2024_AQA: AS HISTORY The Cold War, c1945–1991 Component 2R To the Brink of Nuclear War:
International Relations, c1945–1963
(merged Question paper and marking scheme): Monday 20 May 2024
AS
HISTORY
The Cold War, c1945–1991
Component 2R To the brink of Nuclear War: international relations,
c1945–1963
Monday 20 May 2024 Afternoon Time allowed: 1 hour 30 minutes
Materials
For this paper you must have:
an AQA 16-page answer book.
Instructions
Use black ink or black ball-point pen.
Write the information required on the front of your answer book. The Paper Reference is
7041/2R.
Answer two questions.
In Section A answer Question 01.
In Section B answer either Question 02 or Question 03.
Information
The marks for questions are shown in brackets.
The maximum mark for this paper is 50.
You will be marked on your ability to:
– use good English
– organise information clearly
– use specialist vocabulary where appropriate.
Advice
You are advised to spend about:
– 50 minutes on Section A
– 40 minutes on Section B.
,AS History: The Cold War, c1945–1991
Component 2R: To the Brink of Nuclear War: International Relations, c1945–1963
May 2025
Key Areas to Revise:
1. The Origins of the Cold War (1945–1949)
Key Events: Study the key events that led to the start of the Cold War, such as the Yalta Conference
(1945) and Potsdam Conference (1945). Focus on the differing visions of the post-war world held by the
USA (capitalist, democratic) and the USSR (communist, authoritarian).
The Iron Curtain and the Division of Germany: Understand the division of Europe and the Berlin
Blockade (1948-1949), which heightened tensions between the superpowers. Learn about Winston
Churchill’s Iron Curtain speech (1946) and its significance.
The Truman Doctrine (1947) and Marshall Plan (1948): Focus on how these policies aimed to contain
communism and support Western Europe economically, solidifying the ideological divide between East and
West.
2. The Early Cold War Crises (1949–1953)
NATO and the Warsaw Pact: Understand the creation of NATO (1949) as a military alliance to counter
Soviet expansion and the response of the USSR with the Warsaw Pact (1955).
The Korean War (1950–1953): Study the causes, key events, and outcomes of the Korean War. Focus on
the role of the United Nations, China, and the USA, and the impact on Cold War dynamics.
The Berlin Airlift (1948–1949): The Soviet blockade of West Berlin and the Western response through
airlifts highlighted the growing confrontation between the superpowers.
3. The Soviet Union Under Stalin and His Successors
Stalin’s Death (1953): Understand the implications of Joseph Stalin’s death and how his successor
Nikita Khrushchev reshaped Soviet foreign policy.
Destalinization and Khrushchev’s Leadership: Focus on Khrushchev’s de-Stalinization campaign
(1956), which aimed to reduce the power of Stalinist repression, and how it altered relations within the
communist bloc and with the West.
4. The Early Nuclear Arms Race and Brinkmanship
The Development of Nuclear Weapons: Study the importance of the atomic bomb and hydrogen bomb
in shaping the Cold War. Understand the significance of the USA’s nuclear monopoly until 1949 when the
USSR developed its own atomic bomb.
Brinkmanship: Learn about Eisenhower’s policy of “brinkmanship” — the idea of pushing international
crises to the verge of war to force the opponent to back down. Review how this policy was used in various
Cold War crises, including the Suez Crisis (1956).
5. The Cuban Revolution and the Cuban Missile Crisis
The Cuban Revolution (1959): Understand the significance of Fidel Castro’s revolution and the rise of
Cuba as a communist state. Focus on the tension it created between the USA and the USSR, especially
given Cuba’s proximity to the USA.
The Cuban Missile Crisis (1962): Study the causes, key events, and aftermath of the Cuban Missile
Crisis, where the world came closest to nuclear war. Focus on Khrushchev and Kennedy’s roles, and
how diplomacy and negotiation prevented a full-scale conflict.
IB/M/Jun24/G4002/E2 7041/2R
, 2
Section A
Answer Question 01.
Source A
From an official note sent to the American Ambassador in Moscow by the Soviet Foreign
Ministry, 27 November 1958. This was shortly after Khrushchev’s Berlin Ultimatum.
