seq compilation for coldwar (start) isnt fully checked
posted Oct 14, 2010 02:01:04 by rainyarrows
there are still qns on hitler's tatical errors.
oh, and can qns such as "why wad the UN formed after world war 2" come out?
is the topic of the UN tested?
[Last edited Oct 14, 2010 03:47:01]
khookymonster said Oct 14, 2010 06:41:11
UN is tested. there is no more "why did/was" type. tactical questions are old syllabus. look only at 2008-2010 qtns.
rainyarrows said Oct 16, 2010 04:14:54
but for the factor of UN, it was created to:
- replace the LON
- look into socio-economic development
- international disarmament
- resolve conflicts
- and provide COLLECTIVE security against agressors
am i right? are there any examples that i can use? thanks.
hendrikboerner said Oct 16, 2010 06:05:19
related to this, can they ask us what are the Positive and Negative outcomes of Yalta? (or was Yalta successful)
+ : Formation of UN. Agreed on German Divisions. Stalin to fight Japan. Alliances between Churchill, Stalin and FR strengthened.
- : Disagreed on Polish Divisions and Government.
(were there any more crucial stuff about Yalta to know?)
and for Potsdam, (or was Potsdam successful)
+ : (Basically agreed on the same things in Yalta apart from getting Stalin to invade Japan since USA has the Atom Bomb)
- : Atom Bomb successful, Truman's suspicion and arrogance worsened relationships, Churchill replace by Atlee, Stalin setting up Buffer states.
(are these correct?)
So that this won't seem unrelated:
Marcus: I may be wrong but there are resolving conflict examples like the Korean War, Kashmir dispute, Gulf War, formation of Israel, some successful, some not. Then for Socio-economic development, there is the Human Rights Commission and World Health Organisation and International Labour Organisation and make a few motherhood statements would be sufficient as evidence. Thats my guess anyway.
rainyarrows said Oct 16, 2010 13:56:20
Hendrik: oh thanks! was formation of israel was successful to some extent right? and the Kashmir dispute was between which countries?
for potsdasm, if i'm not wrong, alliances btw the west and stalin got worse.
(Churchill replaced Atlee and Truman replaced Roosevelt, while Stalin was there all along.)
[Last edited Oct 16, 2010 13:59:33]
khookymonster said Oct 16, 2010 14:02:15
Rainyarrows: UN in Korea, UN in cuban missile crisis,
Hendrik: Potsdam-Yalta is no longer focus on its own terms except as reason for start of cold war. that said, the deficiencies of Y-P contributed to start of cold war, whereas its merits suggest cold war was not inevitable (if there was such a question). Point is, know Y-P in context of cold war and not for its own sake; that was old syllabus. Afterall Yalta was responsible for the start stage of cold war in politicising the ideological conflict eg. division of germany -> which led to marshall plan; elections in eastern europe -> provided impetus of greece -> truman doctrine; use of atomic bomb -> defeat of japan -> threat to stalin -> limited soviet hand in post-war japan.
your discussions demonstrates a healthy handling of good facts!
rainyarrows said Oct 16, 2010 14:32:52
oh, the potsdam agreement was in jul 45, and the yalta was in feb 45.
sir, Truman became much more suspicious of communist moves than Roosevelt had been, and he became increasingly suspicious of Soviet intentions under Stalin. Truman saw Soviet actions in Eastern Europe as aggressive expansionism which was incompatible with the agreements Stalin had committed to at Yalta the previous February.
[Last edited Oct 16, 2010 15:36:20]
hendrikboerner said Oct 17, 2010 06:29:33
oh so They won't ask on Yalta and Potsdam individually, but they can ask it as a reason for the escalation of the Cold War, in which case, its because it politicised the ideological conflict, made the west and east more suspicious of each other.
Actually, I thought the West had agreed to give E.Europe as a sphere of influence to Stalin at Yalta , it was just that instead of having free elections, he abducted the non-communist leaders and put communist ones in charge.
And Truman seems like a bad guy to me, he's very suspicious and ignorant (http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/truman-confronts-molotov) and arrogant.
rainyarrows said Oct 17, 2010 13:55:16
hendrik: the west did not agree to give e.europe to stalin.
they agreed to allow free elections, however stalin wanted 'friendly communist neighbours' to act as buffer zones against the West. (also because they had been attacked through the west twice)
and since the red army had already effectively controlled the Balkan states and eastern europe, while fighting off nazi germany, he might as well take them and not let his sacrifices go to waste, even at the extent of worsening ties with the west, as he had promised not to take them during the yalta conference in feb 95.
hendrikboerner said Oct 17, 2010 14:32:41
Thats what i meant, its the same thing as a sphere of influence. (the Buffer States)
And Stalin did agree to give some East European States to the west (the Percentages Agreement ) Thats why he did not help the Greek communists fight in Greece. But its true he did not withdraw troops from some East European Countries.
Ok I think this is confusing. nevermind.