HSC Modern History Question Thread

[sudodds]

I am praying with every bone in my body its detente! I just have this hunch they much defer from the trend of testing section 4 every second year... I'm hoping for totalitarianism in Germany, but I feel like it could honestly be anything...

I personally am expecting a Detente essay (my hunch is Detente and Renewal and End), as a kinda counteract of the Origins and Development (? - still not 100% sure whether that Cuba question was development or detente) questions from last year, but again there is nothing to say that that will definitely happen, just a hunch

I wouldn't be surprised if they had a totalitarianism essay for Russia as well!

[bun00]

heyo!
jst wondering if any1s got any tips on how to structure an essay for conflict in the pacific for life of civillians under japanese occupation?
or should it just be split into social, economic and political? seems a bit boring
or otherwise: collaboration, resistance and the use of slave labour.....sorry i really am not sure!
wld be v grateful for any advice
tks hps ppl and ATBBBBB!!!!!

[sudodds]

Hi sudodds,

I've been studying Russia but am not sure of what to write in the power struggles question? To be honest, I have prepared everything else and wasn't even sure that was a possibility.

I guess I'm just wondering what an example of a power struggles question would be, and some of the main points you should address?

Thanks in advance. Really appreciate all the help

Hey! So a power struggles essay is derived from the second section of the syllabus --> Rise of Stalin. Essentially it is just the power struggle between Trotsky and Stalin (UNLESS the dates specified are broader than 1924 - 1928 --> then you might need to mention some of the smaller power struggles of Bolshevik Consolidation dot point and Stalinism dot point).

Examples of these types of questions could be;
- Account for the rise of Stalin
- Assess the significant of ideology to the leadership conflict to 1928
- To what extent was personality the critical factor in the leadership conflict to 1928 etc. etc.

With that, I'd probably structure my essay according to FACTORS rather than themes, the factors being;
- Social changes
- Ideology
- Personality
- Political tactics (Troika and Ban of Factionalism)

Within each paragraph, what you need to look at is how Trotsky failed, and Stalin succeeded! So for example, with Ideology, you can say that Trotsky's ideology of Permanent Revolution failed because it did not appeal to the present conditions of society (war weary), whereas Stalin's ideology of Socialism-in-one-country did!

Hope this helps! Let me know if you're still struggling with anything/don't know what to write for certain paragraphs

Susie
 

[sudodds]

hey guys,

i might've asked this question before... but anyway: what are some tips to do well in the personality section? i've never gotten above 20/25 for it and my teacher didn't give specific tips to make it better. i've been told to include more detail, but is there anything else i can do?

thanks!!

also: under the geopolitical movements dot point in detente, how relevant is all the stuff in the middle east? in class, we were given background on it (suez crisis, stuff like that) but how much of the background is relevant? do i just start talking about the middle east from the six-day war in 1967? does that make sense ahahahah i can rephrase if needed

Hey!
For part A, my biggest tip is DETAIL, but detail that speaks for itself Kinda like "show don't tell" if that makes sense (losely). For example, with Trotsky, rather than saying "At university, Trotsky became involved with many revolutionary groups", say "at Nikolayev university, Trotsky became involved with a Narodnik group known as the Orchard Commune". See how the second sentence was more detailed, however I didn't have any extra explanation?

For part B, it's about links in my opinion - so creating a strong thesis than is continually referenced throughout your essay. But on top of that, as Part B is often very focused on debate, don't feel like you have to ignore one side so as to stay "on argument". Now, yes, you do want to be careful about not going overboard and splitting your judgement, however one of the best ways to prove that you are correct, is to prove that the other side is incorrect! So tear apart the opposition for maximum impact

I normally did an entire paragraph on the Middle East, so i'd definitely say it is quite important! It really emphasises how neither side was actually that committed to detente, as the continued to proliferate the cold war through proxy conflict (USSR --> Egypt, US --> Israel), this culminates with the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan which official topples Detente!

Hope this helps!

Susie

[sudodds]

I was doing a few personality questions before and I came across:
Part A) "Outline the background and historical context of your personality"
I'm doing J Edgar Hoover.
I was wondering how you would structure this question?

