A2 Edexcel Unit 3 A World Divided: Superpower Relations 1944-90 discussion thread
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Kinesthetic
What did you put for the Détente?
My arguments for not improving were the obvious helsink ignored, salt I ignored as aramaments increased, afghan war showed USSR still wanting to expand and aroused suspicion, mistrust.. salt II never carried out.
For the counter argument, I just blasted loads of figures about the achievements at SALT I, the borders declared inviolable at helsinki, salt II showed negotiation etc. but I went with no fundamental improvement, but some move towards negotiation and less confrontation.
My arguments for not improving were the obvious helsink ignored, salt I ignored as aramaments increased, afghan war showed USSR still wanting to expand and aroused suspicion, mistrust.. salt II never carried out.
For the counter argument, I just blasted loads of figures about the achievements at SALT I, the borders declared inviolable at helsinki, salt II showed negotiation etc. but I went with no fundamental improvement, but some move towards negotiation and less confrontation.
I argued that detente was a failure. Did you place any blame as to whose fault the failure of detente was? I tried to argue that whilst the USA tried to improve relations in the first half of the 1970s, the USSR didn't really want to know, but on Carter's succession to presidency, the neo-conservatives came into prominence and relations got even worse.
Original post by Kinesthetic
What did you put for the Détente?
My arguments for not improving were the obvious helsink ignored, salt I ignored as aramaments increased, afghan war showed USSR still wanting to expand and aroused suspicion, mistrust.. salt II never carried out.
For the counter argument, I just blasted loads of figures about the achievements at SALT I, the borders declared inviolable at helsinki, salt II showed negotiation etc. but I went with no fundamental improvement, but some move towards negotiation and less confrontation.
For part B I did the end, but I thought the sources chosen were silly. None of them supported eachother, and the only loose cross references I could find were to validate my own subject knowledge, e.g one source said the economy was in a state and the other said this was because of SDI, so I cross referenced them for an argument.
Blagged part B lots, regretting it now.
My arguments for not improving were the obvious helsink ignored, salt I ignored as aramaments increased, afghan war showed USSR still wanting to expand and aroused suspicion, mistrust.. salt II never carried out.
For the counter argument, I just blasted loads of figures about the achievements at SALT I, the borders declared inviolable at helsinki, salt II showed negotiation etc. but I went with no fundamental improvement, but some move towards negotiation and less confrontation.
For part B I did the end, but I thought the sources chosen were silly. None of them supported eachother, and the only loose cross references I could find were to validate my own subject knowledge, e.g one source said the economy was in a state and the other said this was because of SDI, so I cross referenced them for an argument.
Blagged part B lots, regretting it now.
apart from the fact that my part B was a failure....
for part A, I said that there was no fundamental change, but that the seeds for it had been sown as yes the talks and agreements were good, they were only a cosmetic/public thing as they only agreed to them as they would allow one of the sides to gain an advantage over the other, showing that they still had the same relationship of old, just it was covert rather than overt, and how things like how they simply disregarded the terms and stuff like afghan showed that there was no real change
on the flip side, I said how it did cause a fundamental change as it brought them to the table, got them talking and built up a precedent/rapport that would later allow reagan and gorby to get talking and end the cold war etc. and how although they did break some of the agreements, they didn't break all of them etc. etc.
*sigh*....I flopped that exam so badly
I did Detente and The origins
I actually argued that there was a fundamental improvement- obviously SALT I, Helsinki, the Vladivostok conference etc. but then the failure SALT II being ratified, the Carter administration, espionage and neo-conservatism and the events of 1979 showing that these agreements were merely symbolic etc
It's so hard to know how it when though
Part B, I didn't think was too bad but now I'm kind of worried...
I actually argued that there was a fundamental improvement- obviously SALT I, Helsinki, the Vladivostok conference etc. but then the failure SALT II being ratified, the Carter administration, espionage and neo-conservatism and the events of 1979 showing that these agreements were merely symbolic etc
It's so hard to know how it when though
Part B, I didn't think was too bad but now I'm kind of worried...
I think I did better on part B - I chose the Reagan question, and I think I structured it and used the sources rather well.
I'm really unsure on how I've don on part A - I chose the Detente question, and argued that overall, it did not improve relations.
I'm not entirely sure if I linked back to the question well enough, and the stuff I said on the motives driving detente were probably irrelevant ...
