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

Scroll to see replies

Nabiha1998

For Johnson and Nixon I said:
1) both of them were unable to win because of the strength of NVA/Vietcong
2) both of them were able to win because of their failed tactics
3) Johnson was unable to win partly because of opposition from the public however it came at the end of his presidency and so opposition is more of a factor for Nixon who experienced public opposition throughout his first term

?mate

I said all those things too :biggrin:

also i said the lack of willingness to negotiate by the NV/Viet Cong (such as withdrawal from SV) and i linked this to the growing opposition as they were against putting pressure on the communists to make concessions....
Did you state the main factor in your conlusion? I did but idk if that was the right thing to do.

Reply 181

Mini Mina

Original post by Domers_

Yeah, that's what I got. It's kind of hard to write about the positives of a policy which killed millions of people though.

Did you say it was overall successful or not?

Reply 182

Domers_

Original post by Mini Mina

Did you say it was overall successful or not?

I argued that it was successful in establishing control over the countryside and in spreading/advancing socialism, but also argued that it came at great human cost, the peasants resisted, and the removal of the Kulaks meant the removal of the most prosperous and innovative class of peasants.

Reply 183

Teecesay

Original post by Nabiha1998

I said all those things too :biggrin:

I was going to talk about the negotiation point but ran out of time !
And yes I did, in both the intro and conclusion I argued that the strength of NVA/VC was the most important factor as without this there would not have been a need for the other factors to happen

Reply 184

SlimShady96

Original post by Teecesay

The thing is the question is not why they was unable to win, that only applies to Johnson, the question was why was it not a complete success, and Nixon is seen as being largely successful, also public opposition to Nixons policies was not significant because of the silent majority, because he was largely doing what the public wanted which was withdrawing from the war, the opposition for Nixon came from congress, but the war had ended by the start of Nixons second term.

I argued that after the 1968 Tet offensive the public was more concerned with how to exit the war rather than how to win it. And that Congressional opposition limited Nixons military involvement meaning he couldn't achieve 'complete success' because only military action could achieve it.

Also I said that until the Tet Offensive Johnson was winning the war, and that the Tet offensive was a military success for the US, so even though the US had the arms to win the war, the public didn't have the stomache for it anymore, therefore the policy had to change.

Also that Johnson and Nixon failed to win the hearts and minds of the SV people because of all the bombing, destruction of countryside and civilian casualties, therefore even after the exit of the US it could not be a 'complete success' because SV was doomed to fall, as many supported communism in SV.

I just made a complete hash of the structure as I didn't know how to groups all of the points together in certain paragraphs..

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 185

ihidfmals

Original post by Nabiha1998

I did the Civil Rights and Vietnam questions. For the civil rights; I answered the question about the war. A basic outline of my answer was that I argued that the war HAD led to changes; eg through increasing political power and economic power etc but failed to end segregation etc.... I approached this a successes and failures question but my classmates and teacher answered it as a factor question?? what did you guys do?? I'm freaking out!!!!!!

did it as
1) yes WW2 it's the most important bcos of de facto
2) however NAACP/other campaigns were good and over turned plessy V Furg and then I did a however so I said yeah but it was just in the courts and not in reality ie Brown 2 case and Core ride of reconciliation
3) federal so Truman and civil rights bill. But they were also limited
I sustained an argument throughout the essay to say yeah they two other factors r important is status of Afro Americans but over all WW2 is the most important.
I think the way u answered it is acceptable but maybe not enough alternatives ?? But yet again you are probably find :-)

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 186

bsbnah

Original post by SlimShady96

Who else thinks that Vietnam question was atrocious?

Hated it. They literally messed us over by repeating the question

Reply 187

Teecesay

I can't really remember the question but wasn't it something like why wasn't there a us victory in Vietnam?

(edited 7 years ago)

Original post by bsbnah

Hated it. They literally messed us over by repeating the question

I think they made it deliberately difficult because they know that everyone doing this paper is a re-sitter, bastards.

Reply 190

Caelmi

I did Vietnam too, but I didn't split it into why Johnson failed and why Nixon failed, just did 4 paragraphs fort he 4 factors I thought were most significant; weakened of US army, public opposition, failure to win hearts and minds and low soldier morale- is this a problem???? Freaking out!!

Reply 191

dauntlesstraitor

I actually though the exam went okay, not amazing but not awful. Much better questions than last year!
For civil rights I did the 2nd World War question:
1.)WW2 improved the status because of migration, voting increase, unemployment decrease, African American soliders were respected by White Americans and two African Americans were elected as congressmen. Said it didn't improve the status as didn't lead to de factor or de jure change, segregation still existed
2.)Federal support, mostly Truman- to secure these rights, CGCC, outlawed racial discrimination in civil service employment, desegregated canteen at Washington,desegregated army (have a feeling I wrote more than this) criticised by saying didn't achieve de jure change and racism still existed. Eisenhower also didn't see it as his role to contribute to the civil rights movement
3.) Peaceful protest combined with the supreme court was the main reason because it led to de jure change, and sometimes de facto. eg Journey of Reconciliation 1947 tested the ruling of Morgan v Virginia. The Montgomery bus boycott combined with Browder v Gayle to show that segregation was illegal on public transport. Little Rock high school combined with Cooper v Aaron (which was outside the datings of the question :frown:

) ruled it was illegal to prevent desegregation for any reason.

