HSC Modern History Question Thread

[Korrasami]

Hey can anyone please have a look at my introduction for this question from last year's paper: "To what extent were the dictatorship in Germany and Italy responsible for growth of European tensions?"

The dictatorships in Germany and Italy played a significant role in the growth of European tensions. Mussolini and Hitler each engaged in aggressive foreign policy, focusing on militarism and nationalism. These components made the core of their foreign policy, which contributed to the growth of European tensions. The extent in which dictatorships in Germany and Italy played a role in European tensions is through ideology, the impact of the Treaty of Versailles, foreign policy and the policy of appeasement.

[mixel]

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

Yeah, that sounds like it'd work perfectly 

[fantasticbeasts3]

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.

hey hey, another cold war person!

i do all my cold war essays in order of syllabus points - that is, using the syllabus points to form paragraphs. this mightn't be the structure for you, but it's pretty simple because everything's in chronological order (yay) and you can use the events to support the argument you have in your thesis. however, because the syllabus point on the geopolitical movements (vietnam, sino-soviet split and the middle east) is so big, i split those ones up.

as for the question you asked - "to what extent did vietnam, the sino-soviet split and middle east contribute to détente," you should cover what exactly contributed to détente, so yea, bring in information about cuba, the arms race and other stuff you think is relevant. the reasons for détente are also important. it's a "to what extent" question, so it's not just the geopolitical movements that contributed to détente. do you get that?

for the other question - "evaluate the successes and failures of détente" - yes, the reasons are very necessary! in order to establish your argument about the successes and failures, you need to state the reasons for détente, because then you can't exactly determine why détente succeeded or failed. (spoiler alert: in the end, it did fail).

hope this helps - best of luck for your hsc,
fantasticbeasts

[dancing phalanges]

Hey Susie,
Just two queries for personality questions. There have been some in the past that stipulate to what extent your personality had a positive impact on their times, in which case for Speer I can argue both positive and negative. I was wondering for questions such as Assess the contribution/significance of your personality to their times - could I also use this to assess his contribution as to whether it was positive or negative rather than just assessing how significant it was? I just prefer the positive/negative contribution argument as I find it more interesting to write about in regards to Speer. I gather though if it assess the significance I definitely can't as it is about whether they were significant or not, not what type of significance they had.

Also, I am struggling with how to answer this question from last year's HSC - ‘Differing perspectives and interpretations help us in gaining an understanding of a personality’s significance within history.’ To what extent is this statement accurate in relation to the personality you have studied?
I read your assistance to another forum member about how you did it based on arguing how it more reflects the historian's context and subjectivity but I personally don't think I would do well at that seeing Speer is not as politically important as Trotsky and also that I don't have a background in History Extension haha. In terms of the different interpretations, there is obviously Good vs Bad Nazi - which also includes differing interpretations on his role in anti-Semitism and the Scorched Earth Policy. I am just confused on how these differing perspectives help us gain an understanding of his significance? Do I just argue that since historians are debating this that he is therefore significant as I feel like this is too simple and cop-out ish haha. Or should I make an evaluation as to how the differing perspectives from say historians during Speer's time vs. historians with more evidence today allows us to understand that his significance was not positive/the nature of his significance. Just a little confused!
Thanks

[sudodds]

Hey Susie,
Just two queries for personality questions. There have been some in the past that stipulate to what extent your personality had a positive impact on their times, in which case for Speer I can argue both positive and negative. I was wondering for questions such as Assess the contribution/significance of your personality to their times - could I also use this to assess his contribution as to whether it was positive or negative rather than just assessing how significant it was? I just prefer the positive/negative contribution argument as I find it more interesting to write about in regards to Speer. I gather though if it assess the significance I definitely can't as it is about whether they were significant or not, not what type of significance they had.

Hmmmm, I'm not 100% sure to be honest! I guess if the question was "assess the contribution of your personality to their times", you can make an assessment that it was positive/negative? My only fear with that would be that if your arguments too closely resemble that of the "positive impact" question, that they may perceive it to be a prepared response that you got lucky with. Since the debate with Speer though is the "Good Nazi", which inherently has an aspect of morality involved, I'd say (tentatively) that you should be fine

However, tbh you're unlikely to get a question that straight forward in the HSC!

