Scroll to see replies
I put post revisionism, basically arguing what Gaddis said, circumstances (Roosevelt- to Truman), that the soviets had justifiable claim to security but it wasn't recognised by Washington, and lastly USA's atomic diplomacy. But a few people from my class got revisionist too so I don't know.
Hi, thanks for the response, some people in my class also chose post revisionist, which to be fair can be understandable, when reading the historians interpretation. As upon reading, the historian does use certain words which pander towards both revisionist and post revisionist approach.
Anyhow, congrats on finishing paper 3. And thx for your response.
Anyhow, congrats on finishing paper 3. And thx for your response.
(edited 4 years ago)
I hope that what ever the mark scheme says, the 'wrong' approach is limited to level 4 instead of the usual 3! Good luck
Original post by eddie7777
Hi, thanks for the response, some people in my class also chose post revisionist, which to be fair can be understandable, when reading the historians interpretation. As upon reading, the historian does use certain words which pander towards both revisionist and post revisionist approach.
Anyhow, congrats on finishing paper 3. And thx for your response.
Anyhow, congrats on finishing paper 3. And thx for your response.
Well majorly of people either chose revisionist or post revisionist. So if it is revisionist, then post revisionist answers will be limited to level 3 at most I believe
Original post by eloucaaa
I hope that what ever the mark scheme says, the 'wrong' approach is limited to level 4 instead of the usual 3! Good luck
Personally, the concluding paragraph seemed very reminiscent of the writing of Gar Alperovitz in his book atomic diplomacy (He was a revisionist writer).
The lack of blame and sympathetic tone towards the Soviet Union through use of terminology such as "Vulnerable" and nearly humorous "restrained" when describing Stalin seems to support this. There were definite elements of post-revisionism, the opening paragraph ending on mutual suspicion, mistrust and animosity. Regardless of what conclusion you came to I feel it would be unwise to lean to far to one interpretation without explaining the references made to the other interpretation. From what I read I would conclude the extract is revisionist however I made reference to the post-revisionist comments.
The lack of blame and sympathetic tone towards the Soviet Union through use of terminology such as "Vulnerable" and nearly humorous "restrained" when describing Stalin seems to support this. There were definite elements of post-revisionism, the opening paragraph ending on mutual suspicion, mistrust and animosity. Regardless of what conclusion you came to I feel it would be unwise to lean to far to one interpretation without explaining the references made to the other interpretation. From what I read I would conclude the extract is revisionist however I made reference to the post-revisionist comments.
I debated between revisionism and post-revisonsim for a while, and I believe strong arguments could be made for both (obv the mark scheme will decide). I just remember practising a past paper and it said that a source cannot be both revisionist and post-revisionist because the former is inherent within the latter. So I decided to claim post however I definitely mentioned the justification of the USSR, as well as the reluctance of Washington to recognise the Soviets needs. Also, what made me decide personally was the historians claim that if the soviets overestimated their latitude of influence in Eastern Europe, then it is equally true that there was aggressive tones from some western powers (paraphrased since I can't remember the exact quote. Lastly, Gaddis also makes an argument for atomic diplomacy? Thanks for responding, I find it really interesting to see what others put
Original post by SomebodySendHelp
Personally, the concluding paragraph seemed very reminiscent of the writing of Gar Alperovitz in his book atomic diplomacy (He was a revisionist writer).
The lack of blame and sympathetic tone towards the Soviet Union through use of terminology such as "Vulnerable" and nearly humorous "restrained" when describing Stalin seems to support this. There were definite elements of post-revisionism, the opening paragraph ending on mutual suspicion, mistrust and animosity. Regardless of what conclusion you came to I feel it would be unwise to lean to far to one interpretation without explaining the references made to the other interpretation. From what I read I would conclude the extract is revisionist however I made reference to the post-revisionist comments.
The lack of blame and sympathetic tone towards the Soviet Union through use of terminology such as "Vulnerable" and nearly humorous "restrained" when describing Stalin seems to support this. There were definite elements of post-revisionism, the opening paragraph ending on mutual suspicion, mistrust and animosity. Regardless of what conclusion you came to I feel it would be unwise to lean to far to one interpretation without explaining the references made to the other interpretation. From what I read I would conclude the extract is revisionist however I made reference to the post-revisionist comments.
