VCE History Revolutions Question Thread

[TheCommando]

VCE HISTORY: REVOLUTIONS Q&A THREAD

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


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

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

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


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

OTHER REVS RESOURCES

CLICK ME!

* VCE Revolutions Resources
* History: Revolutions - How to Maximise Your Marks
* 5 Ways I Got 40+ in Revs
* Historians Quotes. (French, Russian, American, Chinese)

Original post.

Feel free to leave a question about the French or Hstory revolutions and it will be answered by any members of the forum. This is benificial as you can learn from other people's questions as well as strengthening your knowledge by answering them or learning them. Weather your to shy to ask all your questions in class or your teacher doesnt respond to your emails this is a perfect place to ask

[vox nihili]

That way it will help us more and make this forum section more active

There you go, this is now the revs question thread

[TheCommando]

There you go, this is now the revs question thread

Legend

[TheCommando]

In regards to the Enlightenment, if the point of the enlightenment was to critisise the ancient regime which would indirectly mean it would weaken pirvledge as it was agaisnt it, why did Nobilities participate in these discussions if it questioned their privledges and wealthy which they enjoyed and wanted to keep?

How was their a growth of the burgoisese (dont know how to spell it) when there were falling crop prices? Is it because they had business from privledged estates from them becomings tradesmans etc?

[Coffee]

In regards to the Enlightenment, if the point of the enlightenment was to critisise the ancient regime which would indirectly mean it would weaken pirvledge as it was agaisnt it, why did Nobilities participate in these discussions if it questioned their privledges and wealthy which they enjoyed and wanted to keep?

How was their a growth of the burgoisese (dont know how to spell it) when there were falling crop prices? Is it because they had business from privledged estates from them becomings tradesmans etc?

Hey Commando!

I think the key point here is that not all nobles enjoyed and wanted to keep these privileges. There was a small minority of nobles - 'liberal nobles' - that weren't happy with the current system. These nobles looked towards England as a model of what France ought to become, i.e. a constitutional monarchy. Essentially, they learnt to challenge these traditional structures and to believe that a better society was possible.

There were actually instances of nobles 'giving up' their feudal rights and privileges. This led to the abolition of feudalism entirely on August 4th, 1789.

Quite a few historians have touched on this subject, so it's worth having a read around for anything of significance! I'll leave you with this quote from Doyle which I think explains it quite well:

"For a group which constituted such a tiny proportion of the nation, in fact, the nobility played a disproportionately large role in its cultural and intellectual life; and in so doing they helped to elaborate many of the ideas which were to inspire the revolutionaries of 1789 and the ensuring decade. In 1788, this 'liberal' minority, many of whom had their minds opened by what they had seen while serving against the British in America, viewed the collapse of the old government as an opportunity to introduce reforms and innovations that they had been talking and dreaming about for years." Origins of the French Revolution, 127.

In regards to your second question, I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Could you maybe elaborate?

[TheCommando]

love you man
But why wouldnt you want thoose privledges? Was it because thoose liberal nobles were aware of the problems of the anciene regime sparked by the enlightenment ideas or was it because they wanted a constitutional monarchy. I think a good example was Lafayette who saw the American indepedency, what was it again

For the second question, there was said to be a growth in the burgeoise, meaning that more people known as the burgoise from the third estate became richer. How did this happen when the nation was starving due to sky rocketing break proces and failing crops

[K888]

Just wanting to bump this for any Revs students out there who might be wanting some help or advice


I'm happy to help with questions about the Chinese and Russian revolutions

[madic]

Regarding the exam on a general level, how do you/did you chose what you would memorise historian's interpretations for?

At the UniMelb VCE Winter School a lecturer recommended 2 for each thing listed on the study design, but this just seems overwhelming. Especially since I haven't really found many sticking due to knowing the confines of both of my AOS1 SACS (e.g. for Source Analysis we were told 5 possible topics the SAC could be one, so I memorised a couple of quotes for each).

I'm doing America and China if that is of any help.

Really any help regarding memorising historians would be fantastic!!

[K888]

Regarding the exam on a general level, how do you/did you chose what you would memorise historian's interpretations for?

At the UniMelb VCE Winter School a lecturer recommended 2 for each thing listed on the study design, but this just seems overwhelming. Especially since I haven't really found many sticking due to knowing the confines of both of my AOS1 SACS (e.g. for Source Analysis we were told 5 possible topics the SAC could be one, so I memorised a couple of quotes for each).

I'm doing America and China if that is of any help.

Really any help regarding memorising historians would be fantastic!!

Hi there madic! So, not sure how useful my advice will be given I did Revs with the old study design, but I'll try my best.

