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?Hey IPL!
Thanks! :)
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! :)
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!
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! :)
So I'm a Year 11 student starting the Preliminary Modern course this yearright 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 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 interestingand most likely to actually work for meso far.
Looking forward to more of your resource posts :)
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 :)
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
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!
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! :)
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 Man,
Did you do extension history? It would be great if someone could beef up that forum on this site!
Cheers
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 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.
Hey Man,
Did you do extension history? It would be great if someone could beef up that forum on this site!
Cheers
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 😅
Thank you so much for the tips Elyse 😊.
I will definitely be walking into that exam room with a lot more confidence!! ❤
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?
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 :)
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)
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 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!
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?) ...
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!
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 :)
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?
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, 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 :)
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 :)
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!!!
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
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?
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! 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!
Hey! :)
So I'm a Year 11 student starting the Preliminary Modern course this yearright 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!!
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!
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!
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 :)
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! :)
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.
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)
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!
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
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
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?
Thanks for replying. I can see what you're saying is true, guess I was just hoping for a different answer haha:)
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?
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
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!
Hi jake! Do you have any tips for getting full marks in the personality question?
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?
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?
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
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? :)
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.
Is the Paris Peace Settlement the same as the Treaty of Versailles?
(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...?
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 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!
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 :)
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 :)
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:)
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 :)
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!
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 :)
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?
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?
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)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 :)
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 :)
The only problem I have with the argument that the Nazis made society worse etc. was that they created a stable society
Good luck :)
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)
And thanks to birdwing341 and sudodds for the help!!No worries!! Good luck ;D
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
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
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?
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?
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.
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.
And thanks to birdwing341 and sudodds for the help!!
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
I think what Jake said was pretty good....This is also super helpful, thank you so much! ;D
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!
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
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?
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 :)
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 :)
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!!!!
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?
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!
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?
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)?
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
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?
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)
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.
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.
As many historians as you can fit in! Literally, just as much as possible.
Hey do you think we should be memorising historians?
Since we don't know the question
So birdwing341 you prefer memorising historians?
We are all going to try our best! Hope the exam is not too challenging!
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! :)
*or alternatively you could buy my notes book under 'shop' idk I think they're pretty neat ;) *
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!
Hello, I had a question about the dates in Modern History, in particular about Russia and the Russian Revolution.both will be fine, but the most common variations are February and October :)
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 :)
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!
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!
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,No worries Jess!
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).
....
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
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?
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:
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 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 guys!Hey Maria! Welcome to the forums 8)
(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??
:))
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.
Please help me break down this question :) THANK YOUUUU ~
"Account for the inability of successive Weimar governments to achieve stability to 1923"
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? :)))
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?
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 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 :)
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 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 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 :)
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 :)
Hey Guys, Could someone please post the Modern History Lecture slides from last holidays lecture??Hey Jess!
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! :)
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 ~
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!
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! :-\
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'.
- 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?
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 presidentsFor 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.
- Truman + Eisenhower together since they weren't as significant I feel?
- Kennedy
- Johnson
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 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!
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 :)
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? :)
Also how would I reference Lenin's April Theses?
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.
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)?
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!
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)
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)
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!
Hi, how many words should you write for a 25 mark essay? Are 800 words enough?
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
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 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! :)
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.
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!
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
Does anyone happen to know what the statewide average is for the national study essay? :)
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!
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
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!
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 :)))))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).
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!!
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 :)
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!!
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 :)
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
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!!
(not Ken Webb dw)i have trained you well ;)
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 ;)
guysNope! 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).
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!!
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.
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 :)
Can someone mark this..?
‘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
Can someone mark this. :)
Thanks.
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 :)
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 :)
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!
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.
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.
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?
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 :)
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
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
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? ThankyouuHey 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. :)
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. :)
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 :)
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 revolutionI 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 :)
"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
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.
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.
i dont know why but i feel like changing it to how the permanent revolution had international impactsDefinitely 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).
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 :)
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.
Yeaaah see I wanna talk about them but I only have like around 2min so I'm not sure...hahaCivil 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).
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?
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 senseIf 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!) :)
"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.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' :)
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' :)
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...
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).
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...
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!!
