History (H)

Enemy Of Fate

Steve01 wrote:

You'd get at least 2 paragraphs talking about the 1934 rally, Leni Riefenstahl, Nazi cinema and scenes from Triumph of the will alone.

I sure wouldn't!!I mean theres so little information on the damn rallies, theres no way it should be a case study.All they give is documents in that damn thing, with no REAL information.I guess I could squeeze a paragraph out of Leni Riefenstal, but even that would be a stretch.

Steve01

Enemy Of Fate wrote:

All they give is documents in that damn thing, with no REAL information.

You mean asides from all the other information they give you? :rolleyes:

Mushy

Enemy Of Fate, theres too much to write about with Nazi propaganda. You can write about education, how the books were changed to portray Jews, the film Triumph of the Will, the hitler Youth Movement. All this on top of what you said. If that comes up, it'll be a 9/10 paragrapgh essay for me, guaranteed full marks.

Other stuff would be Bismarck, wsnt mentioned last year directly. I'd say it'd be how he maintained the peace(foreighn policy). Maybe Williams Naval Policy or Church-State relations for that Topic.

Europe Topic 3: the Nazi propaganda, Fascist rise to power, causes of WW2

Irish Topic 3: Eucharistic Congress(75th Anniversary), dismantling the Treaty, Belfast during the war

Enemy Of Fate

Hmmm.....Perhaps I judged Nazi propoganda a bit too quickly.I'll look through the section later and draw up a quick essay plan for it.On the subject of essay plans, how many paragraphs is everyone planning on writing?Are you going for loads of small paragraphs with little information, or a few big chunky paragraphs with lots of information?I'm planning on writing 7 chunky paragraphs (that should be worth the full 12 marks each), but thats INCLUDING the introduction and conclusion.Maybe for certain questions i'll have another paragraphs (my essay plan on the western economies 1945-1973 has an optional paragraph about the welfare state I could throw in), but for most i'm still only planning on having the 7.

AdMMM

I plan on writing 35 minutes worth of paragraphs or 8. Whichever I hit first and then moving straight onto the next question. I sense that History will be the test that I have a lot of time management issues on.

Enemy Of Fate

|.Murderer.| wrote:

I plan on writing 35 minutes worth of paragraphs or 8. Whichever I hit first and then moving straight onto the next question. I sense that History will be the test that I have a lot of time management issues on.

Eh?Why only 35 minutes per essay?We have almost 3 hours!

-blondie-

I'm really hoping for something about Sinn Féin's success in the 1918 general election. I really am ****ed in the Irish history section. Not good at all!

European Im pretty happy about. Maybe HItler compare and contrast with Mussolini/Stalin.

And hopefully Cold War and the early stages of the Eec.

Haven't a Clue

Mushy wrote:

Enemy Of Fate, theres too much to write about with Nazi propaganda. You can write about education, how the books were changed to portray Jews, the film Triumph of the Will, the hitler Youth Movement. All this on top of what you said. If that comes up, it'll be a 9/10 paragrapgh essay for me, guaranteed full marks.

And you're even forgetting the radio and the Reich Radio Company. They had Nazi presenters, speeches from influential Nazi figures andmilitary, classical and folk music from German composers. Jesus, that sounds even worse that 2fm.

Enemy Of Fate

Huh.Now that I actually look in the book theres a tonne of stuff on Nazi propoganda.I must not have been in when we covered it, and the Less Stress More Success book doesn't go into ANY detail bout it at all.Damn.And here was me thinking I had all the history course studied.****.Must study up and write a plan then.

marco murphy

Thanks for the help on nazi propaganda people. What about Irish case studies? Where do I start?

ashyle

My teacher said he'd advice learning the treaty case study from sov and partition! lots of finnicky details tho.

JC 2K3

Mushy wrote:

Other stuff would be Bismarck, wsnt mentioned last year directly. I'd say it'd be how he maintained the peace(foreighn policy). Maybe Williams Naval Policy or Church-State relations for that Topic.

