HSC Modern History Question Thread

[rodero]

Hey guys,
What are the chances of us being asked a question such as "Describe the historical context of the personality you have studied", in Part A of the personality section? Since we study Speer and Germany, my teacher literally told us we should already know this already, so we skipped it completely. I know that it's a curve-ball of a question, but is there actually any chance that it could show up?

[fantasticbeasts3]

Hey guys,
What are the chances of us being asked a question such as "Describe the historical context of the personality you have studied", in Part A of the personality section? Since we study Speer and Germany, my teacher literally told us we should already know this already, so we skipped it completely. I know that it's a curve-ball of a question, but is there actually any chance that it could show up?

i don't think it's likely they'll ask that :-) study it anyway, though, because you never know what's going to happen (knock on wood it doesn't show up).

[sudodds]

Hey guys,
What are the chances of us being asked a question such as "Describe the historical context of the personality you have studied", in Part A of the personality section? Since we study Speer and Germany, my teacher literally told us we should already know this already, so we skipped it completely. I know that it's a curve-ball of a question, but is there actually any chance that it could show up?

Actually they could definitely ask that! It probably wouldn't only be historical context however, more like "historical context and background" or something like that, but this is what I call a "syllabus" question, or a "narrative outline". Since "historical context" is a section of the syllabus, pretty much all you need to do to respond to it is to just talk about everything that comes under that dot point Make sure you touch on everything under that dot point though, or you can't get a band 6!

[rodero]

Actually they could definitely ask that! It probably wouldn't only be historical context however, more like "historical context and background" or something like that, but this is what I call a "syllabus" question, or a "narrative outline". Since "historical context" is a section of the syllabus, pretty much all you need to do to respond to it is to just talk about everything that comes under that dot point Make sure you touch on everything under that dot point though, or you can't get a band 6!

Awesome, thank you
I get where my teacher is coming from in terms of skipping it, but like you said we need know the actual syllabus headings under historical context. If I were to ramble on about the fall of the Weimar Republic and the Great Depression, that would be completely wrong as it's not under the Speer syllabus.

[sara.m]

 So I'm trying to answer this question: 'To what extent was Nazi foreign policy successful in achieving it’s aims to September 1939?' but my text book is rubbish and just defines what the foreign policy was, not whether their short or long term aims were met- I've tried look this up online but nothing really answers the question, pls help!

[fantasticbeasts3]

So I'm trying to answer this question: 'To what extent was Nazi foreign policy successful in achieving it’s aims to September 1939?' but my text book is rubbish and just defines what the foreign policy was, not whether their short or long term aims were met- I've tried look this up online but nothing really answers the question, pls help!

hi!! i asked a similar question a while ago in this thread - you can search through the pages to find a more detailed answer (i would link you, but i'm on my phone).

this question asks you what exactly nazi foreign policy was, and if it was successful up to september 1939. it kind of was. like, did the nazis expand up to september 1939? a little - look at the anschluss between austria and germany. however, they were also preparing for what would happen in ww2, like taking over south-east europe, or the "untermenschen." you can also relate foreign policy to ideology, which gives a bit more sophistication to your argument.

hope this helps, and good luck for your hsc! x

[dancing phalanges]

So I'm trying to answer this question: 'To what extent was Nazi foreign policy successful in achieving it’s aims to September 1939?' but my text book is rubbish and just defines what the foreign policy was, not whether their short or long term aims were met- I've tried look this up online but nothing really answers the question, pls help!

Yeah just off memory it succeeded in that
1) Hitler was able to retake the Rhineland and announce rearmament without opposition essentially dissolving the requirements of the T.O.V
2) In terms of gaining Lebensraum (living space), Hitler initially succeeded in taking the Sudentenland, Czechoslovakia and the Anschluss. Links also to his racial ideologies in gaining territory as there were many Germans living in both the Sudentenland and Czechoslovakia (hence successful in unifying all Germans together)
3) He also was able to mask his true intentions in expanding through Foreign Policy that was essentially peaceful propaganda eg. Anglo-German Naval Treaty and the Non-Aggression Pact with Poland
However, I argue that in the initial stages of his Foreign Policy, Hitler was successful as being an opportunist ie. occupying the Rhineland when France was governed by a provisional Government. Yet, this eventually led to him becoming over confident in his abilities and too ambitious in his policies, resulting in the invasion of Austria and the outbreak of war, which was a failure as Hitler did not want war so soon.
Hope that helps! It's a tricky one.

