AS AQA History thread

Hi I'm doing my AS history exam next month on the Cold War and Stuart Britain . This is the first of the new spec and so I'm a bit worried as to how to revise with such a lack of past exam questions to do.
I was wondering if anyone doing the same topics as me or doing the AQA board for history AS is revising and going about their revision
Thank you in advance
Izzy

Ooh, I'm doing Cold War as well! But I'm doing Tudors instead of Stuart's. It really sucks being on the new spec because there's not any past papers to look at

I'm finding the source questions really difficult at the moment, which is more useful? I mean what do you expect me to write???

I'm finding doing essay questions in the text book the most useful revision technique at the moment


Posted from TSR Mobile

Yeah thats what ive been doing and also using practice essay questions that my teacher has given me. Fo the cold was source question it is all about providence ( who wrote it, when was it written, the purpose etc) and use this to discuss whether it is valuable .

For example the specimen paper asks whether the extracts are valuable in explainign the foreign policy aims of USA and USSR.
One of the extracts was from the long telegram . The fact it came from the long telegram makes it useful because it was used as the fundamental shaping of US foreign policy and the doctrine of containment was also adopted. This shows it is valuable in explaining foreng policy aims of US as it formed the basis of their policy towards USSR and communism

Im not sure if i explained that very well but let me know and ill try and rephrase it

I'm doing the AS Exams for The Cold War and The Tudors. We've been instructed that for The Tudors ( I imagine it'll be the same for The Stuarts):

- You'll be given extracts from textbooks or historic books ( John Guy etc). You should use only the content of the extract and your own historical context ( Own knowledge) to analyse their validity. AS exams will probably say ' whether you agree or disagree with the extracts in reference to...' etc.

On the other hand, for the Cold War:

- You'll be given two documents. This could be transcripts of speeches or like you say, The Long Telegram. When analysing these documents, you need to reference how valid they are due to their provenance. You should also consider other elements like:

-Provenance ( Who, What, When, Where, Why ( Is it in response to something?)
- Tone ( Is it passive? Defensive?)
- Argument ( What is the source trying to say? - This is a lot easier for well-known sources like Marshall Plan etc)
-And then move onto Content:

When you conclude, link explicitly to the provenance, tone and argument to write about how valuable it

Not sure whether this helped?

Yes that really helped thank you!
Also what are your predictions for the cold war question?

Yes that really helped thank you!
Also what are your predictions for the cold war question?

Here are all the past-paper questions from the text-book. Some are A-Level and some just AS.

Evaluating Primary Sources

Chapter 1 With reference to source 3 and 4 and your understanding of the historical context, which of the two sources is more valuable in explaining the Soviet attitude to the future of Poland?

Chapter 2 With reference to Sources 2 and 3 and your understanding of the historical context which of these two sources is more valuable in explaining why the Soviet Union wanted to establish control over Eastern European states?

Chapter 3 With reference to Source 1, 2 and 3, and your understanding of the historical context, assess the value of these sources to a historian studying the USA’s motives behind the introduction of the Marshall Plan

Chapter 4 With reference to Sources 2 and 3 and your understanding of the historical context, which of these two extracts is more valuable in explaining the significance of Berlin for the Western Powers?

Chapter 5 With reference to Sources 2 and 3 and your own understanding of the historical context, which of these two sources is more valuable in explaining the USA’s attitude towards China by 1949?

Chapter 6 With reference to source 1 and 2 and your own understanding of the historical context, which of these two sources is more valuable in explaining why the War in Korea started?

Chapter 7 With reference to Sources 1 and 2, and your understanding of the historical context which of these two sources is more valuable to a historian studying Cold War tensions in the early 1950’s?

Chapter 8 With reference to Source 4 and 5 and your understanding of the historical context, which of these two sources is more valuable in explaining the USA’s attitude towards Southeast Asia?

Chapter 8 With reference to source 1, 2 and 5 and your understanding of the historical context, assess the value of these sources to a historian studying the US policy of containment.

Chapter 9 With reference to Sources 3 and 4 and your understanding of the historical context, which of these sources is more valuable in explaining US- Soviet relations in 1956?

Chapter 10 With reference to source 3 and 4 and your understanding of the historical context, which of these two sources is more valuable in explaining why the Berlin Wall was erected in 1961?

Chapter 11 With reference to Source 1 and Source 3 and your own understanding of the historical context, which of these two sources is more valuable in explaining why conflict broke out between North and South Vietnam?

