General Thoughts: Modern History (2 Viewers)

[pb1234]

i did russia and the soviet union for international study, thought both questions were pretty hard. i did question a) wasn't at all happy with my answer! haha

 

[LoveHateSchool]

WW1: Fine
Russia: Had trouble between picking between the two Qs! Would have traded doing an Indochina question to do both! SO it was good
Personality: No idea that was pretty weird, freaked out over factors cause it wasn't three events, really bizarre both Qs were like part b normally, but no quote. I find the A part was fine, but B my answer was a little all over the shop.
Indochina: Hahaha I didn't really like either Q, think it went a bit too narrative in the structure.

Overall, highish band 5 perhaps hopefully.

 

[waves2xv14]

BEST EXAM...it meant I didnt have to do history ever again world war 1 was pretty good, amazing Qs for Germany, personality...well part a was ok...and europe conflict was ok.....expecting band 4 but who cares history is over

 

[jenslekman]

What were the questions for Germany, the personality section and Conflict in Europe?

personality -describe 3 significant factors which resulted in the prominence of the personality you have studied.
to what extent did the personality you have studied have a positive impact on his/her times?

how many words did everyone write for each section?

 

[lecoutcapt]

What were the questions for Russia and Indochina?

 

[inJust]

What question did you do? I was stoked because I know Japan's defeat pretty well

Was it just the military/economic/political strategies as well as A bomb?

 

[Cheesecake_a]

What question did you do? I was stoked because I know Japan's defeat pretty well

I did question b) ''The success of the Japanese advance of 1942 could not be maintained, and led to Japans defeat in 1945. How accurate is this statement?''

I felt that was the easier one for me personally, and inJust, I mentioned some of your points for this question.

I don't feel I added enough detail. Honestly, over all, I don't know how I will go. It will be a surprise maybe, I will have to wait and see. I hope it is a good surprise lol.

 

[asadass]

What were the questions for Germany, the personality section and Conflict in Europe?

Germany:
Hitler came to power as a result of a lack of opposition. To what extent is this statement true?
How successful was Nazi foreign policy in achieving its aims to September 1939?

Europe:
Why was Germany so successful in the European War up to the start of Operation Barbarossa?
Assess the social and economic effects of the war on civilians in Britain and Germany/Soviet Union

 

[inJust]

I did question b) ''The success of the Japanese advance of 1942 could not be maintained, and led to Japans defeat in 1945. How accurate is this statement?''

I felt that was the easier one for me personally, and inJust, I mentioned some of your points for this question.

I don't feel I added enough detail. Honestly, over all, I don't know how I will go. It will be a surprise maybe, I will have to wait and see. I hope it is a good surprise lol.

What else did you have?

 

[Cheesecake_a]

@inJust, I talked about before 1942, they had a lot of short term success, and this continued until as the question says, couldn't be maintained then talked about events in 1942, then I talked about how that wasn't the only issue, and how A bomb led to defeat as well, and talked about the economy.

I don't know, I have a feeling I won't get more than 19 or 18 atleast lol.

 

[enoilgam]

Germany:
Hitler came to power as a result of a lack of opposition. To what extent is this statement true?
How successful was Nazi foreign policy in achieving its aims to September 1939?

Europe:
Why was Germany so successful in the European War up to the start of Operation Barbarossa?
Assess the social and economic effects of the war on civilians in Britain and Germany/Soviet Union

Interesting, I was way off with my predictions this year. I imagine most people would have gone with foreign policy for Nazism and effect of the war on civilians for Conflict in Europe. Also, they didnt have a Weimar question this year - quite a few people would have been caught out by that.

 

[Cheesecake_a]

Interesting, I was way off with my predictions this year. I imagine most people would have gone with foreign policy for Nazism and effect of the war on civilians for Conflict in Europe. Also, they didnt have a Weimar question this year - quite a few people would have been caught out by that.

What if I linked some events of Weimer and how there were factors in the Weimers weakness that led to Hitler's rise to power?

 

[enoilgam]

What if I linked some events of Weimer and how there were factors in the Weimers weakness that led to Hitler's rise to power?

