ATAR Notes: Forum
HSC Stuff => HSC History => HSC Humanities Stuff => HSC Subjects + Help => HSC Modern History => Topic started by: fillycheese on March 04, 2019, 12:58:46 pm
-
Hi there!
Just wondering if anyone has any ideas for a more sophisticated thesis and some body paragraphs ideas for the question:
"The economic gains of the Soviet Union under Stalin were achieved at the cost of enormous human suffering."
How accurate is this statement?
Currently all I have is: Stalin’s economic gains were at the cost of human suffering. This however was an unnecessary consequence of Stalin’s flawed leadership.
However, I want to do more than just simply agree with the question, and I feel like the second sentence is not quite answering the question and going a bit off topic.
Thanks lovely ATAR notes peeps!
-
Hi there!
Just wondering if anyone has any ideas for a more sophisticated thesis and some body paragraphs ideas for the question:
"The economic gains of the Soviet Union under Stalin were achieved at the cost of enormous human suffering."
How accurate is this statement?
Currently all I have is: Stalin’s economic gains were at the cost of human suffering. This however was an unnecessary consequence of Stalin’s flawed leadership.
However, I want to do more than just simply agree with the question, and I feel like the second sentence is not quite answering the question and going a bit off topic.
Thanks lovely ATAR notes peeps!
Hey there,
I didn't study Russia but in from what you have, I'm pretty sure it's fine for you to also disagree with the question. My teacher called it the 60:40 rule, where we have to mostly agree but we also have room to disagree with the question (this is to prevent people from walking into the exam with prepared essays). For example, in my Personality Study, I would say that Leni Riefenstahl's works could be considered as art (especially The Blue Light) but then her works also glorify Hitler (especially Triumph of the Will). In my final paragraph, I talked about how her films are artistic with propagandistic features. Notice how I've argued both sides but still have a judgement (i.e. Leni's works are still propagandistic in nature).
TL;DR: You could also include other ideas rather than just agreeing with the question, but you can't fully disagree with the question.
Hope this helps!
-
Hey there!
Just to tack on to @owidjaja's post, you should be able to be nuanced ie. provide a view that is a little more sophisticated. You can also go off topic, provided you link back to the question and make sure it fits into your argument. In your example, provided you show evidence of how Stalin's flawed leadership affected the economic state of Soviet Russia at the cost of human resources you can factor that in. In my opinion you could probably write something along the lines of 'the social cost of economic progression in Soviet Russia was undoubtedly great, but likewise the leapfrogging of multiple nations in the economic sector cannot be ignored.' or something like 'it can be argued that the social cost of large-scale economic boosts was worth any social cost to advance backward Russia.' Basically back this up with stats (really important, there are plenty of stats which show how big the change economically was [use your industrialisation and collectivisation notes and stats, perhaps even purges and gulag stats as required]), because given you can back something up you can say whatever you want (also given that it's cohesively structured and well argued of course ;) ). So basically echoing the above post (fence sitting thesis is totally okay, but have a strong judgement, that'll be your 'sophisticated thesis' so to speak.) As for body paragraph ideas, probably look at social, economic factors of economic gain ie. five year plans, collectivisation, gulag, censorship, increased government control, establishment of rigid political structure etc. Could even look into purges (at a stretch).
Hope this helps! :)
-
Thank you @fun_jirachi and @owibjaja that was so helpful ;)