The policies of the Western Powers in West Germany have violated the
Potsdam Agreement, designed to ensure the unity of Germany as a peace-loving and
democratic state. In West Germany, there is a government which does not conceal its
hatred for the Soviet Union, whereas in East Germany there is a government which has
completely broken with Germany’s aggressive past. There is only one conclusion to be 5
drawn from this: the Potsdam Agreement has been grossly violated by the Western
Powers. They are abusing their position in West Berlin, using it as a centre from which to
pursue subversive activity against the Soviet Union and we cannot tolerate such a
situation any longer.
Source B
From a radio and television broadcast to the American people by President Kennedy,
25 July 1961.
Seven weeks ago tonight I returned from Vienna after my meeting with Khrushchev. He
made grim warnings about the future of Berlin and announced an increase in the Soviet
military budget. He intends to end our legal rights to be in West Berlin and our ability to
protect the two million free people of that city. That we cannot permit. Our presence in
West Berlin cannot be ended by the Soviets and we gave our word that an attack upon 5
that city would be regarded as an attack upon us all in NATO. Today, the endangered
frontier of freedom runs through divided Berlin. We want it to remain a frontier of peace –
we seek peace, but we shall not surrender.
0 1 With reference to these sources and your understanding of the historical context, which
of these two sources is more valuable in explaining why there were tensions between
the Soviet Union and the USA over Berlin in the years 1958 to 1961?
[25 marks]
IB/M/Jun24/7041/2R
, 3
Section B
Answer either Question 02 or Question 03.
Either
0 2 ‘The breakdown of relations between the Soviet Union and the West by 1947 was
mainly the result of ideological differences.’
Explain why you agree or disagree with this view.
[25 marks]
or
0 3 ‘In the years 1949 to 1955, US policies in Asia were very successful.’
Explain why you agree or disagree with this view.
[25 marks]
END OF QUESTIONS
IB/M/Jun24/7041/2R
, 4
There are no questions printed on this page
Copyright information
For confidentiality purposes, all acknowledgements of third-party copyright material are published in a separate booklet. This booklet is published after
each live examination series and is available for free download from www.aqa.org.uk
Permission to reproduce all copyright material has been applied for. In some cases, efforts to contact copyright-holders may have been unsuccessful and
AQA will be happy to rectify any omissions of acknowledgements. If you have any queries please contact the Copyright Team.
Copyright © 2024 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.
IB/M/Jun24/7041/2R
,AS
HISTORY
7041/2R
The Cold War, c1945–1991
Component 2R To the brink of Nuclear War: international relations, c1945–1963
Mark scheme
June 2024
Version: 1.0 Final
, MARK SCHEME – AS HISTORY – 7041/2R – JUNE 2024
Mark schemes are prepared by the Lead Assessment Writer and considered, together with the relevant
questions, by a panel of subject teachers. This mark scheme includes any amendments made at the
standardisation events which all associates participate in and is the scheme which was used by them in
this examination. The standardisation process ensures that the mark scheme covers the students’
responses to questions and that every associate understands and applies it in the same correct way.
As preparation for standardisation each associate analyses a number of students’ scripts. Alternative
answers not already covered by the mark scheme are discussed and legislated for. If, after the
standardisation process, associates encounter unusual answers which have not been raised they are
required to refer these to the Lead Examiner.
It must be stressed that a mark scheme is a working document, in many cases further developed and
expanded on the basis of students’ reactions to a particular paper. Assumptions about future mark
schemes on the basis of one year’s document should be avoided; whilst the guiding principles of
assessment remain constant, details will change, depending on the content of a particular examination
paper.
No student should be disadvantaged on the basis of their gender identity and/or how they refer to the
gender identity of others in their exam responses.
A consistent use of ‘they/them’ as a singular and pronouns beyond ‘she/her’ or ‘he/him’ will be credited in
exam responses in line with existing mark scheme criteria.
Further copies of this mark scheme are available from aqa.org.uk
Copyright information
AQA retains the copyright on all its publications. However, registered schools/colleges 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 schools/colleges to photocopy any material that is acknowledged to a third party even for
internal use within the centre.
Copyright © 2024 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.
2
, MARK SCHEME – AS HISTORY – 7041/2R – JUNE 2024
Level of response marking instructions
Level of response mark schemes are broken down into levels, each of which has a descriptor. The
descriptor for the level shows the average performance for the level. There are marks in each level.
