HSC Modern History Question Thread

[dancing phalanges]

Hey guys,
Just a question on referencing: if we were to use a primary source from a textbook, do you reference the primary source or the textbook?

Hey typically (at uni at least now) we reference the primary source and where we found it in e.g. Aelst, V. & Laer, V. 2010, ‘Cyber-protest and civil society: The internet and action repertoires in social movements’, in Y. Jewkes & M. Yar (ed.), Handbook of internet crime, Wilan, Oregon, viewed 27 April 2018, <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13691181003628307?needAccess=true>

So you can see there I referenced the primary source first and then where it was found in... hope that makes sense?

[owidjaja]

Hey typically (at uni at least now) we reference the primary source and where we found it in e.g. Aelst, V. & Laer, V. 2010, ‘Cyber-protest and civil society: The internet and action repertoires in social movements’, in Y. Jewkes & M. Yar (ed.), Handbook of internet crime, Wilan, Oregon, viewed 27 April 2018, <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13691181003628307?needAccess=true>

So you can see there I referenced the primary source first and then where it was found in... hope that makes sense?

What if I were to in-text reference it in my essay? From my experiences with in-text referencing, the structure is usually Author Surname, Year of Publication, page date (if there is one). How do I indicate that the primary source was taken from a secondary source in my in-text reference?

[joemassoud]

Hey Guys,

I have this oral presentation I need to complete on the following question:

‘To be significant, an individual must contribute to change.’ To what extent does this statement apply to the personality (Albert Speer) you have studied?

I am struggling with what to talk about. Any help would be awesome!

Thanks in advance!

[Mada438]

Hey Guys,

I have this oral presentation I need to complete on the following question:

‘To be significant, an individual must contribute to change.’ To what extent does this statement apply to the personality (Albert Speer) you have studied?

I am struggling with what to talk about. Any help would be awesome!

Thanks in advance!

Hey!
So to help you out, i do believe this statement applies to Albert Speer because in general terms if someone just follows the status quo they're not going to be noticed. Like if Speers contribution was to the status quo: "his architectural work and use of slave labour which was built upon pre-existing values of anti-Semitism and permanence from Nazi ideology" then he would've not been as important.
Imagine this...Someone asks "who was Albert speer" and someone replies "oh he was a good architect who was a close mate of Hitlers who subtly was anti-semitic (this is what i believe through his use of slave labour and his careful selection of the living spaces of Jews only to knock down).

But no, Albert Speer was important because he contributed to change. For two reasons i believe:
1: Keeping the Germans in the war for longer, thus potentially changing some of the short and long term outcomes.
2: His admition to the wrongs of the Third Reich during the Nuremburg trials

To expand on this: Speer kept Germany in the war for a few extra years. When the Soviets stopped the Germans near Moscow and with the United States now entering the war, the Germans idea of waging Blitzkrieg was coming to an end. Faced with a long lasting two-front war with two superpowers, Germany had to significantly increase its armaments production to cope.
This table shows the increase in German armaments production before and during Speers time as the minister; as well as this one

To summarise this:
 97% increase in ammunition Production
Tank production up 25%
Overall arms production up 59%
(Itis important to include some facts to back yourself up to make your essay stand out)
Part of the Speer legacy is the way his control of the armaments industry kept Germany in the war for longer.

And for number 2: Another way he contributed to change: His acknowledgement of the atrocities of the Reich at the Nuremberg Trials
By admitting to this, he changed the generalisations (that all Nazis were inherently evil and could not acknowledge what had happened) by admitting to what the Reich had done. This was also a change, as it changed the perceptions and generalisations made about all Nazis by displaying empathetic thought and acknowledgement.
This is part of the reason why Speer is so well remembered today.

If Speer had not contributed to these two changes, it can be argued that he would not have been as significant.

Hope this helps!
Good luck! 

[joemassoud]

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! 

Thank you soo much, honestly means a lot.

Just one question, how should I structure my response? - sorry if I'm being a pain.