What is a good short definition of the permanent revolution?
Thoughts on essay ???
I'm trying to complete an ass.task, it's a speech and i need at least four historians as evidence.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.
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!
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!
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!)
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
Thankyou so much!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.
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
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...
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
For Option's Essays -- how many body paragraphs should we aim for?
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!
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!!
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
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!?).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!
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.
How would someone approach this question,
"Assess the role played by Trotsky in the timing, planning and implementation of the Bolshevik Revn/insurrection"
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 :oYou'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 :)
In dot points, what was Trotsky role in the 1917 revolutionvHey Bellerina!
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 :)
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 :)
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?
What is the recommended amount of past papers i should do (per section) before trialsAs 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 ;) )!
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?
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 :)
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.
Yep thanks Jake. I'm just a bit worried of turning it sort of into a biography.
How long should each part for the Personality section be..? :)
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!
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 belongingI imagine this is quite like how Leon Trotsky felt in 1928 :(
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!!!
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!!!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.
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).ok thx very much!! :)
Let me know what you think about the above, and I can try to come up with some more specific suggestions for you!
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.thx very much!!!
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 ::)
thx very much!!!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.
yeh... al capone would prbly be rather interesting :D
just cant make up my mind ::)
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.
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 :)thanks very much everyone!!
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??? ;)
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!!!
thankyou very much!!!
that is very, very helpful :)
Help. Meeeeee....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;
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.
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?
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?
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!!
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 :)
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!!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!
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 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
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
Hey,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;
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!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.
Ye I was at the HTA study day at Usyd just today infact
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.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 :)
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?
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.
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
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
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!
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..."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 :)
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>
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)
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?Hey! Actually going to semi disagree with jake here (sorry bro).
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 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!!
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!
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
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? ThanksHey! 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.
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?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 ;) ).
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 ;) ).Does this work for ancient as well? I might try to use some of these to memorise glossary terms, stats and quotes.
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.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!
Thanks! :)
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.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!
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.
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 :)
How, in your opinion, did the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact contribute to the growth of European tension?
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 hahaHeya! These are questions that I would recommend :) (Some of these are past paper questions, others are ones that I have made up :) )
How, in your opinion, did the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact contribute to the growth of European tension?
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 ;)
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! :)
Hey guys :)Aw no worries! So glad you enjoyed :D
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 :)
Yo I'm doing that topic - I'll give it an overview if you like.
Hey!!! ;DHey Never.Give.Up!
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
Hi Guys,Hey! So heads up - I didn't study Indochina or Ho Chi Minh, however I still may be able to offer some advice!
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 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?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."
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
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
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
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? :)
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 :)
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 -
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
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 hahaHey you'll have to know them at some point! Never any harm in getting a bit of a head start :)
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.
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).
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 !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!
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:SpoilerKey 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. :)
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:SpoilerKey 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. :)
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.
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) ?
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
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!) :)
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
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 :)
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 :DOh no, I don't mean quoting Webb, I mean he includes direct quotations from historians a lot ;D
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!) :)
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?
Oh no, I don't mean quoting Webb, I mean he includes direct quotations from historians a lot ;Dohhhhhh, 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! :)
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
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
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
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.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 SusieCan'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.
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 :)
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 driftHmmmmmm 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 :)
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 :)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!
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 :)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!
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 :)
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!
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.
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
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)
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!
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)
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 :)
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
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?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! :)
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?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 :)
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 :)
SpoilerAnd 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.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 :)
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 questionHey mixel! Lucky you, caught me right before I was heading to bed ;)
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 :)
Hey guys,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.
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 :)
Hi all,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.
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 :)
SpoilerHey! 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 :)SpoilerHow 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.
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,
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,
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
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
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
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:8. ASpoiler"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.
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
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.
Hey Jake and Susie,Hey! I might be able to help with structure :)
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 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 :)
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.
Edit: Goddammit Suddods. Always beating me to itback in the game 8)
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
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 there i got a Conflict in the Pacific essay coming up (my last internal assessment yay!)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.
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
Hey this is primarily directed at Susie, considering she did Russia for her National Study.Hey!
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! 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 :)SpoilerHow 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.
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!
