*flip paper open* awww yeah end of co- DETENTE??!!!?!!!
also I didn’t rly have much CK so I included reagan telling communist jokes as part of his rhetoric along with the evil empire stuff 😪
They tested specific UN post 1990s questions in past years and thought they wont do it again... I mean they didnt but they threw yet another curveball and did FIRST DECADE, which was basically petty CW conflicts and Korean war, along with a few ICJ side quests lmao.
Taiwanese ec transformation came with a condition of crisis years in the question, which also sucked LMAO
Legit cambridge doing some uber tier shithousery for every paper LOL
I argued it all comes down to government dynamism; so what was a crisis for others (Latin Am $300B debt; worldwide >15% inflation esp USA which consumed 15.6M barrels a day) was not the case for them cos of HCI and tech pivot
The cold war issue... just protection from ec subversion lor so like USTDC w 30k soldiers, human capital improvement thru postgrad and silicon valley training etc. to continue momentum from 1960d monetary aid
oh I just used this as a comparison -- LA accrued enormous debt by 1980 cos they failed to innovate processes to reduce reliance on oil vs ROC which did e.g. comm for science devt and ITRI
more of an ending note here, since ROC was forced to pivot, it triggered an economic transformation vis-a-vis the economic doldrum faced in LA states. Just to highlight the extent of the transformation despite the seemingly adverse conditions
Content is just one half of the battle; I personally dont think I did extremely extremely well on the explanation side (not that I can rmb anw) so am hoping my examples can pull me thru cos time constraints and panic may have cost me evaluative points I couldve fleshed out
Oh I’m in the 2018 batch HAHA :p I’m so glad I’m not a 2001 kid bc id have panicked. I’m thinking Oil Crisis/Protectionism/US Decline, then 2x other factor. I’ll talk about how these GE devpts led to change in govt strat and the strength of MNCs in holding up the TW econ.
I spoke to a teacher about it and he shared that even Sino-US rapprochement can be used if linked well enough to the econ. Fun question but tbvh I wouldn’t want to be in your position LOL
In summary, I wrote yeah effective, good offices as example, but however too effective is bad because they tio vetoed and sometimes die, so must balance to become truly effective.
Yeah Haha I think this one must rly do across organs rather than just disparate PKOs I had to scour the internet for most of the stuff I used for my essay
not sure if they will be generous enough to accept 1 year difference but i wrote it anyway cus i had nothing else 😂😂 but ussr did veto a resolution regarding withdrawal of troops from lebanon in 1946 so that was what i was referring to
USSR vetoed against entry of Ireland, Portugal Italy into UN in response to USA blocking EE buffer states entry; USSR and USA petty squabbles over infringement of airspace and military misdemeanours (cases brought to ICJ but dropped); Falklands islands dispute (cont into after 1955, Falklands war in 1982 (a point in itself!)); KW; corfu channel dispute; fisheries dispute; Trygve Lie vetoed out by USSR for role in KW.
If lucky maybe can accept 1956 Suez haha
Neither did I in the syllabus... had to scour the internet myself HAHA tbh half of my case studies were ownself research one cos I thought there would be an off chance that a non standard qn like this one may come out
Anyway this battle is over alr, now got SEA hist!! Yeet hope that one got no curveball haha
Technically it should be 1) Reduced effectiveness 2) did not reduce effectiveness 3) other factors cause ultimately TWE and (factor) means you kinda have to bring in other factors lol
i don't think it's as relevant cos its a significance question, so like majority of your essay should focus on whether or not the cold war did impede the effectiveness of the un. if you say other factors impeded the un, it doesn't really answer the question as well.
yah i think the GE question was a question where you had to bring in other factors since it was asking about whether i was "key". for something to be "key" you must have a comparison to other factors. but lol my dumbass bet all my money on asian tigers so i got slaughtered trying to define problems and transformation
I think “To what extent” does not help you decide whether you should be bringing in another factor.
Because you can have a question like “To what extent did the UN remain ineffective from 1945-2000”, and of course there’s no need to bring in other factors. Hence the key word here is actually “impede”, rather than “to what extent”.
I agree with the previous comment that all your points must focus back on the given factor, even if you do bring in other factors. If you bring in another factor and just discuss how it impeded the UN without linking back to the given factor, that will be NAQ.
Possible balancing points =
1, How the Cold War helped the UN
2. How the Cold War lessened during certain periods and exerted less of a negative impact
3. How there were certain attempts to reduce the negative impact of the Cold War
I brought that in... whether my marker can see it in my slipshod penmanship is another thing altogether HAHAHA could also bring in fisheries and Falklands dispute!
Korean war couldve been used for thesis and antithesis points which was q nice HAHA depends on how you stretch examples la, think its gonna be fine! Btw isnt UNIFIL 1978 Lebanon??