[sudodds]

Thank you soo much, honestly means a lot.

Just one question, how should I structure my response? - sorry if I'm being a pain.

Hey! When it comes to the personality study, I alway recommend structuring your response according to the key events and issues referenced on the syllabus. It makes it SUPER easy for the marker (if they aren't a teacher who teaches Speer, all they will have to go by is the syllabus, as the marking criteria is afaia NOT personality specific). Furthermore, events are just super easy to assert a personalities significance, as their significance is usually derived from their participation (or potentially, lack of participation) in these key events!

[joemassoud]

Hey! When it comes to the personality study, I alway recommend structuring your response according to the key events and issues referenced on the syllabus.

Firstly, thanks for the help!!!!

Secondly, are there any specific events you would suggest I should talk about?

[sudodds]

Firstly, thanks for the help!!!!

Secondly, are there any specific events you would suggest I should talk about?

Any of the ones from the 'Evaluation' section of the syllabus should work! Though for a question like that, I'd say that the Nuremburg Trials would definitely be something good to mention, either as a dedicated paragraph, or by integrating his defence throughout!

[zayyy]

Hey !!

I'm a year 11 student, and I have just got my historical investigation assessment, but we have to present it in an interactive seminar and I was wondering if you had any tips on that??  Or even ideas, I don't know where to begin Also, I'm having trouble coming up with a focus question, and even choosing a topic/personality (I'm leaning towards Fidel Castro), but I'm just not sure.

thank you so much !!!

[owidjaja]

Hey !!

I'm a year 11 student, and I have just got my historical investigation assessment, but we have to present it in an interactive seminar and I was wondering if you had any tips on that??  Or even ideas, I don't know where to begin Also, I'm having trouble coming up with a focus question, and even choosing a topic/personality (I'm leaning towards Fidel Castro), but I'm just not sure.

thank you so much !!!

Hey there!
Omg I remember doing the History Project (I did mine on the Romanovs). I'm not sure how your school is doing it but for us, we had to come up with two essay questions (a 'describe' and 'assess' questions) and submit two essays. Here's how I would suggest approaching the task:

1. Pick a topic.
Unfortunately you can't go past anywhere until you have a starting point. You said you're leaning towards Fidel Castro- that's an interesting topic! As long as you like the topic, you're more than willing to research it. Just make sure it's not on the HSC syllabus because they won't let you do a HSC topic since you'll get a 'head start.' And to be honest, I changed my topic a few times. I went from Napoleonic Wars, to Unification of Prussia, to Indonesian Independence, before going to the Romanovs. But if you're struggling to come up with a topic, take a look at the previous Modern History syllabus and see if there were any topics that piqued your interest. Or maybe take a look at the Prelim syllabus and choose a topic that your class hasn't or won't be covering. You should be choosing your topic because you're interested in it.

2. Do some background reading.
By this, I mean do some light research. Using Fidel Castro as an example, maybe look in to, what he did? What period of time was he around? Any biographical details? Anything interesting happening to Castro? Even just skimming through a biography.com website or even googling him and reading the Wikipedia snippet you get in your search results can help you get an idea of who he was, or what he did. This applies to if you wanna do an event- look at when it occurred, who were the main people involved etc.

3. Coming up with focus question(s).
You shouldn't be coming up with focus questions until you're comfortable with your chosen topic, hence my suggestion on background reading. If you know you're gonna do Fidel Castro (or any other topic), use your background knowledge of him to give yourself a direction. So my 'describe' question was: describe the climate in Russia during the reign of Tsar Nicholas II. Nice and simple. See how my question gives me a direction in where I should go? This means when I do my research, I should look for common themes between my information and see if I can categorise them in themes. I structured my essay by social, political and economic climate. My 'assess' question was: assess the fact that the fall of the Romanov dynasty was inevitable. Coming up with an 'assess' question was more challenging since I had to use my information and again, see any common themes. I could've done 'assess the impacts of Tsar Nicholas II.' However, my question was more challenging because it came from my idea of 'What if the Romanov dynasty didn't fall apart?' I was interested in answering this question, so I turned it into an 'assess' question.

