Edexcel History Unit 2 6H102 20/05/15
Scroll to see replies
Original post by amybellingham
Are you nervous?!
Same here! It could still come up as a B question though
I am actually aha, are you?
[QUOTE="katura;55930877"]
Absolutely - I'm a nervous wreck!!
Good luck! I hope it goes better than the first time!
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by amybellingham
I really really hope so but I love the dissolution of the monasteries so I'm a bit gutted that was last year - I'm sure I can slot it in!
Are you nervous?!
Same here! It could still come up as a B question though
I am actually aha, are you?
Are you nervous?!
Same here! It could still come up as a B question though
I am actually aha, are you?
Absolutely - I'm a nervous wreck!!
Good luck! I hope it goes better than the first time!
Posted from TSR Mobile
does anyone do the british wars e.g. crimea boer and WW1?
[QUOTE="amybellingham;55931619"]
Aw, don't worry too much, you'll be fine!
Thank you, good luck to you too!
Original post by katura
Absolutely - I'm a nervous wreck!!
Good luck! I hope it goes better than the first time!
Posted from TSR Mobile
Absolutely - I'm a nervous wreck!!
Good luck! I hope it goes better than the first time!
Posted from TSR Mobile
Aw, don't worry too much, you'll be fine!
Thank you, good luck to you too!
Original post by bob smith 23
For a 20 mark I would do, and this seems to get an A,
1) A brief introduction stating what each source says, with a bit of comparison
e.g:
"It would seem that source 1 most strongly agrees with source 2's defence of the actions taken by the Black and Tans. On the other hand, source 3 completely opposes this view and argues that the actions of the Black and Tans cannot be defended"
2) Always write your FOR paragraph first- the one that agrees with the claim in the question.
To structure this paragraph you need to:
-Start with the Question Language, and make references throughout.
-Show two points of agreement, integrating the sources as you go, and use words such as 'suggests' or 'implies' to show that you are reading between the lines.
-Show extent of agreement e.g- strongly agrees, considerably disagrees.
-Sign post- In contrast, similarly.
- Finish with NOPA analysis on 2/3 sources, if you don't have time just do 3 of the NOPA, e.g NPA
-End with return to Question language. (This is very important as it shows the examiner that you are keeping focus on the question).
e.g:
To begin with, source 1 and 2 strongly agree with the notion that the Black and Tans' actions should be defended. Source 1 implies, by suggesting that the civil war was an "eye for an eye", that the actions of the Black and Tans were not only justified, as they merely responded to the actions of "Sinn Fein", but the religious language used implies that the actions were justified in the eyes of God, and therefore, seeing as the country is predominantly Catholic, should be defended. Similarly, source 2 corroborates this idea by showing how the brutal "nature" of Sinn Fein's "campaign" through words such as "dragged" and "murdered" were unnecessarily violent, and nothing more than the actions of "ragamuffins" (source 1). It also suggested that the actions of the Black and Tans should be supported because they were only retaliating to the "shooting of police" by Sinn Fein. Lloyd George, in source 2, agrees very strongly by arguing that "not until "well over one hundred" policemen were killed that they responded. Implying that that they withheld from violence for a long time and only ended up doing so in an act of "self-defence". By contrast, Martin in source 3 vehemently argues against the two sources by suggesting that the extreme actions of the Black and Tans cannot be defended as they were the ones that "went around" initiating the killings.
Then NOPA on two sources, return to question language.
3) Do the same for the AGAINST paragraph, but do the NOPA on the last remaining source instead.
4) For your conclusion, state again what each source is arguing and come up with an overall judgement- do not sit on the fence.
e.g:
To conclude, it would seem that sources 1 and 2 argue incredibly strongly that the Black and Tans actions need to be defended. This contrasts greatly with source 3's view that the actions of the Black and Tans were inexcusable and too extreme, and therefore cannot be defended. However, it would seem that source 2's view that the Black and Tan's actions should be defended is the most credible and therefore plausible , largely because its letter is the only source not meant for the public eye, unlike the other two sources, which means they cannot be fully accounted for.