Hey! Though I didn't study Hoover, with a question like this I would recommend an almost narrative, chronological structure. The important thing is to make sure that you hit every syllabus dot point under those headings (Background and Historical Context are both syllabus headings!). So for Hoover, that means you need to make sure that you touch on all of these;

1    Historical context
–    the period of the USA’s emergence as a world power
–    growth of social conservatism and anti-communism
–    the Prohibition era
–    the Great Depression

2    Background
–    family background and education
–    entry into the civil service as a clerk in the Library of Congress
–    law degree 1916; appointment as an intelligence clerk in the Department of Justice 1917

Don't feel like you have to deal with these in order of how they appear in the syllabus, you can be flexible and talk about them in any order (preferably chronological) that you see fit - you just need to make sure that you mention everything!

Susie

[sudodds]

Hey Susie I can't find much info specifically on the collapse of the hindenburg line other than it broke on september 29, is there battles or something i should be mentioning because I'm just a tad confused on what to write!

Hey! In terms of the Collapse of the Hindenburg Line, we didn't really focus on battles per say, more on the way that it fell. So the reason that the supposedly "impenetrable" fortress fell was that it was just one long, "straight" (yes on a map it's not straight", but it wasn't purposely designed in a zigzag pattern like the trenches" line, with not reinforcements behind it, which meant once a hole was broken through - that was it. So basically when Allied forces (including Australians led by General Monash!) broke through, that was the final straw, like they couldn't go back from that, and Ludendorff and Hindenburg demand an armistice!

[sudodds]

My teacher said that in terms of the battle essay questions (doing Conflict in Europe), knowing the significance is more important than the actual details. Is this true?

Hey! So I didn't do Conflict in Europe, but significance is always going to be the most critical aspect of your study, as that is what you will be analysing! HOWEVER that being said, detail is still super important - that is how you make your essay stand out. A band 6 response will always be highly detailed, but also clearly demonstrate and evaluate significance

[sudodds]

Hey Susie just a quick question on the personality study
If it asks about the contribution of your personality to national and/or international history - is it necessary to specify in each paragraph which you are referring to?

You mean the national/international part? Like it can't hurt, but I think for the most part it's implicit. What I would make sure that you do though is say in your judgement "national and international history"

Also, if the 10 marker asks about:
Describe the significant events in the life of the personality you have studied.
OR
Outline the background and rise to prominence of the personality you have
studied.
OR
Describe the life of your personality.
Would you confine the significant events/rise to prominence to just three events? And if it is describe the life do you do a general background overview and again pick three events?
Thanks so much

If you got the first question, yes I would just do three events, but I may mention or connect other events too them Just three events in detail however . For the second question, you could do it that way, but you need to make sure that you are hitting all the dot points under 'background and rise to prominence' as they are syllabus dot points!

So for Speer, that is:
2    Background
– family background and education
– introduction to Nazism and his reasons for joining the Nazi party

3    Rise to prominence
– early work for the Nazi party
– appointment as ‘First Architect of the Reich’
– the ‘Germania’ project and the new Reich Chancellery
– work as Armaments Minister

So you need to touch on all of those in order to correctly answer the second question

For describe the life, as that is more broad, i'd probably try and write a bit more of a succinct narrative, going through everything, but still with a lot of detail, as detail is essentially what you are being marked on in part A, as there is not need to be analytical!

Susie

[sudodds]

hey susie...

any tips for the perspective, usefulness, reliability q?!?
what way did you attack it?
i got really bad in it for trials but i really don't know where i fell down too much 
thanks.

Hey! I actually go through exactly how to tackle this in one of the video lectures I made You can find them here --> it's the first video that goes through this, along with some other tips for tackling section 1 of the exam! The other two videos go over essay writing, and the personality study!

Hope they are useful!

Susie

[dancing phalanges]

You mean the national/international part? Like it can't hurt, but I think for the most part it's implicit. What I would make sure that you do though is say in your judgement "national and international history"
If you got the first question, yes I would just do three events, but I may mention or connect other events too them Just three events in detail however . For the second question, you could do it that way, but you need to make sure that you are hitting all the dot points under 'background and rise to prominence' as they are syllabus dot points!

So for Speer, that is:
2    Background
– family background and education
– introduction to Nazism and his reasons for joining the Nazi party

3    Rise to prominence
– early work for the Nazi party
– appointment as ‘First Architect of the Reich’
– the ‘Germania’ project and the new Reich Chancellery
– work as Armaments Minister

So you need to touch on all of those in order to correctly answer the second question

For describe the life, as that is more broad, i'd probably try and write a bit more of a succinct narrative, going through everything, but still with a lot of detail, as detail is essentially what you are being marked on in part A, as there is not need to be analytical!

