HSC Modern History Question Thread

[dancing phalanges]

Sorry Susie just one quick question about that paper  Is the woman in the propaganda poster dressed in a nurse/factory uniform or something similar so I can also comment on total war and the role of women on the home front? Thanks haha trying to be as perceptive as i can be

[sudodds]

Sorry Susie just one quick question about that paper  Is the woman in the propaganda poster dressed in a nurse/factory uniform or something similar so I can also comment on total war and the role of women on the home front? Thanks haha trying to be as perceptive as i can be

I think that'd be leaning more towards an assumption if I'm being honest :/ However if its for a 5-8 marker you can still bring that stuff in, even if it doesn't 100% relate to the source, as those questions just require integration of the source - you don't have to base your whole response on it.

[diesxel]

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

I know this is a super old response but I was hoping that you could expand on what you mean by diplomatic, social and militaristic/strategic foreign policies in some detail because I was a bit confused on how to talk about them and which treaties etc. to place under each. Sorry about that!!! I'm just so worried for this question because its so likely to come in the exam

[yarie]

Hi, I have a question regarding question a) of the personality section. If it asks for the background of the personality, are we doing their background before they became prominent (e.g. upbringing, education, formation of political ideas) or just a summary of everything they did in their lives (like a background of their life). I do Leon Trotsky for reference.

[diesxel]

Also for an end of conflict question how would you structure a question asking about the significance of d-day and the liberation of france in ending the conflict?


Any help or answers appreciated!!

[liya1234]

Hi, I have a question regarding question a) of the personality section. If it asks for the background of the personality, are we doing their background before they became prominent (e.g. upbringing, education, formation of political ideas) or just a summary of everything they did in their lives (like a background of their life). I do Leon Trotsky for reference.

I'm pretty sure that it's just everything that is under the 'background' section of the syllabus. For Trotsky this would be 'family background and education' and 'development of political ideals', so yea, just the stuff before he became prominent

[Primallis]

Hello people,

For the WWI Core Section analysing the historian's usefulness, reliability & perspective, is it fine to say it is only somewhat/moderately useful or reliable? For example, if there is an underlying political agenda or subjectivity that threatens the reliability but not to the extent it's highly unreliable? OR is it wise to just directly go one side or the other for a specific source and really drive home why it's highly unreliable, e.g source origin, underlying political agenda, was it edited, omissions etc.

[Diala]

For the personality section I'm doing Albert Speer, do you think we're allowed to quote Brad Kelly? My teacher said that we can, but I've also heard that since he's written a book we can't quote him? I'm not sure!

[liya1234]

Just another question: What exactly should we include in the Events Leading to the Armistice dot point. I didn't realise it existed until quite recently so I don't have much info in it - does it only refer to the more short term events or can we include more long term factors as well? Thanks!

[rodero]

Just another question: What exactly should we include in the Events Leading to the Armistice dot point. I didn't realise it existed until quite recently so I don't have much info in it - does it only refer to the more short term events or can we include more long term factors as well? Thanks!

My notes here mainly just talk about the Allied Counter-offensive and how they pushed back the German's after the failure of the Spring Offensive. My three main points here are the Battle of Hamel, Battle of Amiens and the capture of the Hindenburg line.

Essentially, in Hamel General Monash employed vastly superior technology in order to surprise the German army. They use highly accurate artillery barrage, so that they could target the German trenches instantaneously, rather than shooting several times before finding the right location. The battle was 93 minutes long and resulted in an Allied victory

The Battle of Amien's is a more significant one. This is where the Allies pushed the German's back, so all the land they gained in the Spring Offensive was lost (and more). Lundendorff calls this the "black day" of the German army and called for a surrender. There were 12,000 German surrenders and over a million desertions