Before you apply the mark scheme to a student’s answer read through the answer and annotate it (as
instructed) to show the qualities that are being looked for. You can then apply the mark scheme.
Step 1 Determine a level
Start at the lowest level of the mark scheme and use it as a ladder to see whether the answer meets the
descriptor for that level. The descriptor for the level indicates the different qualities that might be seen in
the student’s answer for that level. If it meets the lowest level then go to the next one and decide if it
meets this level, and so on, until you have a match between the level descriptor and the answer. With
practice and familiarity, you will find that for better answers you will be able to quickly skip through the
lower levels of the mark scheme.
When assigning a level, you should look at the overall quality of the answer and not look to pick holes in
small and specific parts of the answer where the student has not performed quite as well as the rest. If
the answer covers different aspects of different levels of the mark scheme you should use a best fit
approach for defining the level and then use the variability of the response to help decide the mark within
the level, ie if the response is predominantly Level 3 with a small amount of Level 4 material it would be
placed in Level 3 but be awarded a mark near the top of the level because of the Level 4 content.
Step 2 Determine a mark
Once you have assigned a level you need to decide on the mark. The descriptors on how to allocate
marks can help with this. The exemplar materials used during standardisation will help. There will be an
answer in the standardising materials which will correspond with each level of the mark scheme. This
answer will have been awarded a mark by the Lead Examiner. You can compare the student’s answer
with the example to determine if it is the same standard, better or worse than the example. You can then
use this to allocate a mark for the answer based on the Lead Examiner’s mark on the example.
You may well need to read back through the answer as you apply the mark scheme to clarify points and
assure yourself that the level and the mark are appropriate.
Indicative content in the mark scheme is provided as a guide for examiners. It is not intended to be
exhaustive and you must credit other valid points. Students do not have to cover all of the points
mentioned in the Indicative content to reach the highest level of the mark scheme.
An answer which contains nothing of relevance to the question must be awarded no marks.
3
, MARK SCHEME – AS HISTORY – 7041/2R – JUNE 2024
Section A
0 1 With reference to these sources and your understanding of the historical context, which of
these two sources is more valuable in explaining why there were tensions between the
Soviet Union and the USA over Berlin in the years 1958 to 1961?
[25 marks]
Target: AO2
Analyse and evaluate appropriate source material, primary and/or contemporary to the period,
within the historical context.
Generic Mark Scheme
L5: Answers will display a very good understanding of the value of the sources in relation to the issue
identified in the question. They will evaluate the sources thoroughly in order to provide a
well-substantiated conclusion. The response demonstrates a very good understanding of context.
21–25
L4: Answers will provide a range of relevant well-supported comments on the value of the sources for
the issue identified in the question. There will be sufficient comment to provide a supported
conclusion but not all comments will be well-substantiated, and judgements will be limited. The
response demonstrates a good understanding of context. 16–20
L3: The answer will provide some relevant comments on the value of the sources and there will be
some explicit reference to the issue identified in the question. Judgements will however, be partial
and/or thinly supported. The response demonstrates an understanding of context. 11–15
L2: The answer will be partial. There may be either some relevant comments on the value of one
source in relation to the issue identified in the question or some comment on both, but lacking
depth and having little, if any, explicit link to the issue identified in the question. The response
demonstrates some understanding of context. 6–10
L1: The answer will either describe source content or offer stock phrases about the value of the
source. There may be some comment on the issue identified in the question but it is likely to be
limited, unsubstantiated and unconvincing. The response demonstrates limited understanding of
context. 1–5
Nothing worthy of credit. 0
4
, MARK SCHEME – AS HISTORY – 7041/2R – JUNE 2024
Indicative content
Note: This content is not prescriptive and students are not obliged to refer to the material
contained in this mark scheme. Any legitimate answer will be assessed on its merits according to
the generic levels scheme.
Students must deploy knowledge of the historical context to show an understanding of the
relationship between the sources and the issues raised in the question, when assessing the
significance of provenance, the arguments deployed in the sources and the tone and emphasis
of the sources. Descriptive answers which fail to do this should be awarded no more than
Level 2 at best. Answers should address both the value and the limitations of the sources for the
particular question and purpose given.
