HSC Modern History Question Thread

[sudodds]

Does anyone know why a constituent assembly that was propesed in the russian revolution would have 'seriously limittee bolshevik amibition once established, even though they had the majority of support by far

Maybe I'm mistaken (we didn't cover the Constituent Assembly a great deal last year, beyond its closing down being a factor in the White Army's decision to launch a Civil War), but I believe that they actually did NOT have the majority at the time! That was the problem, as the Social Revolutionaries won the election 370-175 - prompting Lenin and the Bolsheviks to just ignore the vote and close down the Constituent Assembly. Furthermore, you could probably argue that by giving more groups a voice, each of which are representing their own interests, that even if your voice is the loudest your ability to go after your own interests can be limited by the collective effort of the rest of the Assembly. That is my interpretation of it, however as I said we didn't cover this area in great depth.

[K888]

Maybe I'm mistaken (we didn't cover the Constituent Assembly a great deal last year, beyond its closing down being a factor in the White Army's decision to launch a Civil War), but I believe that they actually did NOT have the majority at the time! That was the problem, as the Social Revolutionaries won the election 370-175 - prompting Lenin and the Bolsheviks to just ignore the vote and close down the Constituent Assembly. Furthermore, you could probably argue that by giving more groups a voice, each of which are representing their own interests, that even if your voice is the loudest your ability to go after your own interests can be limited by the collective effort of the rest of the Assembly. That is my interpretation of it, however as I said we didn't cover this area in great depth.

Just wanted to add onto this (and I'm pretty sure I'll go completely off topic, but it's important to see how things link):
The Bolsheviks believed that the Constituent Assembly would consolidate their power. They had already gained support through their decrees and the like, and they really wanted to shore this up.
The result in the Constituent Assembly showed the large amount support behind the SRs - they had consolidated peasant support with some good reform policies, etc. and they won the election by a long stretch. This presented a serious challenge to the Bolsheviks - the demand to share political power, which they didn't want to do. Their refusal to share power led to some significant opposition against them. So, the Bolsheviks expanded the CHEKA and its power in order to brutally suppress political opposition.

To link it back to your question a bit better - it limited Bolshevik ambition, as it meant that the Bolsheviks had to deal with some serious political opposition and work on shoring up power, rather than implementing change and creating the Russia that they had envisioned, if that makes sense.

If you have any further questions, TheCommando, please feel free to ask them in the VCE Revs Question Thread and one of us will help you out!

[damecj]

To what extent can Nazism in power be seen as totalitarianism in the period 1933–1939?

Just struggling with how to structure this answer. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated

[sudodds]

To what extent can Nazism in power be seen as totalitarianism in the period 1933–1939?

Just struggling with how to structure this answer. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated

Hey! So I'm sure a Germany student will be able to answer this more in depth than I can, however when I answered soviet foreign policy questions, I structured by response according to the characteristics of a totalitarian society (ones that were modelled off of the nazi regime - so will DEFINITELY work for you!). These are;

- An all consuming ideology
- A mass party with a charismatic dictator
- Control of the mass media, armed forces and the economy
- Use of terror/secret police

Sooo I had a paragraph on each, emphasising how these characteristics are reflected under Stalinism. However, this isn't the only way to structure an essay like this! Thematic essays can also work quite well for totalitarianism essays - so how did Nazism secure/maintain total control over the political, economic and socio-cultural landscapes of German society at the time?

Hope this helps!

Susie

[fantasticbeasts3]

To what extent can Nazism in power be seen as totalitarianism in the period 1933–1939?

Just struggling with how to structure this answer. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated

i haven't touched germany since trials, so i'll answer this to the best of my ability. you can structure your essay into paragraphs of political, social and economic change. political can include the radical change, such as the creation of gleichschaltung, so pretty much how nazism transformed germany into a one-party state, with government departments all under one roof (the nazi party), and also the use of terror and repression, etc etc there's a dot point on that. there's an entire dot point on social change, which should cover what you want to write on that, and economic change - mention the four year plan and changes in the workforce.

of course, you can structure your essay using the dot points provided under 'nazism in power.' (i've added a screenshot of which dot points you can use). hope this helps!

[dancing phalanges]

To what extent can Nazism in power be seen as totalitarianism in the period 1933–1939?

Just struggling with how to structure this answer. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated

