ATAR Notes: Forum

HSC Stuff => HSC History => HSC Humanities Stuff => HSC Subjects + Help => HSC Modern History => Topic started by: jakesilove on January 28, 2016, 08:05:09 pm

Title: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on January 28, 2016, 08:05:09 pm
HSC MODERN HISTORY Q&A THREAD

To go straight to posts for the new syllabus, click here.

What is this thread for?
If you have general questions about the HSC Modern History course or how to improve in certain areas, this is the place to ask! 👌

Who can/will answer questions?
Everyone is welcome to contribute; even if you're unsure of yourself, providing different perspectives is incredibly valuable.

Please don't be dissuaded by the fact that you haven't finished Year 12, or didn't score as highly as others, or your advice contradicts something else you've seen on this thread, or whatever; none of this disqualifies you from helping others. And if you're worried you do have some sort of misconception, put it out there and someone else can clarify and modify your understanding! 

There'll be a whole bunch of other high-scoring students with their own wealths of wisdom to share with you. So you may even get multiple answers from different people offering their insights - very cool.


To ask a question or make a post, you will first need an ATAR Notes account. You probably already have one, but if you don't, it takes about four seconds to sign up - and completely free!

OTHER MODERN HISTORY RESOURCES
CLICK ME!
* Free Modern History notes
* HSC Modern History Question Thread
* 5 Top Tips for History Essay Success
* Modern History Debate Thread
* Compilation of Available Sources in HSC Past Papers
* LINKS - Why you need to link syllabus dot points in Modern History!
* Modern History Reading/Resource Guide

Original post.
Before you can ask a question, you'll have to make an ATAR Notes account here. Once you've done that, a little 'reply' button will come up when you're viewing threads, and you'll be able to post whatever you want! :)

Hey everyone!

A lot of you will have met me at the HSC Head Start lectures, where I lectured in 2U and 3U Maths, Physics and Chemistry.
My role on these forums is to help you. The HSC syllabus is tricky, nuanced and pretty damn huge. To help you out, I thought it would be a great idea to have a forum where you can just post questions, and myself or other forum members can post answers!

This is a community, so we want you to feel like you can post any type of Modern question, no matter how "basic" you might think it is. Remember, IF YOU'RE HAVING TROUBLE WITH A TOPIC, THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF OTHERS HAVING THE SAME ISSUE. Between Elyse - the ATAR Notes Legal Studies lecturer - and myself, we've done many options and have a lot of relevant skills, so be sure to ask anything that you think could benefit you!

Remember that Modern can be a difficult course. There will be lots of answers to the same questions, and I'll try give you the best or easiest to remember ones.

I got an ATAR of 99.80, and a mark of 94 in the the Modern course. There are similar forums for a bunch of other subjects, so make sure to take a look at them as well!
Title: Re: 94 in Modern: Ask Me Anything!
Post by: ipodlady on January 29, 2016, 04:34:15 pm
Hey Jake, I went to the Head Start 2U Lecture and was wondering why there wasn't a Modern History lecture because that's the subjecy which I struggle in the most. Also do you do private tutoring? I'm not sure if I should get a tutor. Also, Brendan mentioned that ATAR Notes has free assessment marking, do you know anything about that?
Thanks!  :)
Title: Re: 94 in Modern: Ask Me Anything!
Post by: brenden on January 29, 2016, 05:26:47 pm
Hey Jake, I went to the Head Start 2U Lecture and was wondering why there wasn't a Modern History lecture because that's the subjecy which I struggle in the most. Also do you do private tutoring? I'm not sure if I should get a tutor. Also, Brendan mentioned that ATAR Notes has free assessment marking, do you know anything about that?
Thanks!  :)
Hey IPL!

This time around, we had limited venue capacity because there were other events on at UTS and stuff like that, so all the space available to us was used up by the subjects we did run! We're going to try and offer more and more subjects in the future :).

As for the free assessment marking - if I said that, I was meaning to say 'free essay marking', which can be found here .
Title: Re: 94 in Modern: Ask Me Anything!
Post by: Sarahhhhhb on January 29, 2016, 06:08:09 pm
Hi Jake,
What are your tips for success in modern history?
How did you study/memorise the content and how much extra reading/learning do you recommend doing in order to achieve top results?
Also, what is your advice on how to write a band 6 essay, particularly in the national study?
Thanks in advance!
Title: Re: 94 in Modern: Ask Me Anything!
Post by: bananamilk9936 on January 29, 2016, 07:28:59 pm
I went to your past 2U lecture and i asked about whether or not you could present your past HSC notes on the topics from the Modern History course that you did. I know it might not be the same as mine but it would be helpful to at least see your WWI notes, if thaat's possible of course.  :) Thanks
Title: Re: 94 in Modern: Ask Me Anything!
Post by: KarenCho on January 29, 2016, 07:58:01 pm
Hey! :)

So I'm a Year 11 student starting the Preliminary Modern course this year right now actually. What would you recommend to focus most heavily on in the Preliminary course? How much of the Preliminary course (transferable skills or knowledge) are applicable to the HSC course? Also, how would you go about note-taking or studying for Modern History as a whole?

Thanks!!
Title: Re: 94 in Modern: Ask Me Anything!
Post by: jakesilove on January 29, 2016, 08:27:08 pm
Hey Jake, I went to the Head Start 2U Lecture and was wondering why there wasn't a Modern History lecture because that's the subjecy which I struggle in the most. Also do you do private tutoring? I'm not sure if I should get a tutor. Also, Brendan mentioned that ATAR Notes has free assessment marking, do you know anything about that?
Thanks!  :)

Hey ipodlady!

I think Brenden responded to most of your concern, but I thought I'd just add my opinion regarding private tutoring.

I think it's very difficult to get a tutor for Modern History, primarily because there are so many different topics. It would be hard to find someone who did the same subjects as you, unless perhaps they were at the same school as you.

Thank being said, you could definitely get someone to help you with technique, if that's what you're struggling with. What I mean by that is: get a tutor to help you figure out how to write, not what to write. So decide what it is you're struggling with (Is it finding enough facts? Or writing in the style of a Modern Historian?) and take the appropriate steps to fix that :)

I personally don't do Modern History tutoring, however there are loads of people who do. I'll be creating some Modern history resources and study tip documents, so keep your eye out!

Hope this helps :)

Jake
Title: Re: 94 in Modern: Ask Me Anything!
Post by: jakesilove on January 29, 2016, 08:46:06 pm
Hi Jake,
What are your tips for success in modern history?
How did you study/memorise the content and how much extra reading/learning do you recommend doing in order to achieve top results?
Also, what is your advice on how to write a band 6 essay, particularly in the national study?
Thanks in advance!

Hey Sarahhhhhb (I take it that Sarahhhhha was taken?)

A very loaded question, and I'll be addressing a lot of your concerns in content I release in the future, but for now I'll try give you a brief summary of my opinion.

Let's start with "how much extra content do I need". My response is always the same: That depends on your teacher. At our school, our teacher gave us a 500 page booklet at the start of every term, and researching more than that would have been insane. That being said, perhaps your teacher's style is more "At one point there was a war. Cool right? Go research that. Oh I dunno. The first one?".

Every proposition you make in Modern History, for a top level response, should be supported by AT LEAST one specific, accurate, relevant, detailed example. So what I did was just pick out what we could be assessed on and wrote down a few stats for each part, and then memorised them. In total, I had to memorise hundreds and hundreds of stats. Keep a bank of the best ones, don't bother finding more if you already have a few for a section.

If you want a specific number, I had about 10-15 SARDEs per specific section section. The conditions of women in Britain during WWI? 10 SARDEs. The nature of trench warfare? 15 SARDEs (easier to remember, more likely to be assessed).

Okay, so now you have a beautiful list of stats, either researched of (ideally) given to you by your teachers. BUT HOW DO I MEMORISE 150 STATS. AND THAT'S JUST FOR ONE FREAKIN' TOPIC.

I'm going to write a comprehensive guide to this in the next month or so. However I'll give you a taster- worksheets.

Write yourself a worksheet that says "The Battle of Verdun was on the ___ of _____, 19__". Each worksheet should probably be about one specific topic, with ONLY THE ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL STATISTICS. Not those extra ones you throw in for fun, the BARE MINIMUM.

Photocopy each work sheet a thousand times (Okay probably like 100).

Do each worksheet 5 times a day.

Do this every day.

For a week.

For two weeks.

No matter how boring, no matter how well you think you know the content.

Thank me later :)

So now we have the important stats and we've memorised them. But how do we write a band 6 essay? The answer is always with a thesis so supported by evidence that even a historian is convinced.

Extra reading (books written by historians etc.) is a great way to build a thesis, although definitely isn't necessary. Always have a thesis prepared, always bring your paragraphs back to your thesis, always support your claims with statistics, dates, quotes, etc. That's really it: Have a solid, clear thesis (that is made absolutely evident in the introduction: do not build up to your thesis, make it clear from the get go) and include loads and loads of SARDEs. You can't go overboard with statistics.

I hope that helps! By the end of the year you'll have a solid thesis for every possible question, so you may as well start thinking about them now! Make them a little different, but not too out-there (WWII was actually an Australian conspiracy to allow for mass exportation of Vegemite etc.).

Great question! Would love more people to get involved in the forum, by both answering and asking questions!

Before you can ask a question, you'll have to make an ATAR Notes account here. Once you've done that, a little 'reply' button will come up when you're viewing threads, and you'll be able to post whatever you want! :)

Jake :)
Title: Re: 94 in Modern: Ask Me Anything!
Post by: jakesilove on January 29, 2016, 08:51:17 pm
I went to your past 2U lecture and i asked about whether or not you could present your past HSC notes on the topics from the Modern History course that you did. I know it might not be the same as mine but it would be helpful to at least see your WWI notes, if thaat's possible of course.  :) Thanks

Hey banamilk9936!

I'm planning in the next few weeks/within the month to release worksheets with a list of stats (and corresponding answers to the worksheets) that you can print out and fill in. That is really the important part of the WWI topic: the statistics you use, and then the way you answer questions. Whilst I can't go through the whole of the WWI curriculum, I can definitely give you the ONLY statistics that you'll need to use throughout the year.

Keep an eye out! Loads more great content to come, from a whole bunch of fantastic contributors.

Great question (even if I can't give you the notes yet, but again I promise that they're on their way!). If anyone has any other responses, or questions like this, please feel free to post to the forum. This is a totally open discussion, so no matter what level you are at we are here to help!


Before you can ask a question, you'll have to make an ATAR Notes account here. Once you've done that, a little 'reply' button will come up when you're viewing threads, and you'll be able to post whatever you want! :)

Jake :)
Title: Re: 94 in Modern: Ask Me Anything!
Post by: jakesilove on January 29, 2016, 08:55:50 pm
Hey! :)

So I'm a Year 11 student starting the Preliminary Modern course this year right now actually. What would you recommend to focus most heavily on in the Preliminary course? How much of the Preliminary course (transferable skills or knowledge) are applicable to the HSC course? Also, how would you go about note-taking or studying for Modern History as a whole?

Thanks!!

Hey KarenCho!

Firstly, it's great to see some Year 11s on the site! This is a great community for all High School students, and whilst it's definitely focused on those in their final year, there is so much you can gain from just keeping an eye on these forums. Definitely get your friends in on it as well!

In terms of content, there is usually little transferable skills. That being said, so many schools do so many different options that it is really hard to tell. For instance, you might do a "lead up to WWI" topic which would be supremely helpful for the WWI HSC topic!

The most important aspect of the Preliminary course, in my opinion, is the way you study/complete source analysis questions. This is often one of the hardest skills to master, so practicing now will put you in a really good position next year.

In regards to general study tips, I'll refer you to another post I made recently on this forum (See Reply #7). Whilst not all of it is transferable to the Prelim course, the study tips certainly are! If you get in a great habit of study now, you have no idea how much that will help next year.

I'm really glad we have some Year 11 students here asking great questions! No matter what year group or level you are at, please feel free to post questions regarding content or study tips!

Before you can ask a question, you'll have to make an ATAR Notes account here. Once you've done that, a little 'reply' button will come up when you're viewing threads, and you'll be able to post whatever you want! :)

Jake :)
Title: Re: 94 in Modern: Ask Me Anything!
Post by: KarenCho on January 29, 2016, 09:37:29 pm
Hey Jake!

Yeah, definitely. I attended Elyse's legal studies lecture and decided that

With that being said, thank you so much for your help so far! I understand how the skills would be a lot more transferable than the topics themselves for the most part.
Also, that method to remember statistics is by far the most interesting and most likely to actually work for me so far.

Looking forward to more of your resource posts :)
Title: Re: 94 in Modern: Ask Me Anything!
Post by: jakesilove on January 29, 2016, 09:46:19 pm
Hey Jake!

Yeah, definitely. I attended Elyse's legal studies lecture and decided that
  • this is an amazing and helpful community
  • at this point, there is no such thing as too much knowledge and it's never too early

With that being said, thank you so much for your help so far! I understand how the skills would be a lot more transferable than the topics themselves for the most part.
Also, that method to remember statistics is by far the most interesting and most likely to actually work for me so far.

Looking forward to more of your resource posts :)

I'm really glad to hear that KarenCho!

Elyse is a fantastic lecturer, and will also be releasing a hell of a lot of incredible content for you and your peers. On that note, make sure to involve as many people as possible (am I suggesting you recommend ATARnotes to all of your friends? Maybe...), because the more this community grows the better it will be for you in 2017!

Also, if you're responding to a specific post, I'd suggest clicking the "quote" button on the post so it's really, really obvious. Right now that's not so much of a problem, since there are relatively few posts, however in the next few weeks these forums will go absolutely wild!

So glad to have you on board, keep posting away!

Jake
Title: Re: 94 in Modern: Ask Me Anything!
Post by: Sarahhhhhb on January 29, 2016, 10:19:53 pm
Hey Sarahhhhhb (I take it that Sarahhhhha was taken?)

A very loaded question, and I'll be addressing a lot of your concerns in content I release in the future, but for now I'll try give you a brief summary of my opinion.

Let's start with "how much extra content do I need". My response is always the same: That depends on your teacher. At our school, our teacher gave us a 500 page booklet at the start of every term, and researching more than that would have been insane. That being said, perhaps your teacher's style is more "At one point there was a war. Cool right? Go research that. Oh I dunno. The first one?".

Every proposition you make in Modern History, for a top level response, should be supported by AT LEAST one specific, accurate, relevant, detailed example. So what I did was just pick out what we could be assessed on and wrote down a few stats for each part, and then memorised them. In total, I had to memorise hundreds and hundreds of stats. Keep a bank of the best ones, don't bother finding more if you already have a few for a section.

If you want a specific number, I had about 10-15 SARDEs per specific section section. The conditions of women in Britain during WWI? 10 SARDEs. The nature of trench warfare? 15 SARDEs (easier to remember, more likely to be assessed).

Okay, so now you have a beautiful list of stats, either researched of (ideally) given to you by your teachers. BUT HOW DO I MEMORISE 150 STATS. AND THAT'S JUST FOR ONE FREAKIN' TOPIC.

I'm going to write a comprehensive guide to this in the next month or so. However I'll give you a taster- worksheets.

Write yourself a worksheet that says "The Battle of Verdun was on the ___ of _____, 19__". Each worksheet should probably be about one specific topic, with ONLY THE ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL STATISTICS. Not those extra ones you throw in for fun, the BARE MINIMUM.

Photocopy each work sheet a thousand times (Okay probably like 100).

Do each worksheet 5 times a day.

Do this every day.

For a week.

For two weeks.

No matter how boring, no matter how well you think you know the content.

Thank me later :)

So now we have the important stats and we've memorised them. But how do we write a band 6 essay? The answer is always with a thesis so supported by evidence that even a historian is convinced.

Extra reading (books written by historians etc.) is a great way to build a thesis, although definitely isn't necessary. Always have a thesis prepared, always bring your paragraphs back to your thesis, always support your claims with statistics, dates, quotes, etc. That's really it: Have a solid, clear thesis (that is made absolutely evident in the introduction: do not build up to your thesis, make it clear from the get go) and include loads and loads of SARDEs. You can't go overboard with statistics.

I hope that helps! By the end of the year you'll have a solid thesis for every possible question, so you may as well start thinking about them now! Make them a little different, but not too out-there (WWII was actually an Australian conspiracy to allow for mass exportation of Vegemite etc.).

Great question! Would love more people to get involved in the forum, by both answering and asking questions!

Before you can ask a question, you'll have to make an ATAR Notes account here. Once you've done that, a little 'reply' button will come up when you're viewing threads, and you'll be able to post whatever you want! :)

Jake :)

Thanks that was really helpful :)

I will definitely start making worksheets for both WW1 and the National Study and researching more SARDEs (slightly jealous of the 500 page booklets!) so I can get on top of all the content before half yearlies!

Looking forward to more of your resources!
Title: Re: 94 in Modern: Ask Me Anything!
Post by: KarenCho on January 29, 2016, 11:32:49 pm
I'm really glad to hear that KarenCho!

Elyse is a fantastic lecturer, and will also be releasing a hell of a lot of incredible content for you and your peers. On that note, make sure to involve as many people as possible (am I suggesting you recommend ATARnotes to all of your friends? Maybe...), because the more this community grows the better it will be for you in 2017!

Also, if you're responding to a specific post, I'd suggest clicking the "quote" button on the post so it's really, really obvious. Right now that's not so much of a problem, since there are relatively few posts, however in the next few weeks these forums will go absolutely wild!

So glad to have you on board, keep posting away!

Jake

Definitely will recommend ATARNotes to everyone, no worries :) In the end it benefits everyone, so why not?

Also yeah, my bad! I'm still getting a hang of using the forums and such, but I understand what you mean, thanks!
Title: Re: 94 in Modern: Ask Me Anything!
Post by: jakesilove on February 12, 2016, 09:45:08 am
Hey all!

To everyone that's been asking about the best way to study for Modern History, or needs some help with statistics for the WWI section, look no further! I've developed a resource that should help you out :)

Top Tip for Memorising Statistics (and all the World War I Stats You'll Need!)

Jake
Title: Re: 94 in Modern: Ask Me Anything!
Post by: Belkelly on February 20, 2016, 01:56:48 pm
Hi Jake,

Thanks so much for the WW1 sards. I find them really helpful! I've just started HSC modern history and wondered if there was a way to do SARDS for the other subjects such as Advanced English and Biology.
Did you do Sards for these subjects also?
Thanks :) loving Atar notes!
Title: Re: 94 in Modern: Ask Me Anything!
Post by: jakesilove on February 20, 2016, 03:42:40 pm
Hi Jake,

Thanks so much for the WW1 sards. I find them really helpful! I've just started HSC modern history and wondered if there was a way to do SARDS for the other subjects such as Advanced English and Biology.
Did you do Sards for these subjects also?
Thanks :) loving Atar notes!

Hey Belkelly!

I think it is a great idea to treat other subjects as though they have SARDEs, and the write worksheets for them accordingly. I didn't do that, only because I discovered the worksheet method very late in the year, but I would strongly recommend you write some yourself! If you wanted help editing them or anything like that, please post on the forums.

I'm glad you enjoyed the resource!

Jake
Title: Re: 94 in Modern: Ask Me Anything!
Post by: Sarahhhhhb on February 27, 2016, 09:20:57 pm
Hey!
I'm working on the essay "Evaluate Hitler’s role in the Nazi state between 1933 and 1939" but I'm not sure what to include/how to structure the answer. Any help would be appreciated! Thanks!
Sarah
Title: Re: 94 in Modern: Ask Me Anything!
Post by: elysepopplewell on February 29, 2016, 11:18:03 am
Hey!
I'm working on the essay "Evaluate Hitler’s role in the Nazi state between 1933 and 1939" but I'm not sure what to include/how to structure the answer. Any help would be appreciated! Thanks!
Sarah

Hey Sarah! You need to make an opinion here, and this is a really cool question because you could go either way and be right! Personally, I argue that Hitler's role in the Nazi state was important but not conclusive. I specifically give mention to the propaganda ministry for their role in perpetuating Fuhrerprinzip and creating the complete atomisation of society through strict maintenance of propaganda. Hitler simply would not have the power that he did if the propaganda ministry wasn't strong.

The Gestapo, SS and SA also played an enormous role in the Nazi state. I mean, they created utter terror in the state. They were the brutal enforcement of everything Hitler had to say.

Don't forget, that the Nazi state was a polycratic government. Some historians argue that Hitler was just a figure head, others argue he made the biggest decisions and therefore was extremely important.

The dotpoint on totalitarianism will help you with this question. To me, the Nazi state simply could not have existed in the way it did, if it did not extensively use terror and propaganda! To me, Hitler was the figurehead of the fuhrerprinzip idea but I believe he was easily distracted by side projects, like the architecture he worked on with Albert Speer.

This is simply my opinion, of course, but I'm showing you how you can argue this. Perhaps you think that Hitler was the most important person in all of this and could have worked independently of all other help?

Hopefully this assists you a bit!

Remember, the question asks you to evaluate. So you definitely need to form an opinion and argue it! :)
Title: Re: 94 in Modern: Ask Me Anything!
Post by: Sarahhhhhb on February 29, 2016, 03:43:58 pm
Hey Sarah! You need to make an opinion here, and this is a really cool question because you could go either way and be right! Personally, I argue that Hitler's role in the Nazi state was important but not conclusive. I specifically give mention to the propaganda ministry for their role in perpetuating Fuhrerprinzip and creating the complete atomisation of society through strict maintenance of propaganda. Hitler simply would not have the power that he did if the propaganda ministry wasn't strong.

The Gestapo, SS and SA also played an enormous role in the Nazi state. I mean, they created utter terror in the state. They were the brutal enforcement of everything Hitler had to say.

Don't forget, that the Nazi state was a polycratic government. Some historians argue that Hitler was just a figure head, others argue he made the biggest decisions and therefore was extremely important.

The dotpoint on totalitarianism will help you with this question. To me, the Nazi state simply could not have existed in the way it did, if it did not extensively use terror and propaganda! To me, Hitler was the figurehead of the fuhrerprinzip idea but I believe he was easily distracted by side projects, like the architecture he worked on with Albert Speer.

This is simply my opinion, of course, but I'm showing you how you can argue this. Perhaps you think that Hitler was the most important person in all of this and could have worked independently of all other help?

Hopefully this assists you a bit!

Remember, the question asks you to evaluate. So you definitely need to form an opinion and argue it! :)

Thanks heaps, that was really helpful! :)
Title: Re: 94 in Modern: Ask Me Anything!
Post by: chuckiecheese on March 06, 2016, 11:54:04 am
So my half yearly's are in a week. The core and Germany from 1919-1939. In the second essay question, I will have a choice (presumably), between Weimar Germany and Nazi Germany. Should I choose the Nazi question or the Weimar question? Will my marks be disregarded if I chose one over the other?

Just a thought.

Cheers
Title: Re: 94 in Modern: Ask Me Anything!
Post by: jakesilove on March 06, 2016, 01:30:00 pm
So my half yearly's are in a week. The core and Germany from 1919-1939. In the second essay question, I will have a choice (presumably), between Weimar Germany and Nazi Germany. Should I choose the Nazi question or the Weimar question? Will my marks be disregarded if I chose one over the other?

Just a thought.

Cheers

Hey!

So I'll just quickly summarise the general trend in terms of assessment/marking for each question. The crux of it is that it really doesn't matter which you choose: go with the one you are stronger with! However, there are definite points to make for each.

Weimar: Generally considered the 'easier' question. This isn't always the case, obviously, but usually more students choose this question than the Nazi question. As such, it is marked more harshly, a lot of the time. That being said, it usually is easier, so despite the harder marking you'll still do well as you will write a great essay. Remembering that more students choose this section, try to have a unique thesis!

Nazi: Generally considered the 'harder' question. This isn't always the case, obviously, but usually less students choose this question than the Weimar question. As such, it can be marked "more easily" some of the time. However, often coming up with a sustained thesis is difficult, so if you have trouble with this sections stick with Weimar.

So, in the end, it's whichever you prefer/are stronger in. If you are exactly as confident in both, I generally choose the Nazi question as fewer students do it. But really, it doesn't matter that much!

Hope this helps!

Jake
Title: Re: 94 in Modern: Ask Me Anything!
Post by: chuckiecheese on March 10, 2016, 02:49:15 pm
Hey Man,

Did you do extension history? It would be great if someone could beef up that forum on this site!

Cheers
Title: Re: 94 in Modern: Ask Me Anything!
Post by: jakesilove on March 10, 2016, 02:54:06 pm
Hey Man,

Did you do extension history? It would be great if someone could beef up that forum on this site!

Cheers

Hey! Unfortunately I didn't, but if you want to post any notes or questions please feel free to! We will be constantly expanding over the next few months, so hopefully we get more activity on that end :)

Jake
Title: Re: 94 in Modern: Ask Me Anything!
Post by: imtrying on March 17, 2016, 09:31:31 am
Hey :)
I have an essay for my midcourse on To what extent was the collapse of the Weimar Republic the result of the Depression
I've submitted a draft to my teacher and she suggested I add in some info about the Dawes and Young Plan. How does this tie in? Is it just that foreign banks couldn't continue to assist due to the Depression?
Thanks so much
Title: Re: 94 in Modern: Ask Me Anything!
Post by: elysepopplewell on March 17, 2016, 01:52:05 pm
Hey :)
I have an essay for my midcourse on To what extent was the collapse of the Weimar Republic the result of the Depression
I've submitted a draft to my teacher and she suggested I add in some info about the Dawes and Young Plan. How does this tie in? Is it just that foreign banks couldn't continue to assist due to the Depression?
Thanks so much

Hey! So under the Dawes Plan, USA gave Germany a loan of $200million USD. So when the US started to fall economically because of the Depression, they were absolutely not going to use their spare cash to help Germany out. So you're absolutely right, the foreign banks definitely couldn't play a bigger role than what the Dawes and Young Plans hoped for - in fact it was a struggle to even reach that quota!
Title: Re: 94 in Modern: Ask Me Anything!
Post by: Son of Thatcher on March 24, 2016, 12:30:13 pm
Hey Man,

Did you do extension history? It would be great if someone could beef up that forum on this site!

Cheers

I do it myself. Although I don't consider myself super knowledgable on the subject, there are some great guides online if you're stuck - I found that they really helped me get my head around how to write a response.
Title: Re: 94 in Modern: Ask Me Anything!
Post by: elysepopplewell on March 24, 2016, 01:45:05 pm
I do it myself. Although I don't consider myself super knowledgable on the subject, there are some great guides online if you're stuck - I found that they really helped me get my head around how to write a response.
Hey Man,

Did you do extension history? It would be great if someone could beef up that forum on this site!

Cheers

Hey you two, it would be awesome if you could work together on the History Extension forum to give that some strength. If you find something helpful for the course, post it in the forum, if you have a question, post it in the forum, or maybe an interesting fact, a link to a great source, etc. We'd love to grow to as many subjects as possible but we are limited by who we have in our community. No rush, the two of you, but if you ever think of something that others could benefit from, please post it into the History Extension forum! No need to be super knowledgeable, you just have to do the course and either want to help or want help yourself! :) Thanks for being so involved :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Annie98 on March 25, 2016, 09:25:11 am
Hi Jake :)

So for my half yearly test I am doing an extended response on the two dot points:
- rise to power of the Khmer Rouge on Cambodia
- nature, aims and methods of pol pot
which are under option C ( conflicts in Indochina).
I haven't been given the question, so I was wondering if you have any suggestions on possible extended response Q that I could do as practise essays.

 Also this is my first extended response assessment task for MH so I'm feeling really really nervous. Do you have any tips on staying calm and on task during the test?

Thank you so much 😊
Oh and happy Easter ( if you celebrate it) or if not have a lovely long weekend 😅
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: elysepopplewell on March 25, 2016, 10:39:13 am
Hi Jake :)

So for my half yearly test I am doing an extended response on the two dot points:
- rise to power of the Khmer Rouge on Cambodia
- nature, aims and methods of pol pot
which are under option C ( conflicts in Indochina).
I haven't been given the question, so I was wondering if you have any suggestions on possible extended response Q that I could do as practise essays.

 Also this is my first extended response assessment task for MH so I'm feeling really really nervous. Do you have any tips on staying calm and on task during the test?

Thank you so much 😊
Oh and happy Easter ( if you celebrate it) or if not have a lovely long weekend 😅

Hi Annie! I'm not Jake, but I did study those topics and Jake did a different topic for that section.

They've picked my favourite part of that syllabus (or...the only part I liked at all haha).

So these are likely questions they could ask:
Account for the rise of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.
To what extent did the Khmer Rouge change society in Cambodia?
Analyse how the Khmer Rouge created the state of Kampuchea.
To what extent did the Khmer Rouge achieve their aims in Cambodia?

As for staying calm in the exam:
I was the kind of student who needed to make a quick list of things I would discuss as soon as I looked at the question (during writing time, not reading time hehe). So, if my essay question was "To what extent did the Khmer Rouge change society in Cambodia?" I would quickly scribble,
-form of government
-agrarian peasant state
-new ideology
-civil war
-Four year plan

So these would dictate my paragraphs when I'm having an inspiration strike at the start. This way, when I get half way through the essay I don't stop and think, "hmm, what next?" Instead, I save time and continually move through just by being re-prompted by my notes. Sometimes I would flesh ideas out. Like "Four year plan" and then write nearby - property, marriages, workforce, S-21. Then I knew exactly what would go in my paragraph.

Before you go in, know your weaknesses. If you are a slow writer you should probably get a start on the essay early. If you are slow to analyse sources, then just spend your entire reading time analysing the sources so you're ready to pump out a response as soon as the time starts.

Don't stress, and don't stop writing until the end! If you have time left over you'll be exhausted and not want to keep going, but keep revising for extra marks!

You'll do awesome!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Annie98 on March 27, 2016, 06:54:25 pm
Thank you so much for the tips Elyse 😊.
I will definitely be walking into that exam room with a lot more confidence!! ❤
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: elysepopplewell on March 28, 2016, 02:29:11 pm
Thank you so much for the tips Elyse 😊.
I will definitely be walking into that exam room with a lot more confidence!! ❤

Yay! I'm so happy for you :) Smash it!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Anika1098 on April 18, 2016, 01:18:49 pm
Hey sorry to bother you I'm just really struggling with how to structure a response to this modern history question; To what extent was the treaty of Brest-Litovsk significant for the Bolshevik consolidation of power?
The question is in relation to the topic Russian and the Soviet union and i understand  all the information but I don't get how i can write a complex and thorough essay on such a specific and small aspect of the Bolshevik consolidation of power?
My main query is can I write the essay in this form;
To a small extent the treaty of Brest litovsk was significant for the Bolshevik consolidation of power. While it was a significant in its negative and positive impression upon the Bolshevik consolidation, due to positive influences of the Civil war, War communism and the NEP its significance is slighted in comparison.
So instead of just talking about the treat of Brest litovsk i include other factors of consolidation to back up my point?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on April 18, 2016, 01:52:38 pm
Hey sorry to bother you I'm just really struggling with how to structure a response to this modern history question; To what extent was the treaty of Brest-Litovsk significant for the Bolshevik consolidation of power?
The question is in relation to the topic Russian and the Soviet union and i understand  all the information but I don't get how i can write a complex and thorough essay on such a specific and small aspect of the Bolshevik consolidation of power?
My main query is can I write the essay in this form;
To a small extent the treaty of Brest litovsk was significant for the Bolshevik consolidation of power. While it was a significant in its negative and positive impression upon the Bolshevik consolidation, due to positive influences of the Civil war, War communism and the NEP its significance is slighted in comparison.
So instead of just talking about the treat of Brest litovsk i include other factors of consolidation to back up my point?

Hey Anika!

Whilst I can't help you regarding the specific topic (as I did conflict in Europe, Weimar/Nazi Germany) I can definitely help you out regarding your general query. For a question like this, which as you say is quite specific in its inquiry, you can absolutely talk about other factors. In fact, for a question like that, a thesis will almost always be "A was quite a significant/a significant/hardly a significant factor, as B, C and D must also be considered".

I was always told that, for a thesis like that, you should TRY to talk about the actual question-area for at least 50% of the essay. Whilst it may be tricky, I'm sure you can pull enough stuff together to write half an essay about the Treaty specifically, and then half the essay about alternative factors (being sure to always draw that back to the Treaty, comparing its effect etc.). However, you're absolutely correct in your approach; looks like you'll be writing a great essay!

Let me know if I can clarify anything or help with something else.
Jake
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Anika1098 on April 18, 2016, 06:13:46 pm
Thankyou so much Jake!!!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Son of Thatcher on May 09, 2016, 06:43:35 pm
Hey guys!

I was just wondering how exactly I would tackle this question we have been given. I have been over and over it but still am having difficulty synthesising my ideas.

“Ambition can be of enormous danger to its owner”

To what extent is Sereny’s statement a true assessment of the life and career of Albert Speer?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: birdwing341 on June 04, 2016, 09:16:53 am
Hello again,

I'm wondering the best strategy in general to prepare for trial exams. Of course doing past papers is the best thing to do that, but do you have some tips in terms of memorising content? (WWI, Weimar and Speer)

I don't particularly want to rote learn things (although I can easily do it), but if the best strategy is to rote learn it, how would you suggest I tailor my memorisation program.

Thanks!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: elysepopplewell on June 04, 2016, 01:06:09 pm
Hello again,

I'm wondering the best strategy in general to prepare for trial exams. Of course doing past papers is the best thing to do that, but do you have some tips in terms of memorising content? (WWI, Weimar and Speer)

I don't particularly want to rote learn things (although I can easily do it), but if the best strategy is to rote learn it, how would you suggest I tailor my memorisation program.

Thanks!

Hey! There are so many ways to go about this. If rote learning is something you can easily do, you're in a very fortunate situation! So many brains shrivel up and don't soak in any information when it's being fed like that. However, I totally understand that it is boring.

Here are some things that I found helpful:

Visual Timelines: I'm usually not a visual person, but I had an assignment for my personality study that required me to make a visual timeline. It actually became an incredible study tool for the trials and the HSC. The personality study is such a small little unit, you need your notes to reflect the succinctness of the topic. I thought it helped so much for me when I was studying Albert Speer, that I decided to create one for my National Study too. I made them into big posters and hung them near my desk and on the outside of the shower looking in (creepy, effective).

Memory Sheets: By this I mean, one piece of paper per topic (laminated, if you're a laminating fan like myself) that puts down the most vital little hints you'll need in an exam. By this I mean, include historian quotes, important dates and any information of that type that won't panic you before an exam, but it can very easily be that last thing you look at before walking in.

Teaching others: I was fortunate to have a friend in my class who just could not understand how Hitler came to power. Hey, I wasn't too crash hot either at one point. But when I tried to explain it to her, I found that I needed to make connections between information I had gathered but hadn't yet pooled together. Teaching someone what you know is honestly more effective than anything else I can recommend. Obviously, finding a person to teach isn't always easy. So teach your bathroom mirror, or dog, if you can't find a friend willing to learn.

Weaknesses: Work out what the weaknesses are in your knowledge. Is there a syllabus dot point that you just don't get? It isn't sticking? Read/watch as many resources on that dot point as possible. You have options in the exam for the national study, but you don't want to risk two options for an essay coming up and you panicking over both. In fact, you don't want to panic over either. You want to have a bit of luxury to choose your strongest question!

WW1: Don't worry about the content as much as you should concern yourself with source analysis. Really make sure that your source analysis plan is strong. If you have a template you use, make sure it is well planted in your memory. Make sure you've got a bank of great vocab to whip out in a source analysis. You need to know content, absolutely. But the most important marks will come from analysing sources. So be ready!

I hope this gives you a few ideas about how to approach your studying. Let me know if you actually do any of these, and if they worked for you! These are all things I did.

What is your strategy for rote learning? Just saying things out loud until they stick?

Good luck :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: birdwing341 on June 04, 2016, 01:13:56 pm
Hey! There are so many ways to go about this. If rote learning is something you can easily do, you're in a very fortunate situation! So many brains shrivel up and don't soak in any information when it's being fed like that. However, I totally understand that it is boring.

Here are some things that I found helpful:

Visual Timelines: I'm usually not a visual person, but I had an assignment for my personality study that required me to make a visual timeline. It actually became an incredible study tool for the trials and the HSC. The personality study is such a small little unit, you need your notes to reflect the succinctness of the topic. I thought it helped so much for me when I was studying Albert Speer, that I decided to create one for my National Study too. I made them into big posters and hung them near my desk and on the outside of the shower looking in (creepy, effective).

Memory Sheets: By this I mean, one piece of paper per topic (laminated, if you're a laminating fan like myself) that puts down the most vital little hints you'll need in an exam. By this I mean, include historian quotes, important dates and any information of that type that won't panic you before an exam, but it can very easily be that last thing you look at before walking in.

Teaching others: I was fortunate to have a friend in my class who just could not understand how Hitler came to power. Hey, I wasn't too crash hot either at one point. But when I tried to explain it to her, I found that I needed to make connections between information I had gathered but hadn't yet pooled together. Teaching someone what you know is honestly more effective than anything else I can recommend. Obviously, finding a person to teach isn't always easy. So teach your bathroom mirror, or dog, if you can't find a friend willing to learn.

Weaknesses: Work out what the weaknesses are in your knowledge. Is there a syllabus dot point that you just don't get? It isn't sticking? Read/watch as many resources on that dot point as possible. You have options in the exam for the national study, but you don't want to risk two options for an essay coming up and you panicking over both. In fact, you don't want to panic over either. You want to have a bit of luxury to choose your strongest question!

WW1: Don't worry about the content as much as you should concern yourself with source analysis. Really make sure that your source analysis plan is strong. If you have a template you use, make sure it is well planted in your memory. Make sure you've got a bank of great vocab to whip out in a source analysis. You need to know content, absolutely. But the most important marks will come from analysing sources. So be ready!

I hope this gives you a few ideas about how to approach your studying. Let me know if you actually do any of these, and if they worked for you! These are all things I did.

What is your strategy for rote learning? Just saying things out loud until they stick?

Good luck :)

Thanks very much :) I'll be sure to try some of those strategies.

Usually for rote learning I'll just say it to myself multiple times until I can say it all fluently (leastways that's what I've done for the english internals). I imagine if I did it with Modern/Eco I would probably do the same and then find some essay/short answers that address that knowledge and write down answers? I wasn't willing to try it because it is extremely boring, but it could be effective.

In terms of source analysis, do you have any key words that you like to throw into source analysis? (I'm getting two separate questions for my trials)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: elysepopplewell on June 05, 2016, 06:35:30 pm
Thanks very much :) I'll be sure to try some of those strategies.

Usually for rote learning I'll just say it to myself multiple times until I can say it all fluently (leastways that's what I've done for the english internals). I imagine if I did it with Modern/Eco I would probably do the same and then find some essay/short answers that address that knowledge and write down answers? I wasn't willing to try it because it is extremely boring, but it could be effective.

In terms of source analysis, do you have any key words that you like to throw into source analysis? (I'm getting two separate questions for my trials)

Awesome! For English, I said essays over and over again until they stuck!

For source analysis, first of all you want to have your scaffold ready. You should definitely check out this amazing guide that Jake wrote that covers so many burning questions about the source analysis section of the paper. I don't think I so much had prepared vocabulary as I had prepared angles I would take. For example, if the reliability of the source was unclear or weak, I would comment in the "usefulness" section about how the usefulness is limited/increased because of the reliability. So I always had connections that I would make between the different sections so that I could whip them out when I was stuck with what to talk about.

The guide Jake wrote is seriously, seriously good. So you'll definitely benefit from that!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: aoife98 on June 13, 2016, 08:17:06 pm
Not sure how to answer the second question for personality study. Any ideas?
“The historical importance of Leni Riefenstahl is influenced by differing perspectives and interpretations.”
To what extent do you agree with this statement?

Cheers
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on June 13, 2016, 09:12:39 pm
Not sure how to answer the second question for personality study. Any ideas?
“The historical importance of Leni Riefenstahl is influenced by differing perspectives and interpretations.”
To what extent do you agree with this statement?

Cheers

Hey!

Basically, this question is asking you to do a historiographical study of your personality. I would suggest breaking down theorists into some general themes or 'types' (whatever they may be). For instance, maybe there are some theorists that attempt to justify her actions, and others that condemn here completely. Then, present these arguments and come to a conclusion regarding which ones you think are most convincing. Also, it is worth noting any 'changes' to popular theory over time; as the questions is basically asking for the perception of your personality, it would be great to say "In the 1950s, popular sentiment was this, but in the 1990s this shifted drastically after the discovery of this".

Also, just a quick note on the "to what extent do you agree" part; it's pretty obvious that this statement is true. Different perspectives and interpretations of primary sources will yield a differing historical importance. Your answer will likely be "of course this is true; I can deftly illustrate this through specific, accurate, relevant and detailed examples from many theorists" etc. etc.

I can't really help more than that, as I didn't do Riefenstahl myself. However, I think that this is a good general structure that should get you a top result in the essay!

Let me know if you have any further questions, or want me to elaborate on what I've said.

Good luck!

Jake
Title: Re: 94 in Modern: Ask Me Anything!
Post by: aoife98 on June 20, 2016, 03:48:08 pm
Hey Belkelly!

I think it is a great idea to treat other subjects as though they have SARDEs, and the write worksheets for them accordingly. I didn't do that, only because I discovered the worksheet method very late in the year, but I would strongly recommend you write some yourself! If you wanted help editing them or anything like that, please post on the forums.

I'm glad you enjoyed the resource!

Jake

Hey not sure if I missed where this was mentioned but just wondering what exactly is the SARDEs method because it sounds like something that's good!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: aoife98 on June 20, 2016, 03:57:50 pm
Hey!

Basically, this question is asking you to do a historiographical study of your personality. I would suggest breaking down theorists into some general themes or 'types' (whatever they may be). For instance, maybe there are some theorists that attempt to justify her actions, and others that condemn here completely. Then, present these arguments and come to a conclusion regarding which ones you think are most convincing. Also, it is worth noting any 'changes' to popular theory over time; as the questions is basically asking for the perception of your personality, it would be great to say "In the 1950s, popular sentiment was this, but in the 1990s this shifted drastically after the discovery of this".

Also, just a quick note on the "to what extent do you agree" part; it's pretty obvious that this statement is true. Different perspectives and interpretations of primary sources will yield a differing historical importance. Your answer will likely be "of course this is true; I can deftly illustrate this through specific, accurate, relevant and detailed examples from many theorists" etc. etc.

I can't really help more than that, as I didn't do Riefenstahl myself. However, I think that this is a good general structure that should get you a top result in the essay!

Let me know if you have any further questions, or want me to elaborate on what I've said.

Good luck!

Jake

Thank you for responding! Unfortunately I didn't see this until after the exam (is there a way of getting a notification?) but I utilised a similar approach. In case anyone else has this question, I structured it by "views" of Leni, i.e.

Body Paragraph 1) As a filmmaker = Triumph of the Will/Olympia
View 1...
Technical brilliance → Everyone agrees
Received international honours for her “documentary propaganda” (Evans)
Pioneered many cinematic techniques
View 2...
Supporter of Nazi regime → Strong disagreement over motivations (propaganda or art?)
Salkeld suggests guilt by association clouds views = empathetic
No anti semitic/racist dogma in films
However, Leni did show antisemitism at other times and attended a rally in 1932
My view...
Films are her greatest contribution to history
Irrelevant of motivations, contributed to film culture (innovative techniques + feminist) & t0 the power of the Nazi party/ Fuhrer cult
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jamonwindeyer on June 20, 2016, 04:35:39 pm
Thank you for responding! Unfortunately I didn't see this until after the exam (is there a way of getting a notification?) ...

There is! If you want notifications for a particular thread (say, to know when your essay got marked or when your question was answered), there is a Notify button at the top right of the thread. Two across from the Reply button. You can click that and receive an email notification when someone posts in that thread (it is intelligent and will only warn you once within a certain period, so you won't get spammed with messages  ;D)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Son of Thatcher on June 21, 2016, 02:16:18 pm
Hello again fellows!

I was just wondering how I could approach the following question:

To what extent had the respective governments of both North and South Vietnam consolidated their power in the period 1954 - 1963?

Any advice would be appreciated :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on June 22, 2016, 11:18:46 am
Hello again fellows!

I was just wondering how I could approach the following question:

To what extent had the respective governments of both North and South Vietnam consolidated their power in the period 1954 - 1963?

Any advice would be appreciated :)

Hey!

So unfortunately I didn't do this topic, so I can't help too much. What I'll do is make some assumptions, and give you a guide as to a general structure for an essay like this.

Firstly, you want to split your essay up into two parts (North and South Vietnam, obviously).
Now, I assume that both governments had consolidated their power to some extent, but were also lacking in certain regards. My recommendation is to split the rest of the essay into economic, political and social/cultural. Step through each of these components, utilising specific accurate and relevant details, to decide to what extent the government has consolidated their power.

I really can't help you much more than that, sorry! I wish I could. If you want to draft up an essay structure, or even write a full essay, I'd be happy to look at it.

Jake
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Son of Thatcher on June 22, 2016, 04:03:44 pm
Thanks so much :D
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: tasiakuz on June 24, 2016, 05:27:48 pm
Hey!
I am currently doing conflict in indochina and if I was doing that question I would start with obviously looking at Diem and Ho Chi Minh. For Diem you can talk about how he had an almost totalitarian regime, the US Influence getting him into power (that he was anti-communist and nepotistic - which then links to his government in that it was devoid of a functioning government) which then lead to the Agroville program. Then you can even talk about his assassination, how he was very unliked - then his opposition and treatment of the buddhists, and thus, he had not effectively consolidated power by 1964. Then Ho Chi Minh, bring in the Geneva Accords and how that helped him consolidate power through a surge of nationalism, that he had to remain popular for the elections. Then you can talk about the issues he faced, the land reform and famine etc. but in the end (1960) North Vietnam had one of the fastest growing economies and was doing great! Therefore Ho Chi Minh's government effectively consolidated power, but then he had to face the US -> creation of the NLF etc. I hope this gave you some points to talk about, sorry if it is a bit messy :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on June 24, 2016, 07:01:33 pm
Hey!
I am currently doing conflict in indochina and if I was doing that question I would start with obviously looking at Diem and Ho Chi Minh. For Diem you can talk about how he had an almost totalitarian regime, the US Influence getting him into power (that he was anti-communist and nepotistic - which then links to his government in that it was devoid of a functioning government) which then lead to the Agroville program. Then you can even talk about his assassination, how he was very unliked - then his opposition and treatment of the buddhists, and thus, he had not effectively consolidated power by 1964. Then Ho Chi Minh, bring in the Geneva Accords and how that helped him consolidate power through a surge of nationalism, that he had to remain popular for the elections. Then you can talk about the issues he faced, the land reform and famine etc. but in the end (1960) North Vietnam had one of the fastest growing economies and was doing great! Therefore Ho Chi Minh's government effectively consolidated power, but then he had to face the US -> creation of the NLF etc. I hope this gave you some points to talk about, sorry if it is a bit messy :)

Hey Tasiakuz! Thanks so much for the response; since I didn't do this topic, having forum users jump in and help fill in the gaps in my knowledge is seriously useful.

Jake
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: birdwing341 on June 28, 2016, 03:07:48 pm
May as well ask haha. When faced with Part B questions (in particular Speer), is there a difference in structure between questions with a quote and questions without a quote? And when you write practice responses how do you structure your response?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: atar27 on July 09, 2016, 10:11:29 pm
Hi, This is a essay question for my assessment but I'm not quite sure how to approach it!

Evaluate the view that Operation Barbarossa was a significant turning point that led to Germany’s defeat.

Any help will be much appreciated!!
Thank you  :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on July 10, 2016, 09:52:32 am
May as well ask haha. When faced with Part B questions (in particular Speer), is there a difference in structure between questions with a quote and questions without a quote? And when you write practice responses how do you structure your response?

Hey Birdwing! Sorry for the late reply; we've been really busy organising the FREE lectures at UTS this week :) I actually wrote an article about the Personality study section of the curriculum that I think answers your questions; you can find it here!

Hope it helps!

Jake
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: chuckiecheese on July 10, 2016, 12:08:26 pm
Hi guys,

I am struggling w/ the following question: Assess the significance of the 1968 Tet Offensive as part of North Vietnam's strategy in achieving victory.

Any help is appreciated!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: elysepopplewell on July 11, 2016, 02:09:41 pm
Hi guys,

I am struggling w/ the following question: Assess the significance of the 1968 Tet Offensive as part of North Vietnam's strategy in achieving victory.

Any help is appreciated!

Hey there! Have a look at these downloadable notes that I posted for the topic. Modern history wasn't my best subject, but I have posted my notes in case they help. Post back if you have more questions about it - but this might be a good starting point!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: alexandrarichardson on July 13, 2016, 06:07:51 pm
Hey, I was just wondering what your advice would be on how to structure an essay on "assess the effectiveness of the League of Nations to the maintenance of peace in Europe to 1939." I don't know what to include and what to cut, obviously Manchuria and Abyssinia are important, but what else is integral?
Thanks
Ally :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on July 14, 2016, 09:03:02 am
Hey, I was just wondering what your advice would be on how to structure an essay on "assess the effectiveness of the League of Nations to the maintenance of peace in Europe to 1939." I don't know what to include and what to cut, obviously Manchuria and Abyssinia are important, but what else is integral?
Thanks
Ally :)

Hey!

Definitely Machuria and Abyssinia are probably the most important points to talk about. You can go into fair depth about that; the method with which the League of Nations tried to govern, the method of enforcement (or lack thereof) etc. I think a really fantastic example to use is 1936 Spain. The fact that Germany opening utilised newly built aircraft, weaponry etc. as it moved towards a Total War economy, with absolutely no reprimand from the LoN, it astounding. You want to be using examples like that; basically, of Germany doing their own thing, and the League just consistently trying to appease them. Include 1938/9, in terms of Austria, Czechoslovakia, the Munich Conference etc. There is an easy argument to make; the LoN didn't do enough. But the more subtle argument draws back to WWI. Remember that all of the countries governing the LoN were those who won the Great War. But, those countries were also the ones who lost the most troops, civilians; human lives. They were weary to engage in another war, and tried to do anything possible to avoid it.

This is a difficult question, and it's easy to criticise the LoN. However, a more subtle argument gets a higher mark, and is likely more accurate.

Hope that this helps!

Jake
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: atar27 on July 14, 2016, 10:41:48 am
Hi, This is a essay question for my assessment but I'm not quite sure how to approach it!

Evaluate the view that Operation Barbarossa was a significant turning point that led to Germany’s defeat.

Any help will be much appreciated!!
Thank you  :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on July 14, 2016, 11:46:13 am
Hi, This is a essay question for my assessment but I'm not quite sure how to approach it!

Evaluate the view that Operation Barbarossa was a significant turning point that led to Germany’s defeat.

Any help will be much appreciated!!
Thank you  :)

Hmm... as it's an assessment, I think I'll just point you in the right direction, but this is absolutely a difficult question.

What you have to think about is whether Barbarossa was set for defeat from the get-go, or whether there were events along the way that compounded German defeat. I think it is fair to say that Barbarossa was ill-advised, but perhaps there was a reason for it? Germany needed to maintain momentum, gain land, and gain resources, in order to propagate the war. Perhaps it is more specific battles (ie. Stalingrad, Kursk etc.) that definitively lead to German defeat? Perhaps you can also consider other fronts: surely it wasn't just Barbarossa, but American intervention and D-Day that lead to German defeat. Maybe the entire structure of the German hierarchy and military made it unstable? This question relies on a lot of research, as you need to have a comprehensive knowledge of the middle and later stages of the war in order to make a valid assessment as to the specific effects of Barbarossa. I would recommend doing some research and coming up with a thesis, and I would be more than happy to look at your thesis statement before you go on to write the rest of your essay!

Jake
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: atar27 on July 14, 2016, 12:44:04 pm
Hi Jake,
My teacher said we don't need to mention about the events that occur later in the war but he did say we need to talk about the failure of blitzkrieg and the difference between Hitler and Stalin's leadership and the shortage of resources in Germany. His my introduction:

Operation Barbarossa is a highly significant turning point in the course of the European war highlighting the existing problems in the German war effort. Early German advances and gains were decreasing due to the failure of a quick victory in Russia as it revealed the flaws of using its blitzkrieg tactics, Germany was also invincible in 1941. Furthermore, it became evident that the tide was turning against the Axis powers and in favour of the Russian’s due to its vast resources and tactical superiority compared to Germany’s limited strength.

its not finished yet!
Thanks Jake!!!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on July 14, 2016, 12:48:34 pm
Hi Jake,
My teacher said we don't need to mention about the events that occur later in the war but he did say we need to talk about the failure of blitzkrieg and the difference between Hitler and Stalin's leadership and the shortage of resources in Germany. His my introduction:

Operation Barbarossa is a highly significant turning point in the course of the European war highlighting the existing problems in the German war effort. Early German advances and gains were decreasing due to the failure of a quick victory in Russia as it revealed the flaws of using its blitzkrieg tactics, Germany was also invincible in 1941. Furthermore, it became evident that the tide was turning against the Axis powers and in favour of the Russian’s due to its vast resources and tactical superiority compared to Germany’s limited strength.

its not finished yet!
Thanks Jake!!!

Hey! If that's what your teacher has suggested, then the above is a great starting point. Definitely formalise the tone a little, and try use historical language to a greater extent, but looking good!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: gkelly1414 on July 21, 2016, 05:19:50 pm
It is the way an individual faces challenges that shapes them and their achievements.
To what extent is this statement accurate in relation to the personality you have studied and their role in history?
 Just wondering how you would answer this question about Albert Speer

Thanks
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: studybuddy7777 on July 21, 2016, 05:56:37 pm
It is the way an individual faces challenges that shapes them and their achievements.
To what extent is this statement accurate in relation to the personality you have studied and their role in history?
 Just wondering how you would answer this question about Albert Speer

Thanks

Before we even start, I do not take modern history so bear with me.
Hey gkelly1414 its great to see you using atarnotes and welcome! You have discovered the forums, arguably the most time wasting useful resource that atarnotes currently offers! However, we would love to see your train of thought first as you do not learn nearly as much if its all someone elses work. We (well Jake :p) can certainly help break down the question for you and provide you with good sources to answer hour question in relation to Albert Speer. If you really have nothing (which i doubt as everyone is talented in their own ways) then a modern historian is more than happy to help you out. Thanks for joining and welcome!

**If anyone wants to give me a grilling for anything above that was wrong, that is perfectly fine. My english teacher has given me plenty of experience in roasting ;)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: elysepopplewell on July 22, 2016, 12:06:57 am
Hello im currently in year 11 and have finished the topic about the israel arab conflict. I got like 49% and was wondering how do you write an essay. Like in terms of structure. I saw my friends who got full marks and it seemed like he just kept writing information with just intro body and conclusion. Is the modern history essay just like an english essay where you use like steel in your paragraph or so?

Hey there! Specifically are you looking at a source analysis response, or a 25 mark essay for the HSC? My modern history paragraphs went kind of like this:

-Topic sentence (stating argument)
-Background facts
-A statistic, a solid fact, dropping a term related to the topic, etc.
-Relate back to argument
-Historian quote if possible
-Relate back to argument and essay question.

So, unlike an English essay where you might do something like: Topic sentence, technique, effect, explain, technique, effect explain, technique, effect, explain, concluding sentence....you're more likely to spend the entire paragraph on single argument, and just dropping facts or stats as they appear relevant. This might be in chronological order, order of importance, or just as they come to mind, depending on the essay question.

Your depth of knowledge and accuracy of that knowledge is the key in modern!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: elysepopplewell on July 22, 2016, 12:14:54 am
It is the way an individual faces challenges that shapes them and their achievements.
To what extent is this statement accurate in relation to the personality you have studied and their role in history?
 Just wondering how you would answer this question about Albert Speer

Thanks

Hey there! Lots of different things you can discuss here. In terms of the statement, break it down like this:

-Individuals face challenges: Think of how Albert Speer moved up the ranks, was presented with big tasks (challenges) but excelled in all fields.

-Shaping them and their achievements: This really links well to the "good Nazi or bad Nazi" argument. I mean, you could say that the Reich Chancellory was him just following orders, or you could say it was him adding to the grandiose nature of the Nazi regime. So you get to weigh in on the debate here. The great achievements came from the great challenges, and all of this shaped the image of Albert Speer (and his achievements) through history - including at the Nuremberg trials!

That's how I would approach this question. Then of course, you need to pick out the most important of all of his achievements and whack them into an essay, with each one analysed for its challenge value, the achievement unlocked and the way it has shaped Speer as a member of the Nazi party, but also as a historical figure.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Snowflek on July 23, 2016, 01:07:24 am
Hey there! Specifically are you looking at a source analysis response, or a 25 mark essay for the HSC? My modern history paragraphs went kind of like this:

-Topic sentence (stating argument)
-Background facts
-A statistic, a solid fact, dropping a term related to the topic, etc.
-Relate back to argument
-Historian quote if possible
-Relate back to argument and essay question.

So, unlike an English essay where you might do something like: Topic sentence, technique, effect, explain, technique, effect explain, technique, effect, explain, concluding sentence....you're more likely to spend the entire paragraph on single argument, and just dropping facts or stats as they appear relevant. This might be in chronological order, order of importance, or just as they come to mind, depending on the essay question.

Your depth of knowledge and accuracy of that knowledge is the key in modern!

Oooo i see. Thank you so much for the response!!! and yeah haha it was a 25 mark question D:
Title: Re: 94 in Modern: Ask Me Anything!
Post by: SarahLV on July 24, 2016, 04:59:05 pm
Hey! :)

So I'm a Year 11 student starting the Preliminary Modern course this year right now actually. What would you recommend to focus most heavily on in the Preliminary course? How much of the Preliminary course (transferable skills or knowledge) are applicable to the HSC course? Also, how would you go about note-taking or studying for Modern History as a whole?

Thanks!!

Hey,

I'm just about to finish Year 12 Modern History (106 days to go!!). I found that my school chose subjects in Year 11 that applied directly to my studies in Year 12.

For example: the world at the end of the 19th beginning of the 20th century really helped with WW1 because I could track the rising political tensions and the effect that technology had on WW1.
Another example was the Fall of the Romanov's topic in Year 11 directly correlated with the Russia topics I'm doing for Year 12 (The Bolsheviks, Cold War and Gorbachev).

So it really depends what your school has in mind. And any history that you learn in Year 11 may help in Year 12 because then you have a better overview and understanding of world Modern History.

Also learning source analysis and essay writing (and all that jazz) is really important for Year 12.

One of the best ways for learning/studying for history is a) memorisation and

b) find past paper questions and create 5 min mind maps for each question as if you're going to answer it. Then go back to your notes and determine what information you didn't think of or you didn't add in. Or even information that you shouldn't have added into your map. (In the map also include all relevant facts and stats). It also trains you for when you get into the HSC exams and you are able to write up an essay plan quickly efficiently = more marks because you are organised in your info and you're motivated to write because you know what you're talking about.

Good luck and have fun.
Sarah
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: mfjw on July 24, 2016, 05:29:53 pm
I'm studying Dr H.V. Evatt and the fear of communism in Australia at the moment and I'm having a lot of trouble trying to find any information! :(
Can anyone please please help me find information on these dot points:

 - Speaking at a meeting after the Labor Party split in 1957.
 - His belief in democracy and his attitude to communism
 - His beliefs about why the Communist Party should not be banned
 - His role in appearing for the Communist Party before the High Court
 - His leading of the campaign against the Referendum
 - Reaction to the Petrov Affair
 - Reaction to the split in the Labour Party

You can just list the websites where you can find any information at all! I'm in desperate need as I am struggling A LOT with Modern History right now :(

Thanks so much!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on July 25, 2016, 04:19:04 pm
I'm studying Dr H.V. Evatt and the fear of communism in Australia at the moment and I'm having a lot of trouble trying to find any information! :(
Can anyone please please help me find information on these dot points:

 - Speaking at a meeting after the Labor Party split in 1957.
 - His belief in democracy and his attitude to communism
 - His beliefs about why the Communist Party should not be banned
 - His role in appearing for the Communist Party before the High Court
 - His leading of the campaign against the Referendum
 - Reaction to the Petrov Affair
 - Reaction to the split in the Labour Party

You can just list the websites where you can find any information at all! I'm in desperate need as I am struggling A LOT with Modern History right now :(

Thanks so much!

Hey, unfortunately I don't think we can really do your research for you. My recommendation is to go to your local library, with a few historians in mind (ie. the leading historians on your personality) and grab some books. Skim the relevant chapters and you'll find most of the information you need! Otherwise, just google everything. You just need to spend some time on it. Sorry that I can't be any more helpful!

Jake
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 25, 2016, 11:40:32 pm
heya :)
I was just wondering what your opinion is on including historians/quotes within responses, and if so, how many we should aim to include per essay/paragraph? I'm a little bit confused at the moment, because my teacher says that historians aren't as important anymore to the markers because they'd rather you analyse yourself then just regurgitate something someone else has said, but then says that you can't get a band 6 without historians?
This is mainly in regards to the 25 mark essays, but also the personality study extended response.
Thanks!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: elysepopplewell on July 26, 2016, 01:09:59 pm
heya :)
I was just wondering what your opinion is on including historians/quotes within responses, and if so, how many we should aim to include per essay/paragraph? I'm a little bit confused at the moment, because my teacher says that historians aren't as important anymore to the markers because they'd rather you analyse yourself then just regurgitate something someone else has said, but then says that you can't get a band 6 without historians?
This is mainly in regards to the 25 mark essays, but also the personality study extended response.
Thanks!

The way I see this may be different to what Jake thinks, and that's cool! The reason being, the way you incorporate historian's perspectives can come down to how you actually formulate your essay.

So, I'd aim for a historian's perspective in every paragraph, if possible. Notice that I'm saying: AIM. I didn't put one in each paragraph. I kind of used statistics and historian's perspectives as solid evidence in a paragraph and I would use one or the other, basic on whatever is sitting in my brain at the time.

Also, take note that a historian's perspective doesn't have to be a quote, it can just be, a PERSPECTIVE. By this I mean, you could say that the historian called Mr Smith believes that Albert Speer was a good Nazi, and that he never knew of the concentration camps. But the historian called Mrs Evans believes that Albert Speer was a bad Nazi who should have been prosecuted more harshly in the Nuremberg trials. (These historians are fake). So, if I was writing a paragraph on Speer at the Nuremberg trials, I could say my points, and then at the end, say, "this is in accordance with the work of Mrs Evans, as published in ****." It doesn't need to be a quote, but rather just saying that you've looked at the historiography and you understand that different historians look at things differently. I prefer this style because you don't have to commit as many quotes to memory, but you also avoid the regurgitation of ideas that your teacher is warning you about. I definitely remembered some historian quotes (I can still remember some to this day... *shudders*) but knowing the facts of the content should be privileged over your ability to recall historian's quotes.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: blaran on July 27, 2016, 12:18:56 am
Hey guys!
I'm in the middle of wading through 250 pages of modern history notes and one more statistic from a breakdown. :P Obviously this is a very content-heavy subject, but clearly I can't cram 250 pages of notes into a single essay. I guess what I'm asking is - how best would you advise covering all the syllabus dotpoints in one essay? Do you pick a few key events and describe them in more detail? Do you broadly go over everything from the period? E.g. when writing on WWI as a whole, do we have to say that x battle was where tanks were first introduced? Or in the case of the Cold War, describe every single conference?
Just a little worried about memorizing things that appear on the syllabus but seem very minor in the grand scheme of writing an essay on an entire period. thanks so much! :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 27, 2016, 08:22:54 am
Hey guys!
I'm in the middle of wading through 250 pages of modern history notes and one more statistic from a breakdown. :P Obviously this is a very content-heavy subject, but clearly I can't cram 250 pages of notes into a single essay. I guess what I'm asking is - how best would you advise covering all the syllabus dotpoints in one essay? Do you pick a few key events and describe them in more detail? Do you broadly go over everything from the period? E.g. when writing on WWI as a whole, do we have to say that x battle was where tanks were first introduced? Or in the case of the Cold War, describe every single conference?
Just a little worried about memorizing things that appear on the syllabus but seem very minor in the grand scheme of writing an essay on an entire period. thanks so much! :)

I'm not an expert so this may be wrong, but I don't think you should necessarily be covering all syllabus dot points in one essay, or at least not at all in the same amount of detail. I think it is much more important to stick to the question and what they are asking, so unless the question asked you to cover the entire span of the period (which is unlikely, and even then you would have to pick and choose) then I would just stick to the most relevant points as indicated by the question. Though detail is great (in fact necessary if you want to do well) as it demonstrate your knowledge, if you are just regurgitating the syllabus and not relating it back to the quesiton being asked, then it will look like a planned response. You need to find a balance between the two.

So, if the Cold War question was on the origins of the Cold War (and maybe development), then yes I would be discussing each conference. However if it was on Detente or Renewal and End, I would most likely not discuss them at all, and if I did, it would only be a very brief mention with a sentence offering the context of international tensions to which I would be discussing.

Basically the key is to KNOW your syllabus, but also know how to APPLY it to a question.

HOWEVER, if you are struggling to memorise, for trials maybe just focus on 3 out of the 4 syllabus dot points per topic, as it is unlikely (but not impossible so maybe don't do this for the actual HSC) that out of the two questions they will both be on the same area. Therefore for the Cold War, pick the three areas that you are the strongest, so for me that would be Origins, Development and Detente, and learn those back to front, and forget about Renewal and End for now. This is slightly risky, so only do this is you really have to.

Again, I'm not an expect so take this with a grain of salt, but I hope this helps!! Good luck :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: elysepopplewell on July 27, 2016, 11:40:24 am
I'm not an expert so this may be wrong, but I don't think you should necessarily be covering all syllabus dot points in one essay, or at least not at all in the same amount of detail. I think it is much more important to stick to the question and what they are asking, so unless the question asked you to cover the entire span of the period (which is unlikely, and even then you would have to pick and choose) then I would just stick to the most relevant points as indicated by the question. Though detail is great (in fact necessary if you want to do well) as it demonstrate your knowledge, if you are just regurgitating the syllabus and not relating it back to the quesiton being asked, then it will look like a planned response. You need to find a balance between the two.

So, if the Cold War question was on the origins of the Cold War (and maybe development), then yes I would be discussing each conference. However if it was on Detente or Renewal and End, I would most likely not discuss them at all, and if I did, it would only be a very brief mention with a sentence offering the context of international tensions to which I would be discussing.

Basically the key is to KNOW your syllabus, but also know how to APPLY it to a question.

HOWEVER, if you are struggling to memorise, for trials maybe just focus on 3 out of the 4 syllabus dot points per topic, as it is unlikely (but not impossible so maybe don't do this for the actual HSC) that out of the two questions they will both be on the same area. Therefore for the Cold War, pick the three areas that you are the strongest, so for me that would be Origins, Development and Detente, and learn those back to front, and forget about Renewal and End for now. This is slightly risky, so only do this is you really have to.

Again, I'm not an expect so take this with a grain of salt, but I hope this helps!! Good luck :)

Took the words right out of my mouth! You're spot on here.

As for condensing notes: That's hard! Potentially try summarise each of the four major points onto a page, and just use the MOST important stuff. So you'll have four pages of notes for each subject! Or else, you can try shake it up and make a poster with a timeline - I did this for my personality study and also for my national study of Germany!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on July 27, 2016, 11:01:26 pm
Hey guys!
I'm in the middle of wading through 250 pages of modern history notes and one more statistic from a breakdown. :P Obviously this is a very content-heavy subject, but clearly I can't cram 250 pages of notes into a single essay. I guess what I'm asking is - how best would you advise covering all the syllabus dotpoints in one essay? Do you pick a few key events and describe them in more detail? Do you broadly go over everything from the period? E.g. when writing on WWI as a whole, do we have to say that x battle was where tanks were first introduced? Or in the case of the Cold War, describe every single conference?
Just a little worried about memorizing things that appear on the syllabus but seem very minor in the grand scheme of writing an essay on an entire period. thanks so much! :)

Hey!

I agree with everything above, and I just wanted to share something my teacher told me before my HSC that really hammers the points home. Unlike most other subjects (Sciences, Maths, Humanities and even English), which test AT LEAST 40-60% of the curriculum that you've studied throughout the year, Modern History won't. It's more likely to test 10-40%, with most of what you learnt becoming irrelevant based on the question. It's always worth trying to work in as much information as you can, but only if it benefits your thesis. Most of the time, it won't. If you try to cover all of WWII in an essay, you're gonna have a bad time. Instead, be very selective about what you include. This doesn't help in terms of memorising, but it does in terms of structure. Be smart about what you include; would love to check out any essay plans you have if you needed help!

Jake
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: isabel_lorenz1 on July 28, 2016, 09:31:58 am
Hi guys,
we have a new teacher for Modern who has marked for the HSC and she warned us that we can't quote text book writers like Webb etc
So, does anyone have statistics/historical references for Conflict in the Pacific?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 29, 2016, 12:31:50 am
Hi guys,
we have a new teacher for Modern who has marked for the HSC and she warned us that we can't quote text book writers like Webb etc
So, does anyone have statistics/historical references for Conflict in the Pacific?

Hi! Yeah our teacher told us the exact same thing in regards to not quoting text books, especially not Ken Webb apparently hahaha.
I'm not studying Conflict in the Pacific (Cold War ftw) however I spoke to my friend and they said to have a look at some readings by these historians/books :)

Hope this helped!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jamonwindeyer on July 29, 2016, 12:52:20 am
Hi! Yeah our teacher told us the exact same thing in regards to not quoting text books, especially not Ken Webb apparently hahaha.

Genuinely curious, why this author specifically?? Ahaha!  ;D
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 29, 2016, 12:56:04 am
Genuinely curious, why this author specifically?? Ahaha!  ;D

I'm not actually 100% sure hahaha, I just know that both the modern teachers at my school can't stand him and have banned his textbooks from being used at our school! I think the only textbook writer they trust is Bruce Dennett (for good reason because he's literally a history god)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jamonwindeyer on July 29, 2016, 01:15:02 am
I'm not actually 100% sure hahaha, I just know that both the modern teachers at my school can't stand him and have banned his textbooks from being used at our school! I think the only textbook writer they trust is Bruce Dennett (for good reason because he's literally a history god)

That's fascinating! I just googled him, he seems like a pretty famous presenter/teacher/author, I wonder if that's a thing that a few schools do? Very interesting  8)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on July 29, 2016, 02:04:51 pm
Hi! Yeah our teacher told us the exact same thing in regards to not quoting text books, especially not Ken Webb apparently hahaha.
I'm not studying Conflict in the Pacific (Cold War ftw) however I spoke to my friend and they said to have a look at some readings by these historians/books :)
  • Peter Costello's 'The Pacific War'
  • Sir John Keegan
  • J.M. Roberts
  • David Shannon

Hope this helped!

I 100% agree. Webb is wrong on most things, and just a bad historian (in my opinion). Avoid at all costs.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: annika.stanton on July 30, 2016, 05:33:33 pm
Hey!
I'm not sure how to approach this question for the National Studies section (I'm studying Germany). The question is

"Hitler came to power as a result of a lack of opposition. To what extent is this statement true?"

Any help would be awesome.

Thank you! :D
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on July 30, 2016, 05:48:46 pm
Hey!
I'm not sure how to approach this question for the National Studies section (I'm studying Germany). The question is

"Hitler came to power as a result of a lack of opposition. To what extent is this statement true?"

Any help would be awesome.

Thank you! :D

Hey!

You just need to have a think about WHY Hitler came to power. I think to agree with the question would be simplistic, and to be honest just completely wrong. If Hitler came to power, purely because there was no-one else to oppose him, what about the Socialist party? The Moderates? The other right-wing extremists? Clearly, there was a specific APPEAL that lead to Hitler's rise to power; the fact that his opposition did not unite (ie. Communist party with the SPD etc.) definitely contributed to the fact that he continued to gain support, however surely there were other factors involved.

I would break the essay into three component sections: Social, Economic and Political. Socially, think about potential ostracism of sections of society, of the zeitgest of the country, that sort of this. Politically, definitely talk about the lack of opposition, the problems with proportional representation and that sort of thing, but also talk about the fallout from the Versailles Treaty. The War Guilt clause left Germany feeling crushed, whilst not necessarily economically, certainly in morale. This was used repeatedly by the extreme right wing to batter the "November criminals". These are all factors to think about.

Economics is the big issue to talk about. Between the Ruhr Crisis, the Great Depression and reparations (don't put too much emphasis on the last one, Germany barely paid anything), the country was in a terrible economic state. This tends to push people to the right. Can you associate Economic issues directly with changes in voting pattern?

These are all factors to think about. It's a really big essay question, and you should spend some time pondering the state of Germany in this time period. Make sure to talk about the opposition (don't ignore the question!), but please don't agree with it. Don't forget Hitler himself, either; he was a fantastic orator, the development of the NSDAP is a really interesting one, and the people to whom they appealed was essentially unlimited.

I've given you a hell of a lot to think about, without much detail. Dot point things you want to include in the essay, as well as statistics, and arguments for and against. A solid essay plan is the only way to succeed in a brutal question like this. Would love to see any essay you write!

Jake
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: annika.stanton on July 30, 2016, 09:50:35 pm
Hey!

You just need to have a think about WHY Hitler came to power. I think to agree with the question would be simplistic, and to be honest just completely wrong. If Hitler came to power, purely because there was no-one else to oppose him, what about the Socialist party? The Moderates? The other right-wing extremists? Clearly, there was a specific APPEAL that lead to Hitler's rise to power; the fact that his opposition did not unite (ie. Communist party with the SPD etc.) definitely contributed to the fact that he continued to gain support, however surely there were other factors involved.

I would break the essay into three component sections: Social, Economic and Political. Socially, think about potential ostracism of sections of society, of the zeitgest of the country, that sort of this. Politically, definitely talk about the lack of opposition, the problems with proportional representation and that sort of thing, but also talk about the fallout from the Versailles Treaty. The War Guilt clause left Germany feeling crushed, whilst not necessarily economically, certainly in morale. This was used repeatedly by the extreme right wing to batter the "November criminals". These are all factors to think about.

Economics is the big issue to talk about. Between the Ruhr Crisis, the Great Depression and reparations (don't put too much emphasis on the last one, Germany barely paid anything), the country was in a terrible economic state. This tends to push people to the right. Can you associate Economic issues directly with changes in voting pattern?

These are all factors to think about. It's a really big essay question, and you should spend some time pondering the state of Germany in this time period. Make sure to talk about the opposition (don't ignore the question!), but please don't agree with it. Don't forget Hitler himself, either; he was a fantastic orator, the development of the NSDAP is a really interesting one, and the people to whom they appealed was essentially unlimited.

I've given you a hell of a lot to think about, without much detail. Dot point things you want to include in the essay, as well as statistics, and arguments for and against. A solid essay plan is the only way to succeed in a brutal question like this. Would love to see any essay you write!

Jake

Thank you so much Jake! This is super helpful, especially as this is one of my weaker areas in modern history (along with the source analysis on WW1 ). I've got a clear idea now on how I can answer this, thinking about a plan while I'm typing this! :D
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on July 31, 2016, 09:48:55 am
Thank you so much Jake! This is super helpful, especially as this is one of my weaker areas in modern history (along with the source analysis on WW1 ). I've got a clear idea now on how I can answer this, thinking about a plan while I'm typing this! :D

Awesome to hear, looking forward to seeing what you come up with! Feel free to post the essay to the essay marking thread once you're done :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: imtrying on August 09, 2016, 09:42:34 pm
Hey just hoping for a little advice:
Because of the way things have played out for me the last couple weeks, im in a position where i have really limited time to revise all my modern history stuff for my trials exam monday.
With the national study (im doing Germany) I know there are two options for questions, one usually about Weimar up to rise of the Nazi Party and the other about any part of the syllabus after that.
I'm a lot more confident with the Weimar/early Nazi Party part of the syllabus, do you think it would be best just to really focus on that or do i need to go over both parts of the syllabus in detail?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on August 09, 2016, 10:11:06 pm
Hey just hoping for a little advice:
Because of the way things have played out for me the last couple weeks, im in a position where i have really limited time to revise all my modern history stuff for my trials exam monday.
With the national study (im doing Germany) I know there are two options for questions, one usually about Weimar up to rise of the Nazi Party and the other about any part of the syllabus after that.
I'm a lot more confident with the Weimar/early Nazi Party part of the syllabus, do you think it would be best just to really focus on that or do i need to go over both parts of the syllabus in detail?

Unfortunately, I'm really going to have to recommend against this. I know a lot of people (in my year, and every year before and after) who literally just studied for one of the two sections. A lot of people have done it, and a lot of people have done really well using that method. However, there are a whole bunch of reasons why this could turn out really, really badly:

1. Both questions are on the OTHER topic

This is fairly unlikely, but it's happened before and will happen again. If both of the questions are about 1933-39, and you've only studied Weimar, then you're gonna have a bad time.

2. One question is on the other topic, and the other is broad and across both time periods

A lot of questions allow you to discuss Weimar, it's downfall, and the uprising of the NSDAP in one. Whilst you could obviously just stick to the stuff you know, and COMPREHENSIVE answer will make assessments on a range of issues. Reading around the topic, and feeling comfortable with the happenings in 1936, is the only way to get great marks in these questions.

3. The topic you planned for has a question that's utterly ridiculous

This is the most likely option. There will never be two ridiculously difficult question, but it isn't particularly unlikely that there is at least one. An entire question on the cultural aspect of the Weimar Republic?  What about women's movements 1935-39? It could be asked, and even though you can certainly talk about stuff that you know well, you should be spending AT LEAST half the essay answering the specific question. However, if that question is really tough, the Nazi question is generally fairly straight forward. You wouldn't want to put yourself at a massive disadvantage.

I'm really sorry to give you this advice, because I know exactly how you feel. I got back to Australia 3 days before trials, and had to learn a ridiculous amount of content. However, I would really recommend planning your time appropriately. Think about how best to use your limited hours; how to memorise information, write essay plans, read every question that has been asked in previous years. At the end of the day, if you've been paying attention in class, you'll be fine. If you haven't, that's okay too; just really focus your attention on areas that you are weak at, and allocate your time appropriately. Good luck!

Jake
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: imtrying on August 10, 2016, 09:27:52 am
Thanks for replying. I can see what you're saying is true, guess I was just hoping for a different answer haha:)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on August 10, 2016, 10:08:37 am
Thanks for replying. I can see what you're saying is true, guess I was just hoping for a different answer haha:)

I really know the feeling, but it'll be okay. Study hard, study smart, and you will get through the exam. Things happen in life, and you don't feel as prepared for some exams. Just do the best you can, because they can't expect you to get 100% in every exam; these things happen. Good luck, you'll be fine
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sydneyg on August 10, 2016, 10:56:55 am
My hand seriously needs medical attention after my Modern trial yesterday, but I was pleasantly surprised that I managed to finish the paper. Does anybody on here have a good strategy for finishing the paper? Like which sections they do first to make their time most efficient?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on August 10, 2016, 11:42:12 am
My hand seriously needs medical attention after my Modern trial yesterday, but I was pleasantly surprised that I managed to finish the paper. Does anybody on here have a good strategy for finishing the paper? Like which sections they do first to make their time most efficient?

Congrats on finishing the paper! My strategy was always to start with WWI, and try to smash that out in half an hour or less. I also tried to do my personality study in a slightly shorter time period (generally 40 minutes). Then, I attempted to do the other essays in 45 minutes, allocating my extra time to whichever essays I thought needed extra attention.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: lucyyyyyy on August 16, 2016, 07:09:22 pm
Hey! So I had just had a quick question. I've been trying to attempt this question:

'Evaluate the view that Nazi Germany was a totalitarian state by 1939'

Would I need to acknowledge both sides (as in its was/ was not totalitarian) both continuing with my argument? The whole 'Evaluate the view' is really confusing me. Any assistance at all would be greatly appreciated!

Thankyou so much
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on August 16, 2016, 07:34:10 pm
Hey! So I had just had a quick question. I've been trying to attempt this question:

'Evaluate the view that Nazi Germany was a totalitarian state by 1939'

Would I need to acknowledge both sides (as in its was/ was not totalitarian) both continuing with my argument? The whole 'Evaluate the view' is really confusing me. Any assistance at all would be greatly appreciated!

Thankyou so much

Hey!

For the Totalitarian question, it's important to have a framework. Which factors determine whether the state is truly totalitarian or not? By identifying factors, you can easily step through each factor, arguing for and against it's implementation by 1939, and come to a general conclusion. It also gives you an easy structure!

Whilst you can come up with your own structure, I would use someone who has spent their life researching things like this. Personally, I used the Friedrich and Brzezinski definition (spelling their names is half the marks!). They suggested that, to have a truly totalitarian state, there must be:

An elaborate guiding ideology

A single mass party, typically led by a dictator

A system of terror, using violence and secret police

A monopoly on weapons

A monopoly on the means of communication

Central direction and control of the economy


Go through each of these, arguing for AND against (if possible). Then, come to a general conclusion.

That's what I did, and I would highly recommend it. Good luck!

Jake
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: lucyyyyyy on August 16, 2016, 08:26:19 pm
Great! Thank you so much for your help
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: chuckiecheese on August 17, 2016, 06:35:12 pm
Struggling w/ the following question: Evaluate the view that an inability to separate nationalism from communism dominated US policy towards Indochina in the period 1954-1968.

How do I evaluate this for a whole essay?

Any help is appreciated!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: elysepopplewell on August 17, 2016, 09:53:29 pm
Struggling w/ the following question: Evaluate the view that an inability to separate nationalism from communism dominated US policy towards Indochina in the period 1954-1968.

How do I evaluate this for a whole essay?

Any help is appreciated!

This is a really interesting question. It is my personal take on it that the American government perceived communism as the #1 threat. In Indochina, nationalism was the #1 strength, but that nationalism falls into the Western idea of communism. Much of what happened on Indochina's war effort was based on the promotion of nationalism - that is undoubtedly the underlying common denominator. In some ways, it manifested into communism, but certainly not all the time. But, the US had to act on the #1 threat - communism. I'm rusty on the topic, particularly with dates and specific events. But based on my understanding of the nationalist movement in Indochina - nationalism was #1 because it meant unity after they had been exploited through imperialism (first Indochinese war). Communism appeared to be the avenue that would cultivate a culture that did not ALLOW for the exploitation that occurred with the French. So to me, I espouse the idea that The indochinese were never part of the Cold War effort of "pro-Communism" as much as they were a part of the "unite Indochina for the greater good through nationalism" cause - but of course the American gov perceived the communist movement in Indochina to be the greatest threat (queue domino theory). So much of the US policies were about ensuring that this couldn't continue - communism could not continue to spread. Particularly towards the end of the US policies, you see desperate attempts at making a dramatic halt to communism, but the US lost the war a long time before that. So analysing US policies in their stages would be my approach! I would go through each of the main policies/presidents and have a look at their rhetoric and motives for their policy, and what the thoughts about communism were at that moment.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Emerald99 on September 28, 2016, 07:37:54 pm
Hi jake! Do you have any tips for getting full marks in the personality question?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: elysepopplewell on September 28, 2016, 09:22:15 pm
Hi jake! Do you have any tips for getting full marks in the personality question?

Hi Emerald, please see this guide that Jake wrote about nailing the personality section of the exam!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Emerald99 on September 29, 2016, 10:53:09 am
I have a question asking something along the lines of what broke collective security or what was a threat i cant remember exactly but what does collective security mean?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: elysepopplewell on September 29, 2016, 01:56:56 pm
I have a question asking something along the lines of what broke collective security or what was a threat i cant remember exactly but what does collective security mean?

In relation to what? What topic are you studying? Collective national security is different to collective property security - for example.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on September 29, 2016, 09:41:33 pm
I have a question asking something along the lines of what broke collective security or what was a threat i cant remember exactly but what does collective security mean?

Hey! I assume you're talking about the outbreak of war for Conflict in Europe. Collective security was the policy by which much of the League of Nations was governed; the idea that nations need to look out for their own best interests, but also for the best interests of other countries, because a war in one region meant a war in many regions. Essentially, the League of Nations idealised co-operation to ensure another war was avoided.

Now, the policy of collective security failed. This is evidenced by the fact that, well, there was another war. Your question essentially asks WHY collective security failed, and that is something you need to decide for yourself. Generally, it is accepted that the British policy appeasement put the policy of collective security in peril. I would disagree with this. I'll briefly explain my thoughts, for you or anyone else reading.

Collective security forced sacrifice of certain things for the greater good. Countries had to work together, even where it may have been detrimental to them in that specific instance. So, sacrifice is sort of required to ensure collective security. By appeasing Germany (look to Spanish civil war, Czeck, Austria), they were trying their hardest to put off a war. It is easy to look back and say that they SHOULDN'T have appeased Hitler, they SHOULD have invaded earlier, they SHOULD have used force. It's easy to blame the League of Nations, and Britain specifically, for the war. But, in essence, this is victim-blaming. Hitler drove policy towards war, and war was coming. Can you really blame countries for not wanting to send troops into a foreign country, essentially STARTING a war by destroying the policy of appeasement, when you consider how many lives were lost in WWI?

Anyway, we've gone off topic. I've listed in brackets some things to look at re collective security. Let me know if you need anything more specific/any questions about what I've written!

Jake
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Emerald99 on September 30, 2016, 11:56:08 pm
Thank you Elyse and Jake! Once again you guys are just complete legends ,I'm so appreciative of you guys and all the other moderators on here! Thanks a bunch to everyone on here:D
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on October 02, 2016, 09:33:42 am
Thank you Elyse and Jake! Once again you guys are just complete legends ,I'm so appreciative of you guys and all the other moderators on here! Thanks a bunch to everyone on here:D

No problem at all, we're glad you're getting a lot out of the forums :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: alyssastama on October 03, 2016, 04:58:56 pm
Hi!
Just wondering, what is the best way to make sure your essays in the HSC exam are band 6 material? What is your strategy for coming up with a sophisticated, coherent argument in exam conditions?  :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on October 03, 2016, 05:19:18 pm
Hi!
Just wondering, what is the best way to make sure your essays in the HSC exam are band 6 material? What is your strategy for coming up with a sophisticated, coherent argument in exam conditions?  :)

Hey! I've actually written a whole bunch of articles that answer your question; check them out!

Memorising Content

Personality Study

Source Analysis

History Essay Success


Jake
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: nikkit9 on October 03, 2016, 10:21:25 pm
This might sound silly but I'm very, very nervous for the national study in particular (we're studying Germany) and was wondering if there were any essay structures you could help me out with?! I mostly need some suggestions for the Nazism in power section. My teacher keeps hammering us about our 'argument' and I'm really lost as to what that means sometimes. Is it different from just addressing the question?

I also just get a bit confused as to what information to include as there is so much content and the questions are usually narrowed to a small part of the syllabus.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on October 04, 2016, 01:07:56 pm
This might sound silly but I'm very, very nervous for the national study in particular (we're studying Germany) and was wondering if there were any essay structures you could help me out with?! I mostly need some suggestions for the Nazism in power section. My teacher keeps hammering us about our 'argument' and I'm really lost as to what that means sometimes. Is it different from just addressing the question?

I also just get a bit confused as to what information to include as there is so much content and the questions are usually narrowed to a small part of the syllabus.

Hey!

I totally understand where you're coming from in terms of there being just SO much information to remember/include, and it being difficult to synthesis all of that into a single argument. Students always struggle with Nazism in Power, rather than Weimar, because it feels like less of a straightforward narrative and more of a combination of often competing factors culminating in a war. For the section, you really do need a very strong thesis if you decide to do that question. My main recommendation is to go through EVERY past paper Nazism question you can find, place them in categories (ie. similar questions) and create a very solid thesis for each. Have nuance in each (ie. Consolidation of power occurred in 193x, and was due to xxxxx, which was undermined by xxxx). Write thesis sentences, and learn these. Then, go through and decide what specific content and detail would help you prove that thesis most effectively. Literally just write a list beneath the thesis statement, and do that for each question. Repeat this whole process a few times, and you'll have a much more solid idea of how your essay should be structured! Feel free to post an essay in the free essay marking section, or post a thesis here for me to comment on!

Jake
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: imtrying on October 10, 2016, 11:50:39 am
Is the Paris Peace Settlement the same as the Treaty of Versailles?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: birdwing341 on October 10, 2016, 12:02:51 pm
Is the Paris Peace Settlement the same as the Treaty of Versailles?

Yes indeed :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Tizzy on October 14, 2016, 07:32:29 pm
(I am doing Germany in the Interwar period and WW2) Not sure if this has been asked, but what is the go with using German words - grossdeutschland / dolchstosslegende etc. Can we just drop them in and assume markers get them, or should you also put an english translation for them...?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on October 14, 2016, 07:39:19 pm
(I am doing Germany in the Interwar period and WW2) Not sure if this has been asked, but what is the go with using German words - grossdeutschland / dolchstosslegende etc. Can we just drop them in and assume markers get them, or should you also put an english translation for them...?

Whilst I think it's fair to assume that the marker knows what the word means, I always put the english translation in brackets the first time I used a German word. I think this is probably the best approach, just in case you get a dud marker. Plus, it takes a grand total of four seconds!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: imtrying on October 15, 2016, 10:15:20 am
Hi!
If anyone did Conflict in Europe, just wondering how much detail I should need for Russian counteroffensives in 1944? I have one textbook that's super detailed, the other is not detailed at all.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: RIPmytrials on October 15, 2016, 11:37:53 am
Hey Jake!
I have the Modern History HSC exam next Wednesday but I'm not feeling prepared at all and I was wondering how I should be using the time that I have. I currently only have class notes that give a general overview for events and concepts but are lacking in detail and statistics. Should I be trying to complete notes with examples and statistics and what not on each Syllabus point? Or rather, would it be more effective to be completing essay plans and covering different thesis, or rolling through different past paper questions, or even the 'worksheets' that you proposed in the other post. Thanks for your time!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on October 15, 2016, 11:43:54 am
Hi!
If anyone did Conflict in Europe, just wondering how much detail I should need for Russian counteroffensives in 1944? I have one textbook that's super detailed, the other is not detailed at all.

Hey! I had a fair amount of detail, because this lent itself towards any 'turning point' argument in an essay. However, don't go overboard! I would look at a past 'turning point' question, and decide how much detail you need to answer the question adequately. Compile the specific facts you would use in that essay, and learn those off by heart!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on October 15, 2016, 11:46:09 am
Hey Jake!
I have the Modern History HSC exam next Wednesday but I'm not feeling prepared at all and I was wondering how I should be using the time that I have. I currently only have class notes that give a general overview for events and concepts but are lacking in detail and statistics. Should I be trying to complete notes with examples and statistics and what not on each Syllabus point? Or rather, would it be more effective to be completing essay plans and covering different thesis, or rolling through different past paper questions, or even the 'worksheets' that you proposed in the other post. Thanks for your time!

Hey! Really good question. My recommendation would be to compile past paper questions, and decide on broad 'themes' that each question falls into. Figure out what sort of paragraphs you need to write in each type of essay, and through that decide how many statistics/dates/details you need for that essay. Compile all of these crucial statistics, and use the worksheet method to memorise them. That way, you're doing essay plans, and being smart about what statistics to learn, and learning them in the most effective way. So, for instance, if you decide that a question requires you to talk about three broad areas, then get enough statistics to talk about those areas in enough detail, and learn those!

Let me know if I can clarify anything, or help in any other way! Good luck :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: RIPmytrials on October 15, 2016, 02:01:23 pm
Thanks for your reply! I was just wondering what you meant by 'themes'. Just as an example, I'm doing the National Study of Germany 1918-1939. Would I look at all the HSC questions that address the various reasons for the failure of the Weimar Republic as the one theme and just have a single thesis, or would it be split into a few different essay plans. Also would you recommend doing an essay plan for all of the HSC questions in each theme, or just the ones that are more likely to pop up. For example the only question for Nazism as totalitarianism was 2008, so for the sake of time efficiency would I skip over it unless I have more time? Thanks again  :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on October 15, 2016, 02:14:35 pm
Thanks for your reply! I was just wondering what you meant by 'themes'. Just as an example, I'm doing the National Study of Germany 1918-1939. Would I look at all the HSC questions that address the various reasons for the failure of the Weimar Republic as the one theme and just have a single thesis, or would it be split into a few different essay plans. Also would you recommend doing an essay plan for all of the HSC questions in each theme, or just the ones that are more likely to pop up. For example the only question for Nazism as totalitarianism was 2008, so for the sake of time efficiency would I skip over it unless I have more time? Thanks again  :)

To answer your second question first: If time efficiency is important, then definitely focus on more likely questions. I think, though, given the time you have left, you should be able to cover all the bases.

For instance, with failure of the Weimar republic, you might break the essay into social, political and economic 'themes'. I use the term very loosely, more as something to base your paragraphs on than anything else. I would split it into a single thesis, and then sub-thesis without each sub-topic.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: birdwing341 on October 15, 2016, 02:30:16 pm
Thanks for your reply! I was just wondering what you meant by 'themes'. Just as an example, I'm doing the National Study of Germany 1918-1939. Would I look at all the HSC questions that address the various reasons for the failure of the Weimar Republic as the one theme and just have a single thesis, or would it be split into a few different essay plans. Also would you recommend doing an essay plan for all of the HSC questions in each theme, or just the ones that are more likely to pop up. For example the only question for Nazism as totalitarianism was 2008, so for the sake of time efficiency would I skip over it unless I have more time? Thanks again  :)

I'm doing Germany as well!! And thanks for asking that question - gave me a good pointer to how I would be studying :) Personally I'm focusing almost solely on Nazism in power - am banking on them not asking a consolidation of power question for the third year in a row and also not a racial policy for the second year in a row. As far as older questions go, I reckon it's more likely that they'll ask that sort of question. So questions like Totalitarian, role of the German army, Propaganda, Terror and Repression etc, which haven't appeared in ages, might be good to study for. You don't want them chucking you Totalitarian and role of German army in one and having no idea about either haha.

Feel free to chuck up some plans and we can give you some feedback and chuck some of our own tips :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: imtrying on October 15, 2016, 03:13:59 pm
Hi again:) Ive been looking through some past papers and hoping for some clarification on a couple of things?
What was the significance of the Nazi Soviet Pact other than for Hitler avoiding war on the eastern front whilst he was invading France and the Low Countries and Stalin trying to buy time?
Also was the significance of the Russian counteroffensives in 1944 simply that it meant Germany was decisively pushed out of the Soviet Union and Hitlers control of central and eastern europe was diminished?

Thank you so much:)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: elixv on October 15, 2016, 03:26:35 pm
Hi, I'm currently doing some practice essays for national study: Russia and I'm having trouble figuring out how i should structure my essay for the question:

What was the impact of the purges, show trials and ‘the terror’ on the Communist Party and Soviet society?

Thank you  :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on October 15, 2016, 03:43:49 pm
Hi again:) Ive been looking through some past papers and hoping for some clarification on a couple of things?
What was the significance of the Nazi Soviet Pact other than for Hitler avoiding war on the eastern front whilst he was invading France and the Low Countries and Stalin trying to buy time?
Also was the significance of the Russian counteroffensives in 1944 simply that it meant Germany was decisively pushed out of the Soviet Union and Hitlers control of central and eastern europe was diminished?

Thank you so much:)

Look, you've really hit the nail on the head in your question, so I don't think there's much for me to add! It's been a while since I did the topic, so I don't know anything in greater depth that what you've described. Looks like you have nothing to worry about!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on October 15, 2016, 03:46:02 pm
Hi, I'm currently doing some practice essays for national study: Russia and I'm having trouble figuring out how i should structure my essay for the question:

What was the impact of the purges, show trials and ‘the terror’ on the Communist Party and Soviet society?

Thank you  :)

Unfortunately, I didn't do this area :( Try to think of what type of impacts there were; political? Social? Economic? From there, you can structure your essay easily into paragraphs, based on these distinct impacts. Sorry that I can't help more!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: imtrying on October 15, 2016, 04:17:28 pm
Look, you've really hit the nail on the head in your question, so I don't think there's much for me to add! It's been a while since I did the topic, so I don't know anything in greater depth that what you've described. Looks like you have nothing to worry about!

Thank you for replying, any reassurance that I actually know what I'm talking about is greatly appreciated haha :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 15, 2016, 06:20:19 pm
Hi, I'm currently doing some practice essays for national study: Russia and I'm having trouble figuring out how i should structure my essay for the question:

What was the impact of the purges, show trials and ‘the terror’ on the Communist Party and Soviet society?

Thank you  :)

Stalin isn't my strong suit with Russia, I prefer the Bolshevik consolidation questions but I can help you out a bit :)
Off the top of my head I can think of two ways that you could structure this essay.

- Thematically, so (as jakesilove said) Social, Economic, Political, Cultural etc. would each have their own paragraph. Since "society" is in the question I'd probably have "social" as my first paragraph). This would be my preferred way to do it.

- You could also base each paragraph around a specific section of society that was impacted. So one paragraph on Communist Party Members (particularly remember to talk about Kirov, Kamenev, Zinoviev and Bukharin), one on society (remember to talk about the kulaks) and one on the Army. This would be a good structure as well :)

Hope this helps!! Good luck comrade xx
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: pughg16 on October 15, 2016, 06:22:52 pm
I haven't been on this thread, so sorry if I'm repeating a question, but for the personality study, how is it best to integrate Historians?
Just that I am having some trouble remembering which historian said what quote ???...especially when I am writing a timed essay, and I get kinda flustered.....
Should I just state their opinion, or paraphrase a quote, instead of explicitly quoting?

Also....are historians in the National & conflict studies a must, or are they just if they fit?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 15, 2016, 06:36:17 pm
I haven't been on this thread, so sorry if I'm repeating a question, but for the personality study, how is it best to integrate Historians?
Just that I am having some trouble remembering which historian said what quote ???...especially when I am writing a timed essay, and I get kinda flustered.....
Should I just state their opinion, or paraphrase a quote, instead of explicitly quoting?

Also....are historians in the National & conflict studies a must, or are they just if they fit?

hey hey :)
When integrating historians, try to avoid "shopping listing," which is the term my teacher uses to describe when a students paragraph is pretty much just namedropping as many historians as possible. It looks like you are avoiding answering the question that way.
In terms of remembering which historian said which quote, this is being a little bit sneaky, but according to my teacher who marks the modern hsc, you're unlikely to get marked down if you put the wrong historians name, the teacher will just view it as an honest mistake and move on. Try to avoid doing this as much as you can, because if all of your historians are wrong then it will look dodgy, but if you have an amazing quote but you just can't remember who said it, just take a guess and you should be fine (as long as the opinion within the quote is not wildly different to that held by the historian, for example - idk what personality study you do but this is for Trotsky - don't put Hitchens name after a Service quote).
Paraphrasing/stating the opinion of a historian is fab with longer quotes or if you are just expressing his ideas in general, but shorter, exact quotes are great also :) Just make sure you aren't just dropping them in for the sake of having a quote, they have to fit in with your argument.

It's good to have historians for the national and conflict study, and in general the top marking essays tend to use them. However don't worry too much about them because the markers would much rather see your own judgements and ideas instead of just the regurgitating of a historian. Use the quotes when they fit and when they back up your own arguments, rather than just listing them :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: birdwing341 on October 15, 2016, 06:40:31 pm
I haven't been on this thread, so sorry if I'm repeating a question, but for the personality study, how is it best to integrate Historians?
Just that I am having some trouble remembering which historian said what quote ???...especially when I am writing a timed essay, and I get kinda flustered.....
Should I just state their opinion, or paraphrase a quote, instead of explicitly quoting?

Also....are historians in the National & conflict studies a must, or are they just if they fit?

Hello pughg!

So the way I see it is that you don't need historians for National and Conflict studies, but they can be super helpful and can show the marker your sophistication. That said, you should definitely not spam quotes and not explain them.

There are honestly so many ways of referencing historians, so I might give some examples of the ways that I use them.

1. Drop their name/opinion: So in some situations the easiest thing to do is just to drop the name and drop their opinion. This is perhaps more helpful for national and conflict studies, because you want to be doing a bit more explanation for your personality study. I've included a sentence below from one of my introductions, which shows how to just drop the names and opinions. Also I used quote marks on a key phrase they use, wouldn't really call that quoting.

Yet his role in this state has formed the basis of an intense historiographical debate between structuralists such as Norman Rich, who believe that Hitler held ultimate power as the ‘Master of the Third Reich’, and intentionalists, who in the extreme case of Hans Mommsen, view Hitler as a ‘weak dictator’.

2. Drop the quote: Another way, that is perhaps a little more stressful, is to memorise a quote and drop it in the exam. I want to stress that this isn't required in national and conflict studies (but you can use it), however I personally prefer to use this method in personality studies (although paraphrasing is sometimes fine). The following is an example from my 15/15 Speer trials which has quotes integrated. You want to be making sure with the personality study that historians don't replace your opinion but support it - so in the extract below I suggest my idea and then support it with quotes

Speer’s self-interest also caused him to shift his alliances after realising Germany would lose the war including in his opposition to the Nero Order, in which Dan van der Vat suggests ‘Speer acted cynically with an eye to post-war Germany’ and his plan to kill Hitler which he labels ‘little more than thinking aloud…bunker bunkum’.

3. Paraphrase :): The easiest method, which works just as well in national/conflict studies and can sometimes be OK in personality studies. It just involves dropping the name of the historian and paraphrasing their view. It's a notch down in sophistication, but it suffices well. I'll contrast methods 2 and 3 below to show the difference and the effect.

Method 2: The constant conflict within the Nazi state actually enhanced Hitler’s position of power significantly, as Dietrich Bracher says “the antagonism between rival agencies was resolved solely in the key position of the Führer, which derived precisely from the complex opposition of power groups and personal ties”

Method 3: Dietrich Bracher agrees that the constant conflict between rival power cartels in the Nazi state actually enhanced Hitler's power, as the system encouraged individuals to fight amongst themselves rather than fight to usurp Hitler's position.

Sorry about the ramble haha, but to directly answer the question. The best way to integrate historians in personality study is to use a direct quote, however if you forget that's all good :) just paraphrase their opinion and chuck it in quotation marks. And historians aren't necessary in national and conflict studies but I would heavily suggest using them!!

Hope that helped

Haha sudodds beat me to it, I'll post this anyway
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: lozil on October 15, 2016, 07:42:35 pm
I haven't been on this thread, so sorry if I'm repeating a question, but for the personality study, how is it best to integrate Historians?
Just that I am having some trouble remembering which historian said what quote ???...especially when I am writing a timed essay, and I get kinda flustered.....
Should I just state their opinion, or paraphrase a quote, instead of explicitly quoting?

Also....are historians in the National & conflict studies a must, or are they just if they fit?

Also on the personality study and I also apologise if this has been asked before, but for the 15 marker, any tips for studying for it? With every other section I pretty much just use pre-prepared essays but the 15 marker is a bit of a wild card... (for the trials I prepped for the wrong type of question for the 15 marker which is essentially the spot i lost all my marks)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 15, 2016, 07:51:29 pm
Also on the personality study and I also apologise if this has been asked before, but for the 15 marker, any tips for studying for it? With every other section I pretty much just use pre-prepared essays but the 15 marker is a bit of a wild card... (for the trials I prepped for the wrong type of question for the 15 marker which is essentially the spot i lost all my marks)
Who's your personality? For Trotsky, I have "prepared"-ish paragraphs for each syllabus dotpoint, and depending on the question I choose which paragraphs I will use, however they are also almost invariably slightly changed to suit the question. Though for national and international study I almost always write my essays thematically, I find it a lot easier with the personality to structure them by syllabus dot point :)

The best thing you can do is to do as many practice responses in timed conditions as possible. If you can get them checked over by your teacher. Another good thing to do is to get every single past question you can find, and create an essay plan for them. There are only so many types of questions they can ask for this, and a lot of the times they are at least to some extent repeated (slight word changes here and there).

I would probably spend a bit more time studying for this section though if I were you. The questions from the last two years have been deceptively really tricky, so I wouldn't be surprised if that was where the curveball for 2016 will fall as well!

Hope this helps!!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Celeriac on October 15, 2016, 07:52:17 pm
Hi  :)

I have a question about Germany (national study).

I'm having a bit of trouble with this question from last year's HSC:
How effective was the Nazi party up to 1939 in dealing with the political, economic and social issues arising from the Weimar Republic?

I know for political issues I could discuss the fact that by establishing a one-party state, the issues regarding proportional representation as well as Article 48 were removed, political violence was lessened and there was overall an increase in political stability. However, I'm not sure how to sustain a discussion on social or economic issues.

Am I missing content or was this just the more difficult question from last year's paper? I feel like Nazi economic policy was never really a focus, nor was their response to social issues.

Edit: would it be possible to argue that the Nazi Party made social issues worse via their response to religion, the youth, and etc?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: birdwing341 on October 15, 2016, 08:17:56 pm
Hi  :)

I have a question about Germany (national study).

I'm having a bit of trouble with this question from last year's HSC:
How effective was the Nazi party up to 1939 in dealing with the political, economic and social issues arising from the Weimar Republic?

I know for political issues I could discuss the fact that by establishing a one-party state, the issues regarding proportional representation as well as Article 48 were removed, political violence was lessened and there was overall an increase in political stability. However, I'm not sure how to sustain a discussion on social or economic issues.

Am I missing content or was this just the more difficult question from last year's paper? I feel like Nazi economic policy was never really a focus, nor was their response to social issues.

Edit: would it be possible to argue that the Nazi Party made social issues worse via their response to religion, the youth, and etc?

Hello :)

Come to think of it that's a particularly difficult question as you have to define the issues, address the Nazi policy response and then evaluate its effectiveness! But here's the thing - economic policy was a minor focus of the Nazi party, but it isn't a focus of our syllabus, which makes addressing the question a little more difficult. I've gone to find a book with some actual information so what I'm saying is 100% legit :)

So apparently Hitler told his cabinet to 'avoid all detailed statements concerning an economic programme of the government', however he also realised that his position depended on bring Germany out of a recession (because he achieved representation by a negative consensus). Firstly the Nazi party wished to ensure that reliance on overseas economies (which brought about the Depression) did not happen again and so they pursued a policy of autarky (self-sufficiency). And the Nazis were also exposed to (uh oh economics) Keynesian economic theory which basically suggested that by spending lots of money and creating jobs, the economy would improve, and so they pursued this policy also. Despite these ideologies, 'no single unified economic system prevailed throughout the entire period of the Nazi regime'.

The Nazis also brought in Hjalmat Schacht (who was an absolute genius) and he developed a wide range of strategies which, to cut things short, basically attempted to create jobs and growth (lmao!!). As a result of his policies, by 1936 unemployment had reached 1.5m (a new low), GDP had increased by 40% and industrial output had increased by 60% - but these masked some structural issues of the economy. In order to address these problems, Goering introduced a Four Year Plan in 1936 which ostensibly highlighted objectives to continue growth, and ready the German economy for war within four years - however their policy did not eventuate in their desired aims and by the outbreak of war, they had not achieved self-sufficiency and were still in huge amounts of public debt.

So I'd address this sector by saying they addressed them ostensibly, but did not actually solve their problems completely. As for the social aspect, you could say whatever you would like :) as long as you back it up with historical evidence. Personally I would say the Nazi party achieved their aims and created a stable society of acquiescence by their use of propaganda, terror and repression, because I don't believe that the Nazis were truly fixated on engaging German society with a cultural revolution, but were instead focused on creating internal stability so that their twin aims of 'race and war' could be pursued on a foreign stage.

The only problem I have with the argument that the Nazis made society worse etc. was that they created a stable society, so if you argue that you would have to talk about the ability of the church to pursue its own agendas on 'church matters', small business rejection of Nazi education reforms as graduates were not skilled enough for the workplace, the number of groups that actively abstained from youth etc.

Good luck :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: onepunchboy on October 16, 2016, 06:13:59 am
For anyone doing the Arab-Israeli Conflict, can someone explain to me the difference between Arab Nationalism and Pan-Arab nationalism? Thanks
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on October 16, 2016, 11:27:47 am
Hello :)
 

The only problem I have with the argument that the Nazis made society worse etc. was that they created a stable society
Good luck :)

Brilliant answer, nothing really to add here. Potentially, steer away from claiming that the Nazis created a 'stable society'. I could walk into a room, handcuff everyone to a chair, kill a third of them out, and be sure to have a 'stable' room. Like, it's either an obvious, unnecessary argument, or bordering on apologetic. Just something to be careful of aha
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: pughg16 on October 17, 2016, 09:10:54 am
Also on the personality study and I also apologise if this has been asked before, but for the 15 marker, any tips for studying for it? With every other section I pretty much just use pre-prepared essays but the 15 marker is a bit of a wild card... (for the trials I prepped for the wrong type of question for the 15 marker which is essentially the spot i lost all my marks)

I'm doing Speer for the Personality Study, and it is possible to have prepared-ish ideas for a paragraph...
With Speer, a lot of the questions can be based on three points....
1. Appointment as first architect
2. Appointment as Armaments Minister
3. Nuremburg & life after the trials
These points can all be fairly easily manipulated, as long as you have supporting historians for each point....
Hope this helps!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: pughg16 on October 17, 2016, 09:12:51 am
And thanks to birdwing341 and sudodds for the help!!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 17, 2016, 09:26:13 am
And thanks to birdwing341 and sudodds for the help!!
No worries!! Good luck  ;D
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: annika.stanton on October 17, 2016, 10:15:14 am
Hey! I'm currently working on last minute practice essays/ essay plans for Germany in the National Studies section and I'm a little stuck on what else I should be discussing in this question:

Assess the influence of the German army on the successes and failures of the Weimar Republic by 1933.

The only thing I can come up with is the 1920 Kapp Putsch. Any help would be awesome!  :D
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on October 17, 2016, 12:43:06 pm
Hey! I'm currently working on last minute practice essays/ essay plans for Germany in the National Studies section and I'm a little stuck on what else I should be discussing in this question:

Assess the influence of the German army on the successes and failures of the Weimar Republic by 1933.

The only thing I can come up with is the 1920 Kapp Putsch. Any help would be awesome!  :D

Ooft, that is a brutally specific question. Like, far out. My stomach is crawling just thinking about having to answer that.

I think the smart way to answer this question is to limit your discussion of the German army. So, spend 50-60% of the essay assessing the impact of the Army of successes/failures, but then claim OTHER factors played a greater role (ie. economic, social, political factors) and talk about those for 40% of the time. Like, you just can't fill an essay with this.

Hmm. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you can be super clever. Yeah, let's be super clever. Remember back in 1919, when good old Ebert was trying to build a brilliant new republic, but needed to support of the Army (Groener), resulting in the 'state within a state' Ebert-Groener pact? Well, that (arguably) planted the seeds for the Kapp Putch, but also for a maintained German nationalism/militarism, conceding that the Army should and would play a significant role in the future of the Weimar Republic. Perhaps, it even maintained an inner circle of militarists, of right wing old-German supporters, who through propaganda and fear, coupled with external economic factors, allowed for the rise of the NSDAP? Tricky, tricky...

Basically, if BOSTES throws you under the bus with a question like this, then think about how you can stretch it into something you're more comfortable with. Don't get me wrong; you need to answer the specific questions given to you. However, if you can work the question into something more... convenient, then that will only benefit you.

That's all that I can think of off the top of my head. Totally fair question to be stuck on though!

Let me know if I can help with anything else, or get more specific in my response.

Jake
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: pughg16 on October 17, 2016, 01:02:31 pm
Hey! I'm currently working on last minute practice essays/ essay plans for Germany in the National Studies section and I'm a little stuck on what else I should be discussing in this question:

Assess the influence of the German army on the successes and failures of the Weimar Republic by 1933.

The only thing I can come up with is the 1920 Kapp Putsch. Any help would be awesome!  :D

I think what Jake said was pretty good....
We had a horrible question like that for our trials....but it was about the role of the German army in the german government between 1918 & 1933.
I think I said about the Ebert-Groener pact & Kapp Putsch, then my next paragraph was about the 'Golden Era'...(dont ask me how i linked this tho!) then about the night of the long Knives (this may not link tho)
But I think you could say it only had a moderate impact, with other majors economic factors e.g. the depression playing a large role in accelerating the end of the republic.
Hope that helped a bit!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Celeriac on October 17, 2016, 01:16:13 pm
Thank you to birdwing and Jake for answering my question  :)

I have another question about Germany though. For the feature/theme "the nature and role of nationalism", does this mostly link to Nazi racial policy, the key tenets of Nazism and maybe dolchstosslegende (since right-wing nationalists supported the legend)? I'm not sure what else it can link to. Maybe nationalists within the German army?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on October 17, 2016, 01:21:14 pm
Thank you to birdwing and Jake for answering my question  :)

I have another question about Germany though. For the feature/theme "the nature and role of nationalism", does this mostly link to Nazi racial policy, the key tenets of Nazism and maybe dolchstosslegende (since right-wing nationalists supported the legend)? I'm not sure what else it can link to. Maybe nationalists within the German army?

Yeah definitely, I think you've covered the main points. Generally, I think nationalism supported the rise of right-wing reactionary parties, for the reasons you've outlined above. You can really talk about whatever you want for something as broad as nationalism; the important part is that you have a strong thesis. Decide to what extent nationalism played an important role in the downfall of Weimar, and go from there. Sounds like you know your shit!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: pughg16 on October 17, 2016, 01:36:14 pm
Thank you to birdwing and Jake for answering my question  :)

I have another question about Germany though. For the feature/theme "the nature and role of nationalism", does this mostly link to Nazi racial policy, the key tenets of Nazism and maybe dolchstosslegende (since right-wing nationalists supported the legend)? I'm not sure what else it can link to. Maybe nationalists within the German army?

Perhaps even the nature of Nazism, and Hitler's nationalistic appeal in his speeches, and also the Nazi salute & swastika.
You could even link nationalism back to the end of WW1, and how Germany, a proud military nation, was given sole blame for the war, and how this would have impacted on their nationalistic sentiment?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Celeriac on October 17, 2016, 01:41:16 pm
Thank you for that!

One final question: for a question such as "Assess the influence of Nazi propaganda, terror and repression on the German people", would it be okay to discuss many different aspects of propaganda (e.g radio, film, newspapers, theatre, literature, etc)? I'm concerned by doing this I'd end up being too descriptive even though it'd be linked to the idea that Germans were constantly exposed to Nazism, thus being impacted immensely. However without referring to these specific examples, I feel that I wouldn't be able to sustain 1-2 paragraphs on propaganda.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on October 17, 2016, 01:43:04 pm
Thank you for that!

One final question: for a question such as "Assess the influence of Nazi propaganda, terror and repression on the German people", would it be okay to discuss many different aspects of propaganda (e.g radio, film, newspapers, theatre, literature, etc)? I'm concerned by doing this I'd end up being too descriptive even though it'd be linked to the idea that Germans were constantly exposed to Nazism, thus being impacted immensely. However without referring to these specific examples, I feel that I wouldn't be able to sustain 1-2 paragraphs on propaganda.

Definitely refer to everything you've discussed above, just do so really succinctly. Make sure to be drawing conclusions, rather than just describing facts, but by the sounds of it you're totally aware of that!

Jake
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: birdwing341 on October 17, 2016, 02:02:21 pm
Thank you for that!

One final question: for a question such as "Assess the influence of Nazi propaganda, terror and repression on the German people", would it be okay to discuss many different aspects of propaganda (e.g radio, film, newspapers, theatre, literature, etc)? I'm concerned by doing this I'd end up being too descriptive even though it'd be linked to the idea that Germans were constantly exposed to Nazism, thus being impacted immensely. However without referring to these specific examples, I feel that I wouldn't be able to sustain 1-2 paragraphs on propaganda.

Just to add on to Jake's stuff, if you feel like you'll be stretched to write 1/2 paragraphs on propaganda, then maybe write one specifically on resistance! So if I get this question I think I'll use a four paragraph structure - one para on propaganda, one on terror and repression, one on individual 'passive' resistance, which suggests that the Nazis couldn't prevent individual acts of resistance that didn't destabilise society from occurring, and one on institutional resistance such as the church (and I focus there on how they were able to resist on 'church' matters, but their focus was not on taking down the regime).

Feel free to ask any questions if you want to clarify anything else :)

And thanks to birdwing341 and sudodds for the help!!

No worries!! Ask anything anytime :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: annika.stanton on October 17, 2016, 02:36:21 pm
Ooft, that is a brutally specific question. Like, far out. My stomach is crawling just thinking about having to answer that.

I think the smart way to answer this question is to limit your discussion of the German army. So, spend 50-60% of the essay assessing the impact of the Army of successes/failures, but then claim OTHER factors played a greater role (ie. economic, social, political factors) and talk about those for 40% of the time. Like, you just can't fill an essay with this.

Hmm. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you can be super clever. Yeah, let's be super clever. Remember back in 1919, when good old Ebert was trying to build a brilliant new republic, but needed to support of the Army (Groener), resulting in the 'state within a state' Ebert-Groener pact? Well, that (arguably) planted the seeds for the Kapp Putch, but also for a maintained German nationalism/militarism, conceding that the Army should and would play a significant role in the future of the Weimar Republic. Perhaps, it even maintained an inner circle of militarists, of right wing old-German supporters, who through propaganda and fear, coupled with external economic factors, allowed for the rise of the NSDAP? Tricky, tricky...

Basically, if BOSTES throws you under the bus with a question like this, then think about how you can stretch it into something you're more comfortable with. Don't get me wrong; you need to answer the specific questions given to you. However, if you can work the question into something more... convenient, then that will only benefit you.

That's all that I can think of off the top of my head. Totally fair question to be stuck on though!

Let me know if I can help with anything else, or get more specific in my response.

Jake

Yeah that question is very brutal!
When you mentioned the Ebert- Groener pact, could you possibly go into a bit more detail about what it was about (I don't remember learning this in class.. :o)
Other than that, this is super helpful. Thank you Jake!  ;D

I think what Jake said was pretty good....
We had a horrible question like that for our trials....but it was about the role of the German army in the german government between 1918 & 1933.
I think I said about the Ebert-Groener pact & Kapp Putsch, then my next paragraph was about the 'Golden Era'...(dont ask me how i linked this tho!) then about the night of the long Knives (this may not link tho)
But I think you could say it only had a moderate impact, with other majors economic factors e.g. the depression playing a large role in accelerating the end of the republic.
Hope that helped a bit!
This is also super helpful, thank you so much!  ;D
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on October 17, 2016, 02:41:09 pm

Yeah that question is very brutal!
When you mentioned the Ebert- Groener pact, could you possibly go into a bit more detail about what it was about (I don't remember learning this in class.. :o)
Other than that, this is super helpful. Thank you Jake!  ;D
This is also super helpful, thank you so much!  ;D

To be honest, the Wikipedia page is pretty good on this. Check it out!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Celeriac on October 17, 2016, 03:02:58 pm
Thank you again, Jake and birdwing  :)

I know I said my last post was my final question, but something else popped up.

Explain why the Nazis were able to consolidate power in the period 1933–1934.

Explain why? I'm not sure how I'd approach this. Lack of opposition? Maybe events that enabled the consolidation of power e.g the Reichstag fire and the hatred of communists since the end of World War I? It seems like a weird question to me since it doesn't ask how the Nazis consolidated their power but rather why they were able to. Would you talk about the general support Hitler had?

 
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on October 17, 2016, 03:34:11 pm
Thank you again, Jake and birdwing  :)

I know I said my last post was my final question, but something else popped up.

Explain why the Nazis were able to consolidate power in the period 1933–1934.

Explain why? I'm not sure how I'd approach this. Lack of opposition? Maybe events that enabled the consolidation of power e.g the Reichstag fire and the hatred of communists since the end of World War I? It seems like a weird question to me since it doesn't ask how the Nazis consolidated their power but rather why they were able to. Would you talk about the general support Hitler had?

Definitely a weird question. I like to always break down an essay into sub-categories, and work from there. Whilst the question sounds like it just wants you to recite facts, obviously that's not the case. I would deconstruct the question into economic reason, political reasons and social reasons. You're absolutely right; it's not HOW, it's WHY. So, you're kind of looking to reasons for the downfall of Weimar, plus potentially WHY NSDAP methodologies were successful. Just go with your gut answering this question; write out a solid thesis, and keep coming back to it. You seriously sound like you have a good understanding of the period, so I know you'll smash a weird question like this :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: pughg16 on October 17, 2016, 03:59:45 pm
Steering off from Germany and into the Conflict in the Pacific frame of mind.. :D...I have a question for conflict that I can't think of naything to say for it.
If thought about it for quite some time...and still can't come up with any ideas ???
 This is the 2011 conflict question:
"How successful was the Allied Occupation of Japan in achieving its aims to 1951?"
Would I have a paragraph on Demilitarisation of Japan, and one on restoring the nation to position of relative power in Asia....and ahy other ideas?
Any help is much appreciated thankyou!!! ;)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: birdwing341 on October 17, 2016, 04:26:13 pm
Steering off from Germany and into the Conflict in the Pacific frame of mind.. :D...I have a question for conflict that I can't think of naything to say for it.
If thought about it for quite some time...and still can't come up with any ideas ???
 This is the 2011 conflict question:
"How successful was the Allied Occupation of Japan in achieving its aims to 1951?"
Would I have a paragraph on Demilitarisation of Japan, and one on restoring the nation to position of relative power in Asia....and ahy other ideas?
Any help is much appreciated thankyou!!! ;)

Hello! Do you do Speer as well? Then we would do the same topics. Anyway onto the question - so my plan follows four points;

1. Dearm and Demilitarise: Things like bringing all the soldiers back into the country, destroying their ships and planes, shipping 7 tonnes of samurai swords to san Francisco (kind of irrelevant but funny), introducing a clause in the constitution in which Japan renounced war and in which their defence force could only be used in self-defence and police powers restricted
2. Democratise: This includes the four main focuses of the new constitution - Emperor's positioned is retained yet he renounces his divinity, creation of two new parliaments in which the Cabinet members and PM had to be civilians (to remove militarist influence in society), Japan renounces war and a number of civil liberties introduced.
3. Americanisation: passed a whole bunch of laws that allowed for greater civil liberties; e.g. Women were given the vote, land reforms were undertaken (where the Supreme Commander of Allied Powers sold land of absentee landlords to peasants, meaning that 90% of peasants became self-sufficient - this was a decision to gain support from the rural sectors, who were traditionally the most militarist), Introduction of Trade unions, minimum wages etc., zaibatsu removed from positions as head of big businesses and education fixed so that indoctrination was removed and instead had a greater focus on free thinking.
4. Establishing Japan as a bulwark against Communism: includes purging the country of communists, boosting their economy by using the nation as a base in the Korean war, essentially ensuring Japan was an ally and an example to communist powers of 'what the west could do'

That's basically what I had, but you could switch stuff around and add it in :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: pughg16 on October 17, 2016, 04:47:26 pm
Hello! Do you do Speer as well? Then we would do the same topics. Anyway onto the question - so my plan follows four points;

1. Dearm and Demilitarise: Things like bringing all the soldiers back into the country, destroying their ships and planes, shipping 7 tonnes of samurai swords to san Francisco (kind of irrelevant but funny), introducing a clause in the constitution in which Japan renounced war and in which their defence force could only be used in self-defence and police powers restricted
2. Democratise: This includes the four main focuses of the new constitution - Emperor's positioned is retained yet he renounces his divinity, creation of two new parliaments in which the Cabinet members and PM had to be civilians (to remove militarist influence in society), Japan renounces war and a number of civil liberties introduced.
3. Americanisation: passed a whole bunch of laws that allowed for greater civil liberties; e.g. Women were given the vote, land reforms were undertaken (where the Supreme Commander of Allied Powers sold land of absentee landlords to peasants, meaning that 90% of peasants became self-sufficient - this was a decision to gain support from the rural sectors, who were traditionally the most militarist), Introduction of Trade unions, minimum wages etc., zaibatsu removed from positions as head of big businesses and education fixed so that indoctrination was removed and instead had a greater focus on free thinking.
4. Establishing Japan as a bulwark against Communism: includes purging the country of communists, boosting their economy by using the nation as a base in the Korean war, essentially ensuring Japan was an ally and an example to communist powers of 'what the west could do'

That's basically what I had, but you could switch stuff around and add it in :)

Hey birdwing!
Actually, yep I do Speer as well! :D
Thanks heaps for that birdwing...I was really stuck! The question actually make sense now, the examiners aren't so bad IMO now!! ;D Love the bit about the samurai swords ;D
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: birdwing341 on October 17, 2016, 04:53:34 pm
Hey birdwing!
Actually, yep I do Speer as well! :D
Thanks heaps for that birdwing...I was really stuck! The question actually make sense now, the examiners aren't so bad IMO now!! ;D Love the bit about the samurai swords ;D

No worries! Good luck for the exam :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: pughg16 on October 17, 2016, 05:06:20 pm
No worries! Good luck for the exam :)

Same to you!! Good Luck! :D
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: ld0898 on October 18, 2016, 10:35:19 am
Hey everyone  :)
Currently completing a plan for National Study Germany essay...
'Evaluate the view that Nazism had transformed Germany into a totalitarian state by 1939'
Kinda stuck on what points to include :-[
Any assistance would be much appreciated ;D
Thanks!!!!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: imtrying on October 18, 2016, 11:04:15 am
My personality study is Leni Riefenstahl. Looking over some past questions, theres one asking to what extent she had a positive impact on her times. Given that I would argue much of her work was propaganda, the only positive aspect I can see would by her development of innovative film techniques. Is one paragraph on how that is positive enough before I move on to talking about the negative aspects?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on October 18, 2016, 11:21:01 am
Hey everyone  :)
Currently completing a plan for National Study Germany essay...
'Evaluate the view that Nazism had transformed Germany into a totalitarian state by 1939'
Kinda stuck on what points to include :-[
Any assistance would be much appreciated ;D
Thanks!!!!

Hey! For a totalitarian question, you really NEED criteria. What makes a state a totalitarian state? I used the Friedrich and Brzezinski model, which you can find in the Wiki page here, and I would highly recommend you do the same. You just need to remember the main criteria, and then discuss whether the Nazi state embodied/satisfied those points in 1939!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on October 18, 2016, 11:22:03 am
My personality study is Leni Riefenstahl. Looking over some past questions, theres one asking to what extent she had a positive impact on her times. Given that I would argue much of her work was propaganda, the only positive aspect I can see would by her development of innovative film techniques. Is one paragraph on how that is positive enough before I move on to talking about the negative aspects?

That's absolutely fine. Most of the time, it is extremely difficult to argue positives at all. The fact that you've even tried makes you stand out as a stellar student, but you really don't need to spend too long on it. Looks like your structure is perfect!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: ld0898 on October 18, 2016, 11:44:33 am
Hey! For a totalitarian question, you really NEED criteria. What makes a state a totalitarian state? I used the Friedrich and Brzezinski model, which you can find in the Wiki page here, and I would highly recommend you do the same. You just need to remember the main criteria, and then discuss whether the Nazi state embodied/satisfied those points in 1939!

That's awesome!! Thanks!! :D
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: aoife98 on October 18, 2016, 12:37:17 pm
Not sure how to approach last years Conflict in Europe question: “Appeasement was a tactic used to delay war rather than a policy to achieve a lasting peace” How accurate is this statement?
Any ideas?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on October 18, 2016, 01:04:56 pm
Not sure how to approach last years Conflict in Europe question: “Appeasement was a tactic used to delay war rather than a policy to achieve a lasting peace” How accurate is this statement?
Any ideas?

Hey! Definitely a tough one; I think this questions really just requires you to assess the state of Europe inter-war, and specifically discuss the League of Nations policy of appeasement. Do you think nations did enough to prevent war? Or were they just delaying it? Go through the steps Germany took to bring about war, and the response of the international community. Assess their impact (positive/negative/enough/not enough), and decide whether history should look on the inter-war period with shame or pride. I won't tell you how to answer the question, except to say this: can you ever blame other nations when a country starts a war? Doesn't the memory of WWI give a valid reason for troops not being sent in?

Let me know if you have an essay plan, I'd be happy to look over it!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Celeriac on October 18, 2016, 01:16:37 pm
Hi, yet another question about Germany.

Whilst the syllabus specifies that we look at Hitler's initial consolidation of power (1933-1934), for a question such as: To what extent was Nazi racial policy the key factor in the consolidation of Nazi power in Germany up to 1939? does the consolidation of power include basically anything up until 1939 (propaganda, terror/repression, etc)?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on October 18, 2016, 01:57:45 pm
Hi, yet another question about Germany.

Whilst the syllabus specifies that we look at Hitler's initial consolidation of power (1933-1934), for a question such as: To what extent was Nazi racial policy the key factor in the consolidation of Nazi power in Germany up to 1939? does the consolidation of power include basically anything up until 1939 (propaganda, terror/repression, etc)?

Yep, absolutely! However, markers will love it if you break down a stupid question, like that one, and sort of 'redefine' the question. So, if in your introduction, say something like 'Consolidation of NSDAP power took place primarily between 1933-34, and so to discuss consolidation of power beyond this time-frame does not represent the true purpose of their actions. Rather than a consolidation of power, racial policy was a key factor in the complete take-over of the German society, and thus this essay will look to...' etc. etc. If they give you a specific year, assume you can ALWAYS discuss the question up until that year. However, breaking down a question is always a good idea for a band 6 essay!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Emerald99 on October 18, 2016, 02:17:51 pm
I was always get 9/10 for my personality part a question, how do i get full marks in this question?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on October 18, 2016, 02:24:20 pm
I was always get 9/10 for my personality part a question, how do i get full marks in this question?

You just need to blow the maker away; throw in a billion statistics, draw some quick conclusions from your facts, have dates and names left right and center. Be brief, but comprehensive. It's usually totally to the markers discretion whether they give you 9 or 10, so I wouldn't be worrying about this.

Jake
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 18, 2016, 03:02:32 pm
You just need to blow the maker away; throw in a billion statistics, draw some quick conclusions from your facts, have dates and names left right and center. Be brief, but comprehensive. It's usually totally to the markers discretion whether they give you 9 or 10, so I wouldn't be worrying about this.

Jake

Also make sure that you use consistent wording, and that your sentences are coherent and concise. The difference between a 9 and a 10 is often determined by the clarity of your response. Even though it may seem obvious and clear to you, if you start switching up the words from "significant," to "critical" to "instrumental," a tired marker may get confused and think you are changing your judgement.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: angelaaa8 on October 18, 2016, 03:26:45 pm
With so little time left, what is the best way to revise over all the topics? Make quick notes? Read notes?
And is historiography needed in part A or more so in part B for personalities?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on October 18, 2016, 03:30:39 pm
With so little time left, what is the best way to revise over all the topics? Make quick notes? Read notes?
And is historiography needed in part A or more so in part B for personalities?

Funny you should ask! Check out this article here, and let me know if you have any more questions :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: angelaaa8 on October 18, 2016, 03:38:42 pm
Sweet, thanks! I have a couple of questions.
1. Is historiography needed in part A or more so in part B for personalities?
2. Approx. how many words/pages is expected for part A and B? (I am not a very fast writer, unfortunately)
3. Or more so, how long should I be spending on each part? I don't want to be bogged down in part a.

***edit: How many historian views should I aim to put in for part B? (I am doing Ho Chi Minh and there aren't many resources on the internet for him to have a look at exemplars)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on October 18, 2016, 03:45:00 pm
Sweet, thanks! I have a couple of questions.
1. Is historiography needed in part A or more so in part B for personalities?
2. Approx. how many words/pages is expected for part A and B? (I am not a very fast writer, unfortunately)
3. Or more so, how long should I be spending on each part? I don't want to be bogged down in part a.

***edit: How many historian views should I aim to put in for part B? (I am doing Ho Chi Minh and there aren't many resources on the internet for him to have a look at exemplars)

1. No, no need to include historiography in Part A
2. Can't tell you how many words! Just as many as you can get through
3. Spend as little time on Part A as possible (10-15 minutes) and the bulk on Part B

As many historians as you can fit in! Literally, just as much as possible.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Celeriac on October 18, 2016, 04:06:01 pm
Thank you for answering  :)

Can a few (2-3) historians still be used in Part A of the personality section to support detail?
e.g "According to Fest (1999), Speer's renovation of Goebbel's ministry went over budget"

My teacher recommended that we still use them for Part A, but now I'm not so sure.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on October 18, 2016, 04:09:17 pm
Thank you for answering  :)

Can a few (2-3) historians still be used in Part A of the personality section to support detail?
e.g "According to Fest (1999), Speer's renovation of Goebbel's ministry went over budget"

My teacher recommended that we still use them for Part A, but now I'm not so sure.

Oh absolutely! My advice is that you don't NEED historiography, but you can certainly use it!! The example you've given above is a perfect example of a good use of historians in Part A
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: pughg16 on October 18, 2016, 04:11:31 pm
Thank you for answering  :)

Can a few (2-3) historians still be used in Part A of the personality section to support detail?
e.g "According to Fest (1999), Speer's renovation of Goebbel's ministry went over budget"

My teacher recommended that we still use them for Part A, but now I'm not so sure.

My teacher has often said that we can feel free to use historiography in part a,however it won't get any more marks. Question a) is also normally a simpler directive term such as describe or explain, so personally I don't think the markers are looking for you to justify anything as they are not asking for an opinion.
Personally, I like to save my quotes for b) as I know they are a necessity in there!!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: angelaaa8 on October 18, 2016, 04:22:41 pm
Do we have any predictions of what Part A for the personality might ask? Background AND rise to prominence? Or just rise to prominence?
I'm hoping for both..
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 18, 2016, 04:39:31 pm
As many historians as you can fit in! Literally, just as much as possible.

Be careful of shopping lists though!! Historians are super important within Part B, moreso than with the two essays, but the markers still want you to analyse, and to see your own voice come through. Don't just drop a historian in for the sake of dropping a historian. Always have a purpose for their inclusion, because that way you're showing the marker that you understand what they are saying, rather than just parroting their words. Historians should be used to back up your own arguments and judgements, not form the basis of them.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: atar27 on October 18, 2016, 06:49:52 pm
Hey do you think we should be memorising historians?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: atar27 on October 18, 2016, 06:53:24 pm

Hey do you think we should be memorising historians?

Since we don't know the question
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: birdwing341 on October 18, 2016, 07:19:41 pm
Since we don't know the question

That honestly depends on your preference! Do you want to memorise some historians/quotes that might appear for a certain section or do you want to invest the time in memorising/practicing other content? It's up to you. I, though, will definitely be memorising some historians because, let's face it, the HSC only comes once! And I want to do the best I can :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: atar27 on October 18, 2016, 07:28:46 pm
So birdwing341 you prefer memorising historians?
We are all going to try our best! Hope the exam is not too challenging!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: AFix on October 18, 2016, 07:38:02 pm
It will be historical context LOL
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: birdwing341 on October 18, 2016, 08:21:43 pm
So birdwing341 you prefer memorising historians?
We are all going to try our best! Hope the exam is not too challenging!

Yup :) Or leastways the quotes that they have/their opinions so they can kind of back up my opinion. Particularly for the Nazi Germany sections, I spent a decent amount of time researching historians and their actual opinions so it's useful to have them in my essay :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: pughg16 on October 18, 2016, 09:00:34 pm
I will be studying my historians and quotes for Speer, however for the national & conflict studies, I think I will focus on just a couple of quotes/historians, but mainly on stats & dates that are more important for the essays, particularly because historians aren't needed for these sections.

Come on fellow Historians!!! We can ACE THIS EXAM!!! ;D 8) ;D
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: elysepopplewell on January 31, 2017, 06:25:46 pm
Just going to pop this here for anyone studying Germany in the national study, particularly if interested in Goebbels. This is about his assistant, and the way she contributed to the propaganda. Really chilling, really interesting! Have a read here.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: diesxel on February 05, 2017, 07:44:19 pm
Hello, I had a question about studying for Modern History.  A lot of students recommend purchasing textbooks such as the Excel or Success books. Are these actually helpful or a 'waste of money'? Just a general q asking for opinions to see if I should buy it or not. Thanks!  :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on February 05, 2017, 07:53:22 pm
Hello, I had a question about studying for Modern History.  A lot of students recommend purchasing textbooks such as the Excel or Success books. Are these actually helpful or a 'waste of money'? Just a general q asking for opinions to see if I should buy it or not. Thanks!  :)

In my opinion don't get excel, success one or ken webb. Way too oversimplified to the point where you lose the detail and nuance (this is particularly an issue if you study russia). Checkpoint is great because of the practice questions and sample responses, but I still think it is quite expensive for what it is. 'Key Features of Modern History' by Bruce Dennett and Stephen Dixon is a really good textbook (Dennett wrote the WW1 syllabus so he's defs a credible resource) but again it's sooooo expensive (because it's legit a full on textbook with all the major options of study).

Checkpoint + Key Features of Modern History can be found in the education section of most libraries, so I'd recommend taking a look in your local library before purchasing them, or ask your teacher if they have any copies they could lend you.

*or alternatively you could buy my notes book under 'shop' idk I think they're pretty neat  ;) *
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: elysepopplewell on February 05, 2017, 08:10:29 pm

*or alternatively you could buy my notes book under 'shop' idk I think they're pretty neat  ;) *

Can vouch for this! ;)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: diesxel on February 05, 2017, 08:28:33 pm
Thank you!! I will definitely keep this information in mind.

I actually have already bought the ATAR Notes Modern history book, I bought it at the lectures this year. It's fantastic, I love it! I wish it had some info on the Option topics though :( (Russia gets confusing for me sometimes). But it's amazing for assessment practice and WW1 info. Thanks again!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on February 05, 2017, 08:31:53 pm
Thank you!! I will definitely keep this information in mind.

I actually have already bought the ATAR Notes Modern history book, I bought it at the lectures this year. It's fantastic, I love it! I wish it had some info on the Option topics though :( (Russia gets confusing for me sometimes). But it's amazing for assessment practice and WW1 info. Thanks again!

That's fantastic, I'm so glad you are finding it useful ;D Feel free to message me if you need any help with Russia! Its definitely a challenging unit, particularly when it comes to the integration and understanding of communist theory and practice so you're definitely not alone. Some of my notes/essays on it can be found under the notes tab also + a heap from other users too :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: diesxel on February 05, 2017, 08:53:51 pm
Oh thank you so much! That means a lot to me, and yes I definitely will. The notes and essays on here are amaaaaaaazing
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: diesxel on February 12, 2017, 11:39:08 pm
Hello, I had a question about the dates in Modern History, in particular about Russia and the Russian Revolution.

In some textbooks I study in, the Revolutions are dated in March and October, but in others, the dates are different, they're set in February. I researched and realised it was because of a difference in calendars of the time and of present. My question was, which ones are the ones that should be used in the HSC? And if both, which one is the better option? Thanks  :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on February 12, 2017, 11:41:06 pm
Hello, I had a question about the dates in Modern History, in particular about Russia and the Russian Revolution.

In some textbooks I study in, the Revolutions are dated in March and October, but in others, the dates are different, they're set in February. I researched and realised it was because of a difference in calendars of the time and of present. My question was, which ones are the ones that should be used in the HSC? And if both, which one is the better option? Thanks  :)
both will be fine, but the most common variations are February and October :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Jess.martinuzzo on February 21, 2017, 03:15:38 pm
Hey Susie,
I have a modern assessment at the moment on Russia for our national study with the question:
'Explain How the Bolshevik/Communist Government was able to consolidate it's power between 1917 and 1921.'
I was unsure as to whether I should write a thematic essay and split the factors by economic reforms, social and political reforms, military and repression (one idea per paragraph) OR focus on events or 'ideas' each paragraph - so a paragraph on social and political (combined), one on The Treaty of Brest Litovsk,  another on Civil War and War Communism (combined) and a final paragraph on the NEP. My only concern is that if I do the second structure, that the essay will lack other minor details. However if I do the first structure, I will have too much content that won't go into enough detail?

What do you suggest I do and in your opinion, what do you believe will mark better?
Is there anything else crucial that I should consider to include in my essay?
Should I worry about including quotations from Historians?
And any good resources to use for research?

Thankyou so much!!! - Jess  :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on February 21, 2017, 03:32:29 pm
Hey Susie,
I have a modern assessment at the moment on Russia for our national study with the question:
'Explain How the Bolshevik/Communist Government was able to consolidate it's power between 1917 and 1921.'
I was unsure as to whether I should write a thematic essay and split the factors by economic reforms, social and political reforms, military and repression (one idea per paragraph) OR focus on events or 'ideas' each paragraph - so a paragraph on social and political (combined), one on The Treaty of Brest Litovsk,  another on Civil War and War Communism (combined) and a final paragraph on the NEP. My only concern is that if I do the second structure, that the essay will lack other minor details. However if I do the first structure, I will have too much content that won't go into enough detail?

What do you suggest I do and in your opinion, what do you believe will mark better?
Is there anything else crucial that I should consider to include in my essay?
Should I worry about including quotations from Historians?
And any good resources to use for research?

Thankyou so much!!! - Jess  :)

The way I would have done it is by the syllabus dot points/events, so a paragraph on social and political reforms, a paragraph on the Treaty of Brest Litovsk, one on the Civil War and War Communism, and then one on the NEP, but that is because when it came to Bolshevik essays I always structured them this way as that is how I was most comfortable. You are correct in that these types of essays can be tricky though, because when you structure them around events you need to make sure you know the ins and outs of these events back to front. I'd still probably prefer this essay over a thematic essay though, as the extrapolating of themes from this section of the syllabus is going to be pretty intense given that it's such a large unit. My detail table + essays that I wrote on this section can be found under the notes tab - they will probably help quite a lot if you're worried about not having enough detail or knowledge on the specific events and their intricacies.

However, a thematic essay would definitely work with this essay also, and if I was going to attempt it, i'd say that paragraphs you'd want to write about would be socio-cultural, military, economic and political. I wouldn't particularly discuss repression as a theme in and of itself - but you could discuss it within the military and political paragraphs if you so wish.

I don't think one structure over the other is going to get better marks, its moreso what you are most comfortable writing. Syllabus essays sometimes have the advantage of making it easy for the marker to see that you are ticking all the boxes, however thematic essays sometimes have the advantage of appearing more sophisticated, so I don't really think either way it'll make much of a difference.

In terms of things that I think are crucial to mention - Communist Theory and Practice. This underlying factor of the entire consolidation so its defs something I'd try to include. Something on the conflict between ideological adherence and pragmatism/needs of society is also great to include.

Don't worry about including quotes from historians. Are they a nice addition to an essay? Definitely! But you shouldn't lose marks for it (check with your teacher though for their opinion, because I do know that certain teachers can be quite insistent on their inclusion - but in regards to the final HSC exam you should never be marked down for not including them). That being said, if you do have the time, quotes are defs a nice touch and count as detail if you're worried about not having enough specifically. They're pretty easy to find, just type in "historian quotes on _________" and heaps should pop up!

In terms of resources, check out this thread I made Modern History Reading/Resource Guide. I've put a bunch of some of the best resources I know there, I'd definitely recommend checking some of these out!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Jess.martinuzzo on February 21, 2017, 04:41:12 pm
The way I would have done it is by the syllabus dot points/events, so a paragraph on social and political reforms, a paragraph on the Treaty of Brest Litovsk, one on the Civil War and War Communism, and then one on the NEP, but that is because when it came to Bolshevik essays I always structured them this way as that is how I was most comfortable. You are correct in that these types of essays can be tricky though, because when you structure them around events you need to make sure you know the ins and outs of these events back to front. I'd still probably prefer this essay over a thematic essay though, as the extrapolating of themes from this section of the syllabus is going to be pretty intense given that it's such a large unit. My detail table + essays that I wrote on this section can be found under the notes tab - they will probably help quite a lot if you're worried about not having enough detail or knowledge on the specific events and their intricacies.

However, a thematic essay would definitely work with this essay also, and if I was going to attempt it, i'd say that paragraphs you'd want to write about would be socio-cultural, military, economic and political. I wouldn't particularly discuss repression as a theme in and of itself - but you could discuss it within the military and political paragraphs if you so wish.

I don't think one structure over the other is going to get better marks, its moreso what you are most comfortable writing. Syllabus essays sometimes have the advantage of making it easy for the marker to see that you are ticking all the boxes, however thematic essays sometimes have the advantage of appearing more sophisticated, so I don't really think either way it'll make much of a difference.

In terms of things that I think are crucial to mention - Communist Theory and Practice. This underlying factor of the entire consolidation so its defs something I'd try to include. Something on the conflict between ideological adherence and pragmatism/needs of society is also great to include.

Don't worry about including quotes from historians. Are they a nice addition to an essay? Definitely! But you shouldn't lose marks for it (check with your teacher though for their opinion, because I do know that certain teachers can be quite insistent on their inclusion - but in regards to the final HSC exam you should never be marked down for not including them). That being said, if you do have the time, quotes are defs a nice touch and count as detail if you're worried about not having enough specifically. They're pretty easy to find, just type in "historian quotes on _________" and heaps should pop up!