1) A brief introduction stating what each source says, with a bit of comparison
e.g:
"It would seem that source 1 most strongly agrees with source 2's defence of the actions taken by the Black and Tans. On the other hand, source 3 completely opposes this view and argues that the actions of the Black and Tans cannot be defended"
2) Always write your FOR paragraph first- the one that agrees with the claim in the question.
To structure this paragraph you need to:
-Start with the Question Language, and make references throughout.
-Show two points of agreement, integrating the sources as you go, and use words such as 'suggests' or 'implies' to show that you are reading between the lines.
-Show extent of agreement e.g- strongly agrees, considerably disagrees.
-Sign post- In contrast, similarly.
- Finish with NOPA analysis on 2/3 sources, if you don't have time just do 3 of the NOPA, e.g NPA
-End with return to Question language. (This is very important as it shows the examiner that you are keeping focus on the question).
e.g:
To begin with, source 1 and 2 strongly agree with the notion that the Black and Tans' actions should be defended. Source 1 implies, by suggesting that the civil war was an "eye for an eye", that the actions of the Black and Tans were not only justified, as they merely responded to the actions of "Sinn Fein", but the religious language used implies that the actions were justified in the eyes of God, and therefore, seeing as the country is predominantly Catholic, should be defended. Similarly, source 2 corroborates this idea by showing how the brutal "nature" of Sinn Fein's "campaign" through words such as "dragged" and "murdered" were unnecessarily violent, and nothing more than the actions of "ragamuffins" (source 1). It also suggested that the actions of the Black and Tans should be supported because they were only retaliating to the "shooting of police" by Sinn Fein. Lloyd George, in source 2, agrees very strongly by arguing that "not until "well over one hundred" policemen were killed that they responded. Implying that that they withheld from violence for a long time and only ended up doing so in an act of "self-defence". By contrast, Martin in source 3 vehemently argues against the two sources by suggesting that the extreme actions of the Black and Tans cannot be defended as they were the ones that "went around" initiating the killings.
Then NOPA on two sources, return to question language.
3) Do the same for the AGAINST paragraph, but do the NOPA on the last remaining source instead.
4) For your conclusion, state again what each source is arguing and come up with an overall judgement- do not sit on the fence.
e.g:
To conclude, it would seem that sources 1 and 2 argue incredibly strongly that the Black and Tans actions need to be defended. This contrasts greatly with source 3's view that the actions of the Black and Tans were inexcusable and too extreme, and therefore cannot be defended. However, it would seem that source 2's view that the Black and Tan's actions should be defended is the most credible and therefore plausible , largely because its letter is the only source not meant for the public eye, unlike the other two sources, which means they cannot be fully accounted for.
Thank you very much!!! just a quick question when u say "question language" what is that? Also when u are doing nopa u also mentioned to"weigh up"the sources what does that mean??? and can u guve like a sample answer?
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by ella_hathaway
does anyone do the british wars e.g. crimea boer and WW1?
I do
what do you think will come up in the exam?
Original post by grassntai
I do
what do you think will come up in the exam?
what do you think will come up in the exam?
I have NO idea and I haven't started revising. I loathe it I think the subjects are so so boring, in comparison I did american history for the other paper which was so good and modern and could relate to. Do you know what came up last year?
Original post by edward090
Thank you very much!!! just a quick question when u say "question language" what is that? Also when u are doing nopa u also mentioned to"weigh up"the sources what does that mean??? and can u guve like a sample answer?
Question language is just what the question says. For example, the question could be: How far do sources 1,2 and 3 support the idea that reaction to the Anglo-Irish Treaty was positive?
In which case, you would pick out the claim (question language) in the question- "the reaction to the Anglo-Irish Treaty was positive" and integrate it into your answer.
e.g. The beginning of the FOR section:
It would seem that source 2 most strongly argues that the reaction to the Anglo-Irish Treaty was positive because...
e.g. The beginning of the AGAINST section:
On the other hand, it would seem that source 3 most strongly argues that the reaction to the Anglo-Irish Treaty was not positive because...
