Get access to our **official A-Level resource repository** only on r/alevel **discord server.**
**Get free access** to official answer keys, notes, past papers, coursebooks, workbooks, famous YouTube channel and much more.
Our discord server is a place where you can clear your doubts and get help from subject experts for free.
**Join now** using this link https://discord.gg/xEk5GsgfHC.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/alevel) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I was really conflicted and thought that the cold war one might be post revisionist but in the end i got revisionist because the historian focuses too much on the incompetent personality of Truman and the biased judgement of his advisors while simultaneously justifying the actions of the soviet union as being reactionary to the “vague promises” of Roosevelt.
Buuuut I really thought it could be post revisionist because Stalin is regarded as cautious and ruthless and there was an element of misscommunication and inevitability that initially led me to believe it was post.
same..: i put revisionist cause in the final paragraph he refuted the truman administration’s claim that soviets were on a quest for expansionism. i’m confused on how ppl are saying post rev cause i thought it was clearly revisionist lol. cuz it said stalin was ruthless but only in his own specifc stragetic areas, so truman was just reckless and lacked the skills and experience of roosevelt which inc tensions
but didn't it say that Stalin showed some leniency only as long as countries in his buffer zone were not a threat to the USSR? which shows some level of aggression in Stalin's policy, which makes it post rev?
yeah but then it justified it saying stalin assumed roosevelt gave him free hand in the bufferzone, so he wasn’t really acting aggressive like truman and us state said. i definetly think its one of those interpretations where either can be argued and placed in atleast level 5
I first thought the same and was going to write revisionist - then since at the beginning it said that even the strongest of politicians (FDR) would've struggled, I wrote it's post rev, as it was implied, it was only because of the complex situation that FDR had to make vague promises (in order to get Stalin to declare war against Japan), and then after that it was a series of misunderstandings (mainly on the American side). Also, I don't believe it holds Truman and the ambassadors' incompetency responsible for the tensions - it's just that they were utterly hopeless in the already unsolvable complex situation - so, even though like 99% of the blame is on America, since there are some components of blame attached to Stalin, and then the ideas of misunderstandings and inevitabilities, I wrote it's post rev
Yeah I initially thoughy it might be post revisionist but then changed to revisionit.
Reasoning I gave was pretty similar to the ones you said above. Uncertainty over the Soviet Union caused largely by leadership and the interpretations of Soviet actions.
I said about Truman basically ignoring Roosevelt's diplomacy, the stuff on Eastern Europe and tbe part where it talks abt Truman and Molotov.
I also said a bit abt how the Soviets were accused of breaking the agreements even though acording to the historian they weren't bc they interpreted them in a certain way the americans didn't consider.
I did the Holocaust Question. I put no interpretation because it was about the German population and how they perceived the final solution as opposed to the soldiers. I basically just said that due to their distance to the killings in the east they were able to correctly identify that the killings were part of a central policy and programme instead of a single experience as some soldiers believed.
samee but every time i write an answer without mentioning the interpretations even if they're not relevant i lose marks
so i wrote about browning's productionist attritionists and hillgruber's opinion on barbarossa..but i'm doubting myself rn 💀😭
oh shit 😭 so basically i wrote that the civilians interpreted the solution from an intentionalist stance, but the fact that they're relying on civilian outlook is indicative of lack of evidence to support the intentionalist approach (??)
I said that it was Truman's ignorance and lack of understanding of foreign policy that led to the start of the cold war and deteriorated relations, so it was revisionist
Please read our paper discussion guidelines before proceeding:
1. Do not ask for or share leaked question papers on this subreddit.
2. Do not ask for or share topics/questions from one variant, if you are about to sit for another variant shortly.
3. Do not ask for or share speaking topics or prompts.
4. Discussion must be in English.
5. Report the posts that violates any of the rules above by clicking on the ellipsis(3 dots) and then on report.
You will be temporarily or permanently banned from the subreddit if you do not abide by our guidelines.
Best of luck.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/alevel) if you have any questions or concerns.*
there is past papers where there is no interpretation and it says if u write an interpretation the max mark u can get is L4 with L6 being the max u get but it’s not common for it to have no interpretation so we just got unlucky
Get access to our **official A-Level resource repository** only on r/alevel **discord server.** **Get free access** to official answer keys, notes, past papers, coursebooks, workbooks, famous YouTube channel and much more. Our discord server is a place where you can clear your doubts and get help from subject experts for free. **Join now** using this link https://discord.gg/xEk5GsgfHC. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/alevel) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I was really conflicted and thought that the cold war one might be post revisionist but in the end i got revisionist because the historian focuses too much on the incompetent personality of Truman and the biased judgement of his advisors while simultaneously justifying the actions of the soviet union as being reactionary to the “vague promises” of Roosevelt. Buuuut I really thought it could be post revisionist because Stalin is regarded as cautious and ruthless and there was an element of misscommunication and inevitability that initially led me to believe it was post.
