Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

Edexcel A2 History - Cold War

Scroll to see replies

Thought it went well overall but for the 40 mark I was 4 words off from finishing my conclusion! Really annoying but hoping they won't dock marks for finishing halfway through a sentence

I wrote “Therefore, while the Cold War was developed in the period by a complex interplay of factors, the sources and contextual knowledge show that ideology…..”
Just missed the words “was the most significant factor”
I'd referred to my judgement multiple times in other paragraphs before that so fingers crossed :s-smilie:

I did Sino-Soviet for the 30 mark :smile:

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 81

Tamsyng

Original post by SomeDancinPanda

Thought it went well overall but for the 40 mark I was 4 words off from finishing my conclusion! Really annoying but hoping they won't dock marks for finishing halfway through a sentence

I wrote “Therefore, while the Cold War was developed in the period by a complex interplay of factors, the sources and contextual knowledge show that ideology…..”
You just missed the words “was the most significant factor”
I'd referred to my judgement multiple times in other paragraphs before that so fingers crossed :s-smilie:

I did Sino-Soviet for the 30 mark :smile:

What did you write for sino-soviet? :smile:

Reply 82

i_dontreallyknow

Original post by SomeDancinPanda

Thought it went well overall but for the 40 mark I was 4 words off from finishing my conclusion! Really annoying but hoping they won't dock marks for finishing halfway through a sentence

I wrote “Therefore, while the Cold War was developed in the period by a complex interplay of factors, the sources and contextual knowledge show that ideology…..”
You just missed the words “was the most significant factor”
I'd referred to my judgement multiple times in other paragraphs before that so fingers crossed :s-smilie:

I did Sino-Soviet for the 30 mark :smile:

I said ideology was the most important too! I'm fortunate I'm in a room on my own so my invigilator let me finish my sentence

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 83

gcsehelpm3

Hi I did the Sino-Soviet question and essentially treated as why was there a split. First of all is the okay. Second, i completely ignored the time frame 'in the 1960s', and mentioned heavily on the 50s i.e. secret speech/ great leap forward etc. - the only thing i mentioned in the 60s was the Ussuri river dispute and a brief line on the cultural revolution - how badly do you think i will be penalised for this, im quite worried. Is there a certain level i wont be able to get higher than. Mind, i did state that tension had been brewing in the 50s. Thankyou!

Reply 84

Tamsyng

Original post by gcsehelpm3

Hiya I did the same here and others have too! I think this is right as I think the question meant what was the cause of the split in the 1960s if you know what I mean. There we'rent really causes in the 1960s as this is when the deterioration was actually taking place! Have you heard you were wrong?

Reply 85

Amylouise12345

I basically wrote why Peaceful Coexistsance was a complete failure and not about any sucsess' that came out of it. Do you think I'll be marked down as I kind of answered the question in reverse slightly? As it was something like 'the USSR were totally committed to peaceful cooexistsnce .. Blah blah' I'm worried :frown:

Reply 86

i_dontreallyknow

Original post by Amylouise12345

I don't think they can mark you down for it, the question said 'how far do you agree with this view?', and if you completely disagreed with it and argued this well enough they can't penalise you for your opinion. I'm sure you did great :-)

Reply 87

Tamsyng

For people questioning the the sino-soviet question, they essentially asked the same question in June 2010 'To what extent was the deterioration in Sino-Soviet relations in the years 1958–69 dueto personal rivalries?' which mentions the 60s but the mark scheme said to speak about what contributed to the deterioration in relations in those years i.e. before the 60s! So i think it was okay to write about the 1950s. I'm still worried though could anyone confirm?

Reply 88

eprideaux

Original post by gcsehelpm3

The question from June 2014 was primarily focussed on the 1960s (1958-69), and the examiner report says: 'Thestrongest candidates also paid close attention to the date range (1958-69). Lower scoringresponses tended to exhibit three main weaknesses: (1) an over-concentration on theKhrushchev-Mao era which ignored Sino-Soviet relations after 1964 [etc.]'. Take from that what you will, but I think they're quite strict on the date range.

Reply 89

Robsox

Original post by eprideaux

My teacher said its okay as you are setting the context for the question. Apparently previous mark schemes have said that this is acceptable.

Reply 90

Tamsyng

Original post by Robsox

My teacher said its okay as you are setting the context for the question. Apparently previous mark schemes have said that this is acceptable.

so they said it was okay to only speak of pre 1960 causes?