Just adding to the great answers already, I got 25/25 for this question in half yearlies and this was my intro (my structure was based upon whether Nazism fit the requirements of a totalitarian state as put forward by Friedrich and Brzezinski):
In order to qualify as a totalitarian state, Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Party must not only have ensured it was the only party that controlled Germany. Rather, according to the definition of a totalitarian state put forward by political scientists Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1956, an official ideology, single mass party, control over mass communications and a systematic regime of terror and police control was necessary. Therefore, although the Nazi party was able to achieve a considerable amount of control through propaganda, it ultimately does not qualify as a total totalitarian state as it lacked a clearly defined ideology and organised government, did not crush all its opposition and was not a completely systematic state of terror.
So pretty much I argued:
NOT single mass party as it was a "polycratic state" due to Hitler's inability to make decisions and the duplication within his Govt. eg. the Ministry of Labour being in direct competition with the German Labour.
NOT an official ideology as Nazism continued to evolve from what was specified in Mein Kampf (undergoing a process of "spiralling radicalisation" according to Brozsat)
DID NOT crush all opposition as eg. opposition from the Church still remained as did in youth groups such as the Uberweiss Pirates and Swing Group.
WHILE Propaganda was successful in gaining control, I argued that it wasn't solely responsible for this as the disillusionment at the time (context) meant that it was not overly difficult to gain the people's support.
SIMILARLY, Nazi terror and repression did not in itself secure total control, rather it relied on denunciations from members of the public and as mentioned earlier, there was popular support for the Nazis due to their message of hope and distaste for Weimar etc. and therefore, the need to enforce loyalty through systematic terror was rarely required.
Anyway, that is what I argued!
Hope it helps!

[fantasticbeasts3]

Just adding to the great answers already, I got 25/25 for this question in half yearlies and this was my intro (my structure was based upon whether Nazism fit the requirements of a totalitarian state as put forward by Friedrich and Brzezinski):
In order to qualify as a totalitarian state, Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Party must not only have ensured it was the only party that controlled Germany. Rather, according to the definition of a totalitarian state put forward by political scientists Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1956, an official ideology, single mass party, control over mass communications and a systematic regime of terror and police control was necessary. Therefore, although the Nazi party was able to achieve a considerable amount of control through propaganda, it ultimately does not qualify as a total totalitarian state as it lacked a clearly defined ideology and organised government, did not crush all its opposition and was not a completely systematic state of terror.
So pretty much I argued:
NOT single mass party as it was a "polycratic state" due to Hitler's inability to make decisions and the duplication within his Govt. eg. the Ministry of Labour being in direct competition with the German Labour.
NOT an official ideology as Nazism continued to evolve from what was specified in Mein Kampf (undergoing a process of "spiralling radicalisation" according to Brozsat)
DID NOT crush all opposition as eg. opposition from the Church still remained as did in youth groups such as the Uberweiss Pirates and Swing Group.
WHILE Propaganda was successful in gaining control, I argued that it wasn't solely responsible for this as the disillusionment at the time (context) meant that it was not overly difficult to gain the people's support.
SIMILARLY, Nazi terror and repression did not in itself secure total control, rather it relied on denunciations from members of the public and as mentioned earlier, there was popular support for the Nazis due to their message of hope and distaste for Weimar etc. and therefore, the need to enforce loyalty through systematic terror was rarely required.
Anyway, that is what I argued!
Hope it helps!

this.👏 is.👏 amazing.👏 all germany people should read this!!! congrats to you for getting 25/25 for this as well :-))

[dancing phalanges]

this.👏 is.👏 amazing.👏 all germany people should read this!!! congrats to you for getting 25/25 for this as well :-))

Thank you It's a tough concept to nail down so all your help is just as important for understanding it as a whole not just from one perspective

[damecj]

Hey! So I'm sure a Germany student will be able to answer this more in depth than I can, however when I answered soviet foreign policy questions, I structured by response according to the characteristics of a totalitarian society (ones that were modelled off of the nazi regime - so will DEFINITELY work for you!). These are;

- An all consuming ideology
- A mass party with a charismatic dictator
- Control of the mass media, armed forces and the economy
- Use of terror/secret police

Sooo I had a paragraph on each, emphasising how these characteristics are reflected under Stalinism. However, this isn't the only way to structure an essay like this! Thematic essays can also work quite well for totalitarianism essays - so how did Nazism secure/maintain total control over the political, economic and socio-cultural landscapes of German society at the time?

Hope this helps!

Susie

i haven't touched germany since trials, so i'll answer this to the best of my ability. you can structure your essay into paragraphs of political, social and economic change. political can include the radical change, such as the creation of gleichschaltung, so pretty much how nazism transformed germany into a one-party state, with government departments all under one roof (the nazi party), and also the use of terror and repression, etc etc there's a dot point on that. there's an entire dot point on social change, which should cover what you want to write on that, and economic change - mention the four year plan and changes in the workforce.

of course, you can structure your essay using the dot points provided under 'nazism in power.' (i've added a screenshot of which dot points you can use). hope this helps!

