HSC Modern History Question Thread

[maria1999]

hi guys
I just had a question about the Jewish Flats/Germania aspect of Albert Speer. I find this event so confusing and was wondering if someone could please break it down in simple english. I've read and re-read of many historians and summaries but I find the chronology of it so confusing. The Chronicle which details Speer's involvement is also a little confusing, with parts just saying the rate of clearance for the Jewish flats. How is this applicable to Speer and how is it incriminating? This is probably so obvious, but any (ANY) help would be much appreciated! Thank you!!

[jakesilove]

hi guys
I just had a question about the Jewish Flats/Germania aspect of Albert Speer. I find this event so confusing and was wondering if someone could please break it down in simple english. I've read and re-read of many historians and summaries but I find the chronology of it so confusing. The Chronicle which details Speer's involvement is also a little confusing, with parts just saying the rate of clearance for the Jewish flats. How is this applicable to Speer and how is it incriminating? This is probably so obvious, but any (ANY) help would be much appreciated! Thank you!!

Hey! Here's my understanding of the general situation.

At this point in Speer's career, he was Inspector General for buildings and construction. He was appointed to this position in January of 1937. He was in charge of fulfilling Hitler's dream of the '1000 year Reich', which involved vastly reshaping Berlin (into what would be named Germania).

Speer had a place at all important meetings, and was a part of all decisions to which his department was a part of. He often denied knowledge of these decisions, and that's up to you to assess. However, he was very much a major player in the Nazi party by this point.

As a part of the Germania project, many apartment buildings needed to be destroyed so that they could either be rebuilt, or re purposed. In 1939, he established Resettlement regions. All occupants within the region were required to leave their homes, and alternative housing was to be provided.

Non-Jews were always preferenced when it came to resettlement. This left many Jews without a home, including young families and elderly people.

In 1941, Speer gave a direct order displacing 5,000 Jews from their homes, but did not provide alternative housing. Many of the evicted Jews (both in 1941 and further into the war) were transported to concentration camps.

Again, the direct knowledge that Speer had about these events has long been questioned. That'll have to be a call you make in your essay

[maria1999]

Hey! Here's my understanding of the general situation.

At this point in Speer's career, he was Inspector General for buildings and construction. He was appointed to this position in January of 1937. He was in charge of fulfilling Hitler's dream of the '1000 year Reich', which involved vastly reshaping Berlin (into what would be named Germania).

Speer had a place at all important meetings, and was a part of all decisions to which his department was a part of. He often denied knowledge of these decisions, and that's up to you to assess. However, he was very much a major player in the Nazi party by this point.

As a part of the Germania project, many apartment buildings needed to be destroyed so that they could either be rebuilt, or re purposed. In 1939, he established Resettlement regions. All occupants within the region were required to leave their homes, and alternative housing was to be provided.

Non-Jews were always preferenced when it came to resettlement. This left many Jews without a home, including young families and elderly people.

In 1941, Speer gave a direct order displacing 5,000 Jews from their homes, but did not provide alternative housing. Many of the evicted Jews (both in 1941 and further into the war) were transported to concentration camps.

Again, the direct knowledge that Speer had about these events has long been questioned. That'll have to be a call you make in your essay

Thank you!!

[maria1999]

hey!
I was just wondering if anyone could clarify a little more on Speer's main role regarding forced labour during the war. I think he used it mainly as armaments minister to build rockets (was he using jews to build rockets idk?) but was there any other key pieces of information to use in assessing his perception of being a "good nazi" in respect to his use of forced labour? Any key events or stats to consider? thank you!!

[jakesilove]

hey!
I was just wondering if anyone could clarify a little more on Speer's main role regarding forced labour during the war. I think he used it mainly as armaments minister to build rockets (was he using jews to build rockets idk?) but was there any other key pieces of information to use in assessing his perception of being a "good nazi" in respect to his use of forced labour? Any key events or stats to consider? thank you!!

Hey! Yeah so the period in which forced labour is relevant is from 1942 onwards, when Speer was Minister for Armaments.

He used Concentration camps to build his V2 rockets. That's the main piece of information worth knowing in this sphere; however, the interesting part re the 'Good Nazi' is his knowledge, or lack thereof, of the project. Upon visiting the Mittelwerk V-2 rocket factory in 1943, Speer claimed to have been 'shocked' by the conditions. Over one in 20 workers died in this camp whilst building rockets; more people were killed building the rockets than were killed BY the rockets.

He denied knowledge of much of the slave labour used, however again that's up to you to decide.

[tahliamag]

Hi guys,
I was just wondering if you guys have any tips on what you must include in a source analysis question? I didn't do very well in my half yearly source analysis so I'm looking to improve on my skills, thankyou!!

Does anyone know how many historians I should be including in a essay on Germany? I feel like I don't include enough. Thanks

MOD EDIT: Merged 

[sudodds]

Hi guys,
I was just wondering if you guys have any tips on what you must include in a source analysis question? I didn't do very well in my half yearly source analysis so I'm looking to improve on my skills, thankyou!!

Does anyone know how many historians I should be including in a essay on Germany? I feel like I don't include enough. Thanks

MOD EDIT: Merged 

Hey hey!

