HSC Modern History Question Thread

[dancing phalanges]

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

Hey Susie, I'm going to look at each example that I have from the textbook and look them up individually online to see if I can find more info and hopefully it will be clearer where they fall into place I will get back to you on it

[dancing phalanges]

Hey Susie,
I'm looking into it now but what is your opinion on possibly getting info for this essay question but just not really studying/preparing for it for the HSC as I will always have another option I will be more confident in?
AND here's an example of detail on resistance in the Phillipines, as you can see it overlaps quite a bit:
The strength of the Huk organization came from the mostly agrarian peasants of Central Luzon. Between March 1942 and August 1948, the Huks became a trained and experienced force, well-equipped and well-prepared for its guerrilla warfare. The initial force of 500 armed Huks which was organized into five squadrons had increased to a fully armed guerrilla force of 20,000 men.  They fought Japanese troops, worked to subvert the Japanese tax-collection service, intercepted food and supplies to the Japanese troops, and created a training school where they taught political theory and military tactics based on Marxist ideas. In areas that the group controlled, they set up local governments and instituted land reforms, dividing up the largest estates equally among the peasants and often killing the landlords.

[av-angie-er]

Hi! For a national study question asking to 'Account for the successes and failures of democracy in Germany in the period 1918-1933', would it be reasonable to focus primarily on the failures and reference maybe one or two successes per paragraph? Or would you need to designate as much as a paragraph to the successes alone? Reading through the timed practice essay that I wrote, I realised that I basically addressed the question by explaining how the Weimar Republic totally failed and mentioned maybe two successes (which ultimately failed in the end). Would this be considered not answering the question? Thanks!

[mixel]

Hi! For a national study question asking to 'Account for the successes and failures of democracy in Germany in the period 1918-1933', would it be reasonable to focus primarily on the failures and reference maybe one or two successes per paragraph? Or would you need to designate as much as a paragraph to the successes alone? Reading through the timed practice essay that I wrote, I realised that I basically addressed the question by explaining how the Weimar Republic totally failed and mentioned maybe two successes (which ultimately failed in the end). Would this be considered not answering the question? Thanks!

Hey, I would suggest suggest having a mix of successes and failures in each paragraph, that way you're providing equal treatment to both sides of the issue in question and it can't be said that your essay is unbalanced. That isn't to say that one side should not be stronger in your analysis -- you should definitely be arguing for a 'net total' of failure or success (very hard to argue net success for Weimar Germany), which is composed of individual failures and successes. This sort of structure favours thematic arguments, which most points from the Weimar Germany subheading work with.

For example, a thesis that 'while democracy ultimately failed in Weimar Germany, significant successes contribute to its short-lived success in the mid-1920s' could be supported by a paragraph on political successes and failures. For example: enfranchisement of women, high electoral turnout (never below 75%, above 80% from 1928), bipartisanship in multiple 'grand coalitions' of left and right wing parties, vs. residual authoritarianism in article 48 of the constitution (invoked 126 times in 1919-1923), proportional representation weakening executive power (no party ever achieved majority but shared coalitions), failure to establish a democratic tradition, failure to disempower and reign in the armed forces/judiciary/junker class, etc. With these successes and failures, you would be able to holistically account for both the successes and failures, while at the same time contributing to an overall argument that democracy failed because its failures outweighed its successes.

Note that the verb in the question asks you to 'account for', so you do have to include fairly balanced treatment of both of the things it's asking you to account for (successes and failures). This doesn't leave you a lot of room for argumentation / interpretation unfortunately, so to answer your question in a very round-about way, I think failing to equally account for successes and failures would be considered not answering the question. The question that then raises is what constitutes equal treatment, but I think that's more of a vibe you'll get as it's difficult to quantify. Sure someone might have the same number of points for successes and failures, but some points may be very insignificant. To avoid this, I'd suggest not grabbing low-hanging fruit (markers get tired of this when every essay points to the same failures) and elaborating on why certain things are significant.

Good luck, and sorry for the rambling 

[rodero]

Hi guys!

What are your thoughts on K J Mason as a historian for the German national study? He is the author of 'Republic to Reich', so I'm a bit scared about quoting the textbook. The quote that I want to use from his is: “The basic weakness was that the country was using short term loans to fund long-term projects”, when mentioning the economic factors which contributed to the collapse of the Republic.

If he isn't a reputable historian, does anyone have a quote that captures the same message?
Thanks

EDIT: Just while I'm on Germany, which event(s) officially marked the collapse of the Weimar Republic? At the moment, I stop at the 1933 elections because that's when the Nazi party now had 100% of seats in the Reichstag. However, does the Rise of Nazi Party = Fall of democracy?