[dancing phalanges]

Hey,
Just wondering if anyone has ideas on the following question: Evaluate the importance of the army in German political life from 1919-1939. I have 1919-1933 all done but am struggling with what to write for 1933-39 that specifically relates to the role of the army in politics (as I don't think I can relate the Terror and Repression to this much). All I can think of at the moment is how the army were a key figure of power and the only political threat to the Nazis and that therefore to gain their support, Hitler enacted the Night of the Long Knives and the policy of rearmament. Any other ideas would be greatly appreciated in case this is not enough, I just need to find things that are specifically related to political life, which makes it tough

[dancing phalanges]

Sorry guys, just in reference to the 2008 Speer question about outlining his historical context and background... it said the better responses linked his background with the context. I can see how to do this with the rise of the Nazi party and the personal charisma of Adolf Hitler but I am so confused on what to write R.E development of the Nazi state after 1933, Nazi war effort to 1945 and Nuremberg War Crimes Trials. I'm really confused on what I am doing here because I thought this was all his background and stuff  Any help would be fantastic!

[dancing phalanges]

Sorry for the bombardment of questions! This one may be easier for anyone to answer. If a question is asking about the popular support of the Nazi Party and the extent to which this enable them to gain control from 1934-1939, is this the same as a lack of opposition in the essence that you can argue that Propaganda, Terror and Repression, Economic and Political Policies etc. all helped them gain popular support by indoctrinating support to the Nazi Party? In essence, is popular support and lack of opposition interchangeable or is popular support more political?
Thanks

[fantasticbeasts3]

Sorry for the bombardment of questions! This one may be easier for anyone to answer. If a question is asking about the popular support of the Nazi Party and the extent to which this enable them to gain control from 1934-1939, is this the same as a lack of opposition in the essence that you can argue that Propaganda, Terror and Repression, Economic and Political Policies etc. all helped them gain popular support by indoctrinating support to the Nazi Party? In essence, is popular support and lack of opposition interchangeable or is popular support more political?
Thanks

sorry, i would've answered your questions if i actually knew anything about what you were asking! importance of the army in political life? pfffft. i don't do speer as my personality study either.

as for the question you've just asked, i don't think popular support and lack of opposition are interchangeable - they're two separate things. propaganda, terror, repression, etc etc doesn't exactly lead to support, as these people would be complying with the new laws, policies, etc out of fear. popular support would be more political, as the people who were all for the nazis would be singing their praises, and actually expressing support through something like encouraging votes (although 1934-9 doesn't exactly have elections, because germany's a one-party state by that time). i hope this makes sense!

[av-angie-er]

Hi! I'm having a bit of trouble writing a thesis for the personality study question that asks to evaluate the statement - "Differing perspectives and interpretations assist us in gaining an understand got the personality's significance in history". I was thinking of arguing that a wide spectrum of different perspectives helps to broaden our understanding of a figure, and to avoid developing a more parochial view. My personality is Speer, so would an argument that different interpretations of his innocence by historians allow us to gain a broader understanding of his historical significance be appropriate? I just want to make sure I'm interpreting the question correctly. Thank you!

[sudodds]

Hey,
Just wondering if anyone has ideas on the following question: Evaluate the importance of the army in German political life from 1919-1939. I have 1919-1933 all done but am struggling with what to write for 1933-39 that specifically relates to the role of the army in politics (as I don't think I can relate the Terror and Repression to this much). All I can think of at the moment is how the army were a key figure of power and the only political threat to the Nazis and that therefore to gain their support, Hitler enacted the Night of the Long Knives and the policy of rearmament. Any other ideas would be greatly appreciated in case this is not enough, I just need to find things that are specifically related to political life, which makes it tough

Sorry guys, just in reference to the 2008 Speer question about outlining his historical context and background... it said the better responses linked his background with the context. I can see how to do this with the rise of the Nazi party and the personal charisma of Adolf Hitler but I am so confused on what to write R.E development of the Nazi state after 1933, Nazi war effort to 1945 and Nuremberg War Crimes Trials. I'm really confused on what I am doing here because I thought this was all his background and stuff  Any help would be fantastic!

