Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

April 27, 2024, 09:34:58 pm

Author Topic: HSC Modern History Question Thread  (Read 350556 times)  Share 

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

damecj

  • Trailblazer
  • *
  • Posts: 45
  • Respect: +11
Re: Modern History Question Thread
« Reply #945 on: October 19, 2017, 11:33:45 am »
0
Does anyone have a cheeky Germany or Conflict in Europe prediction? 

dancing phalanges

  • Forum Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 745
  • Respect: +312
Re: Modern History Question Thread
« Reply #946 on: October 19, 2017, 11:33:54 am »
+2
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!!! :o

id argue to a moderate extent
structure wise 1 para on the a bomb and how it basically fucked japans already crippled economy and low morale
then 4 or so paras discussing how long-term issues led to the end of conflict eg.
1 japans overextended territory
2 japans lack of industrial might
3 success of allied strategies eg. island hopping and turning points
4 air raids/bombings on home front
good luck
:)
HSC 2017 (ATAR 98.95) - English Advanced (94), English Extension 1 (48), Modern History (94), Studies of Religion 1 (48), Visual Arts (95), French Continuers (92)

Download our free discovery trial paper!

dancing phalanges

  • Forum Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 745
  • Respect: +312
Re: Modern History Question Thread
« Reply #947 on: October 19, 2017, 11:36:13 am »
+2
Does anyone know how they would approach a Nazism as totalitarianism question?

Thanks :)

heres my intro to this question :) it'll give you an idea of how to structure it and what ideas to discuss
In order to qualify as a totalitarian state, Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Party must not only have ensured it was the only party that controlled Germany. Rather, according to the definition of a totalitarian state put forward by political scientists Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1956, an official ideology, single mass party, control over mass communications and a systematic regime of terror and police control was necessary. Therefore, although the Nazi party was able to achieve a considerable amount of control through propaganda, it ultimately does not qualify as a total totalitarian state as it lacked a clearly defined ideology and organised government, did not crush all its opposition and was not a completely systematic state of terror.

HSC 2017 (ATAR 98.95) - English Advanced (94), English Extension 1 (48), Modern History (94), Studies of Religion 1 (48), Visual Arts (95), French Continuers (92)

Download our free discovery trial paper!

HamBurr17

  • Adventurer
  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • Respect: 0
Re: Modern History Question Thread
« Reply #948 on: October 19, 2017, 11:45:49 am »
0
heres my intro to this question :) it'll give you an idea of how to structure it and what ideas to discuss
In order to qualify as a totalitarian state, Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Party must not only have ensured it was the only party that controlled Germany. Rather, according to the definition of a totalitarian state put forward by political scientists Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1956, an official ideology, single mass party, control over mass communications and a systematic regime of terror and police control was necessary. Therefore, although the Nazi party was able to achieve a considerable amount of control through propaganda, it ultimately does not qualify as a total totalitarian state as it lacked a clearly defined ideology and organised government, did not crush all its opposition and was not a completely systematic state of terror.



Awesome, thank you! That really gave me an idea of where to go! I've constantly dodged this question and knowing my luck it'll be in tomorrow, so I'd better figure it out  :P
HSC 2017: English Adv | Society and Culture | Legal Studies | Modern History | Ancient History | Industrial Technology - Multimedia

oscargee13

  • Fresh Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • Respect: 0
Re: Modern History Question Thread
« Reply #949 on: October 19, 2017, 01:21:25 pm »
0
Hi,

Does anyone know if you are definitely not allowed extra writing booklets for the 10 marker in the source section? I have heard people say no extra writing space is allowed for this section but cant find an official ruling anywhere.

Thanks

emilybrooks99

  • Trailblazer
  • *
  • Posts: 27
  • Respect: 0
Re: Modern History Question Thread
« Reply #950 on: October 19, 2017, 01:23:53 pm »
0
Has anyone got any predictions for the essays (Germany, Conflict in Europe and the Personality Study)
Thanks!

marcusgrahamm

  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 58
  • --
  • Respect: 0
Re: Modern History Question Thread
« Reply #951 on: October 19, 2017, 02:05:32 pm »
0
Hey guys how would you attack this question:

"To what extent did the geopolitical developments (Vietnam, Snio-Soviet Split & Middle East) lead to the Detente policy?