Are you mad??

All of them came up last year, albeit in one question.

The one topic that screams out in that section is THE EASTERN QUESTION!

Steve01

JC 2K3 wrote:

The one topic that screams out in that section is THE EASTERN QUESTION!

One of the many topics my teacher REFUSED to cover. Though admittedly it does seem likely to appear in the paper this year. At least if Bismarck or any of the case studies come up (two of them didn't appear last year) I'm sorted.

JC 2K3

Enemy Of Fate wrote:

Eh?Why only 35 minutes per essay?We have almost 3 hours!

We have 2 hours 50 minutes, which is 170 minutes.

One strategy would be leaving 10 minutes at the end to check over your paper, that's 160 minutes for 4 questions of equal marks. 160/4 = 40 minutes per question.

However, the recommended approach is to leave 20 minutes at the end for tying up loose ends, to spend 45 minutes on the Documents as it usually takes a bit longer than an essay, and 35 minutes per essay.

20 + 45 + 3*35 = 170

JC 2K3

Steve01 wrote:

One of the many topics my teacher REFUSED to cover. Though admittedly it does seem likely to appear in the paper this year. At least if Bismarck or any of the case studies come up (two of them didn't appear last year) I'm sorted.

Really? But it's interesting and easy....

You basically just learn a timeline of events and understand how they tie in with rising tensions in Europe.

Steve01

JC 2K3 wrote:

Really? But it's interesting and easy....

You basically just learn a timeline of events and understand how they tie in with rising tensions in Europe.

According to my teacher its a messy, horrible section and very easy to get tangled up in. Though he didn't realise the Department was using a different marking scheme under the new course until February or March of this year. Hence I'm taking his opinion with a pinch of salt...

Mushy

JC 2K3 wrote:

Are you mad??

All of them came up last year, albeit in one question.

The one topic that screams out in that section is THE EASTERN QUESTION!

I really should go back over the papers. His name wasnt directly mentioned though IIRC, thats one thng our teacher said that I actually remember.

Forthe timing, I'm doing 40 mins per essay, 45 for Documents(hopefully quicker. Gives me 5 mins at the end. 8 paragraphs per essay too

Enemy Of Fate

I'll probably do 45 minutes on each essay, and then just spend the rest on the document question.I mean compared to the rest of the questions, theres very little to do in the document question, aside from a small 4-5 paragraph mini essay, which doesn't even have to go into any great depth to get full marks (historical content is only 24 marks).

JC 2K3

Mushy wrote:

I really should go back over the papers. His name wasnt directly mentioned though IIRC, thats one thng our teacher said that I actually remember.

The question was something like:
"Which had a greater impact on international tensions? Bismarck's relationship with the Catholic church or Wilhelm II's naval policy. Argue your case"

Enemy Of Fate wrote:

I'll probably do 45 minutes on each essay, and then just spend the rest on the document question.I mean compared to the rest of the questions, theres very little to do in the document question, aside from a small 4-5 paragraph mini essay, which doesn't even have to go into any great depth to get full marks (historical content is only 24 marks).

The Documents might seem quick and easy to do, but they do require attention to get full marks. Be wary of this.

WildCardDoW

In Topic 2: Nation States, there was only one question on World War One itself, so I think anything related to World war One is a good bet, that includes:

Causes of World War One [which includes two other possible questions in Wilhelm II (personality and actions) and the Eastern Question]
What happened during the war, [my angle on this is: no decisive breakthrough, why?]
Versailles Treaty.

Hopefully one of them will come up, though I am also placing faith in Bismarck's foreign policy, as Bismarck came up last year in regards to home affairs. So basically, I'm concentrating on Germany, lol. If France Russia and Britain come up for most of the questions I will be so effed. Here's praying for WWI.