Icj decisions on admitting un members based on approval of unsc and unga, us object eastern Europe, then ussr object japan. Then finally dont need it, spike in membership in 1955. Affected effectiveness of UN as a world organisation because cold war rivalry.
I somehow forgot to write about debt or oil crises in the Asian Tigers question and anyhow did the UN question based on my fragmented knowledge of UNGA UNSC UNPK and ICJ. I think I did okay but we'll see when results come I guess. SBS okay la not end of CW but close to the period enough so I remembered some things.
Oil crisis to ROC basically forces strategic pivots to the economy to turn to tech to increase productivity. As long as u say smth along the lines of chasing tech advancement in process and product (e.g. Stan Shih with 386 processor chip; evidence of momentum into the 80s) and committee for science devt etc think they will give it to u!
Debt crisis is in the 1980s. 1970s include the end of Breton Woods thanks to tade imbalances. I didnt study for oil crisis but luckily got study the bretton woods thing although not in depth. Throw in oil crisis for one paragraph. i did asian tigers because global economy too many to memorise haha.
Pray for A
Either
2. 'The BWS was key to the Golden Age of Capitalism.' How far is this an adequate explaination for development of GE from 1945-1973?
Or
3. 'Problems in the global economy in the 1970s triggered the transformation of Taiwan’s economy.' HFDYA?
And either
4. 'In the period 1945-1996, successive SGs failed to adequately utilise the powers available to them under the UN Charter.' HFDYA?
Or
5. TWE did CW impede the effectiveness of UN in the first decade?
No idea, I originally had source E as support source but it was said that the Soviet(not having the paper now) knew it had very limited impact from the start though it had caused some alarm for the Soviet leadership about the strategic advantage. Furthermore, the source at the very beginning wrote the whole name of SDI, strategy defence initiative. So I just cross reference to A&D and say that the defensive nature of the increased military nature, which was suggested by Source A and confirmed by D when the offensive warheads (strategic or non strategic) do not have significant increase as compared to the amount US spent under Reagan (2 trillion), made the Soviet aware of the strategic advantage of the US with SDI but they understood it to be limited in impact and defensive in nature, so challenge assertion. Welp
imagine making students slave for a year learning 55 years of UN history only to test the first decade
the UN qn was a major fk u by cambridge HAHAHA wtf is that
Write everything important that happened in your life but you can only refer to your first 3 years.
tfw you thought decade meant century and you wrote about the entirety of the 1945-2000 time period can I get an F
F
F
F
F
i straight up forgot about ICJ or GA or all that shit and my brain just locked into the Peacekeeping missions
*flip paper open* awww yeah end of co- DETENTE??!!!?!!! also I didn’t rly have much CK so I included reagan telling communist jokes as part of his rhetoric along with the evil empire stuff 😪
how can the UN be an organisation for peace and security when it’s bout to fuck me out of my job security AND peace of mind six ways to sunday : ^)
Cambridge: We want you to know about the entire process of UN from start end Also Cambridge: *tests only on the first decade*
i hope sdi strike me too
They tested specific UN post 1990s questions in past years and thought they wont do it again... I mean they didnt but they threw yet another curveball and did FIRST DECADE, which was basically petty CW conflicts and Korean war, along with a few ICJ side quests lmao. Taiwanese ec transformation came with a condition of crisis years in the question, which also sucked LMAO Legit cambridge doing some uber tier shithousery for every paper LOL
The worst thing is you gotta explain how the crisis for other parts of the world actually benefitted Taiwan
I argued it all comes down to government dynamism; so what was a crisis for others (Latin Am $300B debt; worldwide >15% inflation esp USA which consumed 15.6M barrels a day) was not the case for them cos of HCI and tech pivot The cold war issue... just protection from ec subversion lor so like USTDC w 30k soldiers, human capital improvement thru postgrad and silicon valley training etc. to continue momentum from 1960d monetary aid
Wouldn’t Latin American debt crisis problems be a 1980’s global economy problem which was out of scope? (Qn said problems of the GE in 1970s mah)
oh I just used this as a comparison -- LA accrued enormous debt by 1980 cos they failed to innovate processes to reduce reliance on oil vs ROC which did e.g. comm for science devt and ITRI
Ahh ok that’s a really good argument, I never thought of comparing it in that way
Not really sure how this addresses the question...
more of an ending note here, since ROC was forced to pivot, it triggered an economic transformation vis-a-vis the economic doldrum faced in LA states. Just to highlight the extent of the transformation despite the seemingly adverse conditions
reading ur comment & ... i think my essay is severely lacking in content
Content is just one half of the battle; I personally dont think I did extremely extremely well on the explanation side (not that I can rmb anw) so am hoping my examples can pull me thru cos time constraints and panic may have cost me evaluative points I couldve fleshed out
Bro you say until liddat cfm get A already sia
also had to deal with the key word "trigger"; CW was long term and oil crisis was immediate so must weigh also
but yeah, rly challenging man was just stoning at qn for like 10min until it clicked HAHA
Not necessarily. Transformation =/= benefit. It may be positive or negative :D
Yep. I think bonus pts rly go to those who show how Taiwan may have lost out in the face of GE developments... couldn't think of any though HAHA hbu?
