HSC Modern History Question Thread

[dancing phalanges]

Hey guys, just with the HSC Question - Germany between 1918 and 1939 was a triumph of nationalism over democracy. To what extent is this statement accurate. It is a very tough question given there is so much to discuss and therefore structure would be critical so it doesn't just sound like a ramble. Would it be logical enough to break this question into two parts?
1. Discussing whether the fall of the Weimar Republic (1918-1933) was due to nationalism - arguing this to be moderately true but bringing up other reasons and factors which caused it and also brought rise to nationalism.
2. And then discussing how Germany was transformed from 1933-1939 from democracy towards nationalism... structuring it thematically ie. Economic, Social, Political, Cultural and then evaluating at the end with in most cases the statement being highly accurate?
Thanks heaps!

[fantasticbeasts3]

Hey guys, just with the HSC Question - Germany between 1918 and 1939 was a triumph of nationalism over democracy. To what extent is this statement accurate. It is a very tough question given there is so much to discuss and therefore structure would be critical so it doesn't just sound like a ramble. Would it be logical enough to break this question into two parts?
1. Discussing whether the fall of the Weimar Republic (1918-1933) was due to nationalism - arguing this to be moderately true but bringing up other reasons and factors which caused it and also brought rise to nationalism.
2. And then discussing how Germany was transformed from 1933-1939 from democracy towards nationalism... structuring it thematically ie. Economic, Social, Political, Cultural and then evaluating at the end with in most cases the statement being highly accurate?
Thanks heaps!

yep, sounds great! i'd do something like that :-) i've seen that question multiple times and it seems like an awful question hahahha i don't want to touch it

[fantasticbeasts3]

hi germany people!

how would you go about answering this question: "assess the impact of ideology on nazi foreign policy to september 1939."

i have no idea how to structure the essay. i've listed lebensraum as a means of expansion, and abolishing the treaty of versailles, but i don't know what else to put down.

[dancing phalanges]

hi germany people!

how would you go about answering this question: "assess the impact of ideology on nazi foreign policy to september 1939."

i have no idea how to structure the essay. i've listed lebensraum as a means of expansion, and abolishing the treaty of versailles, but i don't know what else to put down.

Yeah... personally hate this question but I would just go about structuring your essay into the two main ideologies of Germany being racial purity and Lebensraum (territorial expansion) and to what extent their foreign policy was influenced by this eg. the amount of Germans in the Sudentenland - racial purity was the main reason for this policy (r.e bringing all Germans together) while you discuss Lebensraum and how it was the main reason for their expansion into the East. I don't have my notes on this on me at the moment so I can contribute in more detail later if you need

[sudodds]

hi germany people!

how would you go about answering this question: "assess the impact of ideology on nazi foreign policy to september 1939."

i have no idea how to structure the essay. i've listed lebensraum as a means of expansion, and abolishing the treaty of versailles, but i don't know what else to put down.

Hey! In addition to dancing phalanges great response, I always found a thematic structure to be excellent when dealing with questions revolving around ideology. So how did ideology impact political foreign policy? economic foreign policy? social? military/strategic? That way, you can really demonstrate the all encompassing nature of ideology throughout your response! Furthermore, consider the other aims of foreign policy (eg. maybe domestic stability? That was a big one for soviet foreign policy) - did they ever outweight/overshadow the aim to spread their ideology internationally? Or was spreading their ideology always the driving focus?

Hope this helps!

Susie

[dancing phalanges]

Hey! In addition to dancing phalanges great response, I always found a thematic structure to be excellent when dealing with questions revolving around ideology. So how did ideology impact political foreign policy? economic foreign policy? social? military/strategic? That way, you can really demonstrate the all encompassing nature of ideology throughout your response! Furthermore, consider the other aims of foreign policy (eg. maybe domestic stability? That was a big one for soviet foreign policy) - did they ever outweight/overshadow the aim to spread their ideology internationally? Or was spreading their ideology always the driving focus?