The only reason why you do this is to signal to the examiner that you know what the question is, and that you are answering it correctly.
Weighing up the sources is just a better way of saying after judging the credibility of the sources. However, the examiners much prefer you saying weighing up the sources (I think).
After weighing the evidence of the sources, it would seem that source 1 has a stronger interpretational weight that source 2 because...
anyone got any predictions of the 40 marker for Britain in the Later 20th Century: Responding to Change, option e?
Has anyone got any predictions for B questions on Poverty and Public Health in Britain 1830-75?
Original post by bob smith 23
Question language is just what the question says. For example, the question could be: How far do sources 1,2 and 3 support the idea that reaction to the Anglo-Irish Treaty was positive?
In which case, you would pick out the claim (question language) in the question- "the reaction to the Anglo-Irish Treaty was positive" and integrate it into your answer.
e.g. The beginning of the FOR section:
It would seem that source 2 most strongly argues that the reaction to the Anglo-Irish Treaty was positive because...
e.g. The beginning of the AGAINST section:
On the other hand, it would seem that source 3 most strongly argues that the reaction to the Anglo-Irish Treaty was not positive because...
The only reason why you do this is to signal to the examiner that you know what the question is, and that you are answering it correctly.
Weighing up the sources is just a better way of saying after judging the credibility of the sources. However, the examiners much prefer you saying weighing up the sources (I think).
After weighing the evidence of the sources, it would seem that source 1 has a stronger interpretational weight that source 2 because...
In which case, you would pick out the claim (question language) in the question- "the reaction to the Anglo-Irish Treaty was positive" and integrate it into your answer.
e.g. The beginning of the FOR section:
It would seem that source 2 most strongly argues that the reaction to the Anglo-Irish Treaty was positive because...
e.g. The beginning of the AGAINST section:
On the other hand, it would seem that source 3 most strongly argues that the reaction to the Anglo-Irish Treaty was not positive because...
The only reason why you do this is to signal to the examiner that you know what the question is, and that you are answering it correctly.
Weighing up the sources is just a better way of saying after judging the credibility of the sources. However, the examiners much prefer you saying weighing up the sources (I think).
After weighing the evidence of the sources, it would seem that source 1 has a stronger interpretational weight that source 2 because...
Where exactly would you write weighing up the source in the A part?
Predicitions for Henry VIII?
Original post by The Marshall
Where exactly would you write weighing up the source in the A part?
Part a) Write about the weight of evidence in the FOR and AGAINST paragraphs when referring to NOPA
-
Here's the stuff for a part b) question
•
The introduction should identify what each source says, how much they agree with each other, and come up with a judgement that could be further developed later in the essay. Use question language to start and end it
•
Generally write one paragraph in support of the claim, one against and one that suggests an alternative.
•
Include about 3 facts(depending on their size and detail) in each paragraph, but only if they are relevant.
•
Write about two sources in each of the three paragraphs e.g.
1.
Paragraph 1: Sources 1 and 2
2.
Paragraph 2: Sources 2 and 3
3.
Paragraph 3: Sources 1 and 3
•
Sustain judgement throughout. Address the years mentioned in the question, and always refer to question language. Cross-reference.
•
Don’t introduce any new ideas in the conclusion, but summarise what each of the Sources suggest and to what extent they agree, and reach an overall judgement based on what they say (on balance).
This essay got 22/24 for knowledge and 14/16 on inference, so 36/40.
Do you agree with the view that Asquith was responsible for the difficulties in resolving the Home Rule crisis of 1912-14?
