Section III - Studies in Peace and Conflict (1 Viewer)

[laureng]

i did the cold war and it sucked i went really well in germany and ww1 but cold war ohh my i found it really hard i only wrote like 4pages on the conflicts and stuff i thought it was a hard question

 

[johnny_87]

Conflict in the Pacific 25a) Strategies of Allied forces

I got 26/30 in the CSSA trial for a similar question (why Japan failed to consolidate power after Pearl Harbor), but I mentioned more in this question. Very happy with it!

 

[jackal8]

25b

very general, incorporated ...

everything

 

[snickerdoodle]

For Arab Israeli i did 24 a) but i didnt even know wat pan-arab nationalism meant wat did anyone else write who did the same?

Mmm I went with >> 1948 war, nationalisation of Suez Canal, Six Day War and Yom Kippur, incorporating the Arab League and terrorism that caused a rift amongst Arab states (like Black Spetember). It was basically centred around how Israel had become a common cause for them, and they continually went to war under the guise of helping Palestinians but besides allowing them to stay in their countries no one really factored them into the equation at all. A lot of it was based around Egypt who constantly went to war to "restore Egyptian pride" and create a nationalistic feling. Oh, and the creation of the PLO.

I felt the Arab/Israeli questions were extremely narrow. Sucks for me because I know a lot about the PLO and the Peace Process. Still, I think I did ok. Hopefully.

 

[mauz]

I did Cold War USSR policies question, coz like protesters? What? Did anyone do anything on protesters? Because I don't recall doing anything on protest groups except for a five second mention that "yeah they were there, ban the bomb hippies, the government pretty much ignored them so yeah. But it was good, I took the line that the USSR was not to blame, but only interested in securing its own national security, and if USA/Brit. had done more to ensure that at Yalta/Potsdam then Stalin wouldn't have been so firm with eastern bloc. I did Korea indepth, about how it was war by proxy but essentially example of American policies. I also mention Berlin, Cuba and invasion of Afghanistan - though that wasn't really a huge crises, and talked about how what stage the cold war was in affected policy eg. Vietnam soviets didn't really get involved because of detente. pretty good, but only wrote two booklets, so maybe a 20/30.

 

[chockie]

i did Ireland...anyone else?

It was ok, i was hoping for a question on the British troops but the Provisional IRA was ok I guess. I had no idea for b. I first read about the 1998 Easter agreement at five to nine this morning.

 

[a8o]

haha silly Board of Studies

and conflict in the pacific was fairly good only cause i learnt strategies last night and could incorporate the biggest bullshit of the course in there (the atomic bomb)

so i'm hoping to get fairly good for that.

thank god i only screwed up Germany

Me too, I didn't even look at any other aspect of the war except for the reasons American strategies were superior. I just wrote a relative fuckload.

 

[nwatts]

Mmm I went with >> 1948 war, nationalisation of Suez Canal, Six Day War and Yom Kippur, incorporating the Arab League and terrorism that caused a rift amongst Arab states (like Black Spetember). It was basically centred around how Israel had become a common cause for them, and they continually went to war under the guise of helping Palestinians but besides allowing them to stay in their countries no one really factored them into the equation at all. A lot of it was based around Egypt who constantly went to war to "restore Egyptian pride" and create a nationalistic feling. Oh, and the creation of the PLO.

I felt the Arab/Israeli questions were extremely narrow. Sucks for me because I know a lot about the PLO and the Peace Process. Still, I think I did ok. Hopefully.

Hrmm.. I introduced with the Suez Crisis and how that led to the PLO, then dicussed how terrorism affected the area and how it was a direct result of pan-Arab nationalism. Then I weaved in a bit of the 6-Day War/Syria-Egypt join before time ran out. As you said, way too specific,

 

[Skryp]

Fuck I would have killed for those Arab-Israeli questions you guys got haha...Pan-Arab Nationalism and Terrorism...my god...The questions last year were puss. You guys should think yourselves lucky haha hope you all did well with whatever came to you but ay. Best of luck in the results.

 

[stv_87]

the anti=war wasnt as such why anti war came about. the question was based upon troop withdrawal and influenceof anti-war had on acceleration of this withdrawal. it was based on vietnamisation and how that was effected by anti-war

 

[roadcone]

i did Ireland...anyone else?

It was ok, i was hoping for a question on the British troops but the Provisional IRA was ok I guess. I had no idea for b. I first read about the 1998 Easter agreement at five to nine this morning.

yes, yes i did ireland too.

yay another person who didn't do either indochina or the cold war.

i did part b

 

[Nadia-Jane]

yeah i would definately be interested in finding out whether anybody at all answered the protestor cold war question. haha i read it and quite literally laughed, i can with complete certainty say that not once did i ever hear a thing about protestors mentioned during the entire cold war topic let alone compile a 30 mark essay on the damn thing.

Ahwell i did the other one then obviously, i wrote about the cuban missile crisis. Im interested in what other people actually wrote about for this question, because i basically just mainly spoke about how the crises occurred, why it occured, how it was due to the acts of agression on behalf of the USSR and how they wanted to spread communism, talked about stuff like the arms race, etc.

But i dont think i properly answered the question, because i really dont know too much about specific USSR policies that contributed to the crises. Ahwell what did you guys write about for that particular question?

