HSC Modern History Question Thread

[sudodds]

Hi, you can check http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/syllabus_hsc/modern-history.html and see that the syllabus was changed for the 2010 HSC so yeah, your question does not match the syllabus dot points. However, the question does seem to tie in with strategies used by Allied forces against Japan 1942–1945 but don't quote me on that because I don't do the Pacific.

Thanks heaps man! I have notes on that but wasn't sure where the 37-51 came from! massive relief cheers!

Yep! Don't do any questions prior to 2010 due to the syllabus change!! (it annoys me that BOSTES/NESA has them still up with no warning, super easy to get confused).

[rodero]

Hey, I'm going through some past paper essays and one question is on: Assess the impact of strategies used by the Japanese and the Allies in the Pacific from 1937-1951 (2008). Just wondering if anyone could indicate where this has come from the current syllabus/whether the syllabus changed since 2008.

Hey !

In my opinion, I think that the question you've been given is still relevant, regardless of the syllabus change. Now i'm going to note that I study the Conflict in Europe, not the Pacific, so don't count me on this. However, after a quick skim of your syllabus, I think I can show you why you can still be asked a question like this.

When you're looking at the modern history syllabus, don't exclude the text above the learn about section. In particular, pay close attention to the key features and issues; one of them is 'Japanese and Allied strategies'. Generally, they'll top and tail one of these key features/issues with a syllabus dot point. But in this case, the question you've been given stems entirely off the key feature. To compensate, they've given you scope to mention the entire Conflict in the Pacific time-frame. This therefore explains why you've been given the years 1937-1951.

I'll give you all the key features and issues below:

Spoiler

Key features and issues:
•    imperialism and responses to it
•    nature and impact of nationalism
•    Japanese and Allied strategies
•    impact of the war on the home fronts of Japan and Australia
•    impact of the war in Occupied Territories in South-East Asia
•    use of the A-bomb
•    reasons for the Japanese defeat
•    aims and consequences of the Allied Occupation of Japan

Now, to prepare for this, I learnt a handy table from a lecturer at the HTA day. Basically, it has the key issues / features going across, and the syllabus dot point going down. This allows you to see how they link with one another. Of course, not everything will link; for instance I doubt the bombing of pearl harbor and Japan's home-front has a great link, but you get the gist. What I hope you can take away from this is that essays aren't purely derived from the syllabus dot point. They can also mix it up with a key feature / issue AND they can ask you to write about the entire conflict, which they did in the question you have. 

[sudodds]

Hey !

In my opinion, I think that the question you've been given is still relevant, regardless of the syllabus change. Now i'm going to note that I study the Conflict in Europe, not the Pacific, so don't count me on this. However, after a quick skim of your syllabus, I think I can show you why you can still be asked a question like this.

When you're looking at the modern history syllabus, don't exclude the text above the learn about section. In particular, pay close attention to the key features and issues; one of them is 'Japanese and Allied strategies'. Generally, they'll top and tail one of these key features/issues with a syllabus dot point. But in this case, the question you've been given stems entirely off the key feature. To compensate, they've given you scope to mention the entire Conflict in the Pacific time-frame. This therefore explains why you've been given the years 1937-1951.

I'll give you all the key features and issues below:

Spoiler

Key features and issues:
•    imperialism and responses to it
•    nature and impact of nationalism
•    Japanese and Allied strategies
•    impact of the war on the home fronts of Japan and Australia
•    impact of the war in Occupied Territories in South-East Asia
•    use of the A-bomb
•    reasons for the Japanese defeat
•    aims and consequences of the Allied Occupation of Japan

Now, to prepare for this, I learnt a handy table from a lecturer at the HTA day. Basically, it has the key issues / features going across, and the syllabus dot point going down. This allows you to see how they link with one another. Of course, not everything will link; for instance I doubt the bombing of pearl harbor and Japan's home-front has a great link, but you get the gist. What I hope you can take away from this is that essays aren't purely derived from the syllabus dot point. They can also mix it up with a key feature / issue AND they can ask you to write about the entire conflict, which they did in the question you have. 

Great spot rodero! And definitely true - questions are often derived from the key features and issues, so its very important to have a solid understanding of them (reason why we went through ideology in the lecture!) That study technique sounds fab as well, similar to a linking table, but more so covering the over-aching themes and issues, rather than just the factors! Can defs see that being a really useful resource - particularly for writing differentiated essays!

