A Level H2 History Practice Paper 1

TuitionGoWhere Practice Paper - History H2 A-Level: Answer Key and Marking Scheme

Subject: History H2 Level: A-Level Paper: Practice Paper (Version 1) Total Marks: 100

---

Section A: Source-Based Case Study (40 Marks)

Question 1

(a) Compare and contrast the evidence provided by Sources A and C on the state of relations between the Soviet Union and the Western powers in 1946. [10]

Marking Descriptors for Level of Response:

Level	Marks	Descriptor
Level 5	9–10	Excellent comparison and contrast. Identifies multiple points of agreement and disagreement, with precise use of evidence from both sources. Comments on the nature, purpose, and provenance of the sources to explain the differences.
Level 4	7–8	Good comparison and contrast. Identifies several points of agreement and disagreement with clear evidence. Some comment on provenance.
Level 3	5–6	Sound comparison and contrast. Identifies some points of agreement and disagreement, but may be imbalanced or lack full development.
Level 2	3–4	Limited comparison. Describes the sources separately with minimal direct comparison.
Level 1	1–2	Minimal understanding. Brief or irrelevant points.
Level 0	0	No valid response.

Expected Content Points:

Points of Agreement (Comparison):

• Both sources agree that relations between the Soviet Union and the Western powers were deeply hostile and confrontational in 1946.
• Source A describes a divided Europe with an "iron curtain" separating Soviet-controlled Eastern Europe from the West.
• Source C, while rejecting Churchill's characterisation, implicitly acknowledges the existence of a fundamental ideological divide by accusing Churchill of seeking to create a "united front of the English-speaking peoples against the Soviet Union."
• Both sources acknowledge that Europe is divided into opposing spheres of influence.

Points of Disagreement (Contrast):

• Attribution of blame: Source A implies that Soviet expansionism and control over Eastern Europe is the cause of the division. Source C places blame on Churchill and the West, accusing them of warmongering and racial prejudice.
• Characterisation of the other side: Source A portrays the Soviet Union as aggressive and expansionist, subjecting Eastern European states to "Soviet influence" and "control from Moscow." Source C portrays Churchill as a "warmonger" whose views resemble those of Hitler.
• Nature of the division: Source A presents the division as a physical and political reality created by Soviet actions. Source C presents the division as a rhetorical construct created by Churchill to mobilise the English-speaking world against the USSR.
• Tone: Source A is a warning about Soviet intentions, delivered in measured but alarming language. Source C is a direct and hostile rebuttal, using inflammatory language ("warmonger," "racial theory").

Comment on Provenance (for higher levels):

• Source A is a public speech by a Western leader, designed to rally Western opinion and justify a firm stance against the USSR. It is a primary source but is also a political statement with a persuasive purpose.
• Source C is a public response by the Soviet leader, published in the official Soviet newspaper Pravda. It is designed to defend Soviet policy and discredit Churchill. Its purpose is propagandistic.
• Both sources are therefore shaped by their political purposes and audiences, which explains their contrasting characterisations of the same situation.

---

(b) How far do Sources A to F support the view that the outbreak of the Cold War was primarily the result of Soviet aggression and expansionism? [30]

Marking Descriptors for Level of Response:

Level	Marks	Descriptor
Level 5	25–30	Excellent evaluation. All sources are used and weighed critically. Clear judgement on the extent of support for the claim. Demonstrates understanding of the historiographical debate (traditional, revisionist, post-revisionist). Well-structured and substantiated argument.
Level 4	19–24	Good evaluation. Most sources are used and evaluated. Clear judgement with some nuance. Shows awareness of different interpretations.
Level 3	13–18	Sound evaluation. Several sources are used. Judgement is present but may be underdeveloped. Some awareness of different perspectives.
Level 2	7–12	Limited evaluation. Sources are described rather than evaluated. Judgement is asserted rather than argued.
Level 1	1–6	Minimal understanding. Sources are listed or ignored. No clear judgement.
Level 0	0	No valid response.

Expected Content Points:

Sources that SUPPORT the view (Soviet aggression/expansionism):

• Source A (Churchill): Directly supports the view by describing Soviet control over Eastern Europe as aggressive and expansionist. The "iron curtain" imagery suggests a forceful Soviet takeover.
• Source B (Kennan): Partially supports the view. Kennan describes the Soviet worldview as one of "profound and deadly hostility towards the capitalist world," suggesting an aggressive ideological drive. However, he also explains this as stemming from a "traditional and instinctive Russian sense of insecurity," which complicates the idea of unprovoked aggression.
• Source D (Truman Doctrine): Supports the view by describing "terrorist activities of several thousand armed men, led by Communists" threatening Greece, and calls for support for "free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." This frames Soviet/communist actions as aggressive.
• Source F (NSC-68): Strongly supports the view. It describes the Soviet Union as "animated by a new fanatic faith" and seeking "to impose its absolute authority over the rest of the world." This is a clear statement of Soviet expansionism as the primary cause.

