MAY11 History P1&2

[000]

Post by: Mahuta

I have merged and edited different topics talking about Papers 1 and 2, all further discussions will take place here.

Good luck.

I did the EXACT. SAME. THING. I am pretty worried although I do think I wrote a good essay about Hitler...and did well on my other question. I probably got around a low 6 on my IA. Whatever a 90% class grade would translate to. And I feel as though I did well on the paper 1. As I am SL and basically hate history...I was pretty happy with how I did until I realized that I made the same horrible mistake. At least I am not alone...maybe the IB graders will feel some sympathy for the somewhat ambiguous question...

I'd advise maybe getting rid of you're thing over that leader until 24 hours is over. My opinion though. Feel free to discuss after the 24 hour time restraint

this is a 2010 thread (last year)

[Matilda.ah]

I did the EXACT. SAME. THING. I am pretty worried although I do think I wrote a good essay about Hitler...and did well on my other question. I probably got around a low 6 on my IA. Whatever a 90% class grade would translate to. And I feel as though I did well on the paper 1. As I am SL and basically hate history...I was pretty happy with how I did until I realized that I made the same horrible mistake. At least I am not alone...maybe the IB graders will feel some sympathy for the somewhat ambiguous question...

A friend of mine did the same mistake in our mock exams and she got 0 points. I'm sorry to say but if you haven't actually given evidence for Hitler being left-wing i.e. National socialistic then you mnight have a hard time getting points :/ Thats wha the markscheme says at least usually if you an answer the opposite.

[Konni93]

The Nazi was National Socialist, so in principle it was left-wing. So...technically Hitler was leader of a left-winged party.

What I find confusing is, was this an actual IB real exam question? I'm surprised that IB would use such rather wishy-washy qualifier such as left-wing and right-wing because it can be rather ambiguous.

It definitely won't get 0, I'm just not sure where the emphasis are in this question. If it's the ability to recognise which country are left and right winged and the examiner (or the markscheme)specifically say that Germany was right-winged, then you'd score rather poorly. But if the emphasis was on the ideology and you covered that well then you might not do so badly.

Excuse me, but NO. There is simply no way in which you can argue that Hitler's regime was "in principle" left, especially if you base it on the name solely. You can argue to a great extent that Hitler deviated from right ideology (which in itself is wrong, he was not monarchist-right or conservative-right so he did not deviate). You can also contend the extent to which he was right-wing. But Hitler was NOT left wing. There is of course a considerable amount of historiography to what extent he was controlled by, or controlled, 'big business.' But there is certainly no debate on his central ideological stance.

If you define left or right wing from a social standpoint, it is probably difficult to classify Hitler as right. He did oppose the established order, and he did advocate a social revolution (which was mainly propaganda). But left is plainly incorrect.

If you define the difference economically, then he was definitely right-wing. True, under his auspices state investment into industry increased. And he tried to link industry and state to ensure that his economy would be ready to fight a war. But he was an absolute propenent of capitalist techniques. For example, under his rule, monopolies such as the IG Farben or Höchst grew in power... thats not too left wing.

Additionally, it would be enough to read any random sample of Third Reich propaganda to see the ant-communist sentiment; and beating up KPD street demonstrators also isnt a sign of friendship...

As to the original question, please excuse my deviation/rant, I agree that you will probably be marked out of [], but that the depth of your knowledge, provided that you answered the question itself precisely, only with a wrong example, should be marked fairly.

[Proletariat]

A friend of mine did the same mistake in our mock exams and she got 0 points. I'm sorry to say but if you haven't actually given evidence for Hitler being left-wing i.e. National socialistic then you mnight have a hard time getting points :/ Thats wha the markscheme says at least usually if you an answer the opposite.

There is absolutely no evidence that can support a case for Hitler being left-wing. You aren't left-wing just by giving yourself a left-wing name, just like the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) wasn't anything like a democracy, nor the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), nor the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam).

Economically, Fascists pursue a policy of syncretism; if one were to plot them on the traditional linear scale of economic left-right, they would be centrists. With every other aspect, and on every other conceivable scale, Fascists are a hard Right.

Ideology is part of the IB syllabus for certain topics, and the entire Cold War topic is a clash of ideologies. If, throughout all the lessons on Hitler and just Fascism in general one must have had, no teacher nor student even mentioned once that Fascism/Nationalism/Hitler was right-wing, well, I really don't know what to say.