[dancing phalanges]

Hey !

In my opinion, I think that the question you've been given is still relevant, regardless of the syllabus change. Now i'm going to note that I study the Conflict in Europe, not the Pacific, so don't count me on this. However, after a quick skim of your syllabus, I think I can show you why you can still be asked a question like this.

When you're looking at the modern history syllabus, don't exclude the text above the learn about section. In particular, pay close attention to the key features and issues; one of them is 'Japanese and Allied strategies'. Generally, they'll top and tail one of these key features/issues with a syllabus dot point. But in this case, the question you've been given stems entirely off the key feature. To compensate, they've given you scope to mention the entire Conflict in the Pacific time-frame. This therefore explains why you've been given the years 1937-1951.

I'll give you all the key features and issues below:

Spoiler

Key features and issues:
•    imperialism and responses to it
•    nature and impact of nationalism
•    Japanese and Allied strategies
•    impact of the war on the home fronts of Japan and Australia
•    impact of the war in Occupied Territories in South-East Asia
•    use of the A-bomb
•    reasons for the Japanese defeat
•    aims and consequences of the Allied Occupation of Japan

Now, to prepare for this, I learnt a handy table from a lecturer at the HTA day. Basically, it has the key issues / features going across, and the syllabus dot point going down. This allows you to see how they link with one another. Of course, not everything will link; for instance I doubt the bombing of pearl harbor and Japan's home-front has a great link, but you get the gist. What I hope you can take away from this is that essays aren't purely derived from the syllabus dot point. They can also mix it up with a key feature / issue AND they can ask you to write about the entire conflict, which they did in the question you have. 

Okay sweet thank you heaps! Probably won't stress over it too much especially for my trial but will keep it in mind definitely! never noticed that key features section haha

[dancing phalanges]

The question I am trying now is: To what extent was Japanese foreign policy from 1937-1941 responsible for the increasing tensions that eventually led to war? Does foreign policy include Japanese militarism, imperialism and nationalism or are these separate factors to discuss in an essay like this? Thanks

[mixel]

Quick question, if we're using historiography / academic opinions as detail for arguments in essays, is there any need for direct quotations? On the one hand, I've heard that direct quotations instead of describing arguments is somewhat frowned upon in Modern because they seem like mindless regurgitation but on the other hand I've seen a lot of direct quotations in notes and particularly Ken Webb's textbooks.

[bellerina]

I have a modern exam this Thursday and it's open-book so we get to bring our notes in and everything. So we get to write for 45min, how many paragraphs should I aim for? I was thinking 3-4 (depending on the question) ?

[dancing phalanges]

Quick question, if we're using historiography / academic opinions as detail for arguments in essays, is there any need for direct quotations? On the one hand, I've heard that direct quotations instead of describing arguments is somewhat frowned upon in Modern because they seem like mindless regurgitation but on the other hand I've seen a lot of direct quotations in notes and particularly Ken Webb's textbooks.

You're already going to piss off Susie by mentioning Ken Webb haha but I personally quote historians and etc. but use only parts and will explain how their views suit my argument eg. in reference to the importance of article 48 in the fall of weimar i wrote - Yet also, the liberal nature of Article 48 was then easily manipulated by Hitler in order to actually overthrow democracy itself. Historian Hermann Mau argues this point when referencing how “the enemies of the republic” who “refused to accept” it would actually benefit from “every advantage of a democratic constitution.”

[mixel]

I have a modern exam this Thursday and it's open-book so we get to bring our notes in and everything. So we get to write for 45min, how many paragraphs should I aim for? I was thinking 3-4 (depending on the question) ?

Is this for national study or conflict study? I've found that often conflict study questions support more paragraphs of shorter length (up to 5-6), especially questions asking about the impact of a certain event/battle on the rest of the conflict (questions on heading 2 dot points on most section 4 syllabi) because it invites small paragraphs on the impact on other specific events in the war, rather than broader thematic analysis that would support more consolidated paragraphs 

[mixel]

You're already going to piss off Susie by mentioning Ken Webb haha but I personally quote historians and etc. but use only parts and will explain how their views suit my argument eg. in reference to the importance of article 48 in the fall of weimar i wrote - Yet also, the liberal nature of Article 48 was then easily manipulated by Hitler in order to actually overthrow democracy itself. Historian Hermann Mau argues this point when referencing how “the enemies of the republic” who “refused to accept” it would actually benefit from “every advantage of a democratic constitution.”