 

[fleepbasding]

for cold war I had a radical thesis that USSR's 'peaceful co-existence' despite the apparent peacefulness of the policy was actually a factor in the cuban missile crisis. In retrospect, I doubt the marker's feeble mind will be able to understand my reasoning, and in many senses I don't blame them. In further retrospect, the link between missile crisis and peaceful co-existence is indeed a little tenuous... ha ha ha.

besides that little fruity idea I just did the standard Soviet expansionism and establishing sattelite states (with roots in Marxist-Leninist notions of world communism) and how that was a factor in Cuba. And then ballanced that with the American policy's which also caused crisis ie- imperialistic and containment... and eventually concluded that the Soviet policys were a major factor. I only talked about Cuba (59-61).

 

[johnny_87]

I can't sleep and am really bored, so for everyone who did the Conflict of Pacific did you speak about anything in the Allied strategy question I didn't mention?

I mentioned:

'Germany first'
Tactics - defensive and reactive until Guadalcanal
Allied command initally disagreed:
- MacArthur - not ready
- King - navy ready
Coral Sea - turning point - first time Jap halted and allowed US to ship supplies to Aus.
Midway - Magic and ship-mounted radar
Loss of Yamamoto - Japan lacked leader with tactical nouse and imagination.
Orde Windgate's 'Chindits' in Burma - disrupt Japanese activities - sabotage, guerilla attacks.
Dual advance (double thrust) strategy - central and southern push
Leap-frogging/island hopping - less casualties, shorter war.
Flexible task forces probe at Japanese perimeter and maintain initiative - link to numerical advantage as result of economy
US factories free from bombing
US subs - blockade, sunk naval and merchant ships - link to preventing Japan from importing resources and exporting goods
US air superiority - daily bombing raids - destroyed factories - link to shortage of supplies (above)
Atomic bomb

I think that about covers it. Still didn't bore me enough to make me tired!

 

[Peartie]

I did Cold War USSR policies question, coz like protesters? What? Did anyone do anything on protesters? Because I don't recall doing anything on protest groups except for a five second mention that "yeah they were there, ban the bomb hippies, the government pretty much ignored them so yeah. But it was good, I took the line that the USSR was not to blame, but only interested in securing its own national security, and if USA/Brit. had done more to ensure that at Yalta/Potsdam then Stalin wouldn't have been so firm with eastern bloc. I did Korea indepth, about how it was war by proxy but essentially example of American policies. I also mention Berlin, Cuba and invasion of Afghanistan - though that wasn't really a huge crises, and talked about how what stage the cold war was in affected policy eg. Vietnam soviets didn't really get involved because of detente. pretty good, but only wrote two booklets, so maybe a 20/30.

ONLY 2 booklets...as in 16 pages?!!? HOW?!?

Any way I did pretty much the same as u...talked about Korea i depth and then discussed Cuba, Afghanistan and Poland/Hungarian uprising. I also said how the Soviet Policies may have started the crises but the American policies were also pushing the crises further along and prolonging them

 

[cimbom]

... maybe 4pg booklets? For some crazy reason- we got 4pg booklets for National Study, and then 8pg for Conflict... everybody was asking for more booklets.

 

[starbaaa]

Yeah, I got 2x4 pg booklets and 1x8 pg booklet. I took it to mean national studies in 4 pg and conflict in 8 pg... but it was annoying! I ended up writing 5 pages for both national studies questions. Asking for extra booklets eats up time...

 

[Silver Persian]

Well I did the nuclear protest question, and it wasn't as bad as it seemed at first. I got 15 pages, cause you could talk about all the attempts to limit weaponry and then assess if nuclear protest movements were influential. Which they werent

But we also didnt learn much about nuclear protester...luckily I studied it at home

 

[kouklitsa]

i did cold war i liked the ussr policy question but i was a bit stumped at the refer to at least one crisis in depth.
i refered to berlin and otehr policies briefly but focused on the cuban crisis.. but saying that i didnt focus on the cuban crisis as much as id hoped bcuz i wasnt sure if the q wanted us jst to talk bout cuba or bring in other policies...

wat did u guys write? just info on ur main crisis?

i basically focused on the policies and how they added to the cold war tensions and exacerbated.. drawing on my Berlin crisis stuff but always going back to the overall cold war.. BUT i didnt argue that they were totally responsible... i said the US had a role to play in causing the cold war as well. i added historiographical stuff too .. like the traditionalists who believed USSR was repsonsible, then revisionists who blamed US then post-revisionists and radical post revisionists.. i vaguely mentioned some of the other conflicts as well. OH YES.. and i talked about gorbachevs policies which were a radical departure from the previous soviet policies.. and as a result not only brought about the end of the USSR, but the cold war.. and said that was an indication that the USSR's previous policies had played a pretty big role in causing the cold war.

 

[supergirl]

Giant rant, here I come!
I do Arab-Israeli and I was really looking forward to that section. I was a bit disappointed by the narrow focus though, and during the reading time glanced over the United Nations questions and realised they were THE easiest things EVER. The second one was basically the effectiveness of the UN in regards to two conflicts - would have been sweet! I spent ten minutes talking myself out of attempting the UN unit's question because I do World Order for Legal Studies and it would have been SO great, but the markers would realise that everyone else did Arab-Israeli and it would probably disadvantage me somehow.
Oh well.

I ended up doing Arab-Israeli part b), the one on the PLO and the Hamas. Someone in my class thought the Hamas was a Jewish organisation, hahahaha.