Responses

Version 1.
1211
General Certificate of Secondary Education June 2011
GCSE History
Specification B
Unit 2 Twentieth Century Depth Studies
Exemplar Responses
Copyright 2011 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT AQA retains the copyright on all its publications. However, registered centres for AQA are permitted to copy material from this booklet for their own internal use, with the following important exception: AQA cannot give permission to centres to photocopy any material that is acknowledged to a third party even for internal use within the centre. Set and published by the Assessment and Qualifications Alliance.
The Assessment and Qualifications Alliance (AQA) is a company limited by guarantee registered in England and Wales (company number 3644723) and a registered charity (registered charity number 1073334). Registered address: AQA, Devas Street, Manchester M15 6EX
GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series
Unit 2: Twentieth Century Depth Studies
0 1 What does Source A suggest about the power of Tsar Nicholas II over the Russian Empire in 1914? Target: Comprehension and inference from a source (AO3) Candidates either submit no evidence or fail to address the question. Level 1: Answer that takes information from the source e.g. Most Russian peasants were very loyal to the Tsar. They thought of the Tsar as a father-figure. The army was loyal to the Tsar. Answer shows understanding and is able to make inference(s) from the source e.g. The power of the Tsar rested on traditional loyalty from the peasants who viewed the Tsar as a god-like figure. However, although there was the impression of stability with an all-powerful Tsar, there were some people within the Empire who wanted change, and this could threaten his power.
0 1-2
Level 2:
3-4
Question 1 Response 1 The source infers that Tsar Nicholas II still had great power over his people. Although famine was still a key problem during the Tsars reign, hunger for the peasants was going to be much worse. However, there was huge inequality with the top 1% owning over 25% of the land. If this source was taken in the early 1914 then this feeling was very common as many of the Russian people looked at the Tsar as their father due to the war uniting the people with a common aim, although this was short lived after the failings at Tannenberg. The provenance of this source is from a Tsarist supporter, and most likely upper class. Many people were angered by the Tsarist rule and huge opposition groups such as the Liberal Democrats and the Social Democrats had built up much support against the Tsars regime and by 1914 the balance of power was swinging closer to the revolutionising parties. Level 2/ 3 Marks Question 1 Response 2 In 1914 Russia was led by Tsar Nicholas II under a powerful autocracy. He controlled everything and had the power to do whatever he liked. Even with this unrestricted power the Tsar was still popular and many of the public liked him; thinking of him as a father figure as proven in source A. Source A suggests the power of the Tsar, even though entirely overpowering, seemed to be liked by the general public. 74% of the public were peasants, with the majority being highly religious, believing the Tsar to have been hand-picked by God to rule over them. Source A suggests that even being very poor and sustaining a gigantic rich-poor social gap, the Tsar was liked due to religion and their beliefs. Level 2/ 4 Marks Question 1 Response 3 Source A seems to imply that the Tsar had absolute power and control over Russia, and
it also suggests that this was unlikely to change. I can infer from the source that the people respected, and almost idolised the Tsar. His word was law, but this did not seem to spark widespread unhappiness, instead the people followed and obeyed him as a son obeys his father. The fact that they treated him as a father figure goes to suggest that they believed he was the rightful ruler of the empire and respected his power. The idea of PATRIOTISM also implies that they did not want change and that they, at this time, were not in favour of a regime change. Level 2/ 4 Marks
0 2 After the Bolsheviks seized power in October/November 1917, there was a civil war from 1918 to 1921. Explain the reasons why the weaknesses of the Whites led to their failure in this civil war. Target: Causation and analysis of key features (AO1 and 2) Candidates either submit no evidence or fail to address the question. Level 1: Simple descriptive comment and/or identifies one reason e.g. the Whites had lots of different leaders. The answer demonstrates simple understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is generally coherent but basic in development. Level 2: EITHER Identifies several reasons e.g. Whites had several different leaders; not fighting for a common cause; foreign intervention made Whites appear to be unpatriotic to Russia; foreign armies unenthusiastic after fighting in World War I; difficulties in communications for White armies scattered around periphery of Russia; execution of Tsar and Romanov family removed a possible figurehead for the Whites. OR Explains one reason e.g. One of the above explained in detail. The answer may also mention other causes. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is reasonably well organised and presented in a clear and effective manner. Level 3: Explains two or more reasons e.g. At least two of the above explained in detail, probably with some names of White generals, such as Denikin and Yudenich. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is well organised with an appropriate form and style of writing. Some specialist vocabulary is used. NB Answers which explain the advantages of the Reds can be given credit within the level that has been reached on the basis of White weaknesses. Question 2 Response 1 After the abdication of the Tsar, there was an intense power struggle. Eventually though the Bolsheviks seemed to have secured power over the provisional government, but they faced a greater enemy for the takeover of Russia; the Whites, a large force of noblists, tsarists and people wanting Russia back to its former self. Civil war broke out between them, but the Reds [Bolsheviks] triumphed due to overwhelming weaknesses by the Whites, and a stronger Red side. The main weakness of the Whites was their disorganisation and corruption of the ranks. The Whites were composed of many different groups all with different beliefs, and only
0 1-2
3-4
5-6
the war against the Reds to unify them. Generals fought and argued and this constant disorganisation led to a weak attack on the Reds. Disunity of the soldiers as they shot their corrupt, ineffective officers and deserted, and poor organisation of munitions and supplies to front line troops created a weak fighting force with little to no strategy of tactics. The Whites had the help of America, France and Britain (the West wanted to stop the spread of Bolshevism) but this turned out to be an ineffective disaster for the Whites. They didnt send troops and the effort was half-hearted, and the Reds portrayed the Whites as capitalist foreigners trying to purge the real, original Russia, in their propaganda. This crippled White support and many turned to the Reds. In conclusion, the Whites lost due to their disorganisation and anarchy as a group. Constant arguments between the groups and no clear leader led to mutiny of troops and the disunity between leaders as a time of struggle. They lost support from the peasants and many soldiers revolted against them. Level 3/ 5 Marks Question 2 Response 2 Unlike the Reds, the Whites were very unorganised and not at all united. This, despite their superior numbers and the help of foreign powers, led to their demise. The Whites were made up of a multitude of different groups, with different aims and objectives some were pro-Tsarist, and wanted the return of the Tsar, they tended to be the richer upper classes. Others, such as the J.Rs wanted to see a consistent assembly run the country. In fact pretty much the only thing that the groups had in common was their hate for the Bolsheviks. One of the major problems that occurred as a result of the lack of unity between the groups was that the different groups did not trust each other or work together, they even sometimes fought amongst themselves. Because they refused to work together, coupled with the fact they didnt have access to train lines, meant that communication was rare. This resulted in the Whites attacks being uncoordinated, meaning the Reds were able to defeat them one army at a time. The fact they fought amongst themselves and betrayed each other, such as the Poles did at one point, also hindered their cause. Another issue was the lack of central position, which meant that even if they had wanted to communicate and coordinate attacks it would have been almost impossible as they were vast apart. Level 3/ 5 Marks Question 2 Response 3 During the civil war the Whites only had one aim and that was to remove the Bolsheviks from power. The Whites were made up of many different groups, who had different ambitions as to how the empire should be run. They consisted of tsarists, social revolutionaries and many other groups who opposed the Bolsheviks. This was a fundamental weakness because this caused revolts, disagreement, arguing and a lack of leadership amongst the Whites as well as fighting between the different groups. The Reds however, were united under one aim brothers in arms to keep the Bolsheviks in power. Another fundamental weakness in the White armies was the lack of co-ordination between the White generals Kolchak, Yudenich and Denikin. The generals refused to
communicate and therefore co-ordinate their attacks. This allowed the Reds to pick off one general at a time. Had the White generals co-ordinated their attacks or combined their forces they probably would have won the civil war due to a larger force. Unfortunately for the Whites it allowed Trotsky to boost morale and reinforce where the fighting was hardest. This eventually led to the Whites demise. Level 3/ 6 Marks
0 3 How useful is Source B for studying the Bolshevik seizure of power in October/November 1917? Use Source B and your knowledge to explain your answer. Target: Evaluation of a source for utility using own knowledge (AOs 1,2 and 3) Candidates either submit no evidence or fail to address the question. Level 1: EITHER Accepts the content of the source at face value e.g. The painting shows what happened and describes the picture. OR Generalised or learned response which could apply to any source e.g. It is a painting, not a photograph, and therefore of little use because it will not be accurate. The answer demonstrates simple understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is generally coherent but basic in development. Level 2: EITHER Simple comments on the usefulness or the limitations of the source based on information in the source and/or own knowledge e.g. The painting is limited in use, because there was no grand assault on the Winter Palace. Some Bolsheviks found a way in at night, and took control with little trouble. OR Simple comments on the usefulness or the limitations of the source in terms of provenance or reliability or bias. e.g. The painting is unreliable because it was painted to show that the Bolsheviks had fought hard to get control. The painting is biased. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is reasonably well organised and presented in a clear and effective manner. Level 3: EITHER Developed explanation about the utility/limitations of the source using the source and own knowledge e.g. The painting is limited in use because there was no storming of the Winter Palace. Some Bolshevik guards overpowered the Cadets and the Womens Battalion defending the palace, and accepted the surrender of members of the Provisional Government. Prime Minister Kerensky had fled. There were very few injuries or deaths. OR Developed explanation about the utility/limitations of the source focusing on the provenance of the source in relation to the content and/or own knowledge. e.g. The painting is part of Stalins propaganda to glorify the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks and present it as part of the heroic struggle by the Russian people, fighting bravely to establish Communism in Russia. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is well organised with an appropriate form and
10
0 1-2
3-5
6-8
style of writing. Some specialist vocabulary is used.
Level 4:
Both strands above, one at Level 3, the other at standard/good Level 2 Both strands above at Level 3 The answer demonstrates highly developed/ complex understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is well structured, with an appropriate form and style of writing. Specialist vocabulary is used effectively.
9 10
Question 3 Response 1 Source B is a propaganda painting aimed to gain interest for the Bolsheviks by making the small scale attack on the Winter Palace as a huge, heroic revolution. This painting is important for showing how the Bolsheviks were able to gain support for their cause. Although this picture is not factually correct, it does show how the Bolsheviks worked in controlling the people by making them believe what the Bolsheviks wanted to believe and caused mass support all over the country. On the other hand, this picture tells you very little about the actual storming of the Winter Palace. This sort of image would have been much more accurate if Lenin had decided to tell the revolutionaries to storm the palace in April when Lenin had sent 100,000s of revolutionaries away, as he did not want the takeover to be spontaneous. The real takeover was far easier than depicted in this picture as Kerensky the PM of the provisional government had released the Bolsheviks from prison and handed them weapons in the hope of protecting him from Kornilov. This was a huge mistake for Kerensky and the main cause in the revolution in October/November. Kerensky was unable to draw a powerful army and fled in a US Embassy car. Source B was unreliable in the fact that there was no huge revolution but it does show how the Bolsheviks gained their support. Level 3/ 7 Marks Question 3 Response 2 In October 1917 a revolution led by the Bolshevik Party was underway to overthrow the provisional government. Many propaganda and texts recount it as a large and bloody victory for the Bolsheviks with a huge triumphant siege of the Winter Palace. Many modern historians disagree though, stating in fact it was a small overwhelming push by the Bolsheviks with little to no resistance by the provisional government. Source B is a painting by Sokolov-Skalya, a communist living in Russia in the 30s. This source is therefore the former; a piece of communist propaganda produced by the Communist Party to boost popularity. It shows a large fighting force storming the Winter Palace with smoke and guns and highlights communist victory and triumph with the raising of the red flag. Its sole purpose is to boost popularity about the Bolshevik victory to new communists during the 1930s and poses as a piece of communist propaganda. It is clear to analyse then that this source is unreliable in studying the seizure of power in 1917 due to its over exaggerated, untruthful state as communist propaganda. In 1917, the Bolshevik revolution led by Trotsky was in fact a very quick victory as many people/soldiers simply gave up and walked away when they saw the Bolsheviks coming, including the provisional government in the Winter Palace. There was no giant push but instead a quiet search for the remaining government in the palace who gave up anyway.
This evidence proves that source B is unreliable and the fact that the Bolsheviks seizure of power was a much more simple affair that what source B suggests. Level 3/ 8 Marks Question 3 Response 3 Source B has rather limited usefulness when it comes to studying the Bolshevik seizure of power in the October Revolution. This is largely due to the historical inaccuracies of the painting. The painting shows a large group of soldiers storming the gates of the Winter Palace and firing their guns. This would imply that they were or had been fighting. This is actually incorrect as we know they received very little resistance when they attacked the palace, all but the Womens (death) Battalion had left, and they did not put up much of a fight. Another historical inaccuracy is that they are storming the front gates in the photo, when we know they did not actually go in through the front. It also appears as though there are non-military people there, which would suggest it was a popular uprising. We know this to be false, as the Bolshevik revolution was small scale, military and well planned. When studying the usefulness of this source, it is also important to look at its provenance. Firstly it is a painting, which are designed to be dramatic and overdramatize events to add excitement. As it is a painting it also only captures one moment in time and therefore does not tell the whole picture. It is vital to look at who did the painting and when it was done. It was painted in communist USSR during the 1930s. This is important because it tells us that the Bolsheviks were still in power so the media would be censored, only allowing proBolshevik work to be created. This damages the credibility of the source as it suggests it is propaganda. This idea is backed up by the fact that it shows a mass uprising, as this was common Soviet propaganda to imply support of the Bolshevik cause. The fact it was painted by a Soviet also suggests its lack of reliability as he would not want to give a negative image of the USSR. To conclude I would say this is not a useful source for looking at the October 1917 Revolution as it is greatly inaccurate, painted during the Soviet rule and painted by a Soviet. However it is a useful source for studying the methods of USSR propaganda. Level 4/ 10 Marks
10
0 4 What does Source C suggest about Stresemanns achievements in Germany in the later 1920s? Target: Comprehension and inference from a source (AO3)
0 Candidates either submit no evidence or fail to address the question. Level 1: Answer that takes information from the source e.g. Germany was stable. Support for extremist parties went down. Support for the moderate Social Democrats grew. Answer shows understanding and is able to make inference(s) from the source e.g. Although Stresemann achieved much stability and extremist parties had little support, there were danger signals, with dependence on foreign loans, problems in the farming industry and a general slowing down of industrial growth near the end of the 1920s. 1-2
Level 2:
3-4
Question 4 Response 1 Source C suggests that Stresemanns achievements made Germany more stable than it had been. This is when Germany failed to make its reparation payments. France made their way to Ruhr, which was famous for its industrial businesses and took over. Workers refused to work there and went on strike. Stresemann, however, told them to go back and work. This was an unpopular move, but turned Germany in the right direction to recover from depression. Also, Stresemann managed to persuade the League of Nations to let Germany join. They could begin trading again. Level 1/ 2 Marks Question 4 Response 2 Source C suggests that Stresemann achieved a lot of stability for the Social Democrat Party and managed to beat all other extremist parties such as the communists in a position of great rule and power. However, he did not manage to fully recover the economy and did not do enough for farmers which inevitably led into another depression which circulated them in particular. Level 2/ 3 Marks Question 4 Response 3 Source C suggests that Stresemann had made Germany much more stable than it was. It also says that extremist party votes decreased during this time and finally, that Stresemann had made the Social Democrats more popular. It also says there were some limits to his progress for example, Germany relied on US loans. Overall, the source seems to suggest that whilst Stresemann had achieved highly in some aspects, he wasnt so good in others and depression was on the horizon. Level 2/ 4 Marks
11
0 5 Explain the consequences of the Munich Putsch for Hitler and the Nazi Party in the years 1923-1929. Target: Consequences and analysis of key features (AO1 and 2) Candidates either submit no evidence or fail to address the question. Level 1: Simple descriptive comment and/or identifies one consequence e.g. Hitler was arrested and put in prison. The answer demonstrates simple understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is generally coherent but basic in development. Level 2: EITHER Identifies several consequences e.g. Hitler was arrested; put on trial; sentenced to 5 years; only served 9 months. Support for Nazi Party was low in later 1920s during recovery period under Stresemann. Hitler wrote Mein Kampf in which he explained his views on Jews, Treaty of Versailles, Aryan Race, etc. OR Explains one consequence e.g. One of the above explained in depth. The answer may also mention other consequences. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is reasonably well organised and presented in a clear and effective manner. Level 3: Explains more than one consequence e.g. Two or more consequences explained in depth from the list above and what follows. At this Level answers may show an awareness of the Nazis gaining more support in some rural areas. Also Hitler realised that the best way to gain power was by winning votes at elections, and therefore working through democracy even though he wanted to destroy it. Answers at this level will show good understanding. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is well organised with an appropriate form and style of writing. Some specialist vocabulary is used. Question 5 Response 1 When Hitler decided to try and take over Munich, him and Nazi Party suffered the consequences. Hitler was sent to prison, and the Nazi Party was banned. Over the months that Hitler was in jail, the Nazi Party became forgotten. However, Hitler used that time to write a book about his struggle, Mein Kampf, which was later read by millions of Germans who found themselves agreeing. This helped the uprising of Hitler. Level 1/ 2 Marks Question 5 Response 2 The Munich Putsch can be viewed in two ways, as some people see it as a success for Hitler, however others see it as a failure. Hitler and a troop of Nazi followers, and Ludendorff marched into Munich and attempted to take control. However the police and
0 1-2
3-4
5-6
12
army were waiting for him and anticipated his arrival. The consequences of this was that Hitler was injured in the firing of bullets from the army and was arrested two days later. Ludendorff managed to escape the police, but was arrested in the next square. This meant that in 1923, Hitler and his Nazi Party had failed, and he was put in jail. Consequently this meant that he was nationally humiliated, and was shown to be weak as him and his Nazi Party come not take control. However, some people view the Putsch as a success for Hitler, because whilst he was in jail, he wrote his book, Mein Kampf (my struggle), which was later used as a key piece of propaganda, and became almost like a bible to some German people. Whilst he was in jail also, Hitler planned his next moves, and became stronger. The Munich Putsch also meant that the Nazis had been placed on the national scene, and everyone was aware of Hitler and his ideas. As the Weimar Constitution became weaker and weaker, by the time Hitler was released and the Nazis reformed with the SA and SS, more and more people looked to smaller parties to help Germany, and when the Wall Street Crash hit in 1929, Hitlers popularity rose dramatically. Level 3/ 5 Marks Question 5 Response 3 The Munich Putsch was a success for Hitler in the long run since he became a more noted leader and was able to publically criticise the Weimar Republic in Mein Kampf which became a better seller in 1925. However it also publicised Hitler as a violent man. Short term consequences were that the march failed making Hitler and the Nazis look weak since 16 Nazis died and only 3 police men died. Hitler was arrested and so this led to the consequence that the Nazi Party almost fell apart since rivalry came about over who would lead it with Hitler in prison. It was successful however for the Nazis in the long run since Hitler was able to publically criticise the Weimar Republic in his trial to highlight all that was wrong with it. This proved successful since shortly after they became the 3rd largest party in Bavaria. Although this publicised him as a violent scheming man since he was so overtly opposed to the government it led to the main long term consequence that Hitler had gained Ludendorffs support and so now he would be able to overthrow the government at a later stage. Hitler was also able to improve his public speaking skills at the trials making it overall a good thing for the Nazis. Another major plus of the Putsch was that Hitler was able to write his memoirs whilst imprisoned and so this was good propaganda. Not only this but he was able to have a comfortable short prison stay in the Landsberg Prison where he only served 9 months of his 5 year sentence. In conclusion, the Munich Putsch had some short term bad consequences but in the long run it led to good things for the party. Level 3/ 6 Marks
13
0 6 How useful is Source D for studying Germanys reaction to the terms of the Treaty of 10 Versailles? Use Source D and your knowledge to explain your answer. Target: Evaluation of a source for utility using own knowledge (AOs 1, 2 and 3) Candidates either submit no evidence or fail to address the question. Level 1: 0
EITHER 1-2 Accepts the content of the source at face value e.g. It is useful because it shows Clemenceau sucking the blood from Germany. OR Generalised or learned response which could apply to any source e.g. It is a cartoon, intended to amuse, and is therefore not useful. The answer demonstrates simple understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is generally coherent but basic in development.
