History (HL) - The Aftermath

manutd4life

i did alright.not the best but not the worst either.i got 2 pages for every essay (will that matter?)

i answered:
1.how the treaty negotiations were controversial.talked about the negotiaitions and went on totalk about how they led to a civil war
2.how dictators use propaganda and terror.talked about mussolini,hitler and stalin although about 7 of the 8 paragraphs were about hitler
3.the apprentice boys one.wrote evrything i could remember about them and then included the coleraine university

VivaLaVida

For the people who did Dev's anglo irish and economic policies, which did you say the more effective or whatever? Hadn't studied it properly at all but had to do it.

Thought it would have gone better really.

phic

Oh dear...well, that wasn't fun!
Did the essay about propaganda and terror, did Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler cos well, why not?
then I did that beauty of an essay about tk.whitaker/lemass! glorious.
Then it all went so so wrong! Nothing I'd prepared for Irish topic 3 came up, so I wrote 4 pages of RUBBISH on treaty negotiations, which i'd only read over once, right before the exam, so was VERY bad.
Document q. was grand.
Anyone else think that question about the word Negro was a bit odd? what did everyone else write for it?

OxfordComma

Tough but fair paper overall. The DBQ was grand but the essays were a bit tricky! I got such a shock when I saw it first, but it went pretty well once i settled down. Hopefully I got my A

For Propaganda/Terror, I dealt with Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin separately. Lovely question

Waaahhh

phic wrote: »

Oh dear...well, that wasn't fun!
Did the essay about propaganda and terror, did Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler cos well, why not?
then I did that beauty of an essay about tk.whitaker/lemass! glorious.
Then it all went so so wrong! Nothing I'd prepared for Irish topic 3 came up, so I wrote 4 pages of RUBBISH on treaty negotiations, which i'd only read over once, right before the exam, so was VERY bad.
Document q. was grand.
Anyone else think that question about the word Negro was a bit odd? what did everyone else write for it?

Yeh I wrote MLK Jr. is saying it so it mustn't be offensive! :pac::pac::eek:
I know that logic sucks ass...

Weekend Warrior

phic wrote: »

Oh dear...well, that wasn't fun!
Did the essay about propaganda and terror, did Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler cos well, why not?
then I did that beauty of an essay about tk.whitaker/lemass! glorious.
Then it all went so so wrong! Nothing I'd prepared for Irish topic 3 came up, so I wrote 4 pages of RUBBISH on treaty negotiations, which i'd only read over once, right before the exam, so was VERY bad.
Document q. was grand.
Anyone else think that question about the word Negro was a bit odd? what did everyone else write for it?

Yeah, I thought it was strange too! I just it was obviously the acceptable word at the time, blah blah, for Document A, Martin Luther King was black and he used it so it was clear that as a black man he himself didn't find it offensive, and for Document B that the author appears objective yet sympathetic to the black people so he obviously didn't pin any negative connotations on the word.

Claypigeon

VivaLaVida wrote: »

For the people who did Dev's anglo irish and economic policies, which did you say the more effective or whatever? Hadn't studied it properly at all but had to do it.

Thought it would have gone better really.

I said his Anglo-Irish policies and management of them went better in the end overall as without the proper handling of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, Ireland would not have regained her treaty ports and thus would have been involved in World War Two and would not have been able to set itself apart as an independent state by remaining neutral.

Ontopic I did

Propaganda/Terror in relation to Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini
Devs Anglo Irish vs Economic
Coleraine/App Boys
Full document

Want a c3 I think I got it

moneyman

Weekend Warrior wrote: »

Yeah, I thought it was strange too! I just it was obviously the acceptable word at the time, blah blah, for Document A, Martin Luther King was black and he used it so it was clear that as a black man he himself didn't find it offensive, and for Document B that the author appears objective yet sympathetic to the black people so he obviously didn't pin any negative connotations on the word.