Reply 91

MouseyBrown

Original post by Tamsyng

so they said it was okay to only speak of pre 1960 causes?

I think stuff like their fall out over nuclear weapons would be fine, ie they were arguing about it before 1960, but finally in 61 or whatever Khruschev pulled Soviet advisers out of China. Some of the stuff that happened after 60 had been building up since before, so if you included stuff outside the time period in that way, I can't see theu could really complain.

Reply 92

gcsehelpm3

How badly will we be penalised for this though? Do you think the wording of the question was bad as it could have meant the confrontation 'in the 1960s', as there was certainly no confrontation in the 50s BUT there was alliance - and arguably very little alliance in the 60s anyway? Thanks

Reply 93

Tamsyng

Original post by gcsehelpm3

You shouldn't be penalised it asked for the cause of change from 'alliance' to 'confrontation in the 1960s' so if you gave causes before that date it is fine I would think.

Reply 94

Gorwell

What did everyone put for peaceful coexistence? Also, I'm worried about my controversy essay. :frown:

I did the end of the Cold War and felt I did not do as well as I would have if I had longer time! It was people power and all that right? I spoke about Gorbachev's role, triumphalists, as Reagan was mentioned in one of the sources... Ah

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 95

xserenx

Original post by Gorwell

What did everyone put for peaceful coexistence? Also, I'm worried about my controversy essay. :frown:

For PC question I overall argued they weren't fully committed to the policy, however, I mentioned they were in terms of attending Summits/ 'Geneva Spirit' and the signing of the Austrian State Treaty - showing willingness to make negotiations with the West etc. However, mainly argued they weren't as ongoing arms/space race induced fear/suspicion, failures of Summits, hardline approach (U-2 incident/Paris Summit). For the end I argued people power important but argument failed to consider the role of Gorbachev in allowing them and ensuring protests didn't turn to violence - also role of Reagan rhetoric/reaganomics in putting increasing pressure on USSR, as well as Gorbachev reforms/ pursuing genuine relations with west, however economic superiority of US and stagnant economy of USSR was my key factor as it was what Reagan advanced on and what Gorbachev reacted to.

Reply 96

FritoJane

Original post by Gorwell

What did everyone put for peaceful coexistence? Also, I'm worried about my controversy essay. :frown:

For Peaceful Coexistence i put the following:
-Korean armistice 1953
-Austrian State Treaty 1955
-Finland (porkkala) 1956
-'Geneva Spirit' - (Geneva conference, Geneva summit etc) although these summits weren't substantial, it was a huge deal that the superpowers were meeting each other and it showed recognition of their spheres of influence.

-Paris Summit 1960 got cancelled due to the wake of the U-2 incident. Showing that the USSR wasn't as committed.
-Vienna Summit 1961 showed an improvement of relations and the fact that the US did not retaliate in terms of nuclear weapons showed that they were more 'seriously' committed than the USSR.
-Hungarian Uprising 1956 - Again, the USA just issued statements of condemnation rather than intervening showing that they were more committed.
-Berlin Crisis 1958-62

I left out the Cuban Missile Crisis and probably so much more. Pretty sure i didn't ace this question. I also did the end of the cold war, what else did you write for it? : ) My controversy question was pretty unorganized and all over the place!

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 97

username1022139

Original post by FritoJane

I wrote pretty much the same for the peaceful coexistence question. I also talked about the secret speech and ICBM (Sputnik).

I'm a little worried about my controversy because I don't think it was very good. it was a bit all over the place.

Reply 98

GeorgeWorthy

Hey guys,
I did the Peaceful Co-existence question and one of my points for Soviet commitment was about the Berlin Ultimatum and their decision to use the ultimatum instead of force to maintain superpower peace over the issue of Germany. Do you think that's a good point or were they still quite aggressive by using an ultimatum?
Thanks!

Reply 99

MouseyBrown

Original post by GeorgeWorthy

Thing is with all this....lots of people use things like that as reasons why they weren't committed. But in my opinion that ignores what the Soviets thought peaceful coexistence was. It wasn't meant to end the Cold War, it just meant they didn't have to turn it into a hot war. Therefore by this definition, the fact that they avoided the nuclear option in Berlin shows enough commitment. Peaceful coexistence of anything was designed to entrench the Cold War, and so things like the Berlin Wall actually are part of peaceful coexistence. So personally I think you're right.