Level 2:
EITHER 3-5 Simple comments on the usefulness or the limitations of the source based on information in the source and/or own knowledge e.g. It is useful because it reflects Clemenceau at the peace negotiations in 1919 demanding huge amounts of land and money from Germany. OR Simple comments on the usefulness or the limitations of the source in terms of provenance or reliability or bias. e.g. It is of limited use because it is biased. It shows a defenceless Germany being attacked by an evil vampire. It is propaganda. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is reasonably well organised and presented in a clear and effective manner.
Level 3:
6-8 EITHER Developed explanation about the utility/limitations of the source using the source and/or own knowledge. e.g. It is useful for highlighting German thoughts about the terms of the Treaty of Versailles (with some key details) and how the French had tried at the peace negotiations to bleed Germany dry. However, it is not totally useful, because it ignores the fact that the French did not get as much as they wanted, and it glosses over the fact that the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk imposed on Russia by Germany was far harsher. OR Developed explanation about the utility/limitations of the source focusing on the provenance of the source in relation to the content and/or own knowledge. e.g. The propaganda element of the cartoon in a German magazine is designed to appeal to Germans who hate the Treaty of Versailles. It is clearly drawn by an artist who opposes the Treaty and views the new Republic with suspicion, and depicts Clemenceau as the villain who has caused all Germanys suffering.
14
The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is well organised with an appropriate form and style of writing. Some specialist vocabulary is used.
Level 4:
Both strands above, one at Level 3, the other at standard/good Level 2 9 Both strands above at Level 3 10 The answer demonstrates highly developed/ complex understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is well structured, with an appropriate form and style of writing. Specialist vocabulary is used effectively.
Question 6 Response 1 The source shows Clemenceau presented as a vampire literally draining all life from Germany. Germany is shown as a woman which would stereotypically be referred to as the weaker gender which could portray how weak Germany already was before the Treaty of Versailles or how weak Germany is having had the terms, especially the ones produced by France, inflicted on them. The source could be seen as useful as it makes it clear that France were the country that wanted to cripple Germany the worst and were most against being sympathetic to the Germans. By showing Germany greatly weakened by the bite of the French it allows an insight into how badly affected the Germans were from these bites the French were inflicting. However, the source could be seen as not useful for a number of reasons. Firstly, it shows no clear intervention of Britain and the USA in the dismantling of Germany with the Treaty, however the two bats hovering in the background could represent these countries. It also does not give any implication into what terms were made by the French that wouldve crippled Germany to this stage such as the removal of certain German territory and demilitarisation of the Rhineland. Overall, I think the source is relatively useful in showing France were the country involved in the Paris Peace Conference that most wanted to cripple Germany after World War One as the source was published in 1919, but it is not useful it does not show or imply why or how they crippled Germany. Level 2/ 5 Marks Question 6 Response 2 Source D is a German cartoon published at the time of the Treaty of Versailles. It is quite reliable in showing the general public opinion as a cartoon would have to show a popular view or nobody would like or agree with it. However it is propaganda as it is in a magazine so may exaggerate the point. The source shows a view of the French that is known to be held by Germans at the time, however, so it is quite reliable. The cartoon shows the French Prime Minister as a vampire draining the life from a girl, who represents Germany. This shows how the Treaty of Versailles was seen to be very bad for Germany, draining the life out of the country. The Treaty was bad for Germany and very unpopular. The Germans prided themselves on military strength so when their army was reduced to 100,000 men, no airforce and 6 battleships they felt like they were having unfair treatment. This worsened when it was revealed they had to pay 6600 million in reparations, which was considered impossible when Germany was weak from the war anyway, and war guilt was simply not accepted by many. This caused the Treaty to be very unpopular and Eberts government, who
15
signed it, were known as the November Criminals. Clemenceau was the most aggressive leader towards Germany at the Paris Peace Conference, so it is true that he was the one sucking the life out of Germany. The reparations were especially bad as Germany was in ruins from the war and could not afford to rebuild itself, so the source is accurate in this metaphor. In conclusion Clemenceau did suck the life out of Germany with the harsh terms of the Treaty, so the source is useful in showing how Germans saw this and is useful in explaining why Hitlers promises to tear up the Treaty of Versailles were so popular in the 1920s. However, it does not tell us why Clemenceau was so eager to weaken Germany nor the effects this had in Germany, so is not totally useful. Level 3/ 8 Marks Question 6 Response 3 Source D is relatively useful for studying the reactions to the Treaty of Versailles in Germany since it clearly shows they were angry that Clemenceau was weakening them. However it is not fully useful since it doesnt include Clemenceaus nature and it is likely to be propaganda printed to make Germans bitter about all the other countries in Europe. The source is useful since it shows the common attitude of Germans who thought the Treaty of Versailles was crippling them since the woman representing Germany is having her blood sucked from her. This is trying to show that many Germans felt like Germany had been made so weak with all the reparations which would cause poverty in Germany for years. The helmet in the corner may also emulate the fact Germans angered how the French had made them so militarily weak with only 100,000 men allowed in the army. It seems as though this helmet has fallen off Germany who was once a military power and perhaps it suggests now they are militarily weak they will be powerless against France should they decide to take more. This therefore makes it useful since it clearly shows what Germans felt especially because they felt they shouldnt be punished because they werent to blame for the war. However, the source appears to be propaganda because Clemenceau has been drawn as some pasty malnourished powerless thing and Germany has been painted as some innocent vulnerable yet almost strong looking woman. This therefore makes it less useful since France was now a lot stronger because they had good industrial areas from Germany who the Saarland and they had Alsace-Lorraine back but his strong France is not portrayed. A woman has also been used to represent Germany as some strident yet vulnerable creature who needs protection. This makes it unreliable because Germany is painted as innocent and yet they had been given the War Guilt Clause 231 and it missed this out making it incomplete. Then again, the source is useful since it is a contemporary drawing from Germany and so it is bound to capture the feelings Germany had at the time. Its motive however makes it seem less useful since it is exaggerating the injustices of the Treaty in an attempt to conjure up anger in Germany so normal people would want revenge and so this makes it less useful. The source is also incomplete since it makes it seem like what Clemenceau is doing is unlawful and yet the Treaty gave him the right to do this. By painting Germany as a lady it misses out Clemenceaus reasons since it makes Germany seem like they didnt take land from France or have involvement in the war making it unreliable.
16
In conclusion; the source is useful since it gives us a good insight into the anger Germany felt yet it seems like propaganda and so this makes it slightly less useful since it forgets the reasons for the Treaty. Level 4/ 10 Marks
17
0 7 What does Source E suggest about the popularity of Jazz in the 1920s in the USA? Target: Comprehension and inference from a source (AO3) Candidates either submit no evidence or fail to address the question Level 1: Answer that takes information from the source e.g. Jazz was a new form of music. It appealed to young people. Jazz became a craze. It was wild and dramatic. Answer shows understanding and is able to make inference(s) from the source e.g. Jazz was popular but partly because it was linked with other exciting things such as illegal alcohol and bars and clubs. Young people were able to associate jazz with excitement, novelty, risk and shock-value.
0 1-2
Level 2:
3-4
Question 7 Response 1 Source E suggests that the popularity of Jazz grew dramatically in the 1920s in the USA. Source E says how Jazz was a new form of music, a type of music that America had never seen before. It did not take long for Jazz to become extremely popular in America in the 1920s with stars such as Louis Armstrong being introduced. The black people who were involved in Jazz bands were not seen as any normal black person living in the USA in the 1920s. The black artists, such as Louis Armstrong, did not experience any racism during his time as a Jazz singer because he was used as a form of entertainment for all other Americans. Source E explains how Jazz not only appealed to the older generations but to the young people too. This was because Jazz was played in bars that sold illegal alcohol, also known as a speakeasy. Source E describes the Jazz music as being a craze, a word which shows that this type of entertainment became popular for every person of every age in America in the 1920s. Being involved in the entertainment industry gave blacks the opportunity to not experience racism. Level 2/ 3 Marks Question 7 Response 2 Source E suggests the Jazz music was very popular and appealed to young people as it was seen as daring and exciting. It originated from early kinds of black music and so youth enjoyed listening to it as it was a form of political protest keen to cast away any social restraints of the previous generations i.e. associating with the black community if you were of white skin. Another reason why Jazz was so popular suggests source E was because it was played in bars and clubs that sold illegal alcohol. Jazz, like alcohol in the time of prohibition, was associated with freedom of expression and it was wild. Source E suggests that it soon became a craze. Level 2/ 4 Marks Question 7 Response 3 Source E suggests that Jazz music was a new innovation at the time and was rising in popularity. It was something that at first was more contained to the countryside where Negros lived but soon started to spread into the cities. The popularity of the music rose but was more attractive to the youth rather than the older generation who preferred to stick with their own type of music. The power in the music was very strong and it exhibited an animal like attitude from youths. As alcohol was prohibited at the time, the Jazz and illegal alcohol were a perfect combination in speakeasies where people came to
18
relax. Level 2/ 4 Marks
19
0 8 Explain why the Stock Market boom developed in the 1920s. Target: Causation and analysis of key features (AO1 and 2) Candidates either submit no evidence or fail to address the question. Level 1: Simple descriptive comment and/or identifies one cause. e.g. Many Americans were keen to buy shares in the 1920s and the prices kept on going up in value. The answer demonstrates simple understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is generally coherent but basic in development. Level 2: EITHER Identifies several causes e.g. Keenness to buy shares; more demand led to higher prices; government encouraged process with little regulation (laissez-faire); low taxes meant people had more money to invest; many investors borrowing money (with low interest rates) were able to buy more shares; banks did this too. Helped by developments in mass production and growth of hire purchase. OR Explains one cause e.g. Detailed answer based on one of the above causes. The answer may also mention other causes. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is reasonably well organised and presented in a clear and effective manner. Level 3: Explains two or more causes e.g. Detailed answer based on at least two causes. At this level answers may show interconnections between the causes in order to explain why the boom developed. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is well organised with an appropriate form and style of writing. Some specialist vocabulary is used. Question 8 Response 1 The Stock Market boom developed in the 1920s because of many different things. One reason was the introduction of mass production. The Model T Ford, made and invented by Henry Ford, became hugely popular and because of mass production and the assembly line, the Model T Ford was being produced every ten seconds rather than every one hour. As a result of this, many households owned the Model T Ford and as the years went by, the number of Model T Fords being sold increased dramatically. Huge amounts of Model T Fords were on the road by 1928. Another reason for the Stock Market boom development in the 1920s was because of the entertainment industry. Jazz bars, cinemas, and theatres became very popular with names such as Charlie Chaplin, Louis Armstrong and Al Johnson being well known. Babe Ruth, an American sportsman was also a popular figure in the 1920s. A major reason for the development of the Stock Market boom in the 1920s was the
0 1-2
3-4
5-6
20
introduction of hire purchase and share purchase. Hire purchase soon became a popular way of buying goods. It happened by the customer paying for the product in instalments. Hire purchase soon became a main way of buying. The FordneyMcCumber Tariff also played a huge part. It put high taxes on all foreign goods in America and only American items were being purchased. Level 2/ 4 Marks Question 8 Response 2 The Stock Market boomed in the 1920s because of a number of reasons. Mass marketing was the first reason as the production line was invented which meant cars could be made in 93 minutes instead of 4 hours and new technology became available, new jobs were created trying to work machinery. Mass marketing was also another reason, advertising became more popular and main stores like Woolworths developed and catalogues were sent out to rural areas which meant people could buy things even if they couldnt afford it which meant more money went to factories which created more jobs and more money. This meant people could afford to buy shares. Confidence also caused the Stock Market to boom as people were confident they would be able to pay back their loans and so bought more shares. Government policies also meant that they lowered tax so that people would spend more and it allowed them to spend more money on shares. People bought shares because they thought they would be able to make money off them when they sold them again. Mass marketing and production produced more jobs which gave people more money in order to buy shares. The growth of prosperity allowed this to happen and so did isolationism as the Fordney-McCumber tariff put high taxes on foreign goods which meant people spent more money on American goods so more money circulated in America so people could buy more shares. Level 3/ 5 Marks Question 8 Response 3 During the 1920s America was going through a period of prosperity which affected a majority of Americans (white mostly) in a positive way. After World War One, America knew it wouldnt be able to sell as many goods as it used to Europe because of the reparations after the war. These were financial reparations stopping American people selling overseas as Europe couldnt afford to buy. America adopted an isolationist attitude and wanted to stay away from European affairs to concentrate on its own prosperity. The Republican government at the time adopted business policies such as lassiez-faire and the 1922 Fordney-McCumber Tariff to help boost the American economy. The Fordney-McCumber Tariff was introduced which made overseas goods expensive as they had to pay high tariffs to sell the goods which made American goods cheaper to buy and meant more people would buy American goods. Lassiez-faire policy meant that the government would interfere as little as possible with the people and believed in rugged individualism meaning people being responsible for their own money. Low taxation was introduced so that Americans would have more money to spend on American goods so rich people would invest more and others would buy more. Mass production also meant that goods could be produced faster such as cars. In 1903 Henry Ford opened the Ford Company and the T-Model was introduced in 1909. By 1914 it only took 93 minutes to make a car from the previous 14 hours and manufacturing belts were used as well. The manufacturing of cars introduced more jobs in industries such as lighting and in the electric industry. Hire purchase was also introduced which meant people could buy goods on credit. They would pay a deposit and could pay the rest for the goods when they had enough money. This meant more people bought goods so more jobs were made for industries to make goods faster. Share purchase was also introduced as people started buying shares on the stock exchange and getting shares of
21
the profits but also selling the shares on. The value of shares went up by 300%. People were buying shares on the margin where they would get 90% of the loan from the bank and buy the shares and then expected to pay the bank back with the profits. Their houses were taken as guarantees. Confidence also played a major factor in the boom as everyone thought that they were entitled to prosperity and people were confident in the economy and repaying the loans that they had taken. Level 3/ 6 Marks
22
0 9 How useful is Source F for studying American attitudes towards organised crime and gangsters during the period of Prohibition? Use Source F and your knowledge to explain your answer. Target: Evaluation of a source for utility using own knowledge (AOs 1,2 and 3) Candidates either submit no evidence or fail to address the question. Level 1: EITHER Accepts the content of the source at face value. e.g. It is useful because it shows what Al Capone looked like. OR Generalised or learned response which could apply to any source. e.g. It is a photograph from a popular magazine which will want to make Al Capone look interesting. The answer demonstrates simple understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is generally coherent but basic in development. Level 2: EITHER Simple comments on the usefulness or the limitations of the source based on information in the source and/or own knowledge. e.g. It is useful for showing that many Americans looked favourably on Al Capone because he supplied what they wanted alcohol. OR Simple comments on the usefulness or the limitations of the source in terms of provenance or reliability or bias. e.g. It is useful because, although a magazine cover, it does reflect the fact that most Americans recognised Al Capone as he was a well-known figure. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is reasonably well organised and presented in a clear and effective manner. Level 3: EITHER Developed explanation about the utility/limitations of the source using the source and own knowledge. e.g. It is useful for reflecting American attitudes towards Al Capone. He controlled much of the publicity surrounding himself, and he was portrayed in the media as a businessman supplying what many Americans wanted. He was seen by many as the good guy who tried to outwit the Prohibition agents. They played down the disregard for the law and violence associated with his activities. On the other hand many Americans were horrified by the violence of events such as the St Valentines Day Massacre. OR Developed explanation about the utility/limitations of the source focusing on the provenance of the source in relation to the content and/or own knowledge. e.g. It is useful because it shows how a popular American magazine showed Al Capone. He was being seen, at the beginning of the Depression, as a successful entrepreneur, envied by many Americans for his success. Time magazine was reflecting the popular American mood especially at a time when many American businessmen were coming to terms with their own
10
0 1-2
3-5
6-8
23
