pluck Posted August 5, 2009 Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 Trying to finish my IA before the beginning of IB2I've decided to focus on the soviet invasion of afghanistanStruggling to narrow my topic any furtherAssess the reasons for the invasion and it's eventual failure? Is that simply to broad/should I just answer one half of that questionI desperately need adviceThanks Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biochem Posted August 5, 2009 Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 I say focus on only one, with more structure. If you want to look at failure, be more specific and analytical. Maybe a certain aspect, or if it had to do with money look at the economic aspect. Since it was mostly political turmoil, you can identify it as that as well. Either way, be very specific, so that you can actualy "analyze" instead of just creating a synopsis. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetnsimple786 Posted August 5, 2009 Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 I agree with biochem =)If you choose the reasons, after you discuss the politcal, economic, cultural, geographical, or whatever pertains, then you could further analyze which reasons--if any--were superficial and which was/were the main reason(s). But first see if you can find at least 2-3 solid sources for your narrowed topic. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pluck Posted August 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 6, 2009 Thanks for the adviceMy alternative wuold be the Cuban Missile Crisis - which im already reasonably well read onWould an assessment of Kennedy's Role or the success of his measures be suitable? Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetnsimple786 Posted August 6, 2009 Report Share Posted August 6, 2009 Topics concerning the Cuban missile crisis are usually overdone. However the 'success of JFK's measures' sounds like something original. Just, like before, pick what you mean by success--define it in the terms that you'll be analyzing. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pluck Posted August 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 6, 2009 preventing escalation of the crisis, say?or simply his role in the resolution of the crisis? Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetnsimple786 Posted August 6, 2009 Report Share Posted August 6, 2009 I was thinking that just talking about his role isn't as good a topic as how good a mediator he was/how successful he was in mitigating the situation. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pluck Posted August 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Definitely; although I've now decided upon assessing Robert Kennedy's role in the crisiscontd: plenty of sources to consult; plenty of room for uncertainty and analysis of evidence Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetnsimple786 Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Although I don't know toooo much about it, I know my history teacher practically calls Robert Kennedy a ****** So yeah, that sounds really interesting! Just make it methodological =) Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pluck Posted August 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 He (rfk) has been known to give that impression Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.