HSC Modern History Question Thread

[sudodds]

Hi,


I just had a question. Does anyone have historian quotes for the strategies and tactics of the Vietminh and American in the second Indo CHina war? Also, Any quotes that would come under the Consqueneces of French defeat?

Hey! I didn't study that topic unfortunately However, I recommend checking out this thread! Bowiemily (who got 95!) shared her top resources for Indochina there Also have a bunch of recommended resources for other units as well (for all you 37 lurkers to check out )

[CaitlinSavins]

While Ho Chi Minh was largely instrumental in the rise of Vietnamese communism in the period between 1954 and 1964, the already existent Vietnamese nationalism was merely harnessed to his advantage. Though Ho’s implementation of nationalistic propaganda and the NLF to amass both Northern and Southern Vietnamese support of reunification, the rise of communism may also be attributed to his exploitation of American failures in implementing democracy and containing communism.

Can you offer some feedback on my introduction please, Susie? Thank you!!

[sudodds]

While Ho Chi Minh was largely instrumental in the rise of Vietnamese communism in the period between 1954 and 1964, the already existent Vietnamese nationalism was merely harnessed to his advantage. Though Ho’s implementation of nationalistic propaganda and the NLF to amass both Northern and Southern Vietnamese support of reunification, the rise of communism may also be attributed to his exploitation of American failures in implementing democracy and containing communism.

Can you offer some feedback on my introduction please, Susie? Thank you!!

Sure can do! Comments can be found in the spoiler

Spoiler

Assess the role of Ho Chi Minh in the rise of Vietnamese nationalism and communism throughout the period 1954-1964.

While Ho Chi Minh was largely instrumental in the rise of Vietnamese communism in the period between 1954 and 1964, the already existent Vietnamese nationalism was merely harnessed to his advantage. Hmm, does the fact that it was already in existence diminish that Ho Chi Minh was instrumental? I think the fact that he harnessed Vietnamese nationalism is a critical reason as to why he was significant! Though Ho’s Ho is his first name right? If so don't refer to him by his first name throughout the essay - Chi Minh. (I might be wrong here though as I know in some Asian cultures the last name goes first) implementation of nationalistic propaganda and the NLF in your introduction don't use acronyms - full title to amass both Northern and Southern Vietnamese support of reunification, the rise of communism may also be attributed to his exploitation of American failures in implementing democracy and containing communism. You need to link back to the question/thesis at the end of your intro. Can be as simple as; "(factor, factor, factor) assert the significance of Ho Chi Minh as a critical factor in the rise of Vietnamese nationalism and communism.

A good start, but it is quite short, because you are missing some important stuff! You need to explain your judgement, and the context of your judgement. Why, in one sentence, do you believe that Ho Chi Minh was instrumental? (eg. was he the underpinning factor, a critical motivator of people, etc. etc.). I'd also like a bit of context as to what led to the rise of Vietnamese nationalism and communism/why this is important. How does nationalism/communism relate? what was the climate of Indochina at the time? Where there any radical leadership changes or conflicts, that may have facilitated the rise of nationalism and communism? This should only be a sentence or two, like don't delve too much into this - but I do think it should be in there in some capacity.

Hope this helps!

Susie

[CaitlinSavins]

I don't know if it's too late and you're gone, but I rewrote my intro! (Ho Chi Minh is one of those figures who may be called by his first name, my modern history teacher says.)

Ho Chi Minh was largely instrumental in the rise of Vietnamese communism in the period between 1954 and 1964, and though nationalism was already engrained into the Vietnamese psyche, Ho was fundamentally important in the harnessing of nationalism to his advantage to gain Vietnamese independence. Though Ho’s implementation of nationalistic propaganda and the National Liberation Front (NLF) to amass both Northern and Southern Vietnamese support of reunification are considerable, the rise of communism may also be attributed to his exploitation of American failures in implementing democracy and containing communism. Despite nationalism pre-existing Ho Chi Minh, his propaganda, NLF and exploitation of American failures justify the consideration that he was significantly influential in the rise of communism in Vietnam between 1954 and 1964.