personal failures. However, the magazine will only be reflecting the views of certain more wealthy and educated sections of society. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is well organised with an appropriate form and style of writing. Some specialist vocabulary is used. Level 4: Both strands above, one at Level 3, the other at standard/good Level 2 Both strands above at Level 3 The answer demonstrates highly developed/ complex understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is well structured, with an appropriate form and style of writing. Specialist vocabulary is used effectively. Question 9 Response 1 Source F is useful for studying American attitudes to organised crime and gangsters towards Prohibition because Al Capone is on the front of a popular magazine which shows he was popular amongst people because hes on the magazine. Al Capone was a gangster who was popular with the public because he used to give money to charities and attend sports. He was a feared gang leader though and he would kill his own men if he believed they were plotting against him. He used to be a supplier of moonshine which was illegal alcohol during Prohibition and he ran speakeasies. Al Capone was popular and people had a good attitude towards him because he gave to charities. The Valentines Day Massacre was a turning point though when Al Capone killed Bugsy Morans men, he was arrested for tax evasion and Prohibition ended. The public had a laidback attitude to organised crime and gangsters. Policemen were willing to tell people where the closest speakeasy was and alcohol was imported from Canada and it was hard to control. Moe Smith and Einstein were two famous agents who tried to stop organised crime as they would go into speakeasies and order a drink and arrest whoever served them. Overall source F is very useful for studying American attitudes towards organised crime and gangsters as it shows Al Capone is very popular as he appears on a popular magazine but from my own knowledge I know that people only had a positive attitude because he would give money to charity and was popular because he was a fan of sports games. Organised crime and gangsters werent popular because of how they murdered people and the Valentines Day Massacre was the end of Prohibition because organised crime had gone too far. Level 3/ 6 Marks Question 9 Response 2 Source F is the front cover of the Time US magazine which was one of the most popular in America at the time. It showed and told stories about celebrities, rich and famous people. It showed Al Capone. Source F is useful in that it shows that the attitude towards organised crimes was that of glamour and carefree consciences. Certainly not the attitude you would expect from Americans who knew of the many, many deaths Al Capone was responsible for. Gangsters in the Prohibition times like Al Capone ran illegal bars disguises as Jazz clubs called speakeasies that sold alcohol illegally, as the USA was now dry and alcohol was illegal. Many people went to these bars as they did not agree with the law and so developed more of a relationship with the gangsters than the good-doing Prohibition agents like Moe Smith and Izzy Einstein. More and Izzy needed to wear disguises on multiple jobs as they were very well known and people were willing to sell out their local speakeasy. It is estimated that by 1929 there were 30,000 speakeasies in 9 10
24
New York alone and over 200,000 across all the States. Surely this tells us that the attitude towards the gangsters at the time was one of acceptance just like source F. Al Capone was quoted in the Time magazine saying that I am just as illegal as those that buy from meI am just a business man. He operated freely and did not fear arrest as he gave many bribes to corrupt police officers and he had a private army of 1000 men. It was only really after the Saint Valentines Day Massacre when gangsters lost a lot of respect and it became clear that Prohibition was not working. Members of Al Capones gang dressed as police officers gunned down 6 members of a rival gang in broad daylight. Source F is very useful at showing us the attitude of Americans toward organised crime and gangsters as it is published in the Time magazine (a magazine which was likely to have influenced the minds of many) and what it suggests fits hand in hand with other things we know about that era, speakeasies, Prohibition agents, bootleggers (people who smuggled alcohol in their knee length boots across the Mexican or Canadian border), moonshine (homemade alcohol) etc. Level 3/ 8 Marks Question 9 Response 3 In the 1920s era of the USA, it was a time of boom, but also it was a time of organised crime. The source F shows a picture of Al Capone, the most popular and well known criminal of the era, it shows the man on the cover of Time magazine which was the most popular magazine in America. From source F you get a view on the attitudes that Americans had towards organised crime and gangsters during Prohibition. From this source you get a view that Al Capone was a celebrity of the era and was loved by many people, this is true to an extent. Al Capone supplied the American people the illegal items which made him a popular man in parts of the USA. This is because of the time, the USA was under the Volstead Act of 1920 which made alcohol illegal to the people of America, many people were unhappy about this and Al Capone was there to supply them with what they wanted. So this did make him a popular figure. However source F may not be completely useful for seeing how Al Capone and organised crimes was viewed. As many people in gangs paid bribes to top government officials or people of high power, this might show that the source doesnt portray how Al Capone and other people in crime were viewed as he may have paid the owners of the magazine to put him on the front of Time. Therefore this would imply that organised crime was not viewed as popular but the people in it had the money to make themselves out to be celebrities. The source pictures Al Capone a member of a gang on the magazine this is useful as it shows that the people of the USA were used to seeing organised crime out in the open and did not mind. However this view was not shared by all those in America, there were certain groups highly opposed towards the supply of alcohol by gangs and the crime that it brought to the city during the time of Prohibition. These people were groups such as the Womens Temperance League and the Anti-Saloon League, these groups were against what Al Capone and other gangs were doing. There were also people opposed to the bloodshed but could do nothing about it because of bribes such as the St. Valentines Day Massacre where rival gang members were killed. Police wanted to arrest him but they had no secure link. This suggests that not all people had affection for the gangs. From the source it is partially useful for a historian as what it does is shows the views of certain people that he was a celebrity and a big business man supplying what people
25
wanted. It is also useful in showing the people of the USA were used to seeing about him in the open. However it is not useful in showing the bribes that they might have given to be seen as celebrities and also those opposed to crime. Level 4/ 9 Marks
26
Section B 1 0 Use Source G and your knowledge to describe the Purges and Show Trials of the 1930s in Stalins USSR. Target: Use of source and knowledge to describe key features (AOs 1,2 and 3) Candidates either submit no evidence or fail to address the question. Level 1: Basic description, using source and/or own knowledge e.g. At the show trials everyone pleaded guilty. e.g. Stalin killed anyone suspected of being a possible rival. The answer demonstrates simple understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is generally coherent but basic in development. Level 2: EITHER Detailed description of limited aspects(with or without use of source) e.g. details on the murder of Kirov and leading to the first wave of purges. e.g. details on the show trials, 1936-1937 (with perhaps some other items being identified but not described in depth). OR Limited description of wider range of aspects (with or without use of source) e.g. the murder of Kirov; the development of the purges; Kamenev and Zinoviev; show trials; fate of almost all Old Bolsheviks; fate of many lesser party officials, including some of NKVD; armed forces. (NB Allow credit for the Terror that is, the wider range of killings around the USSR as part of the Purges). The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is reasonably well organised and presented in a clear and effective manner. Level 3: Detailed description of several aspects using source and own knowledge. e.g. At least two areas from the list above described in detail. The answer must include a reference to Source G and the Show Trials. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is well organised with an appropriate form and style of writing. Some specialist vocabulary is used. Question 10 Response 1 During the Purges, everyone in Russia was under threat. Source G shows us that when in court, there was only one outcome, being found guilty. Stalin was so paranoid that he would happily arrest anyone opposing him. An estimated 10 million people were killed during the Purges. The almost ridiculous quotes of the men under trail shows us that Stalins crazed mind spoke for them, they had no say in the outcome. The men are just accepting that it is too late and their outcome has already been decided. Level 1/ 2 Marks 7-8 3-6 0 1-2 8
27
Question 10 Response 2 Source G shoes the American view of the Show Trials in the USSR. The source is a cartoon so is meant to be light-hearted/funny but there is also a reason behind the cartoon. The Americans thought that the trials were pointless and wouldnt be true. Stalin made Show Trials to prove that people were guilty when in fact he had already made up his mind. He would torture a person and it would get to the point where they would admit to anything Stalin wanted. They also threatened peoples families so to protect their family they would admit to a crime. They then would video the person admitting doing a crime then they can punish him. The point of the Show Trials was to prove people were guilty. The Purges were brutal killing or sending people to camps because Stalin felt that they had done something wrong. Many people died because of Stalin in the years of the Purges (about 10 million). Stalin killed all sorts of people, workers, soldiers, peasants, kulaks etc. He was very concerned about things and he was paranoid. This meant he thought people were against him when they werent. As a result of the Purges Russia were lacking quality generals for World War 2 as Stalin had killed many of them. This was nearly fatal. Level 2/ 4 Marks Question 10 Response 3 The Purges of the 1930s in the USSR could have been caused by many things, but the most likely explanation for the Purges would be that Stalin was paranoid of losing his power. These Purges started in the USSR when the Vice-Secretary of the party was assassinated. Stalin quickly used this as an excuse to purge the Communist Party for potential threats to his power. The first people that fell victim to these Purges were put on Show Trials as shown in source G because it showed the people of the world and the citizens of the USSR that if they stepped out of line, you would be punished. In the first broadcasted Show Trial, each convict pleaded guilty even though some were almost certainly innocent. Source G has been created to amuse because it is a cartoon so it is exaggerated but it does highlight the willingness of the convicts to plead guilty. In the 1930s, the people that pleaded guilty were more than likely tortured by the NKVD (Stalins secret police) or threatened in a way that they couldnt refuse. After these Purges, Stalin found more reasons to purge different sections in society. After the Communist Party was purged, Old Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, doubters and people that criticised the regime were purged. Stalin purged the Old Bolsheviks because he knew some of them were cleverer than him and so he worried about plots against him. After this he purged doctors, saboteurs, teachers: in fact every career. Finally, he purged the army. By the time the war came in 1941, the power vacuum between ??? ????? disarray. When Stalin died, his Purges had been so absolute that no clear leader emerged for years. Level 3/ 7 Marks Question 10 Response 4 Source G is a cartoon making fun of the Show Trials in Russia. There were three main Show Trials, known as the trials of the 16, 17 and 21, where Stalin trialled many of his political opponents and allies in the Politburo as well as the armed forces. In the trials nearly all of the people accused admitted to the crimes, including Zinoviev, Kamenev
28
and Bukharin who were close supporters of Stalin in him taking power in Russia. The accused were tortured and promised that they would be set free if they admitted to the crimes before the trials. Source G shows all the men very keen to admit their apparent crimes and therefore highlights this and shows how the trials were fake. In reality the trials enabled Stalin to get rid of any people who he felt were becoming too powerful and encouraged patriotism because people were trying to stop communisms progress. The Purges began after Kirov the head of the Petrograd branch of communism was murdered in 1934 and gave Stalin the chance to begin his Purges. The armed forces were also purged as well as politicians because Stalin felt they were becoming too powerful and accusing them of being Trotskyites, spies for Japan and betraying their country (shown in source G sure I tried to betray my country). This amounted to 25,000 army generals being killed. Stalins secret police known as the NKVD arrested people and had the power to do as they pleased taking people to Gulags, which were labour camps. People denounced each other also, reporting one another as Trotskyites to the police, which created a state of terror, where people would denounce each other if they had an argument. Nothing bad was said about Stalin as people were too scared and the NKVD had spies everywhere. Level 3/ 8 Marks
29
1 1 Stalins Five Year Plans were a great success in the years 1928-1941. Do you agree? Explain your answer. Target: Analysis of key features and extent of success (AOs 1 and 2) Candidates either submit no evidence or fail to address the question. Level 1: Simple descriptive comment and/or identifies one feature e.g. The USSR was very backward before Stalins rule, and the amount of industry increased rapidly as a result of the Five Year Plans. The answer demonstrates simple understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is generally coherent but basic in development. Level 2: EITHER Identifies several features e.g. rising output in heavy industries; effects on USSRs economic strength; Stakhanovites; cities such as Magnitogorsk; appalling working conditions for industrial workers. OR Explains one feature using knowledge and understanding e.g. Details on achievements of five-year plans. (NB Other aspects may also be identified, but not explained in depth). The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is reasonably well organised and presented in a clear and effective manner. Level 3: Explains more than one feature. The answer will probably attempt a conclusion about the extent of success; it may not be balanced. e.g. Details on several aspects (as in Level 2), but also probably reaching a conclusion, such as the opinion that rapid progress was made, but also much needed to be done to build up the USSRs strength using its newly-developed heavy industries. Also credit answers which contrast economic success with personal suffering. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is well organised with an appropriate form and style of writing. Some specialist vocabulary is used. Level 4:
12
0 1-3
4-6
7-10
An analytical, linked answer clearly focused on the question, reaching a 11-12 balanced conclusion about the extent of success. e.g. Details on several aspects, with a balanced conclusion, and set in the wider context of the USSRs economic position in the world at the start of the Second World War; or the view that the achievements were more apparent in the national context than in the ordinary lives of many citizens except for the privileged few. The answer demonstrates highly developed/ complex understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is well structured, with an appropriate form and style of writing. Specialist vocabulary is used effectively.
Question 1 Response 1
30
Stalins Five Year Plans were certainly a success for the Russian industry. Russias industry was the least up to date in Europe and 85% of the population were peasants. In 1928 Stalin said that in five years time that he wanted an industry the strength of Americas. The industry didnt end up as strong as the United States but it was in the top 3. Although the industry had improved significantly and was a success, it sure did take its toll on the people. The people were forced to work long hours with very little pay. You had to work regardless unless you were sick or pregnant. There was also widespread famine and many people died from starvation. Others died from exhaustion and also from the cold. On the whole I think that the Five Year Plans were a success but they came at a heavy price for the people. Level 2/ 4 Marks Question 11 Response 2 I think that Stalins Five Year Plans were a success in the years 1928 41 as it made Russia the second strongest power behind the USA. I dont think that Russia would have anywhere near that if they didnt have the Five Year Plan. The Five Year Plans were made to make the Russians have a good economy, be as powerful as the other important nations, have modern equipment/factories. The Five Year Plans made huge difference to Russia. Even though they rarely met their plans for the first two they still made a remarkable increase in electricity, coal etc. After they were doing well with the main sources they started mining for tin, lead etc. to lead them to more profit. As they were making money they built more factories and they could get newer technology. As they built more factories the peasants started to go to cities and get jobs. The more people who had jobs the more people had money to spend to get other parts of the economy going. It was great for Russia as it made them into a big power. However, the Five Year Plans meant that the workers had to work long shifts and were heavily punished if they didnt do the amount of work they were meant to do. The workers got jobs and therefore money but they were not allowed to change jobs or work in a different place unless they had permission. They also didnt have any trade unions to complain to. If anybody went on strike they were just shot. Their working conditions were improving but still didnt increase. I think that the Five Year Plans were a success for Stalin and Russia but not for the workers as they got punished. Overall it was a success as it did what it aimed to do. Level 2/ 6 Marks Question 11 Response 3 The purpose of Stalins Five Year Plans was to rapidly industrialise the USSR, so that they could compete with countries such as the USA economically, as well as increase Russias exports and so strengthen its economy. The first two Five Year Plans, from 1928 1937, were mostly concerned with increasing Russias heavy industry, by looking to increase production of coal, steel, oil and electricity, and tractors for the second plan. This would help industrialise Russia, as well as improve farming. The third Five Year Plan focused much more on the production of consumer goods such as radios and bicycles, so that Russia could increase its exports and strengthen its economy. In all of the Five Year Plans, Russias industrial output vastly increased, and by 1941, they were much closer economically to Britain and the
31
USA than they were 13 years before. At the same time as increasing industrial output, the Five Year Plans involved industrialising the nation, by building dams, railways and mines, and again this worked very well, as Russia, as a country, became much more industry based. However, when Stalin set out the Five Year Plans, he set specific targets that he wanted Russia to achieve, and with the exception of steel in the first plan, none of these targets were reached. In order to avoid this failure, Stalin always set out new targets early, and cut the last plan short, and so while they fell short, they didnt technically fail. In addition, the standard of living in Russia fell dramatically during the Five Year Plans. People were expected to work long hours for little pay, all for the good of the nation. Much of the workforce was untrained and so accidents were common, and the punishments for the slightest error, even being late for work, were extremely harsh. Workers were also expected to meet ridiculously high levels of production, and though the rewards for those who reached them (known as Stakhanovites) were great, it often involved treading on others to do so. In conclusion, while the Five Year Plans were a great success in that they achieved their general aims, they did not reach the specific targets set, and I feel that the cost to the Russian people was far too high. Level 3/ 8 Marks Question 11 Response 4 Stalins Five Year Plans were a success in some aspects and a failure in others. To back up the claim that the Five Year Plans were a success, you need to look at the purpose of the Five Year Plans, which was to increase Soviet industry rapidly so it could defend itself. At the beginning of the Five Year Plans, production was the same as it had been since 1914, and it had only recovered from the Civil War production plummet in 1928 because of the NEP. At the end of the second Five Year Plan in 1938, production had almost quadrupled in each industry. Electricity which was only being produced in 0.5 million tonnes in 1928 had become 55 million tonnes, which is a staggering increase. In terms of increasing production, the plans were a great success. Working conditions also improved for the average worker under the Five Year Plans and the five year target gave them something to work for. Unemployment was unheard of in the USSR in the late 1930s because everyone was required to work, so everyone got paid. New settlements east of the Ural Mountains and the Caucasus Mountains provided new housing for workers and more room. The third Five Year Plan was at first aimed at giving out consumer goods, so the workers greatly benefitted until the war, when the Five Year Plan was changed to making military weapons. However the Five Year Plans also had their downsides. Accidentally breaking tools in a factory counted as sabotage and was punishable by being send to a prison (or Gulag) or being fired. People who were late for work had their work passports shredded, so they couldnt work anywhere else in the Soviet Union. In the Gulags, hard work was enforced without use of tools with terrible results. Of the 250,000 prisoners sent to work on the Dnieper dam, 100,000 were killed. Meeting the very different aims in the Five Year Plans also put pressure on factory owners to make workers work even harder. The Five Year Plans were rarely achieved but the government claimed that they had been achieved ARGUABLY to encourage workers to work harder for the next Five Year Plan.