Just adding to the great answers already, I got 25/25 for this question in half yearlies and this was my intro (my structure was based upon whether Nazism fit the requirements of a totalitarian state as put forward by Friedrich and Brzezinski):
In order to qualify as a totalitarian state, Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Party must not only have ensured it was the only party that controlled Germany. Rather, according to the definition of a totalitarian state put forward by political scientists Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1956, an official ideology, single mass party, control over mass communications and a systematic regime of terror and police control was necessary. Therefore, although the Nazi party was able to achieve a considerable amount of control through propaganda, it ultimately does not qualify as a total totalitarian state as it lacked a clearly defined ideology and organised government, did not crush all its opposition and was not a completely systematic state of terror.
So pretty much I argued:
NOT single mass party as it was a "polycratic state" due to Hitler's inability to make decisions and the duplication within his Govt. eg. the Ministry of Labour being in direct competition with the German Labour.
NOT an official ideology as Nazism continued to evolve from what was specified in Mein Kampf (undergoing a process of "spiralling radicalisation" according to Brozsat)
DID NOT crush all opposition as eg. opposition from the Church still remained as did in youth groups such as the Uberweiss Pirates and Swing Group.
WHILE Propaganda was successful in gaining control, I argued that it wasn't solely responsible for this as the disillusionment at the time (context) meant that it was not overly difficult to gain the people's support.
SIMILARLY, Nazi terror and repression did not in itself secure total control, rather it relied on denunciations from members of the public and as mentioned earlier, there was popular support for the Nazis due to their message of hope and distaste for Weimar etc. and therefore, the need to enforce loyalty through systematic terror was rarely required.
Anyway, that is what I argued!
Hope it helps!

Thank you all so much for your wonderful replies. It has helped me greatly.

[damecj]

Just another question sorry ahahah...

I always seem to get 7-8/10 for those 10 mark reliability and usefulness questions... I was just wondering what is the best way to push in to the top band

[fantasticbeasts3]

Just another question sorry ahahah...

I always seem to get 7-8/10 for those 10 mark reliability and usefulness questions... I was just wondering what is the best way to push in to the top band

nooooooo questions are great!!! i was in the same boat as you at around half yearlies - my highest mark for the source analysis was 8, and no matter what i did from year 11 until that point, i always got 8. then in trials, i got 10, because i followed this amazing structure that susie provided at her lecture in july (seriously. this structure is everything.)

1. judgement - how useful is the source?
2. explanation of your judgement
3. explain the source
4. perspective of the source
5. reliability
6. usefulness

always always always always mention the actual words perspective, reliability and usefulness. also, hand in as many responses as you can! practice makes perfect. :-)

[sudodds]

nooooooo questions are great!!! i was in the same boat as you at around half yearlies - my highest mark for the source analysis was 8, and no matter what i did from year 11 until that point, i always got 8. then in trials, i got 10, because i followed this amazing structure that susie provided at her lecture in july (seriously. this structure is everything.)

1. judgement - how useful is the source?
2. explanation of your judgement
3. explain the source
4. perspective of the source
5. reliability
6. usefulness

always always always always mention the actual words perspective, reliability and usefulness. also, hand in as many responses as you can! practice makes perfect. :-)

yeahhhh! Told ya it'd work Great job getting 10/10 though fantasticbeasts3! That's so good, great work

Another big point is to make sure that you have some detail and stats memorised that you can use to corroborate the source, and demonstrate the breadth of your knowledge - so many people just think that talking about the exact contents of the source is enough, but you need to show that the source is a reliable indicator of the "bigger picture" so to speak

[Ishodinkha17]

I need help! I am sitting on a Band 1 for Modern? I do not know how to write perfect historical essays and I storytell! I need help please. I know my content really well but I do not how to write a historical essay which affects me. HELP

[fantasticbeasts3]

I need help! I am sitting on a Band 1 for Modern? I do not know how to write perfect historical essays and I storytell! I need help please. I know my content really well but I do not how to write a historical essay which affects me. HELP

hi!! i'll try and help the best i can. you don't exactly need a 'perfect' essay to do well in modern :-) what are your options? i'm doing germany, gorbachev and cold war, so message me if you do any of those, and i'll help you out in detail there.

avoid telling the story by answering the question - that is, refer to it as many times as possible, but not too many times, because then your essay will sound like it's just the question repeated 50 times! make sure you have a solid argument when responding to a question, and a good structure.

others on here will help you more than i can, all the best!

[dancing phalanges]

I need help! I am sitting on a Band 1 for Modern? I do not know how to write perfect historical essays and I storytell! I need help please. I know my content really well but I do not how to write a historical essay which affects me. HELP

There's a couple of easy ways you can do this! Firstly, as simple as it sounds make sure you are answering/arguing the question as for example if it includes to what extent at the start of the question, making sure you begin each paragraph and end each paragraph weighing up to what extent it supports the question will help. Also, structurally your response thematically (economic, social, cultural, political) etc. for questions makes it appear more that you are making an argument. But, if anything, if you can't get out of 'storytelling', just make sure you are linking back to the question more than anything, using words like 'Therefore' to force yourself to argue more and just make sure everything you are saying has a point! For example, if you are talking about Germany and the collapse of the Weimar Republic and you storytell something like: The Great Depression then hit and caused significant economic issues for the Republic to deal with including unemployment. This made the people further dissatisfied with the Republic... After this you need a link/argument, for example, using therefore: Therefore, the Great Depression was a significant reason for the collapse of democracy in Germany as it increased the lack of support for the Republic and would eventually see them turn towards extreme parties. I don't know what else to say sorry! I've just never had this issue before so it's hard to explain how I would overcome it but hope that helps either way! Just remember to answers link back to the question and that you are making an argument!