Two single-party rulers, each chosen from a different region, fulfill the promises made during their rise to power?

Download 35.54 Kb.
Date conversion25.04.2016
Size35.54 Kb.
May 2013

Paper 2

History Route 2 Markscheme

Topic 3 Origins and development of authoritarian and single-party states
13. To what extent did two single-party rulers, each chosen from a different region, fulfill the promises made during their rise to power?

The question requires coverage of aspects of both rise and rule. Candidates should identify the promises (or main policies advocated) by the chosen leaders during the period of rise. Often such promises or policies were linked to addressing specific political and/or economic problems faced by the existing government – offering the prospect of rapid resolution. Such problems could include issues related to minorities, unemployment, inequitable distribution of wealth/land, inflation, the need to restore national pride after an unsuccessful war or extrication from a devastating war, resentment over peace settlements, nationalism, etc. Domestic policies will probably be the main focus for many candidates but foreign policy as a means of acquiring prestige for the state and/or the leader, or for reasons of distraction from the failure to successfully implement other promises may be considered.

Whichever rulers and promises are identified, candidates are required to comment critically on the extent to which the promises which were made were in fact honoured in full, partially or not at all once in power.

Evidence of specific application of policies to fulfill the promises made is required – or alternatively there could be consideration of why policies became modified (or ignored) for pragmatic reasons.

If only one leader or one region is addressed, mark out of a maximum of [12 marks].
14. By what methods, and with what success, did one single-party leader try to eliminate domestic opposition?

Note that the focus of the question is the period of rule, not rise!

For methods, candidates could consider a variety of means such as the use of force (secret police), arbitrary arrest and repressive laws, the fear induced by imprisonment/concentration camps (or labour/re-education camps), propaganda and the promotion of a personality cult, education and youth movements. Depending on the leader chosen, there could be examination of economic and social policies which did benefit the population (or at least sections of the population) in terms of employment, social advancement, etc. In some cases foreign policy was used not only to address national grievances but also to divert attention from domestic failures of the regime and promote the prestige of the leader.

The extent to which such methods were able to eliminate opposition needs to be addressed. Candidates are expected to identify groups/individuals/institutions which were perceived as opponents and explain how these threats – real or imagined – were dealt with.

Whichever leader is chosen, detailed supporting and relevant historical knowledge is required.

If only methods or success is addressed, mark out of maximum [12 marks].
15. Compare and contrast the social and economic policies of Perón and Castro.

Candidates could deal with this task either thematically or in an end-on treatment.

Areas for investigation which could be addressed for economic policies could include: policies of nationalization to free the economy from foreign control; programmes of land reform; attempts to industrialize or alter the balance of the economy in terms of reducing dependency on particular commodities or foreign trading partners; wealth redistribution in favour of specific groups or classes; price controls and wage rises; schemes to promote employment and tackle inflation, etc.

For social policies, candidates could refer to policies implemented in relation to the alleviation of poverty and inequality in the fields of education/literacy, housing, medical provision, gender, race, etc.

The policies adopted by Perón and Castro offer an opportunity not only to identify specific programmes but also to make critical commentary on the ways in which the aims were similar/different and the extent to which these policies were successful.

If only one leader is addressed, mark out of a maximum of [7 marks].
16. Assess the importance of each of the following in the rise to power of Stalin: errors made by rivals; the use of propaganda; popular support.

Emphasis in responses should be on the three stated areas or factors. Candidates are not required to examine other areas. The task requires candidates to analyse – i.e. to identify the nature and extent of errors/propaganda/support and then make critical commentary on the role each factor played in the rise to power of Stalin.

Rivals should be indicated and an assessment made of the errors made in relation to their dealings with Stalin (up to 1929 approximately). Individuals (such as Trotsky) or groupings which included Kamenev and Zinoviev could be examined and the reasons for their underestimation of the Stalinist danger explored. Linked to the question of the errors/mistakes of rivals is the area of propaganda – whether associated with the funeral of Lenin in 1924 and the (self) promotion of Stalin as the “natural successor” to Lenin – or in the setting out of the programme of “Socialism in one country” which was identified with Stalin in opposition to Trotsky’s “Permanent revolution/ Export of revolution” platform. Whether popular support was in fact necessary in a single-party state is questionable and better candidates could comment on the extent to which popular appeal/support was much less important than support within the Party – a support which Stalin had cultivated since 1922 and his appointment as General Secretary of the Party with the power of patronage it provided him.

