HSC Modern History Question Thread

[Jess.martinuzzo]

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,
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)?

[sudodds]

Susie,
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).

Take the NEP for example. Many people at the time considered the NEP to be making concessions to capitalism, going against Bolshevik and Marxist ideology that would obviously be staunchly opposed to the re-introduction of private trade and profit, even if only on a small scale. However, Lenin understood the needs of society. After the Civil War and War Communism, the Russian economy was devastated, and the population was war weary and exhausted. He knew that the present conditions needed to be fixed first before they could continue to progress to socialism and eventually true communism. Thus, in order to avoid famine and further economic instability, Lenin put on hold his strong ideological beliefs in favour of a practical "retreat" from socialism, which relaxed the political and social tensions of Russia and led to an improved economy, and an increase in support for the Bolsheviks. So in the instance of the NEP, pragmatism won out (and imo that is pretty much a consistent for all the other factors). You can also argue the other way and say that these pragmatic moves were done so for the benefit and easier application of socialism in the future if you so wish.

I'd say you could fit this into your essay by making it the centre point of your judgement! As your question is quite broad, I believe this will allow you to be more targeted with you work. So your thesis statement could be (going off the question you posted earlier):

The Bolshevik Government was able to effectively consolidate their power between 1917 and 1921 by placing a stronger emphasis on the practical needs of society rather than strict ideological adherence.


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

[jakesilove]

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

If Sudodds isn't the best thing to happen to your HSC History marks, I don't know what is.

[Newbalance101]

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? 

[f_tan]

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?

Hi! Not sure how helpful/correct this will be but here's what I think:

I half agree and half disagree with the question, but not because North Vietnam didn't start spreading communism into the South until after 1956. Based on what I'm currently learning in the topic, Ho Chi Minh actually went straight into preparing propaganda teams to get into the South, because he did not trust America when they said that there would be a re-election, and also if there was to be one, he wanted to make sure that he had the popular support. So even before the elections were supposed to be held, the North were already preparing - for example, the building of the Cu Chi Tunnels, where they dug underground to get to the South to spread propaganda and convert South Vietnamese into communists + clearing the Ho Chi Minh Trail for more space. So it was partly because they were determined to spread communism, and also partly because of Ho's distrust of the Americans that made him determined to spread communism, so that he could win the popular support, whether it would be for winning the elections, or fighting against the Americans. It was because of how effective Ho's propaganda teams were that the elections were cancelled, because as you said, the Americans didn't think they would win - Diem was an unpopular leader who could not win the support of South Vietnam because his policies did not represent the people as well as Ho's did. If the question was a 10 marker, I would have two paragraphs, one arguing for, and listing all the reasons why, and also one that disagrees with the statement, and the reasons why. And then conclude with the final evaluation of what you think - whether you agree/disagree.

I'm not sure if that makes sense, but hope it helps

[CaitlinSavins]

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?

[sudodds]

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:

- Detail table: Structured according to the syllabus, so down the left hand column would be all the dot points, and then across I had one column for detail and one column for quotes. This is where you don't put the core information and outline, but any interesting facts, stats and quotes to enhance a response. My detail table can be found in the notes section for reference, but I think its really important to make your own as well in order to remember everything better! This should cover all of your topics.

- Linking tables: These were also really valuable. When it comes to essay writing, what pushes a 23/25 mark essay to a 24-25/25 mark essay is your ability to link factors, particularly when writing a differentiated essay. I studied Russia, so the way I did this is I wrote all the syllabus dot points for Bolshevik Consolidation of Power (the first heading of the syllabus) along both the left hand column and the top row, and tried to relate each factor togeather, eg. how did the Civil War link to the Treaty of Brest Litovsk, how did the Treaty of Brest Litovsk link to the NEP etc. etc. The links can be both conceptual and thematic - eg. they both demonstrate the importance of ideology/pragatism etc. - and more direct - eg. the Civil War and War Communism created the need for the NEP. I'd recommend this linking table for the National Study and the International Study. An example of one of my linking tables for the Bolshevik Consolidation of power can be found in the notes section.