Hey I can't really provide much insight for the first question unfortunately, but I may be able to help a bit with the second, even though it is content related, just because it does have that structural element. Yes, it is definitely a good idea to relate background to historical context if you can, but sometimes its not possible, particularly for historical context dot points that happen later in life. For example with Trotsky, I could link the development of his political ideals (a background dot point), to pre-revolutionary russia and the 1905-1917 revolution effectively, but as power struggles happened so many years after his views were fully formed, there is less of a clear link for development, so don't worry about it too much (like I know Nuremburg Trials happen much later for Speer, so I would be surprised if they expected you to link that with background somehow)!

Sorry for the bombardment of questions! This one may be easier for anyone to answer. If a question is asking about the popular support of the Nazi Party and the extent to which this enable them to gain control from 1934-1939, is this the same as a lack of opposition in the essence that you can argue that Propaganda, Terror and Repression, Economic and Political Policies etc. all helped them gain popular support by indoctrinating support to the Nazi Party? In essence, is popular support and lack of opposition interchangeable or is popular support more political?
Thanks

No need to apologise! That is what this thread is here for! And yes, though I didn't study Nazi Germany, I definitely believe you could argue this! Though I wouldn't say they are "interchangeable" per say, as you can have an unpopular totalitarian dictatorship, censoring the opposing voice will definitely have an impact on popular support, as they are only hearing the "good stuff" or the propaganda, rather than the bad

Hi! I'm having a bit of trouble writing a thesis for the personality study question that asks to evaluate the statement - "Differing perspectives and interpretations assist us in gaining an understand got the personality's significance in history". I was thinking of arguing that a wide spectrum of different perspectives helps to broaden our understanding of a figure, and to avoid developing a more parochial view. My personality is Speer, so would an argument that different interpretations of his innocence by historians allow us to gain a broader understanding of his historical significance be appropriate? I just want to make sure I'm interpreting the question correctly. Thank you!

Hey! So I got full marks for that question in the HSC last year (though my personality was Trotsky, not Speer). When constructing a thesis, I looked at the broader reasons as to why certain interpretations for Trotsky arose (naive idealist v practical revolutionary). For my personality, there was a clear difference between right wing and left wing interpretations of his significance. Though for Speer I don't think this will exactly work, I do recommend considering what are the common links between historians who agree, and disagree with one another.

Overall though, I think you are interpreting the question fine, and that your thesis is clear and easily sustainable. Just make sure that you don't just sit on the fence and go, "well some agree with this and others agree", have some sort of judgement somewhere, whether that is a) which side you agree with more, or b), the one I used last year, that there is a common thread within different beliefs and ideas.

Hope this helps!

Susie

[dancing phalanges]

Thanks so much guys much appreciated!

[av-angie-er]

Hey! So I got full marks for that question in the HSC last year (though my personality was Trotsky, not Speer). When constructing a thesis, I looked at the broader reasons as to why certain interpretations for Trotsky arose (naive idealist v practical revolutionary). For my personality, there was a clear difference between right wing and left wing interpretations of his significance. Though for Speer I don't think this will exactly work, I do recommend considering what are the common links between historians who agree, and disagree with one another.

Overall though, I think you are interpreting the question fine, and that your thesis is clear and easily sustainable. Just make sure that you don't just sit on the fence and go, "well some agree with this and others agree", have some sort of judgement somewhere, whether that is a) which side you agree with more, or b), the one I used last year, that there is a common thread within different beliefs and ideas.

Hope this helps!

Susie

Thanks so much, Susie! Super helpful