If only one factor is addressed, mark out of a maximum of [7 marks]. If only two factors are addressed, mark out of a maximum of [13 marks].
17. With reference to either Hitler or Mao, examine the reasons for, and results of, educational policies in the single-party state.

Reasons for the adoption of educational policies could include the desire of either leader to ensure support for the regime or for that particular ruler and his ideology. Education could also be seen as a way in which to build the strength of the nation in economic terms in order to fulfil particular domestic or foreign policy goals. Policies were not always confined to youth but also promoted adult literacy – as could be seen in China. Outside of formal schooling education in terms of extra-curricular activities for youth movements was used for the purpose of indoctrination and the promotion of values which the leader wished to instill.

Results could include examination of the changes made to school curricula: the introduction of particular areas for study; the emphasis on ideology; the reorganization of the teaching profession at all levels to ensure the effective transmission of the leader’s message(s); the fall in illiteracy rates and the growth of a labour force necessary for the implementation of economic aims; the discouragement of individualism in favour of the demands the community or class; the enforcement of conformity.

If only reasons or results are addressed, mark out of a maximum of [12 marks].
18. Analyse the impact of single-party rule upon minorities in two single-party states, each chosen from a different region.

Minorities could include religious or ethnic minorities, or groups identified as “class enemies” (for example the Gentry class in China after 1949 or the Kulak class in the Soviet Union in the later 1920s and early 1930s). Some candidates may deal with the persecution of minorities which were singled out because of homophobic policies of the single-party regime.

Popular choices are likely to be the treatment of the Jewish population in Hitler’s Germany – but this does not require a long description of the horrors of the Holocaust in occupied Europe. As noted above, there is likely to be some consideration of the “dekulakisation” undertaken in the USSR or the “Speak Bitterness” meetings in China after the coming to power of the CCP. Other areas could be the treatment of ethnic Chinese in Vietnam post-1975, urban dwellers in Pol Pot’s Kampuchea (Cambodia) or any other appropriate example – for example tribal/ethnic groups in newly independent African states which were discriminated against in some cases, though there were significant exceptions (Nyerere’s Tanzania).

The impact should be covered by reference to the changes in the social status, living conditions, political standing, economic level, etc of the selected groups. Some candidates may wish to provide a brief explanation as to why these particular minorities chosen were victimized to the extent they were. This is acceptable but note the emphasis of the task on the impact.

Candidates must substantiate the points raised by accurate reference to specific minorities.

If only one single-party state or one region is addressed, mark out of a maximum of [12 marks].

Topic 5 The Cold War
25. “Post-war enmity was the product of longer term ideological differences.” To what extent do you agree with this statement on the origins of the Cold War up to 1949?
The differences in ideology of the protagonists in the Cold War could be defined/explained at the outset: the belief systems associated with the East and West represented by the USSR and the USA. Without clear identification and awareness of what constituted “differences” answers are unlikely to prove effective. Candidates may refer to the issues of political pluralism (or lack thereof), economic organization, the question of what constituted civil liberties, etc.

The division between the capitalist/democratic and the socialist worldview which was evident during the years following the Second World War existed earlier – though the intensity of struggle and confrontation was less marked. Candidates are required to examine when and why enmity, resulting in the Cold War, originated.

Some candidates may trace the enmity back to 1917 and the Bolshevik Revolution which produced a state whose ideology was antithetical to that of Western nations, noting the levels of mutual suspicion which characterized the relationship from then up until the Second World War where mutual suspicion was replaced by a “marriage of convenience” to defeat a greater enemy. Apart from ideology, candidates may argue that it was the power vacuum established by the defeat of Germany which led to what became known as the Cold War. The vacuum produced, and the prospect of rewards in economic and strategic terms, could be seen as setting the scene for confrontation. The issues of changing attitudes due to leadership change in 1945, mutual fear in the new atomic age, and the search for security could all be examined.

Regurgitation of historiography: that is summarizing of historians’ interpretations (Traditionalist/Revisionist/Post Revisionist views, etc) is not what is required. Such views should be used to supplement historical detail, not to replace it. Candidates who present responses which do little more than list or parrot such views will not score highly.

