HSC Modern History Question Thread

[jakesilove]

To what extent had the Weimar Republic overcome its early challenges by 1929

Account for the inability of successive Weimar governments to achieve stability to 1923

Please help - ;-;
Thank you ~

Hey! Why don't you tell us your thinking on the question so far (structure, points etc) and we can help you refine it!

[Snew]

Any tips for the essay question:

To what extent were political issues responsible for the failure of democracy in Germany by 1933?

I was thinking an economic paragraph and political paragraph as they are pretty connected but not sure!

[FatmataR]

Looks like you have a great structure already! My approach to this question would be to cite those early challenges in the introduction (literally the ones you've listed above), and then spend a paragraph going through each challenge. Discuss factors that indicate they HAD overcome the weakness, then discuss factors that indicate they HADN'T. Come to a conclusion about each issue, separately, and then use your conclusion to see whether you can suggest any overarching theme (ie. overcame social, but not economic, etc.).

Good luck!

Thank you guys so much ~

[jakesilove]

Any tips for the essay question:

To what extent were political issues responsible for the failure of democracy in Germany by 1933?

I was thinking an economic paragraph and political paragraph as they are pretty connected but not sure!

Well, you definitely need to spend the bulk of the essay on Political issues. The growth of the right wing, Communists, Grand coalitions, those are the sorts of points that should make up most of your essay. However, you can spend about 40% of the time talking about non-political issues; say something like 'whilst political issues were a substantial reason for the failure of democracy, Economic factors also played a part'. This will segway you into an economic paragraph (ie. Great Depression, hyperinflation etc.)

[forevertired]

Hello! I was wondering if anyone that did Indochina could help me with a few questions? I'm struggling with structuring my essays. In class we have only covered up to the end of Johnson's presidency so I assume that I stop at 1969 and Gulf of Tonkin? Also, we have not covered anything about Cambodia or Laos yet.
This is kind of a long post so I apologise in advance 

1. Assess the consequences of the Vietnamese victory against the French at Dien Bein Phu for Vietnam in the period up to 1969
My plan for this is to write 3 paragraphs,

• led to political/social issues in the south
• led to economic issues in the north (for the most part they were a lot stronger in terms of policies + on the social spectrum I think)
• gave the US a reason to intervene - here I would just talk about Truman's policy of containment, Gulf of Tonkin etc?

however, i'm not sure if i should have an additional first paragraph about it leading to the Geneva conventions (which led to the division of Vietnam)? Because I tried writing one out but it was only about 100 words :/ I feel like it is important, but it's very short and I don't know what else to say besides the fact that it caused the nation to split. I could make it longer by giving some details about the Accords but then I'm worried the teachers will say there's too much 'narrative' and 're-telling'.
Also, for specific issues in the North/South, since it's asking about CONSEQUENCES does that mean that I can't talk about the "Political, Social, Economic and Military Developments within North and South Vietnam"? (that's a syllabus dot point) in general but instead pick out the issues such as Diem's oppressive rule and his brutality in the South and food/agricultural issues in the North? Would this differ if the question said assess the SIGNIFICANCE instead?


2. Assess the importance of anti-communism in shaping the policies of the United States towards Indochina up to 1969.
3. Assess the role of communism in shaping the conflict in Vietnam to 1969.
For these two questions, I was thinking of structuring it by presidents

• Truman + Eisenhower together since they weren't as significant I feel?
• Kennedy
• Johnson

For the 'anti-communism' question I was going to approach it in that anti-communism was the inital/overarching reason, however other factors such as prestige played a role, and I would do this by Presidents, however for the "shaping the conflict" one, I'm not so sure how I would evaluate it.


4. To what extent was the US involvement responsible for the ongoing conflict in Vietnam?
And then this question, I just don't know how to structure it at all. One paragraph idea I had was how the US provided aid/funding to the South, therefore prolonging the war and conflict, and their support for Diem, but that's about it.

I know I have a lot of questions, sorry! Thank you in advance.

[bowiemily]

Hello! I was wondering if anyone that did Indochina could help me with a few questions? I'm struggling with structuring my essays. In class we have only covered up to the end of Johnson's presidency so I assume that I stop at 1969 and Gulf of Tonkin? Also, we have not covered anything about Cambodia or Laos yet.
This is kind of a long post so I apologise in advance 

1. Assess the consequences of the Vietnamese victory against the French at Dien Bein Phu for Vietnam in the period up to 1969
My plan for this is to write 3 paragraphs,

• led to political/social issues in the south
• led to economic issues in the north (for the most part they were a lot stronger in terms of policies + on the social spectrum I think)
• gave the US a reason to intervene - here I would just talk about Truman's policy of containment, Gulf of Tonkin etc?