WildCardDoW

Here's an example essay of the stuff I had, it's long, and poorly written, but some may find it helpful:

WORLD WAR ONE: Causes for WW1, and reason for lack of breakthrough.
As World War I progressed, a number of factors made it hard to achieve a decisive breakthrough. The late changes to the German war plan, the nature of modern warfare, bad tactic and bad battle site choices as well as numerous unforeseen events all contributed to a long war.
The late changes to the German war plan, the Schlieffen Plan certainly contributed, the German generals altered the attack plan for Paris, preferring to attack the city from the east, rather than the north as planned. The German forces attacking France were also reduced as a result of the rapid mobilisation of Russian troops. The Anglo-French forces counter-attacked and the weakened German army retreated to the River Aisne where they dug trenches, this would be the first step in the creation of a long ‘war of attrition’ in which Germany was forced to fight a two-front war.
The nature of modern warfare was another major factor that contributed to a lack of a decisive breakthrough. Trenches were dug by both sides in a long, gruelling war of attrition, these trenches favoured the defenders and the only way to attack was to go “over the top” into “no mans land” a crater land ridden land between the two opposing forces. Few attackers survived and a breakthrough was hard to gain. The constant bombardment from artillery resulted in soldiers who were not ready for battle. The craters and a lack of efficient mechanised transport contributed to the lack of a breakthrough as it was hard to get supplies to the front line.
The attitude of commanders, such as Douglas Haig, resulted in a huge loss of life. Haig believed the victory could only be achieved by superior numbers and better equipment. His tactics were involved, involving huge frontal attacks which resulted in huge loss of life. The Battle of the Somme is a good example of the high fatality rate of this tactic, as 418,000 British and 200,000 French troops perished for a mere 7 miles.
Bad planning and perseverance with the failed tactics above, contributed to the lack of a breakthrough. The attack on Gallipoli in Turkey by the British and Anzac troops is a good example of bad planning and bad battle site choices. The beaches on which the troops attacked were surrounded by high cliffs, easily defended by the Turkish troops stationed there. It was 8 months before the campaign was ended and the troops retreated. [The failure to open up another front by the British also contributed a lack of breakthrough]. The Battle of the Somme again is a good example of a poor site of battle choice, as the German troops were stationed on a hill. The bombardment had failed to dislodge the German troops in their trenches, which were up to 12metres deep, and merely warned them of an incoming invasion. The battle lasted from July 1st to November 18th with almost 60,000 troops dieing on the first day alone.
The failure to achieve a victory at sea is also a factor, few major battles took place at sea as the German Navy withdrew following the Battle of Jutland in 1916. Unforeseen circumstances played a role as well as the Russian withdrawal and the Italian entry freed up forces and created new problems both sides respectively.
A breakthrough finally occurred thanks to the alteration of Allied command structure, American intervention and German demoralisation. The Allies placed all their troops under General Foch, and they were assisted by the influx of American troops, nearly 250,000 by June. The allied change in tactics was a major factor, as they allowed the Germans to overextend and then launched a counter-attack.

Main factor overview: alteration of S.P (attacking east, not north and loss of troops to war in East), nature of modern warfare (trench warfare was defensive, favoured defender and crater ridden fields made supplies harder t reach, bombardment affected soldier’s readiness), bad tactics (Haig and all-frontal assaults, BotS: 415,000 British and 195,000 French) bad battle site choices (Gallipoli, beaches surrounded by cliffs, panic in the landings and Somme, upward hill struggle and failed to dislodge Germans by bombardment, 60 lost, 1st July - 18th November), failure to win at sea (Jutland 1916 only battle) unforeseen events (Russian withdrawal, Italian entry). Why a breakthrough happened: (American troops, unified command, new tactics, demoralised troops).