CONTEXT [Asquith was Lib PM of Britain at this point, and was considered to be in favour of Southern Ireland (known as Nationalists) who wanted Home Rule- 'Home Rule' was the idea that Ireland would have its own parliament- but had generally ignored what Northern Ireland (aka Unionists) wanted, who wanted to keep ties with Britain, and not have its own parliament. Ultimately this led to worsening relations between Northern and Southern Ireland (Nationalists), who wanted different things, almost resulting in a civil war, but WWI prevented this outbreak]
Intro
It could be argued that Asquith was responsible for the difficulties in resolving the Home Rule crisis of 1912-14 as strongly implied by Source 7. It argues that in procrastinating in acknowledging the demands of the unionists he allowed the two conflicting parties, nationalists and unionists,time and incentive to develop an effective militant strategy outside of parliament, meaning that a compromise in the Home Rule Bill of 1912 was improbable. Source 8 agrees with this, but to a lesser extent, debating that Asquith was indirectly to blame as he was perhaps naive in this anticipation of civil war, and furthermore grew ignorant of growing divisions between the two oppositions. Ultimately, it was this dichotomy of Irish opinion that meant resolving the Home Rule crisis was difficult and unpractical. In contrast, Source 9 profusely disagrees with this,suggesting that it was the opposition Asquith and Home Rule faced internally and externally from parliament. The Conservatives were responsible for making the Home Rule crisis unsolvable as they rallied a strong movement against any willing compromise. However, the overwhelming weight of evidence presented by the sources would agree with the claim. His responsibility was to take the initiative,but by failing to do so in 1912, he handed the initiative to his opponents and was never able to regain it.
-
Paragraph 1It can be debated that Asqutihwas responsible for the difficulties in resolving the Home Rule crisis of1912-14 because he allowed the situation to drift out of his control, asstrongly suggested by Source 7. It states that his “catalogue of failure” led to “both sides arming themselves” as considerably corroborated by Source 8, in that he had “forced both sides” in choosing “acceptable or resorting to violence”. This is exemplified in the event of February 1912, in which Churchill and Lloyd George, fellow Liberal MPs brought the idea of partition to the cabinet, citing the exclusion of 4 counties in Ulster (Northern Ireland),to which Asquith deemed “politically unwise”. Therefore he had ignored the opportunity to evade the difficulties between nationalists and unionists and could have resolved the issues of Home Rule at an early stage before violence had developed. Indeed, as suggested by Source 7, his policy of “wait and see”almost succeeded in wrong-footed Ulster Unionists; it seemed a very inadequate response to “blatantly unconstitutional activity”. Similarly, Source 8 claims that he “did not believe” in the “risk [of] civil War” and thus did nothing.His fundamental problem, as well as procrastinating, was his inability to graspthe strength of feeling in Ireland both for and against Home Rule. Asquith waspersonally responsible for the further polarisation of Nationalists andUnionists e.g. the Curragh Mutiny of March 1914, where 57/ 70 officer refusedto fight against UVF forces (an Ulster paramilitary group) despite having norelations in Ulster, and so these individuals were dismissed by Commander inChief of Ireland, Arthur Paget. This would only catalyse disillusionment of Nationalists, as it seemed the Army were prejudiced against them; and it appeared as though the government were willing to use the army to enforce Home Rule. It could thence be interpreted that Asquith was responsible for the increasing divisions of Nationalists and Unionists- he provided the conditions for the potential of civil war, which would further cause difficulties in solving the Home Rule crisis. His position was fatally undermined in the Curragh Mutiny, which would subsequently distort the regular conduct of parliamentary politics. The Home Rule crisis became so difficult that it essentially had gone beyond the point of diplomatic resolving.
-
Paragraph 1: Problems in Ulster were irreconcilable and out of Asquith’s control, so he was not personally responsible.-
Paragraph 3: Nationalists created problems- but in appeasing them, he only strengthened their opposition,creating more discontent amongst the Unionists, who would try to match them.-
ConclusionTo conclude, the sources on balance would support the claim that Asquith was responsible for the difficulties in resolving the Home Rule crisis of 1912-14. Source 7 argues that it was his inability to judge the extent of the divisions between Unionists and Nationalists. Source 8 would partially agree with this, elaborating that it was these divisions that worsened the Home Rule crisis 1912-14. Whereas Source 9 argues that it was the Conservative’s support for Unionists that created a revolutionary atmosphere. However, it would seem probable that Asquith provoked this to an extent where the government and its army could not police it.Therefore, despite there being other factors that created difficulties in resolving the Home Rule crisis in 1912-14, it was the stubborn nature of Asquith’s leadership which meant that even when solutions were proposed, he failed to acknowledge them.