Hope this helps!

Susie

Yeah would also recommend! A bit tough with Germany as a lot of the foreign policy was very similar eg. not much if any economic and social related to this question but still it's a great way to show extra sophistication

[fantasticbeasts3]

Yeah... personally hate this question but I would just go about structuring your essay into the two main ideologies of Germany being racial purity and Lebensraum (territorial expansion) and to what extent their foreign policy was influenced by this eg. the amount of Germans in the Sudentenland - racial purity was the main reason for this policy (r.e bringing all Germans together) while you discuss Lebensraum and how it was the main reason for their expansion into the East. I don't have my notes on this on me at the moment so I can contribute in more detail later if you need

yea, this question and the other one in the 2016 really suck.

alright so just racial purity and lebensraum? they're pretty much the same thing though like uGh

Hey! In addition to dancing phalanges great response, I always found a thematic structure to be excellent when dealing with questions revolving around ideology. So how did ideology impact political foreign policy? economic foreign policy? social? military/strategic? That way, you can really demonstrate the all encompassing nature of ideology throughout your response! Furthermore, consider the other aims of foreign policy (eg. maybe domestic stability? That was a big one for soviet foreign policy) - did they ever outweight/overshadow the aim to spread their ideology internationally? Or was spreading their ideology always the driving focus?

Hope this helps!

Susie

Yeah would also recommend! A bit tough with Germany as a lot of the foreign policy was very similar eg. not much if any economic and social related to this question but still it's a great way to show extra sophistication

i considered this, but like what dancing phalanges said, foreign policy was very similar for germany. i don't think i could write enough for economic and social factors, because nazi ideology is pretty much racial purity linked with expansion, and the treaty of versailles.

(right about now my textbook website session ended (ends so many times it's very irritating) and this is getting annoying i can't be bothered opening it and doing more work i'm so tired)

[dancing phalanges]

yea, this question and the other one in the 2016 really suck.

alright so just racial purity and lebensraum? they're pretty much the same thing though like uGh

i considered this, but like what dancing phalanges said, foreign policy was very similar for germany. i don't think i could write enough for economic and social factors, because nazi ideology is pretty much racial purity linked with expansion, and the treaty of versailles.

(right about now my textbook website session ended (ends so many times it's very irritating) and this is getting annoying i can't be bothered opening it and doing more work i'm so tired)

Well they're not the same thing but yeah they do overlap a bit. But what I would do is:
1. Territorial Expansion
a) Non-Aggression Pact with Poland - Poland laid in way of future aim for territorial expansion. However, until Germany was in a position to invade, the pact was effective as propaganda which would convince Poland that Germany were not a threat. Yet, they would later expand obviously, linking back to territorial expansion.
2. Racial Purity
a) Anchluss with Austria - Unification of Austria into 3rd Reich. Czechoslovokia could now also be attacked. First successful foreign policy towards bringing all Germans together.
b) Sudentenland - 3 million Germans in Czechoslovakia. German minority lived in Sudentenland. Given permission to invade at Munich Conference.
c) Can argue invasion of Poland here as 1.5 million Germans lived in Polish territory and were under Govt. of Slavs (inferior race)

I do agree though, it is hard to differentiate them at time, but don't worry, if you're not confident with this, like me, there will be another option if this is in the HSC

[~BK~]

hey, i was just wondering susie....
last year in your exam, did you directly quote historians in your national study and you conflict study??
i'm really confused cos one teacher said you definitely have to, the other one said don't bother?   
thanks for your help. 
~BK~

[fantasticbeasts3]

hey, i was just wondering susie....
last year in your exam, did you directly quote historians in your national study and you conflict study??
i'm really confused cos one teacher said you definitely have to, the other one said don't bother?   
thanks for your help. 
~BK~

i'm no susie (autocorrected to aussie hahahaha) but yes, quote historians! they should be there to back up whatever it is you're arguing, and count as extra detail. :-) however, it's still possible to get a good mark without them - i forgot every historian i wanted to use in my trials for the national study, and still got in the A range. once again, historians count as detail, and it's good to use them, but not completely necessary like in the personality study.

