HSC Modern History Question Thread

[jakesilove]

How, in your opinion, did the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact contribute to the growth of European tension?

Hey! Honestly, this is a specific point that I don't remember very well. I would do some research online, or grab a book or two from the library. I'm imagining that it allowed Germany to focus on other areas of Europe, strengthening their position? Russia had been essentially ostracised after WWI, and an alliance between Germany and Russia was sure to frighten the British. Anyway, you'll have to do some independent research on that one

[bellerina]

Studying for Russia and trying to remember the content. Any past paper questions I can do for each syllabus dot point, which will help me remember the content?  Slightly struggling here haha

[sudodds]

Studying for Russia and trying to remember the content. Any past paper questions I can do for each syllabus dot point, which will help me remember the content?  Slightly struggling here haha

Heya! These are questions that I would recommend (Some of these are past paper questions, others are ones that I have made up )

Bolshevik Consolidation of Power
- To what extent was Lenin the most critical factor to the Bolshevik Consolidation of power?
- Assess the impact of Communist ideology to the Bolshevik Consolidation of power?

These two questions are great, because they cover the ENTIRE Bolshevik Consolidation of power syllabus! Then you can try these

- To what extent was the (insert syllabus dot point) the most critical factor to the Bolshevik Consolidation of power?
(The syllabus dot points are; early social and political reforms, Treaty of Brest Litovsk, Civil War and War Communism, and the New Economic Policy).

This question is great, because it forces you to write a differentiated essay! With a question like this I don't recommend trying to prove that one was more important than the other, but rather that they all worked in tandem, and cannot be assess as isolated factors. Draw out the links between them (hint - ideological adherence vs. pragmatism is a BIG one), and that becomes your thesis!

Stalin's Rise to Power
- Account for Stalin's rise to power. (again this is a broad question, so great for study!)
- To what extent was (insert factor here) the critical factor in establishing Stalin's rise to power? (differentiated essays again!)
(Factors; social changes, ideology, personality and political tactics!)

The Soviet State under Stalin
- To what extent can Stalinism be considered Totalitarianism?
- Assess the impact of Stalinism on society, culture and the economy

I like a thematic structure for Stalin essays, so these two questions are perfect to get you started

Soviet Foreign Policy
- To what extent did Soviet Foreign Policy achieve it's aims to 1941?
- Assess the impact of ideology on the implementation of Soviet Foreign Policy to 1941.

This should be a good mix to get you started! Hope this helps

Susie

[rodero]

How, in your opinion, did the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact contribute to the growth of European tension?

This sounds like an essay question to me, but i'll do my best to condense it into one reply

Short Version:
The Non-Aggression Pact gave Hitler the 'green light' (I'm quoting Ken Webb, something that is heavily frowned upon hehe)
to invade Poland, and ultimately trigger the outbreak of war.

Long(er) Version:
The Non-Aggression Pact was a result of continuous world-wide inadequacies. Starting with the German and Italian dictators, they had aggressive foreign policies which required imperial expansion. For this reason Hitler and Mussolini began to acquire territory throughout Europe, something that Germany was not allowed to do under the Treaty of Versailles. In particular, Germany breached key terms of the Treaty by remilitarising the Rhineland and taking over Austria. Then, Germany and Italy created something called the axis powers - which was basically a flag saying 'Yes we're planning to take over all of Europe'.

But the inter-governmental organisation that was supposed to deal with this - the League of Nations - did nothing about it. Although the League was supposed to maintain peace, nobody really took it seriously. Britain, who was one of, if not the biggest member, didn't want to be dragged into conflict if it had no direct impact on itself. This completely went against something that the League relied upon. Collective security; The policy that when conflict arose, ALL members would become involved and actively strive to reach a peaceful solution. If Britain didn't want to follow this policy, why would any of the other nations want to? Even then, so many nations, such as Germany, Italy, Japan, the US weren't even part of the League. This just goes to show how powerless it was in stopping the dictators.

