Hello, and thank you for joining me.

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

I'll be guiding you through all of our resources, and my top aims are to ensure not only that you enjoy our learning, but also that you can successfully meet today's lesson objective.

Welcome to today's lesson, which is part of our unit on the transformation of the Cold War.

But we've been asking ourselves why did tensions ease by 1972? By the end of today's lesson, you'll be able to explain different causes of tension between the USSR and USA by the end of the 1960s.

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

Those are: censorship, dissident, and gulag.

Censorship refers to the examining of books, documents, or films, and removing parts of them that are not considered acceptable.

A dissident is a person who publicly disagrees with and criticises their government.

And gulags were severe prisons used in the Soviet Union where prisoners had to perform forced labour.

Today's lesson will be split into three parts, and will begin by thinking about the arms race.

Relations between the USSR and USA were challenged by multiple crises during the 1960s.

All of these crises were resolved without the superpowers resorting to war.

Nevertheless, by the end of the decade, relations between East and West remained tense.

The arms race between the USA and USSR continued into the late 1960s, and was one of the causes of this tension between East and West.

As they had in the 1940s and 1950s, both countries competed to design larger and more powerful weapons, and to gain advantages over the other.

These conditions helped to perpetuate an atmosphere of distrust and suspicion between the superpowers.

So thinking about what we've just heard, I want you to change one word to correct the following sentence, which reads, the arms race between the US and USSR ended during the 1960s.

So think, which word seems incorrect? And what should it be changed to? Pause the video here, and press Play when you're ready to reflect on your answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the incorrect word was ended, and that it should have been changed to continued.

The arms race between the US and USSR continued during the 1960s.

So we'll think about some of these developments that followed as a result.

One of those developments was anti-ballistic missiles, or ABMs. ABMs were first successfully developed by the USSR in 1968.

The Soviets had less nuclear weapons than the USA, and as a result, the USSR was determined to find ways to counter the USA's superiority in nuclear weapons.

ABMs were important for strengthening a country's defence against nuclear attacks.

ABMs were capable of shooting down inbound enemy missiles.

So in the case of the Soviet Union, although they had less nuclear missiles to attack the USA, the development of ABMs theoretically allowed them to shoot down any missiles that were being fired against them, and therefore to compensate for their other disadvantages.

ABMs were very expensive, though, but as soon as the USSR had their own, the USA began to develop and deploy its own as well.

So thinking about what we've just heard, how did ABMs help the USSR compensate for having less nuclear weapons than the USA? Was it that they provided a more powerful bomb than the US had? That they provided a means of shooting down inbound missiles? Or that they provided a means of improving superpower relations? 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 B, ABMs helped the USSR to compensate for having less nuclear weapons than the USA, because they provided a means of shooting down inbound missiles.

And now we can think about the development of MIRVs.

These were first deployed in the US in 1970.

MIRVs allowed multiple nuclear warheads to be fired from a single missile, meaning that whilst a single missile could be fired, it contained many different nuclear warheads that would split apart and be able to hit different targets.

This was more destructive on a far larger scale than ordinary nuclear missiles, and they were designed to make it harder for ABMs to intercept nuclear attacks.

By the end of 1971, the USSR had developed its own MIRVs in response to the US innovation.

So we have a statement on the screen that reads, MIRVs were too expensive, so the USSR was unwilling to develop them.

Is that statement true or false? Pause the 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 was unwilling to allow the Americans to gain a military advantage.

And the second says that Soviet leaders believed MIRVs would improve the day-to-day lives of Soviet citizens.

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, the USSR was willing to develop its own MIRVs because they didn't want the Americans to gain a military advantage.

This was despite the fact that MIRVs were incredibly expensive to develop.

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

I want you to describe how the arms race continued at the end of the 1960s and beginning of the 1970s.

You should ensure that your answer refers to ABMs and MIRVs.

So pause the video here, and press Play when you're ready to reflect on your response.

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

So I asked you to describe how the arms race continued at the end of the 1960s and beginning of the 1970s.

And your answer may have included, at the end of the 1960s and beginning of the 1970s, the superpowers continued to develop weapons which they hoped would give them an advantage over one another.

For instance, in 1968, the USSR began deploying anti-ballistic missiles, or ABMs, which allowed it to shoot down incoming nuclear missiles.

However, this was quickly followed in 1970 by the US development of MIRVs.

MIRVs were designed to fire multiple nuclear warheads, making it harder for ABMs, like those developed by the Soviets, to intercept nuclear attacks.

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

And now we're ready to move on to the second part of today's lesson, where we are going to think about Vietnam.

Another source of tension between the USA and USSR was the ongoing war in Vietnam.

Since the 1950s, the USA had been involved in Vietnam, aiming to prevent the spread of communism.

The US supported the anti-communist government of South Vietnam against the communist North.

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

I want you to write the missing word from the following sentence.

