Grade Booster:

How to get an A/A* at GCSE History

Structure of the exam

The exam is split into two parts. 2 hour exam.Part 1 Part 2

The Cold War 1945-1975

Worth 35 marks

First question = source based (15 minutes)

Second question (choice of 2) = K+U (35 minutes)

The USA 1919-1941

Worth 40 marks

First question = source based

Second question = K+U

(b) Study source… What is the message of this source? Use the source and your own knowledge to explain your answer. (7)

In other words-What is the cartoonist trying to tell you and how does what do you know help you tomake sense of the cartoon?Sentence starter that you could use-‘ The message in the source is …’ Top tips-• Identify what the source is trying to say and support this by using details of the

cartoon and your own contextual knowledge. • Ensure that the own knowledge you use is specific e.g. use empirical evidence

(facts and figures about Marshall aid) to back up what you are saying rather than just a general description about the issue identifies in the source.

To get full marks –• Main message supported by details of the cartoon and by contextual knowledge.

Compulsory question

What the examiners said (1a)

‘The best answers recognised that this was not the first time that America had responded to Western Europe’s needs and were able to put this in a relevant historical context. Most candidates picked up on Marshall wanting to do something to help Western Europe but most failed to pick up on the disinterest shown by, and positioning of, Uncle Sam. Weaker answers concentrated too much on the idea of Capitalism v Communism in more general terms.’

Study source… What is the message of this source? Use the source and your own knowledge to explain your answer. (7)

Soviet domination of Eastern Europe

Study source… What is the message of this source? Use the source and your own knowledge to explain your answer. (7)

Choose 1 or 2 of these you have enough contextual knowledge about to be able to make sense of the cartoon

• (b) Explain why … (6) Rather than a description you are required toexplain. One explained reason 4-5 marks; twoor more explained reasons 5-6 marks.

Top tips – Make sure that your explanation is focussed onthe question, e.g. if it asks about the causes ofan event, don’t explain the specifics of the eventitself.

Compulsory question

‘The best answers were based on a sound understanding of the period of history around 1948 with awareness of the problematic nature of Berlin following the Yalta and Potsdam Conferences and the interpretation of ‘sphere of control’. Weaker answers were characterised by an attempt to describe the blockade. Some answers showed confusion between the Berlin Blockade and the building of the Berlin Wall.’

What the examiners said (1b)

What is the message of this source? Use the source and your knowledge to explain your answer. (7)

Level 1 -Uses surface features of cartoon only [1-2]

Level 2- Secondary message or misinterprets the main message of the cartoon [3]

Level 3- Main message of cartoon identified [4]

Level- 4 Main message supported by details of the cartoon OR by contextual knowledge[5-6]

Level 5 Main message supported by details of the cartoon AND by contextual knowledge (Both sides of Level 4)[7]

The main message of the source is that President Hoover is attempting to break the Depression through the implementation of a range of new policies such as the reconstruction finance corporation which is used as a splint to hammer into a tree (labelled ‘The Depression’) along with other bills/ splint s with the hope of splitting the tree in two. By late 1929 it was obvious that The US was in an economic depression and Hoover attempted to deal with some of the problems through a range of policies. Whilst as a republican Hoover was at first reluctant to interfere and instead wanted to allow the economy to rectify itself, he did establish a number of policies to try and address the problems associated with the Depression, such as the reconstruction finance corporation in 1932 which provided loans totalling $1500 million of federal government money to businesses in order to help them get back on their feet. However many believed that these measures were too little too late.

