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?
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.

Welcome to the forum - it's good that you are so enthusiastic ... that's half the key to success!

We are always happy to help, but you must always listen to your own teacher's advice first and foremost.

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.

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'.

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.

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).

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.???)


These three sites would be good for starters:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWsealoin.htm - good, simple introduction, as is http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/operation_sealion.htm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sealion - very detailed and full of facts.
http://www.flin.demon.co.uk/althist/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.

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

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.

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.johndclare.net/wwii6b_blitz_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.


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!

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.

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

We'll look forward to it!

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.

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.johndclare.net/images/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.

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.org.uk/VirtualContent/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.

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.

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.

After a bit of Sherlock Homes style investigation (typing your name into Amazon.co.uk) it seems you are quite the author!

As for letting my teacher know I used this site, I'd rather not, as I wouldn't like him to read what I've written here.

Haha I'm scared now that the exam board will track me down, kill me and sell my organs to McDonald's if I don't cite my exact sources!

I'm completely confused with citing stuff now! What exactly should I cite? Could I get away with not doing it at all? I've used numerous links you've given me for information, but I haven't copied anything from there. At worst, I've taken some of the paragraphs that were relevant to the question and have re-written part of them in my own words. I think I've used one or two quotes from the johndclare.net website.

If you use content and then don't quote your sources - including the use of this forum - then you open yourself up to being accused of cheating. Have a look at this government advice for parents about coursework:

http://www.qca.org.uk/16275.html


I think you can work out yourself what you need to do. Also don't forget that your teachers and your coursework moderators can also use Google Just make an effort to cite your sources correctly and you will be able to achive very highly in your coursework. Most certainly don't shy away from discussing this issue with your teacher. You should be praised for trying to research and develop your work using all the tools available to you. However, it is essential you follow the correct guidelines and don't create opportunities for people to think you have not completed your own work.

I guess there's no harm in being over cautious and citing everything!

Absolutely. To back up what Mr Field and Mr Clare have said, teachers and exam boards take a very hard line if they suspect someone has been cheating. And while it might not seem like it to you, by not citing them it looks like you have something to hide!

Hi, I'm still having problems with Question 2 (Describe the effects of the Blitz on everyday life in Britain). My teacher says my points refer to wartime bombing in general and not to the Blitz, and that I also only talk about London. Basically the points I have made are:

• Introduction (Talked about three key themes of the Blitz - Death, destruction and morale)
• Morrison and Anderson Shelters and Sheltering in the Underground
• The Blackout
• Small conclusion of the survival of the 'Blitz Spirit'

I have to make more points, and make them more concise, as they have to fit into 450 words. Please suggest some other discussion points, as I feel the only relevnt part of the answer so far is Underground Shelter and Death and Destruction.

Thanks,

Ben.

Difficult to help here Ben without giving you unfair advantage.
Strikes me that your two problems cancel out - you have to shrink your essay, and you have to talk only about the Blitz.
Just a matter of editing, surely?

thankyou! I also have these questions for coursework and i found what i needed on censorship. When you say you have to say where you get your information from, do you mean if you quote directly from a piece of text? Or for everything, even if you put it into your own words?

At the end of your essay it is good to put a complete list of all the sources you have consulted, even when you have out the information you gleaned from them into your own words. This is called a 'bibliography'. You only need to put the titles, not the exact references.

However, where you quote a passage or phrase from a source (ie in inverted commas), you should always put the exact provenance, down to the exact page. You could do this in brackets immediately after the source, or (as I do in www.johndclare.net) as a provenance line under the quote, or as a footnote or endnote (click 'Reference' on the 'Insert' menu in Word).

Just wanted to say thanks for all your help with this coursework, I got 48/50 on it (and 48/50 on the other one) so that takes a bit of pressure off the exams.

You deserve it - well done

Hello. I'm currently doing the Britain in the Age of Total War coursework, and came across this forum. The pointers given here have been very helpful. Hopefully, it's not too late to ask my own question.