Hope this helps
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by examswillkillme
anyone got any predictions of the 40 marker for Britain in the Later 20th Century: Responding to Change, option e?
The 1950s haven't come up in a while according to my teacher, so maybe something on that? I'm praying for a Wilson question
Original post by bob smith 23
Part a) Write about the weight of evidence in the FOR and AGAINST paragraphs when referring to NOPA
-
Here's the stuff for a part b) question-...
This essay got 22/24 for knowledge and 14/16 on inference, so 36/40.
Do you agree with the view that Asquith was responsible for the difficulties in resolving the Home Rule crisis of 1912-14?
CONTEXT [Asquith was Lib PM of Britain at this point, and was considered to be in favour of Southern Ireland (known as Nationalists) who wanted Home Rule- 'Home Rule' was the idea that Ireland would have its own parliament- but had generally ignored what Northern Ireland (aka Unionists) wanted, who wanted to keep ties with Britain, and not have its own parliament. Ultimately this led to worsening relations between Northern and Southern Ireland (Nationalists), who wanted different things, almost resulting in a civil war, but WWI prevented this outbreak]
Intro
It could be argued that Asquith was responsible for the difficulties in resolving the Home Rule crisis of 1912-14 as strongly implied by Source 7. It argues that in procrastinating in acknowledging the demands of the unionists he allowed the two conflicting parties, nationalists and unionists,time and incentive to develop an effective militant strategy outside of parliament, meaning that a compromise in the Home Rule Bill of 1912 was improbable. Source 8 agrees with this, but to a lesser extent, debating that Asquith was indirectly to blame as he was perhaps naive in this anticipation of civil war, and furthermore grew ignorant of growing divisions between the two oppositions. Ultimately, it was this dichotomy of Irish opinion that meant resolving the Home Rule crisis was difficult and unpractical. In contrast, Source 9 profusely disagrees with this,suggesting that it was the opposition Asquith and Home Rule faced internally and externally from parliament. The Conservatives were responsible for making the Home Rule crisis unsolvable as they rallied a strong movement against any willing compromise. However, the overwhelming weight of evidence presented by the sources would agree with the claim. His responsibility was to take the initiative,but by failing to do so in 1912, he handed the initiative to his opponents and was never able to regain it.
It can be debated that Asqutihwas responsible for the difficulties in resolving the Home Rule crisis of1912-14 because he allowed the situation to drift out of his control, asstrongly suggested by Source 7. It states that his “catalogue of failure” led to “both sides arming themselves” as considerably corroborated by Source 8, in that he had “forced both sides” in choosing “acceptable or resorting to violence”. This is exemplified in the event of February 1912, in which Churchill and Lloyd George, fellow Liberal MPs brought the idea of partition to the cabinet, citing the exclusion of 4 counties in Ulster (Northern Ireland),to which Asquith deemed “politically unwise”. Therefore he had ignored the opportunity to evade the difficulties between nationalists and unionists and could have resolved the issues of Home Rule at an early stage before violence had developed. Indeed, as suggested by Source 7, his policy of “wait and see”almost succeeded in wrong-footed Ulster Unionists; it seemed a very inadequate response to “blatantly unconstitutional activity”. Similarly, Source 8 claims that he “did not believe” in the “risk [of] civil War” and thus did nothing.His fundamental problem, as well as procrastinating, was his inability to graspthe strength of feeling in Ireland both for and against Home Rule. Asquith waspersonally responsible for the further polarisation of Nationalists andUnionists e.g. the Curragh Mutiny of March 1914, where 57/ 70 officer refusedto fight against UVF forces (an Ulster paramilitary group) despite having norelations in Ulster, and so these individuals were dismissed by Commander inChief of Ireland, Arthur Paget. This would only catalyse disillusionment of Nationalists, as it seemed the Army were prejudiced against them; and it appeared as though the government were willing to use the army to enforce Home Rule. It could thence be interpreted that Asquith was responsible for the increasing divisions of Nationalists and Unionists- he provided the conditions for the potential of civil war, which would further cause difficulties in solving the Home Rule crisis. His position was fatally undermined in the Curragh Mutiny, which would subsequently distort the regular conduct of parliamentary politics. The Home Rule crisis became so difficult that it essentially had gone beyond the point of diplomatic resolving.