I argued that the SALT I treaties and some aspects of the Helsinki Accords suggested that there was change, but my counter argument was that there wasn't fundamental change, and used the Helsinki Accords, the role of the US right wing, the growing mistrust of the Soviet Union, the context around SALT II and the invasion of Afghanistan as examples of change and improved relations not being achieved.
I'm really unsure on how I've don on part A - I chose the Detente question, and argued that overall, it did not improve relations.
I'm not entirely sure if I linked back to the question well enough, and the stuff I said on the motives driving detente were probably irrelevant ...
I argued that the SALT I treaties and some aspects of the Helsinki Accords suggested that there was change, but my counter argument was that there wasn't fundamental change, and used the Helsinki Accords, the role of the US right wing, the growing mistrust of the Soviet Union, the context around SALT II and the invasion of Afghanistan as examples of change and improved relations not being achieved.
(edited 12 years ago)
Christ on a bloody bicycle, I bombed that exam (in the bad sense).
I did the arms race question in Part A and I am kicking myself because I know that it was a good question but my answer was poor. The general premise of my argument was okay: yes, it was 'stabilising' but the stability which it caused engendered fear and mistrust ergo making the stability extremely fragile.
I did the Part B question on origins and would agree with everybody here: the sources were diabolical.
I ended up arguing a load of nonsense. My argument was all over the place and I ended up concluding that it was the insemination of American monopolistic capitalism into Western Europe which was the prime factor in the development of the Cold War (I didn't put it so eloquently). Shame that none of the sources supported that...
Ah well, hopefully my buffer zone from AS and coursework is strong enough.
I did the arms race question in Part A and I am kicking myself because I know that it was a good question but my answer was poor. The general premise of my argument was okay: yes, it was 'stabilising' but the stability which it caused engendered fear and mistrust ergo making the stability extremely fragile.
I did the Part B question on origins and would agree with everybody here: the sources were diabolical.
I ended up arguing a load of nonsense. My argument was all over the place and I ended up concluding that it was the insemination of American monopolistic capitalism into Western Europe which was the prime factor in the development of the Cold War (I didn't put it so eloquently). Shame that none of the sources supported that...
Ah well, hopefully my buffer zone from AS and coursework is strong enough.
That exam was the worst exam I have ever sat.
I started Part B first which was an absolute mistake because my morale and confidence dropped. I panicked and didn't structure my answer. I was shaking like a leaf.
Detente was an okay question. Bit too broad however and did a four line conclusion because I ran out of time.
The end looked so much easier so I have so much regret in not revising it.
Does anyone know if UMS marks are allocated differently for origins and end? I was wondering if everyone did badly on origins then maybe there is less to worry about?
Need to get an A in Chemistry and Maths instead now
I started Part B first which was an absolute mistake because my morale and confidence dropped. I panicked and didn't structure my answer. I was shaking like a leaf.
Detente was an okay question. Bit too broad however and did a four line conclusion because I ran out of time.
The end looked so much easier so I have so much regret in not revising it.
Does anyone know if UMS marks are allocated differently for origins and end? I was wondering if everyone did badly on origins then maybe there is less to worry about?
Need to get an A in Chemistry and Maths instead now
Original post by W.H.T
To those who felt they screwed that exam up:
do you have further exams coming up?
I do, and I'm kinda struggling to pick myself up for my next one on thursday next week
do you have further exams coming up?
I do, and I'm kinda struggling to pick myself up for my next one on thursday next week
I think I messed this exam up and I've got English Lit on Thursday- I'm hideously stressed as I need three As for uni. My glands are swollen I'm so stressed!
Original post by W.H.T
To those who felt they screwed that exam up:
do you have further exams coming up?
I do, and I'm kinda struggling to pick myself up for my next one on thursday next week
do you have further exams coming up?
I do, and I'm kinda struggling to pick myself up for my next one on thursday next week
I have english on Thursday and am struggling too. I've spent all my revision time on history as it was so important to me and haven't even touched english. Now I cant bring myself to revise as I just feel so ****
Original post by Eavis
I argued that detente was a failure. Did you place any blame as to whose fault the failure of detente was? I tried to argue that whilst the USA tried to improve relations in the first half of the 1970s, the USSR didn't really want to know, but on Carter's succession to presidency, the neo-conservatives came into prominence and relations got even worse.