Its interesting to debate. And yes, of course there will only ever be one BM (Big message) which is the interpretation and from examiners reports from previous years the advice has been to consider the text as a whole but make sure to actually answer the question. I avoided the work of Gaddis primarily due to the lack of reference to ideology and the fact he later shifted towards post-post revisionism. Instead the description of American "Hostile" policy felt more indicative of the writings of William Appleman Williams. It can definitely be argued either way. The Soviet Union in the text was exonerated, only ever saying it was suspicious of those inherently malicious actions of the USA. For that reason I included the use of post-revisionism on to temper the revisionist comments made.
Original post by eloucaaa
I debated between revisionism and post-revisonsim for a while, and I believe strong arguments could be made for both (obv the mark scheme will decide). I just remember practising a past paper and it said that a source cannot be both revisionist and post-revisionist because the former is inherent within the latter. So I decided to claim post however I definitely mentioned the justification of the USSR, as well as the reluctance of Washington to recognise the Soviets needs. Also, what made me decide personally was the historians claim that if the soviets overestimated their latitude of influence in Eastern Europe, then it is equally true that there was aggressive tones from some western powers (paraphrased since I can't remember the exact quote. Lastly, Gaddis also makes an argument for atomic diplomacy? Thanks for responding, I find it really interesting to see what others put
Yes and no.
To a certain extent you're correct. That said, subject knowledge and how you answer the question are crucial. You can get the correct interpretation and fail. Furthermore, I have seen many mark schemes that allow either but will say the lv 5 responses are X and the lv 3-4 responses are Y. So as long as you put forward a valid discussion you can still obtain a good mark, but just may be unable to achieve an A on that paper.
The Paper 4 is worth 60% of the A level and is a more important paper for you grade. B grade in paper 3 with the wrong interpretation is no disaster if you have a strong paper 4 an A is still well within reach.The most recent grade boundaries I saw (W18_33) meant even at a lv 4 An A grade was still achievable (Max 16 marks for A01 and A02) Which comes out to 32 if well written, and an A grade that year was 30,31 for the paper.
Crucially from that markscheme was
"sound understanding of the interpretation: these answers engage with elements of the Big
Message, but without explaining the BM. They may only cover part of the BM. They may think the
extract has other BMs, which actually are only sub-messages. They will also be properly supported" for a level 4 response.
As long as you have sufficiently provided evidence for your answer you will be fine.
In total an A* was 145-147 which is around 74% overall. Quite achievable with a good paper 4. Good luck.
Original post by sairuna
Well one group is right and the other is not basically
To a certain extent you're correct. That said, subject knowledge and how you answer the question are crucial. You can get the correct interpretation and fail. Furthermore, I have seen many mark schemes that allow either but will say the lv 5 responses are X and the lv 3-4 responses are Y. So as long as you put forward a valid discussion you can still obtain a good mark, but just may be unable to achieve an A on that paper.
The Paper 4 is worth 60% of the A level and is a more important paper for you grade. B grade in paper 3 with the wrong interpretation is no disaster if you have a strong paper 4 an A is still well within reach.The most recent grade boundaries I saw (W18_33) meant even at a lv 4 An A grade was still achievable (Max 16 marks for A01 and A02) Which comes out to 32 if well written, and an A grade that year was 30,31 for the paper.
Crucially from that markscheme was
"sound understanding of the interpretation: these answers engage with elements of the Big
Message, but without explaining the BM. They may only cover part of the BM. They may think the
extract has other BMs, which actually are only sub-messages. They will also be properly supported" for a level 4 response.
As long as you have sufficiently provided evidence for your answer you will be fine.
In total an A* was 145-147 which is around 74% overall. Quite achievable with a good paper 4. Good luck.
Original post by eloucaaa
I put post revisionism, basically arguing what Gaddis said, circumstances (Roosevelt- to Truman), that the soviets had justifiable claim to security but it wasn't recognised by Washington, and lastly USA's atomic diplomacy. But a few people from my class got revisionist too so I don't know.
I understand why people would see the PR argument. The first paragraph sounded like a PR argument but the extract was blaming the US for its inability to see the Soviet's legitimate need for security. The hypocrisy of the Declaration of independent Europe in terms of Greece and the atomic bomb.
The language as well sounded as if the historian was exonerating the Soviets and therefore sounds like a R argument
Obviously more points were stated but I just gave a few
(edited 4 years ago)
Exactly my thoughts. The historian also made note of the lack of soviet interaction in western affairs - I cant remember the exact line but it made reference to the USSR's lack of a decision in Greece, and Belgium, making it sound as if the US was somewhat imperialist in its attempt to play a role in all states. The states Stalin wanted to implement were described as "friendly" and "sympathetic towards" and never puppets or satellites. Post-revisionism often casts a more critical view over logical events finding fault in both sides. There was a lack of this, yet an understanding mutual suspicion.