32
In conclusion, the Five Year Plans were a success from 1924 1941 because they achieved the aim of rapid industrialisation. While the Wall Street Crash occurred, Russia was booming. In terms of the methods used to achieve the aims set about in the Five Year Plans, the Five Year Plans were a humanitarian nightmare. Millions died from work and millions more suffered depression from the tough work. Level 3/ 10 Marks Question 11 Response 5 Stalins Five Year Plans were a great success in some respects, but a failure in others. Stalins Five Year Plans were introduced because Russia was 50 100 years behind other nations such as Britain and so Stalin begun rapid industrialisation in Russia. Huge industrial achievements were achieved such as the Dnieper dam which produced 7 times more electricity than any other hydroelectric power station in Europe. The effects of which can be seen as electricity was introduced in many towns in Russia, and some homes had central heating also. New towns were created from nothing such as Magnitogorsk where 250,000 people came to work and live. Huge progress was made in terms of Russias transport also with good railway networks being introduced where previously there was only the Trans-Siberian railway. Standard of living was also increased after several years of the Five Year Plans with free hospitals and education introduced also, which decreased death rates and also improved literacy, showing Russia to become a more developed society. Rewards were also given to hard workers, shown by Stakhanov who mined 14 times the average worker in one shift and was made a hero of socialist labour. He was made rich and famous across Russia and those that followed his achievements became known as Stakhanovites. Rewarding of individuals was in fact a capitalist idea, however it made people work much harder and so proved successful. During the Five Year Plans Stalin also modernised agriculture, forming collective farms which improved the yield and meant people had enough food as well as bringing communism to farming. Targets were also extremely high in the Five Year Plans which meant they were never met but people were always working to achieve them, thus production increased. There were also failures within the Five Year Plans also. The achievements required huge sacrifice from people to take place and many people died whilst building industrial feats like the Dnieper dam. New towns such as Magnitogorsk were extremely tough to live in initially also as accommodation had built and disease spread very quickly through camps. Furthermore of the people who inhabited Magnitogorsk were forced to go there, showing how individual peoples views were sacrificed for greater achievements. Many people were scapegoated also because they were inexperienced with using machinery and therefore accidents were common, but these were passed off as sabotage by communist officials and the people responsible were sent to Gulags (German labour camps). NKVD introduced internal passports also so people didnt have a choice where to work and absence from work were seen as criminal offences and people were sent to Gulags because of which, despite the fact in 1938 absense from work was being 20 minutes later. Overall the Five Year Plans were a success in the long term, improving services and industrialising Russia, however there was huge sacrifices required in order for this to be achieved; many people were died and people spent their lives constantly working because targets were never met. Level 4/ 12 Marks
33
1 2 Use Source H and your knowledge to describe Nazi policies towards the Jews in the years 1933-1939. Target: Use of source and knowledge to describe key features (AOs 1,2 and 3) Candidates either submit no evidence or fail to address the question. Level 1: Basic description, using source and/or own knowledge. e.g. Jews treated as inferior race; shops were attacked. e.g. Germans marched with placards telling German people not to buy from Jews. The answer demonstrates simple understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is generally coherent but basic in development. Level 2: EITHER Detailed description of limited aspects (with or without use of source) e.g. Nuremberg Laws of 1935, taking away Jewish rights as citizens and banning mixed marriages (with perhaps other items being identified but not described in depth). OR Limited description of wider range of aspects (with or without use of source). e.g. boycott of shops; general propaganda (as in Source H); Nuremberg Laws, restrictions on Jews in professions; Kristallnacht. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is reasonably well organised and presented in a clear and effective manner. Level 3: Detailed description of several aspects using source and own knowledge. e.g. At least two items from the list above described in detail. The best answers will show some chronological progression. The answer must include a reference to Source H and the boycott of Jewish shops. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is well organised with an appropriate form and style of writing. Some specialist vocabulary is used. N.B. No credit should be given for the Holocaust. Question 12 Response 1 Source H is a clear example of one of Hitlers and his Nazi parties policy. Hitler put the blame on all Jews in Germany for the collapse of finance and because of the Wall Street Crash. Hitler wanted to make it clear what his aims were and by winning the hearts of most Germans, he was able to reach what he wanted to be a Fhrer, a leader, a dictator. Hitler was only able to get to this position because of the death of General Paul Von Hindenburg. Hitler was quick to put all blame on the Jews and as a result, with the help of the SS and
0 1-2
3-6
7-8
34
his Nazi army, he succeeded in destroying Jewish businesses and burning down most synagogues. With the help of propaganda and Josef Goebbels, head of propaganda, Hitler was able to brainwash many Germans into believing that Jews were bad people and were money-grabbers. Anti-Semitism did already exist in Germany before Hitler came along. However, Hitler and the Nazis made worse of what was already there. Source H shows several Nazi members campaigning to try and stop Germans from buying at Jewish shops. These Nazi members would walk the streets of Germany freely and many people would do what the placards said. People thought that if they did not do what these placards said, they would be betraying Hitler and they thought that they would be punished as a result. Level 2/ 3 Marks Question 12 Response 2 Source H shows Nazi policies towards the Jews in the years 1933 39, as it shows the Nazi Party influencing German people to stop buying produce from Jewish shops. The phrase, Germans! Stand up for yourselves! shows the intensity of hatred Hitler and the Nazis had for the Jewish people, as they wanted people to completely stop buying Jewish produce. This was just one of the Nazi policies towards the Jewish people. As the Nazi Party became more and more powerful, Hitler was always suspicious of the Jews as he believed that they were richer than everyone else because they were forced to learn a trade, so he could start isolating Jewish people from society. The Nazi Party forced teachers in schools to isolate Jewish children in lessons, and the Jewish people were often brought to the front of the class and laughed at. As time went on, eventually Jewish children were banned from attending German schools altogether, and were not permitted to be associated with other children. Other policies towards the Jews were that the Jewish people were forced to wear a bright yellow Star of David on their arms, so that they were further singles out from the rest of the community, and were made to feel intimidated. Many Jews were not employed by work companies, or fired from their jobs. In 1938, Kristallnacht occurred, which was Hitler and the Nazi Partys decision to smash and destroy all Jewish shops and businesses, and also their synagogues. Kristallnacht literally means night of the broken glass, and it demonstrated the extreme policy of antiSemitism followed by the Nazis, and spread all over Germany. The worst policy was that of the Final Solution which began in 1939. Hundreds of Jews were rounded up by SS troops, or handed in by the Gestapo, and were taken away to concentration camps where they would be forced to work as slaves producing weapons or products, or worse, sent to a gas chamber where they would be poisoned. Level 2/ 5 Marks Question 12 Response 3 When Hitler came to power he quickly established his wishes for Germany and his desires for its future as well as his opinions and basic policies of the Nazis. One of his views was that Jews were to blame for Germanys economic depression, they were the rich bankers and lawyers who were greedy and it was their fault Germanys economy crashed. The source is a good example of some of the ways Nazis intended to push Jews out of the picture.
35
Source H shows a group of men, presumably they are Nazis. Most of the men in the group are carrying posters which translated read, Germans! Stand up for yourselves! Dont buy from the Jews. This simple, precise message was very typical of the Nazis. Josef Goebbels the head of propaganda knew that short, direct messages worked best when convincing the masses. One of the first things Hitler did against the Jews when he came to power was organise a one day boycott of Jewish shops and businesses. He had SA men stand at the entrances of Jewish shops and physically stop people from entering the shop. These placards are presumably produced around the time of this boycott to remind people to stop giving Jews their money. Hitler didnt stop there, over the next few years he introduced several more anti-Jewish policies. He banned marriage between Jews and Aryans, he also had many Jews dismissed from their jobs. Jewish teachers were not allowed and Jewish doctors and lawyers were not allowed to work for Aryans. Hitler wanted to pick out Jews as much as possible so they could be identified easily. Jews therefore had a red letter J stamped on their passport. The Nuremburg Laws were introduced which took away Jewish rights as citizens. Jews were classed as second rate citizens. Hitler even went to the point where in the late 1930s he encouraged Jews to evacuate Germany and move to live elsewhere. The source H does give a very accurate image of policies Hitler introduced towards Jews, it does not show them all though and it does not display the degree of hatred Hitler must have had for the Jews to introduce some of the policies he did in the late 1930s. Level 2/ 6 Marks Question 12 Response 4 Hitler used brutal policies towards the Jews in the years 1933 39. He encouraged Aryan women to have children with other Aryans in an attempted to stop the Jews from infiltrating his pure society. They were part of the Untermenschen and so they were a burden to society in Hitlers eyes therefore he encouraged people not to buy from Jewish shops as this source suggests. A significant way in which he tried to fulfil his aim in ostracising the Jews was by having a lot of anti-Semitic propaganda. Indeed this source was used at the time to intimidate those who bought from Jewish businesses since the people parading are members of the SA and so you would feel you had to obey to avoid getting arrested or threatened by them. This kind of propaganda came paired with things such as lists put up entitled Enemies of the State which had names of those still buying from Jewish shops. In the years 1933 to 1945 800,000 million people were arrested as enemies of the state. Hitler also attempted fulfil his policy of wiping out the Jews with propaganda in culture. Films often started with short feature films often about standing up for yourselves and getting rid of Jews in an attempt to indoctrinate people into believing they were the Untermenschen. This also happened at schools where in May 1933 children were encouraged to burn Jewish books. The main event in which Hitler tried to show the Jews he wanted them gone was Kristallnacht where 91 Jews were killed and their businesses wrecked. Then two days later the Jews were fined 1 billion pounds worth of damage. Not only did this even scare Jews it also intimidated, like the source, those who still bought from Jewish businesses. By December 1936 all Jewish businesses were confiscated. The main way in which Hitler carried out his anti-Semitic policy was with the Final
36
Solution and the concentration camps where millions of Jews were sent to places such as Auschwitz to endure hard labour or be gassed. Level 3/ 8 Marks
37
1 3 Hitler was able to establish a dictatorship because he banned other political parties. Do you agree? Explain your answer. Target: Analysis of key features and causation. (AOs 1 and 2) Candidates either submit no evidence or fail to address the question. Level 1: Simple descriptive comment and/or identifies one feature e.g. Hitler banned all other political parties so that only Nazis met in the Reichstag. The answer demonstrates simple understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is generally coherent but basic in development. Level 2: EITHER Identifies several features e.g. Getting rid of Communists after Reichstag Fire; Enabling Act; abolition of other political parties; abolition of other political opposition such as Trade Unions. Other methods towards dictatorship include use of SS and Gestapo; adopting title of Fuhrer; propaganda methods including use of film, posters, newspapers, speeches and parades; censorship; control of education and youth movements; control of churches. OR Explains one feature using knowledge and understanding. e.g. Detailed answer on Reichstag Fire and its consequences. (NB Other aspects may also be identified, but not explained in depth). The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is reasonably well organised and presented in a clear and effective manner. Level 3: Explains more than one feature. The answer will probably attempt a conclusion about the extent of agreement; it may not be balanced. e.g. Details on several aspects (as in Level 2), probably attempting some balance between banning political parties and other methods of establishing a dictatorship. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is well organised with an appropriate form and style of writing. Some specialist vocabulary is used. Level 4: An analytical, linked answer clearly focused on the question, reaching a balanced conclusion about the extent of agreement. e.g. Details of several aspects, with a balanced conclusion, and set in the context of Hitlers methods of dictatorship, not just a narrow perspective on politics. The answer demonstrates highly developed/ complex understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is well structured, with an appropriate form and style of writing. Specialist vocabulary is used effectively.
12
0 1-3
4-6
7-10
11-12
38
Question 13 Response 1 Yes, I agree because Hitlers rise to power also had its obstacles, which were mostly other parties such as the communists. Hitler opposed these and made sure they were banned. Other parties didnt have the opportunity to make a vote, because Hitler sent the SA to threaten and even kill them. Nobody stepped up to Hitler because they were scared. Because he was Chancellor at the time, he used Act 48 to make a lot of emergency laws and part of this was to ban other parties. So there couldnt be a fair vote for anything. People may disagree because they believe that the banning of parties isnt the only reason. Another reason could be that Hitler made amazing speeches so a lot of people agreed. Also because Hitler had complete control over the media, and he used propaganda to spread the news about the Nazi Party. He brain-washed childrens minds and made them believe the Nazi way was the right way. Also because he made youth clubs and changed school timetables, so that mostly everything getting to children was Nazi related. He also arrested people who were against Nazi Party. Not a lot of people were arrested. A lot of Germans disagreed with Hitlers plans but kept silent. Overall, the banning of parties was the reason why he established dictatorship because nobody else had the chance to bring other ideas to the government. Level 2/ 4 Marks Question 13 Response 2 I agree with the statement that Hitler was able to establish a dictatorship because he banned other parties, as after the failure of the Weimar Constitution, and the Wall Street Crash in 1929, the people of Germany were looking for an extreme party to help sort out the situation in Germany. Hitler and the Nazi Party gained more votes, and by banning all the other parties, the Nazis were the only party left for people to vote for, and this meant Hitler had a rise in power so he could begin to do what he wanted; create a strong, pure Germany. However, I believe there are other important reasons why Hitler managed to establish a dictatorship. First of all, when he was appointed chancellor by Von Papen, this meant that Hitler could have increasing impact in decisions made in Germany, and then the Reichstag Fire in 1936 was also another reason. Hitler blamed the starting of the Reichstag Fire on the Communist Party, and because he was chancellor, this meant he was in control of Article 48 he could take emergency power over Germany, and he persuaded the people that communism was evil and he needed to protect Germany. Other ways in which Hitler was able to establish a dictatorship was through the Gestapo (secret police). Phone calls and actions of the German people were constantly monitored through the secret police, and if they believed that someone was against the Nazi Party, they would be dealt with, possibly through concentration camps, meaning that more and more people felt threatened into voting for the Nazi Party, and they gained more and more support. Hitler was a strong and powerful leader, and his leadership skills were a further reason why he was able to create a dictatorship. His ability to make powerful speeches, and his use of propaganda against communists, or any other party was another reason why he won votes and power, and many people were inspired by him as he promised them employment and lebensraum. In conclusion, I believe that by banning other parties, this was one way in which Hitler
39
created a dictatorship, however I believe that there are also other important factors such as the Gestapo, propaganda, and the economic crisis where people turned to Hitler for support. Level 2/ 6 Marks Question 13 Response 3 Eliminating political parties was one of the ways Hitler managed to become a dictator but it was not the only way. Hitler who used a lot of propaganda and also some violence to become dictator of Germany. In a time of economic disaster people began to look towards extremist solutions. Nazis were favoured by businessmen and the unemployed whereas communists appealed to the poor working class. The communists were Hitlers biggest political enemy. When the Reichstag Fire rook place Hitler jumped at the chance to blame the communists. He managed to persuade President Hindenburg to pass a law known as the Protection of the People and the State this law enabled Hitler to eliminate people who he believed were threatening to the safety of citizens or the government. After it came out that the communists had supposedly started the Reichstag Fire Hitler deemed them to be an enemy of the state. After the March election he banned communists. This left more rightwing parties in the German governing body, Hitler was able to persuade these remaining parties to pass an Act which would enable Hitler to pass laws without the president, this was the Enabling Act. After Hitler had achieved this he banned all other parties besides Nazis, and when President Hindenburg died Hitler combined the title of president and chancellor into one and became a Fhrer, the leader of Germany, a dictator. Banning political parties of course played into Hitlers favour and in effect did enable him to establish a dictatorship but before he could be in a high enough position of power to do this Hitler had to have a lot of support from citizens, this he achieved through propaganda and violence. The man in charge of propaganda was Josef Goebbels, he produced all kinds of propaganda including posters and pamphlets with short slogans and phrases which successfully convinced Germans to adopt Hitlers views. His propaganda was much more effective than any of the other political parties. Hitler was also a good speech maker, often using short simple phrases to capture the audience. All of Hitlers campaigning convinced people to join the Nazis and gained Hitler a lot of support. Violence was also used in eliminating the political enemy, Hitler would have the SA take down prominent communists or opposers to the Nazis and would also have them disturb political meetings of other parties. Level 3/ 8 Marks Question 13 Response 4 One of the reasons Hitler established a dictatorship was because he banned other parties, this is true as no opposition meant people had only him to vote for. However I disagree that this was the only reason, he could only do this due to the Reichstag Fire or 1933. The fire was blamed on van der Lubbe, a communist, meaning Hindenburg passed Article 48 allowing Hitler to arrest people who opposed his regime without trial. This led to the 1934 Enabling Act in which Hitler received a majority vote over 2/3s in favour. This Act enabled Hitler to run the country as dictator for up to 4 years and when Hindenburg died months later Hitler merged president and chancellor into the position of Fhrer. Hitler only managed this because he won over the voting public. In order to gain the vote of the nationalists he promised a stronger Germany. The Centre Party was won over by his signing of a concordat with the Catholic Church, and his promise to change
40
all Protestant churches into one government run Reich Church. He won the support of the German army on the Night of Long Knives, Ernst Rohm, leader of the SA threatened Hitlers and the German armys power. Hitler made a deal with the army commander to get rid of this problem in exchange for support. He sent SS kill squads to various locations and over 400 SA members were shot, including Rohm. However by banning other political parties Hitler created a strong one power state where people were afraid to criticise him or vote against him. This meant he had free reign allowing him to boost the German economy later on. People saw the strength behind one party and still recovering from depression, seized the escape. I think in all I would have to disagree with the source as there are many other reasons why Hitler was able to become Fhrer in 1934. His banning of political parties was due to the enabling and support of the people against communism so that in itself isnt the only reason. Level 3/ 10 Marks Question 13 Response 5 The main way in which Hitler created a dictatorship was because he used the Enabling Act to ban other parties creating a one party state. Other significant ways were creating the Terror State and the least significant ways he was able to establish a dictatorship were the Reichstag Fire and the Night of the Long Knives. The least significant ways in which Hitler established a dictatorship was the Reichstag Fire and the Night of the Long Knives. Hitler used the Reichstag Fire to show how the Nazis were the one party to support and that communists were against Germanys government. Although it seemed a communist plot, the Nazis may have had some involvement since Hitler seemed so pleased about it as propaganda. Hitler also used the event, to make use of the Article 48 to sort the situation out and so on the same night 4000 communists were arrested. This makes it significant in trying to establish a dictatorship since Hitler used it to extinguish political opponents. The second least significant way in which Hitler established a dictatorship was with the Night of the Long Knives where he got rid of the threat of the 5.2 million strong informal army the SA and Rohm. 400 SA members were killed and this helped Hitler create a dictatorship since he was able to get the support of the official army who disliked the SA. He was also able to get rid of the threat of Rohm who seemed adamant at turning the SA into a second army and interfering with Hitlers plans. However, it was not the most significant war since it only got rid of the threat of the SA. Hitler would need a lot more to turn Germany into a dictatorship. A significant way in which Hitler established a dictatorship was by creating the Terror State. Hitler made the Gestapo, or secret police, who had the power to arrest anti-Nazis or ransack anyones home. This was significant since it meant everyone wanted to vote for the Nazis to avoid being arrested. Everyone knew of someone who had been arrested and so it led to a fear which meant people were coerced into supporting Hitler. He also created the elite SS who ran the death camps again increasing fear in Germany since everyone realised if they werent publically pro-Nazi they and their family could be in danger making it significant for Hitler being able to establish a dictatorship. Hitler was able to establish a dictatorship because he banned other political parties. Shortly after he came to power he passed the Enabling Act however in order to pass it he had to get 2/3 majority so in order to achieve this he expelled 81 communists from the Reichstag. This gave him the power to pass any laws he wished and so on July 14th he passed the law that made Germany into the one-party state by banning other political parties. This was the main way in which he established a dictatorship because it meant
