearce, ‘Appeasement’ (1998).

The History Review website also contains useful study guides and links to other
resources. One of these links is to the History Channel
(www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/main.htm) which through its ‘Classroom’ feature offers
a range of valuable aids to GCE students, including a number of History Today and
History Review articles online. Examples include Richard Wilkinson, ‘Oliver
Cromwell’ (from History Review, 1997), Joan Plowright, ‘Lord Liverpool and the
alternatives to repression in Regency England’ (from History Review, 1997), and
Michael Broers, ‘Napoleon’s Empire from Below’ (from History Today, 1998). The
address of the New Perspective website is www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~semp. It offers
an index to articles in past issues, topic guides and links to other sources. In addition a
number of New Perspective articles are available online including E.J. Feuchtwanger,
‘Gladstone’ (1996), Martin Pugh, ‘The People’s Budget’ (1995), Maureen Perrie, ‘The
Fall of the Romanovs’ (1998), Robert Pearce, ‘Fascism’ (1997), and Henry
Metelmann, ‘Life in the Third Reich’ (1998).

Particularly valuable for students of nineteenth and twentieth century British and
United States history is the Spartacus website at www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk. It
contains an extremely useful online Encyclopaedia of British History 1700–1950 and
the Spartacus internet Encyclopaedia of The USA, 1840–1960. Among the topics
relevant to this specification which are covered in some depth are parliamentary
reform, the emancipation of women, and the Vietnam War, but the site amply repays
wider browsing.

Full Lesson Notes:

www.learnhistory.org.uk/forum

21