HSC Modern History Question Thread

[jakesilove]

Please help me break down this question THANK YOUUUU ~

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

Hey! I would break this down into economic, social and political factors;

Economic
- Hyperinflation
- Versailles treaty (?)

Social
- 'November criminals'
- Sense of militarism
- Uprisings; Spartacus

Political
- 'November criminals'
- 'State within a state' --> Erbert Groaner pact
- Versailles treaty

Discuss whatever points you think are relevant, and whether that contributes to, or negates, the stability of the Weimar government. Come to a conclusion (ie. was there stability in the Weimar government to 1923?). Feel free to post up more ideas here!

[FatmataR]

Thank you so much ~

What would you talk about in terms of had the Weimar Republic overcome its early challenges by 1929? In my preparation for the question I got down some ideas like, Treaty of Versailles, Germany's lack of democratic tradition, weaknesses in the constitution and the like. My question is how would you approach the question?

[sophiemacpherso]

Hey, I find answering modern multiple choice questions so so difficult! I simply can't differentiate between options, the majority of questions all seem so similar to me. Do you have any tips for getting better in this area? )

[sudodds]

Hey, I find answering modern multiple choice questions so so difficult! I simply can't differentiate between options, the majority of questions all seem so similar to me. Do you have any tips for getting better in this area? )

Hey Sophie!
Yes they definitely are hard, because they are designed to trick you! A lot of the multiple choice questions will have very similar options, or ones that all seem correct in some way based upon your knowledge of the course, however the most correct answer (i.e. the one that will get you the mark) will always be the answer that is correct based upon the source. Remember that Section I is a source based study, so everything and anything you complete within that section, from multiple choice to the extended response, must be centered around those sources within the booklet.

For example, lets say that a multiple choice question was: "According to Source A, why did the stalemate occur on the Western Front", and Source A is an extract from a soldiers diary, detailing his use of a machine gun (and nothing much apart from that). The options are:
a) the Schileffen Plan failed
b) the WW1 generals inability to adapt to this new form of modern warfare
c) the introduction of new weapons that favoured the defensive
d) Belgium refused the Germans entry

Looking at all of the above options, they are all at the very least partially correct. The Schlieffen Plan's failure was critical to the stalemate. The WW1 generals inability to adapt was also a factor, however is more so important when discussing how the stalemate maintained, the introduction of new weapons is another, super critical aspect of the stalemate, and then Belgium refusing the Germans entry contributed to the failure of the Schlieffen Plan. However, despite them all being at least partially correct based upon our own knowledge of the course, only ONE is correct based upon our knowledge of the source - C. The reason is that the source only discusses the use of machine guns, one of the new defensive weapons, and does not discuss the other factors. Does this make sense? (let me know if you're still confused).

Just make sure as well that you do read all the options, and don't just go for the first one that seems correct (cos as we said earlier, usually all of them are to some degree).

I hope this helps!

Susie

Thank you so much ~

What would you talk about in terms of had the Weimar Republic overcome its early challenges by 1929? In my preparation for the question I got down some ideas like, Treaty of Versailles, Germany's lack of democratic tradition, weaknesses in the constitution and the like. My question is how would you approach the question?

Hey FatmataR!
Unfortunately I didn't study Germany last year so I'm useless for content haha, but I'm sure one of the Germany peeps will get onto your question soon

[jakesilove]

Thank you so much ~

What would you talk about in terms of had the Weimar Republic overcome its early challenges by 1929? In my preparation for the question I got down some ideas like, Treaty of Versailles, Germany's lack of democratic tradition, weaknesses in the constitution and the like. My question is how would you approach the question?

Looks like you have a great structure already! My approach to this question would be to cite those early challenges in the introduction (literally the ones you've listed above), and then spend a paragraph going through each challenge. Discuss factors that indicate they HAD overcome the weakness, then discuss factors that indicate they HADN'T. Come to a conclusion about each issue, separately, and then use your conclusion to see whether you can suggest any overarching theme (ie. overcame social, but not economic, etc.).

Good luck!