You could do that as well, provided that you linked it in well enough and kept the essay focused on lack of opposiion. Personally, I would have gone with the foreign policy question.

The lack of a speific Weimar question shows how important it is to study the entire syllabus.

 

[LoveHateSchool]

What were the questions for Russia and Indochina?

COuldn't keep paper what I remember
A) Extent Bolshevik ideology maintained in consolidation of power (did this one w00t)
B) Foreign policy 1917-1941 (equally good Q to do by me)
Yay for no Stalin/Totalitarianism one!

INdochina
A) Something about impact on indochina after deating french up to 1964
B) Assess the reasons for Communist victory (did this, lots of nationalism talk haha)

 

[stattam]

Everything was great until conflict! Skipped civilians and had only brushed over intial german successes. Had learnt so much indepth content for the remaining courses of the war and the end of the war which you couldn't talk about at all cus the question was 'up to barbarossa'. Such a killer!

 

[teganjoyy]

Interesting, I was way off with my predictions this year. I imagine most people would have gone with foreign policy for Nazism and effect of the war on civilians for Conflict in Europe. Also, they didnt have a Weimar question this year - quite a few people would have been caught out by that.

Yep that screwed me over big time, I read over foreign policy last night but I couldn't remember any dates so I went with Hitler, but it was an awful response.

 

[Lolzipops]

What if I linked some events of Weimer and how there were factors in the Weimers weakness that led to Hitler's rise to power?

That's what I did - I said that there was little opposition to Hitler gaining power in the first place, and that the opposition was mainly towards the Weimar government as it had created economic crises (hyperinflation etc.) and had fundamental flaws such as Article 48 - then how Hitler's beliefs in tearing up the Treaty of Versailles and the threat of communism gained him support, as opposed to opposition.

 

[MK888]

You could do that as well, provided that you linked it in well enough and kept the essay focused on lack of opposiion. Personally, I would have gone with the foreign policy question.

The lack of a speific Weimar question shows how important it is to study the entire syllabus.

I did the Germany part a question, think I stuffed it up by taking a negative line to it though saying it was only true to a 'small extent':l
I talked about how opposition was present in the beginning-> talked about the Beer Hall Putsch, how the army oppossed Hitler's plans/showed that their was still overall support for democracy. (democracy successful and provided opposition during the golden period, as the elites dealt with the middle parties when the situation was acceptable)

Then I talked about Hitler's involvment in the anti-young plan causing him to become more prominent, historian quote in here.

Talked about the impact of the great depression and how this caused political polarisation and the rise of support for extremist parties (stats on the KPD, communists)

Talked about his campaign before the election where he flew to 50 cities to gain support. This having to be done indicates the opposition present and how he had to convince people of the Nazi cause.

Stats where he gained 37.5% of seats the in Reichstag in 1932, which can be seen as a majority but the issue of proportional representation meant many parties were getting seats and therefore the amount of opposition was small yet it still exisited.

The deal with Hitler, papen and Hindenburg that led him being elected as Chancellor.

Talked then about how before he became Fuhrer he abolished all opposition through the use of intimitation (SA) and taking advantage of teh Reichstag fire to play up the threat of communism.

Then concluded that to take power he had to defeat his opponents, and the lack of oponents was only present after he became Chancellor and that the lack of opposition was more signifianct in relation to him maintaining power rather than gaining it.
I'm wrong aren't I?
gah

 

[HAZZA12]

Whoever did russia, what did you have to talk about with practice triumphing over communist ideology in the bolshevik consolidation of power? what did that mean? i just bs'd that section i didnt really know what i was writing.

 

[inJust]

That's what I did - I said that there was little opposition to Hitler gaining power in the first place, and that the opposition was mainly towards the Weimar government as it had created economic crises (hyperinflation etc.) and had fundamental flaws such as Article 48 - then how Hitler's beliefs in tearing up the Treaty of Versailles and the threat of communism gained him support, as opposed to opposition.

Exactly what I did. Pretty much did a Weimar Q and linked to how Hitler was able to draw upon these factors ahha. What a shifty.