History Help Forum: Britain In The Age Of Total War 1939-45 - History Help Forum

Jump to content

  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Britain In The Age Of Total War 1939-45 Some coursework help

#1 User is offline   Thích Quảng Đức 

  • Group: Student
  • Posts: 78
  • Joined: 30-November 06
  • Location:London
  • Interests:Magic, photography, films, music, languages, books, gaming, science, oh - and history.

Posted 30 November 2006 - 10:40 PM

Hello teachers and pupils! This looks like a marvelous site for history help, and I am a keen history enthusiast doing a GCSE in Modern World History (Edexcel). I am hoping for an A* at GCSE and I'm going to continue History at A-level.

Although I need no real help with the coursework as we have a fantastic teacher who will help us all, I thought this looks like a good place to get a bit of a head start on the first question.

We're doing Assignment One: Objective One - 1. Why were the major cities of Britain bombed by the Germans in 1940-1? (15)

We've talked in class about how the Germans wanted to invade Britain in the gap before they hoped to invade Russia. They had 'Operation Sealion' in order to destroy the RAF so they could control the skies and therefore would be able to ensure that ships going from Germany to Britain would be relatively secure with air support. Operation Sealion failed as the RAF beat the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain (or Battle of the Skies?), the Blitz was their 'Plan B', as Op. Sealion had failed. They just decided to mass-bomb Britain instead. i also gather that Britain were terrified of being bombed, which is why they were tolerant of Germany up to this point (to a degree) as they wanted to avoid being bombed.

Firstly: A) Is this all correct?
B) Is this relevant to the question?
C) Could someone please give me a few bullet points of other relevant information regarding the question?

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much for your time.

#2 User is offline   MrJohnDClare 

  • Group: Moderating Teacher & Admin
  • Posts: 4,847
  • Joined: 29-December 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:County Durham

Posted 30 November 2006 - 11:40 PM

View PostThích Quảng Đức, on Nov 30 2006, 10:40 PM, said:

Hello teachers and pupils! This looks like a marvelous site for history help, and I am a keen history enthusiast doing a GCSE in Modern World History (Edexcel). I am hoping for an A* at GCSE and I'm going to continue History at A-level.
Welcome to the forum - it's good that you are so enthusiastic ... that's half the key to success!

Quote

Although I need no real help with the coursework as we have a fantastic teacher who will help us all, I thought this looks like a good place to get a bit of a head start on the first question.
We are always happy to help, but you must always listen to your own teacher's advice first and foremost.

Quote

We're doing Assignment One: Objective One - 1. Why were the major cities of Britain bombed by the Germans in 1940-1? (15)
Firstly: A) Is this all correct?

We've talked in class about how the Germans wanted to invade Britain in the gap before they hoped to invade Russia.
Is this strictly true? As far as I have always understood it, Hitler did indeed ultimately intend to invade Russia, but I don't know whether he ever 'wanted' to invade Britain. He regarded the British as near-equals racially, and he simply got sucked into war with them when Britain (to his surprise) refused to capitulate after Dunkirk. It was not that he saw a chance 'in the gap' to add one more country to his list. Indeed, he considered alternatives such as a blockade, and said that invasion was a 'last resort'. He stated categorically that he did NOT want the British Empire to collapse, and on 19 July he offered peace. Moreover, neither the Germany Navy nor the German Army had any great enthusiasm for an invasion, and 'Operation Sealion' was half-heartedly planned from the start.

Quote

They had 'Operation Sealion' in order to destroy the RAF so they could control the skies and therefore would be able to ensure that ships going from Germany to Britain would be relatively secure with air support.
This is not strictly true. You are correct to say that the German strategy called for, first, the destruction of the British RAF, then a landing in southern Britain. However, I think you will find that 'Operation Sealion' was only the 'landing-in-southern-Britain' part of it. The plan to control the skies by the Luftwaffe destroying the RAF was called 'Operation Eagle'.

