qualifying exam feedback
DESCRIPTION
Qualifying Exam Feedback. July 2012. Grade Thresholds. Memory booster anyone?. Want an A??? – Eat Almonds. Medal. 1. Able to sit 3 hours. Medal. 2. Sketch a plan. Medal. 3. Attempt all 4 questions . Medal. 4 . Choosing the right questions; Not Q.3 & Q.4. Medal. 5 . Factual answers. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Qualifying Exam Feedback
July 2012
Grade Thresholds
Mark Grade100-70 A69-62 B61-54 C53-46 D45-38 E
Memory booster anyone?
Want an A??? – Eat Almonds
Medal
1. Able to sit 3 hours
Medal
2. Sketch a plan
Medal
3. Attempt all 4 questions
Medal
4. Choosing the right questions;Not Q.3 & Q.4
Medal
5. Factual answers
Mission
1. Essay: 3 body paragraphs
More analysis
Mission
2. Essay planning proforma
Write the question here: For the key instruction words:‘How far’ ‘Assess’
Yes/agree arguments
Priority order
No/disagree arguments
Priority order
Mission
3. Mind-map style essay plan
Mission
4. Revision: Pair/Group
Mission
5. Study skills
SBQ: ‘No country engaged in a war of
aggression.’May/June 2010
Introduction
Make a case – challenge & blame Germany?
Although World War 1 was caused by a complicated chain of events and pro nationalist alliances that led to the fighting, the actual root causes are however, to be found in Germany, the only dangerous threat to the fragile harmony in Europe.
Body
Evidence for the claim that “Germany was engaged in a
war of aggression”
Body
Source B shows that Germany policy was aggressive and that it
urged Austria to be equally aggressive.
Body
Source C corroborates Source B on the view of Germany
favouring an active policy by Austria that risks war.
Body
The descriptions in Sources B and C can also be supported by other
knowledge.
Body
The Schlieffen Plan was based on Germany taking action first in the West before embarking
on a war against Russia.
Body
Both Source B and Source C are reliable in describing the views in them of William II and other
major German politicians.
Body
Other evidence links “Germany aggression to the allies”.
Body
Source A, Belgian diplomatic report indicates French policy
was aggressive in 1914 and “the greatest threat to peace”
Body
The diplomatic report seems objective written by a non-
Frenchman but it ignores other threats of German militarism
possibly as means to achieve the aims of Mitteleuropa.
Body
Source D claims Germany feels endangered by Russian
mobilisation.
Body
Despite the source can be seen as reliable extract, official
statements are not objective, especially in times of crisis.
Body
Official Statement of Germany implies Russian mobilisation as
a perfect excuse of ‘preventative war’ by Germany.
Body
Germany was obsessed with imbalance of power in Europe and this led to
Germany to fight a war sooner rather than later.
Fritz Fischer’s argument on Germany war aims & War Council meeting 1912.
Body
Evidence for the claim that “no country engaged in a war of
aggression”
Body
Source A indicates that there were anti-war elements in France. Other knowledge
confirms France justification on its policies as revenge.
Body
Source C claims Germany does not want war but self-interest
means Austria must be supported which confirmed in Source B on
the firm alliances between Germany and Austria.
Body
British history text sees the war as caused by miscalculation and each country defended its vital interests. In fact it offers useful hindsight to the event before
1914.
Time lag issue on British history text?
1.1960s signifies the advantage of prewar documents
2.Author could have been present on the course of event
3.Author could have justify British involvement
Conclusion
Although there is evidence in the sources both to challenge and
support the claim that no country engaged in a war of
aggression, the more convincing case is Germany engaged in war
of aggression.
Conclusion
Source B and C are strong evidence for Germany’s
willingness to go to war although it had no direct interests in the
Balkans.
Conclusion
Even though Source D claims Russian mobilisation as a threat to Germany, it dismisses the fact
that premeditated war of aggression was inevitable.
Assessment 3H/W:Assess the strengths and weaknesses of Nicholas II’s regime at the outbreak of 1914.How far had Lenin achieved his aims by the time of his death in 1924?How far did Stalin to 1939 continue the policies of Lenin?
Assessment 3
The emergence of stalinCollectivisationLiquidisation of kulaksStalin’s TerrorFritz Fischer