How far does this source prove that the Roosevelt was unsuccessful in dealing with the problems in agriculture? (7)

Level 1 Unsupported assertions / paraphrases / copies / surface features [1]

Level 2 Evaluates source using provenance, tone, message [2]

Level 3 Accepts source as being full explanation – uses information in source andcontextual knowledge [3-4]

Level 4 Identifies other forms of not in the source [5]

Level 5 Contextual knowledge used to explain reasons not in the source [6]

Level 6 Addresses ‘how far’ [7]

This cartoon criticises the work done by Roosevelt during the New Deal to try and improve the lives of farmers and the agriculture Industry. For example the AAA which was set up in order to try and stabilise agricultural prices by reducing supply and also to try and modernise farming through the introduction of new methods that would conserve and protect the soil. The AAA was successful in helping to modernise agriculture, however the source does not identify this success. It does however show that The AAA did not solve all of the problems in Agriculture, for example it shows black sharecroppers being crushed by the relief provided to them, this is because many of the programmes aimed at farmers did not target small farms and sharecroppers. The source only goes some way in explaining the success of the new deal policies aimed at improving agriculture as it ignores the successes such as the Resettlement administration which was part of the second new deal, it had some success in helping the poorest farmers with purchasing equipment and getting small grants to put towards soil conservation schemes.

This 1934 mural sees Roosevelt as the protector and friend of the working man

Why was this source produced? Use the source and your own knowledge to explain your answer. (6)

Level 1 - Surface use of source for information / general assertions [1]

Level 2 -Answers that identify why it was published (message) but not getting to purpose[2-3]

Level 3 Answers that identify purpose of poster [4]

Level 4- Uses contextual knowledge to explain why source was published but fails to getto purpose [5]

Level 5 -Answers that use contextual knowledge to explain purpose of the poster[6]

Source CBut here is the challenge to our democracy: In this nation I see tens of millions of its citizens - a substantial part of its whole population - who at this very moment are denied the greater part of what the very lowest standards of today call the necessities of life...I see millions denied education, recreation, and the opportunity to better their lot and the lot of their children.I see one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished...The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.2nd Inaugural Address (1937)

Are your surprised by this source? Use the source and your knowledge to explain your answer. (7)

Level 1 -Unsupported assertions OR paraphrases / copies source [1]

Level 2 - Not surprised / surprised – general claims [2]

Level 3- Not surprised OR surprised [3-4]

Level 4 Both not surprised AND surprised [5-6]

What was ….. (4)

• One mark given for each relevant point. Should take you no more than 2 minutes. • You can alternatively make two points and

then get an additional mark for each by using supporting detail.

What happened at the Yalta conference? (4)

1 mark for each relevant point / 1 additional mark for supporting detail.

• UN to be set up as an international peace keeping organisation. • Free elections to take place in Eastern Europe once liberated. • Soviet Union to join in the War against Japan.• Berlin did between the allies • Germany to be divided in 4 between the allies.

What were the results of the Cuban Missile crisis? (4)

1 mark for each relevant point / 1 additional mark for supporting detail.

• Kennedy emerged as a victor, strong public image for diffusing the situation. • Independence of Cuba had been guaranteed.• Hot line set up between Washington and the Kremlin. • Nuclear Test Ban treaty was signed in 1963. • The Cold War began to thaw a little.

What happened at the Bay of Pigs in 1961? (4)

1 mark for each relevant point / 1 additional mark for supporting detail.

• The CIA launched an attack on the coast of Cuba at the bay of pigs.• Cuban exiles went invaded with the hope of causing an uprising against Castro. • The exiles received military training, weapons and transport from the CIA. • The exiles were confident that they would receive support from the Cuban people. • Lots of the exiles were killed or taken captive when they landed at the Bay of Pigs. • When they landed the exiles faced over 20,000 Cuban troops. • The invasion was a disaster for America.

10 mark exam questions• Simple question

• Statement + how far do you agree

• Which of the three were the most important/most responsible • • • Which do you think was the most responsible? Explain your answerreferring only to (i), (ii)and (iii)

How to tackle 10- mark exam Qs• Intro- keep it short, re-word the question.• Main body- each 10 mark essay question requires a multi-factoral response

(several causes/issues discussed). • Focus on question throughout. Include a sentence at the end of each paragraph

which answers the question directly . • Evaluation- Make it clear which cause /issue was most important. Use evidence

to support this. For full marks, bring balance by explaining why another factor was less important.