Can only speak for China, but the historian's interpretations/quotes I remembered were selected by my teacher, and there was generally about 3-5 quotes per block of years (i.e. for China: 1949-1953, 1954-1957, 1958-1961, 1962-1965 and 1966-1976).
My teacher's tips was to just remember a small quote that you could incorporate into your response - no need to remember a really long quote that will be hard to insert into your sentence

In terms of tips for memorisation - writing out the quotes a lot can help, I also put the quotes in a powerpoint (with the stem of the quote showing and me needing to press the spacebar to show the rest of the quote) and went through that heaps of times Associating the quote with a picture helped as well. It worked even better if the picture was a bit quirky or silly
You'll also find that as you write more and more practice pieces, the historian's interpretations become an automatic thing you remember. And, if all else fails, as long as you remember the general gist, that's better than nothing.

Really, there's no magic number of interpretations to remember - just make sure you know enough for you to be writing good quality responses

Oh, and I narrowed down the amount of interpretations I had to remember by going through all the past exams of the study design and predicting what time period the question I needed historiography (d. response of doc study for me, not sure what it's like on the new study design) for would be. Probably a bit hard with a study design that's only 2 years old though, unfortunately.

Hope that this helped!

[patriciarose]

Regarding the exam on a general level, how do you/did you chose what you would memorise historian's interpretations for?

At the UniMelb VCE Winter School a lecturer recommended 2 for each thing listed on the study design, but this just seems overwhelming. Especially since I haven't really found many sticking due to knowing the confines of both of my AOS1 SACS (e.g. for Source Analysis we were told 5 possible topics the SAC could be one, so I memorised a couple of quotes for each).

I'm doing America and China if that is of any help.

Really any help regarding memorising historians would be fantastic!!

you don't need historians for a + b questions, which does cut down the memorising, but you 100% do for c's, extended response questions and essays. idk if you need one for EVERY dot point (that might be super time consuming to remember), but there are some topics you just know you'll probably be writing on (stamp act, boston massacre, tea party, etc) because they're pretty important, so it'd be good to have a historian for each of those big ones. there's not necessarily a need for two historians per event if you have primary quotes + evidence as well (: you can generally tell what the 'big' events are because when you get a topic, it'll be those that come to mind initially, and they'll be relevant for a lot of questions. learn ones for the bigger events and then a few general ones (john adams' whole "revolution was in the hearts and minds of the people" thing is pretty amazing it's so versatile omg) in case you end up talking about something you don't have anything for, and you should be alright.

the way i memorise them is just using them tbh! make sure they're fairly short and put them into responses for the particular event until they come naturally when you start writing. and while you're getting used to that, having them on a stickynote on your desktop screen is kind of helpful because they pop up all the time. but some people i know use flashcards, or quizlet – seems kind of annoying to me but it's apparently pretty effective. (:

[TheCommando]

For the russian revolution (haventt studied tthe 1917 revolution) but why did the bolshevicks attack kournalov and agree to do what kerensky said if he was apart of the provisional govt

[patriciarose]

For the russian revolution (haventt studied tthe 1917 revolution) but why did the bolshevicks attack kournalov and agree to do what kerensky said if he was apart of the provisional govt

kornilov was basically attempting to establish martial law in russia, so dispose of the provisional government and rule it instead using the military (which would've effectively just been him ruling since he was the supreme commander at the time). though it can be argued he just misinterpreted an order from kerensky haha. it would have been counterproductive for the bolsheviks to allow the provisional government to be toppled (by anyone other than themselves, that is) because they were made much stronger by the government and military being at odds with each other. they had a better chance of overthrowing the provisional government than the whole army, basically.
also, kerensky literally offered to arm them with weapons which they later could (and did) use to overthrow him, and it wasn't a big risk for bolshevik supporters because the Soviets controlled the railways, so they could just prevent the trains from getting through. no need for fighting and losing numbers when the vast majority of kornilov's forces could be stopped at the stations haha.
aside from all the practical things, the whole affair highlights quite clearly where the real power was in petrograd: the provisional government couldn't defend the city, but the bolsheviks could. that's pretty powerful propaganda. (:

tl/dr: martial law would have been harder to overthrow than just the provisional government, the bolsheviks got a lot of weaponry out of the agreement, and also made themselves look strong af. (:

[Help.Me.]

Unsure about a few dot points in the study design for the Russian Revolution:
1. How did the formation of the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks contribute to the outbreak of revolution?
2. How did the dual authority contribute to the outbreak of revolution?
3. What is liberal reformism and revolutionary populsim and how did it challenge the existing order?

Any help is appreciated, thanks! 

