Overview

The module aims to offer an in-depth examination of politics in diverse parts of Europe between the end of the Second World War and the post-Cold War Era. It will address the ways in which democracy has manifested itself. In this vein, it will also analyse transitions from dictatorship to democracy across Europe. Furthermore, it will examine whether the Communist regimes in Eastern Europe during the Cold War should be described as "totalitarian".

This module explores key themes, issues , events, and political processes through selected case studies of European countries throughout the post-war period. Examples may include: The political geography of Europe; Late Stalinism and de-Stalinisation; Post-fascist liberal democracies: West Germany and Italy; Gaullism from the 1940s to the 1960s; Europeanisation from above and below; Communist regimes in Eastern Europe; Dictatorship in Southern Europe: Franco's Spain and the Greek Junta (1967-1974); Post-authoritarian transformations in Southern Europe since the mid-1970s; Protest in the 1970s: Feminism; Gorbachev, reform of the Soviet Union, and the collapse of communism.

Assessment Strategy

-threshold -D+ (48%) Work is marked D+ if it: shows evidence of acceptable amounts of reading, but does not go much beyond what was referenced in lecture notesand/or a basic textbook; covers much of the necessary ground but fails to discuss one or a few vital aspects of a topic; deploys relevant material but partlyfails to combine it into a coherent whole, or sustains a clear argument only for the greater part of the piece; deploys some evidence to support individualpoints, but sometimes fails to do so, or shows difficulty in weighing evidence, or chooses unreliable evidence; displays an awareness that the past can beinterpreted in different ways but without devoting sustained discussion to this; is for the most part correctly presented but has sections where there areserious problems in presentation, style, spelling, grammar, or paragraph construction (but see section on dyslexia below); and uses references andbibliography where needed but occasionally misunderstands their appropriate use or makes mistakes in their presentation. D (45%) Work is marked D ifit: shows evidence of an acceptable minimum of reading, based partly on lecture notes and/or a basic textbook; covers some of the necessary ground butfails to discuss some large and vital aspects of a topic; deploys some relevant material but partly fails to combine it into a coherent whole or sustains aclear argument for only some parts of the piece; deploys some evidence to support individual points but often fails to do so or shows difficulty weighingevidence or chooses unreliable, atypical or inappropriate evidence; shows some awareness that the past can be interpreted in different ways but thedifferences will not receive sustained discussion or analysis; is often correctly presented but has sections where there are serious difficulties inpresentation, style, spelling, grammar, or paragraph construction (but see section on dyslexia below); and uses references and bibliography whereneeded but sometimes misunderstands their appropriate use or makes serious mistakes in their presentation. D- (42%) Work is marked D- if it: showsevidence of an acceptable minimum of reading, based largely on lecture notes and/or a basic textbook; covers parts of the necessary ground but fails todiscuss some large and vital aspects of a topic; deploys some potentially relevant material but fails to bring it together into a coherent whole or sustains aclear argument for only parts of the piece; occasionally deploys evidence to back some individual points but often fails to do so or shows difficultyweighing evidence or chooses unreliable, atypical, or inappropriate evidence; may show some awareness that the past can be interpreted in differentways but the differences will not receive sustained discussion or analysis; is in part correctly presented but has sections where there are seriousdifficulties in presentation, style, spelling, grammar, or paragraph construction (but see section on dyslexia below); and uses references and bibliographywhere needed but sometimes misunderstands their appropriate use or makes serious mistakes in their presentation.

-good -B+ (68%) Work will receive a B+ mark if it is consistently strong in: covering the necessary ground in depth and detail; advancing a well structured,relevant, and focused argument; analysis and deployment of an appropriate range of historical evidence and consideration of possible differences ofinterpretation; and is correctly presented with references and bibliography where appropriate. B (65%) Work will receive a B mark if it: is clear that it isbased on solid reading; covers the necessary ground in depth and detail; advances a well-structured, relevant, and focused argument; analyses anddeploys an appropriate range of historical evidence and considers possible differences of interpretation; and is correctly presented with references andbibliography where appropriate. B- (62%) Work will receive a B- mark if it: is clearly based on solid reading; covers the necessary ground in some depthand detail; advances a properly-structured, relevant, and focused argument; analyses and deploys an appropriate range of historical evidence andconsiders possible differences of interpretation; and is correctly presented with references and bibliography where appropriate.