• Evaluation- With ‘how far’ questions, ensure you evaluate how far you agree/ disagree with the statement e.g. partially, totally and why (using evidence).

• Evaluation- Summarise the strongest arguments in your main body and use these to come to answer the question. Use words and phrases like ‘however’, ‘where as’ and ‘on the other hand’ to ensure you give a balanced judgement.

• Evaluation- If you don’t want to identify one factor as being more important/ contributing more, your judgement can say that the issues were of equal importance / in some ways you agree with the statement and in others you disagree. However you must explain why (e.g. how one contributed to the other, in the long term one was more important, but in the short term the other)

Mark scheme

• Level 2 (3-4 marks) identifies/describes a limited number of factors.

• Level 3 (5-6 marks) Developed explanation with clear link to the demands of the question.

• Level 4 (7-9 marks) the same as above but several/ all factors explained.

• Level 5 (10 marks) explanation with evaluation.

10 mark sample questions • Who was the winner of the Cuban Missile Crisis?• who was to blame for the Cold War? • The main reason America experienced an economic boom in

the 1920s was due to its rich natural resources. How far do you agree with this statement?

• Which of the three were the most important/most responsible e.g. The following were equally responsible for the Great Depression:

• (i) Overproduction • (ii) Tariffs and isolationism;• (iii) The unequal distribution of wealth .Which do you think was the most responsible? Explain yourAnswer referring only to (i), (ii)and (iii)

Making a judgement Making a judgement

Go back to the question and answer it .‘ Based on the evidence it is clear that the overall winner of the Cuban Missile Crisis was …’

Summarise the strongest points which help to back up your arguments. ‘The two key areas which contributed to … winning the Cuban Missile Crisis overall were the final outcome (explain) and the political victory gained over …. during the crisis (explain)

Compare this with the achievements of the other party. Comparing words-

‘where as, however, in contrast, on the other hand’

*make sure these are direct comparisons.

This method can be applied to any question.

Who was the winner of the Cuban Missile Crisis?

Concluding paragraph-America won the Cuban Missile crisis because they managed to achieve their objective which was to get the missiles removed from Cuba, where as Castro and Khrushchev had to give in and take the missile bases off Cuba. However, because Cuba remained communist you could say that they won. There are arguments to support both winning, but the USA’s gains were better and more important.

who was to blame for the Cold War?

Concluding paragraph- The USSR was more to blame for the Cold War because they were the only side to take steps which were attempted acts of aggression aimed directly at the West. In particular when Stalin blockaded Berlin he did it knowing that it could result in a military conflict, whilst he didn’t shoot down any planes by attempting to force the west to give up their sector you could argue that from then onwards Cold War tension increased, for example both side joined opposing military alliances after the event.

The main reason America experienced an economic boom in the 1920s was due to its rich natural resources. How far do you agree with this statement?

Concluding paragraph- The main reason that America experienced an economic boom in the 20s was down to its rich natural materials. Coal and Iron helped to fuel the boom though providing power to the new industries that were being established. It also meant that America didn’t have to rely on importing raw materials which would have been expensive. The other reasons such as republican policies and new methods of production were nowhere near as important.

Which of the three were the most important/most responsible e.g. The following were equally responsible for the Great Depression:(i) Overproduction (ii) Tariffs and isolationism;(iii) the unequal distribution of wealth .Which do you think was the most responsible? Explain yourAnswer referring only to (i), (ii)and (iii)

Concluding paragraph-

They were all responsible to the same extent. Each had a knock on effect to the other factors. No one was more important than the others.

Vietnam sources

We will never be second in the search for such a peaceful settlement in Vietnam.There may be many ways to this kind of peace: in discussion or negotiation with the governments concerned; in large groups or in small ones; in the reaffirmation of old agreements or their strengthening with new ones.We have stated this position over and over again fifty times and more to friend and foe alike. And we remain ready with this purpose for unconditional discussions.And until that bright and necessary day of peace we will try to keep conflict from spreading. We have no desire to see thousands die in battle -- Asians or Americans. We have no desire to devastate that which the people of North Vietnam have built with toil and sacrifice. We will use our power with restraint and with all the wisdom that we can command. But we will use it.