Original post by sairuna
I understand why people would see the PR argument. The first paragraph sounded like a PR argument but the extract was blaming the US for its inability to see the Soviet's legitimate need for security. The hypocrisy of the Declaration of independent Europe in terms of Greece and the atomic bomb.
The language as well sounded as if the historian was exonerating the Soviets and therefore sounds like a R argument
The language as well sounded as if the historian was exonerating the Soviets and therefore sounds like a R argument
I'm assuming that we all did Paper 32. Ngl that was a really challenging paper compared to other past papers... 2 of my friends and I took the exam and we ALL got the interpretations differently. One had revisionist, the other post-revisionist, and the last post post-revisionist.
Since R and PR are already explained above, I'll explain why one thought it was PPR. It was essentially bc the source focuses more on Stalin's role in creating the conflict. E.g. was Stalin's unwillingness at Yalta, demands for Poland/western frontier,etc. Though the 1991 Soviet archives was not explicitly mentioned, there was a little balance in blaming both the USA and USSR. This means that PR interpretation was already overlooked by the historian. However, it seemed as if the blame was much heavier on the USSR. Also, the historian did not fully exonerate the US (Hence the last paragraph on US and atomic bomb, and a little arguments on the paragraphs above).
Since R and PR are already explained above, I'll explain why one thought it was PPR. It was essentially bc the source focuses more on Stalin's role in creating the conflict. E.g. was Stalin's unwillingness at Yalta, demands for Poland/western frontier,etc. Though the 1991 Soviet archives was not explicitly mentioned, there was a little balance in blaming both the USA and USSR. This means that PR interpretation was already overlooked by the historian. However, it seemed as if the blame was much heavier on the USSR. Also, the historian did not fully exonerate the US (Hence the last paragraph on US and atomic bomb, and a little arguments on the paragraphs above).
Original post by eloucaaa
I put post revisionism, basically arguing what Gaddis said, circumstances (Roosevelt- to Truman), that the soviets had justifiable claim to security but it wasn't recognised by Washington, and lastly USA's atomic diplomacy. But a few people from my class got revisionist too so I don't know.
Yeah, basically same...
Hey guys! I, myself, argued that it was post-revisionist on the whole. However, I also argued why one might think it was revisionist, and how the tone was much more critical towards the US compared to the USSR. Yet my conclusion was that it was post-revisionist. For those of you who argued it was post-revisionist, could you please outline your Big Message? I'm curious to know how well I argued my case! Thanks.
Ive answered above I argued that the historian confirmed his post-revisionist view in the opening paragraph, but argued that there were more immediate causes then simply ideological and historical grievences ( he cited the Russian Civil War in the opening). I then referred to the poor agreements made at Yalta and Potsdam, and how they negated the Soviets justified (based on war suffering and having fought Germany since 1941) calls for security.Therefore, Stalin was left to create security on his own turns, occasionally misjudging the latitude of their influence (Poland, Czech Hungary). This confirmed the 'mistrust and suspicions between the powers' mentioned again at the end of the 2nd para. Then I talked about Truman's poorly advised atomic diplomacy and handling in Potsdam (accounted this to circumstances, he was young, and had little experience) - instead of this ensuring a world based on American democracy, it resulted in Stalin being even more intent on security.
I argued that the historian confirmed his post-revisionist view in the opening paragraph, but argued that there were more immediate causes then simply ideological and historical grievences ( he cited the Russian Civil War in the opening). I then referred to the poor agreements made at Yalta and Potsdam, and how they negated the Soviets justified (based on war suffering and having fought Germany since 1941) calls for security.Therefore, Stalin was left to create security on his own turns, occasionally misjudging the latitude of their influence (Poland, Czech Hungary). This confirmed the 'mistrust and suspicions between the powers' mentioned again at the end of the 2nd para. Then I talked about Truman's poorly advised atomic diplomacy and handling in Potsdam (accounted this to circumstances, he was young, and had little experience) - instead of this ensuring a world based on American democracy, it resulted in Stalin being even more intent on security. Original post by LauraELMI
Hey guys! I, myself, argued that it was post-revisionist on the whole. However, I also argued why one might think it was revisionist, and how the tone was much more critical towards the US compared to the USSR. Yet my conclusion was that it was post-revisionist. For those of you who argued it was post-revisionist, could you please outline your Big Message? I'm curious to know how well I argued my case! Thanks.
Well the historian stated some might state that the Bolshevik Revolution was the start of the Cold War but did not explicitly state that it was their opinion.
