Join TSR now and get all your revision questions answeredSign up now
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What did you guys write for the Vietnam question
    ?

    First i talked about how the financial cost had been rising considerably throughout the war especially during the tet offensive, and that it was unsusatainable to support a country 8000 miles away + the fact Johnson had an eye on his 'Great Society'

    I then said the human cost made them lose the war because of the opposition that was generated from the increasing number of US soldiers dying, then politicians and journalists like king and Walter Cronkite fuelled media campaigns and protests against the war, which put extreme pressure upon Johnson and Nixon. The most notable being the student movement, such as the events at Kent state uni...

    On the other hand I put that the USA may have lost the war because of their failure to suppress the ho chi Minh trail successfully...key battles such as the Tet offensive were supplied through the trail, and the US was never going to win if the VC could go through Cambodia and Laos, and then directly into south Vietnam

    My final point was that the USA may have lost the war because of the disillusionment within the ARVN, key battles such as Ap bac where the ARVN refused to engage with the VC lost the USA ground in the war, and Nixon's idea of vietnamisation would never work if the ARVN would not fight, therefore the USA had to withdraw because of the lack of options available ( at this point Nixon was already withdrawing US troops)

    ^ what do u guys think about this? Sorry its a chunky bit of text lol

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I'm doing it too. Unit 1 was Civil rights(love this one) & Korea and Vietnam(hate this one) and the one on 22nd may, changing role of women in Britain(kinda scared for this one)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shabba-ranks)
    What did you guys write for the Vietnam question
    ?

    First i talked about how the financial cost had been rising considerably throughout the war especially during the tet offensive, and that it was unsusatainable to support a country 8000 miles away + the fact Johnson had an eye on his 'Great Society'

    I then said the human cost made them lose the war because of the opposition that was generated from the increasing number of US soldiers dying, then politicians and journalists like king and Walter Cronkite fuelled media campaigns and protests against the war, which put extreme pressure upon Johnson and Nixon. The most notable being the student movement, such as the events at Kent state uni...

    On the other hand I put that the USA may have lost the war because of their failure to suppress the ho chi Minh trail successfully...key battles such as the Tet offensive were supplied through the trail, and the US was never going to win if the VC could go through Cambodia and Laos, and then directly into south Vietnam

    My final point was that the USA may have lost the war because of the disillusionment within the ARVN, key battles such as Ap bac where the ARVN refused to engage with the VC lost the USA ground in the war, and Nixon's idea of vietnamisation would never work if the ARVN would not fight, therefore the USA had to withdraw because of the lack of options available ( at this point Nixon was already withdrawing US troops)

    ^ what do u guys think about this? Sorry its a chunky bit of text lol

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I don't want to make you panic but the question was on why the US withdrew. You seem to have written slightly more about why they lost but it may just be the way you summarised your answer.

    This is what I wrote:

    I said that why the human and finical costs were big (59,000 US soliders, $141 billion, debt rising 15 times to $25 billion 1965-8). I also talked about how people started to question the morality of the war (over 1 million Vietnamese died etc). While the human and finiacial costs were bigger than those in Korea, they were far less than in WW2. However no one doubted the necessity of war then. Human and finicial costs were not therefore the most crucial factor.

    I then talked about domestic opposition. Tet massively increased it and turned influential political and media figures agt. the war- Walter Croncite, Dean Acheson etc. No one then talked of victory, only of 'peace with honour'. The I talked about how Nixon realised that Tet had effectively destroyed Johnson's presidency so he knew he had to withdraw asap and how he changed tactics (Vietnamisation). I then talked about how revelations about the secret bombings of Cambodia increased protests- leading to Congress banning any further extension of the war. Nixon's low public approval ratings (1971- 31%) led to speed up the withdrawal process. Finally Congressed limited funding for the war in 1972, so all troops were withdrawn by Jan 1973 and bombing ceased in August.

    I then talked about how it wasn't because of military failure because the US didn't lose a single battle in the war. Tet was a political failure but a military victory etc etc.

    I wrote about how the international situation had changed- Nixon realised,as previous presidents did not that China and the USSR were rivals, not part of the same communist conspiracy to dominate the world. Domino theory incorrect etc etc

    I concluded that it was basically down to domestic opposition. Obviously I included a lot more detail but I can't be bothered to write it all out here.