Quote

Operation Sealion failed as the RAF beat the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain (or Battle of the Skies?), the Blitz was their 'Plan B', as Op. Sealion had failed. They just decided to mass-bomb Britain instead.
All very 'iffy'. The RAF did repulse the Luftwaffe, but they can hardly be said to have 'defeated them'. In fact, by the end of August the Luftwaffe was definitely getting the upper hand. Just as they were about to win, however, Hitler made a mistake. This is how I describe it on the webpage http://www.johndclare.net/wwii6.htm:
    Just as Fighter Command was about to collapse, however, a miracle happened. On 24 August, by accident, some Luftwaffe bombers had dropped their bombs on London. The next few nights, the RAF replied by bombing Berlin. Hitler was angry. On 2 September he ordered his bombers to attack London. On 7 September the Nazi bombing raid was so huge that a false alarm went round the south-east of England: code-word ‘Cromwell’ – invasion imminent. Church bells rang and the Home Guard mobilised. It was not known at the time but one section of coast identified by the Nazis as a landing ground was defended by a Home Guard platoon with just one machine-gun! Hitler’s decision to stop attacking the RAF gave it time to recover. On 15 September, the Luftwaffe came by day in huge numbers. It expected to sweep the RAF from the skies. But the RAF fought them off. At one point every British plane was in the sky – soon, some would have to come in to refuel and there were no reserves to protect them. But the Luftwaffe, too, was at the limit and – just in time – it turned back.
After this point, however, you ARE correct - Hitler tried to 'blitz' the British into surrender.

Quote

I also gather that Britain were terrified of being bombed, which is why they were tolerant of Germany up to this point (to a degree) as they wanted to avoid being bombed.
Again, be careful of sweeping generalisations. The Chamberlain government WERE indeed frightened of being bombed - indeed they limited their attacks on Germany to bombing with PAMPHLETS, because they did not want to damage property and annoy Hitler! They also asembled a million coffins, ready for the deaths they expected. But remember that in May 1940 Chamberlain had been replaced by Churchill, who said that the British public were 'proud to be under the fire of the enemy' (27 April 1941).

Quote

B) Is this relevant to the question?
Yes, though if I were you I would want to investigate WHY Hitler decided to bomb Britain - was it all just to psychologically cow them, or did it have other aims (e.g. destroy production/ naval bases etc.???)

Quote

C) Could someone please give me a few bullet points of other relevant information regarding the question? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much for your time.

These three sites would be good for starters:
http://www.spartacus.../2WWsealoin.htm - good, simple introduction, as is http://www.historyle...ion_sealion.htm.
http://en.wikipedia....eration_Sealion - very detailed and full of facts.
http://www.flin.demo...thist/seal1.htm - an interesting site that argues that Sealion wasn't a good plan and didn;t have much chance of success.

And try to read William L Shirer, Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Chapter 22.

#3 User is offline   Thích Quảng Đức 

  • Group: Student
  • Posts: 78
  • Joined: 30-November 06
  • Location:London
  • Interests:Magic, photography, films, music, languages, books, gaming, science, oh - and history.

Posted 01 December 2006 - 01:25 PM

Thank you very much for all your useful help. I'm sure I will be using these forums soon again!

This post has been edited by Thích Quảng Đức: 14 December 2006 - 11:51 PM


#4 User is offline   Thích Quảng Đức 

  • Group: Student
  • Posts: 78
  • Joined: 30-November 06
  • Location:London
  • Interests:Magic, photography, films, music, languages, books, gaming, science, oh - and history.

Posted 13 December 2006 - 12:23 PM

Hi, I'm on the second question now: Describe the effects of the Blitz on everyfay life in Britain

Could you provide me with some useful resources, like last time? (And maybe some key points?).

Many thanks,

Ben

Also, help! Last question and this question are only meant to be 450 words each and it's way too hard for me to be that concise! I've had to edit out loads of good quotes and intelligent stuff to cram in all the bare bones stuff. :angry:

#5 User is offline   MrJohnDClare 

  • Group: Moderating Teacher & Admin
  • Posts: 4,847
  • Joined: 29-December 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:County Durham

Posted 13 December 2006 - 06:04 PM

View PostThích Quảng Đức, on Dec 13 2006, 12:23 PM, said:

Hi, I'm on the second question now: Describe the effects of the Blitz on everyfay life in Britain
Could you provide me with some useful resources, like last time? (And maybe some key points?).

Easy this one - go to http://www.johndclare.net/wwii6b.htm and access the resources and the links there. It will tell you all you need to know - especially read the Norman Longmate extract - http://www.johndclar...tz_longmate.htm
Also, I have two fabulous pupils' essays posted on the web about this, by Joanne Oliver and Laura Clelland, former pupils of mine. Notice how they have ANALYSED the effects, dividing their essays into 'areas' of results, rather than telling a story.

Quote

Also, help! Last question and this question are only meant to be 450 words each and it's way too hard for me to be that concise! I've had to edit out loads of good quotes and intelligent stuff to cram in all the bare bones stuff. :angry:

Yes I know. Have a word with your teacher - I always tell my pupils absolutely to ignore the word count; I have never know a pupil fail for writing too much! (Basically, the exam board gets cross with the teacher, but doesn't penalise the student.) But you MUST check with your teacher first!!!! Your exam board may be different.

#6 User is offline   Thích Quảng Đức 

  • Group: Student
  • Posts: 78
  • Joined: 30-November 06
  • Location:London
  • Interests:Magic, photography, films, music, languages, books, gaming, science, oh - and history.

