Back
to top
Cold War
WatchPage 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
"How did changing political leaders lead to the development of the cold war?"
I need a point, 2 pieces of evidence and a link back to the question. It's an 8-marker, and I usually get really good history (working at a 7 rn), but I usually use a different method rather than PEEL and idk how to fill in this sheet
I need a point, 2 pieces of evidence and a link back to the question. It's an 8-marker, and I usually get really good history (working at a 7 rn), but I usually use a different method rather than PEEL and idk how to fill in this sheet
1
reply
Report
#2
Well, you must recognise that both Britain and the USA changed leaders at the end of WW2, with the replacements having no relationship (developed over a number of years) with Stalin. Was this significant, do you think? If so why?
0
reply
Report
#3
This was after Roosevelt and Truman came in to power right and Churchill also stepped off or something but Stalin waas the only one of the trio that remained?? Cold War between Russia and America?
1
reply
Report
#4
(Original post by justanotherchica)
Churchill also stepped off or something
Churchill also stepped off or something
2
reply
Report
#5
- Khrushchev was more lenient than Stalin, was willing to negotiate with the US (take the Cuban missile crisis for example, where both Kennedy and Khrushchev agreed to remove their missiles from Cuba and Turkey, which led to a more friendly relationship between the two countries rather than the hostile one they had before)
- The death of Stalin resulted in the Hungarian Revolution in which Russia directly attacked the Hungarian people and killed hundreds, this was a key development because it showed that Khrushchev was just as much for communism as Stalin was. The revolution began because the people of Hungary believed that Khrushchev would be more lenient towards them and would rid them of communism. Aswell as that it showed that Eisenhower wasn't willing to get in a direct war with the Russians.
To be honest there's loads of points, Eisenhower did more in terms of the military and wars (ending the Korean war and stuff), talk about Kennedy and Cuba (Bay of Pigs, Cuban missile crisis etc.)
- The death of Stalin resulted in the Hungarian Revolution in which Russia directly attacked the Hungarian people and killed hundreds, this was a key development because it showed that Khrushchev was just as much for communism as Stalin was. The revolution began because the people of Hungary believed that Khrushchev would be more lenient towards them and would rid them of communism. Aswell as that it showed that Eisenhower wasn't willing to get in a direct war with the Russians.
To be honest there's loads of points, Eisenhower did more in terms of the military and wars (ending the Korean war and stuff), talk about Kennedy and Cuba (Bay of Pigs, Cuban missile crisis etc.)
2
reply
Report
#6
(Original post by Good bloke)
The description generally used is 'lost the general election'.
The description generally used is 'lost the general election'.
1
reply
Report
#7
(Original post by Wikia)
- Khrushchev was more lenient than Stalin, was willing to negotiate with the US (take the Cuban missile crisis for example, where both Kennedy and Khrushchev agreed to remove their missiles from Cuba and Turkey, which led to a more friendly relationship between the two countries rather than the hostile one they had before)
- The death of Stalin resulted in the Hungarian Revolution in which Russia directly attacked the Hungarian people and killed hundreds, this was a key development because it showed that Khrushchev was just as much for communism as Stalin was. The revolution began because the people of Hungary believed that Khrushchev would be more lenient towards them and would rid them of communism. Aswell as that it showed that Eisenhower wasn't willing to get in a direct war with the Russians.
To be honest there's loads of points, Eisenhower did more in terms of the military and wars (ending the Korean war and stuff), talk about Kennedy and Cuba (Bay of Pigs, Cuban missile crisis etc.)
- Khrushchev was more lenient than Stalin, was willing to negotiate with the US (take the Cuban missile crisis for example, where both Kennedy and Khrushchev agreed to remove their missiles from Cuba and Turkey, which led to a more friendly relationship between the two countries rather than the hostile one they had before)
- The death of Stalin resulted in the Hungarian Revolution in which Russia directly attacked the Hungarian people and killed hundreds, this was a key development because it showed that Khrushchev was just as much for communism as Stalin was. The revolution began because the people of Hungary believed that Khrushchev would be more lenient towards them and would rid them of communism. Aswell as that it showed that Eisenhower wasn't willing to get in a direct war with the Russians.
To be honest there's loads of points, Eisenhower did more in terms of the military and wars (ending the Korean war and stuff), talk about Kennedy and Cuba (Bay of Pigs, Cuban missile crisis etc.)
Always read the question carefully.
0
reply
Report
#8
(Original post by Good bloke)
Perhaps you could explain how events in 1952, 1953, 1956, 1961 and 1962 could have led to the development of the Cold War, which is generally believed to have started in 1947.
Always read the question carefully.
Perhaps you could explain how events in 1952, 1953, 1956, 1961 and 1962 could have led to the development of the Cold War, which is generally believed to have started in 1947.
Always read the question carefully.
Perhaps you should read the question carefully?
0
reply
Report
#9
(Original post by Wikia)
Perhaps you should read the question carefully?
Perhaps you should read the question carefully?
0
reply
Report
#10
(Original post by Good bloke)
The Cold War started in 1947, and the question is about how the Cold War came about, not about the events within it and how it developed as it went along.. None of the events you describe could have been relevant to the war's inception.
The Cold War started in 1947, and the question is about how the Cold War came about, not about the events within it and how it developed as it went along.. None of the events you describe could have been relevant to the war's inception.
Do you really think they'd be asking these students how going from Roosevelt to Truman led to the development of the cold war, especially considering Stalin came to power over 20 years BEFORE the cold war begun, why the hell would they ask them how that led to the development? They're not asking before, they're asking during lmfao
0
reply
Report
#11
(Original post by Wikia)
They're not asking before, they're asking during lmfao
They're not asking before, they're asking during lmfao
How did changing political leaders affect the development of the cold war?
Nobody sensible would argue that changes in leadership were the main driving force in the way the situation developed over many years, although they were an influence.
How did changing political leaders lead to the development of the cold war?
is asking about how the Cold War commenced in my view. The wording 'led to' and 'the development of' makes this clear.
There is little doubt that the change in stance to the Soviets that Truman initiated was instrumental in finally separating the wartime allies, and that the commencement of the Truman Doctrine escalated matters considerably, and a question on this seems very reasonable.
There is room for doubt as examiners no longer have a firm grasp of English, so the OP should seek clarification.
0
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
Today on TSR
-
How will Covid-19 affect my uni experience?Video Q&A - the experts answered your questions
- Should I date my friends ex?
- Is it better to live at home or in halls?
- Will I get anywhere with Psychology?
- Is your school opening?