HSC Modern History Question Thread

[dancing phalanges]

Hey!! Sorry, just realised I missed this question. Though probably not as relevant now, just fyi cos kinda related one of the Russia questions this year was quite similar to last year imo, so it cropping up the year before is definitely no guarantee that it won't crop up again this year (same for HSC!)
You've already received some fantastic answers already, so not much for me to add, but yes you most certainly can, and should discuss the other factors! This is a differentiated essay, so in your judgement, I'd be saying that yes, Soviet attitudes under Reagan were highly significant, but were not solely responsible for the end of the cold war, as other factors where also highly significant. So when I wrote this essay, I did a paragraph on soviet attitudes under Gorbachev (this was my first paragraph as well!), then a paragraph on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, US attitudes under Reagan and then finally the disarmament agreements

Turns out that in one of my topics a question that has been asked a lot including last year did pop up again just worded another way! Luckily I had studied well enough for the other option So definitely will keep in mind!

[evasgg]

Hey!! Sorry, just realised I missed this question. Though probably not as relevant now, just fyi cos kinda related one of the Russia questions this year was quite similar to last year imo, so it cropping up the year before is definitely no guarantee that it won't crop up again this year (same for HSC!)
You've already received some fantastic answers already, so not much for me to add, but yes you most certainly can, and should discuss the other factors! This is a differentiated essay, so in your judgement, I'd be saying that yes, Soviet attitudes under Reagan were highly significant, but were not solely responsible for the end of the cold war, as other factors where also highly significant. So when I wrote this essay, I did a paragraph on soviet attitudes under Gorbachev (this was my first paragraph as well!), then a paragraph on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, US attitudes under Reagan and then finally the disarmament agreements

Thank you all so so much!! Definitely helped clear this up

[shaniakalan]

Hi okay so like really specific question but ws millitary bombardment a tactic or strategy?

[sudodds]

Hi okay so like really specific question but ws millitary bombardment a tactic or strategy?

Tactic, as military bombardment is a means to a achieve the strategic objective of breaking the stalemate

[dancing phalanges]

Hey Susie,
I was wondering if you could help me with the perspective and reliability of Source C. I'm just confused whether it is about Germany or Britain and if about Germany, if the fact it is from a British perspective is worth noting at all.
https://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/wcm/connect/ddceb688-32e5-4903-b436-e5ad9dc0c977/modern-history-hsc-exam-2006.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=ROOTWORKSPACE-ddceb688-32e5-4903-b436-e5ad9dc0c977-lGdkwTf
Help with Question 2 of this paper R.E the impact of the Ludendorff Offensive would also be great as it's the one part of the syllabus I'm not too sure about.
https://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/hsc_exams/exam-papers-2007/pdf_doc/modern-history_07.pdf
Thanks heaps

[sudodds]

Hey Susie,
I was wondering if you could help me with the perspective and reliability of Source C. I'm just confused whether it is about Germany or Britain and if about Germany, if the fact it is from a British perspective is worth noting at all.
https://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/wcm/connect/ddceb688-32e5-4903-b436-e5ad9dc0c977/modern-history-hsc-exam-2006.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=ROOTWORKSPACE-ddceb688-32e5-4903-b436-e5ad9dc0c977-lGdkwTf
Help with Question 2 of this paper R.E the impact of the Ludendorff Offensive would also be great as it's the one part of the syllabus I'm not too sure about.
https://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/hsc_exams/exam-papers-2007/pdf_doc/modern-history_07.pdf
Thanks heaps

Hey Dancing Phalanges! Source C is actually the American ambassadors (so NOT British!) perspective on Germany. I'd personally say that the source is highly reliable, as it was produced at the time and in close proximity to the events in question, and furthermore, the contents of the source is corroborated by our understanding of the course content (can you think of any stats/detail that you know from your own knowledge, that support what the source is saying?). However, you could make the point that as the source was published in 1917, it does not provide the whole scope of the war. Do you think this works?

For your second question (soz missed it before), I'd be wanting to mention how though tactically strong, the Ludendorff Spring Offensive was strategically weak, and doomed to fail. For one, the Sturmtroopen (shock troops) that they used had a high fatality rate, meaning that though effective in the short term, in the long term their best and most loyal soldiers perished. They didn't anticipate or adequately prepare for the massive ground (65 km) gained, which meant that hey, yeah they moved 65 km, but now all their food, resources, supplies, rienforcements are... 65 km away. Finally, they didn't capitalise on the Russian Withdrawal, and left approx. 500 000 soldiers on the eastern front, which could have been super beneficial!

Susie

(side note - though all these questions ARE ones you can get for section I, be careful using papers earlier than 2010, just cos the modern syllabus changed!)

