So what did everyone think of it?? (1 Viewer)

[ane_st]

I thought the first 3 sections to be relatively good... Then i read the conflict in the pacific question... Lets just say it went downhill from there.....

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

these are what i did...ther was a little freedom there. I hated the question though, its pretty much the same as the sample paper so I didn't expect it at all

the failure of weimar to build up support was a variety of reasons, hyperinflation, falws in constitution and the nationalist opposition of the anti-repiblicans, military, kapp putsch nazis

I focused on the nationalistic aspects of hitler's accession as chancellor and the assess worked in that there are other factors, especially circumstances that contributed to this

and i picked up on going to 1934 so I did the legality of the enabling act and the influence of nationalism using the day of potsdam as evidence.,.. flimsy weak argument i kno, i'd give me 16/25 for it...i'm so bummed out


I really like farked it.....ppl have bitched abt germany question here and someones unleashed on the arba isaeli question..yay for me i do both and sadly I think I did better on that than part b on the personality....I think its a disadvantage to be a history extesnion student because I approached it that way and looked at why my historians have different views on Arafat...hoping for markers to pick up on that and kno im not too bad at it, but i think thats just to much hoping...upside though i dont think i screwed up WWI

i did pretty much exactly the same for the nationalism question. it was a pretty good question i thought...well mainly coz i didnt want to touch the other one...national studies is always my worst module.

it was a very good exam imo. I was having nightmares that they would ask us horrible specific stuff like "explain how hitler's shoe size contributed to his foreign policy" u know those really yucky ones where the two things dont seem to link? but it was so good!!

i loved the personality question. seriously, for part b i could regurgitate word for word the practise response i had written, on this exact thing. mwahaha. actually does anyone else have this with their personality study: i do leni... and i find that this is the only topic where i have a strong enough stance on the topic that i cannot write an essay from the other perspective coz i dont believe my own words. its weird.

the cold war question...i did part a. i was looking forward to it but it turned out a little gay for me. the question wasnt hard. i just nearly ran out of time and had to summarise stuff that i should have gone into detail on coz i spent so long on leni. i know they give you a recommended time for each question but i finished section one ten mins early so i figured i could afford to spend longer on personality. whoops

overall =

i dont want to get too confident yet. but i reckon i did quite well. tee hee.

 

[lilsxcwog89]

I don't know if it was just my school...but we were given 4 page writing booklets for Sections 2 and 4 and an 8 for section 3...does anyone else wonder why they did that? Seriously...four pages for an essay...

That happened at our school too. The supervisor said we had to use two 4 page booklets for the National Studies. She rang up the Board then they ended up giving us an eight page booklet.

 

[angel_eyes870]

i didn't think it was that bad...it wasn't great either tho
Much preferred ancient....
all questions good except for peronality...i had nothing lol....i just babbled then realised after that i should probably have discussed mroe historians views...
darn it lol
I actually only wrote about 5 pgs on average....

 

[sweetsweetcandy]

We only had 4-page booklets, but they told us it was because they ran out of 8-page ones. Everyone kept putting their hands up askng for more booklets.

 

[liger]

I thought it was good....but I suppose because everyone's said that we'll get scaled down. Doh! Did anyone else do Nelson Mandela for the personality?

 

[sillysana]

we are ssssooooo getting scaled down....dont u guys realise that they check these sites to spy on us and now they'll mark hard....ok
cough cough# I t was extremely diffifult!!!###

nah but seriously i think i did ok but i dont want to keep my hopes up...goodluck to all.......3 exams left yay

 

[patchy20]

For the Germany question, what aspects did you have to discuss about nationalism??

i wrote about how nationalism was not a significant cause, and that the democracy had little/no nationalism which is why most people turned to the nazis because if their nationalistic ideology and hence lead to its failure. then i went on to discuss the other factors that contributed to the failure of democracy. thought the exam was pretty sweet...probably the smoothest one i had done...especially the second personality question...i loved it. i had just looked over the EXACT tet question on the bus...it was a practice essay i had done last week! i was like SWEEET!

 

[mmc754]

MY god .. im so happy with this exam.
WWI- was sooo easy, I was like wow.
Germany 1918-34- I did the nationalism question talked about the hatred with the Treaty of Versialles, as well as the depression and how Hitler used this to his advangtage and built up nationalism
Albert Speer- I was happy with
War In the Pacific- AHHH it was so good.. it was basically why did Japan loose the war. Yeahh I was happy

 

[Fitness]

I am soooo very very tired.

I studied so hard but I just dont think I did as well as i could have.

Something feels so empty - The questions were ok but I think I got side tracked on the Tet Offensive.

