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

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ini.g)
    did you do the question on the League??? I accidentally said that the Manchurian invasion was in 1936 and I feel so bad because I feel like I'll do terribly now because i got the date wrong ((
    The significance of this is so minor it's not even worth thinking about. It will not add to your mark, nor will it affect your mark (as long as you say enough otherwise).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DontSweatIt)
    The significance of this is so minor it's not even worth thinking about. It will not add to your mark, nor will it affect your mark (as long as you say enough otherwise).
    I said that it was mostly the structure, because it meant that even a powerful League with a good membership would have its work hampered by inefficient bureaucracy etc. I talked about the lack of an army, small secretariat, and the veto, and then for membership how the USA was missing, it was eurocentric, and GBR and FR were unwilling leaders
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cornflakeexpert)
    I said that it was mostly the structure, because it meant that even a powerful League with a good membership would have its work hampered by inefficient bureaucracy etc. I talked about the lack of an army, small secretariat, and the veto, and then for membership how the USA was missing, it was eurocentric, and GBR and FR were unwilling leaders
    League membership issues > League structure/organisation.

    Without the USA, or the USSR, the League's punishment mechanisms: economic sanctions, military sanctions are severely limited and undermined.

    For example, Japan's main trading partner in 1931 (year of invasion of Manchuria) was the USA and thus economic/trade sanctions deployed by the League would prove to be ineffective. The League were also afraid to deploy military sanctions, as they weren't confident they'd be able to defeat the Japanese army - especially without the backing of major superpowers like the USSR, or the US.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cornflakeexpert)
    I said that it was mostly the structure, because it meant that even a powerful League with a good membership would have its work hampered by inefficient bureaucracy etc. I talked about the lack of an army, small secretariat, and the veto, and then for membership how the USA was missing, it was eurocentric, and GBR and FR were unwilling leaders
    I talked about how the USA was missing, the fact that membership was very fluid and made it seem like a euro-centric winner's club which brough negative opinions of the league and made it seem weak.


    In the paragraph I wrote on it's organisation I screwed up and though they meant it's organisation in terms of international disputes
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    It doesn't actually matter which you favour, as long as you provide a coherent and logical argument which argues your case well.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DontSweatIt)
    League membership issues > League structure/organisation.

    Without the USA, or the USSR, the League's punishment mechanisms: economic sanctions, military sanctions are severely limited and undermined.

