braindrainedAsh
Journalist
What did you think of the questions for the Cold War? Were they easy or difficult? Were they fair? Were they the kind of questions you had been expecting?
-
Best of luck to the class of 2024 for their HSC exams. You got this! Let us know your thoughts on the HSC exams here -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
Cold War (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter braindrainedAsh
- Start date
I think that they were good questions; they'll seperate the people who actually know their work from the people who crap on and make things up (like a lot of people do). When I made notes on the end of the Cold War, they were all focused around Gorbachev, so I was licking my lips when I saw the question. To be honest, I thought there would definitely be a question either on detente or the arms race. The first question was kind of arms race, but the question specified only up until 1979, which is why a lot of my information would've been irrelevant. All in all, pretty good I reckon. I'm happy.
princesse
Mmm..free goo.
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2002
- Messages
- 47
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2003
i did the one 1949-1979...it was heaps broad...i wish i studied cold war a bit more.
Mike85
Member
OMG, the questions were the BEST EVER! I loved them! I did Gorbachev and it just played into my hands.... I thought they were so much better than the questions for the past two years, based on the fact I prefer issues such as the end of the Cold War, detente and summits..... I thought it would be detente this year, but when I saw the questions I was so happy 
No crises!
No crises! i did part a
i related that to detente, i aslo talked about the effects of the break down of detente on the future of the coldwar i.e. past 79, should i not have done this, it was only brief like maybe 1.5 pages out of 11. I also didnt talk about peace efforts prior to like 63, i mentioned a few times that the peace efforts prior had little success or impact and were ineffectual blah blah blah and then related it back to detente saying it was the first significant and succesful moves. Was this cool or am i stuffed???
i related that to detente, i aslo talked about the effects of the break down of detente on the future of the coldwar i.e. past 79, should i not have done this, it was only brief like maybe 1.5 pages out of 11. I also didnt talk about peace efforts prior to like 63, i mentioned a few times that the peace efforts prior had little success or impact and were ineffectual blah blah blah and then related it back to detente saying it was the first significant and succesful moves. Was this cool or am i stuffed???
sluttyho
New Member
yeah that wot i did, Stuwy85. i think that wld be ok, i concentrated on peaceful coexistence and the hypocrisy of Khrushchev during cuba which then led to detente which then led to Reagan and START.
Nick
foregone conclusion
yeah they were very narrow questions.. not my favourite..
i did A) and talked abt the ineffectiveness of any attempts at limitation, as nuclear weapons were the cornerstone of both US and USSR foreign policies in the war, and the success of arms limitations would depend on hte atmosphere at the time.. they werent permanent.
i hope i didnt get too much on a tangent
i did A) and talked abt the ineffectiveness of any attempts at limitation, as nuclear weapons were the cornerstone of both US and USSR foreign policies in the war, and the success of arms limitations would depend on hte atmosphere at the time.. they werent permanent.
i hope i didnt get too much on a tangent
psycho_mushy
Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2003
- Messages
- 661
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 1998
I did A and talked about
1) SALT I and SALT II
2) Cuban Missile Crisis
3) Proxy Wars
4) "Ban the bomb movement"
1) SALT I and SALT II
2) Cuban Missile Crisis
3) Proxy Wars
4) "Ban the bomb movement"
MiuMiu
Somethin' special....
I did Gorbachev, talked about his contribution; his proceeding old & sick leaders, his willingness to participate in peace talks and weapons limitations, his concentration on domestic problems in USSR (glasnost & perestroika), his failure to save USSR from collapse (which ultimately brought about the end). Then to satisy the criteria of 'assess' I compared it with the other explanations of why the cold war ended and assessed how important Gorbachev's contribution was to this. Oh and I tried to throw in some historiography, quotes from historians and stuff...
In the nuclear question how did people structure?
I did mine chronologically and analysed the successes/failures of each of the talks.
eg role of military industrial complex/nuclear protesters/technological development negating some of the outcomes of talks etc.
Am i different, or just retarded?
Cheers
Jackson
I did mine chronologically and analysed the successes/failures of each of the talks.
eg role of military industrial complex/nuclear protesters/technological development negating some of the outcomes of talks etc.
Am i different, or just retarded?
Cheers
Jackson
shit. i did gorbachev and screwed it up. didn't use any historiography, didn't mention other reasons for the end or anything.
i really hated those questions because i was fooled into thinking the first one was really narrow by the wording, so did gorby one then realised the first one was my trial question (for which i got 28) reworded.
bugger...
i really hated those questions because i was fooled into thinking the first one was really narrow by the wording, so did gorby one then realised the first one was my trial question (for which i got 28) reworded.
bugger...
i thought the questions were very narrow, and i went back to the syllabus and i think it just confirms what i felt - though definitely in the syllabus, part a was based on half a dot point, and part b is more a personality study. for 30 marks i don't think they were effective questions in examining and understanding of the cold war and its historiography. it was very much the 'let's try and be unexpected and sneaky'
bloody backdoor bastards
bloody backdoor bastards