41
everyone had to vote for the Nazis and so freedom of speech was eradicated. The Enabling Act also allowed Hitler to ban trade unions on the 2nd May and so this gave him even more power because there were no people who could articulate dislikes about Hitler and so he was able to become a dictator. In conclusion, Hitler was able to become a dictator since he created the Enabling Act and this allowed him to ban other political parties. It seemed that Hitler would stop at nothing to achieve supremacy and so the Enabling Act only acted as a catalyst for him gaining this immense power. Level 4/ 12 Marks
42
1 4 Use Source J and your knowledge to describe criticism of, and opposition to, the policies of the New Deal in the years 1933-1939. Target: Use of source and knowledge to describe key features (AOs 1, 2 and 3) Candidates either submit no evidence or fail to address the question. Level 1: Basic description, using source and/or own knowledge. e.g. The New Deal was opposed by those who said it was costing too much. e.g. The Supreme Court sometimes opposed the New Deal, and refused to follow the wishes of the President and Congress. The answer demonstrates simple understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is generally coherent but basic in development. Level 2: EITHER Detailed description of limited aspects (with or without use of source) e.g. detailed description of opposition by the Supreme Court to parts of the New Deal legislation (with perhaps some other items being identified but not described in depth). OR Limited description of wider range of aspects (with or without use of source) e.g. The cost of the New Deal; the Supreme Court judgements finding some laws unconstitutional; some such as Senator Huey Long arguing that the new Deal was not going far enough to help the poor; Father Coughlins radio broadcasts; insufficient help for Black Americans; Republican Party preference for return of rugged individualism. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is reasonably well organised and presented in a clear and effective manner. Level 3: Detailed description of several aspects using source and own knowledge. e.g. At least two items from the list above described in detail. The answer must include a reference to Source J and the Supreme Court. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is well organised with an appropriate form and style of writing. Some specialist vocabulary is used. Question 14 Response 1 Source J shows the President and the Congress trying to encourage the Supreme Court to support them by banging on drums, almost like a parade. However, the Supreme Court have their back to them because they do not agree with him. The majority of the Supreme Court were Republicans, who supported rugged individualism. However, Roosevelt was Democrat, and his new ideas had to be passed by Supreme Court. When he used alphabet agencies to get the unemployed back on track, the Supreme Court opposed this and stopped him. Roosevelt was angry and then tried to get Democrats into the court. Many people, including his own party frowned upon this. It was a bad move. This was criticism of, and opposition to the policies of the New Deal. Politicians also opposed because a lot of government money was spent. The New Deal was the
0 1-2
3-6
7-8
43
most expensive in this history of politics. Businesses also opposed the New Deal because one of Roosevelts alphabet agencies was the NRA. This encouraged businesses to set fair hours and wages. Not all businesses wanted to join. Most people went to the places that had a blue eagle in the window because they had joined. Other businesses lost profit because not a lot of people went there. Level 2/ 3 Marks Question 14 Response 2 Source J portrays the complete opposition of the Supreme Court to the policies of the New Deal as constructed by Roosevelt when elected for the second time in 1936. Roosevelt aimed to provide relief and recovery for certain groups of people that had suffered Depression bad in 1929 when an economic crisis occurred in America and share prices collapsed, crippling the American economy and banking system. As an effect of the crash there was a lot of unemployment and prices had increased on unpopular goods as there had been no demand for it, meaning farmers, especially, were affected. President Roosevelt and Congress worked together to reopen the trustworthy and honest banks by closing them all for a four day holiday and running an Emergency Banking Act through Congress which resulted in only a few of the banks reopening again. The Supreme Court would disagree with this act as they did not see it as recovery as many bankers lost their jobs so it acted as a contribution to unemployment which was at an all-time high at this period of Depression. Roosevelt set up many alphabet agencies that were agencies used to help certain groups recover. For example the Agricultural Administration Agency (AAA) stopped farm owners losing their farms by decreasing the prices of farm food so demand would increase and they could pay the mortgages. However, the Supreme Court objected this idea as they felt each nation should be in control of their own land rather than intervention from a government as had been the policy of rugged individualism under Hoovers rule. In the second New Deal the World Progress Act was created and the Supreme Court objected this as they didnt believe giving people unnecessary jobs was helpful as it wasted the limited resources they had and was basically like paying people for doing unhelpful work within the community. The Supreme Court did not believe the alphabet agencies were helping anything as they did not completely solve unemployment or farming issues which were the largest affected areas of the depression. Level 2/ 5 Marks Question 14 Response 3 Source J is a presumably American cartoon showing Roosevelt and Congress celebrating the New Deal, and the Supreme Court unwilling to join in the celebrations. This is because the Supreme Court were uneasy about the reforms Roosevelt tried to introduce in the second New Deal, and objected to his ideas of weakening the power of big business owners and giving more power to the working classes. The Supreme Court were made up of mainly Republican men who were opposed to any Democratic change to the system. They clashed with Roosevelt over his NRA (National Recovery Administration) saying it weakened local government too much and was unconstitutional. As the most powerful body in the American system, this was a serious threat to the New Deal. Roosevelt asked that several new members be brought into the Supreme Court to be more sympathetic to the New Deal, but misjudged the public mood. He was accused of trying to pack the court with his own supporters and increased the Republican worries that Roosevelts big government was getting too
44
much like communism. The NRA aimed to improve working conditions by setting up a minimum wage, maximum working hours and gave guidelines on how much businesses should produce. He aimed to stimulate the economy by not overproducing, but these regulations made big business owners less income. Other reforms like trade unions and the Wagner Act were also greeted with opposition from the wealthy, who accused Roosevelt of communism. Thus source J accurately shows how the Supreme Court were suspicious of Roosevelt and did not support the New Deals work for the poor. Level 2/ 6 Marks Question 14 Response 4 As we can see in Source J, one of the main critics to the New Deal was the Supreme Court. In 1936, as shown in the sources the Supreme Court and FDR conflicted. The dispute was originated from a Jewish Chicken farms selling sick chickens to a business. The NIRA (The National Industrial Recovery Administration) got included with the business and interfered with it. This, deemed by the largely republican court was unconstitutional and felt the actions of FDRs NIRA and NRA were wrong and not for him to get involved with. Other criticisms steamed from the idea that the New Deal was not doing enough for the countrys recovery and some said that it was not only unfair on the tax payer to have to contribute so much, but also that it was a large waste of money/ There is a famous political cartoon which stresses both these ideas showing FDR ineffectively pumping the New Deal pump and wasting $16 billion on schemes that did not work. Another famous critic of the New Deal was Henry Long who claimed that the New Deal was providing no recovery for the American economy, just vague relief for its people. There was also a priest who, in contrast and opposition to FDRs fireside chats, criticised the New Deal publically on the radio. There were also criticisms of some of the alphabet agencies such as the Civilian Conservation Corps, which only paid its workers 1 per day, described as cheap labour. Also the AAA infamously slaughtered 6,000,000 chickens as well or only giving to of its food to ten poor and destroying 9/10 in an effort to increase the value of food. Criticisms also stem from the result of the spending cuts of 1937 where, unemployment rose again by 2,000,000. People jumped on the fact that the New Deal relied on too much investment and wasnt stable. Level 3/ 8 Marks
45
1 5 President Hoovers failure to deal with the Depression in the years 1929-1932 made sure that Roosevelt would be elected as President. Do you agree? Explain your answer. Target: Analysis of key features and causation (AOs 1 and 2) Candidates either submit no evidence or fail to address the question. Level 1: Simple descriptive comment and/or identifies one feature e.g. Hoover failed to deal with the Depression; unemployment remained high; Roosevelt promised a New Deal. The answer demonstrates simple understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is generally coherent but basic in development. Level 2: EITHER Identifies several features e.g. Hoovers belief in rugged individualism; his economic failures; Hoovervilles; attitude to bonus marchers; his limited attempts to revive economy through Hawley-Smoot Tariff 1930, help for construction industries (e.g. through Hoover Dam project), and 1932 Emergency Relief Act; Roosevelts background; his style of campaigning; his promises of a New Deal. OR Explains one feature using knowledge and understanding e.g. Hoovers failures. (NB Other aspects may also be identified, but not explained in depth). The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is reasonably well organised and presented in a clear and effective manner. Level 3: Explains more than one feature. The answer will probably attempt a conclusion about the extent of agreement; it may not be balanced. e.g. Details on several aspects (as in Level 2), but also probably reaching a conclusion. The answer may also challenge the assumption that Hoover failed to act at all and include some of his attempts to revive the economy. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is well organised with an appropriate form and style of writing. Some specialist vocabulary is used. Level 4:
12
0 1-3
4-6
7-10
An analytical, linked answer clearly focused on the question, reaching a 11-12 balanced conclusion about the extent of agreement. e.g. Details on several aspects, with a balanced conclusion. The answer will also probably try partly to rescue Hoovers reputation (as in Level 2 list). It may also explain that Roosevelts election was not a foregone conclusion Roosevelt only received 57% of the popular vote; Hoover received 40%, and 6 states voted for Hoover. The answer demonstrates highly developed/ complex understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is well structured, with an appropriate form and style of writing. Specialist vocabulary is used effectively.
46
Question 15 Response 1 Yes I agree because Hoover didnt try and help the depression. He believed that America should sort out themselves. The government shouldnt get involved. Many became homeless, poor and live in Hoovervilles after the Wall Street Crash and they couldnt look to the government for help. A popular slogan was in America we trusted, now we are busted, meant that they did trust in America, but they were let down. People who had everything suddenly had nothing and were in massive debt because stock market prices decreased rapidly. Their only hope was Roosevelt who promised a New Deal. Everyone needed help and he promised that. People may disagree because they believe in rugged individualism. They believe America got themselves in this mess, so they can get themselves out. Level 1/ 3 Marks Question 15 Response 2 I believe that President Hoovers failure to deal with the Depression made Roosevelt seem the next president to be elected. Americans simply gave up on Hoover as they strongly believed that he could not take America out of the Depression and put them back on track. The fact that Hoover put America into Depression made people feel that he could not take them out. Unemployment soared whilst Hoover was in charge and many wealthy families lost all their possessions under Hoovers control. Many Hoovervilles were made for those families who lost their homes. The Hoovervilles were simple basic houses created with material that were built on wasteland. The fact that Hoovervilles were names after Hoover suggests that he was the blame for the American situation at the time. Hoovers actions shown towards the Bogus Army marches made people feel like he did not care for the poor. Hoovers promises now meant nothing to Americans as they soon lost all hope and belief in President Hoover. Franklin Roosevelt was a man who had past experience in politics. He was a man who made basic but inspired speeches and travelled all over the country to talk to the people of America. As Roosevelt had to be seated in a wheelchair, people thought of him as an inspiration to everyone. Roosevelts fireside chats made him seem close to the public especially when his talks were warming. Americans had belief in Roosevelt and the hope that he would bring America out of the Depression and improve the countries situation. The belief came from the speeches and promises that Roosevelt talked about. These promises sounded realistic and this is why Americans were quick to elect Roosevelt as president and not continue with Hoover. Examples of Roosevelts promises included sorting out the financial situation and putting an end to Prohibition. This gave Roosevelt a huge amount of support as Americans thought Prohibition was a bad idea and only brought crime to America. Level 2/ 6 Marks Question 15 Response 3 President Hoover believed in rugged individualism which was the belief that people should overcome their own problems without any government help. Due to this attitude, Hoover was seen as uncaring and unphased by the situation of the Depression: Hoover promised prosperity was just around the corner but his unfounded optimism left the
47
Americans feeling let down, so a common phrase to be found around the time of Hoovers rule as president wouldve been in Hoover we trusted, now we are busted, as he refused to get involved in any business of the American people. For most of the problems he did absolutely nothing as he believed since he came to greatness through independence, so should the Americans. When farm prices were falling low and unemployment was becoming more common Hoover did not intervene. He left the poorer people to cope for themselves, even resulting in them sleeping in blankets made of newspaper they called Hoover blankets. All of these aspects of Hoovers character may be said to have ensured Roosevelt was elected as president in 1932. It could be agreed that this is the reason Roosevelt was elected as he was the complete opposite of Hoover and appeared to show more compassion and interest in the Americans than Hoover did. The Americans had lived with the ability to be self dependent and it was one of the qualities that made America great, however, to this extent they believed there shouldve been some form of intervention as Roosevelt demonstrated in the New Deals. However, some may disagree and say that Roosevelt managed to become elected president in 1932 without the help of Hoover, as despite being compared to rugged individualist Hoover, he had good, popular and honest policies that would benefit America even further even if Hoover had attempted to help at all. In conclusion, I do think that the failures of President Hoover to deal with the Depression helped ensure Roosevelt would be elected in 1932 as president as the Americans were able to compare between the two presidents, however they had only trial-ran one of them which was Hoover and he did nothing to help the economy recover from crisis. This meant when Roosevelt put forward his campaign and policies, the Americans were overwhelmed at the prospect of a strong assertive leader who had ideas to help relieve, recover and reform their economy. The Americans saw Roosevelt as someone really willing to help them and someone who would relieve their economy as best and quick as they could. Hoovers failures could have meant the Americans wouldve accepted anyone but Hoover as president through a belief that any policy could make their poor living conditions better. This may have proved a burden on Roosevelt as a consequence of Hoovers failures may have been the high expectations of the Americans from their next president, to recover their economy fast. Level 3/ 7 Marks Question 15 Response 4 I agree with this partly, as I also believe that FDRs positives were also a major benefactor in Roosevelts landslide win elections. Firstly, Herbert Hoover was a self-made republican who was a great believe in Laissezfaire politics which do not involve much interaction from the Federal government. Herbert Hoovers failure largely stemmed from his stubborn approach; not allowing any criticisms get in the way of his rugged individualism. Hoovers failures and lack of involvement made all the USAs shantytowns known as Hoovervilles and the newspaper that people defined under Hoover blankets. Hoover did not however, do nothing at all, but what he did simply wasnt enough. He first tried to help the farms out the Great Dust Bowl problem the Farm Board Association tried to buy goods off farms but simply didnt have enough investment to work effectively. Hoover also tried to protect the economy by news of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act, the thought that by protecting the domestic market, people would be forced to buy American goods and reboot industry. However, in order to do this he decided to increase tariffs on the inferiority of foreign
48
goods. This idea backfired and Hoover ended up reducing trade as the foreign countries increased their tariffs in retaliation. He also didnt realise the Americans couldnt afford their own goods and the US spiralled into further depression. Hoover guard attitude and grave mistakes resulted in Iowa farmers protesting that: In Hoover we trusted and now we are busted. Between 1929 and 1939 109,371 businesses collapsed due to Hoover reflecting how ineffective he was. FDR, on the other hand was presented in great contrast to his opponent in the 32 election. People liked his active polices on his proposition of the New Deal. FDR gained the confidence of his people via the radio by his fireside chats. They also saw that he had overcome polio and this give his people confidence that he can do the same for the country. FDR toured the country on his train the Roosevelt Express getting to know his nation. People also liked him and he promised to save the forgotten man the blue collar worker would be renumbered and helped. People also liked FDRs promise to end prohibition and all the gang violence it involved. In conclusion, it was not only Hoovers failure which resulted in the landslide victory of FDR, such as the backfiring Hawley-Smoot Tariff, the FBA but also FDRs positive acts and to laissez faire which more people attracted to the idea of FDR and his New Deal. Level 3/ 10 Marks
49
1 6 Use Source K and your knowledge to describe the Freedom Rides and Freedom Marches in the USA in the early 1960s. Target: Use of source and knowledge to describe key features (AOs 1, 2 and 3) Candidates either submit no evidence or fail to address the question. Level 1: Basic description, using source and/or own knowledge e.g. Mixed groups of blacks and whites travelled on long distance buses, and they were often attacked. The answer demonstrates simple understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is generally coherent but basic in development. Level 2: EITHER Detailed description of limited aspects (with or without use of source) e.g. Detailed description of freedom rides such as the one from Washington DC to the south of the USA in 1961. e.g. March on Washington, 1963, with Martin Luther Kings famous speech. (with perhaps some other items being identified but not described in depth). OR Limited description of wider range of aspects (with or without use of source) e.g. outline of the Freedom Rides; role of SNCC (Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee) and/or CORE(Congress of Racial Equality); how the riders were often treated; the attitude of racially-prejudiced police; freedom marches and demonstrations e.g. at Albany with many arrests; the march to Washington 1963 and M L Kings speech. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is reasonably well organised and presented in a clear and effective manner. Level 3: Detailed description of several aspects using source and own knowledge e.g. At least two items from the list above described in detail. The answer must include a reference to Source K and Freedom Rides. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is well organised with an appropriate form and style of writing. Some specialist vocabulary is used. Question 16 Response 1 Source K shows a mixture of white and black people all in one group waiting to board a bus at what looks like a bus station. Freedom Rides and Marches were usually organised by anti-racism groups like the NAACP or by prominent leaders such as Martin Luther King. These marches and rides were protests for equality in the USA which is why there is a mixture of white and black people, because a lot of white people did want equality as well as blacks. The first Freedom Ride was thought up when two black men decided to test the laws against segregation on buses by sitting at the front of a bus. Freedom Rides often did stretches of the country by public transport. This is suggested in the source as all the
0 1-2
3-6
7-8
50
people are waiting to board a bus. However what the source doesnt give information about is what happened during the rides. Often Freedom Rides wouldnt be able to find a bus because no driver wanted to risk taking them on in case of attacks from white supremacists such as the KKK. The source does however show the amount of people who would take part in these freedom activities, quite a large group as pictured for a Freedom Ride, these groups did become larger as they gained popularity. Freedom Marches took place through cities most often as marches to the town hall or a place of importance. The most famous one was in Washington, a massive number of people attended this march and it was where Martin Luther King made his famous I have a dream speech. The source does not give much information about what happened during Freedom Marches but it does give an idea about who were on them, marchers included blacks and whites of both genders they were about equality. Level 2/ 3 Marks Question 16 Response 2 Source K shows white people preventing black Freedom Riders from entering their bus. The Freedom Riders movement was conducted in order to prove there had been no advances since the outlaw of segregation of buses. 450 people were included in 60 rides crossing many state lines. These rides were met with violent protests from white supremacists which gained blacks sympathy from newly elected President Kennedy who supported equality at the time. Freedom Marches were a very popular tool the often met with police brutality. In Birmingham police released dogs and fire hosed protestors. The most well-known march was the Washington March, 1963. of a million black people marched to the Lincoln Memorial in Washington to hear a speech given by Martin Luther King. He gave the famous I Had a Dream speech inspiring President Kennedy to pass the Civil Rights Act a year later, 1934. Illegalising racism and segregation, as well as giving blacks equal employment opportunities. Source K is a typical example of the scene at Freedom Rides nationwide many were hospitalised as protestors became angry. Level 2/ 5 Marks Question 16 Response 3 The Freedom Rides were led by a group of people who travelled around the southern states on buses to try and promote desegregation. They travelled from Atlanta to states like Birmingham and Alabama. Along the way they had their buses tires slashes and people would get on the buses and beat the Freedom Riders up and many were injured and many drivers quit. Source K shows White Americans trying to stop the Freedom Riders as they didnt want segregation to take place. The Freedom Riders were spoken to by Martin Luther King but had to get protection as the church they were in became surrounded. The Freedom Riders received very little protection from the Governor of Alabama and President Kennedy had to order for their protection as some of the riders were badly injured. In the early 1960s there were around about 900 Freedom Marches. The Washington Freedom March was led by Martin Luther King where he made the famous I have a dream speech and around 250,000 and 400,000 people turned up to listen to this speech as the march for freedom and jobs. Another Freedom Marsh took place in Birmingham to try and help desegregation take place. The police force took dogs and fireman blasted protesters with hoses. Many protesters were arrested including Martin Luther King. When pictures of what occurred at the marches were released there was a huge public response and Birmingham was forced to desegregate. Level 3/ 7 Marks Question 16 Response 4
