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

OP

Yes, I see exactly what you mean. I'm trying to section it in regards to what the exam will ask me. The exam board considers 1970 to be the start of Detente. SALT did occur before the Oil Crisis but that doesn't meant that it didn't contribute to the other 'successes' (Helsinki etc). I'm not saying that The Oil Crisis was the only cause for Detente, but it made a contribution to it.

Yeah that's a good point. In a sense, there's no harm in using it for both, especially since a question that asks you for causes wouldn't require you to look at successes/failures and vice versa.

Reply 401

Yamahooha

6

Original post by Sentenashi

Am I the only damn person in this thread doing the tudors?

I am

And there are a couple of people a few pages back talking about Tudors.
How prepared are you feeling?

Reply 402

Brand New Eyes

2

For French Revolution people,

I'm very fuzzy on the Bourbon restoration which is not in the Textbook, anyone have a good website where I can learn what happens?

Thanks! :smile:

Reply 403

WH1892

2

Original post by ECU93

Yes, I see exactly what you mean. I'm trying to section it in regards to what the exam will ask me. The exam board considers 1970 to be the start of Detente. SALT did occur before the Oil Crisis but that doesn't meant that it didn't contribute to the other 'successes' (Helsinki etc). I'm not saying that The Oil Crisis was the only cause for Detente, but it made a contribution to it.

sorry i'm really confused right now, with the Oil crisis did it contribute to detente because the US was badly affected by the hike in prices because they were supporting Israel while the USSR were not hit so badly and so could cover the cost of their weapons production much better then the USA could so they tried to enter negotiations more or were they both affected badly and decided they couldn't afford to produce more weapons?

Reply 404

ECU93

Original post by WH1892

sorry i'm really confused right now, with the Oil crisis did it contribute to detente because the US was badly affected by the hike in prices because they were supporting Israel while the USSR were not hit so badly and so could cover the cost of their weapons production much better then the USA could so they tried to enter negotiations more or were they both affected badly and decided they couldn't afford to produce more weapons?

They rose the oil prices so it was really expensive for USA and Britain to purchase Oil. USSR were not that badly effected as they had Siberia had oil reserves. But, the USSR were still economically under pressure due to military spending in the years before and loads of money was going into other Communist countries and Brezhnev was under pressure to improve living standards in the Soviet Union so detente was the only option really.

Reply 405

flying_ifan

OP

Original post by WH1892

sorry i'm really confused right now, with the Oil crisis did it contribute to detente because the US was badly affected by the hike in prices because they were supporting Israel while the USSR were not hit so badly and so could cover the cost of their weapons production much better then the USA could so they tried to enter negotiations more or were they both affected badly and decided they couldn't afford to produce more weapons?

All the above is true, but it also showed the US that having a world presence was costly, and encouraged them to move away from conflict.

However, the text book seems to suggest that it was the USSR who were worst affected by the price hike in the long run - since all money spent in the Middle East invariably made its way back into the US economy.

I think the idea that they "could cover the cost of their weapons production much better" comes more from another factor; that at the time there was nuclear parity, and the USSR felt that they could deal with the US from a position of strength rather than one of weakness.

Reply 406

Cassius

I hate how this exam has only been going for two years - it means it's really hard to determine a pattern in the sort of questions they're going to ask :|

Reply 407

flying_ifan

OP

On a slightly different note:

For those thinking of doing the end of the Cold War controversy, it seems likely that the question will focus on Gorbachev - since most other factors seem to have been covered in the past.

Am I the only one who would cry out loud with delight if it was on Gorbachev? :u:

Reply 408

ECU93

Original post by flying_ifan

On a slightly different note:

For those thinking of doing the end of the Cold War controversy, it seems likely that the question will focus on Gorbachev - since most other factors seem to have been covered in the past.

Am I the only one who would cry out loud with delight if it was on Gorbachev? :u:

I would love it if Gorbachev came up!!

Reply 409

partickler

3

Original post by flying_ifan

On a slightly different note:

For those thinking of doing the end of the Cold War controversy, it seems likely that the question will focus on Gorbachev - since most other factors seem to have been covered in the past.

Am I the only one who would cry out loud with delight if it was on Gorbachev? :u:

I would be singing 'Mr.Goorbaaacheeee-----eee-----eee--eeevvvvv" all the way home from the exam.

I'm focusing on post-Stalin thaw, Sino-Soviet, and detente. One of them is bound to come up. I feel like there's nearly no meat in the nuclear arms bullet.

How does one detect a question that goes across two bullet points? I hardly think they would be explicit about it? For example, wouldn't the question...

'How important to the US management of its Cold War diplomacy were relations between the USSR and China? (1962-76)"

... be covering detente as well? I'm probably going to include whatever that comes to mind when I'm answering the question but I really hope they aren't anal about a 'balance of arguments across two bullets' or such tosh.