[~BK~]

i'm no susie (autocorrected to aussie hahahaha) but yes, quote historians! they should be there to back up whatever it is you're arguing, and count as extra detail. :-) however, it's still possible to get a good mark without them - i forgot every historian i wanted to use in my trials for the national study, and still got in the A range. once again, historians count as detail, and it's good to use them, but not completely necessary like in the personality study.

Thanks heaps for the advice!!! 
i find it really hard to remember historians quotes, dates, events, significance etc!! 
mt

[dancing phalanges]

Thanks heaps for the advice!!! 
i find it really hard to remember historians quotes, dates, events, significance etc!! 
mt

Just remember though that details are super important like dates! With historians, even if you know their basic argument you don't necessarily need to know certain quotes all the time just what their view is on the issue and then you can evaluate it

[sudodds]

i'm no susie (autocorrected to aussie hahahaha) but yes, quote historians! they should be there to back up whatever it is you're arguing, and count as extra detail. :-) however, it's still possible to get a good mark without them - i forgot every historian i wanted to use in my trials for the national study, and still got in the A range. once again, historians count as detail, and it's good to use them, but not completely necessary like in the personality study.

Exactly correct! It's great to have historians, but it is never necessary, so if you can't remember that one quote in an exam, no biggy! Just move on, you probably haven't even lost a mark

Thanks heaps for the advice!!! 
i find it really hard to remember historians quotes, dates, events, significance etc!! 
mt

On my phone, so I can't link the page, but I suggest having a look at the thread "memorizing statistics (and all the ww1 SARDE you'll ever need)" (something along those lines)! Outlines a fantastic way to memorize detail!

[Ishodinkha17]

For the past two years, I have loved the content for Modern History, the only problem is I cannot write a Historical essay without going on a tangent or storytelling. My Trial results were shocking, but expected. I received a 50/100 and I was so disappointed with myself. I have been studying everyday for the past week writing essays and revising notes, but I fear that I will freak out in the exam room and completely forget anything.

- Do you have any tips for revising essays
- Do you have any tips for revising notes
- Do you have any tips on formulating responses according to the question
- Do you have any tips on not storytelling
- Do you have any tips on using great histiography

Kind Regards,
Isho Dinkha

[sudodds]

For the past two years, I have loved the content for Modern History, the only problem is I cannot write a Historical essay without going on a tangent or storytelling. My Trial results were shocking, but expected. I received a 50/100 and I was so disappointed with myself. I have been studying everyday for the past week writing essays and revising notes, but I fear that I will freak out in the exam room and completely forget anything.

- Do you have any tips for revising essays
- Do you have any tips for revising notes
- Do you have any tips on formulating responses according to the question
- Do you have any tips on not storytelling
- Do you have any tips on using great histiography

Kind Regards,
Isho Dinkha

Hey Isho!! No worries, happy to help Don't dwell on Trials too much, between now and the HSC exam you can improve exponentially with some hard work!

Here are my answers to your questions:

- Do you have any tips for revising essays
When it comes to revising essays, I think the best way to do this is to actually write them! Writing practice responses was the only way that I studied for Modern History last year - I didn't write notes (not to say that that is a bad idea, I just didn't do it personally), using the time that I saved to dedicate my time to doing past papers and exams, and getting my teacher to look over them. By doing this consistently throughout the year (even during weeks where we didn't have an exam coming up) I could pinpoint and identify issues much earlier, so by the time it was a week or two before an exam, when everyone else started studying, all the problems that they were only now identifying I had fixed weeks earlier, and was up to the stage whereby all I really needed to do was revise detail and work out arguments.