Finally the capture of the Hindenburg line. This was supposed to be the final line of defence for the German army; an impenetrable line with a vast array of mechanisms such as barbed wire. However, the Allies acquired a layout of the trench so were able to prepare a strategy of attack. As well, the trench layout was linear (rather than in a zig zag pattern), so that favoured the Allies significantly. Once this line was broken, Ludendorff resigned and the kaiser abdicated. A revolution breaks out in Germany and power is shifted to a new democratic republic. An armistice was then signed on November 11 1918

[fantasticbeasts3]

Hi, I have a question regarding question a) of the personality section. If it asks for the background of the personality, are we doing their background before they became prominent (e.g. upbringing, education, formation of political ideas) or just a summary of everything they did in their lives (like a background of their life). I do Leon Trotsky for reference.

Hey, welcome to the forums! If it asks for background, just do background. If you write about rise to prominence, you're not going to get marked down (I don't think?) but what you write about there will be disregarded.

For the personality section I'm doing Albert Speer, do you think we're allowed to quote Brad Kelly? My teacher said that we can, but I've also heard that since he's written a book we can't quote him? I'm not sure!

Hi!

I don't do Speer, so take what I'm about to say with a grain of salt hahaha. Is this person you're referring to an author of a textbook, or a historical resource (like academic history)? If it's a textbook, I'll say no, but if it's academic I don't think it would matter. At the end of the day, people do make up historians (not suggested unless you don't know anything!!!) and they still do pretty decent.

Hope this helps - best of luck for tomorrow and the rest of the hsc,
Fantasticbeasts

[liya1234]

My notes here mainly just talk about the Allied Counter-offensive and how they pushed back the German's after the failure of the Spring Offensive. My three main points here are the Battle of Hamel, Battle of Amiens and the capture of the Hindenburg line.

Essentially, in Hamel General Monash employed vastly superior technology in order to surprise the German army. They use highly accurate artillery barrage, so that they could target the German trenches instantaneously, rather than shooting several times before finding the right location. The battle was 93 minutes long and resulted in an Allied victory

The Battle of Amien's is a more significant one. This is where the Allies pushed the German's back, so all the land they gained in the Spring Offensive was lost (and more). Lundendorff calls this the "black day" of the German army and called for a surrender. There were 12,000 German surrenders and over a million desertions

Finally the capture of the Hindenburg line. This was supposed to be the final line of defence for the German army; an impenetrable line with a vast array of mechanisms such as barbed wire. However, the Allies acquired a layout of the trench so were able to prepare a strategy of attack. As well, the trench layout was linear (rather than in a zig zag pattern), so that favoured the Allies significantly. Once this line was broken, Ludendorff resigned and the kaiser abdicated. A revolution breaks out in Germany and power is shifted to a new democratic republic. An armistice was then signed on November 11 1918

Wow this is so helpful thank you so much!!!

[~BK~]

heyyy...
i do conflict in the pacific and i was just wondering how would you structure the question:
to what extent did the use of the a-bomb bring about the end of conflict?
thanks and atvb in the exam TOMORROW!!!

[HamBurr17]

Hello people,

For the WWI Core Section analysing the historian's usefulness, reliability & perspective, is it fine to say it is only somewhat/moderately useful or reliable? For example, if there is an underlying political agenda or subjectivity that threatens the reliability but not to the extent it's highly unreliable? OR is it wise to just directly go one side or the other for a specific source and really drive home why it's highly unreliable, e.g source origin, underlying political agenda, was it edited, omissions etc.

That's fine to somewhat/moderately - I usually go for "partially".

Just explain why in terms of the question. So for a historian studying the British strategies, an excerpt by Haig would be very reliable as a solid primary perspective - it comes from the commander himself. However, since it is from him, there may be bias/underlying ideology/subjectivity etc. such as the language he uses.
(For example, if he were to say "oh yes, everything is fine, nothing to see here" )
Then it is partially reliable for the historian, and thus only somewhat/moderately useful - make sure your drill in why

Hope this helps

[HamBurr17]

Does anyone know how they would approach a Nazism as totalitarianism question?

Thanks