So like I said yesterday, exam season has started for me and today I sat my first exam which was history. The Superpower relations 1945 - 1990; basically, the Cold War.
Now I've been the positive guy of the exam period; I'm the one not running around like a headless chicken predicting failure of epic proportions and resitting year 13, I don't know why. I just know I can't and that it's important not to; that it's now or never. Yet, as I opened section 1 of the paper my heart sank like a rock. They were the most horrible questions in the world and if I tried to tackle them, they had more muscle then me so they'd easily throw me off. But still, had to do it so instead of doing the one I had no idea about that asked me about the 1970's and to which I replied "What the hell actually happened in the 70's?" I opted for the one I could sort of work with which talked about the arms race as something that stabilised the relationship between the US and USSR in the years 1949 - 1963.
Now, although I hate the arms race and stuff; this question we'd actually answered before in class I swear, so, in effect I already knew the answer. I knew in my gut that building weapons to kill each other is no way to say you're friends, so... I went with that talking about the dropping of the atomic bomb (even though it was before our allotted time) as the cause of the arms race and with the use of espionage and the desperation of both sides it was obvious the arms race was not actually helpful at all. In fact, the presence of Nuclear weapons made it worse then it already was. So, as well as these spies and stuff the Post Stalin Thaw was a huge part of the time we were allotted and I knew about the Thaw, I'd revised the Thaw so I can rant about how that seems to actually give the impression that the arms race is making things better but in fact with the arms race Peaceful coexistence doesn't really exist. When the other side are also looking at military applications. They aren't being peaceful. So I could go on about that.
What I actually had to argue was the fact it was the prospect of using nuclear weapons rather then their presence Korea saw hesitation at the threat of nuclear war on Chinese borders; then we see that in Cuba when the US did not like the fact nukes were on their doorstep and it cause the Cuban Missle Crisis. Cuba almost kicked off, even with the presence of nukes it was the thought of using them that stopped it.
And like, yeah, I was behind I was expecting to use my extra time in order to get the question I knew I'd struggle with. That's how bad section 1 was for me. I wasn't scared just worried. But I got through, I was grateful and I knew I could push forward. As you do.
Section 2 though, fricking BOOM! I mean Reagan... REAGAN!? I've been revising that man, all over him like a rash! And it was pretty sweet. Everything I needed was in the sources and I kept my essay firmly routed in the sources with dribs and drabs of own knowledge here and there because it was a source question. All I knew was the sources agreed with me that Reagan's policy was not what the main cause was; I saw it was more Gorbachev and other stuff that tore down the foundations of the Soviet union. So that question to me was actually sexable I think. Yes, that's right sexable. I would have made that paper feel like a real women, ha ha.
Anyway, I think it went okay. I pulled it out on Section 2, even though Section 1 was such a pig I managed to make it through and get it done. Even though I now wish I could write in exams like I do on this blog; it'd be nice to be able to articulate like I do here, be as personal and passionate as I am on here but hey-ho. It's done I did my best, I finished with two minutes to go when I was expecting to use my extra time, I didn't though which makes me feel better. Cause I don't feel like a retard now.
So, 1 out of 3 done! Sweeeeet!