[sophiemacpherso]

Hey Sophie!
Yes they definitely are hard, because they are designed to trick you! A lot of the multiple choice questions will have very similar options, or ones that all seem correct in some way based upon your knowledge of the course, however the most correct answer (i.e. the one that will get you the mark) will always be the answer that is correct based upon the source. Remember that Section I is a source based study, so everything and anything you complete within that section, from multiple choice to the extended response, must be centered around those sources within the booklet.

For example, lets say that a multiple choice question was: "According to Source A, why did the stalemate occur on the Western Front", and Source A is an extract from a soldiers diary, detailing his use of a machine gun (and nothing much apart from that). The options are:
a) the Schileffen Plan failed
b) the WW1 generals inability to adapt to this new form of modern warfare
c) the introduction of new weapons that favoured the defensive
d) Belgium refused the Germans entry

Looking at all of the above options, they are all at the very least partially correct. The Schlieffen Plan's failure was critical to the stalemate. The WW1 generals inability to adapt was also a factor, however is more so important when discussing how the stalemate maintained, the introduction of new weapons is another, super critical aspect of the stalemate, and then Belgium refusing the Germans entry contributed to the failure of the Schlieffen Plan. However, despite them all being at least partially correct based upon our own knowledge of the course, only ONE is correct based upon our knowledge of the source - C. The reason is that the source only discusses the use of machine guns, one of the new defensive weapons, and does not discuss the other factors. Does this make sense? (let me know if you're still confused).

Just make sure as well that you do read all the options, and don't just go for the first one that seems correct (cos as we said earlier, usually all of them are to some degree).

I hope this helps!

Susie

Hey FatmataR!
Unfortunately I didn't study Germany last year so I'm useless for content haha, but I'm sure one of the Germany peeps will get onto your question soon

Ahhh thankyou so much ! I definitely need to pay closer attention to the agenda of the source in future ahah

[jakesilove]

Hi Suddods and Jake,

I have this essay question I have to answer from the Germany Module:
"To what extent was the Versailles Treaty responsible for the collapse of democracy in Germany by 1934?"

I honestly find this question really hard to build an arguement and discuss....and even answer the question as a whole.
How am I supposed to make a judgement in resposne to "to what extent.."? Should I compare with other factors and show the effect of the treaty relative to them...? I find there is quite a lot to talk about with regards to other factors since there is such a large period of time between 1919 and 1934. What would you include in your arguement and also what would be the best way to structure it?

Thanks heaps,
Samuel

Hey!

Whenever you have a question that asks about one specific aspect of the curriculum, and requires you to decide a 'to what extent' question, my general recommendation is to spend at least 60% of the essay discussing the specific point. In this case, I would suggest spending 60% of the essay writing about the impacts of the Versailles Treaty, and then 40% writing about other factors that you think are relevant (great depression, militarism etc.)

You're absolutely right; there is a hell of a lot of information to talk about. The question limits what you can discuss, but you can also be smart about it. Versailles treaty = 'November criminals' = conservatism/militarism in society = rise of Nazi party?

It's a bloody big stretch (especially that last one), but it's a point you can make (even if you identify that it is a weak one). What I'm trying to say is that you need to spend time assessing the impact of the Treaty, but you can then go into more depth regarding over factors, and conclude that actually these other factors had a greater impact on the collapse of democracy by 1934.

Really tough question, but once you have a thesis out (ie. Versailles was important, but XYZ was more important), as well as subpoints to talk about, it's just running through the standard information

[stephjones]

Hey guys! Do you happen to have any tips or tricks to approaching the "Use the source and your own knowledge" questions in section one? I always drop a couple marks there and I'm a bit unsure of how to effectively answer the question.

[f_tan]

Hey guys! Do you happen to have any tips or tricks to approaching the "Use the source and your own knowledge" questions in section one? I always drop a couple marks there and I'm a bit unsure of how to effectively answer the question.

Hey,
My teacher always tells us to include at least 2 explicit references for each source, so you need to analyse it and link it to the question, and at least 4 pieces of own knowledge - might help in ensuring you don't lost marks for not having enough detail

[sudodds]

Hey guys! Do you happen to have any tips or tricks to approaching the "Use the source and your own knowledge" questions in section one? I always drop a couple marks there and I'm a bit unsure of how to effectively answer the question.

