HSC Modern History Question Thread

[Thebarman]

Hey guys, I'm trying to finish up my notes on Albert Speer, but I'm a bit confused when it comes to his architecture. I'd really appreciate some suggestions on anything that may not be right, as each source I've looked at contradicts dates, tasks and details.
Under the Early Work for the Nazi Party dotpoint, I've said that his first commission was to renovate the Nazi Party Headquarters in Berlin in 1932 (some sources say that he was instead tasked to redesign Hanke's residence???). In 1933, he was then asked to redesign Goebbel's Ministry of Propaganda building. In the same year, he was also asked to submit design plans for the May Day Rally in Tempelhof, Berlin, in which he implemented the Cathedral of Light effect and the use of large Nazi party banners. Again in 1933, he then submitted designs for the Nuremberg Rally, in which he created the Reich Eagle that would overlook the Zeplin field. He also redesigned the Chancellor's residence in Berlin.
In the following dotpoint related to him being appointed the First Architect, I said that he was commissioned to design the Nazi rally grounds in Nuremberg. Is this the same as the previously mentioned rally, or is it something else entirely?

I understand the information (more or less), but I keep getting events confused...

[Mariodonuts]

Does anyone had National Study: Russia Notes? AND i want to start studying for this option because i find it a ltitle bit complicated-- any tips on how i should? I was thinking of writing practise papers

[jakesilove]

Hey guys, I'm trying to finish up my notes on Albert Speer, but I'm a bit confused when it comes to his architecture. I'd really appreciate some suggestions on anything that may not be right, as each source I've looked at contradicts dates, tasks and details.
Under the Early Work for the Nazi Party dotpoint, I've said that his first commission was to renovate the Nazi Party Headquarters in Berlin in 1932 (some sources say that he was instead tasked to redesign Hanke's residence???). In 1933, he was then asked to redesign Goebbel's Ministry of Propaganda building. In the same year, he was also asked to submit design plans for the May Day Rally in Tempelhof, Berlin, in which he implemented the Cathedral of Light effect and the use of large Nazi party banners. Again in 1933, he then submitted designs for the Nuremberg Rally, in which he created the Reich Eagle that would overlook the Zeplin field. He also redesigned the Chancellor's residence in Berlin.
In the following dotpoint related to him being appointed the First Architect, I said that he was commissioned to design the Nazi rally grounds in Nuremberg. Is this the same as the previously mentioned rally, or is it something else entirely?

I understand the information (more or less), but I keep getting events confused...

You're right on all fronts here; whilst there are definitely different names for different structures/events, the timeline you've proposed is correct. As First Architect, he built the NEW Nuremberg Rally grounds, as part of the 'Germania' project (worth looking that up; it's super important).

I think this goes to a general issue in Modern History; we have so many sources, so how can we make sure that we use the right ones? With a billion websites available, how do we deal with contradicting information? My best recommendation is to go and borrow an actual book on Speer, written by an eminent Historian (and ideally written in the last 20 years). Information in such a book will be well researched, cross checked, and very reliable. So, you don't have to worry so much about being wrong!

[sudodds]

Does anyone had National Study: Russia Notes? AND i want to start studying for this option because i find it a ltitle bit complicated-- any tips on how i should? I was thinking of writing practise papers

Heya! We have a bunch of Russia notes uploaded here and here! Defs recommend checking some of them out (make sure you scroll down a bit to find them!) In terms of studying, practice papers is definitely the best way forward! I also highly recommend writings detail and linking tables (examples of which can be found under the first link

Its also great to separate your learning of the content not only by the syllabus, but also by the overarching themes and issues! By doing this, you are setting yourself up to be able to write some super sophisticated responses Whenever you are studying/learning the content for this unit, tying and see it through these lens:

- Communist Theory and Practice (ie. ideological adherence vs. practical application): Were Lenin and the Bolsheviks unmoving ideologues? Or were they pragmatic and practical in their application of communist theory, in order to suit the immediate needs of Russian society?

- Role of Lenin/Stalin: How Influential were Lenin and Stalin during the Consolidation of Bolshevik power? I don't just mean "they were the leaders of the party thus important" - what did they actively do themselves? Did they fiercely debate for a particular cause? Did they manipulate their party position to secure further power?

- Popular Support: A crucial aspect of consolidation! How did the Bolsheviks consolidate popular support, did they consolidate popular support, and was that their aim in the first place?