When it comes to your focus question(s), it should be based on where you wanna go and a question that YOU wanna answer because you're interested in the topic.

4. Research. Research. RESEARCH.
Here comes the inevitable part of the investigation. Researching. Don't limit yourself to books and journal articles- look at Youtube videos, documentaries, podcasts. There are so many sources out there you can actually include in your reference list! For example, I used to put down Youtube videos as just 'Youtube videos' in my reference list and tbh, it doesn't look too nice because of the reputation Youtube has. But these days, I put it under 'video file'- it sounds more professional and doesn't sound too informal. And DON'T FORGET TO TAKE NOTES! I still keep my two plastic sleeves of notes and photocopies from textbooks. This makes things easier when you're planning out your essay (or however you wanna present your information).

5. Pulling things together.
I would suggest planning when doing this part. Go back through your notes and see if there is any relationship between events. Going back to my example, I actually did some research on the previous Tsars to see if there was any reason why Russia was falling apart by the time Tsar Nicholas II came to power. My first argument started off with Tsar Alexander II's reformations because it allowed more people to be more educated and freed the serfs, which then linked with the fact that more educated people = realisation that autocracy wasn't the way to go, then talked about the Russo-Japanese war etc. Essentially, my thesis was that the fall was inevitable because of an accumulation of factors.

Maybe Fidel Castro (or whoever you choose) may not work out like mine did, but it's good to see if there is a relationship between events. Maybe even go back and see if there were any issues in Cuba prior to Castro's ascension to power and see if that affected him in any shape or form.

Anyways, I think I babbled on too much, but I hope this helps!

[Mada438]

Hey !!

I'm a year 11 student, and I have just got my historical investigation assessment, but we have to present it in an interactive seminar and I was wondering if you had any tips on that??  Or even ideas, I don't know where to begin Also, I'm having trouble coming up with a focus question, and even choosing a topic/personality (I'm leaning towards Fidel Castro), but I'm just not sure.

thank you so much !!!

Owidjaja's pretty much answered it all here, but I'm going to throw my hat into the ring even if i somewhat reiterate what she already said
Ahhhhhhh i remember doing the year 11 investigation. What a good time

I agree i did change my topic heaps as well; it can be very difficult to settle onto something.
So pretty much what i did was i picked an area i was interested in (which it sounds like you did with Fidel), but then i had to refine it. I initially said "well i want to do an essay looking at politics" well that's great, but that's a rather large area. So then i set about finding a smaller area within politics.
For me, i followed right-wing political movements to see where they were emerging. I can't really stand the political right and they had seen a resurgence in recent years. So from that smaller area, you then have to find a niche. For me, it was researching why they had risen again. That meant looking at the factors.
So now i knew what type of topic i was researching, now i had to develop that into a type of essay (using an essay word like explain, evaluate)
You should only do this once you definiteively know your niche topic you're doing as some essay words will fit better than others; so find the one that best fits what you're trying to argue (remember, this investigation is about what YOU want to do. Make it work for you, not the other way around). I chose describe because i thought that was the easiest way for me to convey my point.
So my final question was "Describe the factors contributing to the rise of populist radical right in Western Europe since the 1990s"

Good luck
Hope this helps! 

[joemassoud]

Hey Guys,

I have this oral presentation on the following question. If anyone can help me out in anyway that would be great!

‘To be significant, an individual must contribute to change.’

To what extent does this statement apply to the personality you have studied?