-excellent -A+ (87%) At this level, first-class work will also have its argument supported by an impressive wealth and relevance of detail, but will further deploy theevidence consistently accurately and give indications of deploying unexpected primary and secondary sources. It will habitually demonstrate a particularlyacute and critical awareness of the historiography, including conceptual approaches, and give a particularly impressive account of why the conclusionsreached are important within a particular historical or archaeological debate. It will show a particularly sophisticated approach to possible objections,moderating the line taken in the light of counter-examples, or producing an interesting synthesis of various contrasting positions. It will be original work.The standards of content, argument, and analysis expected will be consistently first-class work. In essays standards of presentation will be very high. A(80%) At this level, first-class work will have its argument supported by an impressive wealth and relevance of detail. It will usually also demonstrate an2 of 5 29 Jan 2018acute awareness of historiography, and give an impressive account of why the conclusions reached are important within a particular historical or 2 of 5 30Mar 2017 archaeological debate. It may show a particularly subtle approach to possible objections, moderating the line taken in the light ofcounter-examples, or producing an interesting synthesis of various contrasting positions. Overall, the standards of content, argument, and analysisexpected will be consistently superior to top upper-second work. In essays and dissertations standards of presentation will be high. A- (74%) A first-classmark at this level is often earned simply by demonstrating one or more of the features of a good upper-second essay to a peculiar degree, for examplepresenting a particularly strong organization of argument, strong focus, wide range of reading, engagement with the historiography, depth ofunderstanding, an unobjectionable style, and strong presentation.

-another level-C+ (58%) Work will receive a C+ mark if it: shows evidence of solid reading, but remains partially superficial; covers the important aspects of the relevantfield, but in some places lacks depth; advances a coherent and relevant argument; employs some evidence to back its points; and is presentedreasonably well with only a few or no mistakes. It will also contain appropriate references and bibliography, which may, however, be slightly erratic and/orpartially insufficient. C (55%) Work will receive a C mark if it: shows evidence of solid reading, but remains superficial; covers most of the importantaspects of the relevant field, but lacks depth; advances a coherent and largely relevant argument; employs some limited evidence to back its points; andis presented reasonably well with only limited mistakes. It will also contain appropriate references and bibliography, which may, however, contain somemistakes or be slightly erratic and/or partially insufficient. C- (52%) Work will receive a C- mark if it: shows evidence of solid reading, but little knowledgeof in-depth studies (for first-year work the student may not have read beyond a few standard works; at second or third year the student may not have reada good selection of journal articles and specialist monographs); covers most of the important aspects of the relevant field, but lacks depth or misses asignificant area (for second- and third-year work this may mean that it fails to deploy the historical details found in specialist literature); advances acoherent, and sometimes relevant argument, but drifts away from tackling the task in hand (for example, by ordering the argument in an illogical way,becoming distracted by tangential material, or lapsing into narrative of only partial pertinence); usually employs evidence to back its points, butoccasionally fails to do so or deploys an insufficient range; displays an awareness that the past can be interpreted in different ways, but may fail to get tothe heart of the central scholarly debate or fully understand a key point (in second- and third-year work this may extend to a failure to discuss importantsubtleties or ambiguities in the evidence, or to a lack of awareness of the current state of historical debate); is reasonably well presented and containsappropriate references and bibliography, but makes some mistakes in presentation or appropriate use.

Learning Outcomes

• To develop an understanding of rival approaches to politics in contemporary Europe

• To develop arguments based on solid evidence

• To synthesize their understanding of the period as a whole

• To take a specialised interest in particular aspects of the period from a comparative and transnational perspective