Hello, I'm Mr. Marchant, and I'll be your history teacher for today.

I'm really looking forward to starting our learning journey together, and my role will be to make sure that you can meet today's learning objective.

Welcome to today's lesson, which is part of our unit on the development of the Cold War, where we're asking ourselves: how peaceful was peaceful coexistence? By the end of today's lesson, you'll be able to explain why there were hopes for improved superpower relations in the early 1950s.

There are three key words which will help us navigate our way through today's lesson.

Those are arms race, inevitable, and summit.

An arms race is a situation in which two or more countries try to have more and stronger weapons than each other.

If something's inevitable, then you cannot avoid or prevent it from happening.

And a summit is a meeting between different nations or political powers where key issues and problems are discussed.

Today's lesson will be split into two parts, and we'll begin by thinking about Cold War changes in the 1950s.

By the early 1950s, the Cold War had been ongoing for several years.

During this time, relations between the superpowers, so the USA and the USSR, and between East and West more broadly had remained tense.

By 1953, there was growing optimism, however, that Cold War tensions might be eased.

Several factors contributed to this rising optimism, including the Korean War, the arms race, and new leadership.

So we'll think about each of these different factors in turn.

The Korean War began in 1950, and the conflict saw the US and the USSR support different sides.

Whilst the US fought alongside the South Koreans, the Soviet Union backed the North Koreans, and when the Chinese became involved in the conflict, supported them as well.

This increased tensions between the two superpowers in the early 1950s.

However, in 1953, fighting was finally brought to an end as an armistice, an end to the conflict, was agreed.

The end of the war and the acceptance of the division of Korea removed a major source of tension, helping to stabilise the situation between the USA and the USSR.

Similarly, as the conflict ended, the chance of an accidental escalation into war between the USA and USSR because of events in Korea was also removed.

So thinking about what we've just heard, I want you to change one word to correct the following statement, which reads: The Korean War, which saw the US and USSR support different sides, began in 1953, reducing the tensions between them.

So which word is incorrect, and what should it be changed to? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to check your answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said the word began should have been changed to ended.

The Korean War, which saw the US and the USSR support different sides, ended in 1953, reducing the tensions between the two superpowers.

Another factor which contributed to growing optimism about the prospect of reducing tensions was the arms race.

Competition to develop nuclear weapons was incredibly expensive for both the USA and the USSR.

Whereas the USA had already been spending $13.

5 billion on arms in 1949, this had risen to 49.

6 billion by 1953, in large part triggered by increased focus on developing hydrogen bombs after the USSR successfully developed their own nuclear weapons in 1949.

In the same way, we can see that over that same period of four years, from 1949 to 1953, spending on arms virtually doubled in the Soviet Union, showing that both countries were going to incredible lengths to ensure that their armies were strong and that their opponent didn't gain an advantage on them.

Because of these high expenses, there was some desire in both the US and the USSR to end the arms race and avoid further rising costs.

Many officials also hoped to find ways of avoiding the dangers of nuclear war because the arms race was producing ever more and ever more powerful nuclear bombs, this really heightened the intention of both Soviet and American leaders to try and make sure that nuclear war could be avoided if possible.

So let's make sure we have a secure understanding of what we've just heard.

We have a statement on the screen that reads: The arms race was very expensive for both the US and the USSR.

Is that statement true or false? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to check your answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the statement was true, but we need to be able to justify our response, so two justifications have appeared on the screen.

The first says that Soviet arm spending nearly doubled and US spending almost quadrupled between 1949 and 1953.

The second justification says that Soviet and US arms spending doubled between 1949 and 1951, though it began to decrease thereafter.

So which one of those two justifications is correct? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the correct justification was A.

Soviet arm spending nearly doubled and US spending almost quadrupled between 1949 and 1953, especially as both sides competed over the development of more powerful nuclear weapons.

Another factor which encouraged optimism was new leadership in both the USSR and the USA.

So if we start by thinking about new leadership in the Soviet Union: In 1953, Joseph Stalin died after more than two decades leading his country.

Over the next three years, Nikita Khrushchev emerged as the leader of the USSR.

Unlike Stalin, Khrushchev argued that conflict was not inevitable between capitalist and communist countries.

