This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Higher History 2009

For the cartoon question I mentioned the message of 'no trespassers' on the sign and its delapidated state. I thought this was meant to show the breaking of the non-intervention pact in which 16 nations including Germany and Italy promised not to get involved. Then I did the usual thing and wrote about Hitler using the war as a testing ground and Mussolini sending over troops. And how they are both standing together, suggesting a perceived threat etc

The phrase I think it went 'Excuse me, have you got a piece of string?' was an ironic comment based on the futility of pursuing appeasement if commitments kept on getting broken. David Low was a known anti-appeaser.

Reply 161

bananaslug77

13

Laura2222

completely messed up the cartoon question. i said that the sign was being sarcastic as the non appeasers believed that action should be taken but the appeasers believed that it was best not to as after the attack of guernica, they feared that a similar attack would take place in britain and after ww1 they were still scared.and then i spoke about how britain didn't intervene incase they would lose trade with spain and they supported facism more than communism.

will i get any marks do you think :\

The point about the bombing of Guernica with reference to the sign = 1 possible mark
Fear of another world war (as long as you developed your point) = 1 possible mark
Preferred communism over Hitlerism, would have had better trade with Franco = 1 possible mark

It depends how nice your marker is tbh (which is really bad, they should all have the same strictness in marking), but 3/5 roughly is still a decent mark (: Either way a picture is quite open to interpretation, it's very hard not to get the mark if you argued your point successfullly. I wouldn't worry if it was only one question that you felt you messed up (: x

Reply 162

Amzzz

well thank god its over, but it didnt go to well for me.
Paper 1- the things id revised came up (labour and rise of nazis) but i ran out of time for the nazi one and dont think i had a strong arguement. And also the wording of the question was a bit weird. :s-smilie:

Paper 2 - Appeasement; i hate sources anyway, but the cartoon baffled me (mainly because ive never really understood SCW) For the compare q i wrote that they were completely opposing ideas?! anyone else do that?
What kind of things did youze write for the 8 marker!? i just babbled on about ******!
Hope ive got a B, but no doubt ill end up with a C.

One more exam left!!! YAYYYY!

Reply 163

burgerchips

Oh my gosh, I was so happy with paper 1. I had revised the Labour reforms and the Provisional Government (Russia) essays more thoroughly than other topics and I was surprised at how straightforward the Russia question was! By paper 2, it was just so hot and sunny and sources are just so tedious!

Reply 164

bananaslug77

13

I said the sources disagreed too - Winston Churchill was a vehement anti-appeaser, so it HAD to disagree with a source that was pro-appeasement, I just found it difficult to find a second point that showed they disagreed, there wasn't much evidence to choose from, lol.

Reply 165

ryan92

For appeasement, how ddi you all do the comparison question?

Reply 166

Amzzz

ryan92

For appeasement, how ddi you all do the comparison question?

I said that they were completely opposite. Wasnt very sure how to back that up, since i couldnt pick out points to compare :/

Reply 167

ryan92

I so messed that up. I didnt do an introduction or that :| I was panicking and simpy put, source C says this, while sound D says that.

Then at the end, mentioned how all this shows source c is... while all the information from source D show that that is ....

is that the wrong method :frown:

?

Reply 168

Amzzz

ryan92

I so messed that up. I didnt do an introduction or that :| I was panicking and simpy put, source C says this, while sound D says that.

Then at the end, mentioned how all this shows source c is... while all the information from source D show that that is ....

is that the wrong method :frown:

?

I done summit like that toooo :/
Dunno if its right :frown:

I hate SOURCES!!!!!

Reply 169

xandertho

11

ryan92

I so messed that up. I didnt do an introduction or that :| I was panicking and simpy put, source C says this, while sound D says that.

Then at the end, mentioned how all this shows source c is... while all the information from source D show that that is ....

is that the wrong method :frown:

?

No, Im sure that will get you some marks. I done much the same. Also, drew some content from the sources are compared them directly, showing the contrasting views of the two sources.
Difficult sources for a comparison question though :\

Reply 170

francescayeah

ryan92

For appeasement, how ddi you all do the comparison question?

I said churchill was anti-appeasement and the write in source c was pro appeasement then went on to compare some of the stuff they said..

e.g. writer c felt that the munich settlement avoided war, whereas churchill felt it was simply the beginning of the end blah blah blah.

Reply 171

ciaran99

for the cartoon i wrote about the navy ship in the background and how this showed that italy and germany were supplying weapons

anyone else get this point?

Reply 172

Henry JW

8

ciaran99

for the cartoon i wrote about the navy ship in the background and how this showed that italy and germany were supplying weapons

anyone else get this point?

Had that as well. Everyone from my class who I spoke to at the end of the exam also had it, so it will be easy marks :cool:

Reply 173

mikka_09

Eughh... my labour essay was awful...spent too much time on it and then not enough time on my rise of the Nazis one! Really needed an A as well so am really gutted! But yeah i agree with everyone who said the rise of the nazi question was worded weird...

Reply 174

francescayeah

For the cartoon:

'Trespassers are requested to consider themselves prosecuted' - There was no punishment for breaking the pact. Showed Edens reluctance to act.

Mussolini and Hitler had their arms around each other - showed how they were developing a strong bond.

Ship in background - Represents how Germany, Italy and Britain patrolled the med to supposedly stop arms and materials getting through, but germany and italy let arms get to the right wing.

Shells in sand with nazi symbol - showed how hitler supplied the right wing with arms.

I failed to pick up on the whole Guernica thing.

Plus what did "Excuse me, have you got a bit of string about you?" mean? I just went on again about Edens politeness and how he failed to confront hitler/mussolini

Reply 175

francescayeah

lcmd

btw can anyone scan and upload paper 2 special topic 7? ^^ I wasn't allowed to take mine away..

Higher History 2009

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you