Hope this helps! Russia was my favourite unit last year, so if you are confused by anything please let me know! Happy to give you a hand

Susie

[bellerina]

Heya! We have a bunch of Russia notes uploaded here and here! Defs recommend checking some of them out (make sure you scroll down a bit to find them!) In terms of studying, practice papers is definitely the best way forward! I also highly recommend writings detail and linking tables (examples of which can be found under the first link

Its also great to separate your learning of the content not only by the syllabus, but also by the overarching themes and issues! By doing this, you are setting yourself up to be able to write some super sophisticated responses Whenever you are studying/learning the content for this unit, tying and see it through these lens:

- Communist Theory and Practice (ie. ideological adherence vs. practical application): Were Lenin and the Bolsheviks unmoving ideologues? Or were they pragmatic and practical in their application of communist theory, in order to suit the immediate needs of Russian society?

- Role of Lenin/Stalin: How Influential were Lenin and Stalin during the Consolidation of Bolshevik power? I don't just mean "they were the leaders of the party thus important" - what did they actively do themselves? Did they fiercely debate for a particular cause? Did they manipulate their party position to secure further power?

- Popular Support: A crucial aspect of consolidation! How did the Bolsheviks consolidate popular support, did they consolidate popular support, and was that their aim in the first place?

Hope this helps! Russia was my favourite unit last year, so if you are confused by anything please let me know! Happy to give you a hand

Susie

For Option's Essays -- how many body paragraphs should we aim for?

[sudodds]

For Option's Essays -- how many body paragraphs should we aim for?

Hey! My essays ranged from 3-4 body paragraphs typically. However there were certain essays where I wrote 5, and in the HSC for Section IV I wrote 2 and still got a raw mark of 23.5/25 for that essay.

It really isn't about how many body paragraphs you have. What is important is a) you have written enough overall (the bench mark is usually 1000 words, which is roughly 7-8 pages for a 45 minute essay) and even more importantly that what you have actually written - your judgement, arguments and detail - is of a high quality

[marcusgrahamm]

I have to complete a speech assessment into a major personality of the Cold War and their contribution to the happenings within the conflict.

My Thesis is:

"Through Joseph Stalin's Marxist outlooks he ruled the former Soviet Union with a stern control, thus forcing major nation states across the globe to recognise Russia as a formidable world super power." 

What information. and evaluations do you think are critical to implement in this speech??

Do anyone have any resources that would benefit this task?

Thanks!

[sudodds]

I have to complete a speech assessment into a major personality of the Cold War and their contribution to the happenings within the conflict.

My Thesis is:

"Through Joseph Stalin's Marxist outlooks he ruled the former Soviet Union with a stern control, thus forcing major nation states across the globe to recognise Russia as a formidable world super power." 

What information. and evaluations do you think are critical to implement in this speech??

Do anyone have any resources that would benefit this task?

Thanks!

Heya! Hmmm I get what you're saying, and for the most part I agree with you. However, I think your thesis could be cleaner. For one, I'm not really sure about the inclusion of "Marxist outlook." Can you explain to me why you included it? Was Stalin a Marxist? Yes (or well Marxist-Leninist... which really had nothing to do with Lenin... when it comes to Stalin and ideology things get veryyyy messy ). However, I think just saying that because he was a Marxist he thus would attempt to rule the Soviet Union with a stern control is too simplistic, and ignores that the Cold War wasn't "Communism v. the World", it was an ideological struggle between Communism AND Capitalism. Just because we in the West are used to the narrative that the Cold War was essentially "The good vs. the Communists" doesn't mean that BOTH ideologies (and the nations that promoted them) were not aggressive and had worldwide ambitions. Even if this isn't necessarily what you meant (I wasn't 100% sure), it still needs to be cleaned up, because it could be interpreted that way. I also think that you could connect your thesis to the syllabus more effectively.

I think a better thesis, still using the ideas that you have set out would be:

Through significantly contributing to the emergence of the USSR as a global superpower, Joseph Stalin was a critical figure in the formation of the superpower rivalry - an underlying and all pervasive feature of the Cold War.

 

In terms of what to include, I'd say you'd want to look at Stalin's role in the industrialisation and modernisation of Russia to the point whereby they were a superpower, the emergence of differences between the superpowers (particularly ideological) - looking at the early conferences. Then you'd want to look at the impact of the super power rivalry, and how it was manifested (eg. politically, geopolitically, militarily, economically, socially, etc. etc.).