Can defs help you out with source analysis! What you absolutely must must must must must include is an EXPLICIT reference to perspective, reliability and usefulness! (so explicit in fact that you should be underlining them in your response!). These are part of the question, thus if you aren't mentioning them you will get marked down. Some other things you should be including is detail! Though you need comparatively less detail in the 10 mark source analysis than in other sections, you should still be using every opportunity you can to show your own knowledge. Detail can be especially useful for corroborating the reliability of the source (particularly its factual reliability!) Other things that you should make sure that you are doing: strong and clear judgements, especially at the beginning of your response. Your first sentence should not be "Source A is a primary source that..." NO. Instead, your first sentence must answer the question! "Source A would be highly useful to a historian studying....". Make sure to include those words like highly, partially etc. etc. as the question is asking you to look at to what extent something is useful, not whether or not it is useful (hint: you will never be given a useless source!)

In terms of historians, though I didn't study Germany I do know that across the board the importance of historians is inflated. Historians are a great inclusion in an essay (they count as detail, and as I said earlier, the more detail the better!), however many students tend to rely on them too much. The marker would much rather see your own analysis and judgement, rather than you just parrot a shopping list of historians. Only ever use historians to BACK UP your own argument/judgement, don't just include them for inclusions sake. Thus, you could write a band 6 essay with hardly any historians, or heaps! There isn't a sure and fast number of historians to guarantee success. I do recommend you read up on historians though, even if you don't always intend to quote them. Great for revision, accumulating detail that is outside of a textbook, and consolidating knowledge. We have a bunch of recommended readings for Germany (and a heap load of other courses!) here

Hope this helps!

Susie

[tahliamag]

Sweet, thankyou heaps!!

[tahliamag]

Hi yall,
I just have a general question about studying for modern history exams. I find because theres so much to remember and so many dates I don't know an effective way to study? I normally just use my notes and write practice essays but I was wondering if anyone had other suggestions that work well specifically for modern??
Thanksssss

[maria1999]

hiya everyone!
I was just wondering what's the go for referencing study guides? Theres really good info in these two I found (not Ken Webb dw) and if I was wondering if I had to paraphrase or quote? Or do I just reference it in the bibliography and leave it at that?
Thanks in advance!!

[sudodds]

Hi yall,
I just have a general question about studying for modern history exams. I find because theres so much to remember and so many dates I don't know an effective way to study? I normally just use my notes and write practice essays but I was wondering if anyone had other suggestions that work well specifically for modern??
Thanksssss

Hey! Practice essays are defs the best way to go, way better than writing notes (imo) because you are actually engaging with the content, rather than just writing out facts. That being said, if you are the type to write notes, then that is still A-okay, I just recommend that you adapt your note taking habits Rather than just writing down/dot-pointing facts and a timeline of events, gear your notes towards analysis, and assessing the significance of said facts/events.

For example, I am a huge advocate for writing tables. Detail tables are fab! Down the left hand side you put all the syllabus dot points, then have one column for detail and then another column (if you want) for quotes I also really really really really like argument table and linking tables. An argument table works really well for the personality study - have all the major events/issues in regards to your personality down one side, then how they relate/can be used to argue for and against the key debate. So for example how can the Treaty of Brest Litovsk be used to argue that Trotsky was a practical revolutionary or a naive idealist? Linking tables are similar. You want to have the key syllabus dot points/events listed both in the top row and the left hand column, linking how each factor or issue relates to one another You can find my examples of these tables in the notes section!

Hope this helps!

hiya everyone!
I was just wondering what's the go for referencing study guides? Theres really good info in these two I found (not Ken Webb dw) and if I was wondering if I had to paraphrase or quote? Or do I just reference it in the bibliography and leave it at that?
Thanks in advance!!

DO NOT QUOTE A STUDY GUIDE. Firstly, even if a study guide is super good/helpful, it is not a sophisticated source. A study guide is merely a collection of relevant detail to the HSC syllabus - more often than not their analysis is not their own. If they are presenting a particularly unique argument that you wish to include, find out who they are referencing instead! What historian have they derived that argument from? If you can't find it exactly, you can for sure paraphrase what they are saying if you think that it is important, but don't reference the actual study guide within your essay.

(not Ken Webb dw)

i have trained you well 

[maria1999]

DO NOT QUOTE A STUDY GUIDE. Firstly, even if a study guide is super good/helpful, it is not a sophisticated source. A study guide is merely a collection of relevant detail to the HSC syllabus - more often than not their analysis is not their own. If they are presenting a particularly unique argument that you wish to include, find out who they are referencing instead! What historian have they derived that argument from? If you can't find it exactly, you can for sure paraphrase what they are saying if you think that it is important, but don't reference the actual study guide within your essay.
i have trained you well 

hahahaha yes, Ken Webb: a no go zone
Thank you!!

Mod Edit: Just fixed up your quote 

[maria1999]

guys
With regard to paraphrasing, do I put quotation marks starting from what I paraphrase? Or do I just write a normal sentence and put at the end. Thank you!!

[sudodds]

guys
With regard to paraphrasing, do I put quotation marks starting from what I paraphrase? Or do I just write a normal sentence and put at the end. Thank you!!

Nope! You only need to use quotation marks when you are quoting something. When paraphrasing just write a normal sentence, and include somewhere the source that you are paraphrasing from either within the sentence or at the end in brackets (I prefer the former). So like "According to Hobsbawm...", or "this view is further expressed by AJP Taylor" etc. etc. Just make sure that when you quote/paraphrase that you integrate it into your analysis, rather than just dropping a quote. Unless the quote/paraphrase is really long (some that preferably you'd want to avoid), I tried my best to not have it as its own sentence per say, rather a part of a sentence (if that makes any sense).

Hope this helps!

Susie

[Rasika]

 I am trying to justify how Trotsky's role in the 1917 revolution resulted to his rise to prominence. But im not sure what to say.