Also, I am struggling with how to answer this question from last year's HSC - ‘Differing perspectives and interpretations help us in gaining an understanding of a personality’s significance within history.’ To what extent is this statement accurate in relation to the personality you have studied?
I read your assistance to another forum member about how you did it based on arguing how it more reflects the historian's context and subjectivity but I personally don't think I would do well at that seeing Speer is not as politically important as Trotsky and also that I don't have a background in History Extension haha. In terms of the different interpretations, there is obviously Good vs Bad Nazi - which also includes differing interpretations on his role in anti-Semitism and the Scorched Earth Policy. I am just confused on how these differing perspectives help us gain an understanding of his significance? Do I just argue that since historians are debating this that he is therefore significant as I feel like this is too simple and cop-out ish haha. Or should I make an evaluation as to how the differing perspectives from say historians during Speer's time vs. historians with more evidence today allows us to understand that his significance was not positive/the nature of his significance. Just a little confused!
Thanks

That question was horrendous aha, so not surprised that you are having trouble with it! According to my teacher, he thinks that the markers realised this an adjusted the standard accordingly, just because so many people failed to formulate a response. I really like the final argument that you made, which is essentially the Speer equivalent of my one for Trotsky that I did in the exam! As you identified, not all personalties are polarising in the same ways. Trotsky's ideology creates a very clear divide within historians, right-wing and left-wing, whereas despite the Good Nazi debates existence, most historians would shy away from a positive assessment of someone who contributed to the Third Reich/Holocaust, because that event is universally vilified across pretty much all areas of the political spectrum. What you need to do then if find another unifying factor between historians of differing perspectives - which you have identified - context and proximity to Speer. Remember that you can also incorporate Speer's own perspective as well! Now what you've got to do is identify what are the key features within the differing interpretations, and how they a reflective of their context. For example, with Trotsky, I stated that a right-wing historian, in attempting to present Trotsky as naive during the power struggle, will neglect to mention the societal changes as a factor, and instead just focus on Trotsky's personal failings as an individual

Don't worry too much about not having that background in history extension. Though it is definitely suited to extension students, the argument made - that context affects the way in which a historian write their histories, is pretty entry level extension stuff Not too tricky to get your head around, and judging by your assessment you have!

Hope this makes sense! If you do find the above hard, even though it may seem more "basic", the other argument that you identified, that due to the fact that there is debate it is clear that the personality is significant, is still valid, and I have seen it done well by students in the past

Susie

[dancing phalanges]

Hmmmm, I'm not 100% sure to be honest! I guess if the question was "assess the contribution of your personality to their times", you can make an assessment that it was positive/negative? My only fear with that would be that if your arguments too closely resemble that of the "positive impact" question, that they may perceive it to be a prepared response that you got lucky with. Since the debate with Speer though is the "Good Nazi", which inherently has an aspect of morality involved, I'd say (tentatively) that you should be fine

However, tbh you're unlikely to get a question that straight forward in the HSC!
That question was horrendous aha, so not surprised that you are having trouble with it! According to my teacher, he thinks that the markers realised this an adjusted the standard accordingly, just because so many people failed to formulate a response. I really like the final argument that you made, which is essentially the Speer equivalent of my one for Trotsky that I did in the exam! As you identified, not all personalties are polarising in the same ways. Trotsky's ideology creates a very clear divide within historians, right-wing and left-wing, whereas despite the Good Nazi debates existence, most historians would shy away from a positive assessment of someone who contributed to the Third Reich/Holocaust, because that event is universally vilified across pretty much all areas of the political spectrum. What you need to do then if find another unifying factor between historians of differing perspectives - which you have identified - context and proximity to Speer. Remember that you can also incorporate Speer's own perspective as well! Now what you've got to do is identify what are the key features within the differing interpretations, and how they a reflective of their context. For example, with Trotsky, I stated that a right-wing historian, in attempting to present Trotsky as naive during the power struggle, will neglect to mention the societal changes as a factor, and instead just focus on Trotsky's personal failings as an individual

Don't worry too much about not having that background in history extension. Though it is definitely suited to extension students, the argument made - that context affects the way in which a historian write their histories, is pretty entry level extension stuff Not too tricky to get your head around, and judging by your assessment you have!

