HSC Modern History Question Thread

[Son of Thatcher]

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

[jakesilove]

Hello again fellows!

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

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

Any advice would be appreciated

Hey!

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

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

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

Jake

[Son of Thatcher]

Thanks so much

[tasiakuz]

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

[jakesilove]

Hey!
I am currently doing conflict in indochina and if I was doing that question I would start with obviously looking at Diem and Ho Chi Minh. For Diem you can talk about how he had an almost totalitarian regime, the US Influence getting him into power (that he was anti-communist and nepotistic - which then links to his government in that it was devoid of a functioning government) which then lead to the Agroville program. Then you can even talk about his assassination, how he was very unliked - then his opposition and treatment of the buddhists, and thus, he had not effectively consolidated power by 1964. Then Ho Chi Minh, bring in the Geneva Accords and how that helped him consolidate power through a surge of nationalism, that he had to remain popular for the elections. Then you can talk about the issues he faced, the land reform and famine etc. but in the end (1960) North Vietnam had one of the fastest growing economies and was doing great! Therefore Ho Chi Minh's government effectively consolidated power, but then he had to face the US -> creation of the NLF etc. I hope this gave you some points to talk about, sorry if it is a bit messy

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

Jake

[birdwing341]

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?

[atar27]

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 

[jakesilove]

May as well ask haha. When faced with Part B questions (in particular Speer), is there a difference in structure between questions with a quote and questions without a quote? And when you write practice responses how do you structure your response?

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

Hope it helps!

Jake

[chuckiecheese]

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!

[elysepopplewell]

Hi guys,

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

Any help is appreciated!

Hey there! Have a look at these downloadable notes that I posted for the topic. Modern history wasn't my best subject, but I have posted my notes in case they help. Post back if you have more questions about it - but this might be a good starting point!

[alexandrarichardson]

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

[jakesilove]

Hey, I was just wondering what your advice would be on how to structure an essay on "assess the effectiveness of the League of Nations to the maintenance of peace in Europe to 1939." I don't know what to include and what to cut, obviously Manchuria and Abyssinia are important, but what else is integral?
Thanks
Ally

Hey!

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

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

Hope that this helps!

Jake

[atar27]

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 

[jakesilove]

Hi, This is a essay question for my assessment but I'm not quite sure how to approach it!

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

Any help will be much appreciated!!
Thank you 

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

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

Jake

[atar27]

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!!!