To conclude, the sources on balance would support the claim that Asquith was responsible for the difficulties in resolving the Home Rule crisis of 1912-14. Source 7 argues that it was his inability to judge the extent of the divisions between Unionists and Nationalists. Source 8 would partially agree with this, elaborating that it was these divisions that worsened the Home Rule crisis 1912-14. Whereas Source 9 argues that it was the Conservative’s support for Unionists that created a revolutionary atmosphere. However, it would seem probable that Asquith provoked this to an extent where the government and its army could not police it.Therefore, despite there being other factors that created difficulties in resolving the Home Rule crisis in 1912-14, it was the stubborn nature of Asquith’s leadership which meant that even when solutions were proposed, he failed to acknowledge them.
Hope this helps
-
Here's the stuff for a part b) question
•
The introduction should identify what each source says, how much they agree with each other, and come up with a judgement that could be further developed later in the essay. Use question language to start and end it
•
Generally write one paragraph in support of the claim, one against and one that suggests an alternative.
•
Include about 3 facts(depending on their size and detail) in each paragraph, but only if they are relevant.
•
Write about two sources in each of the three paragraphs e.g.
1.
Paragraph 1: Sources 1 and 2
2.
Paragraph 2: Sources 2 and 3
3.
Paragraph 3: Sources 1 and 3
•
Sustain judgement throughout. Address the years mentioned in the question, and always refer to question language. Cross-reference.
•
Don’t introduce any new ideas in the conclusion, but summarise what each of the Sources suggest and to what extent they agree, and reach an overall judgement based on what they say (on balance).
This essay got 22/24 for knowledge and 14/16 on inference, so 36/40.
Do you agree with the view that Asquith was responsible for the difficulties in resolving the Home Rule crisis of 1912-14?
CONTEXT [Asquith was Lib PM of Britain at this point, and was considered to be in favour of Southern Ireland (known as Nationalists) who wanted Home Rule- 'Home Rule' was the idea that Ireland would have its own parliament- but had generally ignored what Northern Ireland (aka Unionists) wanted, who wanted to keep ties with Britain, and not have its own parliament. Ultimately this led to worsening relations between Northern and Southern Ireland (Nationalists), who wanted different things, almost resulting in a civil war, but WWI prevented this outbreak]
Intro
It could be argued that Asquith was responsible for the difficulties in resolving the Home Rule crisis of 1912-14 as strongly implied by Source 7. It argues that in procrastinating in acknowledging the demands of the unionists he allowed the two conflicting parties, nationalists and unionists,time and incentive to develop an effective militant strategy outside of parliament, meaning that a compromise in the Home Rule Bill of 1912 was improbable. Source 8 agrees with this, but to a lesser extent, debating that Asquith was indirectly to blame as he was perhaps naive in this anticipation of civil war, and furthermore grew ignorant of growing divisions between the two oppositions. Ultimately, it was this dichotomy of Irish opinion that meant resolving the Home Rule crisis was difficult and unpractical. In contrast, Source 9 profusely disagrees with this,suggesting that it was the opposition Asquith and Home Rule faced internally and externally from parliament. The Conservatives were responsible for making the Home Rule crisis unsolvable as they rallied a strong movement against any willing compromise. However, the overwhelming weight of evidence presented by the sources would agree with the claim. His responsibility was to take the initiative,but by failing to do so in 1912, he handed the initiative to his opponents and was never able to regain it.