I wrote pretty much the exact same thing!

predominanantly

moneyman wrote: »

I'm pretty much the same, but I did mention Mussolini and Italy a little bit. Just focused on Hitler more; I suppose it's natural. Just curious, what points did you make about propaganda? I hadn't the question prepared, but think I did OK. Just want to see what other people did. Just a few quick headings is all I'm asking, don't want you to go into detail!

Hmm. Goebbels - minister, radios, burning books etc
Children- changing the school books history, great lie, Hiter Youth, LGM etc
Leni Refenstahl -films, anti-semitism, olympic games then leading to
Albert Speer and Nuremberg etc etc

Then it was like five minutes until the end so the last two paragraphs don't really make any sense. I think I wrote about christology and the feel-good factor of the nazis. And I think I wrote the sentence 'Hitler loved Wagner.' without explaining it at all.. which is kind of embarassing.



What did you do?

Davidius

It could have been worse. I was personally hoping for the Moon Landing for the case study but things never go my way.

I didn't really know much about anything in the Irish 1870-1914 options. I attempted the Parnell/Butt question but I ran out of time in the end with 2 pages done.

I got a decent bit out of the propaganda and terror question. I mostly applied it to Nazi Germany but I through in Stalin and Mussolini when I could.

I thought the de Valera question was also pretty nice. It wasn't spectacular but I could do it.

Probably ended up with a C but I can always hope.

Waaahhh

predominanantly wrote: »

Hmm. Goebbels - minister, radios, burning books etc
Children- changing the school books history, great lie, Hiter Youth, LGM etc
Leni Refenstahl -films, anti-semitism, olympic games then leading to
Albert Speer and Nuremberg etc etc

Then it was like five minutes until the end so the last two paragraphs don't really make any sense. I think I wrote about christology and the feel-good factor of the nazis. And I think I wrote the sentence 'Hitler loved Wagner.' without explaining it at all.. which is kind of embarassing.



What did you do?

Oh yeah, nothing like 'Der Meistersinger von Nurnberg'!!
What's Christology??

Gi joe!

VivaLaVida wrote: »

For the people who did Dev's anglo irish and economic policies, which did you say the more effective or whatever? Hadn't studied it properly at all but had to do it.

Thought it would have gone better really.

I said his anglo-irish relation policy was far superior, as Dev's main focus was to achieve sovereignty and independence from Britian, which he did and how his economic policies took the backseat and were often used as an instrument of independence-eco war.

sock puppet

Fuascailt wrote: »

You could def choose between propaganda and terror. Unclear as to whether you needed more than one dictator, i'd imagine you'd be grand.

Yeah it was. Though I thought the terror part was aimed very clearly at Stalin. There's much more substance in the Stalin section on terror and writing on Hitler would have been pointless for me as I wouldn't have been able to give them equal treatment. Hope I was right anyway.

manutd4life

will i be dropped marks for only writing 2 pages for each essays?

i have quite small handwriting and i'm pretty sure i answered what the question was asking:
anglo irish treaty:negotiations,terms,dail division,how it lead to civil war
propaganda and terror:nuremberg rallies,show trials,persecution of jews,concentration camp

i just hope they would have answered the questions.

predominanantly

VivaLaVida wrote: »

For the people who did Dev's anglo irish and economic policies, which did you say the more effective or whatever? Hadn't studied it properly at all but had to do it.

Thought it would have gone better really.

I basically said anglo-irish was good cause he dismantled the treaty (which doesn't really make any sense) but bad because the british didn't like neutrality and ecomoic was just all bad economic war.

I hadn't a clue. I wanted rise of sinn fein soooo bad.

xprincessashx

AAAHHH disgusting! Horrible. Stupid tute teachers predictions were all WRONG.
Only thing that went vaguely well was the ol' DeV question.
My points are lowering every day...

At least my worst exam is over.

Nihilist21

That test went really quite well, the only thing annoying was the hand pain I suffered from all the writing.

1) The documents question was handy, easy questions.

2) Next I did the European question on terror/propaganda, that was also handy, got down my 12 paragraphs.

