[Joolker]

Had a quick scan through, looks like I'm the only person here doing the Vietnam module.. Everyone seems to be doing something else.

What's everyone hoping comes up? Hope Johnson comes up for the sources as he's probably the most difficult, I'm confident on Nixon and Kennedy for the essay questions.

[deano0417]

How did your exam go? I found the Source questions a doddle and the 12 marker on VC support by SV was good but I completely messed up the Johnson 24 marker, regret not doing the nixon one now

[Kidioteque]

I did this too Completely fudged up my timings - I'd planned to spend 50 mins on sources and 40 on the other questions but it became more like 60:30. Thought sources were okay (although I wouldn't say "a doddle" ), however I struggled for time on the Johnson 24 marker. Ended up rushing through factors and only wrote 2 and a half pages. Fingers crossed though.

(Original post by deano0417)
How did your exam go? I found the Source questions a doddle and the 12 marker on VC support by SV was good but I completely messed up the Johnson 24 marker, regret not doing the nixon one now

What did you do to mess up the Johnson 24 marker? I'm sure you've done a lot better than you think.

[dannyoh]

Very fair exam and quite happy as I'd done lots on escalation of the war, VC and the Tet offensive.

Timing an issue for me, spent about 35 mins annotating and answering the 1st 12 mark and 25 on the other one, so I too was a 60:30

[Kidioteque]

(Original post by dannyoh)
Very fair exam and quite happy as I'd done lots on escalation of the war, VC and the Tet offensive.

Timing an issue for me, spent about 35 mins annotating and answering the 1st 12 mark and 25 on the other one, so I too was a 60:30

Glad I'm not the only one! Sources were better than usual, although I think the Nixon question looked hideous! Expecting boundaries to be pretty standard, or perhaps bit higher than usual.

[deano0417]

I messed up by only doing a page and a half, 3 factors with limited detail and a conclusion, Hopefully my other questions will pull it up, need 74/100 on this one to get an A overall so just got to wait and pray.

[deano0417]

For the source question what were your other sides I just said it was a defeat for communist and as a third it was neither and a defeat for SV and just mentioned casualty's/refugees etc. Then just said things to conclude like it wasn't a loss for the US but the media actually turned it into a loss but if you look at SV as there ally and how the SV damage to an extent affected the US then it could be seen as a Communist victory

[Joolker]

I was very pleased with the source questions, also found it as a fair exam. I answered the Nixon questions, perhaps the grade boundaries will be lower for them as a lot of people I spoke to after the exam did the Johnson questions however I was more confident on Nixon.

Deano, for the source question, I split it into 3 points as per usual - first was an American defeat (and therefore a victory for the communists) with regard to the media i.e. public opinion changed - approval ratings dropped, media reporting turned negative i.e. Cronkite and the loss of confidence in Congress. My second point was also American defeat with regard to the human and financial cost and poor American morale (drug use among soldiers, fraggings and so on) and finally my third point was an American victory (and so a loss for the North), here I talked about how they lost a huge amount of men and materials. I didn't even think to mention South Vietnam as a seperate point as I didn't think it really related to the question, but I did mention them briefly in passing in relation to their aliance with the American forces.

I got 90/100 on my first module in January which was Britain 1906-1951, hoping for at least 90 again so I'm on track for an A* by the end of A2.

[Kidioteque]

(Original post by deano0417)
For the source question what were your other sides I just said it was a defeat for communist and as a third it was neither and a defeat for SV and just mentioned casualty's/refugees etc. Then just said things to conclude like it wasn't a loss for the US but the media actually turned it into a loss but if you look at SV as there ally and how the SV damage to an extent affected the US then it could be seen as a Communist victory

Roughly my points for this were:

Defeat:
- Many saw Tet as a turning point
- The stalemate frustrated people after tax rises in 1967 and money being diverted away from LBJ's "Great Society" in aid of the war effort - approval rating plummeted
- Congress began to consider cutting some funding
- Cronkite's influence over Americans
- Shook US confidence - they had been caught off guard
- Led to LBJ announcing he wouldn't be standing for re-election
- Sustained heaviest losses thus far
- VC had liberated many from the countrysides

Victory:
- I argued that if you saw it from Westmoreland's point of view using body count, it could be seen as a victory as they killed many VC
- Caused the VC to struggle to regain land in future years
- Destroyed a lot of Communist materials
- The VC did alienate some South Vietnamese a wee bit with their ruthlessness, dragged 3000 civilians from their homes and executing them

I grouped and separated those into different paragraphs, however I think my structure became a bit sloppy, so I might lose marks there. Ultimately I think the content was okay though.


Hopefully the boundaries aren't toooooo high, because I really rushed through the second 24 marker!


EDIT: Only just seen your other reply Deano, I wouldn't worry too much, the fact you spent longer on the other stuff probably means you nailed them Mine was only about 2 and 1/3 pages long, don't think I did many factors and couldn't think of much to say about Johnson apart from him being "a man of his time", and all that. My other factors were public and congressional support for the war (up to 1968), Johnson's advisers (McNamara, Wise Men, etc), and a bit about Westmoreland (I think).

[deano0417]

I think my source 24 was good, I included people such as Davis who said that the everytime casualty rates increased by a factor of ten, public support dropped 15% so therefore the casualty rates led to public support dropping and also Clarence Wyatt as a counter-argument as she said that "Tet wasn't so much a turning point but more of a confirmation of trends" thus showing that tet didn't actually effect public opinion as widely as some people think therefore the VC were not that successful on that front, think I went to in-depth on my first 24 then fumbled my last 24, school boy error