Once this failed, Britain adopted a policy of appeasement. In essence it was something like "We'll give you this, but then you have to stop". Basically they gave Hitler the Sudetenland on the requirement that he ceases territorial expansion. Hitler agreed to it but literally called it a "scrap of paper". A major flaw about this policy was that they didn't even consult with the Czechoslovak's... you know... the guys who own the Sudetenland? Britain literally told them, this is the solution, if you don't accept it we aren't helping when Hitler invades you. They didn't consult with Stalin either - which is a key reason as to why he signed the Non-Aggression Pact in the first place. He felt that Britain and France were working together and excluding him entirely. This is mostly true, as Britain and France feared Communism

The Non Aggression Pact was Stalin's response to all the failures that happened in Europe. He basically concluded that a war, by this point, was inevitable, so he wanted time to arm up and prepare. This pact is kind of self-explanatory - Non-Aggression, meaning Germany and Russia won't fight each other. This pact also had an agreement that Russia would own part of Poland once Germany conquers it. The signing of this was significant in that it avoided a war of encirclement, something that was a major problem in World War 1. This virtually gave Hitler the 'green light' to invade Poland. So basically, the Non-Aggression Pact was the final straw, or the climax to European tensions

EDIT: I forgot to mention that Russia and Germany had no intention of an alliance - they hated each other immensely. It was just that, in the current circumstance, they would both benefit with this agreement.

[sudodds]

EDIT: I forgot to mention that Russia and Germany had no intention of an alliance - they hated each other immensely. It was just that, in the current circumstance, they would both benefit with this agreement.

I think this edited spongebob video sums it up quite nicely
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwumsVdK1Jw

(spongebob explains history is probably my favourite meme to date)

[bellerina]

Did anyone study 'Conflict in Indochina'? Because I have an essay to write in class the first week back on Thursday. I need some feedback for what I've written! 

[_____]

Did anyone study 'Conflict in Indochina'? Because I have an essay to write in class the first week back on Thursday. I need some feedback for what I've written! 

Yo I'm doing that topic - I'll give it an overview if you like.

[rodero]

Hey guys 
Firstly I'd like to thank Susie for the spectacular lecture today! It really was great for trial prep and I loved the Lenin costume!!

At the time I didn't pay much attention to this, but now it's really playing on me. You mentioned how you didn't make any notes for Modern History at all, which is surprising to me. I understand that everyone has their own study method, but once talking to other successful Modern students, I've found that they didn't make syllabus notes either. Instead, they were like you and just did a tonne of past papers. I'd like to know why you, and others do this, especially when there is so much necessity for detail. Were detail tables the maximum you'd do? What did you do when you found gaps in your content?

Again, thank you so much for today (and everyday really!), it really was great for preparation 

[sudodds]

Hey guys 
Firstly I'd like to thank Susie for the spectacular lecture today! It really was great for trial prep and I loved the Lenin costume!!

At the time I didn't pay much attention to this, but now it's really playing on me. You mentioned how you didn't make any notes for Modern History at all, which is surprising to me. I understand that everyone has their own study method, but once talking to other successful Modern students, I've found that they didn't make syllabus notes either. Instead, they were like you and just did a tonne of past papers. I'd like to know why you, and others do this, especially when there is so much necessity for detail. Were detail tables the maximum you'd do? What did you do when you found gaps in your content?

Again, thank you so much for today (and everyday really!), it really was great for preparation 

Aw no worries! So glad you enjoyed
hahaha I expected it might be surprising to a few people - I feel like we've all been conditioned since year 7 to believe that writing notes is the only way to study, so much so that it has almost become compulsory! But the thing is, a lot of people just don't learn through reading and writing notes - notes which take a HELL of a lot of time to construct. Personally I am a more practical based learner, meaning that in order to absorb content I actually need to be doing something with it - just sitting there and reading a tonne of dot points doesn't work with my brain. When it came to detail my process either;
- Look at my detail table: I found detail from all over the place; so my teachers workbook, various textbooks, readings, online etc. etc. Before exams I would use a look/cover/write/check method to study these!
- Or research as I go: As I said in the lecture, I wrote a shit tonne of past papers. Most of these were open book! So if I came across a point that I wasn't sure about, I would let myself look it up, and learn in the process (I think by actively searching for this content I was also more likely to remember it)! I'd often write full essays, then go back and look for places where I could add more detail, and go and find more stats

Obviously this won't work for everyone - and as much as I'm sure there were high-achieving students who had a similar method to me, I'm equally sure that there would have been a lot of other successful modern students who wrote bomb-ass notes! It's all about working out how you study, and the most effective way for you to absorb content

Hope this helps! And again, I'm so glad you enjoyed the lecture I had so much fun giving it that's for sure!