Reading other peoples essays as well, and identifying what is good about it, what is bad about it, different structures you may not have considered, etc. is also a really good idea!

- Do you have any tips for revising notes
I don't really have any tips personally, because, as I said, I didn't write notes for any of my subjects last year, as it just wasn't an effective study method for me (again, it may be for you! This was just personal experience). However, my teacher recommended this system:

STEP ONE: Write basic notes - just the bare bones, no detail. What you NEED to know.
STEP TWO: Expand basic notes to comprehensive - take your basic notes, and add more content. Add dates, statistics, terminology, etc.
STEP THREE: Expand on comprehensive notes to "perfect" - take your comprehensive notes and now add extra detail, quotes, and identify links/arguments!
STEP FOUR: Simplify "perfect" notes back to comprehensive - without looking at your comprehensive notes, now try to simplify your perfect notes to only the content.
STEP FIVE: Simplify comprehensive notes to basic notes - without looking at your basic notes, now try to simplify your comprehensive notes to only include the stuff that you 100% need to know (and anything that you typically forget).

I also recommend using a table structure, and constructing a detail table (structured according to the syllabus, ONLY includes detail (stats, terminology, interesting facts, quotes - no content/arguments), argument table (work out the most common arguments and how you would argue them - for and against) and linking tables (how do all the factors on the syllabus like a) together, and b) to greater themes, eg. ideology).

- Do you have any tips on formulating responses according to the question
Identify which essay "type" you're most comfortable with, and that works well with the question. If the question appears quite specific, I usually recommend a "factors" essays - the factors are usually the events and issues that are raised in the syllabus. If the question is quote broad, I typically wrote a "thematic" essay - so a paragraph on the political, economic and socio-cultural issues relevant to the question.

Another massive tip is to work out what exactly they're asking, and where in the syllabus it is from. For example, a lot of the Russia students during the CSSA trial were thrown by the "Red Army" question, because it appeared too specific - when it reality, "Red Army" was just a substitute for saying Civil War (a syllabus dot point), as the Red Army was only really critical during this time (in regards to the syllabus), meaning that they could have written a Civil War essay and be set! So I really recommend these two things:

1. Try to write out the syllabus, without looking. Do you know all the dot points?
2. Look at all the dot points, do you know the key points under each? eg. For Reasons for Allied Victory and German Collapse, the key points are the British Naval Blockade, Firepower, Manpower, Strategy v. Tactic and Morale.

- Do you have any tips on not storytelling
Make sure that you are ALWAYS addressing the question. The best way to do this is literally and clearly bringing it back to the question with sentences like this; "thus it is clear that [judgement]", or "therefore, asserting the high significance of [judgement]."

That's the other thing - JUDGEMENT. Make sure that you have one! This should actually be your first sentence for every paragraph (and your introduction). For example, lets say the question was "To what extent was the New Economic Policy critical to the Bolshevik Consolidation of Power?". My judgement would be "The New Economic Policy was highly critical to the Bolshevik Consolidation of Power". May seem super simple, but now, already, the marker knows what my answer/opinion is. Having a judgement also means that its harder to storytell, as rather than just explaining what the New Economic Policy was, I have to justify why it was highly critical!

- Do you have any tips on using great histiography
Only use historiography to back up YOUR OWN arguments. Don't ever use them to form your essay, or else that will just look like a shopping list of historians. We know that the historians are experts - we need to know that you are, and that doesn't happen by just parroting what the historians say. Don't get me wrong, historians are fantastic to use, as they count as detail, but just make sure that you only ever use them to support your own analysis. With that in mind, I think the best way to go about it was always to introduce your own argument first, explain it, then later, bring in historians like this - "This is supported by Hobsbawm, who states....." or "Deutscher elaborates upon this phemonenon, suggesting that .........", or "[your argument], as according to Service "......".

Hope this helps! Please let me know if you're stull confused, or would like me to clarify anything

Susie