Hey Steph!
I most certainly do have a couple of tips
When it comes to section I of the exam, almost all of the questions are pretty much just exactly syllabus dot points, reworded into a question. For example Reasons for the stalemate on the Western Front will be reworded into something like Account for the reasons on the Western Front etc etc. So really, when it comes to these questions, it is just ticking off the different key points of the dot point. As long as you know (at the bare minimum) the key points and a few bits of detail then you will be sweet, its as if you were just writing your study notes into a paragraph.
It is really important to remember that these are also source based questions, and thus you MUST intergrate them throughout, and they must be intergrated EXPLICTLY. It's not enough to just mention aspects that are discussed in the source. You have to make statements like this:

- "As shown within Source A..."
- "This is evident through Source B..."
- "This is further discussed throughout Source C..." etc. etc.

Underline when you use the sources, just to make doubly certain that the marker doesn't miss that you have incorporated them. In terms of intergrating your own knowledge just overload the marker with relevant detail. Stats are the best within Section I, as these questions are usually quite short and you don't want to spend too long on them, so super long quotes or example events that require extensive explanation aren't something that I would recommend. It is really important to remember though that this detail must be relevant and pertinent to the question - if it doesn't further enhance your understanding or judgment upon the question at hand don't include it.

And finally, in terms of structuring the response if the question is 4-5 marks then just get straight to the point, but for 6-8 mark questions, a brief, 1 sentence introduction is beneficial

Hope this helps! Sorry if this is a little bit all over the place haha, if any of this was confusing let me know 

[stephjones]

Hey,
My teacher always tells us to include at least 2 explicit references for each source, so you need to analyse it and link it to the question, and at least 4 pieces of own knowledge - might help in ensuring you don't lost marks for not having enough detail

Hey Steph!
I most certainly do have a couple of tips
When it comes to section I of the exam, almost all of the questions are pretty much just exactly syllabus dot points, reworded into a question. For example Reasons for the stalemate on the Western Front will be reworded into something like Account for the reasons on the Western Front etc etc. So really, when it comes to these questions, it is just ticking off the different key points of the dot point. As long as you know (at the bare minimum) the key points and a few bits of detail then you will be sweet, its as if you were just writing your study notes into a paragraph.
It is really important to remember that these are also source based questions, and thus you MUST intergrate them throughout, and they must be intergrated EXPLICTLY. It's not enough to just mention aspects that are discussed in the source. You have to make statements like this:

- "As shown within Source A..."
- "This is evident through Source B..."
- "This is further discussed throughout Source C..." etc. etc.

Underline when you use the sources, just to make doubly certain that the marker doesn't miss that you have incorporated them. In terms of intergrating your own knowledge just overload the marker with relevant detail. Stats are the best within Section I, as these questions are usually quite short and you don't want to spend too long on them, so super long quotes or example events that require extensive explanation aren't something that I would recommend. It is really important to remember though that this detail must be relevant and pertinent to the question - if it doesn't further enhance your understanding or judgment upon the question at hand don't include it.

And finally, in terms of structuring the response if the question is 4-5 marks then just get straight to the point, but for 6-8 mark questions, a brief, 1 sentence introduction is beneficial

Hope this helps! Sorry if this is a little bit all over the place haha, if any of this was confusing let me know 

No, that's awesome, thank you guys!

[Jess.martinuzzo]

Hey Guys, Could someone please post the Modern History Lecture slides from last holidays lecture??
I can't seem to find it anywhere
Or if it is there, what's the file name?

[sudodds]

Hey Guys, Could someone please post the Modern History Lecture slides from last holidays lecture??
I can't seem to find it anywhere
Or if it is there, what's the file name?

Hey Jess!
You can find the lecture slides here! 

[Jess.martinuzzo]

Hey Jess!
You can find the lecture slides here! 

Thanks Susie!! xx

[FatmataR]

To what extent had the Weimar Republic overcome its early challenges by 1929

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

Please help - ;-;
Thank you ~