Warfare in three phases, 1919-2011
A breadth study in CHANGE: how war changed over time. Phase 1 (to 1945): blitzkrieg (tanks, aircraft, radio combined) overran Poland and France (1939-40); strategic bombing and total war targeted cities; the atomic bombs (Hiroshima/Nagasaki, 1945) opened the nuclear age. Phase 2 (Cold War): nuclear deterrence and proxy wars (Korea 1950-53, Vietnam). Phase 3 (modern): asymmetric war, terrorism (9/11, 2001) and drones, in the Gulf War (1991).
Weigh developments, do not just describe
A 'how significant' or 'how far' answer must WEIGH and judge, not narrate. On 'how significant was blitzkrieg?': FOR - it combined tanks, aircraft and radio to overrun Poland (1939) and France (1940) and forced others to copy it; ALTERNATIVES - strategic bombing, the atomic bomb and Cold War deterrence, aircraft carriers, later guerrilla warfare. Add a THIRD aspect, apply criteria (scale, how lasting, how widely copied), and reach a supported verdict.
Drawn from real examiner reports.
Strong on WWs, vague on later wars
A change study needs the WHOLE 1919-2011 span, but candidates are often strong on 1939-45 and thin afterwards - some had very little knowledge of the Gulf Wars. Revise the modern end: the Gulf War (1991) (coalition air power, precision weapons), guerrilla and asymmetric fighting, and terrorism after 9/11 (2001). Do not stop in 1945; stay inside 1919-2011.
Digest (B6, Jun 2024 P2, (A)): small entry, generally not high standard - some candidates had very little knowledge of the Gulf Wars.
Drones: give two causes, know the problems
The 8-mark part needs TWO developed reasons, each explained. Drones are on the spec, yet many responses missed their PROBLEMS. Explain concrete ones: strikes cause civilian casualties as targets are hard to identify from the air, and wide surveillance risks breaching the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights. Signpost 'One reason... A second...'.
Digest (B6, Jun 2024 P2, (B)): drone warfare is on the spec, yet several responses showed no understanding of the problems - better answers cited civilian casualties and spying risking breach of the 1948 Human Rights Declaration; candidates must give TWO reasons.
Naming a way without supporting detail
Section B (a) 'explain two ways/similarities' wants each point PLUS a specific detail, and you must give TWO. Do not just say 'both used air power'; develop it - aerial bombardment, and infantry with tank and armoured support. Add a distinct second point with its own detail; signpost 'One... a second...'.
Digest (B6, Jun 2024 P2, (A)): better answers explained similarities (aerial bombardment; infantry/tank/armoured support) with detail; naming is not enough.
Only blitzkrieg and Hiroshima, no third
On the 16-mark significance question, examiners found many limited themselves to just blitzkrieg and Hiroshima and never reached the top level. The top band needs a THIRD aspect - aircraft carriers or guerrilla warfare - plus explicit criteria and a judgement, not two developments described in turn. Stopping at the obvious two caps the mark.
Digest (B6, Jun 2024 P2, (C)): on the significance of blitzkrieg many limited themselves to blitzkrieg and Hiroshima and failed to add a third aspect needed for the top level.
Describing a weapon, not explaining change
A change study rewards explaining HOW a development altered warfare, not describing the weapon or battle. Do not just narrate blitzkrieg breaking France; explain the change - co-ordinated tanks, aircraft and radio brought speed and encirclement, ending static trench warfare. For each development, say what changed and why, not just what happened.
(general exam technique)
Blitzkrieg was a tactic, not a weapon
A testable wrong belief: blitzkrieg was a weapon or machine. In fact blitzkrieg ('lightning war') was a tactic that combined tanks, infantry, dive-bombers and radio into fast thrusts to break through and encircle the enemy. The technologies already existed; the change was HOW they were used together, shown against Poland and France (1939-40).
Digest (B6, Jun 2024 P2): candidates need to explain WHY a development changed warfare, not just name it.
Total war targets whole societies
Total war does not just mean a big or long war. Total war is one in which a state mobilises its whole society and economy, and the soldier/civilian line breaks down, so civilians, factories and cities become deliberate targets. That is why strategic bombing and the atomic bombing of 1945 count as total war - the target was a whole population.
Digest (B6/Generic skills, Jun 2024 P2): answers must explain the nature of the change with precise supporting detail, not assert it loosely.
Structure the 16-mark answer
For the (c) 'how significant' question: use the two bullets but go beyond them; add a THIRD aspect of your own; apply criteria (how large, how lasting, how widely copied); then judge, weighing the developments against each other.
Signpost two developed causes
For 'explain two causes/reasons', plan TWO distinct points before writing and signpost them - 'One reason... A second...' - each explaining WHY, not just what. One developed cause plus a vague second caps the mark.
Show change across the whole period
This is a study of CHANGE, so track how warfare altered across 1919-2011 - the World Wars, the Cold War, then the modern asymmetric period - not one era. Frame points as change over time and stay strictly inside 1919-2011.
This breadth study is about how warfare changed across the twentieth century and into the twenty-first, from 1919 to 2011. The key skill is to track change over time and to be able to weigh developments against each other when judging significance. The story runs in three broad phases: the mechanised, air-power and total war of the World Wars, the nuclear deterrence and proxy wars of the Cold War, and the asymmetric warfare and terrorism of the modern period.
Full notes, flashcards, Q&A and the topic quiz for every premium subject.
Premium plans are US$8.99/month or US$49.99/year — first month free.
Studying with a parent's blessing? Show them this.