In responding to this question, students may choose to address each source in turn or to adopt a more
comparative approach in order to arrive at a judgement. Either approach is equally valid and what
follows is indicative of the evaluation which may be relevant.
Source A: in assessing the value of this source as an explanation, students may refer to the
following:
Provenance and tone
this is a note sent by the Soviet government and therefore demonstrates the official Soviet attitude
towards West Germany and Berlin. It is valuable as it shows the depth of hostility the Soviet Union felt
towards the USA at this time and that they were taking action to regain control in Germany
the date is valuable as this source followed Khrushchev’s speech earlier that month in which he gave
an ultimatum to the USA to reach a settlement over Germany within 6 months. Therefore, it is valuable
to understand why there were tensions over Berlin as Khrushchev felt the need to give an ultimatum
the tone of the source is very aggressive and condescending when discussing the USA and other
allies, suggesting a degree of ‘posturing’ and that a diplomatic solution is not intended, therefore
making the source less valuable. On the other hand, the reference to German aggression is indicative
of genuine Soviet security concerns.
Content and argument
the note is arguing that the USA and its allies had broken the Potsdam Agreements – for example the
agreement that Germany was to become a single economic unit and demilitarised. This is valuable
because the USA had introduced a new constitution for West Germany, created the Deutschmark and
admitted West Germany to NATO. However, similar Soviet policies towards the GDR such as
interfering with political parties to engineer Communism are overlooked; Potsdam had not provided a
complete blueprint for post-war reconstruction
the source also argues that West Germany was aggressive towards the USSR, whereas the GDR was
only peaceful. This could be valuable to understand the reasons for tension because the Soviet Union
would have considered actions, such as the FRG joining NATO, as aggressive. However, the internal
policies of the GDR, such as manipulating elections, could be viewed as aggressive towards the West,
making it less valuable
the source also argues that the USA are abusing their position in West Berlin. This is valuable
because it clearly indicates that the Soviet Union felt threatened by the USA and therefore wanted to
remove their influence – West Berlin had become a flagship of American Capitalism, a drain on the
GDR and easily competed against a Communist economy.
5
International Relations, c1945–1963
(merged Question paper and marking scheme): Monday 20 May 2024
AS
HISTORY
The Cold War, c1945–1991
Component 2R To the brink of Nuclear War: international relations,
c1945–1963
Monday 20 May 2024 Afternoon Time allowed: 1 hour 30 minutes
Materials
For this paper you must have:
an AQA 16-page answer book.
Instructions
Use black ink or black ball-point pen.
Write the information required on the front of your answer book. The Paper Reference is
7041/2R.
Answer two questions.
In Section A answer Question 01.
In Section B answer either Question 02 or Question 03.
Information
The marks for questions are shown in brackets.
The maximum mark for this paper is 50.
You will be marked on your ability to:
– use good English
– organise information clearly
– use specialist vocabulary where appropriate.
Advice
You are advised to spend about:
– 50 minutes on Section A
– 40 minutes on Section B.
,AS History: The Cold War, c1945–1991
Component 2R: To the Brink of Nuclear War: International Relations, c1945–1963
May 2025
Key Areas to Revise:
1. The Origins of the Cold War (1945–1949)
Key Events: Study the key events that led to the start of the Cold War, such as the Yalta Conference
(1945) and Potsdam Conference (1945). Focus on the differing visions of the post-war world held by the
USA (capitalist, democratic) and the USSR (communist, authoritarian).
The Iron Curtain and the Division of Germany: Understand the division of Europe and the Berlin
Blockade (1948-1949), which heightened tensions between the superpowers. Learn about Winston
Churchill’s Iron Curtain speech (1946) and its significance.
The Truman Doctrine (1947) and Marshall Plan (1948): Focus on how these policies aimed to contain
communism and support Western Europe economically, solidifying the ideological divide between East and
West.
2. The Early Cold War Crises (1949–1953)
NATO and the Warsaw Pact: Understand the creation of NATO (1949) as a military alliance to counter
Soviet expansion and the response of the USSR with the Warsaw Pact (1955).
The Korean War (1950–1953): Study the causes, key events, and outcomes of the Korean War. Focus on
the role of the United Nations, China, and the USA, and the impact on Cold War dynamics.