Posted 14 December 2006 - 06:44 PM

View PostMrJohnDClare, on Dec 13 2006, 06:04 PM, said:

View PostThích Quảng Đức, on Dec 13 2006, 12:23 PM, said:

Hi, I'm on the second question now: Describe the effects of the Blitz on everyfay life in Britain
Could you provide me with some useful resources, like last time? (And maybe some key points?).

Easy this one - go to http://www.johndclare.net/wwii6b.htm and access the resources and the links there. It will tell you all you need to know - especially read the Norman Longmate extract - http://www.johndclar...tz_longmate.htm
Also, I have two fabulous pupils' essays posted on the web about this, by Joanne Oliver and Laura Clelland, former pupils of mine. Notice how they have ANALYSED the effects, dividing their essays into 'areas' of results, rather than telling a story.

Quote

Also, help! Last question and this question are only meant to be 450 words each and it's way too hard for me to be that concise! I've had to edit out loads of good quotes and intelligent stuff to cram in all the bare bones stuff. :angry:

Yes I know. Have a word with your teacher - I always tell my pupils absolutely to ignore the word count; I have never know a pupil fail for writing too much! (Basically, the exam board gets cross with the teacher, but doesn't penalise the student.) But you MUST check with your teacher first!!!! Your exam board may be different.


The exam board is Edexcel, if that helps. Also, my teacher got annoyed at me for going only 100 words or so over the word limit, so I think going over is out of the question!

This post has been edited by Thích Quảng Đức: 14 December 2006 - 11:52 PM


#7 User is offline   MrJohnDClare 

  • Group: Moderating Teacher & Admin
  • Posts: 4,847
  • Joined: 29-December 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:County Durham

Posted 14 December 2006 - 11:54 PM

The Edexcel syllabus ates that you must do two assignments, and each must not exceed 1500 words in total.

However, the 2006 examiners' report says this:

2: Word limit
In recent years, concern was expressed about the number of assignments that are going
beyond the 1500 word limit. In some cases, candidates write many thousands of words and
inevitably are able to cover issues more effectively than those that attempt to conform to
the limit in the specification. Accordingly, all teachers are asked to ensure that candidates
conform more closely to the word limit and that they refrain from presenting lengthy
descriptive passages that do little or nothing to improve the quality of an answer.
It is clear that some centres encourage candidates to disregard the word limit and write
excessively. In practice, it is acceptable for assignments to exceed the word limit by up to
one thousand words. Beyond that, moderators have to consider whether assignments that
have been produced under such conditions are genuinely of better quality than
assignments in which there has been a real effort to keep to the word limit.
In particular, teachers are reminded that Levels 3 and 4 in the markschemes require
students to ‘select’ material and not to include everything that may be ‘relevant’. Level 2
requires candidates to be ‘relevant’.


I think the key bit for you is 'In practice, it is acceptable for assignments to exceed the word limit by up to one thousand words.'
But beware of the two exceptions:
teachers are asked to ensure that candidates ... refrain from presenting lengthy descriptive passages that do little or nothing to improve the quality of an answer.
and
Beyond that, moderators have to consider whether assignments that have been produced under such conditions are genuinely of better quality than assignments in which there has been a real effort to keep to the word limit.

Check with your teach, but I think that all that means that - provided you are genuinely answering the question - you can go to 2000 words with impunity.

#8 User is offline   Thích Quảng Đức 

  • Group: Student
  • Posts: 78
  • Joined: 30-November 06
  • Location:London
  • Interests:Magic, photography, films, music, languages, books, gaming, science, oh - and history.

Posted 15 December 2006 - 12:18 AM

View PostMrJohnDClare, on Dec 14 2006, 11:54 PM, said:

Check with your teach, but I think that all that means that - provided you are genuinely answering the question - you can go to 2000 words with impunity.


Thanks again. I'm sure I'll be back for question 3 of the coursework!

#9 User is offline   MrJohnDClare 

  • Group: Moderating Teacher & Admin
  • Posts: 4,847
  • Joined: 29-December 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:County Durham

Posted 15 December 2006 - 05:07 PM

We'll look forward to it!

#10 User is offline   Thích Quảng Đức 

  • Group: Student
  • Posts: 78
  • Joined: 30-November 06
  • Location:London
  • Interests:Magic, photography, films, music, languages, books, gaming, science, oh - and history.

Posted 15 December 2006 - 10:54 PM

Hi there, questions 1 + 2 have now been done, thanks to the helpful links and advice posted here.

Question 3 is: In what ways did the British government attempt to hide the effects of the Blitz on the people of Britain?

