OCR History B (Modern World) GCSE - 12th June 2012

Oh crap.
These answers are completely different. I wrote for the bolshevik question that the purpose of the source was to encourage the people of Germany to take a stance against communism. The blood thirsty dog who has appeared to kill a German supports the idea that the communists were using violence to seize power and control the german people and that communism is a world threat/danger. At the time..blah..blah...spartacists...
^was done in more detail but that's the brief idea. Is that, completely out of context?

One other source that I completely messed up on was the Transparent Dodge source. Did anyone else get confused over what it was?

- Wrote it did prove, because of the words it used 'liars' etc
- Wrote it did not prove because it was shortsighted (hyperinflation and ruhr next year), starvation & disease in germany
Also, how the british person wanted to write good stuff so to please british people at home because they feared germany would attack in the future for revenge if the treaty was harsh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Conclusion, not prove, it was wrong and backed up my claims

Woah i bet that's what you wrote in the exam, word for word

It was ok I guess not to tough. There was one question I struggled with which was about why Italy and Japan were a threat to world peace


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

I won't be suprised if you got an A*

A wolf, a person in blood, a war like background? Was there a date? This leads to me to believe you could have talked about the Versailles conference itself..

Did anyone else do the one about hitler's policies aimed at workers and families?

It was ok I guess not to tough. There was one question I struggled with which was about why Italy and Japan were a threat to world peace


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

I thought the cartoon was published in 1921, thus, you couldn't use the Ruhr/Hyperinflation to validate it because they were later on? I'm not sure, the mark-scheme is lenient however.

Yes. Regretting it now, everyone seems to have chosen the other set. What did you write?

http://theearthisdying.wordpress.com/2010/11/16/the-german-revolution-of-1918-1919-it-was-the-first-songless-revolution-in-history/


Lol, they got it from here.

I thought the cartoon was published in 1921, thus, you couldn't use the Ruhr/Hyperinflation to validate it because they were later on? I'm not sure, the mark-scheme is lenient however.

Also, for the third source (Germany kneeling in the water one) I put something about the message being that Germany were playing for sympathy from GB and France by pretending to be harshly damaged by the reparations payments of £6.6 billion (I hoped this would make me sound smart..hehe) as is shown in the cartoon by BLAH BLAH BLAH then my contextual knowledge was that in fact, the reparations were only 2% of German's annual income, and the Treaty of Versailles was less harsh than the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk which Germany herself had imposed on Russia during the war so, despite the fact that the reparations + Treaty were harsh, Germany could in effect deal with them; they were just being hypocritical and faking their 'crippled economy' etc for sympathy etc from the Allies. PLEASE TELL ME SOMEONE ELSE WENT ALONG THIS ROUTE?!

I thought the cartoon was published in 1921, thus, you couldn't use the Ruhr/Hyperinflation to validate it because they were later on? I'm not sure, the mark-scheme is lenient however.

The text was translated in the description as to do with Bolshevikism :/

I kinda struggled on that one too! I basically just babbled on about Manchuria and Abyssinia, and said that they threatened world peace because they showed that the League of Nations, the world's peace-keeping force (supposedly) was weak and ineffective. I also stuck in something about the Rome-Berlin axis... I was like, IT THREATENED PEACE BETWEEN ITALY/GERMANY AND THE ALLIES... I'm much better at French than history hahaha.

what did you put for the meaning off the source C in the america section? I think it was the cartoon of a farmer on his field with a little sign saying 'farm for sale' and dollar signs in the trees in the background, I had no clue. me and my friend wrote absolute opposites, she said it was that farmers were prospering and I said that they were poor. either way not really much of a message, was there something more to it?

Well Japan were expanding its naval arm to rival Britain and the USA; Italy had participated in the 1936 invasion of Abyssinia, the Spanish Civil War; both Italy and Japan had discredited the League by using aggression to gain what they wanted. Italy also drifted towards Germany after 1936, a nation which was also a threat to peace. Japan had claims on Chinese land, and wanted to expand, just as Italy had claims on parts of Europe which it felt were rightfully hers.

reparations payments of £6.6 billion (I hoped this would make me sound smart..hehe) as is shown in the cartoon by BLAH BLAH BLAH then my contextual knowledge was that in fact, the reparations were only 2% of German's annual income, and the Treaty of Versailles was less harsh than the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk

I said they were equally important but acted in different periods of the nazi rule. So Hitler's policies towards the workers (anti-capitalist) were most successful in the 1920s and immediately after the Great Depression while policies such as the abolition of the trade unions and the introduction of the German Labour Front made the Nazis less popular with the workers. Then I talked about the policy of autarky.
I said hitler's policies towards the family were most prominent during his chancellorship (i.e. after 1933) and they united the nation in that they were, through policies such as the scheme were women were given a medal if they bore over a certain number of children, united in competition for the favour of the Nazi Party. Then I said that laws such as the Nuremberg laws and the Divorce Law of 1938 meant that the party dissolved the traditional idea of love and marriage which led to a *slight* decrease in support for the party from those who would otherwise be partners in marriage.