3) Then I did the NI question on the social and economic effects of the troubles, could only think of 3/4 economic paragraphs but overall I got 12/13 paragraphs done for that question too, so that should be okay.

4) Then I did the Sovereignty and Partition question on Cultural Identity, I liked that question but was running low on time so only got 11 paragraphs done on that (a couple were pretty odd, did a weird paragraph on dancing...).


Overall I hope I got an A from that, not sure if I will or not, my handwriting was pretty dire from about page 10 onwards.

phic

Waaahhh wrote: »

Yeh I wrote MLK Jr. is saying it so it mustn't be offensive! :pac::pac::eek:
I know that logic sucks ass...

Weekend Warrior wrote: »

Yeah, I thought it was strange too! I just it was obviously the acceptable word at the time, blah blah, for Document A, Martin Luther King was black and he used it so it was clear that as a black man he himself didn't find it offensive, and for Document B that the author appears objective yet sympathetic to the black people so he obviously didn't pin any negative connotations on the word.

Yeah thats pretty much what I said too,its the most logical answer I could think of! if MLK's cool with it, its grand!!
I also said it was unnacceptable now because as the civil rights movement progressed, they wanted to distance themselves from what the white oppressors had called them?
I don't really see how anyones supposed to know the answer to that, its one of them just cos questions!!

predominanantly

Waaahhh wrote: »

Oh yeah, nothing like 'Der Meistersinger von Nurnberg'!!
What's Christology??

I dunno know if that's the word for it. Like, christian images.. like how he decended down the steps at nuremberg with light behind his head.

I may have actually made this up.. cause I just checked my notes and I can't see it. Damn. I must have read it somewhere..

moneyman

predominanantly wrote: »

Hmm. Goebbels - minister, radios, burning books etc
Children- changing the school books history, great lie, Hiter Youth, LGM etc
Leni Refenstahl -films, anti-semitism, olympic games then leading to
Albert Speer and Nuremberg etc etc

Then it was like five minutes until the end so the last two paragraphs don't really make any sense. I think I wrote about christology and the feel-good factor of the nazis. And I think I wrote the sentence 'Hitler loved Wagner.' without explaining it at all.. which is kind of embarassing.



What did you do?

Your essay sounds much more on topic than mine; since I hadn't studied it, I had to turn my "Rise of Fascism" essay into propaganda.

I did:

Totalitarianism - People taught slogans such as "You are nothing. Your state is everything". Were taught how to be ideal fascist (couargeous, obedient etc.)
Nationalism - Were essentially brainwashed into thinking they were elite, this created ultra-nationalism, etc. etc.
Superleader - Hitler and Muss shown as heroic, great men. Hitler made people think they were "herrenvolk". Taught that racial impurites (eg Jews) had to be gotten rid of.
Youth - holiday camps, indoctrination etc.
Media - put to great use. Importance of speech recognised (Hitler had hypnotic effect at Nuremberg etc.)

Then briefly mentioned Goebbels in the conclusion.

Think I'll lose marks for not mention enough about him and nothing about Refenstahl considering the essay is about propaganda?

Claypigeon

Nihilist21 wrote: »

That test went really quite well, the only thing annoying was the hand pain I suffered from all the writing.

1) The documents question was handy, easy questions.

2) Next I did the European question on terror/propaganda, that was also handy, got down my 12 paragraphs.

3) Then I did the NI question on the social and economic effects of the troubles, could only think of 3/4 economic paragraphs but overall I got 12/13 paragraphs done for that question too, so that should be okay.

4) Then I did the Sovereignty and Partition question on Cultural Identity, I liked that question but was running low on time so only got 11 paragraphs done on that (a couple were pretty odd, did a weird paragraph on dancing...).


Overall I hope I got an A from that, not sure if I will or not, my handwriting was pretty dire from about page 10 onwards.