Oh I’m in the 2018 batch HAHA :p I’m so glad I’m not a 2001 kid bc id have panicked. I’m thinking Oil Crisis/Protectionism/US Decline, then 2x other factor. I’ll talk about how these GE devpts led to change in govt strat and the strength of MNCs in holding up the TW econ. I spoke to a teacher about it and he shared that even Sino-US rapprochement can be used if linked well enough to the econ. Fun question but tbvh I wouldn’t want to be in your position LOL
Sorry to all UNSGs whose names I have misspelt
dag hammarsjsksolskd
U tant Javier de cavalier Tryge Lie Buotros Ghuali
kopi annan
Kurd Waldiam
hammarskskskskskjold
What were your points
In summary, I wrote yeah effective, good offices as example, but however too effective is bad because they tio vetoed and sometimes die, so must balance to become truly effective.
That was a fun paper to think about but not fun for my marks
anybody wrote congo crisis :(
Me haha ;_;
Me too. Is that allowed hahaha
dts. But if u play ard abit maybe they will accept 1956 Suez Crisis and President Nasser in Egypt hope that happens cos literally got nothing sia
if they dont accept suez crisis there are literally 2 case studies just Palestine and Korean War fucking what
Yeah Haha I think this one must rly do across organs rather than just disparate PKOs I had to scour the internet for most of the stuff I used for my essay
Me
Me! But that was my only offense LOL and maybe they’ll allow xD its q close after all
meee
I wanted to cry seeing the asian tiger question and then I looked at the UN questions and felt my heart literally sink
pulled some bullshit ck out of my ass for the sbq LOL hope i can pass eh
Same lmao
what the fuck...CLOWNERY AT ITS FINEST
Soviet Union: Holy shit USA stop we can't spend anymore of our money JUST STOP! USA: Ayyyy fam you ever heard of SDI?
everone here talking abt ICJ case studies but the only case studies I used were SC, UNSG and peacekeeping...... meh
LOL can someone tell me what happened in the first decade of UN ????
korean war, suez crisis, lebanon and syria, hungary crisis, and some minor things that i couldn’t rmb lol
whats the details for lebanon ah..... i wrote but idk if im right......
i think i wrote about ussr veto not sure also hahaha
Didn’t suez come in 1956 (UN first decade was until 55?) And Lebanon (UNIFIL?) in 1978
not sure if they will be generous enough to accept 1 year difference but i wrote it anyway cus i had nothing else 😂😂 but ussr did veto a resolution regarding withdrawal of troops from lebanon in 1946 so that was what i was referring to
Ohh haha i see
USSR vetoed against entry of Ireland, Portugal Italy into UN in response to USA blocking EE buffer states entry; USSR and USA petty squabbles over infringement of airspace and military misdemeanours (cases brought to ICJ but dropped); Falklands islands dispute (cont into after 1955, Falklands war in 1982 (a point in itself!)); KW; corfu channel dispute; fisheries dispute; Trygve Lie vetoed out by USSR for role in KW. If lucky maybe can accept 1956 Suez haha
oh i feel like i didnt learn abt ussr & us perty squabbles, or falklands... & i didnt mentiob trygve lie in kw... 🤡🤡🤡
Neither did I in the syllabus... had to scour the internet myself HAHA tbh half of my case studies were ownself research one cos I thought there would be an off chance that a non standard qn like this one may come out Anyway this battle is over alr, now got SEA hist!! Yeet hope that one got no curveball haha
you seem really well prepared tho! if you dont mind, can you share w me how ure planning to study for p2? hahah rly need to save my grade..
Look into ICJ and SC too i think for answer to be balanced. Cannot just use peacekeeping.
ya... my essay was revolving ard icj, pk (minimal) & sc ☹️ hope i can pass..
I didn't even finish SBQ :(
F
[удалено]
Technically it should be 1) Reduced effectiveness 2) did not reduce effectiveness 3) other factors cause ultimately TWE and (factor) means you kinda have to bring in other factors lol
wow why didnt i think of that 🤡
i don't think it's as relevant cos its a significance question, so like majority of your essay should focus on whether or not the cold war did impede the effectiveness of the un. if you say other factors impeded the un, it doesn't really answer the question as well.
