HSC Modern History Question Thread

[isabel_lorenz1]

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So, does anyone have statistics/historical references for Conflict in the Pacific?

[sudodds]

Hi guys,
we have a new teacher for Modern who has marked for the HSC and she warned us that we can't quote text book writers like Webb etc
So, does anyone have statistics/historical references for Conflict in the Pacific?

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

• Peter Costello's 'The Pacific War'
• Sir John Keegan
• J.M. Roberts
• David Shannon

Hope this helped!

[jamonwindeyer]

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! 

[sudodds]

Genuinely curious, why this author specifically?? Ahaha! 

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)

[jamonwindeyer]

I'm not actually 100% sure hahaha, I just know that both the modern teachers at my school can't stand him and have banned his textbooks from being used at our school! I think the only textbook writer they trust is Bruce Dennett (for good reason because he's literally a history god)

That's fascinating! I just googled him, he seems like a pretty famous presenter/teacher/author, I wonder if that's a thing that a few schools do? Very interesting 

[jakesilove]

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

• Peter Costello's 'The Pacific War'
• Sir John Keegan
• J.M. Roberts
• David Shannon

Hope this helped!

I 100% agree. Webb is wrong on most things, and just a bad historian (in my opinion). Avoid at all costs.

[annika.stanton]

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!

[jakesilove]

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!

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

[annika.stanton]

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!

[jakesilove]

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!

Awesome to hear, looking forward to seeing what you come up with! Feel free to post the essay to the essay marking thread once you're done

[imtrying]

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?

[jakesilove]

Hey just hoping for a little advice:
Because of the way things have played out for me the last couple weeks, im in a position where i have really limited time to revise all my modern history stuff for my trials exam monday.
With the national study (im doing Germany) I know there are two options for questions, one usually about Weimar up to rise of the Nazi Party and the other about any part of the syllabus after that.
I'm a lot more confident with the Weimar/early Nazi Party part of the syllabus, do you think it would be best just to really focus on that or do i need to go over both parts of the syllabus in detail?

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

1. Both questions are on the OTHER topic

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jake

[imtrying]

Thanks for replying. I can see what you're saying is true, guess I was just hoping for a different answer haha:)

[jakesilove]

Thanks for replying. I can see what you're saying is true, guess I was just hoping for a different answer haha:)

I really know the feeling, but it'll be okay. Study hard, study smart, and you will get through the exam. Things happen in life, and you don't feel as prepared for some exams. Just do the best you can, because they can't expect you to get 100% in every exam; these things happen. Good luck, you'll be fine

[sydneyg]

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?