HSC Modern History Question Thread

[maria1999]

hey everyone!
I'm having a minor breakdown about the personality section for Albert Speer. In regards to questions like product of his time or shaped by events or shaper of events, how would I go about arguing it for him? I know stuff about him but I don't really understand how to apply that knowledge to stuff like his role as architecht and armaments minister and the good nazi debate etc. Any clarification would help so much, thank you!

[dancing phalanges]

hey everyone!
I'm having a minor breakdown about the personality section for Albert Speer. In regards to questions like product of his time or shaped by events or shaper of events, how would I go about arguing it for him? I know stuff about him but I don't really understand how to apply that knowledge to stuff like his role as architecht and armaments minister and the good nazi debate etc. Any clarification would help so much, thank you!

If you look at the page prior to this I explained all of that in detail

[thesvs]

Thank you!

[maria1999]

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!

Hi!! I'm not Jake lol but I study Germany too, so I might be able to help a bit
I think the intro is really really good, but you might want to state the judgement earlier. I heard Susie say in the lecture that it even needs to be the first sentence. Personally, I completly agree with this judgement, however maybe link how the their ideology was inextricably linked to territorial expanision i.e the Nazis felt like they had entitlement to expand because they felt as if Germans were racially superior. So maybe speak about how those two aims that HItler had wern't mutually exclusive and were had to be acheievd together in order to fully satisfy their foreign policy. Other than that everything seems pretty sweet! Hope this helps!

[dancing phalanges]

Hi!! I'm not Jake lol but I study Germany too, so I might be able to help a bit
I think the intro is really really good, but you might want to state the judgement earlier. I heard Susie say in the lecture that it even needs to be the first sentence. Personally, I completly agree with this judgement, however maybe link how the their ideology was inextricably linked to territorial expanision i.e the Nazis felt like they had entitlement to expand because they felt as if Germans were racially superior. So maybe speak about how those two aims that HItler had wern't mutually exclusive and were had to be acheievd together in order to fully satisfy their foreign policy. Other than that everything seems pretty sweet! Hope this helps!

Hey yeah thanks I wanted to do the judgement first too so I'll probably rearrange that and I have looked at putting in the ideology eg. the slavs as inferior in my boyd paragraphs, my teacher also told me a failure was the outbreak of ww2 as a result of the foreign policy and that britain and france's lack of response initially may have paved the way for hitler to become overconfident and too aggressive with his foreign policy leading to war, but thanks heaps for the feedback really consolidates my points now

[mixel]

Hey yeah thanks I wanted to do the judgement first too so I'll probably rearrange that and I have looked at putting in the ideology eg. the slavs as inferior in my boyd paragraphs, my teacher also told me a failure was the outbreak of ww2 as a result of the foreign policy and that britain and france's lack of response initially may have paved the way for hitler to become overconfident and too aggressive with his foreign policy leading to war, but thanks heaps for the feedback really consolidates my points now

Hey, I really like that argument about Hitler's overconfidence in foreign policy  If you're gonna run with it, there's a great argument by AJP Taylor that Hitler's intention was to hold a Munich-style conference over Danzig like what Mussolini arranged for the Sudetenland. He says that he sent Britain a communique about that very idea, but literally sent it a day too late for them to read it before his invasion on September 1st (might mention inflexibility of Hitler's FP in light of that). Good luck!

[dancing phalanges]

Hey, I really like that argument about Hitler's overconfidence in foreign policy  If you're gonna run with it, there's a great argument by AJP Taylor that Hitler's intention was to hold a Munich-style conference over Danzig like what Mussolini arranged for the Sudetenland. He says that he sent Britain a communique about that very idea, but literally sent it a day too late for them to read it before his invasion on September 1st (might mention inflexibility of Hitler's FP in light of that). Good luck!

Okay I will have a look thank you

[diesxel]

Hi!! I was wondering if anyone could please help me out with this task:

You are to research three different historical perspectives of Leon Trotsky of differing viewpoints. To answer this question:

"History is more honest when a negative or positive view is presented. Despite this, we tend to accept the measured view as the "official" perspective."

I don't really understand the question and how to write a whole essay on it and it's freaking me out!! Any help would be appreciated, even if its a historian recommendation or breakdown of the question, anything!!