The Berlin Airlift (1948–1949): The Soviet blockade of West Berlin and the Western response through
airlifts highlighted the growing confrontation between the superpowers.
3. The Soviet Union Under Stalin and His Successors
Stalin’s Death (1953): Understand the implications of Joseph Stalin’s death and how his successor
Nikita Khrushchev reshaped Soviet foreign policy.
Destalinization and Khrushchev’s Leadership: Focus on Khrushchev’s de-Stalinization campaign
(1956), which aimed to reduce the power of Stalinist repression, and how it altered relations within the
communist bloc and with the West.
4. The Early Nuclear Arms Race and Brinkmanship
The Development of Nuclear Weapons: Study the importance of the atomic bomb and hydrogen bomb
in shaping the Cold War. Understand the significance of the USA’s nuclear monopoly until 1949 when the
USSR developed its own atomic bomb.
Brinkmanship: Learn about Eisenhower’s policy of “brinkmanship” — the idea of pushing international
crises to the verge of war to force the opponent to back down. Review how this policy was used in various
Cold War crises, including the Suez Crisis (1956).
5. The Cuban Revolution and the Cuban Missile Crisis
The Cuban Revolution (1959): Understand the significance of Fidel Castro’s revolution and the rise of
Cuba as a communist state. Focus on the tension it created between the USA and the USSR, especially
given Cuba’s proximity to the USA.
The Cuban Missile Crisis (1962): Study the causes, key events, and aftermath of the Cuban Missile
Crisis, where the world came closest to nuclear war. Focus on Khrushchev and Kennedy’s roles, and
how diplomacy and negotiation prevented a full-scale conflict.
IB/M/Jun24/G4002/E2 7041/2R
, 2
Section A
Answer Question 01.
Source A
From an official note sent to the American Ambassador in Moscow by the Soviet Foreign
Ministry, 27 November 1958. This was shortly after Khrushchev’s Berlin Ultimatum.
The policies of the Western Powers in West Germany have violated the
Potsdam Agreement, designed to ensure the unity of Germany as a peace-loving and
democratic state. In West Germany, there is a government which does not conceal its
hatred for the Soviet Union, whereas in East Germany there is a government which has
completely broken with Germany’s aggressive past. There is only one conclusion to be 5
drawn from this: the Potsdam Agreement has been grossly violated by the Western
Powers. They are abusing their position in West Berlin, using it as a centre from which to
pursue subversive activity against the Soviet Union and we cannot tolerate such a
situation any longer.
Source B
From a radio and television broadcast to the American people by President Kennedy,
25 July 1961.
Seven weeks ago tonight I returned from Vienna after my meeting with Khrushchev. He
made grim warnings about the future of Berlin and announced an increase in the Soviet
military budget. He intends to end our legal rights to be in West Berlin and our ability to
protect the two million free people of that city. That we cannot permit. Our presence in
West Berlin cannot be ended by the Soviets and we gave our word that an attack upon 5
that city would be regarded as an attack upon us all in NATO. Today, the endangered
frontier of freedom runs through divided Berlin. We want it to remain a frontier of peace –
we seek peace, but we shall not surrender.
0 1 With reference to these sources and your understanding of the historical context, which
of these two sources is more valuable in explaining why there were tensions between
the Soviet Union and the USA over Berlin in the years 1958 to 1961?
[25 marks]
IB/M/Jun24/7041/2R
, 3
Section B
Answer either Question 02 or Question 03.
Either
0 2 ‘The breakdown of relations between the Soviet Union and the West by 1947 was
mainly the result of ideological differences.’
Explain why you agree or disagree with this view.
[25 marks]
or
0 3 ‘In the years 1949 to 1955, US policies in Asia were very successful.’
Explain why you agree or disagree with this view.
[25 marks]
END OF QUESTIONS
IB/M/Jun24/7041/2R
, 4
There are no questions printed on this page
Copyright information
For confidentiality purposes, all acknowledgements of third-party copyright material are published in a separate booklet. This booklet is published after
each live examination series and is available for free download from www.aqa.org.uk
Permission to reproduce all copyright material has been applied for. In some cases, efforts to contact copyright-holders may have been unsuccessful and
AQA will be happy to rectify any omissions of acknowledgements. If you have any queries please contact the Copyright Team.
