Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CathyHeathcliff)
    Definitely factor by factor, not one paragraph on each source alone - however, as long as you cross-reference both ways then the two may be quite similar as it is often the case that one source focuses most on one factor (if that makes sense).

    What I do is I go in with at least three different colour highlighters and when I'm reading the sources I highlight a different factor in a different colour whenever I come across it, making it very easy to cross reference as you can see how the factor you are writing about in your paragraph is covered by each source.

    Assuming I'm disagreeing with the question (which I find it easier to do), the structure I tend to use is:
    - Intro
    - Paragraph 1: Factor agreeing with the question (usually focused on in the first source) and aspects of the others sources which agree with this factor.
    - Paragraph 2: Factor that you think was most important. Maybe begin this paragraph or end the previous paragraph with what you see as the major flaw in the argument of the first sources (e.g. if the question is about Reagan, then you might mention how he was in power since 1981 but the Cold War didn't end until the late 1980s under Bush) Again, mention parts of the other sources which agree with this factor. At the end of the paragraph, you should use this factor to counter-argue the factor in the question (e.g. if you've written a paragraph on Gorbachev's new way of thinking then you might say that Reagan's tougher stance meant nothing without this as Gorbachev's predecessors had refused to give in to Reagan).
    - Paragraph 3: Other factor mentioned in the sources. Evidence from any source which mentions this factor. Compare this factor with the previous factors to explain why it is less important than that in paragraph 2 and establish whether you think it is more or less important than that in paragraph 1 - maybe use where the sources contradict each other or your own knowledge to criticise the arguments that you disagree with.
    - Conclusion

    Remember to always link back to the factor in the question - it is not a generic 'why did the Cold War start/end' question so you must compare the significance of any factor you mention with that in the question.

    The plan you gave was fine, but I wouldn't go in with a pre-conceived notion of which sources you are going to compare with what, as I hope my structure helped to convey - you cannot tell what each source will cover so you don't know what you will be able to compare!

    I went off on a bit of a tangent, but I hope this helped somewhat!
    yes that makes so much more sense now! thank you so much for your help
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    what does everyone think a possible sino-soviet relations questions could be?

    having looked at past questions they don't tend to repeat questions, so i was thinking (and hoping) for a ideological differences one.

    any ideas?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Hoping for a sec c question on the cold war ending , not sure what could come up for sec b tho
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What does everyone think a peaceful coexistence/thaw question could be? Is it possible it could focus around Khrushchev and whether or not he was committed to it? I'm just trying to cover every possible angle... ahh
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by maria.diaz)
    What does everyone think a peaceful coexistence/thaw question could be? Is it possible it could focus around Khrushchev and whether or not he was committed to it? I'm just trying to cover every possible angle... ahh
    Haha I hate the last minute period of thinking up the trickiest questions they could possibly ask.

    But I think all the questions on all the periods basically come back to the same debates. For the thaw, it's how why did it not end the Cold War, how committed were they, how far did relations improve etc.

    And really for me the answer is always that they they is plenty to say they weren't committed to it, or that it wasn't that significant, but actually peaceful coexistence was never intended to end the war, and in that sense they were both fully committed to it.

    Remember to all the Soviet leaders, peaceful coexistence was only the idea that communism didn't have to go to war with capitalism, instead it could just wait for it to bring itself down.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MouseyBrown)
    Haha I hate the last minute period of thinking up the trickiest questions they could possibly ask.

    But I think all the questions on all the periods basically come back to the same debates. For the thaw, it's how why did it not end the Cold War, how committed were they, how far did relations improve etc.

    And really for me the answer is always that they they is plenty to say they weren't committed to it, or that it wasn't that significant, but actually peaceful coexistence was never intended to end the war, and in that sense they were both fully committed to it.

    Remember to all the Soviet leaders, peaceful coexistence was only the idea that communism didn't have to go to war with capitalism, instead it could just wait for it to bring itself down.
    Thank you so much! this helped a lot! I just panicked and saw that in 2012 they asked whether Eisenhower's cold war diplomacy was confrontational or coexistence.