[av-angie-er]

Hey, I would suggest suggest having a mix of successes and failures in each paragraph, that way you're providing equal treatment to both sides of the issue in question and it can't be said that your essay is unbalanced. That isn't to say that one side should not be stronger in your analysis -- you should definitely be arguing for a 'net total' of failure or success (very hard to argue net success for Weimar Germany), which is composed of individual failures and successes. This sort of structure favours thematic arguments, which most points from the Weimar Germany subheading work with.

For example, a thesis that 'while democracy ultimately failed in Weimar Germany, significant successes contribute to its short-lived success in the mid-1920s' could be supported by a paragraph on political successes and failures. For example: enfranchisement of women, high electoral turnout (never below 75%, above 80% from 1928), bipartisanship in multiple 'grand coalitions' of left and right wing parties, vs. residual authoritarianism in article 48 of the constitution (invoked 126 times in 1919-1923), proportional representation weakening executive power (no party ever achieved majority but shared coalitions), failure to establish a democratic tradition, failure to disempower and reign in the armed forces/judiciary/junker class, etc. With these successes and failures, you would be able to holistically account for both the successes and failures, while at the same time contributing to an overall argument that democracy failed because its failures outweighed its successes.

Note that the verb in the question asks you to 'account for', so you do have to include fairly balanced treatment of both of the things it's asking you to account for (successes and failures). This doesn't leave you a lot of room for argumentation / interpretation unfortunately, so to answer your question in a very round-about way, I think failing to equally account for successes and failures would be considered not answering the question. The question that then raises is what constitutes equal treatment, but I think that's more of a vibe you'll get as it's difficult to quantify. Sure someone might have the same number of points for successes and failures, but some points may be very insignificant. To avoid this, I'd suggest not grabbing low-hanging fruit (markers get tired of this when every essay points to the same failures) and elaborating on why certain things are significant.

Good luck, and sorry for the rambling 

Hey! Thanks so much for your reply, it definitely wasn't all that 'ramble-y' because I found everything you said to be really helpful

I understand now that the question would need a more balanced treatment, but I'm still struggling to find examples of German democracy's successes apart from those in Stresemann's 'years of stability'. Would you be able to suggest any others, or would it be reasonable to just focus my paragraphs on these in categories of economic, social and political triumphs from 1924-29? Thanks.

[mixel]

Hi guys!

What are your thoughts on K J Mason as a historian for the German national study? He is the author of 'Republic to Reich', so I'm a bit scared about quoting the textbook. The quote that I want to use from his is: “The basic weakness was that the country was using short term loans to fund long-term projects”, when mentioning the economic factors which contributed to the collapse of the Republic.

If he isn't a reputable historian, does anyone have a quote that captures the same message?
Thanks

EDIT: Just while I'm on Germany, which event(s) officially marked the collapse of the Weimar Republic? At the moment, I stop at the 1933 elections because that's when the Nazi party now had 100% of seats in the Reichstag. However, does the Rise of Nazi Party = Fall of democracy?

Hey rodero, I've got the same textbook  . I've had the same struggle so many times because it's so well-written, but unfortunately I don't think quoting it is a good idea because KJ Mason isn't extending arguments as much as summarising the arguments of preceding historians.

But I've done a bit of snooping and I managed to turn up a historian you might consider using instead. Knut Borchardt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knut_Borchardt) is a German economic historian who created the 'Borchardt Hypothesis', which I think boils down to the idea that poor budget discipline in the interwar years (essentially what your quote is saying about foreign loans) created the conditions for the pronounced impact of the Depression in Germany, and that the effects of this (debt-dependency, capital flight, loan defaults, insolvency due to withdrawn loans) limited the ability of the government to respond to and soften the Depression. I couldn't find anything more relevant to your quote, but you might be able to twist the words a bit on this one.

As for your second question, I don't think there's one event that you can point to as much as there is a continuum of authoritarianism starting with the imposition of presidential rule due to an impotent Reichstag in 1930 and ending in the death of Hindenburg in August 1934. In between these are many moments: the huge success of the NSDAP in the July 1932 election, Hitler's ascension to the Chancellory in January 1933, the Reichstag Fire Decree in February 1933, and the passage of the Enabling Act in March 1933 all represent a shift towards authoritarianism. While these later ones are more profound, I still think Hindenburg's rule by presidential decree after 1930 is the point at which Germany became decidedly undemocratic, as this was the point where elected representatives lost all power over the country and -- most importantly -- never recovered it.