The USA fought in Vietnam to prevent the spread of blank.

So what's the missing word? 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 missing word was communism.

The USA fought in Vietnam to prevent the spread of communism.

The US supported the anti-communist government of South Vietnam against the communist government of North Vietnam.

During the 1960s, there was a significant escalation in US involvement in Vietnam.

In 1968 alone, the US spent over $26 billion on fighting the war, had over half a million US soldiers deployed to Vietnam, and saw nearly 17,000 American servicemen killed in the fighting.

Part of the USA's commitment to fighting such a large war in a small, poor part of the world came down to its belief that North Vietnamese communists were really under the control of communist China and the Soviet Union.

In reality, the Chinese and Soviet governments were both offering support to the North Vietnamese, but certainly did not have control over communists there.

From the perspective of the Soviet Union, the scale of the American War in Vietnam made it appear to be an aggressive attempt to impose US ideas and beliefs on a region where people appeared to be embracing communism.

This discouraged Soviet cooperation with the USA.

Meanwhile, as more and more US soldiers died in Vietnam, many Americans were unwilling to work with the USSR, who they considered partially responsible for the deaths of their troops.

So let's check our understanding of what we've just heard.

Which two countries did the USA suspect were controlling North Vietnam's leaders? Was it China, India, Japan, or the USSR? Remember, you are looking for two answers to this question.

So 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 correct answers were A, China, and D, the USSR.

The USA suspected that North Vietnam's communist leaders were really under the control of China and the USSR, which were the two largest and most powerful communist states in the world.

And let's try another question.

What did the Soviets accuse the US of doing in Vietnam? Was it defending itself from attacks by others? Forcefully imposing its own ideas on others? Or stealing Vietnamese natural resources? Pause the video here, and press Play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said the correct answer was B, the Soviets accused the US of forcefully trying to impose their own ideas on others in Vietnam, and this discouraged Soviet cooperation with the Americans, who they interpreted as an aggressive state.

So we're now in a good position to put all of our knowledge about Vietnam into practise.

I want you to study Jun and Izzy's views.

They disagree about the impact of the Vietnam War on superpower relations.

Jun says that as the USSR did not fight in it, the Vietnam War had little effect on tensions between the superpowers.

Whereas Izzy says that the Vietnam War made it harder for the USA and USSR to cooperate, even though the Soviets did not fight in it.

So whose view is correct? Izzy's or Jun's? Explain your answer.

So pause the video here, and press Play when you are ready to reflect on your response.

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

So I asked you whose view was correct? Izzy's or Jun's? And you needed to explain your answer.

So your response may have included, Izzy's view of the impact of the Vietnam War on superpower relations is correct.

Both Izzy and Jun are correct that the USSR was not directly involved in the war, unlike the USA.

Nevertheless, the USSR disliked US involvement, which they considered an attempt to forcefully impose American beliefs on people who had accepted communism.

On the other hand, the US suspected that the Soviet Union were helping to lead the North Vietnamese war efforts, and were therefore partially responsible for the heavy losses the US Army suffered.

Consequently, both superpowers were less willing to cooperate due to the issue of Vietnam.

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

And so now we're ready to move on to the third and final part of our lesson for today, where we are going to think about the issue of human rights.

Both the USA and USSR claimed to respect the human rights of their citizens.

However, during the 1960s, there was increasing awareness and criticism of the treatment of people living in the Soviet Union.

According to their constitution, both the USA and the USSR were democracies.

In America, citizens were clearly able to exercise rights such as voting in elections, or enjoy freedom of speech and of religion.

However, whilst the Soviet Constitution guaranteed these rights in theory, the reality was much different.

Censorship, restrictions on freedom of religion, and the use of gulags to manage dissidents were all common practises by Soviet authorities.

Although elections were held in the USSR, the candidates were all from the same party: the Communist Party.

So voters had no real choice.

And whilst political and social restrictions on people's lives and rights had been slightly relaxed during the period when Nikita Khrushchev led the USSR, they were tightened again when Leonid Brezhnev took power in 1964.

So let's check our understanding of what we've heard so far.

We have a statement on the screen that reads, more respect was shown for human rights in the USSR in the late 1960s.

Is that statement true or false? Pause the 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 after Brezhnev came to power in 1964, restrictions like censorship were increased.

And the second says that after Khrushchev came to power in 1964, restrictions like censorship were increased.

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

Okay, well then to everybody who said that the correct justification was A, after Brezhnev came to power in 1964, restrictions like censorship were increased.

There had been a brief period, in the late 1950s and early 1960s, when Khrushchev was leading the USSR, when there'd been a relaxation of restrictions on people's rights.

But when Brezhnev came to power, he increased these restrictions once again.

By the mid 1970s, it was estimated that there were 5,000 political and religious dissidents imprisoned in the USSR, many of whom were forced to work in terrible conditions whilst malnourished in gulags.

