HSC Modern History Question Thread

[fantasticbeasts3]

Hey Susie, I know you didn't study Germany but I just did a practice question on:
 Hitler came to power as a result of a lack of opposition.
To what extent is this statement true?
I was just wondering, I was able to write 8 pages without writing about the reasons for the failure of the Weimar Republic but I was just wondering if it would have been off topic to write about that eg. one paragraph on the illegitimacy of the republic and how national socialism in contrast had a broad appeal (which i already talk about). I was just worried about going off topic and hence did not mention it but I finished the essay in 39 mins so i would have had time to write about it
any thoughts would be great

helloooo i'm a germany person! i don't think what you've said here is off topic at all, because although there wasn't much opposition to hitler, there were a heap of other things that helped him come to power. another thing to mention is the obvious, in which this is a 'to what extent' question, so you add in as much stuff as you like, provided it's relevant and contributes to whatever argument you set up in your introduction. :-)

[dancing phalanges]

helloooo i'm a germany person! i don't think what you've said here is off topic at all, because although there wasn't much opposition to hitler, there were a heap of other things that helped him come to power. another thing to mention is the obvious, in which this is a 'to what extent' question, so you add in as much stuff as you like, provided it's relevant and contributes to whatever argument you set up in your introduction. :-)

Okay sweet thank you

[dancing phalanges]

Sorry - the influx of questions is due to the fact that I just finished a practice Modern paper haha. The question I just completed for War in the Pacific was: The success of the Japanese advance to 1942 could not be maintained, and led to
Japan’s defeat in 1945.
How accurate is this statement?
Was I correct to interpret this as allowing me to say it is accurate, however, it discounts other reasons for Japanese defeat such as the effectiveness of Allied strategies etc... I spent around 4.5 pages on the success of its advance not being able to be maintained and the other 5 on 2 other reasons. I know with Germany questions eg. the Great Depression led to the collapse of Weimar... to what extent is this true... you can easily speak about other reasons as it obviously wants you to since its more obviously saying do you agree it was the only reason.
 but in the case of this pacific question - is it also worded to say the unsuccessful ability of japan to maintain its successes was the only reason for its defeat hence i can discuss other reasons
sorry if that doesn't make sense hahah cheers for any suggestions

[Korrasami]

Hey guys, I'm doing Conflict in Europe and in regards to the Battle of Stalingrad & Kursk, would it be wise to say that for Germany the war had already been lost from that point on? Since Russia are on the Allied side, it would be mean that Germany is now fighting on two fronts, so basically defeat was inevitable?

[bun00]

heyo historians!
just wondering how recommended it is to argue against the terms of the question? just found a past hsc question that i literally couldn't argue in support of it (and would hav a lot of fun venting my opinion against it )

[dancing phalanges]

heyo historians!
just wondering how recommended it is to argue against the terms of the question? just found a past hsc question that i literally couldn't argue in support of it (and would hav a lot of fun venting my opinion against it )

I guess it is okay as long as you can back up what you are saying with statistics and evidence. It really depends on the question. For instance, if it is: to what extent _____ was the main reason for ______ and you strongly think it was not the main reason, you need to spend at least a third of your essay arguing why it was a minimal point, you cannot completely dismiss the question. But yeah I guess I would be more helpful if I knew the actual question

[bun00]

I guess it is okay as long as you can back up what you are saying with statistics and evidence. It really depends on the question. For instance, if it is: to what extent _____ was the main reason for ______ and you strongly think it was not the main reason, you need to spend at least a third of your essay arguing why it was a minimal point, you cannot completely dismiss the question. But yeah I guess I would be more helpful if I knew the actual question

ok thanks
the question is:
To what extent did the personality you have studied have a positive impact on his or her time? personality: albert speer
we have previously done a speech on this topic and i argued that he impacted negatively which is the stand i always take towards him now
wdyt? thanks for your help!!

[sudodds]

heyo historians!
just wondering how recommended it is to argue against the terms of the question? just found a past hsc question that i literally couldn't argue in support of it (and would hav a lot of fun venting my opinion against it )

Hey! I always told to avoid totally disagreeing with the question at all costs. It's often a lot harder to argue against than to argue for, and questions start "to what extent..."(one of the most common form) by nature assume that to at least some extent the statement/question is true. However, you can argue that a statement/argument is true to a limited extent, which allows you to discussion the opposition more effectively

ok thanks
the question is:
To what extent did the personality you have studied have a positive impact on his or her time? personality: albert speer
we have previously done a speech on this topic and i argued that he impacted negatively which is the stand i always take towards him now
wdyt? thanks for your help!!

Ahh it was a personality section aha. This the section that is the most flexible, due to the fact that the question has to relate to multiple people (like Nelson Madela and Albert Speer aha - very different people), however I'd still suggest arguing 'to a limited extent', due to the fact that the question is assuming that there is still some nuance, even if overwhelmingly he was negative. The fact that one of the debate sides is "the good nazi" suggests that there is an argument, even if that argument is based on shakey evidence, and is less legitimate than the other. So you can argue that though in this really tiny example he did something positive (maybe it was positive for the regime, so not positive overall - an interesting argument, as it doesn't suggest that they mean positive moral contributions!), but overall it can be argued that his impact was negative

It is unlikely you'll have a question that on the nose though.