Thnx so much, I really need to improve my rank in class

[dancing phalanges]

Hey guys, I am currently working on the question: Describe the reasons of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour in 1941. Obviously I covered need for natural resources and ambition to expand into SE Asia (PH as a threat to this and if successfully attacked would delay US from resisting Japanese expansion for 2 years). However, my textbook also speaks of reasons such as Japanese wanting to reaffirm their racial superiority and Navy wanting to gain recognition as the army gained most of the recognition for the war in China. I understand these points but feel they are very weak and I won't be able to write enough on these. Any thoughts?

[dancing phalanges]

Hi!! I was wondering if anyone could please help me out with this task:

You are to research three different historical perspectives of Leon Trotsky of differing viewpoints. To answer this question:

"History is more honest when a negative or positive view is presented. Despite this, we tend to accept the measured view as the "official" perspective."

I don't really understand the question and how to write a whole essay on it and it's freaking me out!! Any help would be appreciated, even if its a historian recommendation or breakdown of the question, anything!!

Thnx so much, I really need to improve my rank in class

Hey so I am doing Albert Speer so have no knowledge of Trotsky so Susie probably can fill you in there. In terms of the question and what it means, I can have a go but then again Jake or Susie will probably be better at answering that too as it has me stumped too haha! In my opinion, in terms of - History is more honest when a negative or positive view is presented - i interpret that to mean that historians can gain a more truthful picture of a personality when both sides of the story are shown. For instance, in terms of speer, some said he was a good nazi, some said he was just as bad as the rest. having both interpretations and the research done on both the good and bad sides of speer allows historians to more correctly evaluate which is more true by weighing both up against each other. in saying this i may be entirely wrong for that part so maybe best waiting for susie or jake In terms of - Despite this, we tend to accept the measured view as the "official" perspective." - this part has me confused as well haha if im guessing i would say, this maybe refers to that the perspective that most people end up accepting is the one which is more is the most official, ie. maybe it is referring to official papers, government documents etc. which may be used to cover up the truth.
thats how i interpreted it but completely a guess! hopefully susie or jake can shed a more clear light on what it actually means haha because would be helpful for me too

[sudodds]

Hi!! I was wondering if anyone could please help me out with this task:

You are to research three different historical perspectives of Leon Trotsky of differing viewpoints. To answer this question:

"History is more honest when a negative or positive view is presented. Despite this, we tend to accept the measured view as the "official" perspective."

I don't really understand the question and how to write a whole essay on it and it's freaking me out!! Any help would be appreciated, even if its a historian recommendation or breakdown of the question, anything!!

Thnx so much, I really need to improve my rank in class

Hey diesxel!
Can defs help you out with this one - a very similar question to the one I received in my HSC! The question is one focused on the differing interpretations (obviously), which means that we look to the final dot point of the Trotsky syllabus - evaluation: for example practical revolutionary, naïve idealist?.

Trotsky is a very controversial figure, with radically different interpretations. In my opinion (and this is what I argued in my essay), these say more about the historians than they do about Trotsky - particularly their views of Communism. Right-wing historians such as Robert Service, who have a more negative view of communism thus have a negative view of Trotsky - presenting him as a naive idealist and a ruthless authoritarian (aka, he stuck too rigidly to a "failing" ideology, even when it was not going to work, or was detrimental to the people), however Left-wing historians such as Isaac Deutscher, who are more sympathetic towards Communism, present a much more positive interpretation of Trotsky - suggesting that he was a practical revolutionary (meaning that he pragmatically applied ideology, rather that just assuming theory would work in all circumstances). It all comes down to Trotsky's ideology - either he was too rigid, or he was pragmatic, and knew when it could/couldn't be applied successfully. Right-wing historians will inherently view Communism as an idealistic ideology, and thus that will shape their interpretation, in the same way that many left-wing/socialist historians who view Communism as a practical ideology (or even an inevitable one, if they accept the marxist conception of history), will have their interpretation shaped as well. What is interesting, and the reason why I think that these interpretations are more of a reflection on the historians and their ideology as opposed to Trotsky is that they place emphasis on different aspects of Trotsky's legacy in order to assert their views.