[/u][/i]

INTRODUCTION:
Contribution to change is an essential element in being historically significant to a great extent. Albert Speer not only impacted on his immediate Nazi context and the course of the war, but indeed, the societal understanding of his own character and the Nazi legacy itself. Throughout this presentation it will be argued that Speer’s impact was no limited to simply the Nazi movement and the second world war, rather his contribution to change extends to the progression of the ripple effects of these events and the writing of history itself. Roadmap of ideas: (I'm having trouble introducing my ideas correctly)
- Prolonged the war war
- NUREMBERG TRIALS
- Writing ‘inside the third reich’

PARAGRAPH #1: PROLONGED THE WAR - for my first paragraph I am having trouble merging the following ideas together:

When the Soviets stopped the Germans near Moscow and with the United States now entering the war, the Germans idea of waging Blitzkrieg was coming to an end. Faced with a long lasting two-front war with two superpowers, Germany had to significantly increase its armaments production to cope. Under Speer’s power as the Minister of Armaments, he significantly increased Germany's ability to fight back against the Allies in the war by rationalising the war productions and resource allocation throughout the nation, minimising waste and limited the misallocation of resources. Essentially, through Speer’s implementation of a system of specialisation in the production of all resources, he thereby as Sereny suggested “was single-handedly responsible for the improvement of the economy.” Additionally, it is speculated that his reorganisation of the economy was so effective that Speer actually extended the Nazi’s ability to fight in the second world war by up to two years.

As Minister of Armaments in World War Two from 1942 onwards, Speer reformed the armaments industry to maximise production efficiency. Speer stated of his own contribution through his position as Minister of Armaments, “I prolonged that war by many months.” Although the architect had very limited knowledge of the industry, he had expert organisational skills. In the first six months of Speer’s appointment in this position, production of guns increased by 27%, ammunition production increased by 97% and tank production increased by 25%. Between 1942 and 1944, labour productivity per worker increased by over 100%. The re-organisation of the industry is partially responsible for this increase. The new business structure for the entire armament industry was to be based on a system of committees and rings. The different committees represented a form of weaponry and the rings represented the raw materials and parts needed to make the weapons. This new system ensured that each factory produced only one type of weapon at the highest possible refinement, causing a maintained peak of efficiency and productivity. The other major reform to the industry was the implementation of a Central Planning Board. Before the Board’s introduction, the army, navy and air force struggled to divide materials in any effective way. Speer’s introduction of the Central Planning Board is a significant contribution to the armaments industry as each branch of the military was responsible for its own weaponry design and production. Thus, the competition between the three branches was decreased and efficiency of production was in the best interests of the responsible branch. Hence, Speer made a significant contribution to the war effort through his role as Minister of Armaments.

[henrychapman]

Hey Guys,

I have this oral presentation on the following question. If anyone can help me out in anyway that would be great!

‘To be significant, an individual must contribute to change.’

To what extent does this statement apply to the personality you have studied?

[/u][/i]

INTRODUCTION:
Contribution to change is an essential element in being historically significant to a great extent. Albert Speer not only impacted on his immediate Nazi context and the course of the war, but indeed, the societal understanding of his own character and the Nazi legacy itself. Throughout this presentation it will be argued that Speer’s impact was no limited to simply the Nazi movement and the second world war, rather his contribution to change extends to the progression of the ripple effects of these events and the writing of history itself. Roadmap of ideas: (I'm having trouble introducing my ideas correctly)
- Prolonged the war war
- NUREMBERG TRIALS
- Writing ‘inside the third reich’

PARAGRAPH #1: PROLONGED THE WAR - for my first paragraph I am having trouble merging the following ideas together:

When the Soviets stopped the Germans near Moscow and with the United States now entering the war, the Germans idea of waging Blitzkrieg was coming to an end. Faced with a long lasting two-front war with two superpowers, Germany had to significantly increase its armaments production to cope. Under Speer’s power as the Minister of Armaments, he significantly increased Germany's ability to fight back against the Allies in the war by rationalising the war productions and resource allocation throughout the nation, minimising waste and limited the misallocation of resources. Essentially, through Speer’s implementation of a system of specialisation in the production of all resources, he thereby as Sereny suggested “was single-handedly responsible for the improvement of the economy.” Additionally, it is speculated that his reorganisation of the economy was so effective that Speer actually extended the Nazi’s ability to fight in the second world war by up to two years.