Obviously loads more detail. Then for Vietnam I did the Johnson and Nixon one, the wording really through me off at the beginning but I think it went okay. I talked about:
1.)Opposition to the war under both Johnson and Nixon as the most important reason
2.)Gulf of Tonkin resolution 1964 which led to Johnson increasing involvement such as Operation Rolling Thunder and Search and destroy missions which turned the North Vietnamese government against the USA
3.) The Tet Offensive- Argued it was humiliating to the US government but then twisted it back to the opposition received as a result of this
4.) Nixons peace with honour through vietnamisation, however he only did this because off the opposition to the war.

I did write more detail but I'm to tired to remember, hope you guys feel okay about it

Reply 192

ihidfmals

Original post by Caelmi

This is what I done, but slightly diff paragraphs!! So long as u focused on both presidents. I did it thematically like you. And if you have correct dates and loads of random smart stuff in there.. Ur fine :-)

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 193

Caelmi

Original post by ihidfmals

Thank goodness I'm not the only one 😂

Reply 194

Sademajek

Original post by Nabiha1998

i did it as factors,which gave me more to talk about, i wrote I believed that the Second World War helped improve the status of African American to a minimal extend as it did nothing to end de jure segregation and did minimal to end facto segregation however for the first time black people started to get respected because of their efforts in the war. None the less it was the federal government and mos importantly early civil rights campaign that changed the status of black Americans to a great extent.I couldn't remember much points about war so I talked about woodrow crocket as a hero the great migration, which helped decrease unemployment increase by 2% place voting however black Americans were still earning less than whites and talked about the fight against racism in Europe was also about fight in America double v sign1945-57 saw a significant amount of dejure cchange( I forgot the question had responsible in it so went through it without saying responsible lol but instead said had greatest impact) Morgan v Virginia l, smith v alright and most significantly brown case which turned the plessy v Ferguson ruling around as ' separate did not always mean equal it outlawed segregation int the education system which had a great impact on the improvement of status for block people however de jure change did not always lead to defacto change as seen journey of reconciliation( explained it) actions of Truman also helped inporvement secure the rights desegregating the army ect however many recommendations not carried out how ever was revolutionary at that timeEarly civil rights campaign most important showed effective coupling of legal action and protest as seen in little rock which forced risenhower to intervene and uphold law by sending national guard also talked about 1957 civil rights act.Do you think this was enough also went in to depth though??

Reply 195

SlimShady96

How much of a detriment do you guys think it will be if I didn't mention anything on presidential action or anything past 1955 such as Montgomery, little rock, civil rights act.

Not gonna lie I did the WW2 question last night but only up to 1955. But I did go in depth about WW2 impact, superme court and civil rights groups up to 1955. My teacher says you don't need absolutely everything in there to get 30/30 but because obviously something has to be left out unless you're an insanely quick writer, but I'm a bit more sceptical because I know other people have done so..?

Reply 196

bsbnah

Original post by Teecesay

I can't really remember the question but wasn't it something like why wasn't there a us victory in Vietnam?

it was why it wasn't a complete victory :smile:

such a horribly worded question in my opinion lol

Reply 197

bsbnah

Original post by SlimShady96

I think they made it deliberately difficult because they know that everyone doing this paper is a re-sitter, bastards.

that could actually be the case lol I'm just so pissed that they basically repeated a question like come on, out of everything to ask, WHY YOU GONNA ASK NIXON AGAIN

Reply 198

chrisproctor98

Original post by Sademajek

yes i did, it was good

What did you put?

Reply 199

Sademajek

Original post by chrisproctor98

What did you put?

I wrote that he did successfully tackle theconomic problems that faces America in the early and mid 1980s as there was a prolonged period of Growth, however the extent of the successis minimised as there remained huge inequalities in the distribution of wealth and a huge deficit which in the long term ruined the American economy and caused problems for future presidencies

I went on to the writing the state that reagan inherited the economy what his plan was and that he was able to secure a cut in tax However increased defence spending

Then what he achieved see tease in inflation unemployment and taxes created a society where it was beneficial for to work brought a lot of statistics
Howeverinequalities in income distribution increased statistics from 1980-189 people living under poverty line increased this was down to the trickle effect in the idea of regs omits as rehab thought I'd the rich got richer it would create jobs he. Was completely unrealistic poor people suffered the most because welfare was cut which means that although the Reagan was able to talks the USA economy in the early 1980s it was only short term success as n the long term is policy's were found to have had no calculations
Talked about money spent on nuclear weapons a year due to rivalry btween ussr however was as prophet of faith 30% in wall street

Did few more paragraphs
Conclusion - success but outweighed by the deficit and income