51
Source K shows the 1961 Freedom Ride, the first of its kind, in which White Americans and Black Americans were to ride in an interstate bus between Alabama and other states. The source shows white Americas challenging the interstate bus ride and in some cases they got violent. It received a lot of press attention at the time. However, source K does not mention about the other Freedom Marches at the time. The Freedom Ride shown in source K involved challenging the US Supreme Court to make a law to desegregate the interstate buses. They made them illegal in 1960 but it hadnt been made a law. This Freedom Ride started on the 4th May and ended on the 24th May and in the ride the passengers were beat up by KKK members in the southern states and still tried to get to their destination. After witnessing the damage, the 300 odd protesters on the buses beaten up and some killed, in 1961 interstate buses were desegregated. Martin Luther King and his non-violent methods were very effective during the 1960s. The most effective was his August 1963 march from the Washington Memorial to the Lincoln Memorial where he made his famous I have a dream speech. This march gathered widespread press attention and thousands of black and white people were involved in the march. His speech captured the atmosphere of the event and he had a dream that one day Black and White Americans would live in harmony and peace. The march was highly effective and he gained much support. In 1963 over 900 demonstrations took place. This Washington March was done by people all over the world. People who couldnt attend in America were told to march to their town halls and in other countries to their American Embassies. It led to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Level 3/ 8 Marks
52
1 7 In the 1950s the most important victories won by Black Americans were in the area of education. Do you agree? Explain your answer. Target: Analysis of key features and extent of change (AOs 1 and 2) Candidates either submit no evidence or fail to address the question. Level 1: Simple descriptive comment and/or identifies one feature e.g. Black students got the right to go to Little Rock Central High School, but many Whites fought against this. The answer demonstrates simple understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is generally coherent but basic in development. Level 2: EITHER Identifies several features e.g. Yes Desegregation court decision, 1954; Little Rock Central High School e.g. No Rosa Parks and Bus Boycott; activities of KKK and poor living standards of Blacks made any victories small in terms of daily lives. OR Explains one feature using knowledge and understanding. e.g. Details on Little Rock Central High School attitude of Governor Faubus of Arkansas; attitude of President Eisenhower and the intervention of Federal troops; role of media in influencing public opinion, etc. (NB - Other aspects may also be identified but not explained in depth). The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is reasonably well organised and presented in a clear and effective manner. Level 3: Explains more than one feature. The answer will probably attempt a conclusion about the extent of change; it may not be balanced. e.g. Details on several aspects (as in Level 2), but also probably reaching a conclusion, such as the opinion that major changes were beginning to happen for Blacks in education and/or transport, helped by the Supreme Court. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is well organised with an appropriate form and style of writing. Some specialist vocabulary is used. Level 4:
12
0 1-3
4-6
7-10
An analytical, linked answer clearly focused on the question, reaching a 11-12 balanced conclusion about the extent of change. e.g. Details on several aspects with a balanced conclusion, set in the context of attitudes towards Blacks in the 1950s and the extent to which these attitudes were changing. Both were important because both victories involved the Supreme Court siding against segregation. The answer demonstrates highly developed/ complex understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is well structured, with an appropriate form and style of writing. Specialist vocabulary is used effectively.
53
Question 17 Response 1 I do agree that education was one of the most important victories won by Black Americans but I do also believe that there were other important issues won by Black Americans. In terms of education Black Americans were very successful. The first example of their success was the Brown vs. Topeka where Linda Brown had to travel a dangerous route to school as she couldnt go to the school nearby as it was segregated. Her story was sent to the court and a judge ruled that schools should become segregated immediately. The second example is the Little Rock High School, where the Governor of Arkansas ordered the National Guard to stop Black Americans from coming into school as he didnt support desegregation. The Mayor of Arkansas wrote to the president who sent soldiers to escort the pupils into school. While in school they suffered from abuse from other students but the Black Americans didnt react and the first Black American graduated from high school. There were other important victories won by Black Americans like the desegregation of buses due to the bus boycott and Rosa Parks where she refused to give up her seat for a White American and was arrested. This started the bus boycott and the buses lost 65% of income and Black Americans walked to work which meant buses desegregated as they made no money. Another victory for Black Americans was the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Act. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 meant buses, schools, parks had to desegregate and only private clubs were segregated and they had to have equal rights in employment and were allowed to rent and buy houses. The Voting Act enabled them to vote without being intimidated like they had been in the past. Another important victory was their non-violent approach even if people were violent towards them, this meant they were able to achieve their victories without using violence. Important victories were in the area of education as it meant that schools desegregated and Black Americans got an equal education and could graduate and then go onto work. But there were also other important victories like the desegregation of buses because of the bus boycott and Rosa Parks and also the Freedom Marches which led to the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Act. Also, a student group of Black Americans read a speech written by Martin Luther King and this inspired them to sit in a whites only cafeteria in Woolworths where they received abuse but didnt react in a non-violent way which encouraged Martin Luther King to start giving speeches and encouraged Black Americans to vote, their vote led to JF Kennedy becoming president and it was him who passed the Civil Rights Act. Level 3/ 7 Marks Question 17 Response 2 Some of the big victories won by Black Americans were indeed won in the area of education however there were of course lots of other, smaller ones including desegregation of buses. Oliver Brown had a daughter who had to walk 21 blocks to get to the nearest black school, there was a better, all white school only 7 blocks away. A group of black people had tried to enrol their children into closer white schools, but all were only admitted into the closest black schools. The authorities did not do anything about this because it was said that all black schools were supposed to be just as good as the white schools. However, this event eventually led to desegregation in schools. The next big step was when the Little Rock Nine were admitted to a school in Alabama, which was currently all white. On the first day they didnt show up, on the second they couldnt get in due to the Governor, Orval Faubus sending the army to prevent their entry. 18 days later the students finally made their way in through the delivery door having been escorted by paratroopers. This was seen as a big achievement for blacks, even though only one of the nine graduated.
54
Other victories for the blacks included the Rosa Parks incident, she was arrested for sitting in a whites only area on a bus and refusing to move, this led to the Montgomery Bus Boycott, all blacks stopped getting buses, instead they organised carpooling and lifts to work. This went on for nearly a year until segregation on buses was made illegal. These victories for blacks may seem quite small but they led to much greater victories and eventually to equality between blacks and whites. It could be argued that the education victories were the most important, and I think they are more important than the bus victories as they show blacks and white now learning to work alongside each other in a school environment as opposed to just sitting beside each other on a bus. Both victories are important however to the rest of the Black American successes, so they both led onto new things. Level 3/ 8 Marks Question 17 Response 3 I agree with this because there were many victories to the Civil Rights Movement in terms of education. The Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education court case 1954 for example was brought about by Linda Brown, a girl who because she was black had to travel miles across train tracks to go to a black school. The Supreme Court judged in favour of Brown and in 1955 illegalised segregation in American schools. This had little affect and was ignored by most of the southern states. The Little Rock High School incident, 1957, was a turning point in education. Nine black students attempted to attend an all-white school only to be met by the National Guard blocking their way as well as a crowd of angry protestors. The President, Eisenhower, saw this televised event so sent out federal guards to escort the children to school. This was the turning point for education as the desegregation laws were starting to be enforced, this led to slow change. However I disagree with the statement as there are other important victories such as Rosa Parks and the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Rosa Parks sat at the front of a bus where only whites were allows, for this she was fined $10. Martin Luther King in order to combat this travesty set up a bus boycott. This meant all the black people in Montgomery refused to take buses. Blacks made up 75% of bus riders so this crippled the bus companies making the Supreme Court pass a law desegregating buses. This boycott was a microcosm for civil rights movements everywhere, fighting the segregation and for equality. In all I agree with the source because I feel that the improved education of the next generation of black people brought a new respect. There were other important victories regarding segregation however I think the children appealed more to the public, providing more power and support to the movement than any other development during the 1950s. Level 3/ 10 Marks Question 17 Response 4 In the 1950s, Black Americans had important victories over the education policies in schools around America. These included the desegregation of schools in 1954 and two famous incidents which include the Brown vs. Topeka Education Board and also the Little Rock Centre School. The Brown vs. Topeka event involved a girl named Linda Brown who was supposed to walk 22 blocks to the nearest black school when there was one closer to her which was white and was better. Her parents got in touch with the NAACP who told all Black Americans to register to their nearest white school. This protest was to get the schools desegregated. At first the Supreme Court rejected the pleas but soon after it desegregated the schools in 1954. In Topeka itself by January 1956 the schools in the area were organised by area rather than colour. Even after the desegregation in 1954, schools continued to segregate notably in Arkansas. In 1957, the
55
local press showed this to the public and showed it was wrong and even the mayor agreed but people still didnt budge notably the Governor Orval Faubus. When 9 black children registered to go to Little Rock Central School and were accepted havoc was created as the Governor was not going to let them in. On the first day they didnt turn up, the second day they were stopped by the National Guard. These events were shown on TV and the public were shocked by the events. Then on 23rd September the children were smuggled in a white van and when a white mob heard this, it caused a riot between blacks and whites. The President Eisenhower intervened now and sent the First Brigade paratroopers to accompany the students in and then after putting the National Guard under his control he got them to guard the students for over a year. By 1960, Little Rock Central School was reopened and was now open to both Black and Whites. However other victories also in 1950s included the Montgomery Bus Boycott of December 1955. This involved Rosa Parks who refused to get up from her seat when bus was full to allow a white person to sit down. She was arrested, charged and sacked from her job. She became a test case for NAACP. There was a one day boycott of all public transport after this event but this was extended to a year. Martin Luther King organised carpooling so then people could get to work easier and although he was targeted, the blacks won through when in December 1956 the law was now changed and the buses were desegregated after they had been hit so hard financially by the boycott. To conclude, I think that the educational victories of the 1950s were most important as it meant that young children could get good education and would be able to feel part of the community and play with white people freely. They were the future and securing the future and making it peaceful was much better than securing what was happening then. Level 4/ 12 Marks
56
1 8 Use Source L and your knowledge to describe the US withdrawal from Vietnam and the fall of Saigon, 1973-1975. Target: Use of source and knowledge to describe key features (AOs 1,2 and 3) Candidates either submit no evidence or fail to address the question. Level 1: Basic description, using source and/or own knowledge e.g. The war ended when Saigon fell to the Communists. The last Americans left by helicopter. The answer demonstrates simple understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is generally coherent but basic in development. Level 2: EITHER Detailed description of limited aspects (with or without use of source) e.g. Detailed description of the fall of Saigon, the refugees, the helicopter airlift of remaining US officials (with perhaps some other items being identified but not described in depth). OR Limited description of wider range of aspects (with or without use of source) e.g. Paris Peace Conference; US armed forces to withdraw from Vietnam; US prisoners of war to be released; US advisers remained; fighting between N and S re-started; N. Vietnamese troops advanced from north and from Cambodia and Laos; fall of Saigon; helicopter airlifts; fleeing of remaining Americans. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is reasonably well organised and presented in a clear and effective manner. Level 3: Detailed description of several aspects using source and own knowledge. e.g. At least two aspects from list above described in detail. The answer must include a reference to Source L and the air-lift from the embassy roof. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is well organised with an appropriate form and style of writing. Some specialist vocabulary is used. Question 18 Response 1 In Source L it shows the US Embassy staff leaving Saigon, after it falling to communism. In the source it shows a huge queue of people trying to get into a helicopter. It looks like the people are chaotic and desperate to get out of Vietnam, therefore displaying how the US withdrawal from Vietnam was desperate and important. The source shows the helicopter on top of the US Embassy, which would then take the US staff to awaiting warships: this shows that the US withdrawal was organised as the source shows part of the plan to withdraw which is to first get into the helicopter. The fall of Saigon 1973 1975 happened when the NVA advanced into South Vietnam capturing cities, and eventually Saigon in 1975. The ARVN (South Vietnamese Army) shows little resistance to the invasion of Saigon. Some South Vietnamese people
0 1-2
3-6
7-8
57
greeted the arrival of the North Vietnamese Army (NVA) whilst others tried to escape by road, or moving further south. Some Vietnamese people who were rich enough left by planes, whilst others tried to fit into ships sailing across the China Sea. Saigon had fallen to communism. The US withdrawal from Vietnam was Nixons idea. Vietnamisation meant that US troops would withdraw from the South, leaving it to stand on its own two feet. Vietnamisation was promised to the American public when Nixon ran for president. As the US troops were withdrawn, pressure was put on the North Vietnamese through bombing. The ARVN (South Korean Army) was set up, and was equipped with weapons and artillery from the USA. Conscription was in place in South Vietnam, meaning men between 18 and 43 had to join the ARVN. By April 1973 the US withdrawal had finished, and no US troops were left in Vietnam this was Nixons Vietnamisation. Level 2/ 4 Marks Question 18 Response 2 Source L is an example of the fast exit of the US, leaving South Vietnam in control after the Paris Peace Accords in 1975. The US had been wanting a speedy victory in Vietnam but instead it had been a drawn out failure. After the Paris Peace Accords the US were hoping to leave South Vietnam with the current land they had in position secure under capitalist control. Although Nixon had achieved many of his aims, many were flawed. Thieu was left in power but soon after he was overthrown and Nixon had failed to keep his promise to intervene after the Paris Peace Accords promise of giving South Vietnam support if there was a North Vietnamese invasion, but worst of all the US had withdrawn without winning the hearts and minds of the people. The fall of Saigon was the signpost to the world that the US had failed in implementing stability in North Vietnam and the failure of the Vietnam War. Although this may have been able to have been prevented by them it was seen as the US fault as they had not kept up their agreement at the Paris Peace Accord. The sense of the failure of the Vietnam War was also taken out on the soldiers who returned. They were spat on in the streets and many came home mentally unstable as well as the huge drug rise taken back from Vietnam. Level 2/ 5 Marks Question 18 Response 3 The source suggests that the US withdrawal from Vietnam and Saigon was sudden and rushed as it shows many people rushing to get into a helicopter. It also shows that US was fleeing and had suffered losses in Saigon as the USA previously had a stronghold there. Additionally the source suggests the US had lost complete control of Vietnam as they are fleeing from an embassy an apparent haven for US citizens. The fall of Saigon was due to VC and NVA troops attacking South Vietnam and Saigon from 3 sides: Laos, Cambodia and North Vietnam. Furthermore they were equipped with Soviet tanks and artillery and were able to overthrow the dwindling numbers of US troops who were supposed to be completely withdrawn from Vietnam after the Paris peace talks. Continually, the NVA and VC took full advantage over Nixons Vietnamisation policy which was wanting South Vietnam to look after itself. This led to the withdrawal of troops where one year 400,000 troops left. Eventually only 150,000 troops were left in Vietnam. The NVA and VC realising this they attacked them learning
58
their mistakes from previous heavy defeats in the Tet Offensive where they were overthrown in 48 hours. The withdrawal from Vietnam was hectic which is suggested by the source as it shows one man grabbing another to try and quickly get him on the helicopter. Also the helicopter- shown by the source suggests they needed to be withdrawn quickly as it was the fastest mode of transport, as they were previously used in the search and destroy tactics. Another famous picture shows a man punching another man who is trying to cling onto the helicopter this suggests that the withdrawal was rushed, overcrowded and dangerous. Level 2/ 6 Marks Question 18 Response 4 Throughout the last half of the war, US opinion of the war had greatly changed. By 1973 the public were very against the war and Nixon was under huge pressure to pull out. He had promised Peace with Honour in his election campaign and the US people were desperate for an end to the war. The Paris Peace Conference finally brought an end to the war for the US, they agreed to remove all US troops in return for US POWs, a ceasefire, and promises of free elections. It is debatable whether Nixon achieved peace with honour, and many argue that he sold out the South Vietnamese (S.V). After 1973 US troops began to pull out of Vietnam, and their duties were handed over to the South Vietnamese Army (SVA). In effect the US policy of Vietnamisation was put to the test, as the SVA took control. US officials stayed in Vietnam to make sure it would be able to support itself and survive without US military help. For a while it seemed as though peace had been achieved, as the North Vietnamese (N.V) remained peaceful and did not break the ceasefire. However in 1975 Ho Chi Minh launched a huge offensive to try and take the city of Saigon and capture the South. Without US support the North Vietnamese army (NVA) were able to make their way down south to Saigon, effectively showing that the SVA were not able to defeat the NVA displaying that Vietnamisation had failed. The NVA were easily able to defeat the SVA at Saigon and the iconic image at the fall of Saigon shown by source L, is the US officials abandoning the S.V people. The source shows US officials going to the top of the Embassy building in order to evacuate from Vietnam, leaving S.V at the hands of the NVA. I think this shows that they were unable to achieve peace with honour, as despite being in the war for 10 years, they were still unable to stop the communist North from taking over. The fall of Saigon symbolises and shows how the US gave up on Vietnam and in the end abandoned it. Level 3/ 8 Marks
59
1 9 The My Lai Massacre (1968) was the main reason why American public opinion turned against US involvement in Vietnam. Do you agree? Explain your answer. Target: Analysis of key features and causation (AOs 1 and 2) Candidates either submit no evidence or fail to address the question. Level 1: Simple descriptive comment and/or identifies one reason e.g. Brief details about My Lai massacre. The answer demonstrates simple understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is generally coherent but basic in development. Level 2: EITHER Identifies several reasons e.g. My Lai the massacre; role of media; the trial of Lt. Calley in 1970. e.g. Wider role of media brutality exposed; napalm attacks; growing number of deaths; protest movements in universities and elsewhere, including deaths at Kent State University. OR Explains one reason using knowledge and understanding e.g. My Lai massacre described in detail with some explanation of its importance in terms of US public opinion. (NB - Other aspects may also be identified but not explained in depth) The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is reasonably well organised and presented in a clear and effective manner. Level 3: Explains more than one reason. The answer will probably attempt a conclusion about the most important reason; it may not be balanced. e.g. Details on several aspects (as in Level 2), but also probably reaching a conclusion, such as the opinion that My Lai was very important in comparison with other reasons. Answer may not be very developed in its argument. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is well organised with an appropriate form and style of writing. Some specialist vocabulary is used. Level 4:
12
0 1-3
4-6
7-10
An analytical, linked answer clearly focused on the question, reaching a 11-12 balanced conclusion about the most important reason. e.g. Details on several aspects, with a balanced conclusion, which will probably see My Lai as the trigger for either causing or enhancing other antiwar views to gain support. The answer demonstrates highly developed/ complex understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is well structured, with an appropriate form and style of writing. Specialist vocabulary is used effectively.