[patriciarose]

Unsure about a few dot points in the study design for the Russian Revolution:
1. How did the formation of the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks contribute to the outbreak of revolution?
2. How did the dual authority contribute to the outbreak of revolution?
3. What is liberal reformism and revolutionary populsim and how did it challenge the existing order?

Any help is appreciated, thanks! 

1. both of them were fairly radical factions that were much more ready for a people's revolution when compared to others at the time, like the kadets, who were only angling for a constitutional monarchy. the mensheviks and bolsheviks basically offered to give the power to the people, which is a pretty compelling argument when you're a peasant or factory worker in tsarist russia with no control over your situation. so their formation gave the people a rallying point, organisation for their discomfort in regards to autocracy, and a more directed agenda (not so much in 1905, but definitely in 1917).

2 – dual authority meant that the provisional government had 'authority without power' and the petrograd soviet had 'power without authority.' because of this split, neither had enough control to enact any reform or social change, nor were they particularly ready to work together. therefore the issues plaguing society prior to the feb revolution (aka economic crisis, whole involvement in wwi situation, etc) weren't resolved, which meant that the people were still receptive to the idea of revolution: if the provisional government couldn't feed and protect them, then somebody ELSE would have to – there was no reason for the revolutionary sentiment to lessen.

3. liberal reformism is not something i really have an adequate definition/explanation for, sorry. it's basically just what it says on the tin honestly: the reformists supported modern reform in russian society, which challenged the existing society because implementing reforms within the constraints of autocracy is pretty difficult to do without undermining tsarism itself. nicholas ii was also notoriously against reforms because he liked having a little bit of control of everything, so not only did the concept challenge the autocratic system, it challenged the tsar, if that makes sense?

revolutionary populism is a weird movement to describe: the populists were pretty much solely composed of the intelligentsia and believed that revolution would have to be generated organically by the people, specifically the peasant class. (and then they went out and told the peasants that and the peasants ignored them, yup. but the populists were the people behind 'the people's will,' so they did have one big moment when they managed to assassinate tsar alexander ii! which is cool for them but also not part of our study design so nobody really cares that much tbh.) again, challenged the existing order because ... you can't have a socialist revolution and not impact the autocracy. it was challenged by the belief of these educated (that's pretty important) people that the peasants should be able to have the control that was currently resting with the tsar – there's not really any middle ground there omg. hopefully that's not super confusing? i've got much clearer definitions in my notes at school oops, so i might edit those in tomorrow (:

[Help.Me.]

1. both of them were fairly radical factions that were much more ready for a people's revolution when compared to others at the time, like the kadets, who were only angling for a constitutional monarchy. the mensheviks and bolsheviks basically offered to give the power to the people, which is a pretty compelling argument when you're a peasant or factory worker in tsarist russia with no control over your situation. so their formation gave the people a rallying point, organisation for their discomfort in regards to autocracy, and a more directed agenda (not so much in 1905, but definitely in 1917).

2 – dual authority meant that the provisional government had 'authority without power' and the petrograd soviet had 'power without authority.' because of this split, neither had enough control to enact any reform or social change, nor were they particularly ready to work together. therefore the issues plaguing society prior to the feb revolution (aka economic crisis, whole involvement in wwi situation, etc) weren't resolved, which meant that the people were still receptive to the idea of revolution: if the provisional government couldn't feed and protect them, then somebody ELSE would have to – there was no reason for the revolutionary sentiment to lessen.

3. liberal reformism is not something i really have an adequate definition/explanation for, sorry. it's basically just what it says on the tin honestly: the reformists supported modern reform in russian society, which challenged the existing society because implementing reforms within the constraints of autocracy is pretty difficult to do without undermining tsarism itself. nicholas ii was also notoriously against reforms because he liked having a little bit of control of everything, so not only did the concept challenge the autocratic system, it challenged the tsar, if that makes sense?

revolutionary populism is a weird movement to describe: the populists were pretty much solely composed of the intelligentsia and believed that revolution would have to be generated organically by the people, specifically the peasant class. (and then they went out and told the peasants that and the peasants ignored them, yup. but the populists were the people behind 'the people's will,' so they did have one big moment when they managed to assassinate tsar alexander ii! which is cool for them but also not part of our study design so nobody really cares that much tbh.) again, challenged the existing order because ... you can't have a socialist revolution and not impact the autocracy. it was challenged by the belief of these educated (that's pretty important) people that the peasants should be able to have the control that was currently resting with the tsar – there's not really any middle ground there omg. hopefully that's not super confusing? i've got much clearer definitions in my notes at school oops, so i might edit those in tomorrow (:

Thank you!