    Lets just hope it wont be worded disgustingly!
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by maria.diaz)
    Thank you so much! this helped a lot! I just panicked and saw that in 2012 they asked whether Eisenhower's cold war diplomacy was confrontational or coexistence.

    Lets just hope it wont be worded disgustingly!
    No worries. Yeah I did that question in a past paper. It's exactly the type of thing I mean - it sounds weird but really it's just asking 'how much did things improve'.

    Good luck
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    For a detente question on how committed the superpowers were, how would you guys structure it?
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by i_dontreallyknow)
    My plan was to read a bunch of example essays on everything. There's no point me trying to cram - if I don't know it now I probably won't remember it XD

    I'm praying for peaceful coexistence or sino-soviet. Preferably one of those 'was there a thaw or not?' questions

    Good luck everyone!
    Yeah I think that's a good idea. Might do that later. I'm not cramming as such.. just going over everything briefly and seeing what I can recall from memory. I find repeatedly going over things make them stick more.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dauntlesstraitor)
    For a detente question on how committed the superpowers were, how would you guys structure it?
    Very: Moscow Summit, Basic Principles Treaty, SALT 1, everyone loves each other.

    Very: Helsinki, human rights, recognition of borders.

    Actually not at all: Jackson Vanick amendment, criticisms in US of Helsinki, Angola, Afghanistan, SALT 2 cancelled, boycott Olympics etc.

    Might add a little bit in the conclusion along the lines of detente was never supposed to end the Cold War, just to let them sort themselves out. In that sense they were pretty committed to it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    any predictions? I've left my revision far too late and could use any help i could get :/
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MouseyBrown)
    Very: Moscow Summit, Basic Principles Treaty, SALT 1, everyone loves each other.

    Very: Helsinki, human rights, recognition of borders.

    Actually not at all: Jackson Vanick amendment, criticisms in US of Helsinki, Angola, Afghanistan, SALT 2 cancelled, boycott Olympics etc.

    Might add a little bit in the conclusion along the lines of detente was never supposed to end the Cold War, just to let them sort themselves out. In that sense they were pretty committed to it.
    Brilliant thanks! What do you mean by Angola, it's not in my notes
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hi , has anyone looked at last years (2015) part B- start of the Cold War. It's so hard and it's freaking me out.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by notmelol)
    any predictions? I've left my revision far too late and could use any help i could get :/
    PST and Sino Soviet has been predicted for the middle
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dauntlesstraitor)
    Brilliant thanks! What do you mean by Angola, it's not in my notes
    It was a Portuguese colony, and when Portugal let it go the US and USSR poured arms etc for different sides competing for power. I'd just bunch that together with Afghanistan as a whole point about the fact that the Cold War carried in as before, just in the third world.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maadssssxo)
    Hi , has anyone looked at last years (2015) part B- start of the Cold War. It's so hard and it's freaking me out.
    I'm only learning the end of the Cold War, find it a lot easier.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maadssssxo)
    Hi , has anyone looked at last years (2015) part B- start of the Cold War. It's so hard and it's freaking me out.
    Was that about US expansionism? I think I did that question a few days ago. It was a bit confusing but I don't think it was too bad, but that might just be my opinion. I think the factors I used were US expansionism, national security/defence and ideology. I think I argued ideology overall because the defence factor effectively negated the US expansionism factor (basically answering the question just from that) and I said that defence itself does not explain why they entered into a Cold War because if they really only wanted to be safe from another conflict then they would talk to each other more and stop the tension, but ideology meant that that could not happen, hence the fact that they didn't meet after Potsdam until the mid 1950s.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I just have that feeling edexcel is gonna screw us over this year no idea why QQ anyone got a a star structure there willing to share >?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hey guys,
    does anyone have any exemplar answers on the topic sino- soviet or the thaw?
    Would be a great help! Thanks and good luck!!!!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nancyb1997)
    Hey guys,
    does anyone have any exemplar answers on the topic sino- soviet or the thaw?
    Would be a great help! Thanks and good luck!!!!
    The June 2014 Examiner Report has some for each :-) you need to figure out the handwriting though XD. The June 12 one should have some too
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.