[sudodds]

I don't know if it's too late and you're gone, but I rewrote my intro! (Ho Chi Minh is one of those figures who may be called by his first name, my modern history teacher says.)

Awesome! No worries then And yes not too late, I shall have a look

Spoiler

Ho Chi Minh was largely instrumental in the rise of Vietnamese communism in the period between 1954 and 1964, and though nationalism was already engrained into the Vietnamese psyche, Ho was fundamentally important in the harnessing of nationalism to his advantage to gain Vietnamese independence. Better, but I think we can simplify! Some of this can go in your explanation. I think your judgement should be short and sweet - 'Ho Chi Minh was largely instrumental in the rise of Vietnamese communism and nationalism in the period between 1954 and 1964.' Done. That's your judgement. Then you start of your next sentence, with 'Though nationalism was fundamentally engrained into the Vietnamese psyche, Ho was .....". Then hey presto! You not only have your judgement, but also a solid explanation of your judgement as well! Though Ho’s implementation of nationalistic propaganda and the National Liberation Front (NLF) to amass both Northern and Southern Vietnamese support of reunification are considerable, the rise of communism may also be attributed to his exploitation of American failures in implementing democracy and containing communism. Despite nationalism pre-existing Ho Chi Minh, his propaganda, NLF and exploitation of American failures justify the consideration that he was significantly influential in the rise of communism in Vietnam between 1954 and 1964. I think the word exacerbated, intensified or accelerated could work quite well.

[maria1999]

Hey! Are these helpful at all? Otherwise, I didn't do Japan, so unfortunately can't help you out!

Yep, I downloaded it just now. Hopefully it'll shed some light on this. Thanks again!!

[sudodds]

Yep, I downloaded it just now. Hopefully it'll shed some light on this. Thanks again!!

Sorry we didn't have more to offer content wise! I suggest picking up a copy of Bruce Dennett and Stephen Dixon's 'Key Features of Modern History' from your local library - he has a chapter on Conflict in the Pacific! The only textbook that I rate tbh, very easy to understand (ie. layout = syllabus) however still presents a lot of sophisticated points/detail that'll boost your responses Bruce Dennett wrote a significant portion of the syllabus for Modern History (including the Core!), so defs someone to watch out for!

[tahliamag]

Helloo,
We've been given a research task on conflict in the pacific and are required to answer this essay question:
To what extent did Japanese foreign policy during 1937-41 make war in the Pacific inevitable?

I don't really have a clear idea of what I should be talking about in the essay but I have made a few points which I think are relevant:
 
Japanese Foreign-Policy actions -
Sino-Japanese war (July,1937-1945)
Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere (August, 1940)
Japanese occupation of Indochina (1940-1941) - Result of ABCD encirclement
Pearl Harbour (December, 1941)
 
US -
Oil embargo (July, 1941)
‘ABCD’ Encirclement (1941)
Britain -
Closed and then re-opened the Burma Road in 1940

I was wondering if anyone who has done conflict in the pacific can let me know if these are relevant points to talk about or if I'm missing anything??
Thankyou!

[sudodds]

Helloo,
We've been given a research task on conflict in the pacific and are required to answer this essay question:
To what extent did Japanese foreign policy during 1937-41 make war in the Pacific inevitable?

I don't really have a clear idea of what I should be talking about in the essay but I have made a few points which I think are relevant:

Hey! Full disclosure - I didn't study Conflict in the Pacific. However, looking at your structure it appears a bit... unbalanced? Like your first paragraph looks huge (which is a good thing as it is focusing on the stem), but after that your paragraphs are getting smaller and smaller, I mean do you think you'll be able to write a full, detailed paragraph on just the British closing and reopening the Burma road (maybe you can, but from an outsiders perspective, my gut instinct is that would be a challenge)?