Sources that CHALLENGE or COMPLICATE the view:

• Source C (Stalin): Directly challenges the view. Stalin denies Soviet aggression and instead accuses Churchill and the West of warmongering. He frames the Soviet Union as a victim of Western hostility. This source suggests that Western actions, such as Churchill's speech, contributed to the deterioration of relations.
• Source E (Marshall): Does not directly support the view. The Marshall Plan is presented as a response to European economic distress, not to immediate Soviet military aggression. It implies that the US saw economic instability as the main threat, not direct Soviet expansion. This suggests that the US took the initiative in shaping the post-war order, which could be seen as a Western contribution to the Cold War.

Synthesis and Judgement:

• The sources provide strong but not complete support for the view that the Cold War was primarily the result of Soviet aggression.
• Sources A, D, and F clearly support the view, reflecting the traditional (orthodox) interpretation of the Cold War, which blames Soviet expansionism.
• Source B complicates the picture by suggesting Soviet insecurity as a motive, which aligns partially with post-revisionist interpretations.
• Source C directly challenges the view, offering a Soviet perspective that blames the West. Source E suggests that Western economic initiatives were proactive, not merely reactive.
• A balanced conclusion should acknowledge that while Soviet actions in Eastern Europe and Soviet ideology were significant factors, Western perceptions, policies, and actions (e.g., the Truman Doctrine, Marshall Plan, and Churchill's rhetoric) also contributed to the escalation of tensions. The Cold War was a product of mutual suspicion and miscalculation, not solely Soviet aggression.
• Overall judgement: The sources provide moderate-to-strong support for the view, but a full understanding requires considering the role of Western initiatives and the mutual nature of the conflict.

---

Section B: Essays (60 Marks)

Question 2

"Multinational corporations (MNCs) were the most significant factor in the growth of the global economy between 1945 and 2000." How far do you agree? [30]

Marking Descriptors for Level of Response:

Level	Marks	Descriptor
Level 5	25–30	Excellent. Clear judgement with a well-developed argument. Considers multiple factors (MNCs, US role, international organisations, technological change, post-war reconstruction). Uses specific examples and evidence. Demonstrates understanding of change over time.
Level 4	19–24	Good. Clear judgement with developed argument. Considers several factors with specific examples.
Level 3	13–18	Sound. Judgement is present but may be asserted rather than fully argued. Considers some factors with some evidence.
Level 2	7–12	Limited. Descriptive rather than analytical. Limited range of factors or evidence.
Level 1	1–6	Minimal. Little relevant content or argument.
Level 0	0	No valid response.

Expected Content Points:

Arguments that MNCs were the most significant factor:

• MNCs drove globalisation by transferring capital, technology, and managerial expertise across borders.
• MNCs created global production networks, integrating developing economies into the global economy (e.g., electronics and textiles in Southeast Asia).
• MNCs stimulated trade and investment, contributing to the rapid growth of world trade after 1945.
• Examples: IBM, Ford, General Motors, Toyota, and later technology firms like Microsoft and Intel.
• MNCs facilitated the spread of consumer culture and new technologies, boosting productivity and demand.

Arguments that other factors were more significant:

• Role of the USA: The US provided the financial and political framework for economic growth through the Marshall Plan, the Bretton Woods system, and its role as the world's largest market.
• International organisations: The IMF, World Bank, and GATT/WTO created a stable monetary and trading system that facilitated growth. The GATT rounds progressively reduced tariffs, boosting trade.
• Post-war reconstruction: The rebuilding of Europe and Japan after WWII created a massive demand for goods and services, driving growth.
• Technological change: Innovations in transport (containerisation, jet aircraft) and communications (computers, telecommunications) reduced costs and enabled global trade.
• Government policies: State-led industrialisation in East Asia (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan) and the expansion of welfare states in Europe supported domestic demand and growth.

Synthesis and Judgement:

• MNCs were a significant factor, particularly from the 1970s onwards, as they accelerated globalisation.
• However, the growth of the global economy was a multi-causal process. The institutional framework (Bretton Woods, GATT), US leadership, post-war reconstruction, and technological change were all essential preconditions.
• MNCs were arguably the most dynamic force in the later period (post-1970s), but they operated within a framework created by states and international institutions.
• A balanced judgement might conclude that MNCs were a necessary but not sufficient condition for growth; they were one of several interdependent factors.