In terms of resources, check out this thread I made Modern History Reading/Resource Guide. I've put a bunch of some of the best resources I know there, I'd definitely recommend checking some of these out!

Thankyou so much!! Such a big help!!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on February 21, 2017, 05:37:10 pm
Thankyou so much!! Such a big help!!
No worries! That's what I'm here for  ;D If you need help with anything else let us know!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Jess.martinuzzo on February 21, 2017, 07:59:22 pm
The way I would have done it is by the syllabus dot points/events, so a paragraph on social and political reforms, a paragraph on the Treaty of Brest Litovsk, one on the Civil War and War Communism, and then one on the NEP, but that is because when it came to Bolshevik essays I always structured them this way as that is how I was most comfortable. You are correct in that these types of essays can be tricky though, because when you structure them around events you need to make sure you know the ins and outs of these events back to front. I'd still probably prefer this essay over a thematic essay though, as the extrapolating of themes from this section of the syllabus is going to be pretty intense given that it's such a large unit. My detail table + essays that I wrote on this section can be found under the notes tab - they will probably help quite a lot if you're worried about not having enough detail or knowledge on the specific events and their intricacies.

However, a thematic essay would definitely work with this essay also, and if I was going to attempt it, i'd say that paragraphs you'd want to write about would be socio-cultural, military, economic and political. I wouldn't particularly discuss repression as a theme in and of itself - but you could discuss it within the military and political paragraphs if you so wish.

I don't think one structure over the other is going to get better marks, its moreso what you are most comfortable writing. Syllabus essays sometimes have the advantage of making it easy for the marker to see that you are ticking all the boxes, however thematic essays sometimes have the advantage of appearing more sophisticated, so I don't really think either way it'll make much of a difference.

In terms of things that I think are crucial to mention - Communist Theory and Practice. This underlying factor of the entire consolidation so its defs something I'd try to include. Something on the conflict between ideological adherence and pragmatism/needs of society is also great to include.

Don't worry about including quotes from historians. Are they a nice addition to an essay? Definitely! But you shouldn't lose marks for it (check with your teacher though for their opinion, because I do know that certain teachers can be quite insistent on their inclusion - but in regards to the final HSC exam you should never be marked down for not including them). That being said, if you do have the time, quotes are defs a nice touch and count as detail if you're worried about not having enough specifically. They're pretty easy to find, just type in "historian quotes on _________" and heaps should pop up!

In terms of resources, check out this thread I made Modern History Reading/Resource Guide. I've put a bunch of some of the best resources I know there, I'd definitely recommend checking some of these out!

Susie,
Could you please explain the theory behind ideological adherence vs. pragmatism and what it means?
And in regards to communist theory and practice and the conflict between ideological adherence and pragmatism, where would could I fit that into my essay (If I'm doing the 'syllabus' essay)?

Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on February 21, 2017, 08:22:02 pm
Susie,
Could you please explain the theory behind ideological adherence vs. pragmatism and what it means?
And in regards to communist theory and practice and the conflict between ideological adherence and pragmatism, where would could I fit that into my essay (If I'm doing the 'syllabus' essay)?
No worries Jess!

A big theme throughout the consolidation was this conflict between staying true to Bolshevik/Marxist ideology (particularly in regards to Permanent Revolution) and being pragmatic, dealing with the present day needs of society. This is particularly important in regards to the strong need to maintain popularity with the population also (I spoke about this a lot within my Bolshevik essays).

Take the NEP for example. Many people at the time considered the NEP to be making concessions to capitalism, going against Bolshevik and Marxist ideology that would obviously be staunchly opposed to the re-introduction of private trade and profit, even if only on a small scale. However, Lenin understood the needs of society. After the Civil War and War Communism, the Russian economy was devastated, and the population was war weary and exhausted. He knew that the present conditions needed to be fixed first before they could continue to progress to socialism and eventually true communism. Thus, in order to avoid famine and further economic instability, Lenin put on hold his strong ideological beliefs in favour of a practical "retreat" from socialism, which relaxed the political and social tensions of Russia and led to an improved economy, and an increase in support for the Bolsheviks. So in the instance of the NEP, pragmatism won out (and imo that is pretty much a consistent for all the other factors). You can also argue the other way and say that these pragmatic moves were done so for the benefit and easier application of socialism in the future if you so wish.

I'd say you could fit this into your essay by making it the centre point of your judgement! As your question is quite broad, I believe this will allow you to be more targeted with you work. So your thesis statement could be (going off the question you posted earlier):

The Bolshevik Government was able to effectively consolidate their power between 1917 and 1921 by placing a stronger emphasis on the practical needs of society rather than strict ideological adherence.


This isn't the only way that you could do it, and ngl it is a tricky essay, but if done well will be super sophisticated :) Feel free to post any drafts you have here https://atarnotes.com/forum/index.php?topic=164797.0 if you want me to have a look over anything! I hope this helped/made sense!

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on February 22, 2017, 10:30:06 am
No worries Jess!

A big theme throughout the consolidation was this conflict between staying true to Bolshevik/Marxist ideology (particularly in regards to Permanent Revolution) and being pragmatic, dealing with the present day needs of society. This is particularly important in regards to the strong need to maintain popularity with the population also (I spoke about this a lot within my Bolshevik essays).

....

This isn't the only way that you could do it, and ngl it is a tricky essay, but if done well will be super sophisticated :) Feel free to post any drafts you have here https://atarnotes.com/forum/index.php?topic=164797.0 if you want me to have a look over anything! I hope this helped/made sense!

Susie

If Sudodds isn't the best thing to happen to your HSC History marks, I don't know what is.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Newbalance101 on February 24, 2017, 10:35:36 pm
Hi i'm writing a practise essay in the Conflict in Indochina topic. I was wondering if anyone could help clarify what to write about/what i should include.
The question is: Evaluate the view that North Vietnam’s determination to spread communism in Indochina caused the failure of the Geneva Peace Agreement by the 1960s
which I personally disagree with as North Vietnam did not necessarily start spreading communism into the South until after 1956 when the elections weren't held and in 1960 the NLF was created. So it wasn't really the North's determination to spread communism it seems to me that it was America's hesitance to hold the elections because they knew they would lose. I missing something here?
Also when it says 'by the 1960s' does that mean up until 1960 or the middle of the 1960's? 
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: f_tan on February 24, 2017, 11:46:29 pm
Hi i'm writing a practise essay in the Conflict in Indochina topic. I was wondering if anyone could help clarify what to write about/what i should include.
The question is: Evaluate the view that North Vietnam’s determination to spread communism in Indochina caused the failure of the Geneva Peace Agreement by the 1960s
which I personally disagree with as North Vietnam did not necessarily start spreading communism into the South until after 1956 when the elections weren't held and in 1960 the NLF was created. So it wasn't really the North's determination to spread communism it seems to me that it was America's hesitance to hold the elections because they knew they would lose. I missing something here?
Also when it says 'by the 1960s' does that mean up until 1960 or the middle of the 1960's?

Hi! Not sure how helpful/correct this will be but here's what I think:

I half agree and half disagree with the question, but not because North Vietnam didn't start spreading communism into the South until after 1956. Based on what I'm currently learning in the topic, Ho Chi Minh actually went straight into preparing propaganda teams to get into the South, because he did not trust America when they said that there would be a re-election, and also if there was to be one, he wanted to make sure that he had the popular support. So even before the elections were supposed to be held, the North were already preparing - for example, the building of the Cu Chi Tunnels, where they dug underground to get to the South to spread propaganda and convert South Vietnamese into communists + clearing the Ho Chi Minh Trail for more space. So it was partly because they were determined to spread communism, and also partly because of Ho's distrust of the Americans that made him determined to spread communism, so that he could win the popular support, whether it would be for winning the elections, or fighting against the Americans. It was because of how effective Ho's propaganda teams were that the elections were cancelled, because as you said, the Americans didn't think they would win - Diem was an unpopular leader who could not win the support of South Vietnam because his policies did not represent the people as well as Ho's did. If the question was a 10 marker, I would have two paragraphs, one arguing for, and listing all the reasons why, and also one that disagrees with the statement, and the reasons why. And then conclude with the final evaluation of what you think - whether you agree/disagree.

I'm not sure if that makes sense, but hope it helps :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: CaitlinSavins on February 25, 2017, 12:49:10 pm
What's the best ways for Modern History notes to be structured, in regards to including important information like events, causation/effect stuff and people with all those important details?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on February 25, 2017, 03:05:30 pm
What's the best ways for Modern History notes to be structured, in regards to including important information like events, causation/effect stuff and people with all those important details?
Hey Caitlin! I didn't write notes so much in Modern, as I was a practical based learner and it was more beneficial for me to focus on just banging out past papers, however I am a BIG advocate for tables when it comes to Modern, and if I did write notes for anything it would normally be in a table format. The most beneficial tables I had included:

- Detail table: Structured according to the syllabus, so down the left hand column would be all the dot points, and then across I had one column for detail and one column for quotes. This is where you don't put the core information and outline, but any interesting facts, stats and quotes to enhance a response. My detail table can be found in the notes section for reference, but I think its really important to make your own as well in order to remember everything better! This should cover all of your topics.

- Linking tables: These were also really valuable. When it comes to essay writing, what pushes a 23/25 mark essay to a 24-25/25 mark essay is your ability to link factors, particularly when writing a differentiated essay. I studied Russia, so the way I did this is I wrote all the syllabus dot points for Bolshevik Consolidation of Power (the first heading of the syllabus) along both the left hand column and the top row, and tried to relate each factor togeather, eg. how did the Civil War link to the Treaty of Brest Litovsk, how did the Treaty of Brest Litovsk link to the NEP etc. etc. The links can be both conceptual and thematic - eg. they both demonstrate the importance of ideology/pragatism etc. - and more direct - eg. the Civil War and War Communism created the need for the NEP. I'd recommend this linking table for the National Study and the International Study. An example of one of my linking tables for the Bolshevik Consolidation of power can be found in the notes section.

- Debate Tables: These can be used for all sections, but I think they are particularly helpful for the Personality Study. Now when it comes to writing a part B response, the questions are almost always centred around one of these debates:

- Differing interpretations of your chosen personality (so for Trotsky that's practical revolutionary vs. naive idealist, pretty sure for Speer it's the good nazi debate).
- Were they shaped by events, or did the events shape them.

So I think its a good idea to put down the left hand side all the significant events/factors (so for Trotsky that included 1905 revolution, 1917 revolution, Commissar of Foreign Affairs, Commissar of War, Power struggle, life and activities in exile), and try and work out how each aspect fits into each debate and also each argument within the debate. For example, in regards to Trotsky and his role as Commissar of Foreign Affairs, you can argue that he was a naive idealist in that he held too strongly to his ideological belief in permanent revolution and this was ultimately a failure, however you can also argue that he was a practical revolutionary because once his mistakes were realised he quickly decided to forgo these beliefs in favour of Lenin's more practical position etc. etc. This is also really good because it allows you to see which events/factors make for the stronger argument, as you don't want to talk about all of them, only 3. An example of my Trotsky linking table can be found in this thread: https://atarnotes.com/forum/index.php?topic=164918.0

In such a high content subject as modern, it is important to study smart rather than study more, so I hope that this proves useful as I believe these should be much more effective than just writing out a hundred dot points of information. Check out some of the notes under the notes tab also! There are so many, for a heap of different units so definitely worth a look over (when I didn't study from my tables/write practice responses, I was usually using premade notes from my teacher or that I found online).

Again, hope this was helpful! Good luck with your half yearlies, let us know if you need help with anything else :)

 
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: forevertired on March 04, 2017, 11:20:18 pm
Hey guys,

I've got an assessment task coming up in a few weeks and I'm struggling with modern history at the moment. We're doing the Conflict in Indochina option and I'm just not so sure how to go about answering the questions and structuring my paragraphs, especially for the USA and Indochina section. I've made brief 'scaffolds' from prev. HSC questions as in I've chosen maybe 4-5 paragraph ideas I could use in answering said question, but I'm not sure if I know how to go in depth with them and flesh out these ideas into a 900-1100 word essay.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: bowiemily on March 05, 2017, 07:52:43 am
Hey guys,

I've got an assessment task coming up in a few weeks and I'm struggling with modern history at the moment. We're doing the Conflict in Indochina option and I'm just not so sure how to go about answering the questions and structuring my paragraphs, especially for the USA and Indochina section. I've made brief 'scaffolds' from prev. HSC questions as in I've chosen maybe 4-5 paragraph ideas I could use in answering said question, but I'm not sure if I know how to go in depth with them and flesh out these ideas into a 900-1100 word essay.

Hey there!
I also did Indochina, and I found the same problem with the dot points, mainly because there is so much overlap. However, this does give you more to explain when writing your essays in regards to cause an effect. I think this is a must in Indochina. Make sure you include plenty of sources (primary sources make up the bulk of evidence in Indochina). I would use the PEEL structure here to ensure these sources always link to the question (Point, Explain, Evidence, Link). This should give you much more to talk about! If not, maybe check out the themes and challenges section of the syllabus. It will help specify which ideas you should be focussing on in your essays
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on March 05, 2017, 09:31:35 am
Hey guys,

I've got an assessment task coming up in a few weeks and I'm struggling with modern history at the moment. We're doing the Conflict in Indochina option and I'm just not so sure how to go about answering the questions and structuring my paragraphs, especially for the USA and Indochina section. I've made brief 'scaffolds' from prev. HSC questions as in I've chosen maybe 4-5 paragraph ideas I could use in answering said question, but I'm not sure if I know how to go in depth with them and flesh out these ideas into a 900-1100 word essay.

Hey! Just a small suggestion to add onto Em's amazing response - whenever I was confronted with essay questions that were quite broad, or that I felt I was not confident enough in regards to my specific knowledge of events to go into enough depth and detail I wrote a thematic essay. The most common thematic essays follow this structure - one paragraph on economic changes/impacts, one on social changes/impacts, political, cultural, military, geopolitical etc. etc. (the first four are usually the most important). Other themes can be present also, but these are the most common, and are pretty much foolproof. Modern History is about change and transformation, and that will pretty much always include these themes in some capacity.

Thematics essays can be tricky as they involves the extrapolating of themes from what you have learnt, but they can give way to a fantastic, highly sophisticated response if done correctly, and can sometimes allow you to gloss over certain gaps in your knowledge in favour of more keenly drawing out these themes! For example I didn't feel particularly confident talking about the Czechoslovakia Crisis within my Cold War 'Development' essays, so instead of making that its own paragraph like a lot of my friends who were writing a syllabus essay, I instead broke the Development of the Cold War into themes - Ideology, Containment, Arms Race. I used examples from the various crises including Czechoslovakia to back up my arguments, but unlike my friends I didn't need to provide that added context and detail for that particular event (I hope this made sense).

I didn't study Indochina, but even just taking a look at the two indochina questions from last year I'd assume (Em please let me know if I am wrong here!) that this thematic structure would have worked fantastically!

Assess the role of communism in shaping the conflict in Indochina to 1965. - So you'd structure your essay by assessing the role of communism in shaping the economic, political, social, etc. landscape of the conflict.

Evaluate the impact of Pol Pot’s aims and methods on Cambodian society to 1979. - How did Pol Pot's aims and methods impact society through economics, politics, culture, etc. etc. :)

I hope this helps! Good luck with your assessment task, I'm sure you're going to smash it  ;D


Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: maria1999 on March 06, 2017, 05:39:16 pm
hey guys!
(This would be kinda more relevant to those those studying Germany as their core study but I would open to other's for tips either way!)
I was wondering whether anyone had tips on remembering all the dates and details from when the Treaty was signed to the rise of Hitler. Should I be making timelines or notes or reading textbook? Is there a specific area which I should be spending my time on? Basically, how does a modern student get all the puzzle pieces to come together??
     :))
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on March 06, 2017, 05:49:10 pm
hey guys!
(This would be kinda more relevant to those those studying Germany as their core study but I would open to other's for tips either way!)
I was wondering whether anyone had tips on remembering all the dates and details from when the Treaty was signed to the rise of Hitler. Should I be making timelines or notes or reading textbook? Is there a specific area which I should be spending my time on? Basically, how does a modern student get all the puzzle pieces to come together??
     :))
Hey Maria! Welcome to the forums  8)
I personally didn't study that unit, but I do want to draw your attention to this thread created by resident Germany expert Jake (we have a lot of Germany experts in fact with Emily and Elyse also... lucky for you, though I'm personally feeling a bit outnumbered  :'( the treaty of Brest-Litovsk all over again smh). His guide goes through a really really useful method for memorising stats for all topics! I'd highly recommend creating a detail table as well. You can structure it according to the syllabus, and draw stats, dates and detail from your textbook - though I'd also recommend looking at some other sources as well so that you have some more unique detail to really wow the marker :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Claudiaa on March 09, 2017, 12:28:05 am
Could someone please explain to me the opponents of the Tsar (The Fall of The Romanov Dynasty)?

The different groups... Bolksheviks, Mensheviks, Populists, Kadets...I am completely lost there's so many groups and I don't know how to identify them/what each stood for, as well as what I should know about each group.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on March 09, 2017, 01:00:02 am
Could someone please explain to me the opponents of the Tsar (The Fall of The Romanov Dynasty)?

The different groups... Bolksheviks, Mensheviks, Populists, Kadets...I am completely lost there's so many groups and I don't know how to identify them/what each stood for, as well as what I should know about each group.

Hey Claudia! This is definitely hard stuff, and you're not alone in finding it confusing! So it's been a while since I've studied this, but you can basically think of all these groups as radicals. They were fed up with the aristocracy, and were greatly influenced by the revolutionary atmosphere of the time. However, despite their radical nature, their ideological beliefs often differed.

So you have the communists, made up of the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. Originally the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks were in the same group, however their ideological disagreements, particularly in regards to orthodox marxism (going through the stages vs. skipping/fast forwarding through them) resulted in a split. The Bolsheviks were the more "radical" and active of the two, as they advocated and agitated for revolution. They believed in the concept of human agency, in that individuals could choose to progress through the stages (feudalism --> capitalism --> socialism --> communism) rather than waiting for it to occur naturally (the orthodox marxist/Mensheviks belief). The communists, particularly the Bolsheviks, are the most important group to focus on, as they were the ones that eventually took over.

The Populists/Narodniks can also be put into this category as they were influenced by socialism, however unlike the Bolsheviks they failed to properly instigate a revolution. They essentially placed too much trust in the peasants only needing leadership to rise up against the government, however many of them were still conditioned to be loyal to the Tsar, blaming the landowners for their grievances rather than Nicholas himself (kind of like the benevolent king that is just unaware of the evils some of his subjects are inflicting). Along with this, the Populists were made up of young, noble, wealthy, middle class intellectuals - their image just didn't really resonate with the peasants. The Populists/Narodniks eventually split into two groups.

1. The People's Will - a terrorist organisation that used violence in an attempt to get rid of the government, assassinating many government officials and even Tsar Alexander II. This group became the basis of the Socialist Revolutionary Party.

2. The Black Revolution - Opposed to violence. They became the basis for the Socialist Democratic Party.

Then you have the anarchists (just letting you know I'm not as confident in my knowledge of this group as it didn't cross over in HSC). This group included two subgroups - the Nihilists and the actual anarchists. Both groups had similar beliefs, however the anarchists tended to take them a step further (however they were both still more radical than the Populists/Narodniks). The Nihilists rejected all forms of authority in the name of freedom. The developed from a movement of ideas rather than of political organisation, however many nihilists progressed into violent action, planning many assassination attempts. The Anarchists favoured terrorism and destruction as a method of revolutionary agitation, and believed in the destruction of centralised government and that society should be organised only at a local level. They also organised the assassinations of many government officials.

I honestly can't really remember learning about the Kadets much beyond the fact that they were a liberal party, that were elected to the Russian Duma in 1906, and that they were harsh critics of the Tsar.

I hope this helps! Good luck with year 11  ;D If you need help with anything else just let us know!

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: FatmataR on March 17, 2017, 09:47:46 am
Please help me break down this question :) THANK YOUUUU ~

"Account for the inability of successive Weimar governments to achieve stability to 1923"
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on March 17, 2017, 09:50:51 am
Please help me break down this question :) THANK YOUUUU ~

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

Hey! I would break this down into economic, social and political factors;

Economic
- Hyperinflation
- Versailles treaty (?)

Social
- 'November criminals'
- Sense of militarism
- Uprisings; Spartacus

Political
- 'November criminals'
- 'State within a state' --> Erbert Groaner pact
- Versailles treaty

Discuss whatever points you think are relevant, and whether that contributes to, or negates, the stability of the Weimar government. Come to a conclusion (ie. was there stability in the Weimar government to 1923?). Feel free to post up more ideas here!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: FatmataR on March 17, 2017, 10:03:36 am
Thank you so much ~

What would you talk about in terms of had the Weimar Republic overcome its early challenges by 1929? In my preparation for the question I got down some ideas like, Treaty of Versailles, Germany's lack of democratic tradition, weaknesses in the constitution and the like. My question is how would you approach the question?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sophiemacpherso on March 19, 2017, 09:18:31 am
Hey, I find answering modern multiple choice questions so so difficult! I simply can't differentiate between options, the majority of questions all seem so similar to me. Do you have any tips for getting better in this area? :)))
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on March 19, 2017, 09:47:39 am
Hey, I find answering modern multiple choice questions so so difficult! I simply can't differentiate between options, the majority of questions all seem so similar to me. Do you have any tips for getting better in this area? :)))

Hey Sophie!
Yes they definitely are hard, because they are designed to trick you! A lot of the multiple choice questions will have very similar options, or ones that all seem correct in some way based upon your knowledge of the course, however the most correct answer (i.e. the one that will get you the mark) will always be the answer that is correct based upon the source. Remember that Section I is a source based study, so everything and anything you complete within that section, from multiple choice to the extended response, must be centered around those sources within the booklet.

For example, lets say that a multiple choice question was: "According to Source A, why did the stalemate occur on the Western Front", and Source A is an extract from a soldiers diary, detailing his use of a machine gun (and nothing much apart from that). The options are:
a) the Schileffen Plan failed
b) the WW1 generals inability to adapt to this new form of modern warfare
c) the introduction of new weapons that favoured the defensive
d) Belgium refused the Germans entry

Looking at all of the above options, they are all at the very least partially correct. The Schlieffen Plan's failure was critical to the stalemate. The WW1 generals inability to adapt was also a factor, however is more so important when discussing how the stalemate maintained, the introduction of new weapons is another, super critical aspect of the stalemate, and then Belgium refusing the Germans entry contributed to the failure of the Schlieffen Plan. However, despite them all being at least partially correct based upon our own knowledge of the course, only ONE is correct based upon our knowledge of the source - C. The reason is that the source only discusses the use of machine guns, one of the new defensive weapons, and does not discuss the other factors. Does this make sense? (let me know if you're still confused).

Just make sure as well that you do read all the options, and don't just go for the first one that seems correct (cos as we said earlier, usually all of them are to some degree).

I hope this helps!

Susie

Thank you so much ~

What would you talk about in terms of had the Weimar Republic overcome its early challenges by 1929? In my preparation for the question I got down some ideas like, Treaty of Versailles, Germany's lack of democratic tradition, weaknesses in the constitution and the like. My question is how would you approach the question?

Hey FatmataR!
Unfortunately I didn't study Germany last year so I'm useless for content haha, but I'm sure one of the Germany peeps will get onto your question soon :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on March 19, 2017, 11:34:56 am
Thank you so much ~

What would you talk about in terms of had the Weimar Republic overcome its early challenges by 1929? In my preparation for the question I got down some ideas like, Treaty of Versailles, Germany's lack of democratic tradition, weaknesses in the constitution and the like. My question is how would you approach the question?

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!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sophiemacpherso on March 19, 2017, 11:37:24 am
Hey Sophie!
Yes they definitely are hard, because they are designed to trick you! A lot of the multiple choice questions will have very similar options, or ones that all seem correct in some way based upon your knowledge of the course, however the most correct answer (i.e. the one that will get you the mark) will always be the answer that is correct based upon the source. Remember that Section I is a source based study, so everything and anything you complete within that section, from multiple choice to the extended response, must be centered around those sources within the booklet.

For example, lets say that a multiple choice question was: "According to Source A, why did the stalemate occur on the Western Front", and Source A is an extract from a soldiers diary, detailing his use of a machine gun (and nothing much apart from that). The options are:
a) the Schileffen Plan failed
b) the WW1 generals inability to adapt to this new form of modern warfare
c) the introduction of new weapons that favoured the defensive
d) Belgium refused the Germans entry

Looking at all of the above options, they are all at the very least partially correct. The Schlieffen Plan's failure was critical to the stalemate. The WW1 generals inability to adapt was also a factor, however is more so important when discussing how the stalemate maintained, the introduction of new weapons is another, super critical aspect of the stalemate, and then Belgium refusing the Germans entry contributed to the failure of the Schlieffen Plan. However, despite them all being at least partially correct based upon our own knowledge of the course, only ONE is correct based upon our knowledge of the source - C. The reason is that the source only discusses the use of machine guns, one of the new defensive weapons, and does not discuss the other factors. Does this make sense? (let me know if you're still confused).

Just make sure as well that you do read all the options, and don't just go for the first one that seems correct (cos as we said earlier, usually all of them are to some degree).

I hope this helps!

Susie

Hey FatmataR!
Unfortunately I didn't study Germany last year so I'm useless for content haha, but I'm sure one of the Germany peeps will get onto your question soon :)


Ahhh thankyou so much ! I definitely need to pay closer attention to the agenda of the source in future ahah :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on March 19, 2017, 05:28:49 pm
Hi Suddods and Jake,

I have this essay question I have to answer from the Germany Module:
"To what extent was the Versailles Treaty responsible for the collapse of democracy in Germany by 1934?"

I honestly find this question really hard to build an arguement and discuss....and even answer the question as a whole.
How am I supposed to make a judgement in resposne to "to what extent.."? Should I compare with other factors and show the effect of the treaty relative to them...? I find there is quite a lot to talk about with regards to other factors since there is such a large period of time between 1919 and 1934. What would you include in your arguement and also what would be the best way to structure it?

Thanks heaps,
Samuel

Hey!

Whenever you have a question that asks about one specific aspect of the curriculum, and requires you to decide a 'to what extent' question, my general recommendation is to spend at least 60% of the essay discussing the specific point. In this case, I would suggest spending 60% of the essay writing about the impacts of the Versailles Treaty, and then 40% writing about other factors that you think are relevant (great depression, militarism etc.)

You're absolutely right; there is a hell of a lot of information to talk about. The question limits what you can discuss, but you can also be smart about it. Versailles treaty = 'November criminals' = conservatism/militarism in society = rise of Nazi party?

It's a bloody big stretch (especially that last one), but it's a point you can make (even if you identify that it is a weak one). What I'm trying to say is that you need to spend time assessing the impact of the Treaty, but you can then go into more depth regarding over factors, and conclude that actually these other factors had a greater impact on the collapse of democracy by 1934.

Really tough question, but once you have a thesis out (ie. Versailles was important, but XYZ was more important), as well as subpoints to talk about, it's just running through the standard information :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: stephjones on March 19, 2017, 08:59:50 pm
Hey guys! Do you happen to have any tips or tricks to approaching the "Use the source and your own knowledge" questions in section one? I always drop a couple marks there and I'm a bit unsure of how to effectively answer the question.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: f_tan on March 19, 2017, 09:12:24 pm
Hey guys! Do you happen to have any tips or tricks to approaching the "Use the source and your own knowledge" questions in section one? I always drop a couple marks there and I'm a bit unsure of how to effectively answer the question.

Hey,
My teacher always tells us to include at least 2 explicit references for each source, so you need to analyse it and link it to the question, and at least 4 pieces of own knowledge - might help in ensuring you don't lost marks for not having enough detail :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on March 19, 2017, 09:12:50 pm
Hey guys! Do you happen to have any tips or tricks to approaching the "Use the source and your own knowledge" questions in section one? I always drop a couple marks there and I'm a bit unsure of how to effectively answer the question.

Hey Steph!
I most certainly do have a couple of tips :)
When it comes to section I of the exam, almost all of the questions are pretty much just exactly syllabus dot points, reworded into a question. For example Reasons for the stalemate on the Western Front will be reworded into something like Account for the reasons on the Western Front etc etc. So really, when it comes to these questions, it is just ticking off the different key points of the dot point. As long as you know (at the bare minimum) the key points and a few bits of detail then you will be sweet, its as if you were just writing your study notes into a paragraph.
It is really important to remember that these are also source based questions, and thus you MUST intergrate them throughout, and they must be intergrated EXPLICTLY. It's not enough to just mention aspects that are discussed in the source. You have to make statements like this:

- "As shown within Source A..."
- "This is evident through Source B..."
- "This is further discussed throughout Source C..." etc. etc.

Underline when you use the sources, just to make doubly certain that the marker doesn't miss that you have incorporated them. In terms of intergrating your own knowledge just overload the marker with relevant detail. Stats are the best within Section I, as these questions are usually quite short and you don't want to spend too long on them, so super long quotes or example events that require extensive explanation aren't something that I would recommend. It is really important to remember though that this detail must be relevant and pertinent to the question - if it doesn't further enhance your understanding or judgment upon the question at hand don't include it.

And finally, in terms of structuring the response if the question is 4-5 marks then just get straight to the point, but for 6-8 mark questions, a brief, 1 sentence introduction is beneficial :)

Hope this helps! Sorry if this is a little bit all over the place haha, if any of this was confusing let me know  :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: stephjones on March 19, 2017, 09:15:44 pm
Hey,
My teacher always tells us to include at least 2 explicit references for each source, so you need to analyse it and link it to the question, and at least 4 pieces of own knowledge - might help in ensuring you don't lost marks for not having enough detail :)

Hey Steph!
I most certainly do have a couple of tips :)
When it comes to section I of the exam, almost all of the questions are pretty much just exactly syllabus dot points, reworded into a question. For example Reasons for the stalemate on the Western Front will be reworded into something like Account for the reasons on the Western Front etc etc. So really, when it comes to these questions, it is just ticking off the different key points of the dot point. As long as you know (at the bare minimum) the key points and a few bits of detail then you will be sweet, its as if you were just writing your study notes into a paragraph.
It is really important to remember that these are also source based questions, and thus you MUST intergrate them throughout, and they must be intergrated EXPLICTLY. It's not enough to just mention aspects that are discussed in the source. You have to make statements like this:

- "As shown within Source A..."
- "This is evident through Source B..."
- "This is further discussed throughout Source C..." etc. etc.

Underline when you use the sources, just to make doubly certain that the marker doesn't miss that you have incorporated them. In terms of intergrating your own knowledge just overload the marker with relevant detail. Stats are the best within Section I, as these questions are usually quite short and you don't want to spend too long on them, so super long quotes or example events that require extensive explanation aren't something that I would recommend. It is really important to remember though that this detail must be relevant and pertinent to the question - if it doesn't further enhance your understanding or judgment upon the question at hand don't include it.

And finally, in terms of structuring the response if the question is 4-5 marks then just get straight to the point, but for 6-8 mark questions, a brief, 1 sentence introduction is beneficial :)

Hope this helps! Sorry if this is a little bit all over the place haha, if any of this was confusing let me know  :)

No, that's awesome, thank you guys!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Jess.martinuzzo on March 20, 2017, 09:31:53 am
Hey Guys, Could someone please post the Modern History Lecture slides from last holidays lecture??
I can't seem to find it anywhere :(
Or if it is there, what's the file name?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on March 20, 2017, 09:40:58 am
Hey Guys, Could someone please post the Modern History Lecture slides from last holidays lecture??
I can't seem to find it anywhere :(
Or if it is there, what's the file name?
Hey Jess!
You can find the lecture slides here!  :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Jess.martinuzzo on March 20, 2017, 09:48:36 am
Hey Jess!
You can find the lecture slides here!  :)

Thanks Susie!! xx
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: FatmataR on March 21, 2017, 03:23:25 pm
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 ~
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on March 21, 2017, 04:25:07 pm
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!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Snew on March 21, 2017, 04:30:04 pm
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! :-\
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: FatmataR on March 21, 2017, 06:57:26 pm
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 ~
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on March 21, 2017, 07:05:33 pm
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.)

Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: forevertired on March 21, 2017, 09:27:53 pm
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,
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
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.








Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: bowiemily on March 26, 2017, 09:46:46 pm
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!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: rodero on March 29, 2017, 09:07:34 pm
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  ;D 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!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on March 29, 2017, 10:13:33 pm
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  ;D 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
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Snew on March 30, 2017, 05:18:31 pm
Any help for this question would be sincerely appreciated!  :D

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 :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: bowiemily on March 30, 2017, 07:36:05 pm
Any help for this question would be sincerely appreciated!  :D

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
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: stephjones on March 30, 2017, 09:46:19 pm
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? :)

Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: stephjones on March 30, 2017, 11:38:13 pm
Also how would I reference Lenin's April Theses?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on March 31, 2017, 12:12:53 am
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)?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: stephjones on March 31, 2017, 12:48:25 am
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)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on March 31, 2017, 01:06:13 am
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... :P)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: stephjones on March 31, 2017, 01:25:27 am
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.

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... :P)

Omg you're a legend thank you so much!! This has saved my life I swear haha, I was so confused about how to go about the question and the incorporation of quotes but you've cleared that up so thank you ahh
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Thebarman on April 01, 2017, 09:03:41 pm
Hey! Under the (incredibly long) dotpoint of the role of propaganda, terror and repression, SA and SS + opposition to Nazism, we've been told that we need to make notes on minority groups and Eisatzgruppen Waffen SS. We haven't covered these in class, so does someone mind explaining to me what these are?

Thank you!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on April 12, 2017, 08:55:34 pm
Hey! Under the (incredibly long) dotpoint of the role of propaganda, terror and repression, SA and SS + opposition to Nazism, we've been told that we need to make notes on minority groups and Eisatzgruppen Waffen SS. We haven't covered these in class, so does someone mind explaining to me what these are?

Thank you!

Hey! Sorry for the late reply - post got lost  :-\ Hope this isn't too late for your half yearlies!

I didn't study Germany, so I can't really explain them, however just wanted to let you know that we have a heap load of Germany notes/essays here! :) If your question is on a specific dotpoint or section of the syllabus, I'd venture a guess that some of these may cover it :D

Sorry I can't be of more help!

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: scyouknow13 on April 25, 2017, 07:19:55 pm
Hi, how many words should you write for a 25 mark essay? Are 800 words enough?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on April 25, 2017, 07:28:29 pm
Hi, how many words should you write for a 25 mark essay? Are 800 words enough?

Heya!

Rule of thumb is that you should be aiming for a minimum of 1000 words. That is what a lot of markers will be expecting, and (according to my teacher) if they feel that your essay is too short they can mark you down on the basis that it lacks detail. Tbh I do believe that you would struggle to incorporate the necessary amount of detail in 800 words. I'm sure some could, but that essay would have to be hella succinct. On average mine were around 1100 words.

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Jess.martinuzzo on April 26, 2017, 08:03:56 pm
Hey Susie,
We just started the Soviet Foreign Policy today and I am a bit unsure as to the content that fits under the two dot points/
The first dot point asks for the
'Changing nature of Soviet foreign policy: aims and strategies 1917 - 1941'
My teacher told me that the aims were 'Survival' for the Bolshevik Party and 'Spread' (of Communism) and that they were contradictory and shifted depending on the political climate and circumstances of the Soviet Union. Eg. Russia used the Treaty of Brest Litovsk for survival and retreated from major bodies of power, creating 'peace' with the strong, because at this time it was 'weak' and the Bolsheviks needed to consolidate power. And when the Soviet Union gained strength they would use occupation and war and ideally 'spread' communism.
Is that correct?
For the strategies is that detailing the various phases of the Policy??
And is there anything else you'd recommend noting?

For the seconds dot point,
'Impact of changing ideology on Soviet foreign policy 1917–1941'
We have completely skimmed over this dot point and have no clue as to what it's all about..

Thankyou!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on April 26, 2017, 08:16:13 pm
Hey Susie,
We just started the Soviet Foreign Policy today and I am a bit unsure as to the content that fits under the two dot points/
The first dot point asks for the
'Changing nature of Soviet foreign policy: aims and strategies 1917 - 1941'
My teacher told me that the aims were 'Survival' for the Bolshevik Party and 'Spread' (of Communism) and that they were contradictory and shifted depending on the political climate and circumstances of the Soviet Union. Eg. Russia used the Treaty of Brest Litovsk for survival and retreated from major bodies of power, creating 'peace' with the strong, because at this time it was 'weak' and the Bolsheviks needed to consolidate power. And when the Soviet Union gained strength they would use occupation and war and ideally 'spread' communism.
Is that correct?
For the strategies is that detailing the various phases of the Policy??
And is there anything else you'd recommend noting?

For the seconds dot point,
'Impact of changing ideology on Soviet foreign policy 1917–1941'
We have completely skimmed over this dot point and have no clue as to what it's all about..

Thankyou!


Hey hey! That is exactly correct :) Whenever I wrote Soviet Foreign policy essays, I always focused on this contradiction, my judgement usually being that the aim of 'survival' usually won out. And yes, strategies refers to how the Soviet Union implemented foreign policy in order to achieve these aims :) So signing the Treaty of Rapollo, the Nazi-Soviet pact etc. etc.

In regards to the second dot point - the reason that you feel like you skipped over it is that it is actually part of the first haha. Changing ideology essentially refers to, on a macro level Permanent Revolution to Socialism-in-on-country, and on a micro level the aim to survive or spread :) So how did these ideologies impact upon the implementation of foreign policy (what it did was impact the aims - so essentially part of the first dot point haha).

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Jess.martinuzzo on April 26, 2017, 08:27:26 pm
Hey hey! That is exactly correct :) Whenever I wrote Soviet Foreign policy essays, I always focused on this contradiction, my judgement usually being that the aim of 'survival' usually won out. And yes, strategies refers to how the Soviet Union implemented foreign policy in order to achieve these aims :) So signing the Treaty of Rapollo, the Nazi-Soviet pact etc. etc.

In regards to the second dot point - the reason that you feel like you skipped over it is that it is actually part of the first haha. Changing ideology essentially refers to, on a macro level Permanent Revolution to Socialism-in-on-country, and on a micro level the aim to survive or spread :) So how did these ideologies impact upon the implementation of foreign policy (what it did was impact the aims - so essentially part of the first dot point haha).

Susie

Thankyou for that!
So the second dot point is essentially how the government's political aims were used to adapt and constantly change the foreign policy to suit these aims and how these aims impacted the policy. Which is essentially that it went through various phases and adaptations, which can be noted through various treaties and events in the timeline??
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on April 26, 2017, 08:36:35 pm
Thankyou for that!
So the second dot point is essentially how the government's political aims were used to adapt and constantly change the foreign policy to suit these aims and how these aims impacted the policy. Which is essentially that it went through various phases and adaptations, which can be noted through various treaties and events in the timeline??

Exactly! Wow, you're really getting this Jess, do you have a tutor?  ;) (but in all seriousness that is exactly what it is well done - usually takes most people forever to understand this!).

Yeah so basically how is the implementation of foreign policy going to be different when the ideology is Permanent Revolution in comparison to Socialism-in-one-country? What contextual issues eg. WW1, Civil War, etc would influence the Bolsheviks to adapt their policy from either survival of state to spread of communism? That is basically what the second dot point covers.

I think its a good idea though to decide for yourself which aim won over - survival or spread. This will help when constructing your argument, and will make sure that the marker doesn't think that you are sitting on the fence throughout your essay :)

Susie

Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Jess.martinuzzo on April 26, 2017, 08:41:55 pm
Exactly! Wow, you're really getting this Jess, do you have a tutor?  ;) (but in all seriousness that is exactly what it is well done - usually takes most people forever to understand this!).

Yeah so basically how is the implementation of foreign policy going to be different when the ideology is Permanent Revolution in comparison to Socialism-in-one-country? What contextual issues eg. WW1, Civil War, etc would influence the Bolsheviks to adapt their policy from either survival of state to spread of communism? That is basically what the second dot point covers.

I think its a good idea though to decide for yourself which aim one over - survival or spread. This will help when constructing your argument, and will make sure that the marker doesn't think that you are sitting on the fence throughout your essay :)

Susie



HAHAHAA I see what you did there
That makes so much more sense!!
Thanks Susie! :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on April 26, 2017, 08:43:31 pm
HAHAHAA I see what you did there
That makes so much more sense!!
Thanks Susie! :)

 ;) ;) ;) anytime
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: chloeannbarwick on April 27, 2017, 12:38:38 pm
Can anyone please explain or provide a detailed explanation regarding how exactly I should be analysing a source in Modern?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on April 27, 2017, 01:07:19 pm
Can anyone please explain or provide a detailed explanation regarding how exactly I should be analysing a source in Modern?
hey hey Chloe! Excellent question :) Modern markers are pedantic AF, so its really important to have a strong structure when analysing a source.

The number one, most important thing is to start with a JUDGEMENT. To what extent is the source useful? That is the question after all! However, a big thing that people get caught up in is the to what extent part. See that is a super key part of the question - it is not asking you if the source is useful or not, therefore "Source A is useful" or "Source is not useful" just doesn't cut it. NESA will never give you a useless source, however they can give you a source that is less useful than others, so buzzwords like highly, limited, partially are super super super important!

But how do you make that judgement? Well you need to consider three things - content, perspective, and reliability. I underlined the last two because they are the most important + you should be underlining them in your responses :)

Content: How useful is the content? Does it provide a detailed explanation of the events/issues in question? Does it cover a wide area of information or does it only cover a small aspect of it? These will all impact the usefulness of the source :) You want to write about maybe 1-2 sentences on this - any more than that and you are probably drifting too far away from the Source.

Perspective: VERY VERY VERY important that you discuss this, and discuss this explicitly as it is part of the question. That is why I suggest underlining the word perspective, so as to make sure that the marker doesn't miss that you have covered it. Perspective covers these sorts of questions; Who produced the source? Was it an individual or a group? How are they related to the events? Did they take part or are they writing about it years later (or both in the case of a memoir!)? Why did they produce the source? Do they have any particular reason to discuss the events in a particular way - ideology, political agenda, personal agenda/prejudice? Is their perspective unique/specific - female, solider, king etc. The answer to the these questions will have a particular impact on the usefulness of the source as well, HOWEVER remember that just because a source may appear "biased" (hate that word - better to use terms like underlying ideology, political agenda or personal prejudice/agenda), doesn't mean that it isn't useful. E.g. A propaganda poster is very clearly a biased source, however it is still super useful to a historian - and that leads us onto reliability. (also you probably want to spend about 2-3 sentences on this!)

Reliability: This is where the bulk of your analysis should be! And like perspective, you should underline reliability within your responses, because it is part of the question, and you want to make sure that the marker doesn't think that you have skipped over it. Like when assessing overall usefulness, you need to make an overall judgement as to whether the source is reliable or not, using buzzwords. When analysing the source's reliability, we want to conduct 3 reliability tests. The first two can we whatever you want, e.g.; Was the source produced in close proximity to the events in question? Was it produced by someone who was involved? Was it produced to be published? Is it an extract (therefore incomplete)? In the case of a photograph, was it taken with a wide angle or narrow angle, or was it obviously staged? If it is a secondary source (ie a historians text) is it the product of extensive research and a peer reviewal process? etc. etc. The third reliability test that you will want to do is a cross-reference of content. This is where you use your own knowledge of the content or other sources in your repertoire to back up the content of the source - for e.g. do the facts that the historian presents in the source corroborate with the facts that you have learnt? or can we assert that the propaganda poster encouraging men to enlist in the british army was effective in achieving its aims due to enlistment statistics from the time? For the most part, the 10 marker requires a lot less integration of your own knowledge throughout the response, so it is a good idea to pack as much as you can into this cross reference of content, to make sure that the markers are given no opportunity to question the depth of your understanding - try and get stats and detail outside of the textbook, that one one else will be using :) Again like before, remember that sources that may appear "biased" aren't always unreliable, because we can break up reliability into two things - factual reliability and reliability as evidence. So just because a source may be factually unreliable - eg. a propaganda poster - it can still be a reliable piece of evidence for attitudes at the time, aims of the producer etc. etc.

Once you have covered everything above - it is time to round of and conclude your work with that source. Restate your judgement upon the usefulness of the source (and maybe, if you have time you can suggest other sources that will work well to expand the historians knowledge). Then hey presto! You're finished with source A, and now you just need to repeat the process above for source B :) (Never intergrate them, deal with the two sources separately - this isn't english  ;) )

Obviously when it comes to the shorter answer responses you will not need to be going as in depth, this is the structure of a 10 marker. When it comes to the shorter ones, depending on the length just make sure that you are integrating content from the source, and relating your own knowledge back to it.

Hope this helps! Let me know if you're confused with anything :)

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: maria1999 on April 29, 2017, 01:48:15 pm
hey guys!
Yesterday I received the notification for this terms task on the personality study (I'm doing Germany and it's Albert Speer). We're actually not doing any content / learning in class so it's basically an independent research task thats based on analysing historians and the personalities impact on history. I was wondering if anyone had any tips on how to approach this best or tips that helped when studying a personality. Much appreciated!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on April 29, 2017, 01:54:17 pm
hey guys!
Yesterday I received the notification for this terms task on the personality study (I'm doing Germany and it's Albert Speer). We're actually not doing any content / learning in class so it's basically an independent research task thats based on analysing historians and the personalities impact on history. I was wondering if anyone had any tips on how to approach this best or tips that helped when studying a personality. Much appreciated!

Hey! Check out an article I wrote HERE, which conveniently has examples based on Albert Speer :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: samuels1999 on April 30, 2017, 08:17:41 pm
Hi Jake,

In my school, we have our 1st sem exams next week (it is unusual I know), and for the Personality section, since we have no done enough of the historiography, the 2nd part of the question which is on Albert Speer, by the way, is:
Assess the contribution of Albert Speer to the Nazi Party up to the outbreak of WW1.

Our teacher says that we have to somehow include an argument in this essay. I just want to know how would you assess someone's contribution? Do you compare them to other people?
What way should I approach this question?

Thanks,
Samuel

Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on May 01, 2017, 09:14:30 am
Hi Jake,

In my school, we have our 1st sem exams next week (it is unusual I know), and for the Personality section, since we have no done enough of the historiography, the 2nd part of the question which is on Albert Speer, by the way, is:
Assess the contribution of Albert Speer to the Nazi Party up to the outbreak of WW1.

Our teacher says that we have to somehow include an argument in this essay. I just want to know how would you assess someone's contribution? Do you compare them to other people?
What way should I approach this question?

Thanks,
Samuel



Hey Samuel!

Firstly, I'm going to assume that you mean the outbreak of WWII. I think Speer was a bit young in WWI to have any sort of major contribution :)

You want to be coming up with an argument in the same way as you normally would! What do you think Speer's contribution to the Nazi party was? The war effort? Propaganda? What were his major achievements/contributions up until this time? Was he small-time, or a major player? What was his role?

Despite having not done real historiography yet, I would find some anyway. Historiography in this section is absolutely key, because you can really build an argument around the thoughts of prominent historians. Go to the library and borrow a book or two on Speer, or google some quotes from well-renowned historians.

I would structure an essay around different streams of historical opinion. Some believe that Speer was highly significant in the pre-war efforts; others suggest he was merely an architect (albeit a Nazi one).

Do some research, read some historiography, and come up with a thesis that you agree with. More than happy to take a look at it once you've got it!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Snew on May 01, 2017, 04:51:36 pm
Does anyone happen to know what the statewide average is for the national study essay?  :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on May 01, 2017, 06:18:36 pm
Does anyone happen to know what the statewide average is for the national study essay?  :)

I'm not 100% sure but I believe it's around 17-19/25. That would make sense since the average overall mark is around 77%, and the National Study is considered one of harder sections. I'll see my old modern teacher on Wednesday so I'll check if that is correct, if not I'll update ya! 😎
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: damecj on May 04, 2017, 08:08:43 am
Hey,
I have this question for a practice question for a speech, I'm not sure how to answer it and what key points I should be adding cause it's quite a broad question.

The question is:
“In the end, people are judged by their actions.”

And my personality that I have to use in the question is Leni Riefenstahl

Any help would be greatly appreciated
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: chloeannbarwick on May 04, 2017, 08:45:56 am
hey hey Chloe! Excellent question :) Modern markers are pedantic AF, so its really important to have a strong structure when analysing a source.

The number one, most important thing is to start with a JUDGEMENT. To what extent is the source useful? That is the question after all! However, a big thing that people get caught up in is the to what extent part. See that is a super key part of the question - it is not asking you if the source is useful or not, therefore "Source A is useful" or "Source is not useful" just doesn't cut it. NESA will never give you a useless source, however they can give you a source that is less useful than others, so buzzwords like highly, limited, partially are super super super important!

But how do you make that judgement? Well you need to consider three things - content, perspective, and reliability. I underlined the last two because they are the most important + you should be underlining them in your responses :)

Content: How useful is the content? Does it provide a detailed explanation of the events/issues in question? Does it cover a wide area of information or does it only cover a small aspect of it? These will all impact the usefulness of the source :) You want to write about maybe 1-2 sentences on this - any more than that and you are probably drifting too far away from the Source.

Perspective: VERY VERY VERY important that you discuss this, and discuss this explicitly as it is part of the question. That is why I suggest underlining the word perspective, so as to make sure that the marker doesn't miss that you have covered it. Perspective covers these sorts of questions; Who produced the source? Was it an individual or a group? How are they related to the events? Did they take part or are they writing about it years later (or both in the case of a memoir!)? Why did they produce the source? Do they have any particular reason to discuss the events in a particular way - ideology, political agenda, personal agenda/prejudice? Is their perspective unique/specific - female, solider, king etc. The answer to the these questions will have a particular impact on the usefulness of the source as well, HOWEVER remember that just because a source may appear "biased" (hate that word - better to use terms like underlying ideology, political agenda or personal prejudice/agenda), doesn't mean that it isn't useful. E.g. A propaganda poster is very clearly a biased source, however it is still super useful to a historian - and that leads us onto reliability. (also you probably want to spend about 2-3 sentences on this!)

Reliability: This is where the bulk of your analysis should be! And like perspective, you should underline reliability within your responses, because it is part of the question, and you want to make sure that the marker doesn't think that you have skipped over it. Like when assessing overall usefulness, you need to make an overall judgement as to whether the source is reliable or not, using buzzwords. When analysing the source's reliability, we want to conduct 3 reliability tests. The first two can we whatever you want, e.g.; Was the source produced in close proximity to the events in question? Was it produced by someone who was involved? Was it produced to be published? Is it an extract (therefore incomplete)? In the case of a photograph, was it taken with a wide angle or narrow angle, or was it obviously staged? If it is a secondary source (ie a historians text) is it the product of extensive research and a peer reviewal process? etc. etc. The third reliability test that you will want to do is a cross-reference of content. This is where you use your own knowledge of the content or other sources in your repertoire to back up the content of the source - for e.g. do the facts that the historian presents in the source corroborate with the facts that you have learnt? or can we assert that the propaganda poster encouraging men to enlist in the british army was effective in achieving its aims due to enlistment statistics from the time? For the most part, the 10 marker requires a lot less integration of your own knowledge throughout the response, so it is a good idea to pack as much as you can into this cross reference of content, to make sure that the markers are given no opportunity to question the depth of your understanding - try and get stats and detail outside of the textbook, that one one else will be using :) Again like before, remember that sources that may appear "biased" aren't always unreliable, because we can break up reliability into two things - factual reliability and reliability as evidence. So just because a source may be factually unreliable - eg. a propaganda poster - it can still be a reliable piece of evidence for attitudes at the time, aims of the producer etc. etc.

Once you have covered everything above - it is time to round of and conclude your work with that source. Restate your judgement upon the usefulness of the source (and maybe, if you have time you can suggest other sources that will work well to expand the historians knowledge). Then hey presto! You're finished with source A, and now you just need to repeat the process above for source B :) (Never intergrate them, deal with the two sources separately - this isn't english  ;) )

Obviously when it comes to the shorter answer responses you will not need to be going as in depth, this is the structure of a 10 marker. When it comes to the shorter ones, depending on the length just make sure that you are integrating content from the source, and relating your own knowledge back to it.

Hope this helps! Let me know if you're confused with anything :)

Susie

Thanks for the awesome response, this is so helpful for me and I appreciate your time on this!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on May 04, 2017, 10:11:21 am
Thanks for the awesome response, this is so helpful for me and I appreciate your time on this!

No worries! I'm so glad you found it useful :) I'll have your essay marked asap!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on May 04, 2017, 10:27:46 am
Hey,
I have this question for a practice question for a speech, I'm not sure how to answer it and what key points I should be adding cause it's quite a broad question.

The question is:
“In the end, people are judged by their actions.”

And my personality that I have to use in the question is Leni Riefenstahl

Any help would be greatly appreciated

Hey! I didn't study Leni so content wise I can't help to much. However I can tell you that that question is an interpretations question, and thus you want to be focusing on the key debate for your personality. For example for Trotsky (who I studied) we look at the debate as to whether he was a practical revolutionary of a naive idealist. The debate for Leni should be explictly stated in the syllabus (near the end under 'evaluation').

With that is mind, structure wise I would recommend writing three paragraph, each paragraph focusing on a specific event/issue in Leni's life that can prove contentious. You don't need to do all of the events/issues mind - just the ones most relevant to the debate (I wouldn't go over three). For example with Trotsky, I would write a paragraph on his role as Commissar of Foreign Affairs, and demonstrate how his actions throughout that role suggest that he was either a practical revolutionary or a naive idealist - making a judgement as to which interpretation I believe is the most appropriate. Historians and historiography is great to include, so finding some quotes from some historians who demonstrate the different views will be a fantastic.

Sorry I couldn't be of more help!

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: chloeannbarwick on May 05, 2017, 08:29:25 am
I was wondering if anybody has any ideas on what would be a good argument for this question?

- Has history vindicated Trotsky, or were his critics right to condemn him as a failure?

I'm so stuck right now! And I suck at making decisions so it's hard for me to decided weather he was deemed vindicated or a failure!

Please help!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on May 05, 2017, 03:05:16 pm
I was wondering if anybody has any ideas on what would be a good argument for this question?

- Has history vindicated Trotsky, or were his critics right to condemn him as a failure?

I'm so stuck right now! And I suck at making decisions so it's hard for me to decided weather he was deemed vindicated or a failure!

Please help!


Hey! So this is an interpretations question, so you want to be looking very keenly at this debate in regards to Trotsky - whether he was a practical revolutionary (the left wing argument which would more closely align with vindicated) or a naive idealist (right wing argument that would condemn him to failure).

The argument that he was a practical revolutionary says that overall, Trotsky was pragmatic. The decisions that he made were for the most part to the benefit of the party, and even when he made mistakes he was able to lessen the impact of the damage to the party through quick thinking, and sacrificing his own ideological beliefs to the benefit and survival of the Bolsheviks. On the other hand, there is the view that Trotsky was a naive idealist (and also a ruthless authoritarian), who stuck too rigidly to his ideology of Permanent Revolution to the detriment of the Party and the Soviet Union overall.

When it comes to interpretations questions, I think the best things to discuss are his role as Commissar of Foreign Affairs, role as Commissar of War and the Power Struggle. Within all of these events/issues there are very different opinions in regards to his significance, all of which can be backed up by some pretty hard evidence! You need to discuss both sides, but you do need to make an overall judgement as to which side you agree with the most. Me? I think he was a practical revolutionary overall rather than a naive idealist - however I can definitely see how the opposite side has formulated their opinion. Attached to this post, I have included my Trotsky debates table, which outlines every argument (with detail to support it) for the personality study. For your question, you want to be looking at the interpretations side of the table rather than the "shaped by/shaped" columns (thats the other type of question you can receive.)

As this is an interpretations question, it is great to include some historians to back up your arguments. For the naive idealist/ruthless authoritarian argument i'd suggest finding some arguments/quotes from Robert Service and Robert Conquest (the former is better). For the practical revolutionary argument - DEUTSCHER DEUTSCHER DEUTSCHER (Wood is also pretty good  ;) )

Hope this helps!

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: chloeannbarwick on May 05, 2017, 03:34:38 pm
Wow, thank you so much! This is such a great start and is so helpful, although I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you there and argue that Trotsky was a naiive idealist  ;) Hopefully I'll have my attempt up for marking soon! Thanks again!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on May 05, 2017, 03:38:59 pm
Wow, thank you so much! This is such a great start and is so helpful, although I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you there and argue that Trotsky was a naiive idealist  ;) Hopefully I'll have my attempt up for marking soon! Thanks again!

Sudodds is as communist as they come, so stick with your interpretation and ignore her socialist rhetoric :)))))
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on May 05, 2017, 05:25:25 pm
Sudodds is as communist as they come, so stick with your interpretation and ignore her socialist rhetoric :)))))
jakesilove is as brainwashed by the bourgeoisie as they come, so stick with the person that actually studied Trotsky and ignore his incoherent crapitalist ramblings  ;D))) (he'll get there one day).

But seriously - do stick with your interpretation. It can be just as easily argued whether I agree with it or not - happy to discuss if you are interested in the other side though 😉

EDIT: I just realised you said this on KARL MARX'S BIRTHDAY how dare you.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: maria1999 on May 06, 2017, 06:42:51 pm
hey!
My personality is Albert Speer and my assignment is on the Good Nazi debate. I want to talk about: His knowledge of the Jewish flats situation in the Germania project, his use of forced labour, claim of not knowing about the "final solution" and the facade that he created at Nuremberg. Now I'm getting marked on how well I cover all areas of this historical investigation; is there anything important that I've missed or any VITAL things I should make sure I include that isn't mentioned? Thanks in advance!!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on May 10, 2017, 01:33:54 pm
hey!
My personality is Albert Speer and my assignment is on the Good Nazi debate. I want to talk about: His knowledge of the Jewish flats situation in the Germania project, his use of forced labour, claim of not knowing about the "final solution" and the facade that he created at Nuremberg. Now I'm getting marked on how well I cover all areas of this historical investigation; is there anything important that I've missed or any VITAL things I should make sure I include that isn't mentioned? Thanks in advance!!

Looks like you've covered the vast majority of the content! You could perhaps talk about his actions as the Minister for Armaments etc: You've said he used forced labour, but the very fact that he so efficiently developed the war effort tends towards his central role in WWII, suggesting he was a key Nazi figure without whom the war may have ended much earlier. It may also be worth bringing in the point at which be because infatuated with the Nazi party; there are some great quotes explaining this stage of his life. If you can point to his affinity with the ideology, rather than simply the rhetoric, you can build a strong argument that he was a real and proper Nazi, as opposed to the (rubbish) tale he told at Nuremburg.

Personally, I found that the best analytic process was to briefly mention someone who supported Speer's persona of the 'Good Nazi', then absolutely decimate their argument (bringing in modern historiography, of course). Obviously, you're welcome to argue that he was actually a Good Nazi.

However, he wasn't.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: maria1999 on May 10, 2017, 03:33:26 pm
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!!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on May 10, 2017, 04:51:52 pm
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 :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: maria1999 on May 11, 2017, 10:55:43 am
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!!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: maria1999 on May 12, 2017, 08:44:45 pm
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!!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on May 13, 2017, 10:09:35 am
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.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: tahliamag on May 15, 2017, 10:43:44 am
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  :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on May 15, 2017, 11:27:30 am
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
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: tahliamag on May 15, 2017, 08:40:39 pm
Sweet, thankyou heaps!!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: tahliamag on May 15, 2017, 08:47:16 pm
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
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: maria1999 on May 15, 2017, 08:55:04 pm
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!!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on May 15, 2017, 09:08:02 pm
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.

Quote
(not Ken Webb dw)
i have trained you well  ;)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: maria1999 on May 15, 2017, 09:10:32 pm
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  :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: maria1999 on May 16, 2017, 08:10:51 pm
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!!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on May 16, 2017, 08:48:38 pm
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
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Rasika on May 17, 2017, 08:24:36 pm
 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.

Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on May 17, 2017, 08:39:46 pm
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.

Hi Rasika! Good question :)

Though I don't think it would be fair to say that the 1917 Revolution was the only important factor in Trotsky's rise to prominence (the 1905 Revolution and his writings in early exile were imo equally if not more important!) - however that doesn't change the fact that the 1917 Revolution was still a key, contributing event for a variety of reasons, as Trotsky played a really critical role both organisationally and practically during the 1917 Revolution.

1. Trotsky conviced Lenin to change the date of the Revolution to October 25th so that it coincided with the All-Russian Congress of Soviets (a decision that was instrumental as the Bolsheviks could claim power "in the name of the Soviets" and thus secure more support).

2. He was also a key motivator/speaker during the Revolution (Wood suggests he had "oratory skills that could set listeners ears on fire" - might not be the exact quote - but at least close!).

3. He was also instrumental in organising the actual takeover and exchange of power, as leader of the Red Guard in the "bloodless coup" of the Winter Palace. Though a 'coup' is a bad way to describe the takeover, "bloodless" is not - no one in the Winter Palace was killed, the physical exchange of power occurring relatively fast and painlessly, mainly thanks to Trotsky's effective organising. Even Stalin - Trotsky's bitter rival later on - admitted that the Bolsheviks were indebted to Trotsky after the 1917 Revolution.

Essentially, the 1917 Revolution helped to fully establish Trotsky as a highly prominent member of the Bolshevik Party - second only to Lenin. It garnered him significant respect from his peers and the community, which in turn afforded him significant power and opportunity. For example it was after the 1917 Revolution that not only did Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution become the official Bolshevik Party ideology, but he was also made Commissar of Foreign Affairs. Therefore, it is evident that the 1917 Revolution was highly critical to Trotsky's rise to prominence.

Hope this helps! Let me know if any of this was confusing/you have any more questions :)

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sophiemacpherso on May 17, 2017, 09:56:19 pm
Hey!! How do you guys recommend remembering stats and historian quotes..? I'm struggling to remember both for all areas of the syllabus..
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on May 17, 2017, 10:09:16 pm
Hey!! How do you guys recommend remembering stats and historian quotes..? I'm struggling to remember both for all areas of the syllabus..
Heya! I highly recommend constructing a detail table :) You can find mine here if you want to have a look at how to structure one. I found these insanely helpful, because not only did it mean that I had an organised place with all of the stats/quotes I needed, which I could easily study from, but it also forced me to actively seek out detail and quotes outside of a textbook so that my responses stood out :) The day of exams, the only form of study that I'd do would be to grab my detail table and 'Look, Cover, Write, Check' to see how many stats/quotes I could remember :) This form of studying was really really really effective for me :)

I also recommend finding stats and quotes that are genuinely interesting/punchy! This is especially important when it comes to quotes - think short and sweet! I'm much more likely to remember “Idealism perished on the Somme” (AJP Taylor), than “The Somme offensive was a necessary if painful stage in the process of weakening a skillful, courageous and highly professional enemy” (Peter Simkins). Not only that, but shorter quotes are actually preferable, because they allow more room for your own analysis. Interesting/weird stats and detail are also possible too :) One of the most frequent stats that I dropped in my Stalin essays was that there was a 2500% increase in the production of tractors. A bit of detail that I used a lot when discussing the nature of the trenches was that hygiene was a problem, because the British Army put toilets in the line of enemy snipers to encourage the soldiers to 'do their business' faster, which just encouraged them to crap onto a shovel and then chuck it out to no-mans-land. Ew. See? These two bits of detail were much more likely to stick in my brain because they were different :)

Hope this helps!

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Rasika on May 17, 2017, 10:48:45 pm
Trotsky’s role in the 1917 Revolution was a significant factor that had contributed to his rise to prominence. This is because it allowed him to gain a powerful position within the Bolshevik party and it garnered him significant respect from his peers and community, which in turn afforded him significant power and opportunity. The 1917 Revolution marked the conclusion of the power struggle between the Bolsheviks and the Provisional Government after the forced abdication of Tsar Nicholas II on 15th March 1917, with the Bolsheviks succeeding after the Red Guard stormed the White Palace, headed by Trotsky. Trotsky played a pivotal role in the organisation and communication of orders during the 1917 revolution and held major influence over how the revolution was conducted. For example, he persuaded Lenin to delay the revolution until the Second Congress of All-Russia Soviets at the end of October, so that power could be seized in the name of the Soviet rather than the Bolshevik Party itself, thereby reducing the likelihood of proletariat opposition whom the Soviet represented. Trotsky’s pragmatic ability coupled with his talent as an orator gained him much popularity and respect within the Bolshevik party. This elevated his status to an equal balance to Lenin. This veneration Trotsky received during the 1917 revolution led to his appointment within critical party positions such as Commissar of Foreign Affairs in 1917and Commissar of War, Army and Naval Affairs in 1918. This was a significant because it allowed him to gain the support and trust of the army. Therefore, it is evident that the 1917 Revolution was highly critical to Trotsky’s rise to prominence as a political and revolutionary figure.

Can someone mark this..?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on May 17, 2017, 11:09:34 pm
Can someone mark this..?

Sure thing :) Your response + my comments can be found in the spoiler below! I'm assuming that the question was something along the lines of "Explain Trotsky's rise to prominence", and that this is for part A of the personality study, thus I will be marking it as such (if I'm wrong let me know!)

Spoiler
Trotsky’s role in the 1917 Revolution was a highly (though these buzzwords aren't essential in a part A response, they are in other sections of the paper, thus it is good to get into the habit of including them)significant factor that had contributed to his rise to prominence. Great opening sentence! Clear and direct :) This is because it allowed him to gain a powerful position within the Bolshevik party and it garnered him significant respect from his peers and community, which in turn afforded him significant power and opportunity. This read a little bit clunky and repetitive - consider rewording, but as a point A okay! Great explanation of you judgement.The 1917 Revolution marked the conclusion of the power struggle between the Bolsheviks and the Provisional Government after the forced abdication of Tsar Nicholas II on 15th March 1917 good detail, with the Bolsheviks succeeding after the Red Guard stormed the White Palace date?, headed find a better word than "headed" by Trotsky. Trotsky played a pivotal role nice, strong judgement! in the organisation and communication of orders during the 1917 revolution and held major influence over how the revolution was conducted. For example, he persuaded Lenin to delay the revolution until the Second Congress of All-Russia Soviets at the end of October give me the exact date - you should know it!, so that power could be seized in the name of the Soviets rather than the Bolshevik Party itself, thereby reducing the likelihood of proletariat opposition whom the Soviet represented Nice! I'd probably also add that it further increased the popularity and support of the Bolsheviks. It wasn't just done as a preventative measure :). Trotsky’s pragmatic ability coupled with his talent as an orator gained him much popularity and respect within the Bolshevik party. This elevated his status to an equal balance to Lenin. Most agree that he wasn't equal to Lenin, but rather "second only to Lenin". Lenin was still head of the Bolshevik Party, and demonstrated his overall authority (sometimes even overruling Trotsky's!) on multiple occasions. I'm sure some could argue that they had equal power, however in a part A response you do not have the time - thus I'd stick to just saying he was "second only to Lenin". That is still a very significant thing :) This veneration Trotsky received during the 1917 revolution led to his appointment within critical party positions such as Commissar of Foreign Affairs in 1917and Commissar of War, Army and Naval Affairs in 1918, allowing him to further consolidate and grow his influence within the party (linking sentences like this are great - they remind the marker that you are consistently answering the question.) . This was a significant because it while also allowing him to gain the support and trust of the army. The changes I made to the last sentence are only if you stick with my linking sentence :)Therefore, it is evident that the 1917 Revolution was highly critical to Trotsky’s rise to prominence as a political and revolutionary figure. Great concluding statement! Just like your introductory one it is clear and direct.

This is really well done Rasika! Only a few minor, easy to change points :) However overall if your other paragraphs were similar in quality to this, I'd expect quite a high mark (around the 8-9/10). Structurally your response is fantastic, just be a bit careful of some of your judgements (mainly re. trotsky and lenin being of equal status). Also though you do have a decent amount of detail, I still think it could do with some more, particularly if you want to crack that top top top mark :) Some more stats, dates, specific names, maybe even a quote? Etc. etc. :)

But yes, overall very well done! Hope this helps, let me know if any of the feedback concerns/confuses you in any way!

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: bellerina on May 18, 2017, 07:52:34 am
‘History is about winners’
How accurate is this statement in relation to the personality you have studied?
This is for my speech and we have to refer to ONE factor that would prove either he was a winner/loser
In relation to Trotsky:
   The roles he acquired and held and how he used them
   The 1917 Revolution
   The Civil War
   The consolidation of the Bolshevik power to 1924
   The power struggle with Stalin following the death of Lenin
   Expulsion from the Communist Party
   Achievements of political ideals/aims

Which one should i do? I want to say he was a winner
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on May 18, 2017, 02:20:00 pm
‘History is about winners’
How accurate is this statement in relation to the personality you have studied?
This is for my speech and we have to refer to ONE factor that would prove either he was a winner/loser
In relation to Trotsky:
   The roles he acquired and held and how he used them
   The 1917 Revolution
   The Civil War
   The consolidation of the Bolshevik power to 1924
   The power struggle with Stalin following the death of Lenin
   Expulsion from the Communist Party
   Achievements of political ideals/aims

Which one should i do? I want to say he was a winner

Heya! Well if you want to say he was a winner i'd suggest looking at either his role in the 1917 Revolution or the Civil War - those really were his shining moments imo. Though there is still debate overall I'd say it is much easier to assert his success. However, if you want to stretch yourself, and really demonstrate your proficiency at constructing a solid and sustained analysis, "the roles he acquired and held and how he used them" would also work nicely. A lot more debate over his significance and contribution there (cos you'll need to discuss his role as Commissar of Foreign Affairs that can be argued was a failure), which can really help you to flesh out your argument :)

Hope this helps!

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Rasika on May 19, 2017, 09:52:09 pm
Can someone mark this. :)
Thanks.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on May 19, 2017, 10:20:11 pm
Can someone mark this. :)
Thanks.

Hey Rasika :) Sure can do - in the future though feel free to post responses to mark in this thread. It's specifically for essay marking :) 15 posts = 1 full essay marked (as this is only a part A, which I personally don't count as a full essay, I'm happy to look over this without the 15 posts). You can find my comments in the spoiler :)

Spoiler
Trotsky’s role in the 1917 Revolution was a highly significant factor that had contributed to his rise to prominence. FANTASTIC JUDGEMENT This is because it allowed him Trotsky to gain a powerful position within the Bolshevik party, and it garnered him garner (just reads a bit better, and as this is an oral task that is important) significant respect from his peers and community, which in turn afforded him significant power and opportunity. Great explanation.The 1917 Revolution marked the conclusion of the power struggle between the Bolsheviks and the Provisional Government after the forced abdication of Tsar Nicholas II on 15th March 1917, with the Bolsheviks succeeding after the Red Guard stormed the White Palace, led by Trotsky date?.Trotsky played a pivotal role in the organisation and communication of orders during the 1917 revolution, and held holding major influence over how the revolution was conducted. Great! For example, he persuaded Lenin to delay the revolution until the Second Congress of All-Russia Soviets Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets at the end of October, so that the power could be seized in the name of the Soviets rather than the Bolshevik Party itself, thereby reducing the likelihood of proletariat opposition whom the Soviet represented. It also further increased the popularity and support of the Bolsheviks. GreatTrotsky’s pragmatic ability coupled with his talent as an orator gained him "gained him" is a bit weirdly worded - 'garnered him' or 'afforded him' would be better much popularity and respect within the Bolshevik party. This elevated his status so that he was “second only to Lenin” find out who actually said this (quite a few historians have - take your pick ;)). This veneration Trotsky received during the 1917 Revolution led to his appointment within critical party positions, such as Commissar of Foreign Affairs in 1917 and Commissar of War, Army and Naval Affairs in 1918, allowing him to further consolidate and grow his influence within the party whilst also allowing him to gain the support and trust of the army. Therefore, it is evidence that the 1917 Revolution was highly critical to Trotsky’s rise to prominence as a political and revolutionary figure.

Awesome work Rasika! Fantastic :) I still feel like a little bit more detail would be nice, date here, stat there, and maybe a bit more scrutiny over word choices (as this is a speech, "flow" is super important). However overall you should be feeling very confident handing this in. Well done :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Rasika on May 19, 2017, 10:33:20 pm
i have like 3 parts to my oral -- where should i send them haha?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on May 19, 2017, 10:38:05 pm
i have like 3 parts to my oral -- where should i send them haha?
As in like 3 paragraphs? Feel free to send them to the essay marking thread :) Depending on how long it is though you might need to reach 15 posts first (super easy, just ask/answer a few questions, contribute to some of the discussions etc. etc.  :) ). If its only a paragraph though don't worry :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Rasika on May 19, 2017, 10:41:23 pm
Oh well it has to be very succint. We only have 4-6 min to speak. So the paragraphs wouldnt be really dense.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on May 19, 2017, 10:43:46 pm
Oh well it has to be very succint. We only have 4-6 min to speak. So the paragraphs wouldnt be really dense.
Ah k :) Why don't you post it now and I'll take a look - if its a bit too long I'll let you know (if not I'll have it done in an hour ;) ). As it is a Part A response I feel like it'll probs be fine :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Rasika on May 20, 2017, 01:23:51 am
I think i might need to shorten it down because the ideal time is 2min. And this is a little bit longer. Im still doing the last one so ill send it to you by tomorrow!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on May 20, 2017, 10:25:17 am
I think i might need to shorten it down because the ideal time is 2min. And this is a little bit longer. Im still doing the last one so ill send it to you by tomorrow!

Hey Rasika!
All together, this paragraph, plus the one I already marked (and the one coming) will be long enough to be considered a full response, so I'm gonna have to enforce the 15 posts rule before I can mark anything else :( You're super close to 15 posts though (only 9 more to go!), so shouldn't be too much of an issue :) Here are a few threads that might interest you to get you started!

- New Users Introductions Thread
- English Advanced Question Thread or Standard Question Thread
- General Maths Question Thread or 2U, 3U, 4U Maths Question Threads
- History Extension Debating Thread (if you're a history extension student would love to see you give this ago! We also have a Question Thread too :) )

Once you've reached 15, post your full response (so everything you want marked) here and i'll get back to you ASAP :)

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Rasika on May 20, 2017, 11:56:07 am
Yep! No worries! :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Rasika on May 20, 2017, 06:51:48 pm
Assess/Evaluate ONE major contribution/significance of the personality you have studied to their period of national OR international history (make a clear choice and choose relevant historical content to demonstrate/support choice)
2 minutes.
In addressing this, you should consider Trotsky’s significance in contributing to continuity and/or change during the twentieth century (Russia/Soviet Union’s national history or international history)

You may refer to 2 of the following:

   Significance in contributing to a specific change and continuity
   Victory and consolidation of Bolshevik power
   Defeat of Civil War and foreign intervention
   World/Permanent Revolution
   Life and activities in exile

Can someone help me understand what they are asking? Because I have no idea what to research or write for this last part of my assignment.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on May 20, 2017, 07:08:09 pm
Assess/Evaluate ONE major contribution/significance of the personality you have studied to their period of national OR international history (make a clear choice and choose relevant historical content to demonstrate/support choice)
2 minutes.
In addressing this, you should consider Trotsky’s significance in contributing to continuity and/or change during the twentieth century (Russia/Soviet Union’s national history or international history)

You may refer to 2 of the following:

   Significance in contributing to a specific change and continuity
   Victory and consolidation of Bolshevik power
   Defeat of Civil War and foreign intervention
   World/Permanent Revolution
   Life and activities in exile

Can someone help me understand what they are asking? Because I have no idea what to research or write for this last part of my assignment.


Heya! So is this the final part of the assessment task? I think what they are asking you to do is to choose a major contribution of Trotsky to either national or international history (national is probably the easiest to argue). When it says you should consider Trotsky's significance to continuity and change, I think what they are asking you to consider is to what extent his actions resulted in either drastic change for Russian society, or continuity/consolidation of changes that had already been made.

In terms of the things that you can refer to I think that;

- 'Significance in contributing to a specific change and continuity' - is probably asking you to look at the dot points under the 4th syllabus heading (4. Evalution), pick on and assess how Trotsky contributed to change and continuity within that. So for example, how did his role as Commissar of Foreign Affairs contribute? How did his actions during the Power Struggle contribute? etc. etc.

- 'Victory and Consolidation of Bolshevik Power' - how did Trotsky actively aid in the Victory and Consolidation of the Bolsheviks? You'd probs want to look at 1917 Revolution and the Civil War in particular :)

- Defeat of the Civil War and Foreign Intervention - This is weirdly worded, cos it sounds like they are saying that the Red Army were defeated - which they defs weren't... because of Trotsky :) The Foreign Intervention stuff would be important if you are thinking of taking the "international history" approach.

- World/Permanent Revolution: This would be an really interesting one - if you are confident in your theoretical knowledge on Permanent Revolution I defs recommend you pick this one, because it can look super sophisticated in a response! Basically how did Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution have international or national implications? You'd want to look at his early writings in exile and probs his role as Commissar of Foreign Affairs and the power struggle for this. As Permanent Revolution was the official Bolshevik Party policy t'is very important :)

- 'Life and Activities in Exile' - Probs more important for "international history."

Soooooo if I were to argue this, I would probably argue that one major contribution of Trotsky to national history was his theory of Permanent Revolution, then link this to "Victory and consolidation of Bolshevik Power" and "World/Permanent Revolution," arguing that though ideology was highly significant, it was Trotsky's ability to keenly maneuver through ideology and pragmatism that he was able to ensure success and significance (hope that makes sense! If you're confused let me know, cos I'm not sure how well I explained this haha).

‘Every Day I Spend 14 Hours Arguing With Liam About Whether Trotsky Had It Coming’: 5 Questions With Harry Styles

For you and anyone else anyone currently fretting over how they're going to answer the Personality Study Part B for Trotsky, might be comforting to know that at least you and Harry Styles have something in common ;)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Rasika on May 20, 2017, 11:09:48 pm
Yeah I am kinda confused with forming argument overall. So should I say something like ‘Trotsky’s theory of Permanent Revolution was a significant contribution he had made to the Soviet Union’s national history during the twentieth century’ I want to choose ‘Victory and Consolidation of Bolshevik Power’ and ‘World/Permanent Revolution’ BUT im not sure how to form the arguments properly because its not totally clear in my mind as in what to write exactly.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on May 20, 2017, 11:57:55 pm
Yeah I am kinda confused with forming argument overall. So should I say something like ‘Trotsky’s theory of Permanent Revolution was a significant contribution he had made to the Soviet Union’s national history during the twentieth century’ I want to choose ‘Victory and Consolidation of Bolshevik Power’ and ‘World/Permanent Revolution’ BUT im not sure how to form the arguments properly because its not totally clear in my mind as in what to write exactly.

Coming up with the argument is always the hardest part dw :) You definitely could say that Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution was a significant contribution - because it was! It was literally the official party policy until Stalin came along and f'd shit up haha. However, furthermore Trotsky's pragmatic application of this theory is important - he knew when to let go of ideology in order to deal with the issues directly in front of them (like you suggested during the Civil War - however the power struggle can be used to argue against this point if you so choose).

So my judgement (this doesn't have to be yours!) would be:

Trotsky's pragmatic understanding and application of communist theory and practice was highly significant to Russian national history.

I'd then want to talk about the way in which during the 1917 Revolution Trotsky pragmatically utilise ideology in order to garner more support (eg changing the date to coincide with the Soviet's Congress, and utilising communist rhetoric) and how as Commissar of War he went against his ideology because it wasn't practical to force theory under those conditions. You can even talk about his role as Commissar of Foreign Affairs (tricker but can be done!), suggesting that even though it appeared as though his ideology failed in this regard (as his position of "neither peace nor war" was inextricably tied to his ideology and germany didn't have a revolution), this actually wasn't a fault of his ideology - more so that Germany not having an invasion was so improbable (remember that even though Lenin had a different view to Trotsky of whether they should sign the Treaty he too believed that a German revolution was immanent) that it was in fact a logical assumption that it would occur soon, and when it was revealed they he was wrong, Trotsky immediately switched his position to Lenin's in order to solve the immediate problems - German invasion, even if it went against his ideology. (that was a super long sentence soz).

Does that make sense? I've attached my Trotsky argument table, just in case that can help any further :) Let me know if you are still confused!

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Rasika on May 21, 2017, 11:16:49 am
One of the major contributions that Trotsky had to national history was his theory of Permanent Revolution which he had upheld throughout the overall Bolshevik consolidation of power. However, it can be argued that though this communist ideology was highly significant, it was also Trotsky’s ability to keenly maneuver through ideology and pragmatism that he was able to ensure success and significance.


Well this is my starter. What should i say next?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on May 21, 2017, 12:31:13 pm
One of the major contributions that Trotsky had to national history was his theory of Permanent Revolution which he had upheld throughout the overall Bolshevik consolidation of power. However, it can be argued that though this communist ideology was highly significant, it was also Trotsky’s ability to keenly maneuver through ideology and pragmatism that he was able to ensure success and significance.


Well this is my starter. What should i say next?

I've made a couple of suggests as to how you can improve your opening in the spoiler :)

Spoiler
One of the major contributions that Trotsky had to national history was his theory of Permanent Revolution which he had upheld throughout the overall Bolshevik consolidation of power. Good, but I think this could be stronger. Rather than saying "One of the major contributions that Trotsky had..." I'd instead start with "Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution was one of his most significant contributions...." However, it can be argued Don't say "it can be argued" - Argue it yourself! Prove it can be argued rather than telling me that it can.that though this communist ideology was highly significant, it was also Trotsky’s ability to keenly maneuver through ideology and pragmatism I know I was the one that originally said this - but I've changed my mind. I think its better to say "Trotsky's pragmatic ability to keenly maneuver through theoretical adherence and the practical application of ideology that he was able to ensure success and significance.

In terms of what to say next, I think you need to provide context and a brief explanation of your judgement - what was the socio-philosophical landscape of Russia at the time? What was Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution (in what book was it expounded)? Why was it so important to the Bolsheviks? Within what situations did he demonstrate this pragmatic application of ideology (this will include the outline of your argument :) )

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Rasika on May 21, 2017, 12:37:43 pm
My teacher just informed me that i dont have to refer to 2. That was her mistake. So i should stick with ONE overall idea of how his contribution impacted the national/international history

So I was just thinking of talking about how Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution had significantly impacted the national history... like soemthing along those lines.

Mod Edit: Merged :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on May 21, 2017, 12:51:53 pm
My teacher just informed me that i dont have to refer to 2. That was her mistake. So i should stick with ONE overall idea of how his contribution impacted the national/international history

So I was just thinking of talking about how Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution had significantly impacted the national history... like soemthing along those lines.

Mod Edit: Merged :)

Okay sounds good :) I think either way though you will end up talking about victory and consolidation - even if it isn't explicitly your chosen factor, that and ideology go hand in hand - very difficult to assess the significance of one without a mention of the other :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Rasika on May 21, 2017, 12:56:10 pm
Do you have any notes or information i can use in relation to Permanent Revolution? Because the stuff im finding seems to be very general
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on May 21, 2017, 01:10:58 pm
Do you have any notes or information i can use in relation to Permanent Revolution? Because the stuff im finding seems to be very general

Kind of... but I'm not sure it will make much sense to you as they were the notes I wrote in class + so idk if it's really a kinda "you had to be there to make sense of it" kinda thing.

The important stuff though is the focus on a european/world revolution, the belief that you could "fast forward" through various historical stages (primitive communism --> slave owning societies --> feudalism --> capitalism --> socialism --> communism) through human agency, and the belief in "combined and uneven development", which essentially meant that the proletariat and the peasants could progress at different speeds.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: tahliamag on May 21, 2017, 05:12:34 pm
Does anyone have any suggestions as to whether study notes are a good idea for modern history? I've heard that it can be kind of pointless but I feel like it would be really hard to study without them? Thankyouu
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Rasika on May 21, 2017, 06:37:03 pm
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.

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

Mod Edit: Merged - For future reference, if you forget to add something to a post you can always click modify  :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Rasika on May 21, 2017, 06:41:21 pm
Does anyone have any suggestions as to whether study notes are a good idea for modern history? I've heard that it can be kind of pointless but I feel like it would be really hard to study without them? Thankyouu

Dude, i defs recommend study notes especially when it comes to the core:ww1. They are really good to help remember your stats and those key facts!! It helped me a lot for my half yearlies

Mod Edit: Just cleaned up you quoting :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on May 21, 2017, 06:53:18 pm
Does anyone have any suggestions as to whether study notes are a good idea for modern history? I've heard that it can be kind of pointless but I feel like it would be really hard to study without them? Thankyouu
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. :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Rasika on May 21, 2017, 06:57:09 pm
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!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: tahliamag on May 21, 2017, 07:04:21 pm
Thankyou for the suggestions!!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on May 21, 2017, 08:19:01 pm
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 :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on May 21, 2017, 08:33:49 pm
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.

Quote
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 :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Rasika on May 22, 2017, 09:28:21 pm
"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
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on May 22, 2017, 09:49:16 pm
"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
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Rasika on May 22, 2017, 09:56:33 pm
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..
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on May 22, 2017, 10:00:03 pm
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.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Rasika on May 22, 2017, 10:04:06 pm
In a nutshell -- how did the Permanent Revolution directly impact the national history?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on May 22, 2017, 10:09:22 pm
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.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Rasika on May 22, 2017, 10:33:12 pm
i dont know why but i feel like changing it to how the permanent revolution had international impacts
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on May 22, 2017, 10:46:48 pm
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.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Rasika on May 22, 2017, 10:49:03 pm
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.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on May 22, 2017, 10:55:32 pm
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 :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Rasika on May 22, 2017, 10:59:41 pm
What else should I put for that section? Like besides the treaty of Brest-Litovsk?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on May 22, 2017, 11:03:46 pm
What else should I put for that section? Like besides the treaty of Brest-Litovsk?
Take your pick from the events in the syllabus - social and political reforms, Treaty, Civil War, NEP :) All can be argued in some capacity, as they were all vital to securing the bolshevik consolidation of power, and the promotion of Bolshevik ideology.

EDIT: actually maybe not social political reforms and NEP --> like they can defs be argued, but they aren't explictly on the Trotsky syllabus.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Rasika on May 22, 2017, 11:08:23 pm
Yeaaah see I wanna talk about them but I only have like around 2min so I'm not sure...haha
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on May 22, 2017, 11:12:45 pm
Yeaaah see I wanna talk about them but I only have like around 2min so I'm not sure...haha
Civil War is probably your best bet. Cut out some of your discussion upon pre-revolutionary Russia (and maybe even some of your discussion on the 1905 revolution and when he actually wrote his theories - not completely, like you need to provide some context, but the impact is more important).
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Rasika on May 22, 2017, 11:14:06 pm
Hmm okay I can do that then-- thank you for your help!!

Civil War is probably your best bet. Cut out some of your discussion upon pre-revolutionary Russia (and maybe even some of your discussion on the 1905 revolution and when he actually wrote his theories - not completely, like you need to provide some context, but the impact is more important).


I have done all that ^^ but can you clarify how trotsky's theory impacted the civil war?

Mod Edit [Aaron]: Merged double post. Unnecessary.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on May 23, 2017, 03:03:04 pm

I have done all that ^^ but can you clarify how trotsky's theory impacted the civil war?

It's impact is a nuanced issue - though the Civil War was an example of Trotsky forgoing some of his hardline ideological adherence to solve the immediate conflict (eg. reinstating rank and class to the Red Army), it was, in the long term, an attempt to secure more firmly the Bolshevik's dominant position within Russia through the elimination of their enemies, and thus an attempt to secure Bolshevik ideology - Permanent Revolution - as the dominant ideology of Russia (whether this really worked it definitely up for debate - this was the goal however). A Permanent Revolution could not occur until Russia was stable, which relied upon the success of the Civil War. Along with this, you could definitely argue that much of the way in which Trotsky attempted to motivate the army was through his ideological rhetoric (eg. giving agency to the proletariat), which was filtered through his belief in Permanent Revolution.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Rasika on May 23, 2017, 03:27:37 pm
It's impact is a nuanced issue - though the Civil War was an example of Trotsky forgoing some of his hardline ideological adherence to solve the immediate conflict (eg. reinstating rank and class to the Red Army), it was, in the long term, an attempt to secure more firmly the Bolshevik's dominant position within Russia through the elimination of their enemies, and thus an attempt to secure Bolshevik ideology - Permanent Revolution - as the dominant ideology of Russia (whether this really worked it definitely up for debate - this was the goal however). A Permanent Revolution could not occur until Russia was stable, which relied upon the success of the Civil War. Along with this, you could definitely argue that much of the way in which Trotsky attempted to motivate the army was through his ideological rhetoric (eg. giving agency to the proletariat), which was filtered through his belief in Permanent Revolution.



Is there a way to like talk about the civil war in around 1-2 sentences because i feel like theres not enough information on it-- because i was thinking of putting the civil war and how he used his theory to help successfully win the war and then i want to go into the signing of brest-litovks.... if that makes sense
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on May 23, 2017, 03:40:20 pm
Is there a way to like talk about the civil war in around 1-2 sentences because i feel like theres not enough information on it-- because i was thinking of putting the civil war and how he used his theory to help successfully win the war and then i want to go into the signing of brest-litovks.... if that makes sense
If you only want to focus on the positives maybe just focus on how he used his ideological rhetoric as motivation/propaganda for the Red Army - do some research into how many people were conscripted to the Red Army during the Civil War (hint: it was a very significant amount!) :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Rasika on May 23, 2017, 04:04:44 pm
"During the civil war, he employed this theory to serve as a motivational tool to boost the morale of the 800,000 soldiers in the Red Army, since the existence of his theory was dependant on Russia’s stability through the success of the civil war.
However, he knew and understood that theory was not always possible...(this just goes on to the treaty part...)
 
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on May 23, 2017, 04:22:38 pm
"During the civil war, he employed this theory to serve as a motivational tool to boost the morale of the 800,000 soldiers in the Red Army, since the existence of his theory was dependant on Russia’s stability through the success of the civil war.
However, he knew and understood that theory was not always possible...(this just goes on to the treaty part...)
 
Good! However I still think you need to draw out the significance of Permanent Revolution more - why was it so motivational? Remember that the official title of the Red Army was the "Workers' and Peasants' Red Army". What aspects of Permanent Revolution do you think they may have found appealing? Integrating a bit of your knowledge on the theoretical aspects of Permanent Revolution will really boost up the sophistication of your response - even if its just one extra sentence. (I also think that it might be a good idea to mention that Trotsky also used ruthless and harsh discipline to keep the army in check, just so it doesn't look like you've ignored the negative stuff, but if you don't have enough time/words then just leave it at that). Also rather than saying 'possible' for the treaty, I think a better word would be 'practicable' :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Rasika on May 23, 2017, 04:42:42 pm
Hmm okay! Well , tbh, i dont think i need to add the negatives because i already do with the response before it so il just add the motivation part so then it doesnt seem like im repeating

Good! However I still think you need to draw out the significance of Permanent Revolution more - why was it so motivational? Remember that the official title of the Red Army was the "Workers' and Peasants' Red Army". What aspects of Permanent Revolution do you think they may have found appealing? Integrating a bit of your knowledge on the theoretical aspects of Permanent Revolution will really boost up the sophistication of your response - even if its just one extra sentence. (I also think that it might be a good idea to mention that Trotsky also used ruthless and harsh discipline to keep the army in check, just so it doesn't look like you've ignored the negative stuff, but if you don't have enough time/words then just leave it at that). Also rather than saying 'possible' for the treaty, I think a better word would be 'practicable' :)


Should i say that 'This proved to be succesfull because his theory appealed to the Red Army who were comprised of workers and peasants. Their appeasment of the theory was due to its notion that it is only through an uprising with the proletarians and peasant class, that capitalism can be overthrown
 
idk if it makes sense...

Mod Edit: Merged
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on May 23, 2017, 05:07:54 pm
Should i say that 'This proved to be succesfull because his theory appealed to the Red Army who were comprised of workers and peasants. Their appeasment of the theory was due to its notion that it is only through an uprising with the proletarians and peasant class, that capitalism can be overthrown
 
idk if it makes sense...

Essentially - you've got the right idea, but your sentence structure is holding you back. Something like this would be better: "the theory of Permanent Revolution was used by Trotsky to motivate the Red Army, principally comprised of workers and peasants, as it stressed their collective agency and power over the bourgeoise, members of whom (such as the Tsarists and foreign armies) supported the White Army."
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Rasika on May 23, 2017, 05:28:00 pm
What would be a good concluding sentence to wrap this section? Because i want to say like 'Furthermore, it is evident that Trotsky’s overall theory of Permanent Revolution significantly impacted on the national history of Russia because....' something to link it back to the question of how it impacted national history?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on May 23, 2017, 05:40:08 pm
What would be a good concluding sentence to wrap this section? Because i want to say like 'Furthermore, it is evident that Trotsky’s overall theory of Permanent Revolution significantly impacted on the national history of Russia because....' something to link it back to the question of how it impacted national history?
Don't use "furthermore" - that suggests you are going to start discussion another point - use 'thus' or 'therefore' instead. Yes, you defs want to be linking back to your question, but also your thesis! You don't need to add anymore information, just sum up your argument (it'll probably look very similar to your first sentence).
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: diesxel on May 23, 2017, 05:57:15 pm
Hello! I have a question about Conflict in Europe. Can someone please explain the idea of collective security?? I get it but not really..especially in the context of the work..thanks!!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Rasika on May 23, 2017, 06:18:47 pm
Don't use "furthermore" - that suggests you are going to start discussion another point - use 'thus' or 'therefore' instead. Yes, you defs want to be linking back to your question, but also your thesis! You don't need to add anymore information, just sum up your argument (it'll probably look very similar to your first sentence).



I kinda reworked my thesis:
"Trotsky’s theory of Permanent Revolution was one of his most significant contributions to
the national history because it was used to consolidate power over the Soviet Union."

Because my teacher said to clearly identify the impact in your first sentence so i was trying to say ^ that the theory was used to help them take over the soviet union and gain power...
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on May 23, 2017, 07:21:44 pm
I kinda reworked my thesis:
"Trotsky’s theory of Permanent Revolution was one of his most significant contributions to
the national history because it was used to consolidate power over the Soviet Union."

Because my teacher said to clearly identify the impact in your first sentence so i was trying to say ^ that the theory was used to help them take over the soviet union and gain power...

Sounds good :) Be specific and say "Bolshevik power" though.

Hello! I have a question about Conflict in Europe. Can someone please explain the idea of collective security?? I get it but not really..especially in the context of the work..thanks!!

Hey! So I didn't study Conflict in Europe (so hopefully someone who did can verify/let me know if I'm wrong!) however my understanding of the term collective security refers to a situation whereby a group of nations agree a) not attack one another, b) defend each other against an attack from another member of the group. The "security" aspect of this is that it makes it a lot harder/more "unappealing" to attack a member nation, if you know that in doing so, you will be attacked by several other nations. An example of an attempt at collective security is the United Nations! This website provided a pretty good explanation I think :)

Hopefully someone who studied Conflict in Europe will be able to expand on the answer above, but in the meantime, defs check out this set of Conflict in Europe notes we have uploaded in the notes section :) Maybe they'll be able to answer your question as well!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Rasika on May 23, 2017, 08:12:48 pm
What is a good short definition of the permanent revolution?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: marcusgrahamm on May 23, 2017, 08:21:18 pm
Thoughts on essay ???

Spoiler
To what extent was Nazi Germany a totalitarian state between 1933 and 1939?

A totalitarian state can be defined as having a centralised government with little tolerance for other parties or differing opinions, exercising dictatorial control over many aspects of civilian life. This was evident in Germany following the collapse of the Weimar Republic from 1933, however societies acceptance of such structural change decreases the extend of the totalitarian nation. It is through terror and propaganda, the consolidation of Nazi power, and Nazi ideology that Germany is highlighted as being a totalitarian state.

The consolidation of Nazi power eradicated opposing political parties, increasing the totalitarian characteristics of Germany in 1933. The German term ‘Gleischaltung’ meaning ‘coordination’ occurred between 1933 and 1934, bringing all elements of German life under Nazi control. Operation Hummingbird, otherwise known as the Night of the Long Knives, resulted in the execution of many SA leaders across the country, after President Hindenburg and other army leaders “demanded that Hitler get the SA under control” (Webb, 2011) after the continued violence they showed. Ernst Rohm, leader of the SA, was one of the many people executed during this operation as he believed that the Nazi revolution was incomplete and wished to establish a “national people’s militia” (Webb, 2011). This threat of rivalry motivated Hitler to act against the SA and conveys the characteristics of a totalitarian state as Rohm challenged his desire of a dictatorial leadership and was therefore killed. In March 1933, the Nazi party joined with the Nationalists party to gain an extra 7% of the vote in the Reichstag elections, giving them the majority vote at 51% (Webb, 2011). Furthermore, the Enabling Act of 1933 amended the Weimar Constitution to give Hitler the power as Chancellor to enact laws without the involvement of the Reichstag. The Communist party then collapsed after laws for the seizure of communist assets were passed, leaving them with nothing. Later, laws against the establishment of parties were passed, ensuring the Nazi party was the only political party in Germany. The legal processes Hitler used to consolidate Nazi power highlight how Germany was a totalitarian state in 1933 to 1934. Through Operation Hummingbird and removing conflicting parties from the Reichstag, Germany is portrayed to be totalitarian through its centralized government.

Widespread terror and propaganda was exercised by the Nazi regime to manipulate aspects of civilian life, highlighting the totalitarian features of Germany. Joseph Goebbels was appointed the Minister for Enlightenment and Propaganda in 1933 and was effective in his ability to manipulate society into supporting the radical change implemented through the Nazi regime. Loudspeakers were placed in public areas for people to hear the Fuhrer speak, and movies, radio and music was highly censored to ensure escapism, or light entertainment “to keep the minds of the masses off political difficulties.” (Webb, 2011). Furthermore, Goebbels represented Hitler as “the hero of fatherland, the man that the nation had been waiting for” (Webb, 2011) encouraging the German society to “embrace changes in their life made for ‘the cause’” (S. Gibbons, 2002). With complete faith in their dictatorial leadership, Germany then complied with the introduction of the SS, Hitler’s private army, and the Gestapo, the secret state police, who investigated any threats posed to the regime. These organisations fostered the image of an all-powerful body which brought dread to enemies of the regime. However, this “fear was more implied than actual” (B. Thomas, 2017) as “up to 80% of investigations stemmed from voluntary denunciations… which were more the consequence of spite than devotion to the regime.” (Webb, 2011) Therefore the extent to which Nazi Germany could be defined as a totalitarian state is challenged as society was accepting of the policies and procedures that were put in place with regards to terror. The Gestapo were a reactive organisation with no higher authority to monitor their activities, and although they removed many individual freedoms in Germany at the time, “the people generally supported this due to its ability to maintain law and order after the destructive Weimar years.” (S. Gibbons, 2002). The characteristics of Nazi Germany reflect that of a totalitarian state, however to a certain extent had the support from society to maintain law and order.

Nazi ideology and the desire for purity in the Aryan race, highlights the totalitarian nature of Germany. Eugenics was “nothing more than a crude form of Social Darwinism” (Webb, 2011), as it studied how humans could be improved through selective breeding. The Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Progeny was introduced in July 1933 which resulted in the sterilisation of more than 300,000 Germans due to physical or other abnormalities who were “unworthy of life.” (Webb, 2011) This suggests Germany was a totalitarian state due to their control on human life and extermination of “inadequate” races. The Kristallnacht or “Night of Broken Glass” in November 1938 allowed organised attacks on Jews with 30,000 transported to concentration camps in one night. In 1938, the Jewish population in Germany was 355,000 which decreased to 185,000 in 1939, indicating the impact of racial attacks against the Jews. Furthermore, marriage between a Jewish and non-Jewish person were outlawed, aiming to maintain racial purity through the marriage of two Aryan people. Jews were charged with “attack on German blood” if they married non-Jewish, and non-Jews would be charged with “treason against German blood” (Webb, 2011). This strong anti-Semitism displays the totalitarian nature of Germany and how Nazi ideology of a pure race influenced society’s life.

Totalitarianism is displayed in Nazi Germany through their use of terror and propaganda, consolidation of Nazi power and anti-Semitism. Through the eradication of opposing parties and striving towards a pure race, totalitarianism was an integral part of German society throughout 1933 and 1939.

Mod Edit: Just put your essay in a spoiler  :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on May 23, 2017, 08:28:57 pm
What is a good short definition of the permanent revolution?

That's a tough one! Tbh you're never going to get a good "short" definition of any ideological/philosophical theory. I think the best way to describe it, in limited words would be just to say that it was a marxist theory, devised by Leon Trotsky in 1906, that stressed the agency of the peasantry and proletariat classes in progressing through the historical stages (as opposed to orthodox marxism, which saw the progression as something more gradual and "natural") through agitiation and revolution, in particular a European, and then global communist revolution.

Thoughts on essay ???

Hey Marcus :) Welcome to the forums :D We actually offer modern history marking over on this thread. All you need to do to qualify is accumulate a few more posts, 15 posts = 1 essay marked :) You're already at 12, so not long to go!

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: JD99 on May 24, 2017, 08:07:35 am
I'm trying to complete an ass.task, it's a speech and i need at least four historians as evidence.
Could you help me with this: what is the best way to use historians  as evidence? Often when I get an essay back the teacher has said something about not using historians/evidence 'as my argument'...Sorry that is quite a confusing question...

Any help will be much appreciated!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on May 24, 2017, 09:30:36 am
I'm trying to complete an ass.task, it's a speech and i need at least four historians as evidence.
Could you help me with this: what is the best way to use historians  as evidence? Often when I get an essay back the teacher has said something about not using historians/evidence 'as my argument'...Sorry that is quite a confusing question...

Any help will be much appreciated!
Hey JD99! What your teacher is saying is that essentially you shouldn't be arguing the historians point - they should be arguing yours! Modern essays are marked on how well they construct and sustain a judgement/thesis, not how well a student can parrot the words of a historian - your own argument needs to be the focus :) However getting the balance right certainly is tricky! The way I did it was to a) Always bring up and establish my argument before bringing in historians and then b) when I did bring them in I would always phrase it like this "(my argument) is further affirmed by Hobsbawm, who states..." or "Gaddis supports this view..." etc. etc.

Hope this helps/makes sense!

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: JD99 on May 24, 2017, 09:41:41 am
Thank you so much! that is very helpful!

Also, did u study Albert Speer??
I am wondering whether you could help me find some other historians...so far I've used Trevor Roper, Gitta Sereny and Henry King.

Thank you!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on May 24, 2017, 10:03:10 am
Thank you so much! that is very helpful!

Also, did u study Albert Speer??
I am wondering whether you could help me find some other historians...so far I've used Trevor Roper, Gitta Sereny and Henry King.

Thank you!

Hey! I did Speer; I also used Van der Vat and Alan Bullock (as well as anyone else I could find!)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on May 24, 2017, 10:10:13 am
Thank you so much! that is very helpful!

Also, did u study Albert Speer??
I am wondering whether you could help me find some other historians...so far I've used Trevor Roper, Gitta Sereny and Henry King.

Thank you!
Hey! I did Speer; I also used Van der Vat and Alan Bullock (as well as anyone else I could find!)

No worries! Using historians effectively is a fairly common problem amongst students, so more than happy to help :) Bowiemily also shared some of the resources she used for Speer (and Germany!) here! :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: JD99 on May 24, 2017, 10:18:43 am
Okay, thanks for that! I'll head over there n hava look!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Jess.martinuzzo on May 26, 2017, 09:54:01 am
Hey Susie,
Just doing my modern assessment for my personality study and I have a few questions :) 

So obviously there is a 10 marker and a 15 marker, but I was just curious, is there a rough estimate as to how many words you should be writing per question?

Also with question 1 of the assessment - the 10 marker,
'Provide a detailed description of THREE events in the life of the personality you have studied.' (Trotsky)
The marking criteria states 'presents a detailed, relevant description of THREE significant events...'
So does that mean with the selection of my three events, I would have to, to some extent, justify why they are 'significant' and how they shaped the personality?

And one last question,
I was speaking to my teacher and he said that with the selection of events, we cannot choose 'the 1917 revolution', 'the 1905 revolution and period in exile', 'the civil war' or 'the power struggle', we actually have to pick specific events not 'time periods'.  :(
Any suggestions for key events within the 1917 revolution, the 1905 revolution and period in exile as well as the power struggle??

Thankyou!  :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on May 26, 2017, 10:16:14 am
Hey Susie,
Just doing my modern assessment for my personality study and I have a few questions :) 

So obviously there is a 10 marker and a 15 marker, but I was just curious, is there a rough estimate as to how many words you should be writing per question?

Also with question 1 of the assessment - the 10 marker,
'Provide a detailed description of THREE events in the life of the personality you have studied.' (Trotsky)
The marking criteria states 'presents a detailed, relevant description of THREE significant events...'
So does that mean with the selection of my three events, I would have to, to some extent, justify why they are 'significant' and how they shaped the personality?

And one last question,
I was speaking to my teacher and he said that with the selection of events, we cannot choose 'the 1917 revolution', 'the 1905 revolution and period in exile', 'the civil war' or 'the power struggle', we actually have to pick specific events not 'time periods'.  :(
Any suggestions for key events within the 1917 revolution, the 1905 revolution and period in exile as well as the power struggle??

Thankyou!  :)

Hey Jess!

In regards to your first question, my best estimate word count wise is 400-500 for part A and 600-800 part B, as the markers expect that you can write a minimum of 1000 words in 45 minutes. However, it is better to focus more on the amount of time that you spend on each, rather than the amount of words, 18 minutes for Part A and 27 minutes for Part B (I know - super specific haha).

Second question - okay so in the HSC you CAN definitely just discuss 1905 revolution, 1917 revolution, civil war, power struggle etc. as events. For part A I received 9.5/10 in the HSC, and my three significant events were the 1905 Revolution, the 1917 Revolution and the Power Struggle. Everyone has different teaching styles, but that is just a weird recommendation - I don't think you'd have enough detail to justify only talking about one small aspect of the event. BUT since that seems to be what your teacher is expecting maybe these could work??

- 1905 Revolution and early exile - writing Results and Prospects, which expounded his theory of Permanent Revolution.
- 1917 Revolution - Either his role in changing the date of revolution, or the actual storming of the Winter Palace
- Power Struggle - The suppression of Lenin's Testament

But yeah, defs a weird recommendation! Please don't think that in the actual HSC exam you have to do this.

Hope this helps!

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Jess.martinuzzo on May 26, 2017, 10:36:49 am
Hey Jess!

In regards to your first question, my best estimate word count wise is 400-500 for part A and 600-800 part B, as the markers expect that you can write a minimum of 1000 words in 45 minutes. However, it is better to focus more on the amount of time that you spend on each, rather than the amount of words, 18 minutes for Part A and 27 minutes for Part B (I know - super specific haha).

Second question - okay so in the HSC you CAN definitely just discuss 1905 revolution, 1917 revolution, civil war, power struggle etc. as events. For part A I received 9.5/10 in the HSC, and my three significant events were the 1905 Revolution, the 1917 Revolution and the Power Struggle. Everyone has different teaching styles, but that is just a weird recommendation - I don't think you'd have enough detail to justify only talking about one small aspect of the event. BUT since that seems to be what your teacher is expecting maybe these could work??

- 1905 Revolution and early exile - writing Results and Prospects, which expounded his theory of Permanent Revolution.
- 1917 Revolution - Either his role in changing the date of revolution, or the actual storming of the Winter Palace
- Power Struggle - The suppression of Lenin's Testament

But yeah, defs a weird recommendation! Please don't think that in the actual HSC exam you have to do this.

Hope this helps!

Susie

Thankyou so much!
My teacher mainly suggested it because when describing these events, he said that it's going to be too broad and not in depth enough. But I found it quite odd for him to suggest that.
OHH well.
Thanks again :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on May 26, 2017, 11:48:09 am
Thankyou so much!
My teacher mainly suggested it because when describing these events, he said that it's going to be too broad and not in depth enough. But I found it quite odd for him to suggest that.
OHH well.
Thanks again :)
The depth comes through your analysis and the detail you use to support it - it's only going to be broad if you "speak broadly" if that makes sense. For example, if you say "the 1917 Revolution was a significant event in the life of Leon Trotsky because he was important" - yeah way to broad. However if you said "The 1917 Revolution was a significant event in the life of Leon Trotsky, as it demonstrated his pragmatism and allowed him to consolidate his influence within the Bolshevik Party" - you've narrowed down your analysis and how you are assessing the significance of the event.

Dunno if I explained this very well - hope this makes sense/helps!

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Jess.martinuzzo on May 27, 2017, 12:16:35 pm
The depth comes through your analysis and the detail you use to support it - it's only going to be broad if you "speak broadly" if that makes sense. For example, if you say "the 1917 Revolution was a significant event in the life of Leon Trotsky because he was important" - yeah way to broad. However if you said "The 1917 Revolution was a significant event in the life of Leon Trotsky, as it demonstrated his pragmatism and allowed him to consolidate his influence within the Bolshevik Party" - you've narrowed down your analysis and how you are assessing the significance of the event.

Dunno if I explained this very well - hope this makes sense/helps!

Susie

Okay! Thanks so much, this makes more sense now :) I'll give it a go now, and see what my teacher thinks!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Thebarman on May 28, 2017, 12:55:52 pm
Hey guys, I'm trying to finish up my notes on Albert Speer, but I'm a bit confused when it comes to his architecture. I'd really appreciate some suggestions on anything that may not be right, as each source I've looked at contradicts dates, tasks and details.
Under the Early Work for the Nazi Party dotpoint, I've said that his first commission was to renovate the Nazi Party Headquarters in Berlin in 1932 (some sources say that he was instead tasked to redesign Hanke's residence???). In 1933, he was then asked to redesign Goebbel's Ministry of Propaganda building. In the same year, he was also asked to submit design plans for the May Day Rally in Tempelhof, Berlin, in which he implemented the Cathedral of Light effect and the use of large Nazi party banners. Again in 1933, he then submitted designs for the Nuremberg Rally, in which he created the Reich Eagle that would overlook the Zeplin field. He also redesigned the Chancellor's residence in Berlin.
In the following dotpoint related to him being appointed the First Architect, I said that he was commissioned to design the Nazi rally grounds in Nuremberg. Is this the same as the previously mentioned rally, or is it something else entirely?

I understand the information (more or less), but I keep getting events confused...
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Mariodonuts on May 28, 2017, 01:05:48 pm
Does anyone had National Study: Russia Notes? AND i want to start studying for this option because i find it a ltitle bit complicated-- any tips on how i should? I was thinking of writing practise papers
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on May 28, 2017, 01:17:19 pm
Hey guys, I'm trying to finish up my notes on Albert Speer, but I'm a bit confused when it comes to his architecture. I'd really appreciate some suggestions on anything that may not be right, as each source I've looked at contradicts dates, tasks and details.
Under the Early Work for the Nazi Party dotpoint, I've said that his first commission was to renovate the Nazi Party Headquarters in Berlin in 1932 (some sources say that he was instead tasked to redesign Hanke's residence???). In 1933, he was then asked to redesign Goebbel's Ministry of Propaganda building. In the same year, he was also asked to submit design plans for the May Day Rally in Tempelhof, Berlin, in which he implemented the Cathedral of Light effect and the use of large Nazi party banners. Again in 1933, he then submitted designs for the Nuremberg Rally, in which he created the Reich Eagle that would overlook the Zeplin field. He also redesigned the Chancellor's residence in Berlin.
In the following dotpoint related to him being appointed the First Architect, I said that he was commissioned to design the Nazi rally grounds in Nuremberg. Is this the same as the previously mentioned rally, or is it something else entirely?

I understand the information (more or less), but I keep getting events confused...

You're right on all fronts here; whilst there are definitely different names for different structures/events, the timeline you've proposed is correct. As First Architect, he built the NEW Nuremberg Rally grounds, as part of the 'Germania' project (worth looking that up; it's super important).

I think this goes to a general issue in Modern History; we have so many sources, so how can we make sure that we use the right ones? With a billion websites available, how do we deal with contradicting information? My best recommendation is to go and borrow an actual book on Speer, written by an eminent Historian (and ideally written in the last 20 years). Information in such a book will be well researched, cross checked, and very reliable. So, you don't have to worry so much about being wrong!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on May 28, 2017, 01:19:05 pm
Does anyone had National Study: Russia Notes? AND i want to start studying for this option because i find it a ltitle bit complicated-- any tips on how i should? I was thinking of writing practise papers

Heya! We have a bunch of Russia notes uploaded here and here! Defs recommend checking some of them out (make sure you scroll down a bit to find them!) :) In terms of studying, practice papers is definitely the best way forward! I also highly recommend writings detail and linking tables (examples of which can be found under the first link :)

Its also great to separate your learning of the content not only by the syllabus, but also by the overarching themes and issues! By doing this, you are setting yourself up to be able to write some super sophisticated responses :) Whenever you are studying/learning the content for this unit, tying and see it through these lens:

- Communist Theory and Practice (ie. ideological adherence vs. practical application): Were Lenin and the Bolsheviks unmoving ideologues? Or were they pragmatic and practical in their application of communist theory, in order to suit the immediate needs of Russian society?

- Role of Lenin/Stalin: How Influential were Lenin and Stalin during the Consolidation of Bolshevik power? I don't just mean "they were the leaders of the party thus important" - what did they actively do themselves? Did they fiercely debate for a particular cause? Did they manipulate their party position to secure further power?

- Popular Support: A crucial aspect of consolidation! How did the Bolsheviks consolidate popular support, did they consolidate popular support, and was that their aim in the first place?

Hope this helps! Russia was my favourite unit last year, so if you are confused by anything please let me know! Happy to give you a hand :)

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: bellerina on May 31, 2017, 05:53:15 pm
Heya! We have a bunch of Russia notes uploaded here and here! Defs recommend checking some of them out (make sure you scroll down a bit to find them!) :) In terms of studying, practice papers is definitely the best way forward! I also highly recommend writings detail and linking tables (examples of which can be found under the first link :)

Its also great to separate your learning of the content not only by the syllabus, but also by the overarching themes and issues! By doing this, you are setting yourself up to be able to write some super sophisticated responses :) Whenever you are studying/learning the content for this unit, tying and see it through these lens:

- Communist Theory and Practice (ie. ideological adherence vs. practical application): Were Lenin and the Bolsheviks unmoving ideologues? Or were they pragmatic and practical in their application of communist theory, in order to suit the immediate needs of Russian society?

- Role of Lenin/Stalin: How Influential were Lenin and Stalin during the Consolidation of Bolshevik power? I don't just mean "they were the leaders of the party thus important" - what did they actively do themselves? Did they fiercely debate for a particular cause? Did they manipulate their party position to secure further power?

- Popular Support: A crucial aspect of consolidation! How did the Bolsheviks consolidate popular support, did they consolidate popular support, and was that their aim in the first place?

Hope this helps! Russia was my favourite unit last year, so if you are confused by anything please let me know! Happy to give you a hand :)

Susie


For Option's Essays -- how many body paragraphs should we aim for?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on May 31, 2017, 06:00:32 pm

For Option's Essays -- how many body paragraphs should we aim for?

Hey! My essays ranged from 3-4 body paragraphs typically. However there were certain essays where I wrote 5, and in the HSC for Section IV I wrote 2 and still got a raw mark of 23.5/25 for that essay.

It really isn't about how many body paragraphs you have. What is important is a) you have written enough overall (the bench mark is usually 1000 words, which is roughly 7-8 pages for a 45 minute essay) and even more importantly that what you have actually written - your judgement, arguments and detail - is of a high quality :)


Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: marcusgrahamm on May 31, 2017, 06:53:10 pm
I have to complete a speech assessment into a major personality of the Cold War and their contribution to the happenings within the conflict.

My Thesis is:

"Through Joseph Stalin's Marxist outlooks he ruled the former Soviet Union with a stern control, thus forcing major nation states across the globe to recognise Russia as a formidable world super power." 

What information. and evaluations do you think are critical to implement in this speech??

Do anyone have any resources that would benefit this task?

Thanks!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on May 31, 2017, 08:21:00 pm
I have to complete a speech assessment into a major personality of the Cold War and their contribution to the happenings within the conflict.

My Thesis is:

"Through Joseph Stalin's Marxist outlooks he ruled the former Soviet Union with a stern control, thus forcing major nation states across the globe to recognise Russia as a formidable world super power." 

What information. and evaluations do you think are critical to implement in this speech??

Do anyone have any resources that would benefit this task?

Thanks!

Heya! Hmmm I get what you're saying, and for the most part I agree with you. However, I think your thesis could be cleaner. For one, I'm not really sure about the inclusion of "Marxist outlook." Can you explain to me why you included it? Was Stalin a Marxist? Yes (or well Marxist-Leninist... which really had nothing to do with Lenin... when it comes to Stalin and ideology things get veryyyy messy :-\ ). However, I think just saying that because he was a Marxist he thus would attempt to rule the Soviet Union with a stern control is too simplistic, and ignores that the Cold War wasn't "Communism v. the World", it was an ideological struggle between Communism AND Capitalism. Just because we in the West are used to the narrative that the Cold War was essentially "The good vs. the Communists" doesn't mean that BOTH ideologies (and the nations that promoted them) were not aggressive and had worldwide ambitions. Even if this isn't necessarily what you meant (I wasn't 100% sure), it still needs to be cleaned up, because it could be interpreted that way. I also think that you could connect your thesis to the syllabus more effectively.

I think a better thesis, still using the ideas that you have set out would be:

Through significantly contributing to the emergence of the USSR as a global superpower, Joseph Stalin was a critical figure in the formation of the superpower rivalry - an underlying and all pervasive feature of the Cold War.

 :) :) :)

In terms of what to include, I'd say you'd want to look at Stalin's role in the industrialisation and modernisation of Russia to the point whereby they were a superpower, the emergence of differences between the superpowers (particularly ideological) - looking at the early conferences. Then you'd want to look at the impact of the super power rivalry, and how it was manifested (eg. politically, geopolitically, militarily, economically, socially, etc. etc.).

HOWEVER - point that could potentially make all of the above irrelevant. Do you have to do Joseph Stalin? Or do you have a choice? Though Stalin was of course a big figure during the Cold War, he isn't as big on the actual HSC syllabus. You discuss him briefly during 'Origins', but after that other leaders become a lot more significant. I feel that by using Stalin you run the risk of straying too much into the 'Russia' syllabus in order to justify his significance in the emergence of the USSR as a superpower. If you have no choice in the matter no worries - it can defs be argued. However I believe you are going to find more relevant material on say Truman, Khrushchev, Kennedy, Reagan or Gorbachev - material of which I think will aid you in constructing more of a solid HSC response, if that makes sense :) Like if you look at Truman you can talk about the Truman Doctrine and the policy of Containment (a syllabus dot point), if you look at Khrushchev you can look at peaceful co-existence, arms race and Berlin and Cuba, Kennedy - Berlin and Cuba, Reagan and Gorbachev - Renewal and End etc. etc.

Like I said, if you have no choice and have to do Stalin, don't worry about it. Just something to consider if you do have the option of changing (my personal preference would be either Khrushchev or Kennedy! You'll have a lot to talk about with both of them :))).

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: marcusgrahamm on June 01, 2017, 01:38:57 pm
Wow that was all really insightful and helpful!!

We don't have to do Stalin...

I really find Nikita Khrushchev an interesting personality and your right about there being a sense of greater relativity between him and this chosen assessment.

If you have anytime, I struggled with a good thesis to discuss in relation to him and what aspects to specifically raise amidst the speech.

Thanks so so much!!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: _____ on June 01, 2017, 04:03:33 pm
This is the 2016 personalities part B question:

"‘Differing perspectives and interpretations assist us in gaining an understanding of the personality’s significance in history.’
To what extent is this statement accurate in relation to the personality you have studied?"

We got this for an exam on the topic and I know I screwed it up. I'd practised it before the task but I still don't really understand the question and it's doing my head in.

I know that part B is supposed to be where you evaluate the identity as per part 4 of the syllabus. But with this question, how am I supposed to incorporate differing, not different perspectives of the personality and then come to a conclusion myself? The question is asking for an answer where you consider conflicting viewpoints, but AFAIK in history you're meant to take one side of an argument. On 2015's question  "It is the way an individual faces challenges that shapes them and their achievements. To what extent is this statement accurate in relation to the personality you have studied and their role in history?" this is a piece of cake, you just take one perspective and back it up. So for 2016, what am I supposed to do? Is the question basically telling me to say (Trotsky's influence in exile as an example):

"Historians such as X think that Leon Trotsky was a naive idealist who was completely outplayed politically by Stalin. On the other hand, historians such as Y consider Trotsky as an influential leader of the Left Opposition from 1927 on as evidenced by the formation of the 4th International. Historian Y is correct because...(how would I justify one opinion over the other?)"

What I ended up doing was providing both perspectives as above and then saying that these disagreements show why the personality was such an influential figure, rather than giving my own judgement of his significance. Although I haven't got the task back yet, what was the correct way to approach this question?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on June 01, 2017, 07:53:11 pm
Wow that was all really insightful and helpful!!

We don't have to do Stalin...

I really find Nikita Khrushchev an interesting personality and your right about there being a sense of greater relativity between him and this chosen assessment.

If you have anytime, I struggled with a good thesis to discuss in relation to him and what aspects to specifically raise amidst the speech.

Thanks so so much!!

No worries! Happy to help :)

So you're thinking of choosing Khrushchev instead? I think that is a great idea :)

When it comes to Khrushchev, I think something that you could look at is his paradoxical attitudes towards the Cold War! He was both an advocate for 'peaceful co-existence', suggesting that "[they] may argue. The main thing is to argue without using weapons", however at the same time he went to great lengths to build up the USSR's military and nuclear arsenal, both on a literal sense and a symbolic sense so to speak. He made bold claims that the USSR where “turning out missiles like sausages,” and even paraded around a single missile during a military parade multiple times, so it looked like they had more than they did! Though he appeared more cooperative than Stalin, the US hoping that the introduction of Khrushchev would help to "thaw" the Cold War, he still did various things that no doubt aggravated and increased tensions, eg;

- Began the arms race and space race with the US
- Set up the Warsaw Pact to rival NATO
- Waged a propaganda war against the US and Britain
- Tried to "force" the American's into leaving West Berlin - Constructed the Berlin Wall
- Tried to set up a military base in Cuba (Cuban Missile Crisis = hottest point in the Cold War)

Thus with that in mind, maybe your thesis could look something like this?
Despite his supposed aim of peaceful coexistence, Nikita Khrushchev played a highly significant role in the exacerbation of political and ideological tensions between the US and the USSR during the Cold War.

Structure wise that is up to you! However I'd recommend considering a thematic or factors based structure, rather than events.
So either an essay where each paragraph is on the social, political, economic and military impact of Khrushchev OR one with a paragraph on his impact on the policy and application of ideology, containment, the arms race and the Cold War crises (Berlin/Cuba).

Hope this helps! Let me know if you are confused with anything :) Good luck with your assessment task!

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on June 01, 2017, 08:19:33 pm
This is the 2016 personalities part B question:

"‘Differing perspectives and interpretations assist us in gaining an understanding of the personality’s significance in history.’
To what extent is this statement accurate in relation to the personality you have studied?"

We got this for an exam on the topic and I know I screwed it up. I'd practised it before the task but I still don't really understand the question and it's doing my head in.

I know that part B is supposed to be where you evaluate the identity as per part 4 of the syllabus. But with this question, how am I supposed to incorporate differing, not different perspectives of the personality and then come to a conclusion myself? The question is asking for an answer where you consider conflicting viewpoints, but AFAIK in history you're meant to take one side of an argument. On 2015's question  "It is the way an individual faces challenges that shapes them and their achievements. To what extent is this statement accurate in relation to the personality you have studied and their role in history?" this is a piece of cake, you just take one perspective and back it up. So for 2016, what am I supposed to do? Is the question basically telling me to say (Trotsky's influence in exile as an example):

"Historians such as X think that Leon Trotsky was a naive idealist who was completely outplayed politically by Stalin. On the other hand, historians such as Y consider Trotsky as an influential leader of the Left Opposition from 1927 on as evidenced by the formation of the 4th International. Historian Y is correct because...(how would I justify one opinion over the other?)"

What I ended up doing was providing both perspectives as above and then saying that these disagreements show why the personality was such an influential figure, rather than giving my own judgement of his significance. Although I haven't got the task back yet, what was the correct way to approach this question?

Hey _____ (interesting username  ;) )

That was a very hard question, that a lot of people struggled with last year. In fact, I literally felt exactly how you did after the exam, expecting Trotsky to be my worst section because I felt like I made more of a judgement upon the historians than I did Trotsky (basically wrote a history extension essay). Flash forward to getting my raw marks back and I find out it was actually my best section - 15/15  ;D So please don't worry yourself too much :) I obviously can't guarantee your mark as I haven't read your essay, but from what you have said, your argument seems fine!

First of all I think you might be overthinking things a bit - differing and different mean essentially the same thing, so no worries there! I think the way that you have approached this question is great, and is very similar to what I did during my HSC :) For my response, I basically said that the interpretations say more about the historians and their political and ideological leanings than it says about Trotsky - so pointing out that those who think he was a naive idealist where those who lean further right politically and thus have a negative interpretation of Communism and by extension Trotsky (eg Service, Conquest, Pipes, Figes, etc), in comparison to Left wing historians such as Wood and Deutscher who instead suggest he was a practical revolutionary!

So basically, using my power struggles paragraph as an example;
"Right wing historians such as Service assert that it was Trotsky's personal flaws that resulted in his loss of the power struggle, such as his arrogance and naivety. However, Left-wing historians such as Deutscher present an alternative perspective, suggesting that it is too simplistic to assert personal attributes as the defining issue, instead suggesting that the primary factor resulting in Trotsky's loss of power was the social changes that had occurred after the Civil War, whereby the war-weary society was more attracted to Stalin's "stable" ideology of socialism-in-one-country in comparison to Trotsky's 'Permanent Revolution.'" (obviously went into more detail but you get the gist of my argument).

So I didn't just look at what the perspectives where, but how and why they came to these conclusions. I answered the question upon how differing interpretations assist us in understanding Trotsky's significance, as I established that his significance is developed through this debate :) You can definitely present the argument that no matter what the interpretation, the fact that such wild interpretations exist asserts his significance (had one of my students assert that recently in an assessment)! The question isn't asking was his significance good or bad - just was he a significant figure overall. Whether you accept either position, he was still clearly significant as either a terrible failure or a critical success!

Hope this clears up any concerns (though may have made you more confused - as I was when I found out I got this mark, as I was so worried that I hadn't made a judgement/was sitting on the fence).

Susie


Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: _____ on June 01, 2017, 09:27:09 pm
Hey _____ (interesting username  ;) )

That was a very hard question, that a lot of people struggled with last year. In fact, I literally felt exactly how you did after the exam, expecting Trotsky to be my worst section because I felt like I made more of a judgement upon the historians than I did Trotsky (basically wrote a history extension essay). Flash forward to getting my raw marks back and I find out it was actually my best section - 15/15  ;D So please don't worry yourself too much :) I obviously can't guarantee your mark as I haven't read your essay, but from what you have said, your argument seems fine!

First of all I think you might be overthinking things a bit - differing and different mean essentially the same thing, so no worries there! I think the way that you have approached this question is great, and is very similar to what I did during my HSC :) For my response, I basically said that the interpretations say more about the historians and their political and ideological leanings than it says about Trotsky - so pointing out that those who think he was a naive idealist where those who lean further right politically and thus have a negative interpretation of Communism and by extension Trotsky (eg Service, Conquest, Pipes, Figes, etc), in comparison to Left wing historians such as Wood and Deutscher who instead suggest he was a practical revolutionary!

So basically, using my power struggles paragraph as an example;
"Right wing historians such as Service assert that it was Trotsky's personal flaws that resulted in his loss of the power struggle, such as his arrogance and naivety. However, Left-wing historians such as Deutscher present an alternative perspective, suggesting that it is too simplistic to assert personal attributes as the defining issue, instead suggesting that the primary factor resulting in Trotsky's loss of power was the social changes that had occurred after the Civil War, whereby the war-weary society was more attracted to Stalin's "stable" ideology of socialism-in-one-country in comparison to Trotsky's 'Permanent Revolution.'" (obviously went into more detail but you get the gist of my argument).

So I didn't just look at what the perspectives where, but how and why they came to these conclusions. I answered the question upon how differing interpretations assist us in understanding Trotsky's significance, as I established that his significance is developed through this debate :) You can definitely present the argument that no matter what the interpretation, the fact that such wild interpretations exist asserts his significance (had one of my students assert that recently in an assessment)! The question isn't asking was his significance good or bad - just was he a significant figure overall. Whether you accept either position, he was still clearly significant as either a terrible failure or a critical success!

Hope this clears up any concerns (though may have made you more confused - as I was when I found out I got this mark, as I was so worried that I hadn't made a judgement/was sitting on the fence).

Susie

Thanks for the reassurance, that helped to clear things up especially as you actually had to deal with the stupid question (why do they have to try and come up with "clever" generic statements!?).

I disagree about differing vs different although I probably am overthinking it. If it had said different I would have considered different historians who said similar things as opposed to different historians whose opinions are actually differing.

I don't do extension so I didn't really go into right wing vs left wing and why exactly there are different perspectives, I just kind of explained that there were different ones (Pipes vs one or two others) and vaguely linked this to why Trotsky is a significant figure like you said in the second to last paragraph. Hopefully that's enough for 13/15 or something like that considering it was exam conditions.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on June 01, 2017, 10:01:57 pm
Thanks for the reassurance, that helped to clear things up especially as you actually had to deal with the stupid question (why do they have to try and come up with "clever" generic statements!?).

I disagree about differing vs different although I probably am overthinking it. If it had said different I would have considered different historians who said similar things as opposed to different historians whose opinions are actually differing.

I don't do extension so I didn't really go into right wing vs left wing and why exactly there are different perspectives, I just kind of explained that there were different ones (Pipes vs one or two others) and vaguely linked this to why Trotsky is a significant figure like you said in the second to last paragraph. Hopefully that's enough for 13/15 or something like that considering it was exam conditions.
So glad I could help :) And yes it is definitely very frustrating, but a good idea to expose yourself to these types of questions, because undoubtedly yours will be equally tricky! Since 2014 they've been giving the students some really tricky, confusingly/complicatedly worded questions :( If you look at 2013 its almost unfair how easy it was!

In terms of the differing thing - though I kinda get what you mean - as they specified interpretations and perspectives rather than historians, you'd still be okay treating differing and different the same way :) If you ever get a question like that, just remember that the two differing/different interpretations are naive idealist/ruthless authoritarian (which essentially means - held too strongly to ideology), or practical revolutionary (pragmatically applied ideology when it was applicable) :) Historians are absolutely fantastic to include (and the best students usually do!), however don't let that bog you down from seeing and focusing on the larger debate at hand :)

It sounds like you answered the question well :) As I said earlier, can't make any definitive statements as I can't see your response, thus cannot assess other factors such as the amount of detail, clarity of your judgement, etc. etc. However as a thesis - yes that would work :) Let us know how you went when you find out your results!! Feel free to pop back any time you want something checked over/need help clarifying something :) Russia and Trotsky were my favourite topics last year, so always love a good discussion with a fellow comrade ;)

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: bellerina on June 05, 2017, 09:33:31 pm
How would someone approach this question,

"Assess the role played by Trotsky in the timing, planning and implementation of the Bolshevik Revn/insurrection"
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on June 05, 2017, 09:42:01 pm
How would someone approach this question,

"Assess the role played by Trotsky in the timing, planning and implementation of the Bolshevik Revn/insurrection"


Wow! That is a super specific question  :o Are they expecting a full essay response? Or just a paragraph? In the HSC I'd typically only write one paragraph on Trotsky's role in the 1917 Revolution.

First of all with this question you're going to want to make a judgement as to whether he was significant or not! Which he was. Undoubtedly was. Even Stalin admits this, saying that the Bolshevik Party is indebted to "Comrade Trotsky." He was significant for multiple reasons, many of which are addressed within this question! And that is what I would suggest your structure be (whether this is meant to be a full response, or just a paragraph).

- Timing: Trotsky convinced Lenin to change the date of the Revolution to coincide with the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets, so that the Bolsheviks could claim power in the name of the Soviets rather than the Bolshevik Party, and in turn secure more popular support/diminish potential backlash.

- Planning: Was critical in the planning of the revolution alongside Lenin. Was also a highly critical speaker and motivator, with Wood suggesting that he had "oratory skills that set listeners ears on fire."

- Insurrection: Orchestrated the storming of the Winter Palace, as the leader of the Red Guard. This was where the official takeover took place, in what is often referred to as a "bloodless coup" (despite the fact that "coup" isn't the most accurate way to describe the revolution) - the insurrection was so quick and effectively organised that there was little to no bloodshed :)

Hope this helps! Obviously you'll need a lot more detail to support your arguments, but these are the key issues that you will want to be discussing within your response :)

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: bellerina on June 05, 2017, 09:58:36 pm
Yeah i'm not sure if this is supposed to be a full response or not -- i think its just a paragraph... because i got this from a set of question assigned for homework and it doesnt really specify if its a whole page extended or just a paragraph  :o
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on June 05, 2017, 10:01:48 pm
Yeah i'm not sure if this is supposed to be a full response or not -- i think its just a paragraph... because i got this from a set of question assigned for homework and it doesnt really specify if its a whole page extended or just a paragraph  :o
You'd never get a question this specific in the HSC exam that is for sure! The question has to accomodate for all the personalities, so they'll only ever be on significance, interpretations and whether or not they shaped events or where shaped by the events (e.g. whether or not they were a product of their time). So I'd assume this is just a paragraph :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: bellerina on June 06, 2017, 05:21:26 pm
In dot points, what was Trotsky role in the 1917 revolutionv
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on June 06, 2017, 05:37:49 pm
In dot points, what was Trotsky role in the 1917 revolutionv
Hey Bellerina!

If you scroll down a bit you'll see that I provided just that in response to your previous question :)) Those three points - changing the date, organisation/motivation and leader of the red guard - are really the big things that you'd want to talk about in regards to 1917 :) Of course you'll want to gather some more detail to support your response - find some good stats, quotes, facts etc. etc. If you go to the notes section and look up 'detail table' you'll be able to find a document that I created last year full of detail/quotes according to the syllabus (including Trotsky as well!).

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: bellerina on June 06, 2017, 06:30:53 pm
Oh my gosh Susie thank you so much! And i srsly need help for Russia -- how do i study for it! I was thinking of doing all the essay questions that they could possibly ask instead of doing notes -- because i feel like making notes isnt really going to work for me, especially if i have to write essays... what shouuuuld i doo!!!!   :( :(
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on June 06, 2017, 07:50:01 pm
Oh my gosh Susie thank you so much! And i srsly need help for Russia -- how do i study for it! I was thinking of doing all the essay questions that they could possibly ask instead of doing notes -- because i feel like making notes isnt really going to work for me, especially if i have to write essays... what shouuuuld i doo!!!!   :( :(
No worries! Happy to help :)
The way that I studied for Russia (and for literally all Modern History topics lol) was writing practice responses. I very rarely wrote notes, as I'm a more practical based learner (eg. I need to be actively doing things in order to learn content). Writing notes takes up a hellova lot of time, so if you don't feel as though it is working for you, I'd defs recommend adopting a new method!

Doing a practice response on every type of question they can ask is great (exactly what I did!) - however do not attempt to memorise all those essays. One of the most common comments from the marking centre is that students are clearly writing preprepared essays to questions from years before. Instead, write the essays and then look at the links and themes. Do you always tend to answer Bolshevik questions a particular way? Is there a bit of Stalinism content that you almost always have a paragraph on? That will give you a good indication of the mental essay plans that you can take into your exams :)

Finally, in terms of notes, there was one form that I did try and do recommend - tables. Detail Tables, Linking Tables and argument tables are FANTASTIC. Reason being, they are a) easy to understand and study, and b) are a form of active study, as you have to actually think and consider the significance of the content, rather than just writing it down. You can find a bunch of mine in the notes section if you need to have a look at a scaffold :)

Hope this helps! If you ever need Russia (or any other form of modern) help please let us know!

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Newbalance101 on June 06, 2017, 10:16:20 pm
Assess how the problems faced by the Weimar Republic contributed to the rise and the success of the Nazi movement.
Hi this is a question we were given to answer and I'm having trouble with how to structure each paragraph. Do I do one problem and then how it lead to the success in the same paragraph or should i talk about them in separate paragraphs e.g. The Weimar government's inability to properly gain the loyalty and support of the primarily right wing army allowed Hitler to utilise the army in 1933 in order to abolish the role of presidency
Or should I do separate paragraphs: The Weimar government failed to retain the support of the workers and middle classes during the Great Depression. (in one paragraph) and then in another paragraph: The Nazi regime's effective use of propaganda and radical views meant that during the Great Depression they were able to gain the majority vote?

Any other pieces of advice on how to answer this question would also be greatly appreciated thank you in advanced :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on June 07, 2017, 10:30:48 am
Assess how the problems faced by the Weimar Republic contributed to the rise and the success of the Nazi movement.
Hi this is a question we were given to answer and I'm having trouble with how to structure each paragraph. Do I do one problem and then how it lead to the success in the same paragraph or should i talk about them in separate paragraphs e.g. The Weimar government's inability to properly gain the loyalty and support of the primarily right wing army allowed Hitler to utilise the army in 1933 in order to abolish the role of presidency
Or should I do separate paragraphs: The Weimar government failed to retain the support of the workers and middle classes during the Great Depression. (in one paragraph) and then in another paragraph: The Nazi regime's effective use of propaganda and radical views meant that during the Great Depression they were able to gain the majority vote?

Any other pieces of advice on how to answer this question would also be greatly appreciated thank you in advanced :)


Hey! My general advice for questions like this is to always break it up into political, social and economic reasons for the failures of the Weimar Republic. Within that, you can include any details/examples you wish (such as those stated above); however, it gives you the ability to bring together three, often somewhat distinct, thesis'. This question is bloody tough, though; usually, it just wants you to assess the failures of the Weimar Republic, or the account for the rise of the Nazi party. This question wants you to do both!

So, I would be careful with this essay. Say we were looking at the Economic paragraph; not only would you have to discuss reasons for economic failure (eg. do away with the impact of restitution, as Germany paid barely anything, but place more importance on loans and the Great Depression), but you'd also have to link that to the rise of the Nazi party (economic hardships tend to bring people more inline with conservative/utterly insane parties?). Same goes for political/social. I think it's really important you have a thesis and an essay plan BEFORE writing this essay, as thinking about it now, it is genuinely a tough one. Write one up, and I'd love to have a look at it!

Jake
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Diala on June 08, 2017, 06:41:53 pm
Would you say Speer acquiesced to alter his architectural style to win Hitler’s favour because he craved his father's attention as a child? I initally thought that Hitler was kind of strung along by Speer since he was able to exercise his own style and decisions as his architect. On top of that, Hitler seemed quite infatuated with Speer. I'm not sure! What's your opinion?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on June 08, 2017, 06:50:29 pm
Would you say Speer acquiesced to alter his architectural style to win Hitler’s favour because he craved his father's attention as a child? I initally thought that Hitler was kind of strung along by Speer since he was able to exercise his own style and decisions as his architect. On top of that, Hitler seemed quite infatuated with Speer. I'm not sure! What's your opinion?

Like, honestly, I think it's a bit... unsophisticated? to look at Speer through a Freudian lens, which is essentially what you (and many others) have proposed. Forget Speer's father; look at Hitler's ideology, Speer's talent, the world that they envisaged and built together. Speer was an idealistic technocrat, looking for any excuse to expand his power. He was not trying to impress some father figure.

Hitler and Speer were known to be very close; most obviously indicated in the impossibly important position Speer occupied during the war as Minister for Armaments. For a History essay, it is important you stay away from pseudo-psychology. Stick to the facts, and to the sources. No need to delve into queer-theory, Freudian analysis, or Speer's lust for familial relations :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: bellerina on June 09, 2017, 07:29:34 pm
What is the recommended amount of past papers i should do (per section) before trials
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on June 10, 2017, 12:34:19 am
What is the recommended amount of past papers i should do (per section) before trials
As many as possible. Like theres no set amount. I did 21 practice responses (cos I'm a nerd) and got 95 for trials. My friend did 2 full papers and got 93. I know this probably isn't the simple, straight forward answer that you want, but it really is up to you, and when you feel like you understand the content/form of the exam :) But as many as you possibly can, in the time that you have, while still focusing on other subjects/not dying of stress. Make sure that you get someone to look over them as well (e.g. me on the marking thread for example ;) )!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: bellerina on June 10, 2017, 12:46:18 pm
I want to do as many as possible just so i get a hang of writing history essays and am confident enough when I get into that exam! And I shall send you as many as I can! But how many am I allowed to?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on June 10, 2017, 12:52:34 pm
I want to do as many as possible just so i get a hang of writing history essays and am confident enough when I get into that exam! And I shall send you as many as I can! But how many am I allowed to?

Hey! We have a 15 post policy; for every 15 posts you make (answering/asking questions on other boards etc) you can get one essay marked :) So better make those essays count!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: bellerina on June 12, 2017, 12:08:48 pm
How do you remember stats when it comes to WW1?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on June 12, 2017, 01:01:08 pm
How do you remember stats when it comes to WW1?
Check out this guide written by Jake! 😊 Of course the classic look/cover/write check method works well too :)

Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Wren on June 12, 2017, 03:05:17 pm
hey just wondering.. I have a 'Outline the background and rise to prominence of the personality' question and I was just wondering how much information would be appropriate for background and how detailed? like would i name parents and things like that?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on June 12, 2017, 03:11:31 pm
hey just wondering.. I have a 'Outline the background and rise to prominence of the personality' question and I was just wondering how much information would be appropriate for background and how detailed? like would i name parents and things like that?

The answer is always just 'as much information as possible'. Remember, for Part A, you should probably be spending an ABSOLUTE MAX of 15-20 minutes on it in an exam. Just make sure to cover the main point re rise to power and background, and include literally as much detail as physically possible. Name of parents is good, but statistics (eg. How many ____ did they build? How many ______ did they have? When were they appointed to ______?) is heaps heaps better.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Wren on June 12, 2017, 03:44:24 pm
The answer is always just 'as much information as possible'. Remember, for Part A, you should probably be spending an ABSOLUTE MAX of 15-20 minutes on it in an exam. Just make sure to cover the main point re rise to power and background, and include literally as much detail as physically possible. Name of parents is good, but statistics (eg. How many ____ did they build? How many ______ did they have? When were they appointed to ______?) is heaps heaps better.

Yep thanks Jake. I'm just a bit worried of turning it sort of into a biography.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on June 12, 2017, 03:47:38 pm
Yep thanks Jake. I'm just a bit worried of turning it sort of into a biography.

For sure, but for a part A, you basically do want it to be a biography! A detailed, interesting, fact-filled biography that is targeted in answering the question. Certainly not what you want of a Part B though...
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: bellerina on June 12, 2017, 04:10:55 pm
How long should each part for the Personality section be..? :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on June 12, 2017, 04:20:50 pm
How long should each part for the Personality section be..? :)

How long is a piece of string? There's no good answer to a question like this; it is, however, important to split your time in the most efficient way.

The personality section is worth 25 marks. 10 marks are allocated to Part A, and 15 to Part B. So, you should be spending about 18 minutes on Part A, and 27 minutes on Part B! I personally recommend spending LESS time on Part A (aim for a max of 15 minutes), and longer on Part B (the harder section).

Again, there's no 'answer' to how many pages you should be writing. Your writing may be gargantuan, or miniscule, you may be a 'quality' or a 'quantity' person, or a mix of the two. If you get out a couple of pages, you'll definitely be in a good position to get a great mark
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on June 12, 2017, 04:25:56 pm
hey just wondering.. I have a 'Outline the background and rise to prominence of the personality' question and I was just wondering how much information would be appropriate for background and how detailed? like would i name parents and things like that?
Just to add to Jake's awesome answer, when you get a question like that ie. Describe background and/or historical context and/or rise to prominence make sure that you touch on EVERY syllabus dot point under those headings. So eg for Trotsky if it asks for rise to prominence you MUST talk about 1905, 1917 and power struggle to answer it fully. My teacher always recommended writing all the dot points on the side as a check list to make sure you don't forget! And yes, as Jake said, as much detail as you can - that is the whole point of Part A given that it is not an analytical response - it measures how much you know rather than understand 😉
How long should each part for the Personality section be..? :)
Hmmmm well you want to be spending around 18 mins for Part A and 27 for Part B! So roughly 3-4 pages for Part A and 5-6 for Part B :) But as long as you get to at least 7-8 pages total for Section III then you're all gee!