[bun00]

Hey! I always told to avoid totally disagreeing with the question at all costs. It's often a lot harder to argue against than to argue for, and questions start "to what extent..."(one of the most common form) by nature assume that to at least some extent the statement/question is true. However, you can argue that a statement/argument is true to a limited extent, which allows you to discussion the opposition more effectively :)Ahh it was a personality section aha. This the section that is the most flexible, due to the fact that the question has to relate to multiple people (like Nelson Madela and Albert Speer aha - very different people), however I'd still suggest arguing 'to a limited extent', due to the fact that the question is assuming that there is still some nuance, even if overwhelmingly he was negative. The fact that one of the debate sides is "the good nazi" suggests that there is an argument, even if that argument is based on shakey evidence, and is less legitimate than the other. So you can argue that though in this really tiny example he did something positive (maybe it was positive for the regime, so not positive overall - an interesting argument, as it doesn't suggest that they mean positive moral contributions!), but overall it can be argued that his impact was negative

It is unlikely you'll have a question that on the nose though.

ok thanks heapps!! so maybe if i go for 1 main point on yes he was positive then 2 or 3 main points on no he was negative?

[sudodds]

ok thanks heapps!! so maybe if i go for 1 main point on yes he was positive then 2 or 3 main points on no he was negative?

Yes, just make sure that you don't structure it this way:

Paragraph 1 - positive
Paragraph 2 - negative
Paragraph 2 - negative

That would be a split judgement. Every single paragraph needs to be the same thing: positive to a limited extent, within three areas. So a better structure would be this way:

Paragraph 1: Positive to a limited extent, however overall negative within (event/issue one)
Paragraph 2 :Positive to a limited extent, however overall negative within (event/issue two)
Paragraph 3: Positive to a limited extent, however overall negative within (event/issue three)

Does that make sense?

Susie

[bun00]

Yes, just make sure that you don't structure it this way:

Paragraph 1 - positive
Paragraph 2 - negative
Paragraph 2 - negative

That would be a split judgement. Every single paragraph needs to be the same thing: positive to a limited extent, within three areas. So a better structure would be this way:

Paragraph 1: Positive to a limited extent, however overall negative within (event/issue one)
Paragraph 2 :Positive to a limited extent, however overall negative within (event/issue two)
Paragraph 3: Positive to a limited extent, however overall negative within (event/issue three)

Does that make sense?

Susie

ok thanks heaps for the warning i probably would have done it that way otherwise but i def see where you're coming from  so WD!
tks hps!!

[sudodds]

ok thanks heaps for the warning i probably would have done it that way otherwise but i def see where you're coming from  so WD!
tks hps!!

No worries! It is a very common mistake, but you need to make sure that your judgement from your introduction remains consistent

[dancing phalanges]

Hey with that Speer question on positive impact you can actually spend half arguing positive and half negative. My thesis for that question is that the extent to which Speer's contribution can be viewed as positive is dependent on the context in which it is viewed. For example, on the one hand, his work in Anti-Semitic policies were negative as they were inhumane in their treatment of the Jewish people (according to historians today and influence by today's context's view of the Nazi party as immoral). However, in the context of the Nazi party, this was a positive impact as the Nazis preached anti-Semitism and the sacrifice of the Jews for the good of Aryan Germany. You can argue something similar for his role in Propaganda and Armaments Minister and of course Good Nazi and now, with more evidence, Bad Nazi. So in effect, now, the Nazi Party is associated with being inhumane and evil and hence, Speer's work, being for the Nazi Party is seen in a similar light. Yet, in the context of Nazi Germany, what he did was positive. And as Susie said you structure it PROPAGANDA - Positive in this context, negative in this context. ARMAMENTS - Positive in this context, negative in this context etc. etc.

[dancing phalanges]

Hey Susie, I don't know if you can help me with this structurally since you don't do Conflict in the Pacific. I just went over writing an essay on the question of: To what extent there was collaboration and resistance to Japanese occupation. This is in a wide range of countries in SE Asia. There is not much sophisticated info or a sophisticated way I can see how to structure it other than COUNTRY - Collaboration eg. and Resistance eg. therefore to a great extent experienced both. This would be for 5-6 countries. There's no thematic or anything haha just examples of groups and ways they collaborated or didn't and they don't go into much depth just a sentence or two each eg. so it's hard to build much. Happy to hear anyone's thoughts!

[sudodds]

Hey Susie, I don't know if you can help me with this structurally since you don't do Conflict in the Pacific. I just went over writing an essay on the question of: To what extent there was collaboration and resistance to Japanese occupation. This is in a wide range of countries in SE Asia. There is not much sophisticated info or a sophisticated way I can see how to structure it other than COUNTRY - Collaboration eg. and Resistance eg. therefore to a great extent experienced both. This would be for 5-6 countries. There's no thematic or anything haha just examples of groups and ways they collaborated or didn't and they don't go into much depth just a sentence or two each eg. so it's hard to build much. Happy to hear anyone's thoughts!

Hey! Is there really no thematic way? Like you couldn't do economic resistance/collaboration, social resistance/collaboration, political resistance/collaboration, military resistance/collaboration? Then talk about multiple countries within each? My worry with doing it according to each country is it'll be easier to slip into a narrative retelling, or split your judgement, but if its the only way you can think to go about it, I'd give it a practice go and see how it works