Reply 410

Cassius1993

Original post by ruth_1994

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, my teacher's happy to bet his house on the 2nd Reich appearing. I've looked over the past papers - all TWO of them! - and the 2nd Reich hasn't appeared at all, either 1900-1914 or during WW1, so it's a safe bet. My only worry is that the examiners will second-guess us on this and make it a really foul question, to prevent people just specialising in it! We'll have to see. I can't see the Final Solution coming up though, it's already appeared once and WW2 questions have appeared twice - hence representing 50% of the 30 mark questions issued thus far. Weimar has also appeared, as has the rise of the NSDAP.

Personally, if I were to make a bet, it'll be a Second Reich question and a Weimar, with an emphasis on the Stresemann years and his diplomacy :redface:

EDIT: Hehe Cassius it was you who took my name first !! :colone:

Reply 411

ECU93

I was going over the Arms Race earlier but I can't seem to get my head around what the differences between ICBMs, ICBs and ABMs.. any help?

Reply 412

flying_ifan

OP

Original post by ECU93

I was going over the Arms Race earlier but I can't seem to get my head around what the differences between ICBMs, ICBs and ABMs.. any help?

ICBMs: Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles - these are basically those that could reach all the way from the USSR to Moscow and viceversa.

ABMs: Anti-Ballistic Missiles. Basically a defence mechanism which were meant to intercept ICBMs mid-air, and therefore were considered by many as being a destabilising force in nuclear parity. The SALT treaty only allowed each of the two superpowers to have two: one to protect their capital, and one to protect their nuclear facilities.

I don't know what ICBs are :dontknow:

Reply 413

blahblahblah.

Original post by WH1892

sorry i'm really confused right now, with the Oil crisis did it contribute to detente because the US was badly affected by the hike in prices because they were supporting Israel while the USSR were not hit so badly and so could cover the cost of their weapons production much better then the USA could so they tried to enter negotiations more or were they both affected badly and decided they couldn't afford to produce more weapons?

You could actually argue that the oil crisis was a successful event for Americ, although it created social unrest with its western allie the USA benefitted from it because the 1974 energy conference mest bank regulations had to end so the US govt began pumping money into companies to keep the economic cycle going so Western companies actually benefitted by selling oil at a higher price

Reply 414

para:lel

Original post by ECU93

I was going over the Arms Race earlier but I can't seem to get my head around what the differences between ICBMs, ICBs and ABMs.. any help?

ICBMs: intercontinental ballistic missiles. Missiles with nuclear warheads capable of flying from the USA to the USSR or vice versa.

ICBs: intercontinental bombers (eg. American B52, Soviet TU20). Planes which could carry nuclear bombs.

ABMs: anti-ballistic missiles. Systems used for shooting down incoming nuclear missiles. They were important because they threatened to end MAD.. That's why SALT I banned almost all of them.

I would also love Gorbachev to come up in section B, but popular protest would be a good topic as well, right?

Reply 415

flying_ifan

OP

Original post by para:lel

ICBMs: intercontinental ballistic missiles. Missiles with nuclear warheads capable of flying from the USA to the USSR or vice versa.

ICBs: intercontinental bombers (eg. American B52, Soviet TU20). Planes which could carry nuclear bombs.

ABMs: anti-ballistic missiles. Systems used for shooting down incoming nuclear missiles. They were important because they threatened to end MAD.. That's why SALT I banned almost all of them.

I would also love Gorbachev to come up in section B, but popular protest would be a good topic as well, right?

Yeah popular protests would be good - although hasn't it already come up?

Reply 416

para:lel

Original post by flying_ifan

Yeah popular protests would be good - although hasn't it already come up?

No, last year was Reagan's policies and the year before was "economic pressure on the Soviet Union".

Reply 417

ECU93

Original post by blahblahblah.

You could actually argue that the oil crisis was a successful event for Americ, although it created social unrest with its western allie the USA benefitted from it because the 1974 energy conference mest bank regulations had to end so the US govt began pumping money into companies to keep the economic cycle going so Western companies actually benefitted by selling oil at a higher price

Yes, it would be beneficial to America, however, would this really be felt that soon after? Surely that would be a long term effect that would probably be out of the time frame and possible irrelevant, especially if they were asking about the causes of detente. I suppose it may be useful as a side note just to show own knowledge.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 418

flying_ifan

OP

Original post by para:lel

No, last year was Reagan's policies and the year before was "economic pressure on the Soviet Union".

... but the sample paper was:

"How far do you agree with the view that the Cold War came to an end because of popular protests in Eastern Europe which the USSR was powerless to resist?"

Reply 419

ECU93

I'm pretty sure that popular protests have come up...

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

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you