The Student Room Group

A2 Edexcel History Unit 3 12th June 2012 (Discussion)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 780
Original post by AK0001
How did your exam go? :smile:


Hmm well religion didn't come up for part A, which was annoying. In the end I did faction, but not having revised it I really didn't have enough own knowledge to do it very well. Part B was better, as the Wyatt question was really nice and straightforward.

How was yours? :smile:
That was absolutely horrific.

I did the French Revolution one - Question 1 and the Napoleon controversy question.

The 30 mark essay could not have been any worse. It was something like "Political instability in 1794-99 was caused by political divisions from the events of 1793 - how far do you agree?" or something like that. I started off saying that the Directory wasn't even that unstable and the National Convention provided some continuity. Then I realised this was a load of absolute crap and started talking about how the Terror (which I assume is what "the events of 1793" was referring to - I've never seen this in a question before, they usually just say the event...?) squashed any political or social upheaval so once it was gone everyone felt freer to have their say. I think from that point onwards I just lost it and rambled about nothing for a few pages.

The controversy question was much simpler but that isn't a good thing - "Napoleon himself was responsible for the decline and downfall of the French Empire" - YES HE WAS - what else is there to say?! All the sources concentrated on his military ability so I managed a decent paragraph on his decline as a commander with outdated tactics and the improvements of the other European powers. I highlighted Britain and Russia especially (I hope I did this enough, I have a feeling I didn't) and then I didn't really have much else to say. I squeezed out another paragraph on France getting tired of war and instead wanting peace and linked this to the dismissal of Talleyrand and Fouche (only a passing reference - I really should have gone into more detail but time was running out).

So there. I'm prepared for my U. I need 56 UMS points from this exam to get me a B overall so that's 47% which is a high E / low D right? I think I managed a "casual analysis" so surely that should get me a D?
Reply 782
Okay I didn't like that exam (I did Tudors).

The first part wasn't too bad, but I was a little disappointed they had nothing on Mary/Elizabeth and Anglo-Spanish relations.

The second part I found much harder, it was difficult to write about Wyatt's rebellion for an hour without going into narrative, I kept going round in circles and repeated myself.
Original post by Retro.spex
French revolution people? I did the Bourbon question and Louis controversy. But I've done nowhere near enough for what I need.


We're here!
I did the two other questions, section A on the Directory and section B on Napoleon.
Started with Section B, stressed how Napoleon's tactics and leadership hadn't declined but rather te environment in which he was using them had changed (i.e. Austrian adoption of his own tactics in the Battles of Aspern-Essling and Wagram in 1809), the significance of the Russia Campaign and Peninsular War which showed bad leadership and then finally did role of the British and Napoleon's obsession with the Continental System, Milan Decree and the overall financial blockade of Britain which blinded Napoleon from the realities of the situation in Europe as he descended into slightly megalomanic tendencies in his pursuit for control.

Section A was a little less sparkly as **** all happens under the Directory. Argued that it wasn't political divisions which caused the instability as all opposition had been purged during the Terror but rather, as they were ruling with the memory of the Terror, the feeling of necessity to walk the middle ground led to political instability and incapability to rule: annual elections meant nothing got done, no economic reforms, no one could hold a majority. Then they were undermined by both political plots such as the Babeuf Plot of 1796 and the uprisings such as the Germinal, Prairial and Vendèmiaire in 1795 in which the army was seen to be stronger and more efficient. Contrast of the Directory's weaknesses with the army's successes such as Treaty of Campo Formio in 1797 and Battle of the Pyramids led to further instability, especially as the checks and balances on power in the government were not present in the army.

Let's just hope for the best. It didn't go awfully, but I'm not so happy with section A.
Original post by ohmagicbox
We're here!
I did the two other questions, section A on the Directory and section B on Napoleon.
Started with Section B, stressed how Napoleon's tactics and leadership hadn't declined but rather te environment in which he was using them had changed (i.e. Austrian adoption of his own tactics in the Battles of Aspern-Essling and Wagram in 1809), the significance of the Russia Campaign and Peninsular War which showed bad leadership and then finally did role of the British and Napoleon's obsession with the Continental System, Milan Decree and the overall financial blockade of Britain which blinded Napoleon from the realities of the situation in Europe as he descended into slightly megalomanic tendencies in his pursuit for control.

Section A was a little less sparkly as **** all happens under the Directory. Argued that it wasn't political divisions which caused the instability as all opposition had been purged during the Terror but rather, as they were ruling with the memory of the Terror, the feeling of necessity to walk the middle ground led to political instability and incapability to rule: annual elections meant nothing got done, no economic reforms, no one could hold a majority. Then they were undermined by both political plots such as the Babeuf Plot of 1796 and the uprisings such as the Germinal, Prairial and Vendèmiaire in 1795 in which the army was seen to be stronger and more efficient. Contrast of the Directory's weaknesses with the army's successes such as Treaty of Campo Formio in 1797 and Battle of the Pyramids led to further instability, especially as the checks and balances on power in the government were not present in the army.