I know that you would structure it off those three conflicts - but I'm more curious as to the points you would make to say either why they were or weren't responsible.

Thanks :)
Business Studies-89

Legal Studies-93

Modern History-93

Society And Culture-93

Advanced English-93

Ext 1 Eng- 42

ATAR: 96.95

sudodds

  • HSC Lecturer
  • Honorary Moderator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *******
  • Posts: 1753
  • "Seize the means of the HSC" ~ Vladimir Lenin
  • Respect: +931
Re: Modern History Question Thread
« Reply #952 on: October 19, 2017, 02:11:57 pm »
+2
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 :(
Hey no worries! if I were to explain it i'd probably just end up writing out my essay again, so quicker and easier to just link you my essay (which is of course more detailed as well!) :)

Spoiler
How successful was Soviet foreign policy in achieving its aims from 1917 to 1941?

The incompatibility of the key aims of Soviet foreign policy – domestic stability and international revolution – greatly limited its accomplishments, as the promotion of one aim effectively reduced the opportunity for the other, and thus it is clear that Soviet foreign policy was only partially successful in achieving its aims from 1917 to 1941. Though the aims and purposes of Soviet foreign policy fluctuated depending upon the current leadership of the Bolsheviks Party and the changing domestic and international tensions, it is evident that the goals of domestic socio-political stability and a worldwide socialist revolution remained significant, thus projecting the Soviet Union into an internal conflict between pragmatism and ideological adherence. Though initially the principle aim appeared to be the promotion of a global socialist revolution, as dictated by the Bolshevik ideological position of Permanent Revolution, it is clear through the increasing implementation of self-preservationist policies throughout the period that the Bolsheviks aim of survival outweighed their desire to spread socialism. This is evident through the various militaristic/strategic, economic, diplomatic and socio-cultural factors that impacted or were impacted by soviet foreign policy between 1917 to 1941, which dictated its success.

It is evident through the the militaristic and strategic foreign policies implemented from 1917 to 1941 that the aims of the Soviet Union had shifted towards the consolidation and preservation of the Bolshevik state rather than the expansion of their ideology, thus it is clear through being forced to forgo certain key aims that soviet foreign policy was only partially successful. Despite Permanent Revolution, the official party policy of the Bolsheviks requiring an international revolution in order to succeed, the primary concerns after the 1917 Revolution was the consolidation of their power within Russia. The political climate was still largely unstable, therefore the Bolsheviks had to immediately return upon their promises of “Peace. Bread. Land,” in order to consolidate their power, the peace component of which had a significant impact upon soviet foreign policy through the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, as it ensured their exit from the increasingly unpopular international conflict World War I. The signing of the Treaty demonstrates the shift in strategic foreign policy focus from ideological adherence to pragmatism, as it signified the abandonment of the Permanent Revolution principles and their aim of an international socialist revolution in order to achieve domestic stability and the survival of the Bolshevik state. This shift was further demonstrated through the Soviets contradictory (in regards to their ideology) support of the leftist parties within the Spanish Civil War in order to prevent a socialist revolution within Spain, aiding the Republicans with materials, arms and over 2000 Russian citizens as soldiers due to their fears that increased instability would enable the rise and spread of German fascism within the region, which would pose a significant domestic security threat. Along with this, the Soviets under Stalin endeavoured to maintain an alliance with the Nationalists in China, due to his belief that the Chinese Communists were too few to achieve anything, which further demonstrates the Bolshevik governments willingness to forgo ideology in favour of more pragmatic foreign policy. Therefore, through the various strategic and militaristic foreign policies implemented by the Bolshevik Party, it is clear that though successful in regards to the preservation of the Bolshevik state, soviet foreign policy was unsuccessful in instigating an international revolution, and therefore was only partially successful in achieving its aims from 1917 to 1941.