CAUSES: (Also includes in-depth section of Balkan crises/Eastern Question and on Wilhelm II)
By 1907 an intricate system of alliances had developed which meant Europe was divided into two armed and hostile camps: Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy (Triple Alliance) and Britain, France and Russia (Triple Entente). Any trouble that developed between two of any of the parties in either group would drag the other menders into a conflict, thus a general outbreak of war in Europe.
The ambitions of William II after 1890 were one of the prime causes of increased tensions in European relations:
Wilhelm II upon gaining the throne claimed he wanted “a place in the sun” for Germany, so he started his aggressive Weltpolitik or “world policy”. This resulted in the increased attention from Britain. His attitude and his policies would be a major factor in the outbreak of World War I.
Bismarck had always maintained a “balance of power” in Europe, ensuring the Germany was always allied to two of the five major European powers, as well as isolating enemies, France. However Wilhelm II allowed the Reinsurance Treaty with Russia to lapse in 1890, he thought that Tsar Nicholas II who was a friend would not ally with France because of their different governing systems. This proved incorrect as Russia became increasingly isolated and joined France in the Franco-Russian Alliance in 1894, here Wilhelm’s arrogance had drastically changed the “balance of power” by allowing the treaty with Russia to lapse and hence, forced them into the arms of an enemy. Bismarck then allowed relations with Russia to fall further apart when he refused to lend them money, which was subsequently provided by France.
Wilhelm’s arrogance and folly was once again displayed with his unneeded involvement in the ‘Boer War’. He sent Paul Kruger, leader of the Transvaal, a letter congratulating him on defeating the British invasion. Wilhelm had a “love-hate” relationship with Britain, he admired their power but also wished to compete with them. Wilhelm intervened in a matter his country had no involvement with and this was greatly resented in Britain, relations between the two powers disintegrated. Wilhelm was later forced to apologise, he was embarrassed publicly and would not let this happen again. Relations worsened upon the arrival of the Boer War as many Germans joined the Boer Army, to this Britain this suggested the Germans hated them.
Relations with Britain were never strong in Wilhelm’s rule as they were when Bismarck was chancellor, they became worried with his aggressive policies, especially his naval policy, and they feared that he was preparing for war. His personality and demeanour didn’t help much, in an infamous speech to the “Daily Telegraph” he made a series of inane and foolish comments, insulting the British: “ as mad as march hares” as well as making the comment that “my actions ought to speak for themselves”, Wilhelm’s actions at the time involved in competing in a fierce Naval race.

Wilhelm was influenced by the book “Influence of Sea-Power Upon History” and supported Admiral von Tirpitz’s ‘Risk Theory’ (which involved maintaining a Navy large enough to challenge Britain’s). Because of Germany’s rapidly expanding colonies, and pressure from groups in Germany, von Tirpitz persuaded the Reichstag and the German people to support the expansion. Following this was the passing of the “Navy Laws”, Germany quickly added to her Navy with the construction of battleship, cruisers and other boats.
Britain’s response was to enlarge her own fleet with ships known as “destroyers” as well as joining the Triple Entente of Russia and France. Wilhelm’s vanity and desire for Germany to be the greatest power, as shown here, created a tense atmosphere. A naval race ensued between the two countries, which increased the already tense relations, forcing Britain into alliances for security. Wilhelm II isolated Russia and antagonised Britain, essentially playing a major role in the creation of the Triple Entente. This resulted in the Anglo-Japanese Alliance and the Anglo Russian Entente. Wilhelm would also have an impact of the Entente Cordiale with France.

Because of her increasing amount of colonies Germany got involved in numerous overseas issues, such as the Moroccan, in which Germany protected Moroccan independence. A conference was called in which Britain took France’s side, Kind Edward said the whole event was “un-called for”. In the second Moroccan crisis, Germany sent the gunboat Panther to Agadir, Wilhelm demanded the French Congo in return for recognising French’s influence. As a result of these crises Britain and France were once again drawn closer together and Germany distanced from both countries. Wilhelm was also once again embarrassed by being forced to back down on an issue, he would not do this again. As such, when Austria – Hungary and Russia disagreed over the Serbian affair in which Serbia agreed to all but one of Austria’s demands, Russia promised to protect Serbia. Wilhelm offered A-H a ‘blank cheque’, this gave Austria confidence in the matter and the escalating affairs led to the outbreak of World war One.

