may16 History Paper 3

[ellie]

So, what did you guys think?

I did Peacekeeping/Europe, loved the questions, I'm so glad there was one on the Russian Revolution, that's definitely my favourite topic. And the WWI questions were really good!

Edited May 14, 2016 by ellie

[Malino]

5 hours ago, ellie said:

So, what did you guys think?

I did Peacekeeping/Europe, loved the questions, I'm so glad there was one on the Russian Revolution, that's definitely my favourite topic. And the WWI questions were really good!

Hi! I found it great too, for the questions of causes of outbreak of  ww1 what did you mention? What i understood is that they were asking you to focus on the short-term causes and discuss why the outbreak of war was in the year 1914, therefore I didn't mention long term causes. How did you interpret it?

[ellie]

30 minutes ago, Malino said:

Hi! I found it great too, for the questions of causes of outbreak of  ww1 what did you mention? What i understood is that they were asking you to focus on the short-term causes and discuss why the outbreak of war was in the year 1914, therefore I didn't mention long term causes. How did you interpret it?

Just in case: my question was about the role of diplomatic crises 1905-1913, did we have the same one? I talked about the I and II Moroccan crises, the annexation of Bosnia and the Balkan Wars, in quite a bit of detail for the first half of the essay, then said that the crises were important because of the alliances, as otherwise the war would've stayed localised in the Balkans with only Austria and Russia involved a bit -- because I interpreted 'outbreak of WWI' as outbreak of a world war, with emphasis on that it wasn't just a third Balkan war. Then went on to discuss the alliances, talk a bit about the roles of imperialism (also connected to crises/alliances) and militarism. So I discussed a bit of both long- and short-term causes, trying to stay focused on the 1905-14 period.

I feel like you can't go too wrong if they give you a claim and say 'discuss'. At least I hope so.

[ShootingStar16]

8 hours ago, ellie said:

Just in case: my question was about the role of diplomatic crises 1905-1913, did we have the same one? I talked about the I and II Moroccan crises, the annexation of Bosnia and the Balkan Wars, in quite a bit of detail for the first half of the essay, then said that the crises were important because of the alliances, as otherwise the war would've stayed localised in the Balkans with only Austria and Russia involved a bit -- because I interpreted 'outbreak of WWI' as outbreak of a world war, with emphasis on that it wasn't just a third Balkan war. Then went on to discuss the alliances, talk a bit about the roles of imperialism (also connected to crises/alliances) and militarism. So I discussed a bit of both long- and short-term causes, trying to stay focused on the 1905-14 period.

I feel like you can't go too wrong if they give you a claim and say 'discuss'. At least I hope so.

I did talk about the two Moroccan crises and then Russian interest in the Balkans and I tried challenging the question on that saying it's too simplistic to assert that there was really a "main cause"

Edited May 15, 2016 by ShootingStar16

[ellie]

8 hours ago, ShootingStar16 said:

I did talk about the two Moroccan crises and then Russian interest in the Balkans and I tried challenging the question on that saying it's too simplistic to assert that there was really a "main cause"

Oooh that's a good point. I just said there were many things that were interrelated as causes.

[Salome Holland]

2 hours ago, ellie said:

Oooh that's a good point. I just said there were many things that were interrelated as causes.

I said the same thing, although it makes sense that its too simplistic as a question. Instead I used the common metaphor that says that the long-term causes were a bomb waiting to explode while the short term causes were the spark that allowed the bomb to explode. Its kind of cliché, but oh well. I also did the questions about why the Allies won the First World War and the one about the successes and failures of Mussolini's economic policy. 

[ShootingStar16]

6 hours ago, Salome Holland said:

I said the same thing, although it makes sense that its too simplistic as a question. Instead I used the common metaphor that says that the long-term causes were a bomb waiting to explode while the short term causes were the spark that allowed the bomb to explode. Its kind of cliché, but oh well. I also did the questions about why the Allies won the First World War and the one about the successes and failures of Mussolini's economic policy. 

I used the idea of "long fuse" and "short fuse" for my counterarguments and my arguments

[ShootingStar16]

Did anyone do the two French Rev questions? 

Edited May 15, 2016 by ShootingStar16

[Malino]

13 hours ago, Salome Holland said:

I said the same thing, although it makes sense that its too simplistic as a question. Instead I used the common metaphor that says that the long-term causes were a bomb waiting to explode while the short term causes were the spark that allowed the bomb to explode. Its kind of cliché, but oh well. I also did the questions about why the Allies won the First World War and the one about the successes and failures of Mussolini's economic policy. 

I did the same exact questions!  What did you mention for the one about the allies?

 

[Salome Holland]

7 hours ago, Malino said:

I did the same exact questions!  What did you mention for the one about the allies?

 

For the Allies question my main points were the failure of the Schlieffen plan, the fact that initial loses were more burdening for the Germans than for the Allies (since the Germans initially only sent out their best troops), then the fact that the homefront in England was better organized than in Germany and civilian unrest led for calls for 'peace without victory' and then I talked about Allied propaganda vs. German propaganda. I used very little historiography though and I am scared that my essays will score poorly because of that. 

[ellie]

3 hours ago, Salome Holland said:

For the Allies question my main points were the failure of the Schlieffen plan, the fact that initial loses were more burdening for the Germans than for the Allies (since the Germans initially only sent out their best troops), then the fact that the homefront in England was better organized than in Germany and civilian unrest led for calls for 'peace without victory' and then I talked about Allied propaganda vs. German propaganda. I used very little historiography though and I am scared that my essays will score poorly because of that. 

You don't need historiography for a level 7 essay! You need to analyse different viewpoints, that's much more important. Don't worry

[Zangetsu]

I'm not so sure how I did with my other two essays. For the first one, I talked about the role of Garibaldi's leadership and I stated how with the formation of the redshirts, he made a clear aim for Italian unification and as well got a group to advocate for it as well and I mentioned his conquest on italian unification as well. I worry with this one because I think I messed up dates when talking about Garibaldi's formation and I fear that I might get a 4 due to that.