    For example, Japan's main trading partner in 1931 (year of invasion of Manchuria) was the USA and thus economic/trade sanctions deployed by the League would prove to be ineffective. The League were also afraid to deploy military sanctions, as they weren't confident they'd be able to defeat the Japanese army - especially without the backing of major superpowers like the USSR, or the US.
    definitely true. it could be argued both ways though - my argument was using the year taken by the Lytton committee to produce the report as evidence of the inefficiency of the League.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DontSweatIt)
    The Nazi Soviet Pact vs Britan-France gurantee of Poland was a pretty difficult question imo. What were people's arguments for it?
    didn't do the answer but Ur basically saying that which one was more responsible and how far was that responsible . For example France Britain over Poland was responsible for the war because its when they actually declared war on Hitler and Hitler thought he could still gamble . Another example Nazi soviet pack was also responsible because it meant that Hitler had to fight in one front only . Ussr was a great power so stalling their interference was huge for Hitler and so on ....
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by igcsepupil)
    Yeah we have the Ben Walsh one as well, and during my whole two years doing this course nobody ever mentioned the Lytton Commission to us and this was reflected when everyone came out of the exam asking what the hell the Lytton Commission was Literally nobody in our whole year got that question except one girl who buys all these extra books and researches around the topics etc. Honestly idk we all found the exam rather difficult, the questions were so different to the ones I usually see when I do past papers. Treaty of Versailles or the Big Three didn't come up at ALL so that sucked I'm hoping the grade boundaries will be low because I trashed that exam...
    I also used ben walsh book and there isnt direct mention of lytton commission but if u really understood the Manchurian crisis it was kind of obvious . It was bascially when lord lytton was sent from the lon to produce a report about the Manchurian crisis . He took a whole year to produce a report which proved to be irrelevant because it was 42-1 vote where japan voted against . After that japan left lon . It highlighted the failure of the lon because it did not have an effect after 1 whole year and they didnt actually do anything about japan taking charge of Manchuria it was only condemnation which basically means a tell off. Also i think the ppq werent really relevant because the syllabus changed last year . Instead of 4-7-8 markers theres 4-6-10 which means the structure of the questions changed as well as the wording of the question but in the end most of themhad the same aim and meaning its just the wording which makes them seem hard or confusing .
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by asparkes77)
    Anyone else do the Cold War? If so what were people's arguments for the Berlin Blockade world security question... I mean, how did the Berlin Blockade not cause a threat to world security?
    I did this question . So basically it meant that u had to write a whole paragraph about how it was a threat to world peace . For example it was the point of tension which separated the democratic west and communist east . IF USA had a tank or intervened in an aggressive way to solve this then USSR would've saw that its an act of aggression and they will have every right to go on war . Disagree part it wasn't really a threat because nothing really happened . The airlift still supplied the 2 million people who were cut off . Stalin realized it was ineffective and removed the blockade shortly . Also u can write i think that Stalin wanted to pressure the west and take all of Berlin for himself . You can also say he was threatened by the formation of a new currency and that USA Britain and France put their zones into 1 so he did that just to look like hes strong so it didn't really impose threat on world peace
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jvw8m0PLD4s
    this is brilliant!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I've started an unofficial mark scheme :h: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...7#post64689587
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    I was really disappointed with the exam but got some reassurance that I was not the only one after reading comments here about Lytton question. We use Walsh book but it is apparent there are differences between this and the OUP book. Note to self to check which textbook is being used for A-Level History and supplement where necessary. Lytton is not mentioned directly in Walsh but there is a whole section in the OUP book - so frustrating !!
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Did anyone do the New Deal in the depth study for America?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adam-Bosher)
    I have a past paper that our school made for us on paper two but how could I send it to you guys? (It's on paper btw)
    Do you mind emailing the paper to me? [personal details removed]
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redcoats)
    Did anyone do the New Deal in the depth study for America?
    yep i did.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adam-Bosher)
    I have a past paper that our school made for us on paper two but how could I send it to you guys? (It's on paper btw)
    could you also somehow send this to me? (email?)
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    Good luck for Friday everyone!

    I have a question about Q6 on the sources paper. One teacher I asked said that it is better to group the sources as to whether they agree or not and explain all the 'yes' answers and then all the 'no' answers (or vice versa). The other said that it is better to go through them one-by-one and answer 'yes' or 'no' individually to make sure you don't miss anything.

    Is there an official way to do it or will either be marked equally right?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hi!

    Our teacher has said that it is definitely much better to group the sources before writing up your answer to question 6 (Agree / Disagree) You should also develop about half of the sources you use via NOPAT (Nature Origin Purpose Accuracy Tone) of the source. This ensures you really develop a few sources
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by metellaest)
    Good luck for Friday everyone!

    I have a question about Q6 on the sources paper. One teacher I asked said that it is better to group the sources as to whether they agree or not and explain all the 'yes' answers and then all the 'no' answers (or vice versa). The other said that it is better to go through them one-by-one and answer 'yes' or 'no' individually to make sure you don't miss anything.

    Is there an official way to do it or will either be marked equally right?
    I personally go through them one-by-one, as it allows me to analyse them more thoroughly. If there's a source that reinforces a statement that I made for another, I add it in the next paragraph. I do this because I remember reading in a mark scheme somewhere that one point supported by several sources (i.e. 1 paragraph with many sources) will be marked as 1 point. Obviously I want to be on the safe side so therefore I seperate each source to a paragraph.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saraetcetera)
    I personally go through them one-by-one, as it allows me to analyse them more thoroughly. If there's a source that reinforces a statement that I made for another, I add it in the next paragraph. I do this because I remember reading in a mark scheme somewhere that one point supported by several sources (i.e. 1 paragraph with many sources) will be marked as 1 point. Obviously I want to be on the safe side so therefore I seperate each source to a paragraph.
    Okay great - thank you I was doing that anyway, so it's good I don't need to change my method!
 
 
 
  • 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
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • 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

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