HOWEVER - point that could potentially make all of the above irrelevant. Do you have to do Joseph Stalin? Or do you have a choice? Though Stalin was of course a big figure during the Cold War, he isn't as big on the actual HSC syllabus. You discuss him briefly during 'Origins', but after that other leaders become a lot more significant. I feel that by using Stalin you run the risk of straying too much into the 'Russia' syllabus in order to justify his significance in the emergence of the USSR as a superpower. If you have no choice in the matter no worries - it can defs be argued. However I believe you are going to find more relevant material on say Truman, Khrushchev, Kennedy, Reagan or Gorbachev - material of which I think will aid you in constructing more of a solid HSC response, if that makes sense Like if you look at Truman you can talk about the Truman Doctrine and the policy of Containment (a syllabus dot point), if you look at Khrushchev you can look at peaceful co-existence, arms race and Berlin and Cuba, Kennedy - Berlin and Cuba, Reagan and Gorbachev - Renewal and End etc. etc.

Like I said, if you have no choice and have to do Stalin, don't worry about it. Just something to consider if you do have the option of changing (my personal preference would be either Khrushchev or Kennedy! You'll have a lot to talk about with both of them ).

Susie

[marcusgrahamm]

Wow that was all really insightful and helpful!!

We don't have to do Stalin...

I really find Nikita Khrushchev an interesting personality and your right about there being a sense of greater relativity between him and this chosen assessment.

If you have anytime, I struggled with a good thesis to discuss in relation to him and what aspects to specifically raise amidst the speech.

Thanks so so much!!

[_____]

This is the 2016 personalities part B question:

"‘Differing perspectives and interpretations assist us in gaining an understanding of the personality’s significance in history.’
To what extent is this statement accurate in relation to the personality you have studied?"

We got this for an exam on the topic and I know I screwed it up. I'd practised it before the task but I still don't really understand the question and it's doing my head in.

I know that part B is supposed to be where you evaluate the identity as per part 4 of the syllabus. But with this question, how am I supposed to incorporate differing, not different perspectives of the personality and then come to a conclusion myself? The question is asking for an answer where you consider conflicting viewpoints, but AFAIK in history you're meant to take one side of an argument. On 2015's question  "It is the way an individual faces challenges that shapes them and their achievements. To what extent is this statement accurate in relation to the personality you have studied and their role in history?" this is a piece of cake, you just take one perspective and back it up. So for 2016, what am I supposed to do? Is the question basically telling me to say (Trotsky's influence in exile as an example):

"Historians such as X think that Leon Trotsky was a naive idealist who was completely outplayed politically by Stalin. On the other hand, historians such as Y consider Trotsky as an influential leader of the Left Opposition from 1927 on as evidenced by the formation of the 4th International. Historian Y is correct because...(how would I justify one opinion over the other?)"

What I ended up doing was providing both perspectives as above and then saying that these disagreements show why the personality was such an influential figure, rather than giving my own judgement of his significance. Although I haven't got the task back yet, what was the correct way to approach this question?

[sudodds]

Wow that was all really insightful and helpful!!

We don't have to do Stalin...

I really find Nikita Khrushchev an interesting personality and your right about there being a sense of greater relativity between him and this chosen assessment.

If you have anytime, I struggled with a good thesis to discuss in relation to him and what aspects to specifically raise amidst the speech.

Thanks so so much!!

No worries! Happy to help

So you're thinking of choosing Khrushchev instead? I think that is a great idea

When it comes to Khrushchev, I think something that you could look at is his paradoxical attitudes towards the Cold War! He was both an advocate for 'peaceful co-existence', suggesting that "[they] may argue. The main thing is to argue without using weapons", however at the same time he went to great lengths to build up the USSR's military and nuclear arsenal, both on a literal sense and a symbolic sense so to speak. He made bold claims that the USSR where “turning out missiles like sausages,” and even paraded around a single missile during a military parade multiple times, so it looked like they had more than they did! Though he appeared more cooperative than Stalin, the US hoping that the introduction of Khrushchev would help to "thaw" the Cold War, he still did various things that no doubt aggravated and increased tensions, eg;

- Began the arms race and space race with the US
- Set up the Warsaw Pact to rival NATO
- Waged a propaganda war against the US and Britain
- Tried to "force" the American's into leaving West Berlin - Constructed the Berlin Wall
- Tried to set up a military base in Cuba (Cuban Missile Crisis = hottest point in the Cold War)

Thus with that in mind, maybe your thesis could look something like this?
Despite his supposed aim of peaceful coexistence, Nikita Khrushchev played a highly significant role in the exacerbation of political and ideological tensions between the US and the USSR during the Cold War.