No, I didn't blame anybody - I suppose it would seem as though I blamed the USSR because of their role in Afghanistan, but I tried to make it seemed balance and point the blame to both sides. I did say that it paved way for future negotiations and improvements, but during the period, it appeared as though achievements were made, yet little improvement due to ignorance, greed etc.
Original post by JK471993
That exam was the worst exam I have ever sat.
I started Part B first which was an absolute mistake because my morale and confidence dropped. I panicked and didn't structure my answer. I was shaking like a leaf.
Detente was an okay question. Bit too broad however and did a four line conclusion because I ran out of time.
The end looked so much easier so I have so much regret in not revising it.
Does anyone know if UMS marks are allocated differently for origins and end? I was wondering if everyone did badly on origins then maybe there is less to worry about?
Need to get an A in Chemistry and Maths instead now
I started Part B first which was an absolute mistake because my morale and confidence dropped. I panicked and didn't structure my answer. I was shaking like a leaf.
Detente was an okay question. Bit too broad however and did a four line conclusion because I ran out of time.
The end looked so much easier so I have so much regret in not revising it.
Does anyone know if UMS marks are allocated differently for origins and end? I was wondering if everyone did badly on origins then maybe there is less to worry about?
Need to get an A in Chemistry and Maths instead now
i was wondering this as well, i did the origins and found it really tough. surely the fact that that question was harder than the end one must be taken into account when awarding ums. i started the origins one, as it had the scope for putting in the motivation of the source for the first and the last one. didn't realise that it was actually going to be that hard, and wanted to swap to the end, but it was too late
. i came out and thought of so much that could have gone in i need a A in history to even go to uni... I've got english and maths on thursday and this had seriousy knocked my confidence..I think I did well on this. Détente and End of the Cold War were the two topics I revised intensively, and they both came up. I didn't really look at the origins question, seems really harsh if that was much more difficult than the end of the Cold War question.
Anyway, it will probably be irrelevant how I've done as I need close to 100% on English Lit to get the required A and I need As in my two upcoming Maths exams to get an overall B. Those exams will no doubt readdress the balance.
Anyway, it will probably be irrelevant how I've done as I need close to 100% on English Lit to get the required A and I need As in my two upcoming Maths exams to get an overall B.
Those exams will no doubt readdress the balance.(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Kinesthetic
What did you put for the Détente?
My arguments for not improving were the obvious helsink ignored, salt I ignored as aramaments increased, afghan war showed USSR still wanting to expand and aroused suspicion, mistrust.. salt II never carried out.
For the counter argument, I just blasted loads of figures about the achievements at SALT I, the borders declared inviolable at helsinki, salt II showed negotiation etc. but I went with no fundamental improvement, but some move towards negotiation and less confrontation.
For part B I did the end, but I thought the sources chosen were silly. None of them supported eachother, and the only loose cross references I could find were to validate my own subject knowledge, e.g one source said the economy was in a state and the other said this was because of SDI, so I cross referenced them for an argument.
Blagged part B lots, regretting it now.
My arguments for not improving were the obvious helsink ignored, salt I ignored as aramaments increased, afghan war showed USSR still wanting to expand and aroused suspicion, mistrust.. salt II never carried out.
For the counter argument, I just blasted loads of figures about the achievements at SALT I, the borders declared inviolable at helsinki, salt II showed negotiation etc. but I went with no fundamental improvement, but some move towards negotiation and less confrontation.
For part B I did the end, but I thought the sources chosen were silly. None of them supported eachother, and the only loose cross references I could find were to validate my own subject knowledge, e.g one source said the economy was in a state and the other said this was because of SDI, so I cross referenced them for an argument.
Blagged part B lots, regretting it now.
for part A i said that SALT 1, helsinki and the technological exchanges such as the apollo-suyez link up showed an improvement, and that pursuit of the brezhnev doctrine, third world tensions and the rise of neo-conservatism. kind of said the negotiation would suggest there were symbolic changes but not strong enough to be permament as the rise of the 'second cold war' showed this...
i also blagged part b!
(edited 12 years ago)
I HATE EDEXCEL!! That origins question was dreadful!! I'm not even sure what traditional power rivalries are, and it seems to require knowledge from before the 1944/5 cut off point. The first source mentioned stuff about the 1917 Bolshevik revolution! And those sources had nothing to do with the question, I couldn't work out how to cross reference them, and the Gaddis just didn't seem to have anything to do with it Especially when compared to that dream of an endings question, (btw thanks college for only teaching us one of the controversy); We should have got 'How far do you think the development of the cold war was down to Stalin's personality/foreign policy' if the endings got Reagan.
