Edexcel AS History Unit 1 Option D resit - 18th May 2016

Russia in Revolution and Stalin's Russia were great questions. I did Bolshevik survival and power struggle, which both came up last year. So surprised half of the questions were the same though, but I'm not complaining

What did you write for the power struggle... I failed to conclude the argument although I brought up the relevant factors

They seriously ****ed us over by repeating last years questions
RIP to my grades


Posted from TSR Mobile

P1: Position, allowed him to build up powerbase, patronage throughout the party
P2: Personalities, Stalin was not see as threat until too late was a 'grey blur, Trotsky too aggressive, Bukharin too western and Z+K too disloyal
P3: Ideologies, Stalin picked the policies that appeased the majority, SIOC was more appealing than permanent revolution, NEP was success and abandoned it at the right time
P4: Weakness/Mistakes of rivals, Trotsky was ill, missed out on funeral, all of his rivals aligned themselves with an opposition faction, etc

Just argued that his emergence as leader was a complex interplay of factors, however his position was crucial to his victory as his position provided him with so many benefits that built up his powerbase which was so strong and then his patronage throughout the party enabled him to get rid of others, and deliver votes in his favour.

P1: Position, allowed him to build up powerbase, patronage throughout the party
P2: Personalities, Stalin was not see as threat until too late was a 'grey blur, Trotsky too aggressive, Bukharin too western and Z+K too disloyal
P3: Ideologies, Stalin picked the policies that appeased the majority, SIOC was more appealing than permanent revolution, NEP was success and abandoned it at the right time
P4: Weakness/Mistakes of rivals, Trotsky was ill, missed out on funeral, all of his rivals aligned themselves with an opposition faction, etc

Just argued that his emergence as leader was a complex interplay of factors, however his position was crucial to his victory as his position provided him with so many benefits that built up his powerbase which was so strong and then his patronage throughout the party enabled him to get rid of others, and deliver votes in his favour.

I argued exactly that but the general theme of the essay was that his position was integral however without his manipulative personality and tactical adjustments of his ideology his position within the government would have meant nothing. His manipulation of the circumstances he was in allowed him to emerge, as Trotsky was Commissar of the army, and had loyal support amongst the Petrograd Soviet which would easily have allowed him to emerge however, Stalin's ability to flip this into positive by saying the allegiance Trotsky had indicated that he could stage a coup. And his manipulation of Bukharin. To further support it, I said how that Zinoviev and Kamenev held posts within the party that would have allowed them to also build bases. However, they lacked Stalin's ability to exploit and manipulate situations to further himself.

That's a good argument, weighing factors against other factors will get those analysis marks. I also argued that his personality and manipulation was important and would have got him where he wanted regardless of position.

And no, India was my unit last year but decided not to resit it. You?

I did the question on WW2 for civil rights and Vietnam

Here's what I put for Vietnam. ( obs went into more depth )
1) tactics weren't up to scratch with Vietcong 2) tet as a para on its own 3) south Vietnamese ( veitnamisation )troops were ineffective and left and like shows in 1961 via Laos ( needed USA or they would fail )4) media how it effects Nixon role and policies he can't implement them well bcos no support at home and would cause civil unrest.

This question was like the one I didn't want to come up but yeah

Sounds good! I did similar.

Ah right, what did you answer for the protest one? I wrote about the significance of the groups in alienating white support and then brought in other points such as the withdrawal of federal support because of King speaking out against the vietnam war and the ways in which focus had shifted from civil rights after acts of 1964 and 1965 to vietnam war with the media. Why were you told it was hard to get an A on? worried now haha!

I did the question on WW2 for civil rights and Vietnam

Here's what I put for Vietnam. ( obs went into more depth )
1) tactics weren't up to scratch with Vietcong 2) tet as a para on its own 3) south Vietnamese ( veitnamisation )troops were ineffective and left and like shows in 1961 via Laos ( needed USA or they would fail )4) media how it effects Nixon role and policies he can't implement them well bcos no support at home and would cause civil unrest.

This question was like the one I didn't want to come up but yeah

They seriously ****ed us over by repeating last years questions
RIP to my grades


Posted from TSR Mobile