There are several differences between the two texts, for example, Text A is taken from a 1980's play called 'Educating Rita', and so therefore has the purpose of entertainment, however Text B is simply a transcript, and so therefore has no other purpose thanto bore me to death. In Text A, 'hedging' is used, and the audience are aware of this, and so it creates comedy value and is therefore helping the text to achieve its purpose, to entertain. An example of this is when Frank says 'But if you're going to write this sort of stuff you're going to have to change'. By employing the lexical choice of 'change' he is implying that Rita would have to alter her methods, rather than being bald on record and confronting her about her clearly very poor literacy skills. This suggests a friendly relationship between the two characters, as Frank avoids further upsetting Rita. Good old Frank.

However, in Text B, the regular interruptions which have been transcribed also suggest a friendly relationship between the Tutor and Julie, as it is regularly used to symbolise Julie's agreement with her tutor at given points. This suggests that Julie has a very positive attitude towards her work, as she simply agrees with her tutor and understands where she has to make alterations within her work. Furthermore, there are several short pauses within Text B, as breaks are taken for characters to correct themselves or change the way they were saying something. This also suggests a friendly relationship, as they have time to stop, or alter what they were saying, which creates the atmosphere of a general chat.

Moreover, Willy Russell tries to create the idea of spontaneous speech within his play to force its ability to represent a real life scenario and therefore make it believable. When Rita says 'No, come on come on' is an example of repetition being used. Repetition is used in everyday conversation as someone is distracted or decided to alter what they plan to say next, and so the use of this within a play creates the idea that the chat taking place is realistic.

Using sources K to N, and your own knowledge, how far do you accept the view of Source K that it was American foreign policy that crystallised the Cold War?

Other historians have argued that it was the Soviet Union that was primarily responsible for the Cold War, this viewpoint is acknowledged in Source M which expresses the typically orthodox school opinion, and suggests that Stalin's expansionist attitudes and aggressive nature go a long way towards causing, and eventually crystallising the cold war. This could be supported by the fact that firstly, Stalin refused to remove the presence of the Red Army from Europe regardless of the fact that the Nazi's has been defeated. This is a firm example of Stalin's intentions to not only defeat the Nazi's within Germany, but to then gain a degree of control over the country itself. Another strong example of Stalin's aggressive nature is his input into the support of several communist governments, this can be seen with China, his input in Vietnam, moreover in Korea and his backing of the Republic of Korea in the North. Stalin gave financial and aid in the form of weaponry in order to ensure that the capitalist Koreans were defeated. Furthermore, in February 1946, Stalin gave the 'Bolshoi speech' which was interpreted as a direct attack against capitalism by the Western powers, within which speech Stalin says ''world capitalism proceeds through crisis and the catastrophes of war'. Most significantly though, to support the argument that Stalin's aggressive nature and his Soviet foreign policy was to blame for the crystallisation of the Cold War, are his salami tactics and the use of these to oust governments and key figures out of power in order to enforce his communist ideologies on that country. For example, in Czechoslovakia a left wing coalition was elected in 1945, by 1948 the Communists banned other parties and began to kill their leaders in order to ensure a secure left wing government. Source M supports this viewpoint, where initially the source suggests that Stalin pursued personal security whilst depriving others of it, this is seen in the governments, particularly in Eastern Europe, which he inflicted his communist ideologies on to, who were losing figureheads and key political figures whilst Stalin was pursuing his 'buffer zone' of safety. Furthermore, Source M suggests that Stalin couldn't function away from distrust and suspicion, and since Hitler had formed a Nazi-Soviet pact in 1939 and then attacked the USSR just a few years later, Stalin found it hard to trust any world leader, and so chose to operate in a very secretive and suspicious way. This interpretation wholly suggests that the USSR were to blame for the Cold War.

However, Post Revisionist historians in the West and post-communist historians in the Soviet Union have adopted a more balanced set of interpretations, these can also be seen in sources N and L. These set of interpretations suggest that the eventual crystallisation of the Cold War could not simply be put down to one explanation, or be wholly blamed on a key figure, but would come about due to a range of factors. One of the factors is misunderstanding, and the possibility that Truman misinterpreted Stalin's security fears as expansionist attitudes, or Stalin misunderstood the creation of the Marshall Plan, and saw it as an imperialistic attack on communism. Another factor which contributes is both countries security fears, again Stalin could have simply been re-building his surroundings because of the huge loss of 20million Russian soldiers in WWII, and be haunted by those losses. The US had security fears due to Pearl Harbour and the memory of that. Source N and L also suggest that we should look to the wider context in order to analyse how the Cold War came about exactly. Source L states 'the understanding American leaders had of events and possibilities' played a role in the outcome of the Cold War. Moreover, Source N reads 'WE therefore have to look more closely at a broad European international context in order to understand the origins of the Cold War', which suggests that the two main superpowers, the Us and USSR, although responsible, shouldn't feel the might of every ounce of blame, as other countries played a significant role also.

Overall, the view that it was the American foreign policy that alone crystallised the Cold War seem over simplistic, and I think it has top be put down to a wide range of factors all contributing at once. One of these would be the American's foreign policy and its new, interventionist attitudes in regards to world relations. Moreover, the Soviet Union's seemingly expansionist goals would play a vital role in the crystallisation of the Cold War, but more importantly, I think the lack of trust between the two superpowers and general misunderstanding caused a 'tit for tat' competition between the two, as they seemed to attempt to score cheap points in order to aggravate one another.

To what extent do the sources agree that all political parties benefited from the Easter Rising?

After the Easter Rising, due to the Draconian and heavy handed British reaction, there was a

political shift and general opinion for the Sinn Fein movement grew in popularity and so the Irish Parliamentary Party (IPP), which was favoured by the moderate Irish people, lost votes as the people who initially favoured Home Rule, began to lean towards the idea of an Irish Republic. An example of this shift being shown is evident in the general election held in Ireland in December 1918, in which Sinn Fein won 73 seats, in this same election the IPP obtained only 6 of the seats, which had been 68 in December 1910. This is a strong example of opinion shifting from the moderate Irish people wanting a degree of control over their country, to favouring the setting up of an Irish republic. Furthermore, an example of the growing popularity of Sinn Fein as a movement, can be seen in Source O, which is a Sinn Fein campaign poster declaring that everyone is under the illusion that Ireland is a part of England, when in fact it is not. There was a general feeling of growing resentment towards Britain, and this was evident due to several factors. 'It persisted with nationwide martial law until November 1916; it arrested prominent and articulate critics of its administration and it threatened to impose conscription'. This would only deeper ingrain the growing hatred for them within Ireland, particularly amongst young men who were now able to vote. This saw the moderate and 'middle-ground' party, the IPP, rapidly lose its support, and become the less popular party in comparison to Sinn Fein in Ireland for 50 years.

Clearly, the movement had gained enough success for the Sinn Fein to take action, as they were now legitimately representative of the majority of Irish people, decided whilst using the British electoral system. Sinn Fein could now realistically claim to represent the will of the Irish majority. Their first action was to completely disregard the British as having any control over them, and they began this process by refusing to attend the House of Commons. It then went on to summon all of its MP's to Dublin, on January 21^st 1919, they then declared themselves Parliament of the Irish Republic. A good contemporary source to justify this would be the Declaration of Independence drawn up and presented that day, which symbolised the setting up of their provisional government. This Irish government soon made its authority evident over much of Ireland, and established its own courts of law and even collected taxes.

From what I have analysed, all sources clearly suggest to me that only one political party eventually gained overall from the Easter Rising, and it was the Sinn Fein movement. The IPP simply lost its moderate's support and the British had none other than themselves to blame.