Search the Community

My EE RQ is due soon and my question so far is "To what extent did WWII lead to the decolonization of India?" But I've been told that's not specific enough. Can someone help making it more specific? I thought of "To what extent did WWII lead to the British Decolonization of India by 1947?" But I dont know.

Hello, For long story short, I'm currently trying to come up with an EE question. I really would like to do something on the feminist movement in the 60s, but I don't really know how to formulate a question. For some extra context, I was maybe going to try to focus specifically on the reproductive rights aspect of the feminist movement (ex. increased access to birth control, abortion, etc.) but I don't know if focusing on an aspect like that would make my essay too narrow? If anyone could help that would be really appreciated because as I'm standing now i'm stuck at a roadblock.

it's already mid-august, and i haven't gotten much done (if anything) for my history ee. i am focusing on the vietnam war; my question is "to what extent was the ho chi minh trail a significant factor to the victory of north vietnam" i've been looking up articles and such for debates and different perspectives, but maybe i haven't been searching hard enough because there is practically nothing that satisfies my question, which has started to make me more and more anxious about completing the ee. i can't get a hold of my supervisor to help me narrow down my question and guide my quest

Hi everyone, I am researching for my history EE, and I am having troubles with finding the evidence for an event. The event consists in a conversation between the king and Mussolini, which is mentioned in multiple books but without any reference to a primary source, but always to other secondary sources (other historians' books ) or no reference at all. My supervisor was bemoaning this, however it seems fair that there is no "transcript" of a private conversation. Is it common\acceptable? How can I back this event better? Thank you in advance

Hi there! Im not gonna post my exact EE topic incase someone steels it, but im deeling with why a certain egyptian pharao (a woman one) was errased 20 years after her death in approximately 1500 BC, and how the defacing of her monuments affected Historians views on her. I was reading through the IB guide and i saw a certain section that threw me: "A significant number of students have not been sufficiently well advised as to what constitutes analysis and what evaluation of the sources entails. " It continues to talk about how we shouldnt evaluate sources like we did on the IA. I have

So I have written my EE and my topic is 'To what extent does the cultural context of an historian determine his/her analysis of the causes of the fall of the Roman Empire and influence his/her perspective?' I am just having some last minute doubts about my structure. So as I am analyzing historiography, I have it structured with: 1. Historian and what they said 2. Then source analysis (such as how their perspectives are influenced by their cultural paradigms at the time) 3. Different historian and what they said 4. Source analysis and so on I was wondering if this structure was okay? Cause I

My extended essay on history is only at 2771 words right now... I've seen many examples of other extended essays online and heard from other people that it is required? to be at 3500? to get full marks for the structure... Is this true? and is my essay way too short? My essay is on the Juche ideology during Kim Il Sung's Regime (1972-1994)... I really think that i cannot add anything more to it.. and i do not want to repeat anything too..!