As Minister of Armaments in World War Two from 1942 onwards, Speer reformed the armaments industry to maximise production efficiency. Speer stated of his own contribution through his position as Minister of Armaments, “I prolonged that war by many months.” Although the architect had very limited knowledge of the industry, he had expert organisational skills. In the first six months of Speer’s appointment in this position, production of guns increased by 27%, ammunition production increased by 97% and tank production increased by 25%. Between 1942 and 1944, labour productivity per worker increased by over 100%. The re-organisation of the industry is partially responsible for this increase. The new business structure for the entire armament industry was to be based on a system of committees and rings. The different committees represented a form of weaponry and the rings represented the raw materials and parts needed to make the weapons. This new system ensured that each factory produced only one type of weapon at the highest possible refinement, causing a maintained peak of efficiency and productivity. The other major reform to the industry was the implementation of a Central Planning Board. Before the Board’s introduction, the army, navy and air force struggled to divide materials in any effective way. Speer’s introduction of the Central Planning Board is a significant contribution to the armaments industry as each branch of the military was responsible for its own weaponry design and production. Thus, the competition between the three branches was decreased and efficiency of production was in the best interests of the responsible branch. Hence, Speer made a significant contribution to the war effort through his role as Minister of Armaments.

Hey,
I just had an oral presentation for modern history too, except it was on Leni Riefenstahl. Not the same personality, but the same ballpark given they were both in Nazi Germany. My question was "People's actions are a consequence of their surroundings," so slighty different to yours.
My biggest tip would be to really focus on answering the question, rather then rattling off all that you know about the period, because your speech will end up being a bit of a recount and history teachers hate that. I think its important obviously to set up the time period to show how Speer then contributed to change and thus became signifcant. What I would also reccommend is a integration of historiography to further substantiate your point. So, find what others have said about Speer, not only will this give much more gravitas to your speech but you'll show the marker that you know what you're on about in terms of hitting the marking criteria which probably has a historiography concept in it.I think you've linked to the question really well at the end of your paragraphs but ensure you are continually answering it throughout, rather then just providing a description of events at the time. It looks like you have a really good knowledge of the content which is half the battle so keep it up !
Two main things:
1) ensure you're answering the question throughout
2) integrate what people say about Speer

[fantasticbeasts3]

Hey Guys,

I have this oral presentation on the following question. If anyone can help me out in anyway that would be great!

‘To be significant, an individual must contribute to change.’

To what extent does this statement apply to the personality you have studied?

[/u][/i]
-snip-

Hey, henrychapman has made some really great comments - highly recommend you use his feedback bc it's awesome. :-)

I didn't do Speer as my personality study so I can't make any comments on content.

My thoughts are in the spoiler below:

Spoiler

INTRODUCTION:
To a great extent, contribution to change is an essential element in being historically significant to a great extentI feel like if you put "to a great extent at the beginning it would sound a little better - more articulate and flows just that bit nicer.. Albert Speer not only impacted on his immediate Nazi context and the course of the war, but indeed maybe a connecting word like also would fit better here - you're just connecting ideas, the societal understanding of his own character (a little confused about this statement) and the Nazi legacy itself. Throughout this presentation it will be argued that Speer’s impact was not limited to simply the Nazi movement and the second world war, rather his contribution to change extends to the progression of the ripple effects of these events and the writing of history itself in relation to the following:Roadmap of ideas: (I'm having trouble introducing my ideas correctly)
- Prolong(ing) the war
- the Nuremberg Trials
- and Writing ‘inside the third reich’

Okay so in an introduction, you always have your roadmap of ideas in the middle of the paragraph right? And then you link back to the question. If you're struggling with introducing your ideas, you could do that.

