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

Wasn't the Austrian Treaty a four-way agreement though?

It sounds fine! Yeah I had Hungarian Uprising too and stuff Yeah me too, I think I had all the correct points, just hoping my argument and structure was correct and stuff too, or not too messy!

likewise, low grade boundaries hopefully

and rep'd for calming my nerves about what I put

haha I'm hoping for that too! I really want an A* in history...
but I can only hope! it seemed okay and I felt happy overall, bits in part A I wish I'd done better but hey ho I always do that after an exam!
I didn't really talk much about NATO in Geneva Spirit but we shall see

haha oh thank you we wrote pretty much similar things so I'm calming myself down in the process too!

I went for the reasons for the boom. I'd done a massive PowerPoint on the boom, a quarter of which was all about the motor manufacturing industry, so I was quite happy

just out of interest, what conclusion did you reach about the new deal? I decided that it didn't really revive the economy, what with the recession, unemployment and failures of various agencies, but it did revive the banking sector. How about you?

I would be happy with a B and A would be great an A* is only a dream- we haven't been told our coursework grades and I got a low B for AS
Part A was a good question but it did seem narrow in retrospect- I briefly mentioned the Geneva spirit and summits, I don't think I mentioned NATO though. As long as we have strong supporting evidence it should be okay- I'm going to speak to my history teacher tomorrow or ASAP about it and find out what she thinks

It did baffle me at first, the way it was based round Eisenhower! I didn't like the sound of the Detente one either. Yeah me too, thank goodness! My friend came out saying he spoke in so much detail about the Geneva Spirit but I didn't think every point about it was that necessary for the actual question itself.
Yeah hopefully! I think I did, I didn't ramble at all I don't think.
Yes I think I'll be doing the same, as I'm going into school for my maths C3 exam anyway. Message me what she says! I'll tell you what mine says

Even though I revised detente that question could have been a lot nicer- we had a question similar to that in our mock (out of 2) and our teacher despised it. I didn't have time to speak to anyone after it due to the rush to revise for econ3. I just talked about the Geneva spirit in the sense it showed a period of "coexistence rather than confrontation" but this was limited due to the U2 plane incident and the walk out of the Paris summit.
I don't think I rambled that much- it was structured but the challenging of the assumptions in the question was a bit scattered.
Good luck with you maths I will do, hopefully our minds would be put at ease

Awh crap, your one sounds better than mine. I didn't even know any historians for that question or any of the long term causes. You will do great, don't worry about it

Yeah I did a whole lot on Detente causes and I didn't really like the way the question was worded and things either.
Yeah that is EXACTLY what I put about Geneva Spirit! It was limited due to U2, and all they really achieved from it was a sense of co-operation and the cultural exchanges in scientists, scholars etc. The rest on arms talks etc. did not lead to agreements. That was the same for me, I felt like my argument would jump a little between points, but I felt I had argued my underlying argument well- that through the superficial nature of 'the thaw' Eisenhower had due to the situation, based his actual actions round pragmatism rather than the real foreign policy that at face value was very much aggressive, etc due to the wishes of the public.
Ah thank you! Are you doing AQA economics btw? I've got econ 4 next wednesday :| yes I think it will be!

Same :O I basically mentioned how in theory it was a hardline approach but that was the influence of Dulles who endorsed massive retaliation. In reality he wanted to do whatever he could to avoid a nuclear war and so was willing to negotiate.
I am indeed I'm re-sitting econ4 (the marking was atrocious in January for the entire college)

hiya! I did from kaiser to fuhrer option!

for the first question i did 'How far was Germany a democracy in the years 1900-1914?'
I didnt find it too bad! talked about kaiser, constitutional, political parties and nationalism!

for the sources the question was fairly straight forward 'How far was German aggression responsible for WW1'
i just used the sources, and my own knowledge and managed to write about 8-9 pages!

but from the sound of it everyone seems pretty upset/down about their questions! did anyone else do the same as me?

Yes I argued although both their policies were like that, obviously there was MAD and how even in Hungary Uprising because Hungary was a part of the soviet sphere of influence that had been settled now, they did nothing militarily and although tensions rose, Eisenhower and Dulles both did not was to provoke a war in fear of MAD. Pragmatism over confrontation!
Ah you took it in jan? I did econ 3 in Jan and doing econ 4 now. I really dislike eco this year, it is SO DRY :| econ 4 seems HUGE?

That's pretty much what I said (great minds think alike )
I did, the paper wasn't that great and I could have done a lot better as I rushed it being worried for time and sily reasons. Econ3 this season was beautiful. Econ4 seems huge but the best way to think of it econ2 in more depth I really enjoyed it last year, this year it just seems so tedious.

I did Kaiser to Fuhrer and I thought it was okayish I'm not too sure though.

For part A I did the second question on Nazi fortunes and when I was doing the exam I thought it went really well. I wrote about:

FOR:
-Nazi reorganisation/development in the 1920s (down to Hitler)
-My next paragraph was kind of messy but I tried to get down the reasons for Hitler's role after 1930. I think I should have written more on the volksgemeinschaft and the wide "catch all" programme now though D:

AGAINST:
-The economic reasons: wall street crash, unemployment, etc
-The failure of the Republic to solve the problems: Bruning's failure, the increasing use of Article 48, no democratic consensus, etc.
-Political Intrigue

But now I'm thinking I missed out the WHOLE of a vital section: the consolidation of power!? Did anyone else write about this or was it okay not to? I put it in my plan but I actually didn't have time to write about it and I thought the question was about how he came to power I mean the way it was phrased as "the rising fortunes of the Nazi Party" made it seem like it was up to his appointment as Chancellor :/ Or maybe I just completely misinterpreted it.

So nervous now

My conclusion was fairly bad as well: I just said his chancellorship resulted from a cumulative chain of events or something awful.

Did anyone else do this question? What did you include for it?

Oh gosh haha I did econ 3 in jan and it was really quite alright too! Considering I didn't do much for it and came out with 87%. But this unit is so BIG. Yeah that's how I'm thinking I'm going to approach it, but you have to really have up to date knowledge as well I think which makes it harder. I totally agree! Last year I loved it and that's why I didn't drop it when I should have because this year it is just awful. Just plain boring. That's what synoptic papers do though, I guess.