EDIT: wow... I think this might be the first time you've beaten me to answering a modern question Jake, in like what? 10 months? Damn I feel so inadequate, like I've lost my purpose 😔
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on June 12, 2017, 04:30:25 pm
Just to add to Jake's awesome answer, when you get a question like that ie. Describe background and/or historical context and/or rise to prominence make sure that you touch on EVERY syllabus dot point under those headings. So eg for Trotsky if it asks for rise to prominence you MUST talk about 1905, 1917 and power struggle to answer it fully. My teacher always recommended writing all the dot points on the side as a check list to make sure you don't forget! And yes, as Jake said, as much detail as you can - that is the whole point of Part A given that it is not an analytical response - it measures how much you know rather than understand 😉Hmmmm well you want to be spending around 18 mins for Part A and 27 for Part B! So roughly 3-4 pages for Part A and 5-6 for Part B :) But as long as you get to at least 7-8 pages total for Section III then you're all gee!

EDIT: wow... I think this might be the first time you've beaten me to answering a modern question Jake, in like what? 10 months? Damn I feel so inadequate, like I've lost my purpose 😔

Hope you didn't discover a loss of belonging
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on June 12, 2017, 04:34:10 pm
Hope you didn't discover a loss of belonging
I imagine this is quite like how Leon Trotsky felt in 1928 :(
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: maria1999 on June 12, 2017, 06:38:46 pm
hiya everyone!!!
Does anyone remotely know anything about Japanese foreign policy during 1937-1941? Or can anyone recommend any good resources for conflict in the pacific? Any help would be greatly appreciated!!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: MEL7401 on June 13, 2017, 04:56:05 pm
hey!!!

we are currently doing a history interest project (year 11) and are supposed to be choosing a topic, from which we form our own question and answer it.....
problem is.... there are so many things to study!!! :P i want to do something really interesting, preferably a personality style thing- but i just have no idea what to do!! :D
i would seriously appreciate any suggestions or tips tho  ;)

thx...
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on June 13, 2017, 04:59:24 pm
hiya everyone!!!
Does anyone remotely know anything about Japanese foreign policy during 1937-1941? Or can anyone recommend any good resources for conflict in the pacific? Any help would be greatly appreciated!!

Hey! Are these helpful at all? Otherwise, I didn't do Japan, so unfortunately can't help you out!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on June 13, 2017, 05:02:17 pm
hey!!!

we are currently doing a history interest project (year 11) and are supposed to be choosing a topic, from which we form our own question and answer it.....
problem is.... there are so many things to study!!! :P i want to do something really interesting, preferably a personality style thing- but i just have no idea what to do!! :D
i would seriously appreciate any suggestions or tips tho  ;)

thx...

Hey! Interesting... I have to say that your best bet it so find a personality that you are actually interested in. Is there any point in modern history that you've always been attracted to? Any region of the world? Any wars/revolutions/monarchies? Also, you could try to get a head start on next year's content; do you know what options you'll be doing yet? For instance, if you do WWII, whilst you can't do a personality specifically studied in the HSC, you could do another personality (I'm thinking some high-ranking officials in the Nazi regime).

Let me know what you think about the above, and I can try to come up with some more specific suggestions for you!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on June 13, 2017, 05:15:39 pm
hey!!!

we are currently doing a history interest project (year 11) and are supposed to be choosing a topic, from which we form our own question and answer it.....
problem is.... there are so many things to study!!! :P i want to do something really interesting, preferably a personality style thing- but i just have no idea what to do!! :D
i would seriously appreciate any suggestions or tips tho  ;)

thx...
Yo! Freaking loved that assignment! Had to do it for ancient too and I had so much fun (maybe cos I did mine on the role of dogs in the ancient world tho 😉). For my modern investigation I looked at to what extent race was the critical factor in the Jonestown massacre! Really really interesting and crazy stuff - 900 Americans start a commune in Guyana, which ends in a mass "suicide" attempt in the 1970s. As 70% of the commune were African American, I looked at wether race relations in the 1960-70 were a factor in joining the cult (called 'the people's temple') and in the way Jim Jones manipulated the congregation.

Other interesting topics I know some of my friends did include eugenics and the Olympics in Nazi Germany, political influence and origins of punk music etc. etc.

In terms of personalities, I know a girl who did Che Guevara and the "robin hood" interpretation. Friends also chose Al Capone and Gandhi as key figures to discuss and enjoyed their study. Charles Manson could be super interesting!

Hope this helps! Bit of a word vomit of just a million areas of history I find interesting (not even everything tbh haha). This really is the best assignment, so make sure that no matter what you pick something you enjoy!

Susie

EDIT: dammit not again 😠
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: MEL7401 on June 13, 2017, 05:23:01 pm
Hey! Interesting... I have to say that your best bet it so find a personality that you are actually interested in. Is there any point in modern history that you've always been attracted to? Any region of the world? Any wars/revolutions/monarchies? Also, you could try to get a head start on next year's content; do you know what options you'll be doing yet? For instance, if you do WWII, whilst you can't do a personality specifically studied in the HSC, you could do another personality (I'm thinking some high-ranking officials in the Nazi regime).

Let me know what you think about the above, and I can try to come up with some more specific suggestions for you!
ok thx very much!! :)
next year i think we study germany, albert speer and conflict in the pacific, apart from the core study...
so yeh... the personality of a high-ranking Nazi would be interesting and beneficial!!!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: MEL7401 on June 13, 2017, 05:35:33 pm
Yo! Freaking loved that assignment! Had to do it for ancient too and I had so much fun (maybe cos I did mine on the role of dogs in the ancient world tho 😉). For my modern investigation I looked at to what extent race was the critical factor in the Jonestown massacre! Really really interesting and crazy stuff - 900 Americans start a commune in Guyana, which ends in a mass "suicide" attempt in the 1970s. As 70% of the commune were African American, I looked at wether race relations in the 1960-70 played a factor in joining the cult (called 'the people's temple') and in the way Jim Jones manipulated the congregation.

Other interesting topics I know some of my friends did include eugenics and the Olympics in Nazi Germany, political influence and origins of punk music etc. etc.

In terms of personalities, I know a girl who did Che Guevara and the "robin hood" interpretation. Friends also chose Al Capone and Gandhi as key figures to discuss and enjoyed their study. Charles Manson could be super interesting!

Hope this helps! Bit of a word vomit of just a million areas of history I find interesting (not even everything tbh haha). This really is the best assignment, so make sure that no matter what you pick something you enjoy!

Susie

EDIT: dammit not again 😠
thx very much!!!
yeh... al capone would prbly be rather interesting  :D
just cant make up my mind  ::)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on June 13, 2017, 05:49:29 pm
thx very much!!!
yeh... al capone would prbly be rather interesting  :D
just cant make up my mind  ::)

Totally understand the 'not making up your mind thing' aha. Basically, I would come up with a list of a couple people, and do some preliminary reading. You'll usually be drawn to someone in particular :)

If you wanted to look at WWII, since you won't 'technically' be doing it, but you will be doing everything up UNTIL it, you might look at:

Goebbels
Goering
Rosa Luxemburg (would be helpful for Germany)
Bismark (would help you put Germany and WWI in context)
Riefenstahl (the alternative Germany personality study, who you won't be doing)

Otherwise, Susie knows way more about history in general, so I defer to her wisdom :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on June 13, 2017, 05:50:52 pm
thx very much!!!
yeh... al capone would prbly be rather interesting  :D
just cant make up my mind  ::)
Jim Jones would actually be the most interesting personality I can think of tbh! (though maybe I am just advocating for that because I just really want to have someone to talk about Jonestown with haha). He is insanely interesting though - He was a staunch civil rights activist (first person to adopt an African American child in his deep south state, peoples temple one of, if not the first unsegregated churchs), evangelical (but also kinda atheist?), American Communist during Cold War, Cult Leader and (many, including myself, would argue) mass murderer. He also used to explicitly refer to himself as African American when he very clearly... wasn't (however many members of his congregation still believed him!). But yeah haha, If you want the most interesting topic possible, highly recommend having a look at Jim Jones as a personality.

Linking with Germany could be a very good idea though! Jake knows much more than me on that front, but perhaps Anne Frank? A lot of historiographical things you can do with that topic!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: CaitlinSavins on June 13, 2017, 08:44:55 pm
Help. Meeeeee....

I have to answer this essay question and once again I've left it to the last minute.
I had some personal issues that stopped me from doing it earlier but now aaaahh.

Assess the role of Ho Chi Minh in the rise of Vietnamese nationalism and communism throughout the period 1954-1964.

This is the question. I am so stuck. All I've got so far is a thesis:
"Though Ho Chi Minh was instrumental in the rise of Vietnamese communism in the period between 1954 and 1964, the already existent Vietnamese nationalism was merely harnessed to his advantage."

Heeelpppp.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on June 13, 2017, 08:46:28 pm
Help. Meeeeee....

I have to answer this essay question and once again I've left it to the last minute.
I had some personal issues that stopped me from doing it earlier but now aaaahh.

Assess the role of Ho Chi Minh in the rise of Vietnamese nationalism and communism throughout the period 1954-1964.

This is the question. I am so stuck. All I've got so far is a thesis:
"Though Ho Chi Minh was instrumental in the rise of Vietnamese communism in the period between 1954 and 1964, the already existent Vietnamese nationalism was merely harnessed to his advantage."

Heeelpppp.

Unfortunately, I didn't do this module, and neither did Susie. Hopefully someone in the community can help you out!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: MEL7401 on June 13, 2017, 08:48:21 pm
Totally understand the 'not making up your mind thing' aha. Basically, I would come up with a list of a couple people, and do some preliminary reading. You'll usually be drawn to someone in particular :)

If you wanted to look at WWII, since you won't 'technically' be doing it, but you will be doing everything up UNTIL it, you might look at:

Goebbels
Goering
Rosa Luxemburg (would be helpful for Germany)
Bismark (would help you put Germany and WWI in context)
Riefenstahl (the alternative Germany personality study, who you won't be doing)

Otherwise, Susie knows way more about history in general, so I defer to her wisdom :)
thanks very much everyone!!
this website is awesome ;D
i think i might do Leni Riefenstahl...
do u have any really good ideas for a question i could focus my essay on??? ;)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on June 13, 2017, 08:50:38 pm
thanks very much everyone!!
this website is awesome ;D
i think i might do Leni Riefenstahl...
do u have any really good ideas for a question i could focus my essay on??? ;)

With Riefenstahl, you could potentially investigate the issue regarding her Nazi identity. Was she a Nazi? Was she just a film producer? Was she complicit in Nazi ideals and ideology? Essentially, is she to blame for the rise and consolidation of power of the Nazi state?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: MEL7401 on June 13, 2017, 08:55:37 pm
With Riefenstahl, you could potentially investigate the issue regarding her Nazi identity. Was she a Nazi? Was she just a film producer? Was she complicit in Nazi ideals and ideology? Essentially, is she to blame for the rise and consolidation of power of the Nazi state?
thankyou very much!!!
that is very, very helpful :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on June 13, 2017, 08:57:02 pm
thankyou very much!!!
that is very, very helpful :)

I'm glad :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on June 13, 2017, 09:07:45 pm
Help. Meeeeee....

I have to answer this essay question and once again I've left it to the last minute.
I had some personal issues that stopped me from doing it earlier but now aaaahh.

Assess the role of Ho Chi Minh in the rise of Vietnamese nationalism and communism throughout the period 1954-1964.

This is the question. I am so stuck. All I've got so far is a thesis:
"Though Ho Chi Minh was instrumental in the rise of Vietnamese communism in the period between 1954 and 1964, the already existent Vietnamese nationalism was merely harnessed to his advantage."

Heeelpppp.
As Jake said, didn't study this unfortunately :( I'm assuming this is for the Conflict in Indochina unit (just because I know that Ho Chi Minh is also a personality study option - this type of question doesn't look like one you could receive for that section, but just want to make sure!)? However, even though I haven't studied this, structurally I might be able to help you out a bit! In terms of your thesis, it looks like you are setting yourself up to write a differentiated essay, which is super awesome, and when done well, really sophisticated :) A differentiated essay allows you to discuss other factors alongside the stem (ie. Ho Chi Minh in this instance). With that in mind, you have two options;

a) Ho Chi Minh was the underpinning factor - in this instance, you want to argue that he had a significant influence over all the other factors. Each paragraph will focus on another issue, but how Ho Chi Minh directly related to/influenced it, thus asserting him to be the most critical factor.

b) Ho Chi Minh was one of many interrelated and important factors - Each paragraph is on a different factor (make sure that Ho Chi Minh paragraph is the first/largest paragraph though!), asserting that they all worked in tandem, and cannot be ignored, when assessing the rise of nationalism and communism!

Though content wise I don't know much, we did a bit on indochina in Year 11. I remember my teacher once saying that he didn't think that Ho Chi Minh was that committed to Communism, more so that he used communism as a vehicle to achieve Vietnamese nationalism - maybe something you could discuss? Taking a look at the syllabus, my gut is telling me that other things you'd want to mention would be; Victory against the French, Impact of US foreign policy and intervention in Indochina and maybe the Second Indochina War? Again, I don't know if that is exactly correct as I didn't study the unit, just took a look at the syllabus and made a guess.

Hope this helps! Sorry I could not be more specific with my advice,

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: soha.rizvi1 on June 13, 2017, 09:11:17 pm
Hi,


I just had a question. Does anyone have historian quotes for the strategies and tactics of the Vietminh and American in the second Indo CHina war? Also, Any quotes that would come under the Consqueneces of French defeat?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on June 13, 2017, 09:16:47 pm
Hi,


I just had a question. Does anyone have historian quotes for the strategies and tactics of the Vietminh and American in the second Indo CHina war? Also, Any quotes that would come under the Consqueneces of French defeat?

Whilst we didn't do this option, check out our notes section here, where there is heaps of Indochina stuff!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on June 13, 2017, 09:18:07 pm
IF ANYONE WANTS TO ASK A QUESTION, CLICK HERE TO MAKE A TOTALLY FREE ACCOUNT, THEN HIT 'REPLY' ON THIS THREAD!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on June 13, 2017, 09:18:25 pm
Hi,


I just had a question. Does anyone have historian quotes for the strategies and tactics of the Vietminh and American in the second Indo CHina war? Also, Any quotes that would come under the Consqueneces of French defeat?

Hey! I didn't study that topic unfortunately :( However, I recommend checking out this thread! Bowiemily (who got 95!) shared her top resources for Indochina there :) Also have a bunch of recommended resources for other units as well (for all you 37 lurkers to check out ;) )
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: CaitlinSavins on June 13, 2017, 10:01:35 pm
While Ho Chi Minh was largely instrumental in the rise of Vietnamese communism in the period between 1954 and 1964, the already existent Vietnamese nationalism was merely harnessed to his advantage. Though Ho’s implementation of nationalistic propaganda and the NLF to amass both Northern and Southern Vietnamese support of reunification, the rise of communism may also be attributed to his exploitation of American failures in implementing democracy and containing communism.

Can you offer some feedback on my introduction please, Susie? Thank you!!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on June 13, 2017, 10:24:13 pm
While Ho Chi Minh was largely instrumental in the rise of Vietnamese communism in the period between 1954 and 1964, the already existent Vietnamese nationalism was merely harnessed to his advantage. Though Ho’s implementation of nationalistic propaganda and the NLF to amass both Northern and Southern Vietnamese support of reunification, the rise of communism may also be attributed to his exploitation of American failures in implementing democracy and containing communism.

Can you offer some feedback on my introduction please, Susie? Thank you!!

Sure can do! Comments can be found in the spoiler :)

Spoiler
Assess the role of Ho Chi Minh in the rise of Vietnamese nationalism and communism throughout the period 1954-1964.

While Ho Chi Minh was largely instrumental in the rise of Vietnamese communism in the period between 1954 and 1964, the already existent Vietnamese nationalism was merely harnessed to his advantage. Hmm, does the fact that it was already in existence diminish that Ho Chi Minh was instrumental? I think the fact that he harnessed Vietnamese nationalism is a critical reason as to why he was significant! Though Ho’s Ho is his first name right? If so don't refer to him by his first name throughout the essay - Chi Minh. (I might be wrong here though as I know in some Asian cultures the last name goes first) implementation of nationalistic propaganda and the NLF in your introduction don't use acronyms - full title to amass both Northern and Southern Vietnamese support of reunification, the rise of communism may also be attributed to his exploitation of American failures in implementing democracy and containing communism. You need to link back to the question/thesis at the end of your intro. Can be as simple as; "(factor, factor, factor) assert the significance of Ho Chi Minh as a critical factor in the rise of Vietnamese nationalism and communism.

A good start, but it is quite short, because you are missing some important stuff! You need to explain your judgement, and the context of your judgement. Why, in one sentence, do you believe that Ho Chi Minh was instrumental? (eg. was he the underpinning factor, a critical motivator of people, etc. etc.). I'd also like a bit of context as to what led to the rise of Vietnamese nationalism and communism/why this is important. How does nationalism/communism relate? what was the climate of Indochina at the time? Where there any radical leadership changes or conflicts, that may have facilitated the rise of nationalism and communism? This should only be a sentence or two, like don't delve too much into this - but I do think it should be in there in some capacity.

Hope this helps!

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: CaitlinSavins on June 13, 2017, 11:06:21 pm
I don't know if it's too late and you're gone, but I rewrote my intro! (Ho Chi Minh is one of those figures who may be called by his first name, my modern history teacher says.)

Ho Chi Minh was largely instrumental in the rise of Vietnamese communism in the period between 1954 and 1964, and though nationalism was already engrained into the Vietnamese psyche, Ho was fundamentally important in the harnessing of nationalism to his advantage to gain Vietnamese independence. Though Ho’s implementation of nationalistic propaganda and the National Liberation Front (NLF) to amass both Northern and Southern Vietnamese support of reunification are considerable, the rise of communism may also be attributed to his exploitation of American failures in implementing democracy and containing communism. Despite nationalism pre-existing Ho Chi Minh, his propaganda, NLF and exploitation of American failures justify the consideration that he was significantly influential in the rise of communism in Vietnam between 1954 and 1964.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on June 13, 2017, 11:29:01 pm
I don't know if it's too late and you're gone, but I rewrote my intro! (Ho Chi Minh is one of those figures who may be called by his first name, my modern history teacher says.)
Awesome! No worries then :) And yes not too late, I shall have a look :)

Spoiler
Ho Chi Minh was largely instrumental in the rise of Vietnamese communism in the period between 1954 and 1964, and though nationalism was already engrained into the Vietnamese psyche, Ho was fundamentally important in the harnessing of nationalism to his advantage to gain Vietnamese independence. Better, but I think we can simplify! Some of this can go in your explanation. I think your judgement should be short and sweet - 'Ho Chi Minh was largely instrumental in the rise of Vietnamese communism and nationalism in the period between 1954 and 1964.' Done. That's your judgement. Then you start of your next sentence, with 'Though nationalism was fundamentally engrained into the Vietnamese psyche, Ho was .....". Then hey presto! You not only have your judgement, but also a solid explanation of your judgement as well! Though Ho’s implementation of nationalistic propaganda and the National Liberation Front (NLF) to amass both Northern and Southern Vietnamese support of reunification are considerable, the rise of communism may also be attributed to his exploitation of American failures in implementing democracy and containing communism. Despite nationalism pre-existing Ho Chi Minh, his propaganda, NLF and exploitation of American failures justify the consideration that he was significantly influential in the rise of communism in Vietnam between 1954 and 1964. I think the word exacerbated, intensified or accelerated could work quite well.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: maria1999 on June 14, 2017, 10:26:37 am
Hey! Are these helpful at all? Otherwise, I didn't do Japan, so unfortunately can't help you out!


Yep, I downloaded it just now. Hopefully it'll shed some light on this. Thanks again!!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on June 14, 2017, 11:46:03 am
Yep, I downloaded it just now. Hopefully it'll shed some light on this. Thanks again!!
Sorry we didn't have more to offer content wise! I suggest picking up a copy of Bruce Dennett and Stephen Dixon's 'Key Features of Modern History' from your local library - he has a chapter on Conflict in the Pacific! The only textbook that I rate tbh, very easy to understand (ie. layout = syllabus) however still presents a lot of sophisticated points/detail that'll boost your responses :)) Bruce Dennett wrote a significant portion of the syllabus for Modern History (including the Core!), so defs someone to watch out for!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: tahliamag on June 15, 2017, 09:35:39 am
Helloo,
We've been given a research task on conflict in the pacific and are required to answer this essay question:
To what extent did Japanese foreign policy during 1937-41 make war in the Pacific inevitable?

I don't really have a clear idea of what I should be talking about in the essay but I have made a few points which I think are relevant:
 
Japanese Foreign-Policy actions -
Sino-Japanese war (July,1937-1945)
Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere (August, 1940)
Japanese occupation of Indochina (1940-1941) - Result of ABCD encirclement
Pearl Harbour (December, 1941)
 
US -
Oil embargo (July, 1941)
‘ABCD’ Encirclement (1941)
Britain -
Closed and then re-opened the Burma Road in 1940

I was wondering if anyone who has done conflict in the pacific can let me know if these are relevant points to talk about or if I'm missing anything??
Thankyou!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on June 15, 2017, 09:57:49 am
Helloo,
We've been given a research task on conflict in the pacific and are required to answer this essay question:
To what extent did Japanese foreign policy during 1937-41 make war in the Pacific inevitable?

I don't really have a clear idea of what I should be talking about in the essay but I have made a few points which I think are relevant:

Hey! Full disclosure - I didn't study Conflict in the Pacific. However, looking at your structure it appears a bit... unbalanced? Like your first paragraph looks huge (which is a good thing as it is focusing on the stem), but after that your paragraphs are getting smaller and smaller, I mean do you think you'll be able to write a full, detailed paragraph on just the British closing and reopening the Burma road (maybe you can, but from an outsiders perspective, my gut instinct is that would be a challenge)?

I'm having a look at the syllabus, and it appears that Japanese foreign policy falls within the first section:

1    Growth of Pacific tensions
–    economic and political issues in the Pacific by 1937
–    Japanese foreign policy 1937–1941
–    US and British policies in the Pacific 1937–1941
–    strategic and political reasons for bombing Pearl Harbour

With that in mind, my gut instinct tells me that your structure should look something like this (with Japanese Foreign Policy still your first paragraph). So you say something like "Japanese foreign policy was highly critical to the development of conflict in the pacific, however other factors must also be considered when assessing wars inevitability", then have a paragraph on foreign policy, paragraph on economic and political issues, paragraph on US/British policies, and strategic and political reasons for bombing Pearl Harbour. You could also have a judgement like this if it is applicable, which is even better: "Japanese foreign policy was highly critical to the development of conflict in the pacific, as it was an underlying factor with made war inevitable." With this judgement you'd follow the same structure, but assert foreign policies underlying influence over the other factors throughout!

As I said earlier, I didn't study this unit, so in the end it is up to you to make the decision that you think is best for you - here are just some of my thoughts! :) Hope this helps,

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: herb123 on June 15, 2017, 11:56:31 am
Hey Im doing Albert Speer for my personality study
just want to know, is there a genreal gist that the PArt B questions take and how i should tackle it
thanks
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on June 15, 2017, 12:02:06 pm
Hey Im doing Albert Speer for my personality study
just want to know, is there a genreal gist that the PArt B questions take and how i should tackle it
thanks

Hey!

Generally, a Part B will be asking about to impact that your chosen personality had on their time period. The response for Speer, in particular, usually looks like this. Over time, historiography has really changed their tune about Speer and his actions during the War. Initially, he was seen as the 'good Nazi'; apologetic, ignorant of the final solution, just trying to help the German people. This, it turns out, was bullshit (you may disagree. You'd probably be wrong, but hey, that's your right!). So, the essay is usually spent persecuting the living hell out of a man who used slave labour to build rocket, evicted Jews from their homes, and DID know about the final solution (ie. mass murder of Jews, amongst other minorities).

So, usually, you'll pick three themes. For example, you might use his relationship with Hitler, his use of Slave Labour, and his actions as Armaments minister. You'll look at his claims at Nuremberg, and those supporting him in the historiography (eg. Sereny). Then, you'll rip him to shreds. You do this in the context of himself arguing he was just 'swept up by the times', and you arguing that he knew what he was doing.

Remember to use heaps of quotes, statistics, and other specific information! Let us know if you want any clarification :)

Jake
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: herb123 on June 17, 2017, 08:37:33 pm
Hey!

Generally, a Part B will be asking about to impact that your chosen personality had on their time period. The response for Speer, in particular, usually looks like this. Over time, historiography has really changed their tune about Speer and his actions during the War. Initially, he was seen as the 'good Nazi'; apologetic, ignorant of the final solution, just trying to help the German people. This, it turns out, was bullshit (you may disagree. You'd probably be wrong, but hey, that's your right!). So, the essay is usually spent persecuting the living hell out of a man who used slave labour to build rocket, evicted Jews from their homes, and DID know about the final solution (ie. mass murder of Jews, amongst other minorities).

So, usually, you'll pick three themes. For example, you might use his relationship with Hitler, his use of Slave Labour, and his actions as Armaments minister. You'll look at his claims at Nuremberg, and those supporting him in the historiography (eg. Sereny). Then, you'll rip him to shreds. You do this in the context of himself arguing he was just 'swept up by the times', and you arguing that he knew what he was doing.

Remember to use heaps of quotes, statistics, and other specific information! Let us know if you want any clarification :)

Jake

Hey thanks so much for the reply!
Im pretty much trying to go for this angle: ""a narrow minded idealist who offered his services to any superior force"-  Joachim Fest
so he was a selfish shithead who put himself and his ambition before all others, before principle and pretty much was amoral who leapt and swapped allegiences at times where he thought it would benefit himself
so im pretty much gonna talk about:
rejection of scorched earth policy, his nonchalance of the use of slave labour and some more other stuff 
Can you give me some feedback if this sounds okay
Title: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: rodero on June 17, 2017, 08:57:47 pm
Hey thanks so much for the reply!
Im pretty much trying to go for this angle: ""a narrow minded idealist who offered his services to any superior force"-  Joachim Fest
so he was a selfish shithead who put himself and his ambition before all others, before principle and pretty much was amoral who leapt and swapped allegiences at times where he thought it would benefit himself
so im pretty much gonna talk about:
rejection of scorched earth policy, his nonchalance of the use of slave labour and some more other stuff 
Can you give me some feedback if this sounds okay

Hey,
Just wondering, were you at the modern history day at USYD this week? Scott Wimble gave us that exact quote and I completely agree with it. Once seeing Germany's imminent defeat, Speer begins to create an impression that he was a 'Good Nazi' - this is seen in his rejection to the scorched earth policy as you mentioned.

I personally think that angle is great when backed with other historians, but you need to make sure that this argument is relevant to the question. In the end, I don't consider myself a 100% credible person to give you the green light, so I'll leave that to the state rankers. I will however, give you some other historians with like minded views.

Schmidt: Speer's memoirs are inconsistent and perhaps "the most cunning apologia by any figure of the Third Reich"

Van Der Vat: "a liar, a fraud and a hypocrite"

Don't forget Goldhagen, who notes that Speer was in fact present at the Posen Conference, where the Final Solution was discussed
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: herb123 on June 17, 2017, 09:05:54 pm
Hey,
Just wondering, were you at the modern history day at USYD this week? Scott Wimble gave us that exact quote and I completely agree with it. Once seeing Germany's imminent defeat, Speer begins to create an impression that he was a 'Good Nazi' - this is seen in his rejection to the scorched earth policy as you mentioned.

I personally think that angle is great when backed with other historians, but you need to make sure that this argument is relevant to the question. In the end, I don't consider myself a 100% credible person to give you the green light, so I'll leave that to the state rankers. I will however, give you some other historians with like minded views.

Schmidt: Speer's memoirs are inconsistent and perhaps "the most cunning apologia by any figure of the Third Reich"

Van Der Vat: "a liar, a fraud and a hypocrite"

Don't forget Goldhagen, who notes that Speer was in fact present at the Posen Conference, where the Final Solution was discussed

Thanks alot for the tips man!
Ye I was at the HTA study day at Usyd just today infact
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on June 17, 2017, 10:47:43 pm
Hey,
Just wondering, were you at the modern history day at USYD this week? Scott Wimble gave us that exact quote and I completely agree with it. Once seeing Germany's imminent defeat, Speer begins to create an impression that he was a 'Good Nazi' - this is seen in his rejection to the scorched earth policy as you mentioned.

I personally think that angle is great when backed with other historians, but you need to make sure that this argument is relevant to the question. In the end, I don't consider myself a 100% credible person to give you the green light, so I'll leave that to the state rankers. I will however, give you some other historians with like minded views.

Schmidt: Speer's memoirs are inconsistent and perhaps "the most cunning apologia by any figure of the Third Reich"

Van Der Vat: "a liar, a fraud and a hypocrite"

Don't forget Goldhagen, who notes that Speer was in fact present at the Posen Conference, where the Final Solution was discussed
Pretty much hits the nail on the head my opinion - great answer rodero! Though I'm no Speer expert (I'll leave that to jake and rodero!), your judgement is strong and direct which is great, and from the little I know of Speer can be backed up with some pretty solid evidence. However, as rodero says, you've got to make sure that it works with the question! When it comes to the personality study this isn't that hard as there is only 3 types of questions they typically ask;

- Interpretations (so for Speer it's the "Good Nazi" debate - your judgement would work well with this type of question)
- Shaped by/Shaped events (basically were they a product of their time? or were they and active contributor to the time?)
- Overall Significance (hint: if they're on the modern history syllabus, they're probably pretty significant  ;) )

I'd recommend having a general plan for all three of these question types, and make sure that you do a practice essay for each one before trials to make sure that you are as prepared as possible!

Thanks alot for the tips man!
Ye I was at the HTA study day at Usyd just today infact
Did either of you go to any of Bruce Dennett's lectures (particularly his WW1: Western Front one?) He's the man, love that guy.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: bigsweetpotato2000 on June 17, 2017, 11:01:17 pm
Pretty much hits the nail on the head my opinion - great answer rodero! Though I'm no Speer expert (I'll leave that to jake and rodero!), your judgement is strong and direct which is great, and from the little I know of Speer can be backed up with some pretty solid evidence. However, as rodero says, you've got to make sure that it works with the question! When it comes to the personality study this isn't that hard as there is only 3 types of questions they typically ask;

- Interpretations (so for Speer it's the "Good Nazi" debate - your judgement would work well with this type of question)
- Shaped by/Shaped events (basically were they a product of their time? or were they and active contributor to the time?)
- Overall Significance (hint: if they're on the modern history syllabus, they're probably pretty significant  ;) )

I'd recommend having a general plan for all three of these question types, and make sure that you do a practice essay for each one before trials to make sure that you are as prepared as possible!
Did either of you go to any of Bruce Dennett's lectures (particularly his WW1: Western Front one?) He's the man, love that guy.


Bruce Dennett.

He was literally - a bomb.

Loved it. 10000000%
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on June 17, 2017, 11:04:36 pm
Bruce Dennett.

He was literally - a bomb.

Loved it. 10000000%
Ma man 8) Was super lucky last year - he's friends with my modern/extension teacher, so we managed to have him come in twice to go over extension history stuff with my class! An absolute gem, after his WW1 lecture I went up and asked if he could read over my major work for extension and he said yes - gave me some of the best feedback ever! Credit him to a large extent for my success in that subject :)

Hope he didn't bully you guys too much with the vanilla ice-cream/milo analogy! I was personally victimised by that one  :'( Does he still do the Turning Points joke? Where he walks across the stage?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: bigsweetpotato2000 on June 17, 2017, 11:29:03 pm
Ma man 8) Was super lucky last year - he's friends with my modern/extension teacher, so we managed to have him come in twice to go over extension history stuff with my class! An absolute gem, after his WW1 lecture I went up and asked if he could read over my major work for extension and he said yes - gave me some of the best feedback ever! Credit him to a large extent for my success in that subject :)

Hope he didn't bully you guys too much with the vanilla ice-cream/milo analogy! I was personally victimised by that one  :'( Does he still do the Turning Points joke? Where he walks across the stage?

Oh yes - We were all shamed for not having eaten milo and ice-cream HAHAHHAH
And then after he shames all those who turn it into mush :P
I was soooo lucky I had him both for Western Front and the European Conflict and both were soo amazing - And yes his turning points HAHAHHAHHAHAH SOO GOOD - the only way I can remember it now HAHHAH
I didn't write much notes in his lectures - too busy laughing!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: herb123 on June 18, 2017, 11:21:10 am
Pretty much hits the nail on the head my opinion - great answer rodero! Though I'm no Speer expert (I'll leave that to jake and rodero!), your judgement is strong and direct which is great, and from the little I know of Speer can be backed up with some pretty solid evidence. However, as rodero says, you've got to make sure that it works with the question! When it comes to the personality study this isn't that hard as there is only 3 types of questions they typically ask;

- Interpretations (so for Speer it's the "Good Nazi" debate - your judgement would work well with this type of question)
- Shaped by/Shaped events (basically were they a product of their time? or were they and active contributor to the time?)
- Overall Significance (hint: if they're on the modern history syllabus, they're probably pretty significant  ;) )

I'd recommend having a general plan for all three of these question types, and make sure that you do a practice essay for each one before trials to make sure that you are as prepared as possible!
Did either of you go to any of Bruce Dennett's lectures (particularly his WW1: Western Front one?) He's the man, love that guy.


Thanks alot!
Yeah i actually had Bruce Dennett for Albert Speer!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: herb123 on June 20, 2017, 02:10:29 pm
Hey sorry for all the questions but ive got an essay coming up on: evaluate hitler's role on the nazi state
if i were to go for the opinion that: he was very important but his role was more complex so like while he wasnt that much of a "weak dictator" he wasnt exactly ‘Master of the Third Reich’,
so i was thinking of talking about: fuhrerprinzip, lacked organisational capacities, polycratic system etc. etc.
does that sound alright? can you give me some tips on what else i could talk about?
thanks alot
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on June 20, 2017, 02:26:00 pm
Hey sorry for all the questions but ive got an essay coming up on: evaluate hitler's role on the nazi state
if i were to go for the opinion that: he was very important but his role was more complex so like while he wasnt that much of a "weak dictator" he wasnt exactly ‘Master of the Third Reich’,
so i was thinking of talking about: fuhrerprinzip, lacked organisational capacities, polycratic system etc. etc.
does that sound alright? can you give me some tips on what else i could talk about?
thanks alot

That sounds absolutely perfect.

Your thesis is nuanced, the evidence you plan to discuss is totally correct. Perhaps you could also talk about specific events in the Nazi period; eg. Kristallnacht, in which thousands of Jewish businesses and places of worship were destroyed. There was a general sentiment, at this time, that 'Hitler would never have allowed this!' and 'Hitler mustn't have known!'. Just goes to show the strength of the fuhrerprinzip, and more generally the brilliant position Hitler put himself in.

Not much to add; write an essay outline, and we'd be happy to take a look!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Thebarman on June 20, 2017, 05:56:39 pm
Where can I find quotes for historiography? I'm specifically looking for quotes related to the impact of war on civilians for Conflict in Europe. So far I've been using my textbook for quotes, but it's not always the best source or content. Any ideas?

Thanks
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on June 20, 2017, 06:14:57 pm
Where can I find quotes for historiography? I'm specifically looking for quotes related to the impact of war on civilians for Conflict in Europe. So far I've been using my textbook for quotes, but it's not always the best source or content. Any ideas?

Thanks

The sources I used was google (search around for the topic area that you're particularly interested in) and books that I borrowed from the library. I know it sounds old fashioned, but I seriously recommend heading to your local library and finding the WWII section. You'll have access to plenty of resources, written by highly distinguished historians. I would have an idea of who are the 'good' historians before heading in though!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: maria1999 on June 20, 2017, 06:26:13 pm
hey jake!
This isn't a question or anything but you marked a speech on Albert Speer that I wrote aaaaages ago. Essentially, I got it back yesterday and somehow managed to get a 19/20 which was the highest mark! I wouldn't have been able to do it without the stellar feedback you gave me so I just wanted to say thank you again!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on June 20, 2017, 07:33:28 pm
hey jake!
This isn't a question or anything but you marked a speech on Albert Speer that I wrote aaaaages ago. Essentially, I got it back yesterday and somehow managed to get a 19/20 which was the highest mark! I wouldn't have been able to do it without the stellar feedback you gave me so I just wanted to say thank you again!

Hell. Yeah.

So glad that you're happy with your mark! Freaking congratulations; I definitely helped you out a little, but that was basically all you. 19/20 is just utterly fantastic for Modern, I hope you're seriously proud of yourself.

Aha I'm so happy for you. With the Personality Study, once you've written a good one, you're basically sorted for the rest of the year, so seriously congratulations! You deserve it :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on June 22, 2017, 09:55:43 pm
Yeah I guess really when you're saying let's say "anti-war protests were a contributing factor in the US withdrawal from Vietnam" you're by extension saying that they're weren't not a factor and you could say "some historians believe the students' movements had little impact as Nixon continued bombing Cambodia in the early 1970s but we must consider..."

But I'd be uncomfortable spending more than a sentence or two doing that for any essay really. That video and my teacher are saying to spend an entire paragraph considering them before refuting them in the next. I'd 100% screw that up if I tried it in 40 mins.

</non English-specific discussion>
Exactly :) I'm definitely not advocating for you to be constantly referencing the opposing view (except in the personality study - debate is so important there you actually want to be doing that a lot!) - a couple of sentences will do :) It provides a bit of nuance to your essay - allows the marker to see that you have still considered both sides, and are making an informed judgement! Just don't go overboard to the point where it looks like you are sitting on the fence :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: JoyMaalouf on June 25, 2017, 12:35:12 pm
Hi! I have an in class essay topic test (it goes for one hour) tomorrow and I was wondering how many pages should I aim to write?

Also I've heard a lot about markers being impressed by the amount of pages which are written as opposed to a shorter but better quality essay, so should I aim for a better essay or very long one?

Thanks! (Hope that made sense haha)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on June 25, 2017, 12:46:27 pm
Hi! I have an in class essay topic test (it goes for one hour) tomorrow and I was wondering how many pages should I aim to write?

Also I've heard a lot about markers being impressed by the amount of pages which are written as opposed to a shorter but better quality essay, so should I aim for a better essay or very long one?

Thanks! (Hope that made sense haha)

How long is a piece of string?

Honestly, there's no answer to this question. As long as you're writing more than, like, two and a half or three pages, you're fine! Quality over quantity is definitely the best advice I can give.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on June 25, 2017, 12:55:20 pm
Hi! I have an in class essay topic test (it goes for one hour) tomorrow and I was wondering how many pages should I aim to write?

Also I've heard a lot about markers being impressed by the amount of pages which are written as opposed to a shorter but better quality essay, so should I aim for a better essay or very long one?

Thanks! (Hope that made sense haha)
Hey! Actually going to semi disagree with jake here (sorry bro).

Though in most instances I'm very much on the "quality over quantity" side of things (and overall I still am when it comes to essays), the standard they expect is that you fill all (or at least almost all) of the booklet. The markers expect about 1000 words per 45min section, which is roughly 7-8 pages. A lot of markers are lenient on this, but I have definitely heard horror stories. That's why my teachers where so insistent that I make my handwriting bigger last year, because they were worried I'd lose marks because of a dumb marker who thinks I hadn't done enough because it was shorter page wise. Had a senior marker for Modern and Extension come in and tell us the same thing. I personally think you'd struggle to get in as much detail as you need in under 1000 words for an essay anyway - and I think that is where this expectation has developed at the marking centre.

So for Sections II and IV aim for 7-8 pages. For the personality study roughly 3 pages for Part A and 5 for Part B. For Section I work within the lines (and preferably a teeny-weeny bit over).

Hope this helps! Overall the quality of the essay IS the most important thing, however don't give a marker any excuse to doubt the quality 😉

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: maria1999 on July 03, 2017, 03:07:49 pm
hey guys!
I'm in the midst of writing a practice essay on the impact of Nazism on German society by 1939 and I'm try to do a paragraph on the economic impact but I'm really struggling. In what ways did the Nazis help the German economy after the Weimar? I know that they helped virtually eradicate unemployment but I still need a bit more. Any help would be great. Thank you!!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on July 03, 2017, 03:27:03 pm
hey guys!
I'm in the midst of writing a practice essay on the impact of Nazism on German society by 1939 and I'm try to do a paragraph on the economic impact but I'm really struggling. In what ways did the Nazis help the German economy after the Weimar? I know that they helped virtually eradicate unemployment but I still need a bit more. Any help would be great. Thank you!!

Hey! I would definitely be focusing on unemployment. Pre-Hitler, I think unemployment was at around 6,000,000. Try cite these figures over time (ie. as Weimar increased its unemployed population, Nazis rose to power). Then, Hitler developed a number of infrastructure projects which helped to employ many people previously without work. So that's a pretty strong point.

You may want to discuss the gearing of the economy towards 'total war'. This ensured every gear and lever of the economy was working perfectly, towards a single aim (remobilisation, weaponry production, etc etc).

Other than that... I'm not too sure! I think that should be sufficient to fill a paragraph though. Let me know if you have any other thoughts!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: chloeannbarwick on July 04, 2017, 10:57:55 am
Hi Modern history students, I'm in desperate need of some Arab-Israeli summary notes if anyone is doing the topic and can help me out. I've made my own for every other topic but I just don't have enough time for Arab-Israeli. I'd be open to swapping with some of my notes with anyone who can help me out, or even if anyone could just point me towards a great page or book that is really efficient for summarising the topic. thanks very much. :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 04, 2017, 11:18:30 am
Hi Modern history students, I'm in desperate need of some Arab-Israeli summary notes if anyone is doing the topic and can help me out. I've made my own for every other topic but I just don't have enough time for Arab-Israeli. I'd be open to swapping with some of my notes with anyone who can help me out, or even if anyone could just point me towards a great page or book that is really efficient for summarising the topic. thanks very much. :)
Hey Chloe! I don't have notes on the Arab-Israeli crisis, as unfortunately I didn't study that topic, however I recommend checking the notes section (perhaps a past student has uploaded their notes :) ) and checking to see if your local library has a copy of 'Key Features of Modern History' by Bruce Dennett. 'Key Features' is a textbook, but its really good, and is structured according to the syllabus. Before the HSC I used it as a study guide for WW1 :) I checked and it covers the Arab-Israeli crisis!

Sorry I couldn't be more help!

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: chloeannbarwick on July 04, 2017, 05:37:09 pm
Hey Chloe! I don't have notes on the Arab-Israeli crisis, as unfortunately I didn't study that topic, however I recommend checking the notes section (perhaps a past student has uploaded their notes :) ) and checking to see if your local library has a copy of 'Key Features of Modern History' by Bruce Dennett. 'Key Features' is a textbook, but its really good, and is structured according to the syllabus. Before the HSC I used it as a study guide for WW1 :) I checked and it covers the Arab-Israeli crisis!

Sorry I couldn't be more help!

Susie

Thank you susie, I'll be sure to check out the textbook! Thank you so much for your help!

If anyone has any other notes or suggestions please let me know :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Thebarman on July 05, 2017, 01:47:37 pm
I'm brushing up on my 1918-1939 Germany notes atm and I'm struggling to write notes for the last dotpoint (impact of ideology on Nazi foreign policy to September 1939). Any suggestions regarding what to add? Thanks
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 06, 2017, 03:42:40 pm
I'm brushing up on my 1918-1939 Germany notes atm and I'm struggling to write notes for the last dotpoint (impact of ideology on Nazi foreign policy to September 1939). Any suggestions regarding what to add? Thanks
Hey! I'll have to leave it to jake or someone else to help you out with the specifics as I didn't study Germany, however I might be able to help you out with how to structure your notes :) I'd assume in terms of how the dotpoint is structure, it'd look fairly similar to the Soviet Foreign Policy dot point that I did study for Russia. With that in mind, it might be a good idea to consider structuring your notes according to themes - socio-cultural, political, economic, military/strategic impact etc. etc. :) Furthermore, I'd make sure to have a clear understanding of the aims and purposes of foreign policy, as a very common question at least the Russia students receive is "how successful" was foreign policy. Consider whether the aims were contradictory - for example, Soviet foreign policy had two aims - domestic stability and international revolution, neither of which could be achieved without forgoing the other.

But yeah, sorry I couldn't be more useful! Hopefully this helps either way :)

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: vasanti on July 06, 2017, 05:16:51 pm
Hi, I was wondering how do you about memorising the modern history content, because once I have memorised a certain part of the syllabus and I come back to it later I tend to forget certain aspects and dates. would you be able to share any tips on how you went about it in you hsc?

Thanks,
Vasanti
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 06, 2017, 06:35:11 pm
Hi, I was wondering how do you about memorising the modern history content, because once I have memorised a certain part of the syllabus and I come back to it later I tend to forget certain aspects and dates. would you be able to share any tips on how you went about it in you hsc?

Thanks,
Vasanti
Hey Vasanti! The way that I memorised was through writing a shit tonne of practice papers - first open book, then closed book. After writing the same stat a million times, it ends up being stuck in your brain, plus practice papers helps in so many other ways as well. I also wrote a detail table (you can find mine from last year in the notes section as an example), which I studied the night before and morning of an exam, using the look cover write check method (a classic ;) ).

I recommend checking out this thread Jake made about how to memorise stats through creating and using worksheets :) I tried this method after I read this thread last year and it was super helpful!

Hope this helps!

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: katie,rinos on July 06, 2017, 06:44:37 pm
Hey Vasanti! The way that I memorised was through writing a shit tonne of practice papers - first open book, then closed book. After writing the same stat a million times, it ends up being stuck in your brain, plus practice papers helps in so many other ways as well. I also wrote a detail table (you can find mine from last year in the notes section as an example), which I studied the night before and morning of an exam, using the look cover write check method (a classic ;) ).

I recommend checking out this thread Jake made about how to memorise stats through creating and using worksheets :) I tried this method after I read this thread last year and it was super helpful!

Hope this helps!

Susie
Does this work for ancient as well? I might try to use some of these to memorise glossary terms, stats and quotes.
Thanks! :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 06, 2017, 06:49:45 pm
Does this work for ancient as well? I might try to use some of these to memorise glossary terms, stats and quotes.
Thanks! :)
Definitely would all work for ancient history!! One thing that both modern and ancient share is the emphasis and importance of historical detail and terminology, so study wise often very similar :) These techniques I'd assume would work well for most humanities subjects!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: damecj on July 07, 2017, 01:36:13 pm
Hey,

I was just wondering if you would be able to look at this introduction for me...

It's for this question
 “Assess the effectiveness of the League of Nations to the maintenance of peace in Europe to 1939.”

The League of Nations was severely ineffective in the maintenance of peace in Europe to 1939. The League of Nations was the association of nations tasked with preventing future conflicts by allowing nations to meet and discuss their differences. Although it was established ‘with the most noble of intentions’, the collapse of collective security and the resulting conflicts in Abyssinia and the Spanish Civil war undermined its authority and resulted a loss of authority for the organisation. Although the league boasted some successes, its lack of authority and efficacy in dealing with the volatility of events in Europe undermined its efforts to maintain peace up until 1939.

Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Diala on July 08, 2017, 04:57:22 pm
How, in your opinion, did the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact contribute to the growth of European tension?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: rodero on July 08, 2017, 05:34:57 pm
Hey,

I was just wondering if you would be able to look at this introduction for me...

It's for this question
 “Assess the effectiveness of the League of Nations to the maintenance of peace in Europe to 1939.”

The League of Nations was severely ineffective in the maintenance of peace in Europe to 1939. The League of Nations was the association of nations tasked with preventing future conflicts by allowing nations to meet and discuss their differences. Although it was established ‘with the most noble of intentions’, the collapse of collective security and the resulting conflicts in Abyssinia and the Spanish Civil war undermined its authority and resulted a loss of authority for the organisation. Although the league boasted some successes, its lack of authority and efficacy in dealing with the volatility of events in Europe undermined its efforts to maintain peace up until 1939.



Hey, i'm not a lecturer but I do study the Conflict in Europe. I think the intro you have there is great, but you might want to bring in some other dot points to substantiate your essay - I personally cannot see myself writing an entire essay that is purely on the League of Nations dot point. For this reason, might I recommend that you bring in the other dot points under 'Causes of the conflict'. These being the German and Italian dictators, appeasement and the non-aggression pact.

 You need to ensure that you are always mentioning the League of Nations, so maybe you could show how the factors are interlinked; The dictators saw the failures of the League in Abyssinia and the SCW, found that the League if powerless, so they continued to take territory. The failures of the League required the policy of appeasement to be adopted. And it was this policy - together with the League - that forced Stalin to sign the Non-Aggression Pact, which allowed Hitler to invade Poland and ultimately spark World War 2.

On that note, I'd like to say again that I am merely recommending a potential restructure of an already great essay start. However, the question does say 'to 1939', so you need to mention the other events which caused the outbreak of war, and the League's role in this event. For this reason I don't think you should limit yourself purely on the League and it's failings/successes, but integrate the other causes and show how they are intrinsically linked.

Hope this helps :)

EDIT: Sorry forgot one thing. If by any chance you decide to stick to your existing structure, you might want to change your topic sentence up a bit. Rather than stating that the League was 'severely' ineffective, might I suggest 'partially/moderately' effective? I say this because you seem to be preparing yourself to mention the successes of the League, so perhaps it is not severely bad, but somewhat bad.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 08, 2017, 06:07:58 pm
Hey, i'm not a lecturer but I do study the Conflict in Europe. I think the intro you have there is great, but you might want to bring in some other dot points to substantiate your essay - I personally cannot see myself writing an entire essay that is purely on the League of Nations dot point. For this reason, might I recommend that you bring in the other dot points under 'Causes of the conflict'. These being the German and Italian dictators, appeasement and the non-aggression pact.

 You need to ensure that you are always mentioning the League of Nations, so maybe you could show how the factors are interlinked; The dictators saw the failures of the League in Abyssinia and the SCW, found that the League if powerless, so they continued to take territory. The failures of the League required the policy of appeasement to be adopted. And it was this policy - together with the League - that forced Stalin to sign the Non-Aggression Pact, which allowed Hitler to invade Poland and ultimately spark World War 2.

On that note, I'd like to say again that I am merely recommending a potential restructure of an already great essay start. However, the question does say 'to 1939', so you need to mention the other events which caused the outbreak of war, and the League's role in this event. For this reason I don't think you should limit yourself purely on the League and it's failings/successes, but integrate the other causes and show how they are intrinsically linked.

Hope this helps :)

EDIT: Sorry forgot one thing. If by any chance you decide to stick to your existing structure, you might want to change your topic sentence up a bit. Rather than stating that the League was 'severely' ineffective, might I suggest 'partially/moderately' effective? I say this because you seem to be preparing yourself to mention the successes of the League, so perhaps it is not severely bad, but somewhat bad.
Absolutely awesome advice Rodero! Please don't worry about "not being a lecturer" when providing feedback - this was fantastic, and way more helpful than I could have been given that I didn't study the unit! Jake and I may answer questions most of the time, but that does not mean that we don't want/don't encourage other students to pipe up and answer questions too! Last year, before I was a lecturer, found out my rank, got my mark - I often answered questions on here as well :) It's a really really really effective study method, that I recommend everyone try out!

What you are recommending is a differentiated essay, which is super sophisticated (and exactly what I would have recommended ;) ). A few notes on differentiated essays, as rodero states, linking the other factors to the League of Nations is a really great way to structure your response (you can actually write a band 6 essay without linking if you are really struggling, but linking will always push those essays into the higher marks!).

A few other pointers on your intro though:
- I agree with rodero that "severely" is perhaps a little bit too over the top. I personally (as someone who admittedly hasn't studied the topic) wouldn't mind if you said "highly", however I'd want you to preface that by saying "overall highly ineffective" - that shows that you are a) still making a strong judgement (ie. not sitting on the fence), b) providing nuance, and not ignoring other factors. If you mention these successes, but demonstrate why they were inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, I believe that that would justify the "highly", and make your essay appear super analytical and sophisticated :) However "partially" or "moderately" would definitely work well too, just giving you other options :)
- After your judgement, I want a brief, one sentence explanation of your judgement, not just a description of what the League of Nations was. This goes back to what rodero was saying about links - where there any overaching themes or issues that overall contributed to its significance?

But overall, definitely agree with rodero - their advice was absolutely fab :) (hope to see them around more often ;) )
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 08, 2017, 06:14:36 pm
How, in your opinion, did the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact contribute to the growth of European tension?
Just going to bump your question because I'm worried it'll get lost due to the fairly long replies after it :)

Unfortunately I didn't study Conflict in Europe, but as it is one of the more popular options I'm sure another student, past or present will be able to help you out!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on July 08, 2017, 08:28:03 pm
How, in your opinion, did the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact contribute to the growth of European tension?

Hey! Honestly, this is a specific point that I don't remember very well. I would do some research online, or grab a book or two from the library. I'm imagining that it allowed Germany to focus on other areas of Europe, strengthening their position? Russia had been essentially ostracised after WWI, and an alliance between Germany and Russia was sure to frighten the British. Anyway, you'll have to do some independent research on that one :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: bellerina on July 08, 2017, 09:17:20 pm
Studying for Russia and trying to remember the content. Any past paper questions I can do for each syllabus dot point, which will help me remember the content?  Slightly struggling here haha
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 08, 2017, 09:30:27 pm
Studying for Russia and trying to remember the content. Any past paper questions I can do for each syllabus dot point, which will help me remember the content?  Slightly struggling here haha
Heya! These are questions that I would recommend :) (Some of these are past paper questions, others are ones that I have made up :) )

Bolshevik Consolidation of Power
- To what extent was Lenin the most critical factor to the Bolshevik Consolidation of power?
- Assess the impact of Communist ideology to the Bolshevik Consolidation of power?

These two questions are great, because they cover the ENTIRE Bolshevik Consolidation of power syllabus! Then you can try these :)

- To what extent was the (insert syllabus dot point) the most critical factor to the Bolshevik Consolidation of power?
(The syllabus dot points are; early social and political reforms, Treaty of Brest Litovsk, Civil War and War Communism, and the New Economic Policy).

This question is great, because it forces you to write a differentiated essay! With a question like this I don't recommend trying to prove that one was more important than the other, but rather that they all worked in tandem, and cannot be assess as isolated factors. Draw out the links between them (hint - ideological adherence vs. pragmatism is a BIG one), and that becomes your thesis!

Stalin's Rise to Power
- Account for Stalin's rise to power. (again this is a broad question, so great for study!)
- To what extent was (insert factor here) the critical factor in establishing Stalin's rise to power? (differentiated essays again!)
(Factors; social changes, ideology, personality and political tactics!)

The Soviet State under Stalin
- To what extent can Stalinism be considered Totalitarianism?
- Assess the impact of Stalinism on society, culture and the economy

I like a thematic structure for Stalin essays, so these two questions are perfect to get you started :)

Soviet Foreign Policy
- To what extent did Soviet Foreign Policy achieve it's aims to 1941?
- Assess the impact of ideology on the implementation of Soviet Foreign Policy to 1941.

This should be a good mix to get you started! Hope this helps :)

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: rodero on July 09, 2017, 08:11:45 pm
How, in your opinion, did the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact contribute to the growth of European tension?

This sounds like an essay question to me, but i'll do my best to condense it into one reply :)

Short Version:
The Non-Aggression Pact gave Hitler the 'green light' (I'm quoting Ken Webb, something that is heavily frowned upon hehe)
to invade Poland, and ultimately trigger the outbreak of war.

Long(er) Version:
The Non-Aggression Pact was a result of continuous world-wide inadequacies. Starting with the German and Italian dictators, they had aggressive foreign policies which required imperial expansion. For this reason Hitler and Mussolini began to acquire territory throughout Europe, something that Germany was not allowed to do under the Treaty of Versailles. In particular, Germany breached key terms of the Treaty by remilitarising the Rhineland and taking over Austria. Then, Germany and Italy created something called the axis powers - which was basically a flag saying 'Yes we're planning to take over all of Europe'.

But the inter-governmental organisation that was supposed to deal with this - the League of Nations - did nothing about it. Although the League was supposed to maintain peace, nobody really took it seriously. Britain, who was one of, if not the biggest member, didn't want to be dragged into conflict if it had no direct impact on itself. This completely went against something that the League relied upon. Collective security; The policy that when conflict arose, ALL members would become involved and actively strive to reach a peaceful solution. If Britain didn't want to follow this policy, why would any of the other nations want to? Even then, so many nations, such as Germany, Italy, Japan, the US weren't even part of the League. This just goes to show how powerless it was in stopping the dictators.

Once this failed, Britain adopted a policy of appeasement. In essence it was something like "We'll give you this, but then you have to stop". Basically they gave Hitler the Sudetenland on the requirement that he ceases territorial expansion. Hitler agreed to it but literally called it a "scrap of paper". A major flaw about this policy was that they didn't even consult with the Czechoslovak's... you know... the guys who own the Sudetenland? Britain literally told them, this is the solution, if you don't accept it we aren't helping when Hitler invades you. They didn't consult with Stalin either - which is a key reason as to why he signed the Non-Aggression Pact in the first place. He felt that Britain and France were working together and excluding him entirely. This is mostly true, as Britain and France feared Communism

The Non Aggression Pact was Stalin's response to all the failures that happened in Europe. He basically concluded that a war, by this point, was inevitable, so he wanted time to arm up and prepare. This pact is kind of self-explanatory - Non-Aggression, meaning Germany and Russia won't fight each other. This pact also had an agreement that Russia would own part of Poland once Germany conquers it. The signing of this was significant in that it avoided a war of encirclement, something that was a major problem in World War 1. This virtually gave Hitler the 'green light' to invade Poland. So basically, the Non-Aggression Pact was the final straw, or the climax to European tensions

EDIT: I forgot to mention that Russia and Germany had no intention of an alliance - they hated each other immensely. It was just that, in the current circumstance, they would both benefit with this agreement.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 09, 2017, 08:30:54 pm
EDIT: I forgot to mention that Russia and Germany had no intention of an alliance - they hated each other immensely. It was just that, in the current circumstance, they would both benefit with this agreement.
I think this edited spongebob video sums it up quite nicely ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwumsVdK1Jw

(spongebob explains history is probably my favourite meme to date)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: bellerina on July 12, 2017, 04:38:54 pm
Did anyone study 'Conflict in Indochina'? Because I have an essay to write in class the first week back on Thursday. I need some feedback for what I've written!  :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: _____ on July 12, 2017, 10:32:50 pm
Did anyone study 'Conflict in Indochina'? Because I have an essay to write in class the first week back on Thursday. I need some feedback for what I've written!  :)

Yo I'm doing that topic - I'll give it an overview if you like.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: rodero on July 13, 2017, 08:55:57 pm
Hey guys  :)
Firstly I'd like to thank Susie for the spectacular lecture today! It really was great for trial prep and I loved the Lenin costume!!

At the time I didn't pay much attention to this, but now it's really playing on me. You mentioned how you didn't make any notes for Modern History at all, which is surprising to me. I understand that everyone has their own study method, but once talking to other successful Modern students, I've found that they didn't make syllabus notes either. Instead, they were like you and just did a tonne of past papers. I'd like to know why you, and others do this, especially when there is so much necessity for detail. Were detail tables the maximum you'd do? What did you do when you found gaps in your content?

Again, thank you so much for today (and everyday really!), it really was great for preparation  :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 13, 2017, 09:34:10 pm
Hey guys  :)
Firstly I'd like to thank Susie for the spectacular lecture today! It really was great for trial prep and I loved the Lenin costume!!

At the time I didn't pay much attention to this, but now it's really playing on me. You mentioned how you didn't make any notes for Modern History at all, which is surprising to me. I understand that everyone has their own study method, but once talking to other successful Modern students, I've found that they didn't make syllabus notes either. Instead, they were like you and just did a tonne of past papers. I'd like to know why you, and others do this, especially when there is so much necessity for detail. Were detail tables the maximum you'd do? What did you do when you found gaps in your content?

Again, thank you so much for today (and everyday really!), it really was great for preparation  :)
Aw no worries! So glad you enjoyed :D
hahaha I expected it might be surprising to a few people - I feel like we've all been conditioned since year 7 to believe that writing notes is the only way to study, so much so that it has almost become compulsory! But the thing is, a lot of people just don't learn through reading and writing notes - notes which take a HELL of a lot of time to construct. Personally I am a more practical based learner, meaning that in order to absorb content I actually need to be doing something with it - just sitting there and reading a tonne of dot points doesn't work with my brain. When it came to detail my process either;
- Look at my detail table: I found detail from all over the place; so my teachers workbook, various textbooks, readings, online etc. etc. Before exams I would use a look/cover/write/check method to study these!
- Or research as I go: As I said in the lecture, I wrote a shit tonne of past papers. Most of these were open book! So if I came across a point that I wasn't sure about, I would let myself look it up, and learn in the process (I think by actively searching for this content I was also more likely to remember it)! I'd often write full essays, then go back and look for places where I could add more detail, and go and find more stats :)

Obviously this won't work for everyone - and as much as I'm sure there were high-achieving students who had a similar method to me, I'm equally sure that there would have been a lot of other successful modern students who wrote bomb-ass notes! It's all about working out how you study, and the most effective way for you to absorb content :)

Hope this helps! And again, I'm so glad you enjoyed the lecture :D I had so much fun giving it that's for sure!

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: bellerina on July 13, 2017, 11:58:10 pm
Yo I'm doing that topic - I'll give it an overview if you like.

That would be fantastic! Thank you! I'll send it over!  :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Never.Give.Up on July 14, 2017, 04:04:10 pm
Hey!!! ;D
I'm doing a presentation on Leni Riefenstahl... with the question 'Leni Riefenstahl- Artist or Nazi Sympathiser?'
and... I really need some help getting some ideas together as to what I should include in it
We can do a 5-6 minute speech with a visual presentation of some form to present it...
but I can't work out what to include in it or how to set it out...
any tips and help would be very much appreciated.

thx so much ;D
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: soha.rizvi1 on July 14, 2017, 10:14:06 pm
Hi Guys,

I was just wondering if anyone had ideas on how I should start my modern essay regarding Ho Chi Minh with the question "It is not too much to say that in the West there were many Hos. There was a French Ho and an American Ho. There was a Ho admired by radicals and a Ho condemned by those who supported the American role in Vietnam."            

To what extent does history present us with a balanced interpretation of Ho Chi Minh?"

I want to say that there is a balanced interpretation as there is bias in both the French, American and Vietnamese people's but I am not sure how to start this introduction? Any ideas, on how to address the question and the quote in the Intro?


Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 15, 2017, 12:34:58 am
Hey!!! ;D
I'm doing a presentation on Leni Riefenstahl... with the question 'Leni Riefenstahl- Artist or Nazi Sympathiser?'
and... I really need some help getting some ideas together as to what I should include in it
We can do a 5-6 minute speech with a visual presentation of some form to present it...
but I can't work out what to include in it or how to set it out...
any tips and help would be very much appreciated.

thx so much ;D
Hey Never.Give.Up!

Can't offer you specific content advice, as I didn't study Leni, however might be able to help a bit with structure! What I would recommend is working out three of the most significant events in the life of Leni, and assessing to what extent each even demonstrates that she was either a Nazi Sympathiser or an artist, asserting one view consistently throughout the essay as the stronger and more valid interpretation. So each paragraph is on a different event or issue! For what I have heard said before, I'd say you'd want to focus on some of her key films and her relationship with Hitler!

Hope this helps :D Hopefully another awesome soul who studied Leni will be able to give you some more specific advice :)

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 15, 2017, 12:36:52 am
Hey guys, just a quick question about the Turning Points in the War in the Pacific. If the question is asking to what extent Midway was the main turning point, how long should I take discussing Midway and how long on why the other battles were important. Also what would your thesis be as while Midway was important, it would not have happened without Coral Sea and Guadalcanal was also important ie. bigger losses for Japanese, so which would I argue had the greatest impact?
Thanks!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 15, 2017, 12:51:34 am
Hi Guys,

I was just wondering if anyone had ideas on how I should start my modern essay regarding Ho Chi Minh with the question "It is not too much to say that in the West there were many Hos. There was a French Ho and an American Ho. There was a Ho admired by radicals and a Ho condemned by those who supported the American role in Vietnam."            

To what extent does history present us with a balanced interpretation of Ho Chi Minh?"

I want to say that there is a balanced interpretation as there is bias in both the French, American and Vietnamese people's but I am not sure how to start this introduction? Any ideas, on how to address the question and the quote in the Intro?
Hey! So heads up - I didn't study Indochina or Ho Chi Minh, however I still may be able to offer some advice!

If I were to approach a question like this, I probably wouldn't be saying that history presents a balanced approach. I get your reasoning, but I don't think it's exactly what the question is looking for - I don't believe it is asking for you to look at the discipline of history holistically (at least in my opinion), but more so the ability of history and historians to present an objective view of the past. Instead I would assert that due to Ho Chi Minh's controversial nature it is actually impossible for history to present an objective view - it will always be clouded by not only the ideology of the historian anyway, but also their interpretation of Ho Chi Minh's ideology as well! So how would an American source interpret Ho Chi Minh's legacy - though a capitalist, anti-communist lens, etc. etc. :) Soooo my judgement would be: "History presents highly imbalanced interpretation of Ho Chi Minh, as his controversial nature and ideology is interpreted differently by individuals, as informed by their own ideological beliefs and values, thus the statement is highly accurate"! Then I'd want to briefly explain the context of my judgement and why I came to it (you can integrate the ideas from the quote here), then outline what each of my paragraphs will discuss (I suggest looking at three key events!) :)

Hope this helps :)

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 15, 2017, 01:05:04 am
Hey guys, just a quick question about the Turning Points in the War in the Pacific. If the question is asking to what extent Midway was the main turning point, how long should I take discussing Midway and how long on why the other battles were important. Also what would your thesis be as while Midway was important, it would not have happened without Coral Sea and Guadalcanal was also important ie. bigger losses for Japanese, so which would I argue had the greatest impact?
Thanks!
Hey! So heads up I didn't study this option - however what you are talking about writing here is a differentiated essay, which is what I would totally recommend for a question structured like this! In terms of how much you want to be focusing on the stem, I'd say one, decently sized paragraph (ie. larger than the other factors) that comes directly after your introduction :) The way that I believe you'd want to structure your judgement here is: "The Midway was a highly critical turning point, however it was not the main factor, as it's significance was dependant upon other factors such as the Coral Sea and Guadalcanal."

Hope this helps!

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 15, 2017, 12:02:19 pm
Hey! So heads up I didn't study this option - however what you are talking about writing here is a differentiated essay, which is what I would totally recommend for a question structured like this! In terms of how much you want to be focusing on the stem, I'd say one, decently sized paragraph (ie. larger than the other factors) that comes directly after your introduction :) The way that I believe you'd want to structure your judgement here is: "The Midway was a highly critical turning point, however it was not the main factor, as it's significance was dependant upon other factors such as the Coral Sea and Guadalcanal."

Hope this helps!

Susie

Thanks so much! Just helpful to know that I am somewhat on the right path!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 15, 2017, 12:08:04 pm
Hey! So heads up I didn't study this option - however what you are talking about writing here is a differentiated essay, which is what I would totally recommend for a question structured like this! In terms of how much you want to be focusing on the stem, I'd say one, decently sized paragraph (ie. larger than the other factors) that comes directly after your introduction :) The way that I believe you'd want to structure your judgement here is: "The Midway was a highly critical turning point, however it was not the main factor, as it's significance was dependant upon other factors such as the Coral Sea and Guadalcanal."

Hope this helps!

Susie

Just quickly, if I state in my thesis that Midway was highly critical yet not the main turning point because it was dependant on other factors, will I still need to provide an answer still as to which one was the main turning point, ie. if the other battles were then since Midway wasn't? :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Never.Give.Up on July 15, 2017, 12:55:46 pm
Hey Never.Give.Up!

Can't offer you specific content advice, as I didn't study Leni, however might be able to help a bit with structure! What I would recommend is working out three of the most significant events in the life of Leni, and assessing to what extent each even demonstrates that she was either a Nazi Sympathiser or an artist, asserting one view consistently throughout the essay as the stronger and more valid interpretation. So each paragraph is on a different event or issue! For what I have heard said before, I'd say you'd want to focus on some of her key films and her relationship with Hitler!

Hope this helps :D Hopefully another awesome soul who studied Leni will be able to give you some more specific advice :)

Susie

Thanks very much Susie!
Definitely helps :D
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on July 15, 2017, 04:10:26 pm
Just quickly, if I state in my thesis that Midway was highly critical yet not the main turning point because it was dependant on other factors, will I still need to provide an answer still as to which one was the main turning point, ie. if the other battles were then since Midway wasn't? :)

Absolutely! As long as you spend a decent bulk of the essay discussing the specific event, you'll have a potentially great response.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 15, 2017, 04:59:08 pm
Just quickly, if I state in my thesis that Midway was highly critical yet not the main turning point because it was dependant on other factors, will I still need to provide an answer still as to which one was the main turning point, ie. if the other battles were then since Midway wasn't? :)
When I received questions like this, I often would make the argument that there wasn't a "most critical factor" as all were interrelated, and thus their significance cannot be detached from one another :) It's up to you, and what you believe is true based upon your study of the content :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 15, 2017, 05:55:17 pm
Just a question for past HSCers. When it came to trials, were the essay questions spread out from the syllabus ie. they pick one from the first couple of dot points and one from the last two or completely random? Just worried because for Pacific war we havent started the last syllabus dot points yet in class.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 15, 2017, 06:27:16 pm
Just a question for past HSCers. When it came to trials, were the essay questions spread out from the syllabus ie. they pick one from the first couple of dot points and one from the last two or completely random? Just worried because for Pacific war we havent started the last syllabus dot points yet in class.
Hey! If by spread out you mean that they do make sure that the questions relate to two different dot point sections and not the same one? Yes. I've never seen, say, two Stalinism questions for Russia in an exam - they'd do Stalinism AND another dot point. However what the other dot point is, IS random -
 you can assess patterns, but at the end of the day there is no way for a Russia student to know for sure which out of the four sections of the syllabus the questions will be derived from, and that is the same for all case studies. That being said, if you haven't gone through it in class - it won't be on your exam. As trials exams are internally marked, even if a school is buying the paper from say the CSSA, they are still able to change and manipulate questions, to suit their cohort :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on July 15, 2017, 09:37:46 pm
hiii modern friends! just a multiple choice question that's popped up in a past paper and i've totally confused myself...

(source attached)

Question:
2. Since 8th August 1918, what was the greatest change experienced by Allied soldiers?
A) The taking of territory
B) The boost in their morale
C) The realisation that victory would be a lengthy process
D) The desire to eliminate Germany from the map of Europe
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: mixel on July 15, 2017, 09:51:06 pm
hiii modern friends! just a multiple choice question that's popped up in a past paper and i've totally confused myself...

(source attached)

Question:
2. Since 8th August 1918, what was the greatest change experienced by Allied soldiers?
A) The taking of territory
B) The boost in their morale
C) The realisation that victory would be a lengthy process
D) The desire to eliminate Germany from the map of Europe

Hmm I'd say B from process of elimination. My reasoning is that C isn't mentioned and D is mentioned in the last sentence but in a different context than what the question is asking. A appears to be a distractor, but if you read the fine print in the first sentence of the second paragraph, it says that "the change has been greater in the minds of men than in the taking of territory", therefore B would be correct  :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 15, 2017, 11:07:43 pm
Hey! If by spread out you mean that they do make sure that the questions relate to two different dot point sections and not the same one? Yes. I've never seen, say, two Stalinism questions for Russia in an exam - they'd do Stalinism AND another dot point. However what the other dot point is, IS random -
 you can assess patterns, but at the end of the day there is no way for a Russia student to know for sure which out of the four sections of the syllabus the questions will be derived from, and that is the same for all case studies. That being said, if you haven't gone through it in class - it won't be on your exam. As trials exams are internally marked, even if a school is buying the paper from say the CSSA, they are still able to change and manipulate questions, to suit their cohort :)

Okay great thank you, I've just done 2 essay plans for dot points we haven't covered yet. We will cover them before trials though so I guess it's better to be prepared haha
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 15, 2017, 11:47:48 pm
Okay great thank you, I've just done 2 essay plans for dot points we haven't covered yet. We will cover them before trials though so I guess it's better to be prepared haha
Hey you'll have to know them at some point! Never any harm in getting a bit of a head start :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 16, 2017, 03:38:07 pm
Hey, I'm going through some past paper essays and one question is on: Assess the impact of strategies used by the Japanese and the Allies in the Pacific from 1937-1951 (2008). Just wondering if anyone could indicate where this has come from the current syllabus/whether the syllabus changed since 2008.
These are the current syllabus dot points.
Students learn about:
1    Growth of Pacific tensions
–    economic and political issues in the Pacific by 1937
–    Japanese foreign policy 1937–1941
–    US and British policies in the Pacific 1937–1941
–    strategic and political reasons for bombing Pearl Harbour
2    Course of the Pacific War
–    Japanese advance 1941–1942 and the impact of the fall of the Philippines, Singapore,
Burma and the Dutch East Indies
–    turning points in the war: Battle of the Coral Sea, Battle of Midway, Battle of

Guadalcanal, New Guinea

–    strategies used by Allied forces against Japan 1942–1945
3    Civilians at war
–    social, political and economic effects on civilians in occupied territories in
South-East Asia

–    life under Occupation: collaboration and resistance, the use of slave labour
–    the effect of the war on the home fronts in Japan and Australia
4    End of the conflict
–    reasons for the use of the A-bomb and the subsequent controversy over its use
–    reasons for the Japanese defeat
–    War Crimes Tribunals and the status of the Emperor
–    Allied Occupation of Japan to 1951

I just can't see where they've taken it from.
Thank you
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: JeffChiang on July 16, 2017, 04:08:55 pm
Hey, I'm going through some past paper essays and one question is on: Assess the impact of strategies used by the Japanese and the Allies in the Pacific from 1937-1951 (2008). Just wondering if anyone could indicate where this has come from the current syllabus/whether the syllabus changed since 2008.

Hi, you can check http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/syllabus_hsc/modern-history.html and see that the syllabus was changed for the 2010 HSC so yeah, your question does not match the syllabus dot points. However, the question does seem to tie in with strategies used by Allied forces against Japan 1942–1945 but don't quote me on that because I don't do the Pacific.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 16, 2017, 04:15:44 pm
Hi, you can check http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/syllabus_hsc/modern-history.html and see that the syllabus was changed for the 2010 HSC so yeah, your question does not match the syllabus dot points. However, the question does seem to tie in with strategies used by Allied forces against Japan 1942–1945 but don't quote me on that because I don't do the Pacific.

Thanks heaps man! I have notes on that but wasn't sure where the 37-51 came from! massive relief cheers!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 16, 2017, 05:44:00 pm
Hi, you can check http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/syllabus_hsc/modern-history.html and see that the syllabus was changed for the 2010 HSC so yeah, your question does not match the syllabus dot points. However, the question does seem to tie in with strategies used by Allied forces against Japan 1942–1945 but don't quote me on that because I don't do the Pacific.
Thanks heaps man! I have notes on that but wasn't sure where the 37-51 came from! massive relief cheers!
Yep! Don't do any questions prior to 2010 due to the syllabus change!! (it annoys me that BOSTES/NESA has them still up with no warning, super easy to get confused).
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: rodero on July 16, 2017, 07:50:11 pm
Hey, I'm going through some past paper essays and one question is on: Assess the impact of strategies used by the Japanese and the Allies in the Pacific from 1937-1951 (2008). Just wondering if anyone could indicate where this has come from the current syllabus/whether the syllabus changed since 2008.

Hey !

In my opinion, I think that the question you've been given is still relevant, regardless of the syllabus change. Now i'm going to note that I study the Conflict in Europe, not the Pacific, so don't count me on this. However, after a quick skim of your syllabus, I think I can show you why you can still be asked a question like this.

When you're looking at the modern history syllabus, don't exclude the text above the learn about section. In particular, pay close attention to the key features and issues; one of them is 'Japanese and Allied strategies'. Generally, they'll top and tail one of these key features/issues with a syllabus dot point. But in this case, the question you've been given stems entirely off the key feature. To compensate, they've given you scope to mention the entire Conflict in the Pacific time-frame. This therefore explains why you've been given the years 1937-1951.

I'll give you all the key features and issues below:
Spoiler
Key features and issues:
•    imperialism and responses to it
•    nature and impact of nationalism
•    Japanese and Allied strategies
•    impact of the war on the home fronts of Japan and Australia
•    impact of the war in Occupied Territories in South-East Asia
•    use of the A-bomb
•    reasons for the Japanese defeat
•    aims and consequences of the Allied Occupation of Japan

Now, to prepare for this, I learnt a handy table from a lecturer at the HTA day. Basically, it has the key issues / features going across, and the syllabus dot point going down. This allows you to see how they link with one another. Of course, not everything will link; for instance I doubt the bombing of pearl harbor and Japan's home-front has a great link, but you get the gist. What I hope you can take away from this is that essays aren't purely derived from the syllabus dot point. They can also mix it up with a key feature / issue AND they can ask you to write about the entire conflict, which they did in the question you have.  :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 16, 2017, 07:56:54 pm
Hey !

In my opinion, I think that the question you've been given is still relevant, regardless of the syllabus change. Now i'm going to note that I study the Conflict in Europe, not the Pacific, so don't count me on this. However, after a quick skim of your syllabus, I think I can show you why you can still be asked a question like this.

When you're looking at the modern history syllabus, don't exclude the text above the learn about section. In particular, pay close attention to the key features and issues; one of them is 'Japanese and Allied strategies'. Generally, they'll top and tail one of these key features/issues with a syllabus dot point. But in this case, the question you've been given stems entirely off the key feature. To compensate, they've given you scope to mention the entire Conflict in the Pacific time-frame. This therefore explains why you've been given the years 1937-1951.

I'll give you all the key features and issues below:
Spoiler
Key features and issues:
•    imperialism and responses to it
•    nature and impact of nationalism
•    Japanese and Allied strategies
•    impact of the war on the home fronts of Japan and Australia
•    impact of the war in Occupied Territories in South-East Asia
•    use of the A-bomb
•    reasons for the Japanese defeat
•    aims and consequences of the Allied Occupation of Japan

Now, to prepare for this, I learnt a handy table from a lecturer at the HTA day. Basically, it has the key issues / features going across, and the syllabus dot point going down. This allows you to see how they link with one another. Of course, not everything will link; for instance I doubt the bombing of pearl harbor and Japan's home-front has a great link, but you get the gist. What I hope you can take away from this is that essays aren't purely derived from the syllabus dot point. They can also mix it up with a key feature / issue AND they can ask you to write about the entire conflict, which they did in the question you have.  :)
Great spot rodero! And definitely true - questions are often derived from the key features and issues, so its very important to have a solid understanding of them (reason why we went through ideology in the lecture!) :) That study technique sounds fab as well, similar to a linking table, but more so covering the over-aching themes and issues, rather than just the factors! Can defs see that being a really useful resource - particularly for writing differentiated essays!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 16, 2017, 08:33:43 pm
Hey !

In my opinion, I think that the question you've been given is still relevant, regardless of the syllabus change. Now i'm going to note that I study the Conflict in Europe, not the Pacific, so don't count me on this. However, after a quick skim of your syllabus, I think I can show you why you can still be asked a question like this.

When you're looking at the modern history syllabus, don't exclude the text above the learn about section. In particular, pay close attention to the key features and issues; one of them is 'Japanese and Allied strategies'. Generally, they'll top and tail one of these key features/issues with a syllabus dot point. But in this case, the question you've been given stems entirely off the key feature. To compensate, they've given you scope to mention the entire Conflict in the Pacific time-frame. This therefore explains why you've been given the years 1937-1951.

I'll give you all the key features and issues below:
Spoiler
Key features and issues:
•    imperialism and responses to it
•    nature and impact of nationalism
•    Japanese and Allied strategies
•    impact of the war on the home fronts of Japan and Australia
•    impact of the war in Occupied Territories in South-East Asia
•    use of the A-bomb
•    reasons for the Japanese defeat
•    aims and consequences of the Allied Occupation of Japan

Now, to prepare for this, I learnt a handy table from a lecturer at the HTA day. Basically, it has the key issues / features going across, and the syllabus dot point going down. This allows you to see how they link with one another. Of course, not everything will link; for instance I doubt the bombing of pearl harbor and Japan's home-front has a great link, but you get the gist. What I hope you can take away from this is that essays aren't purely derived from the syllabus dot point. They can also mix it up with a key feature / issue AND they can ask you to write about the entire conflict, which they did in the question you have.  :)

Okay sweet thank you heaps! Probably won't stress over it too much especially for my trial but will keep it in mind definitely! never noticed that key features section haha
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 16, 2017, 10:02:06 pm
The question I am trying now is: To what extent was Japanese foreign policy from 1937-1941 responsible for the increasing tensions that eventually led to war? Does foreign policy include Japanese militarism, imperialism and nationalism or are these separate factors to discuss in an essay like this? Thanks :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: mixel on July 16, 2017, 10:11:17 pm
Quick question, if we're using historiography / academic opinions as detail for arguments in essays, is there any need for direct quotations? On the one hand, I've heard that direct quotations instead of describing arguments is somewhat frowned upon in Modern because they seem like mindless regurgitation but on the other hand I've seen a lot of direct quotations in notes and particularly Ken Webb's textbooks.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: bellerina on July 16, 2017, 10:11:39 pm
I have a modern exam this Thursday and it's open-book so we get to bring our notes in and everything. So we get to write for 45min, how many paragraphs should I aim for? I was thinking 3-4 (depending on the question) ?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 16, 2017, 10:19:42 pm
Quick question, if we're using historiography / academic opinions as detail for arguments in essays, is there any need for direct quotations? On the one hand, I've heard that direct quotations instead of describing arguments is somewhat frowned upon in Modern because they seem like mindless regurgitation but on the other hand I've seen a lot of direct quotations in notes and particularly Ken Webb's textbooks.

You're already going to piss off Susie by mentioning Ken Webb haha but I personally quote historians and etc. but use only parts and will explain how their views suit my argument eg. in reference to the importance of article 48 in the fall of weimar i wrote - Yet also, the liberal nature of Article 48 was then easily manipulated by Hitler in order to actually overthrow democracy itself. Historian Hermann Mau argues this point when referencing how “the enemies of the republic” who “refused to accept” it would actually benefit from “every advantage of a democratic constitution.”
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: mixel on July 16, 2017, 10:20:47 pm
I have a modern exam this Thursday and it's open-book so we get to bring our notes in and everything. So we get to write for 45min, how many paragraphs should I aim for? I was thinking 3-4 (depending on the question) ?

Is this for national study or conflict study? I've found that often conflict study questions support more paragraphs of shorter length (up to 5-6), especially questions asking about the impact of a certain event/battle on the rest of the conflict (questions on heading 2 dot points on most section 4 syllabi) because it invites small paragraphs on the impact on other specific events in the war, rather than broader thematic analysis that would support more consolidated paragraphs  :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: mixel on July 16, 2017, 10:24:35 pm
You're already going to piss off Susie by mentioning Ken Webb haha but I personally quote historians and etc. but use only parts and will explain how their views suit my argument eg. in reference to the importance of article 48 in the fall of weimar i wrote - Yet also, the liberal nature of Article 48 was then easily manipulated by Hitler in order to actually overthrow democracy itself. Historian Hermann Mau argues this point when referencing how “the enemies of the republic” who “refused to accept” it would actually benefit from “every advantage of a democratic constitution.”

Thanks! Do you find that takes much more space than it would to just paraphrase their thesis? Your example seems quite succinct but I imagined quotations would add a lot more words
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 16, 2017, 10:39:55 pm
Thanks! Do you find that takes much more space than it would to just paraphrase their thesis? Your example seems quite succinct but I imagined quotations would add a lot more words

I think it does exactly that, makes it more succinct rather than trying to explain their words yourself. Also looks better haha. Something simple like this shows how you can just blend it in so easily and it doesnt take much space at all:

For example, duplication was present in Hitler’s government, with the Ministry of Labour in direct competition with the German Labour Front. Intentionalist historians have argued that this was a deliberate tactic of Hitler’s. However, it has been more correctly interpreted by the Structuralists to be a representation of his weakness as a dictator in the sense that according to Hans Mommsen, Hitler was “reluctant to make decisions.”
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 16, 2017, 11:33:11 pm
The question I am trying now is: To what extent was Japanese foreign policy from 1937-1941 responsible for the increasing tensions that eventually led to war? Does foreign policy include Japanese militarism, imperialism and nationalism or are these separate factors to discuss in an essay like this? Thanks :)
Hi there! As you probs know, didn't study this unit! However, I'd assume that, yes, it does include those things! Imperialism is inherently foreign policy, and both nationalism and militarism will always impact the application of foreign policy. When I wrote Soviet foreign policy essays, I always structured them thematically - for something like this, the themes I'd choose would be political, economic and social. Buuuuuuutttt this isn't the only way to structure an essay like this! Go with your gut - happy to take a look over any essay plans (or essays once you've reached the post count!) :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 16, 2017, 11:53:23 pm
Quick question, if we're using historiography / academic opinions as detail for arguments in essays, is there any need for direct quotations? On the one hand, I've heard that direct quotations instead of describing arguments is somewhat frowned upon in Modern because they seem like mindless regurgitation but on the other hand I've seen a lot of direct quotations in notes and particularly Ken Webb's textbooks.
NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER QUOTE WEBB. Hahaha. Not just because, yes, its a well known fact I'm not his biggest fan haha, but also because he's not a historian. Don't quote textbooks :) But on the topic of paraphrasing, I think that's a fab idea! Though there really is nothing wrong with direct quoting (I did it all the time), paraphrasing is great, because it shows that you actually understand what they are saying, not that you just memorised a couple of sentences. It all comes down to effective integration - using quotes or paraphrased historians to back up your own arguments, rather than just parroting the words of an expert :) So "[your view], as supported by [insert historian here], whereby they state/assert....". That's how I would go about it :D
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 16, 2017, 11:58:37 pm
I have a modern exam this Thursday and it's open-book so we get to bring our notes in and everything. So we get to write for 45min, how many paragraphs should I aim for? I was thinking 3-4 (depending on the question) ?
Hey bellerina! There really isn't a set number :) Some people can get amazing marks with 3 paragraphs, some with 6! I typically wrote about 3, sometimes 4, however in the HSC my Cold War essay was only two paragraphs! It also greatly depends upon what type of essay you are writing - factor essays typically have more paragraphs than a thematic essay in my experience :)

Hope this helps!

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: mixel on July 17, 2017, 12:00:40 am
NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER QUOTE WEBB. Hahaha. Not just because, yes, its a well known fact I'm not his biggest fan haha, but also because he's not a historian. Don't quote textbooks :) But on the topic of paraphrasing, I think that's a fab idea! Though there really is nothing wrong with direct quoting (I did it all the time), paraphrasing is great, because it shows that you actually understand what they are saying, not that you just memorised a couple of sentences. It all comes down to effective integration - using quotes or paraphrased historians to back up your own arguments, rather than just parroting the words of an expert :) So "[your view], as supported by [insert historian here], whereby they state/assert....". That's how I would go about it :D
Oh no, I don't mean quoting Webb, I mean he includes direct quotations from historians a lot  ;D
Thanks! I'll start finding some quotations. It might be a problem that I haven't actually read any historians except Richard J. Evans hahaha
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 17, 2017, 12:02:33 am
Hi there! As you probs know, didn't study this unit! However, I'd assume that, yes, it does include those things! Imperialism is inherently foreign policy, and both nationalism and militarism will always impact the application of foreign policy. When I wrote Soviet foreign policy essays, I always structured them thematically - for something like this, the themes I'd choose would be political, economic and social. Buuuuuuutttt this isn't the only way to structure an essay like this! Go with your gut - happy to take a look over any essay plans (or essays once you've reached the post count!) :)

Thematically sounds like it would be a clearer read for the marker. Thanks :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 17, 2017, 12:10:07 am
NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER QUOTE WEBB. Hahaha. Not just because, yes, its a well known fact I'm not his biggest fan haha, but also because he's not a historian. Don't quote textbooks :) But on the topic of paraphrasing, I think that's a fab idea! Though there really is nothing wrong with direct quoting (I did it all the time), paraphrasing is great, because it shows that you actually understand what they are saying, not that you just memorised a couple of sentences. It all comes down to effective integration - using quotes or paraphrased historians to back up your own arguments, rather than just parroting the words of an expert :) So "[your view], as supported by [insert historian here], whereby they state/assert....". That's how I would go about it :D

I just realised myself, I have found some good notes/essays on war in the pacific and some of them quote Cantwell and he wrote our Contested Spaces Pacific War textbook. I myself just can't find historiography as easily on Pacific in comparison to Germany. Another one I have used a couple of times is Daniel marston it says he is a professor in Military Studies in the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University. With such limited time though to prep for trials should i leave it for hsc because i dont think our teachers mind/notice?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: mixel on July 17, 2017, 12:18:19 am
I just realised myself, I have found some good notes/essays on war in the pacific and some of them quote Cantwell and he wrote our Contested Spaces Pacific War textbook. I myself just can't find historiography as easily on Pacific in comparison to Germany. Another one I have used a couple of times is Daniel marston it says he is a professor in Military Studies in the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University. With such limited time though to prep for trials should i leave it for hsc because i dont think our teachers mind/notice?

I really couldn't say because I don't have that experience, but maybe if your teachers are used to seeing quotes from Cantwell, a different historian will have a 'wow factor'?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 17, 2017, 12:20:18 am
Oh no, I don't mean quoting Webb, I mean he includes direct quotations from historians a lot  ;D
Thanks! I'll start finding some quotations. It might be a problem that I haven't actually read any historians except Richard J. Evans hahaha
ohhhhhh, okay that makes me feel a lot better! The amount of people that DO quote him has put me on edge hahaha. Quotes aren't too hard to find - I sourced most of mine by just doing google searches like "quotes on 1917 revolution" etc. etc. :) You can also find a bunch of resources and recommended readings over on our Modern History Reading and Resource Guide! :)

I put this in the Shout Out and Appreciation Thread already, but I wanted to make sure you guys saw this: Over the last few days, I have been hella proud of the modern fam. As much as both Jake and I love answering questions, and that'll never end, the massive increase in 2017 students contributing, helping each other out and cheering each other on is amazing, and is exactly in the spirit of ATAR Notes <3 Massive bonus that the answers you are all providing are fantastic, well thought out, and considered as well :)

Keep up the great work guys <3

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: mixel on July 17, 2017, 12:37:17 am
I put this in the Shout Out and Appreciation Thread already, but I wanted to make sure you guys saw this: Over the last few days, I have been hella proud of the modern fam. As much as both Jake and I love answering questions, and that'll never end, the massive increase in 2017 students contributing, helping each other out and cheering each other on is amazing, and is exactly in the spirit of ATAR Notes <3 Massive bonus that the answers you are all providing are fantastic, well thought out, and considered as well :)

Keep up the great work guys <3

Susie

Thanks! I think the first time I heard about AN I scoffed at the concept but after finally sussing it out I can't believe how great the community is here, and I'm finding it super gratifying to see the HSC as a team sport instead of a law of the jungle competition. Thanks so much for everything you guys have done to get AN to where it is now!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 17, 2017, 12:40:59 am
ohhhhhh, okay that makes me feel a lot better! The amount of people that DO quote him has put me on edge hahaha. Quotes aren't too hard to find - I sourced most of mine by just doing google searches like "quotes on 1917 revolution" etc. etc. :) You can also find a bunch of resources and recommended readings over on our Modern History Reading and Resource Guide! :)

I put this in the Shout Out and Appreciation Thread already, but I wanted to make sure you guys saw this: Over the last few days, I have been hella proud of the modern fam. As much as both Jake and I love answering questions, and that'll never end, the massive increase in 2017 students contributing, helping each other out and cheering each other on is amazing, and is exactly in the spirit of ATAR Notes <3 Massive bonus that the answers you are all providing are fantastic, well thought out, and considered as well :)

Keep up the great work guys <3

Susie

Yeah only been here like 2 days or something and it is incredible how dedicated you guys are. Was at a specific other site before haha and there was literally no one replying to anything. Unfortunately tomorrow's the last day of holidays and I won't be spending any of it studying. Instead I have to somehow gather all my notes and sheets of paper and put them back into order. My sister is in Bali atm and I've taken her room and it was perfectly clean before but now it looks like it was hit by a bomb of papers it's not good haha
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: bellerina on July 17, 2017, 09:11:27 am
Hey bellerina! There really isn't a set number :) Some people can get amazing marks with 3 paragraphs, some with 6! I typically wrote about 3, sometimes 4, however in the HSC my Cold War essay was only two paragraphs! It also greatly depends upon what type of essay you are writing - factor essays typically have more paragraphs than a thematic essay in my experience :)

Hope this helps!

Susie

I am looking at conflict in indochina. specifically on the tet offensive which was an event that significantly impacted the anti-war movement in USA. I looked at most of the past papers (aren't many might i add too) it really looked at communist victory, their strategies in achieving victory in the Second Indochina War and the impact of the tet offensive on the overall anti-war movement.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 17, 2017, 09:47:40 am
Hey Susie
Just wondering with the question I asked earlier regarding Japanese Foreign Policy and to what extent it was responsible for the outbreak of war, would I include a separate paragraph on the external influence of the war in Europe and how that in itself spurred Japan to take advantage of the areas in the Pacific colonised by countries fighting in Europe or does that still come under Japanese policy?

And also I am just wondering since I will be providing examples of both Japanese and American foreign policy, do I argue that for example Japanese foreign policy was so aggressive that it forced America into its foreign policy decisions which increased tensions and led to war?

Thanks :)

Mod Edit: Just merged your posts :) If you ever forget to add something, click edit and you'll be able to add it to the original post!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 17, 2017, 10:20:32 am
I am looking at conflict in indochina. specifically on the tet offensive which was an event that significantly impacted the anti-war movement in USA. I looked at most of the past papers (aren't many might i add too) it really looked at communist victory, their strategies in achieving victory in the Second Indochina War and the impact of the tet offensive on the overall anti-war movement.
So are you saying you had a paragraph on communist victory, strategies in the Second Indochina War and the anti-war movement? That sounds like a factors essay, so you can have as many as you like, as long as all the important factors are covered :)

Hey Susie
Just wondering with the question I asked earlier regarding Japanese Foreign Policy and to what extent it was responsible for the outbreak of war, would I include a separate paragraph on the external influence of the war in Europe and how that in itself spurred Japan to take advantage of the areas in the Pacific colonised by countries fighting in Europe or does that still come under Japanese policy?

And also I am just wondering since I will be providing examples of both Japanese and American foreign policy, do I argue that for example Japanese foreign policy was so aggressive that it forced America into its foreign policy decisions which increased tensions and led to war?

Thanks :)
Can't really comment too much on the first question, as I don't really feel confident enough in my knowledge of the Pacific to be able to give an answer. If Japan was actively engaging with other countries, then yes, that should count as foreign policy - however I'm not 100% sure.

For the second question, I definitely believe you could argue that, and still be answering the question effectively :D

Sorry I couldn't be of more help,

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 17, 2017, 10:30:17 am
So are you saying you had a paragraph on communist victory, strategies in the Second Indochina War and the anti-war movement? That sounds like a factors essay, so you can have as many as you like, as long as all the important factors are covered :)
Can't really comment too much on the first question, as I don't really feel confident enough in my knowledge of the Pacific to be able to give an answer. If Japan was actively engaging with other countries, then yes, that should count as foreign policy - however I'm not 100% sure.

For the second question, I definitely believe you could argue that, and still be answering the question effectively :D

Sorry I couldn't be of more help,

Susie

Nah youre being super helpful thanks :) it was just the european war meant that all other countries were focussed on that so japan sort of took the opportunity to take advantage of that distraction in a way if you get my drift
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 17, 2017, 10:43:24 am
Nah youre being super helpful thanks :) it was just the european war meant that all other countries were focussed on that so japan sort of took the opportunity to take advantage of that distraction in a way if you get my drift
Hmmmmmm potentially? I'm still not 100% sure if this counts as foreign policy, relying on others inaction - in this instance, I think it'd be best to shoot an email over to your teacher to clarify. Definitely an interesting argument that'd I think'd be worth mentioning, however whether you want to have a whole paragraph dedicated to it may be a different story :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 17, 2017, 11:16:48 am
Hmmmmmm potentially? I'm still not 100% sure if this counts as foreign policy, relying on others inaction - in this instance, I think it'd be best to shoot an email over to your teacher to clarify. Definitely an interesting argument that'd I think'd be worth mentioning, however whether you want to have a whole paragraph dedicated to it may be a different story :)

Hey so since the question is to what extent was japanese foreign policy responsible for the outbreak of war i was thinking of using it as an example of how japanese foreign policy wasn't ie. bringing up another area which contributed being the war in europe and then the other thing i was going to bring up was british/us foreign policy if that clarifies things :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 17, 2017, 12:30:04 pm
Hey so since the question is to what extent was japanese foreign policy responsible for the outbreak of war i was thinking of using it as an example of how japanese foreign policy wasn't ie. bringing up another area which contributed being the war in europe and then the other thing i was going to bring up was british/us foreign policy if that clarifies things :)
Ah okay :) Hmmm well if your judgement was that it was responsible only to a limited extent then I think it would be fine, but tbh, if I were you I'd probably first be looking at the ways I could justify it being highly significant, so I can discuss the stem of the question (japanese foreign policy) more in depth. If you really can't think of a way to argue that though, your approach is still valid, I'm just basing this off of the way I'd write Soviet Foreign Policy essays - arguing its high impact would have been a lot easier. I'd definitely be mentioning British and American foreign policy, and the way in which Japanese foreign policy dealt with it though!

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 17, 2017, 12:37:24 pm
Ah okay :) Hmmm well if your judgement was that it was responsible only to a limited extent then I think it would be fine, but tbh, if I were you I'd probably first be looking at the ways I could justify it being highly significant, so I can discuss the stem of the question (japanese foreign policy) more in depth. If you really can't think of a way to argue that though, your approach is still valid, I'm just basing this off of the way I'd write Soviet Foreign Policy essays - arguing its high impact would have been a lot easier. I'd definitely be mentioning British and American foreign policy, and the way in which Japanese foreign policy dealt with it though!

Susie

Yeah no I'm going to argue to a high extent, the war in europe was only to a small extent. I've done half of it, I'll just constantly make sure im looking at how the us/brit. foreign policy and japanese foriegn policy interlinks and impacts each other :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 17, 2017, 12:40:40 pm
Yeah no I'm going to argue to a high extent, the war in europe was only to a small extent. I've done half of it, I'll just constantly make sure im looking at how the us/brit. foreign policy and japanese foriegn policy interlinks and impacts each other :)
Ah okay then! Just make sure that when you include it, you are making it clear that it was only a small factor. Like I wouldn't write a whole paragraph on it, I'd more so include it in one of my other paragraphs at the beginning, saying something like; "Though (your point about the war in europe) contributed to the increase in tensions, overall Japanese foreign policy was more critical, as blah blah blah :)". So bring it in, but make sure that you assert that you still think that Japanese foreign policy was the more critical factor, so as to maintain a more sustained thesis!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: rodero on July 17, 2017, 05:22:57 pm
Yeah no I'm going to argue to a high extent, the war in europe was only to a small extent. I've done half of it, I'll just constantly make sure im looking at how the us/brit. foreign policy and japanese foriegn policy interlinks and impacts each other :)

Hey !

Just a quick suggestion, you might want to consider making a differentiated essay. i.e. "Japanese foreign policy was only partially responsible for the outbreak of the Pacific war in 1941, as other factors such as economic and political issues in the Pacific, US and British policies and the bombing of Pearl Harbour were equally significant." Obviously that thesis can be re-worked, but I hope you get the gist. It gives you scope to mention other syllabus headings, and ensures that you are acknowledging that Japanese foreign policy was not the sole cause of war. One thing about that is that you need to make sure you relate everything back to foreign policy, as that's the focus of the question.

That's just my idea, I've seen past exams where people have gotten into the top band by just mentioning one cause of the conflict - I personally can't write an entire essay on just the one dot point though. That being said, ask what your teacher thinks. Mine loves differentiated essays, which is probably why I'm so insistent on them :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 17, 2017, 05:51:39 pm
Hey !

Just a quick suggestion, you might want to consider making a differentiated essay. i.e. "Japanese foreign policy was only partially responsible for the outbreak of the Pacific war in 1941, as other factors such as economic and political issues in the Pacific, US and British policies and the bombing of Pearl Harbour were equally significant." Obviously that thesis can be re-worked, but I hope you get the gist. It gives you scope to mention other syllabus headings, and ensures that you are acknowledging that Japanese foreign policy was not the sole cause of war. One thing about that is that you need to make sure you relate everything back to foreign policy, as that's the focus of the question.

That's just my idea, I've seen past exams where people have gotten into the top band by just mentioning one cause of the conflict - I personally can't write an entire essay on just the one dot point though. That being said, ask what your teacher thinks. Mine loves differentiated essays, which is probably why I'm so insistent on them :)

Yeah definitely, they're mine preference too just more to write about!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: willfisch on July 17, 2017, 08:41:50 pm
Hey Susie
Just wondering with the question I asked earlier regarding Japanese Foreign Policy and to what extent it was responsible for the outbreak of war, would I include a separate paragraph on the external influence of the war in Europe and how that in itself spurred Japan to take advantage of the areas in the Pacific colonised by countries fighting in Europe or does that still come under Japanese policy?

And also I am just wondering since I will be providing examples of both Japanese and American foreign policy, do I argue that for example Japanese foreign policy was so aggressive that it forced America into its foreign policy decisions which increased tensions and led to war?

Thanks :)

Mod Edit: Just merged your posts :) If you ever forget to add something, click edit and you'll be able to add it to the original post!

Hey, I am doing this as a practice question for Trials as well. Japanese foreign policy is the worst and I am hating how hard this essay is (Why did my teacher pick this topic). I wouldn't be able to Just talk about Japanese foreign policy only, So I am thinking of doing the British and American policy as well. Maybe how the invasion of China from the Marco Polo incident lead to tensions with not only China but America? Let me know what you are doing so we can bounce ideas off each other!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 17, 2017, 09:00:01 pm
Hey, I am doing this as a practice question for Trials as well. Japanese foreign policy is the worst and I am hating how hard this essay is (Why did my teacher pick this topic). I wouldn't be able to Just talk about Japanese foreign policy only, So I am thinking of doing the British and American policy as well. Maybe how the invasion of China from the Marco Polo incident lead to tensions with not only China but America? Let me know what you are doing so we can bounce ideas off each other!

I've never even heard of the Marco Polo incident haha
but atm im thinking of a plan like
japanese foreign policy - highly significant
american and british foreign policy - significant but according to recent historians (i saw something need to find it again) it was more a reaction to japanese foreign policy which was the more dominant factor
as rodero said as well i could probably bring in some of the other dot points eg. impact of economic and political issues by 1937 and how this effected foreign policy and or led to war and pearl harbour.
but at the end of each extra paragraph link back saying therefore, although important in the outbreak of the pacific war, the economic and political issues by 1937 were not as important as japanese foreign policy in bringing upon war as _________. something like that, ill chuck more up when i finalise what ill write!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: willfisch on July 18, 2017, 05:06:42 pm
I've never even heard of the Marco Polo incident haha
but atm im thinking of a plan like
japanese foreign policy - highly significant
american and british foreign policy - significant but according to recent historians (i saw something need to find it again) it was more a reaction to japanese foreign policy which was the more dominant factor
as rodero said as well i could probably bring in some of the other dot points eg. impact of economic and political issues by 1937 and how this effected foreign policy and or led to war and pearl harbour.
but at the end of each extra paragraph link back saying therefore, although important in the outbreak of the pacific war, the economic and political issues by 1937 were not as important as japanese foreign policy in bringing upon war as _________. something like that, ill chuck more up when i finalise what ill write!

This is the para I wrote on the Marco polo bridge incident

After the Marco polo Bridge incident, Japan invaded China in 1937, which significantly contributed to the tensions with the United States. This was because when attacking China, the Japanese sunk a US gunboat called the Panay. Although the US only asked for an apology only, which was mainly due to the American population resisting all war, there still was the creation of tensions between the uneasy superpowers. Continually the huge atrocities that came with the attacks also created tensions between Japan and the US, as China was considered an important trade partner and a longstanding ally that the US would provide aid to. The attacks in Nanking became the most well known, and shocked the United states, as it was coined by US newspapers as the “Rape of Nanking”. This was because the Chinese were killed horrifically, with many of them being bayoneted in holes, and their widowed wives being raped and tortured. The invasion also meant that the Japanese were in direct conflict with the US-China “Open Door Policy”, which created more tensions, as Roosevelt started the embargo on Japanese trade.  Thus it is obvious that the attack on China in 1937 created significant tensions with the US and Japan, who were the main contenders that started the war in the Pacific theater.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 18, 2017, 05:47:46 pm
This is the para I wrote on the Marco polo bridge incident

After the Marco polo Bridge incident, Japan invaded China in 1937, which significantly contributed to the tensions with the United States. This was because when attacking China, the Japanese sunk a US gunboat called the Panay. Although the US only asked for an apology only, which was mainly due to the American population resisting all war, there still was the creation of tensions between the uneasy superpowers. Continually the huge atrocities that came with the attacks also created tensions between Japan and the US, as China was considered an important trade partner and a longstanding ally that the US would provide aid to. The attacks in Nanking became the most well known, and shocked the United states, as it was coined by US newspapers as the “Rape of Nanking”. This was because the Chinese were killed horrifically, with many of them being bayoneted in holes, and their widowed wives being raped and tortured. The invasion also meant that the Japanese were in direct conflict with the US-China “Open Door Policy”, which created more tensions, as Roosevelt started the embargo on Japanese trade.  Thus it is obvious that the attack on China in 1937 created significant tensions with the US and Japan, who were the main contenders that started the war in the Pacific theater.

Oh okay then yeah that is 100% relevant. I would get some stats on Nanking, ie. how many killed, how many raped (rather than just saying many got killed etc.) as it emphasises the cruel nature of the Japanese attack and hence why it created so much tension. But other than that you bring up good points and could perhaps tie Nanking into only adding to Roosevelts view of the Japanese as becoming increasingly aggressive and hence his belief that America should lose its Isolationalist policy.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: willfisch on July 18, 2017, 06:15:39 pm
Oh okay then yeah that is 100% relevant. I would get some stats on Nanking, ie. how many killed, how many raped (rather than just saying many got killed etc.) as it emphasises the cruel nature of the Japanese attack and hence why it created so much tension. But other than that you bring up good points and could perhaps tie Nanking into only adding to Roosevelts view of the Japanese as becoming increasingly aggressive and hence his belief that America should lose its Isolationalist policy.

Hell yes that is a great Idea, thanks!

I am also gunna do a paragraph on the Tripartite pact and Japans expansion with the greater east Asia co prosperity sphere
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 18, 2017, 06:24:29 pm
Hell yes that is a great Idea, thanks!

I am also gunna do a paragraph on the Tripartite pact and Japans expansion with the greater east Asia co prosperity sphere

All sounds good! The greater east Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere is definitely one to focus on, particularly if you can find examples which demonstrate that the Allies saw through this as imperalism and subsequently that it threatened the colonies they had in the Pacific hence the reason why it created tension and eventually led to war (I doubt the Allies would have wanted to simply give away their territory haha)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: willfisch on July 18, 2017, 06:31:43 pm
All sounds good! The greater east Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere is definitely one to focus on, particularly if you can find examples which demonstrate that the Allies saw through this as imperalism and subsequently that it threatened the colonies they had in the Pacific hence the reason why it created tension and eventually led to war (I doubt the Allies would have wanted to simply give away their territory haha)

Check your messages !
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: mixel on July 18, 2017, 07:39:25 pm
Do you guys reckon we should be doing essays under timed conditions? I've been doing short answer under timed conditions because I want to practice doing as much as I can without wasting time in section 1, but I'm not really sure if timed conditions for any of the other sections would help me prepare as much as focusing more on quality in every other section.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 18, 2017, 07:47:56 pm
Do you guys reckon we should be doing essays under timed conditions? I've been doing short answer under timed conditions because I want to practice doing as much as I can without wasting time in section 1, but I'm not really sure if timed conditions for any of the other sections would help me prepare as much as focusing more on quality in every other section.
Hey! I definitely think that it is a good idea to be practicing essays under timed conditions! I did a mix of open book and closed book (exam conditions) last year. It is very easy to write too much in a modern history essay, so practicing in the time you have (like in an exam) will give you a good indication of how much you can squeeze in, and whether or not you need to work on being more concise :) I especially think that it is important to do Section III under timed conditions at least once, because in my opinion that is the easiest Section to go over time with!

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 18, 2017, 08:03:58 pm
Hey! I definitely think that it is a good idea to be practicing essays under timed conditions! I did a mix of open book and closed book (exam conditions) last year. It is very easy to write too much in a modern history essay, so practicing in the time you have (like in an exam) will give you a good indication of how much you can squeeze in, and whether or not you need to work on being more concise :) I especially think that it is important to do Section III under timed conditions at least once, because in my opinion that is the easiest Section to go over time with!

Susie

Hey Susie, I'm currently just working through my essay plans, should I aim to finish them to the standard I want and for as many syllabus dot points as I can first before starting to write full ones out under time conditions? I definitely aim to do that but just wondering whether atm i should aim on finish my conflict in the pacific essay plans (then i should be done with just a couple of gaps to fill in with germany)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on July 18, 2017, 08:11:10 pm
Hey Susie, I'm currently just working through my essay plans, should I aim to finish them to the standard I want and for as many syllabus dot points as I can first before starting to write full ones out under time conditions? I definitely aim to do that but just wondering whether atm i should aim on finish my conflict in the pacific essay plans (then i should be done with just a couple of gaps to fill in with germany)

Personally, that's the tactic I took. I made sure all of my essay plans/thesis' were sorted and fleshed out a little bit before writing full essays. It just means that you've 'covered your bases', rather than putting all your eggs in one basket. The essay plans don't need to be anything heavy duty; just a thesis, and the order of your argument/statistics. Would be keen to hear what Susie has to say!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 18, 2017, 08:17:03 pm
Hey Susie, I'm currently just working through my essay plans, should I aim to finish them to the standard I want and for as many syllabus dot points as I can first before starting to write full ones out under time conditions? I definitely aim to do that but just wondering whether atm i should aim on finish my conflict in the pacific essay plans (then i should be done with just a couple of gaps to fill in with germany)
Really it's whatever you prefer! I personally just did full practice essays for Modern, not essay plans (by no means are essay plans a bad study method - I relied on them for Ancient, it just wasn't what I personally used for Modern). Reason being, my teacher was a marking fiend, so I capitalised on that by providing him with lots of responses to mark, as I felt like I learnt more in those one-to-one meetings, going over my essays, than I ever did in class. I think I treated full essays like you treat essay plans - trying to have written at least one for every dot point - in that case, if you feel like that is the most effective form of study for you, i'd finish the essay plans, then charge full steam ahead into full responses, preferably hand written, and under timed conditions :)

With essay plans though, I'd still include some essay conventions (i think that'd be what you call it) throughout - like full introduction and judgement for each paragraph, so that you can get used to writing them. As I said in my lecture, the introduction is potentially the most important part of your essay, because it is one of the only sections that the marker WON'T skim read - so I think that it is definitely worth writing those in full, and getting used to the structure, even if the rest of your essay is in dot point form. Same for judgements (though they are easy - just a sentence long!)

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 18, 2017, 08:22:22 pm
Really it's whatever you prefer! I personally just did full practice essays for Modern, not essay plans (by no means are essay plans a bad study method - I relied on them for Ancient, it just wasn't what I personally used for Modern). Reason being, my teacher was a marking fiend, so I capitalised on that by providing him with lots of responses to mark, as I felt like I learnt more in those one-to-one meetings, going over my essays, than I ever did in class. I think I treated full essays like you treat essay plans - trying to have written at least one for every dot point - in that case, if you feel like that is the most effective form of study for you, i'd finish the essay plans, then charge full steam ahead into full responses, preferably hand written, and under timed conditions :)

With essay plans though, I'd still include some essay conventions (i think that'd be what you call it) throughout - like full introduction and judgement for each paragraph, so that you can get used to writing them. As I said in my lecture, the introduction is potentially the most important part of your essay, because it is one of the only sections that the marker WON'T skim read - so I think that it is definitely worth writing those in full, and getting used to the structure, even if the rest of your essay is in dot point form. Same for judgements (though they are easy - just a sentence long!)

Susie

Thanks for both you and Jake's opinions. Yeah I don't think I'll get heaps achieved sitting down with my teacher, he's not that great at that sort of stuff. His feedback on one of my in-class practice essays was "great ideas etc." haha so not that helpful. But yeah my essay plans are typically 3-4 pages long, I write my thesis at the top as my sort of intro, I've written full intros for some. Then for each point I bring up at the start I write my opening sentence then do it in dot points with general information, statistics, historian quotes etc. and then as you said at the end, if it's a to an extent type question i write therefore, to a large/minimal/significant extent _____ etc... i think you get my drift, otherwise for any other question i do the same sort of concluding statement to tie it back to the question. Will get into timed essays asap though, got lucky in my half yearly on germany by preparing and memorising one essay on WR failure w/ reference to great depression and Nazism as totalitarian and both were options so need to be more prepared this time around to answer anything, and quickly haha :) but cheers for your feedback it's really helpful!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: mixel on July 18, 2017, 08:37:01 pm
Hey! I definitely think that it is a good idea to be practicing essays under timed conditions! I did a mix of open book and closed book (exam conditions) last year. It is very easy to write too much in a modern history essay, so practicing in the time you have (like in an exam) will give you a good indication of how much you can squeeze in, and whether or not you need to work on being more concise :) I especially think that it is important to do Section III under timed conditions at least once, because in my opinion that is the easiest Section to go over time with!

Susie

Thanks! Did you find that open book slowed you down under timed conditions, or is the amount of time you'd spend finding information not much of a worry because you presumably wouldn't need to spend as long planning and stuff if it's open book?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 18, 2017, 09:43:48 pm
Thanks! Did you find that open book slowed you down under timed conditions, or is the amount of time you'd spend finding information not much of a worry because you presumably wouldn't need to spend as long planning and stuff if it's open book?
I didn't do open book essays under timed conditions. Open book served a different purpose - Open book was for studying then and there, so while writing up responses I'd be looking up stats, quotes, other detail, etc. etc., whereas doing papers under exam conditions it was purely to test my knowledge (and my handwriting tbh) - see where the gaps where that I needed to fill in! :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: mixel on July 19, 2017, 01:20:42 pm
Some quick questions on section 3:

1) is it possible or advisable to prepare generic responses for narrative style questions on part A? I can see the potential variation in sectional questions but if narrative questions are all sourced from the background and historical context ot the personality, why not prepare a response or two that accounts for what little variation they could have?

2) is there a good way to be selective about the details we include and arguments we use to keep to the time limit? Or is it better to try to cram in as much detail as possible? Because I've only attempted one full section 3 so far with no time limit and open book and it probably took me over an hour to complete.

3) in part B, should we write the entire thing from the focus of one specific significance evaluation dot point about the personality? Should we instead write each paragraph on one specific evaluation and use evidence from over their entire lives? Or is it the other way around, should we write paragraphs about a certain event in their life and then explain that event's significance in an overall evaluation of the personality?

So for example, if I were writing a part B response on evaluations of Speer, would I have a paragraph each on 'the Good Nazi', 'apolitical technocrat' and 'master schemer' evaluations using evidence from events in his life; or would I write paragraphs on events like the use of forced labour with explanations kf the good nazi, apolitical technocrat and master schemer interpretations of that event.

Thanks  :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 19, 2017, 07:44:37 pm
Some quick questions on section 3:
And here are some quick answers on section 3  ;)

1) is it possible or advisable to prepare generic responses for narrative style questions on part A? I can see the potential variation in sectional questions but if narrative questions are all sourced from the background and historical context ot the personality, why not prepare a response or two that accounts for what little variation they could have?
Yes. I believe that you can. Obviously be prepared to potentially change your structure if they throw a curve ball question (especially in trials, where they have a bit more room to move around than in the actual HSC which is a bit more strict), but you could definitely prepare a generic response - I did :) If you are going to, this would be the question I'd use: "Outline the historical context, background and rise to prominence of the personality you studied". That will cover everything, as a narrative outline style question will always include verbatim the syllabus dot points, its just whether they include all of them or just some of them. So if you use that question, but then in the HSC its just background and rise to prominence, you can skip the historical context part! Easy peasy :)

2) is there a good way to be selective about the details we include and arguments we use to keep to the time limit? Or is it better to try to cram in as much detail as possible? Because I've only attempted one full section 3 so far with no time limit and open book and it probably took me over an hour to complete.
Hmmmmmm tricky question. You really should be trying to cram in as much as you can, because detail really is what makes a modern history response shine - particularly in Section III part A, which as it is not meant to be analytical, is meant to demonstrate your in depth understanding instead. That being said, you do need to be selective, because you do only have a limited amount of time. I recommend sticking to detail that is short and sweet, rather than detail that takes a long time to explain. So stats, specific terminology and names is better than say really long quotes (though short, punchy quotes are of course still a great inclusion!). However, either way you'll still probably go over time, as it is sooooo hard to not! Even my teacher struggled. I'd preemptively plan to sacrifice a bit of time in WW1, to devote to Section III :)

3) in part B, should we write the entire thing from the focus of one specific significance evaluation dot point about the personality? Should we instead write each paragraph on one specific evaluation and use evidence from over their entire lives? Or is it the other way around, should we write paragraphs about a certain event in their life and then explain that event's significance in an overall evaluation of the personality?

So for example, if I were writing a part B response on evaluations of Speer, would I have a paragraph each on 'the Good Nazi', 'apolitical technocrat' and 'master schemer' evaluations using evidence from events in his life; or would I write paragraphs on events like the use of forced labour with explanations kf the good nazi, apolitical technocrat and master schemer interpretations of that event.

Thanks  :)
Personally I prefer and used the second structure that you mentioned, however by no means does that mean that the other way is wrong, it just isn't what I personally would have done. What I did, is I took the debate for Trotsky (if it was an interpretations question), and demonstrated how this debate was relevant to three key events within Trotsky's life :)

Hope this helps,

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: olr1999 on July 19, 2017, 07:53:01 pm
Hi! I have an assessment coming up and need to prepare for this essay:
'Evaluate the effectiveness of the strategies and tactics used by the opposing sides during the Second Indochina War'
For those studying Indochina, I'm wondering about how I might split my paragraphs...
Thank you in advance!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: mixel on July 19, 2017, 07:54:40 pm
Spoiler
And here are some quick answers on section 3  ;)
Yes. I believe that you can. Obviously be prepared to potentially change your structure if they throw a curve ball question (especially in trials, where they have a bit more room to move around than in the actual HSC which is a bit more strict), but you could definitely prepare a generic response - I did :) If you are going to, this would be the question I'd use: "Outline the historical context, background and rise to prominence of the personality you studied". That will cover everything, as a narrative outline style question will always include verbatim the syllabus dot points, its just whether they include all of them or just some of them. So if you use that question, but then in the HSC its just background and rise to prominence, you can skip the historical context part! Easy peasy :)
Hmmmmmm tricky question. You really should be trying to cram in as much as you can, because detail really is what makes a modern history response shine - particularly in Section III part A, which as it is not meant to be analytical, is meant to demonstrate your in depth understanding instead. That being said, you do need to be selective, because you do only have a limited amount of time. I recommend sticking to detail that is short and sweet, rather than detail that takes a long time to explain. So stats, specific terminology and names is better than say really long quotes (though short, punchy quotes are of course still a great inclusion!). However, either way you'll still probably go over time, as it is sooooo hard to not! Even my teacher struggled. I'd preemptively plan to sacrifice a bit of time in WW1, to devote to Section III :)
Personally I prefer and used the second structure that you mentioned, however by no means does that mean that the other way is wrong, it just isn't what I personally would have done. What I did, is I took the debate for Trotsky (if it was an interpretations question), and demonstrated how this debate was relevant to three key events within Trotsky's life :)

Hope this helps,

Susie

Thanks! Is there any reason to do the exam in order? Because writing section 3 in between two essays seems like it'd feel weird.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 19, 2017, 08:06:24 pm
Thanks! Is there any reason to do the exam in order? Because writing section 3 in between two essays seems like it'd feel weird.
I personally did the exam in order for the HSC, but for Trials I did Section III last. Typically my order was WW1 first (because I think it sets you up quite nicely, plus as you'll probably finish early its a good confidence boost), then section I was most confident with (usually national study), to least confident with :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: mixel on July 20, 2017, 12:06:56 am
Hey, could somebody mark this short answer for me out of 8 marks? Sorry if this isn't the place to request it, but I figured it doesn't belong in essay marking because it's only one SA question

Also, actual question about it, was I wrong to focus on innovations in weaponry? I was under the assumption that they were part of the same syllabus dot point and I thought that by explaining them in relation to their strategic use it would be responding to the question, but in hindsight I'm not so sure.

Thanks!

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nxkd0zlj0z6cyuk/2014%20MH%20S1%2019-Jul.-2017%2023-50-42.pdf?dl=0
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 20, 2017, 12:33:40 am
Hey, could somebody mark this short answer for me out of 8 marks? Sorry if this isn't the place to request it, but I figured it doesn't belong in essay marking because it's only one SA question

Also, actual question about it, was I wrong to focus on innovations in weaponry? I was under the assumption that they were part of the same syllabus dot point and I thought that by explaining them in relation to their strategic use it would be responding to the question, but in hindsight I'm not so sure.

Thanks!

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nxkd0zlj0z6cyuk/2014%20MH%20S1%2019-Jul.-2017%2023-50-42.pdf?dl=0
Hey mixel! Lucky you, caught me right before I was heading to bed ;)

Here are my thoughts:
- Where are the sources? I'm going to assume that they were under copyright and you couldn't use them, just because if you don't integrate the sources in the actual exam, you will get hammered.
- Great detail, though you could potentially push it a little bit further (but I say that with everyone - can never have too much ;) )
- You touched on a lot, but a more specific reference to bombardment and over-the-top attack, as they are key features of this syllabus dot point, along with a mention of how they were used in Verdun and Passchendaele (you mention the Somme already).

But overall a great response :) I'd probs give it 6-7/8 :)

Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: mixel on July 20, 2017, 12:59:44 am
Hey mixel! Lucky you, caught me right before I was heading to bed ;)

Here are my thoughts:
- Where are the sources? I'm going to assume that they were under copyright and you couldn't use them, just because if you don't integrate the sources in the actual exam, you will get hammered.
- Great detail, though you could potentially push it a little bit further (but I say that with everyone - can never have too much ;) )
- You touched on a lot, but a more specific reference to bombardment and over-the-top attack, as they are key features of this syllabus dot point, along with a mention of how they were used in Verdun and Passchendaele (you mention the Somme already).

But overall a great response :) I'd probs give it 6-7/8 :)

Thanks! And no, the sources weren't under copyright, I was just an idiot and forgot that literally every question I've ever done like that needed mention of the sources  ::)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 20, 2017, 11:41:31 am
Hey guys,
Just going back to the Foreign Policy question, I'm planning out exactly what I will write in terms of Japan. You were mentioning structuring the essay thematically ie. political, social, economic Susie. So the foreign policy I have so far as examples is: the invasion of China (Nanjing), the Tripartite Pact and the proclamations of New Order in East Asia and the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere (GEACPS). I am just a bit confused about which fits into what category as for example, the GEACPS was very much influenced by nationalism and imperial desires.
Secondly, with regards to American/British Foreign Policy, would I also include in my argument (since the question is about how the factors I discuss led to tensions and eventually war) an investigation as I reveal aspects of its foreign policy as to whether it was justified (an understandable reaction/protection of its own interests in the face of Japanese aggression) or whether it unnecessarily added to tensions?
Also just on a side note, in a trial or HSC essay if I write Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere (GEACPS) can I then refer to it as GEACPS?
Thanks heaps, much appreciated :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 20, 2017, 12:38:17 pm
Hey guys,
Just going back to the Foreign Policy question, I'm planning out exactly what I will write in terms of Japan. You were mentioning structuring the essay thematically ie. political, social, economic Susie. So the foreign policy I have so far as examples is: the invasion of China (Nanjing), the Tripartite Pact and the proclamations of New Order in East Asia and the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere (GEACPS). I am just a bit confused about which fits into what category as for example, the GEACPS was very much influenced by nationalism and imperial desires.
Secondly, with regards to American/British Foreign Policy, would I also include in my argument (since the question is about how the factors I discuss led to tensions and eventually war) an investigation as I reveal aspects of its foreign policy as to whether it was justified (an understandable reaction/protection of its own interests in the face of Japanese aggression) or whether it unnecessarily added to tensions?
Also just on a side note, in a trial or HSC essay if I write Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere (GEACPS) can I then refer to it as GEACPS?
Thanks heaps, much appreciated :)
Hey! Awesome, love that you are considering giving a thematic structure a go. Even if you end up liking the other structure better, always good to have this essay form in your arsenal :) Though political, social and economic are definitely the most commonly used themes, if you find it easier militaristic/strategic, ideological and cultural also count as themes too! I actually think a few of your examples might work better with these; for example I'd venture a guess and say that the invasion of China would be an example for a militaristic/strategic paragraph! I'd assume that the proclamation of New Order in East Asia would be political and/or social, and the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere (GEACPS) would be political (and maybe economic, if it included aspects of trade). However of course as I didn't study this, take these suggestions with a grain of salt.

In terms of your second question - I think it is fine to include it, but try to steer away from morality (ie. don't say this was morally good or morally bad). I think saying that it was inevitable, or a reasonable reaction however is fine :) And yes, as long as in your introduction you use the full title, you can definitely refer to the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere as GEACPS :)

Just because foreign policy questions in particular have been being asked quite a lot recently, for multiple case studies, within the spoiler I have included one of my essays on Soviet Foreign Policy, to hopefully indicate the way I structured my responses :)

Spoiler
How successful was Soviet foreign policy in achieving its aims from 1917 to 1941?

The incompatibility of the key aims of Soviet foreign policy – domestic stability and international revolution – greatly limited its accomplishments, as the promotion of one aim effectively reduced the opportunity for the other, and thus it is clear that Soviet foreign policy was only partially successful in achieving its aims from 1917 to 1941. Though the aims and purposes of Soviet foreign policy fluctuated depending upon the current leadership of the Bolsheviks Party and the changing domestic and international tensions, it is evident that the goals of domestic socio-political stability and a worldwide socialist revolution remained significant, thus projecting the Soviet Union into an internal conflict between pragmatism and ideological adherence. Though initially the principle aim appeared to be the promotion of a global socialist revolution, as dictated by the Bolshevik ideological position of Permanent Revolution, it is clear through the increasing implementation of self-preservationist policies throughout the period that the Bolsheviks aim of survival outweighed their desire to spread socialism. This is evident through the various militaristic/strategic, economic, diplomatic and socio-cultural factors that impacted or were impacted by soviet foreign policy between 1917 to 1941, which dictated its success.

It is evident through the the militaristic and strategic foreign policies implemented from 1917 to 1941 that the aims of the Soviet Union had shifted towards the consolidation and preservation of the Bolshevik state rather than the expansion of their ideology, thus it is clear through being forced to forgo certain key aims that soviet foreign policy was only partially successful. Despite Permanent Revolution, the official party policy of the Bolsheviks requiring an international revolution in order to succeed, the primary concerns after the 1917 Revolution was the consolidation of their power within Russia. The political climate was still largely unstable, therefore the Bolsheviks had to immediately return upon their promises of “Peace. Bread. Land,” in order to consolidate their power, the peace component of which had a significant impact upon soviet foreign policy through the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, as it ensured their exit from the increasingly unpopular international conflict World War I. The signing of the Treaty demonstrates the shift in strategic foreign policy focus from ideological adherence to pragmatism, as it signified the abandonment of the Permanent Revolution principles and their aim of an international socialist revolution in order to achieve domestic stability and the survival of the Bolshevik state. This shift was further demonstrated through the Soviets contradictory (in regards to their ideology) support of the leftist parties within the Spanish Civil War in order to prevent a socialist revolution within Spain, aiding the Republicans with materials, arms and over 2000 Russian citizens as soldiers due to their fears that increased instability would enable the rise and spread of German fascism within the region, which would pose a significant domestic security threat. Along with this, the Soviets under Stalin endeavoured to maintain an alliance with the Nationalists in China, due to his belief that the Chinese Communists were too few to achieve anything, which further demonstrates the Bolshevik governments willingness to forgo ideology in favour of more pragmatic foreign policy. Therefore, through the various strategic and militaristic foreign policies implemented by the Bolshevik Party, it is clear that though successful in regards to the preservation of the Bolshevik state, soviet foreign policy was unsuccessful in instigating an international revolution, and therefore was only partially successful in achieving its aims from 1917 to 1941.

It is evident through the economic and diplomatic foreign policies implemented by the Bolsheviks Party between 1917 and 1941 that the Soviet leaders main concern was the survival of the Bolshevik state rather than the spread of socialism, and thus attempted through economic means to reduce hostilities and tensions between themselves and their capitalist neighbours. Despite the Soviets aims and predictions of a world revolution, this did not occur, and thus the Bolshevik Government, which had been, during the time, producing highly critical assessments upon the opposing ideology of capitalism both through policy and the media now found themselves surrounded by capitalist neighbours, Lynch stating “The Soviet Union’s often antagonistic behaviour towards the capitalist countries frequently produced counter blasts … [meaning] that international tension never wholly slackened”. This is evident through the continued poor relations between Russia and post-war Germany, which banned the Communist Party in 1919, and the assessments from other nations leaders, such as British Prime Minister Winston Churchill who described communism as “not a policy, it is a disease.” Thus in order to reduce tension and hostilities amongst their capitalist neighbours, the Bolshevik government entered into various Trade agreements during the 1920s that ensured the peaceful co-existence of the two opposing ideologies. A number of capitalist countries entered into these trade agreements with the USSR, such as Italy, Germany and Britain (The Anglo-Soviet Trade Agreement). Along with this, Russia became involved within various international diplomatic organisations and agreements, evident through there admittance into the League of Nations in 1934, and the Rapallo Treaty, which was highly significant in reducing the tensions between the Soviets and Germany, as it signified the relinquishing of territorial and financial claims against each other, thus easing the pressures of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, with the aim to “co-operate in a spirit of goodwill in meeting the economic needs of both countries.” Though this increased cooperation with Germany had a positive impact upon the security and consolidation of the Bolshevik state, a destabilised Germany was far more likely to fall to a socialist revolution, and thus it is evident that the Bolsheviks prioritized self-preservation over the aim of worldwide revolution. Therefore, through the various economic and diplomatic foreign policies implemented by the Bolshevik party, it is clear that though successful in regards to the preservation of the Bolshevik state through the reduction of hostilities and tensions, soviet foreign policy was unsuccessful in instigating an international revolution, and therefore was only partially successful in achieving its aims from 1917 to 1941. The aim to survive through a reduction in tensions within the capitalist neighbour was further demonstrated through their implementation of diplomatic foreign policy.

Through the failures of various revolutionary socio-cultural foreign policies implemented by the Bolshevik party between 1917 and 1941, it is evident that soviet foreign policy was ineffective in achieving an international revolution, and thus, despite it’s self-preservationist success, was only partially successful in achieving its aims from 1917 to 1941. Early forms of soviet foreign policy, particularly under the leadership of Lenin, greatly focused upon the ideologically based aim of promoting an international socialist revolution. This is evident through the 1919 creation of the Communist International (also known as the Comintern), which had the revolutionary task of promoting and co-ordinating the communist parties of the world in an effort to advocate a global communist system. This is evident through their aim to “overthrow … the international bourgeoisie and for the creation of an international Soviet republic,” and the formation of the United Front, whereby communists propose to fight alongside non-communist workers in a “common struggle to defend … the working class against the bourgeoisie.” However, after a failed attempt to start a world revolution through the Polish invasion of Russia, the Comintern realised that peaceful coexistence with Europe was the only option, with Lynch stating that “between 1918 and 1920 … the Comintern was concerned sole with safeguarding the interests of Soviet Russia.” This preoccupation with the interests of Russia was continued under the soviet foreign policy actions of Stalin, with Lynch stating that “he set himself the primary task of defending his country’s interests in a hostile world,” and thus ordered the Comintern to cease appeals for global revolution due to the fact that after joining the League of Nations in 1934 Russia now had non-communist allies, and that no communist-inspired revolts had actually succeeded anywhere in the world at that time. Therefore, through the various attempts and failures to instigate effective revolutionary socio-cultural foreign policies, it is evident that soviet foreign policy, despite it’s self-preservationist success, was only partially successful in achieving its aims from 1917 to 1941.

Therefore, it is evident through the various socio-cultural, diplomatic, economic and militaristic/strategic factors that soviet foreign policy was successful in ensuring the survival of the Bolshevik state, however at the expense of their other principle aim – the promotion of an international socialist revolution. Thus, it is evident that soviet foreign policy was only partially successful in achieving its aims from 1917 to 1941, as the incompatibility between their pragmatic aim of stability and ideological aim of international revolution meant that they could only focus upon one aspect of their aims while forgoing the other. 
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: mixel on July 20, 2017, 01:14:18 pm
Hi all,

If we're trying to decide between two essay questions in an exam that we are similarly competent in, how should we decide? Is it a good idea to pick the question that supports a thematic structure over a factors or syllabus structure, on the assumption that it allows more depth of argument? Or is that an incorrect assumption?

Thanks  :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 20, 2017, 01:22:45 pm
Hi all,

If we're trying to decide between two essay questions in an exam that we are similarly competent in, how should we decide? Is it a good idea to pick the question that supports a thematic structure over a factors or syllabus structure, on the assumption that it allows more depth of argument? Or is that an incorrect assumption?

Thanks  :)
You pick the question that you are most confident/comfortable answering :) There is no structure that is better than another - ie. you'll never get marked down for not doing a thematic structure. Thematic structures are just another way to answer the question. Someone could write a syllabus essay or a factors essay, and still get a much higher mark than someone doing a thematic essay and vice versa :) In the HSC I wrote a thematic essay for the national study, a syllabus essay for the personality study, and a factors essay for the international study :) It's whatever is easiest for you to construct in that moment.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 20, 2017, 06:26:53 pm
Spoiler
Hey! Awesome, love that you are considering giving a thematic structure a go. Even if you end up liking the other structure better, always good to have this essay form in your arsenal :) Though political, social and economic are definitely the most commonly used themes, if you find it easier militaristic/strategic, ideological and cultural also count as themes too! I actually think a few of your examples might work better with these; for example I'd venture a guess and say that the invasion of China would be an example for a militaristic/strategic paragraph! I'd assume that the proclamation of New Order in East Asia would be political and/or social, and the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere (GEACPS) would be political (and maybe economic, if it included aspects of trade). However of course as I didn't study this, take these suggestions with a grain of salt.

In terms of your second question - I think it is fine to include it, but try to steer away from morality (ie. don't say this was morally good or morally bad). I think saying that it was inevitable, or a reasonable reaction however is fine :) And yes, as long as in your introduction you use the full title, you can definitely refer to the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere as GEACPS :)

Just because foreign policy questions in particular have been being asked quite a lot recently, for multiple case studies, within the spoiler I have included one of my essays on Soviet Foreign Policy, to hopefully indicate the way I structured my responses :)

Spoiler
How successful was Soviet foreign policy in achieving its aims from 1917 to 1941?

The incompatibility of the key aims of Soviet foreign policy – domestic stability and international revolution – greatly limited its accomplishments, as the promotion of one aim effectively reduced the opportunity for the other, and thus it is clear that Soviet foreign policy was only partially successful in achieving its aims from 1917 to 1941. Though the aims and purposes of Soviet foreign policy fluctuated depending upon the current leadership of the Bolsheviks Party and the changing domestic and international tensions, it is evident that the goals of domestic socio-political stability and a worldwide socialist revolution remained significant, thus projecting the Soviet Union into an internal conflict between pragmatism and ideological adherence. Though initially the principle aim appeared to be the promotion of a global socialist revolution, as dictated by the Bolshevik ideological position of Permanent Revolution, it is clear through the increasing implementation of self-preservationist policies throughout the period that the Bolsheviks aim of survival outweighed their desire to spread socialism. This is evident through the various militaristic/strategic, economic, diplomatic and socio-cultural factors that impacted or were impacted by soviet foreign policy between 1917 to 1941, which dictated its success.

It is evident through the the militaristic and strategic foreign policies implemented from 1917 to 1941 that the aims of the Soviet Union had shifted towards the consolidation and preservation of the Bolshevik state rather than the expansion of their ideology, thus it is clear through being forced to forgo certain key aims that soviet foreign policy was only partially successful. Despite Permanent Revolution, the official party policy of the Bolsheviks requiring an international revolution in order to succeed, the primary concerns after the 1917 Revolution was the consolidation of their power within Russia. The political climate was still largely unstable, therefore the Bolsheviks had to immediately return upon their promises of “Peace. Bread. Land,” in order to consolidate their power, the peace component of which had a significant impact upon soviet foreign policy through the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, as it ensured their exit from the increasingly unpopular international conflict World War I. The signing of the Treaty demonstrates the shift in strategic foreign policy focus from ideological adherence to pragmatism, as it signified the abandonment of the Permanent Revolution principles and their aim of an international socialist revolution in order to achieve domestic stability and the survival of the Bolshevik state. This shift was further demonstrated through the Soviets contradictory (in regards to their ideology) support of the leftist parties within the Spanish Civil War in order to prevent a socialist revolution within Spain, aiding the Republicans with materials, arms and over 2000 Russian citizens as soldiers due to their fears that increased instability would enable the rise and spread of German fascism within the region, which would pose a significant domestic security threat. Along with this, the Soviets under Stalin endeavoured to maintain an alliance with the Nationalists in China, due to his belief that the Chinese Communists were too few to achieve anything, which further demonstrates the Bolshevik governments willingness to forgo ideology in favour of more pragmatic foreign policy. Therefore, through the various strategic and militaristic foreign policies implemented by the Bolshevik Party, it is clear that though successful in regards to the preservation of the Bolshevik state, soviet foreign policy was unsuccessful in instigating an international revolution, and therefore was only partially successful in achieving its aims from 1917 to 1941.

It is evident through the economic and diplomatic foreign policies implemented by the Bolsheviks Party between 1917 and 1941 that the Soviet leaders main concern was the survival of the Bolshevik state rather than the spread of socialism, and thus attempted through economic means to reduce hostilities and tensions between themselves and their capitalist neighbours. Despite the Soviets aims and predictions of a world revolution, this did not occur, and thus the Bolshevik Government, which had been, during the time, producing highly critical assessments upon the opposing ideology of capitalism both through policy and the media now found themselves surrounded by capitalist neighbours, Lynch stating “The Soviet Union’s often antagonistic behaviour towards the capitalist countries frequently produced counter blasts … [meaning] that international tension never wholly slackened”. This is evident through the continued poor relations between Russia and post-war Germany, which banned the Communist Party in 1919, and the assessments from other nations leaders, such as British Prime Minister Winston Churchill who described communism as “not a policy, it is a disease.” Thus in order to reduce tension and hostilities amongst their capitalist neighbours, the Bolshevik government entered into various Trade agreements during the 1920s that ensured the peaceful co-existence of the two opposing ideologies. A number of capitalist countries entered into these trade agreements with the USSR, such as Italy, Germany and Britain (The Anglo-Soviet Trade Agreement). Along with this, Russia became involved within various international diplomatic organisations and agreements, evident through there admittance into the League of Nations in 1934, and the Rapallo Treaty, which was highly significant in reducing the tensions between the Soviets and Germany, as it signified the relinquishing of territorial and financial claims against each other, thus easing the pressures of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, with the aim to “co-operate in a spirit of goodwill in meeting the economic needs of both countries.” Though this increased cooperation with Germany had a positive impact upon the security and consolidation of the Bolshevik state, a destabilised Germany was far more likely to fall to a socialist revolution, and thus it is evident that the Bolsheviks prioritized self-preservation over the aim of worldwide revolution. Therefore, through the various economic and diplomatic foreign policies implemented by the Bolshevik party, it is clear that though successful in regards to the preservation of the Bolshevik state through the reduction of hostilities and tensions, soviet foreign policy was unsuccessful in instigating an international revolution, and therefore was only partially successful in achieving its aims from 1917 to 1941. The aim to survive through a reduction in tensions within the capitalist neighbour was further demonstrated through their implementation of diplomatic foreign policy.

Through the failures of various revolutionary socio-cultural foreign policies implemented by the Bolshevik party between 1917 and 1941, it is evident that soviet foreign policy was ineffective in achieving an international revolution, and thus, despite it’s self-preservationist success, was only partially successful in achieving its aims from 1917 to 1941. Early forms of soviet foreign policy, particularly under the leadership of Lenin, greatly focused upon the ideologically based aim of promoting an international socialist revolution. This is evident through the 1919 creation of the Communist International (also known as the Comintern), which had the revolutionary task of promoting and co-ordinating the communist parties of the world in an effort to advocate a global communist system. This is evident through their aim to “overthrow … the international bourgeoisie and for the creation of an international Soviet republic,” and the formation of the United Front, whereby communists propose to fight alongside non-communist workers in a “common struggle to defend … the working class against the bourgeoisie.” However, after a failed attempt to start a world revolution through the Polish invasion of Russia, the Comintern realised that peaceful coexistence with Europe was the only option, with Lynch stating that “between 1918 and 1920 … the Comintern was concerned sole with safeguarding the interests of Soviet Russia.” This preoccupation with the interests of Russia was continued under the soviet foreign policy actions of Stalin, with Lynch stating that “he set himself the primary task of defending his country’s interests in a hostile world,” and thus ordered the Comintern to cease appeals for global revolution due to the fact that after joining the League of Nations in 1934 Russia now had non-communist allies, and that no communist-inspired revolts had actually succeeded anywhere in the world at that time. Therefore, through the various attempts and failures to instigate effective revolutionary socio-cultural foreign policies, it is evident that soviet foreign policy, despite it’s self-preservationist success, was only partially successful in achieving its aims from 1917 to 1941.

Therefore, it is evident through the various socio-cultural, diplomatic, economic and militaristic/strategic factors that soviet foreign policy was successful in ensuring the survival of the Bolshevik state, however at the expense of their other principle aim – the promotion of an international socialist revolution. Thus, it is evident that soviet foreign policy was only partially successful in achieving its aims from 1917 to 1941, as the incompatibility between their pragmatic aim of stability and ideological aim of international revolution meant that they could only focus upon one aspect of their aims while forgoing the other. 

