HSC Modern History Question Thread

[tahliamag]

Hi,
I'm currently attempting this personality question in relation to Albert Speer:
"All great individuals are a product of their time." To what extent does the study of your personality support this view? (15 marks)
I was wondering if anyone could help me out with some type of structure or what I should be writing for this as I'm not really sure what events to refer to etc.

[sudodds]

Hey Jake and Susie,
Just a question R.E German Foreign Policy and how to answer how successful it was in achieving its aims up to 1939.
How would you guys recommend I structure this essay, it seems as if German Foreign Policy was proving successful until Hitler began to become more daring with his policies, so would you recommend I structure it chronologically?
The other option I could think of was to structure my essay around the aims of German Foreign Policy, which was inherently about territorial expansion and race (if you can suggest any other aims to bring in here that would be great, I know there are small things eg. get rid of privisions of TOV etc)
If you have any other ideas for structure I would appreciate it
Cheers

Hey! I might be able to help with structure
When I did Soviet Foreign policy essays, I answered them thematically. For me, that was a paragraph on strategic/militaristic foreign policy, then socio-cultural, and then diplomatic - looking at the different policies implemented under each category, and how they contributed to the overall success/failure of soviet foreign policy! You'll have to make sure you have a solid understanding of what the central aims where, and if certain aims were more important than the other. For example, with Soviet foreign policy, I argued that they had conflicting aims of both international revolution and domestic stability, with the latter largely winning out, making foreign policy only partially successful.

Hope that helps! Sorry I couldn't be more specific (hopefully Jake and/or another germany student will be able to help you out more content wise )

Susie

[jakesilove]

Hey Jake and Susie,
Just a question R.E German Foreign Policy and how to answer how successful it was in achieving its aims up to 1939.
How would you guys recommend I structure this essay, it seems as if German Foreign Policy was proving successful until Hitler began to become more daring with his policies, so would you recommend I structure it chronologically?
The other option I could think of was to structure my essay around the aims of German Foreign Policy, which was inherently about territorial expansion and race (if you can suggest any other aims to bring in here that would be great, I know there are small things eg. get rid of privisions of TOV etc)
If you have any other ideas for structure I would appreciate it
Cheers

Personally, I would recommend against chronological essays. Just seems a little... simplistic, unless you explain the purpose of that structure in the essay. I really like your second option: Identifying the aims of German Foreign Policy, and using evidence to argue that those aspects were/were not achieved by 1939. I think that this is a much more sophisticated way of approaching a question; rather than saying 'Yes it was implemented', you can say 'Some aspects were, however others were not'.

Feel free to post up a more comprehensive 'essay plan' for us to look at!

Edit: Goddammit Suddods. Always beating me to it

[jakesilove]

Hi,
I'm currently attempting this personality question in relation to Albert Speer:
"All great individuals are a product of their time." To what extent does the study of your personality support this view? (15 marks)
I was wondering if anyone could help me out with some type of structure or what I should be writing for this as I'm not really sure what events to refer to etc.

Hey! When I did Speer, I decided on three broad 'Themes', and answered the question by assessing historiography with regards to those themes. From memory, I did Speer's knowledge of the Final Solution, Speer's relationship with Hitler, and Speer's defence at Nuremberg. The events that you refer to are entirely up to you; form a thesis, and decide upon the best points you can use to prove that thesis.

[sudodds]

Edit: Goddammit Suddods. Always beating me to it

back in the game

[herb123]

Hey there i got a Conflict in the Pacific essay coming up (my last internal assessment yay!)
the question is "Japan had little choice but to bomb Pearl Harbour if it wanted to achieve its foreign policy aims in the Pacific" To what extent is this statement accurate?

our teacher has said this is meant to be a source based research essays so it needs a bit of historeography
Can you guys give me some pointers on what to write about in the essay and structuring it and stuff?
Thanks alot

[dancing phalanges]

Personally, I would recommend against chronological essays. Just seems a little... simplistic, unless you explain the purpose of that structure in the essay. I really like your second option: Identifying the aims of German Foreign Policy, and using evidence to argue that those aspects were/were not achieved by 1939. I think that this is a much more sophisticated way of approaching a question; rather than saying 'Yes it was implemented', you can say 'Some aspects were, however others were not'.

Feel free to post up a more comprehensive 'essay plan' for us to look at!

