Conflict and tension in Asia, 1950-1975

AQA

GCSE

This study focuses on the escalation of the Cold War in Asia, specifically the Korean War (1950–1953) and the Vietnam War (1954–1975). Candidates must analyse the implementation of the US policy of containment and the Domino Theory in the context of post-colonial independence movements. The scope includes the causes of intervention, the contrast between conventional and guerilla warfare, and the impact of domestic public opinion on military strategy. Assessment prioritises the evaluation of key turning points, such as the Tet Offensive and the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and the eventual limitations of US military power in the region.

Objectives

Exam Tips

Pitfalls

Key Terms

Mark Points

What You Need to Demonstrate

Key skills and knowledge for this topic

Award marks in Q2 (Utility) for evaluating provenance (NOP) specifically in relation to the enquiry focus, not generic reliability assertions.
In Q3 (Write an account), credit responses that demonstrate sequencing and causation, linking events to their wider outcomes (e.g., how the Gulf of Tonkin led to escalation).
For Q4 (16 marks), candidates must sustain a line of argument throughout the essay, not just in the conclusion.
Differentiation relies on the depth of specific factual support (e.g., citing 'Operation Rolling Thunder' rather than just 'bombing').

Example Examiner Feedback

Real feedback patterns examiners use when marking

"You have described the event; now explain how it directly caused the next stage of the conflict."
"Your evaluation of the source's purpose is generic. Explain specifically *why* the author wanted to influence this specific audience at this time."
"Include precise evidence (dates, statistics, names) to move your response from Level 2 to Level 3."
"Your judgment is present but asserted. Substantiate it by comparing the relative impact of the factors discussed."

Marking Points

Key points examiners look for in your answers

Award marks in Q2 (Utility) for evaluating provenance (NOP) specifically in relation to the enquiry focus, not generic reliability assertions.
In Q3 (Write an account), credit responses that demonstrate sequencing and causation, linking events to their wider outcomes (e.g., how the Gulf of Tonkin led to escalation).
For Q4 (16 marks), candidates must sustain a line of argument throughout the essay, not just in the conclusion.
Differentiation relies on the depth of specific factual support (e.g., citing 'Operation Rolling Thunder' rather than just 'bombing').

Examiner Tips

Expert advice for maximising your marks

💡For Q1 (Inference), explicitly state 'This source supports...' followed by a direct detail from the source, then explain the inference.
💡In Q2 (Utility), apply the 'COP' method: Content (what it says), Origin/Purpose (provenance), and Place in context (own knowledge).
💡Allocate approximately 20-25 minutes for the Q4 essay; it carries 40% of the marks for this section.
💡When discussing 'failure' in Vietnam, distinguish between military failure (tactics) and political failure (hearts and minds).

Common Mistakes

Pitfalls to avoid in your exam answers

Confusing the 38th Parallel (Korea) with the 17th Parallel (Vietnam).
Describing the content of a source in Q2 without explicitly assessing its 'usefulness' to the historian.
Conflating the Viet Minh (anti-French independence fighters) with the Viet Cong (communist guerrillas in the South).
Providing a narrative of the Tet Offensive without analyzing its psychological impact on US public opinion.

Key Terminology

Essential terms to know

Likely Command Words

How questions on this topic are typically asked

How do you know

How useful

Write an account

How far do you agree

Explain

Evaluate

Ready to test yourself?

Practice questions tailored to this topic