I'm having a look at the syllabus, and it appears that Japanese foreign policy falls within the first section:

1    Growth of Pacific tensions
–    economic and political issues in the Pacific by 1937
–    Japanese foreign policy 1937–1941
–    US and British policies in the Pacific 1937–1941
–    strategic and political reasons for bombing Pearl Harbour

With that in mind, my gut instinct tells me that your structure should look something like this (with Japanese Foreign Policy still your first paragraph). So you say something like "Japanese foreign policy was highly critical to the development of conflict in the pacific, however other factors must also be considered when assessing wars inevitability", then have a paragraph on foreign policy, paragraph on economic and political issues, paragraph on US/British policies, and strategic and political reasons for bombing Pearl Harbour. You could also have a judgement like this if it is applicable, which is even better: "Japanese foreign policy was highly critical to the development of conflict in the pacific, as it was an underlying factor with made war inevitable." With this judgement you'd follow the same structure, but assert foreign policies underlying influence over the other factors throughout!

As I said earlier, I didn't study this unit, so in the end it is up to you to make the decision that you think is best for you - here are just some of my thoughts! Hope this helps,

Susie

[herb123]

Hey Im doing Albert Speer for my personality study
just want to know, is there a genreal gist that the PArt B questions take and how i should tackle it
thanks

[jakesilove]

Hey Im doing Albert Speer for my personality study
just want to know, is there a genreal gist that the PArt B questions take and how i should tackle it
thanks

Hey!

Generally, a Part B will be asking about to impact that your chosen personality had on their time period. The response for Speer, in particular, usually looks like this. Over time, historiography has really changed their tune about Speer and his actions during the War. Initially, he was seen as the 'good Nazi'; apologetic, ignorant of the final solution, just trying to help the German people. This, it turns out, was bullshit (you may disagree. You'd probably be wrong, but hey, that's your right!). So, the essay is usually spent persecuting the living hell out of a man who used slave labour to build rocket, evicted Jews from their homes, and DID know about the final solution (ie. mass murder of Jews, amongst other minorities).

So, usually, you'll pick three themes. For example, you might use his relationship with Hitler, his use of Slave Labour, and his actions as Armaments minister. You'll look at his claims at Nuremberg, and those supporting him in the historiography (eg. Sereny). Then, you'll rip him to shreds. You do this in the context of himself arguing he was just 'swept up by the times', and you arguing that he knew what he was doing.

Remember to use heaps of quotes, statistics, and other specific information! Let us know if you want any clarification

Jake

[herb123]

Hey!

Generally, a Part B will be asking about to impact that your chosen personality had on their time period. The response for Speer, in particular, usually looks like this. Over time, historiography has really changed their tune about Speer and his actions during the War. Initially, he was seen as the 'good Nazi'; apologetic, ignorant of the final solution, just trying to help the German people. This, it turns out, was bullshit (you may disagree. You'd probably be wrong, but hey, that's your right!). So, the essay is usually spent persecuting the living hell out of a man who used slave labour to build rocket, evicted Jews from their homes, and DID know about the final solution (ie. mass murder of Jews, amongst other minorities).

So, usually, you'll pick three themes. For example, you might use his relationship with Hitler, his use of Slave Labour, and his actions as Armaments minister. You'll look at his claims at Nuremberg, and those supporting him in the historiography (eg. Sereny). Then, you'll rip him to shreds. You do this in the context of himself arguing he was just 'swept up by the times', and you arguing that he knew what he was doing.

Remember to use heaps of quotes, statistics, and other specific information! Let us know if you want any clarification

Jake

Hey thanks so much for the reply!
Im pretty much trying to go for this angle: ""a narrow minded idealist who offered his services to any superior force"-  Joachim Fest
so he was a selfish shithead who put himself and his ambition before all others, before principle and pretty much was amoral who leapt and swapped allegiences at times where he thought it would benefit himself
so im pretty much gonna talk about:
rejection of scorched earth policy, his nonchalance of the use of slave labour and some more other stuff 
Can you give me some feedback if this sounds okay

[rodero]