Hey! Thanks so much for your reply, it definitely wasn't all that 'ramble-y' because I found everything you said to be really helpful

I understand now that the question would need a more balanced treatment, but I'm still struggling to find examples of German democracy's successes apart from those in Stresemann's 'years of stability'. Would you be able to suggest any others, or would it be reasonable to just focus my paragraphs on these in categories of economic, social and political triumphs from 1924-29? Thanks.

I think dividing your paragraphs into economic, social and political is absolutely the way to go For economic successes, I'd point to the success of Stresemann's Rentenmark in solving hyperinflation, the creation of the Dawes and Young Plans to reduce and prolong Germany's Versailles debt repayments and therefore overcome austerity, and the successful creation of a welfare state. For political, I'd have the ones I listed in my first reply (Female enfranchisement, high turnout and bipartisanship), and also Stresemann's successful foreign policy securing German territory under the Treaty of Locarno but leaving scope for irredentism in the East if you need more successes. For social, I'd have Germany's growth in the arts (cradle of Modernism + the largest European cinema industry in Berlin) and the increasing involvement of women in the public sphere (arts, the workplace, politics, etc.)

[_____]

What's the best way to link reliability to usefulness? Perspective is easy, because you can just say "Source X is useful as it provides the French Premier's perspective of the competing interests in the negotiations..." but for reliability can you do something similar? Like "The source is also very useful as it is a reliable recount of first days The Somme corroborated by other sources..." or "The source is very useful as it is a real example of persuasion techniques used by the British..."

The problem I see here is it sounds repetitive. If I'm using this rough format: perspective > reliability > usefulness then I'm going to be repeating what I just talked about in regards to perspective and reliability. Should I be using synonyms for reliability to make it less repetitive or will this seem like I'm straying from the required analysis? How can I justify usefulness without being repetitive or ingraining it directly in a discussion of perspective/reliability (not many seem to suggest doing this).

Thanks!

[rodero]

Amazing ! Thanks mixel

[carina1157]

Hi!

Just wondering if anyone has an exemplar Personality Section response that uses General Douglas MacArthur?

Thanks!

[av-angie-er]

I think dividing your paragraphs into economic, social and political is absolutely the way to go For economic successes, I'd point to the success of Stresemann's Rentenmark in solving hyperinflation, the creation of the Dawes and Young Plans to reduce and prolong Germany's Versailles debt repayments and therefore overcome austerity, and the successful creation of a welfare state. For political, I'd have the ones I listed in my first reply (Female enfranchisement, high turnout and bipartisanship), and also Stresemann's successful foreign policy securing German territory under the Treaty of Locarno but leaving scope for irredentism in the East if you need more successes. For social, I'd have Germany's growth in the arts (cradle of Modernism + the largest European cinema industry in Berlin) and the increasing involvement of women in the public sphere (arts, the workplace, politics, etc.)

Thank you so much, mixel! That's all the help I needed and more

[owidjaja]

Hey guys!
This is probably a dumb question but how do you write a 'describe' essay? I've asked different teachers, students and tutors and all of them say the same thing: just talk about what happened as if you're telling a story. But whenever I write a describe essay (for example, in my History Investigation), I found that I keep unintentionally making judgements rather than just describing what happened. For example, the question was 'Describe the role of Tsar Nicholas II during his reign' and in my draft I talked about how he had a minimal role (unintentional, but seriously, he didn't do much!). Even though there's only one 'describe' question in the HSC, being the Personality Study, I'd still like to know how to approach 'describe' essays and how to structure and respond to it.

Thanks!

[fantasticbeasts3]

What's the best way to link reliability to usefulness? Perspective is easy, because you can just say "Source X is useful as it provides the French Premier's perspective of the competing interests in the negotiations..." but for reliability can you do something similar? Like "The source is also very useful as it is a reliable recount of first days The Somme corroborated by other sources..." or "The source is very useful as it is a real example of persuasion techniques used by the British..."

The problem I see here is it sounds repetitive. If I'm using this rough format: perspective > reliability > usefulness then I'm going to be repeating what I just talked about in regards to perspective and reliability. Should I be using synonyms for reliability to make it less repetitive or will this seem like I'm straying from the required analysis? How can I justify usefulness without being repetitive or ingraining it directly in a discussion of perspective/reliability (not many seem to suggest doing this).

Thanks!

i have no clue hahahah i've got the same problem with linking reliability to usefulness. in my mind, if a source is reliable, it's automatically useful 😂 i don't think it matters if you're being repetitive, because a source analysis is kind of like an equation (sorry to bring maths into this...) where perspective + reliability = usefulness; you're pretty much building usefulness off perspective and reliability so somewhere there you're bound to repeat yourself. you've probably been taught this before, but if a source isn't exactly reliable (cringing using this word, but if the source is biased), it is useful to show a point of view :-) hope this helps??

