Modern History Exam Thoughts (merged) (1 Viewer)

[rusty_rouge]

ha yeah i did Germany, Speer and Conflict in Pacific - what questions did u do? i did totalitarian for Germany and Allied force strategies for Japan (decolonisation is the most boring feature i think, but thats just my opinion)

Lol - picked the conservatives and elitists changing German politics for germany, and the Allied strategies for Pacific, because even though I ALWAYS pick the economic question, my decolonisation/civilian effect knoledge isn't strong - I was hoping for anice homefront one . Ah well. I did talk about the blockade though? lol - an economic strategy nonetheless, yet they didn't specify whether strategies were military or not

 

[johnny_87]

For all the people that did ALLIED STRATEGIES, did you have basically the same as this:

'Germany first'
Tactics - defensive and reactive until Guadalcanal
Allied command initally disagreed:
- MacArthur - not ready
- King - navy ready
Coral Sea - turning point - first time Jap halted and allowed US to ship supplies to Aus.
Midway - Magic and ship-mounted radar
Loss of Yamamoto - Japan lacked leader with tactical nouse and imagination.
Orde Windgate's 'Chindits' in Burma - disrupt Japanese activities - sabotage, guerilla attacks.
Dual advance (double thrust) strategy - central and southern push
Leap-frogging/island hopping - less casualties, shorter war.
Flexible task forces probe at Japanese perimeter and maintain initiative - link to numerical advantage as result of economy
US factories free from bombing
US subs - blockade, sunk naval and merchant ships - link to preventing Japan from importing resources and exporting goods
US air superiority - daily bombing raids - destroyed factories - link to shortage of supplies (above)
Atomic bomb

That's what I remember writing about. I didn't mention the Marianas and how Port Moresby was a staging point for Japan (Battle of the Coral Sea).

 

[the_pun]

For all the people that did ALLIED STRATEGIES, did you have basically the same as this:

'Germany first'
Tactics - defensive and reactive until Guadalcanal
Allied command initally disagreed:
- MacArthur - not ready
- King - navy ready
Coral Sea - turning point - first time Jap halted and allowed US to ship supplies to Aus.
Midway - Magic and ship-mounted radar
Loss of Yamamoto - Japan lacked leader with tactical nouse and imagination.
Orde Windgate's 'Chindits' in Burma - disrupt Japanese activities - sabotage, guerilla attacks.
Dual advance (double thrust) strategy - central and southern push
Leap-frogging/island hopping - less casualties, shorter war.
Flexible task forces probe at Japanese perimeter and maintain initiative - link to numerical advantage as result of economy
US factories free from bombing
US subs - blockade, sunk naval and merchant ships - link to preventing Japan from importing resources and exporting goods
US air superiority - daily bombing raids - destroyed factories - link to shortage of supplies (above)
Atomic bomb

That's what I remember writing about. I didn't mention the Marianas and how Port Moresby was a staging point for Japan (Battle of the Coral Sea).

yeah pretty much, i talked about the failure of strategies at Singapore first though, but I didn't really have much on the blockade, just mentioned stuff bout US economic superiority and Japan's reliance on their trade

 

[crossmyheart]

yer it was ok, wwI was nice, both American questions were good, although i did think that the Arab-Israeli questions were quite difficult

 

[iloveNIN]

Success!

I was really happy with Modern, I surely wouldn't have had anything lower than 90% it was good.

World War 1 was pretty simple, suprised there was nothing on the Homefront or Women. Germany was good, as was Cold War. I think i got almost full marks for both essays. Suprisingly, i found Modern harder than Ancient, something which never happens.

Good luck everyone with your results, I'm sure we all went well!

 

[nookie]

WW1: screwed up the battle of the somme bit,
Germany: screwed it totally. will be my worst i bet.
Speer: i) got some dates and facts wrong, ii) couldn't think of much to write
Indochina, a) didn't mention important things like vietnamisation

result probably band 1 =(

 

[littlebinzy]

My only problem was a lack of knowledge about Ireland. The exam itself was good,.

 

[SarahJZ]

The exam might of been easy to you, but you don't know how your answers weigh up against the rest of the state. And you don't know who's marking it.

Anyone want to share the USA questions with me? I want to see if I was given a rough deal with last year's paper. Hehehe. I remember after my modern exam, i sealed up my 80pg summary and gave it to a young one named my little sister...just thought I might prepare her for all the shit u have to remember! well done guys.

The USA questions were one on race relations and the other was on how FDR's New Deal can only be seen as partially successful...

I actually really liked that exam. I was so stressed out before hand, I always doubt my ability to actually know and remember everything - so before the exam I was a nervous wreck trying to remember everything.

WWI - wish it had been homefront because I had read over it on the walk from the trainstation to school. But really, it was quite easy - the Somme is a major battle so its hard not to remember it, plus they gave us a timeline with major events - what more could you ask for!!

USA - I was extatic!! Our teacher told us to definitely prepare prohibition, because it hasn't been tested. I couldn't believe that I could answer both the USA essays well. I chose New Deal because I had more to say and knew it more, but really I thought they were quite good.
Hoover - Not bad, the first question was very similar to one that was in my trial, which was good - and I mean the second one was just about crimefighting (but worded differently) so it was doable...

Cold War - Ok those weren't very nice. I ended up doing USSR policies, because at least I knew those, but in the end I pretty much talked about the whole Cold War, because the info kept flowing out, so I had like 4 or 5 crises in there, but Berlin was my major one.

Overall the exam was quite good. It wasn't too easy and not too hard. It challenged you, and made you answer the question, not come in with pre-prepared answers (well for my sections anyway).