Thank you so much Susie. This is so helpful! :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: tahliamag on July 20, 2017, 06:34:20 pm
Hey,
This is kind of a weird request but I was wondering if anyone who is particularly good at WW1 content might be able to look at my multiple choice answers for the 2012 Knox trial -
(http://www.acehsc.net/wp-content/uploads/TrialPapers/2012/Modern%20History/2012%20Modern%20History%20-%20Knox%20Trial%20without%20Solutions.pdf)
and 2010 St Augustine Trial -
(http://www.acehsc.net/wp-content/uploads/TrialPapers/2010/Modern%20History/2010%20Modern%20History%20-%20St%20Augustines%20Trial%20with%20Solutions.pdf)

Thank you!! I haven't been able to find the solutions anywhere so if anyone could help out that would be great!! My answers are::
Knox
1. C
2. B
3. D
4. C
6. A
8. B
St Augustine
1. C
2. B
3. A
5. C
6. C
8. A
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 20, 2017, 07:10:36 pm
Hey,
This is kind of a weird request but I was wondering if anyone who is particularly good at WW1 content might be able to look at my multiple choice answers for the 2012 Knox trial -
(http://www.acehsc.net/wp-content/uploads/TrialPapers/2012/Modern%20History/2012%20Modern%20History%20-%20Knox%20Trial%20without%20Solutions.pdf)
and 2010 St Augustine Trial -
(http://www.acehsc.net/wp-content/uploads/TrialPapers/2010/Modern%20History/2010%20Modern%20History%20-%20St%20Augustines%20Trial%20with%20Solutions.pdf)

Thank you!! I haven't been able to find the solutions anywhere so if anyone could help out that would be great!! My answers are::
Knox
1. C
2. B
3. D
4. C
6. A
8. B
St Augustine
1. C
2. B
3. A
5. C
6. C
8. A

Hey I'm sure Susie or Jake can help you but I'll have a go too for my own benefit and yours too to see if we get the same answers :)
Knox
1.C
2. B
3. D
4. C
6. A
8. B
Augustines
1. C
2. B (I'm personally very confused by this. I thought D was wrong as it says Snow falls and battle ends 3 miles short of Allied objectives for the first day. At first, I thought it was only referring to the aims of the first day. However, I am almost certain that the Somme did end in November and during snowfall so hence I put D for that one. Now after looking at it again I think you may be right, the wording is just tripping me up but if it ended 3 miles short of allied objectives that still probably means they did make some ground so in that case I'll make a cheeky switch :P)
3. B (I put this because I interpreted the source as to express that Allied success was slowed down by the weather (reap the full benefits of the advantages we had gained) but it did not fail per say in my opinion as they defeated the Germans and "the advantages we had gained" further suggests they did not fail. However, I also thought D could be an answer but I believe B best summarises it.)
5. C
6. C
8. A

So looks like we got mainly the same answers! I guess we will wait for Susie or Jake to give their opinions on questions 2 and 3 :) of course, unless we have both got other ones wrong haha
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: mixel on July 20, 2017, 07:19:14 pm
Hey,
This is kind of a weird request but I was wondering if anyone who is particularly good at WW1 content might be able to look at my multiple choice answers for the 2012 Knox trial -
(http://www.acehsc.net/wp-content/uploads/TrialPapers/2012/Modern%20History/2012%20Modern%20History%20-%20Knox%20Trial%20without%20Solutions.pdf)
and 2010 St Augustine Trial -
(http://www.acehsc.net/wp-content/uploads/TrialPapers/2010/Modern%20History/2010%20Modern%20History%20-%20St%20Augustines%20Trial%20with%20Solutions.pdf)

Thank you!! I haven't been able to find the solutions anywhere so if anyone could help out that would be great!! My answers are::
Knox
1. C
2. B
3. D
4. C
6. A
8. B
St Augustine
1. C
2. B
3. A
5. C
6. C
8. A

Hey, I had the same answers as you for every question except for St. Augustine's 3 and Knox 8. I chose B for St. Augustine's 3 because the source implies an Allied victory in saying Germany suffered a defeat and claiming "neither the victors nor the vanquished blah blah", and as the Germans are described as having lost, its a reasonable assumption that Allies won, and it claims that "these conditions [rain] multiplied the difficulties of attack", which supports B. For Knox question 8, I actually wasn't sure -- I'm stuck between B and D, because while there's definitely an implication that the home front's support is necessary for victory, it doesn't explicitly say that, nor that the necessity for food for the civilian population is for that reason (just that its a necessity). Because of that I feel like they could try pulling a technicality and saying neither is right, but I wouldn't worry too much because I don't think there's as much ambiguity in HSC multis.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 20, 2017, 07:48:43 pm
Hey,
This is kind of a weird request but I was wondering if anyone who is particularly good at WW1 content might be able to look at my multiple choice answers for the 2012 Knox trial -
(http://www.acehsc.net/wp-content/uploads/TrialPapers/2012/Modern%20History/2012%20Modern%20History%20-%20Knox%20Trial%20without%20Solutions.pdf)
and 2010 St Augustine Trial -
(http://www.acehsc.net/wp-content/uploads/TrialPapers/2010/Modern%20History/2010%20Modern%20History%20-%20St%20Augustines%20Trial%20with%20Solutions.pdf)

Thank you!! I haven't been able to find the solutions anywhere so if anyone could help out that would be great!! My answers are::
Knox
1. C
2. B
3. D
4. C
6. A
8. B
St Augustine
1. C
2. B
3. A
5. C
6. C
8. A

Here are the answers I got :)

Knox
1. C
2. B
3. D
4. C
6. A
8. D - I think. Just because like, they'd need the support of the home front to produce more food under total war... but not 100% sure, as its not explicitly stated in the source. If it's not D, it's B.

St Augustine
1. C
2. Just like you dancing phalanges I'm quite confused - but I think it is B. It's stupidly worded, but I think what the source is trying to say is that essentially over the entire course of the conflict, the Allies didn't even achieve what they aimed to achieve on the first day alone. Like what they expected to accomplish in one day, they didn't even accomplish over the entire Battle of the Somme (does that make sense)? So D is incorrect (according to this logic), as the aim of the objectives for the entire conflict would have been much larger. However, B is still legitimised by the source, as by nature, if they ended 3 miles short of Allied objectives, they must have at least made some, minor progress (and that is corroborated by our own knowledge, which says that the British gained 6 miles during the Battle of the Somme). So yeah - I'm pretty sure it is B, but definitely very confusingly worded!
3. B (I think). Process of elimination here. Though I think A makes some sense, I don't think that the source indicates that they failed, more so they just couldn't utilise their advantages as effectively as they would have liked too. It's not C, because that wasn't a view expressed, just a fact. And it's not D, because D is suggesting that the Germans were disadvantaged by the weather, when in actuality according to the source it "gave them a respite". So yes, I think it is B. Again - tricky question.
5. C
6. C
8. A

Hope this helps! I can't guarantee that these are correct, but these are how I would have answered them. Definitely some very tricky questions here!

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: tahliamag on July 20, 2017, 08:16:36 pm
Thankyou so much Susie, really appreciate you taking the time out to explain those difficult ones too!! also, your UTS lecture was super helpful and gave some great advice :)))
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 20, 2017, 08:28:56 pm
Thankyou so much Susie, really appreciate you taking the time out to explain those difficult ones too!! also, your UTS lecture was super helpful and gave some great advice :)))
No worries! Contrary to popular belief, multiple choice questions can actually be really hard, so I want to make sure that I fully explain everything and actually help you understand, rather than just giving you the answer (because I won't be there in the exam to give you the answer, you'll need to be able to do it yourself - which, as you all proved above, you are more than capable of :) ). And thank you!! So glad that you enjoyed :) Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy knowing that you found it helpful <3

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on July 21, 2017, 10:42:46 am
hi guys,

i'm about to write a cold war essay on this question: To what extent did the policy of détente achieve its objectives?

how should i structure this? feeling a bit lost. thanks x
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 21, 2017, 11:05:58 am
hi guys,

i'm about to write a cold war essay on this question: To what extent did the policy of détente achieve its objectives?

how should i structure this? feeling a bit lost. thanks x

Hey! The way that I structured this essay last year was according to the objectives (so a factors essay!). So I looked at the objectives of Detente, and identified the three most important (imo) - End the threat of nuclear war and improve relations, decrease military spending and repair damaged economies, and end the proliferation of the Cold War. I think assessed to what extent Detente failed in these areas, with my judgement being that though Detente was initially successful, it was overall a failure, as none of these objectives were met (some even got worse!).

Does this make sense? Hope this helps,

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on July 21, 2017, 03:48:54 pm
ahh okay that makes sense, thank you so much!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: _____ on July 21, 2017, 10:38:38 pm
Anyone's school given them the CSSA 2012 paper to try? Don't think it's available online due to their restrictions. For the multiple choice, I had

1. B
2. A
3. D
4. D
6. C
7. B - not sure about this as we didn't learn much about Paul von Hindenburg other than the line of fortifications was named after him. Question for those interested without the paper:

Spoiler
"Using Source D and your own knowledge, which answer BEST describes the unique position of Paul von Hindenburg in 1916?

A: He took control of manufacturing
B: He established the Supreme War Office
C: He was deprived of his position as Chief of Staff
D: He united the Western Front and the Home Front under his leadership"

Obviously not C - source basically says that he became Chief of Staff in 1916 and set up the Supreme War Office which involved further government control of the economy. Don't think it's D as the wording sounds wrong.
8. A

Anyone that's tried it, does that seem mostly right? Thanks!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on July 22, 2017, 12:43:40 pm
Anyone's school given them the CSSA 2012 paper to try? Don't think it's available online due to their restrictions. For the multiple choice, I had

1. B
2. A
3. D
4. D
6. C
7. B - not sure about this as we didn't learn much about Paul von Hindenburg other than the line of fortifications was named after him. Question for those interested without the paper:

Spoiler
"Using Source D and your own knowledge, which answer BEST describes the unique position of Paul von Hindenburg in 1916?

A: He took control of manufacturing
B: He established the Supreme War Office
C: He was deprived of his position as Chief of Staff
D: He united the Western Front and the Home Front under his leadership"

Obviously not C - source basically says that he became Chief of Staff in 1916 and set up the Supreme War Office which involved further government control of the economy. Don't think it's D as the wording sounds wrong.
8. A

Anyone that's tried it, does that seem mostly right? Thanks!

did this one a while ago, got the same answers except for #3 i put b? don't know what i was thinking at the time though, d seems like a better fit
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: _____ on July 22, 2017, 02:25:32 pm
did this one a while ago, got the same answers except for #3 i put b? don't know what i was thinking at the time though, d seems like a better fit

That's great. I looked at 3 again and I'd agree that D is a better fit. Did you do the 2013 one as well? I have it but haven't done it yet, I might post my answers once I get around to it.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on July 22, 2017, 03:30:27 pm
That's great. I looked at 3 again and I'd agree that D is a better fit. Did you do the 2013 one as well? I have it but haven't done it yet, I might post my answers once I get around to it.

yep, i've got 2011-15. :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jelena on July 23, 2017, 04:50:42 pm
Hello, I am a bit confused because none of my resources really have any relevant and useful information about how D-Day contributed to eventual Allied victory, it's just all about the course of the campaign. Just wondering if anyone has ideas about how to find info on that? Or if anyone could kindly offer info on that? I know generally how it contributed I just don't have any detail, thanks!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 24, 2017, 11:59:47 pm
Hey Jake and Susie,
Just a question R.E German Foreign Policy and how to answer how successful it was in achieving its aims up to 1939.
How would you guys recommend I structure this essay, it seems as if German Foreign Policy was proving successful until Hitler began to become more daring with his policies, so would you recommend I structure it chronologically?
The other option I could think of was to structure my essay around the aims of German Foreign Policy, which was inherently about territorial expansion and race (if you can suggest any other aims to bring in here that would be great, I know there are small things eg. get rid of privisions of TOV etc)
If you have any other ideas for structure I would appreciate it
Cheers :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: tahliamag on July 25, 2017, 04:29:12 pm
Hi,
I'm currently attempting this personality question in relation to Albert Speer:
"All great individuals are a product of their time." To what extent does the study of your personality support this view? (15 marks)
I was wondering if anyone could help me out with some type of structure or what I should be writing for this as I'm not really sure what events to refer to etc.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 25, 2017, 04:41:50 pm
Hey Jake and Susie,
Just a question R.E German Foreign Policy and how to answer how successful it was in achieving its aims up to 1939.
How would you guys recommend I structure this essay, it seems as if German Foreign Policy was proving successful until Hitler began to become more daring with his policies, so would you recommend I structure it chronologically?
The other option I could think of was to structure my essay around the aims of German Foreign Policy, which was inherently about territorial expansion and race (if you can suggest any other aims to bring in here that would be great, I know there are small things eg. get rid of privisions of TOV etc)
If you have any other ideas for structure I would appreciate it
Cheers :)
Hey! I might be able to help with structure :)
When I did Soviet Foreign policy essays, I answered them thematically. For me, that was a paragraph on strategic/militaristic foreign policy, then socio-cultural, and then diplomatic - looking at the different policies implemented under each category, and how they contributed to the overall success/failure of soviet foreign policy! You'll have to make sure you have a solid understanding of what the central aims where, and if certain aims were more important than the other. For example, with Soviet foreign policy, I argued that they had conflicting aims of both international revolution and domestic stability, with the latter largely winning out, making foreign policy only partially successful.

Hope that helps! Sorry I couldn't be more specific (hopefully Jake and/or another germany student will be able to help you out more content wise :) )

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on July 25, 2017, 04:43:16 pm
Hey Jake and Susie,
Just a question R.E German Foreign Policy and how to answer how successful it was in achieving its aims up to 1939.
How would you guys recommend I structure this essay, it seems as if German Foreign Policy was proving successful until Hitler began to become more daring with his policies, so would you recommend I structure it chronologically?
The other option I could think of was to structure my essay around the aims of German Foreign Policy, which was inherently about territorial expansion and race (if you can suggest any other aims to bring in here that would be great, I know there are small things eg. get rid of privisions of TOV etc)
If you have any other ideas for structure I would appreciate it
Cheers :)

Personally, I would recommend against chronological essays. Just seems a little... simplistic, unless you explain the purpose of that structure in the essay. I really like your second option: Identifying the aims of German Foreign Policy, and using evidence to argue that those aspects were/were not achieved by 1939. I think that this is a much more sophisticated way of approaching a question; rather than saying 'Yes it was implemented', you can say 'Some aspects were, however others were not'.

Feel free to post up a more comprehensive 'essay plan' for us to look at!

Edit: Goddammit Suddods. Always beating me to it
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on July 25, 2017, 04:44:52 pm
Hi,
I'm currently attempting this personality question in relation to Albert Speer:
"All great individuals are a product of their time." To what extent does the study of your personality support this view? (15 marks)
I was wondering if anyone could help me out with some type of structure or what I should be writing for this as I'm not really sure what events to refer to etc.

Hey! When I did Speer, I decided on three broad 'Themes', and answered the question by assessing historiography with regards to those themes. From memory, I did Speer's knowledge of the Final Solution, Speer's relationship with Hitler, and Speer's defence at Nuremberg. The events that you refer to are entirely up to you; form a thesis, and decide upon the best points you can use to prove that thesis.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 25, 2017, 04:45:57 pm
Edit: Goddammit Suddods. Always beating me to it
back in the game 8)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: herb123 on July 25, 2017, 06:08:02 pm
Hey there i got a Conflict in the Pacific essay coming up (my last internal assessment yay!)
the question is "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?

our teacher has said this is meant to be a source based research essays so it needs a bit of historeography
Can you guys give me some pointers on what to write about in the essay and structuring it and stuff?
Thanks alot :)

Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 25, 2017, 06:09:55 pm
Personally, I would recommend against chronological essays. Just seems a little... simplistic, unless you explain the purpose of that structure in the essay. I really like your second option: Identifying the aims of German Foreign Policy, and using evidence to argue that those aspects were/were not achieved by 1939. I think that this is a much more sophisticated way of approaching a question; rather than saying 'Yes it was implemented', you can say 'Some aspects were, however others were not'.

Feel free to post up a more comprehensive 'essay plan' for us to look at!

Edit: Goddammit Suddods. Always beating me to it

Cheers guys! I agreed it was more simplistic, I'm hoping to write most of it tonight so may post it later or something :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 25, 2017, 06:36:53 pm
Hi,
I'm currently attempting this personality question in relation to Albert Speer:
"All great individuals are a product of their time." To what extent does the study of your personality support this view? (15 marks)
I was wondering if anyone could help me out with some type of structure or what I should be writing for this as I'm not really sure what events to refer to etc.

i recently did this question, the points i used were as follows
1. he was a product of his time in his early life as he too was swept away by hitler's charisma and skills as an orator
some quotes to back it up from albert speer himself:
"to me, i joined hitler's party not the nazi party"
"captivated by the magic of Hitler's voice"
"here it seemed to me was hope"
the last two quotes are reference to his opinion of hitler as a speaker
then to show he is a product of his times i had a quote by cbs correspondent william shirer, who heard hitler - "hitler had a magic power to sway millions with his voice"
therefore a product of his times as he too like many discontented germans were swept away by hitler's charisma to join the nazi party
2. speer's rise to prominence was primary due to opportunities which came his way, therefore making him a product of his time
eg. his first patron as a nazi car driver was karl hanke, who was the leader of kreisleuteng west and as hanke progressed through the ranks to state secretary in the propaganda ministry, he brought speer up with him. hanke provided him with his first job, a series of minor renovations for his and Goebbel's headquarters, which impressed Hitler (speer noted that this commission was "the luckiest turning point" in his life) therefore, highlighting how he was a product of his times as he was provided with opportunities to initially rise to power
eg. he also received promotions through the deaths of troost and todt and therefore was a product of his time as he came to power initially through circumstance
3. however, his actual success as armaments minister and hitler's architect has been interpreted as a result of his own skill therefore making him not entirely a product of his time
ARCHITECT
- speer was a good organiser and understood "the pyschology of the movement" (fest) which enhanced the image of the nazi party as grand and stable (therefore not product of own time)
ARMAMENTS MINISTER
- was highly efficient
- fest suggests that without speer hitler would not have been able to sustain the war and that speer "Reshaped the ministry according to his own ideas" including replacing civil servants with experts in their field
- his efficiency was on display as in the 1st 6 months (mar-july 1942) armaments production was 3x greater than the 1941 figure by 1944
- kershaw notes speer's rise as armaments minister as due to his "driving ambition and undoubted organisational talent"
- therefore, his actual success was not due to being a product of his time but his actual organisational skills
4. However, he was a product of his time in regards to his indifference of the exploitation used by the nazis
- eg. as armaments minister speed needed to expand his workforce and used slave labour from foreign occupied territories and concentration camps
- sereny therefore suggested that human cost was not speer's concern rather efficiency was more important  which was consistent with other technocrats who were absorbed with their own work but failed to see the moral dimension
- eg. at the dora factory, speer demands conditions be better not for the welfare of the workers but for their efficiency
- therefore, product of time r.e suceeding at the expense of the jews  and tacit acceptance of it
5. finally, not product of time re. nuremberg trial
- distinguished himself from other nazi leaders through remorse and shared responsibility
- journalist at nuremberg saw him as "the only defendant whom i respect for his personal honesty and courage"
- went against the rest of nazi leaders who wanted to immortalise hitler at nuremberg
- schmidt sees speer as "an organiser of his own legend"  therefore emphasising that he was not a product of his time as he, unlike the other nazi leaders, due to his remorse and shared responsbility without admitting his own individual guilt

sorry for ranting on but thats how my essay was structured in terms of ideas so just to wrap quickly
1. early life = part of time because swept away by hitler's charisma
2. early rise to prominence = part of time as rose due to opportunities
3. success as architect and armaments = not part of time due to skill as organiser therefore built his own success
4. was a part of his time in his exploitation of slave labour for efficiency
5. nuremberg trial = not part of time as built his own image and therefore avoided death sentence

hopefully that makes it clear as i rambled a bit ahaha
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: tahliamag on July 25, 2017, 07:30:45 pm
Thanks so much for the suggestions!!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 25, 2017, 07:55:04 pm
Hey there i got a Conflict in the Pacific essay coming up (my last internal assessment yay!)
the question is "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?

our teacher has said this is meant to be a source based research essays so it needs a bit of historeography
Can you guys give me some pointers on what to write about in the essay and structuring it and stuff?
Thanks alot :)
Hey herb! Unfortunately I didn't study this unit, so theres not really much for me to suggest, other than structurally consider looking at it through the various objectives, and how the bombing of pearl harbour was a key factor/influence? Mainly responding to this so that it doesn't get lost in the most recent replies.

There's quite a few Conflict in the Pacific students on here now though - hopefully they'll be able to help ya out!

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 25, 2017, 08:05:39 pm
Hey herb! Unfortunately I didn't study this unit, so theres not really much for me to suggest, other than structurally consider looking at it through the various objectives, and how the bombing of pearl harbour was a key factor/influence? Mainly responding to this so that it doesn't get lost in the most recent replies.

There's quite a few Conflict in the Pacific students on here now though - hopefully they'll be able to help ya out!

Susie

unfortunately it is one of the topics i havent gone into much depth into nor written an essay plan for
but here are some general idea:
- The Japanese knew they couldn't continue the war in China without resources as these were being dwindled by the Allied embargo. Therefore, in order to continue fighting, they need to go further south to area such as Malaya for rubber and Dutch East Indies for oil. However, the Americans at Pearl Harbour were the only viable threat to this aim. Therefore, they believed that attacking America at Pearl Harbour, if done correctly, would rule them out of the war for 2 years and therefore they could pass and take the resources in Malaya and the DEI. That was the main aim.
Two other benefits from the attack included:
- A restoration of pride from the people in the navy as the victory was to have a similar impact as the victory over Russia in 1904.
- And to reaffirm the racial pride of the Japanese and vulnerability of the West. (Can mention Co-Prosperity Sphere here if you want, but not too much otherwise you'll drift from focusing on Pearl Harbour.)
However, as I said, haven't done an essay plan on this one so all I can say at the moment! Hope it helped!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: thesvs on July 25, 2017, 11:21:25 pm
Hey this is primarily directed at Susie, considering she did Russia for her National Study.
What themes would you centre your essay around for the question, "How successful was Soviet foreign policy in achieving its aims from 1917 to 1941? "
I'm lost in terms of structuring it thematically, but chronological seems too simplistic.
Thanks
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 25, 2017, 11:40:15 pm
Hey Jake, I just had a go at my intro, could you just let me know if I am on the right track? (I'm typing it up now because unfortunately but understandably we can't give anything to our teacher if it's typed haha)
HOW SUCCESSFUL WAS NAZISM IN ACHIEVING ITS FOREIGN POLICY AIMS UP TO 1939
Nazism foreign policy was centred around restoring Germany to the position of a great power. For Hitler, this could be achieved through two fundamental aims: territorial expansion and racial purity. Although Nazism was initially successful in gaining new territory (Lebensraum), this was only moderately successful by 1939 as they were unable to invade Poland. Therefore, while Nazism was also successful in annexing Austria and acquiring territory from Czechoslovakia, its failure to take Poland also meant that its aim for racial purity was also moderately successful as Poland had large German minorities. However, the Nazi party were highly successful in their secondary aims of destroying the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles and the building up of its army. Thus, Nazism was initially successful in achieving all of its Foreign Policy aims. Yet, the failure to capture Poland, which was significant due to its land and German minorities, meant that on a whole, by 1939, Nazism was only partially successful in achieving its aims.

Hahah damn I just realised Germany didnt fail and they did invade poland... so im a bit confused as what to write now so yeah any suggestions you could give on what you would argue would be great jake! :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 25, 2017, 11:58:13 pm
Hey this is primarily directed at Susie, considering she did Russia for her National Study.
What themes would you centre your essay around for the question, "How successful was Soviet foreign policy in achieving its aims from 1917 to 1941? "
I'm lost in terms of structuring it thematically, but chronological seems too simplistic.
Thanks
Hey!
I structured this essay according to militaristic/strategic, diplomatic/economic and socio-cultural themes :)

So for militaristic/strategic themes, I spoke about the Spanish Civil War and the Soviet support of the Nationalist party in China, emphasising how their involvement within both emphasises their desire to achieve domestic stability over international revolution, as they supported the anti-communists in the Spanish Civil War, as they feared the revolution would further disrupt Europe, creating a chaos that Germany could thrive on (and grow into a greater, more stable threat), and the nationalists in China, as they didn't think that the Communist Party was powerful enough and thus didn't want to threaten their relationship with the Nationalists (helped the nationalists slaughter a heap of communists - really all but one... take a guess of who survived... :P).

Then for diplomatic/economic, I spoke about how I spoke about the various trade deals and peace agreements that were signed, that further emphasised the aim of domestic stability over international revolution (in particular the Treaty of Rapollo, and how yes it helped Russia get back on its feet, but it also helped Germany, putting them in a more stable situation that made a communist revolution less likely).

For socio-cultural, I focused on the changing aims of the Comintern, and how it shifted from promoting international revolution, to Stalin's socialism-in-one-country, Lynch stating that “he set himself the primary task of defending his country’s interests in a hostile world”  :)

Hope this helps! If you scroll up, I actually posted my full response to this question recently :) Have a flick through and see if that structure makes sense to you :) Structuring it according to the aims and to what extent they were successfully achieved would also work well :)

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 26, 2017, 12:01:46 am
Hey! Awesome, love that you are considering giving a thematic structure a go. Even if you end up liking the other structure better, always good to have this essay form in your arsenal :) Though political, social and economic are definitely the most commonly used themes, if you find it easier militaristic/strategic, ideological and cultural also count as themes too! I actually think a few of your examples might work better with these; for example I'd venture a guess and say that the invasion of China would be an example for a militaristic/strategic paragraph! I'd assume that the proclamation of New Order in East Asia would be political and/or social, and the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere (GEACPS) would be political (and maybe economic, if it included aspects of trade). However of course as I didn't study this, take these suggestions with a grain of salt.

In terms of your second question - I think it is fine to include it, but try to steer away from morality (ie. don't say this was morally good or morally bad). I think saying that it was inevitable, or a reasonable reaction however is fine :) And yes, as long as in your introduction you use the full title, you can definitely refer to the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere as GEACPS :)

Just because foreign policy questions in particular have been being asked quite a lot recently, for multiple case studies, within the spoiler I have included one of my essays on Soviet Foreign Policy, to hopefully indicate the way I structured my responses :)

Spoiler
How successful was Soviet foreign policy in achieving its aims from 1917 to 1941?

The incompatibility of the key aims of Soviet foreign policy – domestic stability and international revolution – greatly limited its accomplishments, as the promotion of one aim effectively reduced the opportunity for the other, and thus it is clear that Soviet foreign policy was only partially successful in achieving its aims from 1917 to 1941. Though the aims and purposes of Soviet foreign policy fluctuated depending upon the current leadership of the Bolsheviks Party and the changing domestic and international tensions, it is evident that the goals of domestic socio-political stability and a worldwide socialist revolution remained significant, thus projecting the Soviet Union into an internal conflict between pragmatism and ideological adherence. Though initially the principle aim appeared to be the promotion of a global socialist revolution, as dictated by the Bolshevik ideological position of Permanent Revolution, it is clear through the increasing implementation of self-preservationist policies throughout the period that the Bolsheviks aim of survival outweighed their desire to spread socialism. This is evident through the various militaristic/strategic, economic, diplomatic and socio-cultural factors that impacted or were impacted by soviet foreign policy between 1917 to 1941, which dictated its success.

It is evident through the the militaristic and strategic foreign policies implemented from 1917 to 1941 that the aims of the Soviet Union had shifted towards the consolidation and preservation of the Bolshevik state rather than the expansion of their ideology, thus it is clear through being forced to forgo certain key aims that soviet foreign policy was only partially successful. Despite Permanent Revolution, the official party policy of the Bolsheviks requiring an international revolution in order to succeed, the primary concerns after the 1917 Revolution was the consolidation of their power within Russia. The political climate was still largely unstable, therefore the Bolsheviks had to immediately return upon their promises of “Peace. Bread. Land,” in order to consolidate their power, the peace component of which had a significant impact upon soviet foreign policy through the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, as it ensured their exit from the increasingly unpopular international conflict World War I. The signing of the Treaty demonstrates the shift in strategic foreign policy focus from ideological adherence to pragmatism, as it signified the abandonment of the Permanent Revolution principles and their aim of an international socialist revolution in order to achieve domestic stability and the survival of the Bolshevik state. This shift was further demonstrated through the Soviets contradictory (in regards to their ideology) support of the leftist parties within the Spanish Civil War in order to prevent a socialist revolution within Spain, aiding the Republicans with materials, arms and over 2000 Russian citizens as soldiers due to their fears that increased instability would enable the rise and spread of German fascism within the region, which would pose a significant domestic security threat. Along with this, the Soviets under Stalin endeavoured to maintain an alliance with the Nationalists in China, due to his belief that the Chinese Communists were too few to achieve anything, which further demonstrates the Bolshevik governments willingness to forgo ideology in favour of more pragmatic foreign policy. Therefore, through the various strategic and militaristic foreign policies implemented by the Bolshevik Party, it is clear that though successful in regards to the preservation of the Bolshevik state, soviet foreign policy was unsuccessful in instigating an international revolution, and therefore was only partially successful in achieving its aims from 1917 to 1941.

It is evident through the economic and diplomatic foreign policies implemented by the Bolsheviks Party between 1917 and 1941 that the Soviet leaders main concern was the survival of the Bolshevik state rather than the spread of socialism, and thus attempted through economic means to reduce hostilities and tensions between themselves and their capitalist neighbours. Despite the Soviets aims and predictions of a world revolution, this did not occur, and thus the Bolshevik Government, which had been, during the time, producing highly critical assessments upon the opposing ideology of capitalism both through policy and the media now found themselves surrounded by capitalist neighbours, Lynch stating “The Soviet Union’s often antagonistic behaviour towards the capitalist countries frequently produced counter blasts … [meaning] that international tension never wholly slackened”. This is evident through the continued poor relations between Russia and post-war Germany, which banned the Communist Party in 1919, and the assessments from other nations leaders, such as British Prime Minister Winston Churchill who described communism as “not a policy, it is a disease.” Thus in order to reduce tension and hostilities amongst their capitalist neighbours, the Bolshevik government entered into various Trade agreements during the 1920s that ensured the peaceful co-existence of the two opposing ideologies. A number of capitalist countries entered into these trade agreements with the USSR, such as Italy, Germany and Britain (The Anglo-Soviet Trade Agreement). Along with this, Russia became involved within various international diplomatic organisations and agreements, evident through there admittance into the League of Nations in 1934, and the Rapallo Treaty, which was highly significant in reducing the tensions between the Soviets and Germany, as it signified the relinquishing of territorial and financial claims against each other, thus easing the pressures of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, with the aim to “co-operate in a spirit of goodwill in meeting the economic needs of both countries.” Though this increased cooperation with Germany had a positive impact upon the security and consolidation of the Bolshevik state, a destabilised Germany was far more likely to fall to a socialist revolution, and thus it is evident that the Bolsheviks prioritized self-preservation over the aim of worldwide revolution. Therefore, through the various economic and diplomatic foreign policies implemented by the Bolshevik party, it is clear that though successful in regards to the preservation of the Bolshevik state through the reduction of hostilities and tensions, soviet foreign policy was unsuccessful in instigating an international revolution, and therefore was only partially successful in achieving its aims from 1917 to 1941. The aim to survive through a reduction in tensions within the capitalist neighbour was further demonstrated through their implementation of diplomatic foreign policy.

Through the failures of various revolutionary socio-cultural foreign policies implemented by the Bolshevik party between 1917 and 1941, it is evident that soviet foreign policy was ineffective in achieving an international revolution, and thus, despite it’s self-preservationist success, was only partially successful in achieving its aims from 1917 to 1941. Early forms of soviet foreign policy, particularly under the leadership of Lenin, greatly focused upon the ideologically based aim of promoting an international socialist revolution. This is evident through the 1919 creation of the Communist International (also known as the Comintern), which had the revolutionary task of promoting and co-ordinating the communist parties of the world in an effort to advocate a global communist system. This is evident through their aim to “overthrow … the international bourgeoisie and for the creation of an international Soviet republic,” and the formation of the United Front, whereby communists propose to fight alongside non-communist workers in a “common struggle to defend … the working class against the bourgeoisie.” However, after a failed attempt to start a world revolution through the Polish invasion of Russia, the Comintern realised that peaceful coexistence with Europe was the only option, with Lynch stating that “between 1918 and 1920 … the Comintern was concerned sole with safeguarding the interests of Soviet Russia.” This preoccupation with the interests of Russia was continued under the soviet foreign policy actions of Stalin, with Lynch stating that “he set himself the primary task of defending his country’s interests in a hostile world,” and thus ordered the Comintern to cease appeals for global revolution due to the fact that after joining the League of Nations in 1934 Russia now had non-communist allies, and that no communist-inspired revolts had actually succeeded anywhere in the world at that time. Therefore, through the various attempts and failures to instigate effective revolutionary socio-cultural foreign policies, it is evident that soviet foreign policy, despite it’s self-preservationist success, was only partially successful in achieving its aims from 1917 to 1941.

Therefore, it is evident through the various socio-cultural, diplomatic, economic and militaristic/strategic factors that soviet foreign policy was successful in ensuring the survival of the Bolshevik state, however at the expense of their other principle aim – the promotion of an international socialist revolution. Thus, it is evident that soviet foreign policy was only partially successful in achieving its aims from 1917 to 1941, as the incompatibility between their pragmatic aim of stability and ideological aim of international revolution meant that they could only focus upon one aspect of their aims while forgoing the other. 

I think this is the one you are talking about re. soviet foreign policy :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: maria1999 on July 26, 2017, 08:22:23 pm
hey everyone!
I'm having a minor breakdown about the personality section for Albert Speer. In regards to questions like product of his time or shaped by events or shaper of events, how would I go about arguing it for him? I know stuff about him but I don't really understand how to apply that knowledge to stuff like his role as architecht and armaments minister and the good nazi debate etc. Any clarification would help so much, thank you!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 26, 2017, 09:11:18 pm
hey everyone!
I'm having a minor breakdown about the personality section for Albert Speer. In regards to questions like product of his time or shaped by events or shaper of events, how would I go about arguing it for him? I know stuff about him but I don't really understand how to apply that knowledge to stuff like his role as architecht and armaments minister and the good nazi debate etc. Any clarification would help so much, thank you!

If you look at the page prior to this I explained all of that in detail :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: thesvs on July 26, 2017, 09:41:18 pm
Thank you!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: maria1999 on July 27, 2017, 04:41:18 pm
Hey Jake, I just had a go at my intro, could you just let me know if I am on the right track? (I'm typing it up now because unfortunately but understandably we can't give anything to our teacher if it's typed haha)
HOW SUCCESSFUL WAS NAZISM IN ACHIEVING ITS FOREIGN POLICY AIMS UP TO 1939
Nazism foreign policy was centred around restoring Germany to the position of a great power. For Hitler, this could be achieved through two fundamental aims: territorial expansion and racial purity. Although Nazism was initially successful in gaining new territory (Lebensraum), this was only moderately successful by 1939 as they were unable to invade Poland. Therefore, while Nazism was also successful in annexing Austria and acquiring territory from Czechoslovakia, its failure to take Poland also meant that its aim for racial purity was also moderately successful as Poland had large German minorities. However, the Nazi party were highly successful in their secondary aims of destroying the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles and the building up of its army. Thus, Nazism was initially successful in achieving all of its Foreign Policy aims. Yet, the failure to capture Poland, which was significant due to its land and German minorities, meant that on a whole, by 1939, Nazism was only partially successful in achieving its aims.

Hahah damn I just realised Germany didnt fail and they did invade poland... so im a bit confused as what to write now so yeah any suggestions you could give on what you would argue would be great jake! :)
Hi!! I'm not Jake lol but I study Germany too, so I might be able to help a bit :)
I think the intro is really really good, but you might want to state the judgement earlier. I heard Susie say in the lecture that it even needs to be the first sentence. Personally, I completly agree with this judgement, however maybe link how the their ideology was inextricably linked to territorial expanision i.e the Nazis felt like they had entitlement to expand because they felt as if Germans were racially superior. So maybe speak about how those two aims that HItler had wern't mutually exclusive and were had to be acheievd together in order to fully satisfy their foreign policy. Other than that everything seems pretty sweet! Hope this helps!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 27, 2017, 04:53:48 pm
Hi!! I'm not Jake lol but I study Germany too, so I might be able to help a bit :)
I think the intro is really really good, but you might want to state the judgement earlier. I heard Susie say in the lecture that it even needs to be the first sentence. Personally, I completly agree with this judgement, however maybe link how the their ideology was inextricably linked to territorial expanision i.e the Nazis felt like they had entitlement to expand because they felt as if Germans were racially superior. So maybe speak about how those two aims that HItler had wern't mutually exclusive and were had to be acheievd together in order to fully satisfy their foreign policy. Other than that everything seems pretty sweet! Hope this helps!

Hey yeah thanks I wanted to do the judgement first too so I'll probably rearrange that and I have looked at putting in the ideology eg. the slavs as inferior in my boyd paragraphs, my teacher also told me a failure was the outbreak of ww2 as a result of the foreign policy and that britain and france's lack of response initially may have paved the way for hitler to become overconfident and too aggressive with his foreign policy leading to war, but thanks heaps for the feedback really consolidates my points now :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: mixel on July 27, 2017, 08:29:32 pm
Hey yeah thanks I wanted to do the judgement first too so I'll probably rearrange that and I have looked at putting in the ideology eg. the slavs as inferior in my boyd paragraphs, my teacher also told me a failure was the outbreak of ww2 as a result of the foreign policy and that britain and france's lack of response initially may have paved the way for hitler to become overconfident and too aggressive with his foreign policy leading to war, but thanks heaps for the feedback really consolidates my points now :)

Hey, I really like that argument about Hitler's overconfidence in foreign policy  :) If you're gonna run with it, there's a great argument by AJP Taylor that Hitler's intention was to hold a Munich-style conference over Danzig like what Mussolini arranged for the Sudetenland. He says that he sent Britain a communique about that very idea, but literally sent it a day too late for them to read it before his invasion on September 1st (might mention inflexibility of Hitler's FP in light of that). Good luck!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 27, 2017, 10:12:12 pm
Hey, I really like that argument about Hitler's overconfidence in foreign policy  :) If you're gonna run with it, there's a great argument by AJP Taylor that Hitler's intention was to hold a Munich-style conference over Danzig like what Mussolini arranged for the Sudetenland. He says that he sent Britain a communique about that very idea, but literally sent it a day too late for them to read it before his invasion on September 1st (might mention inflexibility of Hitler's FP in light of that). Good luck!

Okay I will have a look thank you :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: diesxel on July 28, 2017, 09:44:48 pm
Hi!! I was wondering if anyone could please help me out with this task:

You are to research three different historical perspectives of Leon Trotsky of differing viewpoints. To answer this question:

"History is more honest when a negative or positive view is presented. Despite this, we tend to accept the measured view as the "official" perspective."

I don't really understand the question and how to write a whole essay on it and it's freaking me out!! Any help would be appreciated, even if its a historian recommendation or breakdown of the question, anything!!

Thnx so much, I really need to improve my rank in class
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 28, 2017, 10:16:57 pm
Hey guys, I am currently working on the question: Describe the reasons of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour in 1941. Obviously I covered need for natural resources and ambition to expand into SE Asia (PH as a threat to this and if successfully attacked would delay US from resisting Japanese expansion for 2 years). However, my textbook also speaks of reasons such as Japanese wanting to reaffirm their racial superiority and Navy wanting to gain recognition as the army gained most of the recognition for the war in China. I understand these points but feel they are very weak and I won't be able to write enough on these. Any thoughts?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 28, 2017, 10:28:42 pm
Hi!! I was wondering if anyone could please help me out with this task:

You are to research three different historical perspectives of Leon Trotsky of differing viewpoints. To answer this question:

"History is more honest when a negative or positive view is presented. Despite this, we tend to accept the measured view as the "official" perspective."

I don't really understand the question and how to write a whole essay on it and it's freaking me out!! Any help would be appreciated, even if its a historian recommendation or breakdown of the question, anything!!

Thnx so much, I really need to improve my rank in class

Hey so I am doing Albert Speer so have no knowledge of Trotsky so Susie probably can fill you in there. In terms of the question and what it means, I can have a go but then again Jake or Susie will probably be better at answering that too as it has me stumped too haha! In my opinion, in terms of - History is more honest when a negative or positive view is presented - i interpret that to mean that historians can gain a more truthful picture of a personality when both sides of the story are shown. For instance, in terms of speer, some said he was a good nazi, some said he was just as bad as the rest. having both interpretations and the research done on both the good and bad sides of speer allows historians to more correctly evaluate which is more true by weighing both up against each other. in saying this i may be entirely wrong for that part so maybe best waiting for susie or jake :) In terms of - Despite this, we tend to accept the measured view as the "official" perspective." - this part has me confused as well haha if im guessing i would say, this maybe refers to that the perspective that most people end up accepting is the one which is more is the most official, ie. maybe it is referring to official papers, government documents etc. which may be used to cover up the truth.
thats how i interpreted it but completely a guess! hopefully susie or jake can shed a more clear light on what it actually means haha because would be helpful for me too :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 28, 2017, 10:43:08 pm
Hi!! I was wondering if anyone could please help me out with this task:

You are to research three different historical perspectives of Leon Trotsky of differing viewpoints. To answer this question:

"History is more honest when a negative or positive view is presented. Despite this, we tend to accept the measured view as the "official" perspective."

I don't really understand the question and how to write a whole essay on it and it's freaking me out!! Any help would be appreciated, even if its a historian recommendation or breakdown of the question, anything!!

Thnx so much, I really need to improve my rank in class
Hey diesxel!
Can defs help you out with this one - a very similar question to the one I received in my HSC! The question is one focused on the differing interpretations (obviously), which means that we look to the final dot point of the Trotsky syllabus - evaluation: for example practical revolutionary, naďve idealist?.

Trotsky is a very controversial figure, with radically different interpretations. In my opinion (and this is what I argued in my essay), these say more about the historians than they do about Trotsky - particularly their views of Communism. Right-wing historians such as Robert Service, who have a more negative view of communism thus have a negative view of Trotsky - presenting him as a naive idealist and a ruthless authoritarian (aka, he stuck too rigidly to a "failing" ideology, even when it was not going to work, or was detrimental to the people), however Left-wing historians such as Isaac Deutscher, who are more sympathetic towards Communism, present a much more positive interpretation of Trotsky - suggesting that he was a practical revolutionary (meaning that he pragmatically applied ideology, rather that just assuming theory would work in all circumstances). It all comes down to Trotsky's ideology - either he was too rigid, or he was pragmatic, and knew when it could/couldn't be applied successfully. Right-wing historians will inherently view Communism as an idealistic ideology, and thus that will shape their interpretation, in the same way that many left-wing/socialist historians who view Communism as a practical ideology (or even an inevitable one, if they accept the marxist conception of history), will have their interpretation shaped as well. What is interesting, and the reason why I think that these interpretations are more of a reflection on the historians and their ideology as opposed to Trotsky is that they place emphasis on different aspects of Trotsky's legacy in order to assert their views.

For example, lets look at Trotsky's role in the power struggle. Right-wing historians emphasise Trotsky's personal failures - his arrogance, naivety and rude personality - to suggest why he failed. He was so arrogant in assuming that he was the natural successor to Lenin, naive to Stalin's actions, and rude to party members, alienating everyone. That is why he failed. On the other hand, left-wing historians suggest that rather than looking at Trotsky's failures, what is important is to look at the social changes at the time - war-torn, decline in urban proletariat, etc. etc. This society was war-weary, thus Trotsky's ideology of Permanent Revolution, which required international revolution and thus conflict would not have appealed to society as much as Stalin's socialism-in-one-country, which suggested Russia could sustain communism on their own, without engaging in conflict with other nations. Thus, no matter what Trotsky's was personally like, doesn't change the fact that his ideology just didn't suit the present social conditions - it's about society, not the individual. That is why he failed.

See what I mean? They are both selective in the evidence they present - history is interpretation. I think what the second part of the question is suggesting, is that many perceive truth to come from the "middle ground" view. The "measured" view is the view that (supposedly) takes everything into account (if you do history extension - you know how dumb that sentiment is, but for Modern just go with it :)) So you have these two radical "extremes" - Trotsky was evil, or Trotsky was a communist hero. The truth supposedly lies in the middle - Trotsky was a complex figure, who made many controversial decisions that greatly shaped Russian society at the time. His significance doesn't lie in whether he was morally "good" or "bad", but in the radical impact he had on the Russian populous, and the consolidation of Bolshevik power. By very nature, the fact that there is a debate asserts that he was a highly significant figure.

Soooo the way that I would tackle this essay, would be to structure it according to these three key issues: His role as Commissar for Foreign Affairs, his role as Commissar for War, and the Power Struggle with Stalin. Within each paragraph, I would emphasise how and why historians have arrived at such radical views, but assert that it is their allegiance to their own right or left wing ideology that they are asserting, and that you gain a more balanced interpretation of Trotsky's significance through an analysis of both :)

Hope this helps!!

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: tahliamag on July 29, 2017, 09:06:57 am
Helloooo,
For those of you who have done / are doing Albert Speer as your personality study, I was wondering what 3 events you talk about when answering a rise to prominance question? I was thinking the Nuremberg Rally (cathedral of light), First Architect of the Riech and Armaments Minister but im not really sure if they are the best events so any suggestions would be great :))))))
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 29, 2017, 11:02:00 am
Helloooo,
For those of you who have done / are doing Albert Speer as your personality study, I was wondering what 3 events you talk about when answering a rise to prominance question? I was thinking the Nuremberg Rally (cathedral of light), First Architect of the Riech and Armaments Minister but im not really sure if they are the best events so any suggestions would be great :))))))

Yeah that sounds good :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: mixel on July 29, 2017, 12:00:53 pm
Helloooo,
For those of you who have done / are doing Albert Speer as your personality study, I was wondering what 3 events you talk about when answering a rise to prominance question? I was thinking the Nuremberg Rally (cathedral of light), First Architect of the Riech and Armaments Minister but im not really sure if they are the best events so any suggestions would be great :))))))

Hey, I've seen a lot of suggestions for people to do the Nuremberg rally as a standalone point for the 10 marker, but I think you could be limiting yourself if you focused an entire paragraph on it. It certainly made him more prominent within and without the Reich, for example, him winning the Grand Prix at the Paris World Fair for it, but you could incorporate that into a paragraph on his work as First Architect and leave space for broader narrative to make sure you cover your bases. His early work for the party is pretty significant as well considering it was the basis for the rest of his achievements and Speer's own description of befriending and getting entry level jobs from Karl Hanke as the 'luckiest stroke' in his career?
Just something to think about  :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 29, 2017, 12:16:53 pm
Hey, I've seen a lot of suggestions for people to do the Nuremberg rally as a standalone point for the 10 marker, but I think you could be limiting yourself if you focused an entire paragraph on it. It certainly made him more prominent within and without the Reich, for example, him winning the Grand Prix at the Paris World Fair for it, but you could incorporate that into a paragraph on his work as First Architect and leave space for broader narrative to make sure you cover your bases. His early work for the party is pretty significant as well considering it was the basis for the rest of his achievements and Speer's own description of befriending and getting entry level jobs from Karl Hanke as the 'luckiest stroke' in his career?
Just something to think about  :)

Was my exact thoughts I had but wasn't sure if the early part could be included as did think Nuremberg may be too small for one para. Good advice! :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: ~BK~ on July 30, 2017, 08:18:59 pm
hey.... :D
i would REALLY appreciate an answer on this one... :-\
should we include historians views in our personality study answers!?? ???
just fyi i did albert speer, really enjoyed the topic i was just a bit confused as to how much to include as they are only smaller mark q's. :o
thanks ppl ;D
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 30, 2017, 08:29:48 pm
hey.... :D
i would REALLY appreciate an answer on this one... :-\
should we include historians views in our personality study answers!?? ???
just fyi i did albert speer, really enjoyed the topic i was just a bit confused as to how much to include as they are only smaller mark q's. :o
thanks ppl ;D

Put simply no need for the first part, it's just a narrative. For the second part, the 15 marker, it is an absolute MUST! I would use at least 4 historians and a couple of quotes from each if you can! Just also don't forget that you should be also evaluating what they are saying not just putting in the quotes and leaving them unevaluated/unexplained. Hope that helps :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 30, 2017, 08:46:24 pm
hey.... :D
i would REALLY appreciate an answer on this one... :-\
should we include historians views in our personality study answers!?? ???
just fyi i did albert speer, really enjoyed the topic i was just a bit confused as to how much to include as they are only smaller mark q's. :o
thanks ppl ;D

Hey! So a slightly different perspective to dancing phalanges :) Though I definitely think that including historians is great, and I would recommend it - it is not "necessary", at least in regards to the final HSC exam (schools sometimes have different policies in regards to their internal marking). Historians count as detail, which is why they are great, but many students end up relying on historians, providing more of a shopping list of interpretations, rather than their own analysis. Though it is important for the personality study to understand the themes of the historiography, in regards to the differing interpretations you are asked to discuss (eg. Good Nazi? for Speer), if you really don't know an exact quote or historian, you can still get a good mark :) Remember to only use historians to back up your own arguments, rather than making them the form of your argument. Defs agree with dancing phalanges though about making sure you analyse the quote, rather than just dropping it in - that is why I personally liked paraphrasing, rather than direct quotes (though I did both in the exam)! You can use quotes in Part A as well :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 30, 2017, 08:56:30 pm
Hey! So a slightly different perspective to dancing phalanges :) Though I definitely think that including historians is great, and I would recommend it - it is not "necessary", at least in regards to the final HSC exam (schools sometimes have different policies in regards to their internal marking). Historians count as detail, which is why they are great, but many students end up relying on historians, providing more of a shopping list of interpretations, rather than their own analysis. Though it is important for the personality study to understand the themes of the historiography, in regards to the differing interpretations you are asked to discuss (eg. Good Nazi? for Speer), if you really don't know an exact quote or historian, you can still get a good mark :) Remember to only use historians to back up your own arguments, rather than making them the form of your argument. Defs agree with dancing phalanges though about making sure you analyse the quote, rather than just dropping it in - that is why I personally liked paraphrasing, rather than direct quotes (though I did both in the exam)! You can use quotes in Part A as well :)

Yeah sorry just what our teacher told us but I can see why you can do well without them as long as you use detail :) but definitely dont just quote historians for the sake of it. just got back english advanced citizen kane essay and i got 19/20 and lost a mark for using too many critics opinions/analysis to the extent that my own voice/opinion was hindered so that was a big lesson for me!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 30, 2017, 08:59:33 pm
Yeah sorry just what our teacher told us but I can see why you can do well without them as long as you use detail :) but definitely dont just quote historians for the sake of it. just got back english advanced citizen kane essay and i got 19/20 and lost a mark for using too many critics opinions/analysis to the extent that my own voice/opinion was hindered so that was a big lesson for me!
Definitely don't need to apologise! Not as if you gave them bad advice at all - historians are still a great addition to any essay, and I'd recommend using them! You just won't lose a mark for not doing so :) And that is a fantastic mark!! Phenomenal stuff - great work!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: bun00 on July 31, 2017, 03:45:16 pm
Heya!
sorry not sure if this has already been asked....but..
could anyone give me a guide on how many pages i should be writing for each essay in my modern history trial?
fyi..i do Germany, albert speer and conflict in the pacific if anyone has any tips ;)
tks hps and ATB with ure exams everyone :D
chz
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 31, 2017, 03:52:29 pm
Heya!
sorry not sure if this has already been asked....but..
could anyone give me a guide on how many pages i should be writing for each essay in my modern history trial?
fyi..i do Germany, albert speer and conflict in the pacific if anyone has any tips ;)
tks hps and ATB with ure exams everyone :D
chz
Hey! You want to fill up the booklet. In the HSC you will get an 8 page booklet for each section, so you want to be writing about 7-8 pages for each essay, 3-4 pages for part A of the personality study, and 5-6 pages for part B :D Roughly 1000+ words for each section. If you struggle to fill the entire booklet, I suggest attempting to make your handwriting a bit bigger! That is what I had to do last year :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 31, 2017, 03:54:17 pm
Heya!
sorry not sure if this has already been asked....but..
could anyone give me a guide on how many pages i should be writing for each essay in my modern history trial?
fyi..i do Germany, albert speer and conflict in the pacific if anyone has any tips ;)
tks hps and ATB with ure exams everyone :D
chz

I would say you'd be aiming to do at least 6 pages for each essay and then 2 pages for part a of personality study and 3-4 pages for part b but i aren't too sure, theres no magic formula haha! also wanted to ask susie, i have paper 2 tomorrow and art wednesday then modern thursday (dont do maths) would you recommend starting modern study tomorrow (really want to focus on paper 2 today if i can) or wednesday after art... like how should i prioritise seeing there is so much for me to learn and shove in before thursdau thanks! :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 31, 2017, 03:55:50 pm
Hey! You want to fill up the booklet. In the HSC you will get an 8 page booklet for each section, so you want to be writing about 7-8 pages for each essay, 3-4 pages for part A of the personality study, and 5-6 pages for part B :D Roughly 1000+ words for each section. If you struggle to fill the entire booklet, I suggest attempting to make your handwriting a bit bigger! That is what I had to do last year :)

Whoa haha! A lot to write in 40 minutes! With the personality section, since it is also 40 minutes, should I be aiming to just fill up 7-8 pages like the essay or is it expected you write more. I am really not looking forward to thursday haha
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 31, 2017, 04:01:40 pm
also wanted to ask susie, i have paper 2 tomorrow and art wednesday then modern thursday (dont do maths) would you recommend starting modern study tomorrow (really want to focus on paper 2 today if i can) or wednesday after art... like how should i prioritise seeing there is so much for me to learn and shove in before thursdau thanks! :)
Definitely focus on paper 2 today (congrats on getting over the first hurdle, I hope Paper 1 went well)! Tomorrow, prioritise Art, but definitely try and squeeze in some Modern as well!

Whoa haha! A lot to write in 40 minutes! With the personality section, since it is also 40 minutes, should I be aiming to just fill up 7-8 pages like the essay or is it expected you write more. I am really not looking forward to thursday haha
Yes, you should be aiming to fill the entire 7-8 page booklet for Section III as well - you don't need to write more than that, but tbh I always ended up going over with the personality section, just because it is really hard to condense yourself, as the part B structure is essentially the same as a full 45 minute essay, but you only have 30 mins. For me, that meant using the 5-10 minutes I gained from completing WW1 under time, and devoting that to the personality study :)

Good luck :D
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 31, 2017, 04:05:30 pm
Definitely focus on paper 2 today (congrats on getting over the first hurdle, I hope Paper 1 went well)! Tomorrow, prioritise Art, but definitely try and squeeze in some Modern as well!
Yes, you should be aiming to fill the entire 7-8 page booklet for Section III as well - you don't need to write more than that, but tbh I always ended up going over with the personality section, just because it is really hard to condense yourself, as the part B structure is essentially the same as a full 45 minute essay, but you only have 30 mins. For me, that meant using the 5-10 minutes I gained from completing WW1 under time, and devoting that to the personality study :)

Good luck :D

ah okay true ill try smash out the ww1! since i wont have heaps of time to study all my essay plans and content do you have any tips on how to study it all effectively and to the detail i need to do well? i remember you said something about detail tables? how did you lay them out again? :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 31, 2017, 04:09:50 pm
ah okay true ill try smash out the ww1! since i wont have heaps of time to study all my essay plans and content do you have any tips on how to study it all effectively and to the detail i need to do well? i remember you said something about detail tables? how did you lay them out again? :)
Tomorrow, get one of the sections sorted and out of the way (probably WW1 or the personality study), then the next day focus on the others. I would be looking at different essay questions, and seeing if their were any gaps in my knowledge, and also attempting to find patterns - do you always do x type of essay thematically, and then y type of essay according to factors? That kinda stuff can help you prepare more universally. Detail tables are FANTASTIC. I've attached mine as an example. I've also attached my Trotsky argument table, because for the personality study I think they are one of the most effective ways of learning the content (aside from practice papers).

Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: ~BK~ on July 31, 2017, 04:10:50 pm
Whoa haha! A lot to write in 40 minutes! With the personality section, since it is also 40 minutes, should I be aiming to just fill up 7-8 pages like the essay or is it expected you write more. I am really not looking forward to thursday haha

i am going to have a VERY sore hand by the end of it....  :-X  :'( :-[
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 31, 2017, 04:13:46 pm
i am going to have a VERY sore hand by the end of it....  :-X  :'( :-[
pro tip: put a bandaid around your middle finger - kinda acts as padding for your hand ahaha. Especially important if you have a pen with an abrasive grip at the end - I did and my hand was literally bleeding after Ancient, because it cut into my skin. The bandaid tip was something that I did during HSC, and it helped immeasurably :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 31, 2017, 04:15:31 pm
Tomorrow, get one of the sections sorted and out of the way (probably WW1 or the personality study), then the next day focus on the others. I would be looking at different essay questions, and seeing if their were any gaps in my knowledge, and also attempting to find patterns - do you always do x type of essay thematically, and then y type of essay according to factors? That kinda stuff can help you prepare more universally. Detail tables are FANTASTIC. I've attached mine as an example. I've also attached my Trotsky argument table, because for the personality study I think they are one of the most effective ways of learning the content (aside from practice papers).

Please don't tell me you memorised all of that  :o :o :o But nevertheless thank you so much! :)

Hey Susie, just with memorising detail, do you think it's fair to spend a lot less time on WW1 as you are given the sources anyway and although you need to show your own knowledge, a lot of what you write is based on what is in the sources? Should I also do a timeline for WW1 to know? Thanks

Mod Edit: Posts merged :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 31, 2017, 04:16:29 pm
pro tip: put a bandaid around your middle finger - kinda acts as padding for your hand ahaha. Especially important if you have a pen with an abrasive grip at the end - I did and my hand was literally bleeding after Ancient, because it cut into my skin. The bandaid tip was something that I did during HSC, and it helped immeasurably :)

Thanks! I'll try it starting tomorrow :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 31, 2017, 04:33:25 pm
Please don't tell me you memorised all of that  :o :o :o But nevertheless thank you so much! :)

Hey Susie, just with memorising detail, do you think it's fair to spend a lot less time on WW1 as you are given the sources anyway and although you need to show your own knowledge, a lot of what you write is based on what is in the sources? Should I also do a timeline for WW1 to know? Thanks

Mod Edit: Posts merged :)
I didn't memorise all of it! But I did know a great deal, as right before an exam I would look over the whole thing, and look/cover/write/check as much as I could! I also was able to memorise a lot of detail through practice responses.

In terms of a timeline - I really wouldn't bother. Not that important. Good to have in the long term, but with limited amount of time, I'd skip that. In terms of detail for WW1 - I really wouldn't scrimp on it. Though yes, you have sources, the sources aren't always "detailed" + you use detail to back up your understanding of the source. Remember that everyone in the state studies WW1, so it is really important to stand out - and detail is one of the best ways to do that, given that it is not a very "analytical" section.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 31, 2017, 04:44:38 pm
I didn't memorise all of it! But I did know a great deal, as right before an exam I would look over the whole thing, and look/cover/write/check as much as I could! I also was able to memorise a lot of detail through practice responses.

In terms of a timeline - I really wouldn't bother. Not that important. Good to have in the long term, but with limited amount of time, I'd skip that. In terms of detail for WW1 - I really wouldn't scrimp on it. Though yes, you have sources, the sources aren't always "detailed" + you use detail to back up your understanding of the source. Remember that everyone in the state studies WW1, so it is really important to stand out - and detail is one of the best ways to do that, given that it is not a very "analytical" section.

Okay thanks I'll try my best! :) I'd be dumb to not listen to someone who ranked 18th in the state ;)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: mixel on July 31, 2017, 05:46:01 pm
Hey guys, my modern exam is tomorrow and I'm shitting bricks because it's my first exam that actually combines all the sections like a proper hsc exam. I'm in two minds about whether I should do section 1 first or last, because on the one hand I can knock it out quickest and the structure of it with many small questions makes it way more 'rushable' than any other section if I run out of time, but on the other I kind of like the idea of getting it done as fast as possible and having more time for everything else along with a little confidence boost. The few times I've done multiple past paper sections in one sitting, this happened but my concern is that it wont necessarily happen again and I'll either end up with a bad section 1 or having to rush every other section. What should I do?

Does anyone have useful tips and stuff on the exam in general, like how to best utilise reading time or whatever?

Thanks  :)

Also, big congrats to dancing phalanges on getting motm. It's nice to see our modern history commune get recognition  ;D
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 31, 2017, 05:57:14 pm
Hey guys, my modern exam is tomorrow and I'm shitting bricks because it's my first exam that actually combines all the sections like a proper hsc exam. I'm in two minds about whether I should do section 1 first or last, because on the one hand I can knock it out quickest and the structure of it with many small questions makes it way more 'rushable' than any other section if I run out of time, but on the other I kind of like the idea of getting it done as fast as possible and having more time for everything else along with a little confidence boost. The few times I've done multiple past paper sections in one sitting, this happened but my concern is that it wont necessarily happen again and I'll either end up with a bad section 1 or having to rush every other section. What should I do?

Does anyone have useful tips and stuff on the exam in general, like how to best utilise reading time or whatever?

Thanks  :)

Also, big congrats to dancing phalanges on getting motm. It's nice to see our modern history commune get recognition  ;D
hey mixel! Though at the end of the day, it is very much a personal choice, I would always recommend doing Section I first. It's designed to ease you into the exam - the questions are "easier", worth less marks, and take less time to complete (usually), which means that you know from the get go how much time you've saved that can be devoted to the other sections, which can boost confidence and allow you to plan better. Furthermore, it allows you to utilise reading time more effectively, as you can really answer most of the questions in your head while reading the sources (obvs can't mark the paper, but I knew what I was putting down for all the multiple choice questions before the end of reading time). The fact is you can write a quality response for section 1 in 35 minutes :)

In terms of how to utilise reading time - mainly focus on the sources. Read the other questions, but do not dwell on them. If you get a good question, don't spend a minute patting yourself on the back and celebrating. If you get a bad question, don't spend a minute (or often longer) wallowing in self pity. Just acknowledge what the question is, so it is at the back of your head, and move on to answering, in your head, the questions from Section I. If you do finish Section I early, I recommend devoting the extra time to Section III, as it is my opinion that that is the hardest section to complete in 45 minutes.

But most importantly - relax! You'll be absolutely fine Mixel. You've been studying hard, and you definitely know your stuff. Freaking out isn't going to help you do better - but walking into that exam confident (even if you have to fake it a bit) will! Don't get caught up in other peoples stress tomorrow. If everyone is freaking out, go find somewhere quite to chill out before the exam starts.

Let us know how it goes! As I said, I'm sure you'll do absolutely amazing - and even if it doesn't go 100% according to plan, eh, it's only trials! You can more than bring it back by HSC :)

Susie

(and yes, huge congratulations to dancing phalanges! But also to everyone else here - Modern had one of the best months we've had all year, and every single one of you were a worthy candidate for the award :) Will not be surprised if I see a few more of your faces pop up on that list in the months to come ;))
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 31, 2017, 06:41:28 pm
Hey guys, my modern exam is tomorrow and I'm shitting bricks because it's my first exam that actually combines all the sections like a proper hsc exam. I'm in two minds about whether I should do section 1 first or last, because on the one hand I can knock it out quickest and the structure of it with many small questions makes it way more 'rushable' than any other section if I run out of time, but on the other I kind of like the idea of getting it done as fast as possible and having more time for everything else along with a little confidence boost. The few times I've done multiple past paper sections in one sitting, this happened but my concern is that it wont necessarily happen again and I'll either end up with a bad section 1 or having to rush every other section. What should I do?

Does anyone have useful tips and stuff on the exam in general, like how to best utilise reading time or whatever?

Thanks  :)

Also, big congrats to dancing phalanges on getting motm. It's nice to see our modern history commune get recognition  ;D

Thanks Mixel! Your replies have been just as if not better than mine and heaps detailed, you've been a massive help! Are you doing the CSSA or Independent Paper, Im guessing independent because mine is on Thursday, but nevertheless a big good luck to you, hope you ace it you deserve it! And just quickly Susie R.E reading time, like you can in S.O.R should I aim to answer in my head all the source analysis MC questions if i can to save heaps of time? Thanks :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on July 31, 2017, 06:51:40 pm
Susie R.E reading time, like you can in S.O.R should I aim to answer in my head all the source analysis MC questions if i can to save heaps of time? Thanks :)
yes I definitely would :) Like obviously don't mark the paper during reading time (some ppl give really bad advice and say you can do a nail imprint, but that still counts as marking the paper so don't!), but I think it is a really good idea to work out the answers before hand, so when writing time starts you can just quickly spend a minute filling in the circles, then spend the majority of the time on the 5-8 marker and the 10 marker!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 31, 2017, 06:53:32 pm
yes I definitely would :) Like obviously don't mark the paper during reading time (some ppl give really bad advice and say you can do a nail imprint, but that still counts as marking the paper so don't!), but I think it is a really good idea to work out the answers before hand, so when writing time starts you can just quickly spend a minute filling in the circles, then spend the majority of the time on the 5-8 marker and the 10 marker!

Thank you :) haha what a strange idea
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: mixel on July 31, 2017, 07:25:14 pm
Thanks Mixel! Your replies have been just as if not better than mine and heaps detailed, you've been a massive help! Are you doing the CSSA or Independent Paper, Im guessing independent because mine is on Thursday, but nevertheless a big good luck to you, hope you ace it you deserve it! And just quickly Susie R.E reading time, like you can in S.O.R should I aim to answer in my head all the source analysis MC questions if i can to save heaps of time? Thanks :)

Yeah Im pretty sure my school has written the paper. Good luck with cssa though, I'm sure you'll smash it! If nothing else it just means you'll beat more people in trials  ;)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on August 01, 2017, 02:21:49 pm
Hey Susie just a quick question... do you think there's any point in preparing more on a topic that hasn't been asked as much in previous trials or is it just too hard to pick. I summarised the previous trial questions on War in the Pacific below :)

FROM MOST OFTEN USED TO LEAST OFTEN (SINCE 2008)
reasons for the Japanese defeat 4x 10 11 13 16
–    social, political and economic effects on civilians in occupied territories in
South-East Asia 4x 08 10 12 16
–    Japanese foreign policy 1937–1941 3 x 08 11 15
–    US and British policies in the Pacific 1937–1941 2 x 08 11
–    turning points in the war: Battle of the Coral Sea, Battle of Midway, Battle of  2 x 12 15
the effect of the war on the home fronts in Japan and Australia 2x 09 14
strategic and political reasons for bombing Pearl Harbour 2x 09 11
strategies used by Allied forces against Japan 1942–1945 1x 11
–    Allied Occupation of Japan to 1951 1x 14


Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on August 01, 2017, 03:05:04 pm
Hey Susie just a quick question... do you think there's any point in preparing more on a topic that hasn't been asked as much in previous trials or is it just too hard to pick. I summarised the previous trial questions on War in the Pacific below :)

FROM MOST OFTEN USED TO LEAST OFTEN (SINCE 2008)
reasons for the Japanese defeat 4x 10 11 13 16
–    social, political and economic effects on civilians in occupied territories in
South-East Asia 4x 08 10 12 16
–    Japanese foreign policy 1937–1941 3 x 08 11 15
–    US and British policies in the Pacific 1937–1941 2 x 08 11
–    turning points in the war: Battle of the Coral Sea, Battle of Midway, Battle of  2 x 12 15
the effect of the war on the home fronts in Japan and Australia 2x 09 14
strategic and political reasons for bombing Pearl Harbour 2x 09 11
strategies used by Allied forces against Japan 1942–1945 1x 11
–    Allied Occupation of Japan to 1951 1x 14

Interesting question! Fun fact, I actually predicted all of my essay questions last year for Section II and IV in the HSC. So I don't necessarily think that its too hard to pick, however I'd be hesitant to recommend adjusting your study pattern based on a prediction. That being said, you're suggesting studying more for something, not studying less (that is how this conversation usually goes ahaha), so if you'd like to spend a bit more time on this section, definitely won't hurt!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on August 01, 2017, 03:44:21 pm
Interesting question! Fun fact, I actually predicted all of my essay questions last year for Section II and IV in the HSC. So I don't necessarily think that its too hard to pick, however I'd be hesitant to recommend adjusting your study pattern based on a prediction. That being said, you're suggesting studying more for something, not studying less (that is how this conversation usually goes ahaha), so if you'd like to spend a bit more time on this section, definitely won't hurt!

Haha geez that's good luck ;) Maybe I'll come asking for your predictions in October, i was more referring to in the war in the pacific focussing more on one topic eg. allied occupation since it has only been asked once vs reasons for japanese defeat (asked four times) thanks :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on August 01, 2017, 06:25:52 pm
Please don't tell me you also memorised all those quotes in your WW1 detail table Susie... they're 3-4 sentences long!  :o :o
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on August 01, 2017, 06:49:11 pm
Please don't tell me you also memorised all those quotes in your WW1 detail table Susie... they're 3-4 sentences long!  :o :o
I didn't memorise any quotes for WW1! I never really used quotes at all for that section, it was more just added detail, plus sometimes I referred to them as sources, without providing the quote.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Claudiaa on August 01, 2017, 06:55:56 pm
Hi Susie! I'm back to ask the Modern scholar more questions!

I'm currently studying the Origins of Arab and Israeli conflict but I'm finding it really hard to write essays and form my ideas very quickly, especially in exam conditions. What would your recommend is the best way to attack a question in modern with limited time? Also, how many quotes from historians/specific documents (in this case the articles made by the League of Nations - the Palestinian Constitution) should you know before walking into an exam?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on August 01, 2017, 06:57:34 pm
I didn't memorise any quotes for WW1! I never really used quotes at all for that section, it was more just added detail, plus sometimes I referred to them as sources, without providing the quote.

Haha okay phew I'm going through now and cutting down the number of stats and detail you have to a manageable amount for me (it will still end up being too much probably) aha. Don't know how I will fit all of these stats for WW1, Speer, Germany and Conflict in the Pacific all inside my brain!! Got through the half yearly because I predicted the exam paper haha
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on August 01, 2017, 07:33:31 pm
Hi Susie! I'm back to ask the Modern scholar more questions!

I'm currently studying the Origins of Arab and Israeli conflict but I'm finding it really hard to write essays and form my ideas very quickly, especially in exam conditions. What would your recommend is the best way to attack a question in modern with limited time? Also, how many quotes from historians/specific documents (in this case the articles made by the League of Nations - the Palestinian Constitution) should you know before walking into an exam?
Hey Claudia :)

Taking 5 minutes to plan out a response if you need is a-okay! So don't worry if, when you look at a question, you don't immediately have an answer. Personally, I found that often times the questions are a lot simpler than they may appear - like just going through the syllabus (shaping your analysis around the question of course) will do the trick! For me, my default structure was either syllabus or thematic - like if I couldn't personally identify the critical "factors", I would work out the themes, so how does the question relate to the political, social, economic, militaristic/strategic landscape of the conflict? That kinda thing :) But yeah, my main tip is don't overthink it! Often the simpler the better :)

In terms of quotes, I always aimed to have 1-2 for each syllabus dot point, however don't freak out if you can't remember them. Though they are fantastic as they count as detail, it is way more important that YOU have a strong analysis, not that you can parrot the most amount of historians :)

Hope this helps!

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Claudiaa on August 01, 2017, 07:53:25 pm
Hey Claudia :)

Taking 5 minutes to plan out a response if you need is a-okay! So don't worry if, when you look at a question, you don't immediately have an answer. Personally, I found that often times the questions are a lot simpler than they may appear - like just going through the syllabus (shaping your analysis around the question of course) will do the trick! For me, my default structure was either syllabus or thematic - like if I couldn't personally identify the critical "factors", I would work out the themes, so how does the question relate to the political, social, economic, militaristic/strategic landscape of the conflict? That kinda thing :) But yeah, my main tip is don't overthink it! Often the simpler the better :)

In terms of quotes, I always aimed to have 1-2 for each syllabus dot point, however don't freak out if you can't remember them. Though they are fantastic as they count as detail, it is way more important that YOU have a strong analysis, not that you can parrot the most amount of historians :)

Hope this helps!

Susie

Thank You , Susie! You are always so helpful and quick with replies! Personally, I attempt to go for a thematic approach :) I was always too scared to plan as I may run out of time, however you raised a valid argument, definitely changed my mindset

Thanks heaps!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on August 01, 2017, 08:11:56 pm
Hey Susie,
just a quick question, just tested myself looking at each syllabus dot point to make sure i can answer each one with 1-2 sentences on each for eg. the first one reason for the stalemate just naming the reasons: failure of schleiffen plan, failure of plan 17, inability to adapt to new technologies, underestimated speed of russian mobilisaiton etc. - is this good enough do you think for section 1 just knowing the basic ideas because wont have to explain them that much and then now im going to try memorise at least 1-2 stats for each dot point :)
thanks
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: mixel on August 01, 2017, 08:26:12 pm
Hey modern team, there's a multi that was in my paper today that is giving me conniptions. I found the source it's based on, so could you guys please help me figure out if I fucked it up?

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Women_of_Britain_Say_-_"Go"_-_World_War_I_British_poster_by_the_Parliamentary_Recruiting_Committee%2C_art_by_E_J_Kealey_%28Restoration%29.jpg)

Basically the question asked which demographic the poster was appealing to. No one I've asked is sure if it was men or women. I was totally convinced that it was appealing to British women, because I thought the wording made the message sound imperative, as in "women of britain, you should say x" instead of "women of britain are saying x", which would presumably appeal to men instead of women.

Did I bungle it or was I right in interpreting it to be appealing to women? Thanks in advance
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on August 01, 2017, 08:29:02 pm
Hey modern team, there's a multi that was in my paper today that is giving me conniptions. I found the source it's based on, so could you guys please help me figure out if I fucked it up?

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Women_of_Britain_Say_-_"Go"_-_World_War_I_British_poster_by_the_Parliamentary_Recruiting_Committee%2C_art_by_E_J_Kealey_%28Restoration%29.jpg)

Basically the question asked which demographic the poster was appealing to. No one I've asked is sure if it was men or women. I was totally convinced that it was appealing to British women, because I thought the wording made the message sound imperative, as in "women of britain, you should say x" instead of "women of britain are saying x", which would presumably appeal to men instead of women.

Did I bungle it or was I right in interpreting it to be appealing to women? Thanks in advance

If I'm guessing I would say you are correct as at the start of the war, before women joined munitions etc. propaganda targeting them in terms of how they could contribute to the war effort included letting your sons/husbands go off to war. So in my opinion, I would have said women :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on August 01, 2017, 08:47:37 pm
Hey Susie,
just a quick question, just tested myself looking at each syllabus dot point to make sure i can answer each one with 1-2 sentences on each for eg. the first one reason for the stalemate just naming the reasons: failure of schleiffen plan, failure of plan 17, inability to adapt to new technologies, underestimated speed of russian mobilisaiton etc. - is this good enough do you think for section 1 just knowing the basic ideas because wont have to explain them that much and then now im going to try memorise at least 1-2 stats for each dot point :)
thanks
You will want to know more about them than just 1-2 sentences, as the 5-8 marker will ask for a more in depth description :/ Though yes, you do have sources, the sources only inform your answer for that question - they don't make it. Though I do think it is a good study technique, to try and see if you can answer everything in its most simple components, you will need to know more than that for the 5-8 marker! Good with the stats though :)

Hey modern team, there's a multi that was in my paper today that is giving me conniptions. I found the source it's based on, so could you guys please help me figure out if I fucked it up?

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Women_of_Britain_Say_-_"Go"_-_World_War_I_British_poster_by_the_Parliamentary_Recruiting_Committee%2C_art_by_E_J_Kealey_%28Restoration%29.jpg)

Basically the question asked which demographic the poster was appealing to. No one I've asked is sure if it was men or women. I was totally convinced that it was appealing to British women, because I thought the wording made the message sound imperative, as in "women of britain, you should say x" instead of "women of britain are saying x", which would presumably appeal to men instead of women.

Did I bungle it or was I right in interpreting it to be appealing to women? Thanks in advance
Though I can definitely see how people are interpreting it differently, I actually think this is more directed at men. Reason being that the social stigma to go to war was very high, and that was often a feature of propaganda - preying upon the "create a better world for your family" kinda thing. Women played a really important part in that - ie. giving men that didn't go to war a white feather, to signify that they were a coward. Furthermore, the source says "women say go!" - it isn't asking women to say that, it is telling them men that women are saying that, if that makes sense? But yeah that is my interpretation of it - you could definitely argue the other way. Weird question. I hate modern multiple choice.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on August 01, 2017, 08:56:11 pm
You will want to know more about them than just 1-2 sentences, as the 5-8 marker will ask for a more in depth description :/ Though yes, you do have sources, the sources only inform your answer for that question - they don't make it. Though I do think it is a good study technique, to try and see if you can answer everything in its most simple components, you will need to know more than that for the 5-8 marker! Good with the stats though :)
Though I can definitely see how people are interpreting it differently, I actually think this is more directed at men. Reason being that the social stigma to go to war was very high, and that was often a feature of propaganda - preying upon the "create a better world for your family" kinda thing. Women played a really important part in that - ie. giving men that didn't go to war a white feather, to signify that they were a coward. Furthermore, the source says "women say go!" - it isn't asking women to say that, it is telling them men that women are saying that, if that makes sense? But yeah that is my interpretation of it - you could definitely argue the other way. Weird question. I hate modern multiple choice.

Haha okay, obviously I will elaborate on the points I bring up but I take your point  :P and I think I see where I went wrong in that propaganda piece, if it is was for the women, like i though it probably would say: Women of Britain - say go not women of britain say - go because the first option places emphasis on the women themselves, good experience nonetheless so i dont make the same mistake :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on August 01, 2017, 09:09:53 pm
Haha okay, obviously I will elaborate on the points I bring up but I take your point  :P and I think I see where I went wrong in that propaganda piece, if it is was for the women, like i though it probably would say: Women of Britain - say go not women of britain say - go because the first option places emphasis on the women themselves, good experience nonetheless so i dont make the same mistake :)
awesome! That's good then :) Just because I interpreted it differently, does not 100% mean that I was correct remember! But yes, that was my thinking :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on August 01, 2017, 10:04:35 pm
awesome! That's good then :) Just because I interpreted it differently, does not 100% mean that I was correct remember! But yes, that was my thinking :)

I'm not one to argue with 18th in the state ;)

Also just quickly, for after I finish art tomorrow, I have pretty much covered WW1, memorised 2-3 stats for each dot point (will test myself a couple of times tomorrow to make sure they stuck) what advice do you have for navigating through the many essay plans I have most effectively to prepare for the trial ensuring I have enough detail but obviously know the key things too :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on August 01, 2017, 10:27:00 pm
I'm not one to argue with 18th in the state ;)

Also just quickly, for after I finish art tomorrow, I have pretty much covered WW1, memorised 2-3 stats for each dot point (will test myself a couple of times tomorrow to make sure they stuck) what advice do you have for navigating through the many essay plans I have most effectively to prepare for the trial ensuring I have enough detail but obviously know the key things too :)
Hey I got a multiple choice wrong in the final HSC, so always good to try and double check - don't just take my word for it! The way I would go about it was using the look, cover, write check method - how many arguments and detail can you remember? First I would go through the questions that I really struggle with and read over them, spending more time on them, then on the other questions. All the while, I'd be trying to notice patterns - seeing if any common arguments come up for certain sections! I'd then look at other questions that I haven't done, and see if any of the knowledge from these essay plans is adaptable and transferable.

Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on August 01, 2017, 10:33:11 pm
Hey I got a multiple choice wrong in the final HSC, so always good to try and double check - don't just take my word for it! The way I would go about it was using the look, cover, write check method - how many arguments and detail can you remember? First I would go through the questions that I really struggle with and read over them, spending more time on them, then on the other questions. All the while, I'd be trying to notice patterns - seeing if any common arguments come up for certain sections! I'd then look at other questions that I haven't done, and see if any of the knowledge from these essay plans is adaptable and transferable.

okay sweet thanks :) would you recommend doing it in terms of structure of remembering points 1)argument 2)examples 3) statistics 4) historiography if necessary 5)evaluation something like that, simple yet sorta detailed?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on August 01, 2017, 10:42:39 pm
okay sweet thanks :) would you recommend doing it in terms of structure of remembering points 1)argument 2)examples 3) statistics 4) historiography if necessary 5)evaluation something like that, simple yet sorta detailed?
Yes that sounds great :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on August 01, 2017, 10:49:23 pm
Yes that sounds great :)

Okay thanks heaps for your help :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: tahliamag on August 02, 2017, 11:08:55 am
Hiii,
I have my modern trial exam tomorrow afternoon and I feel completely unprepared for the essays!! I have written a few essays and done as many study plans as possible but I'm worries because I dont think I can write a full essay on the points. I'm also struggling to remeber specific detail and stats which I barely know any ahhhh. I know its a bit late to ask this the day before the exam but anyone have any tips for the situation I'm in right now, anything would be helpful :) Also, how many pages should I be aiming to write for the 25 mark essay???
Thankyou
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on August 02, 2017, 11:41:58 am
Hiii,
I have my modern trial exam tomorrow afternoon and I feel completely unprepared for the essays!! I have written a few essays and done as many study plans as possible but I'm worries because I dont think I can write a full essay on the points. I'm also struggling to remeber specific detail and stats which I barely know any ahhhh. I know its a bit late to ask this the day before the exam but anyone have any tips for the situation I'm in right now, anything would be helpful :) Also, how many pages should I be aiming to write for the 25 mark essay???
Thankyou

I'd suggest going over every syllabus dot point and doing a look, cover, write, check like susie recommended for each paragraph u would bring up, dont make it too long or complex though - only memorise as much as you can! so something like
look at dot point and if you have it an essay plan scaffold already done and memorise
pt 1 - opening statement on question
then memorise 1 statistic
1 historian if applicable
just generally write what you would discuss
and then finish with how youd link back to the question
thats around what im doing :)

i would say try fill the booklet (8 pages if you can) but if thats unrealistic either write big ahha (will probably anyway bc my handwriting will go to shit after 3 hours) or at the very least do 6 pages :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on August 02, 2017, 01:23:41 pm
Just a quick question Susie,
With the paper, I want to do WW1 first for the reasons you have given, although, do you think it is worth right when you can start writing maybe going to the extended responses you are doing and Speer questions and writing down stats you can remember in case you forget it the longer the exam goes on?
Thanks :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on August 02, 2017, 02:59:50 pm
Just a quick question Susie,
With the paper, I want to do WW1 first for the reasons you have given, although, do you think it is worth right when you can start writing maybe going to the extended responses you are doing and Speer questions and writing down stats you can remember in case you forget it the longer the exam goes on?
Thanks :)
Definitely! I think that is a very good idea, especially if they are more specific stats that are hard to keep in ya brain :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on August 02, 2017, 03:14:40 pm
Definitely! I think that is a very good idea, especially if they are more specific stats that are hard to keep in ya brain :)

Hey Susie and Jake! I know this is supposed to be the easiest part of the personality study but I am struggling big time on working out what to include in terms of Speer's significance to national and international history ://
I'm just trying to gain an idea of the main points, all I can think of so far is:
1. Prolonged the war with his speeches/transformed munitions industry
2. Controversial figure (Good Nazi, Nuremberg Trials etc.)
3. Exploitation of slave labour/anti-semitism with jewish flats
I'm not even sure if these are all valid!!
Also Susie, would you recommend I learn a couple of quotes and instead focus on the opinions of historians rather than specific quotes - is this still just as valid? I just know my teacher loves historiography :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Jess.martinuzzo on August 02, 2017, 04:07:04 pm
Hey Jake PLEASEE help me :(
 
Ive got my modern trial tomorrow and I really have no idea how to do conflict in europe.
We've been doing Russia topics all year and my school decided to throw in a side of germany and I just feel so underprepared for it.
The main issue I have is structuring an essay for it.
We've learnt up to El Alamein.

Say as a hypothetical I got a question asking How the Russian Campaign affected the course of the war....
Would you integrate German Advances, the Air War and El Alamein with it and say that the Russian campaign result stemmed from:
- German Advances and Blitzkrieg tactics - giving Germany ignorance and underestimating other nations
- The Air War - Inability to defeat Britain - Hitler now had to fight on two fronts

Then these factors conbined lead to the Failure of the Russian Campaign where Nazi Superiority and Invincibility was overcome and as a result the course of the war was in favour of the Allies

And would I mention El Alamein?
Im quite unsure how I would integrate that?

So my structure:
Intro
P1 - German Advances
P2 - Air War
P3 - Russian Campaign
P4 - El Alamein?
Conclusion

Is that how you'd answer the question and a typical Conflct in Europe Question?
As well as the first dotpoint - is it a combination of all factors?? Because I dont know any dot point indepth enough to write an entire essay on it.

Thanks, Jess
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on August 02, 2017, 04:34:04 pm
Haha sorry guys have another question R.E Speer on this question:
It is the way an individual faces challenges that shapes them and their achievements.
Is this another way of asking the question R.E shaper of events or events shaped them... so could I argue for the other side of my argument, since the question asked to what extent this is accurate, the idea of speer's achievements also coming from opportunities (eg. todt and troost's death etc.)
Thanks :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: bellaaaaam18 on August 02, 2017, 05:08:35 pm
hi there!
i'm just going through some past hsc questions for section ii - the national studies and i'm a bit stumped with these questions:

from the 2014 HSC
‘Germany between 1918 and 1939 was the triumph of nationalism over democracy.’ To what extent is this statement accurate?

From the 2015 HSC
How effective was the Nazi party up to 1939 in dealing with the political, economic and social issues arising from the Weimar Republic?
and
To what extent was Nazi racial policy the key factor in the consolidation of Nazi power in Germany up to 1939?

hopefully someone can help me out and give me some key points that i culd base an essay off of!

thanks,
bella

Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jakesilove on August 02, 2017, 05:14:38 pm
Haha sorry guys have another question R.E Speer on this question:
It is the way an individual faces challenges that shapes them and their achievements.
Is this another way of asking the question R.E shaper of events or events shaped them... so could I argue for the other side of my argument, since the question asked to what extent this is accurate, the idea of speer's achievements also coming from opportunities (eg. todt and troost's death etc.)
Thanks :)

100% can, just make sure to actually engage in the question! If you're planning to mould another essay to a particular question, just spend a minute or two thinking about whether that is a good idea, and whether it will be super obvious to a marker that you've just changed your thesis a bit to fit the question. If the answer to the first question is yes, and the answer to the second is no, then go ahead!

hi there!
i'm just going through some past hsc questions for section ii - the national studies and i'm a bit stumped with these questions:

from the 2014 HSC
‘Germany between 1918 and 1939 was the triumph of nationalism over democracy.’ To what extent is this statement accurate?

From the 2015 HSC
How effective was the Nazi party up to 1939 in dealing with the political, economic and social issues arising from the Weimar Republic?
and
To what extent was Nazi racial policy the key factor in the consolidation of Nazi power in Germany up to 1939?

hopefully someone can help me out and give me some key points that i culd base an essay off of!

thanks,
bella



I'm not going to be able to go through each of those questions and give essay plans right now. Instead, can I suggest posting up your first draft of some essay plans, including 1) A thesis 2) The main points you plan to cover 3) How your main points prove your thesis. From there, I can critique/improve on your plan so you can write a kick-ass essay!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on August 02, 2017, 05:23:17 pm
hi there!
i'm just going through some past hsc questions for section ii - the national studies and i'm a bit stumped with these questions:

from the 2014 HSC
‘Germany between 1918 and 1939 was the triumph of nationalism over democracy.’ To what extent is this statement accurate?

From the 2015 HSC
How effective was the Nazi party up to 1939 in dealing with the political, economic and social issues arising from the Weimar Republic?
and
To what extent was Nazi racial policy the key factor in the consolidation of Nazi power in Germany up to 1939?

hopefully someone can help me out and give me some key points that i culd base an essay off of!

thanks,
bella

that 2014 one is a tricky one! This is how I would break it down:
First I would personally look at 1918-1933 and the Collapse of the Weimar Republic and to what extent this was an example of nationalism over democracy in which i would state it is moderately true (discuss the impact of the nazi party and things like TOV in increasing nationalistic feeling and hence anti-weimar sentiments but also discuss how it wasn't just a championing of nationalism over democracy rather democracy also fell due to the constitution, depression etc.) at least my view there :) then for the 2nd half 1933-39 discuss how hitler was able to maintain a sense of nationalism in german society to get rid of lingering democratic values - i would break this up thematically, socially - working class reforms, hitler youth, culturally - censorship, burning of books, economically - cant remember off the top of my head haha and politically - this is where i would say democracy was not triumphed by nationalism as it was more hitler's ability to get rid of democracy through political acts eg. the banning of all political parties, reichstag decree etc.) all a bit confusing but just my take dont know if its right haha :)

1st 2015 question - basically look at the political, economic and social reforms hitler brought in to get rid of lingering democratic values eg. P - reichstag decree etc., E - again cant exactly remember haha guess you could maybe bring in working class but better researching that and S - cultural, book burnings etc. basically how did hitler transform german society to reflect nazi values on the past democratic values

2nd 2015 question - i need to look at that tonight! one i have neglected! however, in terms of other factors which helped consolidate power, they all overlap from previous questions which i love :) so again political - reichstag decree (get rid of freedoms) etc., social - banning un-german books, hitler youth, the church, women etc., i would also look at role of gestapo and fear - stuff like that :) but focus a good long 1-2 paras on racial policy!

hope that helps!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: maria1999 on August 02, 2017, 06:07:17 pm
hey modern fam,

any one got any predications for the personality study? Or even conflict in the pacific? Legal was pretty spot on today!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on August 02, 2017, 07:45:18 pm
hey modern fam,

any one got any predications for the personality study? Or even conflict in the pacific? Legal was pretty spot on today!
Ahaha - take all predictions with a grain of salt obviously, and please don't adjust your study pattern based on a prediction that is literally based on nothing but gut feeling, but I'm feeling changing attitudes (either western or home front) will be a question for WW1 - either the long response or the 10 marker. For personality study, i'm predicting an "interpretations" question, similar to the one we had in our HSC. Russia, i'm thinking Bolshevik question and power struggles question, Cold War, either detente or renewal and end will show up :)

But again - I have no real basis for these predictions, these are just guesses (and not even educated ones at that aha)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on August 02, 2017, 08:01:10 pm
Ahaha - take all predictions with a grain of salt obviously, and please don't adjust your study pattern based on a prediction that is literally based on nothing but gut feeling, but I'm feeling changing attitudes (either western or home front) will be a question for WW1 - either the long response or the 10 marker. For personality study, i'm predicting an "interpretations" question, similar to the one we had in our HSC. Russia, i'm thinking Bolshevik question and power struggles question, Cold War, either detente or renewal and end will show up :)

But again - I have no real basis for these predictions, these are just guesses (and not even educated ones at that aha)

Hey Susie,
With the significance question for the personality was does this exactly entail in terms of Speer because I'm really confused :// I posted up the top some ideas I had but don't know if they are right or not. It's the one bit of personality I haven't prepped for ://
My predictions are:
WW1 10 marker will be on the reasons for Allied victory and german collapse
germany questions
how nazism transformed german social and cultural life 1933-39
reason why hitler rose to power
war in pacific
success of allied strategies 1937-1941
home front australia and japanese
personality

i agree interpretations and probably on how it allows us to come to a better understanding of our personality or something!
just my thoughts haha
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on August 02, 2017, 08:14:24 pm
Hey Susie,
With the significance question for the personality was does this exactly entail in terms of Speer because I'm really confused :// I posted up the top some ideas I had but don't know if they are right or not. It's the one bit of personality I haven't prepped for ://
My predictions are:
WW1 10 marker will be on the reasons for Allied victory and german collapse
germany questions
how nazism transformed german social and cultural life 1933-39
reason why hitler rose to power
war in pacific
success of allied strategies 1937-1941
home front australia and japanese
personality

i agree interpretations and probably on how it allows us to come to a better understanding of our personality or something!
just my thoughts haha

oh man i hope your predictions are correct for ww1, germany and the personality. as for susie's 'prediction,' if cold war ends up being detente i'll probably cry because that's my biggest weakness - we haven't done the end or renewal so the question might be changed to something earlier yay.

does anyone have tips for cramming in between exams? i have maths in the morning so my brain is going to be absolutely fried from that and i can't seem to retain any information for modern :-/
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on August 02, 2017, 08:17:08 pm
oh man i hope your predictions are correct for ww1, germany and the personality. as for susie's 'prediction,' if cold war ends up being detente i'll probably cry because that's my biggest weakness - we haven't done the end or renewal so the question might be changed to something earlier yay.

does anyone have tips for cramming in between exams? i have maths in the morning so my brain is going to be absolutely fried from that and i can't seem to retain any information for modern :-/

ahh luckily i dont do maths but i am still utterly overwhelmed by the amount of content, i am trying to rush through germany because im reasonably confident with that and then go onto war in the pacific! i guess a good way to test yourself before modern would be to find a friend get up the syllabus and just talk to each other/bounce ideas off each other off each dot point :) then fill in late minute gaps if it doesnt cause too much stress!!
and susie or jake - would you say i am okay for germany and war in the pacific, if i am not at all confident in one topic just completely skipping it in my revision since i will always have another option? or should i still skim it, just trying to make the most of my time! thanks :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on August 02, 2017, 08:21:18 pm
Hey Jake PLEASEE help me :(
 
Ive got my modern trial tomorrow and I really have no idea how to do conflict in europe.
We've been doing Russia topics all year and my school decided to throw in a side of germany and I just feel so underprepared for it.
The main issue I have is structuring an essay for it.
We've learnt up to El Alamein.

Say as a hypothetical I got a question asking How the Russian Campaign affected the course of the war....
Would you integrate German Advances, the Air War and El Alamein with it and say that the Russian campaign result stemmed from:
- German Advances and Blitzkrieg tactics - giving Germany ignorance and underestimating other nations
- The Air War - Inability to defeat Britain - Hitler now had to fight on two fronts

Then these factors conbined lead to the Failure of the Russian Campaign where Nazi Superiority and Invincibility was overcome and as a result the course of the war was in favour of the Allies

And would I mention El Alamein?
Im quite unsure how I would integrate that?

So my structure:
Intro
P1 - German Advances
P2 - Air War
P3 - Russian Campaign
P4 - El Alamein?
Conclusion

Is that how you'd answer the question and a typical Conflct in Europe Question?
As well as the first dotpoint - is it a combination of all factors?? Because I dont know any dot point indepth enough to write an entire essay on it.

Thanks, Jess
Just gonna bump this, as I'm worried its going to get lost in the current modern panic aha

Hey Susie,
With the significance question for the personality was does this exactly entail in terms of Speer because I'm really confused :// I posted up the top some ideas I had but don't know if they are right or not. It's the one bit of personality I haven't prepped for ://
I can't comment on Speers significance specifically - but just remember that the fact that he is on the modern history syllabus means that he must have been pretty freaking significant aha, or else why would we bother studying him? Having a look at what you wrote, I'd definitely say they sound like the right kinda things to include, however imma defer to jake here if he has any contradicting advice as he actually studied Speer. In terms of your historiography question, I think it is always worthwhile getting some quotes, however I definitely think paraphrasing can be equally effective (particularly as it demonstrates that you actually understand the argument)!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on August 02, 2017, 08:28:24 pm
oh man i hope your predictions are correct for ww1, germany and the personality. as for susie's 'prediction,' if cold war ends up being detente i'll probably cry because that's my biggest weakness - we haven't done the end or renewal so the question might be changed to something earlier yay.

does anyone have tips for cramming in between exams? i have maths in the morning so my brain is going to be absolutely fried from that and i can't seem to retain any information for modern :-/
What are you struggling with with Detente? Anything I can help with?

I'd recommend against cramming in between your exams - give yourself a break :) Go take a walk, have something to eat. If you really feel like you need to study, just read over your past essays/plans, or any notes/detail tables you have written. But don't try and cram, because you'll just tire yourself out! Dancing phalanges suggestion is good as well - group discussion before exams was something that really benefitted me last year :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on August 02, 2017, 08:29:51 pm
Just gonna bump this, as I'm worried its going to get lost in the current modern panic aha
I can't comment on Speers significance specifically - but just remember that the fact that he is on the modern history syllabus means that he must have been pretty freaking significant aha, or else why would we bother studying him? Having a look at what you wrote, I'd definitely say they sound like the right kinda things to include, however imma defer to jake here if he has any contradicting advice as he actually studied Speer. In terms of your historiography question, I think it is always worthwhile getting some quotes, however I definitely think paraphrasing can be equally effective (particularly as it demonstrates that you actually understand the argument)!

haha okay sweet means less memorising then! ill just try remember a couple. I am so glad i dont do maths right now  :D :D :D :D
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on August 02, 2017, 08:30:27 pm
and susie or jake - would you say i am okay for germany and war in the pacific, if i am not at all confident in one topic just completely skipping it in my revision since i will always have another option? or should i still skim it, just trying to make the most of my time! thanks :)
ask any russia student if they're confident in soviet foreign policy. 90% will say no. Though for the HSC I'd recommend having at least a basic knowledge of all of them, for your exam tomorrow, knowing 3 out of 4 topics in depth is fine :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on August 02, 2017, 08:33:37 pm
ask any russia student if they're confident in soviet foreign policy. 90% will say no. Though for the HSC I'd recommend having at least a basic knowledge of all of them, for your exam tomorrow, knowing 3 out of 4 topics in depth is fine :)
1 Weimar Republic
– emergence of the Democratic Republic and the impact of the Treaty of Versailles
– political, economic and social issues in the Weimar Republic to 1929
– collapse of the Weimar Republic 1929–1933
– impact of the Great Depression on Germany
2 The rise of the Nazi Party
– rise of the Nazi Party (NSDAP) from 1923
– Hitler’s accession to power
– initial consolidation of Nazi power 1933–1934
3 Nazism in power
– Hitler’s role in the Nazi state
– Nazism as totalitarianism
– the role of propaganda, terror and repression; SA and SS; opposition to Nazism
– social and cultural life in the Nazi state: role of Hitler Youth, women, religion
– Nazi racial policy; anti-Semitism: policy and practice to 1939
4 Nazi foreign policy
– nature of Nazi foreign policy: aims and strategies to September 1939
– impact of ideology on Nazi foreign policy to September 1939

I was meaning moreso for example I cannot write for 8 pages on Hitler's ascension to power and I haven't even looked at racial policy yet so I meant just all kinds of topics.

Like even though they are from different numbers what would be the chance do you think of them asking about hitler's role in the nazi state and hitler's ascension to power bc i am not too strong with those either :/
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on August 02, 2017, 08:34:36 pm
Theres a guy on HSC 2017 discussion group on fb who predicted questions correctly from ENA paper 1 and 2 and legal studies and art so heres to hoping he does the same for modern
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: rodero on August 02, 2017, 08:37:04 pm
Theres a guy on HSC 2017 discussion group on fb who predicted questions correctly from ENA paper 1 and 2 and legal studies and art so heres to hoping he does the same for modern

Yeah what's the go with that? Do teachers give them the question or something?

That being said, I wouldn't trust any prediction completely; I think I saw a few predictions for Paper 2 that were beyond wrong.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Son of Thatcher on August 02, 2017, 08:39:20 pm
What are you struggling with with Detente? Anything I can help with?

I'd recommend against cramming in between your exams - give yourself a break :) Go take a walk, have something to eat. If you really feel like you need to study, just read over your past essays/plans, or any notes/detail tables you have written. But don't try and cram, because you'll just tire yourself out! Dancing phalanges suggestion is good as well - group discussion before exams was something that really benefitted me last year :)

I can't second this enough. I had an exam on every day of the Trials and because I hadn't studied enough, I tried to cram some last-minute study between exams. In other words, I stayed up late between exams which was fine for the first few days. But by the end of the week, I was so tired I couldn't even be bothered studying. I also agree about group study, the best thing was having afternoon exams so a small group of my friends and I could go through the syllabus once or twice.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on August 02, 2017, 08:40:12 pm
1 Weimar Republic
– emergence of the Democratic Republic and the impact of the Treaty of Versailles
– political, economic and social issues in the Weimar Republic to 1929
– collapse of the Weimar Republic 1929–1933
– impact of the Great Depression on Germany
2 The rise of the Nazi Party
– rise of the Nazi Party (NSDAP) from 1923
– Hitler’s accession to power
– initial consolidation of Nazi power 1933–1934
3 Nazism in power
– Hitler’s role in the Nazi state
– Nazism as totalitarianism
– the role of propaganda, terror and repression; SA and SS; opposition to Nazism
– social and cultural life in the Nazi state: role of Hitler Youth, women, religion
– Nazi racial policy; anti-Semitism: policy and practice to 1939
4 Nazi foreign policy
– nature of Nazi foreign policy: aims and strategies to September 1939
– impact of ideology on Nazi foreign policy to September 1939

I was meaning moreso for example I cannot write for 8 pages on Hitler's ascension to power and I haven't even looked at racial policy yet so I meant just all kinds of topics.
Ahhhh I getcha! Hmmm as I didn't study Germany, not 100% sure what to suggest. For Russia, you wouldn't get a question solely on a syllabus dot point, but more so the entire section. Even if it looked like it was on that specific dot point, you could and should incorporate the other dot points from that section of the syllabus. With that in mind, I'd probably want to know enough that I could at least write one, solid paragraph of a differentiated essay.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on August 02, 2017, 08:47:47 pm
Ahhhh I getcha! Hmmm as I didn't study Germany, not 100% sure what to suggest. For Russia, you wouldn't get a question solely on a syllabus dot point, but more so the entire section. Even if it looked like it was on that specific dot point, you could and should incorporate the other dot points from that section of the syllabus. With that in mind, I'd probably want to know enough that I could at least write one, solid paragraph of a differentiated essay.

Okay sweet :) Hahha i was just researching then.... say hypothetically I missed the trial tomorrow because of illness - do you get an estimate based off your internal marks so far because from all my assessments I'm sitting on 97% and if hypothetically i didnt go to the trial tomorrow would that mean they would give me something close to 97% or so as an estimate because that would be one awesome way to cheat the system (of course i wont do that but im really interested to know because i know my sister couldnt do any of her trials because of a serious illness and got all estimates which were very high which annoyed people in her year)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on August 02, 2017, 09:09:33 pm
Okay sweet :) Hahha i was just researching then.... say hypothetically I missed the trial tomorrow because of illness - do you get an estimate based off your internal marks so far because from all my assessments I'm sitting on 97% and if hypothetically i didnt go to the trial tomorrow would that mean they would give me something close to 97% or so as an estimate because that would be one awesome way to cheat the system (of course i wont do that but im really interested to know because i know my sister couldnt do any of her trials because of a serious illness and got all estimates which were very high which annoyed people in her year)
I think protocol differs from school to school so I can't really say unfortunately! Fantastic marks though :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on August 02, 2017, 09:23:42 pm
I think protocol differs from school to school so I can't really say unfortunately! Fantastic marks though :)

Haha would you recommend it ;) It seems so much easier than navigating my way through the piles of papers on my desk atm haha, dont know how ill cope with the hsc
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on August 02, 2017, 09:32:02 pm
Haha would you recommend it ;) It seems so much easier than navigating my way through the piles of papers on my desk atm haha, dont know how ill cope with the hsc
no, i don't recommend skipping your trials aha - if it makes you feel better, I actually found HSC easier that trials :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on August 02, 2017, 09:41:35 pm
no, i don't recommend skipping your trials aha - if it makes you feel better, I actually found HSC easier that trials :)

Haha okay! I can't find my essay plan on consolidation of power by nazis 1933-34  :'( http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/mwh/germany/hitlerconsolidaterev1.shtml
Do you think this site looks good enough? I know you didn't do Germany but those give all the main points of how it happened, just doesn't have any quotes or stats I think like my plan did, and would you recommend I categorise each into themes or just write out chronologically how they maintained power :)
Just looked I think almost all border on being political ahah
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: lucyjayne on August 02, 2017, 09:45:12 pm
Hey Guys,

I'm struggling with the question ‘The impact of the Treaty of Versailles on the Weimar Republic to 1929 was more significant than any other factor’ how accurate is this statement?'

In particular i'm getting confused about what I should incorporate in order to make my argument more balanced. I was going to talk about the impacts in of the TOV in the first paragraph, the weaknesses of the Weimar Republic in the second and then the stresseman era in the third then talk about the great depression and the death of stresseman in 1929.

But, I feel like there is just way too much information to incorporate here and I don't know if I should spread out the impacts of Versailles and then in a small paragraph talk about other factors. It's honestly making me so confused....  and the timeline is confusing too.... :-[

Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you  :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on August 02, 2017, 10:01:55 pm
Hey Guys,

I'm struggling with the question ‘The impact of the Treaty of Versailles on the Weimar Republic to 1929 was more significant than any other factor’ how accurate is this statement?'

In particular i'm getting confused about what I should incorporate in order to make my argument more balanced. I was going to talk about the impacts in of the TOV in the first paragraph, the weaknesses of the Weimar Republic in the second and then the stresseman era in the third then talk about the great depression and the death of stresseman in 1929.

But, I feel like there is just way too much information to incorporate here and I don't know if I should spread out the impacts of Versailles and then in a small paragraph talk about other factors. It's honestly making me so confused....  and the timeline is confusing too.... :-[

Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you  :)

Hey,
I would personally structure my response as follows
1. TOV - Discuss its provisions (army, terriotorial etc.) and how this meant that the Weimar Republic was immediately stained by its association with the humiliation of the TOV. In addition, the army provisions in the TOV directly led to the Kapp Putsch - an example of this disdain and the responses to it. I would also refer to how the TOV and its economic reparations led to the hyperinflation and occupation of the Ruhr, further examples of humiliation for the German people and hence further distaste for the Republic.
2. 1919 Constitution (Article 48 and Proportional Representation) - Proportional Representation allowed minorities to gain seats in Reichstag, led to instability, reduced the legitimacy of the Republic, didn't allow for majorities. Article 48 = emergency decree - misused by Hinderburg (who was against the Republic) and eventually manipulated by conservative elites to overthrow democracy using it.
3. Weimar' inability to deal with conservative elites - army would eventually support Bruning who convinces Hindenburg to bring Hitler in as Chancellor.
4. Great Depression - reminder of all that is wrong with WR. Sways people back to extreme parties (grow from 27 to 58% in votes) and the WR response to the Depression (cut unemployment funding by 12%) only further sways people.

You could discuss Stresseman but im not entirely sure as the question doesn't specify what the impact refers to so a bit hard to comment right now on that :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: lucyjayne on August 02, 2017, 10:04:42 pm
Hey,
I would personally structure my response as follows
1. TOV - Discuss its provisions (army, terriotorial etc.) and how this meant that the Weimar Republic was immediately stained by its association with the humiliation of the TOV. In addition, the army provisions in the TOV directly led to the Kapp Putsch - an example of this disdain and the responses to it. I would also refer to how the TOV and its economic reparations led to the hyperinflation and occupation of the Ruhr, further examples of humiliation for the German people and hence further distaste for the Republic.
2. 1919 Constitution (Article 48 and Proportional Representation) - Proportional Representation allowed minorities to gain seats in Reichstag, led to instability, reduced the legitimacy of the Republic, didn't allow for majorities. Article 48 = emergency decree - misused by Hinderburg (who was against the Republic) and eventually manipulated by conservative elites to overthrow democracy using it.
3. Weimar' inability to deal with conservative elites - army would eventually support Bruning who convinces Hindenburg to bring Hitler in as Chancellor.
4. Great Depression - reminder of all that is wrong with WR. Sways people back to extreme parties (grow from 27 to 58% in votes) and the WR response to the Depression (cut unemployment funding by 12%) only further sways people.

You could discuss Stresseman but im not entirely sure as the question doesn't specify what the impact refers to so a bit hard to comment right now on that :)

THANK YOU SO SO SO MUCH!!!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on August 02, 2017, 10:07:09 pm
Haha okay! I can't find my essay plan on consolidation of power by nazis 1933-34  :'( http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/mwh/germany/hitlerconsolidaterev1.shtml
Do you think this site looks good enough? I know you didn't do Germany but those give all the main points of how it happened, just doesn't have any quotes or stats I think like my plan did, and would you recommend I categorise each into themes or just write out chronologically how they maintained power :)
Just looked I think almost all border on being political ahah
I used bbc bitesize a lot last year :) Definitely a good resource for overviews and summaries. Personally I'd draw out the factors/themes, rather than write it out chronologically, just because the latter can sometimes look a bit "meh" - plus it is way easier to slip into narrative/retell with a chronological essay. However, as you said, I didn't study Germany aha, so I can't make the call for sure with this essay.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on August 02, 2017, 10:13:31 pm
I used bbc bitesize a lot last year :) Definitely a good resource for overviews and summaries. Personally I'd draw out the factors/themes, rather than write it out chronologically, just because the latter can sometimes look a bit "meh" - plus it is way easier to slip into narrative/retell with a chronological essay. However, as you said, I didn't study Germany aha, so I can't make the call for sure with this essay.

I'm pretty sure i did thematically in my essay plan but can't find it grrrr haha
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on August 02, 2017, 10:14:19 pm
THANK YOU SO SO SO MUCH!!!

All good :) was a good test to see how much i could recall generally
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: JD99 on August 02, 2017, 10:15:17 pm
Quote
Haha okay! I can't find my essay plan on consolidation of power by nazis 1933-34  :'( http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/mwh/germany/hitlerconsolidaterev1.shtml
Do you think this site looks good enough? I know you didn't do Germany but those give all the main points of how it happened, just doesn't have any quotes or stats I think like my plan did, and would you recommend I categorise each into themes or just write out chronologically how they maintained power :)
Just looked I think almost all border on being political ahah

hey that website is cool thx!! :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on August 02, 2017, 10:40:01 pm
What are you struggling with with Detente? Anything I can help with?

I'd recommend against cramming in between your exams - give yourself a break :) Go take a walk, have something to eat. If you really feel like you need to study, just read over your past essays/plans, or any notes/detail tables you have written. But don't try and cram, because you'll just tire yourself out! Dancing phalanges suggestion is good as well - group discussion before exams was something that really benefitted me last year :)

my issue with detente is i can't remember anything from it so it's not the most ideal thing for me to write about :-/

i guess i won't cram then hahah there's just an overwhelming amount of content in modern, it felt like i was relearning the entire modern course in half a night 😫😫😫😭😭😭

side note: good luck for modern (if you're doing it tomorrow)! they (cssa) seem to LOVE throwing the weirdest questions in (*cough* legal) but we can do this!!!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Claudiaa on August 02, 2017, 10:47:36 pm
Has anyone studied the Arab Revolt in 1936-1939..I'm having a little trouble understanding what the revolt actually was! (i.e. what happened, and how it happened) It happened just after the Wailing Wall Riot but I still don't understand because in 1937 the Peel Report was released by Brits...who then revised it in favour of the Arabs? I don't understand why there was a shift in British policy as just prior to that in 1920 at the Sane Remo Conference, Brits were PRO Jew...supporting them to attain a Jewish homeland in Palestine....

So if anyone could clarify/explain on these revolts (i.e. why it happened, reason for British motives) It would be ever so greatly appreciated :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: maria1999 on August 03, 2017, 06:37:44 am
Hey Guys,

I'm struggling with the question ‘The impact of the Treaty of Versailles on the Weimar Republic to 1929 was more significant than any other factor’ how accurate is this statement?'

In particular i'm getting confused about what I should incorporate in order to make my argument more balanced. I was going to talk about the impacts in of the TOV in the first paragraph, the weaknesses of the Weimar Republic in the second and then the stresseman era in the third then talk about the great depression and the death of stresseman in 1929.

But, I feel like there is just way too much information to incorporate here and I don't know if I should spread out the impacts of Versailles and then in a small paragraph talk about other factors. It's honestly making me so confused....  and the timeline is confusing too.... :-[

Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you  :)

hey!
I know you already got a stellar answer for this, but I tried to tackle a similar question in a practice essay and felt exactly how you felt. There are so many damn things to talk about and not nearly enough time. So for a question like this, I remember Susie saying that when they ask for a specific factor (in this question it's the ToV) you must talk about that factor first even if you don't think  it's that important. She also said you need to speak a little about how that factor interrelates to your other points in other paragraphs to back up your judgement. So here are some points I would maybe mention.

Paragraph 1:
I talked about the Treaty of Versailles itself and what it meant for the impact up until 1929. I know that in the modern lecture Susie said that when you're given a factors question or a factors essay you MUST address the factor that the question is asking first. Even if you don't think it's that significant. Essentially I said that it set Germany up for some really bad economic problems with the burden of the reperations ya know. I also said that it just created this inherent spite for democracy amongst Germans so the Republic just became this ever present reminder of failure and weakness.

Paragraph 2
I talked about the structural flaws and issues of the Weimar Republic
- This includes things like the proportional basis of the Reichstag and the powers of Article 48.
- Now here's your chance to say that although the ToV did contribute to this, some issues that the Weimar Republic had, they just created themselves i.e the inability to get the conservative elites who prefered authoritarian rule out of power

Paragraph 3
Now I didn't do this, but here seems like a good chance to talk about the rise of alternative leadership. The question stops right about the time that it was the Nazis' time to shine, so maybe speak about how all these issues made Germans become disillusioned with the current goverment and go to extreme ends of the political specturm for the solution. I think this was around the time when the SPD was hitting a new low so maybe some talk on that?

Now, I don't know if this is completly right but I hope it helps! Good luck for today!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: JD99 on August 03, 2017, 07:55:33 am
GOOD LUCK EVERYBODY!!!  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on August 03, 2017, 08:58:19 am
GOOD LUCK EVERYONE!! I'm sure going to all do absolutely fantastic <3

Just remember to stay calm, if you have maths in the morning get some rest, and to READ over the questions a few times, as CSSA is known to try and catch out those who aren't careful with confusing wording - make sure you are 100% sure what they are asking, before answering!!

Can't wait to hear how it all went!! Good luck xx

Susie

Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on August 03, 2017, 09:15:59 am
GOOD LUCK EVERYONE!! I'm sure going to all do absolutely fantastic <3

Just remember to stay calm, if you have maths in the morning get some rest, and to READ over the questions a few times, as CSSA is known to try and catch out those who aren't careful with confusing wording - make sure you are 100% sure what they are asking, before answering!!

Can't wait to hear how it all went!! Good luck xx

Susie

Thanks Susie! Just a quick question - if the CSSA asked about reasons for Japanese defeat and impact on civilians in occupied territories last year, what is the likelihood do you think either one of those pops up this year... just trying to make the most of my time right now :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: evasgg on August 04, 2017, 01:03:13 pm
Hi everyone! I just wanted to clarify something because I've gotten mixed answers. For a modern question that starts with 'to what extent...', for example, 'TO WHAT EXTENT WERE SOVIET ATTITUDES AND POLICIES UNDER GORBACHEV RESPONSIBLE FOR THE END OF THE COLD WAR?', should you talk about these attitudes and policies in one or two paragraphs and talk about other issues which contributed to the end of the Cold War in other paragraphs? Or talk about these attitudes and policies in every paragraph? Thanks so much! :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on August 04, 2017, 01:10:58 pm
Hi everyone! I just wanted to clarify something because I've gotten mixed answers. For a modern question that starts with 'to what extent...', for example, 'TO WHAT EXTENT WERE SOVIET ATTITUDES AND POLICIES UNDER GORBACHEV RESPONSIBLE FOR THE END OF THE COLD WAR?', should you talk about these attitudes and policies in one or two paragraphs and talk about other issues which contributed to the end of the Cold War in other paragraphs? Or talk about these attitudes and policies in every paragraph? Thanks so much! :)

i'm not the best person to give advice on essay structure, and i haven't done that part of the cold war, but to answer your question, mention all those issues, because you need to show that although there were soviet attitudes and policies under gorbachev that may have had a role in ending the cold war, there's other stuff as well. structuring essays based on issues is great, but if you introduce another issue that's not just about soviet attitudes you should say something like "despite soviet attitudes and policies under gorbachev being a factor towards the end of the cold war, there was also... (insert other issue here)."

this was a really crap answer and i'm pretty sure susie will give you something a lot better so take what i said with a grain of salt lmao
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on August 04, 2017, 01:30:26 pm
i'm not the best person to give advice on essay structure, and i haven't done that part of the cold war, but to answer your question, mention all those issues, because you need to show that although there were soviet attitudes and policies under gorbachev that may have had a role in ending the cold war, there's other stuff as well. structuring essays based on issues is great, but if you introduce another issue that's not just about soviet attitudes you should say something like "despite soviet attitudes and policies under gorbachev being a factor towards the end of the cold war, there was also... (insert other issue here)."

this was a really crap answer and i'm pretty sure susie will give you something a lot better so take what i said with a grain of salt lmao

Don't worry because even though I don't do Soviet either what you said sounds good! :) Both of my essays I wrote yesterday on Germany and Conflict in the Pacific were these type of questions (without giving too much away haha). I basically wrote about the main part of the question (eg. in this case soviet attitudes and policies under gorbachev) for 2-3 pages then after that any other point I brought up I would either link back by saying as you said - however, there were other reasons for ____ proving that attitudes and policies were not solely responsible for the end of the cold war. I also when I could, because it can show extra sophistication, (I can't really explain it that well without giving away one of the germany questions yesterday aha) I took the core issue in the essay and showed how it wasn't solely responsible for _____ because ____ took advantage of the issue itself to bring about the change that the question stipulates ahhaha sorry that makes no sense, i just can't write it without obviously giving away a german option :) but otherwise the option you talked about is definitely okay!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on August 04, 2017, 01:40:57 pm
Thanks Susie! Just a quick question - if the CSSA asked about reasons for Japanese defeat and impact on civilians in occupied territories last year, what is the likelihood do you think either one of those pops up this year... just trying to make the most of my time right now :)
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!)

Hi everyone! I just wanted to clarify something because I've gotten mixed answers. For a modern question that starts with 'to what extent...', for example, 'TO WHAT EXTENT WERE SOVIET ATTITUDES AND POLICIES UNDER GORBACHEV RESPONSIBLE FOR THE END OF THE COLD WAR?', should you talk about these attitudes and policies in one or two paragraphs and talk about other issues which contributed to the end of the Cold War in other paragraphs? Or talk about these attitudes and policies in every paragraph? Thanks so much! :)
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 :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on August 04, 2017, 01:51:44 pm
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!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: evasgg on August 04, 2017, 03:11:13 pm
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 :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: shaniakalan on August 15, 2017, 07:08:29 am
Hi okay so like really specific question but ws millitary bombardment a tactic or strategy?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on August 15, 2017, 09:01:24 am
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 :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on August 16, 2017, 07:33:37 pm
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 :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on August 16, 2017, 09:04:22 pm
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!)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on August 16, 2017, 09:14:27 pm
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! :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Claudiaa on August 17, 2017, 09:09:16 pm
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 >.<
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on August 17, 2017, 09:18:40 pm
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 :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: soha.rizvi1 on August 19, 2017, 09:05:11 am
Hey, is Hitler's accession to power different from his consolidation of power?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on August 19, 2017, 09:13:52 am
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
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on August 19, 2017, 10:44:16 am
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 :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: herb123 on August 20, 2017, 10:58:21 pm
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!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on August 21, 2017, 10:04:25 am
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.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: TheCommando on August 21, 2017, 02:04:03 pm
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
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on August 21, 2017, 02:20:16 pm
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
Maybe I'm mistaken (we didn't cover the Constituent Assembly a great deal last year, beyond its closing down being a factor in the White Army's decision to launch a Civil War), but I believe that they actually did NOT have the majority at the time! That was the problem, as the Social Revolutionaries won the election 370-175 - prompting Lenin and the Bolsheviks to just ignore the vote and close down the Constituent Assembly. Furthermore, you could probably argue that by giving more groups a voice, each of which are representing their own interests, that even if your voice is the loudest your ability to go after your own interests can be limited by the collective effort of the rest of the Assembly. That is my interpretation of it, however as I said we didn't cover this area in great depth.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: K888 on August 21, 2017, 05:25:37 pm
Maybe I'm mistaken (we didn't cover the Constituent Assembly a great deal last year, beyond its closing down being a factor in the White Army's decision to launch a Civil War), but I believe that they actually did NOT have the majority at the time! That was the problem, as the Social Revolutionaries won the election 370-175 - prompting Lenin and the Bolsheviks to just ignore the vote and close down the Constituent Assembly. Furthermore, you could probably argue that by giving more groups a voice, each of which are representing their own interests, that even if your voice is the loudest your ability to go after your own interests can be limited by the collective effort of the rest of the Assembly. That is my interpretation of it, however as I said we didn't cover this area in great depth.
Just wanted to add onto this (and I'm pretty sure I'll go completely off topic, but it's important to see how things link):
The Bolsheviks believed that the Constituent Assembly would consolidate their power. They had already gained support through their decrees and the like, and they really wanted to shore this up.
The result in the Constituent Assembly showed the large amount support behind the SRs - they had consolidated peasant support with some good reform policies, etc. and they won the election by a long stretch. This presented a serious challenge to the Bolsheviks - the demand to share political power, which they didn't want to do. Their refusal to share power led to some significant opposition against them. So, the Bolsheviks expanded the CHEKA and its power in order to brutally suppress political opposition.

To link it back to your question a bit better - it limited Bolshevik ambition, as it meant that the Bolsheviks had to deal with some serious political opposition and work on shoring up power, rather than implementing change and creating the Russia that they had envisioned, if that makes sense.

If you have any further questions, TheCommando, please feel free to ask them in the VCE Revs Question Thread and one of us will help you out! :D
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: damecj on August 22, 2017, 02:42:14 pm
To what extent can Nazism in power be seen as totalitarianism in the period 1933–1939?

Just struggling with how to structure this answer. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on August 22, 2017, 03:22:21 pm
To what extent can Nazism in power be seen as totalitarianism in the period 1933–1939?

Just struggling with how to structure this answer. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated
Hey! So I'm sure a Germany student will be able to answer this more in depth than I can, however when I answered soviet foreign policy questions, I structured by response according to the characteristics of a totalitarian society (ones that were modelled off of the nazi regime - so will DEFINITELY work for you!). These are;

- An all consuming ideology
- A mass party with a charismatic dictator
- Control of the mass media, armed forces and the economy
- Use of terror/secret police

Sooo I had a paragraph on each, emphasising how these characteristics are reflected under Stalinism. However, this isn't the only way to structure an essay like this! Thematic essays can also work quite well for totalitarianism essays - so how did Nazism secure/maintain total control over the political, economic and socio-cultural landscapes of German society at the time?

Hope this helps!

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on August 22, 2017, 05:35:36 pm
To what extent can Nazism in power be seen as totalitarianism in the period 1933–1939?

Just struggling with how to structure this answer. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated

i haven't touched germany since trials, so i'll answer this to the best of my ability. you can structure your essay into paragraphs of political, social and economic change. political can include the radical change, such as the creation of gleichschaltung, so pretty much how nazism transformed germany into a one-party state, with government departments all under one roof (the nazi party), and also the use of terror and repression, etc etc there's a dot point on that. there's an entire dot point on social change, which should cover what you want to write on that, and economic change - mention the four year plan and changes in the workforce.

of course, you can structure your essay using the dot points provided under 'nazism in power.' (i've added a screenshot of which dot points you can use). hope this helps!

Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on August 22, 2017, 07:23:38 pm
To what extent can Nazism in power be seen as totalitarianism in the period 1933–1939?

Just struggling with how to structure this answer. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated

Just adding to the great answers already, I got 25/25 for this question in half yearlies and this was my intro (my structure was based upon whether Nazism fit the requirements of a totalitarian state as put forward by Friedrich and Brzezinski):
In order to qualify as a totalitarian state, Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Party must not only have ensured it was the only party that controlled Germany. Rather, according to the definition of a totalitarian state put forward by political scientists Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1956, an official ideology, single mass party, control over mass communications and a systematic regime of terror and police control was necessary. Therefore, although the Nazi party was able to achieve a considerable amount of control through propaganda, it ultimately does not qualify as a total totalitarian state as it lacked a clearly defined ideology and organised government, did not crush all its opposition and was not a completely systematic state of terror.
So pretty much I argued:
NOT single mass party as it was a "polycratic state" due to Hitler's inability to make decisions and the duplication within his Govt. eg. the Ministry of Labour being in direct competition with the German Labour.
NOT an official ideology as Nazism continued to evolve from what was specified in Mein Kampf (undergoing a process of "spiralling radicalisation" according to Brozsat)
DID NOT crush all opposition as eg. opposition from the Church still remained as did in youth groups such as the Uberweiss Pirates and Swing Group.
WHILE Propaganda was successful in gaining control, I argued that it wasn't solely responsible for this as the disillusionment at the time (context) meant that it was not overly difficult to gain the people's support.
SIMILARLY, Nazi terror and repression did not in itself secure total control, rather it relied on denunciations from members of the public and as mentioned earlier, there was popular support for the Nazis due to their message of hope and distaste for Weimar etc. and therefore, the need to enforce loyalty through systematic terror was rarely required.
Anyway, that is what I argued!
Hope it helps! :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on August 22, 2017, 08:03:49 pm
Just adding to the great answers already, I got 25/25 for this question in half yearlies and this was my intro (my structure was based upon whether Nazism fit the requirements of a totalitarian state as put forward by Friedrich and Brzezinski):
In order to qualify as a totalitarian state, Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Party must not only have ensured it was the only party that controlled Germany. Rather, according to the definition of a totalitarian state put forward by political scientists Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1956, an official ideology, single mass party, control over mass communications and a systematic regime of terror and police control was necessary. Therefore, although the Nazi party was able to achieve a considerable amount of control through propaganda, it ultimately does not qualify as a total totalitarian state as it lacked a clearly defined ideology and organised government, did not crush all its opposition and was not a completely systematic state of terror.
So pretty much I argued:
NOT single mass party as it was a "polycratic state" due to Hitler's inability to make decisions and the duplication within his Govt. eg. the Ministry of Labour being in direct competition with the German Labour.
NOT an official ideology as Nazism continued to evolve from what was specified in Mein Kampf (undergoing a process of "spiralling radicalisation" according to Brozsat)
DID NOT crush all opposition as eg. opposition from the Church still remained as did in youth groups such as the Uberweiss Pirates and Swing Group.
WHILE Propaganda was successful in gaining control, I argued that it wasn't solely responsible for this as the disillusionment at the time (context) meant that it was not overly difficult to gain the people's support.
SIMILARLY, Nazi terror and repression did not in itself secure total control, rather it relied on denunciations from members of the public and as mentioned earlier, there was popular support for the Nazis due to their message of hope and distaste for Weimar etc. and therefore, the need to enforce loyalty through systematic terror was rarely required.
Anyway, that is what I argued!
Hope it helps! :)

this.👏 is.👏 amazing.👏 all germany people should read this!!! congrats to you for getting 25/25 for this as well :-))
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on August 22, 2017, 08:19:28 pm
this.👏 is.👏 amazing.👏 all germany people should read this!!! congrats to you for getting 25/25 for this as well :-))

Thank you :) It's a tough concept to nail down so all your help is just as important for understanding it as a whole not just from one perspective :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: damecj on August 23, 2017, 01:41:43 pm
Hey! So I'm sure a Germany student will be able to answer this more in depth than I can, however when I answered soviet foreign policy questions, I structured by response according to the characteristics of a totalitarian society (ones that were modelled off of the nazi regime - so will DEFINITELY work for you!). These are;

- An all consuming ideology
- A mass party with a charismatic dictator
- Control of the mass media, armed forces and the economy
- Use of terror/secret police

Sooo I had a paragraph on each, emphasising how these characteristics are reflected under Stalinism. However, this isn't the only way to structure an essay like this! Thematic essays can also work quite well for totalitarianism essays - so how did Nazism secure/maintain total control over the political, economic and socio-cultural landscapes of German society at the time?

Hope this helps!

Susie

i haven't touched germany since trials, so i'll answer this to the best of my ability. you can structure your essay into paragraphs of political, social and economic change. political can include the radical change, such as the creation of gleichschaltung, so pretty much how nazism transformed germany into a one-party state, with government departments all under one roof (the nazi party), and also the use of terror and repression, etc etc there's a dot point on that. there's an entire dot point on social change, which should cover what you want to write on that, and economic change - mention the four year plan and changes in the workforce.

of course, you can structure your essay using the dot points provided under 'nazism in power.' (i've added a screenshot of which dot points you can use). hope this helps!



Just adding to the great answers already, I got 25/25 for this question in half yearlies and this was my intro (my structure was based upon whether Nazism fit the requirements of a totalitarian state as put forward by Friedrich and Brzezinski):
In order to qualify as a totalitarian state, Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Party must not only have ensured it was the only party that controlled Germany. Rather, according to the definition of a totalitarian state put forward by political scientists Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1956, an official ideology, single mass party, control over mass communications and a systematic regime of terror and police control was necessary. Therefore, although the Nazi party was able to achieve a considerable amount of control through propaganda, it ultimately does not qualify as a total totalitarian state as it lacked a clearly defined ideology and organised government, did not crush all its opposition and was not a completely systematic state of terror.
So pretty much I argued:
NOT single mass party as it was a "polycratic state" due to Hitler's inability to make decisions and the duplication within his Govt. eg. the Ministry of Labour being in direct competition with the German Labour.
NOT an official ideology as Nazism continued to evolve from what was specified in Mein Kampf (undergoing a process of "spiralling radicalisation" according to Brozsat)
DID NOT crush all opposition as eg. opposition from the Church still remained as did in youth groups such as the Uberweiss Pirates and Swing Group.
WHILE Propaganda was successful in gaining control, I argued that it wasn't solely responsible for this as the disillusionment at the time (context) meant that it was not overly difficult to gain the people's support.
SIMILARLY, Nazi terror and repression did not in itself secure total control, rather it relied on denunciations from members of the public and as mentioned earlier, there was popular support for the Nazis due to their message of hope and distaste for Weimar etc. and therefore, the need to enforce loyalty through systematic terror was rarely required.
Anyway, that is what I argued!
Hope it helps! :)


Thank you all so much for your wonderful replies. It has helped me greatly.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: damecj on August 23, 2017, 05:19:49 pm
Just another question sorry ahahah...

I always seem to get 7-8/10 for those 10 mark reliability and usefulness questions... I was just wondering what is the best way to push in to the top band
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on August 23, 2017, 05:28:14 pm
Just another question sorry ahahah...

I always seem to get 7-8/10 for those 10 mark reliability and usefulness questions... I was just wondering what is the best way to push in to the top band

nooooooo questions are great!!! i was in the same boat as you at around half yearlies - my highest mark for the source analysis was 8, and no matter what i did from year 11 until that point, i always got 8. then in trials, i got 10, because i followed this amazing structure that susie provided at her lecture in july (seriously. this structure is everything.)

1. judgement - how useful is the source?
2. explanation of your judgement
3. explain the source
4. perspective of the source
5. reliability
6. usefulness

always always always always mention the actual words perspective, reliability and usefulness. also, hand in as many responses as you can! practice makes perfect. :-)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on August 23, 2017, 06:31:25 pm
nooooooo questions are great!!! i was in the same boat as you at around half yearlies - my highest mark for the source analysis was 8, and no matter what i did from year 11 until that point, i always got 8. then in trials, i got 10, because i followed this amazing structure that susie provided at her lecture in july (seriously. this structure is everything.)

1. judgement - how useful is the source?
2. explanation of your judgement
3. explain the source
4. perspective of the source
5. reliability
6. usefulness

always always always always mention the actual words perspective, reliability and usefulness. also, hand in as many responses as you can! practice makes perfect. :-)
yeahhhh! Told ya it'd work ;) Great job getting 10/10 though fantasticbeasts3! That's so good, great work :)

Another big point is to make sure that you have some detail and stats memorised that you can use to corroborate the source, and demonstrate the breadth of your knowledge - so many people just think that talking about the exact contents of the source is enough, but you need to show that the source is a reliable indicator of the "bigger picture" so to speak :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Ishodinkha17 on August 28, 2017, 12:23:47 pm
I need help! I am sitting on a Band 1 for Modern? I do not know how to write perfect historical essays and I storytell! I need help please. I know my content really well but I do not how to write a historical essay which affects me. HELP
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on August 28, 2017, 12:59:40 pm
I need help! I am sitting on a Band 1 for Modern? I do not know how to write perfect historical essays and I storytell! I need help please. I know my content really well but I do not how to write a historical essay which affects me. HELP

hi!! i'll try and help the best i can. you don't exactly need a 'perfect' essay to do well in modern :-) what are your options? i'm doing germany, gorbachev and cold war, so message me if you do any of those, and i'll help you out in detail there.

avoid telling the story by answering the question - that is, refer to it as many times as possible, but not too many times, because then your essay will sound like it's just the question repeated 50 times! make sure you have a solid argument when responding to a question, and a good structure.

others on here will help you more than i can, all the best!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on August 28, 2017, 01:01:41 pm
I need help! I am sitting on a Band 1 for Modern? I do not know how to write perfect historical essays and I storytell! I need help please. I know my content really well but I do not how to write a historical essay which affects me. HELP

There's a couple of easy ways you can do this! Firstly, as simple as it sounds make sure you are answering/arguing the question as for example if it includes to what extent at the start of the question, making sure you begin each paragraph and end each paragraph weighing up to what extent it supports the question will help. Also, structurally your response thematically (economic, social, cultural, political) etc. for questions makes it appear more that you are making an argument. But, if anything, if you can't get out of 'storytelling', just make sure you are linking back to the question more than anything, using words like 'Therefore' to force yourself to argue more and just make sure everything you are saying has a point! For example, if you are talking about Germany and the collapse of the Weimar Republic and you storytell something like: The Great Depression then hit and caused significant economic issues for the Republic to deal with including unemployment. This made the people further dissatisfied with the Republic... After this you need a link/argument, for example, using therefore: Therefore, the Great Depression was a significant reason for the collapse of democracy in Germany as it increased the lack of support for the Republic and would eventually see them turn towards extreme parties. I don't know what else to say sorry! I've just never had this issue before so it's hard to explain how I would overcome it but hope that helps either way! Just remember to answers link back to the question and that you are making an argument!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on August 28, 2017, 01:06:04 pm
Hey guys, just with the HSC Question - Germany between 1918 and 1939 was a triumph of nationalism over democracy. To what extent is this statement accurate. It is a very tough question given there is so much to discuss and therefore structure would be critical so it doesn't just sound like a ramble. Would it be logical enough to break this question into two parts?
1. Discussing whether the fall of the Weimar Republic (1918-1933) was due to nationalism - arguing this to be moderately true but bringing up other reasons and factors which caused it and also brought rise to nationalism.
2. And then discussing how Germany was transformed from 1933-1939 from democracy towards nationalism... structuring it thematically ie. Economic, Social, Political, Cultural and then evaluating at the end with in most cases the statement being highly accurate?
Thanks heaps!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on August 28, 2017, 02:04:27 pm
Hey guys, just with the HSC Question - Germany between 1918 and 1939 was a triumph of nationalism over democracy. To what extent is this statement accurate. It is a very tough question given there is so much to discuss and therefore structure would be critical so it doesn't just sound like a ramble. Would it be logical enough to break this question into two parts?
1. Discussing whether the fall of the Weimar Republic (1918-1933) was due to nationalism - arguing this to be moderately true but bringing up other reasons and factors which caused it and also brought rise to nationalism.
2. And then discussing how Germany was transformed from 1933-1939 from democracy towards nationalism... structuring it thematically ie. Economic, Social, Political, Cultural and then evaluating at the end with in most cases the statement being highly accurate?
Thanks heaps!

yep, sounds great! i'd do something like that :-) i've seen that question multiple times and it seems like an awful question hahahha i don't want to touch it
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on August 29, 2017, 09:19:01 pm
hi germany people!

how would you go about answering this question: "assess the impact of ideology on nazi foreign policy to september 1939."

i have no idea how to structure the essay. i've listed lebensraum as a means of expansion, and abolishing the treaty of versailles, but i don't know what else to put down.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on August 29, 2017, 09:30:59 pm
hi germany people!

how would you go about answering this question: "assess the impact of ideology on nazi foreign policy to september 1939."

i have no idea how to structure the essay. i've listed lebensraum as a means of expansion, and abolishing the treaty of versailles, but i don't know what else to put down.

Yeah... personally hate this question but I would just go about structuring your essay into the two main ideologies of Germany being racial purity and Lebensraum (territorial expansion) and to what extent their foreign policy was influenced by this eg. the amount of Germans in the Sudentenland - racial purity was the main reason for this policy (r.e bringing all Germans together) while you discuss Lebensraum and how it was the main reason for their expansion into the East. I don't have my notes on this on me at the moment so I can contribute in more detail later if you need :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on August 29, 2017, 09:34:49 pm
hi germany people!

how would you go about answering this question: "assess the impact of ideology on nazi foreign policy to september 1939."

i have no idea how to structure the essay. i've listed lebensraum as a means of expansion, and abolishing the treaty of versailles, but i don't know what else to put down.
Hey! In addition to dancing phalanges great response, I always found a thematic structure to be excellent when dealing with questions revolving around ideology. So how did ideology impact political foreign policy? economic foreign policy? social? military/strategic? That way, you can really demonstrate the all encompassing nature of ideology throughout your response! Furthermore, consider the other aims of foreign policy (eg. maybe domestic stability? That was a big one for soviet foreign policy) - did they ever outweight/overshadow the aim to spread their ideology internationally? Or was spreading their ideology always the driving focus?

Hope this helps!

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on August 29, 2017, 09:37:15 pm
Hey! In addition to dancing phalanges great response, I always found a thematic structure to be excellent when dealing with questions revolving around ideology. So how did ideology impact political foreign policy? economic foreign policy? social? military/strategic? That way, you can really demonstrate the all encompassing nature of ideology throughout your response! Furthermore, consider the other aims of foreign policy (eg. maybe domestic stability? That was a big one for soviet foreign policy) - did they ever outweight/overshadow the aim to spread their ideology internationally? Or was spreading their ideology always the driving focus?

Hope this helps!

Susie

Yeah would also recommend! A bit tough with Germany as a lot of the foreign policy was very similar eg. not much if any economic and social related to this question but still it's a great way to show extra sophistication :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on August 29, 2017, 09:47:55 pm
Yeah... personally hate this question but I would just go about structuring your essay into the two main ideologies of Germany being racial purity and Lebensraum (territorial expansion) and to what extent their foreign policy was influenced by this eg. the amount of Germans in the Sudentenland - racial purity was the main reason for this policy (r.e bringing all Germans together) while you discuss Lebensraum and how it was the main reason for their expansion into the East. I don't have my notes on this on me at the moment so I can contribute in more detail later if you need :)

yea, this question and the other one in the 2016 really suck.

alright so just racial purity and lebensraum? they're pretty much the same thing though like uGh

Hey! In addition to dancing phalanges great response, I always found a thematic structure to be excellent when dealing with questions revolving around ideology. So how did ideology impact political foreign policy? economic foreign policy? social? military/strategic? That way, you can really demonstrate the all encompassing nature of ideology throughout your response! Furthermore, consider the other aims of foreign policy (eg. maybe domestic stability? That was a big one for soviet foreign policy) - did they ever outweight/overshadow the aim to spread their ideology internationally? Or was spreading their ideology always the driving focus?

Hope this helps!

Susie

Yeah would also recommend! A bit tough with Germany as a lot of the foreign policy was very similar eg. not much if any economic and social related to this question but still it's a great way to show extra sophistication :)

i considered this, but like what dancing phalanges said, foreign policy was very similar for germany. i don't think i could write enough for economic and social factors, because nazi ideology is pretty much racial purity linked with expansion, and the treaty of versailles.

(right about now my textbook website session ended (ends so many times it's very irritating) and this is getting annoying i can't be bothered opening it and doing more work i'm so tired)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on August 29, 2017, 09:58:53 pm
yea, this question and the other one in the 2016 really suck.

alright so just racial purity and lebensraum? they're pretty much the same thing though like uGh

i considered this, but like what dancing phalanges said, foreign policy was very similar for germany. i don't think i could write enough for economic and social factors, because nazi ideology is pretty much racial purity linked with expansion, and the treaty of versailles.

(right about now my textbook website session ended (ends so many times it's very irritating) and this is getting annoying i can't be bothered opening it and doing more work i'm so tired)

Well they're not the same thing but yeah they do overlap a bit. But what I would do is:
1. Territorial Expansion
a) Non-Aggression Pact with Poland - Poland laid in way of future aim for territorial expansion. However, until Germany was in a position to invade, the pact was effective as propaganda which would convince Poland that Germany were not a threat. Yet, they would later expand obviously, linking back to territorial expansion.
2. Racial Purity
a) Anchluss with Austria - Unification of Austria into 3rd Reich. Czechoslovokia could now also be attacked. First successful foreign policy towards bringing all Germans together.
b) Sudentenland - 3 million Germans in Czechoslovakia. German minority lived in Sudentenland. Given permission to invade at Munich Conference.
c) Can argue invasion of Poland here as 1.5 million Germans lived in Polish territory and were under Govt. of Slavs (inferior race)

I do agree though, it is hard to differentiate them at time, but don't worry, if you're not confident with this, like me, there will be another option if this is in the HSC :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: ~BK~ on September 02, 2017, 09:54:23 am
hey, i was just wondering susie....
last year in your exam, did you directly quote historians in your national study and you conflict study??
i'm really confused cos one teacher said you definitely have to, the other one said don't bother?   ??? :o
thanks for your help.  :D
~BK~
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on September 02, 2017, 10:02:53 am
hey, i was just wondering susie....
last year in your exam, did you directly quote historians in your national study and you conflict study??
i'm really confused cos one teacher said you definitely have to, the other one said don't bother?   ??? :o
thanks for your help.  :D
~BK~

i'm no susie (autocorrected to aussie hahahaha) but yes, quote historians! they should be there to back up whatever it is you're arguing, and count as extra detail. :-) however, it's still possible to get a good mark without them - i forgot every historian i wanted to use in my trials for the national study, and still got in the A range. once again, historians count as detail, and it's good to use them, but not completely necessary like in the personality study.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: ~BK~ on September 02, 2017, 10:14:12 am
i'm no susie (autocorrected to aussie hahahaha) but yes, quote historians! they should be there to back up whatever it is you're arguing, and count as extra detail. :-) however, it's still possible to get a good mark without them - i forgot every historian i wanted to use in my trials for the national study, and still got in the A range. once again, historians count as detail, and it's good to use them, but not completely necessary like in the personality study.

Thanks heaps for the advice!!!  ;D ;D
i find it really hard to remember historians quotes, dates, events, significance etc!!  ::) ???
mt
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on September 02, 2017, 10:40:08 am
Thanks heaps for the advice!!!  ;D ;D
i find it really hard to remember historians quotes, dates, events, significance etc!!  ::) ???
mt

Just remember though that details are super important like dates! With historians, even if you know their basic argument you don't necessarily need to know certain quotes all the time just what their view is on the issue and then you can evaluate it :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on September 02, 2017, 10:41:08 am
i'm no susie (autocorrected to aussie hahahaha) but yes, quote historians! they should be there to back up whatever it is you're arguing, and count as extra detail. :-) however, it's still possible to get a good mark without them - i forgot every historian i wanted to use in my trials for the national study, and still got in the A range. once again, historians count as detail, and it's good to use them, but not completely necessary like in the personality study.
Exactly correct! It's great to have historians, but it is never necessary, so if you can't remember that one quote in an exam, no biggy! Just move on, you probably haven't even lost a mark :)

Thanks heaps for the advice!!!  ;D ;D
i find it really hard to remember historians quotes, dates, events, significance etc!!  ::) ???
mt
On my phone, so I can't link the page, but I suggest having a look at the thread "memorizing statistics (and all the ww1 SARDE you'll ever need)" (something along those lines)! Outlines a fantastic way to memorize detail!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Ishodinkha17 on September 04, 2017, 09:04:00 am
For the past two years, I have loved the content for Modern History, the only problem is I cannot write a Historical essay without going on a tangent or storytelling. My Trial results were shocking, but expected. I received a 50/100 and I was so disappointed with myself. I have been studying everyday for the past week writing essays and revising notes, but I fear that I will freak out in the exam room and completely forget anything.

- Do you have any tips for revising essays
- Do you have any tips for revising notes
- Do you have any tips on formulating responses according to the question
- Do you have any tips on not storytelling
- Do you have any tips on using great histiography

Kind Regards,
Isho Dinkha
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on September 04, 2017, 09:30:04 am
For the past two years, I have loved the content for Modern History, the only problem is I cannot write a Historical essay without going on a tangent or storytelling. My Trial results were shocking, but expected. I received a 50/100 and I was so disappointed with myself. I have been studying everyday for the past week writing essays and revising notes, but I fear that I will freak out in the exam room and completely forget anything.

- Do you have any tips for revising essays
- Do you have any tips for revising notes
- Do you have any tips on formulating responses according to the question
- Do you have any tips on not storytelling
- Do you have any tips on using great histiography

Kind Regards,
Isho Dinkha
Hey Isho!! No worries, happy to help :) Don't dwell on Trials too much, between now and the HSC exam you can improve exponentially with some hard work!

Here are my answers to your questions:

- Do you have any tips for revising essays
When it comes to revising essays, I think the best way to do this is to actually write them! Writing practice responses was the only way that I studied for Modern History last year - I didn't write notes (not to say that that is a bad idea, I just didn't do it personally), using the time that I saved to dedicate my time to doing past papers and exams, and getting my teacher to look over them. By doing this consistently throughout the year (even during weeks where we didn't have an exam coming up) I could pinpoint and identify issues much earlier, so by the time it was a week or two before an exam, when everyone else started studying, all the problems that they were only now identifying I had fixed weeks earlier, and was up to the stage whereby all I really needed to do was revise detail and work out arguments.

Reading other peoples essays as well, and identifying what is good about it, what is bad about it, different structures you may not have considered, etc. is also a really good idea!

- Do you have any tips for revising notes
I don't really have any tips personally, because, as I said, I didn't write notes for any of my subjects last year, as it just wasn't an effective study method for me (again, it may be for you! This was just personal experience). However, my teacher recommended this system:

STEP ONE: Write basic notes - just the bare bones, no detail. What you NEED to know.
STEP TWO: Expand basic notes to comprehensive - take your basic notes, and add more content. Add dates, statistics, terminology, etc.
STEP THREE: Expand on comprehensive notes to "perfect" - take your comprehensive notes and now add extra detail, quotes, and identify links/arguments!
STEP FOUR: Simplify "perfect" notes back to comprehensive - without looking at your comprehensive notes, now try to simplify your perfect notes to only the content.
STEP FIVE: Simplify comprehensive notes to basic notes - without looking at your basic notes, now try to simplify your comprehensive notes to only include the stuff that you 100% need to know (and anything that you typically forget).

I also recommend using a table structure, and constructing a detail table (structured according to the syllabus, ONLY includes detail (stats, terminology, interesting facts, quotes - no content/arguments), argument table (work out the most common arguments and how you would argue them - for and against) and linking tables (how do all the factors on the syllabus like a) together, and b) to greater themes, eg. ideology).