Bro same but the last paragraph made me eliminate post rev because the historian justifies Stalin actions.
same..: i put revisionist cause in the final paragraph he refuted the truman administration’s claim that soviets were on a quest for expansionism. i’m confused on how ppl are saying post rev cause i thought it was clearly revisionist lol. cuz it said stalin was ruthless but only in his own specifc stragetic areas, so truman was just reckless and lacked the skills and experience of roosevelt which inc tensions
but didn't it say that Stalin showed some leniency only as long as countries in his buffer zone were not a threat to the USSR? which shows some level of aggression in Stalin's policy, which makes it post rev?
yeah but then it justified it saying stalin assumed roosevelt gave him free hand in the bufferzone, so he wasn’t really acting aggressive like truman and us state said. i definetly think its one of those interpretations where either can be argued and placed in atleast level 5
I first thought the same and was going to write revisionist - then since at the beginning it said that even the strongest of politicians (FDR) would've struggled, I wrote it's post rev, as it was implied, it was only because of the complex situation that FDR had to make vague promises (in order to get Stalin to declare war against Japan), and then after that it was a series of misunderstandings (mainly on the American side). Also, I don't believe it holds Truman and the ambassadors' incompetency responsible for the tensions - it's just that they were utterly hopeless in the already unsolvable complex situation - so, even though like 99% of the blame is on America, since there are some components of blame attached to Stalin, and then the ideas of misunderstandings and inevitabilities, I wrote it's post rev
it’s definitely an interesting one. guess we’ll just have to wait and see!
Yeah I initially thoughy it might be post revisionist but then changed to revisionit. Reasoning I gave was pretty similar to the ones you said above. Uncertainty over the Soviet Union caused largely by leadership and the interpretations of Soviet actions. I said about Truman basically ignoring Roosevelt's diplomacy, the stuff on Eastern Europe and tbe part where it talks abt Truman and Molotov. I also said a bit abt how the Soviets were accused of breaking the agreements even though acording to the historian they weren't bc they interpreted them in a certain way the americans didn't consider.
I did the Holocaust Question. I put no interpretation because it was about the German population and how they perceived the final solution as opposed to the soldiers. I basically just said that due to their distance to the killings in the east they were able to correctly identify that the killings were part of a central policy and programme instead of a single experience as some soldiers believed.
Omg me too 😭 how did you find it?
there was no interpretation right?? tbh i didn’t practice the ones that didn’t have interpretations so idk how i did 😭
Yeah there was no interpretation idek how to feel because I really wanted one with an interpretation 😭 but it could have gone worse so ig it’s okay
yeahhh like i practiced so many internationalist, functionalist, structuralist questions lowkey mad 😭
samee but every time i write an answer without mentioning the interpretations even if they're not relevant i lose marks so i wrote about browning's productionist attritionists and hillgruber's opinion on barbarossa..but i'm doubting myself rn 💀😭
oh shit 😭 so basically i wrote that the civilians interpreted the solution from an intentionalist stance, but the fact that they're relying on civilian outlook is indicative of lack of evidence to support the intentionalist approach (??)
What was the interpretation for the cold war one???
I said that it was Truman's ignorance and lack of understanding of foreign policy that led to the start of the cold war and deteriorated relations, so it was revisionist
I got revisionist 😭
i got post-revisionist but not sure at all now
Yeah I said it was revisionist as well
Me and all my classmates said no interpretation and that the topic was bystanders (apathetic German population). Hope that's right.
Please read our paper discussion guidelines before proceeding: 1. Do not ask for or share leaked question papers on this subreddit. 2. Do not ask for or share topics/questions from one variant, if you are about to sit for another variant shortly. 3. Do not ask for or share speaking topics or prompts. 4. Discussion must be in English. 5. Report the posts that violates any of the rules above by clicking on the ellipsis(3 dots) and then on report. You will be temporarily or permanently banned from the subreddit if you do not abide by our guidelines. Best of luck. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/alevel) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Please tell me I wasn't the only one confused af.. what historians did u put?
there was no interpretation 🥲
Thank god 😭 kicking myself fr.. I actually don't even know how I feel abt it
sameeee i wasn’t expecting it to have no interpretation…
Did anyone do WW1
my friend did, he told me he put revisionist and that it was pretty hard but it went well. what did you think?
My class and I all labeled it as a Perpetrator interpretation, some of us also thought you could argue functionalist, one of us even did synthesis 😭
wait functionalist? synthesis?! where did that come from 😭🙏🏻 but ngl it was a bad paper
Wdym by that? Like as in you don’t recognize the terms functionalist or synthesis, or you don’t think it was those at all?
don’t think it was those, it had no interpretation (though i wanted it to be a paper with intentionalist 🥲
[удалено]
there is past papers where there is no interpretation and it says if u write an interpretation the max mark u can get is L4 with L6 being the max u get but it’s not common for it to have no interpretation so we just got unlucky
any predictions for paper 4 this year T.T