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)Hi!! I'm not Jake lol but I study Germany too, so I might be able to help a bit :)
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!
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!
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
Hi!! I was wondering if anyone could please help me out with this task:Hey diesxel!
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
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 :))))))
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 :)
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.... :DHey! 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 :)
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 :)
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!
Heya!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 :)
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
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 :)
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 hahaYes, 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 :)
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? :)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).
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 :'( :-[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 :)
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).
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 :)
Please don't tell me you memorised all of that :o :o :o But nevertheless thank you so much! :)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.
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.
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?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 :)
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 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
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!
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!
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 :)
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 :)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!
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!
Please don't tell me you also memorised all those quotes in your WW1 detail table Susie... they're 3-4 sentences long! :o :oI 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.
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.
Hi Susie! I'm back to ask the Modern scholar more questions!Hey Claudia :)
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
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
Hey Susie,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 :)
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
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?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.
(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
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 :)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 :)
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 ;)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.
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.
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 :)
Yes that sounds great :)
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
Just a quick question Susie,Definitely! I think that is a very good idea, especially if they are more specific stats that are hard to keep in ya brain :)
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 :)
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 :)
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
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
hey modern fam,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 :)
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)
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 :-/
Hey Jake PLEASEE help me :(Just gonna bump this, as I'm worried its going to get lost in the current modern panic aha
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
Hey Susie,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)!
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 ://
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.What are you struggling with with Detente? Anything I can help with?
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 :-/
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)!
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 :)
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
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
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 :)
1 Weimar RepublicAhhhh 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.
– 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.
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 :)
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 hscno, i don't recommend skipping your trials aha - if it makes you feel better, I actually found HSC easier that trials :)
no, i don't recommend skipping your trials aha - if it makes you feel better, I actually found HSC easier that trials :)
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 :)
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.shtmlI 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.
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.
THANK YOU SO SO SO MUCH!!!
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
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 :)
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 :)
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
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
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 :)
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 :)
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!)Thank you all so so much!! Definitely helped clear this up :)
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 :)
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 :)
Hey Susie,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?
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!)
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 :)
Hey, is Hitler's accession to power different from his consolidation of power?
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 :)
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!
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 farMaybe 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.
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):
To what extent can Nazism in power be seen as totalitarianism in the period 1933–1939?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;
Just struggling with how to structure this answer. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated
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
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! :)
this.👏 is.👏 amazing.👏 all germany people should read this!!! congrats to you for getting 25/25 for this as well :-))
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! :)
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.)yeahhhh! Told ya it'd work ;) Great job getting 10/10 though fantasticbeasts3! That's so good, great work :)
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. :-)
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
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
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!
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.
hi germany people!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?
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
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 :)
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 :)
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)
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.
Thanks heaps for the advice!!! ;D ;D
i find it really hard to remember historians quotes, dates, events, significance etc!! ::) ???
mt
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 ;DOn 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!
i find it really hard to remember historians quotes, dates, events, significance etc!! ::) ???
mt
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.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!
- 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
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
Holly crap for something thats not convered in great depth that was so well done. Thank you xoxDepends 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.
Also why did Moscow resist bolshevik takeover and why was there so much resentment against the bolsheviks
Holly crap for something thats not convered in great depth that was so well done. Thank you xoxHey! 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!
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."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."
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 :)
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!Yeah it is 3/4 in vce
Hope this helps! Sorry I couldn't help more :(
Susie
"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."Seems like you've got your answer there! :)
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
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?"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?
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
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 lolSounds 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. :)
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.
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.
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 :/
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?
Hey guys,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!
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!
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!
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!
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 :)
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?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 :)
Thanks :)
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.
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
Hey Susie I had just one quick question about that Speer 2008 HSC Question :)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 :)
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!
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 hereI 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 :)
Hey,Hey! Welcome :D
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) :)
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:Thank you for your answer :), I think I know what I'm in for (3 hours :o)
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 abitlot 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?
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?
Thank you for your answer :), I think I know what I'm in for (3 hours :o)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 :)
Is it recommended you go in order? Or does it really depend on the individual?
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!
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!
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. :-)
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 :)
heyo historians!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 :)
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)
ok thanks ;)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 :)
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!!