    I did the Black Power question for Civil Rights and I think it went fairly well. How did everyone else get on?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yerrkl)
    Did anyone do Rise and collapse of Fascism and the Third Reich in History 1 Option F?
    I did the Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany questions,Which are the same as yours? How did you find the exam.....:| ...............which questions did you answer
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EleanorKeats)
    I don't want to make you panic but the question was on why the US withdrew. You seem to have written slightly more about why they lost but it may just be the way you summarised your answer.

    This is what I wrote:

    I said that why the human and finical costs were big (59,000 US soliders, $141 billion, debt rising 15 times to $25 billion 1965-8). I also talked about how people started to question the morality of the war (over 1 million Vietnamese died etc). While the human and finiacial costs were bigger than those in Korea, they were far less than in WW2. However no one doubted the necessity of war then. Human and finicial costs were not therefore the most crucial factor.

    I then talked about domestic opposition. Tet massively increased it and turned influential political and media figures agt. the war- Walter Croncite, Dean Acheson etc. No one then talked of victory, only of 'peace with honour'. The I talked about how Nixon realised that Tet had effectively destroyed Johnson's presidency so he knew he had to withdraw asap and how he changed tactics (Vietnamisation). I then talked about how revelations about the secret bombings of Cambodia increased protests- leading to Congress banning any further extension of the war. Nixon's low public approval ratings (1971- 31%) led to speed up the withdrawal process. Finally Congressed limited funding for the war in 1972, so all troops were withdrawn by Jan 1973 and bombing ceased in August.

    I then talked about how it wasn't because of military failure because the US didn't lose a single battle in the war. Tet was a political failure but a military victory etc etc.

    I wrote about how the international situation had changed- Nixon realised,as previous presidents did not that China and the USSR were rivals, not part of the same communist conspiracy to dominate the world. Domino theory incorrect etc etc

    I concluded that it was basically down to domestic opposition. Obviously I included a lot more detail but I can't be bothered to write it all out here.

    I did the Black Power question for Civil Rights and I think it went fairly well. How did everyone else get on?
    Yeah i concluded that domestic opposition was central to US withdrawal, but couldn't withdrawal be interpreted as a loss?

    And for civil rights i did the federal government question, looked easier than the black power one but most of my class did MLK and black power...think i preferred the vietnam question
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I did the Option C paper, War of Independence and Slavery. The questions were surprisingly easy although I did not write as much as I wanted due to the lack of time. Hoping for A/B!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The paper was so nice, I did both Russia. Provisional gov and rise to power which I already predicted and prepared for


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sara_A)
    The paper was so nice, I did both Russia. Provisional gov and rise to power which I already predicted and prepared for


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    seems edexcel chose to be nice on this series? hope they dont choose to raise the grade boundaries too high...this could happen on the most popular questions of each topic
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I did the Federal Government & Supreme Court for Civil Rights, Rise to Power for Stalin.

    I'm not sure whether I answered the Civil Rights one correctly. The question was 'How far was the Federal Government and Supreme Court responsible for changing the status of African-Americans in the years 1945-68? I did a paragraph on FG & SC, then said that the change they made was only de jure change, and not de facto. Then I did two seperate paragraphs on Media Attention and Civil Rights Groups, and with both of them I said that their change was de facto change, unlike the FG & SC's change. Is that how it's supposed to be answered, or am I supposed to ONLY talk about the Federal Government and Supreme Court?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rarar)
    I did the Federal Government & Supreme Court for Civil Rights, Rise to Power for Stalin.

    I'm not sure whether I answered the Civil Rights one correctly. The question was 'How far was the Federal Government and Supreme Court responsible for changing the status of African-Americans in the years 1945-68? I did a paragraph on FG & SC, then said that the change they made was only de jure change, and not de facto. Then I did two seperate paragraphs on Media Attention and Civil Rights Groups, and with both of them I said that their change was de facto change, unlike the FG & SC's change. Is that how it's supposed to be answered, or am I supposed to ONLY talk about the Federal Government and Supreme Court?
    Nope it was a factors question!