President Lyndon B. Johnson

April 7, 1965: Speech

These latest actions of the North Vietnamese regime has given a new and grave turn to the already serious situation in southeast Asia. Our commitments in that area are well known to the Congress. They were first made in 1954 by President Eisenhower. They were further defined in the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty approved by the Senate in February 1955.This treaty with its accompanying protocol obligates the United States and other members to act in accordance with their constitutional processes to meet Communist aggression against any of the parties or protocol states.Our policy in southeast Asia has been consistent and unchanged since 19554. I summarized it on June 2 in four simple propositions:1. America keeps her word. Here as elsewhere, we must and shall honor our commitments.2. The issue is the future of southeast Asia as a whole. A threat to any nation in that region is a threat to all, and a threat to us.3. Our purpose is peace. We have no military, political, or territorial ambitions in the area.4. This is not just a jungle war, but a struggle for freedom on every front of human activity. Our military and economic assistance to South Vietnam and Laos in particular has the purpose of helping these countries to repel aggression and strengthen their independence.

President Johnson's Message to CongressAugust 5, 1964

Vietnam sources

October 23, 1954Dear Mr. President,I have been following with great interest the course of developments in Vietnam, particularly since the conclusion of the conference at Geneva. The implications of the agreement concerning Vietnam have caused grave concern regarding the future of the country temporarily divided by an artificial military grouping, weakened by a long and exhausting war, and faced with enemies without and by their subversive collaborators within……The purpose of this offer is to assist the Government of Vietnam in developing and maintaining a strong, viable state, capable of resisting attempted subversion or aggression through military means. The Government of the United States expects that this aid will be met by performance on the part of the Government of Vietnam in undertaking needed reforms. It hopes that such aid, combined with your own continuing efforts, will contribute effectively toward an independent Vietnam endowed with a strong Government. Such a Government would, I hope, be so responsive to the nationalist aspirations of its people, so enlightened in purpose and effective in performance, that it will be respected at home and abroad and discourage any who might wish to impose a foreign ideology on your free people.

Eisenhower to Ngo Dinh Diem. October 23, 1954

Vietnam sources

Vietnam sources

Skills review • What are the three main styles of 10 mark exam

question (give an example of the stem of the question/ describe)?

• Which section of the paper is worth the most marks?

• How many 10 mark essays will you write in total? • In both of the sections of the paper you get a

choice of question, is this source based or knowledge and understanding based?

Skills review

• What is the difference between the 6 and 8 mark ‘explain’ questions?

• Give three examples of words/ phrases you can use in a 10 mark question to show that you are evaluating ‘how far’.

• In a ‘how far does this source prove’ question what do you have to do to get full marks?

What is the message of this source?

How far does this source prove that Kennedy won the Cuban Missile Crisis?

Source A We will not needlessly risk world-wide nuclear war in which even victory would be ashes in our mouths – but neither will we shrink from that risk when it must be faced . . . I call upon Chairman Khrushchev to stop and dismantle this secret, reckless and provocative threat to world peace. Speech by Kennedy on American TV, 1962

Why was this source published?

You are about to see extracts from Khrushchev’s letter to Kennedy, 26 October 1962. Whilst you are reading it your task is to create a number of exam style questions based on its content. You must include the following – • 1 what is the purpose question• 2 ‘explain’ questions’• 2 four mark (what, why, who) questions• 2 ‘how far does this source explain’ questions• 1 what is the message question