Could someone please provide some useful links?

I'm guessing I should talk about censorship (and propaganda) more than anything else?

Many thanks,

Ben.

#11 User is offline   MrJohnDClare 

  • Group: Moderating Teacher & Admin
  • Posts: 4,847
  • Joined: 29-December 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:County Durham

Posted 16 December 2006 - 12:17 AM

Great question, Ben.
On censorship and propaganda IN GENERAL, read http://www.johndclare.net/wwii12.htm
but it doesnlt really do the job for you, because you want to know about censorship and propaganda specifically on the Blitz.

I do know that the government suppresed photos of dead children, and others such as this one - http://www.johndclar...s/wwii6bbus.jpg - because it feared they would damage public morale.

www.kgv.edu.hk/history/Y10-11/Yr10cwhelp.doc suggests you look at:
3) In what ways did the British government attempt to hide the effects of the Blitz from the people of Britain?
See pages 14-17 from Chandler and p306-307 & p315-316 from Walsh!!!
- What was the role of the Minister of Information?
- What was censorship and in what ways did the government use it? – mention film/newsreels, posters, radio, press etc – see ‘Government Propaganda’ section of your handout.
- Why was the government trying to hide the effects of the Blitz from the British people?


I haven't found a specific site on this on the web.
You will be interested in this page, and especially in this page from the BBC.
But it does just seem to be a case of browsing the web about the Blitz and picking up the titbits by doing google searches on "The Blitz" plus words such as 'government', 'censorship', 'propaganda' etc.

#12 User is offline   Mr Field 

  • Administrator
  • Group: Moderating Teacher & Admin
  • Posts: 1,381
  • Joined: 06-October 02

Posted 16 December 2006 - 08:16 PM

Plus - do remember that coursework questions are meant to be your own work. These three questions are the Edexcel Official Coursework questions for Britain in the Age of Total War. See http://www.edexcel.o...tent/120434.pdf

Do make sure that your teacher is aware that you have gained assistance on this forum. In the official coursework booklet you can find some additional help and support.

#13 User is offline   MrJohnDClare 

  • Group: Moderating Teacher & Admin
  • Posts: 4,847
  • Joined: 29-December 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:County Durham

Posted 16 December 2006 - 11:24 PM

Mr Field, of course, is absolutely correct.

None of the above is cheating - you are allowed to research and discuss, and most of the help you have got is just pointing you to available websites.

However, you must at least cite what I say in this post in your bibliography/list of sources, since we were discussing the details of your ideas.

#14 User is offline   Thích Quảng Đức 

  • Group: Student
  • Posts: 78
  • Joined: 30-November 06
  • Location:London
  • Interests:Magic, photography, films, music, languages, books, gaming, science, oh - and history.

Posted 21 December 2006 - 06:14 PM

Could you please tell me how I would go about citing sources? Thanks.

#15 User is offline   MrJohnDClare 

  • Group: Moderating Teacher & Admin
  • Posts: 4,847
  • Joined: 29-December 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:County Durham

Posted 21 December 2006 - 07:25 PM

View PostThích Quảng Đức, on Dec 21 2006, 06:14 PM, said:

Could you please tell me how I would go about citing sources? Thanks.

REALLY good question.
There are different systems, but for GCSE the following should get you along OK.

The basic format is Author (date), Title(s) (details)

Thus, to cite a book: CLARE. JOHN D (1995), The Twentieth Century (Nelson Options in History, ISBN 0-17-435160-7)

To cite an article in a learned journal: CLARE, JOHN D (2004), 'Douglas Haig: donkey or scapegoat?', in Teaching History (The Historical Association, No. 117, ISSN 0040-0610)

To cite a website as a reference, use the following format: CLARE, JOHN D. (2002/2006), Greenfield History Site (http://www.johndclare.net).

To cite a specific page on a website, use: CLARE, JOHN D. (2002/2006), 'Title Of Page', at Greenfield History Site ( [exact URL]).

Where you do not know the name of the author (a common thing with websites), just use '-----'.
And where a name is obviously a pseudonym (names such as 'SquidgyToes' are common in forums), out it in inverted commas

Thus to cite my post on this thread, use: 'MrJohnDClare' (2006), post in thread 'Britain in the Age of Total War', at History Help Forum ([exact URL of post]).

Or if you just want to cite the whole thread:
----- (2006), posts in thread 'Britain in the Age of Total War', at History Help Forum ([exact URL of first post]).

You can get the exact URL of an individual post by clicking on the 'Post #..' icon in the top right of the post's window.

Hope this isn't too precise for you - you will be able to get away with MUCH less than that, but that's a 'right' way to do it.

Share this topic:


  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users