    I did exactly the same, my first paragraph was SC and FG second was media attention and last was the civil rights movement (must've being a bit broad but they must get my point). I loved how broad the essay was, it was one of those how far were they responsible questions, so not very, other things more responsible. I liked it personally. I did the same, I said they only made de jure changes and then linked all 3 together e.g. civil rights movement triggered media reports which triggered support from FG and SC.

    For media I included CRM Little Rock, March on Washington and Birmingham

    For Civil Rights movement I included NAACP, (Montgomery and BROWN) SCLC (Birmingham and March on washington) Mississippi Freedom summer (SNCC and CORE mainly) and Selma with King and SCLC.

    For FG and SC I included Johnson's distraction of the Vietnam war to undermine his importance, talked about CR 1964 bill, 1965 voting rights act, executive order 9981 and BROWN II + Boyton Vs Virginia
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rarar)
    I did the Federal Government & Supreme Court for Civil Rights, Rise to Power for Stalin.

    I'm not sure whether I answered the Civil Rights one correctly. The question was 'How far was the Federal Government and Supreme Court responsible for changing the status of African-Americans in the years 1945-68? I did a paragraph on FG & SC, then said that the change they made was only de jure change, and not de facto. Then I did two seperate paragraphs on Media Attention and Civil Rights Groups, and with both of them I said that their change was de facto change, unlike the FG & SC's change. Is that how it's supposed to be answered, or am I supposed to ONLY talk about the Federal Government and Supreme Court?
    Yeah i basically wrote this, court rulings like the brown vs topeka were undermined by federal government who were apathetic to effectively implement it (3 year delay between brown and little rock) so yes while there was 'de jure' change, it can be argued to be not de facto change for african american status.

    I think you are hinting at something there with media attention and civil rights groups, but you have to judge whether federal government and supreme court were effective in changing the status of blacks, and reasons they didnt (lack of de facto change + media attention from protests )
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Did anyone do Option F: Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany...........
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shabba-ranks)
    Yeah i basically wrote this, court rulings like the brown vs topeka were undermined by federal government who were apathetic to effectively implement it (3 year delay between brown and little rock) so yes while there was 'de jure' change, it can be argued to be not de facto change for african american status.

    I think you are hinting at something there with media attention and civil rights groups, but you have to judge whether federal government and supreme court were effective in changing the status of blacks, and reasons they didnt (lack of de facto change + media attention from protests )
    I undermined FG and SC by suggesting that the new legislation and key judgements came as a resultant of Civil Rights group's actions and media attention. Then I put CRM on a pedestal and said this was the most important reason for changes in the status of African Americans 1945-1968. Lol the other question looked horrible
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I did Option E The Unification of Italy & The collapse of the liberal state and the rise of Fascism in Italy.
    I thought the questions were quite nice although the unification questions were a little unexpected. I chose question 2 asking about Austria's defeat in 1859 and question 5 about Mussolini between 1919-25. I think I did okay in both although I think I went a tiny bit off topic on the second one.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robbie242)
    Nope it was a factors question!

    I did exactly the same, my first paragraph was SC and FG second was media attention and last was the civil rights movement (must've being a bit broad but they must get my point). I loved how broad the essay was, it was one of those how far were they responsible questions, so not very, other things more responsible. I liked it personally. I did the same, I said they only made de jure changes and then linked all 3 together e.g. civil rights movement triggered media reports which triggered support from FG and SC.

    For media I included CRM Little Rock, March on Washington and Birmingham

    For Civil Rights movement I included NAACP, (Montgomery and BROWN) SCLC (Birmingham and March on washington) Mississippi Freedom summer (SNCC and CORE mainly) and Selma with King and SCLC.

    For FG and SC I included Johnson's distraction of the Vietnam war to undermine his importance, talked about CR 1964 bill, 1965 voting rights act, executive order 9981 and BROWN II + Boyton Vs Virginia
    I kinda had to rush CR because of timing, but this is what I included:

    For FG and SC, I talked about Brown vs Board, Morgan v. Virginia and some other court cases. Then I mentioned Eisenhower's support during Little Rock, and said...something about it (I can't remember what!).