Susie

[bellerina]

Yo I'm doing that topic - I'll give it an overview if you like.

That would be fantastic! Thank you! I'll send it over! 

[Never.Give.Up]

Hey!!!
I'm doing a presentation on Leni Riefenstahl... with the question 'Leni Riefenstahl- Artist or Nazi Sympathiser?'
and... I really need some help getting some ideas together as to what I should include in it
We can do a 5-6 minute speech with a visual presentation of some form to present it...
but I can't work out what to include in it or how to set it out...
any tips and help would be very much appreciated.

thx so much

[soha.rizvi1]

Hi Guys,

I was just wondering if anyone had ideas on how I should start my modern essay regarding Ho Chi Minh with the question "It is not too much to say that in the West there were many Hos. There was a French Ho and an American Ho. There was a Ho admired by radicals and a Ho condemned by those who supported the American role in Vietnam."            

To what extent does history present us with a balanced interpretation of Ho Chi Minh?"

I want to say that there is a balanced interpretation as there is bias in both the French, American and Vietnamese people's but I am not sure how to start this introduction? Any ideas, on how to address the question and the quote in the Intro?

[sudodds]

Hey!!!
I'm doing a presentation on Leni Riefenstahl... with the question 'Leni Riefenstahl- Artist or Nazi Sympathiser?'
and... I really need some help getting some ideas together as to what I should include in it
We can do a 5-6 minute speech with a visual presentation of some form to present it...
but I can't work out what to include in it or how to set it out...
any tips and help would be very much appreciated.

thx so much

Hey Never.Give.Up!

Can't offer you specific content advice, as I didn't study Leni, however might be able to help a bit with structure! What I would recommend is working out three of the most significant events in the life of Leni, and assessing to what extent each even demonstrates that she was either a Nazi Sympathiser or an artist, asserting one view consistently throughout the essay as the stronger and more valid interpretation. So each paragraph is on a different event or issue! For what I have heard said before, I'd say you'd want to focus on some of her key films and her relationship with Hitler!

Hope this helps Hopefully another awesome soul who studied Leni will be able to give you some more specific advice

Susie

[dancing phalanges]

Hey guys, just a quick question about the Turning Points in the War in the Pacific. If the question is asking to what extent Midway was the main turning point, how long should I take discussing Midway and how long on why the other battles were important. Also what would your thesis be as while Midway was important, it would not have happened without Coral Sea and Guadalcanal was also important ie. bigger losses for Japanese, so which would I argue had the greatest impact?
Thanks!

[sudodds]

Hi Guys,

I was just wondering if anyone had ideas on how I should start my modern essay regarding Ho Chi Minh with the question "It is not too much to say that in the West there were many Hos. There was a French Ho and an American Ho. There was a Ho admired by radicals and a Ho condemned by those who supported the American role in Vietnam."            

To what extent does history present us with a balanced interpretation of Ho Chi Minh?"

I want to say that there is a balanced interpretation as there is bias in both the French, American and Vietnamese people's but I am not sure how to start this introduction? Any ideas, on how to address the question and the quote in the Intro?

Hey! So heads up - I didn't study Indochina or Ho Chi Minh, however I still may be able to offer some advice!

If I were to approach a question like this, I probably wouldn't be saying that history presents a balanced approach. I get your reasoning, but I don't think it's exactly what the question is looking for - I don't believe it is asking for you to look at the discipline of history holistically (at least in my opinion), but more so the ability of history and historians to present an objective view of the past. Instead I would assert that due to Ho Chi Minh's controversial nature it is actually impossible for history to present an objective view - it will always be clouded by not only the ideology of the historian anyway, but also their interpretation of Ho Chi Minh's ideology as well! So how would an American source interpret Ho Chi Minh's legacy - though a capitalist, anti-communist lens, etc. etc. Soooo my judgement would be: "History presents highly imbalanced interpretation of Ho Chi Minh, as his controversial nature and ideology is interpreted differently by individuals, as informed by their own ideological beliefs and values, thus the statement is highly accurate"! Then I'd want to briefly explain the context of my judgement and why I came to it (you can integrate the ideas from the quote here), then outline what each of my paragraphs will discuss (I suggest looking at three key events!)

Hope this helps

Susie