HSC Modern History Question Thread

[diesxel]

Hey! So I'm writing a Soviet Foreign Policy essay and I had some questions on how one would structure it.

So the SFP from 1917-1941 had conflicting aims, with their pursuit of international revolution along with trying to have domestic stability + good ties with surrounding nations. So if I was writing an essay, would it be better for me to chronologically go through all the events and then state which aim they fit and why the SFP was only partially successful?

OR, Should I talk about each aim, so, first about all the polices they implemented to achieve worldwide revolution, and then start talking about their more orthodox foreign policy...


I've always been confused about writing essays on this dotpoint, so any help is appreciated!!! Thank you so much 

[sudodds]

Hey! So I'm writing a Soviet Foreign Policy essay and I had some questions on how one would structure it.

So the SFP from 1917-1941 had conflicting aims, with their pursuit of international revolution along with trying to have domestic stability + good ties with surrounding nations. So if I was writing an essay, would it be better for me to chronologically go through all the events and then state which aim they fit and why the SFP was only partially successful?

OR, Should I talk about each aim, so, first about all the polices they implemented to achieve worldwide revolution, and then start talking about their more orthodox foreign policy...


I've always been confused about writing essays on this dotpoint, so any help is appreciated!!! Thank you so much 

Hey! The way that I structured this essay was thematically So I looked at how their diplomatic, economic, strategic/militaristic, and social foreign policies contributed to one of their aims/the detriment of the other. That's not the only structure that works, but it worked for me I'd avoid doing the "aim 1", "aim 2" structure, just because you are running the risk of sitting on the fence. If you do want to do this structure however, just make sure that you have an thesis that still runs throughout both aims. So if your thesis is that overall international revolution was sacrificed for domestic stability, then that needs to be demonstrated within all your paragraphs.

Hope this makes sense!

Susie

[dancing phalanges]

Hey Susie or anyone else that can help!
Just wondering what your opinion is on where to go from here for Modern study. I have done probably 2 or 3 past papers so far and while they are good for training my hand etc. with limited prep time left I'm thinking I am better off now just making sure I know all my content and doing heaps of practice to make sure all my stats and quotes are memorised from my detail table (has worked a treat Susie great idea!). I am 100% confident with the art of essay writing and that, that's no issue for me, nor is constructing an argument rather than story telling. so i feel like instead of doing 3 hours covering only 2 topics in germany and conflict in the pacific, for instance, is not as effective as say looking at each syllabus dot point and verbally or physically just writing down everything i can remember. I'll probably do at least 1 practice paper before the exam to train myself with timing but usually im good with that because i can write relatively fast. but yeah any thoughts on whether this sounds g would be great, there's just so much content to go over and i feel like this would be a more effective way for me to ensure i go into the exam fully prepared?

[sudodds]

Hey Susie or anyone else that can help!
Just wondering what your opinion is on where to go from here for Modern study. I have done probably 2 or 3 past papers so far and while they are good for training my hand etc. with limited prep time left I'm thinking I am better off now just making sure I know all my content and doing heaps of practice to make sure all my stats and quotes are memorised from my detail table (has worked a treat Susie great idea!). I am 100% confident with the art of essay writing and that, that's no issue for me, nor is constructing an argument rather than story telling. so i feel like instead of doing 3 hours covering only 2 topics in germany and conflict in the pacific, for instance, is not as effective as say looking at each syllabus dot point and verbally or physically just writing down everything i can remember. I'll probably do at least 1 practice paper before the exam to train myself with timing but usually im good with that because i can write relatively fast. but yeah any thoughts on whether this sounds g would be great, there's just so much content to go over and i feel like this would be a more effective way for me to ensure i go into the exam fully prepared?

Study should always be personalised, so if you think that you'd work better this way, then I definitely recommend giving it a go! For me, I was still doing past papers up until the night before the night before the exam (the final day I spend doing short answers for WW1 and consolidating my detail table), but I get your concern about maximising your time, so I definitely think you should give your way a go!

[av-angie-er]

Does anybody have any tips for making a paragraph on how Nazi ideology, specifically in relation to race, influenced foreign policy up to 1939? So far I've got that the Slavs in conquered territories were treated as inferior populations, and the idea of racial purity heavily encouraged the Nazis' plans for territorial expansion to provide more living space for a German master race. Any help would be appreciated

[dancing phalanges]

Does anybody have any tips for making a paragraph on how Nazi ideology, specifically in relation to race, influenced foreign policy up to 1939? So far I've got that the Slavs in conquered territories were treated as inferior populations, and the idea of racial purity heavily encouraged the Nazis' plans for territorial expansion to provide more living space for a German master race. Any help would be appreciated

Hey! I would say that with racial purity, the main idea linked to that is Lebensraum or the need for more space to build Germany's pure empire! Unfortunately that's all!

[av-angie-er]

A

Hey! I would say that with racial purity, the main idea linked to that is Lebensraum or the need for more space to build Germany's pure empire! Unfortunately that's all!