Judging from "12 paragraphs" and "only 11 paragraphs" and 13/14 paras being mentioned I'd say you're in for an A... How long are we talking in terms of paras though?

phic

Nihilist21 wrote: »

That test went really quite well, the only thing annoying was the hand pain I suffered from all the writing.

1) The documents question was handy, easy questions.

2) Next I did the European question on terror/propaganda, that was also handy, got down my 12 paragraphs.

3) Then I did the NI question on the social and economic effects of the troubles, could only think of 3/4 economic paragraphs but overall I got 12/13 paragraphs done for that question too, so that should be okay.

4) Then I did the Sovereignty and Partition question on Cultural Identity, I liked that question but was running low on time so only got 11 paragraphs done on that (a couple were pretty odd, did a weird paragraph on dancing...).


Overall I hope I got an A from that, not sure if I will or not, my handwriting was pretty dire from about page 10 onwards.

Good God how long were your paragraphs? I only managed about 8 or 9 per question and I thought I was doing well!

Claypigeon

manutd4life wrote: »

will i be dropped marks for only writing 2 pages for each essays?

i have quite small handwriting and i'm pretty sure i answered what the question was asking:
anglo irish treaty:negotiations,terms,dail division,how it lead to civil war
propaganda and terror:nuremberg rallies,show trials,persecution of jews,concentration camp

i just hope they would have answered the questions.

You're marked x/12 for each paragraph.

damienricefan

Waaahhh wrote: »

Can I ask what you wrote for the treaty Q? Like I know the terms were controversial but what actually was controversial about the negotiations? That's what had me stumped!!

eh basically took three paragraphs: one on dev's absence, partition and sovereignty. basically just tried to relate controversy back to conflict of irish and british interest and de valera's influence or lack of influence! can't really remember now lol

kirt

the document question was easy

rise of sinn fein/church state relations didn't come up which i was banking on

the treaty negotiations question was great i just talked about how dev didnt go, the pope writing to king george and obviously the results of the treaty that split the dail..i thought it was a pretty easy question managed to get 6 and a half pages on it

the ulster unionism question was a bit tricky but it ended up being ok

the propaganda/terror question was really open and easy to answer
i just did hitler/propaganda and stalin/terror.

in general thought it was a pretty open paper you'd only be screwed if you had chosen certain topics to study because most of the favourites didn't come up

phic

Waaahhh wrote: »

Can I ask what you wrote for the treaty Q? Like I know the terms were controversial but what actually was controversial about the negotiations? That's what had me stumped!!

I said it was controversial they wouldn't let them consult with Dublin before they signed the treaty, and Lloyd George said he'd start a war if they didnt sign...although I'm not sure if I made that up or not now I think about it!

moneyman

Claypigeon wrote: »

You're marked x/12 for each paragraph.

Something I've always wondered: If I wrote 4 excellent paragraphs equating to about 4 pages, would I still only be marked out of 4 paras? What if I answered the question fully and gave all the relevant info? Basically, will the examiner determine themselves that you really have two paragraphs in one, but you just didn't show it?

Also, I think that you are only marked out of 12 for 5 paragraphs, the other 40 marks are based on other things in the essay. Obviously the examiner can add marks from excessive paragraphs.

dontlikeurmam

Never been so relieved in my life. Everyone was havin **** attacks goin in!!
I did:
The question on Dev and economy and Anglo-Irish relations...they were awful sly puttin that last bit in. Wrote 6 pages but it was mostly about the economy so i'm not sure?
The question on impact of the Troubles...thank God exactly what I prepared!Knocked out 5 and a half pages
The one on Bismarck and Wilhelm...lovely question really really open and got another 5 and a half there.
I was incredibly lucky with the things that came up.To anyone whose disappointed bout how it went, don't be, History for Leavin Cert is just stupid!!....oh an i did the Bus Boycott question:)

Tevez101

One word.........OBJECTIVE..........what does this mean?

moneyman

Tevez101 wrote: »

One word.........OBJECTIVE..........what does this mean?

It means fair or unbiased.