For example, lets look at Trotsky's role in the power struggle. Right-wing historians emphasise Trotsky's personal failures - his arrogance, naivety and rude personality - to suggest why he failed. He was so arrogant in assuming that he was the natural successor to Lenin, naive to Stalin's actions, and rude to party members, alienating everyone. That is why he failed. On the other hand, left-wing historians suggest that rather than looking at Trotsky's failures, what is important is to look at the social changes at the time - war-torn, decline in urban proletariat, etc. etc. This society was war-weary, thus Trotsky's ideology of Permanent Revolution, which required international revolution and thus conflict would not have appealed to society as much as Stalin's socialism-in-one-country, which suggested Russia could sustain communism on their own, without engaging in conflict with other nations. Thus, no matter what Trotsky's was personally like, doesn't change the fact that his ideology just didn't suit the present social conditions - it's about society, not the individual. That is why he failed.

See what I mean? They are both selective in the evidence they present - history is interpretation. I think what the second part of the question is suggesting, is that many perceive truth to come from the "middle ground" view. The "measured" view is the view that (supposedly) takes everything into account (if you do history extension - you know how dumb that sentiment is, but for Modern just go with it So you have these two radical "extremes" - Trotsky was evil, or Trotsky was a communist hero. The truth supposedly lies in the middle - Trotsky was a complex figure, who made many controversial decisions that greatly shaped Russian society at the time. His significance doesn't lie in whether he was morally "good" or "bad", but in the radical impact he had on the Russian populous, and the consolidation of Bolshevik power. By very nature, the fact that there is a debate asserts that he was a highly significant figure.

Soooo the way that I would tackle this essay, would be to structure it according to these three key issues: His role as Commissar for Foreign Affairs, his role as Commissar for War, and the Power Struggle with Stalin. Within each paragraph, I would emphasise how and why historians have arrived at such radical views, but assert that it is their allegiance to their own right or left wing ideology that they are asserting, and that you gain a more balanced interpretation of Trotsky's significance through an analysis of both

Hope this helps!!

Susie

[tahliamag]

Helloooo,
For those of you who have done / are doing Albert Speer as your personality study, I was wondering what 3 events you talk about when answering a rise to prominance question? I was thinking the Nuremberg Rally (cathedral of light), First Architect of the Riech and Armaments Minister but im not really sure if they are the best events so any suggestions would be great ))))

[dancing phalanges]

Helloooo,
For those of you who have done / are doing Albert Speer as your personality study, I was wondering what 3 events you talk about when answering a rise to prominance question? I was thinking the Nuremberg Rally (cathedral of light), First Architect of the Riech and Armaments Minister but im not really sure if they are the best events so any suggestions would be great ))))

Yeah that sounds good

[mixel]

Helloooo,
For those of you who have done / are doing Albert Speer as your personality study, I was wondering what 3 events you talk about when answering a rise to prominance question? I was thinking the Nuremberg Rally (cathedral of light), First Architect of the Riech and Armaments Minister but im not really sure if they are the best events so any suggestions would be great ))))

Hey, I've seen a lot of suggestions for people to do the Nuremberg rally as a standalone point for the 10 marker, but I think you could be limiting yourself if you focused an entire paragraph on it. It certainly made him more prominent within and without the Reich, for example, him winning the Grand Prix at the Paris World Fair for it, but you could incorporate that into a paragraph on his work as First Architect and leave space for broader narrative to make sure you cover your bases. His early work for the party is pretty significant as well considering it was the basis for the rest of his achievements and Speer's own description of befriending and getting entry level jobs from Karl Hanke as the 'luckiest stroke' in his career?
Just something to think about 

[dancing phalanges]

Hey, I've seen a lot of suggestions for people to do the Nuremberg rally as a standalone point for the 10 marker, but I think you could be limiting yourself if you focused an entire paragraph on it. It certainly made him more prominent within and without the Reich, for example, him winning the Grand Prix at the Paris World Fair for it, but you could incorporate that into a paragraph on his work as First Architect and leave space for broader narrative to make sure you cover your bases. His early work for the party is pretty significant as well considering it was the basis for the rest of his achievements and Speer's own description of befriending and getting entry level jobs from Karl Hanke as the 'luckiest stroke' in his career?
Just something to think about 

Was my exact thoughts I had but wasn't sure if the early part could be included as did think Nuremberg may be too small for one para. Good advice!