A-LEVEL
HISTORY
Unit HIS3N
Report on the Examination
Specification 2040
June 2016
Version: 1.0
Further copies of this Report are available from aqa.org.uk
Copyright © 2016 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.
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.
REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – A2 HISTORY – HIS3N – JUNE 2016
Unit HIS3N
Unit 3N: Aspects of International Relations, 1945–2004
General comments
Overall, it was apparent that the majority of students had a good working knowledge of the period.
The knowledge and understanding seemed to be stronger up to 1991 that it did on the post-1991
period. The great majority of students constructed their own arguments and selected the detail to
support those arguments themselves. However, there were some clear examples of all, or most,
of the students from some centres producing what may only be seen as pre-digested responses.
These answers were often very heavily dependent on recycling the relevant historiography. This
approach tended to weaken, rather than strengthen, student outcomes. The responses to the
breadth question were less skilfully developed than in previous series.
A number of students seemed content to produce answers which often did not extend beyond the
equivalent of about two and a half sides of average sized handwriting. The quantity of an answer
is clearly no absolute measure of its quality. However, relatively brief answers do necessitate
skilful selection of detail in order to deliver quality. In many cases this level of selectivity was not
present. Equally, there were a number of very lengthy answers that were based on detailed
descriptive and narrative content. Many of these used descriptive detail based on historiography
as the framework around which to construct the response. Reciting the names of historians and
merely describing their interpretative positions did little to illustrate the understanding and analytical
skills of individual students.
Question 1
01
Many answers to this question managed to develop balance. This often took the form of
producing what was, to some extent, an essay of two halves. Many answers accepted the
statement in the question and provided a variable range of detail in support of such
acceptance. The answers then went on to focus on the responsibility and contribution of
the USSR. This was generally expressed in terms of Soviet expansionism into Eastern
Europe. Overall, this detail was relevant. The problem for many answers was a structural
one. Rather than developing an integrated analysis, answers illustrated students’
knowledge and understanding in a general way rather than their ability to structure this
knowledge and understanding.
Stronger responses were often those that linked the two positions describe above. This
linkage of the details and the supporting analysis was often further strengthened by
reference to other factors, particularly the ideological divide between the USA and the
USSR. There were a number of answers which focused on this as the core of the response
to this question. There were some excellent examples of students presenting their own
interpretation rather than simply supporting the statement in the question and thereby
supporting the revisionist interpretation.
3 of 5
REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – A2 HISTORY – HIS3N – JUNE 2016
Question 2
02
A number of answers to this question addressed it by slightly shifting the emphasis in order
to answer a question on peaceful co-existence that such students had already prepared an
answer for. Many answers focused on Khrushchev’s degree of commitment to peaceful coexistence. Although very relevant to answering the set question, such an approach
established a different focus to that defined in the question. The question gave students
the opportunity to analyse seemingly very different actions by Khrushchev and consider
whether such apparently different actions had some commonality. Many students easily
identified examples of Soviet cooperation, such as Khrushchev’s willingness to engage in
summit diplomacy with the USA. They then went on to identify examples of inconsistency
through references to Berlin and the crisis culminating in the construction of the Berlin Wall.
The Cuban Missile crisis figured largely in many answers. This was also used to suggest
inconsistency in terms of Khrushchev’s willingness to engage in a consistently nonconfrontational relationship with the USA. This approach was rewarded but there were
examples of much more sophisticated responses that analysed the Berlin crisis and the
Cuban Missile crisis in terms of Soviet non-confrontation. These suggested that the
confrontation was more apparent than real. Khrushchev never intended to push the USA
into a nuclear war and this was the element of consistency in all his policies throughout the
period. The validity of such an argument may be questioned but the student’s’ ability to
confidently engage in it was well rewarded.
Question 3
03
The focus of this question lay in the extent to which the USA consistently based its
approach to international relations on the aim of advancing its own concept of democracy.
There were some very well developed and analytical answers that argued that the USA
only appeared to promote democracy when such an approach served its own interests.
The era of detente was used to develop an evidence base for this approach. There were
some well-developed analyses of the Reagan era. Some answers saw this as clear
evidence of US militarism while others interpreted it as a clear effort by the USA to end the
Cold War and open the flood gates of democracy on a global scale. Detail on the post-Cold
War era was often less well developed than that used for pre-1991 references. However,
there were some good answers which explored the USA willingness to support the UN in its
interventions. The first Gulf War was frequently used to illustrate the USA’s lack of
commitment to the promotion of democracy. Many answers emphasised the post 9/11
period and used this to consider US unilateralism and its implications in terms of the
question.
4 of 5
REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – A2 HISTORY – HIS3N – JUNE 2016
Mark Ranges and Award of Grades
Grade boundaries and cumulative percentage grades are available on the Results Statistics
page of the AQA Website.
Converting Marks into UMS marks
Convert raw marks into Uniform Mark Scale (UMS) marks by using the link below.
UMS conversion calculator
5 of 5