Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Edexcel History Unit 1-International Relations-6th June 2016 Exam Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    In the last question, I stupidly put Brezhnev's name instead of Khruschev. I also said they fought over Berlin's expensive industries haha someone help me out. I wrote about khruschev ultimatum refugee etc but i put brezhnev name instead. anyone know what mark i'd get? maybe 7/13?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by grace143)
    no one said that
    it's out of 53
    oh right. yeah i feel really stupid now. i
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by grace143)
    no one said that
    it's out of 53
    oh right. yeah i feel really stupid now.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by droadman786)
    In the last question, I stupidly put Brezhnev's name instead of Khruschev. I also said they fought over Berlin's expensive industries haha someone help me out. I wrote about khruschev ultimatum refugee etc but i put brezhnev name instead. anyone know what mark i'd get? maybe 7/13?
    did you keep on referring to brezhnev, or was it a one time mistake?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by swanlake101)
    what did you say?
    I also wrote about the speech, its in 1962/3 so its correct, but the way i phrased it was the 'international reaction' to the berlin wall, and used the speech as an example. then went on to say this was very important coz it made capitalist west look attractive and further divided the two sides. i also prioritised it saying that it was more important than the construction of the berlin wall, but less important than the refugee crisis because the refugee crisis, in my opinion, started everything off - without it the wall wouldn't have been built. im sure if i backed it up with reasons i will get the marks for it.

    i thought that nobody else did the Kennedy speech - i was so scared.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gameofno)
    same about the 10 marker- i think i talked about how his attitude changed after the second cold war (introducing reforms etc) rather than during :\
    Ugh, I think I completely bombed this question. I just completely misinterpreted and spent way too long on it, waffling in an attempt to convince the examiner I knew what the question was asking. Damn Does anyone remember the exact wording for the source question? (Q3 I believe.)

    For the last question, I had only just got onto the conclusion when the exam ended so I didn't have time to prioritise. My third point was incredibly rushed and overall, I didn't even fill two sides. I don't know anyone at my school who found it easy so let's hope for low grade boundaries. I'm pretty sure I've messed up my chances of getting an A* overall now, but I revised well and feel I did the best I could so hey ho.

    Wishing you all the best of luck for the rest of the history exams! Does anyone do Russia?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KAK123)
    did you keep on referring to brezhnev, or was it a one time mistake?
    i kept on referring to him
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by droadman786)
    i kept on referring to him
    oh man!! lets hope you get full marks for SPAG and do really well in the other questions. How'd you find the rest of the paper?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by beccaholland)
    Ugh, I think I completely bombed this question. I just completely misinterpreted and spent way too long on it, waffling in an attempt to convince the examiner I knew what the question was asking. Damn Does anyone remember the exact wording for the source question? (Q3 I believe.)

    For the last question, I had only just got onto the conclusion when the exam ended so I didn't have time to prioritise. My third point was incredibly rushed and overall, I didn't even fill two sides. I don't know anyone at my school who found it easy so let's hope for low grade boundaries. I'm pretty sure I've messed up my chances of getting an A* overall now, but I revised well and feel I did the best I could so hey ho.

    Wishing you all the best of luck for the rest of the history exams! Does anyone do Russia?
    something like explain how sources B and C are useful as evidence of Gorbachev's changing attitudes?

    or changing attitudes to Gorbachev?

    i dunno, i've completely forgotten
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KAK123)
    oh man!! lets hope you get full marks for SPAG and do really well in the other questions. How'd you find the rest of the paper?
    It was not too bad. But I was aiming for an A. Hopefully I can still pull 6 marks or so in the 13 marker for giving valid points . How did you find the paper?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jak123)
    Comecon however was 1949 and was mainly a reaction to the formation of NATO.
    Got it the wrong way round. Warsaw Pact 1955 Eastern NATO
    Comecon is economic alliance
    Cominform used to control communist parties in other countries
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by beccaholland)
    Ugh, I think ICOMPLETELY bombed this question. I just completely misinterpreted and spent way too long on it, waffling in an attempt to convince the examiner I knew what the question was asking. Damn Does anyone remember the exact wording for the source question? (Q3 I believe.)For the last question, I had only just got onto the conclusion when the exam ended so I didn't have time to prioritise. My third point was incredibly rushed and overall, I didn't even fill two sides. I don't know anyone at my school who found it easy so let's hope for low grade boundaries. I'm pretty sure I've messed up my chances of getting an A* overall now, but I revised well and feel I did the best I could so hey ho. Wishing you all the best of luck for the rest of the history exams! Does anyone do Russia?
    Damn that 10 marker. I knew i could grab atleast half the marks by saying if it was useful or not and giving evidence and then talking about the nature of the source. But i had no clue about the 'second cold war' part, so i said it's not useful also because from my own knowledge i know that Gorbachev's attitude changed with the introduction of his policies - perestroika and glasnost - and the source doesnt talk about them, thus it's not useful. Im not sure if thats even right!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by droadman786)
    It was not too bad. But I was aiming for an A. Hopefully I can still pull 6 marks or so in the 13 marker for giving valid points . How did you find the paper?
    it was good, except for the last question I forgot to properly say which one was the most important. I kind of hinted at it, but we'll just have to see
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by beccaholland)

    Wishing you all the best of luck for the rest of the history exams! Does anyone do Russia?
    i do but haven't started revision for it oops

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KAK123)
    it was good, except for the last question I forgot to properly say which one was the most important. I kind of hinted at it, but we'll just have to see
    Hopefully the boundaries get dropped by 2/3 marks
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gameofno)
    why dont u shoot me hmm
    woah. Those are a lot of points. I thought you only need to include one other?

    I wrote about the Vienna Conference in 1961 as it meant that there was a possibility of Kennedy going to war
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by swanlake101)
    what did you say?
    (Original post by Owen_EFC)
    I added Kennedy's ich bin ein Berliner speech in question 6. This correct?
    It is correct I added that too but i said it intended to mean that I am a berliner sypathising with the west berliners situation even though it actually meant 'I am a dougnutt'
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LordMallard)
    Got it the wrong way round. Warsaw Pact 1955 Eastern NATO
    Comecon is economic alliance
    Cominform used to control communist parties in other countries
    No i don't, Cominform was used to encourage communist parties to reject marshall aid and to remove other opposition. It was the initial reaction to the marshall plan.
    Comecon was introduced due to NATO, but also aimed at tackling marshall plan issues also. They introduced the Warsaw Pact also as a way to tackle the military issues brought by NATO.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Hi, studied this unit last year, and just out of interest, what were the questions???
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Colonel Sanders)
    Damn that 10 marker. I knew i could grab atleast half the marks by saying if it was useful or not and giving evidence and then talking about the nature of the source. But i had no clue about the 'second cold war' part, so i said it's not useful also because from my own knowledge i know that Gorbachev's attitude changed with the introduction of his policies - perestroika and glasnost - and the source doesnt talk about them, thus it's not useful. Im not sure if thats even right!
    The source does mention 'major changes' and 'openness'. Glasnost meant openness so there was a definite reference here, and perestroika was an example of his 'major changes', therefore the source was actually useful to use. Furthermore, the source spoke of things such as the advancement of US technology, which again was completely accurate as well.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.