Hope this makes sense! If you do find the above hard, even though it may seem more "basic", the other argument that you identified, that due to the fact that there is debate it is clear that the personality is significant, is still valid, and I have seen it done well by students in the past

Susie

Thanks so much for the lengthy reply! Hoping that sort of question won't come up anyway given that it was last year's and that they go for more of a product or shaper of his time question

[marcusgrahamm]

I was wondering if anyone could help me in creating an essay plan for these questions:

To what extent were Gorbachev's policies and attitudes responsible in the collapse of the USSR?"

AND

Account for the emerging differences responsible for the origins of the Cold War.

I really struggle with the Cold War (Im fine with Germany, WW1 & JEH) and can't find any example essays online. So any all help is appreciated!

[sudodds]

I was wondering if anyone could help me in creating an essay plan for these questions:

To what extent were Gorbachev's policies and attitudes responsible in the collapse of the USSR?"

AND

Account for the emerging differences responsible for the origins of the Cold War.

I really struggle with the Cold War (Im fine with Germany, WW1 & JEH) and can't find any example essays online. So any all help is appreciated!

Hey!! I'm actually with a student right now, and we're going through this exact dot point So we're both going to help you out!

To what extent were Gorbachev's policies and attitudes responsible in the collapse of the USSR

For this type of essay, we would recommend you writing according to the factors/syllabus. That means a paragraph on;

PARAGRAPH 1 - Start with a paragraph on Gorbachev, as he is the stem of the question --> You can link Collapse of Communism and the Soviet Union within this paragraph as well, rather than a whole separate paragraph.
PARAGRAPH 2 - Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan (so after the first paragraph, you can just go in order)
PARAGRAPH 3- Policies and attitudes under Reagan
PARAGRAPH 4 - Disarmament agreements

To get a higher range band 6, you'd need to link Gorbachev to all the other factors. This can be done by;

- Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan prompted both Reagan AND Gorbachev's policies and attitudes - Gorbachev wanted to improve the Soviet Union's image after the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan.
- The way Gorbachev responded to the policies and attitudes under Reagan - with tolerance and a less hardline approach, allowed for the power imbalance to move over to Reagan, effectively aiding in the end of the Cold War, as it allowed for an improvement in relations.
- Disarmament agreements can be linked back to Gorbachev, due to the fact that it was his relaxation in communism and the aims of the Soviet Union (parity in nuclear weaponry) that these disarmament agreements were even possible, as they allowed Reagan (the more hardline of the two) to enter these negotiations in a position of power.

(when I get home I will help you out with the other one, but here is the first essay plan for now )

Susie (and student who wishes to remain anonymous aha)

[fantasticbeasts3]

I was wondering if anyone could help me in creating an essay plan for these questions:

To what extent were Gorbachev's policies and attitudes responsible in the collapse of the USSR?"

AND

Account for the emerging differences responsible for the origins of the Cold War.

I really struggle with the Cold War (Im fine with Germany, WW1 & JEH) and can't find any example essays online. So any all help is appreciated!

hiiii, i'll do the second one :-)

account for the emerging differences responsible for the origins of the cold war.
for this one, write this in the order of the syllabus.

paragraph 1: 1945 conferences + emerging differences
paragraph 2: truman doctrine
paragraph 3: early crises - berlin, china, korea

since this is an "account" essay, just explain how all these factors contributed to emerging differences at the beginning of the cold war. why were there differences? how did these differences impact relations? all that jazz!

hope this helps - best of luck for the hsc,
fantasticbeasts

[LegalEagle24/7]

Hi 
I understand that the Schlieffen Plan was devised to knock out France and then Russia because Germany was under threat. Were there any other reasons why Germany created it?
Thanks 

[dancing phalanges]

Hey just a Germany question now, I got this question for my trial: To what extent was the Great Depression responsible for the collapse of the
Weimar Republic? I got 25/25 for it but the marker wrote that to make my response better I could incorporate more schools of historical thought. I had scattered historians here and there throughout my response but in terms of schools of thought in relation to the collapse of Weimar, the only obvious one is Determinsts who say the collapse was inevitable vs the Alternative views including that if Weimar had stronger leadership etc.