It is clear from here, that Wilhelm’s lack of tact, and personality had a major impact on the outbreak of the war, having a major impact on the formation of the two opposing armed groups and for eventually playing a critical role in the outbreak of the war by supporting Austria. However, he is not the only one to blame for the outbreak of the war, Bismarck is the one that had given the Kaiser total power and he was pressurised into the Naval Race. What is his fault was his conduct of Germany’s foreign policy and his inability to provide steady leadership.

Normal version: The ambitions of Wilhelm II after 1890 were one of the primary causes of increased tensions between Europe’s powers. Wilhelm’s unpredictable behaviour and impulsive outburst led to misunderstandings and dissension between Britain and Germany. For example, his decision to send a telegram to President Kruger of the Transvaal congratulating him for his victory over the British forces caused an outcry in Britain, as did his comments in an interview with the Daily Telegraph, accusing the British of harbouring anti-German sentiments.

Wilhelm’s decision to become involved in the colonial race in Africa also led to increased tensions between Germany and Britain, and Germany and France. Britain was convinced that Germany’s acquisition of bases in China and the Berlin-Baghdad railway were a threat to her economic interests.

The main source of contention between Britain and Germany involved the decision to expand Germany’s naval power. Wilhelm was convinced he would have greater power over matters such as the Boer War with a larger navy, especially after reading ‘Influence of Sea Power upon History’. The Reichstag provided the funds after vigorous lobbying by certain group and von Tirpitz, navy laws were passed at frequent intervals. Britain, whose fleet was purely defensive were alarmed Germany were preparing for war A naval race ensued as both sides created bigger and more powerful ships, Germany adopted the Risk Theory, only wishing to have sufficient power to damage Britain’s navy, where as Britain adopted the idea to have their navy as strong as the two other strongest navies.

Wilhelm also began to interfere with French expansion in North Africa, which contributed to a rise in tensions of the two opposing alliance system, as well as improving relations between Britain and France. He attempted to test the strength of the Cordiale, by blocking French expansion in Morocco. He hoped that Britain would prove to be an unreliable ally of France, this failed and drew the two countries closer together, as well as increasing tensions between Germany and the others.
The Second Moroccan Crisis also had an impact, as Wilhelm sent a gunboat, the Panther, to Agadir, Britain feared that Germany would establish a base in the Mediterranean which they considered within their ‘sphere of influence’, Britain warned Germany they might go to war if she continued to threaten their interests in North Africa. The Germans demanded an apology, and when none was forthcoming accepted a strip of the French Congo, on the grounds they would recognise French influence in Morocco. The Germans were determined not to be humiliated again.

Austria – Hungary clashed over their opposing ambitions to influence the Balkan region.
The Eastern Question:

The Balkan Crisis, also known as the Eastern Question periodically dominated the attention of Europe’s major powers and ultimately provoked the outbreak of World War I. The Balkans in south-eastern Europe was ruled the declining Ottoman Empire. Other states watched this decline, hoping to speed up Turkish collapse and gain their own footholds, or prevent rivals from gaining a foothold. Austria – Hungary wished to control the Balkans, while the British wished to maintain the Turkish empire, fearing Russian influence would hurt their trade through the Suez Canal. Austria-Hungary also looked at the area with interest. The people of the region especially the Serbian’s desired to be free of any foreign control although the Serbs frequently looked to fellow Slavs, the Russians, for support. The competition for power in the Balkans and the desire for independence lit a fuse which ignited on 28th June 1914.

Russia was outraged at the massacre of fellow Slavs by the Turks and determined to gain access to the Mediterranean, attacked, and heavily defeated the Turkish Army. The Treaty of San Stefano helped Serbia to independence and gave Russia her desired coastline with the creation of a large, pro-Russia Bulgaria. However, Austria – Hungary and Britain both became alarmed at this. Britain feared a threat to her trade and Austria – Hungary feared the success of the Slavs in the region would encourage Slavs under their rule to rebel.