Ahh you're probably right I was really hoping to structure my three paragraphs using racial purity, Lebensraum and Nazi militarism as different ideological influences, but since racial purity and Lebensraum can be squished together, do you have any alternative ideas in terms of essay paragraphs?

[dancing phalanges]

AAhh you're probably right I was really hoping to structure my three paragraphs using racial purity, Lebensraum and Nazi militarism as different ideological influences, but since racial purity and Lebensraum can be squished together, do you have any alternative ideas in terms of essay paragraphs?

Ah not for ideology really no! I guess if the question asks to what extend did Nazi ideology impact Nazi foreign policy you can bring up issues such as ending the Treaty of versailles etc?

[Nooriye]

hi, just confused with how to structure a detente essay and the different types of detente essays that can be asked. for eg for "to what extent did vietnam, the sino soviet split and middle east contribute to detente." would i just focus on those three events or i do i need to bring information about cuba, the arms race etc which also contributed to detente. also in a question asking to "evaluate the success and failures of detente" is discussing the reasons for detente necessary.

[mixel]

Does anybody have any tips for making a paragraph on how Nazi ideology, specifically in relation to race, influenced foreign policy up to 1939? So far I've got that the Slavs in conquered territories were treated as inferior populations, and the idea of racial purity heavily encouraged the Nazis' plans for territorial expansion to provide more living space for a German master race. Any help would be appreciated

(I reread this after writing it and it's a complete mess, sorry)

Hey av-angie-er, I think the hardest part of this question is keeping stuff within the time-frame, because a lot of the best evidence to this question comes from beyond 1939. The poor treatment of local populations in the Occupied Territories was a huge example of ideology influencing Nazi foreign policy in strategically poor ways, but this is beyond the scope of the national study unfortunately.

Dancing phalanges was totally right about Lebensraum, and it's always a major consideration in questions on Nazi-Foreign policy, but to keep things before 1939 I would suggest focusing on the idea of the Grossdeutsches Reich as a precursor to Lebensraum, that is, a nation that sought to unite and promote all Germans regardless of existing international boundaries. For this you would first address the ideology behind this and identify its origins in Mein Kampf and the Volkisch populist movement, predating Nazism. After this, you would point to the increasingly aggressive stages of Nazi Foreign policy that influence this, most importantly, the Saar Plebiscite in January 1935, the Anschluss with Austria in March 1938, the Munich Conference and annexation of the Sudetenland in November 1938, and the invasion of Czechoslovakia in January 1939.

What you would want to identify in this pattern is how German foreign policy in this aspect of their ideology began very tentatively and diplomatically with the Saar Plebiscite, and became increasingly militaristic to the point of complete dismissal of international law in the invasion of Czechoslovakia. The conclusion this would lead to is that while German foreign policy from 1935-1939 did act to promote Nazi ideology, this was always contingent on Germany's military capabilities, bearing in mind that the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe had only been officially formed in 1935 and Hitler's orders for the remilitarisation of the Rhineland told soldiers to retreat at the slightest opposition from the French, as the army was in no position to wage war at that point.

To add sophistication to this point, there is an important counterpoint that these actions were an extension of pre-Nazi foreign policy from the Weimar era. The strongest evidence for this is that under the 1925 Locarno Pact, Stresemann only committed Germany to fixed boundaries along its Western borders, as he always intended on restoring pre-WW1 borders in the East to include German populations now living in Poland and Bohemia. I think AJP Taylor argues this, but I'm not sure. If this counterpoint is true, then it is misleading to just say that Nazi ideology influenced German foreign policy without the caveat that these goals predated Nazism and were shared by others, and were often practically motivated rather than ideologically motivated (the evidence for this is that Germany needed to invade Poland in 1939 because its economy was on the verge of collapse due to Hitler's mismanagement. This is Richard J. Evans' argument, which he called the "plunder economy").

[dancing phalanges]

(I reread this after writing it and it's a complete mess, sorry)

Hey av-angie-er, I think the hardest part of this question is keeping stuff within the time-frame, because a lot of the best evidence to this question comes from beyond 1939. The poor treatment of local populations in the Occupied Territories was a huge example of ideology influencing Nazi foreign policy in strategically poor ways, but this is beyond the scope of the national study unfortunately.

Dancing phalanges was totally right about Lebensraum, and it's always a major consideration in questions on Nazi-Foreign policy, but to keep things before 1939 I would suggest focusing on the idea of the Grossdeutsches Reich as a precursor to Lebensraum, that is, a nation that sought to unite and promote all Germans regardless of existing international boundaries. For this you would first address the ideology behind this and identify its origins in Mein Kampf and the Volkisch populist movement, predating Nazism. After this, you would point to the increasingly aggressive stages of Nazi Foreign policy that influence this, most importantly, the Saar Plebiscite in January 1935, the Anschluss with Austria in March 1938, the Munich Conference and annexation of the Sudetenland in November 1938, and the invasion of Czechoslovakia in January 1939.