Question 19 Response 1 The My Lai massacre of 1968 was a large scandalous event for the American military in Vietnam. The American public was outraged by such event and many opinions turned
60
against the war. This wasnt the only reason though, the harsh drafting and recruitment system at home was unfair and widely criticised and the outbreak of media footage of the war changed many opinions. My Lai massacre was a crucial factor in the turn of opinions. One company was set out on a search and destroy to find enemy locations and intelligence. They came across the village of My Lai and was met with heavy resistance. Soon though they had entered the village and found men and weapons hidden among the huts and grain. Still miserable from the resistance and fuelled with revenge the American soldiers burned the village to the ground and murdered over 100 innocent civilians, raping women while at it. This behaviour was at first a victory and word spread of their triumph, but soon pictures leaked back to America of the massacre and outrage ensued. Opinions and images of a straightforward and victorious war were crushed and many now saw this as the face of the war in Vietnam, with people wondering how this sort of thing is allowed by America. Drafting was another major issue as undergraduates and mainly poorer people (blacks especially) were sent over to Vietnam. Many found this unfair that people with money were allowed to buy their way out of the war, and draft card burning and riots ensued. A large peace movement raged across America with many activists demonstrating against the unfair and harsh drafting system, calling for a more even spread of conscripts across all social standings. This draft system made the soldiers more reluctant to fight and general opinion turned against the war. Another factor was the new influx of media in the war. Vietnam was the first television war with many pictures and videos of the soldiers fighting being beamed straight back to America. The public then saw a gruesome side to the war and again opinions started to change, especially when respected anchor-man turned his views against Vietnam. In conclusion, My Lai was a leading factor in why public opinion turned to begin with but was only the starting trigger in a much bigger influx of factors against the war. After My Lai the media became more involved and people were seeing different sides to the war. A large increase in the hippie movement saw large-scale riots in America. My Lai was the catalyst for the sudden increase in the change in opinion and is a main factor of the loss in the war. Level 3/ 8 Marks Question 19 Response 2 It is true to say that the My Lai massacre in 1968 was a key reason as to why public opinion towards the war had turned against US involvement in Vietnam. However, it was not the only reason. A combination of the surprising Tet Offensive, the horrific My Lai massacre and the media coverage of the war made the people of the US believe the war was unthinkable. In 1968 Charlie Company led by Lt William Calley were on a search and destroy mission in the village of My Lai. This company was expecting to find the enemy and somewhere in the madness of the war three hundred innocent civilians including women and children were murdered. At first the Pentagon tried to cover-up the incident but it was eventually leaked to the New York Times a year later, fourteen men were put on trial but
61
only Calley was convicted. This was an incredible shock to the American people. They could not understand why US troops were harming the very people they were trying to save. It sparked conspiracy theories of other cover-ups and gave ammunition to the antiwar protest movement (1968 1973). Another key reason as to the change in public opinion was the media coverage of the war and particularly the coverage of the Tet Offensive in January 1968. The Tet Offensive was a massive offensive by North Vietnam in an attempt to capture Saigon and win the war. Using a diversionary attack on the south thousands of North Vietnamese soldiers ascended on Saigon. In the end around 50,000 North Vietnamese soldiers had been killed and it was a huge defeat for North Vietnam. They could not perform an offensive like that again until the spring offensive in 1972. During the offensive a few North Vietnamese troops made it in the U.S. Embassy compound and had been killed. The media reported that the Embassy had been captured which was incorrect. However, this meant that the people of America could not understand how the war could be winnable after three years of fighting and North Vietnam could spring an offensive like Tet. It sparked a new wave of anti-Vietnam movements along with My Lai in 1968. In conclusion I think My Lai wasnt the main reason for the change in public opinion but was one of many reasons for the anti-war movement against the involvement in Vietnam. It was certainly true to say that the war had been lost in living rooms of America not the battlefields of Vietnam. Level 3/ 9 Marks Question 19 Response 3 I agree with the statement as when the massacre was broadcast 18 months later in 1969 there was no censorship on the colour TV screens and blood looked very red. Other reasons for why I believe the My Lai massacre of 1968 was the main reason in the public turning against the US involvement in the war was that it lead to the arresting and life sentencing of Lt. Calley who operated the massacre, which consisted of 4 helicopters of troops attacking an apparent VC village which led to the death of 500 people. Furthermore the people were predominantly women and children, as there were no men in the village apart from old men and boys. These facts from an eyewitness were published through the media and resulted in people questioning how US soldiers could commit such war crimes? The media outbreak of the My Lai massacre lead to many protests including protests with 10s of thousands of people protesting outside of the White House, and more famously it led to and fuelled the young protesters of Kent State University. In 1970, Kent State University students along with thousands more across the country of USA protested against USA involvement in Vietnam. However a main US policy was broken and 4 people were shot dead for protesting by US police. The freedom of speech of which USA thrived on was clearly broken and led to fewer demonstrations. This shows the importance and the main reason for why the public turned against the USA started and spiralled from the My Lai massacre. However other historians believe that the main reason for the public to turn against the US was the media coverage of the Tet Offensive which falsely demonstrated the US losing and SUFFERING great damage by VC and NVA troops. Furthermore accounts were published by the media that the VC and NVA had taken over the US Embassy which resulted in people back home believing that the war was being lost and was
62
wrong. As many mothers would not want to send their children to a losing war. Also popular celebrity Muhammad Ali refused to fight in Vietnam which resulted in other people burning and tearing their draft papers. This was a huge influence on younger people and some historians may believe that it was the main reason the USA turned against the involvement in Vietnam. Different historians may interpret the uncensored news recording and that it was the first media war was a main reason for anti-war slogans like 18 today, dead tomorrow and led to people turning against the involvement, as it showed the harsh and brutal reality of war. Other historians may believe hit singers like Bob Dylans Blowing in the Wind which had anti-war message were the main reason people turned against the war as it was popular among young people, who were the people the USA wanted to fight in the war. To conclude I believe the My Lai massacre was the main reason why American public opinions turned against the US involvement in Vietnam, as it demonstrated disgusting and horrific actions of the USAs own troops, also it resulted in protests like the Kent State University which lead to further protests. Even President Nixon commented on the massacre as sickening and a tragedy. These consequences and the fact it was Americas greatest war crime in all of their history make me believe it was the main reason for why public opinions turned against the US involvement in Vietnam. Level 3/ 10 Marks Question 19 Response 4 I agree that the My Lai massacre in 1968 was the main reason why the American public opinion turned against US involvement in Vietnam. I believe this because this was one of the first major attacks in Vietnam which was shown to the US public. The events of the My Lai massacre were told to the US public 18 months after the search and destroy mission happened. It left the American public shocked and disgusted at what the US troops had done to an innocent village. In 1968, a helicopter arrived near the small village with 3 platoons, one led by Lt. Calley. The soldiers were ordered to kill anyone and anything. After 2 hours, 500 unarmed men, children and women were killed. When the American public heard this, they were disgusted and shocked, and couldnt believe this was what was going on in Vietnam. This is why I believe it was the main reason for the US public to turn against the US involvement in war as it showed them how innocent people were murdered. With the Vietnam War being the first media war it was hardly censored. Also, the My Lai massacre was the main reason why American public opinion turned against the US involvement in Vietnam because it started protest movements, and one being the protest at Kent State University. At this university in 1970 4 students were killed due to the protests, by National Guards who had previously fired tear gas at the thousands of students. The incident at Kent State University led to more protests and made the American public opinion turn against US involvement in Vietnam. However some people may disagree and believe the Tet Offensive was the main reason why American public opinion turned against US involvement in Vietnam. This was because the media showed the Tet Offensive as being a defeat for America. The American public thought that the whole of Saigon had been destroyed, and saw how thousands of people were left as refugees and as homeless. With the US public seeing
63
the US Embassy building and Saigon being destroyed, this made them turn against US involvement in Vietnam as they believed they were losing the war in Vietnam. The Tet Offensive also encouraged more protests which shows the US public were against US involvement in the war, Also, another reason why people may disagree with the My Lai massacre being the main reason for the US opinion turning against war could be the Fulbright Hearings in 1971. This is because it showed how things like the My Lai massacre werent rare, and things like this happened with full acknowledgement of the officials. John Kerry, a veteran against the war, told the committee about the Winter Soldier Investigation, which showed how cases like the My Lai massacre were common. This was then seen as the main reason for the US public going against US involvement in Vietnam because it made them realise how the people of Vietnam were being treated, and how innocent people were being killed just so the US troops knew they werent part of the Vietcong. To conclude, I believe the My Lai massacre was the main reason why the American public opinion turned against US involvement because it showed how the US troops were ordered to kill innocent people, and what the American troops were really doing in Vietnam. Level 4/ 11 marks Question 19 Response 5 The My Lai massacre was a very important event in the war in terms of media coverage and public support for the war. When the media first reported on My Lai, over 18 months after it had happened, many Americans simply didnt believe what they saw, but those who did were appalled and horrified. When they saw the horrors that the US troops had committed to the civilians at My Lai, people began to question the validity of the war. It also came into peoples minds that the US had become no better than the people that they were fighting against. There were comparisons between what the troops did at My Lai and the actions of the Nazis. Soldiers who fought in Vietnam were referred to as baby killers. This shows how this one event had changed the US publics opinion of the war and those who fought in it. However there were also other reasons for this change in public opinion, such as the response of the US government to protests, and the Fulbright Hearings. An example of this is the Kent State protests, in 1972, where students were protesting the invasion of Laos and Cambodia. The National Guard were called out to stop the protests and four students, who hadnt even been involved, were killed by the soldiers. This was hugely shocking for the US people, as one of the principles the USA was built on was the right to protest, and it seemed as though Vietnam had driven the government to such a point that they would not even allow protests. The Fulbright Hearings were a formal enquiry into the validity of the invasion of Vietnam, where evidence was taken from 22 people including senators and other officials. This was greatly influential to the change of public opinion as it was no longer just hippies protesting the war, but officials. One famous statement from the hearings was how can you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnamto die for a mistake. This was very powerful as officials were openly calling Vietnam a mistake and this showed the public that there had been no real need to invade Vietnam and therefore changed public opinion.
64
However despite these other reasons, I do think My Lai was the most important, as it came in 1968, before the others and when there was still general public support for the war. It showed the people of the USA the horrors that were committed in the war and also displayed the body count method that allowed the US to claim they were winning the war. It showed people that the US viewed a dead Vietnamese as a dead VC (Vietcong). It disgusted people that the government allowed the soldiers to do such atrocities to citizens and hide it, as they had attempted to cover it up before one of the soldiers involved had talked to the media about it. I feel that the fact it horrified and appalled the public in the way it did shows how it was the main reason for a change in American public opinion. Level 4/ 12 Marks
65
2 0 Use Source M and your knowledge to describe the political and economic inequalities that existed in Northern Ireland before the start of the Troubles. Target: Use of source and knowledge to describe key features (AOs 1,2 and 3) Candidates either submit no evidence or fail to address the question. Level 1: Basic description, using source and/or own knowledge. e.g. Protestants did better in gaining key jobs in the Londonderry council than Catholics. They had more council members than Catholics, even though they were only 24% of the population of the area. The answer demonstrates simple understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is generally coherent but basic in development. Level 2: EITHER Detailed description of limited aspects (with or without use of source) e.g. Details on ways in which political boundaries were organised so that the maximum number of Protestant councillors were elected, even where Catholics were a majority of the population; gerrymandering. (with perhaps some other items being identified, but not described in depth) OR Limited description of wider range of aspects (with or without use of source) e.g. unequal political representation; housing inequalities; different job opportunities; differing unemployment rates; political boundaries all showing that Catholics were treated unfairly. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is reasonably well organised and presented in a clear and effective manner. Level 3: Detailed description of several aspects using source and own knowledge. e.g. At least two items from the list above described in detail. The answer must include a reference to Source M and political life in Londonderry in the 1960s. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is well organised with an appropriate form and style of writing. Some specialist vocabulary is used. Question 20 Response 1 From source M we can see that there was a larger number of Catholics than there was Protestants however Protestant people had more people in key jobs and in the Housing Committee. From my own knowledge I know that Catholics were in low paid jobs and that they were being discriminated against. I know that mainly Catholic areas were ruled by Protestants because they won with 80% of the 44 votes and this was achieved by gerrymandering. Catholics didnt have a vote because to have the vote you had to pay tax and because many Catholics didnt own a house or shops they didnt get it. Many Protestants owned more than one place, so they got more than one vote. This was done by gerrymandering and multiple voting. The government would give a Protestant couple or single Protestant a house quicker than a Catholic family because they thought giving
0 1-2
3-6
7-8
66
them a house is like giving them the vote. The Stormont government was run by mostly Unionists and they were in the high paid jobs. Some towns were majority Catholic or majority Protestant but Belfast was split. Level 2/ 5 Marks Question 20 Response 2 Before the start of the Troubles there was a lot of inequality, from looking at source M I can see that even though there was a higher amount of Catholic population which was 76%, they only had 40% of the council members. Protestants only had 24% of the population and yet they got 60% of the council members. You can see that its not fair at all. Gerrymandering was the name of a thing that council members did. They rearranged the area of a place so that there would be more people living in the area that would vote for them. From source M I can see that the key jobs in the council were mostly Protestants at 94% while 6% only went to Catholics. Finally from the source I can also see that all of the housing committee members were Protestant. It became known that council homes were given unfairly. Before the Troubles a man named Austin Currie carried out a sit in at a home that had been given to a 19 year old Protestant girl who was single, instead of giving it to a Catholic family. Austin was a member of NICRA which was a group of people that tried to fight for civil rights. Also Protestants were more likely to get jobs than Catholics were. Employers were told to only let Protestants work in N. Ireland. Level 3/ 7 Marks
67
2 1 The IRA bombings in Britain 1983-1984 were the main evidence that showed that Northern Ireland was far from reaching a peaceful settlement. Do you agree? Explain your answer. Target: Analysis of key features (AOs 1 and 2) Candidates either submit no evidence or fail to address the question. Level 1: Simple descriptive comment and/or identifies one feature e.g. Brief description of bombing at Harrods and/or Brighton The answer demonstrates simple understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is generally coherent but basic in development. Level 2: EITHER Identifies several features e.g. Bombings Airey Neave killed; Harrods 1983; Brighton 1984. Other evidence - hunger strikes; Bobby Sands; Sinn Fein and SDLP not participating in N I Assembly; difficulties in reaching Anglo-Irish Agreement 1985. OR Explains one feature using knowledge and understanding e.g. Details on one aspect. (NB Other aspects may also be identified, but not explained in depth). The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is reasonably well organised and presented in a clear and effective manner. Level 3: Explains more than one feature. The answer will probably reach a conclusion; it may not be balanced. e.g. Details on several aspects (as in Level 2), but also probably reaching a conclusion, such as the opinion that the IRA bombings were very important in influencing public opinion; but not developed in its argument. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is well organised with an appropriate form and style of writing. Some specialist vocabulary is used. Level 4: An analytical, linked answer clearly focused on the question, reaching a balanced conclusion. e.g. Details on several aspects, with a balanced conclusion, and arguing that the bombings were simply evidence of the uneasy situation that existed in spite of the political attempts at reaching a peace. The whole notion of power sharing was not acceptable to some of the key parties, and no party had a majority. The answer demonstrates highly developed/ complex understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is well structured, with an appropriate form and style of writing. Specialist vocabulary is used effectively. Question 1 Response 1 The IRA bombings made it difficult to find a solution but many other factors contributed
12
0 1-3
4-6
7-10
11-12
68
to making it hard too. In 1971 the London Post Office was bombed, in 1973 the Underground was bombed and in 1974 the Hilton Hotel was bombed. But the two of the most famous bombings in Britain by the IRA were the Harrods bombing and the Brighton bombing. The Harrods bombing in 1984 killing 5 people and injuring people with bits of flying glass. The Brighton bombing happened in 1985 at 2.45am this is where they attempted to kill the Prime Minister of London Margaret Thatcher, and leading members of the Conservative Party. People were killed and injured and 8 floors of the building destroyed. However there was other factors which contributed to making it difficult to find a peaceful solution the two many groups the IRA and UDF made it hard as they were each causing riots and using violence towards innocent people. Hunger strikes made it extremely hard as they took part in the blanket protest, the dirty protest and got Bobby Sands elected as MP of Co. Fermanagh, they also starved themselves to death for what they believed in. The British troops coming to Ireland and the Anglo-Irish agreement also made it hard as tensions between Catholic and Protestants got worse. The involvement of different political parties made it worse because SDLP were soft nationalist but the Sinn Fein were more hard line nationalists and the UUP and the DUP were the same but unionist they couldnt agree on what was best for the country and power share. The events of Bloody Sunday and the civil march made it harder because people were campaigning for what they believed in. So its hard to say that it was just the IRA bombing in Britain making it hard because there were other events making the solution seem further away. These events happened over a number of years and Catholic and Protestants couldnt see eye to eye and agree to disagree. So a number of issues made the peaceful settlement deteriorate. Level 3/ 7 Marks Question 1 Response 1 (Response 2?) I agree with the statement to a certain extent. My reason for this is because the bombings in Britain showed people that it would take a long time for the situation to be solved. The bombings that were carried out in Britain were the Post Office Tower in 1973, the London Underground in 1974, The Hilton Hotel in 1979, the killing of an MP at the House of Commons in 1982, and finally the attempted murder of Margaret Thatcher in 1984. This made people think that the IRA were going to continue to kill. On the other hand the events that happened in N. Ireland also showed that a peaceful settlement was far away. The riots that broke out between the two side Catholic and Protestant didnt help either. This was when a NICRA march was taken place. The paratroopers were brought in because people thought that the marchers had guns. In the end that wasnt the case. But the paratroopers were sent in and killed 13 people and another died of their injuries. Finally the hungary strike was when prisoners in the Maze Prison refused to eat and wash. They believe themselves to be prisoners of war and that they should be given special rights. They wanted to be able to wear their own clothes and be able to interact with inmates. Because they werent allowed this they wore their blankets instead of clothes and spread their poo on the cell walls. In the end 10 prisoners died, the most famous was Bobby Sands. He became MP for South Tyrone when he was in prison. All of the things above made people think that it would be very hard for a peace settlement to be reached, but I think the main evidence was the IRA bombings. Level 3/ 10 Marks
69
2 2
Use Source N and your knowledge to describe the Suez Crisis of 1956.