Edit: Goddammit Suddods. Always beating me to it

Cheers guys! I agreed it was more simplistic, I'm hoping to write most of it tonight so may post it later or something

[dancing phalanges]

Hi,
I'm currently attempting this personality question in relation to Albert Speer:
"All great individuals are a product of their time." To what extent does the study of your personality support this view? (15 marks)
I was wondering if anyone could help me out with some type of structure or what I should be writing for this as I'm not really sure what events to refer to etc.

i recently did this question, the points i used were as follows
1. he was a product of his time in his early life as he too was swept away by hitler's charisma and skills as an orator
some quotes to back it up from albert speer himself:
"to me, i joined hitler's party not the nazi party"
"captivated by the magic of Hitler's voice"
"here it seemed to me was hope"
the last two quotes are reference to his opinion of hitler as a speaker
then to show he is a product of his times i had a quote by cbs correspondent william shirer, who heard hitler - "hitler had a magic power to sway millions with his voice"
therefore a product of his times as he too like many discontented germans were swept away by hitler's charisma to join the nazi party
2. speer's rise to prominence was primary due to opportunities which came his way, therefore making him a product of his time
eg. his first patron as a nazi car driver was karl hanke, who was the leader of kreisleuteng west and as hanke progressed through the ranks to state secretary in the propaganda ministry, he brought speer up with him. hanke provided him with his first job, a series of minor renovations for his and Goebbel's headquarters, which impressed Hitler (speer noted that this commission was "the luckiest turning point" in his life) therefore, highlighting how he was a product of his times as he was provided with opportunities to initially rise to power
eg. he also received promotions through the deaths of troost and todt and therefore was a product of his time as he came to power initially through circumstance
3. however, his actual success as armaments minister and hitler's architect has been interpreted as a result of his own skill therefore making him not entirely a product of his time
ARCHITECT
- speer was a good organiser and understood "the pyschology of the movement" (fest) which enhanced the image of the nazi party as grand and stable (therefore not product of own time)
ARMAMENTS MINISTER
- was highly efficient
- fest suggests that without speer hitler would not have been able to sustain the war and that speer "Reshaped the ministry according to his own ideas" including replacing civil servants with experts in their field
- his efficiency was on display as in the 1st 6 months (mar-july 1942) armaments production was 3x greater than the 1941 figure by 1944
- kershaw notes speer's rise as armaments minister as due to his "driving ambition and undoubted organisational talent"
- therefore, his actual success was not due to being a product of his time but his actual organisational skills
4. However, he was a product of his time in regards to his indifference of the exploitation used by the nazis
- eg. as armaments minister speed needed to expand his workforce and used slave labour from foreign occupied territories and concentration camps
- sereny therefore suggested that human cost was not speer's concern rather efficiency was more important  which was consistent with other technocrats who were absorbed with their own work but failed to see the moral dimension
- eg. at the dora factory, speer demands conditions be better not for the welfare of the workers but for their efficiency
- therefore, product of time r.e suceeding at the expense of the jews  and tacit acceptance of it
5. finally, not product of time re. nuremberg trial
- distinguished himself from other nazi leaders through remorse and shared responsibility
- journalist at nuremberg saw him as "the only defendant whom i respect for his personal honesty and courage"
- went against the rest of nazi leaders who wanted to immortalise hitler at nuremberg
- schmidt sees speer as "an organiser of his own legend"  therefore emphasising that he was not a product of his time as he, unlike the other nazi leaders, due to his remorse and shared responsbility without admitting his own individual guilt

sorry for ranting on but thats how my essay was structured in terms of ideas so just to wrap quickly
1. early life = part of time because swept away by hitler's charisma
2. early rise to prominence = part of time as rose due to opportunities
3. success as architect and armaments = not part of time due to skill as organiser therefore built his own success
4. was a part of his time in his exploitation of slave labour for efficiency
5. nuremberg trial = not part of time as built his own image and therefore avoided death sentence

hopefully that makes it clear as i rambled a bit ahaha

[tahliamag]

Thanks so much for the suggestions!!

[sudodds]

Hey there i got a Conflict in the Pacific essay coming up (my last internal assessment yay!)
the question is "Japan had little choice but to bomb Pearl Harbour if it wanted to achieve its foreign policy aims in the Pacific" To what extent is this statement accurate?

our teacher has said this is meant to be a source based research essays so it needs a bit of historeography
Can you guys give me some pointers on what to write about in the essay and structuring it and stuff?
Thanks alot

Hey herb! Unfortunately I didn't study this unit, so theres not really much for me to suggest, other than structurally consider looking at it through the various objectives, and how the bombing of pearl harbour was a key factor/influence? Mainly responding to this so that it doesn't get lost in the most recent replies.

