The first thing to note is that it will take a lot of practice and refining over the year. It is extremely unlikely for you to understand every little aspect straight away. Things might get a bit confusing today but I want you to write the title and the following key rules to remember:

How to write a Post-16 History Essay

1. My answer must focus on the key words in the question.

2. I should include impressive knowledge to back up my points but I should remember that I am writing an ARGUMENT and NOT A STORY.

3. My conclusion should be firm, detailed and I should not sit on the fence.

Question the question and/or show you know what it’s asking.Show off a tad with fancy words and/or a sprinkling of impressive knowledge.Indicate how you will break down the issue in the question for each paragraph.ABOVE ALL ELSE STATE YOUR ARGUMENT ‘It should not be a surprise left until the end.’

Introductions

With that in mind, which of the following is the best introduction?

Question:‘The Scandinavian landings were the key reason for the defeat of Harold Godwinson in 1066’ How far do you agree with this statement?

IntroductionsThere is a

pointThe Scandinavian landings and subsequent battles at Fulford and Stamford Bridge undoubtedly took a massive toll on the Saxon army in 1066 but the landings alone cannot explain the Norman victory because the Battle of Hastings was such a close-run event. Poor decision making by Harold Godwinson strategically and on the battlefield was a far more important factor. In addition the bad luck of Godwinson and the fortune of the Normans were important.

There is a bit of showing

off.

The argument is

stated.

The paragraph sub-topics

are outlined.

• Begin with a point.• “In a very strong answer it should be possible simply to read the

opening sentences of al the paragraphs and know what argument is being put forward.’

• Have a fairly event split between impressive knowledge and analysis of that knowledge in reference to the question.

• End with a summary, relating back to the question and re-emphasising the point.

• Link with other paragraphs where appropriate.• Show relative importance to other aspects (mentioned in other

paragraphs) where appropriate.

Paragraphs

With that in mind, which of the following is the best paragraph?Question:‘The Scandinavian landings were the key reason for the defeat of Harold Godwinson in 1066’ How far do you agree with this statement?

Paragraphs

There is a point that relates to the

question.

There is linking between things

mentioned in other chapters.

Everything written is done in support of

an argument.

It is not knowledge for the sake of

knowledge. It is knowledge to

further the argument.

There is recognition that the given factor is important and why it is important, even though the person

doesn’t agree with it.

• They should be firm and should never sit on the fence.• They should sum up your argument by using the interim

judgements at the end of each paragraph.• They should follow on logically from the rest of your essay.• The best ones might show understanding of links between

factors and have a subtle argument as a result.

Conclusions

With that in mind, which of the following is the best conclusion?

Question:‘The Scandinavian landings were the key reason for the defeat of Harold Godwinson in 1066’ How far do you agree with this statement?

Conclusions

There is a clear

argument that follows

from the rest of the

essay.

All points made in

paragraphs summaries

are mentioned.

It is A grade because this

student shows the

relationship between factors.

Doesn’t see them

simplistically as separate

events.

Conclusions• They should be firm and should never sit on the fence.• They should sum up your argument by using the interim judgements at the end of each paragraph.• They should follow on logically from the rest of your essay.• The best ones might show understanding of links between factors and have a subtle argument as a result.

Your question will be:

Assess the reasons for the development of the Cold War in Europe to 1948.

Introduction• Question the question and/or show you know what it’s asking.• Show off a tad with fancy words and/or a sprinkling of impressive knowledge.• Indicate how you will break down the issue in the question for each paragraph.• ABOVE ALL ELSE STATE YOUR ARGUMENT ‘It should not be a surprise left until the end.’

Paragraphs• Begin with an argued point.• “In a very strong answer it should be possible simply to read the opening sentences of al the paragraphs and

know what argument is being put forward.’• Have a fairly event split between impressive knowledge and analysis of that knowledge in reference to the

question.• End with a summary, relating back to the question and re-emphasising the point.• Link with other paragraphs where appropriate.• Show relative importance to other aspects (mentioned in other paragraphs) where appropriate.

So what should I do now to plan my answer?

With that in mind, which of the following is the best conclusion?Question:

Assess the reasons for the development of the Cold War in Europe to 1948.

1. Decide upon your argument (intro and conclusion)2. Choose your three paragraphs3. Select the evidence that you will put forward in each paragraphOptions• Ideologies• American policies• Tensions immediately before and during

wartime• The presidency of Truman• (Things we might not know enough

about yet – Eastern bloc and eastern European countries + Churchill’s iron curtain speech.

• Long term causes (fairly unique to this question as it vaguely says ‘to 1948’)

• Stalin’s aims• The actions of Britain• Germany• Poland• Soviet policies• The conferences• Mistrust, misconceptions and false

perceptions

Assess the reasons why relations between wartime allies broke down in 1945.

No specific answer is looked for. Candidates will need to explain a number of reasons and assess their relative significance and linkages to score well. Candidates may evaluate reasons through discussion of some of the following: the position in 1945 (Yalta, Potsdam and end of war, position of Allied forces), ideological differences as context, divisions over Poland, Germany etc., Soviet actions in Eastern Europe, Churchill’s ‘Iron Curtain’ speech, Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan, Cominform, Czechoslovakia and developments in Germany. Candidates may argue that whilst conflicting political ideologies were central, this was compounded by strategic and economic concerns and mutual suspicions and fears.