Let's just hope for the best. It didn't go awfully, but I'm not so happy with section A.


Oh god. I'm getting a U.
Reply 785
Original post by Cassius
Hmm well religion didn't come up for part A, which was annoying. In the end I did faction, but not having revised it I really didn't have enough own knowledge to do it very well. Part B was better, as the Wyatt question was really nice and straightforward.

How was yours? :smile:


Hmm yeah, I was surprised that factional rivalry came up, I was going to answer that question but I felt that I didn't have enough knowledge to answer it properly. I went for question two instead, I think I did okay in that.

Part B was straightforward but I got carried away with my 'own knowledge', I just don't think I made use of the sources properly. :/
did anyone do the imprial germany question? option D?? it was so dificult!! :frown:
Original post by WannabeDoctor
Yeah I did. I did the appeasement question between
33-37 in section A and the Chamberlain question in part B. I thought the questions were pretty nice to be fair, hopefully done well.


Ah I didn't really like appeasement, 1933-37 was a beauty though. Which way did you argue the sources?
I did the French Revolution. For Section A I did the question on the Bourbon Restoration, but I have a feeling that I wrote too narratively and I spent far too long on it, leaving little time for Section B.

For Section B I did the Napoleon controversy. I had a feeling it would be something to do with his mistakes, so I wrote about the Continental Blockade, the Peninsular War, the Russian Campaign and revealing his weaknesses. I tried to show some balance by referring to the improvement amongst the allies so they could have contributed, so it wasn't just him. But I only did failings of personal leadership as bullet points, so I could write a conclusion. :frown:

The questions were OK, but I felt nervous before so I felt a bit uptight before the exam and I recall spending around 2-3 minutes choosing which question to answer.

I suppose I can forget about getting an A overall now as I think I could have done better in the Section B. I'd be happy with a B, just so long as I can get two As in my other subjects. I just feel disappointed as I underestimated how much difficult A2 would be from AS. I didn't relax but rather like Napoleon (:rolleyes:) I didn't change my "tactics"! Oh well... I might as well get off TSR and continue revising for my exams.

I hope everyone else found the exam OK & good luck for the rest of your exams. Does anyone have an inkling on the level of grade boundaries?
Reply 789
Original post by annie.nicole
did anyone do the imprial germany question? option D?? it was so dificult!! :frown:


Yes I did that one! I saw the other question and immediately blanked on everything. Thinking about it since it seems like the easier of the two.

I also feel like I've mucked up a bit on one of the sources for the controversy 1933-39. One of the sources mentioned something like 'our views on Hitler's personality have changed. We have long since known that blahblah' and went on about how lazy he was. Do you think it meant that the author thought that he wasn't actually lazy? Anyway that part bugged me through the whole exam and I didn't take notice of it. Hoping it won't be too detrimental!
French Revolution here :smile:

I revised heavily for Part B but really didn't have a clue about either part for part A. I did the question about the events of 1793 blah blah. because I wasn't revised enough I think I was too narrative - i wrote 3 pages explaining about The Convention, Prairal + Germinal, the White Terror and Vendemaire before I ran out of time. (I did Part B first).

For Part B I did the Napoleon question. Did about 7 pages which is good because usually I only manage about 4. I wrote about all the things that led to his downfall: First his own mistakes, then The Russian Campaign, The Peninsular War, The Continental Blockade, The 6th Coalition, and the Actions of His Enemies. I got in plenty of Historians opinions (although I think I mixed some of the names up) and plenty of facts and figures. I related every paragraph as to how it could be seen as his own mistake i.e. It was a mistake to enforce to continental system, It was his own fault that he was unprepared for Russia etc. All I need is a Low C to pass this.. so what do people think I've got? I don't know my UMS marks but my teachers has said that 38 marks in this paper will get me the grade I need.
Reply 791
I think it actually went ok for me, it's just that I had to finish part B in a rush and sometimes quickly add evidence to back up points that I made in some sections that I forgot to do. But in other parts I managed to talk about both points and evidence straight away. So I'm a bit worried about that. Hopefully it's going to be fine. Ever since I got a U on my first AS History exam :frown: (I really effed that one up though) I have this thing in my mind about not getting my hopes too high.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by fishfan01
This exam made me so sad!