There's quite a few Conflict in the Pacific students on here now though - hopefully they'll be able to help ya out!

Susie

[dancing phalanges]

Hey herb! Unfortunately I didn't study this unit, so theres not really much for me to suggest, other than structurally consider looking at it through the various objectives, and how the bombing of pearl harbour was a key factor/influence? Mainly responding to this so that it doesn't get lost in the most recent replies.

There's quite a few Conflict in the Pacific students on here now though - hopefully they'll be able to help ya out!

Susie

unfortunately it is one of the topics i havent gone into much depth into nor written an essay plan for
but here are some general idea:
- The Japanese knew they couldn't continue the war in China without resources as these were being dwindled by the Allied embargo. Therefore, in order to continue fighting, they need to go further south to area such as Malaya for rubber and Dutch East Indies for oil. However, the Americans at Pearl Harbour were the only viable threat to this aim. Therefore, they believed that attacking America at Pearl Harbour, if done correctly, would rule them out of the war for 2 years and therefore they could pass and take the resources in Malaya and the DEI. That was the main aim.
Two other benefits from the attack included:
- A restoration of pride from the people in the navy as the victory was to have a similar impact as the victory over Russia in 1904.
- And to reaffirm the racial pride of the Japanese and vulnerability of the West. (Can mention Co-Prosperity Sphere here if you want, but not too much otherwise you'll drift from focusing on Pearl Harbour.)
However, as I said, haven't done an essay plan on this one so all I can say at the moment! Hope it helped!

[thesvs]

Hey this is primarily directed at Susie, considering she did Russia for her National Study.
What themes would you centre your essay around for the question, "How successful was Soviet foreign policy in achieving its aims from 1917 to 1941? "
I'm lost in terms of structuring it thematically, but chronological seems too simplistic.
Thanks

[dancing phalanges]

Hey Jake, I just had a go at my intro, could you just let me know if I am on the right track? (I'm typing it up now because unfortunately but understandably we can't give anything to our teacher if it's typed haha)
HOW SUCCESSFUL WAS NAZISM IN ACHIEVING ITS FOREIGN POLICY AIMS UP TO 1939
Nazism foreign policy was centred around restoring Germany to the position of a great power. For Hitler, this could be achieved through two fundamental aims: territorial expansion and racial purity. Although Nazism was initially successful in gaining new territory (Lebensraum), this was only moderately successful by 1939 as they were unable to invade Poland. Therefore, while Nazism was also successful in annexing Austria and acquiring territory from Czechoslovakia, its failure to take Poland also meant that its aim for racial purity was also moderately successful as Poland had large German minorities. However, the Nazi party were highly successful in their secondary aims of destroying the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles and the building up of its army. Thus, Nazism was initially successful in achieving all of its Foreign Policy aims. Yet, the failure to capture Poland, which was significant due to its land and German minorities, meant that on a whole, by 1939, Nazism was only partially successful in achieving its aims.

Hahah damn I just realised Germany didnt fail and they did invade poland... so im a bit confused as what to write now so yeah any suggestions you could give on what you would argue would be great jake!

[sudodds]

Hey this is primarily directed at Susie, considering she did Russia for her National Study.
What themes would you centre your essay around for the question, "How successful was Soviet foreign policy in achieving its aims from 1917 to 1941? "
I'm lost in terms of structuring it thematically, but chronological seems too simplistic.
Thanks

Hey!
I structured this essay according to militaristic/strategic, diplomatic/economic and socio-cultural themes

So for militaristic/strategic themes, I spoke about the Spanish Civil War and the Soviet support of the Nationalist party in China, emphasising how their involvement within both emphasises their desire to achieve domestic stability over international revolution, as they supported the anti-communists in the Spanish Civil War, as they feared the revolution would further disrupt Europe, creating a chaos that Germany could thrive on (and grow into a greater, more stable threat), and the nationalists in China, as they didn't think that the Communist Party was powerful enough and thus didn't want to threaten their relationship with the Nationalists (helped the nationalists slaughter a heap of communists - really all but one... take a guess of who survived... ).

Then for diplomatic/economic, I spoke about how I spoke about the various trade deals and peace agreements that were signed, that further emphasised the aim of domestic stability over international revolution (in particular the Treaty of Rapollo, and how yes it helped Russia get back on its feet, but it also helped Germany, putting them in a more stable situation that made a communist revolution less likely).