Target:
Use of source and knowledge to describe key features (AOs 1, 2 and 3) Candidates either submit no evidence or fail to address the question. 0 1-2
Level 1:
Basic description, using source and/or own knowledge e.g. The President of Egypt took over the Suez Canal from Britain and France. e.g. The Suez Canal was very important to Western Europe as the main route for oil to be moved from the oil-producing states to Europe. The answer demonstrates simple understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is generally coherent but basic in development.
Level 2:
EITHER Detailed description of limited aspects (with or without use of source) e.g. British and French ownership since 19th century; Nasser getting military help from USSR; nationalising of Suez Canal (with perhaps some other items being identified but not described in depth). OR Limited description of wider range of aspects (with or without use of source) e.g. History of the Suez Canal; ambitions of President Nasser; help from USSR; nationalisation of Suez Canal; military reactions of British and French governments; Israeli attack on Egypt; Egypts response; fears of oil shortages in Britain, etc. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is reasonably well organised and presented in a clear and effective manner.
3-6
Level 3:
Detailed description of several aspects using source and own knowledge e.g. At least two aspects from the list above described in detail. The answer must include a reference to Source N and the importance of the Suez Canal oil route. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is well organised with an appropriate form and style of writing. Some specialist vocabulary is used.
7-8
Question 22 Response 1 Up to 1956 no war had been fought since the War of Independence in 1948, and the public in Egypt and of the Arab nations were putting increasing pressures on Nasser to act against Egypt. He started actions against Israel in preparation for war, such as requesting withdrawal of UN peacekeepers around the Suez Canal and starting moving troops closer to the edge. Finally, he cut off the Suez Canal completely disallowing any oil to reach western countries. He was trying to stir Israel by forcing the West to make Israel react. Eventually Israel hatched a secret plan with Britain and France to invade the Suez Canal and
70
reopen without telling the UN. Israel invaded with initial victory, but the plan failed as soon as Britain and France arrived. America was outraged at the two foreign countries going to war over what was essentially the Suez Canal and told Britain and France to stop immediately. America and the UN were extremely angry and Britain and France were humiliated. They retreated and so did Israel and Egypt retained control of the Suez. It was an overwhelming humiliation for Britain and France and many countries were outraged. The UN filed for penalty against them and Britain and France were condemned. Level 2/ 3 Marks Question 22 Response 1 (Response 2?) The Suez Canal was crucial for all countries and especially the West and Israel. The closure of the Straits of Tiran and the Suez Canal caused huge problems in the US and Britain. The British and French knew that Nasser wasnt going to give it back so they met in Sevres outside Paris and came up the Sevres Protocol with the Israelis. The Israelis pushed into the SINAI until the Suez Canal. With the canal being a key place of trade to gain money for his Aswan Dam he was not willing to give it up so when the British ordered him to retreat 16km he was furious. The US intervened and a furious Eisenhower ordered the British back. This was the last time the British attacked without US backing. Nasser was seen as a hero in the Arab world although the Israelis also fared well from this, keeping hold of the Golan Heights. This strengthened Egypt and was seen highly in the Arab world. Although the US were angered by the Israelis involvement it was another example of their military might. Level 2/ 5 Marks Question 22 Response 3 In 1955 Unit 101 of Israel carried out the Gaza Raid and killed 37 people. In response Nasser started buying weapons from the Soviet Bloc and carried military parades to show off his power. As a result the US cut funding for the Aswan Dam. Nasser then nationalised the Suez Canal and closed the straits of Tehran, charging western countries for its use. Because of this Britain and France were outraged and they met with Israel to try and get the canal back under control. They signed the Sevres Protocol which stated that Israel would invade Egypt up to the Suez Canal. Then Britain and France would intervene as paratroopers and force both sides to retreat 10km from the canal. Egypt refused to withdraw and so Israel were able to capture the Sinai as well as Sharm el Sheikh which gave them access to the Straits of Tehran. Source N shows the importance of the Suez Canal to Britain and France because it meant that oil prices were much higher and Britain and France were going bankrupt. The US were outraged that Britain didnt seek permission from Eisenhower, Eisenhower boycotted Britain, Eden resigned. While Israel were able to show their military superiority and were given nuclear secrets by France. Nasser was seen as the hero of the Arab world. Level 3/ 7 Marks Question 22 Response 4 The Suez Crisis showed the world that Britain and France were no longer superpowers and that that role had passed onto the US and USSR as the Cold War progressed.
71
When the US felt that Nasser was getting too close to the USSR they stopped their funding of Nassers dam that he had promised his people. Nassers reaction was the nationalise the English/French build and run Suez Canal. The Suez Canal was very important for England and France as it controlled the flow of oil from the Arabic nations to Europe. As Britain and France still felt they were superpowers after having defeated Germany and Japan in WWII, they felt like they could deal with the situation. As they knew the UN would not allow them to go into Sinai to take the canal they needed an alibi. France agreed to supply Israel so that they would attack Sinai and the British and French could go in and claim they were protecting the canal. When they went in the UN was horrified that the two western countries would get involved in the war and the US was angry that England and France had met secretly excluding the US. When the USSR threatened intervention if the two countries did not pull out there was embarrassment for England and France as it was exposed that they were no longer superpowers. As a result of the events there was a run on the pound, but the US refused to help them as they had invaded Sinai. This again caused humiliation for Britain and Atlee resigned. The other thing that was to some degree shown by the crisis was that the oil of the Middle East would be very important over the coming years and that the West was dependent on the oil. Source N shows how the Suez Canal was a very important position for Europe, as the oil from the Middle East had to pass through the canal to get to Europe. Another thing that was shown by the crisis was that Egypt and the Arab nations would be supported by the USSR, and the West would support Israel. Level 3/ 8 Marks
72
2 3 The Yom Kippur War (1973) showed that the Arab nations had no chance of defeating Israel in battle. Do you agree? Explain your answer. Target: Analysis of key features (AOs 1 and 2) Candidates either submit no evidence or fail to address the question. Level 1: Simple descriptive comment and/or identifies one feature e.g. Egypt and Syria attacked Israel at the start of the festival of Yom Kippur. The answer demonstrates simple understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is generally coherent but basic in development. Level 2: EITHER Identifies several features e.g. Attack on Israel at beginning of Yom Kippur; Syria recaptured Golan Heights; Egyptians entered Sinai Desert; Israel counter-attacked; Israelis attacked Egyptians in Sinai Desert and crossed Suez Canal; ceasefire agreed through UN, USA and USSR. OR Explains one feature using knowledge and understanding e.g. Details of Israeli counter-attack on Syrians in Golan Heights and on Egypt in Sinai Desert and crossing Suez Canal showing how successful Israelis were in fighting after their initial defeats. (NB Other aspects may also be identified but not explained in depth). The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is reasonably well organised and presented in a clear and effective manner. Level 3: Explains more than one feature. The answer will probably attempt a conclusion; it may not be balanced. e.g. Details on several aspects (as in Level 2), but also probably reaching a conclusion about whether the Arab nations had a chance of winning. This conclusion will not be developed. Answers may refer to the aid given by the USSR to Egypt and the USA aid to Israel. Answers may argue that the Arab nations had a chance of success because they had co-operated together and had shown that Israel could be defeated with a surprise attack. On the other hand, answers could argue that the Arab nations had no chance of long-term success so long as the USA was supporting Israel as it did in 1973. The answer demonstrates developed understanding of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is well organised with an appropriate form and style of writing. Some specialist vocabulary is used. Level 4:
12
0 1-3
4-6
7-10
An analytical, linked answer clearly focused on the question, reaching a 11-12 balanced conclusion e.g. Details on several aspects, with a balanced conclusion, and set in the wider context of the Arab-Israeli conflicts of the later 20th century. The answer demonstrates highly developed/ complex understanding of the
73
rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is well structured, with an appropriate form and style of writing. Specialist vocabulary is used effectively. Question 23 Response 1 After the Six-Day War, Israel seemed to be invincible. They were organised and well trained and seemingly unstoppable, so the Arabs planned to surprise attack on the Jewish religious holiday Yom Kippur. They failed yet again though and showed the strengths of Israel. The Arab nations are capable of defeating Israel and theyre not impossible. Disorganisation of Arab attacks and lack of technology and the lesser trained soldiers compared to Israel were their main problems. Israel won Yom Kippur due to their power counter-offensive and the disorganisation of the Arabs. If Egypt had attacked when they said they would, Israel would have faced a two front war and probably would have been defeated. But instead Egypt held back and let the Israelis concentrate on Syria. The Israelis had better trained and more powerful tanks and planes, while the Egyptians had untrained soldiers and pilots in brand new alien-like Russian tech, thus making them weaker in battle. I do not agree that Yom Kippur is an indication that Israel is undefeatable. They are just much more well trained, have better technology and work more efficiently. If the Arab nations worked together and invaded at the same time they could easily overwhelm Israels small size but their disunity is their main weakness and thats why they never defeated Israel in battle. Level 2/ 5 Marks Question 23 Response 2 Although the Israelis did gain overall victory it was not without a price. The Yom Kippur War was mainly started by the arrogance of the Israelis and could have easily been prevented. With Sadat in control the desire for peace between Egypt and Israel was his main aim. The dominance of the Israel army made it very hard for Sadat to negotiate. He told his military advisor if you could win me an inch, I could negotiate a miracle. In essence this was true but with the success of the SAM turrets and other military tactics the Egyptians were very successful as well as the supporting Egyptian army. This shows that if Egypt were properly equipped then they do have a chance of beating the Egyptian army. The USSR ordered the Egyptians to advance which caused devastating effects as they were not protected from the Israel air force. This shows that without the proper equipment the Egyptians do not have military superiority over the Israelis which was the failure in the Egyptians defeat. Although they were defeated in battle this did lead to negotiations which ended the war between Egypt and Israel. It is also the Arabs who have control of 75% of the oil that is used in the USA so after they had inflated by 125% the prices after the Yom Kippur War the US were much more willing to negotiate which meant that the Arabs did not have to beat them militarily but could use other ways of gaining control in the Middle East. To conclude I would say that it is extremely unlikely that the Israelis would be defeated by the Arabs and this was shown in the Yom Kippur War but that does not mean that the Arabs are totally defenceless and the Israelis are widely controlled by the events in other countries, and if the US were not supporting the Israelis and the USSR had given more
74
support for the Arabs then possibly, the victory could have been changed. Level 3/ 7 Marks Question 23 Response 3 The Yom Kippur War in 1973 was an attempt made by Sadat to gain some sort of military victory against Israel. Sadat wanted peace because the Egyptian economy was in ruins to do so he needed an inch of Israel. Although the Arabs lost the Yom Kippur War they did show some signs of superiority which needs to be taken into account when answering this question. The Yom Kippur was a combined offensive by both Egypt and Syria. Sadat had built SAM Turrets (anti-aircraft guns) on the Bar Lev Line this gave him an umbrella 10km from the line to which Israeli planes could not enter without getting shot down. At first Egypt was winning the war they caught the Israelis off guard by attacking on Yom Kippur. It was the same for Syria as they managed to retake the Golan Heights and even entered Israel. It seemed that coordination of two Arab countries was going to finally defeat Israel but this was not the case. Once Israel had realised that Egypt were not going to advance past the SAM umbrella they concentrated their forces on Syria. Syria soon got pushed back by a superiorly equipped force. Syria then complained to the USSR who then ordered that Egypt should advance. After a tank battle at Chinese Farm, the entire Egyptian 3rd army had been surrounded. Israel had once again triumphed over the Arabs. In conclusion I believe that the Yom Kippur War did not show that the Arab nations had no chance of defeating Israel in battle. This is because this war was the first war that inflicted serious casualties on Israel. Initially the Arabs were winning because of the SAM umbrella and holding there could have won Sadat that inch he needed. In the end the better equipped Israelis won due to their good tactics and support from western allies like the US as well as their determination. Level 3/ 9 Marks Question 23 Response 4 I partly agree with this statement, as despite the fact that from a statistical point of view the Israelis won the Yom Kippur War, they had come very close to defeat in the first few days and only a massive US resupply had saved them. However I would say that it made both sides realise that an all-out military victory was unlikely and that possibly peace was the best solution. The SAM-3s that had been supplied to Egypt by the USSR were very important in the Yom Kippur War, as they gave the Egyptians a 12km umbrella from the Israeli air attacks. The superiority of the Israeli air force had been one of the main factors for the quick defeat of the Arab nations in the 6 Day Way. However with their SAM-3s the Egyptians were able to advance without fear of the Israeli air force. This combined with the surprise joint attack of the Egyptians and Syrians as well as the time of the attack, (during a religious festival) caught Israel off guard. Before 1973 the Israelis had felt as though their decisive victory in 1967 would mean that the Arab nations would not try and attack Israel. The fact that Syria and Egypt were able to retake the Golan Heights and Sinai in a matter of days revealed to the Israelis that they were not as safe as they thought. On the other hand, when the Israelis recovered from the initial shock of the surprise attack, they were able to fight the Syrians back and recapture the Golan Heights and
75
Sinai. This displays that caught off-guard the Israelis would be able to react and inevitably defeat the Arab nations. This would seem to suggest that the Arabs had little chance of winning in battle. However it is important to consider the massive US resupply and the fact that the Egyptians stopped their advance after 12km without telling Syria. It is fully plausible that had Egypt continued the advance, Israel would have been stuck in a two front war it could not win. It is also possible that without the US resupply Israel would have been unable to support itself and would have collapsed. However this did not happen, but it showed Israel that they needed to be more careful and that the Arab nations were stronger than they had believed, particularly Egypt with USSR weaponry. I believe this is what drove both leaders to realise that they would not be able wipe the other out and that peace was necessary. This is why Sadat went to speak at the Knesset in 1977, and why he and Begin agreed peace terms at Camp David in 78. I also feel that Yom Kippur had other effects, particularly on the relationship between the West and the Arab nations. The use of oil wars during Yom Kippur had displayed that the West needed to pay more attention to the Arab nations, and that OPEC could use oil as a weapon. To conclude I would say that the Yom Kippur War demonstrated that due to the superpower intervention the Arab nations, particularly Egypt, and Israel were more evenly matched than they had thought. It showed that full out victory was unlikely on the battlefield and that another conclusion needed to be reached between the two countries. Level 4/ 12 Marks
Converting marks into UMS marks Convert raw marks into marks on the Uniform Mark Scale (UMS) by using the link below. UMS conversion calculator: www.aqa.org.uk/umsconversion
76

Responses

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Responses

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Version 1.

General Certificate of Secondary Education June 2011

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

Unit 2: Twentieth Century Depth Studies

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

style of writing. Some specialist vocabulary is used.

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

relax. Level 2/ 4 Marks

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series

GCSE History B Unit 2 AQA Exemplar Responses June 2011 Series