The author Andrei Sinyavsky was one of these political prisoners.

In the early 1960s, Sinyavsky wrote multiple works which were critical of Soviet society, including the use of gulags.

Because of widespread censorship, Sinyavsky published many of his critical works under a foreign name in the West.

Nevertheless, in 1966, Sinyavsky was put on trial accused of committing anti-Soviet activities, and sentenced to several years in a gulag.

Other people sent to the gulag included those who supported nationalist movements such as the Ukrainian poet Vasyl Stus.

Dissidents set up many groups to bring attention to this treatment, including the Committee on Human Rights in the USSR, which was founded in 1970.

These groups generated support in the West for Soviet dissidents, and reinforced the perception amongst many that whilst countries like the USA promised freedom, the USSR and communist states only offered oppression for their population.

So thinking about what we've just heard, where were thousands of Soviet dissidents, including Andrei Sinyavsky, sent to as punishment for their crime? Pause the video here, and press Play when you are ready to see the right answer.

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

By the mid 1970s, it was estimated that there were 5,000 political and religious dissidents imprisoned in gulags across the USSR.

Human rights abuses also extended to many Soviet citizens simply because of their religion, as communism is an atheist ideology.

So they don't believe in a God.

Soviet authorities were often hostile towards religion, and placed many restrictions on its practise.

Jews were one of many religious groups that often suffered in the USSR.

Soviet restrictions on religious education and expression prevented Jews from engaging with Jewish cultural and religious life.

At the same time, antisemitism often blocked career progression for Jews living in the Soviet Union.

Many Jews responded to these difficulties by attempting to emigrate, to leave the country, but were often refused permission by Soviet authorities to do so, becoming known as refuseniks.

This type of treatment helped provoke international criticism of the USSR record on human rights.

In the USA, new organisations such as The Cleveland Council on Soviet Anti-Semitism, and The Student Struggle for Soviet Jewry, or the SSSJ, was set up in the 1960s to raise awareness of conditions in the Soviet Union, and to increase the pressure for change.

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, groups were set up in the USA and USSR to criticise the Soviet's human rights record.

Is that statement true or false? Pause the 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 true.

But we need to be able to justify our response.

So two justifications have appeared on the screen.

The first says that the SSSJ was founded in the USA, and the Committee on Human Rights in the USSR was set up in the Soviet Union.

The second says that the SSSJ was founded in the USSR, and the Committee on Human Rights in the USSR was set up in the USA.

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, there were many different human rights groups which were set up in both of the superpowers, focusing on mistreatment in the USSR.

For example, the SSSJ was founded in the USA, and the Committee on Human Rights in the USSR was set up in the Soviet Union.

So we are now in a good position to put all of our knowledge about human rights into practise.

I want you to study the joke on the screen.

It was popular in the Soviet Union, and it went like this.

How many times can you tell a good joke in the Soviet Union? And the answer was three times: once to a friend, once to a police investigator, and once to your cellmate.

So I want you to answer two questions in response to that joke.

Firstly, what does the joke suggest about human rights in the USSR? You should include a quotation from the source as part of your answer.

And then secondly, does the joke give an accurate impression of human rights in the USSR? And I want you to explain your answer.

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

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

So firstly, I asked you what does the joke suggest about human rights in the USSR? And your answer may have included, the joke suggests that there was a lack of respect for human rights in the USSR.

For example, it says anybody telling a joke would repeat it three times: once to a friend, once to a police investigator, and once to your cellmate.

This implies that there was a lack of freedom of speech in the Soviet Union, as people speaking freely were likely to be imprisoned for doing so.

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

And secondly, I asked you, does the joke give an accurate impression of human rights in the USSR? And your answer may have included, the joke provides a fairly accurate impression of human rights in the USSR, although it does contain some exaggeration for comedic effect.

Whilst not all jokes led to people in the USSR being imprisoned, freedom of speech was heavily restricted.

For example, the dissident author Andrei Sinyavsky was sentenced to several years in a gulag in 1966 for publishing books which were critical of the Soviet Union.

Other human rights were also not respected, such as freedom of religion.

This led to organisations being established within and beyond the USSR, which criticised the Soviet's Human Rights record, such as the Committee on Human Rights in the USSR and the Student Struggle for Soviet Jewry.

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

And that means we've now reached the end of today's lesson, which puts us in a good position to summarise our learning about tensions between the superpowers by the late 1960s.

We've seen that the arms race between the USA and USSR continued in the late 1960s with the deployment of ABMs and MIRVs.

US involvement in the Vietnam War worsened Soviet views of the USA and discouraged American cooperation with the USSR.

The Soviet Union's record on human rights was criticised in the USSR, USA, and other parts of the international community.

And rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion faced many heavy restrictions in the USSR.

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, and I look forward to seeing you again in the future as we think further about the transformation of the Cold War and continue to ask ourselves, why did tensions ease by 1972?.