What you would want to identify in this pattern is how German foreign policy in this aspect of their ideology began very tentatively and diplomatically with the Saar Plebiscite, and became increasingly militaristic to the point of complete dismissal of international law in the invasion of Czechoslovakia. The conclusion this would lead to is that while German foreign policy from 1935-1939 did act to promote Nazi ideology, this was always contingent on Germany's military capabilities, bearing in mind that the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe had only been officially formed in 1935 and Hitler's orders for the remilitarisation of the Rhineland told soldiers to retreat at the slightest opposition from the French, as the army was in no position to wage war at that point.

To add sophistication to this point, there is an important counterpoint that these actions were an extension of pre-Nazi foreign policy from the Weimar era. The strongest evidence for this is that under the 1925 Locarno Pact, Stresemann only committed Germany to fixed boundaries along its Western borders, as he always intended on restoring pre-WW1 borders in the East to include German populations now living in Poland and Bohemia. I think AJP Taylor argues this, but I'm not sure. If this counterpoint is true, then it is misleading to just say that Nazi ideology influenced German foreign policy without the caveat that these goals predated Nazism and were shared by others, and were often practically motivated rather than ideologically motivated (the evidence for this is that Germany needed to invade Poland in 1939 because its economy was on the verge of collapse due to Hitler's mismanagement. I'm very sure that this is AJP Taylor's argument, which he called the "plunder economy").

Haha is this just off the cuff talking because I can't understand how you know all these intricate details that I've never even heard before 

[mixel]

Haha is this just off the cuff talking because I can't understand how you know all these intricate details that I've never even heard before 

Aw thanks man, I think it was my teacher's obsession with historiography and random contrarian arguments rubbing off on me haha

[dancing phalanges]

Haha you have a pretty good teacher then 
Just quickly,
So would Nazi propaganda be classified as separate to racial policy since it is not exactly policy or part of it?
And also if a question asked to what extent nazi racial policy impacted on german life etc. etc. - could I make the argument that nazi racial policy (in terms of anti-semitism) legitimised local level discrimination of the Jewish people and that sorta thing?

[mixel]

Haha you have a pretty good teacher then 
Just quickly,
So would Nazi propaganda be classified as separate to racial policy since it is not exactly policy or part of it?
And also if a question asked to what extent nazi racial policy impacted on german life etc. etc. - could I make the argument that nazi racial policy (in terms of anti-semitism) legitimised local level discrimination of the Jewish people and that sorta thing?

It might not be a major point in essays on racial policy but I think you can definitely argue a link between them. For evidence you could point to the national boycott of Jewish shops in April 1933 which was cancelled after a week due to a lack of co-operation with civilians vs. the huge public participation in the Kristallnacht in November 1938 showing the massive change in civilian antisemitism in the first five years of Nazi rule, suggesting propaganda as a significant factor in this

Also for the second question, absolutely  again, Kristallnacht is the biggest evidence for this because when you compare it to public reticence to state antisemitism in the beginning of Nazi rule, there is a huge shift that undeniably goes beyond mere public tolerance of Nazi propaganda. The nation-wide scale of Kristallnacht also points towards this -- even in small towns, shops were ransacked and vandalised and Jewish families were lynched. In terms of legitimising antisemitism, you could say it even encouraged it to the extent that the dispossession of Jews through the Nuremberg Laws and even just unpunished theft and violence from civilians benefited the individuals that were perpetrating it. This happened indirectly through rewards/less suspicion from the Gestapo to people who denounced Jewish neighbours / less competition from Jews in local business, to directly in the case of theft.

[dancing phalanges]

It might not be a major point in essays on racial policy but I think you can definitely argue a link between them. For evidence you could point to the national boycott of Jewish shops in April 1933 which was cancelled after a week due to a lack of co-operation with civilians vs. the huge public participation in the Kristallnacht in November 1938 showing the massive change in civilian antisemitism in the first five years of Nazi rule, suggesting propaganda as a significant factor in this

Also for the second question, absolutely  again, Kristallnacht is the biggest evidence for this because when you compare it to public reticence to state antisemitism in the beginning of Nazi rule, there is a huge shift that undeniably goes beyond mere public tolerance of Nazi propaganda. The nation-wide scale of Kristallnacht also points towards this -- even in small towns, shops were ransacked and vandalised and Jewish families were lynched. In terms of legitimising antisemitism, you could say it even encouraged it to the extent that the dispossession of Jews through the Nuremberg Laws and even just unpunished theft and violence from civilians benefited the individuals that were perpetrating it. This happened indirectly through rewards/less suspicion from the Gestapo to people who denounced Jewish neighbours / less competition from Jews in local business, to directly in the case of theft.

Great Could you also use the eg. of how 1/174 racial defilement complaints in Wurzburg were from citizens not the gestapo?