I did the Battle of the Atlantic and the Controversy 2 question, kind of wish I'd done the first one now :frown:)

The questions were nice - it's always nice when you open a paper and you know what and who everybody is, but I'm pretty sure I totally screwed it up :frown: My structure, particularly for the controversy was so so bad, just all over the place.

You know when you're writing and in your head you're like 'Do not write this, Olivia. Seriously, stop writing. Right now. You don't want to write this.' But your hand just keeps on going, making you sound like an imbecile. I know that they were nowhere near as good as timed essays I've done before now :frown: I really wish my school would tell us what we got in our cw. They're going to regret predicting me that A*.


I did the same question! Did you have to write about D-day?
Reply 793
Original post by Fliss.p
I did Eisenhower and wrote about what you did but argued it was on face value confrontational and then behind the scenes it was coexistence - used summits etc. didn't really use khrushchev that much only that he visited, i placed more emphasis that he had to seem hard line to the public and the american senate so that he didn't come under huge pressure like truman did, said about massive retaliation, brinkmanship, said how the arms race build up was central to his policy but it was meant to be a deterrent rather than confrontational but the soviets did see this as threatening,

I DID NOT understand the other question, i was like :s so thats why i answered eisenhower!

I did the end of the cold war, like you spent a bit more time on section A as i needed to properly plan that one if you get what i mean? i too found the sources HORRIFIC i ran out of time so put a conclusion on, really didn't write that much for long-term economic weaknesses, tried to keep relating it back to the popular protests throughout though :frown: I feel that I rushed a bit through Reagan BUT THERE WAS NOTHING substantial of him in the sources "/

do you think they'll be more willing to give marks on the sources marking this year?



Thank goodness! I had been worrying about the Eisenhower question but I did exactly what you put, face value confrontational, but underneath that all pragmatism, dealing with the situation of the cold war e.g. spheres of influence in europe creating more stability now than before, arms race obviously being important in deterring actual use of 'massive retaliation', geneva spirit, inviting khrushchev to the US and eliminating his Berlin ultimatum, obviously he had hiccups with the U2 spy planes and still accelerating the arms race (nuclear arms race), he had to seem hard line and confrontational due tot the American public, then in the paragraphs I had little bits contrasting Khrushchev who was using 'peaceful coexistence' but then obviously we had the hungarian uprising, his berlin ultimatum (which was put aside when Eisenhower sweet talked him :wink:) and so on. Argued through each paragraph that essentially the make up and face value of his policies were confrontational but that we did see somewhat of a 'thaw' in-between 1953-60, as his policies were based primarily on pragmatism and reactions towards the situation of the cold war that had developed with the arms race, spheres of influence, khrushchev's peaceful coexistence.

I thought part B was much stronger! End of the Cold War too for me :smile: Although I did find sources were limited on Reagan, that one sentence on him was enough I thought as you could link his role in and compare to gorbachev/Reagan's acceleration of the economic failures in the USSR. Concentrated mainly on arguing that popular protest was a by product of Gorbachev's policies, and in the end Gorbachev's policies undermined the Soviet Union as they span out of control and perestroika was a complete failure, but essentially the entire process began and ended due to the decline of communism and the economic reality that communism could not adapt to the fast moving forward market economics of the "information age".
Thought part B was strong, part A harder! Thought they threw us a curve ball with both part A questions, they were differently worded and things to past papers! I reckon they will give a lot for being good with sources, they always do but I Think the sustained argument throughout is what will get the marks with good integration and evaluation with the sources. Fingers crossed for good grades!
Reply 794
I'm really ambivalent about this. I originally felt it was going quite well but now I'm worried. Not going to be a good summer waiting for the 16th of August :s

I answered A on Detente and B on the end of the Cold War

Detente:
Okay, I thought this one was quite nice - basically a question on the causes of Detente. I think I was a bit weak on the Sino-US side of it (didn't really mention economy - really kicking myself), but focussed more on the embarrassment of the Communist cause being split and the fact that the USSR felt surrounded by enemies and required detente.

I then mentioned in detail all the other factors: Vietnam war, problems in both countries, protests in both countries, fear of war etc. etc.

BUT I'm worried because some of my friends said they talked in detail about the SALT treaties and Helsinki :confused: I swear this was not necessary since it was on the causes of detente and these are more a result of detente. Please tell me I'm right since I didn't mention these at all :frown:

End of the Cold War
THE SOURCES WERE RUBBISH
They were so ambivalent, saying SO many different things and basically agreeing on everything. I found it hard to separate economic factors from protests because of the key word "undermining" in the question - so I basically said that the fact that people were protesting about economic factors undermined the Soviet system.

I also ran out of time at the end and didn't write a very good conclusion. At some points I had to slightly disagree with the question - for example with Reagan I said that although source (11?) talked about him in not a lot of detail I added that actually the Reagan Doctrine and increased arms expenditure was also an important factor etc. ... and similarly with Gorbachev.