[dancing phalanges]

Hey Dancing Phalanges! Source C is actually the American ambassadors (so NOT British!) perspective on Germany. I'd personally say that the source is highly reliable, as it was produced at the time and in close proximity to the events in question, and furthermore, the contents of the source is corroborated by our understanding of the course content (can you think of any stats/detail that you know from your own knowledge, that support what the source is saying?). However, you could make the point that as the source was published in 1917, it does not provide the whole scope of the war. Do you think this works?

For your second question (soz missed it before), I'd be wanting to mention how though tactically strong, the Ludendorff Spring Offensive was strategically weak, and doomed to fail. For one, the Sturmtroopen (shock troops) that they used had a high fatality rate, meaning that though effective in the short term, in the long term their best and most loyal soldiers perished. They didn't anticipate or adequately prepare for the massive ground (65 km) gained, which meant that hey, yeah they moved 65 km, but now all their food, resources, supplies, rienforcements are... 65 km away. Finally, they didn't capitalise on the Russian Withdrawal, and left approx. 500 000 soldiers on the eastern front, which could have been super beneficial!

Susie

(side note - though all these questions ARE ones you can get for section I, be careful using papers earlier than 2010, just cos the modern syllabus changed!)

Okay thank you so much! Yeah sorry I meant American perspective don't know why I wrote British but that is what I probably more or less would have written And that Ludendorff info is super helpful because I had never even heard that before so I definitely feel more prepared now for that, thank you so much!

[Claudiaa]

Hey Susie I was wondering if you could kind of summarise/sort of explain what really happens in relation to the Arab-Israeli Conflict (after 1930 MacDonald White Paper)...I kind of got really confused and lost in class past this point >.<

[sudodds]

Hey Susie I was wondering if you could kind of summarise/sort of explain what really happens in relation to the Arab-Israeli Conflict (after 1930 MacDonald White Paper)...I kind of got really confused and lost in class past this point >.<

Hey Claudia! Really sorry but unfortunately I didn't study this option for my International Study, I did the Cold War instead, so I can't really be much help Hopefully there is someone else on the forum who may be able to help you out

[soha.rizvi1]

Hey, is Hitler's accession to power different from his consolidation of power?

[dancing phalanges]

Hey, is Hitler's accession to power different from his consolidation of power?

Yeah I'm almost certain Hitler's ascension into power is how he actually became Chancellor so what happened before 1933 (eg. the political miscalculations of others, his own role in his rise to power eg. his oratory skills etc.) while his consolidation of power is how he maintained this power after being elected and it typically is restricted to 1933-34 in questions.
So in its simplest form, his ascension to power is up to Jan 1933 while his consolidation is after Jan 1933 to generally 1934

[sudodds]

Hey, is Hitler's accession to power different from his consolidation of power?

Dancing phalanges, as always, has provided an excellent answer Last year I found that the easiest way to think about it was to recognise that accession is how they initially get power, consolidation is how they maintain and strengthen it

[herb123]

hey guys can i get some tips as to what to write about for my conflict in the pacific essay?
"Japan had little choice but to bomb Pearl Harbour if it wanted to achieve its foreign policy aims in the Pacific.
To what extent is this statement accurate?"
thanks alot!

[dancing phalanges]

hey guys can i get some tips as to what to write about for my conflict in the pacific essay?
"Japan had little choice but to bomb Pearl Harbour if it wanted to achieve its foreign policy aims in the Pacific.
To what extent is this statement accurate?"
thanks alot!

Hey,
For this I would write about how Pearl Harbour was the main obstacle between Japan and the resource rich South Pacific which it needed. Therefore, they needed to bomb it as if successful, it would keep America out of the war for 2 years and this would be long enough to let them move south with little opposition and take the resources they needed to continue the war with China. They also had little resources to support their growing population and further that was a reason for why they needed to bomb PH so they could move south. Also, the US embargoes further made Japan need to invade and grab resources as the US provided them with 90% of their scrap metal, 2/3 of their oil and 1/3 of their steel. Finally, Japanese Foreign Policy was heavily influenced by the Greater Co-Prosperity Sphere, which was based upon expanding into SE Asia for both resources and to 'free Asia from Western imperialism' (this was not true as Japanese interests took full interest). So primarily I would argue that the imperialistic nature of Japanese Foreign Policy, primarily the need to expand to gain land and resources meant that they needed to bomb PH as it was the only obstacle (geographically and militarily) in them achieving this goal. Also, American foreign policy had an influence in further making Japan feel as if this was necessary. Hope that helps! The foreign policy part of the question is a bit hard to explain but hopefully it's covered in that.

[TheCommando]

Does anyone know why a constituent assembly that was propesed in the russian revolution would have 'seriously limittee bolshevik amibition once established, even though they had the majority of support by far