- Do you have any tips on formulating responses according to the question
Identify which essay "type" you're most comfortable with, and that works well with the question. If the question appears quite specific, I usually recommend a "factors" essays - the factors are usually the events and issues that are raised in the syllabus. If the question is quote broad, I typically wrote a "thematic" essay - so a paragraph on the political, economic and socio-cultural issues relevant to the question.

Another massive tip is to work out what exactly they're asking, and where in the syllabus it is from. For example, a lot of the Russia students during the CSSA trial were thrown by the "Red Army" question, because it appeared too specific - when it reality, "Red Army" was just a substitute for saying Civil War (a syllabus dot point), as the Red Army was only really critical during this time (in regards to the syllabus), meaning that they could have written a Civil War essay and be set! So I really recommend these two things:

1. Try to write out the syllabus, without looking. Do you know all the dot points?
2. Look at all the dot points, do you know the key points under each? eg. For Reasons for Allied Victory and German Collapse, the key points are the British Naval Blockade, Firepower, Manpower, Strategy v. Tactic and Morale.

- Do you have any tips on not storytelling
Make sure that you are ALWAYS addressing the question. The best way to do this is literally and clearly bringing it back to the question with sentences like this; "thus it is clear that [judgement]", or "therefore, asserting the high significance of [judgement]."

That's the other thing - JUDGEMENT. Make sure that you have one! This should actually be your first sentence for every paragraph (and your introduction). For example, lets say the question was "To what extent was the New Economic Policy critical to the Bolshevik Consolidation of Power?". My judgement would be "The New Economic Policy was highly critical to the Bolshevik Consolidation of Power". May seem super simple, but now, already, the marker knows what my answer/opinion is. Having a judgement also means that its harder to storytell, as rather than just explaining what the New Economic Policy was, I have to justify why it was highly critical!

- Do you have any tips on using great histiography
Only use historiography to back up YOUR OWN arguments. Don't ever use them to form your essay, or else that will just look like a shopping list of historians. We know that the historians are experts - we need to know that you are, and that doesn't happen by just parroting what the historians say. Don't get me wrong, historians are fantastic to use, as they count as detail, but just make sure that you only ever use them to support your own analysis. With that in mind, I think the best way to go about it was always to introduce your own argument first, explain it, then later, bring in historians like this - "This is supported by Hobsbawm, who states....." or "Deutscher elaborates upon this phemonenon, suggesting that .........", or "[your argument], as according to Service "......".

Hope this helps! Please let me know if you're stull confused, or would like me to clarify anything :)

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: TheCommando on September 08, 2017, 04:43:00 pm
Maybe I'm mistaken (we didn't cover the Constituent Assembly a great deal last year, beyond its closing down being a factor in the White Army's decision to launch a Civil War), but I believe that they actually did NOT have the majority at the time! That was the problem, as the Social Revolutionaries won the election 370-175 - prompting Lenin and the Bolsheviks to just ignore the vote and close down the Constituent Assembly. Furthermore, you could probably argue that by giving more groups a voice, each of which are representing their own interests, that even if your voice is the loudest your ability to go after your own interests can be limited by the collective effort of the rest of the Assembly. That is my interpretation of it, however as I said we didn't cover this area in great depth.
Holly crap for something thats not convered in great depth that was so well done. Thank you xox
Also why did Moscow resist bolshevik takeover and why was there so much resentment against the bolsheviks
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: K888 on September 08, 2017, 10:31:01 pm
Holly crap for something thats not convered in great depth that was so well done. Thank you xox
Also why did Moscow resist bolshevik takeover and why was there so much resentment against the bolsheviks
Depends on which timeframe you're talking about as to the specific reason behind resentment directed at the Bolsheviks, but it was generally because they promised all these great improvements if they were in power - they had all these decrees in the early period of their power that promised to make life better for the Russian people.
However, they were very one-party power orientated - they did not want any form of opposition. Inevitably, they faced both political and military opposition, and they dealt with these pretty brutally.
Also, War Communism was not particularly popular - and you only need to look at what it involved to see why. This bred significant resentment. Then there was famine, and all that stuff - a recipe for disaster.

The Russian people had only recently escaped the autocracy of the Romanov dynasty. Ultimately, some of the stuff the Bolsheviks did made them not so different to the Romanovs in the eyes of an everyday Russian.

In terms of why Moscow resisted Bolshevik takeover - I don't have the best explanation, so I'll leave it to someone else :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on September 08, 2017, 10:55:14 pm
Holly crap for something thats not convered in great depth that was so well done. Thank you xox
Also why did Moscow resist bolshevik takeover and why was there so much resentment against the bolsheviks
Hey! I'm a bit confused with the wording of your question (maybe its a VCE thing?) - why did "Moscow" resist bolshevik takeover? Do you mean the city itself or just the Kremlin? Again, this isn't something that the HSC looks at at all really aha, but from a quick google search I gather that the Moscow duma attempted to resist? But it wasn't very successful - their reason I'm sure was that they wanted to maintain power for themselves. But yeah, that's kinda all I have aha. In terms of resentment, K888's answer is spot on! Definitely was a progressive thing though - like they were VERY popular with the people at the beginning, particularly right after the 1917 revolution when they introduced their early social and political reforms. However, as things progressed (harshness of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, Civil War, War Communism, etc. ) things definitely took a turn for the worst for Bolshevik popularity!

Hope this helps! Sorry I couldn't help more :(

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: TheCommando on September 10, 2017, 12:19:55 pm
 
Depends on which timeframe you're talking about as to the specific reason behind resentment directed at the Bolsheviks, but it was generally because they promised all these great improvements if they were in power - they had all these decrees in the early period of their power that promised to make life better for the Russian people.
However, they were very one-party power orientated - they did not want any form of opposition. Inevitably, they faced both political and military opposition, and they dealt with these pretty brutally.
Also, War Communism was not particularly popular - and you only need to look at what it involved to see why. This bred significant resentment. Then there was famine, and all that stuff - a recipe for disaster.

The Russian people had only recently escaped the autocracy of the Romanov dynasty. Ultimately, some of the stuff the Bolsheviks did made them not so different to the Romanovs in the eyes of an everyday Russian.

In terms of why Moscow resisted Bolshevik takeover - I don't have the best explanation, so I'll leave it to someone else :)
"When news of the Soviet revolution reached Moscow, Colonel Ryabtsev, the local Provisional Government garrison commander there, imposed martial law and began rallying troops to resist the coming Bolshevik assault. Ryabtsev’s forces were supported by Moscow factory workers, who initiated a general strike. After a week of bitter fighting and an unknown number of deaths, probably in the hundreds, Milrevcom forces captured Moscow. By March 1918 Lenin and his committee had moved the national capital to Moscow and installed themselves in the Kremlin."

I think that occured due to the mensheviks and moderate SRs hating Lenin's seizure of power in the october revolution as by Lenin doing this he had collectivley seized all power by force as the bolesheviks now had power
Hey! I'm a bit confused with the wording of your question (maybe its a VCE thing?) - why did "Moscow" resist bolshevik takeover? Do you mean the city itself or just the Kremlin? Again, this isn't something that the HSC looks at at all really aha, but from a quick google search I gather that the Moscow duma attempted to resist? But it wasn't very successful - their reason I'm sure was that they wanted to maintain power for themselves. But yeah, that's kinda all I have aha. In terms of resentment, K888's answer is spot on! Definitely was a progressive thing though - like they were VERY popular with the people at the beginning, particularly right after the 1917 revolution when they introduced their early social and political reforms. However, as things progressed (harshness of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, Civil War, War Communism, etc. ) things definitely took a turn for the worst for Bolshevik popularity!

Hope this helps! Sorry I couldn't help more :(

Susie
Yeah it is 3/4 in vce
Its just the forum of history in vce is kinda dead
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: K888 on September 10, 2017, 05:33:05 pm
"When news of the Soviet revolution reached Moscow, Colonel Ryabtsev, the local Provisional Government garrison commander there, imposed martial law and began rallying troops to resist the coming Bolshevik assault. Ryabtsev’s forces were supported by Moscow factory workers, who initiated a general strike. After a week of bitter fighting and an unknown number of deaths, probably in the hundreds, Milrevcom forces captured Moscow. By March 1918 Lenin and his committee had moved the national capital to Moscow and installed themselves in the Kremlin."

I think that occured due to the mensheviks and moderate SRs hating Lenin's seizure of power in the october revolution as by Lenin doing this he had collectivley seized all power by force as the bolesheviks now had power

Yeah it is 3/4 in vce
Its just the forum of history in vce is kinda dead
Seems like you've got your answer there! :)

In terms of the VCE History section - I'd really love it if you could direct your questions there, I studied Russia and China so can help out with those aspects of Revs, and there are other users around who have done Revs in the past. I say this because it streamlines things if we can keep them separate, and we avoid confusing people about what may or may not be on their syllabuses :)
Also, posting there encourages activity from other users, and will help make that aspect of the forum more alive!

I'll try to answer any questions you post ASAP, but I'm sure the NSW History people will also be happy to pop their heads into the VCE thread and help! Plus, if I haven't answered a question within a few days (say maybe, 3? I've got to balance helping out between uni commitments, too), feel free to send me a PM to remind me! I sometimes just don't see the questions or might just forget to answer :) 
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: _____ on September 12, 2017, 06:23:47 pm
Russia question I just did (paraphrasing slightly) - "To what extent did Bolshevik social, economic and political reforms enable the party to consolidate their power from 1917 - 1928?"

CoP questions that I've seen normally focus on the period up to and including the NEP post 1921. When answering this, what else can I consider in the period 1921-1928 apart from the continuation of the NEP and the creation of the GPU/OGPU a few years later?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on September 12, 2017, 06:32:49 pm
Russia question I just did (paraphrasing slightly) - "To what extent did Bolshevik social, economic and political reforms enable the party to consolidate their power from 1917 - 1928?"

CoP questions that I've seen normally focus on the period up to and including the NEP post 1921. When answering this, what else can I consider in the period 1921-1928 apart from the continuation of the NEP and the creation of the GPU/OGPU a few years later?
Interesting! Yeah, typically B-COP questions will end at 1921, however tbh my teacher has been predicting something like this happening (mainly a "power struggles" essay that spans the entire time frame, from Bolsheviks to Stalinism). In terms of social, economic and political reforms, I'd have a look at some of the stuff happening during the power struggle, particularly in regards to Lenin's Levy, and the shift in ideology from Permanent Revolution to Socialism-in-one-country! How did the Bolsheviks maintain power after the devastation of the Civil War, whereby they lost many of their old party members, and a lot of their popularity?

But yeah, interesting stuff! Would love to see your response once it's completed :)

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: _____ on September 12, 2017, 06:58:31 pm
Interesting! Yeah, typically B-COP questions will end at 1921, however tbh my teacher has been predicting something like this happening (mainly a "power struggles" essay that spans the entire time frame, from Bolsheviks to Stalinism). In terms of social, economic and political reforms, I'd have a look at some of the stuff happening during the power struggle, particularly in regards to Lenin's Levy, and the shift in ideology from Permanent Revolution to Socialism-in-one-country! How did the Bolsheviks maintain power after the devastation of the Civil War, whereby they lost many of their old party members, and a lot of their popularity?

But yeah, interesting stuff! Would love to see your response once it's completed :)

Susie

Interesting stuff, my class work and textbooks mostly focus on leadership issues during that time - I suppose it's what the syllabus emphasises. On the one hand they've shifted towards more difficult questions for personalities, but there's been no evidence of that for 25 mark questions at least for the topics I study. I hope they don't begin far-flung questions this year lol

I actually did the question under exam conditions and basically winged the 1921-28 period saying the establishment of a permanent secret police rather than a temporary extraordinary war/anti-capitalist organisation worked in hand with the NEP to a): discourage popular protest and b): crack down on opposition that did occur. Just not sure whether to study the stuff you've mentioned as it was a harder trial paper question - not too sure how likely the CoP in that period is to be assessed  :-\ teacher might have some ideas which I'll share if there's anything beyond what you mentioned.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on September 12, 2017, 07:24:21 pm
Interesting stuff, my class work and textbooks mostly focus on leadership issues during that time - I suppose it's what the syllabus emphasises. On the one hand they've shifted towards more difficult questions for personalities, but there's been no evidence of that for 25 mark questions at least for the topics I study. I hope they don't begin far-flung questions this year lol

I actually did the question under exam conditions and basically winged the 1921-28 period saying the establishment of a permanent secret police rather than a temporary extraordinary war/anti-capitalist organisation worked in hand with the NEP to a): discourage popular protest and b): crack down on opposition that did occur. Just not sure whether to study the stuff you've mentioned as it was a harder trial paper question - not too sure how likely the CoP in that period is to be assessed  :-\ teacher might have some ideas which I'll share if there's anything beyond what you mentioned.
Sounds good! I wouldn't have thought to discuss the secret police - great work! Yeah I don't know how likely it is either (my current prediction for HSC is a power struggles and a soviet foreign policy essay cos its one of the only pairings they've never done aha), but doesn't hurt to prepare for it - at the very least, its good content revision! I don't know whether they'd make a move towards "harder" 25 mark questions (particularly considering the syllabus change comes into affect very soon), but you never know! A leadership struggle question spanning the entire period wouldn't necessarily be that hard. Definitely out there, and would throw a lot of people, but there is definitely a lot to talk about - Trotsky/Lenin, Trotsky/Stalin/(and Kamenev, Zinoviev and Bukharin), Stalin/everyone, etc. etc. :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Ishodinkha17 on September 12, 2017, 08:07:56 pm
Hello Susie,

My Modern History teacher is very vague in giving feedback. Could you please review my essay (if you have time) and could you please give some moderate feedback. Thanks, Isho. My essay is on - INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND CONFLICT - CONFLICT IN EUROPE 1935-1945

Question - "To what extent were the dictatorships in Germany and Italy responsible for the growth of European tensions"

It is highly critical that during the decade which preceded the outbreak of the Second World War, two dictators rose to power, Adolf Hitler of Germany and Benito Mussolini of Italy. The expansionist and fascist ideals of both dictators was the impetus for the growth of tension in Europe, till the outbreak. However, despite their primary responsibility in the formulation of these tensions, these tensions did not equate directly to the outbreak of war, but instead hold a catalytic significance to a number of events which led to the outbreak of war in Europe in 1939, namely the failure of the League of Nations, the policy of appeasement and the significance of the Nazi-Soviet Non Aggression Pact. Therefore it is clear that the dictatorships in Germany and Italy were highly responsible for the growth of European tensions.
Adolf Hitler became German Fuhrer in 1934, and granted himself the dictatorship of Germany. His aggressive foreign policy and motives behind the expansion of the German Empire (known as Lebensraum) significantly influenced his actions in instigating tensions. Hitler’s foreign policy was based upon avenging the injustices of the Treaty of Versailles on Germany and retuning the empire to its former glory. As such, his actions were expansionist and imperialist, with the continual annexation of ‘rightful German territory’. Hitler’s remilitarisation of the Rhineland in 1936, the ‘Anschluss’ of the late 1930s and the occupation of the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia were all catalytic, aggressive actions, which, having met no resistance, signalled the imminence of war. Hitler’s belief or ‘lebensraum’ (living space), which he referred to in his diary ‘Mein Kampf’ and the power of the ‘Volkgemeinschaft’ (pure German racial power in Europe); instigated his aggressive expansionist motives. Similarly, however to a lesser degree, Mussolini’s empirical motives through the revival of the Roman Empire, led him to invade Abyssinia and neighbouring countries, as did Hitler and Mussolini both had a powerfully catalytic effect on the creation and growth of tensions leading up to 1939. Their aggressive, fascist and expansionist actions inaugurates them as a focal part of the outbreak of war. Furthermore, the powerlessness of the League, intended arbiter of collective security, in preventing Italy’s Abyssinian invasion and German and Italian interference in the Spanish Civil War, allowed Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler to assert their dominance by claiming territories and extensively, militarising, thereby exacerbating European tensions. The lack of political consensus and military resources undermined any capacity for the League to enforce collective security. Additionally, failed attempts to appease Germany, allowed expansion of its’ militaristic and territorial dominance, thus heightening European animosity. The League’s intended aim of collective security failed due to the nationalistic priorities of member nations, which destroyed the possibility of mutual peace and sparked European conflict. Following 1919, the internationalist ideal of peace ensured by member nations collectively defending victims of aggression, was an impractical notion for world peace. A desire for security and national economic prosperity spawned support for Nationalist Conservatives and burgeoning fascist movements. There it is clear that both Hitler and Mussolini were highly responsible for contributing the growth of tensions in Europe.
Thus, in addition to Hitler and Mussolini’s involvement in contributing to the growth of European tensions, Appeasement was a highly critical turning point in the second world war and contributed to the growth of European tensions. Appeasement was a major foreign policy that was used with little success by nations such as France and Britain against the aggressive powers Germany and Italy. It allowed for them to develop into states that were prepared for international conflict and empowered by the apparent weakness of the international community. It allowed the aggressors to rearm and gain territorial advantage over the eventual allied powers, greatly influencing their ability to go to war during the 1940s. Appeasement during and after the Second World War has been viewed exceptionally negatively, saying that it was one of the main causes of the war. Appeasement at the time, however, did seem like the logical solution. Britain and France were in no position to go to war to defend the Treaty of Versailles after the Great Depression, and the British public viewed many of Hitler’s policies as reasonable, with him simply restoring some of Germany’s liberties as a sovereign nation. This included allowing Germany to increase its military assets through rearmament in 1935. Hitler, during the period obtained support by building upon the Western’s world anti-communist sentiments, showing that Germany would need to fend them off to prevent the spread into Europe. He also attempted to gain support through the concept of equality, saying that Germany had the right to protect itself like any other nation. This led to the Allies seeing rearmament as inevitable, rather than something that could be controlled. Similar arguments were used for conscription, receiving only a minor protest from Britain, James Levy suggests that this helped to increase Germany and Italy’s potential for war, especially through allowances such as the Anglo-German Naval Agreement in 1935, allowing for the Kriegsmarine to grow to 35% of the size of the Royal Navy. Had the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles been followed, war would have been inevitably prevented from occurring, thus removing the opportunity for Germany to have waged war in Europe. Historian WN Medlicott states in ‘The Coming of War’ (1939); ‘Throughout, from the days of Mein Kampf until 1944, the objective was the black-soil region of Russia and east Europe generally, as living space for German colonists’. WN Medlicott argues the line that Hitler never wavered in his long term aims but that like Bismarck, he was an opportunist, willing to change policy along the way if the situation demanded. Medlicott argues that there is a consistency in Hitler’s thinking from the days of Mein Kampf to the Hossbach Memorandum to his wartime table-talk. Therefore, it is clear that the policy of appeasement contributed to the growth of European tensions. 
The principle of collective security was the great idealistic hope of the inter-war period. It was believed that the powers, working through the League of Nations, could work together to prevent aggression and the chain of events which had led to war in 1914. Collective security collapsed, unable to handle the realities of European and world politics. This collapse meant there was no means to stop the aggression of the Axis powers whose actions increased the tensions in Europe. The only response to this aggression came in the form of appeasement which was doomed to fail. The League of Nations was split into three structures including the Council, Assembly and the Secretariat. However, the League of Nations failed due to relying on the principle of ‘internationalism’, the notion that nations would sacrifice selfish national gain for the common good. The League’s aim of disarmament rested on a fatal contradiction. Article 8 called for powers to disarm to a level consistent with national safety. Collective security was unable to function die to the realities of European and world politics. The failure of collective security enabled the dictators to act without fear of any retribution. Each action of Hitler and Mussolini further acted to heighten tensions in Europe. Manchuria showed them the way.
Hitler and Stalin signed a Non-Aggression Pact due to Britain’s guarantee to Poland made a war in the west inevitable. Hopefully, Hitler would exhaust himself against France and Britain. A deal with Hitler would give Stalin a share of Poland and provide a security buffer between Germany and Russia. With Hitler busy in the west, Russia would have time to consolidate and strengthen its forces. The Soviet Union could be dealt with once the western nations had been defeated and neutralising the Soviet Union would avoid getting into the mess Germany found itself in July/August 1914. The Nazi-Soviet Non Aggression Pact was officially signed on the 23rd of August, 1939. Germany and the Soviet Union signed a ten year non-aggression pact. This pact was significant as it was the catalyst for the German invasion into Poland. Article 2 stated; “If either Germany or Russia become involved in a war with a third power, the other would not get involved”, for example if Germany invade Poland, Russia would not intervene. Article 7 stated;  “The agreement would take immediate effect”. The Nazi-Soviet Pact significantly contained secret protocols which created German and Soviet spheres of influence. Germany would receive western Poland and Lithuania. The Soviet Union would receive Estonia, Latvia, Finland and Romania. Phillip Bell states in the Origins of the Second World War in Europe; “Instead of risk a war, they could offer certain neutrality ... spheres of influence and were ready to carve up Poland .. the Germans could deliver the goods forthwith, whereas the British and French could deliver nothing. Bell poses the questions, why did Stalin choose the Germans over the British and French in August 1939. He places much of the blame on Britain’s hesitancy, lack of seriousness and its distrust of Stalin. However, he  argues that the decisive reason was that Hitler offered Stalin what he wanted, and offered it immeadiatly. Stalin was involved in skirmishes with Japan in the far east. The last thing he needed was a two-front war. He sought certain neutrality and hoped for a band of states in eastern Europe which could provide some security to the Soviet state.
To conclude, it is clear that the failure of the League of Nations, the policy of appeasement and the signing of the Nazi-Soviet Non Aggression Pact significantly contributed to the growth of tensions in Europe. The following factors as listed above contributed to both Germany and Italy seizing power and allowed for them to expand their empires.
 




Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Natasha.97 on September 12, 2017, 09:34:30 pm
Hello Susie,

My Modern History teacher is very vague in giving feedback. Could you please review my essay (if you have time) and could you please give some moderate feedback. Thanks, Isho.

Hi Isho!

You need 20 more posts to qualify for essay marking as written in the rationale here. Once you've reached 25 posts, please post your essay on this thread :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: _____ on September 19, 2017, 02:56:45 pm
People doing Indochina: how would you answer this? It's from the 2015 HSC so I've spoilered it in case you're about to do the paper.

Spoiler
Assess the impact of the Tet Offensive on the anti-war movements in the USA.

Just not sure if I have enough content to talk about this in enough detail. The only things I can think of are it
Spoiler
led to a massive increase in support for the protestors
and
Spoiler
eventually led to the end of the anti-war movement as the US government gradually withdrew its troops following Tet.

What else can I include?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on September 22, 2017, 10:50:52 pm
Hey guys just a quick Germany question, our teacher gave us a couple of tricky questions to look at and I'm a bit stumped on how to approach this one structurally and in terms of what specifically I need to look at: Explain how political and economic factors affected the Weimar Republic by 1929.
I'm pretty confused as to how to handle this as I can discuss how the economic issues had a limited impact as they were well handled by Stresseman. However, I can't really discuss the Great Depression that much seeing that it broke out in 1929 and this essay question limits me to 1929. Thanks guys :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on September 22, 2017, 11:13:09 pm
Hey guys just a quick Germany question, our teacher gave us a couple of tricky questions to look at and I'm a bit stumped on how to approach this one structurally and in terms of what specifically I need to look at: Explain how political and economic factors affected the Weimar Republic by 1929.
I'm pretty confused as to how to handle this as I can discuss how the economic issues had a limited impact as they were well handled by Stresseman. However, I can't really discuss the Great Depression that much seeing that it broke out in 1929 and this essay question limits me to 1929. Thanks guys :)

oooooh. structure-wise, i can only think of separating it into two paragraphs - political and economic (your essay looks like there's no paragraphs this way which is annoying). as for your question on how to discuss economic issues, i think you should maintain the argument of the economic issues having a limited impact because of stresemann... like to a certain extent, all problems were fixed because of him. on the great depression, sure, it happened in 1929, but you can talk about the immediate impacts of the great depression (can't help you out here, haven't studied weimar germany in so long).

hope this helps!
sorry i couldn't help you out more - weimar germany is not my speciality in the national study, and i haven't studied it in ages :/
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on September 22, 2017, 11:19:34 pm
oooooh. structure-wise, i can only think of separating it into two paragraphs - political and economic (your essay looks like there's no paragraphs this way which is annoying). as for your question on how to discuss economic issues, i think you should maintain the argument of the economic issues having a limited impact because of stresemann... like to a certain extent, all problems were fixed because of him. on the great depression, sure, it happened in 1929, but you can talk about the immediate impacts of the great depression (can't help you out here, haven't studied weimar germany in so long).

hope this helps!
sorry i couldn't help you out more - weimar germany is not my speciality in the national study, and i haven't studied it in ages :/

nah that's all good! really appreciate it :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: rodero on September 25, 2017, 07:23:31 pm
Hey guys,
What are the chances of us being asked a question such as "Describe the historical context of the personality you have studied", in Part A of the personality section? Since we study Speer and Germany, my teacher literally told us we should already know this already, so we skipped it completely. I know that it's a curve-ball of a question, but is there actually any chance that it could show up?

Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on September 25, 2017, 07:27:00 pm
Hey guys,
What are the chances of us being asked a question such as "Describe the historical context of the personality you have studied", in Part A of the personality section? Since we study Speer and Germany, my teacher literally told us we should already know this already, so we skipped it completely. I know that it's a curve-ball of a question, but is there actually any chance that it could show up?



i don't think it's likely they'll ask that :-) study it anyway, though, because you never know what's going to happen (knock on wood it doesn't show up).
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on September 25, 2017, 10:18:52 pm
Hey guys,
What are the chances of us being asked a question such as "Describe the historical context of the personality you have studied", in Part A of the personality section? Since we study Speer and Germany, my teacher literally told us we should already know this already, so we skipped it completely. I know that it's a curve-ball of a question, but is there actually any chance that it could show up?


Actually they could definitely ask that! It probably wouldn't only be historical context however, more like "historical context and background" or something like that, but this is what I call a "syllabus" question, or a "narrative outline". Since "historical context" is a section of the syllabus, pretty much all you need to do to respond to it is to just talk about everything that comes under that dot point :) Make sure you touch on everything under that dot point though, or you can't get a band 6!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: rodero on September 25, 2017, 11:30:27 pm
Actually they could definitely ask that! It probably wouldn't only be historical context however, more like "historical context and background" or something like that, but this is what I call a "syllabus" question, or a "narrative outline". Since "historical context" is a section of the syllabus, pretty much all you need to do to respond to it is to just talk about everything that comes under that dot point :) Make sure you touch on everything under that dot point though, or you can't get a band 6!

Awesome, thank you :)
I get where my teacher is coming from in terms of skipping it, but like you said we need know the actual syllabus headings under historical context. If I were to ramble on about the fall of the Weimar Republic and the Great Depression, that would be completely wrong as it's not under the Speer syllabus.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sara.m on September 26, 2017, 10:12:40 am
 So I'm trying to answer this question: 'To what extent was Nazi foreign policy successful in achieving it’s aims to September 1939?' but my text book is rubbish and just defines what the foreign policy was, not whether their short or long term aims were met- I've tried look this up online but nothing really answers the question, pls help!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on September 26, 2017, 11:02:25 am
So I'm trying to answer this question: 'To what extent was Nazi foreign policy successful in achieving it’s aims to September 1939?' but my text book is rubbish and just defines what the foreign policy was, not whether their short or long term aims were met- I've tried look this up online but nothing really answers the question, pls help!

hi!! i asked a similar question a while ago in this thread - you can search through the pages to find a more detailed answer (i would link you, but i'm on my phone).

this question asks you what exactly nazi foreign policy was, and if it was successful up to september 1939. it kind of was. like, did the nazis expand up to september 1939? a little - look at the anschluss between austria and germany. however, they were also preparing for what would happen in ww2, like taking over south-east europe, or the "untermenschen." you can also relate foreign policy to ideology, which gives a bit more sophistication to your argument.

hope this helps, and good luck for your hsc! x
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on September 26, 2017, 11:19:37 am
So I'm trying to answer this question: 'To what extent was Nazi foreign policy successful in achieving it’s aims to September 1939?' but my text book is rubbish and just defines what the foreign policy was, not whether their short or long term aims were met- I've tried look this up online but nothing really answers the question, pls help!

Yeah just off memory it succeeded in that
1) Hitler was able to retake the Rhineland and announce rearmament without opposition essentially dissolving the requirements of the T.O.V
2) In terms of gaining Lebensraum (living space), Hitler initially succeeded in taking the Sudentenland, Czechoslovakia and the Anschluss. Links also to his racial ideologies in gaining territory as there were many Germans living in both the Sudentenland and Czechoslovakia (hence successful in unifying all Germans together)
3) He also was able to mask his true intentions in expanding through Foreign Policy that was essentially peaceful propaganda eg. Anglo-German Naval Treaty and the Non-Aggression Pact with Poland
However, I argue that in the initial stages of his Foreign Policy, Hitler was successful as being an opportunist ie. occupying the Rhineland when France was governed by a provisional Government. Yet, this eventually led to him becoming over confident in his abilities and too ambitious in his policies, resulting in the invasion of Austria and the outbreak of war, which was a failure as Hitler did not want war so soon.
Hope that helps! It's a tricky one.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on September 27, 2017, 06:37:15 pm
Hey,
Just wondering if anyone has ideas on the following question: Evaluate the importance of the army in German political life from 1919-1939. I have 1919-1933 all done but am struggling with what to write for 1933-39 that specifically relates to the role of the army in politics (as I don't think I can relate the Terror and Repression to this much). All I can think of at the moment is how the army were a key figure of power and the only political threat to the Nazis and that therefore to gain their support, Hitler enacted the Night of the Long Knives and the policy of rearmament. Any other ideas would be greatly appreciated in case this is not enough, I just need to find things that are specifically related to political life, which makes it tough :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on September 27, 2017, 11:10:46 pm
Sorry guys, just in reference to the 2008 Speer question about outlining his historical context and background... it said the better responses linked his background with the context. I can see how to do this with the rise of the Nazi party and the personal charisma of Adolf Hitler but I am so confused on what to write R.E development of the Nazi state after 1933, Nazi war effort to 1945 and Nuremberg War Crimes Trials. I'm really confused on what I am doing here because I thought this was all his background and stuff  :o :o Any help would be fantastic! :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on September 28, 2017, 05:27:52 pm
Sorry for the bombardment of questions! This one may be easier for anyone to answer. If a question is asking about the popular support of the Nazi Party and the extent to which this enable them to gain control from 1934-1939, is this the same as a lack of opposition in the essence that you can argue that Propaganda, Terror and Repression, Economic and Political Policies etc. all helped them gain popular support by indoctrinating support to the Nazi Party? In essence, is popular support and lack of opposition interchangeable or is popular support more political?
Thanks :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on September 28, 2017, 05:46:28 pm
Sorry for the bombardment of questions! This one may be easier for anyone to answer. If a question is asking about the popular support of the Nazi Party and the extent to which this enable them to gain control from 1934-1939, is this the same as a lack of opposition in the essence that you can argue that Propaganda, Terror and Repression, Economic and Political Policies etc. all helped them gain popular support by indoctrinating support to the Nazi Party? In essence, is popular support and lack of opposition interchangeable or is popular support more political?
Thanks :)

sorry, i would've answered your questions if i actually knew anything about what you were asking! importance of the army in political life? pfffft. i don't do speer as my personality study either.

as for the question you've just asked, i don't think popular support and lack of opposition are interchangeable - they're two separate things. propaganda, terror, repression, etc etc doesn't exactly lead to support, as these people would be complying with the new laws, policies, etc out of fear. popular support would be more political, as the people who were all for the nazis would be singing their praises, and actually expressing support through something like encouraging votes (although 1934-9 doesn't exactly have elections, because germany's a one-party state by that time). i hope this makes sense!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: av-angie-er on September 28, 2017, 06:05:40 pm
Hi! I'm having a bit of trouble writing a thesis for the personality study question that asks to evaluate the statement - "Differing perspectives and interpretations assist us in gaining an understand got the personality's significance in history". I was thinking of arguing that a wide spectrum of different perspectives helps to broaden our understanding of a figure, and to avoid developing a more parochial view. My personality is Speer, so would an argument that different interpretations of his innocence by historians allow us to gain a broader understanding of his historical significance be appropriate? I just want to make sure I'm interpreting the question correctly. Thank you! :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on September 28, 2017, 06:36:02 pm
Hey,
Just wondering if anyone has ideas on the following question: Evaluate the importance of the army in German political life from 1919-1939. I have 1919-1933 all done but am struggling with what to write for 1933-39 that specifically relates to the role of the army in politics (as I don't think I can relate the Terror and Repression to this much). All I can think of at the moment is how the army were a key figure of power and the only political threat to the Nazis and that therefore to gain their support, Hitler enacted the Night of the Long Knives and the policy of rearmament. Any other ideas would be greatly appreciated in case this is not enough, I just need to find things that are specifically related to political life, which makes it tough :)
Sorry guys, just in reference to the 2008 Speer question about outlining his historical context and background... it said the better responses linked his background with the context. I can see how to do this with the rise of the Nazi party and the personal charisma of Adolf Hitler but I am so confused on what to write R.E development of the Nazi state after 1933, Nazi war effort to 1945 and Nuremberg War Crimes Trials. I'm really confused on what I am doing here because I thought this was all his background and stuff  :o :o Any help would be fantastic! :)
Hey I can't really provide much insight for the first question unfortunately, but I may be able to help a bit with the second, even though it is content related, just because it does have that structural element. Yes, it is definitely a good idea to relate background to historical context if you can, but sometimes its not possible, particularly for historical context dot points that happen later in life. For example with Trotsky, I could link the development of his political ideals (a background dot point), to pre-revolutionary russia and the 1905-1917 revolution effectively, but as power struggles happened so many years after his views were fully formed, there is less of a clear link for development, so don't worry about it too much (like I know Nuremburg Trials happen much later for Speer, so I would be surprised if they expected you to link that with background somehow)!

Sorry for the bombardment of questions! This one may be easier for anyone to answer. If a question is asking about the popular support of the Nazi Party and the extent to which this enable them to gain control from 1934-1939, is this the same as a lack of opposition in the essence that you can argue that Propaganda, Terror and Repression, Economic and Political Policies etc. all helped them gain popular support by indoctrinating support to the Nazi Party? In essence, is popular support and lack of opposition interchangeable or is popular support more political?
Thanks :)
No need to apologise! That is what this thread is here for! And yes, though I didn't study Nazi Germany, I definitely believe you could argue this! Though I wouldn't say they are "interchangeable" per say, as you can have an unpopular totalitarian dictatorship, censoring the opposing voice will definitely have an impact on popular support, as they are only hearing the "good stuff" or the propaganda, rather than the bad :)

Hi! I'm having a bit of trouble writing a thesis for the personality study question that asks to evaluate the statement - "Differing perspectives and interpretations assist us in gaining an understand got the personality's significance in history". I was thinking of arguing that a wide spectrum of different perspectives helps to broaden our understanding of a figure, and to avoid developing a more parochial view. My personality is Speer, so would an argument that different interpretations of his innocence by historians allow us to gain a broader understanding of his historical significance be appropriate? I just want to make sure I'm interpreting the question correctly. Thank you! :)
Hey! So I got full marks for that question in the HSC last year (though my personality was Trotsky, not Speer). When constructing a thesis, I looked at the broader reasons as to why certain interpretations for Trotsky arose (naive idealist v practical revolutionary). For my personality, there was a clear difference between right wing and left wing interpretations of his significance. Though for Speer I don't think this will exactly work, I do recommend considering what are the common links between historians who agree, and disagree with one another.

Overall though, I think you are interpreting the question fine, and that your thesis is clear and easily sustainable. Just make sure that you don't just sit on the fence and go, "well some agree with this and others agree", have some sort of judgement somewhere, whether that is a) which side you agree with more, or b), the one I used last year, that there is a common thread within different beliefs and ideas.

Hope this helps!

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on September 28, 2017, 08:50:02 pm
Thanks so much guys much appreciated!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: av-angie-er on September 28, 2017, 11:04:38 pm

Hey! So I got full marks for that question in the HSC last year (though my personality was Trotsky, not Speer). When constructing a thesis, I looked at the broader reasons as to why certain interpretations for Trotsky arose (naive idealist v practical revolutionary). For my personality, there was a clear difference between right wing and left wing interpretations of his significance. Though for Speer I don't think this will exactly work, I do recommend considering what are the common links between historians who agree, and disagree with one another.

Overall though, I think you are interpreting the question fine, and that your thesis is clear and easily sustainable. Just make sure that you don't just sit on the fence and go, "well some agree with this and others agree", have some sort of judgement somewhere, whether that is a) which side you agree with more, or b), the one I used last year, that there is a common thread within different beliefs and ideas.

Hope this helps!

Susie

Thanks so much, Susie! Super helpful :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on September 29, 2017, 01:05:21 pm
Hey Susie I had just one quick question about that Speer 2008 HSC Question :)
So these are the historical context points that are hard to link to his background:
–    development of the Nazi state after 1933
–    Nazi war effort to 1945
–    Nuremberg War Crimes Trials
I am just a bit confused on what the markers are looking for you to write haha! Am I supposed to link the development of the Nazi State in regards of propaganda, anti-Antisemitism to Speer's work at all or just discuss the development of the Nazi state in isolation? And with the Nazi War effort 1945 again is this discussing Speer's role in it or just the Nazi war effort in general. And finally, with the Nuremberg Trials, is this discussing what Speer was up for and how he handled it or just the Trials in general? I am super confused because I can write about each of these points easily but am really not sure what the markers are actually looking for and whether it all has to tie back to Speer  ??? Thanks a bunch!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Nooriye on September 29, 2017, 03:51:52 pm
hi for a question like this"Assess the impact of the purges on the development of Stalinism during the 1930s." is it narrow to base the essay solely on purges but link to concepts such as the cult of personality and ideology. not sure if the economic aspects of stalinism are also applicable here
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on September 29, 2017, 07:24:05 pm
Hey Susie I had just one quick question about that Speer 2008 HSC Question :)
So these are the historical context points that are hard to link to his background:
–    development of the Nazi state after 1933
–    Nazi war effort to 1945
–    Nuremberg War Crimes Trials
I am just a bit confused on what the markers are looking for you to write haha! Am I supposed to link the development of the Nazi State in regards of propaganda, anti-Antisemitism to Speer's work at all or just discuss the development of the Nazi state in isolation? And with the Nazi War effort 1945 again is this discussing Speer's role in it or just the Nazi war effort in general. And finally, with the Nuremberg Trials, is this discussing what Speer was up for and how he handled it or just the Trials in general? I am super confused because I can write about each of these points easily but am really not sure what the markers are actually looking for and whether it all has to tie back to Speer  ??? Thanks a bunch!

Hey! I think your overthinking it a bit aha :) All you need to do is outline/provide a description of these events - so what you have learned. With these types of questions I think a narrative structure works best, just going through everything chronologically, ticking everything off on the syllabus as I go :) As this is a personality study, everything you discuss must be related to your personality, even when under historical context - always focus on their role within an event or issue, rather than straying away from the question :) So like, if I'm talking about Trotsky's role in the 1917 Revolution, I'm going to avoid focusing on Lenin's role too much, and instead just focus on what Trotsky did that was significant :)

hi for a question like this"Assess the impact of the purges on the development of Stalinism during the 1930s." is it narrow to base the essay solely on purges but link to concepts such as the cult of personality and ideology. not sure if the economic aspects of stalinism are also applicable here
I don't think its too narrow at all if you consider the purges as both the purges, show trials and the Terror (because they were all an example of purging!). For this kinda essay I would have either written in according to the different groups that were purged; members of the communist party, kulaks, intellectuals, Red Army, or have written it thematically, so the purges impact on society/culture, politics and the military :)

Hope this helps!

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: miraxx on October 01, 2017, 02:21:06 pm
Hey,

I'm new to AtarNotes, but I was wondering if anyone could briefly explain what the nationality study on India is like?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 01, 2017, 02:36:00 pm
Hey,

I'm new to AtarNotes, but I was wondering if anyone could briefly explain what the nationality study on India is like?
Hey! Welcome :D
I didn't study India for my national study unfortunately, it's quite a rare one I'm afraid! However you can read up on what you will be studying by checking out the syllabus (page 32) :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: miraxx on October 01, 2017, 03:03:46 pm
Hey! Welcome :D
I didn't study India for my national study unfortunately, it's quite a rare one I'm afraid! However you can read up on what you will be studying by checking out the syllabus (page 32) :)

Thank you :) Could you also give a rundown on the exam layout? I'm a bit confused on how everything will be like, between personality study, nationality study and everything? Do we have to write an essay on all of it?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on October 01, 2017, 03:16:23 pm
Thank you :) Could you also give a rundown on the exam layout? I'm a bit confused on how everything will be like, between personality study, nationality study and everything? Do we have to write an essay on all of it?

hiiiii. the exam is 3 hours (rip), and 45 minutes per section (there's 4) and each section is 25 marks. it goes like this:
section 1: ww1 - source based study split into two sections. section 1 is multiple choice and short answers, section 2 is a source analysis worth 10 marks.
section 2: national study - essay
section 3: personality - directed essay (if you can call it that); part a is a lower order question, it's usually 'outline' or 'describe'. part b is a bit lot harder, and asks you to assess the significance (can be different interpretations) of the personality you're studying. part a is 10 marks, part b is 15.
section 4: international studies in peace and conflict - essay

technically there's 2 essays in the entire exam, because section 3 is this weird thing, like it's not exactly an essay, but it is? so yea! best of luck with year 12 :-)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: miraxx on October 01, 2017, 10:29:34 pm
hiiiii. the exam is 3 hours (rip), and 45 minutes per section (there's 4) and each section is 25 marks. it goes like this:
section 1: ww1 - source based study split into two sections. section 1 is multiple choice and short answers, section 2 is a source analysis worth 10 marks.
section 2: national study - essay
section 3: personality - directed essay (if you can call it that); part a is a lower order question, it's usually 'outline' or 'describe'. part b is a bit lot harder, and asks you to assess the significance (can be different interpretations) of the personality you're studying. part a is 10 marks, part b is 15.
section 4: international studies in peace and conflict - essay

technically there's 2 essays in the entire exam, because section 3 is this weird thing, like it's not exactly an essay, but it is? so yea! best of luck with year 12 :-)
Thank you for your answer  :), I think I know what I'm in for (3 hours  :o)
Is it recommended you go in order? Or does it really depend on the individual?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on October 01, 2017, 10:39:44 pm
Thank you for your answer  :), I think I know what I'm in for (3 hours  :o)
Is it recommended you go in order? Or does it really depend on the individual?

no worries! 3 hours sounds like a long time, but it goes by reaaaaaally fast. it depends on the person - i personally don't go in order because doing the ww1 section either second or third gives my hand a bit of a break :-)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: rodero on October 01, 2017, 10:51:29 pm
Thank you for your answer  :), I think I know what I'm in for (3 hours  :o)
Is it recommended you go in order? Or does it really depend on the individual?

I do the paper in order because it takes be through a timeline of events.

WW1 (1914-1918) -> Germany (1918-1939) -> Speer (1905-1981, though it should really be 1905-1945) -> Conflict in Europe (1935-1945)

So yeah, they all flow on from each other and I can use knowledge from one section to aid me in the other. I personally use reading time so that I can read through all of the ww1 sources. That way I don't need to re-read them during my writing time.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 01, 2017, 10:52:40 pm
Thank you for your answer  :), I think I know what I'm in for (3 hours  :o)
Is it recommended you go in order? Or does it really depend on the individual?
Very much so depends on the individual - I typically went from the section I was most comfortable with, to the least :) However I personally recommend doing Section I first :) Reason for that is because you can save a lot of time by working out the multiple choice/short answers in your head during reading time (obviously you can't write on the paper though!), it means you don't need to waste "non-reading time" reading the sources in the middle of the exam, and it is the easiest section to complete in under 45 minutes, meaning that you know exactly how much time you spared that you can dedicate to your other sections :)

Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 02, 2017, 12:22:50 pm
Hey Susie, you said something ages ago about how the Germans did not effectively use/failed to use the 52 divisions of troops freed from the Eastern Front. Could you possibly refresh my memory on this point. Thank you :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 02, 2017, 12:28:41 pm
Hey Susie, you said something ages ago about how the Germans did not effectively use/failed to use the 52 divisions of troops freed from the Eastern Front. Could you possibly refresh my memory on this point. Thank you :)
Hey! Yeah they didn't, as rather than moving them all to the Western Front, where they were needed in order to replenish troops lost during the Ludendorff Spring Offensive, and make up for the difference once the US entered the war, they left 500 000 troops on the Eastern Front, in order to make sure that Russia - the nation that was crippled by WW1, had just accepted a Treaty to get out of the war that left them even more crippled, and was currently experiencing a intense civil war - didn't use the opportunity to invade Germany!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 02, 2017, 12:31:49 pm
Hey! Yeah they didn't, as rather than moving them all to the Western Front, where they were needed in order to replenish troops lost during the Ludendorff Spring Offensive, and make up for the difference once the US entered the war, they left 500 000 troops on the Eastern Front, in order to make sure that Russia - the nation that was crippled by WW1, had just accepted a Treaty to get out of the war that left them even more crippled, and was currently experiencing a intense civil war - didn't use the opportunity to invade Germany!

Yep sweet thank you very much :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 02, 2017, 02:51:16 pm
Hey Susie, I know you didn't study Germany but I just did a practice question on:
 Hitler came to power as a result of a lack of opposition.
To what extent is this statement true?
I was just wondering, I was able to write 8 pages without writing about the reasons for the failure of the Weimar Republic but I was just wondering if it would have been off topic to write about that eg. one paragraph on the illegitimacy of the republic and how national socialism in contrast had a broad appeal (which i already talk about). I was just worried about going off topic and hence did not mention it but I finished the essay in 39 mins so i would have had time to write about it
any thoughts would be great :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on October 02, 2017, 03:15:25 pm
Hey Susie, I know you didn't study Germany but I just did a practice question on:
 Hitler came to power as a result of a lack of opposition.
To what extent is this statement true?
I was just wondering, I was able to write 8 pages without writing about the reasons for the failure of the Weimar Republic but I was just wondering if it would have been off topic to write about that eg. one paragraph on the illegitimacy of the republic and how national socialism in contrast had a broad appeal (which i already talk about). I was just worried about going off topic and hence did not mention it but I finished the essay in 39 mins so i would have had time to write about it
any thoughts would be great :)


helloooo i'm a germany person! i don't think what you've said here is off topic at all, because although there wasn't much opposition to hitler, there were a heap of other things that helped him come to power. another thing to mention is the obvious, in which this is a 'to what extent' question, so you add in as much stuff as you like, provided it's relevant and contributes to whatever argument you set up in your introduction. :-)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 02, 2017, 03:32:45 pm
helloooo i'm a germany person! i don't think what you've said here is off topic at all, because although there wasn't much opposition to hitler, there were a heap of other things that helped him come to power. another thing to mention is the obvious, in which this is a 'to what extent' question, so you add in as much stuff as you like, provided it's relevant and contributes to whatever argument you set up in your introduction. :-)

Okay sweet thank you :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 02, 2017, 04:00:48 pm
Sorry - the influx of questions is due to the fact that I just finished a practice Modern paper haha. The question I just completed for War in the Pacific was: The success of the Japanese advance to 1942 could not be maintained, and led to
Japan’s defeat in 1945.
How accurate is this statement?
Was I correct to interpret this as allowing me to say it is accurate, however, it discounts other reasons for Japanese defeat such as the effectiveness of Allied strategies etc... I spent around 4.5 pages on the success of its advance not being able to be maintained and the other 5 on 2 other reasons. I know with Germany questions eg. the Great Depression led to the collapse of Weimar... to what extent is this true... you can easily speak about other reasons as it obviously wants you to since its more obviously saying do you agree it was the only reason.
 but in the case of this pacific question - is it also worded to say the unsuccessful ability of japan to maintain its successes was the only reason for its defeat hence i can discuss other reasons
sorry if that doesn't make sense hahah :) cheers for any suggestions
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Korrasami on October 02, 2017, 05:30:29 pm
Hey guys, I'm doing Conflict in Europe and in regards to the Battle of Stalingrad & Kursk, would it be wise to say that for Germany the war had already been lost from that point on? Since Russia are on the Allied side, it would be mean that Germany is now fighting on two fronts, so basically defeat was inevitable?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: bun00 on October 03, 2017, 03:33:14 pm
heyo historians!
just wondering how recommended it is to argue against the terms of the question? just found a past hsc question that i literally couldn't argue in support of it :o (and would hav a lot of fun venting my opinion against it :D)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 03, 2017, 03:42:35 pm
heyo historians!
just wondering how recommended it is to argue against the terms of the question? just found a past hsc question that i literally couldn't argue in support of it :o (and would hav a lot of fun venting my opinion against it :D)

I guess it is okay as long as you can back up what you are saying with statistics and evidence. It really depends on the question. For instance, if it is: to what extent _____ was the main reason for ______ and you strongly think it was not the main reason, you need to spend at least a third of your essay arguing why it was a minimal point, you cannot completely dismiss the question. But yeah I guess I would be more helpful if I knew the actual question :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: bun00 on October 03, 2017, 03:46:28 pm
I guess it is okay as long as you can back up what you are saying with statistics and evidence. It really depends on the question. For instance, if it is: to what extent _____ was the main reason for ______ and you strongly think it was not the main reason, you need to spend at least a third of your essay arguing why it was a minimal point, you cannot completely dismiss the question. But yeah I guess I would be more helpful if I knew the actual question :)

ok thanks ;)
the question is:
To what extent did the personality you have studied have a positive impact on his or her time? personality: albert speer
we have previously done a speech on this topic and i argued that he impacted negatively which is the stand i always take towards him now ::)
wdyt? thanks for your help!!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 03, 2017, 04:03:32 pm
heyo historians!
just wondering how recommended it is to argue against the terms of the question? just found a past hsc question that i literally couldn't argue in support of it :o (and would hav a lot of fun venting my opinion against it :D)
Hey! I always told to avoid totally disagreeing with the question at all costs. It's often a lot harder to argue against than to argue for, and questions start "to what extent..."(one of the most common form) by nature assume that to at least some extent the statement/question is true. However, you can argue that a statement/argument is true to a limited extent, which allows you to discussion the opposition more effectively :)
ok thanks ;)
the question is:
To what extent did the personality you have studied have a positive impact on his or her time? personality: albert speer
we have previously done a speech on this topic and i argued that he impacted negatively which is the stand i always take towards him now ::)
wdyt? thanks for your help!!
Ahh it was a personality section aha. This the section that is the most flexible, due to the fact that the question has to relate to multiple people (like Nelson Madela and Albert Speer aha - very different people), however I'd still suggest arguing 'to a limited extent', due to the fact that the question is assuming that there is still some nuance, even if overwhelmingly he was negative. The fact that one of the debate sides is "the good nazi" suggests that there is an argument, even if that argument is based on shakey evidence, and is less legitimate than the other. So you can argue that though in this really tiny example he did something positive (maybe it was positive for the regime, so not positive overall - an interesting argument, as it doesn't suggest that they mean positive moral contributions!), but overall it can be argued that his impact was negative :)

It is unlikely you'll have a question that on the nose though.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: bun00 on October 03, 2017, 04:11:05 pm
Hey! I always told to avoid totally disagreeing with the question at all costs. It's often a lot harder to argue against than to argue for, and questions start "to what extent..."(one of the most common form) by nature assume that to at least some extent the statement/question is true. However, you can argue that a statement/argument is true to a limited extent, which allows you to discussion the opposition more effectively :)Ahh it was a personality section aha. This the section that is the most flexible, due to the fact that the question has to relate to multiple people (like Nelson Madela and Albert Speer aha - very different people), however I'd still suggest arguing 'to a limited extent', due to the fact that the question is assuming that there is still some nuance, even if overwhelmingly he was negative. The fact that one of the debate sides is "the good nazi" suggests that there is an argument, even if that argument is based on shakey evidence, and is less legitimate than the other. So you can argue that though in this really tiny example he did something positive (maybe it was positive for the regime, so not positive overall - an interesting argument, as it doesn't suggest that they mean positive moral contributions!), but overall it can be argued that his impact was negative :)

It is unlikely you'll have a question that on the nose though.

ok thanks heapps!! so maybe if i go for 1 main point on yes he was positive then 2 or 3 main points on no he was negative?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 03, 2017, 04:35:48 pm
ok thanks heapps!! so maybe if i go for 1 main point on yes he was positive then 2 or 3 main points on no he was negative?
Yes, just make sure that you don't structure it this way:

Paragraph 1 - positive
Paragraph 2 - negative
Paragraph 2 - negative

That would be a split judgement. Every single paragraph needs to be the same thing: positive to a limited extent, within three areas. So a better structure would be this way:

Paragraph 1: Positive to a limited extent, however overall negative within (event/issue one)
Paragraph 2 :Positive to a limited extent, however overall negative within (event/issue two)
Paragraph 3: Positive to a limited extent, however overall negative within (event/issue three)

Does that make sense?

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: bun00 on October 03, 2017, 04:39:47 pm
Yes, just make sure that you don't structure it this way:

Paragraph 1 - positive
Paragraph 2 - negative
Paragraph 2 - negative

That would be a split judgement. Every single paragraph needs to be the same thing: positive to a limited extent, within three areas. So a better structure would be this way:

Paragraph 1: Positive to a limited extent, however overall negative within (event/issue one)
Paragraph 2 :Positive to a limited extent, however overall negative within (event/issue two)
Paragraph 3: Positive to a limited extent, however overall negative within (event/issue three)

Does that make sense?

Susie

ok thanks heaps for the warning :D i probably would have done it that way otherwise but i def see where you're coming from  ;) so WD!
tks hps!!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 03, 2017, 04:43:10 pm
ok thanks heaps for the warning :D i probably would have done it that way otherwise but i def see where you're coming from  ;) so WD!
tks hps!!
No worries! It is a very common mistake, but you need to make sure that your judgement from your introduction remains consistent :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 03, 2017, 05:05:56 pm
Hey with that Speer question on positive impact you can actually spend half arguing positive and half negative. My thesis for that question is that the extent to which Speer's contribution can be viewed as positive is dependent on the context in which it is viewed. For example, on the one hand, his work in Anti-Semitic policies were negative as they were inhumane in their treatment of the Jewish people (according to historians today and influence by today's context's view of the Nazi party as immoral). However, in the context of the Nazi party, this was a positive impact as the Nazis preached anti-Semitism and the sacrifice of the Jews for the good of Aryan Germany. You can argue something similar for his role in Propaganda and Armaments Minister and of course Good Nazi and now, with more evidence, Bad Nazi. So in effect, now, the Nazi Party is associated with being inhumane and evil and hence, Speer's work, being for the Nazi Party is seen in a similar light. Yet, in the context of Nazi Germany, what he did was positive. And as Susie said you structure it PROPAGANDA - Positive in this context, negative in this context. ARMAMENTS - Positive in this context, negative in this context etc. etc.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 05, 2017, 12:03:55 am
Hey Susie, I don't know if you can help me with this structurally since you don't do Conflict in the Pacific. I just went over writing an essay on the question of: To what extent there was collaboration and resistance to Japanese occupation. This is in a wide range of countries in SE Asia. There is not much sophisticated info or a sophisticated way I can see how to structure it other than COUNTRY - Collaboration eg. and Resistance eg. therefore to a great extent experienced both. This would be for 5-6 countries. There's no thematic or anything haha just examples of groups and ways they collaborated or didn't and they don't go into much depth just a sentence or two each eg. so it's hard to build much. Happy to hear anyone's thoughts! :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 05, 2017, 10:37:37 am
Hey Susie, I don't know if you can help me with this structurally since you don't do Conflict in the Pacific. I just went over writing an essay on the question of: To what extent there was collaboration and resistance to Japanese occupation. This is in a wide range of countries in SE Asia. There is not much sophisticated info or a sophisticated way I can see how to structure it other than COUNTRY - Collaboration eg. and Resistance eg. therefore to a great extent experienced both. This would be for 5-6 countries. There's no thematic or anything haha just examples of groups and ways they collaborated or didn't and they don't go into much depth just a sentence or two each eg. so it's hard to build much. Happy to hear anyone's thoughts! :)

Hey! Is there really no thematic way? Like you couldn't do economic resistance/collaboration, social resistance/collaboration, political resistance/collaboration, military resistance/collaboration? Then talk about multiple countries within each? My worry with doing it according to each country is it'll be easier to slip into a narrative retelling, or split your judgement, but if its the only way you can think to go about it, I'd give it a practice go and see how it works :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 05, 2017, 11:07:40 am
Hey! Is there really no thematic way? Like you couldn't do economic resistance/collaboration, social resistance/collaboration, political resistance/collaboration, military resistance/collaboration? Then talk about multiple countries within each? My worry with doing it according to each country is it'll be easier to slip into a narrative retelling, or split your judgement, but if its the only way you can think to go about it, I'd give it a practice go and see how it works :)

Hey Susie, I'm going to look at each example that I have from the textbook and look them up individually online to see if I can find more info and hopefully it will be clearer where they fall into place :) I will get back to you on it
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 05, 2017, 07:40:29 pm
Hey Susie,
I'm looking into it now but what is your opinion on possibly getting info for this essay question but just not really studying/preparing for it for the HSC as I will always have another option I will be more confident in?
AND here's an example of detail on resistance in the Phillipines, as you can see it overlaps quite a bit:
The strength of the Huk organization came from the mostly agrarian peasants of Central Luzon. Between March 1942 and August 1948, the Huks became a trained and experienced force, well-equipped and well-prepared for its guerrilla warfare. The initial force of 500 armed Huks which was organized into five squadrons had increased to a fully armed guerrilla force of 20,000 men.  They fought Japanese troops, worked to subvert the Japanese tax-collection service, intercepted food and supplies to the Japanese troops, and created a training school where they taught political theory and military tactics based on Marxist ideas. In areas that the group controlled, they set up local governments and instituted land reforms, dividing up the largest estates equally among the peasants and often killing the landlords.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: av-angie-er on October 05, 2017, 10:39:34 pm
Hi! For a national study question asking to 'Account for the successes and failures of democracy in Germany in the period 1918-1933', would it be reasonable to focus primarily on the failures and reference maybe one or two successes per paragraph? Or would you need to designate as much as a paragraph to the successes alone? Reading through the timed practice essay that I wrote, I realised that I basically addressed the question by explaining how the Weimar Republic totally failed and mentioned maybe two successes (which ultimately failed in the end). Would this be considered not answering the question? Thanks! :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: mixel on October 06, 2017, 01:34:29 pm
Hi! For a national study question asking to 'Account for the successes and failures of democracy in Germany in the period 1918-1933', would it be reasonable to focus primarily on the failures and reference maybe one or two successes per paragraph? Or would you need to designate as much as a paragraph to the successes alone? Reading through the timed practice essay that I wrote, I realised that I basically addressed the question by explaining how the Weimar Republic totally failed and mentioned maybe two successes (which ultimately failed in the end). Would this be considered not answering the question? Thanks! :)

Hey, I would suggest suggest having a mix of successes and failures in each paragraph, that way you're providing equal treatment to both sides of the issue in question and it can't be said that your essay is unbalanced. That isn't to say that one side should not be stronger in your analysis -- you should definitely be arguing for a 'net total' of failure or success (very hard to argue net success for Weimar Germany), which is composed of individual failures and successes. This sort of structure favours thematic arguments, which most points from the Weimar Germany subheading work with.

For example, a thesis that 'while democracy ultimately failed in Weimar Germany, significant successes contribute to its short-lived success in the mid-1920s' could be supported by a paragraph on political successes and failures. For example: enfranchisement of women, high electoral turnout (never below 75%, above 80% from 1928), bipartisanship in multiple 'grand coalitions' of left and right wing parties, vs. residual authoritarianism in article 48 of the constitution (invoked 126 times in 1919-1923), proportional representation weakening executive power (no party ever achieved majority but shared coalitions), failure to establish a democratic tradition, failure to disempower and reign in the armed forces/judiciary/junker class, etc. With these successes and failures, you would be able to holistically account for both the successes and failures, while at the same time contributing to an overall argument that democracy failed because its failures outweighed its successes.

Note that the verb in the question asks you to 'account for', so you do have to include fairly balanced treatment of both of the things it's asking you to account for (successes and failures). This doesn't leave you a lot of room for argumentation / interpretation unfortunately, so to answer your question in a very round-about way, I think failing to equally account for successes and failures would be considered not answering the question. The question that then raises is what constitutes equal treatment, but I think that's more of a vibe you'll get as it's difficult to quantify. Sure someone might have the same number of points for successes and failures, but some points may be very insignificant. To avoid this, I'd suggest not grabbing low-hanging fruit (markers get tired of this when every essay points to the same failures) and elaborating on why certain things are significant.

Good luck, and sorry for the rambling  :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: rodero on October 06, 2017, 02:02:15 pm
Hi guys!

What are your thoughts on K J Mason as a historian for the German national study? He is the author of 'Republic to Reich', so I'm a bit scared about quoting the textbook. The quote that I want to use from his is: “The basic weakness was that the country was using short term loans to fund long-term projects”, when mentioning the economic factors which contributed to the collapse of the Republic.

If he isn't a reputable historian, does anyone have a quote that captures the same message?
Thanks

EDIT: Just while I'm on Germany, which event(s) officially marked the collapse of the Weimar Republic? At the moment, I stop at the 1933 elections because that's when the Nazi party now had 100% of seats in the Reichstag. However, does the Rise of Nazi Party = Fall of democracy?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: av-angie-er on October 06, 2017, 05:21:19 pm
Hey, I would suggest suggest having a mix of successes and failures in each paragraph, that way you're providing equal treatment to both sides of the issue in question and it can't be said that your essay is unbalanced. That isn't to say that one side should not be stronger in your analysis -- you should definitely be arguing for a 'net total' of failure or success (very hard to argue net success for Weimar Germany), which is composed of individual failures and successes. This sort of structure favours thematic arguments, which most points from the Weimar Germany subheading work with.

For example, a thesis that 'while democracy ultimately failed in Weimar Germany, significant successes contribute to its short-lived success in the mid-1920s' could be supported by a paragraph on political successes and failures. For example: enfranchisement of women, high electoral turnout (never below 75%, above 80% from 1928), bipartisanship in multiple 'grand coalitions' of left and right wing parties, vs. residual authoritarianism in article 48 of the constitution (invoked 126 times in 1919-1923), proportional representation weakening executive power (no party ever achieved majority but shared coalitions), failure to establish a democratic tradition, failure to disempower and reign in the armed forces/judiciary/junker class, etc. With these successes and failures, you would be able to holistically account for both the successes and failures, while at the same time contributing to an overall argument that democracy failed because its failures outweighed its successes.

Note that the verb in the question asks you to 'account for', so you do have to include fairly balanced treatment of both of the things it's asking you to account for (successes and failures). This doesn't leave you a lot of room for argumentation / interpretation unfortunately, so to answer your question in a very round-about way, I think failing to equally account for successes and failures would be considered not answering the question. The question that then raises is what constitutes equal treatment, but I think that's more of a vibe you'll get as it's difficult to quantify. Sure someone might have the same number of points for successes and failures, but some points may be very insignificant. To avoid this, I'd suggest not grabbing low-hanging fruit (markers get tired of this when every essay points to the same failures) and elaborating on why certain things are significant.

Good luck, and sorry for the rambling  :)
Hey! Thanks so much for your reply, it definitely wasn't all that 'ramble-y' because I found everything you said to be really helpful :)

I understand now that the question would need a more balanced treatment, but I'm still struggling to find examples of German democracy's successes apart from those in Stresemann's 'years of stability'. Would you be able to suggest any others, or would it be reasonable to just focus my paragraphs on these in categories of economic, social and political triumphs from 1924-29? Thanks.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: mixel on October 06, 2017, 09:01:35 pm
Hi guys!

What are your thoughts on K J Mason as a historian for the German national study? He is the author of 'Republic to Reich', so I'm a bit scared about quoting the textbook. The quote that I want to use from his is: “The basic weakness was that the country was using short term loans to fund long-term projects”, when mentioning the economic factors which contributed to the collapse of the Republic.

If he isn't a reputable historian, does anyone have a quote that captures the same message?
Thanks

EDIT: Just while I'm on Germany, which event(s) officially marked the collapse of the Weimar Republic? At the moment, I stop at the 1933 elections because that's when the Nazi party now had 100% of seats in the Reichstag. However, does the Rise of Nazi Party = Fall of democracy?

Hey rodero, I've got the same textbook  :D . I've had the same struggle so many times because it's so well-written, but unfortunately I don't think quoting it is a good idea because KJ Mason isn't extending arguments as much as summarising the arguments of preceding historians.

But I've done a bit of snooping and I managed to turn up a historian you might consider using instead. Knut Borchardt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knut_Borchardt) is a German economic historian who created the 'Borchardt Hypothesis', which I think boils down to the idea that poor budget discipline in the interwar years (essentially what your quote is saying about foreign loans) created the conditions for the pronounced impact of the Depression in Germany, and that the effects of this (debt-dependency, capital flight, loan defaults, insolvency due to withdrawn loans) limited the ability of the government to respond to and soften the Depression. I couldn't find anything more relevant to your quote, but you might be able to twist the words a bit on this one.

As for your second question, I don't think there's one event that you can point to as much as there is a continuum of authoritarianism starting with the imposition of presidential rule due to an impotent Reichstag in 1930 and ending in the death of Hindenburg in August 1934. In between these are many moments: the huge success of the NSDAP in the July 1932 election, Hitler's ascension to the Chancellory in January 1933, the Reichstag Fire Decree in February 1933, and the passage of the Enabling Act in March 1933 all represent a shift towards authoritarianism. While these later ones are more profound, I still think Hindenburg's rule by presidential decree after 1930 is the point at which Germany became decidedly undemocratic, as this was the point where elected representatives lost all power over the country and -- most importantly -- never recovered it.

Hey! Thanks so much for your reply, it definitely wasn't all that 'ramble-y' because I found everything you said to be really helpful :)

I understand now that the question would need a more balanced treatment, but I'm still struggling to find examples of German democracy's successes apart from those in Stresemann's 'years of stability'. Would you be able to suggest any others, or would it be reasonable to just focus my paragraphs on these in categories of economic, social and political triumphs from 1924-29? Thanks.

I think dividing your paragraphs into economic, social and political is absolutely the way to go :) For economic successes, I'd point to the success of Stresemann's Rentenmark in solving hyperinflation, the creation of the Dawes and Young Plans to reduce and prolong Germany's Versailles debt repayments and therefore overcome austerity, and the successful creation of a welfare state. For political, I'd have the ones I listed in my first reply (Female enfranchisement, high turnout and bipartisanship), and also Stresemann's successful foreign policy securing German territory under the Treaty of Locarno but leaving scope for irredentism in the East if you need more successes. For social, I'd have Germany's growth in the arts (cradle of Modernism + the largest European cinema industry in Berlin) and the increasing involvement of women in the public sphere (arts, the workplace, politics, etc.)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: _____ on October 06, 2017, 11:07:08 pm
What's the best way to link reliability to usefulness? Perspective is easy, because you can just say "Source X is useful as it provides the French Premier's perspective of the competing interests in the negotiations..." but for reliability can you do something similar? Like "The source is also very useful as it is a reliable recount of first days The Somme corroborated by other sources..." or "The source is very useful as it is a real example of persuasion techniques used by the British..."

The problem I see here is it sounds repetitive. If I'm using this rough format: perspective > reliability > usefulness then I'm going to be repeating what I just talked about in regards to perspective and reliability. Should I be using synonyms for reliability to make it less repetitive or will this seem like I'm straying from the required analysis? How can I justify usefulness without being repetitive or ingraining it directly in a discussion of perspective/reliability (not many seem to suggest doing this).

Thanks!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: rodero on October 06, 2017, 11:37:25 pm
Amazing ! Thanks mixel :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: carina1157 on October 07, 2017, 07:54:33 am
Hi!

Just wondering if anyone has an exemplar Personality Section response that uses General Douglas MacArthur?

Thanks!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: av-angie-er on October 07, 2017, 12:45:13 pm
I think dividing your paragraphs into economic, social and political is absolutely the way to go :) For economic successes, I'd point to the success of Stresemann's Rentenmark in solving hyperinflation, the creation of the Dawes and Young Plans to reduce and prolong Germany's Versailles debt repayments and therefore overcome austerity, and the successful creation of a welfare state. For political, I'd have the ones I listed in my first reply (Female enfranchisement, high turnout and bipartisanship), and also Stresemann's successful foreign policy securing German territory under the Treaty of Locarno but leaving scope for irredentism in the East if you need more successes. For social, I'd have Germany's growth in the arts (cradle of Modernism + the largest European cinema industry in Berlin) and the increasing involvement of women in the public sphere (arts, the workplace, politics, etc.)
Thank you so much, mixel! That's all the help I needed and more :D
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: owidjaja on October 07, 2017, 07:52:15 pm
Hey guys!
This is probably a dumb question but how do you write a 'describe' essay? I've asked different teachers, students and tutors and all of them say the same thing: just talk about what happened as if you're telling a story. But whenever I write a describe essay (for example, in my History Investigation), I found that I keep unintentionally making judgements rather than just describing what happened. For example, the question was 'Describe the role of Tsar Nicholas II during his reign' and in my draft I talked about how he had a minimal role (unintentional, but seriously, he didn't do much!). Even though there's only one 'describe' question in the HSC, being the Personality Study, I'd still like to know how to approach 'describe' essays and how to structure and respond to it.

Thanks!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on October 07, 2017, 08:21:29 pm
What's the best way to link reliability to usefulness? Perspective is easy, because you can just say "Source X is useful as it provides the French Premier's perspective of the competing interests in the negotiations..." but for reliability can you do something similar? Like "The source is also very useful as it is a reliable recount of first days The Somme corroborated by other sources..." or "The source is very useful as it is a real example of persuasion techniques used by the British..."

The problem I see here is it sounds repetitive. If I'm using this rough format: perspective > reliability > usefulness then I'm going to be repeating what I just talked about in regards to perspective and reliability. Should I be using synonyms for reliability to make it less repetitive or will this seem like I'm straying from the required analysis? How can I justify usefulness without being repetitive or ingraining it directly in a discussion of perspective/reliability (not many seem to suggest doing this).

Thanks!

i have no clue hahahah i've got the same problem with linking reliability to usefulness. in my mind, if a source is reliable, it's automatically useful 😂 i don't think it matters if you're being repetitive, because a source analysis is kind of like an equation (sorry to bring maths into this...) where perspective + reliability = usefulness; you're pretty much building usefulness off perspective and reliability so somewhere there you're bound to repeat yourself. you've probably been taught this before, but if a source isn't exactly reliable (cringing using this word, but if the source is biased), it is useful to show a point of view :-) hope this helps??

Hi!

Just wondering if anyone has an exemplar Personality Section response that uses General Douglas MacArthur?

Thanks!

no, sorry - that seems to be a very rare personality study hahaha this is the first i've heard of someone doing it!

Hey guys!
This is probably a dumb question but how do you write a 'describe' essay? I've asked different teachers, students and tutors and all of them say the same thing: just talk about what happened as if you're telling a story. But whenever I write a describe essay (for example, in my History Investigation), I found that I keep unintentionally making judgements rather than just describing what happened. For example, the question was 'Describe the role of Tsar Nicholas II during his reign' and in my draft I talked about how he had a minimal role (unintentional, but seriously, he didn't do much!). Even though there's only one 'describe' question in the HSC, being the Personality Study, I'd still like to know how to approach 'describe' essays and how to structure and respond to it.

Thanks!

hey, welcome to the forums! i hope AN becomes a really great place for you throughout year 12 :-) by the way, there is no such thing as a dumb question!

the personality section is pretty much the same thing every year, like, they can only ask you so much on it. these are the questions from the past 4 years:
2016 - Describe THREE significant events in the life of the personality you have studied.
2015 - Describe the significant events in the life of the personality you have studied.
2014 - Outline the background and rise to prominence of the personality you have studied.
2013 - Describe the rise to prominence of the personality you have studied.

as you can see there, 2015/16 asked you to do significant events for your personality, so you'd structure your response into 3 paragraphs, each one describing a significant event. 2013/14 asks you for the background and/or rise to prominence, and if you know your personality (check the syllabus now if you'd like), there are syllabus dot points for those, so each paragraph can be one dot point. but yea, structure isn't a biggie in the describe section for the personality section (in my opinion) - as long as you're answering the question, you should be good. another thing to remember with 'describe' essays is to pack in as much detail as you can! dates, statistics, etc (not historiography, that goes into the next section) will get you into the higher bands. try your best to avoid making judgements because then you're not really answering the question. (although yea tsar nicholas ii didn't do crap during his reign)

hope this helps - best of luck for year 12,
fantasticbeasts
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: owidjaja on October 07, 2017, 09:31:57 pm
i have no clue hahahah i've got the same problem with linking reliability to usefulness. in my mind, if a source is reliable, it's automatically useful 😂 i don't think it matters if you're being repetitive, because a source analysis is kind of like an equation (sorry to bring maths into this...) where perspective + reliability = usefulness; you're pretty much building usefulness off perspective and reliability so somewhere there you're bound to repeat yourself. you've probably been taught this before, but if a source isn't exactly reliable (cringing using this word, but if the source is biased), it is useful to show a point of view :-) hope this helps??

no, sorry - that seems to be a very rare personality study hahaha this is the first i've heard of someone doing it!

hey, welcome to the forums! i hope AN becomes a really great place for you throughout year 12 :-) by the way, there is no such thing as a dumb question!

the personality section is pretty much the same thing every year, like, they can only ask you so much on it. these are the questions from the past 4 years:
2016 - Describe THREE significant events in the life of the personality you have studied.
2015 - Describe the significant events in the life of the personality you have studied.
2014 - Outline the background and rise to prominence of the personality you have studied.
2013 - Describe the rise to prominence of the personality you have studied.

as you can see there, 2015/16 asked you to do significant events for your personality, so you'd structure your response into 3 paragraphs, each one describing a significant event. 2013/14 asks you for the background and/or rise to prominence, and if you know your personality (check the syllabus now if you'd like), there are syllabus dot points for those, so each paragraph can be one dot point. but yea, structure isn't a biggie in the describe section for the personality section (in my opinion) - as long as you're answering the question, you should be good. another thing to remember with 'describe' essays is to pack in as much detail as you can! dates, statistics, etc (not historiography, that goes into the next section) will get you into the higher bands. try your best to avoid making judgements because then you're not really answering the question. (although yea tsar nicholas ii didn't do crap during his reign)

hope this helps - best of luck for year 12,
fantasticbeasts

Hey! Thank you so much for your response. I'll definitely take your advice on board :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: owidjaja on October 08, 2017, 01:56:42 pm
Hello again!
Yesterday I was asking about 'describe' essays, so now I'd like to ask how to approach 'evaluate' essays. In class, my teacher treats 'evaluate' like it's an 'asses' question. But when you look at the Board of Studies Definitions (or NESA, idk which), 'evaluate' is to make a judgement based on criteria whereas 'asses' is to make a judgement. So do you treat 'evaluate' and 'assess' as the same thing or are there any differences?

Thanks :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on October 08, 2017, 02:18:20 pm
Hello again!
Yesterday I was asking about 'describe' essays, so now I'd like to ask how to approach 'evaluate' essays. In class, my teacher treats 'evaluate' like it's an 'assess' question. But when you look at the Board of Studies Definitions (or NESA, idk which), 'evaluate' is to make a judgement based on criteria whereas 'assess' is to make a judgement. So do you treat 'evaluate' and 'assess' as the same thing or are there any differences?

Thanks :)

hi! it's nesa now hahaha but it's okay to call it bostes whatever lots of people still do it out of habit :-) but yea, treat them as the same thing because you're still making a judgement. if you check out some of the past hsc questions, a lot of them ask to evaluate/assess the significance of something, or to what extent did _____ impact on _____. pretty much the same thing.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Thebarman on October 08, 2017, 06:56:06 pm
How much historiography should we aim for in sections 2-4? Is it mandatory for the 2 main essays? Also, how do we integrate it well? 
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on October 08, 2017, 07:20:19 pm
How much historiography should we aim for in sections 2-4? Is it mandatory for the 2 main essays? Also, how do we integrate it well? 

historiography isn't a must in sections 2 and 4; you can still get a band 6 without it :-) it just adds to the amount of detail you have in an essay, but if you want to include it, maybe like 1-2 quotes per paragraph? i integrate quotes something like this: e.g. containment affected the development of the cold war, as evidenced by (historian name), who states/asserts/suggests that (quote). terrible example but it's pretty much how you insert quotes in english, LCMs in legal, case studies in business, etc.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 08, 2017, 07:35:22 pm
Yeah 100% right^^ definitely not mandatory for a Band 6, let alone full marks. For instance, for War in the Pacific, it is harder than say Germany to find historiography easily and when I wrote my trial essay I realised I had completely forgotten about that and had no historians in my essay. But I used plenty of stats and details and still got 25 so as long as you sustain your thesis and can add in stats to back it up there's no need for historians, although I personally do like to use them, but only to support my argument, not to overwhelm it. Typically, I reference historians like this - Hitler had a significant influence on his own rise to power as "he put into words what people wanted to hear" (Carr). Also it can be fun to use historiography/historians so you can disagree with them and show your sophistication! Eg. The Determinist view of the rise of Nazism was that it was predestined/inevitable in the sense of Germany's authoritarian history and how its history of philosophers had ingrained a support of the state over the individual. However, in an essay, I would say something along the lines of (after introducing the Determinst View) - However, while the Nazi party appealed to conservative Germans given its authoritarian tradition, its rise was not inevitable. For instance, while the Nazi Party experienced significant growth following the outbreak of the Great Depression, its support was beginning to decline from 1932 as the Nazis only gained 33% of the votes in November, despite having 37% of the vote four months earlier in October. Rather, the rise of the Nazi Party was, to a greater extent, a product of the political miscalculations of others... then I would go into how Bruning, von Papen etc. underestimated Hitler and brought the Nazis into power. So that's why I also love use historians/historiography to show my own perspective!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 09, 2017, 08:53:21 am
Big thank you to everyone here who kept this thread going, and made sure that everything got answered while I was MIA with lectures <3 Really impressed with the quality of all of the answers as well, you guys are literally going to smash the coming exams holy shit  ;D
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: maria1999 on October 09, 2017, 01:55:55 pm
hey guys!
I was wondering if I could have some help on how to approach this question:

To what extent was Japan responsible for the growth of Pacific tensions to 1941?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: av-angie-er on October 09, 2017, 07:00:23 pm
hey guys!
I was wondering if I could have some help on how to approach this question:

To what extent was Japan responsible for the growth of Pacific tensions to 1941?
Hi! I'm doing the Conflict in the Pacific study as well so hopefully I can help :)

For this question I'd definitely go with the argument that Japan was, to a large extent, the primary instigator for the growth of tensions in the Pacific. This would be a reasonable line of argument because without Japan's plans to create a Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere through aggressive territorial expansion, it's likely that the conflict wouldn't have emerged. From here you could back your thesis up with specific examples of factors/events that clearly displayed Japan as the aggressor, such as the Marco Polo Bridge incident, the Manchurian incident, the Rape of Nanking, the invasion of French Indochina etc.

Alternatively, you could create a thematic essay focusing on the motivations/strategies of Japan that lead to the growth of tensions in the Pacific. This could include paragraphs explaining the concept of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere and the ideology behind it, outlining Japan's distrust towards the Western powers, and/or describing the nationalist ambition and strength of the Imperial Japanese Army.

These are just some examples of ways one might tackle the question, but I definitely think it's safe to approach it with the argument that Japan was largely the initiator of tensions in the Pacific. From there, you'd just need to back it up with evidence of how Japan clearly provoked the conflict by expanding aggressively throughout Asia. Hope this helps! :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: bun00 on October 10, 2017, 08:15:51 am
heyy!
has any1 got any predictions for wot Conflict in the Pacific essay questions will be?? It's my worst topic and i'm so scared of certain questions that we never covered properly :(
tku!

i thought this might help but i couldnt really see any patterns so maybe some1 else can??

2006
- allied occupation
- defeat of Japan despite earlier strategic positions
2007
- Battle of Coral Sea the major turning point
- Japanese occupation, impact on civillians
2008
- strategies used by Japan and Allies
- Allied Occupation
2009
- Japanese nationalism led to Pearl Harbour bombing
- America had no option but to drop A-bomb
2010
- Battle of Midway, the major turning point
- Homefronts of AUS + JAPAN
2011
- Japanese foreign policy
- Allied Occupation
2012
- US + British policies
- defeat of Japan
2013
- bombing of Pearl Harbour to achieve Japanese foreign policy aims
- Japanese Occupation, impact on civillians
2014
- homefronts AUS + Japan
- A-bomb ended the conflict
2015
- imperialism led to Growth of Pacific Tensions
- Battle of Coral Sea, major turning point
2016
- Japanese nationalism led to Growth of Pacific Tensions
- Allied Occupation
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: kristineyr on October 10, 2017, 09:27:15 am
Hello! This is my first post so I'm not entirely sure how this works haha.
But I'm currently in Year 11 Modern History (Year 12 next week!), and I'm absolutely enjoying it. Though, due to some family circumstances - I haven't been able to study well and boost my marks. I know that I can do a lot better, but I don't know how!

I'm pretty much trying to learn how to analyse sources and write essays - from scratch. I'm not doing the greatest at the moment and I really want to aim to get higher marks. Do you guys have any tips on how I could possibly do this? We're starting WWI now I'm pretty sure so it is a new topic that I don't really have to catch up on thankfully. I really want to heighten my skills!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on October 10, 2017, 10:37:26 am
Hello! This is my first post so I'm not entirely sure how this works haha.
But I'm currently in Year 11 Modern History (Year 12 next week!), and I'm absolutely enjoying it. Though, due to some family circumstances - I haven't been able to study well and boost my marks. I know that I can do a lot better, but I don't know how!

I'm pretty much trying to learn how to analyse sources and write essays - from scratch. I'm not doing the greatest at the moment and I really want to aim to get higher marks. Do you guys have any tips on how I could possibly do this? We're starting WWI now I'm pretty sure so it is a new topic that I don't really have to catch up on thankfully. I really want to heighten my skills!

hi, welcome to the forums! i hope AN becomes a great place of support, love and friendship for you throughout the year and hopefully into the future :-)

props to you for wanting to improve lots despite what's going on, your initiative takes you a step closer to doing better!

anyway, your first port of call should be your teacher. they're amazing, and will always send you on the right track when it comes to writing responses. you've mentioned doing a source analysis and essay so i'll give you a quick rundown of both.

source analysis - they are always going to assess the usefulness of a source, with reference to perspective and reliability. if the source is in an exam, it's probably useful hahahah

one of the lecturers here, susie, has an amazing structure (guaranteed 10/10 if executed properly i'm not even exaggerating) so here it is:
1. make a judgement on the source - is it useful?
2. explain your judgement
3. explain source (primary, secondary, all that jazz)
4. perspective (where is the source from? who wrote it? stuff like that)
5. reliability (does the perspective impact on how reliable the source is? the time it is written?)
6. usefulness (perspective + reliability = usefulness! put everything you've written to conclude if the source is useful or not.)

essay - there are a ton of ways to do this, but the most important thing to remember is to sustain a judgement throughout your entire essay!!!!!!!!! this will keep you from retell. the questions are usually something like "assess/evaluate the significance/impact/importance of _______ on ______" so make sure your thesis statement is something relating to the question, and is sustained throughout the essay. once again, ask your teacher on how to write an essay - simple question, but you'll get so much out of it. your teacher becomes a really great friend to you, and no matter how many questions you ask on the same thing, they will never get annoyed at you.

best of luck for year 12,
fantasticbeasts
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 10, 2017, 11:01:18 am
heyy!
has any1 got any predictions for wot Conflict in the Pacific essay questions will be?? It's my worst topic and i'm so scared of certain questions that we never covered properly :(
tku!

i thought this might help but i couldnt really see any patterns so maybe some1 else can??

2006
- allied occupation
- defeat of Japan despite earlier strategic positions
2007
- Battle of Coral Sea the major turning point
- Japanese occupation, impact on civillians
2008
- strategies used by Japan and Allies
- Allied Occupation
2009
- Japanese nationalism led to Pearl Harbour bombing
- America had no option but to drop A-bomb
2010
- Battle of Midway, the major turning point
- Homefronts of AUS + JAPAN
2011
- Japanese foreign policy
- Allied Occupation
2012
- US + British policies
- defeat of Japan
2013
- bombing of Pearl Harbour to achieve Japanese foreign policy aims
- Japanese Occupation, impact on civillians
2014
- homefronts AUS + Japan
- A-bomb ended the conflict
2015
- imperialism led to Growth of Pacific Tensions
- Battle of Coral Sea, major turning point
2016
- Japanese nationalism led to Growth of Pacific Tensions
- Allied Occupation

I definitely don't recommend predicting for modern because they can ask anything haha - but I definitely get the sense one question will be on reasons for Japanese defeat/allied victory. What I personally love about this topic is that so many of the syllabus dot points overlap!
EG. Reasons for Allied Victory includes talking about the turning points, allied strategies to 1942, the a bomb, you can even bring up us foreign policy such as the export control act and how it crippled japan's already limited industrial resources.
So yeah don't worry too much, as for the other one I personally have no clue or guess maybe japanese occupation and its impact on civilians just because it hasnt been done for a while and is very different to japanese defeat and allied victory but really not sure!
and don't take my guess on allied victory as bible, just my thoughts aha.
good luck
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Primallis on October 10, 2017, 11:20:46 am
Hello people!

Is quoting Ken Webb within your arguments not recommended? Even if it's a short and sharp bit?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on October 10, 2017, 11:24:45 am
Hello people!

Is quoting Ken Webb within your arguments not recommended? Even if it's a short and sharp bit?

okay i reaaaaallly don't know how to put this lightly, but here goes. ken. webb. is. not. a. historian!!!!!!!!! use his resources and stuff but do not quote him! when i did extension history, my teacher told the class, and i quote, "i'd rather you make up a historian than use ken webb." i don't know what the markers would do if you wrote something like "webb states, ________" but nah please don't quote him
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: av-angie-er on October 10, 2017, 01:17:17 pm
I definitely don't recommend predicting for modern because they can ask anything haha - but I definitely get the sense one question will be on reasons for Japanese defeat/allied victory. What I personally love about this topic is that so many of the syllabus dot points overlap!
EG. Reasons for Allied Victory includes talking about the turning points, allied strategies to 1942, the a bomb, you can even bring up us foreign policy such as the export control act and how it crippled japan's already limited industrial resources.
So yeah don't worry too much, as for the other one I personally have no clue or guess maybe japanese occupation and its impact on civilians just because it hasnt been done for a while and is very different to japanese defeat and allied victory but really not sure!
and don't take my guess on allied victory as bible, just my thoughts aha.
good luck
I agree that it's safer to not anticipate a certain question. And it definitely has been a while since a 'reasons for Allied victory' question's been asked! Interesting stuff to think about, but it's always nice to have two options just in case ;)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 10, 2017, 03:05:38 pm
Hello people!

Is quoting Ken Webb within your arguments not recommended? Even if it's a short and sharp bit?
Just reiterating what fantasticbeasts said - NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE.

Never EVER quote Ken Webb, or any other textbook writer for that manner, no matter how good the quote may be. The quote is "perfect" because the purpose of the textbook is to "perfectly" relate to your study/the syllabus - it's not an interesting perspective or view that you can analyse, it's just a summary of what you need to know to pass the specific syllabus requirements. He's not a historian, not an academic, and tbh, I'd avoid Ken Webb in general anyway, his textbooks are pretty crap imo - they don't go through the syllabus clearly, most of my students who use him find themselves very confused later on, and the exercises within the textbook are pretty useless (again, this is all my opinion). If you want to a good textbook, try Bruce Dennett's 'Key Features of Modern History' (however still don't quote Dennett - he's just a much better textbook writer).
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: diesxel on October 10, 2017, 03:59:45 pm
Hey! So I'm writing a Soviet Foreign Policy essay and I had some questions on how one would structure it.

So the SFP from 1917-1941 had conflicting aims, with their pursuit of international revolution along with trying to have domestic stability + good ties with surrounding nations. So if I was writing an essay, would it be better for me to chronologically go through all the events and then state which aim they fit and why the SFP was only partially successful?

OR, Should I talk about each aim, so, first about all the polices they implemented to achieve worldwide revolution, and then start talking about their more orthodox foreign policy...


I've always been confused about writing essays on this dotpoint, so any help is appreciated!!! Thank you so much  :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 10, 2017, 05:44:12 pm
Hey! So I'm writing a Soviet Foreign Policy essay and I had some questions on how one would structure it.

So the SFP from 1917-1941 had conflicting aims, with their pursuit of international revolution along with trying to have domestic stability + good ties with surrounding nations. So if I was writing an essay, would it be better for me to chronologically go through all the events and then state which aim they fit and why the SFP was only partially successful?

OR, Should I talk about each aim, so, first about all the polices they implemented to achieve worldwide revolution, and then start talking about their more orthodox foreign policy...


I've always been confused about writing essays on this dotpoint, so any help is appreciated!!! Thank you so much  :)
Hey! The way that I structured this essay was thematically :) So I looked at how their diplomatic, economic, strategic/militaristic, and social foreign policies contributed to one of their aims/the detriment of the other. That's not the only structure that works, but it worked for me :) I'd avoid doing the "aim 1", "aim 2" structure, just because you are running the risk of sitting on the fence. If you do want to do this structure however, just make sure that you have an thesis that still runs throughout both aims. So if your thesis is that overall international revolution was sacrificed for domestic stability, then that needs to be demonstrated within all your paragraphs.

Hope this makes sense!

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 11, 2017, 12:27:24 am
Hey Susie or anyone else that can help!
Just wondering what your opinion is on where to go from here for Modern study. I have done probably 2 or 3 past papers so far and while they are good for training my hand etc. with limited prep time left I'm thinking I am better off now just making sure I know all my content and doing heaps of practice to make sure all my stats and quotes are memorised from my detail table (has worked a treat Susie great idea!). I am 100% confident with the art of essay writing and that, that's no issue for me, nor is constructing an argument rather than story telling. so i feel like instead of doing 3 hours covering only 2 topics in germany and conflict in the pacific, for instance, is not as effective as say looking at each syllabus dot point and verbally or physically just writing down everything i can remember. I'll probably do at least 1 practice paper before the exam to train myself with timing but usually im good with that because i can write relatively fast. but yeah any thoughts on whether this sounds g would be great, there's just so much content to go over and i feel like this would be a more effective way for me to ensure i go into the exam fully prepared? :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 11, 2017, 02:07:01 pm
Hey Susie or anyone else that can help!
Just wondering what your opinion is on where to go from here for Modern study. I have done probably 2 or 3 past papers so far and while they are good for training my hand etc. with limited prep time left I'm thinking I am better off now just making sure I know all my content and doing heaps of practice to make sure all my stats and quotes are memorised from my detail table (has worked a treat Susie great idea!). I am 100% confident with the art of essay writing and that, that's no issue for me, nor is constructing an argument rather than story telling. so i feel like instead of doing 3 hours covering only 2 topics in germany and conflict in the pacific, for instance, is not as effective as say looking at each syllabus dot point and verbally or physically just writing down everything i can remember. I'll probably do at least 1 practice paper before the exam to train myself with timing but usually im good with that because i can write relatively fast. but yeah any thoughts on whether this sounds g would be great, there's just so much content to go over and i feel like this would be a more effective way for me to ensure i go into the exam fully prepared? :)
Study should always be personalised, so if you think that you'd work better this way, then I definitely recommend giving it a go! For me, I was still doing past papers up until the night before the night before the exam (the final day I spend doing short answers for WW1 and consolidating my detail table), but I get your concern about maximising your time, so I definitely think you should give your way a go! :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: av-angie-er on October 11, 2017, 04:58:24 pm
Does anybody have any tips for making a paragraph on how Nazi ideology, specifically in relation to race, influenced foreign policy up to 1939? So far I've got that the Slavs in conquered territories were treated as inferior populations, and the idea of racial purity heavily encouraged the Nazis' plans for territorial expansion to provide more living space for a German master race. Any help would be appreciated :D
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 11, 2017, 05:03:49 pm
Does anybody have any tips for making a paragraph on how Nazi ideology, specifically in relation to race, influenced foreign policy up to 1939? So far I've got that the Slavs in conquered territories were treated as inferior populations, and the idea of racial purity heavily encouraged the Nazis' plans for territorial expansion to provide more living space for a German master race. Any help would be appreciated :D

Hey! I would say that with racial purity, the main idea linked to that is Lebensraum or the need for more space to build Germany's pure empire! Unfortunately that's all!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: av-angie-er on October 11, 2017, 05:19:00 pm
A
Hey! I would say that with racial purity, the main idea linked to that is Lebensraum or the need for more space to build Germany's pure empire! Unfortunately that's all!
Ahh you're probably right :-\ I was really hoping to structure my three paragraphs using racial purity, Lebensraum and Nazi militarism as different ideological influences, but since racial purity and Lebensraum can be squished together, do you have any alternative ideas in terms of essay paragraphs?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 11, 2017, 05:20:39 pm
AAhh you're probably right :-\ I was really hoping to structure my three paragraphs using racial purity, Lebensraum and Nazi militarism as different ideological influences, but since racial purity and Lebensraum can be squished together, do you have any alternative ideas in terms of essay paragraphs?

Ah not for ideology really no! I guess if the question asks to what extend did Nazi ideology impact Nazi foreign policy you can bring up issues such as ending the Treaty of versailles etc?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Nooriye on October 12, 2017, 11:45:23 am
hi, just confused with how to structure a detente essay and the different types of detente essays that can be asked. for eg for "to what extent did vietnam, the sino soviet split and middle east contribute to detente." would i just focus on those three events or i do i need to bring information about cuba, the arms race etc which also contributed to detente. also in a question asking to "evaluate the success and failures of detente" is discussing the reasons for detente necessary.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: mixel on October 12, 2017, 12:03:59 pm
Does anybody have any tips for making a paragraph on how Nazi ideology, specifically in relation to race, influenced foreign policy up to 1939? So far I've got that the Slavs in conquered territories were treated as inferior populations, and the idea of racial purity heavily encouraged the Nazis' plans for territorial expansion to provide more living space for a German master race. Any help would be appreciated :D

(I reread this after writing it and it's a complete mess, sorry)

Hey av-angie-er, I think the hardest part of this question is keeping stuff within the time-frame, because a lot of the best evidence to this question comes from beyond 1939. The poor treatment of local populations in the Occupied Territories was a huge example of ideology influencing Nazi foreign policy in strategically poor ways, but this is beyond the scope of the national study unfortunately.

Dancing phalanges was totally right about Lebensraum, and it's always a major consideration in questions on Nazi-Foreign policy, but to keep things before 1939 I would suggest focusing on the idea of the Grossdeutsches Reich as a precursor to Lebensraum, that is, a nation that sought to unite and promote all Germans regardless of existing international boundaries. For this you would first address the ideology behind this and identify its origins in Mein Kampf and the Volkisch populist movement, predating Nazism. After this, you would point to the increasingly aggressive stages of Nazi Foreign policy that influence this, most importantly, the Saar Plebiscite in January 1935, the Anschluss with Austria in March 1938, the Munich Conference and annexation of the Sudetenland in November 1938, and the invasion of Czechoslovakia in January 1939.

What you would want to identify in this pattern is how German foreign policy in this aspect of their ideology began very tentatively and diplomatically with the Saar Plebiscite, and became increasingly militaristic to the point of complete dismissal of international law in the invasion of Czechoslovakia. The conclusion this would lead to is that while German foreign policy from 1935-1939 did act to promote Nazi ideology, this was always contingent on Germany's military capabilities, bearing in mind that the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe had only been officially formed in 1935 and Hitler's orders for the remilitarisation of the Rhineland told soldiers to retreat at the slightest opposition from the French, as the army was in no position to wage war at that point.

To add sophistication to this point, there is an important counterpoint that these actions were an extension of pre-Nazi foreign policy from the Weimar era. The strongest evidence for this is that under the 1925 Locarno Pact, Stresemann only committed Germany to fixed boundaries along its Western borders, as he always intended on restoring pre-WW1 borders in the East to include German populations now living in Poland and Bohemia. I think AJP Taylor argues this, but I'm not sure. If this counterpoint is true, then it is misleading to just say that Nazi ideology influenced German foreign policy without the caveat that these goals predated Nazism and were shared by others, and were often practically motivated rather than ideologically motivated (the evidence for this is that Germany needed to invade Poland in 1939 because its economy was on the verge of collapse due to Hitler's mismanagement. This is Richard J. Evans' argument, which he called the "plunder economy").
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 12, 2017, 12:18:55 pm
(I reread this after writing it and it's a complete mess, sorry)

Hey av-angie-er, I think the hardest part of this question is keeping stuff within the time-frame, because a lot of the best evidence to this question comes from beyond 1939. The poor treatment of local populations in the Occupied Territories was a huge example of ideology influencing Nazi foreign policy in strategically poor ways, but this is beyond the scope of the national study unfortunately.

Dancing phalanges was totally right about Lebensraum, and it's always a major consideration in questions on Nazi-Foreign policy, but to keep things before 1939 I would suggest focusing on the idea of the Grossdeutsches Reich as a precursor to Lebensraum, that is, a nation that sought to unite and promote all Germans regardless of existing international boundaries. For this you would first address the ideology behind this and identify its origins in Mein Kampf and the Volkisch populist movement, predating Nazism. After this, you would point to the increasingly aggressive stages of Nazi Foreign policy that influence this, most importantly, the Saar Plebiscite in January 1935, the Anschluss with Austria in March 1938, the Munich Conference and annexation of the Sudetenland in November 1938, and the invasion of Czechoslovakia in January 1939.

What you would want to identify in this pattern is how German foreign policy in this aspect of their ideology began very tentatively and diplomatically with the Saar Plebiscite, and became increasingly militaristic to the point of complete dismissal of international law in the invasion of Czechoslovakia. The conclusion this would lead to is that while German foreign policy from 1935-1939 did act to promote Nazi ideology, this was always contingent on Germany's military capabilities, bearing in mind that the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe had only been officially formed in 1935 and Hitler's orders for the remilitarisation of the Rhineland told soldiers to retreat at the slightest opposition from the French, as the army was in no position to wage war at that point.

To add sophistication to this point, there is an important counterpoint that these actions were an extension of pre-Nazi foreign policy from the Weimar era. The strongest evidence for this is that under the 1925 Locarno Pact, Stresemann only committed Germany to fixed boundaries along its Western borders, as he always intended on restoring pre-WW1 borders in the East to include German populations now living in Poland and Bohemia. I think AJP Taylor argues this, but I'm not sure. If this counterpoint is true, then it is misleading to just say that Nazi ideology influenced German foreign policy without the caveat that these goals predated Nazism and were shared by others, and were often practically motivated rather than ideologically motivated (the evidence for this is that Germany needed to invade Poland in 1939 because its economy was on the verge of collapse due to Hitler's mismanagement. I'm very sure that this is AJP Taylor's argument, which he called the "plunder economy").

Haha is this just off the cuff talking because I can't understand how you know all these intricate details that I've never even heard before  :o
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: mixel on October 12, 2017, 12:31:44 pm
Haha is this just off the cuff talking because I can't understand how you know all these intricate details that I've never even heard before  :o

Aw thanks man, I think it was my teacher's obsession with historiography and random contrarian arguments rubbing off on me haha


Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 12, 2017, 12:40:22 pm
Haha you have a pretty good teacher then  ;)
Just quickly,
So would Nazi propaganda be classified as separate to racial policy since it is not exactly policy or part of it?
And also if a question asked to what extent nazi racial policy impacted on german life etc. etc. - could I make the argument that nazi racial policy (in terms of anti-semitism) legitimised local level discrimination of the Jewish people and that sorta thing?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: mixel on October 12, 2017, 12:50:05 pm
Haha you have a pretty good teacher then  ;)
Just quickly,
So would Nazi propaganda be classified as separate to racial policy since it is not exactly policy or part of it?
And also if a question asked to what extent nazi racial policy impacted on german life etc. etc. - could I make the argument that nazi racial policy (in terms of anti-semitism) legitimised local level discrimination of the Jewish people and that sorta thing?

It might not be a major point in essays on racial policy but I think you can definitely argue a link between them. For evidence you could point to the national boycott of Jewish shops in April 1933 which was cancelled after a week due to a lack of co-operation with civilians vs. the huge public participation in the Kristallnacht in November 1938 showing the massive change in civilian antisemitism in the first five years of Nazi rule, suggesting propaganda as a significant factor in this

Also for the second question, absolutely  :) again, Kristallnacht is the biggest evidence for this because when you compare it to public reticence to state antisemitism in the beginning of Nazi rule, there is a huge shift that undeniably goes beyond mere public tolerance of Nazi propaganda. The nation-wide scale of Kristallnacht also points towards this -- even in small towns, shops were ransacked and vandalised and Jewish families were lynched. In terms of legitimising antisemitism, you could say it even encouraged it to the extent that the dispossession of Jews through the Nuremberg Laws and even just unpunished theft and violence from civilians benefited the individuals that were perpetrating it. This happened indirectly through rewards/less suspicion from the Gestapo to people who denounced Jewish neighbours / less competition from Jews in local business, to directly in the case of theft.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 12, 2017, 01:04:43 pm
It might not be a major point in essays on racial policy but I think you can definitely argue a link between them. For evidence you could point to the national boycott of Jewish shops in April 1933 which was cancelled after a week due to a lack of co-operation with civilians vs. the huge public participation in the Kristallnacht in November 1938 showing the massive change in civilian antisemitism in the first five years of Nazi rule, suggesting propaganda as a significant factor in this

Also for the second question, absolutely  :) again, Kristallnacht is the biggest evidence for this because when you compare it to public reticence to state antisemitism in the beginning of Nazi rule, there is a huge shift that undeniably goes beyond mere public tolerance of Nazi propaganda. The nation-wide scale of Kristallnacht also points towards this -- even in small towns, shops were ransacked and vandalised and Jewish families were lynched. In terms of legitimising antisemitism, you could say it even encouraged it to the extent that the dispossession of Jews through the Nuremberg Laws and even just unpunished theft and violence from civilians benefited the individuals that were perpetrating it. This happened indirectly through rewards/less suspicion from the Gestapo to people who denounced Jewish neighbours / less competition from Jews in local business, to directly in the case of theft.

Great :) Could you also use the eg. of how 1/174 racial defilement complaints in Wurzburg were from citizens not the gestapo?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Korrasami on October 12, 2017, 01:29:27 pm
Hey can anyone please have a look at my introduction for this question from last year's paper: "To what extent were the dictatorship in Germany and Italy responsible for growth of European tensions?"

The dictatorships in Germany and Italy played a significant role in the growth of European tensions. Mussolini and Hitler each engaged in aggressive foreign policy, focusing on militarism and nationalism. These components made the core of their foreign policy, which contributed to the growth of European tensions. The extent in which dictatorships in Germany and Italy played a role in European tensions is through ideology, the impact of the Treaty of Versailles, foreign policy and the policy of appeasement.

Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: mixel on October 12, 2017, 01:31:46 pm
Great :) Could you also use the eg. of how 1/174 racial defilement complaints in Wurzburg were from citizens not the gestapo?

Yeah, that sounds like it'd work perfectly  :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on October 12, 2017, 02:26:28 pm
hi, just confused with how to structure a detente essay and the different types of detente essays that can be asked. for eg for "to what extent did vietnam, the sino soviet split and middle east contribute to detente." would i just focus on those three events or i do i need to bring information about cuba, the arms race etc which also contributed to detente. also in a question asking to "evaluate the success and failures of detente" is discussing the reasons for detente necessary.

hey hey, another cold war person!

i do all my cold war essays in order of syllabus points - that is, using the syllabus points to form paragraphs. this mightn't be the structure for you, but it's pretty simple because everything's in chronological order (yay) and you can use the events to support the argument you have in your thesis. however, because the syllabus point on the geopolitical movements (vietnam, sino-soviet split and the middle east) is so big, i split those ones up.

as for the question you asked - "to what extent did vietnam, the sino-soviet split and middle east contribute to détente," you should cover what exactly contributed to détente, so yea, bring in information about cuba, the arms race and other stuff you think is relevant. the reasons for détente are also important. it's a "to what extent" question, so it's not just the geopolitical movements that contributed to détente. do you get that?

for the other question - "evaluate the successes and failures of détente" - yes, the reasons are very necessary! in order to establish your argument about the successes and failures, you need to state the reasons for détente, because then you can't exactly determine why détente succeeded or failed. (spoiler alert: in the end, it did fail).

hope this helps - best of luck for your hsc,
fantasticbeasts
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 12, 2017, 06:46:53 pm
Hey Susie,
Just two queries for personality questions. There have been some in the past that stipulate to what extent your personality had a positive impact on their times, in which case for Speer I can argue both positive and negative. I was wondering for questions such as Assess the contribution/significance of your personality to their times - could I also use this to assess his contribution as to whether it was positive or negative rather than just assessing how significant it was? I just prefer the positive/negative contribution argument as I find it more interesting to write about in regards to Speer. I gather though if it assess the significance I definitely can't as it is about whether they were significant or not, not what type of significance they had.

Also, I am struggling with how to answer this question from last year's HSC - ‘Differing perspectives and interpretations help us in gaining an understanding of a personality’s significance within history.’ To what extent is this statement accurate in relation to the personality you have studied?
I read your assistance to another forum member about how you did it based on arguing how it more reflects the historian's context and subjectivity but I personally don't think I would do well at that seeing Speer is not as politically important as Trotsky and also that I don't have a background in History Extension haha. In terms of the different interpretations, there is obviously Good vs Bad Nazi - which also includes differing interpretations on his role in anti-Semitism and the Scorched Earth Policy. I am just confused on how these differing perspectives help us gain an understanding of his significance? Do I just argue that since historians are debating this that he is therefore significant as I feel like this is too simple and cop-out ish haha. Or should I make an evaluation as to how the differing perspectives from say historians during Speer's time vs. historians with more evidence today allows us to understand that his significance was not positive/the nature of his significance. Just a little confused!
Thanks :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 13, 2017, 02:11:11 pm
Hey Susie,
Just two queries for personality questions. There have been some in the past that stipulate to what extent your personality had a positive impact on their times, in which case for Speer I can argue both positive and negative. I was wondering for questions such as Assess the contribution/significance of your personality to their times - could I also use this to assess his contribution as to whether it was positive or negative rather than just assessing how significant it was? I just prefer the positive/negative contribution argument as I find it more interesting to write about in regards to Speer. I gather though if it assess the significance I definitely can't as it is about whether they were significant or not, not what type of significance they had.
Hmmmm, I'm not 100% sure to be honest! I guess if the question was "assess the contribution of your personality to their times", you can make an assessment that it was positive/negative? My only fear with that would be that if your arguments too closely resemble that of the "positive impact" question, that they may perceive it to be a prepared response that you got lucky with. Since the debate with Speer though is the "Good Nazi", which inherently has an aspect of morality involved, I'd say (tentatively) that you should be fine :)

However, tbh you're unlikely to get a question that straight forward in the HSC!

Also, I am struggling with how to answer this question from last year's HSC - ‘Differing perspectives and interpretations help us in gaining an understanding of a personality’s significance within history.’ To what extent is this statement accurate in relation to the personality you have studied?
I read your assistance to another forum member about how you did it based on arguing how it more reflects the historian's context and subjectivity but I personally don't think I would do well at that seeing Speer is not as politically important as Trotsky and also that I don't have a background in History Extension haha. In terms of the different interpretations, there is obviously Good vs Bad Nazi - which also includes differing interpretations on his role in anti-Semitism and the Scorched Earth Policy. I am just confused on how these differing perspectives help us gain an understanding of his significance? Do I just argue that since historians are debating this that he is therefore significant as I feel like this is too simple and cop-out ish haha. Or should I make an evaluation as to how the differing perspectives from say historians during Speer's time vs. historians with more evidence today allows us to understand that his significance was not positive/the nature of his significance. Just a little confused!
Thanks :)
That question was horrendous aha, so not surprised that you are having trouble with it! According to my teacher, he thinks that the markers realised this an adjusted the standard accordingly, just because so many people failed to formulate a response. I really like the final argument that you made, which is essentially the Speer equivalent of my one for Trotsky that I did in the exam! As you identified, not all personalties are polarising in the same ways. Trotsky's ideology creates a very clear divide within historians, right-wing and left-wing, whereas despite the Good Nazi debates existence, most historians would shy away from a positive assessment of someone who contributed to the Third Reich/Holocaust, because that event is universally vilified across pretty much all areas of the political spectrum. What you need to do then if find another unifying factor between historians of differing perspectives - which you have identified - context and proximity to Speer. Remember that you can also incorporate Speer's own perspective as well! Now what you've got to do is identify what are the key features within the differing interpretations, and how they a reflective of their context. For example, with Trotsky, I stated that a right-wing historian, in attempting to present Trotsky as naive during the power struggle, will neglect to mention the societal changes as a factor, and instead just focus on Trotsky's personal failings as an individual :)

Don't worry too much about not having that background in history extension. Though it is definitely suited to extension students, the argument made - that context affects the way in which a historian write their histories, is pretty entry level extension stuff :) Not too tricky to get your head around, and judging by your assessment you have!

Hope this makes sense! If you do find the above hard, even though it may seem more "basic", the other argument that you identified, that due to the fact that there is debate it is clear that the personality is significant, is still valid, and I have seen it done well by students in the past :)

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 13, 2017, 02:34:14 pm
Hmmmm, I'm not 100% sure to be honest! I guess if the question was "assess the contribution of your personality to their times", you can make an assessment that it was positive/negative? My only fear with that would be that if your arguments too closely resemble that of the "positive impact" question, that they may perceive it to be a prepared response that you got lucky with. Since the debate with Speer though is the "Good Nazi", which inherently has an aspect of morality involved, I'd say (tentatively) that you should be fine :)

However, tbh you're unlikely to get a question that straight forward in the HSC!
That question was horrendous aha, so not surprised that you are having trouble with it! According to my teacher, he thinks that the markers realised this an adjusted the standard accordingly, just because so many people failed to formulate a response. I really like the final argument that you made, which is essentially the Speer equivalent of my one for Trotsky that I did in the exam! As you identified, not all personalties are polarising in the same ways. Trotsky's ideology creates a very clear divide within historians, right-wing and left-wing, whereas despite the Good Nazi debates existence, most historians would shy away from a positive assessment of someone who contributed to the Third Reich/Holocaust, because that event is universally vilified across pretty much all areas of the political spectrum. What you need to do then if find another unifying factor between historians of differing perspectives - which you have identified - context and proximity to Speer. Remember that you can also incorporate Speer's own perspective as well! Now what you've got to do is identify what are the key features within the differing interpretations, and how they a reflective of their context. For example, with Trotsky, I stated that a right-wing historian, in attempting to present Trotsky as naive during the power struggle, will neglect to mention the societal changes as a factor, and instead just focus on Trotsky's personal failings as an individual :)

Don't worry too much about not having that background in history extension. Though it is definitely suited to extension students, the argument made - that context affects the way in which a historian write their histories, is pretty entry level extension stuff :) Not too tricky to get your head around, and judging by your assessment you have!

Hope this makes sense! If you do find the above hard, even though it may seem more "basic", the other argument that you identified, that due to the fact that there is debate it is clear that the personality is significant, is still valid, and I have seen it done well by students in the past :)

Susie

Thanks so much for the lengthy reply! :) Hoping that sort of question won't come up anyway given that it was last year's and that they go for more of a product or shaper of his time question :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: marcusgrahamm on October 13, 2017, 04:25:28 pm
I was wondering if anyone could help me in creating an essay plan for these questions:

To what extent were Gorbachev's policies and attitudes responsible in the collapse of the USSR?"

AND

Account for the emerging differences responsible for the origins of the Cold War.

I really struggle with the Cold War (Im fine with Germany, WW1 & JEH) and can't find any example essays online. So any all help is appreciated!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 13, 2017, 04:57:02 pm
I was wondering if anyone could help me in creating an essay plan for these questions:

To what extent were Gorbachev's policies and attitudes responsible in the collapse of the USSR?"

AND

Account for the emerging differences responsible for the origins of the Cold War.

I really struggle with the Cold War (Im fine with Germany, WW1 & JEH) and can't find any example essays online. So any all help is appreciated!

Hey!! I'm actually with a student right now, and we're going through this exact dot point :) So we're both going to help you out!

To what extent were Gorbachev's policies and attitudes responsible in the collapse of the USSR

For this type of essay, we would recommend you writing according to the factors/syllabus. That means a paragraph on;

PARAGRAPH 1 - Start with a paragraph on Gorbachev, as he is the stem of the question --> You can link Collapse of Communism and the Soviet Union within this paragraph as well, rather than a whole separate paragraph.
PARAGRAPH 2 - Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan (so after the first paragraph, you can just go in order)
PARAGRAPH 3- Policies and attitudes under Reagan
PARAGRAPH 4 - Disarmament agreements

To get a higher range band 6, you'd need to link Gorbachev to all the other factors. This can be done by;

- Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan prompted both Reagan AND Gorbachev's policies and attitudes - Gorbachev wanted to improve the Soviet Union's image after the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan.
- The way Gorbachev responded to the policies and attitudes under Reagan - with tolerance and a less hardline approach, allowed for the power imbalance to move over to Reagan, effectively aiding in the end of the Cold War, as it allowed for an improvement in relations.
- Disarmament agreements can be linked back to Gorbachev, due to the fact that it was his relaxation in communism and the aims of the Soviet Union (parity in nuclear weaponry) that these disarmament agreements were even possible, as they allowed Reagan (the more hardline of the two) to enter these negotiations in a position of power.

(when I get home I will help you out with the other one, but here is the first essay plan for now :) )

Susie (and student who wishes to remain anonymous aha)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on October 13, 2017, 05:20:52 pm
I was wondering if anyone could help me in creating an essay plan for these questions:

To what extent were Gorbachev's policies and attitudes responsible in the collapse of the USSR?"

AND

Account for the emerging differences responsible for the origins of the Cold War.

I really struggle with the Cold War (Im fine with Germany, WW1 & JEH) and can't find any example essays online. So any all help is appreciated!

hiiii, i'll do the second one :-)

account for the emerging differences responsible for the origins of the cold war.
for this one, write this in the order of the syllabus.

paragraph 1: 1945 conferences + emerging differences
paragraph 2: truman doctrine
paragraph 3: early crises - berlin, china, korea

since this is an "account" essay, just explain how all these factors contributed to emerging differences at the beginning of the cold war. why were there differences? how did these differences impact relations? all that jazz!

hope this helps - best of luck for the hsc,
fantasticbeasts
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: LegalEagle24/7 on October 13, 2017, 05:40:45 pm
Hi  :)
I understand that the Schlieffen Plan was devised to knock out France and then Russia because Germany was under threat. Were there any other reasons why Germany created it?
Thanks  8)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 13, 2017, 05:56:22 pm
Hey just a Germany question now, I got this question for my trial: To what extent was the Great Depression responsible for the collapse of the
Weimar Republic? I got 25/25 for it but the marker wrote that to make my response better I could incorporate more schools of historical thought. I had scattered historians here and there throughout my response but in terms of schools of thought in relation to the collapse of Weimar, the only obvious one is Determinsts who say the collapse was inevitable vs the Alternative views including that if Weimar had stronger leadership etc.

Firstly, I get a bit confused by the argument if Weimar could have had stronger leadership because I would argue that due to the structural weaknesses of the constitution eg. Proportional Representation (as argued by the Determinists), it was difficult for the Weimar Governments to form a strong leadership. My teacher has always said nothing is inevitable though so I'm a bit confused where to go on that because I agree that the structural weaknesses of the Republic made it hard for them to gain legitimacy but I definitely also don't think this meant the collapse was inevitable... if you get my drift??

 Also, back to the trial essay question, I feel like integrating those schools of thought on whether its collapse was inevitable or not could be too distracting and I would focus on that more than weighing up each factor against the Depression in terms of the collapse of the Republic.

Any thoughts would be g :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: _____ on October 13, 2017, 06:10:01 pm
Hi  :)
I understand that the Schlieffen Plan was devised to knock out France and then Russia because Germany was under threat. Were there any other reasons why Germany created it?
Thanks  8)

There's probably more but:

They wanted to avoid a war on two fronts by capturing Paris quickly and then turning to defeat Russia (it was thought Nicholas II would take 3 weeks to mobilise his troops).
They thought the French would go for Alsace-Lorraine (their old territory) so this could be avoided by going north, surprising them (which I think succeeded to some extent before the British/Belgians put up a fight).
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: LegalEagle24/7 on October 14, 2017, 10:46:35 am
There's probably more but:

They wanted to avoid a war on two fronts by capturing Paris quickly and then turning to defeat Russia (it was thought Nicholas II would take 3 weeks to mobilise his troops).
They thought the French would go for Alsace-Lorraine (their old territory) so this could be avoided by going north, surprising them (which I think succeeded to some extent before the British/Belgians put up a fight).

Thanks so much! That makes much more sense. :) :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sophiemacpherso on October 14, 2017, 02:09:24 pm
Hey guys!! I was just wondering, if we got a Cold War question like: "Assess the importance of the arms race in the development of the Cold War to 1968", would it be acceptable to structure a plan something like this?:
Paragraph 1: Arms race - important as it was a manifestation of superpower supremacy (talk about technological developments, NSC-68)
Paragraph 2: Culminated in the Cuban Missile Crisis - this led to the detente period
Paragraph 3: Whilst the arms race was thus extremely important, the Berlin Wall was another pivotal aspect in the development of the Cold War....
I guess what I'm trying to say is is it ok to diverge from the arms race dot point and talk about how the Berlin Wall was also extremely significant or should I just keep the argument in line with the arms race?? For instance change the 3rd paragraph to how the arms race instigated the space race?? I hope this made sense, thank you !! :)
 
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on October 14, 2017, 02:14:46 pm
Hey guys!! I was just wondering, if we got a Cold War question like: "Assess the importance of the arms race in the development of the Cold War to 1968", would it be acceptable to structure a plan something like this?:
Paragraph 1: Arms race - important as it was a manifestation of superpower supremacy (talk about technological developments, NSC-68)
Paragraph 2: Culminated in the Cuban Missile Crisis - this led to the detente period
Paragraph 3: Whilst the arms race was thus extremely important, the Berlin Wall was another pivotal aspect in the development of the Cold War....
I guess what I'm trying to say is is it ok to diverge from the arms race dot point and talk about how the Berlin Wall was also extremely significant or should I just keep the argument in line with the arms race?? For instance change the 3rd paragraph to how the arms race instigated the space race?? I hope this made sense, thank you !! :)
 


hey there! my heart is SO HAPPY seeing cold war questions!!!!!

since this is an "assess" question, you'll need to address other factors in the development of the cold war section. and yea, you'll need to link everything to the arms race in order to maintain your argument. i'm assuming you've done this essay plan according to the syllabus, right? at the beginning of each paragraph, your topic sentence should mention the thing you're going to talk about, and the arms race as well. you can (and should) talk about other factors, but make sure to link it to the arms race because that's the question, you get me? feel like i just went round and round with this answer - reply if you don't get what i said hahaha

hope this helps - best of luck with your hsc,
fantasticbeasts
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: LegalEagle24/7 on October 14, 2017, 08:49:06 pm
Hi  :)
I'm currently studying WW1 and don't understand the "tit for tat" strategy implemented. Can someone please explain it? Thanks xx
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: kristineyr on October 15, 2017, 04:43:46 pm
Hello!

I was just given an essay to write on the origins of WWI. "Discuss the origins of WWI". During the time that we learnt this in class (last term, year 11), I was going through extremely hard family/personal hardship and wasn't able to absorb as much information on this topic as I would have liked to. I told my teacher that I wanted to severely improve my marks, so he gave me this task to help me get into the mood of things again!

How would you recommend setting out this essay? I'll pretty much have to research information from scratch... What events should I centre it on? Any tips? I'd appreciate the help so much. I don't know what I'm doing!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 15, 2017, 04:54:56 pm
Hello!

I was just given an essay to write on the origins of WWI. "Discuss the origins of WWI". During the time that we learnt this in class (last term, year 11), I was going through extremely hard family/personal hardship and wasn't able to absorb as much information on this topic as I would have liked to. I told my teacher that I wanted to severely improve my marks, so he gave me this task to help me get into the mood of things again!

How would you recommend setting out this essay? I'll pretty much have to research information from scratch... What events should I centre it on? Any tips? I'd appreciate the help so much. I don't know what I'm doing!
Hey! Good on you for trying to get into the swing of things again :) If it makes you feel better, missing content in year 11 won't have any impact on year 12 - completely new topics so no stress :)

It's been a while since I studied this, but I believe that a good way to structure an essay on the origins of WW1 would be according to the causes :) So a paragraph on (or at least touch on within a paragraph) Militarism, Alliances, Nationalism, Imperialism and the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand :)

Hope this helps!

Good luck,

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: owidjaja on October 15, 2017, 08:17:38 pm
Hello!

I was just given an essay to write on the origins of WWI. "Discuss the origins of WWI". During the time that we learnt this in class (last term, year 11), I was going through extremely hard family/personal hardship and wasn't able to absorb as much information on this topic as I would have liked to. I told my teacher that I wanted to severely improve my marks, so he gave me this task to help me get into the mood of things again!

How would you recommend setting out this essay? I'll pretty much have to research information from scratch... What events should I centre it on? Any tips? I'd appreciate the help so much. I don't know what I'm doing!
Hello!

I know Susie already responded but I wanted to extend on her points a bit more. Your essay should be based on themes and events that relate to the outbreak of WW1. One point I remember in the marking criteria in my yearly exam is to make sure that your arguments are 'sustained and in logical order'- meaning your essay should be detailed and are structured chronologically. Since looking at origins or causes of WW1 come from a combination of 'themes' and events, I would structure your first few paragraphs with a theme, say:
1. Imperialism- Scramble for Africa, statistics and how competition provoked jealousy
2. Militarism- Weltpolitik

And then mention events:

3. Arms Race/ Anglo-German Naval Race
4. Moroccan Crisis etc

Also, extending on my point on making sure the argument is logical and sustained, try and link your arguments together to kinda show the cause and effect of each theme and/or event to make your essay flow. I know quotes aren't the biggest priority but even mentioning a small quote such as 'Germany demands her place in the sun' or 'Britannia rules the waves' can enhance your arguments since in exams, it's demonstrating your own knowledge; plus they're really easy to memorise!

Hope these tips helped :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: ~BK~ on October 17, 2017, 04:37:05 pm
hey...
so i've just done eng and that's all over!! (yay!)
and now the nxt exam i hafta think about is history :P
i was just wondering, i thinks its been asked before (but ah well)...
how important are direct sources in the 25 markers??
mt.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 17, 2017, 04:48:31 pm
hey...
so i've just done eng and that's all over!! (yay!)
and now the nxt exam i hafta think about is history :P
i was just wondering, i thinks its been asked before (but ah well)...
how important are direct sources in the 25 markers??
mt.
Hey! Good job!!!! Hope Paper 1 and 2 treated you (and everyone else well) - I heard they were both pretty hard... but now onto the actually important subject ;)

When you say sources, do you mean historians/quotes? If so, not that important at all! Now, will the top students probably be using quotes? Yes - but that is not why they get band 6's, it's just a natural product of the fact that they've probably studied more and thoroughly. You can write a band 6 essay without quotes. Quotes are only important insofar as they count as detail, which is 100% necessary to include - but detail also includes stats, terminology, intricate facts, etc. etc., not just quotes :) Quotes a great, but a marker would much rather see your own analysis, than you just parroting a shopping list of historians, so if you do use quotes, make sure that they are backing up YOUR argument, rather than maintaining a point on their own.

Hope this helps!

GET KEEN GUYS (or as keen as you can be for an exam, but you've all worked so hard so you should be keen cos you're gonna smash it!!!)

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 17, 2017, 04:58:09 pm
Hey guys,
I have attached a couple of pages of Ken Webb quotes I will be using for the exam :)
Hopefully they will be enough detail to get me a Band 6 :)
Free for everyone to use! Good luck!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 17, 2017, 05:00:21 pm
Hey guys,
I have attached a couple of pages of Ken Webb quotes I will be using for the exam :)
Hopefully they will be enough detail to get me a Band 6 :)
Free for everyone to use! Good luck!
you almost gave me a heart attack. not kidding. my hands are shaking.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 17, 2017, 05:03:03 pm
In all seriousness haha, for people doing conflict in the pacific, this document is bloody amazing for the occupation - i have got all my material for the occupation from it: http://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3123&context=etd
downside = it's 100+ pages haha
hope it helps :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: ~BK~ on October 17, 2017, 05:16:13 pm
Hey! Good job!!!! Hope Paper 1 and 2 treated you (and everyone else well) - I heard they were both pretty hard... but now onto the actually important subject ;)

When you say sources, do you mean historians/quotes? If so, not that important at all! Now, will the top students probably be using quotes? Yes - but that is not why they get band 6's, it's just a natural product of the fact that they've probably studied more and thoroughly. You can write a band 6 essay without quotes. Quotes are only important insofar as they count as detail, which is 100% necessary to include - but detail also includes stats, terminology, intricate facts, etc. etc., not just quotes :) Quotes a great, but a marker would much rather see your own analysis, than you just parroting a shopping list of historians, so if you do use quotes, make sure that they are backing up YOUR argument, rather than maintaining a point on their own.

Hope this helps!

GET KEEN GUYS (or as keen as you can be for an exam, but you've all worked so hard so you should be keen cos you're gonna smash it!!!)

Susie

welll... paper 1 and 2 didn't treat me too well, but at least they're over  ;)
thanks heaps for that... one of our history teachers said you don't need direct quotes and the other one said you DEFINITELY have to!!
dunno how i'm gonna remember everything!?.. any tips susie?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 17, 2017, 05:22:00 pm
welll... paper 1 and 2 didn't treat me too well, but at least they're over  ;)
thanks heaps for that... one of our history teachers said you don't need direct quotes and the other one said you DEFINITELY have to!!
dunno how i'm gonna remember everything!?.. any tips susie?
Nah you definitely don't need direct quotes - they're just a nice addition :)

In terms of memorising, I think the best way to memorise is to actually apply the content! Don't just read notes and expect to learn anything - do practice questions, worksheets (such as the ones on this thread!), even look/cover/write/check works! Teaching your friend/family member content is also a great way to remember stuff as well, especially stuff that you may not have realised you couldn't remember (like the easy stuff), because it forces you to go through everything :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 17, 2017, 05:29:19 pm
Nah you definitely don't need direct quotes - they're just a nice addition :)

In terms of memorising, I think the best way to memorise is to actually apply the content! Don't just read notes and expect to learn anything - do practice questions, worksheets (such as the ones on this thread!), even look/cover/write/check works! Teaching your friend/family member content is also a great way to remember stuff as well, especially stuff that you may not have realised you couldn't remember (like the easy stuff), because it forces you to go through everything :)

I would carry my laptop with me and do look cover right check on the train and bus going places as well as at home of course, but it's a good way of making use of the travel time :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: daenyy on October 17, 2017, 05:44:52 pm
anybody have any predictions?? I really hope it's a bolshevik question this year  :-X
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 17, 2017, 05:49:04 pm
anybody have any predictions?? I really hope it's a bolshevik question this year  :-X
TAKE ALL PREDICTIONS WITH A GRAIN OF SALT. NO ONE HAS ANY WAY OF 100% KNOWING WHAT IS IN THE EXAM. DON'T BASE YOUR STUDY AROUND PREDICTIONS.

Now that that is out of the way...

I think there is a good chance that there will be a bolshevik question this year, considering that there was no bolshevik question last year (*cries*) however, at the same time, i wouldn't be surprised if it was a power struggles and soviet foreign policy combination, as they've never done that before, and they know that it would throw of most students who think they can get away with only studying Bolsheviks and Stalinism.

Personality? Predicting something similar to the CSSA trials (shaped by or shaped events related).

WW1 - I think there'll be at least one question related to the last few dot points - specifically events leading to armistice (can't remember ever seeing a question for that one!)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 17, 2017, 06:10:24 pm
TAKE ALL PREDICTIONS WITH A GRAIN OF SALT. NO ONE HAS ANY WAY OF 100% KNOWING WHAT IS IN THE EXAM. DON'T BASE YOUR STUDY AROUND PREDICTIONS.

Now that that is out of the way...

I think there is a good chance that there will be a bolshevik question this year, considering that there was no bolshevik question last year (*cries*) however, at the same time, i wouldn't be surprised if it was a power struggles and soviet foreign policy combination, as they've never done that before, and they know that it would throw of most students who think they can get away with only studying Bolsheviks and Stalinism.

Personality? Predicting something similar to the CSSA trials (shaped by or shaped events related).

WW1 - I think there'll be at least one question related to the last few dot points - specifically events leading to armistice (can't remember ever seeing a question for that one!)

Hey Susie! I only just discovered the Events leading to Armistice dot point like 2 weeks ago haha, never knew it existed! If there was a question on this would it just involve discussing German home front/starvation, growth of Allied strategies and tactics due to industrial strength and battle of hamel, amiens and argonne (best way of remembering that name because after this battle the germans 'argonne'  :P)
cheers!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 17, 2017, 06:14:06 pm
Hey Susie! I only just discovered the Events leading to Armistice dot point like 2 weeks ago haha, never knew it existed! If there was a question on this would it just involve discussing German home front/starvation, growth of Allied strategies and tactics due to industrial strength and battle of hamel, amiens and argonne (best way of remembering that name because after this battle the germans 'argonne'  :P)
cheers!
ahaha don't worry i was the same, that and reasons for allied victory I pretty much learned the day before. Thats pretty much everything yeah, you'd probably want to mention the capture of the Hindenburg line as well! And also the fact that the allied Generals were just a lot better at doing their job (eg. Foch, Currie and Monash)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 17, 2017, 06:17:55 pm
ahaha don't worry i was the same, that and reasons for allied victory I pretty much learned the day before. Thats pretty much everything yeah, you'd probably want to mention the capture of the Hindenburg line as well! And also the fact that the allied Generals were just a lot better at doing their job (eg. Foch, Currie and Monash)

I'm pretty sure it said they captured the Hindenburg line right after argonne so would just saying that be sweet?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: marcusgrahamm on October 17, 2017, 06:29:57 pm
Thanks for the assistance with the Gorbachev essay before!
I was wondering if you have any predictions for what the Germany and Cold War questions might be?

Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 17, 2017, 06:31:53 pm
I'm pretty sure it said they captured the Hindenburg line right after argonne so would just saying that be sweet?
Yes, but I'd probably want to explicitly mention the Hindenburg line, because it was that specific thing that was really the final straw for Ludendorff. Like in my class we didn't even really learn much about Argonne as a battle, the focus was way more on the capture of the Hindenburg line.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 17, 2017, 06:33:16 pm
Thanks for the assistance with the Gorbachev essay before!
I was wondering if you have any predictions for what the Germany and Cold War questions might be?

No worries! Can't say much for Germany aha, but i've got a hunch that it could be a Detente and Renewal and End pairing, as again, they know students neglect to study these areas in comparison to development!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 17, 2017, 06:35:10 pm
Yes, but I'd probably want to explicitly mention the Hindenburg line, because it was that specific thing that was really the final straw for Ludendorff. Like in my class we didn't even really learn much about Argonne as a battle, the focus was way more on the capture of the Hindenburg line.

Ah okay yeah we never looked at argonne or any of the battles or the capture of the hindenburg line ahha didn't know that was even separate thanks susie!! :) and for germany predictions i reckon totalitarian is a fair shot
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: marcusgrahamm on October 17, 2017, 06:42:40 pm
I am praying with every bone in my body its detente! I just have this hunch they much defer from the trend of testing section 4 every second year... I'm hoping for totalitarianism in Germany, but I feel like it could honestly be anything...
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: flashguts321 on October 17, 2017, 06:46:30 pm
Hi there,

I know you shouldn't place too much emphasis on predictions, but does anyone have any predictions for the Conflict In The Pacific (1937-1951) section? Can't find that much info on it, but have prepared 8 ish essay scaffolds.

Thanks :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 17, 2017, 06:48:33 pm
Hi there,

I know you shouldn't place too much emphasis on predictions, but does anyone have any predictions for the Conflict In The Pacific (1937-1951) section? Can't find that much info on it, but have prepared 8 ish essay scaffolds.

Thanks :)

i personally strongly believe there will be 1 question R.E reasons allied victory japanese collapse which would be perfect seeing you can cover heaps of info. my other inkling is on the impact of japanese occupation on occupied territories
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: liya1234 on October 17, 2017, 10:04:06 pm
What would a soviet foreign policy and power struggle combined essay question look like? Would it be asking about how the aims of foreign policy changed during the power struggle or something similar? I haven't thought about that at all and didn't really realise they could draw a question from two sections like that so I should probably get onto that!

Also I've been having some trouble with Part B of the personality section - I cannot seem to push my mark above a 13.5 and I don't really know what else to improve without spending an hour on that section. Our trial question was really straightforward for our personality and I thought I had prepared well but i was given feedback that though i had a clear line of argument and good detail I needed greater overall depth and breadth (not really sure what this means as I covered all the dot points - do i need to just include more information under each??). If anyone has any advice on how to achieve a more sophisticated response (especially in the very limited time given for this section!!) it would really be appreciated. Thanks so much in advance!!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 17, 2017, 10:13:43 pm
What would a soviet foreign policy and power struggle combined essay question look like? Would it be asking about how the aims of foreign policy changed during the power struggle or something similar? I haven't thought about that at all and didn't really realise they could draw a question from two sections like that so I should probably get onto that!

Also I've been having some trouble with Part B of the personality section - I cannot seem to push my mark above a 13.5 and I don't really know what else to improve without spending an hour on that section. Our trial question was really straightforward for our personality and I thought I had prepared well but i was given feedback that though i had a clear line of argument and good detail I needed greater overall depth and breadth (not really sure what this means as I covered all the dot points - do i need to just include more information under each??). If anyone has any advice on how to achieve a more sophisticated response (especially in the very limited time given for this section!!) it would really be appreciated. Thanks so much in advance!!
Oh I think you misunderstood what I meant aha - when I said combo, I meant the two questions as a whole. Like one question would be on power struggles, the other would be soviet foreign policy aha. Sorry for the confusion.

HOWEVER.

There is nothing actually stopping them from combining sections, and it is something that my teacher is predicting they may do soon - namely a power struggles essay that spans the entire period, from 1917 to 1941, rather than just the period directly after Lenin's death. If you were to be faced with this question specifically, I'd have a paragraph on early Bolshevik power struggles (Biggest one here would be Civil War, but could also discuss Trotsky's and Lenin's early and tense relationship, and the Provisional Government), the Trotsky v. Stalin power struggle (could also bring in Kamenev, Zinoviev and Bukharin) and then Stalin v. everyone (eg. Purges, show trials, etc. etc.)

In terms of how to improve the personality study, once you get to the 13+/15 marks, it is usually only detail that is the differentiator. When handing in drafts and practice essays, my teacher often would just say 23+ or 13+ rather than give me an exact mark, just because once it gets to that point, according to him, its very much dependant upon who is marking it. That may not be the answer you want aha, but essentially a 15/15 to one marker may be a 13/15 for another, because at that point it is just a) does it have enough detail to warrant the mark, and b) links (ie. can you link factors to each other individually, and can you then link factors to a broader theme?).

Hope this helps!

Susie

Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Primallis on October 18, 2017, 09:27:54 am
Hello people,

With the Spanish Civil War, I know it falls under the Collapse of Collective Security dot point but could it also be interpreted as a policy of appeasement since Britain and France only provided basic medical relief to the Republicans so too not start a future war with the Fascist powers? AJP Taylor states that the League was already ''dead" by this point so it was basically the policy of appeasement by Britain and France being used to subdue Hitler & Mussolini rather than the league? Just wanted to hear people's thoughts.

Good luck my fellow Modern Students.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: ayylmaolad on October 18, 2017, 10:05:39 am
(b) Evaluate Hitler’s role in the Nazi state between 1933 and 1939.

How would i go about answering this question? I don't know where to begin and any help will be very appreciated  :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: liya1234 on October 18, 2017, 10:47:28 am
Oh I think you misunderstood what I meant aha - when I said combo, I meant the two questions as a whole. Like one question would be on power struggles, the other would be soviet foreign policy aha. Sorry for the confusion.

HOWEVER.

There is nothing actually stopping them from combining sections, and it is something that my teacher is predicting they may do soon - namely a power struggles essay that spans the entire period, from 1917 to 1941, rather than just the period directly after Lenin's death. If you were to be faced with this question specifically, I'd have a paragraph on early Bolshevik power struggles (Biggest one here would be Civil War, but could also discuss Trotsky's and Lenin's early and tense relationship, and the Provisional Government), the Trotsky v. Stalin power struggle (could also bring in Kamenev, Zinoviev and Bukharin) and then Stalin v. everyone (eg. Purges, show trials, etc. etc.)

In terms of how to improve the personality study, once you get to the 13+/15 marks, it is usually only detail that is the differentiator. When handing in drafts and practice essays, my teacher often would just say 23+ or 13+ rather than give me an exact mark, just because once it gets to that point, according to him, its very much dependant upon who is marking it. That may not be the answer you want aha, but essentially a 15/15 to one marker may be a 13/15 for another, because at that point it is just a) does it have enough detail to warrant the mark, and b) links (ie. can you link factors to each other individually, and can you then link factors to a broader theme?).

Hope this helps!

Susie

Oh that makes more sense - i'm so used to thinking about this period in terms of the syllabus i'd be so thrown off if we got a question like that so thank you for explaining that!! also i was going through some really old past papers and i think back in around 2007 they had a question about the impact of Stalinism on foreign policy which was really interesting to consider as well

And I guess i just need to work on making those links clearer in part B and maybe writing in a more sophisticated register. thanks for all your help!!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: rodero on October 18, 2017, 10:56:09 am
Hey guys,

Can someone please give me a quick rundown of Hitler's accession to power? Mainly an overview of the backdoor deals that happened and their years. Thanks !
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: HamBurr17 on October 18, 2017, 11:01:16 am
(b) Evaluate Hitler’s role in the Nazi state between 1933 and 1939.

How would i go about answering this question? I don't know where to begin and any help will be very appreciated  :)

Hmm, I think I would maybe talk about the propaganda aspect - Fuherprinzip/Hitler myth
Also some of the things he did politically - Enabling Act, going against the Treaty of Versailles etc.

Hope that helps :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Dylpickle01 on October 18, 2017, 11:29:18 am
(b) Evaluate Hitler’s role in the Nazi state between 1933 and 1939.

How would i go about answering this question? I don't know where to begin and any help will be very appreciated  :)
Hey! So for something like this, I think you would need to talk about the range of historian's perspectives about Hitler and his role. For example, much debate stemmed around whether or not he was directly involved in the policy and decision making of the state. A few other things you could talk about:
- Intentionalism: did Hitler intentionally manipulate the state as he saw fit?
- Delegation: why did Hitler avoid making major decisions, passing them off to high ranking officials like Himmler?
- Leadership: was he actually a strong, decisive leader? or could he be easily manipulated by the people around him? I'd talk about his personality here too

I hope this helps! Let us know if there is anything else you need help with ^.^
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: edvinat on October 18, 2017, 12:47:11 pm
Hi!
This might sound like a stupid question butttt with Germany they always give you one question about the period 1918-1933 and focus it around the republic and another post 1933 focusing on the nazis. Is it a bad idea to know the period from 1918-1933 in depth (since its what im usually better at explaining) and only know post 1933 briefly or is that risky?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on October 18, 2017, 01:04:15 pm
Hi!
This might sound like a stupid question butttt with Germany they always give you one question about the period 1918-1933 and focus it around the republic and another post 1933 focusing on the nazis. Is it a bad idea to know the period from 1918-1933 in depth (since its what im usually better at explaining) and only know post 1933 briefly or is that risky?

hey!

i asked my teacher a while ago about studying just one section... imagine our class's disappointment when he said no. simply because they could ask a super broad question (one year, the time period was 1918-33!) sure, there's 2 options, but if you get a really bad question for the one you studied, and the other one's easier, what are you going to do then? you get me?

best of luck for your hsc,
fantasticbeasts
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: edvinat on October 18, 2017, 01:35:48 pm
hey!

i asked my teacher a while ago about studying just one section... imagine our class's disappointment when he said no. simply because they could ask a super broad question (one year, the time period was 1918-33!) sure, there's 2 options, but if you get a really bad question for the one you studied, and the other one's easier, what are you going to do then? you get me?

best of luck for your hsc,
fantasticbeasts

Hey,

Yeah completely get where you're coming from! Thank you! I just thought It would be easier to understand if I didn't have to remember as many stats, but its better to always know everything. I'll eventually get there!

Thank you, you too :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 18, 2017, 01:38:58 pm
hey :) definitely should study both as past questions have included:
How effective was the Nazi party up to 1939 in dealing with the political, economic and social issues arising from the Weimar Republic?
Germany between 1918 and 1939 was the triumph of nationalism over democracy.
To what extent is this statement accurate?
that is in 2016 and 2015 and those were the 'weimar' questions so definitely try know both!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: mbdtHSC on October 18, 2017, 01:40:52 pm
Hi, for anyone doing Conflict in the Pacific, any ideas on how you'd structure a question about reasons for the defeat of Japan?

I've come up with:
Allied economic + technological superiority, different instances of Allied might/superiority (Midway -> Guadalcanal -> island hopping ) and flawed Japanese strategies (overstretched military etc)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 18, 2017, 01:51:22 pm
Hi, for anyone doing Conflict in the Pacific, any ideas on how you'd structure a question about reasons for the defeat of Japan?

I've come up with:
Allied economic + technological superiority, different instances of Allied might/superiority (Midway -> Guadalcanal -> island hopping ) and flawed Japanese strategies (overstretched military etc)

all are great ideas! only other ones i can suggest is the allied air raids on the japanese home front and a-bomb as smaller short term reasons
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: ruponti.atiq on October 18, 2017, 02:20:42 pm
what are some HSC predictions for Russia and the Soviet Union/ Conflict in Indochina ?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 18, 2017, 02:27:37 pm
what are some HSC predictions for Russia and the Soviet Union/ Conflict in Indochina ?
Hey! I mentioned earlier, but of course always take predictions with a pinch heavy hand of salt. All of these are nothing more than guesses, and if Paper 1 and 2 have taught us anything, is that patterns ("last year they didn't have a visual text, that means they'll definitely have one this year!") don't exist.

However, my hunch of Russia, is that you'll get one question of power struggles, and one on soviet foreign policy. The combination has never been done before, and NESA knows that these two topics are the least studied by students who think that there will always be at least a Bolshevik Consolidation or Stalinism question. I didn't study Conflict in Indochina, so unfortunately I'll have just have to leave that for someone else aha.

Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: flashguts321 on October 18, 2017, 02:43:00 pm
Hi sudodds,

I've been studying Russia but am not sure of what to write in the power struggles question? To be honest, I have prepared everything else and wasn't even sure that was a possibility.

I guess I'm just wondering what an example of a power struggles question would be, and some of the main points you should address?

Thanks in advance. Really appreciate all the help :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on October 18, 2017, 02:56:45 pm
hey guys,

i might've asked this question before... but anyway: what are some tips to do well in the personality section? i've never gotten above 20/25 for it and my teacher didn't give specific tips to make it better. i've been told to include more detail, but is there anything else i can do?

thanks!!

also: under the geopolitical movements dot point in detente, how relevant is all the stuff in the middle east? in class, we were given background on it (suez crisis, stuff like that) but how much of the background is relevant? do i just start talking about the middle east from the six-day war in 1967? does that make sense ahahahah i can rephrase if needed
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Primallis on October 18, 2017, 03:01:54 pm
Hello people,

With the Spanish Civil War, I know it falls under the Collapse of Collective Security dot point but could it also be interpreted as a policy of appeasement since Britain and France only provided basic medical relief to the Republicans so too not start a future war with the Fascist powers? AJP Taylor states that the League was already ''dead" by this point so it was basically the policy of appeasement by Britain and France being used to subdue Hitler & Mussolini rather than the league? Just wanted to hear people's thoughts.

Good luck my fellow Modern Students.