Thanks! Do you find that takes much more space than it would to just paraphrase their thesis? Your example seems quite succinct but I imagined quotations would add a lot more words

[dancing phalanges]

Thanks! Do you find that takes much more space than it would to just paraphrase their thesis? Your example seems quite succinct but I imagined quotations would add a lot more words

I think it does exactly that, makes it more succinct rather than trying to explain their words yourself. Also looks better haha. Something simple like this shows how you can just blend it in so easily and it doesnt take much space at all:

For example, duplication was present in Hitler’s government, with the Ministry of Labour in direct competition with the German Labour Front. Intentionalist historians have argued that this was a deliberate tactic of Hitler’s. However, it has been more correctly interpreted by the Structuralists to be a representation of his weakness as a dictator in the sense that according to Hans Mommsen, Hitler was “reluctant to make decisions.”

[sudodds]

The question I am trying now is: To what extent was Japanese foreign policy from 1937-1941 responsible for the increasing tensions that eventually led to war? Does foreign policy include Japanese militarism, imperialism and nationalism or are these separate factors to discuss in an essay like this? Thanks

Hi there! As you probs know, didn't study this unit! However, I'd assume that, yes, it does include those things! Imperialism is inherently foreign policy, and both nationalism and militarism will always impact the application of foreign policy. When I wrote Soviet foreign policy essays, I always structured them thematically - for something like this, the themes I'd choose would be political, economic and social. Buuuuuuutttt this isn't the only way to structure an essay like this! Go with your gut - happy to take a look over any essay plans (or essays once you've reached the post count!)

[sudodds]

Quick question, if we're using historiography / academic opinions as detail for arguments in essays, is there any need for direct quotations? On the one hand, I've heard that direct quotations instead of describing arguments is somewhat frowned upon in Modern because they seem like mindless regurgitation but on the other hand I've seen a lot of direct quotations in notes and particularly Ken Webb's textbooks.

NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER QUOTE WEBB. Hahaha. Not just because, yes, its a well known fact I'm not his biggest fan haha, but also because he's not a historian. Don't quote textbooks But on the topic of paraphrasing, I think that's a fab idea! Though there really is nothing wrong with direct quoting (I did it all the time), paraphrasing is great, because it shows that you actually understand what they are saying, not that you just memorised a couple of sentences. It all comes down to effective integration - using quotes or paraphrased historians to back up your own arguments, rather than just parroting the words of an expert So "[your view], as supported by [insert historian here], whereby they state/assert....". That's how I would go about it

[sudodds]

I have a modern exam this Thursday and it's open-book so we get to bring our notes in and everything. So we get to write for 45min, how many paragraphs should I aim for? I was thinking 3-4 (depending on the question) ?

Hey bellerina! There really isn't a set number Some people can get amazing marks with 3 paragraphs, some with 6! I typically wrote about 3, sometimes 4, however in the HSC my Cold War essay was only two paragraphs! It also greatly depends upon what type of essay you are writing - factor essays typically have more paragraphs than a thematic essay in my experience

Hope this helps!

Susie

[mixel]

NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER QUOTE WEBB. Hahaha. Not just because, yes, its a well known fact I'm not his biggest fan haha, but also because he's not a historian. Don't quote textbooks But on the topic of paraphrasing, I think that's a fab idea! Though there really is nothing wrong with direct quoting (I did it all the time), paraphrasing is great, because it shows that you actually understand what they are saying, not that you just memorised a couple of sentences. It all comes down to effective integration - using quotes or paraphrased historians to back up your own arguments, rather than just parroting the words of an expert So "[your view], as supported by [insert historian here], whereby they state/assert....". That's how I would go about it

Oh no, I don't mean quoting Webb, I mean he includes direct quotations from historians a lot 
Thanks! I'll start finding some quotations. It might be a problem that I haven't actually read any historians except Richard J. Evans hahaha