- Debate Tables: These can be used for all sections, but I think they are particularly helpful for the Personality Study. Now when it comes to writing a part B response, the questions are almost always centred around one of these debates:

- Differing interpretations of your chosen personality (so for Trotsky that's practical revolutionary vs. naive idealist, pretty sure for Speer it's the good nazi debate).
- Were they shaped by events, or did the events shape them.

So I think its a good idea to put down the left hand side all the significant events/factors (so for Trotsky that included 1905 revolution, 1917 revolution, Commissar of Foreign Affairs, Commissar of War, Power struggle, life and activities in exile), and try and work out how each aspect fits into each debate and also each argument within the debate. For example, in regards to Trotsky and his role as Commissar of Foreign Affairs, you can argue that he was a naive idealist in that he held too strongly to his ideological belief in permanent revolution and this was ultimately a failure, however you can also argue that he was a practical revolutionary because once his mistakes were realised he quickly decided to forgo these beliefs in favour of Lenin's more practical position etc. etc. This is also really good because it allows you to see which events/factors make for the stronger argument, as you don't want to talk about all of them, only 3. An example of my Trotsky linking table can be found in this thread: https://atarnotes.com/forum/index.php?topic=164918.0

In such a high content subject as modern, it is important to study smart rather than study more, so I hope that this proves useful as I believe these should be much more effective than just writing out a hundred dot points of information. Check out some of the notes under the notes tab also! There are so many, for a heap of different units so definitely worth a look over (when I didn't study from my tables/write practice responses, I was usually using premade notes from my teacher or that I found online).

Again, hope this was helpful! Good luck with your half yearlies, let us know if you need help with anything else

 

[forevertired]

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.

[bowiemily]

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 there!
I also did Indochina, and I found the same problem with the dot points, mainly because there is so much overlap. However, this does give you more to explain when writing your essays in regards to cause an effect. I think this is a must in Indochina. Make sure you include plenty of sources (primary sources make up the bulk of evidence in Indochina). I would use the PEEL structure here to ensure these sources always link to the question (Point, Explain, Evidence, Link). This should give you much more to talk about! If not, maybe check out the themes and challenges section of the syllabus. It will help specify which ideas you should be focussing on in your essays

[sudodds]

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! Just a small suggestion to add onto Em's amazing response - whenever I was confronted with essay questions that were quite broad, or that I felt I was not confident enough in regards to my specific knowledge of events to go into enough depth and detail I wrote a thematic essay. The most common thematic essays follow this structure - one paragraph on economic changes/impacts, one on social changes/impacts, political, cultural, military, geopolitical etc. etc. (the first four are usually the most important). Other themes can be present also, but these are the most common, and are pretty much foolproof. Modern History is about change and transformation, and that will pretty much always include these themes in some capacity.

Thematics essays can be tricky as they involves the extrapolating of themes from what you have learnt, but they can give way to a fantastic, highly sophisticated response if done correctly, and can sometimes allow you to gloss over certain gaps in your knowledge in favour of more keenly drawing out these themes! For example I didn't feel particularly confident talking about the Czechoslovakia Crisis within my Cold War 'Development' essays, so instead of making that its own paragraph like a lot of my friends who were writing a syllabus essay, I instead broke the Development of the Cold War into themes - Ideology, Containment, Arms Race. I used examples from the various crises including Czechoslovakia to back up my arguments, but unlike my friends I didn't need to provide that added context and detail for that particular event (I hope this made sense).

I didn't study Indochina, but even just taking a look at the two indochina questions from last year I'd assume (Em please let me know if I am wrong here!) that this thematic structure would have worked fantastically!