26. For what reasons, and with what success, did the United States adopt a policy of containment between 1947 and 1962?
The introduction of the policy of containment in 1947 with the Truman Doctrine (and then added to by the Marshall Aid programme) was originally meant for the European theatre. Candidates could examine the situation in Europe 1945–1947 which galvanized US involvement in this particular sphere and comment upon the rationale (overt and covert) for the adoption of such a policy. The question does not require a narration of crises from 1945–1962 but rather the selection and deployment of historical knowledge to allow for critical assessment of why the original doctrine was implemented and its subsequent adoption outside the original intended sphere – for example Korea 1950–1953 and, by 1962, Cuba.

The task also requires consideration as to whether the policy was successful in achieving its aims in terms of containing Communism. Candidates could illustrate this by referring to places/incidents where it did rescue states from a perceived threat (for example Greece, Korea) or where it was less successful (the “loss” of China, Vietnam up to 1962 for example).

This period of the Cold War is well resourced and likely to be well known by candidates who have specialised in Topic 5. Expect specific detail and judicious selection of content. Descriptive accounts of 1947–1962 are unlikely to score well.

If only reasons or success is addressed, mark out of a maximum of [12 marks].

27. Account for the change in Sino–Soviet relations after the death of Stalin in 1953.
The nature of Sino–Soviet relations before the death of Stalin is the obvious starting point since the question’s focus is “change” after March 1953. Comment could be made on the period from 1949/1950 and the Sino–Soviet Treaty and what it revealed about the political, economic and personal relations between the two states and leaders.

While there is no necessity to go into great depth on the Soviet–Chinese Communist Party (CCP) relationship before the establishment of the People’s Republic in 1949, some candidates may argue that the relationship between the USSR and Mao prior to 1949 was marked by actions which suggested a less than fraternal relationship, on Moscow’s part, towards the CCP and its leadership.

The relationship from 1950–1953, at least on the surface suggested a partnership (albeit a junior partnership in the case of the PRC as far as Moscow was concerned) and candidates could refer to the $300 million loan (at 1 % interest per annum) by Moscow, solidarity in relation to support for North Korea in the Korean War – Soviet help in China’s First Five Year plan (1953–1957) and the provision of training for Chinese workers in the USSR seemed to indicate continuing economic and political support.

Yet from 1953 onwards, ideological differences which had in the past provided grounds for suspicion (Stalin’s criticism of Mao’s “peasant heresy” for example) were noted in: the breakdown of relations over Khrushchev’s “Secret Speech” with its attack on the cult of Stalin and advocacy of “peaceful coexistence”; the withdrawal of Soviet aid from China and Moscow’s criticism of the Great Leap Forward; the failure of Khrushchev to provide help in the construction of atomic bomb technology; Moscow’s failure to support China in the Sino–Indian dispute in 1962; China’s perception of Soviet weakness in defence of socialism at the time of the Missile Crisis in Cuba.

Candidates may go further chronologically to cover tensions in the later 60s over the use of the Brezhnev Doctrine, border clashes and Soviet anxiety due to improving Sino–US relations. The resumption of better relations post-Mao may be an end point for some respondents.

No end point is given in the question so allow for candidates to explain/justify the end point they select – but it is important that the nature of, and reasons for, changing relations pre- and post-1953 are dealt with.
28. Assess the contribution of one of the following to the development of Cold War tensions: Truman; Mao; Castro.

Whichever leader is selected it is important that the focus of the response is upon that leader’s contribution to Cold War tensions. Answers which narrate the life story or background of the leader will not score well. Obviously the choice of leader dictates the material which will be focused upon. Each leader offers the opportunity to examine the manner in which tensions were intensified as a consequence of the policies/actions of the leader.

  • Truman: Candidates could consider the importance of the Potsdam Conference and the changed US attitude towards perceived Soviet expansion, the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan and the impact on East–West relations that this had, the adoption of the containment policy (Truman Doctrine, Marshall Plan), its implementation in Europe and its extension to the Far East. How Moscow, and by 1950, Beijing reacted to such policies could be examined in determining the extent to which such policies (which could be interpreted as reactions to the spread of communism and/or the promotion of “dollar imperialism” and US expansionism) contributed to the tensions between East and West.

  • Mao : Candidates could refer to: the importance of the “loss of China” and the US view of “monolithic communism” which accompanied this; China’s role in the Korean War; the Sino–Soviet split and its repercussions for relations with both Moscow and Washington; Sino–American rapprochement which resulted in tension between Moscow and Beijing, etc.