I was informed by my teacher that at GCSE level, a bibliography is not necessary. However, reading the posts here, I'm rather uncertain. Can someone please confirm or amend?

As a further matter, I currently have 2026 words for Assignment 1. How much doe this need to be cut down?

Thank you.

WEUer
There's no need to keep posting.
When you make a post, it waits for moderation.
Usually, a teacher will wait until they have time to answer it before validating it, so you may have to wait a day or so.
Today, I'm online at the moment, so I'll answer your post in a couple of minutes.

On this forum, we rarely disagree with your own teacher - he is the one who is entering you, and who will be marking your essays, so my advice is to listen to him.
I presume you are doing Edexcel? The Edexcel specification says nothing about needing a bibliography, so it is fair to assume that a bibliogrpahy is not NECESSARY.
The jury is out on whether it is DESIRABLE, however. One of the big problems at GCSE is plagiarism - the accusation that pupils have copied the work of others. Adding a bibliography goes some of the way to proving that you didn't cheat - it sort of states up front what you used, so that the marker (your teacher) can see how derivative your work is. I think that is why some teachers insist on it; besides, it gets you into good habits for when you do A level and go to university.
If you do decide to include a list of sources used, don't count it as part of your word count.

The Edexcel specification says 1500 words for each of the two assignments,so you are about 500 words over.
Again, it depends what your own teacher says, but many teachers (and the Board) tend to turn a blind eye to pupils who have run over the word limit a little. Things are getting stricter - I used to submit work where the pupils had written 3 or 4 times as many words as they were allowed and get away with it; I don't think that would be allowed today - but I wouldn't get hung up on getting it down strictly to 1500 exact.
Write what you need, without woffle, to answer the question properly, write "1,540 words" on the bottom (however many words you ve written), and hand it in.

Thank you for your prompt reply, and sorry about the double post.

I've cut down my assignment 1 to 1717 words, now, but am having trouble condensing it further. Do you think this word count is stretching the limit, or would you say it's acceptable?
Sorry for asking nearly the same question again, but I find to rather difficult to confine my writing.

Please don;t feel bad about asking the same question twice - I absolutely understand your nervousness about this, and I am a bit nervous about giving you advice - like you, I'm paralysed by the worry of 'what happens if it all goes horribly wrong?'

However, 200 words is only a long paragraph and - biting the bullet - my gut feeling about this is that, if you've reached the point where cutting more is going seriously to damage your argument/essay, then it's time to stop.

As I said above, I would bung it in, but write "1540 words" at the bottom.
And if anybody's daft enough to count the words, you just shrug and say you got it to 1540!

Oh, I see! hehe

Thanks loads!

Hopefully Im not too late in asking for help from this thread. Im attempting to do questions 4 and 5 on assignment 2 and theyre both source analysis questions. I have gathered my information but am unsure how to structure my answers. Could you please outline a hypothetical structure for Questions 4 & 5.

Q4
'use sources a, b, c and your own knowledge to explain why...."

Q5
'study all sources and your own knowledge. "the impression that... is a myth' use sources and your own knowledge to explain whether you agree with this statement'

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Good questions!
Sorry for the delay in replying - I think everyone has been away on holiday!
This is just an 'explain' question.
Answer it as a series of points/paragraphs, making sure that in each you end up by explaining how the point you are making explains what you have been asked to explain. You MUST be explicit about this.
You can use any evidence you want, but make sure that you use all three sources at least once, and point out (again explicitly) in the essay that you have used them.

This is a siple debate question:
START with a section arguing FOR the statement (thesis)
THEN write a section explainingall the arguments against the statement (antithesis)
FINISH with a conclusion weighing the two against each other and coming to a decision (synthesis)

Make sure you use connectives which show that this is a debate:
Firstly
On the other hand
Therefore
In conclusion
etc.