AQA A2 History 3N: Aspects of International Relations, 1945-2004

I know what you mean. It looks more like an essay I'd get in economics.

Political stability
Safe transition from socialism to capitalism after collapse of communism in eastern Europe e.g. Copenhagen agreement 1993
Closer links between east and west - decrease tension
But
Potential conflict with Russia if the EU militarised
Tension among applicant states after agenda 2000 - latvia and Lithuania felt Estonia had been treated more favourably

Economic
Closer links through increased trade - removal of protectionism
100 million extra consumers
Free labour movement - increased employment for new members
But
Existing members felt they were propping up the east - tension among east and west?

Environmental
Agenda 2000 - improved nuclear conditions, transport policy coherent with w Europe, improve water and air pollution.

Oveerall enlargement more beneficial to new members

That is very helpful Thank you!

Reply 21

joefish94

OP

I know pretty much all of the sylabus, bit rusty on post 1991 but with a week to I should be okay, does no one have ANY IDEAS on what may be on the test, btw with breadth questions how are you guys tackling them, I'm having trouble with the plan, are dates more important, requirement to cover the whole period and how synoptic links are used, any tips?

Reply 22

rohannnnn

2

According to my teacher a question has never been asked on The Final Years of the Cold War, 1981-1991 so it's vital to revise this to an extensive amount, not feeling very confident about this exam really, so much to remember.

Reply 23

garyheehee

4

When you guys talk about referring to historiography in your essays, what exactly do you mean? I know about Orthodox, Revisionist, Post Revisionist etc interpretations but when it comes to the essay I don't really understand what is expected.

Any help? :confused:

Reply 24

joefish94

OP

I just say whether the question is revisionist/orthodox and then acknowledge a debate over the situation.
Here's a question I kinda need help with, woth regards to synoptic links etc.
'The Cold War came to an end because the soviet union was simply unable to continue with it', how valid is this view?

Reply 25

magically.yours

I am not feeling confident about this exam at all. We studied the first half of the course really in depth and then it seems my teacher didn't realise how little time we had and skimmed the last half. And I literally mean HALF.

Reply 26

Zako

1

For all those sitting the international relations paper/cold war..could you please just throw at me some essay structures to achieve a B! Please reply peeps!!

This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Reply 27

Yoshii3

Original post by Dan God

My Teacher gave me this question: 'world politics from 1991-2004 shows that the principle of collective security cannot be applied in international crises'. How far do you agree with this view of the UN's interventions in this period?

Don't really know how to structure this...any help?

Yeah If I get any question like this I'd avoid it like the plague! My teacher gave us a better question: 'To what extent can the UN response to the Yugoslavian crisis be seen as inadequate?'

Reply 28

Yoshii3

Original post by magically.yours

I am not feeling confident about this exam at all. We studied the first half of the course really in depth and then it seems my teacher didn't realise how little time we had and skimmed the last half. And I literally mean HALF.

Hi, dont worry about it- just think about breaking down the course on what you think will come up:
1940s- The only thing they can ask you on here is the collapse of the Grand alliance and this question has came up twice already
1950s- Peaceful Coexistance, this came up last year
1960s- The only important bits are the Berlin wall and the CMC, but this is technically part of the 1950s, the only other important bits are Vietnam and the Prague spring, but they belong to the 1970s
1970s- Detente and Ostpolitik , detente came up last year I think
1980s-The ending of the cold war, Policies of Reagan and Gorbachev, Soviet economy, Arms control treaties, breakdown of eastern Europe, This HAS NOT come up yet, and my teacher seems to think there is a high possibility that something on it will
1990s- UN successes/failures (Yugoslavia, Somalia, Rwanda, Iraq)
Hope this helped

Reply 29

Samzali1

Original post by Zako

For all those sitting the international relations paper/cold war..could you please just throw at me some essay structures to achieve a B! Please reply peeps!!

This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

I just did a essay now ill type up a paragraph and bullet point the rest.. Don't know what i'd get it for it so let me know!

To what extent were the actions of the USA the main reason for the development of the cold war between 1945-1950

So i started with

Atomic Bomb
Marshal Plan

And then here is the paragraph on NATO

The USA's actions to ratify NATO led to the development of the cold war.In 1949 the treaty was signed and started off as with a political role but with the Soviet unions successful testing of the atomic bomb its role soon changed transformed to a military role. NATO was created by the USA to consolidate its spheres of influence in Europe. This developed the cold war as in 1955 the Warsaw pact was created, the Soviets attempts to keep a strong grip on their satellite states clearly showed that the Soviets also developed the cold war. However this was post 1950. Therefore by creating NATO the USA militarized the cold war which clearly developed it between 1945-1950.

And then i went on to talk about Korea

I think my problem here in this essay is that i'm too one sided - I haven't really mentioned any other reason why the cold war continued except for that USSR did after 1950.

Any comments would be really appreciated.

Reply 30

Yoshii3

Original post by Samzali1

I just did a essay now ill type up a paragraph and bullet point the rest.. Don't know what i'd get it for it so let me know!

To what extent were the actions of the USA the main reason for the development of the cold war between 1945-1950

So i started with

Atomic Bomb
Marshal Plan

And then here is the paragraph on NATO

The USA's actions to ratify NATO led to the development of the cold war.In 1949 the treaty was signed and started off as with a political role but with the Soviet unions successful testing of the atomic bomb its role soon changed transformed to a military role. NATO was created by the USA to consolidate its spheres of influence in Europe. This developed the cold war as in 1955 the Warsaw pact was created, the Soviets attempts to keep a strong grip on their satellite states clearly showed that the Soviets also developed the cold war. However this was post 1950. Therefore by creating NATO the USA militarized the cold war which clearly developed it between 1945-1950.

