jvic Posted May 15, 2011 Report Share Posted May 15, 2011 P1 was alright as the sources were pretty straight-forward and lovely. Did the guerilla warfare question with focus on Afganistan 1979-89 and the right-wing method q on P2, feel pretty confident although my last-night cramming of Lenin turned out to be pretty useless... Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lexie Posted May 15, 2011 Report Share Posted May 15, 2011 Paper 1 was easy, for paper 2 i picked the 'to what extent did nationalism cause 2 wars' question, wrote about WWI and WWII it was a really really long question, kind of like 2 questions smushed together. But I thought I did alright. Did the potsdam question for the other essay, didn't take too long there so managed to finish everything but it really was a race against time Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
genius wannabe Posted May 16, 2011 Report Share Posted May 16, 2011 Paper 1 .. was an absolute disaster. Our teacher was so sure we wouldn't need to know that, so we didn't learn Washington London or Geneva conferences. At the end when we were looking at the syllabus, a few of us tried to learn it on our own but it made no sense at all. So we essentially learned what the London Naval Conference was from the sources, haha (: Either way I feel like I should at least be set for a 5 because I knew what I was talking about in Papers 2 and 3. We'll see! Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dachirt Posted May 16, 2011 Report Share Posted May 16, 2011 How did you interpret the Mao question. Was it about raise or rule? I went for rule. 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.