-
Paragraph 1It can be debated that Asqutihwas responsible for the difficulties in resolving the Home Rule crisis of1912-14 because he allowed the situation to drift out of his control, asstrongly suggested by Source 7. It states that his “catalogue of failure” led to “both sides arming themselves” as considerably corroborated by Source 8, in that he had “forced both sides” in choosing “acceptable or resorting to violence”. This is exemplified in the event of February 1912, in which Churchill and Lloyd George, fellow Liberal MPs brought the idea of partition to the cabinet, citing the exclusion of 4 counties in Ulster (Northern Ireland),to which Asquith deemed “politically unwise”. Therefore he had ignored the opportunity to evade the difficulties between nationalists and unionists and could have resolved the issues of Home Rule at an early stage before violence had developed. Indeed, as suggested by Source 7, his policy of “wait and see”almost succeeded in wrong-footed Ulster Unionists; it seemed a very inadequate response to “blatantly unconstitutional activity”. Similarly, Source 8 claims that he “did not believe” in the “risk [of] civil War” and thus did nothing.His fundamental problem, as well as procrastinating, was his inability to graspthe strength of feeling in Ireland both for and against Home Rule. Asquith waspersonally responsible for the further polarisation of Nationalists andUnionists e.g. the Curragh Mutiny of March 1914, where 57/ 70 officer refusedto fight against UVF forces (an Ulster paramilitary group) despite having norelations in Ulster, and so these individuals were dismissed by Commander inChief of Ireland, Arthur Paget. This would only catalyse disillusionment of Nationalists, as it seemed the Army were prejudiced against them; and it appeared as though the government were willing to use the army to enforce Home Rule. It could thence be interpreted that Asquith was responsible for the increasing divisions of Nationalists and Unionists- he provided the conditions for the potential of civil war, which would further cause difficulties in solving the Home Rule crisis. His position was fatally undermined in the Curragh Mutiny, which would subsequently distort the regular conduct of parliamentary politics. The Home Rule crisis became so difficult that it essentially had gone beyond the point of diplomatic resolving.
-
Paragraph 1: Problems in Ulster were irreconcilable and out of Asquith’s control, so he was not personally responsible.-
Paragraph 3: Nationalists created problems- but in appeasing them, he only strengthened their opposition,creating more discontent amongst the Unionists, who would try to match them.-
ConclusionTo conclude, the sources on balance would support the claim that Asquith was responsible for the difficulties in resolving the Home Rule crisis of 1912-14. Source 7 argues that it was his inability to judge the extent of the divisions between Unionists and Nationalists. Source 8 would partially agree with this, elaborating that it was these divisions that worsened the Home Rule crisis 1912-14. Whereas Source 9 argues that it was the Conservative’s support for Unionists that created a revolutionary atmosphere. However, it would seem probable that Asquith provoked this to an extent where the government and its army could not police it.Therefore, despite there being other factors that created difficulties in resolving the Home Rule crisis in 1912-14, it was the stubborn nature of Asquith’s leadership which meant that even when solutions were proposed, he failed to acknowledge them.
Hope this helps
Thanks Bob, sorry if I'm being demanding or anything like that.
That is a pretty big intro if you asked me - will you have time to write something like this?
I would go for a shorter intro like:
All sources 18,16, 17 agree to an extent that there was(using language of the question)
Source 18 highlights...
Whereas Source 16 states
However, the tone of source 3 is different or Source 3 disagrees with this..
And a mini judgement just at the end.
I mean in an 1hr 20 min, will you have the time to write such a long intro? My aim is to go for the B part first and then finish off with the A part.
It helps a lot mate, don't worry about it
Original post by examswillkillme
anyone got any predictions of the 40 marker for Britain in the Later 20th Century: Responding to Change, option e?
I'd say Attlee or Thatcher most likely to come up.