---

Question 3

Assess the view that the oil crises of the 1970s were the most serious challenge to the growth of the global economy in the second half of the twentieth century. [30]

Marking Descriptors for Level of Response:

Level	Marks	Descriptor
Level 5	25–30	Excellent. Clear judgement with a well-developed argument. Considers multiple challenges (oil crises, debt crises, protectionism, collapse of Bretton Woods). Uses specific examples and evidence. Demonstrates understanding of change over time.
Level 4	19–24	Good. Clear judgement with developed argument. Considers several challenges with specific examples.
Level 3	13–18	Sound. Judgement is present but may be asserted rather than fully argued. Considers some challenges with some evidence.
Level 2	7–12	Limited. Descriptive rather than analytical. Limited range of challenges or evidence.
Level 1	1–6	Minimal. Little relevant content or argument.
Level 0	0	No valid response.

Expected Content Points:

Arguments that the oil crises were the most serious challenge:

• 1973 Oil Crisis: OPEC's oil embargo and price increases (from ~$3 to ~$12 per barrel) caused a quadrupling of oil prices. This triggered stagflation (high inflation + low growth) in developed economies.
• 1979 Oil Crisis: The Iranian Revolution caused a second price shock (from ~$15 to ~$39 per barrel), further disrupting the global economy.
• The oil crises exposed the dependence of developed economies on imported oil, leading to balance-of-payments deficits, inflation, and unemployment.
• The crises triggered a global recession in 1974–75 and again in 1980–82, slowing economic growth significantly.
• The oil crises also contributed to the debt crisis of the 1980s, as developing countries (especially in Latin America) borrowed heavily to pay for oil imports and then defaulted.

Arguments that other challenges were more serious:

• Collapse of the Bretton Woods system (1971): The US decision to abandon the gold standard and the subsequent move to floating exchange rates created monetary instability, which was a fundamental challenge to the post-war economic order.
• Debt crisis of the 1980s: The Latin American debt crisis (starting with Mexico in 1982) threatened the stability of the international banking system and caused a "lost decade" for many developing economies.
• Rise of protectionism: Periodic waves of protectionism, such as the US–Japan trade disputes in the 1980s, threatened the open trading system that had driven growth.
• Structural problems: The decline of traditional industries in developed economies, the rise of unemployment, and the challenges of globalisation created long-term difficulties.
• End of the post-war boom: The oil crises coincided with the end of the "Golden Age" of capitalism (1945–1973). The slowdown in productivity growth was a deeper structural issue.

Synthesis and Judgement:

• The oil crises were a major shock that exposed the vulnerabilities of the global economy and triggered a period of slower growth.
• However, they were part of a broader set of challenges, including the collapse of Bretton Woods, the debt crisis, and structural economic problems.
• The oil crises were arguably the most immediate and visible challenge, but the debt crisis of the 1980s had a more lasting impact on developing economies.
• A balanced judgement might conclude that the oil crises were a significant trigger for the economic difficulties of the 1970s and 1980s, but they were not the sole or necessarily the most serious challenge; the global economy faced multiple interconnected crises.

---

Question 4

"The failure of the United Nations in maintaining international peace and security between 1945 and 1991 was due to the Cold War." To what extent do you agree? [30]

Marking Descriptors for Level of Response:

Level	Marks	Descriptor
Level 5	25–30	Excellent. Clear judgement with a well-developed argument. Considers multiple factors (Cold War, veto power, structural weaknesses, financial constraints). Uses specific examples of UN successes and failures.
Level 4	19–24	Good. Clear judgement with developed argument. Considers several factors with specific examples.
Level 3	13–18	Sound. Judgement is present but may be asserted rather than fully argued. Considers some factors with some evidence.
Level 2	7–12	Limited. Descriptive rather than analytical. Limited range of factors or evidence.
Level 1	1–6	Minimal. Little relevant content or argument.
Level 0	0	No valid response.

Expected Content Points:

Arguments that the Cold War was the primary cause of UN failure:

• Veto power: The permanent members (especially the USA and USSR) used their veto power in the Security Council to block action against their interests or allies. Examples: Soviet vetoes on Korean War action (after initial absence), US vetoes on Israel-related resolutions.
• Superpower rivalry: The UN became a forum for Cold War propaganda rather than a mechanism for collective security. Each superpower used the UN to criticise the other.
• Proxy wars: The UN was unable to prevent or resolve proxy wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and elsewhere because these were extensions of superpower rivalry.
• Peacekeeping limitations: UN peacekeeping operations (e.g., UNEF in 1956, ONUC in the Congo) were only possible when the superpowers agreed or were not directly involved. When they were involved, the UN was paralysed.

