Go to first unread
Back
to top
Resources for paper 3 9389 CIE HISTORY
Watch
Announcements
Hi,
Does anyone have resources (notes, pdf textbooks, etc) for the Holocaust subject for CIE HISTORY 9389? I urgently need these and will be grateful if you could provide them or a website link. Thanks in advance!
Does anyone have resources (notes, pdf textbooks, etc) for the Holocaust subject for CIE HISTORY 9389? I urgently need these and will be grateful if you could provide them or a website link. Thanks in advance!
0
reply
Report
#2
Hi! I’m doing Cold War for paper 3, but I found this general guide pretty helpful http://history9389.com/2017/01/18/ci...ay-other-tips/ unfortunately, that’s about it for you. the rest of the website focuses specifically on cold war (i think, do check). But just wondering, do you have any structure in mind for the essay? The question is so vague and broad that I don’t know what to do with it. I write a decent sized essay but whole paper takes me like 35/40 mins not the full hour. Im thinking I’m doing something wrong cause CIE are very specific with timings. My teacher just gives me content rather than exam technique, do you mind helping me out?
0
reply
Report
#4
Ahh my exam is tomorrow and it’s 4am right now. Do you mind dropping some tips so I could go over them in the morning? that would be really helpful since i’m not very confident enough in my structure! thank u so much
(Original post by ayeshaa9)
If you still need help with the structure, i can help you
If you still need help with the structure, i can help you
0
reply
Report
#5
Sure, i have my exam in a few hours too.
•Basically in your introduction you need to explicitly state which school of thought the historian belongs to.
•You should also summarise your big message, all the arguments historian is making in your introduction
•Move to body paragraphs, mention the first argument that makes it clear why you think the historian belongs to that specific school of thought. Continue with a quote from the source, next give context and *dont forget to keep analysing it*
•You should do your approach paragraph, mention how the historian is making his arguments, whether he is critical, overly critical etc. Mention who & what he is focusing on.
•We’re also taught to do an elimination paragraph whereby you eliminate all other possibilities of the historian belonging to another school of thought supported by quotes from the source
Thats about it, dont forget to keep analysing your context, the examiner doesn’t want only info
•Basically in your introduction you need to explicitly state which school of thought the historian belongs to.
•You should also summarise your big message, all the arguments historian is making in your introduction
•Move to body paragraphs, mention the first argument that makes it clear why you think the historian belongs to that specific school of thought. Continue with a quote from the source, next give context and *dont forget to keep analysing it*
•You should do your approach paragraph, mention how the historian is making his arguments, whether he is critical, overly critical etc. Mention who & what he is focusing on.
•We’re also taught to do an elimination paragraph whereby you eliminate all other possibilities of the historian belonging to another school of thought supported by quotes from the source
Thats about it, dont forget to keep analysing your context, the examiner doesn’t want only info
(Original post by mushtahaelm)
Ahh my exam is tomorrow and it’s 4am right now. Do you mind dropping some tips so I could go over them in the morning? that would be really helpful since i’m not very confident enough in my structure! thank u so much
Ahh my exam is tomorrow and it’s 4am right now. Do you mind dropping some tips so I could go over them in the morning? that would be really helpful since i’m not very confident enough in my structure! thank u so much
3
reply
Report
#9
haha me too, any idea which school of thought is most likely to come?
Last edited by ayeshaa9; 2 years ago
0
reply
Report
#10
for some reason traditionalist? idk i haven’t seen it come up that much. whatever it is lets hope its clear
(Original post by ayeshaa9)
haha me too, any idea which school of thought is most likely to come?
haha me too, any idea which school of thought is most likely to come?
0
reply
Report
#11
(Original post by mushtahaelm)
for some reason traditionalist? idk i haven’t seen it come up that much. whatever it is lets hope its clear
for some reason traditionalist? idk i haven’t seen it come up that much. whatever it is lets hope its clear
0
reply
Report
#12
Right back at ya! tell me how it goes 
(Original post by ayeshaa9)
Yess, hope it goes well. Good luck!!
Yess, hope it goes well. Good luck!!
0
reply
Report
#13
Sooo, how’d it go? personally think i think it went really well. interpretation was painfully obvious and thats all I was worried about really. Also there were just enough hints to allow us build up from our knowledge thankfully, i saw some past papers that would give you examples and i didn’t like that at alll lol much prefer if the extract gave me some space to show off. WBu, how’d you find it?
(Original post by ayeshaa9)
Yess, hope it goes well. Good luck!!
Yess, hope it goes well. Good luck!!
0
reply
Report
#14
Did you do Cold War? If so post-revisiont?
(Original post by mushtahaelm)
Sooo, how’d it go? personally think i think it went really well. interpretation was painfully obvious and thats all I was worried about really. Also there were just enough hints to allow us build up from our knowledge thankfully, i saw some past papers that would give you examples and i didn’t like that at alll lol much prefer if the extract gave me some space to show off. WBu, how’d you find it?
Sooo, how’d it go? personally think i think it went really well. interpretation was painfully obvious and thats all I was worried about really. Also there were just enough hints to allow us build up from our knowledge thankfully, i saw some past papers that would give you examples and i didn’t like that at alll lol much prefer if the extract gave me some space to show off. WBu, how’d you find it?
0
reply
Report
#16
In my opinion it was post-revisionist: the historian said mistrust and suspicion. He did justify the soviets security claims and this is inherent within post rev school (Gaddis). But arguably Stalin went to far (is misjudged the latitude of influence referring to Poland, Czech, Hungary) . He also blames the USA , specifically over the administration handling in Potsdam. He also talked about circumstances (such as the change in the Roosevelt administration). I’m curious to see your reasonings?
Last edited by Kstapley; 2 years ago
0
reply
Report
#17
Has anyone else got thoughts on Revisionist/Post Revisionist answer interpretations on the Cie History A level paper
0
reply
Report
#18
Hey! i just realised my last message made it seem like I objectively knew the answer.. I don’t... you might be right but it had 2 out of the 3 revisionist strands and when i highlighted there were very few points suggesting it was post revisionist. Also from past papers and what not they mention that people get misguided with the few hints of post-revisionism so thats how i concluded its revisionism but either way i could be wrong
1
reply
Report
#19
Imo, it was revisionist too. I was 100% sure by the time i read the last paragraph because only revisionists make the argument that the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were to show US dominancy over USSR
Last edited by ayeshaa9; 2 years ago
0
reply
X
Quick Reply