Copyright © 2024 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.
IB/M/Jun24/7041/2R
,AS
HISTORY
7041/2R
The Cold War, c1945–1991
Component 2R To the brink of Nuclear War: international relations, c1945–1963
Mark scheme
June 2024
Version: 1.0 Final
, MARK SCHEME – AS HISTORY – 7041/2R – JUNE 2024
Mark schemes are prepared by the Lead Assessment Writer and considered, together with the relevant
questions, by a panel of subject teachers. This mark scheme includes any amendments made at the
standardisation events which all associates participate in and is the scheme which was used by them in
this examination. The standardisation process ensures that the mark scheme covers the students’
responses to questions and that every associate understands and applies it in the same correct way.
As preparation for standardisation each associate analyses a number of students’ scripts. Alternative
answers not already covered by the mark scheme are discussed and legislated for. If, after the
standardisation process, associates encounter unusual answers which have not been raised they are
required to refer these to the Lead Examiner.
It must be stressed that a mark scheme is a working document, in many cases further developed and
expanded on the basis of students’ reactions to a particular paper. Assumptions about future mark
schemes on the basis of one year’s document should be avoided; whilst the guiding principles of
assessment remain constant, details will change, depending on the content of a particular examination
paper.
No student should be disadvantaged on the basis of their gender identity and/or how they refer to the
gender identity of others in their exam responses.
A consistent use of ‘they/them’ as a singular and pronouns beyond ‘she/her’ or ‘he/him’ will be credited in
exam responses in line with existing mark scheme criteria.
Further copies of this mark scheme are available from aqa.org.uk
Copyright information
AQA retains the copyright on all its publications. However, registered schools/colleges 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 schools/colleges to photocopy any material that is acknowledged to a third party even for
internal use within the centre.
Copyright © 2024 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.
2
, MARK SCHEME – AS HISTORY – 7041/2R – JUNE 2024
Level of response marking instructions
Level of response mark schemes are broken down into levels, each of which has a descriptor. The
descriptor for the level shows the average performance for the level. There are marks in each level.
Before you apply the mark scheme to a student’s answer read through the answer and annotate it (as
instructed) to show the qualities that are being looked for. You can then apply the mark scheme.
Step 1 Determine a level
Start at the lowest level of the mark scheme and use it as a ladder to see whether the answer meets the
descriptor for that level. The descriptor for the level indicates the different qualities that might be seen in
the student’s answer for that level. If it meets the lowest level then go to the next one and decide if it
meets this level, and so on, until you have a match between the level descriptor and the answer. With
practice and familiarity, you will find that for better answers you will be able to quickly skip through the
lower levels of the mark scheme.
When assigning a level, you should look at the overall quality of the answer and not look to pick holes in
small and specific parts of the answer where the student has not performed quite as well as the rest. If
the answer covers different aspects of different levels of the mark scheme you should use a best fit
approach for defining the level and then use the variability of the response to help decide the mark within
the level, ie if the response is predominantly Level 3 with a small amount of Level 4 material it would be
placed in Level 3 but be awarded a mark near the top of the level because of the Level 4 content.
Step 2 Determine a mark
Once you have assigned a level you need to decide on the mark. The descriptors on how to allocate
marks can help with this. The exemplar materials used during standardisation will help. There will be an
answer in the standardising materials which will correspond with each level of the mark scheme. This
answer will have been awarded a mark by the Lead Examiner. You can compare the student’s answer
with the example to determine if it is the same standard, better or worse than the example. You can then
use this to allocate a mark for the answer based on the Lead Examiner’s mark on the example.
You may well need to read back through the answer as you apply the mark scheme to clarify points and
assure yourself that the level and the mark are appropriate.
Indicative content in the mark scheme is provided as a guide for examiners. It is not intended to be
exhaustive and you must credit other valid points. Students do not have to cover all of the points
mentioned in the Indicative content to reach the highest level of the mark scheme.
An answer which contains nothing of relevance to the question must be awarded no marks.