There was some broad understanding of the issues and also an awareness of the views of different historians, though this was often not linked to events, but was used by some to explain as a further set of reasons. More could have been made of Stalin’s place, role, suspicions, acts and also of Truman and his role. The A bomb and the absence of a common enemy were adduced as the two key reasons.

Assess the reasons for the development of the Cold War in Europe from 1945 to 1948

No specific answer is looked for. Candidates will need to explain a number of reasons and assess their relative significance and linkages to score well. In assessing reasons candidates may discuss some of the following: the significance of long term tensions and differences over ideology; the tensions in the wartime alliance over the defeat of Nazi Germany; the role of individual leaders (Churchill, Stalin, Roosevelt, Truman and Attlee); the military situation at the end of the war; differences and tensions at Yalta and Potsdam; the atom bomb; Soviet and Western fears and suspicions, strategies and policies.

This question produced a significant number of list answers with comments such as ‘this was another reason for the progress of the Cold war as it showed the growing tensions between the powers.’ Many answers addressed the topic rather than focusing on the question and analysis of both sides was often limited or superficial, particularly when dealing with ideological differences or spheres of influence. However, there were some stronger answers that were able to consider both sides when examining the deepening divisions during the Second World War, but even here there was still a tendency for some of the analysis to be simply bolt on with little real understanding of the causal reasons for the conflict.

‘American policies were the main reason for the development of a Cold War in Europe in the period to 1949.’ How far do you agree?

No specific answer is looked for. Candidates will need to deal adequately with the given factor even if they wish to argue other factors were more important. Candidates may discuss American policy in general or focus on the Truman doctrine and Marshall Aid. Candidates may asses its relative importance by discussing links with and the role of other factors: the position in 1945 (Yalta, Potsdam and end of war, position of Allied forces), ideological differences as context, divisions over Poland, Germany etc, Soviet actions in Eastern Europe, Churchill’s ‘Iron Curtain’ speech, Cominform, Czechoslovakia and developments in Germany and Berlin.

As the relative responsibility for the Cold War is such a major part of the topic it was surprising how little sustained discussion there was. Many simply ignored Stalin and gave the impression that the USA was merely being unreasonable. Some were more balanced, but others simply ran through key elements with limited discussion of the question. At times, not enough was made of American policies or else these were not prominent enough in argument and counter-argument. Surprisingly, many responses did not examine Stalin’s attitudes, ambitions and actions, even though they were aware of the fall-out from the wartime alliance and of ideological tensions. The USA features were the attitudes at the Conferences (again, more possible on Soviet lines of thinking and responses there), the possession of the Bomb, Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan, Berlin, NATO. Better answers took analytical themes; less good ones simply described a sequence of events. Where Soviet thinking and actions were engaged with, there was useful material on Stalin and his suspicions, his creation of the Eastern (security) Bloc, his heavy- handedness in the Eastern lands, the responses to the Marshall Plan, occasionally his motives in blockading Berlin. Very few picked up on the importance of misconceptions, mistrust, false perceptions; a small number mentioned Kennan and the ‘Long’ Telegram.

Assess the reasons for the development of the Cold War in Europe to 1948. [50] In assessing reasons candidates may discuss some of the following: the significance of long term tensions and differences over ideology; the tensions in the wartime alliance over the defeat of Nazi Germany; the role of individual leaders (Churchill, Stalin, Roosevelt, Truman and Attlee); the military situation at the end of the war; differences and tensions at Yalta and Potsdam; divisions over Poland, Germany etc, Soviet actions in Eastern Europe, Churchill’s ‘Iron Curtain’ speech, Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan, Cominform, Czechoslovakia and developments in Germany; the atom bomb; Soviet and Western fears and suspicions, strategies and policies. Candidates may argue that whilst the conflicting political ideologies of communism and capitalism and mutual fear of the spread of these conflicting ideologies were central, they provided the context and backdrop to a contest over spheres of influence and security fears as well as strategic and economic concerns.

Many answers showed a good knowledge of the motives of the USSR and the Western Allies, with particular attention to the question of Germany. Most candidates sought to evaluate the various factors and identify the most significant. However, Britain’s particular role was either ignored or misunderstood. Attlee was dismissed as a poor substitute for Churchill and Bevin not mentioned. If Molotov is to be believed, they were more confrontational than the Americans at Potsdam and it was they who initiated the military alliances that led to NATO. Some candidates spent an excessive amount of time on the long term causes of the Cold War, with most of the answer focused on the legacy of the Russian Civil War, even if there was some passing reference to ideological differences.

Candidates were rather hesitant in their knowledge of the problems faced during the war between the allies and more could have been made of that. Perhaps, most worryingly, was either the confusion or lack of knowledge about the change of leadership in Britain and the US and the consequences for relations. There were some answers where a poor chronological knowledge was an issue as candidates were unsure where to end and events such as the Berlin Wall was used to explain the origins.