    For Civil Rights Groups, I mentioned the Bus Boycott and March on Washington, and said how the March had pushed for the Federal Government to implement change through the Civil Rights Bill, which became an Act in 1964. I also said how CORE, NAACP, SCLC and SNCC had worked together in the March.

    For Media Attention, I said about how there were 45 million television sets in America at the time, and said that the Albany campaign's lack of media attention and thus lack of change helped to prove that media attention was far more important, and that it helped to bring de facto change, as opposed to the FG & SC, which was solely de jure change.

    In the conclusion, I said that FG & SC was the most important in bringing about de jure change, but media attention and civil rights groups caused de facto change, which was more of a significant change than de jure.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lizy)
    I did the Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany questions,Which are the same as yours? How did you find the exam.....:| ...............which questions did you answer
    I did the ones on Mussolini's foreign policy, and the Nazi electoral success. I would have preferred a Weimar question, but I thought the paper went alright, you?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rarar)
    I kinda had to rush CR because of timing, but this is what I included:

    For FG and SC, I talked about Brown vs Board, Morgan v. Virginia and some other court cases. Then I mentioned Eisenhower's support during Little Rock, and said...something about it (I can't remember what!).

    For Civil Rights Groups, I mentioned the Bus Boycott and March on Washington, and said how the March had pushed for the Federal Government to implement change through the Civil Rights Bill, which became an Act in 1964. I also said how CORE, NAACP, SCLC and SNCC had worked together in the March.

    For Media Attention, I said about how there were 45 million television sets in America at the time, and said that the Albany campaign's lack of media attention and thus lack of change helped to prove that media attention was far more important, and that it helped to bring de facto change, as opposed to the FG & SC, which was solely de jure change.

    In the conclusion, I said that FG & SC was the most important in bringing about de jure change, but media attention and civil rights groups caused de facto change, which was more of a significant change than de jure.
    I see that all seems good until the end, you haven't really reached a solid judgement on the most important reason responsible. You've merged the media and Civil Rights groups into 1, whilst I believe you can still get a high mark, you haven't concluded the main reason responsible, you've concluded 2 reasons into 1 being responsible. You may still get a good mark though, your knowledge and application to de facto and de jure will surely impress some examiners.

    You also need to ensure that your linking to the fact that the status of African Americans changed SCLC, NAACP, SNCC and CORE working together in the march, if you explained how this improved status then thats good
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I did F1 and F7. I thought the unification of Italy questions were good but not amazing, I chose question two about Austria 1859-1870. It frustrates me not being able to write a great deal about 1855 and 1858 though. For Germany I chose the children and education question because I'd done a plan for it the night before! It generally went well as I'd memorised statistics and quotes but then I wasn't able to finish my conclusion properly as I'd spent more time on the body of my argument :/
    History isn't my strong point so I'm hoping for a B. Anyways for now just bring on unit 2 on Wednesday!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robbie242)
    I see that all seems good until the end, you haven't really reached a solid judgement on the most important reason responsible. You've merged the media and Civil Rights groups into 1, whilst I believe you can still get a high mark, you haven't concluded the main reason responsible, you've concluded 2 reasons into 1 being responsible. You may still get a good mark though, your knowledge and application to de facto and de jure will surely impress some examiners.

    You also need to ensure that your linking to the fact that the status of African Americans changed SCLC, NAACP, SNCC and CORE working together in the march, if you explained how this improved status then thats good
    Okay, well I hope I did okay! Time to revise Henry VIII for Wednesday, ugh.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by watchmaker)
    I did F1 and F7. I thought the unification of Italy questions were good but not amazing, I chose question two about Austria 1859-1870. It frustrates me not being able to write a great deal about 1855 and 1858 though. For Germany I chose the children and education question because I'd done a plan for it the night before! It generally went well as I'd memorised statistics and quotes but then I wasn't able to finish my conclusion properly as I'd spent more time on the body of my argument :/
    History isn't my strong point so I'm hoping for a B. Anyways for now just bring on unit 2 on Wednesday!
    I know exactly what you mean about unification, so much knowledge that'd be useless in the question. I was initially going to choose the church question but got scared when I saw the word "nationalism". All in all though I think I wrote a decent enough essay for it. What points did you make?
 
 
 
Poll
Which web browser do you use?

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.