Anyone got thouhts on the Indochina?

 

[thenothing]

I think the Indochina Tet question was really hard, I know Tet well but from an American perspective, not a North Vietnam perspective.

And the second personality question didn't suit Jinnah very well. Or maybe I just didn't know enough historians. It seems like a history extension question in a way.

 

[RainbowBrite]

I was so stressed before this exam. I was so scared they were going to ask some curly swirly confusing questions, especially on Germany. But nope I was one happy pumpkin.

The WWI section was basically the same as the Catholic Trials and I loved it. I did the nationalism question for Germany and prattled about most of the same stuff as everyone else. I loved the Leni Riefenstahl question- my best answer to that section yet. I did the Indochina questiono about "the inability to seperate nationalism from communism dominated US policy from 1954-1968". Perfect

I'm one happy munchkin after all my stressing.

 

[sallysalome]

Except, I totally did it from both perspectives. Mostly because, how can you talk about the significance of TET without getting into the ramifications on policy in the US? Meh.

In regards to the personality, I think I didn't read the question properly. I thought, "mm, easy!" But after going back over it, I really misinterpreted.

Mou, and today was my fun day. Can't wait for economics and history extension on Tuesday.

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

I was so stressed before this exam. I was so scared they were going to ask some curly swirly confusing questions, especially on Germany. But nope I was one happy pumpkin.

I know ay!! I was freaking out yesterday thinking they would ask something really horrible, but no

 

[sonia.s]

loved most of it!!

ww1 was basic easy stuff.

germany was perfect. i did the racial policy question, not only cuz I studied it more and knew more about it, but apparently its always better to do the second germany question, because the majority of people do the first/weimar question, so you differntiate yourself from the masses and dont bore the examiners to death.

speer was beyond perfect!!! first part i just used my memorised tiemline essay, which fitted perfectly, and the seocnd part was more intellectual, like above the different views e.g. good nazi vs did he know about final solution, and I had allll these band 6 notes,historian views and evidence prepared for that question

cold war....im soo stuffed for that. i dont understand the entire topic lol (neither does the rest of my class) so i basically wrote anything i could remember bout Korean war, cuban missile crisia and the Berlin blockade lol.

i reckon if cold war wasnt in it, i'd get around 85-93%, but with cold war...my marks gonna go down to the 70's sumwhere....


oh well, thats life lol

 

[thenothing]

I should have done the non-Tet question.

But yah, I talked about the US and Tet as well, probably too much.

 

[sallysalome]

I should have done the non-Tet question.

But yah, I talked about the US and Tet as well, probably too much.

Yup, exactly. I walked into the exam thinking, "I know TET!" So I jumped at the Tet question. Sort of like with India. Even though we've done partition that many times, I thought that I knew the satyagrahas better than I knew communalism activities. Because even though we knew they were going on, besides Calcutta, it didn't seem like I knew any specific information, if you know what I mean?

What really got me though was trying to write for three hours. My hand was just refusing to write my India essay, even though that is usually my best. I should have done Indochina last, because that was easily my worst part.

 

[RainbowBrite]

I was so stressed before this exam. I was so scared they were going to ask some curly swirly confusing questions, especially on Germany. But nope I was one happy pumpkin.

The WWI section was basically the same as the Catholic Trials and I loved it. I did the nationalism question for Germany and prattled about most of the same stuff as everyone else. I loved the Leni Riefenstahl question- my best answer to that section yet. I did the Indochina questiono about "the inability to seperate nationalism from communism dominated US policy from 1954-1968". Perfect

I'm one happy munchkin after all my stressing.

 

[SL33pY]

hmmm yea the test was good... overall i cant complain about anything except the pain im feeling in my rigth hand now ><
the leni question was good,, very good... the national studies on germany i think was the trickiest,, however it was quite simple once you actually thought about it... and the conflict in europe on dictaorships in italy and germany was good

gooodgoodgood...
i cant complain about the paper hope my marks arnt too bad

 

[darek_arsenal]

Hey, can anyone tell me if these were good aspects to include for the Germany nationalism question:

I firstly said that nationalism was a major factor, but not the most important. Then i talked about the Ruhr invasion and how it united the country and then how Stresemanns ending of passive resistance led to an upsurge of nationalism propoganda attacking him. Made mention of pan-germanism and the stahlhelm. Then i argued that the Treaty of Versailles led to an increase in nationalism as around 13% of Germans lived outside Germany because of the Treaty. Then made mention, not alot, on Hitlers nationalism and its association with volksgemeinschaft.

Then after all this shit i went onto argue that whilst all the above was important, the flaws of the constitution was the most important (reforms to electoral law, article 48)

Comments please thanks