Section IV - International Studies in Peace and Conflict (2 Viewers)

[enoilgam]

Share/Discuss your answers here

 

[Chulbul Pandey]

Indochina: I did "Account for the Communist victory" (said something else after that but I can't remember now haha). I thought it was actually okay. Talked about Viet Minh, and how they were superior to the US forces, Tet Offensive and how that led to anti-war protests, and then Vietnamisation. Overall, I went ok, but I had to rush it so I could do the Personality question.

 

[humbletaco]

I did Indochina as well. I did the Account for victory. I studied Pol Pot really in depth so I was worried when I saw the question but basically just talked about a two front war that contributed to the Communist victory; US homefront and the battle front in Vietnam. In Vietnam I basically spoke of how the ineffective tactics used by ARVN/US such as Hamlet programs and Search and Destroy tactics displaced and killed thousands of South Vietnamese leading to resentment against the US accounting for Communist support and growth. Spoke of the effective tactics of propaganda and terror and guerrilla tactics used by the Viet Cong and NLF in showing how the US influence will lead to a repeat of French monarchism and basically their insurgency. Then I spoke of the homefront and how anti-war movements emerged from the media's involvement in showing the atrocities of the war/bombing campaigns/the political win for the the Vietminh at the Tet. Then summed up for how basically US influence led to resentment and loss of support on their part on both fronts along with NLF/VC tactics the Communists won.

 

[vonz1]

Anyone do Anglo Irish conflict?

 

[inJust]

How did you guys argue b for pacific?

 

[emayms]

I did the Cold War and was absolutely terrified when I saw both questions! I had thoroughly studied the beginnings of the war and to my disappointed they only asked about detent and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. But, luckily for me I had written an essay on the Soviet invasion for an assessment and it all came flooding back to me! I wrote about 3 full booklets! How much did everybody else write?

 

[DeeDazza]

I did Conflict in Europe. I only wrote a page for the question I chose, I couldn't answer it at all! :/

 

[pb1234]

I did Indochina as well. I did the Account for victory. I studied Pol Pot really in depth so I was worried when I saw the question but basically just talked about a two front war that contributed to the Communist victory; US homefront and the battle front in Vietnam. In Vietnam I basically spoke of how the ineffective tactics used by ARVN/US such as Hamlet programs and Search and Destroy tactics displaced and killed thousands of South Vietnamese leading to resentment against the US accounting for Communist support and growth. Spoke of the effective tactics of propaganda and terror and guerrilla tactics used by the Viet Cong and NLF in showing how the US influence will lead to a repeat of French monarchism and basically their insurgency. Then I spoke of the homefront and how anti-war movements emerged from the media's involvement in showing the atrocities of the war/bombing campaigns/the political win for the the Vietminh at the Tet. Then summed up for how basically US influence led to resentment and loss of support on their part on both fronts along with NLF/VC tactics the Communists won.

did exactly the same thing! how many pages did you do?

 

[jenslekman]

I did the Cold War and was absolutely terrified when I saw both questions! I had thoroughly studied the beginnings of the war and to my disappointed they only asked about detent and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. But, luckily for me I had written an essay on the Soviet invasion for an assessment and it all came flooding back to me! I wrote about 3 full booklets! How much did everybody else write?

LOL - this. literally studied night before - was considering whether or not it was worth studying and i guess i'm lucky i studied and not so lucky in that i didn't study in depth.

 

[humbletaco]

Only 6 (2 booklets) because I left it last You?

 

[pb1234]

Only 4 because I left it last You?

5 and a half i think, but i have big(ish) hand writing.

 

[humbletaco]

I was actually really confused with the first question, any thoughts of how to answer it?

 

[WhatCnut]

Anyone do Anglo Irish conflict?

Yeah, I did (a), although I could have answered the other one just as easily.

 

[HAZZA12]

I did the Cold War and was absolutely terrified when I saw both questions! I had thoroughly studied the beginnings of the war and to my disappointed they only asked about detent and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. But, luckily for me I had written an essay on the Soviet invasion for an assessment and it all came flooding back to me! I wrote about 3 full booklets! How much did everybody else write?

Yeah i did the cold war too Emergence of detente was a very easy question i thought. i wrote only 1 booklet though (3 pages)....

 

[mickk794]

I did Conflict in Europe. I only wrote a page for the question I chose, I couldn't answer it at all! :/

Wow, me too.
I was stumped with the question because i forgot to study that. Bad thing was that i had an essay plan my teacher gave the class which related to the exact question but i didnt read it.

I did part a, and only had time to write about early blitzkrieg successes in the 1 page.

 

[Vicky_x]

How did you guys argue b for pacific?

That failure to maintain their initial success just contributed to a hell of a lot of reasons for their defeat... mainly america's impact. Lack of consolidation (of their advance til 1942) allowed for allied counter-offence to be successful etc

I said japan's defeat was inevitable after Pearl Harbor

 

[jsaba2018]

i reluctantly did the low countires question for conflict in europe, the first one

i put:
-the foolish use of appeasement put Germany in a strong strategic position to attack surrounding countries
-the lack of military presence in the countries Germany occupied allowed for them to swiftly take them
-the use of blitzkrieg tactics allowed them to quickly take the low countries, France and Poland, and their ability to quickly and brutally use the SS to re-organise poland with a german governor
-the inability for Britain to pull its sh** together and respond quicker than it did allowed Germany to quickly take other countries in its swift campaigns up to 1940
-the ability of Germany to quickly knock France out of the game, due to divided french opinions at the time, and establish "Vichy France" and gain control of the northern ports such as cherbourg, etc which allowed them to expand there sphere of influence
-i dont know about this one but i took it a step further and stated that the geography of the low countries allowed german tanks and infantry to move easily through and occupy them, proved to be less logistics problems then first assumed.

what do you guys think of this?

 

[enoilgam]

i reluctantly did the low countires question for conflict in europe, the first one

i put:
-the foolish use of appeasement put Germany in a strong strategic position to attack surrounding countries
-the lack of military presence in the countries Germany occupied allowed for them to swiftly take them
-the use of blitzkrieg tactics allowed them to quickly take the low countries, France and Poland, and their ability to quickly and brutally use the SS to re-organise poland with a german governor
-the inability for Britain to pull its sh** together and respond quicker than it did allowed Germany to quickly take other countries in its swift campaigns up to 1940
-the ability of Germany to quickly knock France out of the game, due to divided french opinions at the time, and establish "Vichy France" and gain control of the northern ports such as cherbourg, etc which allowed them to expand there sphere of influence
-i dont know about this one but i took it a step further and stated that the geography of the low countries allowed german tanks and infantry to move easily through and occupy them, proved to be less logistics problems then first assumed.

what do you guys think of this?

From a quick skim read that looks like a good response to me.

There is one viewpoint that says despite popular belief, the Allies were in a position to defend Poland. When Germany invaded Poland, they left the French border largely undefended. Germany had only 33 divisions on the front, 8 of which were first rate. France on the other hand had 72 divisions on the front and over a thousand planes and tanks. Some historians believe that a push along this front by France meant that they could have been in Berlin within five weeks, which could have ended the war straight away. But obviously French military doctrine at the time was to stand and defend so an attack over the Maginot line like this probably wouldnt have been conceived of by them.

If you could have successfully incoperated that in your response that would have gone over really well with the markers - because whilst it isnt a very well known argument, the evidence backing it is very very strong and convincing. If I was writing a response for this question I would definitely have included something on that.

 

[jsaba2018]

Thanks

Wow I didn't know that argument. Would've been really good to incorporate that into my essay but alwell, I think I did a good job anyways