HSC Modern History Question Thread

[Rasika]

Hey Tahlia Bit of a different interpretation than Rasika here - personally I never wrote notes for Modern History (I started to at the beginning - but after I while I realised that for me it really wasn't helpful, and I was wasting so much time on a study technique that for me was just ineffective.). Instead, I focused all of my attention towards writing practice essays. I'm a practical learner - I have to be doing things for information to sink in. But that was my experience. Do you find that writing notes helps you understand the topic? If so then write them! Tables (I've mentioned them 1000000 times on here) are my preferred note taking method if you do want to write them - detail tables/argument tables/linking tables - as they force you to engage with the content more by assessing significance etc etc.

That is so true! Tables are so much easier when it comes to making notes and remembering them. But i also agree with writing responses!! They are more helpful than continiously writing notes!

[tahliamag]

Thankyou for the suggestions!!

[sudodds]

Thankyou for the suggestions!!

No worries! Just remember that the way you study should be personalised for you Don't stick to a particular method just because someone else is doing it/not doing it - work out what works best for you and your brain! If that is writing notes, write notes. If that is audio recording notes audio record notes Drawing diagrams, forming study groups, doing past papers and literally thousands of other forms - all totally valid methods of study And don't think that just because a method worked for one subject that it will definitely work for all of them - the way I studied for Ancient was actually quite different to Modern

[sudodds]

Trotsky’s theory of Permanent Revolution was one of his most significant contributions because it resulted in the Bolshevik consolidation of power, which therefore greatly impacted the Soviet Union’s national history. However, despite this communist ideology being highly crucial, it was also Trotsky’s pragmatic ability to keenly manoeuvre through theoretical adherence and the practical application of this communist ideology that he was able to ensure success and significance. In the Early 1905, there was spark of desire for a revolution due to the mass political and social unrest that spread throughout the Russian empire. This was because of Tsar Nicholas’ regime whose focus on rapidly moving through various historical stages in order to push for modernisation, which would get rid of their industrially backward state, had resulted into discontent amongst both the proletariat and the peasants.

Heya! My comments are in the spoiler below

Spoiler

Trotsky’s theory of Permanent Revolution was one of his most significant contributions, because as it resulted in the Bolshevik consolidation of power, which therefore greatly impacted the Soviet Union’s national history. However, despite this communist ideology being highly crucial, it was also Trotsky’s pragmatic ability to keenly manoeuvre through theoretical adherence and the practical application of this communist ideology that he was able to ensure success and significance. Re-work this sentence, it's messy - you used the word 'ideology' 3 times. In the Early 1905 ? Similarly this reads very strangely. the Early 1905?, there was spark of desire for a revolution due to the mass political and social unrest that spread throughout the Russian empire Great point - again could be reworded smoother.. This was because of Tsar Nicholas’ regime whose focus on rapidly moving through various historical stages he wasn't trying to rapidly move through the historical stages - that would suggest that he wanted (as the communists did) to quickly move through feudalism to capitalism to socialism etc. etc. He most certainly DID NOT want that to happen, or he would lose all of his power. Trotsky wants to move through the stages quickly. in order to push for modernisation, which would get rid of their industrially backward state, had resulted into discontent amongst both the proletariat and the peasants. Reword sentence - also not sure if this is really the best argument to make here.
 Though I do like how you have mentioned that the hardships faced under the Tsar would make Trotsky's communist ideology a lot more attractive to members of society, I don't think that arguing that he wanted to rid Russia of their industrially backward state is the most effective,
 namely because the communists wanted to do that as well. Rather, I think the stronger argument would be to note the crazy class disparity under this autocratic regime - there is a photo of the Tsarina wearing a dress so heavy because it is ladened with so many jewels that she cannot move, whereas peasants are starving to death. Landlords and the aristocracy are proving to be an ever present, oppressive force. World War I is also important - it was economically unsustainable for Russia, but the Tsar forced them into it anyway (namely to distract the population from such radicalism, uniting them instead against a common enemy - Germany.

Okay! So overall I think this paragraph needs quite a bit of work (see my comments). As I have said before, I think you need to really consider word choice and sentence structure, as they often don't flow very well - as this is a speech, this becomes even more critical.