To avoid a dispute the German chancellor Bismarck called a conference between the involved countries. The Congress of Berlin 1878 saw the breaking up of the big-Bulgaria and the removal of her coastline. Austria-Hungary gained Balkan territory Bosnia-Herzegovina. This moved outraged Serbia, who wished the area for herself because of her coastlines. Russian annoyance at this Conference was directed at Bismarck. Russo-German relations deteriorated and Germany moved closer to A-H with the Dual Alliance of 1979.

In 1908Russian and Serbian discontent deepened when A-H annexed Bosnia – Herzegovina, making them part of her Empire, this was not allowed for by the Conference. Both were furious and Russia protested, but was forced to back down as Germany back A-H, bound by the Dual Alliance of 1879. Yet again Russia’s prestige was damaged among fellow Slavs and yet again Serb nationalism, the desire for all Serbs to live together under one government, in an enlarged Serbia, had been frustrated. Russia was now determined to fight for Serbian in the future.

By 1914, due to the various Balkan wars Serbia had nearly doubled in size and was the leading Slav state in the region, she actively encouraged Slavs to seek independence in A-H. The Hapsburg Empire was now convinced that Serbian nationalism would have to be crushed, or her future would disintegrate.

The chance to crush Serbia arrived on June 1914 when the heir to the Hapsburg throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, was assassinated at Sarajevo by a Serbian nationalist. An ultimatum was dispatched to the Serbian government with various demands. This included that anti-Austrian groups would be suppressed and the Austrian police would be admitted to the country to do this. This violated Serbian independence and they refused, A-H declared war on July 28th. Russia spurred on by her ally France mobilised forces on the Austrian border. Germany quickly joined, as her war plan, the Schlieffen Plan, relied on a slow Russian mobilisation to avoid a two front war. She declared war on August 1st after demanding a cessation to Russian mobilisation, and attacked France two days later.

The Balkan Crisis built up tensions internationally as various powers competed for control or influence in the region. Events in other regions also contributed to an outbreak of war, but it is certain that the tensions this region created among the European powers was a major factor. Both A-H and Russia were backed by other powers, and neither backed down, Germany’s attack on France through Belgium dragged the UK into the war.

Short version:
Austria – Hungary clashed over their opposing ambitions in the Balkan region. Austria was alarmed at Serbia’s growth and growing power in the region over fellow Slavs, fearing they would incite a rebellion in their own borders. Russia supported Serb ambitions to create a large Slavic state in the Balkans. Relations between A-H and Serbia deteriorated following A-H’s annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Russia could not help as they were to weak from the Russo-Japanese war to prevent it. They were however determined to take further actions.

The expenditure on arms made by the European powers steadily increased following 1900. Attempts to restrict this failed at conferences and by 1914 there was a general atmosphere of war in Europe. Army staff saw war as inevitable and encouraged their countries to prepare for war.

Ferdinand’s assassination on June 28th was the match that lit the haystack. Austria declared a war on Serbia on 26th July following the refusal of Serbia to accept their ultimatum, Serbia rejected Austria’s right to bring police in. Russia responded by declaring war on Austria and mobilising. Germany then declared war on Russia, as her war-plan relied on a Russian mobilisation she had to act fast. She declared war on France two days alter and Britain entered the fray when Germany captured Belgium.

RandolphEsq

ashyle wrote:

My teacher said he'd advice learning the treaty case study from sov and partition! lots of finnicky details tho.

Id agree to do the treaty as well, it didn't come up last year.