[efle]

Question to all of you. Paper two, there was a topic on 2 right wing leaders, right? Methods used in rise to power? It explicitly stated right wing? Because I wrote about the right, that's all I know - I can't bloody remember the topic! Ah!

[Nanoha]

yeah the topic was i think evaluate the methods to rise to power of two right wing dictators. I'm sure it's right wing because I was mad that it wasn't left wing (did not study 2 right wing dictators), anw didn't answer it in the end.

[slizzie]

same, it was my ideal question apart from it asked for two right wing!!!

[Cynthia]

So how did everyone find the paper, and which questions did you pick? Did you find it hard?

I did the methods of two right-wing leaders in their rise to power and the significance of Potsdam conference question. I was initially quite disappointed in how I did buuut getting a bit more optimistic now...

[Manstein]

I had one of those questions in the mocks. Exactly like that. My friend and I read the markscheme and it said "If right-wing leader, award 0" or something to that effect.

[Manstein]

So, how did you history students fare?

For me it felt rather decent, but not too sure (can always be nasty surprises and all that)

[bigbangfan]

Hey guys! how did you find the history exam of last thursday? How were the questions? Which ones did you answer?

[sim_pod]

I was planning to challenge any question that would use the terms "left-wing" or "right-wing" and argue for why I would be hard-pressed to pronounce say, Hitler, "right-wing" just because it is the popular belief (Gleichschaltung? Four Year Plan? Public works? "Coordination" of the industry? Economically, this is not what a rightist would commonly do; socially, in spite of glorification of the Aryan, I would argue he attributed quite a large role of the state and "the German people". He certainly was quite far from the "There is no such thing as a society" ideal of an individualist rightist!). However, I agree with some previous posters that OP will get marked down for not making the definitional distinction clear, though perhaps not as harshly as some suggest - I think (s)he is guaranteed to pass if the discussion made any sense whatsoever.

[Proletariat]

I was planning to challenge any question that would use the terms "left-wing" or "right-wing" and argue for why I would be hard-pressed to pronounce say, Hitler, "right-wing" just because it is the popular belief (Gleichschaltung? Four Year Plan? Public works? "Coordination" of the industry? Economically, this is not what a rightist would commonly do; socially, in spite of glorification of the Aryan, I would argue he attributed quite a large role of the state and "the German people". He certainly was quite far from the "There is no such thing as a society" ideal of an individualist rightist!). However, I agree with some previous posters that OP will get marked down for not making the definitional distinction clear, though perhaps not as harshly as some suggest - I think (s)he is guaranteed to pass if the discussion made any sense whatsoever.

Doing what you described simply means an inability to acknowledge the existence of different linear spectrums which, holistically, is what makes up the fact that Fascism is a right-wing ideology. If you want to make the case that Hitler is an "extreme centrist", as some Fascists prefer, then why would you even mention him, if the question asks for a "right-wing" leader and you don't believe Hitler is one? Either way, you're not answering the question - marginally, if at all - and will be receiving very, very poor scores for either your approach or the OP's.

Edited May 14, 2011 by Proletariat

[Pokesz]

What the heck is with you?

Don't be so TOK-out-in-the-universe-minded!

Based on those who I know IB HL students usually cover 5-6 dictators.

Obviously, as definitely mentioned on classes about ideology:

Hitler, Mussolini --> right

Castro, Mao, Lenin, Hitler --> left

I know it's nice to challenge the question, but assuming that the NSDAP could be socialist...ridiculous

Furthermore didn't you think about the possibility, based on ALL previous years, to categorize your rulers? Oh man...

By the way couldn't we discuss this year Paper 1,2 ?

Yeah, and I wouldn't worry so much about choosing a left-winger. Obviously you'll lose 5-10 points, but IB cares for misreadings and carelessness.

You could even go for a 7, given that last year 68% was a 7. And 40/28 or 26 in paper 2 also meant a 7.

[tjlarson]

Ha, I too almost answered that question, but the word "totalitarian" messed me up, considering I had never heard Castro been described like that. I'm sorry that you teacher didn't make an ideology spectrum and place all the leaders you had studied that year on it, as mine did. But I feel that you won't get a zero, just a low score.