Khrushchev argued that despite their differences, peaceful coexistence was possible between the USA and the USSR.

So thinking about what we've just heard, who emerged as the new leader of the USSR in the 1950s after the death of Stalin? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the correct answer was Nikita Khrushchev.

There was also new leadership in the USA at the start of the 1950s.

In 1953, Dwight D.

Eisenhower became US President.

Eisenhower was an anti-communist.

Like President Truman before him, he supported containment policies.

He was not a fan of the Soviet Union.

However, Eisenhower believed it was important to avoid a superpower conflict and was more accepting than President Truman had been of the need for negotiations with communist states.

So thinking about what we've just heard, I want you to identify a similarity between Eisenhower's and Khrushchev's approach to superpower relations.

Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to check your answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that a similarity between their approaches was that both Eisenhower and Khrushchev believed it might be possible to avoid conflict between the superpowers.

In Khrushchev's case, this idea was summarised for his belief in peaceful coexistence.

So we're now ready to put all of our knowledge about changes in the Cold War during the 1950s into practise.

You have a table with four factors presented in it: the Korean War, the arms race, new US leadership, and new Soviet leadership.

For each of those factors, briefly explain why it encouraged hopes that the Cold War would ease during the 1950s.

So pause the video here and press play when you're ready to reflect on your responses.

Okay, well done for all of your hard work on that task.

So I asked you to briefly explain why each of the factors in the table encouraged hopes that the Cold War would ease during the 1950s, and your answers may have included: For the Korean War, that the war ended in 1953, removing a major source of tension from US-Soviet relations.

For the arms race, you may have said that it cost the Soviets over $25 billion and the US nearly $50 billion by 1953, so both sides looked for ways to end it.

For new US leadership, you may have said that President Eisenhower came to power in 1953 and believed it was important to negotiate with communist powers.

And for new Soviet leadership, you may have said that Nikita Khrushchev argued that conflict was not inevitable and peaceful coexistence was possible between the superpowers.

So really well done if your own answers look something like those models which we've just seen.

And now we're ready to move on to the second part of our lesson for today, where we're going to think about the 1955 Geneva Summit.

A major opportunity to demonstrate the possibility of peaceful coexistence arose in 1955.

In Geneva, a city in Switzerland, a summit was organised between the leaders of the USA, USSR, Britain, and France.

So thinking about what we just heard, which countries attended the 1955 Geneva Summit? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answers.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the countries who attended the 1955 Geneva Summit were the USA, USSR, Britain, and France.

In 1955, leaders and officials from the USA, USSR, Britain, and France, sometimes referred to as the Big Four, met for a four-power summit in Geneva.

This was the first summit attended by the leaders of both the USA and USSR since the 1945 Potsdam Conference 10 years earlier.

The Geneva Summit was the second time in just two years that the foreign ministers of the Big Four had met together, following a previous conference in Berlin in 1954.

Before the Berlin Conference, there had been no high-level meetings between Soviet and American leaders since 1949.

Many people viewed the willingness of the superpowers to meet at Geneva as an indication that peaceful coexistence was a realistic prospect.

At Geneva, a range of issues were discussed, including arms negotiations, German unification, conflicts in Asia, and nuclear warfare.

President Eisenhower also proposed an Open Skies agreement.

This agreement would have allowed the powers to conduct unarmed monitoring flights over each other's territory in order to reduce concerns about weapon stockpiling.

However, Cold War suspicions continued, and the Open Skies plan was rejected by the Soviet Union as Nikita Khrushchev called it an espionage plot or a spying plot.

In fact, the powers were unable to come to any specific agreements during the summit.

One journalist for the "New York Times" reported that the summit had descended into a propaganda battle between the United States and the Soviet Union.

Nevertheless, many people considered the Geneva Summit an important moment for superpower relations.

Despite the lack of agreements, the USA and USSR had successfully broken the ice and demonstrated that it was possible to negotiate with one another.

Further talks between the foreign ministers of the Big Four took place just a few months later in 1955.

So let's make sure we have a secure understanding of everything we just heard about the 1955 Geneva Summit.

Before the Geneva Summit, when was the last time a US president met the leader of the USSR? Was it 1945, 1949, or 1953? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the correct answer was A.