Hey thanks so much for the reply!
Im pretty much trying to go for this angle: ""a narrow minded idealist who offered his services to any superior force"-  Joachim Fest
so he was a selfish shithead who put himself and his ambition before all others, before principle and pretty much was amoral who leapt and swapped allegiences at times where he thought it would benefit himself
so im pretty much gonna talk about:
rejection of scorched earth policy, his nonchalance of the use of slave labour and some more other stuff 
Can you give me some feedback if this sounds okay

Hey,
Just wondering, were you at the modern history day at USYD this week? Scott Wimble gave us that exact quote and I completely agree with it. Once seeing Germany's imminent defeat, Speer begins to create an impression that he was a 'Good Nazi' - this is seen in his rejection to the scorched earth policy as you mentioned.

I personally think that angle is great when backed with other historians, but you need to make sure that this argument is relevant to the question. In the end, I don't consider myself a 100% credible person to give you the green light, so I'll leave that to the state rankers. I will however, give you some other historians with like minded views.

Schmidt: Speer's memoirs are inconsistent and perhaps "the most cunning apologia by any figure of the Third Reich"

Van Der Vat: "a liar, a fraud and a hypocrite"

Don't forget Goldhagen, who notes that Speer was in fact present at the Posen Conference, where the Final Solution was discussed

[herb123]

Hey,
Just wondering, were you at the modern history day at USYD this week? Scott Wimble gave us that exact quote and I completely agree with it. Once seeing Germany's imminent defeat, Speer begins to create an impression that he was a 'Good Nazi' - this is seen in his rejection to the scorched earth policy as you mentioned.

I personally think that angle is great when backed with other historians, but you need to make sure that this argument is relevant to the question. In the end, I don't consider myself a 100% credible person to give you the green light, so I'll leave that to the state rankers. I will however, give you some other historians with like minded views.

Schmidt: Speer's memoirs are inconsistent and perhaps "the most cunning apologia by any figure of the Third Reich"

Van Der Vat: "a liar, a fraud and a hypocrite"

Don't forget Goldhagen, who notes that Speer was in fact present at the Posen Conference, where the Final Solution was discussed

Thanks alot for the tips man!
Ye I was at the HTA study day at Usyd just today infact

[sudodds]

Hey,
Just wondering, were you at the modern history day at USYD this week? Scott Wimble gave us that exact quote and I completely agree with it. Once seeing Germany's imminent defeat, Speer begins to create an impression that he was a 'Good Nazi' - this is seen in his rejection to the scorched earth policy as you mentioned.

I personally think that angle is great when backed with other historians, but you need to make sure that this argument is relevant to the question. In the end, I don't consider myself a 100% credible person to give you the green light, so I'll leave that to the state rankers. I will however, give you some other historians with like minded views.

Schmidt: Speer's memoirs are inconsistent and perhaps "the most cunning apologia by any figure of the Third Reich"

Van Der Vat: "a liar, a fraud and a hypocrite"

Don't forget Goldhagen, who notes that Speer was in fact present at the Posen Conference, where the Final Solution was discussed

Pretty much hits the nail on the head my opinion - great answer rodero! Though I'm no Speer expert (I'll leave that to jake and rodero!), your judgement is strong and direct which is great, and from the little I know of Speer can be backed up with some pretty solid evidence. However, as rodero says, you've got to make sure that it works with the question! When it comes to the personality study this isn't that hard as there is only 3 types of questions they typically ask;

- Interpretations (so for Speer it's the "Good Nazi" debate - your judgement would work well with this type of question)
- Shaped by/Shaped events (basically were they a product of their time? or were they and active contributor to the time?)
- Overall Significance (hint: if they're on the modern history syllabus, they're probably pretty significant  )

I'd recommend having a general plan for all three of these question types, and make sure that you do a practice essay for each one before trials to make sure that you are as prepared as possible!

Thanks alot for the tips man!
Ye I was at the HTA study day at Usyd just today infact

Did either of you go to any of Bruce Dennett's lectures (particularly his WW1: Western Front one?) He's the man, love that guy.