Bump - Seemed to have Got Lost In Translation
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: marcusgrahamm on October 18, 2017, 03:02:48 pm
I was doing a few personality questions before and I came across:
Part A) "Outline the background and historical context of your personality"
I'm doing J Edgar Hoover.
I was wondering how you would structure this question?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on October 18, 2017, 03:06:44 pm
I was doing a few personality questions before and I came across:
Part A) "Outline the background and historical context of your personality"
I'm doing J Edgar Hoover.
I was wondering how you would structure this question?


the syllabus points can be used as your paragraphs. :-)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 18, 2017, 03:11:05 pm
Hey Susie :) I can't find much info specifically on the collapse of the hindenburg line other than it broke on september 29, is there battles or something i should be mentioning because I'm just a tad confused on what to write!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 18, 2017, 03:12:57 pm
hey guys,

i might've asked this question before... but anyway: what are some tips to do well in the personality section? i've never gotten above 20/25 for it and my teacher didn't give specific tips to make it better. i've been told to include more detail, but is there anything else i can do?

thanks!!

also: under the geopolitical movements dot point in detente, how relevant is all the stuff in the middle east? in class, we were given background on it (suez crisis, stuff like that) but how much of the background is relevant? do i just start talking about the middle east from the six-day war in 1967? does that make sense ahahahah i can rephrase if needed

i'm not too sure, but the only thing i can think of is just to make sure the 15 marker is argument based and that you are writing it as if a mini essay, evaluating every piece of detail you use and how it supports or conflicts with the set question - all i can think of sorry!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: diesxel on October 18, 2017, 03:28:27 pm
hey guys,

i might've asked this question before... but anyway: what are some tips to do well in the personality section? i've never gotten above 20/25 for it and my teacher didn't give specific tips to make it better. i've been told to include more detail, but is there anything else i can do?

thanks!!

also: under the geopolitical movements dot point in detente, how relevant is all the stuff in the middle east? in class, we were given background on it (suez crisis, stuff like that) but how much of the background is relevant? do i just start talking about the middle east from the six-day war in 1967? does that make sense ahahahah i can rephrase if needed

I'm not sure how helpful this will be, but I did well in the personality section in trials (24/25) so I thought I'd just share what I did. My personality is Trotsky, so for the 10 marker question is pretty much just having succinct notes under each of the first three dotpoints (historical context, background, rise to prominence) which you should be able to translate into paragraphs. And have some details that make you stand out from other student (so do some research)

And for the last dotpoint (significance and evaluation) this is usually the one that gets asked for the 15 marker. This is a more interpretation and analysis based question, and its basically like writing a mini essay. For this, they usually give a quote so I went through the past papers and broke down the questions to figure out how I would answer them and planned out varying responses. You'll usually have to talk about your personality's significance or contribution to their time, or how the events of the time shaped them (or vice versa) or talk about the different historical perspectives of that personality (so for me, that was naive idealist, ruthless authoritarian etc.. this is all  present on the syllabus haha).

so yeah! That's what I did. I don't know if this will help but I hope it does haha. I only know all this from stuff I've picked up from my teacher and reading around atarnotes :) (and reading Susie's responses, she's a legend)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Korrasami on October 18, 2017, 03:35:44 pm
My teacher said that in terms of the battle essay questions (doing Conflict in Europe), knowing the significance is more important than the actual details. Is this true?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: diesxel on October 18, 2017, 03:55:59 pm
My teacher said that in terms of the battle essay questions (doing Conflict in Europe), knowing the significance is more important than the actual details. Is this true?



This is important for being able to answer the question. You'll find that usually the battle questions ask you to assess the significance or contribution of a certain battle (e.g 2016 HSC was North Africa) in the course of the war. It's important to know the details, yes, but you should know the importance in each battle in contributing to the overall conflict. So you should be able to state "this battle was highly significant...or partially significant... etc.". Usually for these questions I say it's partially significant as other battles also played an important role in the course of the war.

Details of battles will help you to support your overall argument of the significance of the battle. Not sure if this helps but just my 2 cents.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 18, 2017, 05:44:36 pm
Hey Susie just a quick question on the personality study :)
If it asks about the contribution of your personality to national and/or international history - is it necessary to specify in each paragraph which you are referring to?
Also, if the 10 marker asks about:
Describe the significant events in the life of the personality you have studied.
OR
Outline the background and rise to prominence of the personality you have
studied.
OR
Describe the life of your personality.
Would you confine the significant events/rise to prominence to just three events? And if it is describe the life do you do a general background overview and again pick three events?
Thanks so much :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: ~BK~ on October 18, 2017, 05:51:25 pm
hey susie...

any tips for the perspective, usefulness, reliability q?!?
what way did you attack it?
i got really bad in it for trials but i really don't know where i fell down too much  :'(
thanks.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 18, 2017, 06:20:16 pm
Hey!! Just wanted to say love how everyone is all banding together and helping each other out - this is genuinely feeling like a little study group!

I know that there are a few unanswered questions/things that people are concerned with. I'll be free after 8pm, so I'll go through and make sure that everything gets answered, but just letting you know that I'll be available all tonight for questions (as tomorrow I have a lot of last minute tutoring sessions booked, so I won't be able to be as frequently active) :)

Good luck everyone!!! Only two more sleeps to go!

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: marcusgrahamm on October 18, 2017, 06:34:59 pm
Hey guys,

I was wondering what your essay plan would be for this question:

"Discuss Hitler's accession to power"
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 18, 2017, 06:54:43 pm
Hey guys,

I was wondering what your essay plan would be for this question:

"Explain Hitler's accession to power"

That's an odd question as it seems to want you to discuss just the political miscalculations from 1930-1933 which saw him gain power (you know Bruning, Schliecher, Papen etc. underestimating him). I would definitely steer clear of that if it came up in the HSC as it seems like that is all you can discuss as it does not say Explain the reasons for Hitler's accession to power. All I can think of atm!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: marcusgrahamm on October 18, 2017, 07:11:21 pm
I completely agree - I feel as if discuss or account may fit the scheme of things better as the directive term.

But after reviewing the past HSC question this dot point hasn't really been tested. Specifically in the avenue of questioning Hitler's accession to power itself. And I'm really struggling to create a strong, formulated structure for an essay :(
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 18, 2017, 07:15:05 pm
I completely agree - I feel as if discuss or account may fit the scheme of things better as the directive term.

But after reviewing the past HSC question this dot point hasn't really been tested. Specifically in the avenue of questioning Hitler's accession to power itself. And I'm really struggling to create a strong, formulated structure for an essay :(

I would just ensure you know the names of those who brought him to power (schliecher, papen, bruning etc.) and quotes such as kershaw's "political miscalculations" and bullock's "jobbed in by backstairs intrigue" and just some dates on how it all happened. if it is a specific question then hopefully the other option is better! it is always a good point to know for hitler's rise to power/reasons for the nazis coming to power etc.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: AnnaC on October 18, 2017, 08:11:48 pm
Hey guys,

I was wondering what your essay plan would be for this question:

"Discuss Hitler's accession to power"

Accounting for Hitler's accession to power wouldn't be that bad! In a way, you'd be using similar examples in accounting for the defeat of the Weimar Republic (whilst making sure that you clearly outline Hitler's inextricable link to the Nazi party's appeal)

A way that I would approach it:
1. Disdain for the Weimar republic and democracy in general (stab-in-the-back myth + November criminals) gave Hitler's party popular support amongst the middle class (Kolb said it was a party which integrated all social strata, esp. in response to events like the Great Depression where they ran soup kitchens, collected food for poor etc.)
2. Nazi ideology seemed attractive in response to the inconsistencies of the ill-supported Weimar gov't (25-point-plan of the NSDAP created roles for all Aryan people in alignment with Volksgemeinschaft + Overy said "Hitler cannot be understood divorced from the society and political culture which made Nazism possible")
3. Conservative elites surrounding Hindenburg had support for a more authoritarian, right-wing gov't (Kershaw: "...devised through the intrigues of influential individuals close to Hindenburg.")
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: herb123 on October 18, 2017, 08:13:15 pm
i personally strongly believe there will be 1 question R.E reasons allied victory japanese collapse which would be perfect seeing you can cover heaps of info. my other inkling is on the impact of japanese occupation on occupied territories

haha any predictions for Germany?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: diesxel on October 18, 2017, 08:15:41 pm
Question!

How would you approach a "shaped by events or events shaped them.." type question to answer for Trotsky? What would be the best events or information to mention to make it a top answer? Thanks so much :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 18, 2017, 08:30:44 pm
I am praying with every bone in my body its detente! I just have this hunch they much defer from the trend of testing section 4 every second year... I'm hoping for totalitarianism in Germany, but I feel like it could honestly be anything...
I personally am expecting a Detente essay (my hunch is Detente and Renewal and End), as a kinda counteract of the Origins and Development (? - still not 100% sure whether that Cuba question was development or detente) questions from last year, but again there is nothing to say that that will definitely happen, just a hunch :)

I wouldn't be surprised if they had a totalitarianism essay for Russia as well!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: bun00 on October 18, 2017, 08:46:41 pm
heyo!
jst wondering if any1s got any tips on how to structure an essay for conflict in the pacific for life of civillians under japanese occupation?
or should it just be split into social, economic and political? seems a bit boring :-\
or otherwise: collaboration, resistance and the use of slave labour.....sorry i really am not sure!
wld be v grateful for any advice :D
tks hps ppl and ATBBBBB!!!!!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 18, 2017, 08:50:26 pm
Hi sudodds,

I've been studying Russia but am not sure of what to write in the power struggles question? To be honest, I have prepared everything else and wasn't even sure that was a possibility.

I guess I'm just wondering what an example of a power struggles question would be, and some of the main points you should address?

Thanks in advance. Really appreciate all the help :)
Hey! So a power struggles essay is derived from the second section of the syllabus --> Rise of Stalin. Essentially it is just the power struggle between Trotsky and Stalin (UNLESS the dates specified are broader than 1924 - 1928 --> then you might need to mention some of the smaller power struggles of Bolshevik Consolidation dot point and Stalinism dot point).

Examples of these types of questions could be;
- Account for the rise of Stalin
- Assess the significant of ideology to the leadership conflict to 1928
- To what extent was personality the critical factor in the leadership conflict to 1928 etc. etc. :)

With that, I'd probably structure my essay according to FACTORS rather than themes, the factors being;
- Social changes
- Ideology
- Personality
- Political tactics (Troika and Ban of Factionalism)

Within each paragraph, what you need to look at is how Trotsky failed, and Stalin succeeded! So for example, with Ideology, you can say that Trotsky's ideology of Permanent Revolution failed because it did not appeal to the present conditions of society (war weary), whereas Stalin's ideology of Socialism-in-one-country did!

Hope this helps! Let me know if you're still struggling with anything/don't know what to write for certain paragraphs :)

Susie
 
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 18, 2017, 08:59:24 pm
hey guys,

i might've asked this question before... but anyway: what are some tips to do well in the personality section? i've never gotten above 20/25 for it and my teacher didn't give specific tips to make it better. i've been told to include more detail, but is there anything else i can do?

thanks!!

also: under the geopolitical movements dot point in detente, how relevant is all the stuff in the middle east? in class, we were given background on it (suez crisis, stuff like that) but how much of the background is relevant? do i just start talking about the middle east from the six-day war in 1967? does that make sense ahahahah i can rephrase if needed
Hey!
For part A, my biggest tip is DETAIL, but detail that speaks for itself :) Kinda like "show don't tell" if that makes sense (losely). For example, with Trotsky, rather than saying "At university, Trotsky became involved with many revolutionary groups", say "at Nikolayev university, Trotsky became involved with a Narodnik group known as the Orchard Commune". See how the second sentence was more detailed, however I didn't have any extra explanation?

For part B, it's about links in my opinion - so creating a strong thesis than is continually referenced throughout your essay. But on top of that, as Part B is often very focused on debate, don't feel like you have to ignore one side so as to stay "on argument". Now, yes, you do want to be careful about not going overboard and splitting your judgement, however one of the best ways to prove that you are correct, is to prove that the other side is incorrect! So tear apart the opposition for maximum impact ;)

I normally did an entire paragraph on the Middle East, so i'd definitely say it is quite important! It really emphasises how neither side was actually that committed to detente, as the continued to proliferate the cold war through proxy conflict (USSR --> Egypt, US --> Israel), this culminates with the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan which official topples Detente!

Hope this helps!

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 18, 2017, 09:03:01 pm
I was doing a few personality questions before and I came across:
Part A) "Outline the background and historical context of your personality"
I'm doing J Edgar Hoover.
I was wondering how you would structure this question?
Hey! Though I didn't study Hoover, with a question like this I would recommend an almost narrative, chronological structure. The important thing is to make sure that you hit every syllabus dot point under those headings (Background and Historical Context are both syllabus headings!). So for Hoover, that means you need to make sure that you touch on all of these;

1    Historical context
–    the period of the USA’s emergence as a world power
–    growth of social conservatism and anti-communism
–    the Prohibition era
–    the Great Depression

2    Background
–    family background and education
–    entry into the civil service as a clerk in the Library of Congress
–    law degree 1916; appointment as an intelligence clerk in the Department of Justice 1917

Don't feel like you have to deal with these in order of how they appear in the syllabus, you can be flexible and talk about them in any order (preferably chronological) that you see fit - you just need to make sure that you mention everything!

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 18, 2017, 09:12:14 pm
Hey Susie :) I can't find much info specifically on the collapse of the hindenburg line other than it broke on september 29, is there battles or something i should be mentioning because I'm just a tad confused on what to write!
Hey! In terms of the Collapse of the Hindenburg Line, we didn't really focus on battles per say, more on the way that it fell. So the reason that the supposedly "impenetrable" fortress fell was that it was just one long, "straight" (yes on a map it's not straight", but it wasn't purposely designed in a zigzag pattern like the trenches" line, with not reinforcements behind it, which meant once a hole was broken through - that was it. So basically when Allied forces (including Australians led by General Monash!) broke through, that was the final straw, like they couldn't go back from that, and Ludendorff and Hindenburg demand an armistice!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 18, 2017, 09:16:01 pm
My teacher said that in terms of the battle essay questions (doing Conflict in Europe), knowing the significance is more important than the actual details. Is this true?
Hey! So I didn't do Conflict in Europe, but significance is always going to be the most critical aspect of your study, as that is what you will be analysing! HOWEVER that being said, detail is still super important - that is how you make your essay stand out. A band 6 response will always be highly detailed, but also clearly demonstrate and evaluate significance :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 18, 2017, 09:22:28 pm
Hey Susie just a quick question on the personality study :)
If it asks about the contribution of your personality to national and/or international history - is it necessary to specify in each paragraph which you are referring to?
You mean the national/international part? Like it can't hurt, but I think for the most part it's implicit. What I would make sure that you do though is say in your judgement "national and international history" :)

Also, if the 10 marker asks about:
Describe the significant events in the life of the personality you have studied.
OR
Outline the background and rise to prominence of the personality you have
studied.
OR
Describe the life of your personality.
Would you confine the significant events/rise to prominence to just three events? And if it is describe the life do you do a general background overview and again pick three events?
Thanks so much :)
If you got the first question, yes I would just do three events, but I may mention or connect other events too them :) Just three events in detail however :). For the second question, you could do it that way, but you need to make sure that you are hitting all the dot points under 'background and rise to prominence' as they are syllabus dot points!

So for Speer, that is:
2    Background
– family background and education
– introduction to Nazism and his reasons for joining the Nazi party

3    Rise to prominence
– early work for the Nazi party
– appointment as ‘First Architect of the Reich’
– the ‘Germania’ project and the new Reich Chancellery
– work as Armaments Minister

So you need to touch on all of those in order to correctly answer the second question :)

For describe the life, as that is more broad, i'd probably try and write a bit more of a succinct narrative, going through everything, but still with a lot of detail, as detail is essentially what you are being marked on in part A, as there is not need to be analytical!

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 18, 2017, 09:25:29 pm
hey susie...

any tips for the perspective, usefulness, reliability q?!?
what way did you attack it?
i got really bad in it for trials but i really don't know where i fell down too much  :'(
thanks.
Hey! I actually go through exactly how to tackle this in one of the video lectures I made :) You can find them here --> it's the first video that goes through this, along with some other tips for tackling section 1 of the exam! The other two videos go over essay writing, and the personality study!

Hope they are useful!

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 18, 2017, 09:33:05 pm
You mean the national/international part? Like it can't hurt, but I think for the most part it's implicit. What I would make sure that you do though is say in your judgement "national and international history" :)
If you got the first question, yes I would just do three events, but I may mention or connect other events too them :) Just three events in detail however :). For the second question, you could do it that way, but you need to make sure that you are hitting all the dot points under 'background and rise to prominence' as they are syllabus dot points!

So for Speer, that is:
2    Background
– family background and education
– introduction to Nazism and his reasons for joining the Nazi party

3    Rise to prominence
– early work for the Nazi party
– appointment as ‘First Architect of the Reich’
– the ‘Germania’ project and the new Reich Chancellery
– work as Armaments Minister

So you need to touch on all of those in order to correctly answer the second question :)

For describe the life, as that is more broad, i'd probably try and write a bit more of a succinct narrative, going through everything, but still with a lot of detail, as detail is essentially what you are being marked on in part A, as there is not need to be analytical!

Susie

Thanks so much Susie, absolute legend for doing this!! :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 18, 2017, 09:42:23 pm
Question!

How would you approach a "shaped by events or events shaped them.." type question to answer for Trotsky? What would be the best events or information to mention to make it a top answer? Thanks so much :)
Hey! I'd suggest these events:

- 1905 Rev and exile (in particular his exile), looking at his writings in exile (Results and Prospects), where he espoused his theory of Permanent Revolution which greatly shaped his time as it became the dominant ideology of the Bolshevik party.

- 1917 Rev, looking at how he changed the date so that it coincided with the All Russian Congress of Soviets, and his leadership during the storming of the Winter Palace

- Power Struggles and later exile, looking at how his inactivity shaped the event as it allowed for Stalin to take over, and how he utilised his time in later exile to build up international significance, becoming an intellectual authority of Stalinism and Fascism, and just in general being a prominent international political figure :)

Hope this helps!

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: flashguts321 on October 18, 2017, 09:53:28 pm
Hey! So a power struggles essay is derived from the second section of the syllabus --> Rise of Stalin. Essentially it is just the power struggle between Trotsky and Stalin (UNLESS the dates specified are broader than 1924 - 1928 --> then you might need to mention some of the smaller power struggles of Bolshevik Consolidation dot point and Stalinism dot point).

Examples of these types of questions could be;
- Account for the rise of Stalin
- Assess the significant of ideology to the leadership conflict to 1928
- To what extent was personality the critical factor in the leadership conflict to 1928 etc. etc. :)

With that, I'd probably structure my essay according to FACTORS rather than themes, the factors being;
- Social changes
- Ideology
- Personality
- Political tactics (Troika and Ban of Factionalism)

Within each paragraph, what you need to look at is how Trotsky failed, and Stalin succeeded! So for example, with Ideology, you can say that Trotsky's ideology of Permanent Revolution failed because it did not appeal to the present conditions of society (war weary), whereas Stalin's ideology of Socialism-in-one-country did!

Hope this helps! Let me know if you're still struggling with anything/don't know what to write for certain paragraphs :)

Susie
 

Thanks so much for the help!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 18, 2017, 10:07:23 pm
Hey Susie I just had a question about the 2006 HSC WW1 Paper Source Analysis Question Three :)
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxpbnRlcmFjdGl2ZXd3MXxneDoxYTFjZWM0YjViOWJkNjhh
In regards to Source C, I want to argue that it is only moderately useful as while it does contain relevant and useful ideas for historians about the impact of total war on the German home front eg. starvation, excessive need for industrial/raw materials and the need for women to enter employment, I feel like the source is limited in its usefulness as it is descriptive and does not include any real evidence as to support a historian's view. Do you think this is justified to say and also should I mention some of the stats I know that the source could be made more useful with or does this go away from the purpose of source analysis. Also, do you think there is any impact that the perspective is from a former American ambassador? It's probably similar for Source D in that while useful in the impact of total war on rationing, u-boats etc.. it doesn't provide solid facts. Your opinion on this would be so good because this is always an issue I come across with sources. Thank you! :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 18, 2017, 10:11:06 pm
Hey Susie I just had a question about the 2006 HSC WW1 Paper Source Analysis Question Three :)
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxpbnRlcmFjdGl2ZXd3MXxneDoxYTFjZWM0YjViOWJkNjhh
In regards to Source C, I want to argue that it is only moderately useful as while it does contain relevant and useful ideas for historians about the impact of total war on the German home front eg. starvation, excessive need for industrial/raw materials and the need for women to enter employment, I feel like the source is limited in its usefulness as it is descriptive and does not include any real evidence as to support a historian's view. Do you think this is justified to say and also should I mention some of the stats I know that the source could be made more useful with or does this go away from the purpose of source analysis. Also, do you think there is any impact that the perspective is from a former American ambassador? It's probably similar for Source D in that while useful in the impact of total war on rationing, u-boats etc.. it doesn't provide solid facts. Your opinion on this would be so good because this is always an issue I come across with sources. Thank you! :)
Hey! I think that is perfectly fine to argue :) And definitely mention the stats! It's not straying away from the question, as you are directly linking the lack of these stats to usefulness + it is a great way to incorporate your own detail/knowledge!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 18, 2017, 10:13:46 pm
Hey! I think that is perfectly fine to argue :) And definitely mention the stats! It's not straying away from the question, as you are directly linking the lack of these stats to usefulness + it is a great way to incorporate your own detail/knowledge!

Ahh okay, thank you for clarifying! :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 18, 2017, 10:21:54 pm
Sorry Susie just one quick question about that paper  :P Is the woman in the propaganda poster dressed in a nurse/factory uniform or something similar so I can also comment on total war and the role of women on the home front? Thanks haha trying to be as perceptive as i can be :)

Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 18, 2017, 11:18:38 pm
Sorry Susie just one quick question about that paper  :P Is the woman in the propaganda poster dressed in a nurse/factory uniform or something similar so I can also comment on total war and the role of women on the home front? Thanks haha trying to be as perceptive as i can be :)
I think that'd be leaning more towards an assumption if I'm being honest :/ However if its for a 5-8 marker you can still bring that stuff in, even if it doesn't 100% relate to the source, as those questions just require integration of the source - you don't have to base your whole response on it.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: diesxel on October 18, 2017, 11:19:48 pm
Hey! The way that I structured this essay was thematically :) So I looked at how their diplomatic, economic, strategic/militaristic, and social foreign policies contributed to one of their aims/the detriment of the other. That's not the only structure that works, but it worked for me :) I'd avoid doing the "aim 1", "aim 2" structure, just because you are running the risk of sitting on the fence. If you do want to do this structure however, just make sure that you have an thesis that still runs throughout both aims. So if your thesis is that overall international revolution was sacrificed for domestic stability, then that needs to be demonstrated within all your paragraphs.

Hope this makes sense!

Susie

I know this is a super old response but I was hoping that you could expand on what you mean by diplomatic, social and militaristic/strategic foreign policies in some detail because I was a bit confused on how to talk about them and which treaties etc. to place under each. Sorry about that!!! I'm just so worried for this question because its so likely to come in the exam :(
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: yarie on October 19, 2017, 12:58:43 am
Hi, I have a question regarding question a) of the personality section. If it asks for the background of the personality, are we doing their background before they became prominent (e.g. upbringing, education, formation of political ideas) or just a summary of everything they did in their lives (like a background of their life). I do Leon Trotsky for reference.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: diesxel on October 19, 2017, 01:08:04 am
Also for an end of conflict question how would you structure a question asking about the significance of d-day and the liberation of france in ending the conflict?


Any help or answers appreciated!!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: liya1234 on October 19, 2017, 07:04:48 am
Hi, I have a question regarding question a) of the personality section. If it asks for the background of the personality, are we doing their background before they became prominent (e.g. upbringing, education, formation of political ideas) or just a summary of everything they did in their lives (like a background of their life). I do Leon Trotsky for reference.

I'm pretty sure that it's just everything that is under the 'background' section of the syllabus. For Trotsky this would be 'family background and education' and 'development of political ideals', so yea, just the stuff before he became prominent
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Primallis on October 19, 2017, 07:31:45 am
Hello people,

For the WWI Core Section analysing the historian's usefulness, reliability & perspective, is it fine to say it is only somewhat/moderately useful or reliable? For example, if there is an underlying political agenda or subjectivity that threatens the reliability but not to the extent it's highly unreliable? OR is it wise to just directly go one side or the other for a specific source and really drive home why it's highly unreliable, e.g source origin, underlying political agenda, was it edited, omissions etc.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Diala on October 19, 2017, 09:29:44 am
For the personality section I'm doing Albert Speer, do you think we're allowed to quote Brad Kelly? My teacher said that we can, but I've also heard that since he's written a book we can't quote him? I'm not sure!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: liya1234 on October 19, 2017, 09:46:54 am
Just another question: What exactly should we include in the Events Leading to the Armistice dot point. I didn't realise it existed until quite recently so I don't have much info in it - does it only refer to the more short term events or can we include more long term factors as well? Thanks!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: rodero on October 19, 2017, 10:05:57 am
Just another question: What exactly should we include in the Events Leading to the Armistice dot point. I didn't realise it existed until quite recently so I don't have much info in it - does it only refer to the more short term events or can we include more long term factors as well? Thanks!

My notes here mainly just talk about the Allied Counter-offensive and how they pushed back the German's after the failure of the Spring Offensive. My three main points here are the Battle of Hamel, Battle of Amiens and the capture of the Hindenburg line.

Essentially, in Hamel General Monash employed vastly superior technology in order to surprise the German army. They use highly accurate artillery barrage, so that they could target the German trenches instantaneously, rather than shooting several times before finding the right location. The battle was 93 minutes long and resulted in an Allied victory

The Battle of Amien's is a more significant one. This is where the Allies pushed the German's back, so all the land they gained in the Spring Offensive was lost (and more). Lundendorff calls this the "black day" of the German army and called for a surrender. There were 12,000 German surrenders and over a million desertions

Finally the capture of the Hindenburg line. This was supposed to be the final line of defence for the German army; an impenetrable line with a vast array of mechanisms such as barbed wire. However, the Allies acquired a layout of the trench so were able to prepare a strategy of attack. As well, the trench layout was linear (rather than in a zig zag pattern), so that favoured the Allies significantly. Once this line was broken, Ludendorff resigned and the kaiser abdicated. A revolution breaks out in Germany and power is shifted to a new democratic republic. An armistice was then signed on November 11 1918
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on October 19, 2017, 10:18:57 am
Hi, I have a question regarding question a) of the personality section. If it asks for the background of the personality, are we doing their background before they became prominent (e.g. upbringing, education, formation of political ideas) or just a summary of everything they did in their lives (like a background of their life). I do Leon Trotsky for reference.

Hey, welcome to the forums! If it asks for background, just do background. If you write about rise to prominence, you're not going to get marked down (I don't think?) but what you write about there will be disregarded.

For the personality section I'm doing Albert Speer, do you think we're allowed to quote Brad Kelly? My teacher said that we can, but I've also heard that since he's written a book we can't quote him? I'm not sure!

Hi!

I don't do Speer, so take what I'm about to say with a grain of salt hahaha. Is this person you're referring to an author of a textbook, or a historical resource (like academic history)? If it's a textbook, I'll say no, but if it's academic I don't think it would matter. At the end of the day, people do make up historians (not suggested unless you don't know anything!!!) and they still do pretty decent.

Hope this helps - best of luck for tomorrow and the rest of the hsc,
Fantasticbeasts
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: liya1234 on October 19, 2017, 10:42:12 am
My notes here mainly just talk about the Allied Counter-offensive and how they pushed back the German's after the failure of the Spring Offensive. My three main points here are the Battle of Hamel, Battle of Amiens and the capture of the Hindenburg line.

Essentially, in Hamel General Monash employed vastly superior technology in order to surprise the German army. They use highly accurate artillery barrage, so that they could target the German trenches instantaneously, rather than shooting several times before finding the right location. The battle was 93 minutes long and resulted in an Allied victory

The Battle of Amien's is a more significant one. This is where the Allies pushed the German's back, so all the land they gained in the Spring Offensive was lost (and more). Lundendorff calls this the "black day" of the German army and called for a surrender. There were 12,000 German surrenders and over a million desertions

Finally the capture of the Hindenburg line. This was supposed to be the final line of defence for the German army; an impenetrable line with a vast array of mechanisms such as barbed wire. However, the Allies acquired a layout of the trench so were able to prepare a strategy of attack. As well, the trench layout was linear (rather than in a zig zag pattern), so that favoured the Allies significantly. Once this line was broken, Ludendorff resigned and the kaiser abdicated. A revolution breaks out in Germany and power is shifted to a new democratic republic. An armistice was then signed on November 11 1918

Wow this is so helpful thank you so much!!!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: ~BK~ on October 19, 2017, 10:59:58 am
heyyy...
i do conflict in the pacific and i was just wondering how would you structure the question:
to what extent did the use of the a-bomb bring about the end of conflict?
thanks and atvb in the exam TOMORROW!!! :o
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: HamBurr17 on October 19, 2017, 11:06:33 am
Hello people,

For the WWI Core Section analysing the historian's usefulness, reliability & perspective, is it fine to say it is only somewhat/moderately useful or reliable? For example, if there is an underlying political agenda or subjectivity that threatens the reliability but not to the extent it's highly unreliable? OR is it wise to just directly go one side or the other for a specific source and really drive home why it's highly unreliable, e.g source origin, underlying political agenda, was it edited, omissions etc.

That's fine to somewhat/moderately - I usually go for "partially".

Just explain why in terms of the question. So for a historian studying the British strategies, an excerpt by Haig would be very reliable as a solid primary perspective - it comes from the commander himself. However, since it is from him, there may be bias/underlying ideology/subjectivity etc. such as the language he uses.
(For example, if he were to say "oh yes, everything is fine, nothing to see here" :P)
Then it is partially reliable for the historian, and thus only somewhat/moderately useful - make sure your drill in why

Hope this helps :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: HamBurr17 on October 19, 2017, 11:14:04 am
Does anyone know how they would approach a Nazism as totalitarianism question?

Thanks :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: damecj on October 19, 2017, 11:33:45 am
Does anyone have a cheeky Germany or Conflict in Europe prediction? 
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 19, 2017, 11:33:54 am
heyyy...
i do conflict in the pacific and i was just wondering how would you structure the question:
to what extent did the use of the a-bomb bring about the end of conflict?
thanks and atvb in the exam TOMORROW!!! :o

id argue to a moderate extent
structure wise 1 para on the a bomb and how it basically fucked japans already crippled economy and low morale
then 4 or so paras discussing how long-term issues led to the end of conflict eg.
1 japans overextended territory
2 japans lack of industrial might
3 success of allied strategies eg. island hopping and turning points
4 air raids/bombings on home front
good luck
:)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 19, 2017, 11:36:13 am
Does anyone know how they would approach a Nazism as totalitarianism question?

Thanks :)

heres my intro to this question :) it'll give you an idea of how to structure it and what ideas to discuss
In order to qualify as a totalitarian state, Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Party must not only have ensured it was the only party that controlled Germany. Rather, according to the definition of a totalitarian state put forward by political scientists Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1956, an official ideology, single mass party, control over mass communications and a systematic regime of terror and police control was necessary. Therefore, although the Nazi party was able to achieve a considerable amount of control through propaganda, it ultimately does not qualify as a total totalitarian state as it lacked a clearly defined ideology and organised government, did not crush all its opposition and was not a completely systematic state of terror.

Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: HamBurr17 on October 19, 2017, 11:45:49 am
heres my intro to this question :) it'll give you an idea of how to structure it and what ideas to discuss
In order to qualify as a totalitarian state, Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Party must not only have ensured it was the only party that controlled Germany. Rather, according to the definition of a totalitarian state put forward by political scientists Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1956, an official ideology, single mass party, control over mass communications and a systematic regime of terror and police control was necessary. Therefore, although the Nazi party was able to achieve a considerable amount of control through propaganda, it ultimately does not qualify as a total totalitarian state as it lacked a clearly defined ideology and organised government, did not crush all its opposition and was not a completely systematic state of terror.



Awesome, thank you! That really gave me an idea of where to go! I've constantly dodged this question and knowing my luck it'll be in tomorrow, so I'd better figure it out  :P
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: oscargee13 on October 19, 2017, 01:21:25 pm
Hi,

Does anyone know if you are definitely not allowed extra writing booklets for the 10 marker in the source section? I have heard people say no extra writing space is allowed for this section but cant find an official ruling anywhere.

Thanks
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: emilybrooks99 on October 19, 2017, 01:23:53 pm
Has anyone got any predictions for the essays (Germany, Conflict in Europe and the Personality Study)
Thanks!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: marcusgrahamm on October 19, 2017, 02:05:32 pm
Hey guys how would you attack this question:

"To what extent did the geopolitical developments (Vietnam, Snio-Soviet Split & Middle East) lead to the Detente policy?

I know that you would structure it off those three conflicts - but I'm more curious as to the points you would make to say either why they were or weren't responsible.

Thanks :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 19, 2017, 02:11:57 pm
I know this is a super old response but I was hoping that you could expand on what you mean by diplomatic, social and militaristic/strategic foreign policies in some detail because I was a bit confused on how to talk about them and which treaties etc. to place under each. Sorry about that!!! I'm just so worried for this question because its so likely to come in the exam :(
Hey no worries! if I were to explain it i'd probably just end up writing out my essay again, so quicker and easier to just link you my essay (which is of course more detailed as well!) :)

Spoiler
How successful was Soviet foreign policy in achieving its aims from 1917 to 1941?

The incompatibility of the key aims of Soviet foreign policy – domestic stability and international revolution – greatly limited its accomplishments, as the promotion of one aim effectively reduced the opportunity for the other, and thus it is clear that Soviet foreign policy was only partially successful in achieving its aims from 1917 to 1941. Though the aims and purposes of Soviet foreign policy fluctuated depending upon the current leadership of the Bolsheviks Party and the changing domestic and international tensions, it is evident that the goals of domestic socio-political stability and a worldwide socialist revolution remained significant, thus projecting the Soviet Union into an internal conflict between pragmatism and ideological adherence. Though initially the principle aim appeared to be the promotion of a global socialist revolution, as dictated by the Bolshevik ideological position of Permanent Revolution, it is clear through the increasing implementation of self-preservationist policies throughout the period that the Bolsheviks aim of survival outweighed their desire to spread socialism. This is evident through the various militaristic/strategic, economic, diplomatic and socio-cultural factors that impacted or were impacted by soviet foreign policy between 1917 to 1941, which dictated its success.

It is evident through the the militaristic and strategic foreign policies implemented from 1917 to 1941 that the aims of the Soviet Union had shifted towards the consolidation and preservation of the Bolshevik state rather than the expansion of their ideology, thus it is clear through being forced to forgo certain key aims that soviet foreign policy was only partially successful. Despite Permanent Revolution, the official party policy of the Bolsheviks requiring an international revolution in order to succeed, the primary concerns after the 1917 Revolution was the consolidation of their power within Russia. The political climate was still largely unstable, therefore the Bolsheviks had to immediately return upon their promises of “Peace. Bread. Land,” in order to consolidate their power, the peace component of which had a significant impact upon soviet foreign policy through the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, as it ensured their exit from the increasingly unpopular international conflict World War I. The signing of the Treaty demonstrates the shift in strategic foreign policy focus from ideological adherence to pragmatism, as it signified the abandonment of the Permanent Revolution principles and their aim of an international socialist revolution in order to achieve domestic stability and the survival of the Bolshevik state. This shift was further demonstrated through the Soviets contradictory (in regards to their ideology) support of the leftist parties within the Spanish Civil War in order to prevent a socialist revolution within Spain, aiding the Republicans with materials, arms and over 2000 Russian citizens as soldiers due to their fears that increased instability would enable the rise and spread of German fascism within the region, which would pose a significant domestic security threat. Along with this, the Soviets under Stalin endeavoured to maintain an alliance with the Nationalists in China, due to his belief that the Chinese Communists were too few to achieve anything, which further demonstrates the Bolshevik governments willingness to forgo ideology in favour of more pragmatic foreign policy. Therefore, through the various strategic and militaristic foreign policies implemented by the Bolshevik Party, it is clear that though successful in regards to the preservation of the Bolshevik state, soviet foreign policy was unsuccessful in instigating an international revolution, and therefore was only partially successful in achieving its aims from 1917 to 1941.

It is evident through the economic and diplomatic foreign policies implemented by the Bolsheviks Party between 1917 and 1941 that the Soviet leaders main concern was the survival of the Bolshevik state rather than the spread of socialism, and thus attempted through economic means to reduce hostilities and tensions between themselves and their capitalist neighbours. Despite the Soviets aims and predictions of a world revolution, this did not occur, and thus the Bolshevik Government, which had been, during the time, producing highly critical assessments upon the opposing ideology of capitalism both through policy and the media now found themselves surrounded by capitalist neighbours, Lynch stating “The Soviet Union’s often antagonistic behaviour towards the capitalist countries frequently produced counter blasts … [meaning] that international tension never wholly slackened”. This is evident through the continued poor relations between Russia and post-war Germany, which banned the Communist Party in 1919, and the assessments from other nations leaders, such as British Prime Minister Winston Churchill who described communism as “not a policy, it is a disease.” Thus in order to reduce tension and hostilities amongst their capitalist neighbours, the Bolshevik government entered into various Trade agreements during the 1920s that ensured the peaceful co-existence of the two opposing ideologies. A number of capitalist countries entered into these trade agreements with the USSR, such as Italy, Germany and Britain (The Anglo-Soviet Trade Agreement).
Along with this, Russia became involved within various international diplomatic organisations and agreements, evident through there admittance into the League of Nations in 1934, and the Rapallo Treaty, which was highly significant in reducing the tensions between the Soviets and Germany, as it signified the relinquishing of territorial and financial claims against each other, thus easing the pressures of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, with the aim to “co-operate in a spirit of goodwill in meeting the economic needs of both countries.” Though this increased cooperation with Germany had a positive impact upon the security and consolidation of the Bolshevik state, a destabilised Germany was far more likely to fall to a socialist revolution, and thus it is evident that the Bolsheviks prioritized self-preservation over the aim of worldwide revolution. Therefore, through the various economic and diplomatic foreign policies implemented by the Bolshevik party, it is clear that though successful in regards to the preservation of the Bolshevik state through the reduction of hostilities and tensions, soviet foreign policy was unsuccessful in instigating an international revolution, and therefore was only partially successful in achieving its aims from 1917 to 1941. The aim to survive through a reduction in tensions within the capitalist neighbour was further demonstrated through their implementation of diplomatic foreign policy.

Through the failures of various revolutionary socio-cultural foreign policies implemented by the Bolshevik party between 1917 and 1941, it is evident that soviet foreign policy was ineffective in achieving an international revolution, and thus, despite it’s self-preservationist success, was only partially successful in achieving its aims from 1917 to 1941. Early forms of soviet foreign policy, particularly under the leadership of Lenin, greatly focused upon the ideologically based aim of promoting an international socialist revolution. This is evident through the 1919 creation of the Communist International (also known as the Comintern), which had the revolutionary task of promoting and co-ordinating the communist parties of the world in an effort to advocate a global communist system. This is evident through their aim to “overthrow … the international bourgeoisie and for the creation of an international Soviet republic,” and the formation of the United Front, whereby communists propose to fight alongside non-communist workers in a “common struggle to defend … the working class against the bourgeoisie.” However, after a failed attempt to start a world revolution through the Polish invasion of Russia, the Comintern realised that peaceful coexistence with Europe was the only option, with Lynch stating that “between 1918 and 1920 … the Comintern was concerned sole with safeguarding the interests of Soviet Russia.” This preoccupation with the interests of Russia was continued under the soviet foreign policy actions of Stalin, with Lynch stating that “he set himself the primary task of defending his country’s interests in a hostile world,” and thus ordered the Comintern to cease appeals for global revolution due to the fact that after joining the League of Nations in 1934 Russia now had non-communist allies, and that no communist-inspired revolts had actually succeeded anywhere in the world at that time. Therefore, through the various attempts and failures to instigate effective revolutionary socio-cultural foreign policies, it is evident that soviet foreign policy, despite it’s self-preservationist success, was only partially successful in achieving its aims from 1917 to 1941.

Therefore, it is evident through the various socio-cultural, diplomatic, economic and militaristic/strategic factors that soviet foreign policy was successful in ensuring the survival of the Bolshevik state, however at the expense of their other principle aim – the promotion of an international socialist revolution. Thus, it is evident that soviet foreign policy was only partially successful in achieving its aims from 1917 to 1941, as the incompatibility between their pragmatic aim of stability and ideological aim of international revolution meant that they could only focus upon one aspect of their aims while forgoing the other. 

Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 19, 2017, 02:14:43 pm
Hi, I have a question regarding question a) of the personality section. If it asks for the background of the personality, are we doing their background before they became prominent (e.g. upbringing, education, formation of political ideas) or just a summary of everything they did in their lives (like a background of their life). I do Leon Trotsky for reference.
Hey! I think someone may have answered this already, but its kinda difficult to tell with so many questions floating around, so I'll just answer anyway :) If you got this question, as it is a syllabus dot section, you need to mention everything that features under that dot point. For Trotsky, that is family background, education, and early political activity/development of his political ideals!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: _____ on October 19, 2017, 02:18:45 pm
What would be a good way to structure the 2016 Russia/USSR essay question a?

Assess the significance of differing visions for the USSR in the leadership conflict between 1924 and 1929.

I went for:

Intro: little importance
P1: Triumvirate worked to undermine Trotsky rather than promote their own cause. Careful politicking succeeded in this (Lenin's funeral for example, then painting Trotsky as anti-Lenin).
P2: However Party elite thought Trotsky would establish a military dictatorship, so the statement has some merit. On the other hand Zinoviev/Kamenev switched to Trotsky's side and then recanted on their "mistakes" to Stalin so ideology wasn't too important for them.
P3: Stalin didn't care about ideology, mention his backflips. No defined vision until 1928, instead he exploited others' positions to undermine them.

What am I missing here?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 19, 2017, 02:21:18 pm
Hello people,

For the WWI Core Section analysing the historian's usefulness, reliability & perspective, is it fine to say it is only somewhat/moderately useful or reliable? For example, if there is an underlying political agenda or subjectivity that threatens the reliability but not to the extent it's highly unreliable? OR is it wise to just directly go one side or the other for a specific source and really drive home why it's highly unreliable, e.g source origin, underlying political agenda, was it edited, omissions etc.
Don't say "somewhat", as apparently the markers aren't too keen on that word (from my teacher, who regularly marks HSC). It's too wishy-washy apparently. "Moderately" and "Partially" however work well! Remember that you will NEVER ever ever ever be given a useless or unreliable source, because that doesn't actually address the question ("how useful" not "whether or not it is useful", thus as there is an assumed degree of usefulness, they will always be useful/reliable to some degree. It'd also be pretty pointless to give you a source that was completely useless, as then what would you talk about?), but yes that can sometimes be partial.

Remember that you can split reliability into two streams: "factual reliability", and "reliability as evidence". Even if a source is not factually accurate (ie. a propaganda poster), it may still be a reliable indicator of attitudes at the time, or the fact that there was an attempt to persuade this perspective etc. etc.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 19, 2017, 02:22:27 pm
For the personality section I'm doing Albert Speer, do you think we're allowed to quote Brad Kelly? My teacher said that we can, but I've also heard that since he's written a book we can't quote him? I'm not sure!
If he is a textbook writer then NO. If he is a historian then YES :) (if he is both, I'd stick to NO, just as you don't want the marker to think that you're using a textbook)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: diesxel on October 19, 2017, 02:26:56 pm
Has anyone got any predictions for the essays (Germany, Conflict in Europe and the Personality Study)
Thanks!

Conflict in europe I think will be racial policy and d-day in end of conflict. For the first two dotpoints of the module, if they ask cause of the war it should be LON/failure of collective security and for course of the war it would be Stalingrad/barbarossa, according to careful analysis of past papers haha. But that's just what I think!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 19, 2017, 02:28:20 pm
Does anyone know how they would approach a Nazism as totalitarianism question?

Thanks :)
Hey! Look I didn't do Germany, however for a Stalinism as totalitarianism question, i structured my essay according to the characteristics of a totalitarian society, and as these characteristics were literally devised to explain Nazi Germany, I'm sure they'd work for you too! So the essay may look something like this :)

Introduction

Paragraph 1 - Single Mass Party with a Charismatic Dictator (so yes, that features in Nazi Germany re. Nazi Party and Adolf Hitler)
Paragraph 2 - Single, all-encompassing ideology, with utopian promises (features in Nazi Germany though Nazism, Lebensraum, etc. and the idea of an "Aryan" future. You can definitely mention Hitler Youth here as well.)
Paragraph 3 -Total control over the communications/media, armed forces, and the economy (yeah that happened aha - you can mention propaganda here too)
Paragraph 4 -  Use of force/system of terror/secret police (Gestapo - can also mention the use of concentration camps)

Hope this helps! Sorry I couldn't be more detailed aha since I didn't study this topic!

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Korrasami on October 19, 2017, 02:29:03 pm
Any source analysis predictions guys???
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 19, 2017, 02:30:41 pm
Hi,

Does anyone know if you are definitely not allowed extra writing booklets for the 10 marker in the source section? I have heard people say no extra writing space is allowed for this section but cant find an official ruling anywhere.

Thanks
100% you can ask for extra writing booklets for a source analysis - I did last year! Just make sure that you don't go overboard though - you don't need a WHOLE writing booklet, if you are writing more than maybe half a page on an extra writing booklet then you're probably doing too much.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 19, 2017, 02:39:35 pm
Hey guys how would you attack this question:

"To what extent did the geopolitical developments (Vietnam, Snio-Soviet Split & Middle East) lead to the Detente policy?

I know that you would structure it off those three conflicts - but I'm more curious as to the points you would make to say either why they were or weren't responsible.

Thanks :)

Hmm is that a question you made up? Or one is that a past question from somewhere? If the latter, that's a very strange question, as only one of those actually lead to Detente (Vietnam War), the others happened during Detente (the Middle East literally happens near the end). If this was an actual question, let me know and I'll try and come up with a response, but for now, i'm going to twist that to a question that I think is more likely:

"To what extent did the geopolitical developments contribute to the success or failure of Detente"

With that one, you can argue that they all helped to contribute to it's failure.

Vietnam --> exiting Vietnam, though essential, was demoralising for the United States, and helped to further spread this resentment towards the policy of Detente (that is exacerbated by the later Reagan administration).

Sino-Soviet Split --> demonstrated the fragility/facetiousness of the attempts by America and the USSR to work diplomatically and reduce tensions, as the US attempted to exploit the Sino-Soviet Split by seeking a rapprochement with China (Nixon's Beijing Visit in 1972!) in order to isolate the USSR further, and regain some control over Asia.

Middle East --> Demonstrates the lack of respect for sphere of influence, and attempts to stop the proliferation of the Cold War into new regions, as both sides attempted to gain control of new "third-world" (unclaimed) states.

Does that make sense? Hope this helps :) Let me know if that was the actual question earlier though!

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 19, 2017, 03:01:00 pm
What would be a good way to structure the 2016 Russia/USSR essay question a?

Assess the significance of differing visions for the USSR in the leadership conflict between 1924 and 1929.

I went for:

Intro: little importance
P1: Triumvirate worked to undermine Trotsky rather than promote their own cause. Careful politicking succeeded in this (Lenin's funeral for example, then painting Trotsky as anti-Lenin).
P2: However Party elite thought Trotsky would establish a military dictatorship, so the statement has some merit. On the other hand Zinoviev/Kamenev switched to Trotsky's side and then recanted on their "mistakes" to Stalin so ideology wasn't too important for them.
P3: Stalin didn't care about ideology, mention his backflips. No defined vision until 1928, instead he exploited others' positions to undermine them.

What am I missing here?

Hmmm I'm really not sure if your position is the easiest to argue, judging by the fact that your paragraphs seem very specific to one area of your study with those dot points (ie. political tactics), whereas changes in society, ideology, and personality are all really important as well.

You don't have to take my word for it - at the end of the day, if you can argue "little importance" well, then you can definitely still get a band 6 - but I think suggesting that it was actually of HIGH importance would be easier to sustain, and this would be how I would do it.

Paragraph 1 - Changes in Society and Ideology
- After Civil War, there was a significant decline in the urban proletariat, as they kinda "gave up" on the socialist dream, and went back to peasant life + many of the old Bolsheviks (devoted to Trotsky's 'Permanent Revolution', which was the dominant ideology at the time) had died.
- Trotsky's position of 'Permanent Revolution' relied on an international revolution, thus by extension, it relied on further conflict, which this war weary society was not keen for.
- Stalin's position of 'Socialism in One Country' not only appealed to the people because it did NOT rely on further conflict, but also it appealed to their desire for Nationalism (which Stalin further exploited, suggesting that Trotsky's ideology "lacked faith" in the Russian people, in that he didn't believe they could do it on their own).
- Stalin also renamed his ideology "Marxist-Leninism" in order to appeal to the growing Cult of Lenin (which he himself was helping to spread), and make his ideology appear to be the direct descendent of Lenin's, despite the fact that Lenin actually supported Permanent Revolution.

Paragraph 2 - Personality
- Both Stalin and Trotsky are the faces of their ideology, thus their personalities helped to shape peoples interpretations of the ideology themselves.
- Trotsky = arrogant, rude, condescending. His personality here made it look like he was clinging onto an "old" ideology, that had been in many ways proven ineffective (eg. Treaty of Brest-Litovsk), that had died along with the "Old Bolsheviks".
- Trotsky had been ruthless as leader of the Red Army during the Civil War - a lot of people held resentment towards him for that.
- Stalin's charismatic, yet unassuming personality (which he perfectly curated in order to mask his actual cunning and sly one) represented the "New Way" in a sense. They tried Trotsky's way - it failed. Now onto something better.
- Stalin further manipulated Trotsky's image by giving him the wrong date to Lenin's funeral, making him appear apathetic and disrespectful, whereas Stalin looked like Lenin's bff (and thus would likely continue "Lenin's vision", which is what people wanted).

Paragraph 3 - Political Tactics
- All the stuff you mentioned about to Troika/Triumvirate, and switching sides in order to get rid of Trotsky is definitely important, however they were not the only political tactics that Stalin employed.
- Suppression of Lenin's Testament - the suppression of Lenin's testament (or his Will) was critical, because within it Lenin literally calls for Stalin to be kicked out of the party, suggesting he is "rude" and "dangerous", whereas he praises Trotsky. Trotsky helps to suppress this however, as he didn't want to cause party disunity.
- Lenin's Levy - after the Civil War, Lenin realised that many of the Old Bolsheviks had died, and thus they needed to replenish their ranks. This lead to a massive recruitment campaign, and as Stalin was General Secretary, he was in charge of conducting this. Through his position, he only appointed individuals who supported his ideology (or who would support his ideology as they owed him a debt for their position).
- Ban of Factionalism - the Ban was started by Lenin (I believe in 1921?), because the party had a real problem with disagreeing with one another, and rather than resolve their differences and form a compromise, they'd "factionalise", ie. split off into their own subsection of the party. This caused a lot of issues, and meant that it was difficult to get stuff done, so Lenin banned factionalism, suggesting that if you disagree with the majority view, essentially "shut up". This was manipulated by Stalin, due to the fact that as he slowly exploited Lenin's levy, he made it so that 'Socialism in One Country' was the majority, and 'Permanent Revolution' was the minority! This effectively silenced Trotsky, and when he finally spoke out, gave Stalin an excuse to call for his expulsion.

Hope this helps! I have a feeling this dot point might come up, so hopefully this clears up a lot of stuff up for other people as well, who may not have studied this dot point as specifically as Bolshevik Consolidation or Stalinism :)

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 19, 2017, 03:03:14 pm
Any source analysis predictions guys???
I wouldn't be surprised if you got something from the final section of the syllabus, specifically "events leading to Armistice" or "reasons for Allied Victory and German collapse" as it hasn't been asked in a long while (or ever? can't remember). Plus they know that the last few dot points are the ones that are typically neglected by students!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: HamBurr17 on October 19, 2017, 03:05:31 pm
Hey! Look I didn't do Germany, however for a Stalinism as totalitarianism question, i structured my essay according to the characteristics of a totalitarian society, and as these characteristics were literally devised to explain Nazi Germany, I'm sure they'd work for you too! So the essay may look something like this :)

Introduction

Paragraph 1 - Single Mass Party with a Charismatic Dictator (so yes, that features in Nazi Germany re. Nazi Party and Adolf Hitler)
Paragraph 2 - Single, all-encompassing ideology, with utopian promises (features in Nazi Germany though Nazism, Lebensraum, etc. and the idea of an "Aryan" future. You can definitely mention Hitler Youth here as well.)
Paragraph 3 -Total control over the communications/media, armed forces, and the economy (yeah that happened aha - you can mention propaganda here too)
Paragraph 4 -  Use of force/system of terror/secret police (Gestapo - can also mention the use of concentration camps)

Hope this helps! Sorry I couldn't be more detailed aha since I didn't study this topic!

Susie

No worries, plenty of detail and extremely helpful!
Thank you!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: yarie on October 19, 2017, 03:18:27 pm
Hi, I just wanted to ask about the usefulness question, as it has been my weakest point throughout the year. When we are asked to consider perspective and reliability - does this mean we have to analyse those two areas so we can make a judgement to the extent to which it is useful for the historian (if that makes sense). Also, how do you suggest I structure this response...
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 19, 2017, 03:25:55 pm
Hi, I just wanted to ask about the usefulness question, as it has been my weakest point throughout the year. When we are asked to consider perspective and reliability - does this mean we have to analyse those two areas so we can make a judgement to the extent to which it is useful for the historian (if that makes sense). Also, how do you suggest I structure this response...
Hey! I go through this + how to structure a response within the first video lecture! Here's the link!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: marcusgrahamm on October 19, 2017, 03:57:12 pm
Thanks Susie!
That was more the avenue I would have thought the question would have been based around as well (success and failure) it was just a q my friend created and sent to me and I wasn't sure how to go about it.
Thanks for all your assistance :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on October 19, 2017, 04:10:08 pm
hi everyone,

on a scale of 1-10, how likely do you think they'll ask for historical context for the personality study?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: ~BK~ on October 19, 2017, 04:11:34 pm
I wouldn't be surprised if you got something from the final section of the syllabus, specifically "events leading to Armistice" or "reasons for Allied Victory and German collapse" as it hasn't been asked in a long while (or ever? can't remember). Plus they know that the last few dot points are the ones that are typically neglected by students!

i am one of those students that does typically neglect those points, especially events leading to the armistice, would you be able to give me a fews ideas of what this actually was?? thanks so much! ;D
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: yarie on October 19, 2017, 04:18:25 pm
Hey! I go through this + how to structure a response within the first video lecture! Here's the link!

Thank you so much! I wish I had found this earlier...
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: marcusgrahamm on October 19, 2017, 05:02:22 pm
Hey Susie,

I was watching your video on the 10 mark source question, and I'm just a little distressed because the whole year my teacher has been teaching us to do:

O-rigin
M-otive
A-udience
C-ontent
P-erspective
R-eliability (obvs unreliable as well)
U-sefulness (why usefulness was limited as well)

I feel myself that your way is way more effective in answering the question...
But I don't feel comfortable in changing the way I've been doing them all year, so I was wondering as long as I still answer the question through the avenue of my structure will it still be just as efficient to score full marks?

Thanks again!!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: _____ on October 19, 2017, 05:12:25 pm
Hmmm I'm really not sure if your position is the easiest to argue, judging by the fact that your paragraphs seem very specific to one area of your study with those dot points (ie. political tactics), whereas changes in society, ideology, and personality are all really important as well.

You don't have to take my word for it - at the end of the day, if you can argue "little importance" well, then you can definitely still get a band 6 - but I think suggesting that it was actually of HIGH importance would be easier to sustain, and this would be how I would do it.

Paragraph 1 - Changes in Society and Ideology
- After Civil War, there was a significant decline in the urban proletariat, as they kinda "gave up" on the socialist dream, and went back to peasant life + many of the old Bolsheviks (devoted to Trotsky's 'Permanent Revolution', which was the dominant ideology at the time) had died.
- Trotsky's position of 'Permanent Revolution' relied on an international revolution, thus by extension, it relied on further conflict, which this war weary society was not keen for.
- Stalin's position of 'Socialism in One Country' not only appealed to the people because it did NOT rely on further conflict, but also it appealed to their desire for Nationalism (which Stalin further exploited, suggesting that Trotsky's ideology "lacked faith" in the Russian people, in that he didn't believe they could do it on their own).
- Stalin also renamed his ideology "Marxist-Leninism" in order to appeal to the growing Cult of Lenin (which he himself was helping to spread), and make his ideology appear to be the direct descendent of Lenin's, despite the fact that Lenin actually supported Permanent Revolution.

Paragraph 2 - Personality
- Both Stalin and Trotsky are the faces of their ideology, thus their personalities helped to shape peoples interpretations of the ideology themselves.
- Trotsky = arrogant, rude, condescending. His personality here made it look like he was clinging onto an "old" ideology, that had been in many ways proven ineffective (eg. Treaty of Brest-Litovsk), that had died along with the "Old Bolsheviks".
- Trotsky had been ruthless as leader of the Red Army during the Civil War - a lot of people held resentment towards him for that.
- Stalin's charismatic, yet unassuming personality (which he perfectly curated in order to mask his actual cunning and sly one) represented the "New Way" in a sense. They tried Trotsky's way - it failed. Now onto something better.
- Stalin further manipulated Trotsky's image by giving him the wrong date to Lenin's funeral, making him appear apathetic and disrespectful, whereas Stalin looked like Lenin's bff (and thus would likely continue "Lenin's vision", which is what people wanted).

Paragraph 3 - Political Tactics
- All the stuff you mentioned about to Troika/Triumvirate, and switching sides in order to get rid of Trotsky is definitely important, however they were not the only political tactics that Stalin employed.
- Suppression of Lenin's Testament - the suppression of Lenin's testament (or his Will) was critical, because within it Lenin literally calls for Stalin to be kicked out of the party, suggesting he is "rude" and "dangerous", whereas he praises Trotsky. Trotsky helps to suppress this however, as he didn't want to cause party disunity.
- Lenin's Levy - after the Civil War, Lenin realised that many of the Old Bolsheviks had died, and thus they needed to replenish their ranks. This lead to a massive recruitment campaign, and as Stalin was General Secretary, he was in charge of conducting this. Through his position, he only appointed individuals who supported his ideology (or who would support his ideology as they owed him a debt for their position).
- Ban of Factionalism - the Ban was started by Lenin (I believe in 1921?), because the party had a real problem with disagreeing with one another, and rather than resolve their differences and form a compromise, they'd "factionalise", ie. split off into their own subsection of the party. This caused a lot of issues, and meant that it was difficult to get stuff done, so Lenin banned factionalism, suggesting that if you disagree with the majority view, essentially "shut up". This was manipulated by Stalin, due to the fact that as he slowly exploited Lenin's levy, he made it so that 'Socialism in One Country' was the majority, and 'Permanent Revolution' was the minority! This effectively silenced Trotsky, and when he finally spoke out, gave Stalin an excuse to call for his expulsion.

Hope this helps! I have a feeling this dot point might come up, so hopefully this clears up a lot of stuff up for other people as well, who may not have studied this dot point as specifically as Bolshevik Consolidation or Stalinism :)

Susie

Thanks a lot for the help  :)

I just don't get how you'd link the paragraphs to an affirmative response? Most of that seems to argue that Stalin had no "vision" because he was just undermining Trotsky using whatever means necessary (politicking, far-flung allies, etc). I thought Trotsky's vision was well-regarded among the proletariat and he was liked because he won the war. It seemed to work for Stalin in 1928 when combined with SiOC albeit after a few years to cool off from the war.

It also seems to assume that the people as a whole had some sort of say in how the party was run (if their receptiveness to Stalin's ideas enabled him to come to power)? I thought this wasn't the case particularly after Stalin became General Secretary - didn't Trotsky try to call for more democratisation?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: diesxel on October 19, 2017, 05:17:18 pm
What kind of questions could they ask us for historical context in personality study? I personally haven't really gone over it and focused more on background and rise to prominence, do I need to know it in a lot of detail?

Thanks :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: bun00 on October 19, 2017, 05:21:54 pm
heyyy ppl!!
jst having a freak out session here over getting a question about the army for weimar republic!?
any tips on how to structure it??
tks hps!! and ATB ;D ;D :o ::)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: riiisaa87 on October 19, 2017, 05:36:48 pm
Hey, for 'Assess the effectiveness of the League of Nations to the maintenance of peace in Europe to 1939' would it be detrimental not to mention the Spanish Civil War?
I've written up an essay plan for it and structured it like this:
Body Paragraph 1: Ineffectiveness
Sub body paragraph: League never had a true balance of powers
Sub Body Paragraph: Dominant Powers in the League were still weak
Body paragraph 2: Complete Failure
Sub Body Paragraph 1: The Abyssinia

Any guidance will be helpful!!!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: damecj on October 19, 2017, 05:55:41 pm
I've remembered 9 essays for modern and still don't feel prepared... Love this subject :(
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: ~BK~ on October 19, 2017, 06:10:13 pm
does it impact our marks much if we don't remember specific dates but rather just the year?
i'm finding it really hard to remember dates for all topics :o
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 19, 2017, 06:23:29 pm
hi everyone,

on a scale of 1-10, how likely do you think they'll ask for historical context for the personality study?
They've been moving away from syllabus questions recently, but there's nothing to say that they won't bring them back, so maybe 5?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 19, 2017, 06:25:37 pm
i am one of those students that does typically neglect those points, especially events leading to the armistice, would you be able to give me a fews ideas of what this actually was?? thanks so much! ;D
Hey! Rodero's response was fantastic!! Highly recommend having a read :)

My notes here mainly just talk about the Allied Counter-offensive and how they pushed back the German's after the failure of the Spring Offensive. My three main points here are the Battle of Hamel, Battle of Amiens and the capture of the Hindenburg line.

Essentially, in Hamel General Monash employed vastly superior technology in order to surprise the German army. They use highly accurate artillery barrage, so that they could target the German trenches instantaneously, rather than shooting several times before finding the right location. The battle was 93 minutes long and resulted in an Allied victory

The Battle of Amien's is a more significant one. This is where the Allies pushed the German's back, so all the land they gained in the Spring Offensive was lost (and more). Lundendorff calls this the "black day" of the German army and called for a surrender. There were 12,000 German surrenders and over a million desertions

Finally the capture of the Hindenburg line. This was supposed to be the final line of defence for the German army; an impenetrable line with a vast array of mechanisms such as barbed wire. However, the Allies acquired a layout of the trench so were able to prepare a strategy of attack. As well, the trench layout was linear (rather than in a zig zag pattern), so that favoured the Allies significantly. Once this line was broken, Ludendorff resigned and the kaiser abdicated. A revolution breaks out in Germany and power is shifted to a new democratic republic. An armistice was then signed on November 11 1918
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: ~BK~ on October 19, 2017, 06:31:58 pm
Hey! Rodero's response was fantastic!! Highly recommend having a read :)

awesome... somehow i missed that!!
thanks heaps (both susie and rodero!) ;D
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Crabstickz on October 19, 2017, 06:34:56 pm
quick last minute q
For Trotsky, in a part a) Background + Rise to prominence question what should i try and include: so far to fit under the word limit (400ish) i cover his early eduction/developing political ideals, the 1905 revolution + petrograd soviet then the 1917 revolution. I have no idea how to fit in all his journalist work and stuff in the 1905-1917 exile int he response as it jsut takes too long, do you think it'd be fine if i cut it out?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 19, 2017, 06:41:24 pm
Thanks a lot for the help  :)

I just don't get how you'd link the paragraphs to an affirmative response? Most of that seems to argue that Stalin had no "vision" because he was just undermining Trotsky using whatever means necessary (politicking, far-flung allies, etc). I thought Trotsky's vision was well-regarded among the proletariat and he was liked because he won the war. It seemed to work for Stalin in 1928 when combined with SiOC albeit after a few years to cool off from the war.

It also seems to assume that the people as a whole had some sort of say in how the party was run (if their receptiveness to Stalin's ideas enabled him to come to power)? I thought this wasn't the case particularly after Stalin became General Secretary - didn't Trotsky try to call for more democratisation?

I think we may have been taught the course slightly differently - which can happen and it not a bad thing! History is subjective. But this is how I learned the course, and my reasoning behind everything.

With the first paragraph, you link the decline in support for Trotsky's ideology, and the increase in support for Stalin's ideology to the social changes, and the way in which they reflected the needs of the society at the time. Stalin won because his ideology of Socialism in one country was better suited for society at the time, thus ideology was highly significant in determining his success :) Stalin undermining Trotsky's ideology still demonstrates the significance of ideology, even if you were to argue (which you can) that Stalin was more focused on pragmatism than ideological consistency - Stalin using Trotsky's ideology against him still demonstrates the significance of ideology.

For the second paragraph, Trotsky's poor personality reflected badly on his ideology, which was now considered outdated. Trotsky's vision was well-liked before, but after the Civil War he lost a lot of popularity amongst the proletariat - the party liked him, but not really the people (tonnes of uprising against the Bolsheviks - almost one a day. Kronstadt Rebellion being the worst of all, which Trotsky brutally suppressed). Remember that the Proletariat severely declined as well - the Civil War was the most costly Civil War in history, with 9.5 million casualties, 8 million of which were civilian deaths, and almost 1/3 of surviving proletariat leaving the cities to go back to the farms - so even if they did like him, they weren't as powerful of a body anymore.

For the third, you are looking at how it was support for the ideology that enabled the success of Stalin and the decline of Trotsky. When Stalin's ideology was more favoured (yes, through his manipulation, but it was still the ideology they were discussing), and Trotsky tried to protest, he could invoke the ban on factionalism.

By the people do you mean the proletariat? Then yes, they did get a say to a certain extent, as the proletariat made up the party. The Communist Party wasn't small - it was a massive party (Communism is about big government), and through Lenin's levy they made it even bigger (the aim was to increase membership by 10 000 if I recall correctly?). I'm not sure about Trotsky calling for more democratisation - that isn't something that I learned, and I'd be surprised if he did as democracy and communism are opposing ideologies. He may have wanted more discussion near the end, when his ideology was becoming more favourable, but for the most part as far as I can recall he was pretty consistent.

But yes, that is my understanding of the content. If you have been taught different, go with what you were taught, as you don't want to try and learn a whole new way of understanding the content the day before the exam. But if this does actually relate to what you have learned, I hope this helps/explains what I meant better :)

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 19, 2017, 07:11:01 pm
heyyy ppl!!
jst having a freak out session here over getting a question about the army for weimar republic!?
any tips on how to structure it??
tks hps!! and ATB ;D ;D :o ::)

I PRAY TO GOD THAT IS NOT A QUESTION!
But if it is.
The army suppressed left wing uprisings early in 1919-1922
But the army was sympathetic to the right and thus refused to intervene in the Kapp putsch for instance.
The main contribution of the army was von schliecher, papen, bruning etc. who underestimated hitler and essentially brought him to power and hindenburg's role in this
Once again not my strong point but all I can think of :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 19, 2017, 07:25:30 pm
Hey Susie,

I was watching your video on the 10 mark source question, and I'm just a little distressed because the whole year my teacher has been teaching us to do:

O-rigin
M-otive
A-udience
C-ontent
P-erspective
R-eliability (obvs unreliable as well)
U-sefulness (why usefulness was limited as well)

I feel myself that your way is way more effective in answering the question...
But I don't feel comfortable in changing the way I've been doing them all year, so I was wondering as long as I still answer the question through the avenue of my structure will it still be just as efficient to score full marks?

Thanks again!!
Hey Marcus!

Okay so I agree that you shouldn't try and learn a whole new structure the night before. However, I do think it'd be a good idea to adapt your structure a bit, because it is lacking in a few key areas! Along with this, my structure still gets you to talk about a lot of this stuff, just in a bit of a different order, because, I, and my teacher found it to be a bit more logical that way.

So, no matter whether you use your teachers structure or not, you still MUST MUST MUST have a judgement. You can get marked down if you don't, so that is really important. Then explain your judgement as well in one sentence. That shouldn't be too confusing to add by tomorrow, as its really only two sentences, that rarely ever change: "Source ___ would be (highly/partially/of limited) useful to a historian studying _______________________, as it presents a (lets say this was for "highly") a highly reliable and relevant perspective upon (main focus of the source).

Then, pretty much just start your acronym! I'd just recommend a few structural changes.

O - Origin
C - Content
M - Motive
A - Audience
P - Perspective
R - Reliability (NEVER SAY A SOURCE IS UNRELIABLE! Just like you should never say a source is useless. Instead, you can say "this limits reliability")
U - Usefulness (you should also mention it in your judgement).

Does that make sense? I moved content cos it makes more sense to have that with origin, then moved motive and audience to near perspective, as they will always intrinsically relate :)

But please don't stress - if you can't remember this new structure, no biggy! I do think you need to make sure that you have a judgment though - that definitely should be included, as you can lose marks for not having that (as you essentially aren't answering the question).

Hope this helps!

Susie
 
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 19, 2017, 07:30:24 pm
What kind of questions could they ask us for historical context in personality study? I personally haven't really gone over it and focused more on background and rise to prominence, do I need to know it in a lot of detail?

Thanks :)
It'd really only be "outline/explain/describe your personality's historical context [and other syllabus dot point]". Could maybe do "outline three significant events in the historical context of the personality you studied", but I feel like that'd work more for rise to promience rather than historical context. Just make sure that whatever you do, you focus and mention everything that comes under that dot point :)

It'll only ever be used for Part A :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 19, 2017, 07:32:42 pm
does it impact our marks much if we don't remember specific dates but rather just the year?
i'm finding it really hard to remember dates for all topics :o
Hey! No it doesn't. It's always good to be as specific as possible, as it counts as detail, but no one is going to mark you down for not including the EXACT date. If you can't remember the exact date, definitely just put down the year :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 19, 2017, 07:40:20 pm
quick last minute q
For Trotsky, in a part a) Background + Rise to prominence question what should i try and include: so far to fit under the word limit (400ish) i cover his early eduction/developing political ideals, the 1905 revolution + petrograd soviet then the 1917 revolution. I have no idea how to fit in all his journalist work and stuff in the 1905-1917 exile int he response as it jsut takes too long, do you think it'd be fine if i cut it out?
Hey! So you need to make sure that you touch on everything under the 'background' and 'rise to prominence' syllabus sections! So for Trotsky that is:

2 Background
– family background and education
– development of political ideals

3 Rise to prominence
– emerging political role 1905–1917
– role in 1917 revolution

You don't need to fit in all of his journalist work, but it definitely would be nice to mention some of it! It all counts as detail after all :) But if I were to do this question, it'd probably be structured something like this (these aren't paragraphs, just points)

1. Biographical details (real name, date of birth, place of birth)
2. Early childhood and family background (comparatively wealthy, Jewish, owned a farm)
3. Early education (wealthier family valued education, sent to live with relatives in Odessa, revealed to be a Polymath, liberal/arts education)
4. High school and Uni education (got involved with revolutionary groups such as the Orchard Commune)
5. Petrograd Soviet + 1905 Rev
6. Life in Exile - (writing of Results and Prospects in 1906 --> Permanent Revolution)
7. Touch on life between as a Menshevik, conflict with Lenin, finally becoming a Bolshevik.
8. 1917 Revolution

I know this looks like a lot, but some of these would be less than a sentence long! Make sure that you have detail that speaks for itself as well - detail that doesn't require excessive explaining :)

Hope this helps!

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 19, 2017, 07:47:47 pm
Hey! Looks like that is all the questions for now (though feel free to keep them coming! I want you guys to go in as confident as possible, so I'll be around till late :) ), but I just wanted to make sure that I said...

GOOD LUCK!!!!!!!

Not that you need it ;)

I'm seriously so proud of all of you right now. Every single one of you have worked so hard this year. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU. I seriously don't know if there is a more collaborative, helpful, kind hearted and patient group of people on ATAR Notes than those that hang around the Modern History boards (and given the fact that AN users are typically very collaborative, helpful, kind hearted and patient as it is, that is really saying something).

It has been so great working with all of you this year. Whether that be answering one question, marking one of your essays, having a discussion about an interesting modern history meme, or upvoting one the many amazing answers that one of you have come up with yourself that would have been 100 x better than anything that I ever could have come up with. You're all seriously an amazing bunch of students, and an amazing bunch of historians!

I am sure that all of you are going to absolutely smash it tomorrow. Your hard work WILL pay off.

So yes, good luck and enjoy the LAST MODERN HISTORY EXAM YOU WILL EVER HAVE TO DO (unless you are like me and you also do the modern paper next year to write the answers ahaha ;) )! I can't wait to hear about how you all found it :)

so much <3 for you all,

Susie

Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: HamBurr17 on October 19, 2017, 07:54:30 pm
Hey! Looks like that is all the questions for now (though feel free to keep them coming! I want you guys to go in as confident as possible, so I'll be around till late :) ), but I just wanted to make sure that I said...

GOOD LUCK!!!!!!!

Not that you need it ;)

I'm seriously so proud of all of you right now. Every single one of you have worked so hard this year. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU. I seriously don't know if there is a more collaborative, helpful, kind hearted and patient group of people on ATAR Notes than those that hang around the Modern History boards (and given the fact that AN users are typically very collaborative, helpful, kind hearted and patient as it is, that is really saying something).

It has been so great working with all of you this year. Whether that be answering one question, marking one of your essays, having a discussion about an interesting modern history meme, or upvoting one the many amazing answers that one of you have come up with yourself that would have been 100 x better than anything that I ever could have come up with. You're all seriously an amazing bunch of students, and an amazing bunch of historians!

I am sure that all of you are going to absolutely smash it tomorrow. Your hard work WILL pay off.

So yes, good luck and enjoy the LAST MODERN HISTORY EXAM YOU WILL EVER HAVE TO DO (unless you are like me and you also do the modern paper next year to write the answers ahaha ;) )! I can't wait to hear about how you all found it :)

so much <3 for you all,

Susie



Thank you!
And good luck everyone!!!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: AnnaC on October 19, 2017, 08:06:33 pm
heyyy ppl!!
jst having a freak out session here over getting a question about the army for weimar republic!?
any tips on how to structure it??
tks hps!! and ATB ;D ;D :o ::)

hey!! this question is really interesting, but you have to approach it in terms of the prussian militaristic tradition which was so prominent and influential in the minds of ordinary germans when democracy was forced upon them.

1. stab-in-the-back legend highlighted how these traditional ways of thinking lingered throughout german society and contributed to the disdain held for democracy throughout the weimar period
2. ebert-groener pact highlighted the tangible political influence the army held, and this further contributed to the 'split on the left' which disenfranched the kpd from the spd etc later on --> more iconic quotes, delmer "the republic was born with a hole in its heart"
3. kapp putsch highlighted the vitality of military support in maintaining successful gov't rule in the context of german society, considering von seeckt's iconic quote "reichswehr does not fire on reichswehr"
4. election of paul von hindenburg as president --> his military prestige and significance in ww1 made him appealing to the more traditional leanings of german society, showing how these ways of thinking remained considerably influential even way after democracy was imposed + during stresemann's 'golden years'. he even wanted to reinstate a more authoritarian, right-wing government in opposition to democracy, leading to the whole conservative elites debacle. good quote for this is evans: "the real problem...was the independently-elected president" OR also evans: "the Presidential power was in the hands of a man who had no faith in democratic institutions and no intention of defending them from their enemies."

hope this helps!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 19, 2017, 08:09:40 pm
Just going to have a go at predictions because why not  :P
WW1
Propaganda
Events leading to armistice.
GERMANY
To what extent did the Weimar Republic overcome its political, economic and social issues by 1929?
To what extent was Nazi Germany a totalitarian state? (LAST ASKED IN 2008)
PERSONALITY
Outline the background and rise to prominence of your personality.
(Any quote about shaper/shaped by events) - To what extent was your personality shaped by events.
PACIFIC
Evaluate the impact of the Japanese occupation on occupied territories.
Was the use of the A-Bomb justified? (LAST ASKED IN 2004)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: bun00 on October 19, 2017, 08:19:30 pm
hey!! this question is really interesting, but you have to approach it in terms of the prussian militaristic tradition which was so prominent and influential in the minds of ordinary germans when democracy was forced upon them.

1. stab-in-the-back legend highlighted how these traditional ways of thinking lingered throughout german society and contributed to the disdain held for democracy throughout the weimar period
2. ebert-groener pact highlighted the tangible political influence the army held, and this further contributed to the 'split on the left' which disenfranched the kpd from the spd etc later on --> more iconic quotes, delmer "the republic was born with a hole in its heart"
3. kapp putsch highlighted the vitality of military support in maintaining successful gov't rule in the context of german society, considering von seeckt's iconic quote "reichswehr does not fire on reichswehr"
4. election of paul von hindenburg as president --> his military prestige and significance in ww1 made him appealing to the more traditional leanings of german society, showing how these ways of thinking remained considerably influential even way after democracy was imposed + during stresemann's 'golden years'. he even wanted to reinstate a more authoritarian, right-wing government in opposition to democracy, leading to the whole conservative elites debacle. good quote for this is evans: "the real problem...was the independently-elected president" OR also evans: "the Presidential power was in the hands of a man who had no faith in democratic institutions and no intention of defending them from their enemies."

hope this helps!

ok tks hpss ure a legend!!
u drew light to hps of things that i never related with the army so thankuuu ;D ;D also those quotes are awesome so tkss ;)
ALL THE BEST EVERYONE!!!!! WE ALL KNOW A HECK OF A LOT MORE THAN WE THINK WE KNOW SO LET'S NAIL IT ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: HamBurr17 on October 19, 2017, 08:25:18 pm
Just going to have a go at predictions because why not  :P
WW1
Propaganda
Events leading to armistice.
GERMANY
To what extent did the Weimar Republic overcome its political, economic and social issues by 1929?
To what extent was Nazi Germany a totalitarian state? (LAST ASKED IN 2008)
PERSONALITY
Outline the background and rise to prominence of your personality.
(Any quote about shaper/shaped by events) - To what extent was your personality shaped by events.
PACIFIC
Evaluate the impact of the Japanese occupation on occupied territories.
Was the use of the A-Bomb justified? (LAST ASKED IN 2004)


Oh man, I am praying for a Weimar Republic question. Literally praying. I got a related question in my trial and got 25! Annnnd that's about where my knowledge ends hahaha
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 19, 2017, 08:29:48 pm
Oh man, I am praying for a Weimar Republic question. Literally praying. I got a related question in my trial and got 25! Annnnd that's about where my knowledge ends hahaha

Anything on the failure of Weimar would be perfect haha
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: bun00 on October 19, 2017, 08:45:20 pm
hey jst another qwik (dumb) question ::)
when questions are discussing the weimar republic and its political, economic and social issues....and they say "up to" 1929.....can we include stuff in 1929 too? as in the great depression and that...?
tkks!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 19, 2017, 08:46:19 pm
hey jst another qwik (dumb) question ::)
when questions are discussing the weimar republic and its political, economic and social issues....and they say "up to" 1929.....can we include stuff in 1929 too? as in the great depression and that...?
tkks!
If it says up to you can definitely include 1929! Just don't go past that because then you won't be answering the question :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: bun00 on October 19, 2017, 08:46:58 pm
If it says up to you can definitely include 1929! Just don't go past that because then you won't be answering the question :)

hokey thankyou ;D
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: ~BK~ on October 19, 2017, 08:51:06 pm
ALL THE VERY BEST TOMORROW EVERYONE!! YOU'LL ALL SMASH IT OUT I'M SURE
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: ~BK~ on October 19, 2017, 08:51:48 pm
WELL DONE HISTORIOGRAPHERS FOR MAKING IT TO 1000 POSTS ON HERE!!  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 19, 2017, 08:54:17 pm
hey jst another qwik (dumb) question ::)
when questions are discussing the weimar republic and its political, economic and social issues....and they say "up to" 1929.....can we include stuff in 1929 too? as in the great depression and that...?
tkks!

It's so hard with the Great Depression as it's impact only starts to really hit post 1929 and that's when the Nazis gain votes as a result so generally if it says up to 1929 I don't mention it except for the fact that maybe, when referencing how the economic issues were solved on the surface in the Golden Years, i may say: However, Germany's economic stability during the 'Golden Years' was highly superficial as it was heavily reliant on foreign loans and an economic collapse, as evident in the Great Depression, would effectively cripple the German economy. Something like that but yeah it's hard to go into detail on the Depression otherwise :/
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: bun00 on October 19, 2017, 08:57:01 pm
It's so hard with the Great Depression as it's impact only starts to really hit post 1929 and that's when the Nazis gain votes as a result so generally if it says up to 1929 I don't mention it except for the fact that maybe, when referencing how the economic issues were solved on the surface in the Golden Years, i may say: However, Germany's economic stability during the 'Golden Years' was highly superficial as it was heavily reliant on foreign loans and an economic collapse, as evident in the Great Depression, would effectively cripple the German economy. Something like that but yeah it's hard to go into detail on the Depression otherwise :/

hey (feel very honoured to be the one thousand and tooth poster :-*) yeah fair point so can pretty much only say about loan repayments....thankss!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 19, 2017, 10:05:11 pm
Hey Susie, or anyone who studies Conflict in the Pacific that is up - I have a massive dilemma - I am prepared for every dot point of the syllabus barring two - Collaboration and resistance in Japanese occupation and Allied strategies 1941-1942. None of these have specifically EVER been tested in the HSC off my knowledge, and I know practically 0 about either because I hate both options. Now should I be freaking out in case both these options turn up  :o Anyone think that would be likely? I feel shit for leaving them both out but if they both come up I would be well and truly fucked.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 19, 2017, 10:13:12 pm
Hey Susie, or anyone who studies Conflict in the Pacific that is up - I have a massive dilemma - I am prepared for every dot point of the syllabus barring two - Collaboration and resistance in Japanese occupation and Allied strategies 1941-1942. None of these have specifically EVER been tested in the HSC off my knowledge, and I know practically 0 about either because I hate both options. Now should I be freaking out in case both these options turn up  :o Anyone think that would be likely? I feel shit for leaving them both out but if they both come up I would be well and truly fucked.
Hey! Don't stress, especially at 10pm the night before the exam aha. Are these literally just dot points? Or whole sections of the syllabus? If they are just dot points, then you should be fine :) If you some how got question specifically on these, twist it so that it allows you to talk about other factors under that section of the syllabus (i've never seen a question where a differentiated essay wasn't possible) :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 19, 2017, 10:18:53 pm
Hey! Don't stress, especially at 10pm the night before the exam aha. Are these literally just dot points? Or whole sections of the syllabus? If they are just dot points, then you should be fine :) If you some how got question specifically on these, twist it so that it allows you to talk about other factors under that section of the syllabus (i've never seen a question where a differentiated essay wasn't possible) :)

Hey they are just dot points! I saw a question in a practice trial once: To what extent was there both collaboration and resistance to Japanese occupation. I know from my 3 case studies I have for the occupation I can discuss Thailand and how it collaborated but I deliberately avoided this dot point because you had to be super super specific. However, I don't think I have ever seen a question HSC or trial on Allied strategies 1941-1942 so i don't know if this means they don't assess it on its own?? I might get the general ideas for collaboration and resistance since that would be ok given i have 3 case studies already (focused on the impact of the occupation not collab and resistance) only way i can think of twisting it is that the formation of labour corps in indonesia of 10 million shows that they collaborated because they were part of the labour corps IDK hahahaha obviously they would otherwise they would die  :o :o
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: diesxel on October 19, 2017, 10:36:01 pm
Hey! Looks like that is all the questions for now (though feel free to keep them coming! I want you guys to go in as confident as possible, so I'll be around till late :) ), but I just wanted to make sure that I said...

GOOD LUCK!!!!!!!

Not that you need it ;)

I'm seriously so proud of all of you right now. Every single one of you have worked so hard this year. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU. I seriously don't know if there is a more collaborative, helpful, kind hearted and patient group of people on ATAR Notes than those that hang around the Modern History boards (and given the fact that AN users are typically very collaborative, helpful, kind hearted and patient as it is, that is really saying something).

It has been so great working with all of you this year. Whether that be answering one question, marking one of your essays, having a discussion about an interesting modern history meme, or upvoting one the many amazing answers that one of you have come up with yourself that would have been 100 x better than anything that I ever could have come up with. You're all seriously an amazing bunch of students, and an amazing bunch of historians!

I am sure that all of you are going to absolutely smash it tomorrow. Your hard work WILL pay off.

So yes, good luck and enjoy the LAST MODERN HISTORY EXAM YOU WILL EVER HAVE TO DO (unless you are like me and you also do the modern paper next year to write the answers ahaha ;) )! I can't wait to hear about how you all found it :)

so much <3 for you all,

Susie




YOU'RE SO KIND honestly thank you for always being here and answering our questions super quickly and super effectively. You're actually the best and hope we can do you proud in our hsc!!!! Thanks for everything <3
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: mbdtHSC on October 19, 2017, 10:48:36 pm
Hey they are just dot points! I saw a question in a practice trial once: To what extent was there both collaboration and resistance to Japanese occupation. I know from my 3 case studies I have for the occupation I can discuss Thailand and how it collaborated but I deliberately avoided this dot point because you had to be super super specific. However, I don't think I have ever seen a question HSC or trial on Allied strategies 1941-1942 so i don't know if this means they don't assess it on its own?? I might get the general ideas for collaboration and resistance since that would be ok given i have 3 case studies already (focused on the impact of the occupation not collab and resistance) only way i can think of twisting it is that the formation of labour corps in indonesia of 10 million shows that they collaborated because they were part of the labour corps IDK hahahaha obviously they would otherwise they would die  :o :o

Don't worry for collaboration and resistance I think it's way more likely they ask the SEA Occupation question and the collaboration and resistance are just part of that q under political impacts.

eg Thailand, cooperation in Indonesia by Sukarno and Hatta, cooperation in Burma against British initially, etc

Allied strats 41-42 I'd be screwed haha I only know 42-45 :( Super unlikely they ask stuff THAT specific though, I'm predicting they ask reasons for Jap defeat instead
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 19, 2017, 10:51:18 pm
Don't worry for collaboration and resistance I think it's way more likely they ask the SEA Occupation question and the collaboration and resistance are just part of that q under political impacts.

eg Thailand, cooperation in Indonesia by Sukarno and Hatta, cooperation in Burma against British initially, etc

Allied strats 41-42 I'd be screwed haha I only know 42-45 :( Super unlikely they ask stuff THAT specific though, I'm predicting they ask reasons for Jap defeat instead

Thankyou for the reassurance! Just did a super quick wrap on 41-42 and resistance and stuff and heres the gist on 41-42 to help in case:
singapore
•   Japanese forces invaded northern Malaya on December 8 1941 and quickly fought their way down the Malayan Peninsula to besiege the British ‘fortress’ of Singapore, which surrendered on 15 February 1942
•   As a result, …
   It was a devastating blow to Britain’s prestige and strategic position in Asia
   Singapore had been Australia’s defence against any Japanese advance. Its fall left Australia vulnerable
   130,000 British, Indian and Australian troops became Japanese prisoners of war  mistreatment created widespread anti-Japanese feeling
   The Japanese victory contributed to the growth of a mythology, both within Japan and Allied nations, that saw the Japanese solider as an invincible jungle fighter
Dutch East Indies:
•   The attack on the Dutch East Indies began on 11 January 1942
•   Any allied hope of stopping an invasion was lost with the Japanese navy’s resounding victory in the Battle of the Java sea
•   March 8 the Dutch surrendered Java and within a short time Japan was in control of all former Dutch territory in the Indonesian archipelago
•   As a result, ….
   The Dutch had been quickly defeated and their status as both a colonial and military power was destroyed
   The conquest of the Dutch East Indies gave Japan access to the regions oil supplies, thus fulfilling one of the major strategic goals of the southern advance
Philippines:
•   Air attacks on the Philippines began on December 8 and were followed by a full-scale Japanese invasion on December 10
•   With no other options, US General Douglas MacArthur retreated with his forces to the Bataan Peninsula and the island fortress of Corregidor, at the entrance to Manila Bay
•   Despite a long resistance from Filipino and American troops, they were not able to be reinforced or resupplied and were forced to surrender
•   The fall of Corregidor on 6 May marked the Japanese conquest of the Philippines
•   Among the consequences…
   Japan had expelled the US from the western Pacific and presented it with a very significant military and logistical challenge if it wanted to return
Burma:    
•   Japanese forces invaded Burma in mid-December
•   Rangoon, the capital, was taken on March 8 1942
•   By May 20 British forces had been completely pushed out of the country
•   As a result, …
   Japan secured its position in Malaya against attack from the west and pushed its defence perimeter up to the Indian border
   Virtually no British military presence in East Asia and guaranteed that the Pacific war against Japan would be largely fought by the US
   Close the Burma road  cutting off supplies to Chiang Kai-Shek

definitely won't do the resistance and collab- too many specific groups to know but yeah i agree with you and hope for the best because otherwise all the stats ive memorised for everything else will go to waste aha! good luck tomorrow!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: diesxel on October 19, 2017, 11:54:06 pm
I'm going to put my predictions here for both essay sections just to see tomorrow if I was right or not (I doubt it but I'll try anyway)

Russia: bcop (civil war) and sfp (aims) or something like collectivisation or totalitarianism

Conflict: racial policy and d-day (in contributing to final defeat) OR stalingrad/barbarossa in course of war...or even allied strategies overall

good luck to everyone sitting the exam tomorrow!! Go in super confident and keep your eye on the clock. WE'LL ALL BE FINE GUYS!!!  ;D ;D


All the best, class of 2017 xx  :D
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: stephjones on October 20, 2017, 01:10:16 am
Hey ok so its super late and im sure no one's up BUT quick question, with a question on stalinism as totalitarianism, is it okay to completely agree with it, or say that it gradually came to resemble a totalitarian state? Because my teacher told me to always kind of have a 70/30 argument, and that you shouldn't agree completely because the purges weren't all Stalin's doing etc. so therefore it wasn't necessarily a totalitarian state and I'm just confusing myself a bit  :-\

Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: diesxel on October 20, 2017, 01:25:11 am
Hey ok so its super late and im sure no one's up BUT quick question, with a question on stalinism as totalitarianism, is it okay to completely agree with it, or say that it gradually came to resemble a totalitarian state? Because my teacher told me to always kind of have a 70/30 argument, and that you shouldn't agree completely because the purges weren't all Stalin's doing etc. so therefore it wasn't necessarily a totalitarian state and I'm just confusing myself a bit  :-\



Hey I haven't done many Stalin questions but in my trials there was a question about stalinism as totalitarianism and a lot of kids in my class argued that it was completely a totalitarian state and got high range responses (and my teacher is a hsc marker). But if your teacher has told you something I would probably recommend you follow it, especially because its so close to the exam and you probably don't want to take any risks!!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on October 20, 2017, 05:35:24 am
While I'm trying to think about how much coffee I'll need to get through today....

GOOD LUCK EVERYONE! You've all worked so hard this year, and it's so lovely to see the collaboration here. All the best, you all are going to do absolutely amazing.

Happy cramming!!!!!!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: bun00 on October 20, 2017, 05:46:48 am
While I'm trying to think about how much coffee I'll need to get through today....

GOOD LUCK EVERYONE! You've all worked so hard this year, and it's so lovely to see the collaboration here. All the best, you all are going to do absolutely amazing.

Happy cramming!!!!!!

heeharrr bring on the cramming ppl ::) ::) ::)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: liya1234 on October 20, 2017, 06:12:10 am
Hey ok so its super late and im sure no one's up BUT quick question, with a question on stalinism as totalitarianism, is it okay to completely agree with it, or say that it gradually came to resemble a totalitarian state? Because my teacher told me to always kind of have a 70/30 argument, and that you shouldn't agree completely because the purges weren't all Stalin's doing etc. so therefore it wasn't necessarily a totalitarian state and I'm just confusing myself a bit  :-\



I know this is a kinda late answer as well but I do Russia and we've always been told to say that though it was significantly totalitarian, it was not a total totalitarian state. The way that I do it is in each paragraph after analysing how it was totalitarian I also quickly talk about how despite this, it was not totally totalitarian bc ... (peasant resistance still occurred, purges became controlled at local level, stalin could not totally control actions/thinking of everyone at every level etc). But if you're going to do it this way remember not to say that it was totalitarian to a limited extent as that's not true as it was totalitarian to a pretty large extent, but just wasn't fully totalitarian (we got this q in trials and people lost marks for doing this). Good luck!!!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: herb123 on October 20, 2017, 01:25:45 pm
Cheers to @dancing phalanges for the spot on predictions !
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 20, 2017, 01:34:11 pm
Cheers to @dancing phalanges for the spot on predictions !
So pissed because Allied strategies 1942-1945 in relation to allied victory for the pacific was my other prediction with occupied territories - until I saw A-Bomb hadn't been done in 12 years! Although don't know if you can count my germany totalitarian one ;)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: diesxel on October 20, 2017, 01:41:24 pm
GUYS WE DID IT!!

To be honest I was pleased with the exam. Bcop and causes of the conflict were in there so I was right!! I was wrong with the dotpoints though, hahaha.

But seriously, it could've been worse so I'm honestly glad that it's all over and done with! Props to susie for predicting allied victory for world war 1, what a legend.

Also, the second conflict in Europe question was loaded! The one about the Russian campaign in the war, did anyone do it? It seems like it would be a really long response! 


Cheers guys, no more hsc modern history exams for us!!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: daenyy on October 20, 2017, 01:44:40 pm
thank god that's over!! Does anyone know the raw mark for b6 in modern?? and thanks to the gals on this forum, i've been a lurker but you've been so much help!!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: stephjones on October 20, 2017, 01:49:22 pm
Hey I haven't done many Stalin questions but in my trials there was a question about stalinism as totalitarianism and a lot of kids in my class argued that it was completely a totalitarian state and got high range responses (and my teacher is a hsc marker). But if your teacher has told you something I would probably recommend you follow it, especially because its so close to the exam and you probably don't want to take any risks!!

I know this is a kinda late answer as well but I do Russia and we've always been told to say that though it was significantly totalitarian, it was not a total totalitarian state. The way that I do it is in each paragraph after analysing how it was totalitarian I also quickly talk about how despite this, it was not totally totalitarian bc ... (peasant resistance still occurred, purges became controlled at local level, stalin could not totally control actions/thinking of everyone at every level etc). But if you're going to do it this way remember not to say that it was totalitarian to a limited extent as that's not true as it was totalitarian to a pretty large extent, but just wasn't fully totalitarian (we got this q in trials and people lost marks for doing this). Good luck!!!

Not that we ended up needing it but thank you!

Also I was really happy with the exam! I thought the questions for Russia were good (I'd practiced the TOBL question before and coincidentally asked my teacher about it right before I walked into the exam which was nice!)

And idk if any of you do Northern Ireland but I was stoked with the sectarian question - all in all i was expecting so much worse hahaha but honestly just glad its over!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: marcusgrahamm on October 20, 2017, 02:10:30 pm
WW1 was great but I think I messed up the third MC Q :(
Germany was reasonable - I did the Great Depressions contribution to rise of Nazi Party.
Personality question's were awesome for my study JEH.
And Cold War was a bit odd. But I went with Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the impact that had on ending the Cold War but kinda used that conflict as a foundation. and avenue to talk about Gorbachev and Reagan's policies aspiring as result of the invasion and subsequently bringing the Cold War to its end... idkkk that was probably what I found the hardest!

But overall, it was more then fair in my opinion :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 20, 2017, 06:33:17 pm
GUYS WE DID IT!!

To be honest I was pleased with the exam. Bcop and causes of the conflict were in there so I was right!! I was wrong with the dotpoints though, hahaha.

But seriously, it could've been worse so I'm honestly glad that it's all over and done with! Props to susie for predicting allied victory for world war 1, what a legend.

Also, the second conflict in Europe question was loaded! The one about the Russian campaign in the war, did anyone do it? It seems like it would be a really long response! 


Cheers guys, no more hsc modern history exams for us!!
YESSSSS! So glad it went well for ya :)

And no worries ;) Was so happy to that allied victory got brought up here the night before! Prevented a potentially nasty surprise!

thank god that's over!! Does anyone know the raw mark for b6 in modern?? and thanks to the gals on this forum, i've been a lurker but you've been so much help!!
Hey! I got my raw marks back for a few subjects - I'd assume somewhere around mid to low 80s. My raw mark for Modern last year was 94, and that got me a 96 HSC Mark. 85 raw mark got me a 91 HSC Mark for ancient, which scales worse than modern.

And no worries!! So glad that you've progressed from a lurker and introduced yourself to the convo ;)

Not that we ended up needing it but thank you!

Also I was really happy with the exam! I thought the questions for Russia were good (I'd practiced the TOBL question before and coincidentally asked my teacher about it right before I walked into the exam which was nice!)

And idk if any of you do Northern Ireland but I was stoked with the sectarian question - all in all i was expecting so much worse hahaha but honestly just glad its over!
Yay!!!! That Russia question was an absolute dream - so glad you agree :)

And wow! Didn't know there were people that actually did the Northern Ireland option! Always looked so interesting though :) If you're happy to, it would be amazing if you could upload your notes on it, as we definitely need more love on AN for the obscurer options!

WW1 was great but I think I messed up the third MC Q :(
Honestly, that MC was one of the hardest questions in the exam aha, very weirdly worded so don't stress! Also, just one multiple choice, so no biggie :) I got a multiple choice wrong last year, but i didn't end up affecting me!

Germany was reasonable - I did the Great Depressions contribution to rise of Nazi Party.
Personality question's were awesome for my study JEH.
And Cold War was a bit odd. But I went with Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the impact that had on ending the Cold War but kinda used that conflict as a foundation. and avenue to talk about Gorbachev and Reagan's policies aspiring as result of the invasion and subsequently bringing the Cold War to its end... idkkk that was probably what I found the hardest!

But overall, it was more then fair in my opinion :)
That is exactly how I would have answered that Cold War question! Sounds like you aced it marcus! Great work <3

Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: marcusgrahamm on October 20, 2017, 08:17:12 pm
Thanks Susie for all your help, couldn't have done it without you assistance!!
Fingers crossed for a band 6 - one can dream lol :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 20, 2017, 08:46:52 pm
So... just went through and counted... I went into that exam with 358 statistics, quotes and specific dates memorised and only used 42. Which means that I now know 316 details about WW1, Germany, Speer and the Pacific that I never had to use in my life haha  :P
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: diesxel on October 20, 2017, 10:48:55 pm
So... just went through and counted... I went into that exam with 358 statistics, quotes and specific dates memorised and only used 42. Which means that I now know 316 details about WW1, Germany, Speer and the Pacific that I never had to use in my life haha  :P

Oh my god I don't know if I should be concerned that you counted all of them, or the fact that you're such a MH legend. Props to you honestly!!! What a feat
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 20, 2017, 11:10:11 pm
Oh my god I don't know if I should be concerned that you counted all of them, or the fact that you're such a MH legend. Props to you honestly!!! What a feat

Haha one of the great things about the HSC - you learn hours of info and use 1/100 of it in the exam
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: stephjones on October 21, 2017, 01:02:20 pm
Yay!!!! That Russia question was an absolute dream - so glad you agree :)

And wow! Didn't know there were people that actually did the Northern Ireland option! Always looked so interesting though :) If you're happy to, it would be amazing if you could upload your notes on it, as we definitely need more love on AN for the obscurer options!

I actually didn't really write many notes for NI but I'd be happy to see if I could sort some out after my exams are over! I'm pretty sure there's only about 6 or 7 other schools who do the topic in the state haha, but it was really interesting and I really enjoyed it (:
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: prickles on November 10, 2017, 11:49:26 am
Hi  :)
So I've just started yr 12, and am doing short answer/source analysis practices about once or twice a week. My question is, after I've got the responses marked, do I keep them or chuck them? Are they any use to me after I've read/understood the feedback?
Thanks  ;D
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on November 10, 2017, 11:55:18 am
Hi  :)
So I've just started yr 12, and am doing short answer/source analysis practices about once or twice a week. My question is, after I've got the responses marked, do I keep them or chuck them? Are they any use to me after I've read/understood the feedback?
Thanks  ;D
I love hearing that you're already doing practice responses - that'll help you sooooooo much in the long run!! I'd keep them. They're good to look over down the line to track your improvement, to see if there are any consistent patterns in your work that need addressing, and just because looking over past responses can be good revision as well!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: prickles on November 10, 2017, 12:39:11 pm
Thanks for that, it might be somehow satisfactory to see the stack of responses I've done at the end too  :D
Should I keep the ones I'm doing at the moment? They are fairly rusty, but should I still keep them?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on November 10, 2017, 12:43:01 pm
Thanks for that, it might be somehow satisfactory to see the stack of responses I've done at the end too  :D
Should I keep the ones I'm doing at the moment? They are fairly rusty, but should I still keep them?
Definitely think you should still keep them - rusty or not! As I said before, its really good to look back on your "rusty" ones to see progress!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: owidjaja on November 12, 2017, 02:08:55 pm
Hey guys,
So I'm currently looking at attempts to break the stalemate. Since Sir Douglas Haig has been a controversial historical leader in being an old-fashioned commander in the Somme and Passchendaele, would you say the same for General von Falkenhayn or General Petain in Verdun?

Thanks!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on November 13, 2017, 07:17:55 pm
Hey guys,
So I'm currently looking at attempts to break the stalemate. Since Sir Douglas Haig has been a controversial historical leader in being an old-fashioned commander in the Somme and Passchendaele, would you say the same for General von Falkenhayn or General Petain in Verdun?

Thanks!
Hey! I'm not 100% sure to be honest - as far as I'm aware he's not as vilified as Douglas Haig, but that is probably because of Haig's clear arrogance suggesting the allies could "walk" across no mans land, and repeating all his mistakes a year later in Passchendaele. However, universally the early WW1 general are considered pretty shit, as they didn't adapt to the new form of warfare :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Mada438 on November 15, 2017, 09:07:09 pm
Hey guys,
So I'm currently looking at attempts to break the stalemate. Since Sir Douglas Haig has been a controversial historical leader in being an old-fashioned commander in the Somme and Passchendaele, would you say the same for General von Falkenhayn or General Petain in Verdun?

Thanks!
Hey! I'm not 100% sure to be honest - as far as I'm aware he's not as vilified as Douglas Haig, but that is probably because of Haig's clear arrogance suggesting the allies could "walk" across no mans land, and repeating all his mistakes a year later in Passchendaele. However, universally the early WW1 general are considered pretty shit, as they didn't adapt to the new form of warfare :)
I 100% agree with the above statement! ^^^
They definately weren't as controverisal at all. But the fact that Petain repeatedly kept chucking troops at the entrenched teritory in Verdun was pretty stupid, regardless of its symbolic importance (but thats just my opinion). I guess that means i do believe he was old fashioned as he believed the best way to beat the Germans out of Verdun was to continually send French troops at the entrenched Germans, which wasn't very effective. I don't think Falkenhayn was as old fashioned. The fact that he knew what the French would do to get back Verdun was a good move, even though they lost alot of men. In summary, the above statement sums it up. They weren't nearly as controverisial as Haig; and all early WW1 generals had more or less no clue what to do
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: ilovemycat on November 16, 2017, 07:14:46 pm
hello  :)
random question - but what is a sarde??
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on November 16, 2017, 08:37:10 pm
hello  :)
random question - but what is a sarde??
Are you getting this from Jake's WW1 worksheets? As far as I'm aware, that was just a term that either he or his teacher made up... assuming it's an acronym?

Statistics? Sources?
A?
Random facts?
Dates?
E?

Tbh, not really sure aha, but it's not something you have to know, so I wouldn't worry :) All you need to take from it is that detail is super important, and a lot of it (and it should be varied ;) So not just stats, not just dates, not just quotes, but a varied selection, but various sources :)

Sorry I couldn't be of more help aha

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: ilovemycat on November 16, 2017, 09:18:37 pm
aaahhhh i see, no thats heaps helpful  :) i thought that it was a term in the syllabus or something that we needed to know hahaha
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Mada438 on November 16, 2017, 09:34:31 pm
hello  :)
random question - but what is a sarde??
When i first saw this, i laughed because i thought you were talking about the pasta dish sarde, not anything else and wondering how a pasta question relates to modern history. But i understand now, its alright!!!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on November 16, 2017, 11:41:59 pm
When i first saw this, i laughed because i thought you were talking about the pasta dish sarde, not anything else and wondering how a pasta question relates to modern history. But i understand now, its alright!!!
ahaha that's so funny - I can assure you that pasta will not be a feature in your HSC exam (unfortunately :( maybe petition NESA? Seems like a worthy inclusion in the syllabus)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Mada438 on November 17, 2017, 06:07:09 pm
ahaha that's so funny - I can assure you that pasta will not be a feature in your HSC exam (unfortunately :( maybe petition NESA? Seems like a worthy inclusion in the syllabus)
I actually wish it was about pasta. It would be so much easier then. Maybe they could incorporate it (Pasta is a dish involving many ingredients-contributed to food shortages on home fronts in ww1???)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Claudiaa on November 19, 2017, 08:16:17 pm
If a source is an extract from a memorandum written by a Commander (Haig), would that be to inform the public on his stance? I'm confused at this, i thought a memo would be for personal uses (like a diary, not supposed to be published etc)

Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on November 19, 2017, 08:37:45 pm
If a source is an extract from a memorandum written by a Commander (Haig), would that be to inform the public on his stance? I'm confused at this, i thought a memo would be for personal uses (like a diary, not supposed to be published etc)

hi! i personally don't think a memo would be to inform the public on his stance (maybe later, but not at the time of the war). i'd say you're right. :-) anyone else want to chip in?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on November 19, 2017, 11:49:58 pm
If a source is an extract from a memorandum written by a Commander (Haig), would that be to inform the public on his stance? I'm confused at this, i thought a memo would be for personal uses (like a diary, not supposed to be published etc)

I get confused by what memorandums are ahaha but with sources written by commanders while useful in providing a perspective from a significant figure in the war are also at times hindered by the fact that they may be using them to draw attention away from their own failings as commanders in battles and are therefore not as reliable in that sense! Eg. In our hsc this year a source was written by a commander explaining reasons for defeat of the army and I wrote its reliability was hindered by the fact he could have been writing to divert reasons for losses away from his own failings as commander, hope that makes sense and is relevant ahah I rambled a lot
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Mada438 on November 20, 2017, 03:30:53 pm
If a source is an extract from a memorandum written by a Commander (Haig), would that be to inform the public on his stance? I'm confused at this, i thought a memo would be for personal uses (like a diary, not supposed to be published etc)
I believe they are. If i was to write memos, i would not be writing them with the intention of showing them to the public
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: prickles on November 22, 2017, 05:09:05 pm
Would a memoir that was written in 1938 that is reflecting on what happened in 1918 be primary or secondary?
Also, what would the audience of a memoir be?
Thanks!! ;D
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Mada438 on November 22, 2017, 05:25:48 pm
Would a memoir that was written in 1938 that is reflecting on what happened in 1918 be primary or secondary?
Also, what would the audience of a memoir be?
Thanks!! ;D
I think it would depend on who wrote the memoirs. Also context.
So if you were studying the nature of trench warfare and the memoir was from a soldier in a trench on the western front describing the features of trench warefare and what life was like in them and how everything happened. Then yes it is primary
If the question is asking about an event and the person who wrote the memoir was involved in the event, then im 99.9% sure it will always be primary.
The audience is your interpretation of it. But with memoirs, it depends on wheather the person intended to have them read by the public.
This is all just what i believe , but i hope it helps!!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: prickles on November 22, 2017, 05:40:37 pm
I think it would depend on who wrote the memoirs. Also context.
So if you were studying the nature of trench warfare and the memoir was from a soldier in a trench on the western front describing the features of trench warefare and what life was like in them and how everything happened. Then yes it is primary
If the question is asking about an event and the person who wrote the memoir was involved in the event, then im 99.9% sure it will always be primary.
The audience is your interpretation of it. But with memoirs, it depends on wheather the person intended to have them read by the public.
This is all just what i believe , but i hope it helps!!
Yep ok thanks. It's an extract from David Lloyd's memoirs, reflecting on the first world war, so I think it would have been intended for a public audience
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Mada438 on November 22, 2017, 08:52:36 pm
Yep ok thanks. It's an extract from David Lloyd's memoirs, reflecting on the first world war, so I think it would have been intended for a public audience
I agree. Given he was the prime minister during the first part of ww1 then obiviously his memoirs would eventually be read by the public
Also, it would depend on the question that the source related too for wheather it was primary or secondary. If it was about nature of trench warfare then it would be secondary, because he wasn't actually there
But on a topic such as britans home front, then it'd be primary
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on November 22, 2017, 09:21:02 pm
Bit of a different perspective here! I was always taught that a memoir, no matter who it was written by, or what subject it was on, is secondary, due to the fact that it is written later than the events in question. Even if they are writing about their own experiences, the fact that time has past will impact their perspective, ie. they may have an altered memory, impact of hindsight etc. etc.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: prickles on November 22, 2017, 09:36:12 pm
Bit of a different perspective here! I was always taught that a memoir, no matter who it was written by, or what subject it was on, is secondary, due to the fact that it is written later than the events in question. Even if they are writing about their own experiences, the fact that time has past will impact their perspective, ie. they may have an altered memory, impact of hindsight etc. etc.
Yes ok this makes sense too! So do you mean that in the time gap between when they experienced the event in question, to when they wrote it, their perspectives on that event could have changed, or they may have reflected more deeply on it etc?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on November 22, 2017, 09:38:19 pm
Yes ok this makes sense too! So do you mean that in the time gap between when they experienced the event in question, to when they wrote it, their perspectives on that event could have changed, or they may have reflected more deeply on it etc?
Both! Their memory could also be faulty, or they now know more about the events which could have altered their opinion too.

It is a debated topic, so if you say either way you may still be fine. I just know that throughout HSC I always referred to them as secondary sources because that was what I was taught, and was never penalised/told otherwise :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Mada438 on November 22, 2017, 10:29:17 pm
Both! Their memory could also be faulty, or they now know more about the events which could have altered their opinion too.

It is a debated topic, so if you say either way you may still be fine. I just know that throughout HSC I always referred to them as secondary sources because that was what I was taught, and was never penalised/told otherwise :)
I agree that it all depends on what you think and can go either way.
I reckon based on context, they are still primary because the person who wrote the memoirs EXPERIENCED THE EVENTS THEY WROTE ABOUT FIRST HAND
If you're confused, see my above examples^^^^^^^^^
But in the end, i do agree with you susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fergo on November 24, 2017, 01:00:15 pm
Hello!

I was wondering how much you should write for the WW1 source analysis part b question? Mainly, how many lines are provided in the exam, as I don't want to be practicing writing too much and then struggling later on.

Thanks!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on November 24, 2017, 01:36:14 pm
Hello!

I was wondering how much you should write for the WW1 source analysis part b question? Mainly, how many lines are provided in the exam, as I don't want to be practicing writing too much and then struggling later on.

Thanks!

hey!

it really depends on how much you can write personally - how much have you written in any practice ones you've done? usually just over 1.5 pages of lines are given and most just write in those lines. if you go over that, i don't recommend going over a page of your new writing booklet because you would've written too much for a 10 marker!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fergo on November 24, 2017, 01:46:04 pm
hey!

it really depends on how much you can write personally - how much have you written in any practice ones you've done? usually just over 1.5 pages of lines are given and most just write in those lines. if you go over that, i don't recommend going over a page of your new writing booklet because you would've written too much for a 10 marker!



In practices, I can do 300 words in 10min, and I also have really big writing. I have an assessment coming up where we have 20min to write about one source, and based on my speed I should be able to do between 500-600 words, but I'm struggling getting 400 for a decent argument.

Thank you!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: theyam on December 02, 2017, 06:55:46 pm
Hi guys,

I'm the 2018 cohort and I just cant seem to get the hang of doing source and reliability questions even though I follow the acronym. TOMACC R U. Does anyone have any tips or perhaps any exemplar responses I could look at? Also, the holidays are coming up should I be doing anything for Modern other than notes? Thanks guys~

From theyam
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on December 02, 2017, 07:11:50 pm
Hi guys,

I'm the 2018 cohort and I just cant seem to get the hang of doing source and reliability questions even though I follow the acronym. TOMACC R U. Does anyone have any tips or perhaps any exemplar responses I could look at? Also, the holidays are coming up should I be doing anything for Modern other than notes? Thanks guys~

From theyam

hi!!

a great source analysis structure is one mentioned by susie in her lectures - i'm pretty sure the slides are in the notes section and you can check it out there :-) as for work in the holidays, notes are a good idea, or just rewriting them for the topic you've done. you could read ahead a bit for your next topic, which is probably going to be your national study.

hope this helps,
fantasticbeasts
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: theyam on December 02, 2017, 07:45:29 pm
hi!!

a great source analysis structure is one mentioned by susie in her lectures - i'm pretty sure the slides are in the notes section and you can check it out there :-) as for work in the holidays, notes are a good idea, or just rewriting them for the topic you've done. you could read ahead a bit for your next topic, which is probably going to be your national study.

hope this helps,
fantasticbeasts

Hi fantasticbeasts

Thank you for your quick reply, I will check out that powerpoint soon! I think I'm doing Nazi Germany as my text topic, sounds very interesting~~
From theyam
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: owidjaja on December 04, 2017, 09:58:27 pm
Hey guys,
Just a question with the source analysis: are you allowed to include the caption in the usefulness section of the paragraph? So one of my sources is an extract from an oral testimony from a British munitionette and I've decided to say it is of partial use since it's giving a limited perspective towards Total war in Britain- can I quote the caption or only just mention the source only provides one perspective?

Thanks in advance!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Mada438 on December 04, 2017, 10:07:09 pm
Hey guys,
Just a question with the source analysis: are you allowed to include the caption in the usefulness section of the paragraph? So one of my sources is an extract from an oral testimony from a British munitionette and I've decided to say it is of partial use since it's giving a limited perspective towards Total war in Britain- can I quote the caption or only just mention the source only provides one perspective?

Thanks in advance!
Based on that information, i'd say don't quote the caption. The markers already know the sources. So if you just meantion the source you're talking about when mentioning usefulness, they should know what you mean. Its not like the markers (or the teacher) have no idea what the sources are, usually because they have some input in designing the exam!
But thats just my opinion.
Hope this helps!  :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on December 04, 2017, 10:22:04 pm
Hey guys,
Just a question with the source analysis: are you allowed to include the caption in the usefulness section of the paragraph? So one of my sources is an extract from an oral testimony from a British munitionette and I've decided to say it is of partial use since it's giving a limited perspective towards Total war in Britain- can I quote the caption or only just mention the source only provides one perspective?

Thanks in advance!
Based on that information, i'd say don't quote the caption. The markers already know the sources. So if you just meantion the source you're talking about when mentioning usefulness, they should know what you mean. Its not like the markers (or the teacher) have no idea what the sources are, usually because they have some input in designing the exam!
But thats just my opinion.
Hope this helps!  :)
I agree with Mada438 here :) Quoting in general for modern is something that should only be done if they are presenting something unique - an argument, judgement or perspective. Not detail that could also have been sourced from other sources. There is a bit of leeway when it comes to a source analysis as you want to explicitly reference the sources and that may sometimes involve indicating that certain bits of information is included, but the contextual detail of a source is not "part of the source" if that makes sense - thus that should come from you :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: owidjaja on December 18, 2017, 10:28:47 pm
Hey guys!
So my teacher loves to give us some essay writing for class tasks and whenever I research, it always leads me to a Youtube channel called The Great War. I'd say it's a great source since the channel dedicates itself to WW1, but my main concern is that should I be quoting Indiana Niedell (host of the channel)? Whenever I research him, he comes up as an 'amateur military historian' (according to Wikipedia).

Thanks in advance!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on December 18, 2017, 11:00:52 pm
Hey guys!
So my teacher loves to give us some essay writing for class tasks and whenever I research, it always leads me to a Youtube channel called The Great War. I'd say it's a great source since the channel dedicates itself to WW1, but my main concern is that should I be quoting Indiana Niedell (host of the channel)? Whenever I research him, he comes up as an 'amateur military historian' (according to Wikipedia).

Thanks in advance!
I'm going to tentatively say no you shouldn't be quoting him. I don't know much about him, but upon first glance (tell me if i'm wrong) he appears to be a kind of "John Green/Crash Course" style youtuber, who is definitely not someone you should quote. That doesn't mean he's not useful though, and you can probably find quotes from other more credible people through his videos! (Kind of like how you shouldn't quote wikipedia, but you can look at their bibliography and quote them instead ;) sneaky internet hack for you right there)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: owidjaja on December 19, 2017, 10:11:44 am
I'm going to tentatively say no you shouldn't be quoting him. I don't know much about him, but upon first glance (tell me if i'm wrong) he appears to be a kind of "John Green/Crash Course" style youtuber, who is definitely not someone you should quote. That doesn't mean he's not useful though, and you can probably find quotes from other more credible people through his videos! (Kind of like how you shouldn't quote wikipedia, but you can look at their bibliography and quote them instead ;) sneaky internet hack for you right there)
The thing that confuses me is that he's classified as an 'amateur military historian,' yet he has a degree in history. Would he still be classified as a historian and someone quote-worthy? I'm so confused lol
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on December 19, 2017, 10:33:30 am
The thing that confuses me is that he's classified as an 'amateur military historian,' yet he has a degree in history. Would he still be classified as a historian and someone quote-worthy? I'm so confused lol
Hmmm the thing is though a lot of people have history degrees, does that automatically mean they are a historian (the traditional way of defining a historian, which mind you I'm not sure I even agree with, is having a PHD in history)? Something for history extension debate thread ;) I'd still shy away from quoting him, however if you're still not sure, maybe ask your teacher, they're likely to know better than me :)

Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: prickles on January 15, 2018, 11:19:47 am
Hi,
I suppose I am mostly asking Susie here because I think she has experience with this? But if anyone else has an opinion please chip in!
When doing notes in Modern I feel like I am wasting time. Our teacher presses us to type our notes under the syllabus headings, and I feel like I am remembering none of it. I hate reading and would much rather drawing/speaking/practicing with content, but I feel if I don't type down all the info/content needed I will miss/forget something.

Another aspect I suppose is that our teacher regularly skims over our notes, making sure we are relatively up to date, and are structuring them the way she wants. She is an amazing teacher in terms of skills/marking/depth of knowledge, but is not very flexible in her ideas, and I don't think she would appreciate me doing a different format of notes that she has been accustomed to teaching for years. In our lessons, she basically reads/explains stuff from the textbook and expects us to be on our laptops typing up the most important points of what she is reading.

So, I guess the overall problem is, I don't like writing huge chunks of text for notes because I can't remember them, and am a bit apprehensive of whether my teacher will accept any other way of doing them.

Thanks for any help!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on January 15, 2018, 11:33:23 am
Hi,
I suppose I am mostly asking Susie here because I think she has experience with this? But if anyone else has an opinion please chip in!
When doing notes in Modern I feel like I am wasting time. Our teacher presses us to type our notes under the syllabus headings, and I feel like I am remembering none of it. I hate reading and would much rather drawing/speaking/practicing with content, but I feel if I don't type down all the info/content needed I will miss/forget something.

Another aspect I suppose is that our teacher regularly skims over our notes, making sure we are relatively up to date, and are structuring them the way she wants. She is an amazing teacher in terms of skills/marking/depth of knowledge, but is not very flexible in her ideas, and I don't think she would appreciate me doing a different format of notes that she has been accustomed to teaching for years. In our lessons, she basically reads/explains stuff from the textbook and expects us to be on our laptops typing up the most important points of what she is reading.

So, I guess the overall problem is, I don't like writing huge chunks of text for notes because I can't remember them, and am a bit apprehensive of whether my teacher will accept any other way of doing them.

Thanks for any help!
Hey! Thats unfortunate that you don't think your teacher will accept you attempting a different way of study that may suit you better. I was lucky, and my teacher was totally supportive of me changing up my study habits - I didn't write notes for any of my subjects as, like you I just don't find any use to them. I don't learn from reading, so why should I devote so much time to creating notes for a study habit that didn't work for me? Instead, I devoted my time to doing practice responses, which my teacher graciously read over every time, giving me tips on how to improve every step of the way. I found this method so much more useful, as it meant that I was not only learning content, but learning how to apply the content to ensure the maximum amount of marks. Keep in mind though that when I say I did practice responses, I did A LOT more than the average student, to the point where I made up the time it would have taken to write the notes, and some. Even though I didn't write notes, I still devoted more time to studying the subject than many in my class who did keep up with notes, so that is probably a factor as to why I still was able to retain all the information that I needed. If you only plan on writing one or two essays before an assessment task, then this method won't work. At the same time though, I found that with this method I was focusing on the important information, rather than the superfluous fluff around events that don't really matter as they can never be used to argue a point, but they still insist on teaching you anyway.

If your teacher does press you to write notes, remember that this doesn't have to be the only way to study. Yes, it may take more time, but just because you have to write notes, doesn't mean you can't write practice responses, have study sessions/discussion with other students, or make graphs/diagrams.

All in all though - if this method of study isn't working for you, then you need to change it up. Otherwise, you're just wasting time that you could be using to study the subject effectively!

Hope this helps!

Susie
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: prickles on January 15, 2018, 11:58:27 am
At the same time though, I found that with this method I was focusing on the important information, rather than the superfluous fluff around events that don't really matter as they can never be used to argue a point, but they still insist on teaching you anyway.
Thanks so much! This ^ really stood out to me, because when practicing, I find that I'm not even using some of the content, rather focusing on the bigger issues.
Yes, I realise that if you don't do notes, you would still have to do the equivalent time in other ways of studying. I love drawing and making symbols/maps/diagrams/timelines etc and can understand these way better, so I might try summarising the content in drawings and some writing, and also doing lots of practice. I'm already doing 2-3 practices a week, but may need to step this up a bit  :)
Thankyou so much for your help!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: owidjaja on January 17, 2018, 04:27:31 pm
Thanks so much! This ^ really stood out to me, because when practicing, I find that I'm not even using some of the content, rather focusing on the bigger issues.
Yes, I realise that if you don't do notes, you would still have to do the equivalent time in other ways of studying. I love drawing and making symbols/maps/diagrams/timelines etc and can understand these way better, so I might try summarising the content in drawings and some writing, and also doing lots of practice. I'm already doing 2-3 practices a week, but may need to step this up a bit  :)
Thankyou so much for your help!
Hello there (I realised I may be a bit late whoops)!
Tbh, I don't think your teacher should be pressing everyone to type notes- it just depends on everyone's study method. Personally, I like making my notes that way because I just feel organised. One method my teacher recommended is to use palm cards and have a syllabus dot point on one side and general knowledge (condensed to around 5 dot points) on the other side- well, this is for the WW1 section since you don't need to remember quotes.

If you're a visual person, mind maps are great for that. I've seen awesome mind maps to show a link between events (which is great for any 'explain' short answer questions). Colour coding is also a great system. I would choose different colours for dates, historical figures and names of significant events. And personally, it took me 2 years to figure out how I should write my study notes. It is tiring to rewrite everything but at least you're rewriting important information- kinda like wrote learning!

Hope this helps (I get too passionate about study techniques lol).
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: madzster2000 on January 19, 2018, 08:17:54 am
HEY!

I'm studying Modern history, and I have a few questions. As I'm doing my notes I'm finding that I'm overloading information from both my teacher and my textbook...(1)do you have any tips on how to regulate what information is necessary. Also for the core syllabus, I have extra information on PEACE MOVES. (2) WOuld you reccomend keeping this information, to use as extra statistics in Chaning Attitudes or should I save the time and get rid of these notes and just focus on what is specifically on the syllabus?

Thanks.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: LochNess Monster on January 19, 2018, 09:11:42 am
Dear Madzter2000,

I'm currently studying Modern History too! (So just a student like you).  :D

But I think while overloading content and information is easy to do, it's important to keep it organised to stay on track.
Like you said, it gets overwhelmingly difficult with both teacher and textbook.

What I normally do is take notes from the teacher but these "notes" aren't study notes as such. They are just in my workbook to layer and consolidate extra information. Since what my teacher does is normally give an overview of the topic and then let us discuss the event or person as a class, it's super interesting for different perspectives and points.

This is what I jot down during class.

But for textbook, I would recommend just reading it. You can make little post-it notes and stick them in important pages you need to refer back to, but textbook is IMAO much too dense to study from.

I totally recommend SYLLABUS SYLLABUS SYLLABUS. These are the only things you will and can be tested on,

Don't throw out your old notes. Keep them handy as an extra but make sure syllabus is your main chunky part.

Extra info on Peace Moves for Changing Attitudes will be great for a unique source analysis when it comes to the exam (as long as they are your notes and not the teacher's for the whole class) go for it!

Furthermore, since I'm doing Nazi Germany later on, I'm finding it useful (cause I'm starting to like history more) to read little excerpts on WWI to keep it fresh and read novels on what Weimar Germany was like.

Hope this helps! It was a bit long, wasn't it?  ;)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Mada438 on January 19, 2018, 10:57:57 am
HEY!

I'm studying Modern history, and I have a few questions. As I'm doing my notes I'm finding that I'm overloading information from both my teacher and my textbook...(1)do you have any tips on how to regulate what information is necessary. Also for the core syllabus, I have extra information on PEACE MOVES. (2) WOuld you reccomend keeping this information, to use as extra statistics in Chaning Attitudes or should I save the time and get rid of these notes and just focus on what is specifically on the syllabus?

Thanks.
Hey there!
As modern history is such a content heavy subject, I'd recconmend that you do structure your notes based on all the syllabus dot points.
This is what i do and i find it really helps! :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: prickles on January 23, 2018, 05:50:21 pm
Hey,
Pretty lame question - but would shells and gas be considered offensive or defensive weapons?
Thanks!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Mada438 on January 23, 2018, 06:01:51 pm
Hey,
Pretty lame question - but would shells and gas be considered offensive or defensive weapons?
Thanks!
Not lame at all!
I'd say gas is definitely an offensive weapon, for flushing out the enemy.
But shells can be both offensive and defensive. They can be used to bomb an enemy position before you attack, or they could be used to kill enemies who are charging at your position
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: prickles on January 23, 2018, 06:04:32 pm
Not lame at all!
I'd say gas is definitely an offensive weapon, for flushing out the enemy.
But shells can be both offensive and defensive. They can be used to bomb an enemy position before you attack, or they could be used to kill enemies who are charging at your position
Ok, thanks heaps!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: owidjaja on January 23, 2018, 07:59:46 pm
HEY!

I'm studying Modern history, and I have a few questions. As I'm doing my notes I'm finding that I'm overloading information from both my teacher and my textbook...(1)do you have any tips on how to regulate what information is necessary. Also for the core syllabus, I have extra information on PEACE MOVES. (2) WOuld you reccomend keeping this information, to use as extra statistics in Chaning Attitudes or should I save the time and get rid of these notes and just focus on what is specifically on the syllabus?

Thanks.
Hey there!
Sorry for the late response, but to be honest, I'd condense statistics and quotes to maybe around five per topic. This is because you're not writing an essay so you don't need too many quotes. I'd stick to memorising really short quotes such as 'They shall not pass' with the Battle of Verdun- short quotes like those can enhance your short answer responses. As for knowing how to regulate which information is useful or not, of course, keep the notes your teacher has given you but whenever I make notes, I always think of cause and effect with my information. For example, I would have information about the Ludendorff Spring Offensive (i.e. date, summary of tactics/strategies) and my last few points are the impacts of the offensive (e.g. impact on morale, therefore the collapse of Germany). Through this, I can make strong links between events, which are extremely important in your responses.

Hope this helps!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: nicolej on January 23, 2018, 11:06:19 pm
Hi,
I was wondering what a band 6 response would look like for the question: "Outline the strategies and tactics used to break the stalemate on the Western Front" -  I am aware that most of this information depends on which sources are included, but despite this, what info is needed + how much would I have to refer to the three main battles; Verdun, the Somme and Passchendaele in aresponse.
Thank you.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Mada438 on January 24, 2018, 09:56:38 am
Hi,
I was wondering what a band 6 response would look like for the question: "Outline the strategies and tactics used to break the stalemate on the Western Front" -  I am aware that most of this information depends on which sources are included, but despite this, what info is needed + how much would I have to refer to the three main battles; Verdun, the Somme and Passchendaele in aresponse.
Thank you.
Hey! Welcome to the forums!
So pretty much in the modern history syllabus the syllabus point you're referring to says "overview of strategies and tactics to break the stalemate including key battles: verdun, the somme, passchendale"
If i was you, in a response i'd structure it with 3 main body paragraphs; one each for verdun, the somme and passchendale. In each paragraph i'd talk about the unique strategies and tactics that either side used to attempt to break the stalemate. For example, when talking about verdun, your main focus would be on the german strategy to "bleed the french white" and how they planned to kill 3 french for every german casualty and not win the battle but rather engage in a war of attrition with the french that would put them out of the war.

Hope this helps!
If you need anymore help, let me know!  :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: theyam on February 03, 2018, 12:23:57 pm
Hi guys,

Could you someone please give me some direction on how to approach this essay qn (min 1k words):
What role did the Treaty of Versailles play in the instability in the Weimar Republic?

What do you think should be the main points I should be focusing on, because there a lot of perspectives on what caused the instability of the Weimar Republic.

Thank you~
From theyam
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: owidjaja on February 03, 2018, 12:32:19 pm
Hi guys,

Could you someone please give me some direction on how to approach this essay qn (min 1k words):
What role did the Treaty of Versailles play in the instability in the Weimar Republic?

What do you think should be the main points I should be focusing on, because there a lot of perspectives on what caused the instability of the Weimar Republic.

Thank you~
From theyam
Hey there!
I'm doing Weimar Germany too! I don't know much about Weimar Germany at the moment, but whenever I'm stuck with forming a structure for my essay I divide it into social, cultural, economic and political impacts- that way, you can divide your information into these four categories.
For example: inflation of prices ----> Economic
                      unstable government ----> Political

Hope this helps!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on February 03, 2018, 12:49:04 pm
Hi guys,

Could you someone please give me some direction on how to approach this essay qn (min 1k words):
What role did the Treaty of Versailles play in the instability in the Weimar Republic?

What do you think should be the main points I should be focusing on, because there a lot of perspectives on what caused the instability of the Weimar Republic.

Thank you~
From theyam

hi theyam! is that all of the question? or is there a specified time period?

anyway, owidjaja has given a pretty good structure already. :-) separate your paragraphs into political, social and economic factors. while the Treaty of Versailles did play a large role in the instability of the Weimar Republic, it was not the main reason for its collapse. you can start off the essay with political factors, as that's where the ToV comes in. you can also talk about Stresemann's work with foreign relations, occupation of the Ruhr, etc. in this paragraph. you can also talk about social developments, which for a short amount of time, it that unstable in the Weimar Republic. you can also argue that although the ToV caused instability, economic factors were!!! huge!!!

paragraph order doesn't matter, as long as you address the Treaty of Versailles in your first body paragraph. :-)

hope this helps!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on February 03, 2018, 01:13:26 pm
Hi guys,

Could you someone please give me some direction on how to approach this essay qn (min 1k words):
What role did the Treaty of Versailles play in the instability in the Weimar Republic?

What do you think should be the main points I should be focusing on, because there a lot of perspectives on what caused the instability of the Weimar Republic.

Thank you~
From theyam

Hey! Here you should definitely be discussing the T.O.V first and its impact on the instability of the W.R. Then in your other paragraphs, I would personally discuss other factors and weigh up whether they were more or less significant than the T.O.V. That is how I would structure it!

EG. This is how I would argue it!

PARA 1: T.O.V - Discuss how the economic sanctions of the T.O.V led to general disillusionment with the W.R leading to a lack of legitimacy in the eyes of the public. Can also link the economic downfall of Germany following the T.O.V as leading to unemployment, inflation and even eventually the Depression and argue it as the catalyst for all these events that further disassociated people from the Republic. I would also discuss how the T.O.V was used by the right and left wing for many years as propaganda against the Republic. Remember Germany is a very nationalistic country so losing all the money, territory and its army in particular was seen as something shameful as there was definitely general hatred to the Republic as a result (when the Depression struck people went straight back to the feelings of despair to the Republic after the signing of the treaty - it became symbolic.)

For the rest of the paras you can discuss anything!
Eg.
1. The impact of the Depression.
2. The political miscalculations of Bruning etc. in bringing Hitler to power
3. The nationalistic appeal of the Nazi party (contrast here with illegitimacy of W.R)

Either way, make sure in all of these paras that you weigh up these influences against the T.O.V and which was more important in the instability of the Republic. For instance, you could say that the W.R was gaining stability in 1923-1928 and overcoming the distaste following the T.O.V and thus the Depression was very significant in creating instability again that could not be overcome. Hope that helped! :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: theyam on February 04, 2018, 02:22:09 pm

Hello~

Thank you very much to everyone who gave me advice for my extended response!!
Would you guys know where to get practice source analysis questions by the way? Tried searching up the HSC papers but all the sources are waiting for copyright .-.

Thankyou
theyam :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: owidjaja on February 04, 2018, 02:45:59 pm
Hello~

Thank you very much to everyone who gave me advice for my extended response!!
Would you guys know where to get practice source analysis questions by the way? Tried searching up the HSC papers but all the sources are waiting for copyright .-.

Thankyou
theyam :)
Hey there!
Unfortunately, we're gonna have to dig through the stack of HSC papers and scroll through the source booklet to see what sources are available. That's what I did when I was studying for my Task 1 assessment. Sometimes, if it fits with the question, I would change the source letter if there's an available source that's suitable for the question. Other than that, I would sit there and write down the year of the paper and the question number if there's a source question with the actual source.

Other ways to get your hands on past papers is to dig through the Internet and find trial papers from other schools. It's difficult to find them since they're usually copyrighted but there are some out there!

Sorry if this wasn't as helpful- I found it difficult as well!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on February 04, 2018, 06:05:52 pm
Hello~

Thank you very much to everyone who gave me advice for my extended response!!
Would you guys know where to get practice source analysis questions by the way? Tried searching up the HSC papers but all the sources are waiting for copyright .-.

Thankyou
theyam :)

hi!

no worries, it was my pleasure. :-)

for source analysis questions, i had to ask my teacher for a lot of them, and i ended up getting quite a few, so your teacher will have them. you can also ask them to make up questions for you. :-) another good place is past papers from your school. definitely get you on the copyright issue though - it's so annoying!

best of luck with finding more source analysis questions!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: owidjaja on February 17, 2018, 12:48:25 pm
Hey guys,
How much do we need to know for the Ludendorff Spring Offensive? I'm looking at the handout that was given in class and it contained information like the different offensives, tactics used, Allied counter-attack and reasons for failure and I'm not sure what information I should include in my notes.

Thanks in advance!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on February 17, 2018, 01:47:58 pm
Hey guys,
How much do we need to know for the Ludendorff Spring Offensive? I'm looking at the handout that was given in class and it contained information like the different offensives, tactics used, Allied counter-attack and reasons for failure and I'm not sure what information I should include in my notes.

Thanks in advance!

Hey! I wasn't the best with this part of the syllabus but this is the info I tried to remember for the HSC :)

Ludendorff Spring Offensive
•   Overall aim = separate the British and French armies, pushing the French forces towards Paris and British towards West France.
•   Instead of usual military barrage followed by frontal attack by infantry troops, Ludendorff developed the storm-trooper strategy.
•   Allied commanders initially struggled to agree on a unified defence strategy.
FIRST GERMAN SPRING Offensive = OPERATION MICHAEL (MARCH 1918)
•   Germans advanced 80kms towards Paris.
•   Allies respond recognising need for a coordinated defence strategy and appoint French Marshal Ferdinand Foch as the commander-in-chief of the Allied army.
•   Under Foch's commands, the Allies halted the German advance and began to drive them back.
•   Germany also struggled to maintain their supply lines.
SECOND GERMAN SPRING Offensive = OPERATION GEORGE (APRIL 1918)
•   Aimed to cut off ports of Boulogne, Calais and Dunkirk.
•   German success at first yet British reinforcements large numbers and German difficulty maintain supply lines.
•   By the end of April, Germans refused to continue to attack.
FINAL SPRING Offensive = OPERATION BLUCHER (LATE APRIL 1918)
•   AGAINST FRENCH LINES FROM SOISSONS TO REIMS.
•   Initially French outnumbered yet Americans beginning to arrive (275,000 in June) and assist French in taking German-held territory back in 2nd battle of Marne.
•   Then Australian troops recaptured Hamel.
•   Then Amiens offensive by French and British.
•   AEF breaks Hindenburg Line and advances.
•   500 000 Germans killed and by August Germans are back at original front line.
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: owidjaja on February 17, 2018, 01:57:49 pm
Hey! I wasn't the best with this part of the syllabus but this is the info I tried to remember for the HSC :)

Ludendorff Spring Offensive
•   Overall aim = separate the British and French armies, pushing the French forces towards Paris and British towards West France.
•   Instead of usual military barrage followed by frontal attack by infantry troops, Ludendorff developed the storm-trooper strategy.
•   Allied commanders initially struggled to agree on a unified defence strategy.
FIRST GERMAN SPRING Offensive = OPERATION MICHAEL (MARCH 1938)
•   Germans advanced 80kms towards Paris.
•   Allies respond recognising need for a coordinated defence strategy and appoint French Marshal Ferdinand Foch as the commander-in-chief of the Allied army.
•   Under Foch's commands, the Allies halted the German advance and began to drive them back.
•   Germany also struggled to maintain their supply lines.
SECOND GERMAN SPRING Offensive = OPERATION GEORGE (APRIL 1938)
•   Aimed to cut off ports of Boulogne, Calais and Dunkirk.
•   German success at first yet British reinforcements large numbers and German difficulty maintain supply lines.
•   By the end of April, Germans refused to continue to attack.
FINAL SPRING Offensive = OPERATION BLUCHER (LATE APRIL 1938)
•   AGAINST FRENCH LINES FROM SOISSONS TO REIMS.
•   Initially French outnumbered yet Americans beginning to arrive (275,000 in June) and assist French in taking German-held territory back in 2nd battle of Marne.
•   Then Australian troops recaptured Hamel.
•   Then Amiens offensive by French and British.
•   AEF breaks Hindenburg Line and advances.
•   500 000 Germans killed and by August Germans are back at original front line.
Ooh thanks! Also, do you mean 1918 instead of 1938?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on February 17, 2018, 01:59:15 pm
Ooh thanks! Also, do you mean 1918 instead of 1938?

Haha yep sorry!
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: theyam on February 27, 2018, 09:27:23 pm
Hello

Was just wondering if people could give suggestions on how to structure this essay question

To what extent had the Weimar Republic overcome its problems by the start of 1929?

Sort of confused (because I've been away for some lessons due to camp), so they overcome their problems but then the Nazis still rise? My teacher said to explain how they overcome their problems but chuck in a however, but this was not fully completed... fill in the blanks.
Could someone give any suggestions?

Thanks guys

theyam :)
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on February 27, 2018, 10:26:23 pm
Hello

Was just wondering if people could give suggestions on how to structure this essay question

To what extent had the Weimar Republic overcome its problems by the start of 1929?

Sort of confused (because I've been away for some lessons due to camp), so they overcome their problems but then the Nazis still rise? My teacher said to explain how they overcome their problems but chuck in a however, but this was not fully completed... fill in the blanks.
Could someone give any suggestions?

Thanks guys

theyam :)

Hey The Yam! Have a look at my notes on this topic and if you have questions let me know :)

ECONOMIC - fixed on the surface with foreign loans but was built on weak foundations
-   Hyperinflation cripples Germany in 1923
-   November 1923, 1 USD. = 420 000 000 000 german marks
-   This particularly effected working class as many of them were in debt… resentment against Weimar republic, not economincally stable
-   Unemployment rose to 23%
-   Critical govt. acts
-   Rentenmark introduced
-   Passive resistance stopped at ruhr (key industrial sight, economy down when strikes)
-   This ultimately ended hyperinflation
-   Stesseman also introduces dawes plan in 1924 with GB and America accepting G. economy needed to be stable in order to pay reparations.
-   Us $2900 million foreign loands (1924-1929)
-   G. indutrsial strength grows surpassing pre-war levels.
-   HEAVILY dependent on foreign loans, fragile
-   1929 g. foreign debt of 25 billion marks
-   If the flow of money ceased, as it would with G.D eonomy would collapse
-   Stresseman knew g. “lived on borrowed money” and faced risks if “a crisis every hit”
-   Yet he did little to ensure this would not be the case
-   Boost in industry, agriculture falls behind
-   Not economically golden

POLITICAL - more politically stable yet still faced opposition, did make progress in international politics eg. regaining entry League Of Nations (but used as propaganda by right wing and left wing for rejoining the people who condemned the TOV on Germany
-   1924-1929 drop in support for left and right wing parties in parliament
-   Left wing averaged 10.7% vote, Nazis just 3.6%
-   Ebert (previous president) lacked respectability and legitimacy
-   When paul von Hindenburg (conservative, ex army, junker) was elected he borught legitimacy to the Weimar republic due to his conservative prestige
-   Gained respect therefore of right wing and army
-   British ambassador “germans did not want a president in a top hat” but rather one “with a uniform and chest full of medals”
-   Foreign policy stresseman, Locarno treaty subsequent acceptance into League of nations (1926)
-   Still 6 changes in government
-   Still lingering nationalist values in communists and Nazis
-   Considerable political improvement

SOCIAL AND CULTURAL - social and cultural freedom but further anger for right and left wing and conservatives
-   Women given write to vote, sexual freedom
-   Berlin creative centre of world
-   Revolutionary film and art eg. cabaret, modernist movement
-   Argued by historian Eberhard kolb this caused splits between artistic groups and ordinary germans (Weimar republic as degenerate > conservatives)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: joemassoud on February 28, 2018, 05:23:59 pm
HEY GUYS!

Can you some please help me answer the following question:

To what extent did the Treaty of Versailles have the greatest impact on the downfall of the Weimar Republic? (25 marks)

Thanks, Joe
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on February 28, 2018, 05:52:32 pm
HEY GUYS!

Can you some please help me answer the following question:

To what extent did the Treaty of Versailles have the greatest impact on the downfall of the Weimar Republic? (25 marks)

Thanks, Joe

Hi Joe, welcome to the forums. :-)

I'll give you a few pointers you can write about for this essay - is that what you're looking for?

To what extent did the Treaty of Versailles have the greatest impact on the downfall of the Weimar Republic?
- first, this is a "to what extent" question. You'll need to argue a viewpoint - did the ToV have the greatest impact, or not?
- your first paragraph can be on the impact of the ToV on the downfall of the WR. Say what it did, how it impacted the formation of government, etc. The ToV forced democracy into Germany, and there was instability because of leadership changing so many times, reparations... Expand on all this!
- Economic factors were huge in the WR, because reparations. You can relate this back to the question! :-) Germany had to use foreign loans to make sure they could continue to survive. You can also talk about hyperinflation and how that impacted on the economy. The Great Depression is huuuuuuuge. That's something you have to talk about!
- you can talk about having to use Article 48 a lot, proportional representation, etc although I don't think that's a big deal hahaha. You can also write about right wing movements, and right wing opponents.

This is all I can think of from the top of my head - I hope this helps!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: prickles on February 28, 2018, 07:31:01 pm
HEY GUYS!

Can you some please help me answer the following question:

To what extent did the Treaty of Versailles have the greatest impact on the downfall of the Weimar Republic? (25 marks)

Thanks, Joe
fb3's response is great!
Another thing to recognise is the social & psychological impacts of the ToV upon the public. Throughout WW1, the German people had been told that they were going to win, there was no way they could loose. Hell, the war wasn't even fought IN Germany! How could they possibly loose? Therefore - the lose came as an extreme shock, combined with the severe constraints that the ToV placed upon the people. The people felt betrayed that their government hadn't told them the 'truth', so before the WR even came to be, the citizens were unsatisfied with their government/rulers.

The ToV impacted the German peoples nationalism (key term there  ;)), as it restricted their army to 100,000 men, their navy to 6 battleships, and denied them an airforce and submarines. This also connected with the people's pride for their militarism.

All in all, there are 3-4 main impacts of the ToV that I would use. I like to split it into:
Political: Unstable, loss of the citizen's support, political murders (376 between 1919-1922), loss of land due to ToV = loss of human and natural resource
Social/Psychological: ToV impacted their nationalism, reduced their faith in their rulers
Economic: Lots of what fb3 has talked about - Great Depression, hyperinflation, reparations, Dawes/Young plan etc

Hope this helps  ;)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: joemassoud on March 01, 2018, 08:33:29 pm
Thank you sooo much for the help, means soo much!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: lachlang15 on March 01, 2018, 09:06:19 pm
Hello,
I'm trying to write an essay about the Weimar Republic, but am struggling to find information and articulate what I know.
The essay question is:

"To what extent was the Great Depression responsible for the collapse of the Weimar Republic?"

Thanks for any help!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: prickles on March 01, 2018, 09:32:41 pm
Hello,
I'm trying to write an essay about the Weimar Republic, but am struggling to find information and articulate what I know.
The essay question is:

"To what extent was the Great Depression responsible for the collapse of the Weimar Republic?"