3
, MARK SCHEME – AS HISTORY – 7041/2R – JUNE 2024
Section A
0 1 With reference to these sources and your understanding of the historical context, which of
these two sources is more valuable in explaining why there were tensions between the
Soviet Union and the USA over Berlin in the years 1958 to 1961?
[25 marks]
Target: AO2
Analyse and evaluate appropriate source material, primary and/or contemporary to the period,
within the historical context.
Generic Mark Scheme
L5: Answers will display a very good understanding of the value of the sources in relation to the issue
identified in the question. They will evaluate the sources thoroughly in order to provide a
well-substantiated conclusion. The response demonstrates a very good understanding of context.
21–25
L4: Answers will provide a range of relevant well-supported comments on the value of the sources for
the issue identified in the question. There will be sufficient comment to provide a supported
conclusion but not all comments will be well-substantiated, and judgements will be limited. The
response demonstrates a good understanding of context. 16–20
L3: The answer will provide some relevant comments on the value of the sources and there will be
some explicit reference to the issue identified in the question. Judgements will however, be partial
and/or thinly supported. The response demonstrates an understanding of context. 11–15
L2: The answer will be partial. There may be either some relevant comments on the value of one
source in relation to the issue identified in the question or some comment on both, but lacking
depth and having little, if any, explicit link to the issue identified in the question. The response
demonstrates some understanding of context. 6–10
L1: The answer will either describe source content or offer stock phrases about the value of the
source. There may be some comment on the issue identified in the question but it is likely to be
limited, unsubstantiated and unconvincing. The response demonstrates limited understanding of
context. 1–5
Nothing worthy of credit. 0
4
, MARK SCHEME – AS HISTORY – 7041/2R – JUNE 2024
Indicative content
Note: This content is not prescriptive and students are not obliged to refer to the material
contained in this mark scheme. Any legitimate answer will be assessed on its merits according to
the generic levels scheme.
Students must deploy knowledge of the historical context to show an understanding of the
relationship between the sources and the issues raised in the question, when assessing the
significance of provenance, the arguments deployed in the sources and the tone and emphasis
of the sources. Descriptive answers which fail to do this should be awarded no more than
Level 2 at best. Answers should address both the value and the limitations of the sources for the
particular question and purpose given.
In responding to this question, students may choose to address each source in turn or to adopt a more
comparative approach in order to arrive at a judgement. Either approach is equally valid and what
follows is indicative of the evaluation which may be relevant.
Source A: in assessing the value of this source as an explanation, students may refer to the
following:
Provenance and tone
this is a note sent by the Soviet government and therefore demonstrates the official Soviet attitude
towards West Germany and Berlin. It is valuable as it shows the depth of hostility the Soviet Union felt
towards the USA at this time and that they were taking action to regain control in Germany
the date is valuable as this source followed Khrushchev’s speech earlier that month in which he gave
an ultimatum to the USA to reach a settlement over Germany within 6 months. Therefore, it is valuable
to understand why there were tensions over Berlin as Khrushchev felt the need to give an ultimatum
the tone of the source is very aggressive and condescending when discussing the USA and other
allies, suggesting a degree of ‘posturing’ and that a diplomatic solution is not intended, therefore
making the source less valuable. On the other hand, the reference to German aggression is indicative
of genuine Soviet security concerns.
Content and argument
the note is arguing that the USA and its allies had broken the Potsdam Agreements – for example the
agreement that Germany was to become a single economic unit and demilitarised. This is valuable
because the USA had introduced a new constitution for West Germany, created the Deutschmark and
admitted West Germany to NATO. However, similar Soviet policies towards the GDR such as
interfering with political parties to engineer Communism are overlooked; Potsdam had not provided a
complete blueprint for post-war reconstruction
the source also argues that West Germany was aggressive towards the USSR, whereas the GDR was
only peaceful. This could be valuable to understand the reasons for tension because the Soviet Union
would have considered actions, such as the FRG joining NATO, as aggressive. However, the internal
policies of the GDR, such as manipulating elections, could be viewed as aggressive towards the West,
making it less valuable
the source also argues that the USA are abusing their position in West Berlin. This is valuable
because it clearly indicates that the Soviet Union felt threatened by the USA and therefore wanted to
remove their influence – West Berlin had become a flagship of American Capitalism, a drain on the
GDR and easily competed against a Communist economy.
5