I'm glad it's finally out of the way, but going to be really really scared when results come out :frown:

How did everyone else find it?
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by gahyee94
Thank goodness! I had been worrying about the Eisenhower question but I did exactly what you put, face value confrontational, but underneath that all pragmatism, dealing with the situation of the cold war e.g. spheres of influence in europe creating more stability now than before, arms race obviously being important in deterring actual use of 'massive retaliation', geneva spirit, inviting khrushchev to the US and eliminating his Berlin ultimatum, obviously he had hiccups with the U2 spy planes and still accelerating the arms race (nuclear arms race), he had to seem hard line and confrontational due tot the American public, then in the paragraphs I had little bits contrasting Khrushchev who was using 'peaceful coexistence' but then obviously we had the hungarian uprising, his berlin ultimatum (which was put aside when Eisenhower sweet talked him :wink:) and so on. Argued through each paragraph that essentially the make up and face value of his policies were confrontational but that we did see somewhat of a 'thaw' in-between 1953-60, as his policies were based primarily on pragmatism and reactions towards the situation of the cold war that had developed with the arms race, spheres of influence, khrushchev's peaceful coexistence.

I thought part B was much stronger! End of the Cold War too for me :smile: Although I did find sources were limited on Reagan, that one sentence on him was enough I thought as you could link his role in and compare to gorbachev/Reagan's acceleration of the economic failures in the USSR. Concentrated mainly on arguing that popular protest was a by product of Gorbachev's policies, and in the end Gorbachev's policies undermined the Soviet Union as they span out of control and perestroika was a complete failure, but essentially the entire process began and ended due to the decline of communism and the economic reality that communism could not adapt to the fast moving forward market economics of the "information age".
Thought part B was strong, part A harder! Thought they threw us a curve ball with both part A questions, they were differently worded and things to past papers! I reckon they will give a lot for being good with sources, they always do but I Think the sustained argument throughout is what will get the marks with good integration and evaluation with the sources. Fingers crossed for good grades!


Omg u are such a genius! wish I had ur brain :frown:


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
Reply 796
Original post by laurenlovespink
Omg u are such a genius! wish I had ur brain :frown:


what?! noooo! I'm not, just luvin' the Cold War and Gorbymania :colondollar::colondollar::colondollar: hahahahhahHAHAHAHAHHhhhahaahah
Original post by t-v-
YESSS! The sources were TERRIBLE!!!!! I think my part B was awful.. I couldn't really include the role of leaders because the sources didn't really support this point. UGHHH


You know you can do a paragraph purely from own-knowledge without needing to have a quote from the sources in every one... Right?
Original post by flying_ifan
I'm really ambivalent about this. I originally felt it was going quite well but now I'm worried. Not going to be a good summer waiting for the 16th of August :s

I answered A on Detente and B on the end of the Cold War

Detente:
Okay, I thought this one was quite nice - basically a question on the causes of Detente. I think I was a bit weak on the Sino-US side of it (didn't really mention economy - really kicking myself), but focussed more on the embarrassment of the Communist cause being split and the fact that the USSR felt surrounded by enemies and required detente.

I then mentioned in detail all the other factors: Vietnam war, problems in both countries, protests in both countries, fear of war etc. etc.

BUT I'm worried because some of my friends said they talked in detail about the SALT treaties and Helsinki :confused: I swear this was not necessary since it was on the causes of detente and these are more a result of detente. Please tell me I'm right since I didn't mention these at all :frown:

End of the Cold War
THE SOURCES WERE RUBBISH
They were so ambivalent, saying SO many different things and basically agreeing on everything. I found it hard to separate economic factors from protests because of the key word "undermining" in the question - so I basically said that the fact that people were protesting about economic factors undermined the Soviet system.

I also ran out of time at the end and didn't write a very good conclusion. At some points I had to slightly disagree with the question - for example with Reagan I said that although source (11?) talked about him in not a lot of detail I added that actually the Reagan Doctrine and increased arms expenditure was also an important factor etc. ... and similarly with Gorbachev.

I'm glad it's finally out of the way, but going to be really really scared when results come out :frown:

How did everyone else find it?


I didn't talk about SALT or Helsinki - there was no need it was causes of detente and the SALT treaties or Helsinki accords were not caused at all! Don't panic :smile:


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
Reply 799
Original post by laurenlovespink
I didn't talk about SALT or Helsinki - there was no need it was causes of detente and the SALT treaties or Helsinki accords were not caused at all! Don't panic :smile:


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App


GOOD. Makes me feel a lot better :biggrin:

Quick Reply

Latest