For socio-cultural, I focused on the changing aims of the Comintern, and how it shifted from promoting international revolution, to Stalin's socialism-in-one-country, Lynch stating that “he set himself the primary task of defending his country’s interests in a hostile world” 

Hope this helps! If you scroll up, I actually posted my full response to this question recently Have a flick through and see if that structure makes sense to you Structuring it according to the aims and to what extent they were successfully achieved would also work well

Susie

[dancing phalanges]

Hey! Awesome, love that you are considering giving a thematic structure a go. Even if you end up liking the other structure better, always good to have this essay form in your arsenal Though political, social and economic are definitely the most commonly used themes, if you find it easier militaristic/strategic, ideological and cultural also count as themes too! I actually think a few of your examples might work better with these; for example I'd venture a guess and say that the invasion of China would be an example for a militaristic/strategic paragraph! I'd assume that the proclamation of New Order in East Asia would be political and/or social, and the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere (GEACPS) would be political (and maybe economic, if it included aspects of trade). However of course as I didn't study this, take these suggestions with a grain of salt.

In terms of your second question - I think it is fine to include it, but try to steer away from morality (ie. don't say this was morally good or morally bad). I think saying that it was inevitable, or a reasonable reaction however is fine And yes, as long as in your introduction you use the full title, you can definitely refer to the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere as GEACPS

Just because foreign policy questions in particular have been being asked quite a lot recently, for multiple case studies, within the spoiler I have included one of my essays on Soviet Foreign Policy, to hopefully indicate the way I structured my responses

Spoiler

How successful was Soviet foreign policy in achieving its aims from 1917 to 1941?

The incompatibility of the key aims of Soviet foreign policy – domestic stability and international revolution – greatly limited its accomplishments, as the promotion of one aim effectively reduced the opportunity for the other, and thus it is clear that Soviet foreign policy was only partially successful in achieving its aims from 1917 to 1941. Though the aims and purposes of Soviet foreign policy fluctuated depending upon the current leadership of the Bolsheviks Party and the changing domestic and international tensions, it is evident that the goals of domestic socio-political stability and a worldwide socialist revolution remained significant, thus projecting the Soviet Union into an internal conflict between pragmatism and ideological adherence. Though initially the principle aim appeared to be the promotion of a global socialist revolution, as dictated by the Bolshevik ideological position of Permanent Revolution, it is clear through the increasing implementation of self-preservationist policies throughout the period that the Bolsheviks aim of survival outweighed their desire to spread socialism. This is evident through the various militaristic/strategic, economic, diplomatic and socio-cultural factors that impacted or were impacted by soviet foreign policy between 1917 to 1941, which dictated its success.

It is evident through the the militaristic and strategic foreign policies implemented from 1917 to 1941 that the aims of the Soviet Union had shifted towards the consolidation and preservation of the Bolshevik state rather than the expansion of their ideology, thus it is clear through being forced to forgo certain key aims that soviet foreign policy was only partially successful. Despite Permanent Revolution, the official party policy of the Bolsheviks requiring an international revolution in order to succeed, the primary concerns after the 1917 Revolution was the consolidation of their power within Russia. The political climate was still largely unstable, therefore the Bolsheviks had to immediately return upon their promises of “Peace. Bread. Land,” in order to consolidate their power, the peace component of which had a significant impact upon soviet foreign policy through the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, as it ensured their exit from the increasingly unpopular international conflict World War I. The signing of the Treaty demonstrates the shift in strategic foreign policy focus from ideological adherence to pragmatism, as it signified the abandonment of the Permanent Revolution principles and their aim of an international socialist revolution in order to achieve domestic stability and the survival of the Bolshevik state. This shift was further demonstrated through the Soviets contradictory (in regards to their ideology) support of the leftist parties within the Spanish Civil War in order to prevent a socialist revolution within Spain, aiding the Republicans with materials, arms and over 2000 Russian citizens as soldiers due to their fears that increased instability would enable the rise and spread of German fascism within the region, which would pose a significant domestic security threat. Along with this, the Soviets under Stalin endeavoured to maintain an alliance with the Nationalists in China, due to his belief that the Chinese Communists were too few to achieve anything, which further demonstrates the Bolshevik governments willingness to forgo ideology in favour of more pragmatic foreign policy. Therefore, through the various strategic and militaristic foreign policies implemented by the Bolshevik Party, it is clear that though successful in regards to the preservation of the Bolshevik state, soviet foreign policy was unsuccessful in instigating an international revolution, and therefore was only partially successful in achieving its aims from 1917 to 1941.