Firstly, I get a bit confused by the argument if Weimar could have had stronger leadership because I would argue that due to the structural weaknesses of the constitution eg. Proportional Representation (as argued by the Determinists), it was difficult for the Weimar Governments to form a strong leadership. My teacher has always said nothing is inevitable though so I'm a bit confused where to go on that because I agree that the structural weaknesses of the Republic made it hard for them to gain legitimacy but I definitely also don't think this meant the collapse was inevitable... if you get my drift??

 Also, back to the trial essay question, I feel like integrating those schools of thought on whether its collapse was inevitable or not could be too distracting and I would focus on that more than weighing up each factor against the Depression in terms of the collapse of the Republic.

Any thoughts would be g

[_____]

Hi 
I understand that the Schlieffen Plan was devised to knock out France and then Russia because Germany was under threat. Were there any other reasons why Germany created it?
Thanks 

There's probably more but:

They wanted to avoid a war on two fronts by capturing Paris quickly and then turning to defeat Russia (it was thought Nicholas II would take 3 weeks to mobilise his troops).
They thought the French would go for Alsace-Lorraine (their old territory) so this could be avoided by going north, surprising them (which I think succeeded to some extent before the British/Belgians put up a fight).

[LegalEagle24/7]

There's probably more but:

They wanted to avoid a war on two fronts by capturing Paris quickly and then turning to defeat Russia (it was thought Nicholas II would take 3 weeks to mobilise his troops).
They thought the French would go for Alsace-Lorraine (their old territory) so this could be avoided by going north, surprising them (which I think succeeded to some extent before the British/Belgians put up a fight).

Thanks so much! That makes much more sense.

[sophiemacpherso]

Hey guys!! I was just wondering, if we got a Cold War question like: "Assess the importance of the arms race in the development of the Cold War to 1968", would it be acceptable to structure a plan something like this?:
Paragraph 1: Arms race - important as it was a manifestation of superpower supremacy (talk about technological developments, NSC-68)
Paragraph 2: Culminated in the Cuban Missile Crisis - this led to the detente period
Paragraph 3: Whilst the arms race was thus extremely important, the Berlin Wall was another pivotal aspect in the development of the Cold War....
I guess what I'm trying to say is is it ok to diverge from the arms race dot point and talk about how the Berlin Wall was also extremely significant or should I just keep the argument in line with the arms race?? For instance change the 3rd paragraph to how the arms race instigated the space race?? I hope this made sense, thank you !!
 

[fantasticbeasts3]

Hey guys!! I was just wondering, if we got a Cold War question like: "Assess the importance of the arms race in the development of the Cold War to 1968", would it be acceptable to structure a plan something like this?:
Paragraph 1: Arms race - important as it was a manifestation of superpower supremacy (talk about technological developments, NSC-68)
Paragraph 2: Culminated in the Cuban Missile Crisis - this led to the detente period
Paragraph 3: Whilst the arms race was thus extremely important, the Berlin Wall was another pivotal aspect in the development of the Cold War....
I guess what I'm trying to say is is it ok to diverge from the arms race dot point and talk about how the Berlin Wall was also extremely significant or should I just keep the argument in line with the arms race?? For instance change the 3rd paragraph to how the arms race instigated the space race?? I hope this made sense, thank you !!
 

hey there! my heart is SO HAPPY seeing cold war questions!!!!!

since this is an "assess" question, you'll need to address other factors in the development of the cold war section. and yea, you'll need to link everything to the arms race in order to maintain your argument. i'm assuming you've done this essay plan according to the syllabus, right? at the beginning of each paragraph, your topic sentence should mention the thing you're going to talk about, and the arms race as well. you can (and should) talk about other factors, but make sure to link it to the arms race because that's the question, you get me? feel like i just went round and round with this answer - reply if you don't get what i said hahaha

hope this helps - best of luck with your hsc,
fantasticbeasts