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?Yes, just make sure that you don't structure it this way:
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!No worries! It is a very common mistake, but you need to make sure that your judgement from your introduction remains consistent :)
tks hps!!
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 :)
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 :)
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.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 :)
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 :)
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! 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.)Thank you so much, mixel! That's all the help I needed and more :D
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!
Hi!
Just wondering if anyone has an exemplar Personality Section response that uses General Douglas MacArthur?
Thanks!
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!
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
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 :)
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?
hey guys!Hi! I'm doing the Conflict in the Pacific study as well so hopefully I can help :)
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?
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!
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
Hello people!
Is quoting Ken Webb within your arguments not recommended? Even if it's a short and sharp bit?
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!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 ;)
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
Hello people!Just reiterating what fantasticbeasts said - NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE.
Is quoting Ken Webb within your arguments not recommended? Even if it's a short and sharp bit?
Hey! So I'm writing a Soviet Foreign Policy essay and I had some questions on how one would structure it.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.
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 Susie or anyone else that can help!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! :)
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? :)
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!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?
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?
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. 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
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.
Great :) Could you also use the eg. of how 1/174 racial defilement complaints in Wurzburg were from citizens not the gestapo?
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 Susie,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 :)
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?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 :)
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 :)
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
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!
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!
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).
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 !! :)
Hello!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 :)
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!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...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 ;)
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 guys,you almost gave me a heart attack. not kidding. my hands are shaking.
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!
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 ;)Nah you definitely don't need direct quotes - they're just a nice addition :)
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 :)
anybody have any predictions?? I really hope it's a bolshevik question this year :-XTAKE 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.
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)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)
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)
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.
Thanks for the assistance with the Gorbachev essay before!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!
I was wondering if you have any predictions for what the Germany and Cold War questions might be?
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.
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 :)
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!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.
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
(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 :)
(b) Evaluate Hitler’s role in the Nazi state between 1933 and 1939.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:
How would i go about answering this question? I don't know where to begin and any help will be very appreciated :)
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
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)
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
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.
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 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 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
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 guys,
I was wondering what your essay plan would be for this question:
"Explain Hitler's accession to power"
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 :(
Hey guys,
I was wondering what your essay plan would be for this question:
"Discuss Hitler's accession to power"
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
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 :)
Hi sudodds,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).
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 guys,Hey!
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 was doing a few personality questions before and I came across: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;
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 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!
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 :)
Hey Susie just a quick question on the personality study :)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 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: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!
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 :)
hey susie...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!
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.
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
Question!Hey! I'd suggest these events:
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! 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
Hey Susie I just had a question about the 2006 HSC WW1 Paper Source Analysis Question Three :)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!
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!
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.
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
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.
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!
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.
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!
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
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.
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
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.
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!) :)
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!
Hello people,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.
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.
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)
Has anyone got any predictions for the essays (Germany, Conflict in Europe and the Personality Study)
Thanks!
Does anyone know how they would approach a Nazism as totalitarianism question?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 :)
Thanks :)
Hi,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.
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
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 :)
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?
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!
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
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!
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!
Hey! I go through this + how to structure a response within the first video lecture! Here's the link!
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
hi everyone,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?
on a scale of 1-10, how likely do you think they'll ask for historical context for the personality study?
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! ;DHey! 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
Hey! Rodero's response was fantastic!! Highly recommend having a read :)
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?
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 Susie,Hey Marcus!
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!!
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?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 :)
Thanks :)
does it impact our marks much if we don't remember specific dates but rather just the year?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 :)
i'm finding it really hard to remember dates for all topics :o
quick last minute qHey! 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:
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! 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
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!
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
hey jst another qwik (dumb) question ::)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 :)
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 :)
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 :/
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) :)
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! 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
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
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 :-\
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!!!!!!
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 :-\
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 ;)
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!!!
GUYS WE DID IT!!YESSSSS! So glad it went well for ya :)
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!!
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.
Not that we ended up needing it but thank you!Yay!!!! That Russia question was an absolute dream - so glad you agree :)
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!
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.That is exactly how I would have answered that Cold War question! Sounds like you aced it marcus! Great work <3
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 :)
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
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!