It is evident through the economic and diplomatic foreign policies implemented by the Bolsheviks Party between 1917 and 1941 that the Soviet leaders main concern was the survival of the Bolshevik state rather than the spread of socialism, and thus attempted through economic means to reduce hostilities and tensions between themselves and their capitalist neighbours. Despite the Soviets aims and predictions of a world revolution, this did not occur, and thus the Bolshevik Government, which had been, during the time, producing highly critical assessments upon the opposing ideology of capitalism both through policy and the media now found themselves surrounded by capitalist neighbours, Lynch stating “The Soviet Union’s often antagonistic behaviour towards the capitalist countries frequently produced counter blasts … [meaning] that international tension never wholly slackened”. This is evident through the continued poor relations between Russia and post-war Germany, which banned the Communist Party in 1919, and the assessments from other nations leaders, such as British Prime Minister Winston Churchill who described communism as “not a policy, it is a disease.” Thus in order to reduce tension and hostilities amongst their capitalist neighbours, the Bolshevik government entered into various Trade agreements during the 1920s that ensured the peaceful co-existence of the two opposing ideologies. A number of capitalist countries entered into these trade agreements with the USSR, such as Italy, Germany and Britain (The Anglo-Soviet Trade Agreement).
Along with this, Russia became involved within various international diplomatic organisations and agreements, evident through there admittance into the League of Nations in 1934, and the Rapallo Treaty, which was highly significant in reducing the tensions between the Soviets and Germany, as it signified the relinquishing of territorial and financial claims against each other, thus easing the pressures of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, with the aim to “co-operate in a spirit of goodwill in meeting the economic needs of both countries.” Though this increased cooperation with Germany had a positive impact upon the security and consolidation of the Bolshevik state, a destabilised Germany was far more likely to fall to a socialist revolution, and thus it is evident that the Bolsheviks prioritized self-preservation over the aim of worldwide revolution. Therefore, through the various economic and diplomatic foreign policies implemented by the Bolshevik party, it is clear that though successful in regards to the preservation of the Bolshevik state through the reduction of hostilities and tensions, soviet foreign policy was unsuccessful in instigating an international revolution, and therefore was only partially successful in achieving its aims from 1917 to 1941. The aim to survive through a reduction in tensions within the capitalist neighbour was further demonstrated through their implementation of diplomatic foreign policy.

Through the failures of various revolutionary socio-cultural foreign policies implemented by the Bolshevik party between 1917 and 1941, it is evident that soviet foreign policy was ineffective in achieving an international revolution, and thus, despite it’s self-preservationist success, was only partially successful in achieving its aims from 1917 to 1941. Early forms of soviet foreign policy, particularly under the leadership of Lenin, greatly focused upon the ideologically based aim of promoting an international socialist revolution. This is evident through the 1919 creation of the Communist International (also known as the Comintern), which had the revolutionary task of promoting and co-ordinating the communist parties of the world in an effort to advocate a global communist system. This is evident through their aim to “overthrow … the international bourgeoisie and for the creation of an international Soviet republic,” and the formation of the United Front, whereby communists propose to fight alongside non-communist workers in a “common struggle to defend … the working class against the bourgeoisie.” However, after a failed attempt to start a world revolution through the Polish invasion of Russia, the Comintern realised that peaceful coexistence with Europe was the only option, with Lynch stating that “between 1918 and 1920 … the Comintern was concerned sole with safeguarding the interests of Soviet Russia.” This preoccupation with the interests of Russia was continued under the soviet foreign policy actions of Stalin, with Lynch stating that “he set himself the primary task of defending his country’s interests in a hostile world,” and thus ordered the Comintern to cease appeals for global revolution due to the fact that after joining the League of Nations in 1934 Russia now had non-communist allies, and that no communist-inspired revolts had actually succeeded anywhere in the world at that time. Therefore, through the various attempts and failures to instigate effective revolutionary socio-cultural foreign policies, it is evident that soviet foreign policy, despite it’s self-preservationist success, was only partially successful in achieving its aims from 1917 to 1941.