Assess the role of communism in shaping the conflict in Indochina to 1965. - So you'd structure your essay by assessing the role of communism in shaping the economic, political, social, etc. landscape of the conflict.

Evaluate the impact of Pol Pot’s aims and methods on Cambodian society to 1979. - How did Pol Pot's aims and methods impact society through economics, politics, culture, etc. etc.

I hope this helps! Good luck with your assessment task, I'm sure you're going to smash it 

[maria1999]

hey guys!
(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??
     

[sudodds]

hey guys!
(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??
     

Hey Maria! Welcome to the forums 
I personally didn't study that unit, but I do want to draw your attention to this thread created by resident Germany expert Jake (we have a lot of Germany experts in fact with Emily and Elyse also... lucky for you, though I'm personally feeling a bit outnumbered  the treaty of Brest-Litovsk all over again smh). His guide goes through a really really useful method for memorising stats for all topics! I'd highly recommend creating a detail table as well. You can structure it according to the syllabus, and draw stats, dates and detail from your textbook - though I'd also recommend looking at some other sources as well so that you have some more unique detail to really wow the marker

[Claudiaa]

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.

[sudodds]

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.

Hey Claudia! This is definitely hard stuff, and you're not alone in finding it confusing! So it's been a while since I've studied this, but you can basically think of all these groups as radicals. They were fed up with the aristocracy, and were greatly influenced by the revolutionary atmosphere of the time. However, despite their radical nature, their ideological beliefs often differed.

So you have the communists, made up of the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. Originally the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks were in the same group, however their ideological disagreements, particularly in regards to orthodox marxism (going through the stages vs. skipping/fast forwarding through them) resulted in a split. The Bolsheviks were the more "radical" and active of the two, as they advocated and agitated for revolution. They believed in the concept of human agency, in that individuals could choose to progress through the stages (feudalism --> capitalism --> socialism --> communism) rather than waiting for it to occur naturally (the orthodox marxist/Mensheviks belief). The communists, particularly the Bolsheviks, are the most important group to focus on, as they were the ones that eventually took over.

The Populists/Narodniks can also be put into this category as they were influenced by socialism, however unlike the Bolsheviks they failed to properly instigate a revolution. They essentially placed too much trust in the peasants only needing leadership to rise up against the government, however many of them were still conditioned to be loyal to the Tsar, blaming the landowners for their grievances rather than Nicholas himself (kind of like the benevolent king that is just unaware of the evils some of his subjects are inflicting). Along with this, the Populists were made up of young, noble, wealthy, middle class intellectuals - their image just didn't really resonate with the peasants. The Populists/Narodniks eventually split into two groups.

1. The People's Will - a terrorist organisation that used violence in an attempt to get rid of the government, assassinating many government officials and even Tsar Alexander II. This group became the basis of the Socialist Revolutionary Party.

2. The Black Revolution - Opposed to violence. They became the basis for the Socialist Democratic Party.

Then you have the anarchists (just letting you know I'm not as confident in my knowledge of this group as it didn't cross over in HSC). This group included two subgroups - the Nihilists and the actual anarchists. Both groups had similar beliefs, however the anarchists tended to take them a step further (however they were both still more radical than the Populists/Narodniks). The Nihilists rejected all forms of authority in the name of freedom. The developed from a movement of ideas rather than of political organisation, however many nihilists progressed into violent action, planning many assassination attempts. The Anarchists favoured terrorism and destruction as a method of revolutionary agitation, and believed in the destruction of centralised government and that society should be organised only at a local level. They also organised the assassinations of many government officials.

I honestly can't really remember learning about the Kadets much beyond the fact that they were a liberal party, that were elected to the Russian Duma in 1906, and that they were harsh critics of the Tsar.

I hope this helps! Good luck with year 11  If you need help with anything else just let us know!

Susie

[FatmataR]

Please help me break down this question THANK YOUUUU ~

"Account for the inability of successive Weimar governments to achieve stability to 1923"