Original post by eloucaaa
Ive answered above I argued that the historian confirmed his post-revisionist view in the opening paragraph, but argued that there were more immediate causes then simply ideological and historical grievences ( he cited the Russian Civil War in the opening). I then referred to the poor agreements made at Yalta and Potsdam, and how they negated the Soviets justified (based on war suffering and having fought Germany since 1941) calls for security.Therefore, Stalin was left to create security on his own turns, occasionally misjudging the latitude of their influence (Poland, Czech Hungary). This confirmed the 'mistrust and suspicions between the powers' mentioned again at the end of the 2nd para. Then I talked about Truman's poorly advised atomic diplomacy and handling in Potsdam (accounted this to circumstances, he was young, and had little experience) - instead of this ensuring a world based on American democracy, it resulted in Stalin being even more intent on security.
I argued that the historian confirmed his post-revisionist view in the opening paragraph, but argued that there were more immediate causes then simply ideological and historical grievences ( he cited the Russian Civil War in the opening). I then referred to the poor agreements made at Yalta and Potsdam, and how they negated the Soviets justified (based on war suffering and having fought Germany since 1941) calls for security.Therefore, Stalin was left to create security on his own turns, occasionally misjudging the latitude of their influence (Poland, Czech Hungary). This confirmed the 'mistrust and suspicions between the powers' mentioned again at the end of the 2nd para. Then I talked about Truman's poorly advised atomic diplomacy and handling in Potsdam (accounted this to circumstances, he was young, and had little experience) - instead of this ensuring a world based on American democracy, it resulted in Stalin being even more intent on security.yes I agree that it wasn't his argument.. but he did say that it was a 'forceful' argument (and this is referring not just to the comment made about 1917, but to the resumption of 'normal' tense relations after WW2 ended)- thats when he proceeds to reject this and focus on more immediate causes.
Original post by sairuna
Well the historian stated some might state that the Bolshevik Revolution was the start of the Cold War but did not explicitly state that it was their opinion.
(edited 4 years ago)
Well, he did argue that that interpretation had some force, yet one also has to consider more immediate factors that led to mutua suspicion. This means that he gives the former interpretation some credit and validity, but wants us to also consider other factors. I believe that in the first paragraph he argues how a more historical event (Bolsevik Revolution) may have caused the Americans some suspicions (He does state that this argument has some force). Then he uses the remainder of the paragraphs to present more immediate causes of the Cold War, which encapsulates both revisionist and post revisionist arguments. Also, he never does seem to discredit this view or try to undermine it, he just also presents more recent events as well to provide a more holistic view...
Original post by sairuna
Well the historian stated some might state that the Bolshevik Revolution was the start of the Cold War but did not explicitly state that it was their opinion.
What makes you say that he rejected the first paragraph?
Original post by eloucaaa
yes I agree that it wasn't his argument.. but he did say that it was a 'forceful' argument (and this is referring not just to the comment made about 1917, but to the resumption of 'normal' tense relations after WW2 ended)- thats when he proceeds to reject this and focus on more immediate causes.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- History
- CIE History A Level - books
- A-level Exam Discussions 2024
- IGCSE forum?
- CIE A Level Geography Exam Chat
- GCSE Exam Discussions 2024
- OCR A-level Mathematics A Paper 3 (H240/03) - 20th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Messed up CIE Math P3 and Physics P4.
- Cie a level 9990 psychology A level
- CIE A-Level Law
- CIE A Level History resources + help
- AQA A-level Further Mathematics Paper 2 (7367/2) - 5th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- CIE A level
- AQA GCSE History Paper 1 (8145/1) - 18th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Revision Struggles?! Join the 2023 TSR All Day Revision Thread!
- What's the hardest exam you've sat so far?
- Edexcel A Level Chemistry Paper 3 2023
- A-level Maths Study Group 2022-2023
- OCR A-level Mathematics B Paper 3 (H640/03) - 20th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- CIE A level computer science
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Edexcel A Level History Paper 2 (9HI0 2A-2H) - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 day ago
AQA A Level History Paper 1 (7042/1A-1L) - 23rd May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 day ago
AQA A Level History Paper 2 (7042/2A-2T) - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 days ago
Edexcel GCSE HISTORY PAPER 1 (1HI0 10-13) - 15th MAY [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 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 1 day ago
Edexcel A Level History Paper 2 (9HI0 2A-2H) - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 day ago
AQA A Level History Paper 1 (7042/1A-1L) - 23rd May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 day ago
AQA A Level History Paper 2 (7042/2A-2T) - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 days ago
Edexcel GCSE HISTORY PAPER 1 (1HI0 10-13) - 15th MAY [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 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