Therefore, it is evident through the various socio-cultural, diplomatic, economic and militaristic/strategic factors that soviet foreign policy was successful in ensuring the survival of the Bolshevik state, however at the expense of their other principle aim – the promotion of an international socialist revolution. Thus, it is evident that soviet foreign policy was only partially successful in achieving its aims from 1917 to 1941, as the incompatibility between their pragmatic aim of stability and ideological aim of international revolution meant that they could only focus upon one aspect of their aims while forgoing the other. 

FREE HISTORY EXTENSION LECTURE - CLICK HERE FOR INFO!

2016 HSC: Modern History (18th in NSW) | History Extension (2nd place in the HTA Extension History Essay Prize) | Ancient History | Drama | English Advanced | Studies of Religion I | Economics

ATAR: 97.80

Studying a Bachelor of Communications: Media Arts and Production at UTS 😊

Looking for a history tutor? I'm ya girl! Feel free to send me a PM if you're interested!

sudodds

  • HSC Lecturer
  • Honorary Moderator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *******
  • Posts: 1753
  • "Seize the means of the HSC" ~ Vladimir Lenin
  • Respect: +931
Re: Modern History Question Thread
« Reply #953 on: October 19, 2017, 02:14:43 pm »
0
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! I think someone may have answered this already, but its kinda difficult to tell with so many questions floating around, so I'll just answer anyway :) If you got this question, as it is a syllabus dot section, you need to mention everything that features under that dot point. For Trotsky, that is family background, education, and early political activity/development of his political ideals!
FREE HISTORY EXTENSION LECTURE - CLICK HERE FOR INFO!

2016 HSC: Modern History (18th in NSW) | History Extension (2nd place in the HTA Extension History Essay Prize) | Ancient History | Drama | English Advanced | Studies of Religion I | Economics

ATAR: 97.80

Studying a Bachelor of Communications: Media Arts and Production at UTS 😊

Looking for a history tutor? I'm ya girl! Feel free to send me a PM if you're interested!

_____

  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 180
  • Respect: +22
Re: Modern History Question Thread
« Reply #954 on: October 19, 2017, 02:18:45 pm »
0
What would be a good way to structure the 2016 Russia/USSR essay question a?

Assess the significance of differing visions for the USSR in the leadership conflict between 1924 and 1929.

I went for:

Intro: little importance
P1: Triumvirate worked to undermine Trotsky rather than promote their own cause. Careful politicking succeeded in this (Lenin's funeral for example, then painting Trotsky as anti-Lenin).
P2: However Party elite thought Trotsky would establish a military dictatorship, so the statement has some merit. On the other hand Zinoviev/Kamenev switched to Trotsky's side and then recanted on their "mistakes" to Stalin so ideology wasn't too important for them.
P3: Stalin didn't care about ideology, mention his backflips. No defined vision until 1928, instead he exploited others' positions to undermine them.

What am I missing here?

sudodds

  • HSC Lecturer
  • Honorary Moderator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *******
  • Posts: 1753
  • "Seize the means of the HSC" ~ Vladimir Lenin
  • Respect: +931
Re: Modern History Question Thread
« Reply #955 on: October 19, 2017, 02:21:18 pm »
+3
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.
Don't say "somewhat", as apparently the markers aren't too keen on that word (from my teacher, who regularly marks HSC). It's too wishy-washy apparently. "Moderately" and "Partially" however work well! Remember that you will NEVER ever ever ever be given a useless or unreliable source, because that doesn't actually address the question ("how useful" not "whether or not it is useful", thus as there is an assumed degree of usefulness, they will always be useful/reliable to some degree. It'd also be pretty pointless to give you a source that was completely useless, as then what would you talk about?), but yes that can sometimes be partial.

Remember that you can split reliability into two streams: "factual reliability", and "reliability as evidence". Even if a source is not factually accurate (ie. a propaganda poster), it may still be a reliable indicator of attitudes at the time, or the fact that there was an attempt to persuade this perspective etc. etc.
FREE HISTORY EXTENSION LECTURE - CLICK HERE FOR INFO!