Extension – create answers to these questions

Source 6aSECRET

QUOTEDear Mr. President:I have received your letter of October 25. From your letter, I got the feeling that you have some understanding of the situation which has developed and (some) sense of responsibility. I value this.Now we have already publicly exchanged our evaluations of the events around Cuba and each of us has set forth his explanation and his understanding of these events. Consequently, I would judge that, apparently, a continuation of an exchange of opinions at such a distance, even in the form of secret letters, will hardly add anything to that which one side has already said to the other.I think you will understand me correctly if you are really concerned about the welfare of the world. Everyone needs peace: Both capitalists, if they have not lost their reason, and still more, Communists, people who know how to value not only their own lives but, more than anything, the lives of the people. We, Communists, are against all wars between states in general and have been defending the cause of peace since we came into the world. We have always regarded war as a calamity, and not as a game nor as a means for the attainment of definite goals, nor, all the more, as a goal in itself. Our goals are clear, and the means to attain them is labor. War is our enemy and a calamity for all the peoples.It is thus that we, Soviet people, and, together with us, other peoples as well, understand the questions of war and peace. I can, in any case, firmly say this for the peoples of the Socialist countries, as well as for all progressive people who want peace, happiness, and friendship among peoples.I see, Mr. President, that you too are not devoid of a sense of anxiety for the fate of the world, of understanding, and of what war entails. What would a war give you? You are threatening us with war. But you well know that the very least which you would receive in reply would be that you would experience the same consequences as those which you send us. And that must be clear to us, people invested with authority, trust, and responsibility. We must not succumb to intoxication and petty passions, regardless of whether elections are impending in this or that country, or not impending. These are all transient things, but if indeed war should break out, then it would not be in our power to stop it, for such is the logic of war. I have... ...

participated in two wars and know that war ends when it has rolled through cities and villages, everywhere sowing death and destruction.In the name of the Soviet Government and the Soviet people, I assure you that your conclusions regarding offensive weapons on Cuba are groundless. It is apparent from what you have written me that our conceptions are different on this score, or rather, we have different estimates of these or those military means. Indeed, in reality, the same forms of weapons can have different interpretations.You are a military man and, I hope, will understand me. Let us take for example a simple cannon. What sort of means is this: offensive or defensive? A cannon is a defensive means if it is set up to defend boundaries or a fortified area. But if one concentrates artillery, and adds to it the necessary number of troops. Then the same cannons do become an offensive means, because they prepare and clear the way for infantry to attack. The same happens with missile – nuclear weapons as well, with any type of this weapon. You are mistaken if you think that any of our means on Cuba are offensive. However, let us not quarrel now. It is apparent that I will not be able to convince you of this. But I say to you: You, Mr. President, are a military man and should understand: Can one attack, if one has on one’s territory even an enormous quantity of missiles of various effective radiuses and various power, but using only these means? These missiles are a means of extermination and destruction. But one cannot attack with these missiles, even nuclear missiles of a power of 100 megatons because only people, troops, can attack. Without people, any means however powerful cannot be offensive. ……

If assurances were given by the President and the Government of the United States that the USA itself would not participate in an attack on Cuba and would restrain others from actions of this sort, if you would recall your fleet, this would immediately change everything. I am not speaking for Fidel Castro, but I think that he and the Government of Cuba, evidently, would declare demobilization and would appeal to the people to get down to peaceful labor. Then, too, the question of armaments would disappear, since, if there is no threat, then armaments are a burden for every people. Then, too, the question of the destruction, not only of the armaments which you call offensive, but of all other armaments as well, would look different.I spoke in the name of the Soviet Government in the United Nations and introduced a proposal for the disbandment of all armies and for the destruction of all armaments. How then can I now count on those armaments?Armaments bring only disasters. When one accumulates them, this damages the economy, and if one puts them to use, then they destroy people on both sides. Consequently, only a madman can believe that armaments are the principal means in the life of society. No, they are an enforced loss of human energy, and what is more are for the destruction of man himself. If people do not show wisdom, then in the final analysis they will come to a clash, like blind moles, and then reciprocal extermination will begin.Let us therefore show statesmanlike wisdom. I propose: We, for our part, will declare that our ships, bound for Cuba, will not carry any kind of armaments. You would declare that the United States will not invade Cuba with its forces and will not support any sort of forces which might intend to carry out an invasion of Cuba. Then the necessity for the presence of our military specialists in Cuba would disappear.