PARAGRAPH #1: PROLONGED THE WAR - for my first paragraph I am having trouble merging the following ideas together:

You should address the question in your first sentence of each paragraph, i.e. have a topic sentence![When the Soviets stopped the Germans near Moscow and with the United States now entering the war, the Germans idea of waging Blitzkrieg was coming to an end. Faced with a long lasting two-front war with two superpowers, Germany had to significantly increase its armaments production to cope.] I don't think you need too much context in the stuff I've bracketed because you're analysing a personality's significance, not explaining what happened. Just take the most important part and only use that! Under Speer’s power as the Minister of Armaments, he significantly increased Germany's ability to fight back against the Allies in the war by rationalising the war productions and resource allocation throughout the nation, minimising waste and limited the misallocation of resources. Essentially, through Speer’s implementation of a system of specialisation in the production of all resources, he thereby as Sereny suggested “was single-handedly responsible for the improvement of the economy.” Additionally, it is speculated (you could probably use some historiography here)that his reorganisation of the economy was so effective that Speer actually extended the Nazi’s ability to fight in the second world war by up to two years.

You need a topic sentence here!As Minister of Armaments in World War Two from 1942 onwards, Speer reformed the armaments industry to maximise production efficiency. Speer stated of his own contribution through his position as Minister of Armaments, “I prolonged that war by many months.” Although the architect had very limited knowledge of the industry, he had expert organisational skills. In the first six months of Speer’s appointment in this position, production of guns increased by 27%, ammunition production increased by 97% and tank production increased by 25%. Between 1942 and 1944, labour productivity per worker increased by over 100%. Don't put the statistics here! That's probably something that belongs in the Part A response.The re-organisation of the industry is partially responsible for this increase. The new business structure for the entire armament industry was to be based on a system of committees and rings. The different committees represented a form of weaponry and the rings represented the raw materials and parts needed to make the weapons. This new system ensured that each factory produced only one type of weapon at the highest possible refinement, causing a maintained peak of efficiency and productivity. The other major reform to the industry was the implementation of a Central Planning Board. Before the Board’s introduction, the army, navy and air force struggled to divide materials in any effective way. Speer’s introduction of the Central Planning Board is a significant contribution to the armaments industry as each branch of the military was responsible for its own weaponry design and production. Thus, the competition between the three branches was decreased and efficiency of production was in the best interests of the responsible branch. Hence, Speer made a significant contribution to the war effort through his role as Minister of Armaments.

General comments:
- Definitely agree with henrychapman here - you need to answer the question instead of stating facts! Usually with a common case study like Speer, markers already know who Speer is, what he did in WW2/Minister of Armaments/whatever else he did. All you need is a little (emphasis on a little!) context to show the situation, then say what Speer did and then back it up with a quote that somehow answers the question. Part B calls for analysis bc in Part A you've already done the recounting and explaining.
- Expression wise, there is no need to be fancy! I know this is a v v weird thing to say but you don't need to whip out flashy words in essays. Seriously. It's all about how you articulate yourself and if you're throwing in some words to make your response seem more sophisticated, it won't be because it won't make sense! Stick to basics and just answer the question - that's what's going to get you your marks.
- You definitely know your content, well done! It's really awesome to see you know it well - now you just have to write some essays.

All the best,
fantasticbeasts

[joemassoud]

Thank you soo much for the advice henrychapman and fantasticbeasts.

By any chance would you mind reading my updated introduction:

‘To be significant, an individual must contribute to change.’

To what extent does this statement apply to the personality you have studied?

[/b][/i]

To a great extent, contribution to change is an essential element in being historically significant. When applied to Albert Speer it is evident that this statement is true as Speer not only had an impact upon his immediate Nazi context and the course of the war, but also the societal understanding of his own character and the Nazi legacy itself. Throughout this presentation it will be argued that Speer’s impact was not limited to the Nazi movement and the second world war, rather his contribution to change extends to the progression of the ripple effects of these events and the writing of history itself in relation to the following; prolonging the war by 2 years, his confession of his acknowledgement of the atrocities of the Reich at the Nuremberg Trials and writing ‘Inside The Third Reich.’ Ultimately, it is starkly clear that for an individual to be considered momentous, they must commit to change.