2016 HSC: Modern History (18th in NSW) | History Extension (2nd place in the HTA Extension History Essay Prize) | Ancient History | Drama | English Advanced | Studies of Religion I | Economics

ATAR: 97.80

Studying a Bachelor of Communications: Media Arts and Production at UTS 😊

Looking for a history tutor? I'm ya girl! Feel free to send me a PM if you're interested!

sudodds

  • HSC Lecturer
  • Honorary Moderator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *******
  • Posts: 1753
  • "Seize the means of the HSC" ~ Vladimir Lenin
  • Respect: +931
Re: Modern History Question Thread
« Reply #956 on: October 19, 2017, 02:22:27 pm »
0
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!
If he is a textbook writer then NO. If he is a historian then YES :) (if he is both, I'd stick to NO, just as you don't want the marker to think that you're using a textbook)
FREE HISTORY EXTENSION LECTURE - CLICK HERE FOR INFO!

2016 HSC: Modern History (18th in NSW) | History Extension (2nd place in the HTA Extension History Essay Prize) | Ancient History | Drama | English Advanced | Studies of Religion I | Economics

ATAR: 97.80

Studying a Bachelor of Communications: Media Arts and Production at UTS 😊

Looking for a history tutor? I'm ya girl! Feel free to send me a PM if you're interested!

diesxel

  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 67
  • sow the seeds, reap the rewards ❊
  • Respect: +5
Re: Modern History Question Thread
« Reply #957 on: October 19, 2017, 02:26:56 pm »
0
Has anyone got any predictions for the essays (Germany, Conflict in Europe and the Personality Study)
Thanks!

Conflict in europe I think will be racial policy and d-day in end of conflict. For the first two dotpoints of the module, if they ask cause of the war it should be LON/failure of collective security and for course of the war it would be Stalingrad/barbarossa, according to careful analysis of past papers haha. But that's just what I think!
HSC 2017 ATAR 97.25 English Advanced (92)- Modern History (89) - Business Studies (93) - Biology (96) - English Extension 1 (47/50) - English Extension 2


Don't stop when you're tired, stop when you're done.

sudodds

  • HSC Lecturer
  • Honorary Moderator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *******
  • Posts: 1753
  • "Seize the means of the HSC" ~ Vladimir Lenin
  • Respect: +931
Re: Modern History Question Thread
« Reply #958 on: October 19, 2017, 02:28:20 pm »
+1
Does anyone know how they would approach a Nazism as totalitarianism question?

Thanks :)
Hey! Look I didn't do Germany, however for a Stalinism as totalitarianism question, i structured my essay according to the characteristics of a totalitarian society, and as these characteristics were literally devised to explain Nazi Germany, I'm sure they'd work for you too! So the essay may look something like this :)

Introduction

Paragraph 1 - Single Mass Party with a Charismatic Dictator (so yes, that features in Nazi Germany re. Nazi Party and Adolf Hitler)
Paragraph 2 - Single, all-encompassing ideology, with utopian promises (features in Nazi Germany though Nazism, Lebensraum, etc. and the idea of an "Aryan" future. You can definitely mention Hitler Youth here as well.)
Paragraph 3 -Total control over the communications/media, armed forces, and the economy (yeah that happened aha - you can mention propaganda here too)
Paragraph 4 -  Use of force/system of terror/secret police (Gestapo - can also mention the use of concentration camps)

Hope this helps! Sorry I couldn't be more detailed aha since I didn't study this topic!

Susie
FREE HISTORY EXTENSION LECTURE - CLICK HERE FOR INFO!

2016 HSC: Modern History (18th in NSW) | History Extension (2nd place in the HTA Extension History Essay Prize) | Ancient History | Drama | English Advanced | Studies of Religion I | Economics

ATAR: 97.80

Studying a Bachelor of Communications: Media Arts and Production at UTS 😊

Looking for a history tutor? I'm ya girl! Feel free to send me a PM if you're interested!

Korrasami

  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 70
  • Respect: +1
Re: Modern History Question Thread
« Reply #959 on: October 19, 2017, 02:29:03 pm »
0
Any source analysis predictions guys???