It is evident through the economic and diplomatic foreign policies implemented by the Bolsheviks Party between 1917 and 1941 that the Soviet leaders main concern was the survival of the Bolshevik state rather than the spread of socialism, and thus attempted through economic means to reduce hostilities and tensions between themselves and their capitalist neighbours. Despite the Soviets aims and predictions of a world revolution, this did not occur, and thus the Bolshevik Government, which had been, during the time, producing highly critical assessments upon the opposing ideology of capitalism both through policy and the media now found themselves surrounded by capitalist neighbours, Lynch stating “The Soviet Union’s often antagonistic behaviour towards the capitalist countries frequently produced counter blasts … [meaning] that international tension never wholly slackened”. This is evident through the continued poor relations between Russia and post-war Germany, which banned the Communist Party in 1919, and the assessments from other nations leaders, such as British Prime Minister Winston Churchill who described communism as “not a policy, it is a disease.” Thus in order to reduce tension and hostilities amongst their capitalist neighbours, the Bolshevik government entered into various Trade agreements during the 1920s that ensured the peaceful co-existence of the two opposing ideologies. A number of capitalist countries entered into these trade agreements with the USSR, such as Italy, Germany and Britain (The Anglo-Soviet Trade Agreement). Along with this, Russia became involved within various international diplomatic organisations and agreements, evident through there admittance into the League of Nations in 1934, and the Rapallo Treaty, which was highly significant in reducing the tensions between the Soviets and Germany, as it signified the relinquishing of territorial and financial claims against each other, thus easing the pressures of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, with the aim to “co-operate in a spirit of goodwill in meeting the economic needs of both countries.” Though this increased cooperation with Germany had a positive impact upon the security and consolidation of the Bolshevik state, a destabilised Germany was far more likely to fall to a socialist revolution, and thus it is evident that the Bolsheviks prioritized self-preservation over the aim of worldwide revolution. Therefore, through the various economic and diplomatic foreign policies implemented by the Bolshevik party, it is clear that though successful in regards to the preservation of the Bolshevik state through the reduction of hostilities and tensions, soviet foreign policy was unsuccessful in instigating an international revolution, and therefore was only partially successful in achieving its aims from 1917 to 1941. The aim to survive through a reduction in tensions within the capitalist neighbour was further demonstrated through their implementation of diplomatic foreign policy.

Through the failures of various revolutionary socio-cultural foreign policies implemented by the Bolshevik party between 1917 and 1941, it is evident that soviet foreign policy was ineffective in achieving an international revolution, and thus, despite it’s self-preservationist success, was only partially successful in achieving its aims from 1917 to 1941. Early forms of soviet foreign policy, particularly under the leadership of Lenin, greatly focused upon the ideologically based aim of promoting an international socialist revolution. This is evident through the 1919 creation of the Communist International (also known as the Comintern), which had the revolutionary task of promoting and co-ordinating the communist parties of the world in an effort to advocate a global communist system. This is evident through their aim to “overthrow … the international bourgeoisie and for the creation of an international Soviet republic,” and the formation of the United Front, whereby communists propose to fight alongside non-communist workers in a “common struggle to defend … the working class against the bourgeoisie.” However, after a failed attempt to start a world revolution through the Polish invasion of Russia, the Comintern realised that peaceful coexistence with Europe was the only option, with Lynch stating that “between 1918 and 1920 … the Comintern was concerned sole with safeguarding the interests of Soviet Russia.” This preoccupation with the interests of Russia was continued under the soviet foreign policy actions of Stalin, with Lynch stating that “he set himself the primary task of defending his country’s interests in a hostile world,” and thus ordered the Comintern to cease appeals for global revolution due to the fact that after joining the League of Nations in 1934 Russia now had non-communist allies, and that no communist-inspired revolts had actually succeeded anywhere in the world at that time. Therefore, through the various attempts and failures to instigate effective revolutionary socio-cultural foreign policies, it is evident that soviet foreign policy, despite it’s self-preservationist success, was only partially successful in achieving its aims from 1917 to 1941.

Therefore, it is evident through the various socio-cultural, diplomatic, economic and militaristic/strategic factors that soviet foreign policy was successful in ensuring the survival of the Bolshevik state, however at the expense of their other principle aim – the promotion of an international socialist revolution. Thus, it is evident that soviet foreign policy was only partially successful in achieving its aims from 1917 to 1941, as the incompatibility between their pragmatic aim of stability and ideological aim of international revolution meant that they could only focus upon one aspect of their aims while forgoing the other. 

I think this is the one you are talking about re. soviet foreign policy