Before the Geneva Summit in 1955, the last time that a US president had met the leader of the USSR was in 1945 at the Potsdam Conference, which followed the end of the Second World War in Europe.

So this shows us how important Geneva was for simply reestablishing contact at the highest levels between the two superpowers.

And let's try another question.

This time we have a statement which reads: A range of agreements were reached on arms limitations and even German unification at Geneva.

Is that statement true or false? Pause a video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that that statement was false, but we need to be able to justify our response, so two justifications have appeared on the screen.

The first says that the USSR walked out of the summit after the first day due to disagreements with the Western powers.

And the second justification says that the USA and USSR were accused of using negotiations as a propaganda battle against one another.

So which one of those two justifications is correct? Pause a video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the correct justification was B.

Despite the high hopes for the Geneva Summit, no actual agreements were made between the four powers who met there.

Instead, one journalist even claimed that rather than reaching agreements, the USA and USSR had descended into launching a propaganda battle against one another during the meeting.

And let's try one further question.

How did Nikita Khrushchev respond to Eisenhower's Open Skies plan? Was it that he supported the plan as an example of coexistence, that he ignored the plan as it was a low priority, or that he dismissed the plan as an espionage plot? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the correct answer was C.

When President Eisenhower produced his Open Skies plan at the 1955 Geneva Summit, it was dismissed by Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet leader, as an espionage plot, demonstrating that there was still a lot of suspicion at this time in the Cold War.

So we're now in a good position to put all of our knowledge about the 1955 Geneva Summit into practise.

We have a view from Aisha who says that the 1955 Geneva Summit was a successful demonstration of peaceful coexistence.

I want you to do two things in response to this view.

Firstly, I want you to explain why some historians might agree with Aisha's view.

And then secondly, I want you to explain why some historians might disagree with Aisha's view.

So pause a video here and press play when you're ready to reflect on your responses.

Okay, well done for all of your hard work on that task.

So firstly, I asked you to explain why some historians might agree with Aisha's view.

And your answer may have included: Some historians would agree with Aisha's view because the 1955 Geneva Summit helped to reestablish personal contact between the leaders of the USSR and USA.

Before 1955, the last meeting between the leaders of the two superpowers had taken place 10 years earlier at the Potsdam Conference in 1945.

Therefore, the conference was an important symbolic moment for showing that the superpowers could attempt to overcome their differences by meeting together.

The summit also created an opportunity for Eisenhower and Khrushchev to begin understanding each other and breaking the ice.

This may have made it easier for them to cooperate in the future over Cold War tensions.

So really well done if your own response looks something like that model which we've just seen.

And then for the second part of task B, I asked you to explain why some historians might have disagreed with Aisha's view.

And your answer to this may have included: Some historians might disagree with Aisha's view because of the outcomes of the Geneva Summit.

Although the two superpowers came together to discuss a range of issues, they failed to reach any agreements.

For example, Eisenhower's Open Skies plan was rejected by Khrushchev as an "espionage plot," demonstrating that suspicions remained high.

Furthermore, the "New York Times" suggested that negotiations were carried out in poor faith as the US and USSR conducted "a propaganda battle" rather than discussing issues with a serious intent to resolve their disagreements.

Therefore, peaceful coexistence may be considered to have made little practical difference to the attitudes of the two superpowers.

So again, really well done if your own response looks something like that model.

And so now we've reached the end of today's lesson which puts us in a good position to summarise our learning about Khrushchev and peaceful coexistence.

We see that Nikita Khrushchev, who emerged as the leader of the USSR, argued that conflict was not inevitable between the superpowers and that peaceful coexistence was possible.

President Eisenhower was more supportive of attempting to negotiate with the USSR than President Truman had been before him.

The USA and USSR, alongside Britain and France, met together for a week of negotiations at the Geneva Summit in 1955.

The Geneva Summit was the first meeting between the leaders of the USA and USSR since 1945.

And the Geneva Summit failed to settle on any new agreements.

So really well done for all of your hard work during today's lesson.

It's been a pleasure to help guide you through our resources today, and I look forward to seeing you again in the future as we think further about the development of the Cold War and continue to ask ourselves, how peaceful was peaceful coexistence?.