Thanks for any help!
Hey,
Firstly, this question requires a judgement that should be made clear in your firs few lines, and should be well sustained throughout your response - how much do you feel the GD was responsible for the collapse of the WR? Use words of modality such as significantly, moderately, to a limited extent.
For your points, I would do something along the lines of:
 - The economic situation is without a doubt going to be involved - the economy of the country plunging into recession, worldwide trade seriously taking a hit, other countries ceasing their investment in Germany, ruined Germany's capacity to pay reparation payments etc etc. You DO NOT and will not have enough room to mention everything here, as you will need to include stats/facts/dates, as well as linking it to your judgement/the question.
 - Social, unemployment skyrocketed (6 million in 1932 I think? Could possibly be wrong). This lead to public uncertainty regarding the government that was ruling the nation. The public basically decided that the central/moderate parties weren't doing anything, and started to invest interest in radical/extreme groups (enter Nazi party). Social dissatisfaction = BAD popularity for the WR = Impact of the GD
 - Political. This is kinda obvious, but basically the government was seen as incompetent with dealing with the GD. The WR was falling apart and Hitler had the tremendous ability to seize the situation at a detriment to the current government, and make something out of it that gave people hope, something they did not see in the WR.

Once again, you do not have to use everything here. Pick the events/concepts you understand, find some facts/stats/dates to reinforce, make it flow, REMEMBER your judgement, and suddenly, you have yourself an essay :)

Hope this helps  ;D
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on March 01, 2018, 09:38:42 pm
Thank you sooo much for the help, means soo much!

No worries, it was mine (and prickles') pleasure! We're always here to help on AN. :-)

Hello,
I'm trying to write an essay about the Weimar Republic, but am struggling to find information and articulate what I know.
The essay question is:

"To what extent was the Great Depression responsible for the collapse of the Weimar Republic?"

Thanks for any help!

Since prickles posted before me (you're on fire on the Modern boards!), here's a little more...

Hi lachlang15, welcome to the forums!

Firstly, how are you going with your notes? Have you been keeping them up to date? By having an organised set of notes, it'll be a lot easier to formulate an essay response, because you have all your information in front of you! In terms of articulating information, having a basic essay structure that you can follow is good. Here's a very basic one, following the question you've asked for assistance on:

Paragraph 1: Introduction // here's where you state your argument in relation to the question, and outline what you're going to talk about in your essay. In relation to your question, this could be "The Great Depression was solely responsible for the collapse of the Weimar Republic" (not true, but just an example of a thesis statement). You then introduce the rest of the points you're going to make. This could be something like, "While the Great Depression had a significant impact on the collapse of the WR, there were other factors involved, including... (insert factors here). Writing the factors sets you up for the rest of your essay!

Body paragraphs: I'm just going to generalise the whole thing, but your first sentence - your topic sentence - should be something relating to the question. E.g. "The Great Depression was largely responsible for the collapse of the WR, as it... (blah blah you have to expand!) You can talk about how the GD impacted on Germany, how any foreign loans had to be stopped because everyone's economy was in the pits, etc. Other points you could talk about in separate paragraphs could be the Treaty of Versailles and any political reasons that may have contributed to the collapse of the WR, such as constantly changing leaders, opponents, Article 48. Pretty much everything you've learnt about the WR in class should be applicable.

Conclusion: Sum up your whole essay! Pretty much your whole introduction backwards.

Also, because this is a "to what extent" question, you'll need to argue the extent to which the GD impacted on the collapse of the WR. Was it a lot, or not so much? There's a few answers above in this thread that might help you with this question, as they're about the WR - just with a different focus in the question.

Hope this helps, and all the best with your essay!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Mada438 on March 01, 2018, 09:50:04 pm
Hello,
I'm trying to write an essay about the Weimar Republic, but am struggling to find information and articulate what I know.
The essay question is:

"To what extent was the Great Depression responsible for the collapse of the Weimar Republic?"

Thanks for any help!
Hey! Welcome to the forums!  :)
So to answer this question:
this is a "to what extent" question. It's all about arguing a viewpoint: How much of an impact did the great depression have on the collapse of the WR? You would argue your belief through the points you argue
Some pointers:
-Germany relied heavily on America (through the Dawes plan) to pay off their "bills" laid out in the treaty of versailles. The great depression caused the loss of American assistance, thus Germany suffered greatly
-there were large levels of unemployment in the WR (unemployment rate rose by 3.4 million in 1933 compared to 1928 when it was only 1.4 million.)
-the great depression was a final straw in the instability of the WR. It was already suffering greatly due to instability, the rise of Hitler, people blaming it for Germany's problems. So it was in a very precarious position. The economic depression was the big event that finally pushed it over the edge

Anyway, good luck!
Hope this helps!

EDIT: Didn't realize Fantasticbeasts3 and prickles had already posted when i put this up, but i'll just leave it here as an extra point of reference!  :)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fatima_t on March 02, 2018, 07:47:18 pm
Hey I have an assignment and the essay question (25 marks) is throwing me off in the sense that I do not know how to answer it. The question is "How successful were the governments of the Weimar Republic in solving the political, social and economic problems to 1929?". The 'governments' part is throwing me off because I do not know if it means the political parties or the actual government.
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Mada438 on March 02, 2018, 08:02:54 pm
Hey, I have an assignment and the essay question (25 marks) is throwing me off in the sense that I do not know how to answer it. The question is "How successful were the governments of the Weimar Republic in solving the political, social and economic problems of 1929?". The 'governments' part is throwing me off because I do not know if it means the political parties or the actual government.
I believe that since it is plural (governmentS) it is referring to the successive governments during the Weimar era. The political parties in power during each government aren't really mentioned a lot, but the governments as a whole as well as the chancellors are mentioned more
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on March 02, 2018, 08:05:05 pm
I believe that since it is plural (governmentS) it is referring to the successive governments during the Weimar era. The political parties in power during each government aren't really mentioned a lot, but the governments as a whole as well as the chancellors are mentioned more

Just seconding what Mada438 has said here! It's the Weimar Republic as a whole, i.e. the many governments under the many leaders that changed.

All the best with your essay!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on March 02, 2018, 08:05:32 pm
Hey I have an assignment and the essay question (25 marks) is throwing me off in the sense that I do not know how to answer it. The question is "How successful were the governments of the Weimar Republic in solving the political, social and economic problems to 1929?". The 'governments' part is throwing me off because I do not know if it means the political parties or the actual government.

Hey just to add to Mada438's explanation, this requires you to look at how each Government within the Weimar Republic solved issues - so how the Republic did under the Ebert govt, stresseman govt, Hindenburg govt etc
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Mada438 on March 02, 2018, 08:16:26 pm
Hey, I have an assignment and the essay question (25 marks) is throwing me off in the sense that I do not know how to answer it. The question is "How successful were the governments of the Weimar Republic in solving the political, social and economic problems of 1929?". The 'governments' part is throwing me off because I do not know if it means the political parties or the actual government.
Just to build on this
Your 3 main body paragraphs will probably come under "political, social and economic" (at least that's how i would interpret it). Within these paragraphs, you could divide them into analyzing in depth (if you can find enough information) how a handful of the governments (as dancing phalanges suggested e.g. the Ebert govt, Stresemann govt, Hindenburg govt etc) solved these issues.
By doing this, you provide more sides to your argument when assessing the question. The question is asking "How successful" which sounds like an evaluate question where you make a judgment based on criteria. Your criteria would be the handful of governments and their methods of solving political, social and economic problems.

Sorry if this doesn't make sense, it's just a suggestion i literally thought of just then.
Good luck!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: joemassoud on March 04, 2018, 03:04:55 pm
Hey Guys, if anyone can have a read of my response that would be awesome!

TO WHAT EXTENT DID THE TREATY OF VERSAILLES HAVE THE GREATEST IMPACT ON THE DOWNFALL OF THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC?

INTRODUCTION:
To a great extent the Treaty of Versailles (TOV) had the utmost influence on the collapse of the Weimar Republic because it formed a sense of a distrust between the German government and people as a result of a home-grown product as supported by Nicholls who exerted that the damaged did to Germany was to disillusion more moderate man who might otherwise support their new republic. As a result of the Treaty of Versailles Germany lost all of her colonies, 80% of her pre-war fleet, half of all iron production, 16% of all coal production, 13% of her territory and 12% of her population and gained a Ł6,600 million reparation debt. Therefore, it is apparent that the Treaty of Versailles had the largest impact on the failure of the Weimar Republic through its significant political, social, economic impacts.

ECONOMIC IMPACTS:
The immediate economic consequences of the terms of the TOV were a significant concern and added to Germany’s humiliation. During the first five years of the Weimar Republic, inflation was the main economic issue, which was fuelled huge burden placed on Germany from national debt from WW1 and the huge sum of reparations. Germany had to borrow funds in an effort to get their economy up and running. However, an inexperienced government made paying back reparations and War Bonds their priority instead of stimulating the economy. Due to this poor decision, the economy and production struggled to grow and inflation began to increase. Under the terms of the treaty, Germany had to pay huge sums in reparations. In 1921, this amount was set at Ł6.6 billion; a sum that Germany could not pay. In 1922 Germany announce they can no longer afford Reparations payments. As a result, France and Belgian sent thousands of soldiers into the Ruhr, seizing control of coal mines, factories and the railways to make up for the unpaid reparations. Subsequently, to show the people of Germany that the government would stand up for its people against the French occupation, the Weimar government supported ‘passive resistance’ by simply printing more money. This put more money into the circulation and soon all public servants throughout Germany were given pay rises in the hope of increasing employment and production. However, the printing of more money simply increased inflation. With few goods for sale, but so much money in the country, prices rose drastically. The government continued to print more and more money as prices continue to rise at an incredible rate. By 1923, the economic problems of the Republic escalated to the point of hyperinflation by which the German Mark had been rendered worthless. Thus, it is clear that the TOV had the greatest influence on the downfall of the Weimar Republic through the economic effects it had on Weimar Germany.

SOCIAL IMPACTS:
Throughout WW1, the German people were misled to believe that they were going to win the war and that there was no possibility they could lose. However, when the armistice was signed by the German government, the loss came as an extreme shock. The German people felt betrayed that their government hadn't told them the truth and, so before the Weimar Republic even came to be, the citizens were unsatisfied with their government. Furthermore, the German public could not comprehend that they had lost the war and therefore felt that someone on the homefront was responsible. The imposition of the Treaty of Versailles led to wide bitterness across Germany. This was the most influential on the moderate Germans who initially supported the new democratic republic but then became disillusioned with the whole process. The link between the devastating end of the war and the humiliating peace left negative attitudes towards the new German democracy. This is further exerted by Nicholls who suggested that the German public felt that the end of the war and the subsequent Treaty of Versailles was a ‘stab in the back’ from the German politicians. This theory grew in popularity as the economy suffered and many former soldiers, in particular, believed that the politicians had lost the war rather than the army. This, amongst other things, led to a growth in the number of people who distrusted the Weimar Republic and were unwilling to support it. Furthermore, the Treaty of Versailles impacted the German people's nationalism, as it restricted their army to 100,000 men, their navy to 6 battleships, and denied them an airforce and submarines. Consequently, the Treaty of Versailles had reduced the faith of German people in their ruler and impacted the people’s nationalism, which ultimately largely contributed to the downfall of the Weimar Republic.

Political Impacts: I need help writing this paragraph if someone could suggest some ways writing it that would be awesome!

Conclusion:
All in all, the Treaty of Versailles had the greatest effect on the failure of the Weimar Republic as it fabricated a sense of disbelief among the German government and people, it caused several economic problems such as hyperinflation and also largely led to political and social instability. Considering this, it is without a doubt the treaty of Versailles had the largest influence on the downfall of the Weimar Republic.
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on March 04, 2018, 04:00:14 pm
Hey Guys, if anyone can have a read of my response that would be awesome!

TO WHAT EXTENT DID THE TREATY OF VERSAILLES HAVE THE GREATEST IMPACT ON THE DOWNFALL OF THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC?

INTRODUCTION:
To a great extent the Treaty of Versailles (TOV) had the utmost influence on the collapse of the Weimar Republic because it formed a sense of a distrust between the German government and people as a result of a home-grown product as supported by Nicholls who exerted that the damaged did to Germany was to disillusion more moderate man who might otherwise support their new republic. Your thesis is long and confusing. Finish at the part I have left and it will be fine :) As a result of the Treaty of Versailles Germany lost all of her colonies, 80% of her pre-war fleet, half of all iron production, 16% of all coal production, 13% of her territory and 12% of her population and gained a Ł6,600 million reparation debt. Therefore, it is apparent that the Treaty of Versailles had the largest impact on the failure of the Weimar Republic through its significant political, social, economic impacts. The sentence regarding what was lost in the TOV (percentage wise) is not needed here and should come up in your body paragraphs as examples. The link between that sentence and your last sentence is also very weak as a result. Your introduction gives me no clear idea of where your essay is going as it doesn't specifically highlight any main points you will address.

ECONOMIC IMPACTS:
The immediate economic consequences of the terms of the TOV were a significant concern and added to Germany’s humiliation. During the first five years of the Weimar Republic, inflation was the main economic issue, which was fuelled huge burden placed on GermanyFollowing the comma, this doesn't make sense. from national debt from WW1 and the huge sum of reparations. Germany had to borrow funds in an effort to get their economy up and running. However, an inexperienced government made paying back reparations and War Bonds their priority instead of stimulating the economy. Due to this poor decision, the economy and production struggled to grow and inflation began to increase. Under the terms of the treaty, Germany had to pay huge sums in reparations. In 1921, this amount was set at Ł6.6 billion; a sum that Germany could not pay. In 1922 Germany announce they can no longer afford Reparations payments. As a result, France and Belgian sent thousands of soldiers into the Ruhr, seizing control of coal mines, factories and the railways to make up for the unpaid reparations. Subsequently, to show the people of Germany that the government would stand up for its people against the French occupation, the Weimar government supported ‘passive resistance’ by simply printing more money. This put more money into the circulation and soon all public servants throughout Germany were given pay rises in the hope of increasing employment and production. However, the printing of more money simply increased inflation. With few goods for sale, but so much money in the country, prices rose drastically. The government continued to print more and more money as prices continue to rise at an incredible rate. By 1923, the economic problems of the Republic escalated to the point of hyperinflation by which the German Mark had been rendered worthless. Thus, it is clear that the TOV had the greatest influence on the downfall of the Weimar Republic through the economic effects it had on Weimar Germany. This whole paragraph has too great a focus on telling what happened in Germany to make it economically unstable, you have not linked these issues to the W.R downfall but rather have just proved that the economic issues in themselves were bad. Look to link the economic problems to the rise of Hitler/the Nazis and how his nationalistic approach appealed to the German public, who were desperate due to the economic poverty at the time and how the Republic in contrast were branded with being the reason for all of Germany's economic woes.

SOCIAL IMPACTS:
Throughout WW1, the German people were misled to believe that they were going to win the war and that there was no possibility they could lose. However, when the armistice was signed by the German government, the loss came as an extreme shock. The German people felt betrayed that their government hadn't told them the truth and, so before the Weimar Republic even came to be, the citizens were unsatisfied with their government. Furthermore, the German public could not comprehend that they had lost the war and therefore felt that someone on the homefront was responsible. The imposition of the Treaty of Versailles led to wide bitterness across Germany. This was the most influential on the moderate Germans who initially supported the new democratic republic but then became disillusioned with the whole process. The link between the devastating end of the war and the humiliating peace left negative attitudes towards the new German democracy. This is further exerted by Nicholls who suggested that the German public felt that the end of the war and the subsequent Treaty of Versailles was a ‘stab in the back’ from the German politicians. This theory grew in popularity as the economy suffered and many former soldiers, in particular, believed that the politicians had lost the war rather than the army. This, amongst other things,A bit vague. led to a growth in the number of people who distrusted the Weimar Republic and were unwilling to support it. Furthermore, the Treaty of Versailles impacted the German people's nationalism, as it restricted their army to 100,000 men, their navy to 6 battleships, and denied them an airforce and submarines. Explain further eg. linking Germany's proud military history and how this was linked to nationalism. Make it more clear. Consequently, the Treaty of Versailles had reduced the faith of German people in their ruler and impacted the people’s nationalism, which ultimately largely contributed to the downfall of the Weimar Republic.This is a better job at linking the issues of the TOV to the downfall of the Republic yet it is still not quite there. I would look at again how Hitler took advantage of this social disillusion to link more clearly to the fall of the W.R - so look at egs. of Hitler doing this such as: Hitler Munich Speech – “with this armistice begins the humiliation of Germany…it will ruin the German nation.”

Political Impacts: I need help writing this paragraph if someone could suggest some ways writing it that would be awesome!
Here I would discuss political illegitimacy - so the ideas you have brought up eg. the economic issues how the TOV led to hyperinflation, the depression etc. in the long term and also how the TOV ruined German pride - this all combined to make the German government appear weak and as contrary to German ideals - this in turn affected the way they were seen by the public and would lead many people to turn to nationalistic parties instead, leading to their demise.

Conclusion:
All in all, the Treaty of Versailles had the greatest effect on the failure of the Weimar Republic as it fabricated a sense of disbelief among the German government and people, it caused several economic problems such as hyperinflation and also largely led to political and social instability. Considering this, it is without a doubt the treaty of Versailles had the largest influence on the downfall of the Weimar Republic.
A nice conclusion but needs to be longer and a stronger link between the TOV and downfall of WR, which will come with addressing the issues I explained above. Also since it is a to what extent question, you can also show how other factors eg. Proportional Representation etc. contributed to their downfall.
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: owidjaja on March 04, 2018, 04:11:45 pm
TO WHAT EXTENT DID THE TREATY OF VERSAILLES HAVE THE GREATEST IMPACT ON THE DOWNFALL OF THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC?

Political Impacts: I need help writing this paragraph if someone could suggest some ways writing it that would be awesome!

Hey there,
dancing phalanges had some great suggestions for your essay so this is just an extension on their ideas- I'm also studying Weimar Germany at the moment so this is me suggesting ideas and solidifying my knowledge (works in a two-way street :D)

For political impacts, I would suggest talking about the flaws of the Weimar constitution, especially proportional representation since this led to a number of coalitions- from my memory, pretty sure all of the governments from 1919-23 are coalitions. This makes the government unstable because you can't reach a majority with a large number of small parties.

That being said, I would suggest placing political impacts as your first body paragraph. Since politics can impact the rest of society, you could show the cause of the ToV on political instability, and as an extension of this cause, show indirect links between ToV and the economic/social aspects- this can make your essay flow better.
For example: Unstable government (e.g. Stresemann's policy of fulfilment (fulfilling ToV terms) --> hatred from right-wing) --> economic impact is Ruhr occupation which leads to hyperinflation --> social impact is lack of trust with current government, causing civilians to resort to extremist groups.

Hope this helps!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Never.Give.Up on March 05, 2018, 01:43:23 pm
Hey  ;D
For an essay-
To what extent did the weaknesses of the Weimar Republic account for the growth and rise to power of the Nazi Party to 1933?
I was thinking of answering this with 3 broad ideas and linking key features to this.
So far, I have Weimar Constitution, Economic Instabilities of WR, but I dont know what would be good for the third...i had thought either Reichstag Fire/ Treaty Versailles, not really sure.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated  ;D ;)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on March 05, 2018, 02:06:35 pm
Hey  ;D
For an essay-
To what extent did the weaknesses of the Weimar Republic account for the growth and rise to power of the Nazi Party to 1933?
I was thinking of answering this with 3 broad ideas and linking key features to this.
So far, I have Weimar Constitution, Economic Instabilities of WR, but I dont know what would be good for the third...i had thought either Reichstag Fire/ Treaty Versailles, not really sure.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated  ;D ;)

Hey!

The three broad ideas is great for this essay! Usually, what loads of people do is separate their paragraphs into political, economic and social factors. You can start by creating a table, with the three factors I mentioned before, and list stuff you think would go under those headings. :-) You've already got the Weimar constitution down, and the economic instabilities - just add social factors. :-)

Hope this helps!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Never.Give.Up on March 05, 2018, 08:51:47 pm
Hey!

The three broad ideas is great for this essay! Usually, what loads of people do is separate their paragraphs into political, economic and social factors. You can start by creating a table, with the three factors I mentioned before, and list stuff you think would go under those headings. :-) You've already got the Weimar constitution down, and the economic instabilities - just add social factors. :-)

Hope this helps!
Hey thanks for that :D
Yep i was thinking of doing that structure :D
Sorry...what were the three things u said before??
would the Stresemann Era fit into social (expressionist movement went against tradtiion - hitler used this, alternative to reunite nation), link to both political and economic instabilities contributing to a loss of faith in the weimar republic- again ppl looked to hitler as solution, conservative elites- hitler targeted industrialists and middle class groups who resented WR's rise to power, felt betrayed by them- hitler used govt. allowances, women's rights, social legislation etc. as weaknesses to gain power/ popularity...
would that be right?? ;)
also, could reichstag fire come under political...and should i include tov??

thanks heaps for ur help ;D ;D
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Mada438 on March 05, 2018, 09:03:46 pm
Hey thanks for that :D
Yep i was thinking of doing that structure :D
Sorry...what were the three things u said before??
would the Stresemann Era fit into social (expressionist movement went against tradtiion - hitler used this, alternative to reunite nation), link to both political and economic instabilities contributing to a loss of faith in the weimar republic- again ppl looked to hitler as solution, conservative elites- hitler targeted industrialists and middle class groups who resented WR's rise to power, felt betrayed by them- hitler used govt. allowances, women's rights, social legislation etc. as weaknesses to gain power/ popularity...
would that be right?? ;)
also, could reichstag fire come under political...and should i include tov??

thanks heaps for ur help ;D ;D
Yeah, you could go with that!  :)
And yes the Reichstag fire would come under political (it is still debated as to who actually really lit the fire)
and the T.O.V would probably come under which ever category you wanted it to, as it's implementation had a number of different negative effects in Gemany (in terms of social, economic and political).
Although, if you're a bit unsure about what to put into that section on "social" then thats where you could emphasise the impact of the T.O.V through the 'stab in the back theory', november criminals, war guilt clause, loss of german pride etc
Good luck!  :)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on March 06, 2018, 06:54:27 pm
Hey Guys,

If anyone could please help me approach this question and give me some ideas on what to write and how to get full marks.

To what extent was the Great Depression responsible for the collapse of the Weimar Republic?

Thanks in advance!

Hey!

The same essay question has been answered here and here.

All the best for your essay!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fatima_t on March 06, 2018, 08:03:50 pm
Just seconding what Mada438 has said here! It's the Weimar Republic as a whole, i.e. the many governments under the many leaders that changed.

All the best with your essay!

Hey thankyou so much

Hey just to add to Mada438's explanation, this requires you to look at how each Government within the Weimar Republic solved issues - so how the Republic did under the Ebert govt, stresseman govt, Hindenburg govt etc

thankyouuuuu

Just to build on this
Your 3 main body paragraphs will probably come under "political, social and economic" (at least that's how i would interpret it). Within these paragraphs, you could divide them into analyzing in depth (if you can find enough information) how a handful of the governments (as dancing phalanges suggested e.g. the Ebert govt, Stresemann govt, Hindenburg govt etc) solved these issues.
By doing this, you provide more sides to your argument when assessing the question. The question is asking "How successful" which sounds like an evaluate question where you make a judgment based on criteria. Your criteria would be the handful of governments and their methods of solving political, social and economic problems.

Sorry if this doesn't make sense, it's just a suggestion i literally thought of just then.
Good luck!

Sorry for getting to this so late this website is kinda confusing to use but it has helped me so much thankyou so much

Mod edit: post merge. You can quote as many posts as you like in the one post - just write what you want to respond under each quote. :-) Here's a link to a thread by brenden on how to use the forums!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: joemassoud on March 10, 2018, 12:33:44 pm
Hey Guys,

How many words would be suitable for a 25 marker? - a rough estimate would be great

Thanks in advance!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on March 10, 2018, 01:22:27 pm
Hey Guys,

How many words would be suitable for a 25 marker? - a rough estimate would be great

Thanks in advance!

Hi!

You're meant to write ~1000 words in 45 mins for your 25 markers. :-)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: owidjaja on March 10, 2018, 02:15:10 pm
Hey guys,
I was just wondering, when do you usually start your Personality Study?
My teacher has structured the topics in a weird way: we've gone through the first two dot points of Weimar Germany (emergence and impacts of ToV) and now we're going to do a bit of our Personality Study (and will be assessed in half-yearlies) and then go back to Weimar next term and then continue our Personality Study.

Just kinda curious how other schools structure it (and also kinda sad I can't participate in the Modern History Debate Thread because I don't know enough on Germany to formulate an opinion ;-;)

Thanks in advance!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on March 10, 2018, 02:58:25 pm
Hey guys,
I was just wondering, when do you usually start your Personality Study?
My teacher has structured the topics in a weird way: we've gone through the first two dot points of Weimar Germany (emergence and impacts of ToV) and now we're going to do a bit of our Personality Study (and will be assessed in half-yearlies) and then go back to Weimar next term and then continue our Personality Study.

Just kinda curious how other schools structure it (and also kinda sad I can't participate in the Modern History Debate Thread because I don't know enough on Germany to formulate an opinion ;-;)

Thanks in advance!

Hello!!

It depends - different schools start at different times. At my school, we did a pretty strange thing, where we started studying the the first part of the Cold War, then we did the personality study, because the personality study was our term 3 year 12 assessment. It was dumb then, and still is dumb now... like why start studying Gorbachev when you're not even halfway through studying the Cold War lol.

Which personality are you doing? Maybe we could do debates on specific personalities!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Mada438 on March 10, 2018, 03:04:17 pm
Hey guys,
I was just wondering, when do you usually start your Personality Study?
My teacher has structured the topics in a weird way: we've gone through the first two dot points of Weimar Germany (emergence and impacts of ToV) and now we're going to do a bit of our Personality Study (and will be assessed in half-yearlies) and then go back to Weimar next term and then continue our Personality Study.

Just kinda curious how other schools structure it (and also kinda sad I can't participate in the Modern History Debate Thread because I don't know enough on Germany to formulate an opinion ;-;)

Thanks in advance!
That's really strange. Our structure has been rather normal.
We did the whole of WW1, now we're just finishing up our national study, but we haven't quite finished that but once we do THEN we'll do our personality study.
Stil haven't decided definitively who we're doing yet: The 3 options are Hirahito (emperor of Japan during WW2, Gorbachev or Albert Speer) Personally, this sounds a little ridiculous. I really think we should be studying Albert Speer seeing as we did Germany (even though this is not a requirement, let's just stick with the theme!)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: owidjaja on March 10, 2018, 03:06:10 pm
Hello!!

It depends - different schools start at different times. At my school, we did a pretty strange thing, where we started studying the the first part of the Cold War, then we did the personality study, because the personality study was our term 3 year 12 assessment. It was dumb then, and still is dumb now... like why start studying Gorbachev when you're not even halfway through studying the Cold War lol.

Which personality are you doing? Maybe we could do debates on specific personalities!
I'm doing Leni Riefenstahl for my Personality Study. And yeah, it would be pretty cool to do debates on personalities! Only spent like four lessons studying her and I'm already being judgemental lol. The only problem is that there's a pretty long list of personalities so I'm not entirely sure how it would work out (pretty sure there's like 30).
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on March 10, 2018, 03:28:55 pm
That's really strange. Our structure has been rather normal.
We did the whole of WW1, now we're just finishing up our national study, but we haven't quite finished that but once we do THEN we'll do our personality study.
Stil haven't decided definitively who we're doing yet: The 3 options are Hirahito (emperor of Japan during WW2, Gorbachev or Albert Speer) Personally, this sounds a little ridiculous. I really think we should be studying Albert Speer seeing as we did Germany (even though this is not a requirement, let's just stick with the theme!)

What's the other topic you're studying? The personality study can be linked to your national study, or your peace and conflict one. I did Gorbachev for the personality study, and he's a pretty interesting guy, so in your choice of personalities, you should probably pick him (not biased at all hahaha).

Lots of people do Speer for their personality study, so there'll be a ton of information out there. Apparently the study on Speer is outside of the time period you study Germany (I hope that makes sense), so someone who will cross over with a topic you do is a good idea. :-)

I'm doing Leni Riefenstahl for my Personality Study. And yeah, it would be pretty cool to do debates on personalities! Only spent like four lessons studying her and I'm already being judgemental lol. The only problem is that there's a pretty long list of personalities so I'm not entirely sure how it would work out (pretty sure there's like 30).

Cool! Most people tend to study either Speer, Riefenstahl or Trotsky (I think?) so we should be good with debates on specific personalities. :-)

Hey Guys,

If anyone can please read my response that would be awesome!

Also, if anyone can suggests what i can delete from my response because it is currently 1500 words and I believe its too long.

Furthermore, if its possible can someone give me a mark out of 25.

Thanks in advance!

....

Hey, welcome to the forums! I hope AN will become a great place for you throughout year 12, and maybe beyond! :-)

If I have time today, I'll look at your response. :-) You also have a few of your peers here who can help you out too!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Mada438 on March 10, 2018, 04:46:16 pm
Hey Guys,

If anyone can please read my response that would be awesome!

Also, if anyone can suggests what i can delete from my response because it is currently 1500 words and I believe its too long.

Furthermore, if its possible can someone give me a mark out of 25.

Thanks in advance!

To what extent was the Great Depression responsible for the collapse of the Weimar Republic?
................
Hey! I had a quick scan over, and it doesn't look too bad, but there's always tweaking to be done!
I don't have time to today, but i'll have a proper look at it tomorrow!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: tay.j on March 15, 2018, 01:53:50 pm
Hello!
How would I go about answering the question:
Assess the importance of nationalism as a cause of the failure of democracy in Germany in the period 1918-1933
I know lots of people answer history essays with PSE, but what kind of content would I include?
Thankyou  :)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on March 15, 2018, 02:25:24 pm
Hello!
How would I go about answering the question:
Assess the importance of nationalism as a cause of the failure of democracy in Germany in the period 1918-1933
I know lots of people answer history essays with PSE, but what kind of content would I include?
Thankyou  :)

Hey!

With this question, you could definitely do political, economic and social factors, as long as you keep referring back to nationalism. :-) You could include the impacts of the Treaty of Versailles, as nationalists were very much against paying reparations and "giving in" to demands of the Treaty. There's also the various right wing movements and you can talk about Hitler's rise to power here as well. Hitler (keeps autocorrecting to Butler on my phone lol) used a lot of the weaknesses of Weimar Germany to capture the interests of people, reminding them there could be a better Germany if he was in charge. You can talk about anything really (provided it's relevant to Weimar Germany) as long as you keep referring back to nationalism, because it's an "assess" question.

Hope this helps!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: tay.j on March 15, 2018, 02:33:55 pm
Hey!

With this question, you could definitely do political, economic and social factors, as long as you keep referring back to nationalism. :-) You could include the impacts of the Treaty of Versailles, as nationalists were very much against paying reparations and "giving in" to demands of the Treaty. There's also the various right wing movements and you can talk about Hitler's rise to power here as well. Hitler (keeps autocorrecting to Butler on my phone lol) used a lot of the weaknesses of Weimar Germany to capture the interests of people, reminding them there could be a better Germany if he was in charge. You can talk about anything really (provided it's relevant to Weimar Germany) as long as you keep referring back to nationalism, because it's an "assess" question.

Hope this helps!
One thing I'm struggling with it the economic part - how would nationalism tie into economic?
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on March 15, 2018, 03:07:48 pm
One thing I'm struggling with it the economic part - how would nationalism tie into economic?


Your economic factors paragraph can start like this: "While nationalism was significant in the failure of democracy in Germany, economic factors such as (insert factors here) were also important." That was super lame and basic, but the question asks you to assess the importance of each factor in relation to the failure of democracy, so you just need to make a judgement on which factor was the most significant. :-)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Never.Give.Up on March 15, 2018, 07:40:06 pm
Hey guys!!  ;D

Just wondering how to write topic sentences for history essays. I'm answering PSE for this question- To what extent did the weaknesses in the Weimar Republic account for the growth and rise to power of the Nazi Party to 1933?

My thesis is- The growth and rise of the Nazi Party to 1933 was significantly facilitated by the failures of the Weimar Republic.
Go on to say...
Weaknesses largely outweighed the successes of Weimar Germany and were accentuated by nationalistic pride, political intrigue and opportunism. The economic dislocation of the Weimar Republic, social disillusionment of the Treaty of Versailles and the political instabilities associated with the Weimar Constitution are all pivotal issues that contributed to Nazi accession to power.

How would I derive topic sentence from this- that support my thesis and answer the question?

Any help is appreciated!!  ;D :D
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: tay.j on March 20, 2018, 02:07:19 pm
Hi!
I've got a bit of a problem - a few weeks ago I was at the state library, researching for my upcoming essay. I wrote down a quote in a book, but didn't write down who said it or even what book it was from. The quote is:
“Hitler emerged in the troubled post-war years as the fanatical champion of German nationalism”
So, if anyone possibly recognises the quote, or knows who stated it, could they please let me know?!
If not, is there any way I can still use it, but not say who said it?
Thanks a lot  :)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Mada438 on March 20, 2018, 03:05:21 pm
Hi!
I've got a bit of a problem - a few weeks ago I was at the state library, researching for my upcoming essay. I wrote down a quote in a book, but didn't write down who said it or even what book it was from. The quote is:
“Hitler emerged in the troubled post-war years as the fanatical champion of German nationalism”
So, if anyone possibly recognises the quote, or knows who stated it, could they please let me know?!
If not, is there any way I can still use it, but not say who said it?
Thanks a lot  :)
Hey! I dont know where the quote was from. But you If you quote it in your essay then you certainly need to cite it.
You could try putting the quote into google and seeing if it comes up with a direct match?
Title: Re: Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on March 24, 2018, 01:43:14 pm
Hey _____ (interesting username  ;) )

That was a very hard question, that a lot of people struggled with last year. In fact, I literally felt exactly how you did after the exam, expecting Trotsky to be my worst section because I felt like I made more of a judgement upon the historians than I did Trotsky (basically wrote a history extension essay). Flash forward to getting my raw marks back and I find out it was actually my best section - 15/15  ;D So please don't worry yourself too much :) I obviously can't guarantee your mark as I haven't read your essay, but from what you have said, your argument seems fine!

First of all I think you might be overthinking things a bit - differing and different mean essentially the same thing, so no worries there! I think the way that you have approached this question is great, and is very similar to what I did during my HSC :) For my response, I basically said that the interpretations say more about the historians and their political and ideological leanings than it says about Trotsky - so pointing out that those who think he was a naive idealist where those who lean further right politically and thus have a negative interpretation of Communism and by extension Trotsky (eg Service, Conquest, Pipes, Figes, etc), in comparison to Left wing historians such as Wood and Deutscher who instead suggest he was a practical revolutionary!

So basically, using my power struggles paragraph as an example;
"Right wing historians such as Service assert that it was Trotsky's personal flaws that resulted in his loss of the power struggle, such as his arrogance and naivety. However, Left-wing historians such as Deutscher present an alternative perspective, suggesting that it is too simplistic to assert personal attributes as the defining issue, instead suggesting that the primary factor resulting in Trotsky's loss of power was the social changes that had occurred after the Civil War, whereby the war-weary society was more attracted to Stalin's "stable" ideology of socialism-in-one-country in comparison to Trotsky's 'Permanent Revolution.'" (obviously went into more detail but you get the gist of my argument).

So I didn't just look at what the perspectives where, but how and why they came to these conclusions. I answered the question upon how differing interpretations assist us in understanding Trotsky's significance, as I established that his significance is developed through this debate :) You can definitely present the argument that no matter what the interpretation, the fact that such wild interpretations exist asserts his significance (had one of my students assert that recently in an assessment)! The question isn't asking was his significance good or bad - just was he a significant figure overall. Whether you accept either position, he was still clearly significant as either a terrible failure or a critical success!

Hope this clears up any concerns (though may have made you more confused - as I was when I found out I got this mark, as I was so worried that I hadn't made a judgement/was sitting on the fence).

Susie

Hey AJ2019 - Susie, who state ranked in Modern, did Trotsky and outlined how she would go about this question above^ :)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: owidjaja on March 27, 2018, 11:05:55 pm
Hey guys,
I'm currently making an argument table (Susie where you at ;)) for my Personality Study (Leni Riefenstahl) and one of the debates addressed in the syllabus is feminist pioneer. However, in class, we've been focusing more on whether she is a propagandist vs artist. Could the argument of Riefenstahl being an artist be combined with the argument of her being a feminist pioneer or are they completely different ideas?

Thanks in advance :)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Mada438 on March 28, 2018, 07:37:31 am
Hey guys,
I'm currently making an argument table (Susie where you at ;)) for my Personality Study (Leni Riefenstahl) and one of the debates addressed in the syllabus is feminist pioneer. However, in class, we've been focusing more on whether she is a propagandist vs artist. Could the argument of Riefenstahl being an artist be combined with the argument of her being a feminist pioneer or are they completely different ideas?

Thanks in advance :)
Could you argue that she used her movies as an expression of her femimist ideals?
Her artistic expression included her feminist ideals within itself?
Sorry that I'm not more help; i am doing albert speer as my personality study not Riefenstahl
Good luck!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: joemassoud on March 29, 2018, 08:37:51 pm
Hey Guys,

If anyone can have a read of my essay and let me know what they and an estimated mark range that would be awesome. Also, I'm struggling to cut it down, originally it was 1863 words, now it is 1400 words. If someone could suggest what I can take out to cut it down to 1000.


TO WHAT EXTENT WAS NAZI GERMANY A TOTALITARIAN STATE?
[/u]
 
To a great extent, under the direction of Adolf Hitler and his national socialist party, Nazi Germany was a totalitarian state, which was a system of government whereby power and all aspects of state affairs were in the hands of one party and its charismatic leader that tolerated no opposition. Following the death of Hindenburg, Hitler became the Fuhrer (supreme ruler) of the German state, rapidly altering the country into an all controlled nation; installing many of the characteristics which can be usually defined as totalitarianism. This was manifested through the extreme application of propaganda, terror and repression through the implementation of the Radio, the SS and the Gestapo to construct a system of terror and advertise the official ideology of Nazism. Hitler obtained jurisdiction of social and cultural life in Germany through youth and women, permitting him to express his Nazi ideology into all aspects of life and ensuring the success of his government, although he did tolerate particular opposition with the swing youth, Edelweiss pirates and confessional church. Additionally, the severe Nazi racial policy being drilled into Germany with anti-semitic laws and full-scale violence meant that the moral and ethical codes of a liberal democratic state were disregarded, forming a totalitarian state. Thus, Nazi Germany was to a great extent a totalitarian state as it featured many of the aspects of totalitarianism
 
Clearly, Nazi Germany was a totalitarian state to a great extent, as apparent through the employment of propaganda, terror and repression to achieve complete domination throughout all aspects of German life. Under the direction of Joseph Goebbels, propaganda was utilised successfully by the Nazi’s in an attempt to broadcast the party and promote the new government as one of national recovery. Propaganda was essentially employed to advocate their party, upbraid other political parties, promote the ideologies of nationalism, articulate a sense of hatred among the enemies and form an image of Hitler as a saviour (Fuhrer myth). Ultimately, it is apparent through the use of the radio, which was an essential tool that was developed in order to be employed for propaganda in industrialising Germany as it had a significant impact upon citizens of Germany. Goebbels realised the capabilities of the radio and developed the people’s radio (Volksempfanger), which was cheap and effective, granting him the ability to compose public opinion through the telecom of Hitler’s speeches and playing of popular music. As a result, the Germans were continuously being advised of Hitler’s authority and power, endorsing the official ideology of the Nazi party, the foundation of a totalitarian state. This is reinforced by Guberger who places strong importance on the responsibility and impact of propaganda on the people of Germany, to the extent where public opinion was created with the assistance of the radio.
 
Additionally, the Nazi regime exercised terror and repression to infuse fear and violence into German’s, in turn upholding control over the individuals who did not support their cause and removing any conflicting political parties. This terror was authorised through militaristic means with the development of the SS (Shutzstaffel), a greatly structured and cruelly resourceful police structure. The SS dealt with all internal enemies of the Nazi regime, living and acting out the philosophy of National Socialism, henceforth advancing the official ideology of Nazism. Founded by a decree on the 30th of November 1933, The Gestapo, controlled by Heinrich Himmler, was in charge of the internal security of the Reich. They were vicious and successful in pinpointing enemies of the Nazi party and were seen by Germans as a terror system, stifling any opposition to the Nazi regime. Through this, Germany encapsulated a system of terror, adding to its essence of being a totalitarian state. Himmler supports this as he stated that “the best political weapon is terror”, clear in the way he utilised the Gestapo to create fear and terror amongst Nazi opposition. Hence, Nazi Germany was significantly a totalitarian state as the party promoted one official ideology with no opposition and incorporated a system of terror through means of propaganda, terror and repression.
 
Moreover, Hitler and Nazi party founded Germany as a totalitarian state to a significant extent as they obtained control of social and cultural life through Hitler youth and women. The Nazi party wanted to shape Germany in relation to their ideology of Nazism, campaigning the idea of Volksgemeinschaft, the concept of a new, harmonious community where all societal divisions were to be replaced by a sense of national unity. This was achieved through the Gleichschaltung period, meaning coordination; where Hitler transformed Germany into a Nazi state with the purpose of creating a racially pure nation, rooting his ideology into all aspects of life. In 1926, Hitler commenced the Hitler youth league and the female equivalent, the league of German girls, to control and shape the entire youth of the nation. Followers of the Hitler youth were brought up and educated so that they could become future inheritors of the Nazi party. By embracing the significance of the young generation, Hitler assured the maintenance of his third Reich, claiming, “He alone who owns the youth, gains the future”. Likewise, Nazi ideology positioned women in a very traditional role; they were sustained by men, not allowed to have leadership positions, could not work in certain occupations and were encouraged to stay at home. The German women’s league encouraged this traditional role of women, testifying that “the women has her own battlefield… with every child she brings into the world, she fights a battle for the nation”. Large families and more children toughened Germany, allowing Hitler to further erect his racially ‘pure’ nation, programming his Nazi ideology even into unborn babies by influencing their mothers. While Hitler did take control of most social and cultural aspects in Germany, there were numerous groups which opposed his regime, in particular, the youth. This is emphasised through the middle-class Germans who combined the swing youth and the working class who contributed to the Edelweiss Pirates, aggressively opposing Nazi ideology. Furthermore, some religions tried to stand against Hitler, especially the Protestant clergy who recognised the confessional church, nevertheless the Nazi regime was able to control these rebellions by arresting and incarcerating anyone who spoke out. Thus, Nazi Germany was to a large extent a totalitarian state as its ideology consumed all levels of society, especially youth and women.

Furthermore, the authoritarian Nazi racial policy demonstrates in what way the moral and ethical codes that feature a liberal democratic state were overlooked, thus being a totalitarian state to a great extent. Best understood as discrimination towards Jews, anti-Semitism was implemented by anti-Semitic laws and through full-scale persecution commencing in 1933. The Nuremberg laws of September 1935 was a number of anti-semitic laws intending to end German rights and freedoms and disregard the integrity of all Jewish people, establishing Jew’s as second-class citizens. Kristallnacht, on the 9th and 10th of November 1930, was the annihilation of Jewish business and synagogues where almost 100 people were killed and over 30000 arrested. This reveals the ruthlessness of these anti-semitic policies, for the first time creating Hitler’s objectives clear to Germany and the world. Stein Weis mirrors this as he stated that “Kristallnacht was a monumental development in Nazi anti-Jewish policy”. As a result of these vicious anti-semitic policies, Jew’s were strongly discriminated against, separated from the rest of Germany and humiliated. Evidently, moral and ethical codes were not in place as Hitler was eager to remove Jew’s and other enemies of the state, reflecting how Nazi Germany was, in fact, a Totalitarian state to a great extent.

Evidently, it is clear that to a great extent Nazi Germany was a totalitarian state. This is apparent as Hitler and his Nazi party were striving for complete control over Germany, encouraging their official ideology and programming it into all levels of society, existing a system of terror and ignoring any moral and ethical codes. Hitler effectively accomplished this as he went to tremendous measures to obtain support for his party by means of propaganda, terror and repression. By obtaining control of German social and cultural life, combined with the authority over youth and women it granted Hitler the ability to form a totalitarian state. Additionally, the authoritarian Nazi policy through anti-Semitic laws and full-scale violence towards Jew’s meant that Hitler eradicated his enemies and opposition, achieving direct jurisdiction over Germany. Ultimately, it can be said that Nazi Germany was to a great extent a totalitarian state.


Thanks in advance!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on March 29, 2018, 09:51:42 pm
Hey Guys,

If anyone can have a read of my essay and let me know what they and an estimated mark range that would be awesome. Also, I'm struggling to cut it down, originally it was 1863 words, now it is 1400 words. If someone could suggest what I can take out to cut it down to 1000.

.....
Thanks in advance!

Hi!

Sure, I'll read your essay :-) I can't trust myself to give marks out because I don't want to give people false hope lol. Comments will be in the spoiler, and general comments below.


essay here
TO WHAT EXTENT WAS NAZI GERMANY A TOTALITARIAN STATE?

To a great extent, under the direction of Adolf Hitler and his national socialist party, You don't really need this! All you need is a straightforward judgement :-) Nazi Germany was a totalitarian state, which was a system of government whereby power and all aspects of state affairs were in the hands of one party and its charismatic leader that tolerated no opposition. Following the death of Hindenburg, Hitler became the Führer (please include the umlaut) (supreme ruler) of the German state, rapidly altering the country into an all controlled nation; installing many of the characteristics which can be usually defined as totalitarianism. This was manifested through the extreme application of propaganda, terror and repression through the implementation of the Radio, the SS and the Gestapo to construct a system of terror and advertise the official ideology of Nazism. Hitler obtained jurisdiction of social and cultural life in Germany through youth and women, permitting him to express his Nazi ideology into all aspects of life and ensuring the success of his government, although he did tolerate particular opposition with the swing youth, Edelweiss pirates and confessional church. Additionally, the severe Nazi racial policy being drilled into Germany with anti-semitic laws and full-scale violence meant that the moral and ethical codes of a liberal democratic state were disregarded, forming a totalitarian state. Thus, Nazi Germany was to a great extent a totalitarian state as it featured many of the aspects of totalitarianism.
 
Clearly, Nazi Germany was a totalitarian state to a great extent, You don't need 'clearly' here - just "To a great extent, Nazi Germany was a totalitarian state" will do. as apparent through the employment of propaganda, terror and repression to achieve complete domination I wouldn't say propaganda, terror and repression achieved complete domination - maybe 'indoctrination' would be a better word here. throughout all aspects of German life. Under the direction of Joseph Goebbels, propaganda was utilised successfully by the Nazis in an attempt to broadcast the party and promote the new government as one of national recovery. Propaganda was essentially employed to advocate their party, upbraid other political parties, promote the ideologies of nationalism and articulate a sense of hatred among the enemies and form an image of Hitler as a saviour (Fuhrer myth). Ultimately, it is apparent through the use of The radio was an essential tool that was developed in order to be employed for propaganda in industrialising Germany as it which had a significant impact upon citizens of Germany. Goebbels realised the capabilities of the radio and developed the people’s radio (Volksempfanger) I think you can just use "Volksempfanger" here :-), which was cheap and effective, granting him the ability to compose public opinion through the telecom of Hitler’s speeches and playing of popular music. As a result, the Germans were continuously being advised of Hitler’s authority and power, endorsing the official ideology of the Nazi party, the foundation of a totalitarian state. This is reinforced by Guberger who places strong importance on the responsibility and impact of propaganda on the people of Germany, to the extent where public opinion was created with the assistance of the radio. Insert your judgement here to link back to the question.
 
Your topic sentence should relate back to the question! Additionally, the Nazi regime exercised terror and repression to infuse fear and violence into Germans, in turn upholding control over the individuals who did not support their cause and removing any conflicting political parties. This terror was authorised through militaristic means with the development of the SS (Schutzstaffel) Choose which term you want to use, a greatly structured and cruelly resourceful police structure. The SS dealt with all internal enemies of the Nazi regime, living and acting out the philosophy of National Socialism, henceforth advancing the official ideology of Nazism. How? A bit confused lol Founded by a decree on the 30th of November 1933, The Gestapo, controlled by Heinrich Himmler, was in charge of the internal security of the Reich. They were vicious and successful in pinpointing enemies of the Nazi party and were seen by Germans as a terror system, stifling any opposition to the Nazi regime. Through this, Germany encapsulated a system of terror, adding to its essence of being a totalitarian state. Himmler supports this as he stated that “the best political weapon is terror”, clear in the way he utilised the Gestapo to create fear and terror amongst Nazi opposition. Hence, Nazi Germany was significantly a totalitarian state as the party promoted one official ideology with no opposition and incorporated a system of terror through means of propaganda, terror and repression.
 
Moreover, Hitler and Nazi party founded Germany as a totalitarian state to a significant extent I think you could put "to a significant extent" at the beginning of your sentence as they obtained control of social and cultural life through Hitler youth and women. The Nazi party wanted to shape Germany in relation to their ideology of Nazism, campaigning the idea of Volksgemeinschaft, the concept of a new, harmonious community where all societal divisions were to be replaced by a sense of national unity. This was achieved through the Gleichschaltung period, meaning coordination; where Hitler transformed Germany into a Nazi state with the purpose of creating a racially pure nation, rooting his ideology into all aspects of life. In 1926, Hitler commenced the Hitler youth league Hitler Jugend and the its female equivalent, the league of German girlsBund Deutscher Mädel, to control and shape the entire youth of the nation German youth. Followers of the Hitler youth were brought up and educated so that they could become future inheritors of the Nazi party. By embracing the significance of the young generation, Hitler assured the maintenance of his third Reich, claiming, “He alone who owns the youth, gains the future”. Likewise, Nazi ideology positioned women in a very traditional role; they were sustained by men, not allowed to have leadership positions, could not work in certain occupations and were encouraged to stay at home. The German women’s league encouraged this traditional role of women, testifying that “the women has her own battlefield… with every child she brings into the world, she fights a battle for the nation”. Large families and more children toughened Germany, allowing Hitler to further erect his racially ‘pure’ nation, programming his Nazi ideology even into unborn babies by influencing their mothers. While Hitler did take control of most social and cultural aspects in Germany, there were numerous groups which opposed his regime. , in particular, the youth. This is emphasised through the middle-class Germans who combined the swing youth and the working class who contributed to the For example, the Edelweiss Pirates, aggressively opposed Nazi ideology. Furthermore, some religions tried to stand against Hitler, especially the Protestant clergy who recognised the confessional church, nevertheless but the Nazi regime was able to control these rebellions by arresting and incarcerating anyone who spoke out. Thus, Nazi Germany was to a large extent a totalitarian state as its ideology consumed all levels of society, especially youth and women.

Furthermore, the authoritarian Nazi racial policy demonstrates in what way the moral and ethical codes that feature a liberal democratic state were overlooked, thus being a totalitarian state to a great extent. Best understood as discrimination towards Jews, anti-Semitism was implemented by anti-Semitic laws and through full-scale persecution commencing in 1933. The Nuremberg laws of September 1935 were a number of anti-semitic laws intending to end German rights and freedoms and disregard the integrity of all Jewish people, establishing Jew’s as second-class citizens. Kristallnacht, on the 9th and 10th of November 1930, was the annihilation of Jewish business and synagogues where almost 100 people were killed and over 30000 arrested. This revealed the ruthlessness of these anti-semitic policies, for the first time creating making Hitler’s objectives clear to Germany and the world. Stein Weis mirrors this as he stated that “Kristallnacht was a monumental development in Nazi anti-Jewish policy”. As a result of these vicious anti-semitic policies, Jews were strongly discriminated against, separated from the rest of Germany and humiliated. Evidently, moral and ethical codes were not in place as Hitler was eager to remove Jews and other enemies of the state, reflecting how Nazi Germany was, in fact, a Totalitarian state to a great extent.

Evidently, it is clear that to a great extent Nazi Germany was a totalitarian state. This is apparent as Hitler and his Nazi party were striving for complete control over Germany, encouraging their official ideology and programming it into all levels of society, existing a system of terror and ignoring any moral and ethical codes. Hitler effectively accomplished this as he went to tremendous measures to obtain support for his party by means of propaganda, terror and repression. By obtaining control of German social and cultural life, combined with the authority over youth and women it granted Hitler the ability to form a totalitarian state. Additionally, the authoritarian Nazi policy through anti-Semitic laws and full-scale violence towards Jew’s meant that Hitler eradicated his enemies and opposition, achieving direct jurisdiction over Germany. Ultimately, it can be said that Nazi Germany was to a great extent a totalitarian state.

Okay so, a few things:
- I found there was a lot of redundant wording. What I mean by this is you wrote a huge sentence which could've been cut down a ton - check out the strikethroughs, I kinda gave up closer to the end lol.
- You have a great grasp on content :-) There is an immense amount of detail in this, well done!
- You need to sustain your judgement the whole way through! Make what you think clear in your thesis statement, then follow through in each of your paragraphs. Your topic sentence in each paragraph needs to link back to the question (and your judgement), and there should be a linking sentence at the end.
- Your introduction doesn't need to cover every single detail of the point you're going to make. All you need to do is mention the points you're going to make in the paragraphs. I think you expanded a little on propaganda, terror and repression where you mentioned the radio and stuff - not needed in your introduction.
- Terminology: choose one or the other. You can use the German term, or the English, it doesn't really matter - just choose one. Although wink wink nudge nudge it's suggested you use the German.
- On that note, if there's an umlaut in the terminology, use it! It's letters like these: ä, ü, ö, etc. You can google how to put them in (just hold the letter key if you're on Mac) - probably just me being annoying because I'm studying German right now, but that's not a huge issue.
- There's no need to be so fancy! All Modern asks you to do is to make a judgement in relation to the question, and deliver your information in a way that answers it and supports your judgement.

Keep writing essays and send them in to be marked :-) I hope this helped - best of luck for your exams! Sorry if it looked like I was really harsh lol

Also for future reference, when posting essays, make a thread on this board here.
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: joemassoud on March 30, 2018, 08:09:35 am
Hi!

Sure, I'll read your essay :-) I can't trust myself to give marks out because I don't want to give people false hope lol. Comments will be in the spoiler, and general comments below.


essay here
TO WHAT EXTENT WAS NAZI GERMANY A TOTALITARIAN STATE?

To a great extent, under the direction of Adolf Hitler and his national socialist party, You don't really need this! All you need is a straightforward judgement :-) Nazi Germany was a totalitarian state, which was a system of government whereby power and all aspects of state affairs were in the hands of one party and its charismatic leader that tolerated no opposition. Following the death of Hindenburg, Hitler became the Führer (please include the umlaut) (supreme ruler) of the German state, rapidly altering the country into an all controlled nation; installing many of the characteristics which can be usually defined as totalitarianism. This was manifested through the extreme application of propaganda, terror and repression through the implementation of the Radio, the SS and the Gestapo to construct a system of terror and advertise the official ideology of Nazism. Hitler obtained jurisdiction of social and cultural life in Germany through youth and women, permitting him to express his Nazi ideology into all aspects of life and ensuring the success of his government, although he did tolerate particular opposition with the swing youth, Edelweiss pirates and confessional church. Additionally, the severe Nazi racial policy being drilled into Germany with anti-semitic laws and full-scale violence meant that the moral and ethical codes of a liberal democratic state were disregarded, forming a totalitarian state. Thus, Nazi Germany was to a great extent a totalitarian state as it featured many of the aspects of totalitarianism.
 
Clearly, Nazi Germany was a totalitarian state to a great extent, You don't need 'clearly' here - just "To a great extent, Nazi Germany was a totalitarian state" will do. as apparent through the employment of propaganda, terror and repression to achieve complete domination I wouldn't say propaganda, terror and repression achieved complete domination - maybe 'indoctrination' would be a better word here. throughout all aspects of German life. Under the direction of Joseph Goebbels, propaganda was utilised successfully by the Nazis in an attempt to broadcast the party and promote the new government as one of national recovery. Propaganda was essentially employed to advocate their party, upbraid other political parties, promote the ideologies of nationalism and articulate a sense of hatred among the enemies and form an image of Hitler as a saviour (Fuhrer myth). Ultimately, it is apparent through the use of The radio was an essential tool that was developed in order to be employed for propaganda in industrialising Germany as it which had a significant impact upon citizens of Germany. Goebbels realised the capabilities of the radio and developed the people’s radio (Volksempfanger) I think you can just use "Volksempfanger" here :-), which was cheap and effective, granting him the ability to compose public opinion through the telecom of Hitler’s speeches and playing of popular music. As a result, the Germans were continuously being advised of Hitler’s authority and power, endorsing the official ideology of the Nazi party, the foundation of a totalitarian state. This is reinforced by Guberger who places strong importance on the responsibility and impact of propaganda on the people of Germany, to the extent where public opinion was created with the assistance of the radio. Insert your judgement here to link back to the question.
 
Your topic sentence should relate back to the question! Additionally, the Nazi regime exercised terror and repression to infuse fear and violence into Germans, in turn upholding control over the individuals who did not support their cause and removing any conflicting political parties. This terror was authorised through militaristic means with the development of the SS (Schutzstaffel) Choose which term you want to use, a greatly structured and cruelly resourceful police structure. The SS dealt with all internal enemies of the Nazi regime, living and acting out the philosophy of National Socialism, henceforth advancing the official ideology of Nazism. How? A bit confused lol Founded by a decree on the 30th of November 1933, The Gestapo, controlled by Heinrich Himmler, was in charge of the internal security of the Reich. They were vicious and successful in pinpointing enemies of the Nazi party and were seen by Germans as a terror system, stifling any opposition to the Nazi regime. Through this, Germany encapsulated a system of terror, adding to its essence of being a totalitarian state. Himmler supports this as he stated that “the best political weapon is terror”, clear in the way he utilised the Gestapo to create fear and terror amongst Nazi opposition. Hence, Nazi Germany was significantly a totalitarian state as the party promoted one official ideology with no opposition and incorporated a system of terror through means of propaganda, terror and repression.
 
Moreover, Hitler and Nazi party founded Germany as a totalitarian state to a significant extent I think you could put "to a significant extent" at the beginning of your sentence as they obtained control of social and cultural life through Hitler youth and women. The Nazi party wanted to shape Germany in relation to their ideology of Nazism, campaigning the idea of Volksgemeinschaft, the concept of a new, harmonious community where all societal divisions were to be replaced by a sense of national unity. This was achieved through the Gleichschaltung period, meaning coordination; where Hitler transformed Germany into a Nazi state with the purpose of creating a racially pure nation, rooting his ideology into all aspects of life. In 1926, Hitler commenced the Hitler youth league Hitler Jugend and the its female equivalent, the league of German girlsBund Deutscher Mädel, to control and shape the entire youth of the nation German youth. Followers of the Hitler youth were brought up and educated so that they could become future inheritors of the Nazi party. By embracing the significance of the young generation, Hitler assured the maintenance of his third Reich, claiming, “He alone who owns the youth, gains the future”. Likewise, Nazi ideology positioned women in a very traditional role; they were sustained by men, not allowed to have leadership positions, could not work in certain occupations and were encouraged to stay at home. The German women’s league encouraged this traditional role of women, testifying that “the women has her own battlefield… with every child she brings into the world, she fights a battle for the nation”. Large families and more children toughened Germany, allowing Hitler to further erect his racially ‘pure’ nation, programming his Nazi ideology even into unborn babies by influencing their mothers. While Hitler did take control of most social and cultural aspects in Germany, there were numerous groups which opposed his regime. , in particular, the youth. This is emphasised through the middle-class Germans who combined the swing youth and the working class who contributed to the For example, the Edelweiss Pirates, aggressively opposed Nazi ideology. Furthermore, some religions tried to stand against Hitler, especially the Protestant clergy who recognised the confessional church, nevertheless but the Nazi regime was able to control these rebellions by arresting and incarcerating anyone who spoke out. Thus, Nazi Germany was to a large extent a totalitarian state as its ideology consumed all levels of society, especially youth and women.

Furthermore, the authoritarian Nazi racial policy demonstrates in what way the moral and ethical codes that feature a liberal democratic state were overlooked, thus being a totalitarian state to a great extent. Best understood as discrimination towards Jews, anti-Semitism was implemented by anti-Semitic laws and through full-scale persecution commencing in 1933. The Nuremberg laws of September 1935 were a number of anti-semitic laws intending to end German rights and freedoms and disregard the integrity of all Jewish people, establishing Jew’s as second-class citizens. Kristallnacht, on the 9th and 10th of November 1930, was the annihilation of Jewish business and synagogues where almost 100 people were killed and over 30000 arrested. This revealed the ruthlessness of these anti-semitic policies, for the first time creating making Hitler’s objectives clear to Germany and the world. Stein Weis mirrors this as he stated that “Kristallnacht was a monumental development in Nazi anti-Jewish policy”. As a result of these vicious anti-semitic policies, Jews were strongly discriminated against, separated from the rest of Germany and humiliated. Evidently, moral and ethical codes were not in place as Hitler was eager to remove Jews and other enemies of the state, reflecting how Nazi Germany was, in fact, a Totalitarian state to a great extent.

Evidently, it is clear that to a great extent Nazi Germany was a totalitarian state. This is apparent as Hitler and his Nazi party were striving for complete control over Germany, encouraging their official ideology and programming it into all levels of society, existing a system of terror and ignoring any moral and ethical codes. Hitler effectively accomplished this as he went to tremendous measures to obtain support for his party by means of propaganda, terror and repression. By obtaining control of German social and cultural life, combined with the authority over youth and women it granted Hitler the ability to form a totalitarian state. Additionally, the authoritarian Nazi policy through anti-Semitic laws and full-scale violence towards Jew’s meant that Hitler eradicated his enemies and opposition, achieving direct jurisdiction over Germany. Ultimately, it can be said that Nazi Germany was to a great extent a totalitarian state.

Okay so, a few things:
- I found there was a lot of redundant wording. What I mean by this is you wrote a huge sentence which could've been cut down a ton - check out the strikethroughs, I kinda gave up closer to the end lol.
- You have a great grasp on content :-) There is an immense amount of detail in this, well done!
- You need to sustain your judgement the whole way through! Make what you think clear in your thesis statement, then follow through in each of your paragraphs. Your topic sentence in each paragraph needs to link back to the question (and your judgement), and there should be a linking sentence at the end.
- Your introduction doesn't need to cover every single detail of the point you're going to make. All you need to do is mention the points you're going to make in the paragraphs. I think you expanded a little on propaganda, terror and repression where you mentioned the radio and stuff - not needed in your introduction.
- Terminology: choose one or the other. You can use the German term, or the English, it doesn't really matter - just choose one. Although wink wink nudge nudge it's suggested you use the German.
- On that note, if there's an umlaut in the terminology, use it! It's letters like these: ä, ü, ö, etc. You can google how to put them in (just hold the letter key if you're on Mac) - probably just me being annoying because I'm studying German right now, but that's not a huge issue.
- There's no need to be so fancy! All Modern asks you to do is to make a judgement in relation to the question, and deliver your information in a way that answers it and supports your judgement.

Keep writing essays and send them in to be marked :-) I hope this helped - best of luck for your exams! Sorry if it looked like I was really harsh lol

Also for future reference, when posting essays, make a thread on this board here.

Thank you sooo much for your help, truly appreaicte!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: joemassoud on March 30, 2018, 04:19:22 pm
Hey Guys,

I have my Modern History exam coming up, and Section 1 (multiple choice and short answers) of my exam is on WW1. Just wondering, what I should do in preparation for the exam, really stressing out and could use any help.

Thanks in advance!


Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Mada438 on March 30, 2018, 06:11:07 pm
Hey Guys,

I have my Modern History exam coming up, and Section 1 (multiple choice and short answers) of my exam is on WW1. Just wondering, what I should do in preparation for the exam, really stressing out and could use any help.

Thanks in advance!
Hey!
So ww1 is a source based section. So the best way to prepare for any sort of sources and questions you'll be facing is past papers. That way you'll have alot of experience dealing with a variety of sources.
However, some questions in addition to disscussing the sources, ask for YOUR OWN KNOWLADGE so brushing up on your notes regarding all the syllabus dot points is definitely a must!

Good luck!  ;D
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: owidjaja on March 30, 2018, 06:22:08 pm
Hey Guys,

I have my Modern History exam coming up, and Section 1 (multiple choice and short answers) of my exam is on WW1. Just wondering, what I should do in preparation for the exam, really stressing out and could use any help.

Thanks in advance!
Hey there,
My Task 1 was basically Section 1 of the HSC exam, and one of the things I learnt from that task was time management. Even though I finished, I rushed towards the end of my source analysis. Looking back at my response, I could've enhanced my analysis if I didn't spend too much time on the 6 mark question (although, the typo in my exam also threw me off as well). Go through the content you learnt and make sure you know all the details (dates, terminology etc.)

And just like Mada438 said, past papers are important as well. I compiled a list of available sources in past papers so there's a place to start!

Hope this helps!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: joemassoud on May 14, 2018, 07:30:47 pm
Hey Guys,

If anyone can assist me in the answering the following question or provide some pointers/ideas that would be awesome!

"Describe THREE significant events that influenced the rise to prominence of the personality you have studied (ALBERT SPEER)"

Thanks in advance!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: owidjaja on May 14, 2018, 07:46:41 pm
Hey Guys,

If anyone can assist me in the answering the following question or provide some pointers/ideas that would be awesome!

"Describe THREE significant events that influenced the rise to prominence of the personality you have studied (ALBERT SPEER)"

Thanks in advance!
Hey there,
The best way to answer this is to have a general look at your personality's life overall and decide which are the three main events in their life- even though it's a describe question, the best way to view this is what do you think are the three most important events in Speer's life? You can view this kinda like your thesis. But remember, it's describe so no assessment questions. I didn't do Speer, but from my basic knowledge on him, maybe you can talk about him meeting Hitler, one of his most famous works (Cathedral of Light?) and possibly denazification? Or even his role during WW2?

Also, maybe consider using his memoir as a source. Just remember to be careful with what he says because there is a chance that he may distort the past (considering how he kinda did help Hitler).

Hope this helps!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Mada438 on May 15, 2018, 06:14:55 pm
Hey!
So I'm doing Speer...The question asks about he rises to prominence of Speer.
There are two ways i would look at the question. The first would be talking about his rise to prominence as a Nazi. So I would look at his most notable architecture works (e.g cathedral of light)-which lead him to become "first architect of the Reich" or something and his promotion to armaments minister and how he subsequently transformed it and kept Germany in the war.
Then for the third event, perhaps you could look at the Nuremberg trials. I say this because none of the other senior Nazis acknowledged what they had done, but Speer did so this put him in an entirely new category (he was the ONLY ONE to admit). This is where the big historical debate comes in: whether he was the "good Nazi or not"
At the end of the day, an individual does not live forever, but their actions CAN. Speer may be dead now, but as long as we still talk about him he is still prominent.
And that is why i believe the Nuremberg trials/his admittance can be looked at as an event leading to his rise to prominence (on the world stage).

Hope this helps!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: owidjaja on May 20, 2018, 04:40:24 pm
Hey guys,
Just a question on referencing: if we were to use a primary source from a textbook, do you reference the primary source or the textbook?
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on May 21, 2018, 08:28:22 pm
Hey guys,
Just a question on referencing: if we were to use a primary source from a textbook, do you reference the primary source or the textbook?

Hey typically (at uni at least now) we reference the primary source and where we found it in e.g. Aelst, V. & Laer, V. 2010, ‘Cyber-protest and civil society: The internet and action repertoires in social movements’, in Y. Jewkes & M. Yar (ed.), Handbook of internet crime, Wilan, Oregon, viewed 27 April 2018, <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13691181003628307?needAccess=true>

So you can see there I referenced the primary source first and then where it was found in... hope that makes sense? :)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: owidjaja on May 21, 2018, 08:32:02 pm
Hey typically (at uni at least now) we reference the primary source and where we found it in e.g. Aelst, V. & Laer, V. 2010, ‘Cyber-protest and civil society: The internet and action repertoires in social movements’, in Y. Jewkes & M. Yar (ed.), Handbook of internet crime, Wilan, Oregon, viewed 27 April 2018, <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13691181003628307?needAccess=true>

So you can see there I referenced the primary source first and then where it was found in... hope that makes sense? :)
What if I were to in-text reference it in my essay? From my experiences with in-text referencing, the structure is usually Author Surname, Year of Publication, page date (if there is one). How do I indicate that the primary source was taken from a secondary source in my in-text reference?
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: joemassoud on May 25, 2018, 09:31:25 am
Hey Guys,

I have this oral presentation I need to complete on the following question:

‘To be significant, an individual must contribute to change.’ To what extent does this statement apply to the personality (Albert Speer) you have studied?

I am struggling with what to talk about. Any help would be awesome!

Thanks in advance!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Mada438 on May 25, 2018, 03:58:16 pm
Hey Guys,

I have this oral presentation I need to complete on the following question:

‘To be significant, an individual must contribute to change.’ To what extent does this statement apply to the personality (Albert Speer) you have studied?

I am struggling with what to talk about. Any help would be awesome!

Thanks in advance!
Hey!
So to help you out, i do believe this statement applies to Albert Speer because in general terms if someone just follows the status quo they're not going to be noticed. Like if Speers contribution was to the status quo: "his architectural work and use of slave labour which was built upon pre-existing values of anti-Semitism and permanence from Nazi ideology" then he would've not been as important.
Imagine this...Someone asks "who was Albert speer" and someone replies "oh he was a good architect who was a close mate of Hitlers who subtly was anti-semitic (this is what i believe through his use of slave labour and his careful selection of the living spaces of Jews only to knock down).

But no, Albert Speer was important because he contributed to change. For two reasons i believe:
1: Keeping the Germans in the war for longer, thus potentially changing some of the short and long term outcomes.
2: His admition to the wrongs of the Third Reich during the Nuremburg trials

To expand on this: Speer kept Germany in the war for a few extra years. When the Soviets stopped the Germans near Moscow and with the United States now entering the war, the Germans idea of waging Blitzkrieg was coming to an end. Faced with a long lasting two-front war with two superpowers, Germany had to significantly increase its armaments production to cope.
This table shows the increase in German armaments production before and during Speers time as the minister; as well as this one

To summarise this:
 97% increase in ammunition Production
Tank production up 25%
Overall arms production up 59%

(Itis important to include some facts to back yourself up to make your essay stand out)
Part of the Speer legacy is the way his control of the armaments industry kept Germany in the war for longer.

And for number 2: Another way he contributed to change: His acknowledgement of the atrocities of the Reich at the Nuremberg Trials
By admitting to this, he changed the generalisations (that all Nazis were inherently evil and could not acknowledge what had happened) by admitting to what the Reich had done. This was also a change, as it changed the perceptions and generalisations made about all Nazis by displaying empathetic thought and acknowledgement.
This is part of the reason why Speer is so well remembered today.

If Speer had not contributed to these two changes, it can be argued that he would not have been as significant.

Hope this helps!
Good luck!  ;D
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: joemassoud on May 25, 2018, 07:08:12 pm
Hey!
So to help you out, i do believe this statement applies to Albert Speer because in general terms if someone just follows the status quo they're not going to be noticed.

Hope this helps!
Good luck!  ;D

Thank you soo much, honestly means a lot.

Just one question, how should I structure my response? - sorry if I'm being a pain.
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on May 25, 2018, 10:11:59 pm
Thank you soo much, honestly means a lot.

Just one question, how should I structure my response? - sorry if I'm being a pain.
Hey! When it comes to the personality study, I alway recommend structuring your response according to the key events and issues referenced on the syllabus. It makes it SUPER easy for the marker (if they aren't a teacher who teaches Speer, all they will have to go by is the syllabus, as the marking criteria is afaia NOT personality specific). Furthermore, events are just super easy to assert a personalities significance, as their significance is usually derived from their participation (or potentially, lack of participation) in these key events!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: joemassoud on May 25, 2018, 10:21:32 pm
Hey! When it comes to the personality study, I alway recommend structuring your response according to the key events and issues referenced on the syllabus.


Firstly, thanks for the help!!!!

Secondly, are there any specific events you would suggest I should talk about?
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on May 25, 2018, 10:31:50 pm

Firstly, thanks for the help!!!!

Secondly, are there any specific events you would suggest I should talk about?

Any of the ones from the 'Evaluation' section of the syllabus should work! Though for a question like that, I'd say that the Nuremburg Trials would definitely be something good to mention, either as a dedicated paragraph, or by integrating his defence throughout!

Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: zayyy on May 30, 2018, 06:43:16 pm
Hey !!

I'm a year 11 student, and I have just got my historical investigation assessment, but we have to present it in an interactive seminar and I was wondering if you had any tips on that??  Or even ideas, I don't know where to begin :( Also, I'm having trouble coming up with a focus question, and even choosing a topic/personality (I'm leaning towards Fidel Castro), but I'm just not sure.

thank you so much !!! :):):)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: owidjaja on May 30, 2018, 08:57:53 pm
Hey !!

I'm a year 11 student, and I have just got my historical investigation assessment, but we have to present it in an interactive seminar and I was wondering if you had any tips on that??  Or even ideas, I don't know where to begin :( Also, I'm having trouble coming up with a focus question, and even choosing a topic/personality (I'm leaning towards Fidel Castro), but I'm just not sure.

thank you so much !!! :):):)
Hey there!
Omg I remember doing the History Project (I did mine on the Romanovs). I'm not sure how your school is doing it but for us, we had to come up with two essay questions (a 'describe' and 'assess' questions) and submit two essays. Here's how I would suggest approaching the task:

1. Pick a topic.
Unfortunately you can't go past anywhere until you have a starting point. You said you're leaning towards Fidel Castro- that's an interesting topic! As long as you like the topic, you're more than willing to research it. Just make sure it's not on the HSC syllabus because they won't let you do a HSC topic since you'll get a 'head start.' And to be honest, I changed my topic a few times. I went from Napoleonic Wars, to Unification of Prussia, to Indonesian Independence, before going to the Romanovs. But if you're struggling to come up with a topic, take a look at the previous Modern History syllabus and see if there were any topics that piqued your interest. Or maybe take a look at the Prelim syllabus and choose a topic that your class hasn't or won't be covering. You should be choosing your topic because you're interested in it.

2. Do some background reading.
By this, I mean do some light research. Using Fidel Castro as an example, maybe look in to, what he did? What period of time was he around? Any biographical details? Anything interesting happening to Castro? Even just skimming through a biography.com website or even googling him and reading the Wikipedia snippet you get in your search results can help you get an idea of who he was, or what he did. This applies to if you wanna do an event- look at when it occurred, who were the main people involved etc.

3. Coming up with focus question(s).
You shouldn't be coming up with focus questions until you're comfortable with your chosen topic, hence my suggestion on background reading. If you know you're gonna do Fidel Castro (or any other topic), use your background knowledge of him to give yourself a direction. So my 'describe' question was: describe the climate in Russia during the reign of Tsar Nicholas II. Nice and simple. See how my question gives me a direction in where I should go? This means when I do my research, I should look for common themes between my information and see if I can categorise them in themes. I structured my essay by social, political and economic climate. My 'assess' question was: assess the fact that the fall of the Romanov dynasty was inevitable. Coming up with an 'assess' question was more challenging since I had to use my information and again, see any common themes. I could've done 'assess the impacts of Tsar Nicholas II.' However, my question was more challenging because it came from my idea of 'What if the Romanov dynasty didn't fall apart?' I was interested in answering this question, so I turned it into an 'assess' question.

When it comes to your focus question(s), it should be based on where you wanna go and a question that YOU wanna answer because you're interested in the topic.

4. Research. Research. RESEARCH.
Here comes the inevitable part of the investigation. Researching. Don't limit yourself to books and journal articles- look at Youtube videos, documentaries, podcasts. There are so many sources out there you can actually include in your reference list! For example, I used to put down Youtube videos as just 'Youtube videos' in my reference list and tbh, it doesn't look too nice because of the reputation Youtube has. But these days, I put it under 'video file'- it sounds more professional and doesn't sound too informal. And DON'T FORGET TO TAKE NOTES! I still keep my two plastic sleeves of notes and photocopies from textbooks. This makes things easier when you're planning out your essay (or however you wanna present your information).

5. Pulling things together.
I would suggest planning when doing this part. Go back through your notes and see if there is any relationship between events. Going back to my example, I actually did some research on the previous Tsars to see if there was any reason why Russia was falling apart by the time Tsar Nicholas II came to power. My first argument started off with Tsar Alexander II's reformations because it allowed more people to be more educated and freed the serfs, which then linked with the fact that more educated people = realisation that autocracy wasn't the way to go, then talked about the Russo-Japanese war etc. Essentially, my thesis was that the fall was inevitable because of an accumulation of factors.

Maybe Fidel Castro (or whoever you choose) may not work out like mine did, but it's good to see if there is a relationship between events. Maybe even go back and see if there were any issues in Cuba prior to Castro's ascension to power and see if that affected him in any shape or form.

Anyways, I think I babbled on too much, but I hope this helps!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Mada438 on May 31, 2018, 07:02:57 pm
Hey !!

I'm a year 11 student, and I have just got my historical investigation assessment, but we have to present it in an interactive seminar and I was wondering if you had any tips on that??  Or even ideas, I don't know where to begin :( Also, I'm having trouble coming up with a focus question, and even choosing a topic/personality (I'm leaning towards Fidel Castro), but I'm just not sure.

thank you so much !!! :):):)
Owidjaja's pretty much answered it all here, but I'm going to throw my hat into the ring even if i somewhat reiterate what she already said
Ahhhhhhh i remember doing the year 11 investigation. What a good time

I agree i did change my topic heaps as well; it can be very difficult to settle onto something.
So pretty much what i did was i picked an area i was interested in (which it sounds like you did with Fidel), but then i had to refine it. I initially said "well i want to do an essay looking at politics" well that's great, but that's a rather large area. So then i set about finding a smaller area within politics.
For me, i followed right-wing political movements to see where they were emerging. I can't really stand the political right and they had seen a resurgence in recent years. So from that smaller area, you then have to find a niche. For me, it was researching why they had risen again. That meant looking at the factors.
So now i knew what type of topic i was researching, now i had to develop that into a type of essay (using an essay word like explain, evaluate)
You should only do this once you definiteively know your niche topic you're doing as some essay words will fit better than others; so find the one that best fits what you're trying to argue (remember, this investigation is about what YOU want to do. Make it work for you, not the other way around). I chose describe because i thought that was the easiest way for me to convey my point.
So my final question was "Describe the factors contributing to the rise of populist radical right in Western Europe since the 1990s"

Good luck
Hope this helps!  ;D

Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: joemassoud on June 01, 2018, 08:46:09 am
Hey Guys,

I have this oral presentation on the following question. If anyone can help me out in anyway that would be great!

‘To be significant, an individual must contribute to change.’

To what extent does this statement apply to the personality you have studied?
[/u][/i]

INTRODUCTION:
Contribution to change is an essential element in being historically significant to a great extent. Albert Speer not only impacted on his immediate Nazi context and the course of the war, but indeed, the societal understanding of his own character and the Nazi legacy itself. Throughout this presentation it will be argued that Speer’s impact was no limited to simply the Nazi movement and the second world war, rather his contribution to change extends to the progression of the ripple effects of these events and the writing of history itself. Roadmap of ideas: (I'm having trouble introducing my ideas correctly)
- Prolonged the war war
- NUREMBERG TRIALS
- Writing ‘inside the third reich’

PARAGRAPH #1: PROLONGED THE WAR - for my first paragraph I am having trouble merging the following ideas together:

When the Soviets stopped the Germans near Moscow and with the United States now entering the war, the Germans idea of waging Blitzkrieg was coming to an end. Faced with a long lasting two-front war with two superpowers, Germany had to significantly increase its armaments production to cope. Under Speer’s power as the Minister of Armaments, he significantly increased Germany's ability to fight back against the Allies in the war by rationalising the war productions and resource allocation throughout the nation, minimising waste and limited the misallocation of resources. Essentially, through Speer’s implementation of a system of specialisation in the production of all resources, he thereby as Sereny suggested “was single-handedly responsible for the improvement of the economy.” Additionally, it is speculated that his reorganisation of the economy was so effective that Speer actually extended the Nazi’s ability to fight in the second world war by up to two years.

As Minister of Armaments in World War Two from 1942 onwards, Speer reformed the armaments industry to maximise production efficiency. Speer stated of his own contribution through his position as Minister of Armaments, “I prolonged that war by many months.” Although the architect had very limited knowledge of the industry, he had expert organisational skills. In the first six months of Speer’s appointment in this position, production of guns increased by 27%, ammunition production increased by 97% and tank production increased by 25%. Between 1942 and 1944, labour productivity per worker increased by over 100%. The re-organisation of the industry is partially responsible for this increase. The new business structure for the entire armament industry was to be based on a system of committees and rings. The different committees represented a form of weaponry and the rings represented the raw materials and parts needed to make the weapons. This new system ensured that each factory produced only one type of weapon at the highest possible refinement, causing a maintained peak of efficiency and productivity. The other major reform to the industry was the implementation of a Central Planning Board. Before the Board’s introduction, the army, navy and air force struggled to divide materials in any effective way. Speer’s introduction of the Central Planning Board is a significant contribution to the armaments industry as each branch of the military was responsible for its own weaponry design and production. Thus, the competition between the three branches was decreased and efficiency of production was in the best interests of the responsible branch. Hence, Speer made a significant contribution to the war effort through his role as Minister of Armaments.

Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: henrychapman on June 01, 2018, 09:22:32 am
Hey Guys,

I have this oral presentation on the following question. If anyone can help me out in anyway that would be great!

‘To be significant, an individual must contribute to change.’

To what extent does this statement apply to the personality you have studied?
[/u][/i]

INTRODUCTION:
Contribution to change is an essential element in being historically significant to a great extent. Albert Speer not only impacted on his immediate Nazi context and the course of the war, but indeed, the societal understanding of his own character and the Nazi legacy itself. Throughout this presentation it will be argued that Speer’s impact was no limited to simply the Nazi movement and the second world war, rather his contribution to change extends to the progression of the ripple effects of these events and the writing of history itself. Roadmap of ideas: (I'm having trouble introducing my ideas correctly)
- Prolonged the war war
- NUREMBERG TRIALS
- Writing ‘inside the third reich’

PARAGRAPH #1: PROLONGED THE WAR - for my first paragraph I am having trouble merging the following ideas together:

When the Soviets stopped the Germans near Moscow and with the United States now entering the war, the Germans idea of waging Blitzkrieg was coming to an end. Faced with a long lasting two-front war with two superpowers, Germany had to significantly increase its armaments production to cope. Under Speer’s power as the Minister of Armaments, he significantly increased Germany's ability to fight back against the Allies in the war by rationalising the war productions and resource allocation throughout the nation, minimising waste and limited the misallocation of resources. Essentially, through Speer’s implementation of a system of specialisation in the production of all resources, he thereby as Sereny suggested “was single-handedly responsible for the improvement of the economy.” Additionally, it is speculated that his reorganisation of the economy was so effective that Speer actually extended the Nazi’s ability to fight in the second world war by up to two years.

As Minister of Armaments in World War Two from 1942 onwards, Speer reformed the armaments industry to maximise production efficiency. Speer stated of his own contribution through his position as Minister of Armaments, “I prolonged that war by many months.” Although the architect had very limited knowledge of the industry, he had expert organisational skills. In the first six months of Speer’s appointment in this position, production of guns increased by 27%, ammunition production increased by 97% and tank production increased by 25%. Between 1942 and 1944, labour productivity per worker increased by over 100%. The re-organisation of the industry is partially responsible for this increase. The new business structure for the entire armament industry was to be based on a system of committees and rings. The different committees represented a form of weaponry and the rings represented the raw materials and parts needed to make the weapons. This new system ensured that each factory produced only one type of weapon at the highest possible refinement, causing a maintained peak of efficiency and productivity. The other major reform to the industry was the implementation of a Central Planning Board. Before the Board’s introduction, the army, navy and air force struggled to divide materials in any effective way. Speer’s introduction of the Central Planning Board is a significant contribution to the armaments industry as each branch of the military was responsible for its own weaponry design and production. Thus, the competition between the three branches was decreased and efficiency of production was in the best interests of the responsible branch. Hence, Speer made a significant contribution to the war effort through his role as Minister of Armaments.

Hey,
I just had an oral presentation for modern history too, except it was on Leni Riefenstahl. Not the same personality, but the same ballpark given they were both in Nazi Germany. My question was "People's actions are a consequence of their surroundings," so slighty different to yours.
My biggest tip would be to really focus on answering the question, rather then rattling off all that you know about the period, because your speech will end up being a bit of a recount and history teachers hate that. I think its important obviously to set up the time period to show how Speer then contributed to change and thus became signifcant. What I would also reccommend is a integration of historiography to further substantiate your point. So, find what others have said about Speer, not only will this give much more gravitas to your speech but you'll show the marker that you know what you're on about in terms of hitting the marking criteria which probably has a historiography concept in it.I think you've linked to the question really well at the end of your paragraphs but ensure you are continually answering it throughout, rather then just providing a description of events at the time. It looks like you have a really good knowledge of the content which is half the battle so keep it up !
Two main things:
1) ensure you're answering the question throughout
2) integrate what people say about Speer
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on June 01, 2018, 03:03:02 pm
Hey Guys,

I have this oral presentation on the following question. If anyone can help me out in anyway that would be great!

‘To be significant, an individual must contribute to change.’

To what extent does this statement apply to the personality you have studied?
[/u][/i]
-snip-

Hey, henrychapman has made some really great comments - highly recommend you use his feedback bc it's awesome. :-)

I didn't do Speer as my personality study so I can't make any comments on content.

My thoughts are in the spoiler below:

Spoiler
INTRODUCTION:
To a great extent, contribution to change is an essential element in being historically significant to a great extentI feel like if you put "to a great extent at the beginning it would sound a little better - more articulate and flows just that bit nicer.. Albert Speer not only impacted on his immediate Nazi context and the course of the war, but indeed maybe a connecting word like also would fit better here - you're just connecting ideas, the societal understanding of his own character (a little confused about this statement) and the Nazi legacy itself. Throughout this presentation it will be argued that Speer’s impact was not limited to simply the Nazi movement and the second world war, rather his contribution to change extends to the progression of the ripple effects of these events and the writing of history itself in relation to the following:Roadmap of ideas: (I'm having trouble introducing my ideas correctly)
- Prolong(ing) the war
- the Nuremberg Trials
- and Writing ‘inside the third reich’

Okay so in an introduction, you always have your roadmap of ideas in the middle of the paragraph right? And then you link back to the question. If you're struggling with introducing your ideas, you could do that.

PARAGRAPH #1: PROLONGED THE WAR - for my first paragraph I am having trouble merging the following ideas together:

You should address the question in your first sentence of each paragraph, i.e. have a topic sentence![When the Soviets stopped the Germans near Moscow and with the United States now entering the war, the Germans idea of waging Blitzkrieg was coming to an end. Faced with a long lasting two-front war with two superpowers, Germany had to significantly increase its armaments production to cope.] I don't think you need too much context in the stuff I've bracketed because you're analysing a personality's significance, not explaining what happened. Just take the most important part and only use that! Under Speer’s power as the Minister of Armaments, he significantly increased Germany's ability to fight back against the Allies in the war by rationalising the war productions and resource allocation throughout the nation, minimising waste and limited the misallocation of resources. Essentially, through Speer’s implementation of a system of specialisation in the production of all resources, he thereby as Sereny suggested “was single-handedly responsible for the improvement of the economy.” Additionally, it is speculated (you could probably use some historiography here)that his reorganisation of the economy was so effective that Speer actually extended the Nazi’s ability to fight in the second world war by up to two years.

You need a topic sentence here!As Minister of Armaments in World War Two from 1942 onwards, Speer reformed the armaments industry to maximise production efficiency. Speer stated of his own contribution through his position as Minister of Armaments, “I prolonged that war by many months.” Although the architect had very limited knowledge of the industry, he had expert organisational skills. In the first six months of Speer’s appointment in this position, production of guns increased by 27%, ammunition production increased by 97% and tank production increased by 25%. Between 1942 and 1944, labour productivity per worker increased by over 100%. Don't put the statistics here! That's probably something that belongs in the Part A response.The re-organisation of the industry is partially responsible for this increase. The new business structure for the entire armament industry was to be based on a system of committees and rings. The different committees represented a form of weaponry and the rings represented the raw materials and parts needed to make the weapons. This new system ensured that each factory produced only one type of weapon at the highest possible refinement, causing a maintained peak of efficiency and productivity. The other major reform to the industry was the implementation of a Central Planning Board. Before the Board’s introduction, the army, navy and air force struggled to divide materials in any effective way. Speer’s introduction of the Central Planning Board is a significant contribution to the armaments industry as each branch of the military was responsible for its own weaponry design and production. Thus, the competition between the three branches was decreased and efficiency of production was in the best interests of the responsible branch. Hence, Speer made a significant contribution to the war effort through his role as Minister of Armaments.

General comments:
- Definitely agree with henrychapman here - you need to answer the question instead of stating facts! Usually with a common case study like Speer, markers already know who Speer is, what he did in WW2/Minister of Armaments/whatever else he did. All you need is a little (emphasis on a little!) context to show the situation, then say what Speer did and then back it up with a quote that somehow answers the question. Part B calls for analysis bc in Part A you've already done the recounting and explaining.
- Expression wise, there is no need to be fancy! I know this is a v v weird thing to say but you don't need to whip out flashy words in essays. Seriously. It's all about how you articulate yourself and if you're throwing in some words to make your response seem more sophisticated, it won't be because it won't make sense! Stick to basics and just answer the question - that's what's going to get you your marks.
- You definitely know your content, well done! It's really awesome to see you know it well - now you just have to write some essays.

All the best,
fantasticbeasts
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: joemassoud on June 01, 2018, 04:07:52 pm
Thank you soo much for the advice henrychapman and fantasticbeasts.

By any chance would you mind reading my updated introduction:

‘To be significant, an individual must contribute to change.’

To what extent does this statement apply to the personality you have studied?
[/b][/i]

To a great extent, contribution to change is an essential element in being historically significant. When applied to Albert Speer it is evident that this statement is true as Speer not only had an impact upon his immediate Nazi context and the course of the war, but also the societal understanding of his own character and the Nazi legacy itself. Throughout this presentation it will be argued that Speer’s impact was not limited to the Nazi movement and the second world war, rather his contribution to change extends to the progression of the ripple effects of these events and the writing of history itself in relation to the following; prolonging the war by 2 years, his confession of his acknowledgement of the atrocities of the Reich at the Nuremberg Trials and writing ‘Inside The Third Reich.’ Ultimately, it is starkly clear that for an individual to be considered momentous, they must commit to change.
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Mada438 on June 01, 2018, 04:30:36 pm
Thank you soo much for the advice henrychapman and fantasticbeasts.

By any chance would you mind reading my updated introduction:

‘To be significant, an individual must contribute to change.’

To what extent does this statement apply to the personality you have studied?
[/b][/i]

To a great extent, contribution to change is an essential element in being historically significant. When applied to Albert Speer it is evident that this statement is true as Speer not only had an impact upon his immediate Nazi context and the course of the war, but also the societal understanding of his own character and the Nazi legacy itself. Throughout this presentation it will be argued that Speer’s impact was not limited to the Nazi movement and the second world war, rather his contribution to change extends to the progression of the ripple effects of these events and the writing of history itself in relation to the following; prolonging the war by 2 years, his confession of his acknowledgement of the atrocities of the Reich at the Nuremberg Trials and writing ‘Inside The Third Reich.’ Ultimately, it is starkly clear that for an individual to be considered momentous, they must commit to change.
I like this intro, i can see how you've implemented the feedback and its nicey done!
Within it, i see alot of what i would say myself!
---------------

So with this first paragraph, i agree with fb3 about too much context. Makers probably know a lot of what Speer did as armaments minister, so for this question you don't need to go into lots of detail like you have. It sounds like a Part A question answer, which isn't necessarily bad, but you're trying to do a part B, so you need to focus more on the question and less on the events themselves.

Which is why i believe your second idea is a lot better. It condenses most of what you said in your first idea more concisely.
As Minister of Armaments in World War Two from 1942 onwards, Speer reformed the armaments industry to maximise production efficiency. Speer stated of his own contribution through his position as Minister of Armaments, “I prolonged that war by many months.” Although the architect had very limited knowledge of the industry, he had expert organisational skills. In the first six months of Speer’s appointment in this position, production of guns increased by 27%, ammunition production increased by 97% and tank production increased by 25%. Between 1942 and 1944, labour productivity per worker increased by over 100%.
So up to this point, its really good, you've talked about how Speer has made a contribution to the war effort. I like how you've supported it with some statistics. At the same time, this part sounds more like evidence. I believe you're missing a sentence or two stating your point that his role as minister for armaments was a way he contributed to change. This stuff makes good evidence!

From then on, i feel as if you went on a bit of a tangent. I did Speer as my study and while all of what you said did happen, its not really answering the question that much. So i think you should condense it a little in a way that still shows you know your content without deviating from the question too much.
Hence, Speer made a significant contribution to the war effort through his role as Minister of Armaments.

I see you've tried to make an effort to tie it to the question here; but after your tangent and given how small it is, it seems a bit forced. Like you've waffled in an exam and then with 30 seconds left you desperately try to tie it all together. Which is why i think the tangent needs to be reduced to bring it back on track, while expanding this point to ensure you're correctly answering the question.

Hope this helps!  ;D
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: joemassoud on June 01, 2018, 05:42:59 pm
Thank you soo much Mazda438 for the advice!!!! Honestly means a lot

What I have done is I have attempted to improve and rewrite a paragraph on Speer prolonging the war. If you wouldn't mind, could you please have a read of it?

It is through Speer’s position as the Minister of Armaments that provided him with the ability to make changes which he is remembered for to this day. With Germany being faced with a long-lasting two-front war with the Soviets and the United States, Germany had to significantly increase its armaments production to cope. It was under Speer’s authority as the Minister of Armaments in World War Two, he significantly increased Germany's ability to fight back against the Allies in the war by reforming the armaments industry to maximise production efficiency. Speer stated of his own contribution through his position as Minister of Armaments, “I prolonged that war by many months.” Although the architect had very limited knowledge of the industry, he had expert organisational skills. In fact, in the first six months of Speer’s appointment in this position, production of guns increased by 27% and ammunition production increased by 97%, which ultimately reveals the immense impact he had on the war effort. Moreover, through Speer’s implementation of a system of specialisation in the production of all resources, he thereby as Sereny suggested: “was single-handedly responsible for the improvement of the economy.” Hence, it is speculated that his reorganisation of the economy was so effective that Speer actually extended the Nazi’s ability to fight in the Second World War by up to two years and is ultimately the reason why Speer is still significant to this day.
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Mada438 on June 01, 2018, 06:04:38 pm
Thank you soo much Mazda438 for the advice!!!! Honestly means a lot

What I have done is I have attempted to improve and rewrite a paragraph on Speer prolonging the war. If you wouldn't mind, could you please have a read of it?

It is through Speer’s position as the Minister of Armaments that provided him with the ability to make changes which he is remembered for to this day. With Germany being faced with a long-lasting two-front war with the Soviets and the United States, Germany had to significantly increase its armaments production to cope. It was under Speer’s authority as the Minister of Armaments in World War Two, he significantly increased Germany's ability to fight back against the Allies in the war by reforming the armaments industry to maximise production efficiency. Speer stated of his own contribution through his position as Minister of Armaments, “I prolonged that war by many months.” Although the architect had very limited knowledge of the industry, he had expert organisational skills. In fact, in the first six months of Speer’s appointment in this position, production of guns increased by 27% and ammunition production increased by 97%, which ultimately reveals the immense impact he had on the war effort. Moreover, through Speer’s implementation of a system of specialisation in the production of all resources, he thereby as Sereny suggested: “was single-handedly responsible for the improvement of the economy.” Hence, it is speculated that his reorganisation of the economy was so effective that Speer actually extended the Nazi’s ability to fight in the Second World War by up to two years and is ultimately the reason why Speer is still significant to this day.
That's really starting to come together!
One thing though:
It is through Speer’s position as the Minister of Armaments that provided him with the ability to make changes which he is remembered for to this day...and is ultimately the reason why Speer is still significant to this day.

to me, this statement is an absolute, like you believe this is the biggest reason why speer is significant. I would take this a little further and perhaps argue this was why he was significant on a large level, but his actions at the Nuremberg trials were what really made him significant on a global scale.
The way it sounds make it seem like it the only reason when its not not, so perhaps rewording it would help?
For example something like "one of the largest reasons why Speer is significant is the way he contributed to the change of the outcome of ww2"
and then link the end of the paragraph into the next one and start it with "although on a national scale, his contributions as armaments minister made him significant, it was his actions at the Nuremberg trials which ultimately led to Speer becoming such a prominent figure in history"

Don't actually use them, they're not very good but they generally capture the point I'm trying to make.
However, it is still pretty good so if you want to keep it like that then go for it.

All in all, good job!
Now its time to consturct the rest of your paragraphs!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: joemassoud on June 01, 2018, 06:36:38 pm
That's really starting to come together!

Now its time to consturct the rest of your paragraphs!


I'm a bit lost for words/ideas for my second paragraph. This is what I have done so far:

PARAGRAPH #2: NUREMBERG TRIALS

Although on a national scale, his contributions as Armaments Minister made him a prominent figure, it was his actions at the Nuremberg trials which ultimately led to Speer becoming such a significant figure in history. Speer’s confession of his acknowledgement of the atrocities of the Reich at the Nuremberg Trials ultimately changed the perceptions made about all Nazis by displaying empathetic thought and acknowledgement. Essentially, by Speer admitting to this, he fundamentally changed the generalisations, that all Nazis were inherently evil.

By the way, thank you for the paragraph starter it really help me with tieing in my speech/arguments.
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Mada438 on June 01, 2018, 08:51:50 pm

I'm a bit lost for words/ideas for my second paragraph. This is what I have done so far:

PARAGRAPH #2: NUREMBERG TRIALS

Although on a national scale, his contributions as Armaments Minister made him a prominent figure, it was his actions at the Nuremberg trials which ultimately led to Speer becoming such a significant figure in history. Speer’s confession of his acknowledgement of the atrocities of the Reich at the Nuremberg Trials ultimately changed the perceptions made about all Nazis by displaying empathetic thought and acknowledgement. Essentially, by Speer admitting to this, he fundamentally changed the generalisations, that all Nazis were inherently evil.

By the way, thank you for the paragraph starter it really help me with tieing in my speech/arguments.
No worries!
Hmmmmmm. I would talk about some of the differing historians opinions and link that to why he is significant.
He may be dead, but there is still historical debates about him, he lives on.
He is significant because people still talk about him.

Thats what i think should be included not 100% sure if its right thoigh  :)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on June 01, 2018, 09:17:30 pm
No worries!
Hmmmmmm. I would talk about some of the differing historians opinions and link that to why he is significant.
He may be dead, but there is still historical debates about him, he lives on.
He is significant because people still talk about him.

Thats what i think should be included not 100% sure if its right thoigh  :)

That's a valid point. :-)


I'm a bit lost for words/ideas for my second paragraph. This is what I have done so far:

PARAGRAPH #2: NUREMBERG TRIALS

Although on a national scale, his contributions as Armaments Minister made him a prominent figure, it was his actions at the Nuremberg trials which ultimately led to Speer becoming such a significant figure in history. Speer’s confession of his acknowledgement of the atrocities of the Reich at the Nuremberg Trials ultimately changed the perceptions made about all Nazis by displaying empathetic thought and acknowledgement. Essentially, by Speer admitting to this, he fundamentally changed the generalisations, that all Nazis were inherently evil.

By the way, thank you for the paragraph starter it really help me with tieing in my speech/arguments.


I think the last sentence you've written is a bit redundant bc you're basically saying what you wrote in the previous sentence again. Instead of this, you could introduce a historian quote - this will lead to further discussion on Speer's significance because you have more to go off. Also, the way you've used the word "ultimately" implies you're 100% sure that whatever event happened was totally the only reason Speer became significant. Idk if it's just me but I got that vibe lol.
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: joemassoud on June 01, 2018, 10:00:27 pm
That's a valid point. :-)

I think the last sentence you've written is a bit redundant bc you're basically saying what you wrote in the previous sentence again. Instead of this, you could introduce a historian quote - this will lead to further discussion on Speer's significance because you have more to go off. Also, the way you've used the word "ultimately" implies you're 100% sure that whatever event happened was totally the only reason Speer became significant. Idk if it's just me but I got that vibe lol.

Firstly, 100% see what you mean. What I did was I merged the two sentences into 1 so it doesn't sound repeating. Thank you for pointing that out.

Also, you know how if I make 30 posts I can get an essay marked by a moderator. How do I do this? Where do I post my essay (It's a 10marker on Albert Speer)?

Thanks in advance

Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on June 02, 2018, 12:23:07 am

I'm a bit lost for words/ideas for my second paragraph. This is what I have done so far:

PARAGRAPH #2: NUREMBERG TRIALS

Although on a national scale, his contributions as Armaments Minister made him a prominent figure, it was his actions at the Nuremberg trials which ultimately led to Speer becoming such a significant figure in history. Speer’s confession of his acknowledgement of the atrocities of the Reich at the Nuremberg Trials ultimately changed the perceptions made about all Nazis by displaying empathetic thought and acknowledgement. Essentially, by Speer admitting to this, he fundamentally changed the generalisations, that all Nazis were inherently evil.

By the way, thank you for the paragraph starter it really help me with tieing in my speech/arguments.

Had a hectic week (pretty much every week now at uni) but anyway I want to add that I would slightly alter what you are arguing here. Speer presenting the facade of the 'Good Nazi' was not important in that it changed perceptions of all the Nazis. Rather, what you need to emphasise here is that Speer separated himself from the other Nazis through his remorse and empathy and this is what made him ultimately significant - the fact that he stood out. That is what you really should be focusing on and this directly links to the question as if Speer had not changed the public perception of him (through his remorseful attitude), he would have simply blended in with all the other Nazis who all instead swore an oath to protect Hitler's name in the trials.

Also, I am interested - are you bringing into this some ways in which change isn't necessary? Because you can never argue that Speer's significance was 100% due to changes he made. Think about his work in architecture - he was such a significant figure within the Nazi regime because his architectural work was based off pre-existing ideas of dominance and permanency. He adopted (did not change) Nazi values and instead used the existing ones to form the basis of his architectural masterpieces. By doing so, Hitler was impressed by his work and this allowed him to progress further in prominence within the regime, therefore making him more significant without contributing to change (in its ideology).
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Never.Give.Up on June 02, 2018, 01:47:52 pm
Hey ;D Its prob a bit late...but was just wondering if anyone would be interested in having a quick look at my 'speech' response to the trial question,
'History is the record of an encounter between character and circumstance.'
Evaluate this statement in relation to the personality you have studied.
I do Albert Speer- the presentation is due on Monday so if anyone has any time I would really appreciate it! ;D
Spoiler
It is not common for individuals to be truly selfless. Nor is it common for them to expose their own flaws. Albert Speer, a human, yet a Nazi, was no exception. HE embodies the hurdle between character and circumstances that ALL individuals face. However, unlike others: HE took every opportunity as this character, HE took every opportunity to manipulate HIS circumstances and HE took every opportunity to invest in HIMSELF.

Albert Speer was a self-invested opportunist. HE possessed the ability to craft his own history and mould his opportunistic character to any circumstance- whether it be as an architect, an armaments minister or as a guilty defendant. However, further insight has been gained through contentious historiography, affirming the statement, ‘history IS the record of an encounter between character and circumstances’.

Evolving historical records have revealed that Speer’s opportunism enabled him to enrich his circumstance as the FIRST ARCHITECT of the Third Reich. (1934) Speer was recognised by the Nazi elite through his efficient redecoration of Nazi headquarters. It was these circumstantial encounters that Speer manipulated to impress elite Nazi officials… and HITLER. In his initial year as First Architect, Speer captivated the Nazis at the 1934 Nuremberg Rallies, through the renowned ‘Cathedral of Lights’. Consequently, as an admirable technocratic, Speer assumed control of the Germania Project in 1939. Controversially, Speer was directly subordinate to Hitler alone in this project which Fest documents as, “a kind of dictatorial status” . This account certifies that Speer was involved in the reallocation of 23,000 Jewish apartments.  Yet, it is still debated; Was Speer responsible for the deportation of Berlin Jews in 1941? Sereny sides with Speer’s historical art, “the early resettlement work…was purely administrative and it is unlikely that Speer himself knew much about the details involved.”  Yet, Sereny’s record has neglected to explore beyond Speer and is contradicted by Van der Vat’s evidence from a removed part of the Wolter Chronicles, “in accordance with Speer’s order, a further action was started to clear about 5000 Jew-flats.”  Let me say that again “in accordance with SPEER’s order…”Evidently, this reveals Speer’s knowledge of Jewish deportation, and his uncanny ability as a technocrat to deceive Sereny. Hence, history has recorded that Speer’s opportunism enabled him to flourish through circumstantial encounters.

History has documented Speer as a manipulative character who cultivated his career as the MINISTER FOR ARMAMENTS. Speer was left as Hitler’s fitting accomplice to fuel the Nazi War Machine in 1942, after Fritz Todt’s death. As Armaments Minister, Speer prolonged the war for at least a year through increased armaments production, however millions of innocent Jews consequently died.  Circumstantial? Unfortunately, not… Speer manipulated this encounter, turning it into an opportunity to achieve the Nazi goal of “destruction through work.”   Speer attempted to manipulate his record in history after inspecting the Dora Camp, claiming “I pressed the SS… to improve sanitary conditions and upgrade the food” . Yet, Speer failed to end the use of slave labourers, which Sereny verifies, “when Speer wanted something, he went after it, and the human cost did not matter.  This record is further supported through Howell’s documentation, “By 1945 he [Speer] controlled a workforce of 14,000,000 that included forced labour…and Jewish slave workers.”  Ultimately, these records expose Speer’s manipulative ability to consistently please Hitler through extending the war AND the Final Solution. Evidently, history has recorded Speer’s egotism as the Minister for Armaments. Yet, how is it that such an influential opportunist can escape the death penalty, unlike so many others? 

Ultimately, as contentiously debated through the records of history, the Scorched Earth Policy saved Speer. It is questioned; Was Speer’s opposition to Hitler’s Nero Decree for his OWN benefit, or for the benefit of the German people? King documents Speer’s nationalism, “the second and succeeding world of Albert Speer… was a world of ethical and cultural value, a humanistic world.”  However, King has focused on Speer’s narrative in history, neglecting his opportunity to defy Hitler’s policy to ensure his power is maintained with the infrastructure. In contrast, Schmidt accurately documented Speer’s skilful manipulation to, “prevent the destruction of these bastions of his power" . As such, through the developing records of history, further insights of Speer’s volition to preserve HIMSELF are revealed. Van der Vat documents Speer’s intelligent foreshadowing, preparing his defence as early as April 1944, “From now on Speer’s own agenda would be paramount… in a campaign for the preservation of Albert Speer” .  With 9 months to prepare his ‘contrite’ demeanour at the Nuremberg Trials, Speer was able to live, when so many others died, was able to prosper, when so many others struggled. However, Trueman exposes that characteristics instilled in Speer from childhood guaranteed his survival as, “his lack of emotion and education… spared his life; full of contrition and apologies” . Van der Vat supports Trueman stating Speer “only escaped the death penalty at Nuremberg because he was a good liar”. Evidently, this reveals that history has recorded Speer’s notorious ability to manipulate circumstantial encounters.
 
Skilful and opportunistic- ALBERT SPEER manipulated the circumstance for his OWN benefit. As an enigmatic character in the records of history he has dominated debates through the construction of his own history. Yet, ultimately, through interpreting insightful historical records, his success relied on the encounters between character and circumstance. Thus, it can be confirmed, Berthold Konrad Hermann Albert Speer benefited HIS character notoriously through circumstantial encounters.

Thanks so much ;D ;)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on June 03, 2018, 12:06:48 am
Hey ;D Its prob a bit late...but was just wondering if anyone would be interested in having a quick look at my 'speech' response to the trial question,
'History is the record of an encounter between character and circumstance.'
Evaluate this statement in relation to the personality you have studied.
I do Albert Speer- the presentation is due on Monday so if anyone has any time I would really appreciate it! ;D

Hey my comments are in the spoiler!

Spoiler
It is not common for individuals to be truly selfless. Nor is it common for them to expose their own flaws. Albert Speer, a human, yet a Nazi, was no exception. HE embodies the hurdle between character and circumstances that ALL individuals face. However, unlike others: HE took every opportunity as this character, HE took every opportunity to manipulate HIS circumstances and HE took every opportunity to invest in HIMSELF. If this is a presentation, I really like the way you have made it engaging while also blending a thesis into it, that being that Speer took advantage of circumstance to gain influence.

Albert Speer was a self-invested opportunist. HE possessed the ability to craft his own history and mould his opportunistic character to any circumstance- whether it be as an architect, an armaments minister or as a guilty defendant. However, further insight has been gained through contentious historiography, affirming the statement, ‘history IS the record of an encounter between character and circumstances’. Like the first sentence but unsure what you mean by the second.

Evolving historical records have revealed that Speer’s opportunism enabled him to enrich his circumstance as the FIRST ARCHITECT of the Third Reich. (1934) Speer was recognised by the Nazi elite through his efficient redecoration of Nazi headquarters. It was these circumstantial encounters that Speer manipulated to impress elite Nazi officials… and HITLER.Well done, nice link. In his initial year as First Architect, Speer captivated the Nazis at the 1934 Nuremberg Rallies, through the renowned ‘Cathedral of Lights’. Consequently, as an admirable technocratic, Speer assumed control of the Germania Project in 1939. Controversially, Speer was directly subordinate to Hitler alone in this project which Fest documents as, “a kind of dictatorial status” . This account certifies that Speer was involved in the reallocation of 23,000 Jewish apartments.  Yet, it is still debated; Was Speer responsible for the deportation of Berlin Jews in 1941? Sereny sides with Speer’s historical art, “the early resettlement work…was purely administrative and it is unlikely that Speer himself knew much about the details involved.”  Yet, Sereny’s record has neglected to explore beyond Speer and is contradicted by Van der Vat’s evidence from a removed part of the Wolter Chronicles, “in accordance with Speer’s order, a further action was started to clear about 5000 Jew-flats.”  Let me say that again “in accordance with SPEER’s order…”Evidently, this reveals Speer’s knowledge of Jewish deportation, and his uncanny ability as a technocrat to deceive Sereny. Hence, history has recorded that Speer’s opportunism enabled him to flourish through circumstantial encounters. I don't think the historiography necessarily adds to your argument. Here it just confuses me as to how this shows that Speer took advantage of circumstance. If anything, you would argue that Speer took advantage of the anti-Semitic values at the time in the clearing of the Jew Flats to further his position within the Nazi regime.

History has documented Speer as a manipulative character who cultivated his career as the MINISTER FOR ARMAMENTS. I would avoid using the world manipulative to describe him. Words such as intuitive or perceptive more accurately answer the question. Speer was left as Hitler’s fitting accomplice to fuel the Nazi War Machine in 1942, after Fritz Todt’s death. As Armaments Minister, Speer prolonged the war for at least a year through increased armaments production, however millions of innocent Jews consequently died.  Circumstantial? Unfortunately, not… Speer manipulated this encounter, turning it into an opportunity to achieve the Nazi goal of “destruction through work.”   Speer attempted to manipulate his record in history after inspecting the Dora Camp, claiming “I pressed the SS… to improve sanitary conditions and upgrade the food” . Yet, Speer failed to end the use of slave labourers, which Sereny verifies, “when Speer wanted something, he went after it, and the human cost did not matter.  This record is further supported through Howell’s documentation, “By 1945 he [Speer] controlled a workforce of 14,000,000 that included forced labour…and Jewish slave workers.”  Ultimately, these records expose Speer’s manipulative ability to consistently please Hitler through extending the war AND the Final Solution. Evidently, history has recorded Speer’s egotism as the Minister for Armaments. Yet, how is it that such an influential opportunist can escape the death penalty, unlike so many others?  I am interested to hear what others think about this. Personally, I think this is delving into too much of an expose about revealing how Speer was manipulative and evil, which I think doesn't really relate to the question. I interpreted the question to be whether personalities are swept away/influenced by events/context or if they shape their own outcome.

Ultimately, as contentiously debated through the records of history, the Scorched Earth Policy saved Speer. It is questioned; Was Speer’s opposition to Hitler’s Nero Decree for his OWN benefit, or for the benefit of the German people? King documents Speer’s nationalism, “the second and succeeding world of Albert Speer… was a world of ethical and cultural value, a humanistic world.”  However, King has focused on Speer’s narrative in history, neglecting his opportunity to defy Hitler’s policy to ensure his power is maintained with the infrastructure. In contrast, Schmidt accurately documented Speer’s skilful manipulation to, “prevent the destruction of these bastions of his power" . As such, through the developing records of history, further insights of Speer’s volition to preserve HIMSELF are revealed. Van der Vat documents Speer’s intelligent foreshadowing, preparing his defence as early as April 1944, “From now on Speer’s own agenda would be paramount… in a campaign for the preservation of Albert Speer” .  With 9 months to prepare his ‘contrite’ demeanour at the Nuremberg Trials, Speer was able to live, when so many others died, was able to prosper, when so many others struggled. However, Trueman exposes that characteristics instilled in Speer from childhood guaranteed his survival as, “his lack of emotion and education… spared his life; full of contrition and apologies” . Van der Vat supports Trueman stating Speer “only escaped the death penalty at Nuremberg because he was a good liar”. Evidently, this reveals that history has recorded Speer’s notorious ability to manipulate circumstantial encounters. Too much historiography here! You lose your own voice which is really important in history! You want to use historiography a bit but use it essentially as a springboard to agree or disagree and further your argument.
 
Skilful and opportunistic- ALBERT SPEER manipulated the circumstance for his OWN benefit. As an enigmatic character in the records of history he has dominated debates through the construction of his own history. Yet, ultimately, through interpreting insightful historical records, his success relied on the encounters between character and circumstance. Thus, it can be confirmed, Berthold Konrad Hermann Albert Speer benefited HIS character notoriously through circumstantial encounters.
A very interesting essay! You interpreted the question very differently to what I would have expected when considering your arguments. Keen to hear what others think as personally, I interpreted as another way of saying: Was Speer a shaper of events or did was he shaped by events/context.

For instance, I would argue that he was shaped by circumstance early in his life when he, like many Germans, was captivated by Hitler's persuasiveness. In addition, he was shaped by circumstance in his indifference to anti-Semitism which you touched on. In contrast, he went against circumstance (context) in the Nuremberg Trials by presenting a very different attitude to the other Nazis, to his own benefit. His architectural work was shaped by circumstance as it was heavily influenced by Nazi values of dominance/permanency and his early rise to prominence was also an encounter with circumstance as he was swept up by opportunities that came his way (with Hanke etc.) Yet, his Armaments Ministry work was not as he revitalised the industry to increase ammunition output etc.

Hopefully that makes sense! Keen to hear what others think of your interpretation!

Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: joemassoud on June 03, 2018, 09:30:28 am
Hey Guys,

I'm having trouble finding a historian that links with the following statement (what is in bold):

Speer's ultimate prolongation of the Second World War is a prime example of how he made a major impact on his immediate context and made a significant mark on history. Being in a state of a two-front war, the internal Nazi organisation of powers and resources was nothing less than chaotic and inefficient.

Thanks in advance!

Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: theyam on June 03, 2018, 09:42:42 am
Hi guys,

I have an essay question for the personality study: 'Chance rather than planning determines the role of significant figures in history" To what extent is this statement accurate in relation to the personality you have studied? (I'm studying Leni Riefenstahl)
Could anyone please give me some tips on how to approach this essay?

Thank you~
theyam :)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on June 03, 2018, 12:21:53 pm
Hey ;D Its prob a bit late...but was just wondering if anyone would be interested in having a quick look at my 'speech' response to the trial question,
'History is the record of an encounter between character and circumstance.'
Evaluate this statement in relation to the personality you have studied.
I do Albert Speer- the presentation is due on Monday so if anyone has any time I would really appreciate it! ;D
Spoiler
It is not common for individuals to be truly selfless. Nor is it common for them to expose their own flaws. Albert Speer, a human, yet a Nazi, was no exception. HE embodies the hurdle between character and circumstances that ALL individuals face. However, unlike others: HE took every opportunity as this character, HE took every opportunity to manipulate HIS circumstances and HE took every opportunity to invest in HIMSELF.

Albert Speer was a self-invested opportunist. HE possessed the ability to craft his own history and mould his opportunistic character to any circumstance- whether it be as an architect, an armaments minister or as a guilty defendant. However, further insight has been gained through contentious historiography, affirming the statement, ‘history IS the record of an encounter between character and circumstances’.

Evolving historical records have revealed that Speer’s opportunism enabled him to enrich his circumstance as the FIRST ARCHITECT of the Third Reich. (1934) Speer was recognised by the Nazi elite through his efficient redecoration of Nazi headquarters. It was these circumstantial encounters that Speer manipulated to impress elite Nazi officials… and HITLER. In his initial year as First Architect, Speer captivated the Nazis at the 1934 Nuremberg Rallies, through the renowned ‘Cathedral of Lights’. Consequently, as an admirable technocratic, Speer assumed control of the Germania Project in 1939. Controversially, Speer was directly subordinate to Hitler alone in this project which Fest documents as, “a kind of dictatorial status” . This account certifies that Speer was involved in the reallocation of 23,000 Jewish apartments.  Yet, it is still debated; Was Speer responsible for the deportation of Berlin Jews in 1941? Sereny sides with Speer’s historical art, “the early resettlement work…was purely administrative and it is unlikely that Speer himself knew much about the details involved.”  Yet, Sereny’s record has neglected to explore beyond Speer and is contradicted by Van der Vat’s evidence from a removed part of the Wolter Chronicles, “in accordance with Speer’s order, a further action was started to clear about 5000 Jew-flats.”  Let me say that again “in accordance with SPEER’s order…”Evidently, this reveals Speer’s knowledge of Jewish deportation, and his uncanny ability as a technocrat to deceive Sereny. Hence, history has recorded that Speer’s opportunism enabled him to flourish through circumstantial encounters.

History has documented Speer as a manipulative character who cultivated his career as the MINISTER FOR ARMAMENTS. Speer was left as Hitler’s fitting accomplice to fuel the Nazi War Machine in 1942, after Fritz Todt’s death. As Armaments Minister, Speer prolonged the war for at least a year through increased armaments production, however millions of innocent Jews consequently died.  Circumstantial? Unfortunately, not… Speer manipulated this encounter, turning it into an opportunity to achieve the Nazi goal of “destruction through work.”   Speer attempted to manipulate his record in history after inspecting the Dora Camp, claiming “I pressed the SS… to improve sanitary conditions and upgrade the food” . Yet, Speer failed to end the use of slave labourers, which Sereny verifies, “when Speer wanted something, he went after it, and the human cost did not matter.  This record is further supported through Howell’s documentation, “By 1945 he [Speer] controlled a workforce of 14,000,000 that included forced labour…and Jewish slave workers.”  Ultimately, these records expose Speer’s manipulative ability to consistently please Hitler through extending the war AND the Final Solution. Evidently, history has recorded Speer’s egotism as the Minister for Armaments. Yet, how is it that such an influential opportunist can escape the death penalty, unlike so many others? 

Ultimately, as contentiously debated through the records of history, the Scorched Earth Policy saved Speer. It is questioned; Was Speer’s opposition to Hitler’s Nero Decree for his OWN benefit, or for the benefit of the German people? King documents Speer’s nationalism, “the second and succeeding world of Albert Speer… was a world of ethical and cultural value, a humanistic world.”  However, King has focused on Speer’s narrative in history, neglecting his opportunity to defy Hitler’s policy to ensure his power is maintained with the infrastructure. In contrast, Schmidt accurately documented Speer’s skilful manipulation to, “prevent the destruction of these bastions of his power" . As such, through the developing records of history, further insights of Speer’s volition to preserve HIMSELF are revealed. Van der Vat documents Speer’s intelligent foreshadowing, preparing his defence as early as April 1944, “From now on Speer’s own agenda would be paramount… in a campaign for the preservation of Albert Speer” .  With 9 months to prepare his ‘contrite’ demeanour at the Nuremberg Trials, Speer was able to live, when so many others died, was able to prosper, when so many others struggled. However, Trueman exposes that characteristics instilled in Speer from childhood guaranteed his survival as, “his lack of emotion and education… spared his life; full of contrition and apologies” . Van der Vat supports Trueman stating Speer “only escaped the death penalty at Nuremberg because he was a good liar”. Evidently, this reveals that history has recorded Speer’s notorious ability to manipulate circumstantial encounters.
 
Skilful and opportunistic- ALBERT SPEER manipulated the circumstance for his OWN benefit. As an enigmatic character in the records of history he has dominated debates through the construction of his own history. Yet, ultimately, through interpreting insightful historical records, his success relied on the encounters between character and circumstance. Thus, it can be confirmed, Berthold Konrad Hermann Albert Speer benefited HIS character notoriously through circumstantial encounters.

Thanks so much ;D ;)
Hey my comments are in the spoiler!

Spoiler
It is not common for individuals to be truly selfless. Nor is it common for them to expose their own flaws. Albert Speer, a human, yet a Nazi, was no exception. HE embodies the hurdle between character and circumstances that ALL individuals face. However, unlike others: HE took every opportunity as this character, HE took every opportunity to manipulate HIS circumstances and HE took every opportunity to invest in HIMSELF. If this is a presentation, I really like the way you have made it engaging while also blending a thesis into it, that being that Speer took advantage of circumstance to gain influence.

Albert Speer was a self-invested opportunist. HE possessed the ability to craft his own history and mould his opportunistic character to any circumstance- whether it be as an architect, an armaments minister or as a guilty defendant. However, further insight has been gained through contentious historiography, affirming the statement, ‘history IS the record of an encounter between character and circumstances’. Like the first sentence but unsure what you mean by the second.

Evolving historical records have revealed that Speer’s opportunism enabled him to enrich his circumstance as the FIRST ARCHITECT of the Third Reich. (1934) Speer was recognised by the Nazi elite through his efficient redecoration of Nazi headquarters. It was these circumstantial encounters that Speer manipulated to impress elite Nazi officials… and HITLER.Well done, nice link. In his initial year as First Architect, Speer captivated the Nazis at the 1934 Nuremberg Rallies, through the renowned ‘Cathedral of Lights’. Consequently, as an admirable technocratic, Speer assumed control of the Germania Project in 1939. Controversially, Speer was directly subordinate to Hitler alone in this project which Fest documents as, “a kind of dictatorial status” . This account certifies that Speer was involved in the reallocation of 23,000 Jewish apartments.  Yet, it is still debated; Was Speer responsible for the deportation of Berlin Jews in 1941? Sereny sides with Speer’s historical art, “the early resettlement work…was purely administrative and it is unlikely that Speer himself knew much about the details involved.”  Yet, Sereny’s record has neglected to explore beyond Speer and is contradicted by Van der Vat’s evidence from a removed part of the Wolter Chronicles, “in accordance with Speer’s order, a further action was started to clear about 5000 Jew-flats.”  Let me say that again “in accordance with SPEER’s order…”Evidently, this reveals Speer’s knowledge of Jewish deportation, and his uncanny ability as a technocrat to deceive Sereny. Hence, history has recorded that Speer’s opportunism enabled him to flourish through circumstantial encounters. I don't think the historiography necessarily adds to your argument. Here it just confuses me as to how this shows that Speer took advantage of circumstance. If anything, you would argue that Speer took advantage of the anti-Semitic values at the time in the clearing of the Jew Flats to further his position within the Nazi regime.

History has documented Speer as a manipulative character who cultivated his career as the MINISTER FOR ARMAMENTS. I would avoid using the world manipulative to describe him. Words such as intuitive or perceptive more accurately answer the question. Speer was left as Hitler’s fitting accomplice to fuel the Nazi War Machine in 1942, after Fritz Todt’s death. As Armaments Minister, Speer prolonged the war for at least a year through increased armaments production, however millions of innocent Jews consequently died.  Circumstantial? Unfortunately, not… Speer manipulated this encounter, turning it into an opportunity to achieve the Nazi goal of “destruction through work.”   Speer attempted to manipulate his record in history after inspecting the Dora Camp, claiming “I pressed the SS… to improve sanitary conditions and upgrade the food” . Yet, Speer failed to end the use of slave labourers, which Sereny verifies, “when Speer wanted something, he went after it, and the human cost did not matter.  This record is further supported through Howell’s documentation, “By 1945 he [Speer] controlled a workforce of 14,000,000 that included forced labour…and Jewish slave workers.”  Ultimately, these records expose Speer’s manipulative ability to consistently please Hitler through extending the war AND the Final Solution. Evidently, history has recorded Speer’s egotism as the Minister for Armaments. Yet, how is it that such an influential opportunist can escape the death penalty, unlike so many others?  I am interested to hear what others think about this. Personally, I think this is delving into too much of an expose about revealing how Speer was manipulative and evil, which I think doesn't really relate to the question. I interpreted the question to be whether personalities are swept away/influenced by events/context or if they shape their own outcome.

Ultimately, as contentiously debated through the records of history, the Scorched Earth Policy saved Speer. It is questioned; Was Speer’s opposition to Hitler’s Nero Decree for his OWN benefit, or for the benefit of the German people? King documents Speer’s nationalism, “the second and succeeding world of Albert Speer… was a world of ethical and cultural value, a humanistic world.”  However, King has focused on Speer’s narrative in history, neglecting his opportunity to defy Hitler’s policy to ensure his power is maintained with the infrastructure. In contrast, Schmidt accurately documented Speer’s skilful manipulation to, “prevent the destruction of these bastions of his power" . As such, through the developing records of history, further insights of Speer’s volition to preserve HIMSELF are revealed. Van der Vat documents Speer’s intelligent foreshadowing, preparing his defence as early as April 1944, “From now on Speer’s own agenda would be paramount… in a campaign for the preservation of Albert Speer” .  With 9 months to prepare his ‘contrite’ demeanour at the Nuremberg Trials, Speer was able to live, when so many others died, was able to prosper, when so many others struggled. However, Trueman exposes that characteristics instilled in Speer from childhood guaranteed his survival as, “his lack of emotion and education… spared his life; full of contrition and apologies” . Van der Vat supports Trueman stating Speer “only escaped the death penalty at Nuremberg because he was a good liar”. Evidently, this reveals that history has recorded Speer’s notorious ability to manipulate circumstantial encounters. Too much historiography here! You lose your own voice which is really important in history! You want to use historiography a bit but use it essentially as a springboard to agree or disagree and further your argument.
 
Skilful and opportunistic- ALBERT SPEER manipulated the circumstance for his OWN benefit. As an enigmatic character in the records of history he has dominated debates through the construction of his own history. Yet, ultimately, through interpreting insightful historical records, his success relied on the encounters between character and circumstance. Thus, it can be confirmed, Berthold Konrad Hermann Albert Speer benefited HIS character notoriously through circumstantial encounters.
A very interesting essay! You interpreted the question very differently to what I would have expected when considering your arguments. Keen to hear what others think as personally, I interpreted as another way of saying: Was Speer a shaper of events or did was he shaped by events/context.

For instance, I would argue that he was shaped by circumstance early in his life when he, like many Germans, was captivated by Hitler's persuasiveness. In addition, he was shaped by circumstance in his indifference to anti-Semitism which you touched on. In contrast, he went against circumstance (context) in the Nuremberg Trials by presenting a very different attitude to the other Nazis, to his own benefit. His architectural work was shaped by circumstance as it was heavily influenced by Nazi values of dominance/permanency and his early rise to prominence was also an encounter with circumstance as he was swept up by opportunities that came his way (with Hanke etc.) Yet, his Armaments Ministry work was not as he revitalised the industry to increase ammunition output etc.

Hopefully that makes sense! Keen to hear what others think of your interpretation!



Hey,

I interpreted the question the same way dancing phalanges did hahaha, so shaped by events or shaper of events. I didn't do Speer so I can't make any comments on content, but that was my take on the question lol.

Hey Guys,

I'm having trouble finding a historian that links with the following statement (what is in bold):

Speer's ultimate prolongation of the Second World War is a prime example of how he made a major impact on his immediate context and made a significant mark on history. Being in a state of a two-front war, the internal Nazi organisation of powers and resources was nothing less than chaotic and inefficient.

Thanks in advance!



Hey,

I tried to find something on that but came up with nothing. I did find something that said Nazism was like "organised chaos" but I couldn't attribute that to a source. If you are looking for historians though, your textbook (if you have one) is a great first point of reference, and if you can't find any in there then journal articles are a great source of quotes.

Sorry I couldn't be of any more help!

Hi guys,

I have an essay question for the personality study: 'Chance rather than planning determines the role of significant figures in history" To what extent is this statement accurate in relation to the personality you have studied? (I'm studying Leni Riefenstahl)
Could anyone please give me some tips on how to approach this essay?

Thank you~
theyam :)

Hey,

I didn't study Riefenstahl so I can't give any pointers on what to write about her, but I've interpreted this question a bit like this: is the reason for Riefenstahl's significance a result of just chance/the situation she was in? 

Sorry I couldn't help you more!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: joemassoud on June 03, 2018, 01:02:01 pm
Hey Guys, If anyone can have a read of my essay on the following question that would be great:

‘To be significant, an individual must contribute to change.’ To what extent does this statement apply to the personality you have studied?

INTRODUCTION:
To a great extent, contribution to change is an essential element in being historically significant. Such an idea applies profoundly to Albert Speer as he not only had an impact upon his immediate Nazi context and the course of the war, but also the societal understanding of his own character and the Nazi legacy itself. Throughout this presentation, it will be argued that Speer’s impact was not limited to the Nazi movement and the Second World War. However, his contribution to change extends to the progression of the ripple effects of these events and the writing of history itself in relation to the following; prolonging the war by 2 years, his unique approach to culpability at the Nuremberg Trials and the pinnacle of them all, writing ‘Inside The Third Reich’ and by contributing to the writing itself and modern societal perception held today. Therefore, it is made evident to a great extent that through the extreme changes Speer has contributed to is ultimately the reason why he is such an important figure in history.

PARAGRAPH 1 - PROLONGED THE WAR BY 2 YEARS
Speer's ultimate prolongation of the Second World War is a prime example of how he made a major impact on his immediate context and made a significant mark on history. Being in a state of a two-front war, the internal Nazi organisation of powers and resources was nothing less than chaotic and inefficient (I need help finding a historian). It was under Speer’s authority as the Minister of Armaments in World War Two he significantly increased Germany's ability to fight back against the Allies in the war by reforming the armaments industry to maximise production efficiency. In his own words of his own contribution through his position as Minister of Armaments, “I prolonged that war by many months.” Although the architect had very limited knowledge of the industry, he had expert organisational skills. In fact, in the first six months of Speer’s appointment in this position, production of guns increased by 27% and ammunition production increased by 97%, which ultimately reveals the immense impact he had on the war effort. Moreover, through Speer’s implementation of a system of specialisation in the production of all resources, he thereby as Sereny suggested: “was single-handedly responsible for the improvement of the economy.” Hence, it is speculated that his reorganisation of the economy was so effective that Speer actually extended the Nazi’s ability to fight in the Second World War by up to two years and is ultimately the reason why Speer is still significant to this day.

PARAGRAPH 2 - NUREMBERG TRIALS - I need help cutting down this paragraph, I think its too long.
Although on a national scale his contributions as Armaments Minister made him a prominent figure, his actions at the Nuremberg trials ultimately led to Speer to becoming such a significant figure in history. The aim of Nuremberg War Crimes Trials according to the London Charter was to “bring to trial and punish the major war criminals of the Axis countries.” It is considered to be one of the most monumental events in the history as the Nazi leaders were put under the spotlight for being accused of crimes against peace, humanity and war crimes. At the Nuremberg Trials Speer took a unique approach. Although he pleaded not guilty to the four counts, as did all the other Nazi Leaders, he did not attempt to deny his responsibility for the actions of the Nazi regime. He refused to use the argument, as the others did, that he was just following orders. Speer’s composure and obvious intellect at the trials, as well as his frankness and openness of his acknowledgement of the atrocities of the Reich ultimately changed the generalisations made that all Nazis are inherently evil by displaying empathetic thought and essentially allowed him to separate himself from the other Nazi’s. Moreover, although he denied that he knew of the mass murders of the Jews in Eastern Europe, he admitted that, as apart of the regime, he had to accept responsibility for the actions of the regime. Whether in genuine remorse or through calculated planning to avoid the hangman, Speer admitted that he had carried out the orders he received. Ultimately, if Speer had not changed the public perception of him through his remorseful attitude, he would have simply blended in with all the other Nazis who all instead swore an oath to protect Hitler's name in the trials. Although Speer was found guilty of crimes against humanity and war crimes and as a result, was sentenced to 20 years in prison, Speer not only managed to escape with his life, unlike the 12 out 21 accused Nazi leaders were found guilty and sentenced to death, but he also recreated an image of himself as a sympathetic technocrat.

PARAGRAPH 3: ‘Inside the Third Reich’
Moreover, the apex of all of Speer’s changes was writing ‘Inside the Third Reich.’ Through this, it fundamentally provided Speer with the opportunity to present a direct and first-hand insight into the workings of the Nazi party, Nazi Germany in World War Two and his role and experience of both as a prominent Nazi Leader.

- I need help with the paragraph, I think it is a really good idea just not sure how I can elaborate on it.
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Never.Give.Up on June 03, 2018, 11:23:30 pm
Hey my comments are in the spoiler!

Spoiler
It is not common for individuals to be truly selfless. Nor is it common for them to expose their own flaws. Albert Speer, a human, yet a Nazi, was no exception. HE embodies the hurdle between character and circumstances that ALL individuals face. However, unlike others: HE took every opportunity as this character, HE took every opportunity to manipulate HIS circumstances and HE took every opportunity to invest in HIMSELF. If this is a presentation, I really like the way you have made it engaging while also blending a thesis into it, that being that Speer took advantage of circumstance to gain influence.

Albert Speer was a self-invested opportunist. HE possessed the ability to craft his own history and mould his opportunistic character to any circumstance- whether it be as an architect, an armaments minister or as a guilty defendant. However, further insight has been gained through contentious historiography, affirming the statement, ‘history IS the record of an encounter between character and circumstances’. Like the first sentence but unsure what you mean by the second.

Evolving historical records have revealed that Speer’s opportunism enabled him to enrich his circumstance as the FIRST ARCHITECT of the Third Reich. (1934) Speer was recognised by the Nazi elite through his efficient redecoration of Nazi headquarters. It was these circumstantial encounters that Speer manipulated to impress elite Nazi officials… and HITLER.Well done, nice link. In his initial year as First Architect, Speer captivated the Nazis at the 1934 Nuremberg Rallies, through the renowned ‘Cathedral of Lights’. Consequently, as an admirable technocratic, Speer assumed control of the Germania Project in 1939. Controversially, Speer was directly subordinate to Hitler alone in this project which Fest documents as, “a kind of dictatorial status” . This account certifies that Speer was involved in the reallocation of 23,000 Jewish apartments.  Yet, it is still debated; Was Speer responsible for the deportation of Berlin Jews in 1941? Sereny sides with Speer’s historical art, “the early resettlement work…was purely administrative and it is unlikely that Speer himself knew much about the details involved.”  Yet, Sereny’s record has neglected to explore beyond Speer and is contradicted by Van der Vat’s evidence from a removed part of the Wolter Chronicles, “in accordance with Speer’s order, a further action was started to clear about 5000 Jew-flats.”  Let me say that again “in accordance with SPEER’s order…”Evidently, this reveals Speer’s knowledge of Jewish deportation, and his uncanny ability as a technocrat to deceive Sereny. Hence, history has recorded that Speer’s opportunism enabled him to flourish through circumstantial encounters. I don't think the historiography necessarily adds to your argument. Here it just confuses me as to how this shows that Speer took advantage of circumstance. If anything, you would argue that Speer took advantage of the anti-Semitic values at the time in the clearing of the Jew Flats to further his position within the Nazi regime.

History has documented Speer as a manipulative character who cultivated his career as the MINISTER FOR ARMAMENTS. I would avoid using the world manipulative to describe him. Words such as intuitive or perceptive more accurately answer the question. Speer was left as Hitler’s fitting accomplice to fuel the Nazi War Machine in 1942, after Fritz Todt’s death. As Armaments Minister, Speer prolonged the war for at least a year through increased armaments production, however millions of innocent Jews consequently died.  Circumstantial? Unfortunately, not… Speer manipulated this encounter, turning it into an opportunity to achieve the Nazi goal of “destruction through work.”   Speer attempted to manipulate his record in history after inspecting the Dora Camp, claiming “I pressed the SS… to improve sanitary conditions and upgrade the food” . Yet, Speer failed to end the use of slave labourers, which Sereny verifies, “when Speer wanted something, he went after it, and the human cost did not matter.  This record is further supported through Howell’s documentation, “By 1945 he [Speer] controlled a workforce of 14,000,000 that included forced labour…and Jewish slave workers.”  Ultimately, these records expose Speer’s manipulative ability to consistently please Hitler through extending the war AND the Final Solution. Evidently, history has recorded Speer’s egotism as the Minister for Armaments. Yet, how is it that such an influential opportunist can escape the death penalty, unlike so many others?  I am interested to hear what others think about this. Personally, I think this is delving into too much of an expose about revealing how Speer was manipulative and evil, which I think doesn't really relate to the question. I interpreted the question to be whether personalities are swept away/influenced by events/context or if they shape their own outcome.

Ultimately, as contentiously debated through the records of history, the Scorched Earth Policy saved Speer. It is questioned; Was Speer’s opposition to Hitler’s Nero Decree for his OWN benefit, or for the benefit of the German people? King documents Speer’s nationalism, “the second and succeeding world of Albert Speer… was a world of ethical and cultural value, a humanistic world.”  However, King has focused on Speer’s narrative in history, neglecting his opportunity to defy Hitler’s policy to ensure his power is maintained with the infrastructure. In contrast, Schmidt accurately documented Speer’s skilful manipulation to, “prevent the destruction of these bastions of his power" . As such, through the developing records of history, further insights of Speer’s volition to preserve HIMSELF are revealed. Van der Vat documents Speer’s intelligent foreshadowing, preparing his defence as early as April 1944, “From now on Speer’s own agenda would be paramount… in a campaign for the preservation of Albert Speer” .  With 9 months to prepare his ‘contrite’ demeanour at the Nuremberg Trials, Speer was able to live, when so many others died, was able to prosper, when so many others struggled. However, Trueman exposes that characteristics instilled in Speer from childhood guaranteed his survival as, “his lack of emotion and education… spared his life; full of contrition and apologies” . Van der Vat supports Trueman stating Speer “only escaped the death penalty at Nuremberg because he was a good liar”. Evidently, this reveals that history has recorded Speer’s notorious ability to manipulate circumstantial encounters. Too much historiography here! You lose your own voice which is really important in history! You want to use historiography a bit but use it essentially as a springboard to agree or disagree and further your argument.
 
Skilful and opportunistic- ALBERT SPEER manipulated the circumstance for his OWN benefit. As an enigmatic character in the records of history he has dominated debates through the construction of his own history. Yet, ultimately, through interpreting insightful historical records, his success relied on the encounters between character and circumstance. Thus, it can be confirmed, Berthold Konrad Hermann Albert Speer benefited HIS character notoriously through circumstantial encounters.
A very interesting essay! You interpreted the question very differently to what I would have expected when considering your arguments. Keen to hear what others think as personally, I interpreted as another way of saying: Was Speer a shaper of events or did was he shaped by events/context.

For instance, I would argue that he was shaped by circumstance early in his life when he, like many Germans, was captivated by Hitler's persuasiveness. In addition, he was shaped by circumstance in his indifference to anti-Semitism which you touched on. In contrast, he went against circumstance (context) in the Nuremberg Trials by presenting a very different attitude to the other Nazis, to his own benefit. His architectural work was shaped by circumstance as it was heavily influenced by Nazi values of dominance/permanency and his early rise to prominence was also an encounter with circumstance as he was swept up by opportunities that came his way (with Hanke etc.) Yet, his Armaments Ministry work was not as he revitalised the industry to increase ammunition output etc.

Hopefully that makes sense! Keen to hear what others think of your interpretation!


Heyy thanks for that dancing phalanges!
I've taken on your feedback as best as I could ;D ;) ;)
ur a legend :)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Never.Give.Up on June 03, 2018, 11:31:03 pm
Hey Guys, If anyone can have a read of my essay on the following question that would be great:

‘To be significant, an individual must contribute to change.’ To what extent does this statement apply to the personality you have studied?

INTRODUCTION:
To a great extent, contribution to change is an essential element in being historically significant. Such an idea applies profoundly to Albert Speer as he not only had an impact upon his immediate Nazi context and the course of the war, but also the societal understanding of his own character and the Nazi legacy itself. Throughout this presentation, it will be argued that Speer’s impact was not limited to the Nazi movement and the Second World War. However, his contribution to change extends to the progression of the ripple effects of these events and the writing of history itself in relation to the following; prolonging the war by 2 years, his unique approach to culpability at the Nuremberg Trials and the pinnacle of them all, writing ‘Inside The Third Reich’ and by contributing to the writing itself and modern societal perception held today. Therefore, it is made evident to a great extent that through the extreme changes Speer has contributed to is ultimately the reason why he is such an important figure in history.

PARAGRAPH 1 - PROLONGED THE WAR BY 2 YEARS
Speer's ultimate prolongation of the Second World War is a prime example of how he made a major impact on his immediate context and made a significant mark on history. Being in a state of a two-front war, the internal Nazi organisation of powers and resources was nothing less than chaotic and inefficient (I need help finding a historian). It was under Speer’s authority as the Minister of Armaments in World War Two he significantly increased Germany's ability to fight back against the Allies in the war by reforming the armaments industry to maximise production efficiency. In his own words of his own contribution through his position as Minister of Armaments, “I prolonged that war by many months.” Although the architect had very limited knowledge of the industry, he had expert organisational skills. In fact, in the first six months of Speer’s appointment in this position, production of guns increased by 27% and ammunition production increased by 97%, which ultimately reveals the immense impact he had on the war effort. Moreover, through Speer’s implementation of a system of specialisation in the production of all resources, he thereby as Sereny suggested: “was single-handedly responsible for the improvement of the economy.” Hence, it is speculated that his reorganisation of the economy was so effective that Speer actually extended the Nazi’s ability to fight in the Second World War by up to two years and is ultimately the reason why Speer is still significant to this day.

PARAGRAPH 2 - NUREMBERG TRIALS - I need help cutting down this paragraph, I think its too long.
Although on a national scale his contributions as Armaments Minister made him a prominent figure, his actions at the Nuremberg trials ultimately led to Speer to becoming such a significant figure in history. The aim of Nuremberg War Crimes Trials according to the London Charter was to “bring to trial and punish the major war criminals of the Axis countries.” It is considered to be one of the most monumental events in the history as the Nazi leaders were put under the spotlight for being accused of crimes against peace, humanity and war crimes. At the Nuremberg Trials Speer took a unique approach. Although he pleaded not guilty to the four counts, as did all the other Nazi Leaders, he did not attempt to deny his responsibility for the actions of the Nazi regime. He refused to use the argument, as the others did, that he was just following orders. Speer’s composure and obvious intellect at the trials, as well as his frankness and openness of his acknowledgement of the atrocities of the Reich ultimately changed the generalisations made that all Nazis are inherently evil by displaying empathetic thought and essentially allowed him to separate himself from the other Nazi’s. Moreover, although he denied that he knew of the mass murders of the Jews in Eastern Europe, he admitted that, as apart of the regime, he had to accept responsibility for the actions of the regime. Whether in genuine remorse or through calculated planning to avoid the hangman, Speer admitted that he had carried out the orders he received. Ultimately, if Speer had not changed the public perception of him through his remorseful attitude, he would have simply blended in with all the other Nazis who all instead swore an oath to protect Hitler's name in the trials. Although Speer was found guilty of crimes against humanity and war crimes and as a result, was sentenced to 20 years in prison, Speer not only managed to escape with his life, unlike the 12 out 21 accused Nazi leaders were found guilty and sentenced to death, but he also recreated an image of himself as a sympathetic technocrat.

PARAGRAPH 3: ‘Inside the Third Reich’
Moreover, the apex of all of Speer’s changes was writing ‘Inside the Third Reich.’ Through this, it fundamentally provided Speer with the opportunity to present a direct and first-hand insight into the workings of the Nazi party, Nazi Germany in World War Two and his role and experience of both as a prominent Nazi Leader.

- I need help with the paragraph, I think it is a really good idea just not sure how I can elaborate on it.

