History 2021 Paper II 50 marks Discuss

Q8

(a) Europe was at war with itself in the first half of the twentieth century with a long cease-fire. Comment. (20 marks) (b) The impact of the end of the Cold War and the emergence of the US as the lone superpower has been both, good and bad. Discuss. (20 marks) (c) Do you think that the United Nations Organisation has played a significant role in resolving international disputes and ensuring peace in the world? (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) बीसवीं सदी के पूर्वार्द्ध में, एक लम्बे युद्ध विराम के साथ, यूरोप लगातार अपने आप से युद्धरत था । टिप्पणी कीजिए । (20 अंक) (b) शीत युद्ध की समाप्ति तथा एकल महाशक्ति के रूप में अमेरिका के उदय के प्रभाव, अच्छे तथा बुरे, दोनों रहे हैं । समीक्षा कीजिए । (20 अंक) (c) क्या आप समझते हैं कि अंतर्राष्ट्रीय विवादों के निपटारे तथा विश्व में शांति बनाए रखने में संयुक्त राष्ट्र संघ ने महत्त्वपूर्ण भूमिका निभाई है ? (10 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2021 History questions

Directive word: Discuss

This question asks you to discuss. The directive word signals the depth of analysis expected, the structure of your answer, and the weight of evidence you must bring.

See our UPSC directive words guide for a full breakdown of how to respond to each command word.

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

The question demands a balanced discussion across three interconnected themes: European conflicts in 1900-1950, post-Cold War unipolarity, and UN effectiveness. Allocate approximately 40% effort to part (a) given its 20 marks and conceptual depth on the 'long cease-fire' thesis; 35% to part (b) for its evaluative complexity; and 25% to part (c). Structure with a brief introduction linking the three themes through the evolution of international order, then address each part sequentially with clear sub-headings, and conclude with a synthesis on whether the post-1945/1990 order has transcended the failures of 1914-1945.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Analysis of the 'long cease-fire' argument—WWI (1914-1918) and WWII (1939-1945) as phases of a single European civil war with the 1918-1939 interwar period as armed peace; reference to Ernst Nolte or Eric Hobsbawm's 'Age of Extremes' framing
  • Part (a): Explanation of structural continuities—unresolved Versailles grievances, economic instability, rise of totalitarian ideologies, and failure of collective security through League of Nations
  • Part (b): Evaluation of 'good' impacts—democratic enlargement, 'end of history' thesis, humanitarian intervention norms, WTO-led globalization, and India's economic liberalization benefits from 1991
  • Part (b): Evaluation of 'bad' impacts—unilateralism (Iraq 2003), NATO expansion triggering Russian resurgence, global war on terror's destabilization, and structural adjustment impacts on Global South
  • Part (c): Balanced assessment of UN effectiveness—successes in decolonization, Korean armistice, Gulf War I authorization, peacekeeping in Congo; failures in Rwanda, Srebrenica, veto paralysis on Syria, Ukraine
  • Part (c): Critical analysis of UN reform debates—G4 nations' demand for permanent Security Council seats including India's claim, Responsibility to Protect (R2P) limitations, and need for institutional adaptation

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Chronology accuracy18%9Precise dating of key events across all parts: for (a) specifies 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 with accurate interwar milestones (Locarno 1925, Munich 1938); for (b) correctly identifies 1989-1991 transition points (fall of Berlin Wall, Soviet dissolution); for (c) references specific UN interventions with correct years (Suez 1956, Congo 1960-64, Rwanda 1994)Broadly correct century identification but vague on specific dates; conflates interwar period with immediate post-WWII; general reference to '1990s' without pinpointing critical moments; mixes UN Charter establishment with League of NationsMajor chronological errors such as placing WWII before WWI, confusing Cold War end with WWII end, or attributing 21st century events to UN's founding period; timeline completely undermines historical argument
Source & evidence22%11Deploys specific historians/theorists: for (a) cites Nolte's 'European Civil War' or Hobsbawm's 'short twentieth century'; for (b) references Fukuyama, Huntington's 'clash of civilizations' critique, or Joseph Nye on soft power; for (c) names specific Secretaries-General (Hammarskjöld, Annan) and Indian diplomats (Shashi Tharoor on reform); includes treaty references (UN Charter Chapter VII, Atlantic Charter)General reference to 'historians say' or 'some scholars argue' without naming; mentions Versailles Treaty and NATO but without specific articles or expansion rounds; vague reference to 'UN peacekeeping missions' without naming operationsNo identifiable scholarly sources; relies on textbook generalizations; confuses primary and secondary sources; invents or misattributes quotes; evidence does not support claims made about any of the three parts
Multi-perspective analysis22%11For (a) presents both 'two separate wars' and 'single civil war' interpretations; for (b) balances American triumphalism with Global South critiques and Russian security dilemma perspectives; for (c) contrasts Western liberal institutionalism with realist critiques of UN power politics; includes Indian foreign policy perspective (non-alignment to strategic autonomy) where relevantAcknowledges opposing views but privileges one side; for (b) mentions both good and bad but treats them sequentially rather than interactively; for (c) presents UN successes and failures without analyzing why the same institution produces both outcomesEntirely one-sided presentation; for (a) only describes wars without engaging 'long cease-fire' thesis; for (b) exclusively celebrates or condemns US unipolarity; for (c) purely affirmative or negative on UN without nuance; no recognition of contested interpretations
Historiographic framing18%9Demonstrates awareness of historiographical shifts: for (a) contrasts 1950s 'Thirty Years War' thesis with later structuralist explanations; for (b) situates debate within post-Cold War optimism vs. subsequent 'end of liberal order' literature; for (c) references evolution from 'UN as League replacement' to 'crisis of multilateralism' narratives; connects all three to broader 'international order' historiographySome awareness that interpretations change over time but no specific historiographical labels; mentions 'revisionist' or 'orthodox' views without elaboration; treats historiography as additive rather than contestedNo historiographical awareness; presents all explanations as established fact; treats historical writing as transparent window on past rather than constructed interpretation; anachronistic projection of present concerns onto past without acknowledgment
Conclusion & synthesis20%10Synthesizes across all three parts to argue whether 1945/1990 order represents genuine transformation or continuity with 1914-1945 failures; explicitly addresses whether UN has overcome League's deficiencies and whether unipolarity avoided interwar instability; offers qualified judgment on whether 'long peace' since 1945 validates institutional learning; may reference India's stake in multilateral reform as contemporary relevanceSummarizes each part separately without cross-referencing; restates main points without advancing synthetic argument; generic conclusion about 'lessons of history' without specific linkage between European civil war, unipolarity, and UN roleNo conclusion or abrupt ending; introduces entirely new material in conclusion; contradictory final judgment not supported by body of answer; purely descriptive ending that could apply to any question on international relations

Practice this exact question

Write your answer, then get a detailed evaluation from our AI trained on UPSC's answer-writing standards. Free first evaluation — no signup needed to start.

Evaluate my answer →

More from History 2021 Paper II