however, i'm not sure if i should have an additional first paragraph about it leading to the Geneva conventions (which led to the division of Vietnam)? Because I tried writing one out but it was only about 100 words :/ I feel like it is important, but it's very short and I don't know what else to say besides the fact that it caused the nation to split. I could make it longer by giving some details about the Accords but then I'm worried the teachers will say there's too much 'narrative' and 're-telling'.
Also, for specific issues in the North/South, since it's asking about CONSEQUENCES does that mean that I can't talk about the "Political, Social, Economic and Military Developments within North and South Vietnam"? (that's a syllabus dot point) in general but instead pick out the issues such as Diem's oppressive rule and his brutality in the South and food/agricultural issues in the North? Would this differ if the question said assess the SIGNIFICANCE instead?


2. Assess the importance of anti-communism in shaping the policies of the United States towards Indochina up to 1969.
3. Assess the role of communism in shaping the conflict in Vietnam to 1969.
For these two questions, I was thinking of structuring it by presidents

• Truman + Eisenhower together since they weren't as significant I feel?
• Kennedy
• Johnson

For the 'anti-communism' question I was going to approach it in that anti-communism was the inital/overarching reason, however other factors such as prestige played a role, and I would do this by Presidents, however for the "shaping the conflict" one, I'm not so sure how I would evaluate it.


4. To what extent was the US involvement responsible for the ongoing conflict in Vietnam?
And then this question, I just don't know how to structure it at all. One paragraph idea I had was how the US provided aid/funding to the South, therefore prolonging the war and conflict, and their support for Diem, but that's about it.

I know I have a lot of questions, sorry! Thank you in advance.

Hey there!

The first plan sounds great for Indochina, however I do agree that you must include something about the Geneva Accords. This was the main result of Dien Bien Phu. As a consequence, this then dictated the social, economic and and political issues in the North and South as well as America's foreign policy. Perhaps you could address these concerns in the structure you have set out - where you appear to be talking about the effects on each state individually

The questions on anti communism are essentially the same, and you would be right in going through the presidents chronologically. However, for the second of these two, it is also important to look at how communism shaped the North and South as well, as it is an open ended question. Therefore, I would be inclined to write in a state by state format once again.

For the last question, I would approach it chronologically. Split the period up into pre war, during war and post war (or the Nixon years). In these periods, you would then evaluate the part that America played in either continuing or ending the war.

Hope this is helpful!

[rodero]

Hey guys!
I was just wondering what goes into a thematic essay. It's something that I had never heard of until going to the ATARNotes lectures, and I think it should be something I should explore when finding my writing style. First off, I have some basic understanding of how a thematic response is structured; My guess is it that it includes some element which persists throughout the topic, and this is what drives the argument. Is this correct?

Anyway, what I really want to get into is how a thematic response works in my National Study Germany. What are some themes that we see in this topic? I can't think of much aside from maybe betrayal, social/political/economic instability and democracy (If these are even considered themes?). My problem is that I can't separate these themes from the syllabus dot points. E.g. My theme of betrayal would link to the dot point of the emergence of a Republic and the Treaty of Versailles, so there's no difference between a thematic structure and a syllabus heading structure.

I think I need some clarity on what the themes are in Germany and where we see them throughout the syllabus, rather than just in one dot point (Are the themes the 'key features and issues' in the syllabus or do we come up with our own?). I'm probably rambling on now so I might just stop here  It's just that my teacher hasn't shown us this thematic structure and it looks like she focuses more on a chronological / event approach, so some deeper insight into other ways of writing would be great!

I've just read my question and I think you guys might be confused at what I'm asking so I'll say them specifically below:
1. What is a thematic structure
2. Where do we see themes in the National Study of Germany
3. Are themes the 'key features and issues' which are stated in the syllabus

Again, thank you guys for being such a great help and showing me new things which I would never have known otherwise!

[sudodds]

Hey guys!
I was just wondering what goes into a thematic essay. It's something that I had never heard of until going to the ATARNotes lectures, and I think it should be something I should explore when finding my writing style. First off, I have some basic understanding of how a thematic response is structured; My guess is it that it includes some element which persists throughout the topic, and this is what drives the argument. Is this correct?

Anyway, what I really want to get into is how a thematic response works in my National Study Germany. What are some themes that we see in this topic? I can't think of much aside from maybe betrayal, social/political/economic instability and democracy (If these are even considered themes?). My problem is that I can't separate these themes from the syllabus dot points. E.g. My theme of betrayal would link to the dot point of the emergence of a Republic and the Treaty of Versailles, so there's no difference between a thematic structure and a syllabus heading structure.