Chapter 11 With reference to sources 3, 4 and 5 and your understanding of the historical context. assess the values of these sources to an historian studying the Vietnam War?

Chapter 12 With reference to Sources 2 and 3 and your understanding of the historical context, which of these two sources is more valuable in explaining who was the stronger national leader during the missile crisis in Cuba?

Chapter 12 With reference to Sources 1, 2 and 4 and your understanding of the historical context, assess the value of these sources to a historian studying the Cuban Missile Crisis.

AS LEVEL QUESTIONS

‘The ideological division between the East and the West meant that the Grand Alliance was certain to collapse in 1945’. Explain why you agree or disagree with this view.

‘Churchill’s “Iron Curtain” speech in March 1946 was largely irrelevant in influencing Truman to introduce his Doctrine in March 1947’ Explain why you agree or disagree with this view?

‘It was China that caused a fundamental shift in US Cold War strategy by 1951’ Explain why you agree or disagree with this statement.

‘The Korean War was caused by the determined efforts of Kim Il Sung to create a united communist Korea’ Explain why you agree or disagree with view.

By 1963, the USA was keen to see the removal of President Diem. Explain why you agree or disagree with this view.

Omg thank you so much! Also I have an essay due to tomorrow about Cuban missile crisis. I was wondering if you could help me
The question is
Placing nuclear missiles on Cuba was a reckless piece of international gambling by Khrushchev that achieved nothing of significance for the USSR.’

How valid is this view?
(25 marks)

I was going to say that for this view they had to remove the missiles anyway and Khrushchev got criticised and removed by 1964

I have many points against , can you think of another reason against this view? That would bereally helpful thank you

I don't think this is very useful but here are some rough notes. I'm not sure whether you've already got points for against, or want them. But I wrote a couple for both.

Placement of nuclear weapons in Cuba was a gamble but it was to show that they were the leading communist nation. It was a massive risk to put nuclear weapons so close to the USA - It could risk Nuclear War.=AGREE

Protecting Cuba and It’s communist revolution was also Khruschev’s intention. Allowing the revolution to grow meant that USA’s Containment policy was failing. HOWEVER, the media-fuelled hysteria that was caused by using nuclear weapons made war even more likely, despite the fact this was not the true intention of either USA or USSR. It essentially made a strained relationship even more tense as War was becoming more ‘likely’ in theory. =AGREE

USSR used the nuclear weapons to show China that they were still the dominant Communist country. However, when they were removed- this made them seem weak to China, who they had initially tried to impress.= AGREE

USSR wanted peace and security. By putting missiles in Cuba to protect Cuba and in an attempt to match the position the USA had with Turkey. However, this measure meant that Khrushchev was moving closer to closing the missile gap as USA had been ahead in the arms race. =KIND OF BOTH? Use this to bridge the gap between both arguments

Khruschev spent less on long-range weapons and development. They did not have to spend money on conventional weapons as they had this full-time security — ECONOMIC MEASURE PERHAPS?? =DISAGREE

The fact the statement says they didn’t achieve anything isn’t particularly right. The USSR was able to show that USA’s containment policy wasn’t working. Revolution in Cuba through Communist influence led to an American failure. This was the first time containment in itself had failed ( don’t confuse it for Rollback) =DISAGREE

The USSR achieved the removal of missiles from Turkey. Khrushchev did want this to be done publicly to humiliate Kennedy but it still meant that the USSR’s security improved massively.==DISAGREE

The statement is valid = It was a gamble that led to the crisis bringing the world the closest it had ever been to nuclear war. On the other hand - USSR exposed USA’s policy of containment as a failure and missiles were removed from Turkey == AGREE

Ooh, I'm doing Cold War as well! But I'm doing Tudors instead of Stuart's. It really sucks being on the new spec because there's not any past papers to look at

I'm finding the source questions really difficult at the moment, which is more useful? I mean what do you expect me to write???

I'm finding doing essay questions in the text book the most useful revision technique at the moment


Posted from TSR Mobile

Ooh, I'm doing Cold War as well! But I'm doing Tudors instead of Stuart's. It really sucks being on the new spec because there's not any past papers to look at

I'm finding the source questions really difficult at the moment, which is more useful? I mean what do you expect me to write???

I'm finding doing essay questions in the text book the most useful revision technique at the moment


Posted from TSR Mobile

I'm doing the Tudors and Weimar-Nazi Germany. But I don't really know how to answer the interpretation questions. Thank God I don't have to do the AS exam.

How comes you're not doing as exam?