Susie

Thanks so much Susie, absolute legend for doing this!!

[sudodds]

Question!

How would you approach a "shaped by events or events shaped them.." type question to answer for Trotsky? What would be the best events or information to mention to make it a top answer? Thanks so much

Hey! I'd suggest these events:

- 1905 Rev and exile (in particular his exile), looking at his writings in exile (Results and Prospects), where he espoused his theory of Permanent Revolution which greatly shaped his time as it became the dominant ideology of the Bolshevik party.

- 1917 Rev, looking at how he changed the date so that it coincided with the All Russian Congress of Soviets, and his leadership during the storming of the Winter Palace

- Power Struggles and later exile, looking at how his inactivity shaped the event as it allowed for Stalin to take over, and how he utilised his time in later exile to build up international significance, becoming an intellectual authority of Stalinism and Fascism, and just in general being a prominent international political figure

Hope this helps!

Susie

[flashguts321]

Hey! So a power struggles essay is derived from the second section of the syllabus --> Rise of Stalin. Essentially it is just the power struggle between Trotsky and Stalin (UNLESS the dates specified are broader than 1924 - 1928 --> then you might need to mention some of the smaller power struggles of Bolshevik Consolidation dot point and Stalinism dot point).

Examples of these types of questions could be;
- Account for the rise of Stalin
- Assess the significant of ideology to the leadership conflict to 1928
- To what extent was personality the critical factor in the leadership conflict to 1928 etc. etc.

With that, I'd probably structure my essay according to FACTORS rather than themes, the factors being;
- Social changes
- Ideology
- Personality
- Political tactics (Troika and Ban of Factionalism)

Within each paragraph, what you need to look at is how Trotsky failed, and Stalin succeeded! So for example, with Ideology, you can say that Trotsky's ideology of Permanent Revolution failed because it did not appeal to the present conditions of society (war weary), whereas Stalin's ideology of Socialism-in-one-country did!

Hope this helps! Let me know if you're still struggling with anything/don't know what to write for certain paragraphs

Susie
 

Thanks so much for the help!

[dancing phalanges]

Hey Susie I just had a question about the 2006 HSC WW1 Paper Source Analysis Question Three
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxpbnRlcmFjdGl2ZXd3MXxneDoxYTFjZWM0YjViOWJkNjhh
In regards to Source C, I want to argue that it is only moderately useful as while it does contain relevant and useful ideas for historians about the impact of total war on the German home front eg. starvation, excessive need for industrial/raw materials and the need for women to enter employment, I feel like the source is limited in its usefulness as it is descriptive and does not include any real evidence as to support a historian's view. Do you think this is justified to say and also should I mention some of the stats I know that the source could be made more useful with or does this go away from the purpose of source analysis. Also, do you think there is any impact that the perspective is from a former American ambassador? It's probably similar for Source D in that while useful in the impact of total war on rationing, u-boats etc.. it doesn't provide solid facts. Your opinion on this would be so good because this is always an issue I come across with sources. Thank you!

[sudodds]

Hey Susie I just had a question about the 2006 HSC WW1 Paper Source Analysis Question Three
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxpbnRlcmFjdGl2ZXd3MXxneDoxYTFjZWM0YjViOWJkNjhh
In regards to Source C, I want to argue that it is only moderately useful as while it does contain relevant and useful ideas for historians about the impact of total war on the German home front eg. starvation, excessive need for industrial/raw materials and the need for women to enter employment, I feel like the source is limited in its usefulness as it is descriptive and does not include any real evidence as to support a historian's view. Do you think this is justified to say and also should I mention some of the stats I know that the source could be made more useful with or does this go away from the purpose of source analysis. Also, do you think there is any impact that the perspective is from a former American ambassador? It's probably similar for Source D in that while useful in the impact of total war on rationing, u-boats etc.. it doesn't provide solid facts. Your opinion on this would be so good because this is always an issue I come across with sources. Thank you!

Hey! I think that is perfectly fine to argue And definitely mention the stats! It's not straying away from the question, as you are directly linking the lack of these stats to usefulness + it is a great way to incorporate your own detail/knowledge!

[dancing phalanges]

Hey! I think that is perfectly fine to argue And definitely mention the stats! It's not straying away from the question, as you are directly linking the lack of these stats to usefulness + it is a great way to incorporate your own detail/knowledge!

Ahh okay, thank you for clarifying!