I think I need some clarity on what the themes are in Germany and where we see them throughout the syllabus, rather than just in one dot point (Are the themes the 'key features and issues' in the syllabus or do we come up with our own?). I'm probably rambling on now so I might just stop here  It's just that my teacher hasn't shown us this thematic structure and it looks like she focuses more on a chronological / event approach, so some deeper insight into other ways of writing would be great!

I've just read my question and I think you guys might be confused at what I'm asking so I'll say them specifically below:
1. What is a thematic structure
2. Where do we see themes in the National Study of Germany
3. Are themes the 'key features and issues' which are stated in the syllabus

Again, thank you guys for being such a great help and showing me new things which I would never have known otherwise!

Hey rodero!

Love hearing that you came to the lecture - plenty more to come  Unfortunately I didn't study Germany (Jake and Emily did so they can probably help more with the specifics) but a thematic essay is pretty much always structured according to these themes:

- Political
- Economic
- Social
- Cultural (can sometimes be included within the social themes paragraph, you'd then call it socio-cultural)
- Military
- Geopolitical

The first three in bold are usually the most important, and I'd say feature within most thematic essays, however the other themes can also be quite significant depending on your topic (e.g. for a Cold War essay geopolitical themes are really significant). So you'd have a paragraph dedicated to each theme

Thematic essays work for most questions, however they are particularly well suited to those types of questions that appear more broad, and are also really good if you feel like you lack a strong understanding of a particular event or factor. Let me clarify that with that last point I AM NOT saying that you can get away with including less detail in a thematic essay and that you can "study less," but lets say you were going to write a syllabus essay on the Weimar Republic, but your knowledge of the Treaty of Versailles is a bit lacking, in terms of specifics and detail. Writing an entire paragraph on the Treaty of Versailles then is going to be pretty fk'n hard, as you will have to provide more context and explanation. However, if you were doing a thematic essay you would not necessarily need to provide this context, and more so just include what knowledge you do have (usually overall cause and effect) on the Treaty of Versailles and how it impacted the political, economic and social landscape of Germany at the time. Again --> DO NOT use a thematic structure to avoid learning detail. It is still super important. But there are always going to be weak areas, and sometimes thematic essays can accomodate for that.

However, that being said, thematic essays can be really tricky to write, as they involve the extrapolating of themes from a variety of different factors - which is no easy feat. It requires a really good understanding of the core concepts and issues of your case studies, and it is critical when writing thematic essays that you understand the various through-lines and links between the different factors. Some students find that they get quite confused while writing them also, as it often requires you to discuss events not in chronological order (however in a way I think that this point is a plus, as it forces students to not write narratives).

The stuff that you mentioned are what my teacher normally referred to as "factors", so basically anything that is a little bit more specific to your topic. Factors are often the events and issues raised in the syllabus, however that is not always the case. Factor essays are also super valid, and can afford you equally high marks in the HSC when done well (like with all essay structures - there isn't one particular essay structure that is "better" it's really just down to what you are most comfortable writing). Looking at my HSC as an example, I learnt pretty early on which types of essay I was most comfortable writing for each section (some people use the same structure for all - I was more varied)

For Russia: The Bolshevik Consolidation of Power --> Always structured according to the syllabus, so a paragraph on the social and political reforms, a paragraph on the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, a paragraph on the Civil War and War Communism, and a paragraph on the NEP. These could also have been considered factors!

For Russia: The Soviet State under Stalin --> Always structured thematically, so a paragraph on his political impact (linking it to the political purges and show trials), economic impact (linking it to collectivisation and industrialisation) and socio-cultural impact (linking it to the terror in the countryside, and his impact on education, art and the media).

For Cold War: Origins AND Development (and sometimes even Detente) --> Always structured by factors, even if not explicitly outlined in the syllabus, so a paragraph on ideology, a paragraph on containment, a paragraph on the arms race and a paragraph on the geopolitical crises. 

So yeah that is basically an outline of what a thematic structure is I'm sure that you would be able to relate political, economic, and social themes to the Germany unit even though I didn't study it (I'm learning through some of my tutoring students though haha), but I'll let Jake and Emily take over now with their superior knowledge if they have something else to add more specifically to that unit

Hope this helps!

Susie

[Snew]

Any help for this question would be sincerely appreciated! 

Evaluate the view that the failings of the Weimar Republic were responsible for Hitler's accession to power

I only have a paragraph about the March 1930 crisis, I'm stuck on what else to write about?
Thanks

[bowiemily]

Any help for this question would be sincerely appreciated! 

