Students helping students, join us in improving boredofstudies.org by donating and supporting future learners!
gorbachev's one of the personalities!!?simone.lee said:Gorbachev - Part a) will be alright if it's something on his background, education or rise to prominence..I think I know enough to bullshit it. Part b) I'm assuming will be one of those stupid generic quotes. If it's not easily adaptable to Gorby, I am once again screwed. I can't do those quotes.
Both, depending on the Q.Kujah said:Apart from the personality study, historians - quoting or general overview of the debates? (or both)?
<3 for failure of weimar!oth16 said:no nazi foreign policy pleaseeee !
failure of weimar- yes yes !!! bring it on =)
So you'd say something like how "According to the intentionalist historian, Alan Bullock, Hitler was a '.....' ". On the other hand, the structuralist historian, Ian Kershaw points out that '....' [but give an overview of the actual intentionalist/structuralist debate before you quote these guys]?fallenstar said:Both, depending on the Q.
Ie. for Hitler's role in the Nazi state - Debates (Structuralism/Intentionalism)
But for other dotpoints - Historians tend to fit in better with a synthesised argument.
Russia:nirvanafreak02 said:hey yeah, if you don't mind could you also let me know what the russia + cold war questions were?
thankyouuuu
okaii south africa isnt bad...definatlyy do the sharpeville oneKujah said:SA:
- Assess the role of the security forces in enforcing the South African govt's apartheid policy.
- Assess the significance of the Sharpeville massacre in the development of national resistance to apartheid.
Indochina:
- Assess the impact of AMerican involvement in Vietnam between 1964 and 1973.
- Assess the impact that the spread of the conflict from Vietnam had on Cambodia in the period up to 1979.
Yeah, a short one-sentence overview would be good, I think. ie. "Intentionalist perspectives of the Nazi State hold that..." and then use a supporting historian: "Bullock supports this contention by asserting that..." according to the question of course.Kujah said:So you'd say something like how "According to the intentionalist historian, Alan Bullock, Hitler was a '.....' ". On the other hand, the structuralist historian, Ian Kershaw points out that '....' [but give an overview of the actual intentionalist/structuralist debate before you quote these guys]?