 

[Crazy Pomo]

My only problem was a lack of knowledge about Ireland. The exam itself was good,.

Argh I wish we did whatever you did. Skimming over it it looked pretty cool.

 

[Tynjail]

Hi
i did the totalitarian q 4 Germany and i argued it from the perspective of the six point definition of a totalitarian society as well as the general consensus of German society/ lack of strong resistance groups. Was i correct in doing this do you think. It included all the crap with Gleicshaltung and stuff about german cultural life etc.

 

[Crazy Pomo]

Hi
i did the totalitarian q 4 Germany and i argued it from the perspective of the six point definition of a totalitarian society as well as the general consensus of German society/ lack of strong resistance groups. Was i correct in doing this do you think. It included all the crap with Gleicshaltung and stuff about german cultural life etc.

Yep. I'm no genius or anything but thats a decent basis for an essay.

 

[kouklitsa]

Hi
i did the totalitarian q 4 Germany and i argued it from the perspective of the six point definition of a totalitarian society as well as the general consensus of German society/ lack of strong resistance groups. Was i correct in doing this do you think. It included all the crap with Gleicshaltung and stuff about german cultural life etc.

yep u should go well.. sounds like part of my essay. i used the same basis for my trial and got a gud mark for it.. and ive seen some sample exemplars b4 that start with Friedrich's 6 point thing

 

[Crazy Pomo]

Six Pointed Star

yep u should go well.. sounds like part of my essay. i used the same basis for my trial and got a gud mark for it.. and ive seen some sample exemplars b4 that start with Friedrich's 6 point thing

Definately. I used it aswell. Except if forgot some of them but just said 'which included' hah and didn't name all of them. What I also did however, was say how some historians reject this six point syndrome as totalitarianism requires a passive and isolated population, and Hitler was in fact a popular leader. Or at least thats the argument (kershaw i think). Seeing I evaluated that it WASN'T completely totalitarian I disproved some of the 6 points. badly though. hah

 

[kouklitsa]

Definately. I used it aswell. Except if forgot some of them but just said 'which included' hah and didn't name all of them. What I also did however, was say how some historians reject this six point syndrome as totalitarianism requires a passive and isolated population, and Hitler was in fact a popular leader. Or at least thats the argument (kershaw i think). Seeing I evaluated that it WASN'T completely totalitarian I disproved some of the 6 points. badly though. hah

we were either on the same wavelength during that question or sharing a brain.. soundslike we got the same content.. i used kershaw too lol and Fest, and a few others but yeh

 

[simoneldahr]

MoDeRnNn...

I Was Dreading That Exam But All In All It Was Ok

I Didnt Finish The Question On The Somme..the 10 Mark One Oh Well...itz Been Ages Since I Looked At Dat Topic...wohoo No More Modern 4evaaaaa

 

[Crazy Pomo]

we were either on the same wavelength during that question or sharing a brain.. soundslike we got the same content.. i used kershaw too lol and Fest, and a few others but yeh

Yeah. Half way through the essay I went shit! And looked at the word 'society' and started linking politics to society and gleishchaltung and blah blah. Cool. Other historiography I used was Kershaws 'negative dynamism", "spiralling radicalisation" (I think it was him), and Meyers nazie state as a 'morass' I also paraphrased Brozat, Mason, and someone else. Gerr. I hope it wasnt overly historiographical.

 

[c_james]

Yeah. Half way through the essay I went shit! And looked at the word 'society' and started linking politics to society and gleishchaltung and blah blah. Cool. Other historiography I used was Kershaws 'negative dynamism", "spiralling radicalisation" (I think it was him), and Meyers nazie state as a 'morass' I also paraphrased Brozat, Mason, and someone else. Gerr. I hope it wasnt overly historiographical.

lmao dude you used the EXACT same historiography as me.

McCallum's book rocks...

 

[fleepbasding]

lmao dude you used the EXACT same historiography as me.

McCallum's book rocks...

ha ha ha... as did I! I wish to marry Anne one day, I could learn to love her. I remember reading a totalitarian essay you posted in the modern history a while back, and I thought at the time, "hmmm, c_james seems to have covered much of the same historiography as me... how strange..."

It is an awesome text.

 

[Crazy Pomo]

ha ha ha... as did I! I wish to marry Anne one day, I could learn to love her. I remember reading a totalitarian essay you posted in the modern history a while back, and I thought at the time, "hmmm, c_james seems to have covered much of the same historiography as me... how strange..."

It is an awesome text.

It is indeed an awesome text. A friend on mine and I have a theory. In Anne's book, there is shitloads of historiography but every few pages in the book there is "Kersaws Analysis" which is given like 4 times more space and wordcount. We were thinking, seeing that Anne's personal veiwpoint in her narrative seems to gel well with Kershaws, that Anne McCallum is in fact Ian Kershaw! IN DISGUISE! And that McCallum is just a genius nom de plume! Did anyone else start thinking this, due to the overwhelming bias towards KERSHAWS SYNTHESIS.

 

[c_james]

It is indeed an awesome text. A friend on mine and I have a theory. In Anne's book, there is shitloads of historiography but every few pages in the book there is "Kersaws Analysis" which is given like 4 times more space and wordcount. We were thinking, seeing that Anne's personal veiwpoint in her narrative seems to gel well with Kershaws, that Anne McCallum is in fact Ian Kershaw! IN DISGUISE! And that McCallum is just a genius nom de plume! Did anyone else start thinking this, due to the overwhelming bias towards KERSHAWS SYNTHESIS.

Ohhh...Maybe there's a little something going on between these esteemed historians?