Arguments that other factors were also responsible:

• Structural weaknesses: The UN Charter's reliance on the principle of collective security was unrealistic. The Military Staff Committee (Article 43 agreements) was never established, so the UN had no standing army.
• Financial constraints: The UN was chronically underfunded, limiting its ability to mount effective peacekeeping operations.
• State sovereignty: The principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of states (Article 2(7)) limited the UN's ability to act in civil conflicts or humanitarian crises.
• Selective engagement: Member states, especially the great powers, only supported UN action when it served their national interests. The UN was a tool of state policy, not an independent actor.
• Successes: The UN did have some successes, such as mediating the Suez Crisis (1956), the Congo operation (1960–64), and peacekeeping in Cyprus (1964 onwards). These show that the UN was not a total failure.

Synthesis and Judgement:

• The Cold War was a major cause of UN failure, as it paralysed the Security Council and prevented collective action in many crises.
• However, the UN's structural weaknesses, financial constraints, and the principle of state sovereignty were also significant factors.
• The UN was not a complete failure; it achieved some successes where superpower interests coincided.
• A balanced judgement might conclude that the Cold War was the most important factor, but not the only one. The UN's design and the behaviour of member states also contributed to its limitations.

---

Question 5

"United Nations peacekeeping efforts were largely undermined by the principle of state sovereignty between 1945 and 2000." To what extent is this statement valid? [30]

Marking Descriptors for Level of Response:

Level	Marks	Descriptor
Level 5	25–30	Excellent. Clear judgement with a well-developed argument. Considers multiple factors (sovereignty, Cold War, funding, mandate limitations). Uses specific examples of peacekeeping successes and failures.
Level 4	19–24	Good. Clear judgement with developed argument. Considers several factors with specific examples.
Level 3	13–18	Sound. Judgement is present but may be asserted rather than fully argued. Considers some factors with some evidence.
Level 2	7–12	Limited. Descriptive rather than analytical. Limited range of factors or evidence.
Level 1	1–6	Minimal. Little relevant content or argument.
Level 0	0	No valid response.

Expected Content Points:

Arguments that state sovereignty undermined peacekeeping:

• Article 2(7) of the UN Charter: The UN is prohibited from intervening in matters that are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state. This limited the UN's ability to act in civil wars or internal conflicts.
• Consent principle: UN peacekeeping traditionally required the consent of the host state. This meant that peacekeepers could not operate where a government refused to allow them, or where the government was a party to the conflict.
• Examples of failure due to sovereignty:
  • Rwanda (1994): The UN peacekeeping mission (UNAMIR) was unable to act to prevent the genocide because the Rwandan government (which was committing the genocide) refused to consent to a stronger mandate.
  • Srebrenica (1995): The UN safe area was overrun because the peacekeepers lacked a robust mandate and the consent of the parties had broken down.
  • Biafra/Nigeria (1967–70): The UN did not intervene in the Nigerian Civil War because the Nigerian government invoked sovereignty.

Arguments that other factors were more important:

• Cold War: Superpower rivalry and the veto power were the primary obstacles to UN action. The UN could not act where the superpowers disagreed.
• Financial constraints: Peacekeeping operations were often underfunded and under-resourced, limiting their effectiveness.
• Mandate limitations: Even where consent was given, mandates were often too weak (e.g., peacekeeping rather than peace enforcement), preventing peacekeepers from using force to protect civilians.
• Lack of political will: Member states, especially the permanent members, were often unwilling to commit troops or resources to peacekeeping.
• Examples of success: UN peacekeeping did achieve successes, such as in Namibia (UNTAG, 1989–90), El Salvador (ONUSAL, 1991–95), and Mozambique (ONUMOZ, 1992–94), where sovereignty was not a major obstacle.

Synthesis and Judgement:

• State sovereignty was a significant constraint on UN peacekeeping, particularly in internal conflicts.
• However, the Cold War, financial constraints, and weak mandates were equally or more important factors.
• The principle of sovereignty was often invoked by states to prevent UN intervention, but the UN's own structural weaknesses and the lack of political will among member states were also crucial.
• A balanced judgement might conclude that sovereignty was a major but not the sole factor undermining peacekeeping. The UN's effectiveness was limited by a combination of legal, political, and financial constraints.

---

END OF ANSWER KEY