A2 Edexcel History Unit 3 12th June 2012 (Discussion)

Hmm, in that case do you think it's too risky? As it is, I haven't revised sino-soviet because there's just no way I'm answering that question, but I've got peaceful coexistence and the arms race pretty much done.. Yeah it's probably too risky not to revise détente, but it's here does seem to be a pattern!

You know you mentioned the influence of Laud/Wentworth before. What do you think they can ask about that?

Unbelievably nervous for this exam! Does anyone doing From Kaiser to Fuhrer have any sort of idea as to what the focus of a question on the Second Reich is likely to be?

Also hoping nothing on education, women or extent of Nazi opposition comes up...

How advantageous was the policy of detente to the management of the USAs cold war diplomacy with the USSR in the 1970s?

I think that the 1969 Ussuri River dispute (Although more a result than a cause of the Sino-Soviet split) and the Taiwan Straits Crises are also relevant here.

The Taiwan Straits crises in particular are good for the whole triangular diplomacy aspect since its an example of "the tail wagging the dog" - smaller allies affecting the overall policies of the two superpowers.

The personality notes above are great too, and I agree that sometimes its hard to separate personalities from ideology - although maybe a good essay point could be to mention the fact that many personalities were driven by ideology in itself?

The way the questions are worded completely throw me off, but if its asking for causes and achievements of detente i think it you should have 6 paragraphs (excl intro and conc)

1. The threat of war
2. USSR Needs
3. USA Needs
4. Ospolitiks
5. Oil Crisis
6. Soviet Economy

Anyone feel free to correct me if i have misunderstood what the question is asking me!!!

So glad i'm not the only one out there who is stressing like crazy about this exam. This thread is providing therapy/ procrastination material!
Everyone seems to agree that there's a high chance the 2nd Reich will come up. If so, question would probably be either where the power lay; how those in power kept hold of it; or what the main threats were to the 'status quo'.
My teacher seems to think there is a high chance the final solution will come up as it's considered such an emotive/important part of the syllabus that they like testing it.
Whatever happens, I just can't wait for this exam to be over!!

Yeah I would answer that in a similar way. It's basically asking whether or not Detente benefited America's relationship with the USA. However, seeing as we have less than an hour to do that question 6 paragraphs would be impossible for me to do. I would structure it as agree and disagree.

I've never really understood Taiwan properly, when it's mentioned is it referring to the first (1954/55) or the second (1958) and was the issue that China wanted to invade but the USSR would only help them if they were attacked by Taiwan?

Also where does the USA come into this, did they threaten to use nuclear missles?

cheeeers

I know this is a silly question, but anyone have any predictions for Part A OF Cold War?

I never knew we had to agree ans disagree!!!! I thought we were only expected to argue how Detente would be useful! Btw do you know if that Q is referring to the 1st Detente Q or the 2nd in the textbook?

My history teacher seems to think peaceful co-existence is going to come up. I don't know why, but I'm praying that it does!!

My history teacher seems to think peaceful co-existence is going to come up. I don't know why, but I'm praying that it does!!

The way I see it, we can be asked two main types of question on detente:
• How it came about. This would probably something like "to what extent was detente caused by Soviet economic factors", in which case you'd first argue for economic factors and then move on to other ones: consolidation of positions, US experience in Vietnam, fear of nuclear war etc.
• To what extent it was successful. This is less likely to come up since it is practically what came up last year - it was something like "to what extent did it ease tensions". This would certainly be argumentative. You'd have to explore successes (SALT, Helsinki, cultural exchanges, trade) and failures (Afghanistan invasion, weaknesses of agreements, spending not really decreased, 1956 Hungarian Uprising etc,)

I think that if we get a detente question it is more likely to be to do with its causes.

Btw - where do most of you place the 1973 Oil Crisis? To me it seems to be as much a cause, as a success and also a failure, depending on how you look at it!

The way I see it, we can be asked two main types of question on detente:
• How it came about. This would probably something like "to what extent was detente caused by Soviet economic factors", in which case you'd first argue for economic factors and then move on to other ones: consolidation of positions, US experience in Vietnam, fear of nuclear war etc.
• To what extent it was successful. This is less likely to come up since it is practically what came up last year - it was something like "to what extent did it ease tensions". This would certainly be argumentative. You'd have to explore successes (SALT, Helsinki, cultural exchanges, trade) and failures (Afghanistan invasion, weaknesses of agreements, spending not really decreased, 1956 Hungarian Uprising etc,)

I think that if we get a detente question it is more likely to be to do with its causes.

Btw - where do most of you place the 1973 Oil Crisis? To me it seems to be as much a cause, as a success and also a failure, depending on how you look at it!

Thanks
'How advantageous was the policy of detente to the management of the USAs cold war diplomacy with the USSR in the 1970s?' Would you say that Q is referring to the first or 2nd Detente Q?

In class we were taught the oil crisis would come under causes of Detente..

I use it as a cause more than anything. I don't really see how it can be seen as a failure within the time period?

Do you by any chance know what came up last year? And with regards to the final solution cropping up, do you mean in part A or B?

I'd say that would refer to the second Q - and it would certainly be useful to include the conflict between neo-conservatives (critical of detente) and liberals (more supportive).




With detente, I find time periods really hard to manage. The text book certainly talks about detente being solely 1970's, but I've read books saying it really started as early as the mid 60s.

Even if you say detente started early 70s, the crisis occurred only a year after the supposed diplomatic success of SALT. And not allowing the USSR into negotiations and activating their nuclear response mechanism was certainly a hostile way to manage it.

Even if not a failure, it certainly shows how detente seemed to apply to some aspects of the Cold War (e.g nuclear weapons etc.) but not others (e.g Third World etc.)

Do you see why I find it a bit hard to place?