Hey Joemassoud
I think its a very good start...
To cut back on some words I think you wrote your paragraph #2 with too much narrative... I feel that less recount and a bit of historiography here could make it more succinct.
As with Paragraph #3...I've never written a Speer paragraph on his book- but I guess a significant way Speer contributed to change...was the way he altered the way people viewed history and I guess documented history....(his book cannot be trusted entirely as fact due to the lack of detail on things that would point up his faults... IMO)
They are just my thoughts..so take them how you want ;D
Your first paragraph is good too...lots of detail which is good and highlights his contribution to change
Well done ;D
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on June 04, 2018, 12:17:38 am
Hey Guys,

I'm having trouble finding a historian that links with the following statement (what is in bold):

Speer's ultimate prolongation of the Second World War is a prime example of how he made a major impact on his immediate context and made a significant mark on history. Being in a state of a two-front war, the internal Nazi organisation of powers and resources was nothing less than chaotic and inefficient.

Thanks in advance!

Hey Joe - don't stress about finding a historian who backs up every single detail of your essay. You want to have your own voice too! Plus, I used that example in bold in my essay and didn't link it directly to a historian. If you need a quote use this one as I assume you will argue that Speer overcame this chaos he was thrown into in the armaments industry to prolong the war: Speer’s “driving ambition and undoubted organisational talent” (Kershaw) was the primary reason for his success in the armaments ministry.
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on June 04, 2018, 12:35:19 am
Hey Guys, If anyone can have a read of my essay on the following question that would be great:

‘To be significant, an individual must contribute to change.’ To what extent does this statement apply to the personality you have studied?

Did a late night workout which gives me loads of energy so I am definitely up to look at this!  ;)

Comments in the spoiler:

Spoiler
u]INTRODUCTION:[/u]
To a great extent, contribution to change is an essential element in being historically significant. Such an idea applies profoundly Too wordy to Albert Speer as he not only had an impact upon his immediate Nazi context and the course of the war, but also the societal understanding of his own character and the Nazi legacy itself. Fantastic! Very thought-provoking!Throughout this presentation, it will be argued that Speer’s impact was not limited to the Nazi movement and the Second World War. However, his contribution to change extends to the progression of the ripple effects of these events and the writing of history itself in relation to the following; prolonging the war by 2 years, his unique approach to culpability at the Nuremberg Trials and the pinnacle of them all, writing ‘Inside The Third Reich’ and by contributing to the writing itself and modern societal perception held today. I would cut this into two sentences as it is a bit too long for mine but I love the approach you are going with - it is very different. Therefore, it is made evident to a great extent that through the extreme changes Speer has contributed to is ultimately the reason why he is such an important figure in history. Again this sentence is awkwardly worded, just a clarity of expression issue. Simply change to, for example: Therefore, it is true to a great extent that the changes Speer made both during and after WW2 were a primary reason for his significance.

PARAGRAPH 1 - PROLONGED THE WAR BY 2 YEARS
Speer's ultimate prolongation of the Second World War is a prime example of how he made a major impact on his immediate context and made a significant mark on history. Being in a state of a two-front war, the internal Nazi organisation of powers and resources was nothing less than chaotic and inefficient (I need help finding a historian).No need for a historian here! This is fine by itself. Contrast the chaotic nature of Germany pre Speer in the armaments industry with the organised work he did to bring it back to speed, referencing Kershaw who argues Speer’s “driving ambition and undoubted organisational talent” was the primary reason for his success in the armaments ministry. It was under Speer’s authority as the Minister of Armaments in World War Two he significantly increased Germany's ability to fight back against the Allies in the war by reforming the armaments industry to maximise production efficiency. In his own words of his own contribution through his position as Minister of Armaments, “I prolonged that war by many months.” Although the architect had very limited knowledge of the industry, he had expert organisational skills. In fact, in the first six months of Speer’s appointment in this position, production of guns increased by 27% and ammunition production increased by 97%, which ultimately reveals the immense impact he had on the war effort.Great use of stats. Moreover, through Speer’s implementation of a system of specialisation in the production of all resources, he thereby as Sereny suggested: “was single-handedly responsible for the improvement of the economy.” Fantastic integration of quotes!Hence, it is speculated that his reorganisation of the economy was so effective that Speer actually extended the Nazi’s ability to fight in the Second World War by up to two years and is ultimately the reason why Speer is still significant to this day.Excellent paragraph, not much wrong at all! Tightly worded and well argued.

PARAGRAPH 2 - NUREMBERG TRIALS - I need help cutting down this paragraph, I think its too long.
Although on a national scale his contributions as Armaments Minister made him a prominent figure, his actions at the Nuremberg trials ultimately led to Speer to becoming such a significant figure in history. The aim of Nuremberg War Crimes Trials according to the London Charter was to “bring to trial and punish the major war criminals of the Axis countries.” It is considered to be one of the most monumental events in the history as the Nazi leaders were put under the spotlight for being accused of crimes against peace, humanity and war crimes. At the Nuremberg Trials Speer took a unique approach. Although he pleaded not guilty to the four counts, as did all the other Nazi Leaders, he did not attempt to deny his responsibility for the actions of the Nazi regime. He refused to use the argument, as the others did, that he was just following orders. Speer’s composure and obvious intellect at the trials, as well as his frankness and openness of his acknowledgement of the atrocities of the Reich ultimately changed the generalisations made that all Nazis are inherently evil by displaying empathetic thought and essentially allowed him to separate himself from the other Nazi’s. Moreover, although he denied that he knew of the mass murders of the Jews in Eastern Europe, he admitted that, as apart of the regime, he had to accept responsibility for the actions of the regime. Whether in genuine remorse or through calculated planning to avoid the hangman, Speer admitted that he had carried out the orders he received. I feel this bit about remorse can be cut down. The last two sentences for example, except for the example given, don't add much to what you said prior.Ultimately, if Speer had not changed the public perception of him through his remorseful attitude, he would have simply blended in with all the other Nazis who all instead swore an oath to protect Hitler's name in the trials. Although Speer was found guilty of crimes against humanity and war crimes and as a result, was sentenced to 20 years in prison, Speer not only managed to escape with his life, unlike the 12 out 21 accused Nazi leaders were found guilty and sentenced to death, but he also recreated an image of himself as a sympathetic technocrat. I also don't think this part from Although Speer... to sentenced to death is needed if you need to cut down words. You want to make a clear link back to the question here, which is lacking a bit. Reference back eg. Therefore, had Speer not actively sought to change his public image at the N. Trials, his legacy would not have been as significant as he would not have been remembered so strongly for his remorseful attitude that contrasted with the malevolence of the Nazi regime.

PARAGRAPH 3: ‘Inside the Third Reich’
Moreover, the apex of all of Speer’s changes was writing ‘Inside the Third Reich.’ Through this, it fundamentally provided Speer with the opportunity to present a direct and first-hand insight into the workings of the Nazi party, Nazi Germany in World War Two and his role and experience of both as a prominent Nazi Leader.I am guessing you are looking to argue again that he changed the way people looked at the Nazi regime. Very interesting and would certainly separate you from the other Modern History students. I would look at what elements of the book he fabricated to continue to build his false image of being genuine and remorseful. Although, this may border on not being relevant to the question as you are looking at change. Personally in my HSC, I balanced my essay out with 2 examples where he did not contribute to change, being how he simply adopted existing Nazi values of anti-Semitism in the Jew Flats and architectural ideas of permanency and grandness that were already existing too. Actually found the base of my argument for this question when I quickly scrambled it down in last year's paper discussion on AN:

Change
Work in transforming armaments ministry with efficiency etc.
Changed public perceptions of himself at Nuremberg trials by going against other Nazis who wanted to idolise hitler thus impact his significance in history
Not change
Took advantage of existing german values of volksgemeinschaft and its sense of permanence and dominance in the success/significance of his architecture eg. Germany stadium and Nuremberg rallies as propaganda
Took advantage of existing ideology r.e other races inferior through exclusion of jews in jew flats and exploitation of slave labour in order to profit his efficiency and therefore significance in war effort

That is what I argued but your idea is also interesting.

Anyway this is a great attempt and with a bit of work on the last paragraph looks like a definite 23+/25. :)


- I need help with the paragraph, I think it is a really good idea just not sure how I can elaborate on it.
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: joemassoud on June 04, 2018, 07:36:47 am
Did a late night workout which gives me loads of energy so I am definitely up to look at this!  ;)

Anyway this is a great attempt and with a bit of work on the last paragraph looks like a definite 23+/25. :)
[/b]

[/spoiler]

Thank you soo much for your help, honestly means a lot. By any chance, would mind having another read once I make all the correct changes and complete all my paragraphs?

Thanks again for your help!! :)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on June 04, 2018, 10:21:53 am
Thank you soo much for your help, honestly means a lot. By any chance, would mind having another read once I make all the correct changes and complete all my paragraphs?

Thanks again for your help!! :)

Yeah should be able to!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: joemassoud on June 04, 2018, 12:31:48 pm
Hey Guys,

I'm really stuck with finding historical references.

Does anyone know of references (I need about 3) in relation to Albert Speer at the Nuremberg Trials and how changed the generalisations made that all Nazis are inherently evil by displaying empathetic thought?

Thanks in advance!!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Mada438 on June 04, 2018, 04:04:06 pm
Hey Guys,

I'm really stuck with finding historical references.

Does anyone know of references (I need about 3) in relation to Albert Speer at the Nuremberg Trials and how changed the generalisations made that all Nazis are inherently evil by displaying empathetic thought?

Thanks in advance!!
Hey!
So dan van der Vat (heavily critical of speer) suggests that speers acceptance of collective responsibility for the crimes of the Nazis at Nuremberg was a strategy speer had developed for some time
So that's the only reference i have of any historians to speer regarding him at the Nuremberg trials, but i still encourage you to look into the other historians who look at speer. These include Rudolf Wolters, Hugh Trevor-Roper, Matthias Schmidt, Henry King and Joachim Fest.
Definitely, have a look at them!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: henrychapman on June 04, 2018, 06:06:16 pm
Thank you soo much for the advice henrychapman and fantasticbeasts.

By any chance would you mind reading my updated introduction:

‘To be significant, an individual must contribute to change.’

To what extent does this statement apply to the personality you have studied?
[/b][/i]

To a great extent, contribution to change is an essential element in being historically significant. When applied to Albert Speer it is evident that this statement is true as Speer not only had an impact upon his immediate Nazi context and the course of the war, but also the societal understanding of his own character and the Nazi legacy itself. Throughout this presentation it will be argued that Speer’s impact was not limited to the Nazi movement and the second world war, rather his contribution to change extends to the progression of the ripple effects of these events and the writing of history itself in relation to the following; prolonging the war by 2 years, his confession of his acknowledgement of the atrocities of the Reich at the Nuremberg Trials and writing ‘Inside The Third Reich.’ Ultimately, it is starkly clear that for an individual to be considered momentous, they must commit to change.

Hey again Joe,
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you
Glad you found my feedback useful although I was simply relaying advice from my teacher on how to approach the speech so I don't deserve the credit !
Your intro looks sharp, concise and packed full of info. I know where this speech is going to go and your directly addressing the question. I also love  your use of terminology such as "Reich" to demonstrate your understanding - that's a big winner with markers !
I apologise for the delay and I hope I haven't missed you handing it in- but I'd be more then happy to attach my recently completed personality speech on Leni Riefenstahl? I know different person, but you can see how I structured and honestly thats very important too. It received 15/15 to hopefully its of use. I'll upload it as part of this reply for you (and everyone else if they want to) to view.
Best of luck with it and just message back if you have any other questions
Henry 
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: joemassoud on June 04, 2018, 06:25:36 pm
Thank you soo much again for your help and for kindly sharing me your response (btw congratulations on such a good mark!!)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: henrychapman on June 04, 2018, 06:35:50 pm
Hi guys,

I have an essay question for the personality study: 'Chance rather than planning determines the role of significant figures in history" To what extent is this statement accurate in relation to the personality you have studied? (I'm studying Leni Riefenstahl)
Could anyone please give me some tips on how to approach this essay?

Thank you~
theyam :)
Hey ! I just did a speech on Leni Riefenstahl, so could certainly be of assistance to you.
Your question is actually very similar to the one that I had for mine; which was "People are a consequence of their surroundings."
I'm sure your teacher has already told this to you, but your job is to assess the accuracy of the statement in relation to Leni's career, so the marker isn't really interested in hearing all about Leni's life, but rather how the statement applies to her career.
In terms of structure, what i would suggest is focusing on areas of her life, which can basically be broken up into three states: her early career as a dancer/actor, then the Nazi era and her career after WW2. I only had 3 minutes for my speech so I only focused on the latter two however given yours is an essay you probably have more room to play with. Consider how each of these periods are pertinent to Leni's career in relation to the question you've been give. I would say that you could go for a very balanced stance on this question: something like "while it is true to an extent that chance did play a role in determining Leni's status in history, it is true to a greater extent that planning also played a role." And what I would say is that the Nazi period exemplifies that "chance" aspect, because it was sort of lucky the Nazi's were there and wanted her that she took off as the filmmaker. I would say the other two aspects are as a result of planning. E.g - Leni always had an interest in expressionist dance and acting and thus she pursued a career there, and the Nuba photography/underwater filming was a direct plan in trying to remove stigma surrounding her Nazi association. Then- the challenge is to incorporate what historians/film critics say about Leni's career and use them in your response to substantiate your point further. To assist you- some of the more prominent ones in relation to Riefenstahl are Susan Sontag, Audrey Salkeld, David Welch and Ian Kershaw. I uploaded my speech that I just did in a very recent post  (which received 15/15), however its the wrong version, so I'll attach the final version here (Note- the other one is my first draft and this version is tighter and more succinct). That goes for anyone who wants to view it!
I really hope this has helped. Two key things:
1) Don't recount events of her life or  Germany in general, but rather make sure you are addressing the question all the time
2) Incorporate relevant historiography that aligns with what you are saying to further substantiate your response
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: joemassoud on June 04, 2018, 10:30:55 pm
Yeah should be able to!

Hey Again, I have made quite a lot of edits and corrections (thanks again for your advice, it really helped a lot). If you don't, could you please have a read and let me know what you think and what is missing. I'm really trying to get in 24-25 mark range, so if you can suggest any ideas that would be great. Also, I need help cutting it down, I have already cut about 80 words but it is still quite long.

INTRODUCTION:
An individual’s contribution to change is an essential element in being historically significant. Such an idea applies profoundly to Albert Speer to a great extent as he not only had an impact upon his immediate Nazi context and the course of the war, but also the societal understanding of his own character and the Nazi legacy itself. Throughout this presentation it will be argued that Speer’s impact was not limited to the Nazi movement and the Second World War. However, his contribution to change extends to the progression of the ripple effects of these events and the writing of history itself. In particular, his contribution in prolonging the war by 2 years, his unique approach to culpability at the Nuremberg Trials and the pinnacle of them all, writing 'Inside the Third Reich,' which provided Speer with the ability to contribute to the historiography of Nazi Germany and modern societal perceptions held of himself and the regime today (I need help with rephrasing what is in bold. I think it doesn't make sense and I think its too long). Therefore, it is true to a great extent that the changes Speer made both during and after WW2 were a primary reason for his significance.

PARAGRAPH 1:
Speer's ultimate prolongation of the Second World War is a prime example of how he made a major impact on his immediate context and made a significant mark on history. Being in a state of a two-front war, the internal Nazi organisation of powers and resources was nothing less than chaotic and inefficient. Kershaw stated that “Speer’s driving ambition and undoubted organisational talent” was the primary reason for his success in the armaments ministry. It was under Speer’s authority as the Minister of Armaments in World War Two that he significantly increased Germany's ability to fight back against the Allies in the war by reforming the armaments industry to maximise production efficiency. In his own words of his own contribution through his position as Minister of Armaments, “I prolonged that war by many months.” Although the architect had very limited knowledge of the industry, he had expert organisational skills. In fact, in the first six months of Speer’s appointment in this position, production of guns increased by 27% and ammunition production increased by 97%, which ultimately reveals the immense impact he had on the war effort. Moreover, through Speer’s implementation of a system of specialisation in the production of all resources, he thereby as Sereny suggested “was single-handedly responsible for the improvement of the economy.” Hence, it is speculated that his reorganisation of the economy was so effective that Speer actually extended the Nazi’s ability to fight in the Second World War by up to two years and is ultimately the reason why Speer is still significant to this day.

PARAGRAPH 2:
Although on a national scale his contributions as Armaments Minister made him a prominent figure, his actions at the Nuremberg trials ultimately led to Speer to becoming such a significant figure in history. The aim of the Nuremberg Trials according to the London Charter was to “bring to trial and punish the major war criminals of the Axis countries.” It is considered to be a monumental event in history as the Nazi leaders were put under the spotlight, accused of crimes against peace, humanity and war crimes. Although at the trials he pleaded not guilty to the four counts, as did all the other Nazi Leaders, he did not attempt to deny his responsibility for the actions of the Nazi regime. Speer’s composure and obvious intellect at the trials, as well as his frankness and openness of his acknowledgement of the atrocities of the Reich ultimately changed the generalisations made that all Nazis are inherently evil by displaying empathetic thought, in which essentially allowed him to separate himself from the other Nazis. Although he denied that he knew of the mass murders of the Jews, Speer stated that “as an important member of the leadership of the Reich, I therefore share in the general responsibility from 1942 onwards.’ Whether in genuine remorse or through calculated planning to avoid the hangman, Speer admitted that he had carried out the orders he received. Therefore, had Speer not actively sought to change his public image at the Nuremberg Trials, his legacy would not have been as significant as he would not have been remembered so strongly for his remorseful attitude that contrasted with the malevolence of the Nazi regime.

PARAGRAPH 3 - IGNORE THIS PARAGRAPH, NOT FINISHED
Moreover, the apex of all of Speer’s changes was writing ‘Inside the Third Reich.’ Through this, it fundamentally provided Speer with the opportunity to present a direct and first-hand insight into the workings of the Nazi party, Nazi Germany in World War Two and his role and experience of both as a prominent Nazi Leader.

CONCLUSION:
Ultimately, through an analysis of the cause, effect and significance of the actions of Speer and an evaluation of the historiographical assessments of such events it will become starkly clear to a great extent and evident as to how an individuals significance is substantially determined but their contribution to change, both in their immediate context, and the way in which they contribute to future societal understanding of history.

Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Never.Give.Up on June 05, 2018, 07:10:59 am
INTRODUCTION:
An individual’s contribution to change is an essential element in being historically significant. Such an idea applies profoundly to Albert Speer to a great extent as he not only had an impact upon his immediate Nazi context and the course of the war, but also the societal understanding of his own character and the Nazi legacy itself.This is a long sentence for a speech, you could try something like this- This applies to Albert Speer to a profound extent through his technocratic (?) impact in the Nazi regime and as Armaments Minister, but also through altering societal understandings of his character and the Nazi legacy itself. /b] Throughout this presentation it will be argued that (do you need this? could just get into your arguments)  Speer’s impact was not limited to the Nazi movement and the Second World War. However, his contribution to change extends to the progression of the ripple effects of these events and the writing of history itself. E.g. Speer's contribution to change was not limited to the Nazi movement and the Second World War, as his impact extends to the ripple effects of these events and the writing of history itself. In particular, his contribution to the prolongation of the war (don't give away too many details here, you can still say it, i wouldn't tho) prolonging the war by 2 years, his unique approach to culpability (nice word!! ;D) at the Nuremberg Trials and the pinnacle (you will need a strong paragraph to prove this) of them all, writing 'Inside the Third Reich,' which provided Speer with the ability to contribute to the historiography of Nazi Germany and modern societal perceptions held of himself and the regime today (I need help with rephrasing what is in bold. I think it doesn't make sense and I think its too long).
 You could say: and his composition of 'Inside the Third Reich', which significantly altered universal perceptions of Nazi Germany and himself (you could talk about his affect on an international scale as well. Therefore, it is true to a great extent that the changes Speer made both during and after WW2 were a primary reason for his significance.

my ideas are only ideas,.... i am not a mod just a yr 12r so take them with a grain of salt ;)

PARAGRAPH 1:
Speer's ultimate prolongation of the Second World War is a prime example of how he made a major significant impact on his immediate context and made a significant mark on history. Being in a state of a two-front war, the internal Nazi organisation of powers and resources was nothing less than chaotic and inefficient. Kershaw stated that “Speer’s driving ambition and undoubted organisational talent” was the primary reason for his success in the armaments ministry. It was under Speer’s authority as the Minister of Armaments in World War Two that he significantly increased Germany's ability to fight back against the Allies in the war by reforming the armaments industry to maximise production efficiency. In his own words of his own contribution through his position as Minister of Armaments, “I prolonged that war by many months.” Although the architect had very limited knowledge of the industry, he had expert organisational skills. In fact, in the first six months of Speer’s appointment in this position, production of guns increased by 27% and ammunition production increased by 97%, which ultimately reveals the immense impact he had on the war effort. Moreover, through Speer’s implementation of a system of specialisation in the production of all resources, he thereby as Sereny suggested “was single-handedly responsible for the improvement of the economy.” Hence, it is speculated that his reorganisation of the economy was so effective that Speer actually extended the Nazi’s ability to fight in the Second World War by up to two years and is ultimately the reason why Speer is still significant to this day.
(Excellent! Great integration of historian's views too ;D)

PARAGRAPH 2:
Although on a national scale his contributions as Armaments Minister made him a prominent figure, his actions at the Nuremberg trials ultimately led to Speer to becoming such a significant figure in history. The aim of the Nuremberg Trials according to the London Charter was to “bring to trial and punish the major war criminals of the Axis countries.” It is considered to be a monumental event in history as the Nazi leaders were put under the spotlight, accused of crimes against peace, humanity and war crimes. Although at the trials he pleaded not guilty to the four counts, as did all the other Nazi Leaders, he did not attempt to deny his responsibility for the actions of the Nazi regime. Speer’s composure and obvious intellect at the trials, as well as his frankness and openness of his acknowledgement of the atrocities of the Reich ultimately changed the generalisations made that all Nazis are inherently evil by displaying empathetic thought, in which essentially allowed him to separate himself from the other Nazis. Although he denied that he knew of the mass murders of the Jews, Speer stated that “as an important member of the leadership of the Reich, I therefore share in the general responsibility from 1942 onwards.’ Whether in genuine remorse or through calculated planning to avoid the hangman's noose, Speer admitted that he had carried out the orders he received. Therefore, had Speer not actively sought to change his public image at the Nuremberg Trials, his legacy would not have been as significant as he would not have been remembered so strongly for his remorseful attitude that contrasted with the malevolence of the Nazi regime. (This is much better, although I think you need some historians (Is it part of your marking criteria to integrate them- it usually is in the HSC, if you need to cut back, I still feel that you are narrating his time at Nuremberg a lot)

PARAGRAPH 3 - IGNORE THIS PARAGRAPH, NOT FINISHED
Moreover, the apex of all of Speer’s changes was writing ‘Inside the Third Reich.’ Through this, it fundamentally provided Speer with the opportunity to present a direct and first-hand insight into the workings of the Nazi party, Nazi Germany in World War Two and his role and experience of both as a prominent Nazi Leader.

CONCLUSION:
Ultimately, through an analysis of the cause, effect and significance of the actions of Speer and an evaluation of the historiographical assessments of such events it will become starkly clear to a great extent and evident as to how an individuals significance is substantially determined but their contribution to change, both in their immediate context, and the way in which they contribute to future societal understanding of history.

Excellent job! I like your arguments and your voice through the essay! Keep it up ;D Hopefully a mod can help you out a lot more!! However, I would love to know if your marking criteria says anything about integrating historiography...ours did and you get marked on it in the HSC- if this is the case I think you need a historian in Paragraph 2, Speer isn't a historian- but you have a good quote from him that adds to your argument
[/quote]


Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: joemassoud on June 05, 2018, 11:09:59 am

Excellent job! I like your arguments and your voice through the essay! Keep it up ;D Hopefully a mod can help you out a lot more!! However, I would love to know if your marking criteria says anything about integrating historiography...ours did and you get marked on it in the HSC- if this is the case I think you need a historian in Paragraph 2, Speer isn't a historian- but you have a good quote from him that adds to your argument

Thank you for your advice and comments. I have also attached the marking criteria.

Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: hilaryl on June 05, 2018, 05:36:35 pm
hey everyone i have a quick question in regards to trotsky's contribution to change. if you were given an essay to evaluate the changes he contributed which events would you focus on? also, what was the impact of delaying the 1917 revolution to match the meeting of all russian congress of soviets? thankyou
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on June 06, 2018, 01:09:54 am
Thank you for your advice and comments. I have also attached the marking criteria.

I've attached my comments! Best of luck :)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: zayyy on June 10, 2018, 09:29:25 pm
(very late i know) but thank you so much @Mada438 and @owidjaja , I feel better about the project- it had felt so dauting and complex before, I didn't know how to begin it! I've decided to pick Castro, and my question is "Assess the implications of Fidel Castro seizing power over Cuba" but I'm not sure if I should make it more specific !

Thank you so much though :)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: theyam on June 10, 2018, 10:26:06 pm
Hi guys

If anyone has the time to give some feedback for my personality assessment task, that would be really really great. All the questions are in the google doc thingo :)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_-_WpTOefD2gqERgOQg-hIqJh5V_vkgLtT9-Avrm80o/edit?usp=sharing

Thank you guys!
From theyam
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: owidjaja on June 17, 2018, 10:13:51 pm
Hey guys,
Just a question on Nazi racial policy, does this also include the disabled and the 'asocial'- I'm a bit confused with the Nazi's use of the term 'race' because my understanding of race is related to physical attributes and nationality but the Nazi's claim to purify the German race by emphasising on fitness and getting rid of the disabled.
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on June 17, 2018, 10:43:41 pm
Hey guys,
Just a question on Nazi racial policy, does this also include the disabled and the 'asocial'- I'm a bit confused with the Nazi's use of the term 'race' because my understanding of race is related to physical attributes and nationality but the Nazi's claim to purify the German race by emphasising on fitness and getting rid of the disabled.

Hey,

I would assume it does. The term “race” is used very interchangeably, so anything to do with excluding people who didn’t fit the Nazi description of the so-called master race. Here's a quick read about this whole race thing.

Hope this helps!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: cookienerd101 on June 19, 2018, 12:06:39 pm
Hi! I'm really struggling to work out how to answer the following question and how to structure:
"'The Holocaust was a direct result of Hitler's long held plan to exterminate European Jewry.' To what extent do you agree with this statement?"
Does anyone have any tips or advice? Thanks in advance :) (and PS this is in relation to the topic of Conflict in Europe)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: vic321 on June 24, 2018, 11:49:37 pm
Hi,
How would you go about structuring an essay on "Assess the social and economic impact of World War II on civilians in Britain and Germany"

Thanks!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Mada438 on June 25, 2018, 07:38:52 am
Hi! I'm really struggling to work out how to answer the following question and how to structure:
"'The Holocaust was a direct result of Hitler's long held plan to exterminate European Jewry.' To what extent do you agree with this statement?"
Does anyone have any tips or advice? Thanks in advance :) (and PS this is in relation to the topic of Conflict in Europe)
Was it? Was it a long-term plan or not? What do you think?
The first thing you need to do when it asks "to what extent" is to ask yourself what's your view on it?
Once you've established your view on its extent, you then need to argue it.
If you thought it was a long-term plan, what evidence can you put forward to argue your case?
Same for the other way round. If you believe it was not a long-term plan, then what factors indicate this?

Hi,
How would you go about structuring an essay on "Assess the social and economic impact of World War II on civilians in Britain and Germany"
Thanks!
Hey!
 I don't do the "conflict in Europe" topic, but I'd say to look at how you would structure the same essay on ww1.
There's a whole section for ww1 devoted to talking about the "home fronts" which is essentially what you're talking about here
What central ideas would you talk about for a similar question on ww1? I think you'll find a lot of them can be applied to the home fronts in ww2.

Some general examples could be like the German bombing campaign on Britan, which obviously had a large social and economic impact itself. Or the role of women in Nazi Germany and how Hitler didn't want them to help with the war effort. Also, later in the war when he was running out of soldiers, he recruited lots of younger teenagers and boys; a lot of whom perished which would lead to long-term economic impacts.

Hope this helps!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Djackson on July 18, 2018, 12:46:10 pm
Hey guys, how would you go about answering this question?

"Assess the key factors involved in Germany’s defeat in Europe. Investigate the period from 6 June 1944 until 7 May 1945."
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 18, 2018, 09:53:53 pm
Hey guys, how would you go about answering this question?

"Assess the key factors involved in Germany’s defeat in Europe. Investigate the period from 6 June 1944 until 7 May 1945."

Hey! I didn't study this particular topic but (if you are studying Conflict in Europe) there are fantastic notes on the conflict that you can download that may be of help :)

https://atarnotes.com/notes/?pag=1&state=0&key=conflict+in+europe&sort=date
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: lavvylay on July 24, 2018, 06:29:32 pm
Hi so my next essay is about Conflict In Europe but I'm abit foggy on how to approach the question in terms of the structure and how to properly link the different factors to the question without falling in the trap of telling a narrative.

The statement is "To what extent was conflict in Europe a result of the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact".
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 24, 2018, 08:27:46 pm
Hi so my next essay is about Conflict In Europe but I'm abit foggy on how to approach the question in terms of the structure and how to properly link the different factors to the question without falling in the trap of telling a narrative.

The statement is "To what extent was conflict in Europe a result of the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact".

Hey! I didn't study this topic but with this I'd structure it by having your first paragraph on whether the NSNAP did lead to the conflict in Europe, making sure to make it clear what extent it was responsible.

Your other 3-4 paragraphs should deal with other factors that led to it, but if you argue the NSNAP was to a significant extent responsible then in each paragraph you should try show how each factor contributed but was not as important as the NSNAP.

Hope that helped!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Mada438 on July 24, 2018, 09:37:08 pm
Hi so my next essay is about Conflict In Europe but I'm abit foggy on how to approach the question in terms of the structure and how to properly link the different factors to the question without falling in the trap of telling a narrative.

The statement is "To what extent was conflict in Europe a result of the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact".
Hey!
I don't do this topic as well (I do Germany and Speer, so you'd think i did but i don't-Weird right?)
Alternatively, if you argue that the conflict in Europe was not a result of the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact to a significant extent (so you'd say some like a low-moderate extent) then you need to find other factors you believe caused the conflict in Europe and argue that those are just as/more significant than the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact and WHY

Good luck!  ;D
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: owidjaja on July 24, 2018, 10:00:24 pm
Hi so my next essay is about Conflict In Europe but I'm abit foggy on how to approach the question in terms of the structure and how to properly link the different factors to the question without falling in the trap of telling a narrative.

The statement is "To what extent was conflict in Europe a result of the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact".
Hey there,
So dancing phalanges and Mada438 both have great answers, but I've decided to give my input as well (I haven't done much with Conflict in Europe so it's great for me to consolidate knowledge).

Considering how it's a 'to what extent' question, you're given room to bring in factors. Personally, I would find it difficult to completely agree that the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact was the only reason it resulted in conflict in Europe. Here are some factors you can talk about:

Ineffectiveness of appeasement
Role of the League of Nations
Rise of fascism in Italy, which influenced Germany (not entirely sure if you can fully flesh this out into a paragraph but I would consider it as a point)

However, you can't just completely disagree with the question because then it looks like you're regurgitating a prepared response, so maybe you can discuss its significance in the first paragraph. Here are a few points on its significance:

Soviet Union was salty Britain/France didn't invite them to the Munich Conference but it was a bit strange to form an alliance with Germany since they're so ideologically different
USSR was also not impressed with the way Britain/France dealt with international affairs (e.g. Czechoslovakia, response to Ethiopia)
Initially stopped Hitler from having a two-front war

I'm not entirely sure if these points can be fully fleshed out into actual paragraphs but these are some ideas you may consider.

Hope this helps!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: henrychapman on July 25, 2018, 12:59:39 pm
Hi so my next essay is about Conflict In Europe but I'm abit foggy on how to approach the question in terms of the structure and how to properly link the different factors to the question without falling in the trap of telling a narrative.

The statement is "To what extent was conflict in Europe a result of the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact".
Hey there,
Great answers so far. I do Conflict in Europe so feel like I could be some help.
Structure would go something like this:
first paragraph would be acknowledging that the Non-Aggression Pact did play a role in the onset of conflict in Europe. Include the nature of it and in particular what Hitler's aims were. You could include that he was intentionally misleading in order to try and achieve his foreign policy goals. Stalin despised Germany but was willing to adopt such measures because the Soviets were not ready for war. You can choose to the extent to which it contributed, depending on how you want to form your response. Personally, I would say it had an impact, but a limited impact compared to other factors which more directly link to how conflict in Europe began.
This leads me onto focusing on a range of other factors in your following paragraphs. I would say these had a far greater impact on instigating conflict in Europe.
This would be Nazi foreign policy (in particular Lebensraum because it involved taking over land that wasn't theres and thus aggressive in nature). This was a threat to the power of Britian and France who still had large empires and wanted to maintain that.
Appeasement/failure of collective security (League of Nations) could also be factors to talk about.
Appeasement in particular: gave into Hitlers demands and didn't act quickly enough
Collective security: couldn't reject the proposals by dictators such as Hitler and Mussolini due to the nature of the international political climate; they were all interested in nationalist objectives rather then contributing to internationalism and peace.

This structure will allow you to fully address the question and encapsulate all factors. Not only will you answer this question but come trial/HSC you'll be ready to go for a wide range of questions too with this material.
In terms of your issue with narrative, I had a similar problem too. The advice my teacher gave me was to integrate more historiography, as this will support my argument rather then me retelling facts or asserting something. I would encourage you to maybe try the same and you might avoid retell.
Hope this helps
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: henrychapman on July 27, 2018, 08:56:32 am
Hey everyone
I have an assignment due next week for modern and was wondering if anyone was willing to have a read/provide feedback on it?
It's attached to this document
Question is in relation to conflict in Europe. Exact wording is:
"To what extent was Nazi foreign policy responsible for the outbreak of the conflict in Europe in September 1939?"
Thanks in advance guys !
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fun_jirachi on July 27, 2018, 08:51:19 pm
Okay so I got this question in class, and we were meant to do an in class timed practice, except everyone realised they didn't know how to attack it and we all stalled the teacher for time :D

But I really want to have a go at it, and I dunno how to approach it. Wrote two intros and both were garbage. Send help

So here's the question

Evaluate the Tet Offensive as a turning point in the Second Indochina Conflict up to 1979.
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: NikolinaJ14 on July 27, 2018, 11:01:56 pm
Hello,

I was wondering how long the personality responses should be, both part a and part b?

Thank you.
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on July 28, 2018, 12:49:18 am
Hello,

I was wondering how long the personality responses should be, both part a and part b?

Thank you.

Hi!

The recommended word count for Part A is 400 words, and Part B is 600 words. :-)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: vic321 on July 28, 2018, 03:27:53 pm
Hi,

For Core WWI, if our exam is on trench warfare, would we talk about weaponry and gas??

Thanks
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on July 28, 2018, 04:21:17 pm
Hi,

For Core WWI, if our exam is on trench warfare, would we talk about weaponry and gas??

Thanks

Hey,

Sure you can - weaponry and gas were a part of trench warfare.

Okay so I got this question in class, and we were meant to do an in class timed practice, except everyone realised they didn't know how to attack it and we all stalled the teacher for time :D

But I really want to have a go at it, and I dunno how to approach it. Wrote two intros and both were garbage. Send help

So here's the question

Evaluate the Tet Offensive as a turning point in the Second Indochina Conflict up to 1979.


Hi!

I didn't study this topic, so I won't be of much help. Maybe the notes here might be useful?

However, I would structure this essay with the syllabus points, with the first paragraph on the Tet Offensive. Make sure to argue that the Tet Offensive was a significant/insignificant turning point and integrate your argument in the rest of your paragraphs!

Hope this helps!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: owidjaja on July 28, 2018, 04:43:15 pm
Hi,

For Core WWI, if our exam is on trench warfare, would we talk about weaponry and gas??

Thanks
Hey there,
Here are probably some things to consider when there's a question on trench warfare:

Stalemate/attrition warfare (defensive rather than offensive warfare)
Lack of effective tactics ('over the top')
Phosphene, mustard and chlorine gas (gas masks evolved slowly)
New technology wasn't used properly (pretty sure Lord Kitchener called tanks 'pretty little toys') --> even then, technology was still developing so they couldn't rely on technology too much
Trench life was also quite boring (on a "normal" day, soldiers tend to do housekeeping)
Attempts to break the stalemate (Verdun, the Somme, Passchendaele)

Just remember to not make generalised statements about trench warfare- the Western Front ran from the English Channel to the Swiss border so not all trench experiences are the same (some parts of the Western Front are a lot 'quieter' than other areas).

Hope this helps!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: owidjaja on July 28, 2018, 09:33:47 pm
Hey guys,
Just a question on gleichschaltung- does this process include the Night of the Long Knives or was it just the Nazi's introduction of policies (e.g. Law for the Protection of the German People, Enabling Act, abolition of trade unions etc.)?
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on July 28, 2018, 09:51:28 pm
Hey guys,
Just a question on gleichschaltung- does this process include the Night of the Long Knives or was it just the Nazi's introduction of policies (e.g. Law for the Protection of the German People, Enabling Act, abolition of trade unions etc.)?

Hi!

Just looked through my notes and I've got gleichschaltung written as the Nazi introduction of policies to bring everything under one umbrella, so to speak. In saying this, I don't think it's wrong to say the Night of the Long Knives was a part of gleichschaltung.

Hope this helps!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: owidjaja on July 28, 2018, 09:54:44 pm
Hi!

Just looked through my notes and I've got gleichschaltung written as the Nazi introduction of policies to bring everything under one umbrella, so to speak. In saying this, I don't think it's wrong to say the Night of the Long Knives was a part of gleichschaltung.

Hope this helps!
So would it be worth to talk about the Night of the Long Knives as a paragraph on its own?
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on July 28, 2018, 10:20:34 pm
So would it be worth to talk about the Night of the Long Knives as a paragraph on its own?

Yea, I reckon there's enough to write about in one paragraph but it depends on the question :-)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: vic321 on July 28, 2018, 11:44:59 pm
Hey there,
Here are probably some things to consider when there's a question on trench warfare:

Stalemate/attrition warfare (defensive rather than offensive warfare)
Lack of effective tactics ('over the top')
Phosphene, mustard and chlorine gas (gas masks evolved slowly)
New technology wasn't used properly (pretty sure Lord Kitchener called tanks 'pretty little toys') --> even then, technology was still developing so they couldn't rely on technology too much
Trench life was also quite boring (on a "normal" day, soldiers tend to do housekeeping)
Attempts to break the stalemate (Verdun, the Somme, Passchendaele)

Just remember to not make generalised statements about trench warfare- the Western Front ran from the English Channel to the Swiss border so not all trench experiences are the same (some parts of the Western Front are a lot 'quieter' than other areas).

Hope this helps!

Thanks so much!

Yea, I reckon there's enough to write about in one paragraph but it depends on the question :-)

Also adding to this, I don't know if it helps but I guess the Night of Long Knives was the first so called 'event' that took place to start coordinating everything. As you may know, at the Night of Long Knives, Hitler ordered his elite SS to kill the SA because he was scared they were potential threats to him. So in saying that by purging the SA army, he was starting the process of gleichshaltung.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, open to feedback!

Mod edit: merged posts - you can quote two posts in one post :-)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on July 29, 2018, 11:30:58 am
Also adding to this, I don't know if it helps but I guess the Night of Long Knives was the first so called 'event' that took place to start coordinating everything. As you may know, at the Night of Long Knives, Hitler ordered his elite SS to kill the SA because he was scared they were potential threats to him. So in saying that by purging the SA army, he was starting the process of gleichshaltung.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, open to feedback!

You make a valid point :-) In terms of parliamentary stuff, Hitler already gained control of the Reichstag so I wouldn't say the Night of Long Knives was the ~first event but one of the first because stuff already happened before that, you get me?

Love this collaborative vibe going on guys, keep it up! :-)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Mada438 on July 29, 2018, 09:11:17 pm
So in turn, would that be appropriate for talking about the nazi consolidation of power? Given it really soldified Hitler by removing his enemies in the SA?

Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: owidjaja on July 29, 2018, 09:34:18 pm
So in turn, would that be appropriate for talking about the nazi consolidation of power? Given it really soldified Hitler by removing his enemies in the SA?
Definitely! I was working on a question from the 2017 paper and it was about Nazi Party achieving total power- the Night of the Long Knives should be a short paragraph but you should be able to talk about how it gave the Nazis the opportunity to eliminate political opponents and secure support from the reichswehr.
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on July 29, 2018, 09:36:36 pm
So in turn, would that be appropriate for talking about the nazi consolidation of power? Given it really solidified Hitler by removing his enemies in the SA?



Are you talking about the Night of Long Knives? If so, yes bc Hitler wanted the support of the army without the threat of the SA - the support of the army was important so there wouldn't be any pushback in the long run!

Edit: damn owidjaja beat me to it by 43 seconds cya

Definitely! I was working on a question from the 2017 paper and it was about Nazi Party achieving total power- the Night of the Long Knives should be a short paragraph but you should be able to talk about how it gave the Nazis the opportunity to eliminate political opponents and secure support from the reichswehr.

2017 paper... *war flashbacks* but yep, that's right. :-)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Mada438 on July 29, 2018, 09:48:16 pm
Edit: damn owidjaja beat me to it by 43 seconds cya
Always annoying when someone beats you to the punch!

Definitely! I was working on a question from the 2017 paper and it was about Nazi Party achieving total power- the Night of the Long Knives should be a short paragraph but you should be able to talk about how it gave the Nazis the opportunity to eliminate political opponents and secure support from the reichswehr.
Olivia, do you reckon i could have a copy of your germany notes?  ;D
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: AJ2019 on July 29, 2018, 10:45:04 pm
Hey!
I'm studying Leon Trotsky for the personality study and wondering how to approach a couple of questions:

1.To what extent did Trotsky have a positive impact on his time?
This question is so weird! I mean Trotsky definitely had a great impact on his time, through events such as 1905, 1917, the Civil War, etc. but assesing to what extent it was positive seems really difficult without judging whether or not socialism itself was positive for Russia. So how would you go about answering this question, and like what would you put in each of your body paragraphs

2. “History is about winners.” How accurate is this statement in relation to Trotsky?
Again I feel this is kind of weird. Was Trotsky a winner?


Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fun_jirachi on July 29, 2018, 11:20:32 pm
Hey!
I'm studying Leon Trotsky for the personality study and wondering how to approach a couple of questions:

1.To what extent did Trotsky have a positive impact on his time?
This question is so weird! I mean Trotsky definitely had a great impact on his time, through events such as 1905, 1917, the Civil War, etc. but assesing to what extent it was positive seems really difficult without judging whether or not socialism itself was positive for Russia. So how would you go about answering this question, and like what would you put in each of your body paragraphs

2. “History is about winners.” How accurate is this statement in relation to Trotsky?
Again I feel this is kind of weird. Was Trotsky a winner?




Hi,
 
I'm not really too sure about this, someone pls back me up
1. Part B question
TWE did Trotsky have a positive impact on his time
I'd probably look at three events, and make a judgement on what sort of impact he had on his time as a result of his action in those events
I think judgement sorta depends which events you focus on
i'd probably do 1905, 1917, Civil War for my paragraphs in that order. it can be argued that he had a positive impact on his time, making the Bolshevik regime secure and successful. Also its so much easier to argue and there are mounds of info
in terms of if socialism was positive for russia i'd say yes because it heralded in a new age of Russian greatness, so it can be argued that Trotsky was a driving force for this change through his action in events such as 1905, 1917 and Civil War
my overall judgement would be yes he had a positive impact on his time, he essentially made russia great again until he was unceremoniously deported by stalin (if we ignore brest-litovsk and the miniscule bits of garbage he did in between)

2. Ultimately for all his evangelical work trotsky was not a winner
in relation to trotsky this statement is totally inaccurate
his fourth international was complete garbage, he did basically nothing abroad, he got deported a ton of times, and his work in russia amounted to almost nothing as stalin established a totalitarian regime
in addition his books and other works were basically taboo, so post 1929 he was a complete loser in everything right up until he got icepicked by mercader RIP :(
you can look into his works, the Fourth international and his time abroad in France and Mexico
so no i dont think trotsky was a winner
EDIT: i somehow omitted the power struggle completely, but he got completely snitched out by stalin, so for this question I think that for this question I'd do three events (power struggle, two things from time in exile)

someone pls back up or deny
hopefully this answers ur question :)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: vic321 on July 30, 2018, 12:49:04 am
HI,

So for the personality of Albert Speer, what would you include if part a was on his rise to prominence? Would you talk about his work as armaments minister since at that time he had already rose to prominence??

Thoughts??
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Mada438 on July 30, 2018, 05:45:25 pm
HI,

So for the personality of Albert Speer, what would you include if part a was on his rise to prominence? Would you talk about his work as armaments minister since at that time he had already rose to prominence??

Thoughts??
It would depend i reckon. Because if you're talking about it from a global perspective then yes.
But otherwise, i think you'd have to make a judgement. Because you can debate the point of when he really became prominent. I would argue that this was during his appointment as ‘First Architect of the Reich’. Anything before this would be applicable to the question then in my eyes. But it's up to you; you can interpret it differently. Just as long as you argue why you believe that event is important in leading to his rise to prominence and why it is valid and your argument is sound, then you should be sweet.  ;D
Hope this helps!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: LochNess Monster on August 02, 2018, 07:32:46 pm
PLEASE HELP!!! Kind of urgent.

So I have a Trials exam coming up.
This is a question they have given us beforehand for Personality Gorbachev: It is the way an individual faces challenges that shapes them and their achievements.” To what extent is this statement accurate in relation to the personality you have studied and their role in history?

I get Part a) but Part b) has me so confused. How do I even begin to write an essay on this??? (Trying to prep and cram before be like  :-[  :o ...)

I want to say he's totally a visionary. I'm a BIGGG Gorbachev fan.
Also, he wans't just responding to Reagan but he was The Guy ending the Cold War. US Presidents came and went but Gorb's visions and ideal to end the Cold War remained.

Furthermore, Gorbachev moved up ranks, was presented with big challenges (domestically and externally) but excelled to the best of his ability in dealing with these issues.

So, sure, what if he did collapse the Soviet Union? Nah, big deal. It was gonna collapse anyways.  :)

Anyway, PLEASE HELP ASAP.
Anyone who has finished this course and arrived safely...please.
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Mada438 on August 02, 2018, 07:39:25 pm
PLEASE HELP!!! Kind of urgent.

So I have a Trials exam coming up.
This is a question they have given us beforehand for Personality Gorbachev: It is the way an individual faces challenges that shapes them and their achievements.” To what extent is this statement accurate in relation to the personality you have studied and their role in history?

I get Part a) but Part b) has me so confused. How do I even begin to write an essay on this??? (Trying to prep and cram before be like  :-[  :o ...)

I want to say he's totally a visionary. I'm a BIGGG Gorbachev fan.
Also, he wans't just responding to Reagan but he was The Guy ending the Cold War. US Presidents came and went but Gorb's visions and ideal to end the Cold War remained.

Furthermore, Gorbachev moved up ranks, was presented with big challenges (domestically and externally) but excelled to the best of his ability in dealing with these issues.

So, sure, what if he did collapse the Soviet Union? Nah, big deal. It was gonna collapse anyways.  :)

Anyway, PLEASE HELP ASAP.
Anyone who has finished this course and arrived safely...please.
Hey!
I don't do Gorbachev but i'd like to just say...
It's a "to what extent" question. So it's a judgement. You can freely argue against if you please. You need to look at everything you have on Gorbachev and figure out whether this statement is true in relation to him. Is it true? (And to what extent?) or isn't it? and then once you make this judgement you need to figure out WHY you believe this. Why you believe it wil be the basis of your argument.

Hope this helps!  ;D
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: LochNess Monster on August 02, 2018, 07:55:47 pm
Hi Mada438

I think I'm just so stressed I don't know what points to make or where to begin writing. I know I can do it one of two ways...to a large extent or to a lesser extent. But I have so much information I just don't know where or how to get started.
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Mada438 on August 02, 2018, 08:14:11 pm
Hi Mada438

I think I'm just so stressed I don't know what points to make or where to begin writing. I know I can do it one of two ways...to a large extent or to a lesser extent. But I have so much information I just don't know where or how to get started.
If you have a large amount of information, then i'd recconmend before even looking at your info you should pick one: Either to a large extent or to a lesser extent. THEN look at your information and work out what information you'd use to argue that point. If you think "wait, maybe i don't think i can argue this well" Then pick another argument viewpoint!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on August 02, 2018, 09:58:43 pm
PLEASE HELP!!! Kind of urgent.

So I have a Trials exam coming up.
This is a question they have given us beforehand for Personality Gorbachev: It is the way an individual faces challenges that shapes them and their achievements.” To what extent is this statement accurate in relation to the personality you have studied and their role in history?

I get Part a) but Part b) has me so confused. How do I even begin to write an essay on this??? (Trying to prep and cram before be like  :-[  :o ...)

-snip-

Hi! I studied Gorbachev last year. :-)

Mada438 has covered the basics of the question already. As this is a to what extent question, you can argue whatever the heck you want as long as you back it up with evidence and it makes sense.

In terms of relating the question to Gorbachev, it's asking you about Gorb's challenges and how it shaped what he did later. For this, you can look at his background and see how it shaped his political career - he agreed with communism, but he didn't like how it worked before. That's why his main aim was to introduce all these policies to make it a freer society, while sustaining the core bits of communism.

You need to mention his past as much as possible in the essay! His challenges as a kid (and his family too) shaped what he wanted to do later. This somewhat formed the basis of the policies he introduced as General Secretary. I don't think you need to mention the visionary/traitor debate for this question - at least this is how I interpreted the question - rather, you need to show how his past influenced his role as the GS, what he achieved in that role and how significant it was later.

Does this make sense lol I think I confused myself writing this

Hi Mada438

I think I'm just so stressed I don't know what points to make or where to begin writing. I know I can do it one of two ways...to a large extent or to a lesser extent. But I have so much information I just don't know where or how to get started.

Chill out, make a plan for what you think is relevant for this question and it'll fall into place.

Best of luck!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: LochNess Monster on August 04, 2018, 09:09:47 pm
Hi! I studied Gorbachev last year. :-)

Mada438 has covered the basics of the question already. As this is a to what extent question, you can argue whatever the heck you want as long as you back it up with evidence and it makes sense.

In terms of relating the question to Gorbachev, it's asking you about Gorb's challenges and how it shaped what he did later. For this, you can look at his background and see how it shaped his political career - he agreed with communism, but he didn't like how it worked before. That's why his main aim was to introduce all these policies to make it a freer society, while sustaining the core bits of communism.

You need to mention his past as much as possible in the essay! His challenges as a kid (and his family too) shaped what he wanted to do later. This somewhat formed the basis of the policies he introduced as General Secretary. I don't think you need to mention the visionary/traitor debate for this question - at least this is how I interpreted the question - rather, you need to show how his past influenced his role as the GS, what he achieved in that role and how significant it was later.

Does this make sense lol I think I confused myself writing this

Chill out, make a plan for what you think is relevant for this question and it'll fall into place.

Best of luck!

Thank you so much fantasticbeasts and mada438!!!

I think I'm going to go with this intro and plan. What do you guys think???

The above statement is accurate in relation to Mikhail Gorbachev to a large extent. Gorbachev was an individual whose vision allowed him to face challenges and shape his achievements. From his new era of foreign policies for Russia, Gorbachev effectively set up a foundation for the end of the Cold War. Moreover, in dealing with a clash of personalities between himself and Reagan, Gorbachev’s clear attempts to appease the U.S was not merely a response but a striving to end the nature of the Cold War between the two superpower countries. As a visionary, his aim of ending the Cold War finally came about with the disarmament agreements. Overall, Mikhail Gorbachev’s vision allowed him to uncompromisingly face his challenges and shape his future achievements to come.

1.   Glasnost & perestroika + 5-point plan
2.   Star Wars (SDI)  appeasement
3.   Disarmament agreements (NPT, INF Treaty, etc.)


I sent this to my teacher and he said I was "on the right track." Whatever that means... :o

So, I have a feeling he wants us to talk about visionary/traitor ideas cause he said he would get "bored of reading too much part a)" stuff.
So is this ok? Will it make for a strong argument???

I'm kind of running out of time...so I'm writing it up and memorising it tomorrow. Or the day before. Ha ha ha.   :P
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: theyam on August 05, 2018, 11:45:54 am
Hello

I was just wondering what the difference in response would be for these two questions:

1. To What Extent Was The Great Depression Responsible For The Collapse Of The Weimar Republic?
2. To What Extent Was The Great Depression contribute to the rise of the Nazi Party?

Thank you :)
from theyam
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on August 05, 2018, 12:09:50 pm
Hello

I was just wondering what the difference in response would be for these two questions:

1. To What Extent Was The Great Depression Responsible For The Collapse Of The Weimar Republic?
2. To What Extent Was The Great Depression contribute to the rise of the Nazi Party?

Thank you :)
from theyam

Hi!

The difference is the argument. Sure, you'd probably re-use a lot of the stuff you'd write, but the argument is different as you're arguing whether or not the GD had a big/small impact on the collapse of the WR or the rise of the Nazis. Like the GD was a factor in the collapse of the WR, and the rise of the Nazi Party would be one factor for the collapse of the WR.

I hope that makes sense ahaha

Best of luck!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: millie.w on August 07, 2018, 12:49:57 pm
I have my Modern trials in two days and I haven't started studying at all, but there is sooooo much content!
Any tips on how to approach my study at this point in time?
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on August 07, 2018, 01:55:11 pm
I have my Modern trials in two days and I haven't started studying at all, but there is sooooo much content!
Any tips on how to approach my study at this point in time?

First - good luck!

At this point, I would be doing essay plans for as many questions as you can find. This way, you can cover a lot of the content and memorise details you'd like to include in your essays quickly! If you're writing notes, don't bother because we've got a ton in our notes section here.

Hope everything goes well!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: henrychapman on August 07, 2018, 02:37:46 pm
I have my Modern trials in two days and I haven't started studying at all, but there is sooooo much content!
Any tips on how to approach my study at this point in time?

I've been a regular modern crammer so I know how you feel. I wouldn't bother with notes. If anything, I'd pull the very very key aspects from all your topics and learn them. cram in some typical essays that come up (for example for Germany there's usually always a question on the fall of Weimar/rise of Nazi's, yet there are a number of factors). They can specify a factor, but this just needs it needs to be the focus of the essay, you can still integrate all the other factors !
The other thing I'd do is learn historians' names and learn roughly what they say. There is no point memorising quotes. Paraphrasing historians is the better option because it actually shows that you understand what they're saying rather then just name dropping a quote.
Best of luck !!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: askaerdf on August 07, 2018, 05:48:15 pm
Hey, as i only have limited time left to study for modern history, i was thinking of for section II weimar germany, just skipping the political democracy part of it and only studying the Nazi part, is that risky or is there always guaranteed to be a Nazi question for that section. Thanks :)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Mada438 on August 07, 2018, 06:04:01 pm
Hey, as i only have limited time left to study for modern history, i was thinking of for section II weimar germany, just skipping the political democracy part of it and only studying the Nazi part, is that risky or is there always guaranteed to be a Nazi question for that section. Thanks :)
You can never really be sure.
You can only predict what you believe it will be by looking at past exams.
My teacher (who writes modern exams for NESA) says that they are told "Don't make it predictable"
You can get it completely wrong (I have before). You may be able to discern a pattern based on past exams, but they could throw you somethinfg completeky different. You never know. There is never GAURENTEED to be a Nazi question for that section.

Ultimiately it's up to you to decide whether it's too risky or not.
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: henrychapman on August 07, 2018, 06:20:17 pm
Hey, as i only have limited time left to study for modern history, i was thinking of for section II weimar germany, just skipping the political democracy part of it and only studying the Nazi part, is that risky or is there always guaranteed to be a Nazi question for that section. Thanks :)

that is definitely risky and something I wouldn't recommend. Plus the essays that come out of the first section of the syllabus are probably easier than anything to do with the Nazi's- as there are a significant amount of factors that lead to the rise of Nazi's/ fall of Weimar democracy. This means you can essentially pick and choose which material you use (depending on the question of course) and your argument is basically created for you with that sort of question. Whatever factor it is that is specified in the question (Treaty of Versailles, the Army, Great Depression, structural political flaws or Hitler's ability to appeal to the Germans) you can argue "yeh it played a large role, but there were other contributing factors."
In the Nazi section - the common questions revolve around consolidation of Nazi power and the impact of race on Nazi policy, both domestic and foreign. Another common one is to what extent did Hitler achieve total power by 1939? I'd say the Nazi's achieved total power due to the way Hitler consolidated and the things he brought it (mainly through the Enabling Act) that prevented opposition to the party and thus meant that the Nazi's had total control. You could also mention the role of propaganda and terror in this too.
Hope this helps- I think you should just try cram the best you can on everything because you really don't want to leave yourself short of knowledge
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: dancing phalanges on August 07, 2018, 10:06:07 pm
Hey, as i only have limited time left to study for modern history, i was thinking of for section II weimar germany, just skipping the political democracy part of it and only studying the Nazi part, is that risky or is there always guaranteed to be a Nazi question for that section. Thanks :)

Hey just to add to the great answers below - knowing even just a bit of the political part is great because you are expected to have a holistic understanding of the topic. For instance, if the question is about how the Nazis rose to power or how they transformed the life of Nazi Germany from 1933-1939 it is crucial to at least know what Germany was like before 1933 so you can compare the two :)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: theyam on August 12, 2018, 11:50:23 am
hello,

was just wondering if anyone could give me tips on how they would answer this germany question: Assess the impact of the revolutions of 1918-1919 on the growth of democracy in Germany.

thank you guys :)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Mada438 on August 12, 2018, 05:31:13 pm
hello,

was just wondering if anyone could give me tips on how they would answer this germany question: Assess the impact of the revolutions of 1918-1919 on the growth of democracy in Germany.

thank you guys :)
Hey!
So first things first. Look at the directive term. In this case its an assess question
"Asses means to weigh up to what extent something is true. Persuade the reader of your argument by citing relevant research but also remember to point out any flaws and counter-arguments as well. Conclude by stating clearly how far you are in agreement with the original proposition"-University of Liechester
So how big of an impact did the revolutions have? Remember you're only talking about 1918-1919. Anything else isn't relevant to the question at hand. So events such as the Kapp putsch (March 1920) are not applicable as they occured in 1920 or later.
The two main aspects i'd disscuss are the Spartacist uprising in January 1919 where they seized government buildings and fought the Freikorpos
And the revolution at Kiel where sailors refused to take part in battle
Then they were joined by workers and soldiers and took control of Kel
This then led to the general strike and the Kaisers abdication.

Im sorry i cannot help more as this is all i could come up with. But i do hope it helps
Good luck my friend!


Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: holky on August 12, 2018, 06:23:18 pm
Hey!
So first things first. Look at the directive term. In this case its an assess question
"Asses means to weigh up to what extent something is true. Persuade the reader of your argument by citing relevant research but also remember to point out any flaws and counter-arguments as well. Conclude by stating clearly how far you are in agreement with the original proposition"-University of Liechester
So how big of an impact did the revolutions have? Remember you're only talking about 1918-1919. Anything else isn't relevant to the question at hand. So events such as the Kapp putsch (March 1920) are not applicable as they occured in 1920 or later.
The two main aspects i'd disscuss are the Spartacist uprising in January 1919 where they seized government buildings and fought the Freikorpos
And the revolution at Kiel where sailors refused to take part in battle
Then they were joined by workers and soldiers and took control of Kel
This then led to the general strike and the Kaisers abdication.

Im sorry i cannot help more as this is all i could come up with. But i do hope it helps
Good luck my friend!
Hey, so I just wanna throw my two cents in here; you can totally discuss things beyond the scope of 1918-19 as it is the revolutions that are specified as 1918-19, not the scope of the questions. So you could talk about the Kapp Putsch or anything else you feel were important to German democracy. However, because the question specifies the revolutions, your answer needs to focus on those, so I'd do two paragraphs on the revolutions and one on another important factor.
Hope that helps x
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: -Grace- on August 17, 2018, 04:04:38 pm
Would any preliminary content be tested in the HSC for Modern History?
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fun_jirachi on August 17, 2018, 04:22:38 pm
Would any preliminary content be tested in the HSC for Modern History?

The answer is no, since the HSC for Modern History is 3 hours with 5 mins of reading, divided into 4 45 minute sections based on the Core (WWI), the National Study, the Personality Study, and the Peace and Conflict Study, all of which you studied between the start of Term 4 last year and now.
However, preliminary content will definitely not be tested, but it can sometimes provide excellent context for some studies you do this year ie. I did Fall of the Romanovs, then Russia for the National Study and Trotsky for the Personality study, so it really helps sticking some content from that into my work for those two aforementioned sections, so for some people, Preliminary content is still relevant even if it's not tested.

Hope this answers your question! :)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: owidjaja on September 06, 2018, 07:14:30 pm
Hey guys,
How much do we need to know about Dunkirk and Operation Dynamo? I know it's not part of the syllabus but in all the Modern textbooks I've looked at, they talk about Dunkirk.
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on September 06, 2018, 08:00:40 pm
Hey guys,
How much do we need to know about Dunkirk and Operation Dynamo? I know it's not part of the syllabus but in all the Modern textbooks I've looked at, they talk about Dunkirk.
Hey! I didn't study Conflict in Europe (so correct me if I'm wrong, someone who has!), but I'd say if it's not directly on the syllabus, then you don't need to know much if anything about it! A lot of textbooks include lots of "fluffy" irrelevant stuff to pad them out so they can justify charging insane prices. It might be good detail, but if it's not on the syllabus, its not something they should be able to directly question.
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: kauac on September 08, 2018, 02:37:34 pm
Hi, definitely not a modern student  ;D.... But I do have a random question related to modern history.

Has anyone heard of/ know much about the 1600s King of Sweden, Gustavus Adolphus?

I'm doing some probing for one of my English related texts, and it alludes to this person.... The text is a satirical short story written in about 1910, and I'm kinda really confused why the author would mention this person? Like, he calls a baby 'Gustavus Adolphus', its really weird.

Any insights would be super helpful!  :)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: owidjaja on September 08, 2018, 05:08:50 pm
Hey guys,
Just a general question: does anyone ever finish the whole Modern History syllabus on time? My class is extremely behind, i.e. we've only started looking at Operation Barbarossa and we have around 10 days of school left (excluding Graduation Assembly, Mass, Year 12 Brunch, Formal etc.).

So yeah, just curious if anyone usually finishes learning the content early.
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fun_jirachi on September 08, 2018, 05:50:41 pm
We definitely are going to, after trials its just Soviet Foreign Policy left, and that's tiny. I guess to an extent we rushed Trotsky and that the teachers heaped a lot of the work onto us, prepping us mostly for exam technique instead of content, like we were meant to do most of the content ourselves, and that's why we have so much time? I'm not in yr 12 so I can't talk, but even they should finish Soviet Foreign Policy in the time they have left, so we should be finishing a little early.
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on September 08, 2018, 07:09:30 pm
Hey guys,
Just a general question: does anyone ever finish the whole Modern History syllabus on time? My class is extremely behind, i.e. we've only started looking at Operation Barbarossa and we have around 10 days of school left (excluding Graduation Assembly, Mass, Year 12 Brunch, Formal etc.).

So yeah, just curious if anyone usually finishes learning the content early.

Have faith! You’ll finish somehow. I think my class finished the content like ~1.5 weeks before the end of term and at one point we (minus the dropkicks lol) we’re stressed about not finishing but we still did — earlier than expected!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: owidjaja on September 10, 2018, 09:50:14 pm
Hey guys,
Just a question on the dot point on the Nuremberg Trials: do we need to know on the Nazi leaders that were charged and their sentence? Personally I feel like it's a bit too excessive for this dot point but I'm not sure how much we need to know (I've been self-teaching myself because we've lost hope in being able to finish the topic this term).
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on September 10, 2018, 10:21:31 pm
Hey guys,
Just a question on the dot point on the Nuremberg Trials: do we need to know on the Nazi leaders that were charged and their sentence? Personally I feel like it's a bit too excessive for this dot point but I'm not sure how much we need to know (I've been self-teaching myself because we've lost hope in being able to finish the topic this term).

Hi!

I didn't do Conflict in Europe (I assume that's the topic you're studying) but a general rule I went by was if I didn't think it was going to go in an essay, I wouldn't memorise it. If you think it's a bit excessive, it probably is -- trust yourself :-)

Hope this helps lol
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: owidjaja on September 30, 2018, 06:42:34 pm
Hey guys,
What kind of essay questions could they ask on the Nuremberg Trials?

This syllabus dot point has never been asked before and my teacher also isn't sure what they could ask.
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: eliseeeeee_m on October 01, 2018, 07:22:05 pm
Hey guys,
What kind of essay questions could they ask on the Nuremberg Trials?

This syllabus dot point has never been asked before and my teacher also isn't sure what they could ask.

I was thinking the same thing!
I don't think it will be an entire essay on the one dot point (even if it was you could argue other factors with reference to it). 
For example, it could be a question like The Nuremberg Trials marked the consolidation of the Allied victory. To what extent is this statement true?
(idk something along those lines)
hope this helps! :)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: owidjaja on October 04, 2018, 09:17:02 pm
Hey guys,
Do we discuss the Battle of El Alamein as one battle or do I need to go in detail with the First Battle of El Alamein and Second Battle of El Alamein?
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: doritopope on October 21, 2018, 10:03:28 pm
Hey guys,
Do we discuss the Battle of El Alamein as one battle or do I need to go in detail with the First Battle of El Alamein and Second Battle of El Alamein?

Well, the First Battle of El Alamein could be interpreted as the climax of the turning point as it had no clear winner. Its effects, such as Churchill's visit to Africa to boost morale and replace leadership, could be felt immediately in the second battle of El Alamein. Furthermore, the first battle drained a large amount of resources and generated a large number of casualties for both sides. So, seeing as how impactful the first battle was to the second battle, id say its best to discuss both but differentiate both simultaneously.

good luck!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: askaerdf on October 26, 2018, 08:31:10 pm
Hey sorry to bother but for conflict in europe im unsure what syllabus dot points would go under
Turning points of the war,
aims and strategies of axis allied powers
reasons for allied victories

since im trying to summarise the topic into the 5 learn to statements to make it easy to remember
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jq12328 on October 27, 2018, 02:19:00 pm
Hey guys,

Any ideas on what essay questions they might ask? I've prepped plans for most of them, but since i have a little extra time, i was thinking of expanding on a few that are more likely to be asked. Here are ones my teacher predicted:

WWI: Changing attitudes of soldiers + homefront, total war
Personality: Part I- Describe personal background + historical context (apparently it hasn't been asked in a while and 3 sig events has been asked past few years)
Germany: Impact TOV, rise of Nazi party, society + culture Nazi state, proporganda + terror + repression
Cold War: No idea :(
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Mada438 on October 27, 2018, 02:54:57 pm
Hey guys,

Any ideas on what essay questions they might ask? I've prepped plans for most of them, but since i have a little extra time, i was thinking of expanding on a few that are more likely to be asked. Here are ones my teacher predicted:

WWI: Changing attitudes of soldiers + homefront, total war
Personality: Part I- Describe personal background + historical context (apparently it hasn't been asked in a while and 3 sig events has been asked past few years)
Germany: Impact TOV, rise of Nazi party, society + culture Nazi state, proporganda + terror + repression
Cold War: No idea :(
Hey!
I don't know about the cold war
But for ww1, it's pretty hard to predict as the sources are all over the place a lot of the time
I hope you're wrong for personality, as three significant events are pretty good to do and then part B will probably be one of those 3 common generic questions, just worded differently.
As for Germany... I agree with the impact of TOV and the rise of the Nazi party as well as propaganda + terror + repression. However, i went through and compared all the past paper questions to syllabus dot points and i couldn't find one dealing with "Nazism as totalitarianism" so i think that may well be in there

All the best for Monday!  ;D
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jq12328 on October 27, 2018, 03:26:24 pm
Hey!
I don't know about the cold war
But for ww1, it's pretty hard to predict as the sources are all over the place a lot of the time
I hope you're wrong for personality, as three significant events are pretty good to do and then part B will probably be one of those 3 common generic questions, just worded differently.
As for Germany... I agree with the impact of TOV and the rise of the Nazi party as well as propaganda + terror + repression. However, i went through and compared all the past paper questions to syllabus dot points and i couldn't find one dealing with "Nazism as totalitarianism" so i think that may well be in there

All the best for Monday!  ;D

Thanks!! I'll definetly have another look at totalitarianism. Also, i was wondering about essay questions. My teacher's always told us that if the question is a "to what extent", we have to discuss the topic stated 60% of the time, and other factors can account for 40%. Is this just for "to what extent", or pretty much all questions? One of my trial questions was "Asses the role of the Truman Doctrine in shaping the origins of the Cold War". I chose the other question as to me, the wording made it sound like we could only discuss the Truman Doctrine, but one of my friends said that wasn't the case?
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Mada438 on October 27, 2018, 03:47:43 pm
Thanks!! I'll definetly have another look at totalitarianism. Also, i was wondering about essay questions. My teacher's always told us that if the question is a "to what extent", we have to discuss the topic stated 60% of the time, and other factors can account for 40%. Is this just for "to what extent", or pretty much all questions? One of my trial questions was "Asses the role of the Truman Doctrine in shaping the origins of the Cold War". I chose the other question as to me, the wording made it sound like we could only discuss the Truman Doctrine, but one of my friends said that wasn't the case?
Well for that question you could definitely talk about other stuff! I don't know how big the dot point of the Truman doctrine is, but you could definitely talk about other stuff. You're 'assessing the role' of it. So what was it's role? Was it big or small? If it was small, what were some of the other factors shaping 'the origins of the cold war' I also think you need to look at it on a question by question basis, as some questions may require a total focus on one specific area e.g Hitlers role in the Nazi state You couldn't start talking about 'Nazi foreign policy' or something. So my advice is to look at the questions on the day and plan out whether it allows you the flexibility to attack it from different directions.
I agree with your teacher. Obviously, the question needs to be your main focus but to add to your argument and show the marker more of your knowledge it is good to include other factors. I'm guessing you couldn't write a 25 mark essay on JUST THAT

Take the dot point on Germany regarding the 'impact of the great depression on Germany' if that was a to what extent did it contribute to the full of the WR/rise of the nazis, then by saying to a moderate extent (say 60%). Your para on the great depression would obviously be the biggest but then you would include other factors that contributed to the fall of the WR/rise of the nazis (the other 40%).

Hope this helps!  ;D
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on October 27, 2018, 03:57:33 pm
Thanks!! I'll definitely have another look at totalitarianism. Also, i was wondering about essay questions. My teacher's always told us that if the question is a "to what extent", we have to discuss the topic stated 60% of the time, and other factors can account for 40%. Is this just for "to what extent", or pretty much all questions? One of my trial questions was "Asses the role of the Truman Doctrine in shaping the origins of the Cold War". I chose the other question as to me, the wording made it sound like we could only discuss the Truman Doctrine, but one of my friends said that wasn't the case?

Just my two cents on your questions (already answered amazingly by Mada438!)

In regards to totalitarianism, my HSC (last year) asked a question kinda similar to that so I wouldn't bank on that being one of the questions for Germany,

With the 'to what extent' question, I guess it could apply to all questions. With the Truman Doctrine question you could definitely address other points in the origins of the Cold War section :-) If you think about it this way, the Truman Doctrine wasn't the only thing that shaped the origins of the Cold War -- there were heaps of other things!

Hope this helps and best of luck for Monday!



ALSO-- if you have any questions, keep them coming!! I'll be checking in really frequently today and tomorrow :-)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: hilaryl on October 27, 2018, 11:30:28 pm
hi! does anyone have predictions on what the questions will be for russia and cold war?
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on October 28, 2018, 10:52:02 am
hi! does anyone have predictions on what the questions will be for russia and cold war?

Hello!

I didn't do Russia so no predictions there, but for Cold War (do NOT quote me on this I'm awful at predictions) I think it'll be something on Gorbachev or a really broad question on superpower rivalry.

Best of luck for tomorrow!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: vic321 on October 28, 2018, 03:20:22 pm
predictions for conflict in Europe
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: hilaryl on October 28, 2018, 06:32:43 pm
wouldn't it be unfair for a gorbachev question to pop up esp since he's under the personality study?
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on October 28, 2018, 06:37:56 pm
wouldn't it be unfair for a gorbachev question to pop up esp since he's under the personality study?

No, because there’s a whole dot point on him in the Cold War syllabus :-)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Mada438 on October 28, 2018, 08:34:02 pm
Not a question, but wishing everyone the best of luck for tommorrow!!!  ;D ;D
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: sudodds on October 28, 2018, 09:37:47 pm
Good luck tomorrow everyone!

I'm sure you'll absolutely smash it <3 Just remember to include tonnes of detail, make sure your first sentence of every essay/paragraph is a judgement, and that, overall, you just try your very best! That's all anyone could ask for :) You've all worked so hard this year, and should walk into that exam feeling confident!

Keen to hear how it all goes <3

Susie
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jamonwindeyer on November 11, 2018, 03:15:36 pm
Hey everyone! Just adding this as a marker for the new syllabus which kicks in from 2019 and beyond. The stuff before this post is definitely still generally useful in terms of skills and some content, but keep in mind that the new course is pretty different from the old one. Keen for this to be a space for collaboration on the new course just as much as the old course! ;D
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Livjane_2203 on November 17, 2018, 04:10:20 pm
Hey, I am currently doing a source essay for Power and Authority in the Modern World 1919-1946. I was wondering if you could give me any tips on how to strengthen this paragraph please and also how to create an effective last sentence in a body paragraph. My source essay question is:

To what extend did the collapse of the Weimar Republic contribute to the rise and successful consolidation of power of the Nazi Regime.

The Treaty of Versailles was considered brutal and onerous by German civilisation, the Weimar Republic’s signing of this treaty effectively destabilised the democratic government’s foundations within society. The people of Germany were incapable of comprehending how they had been defeated as the bombardment of propaganda throughout WWI rejected this outcome. The German people’s perception of reality was that they had been “stabbed in the back” at home. This legend proved significant in promoting the collapse of the Weimar Republic, as it itself symbolised the destruction of Germany and its fragmented society. This resulted in the formation of antagonistic groups that blamed each other for the catastrophe of  WWI generating social and political upheaval, which contributed to an environment which made the collapse of the Weimar Republic possible. Source 1 is an Austrian Postcard from 1919 that illustrates a Jew holding a dagger preying on a German soldier elucidating the “stab in the back legend”. This primary source illustrates the widespread impact of the “stab in the back legend” as postcards are brought with the intent of sending to someone effectively promoting how widespread this legend was. The alienation of the democratic government from the German people promoted Hitler’s popularity as his views on the abolishment of the Treaty of Versailles appealed to a majority. Source 1 not only provides a successful representation of the disillusionment of German society with relation to the “Stab in the Back” legend but also reinforces anti-Semitism which was a core concept within Nazi ideology. The distinct link between the Nazi Party’s ideology in the 1920s and 1930s and societal views of the time solidifies why the Nazi Party popularity increased. Out of the unstable foundations of German society there was a united common distrust in the Weimar Republic by the majority of civilians it was this common foe that promoted the impact the Nazi Party’s ideology had on the people.
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on November 17, 2018, 09:25:06 pm
Hey, I am currently doing a source essay for Power and Authority in the Modern World 1919-1946. I was wondering if you could give me any tips on how to strengthen this paragraph please and also how to create an effective last sentence in a body paragraph. My source essay question is:

To what extent did the collapse of the Weimar Republic contribute to the rise and successful consolidation of power of the Nazi Regime.

-snip-


Hello! This is super exciting -- my first time marking a response from the new syllabus woooooot. Check out the spoiler for some comments:
Spoiler
The Treaty of Versailles was considered brutal and onerous by German civilisation, the Weimar Republic’s signing of this treaty effectively destabilised the democratic government’s foundations within society. You need to make a clear judgement in relation to the question here! I'm a little confused about the point you're trying to make.The people of Germany were incapable of comprehending how they had been defeated as the bombardment of propaganda throughout WWI rejected this outcome. They definitely did -- but how does this attitude contribute to the Nazi consolidation of power?The German people’s perception of reality was that they had been “stabbed in the back” at home. <-- You could probably bring in the source here.This legend proved significant in promoting the collapse of the Weimar Republic, as it itself symbolised the destruction of Germany and its fragmented society. [This resulted in the formation of antagonistic groups that blamed each other for the catastrophe of  WWI generating social and political upheaval, which contributed to an environment which made the collapse of the Weimar Republic possible. Yay! I like this :-) This sentence could've been shifted a bit higher but that's okay.] Source 1 is an Austrian Postcard from 1919 that illustrates a Jew holding a dagger preying on a German soldier elucidating the “stab in the back legend”. This primary source illustrates the widespread impact of the “stab in the back legend” as postcards are brought with the intent of sending to someone effectively promoting how widespread this legend was. The alienation of the democratic government from the German people promoted Hitler’s popularity as his views on the abolishment of the Treaty of Versailles appealed to a majority. Source 1 not only provides a successful representation of the disillusionment of German society with relation to the “Stab in the Back” legend but also reinforces anti-Semitism which was a core concept within Nazi ideology. You've looked at the source pretty well but this could be integrated throughout your response.The distinct link between the Nazi Party’s ideology in the 1920s and 1930s and societal views of the time solidifies why the Nazi Party popularity increased. Out of the unstable foundations of German society there was a united common distrust in the Weimar Republic by the majority of civilians it was this common foe that promoted the impact the Nazi Party’s ideology had on the people.

This was a good attempt! More general stuff here:
- Your first sentence needs to relate to all parts of the question. What are you arguing? Are you 100% sure the collapse of the Weimar Republic contributed to the success of the Nazi Party? Or do you think other factors contributed more? Demonstrate your argument with what you think about the question. On that note, don't make that first sentence longer than it needs to because I was a little confused with what you meant. I think if you had mentioned the ToV after making your argument it would've flowed better. Does that make sense?
- I'm not super familiar with the syllabus (and therefore the exam format), but if this is in response to a source, I think you could've mentioned it earlier. Could just be a personal preference thing though!
- You mentioned attitudes of the German people throughout your response but to keep answering the question, you should relate that to how the Nazis used that to gain power.
- I don't think this is a source analysis question but a question that requires you to actually analyse the source. It doesn't need to be super detailed, you just need to mention it enough so the marker knows you've used the source to help you answer the question :-)

I hope this helps!!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: owidjaja on November 17, 2018, 09:36:04 pm
Hey, I am currently doing a source essay for Power and Authority in the Modern World 1919-1946. I was wondering if you could give me any tips on how to strengthen this paragraph please and also how to create an effective last sentence in a body paragraph. My source essay question is:

To what extend did the collapse of the Weimar Republic contribute to the rise and successful consolidation of power of the Nazi Regime.
Hey there,
Just a disclaimer, I haven't had a proper look at how source analysis responses are supposed to be structured for the new syllabus so I'm going off how I usually structure my source analysis responses. Here's my overall feedback on your response:
- Great assessment in the first sentence
- Maybe add how censorship also contributed to their shock towards Germany's loss in WW1
- Elaborate a bit more when you mentioned 'social and political upheaval'- you could talk about issues like Article 48 and proportional representation since Germany was forced to turn into a democracy
- Another thing to add is how Source 1 feeds into the Jewish stereotype- they're either greedy or large men with large noses (no clue why lmao). Maybe you could add this when you talk about reinforcing anti-Semitic

As for the last sentence, I would add my final assessment on how the collapse of Weimar Germany contributed to consolidation of Nazi Regime and my assessment on how the source reflects this (if that makes sense).

Hope this helps!

Edit: Looks like FB3 already beat me to it!

Hope this helps!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Livjane_2203 on November 22, 2018, 09:42:04 pm
Hey, its me again with my source essay.

I've just completed my last paragraph for my essay and was wondering if you could have a look to see if I could strengthen it in anyway. Just so you know my previous paragraphs were:
1. impact of the stab in the back legend which was above.
2. all about the depression and how this supported the Weimar Republic's collapse and Nazi Party Rise
3. The Reichstag Fire and enabling act and how this endorsed the consolidation of power.

"By 1934, Hitler’s continuing consolidation of power was threatened by the growing disturbance the SA caused throughout Germany. The SA were the beginning foundations of the Nazi Regime however, they now proved more destructive to Hitler’s cause. His unwavering willingness to secure absolute power was highlighted through The Night of Long Knives on the 30th of June 1934. Source 4 is a secondary source by Historian Ian Kershaw, given the benefit of hindsight his analysis can be considered more reliable as it considers multiple perspectives in order to draw conclusions. This source provides insight on how this event eradicated an internal threat to Hitler’s power and the significance of the army’s allegiance to Hitler. This allegiance deterred any possible future rebellion against the Regime promoting its continual control and also endorsed Hitler’s desired foreign policy. Hindenburg’s convenient death secured Hitler’s absolute power stabilising the Nazi Regime throughout Germany. Dictatorship was established from the foundations of the Weimar Republic it was this democratic process that legalised the Nazi Party’s progression of power. The democratic system directly benefited Hitler’s creation of a totalitarian government in Germany. "

So the  question again is:

To what extent did the collapse of the Weimar Republic contribute to the rise and successful consolidation of power of the Nazi Regime.


And the source is :

“ The bloody repression of part of his own Movement was a critical moment in the consolidation of Hitler’s power … (The) popular esteem gained his destruction of the generally hated SA was a further boost to Hitler’s power”.

Thanks.
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: darcyynic on November 22, 2018, 10:36:39 pm
"By 1934, Hitler’s continuing consolidation of power was threatened by the growing disturbance the SA caused throughout Germany. The SA were the beginning foundations of the Nazi Regime however, they now proved more destructive to Hitler’s cause. His unwavering willingness to secure absolute power was highlighted through The Night of Long Knives on the 30th of June 1934. Source 4 is a secondary source by Historian Ian Kershaw, given the benefit of hindsight his analysis can be considered more reliable as it considers multiple perspectives in order to draw conclusions. This source provides insight on how this event eradicated an internal threat to Hitler’s power and the significance of the army’s allegiance to Hitler. This allegiance deterred any possible future rebellion against the Regime promoting its continual control and also endorsed Hitler’s desired foreign policy. Hindenburg’s convenient death secured Hitler’s absolute power stabilising the Nazi Regime throughout Germany. Dictatorship was established from the foundations of the Weimar Republic it was this democratic process that legalised the Nazi Party’s progression of power. The democratic system directly benefited Hitler’s creation of a totalitarian government in Germany. "

Hey!

This paragraph is a great effort, especially for so early in the HSC year. You should be so proud of yourself for starting early!

Here is some feedback on the paragraph in the spoiler:

Spoiler

- Make sure that you begin with a strong assessment which links back to your thesis. I think your opening sentence might be slightly too explanatory. Perhaps start off with something more like: Although the collapse of the Weimar Republic was to a high extent responsible for the rise the Nazi party, the Night of the Long Knives was another contributing factor to the party's successful consolidation of power.

-Perhaps integrate your source a little more with your argument. Rather than starting off with a description of the source, maybe use it to back you up + include a direct quote. For example: This is proven by Source Four, a secondary source written by historian Ian Kershaw which argues that "the bloody repression of part of his own movement was a critical moment in the consolidation of Nazi power."

- I like your judgement that the source is made more reliable through the benefit of hindsight. I would suggest discussing the reliability + perspective of the source a little more (for example, is the evidence it provides corroborated by another source?)

- Make sure the end of your paragraph ties back to the question and your thesis. A sentence about how ultimately, the collapse of the Weimar Republic, despite being highly important, was not enough to see the successful consolidation of Nazi power and thus the Night of the Long Knives was another crucial factor.

- Final piece of advice: just remember to make your judgement clear throughout the entire piece.

I hope this helps a little! Again, I am so proud of you for starting so early. This paragraph really shows your determination to achieve! Congratulations. :)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: abhiroop.pal1 on December 04, 2018, 05:54:05 pm
hey!!

So, context, I have my Modern History Russia National study essay coming up on THURSDAY and I guess I'm worried coz i feel underprepared. I dn't know how I can memorise the details to get a band 6 (I know the GENERAL gyst of events etc.)

There will be 2 questions in the exam - i have to pick one:
1. Economic transformation in the soviet union
2. Survey: consolidation of power



I HAVE 45 MIN to write and 5 min planning time


(how should i use my planning time wisely)

I have been dedicated and focused on studying 1. (above):

My questions!!!!

Q: Do you have any "last minute" tips and things I should do to prep for the exam the night before and on the day.

Q: What should I do if I'm running out of time.

Q: What should I do if I am experiencing Writer's block :(((

Q: I'm heavily focusing my prep on the economic transformations in the soviet union - do you have any useful resources?

Q: Do you have a list of things that I must know otherwise I won't get a Band 6 (e.g. specific events, dates, quotes, etc.)

Q: What is the difference between just describing the event and going beyond (as in - HOW would I be able to write a band 6 essay)

TYSM XO
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fun_jirachi on December 04, 2018, 06:18:44 pm
Hey there!

First things first, everyone (well most people) feel super underprepped right before exams. I did too, especially for mod. Mind, I might not have done so great, but when you start writing, you actually remember way more than you think you know! Just go over everything, calm down and everything will be fine, you've done the hard work for now anyway :)

Memorising details comes to different people in different ways. I literally either spun in a chair or walked up and down while reciting things over and over, but this may not be the most efficient method for you! I remember a while back there was this worksheet method brought up by Jake, so maybe go check that out? Otherwise, you really have to find your method, since there is no single formula for everyone :)

Since you're given the sections the questions come from, you know what to study. Don't bother studying anything else (study smarter, not harder :) ). With planning time, for me I did two things: (but other people will have different methods, more or less effective depending on the person (please add to this guys!!!)) I quote/info  dumped, and fully planned out everything --> so sorta like a skeleton for my essay, like the bare minimum of an essay plan :) but yeah like i said, there are plenty of ways to do this :)

Also, side note, make sure you study both! You will get absolutely destroyed if only study one and the other pops up (learnt that one the hard way) :D

In terms of 'last minute tips', essentially study hard today. Don't push it though. Tomorrow, really try to relax, just skim your content to make sure you know it, but the most important thing is to de-stress. It really screws with your mind going in stressed (learnt that also the hard way --> eg the day before HSC Mod i did my physics homework for 50% of the day, then skimmed the notes for the other half of the day) (you don't have to do this in particular, as long as you de-stress)

If you're running out of time, I'd assume you're onto your last paragraph? I never ran out of time, but I was told by my teacher to summarise in dot points succinctly to get your points across so you can get some marks, then finish strong with a conclusion. (Someone please back up/deny this :) )

For 'writers block' --> well there are two situations a) you really get the flow of things, so this doesnt occur b) you're super screwed about halfway through :o but uh for this, I think pause for about a minute, stare around the hall for a bit :) theoretically, you can be writing the essay in 40 minutes (if using a three paragraph structure, 5 for the intro and conclusion, 10 for each paragraph), but you don't have to do this! Point is, recollect your thoughts, especially if you have the time. I find that drinking a bit of water really helps :D

Economic transformations in the Soviet Union? Really get your stats across, know your stuff. If you want resources, the resource compilation by @owidjaja is super awesome, but I think Power and Privilege by David Christian has some pretty nice stats. Though Ken Webb has a really flawed opinion, his stats are usually solid as well.

I'll leave the last ones to the people with more expertise, because uh I honestly don't know how to answer them in a helpful way!

Hope what I have answered helps anyway! :D
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: abhiroop.pal1 on December 04, 2018, 07:19:56 pm


Also, side note, make sure you study both! You will get absolutely destroyed if only study one and the other pops up (learnt that one the hard way) :D




I meant that there will be 2 in the exam, one survey question and the other on economic transformation - I get to pick one and ill defs pick the economic transformation.

What did you mean by that line above??

also wheres the reource compilation?



TYSM FUN_JIRACHI YOURE SO HELPFUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! XO

Mod edit: Merged double post. Please use the 'Modify' button :)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on December 04, 2018, 08:30:49 pm

I meant that there will be 2 in the exam, one survey question and the other on economic transformation - I get to pick one and ill defs pick the economic transformation.

What did you mean by that line above??

Hello!

He probably means that in the event that you're given two topics to study but only study one, you will find it harder to form a response because you didn't study that topic.

The resource compilation is here!

Best of luck for your assessment :-)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: abhiroop.pal1 on December 04, 2018, 08:32:07 pm
Hello!

He probably means that in the event that you're given two topics to study but only study one, you will find it harder to form a response because you didn't study that topic.

The resource compilation is here!

Best of luck for your assessment :-)


TYYYY
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Muir.mclennan on February 14, 2019, 04:37:32 pm
Hey, I'm currently doing my National Study essay for Russia and the Soviet Union. My essay question is: To what extent was Bolshevik ideology central to the consolidation of power by 1924. Was just wondering what would be the best way to structure body paragraphs for this kind of question (event based, thematic etc.)? Thanks in advance
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: owidjaja on February 14, 2019, 05:03:38 pm
Hey, I'm currently doing my National Study essay for Russia and the Soviet Union. My essay question is: To what extent was Bolshevik ideology central to the consolidation of power by 1924. Was just wondering what would be the best way to structure body paragraphs for this kind of question (event based, thematic etc.)? Thanks in advance
Hey there,

While I didn't study Russia, our History lecturer Susie did! She uploaded a collection of essays she wrote so you may be able to find her essay on the consolidation of power and get an idea on how to structure it.

Hope this helps!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fun_jirachi on February 14, 2019, 09:25:26 pm
Hey there!

I did Russia, and with that sort of essay I was told to approach it with three key events/themes in the Bolshevik consolidation of power, starting with the event/themes mentioned in the question ie. TWE did NEP whatever whatever. In the case of ideology ie. practice vs theory, you test its applicability to each event in the BCoP ie. early sociopolitical reform where Bolshevik ideals remained a big part in decision making, while this drifted away to give way to a more pragmatic approach during the Civil War and NEP. imo you should try and do this chronologically so it flows better i guess?, and also in this way you find that you have the yes it did part first and nope it didnt part second. With this question you need to have a thorough understanding of Bolshevik ideology and how it differed to Marxist ideology since the question specifically asks for the former. Not the best advice (sorry) given that I tended to skip these and look for Stalinism questions, but hope this helps anyway :)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: e2503 on February 28, 2019, 06:19:49 pm
Hi everyone  :)

How do i form a well articulated response about whether a certain histrorical figure was a hero or not?
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on February 28, 2019, 08:43:07 pm
Hi everyone  :)

How do i form a well articulated response about whether a certain historical figure was a hero or not?

Hello!

For any well-articulated response, you need to (1) make sure you have a clear argument, and (2) make sure you follow through with the argument throughout your response. There isn't a lot of time in an exam situation to actually have a solid plan but provided you do a quick outline and follow it you should be just fine.

Also keep in mind that you don't need fancy words for a band 6 essay!!!!!!! I can't stress this enough because it is soooooo much better to read a response with more - let's say 'simple language' - with a clear argument than one with tons of thesaurus words. This will probably help with what you're aiming for.

I would love to hear tips from others!

I hope this helps :-)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: abhiroop.pal1 on March 21, 2019, 09:06:27 pm
Hi guys!

I have a 30% weighted modern task which I needed help/advice on: A multi-modal task (25mks) and an annotated bibliography! (15mks)
My Bibliography should be of 6 PUBLISHED WORKS (books or journal articles) and 2 can be documentaries or academic websites. 3 of the 8 need to be annotated.

My research question I've come up with for ideology is: TO WHAT EXTENT DID THE STALIN AND HITLER DICTATORSHIPS ADHERE TO THEIR RESPECTIVE IDEOLOGIES: --> COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS!!!

QUESTIONS:
1. Where can I find great published sources? If anyone has sources on ideology or Hitler's dictatorship or Stalin's dictatorship, or a comparison of both please send a link or email me:
[email protected]
2. How do I annotate sources for usefulness & reliability?
3. For a 5 minute presentation, which aspects of ideology should I focus on (there isn't enough time to focus on everything!)
4. How do I integrate a little source analysis well into my presentation/speech?
5. Any general advice?

THANKS!!!
I am eternally grateful haha!

Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fantasticbeasts3 on March 21, 2019, 11:14:33 pm
Hi guys!

I have a 30% weighted modern task which I needed help/advice on: A multi-modal task (25mks) and an annotated bibliography! (15mks)
My Bibliography should be of 6 PUBLISHED WORKS (books or journal articles) and 2 can be documentaries or academic websites. 3 of the 8 need to be annotated.

My research question I've come up with for ideology is: TO WHAT EXTENT DID THE STALIN AND HITLER DICTATORSHIPS ADHERE TO THEIR RESPECTIVE IDEOLOGIES: --> COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS!!!

QUESTIONS:
1. Where can I find great published sources? If anyone has sources on ideology or Hitler's dictatorship or Stalin's dictatorship, or a comparison of both please send a link or email me:
[email protected]
2. How do I annotate sources for usefulness & reliability?
3. For a 5 minute presentation, which aspects of ideology should I focus on (there isn't enough time to focus on everything!)
4. How do I integrate a little source analysis well into my presentation/speech?
5. Any general advice?

THANKS!!!
I am eternally grateful haha!

Hi!

1. You can find journal articles on Google Scholar!
2. That's really up to you. Think about how you analyse a source and the points you may have - this will help! Does the source provide lots of relevant information? In terms of reliability, as you'll be looking at academic sources these researchers will have done extensive research on their topics. They are also coming from an academic perspective which while good (they have lots of access to resources) can also be limiting. I won't tell you why, you'll have to figure that one out for yourself hahaha.
3. I can't tell you which ones. Analyse your sources first and pick out the ones that are most common or you feel the most comfortable with talking about :-)
4. You can reference the source creator's name and say one or two sentences about their sources. I don't think that would take up too much time.
5. Not really, except for you'll be great! You have a very interesting question and happy researching!

Hope this helps :-)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: e2503 on March 27, 2019, 11:53:53 pm
 
Hello!

For any well-articulated response, you need to (1) make sure you have a clear argument, and (2) make sure you follow through with the argument throughout your response. There isn't a lot of time in an exam situation to actually have a solid plan but provided you do a quick outline and follow it you should be just fine.

Also keep in mind that you don't need fancy words for a band 6 essay!!!!!!! I can't stress this enough because it is soooooo much better to read a response with more - let's say 'simple language' - with a clear argument than one with tons of thesaurus words. This will probably help with what you're aiming for.

I would love to hear tips from others!

I hope this helps :-)

I`m so sorry for the late reply but thank you very much. Your advice was very helpful :) I will remeber to keep your tips in mind  :) :)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Gavan_Ja on April 19, 2019, 06:56:48 pm
How are ya girls and boars

Love me some time off school with a 2 week long smoko! I just gotta say, I'm a huge bookworm. Now on this note, I just wanna ask, does anyone have any recommendations for books that relate to the new syllabus? I've already got meself a few books but I wanted to ask y'all here. My topics are:
- Nazi Germany
- Russia
- Conflict in Europe
- Cultural Revolution in China

Righto cheers y'all- I greatly appreciate it!

Jack


Anyone know any good podcasts for Nazi germany, Russia, Conflict in Europe or Chinese Cultural Revolution

Cheers, Jack
Modify message

Mod edit: Merged posts. Please use the 'Modify' button :)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: owidjaja on April 19, 2019, 07:03:45 pm
Anyone know any good podcasts for Nazi germany, Russia, Conflict in Europe or Chinese Cultural Revolution

Cheers, Jack
Hey there,

I made a resource list so you should be able to find some podcasts on Germany, Russia or Conflict in Europe.

Hope this helps!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: KC181 on April 23, 2019, 10:30:16 pm
Hello There!
My upcoming modern assessment is a comparative historical analysis (between Hitler and Stalin's dictatorship and we focus on a specific aspect + come up with our own question to guide it). What are some tips to ace a historical analysis and in particular a comparative historical analysis?
Thanks!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: owidjaja on April 28, 2019, 11:36:51 pm
Hello There!
My upcoming modern assessment is a comparative historical analysis (between Hitler and Stalin's dictatorship and we focus on a specific aspect + come up with our own question to guide it). What are some tips to ace a historical analysis and in particular a comparative historical analysis?
Thanks!
Hey there,

Sorry it took so long to respond!

The main thing I'd like to emphasise on is to make sure that you have a strong judgement! In fact, it should be in the first sentence to really show the markers that you're answering the question. This applies to all responses in Modern- short answers, source analysis, essays (unless they ask you to describe something but it's quite rare). The same thing also applies to a comparative historical analysis. Make sure you have a strong judgement and your assessment is consistent throughout your essay. The detail/evidence you include in each paragraph contributes to your assessment.

Also, if you have time, I'd recommend having a read, or at least skim-read, Alan Bullock's 'Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives.' If you don't have time, essentially Bullock argues that Hitler and Stalin are similar, the only difference was that they were on opposing sides in WW2 (ignoring the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact) and they were different geographically. But when you compare their regime, it's very similar. It's a very interesting read so I think it might be useful for your assessment (unfortunately, I never finished it because the book is around 1000 pages).

Hope this helps!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: KC181 on April 29, 2019, 01:32:23 pm
Hey there,

Sorry it took so long to respond!

The main thing I'd like to emphasise on is to make sure that you have a strong judgement! In fact, it should be in the first sentence to really show the markers that you're answering the question. This applies to all responses in Modern- short answers, source analysis, essays (unless they ask you to describe something but it's quite rare). The same thing also applies to a comparative historical analysis. Make sure you have a strong judgement and your assessment is consistent throughout your essay. The detail/evidence you include in each paragraph contributes to your assessment.

Also, if you have time, I'd recommend having a read, or at least skim-read, Alan Bullock's 'Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives.' If you don't have time, essentially Bullock argues that Hitler and Stalin are similar, the only difference was that they were on opposing sides in WW2 (ignoring the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact) and they were different geographically. But when you compare their regime, it's very similar. It's a very interesting read so I think it might be useful for your assessment (unfortunately, I never finished it because the book is around 1000 pages).

Hope this helps!

Thank you so much for the help! Also just wondering, where did you manage to find and read 'Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives'?
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: owidjaja on April 29, 2019, 02:17:39 pm
Thank you so much for the help! Also just wondering, where did you manage to find and read 'Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives'?
I got my dad to borrow it from the uni library, but you can find it here at the State Library.
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: stavvo on May 01, 2019, 07:25:28 pm
Hi guys :)
I'm a massive history nerd (hence why I'm doing the subject) and I'm also very good at remembering the content (key dates, figures, etc.) but I really struggle with writing good essays. My teacher is pretty vague when giving back feedback, always saying things like 'use more historical terms and try not to recount as much', even though I don't really recount and I focus more on answering the question.

Does anyone have any useful tips as to how to write a band 6 worthy essay under pressure? Or even just in general? Literally any advice will help (I think).

Thank youuuuuuuu
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: owidjaja on May 01, 2019, 08:04:09 pm
Hi guys :)
I'm a massive history nerd (hence why I'm doing the subject) and I'm also very good at remembering the content (key dates, figures, etc.) but I really struggle with writing good essays. My teacher is pretty vague when giving back feedback, always saying things like 'use more historical terms and try not to recount as much', even though I don't really recount and I focus more on answering the question.

Does anyone have any useful tips as to how to write a band 6 worthy essay under pressure? Or even just in general? Literally any advice will help (I think).

Thank youuuuuuuu
Hey there,

Welcome to the forums!

The best way to ace history essays is to make sure you answer the question and have a strong judgement! Make sure it's in the first sentence so the marker knows what you're arguing. It doesn't have to be the most complicated thesis. Say the question was "To what extent did propaganda, terror and repression impact German society in the 1930s", you could literally say "Propaganda, terror and repression _____ impacted German society in the 1930s" and the marker knows what you're gonna argue. Make sure each point you bring up is relevant to what you're arguing. So if you're mentioning a statistic, relate it back to what you're arguing. This ensures that you're not just retelling a story and shows that you're still making a judgement.

I'd also recommend making linking tables so this helps you organise all your information. When I made linking tables, it almost became an essay plan so I knew what points I would make if I had a question for that syllabus dot point. You can mine in the Notes section to see how to set it out (or use if you're doing Conflict in Europe :) ).

Hope this helps!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: avocadinq on May 01, 2019, 08:25:51 pm
Hi guys :)
I'm a massive history nerd (hence why I'm doing the subject) and I'm also very good at remembering the content (key dates, figures, etc.) but I really struggle with writing good essays. My teacher is pretty vague when giving back feedback, always saying things like 'use more historical terms and try not to recount as much', even though I don't really recount and I focus more on answering the question.

Does anyone have any useful tips as to how to write a band 6 worthy essay under pressure? Or even just in general? Literally any advice will help (I think).

Thank youuuuuuuu

Just to add onto owidjaja's reply: before writing your essay, aim to understand your teacher's feedback and what you can do to improve in the future when writing essays, whether that is addressing the question and so forth. Conversely, if you don't understand your teacher's feedback, organise an appointment with them and ask for more clarification in a polite manner.

In my opinion, the key to a band 6 worthy essay is writing practice essays based on past hsc questions (or making up questions based on the syllabus) and the syllabus. Through this way, you are able to consolidate your knowledge of that particular syllabus point and receive lots of feedback from others (eg. teachers, other students, atarnotes) of what can be improved on. While remembering the content is good for modern history, it's more about how you apply your content to the particular question. With a strong and clear judgement throughout your essay with adequate evidence, the marker is then able to follow your essay and reward you with the marks.

I'd also recommend looking for exemplar band 6 modern essays based on your topic on atarnotes for two reasons: it's free and it helps you understand what it means to write a band 6 essay. To address your teacher's feedback of using more historical terms, looking through essays and using it as a guide for writing your next essay when analysing evidence while answering the question.


Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: emilyyyyyyy on May 06, 2019, 08:55:13 pm
Hi all,

How should I go about structuring this essay for the question: Assess the importance of the British and French policies of appeasement, in the growth of European tensions.

I get that I've got to make a judgement based on examples and whatnot of how appeasement contributed to WWII, but I'm struggling in structuring it! And also, what are some examples of French appeasement?

Thanks :)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: owidjaja on May 06, 2019, 10:42:26 pm
Hi all,

How should I go about structuring this essay for the question: Assess the importance of the British and French policies of appeasement, in the growth of European tensions.

I get that I've got to make a judgement based on examples and whatnot of how appeasement contributed to WWII, but I'm struggling in structuring it! And also, what are some examples of French appeasement?

Thanks :)
Hey there,
It's a bit difficult to provide an example of French appeasement since France usually goes along with what Britain does (although they're a bit more wary of appeasement than Britain so they relied on the Maginot Line).

When I got a question on appeasement in Trials, the way I structured it was:
Paragraph 1: Increasing tension with dictatorial powers between Germany and Italy
Paragraph 2: Appeasement's impact on Stalin's decision to sign the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact
Paragraph 3: Appeasement was ineffective in preventing the war (here was where I talked about Czechoslovakia)

Hope this helps!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Gavan_Ja on May 11, 2019, 01:38:19 pm
Hey everyone!
For Russia I need to do a generic plan that is based on the area of 'ideology'. Anyone know of the paragraph topics for this?
Hopefully I'm not just answering my own question, but I was thinking of:
P1) Early socialist and political reforms (i.e Land and Workers Decrees, self-determination of Russian occupied nations, censorship, Cheka etc)
P2) Treaty of Brest Litovsk
P3) Civil War
P4) NEP (and link that to War Communism)
P5) Might briefly touch on the Power Struggle

Can I please have any thoughts or adjustments to this structure?

Thanks!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: fun_jirachi on May 11, 2019, 05:29:08 pm
Hey everyone!
For Russia I need to do a generic plan that is based on the area of 'ideology'. Anyone know of the paragraph topics for this?
Hopefully I'm not just answering my own question, but I was thinking of:
P1) Early socialist and political reforms (i.e Land and Workers Decrees, self-determination of Russian occupied nations, censorship, Cheka etc)
P2) Treaty of Brest Litovsk
P3) Civil War
P4) NEP (and link that to War Communism)
P5) Might briefly touch on the Power Struggle

Can I please have any thoughts or adjustments to this structure?

Thanks!

Hey there!

That's a pretty damn good plan :)
Ideology was most prominent in the early formative stages of the Bolshevik regime, so you've got the most important bits. Obviously, some events are a load easier to write about (Early socialist and political reforms (directly opposing the Kerensky and Tsarist regimes), Civil War (the first test of these new implementations), NEP (a seemingly direct contradiction to Marxist theory)) and these are the ones I'd recommend focussing on in essays unless the question directly asks you about the other two ie. Assess the impact of the treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Having something for everything is a good idea, but probably limit yourself to three, or four at maximum ideas with you can just go on about with detail and argue about well, instead of 5 small paragraphs that you're just using for the sake of it.

Otherwise, nice plan :)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: emilyyyyyyy on May 14, 2019, 08:50:13 pm
Hi all,

For this question: What was the impact of the air war on the course of the European conflict in the period 1939 to 1945? I'm going to write about the Battle of Britain, London Blitz and bombing of Germany, but I'm finding it difficult to be concise and add judgement.
Does anyone have advice (particularly on how to 'judge' the impact of air war)

Thanks!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: avocadinq on May 14, 2019, 09:50:55 pm
Hi all,

For this question: What was the impact of the air war on the course of the European conflict in the period 1939 to 1945? I'm going to write about the Battle of Britain, London Blitz and bombing of Germany, but I'm finding it difficult to be concise and add judgement.
Does anyone have advice (particularly on how to 'judge' the impact of air war)

Thanks!

Although, I didn't study your particular option - I'll give some more general tips in the hopes that it is helpful.

In terms of being more concise, try not to narrate events but instead give a super brief overview of what happened before linking your evidence to your overall judgement. Sometimes I get 2 different highlighter colours for evidence and explanation, and if there is more of one colour than the other in my paragraphs, I continue to edit and make it more concise that way.

As for incorporating judgement, introduce it in your very first sentences of not only your introduction but also your topic/linking sentences and conclusions. An example of this would be air war played a (insert adjective here) impact on European conflict in the period of 1939 and 1945, depending on your judgement - whether air war played a substantial or perhaps a limited role. There is no right or wrong answer in judging the impact so as long as you support your judgement with lots of evidence. Speaking of evidence, ensure that you link it to either your judgement or a reason that supports your judgement. A good idea is to hand in essays to your teachers to get more feedback of your overall essay writing skills and being more concise in general.
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: owidjaja on May 14, 2019, 10:07:17 pm
Hi all,

For this question: What was the impact of the air war on the course of the European conflict in the period 1939 to 1945? I'm going to write about the Battle of Britain, London Blitz and bombing of Germany, but I'm finding it difficult to be concise and add judgement.
Does anyone have advice (particularly on how to 'judge' the impact of air war)

Thanks!
Hey there,

To add on what avocadinq said, look at how the event impacts both short term and long term. I'd like to use statistics to talk about how the air war impacted the war on a short term and then at the end of the paragraph talk about how it impacted the war overall. For example:

Short term: The RAF was able to fight over home territory so they had time to refuel and stay in the air longer --> since the RAF had access to more resources --> Britain's victory prevented Hitler from launching Operation Sea Lion

Long term: Hitler's defeat was a turning point in the war because stopped Britain from being invaded and forced Hitler to move his resources to the east (open the Eastern Front).

When it comes to the Blitz and the bombing of Germany, I would talk about how it impacted morale since both countries had different reactions to the bombings. It can get a bit overwhelming with the amount of statistics you find, but the best way to prevent yourself from just regurgitating statistics is to add an assessment after that piece of statistic. If you find yourself repeating "this reinforces how the air war played a significant role in WW2" then it's a sign that you're not really adding much to the argument.

Just an extra pro tip, if you have time to add another paragraph, you could definitely talk about the role of the air war on the Eastern Front/North African campaign ;)

Hope this helps!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Gavan_Ja on May 29, 2019, 10:10:38 am
Hey everyone,

For my Conflict in Europe exam, I need to prepare two essay plans for the following questions:

Assess the social and economic impacts of the war on civilians in Britain, Germany and the Soviet Union
OR
Evaluate the view that the battle of Stalingrad was the most significant turning point in the course of the European war.

Does anyone have a structure in answering these two questions?

Cheers :)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: owidjaja on May 29, 2019, 08:13:07 pm
Hey everyone,

For my Conflict in Europe exam, I need to prepare two essay plans for the following questions:

Assess the social and economic impacts of the war on civilians in Britain, Germany and the Soviet Union
OR
Evaluate the view that the battle of Stalingrad was the most significant turning point in the course of the European war.

Does anyone have a structure in answering these two questions?

Cheers :)
Hey there,

I did the first question in the HSC last year and the way I structured my essay was:
Paragraph 1: Social impacts on Britain
Paragraph 2: Economic impacts on Britain
Paragraph 3: Social impacts on Soviet Union
Paragraph 4: Economic impacts on Soviet Union

(Are you sure that it's Britain, Germany and the Soviet Union? I thought that syllabus dot point said Britain and you had to pick either Germany or the Soviet Union, so my school did the Soviet Union)

As for the second question, I would personally partially agree to that because the Battle of Stalingrad inflicted severe losses on the Wehrmacht and prevented the Germans from accessing Russia's raw resources in the Caucuses, and also enabled Russian victory in the Battle of Kursk, but I wouldn't say the Battle of Stalingrad was the most significant. I'd say the Battle of El Alamein was also a significant turning point because it forced Germany to divide their resources and enabled the Allies to launch Operation Husky after their victory. And so my structure would be:

Paragraph 1: Short term impacts of Battle of Stalingrad on the war (i.e. prevented the Germans from accessing resources, severe losses on the Wehrmacht --> prevented Germany from further progressing into Russia)
Paragraph 2: The Battle of Stalingrad helped with the victory at the Battle of Kursk (i.e. Russia was able to sustain large losses because of high population density/US Lend Lease Scheme --> further placing Germany in a defensive spot)
Paragraph 3: Battle of El Alamein was also a significant turning point because the Allies were able to launch Operation Husky and attack the 'soft underbelly of Europe' after their victory in El Alamein (i.e. El Alamein forced Germany to split their resources but were encircled after the US launched Operation Torch)

Again, this is my personal opinion. You might have a different opinion. If you want to do a partial judgement or maybe even disagree with the question, check with your teacher if they'll allow it. (Pretty sure markers don't like it if you disagree with the question but the question did say 'evaluate').

Hope this helps!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Gavan_Ja on May 30, 2019, 09:07:22 am
Hey there,

I did the first question in the HSC last year and the way I structured my essay was:
Paragraph 1: Social impacts on Britain
Paragraph 2: Economic impacts on Britain
Paragraph 3: Social impacts on Soviet Union
Paragraph 4: Economic impacts on Soviet Union

(Are you sure that it's Britain, Germany and the Soviet Union? I thought that syllabus dot point said Britain and you had to pick either Germany or the Soviet Union, so my school did the Soviet Union)

As for the second question, I would personally partially agree to that because the Battle of Stalingrad inflicted severe losses on the Wehrmacht and prevented the Germans from accessing Russia's raw resources in the Caucuses, and also enabled Russian victory in the Battle of Kursk, but I wouldn't say the Battle of Stalingrad was the most significant. I'd say the Battle of El Alamein was also a significant turning point because it forced Germany to divide their resources and enabled the Allies to launch Operation Husky after their victory. And so my structure would be:

Paragraph 1: Short term impacts of Battle of Stalingrad on the war (i.e. prevented the Germans from accessing resources, severe losses on the Wehrmacht --> prevented Germany from further progressing into Russia)
Paragraph 2: The Battle of Stalingrad helped with the victory at the Battle of Kursk (i.e. Russia was able to sustain large losses because of high population density/US Lend Lease Scheme --> further placing Germany in a defensive spot)
Paragraph 3: Battle of El Alamein was also a significant turning point because the Allies were able to launch Operation Husky and attack the 'soft underbelly of Europe' after their victory in El Alamein (i.e. El Alamein forced Germany to split their resources but were encircled after the US launched Operation Torch)

Again, this is my personal opinion. You might have a different opinion. If you want to do a partial judgement or maybe even disagree with the question, check with your teacher if they'll allow it. (Pretty sure markers don't like it if you disagree with the question but the question did say 'evaluate').

Hope this helps!

Thanks so much for this! So basically with your question regarding Soviet Union, Germany and Britain the syllabus point has changed so that there is no option for what you decide to talk about so you have to do Britain, Soviet Union AND Britain. In that case would I just do a paragraph on Germany as well as Britan and USSR?

Cheers
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: owidjaja on May 30, 2019, 01:52:58 pm
Thanks so much for this! So basically with your question regarding Soviet Union, Germany and Britain the syllabus point has changed so that there is no option for what you decide to talk about so you have to do Britain, Soviet Union AND Britain. In that case would I just do a paragraph on Germany as well as Britain and USSR?

Cheers
Hey there,

Thanks for the clarification! I'd probably combine social and economic in one paragraph and do one paragraph per country. I just think 6 body paragraphs would be way to much.

Hope this helps!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Gavan_Ja on June 06, 2019, 10:13:02 am
Hey there,

Thanks for the clarification! I'd probably combine social and economic in one paragraph and do one paragraph per country. I just think 6 body paragraphs would be way to much.

Hope this helps!

All good! Do you happen to know of any key things to include in my USSR paragraph?

Thanks for your help!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: owidjaja on June 06, 2019, 04:13:20 pm
All good! Do you happen to know of any key things to include in my USSR paragraph?

Thanks for your help!
Hey there,

These were some of the key points I remember writing in the exam:

Economic:
- Mass migration eastwards (beyond Ural mountains) to move industrial areas away from German bombers
- Factories were stripped down and rebuilt in the east
- Somewhere around 1500 enterprises were moved (check with other sources to make sure I quoted the right statistic!)
- US Lend Lease Scheme also helped USSR

Social:
- Slavs were viewed as untermenschen + USSR has a lot of Jews + communist = the Nazis biggest targets
- 20 million Russians died during the war
- Babi Yar refers to the Kiev massacres, carried out by einsatzgruppen (SS groups that trailed after German forces with the sole purpose of eliminating 'undesirables')
- Some Ukrainians swore an oath of loyalty to Hitler because they hated Stalin but since they were viewed as untermenschen, they were eliminated
- USSR also used scorched earth policy when retreating
- Therefore German barbarity + USSR scorched earth policy = devastating impacts on civilians

With social, you could also talk about propaganda here (i.e. the idea of fighting not for Stalin but for "Mother Russia"). Just make sure to flesh out these key points with some detail (like a statistic or a historian).

Hope this helps!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Gavan_Ja on June 18, 2019, 11:29:30 am
Hey everyone,

My teacher wants me to answer the following question for a practice Conflict in Europe essay:

To what extent did the aims and strategies of the Allied powers contribute to their victory in 1945?

Anyone got any ideas for a possible structure?

Thanks a lot! ;)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: owidjaja on June 18, 2019, 05:43:49 pm
Hey everyone,

My teacher wants me to answer the following question for a practice Conflict in Europe essay:

To what extent did the aims and strategies of the Allied powers contribute to their victory in 1945?

Anyone got any ideas for a possible structure?

Thanks a lot! ;)
Hey there,

Here I'd definitely talk about the air war- it's probably gonna be the biggest paragraph since you could talk about the Battle of Britain to even Allied use of airplanes in the Eastern Front/North African campaign. You could also talk about Montgomery's strategies in attacking the Devil's Garden (i.e. using feints/diversions to confuse reconnaissance, creating fake fronts, attacking the flanks). Under the North African campaign, you could also talk about how successful these strategies were since it allowed them to launch Operation Husky. Operation Overlord would also be a good one to include in your essay since you could talk about naval/aerial bombardments (which could link with the air war paragraph) and use of paratroopers (and fake ones as well), and you emphasise the success of D-Day because it allowed the Allies to open another front.

Hope this helps!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Gavan_Ja on June 24, 2019, 02:18:32 pm
Hey there,

Anyone know of a good judgement and structure to make in relation to the following question:

"To what extent did the aims and strategies of the Allied powers contribute to their victory in 1945?"

My teacher didn't really explain it that well so I was just wanted someone's thoughts!

Cheers
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: avocadinq on July 26, 2019, 06:22:08 pm
Hello there!

Just wondering, is it necessary to include historians in your option essays (national studies, conflict and peace etc) for trials? Thanks in advance.
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: owidjaja on July 26, 2019, 07:23:15 pm
Hello there!

Just wondering, is it necessary to include historians in your option essays (national studies, conflict and peace etc) for trials? Thanks in advance.
Hey there,

You definitely don't need historians in your essays! If you do want to include one, it's better to paraphrase than quote because anyone can regurgitate a quote.

Hope this helps!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: burningcandle on August 11, 2019, 12:05:32 pm
May be a silly question,
Where do essay questions come from on the syllabus? The key features? I'm trying to prepare for trials and i'm not sure which points i should write practice essays for, so, maybe a better question is what is the best way to prepare for the essay sections (Russia & Indochina).
Thank you to anyone who replies, much appreciated.
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: owidjaja on August 11, 2019, 01:06:30 pm
May be a silly question,
Where do essay questions come from on the syllabus? The key features? I'm trying to prepare for trials and i'm not sure which points i should write practice essays for, so, maybe a better question is what is the best way to prepare for the essay sections (Russia & Indochina).
Thank you to anyone who replies, much appreciated.
Hey there,

Essay questions can come from either the key features or from the syllabus dot points itself. For example, when I did Conflict in Europe, I could get a question from the key features (e.g. Assess the effectiveness of Allied aims and strategies) and then I would structure my essay using the syllabus dot points. Or, I could get a question directly from the dot points (e.g. Assess the significance of the Russian campaign) and then the structure of my essay would be more on the significant battles on the Eastern Front. The main difference between the two essays is the amount of depth I'd go into in each paragraph.

Of course, there's a lot to prepare for so I usually make linking and detail tables. With linking tables, I'd have the syllabus dot points in the first column and in the first row, I'd select 3 key features that I think best suits the syllabus dot point. Going back to my Conflict in Europe example, if I was looking at the course of the European war and the syllabus dot point was the air war and its effects, one key feature that goes with this dot point is aims and strategies of Allied and Axis powers, and then I'd add in relevant detail to the table. This was very useful because I was able to have all the relevant information in one place, and it was also like an essay plan for each dot point/key feature.

With detail tables, this is if you're struggling to remember dates, statistics and quotes. The structure of the table is similar, in the sense that it's divided by syllabus dot points, but instead of having key features in the first row, it would be for details (i.e. dates, statistics, any important terminology) and quotes (i.e. quotes from primary/secondary sources).

If you'd like a few examples of detail/linking tables, I'd recommend the Notes section, especially Susie's tables since she also did Russia but I also linked mine in case you'd like an example on how to set it up. (1 2 3)

Hope this helps!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Muir.mclennan on October 11, 2019, 06:19:22 pm
Hey, so I just had a question regarding "To what extent" or "Assess" style questions. Is it more sophisticated to find a thread of events/factors related to the question which emphasize the importance of whatever the question is asking, or to offer historical debate by explaining that other events/factors were important?

For example, "Assess the role of ideology in the Power Struggle and Stalin's rise to power following the death of Lenin in 1924."

Would it work better to find links between ideology and for example: political tactics, role of personality and changes in society

OR

Make a judgement that ideology wasn't the only factor in the power struggle as, for example: the role of Trotsky and political tactics had a separate and equally significant impact

Any help would be appreciated!

Thanks a lot
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: angelina.osis on January 16, 2020, 03:14:24 pm
For the Power and Authority unit, I haven't received feedback on my essay on the point: - an overview of the features of dictatorships that emerged in Russia, Italy, Japan. Could I receive feedback?
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: papa kwan on February 10, 2020, 11:57:16 am
Hey, so I just had a question regarding "To what extent" or "Assess" style questions. Is it more sophisticated to find a thread of events/factors related to the question which emphasize the importance of whatever the question is asking, or to offer historical debate by explaining that other events/factors were important?

For example, "Assess the role of ideology in the Power Struggle and Stalin's rise to power following the death of Lenin in 1924."

Would it work better to find links between ideology and for example: political tactics, role of personality and changes in society

OR

Make a judgement that ideology wasn't the only factor in the power struggle as, for example: the role of Trotsky and political tactics had a separate and equally significant impact

Any help would be appreciated!

Thanks a lot

Hey there,
I did my HSC last year and got 94 in modern, so I'm gonna try to answer your question. (That said this is my first time replying to someone else's post so apologies in advance if the formatting and stuff looks weird, and you might want to check with your teacher or a moderator). Anyway, back to your question. Long story short, it depends on the directive verb. If it's assess, then you only talk about what's in the question. If it's to what extent, then you can bring in other stuff and go therefore, to a significant extent, ideology was significant in Stalin's rise...., however other factors such as political tactics similarly made notable contributions to his succession of Lenin (you could break that down into 2 sentences if you wanted).

Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: papa kwan on February 10, 2020, 12:17:11 pm
For the Power and Authority unit, I haven't received feedback on my essay on the point: - an overview of the features of dictatorships that emerged in Russia, Italy, Japan. Could I receive feedback?

Hey there,
So I've had a quick read of the intro and Body 1 so here are a couple of things:
1) Topic sentence is a little confusing. I had to read it 3x before I got what you were trying to say. A HSC marker is highly unlikely to read something more than once, so make sure you're clear in what you're saying
2) Paraphrase sources where possible. Anyone can chuck out a quote from the source, but paraphrasing shows you genuinely understand the source.
3) Characterise/briefly introduce the control group and imperial way. Just call them army factions or something
4) Concluding sentence of Body 1 needs to be adjusted. "These dictatorships would maintain the interpretation of their ideologies"- this doesn't sum anything up (as a concluding sentence should) "through control" (this is the idea of Body 2, so don't mention it in Body 1). The main idea of Body 1 is that they had radical ideologies, so you could just do something like "Therefore, the dictatorships in Japan, Italy and Russia were founded upon the ideologies of radical reform, facism and communism respectively". Also, the "radical ideology" of Japan is underexplored, especially under the control group. "the control group desired to improve existing structures". You need specific detail there. A policy, movement, anything. Besides, improving existing structures is hardly radical, which defeats the purpose of your argument given the control group was the one that took power. Better examples of radical ideology in Japan would be: autarky, militarism, nationalism, hatred of the West etc
5) Tojo was a general, not an emperor.

Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: alexbrett on March 09, 2020, 09:06:58 pm
Hi everyone!

I have a modern essay to complete in less than 2 weeks and I was wondering what to focus on with this essay question:

Did ideology limit or support the effectiveness of Soviet foreign policy between 1917 and 1941?

ANYTHING WILL HELP ME PLSSS
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: LoneWolf on April 16, 2020, 11:22:35 am
STRESSING about trials
Can some kind saint offer some feedback on my intro?

Analyse the conditions which allowed dictators to rise to power in the interwar period.

the interwar period was a complex time when many factors coalesced and contributed to the interwar period. There was no single cause for the dictatorships which arose, rather, any factors contributed to this. The economic conditions, both in existence and developing, contributed to the emergence of dictatorial powers as some 'would be' dictatorships seized the opportunity to exert their leadership. Flowing on form this is the undeniable importance of personalities. This is evident as , men who offered simple solutions to complex problems were successfully ably to tempt the masses to follow their lead. The effect of the WW1, had placed an indelible mark upon Europe, plunging it into what Mark Mazower called the 'dark continent' as the glory of war was expressed while violence and nationalist fervor had become commonplace All these factors coalesced and played inextricable roles in enabling the rise of dictatorships.

Please rip it to shreds, its horrid!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Justin_L on May 08, 2020, 11:07:56 pm
STRESSING about trials
Can some kind saint offer some feedback on my intro?

Analyse the conditions which allowed dictators to rise to power in the interwar period.

the interwar period was a complex time when many factors coalesced and contributed to the interwar period. There was no single cause for the dictatorships which arose, rather, any factors contributed to this. The economic conditions, both in existence and developing, contributed to the emergence of dictatorial powers as some 'would be' dictatorships seized the opportunity to exert their leadership. Flowing on form this is the undeniable importance of personalities. This is evident as , men who offered simple solutions to complex problems were successfully ably to tempt the masses to follow their lead. The effect of the WW1, had placed an indelible mark upon Europe, plunging it into what Mark Mazower called the 'dark continent' as the glory of war was expressed while violence and nationalist fervor had become commonplace All these factors coalesced and played inextricable roles in enabling the rise of dictatorships.

Please rip it to shreds, its horrid!

Hey LoneWolf,

Hope I can give some useful advice despite the time since posting. I'm going to assume this is the Core Study, and break it down according.

First off, your thesis doesn't flow particularly well. "The interwar period was a complex time... which contributed to the interwar period" This sounds confusing and doesn't answer the question. I know this wasn't what you were trying to say, but repeating "interwar period" makes the argument sound quite circular.

"when many factors coalesced and contributed" What factors? Be specific, your thesis is what will shape your argument. The fact that you can't name specific factors says to me that you don't actually understand what you're talking about. An alternative thesis could be something like "The interwar period was a complex time, in which factors a and b collected and coalesced, resulting in the rise of dictators such as x and y"

"The economic conditions, both in existence and developing, contributed to the emergence of dictatorial powers as some 'would be' dictatorships seized the opportunity to exert their leadership."  Don't narrate, just introduce it. State your argument, eg. "Key factors such as poor economic conditions, cult of personality, nationalism and use of force were vital in the rise of dicatorships".

Your main issue is that your paragraph is analysis, not introduction. The role on the introduction is to introduce what you'll be talking about. There should be no historian quotes or flow on arguments, it should be a short, snappy taste of what your essay will be about.

Hope this helps! Feel free ask for more feedback by posting below or you can PM me anytime to chat about anything history.
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: LoneWolf on May 12, 2020, 08:01:02 pm
thansk thats really good.
Could you offer your critical analysis of this piece?
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: s110820 on May 12, 2020, 08:02:30 pm
Hi LoneWolf!

I can if you would like :)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: LoneWolf on May 12, 2020, 08:04:21 pm
Cool, also, you mentioned the thesis statements for english?
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: s110820 on May 12, 2020, 08:09:03 pm
Hi LoneWolf,

Yes sorry I'm still working on those but I'll definitely get it back to you by the end of the week :)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: s110820 on May 12, 2020, 08:16:28 pm
Hi LoneWolf,

Before I start proofreading, editing and annotating your essay can you please let me know what your word count is and when it is due? It would be extremely appreciated.

Thanks and kind regards,

Darcy Dillon.
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: LoneWolf on May 12, 2020, 08:21:53 pm
thanks S.
it is just a practice essay!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: s110820 on May 12, 2020, 08:23:28 pm
Oh okay cool! I was just wondering because I am also editing several other people's essays and I just wanted to list the essays in heirarchal order if that makes sense.
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: 2020hsc on May 18, 2020, 06:47:00 pm
Hey,

Anyone willing to answer....i'm just wondering if i could get some opinions on the outbreak of the pacific war, as per this source:

Americans will always consider the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour on Dec. 7 1941, the ultimate act of international treachery, a blow delivered without warning. But the prevailing Japanese view has always explained the act in quite different terms, portraying it as a predictable response to American actions that left Japan mortally vulnerable and with no alternative but to strike.

Would you think the US or Japanese view is more justified?
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: s110820 on May 18, 2020, 07:32:50 pm
Hi 2020hsc!

I can try to provide you with some opinions about the outbreak of the Pacific War as per your source:
Americans will always consider the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour on Dec. 7 1941, the ultimate act of international treachery, a blow delivered without warning. But the prevailing Japanese view has always explained the act in quite different terms, portraying it as a predictable response to American actions that left Japan mortally vulnerable and with no alternative but to strike.

Would you think the US or Japanese view is more justified?

Personally, I believe that both the Japanese and the American view of the Pearl Harbour bombing are justifiable as at this rate, tensions between international relations between nations within the Pacific were rising to a "boiling point" throughout World War II. For example, the US military was completely "unprepared" when the Japanese dropped bombs Pearl Harbour. However, the allies (including the United States) did take advantage of Japan's "vulnerability" through the Guadalcanal Campaign of 1942–43 to further dissolve the imminent threat of Japanese expansion/attacks. So, as a result, I think that it would be wise if you considered both perspectives (the US and the Japanese) of the question, rather than just one.

Hopefully, this helps :)

Have a great week and kind regards,

Darcy Dillon.
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: 2020hsc on May 19, 2020, 07:37:36 am
Hi 2020hsc!

I can try to provide you with some opinions about the outbreak of the Pacific War as per your source:
Personally, I believe that both the Japanese and the American view of the Pearl Harbour bombing are justifiable as at this rate, tensions between international relations between nations within the Pacific were rising to a "boiling point" throughout World War II. For example, the US military was completely "unprepared" when the Japanese dropped bombs Pearl Harbour. However, the allies (including the United States) did take advantage of Japan's "vulnerability" through the Guadalcanal Campaign of 1942–43 to further dissolve the imminent threat of Japanese expansion/attacks. So, as a result, I think that it would be wise if you considered both perspectives (the US and the Japanese) of the question, rather than just one.

Hopefully, this helps :)

Have a great week and kind regards,

Darcy Dillon.

Awesome! Yes, that is helpful, thankyou Darcy.

So if you are saying if you were responding to an essay that asked to what extent you agreed with the japanese view, you would argue that you agree to a certain extent but that the US view must be considered as well?
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: s110820 on May 19, 2020, 07:57:42 am
Hi 2020hsc!

When I write academically, what I think of are Norwegian-American sociologist Thorstein Veblen's words: "the outcome of any serious research question can only be to make two questions grow where only one grew before"

Which in your case, would be an essay prompt/question. So yes, if you were responding to an essay that asked to what extent you agreed with the Japanese view, you would argue that you do agree to a certain extent but that the US perspective must be considered as well. However, to write your thesis/contention for your essay prompt/question, I would advise following these tips:

A "discerning" and "nuanced" historical essay thesis/contention is comprised of...


For example, my thesis contention that my Modern History teacher marked as "nuanced" and "discerning" was: despite two very different ideological belief structures, both nations of the USA and the USSR fought hard to obtain the monopoly of global dominance, and thus, were destined to become economic and political rivals.

So when you do structure your thesis/contention, just remember that you don't always have to use the word "extent" in your response. You could use various comparison/contrast words instead.

Hopefully, this helps :)

Have a great week and kind regards,

Darcy Dillon.


Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: 2020hsc on May 19, 2020, 11:03:10 am
Wow! Thankyou very very much Darcy, that is so helpful  :) :) :)


Sorry to ask yet another question, but if you do have a chance to look over it, what would you think of this thesis?

While the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was, intentionally and successfully, a surprise attack on the United States, it is cannot be viewed as a blow without warning for the Japanese had, indeed, long-cautioned the Americans that their actions would lead to a military conflict.
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: s110820 on May 19, 2020, 11:26:35 am
Hi 2020hsc!

I think your thesis/contention is great so far! However, I would recommend that you should be as specific as possible. For example, if you are discussing the Japanese perspective on the Pearl Harbour attack, you should also discuss another event such as the Guadalcanal Campaign of 1942–43 from the perspective of the US. I would also recommend that you put the date of the events in brackets to be as specific as possible. For example, "...attack on Pearl Harbour (1941)" and "the Guadalcanal Campaign (1942-3)" However, for the Guadalcanal Campaign, you could either write the dates as "of 1942–43" or "(1942-3)" you can use these interchangeably throughout your essay.

Hopefully, this helps :)

Have a great week and kind regards,

Darcy Dillon.
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: 2020hsc on May 19, 2020, 11:31:18 am
Ok thankyou so much!

Whereabouts in the thesis would you inject this part?
you should also discuss another event such as the Guadalcanal Campaign of 1942–43 from the perspective of the US.

Thanks again!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: s110820 on May 19, 2020, 11:56:31 am
While the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was, intentionally and successfully, a surprise attack on the United States, it is cannot be viewed as a blow without warning for the Japanese had, indeed, long-cautioned the Americans that their actions would lead to a military conflict.

Hi 2020hsc!

Here is my refined version of your thesis/contention: While the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbour was, intentionally and successfully a surprise attack on the United States, it cannot be viewed as a "blow without warning" as the Japanese had indeed, long-cautioned the US government that their actions would lead to a military conflict. However, the United States and the allies did take advantage of Japan's "vulnerability" as a nation through the Guadalcanal Campaign of 1942-9143 which thus, enabled the imminent threat of Japanese expansion and attacks to be dissolved.

Hopefully, this helps :)

Have a great week and kind regards,

Darcy Dillon.
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: 2020hsc on May 19, 2020, 12:22:22 pm
Ah, legend! Thankyou so so much, very helpful  :) :)
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: 2020hsc on June 12, 2020, 05:37:58 am
hey modern historians  ;D

wondering if someone could help me...how different is the structure of a speech to the structure of an essay for hsc modern history? how do you go about writing a good history speech?
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: anitaaa_i on June 14, 2020, 06:57:58 pm
HI! okay so I have a modern history in-class essay for this question:
“The social and economic effects of the war were less traumatic on Britain than on Germany or Russia. However, it could be argued that they were almost revolutionary in their own way”
To what extent do you agree with this view of the impact of the war on civilians in Britain, Germany and Russia?

I am not going to lie, I am just very overwhelmed with this and honestly do not know where to start. I have an idea of what I want to talk about (role of women in Germany, German bombing campaign on Britain) but do not know where to start or even how  to create a thesis statement. Any help would be great!  ;D
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: papa kwan on June 28, 2020, 01:13:24 am
HI! okay so I have a modern history in-class essay for this question:
“The social and economic effects of the war were less traumatic on Britain than on Germany or Russia. However, it could be argued that they were almost revolutionary in their own way”
To what extent do you agree with this view of the impact of the war on civilians in Britain, Germany and Russia?

I am not going to lie, I am just very overwhelmed with this and honestly do not know where to start. I have an idea of what I want to talk about (role of women in Germany, German bombing campaign on Britain) but do not know where to start or even how  to create a thesis statement. Any help would be great!  ;D

Hey there,
So I did my HSC last year and got 94 in modern, so I'll try to help out. Just wondering, where did you get this question? It doesn't seem HSC-style. Also, what topic is this for? I did Power and Authority, Stalin, Apartheid and Arab-Israeli, so if this isn't from those topics (which I don't think it is), I can't help you with actual content. I can however, try to help you with structure. This is how I'd do it (again consider that I probably didn't do your specific topic)

(If you agree with the statement)
Paragraph 1: Social effects of war
1.1 Social effects on GBR civilians
1.2 Why Germany suffered worse social effects
1.3 Why Russia suffered worse social effects
1.4 Why the effects on GBR were revolutionary (or at least like a revolution)
N.B. 1.1 and 1.4 should be longer than 1.2 and 1.3

Paragraph 2 is the exact same but you do economic effects. If you disagree with the statement, same structure, except you talk about why the effects on Germany/Russia were less severe than GBR, and/or why the effects on GBR weren't revolutionary-like.

Lastly, it is inevitable that you feel overwhelmed at some point(s) during the HSC, even more so during this pandemic- so you're definitely not alone. Just because you feel super stressed right now doesn't mean you can't get a good mark/ATAR. In my experience, every HSC student feels like that at some point, including some of my friends who ended getting 99 ATARs. In these situations, just take a step back, calm down and try to work through the problem logically. If you can't, get help. This forum is a good place to start.

Hope that helps. Good luck with the HSC.
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Justin_L on August 08, 2020, 10:26:31 am
Hey y'all, I've been revising the power and authority common module and realised that I don't actually understand this dotpoint:

The rise of dictatorships after World War 1
- an overview of the features of the dictatorships that emerged in Russia, Italy, Japan

What do "features" actually refer to? Characteristics to which they were dictatorships/totalitarian?

And what could they ask for this? My class notes just provide a very broad biography of the leaders (Stalin, Mussolini, and Tojo), and I'm not quite sure how to study/practice for this dotpoint. Right now, it just keeps like a catch-all to ask anything about any of these states.

Any insights would be appreciated!

Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: s110820 on August 08, 2020, 11:18:11 am
Hey y'all, I've been revising the power and authority common module and realised that I don't actually understand this dotpoint:

The rise of dictatorships after World War 1
- an overview of the features of the dictatorships that emerged in Russia, Italy, Japan

What do "features" actually refer to? Characteristics to which they were dictatorships/totalitarian?

And what could they ask for this? My class notes just provide a very broad biography of the leaders (Stalin, Mussolini, and Tojo), and I'm not quite sure how to study/practice for this dotpoint. Right now, it just keeps like a catch-all to ask anything about any of these states.

Any insights would be appreciated!

Hi Justin,

While I do study Modern History, I study the QCE version so I may not be able to help you to a full extent, but I can certainly help breakdown the dot-point for you. In terms of your module, and how it relates to "power" and "authority", I can assume that this dot point may require you to summarise, analyse or compare and contrast the "features" of the Russian, Italian and Japanese dictatorships. So personally, I would summarise the key similarities and differences between the dictatorships e.g. their ideologies, their purpose etc. and then, if required (or just in case), I would analyse the significance/effect of these dictatorships on the events of World War I e.g. how these dictatorships influenced the events of World War I.

Hopefully, that helps to some degree :)

Have a great weekend and kind regards,

Darcy Dillon.
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: alice343 on August 08, 2020, 04:00:52 pm
Hey y'all, I've been revising the power and authority common module and realised that I don't actually understand this dotpoint:

The rise of dictatorships after World War 1
- an overview of the features of the dictatorships that emerged in Russia, Italy, Japan

What do "features" actually refer to? Characteristics to which they were dictatorships/totalitarian?

And what could they ask for this? My class notes just provide a very broad biography of the leaders (Stalin, Mussolini, and Tojo), and I'm not quite sure how to study/practice for this dotpoint. Right now, it just keeps like a catch-all to ask anything about any of these states.

Any insights would be appreciated!

Hey Justin, just adding onto Darcy's great response!

One of the big differences between the Germany study of the old syllabus and the new Power and Authority core is the notion of 'dictatorships'. So yes features of the dictatorships would mean the characteristics of each dictator, their ideologies, policies etc. My teacher has said that any of the dictators are able to be asked in the HSC, e.g. a question could ask you about Mussolini's dictatorship., or Stalin's ideology, etc.

Hope this helped!
Alilce
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Justin_L on August 08, 2020, 09:09:15 pm
snip

snip

Thanks guys! That definitely clears things up, I suppose I'll just have to investigate all of the countries and just know them in detail.
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: LoneWolf on August 10, 2020, 07:49:02 pm
i can NOT clearly define potential essay points about the significance of the new guinea campaign...can anyone please share their points/essay plans etc.?

it is regarding the conflict in pacific topic!

thanks guys
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: joel121212 on August 26, 2020, 04:53:27 pm
Hey guys, could anyone outline a structure (and techniques or specific niches should be addressing)  to approaching a "compare" source analysis question. This would be very helpful so thankyou in advance any responders
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: pine-apple01320 on October 04, 2020, 09:45:55 pm
Hello! I just had a question about essays in Modern History. Since last year was the first time with the new syllabus, would you say that the chances of them repeating a question in the same part of the syllabus would be very slim? For example, in the unit Russia and the Soviet Union; one of the questions last year was Why was Stalin able to emerge as leader of the USSR by the late 1920s, (in the power struggle section of the syllabus) so would you say that there is only a very slim chance of a question like why was trotsky unsuccessful in gaining power or To what extent did leadership conflict and differing visions for the USSR shape the history of the Soviet Union in the period 1917-1941?
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Justin_L on October 04, 2020, 10:05:25 pm
Hello! I just had a question about essays in Modern History. Since last year was the first time with the new syllabus, would you say that the chances of them repeating a question in the same part of the syllabus would be very slim? For example, in the unit Russia and the Soviet Union; one of the questions last year was Why was Stalin able to emerge as leader of the USSR by the late 1920s, (in the power struggle section of the syllabus) so would you say that there is only a very slim chance of a question like why was trotsky unsuccessful in gaining power or To what extent did leadership conflict and differing visions for the USSR shape the history of the Soviet Union in the period 1917-1941?

I highly doubt NESA would repeat a question verbatim, but they definitely could do a different take on the same dotpoint. I'd say that either of the questions you represented are slim but real possibilities. With the relatively small number of dotpoints in this module, I think it's worth being prepared for anything.
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: pine-apple01320 on October 06, 2020, 03:44:12 pm
Thank you! I just had one more quick question: if the topic of an essay specifies a particular event eg. To what extent did the Treaty of Brest Litovsk contribute towards the Bolshevik Consolidation of Power?, how much of the essay do we have to spend talking about the Treaty?

Does majority of the essay have to explore the impacts of the treaty, or could I just have one main paragraph on it, then for my other two/three paragraphs argue that there were a multitude of other factors (eg. Civil War / War Communism / NEP) that were of greater significance? In those other paragraphs, I would only have like a sentence or two linking to the question & emphasising that these factors STEMMED from the Treaty?
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: 0447940204 on November 12, 2020, 03:47:44 pm
Regarding short-answers in Modern, is there a certain structure?

Like I know Economics uses the DPEEL structure, but is Modern just your classic TEEL?
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Justin_L on November 13, 2020, 10:51:35 am
Regarding short-answers in Modern, is there a certain structure?

Like I know Economics uses the DPEEL structure, but is Modern just your classic TEEL?

There's no explicit structure that I know of for modern, it heavily depends on the verb (Identify / Evaluate / Contrast, etc) and the sources specified (eg. Explicitly integrate Source A / Using your own knowledge).

I'd suggest just doing a bunch as practice and comparing your responses to past samples and exemplars alongside the marking criteria, and you'll naturally start to develop your own structure/style for answering short responses. Although if anyone has used a structure successfully, I'd love to hear about it!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: 0447940204 on November 16, 2020, 10:23:26 am
Hey,

My teacher tells me to hand-write my notes, but I am more interested in learning the content and gathering large, neat, comprehensive digital notes of which I can quickly read over and reference to when I need it.

I was wondering what other students do? Or what other high achievers in Modern History did for their notes?

Perhaps I ought to do a combination of both...I'm not sure......
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: jaidaswift on September 16, 2021, 11:29:08 am
Hi, year 11 going to year 12 here. I was wondering what equipment you recommend for modern history and what is useful when studying? My school hasn't provided an equipment list and I wanted advice from people who have done the course.
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: Justin_L on September 16, 2021, 09:33:58 pm
Hi, year 11 going to year 12 here. I was wondering what equipment you recommend for modern history and what is useful when studying? My school hasn't provided an equipment list and I wanted advice from people who have done the course.

Hey jaidaswift,

I'd say equipment doesn't really matter, and you should already have a pretty good idea of what your setup is from your prelims. At least in my school, we were given textbooks and printouts as required, and I opted to use a binder and loose leaf with pens and highlights since that worked really well for me in prelims (although I ended up switching to fully digital later in the year for ease of use and online learning). If you really do want a definitive equipment list though, I recommend you reach out to your teacher and see what they recommend, as they'll be able to give you some advice on how they plan to teach and if they expect you to take notes/do essay plans and whatnot (although you should also have a fair idea of this from prelims!)

Year 12 really isn't that different from year 11, so much of what you already know can be applied here. Hope this helps!
Title: Re: HSC Modern History Question Thread
Post by: tessach004 on November 01, 2021, 06:20:16 pm
Would anyone please be able to check this essay scaffold and suggest what I could do a third paragraph on?

– Japanese foreign policy 1937–1941 (ACHMH144)

To what extent was Japanese foreign policy from 1937 to 1941 responsible for the increasing tensions that eventually led to war?

Thesis: To a large extent, Japanese foreign policy was responsible for the increasing tensions that led to war, as it was their nationalism that imperialistic actions that led to US and British embargoes, causing Japan to require natural resources on top of their initial nationalistic desire to eliminate US opposition and prove themselves equal to the West. 

Para 1: Japanese nationalism 

-Asia for Asians
-Versailles didn’t acknowledge Japan as they wished – Japan wanted racial equality in the Treaty but was declined by the Allies - angered by this, Japan wanted to restore pride and prove that they were equal to the West
-Wanted to build the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere
-Japanese foreign policy served the best interests of Japan without consideration for other nations - led them to invade China and Indochina - this caused tensions to increase

Para 2: Japanese imperialism and US/British policies

-Japan’s invasions of China and Indochina created tensions because China and Indochina were Allied ally's – thus the Allies wanted to protect/help them, [causing tensions to rise due to the fighting]
-Japan invaded China (1937)
-Japan invaded northern Indochina (September 1940) - caused US to place an embargo on all steel and iron
-Japan invaded southern Indochina (July 1941) - caused US and Britain to issue an oil embargo and freeze all Japanese assets 
-Japan relied on the US for 80% of its oil, - thus the embargo meant Japan was lacking in oil and needed to either withdraw from China and Indochina or attack other nations to gain resources e.g., Dutch East Indies, which was rich in oil
-Demonstrates how although the US and British policies spurred on Japan to invade other countries to gain resources, if Japan hadn’t imperalised into China and Indochina, the policies wouldn't have been issued and thus tensions wouldn’t have risen as much

Para 3: ?

Sorry It's not very good - appreciate any feedback!