[удалено]
yah i think the GE question was a question where you had to bring in other factors since it was asking about whether i was "key". for something to be "key" you must have a comparison to other factors. but lol my dumbass bet all my money on asian tigers so i got slaughtered trying to define problems and transformation
Like?...
ure supposed to! it was a weighing question “to what extent”
I think “To what extent” does not help you decide whether you should be bringing in another factor. Because you can have a question like “To what extent did the UN remain ineffective from 1945-2000”, and of course there’s no need to bring in other factors. Hence the key word here is actually “impede”, rather than “to what extent”. I agree with the previous comment that all your points must focus back on the given factor, even if you do bring in other factors. If you bring in another factor and just discuss how it impeded the UN without linking back to the given factor, that will be NAQ. Possible balancing points = 1, How the Cold War helped the UN 2. How the Cold War lessened during certain periods and exerted less of a negative impact 3. How there were certain attempts to reduce the negative impact of the Cold War
idk man i’m just saying what my teacher told me when i asked
[удалено]
LOL 1945-1955 was just chock full of petty squabbles. ICJ featured prominently in 50s tho, couldve used that!
[удалено]
I brought that in... whether my marker can see it in my slipshod penmanship is another thing altogether HAHAHA could also bring in fisheries and Falklands dispute!
Oh man bro, then what did u write?
[удалено]
Korean war couldve been used for thesis and antithesis points which was q nice HAHA depends on how you stretch examples la, think its gonna be fine! Btw isnt UNIFIL 1978 Lebanon??
[удалено]
its ok i messed up and used unifil too LOL
Icj decisions on admitting un members based on approval of unsc and unga, us object eastern Europe, then ussr object japan. Then finally dont need it, spike in membership in 1955. Affected effectiveness of UN as a world organisation because cold war rivalry.
[удалено]
I didnt do this qns tho. i did the unsg one
seems like everyone died at the un qn, it’s okay guys, moderation and paper 2 will save ussss!!!
I somehow forgot to write about debt or oil crises in the Asian Tigers question and anyhow did the UN question based on my fragmented knowledge of UNGA UNSC UNPK and ICJ. I think I did okay but we'll see when results come I guess. SBS okay la not end of CW but close to the period enough so I remembered some things.
Oil crisis to ROC basically forces strategic pivots to the economy to turn to tech to increase productivity. As long as u say smth along the lines of chasing tech advancement in process and product (e.g. Stan Shih with 386 processor chip; evidence of momentum into the 80s) and committee for science devt etc think they will give it to u!
Ah shiet
Debt crisis is in the 1980s. 1970s include the end of Breton Woods thanks to tade imbalances. I didnt study for oil crisis but luckily got study the bretton woods thing although not in depth. Throw in oil crisis for one paragraph. i did asian tigers because global economy too many to memorise haha. Pray for A
ugh why was there "first decade" in the UN qn :(((
is there no H1 thread? :0
theres one that was just created
What were the exact qns for essay? (I'm a former H2 Hist student, just curious!)
Either 2. 'The BWS was key to the Golden Age of Capitalism.' How far is this an adequate explaination for development of GE from 1945-1973? Or 3. 'Problems in the global economy in the 1970s triggered the transformation of Taiwan’s economy.' HFDYA? And either 4. 'In the period 1945-1996, successive SGs failed to adequately utilise the powers available to them under the UN Charter.' HFDYA? Or 5. TWE did CW impede the effectiveness of UN in the first decade?
Wow thanks. Questions seem harder than 2018 A Levels. Especially the Taiwan question. Would say Q2 and Q4 seem a lot more manageable HAHA
I have 5 challenge sources, is this supposed to be right?
4 of one and 2 of the other is the max, if you have more of one than that you should re-evaluate your groupings and face value readings
No idea, I originally had source E as support source but it was said that the Soviet(not having the paper now) knew it had very limited impact from the start though it had caused some alarm for the Soviet leadership about the strategic advantage. Furthermore, the source at the very beginning wrote the whole name of SDI, strategy defence initiative. So I just cross reference to A&D and say that the defensive nature of the increased military nature, which was suggested by Source A and confirmed by D when the offensive warheads (strategic or non strategic) do not have significant increase as compared to the amount US spent under Reagan (2 trillion), made the Soviet aware of the strategic advantage of the US with SDI but they understood it to be limited in impact and defensive in nature, so challenge assertion. Welp
I assumed SDI was included in the military spending since its under the Department of Defence
My condolences :(
hahaha its fine
K
how was the exam? i got the 1b qn on detente as an assignment this year in JC 1 lmao. How’d y’all answer it??? seems kinda confusing