[Salve]

what about a 89% on IA does that mean a 5 . great so close to a 6. but maybe the graders give better score than my teacher.

[Guest Red XII]

what about a 89% on IA does that mean a 5 . great so close to a 6. but maybe the graders give better score than my teacher.

The IB is more prone to moderating IAs down, not up. As for an 89%, the class grade usually has very little to do with the actual IB grade. Many of our class grades for IAs were almost entirely (and sometimes entirely) completion.

As for the exam, I thought the dictators part went pretty well - I answered the question on the impact of a left-wing totalitarian government on the lives of its citizens. I wasn't so happy with the Cold War questions, though, because I had focused my studying on the origins and the end (since they always ask about those) but the questions on those were horrible. I didn't remember enough of what happened at the Yalta conference to do the origins question (I know the conferences overall, but not what happened at each one), and didn't study specific examples to be able to answer the question on the Eastern European states and the end of the Cold War. I ended up answering the brinkmanship question on the Cuban Missile Crisis. Overall, though, I felt that it could have gone much worse, and that I definitely passed, which is all I care about for my SLs.

[Proletariat]

I was not very happy with either of these two papers.

For one, I understand that P1 is more or less a crapshoot, but I gambled on it being in the first half of the period rather than the second half, since last year's dealt with Abyssinia. Spent a lot of time memorizing all the Versailles Treaties and the LoN stuff, and apparently the topic turns out to be some event that I didn't study at all. Worst part was my friend who I was studying with asked whether we should study the London, Paris and Geneva conferences, and I said Still, I managed to tie some of my causes of WWI knowledge into Q4, but my second point was basically someone I made up on the spot. I used evidence, but who knows whether it'll be strong enough.

As for P2, I knew the causes of both WWI and WWII so thoroughly that I lit up when I saw that question. However, having written a total of 7 body paragraphs for just that essay I have to say I think they should have just limited the question scope to one of the two wars. I was left with 30 minutes for my second essay, which, thanks to the very strange Cold War questions, was on a Topic that our class did not cover officially at all. I wrote on the ability of PR systems to strengthen and weaken countries, using what I remembered of Weimar (since I didn't review it for this paper >_>) and what I remembered about West Germany from my IA on the Marshall Plan. Four-paragraph essay. Sigh...

[Konni93]

I was not very happy with either of these two papers.

For one, I understand that P1 is more or less a crapshoot, but I gambled on it being in the first half of the period rather than the second half, since last year's dealt with Abyssinia. Spent a lot of time memorizing all the Versailles Treaties and the LoN stuff, and apparently the topic turns out to be some event that I didn't study at all. Worst part was my friend who I was studying with asked whether we should study the London, Paris and Geneva conferences, and I said Still, I managed to tie some of my causes of WWI knowledge into Q4, but my second point was basically someone I made up on the spot. I used evidence, but who knows whether it'll be strong enough.

As for P2, I knew the causes of both WWI and WWII so thoroughly that I lit up when I saw that question. However, having written a total of 7 body paragraphs for just that essay I have to say I think they should have just limited the question scope to one of the two wars. I was left with 30 minutes for my second essay, which, thanks to the very strange Cold War questions, was on a Topic that our class did not cover officially at all. I wrote on the ability of PR systems to strengthen and weaken countries, using what I remembered of Weimar (since I didn't review it for this paper >_>) and what I remembered about West Germany from my IA on the Marshall Plan. Four-paragraph essay. Sigh...

I thought P1 was strange.. Id expected one of the typical, broad questions on LoN, Abyssinia or smthng to that effect. Of the conference I was the sole person in my class that had ever heard of it at all... (again reflects the teaching quality... but then again that was to be expected after two years history self-taught)

[ZBP92]

I feel a bit bad for my teacher, because we covered interwar diplomacy really extensively, and the London Naval Conference was one of the few things we just glossed over. Nevertheless, I thought Paper 1 was pretty easy. The only question that could possibly require prior knowledge is #4, and just by carefully reading the sources and knowing the context you can answer it pretty easily anyway. Paper 1 is strange, it sort of strikes me as IB's apology for the writing marathons that are papers 2 and 3.

Paper 2 I was pretty happy with as well. For CPE of War I wrote about guerrilla warfare in Vietnam, and for single party leaders I wrote about Peron using policy-making to hold onto power.