And then i went on to talk about Korea

I think my problem here in this essay is that i'm too one sided - I haven't really mentioned any other reason why the cold war continued except for that USSR did after 1950.

Any comments would be really appreciated.

Hi, its a good start but examiners and teachers are real bitchy about being in depth. So when you talk about the Marshall plan link it to hostile US economic policies and include other examples such as the USA reforming West Berlin's currency and the World bank. Also mention the US foreign policy of CONTAINMENT: Kennnan's long telegram, Truman Doctrine (Greek civil war) and how this determines US foreign policy throughout the Cold war

Your paragraph about NATO is good, but link in consequences- the formation of NATO ultimatley led to the creation of the Warsaw pact in 1955 in response, essentially creating two rival blocks and futher dividing Europe. Other factors are Truman signing NSC-68 and the Domino effect theory- link these to the reason for US intervention in the Korean war and say that this is hostile containment as the USA intervened under the pretext of protecting a memmber of the UN but the underlying aim was to prevent the spread of communism through Asia.

Then you will have to move on to Soviet actions:
-Stalin's take over of eastern Europe (Salami slicing)
-Czechoslovak coup
-Berlin blockade
-Soviets testing their first A-bomb
Supprting North Korea and China in the Korean war
In this instance you will also have to defend the actions of each side, eg. you can argue that hostile US economic and foreign policy 'drove' the Soviets to respond by hostile means such as taking over eastern Europe and launching the Berlin blockade, then on the other hand you can say that hostile US foreign/economic policies were in response to Stalin violating Yalta and Potsdam and to stop the spread of communism across war-torn Europe

Then arrive at a balanced conclusion
Hope this helped :wink:

Reply 31

Yoshii3

Original post by Yoshii3

Hi, its a good start but examiners and teachers are real bitchy about being in depth. So when you talk about the Marshall plan link it to hostile US economic policies and include other examples such as the USA reforming West Berlin's currency and the World bank. Also mention the US foreign policy of CONTAINMENT: Kennnan's long telegram, Truman Doctrine (Greek civil war) and how this determines US foreign policy throughout the Cold war

Your paragraph about NATO is good, but link in consequences- the formation of NATO ultimatley led to the creation of the Warsaw pact in 1955 in response, essentially creating two rival blocks and futher dividing Europe. Other factors are Truman signing NSC-68 and the Domino effect theory- link these to the reason for US intervention in the Korean war and say that this is hostile containment as the USA intervened under the pretext of protecting a memmber of the UN but the underlying aim was to prevent the spread of communism through Asia.

Then you will have to move on to Soviet actions:
-Stalin's take over of eastern Europe (Salami slicing)
-Czechoslovak coup
-Berlin blockade
-Soviets testing their first A-bomb
Supprting North Korea and China in the Korean war
In this instance you will also have to defend the actions of each side, eg. you can argue that hostile US economic and foreign policy 'drove' the Soviets to respond by hostile means such as taking over eastern Europe and launching the Berlin blockade, then on the other hand you can say that hostile US foreign/economic policies were in response to Stalin violating Yalta and Potsdam and to stop the spread of communism across war-torn Europe

Then arrive at a balanced conclusion
Hope this helped :wink:

Oh forgot your grade :/ - I'd say so far this is defo on for a 'C' , just needs a little more detail/causes/consequences/ result - structure it like this and you'll be fine !

Reply 32

Samzali1

Original post by Yoshii3

Oh forgot your grade :/ - I'd say so far this is defo on for a 'C' , just needs a little more detail/causes/consequences/ result - structure it like this and you'll be fine !

Perfect! thank you andddd good luck! :smile:

Reply 33

Bazinga94

Has anyone got any good example answers that I can look at or know of anywhere to find them? Thanks.

Reply 34

rohannnnn

2

Can anyone help me with what sort of questions that might be asked for "The further enlargement of the EU and political and economic intergration and its impact on international relations". Would be much appreciated as I'm not too confident about Post-Cold War Relations 1991-2004 to be fair.

Reply 35

Zako

1

Can any one give a good structure for the international paper?

This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Reply 36

Yoshii3

Anyone else having a mini panic attack right about now????? :smile:

Reply 37

joefish94

OP

You'll be fine, I'll have a wager with anyone that the topics will be possibly origins of cold war (along the lines of Truman's foreign policies), more likely Cuban missile crisis, along the lines of failure of containment, and the big one, the collapse of the soviet union, along the lines of the main cause, economy, Gorbachev or the US to 'what extent' and the breadth will be something involving post 1991, possibly the US and globalisation? I will put money down on it, does anyone concur?

Reply 38

Bazinga94

Original post by joefish94

You'll be fine, I'll have a wager with anyone that the topics will be possibly origins of cold war (along the lines of Truman's foreign policies), more likely Cuban missile crisis, along the lines of failure of containment, and the big one, the collapse of the soviet union, along the lines of the main cause, economy, Gorbachev or the US to 'what extent' and the breadth will be something involving post 1991, possibly the US and globalisation? I will put money down on it, does anyone concur?

I reckon you're right on at least a couple of them, origins of the Cold War is a good shout, as is the collapse of the Soviet Union. And like you, I think there will be a synoptic that involves up to 2004 but I don't know what it could be.