I did part B first because I knew I could speed write part A if I ran over, but that was stupid because the origins question freaked me out so much. So I completely spaced on part A and sat staring at the détente question for 7 and a half minutes going "I don't know anything about the Sino-Soviet split" because I misread it. Ended up doing the arms race one, and looking back, I realise my answer was horribly simplistic and structured like certain Meerkats catch phrase: Yes and here are the reasons, No and here are the reasons. Two line conclusion about something outside of the time period. Hours upon hours of tortuous hours down the library wasted when I could have been revising English or Philosophy
Does anyone else now feel like revising for their other exams is pointless? I have English on Thursday, and I just don't see what's the point if I'm going to fail anyway ARRRRRGGGHHH Edexel why do you do this to us??
Especially when compared to that dream of an endings question, (btw thanks college for only teaching us one of the controversy); We should have got 'How far do you think the development of the cold war was down to Stalin's personality/foreign policy' if the endings got Reagan. I did part B first because I knew I could speed write part A if I ran over, but that was stupid because the origins question freaked me out so much. So I completely spaced on part A and sat staring at the détente question for 7 and a half minutes going "I don't know anything about the Sino-Soviet split" because I misread it. Ended up doing the arms race one, and looking back, I realise my answer was horribly simplistic and structured like certain Meerkats catch phrase: Yes and here are the reasons, No and here are the reasons. Two line conclusion about something outside of the time period. Hours upon hours of tortuous hours down the library wasted when I could have been revising English or Philosophy
Does anyone else now feel like revising for their other exams is pointless? I have English on Thursday, and I just don't see what's the point if I'm going to fail anyway
ARRRRRGGGHHH Edexel why do you do this to us??(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by JK471993
That exam was the worst exam I have ever sat.
I started Part B first which was an absolute mistake because my morale and confidence dropped. I panicked and didn't structure my answer. I was shaking like a leaf.
Detente was an okay question. Bit too broad however and did a four line conclusion because I ran out of time.
The end looked so much easier so I have so much regret in not revising it.
Does anyone know if UMS marks are allocated differently for origins and end? I was wondering if everyone did badly on origins then maybe there is less to worry about?
Need to get an A in Chemistry and Maths instead now
I started Part B first which was an absolute mistake because my morale and confidence dropped. I panicked and didn't structure my answer. I was shaking like a leaf.
Detente was an okay question. Bit too broad however and did a four line conclusion because I ran out of time.
The end looked so much easier so I have so much regret in not revising it.
Does anyone know if UMS marks are allocated differently for origins and end? I was wondering if everyone did badly on origins then maybe there is less to worry about?
Need to get an A in Chemistry and Maths instead now
This was the same for me and everyone seemed to find end easy (I thought the end was easy and I didn't even doit for same reason as you!)so yh hope both are allocated differently with UMS. Bleh!!! What a stupid question...
Original post by FamousFourTops
I HATE EDEXCEL!! That origins question was dreadful!! I'm not even sure what traditional power rivalries are, and it seems to require knowledge from before the 1944/5 cut off point. The first source mentioned stuff about the 1917 Bolshevik revolution! And those sources had nothing to do with the question, I couldn't work out how to cross reference them, and the Gaddis just didn't seem to have anything to do with it Especially when compared to that dream of an endings question, (btw thanks college for only teaching us one of the controversy); We should have got 'How far do you think the development of the cold war was down to Stalin's personality/foreign policy' if the endings got Reagan.
I did part B first because I knew I could speed write part A if I ran over, but that was stupid because the origins question freaked me out so much. So I completely spaced on part A and sat staring at the détente question for 7 and a half minutes going "I don't know anything about the Sino-Soviet split" because I misread it. Ended up doing the arms race one, and looking back, I realise my answer was horribly simplistic and structured like certain Meerkats catch phrase: Yes and here are the reasons, No and here are the reasons. Two line conclusion about something outside of the time period. Hours upon hours of tortuous hours down the library wasted when I could have been revising English or Philosophy
Does anyone else now feel like revising for their other exams is pointless? I have English on Thursday, and I just don't see what's the point if I'm going to fail anyway ARRRRRGGGHHH Edexel why do you do this to us??