Evaluate the view that the failings of the Weimar Republic were responsible for Hitler's accession to power

I only have a paragraph about the March 1930 crisis, I'm stuck on what else to write about?
Thanks

I would think of the specific failings of Weimar, and then see if you could link them up with the rise of the Nazi party and therefore, Hitler's accession to power. For example:

1. The lack of strong leadership during the period (revolving coalition governments) ----> the strong appeal of the Hitler figure
2. The military's hatred for the Weimar government because of the Treaty of Versailles etc ----> the way Hitler exploited this to gain power
3. The junkers and how they were ignored by Weimar ---> how hitler exploited this
4. The constitution that was supposed to protect democracy ----> how Hitler used it to undermine the system itself

[stephjones]

hey guys! i have to do a speech on the soviet union and my question is

Evaluate the view that Bolshevik power was consolidated only because Lenin modified Communist ideology in the period 1917-1924.

I was just wondering what sort of thing I have to talk about regarding the "evaluate the view" part - do I need to find and talk about a specific view or can I just say something like "Bolshevik power was only consolidated as a result of Lenin's modification of Communist ideology" and base my speech around that?

[stephjones]

Also how would I reference Lenin's April Theses?

[sudodds]

hey guys! i have to do a speech on the soviet union and my question is

Evaluate the view that Bolshevik power was consolidated only because Lenin modified Communist ideology in the period 1917-1924.

I was just wondering what sort of thing I have to talk about regarding the "evaluate the view" part - do I need to find and talk about a specific view or can I just say something like "Bolshevik power was only consolidated as a result of Lenin's modification of Communist ideology" and base my speech around that?

Hey hey!

The "view" they are asking you to evaluate is "Bolshevik power was consolidated only because Lenin modified Communist ideology in the period 1917-1924", they are not asking you to find a specific "view" in regards to the question - the question is the view if that makes sense  . Therefore basing your speech around the judgement that Bolshevik power was only consolidated as a result of Lenin's modification of Communist ideology is great!

Unrelated but I actually really like that question! May seem pretty tricky and specific, but it is going to expose you to what I think is the most sophisticated way to link all the factors back to consolidation, particularly when doing a differentiated essay, i.e. the "pragmatism v. ideological adherence" debate! Great practice for future responses, even if they aren't as explicit about the debate within the question.

Also how would I reference Lenin's April Theses?

Do you mean reference it as in how to include it within the speech and link it to the factors, or how to actually reference it in a bibliography (i.e. what text type it falls under)?

[stephjones]

Hey hey!

The "view" they are asking you to evaluate is "Bolshevik power was consolidated only because Lenin modified Communist ideology in the period 1917-1924", they are not asking you to find a specific "view" in regards to the question - the question is the view if that makes sense  . Therefore basing your speech around the judgement that Bolshevik power was only consolidated as a result of Lenin's modification of Communist ideology is great!

Unrelated but I actually really like that question! May seem pretty tricky and specific, but it is going to expose you to what I think is the most sophisticated way to link all the factors back to consolidation, particularly when doing a differentiated essay, i.e. the "pragmatism v. ideological adherence" debate! Great practice for future responses, even if they aren't as explicit about the debate within the question.

Ahh awesome thank you so much! I was a bit worried that I would have to incorporate different historians views and I was really unsure how to do that, but that's great!!

Do you mean reference it as in how to include it within the speech and link it to the factors, or how to actually reference it in a bibliography (i.e. what text type it falls under)?

Actually put it in my bibliography haha, I think i found a copy of it online but I just don't really know how to structure it (in harvard form)

[sudodds]

Ahh awesome thank you so much! I was a bit worried that I would have to incorporate different historians views and I was really unsure how to do that, but that's great!!

Nah that's not necessary I mean including a historians quote would be fine (I would be hesitant to include quotes that went against your argument however as you don't want it to be percieved as you making a split judgement!), but you can still get a fantastic mark without them! It would definitely be nice though to find a couple of quotes from historians or even Lenin himself that support your argument!

Some good quotes I can think of off the top of my head (I can't believe I remember them still!):
- “[The Provisional Government in comparison to the Bolsheviks] had no popular mandate and little popular support.” ~ AJP Taylor.
- “[the Bolsheviks were] saddled by the imperative conditions of war-time.” ~ Lenin on War Communism.
- “We had to show the peasants that we could and would quickly change our policy to alleviate their want” ~ Lenin on the NEP.

Actually put it in my bibliography haha, I think i found a copy of it online but I just don't really know how to structure it (in harvard form)

I think it would be:

Lenin, V. 1917, 'The Tasks of the Proletariat in the Present Revolution', April Theses, Pravda, Moscow.

Though I'm not 100% sure (particularly the 'April Theses' bit - the guide I found for theses only gave the example for PHD theses  ). If you're ever in doubt, just reference it as a website - they're unlikely to care/check too much in high school (uni on the other hand... )