Structure wise that is up to you! However I'd recommend considering a thematic or factors based structure, rather than events.
So either an essay where each paragraph is on the social, political, economic and military impact of Khrushchev OR one with a paragraph on his impact on the policy and application of ideology, containment, the arms race and the Cold War crises (Berlin/Cuba).

Hope this helps! Let me know if you are confused with anything Good luck with your assessment task!

Susie

[sudodds]

This is the 2016 personalities part B question:

"‘Differing perspectives and interpretations assist us in gaining an understanding of the personality’s significance in history.’
To what extent is this statement accurate in relation to the personality you have studied?"

We got this for an exam on the topic and I know I screwed it up. I'd practised it before the task but I still don't really understand the question and it's doing my head in.

I know that part B is supposed to be where you evaluate the identity as per part 4 of the syllabus. But with this question, how am I supposed to incorporate differing, not different perspectives of the personality and then come to a conclusion myself? The question is asking for an answer where you consider conflicting viewpoints, but AFAIK in history you're meant to take one side of an argument. On 2015's question  "It is the way an individual faces challenges that shapes them and their achievements. To what extent is this statement accurate in relation to the personality you have studied and their role in history?" this is a piece of cake, you just take one perspective and back it up. So for 2016, what am I supposed to do? Is the question basically telling me to say (Trotsky's influence in exile as an example):

"Historians such as X think that Leon Trotsky was a naive idealist who was completely outplayed politically by Stalin. On the other hand, historians such as Y consider Trotsky as an influential leader of the Left Opposition from 1927 on as evidenced by the formation of the 4th International. Historian Y is correct because...(how would I justify one opinion over the other?)"

What I ended up doing was providing both perspectives as above and then saying that these disagreements show why the personality was such an influential figure, rather than giving my own judgement of his significance. Although I haven't got the task back yet, what was the correct way to approach this question?

Hey _____ (interesting username  )

That was a very hard question, that a lot of people struggled with last year. In fact, I literally felt exactly how you did after the exam, expecting Trotsky to be my worst section because I felt like I made more of a judgement upon the historians than I did Trotsky (basically wrote a history extension essay). Flash forward to getting my raw marks back and I find out it was actually my best section - 15/15  So please don't worry yourself too much I obviously can't guarantee your mark as I haven't read your essay, but from what you have said, your argument seems fine!

First of all I think you might be overthinking things a bit - differing and different mean essentially the same thing, so no worries there! I think the way that you have approached this question is great, and is very similar to what I did during my HSC For my response, I basically said that the interpretations say more about the historians and their political and ideological leanings than it says about Trotsky - so pointing out that those who think he was a naive idealist where those who lean further right politically and thus have a negative interpretation of Communism and by extension Trotsky (eg Service, Conquest, Pipes, Figes, etc), in comparison to Left wing historians such as Wood and Deutscher who instead suggest he was a practical revolutionary!

So basically, using my power struggles paragraph as an example;
"Right wing historians such as Service assert that it was Trotsky's personal flaws that resulted in his loss of the power struggle, such as his arrogance and naivety. However, Left-wing historians such as Deutscher present an alternative perspective, suggesting that it is too simplistic to assert personal attributes as the defining issue, instead suggesting that the primary factor resulting in Trotsky's loss of power was the social changes that had occurred after the Civil War, whereby the war-weary society was more attracted to Stalin's "stable" ideology of socialism-in-one-country in comparison to Trotsky's 'Permanent Revolution.'" (obviously went into more detail but you get the gist of my argument).

So I didn't just look at what the perspectives where, but how and why they came to these conclusions. I answered the question upon how differing interpretations assist us in understanding Trotsky's significance, as I established that his significance is developed through this debate You can definitely present the argument that no matter what the interpretation, the fact that such wild interpretations exist asserts his significance (had one of my students assert that recently in an assessment)! The question isn't asking was his significance good or bad - just was he a significant figure overall. Whether you accept either position, he was still clearly significant as either a terrible failure or a critical success!

Hope this clears up any concerns (though may have made you more confused - as I was when I found out I got this mark, as I was so worried that I hadn't made a judgement/was sitting on the fence).

Susie

[_____]

Hey _____ (interesting username  )

That was a very hard question, that a lot of people struggled with last year. In fact, I literally felt exactly how you did after the exam, expecting Trotsky to be my worst section because I felt like I made more of a judgement upon the historians than I did Trotsky (basically wrote a history extension essay). Flash forward to getting my raw marks back and I find out it was actually my best section - 15/15  So please don't worry yourself too much I obviously can't guarantee your mark as I haven't read your essay, but from what you have said, your argument seems fine!

