Answer EITHER Question 6 OR Question 7 OR Question 8. If you answer Question 6, ignore Question 7 and Question 8.

Mark scheme

Marking points from the official mark scheme. The mark or mark type is shown in brackets.

1. Question 6(a)
2. Target: AO1 (4 marks) – Knowledge and understanding of key features/characteristics.
3. B1 for identification of one consequence. B1 for description. (x2)
4. Indicative content: Families separated; End to refugee flow from East to West; Increased tensions between superpowers (e.g., Checkpoint Charlie standoff); Symbol of the Iron Curtain; Reduced risk of immediate war.
5. Question 6(b)
6. Target: AO1, AO2 (6 marks) – Explanation of causation/consequence.
7. Level 1 (1-2 marks): Simple statements about US involvement, lacking explicit explanation.
8. Level 2 (3-4 marks): Partial explanation, identifying some reasons for US involvement but may lack detail or linkage.
9. Level 3 (5-6 marks): Detailed and accurate explanation of the reasons for US involvement, showing clear links between factors such as the Domino Theory, containment, Gulf of Tonkin incident, and the fear of communism.
10. Indicative content: Domino Theory (fear that if Vietnam fell, other Asian countries would follow); Policy of Containment (stopping the spread of communism); Support for South Vietnam government (anti-communist); Gulf of Tonkin Incident; Pressure from military-industrial complex.
11. Question 6(c)
12. Target: AO1, AO2 (10 marks) – Analysis and evaluation of historical interpretations/significance.
13. Level 1 (1-3 marks): Offers a simple answer with limited factual support. Little or no analysis of détente's achievements.
14. Level 2 (4-6 marks): Explains some achievements or limitations of détente. May not directly address the 'achieved little' aspect or provide a balanced argument.
15. Level 3 (7-8 marks): Analyses both the achievements and limitations of détente, providing a more balanced argument. Attempts to make a judgement about whether it 'achieved little'.
16. Level 4 (9-10 marks): Sustained and well-supported argument addressing 'how far' détente achieved little. Demonstrates detailed knowledge of specific events (e.g., SALT I, Helsinki Accords, Apollo-Soyuz, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan) that both supported and undermined détente. Reaches a clear, reasoned judgement based on relative importance of achievements vs. failures.
17. Indicative content: Arguments for 'achieved little' would focus on: continued proxy wars (Angola, Ethiopia), development of new weapons (MIRVs), Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (1979) ending détente, ongoing ideological rivalry. Arguments against 'achieved little' (i.e., that it achieved much) would focus on: SALT I (arms control), Helsinki Accords (human rights, cooperation), improved relations and communication (e.g., Apollo-Soyuz Test Project), reduction of tensions, opening of trade. A strong answer would weigh these against each other to form a reasoned judgement.