Does anyone find that there is far too much expected for us to learn for history? I mean 3 full books of essays and another textbook to cover the documents. We can't even finish the 4 books in a 2 year course so theres no time to do class revsion.
Im only learning a few essays from each book because I physically wouldn't be able to learn all the others.
The least the examiners should do is provide us with more questions in the exam, or make the questions broad so we can write what we know.

blondie07

Hey, cant seem to find anyone whos doing pop culture in the dictatorship and democracy book. never done it before but im just doing all of the culture and religion section, hoping one will come up. im gonna leave it till tuesday. is it difficult? i think steve01 said he was doing it, if hes online at all before then. thanks x

Steve01

blondie07 wrote:

Hey, cant seem to find anyone whos doing pop culture in the dictatorship and democracy book. never done it before but im just doing all of the culture and religion section, hoping one will come up. im gonna leave it till tuesday. is it difficult? i think steve01 said he was doing it, if hes online at all before then. thanks x

Hey, nah its not at all difficult. In fact its probably the easiest section in the book whwith regards absorbing the information. I'd say if it comes up in the exam the question will be fairly general so you should have no problem getting 8 or 9 decent paragraphs out of it. Make sure you know about the development of radio, the development of cinema, comparing American and British radio/ cinema, and learn at least one of the key personalities in the chapter.

JC 2K3

BrightEyes wrote:

Id agree to do the treaty as well, it didn't come up last year.

Does anyone find that there is far too much expected for us to learn for history? I mean 3 full books of essays and another textbook to cover the documents. We can't even finish the 4 books in a 2 year course so theres no time to do class revsion.
Im only learning a few essays from each book because I physically wouldn't be able to learn all the others.
The least the examiners should do is provide us with more questions in the exam, or make the questions broad so we can write what we know.

You're not supposed to learn essays, you're suppsed to learn the whole stories and are expected to write about the question asked on the day.

And it's not all that much. I'm leaving out everything except politics(apart from small bits of economy/society) and I'm pretty much guaranteed a question on every topic.

blondie07

Steve01 wrote:

Hey, nah its not at all difficult. In fact its probably the easiest section in the book whwith regards absorbing the information. I'd say if it comes up in the exam the question will be fairly general so you should have no problem getting 8 or 9 decent paragraphs out of it. Make sure you know about the development of radio, the development of cinema, comparing American and British radio/ cinema, and learn at least one of the key personalities in the chapter.

Thanks a mil! Totally freaking out bout history. im pretty much only doing about 30% of the course! but i have thought it through logically:

Documents: Just the case studies and the chapter before and after
Nation States: All of society and economy. there will surely be one question from that section, esp on case study (fingers crossed!)
Dictatorship...: All culture and religion, nazi propaganda
Sovereignty:CNG and FF (anglo-irish, economy)

JC 2K3

blondie07 wrote:

Documents: Just the case studies and the chapter before and after

I was wondering a while back, could they ask you any context question about that section of the course?

I mean, could they give you a document on the lockout and then ask you to wirte a mini essay about the Land League?

Not likely I know, but can they do that?

blondie07

JC 2K3 wrote:

I was wondering a while back, could they ask you any context question about that section of the course?

I mean, could they give you a document on the lockout and then ask you to wirte a mini essay about the Land League?

Not likely I know, but can they do that?

No, that cannot do that. it has to be somewhat related to the time of the case study, be it the causes of the lock-out or the results of the lock-out or the actual lock-out itself. iv gone through every possible question with my grind and you just need to know the conditions in the city at the time, the causes, the roles of william m m and larkin, the impact and i think that's it. if you know the actual lock-out itself, id say you'd be safe, dont think they'll ask anything too difficult in the second year of the course.

Enemy Of Fate

JC 2K3 wrote:

I mean, could they give you a document on the lockout and then ask you to wirte a mini essay about the Land League?

What the hell does the lockout have to do with the land league?

*Note:I only actually bothered to study the actually case study, and nothing else, but i'm stilll pretty sure there were no land league connections.

JC 2K3

It was a "movement for social reform" and it's in the same section as the lockout.

I was looking through the sample exam papers and there was a question in one docs question about 1885/86 elections about the development of Unionism from 1900 until 1914....