First of all I think you might be overthinking things a bit - differing and different mean essentially the same thing, so no worries there! I think the way that you have approached this question is great, and is very similar to what I did during my HSC For my response, I basically said that the interpretations say more about the historians and their political and ideological leanings than it says about Trotsky - so pointing out that those who think he was a naive idealist where those who lean further right politically and thus have a negative interpretation of Communism and by extension Trotsky (eg Service, Conquest, Pipes, Figes, etc), in comparison to Left wing historians such as Wood and Deutscher who instead suggest he was a practical revolutionary!

So basically, using my power struggles paragraph as an example;
"Right wing historians such as Service assert that it was Trotsky's personal flaws that resulted in his loss of the power struggle, such as his arrogance and naivety. However, Left-wing historians such as Deutscher present an alternative perspective, suggesting that it is too simplistic to assert personal attributes as the defining issue, instead suggesting that the primary factor resulting in Trotsky's loss of power was the social changes that had occurred after the Civil War, whereby the war-weary society was more attracted to Stalin's "stable" ideology of socialism-in-one-country in comparison to Trotsky's 'Permanent Revolution.'" (obviously went into more detail but you get the gist of my argument).

So I didn't just look at what the perspectives where, but how and why they came to these conclusions. I answered the question upon how differing interpretations assist us in understanding Trotsky's significance, as I established that his significance is developed through this debate You can definitely present the argument that no matter what the interpretation, the fact that such wild interpretations exist asserts his significance (had one of my students assert that recently in an assessment)! The question isn't asking was his significance good or bad - just was he a significant figure overall. Whether you accept either position, he was still clearly significant as either a terrible failure or a critical success!

Hope this clears up any concerns (though may have made you more confused - as I was when I found out I got this mark, as I was so worried that I hadn't made a judgement/was sitting on the fence).

Susie

Thanks for the reassurance, that helped to clear things up especially as you actually had to deal with the stupid question (why do they have to try and come up with "clever" generic statements!?).

I disagree about differing vs different although I probably am overthinking it. If it had said different I would have considered different historians who said similar things as opposed to different historians whose opinions are actually differing.

I don't do extension so I didn't really go into right wing vs left wing and why exactly there are different perspectives, I just kind of explained that there were different ones (Pipes vs one or two others) and vaguely linked this to why Trotsky is a significant figure like you said in the second to last paragraph. Hopefully that's enough for 13/15 or something like that considering it was exam conditions.

[sudodds]

Thanks for the reassurance, that helped to clear things up especially as you actually had to deal with the stupid question (why do they have to try and come up with "clever" generic statements!?).

I disagree about differing vs different although I probably am overthinking it. If it had said different I would have considered different historians who said similar things as opposed to different historians whose opinions are actually differing.

I don't do extension so I didn't really go into right wing vs left wing and why exactly there are different perspectives, I just kind of explained that there were different ones (Pipes vs one or two others) and vaguely linked this to why Trotsky is a significant figure like you said in the second to last paragraph. Hopefully that's enough for 13/15 or something like that considering it was exam conditions.

So glad I could help And yes it is definitely very frustrating, but a good idea to expose yourself to these types of questions, because undoubtedly yours will be equally tricky! Since 2014 they've been giving the students some really tricky, confusingly/complicatedly worded questions If you look at 2013 its almost unfair how easy it was!

In terms of the differing thing - though I kinda get what you mean - as they specified interpretations and perspectives rather than historians, you'd still be okay treating differing and different the same way If you ever get a question like that, just remember that the two differing/different interpretations are naive idealist/ruthless authoritarian (which essentially means - held too strongly to ideology), or practical revolutionary (pragmatically applied ideology when it was applicable) Historians are absolutely fantastic to include (and the best students usually do!), however don't let that bog you down from seeing and focusing on the larger debate at hand

It sounds like you answered the question well As I said earlier, can't make any definitive statements as I can't see your response, thus cannot assess other factors such as the amount of detail, clarity of your judgement, etc. etc. However as a thesis - yes that would work Let us know how you went when you find out your results!! Feel free to pop back any time you want something checked over/need help clarifying something Russia and Trotsky were my favourite topics last year, so always love a good discussion with a fellow comrade

Susie

[bellerina]

How would someone approach this question,

"Assess the role played by Trotsky in the timing, planning and implementation of the Bolshevik Revn/insurrection"