Hi!

Just wondering if anyone has an exemplar Personality Section response that uses General Douglas MacArthur?

Thanks!

no, sorry - that seems to be a very rare personality study hahaha this is the first i've heard of someone doing it!

Hey guys!
This is probably a dumb question but how do you write a 'describe' essay? I've asked different teachers, students and tutors and all of them say the same thing: just talk about what happened as if you're telling a story. But whenever I write a describe essay (for example, in my History Investigation), I found that I keep unintentionally making judgements rather than just describing what happened. For example, the question was 'Describe the role of Tsar Nicholas II during his reign' and in my draft I talked about how he had a minimal role (unintentional, but seriously, he didn't do much!). Even though there's only one 'describe' question in the HSC, being the Personality Study, I'd still like to know how to approach 'describe' essays and how to structure and respond to it.

Thanks!

hey, welcome to the forums! i hope AN becomes a really great place for you throughout year 12 :-) by the way, there is no such thing as a dumb question!

the personality section is pretty much the same thing every year, like, they can only ask you so much on it. these are the questions from the past 4 years:
2016 - Describe THREE significant events in the life of the personality you have studied.
2015 - Describe the significant events in the life of the personality you have studied.
2014 - Outline the background and rise to prominence of the personality you have studied.
2013 - Describe the rise to prominence of the personality you have studied.

as you can see there, 2015/16 asked you to do significant events for your personality, so you'd structure your response into 3 paragraphs, each one describing a significant event. 2013/14 asks you for the background and/or rise to prominence, and if you know your personality (check the syllabus now if you'd like), there are syllabus dot points for those, so each paragraph can be one dot point. but yea, structure isn't a biggie in the describe section for the personality section (in my opinion) - as long as you're answering the question, you should be good. another thing to remember with 'describe' essays is to pack in as much detail as you can! dates, statistics, etc (not historiography, that goes into the next section) will get you into the higher bands. try your best to avoid making judgements because then you're not really answering the question. (although yea tsar nicholas ii didn't do crap during his reign)

hope this helps - best of luck for year 12,
fantasticbeasts

[owidjaja]

i have no clue hahahah i've got the same problem with linking reliability to usefulness. in my mind, if a source is reliable, it's automatically useful 😂 i don't think it matters if you're being repetitive, because a source analysis is kind of like an equation (sorry to bring maths into this...) where perspective + reliability = usefulness; you're pretty much building usefulness off perspective and reliability so somewhere there you're bound to repeat yourself. you've probably been taught this before, but if a source isn't exactly reliable (cringing using this word, but if the source is biased), it is useful to show a point of view :-) hope this helps??

no, sorry - that seems to be a very rare personality study hahaha this is the first i've heard of someone doing it!

hey, welcome to the forums! i hope AN becomes a really great place for you throughout year 12 :-) by the way, there is no such thing as a dumb question!

the personality section is pretty much the same thing every year, like, they can only ask you so much on it. these are the questions from the past 4 years:
2016 - Describe THREE significant events in the life of the personality you have studied.
2015 - Describe the significant events in the life of the personality you have studied.
2014 - Outline the background and rise to prominence of the personality you have studied.
2013 - Describe the rise to prominence of the personality you have studied.

as you can see there, 2015/16 asked you to do significant events for your personality, so you'd structure your response into 3 paragraphs, each one describing a significant event. 2013/14 asks you for the background and/or rise to prominence, and if you know your personality (check the syllabus now if you'd like), there are syllabus dot points for those, so each paragraph can be one dot point. but yea, structure isn't a biggie in the describe section for the personality section (in my opinion) - as long as you're answering the question, you should be good. another thing to remember with 'describe' essays is to pack in as much detail as you can! dates, statistics, etc (not historiography, that goes into the next section) will get you into the higher bands. try your best to avoid making judgements because then you're not really answering the question. (although yea tsar nicholas ii didn't do crap during his reign)

hope this helps - best of luck for year 12,
fantasticbeasts

Hey! Thank you so much for your response. I'll definitely take your advice on board

[owidjaja]

Hello again!
Yesterday I was asking about 'describe' essays, so now I'd like to ask how to approach 'evaluate' essays. In class, my teacher treats 'evaluate' like it's an 'asses' question. But when you look at the Board of Studies Definitions (or NESA, idk which), 'evaluate' is to make a judgement based on criteria whereas 'asses' is to make a judgement. So do you treat 'evaluate' and 'assess' as the same thing or are there any differences?

Thanks