HSC Modern History Question Thread

[jakesilove]

My hand seriously needs medical attention after my Modern trial yesterday, but I was pleasantly surprised that I managed to finish the paper. Does anybody on here have a good strategy for finishing the paper? Like which sections they do first to make their time most efficient?

Congrats on finishing the paper! My strategy was always to start with WWI, and try to smash that out in half an hour or less. I also tried to do my personality study in a slightly shorter time period (generally 40 minutes). Then, I attempted to do the other essays in 45 minutes, allocating my extra time to whichever essays I thought needed extra attention.

[lucyyyyyy]

Hey! So I had just had a quick question. I've been trying to attempt this question:

'Evaluate the view that Nazi Germany was a totalitarian state by 1939'

Would I need to acknowledge both sides (as in its was/ was not totalitarian) both continuing with my argument? The whole 'Evaluate the view' is really confusing me. Any assistance at all would be greatly appreciated!

Thankyou so much

[jakesilove]

Hey! So I had just had a quick question. I've been trying to attempt this question:

'Evaluate the view that Nazi Germany was a totalitarian state by 1939'

Would I need to acknowledge both sides (as in its was/ was not totalitarian) both continuing with my argument? The whole 'Evaluate the view' is really confusing me. Any assistance at all would be greatly appreciated!

Thankyou so much

Hey!

For the Totalitarian question, it's important to have a framework. Which factors determine whether the state is truly totalitarian or not? By identifying factors, you can easily step through each factor, arguing for and against it's implementation by 1939, and come to a general conclusion. It also gives you an easy structure!

Whilst you can come up with your own structure, I would use someone who has spent their life researching things like this. Personally, I used the Friedrich and Brzezinski definition (spelling their names is half the marks!). They suggested that, to have a truly totalitarian state, there must be:

An elaborate guiding ideology

A single mass party, typically led by a dictator

A system of terror, using violence and secret police

A monopoly on weapons

A monopoly on the means of communication

Central direction and control of the economy

Go through each of these, arguing for AND against (if possible). Then, come to a general conclusion.

That's what I did, and I would highly recommend it. Good luck!

Jake

[lucyyyyyy]

Great! Thank you so much for your help

[chuckiecheese]

Struggling w/ the following question: Evaluate the view that an inability to separate nationalism from communism dominated US policy towards Indochina in the period 1954-1968.

How do I evaluate this for a whole essay?

Any help is appreciated!

[elysepopplewell]

Struggling w/ the following question: Evaluate the view that an inability to separate nationalism from communism dominated US policy towards Indochina in the period 1954-1968.

How do I evaluate this for a whole essay?

Any help is appreciated!

This is a really interesting question. It is my personal take on it that the American government perceived communism as the #1 threat. In Indochina, nationalism was the #1 strength, but that nationalism falls into the Western idea of communism. Much of what happened on Indochina's war effort was based on the promotion of nationalism - that is undoubtedly the underlying common denominator. In some ways, it manifested into communism, but certainly not all the time. But, the US had to act on the #1 threat - communism. I'm rusty on the topic, particularly with dates and specific events. But based on my understanding of the nationalist movement in Indochina - nationalism was #1 because it meant unity after they had been exploited through imperialism (first Indochinese war). Communism appeared to be the avenue that would cultivate a culture that did not ALLOW for the exploitation that occurred with the French. So to me, I espouse the idea that The indochinese were never part of the Cold War effort of "pro-Communism" as much as they were a part of the "unite Indochina for the greater good through nationalism" cause - but of course the American gov perceived the communist movement in Indochina to be the greatest threat (queue domino theory). So much of the US policies were about ensuring that this couldn't continue - communism could not continue to spread. Particularly towards the end of the US policies, you see desperate attempts at making a dramatic halt to communism, but the US lost the war a long time before that. So analysing US policies in their stages would be my approach! I would go through each of the main policies/presidents and have a look at their rhetoric and motives for their policy, and what the thoughts about communism were at that moment.

[Emerald99]

Hi jake! Do you have any tips for getting full marks in the personality question?

[elysepopplewell]

Hi jake! Do you have any tips for getting full marks in the personality question?

Hi Emerald, please see this guide that Jake wrote about nailing the personality section of the exam!

[Emerald99]

I have a question asking something along the lines of what broke collective security or what was a threat i cant remember exactly but what does collective security mean?

[elysepopplewell]

I have a question asking something along the lines of what broke collective security or what was a threat i cant remember exactly but what does collective security mean?

In relation to what? What topic are you studying? Collective national security is different to collective property security - for example.

[jakesilove]

I have a question asking something along the lines of what broke collective security or what was a threat i cant remember exactly but what does collective security mean?

Hey! I assume you're talking about the outbreak of war for Conflict in Europe. Collective security was the policy by which much of the League of Nations was governed; the idea that nations need to look out for their own best interests, but also for the best interests of other countries, because a war in one region meant a war in many regions. Essentially, the League of Nations idealised co-operation to ensure another war was avoided.

Now, the policy of collective security failed. This is evidenced by the fact that, well, there was another war. Your question essentially asks WHY collective security failed, and that is something you need to decide for yourself. Generally, it is accepted that the British policy appeasement put the policy of collective security in peril. I would disagree with this. I'll briefly explain my thoughts, for you or anyone else reading.

Collective security forced sacrifice of certain things for the greater good. Countries had to work together, even where it may have been detrimental to them in that specific instance. So, sacrifice is sort of required to ensure collective security. By appeasing Germany (look to Spanish civil war, Czeck, Austria), they were trying their hardest to put off a war. It is easy to look back and say that they SHOULDN'T have appeased Hitler, they SHOULD have invaded earlier, they SHOULD have used force. It's easy to blame the League of Nations, and Britain specifically, for the war. But, in essence, this is victim-blaming. Hitler drove policy towards war, and war was coming. Can you really blame countries for not wanting to send troops into a foreign country, essentially STARTING a war by destroying the policy of appeasement, when you consider how many lives were lost in WWI?

Anyway, we've gone off topic. I've listed in brackets some things to look at re collective security. Let me know if you need anything more specific/any questions about what I've written!

Jake

[Emerald99]

Thank you Elyse and Jake! Once again you guys are just complete legends ,I'm so appreciative of you guys and all the other moderators on here! Thanks a bunch to everyone on here:D

[jakesilove]

Thank you Elyse and Jake! Once again you guys are just complete legends ,I'm so appreciative of you guys and all the other moderators on here! Thanks a bunch to everyone on here:D

No problem at all, we're glad you're getting a lot out of the forums

[alyssastama]

Hi!
Just wondering, what is the best way to make sure your essays in the HSC exam are band 6 material? What is your strategy for coming up with a sophisticated, coherent argument in exam conditions? 

[jakesilove]

Hi!
Just wondering, what is the best way to make sure your essays in the HSC exam are band 6 material? What is your strategy for coming up with a sophisticated, coherent argument in exam conditions? 

Hey! I've actually written a whole bunch of articles that answer your question; check them out!

Memorising Content

Personality Study

Source Analysis

History Essay Success


Jake