You know how you said to talk about Trotsky's Permanent Revolution next. Like after that ^^, idk how to bring it back to his permanent revolution

I think mentioning the 1905 Revolution would be a nice transition - that projected him into his exile where he wrote this theory. Then in order to bring this back to significance you mention that as this theory attracted the attention of prominent Bolshevik members (such as Lenin!), it quickly became the dominant ideology of the party

[Rasika]

"However, despite it having great importance in the consolidation of Bolshevik power, it was also Trotsky’s pragmatic ability to manoeuvre through theoretical adherence and the practical application of this communist ideology, that he was able to ensure success and significance"

You know this part -- can you explain this again because im kinda confused as to what this means

[sudodds]

"However, despite it having great importance in the consolidation of Bolshevik power, it was also Trotsky’s pragmatic ability to manoeuvre through theoretical adherence and the practical application of this communist ideology, that he was able to ensure success and significance"

You know this part -- can you explain this again because im kinda confused as to what this means

Sure thing Basically what it means is that even though Trotsky was a deeply ideologically driven person, and his ideology of 'Permanent Revolution' was something that he strongly believed in and strived to accomplish, he was pragmatic in the sense that he understood that theory was not alway applicable to current situations, or the best way to deal with immediate problems. Though the ultimate goal would always be Permanent Revolution, the current state and needs of Russia sometimes outweighed this goal - for example, how can you ignite a European wide revolution while dealing with a Civil War domestically? It's just not possible - so rather than forcing his ideology when it was impractical, Trotsky (and Lenin) sought to rectify these immediate issues so that down the track Permanent Revolution could be implemented more effectively

Hope this helps! The ideology stuff is always the hardest when it comes to Trotsky/Russia in general!

Susie

[Rasika]

OOhhh okay well that makes sense. Do you think i answered the question though? Because my teacher said that i dont really mention its impact till later on so she thinks i should keep the first part more succint and talk about its impact to national history earlier on..

[sudodds]

OOhhh okay well that makes sense. Do you think i answered the question though? Because my teacher said that i dont really mention its impact till later on so she thinks i should keep the first part more succint and talk about its impact to national history earlier on..

Yeah I agree with your teacher here - I think I mentioned this in my feedback, I feel like you spoke a lot about the pre-revolutionary landscape of Russia, which I liked, but I definitely think you could cut down to incorporate more of Trotsky's/Permanent Revolutions direct significance.

[Rasika]

In a nutshell -- how did the Permanent Revolution directly impact the national history?

[sudodds]

In a nutshell -- how did the Permanent Revolution directly impact the national history?

It was the dominant ideology of the Bolshevik Party - it was what they strived to achieve, both directly and indirectly through their policy and actions. Even when they relaxed their strict theoretical adherence to deal with immediate problems that "theory" couldn't solve, there was the belief that they were just setting up the necessary conditions to later implement Permanent Revolution more effectively. Thus, as the dominant ideological basis for the Bolshevik Party, all events, such as the 1917 Revolution, the social and political reforms, the Treaty of Brest Litovsk, the Civil War and the NEP were at least in some capacity impacted by it.

[Rasika]

i dont know why but i feel like changing it to how the permanent revolution had international impacts

[sudodds]

i dont know why but i feel like changing it to how the permanent revolution had international impacts

Definitely possible to argue! However I feel like this would be harder. The impact of Permanent Revolution (or Trotskyism as it would be referred to today) did have an international impact, in the sense that it was an ideology with "international aspirations" - however a European/Global Revolution was never actually realised. After he lost the power struggle, Trotsky did travel across the world (ended up living with Frieda Kahlo for a period of time lol), and spent a great deal of that time promoting his ideology, but in my view it wasn't such a promotion of his own more so than it was a "take down" of Stalinism (and also fascism - he wrote a lot about that as well). You can definitely argue that Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution had international implications for the socialism/communism in general - you only have to go onto any socialist or marxist meme page to find pages and pages of comments made by Trotskyites and Stalinists disagreeing with one another (v funny - 10/10 would recommend).

But yeah, I just feel like this is harder to argue/find detail for in comparison to just focusing on national history - which was undoubtedly directly affected. Like I don't personally believe the above points hold as much weight.

[Rasika]

If I see in this perspective, perhaps you are right. The thing is I'm editing it and I feel like I don't know if I'm directly answering the question of how it impacted national history like a clear sentence which basically tells the marker how it did.

[sudodds]

If I see in this perspective, perhaps you are right. The thing is I'm editing it and I feel like I don't know if I'm directly answering the question of how it impacted national history like a clear sentence which basically tells the marker how it did.

Personally I think you were answering the question - you just needed to be a bit more selective of the information you chose to demonstrate that - ie. less on the "before" Trotsky, and more on the "after". In one sentence?; As the official ideology of the Bolshevik Party, Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution was highly significant to Russian national history, due to it's influence over the way in which the Bolshevik Party operated during the period up until the Rise of Stalin. Obviously you'd want to put this in your own words, however something along those lines would be great

[Rasika]

What else should I put for that section? Like besides the treaty of Brest-Litovsk?