I need to do a lot of cramming
Original post by Michael_student
I'd say Attlee or Thatcher most likely to come up.
I need to do a lot of cramming
I need to do a lot of cramming
I'm not revising thatcher
Being a rebel over here
Gonna revise everything else though properly
I love Attlee and his term
I hope that comes up
Thank you!
Posted from TSR Mobile
To all for predictions, we do have a good choice of questions(unlike the Russian one which does limit you to an extent). What I would say is that anything can come up since its a broad topic - but Thatcher, Attlee, Harold Wilson, and Macmillian may come up - they have come before I believe. Of course its up to you to decide what you think is best - the Beatles came last year along with the Iraq War - Belgrano affair, the Suez Canal Crisis of 1956., the Falklands, Poll Tax. Anything to do with these in my opinion - very likely to come up. I am not a astrologer that can predict the stars - this is what I think may come.
Oh, and mods/rockers also can come up just in case.
Oh, and mods/rockers also can come up just in case.
(edited 8 years ago)
Haven't even touched Attlee or Thatcher, guess I better get a move on
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- A-level Exam Discussions 2024
- GCSE Exam Discussions 2024
- GCSE Diary
- GCSE History resources.
- 4 weeks Until 1st Year Med Exams
- Exam Board Hurt or Heal Game
- ⭐niamhcheesecake's Yr 11 journal: help me conquer Gcse's :(( ⭐
- WJEC GCSE History 2018-19
- School is killing me - Y11 "GYG" 2022
- What is Edexcel GCSE History like? And what was it like having it after Gcses?🙂
- A-level History Study Group 2022-2023
- A-Level Edexcel Physical Education
- A Level Exam Discussions 2023
- Can I still get DDD?
- Applied science unit points
- Edexcel A Level History Paper 3 (9HI0 30-39) - 11th June 2024 [Exam Chat]
- Edexcel A Level Business Paper 1 (9BS0 01) - 23rd May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Revision Struggles?! Join the 2023 TSR All Day Revision Thread!
- Who will win the EFL Cup?
- When does swansea uni move in, have freshers and start teaching
Latest
Trending
Last reply 59 minutes ago
Edexcel A Level History Paper 1 (9HI0 1A-1H) - 23rd May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 day ago
AQA A Level History Paper 1 (7042/1A-1L) - 23rd May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 day ago
AQA A Level History Paper 2 (7042/2A-2T) - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 2 days ago
Edexcel A Level History Paper 2 (9HI0 2A-2H) - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 4 days ago
Edexcel GCSE HISTORY PAPER 1 (1HI0 10-13) - 15th MAY [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 week ago
OCR A-Level HISTORY PAPER 3 (Y301-Y321) - 23rd MAY [Exam Chat]Last reply 2 weeks ago
History Edexcel A level Britain Transformed and USA Conformity and ChallengeLast reply 3 months ago
AQA A-level History USA: Making of a Superpower (7042/1K) - 24 May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 months ago
AQA A Level History - Making of Modern Britain(2S) Exam Chat - 9th June 2023Trending
Last reply 59 minutes ago
Edexcel A Level History Paper 1 (9HI0 1A-1H) - 23rd May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 day ago
AQA A Level History Paper 1 (7042/1A-1L) - 23rd May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 day ago
AQA A Level History Paper 2 (7042/2A-2T) - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 2 days ago
Edexcel A Level History Paper 2 (9HI0 2A-2H) - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 4 days ago
Edexcel GCSE HISTORY PAPER 1 (1HI0 10-13) - 15th MAY [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 week ago
OCR A-Level HISTORY PAPER 3 (Y301-Y321) - 23rd MAY [Exam Chat]Last reply 2 weeks ago
History Edexcel A level Britain Transformed and USA Conformity and ChallengeLast reply 3 months ago
AQA A-level History USA: Making of a Superpower (7042/1K) - 24 May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 months ago
AQA A Level History - Making of Modern Britain(2S) Exam Chat - 9th June 2023