Especially when compared to that dream of an endings question, (btw thanks college for only teaching us one of the controversy); We should have got 'How far do you think the development of the cold war was down to Stalin's personality/foreign policy' if the endings got Reagan. I did part B first because I knew I could speed write part A if I ran over, but that was stupid because the origins question freaked me out so much. So I completely spaced on part A and sat staring at the détente question for 7 and a half minutes going "I don't know anything about the Sino-Soviet split" because I misread it. Ended up doing the arms race one, and looking back, I realise my answer was horribly simplistic and structured like certain Meerkats catch phrase: Yes and here are the reasons, No and here are the reasons. Two line conclusion about something outside of the time period. Hours upon hours of tortuous hours down the library wasted when I could have been revising English or Philosophy
Does anyone else now feel like revising for their other exams is pointless? I have English on Thursday, and I just don't see what's the point if I'm going to fail anyway
ARRRRRGGGHHH Edexel why do you do this to us??Same, am not sure whether to give up or try harder for other exams despite pending failure
I didn't have time for conclusions so there goes structure marks... and part B was all over the place with little extra knowledge because none of my knowledge related much to qoutations so didn't write it down and historiography reagrding who was to blame seemed irrelevant as it was either Stalin or ideology and both are 'orthodox' reasons according to book BLEH!
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Edexcel GCSE HISTORY PAPER 2 (1HI0 2A-2W) - 4th JUNE [Exam Chat]
- Gcse psychology or history
- A-level Exam Discussions 2024
- Edexcel GCSE Foundation tier Maths Paper 3 3F (1MA1) - 14th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Pearson Edexcel FRENCH
- Edexcel IGCSE History | DEPTH STUDIES
- GSCE Cold war question help
- Getting an A* in IAL edexcel
- Edexcel A-Level Geography Paper 2 | [6th June 2023] Exam Chat
- CIE History A Level - books
- Should i do A-Level Geography?
- GCSE Exam Discussions 2024
- HELP: GCSE History Edexcel Grade 9 Facts
- What is Edexcel GCSE History like? And what was it like having it after Gcses?🙂
- Chemistry 1C june 2023 exam 22nd May
- a level history - edexcel cold war coursework
- WJEC GCSE History 2018-19
- Edexcel A2 Mathematics: Core Mathematics C4 6666 01 - 22 June 2018 [Exam Discussion]
- Edexcel GCSE History Paper 2 (1HI0 2A-2W) - 7th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- [Golden Thread] Which TSR users quoted you in the last 12 months?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 6 hours ago
AQA A Level History Paper 1 (7042/1A-1L) - 23rd May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 7 hours ago
AQA A Level History Paper 2 (7042/2A-2T) - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 2 days ago
Edexcel A Level History Paper 2 (9HI0 2A-2H) - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 4 days ago
Edexcel GCSE HISTORY PAPER 1 (1HI0 10-13) - 15th MAY [Exam Chat]Last reply 4 days ago
Edexcel A Level History Paper 1 (9HI0 1A-1H) - 23rd May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 week ago
OCR A-Level HISTORY PAPER 3 (Y301-Y321) - 23rd MAY [Exam Chat]Last reply 2 weeks ago
History Edexcel A level Britain Transformed and USA Conformity and ChallengeLast reply 3 months ago
AQA A-level History USA: Making of a Superpower (7042/1K) - 24 May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 months ago
AQA A Level History - Making of Modern Britain(2S) Exam Chat - 9th June 2023Trending
Last reply 6 hours ago
AQA A Level History Paper 1 (7042/1A-1L) - 23rd May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 7 hours ago
AQA A Level History Paper 2 (7042/2A-2T) - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 2 days ago
Edexcel A Level History Paper 2 (9HI0 2A-2H) - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 4 days ago
Edexcel GCSE HISTORY PAPER 1 (1HI0 10-13) - 15th MAY [Exam Chat]Last reply 4 days ago
Edexcel A Level History Paper 1 (9HI0 1A-1H) - 23rd May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 week ago
OCR A-Level HISTORY PAPER 3 (Y301-Y321) - 23rd MAY [Exam Chat]Last reply 2 weeks ago
History Edexcel A level Britain Transformed and USA Conformity and ChallengeLast reply 3 months ago
AQA A-level History USA: Making of a Superpower (7042/1K) - 24 May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 months ago
AQA A Level History - Making of Modern Britain(2S) Exam Chat - 9th June 2023