Hi :)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!
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
Thanks for that, it might be somehow satisfactory to see the stack of responses I've done at the end too :DDefinitely 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!
Should I keep the ones I'm doing at the moment? They are fairly rusty, but should I still keep them?
Hey guys,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 :)
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 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! ^^^
hello :)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?
random question - but what is a sarde??
hello :)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!!!
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!!!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)
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???)
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)
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)
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
Would a memoir that was written in 1938 that is reflecting on what happened in 1918 be primary or secondary?I think it would depend on who wrote the memoirs. Also context.
Also, what would the audience of a memoir be?
Thanks!! ;D
I think it would depend on who wrote the memoirs. Also context.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
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 audienceI agree. Given he was the prime minister during the first part of ww1 then obiviously his memoirs would eventually be read by the public
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?
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.
Both! Their memory could also be faulty, or they now know more about the events which could have altered their opinion too.I agree that it all depends on what you think and can go either way.
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 :)
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!
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
Hey guys,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!
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!
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!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 :)
But thats just my opinion.
Hope this helps! :)
Hey guys!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)
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)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
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 lolHmmm 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 :)
Hi,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.
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!
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.
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.Hello there (I realised I may be a bit late whoops)!
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!
HEY!Hey there!
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,Not lame at all!
Pretty lame question - but would shells and gas be considered offensive or defensive weapons?
Thanks!
Not lame at all!Ok, thanks heaps!
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
HEY!Hey there!
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.
Hi,Hey! Welcome to the forums!
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.
Hi guys,Hey there!
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 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 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
Hello~Hey there!
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 :)
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 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 :)Ooh thanks! Also, do you mean 1918 instead of 1938?
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?
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 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
HEY GUYS!fb3's response is great!
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
Hello,Hey,
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!
Thank you sooo much for the help, means soo much!
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!
Hello,Hey! Welcome to the forums! :)
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, 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
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
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, 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
TO WHAT EXTENT DID THE TREATY OF VERSAILLES HAVE THE GREATEST IMPACT ON THE DOWNFALL OF THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC?Hey there,
Political Impacts: I need help writing this paragraph if someone could suggest some ways writing it that would be awesome!
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!Hey thanks for that :D
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 :DYeah, you could go with that! :)
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
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!
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 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
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!
Hey Guys,
How many words would be suitable for a 25 marker? - a rough estimate would be great
Thanks in advance!
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!
Hey guys,That's really strange. Our structure has been rather normal.
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!!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).
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!
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!)
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).
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 Guys,Hey! I had a quick scan over, and it doesn't look too bad, but there's always tweaking to be done!
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?
................
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!One thing I'm struggling with it the economic part - how would nationalism tie into economic?
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?
Hi!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.
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 _____ (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 guys,Could you argue that she used her movies as an expression of her femimist ideals?
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 :)
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 hereTO 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 governmentwherebypower and all aspects of state affairs were in the hands of one party and its charismatic leaderthat 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 repressionthrough 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 wasessentiallyemployed 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 ofThe radio was an essential tool that was developed in order to be employed for propagandain industrialising Germany as itwhich had a significant impact upon citizens of Germany. Goebbels realised the capabilities of the radio and developed thepeople’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 turnupholding 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 lolFounded 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. Himmlersupports this as hestated 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 lifethrough 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 throughtheGleichschaltungperiod, 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 theHitler youth leagueHitler Jugend andtheits female equivalent,the league of German girlsBund Deutscher Mädel, to control and shapethe entire youth of the nationGerman 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 averytraditional 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 theFor example, the Edelweiss Pirates, aggressively opposed Nazi ideology. Furthermore, some religions tried to stand against Hitler, especially the Protestant clergywho recognised the confessional church,neverthelessbut 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 creatingmaking 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.
Hey Guys,Hey!
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 Guys,Hey there,
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 Guys,Hey there,
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 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>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?
So you can see there I referenced the primary source first and then where it was found in... hope that makes sense? :)
Hey Guys,Hey!
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.
Hope this helps!
Good luck! ;D
Thank you soo much, honestly means a lot.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!
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.
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!
Firstly, thanks for the help!!!!