  • Castro: Candidates could examine: the programme of Castro and how it was seen by Washington after Castro’s coming to power (Washington’s perception of Castro as a threat to US economic and strategic interests); US resentment of policy of nationalisation and subsequent economic embargo by President Eisenhower leading to Havana’s friendship with the USSR; the Bay of Pigs invasion and missile crisis from 1961–1962 and its consequences. While many candidates will go no further than this, the role of Cuba in Africa and in Central and Latin America could also be examined in terms of Cold War tensions (Castro being seen as a Soviet surrogate in cases such as the Congo, Angola’s civil war, etc). Castro could also be seen as an agent for the promotion of communism in Bolivia, Nicaragua, Grenada which led to US involvement to either destabilize or overthrow Marxist type regimes.

29. Analyse the reasons for, and results of, Soviet involvement in the war in Afghanistan (1979–1988).
The Communist coup of 1978 in Afghanistan which resulted in the ousting of Daud Khan was followed by a flurry of reforms by the new regime which proved less than popular in the country. A civil war situation occurred as Shiite rebels and mutinous troops from the Afghan army challenged the new government of Muhammad Taraki who appealed for Soviet assistance. Initially reluctant, Moscow did not send troops until the overthrow of Taraki by his deputy Hafizullah Amin who was regarded as a liability by Moscow.

Moscow backed the removal of Amin and his replacement with Babrak Karmal. This did not however prevent the growth of resistance to the communist regime in Afghanistan by the Mujahedin rebels.

Reasons for Soviet involvement could include: Soviet anxiety over the spread of Islamic fundamentalism, which if not checked, could spread to the Soviet Central Asian republics; the suspicion that Amin was involved in negotiations with Washington; the (mistaken) beliefs that the invasion and settlement of problems in Afghanistan would be short-lived and that foreign reaction would be critical but not necessarily serious or long lasting; the Soviet need to support its socialist “ally” in Afghanistan; Moscow’s view that the process of détente with the US was floundering (SALT II failure) and that Soviet intervention in Afghanistan would not hinder a process already in trouble, etc.

Results could include: the results for not only the Soviet Union and Afghanistan but also the impact on international relations as the US reacted quickly to Soviet intervention in Afghanistan from late December 1979 onwards. Candidates could note the impact of invasion and war upon Afghanistan in terms of the guerrilla war fought against the Moscow supported Karmal regime (destruction of villages, massive refugee problems as by 1982 an estimated 20 % of the population crossed into neighbouring Pakistan). As well as Afghan casualties (some commentators have claimed anything up to 1 million) the USSR also admitted officially to losses of over 13 310 dead, 35 000 wounded and 311 unaccounted for. For Moscow the war, which was embarked upon in the belief of a quick victory, sapped not only military strength but also military morale and financial resources contributing, along with the policies of Gorbachev, to the decline of the Soviet Union. It became obvious that Gorbachev’s decision (announced to the Politburo in November 1986) to pull Soviet forces out of Afghanistan by 1988 marked the end of the Brezhnev Doctrine as far as Moscow’s “defence” of Communist states under threat was concerned.

For the United States, the conflict in Afghanistan, from Carter’s State of the Union address in January 1980 where he declared the invasion of Afghanistan to be the greatest threat to peace since the Second World War, to 1988/1989 was a success of sorts: US backing of the Mujahedin rebels via Pakistan helped tie down Soviet forces in a draining war; Moscow’s image was damaged in the eyes of Third World states which showed their displeasure at Soviet actions in the General Assembly of the UNO though the promotion of Islamic radicalism was to prove a double edged sword for the future.
Do not expect all of the above but do reward answers which offer a balanced reasons/results approach for more than just one state.

If only reasons or results are addressed, mark out of a maximum of [12 marks].

30. With reference to two states, each chosen from a different region, examine the cultural impact of the Cold War.
Cultural in this question can be taken to mean areas such as literature, art (in a variety of forms – from painting to collage to sculpting for example), theatre, song, film, radio, television. This is a specialized type of question and candidates do require specific historical detail to support the response. Generalized coverage that provides no underpinning by reference to examples and how these reflect the impact of the Cold War will not score well.

Some candidates may see the term “cultural” and write about the Cultural Revolution in China but the focus of the question is the Cold War and such responses will be unlikely to deal effectively with the demands of the question.

If only one state or one region is addressed, mark out of a maximum of [12 marks].

The database is protected by copyright © 2016
send message

    Main page