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

cold war option:

I did the question on Eisenhower- talked about his policy in theory and in practise, compared it to that of Khrushchev and challenged the question by questioning the extent of coexistence at the time- used a fair amount of OK but I completely forgot to talk about the Austrian State treaty which really annoyed me.

also chose the end game: sources were limited when talking about people power so you couldn't x-ref, talked about the importance of personalities and economic troubles. Managed to use a fair amount of OK and managed to evaluate throughout.

Hoping it went better than the mock Overall really liked the paper

That's what I thought! I didn't include Austrian state treaty either! Not the focus of the question


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

I did the exact same Thought it was alright to be honest. I'm just kind of annoyed that I've wasted so many hours of my life revising Germany from 1900-1945..and then only answered questions on 1900-1914. Ah well

oh crap I missed out Austrian State treaty too. But my thoughts are that the Austrian State Treaty was more of a plus point for 'Peaceful Coexistence' so if you were arguing that Eisenhower reacted non-confrontational as Khruschev didn't either with his 'peaceful coexistence' in reference then it's worthwhile putting it down, but I think even if you made that point, which I did the fact that we missed the Austrian State Treaty shouldn't matter too much.

Yeah it was annoying that the dates were the same for both questions for part A, but I reckon if you'd revised Tudor government machine then it shouldn't have been impossible.

Did you do Wyatt or the parliament question? I had two good paragraphs which each had their own point, and then a weird mash-up of a third paragraph where I put in a sentence about every other factor I could think of. Just glad it's out of the way really!

I did the exact same Thought it was alright to be honest. I'm just kind of annoyed that I've wasted so many hours of my life revising Germany from 1900-1945..and then only answered questions on 1900-1914. Ah well

Yeah I basically put that- I talked about how Khrushchev rejected the open skies proposal etc. That was essentially what I wanted to put about the treaty but I'm hoping my argument was substantial enough

Hmm I did revise the Tudor government machine, but I didn't really have much knowledge of the Privy council, I'm hoping I still did okay in that section.

I did the Wyatt rebellion, yourself? I'm so so glad that it's out of the way. Maths tomorrow!

I did exactly these two questions. In the past exams and coursework I have got ADA, so I need about 95% to get an A overall and about 60% to a B overall so really hoping I managed to get the B.

For the first question I sort of analysed the question and split it into two different arguements. The first section of my answer was questioning whether Louis actually left a "favourable political position" for Charles X and the second half I looked at Charles X had "political ineptness" that lost him the throne. I think my first bit relied too heavily on the Charter. In the second bit I sort of forgot the start of Charles' reign fo mainly talked about what about in 1829 and got really descriptive for 1830. It was rushed towards the end but that conclusion was definitely better than the one for Section B.

In the Section B I was slightly thrown by the Jacobin aspect because it was the one we had spent less time on in class but was pretty determined to do that question cause I knew all the marxist/revisionist debates. I pretty much scraped everything I could out of the sources so I could talk about jacobins, class conflict, flight to varennes, war, kings vetos and the economy. It was quite a lot rushed and my own knowledge was really random, I think I mentioned the Diamond Necklace affair and a random letter the King wrote to an Archbishop. I only thought about cross references a little so that wasn't great. The conclusion for this was completely rubbish, can't even remember what I decided was the most important factor in the end

I'll take that then !

I did opposition to roosevelt.. Glad it came up as It was the only bullet point I revised ! What did you choose for part A ?

I did faction fighting and Wyatts rebellion. Talked about 1540 Cromwell plot, 1543 cranked plot, 1546 Parr plot, Somerset manipulating Henry's will with the dry stamp, and Northumberland trying to put LJG on the throne.

i did this too! although i completely forgot the about the economic downturn it went something like this:
louis success in his reign
how louis undermined the principles of the restoration - concludes he did not leave a particularly favourable position
charles long term actions - his reign, ultras, opposition growing etc.
charles short term - 1830 actions
concluded that louis undermined the charter from the start leaving a weakened monarchy for charles and although charles' political ineptness was the direct cause (actions especially in 1830) the bourbons were undermined from the beginning so therefore not ONLY his political ineptness that led to downfall (that was the wording in the question)

does that sound about right? haha. threw in a few historians, quotes, stats and kept referring to the question throughout also!

Yeah I basically put that- I talked about how Khrushchev rejected the open skies proposal etc. That was essentially what I wanted to put about the treaty but I'm hoping my argument was substantial enough

i didn't mention the Austrian state treaty either! it wasn't an act of Eisenhower's so didn't feel it relevant. i mentioned it briefly, like name-dropped it, i said something like Eisenhower saw the end of the Korean war and that with the austrian state treaty saw a reduction of hostile areas therefore removing a point of confrontation

i totally didn't mention khruschev as a point of his own - only saying that Eisenhower was open to his peaceful coexistence