Secondly, are there any specific events you would suggest I should talk about?
Hey !!Hey there!
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 !!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
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 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.’[/u][/i]
To what extent does this statement apply to the personality you have studied?
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 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.’[/u][/i]
To what extent does this statement apply to the personality you have studied?
-snip-
Thank you soo much for the advice henrychapman and fantasticbeasts.I like this intro, i can see how you've implemented the feedback and its nicey done!
By any chance would you mind reading my updated introduction:‘To be significant, an individual must contribute to change.’[/b][/i]
To what extent does this statement apply to the personality you have studied?
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.
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!
Hence, Speer made a significant contribution to the war effort through his role as Minister of Armaments.
Thank you soo much Mazda438 for the advice!!!! Honestly means a lotThat's really starting to come together!
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.
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.
That's really starting to come together!
Now its time to consturct the rest of your paragraphs!
No worries!
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 :)
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.
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.
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.
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 ;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! ;DSpoilerIt 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!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.SpoilerIt 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.
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 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!
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 my comments are in the spoiler!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.SpoilerIt 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.
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 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 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 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! ;)
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!! :)
Hey Guys,Hey!
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!!
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.’[/b][/i]
To what extent does this statement apply to the personality you have studied?
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.
Hi guys,Hey ! I just did a speech on Leni Riefenstahl, so could certainly be of assistance to you.
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 :)
Yeah should be able to!
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.
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.
Hi! I'm really struggling to work out how to answer the following question and how to structure:Was it? Was it a long-term plan or not? What do you think?
"'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)
Hi,Hey!
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 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."
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".
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.Hey!
The statement is "To what extent was conflict in Europe a result of the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact".
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.Hey there,
The statement is "To what extent was conflict in Europe a result of the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact".
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.Hey there,
The statement is "To what extent was conflict in Europe a result of the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact".
Hello,
I was wondering how long the personality responses should be, both part a and part b?
Thank you.
Hi,
For Core WWI, if our exam is on trench warfare, would we talk about weaponry and gas??
Thanks
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,Hey there,
For Core WWI, if our exam is on trench warfare, would we talk about weaponry and gas??
Thanks
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!So would it be worth to talk about the Night of the Long Knives as a paragraph on its own?
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?
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!
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!
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.
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?
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.
Edit: damn owidjaja beat me to it by 43 seconds cyaAlways 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
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,It would depend i reckon. Because if you're talking about it from a global perspective then yes.
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??
PLEASE HELP!!! Kind of urgent.Hey!
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.
Hi Mada438If 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!
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.
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 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.
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!
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
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 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?
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.
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, 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 :)
hello,Hey!
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!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.
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!
Would any preliminary content be tested in the HSC for Modern History?
Hey guys,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.
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 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.
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).
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.
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?
Hey guys,Hey!
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
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.
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?
hi! does anyone have predictions on what the questions will be for russia and cold war?
wouldn't it be unfair for a gorbachev question to pop up esp since he's under the personality study?
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-
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:Hey there,
To what extend did the collapse of the Weimar Republic contribute to the rise and successful consolidation of power of the Nazi Regime.
"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. "
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??
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 :-)
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 advanceHey there,
Hi everyone :)
How do i form a well articulated response about whether a certain historical figure was a hero or not?
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!
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 :-)
Anyone know any good podcasts for Nazi germany, Russia, Conflict in Europe or Chinese Cultural RevolutionHey there,
Cheers, Jack
Hello There!Hey 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!
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.
Hi guys :)Hey there,
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
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
Hi all,Hey there,
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 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!
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!
Hi all,Hey there,
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 everyone,Hey there,
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!
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?Hey there,
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!
All good! Do you happen to know of any key things to include in my USSR paragraph?Hey there,
Thanks for your help!
Hey everyone,Hey there,
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! ;)
Hello there!Hey there,
Just wondering, is it necessary to include historians in your option essays (national studies, conflict and peace etc) for trials? Thanks in advance.
May be a silly question,Hey there,
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, 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
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?
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!
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?
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.
you should also discuss another event such as the Guadalcanal Campaign of 1942–43 from the perspective of the US.
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! 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 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 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!
snip
snip
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?
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?
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.