Edexcel History Unit 1-International Relations-6th June 2016 Exam

Scroll to see replies

In the last question, I stupidly put Brezhnev's name instead of Khruschev. I also said they fought over Berlin's expensive industries haha someone help me out. I wrote about khruschev ultimatum refugee etc but i put brezhnev name instead. anyone know what mark i'd get? maybe 7/13?

Reply 221

KAK123

Original post by grace143

no one said that
it's out of 53 :smile:

oh right. yeah i feel really stupid now. i

Reply 222

KAK123

Original post by grace143

no one said that
it's out of 53 :smile:

oh right. yeah i feel really stupid now.

Reply 223

KAK123

Original post by droadman786

did you keep on referring to brezhnev, or was it a one time mistake?

Reply 224

Colonel Sanders

Original post by swanlake101

what did you say?

I also wrote about the speech, its in 1962/3 so its correct, but the way i phrased it was the 'international reaction' to the berlin wall, and used the speech as an example. then went on to say this was very important coz it made capitalist west look attractive and further divided the two sides. i also prioritised it saying that it was more important than the construction of the berlin wall, but less important than the refugee crisis because the refugee crisis, in my opinion, started everything off - without it the wall wouldn't have been built. im sure if i backed it up with reasons i will get the marks for it.

i thought that nobody else did the Kennedy speech - i was so scared.

Reply 225

beccaholland

Original post by gameofno

same about the 10 marker- i think i talked about how his attitude changed after the second cold war (introducing reforms etc) rather than during :\

Ugh, I think I completely bombed this question. I just completely misinterpreted and spent way too long on it, waffling in an attempt to convince the examiner I knew what the question was asking. Damn :frown:

Does anyone remember the exact wording for the source question? (Q3 I believe.)

For the last question, I had only just got onto the conclusion when the exam ended so I didn't have time to prioritise. My third point was incredibly rushed and overall, I didn't even fill two sides. I don't know anyone at my school who found it easy so let's hope for low grade boundaries. I'm pretty sure I've messed up my chances of getting an A* overall now, but I revised well and feel I did the best I could so hey ho. :smile:

Wishing you all the best of luck for the rest of the history exams! Does anyone do Russia?

Reply 226

droadman786

Original post by KAK123

did you keep on referring to brezhnev, or was it a one time mistake?

i kept on referring to him :frown:

Reply 227

KAK123

Original post by droadman786

i kept on referring to him :frown:

oh man!! lets hope you get full marks for SPAG and do really well in the other questions. How'd you find the rest of the paper?

Reply 228

KAK123

Original post by beccaholland

Wishing you all the best of luck for the rest of the history exams! Does anyone do Russia?

something like explain how sources B and C are useful as evidence of Gorbachev's changing attitudes?

or changing attitudes to Gorbachev?

i dunno, i've completely forgotten

Reply 229

droadman786

Original post by KAK123

oh man!! lets hope you get full marks for SPAG and do really well in the other questions. How'd you find the rest of the paper?

It was not too bad. But I was aiming for an A. Hopefully I can still pull 6 marks or so in the 13 marker for giving valid points :smile:

. How did you find the paper?

Reply 230

LordMallard

Original post by Jak123

Comecon however was 1949 and was mainly a reaction to the formation of NATO.

Got it the wrong way round. Warsaw Pact 1955 Eastern NATO
Comecon is economic alliance
Cominform used to control communist parties in other countries

Reply 231

Colonel Sanders

Original post by beccaholland

Ugh, I think ICOMPLETELY

bombed this question. I just completely misinterpreted and spent way too long on it, waffling in an attempt to convince the examiner I knew what the question was asking. Damn :frown:

Does anyone remember the exact wording for the source question? (Q3 I believe.)For the last question, I had only just got onto the conclusion when the exam ended so I didn't have time to prioritise. My third point was incredibly rushed and overall, I didn't even fill two sides. I don't know anyone at my school who found it easy so let's hope for low grade boundaries. I'm pretty sure I've messed up my chances of getting an A* overall now, but I revised well and feel I did the best I could so hey ho. :smile:

Wishing you all the best of luck for the rest of the history exams! Does anyone do Russia?

Damn that 10 marker. I knew i could grab atleast half the marks by saying if it was useful or not and giving evidence and then talking about the nature of the source. But i had no clue about the 'second cold war' part, so i said it's not useful also because from my own knowledge i know that Gorbachev's attitude changed with the introduction of his policies - perestroika and glasnost - and the source doesnt talk about them, thus it's not useful. Im not sure if thats even right!

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 232

KAK123

Original post by droadman786

It was not too bad. But I was aiming for an A. Hopefully I can still pull 6 marks or so in the 13 marker for giving valid points :smile:

. How did you find the paper?

it was good, except for the last question I forgot to properly say which one was the most important. I kind of hinted at it, but we'll just have to see

Reply 233

Vanilla Cupcake

Original post by beccaholland

Wishing you all the best of luck for the rest of the history exams! Does anyone do Russia?

i do but haven't started revision for it oops

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 234

droadman786

Original post by KAK123

it was good, except for the last question I forgot to properly say which one was the most important. I kind of hinted at it, but we'll just have to see

Hopefully the boundaries get dropped by 2/3 marks

Reply 235

KAK123

Original post by gameofno

why dont u shoot me hmm

woah. Those are a lot of points. I thought you only need to include one other?

I wrote about the Vienna Conference in 1961 as it meant that there was a possibility of Kennedy going to war

Reply 236

Mahrez

Original post by swanlake101

what did you say?

Original post by Owen_EFC

I added Kennedy's ich bin ein Berliner speech in question 6. This correct?

It is correct I added that too but i said it intended to mean that I am a berliner sypathising with the west berliners situation even though it actually meant 'I am a dougnutt'

Reply 237

Jak123

Original post by LordMallard

Got it the wrong way round. Warsaw Pact 1955 Eastern NATO
Comecon is economic alliance
Cominform used to control communist parties in other countries

No i don't, Cominform was used to encourage communist parties to reject marshall aid and to remove other opposition. It was the initial reaction to the marshall plan.
Comecon was introduced due to NATO, but also aimed at tackling marshall plan issues also. They introduced the Warsaw Pact also as a way to tackle the military issues brought by NATO.

Reply 238

Lewismioc

Hi, studied this unit last year, and just out of interest, what were the questions??? :biggrin:

Reply 239

Jak123

Original post by Colonel Sanders

The source does mention 'major changes' and 'openness'. Glasnost meant openness so there was a definite reference here, and perestroika was an example of his 'major changes', therefore the source was actually useful to use. Furthermore, the source spoke of things such as the advancement of US technology, which again was completely accurate as well.