HSC Modern History Question Thread

[sudodds]

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

100% you can ask for extra writing booklets for a source analysis - I did last year! Just make sure that you don't go overboard though - you don't need a WHOLE writing booklet, if you are writing more than maybe half a page on an extra writing booklet then you're probably doing too much.

[sudodds]

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

Hmm is that a question you made up? Or one is that a past question from somewhere? If the latter, that's a very strange question, as only one of those actually lead to Detente (Vietnam War), the others happened during Detente (the Middle East literally happens near the end). If this was an actual question, let me know and I'll try and come up with a response, but for now, i'm going to twist that to a question that I think is more likely:

"To what extent did the geopolitical developments contribute to the success or failure of Detente"

With that one, you can argue that they all helped to contribute to it's failure.

Vietnam --> exiting Vietnam, though essential, was demoralising for the United States, and helped to further spread this resentment towards the policy of Detente (that is exacerbated by the later Reagan administration).

Sino-Soviet Split --> demonstrated the fragility/facetiousness of the attempts by America and the USSR to work diplomatically and reduce tensions, as the US attempted to exploit the Sino-Soviet Split by seeking a rapprochement with China (Nixon's Beijing Visit in 1972!) in order to isolate the USSR further, and regain some control over Asia.

Middle East --> Demonstrates the lack of respect for sphere of influence, and attempts to stop the proliferation of the Cold War into new regions, as both sides attempted to gain control of new "third-world" (unclaimed) states.

Does that make sense? Hope this helps Let me know if that was the actual question earlier though!

Susie

[sudodds]

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?

Hmmm I'm really not sure if your position is the easiest to argue, judging by the fact that your paragraphs seem very specific to one area of your study with those dot points (ie. political tactics), whereas changes in society, ideology, and personality are all really important as well.

You don't have to take my word for it - at the end of the day, if you can argue "little importance" well, then you can definitely still get a band 6 - but I think suggesting that it was actually of HIGH importance would be easier to sustain, and this would be how I would do it.

Paragraph 1 - Changes in Society and Ideology
- After Civil War, there was a significant decline in the urban proletariat, as they kinda "gave up" on the socialist dream, and went back to peasant life + many of the old Bolsheviks (devoted to Trotsky's 'Permanent Revolution', which was the dominant ideology at the time) had died.
- Trotsky's position of 'Permanent Revolution' relied on an international revolution, thus by extension, it relied on further conflict, which this war weary society was not keen for.
- Stalin's position of 'Socialism in One Country' not only appealed to the people because it did NOT rely on further conflict, but also it appealed to their desire for Nationalism (which Stalin further exploited, suggesting that Trotsky's ideology "lacked faith" in the Russian people, in that he didn't believe they could do it on their own).
- Stalin also renamed his ideology "Marxist-Leninism" in order to appeal to the growing Cult of Lenin (which he himself was helping to spread), and make his ideology appear to be the direct descendent of Lenin's, despite the fact that Lenin actually supported Permanent Revolution.

Paragraph 2 - Personality
- Both Stalin and Trotsky are the faces of their ideology, thus their personalities helped to shape peoples interpretations of the ideology themselves.
- Trotsky = arrogant, rude, condescending. His personality here made it look like he was clinging onto an "old" ideology, that had been in many ways proven ineffective (eg. Treaty of Brest-Litovsk), that had died along with the "Old Bolsheviks".
- Trotsky had been ruthless as leader of the Red Army during the Civil War - a lot of people held resentment towards him for that.
- Stalin's charismatic, yet unassuming personality (which he perfectly curated in order to mask his actual cunning and sly one) represented the "New Way" in a sense. They tried Trotsky's way - it failed. Now onto something better.
- Stalin further manipulated Trotsky's image by giving him the wrong date to Lenin's funeral, making him appear apathetic and disrespectful, whereas Stalin looked like Lenin's bff (and thus would likely continue "Lenin's vision", which is what people wanted).

Paragraph 3 - Political Tactics
- All the stuff you mentioned about to Troika/Triumvirate, and switching sides in order to get rid of Trotsky is definitely important, however they were not the only political tactics that Stalin employed.
- Suppression of Lenin's Testament - the suppression of Lenin's testament (or his Will) was critical, because within it Lenin literally calls for Stalin to be kicked out of the party, suggesting he is "rude" and "dangerous", whereas he praises Trotsky. Trotsky helps to suppress this however, as he didn't want to cause party disunity.
- Lenin's Levy - after the Civil War, Lenin realised that many of the Old Bolsheviks had died, and thus they needed to replenish their ranks. This lead to a massive recruitment campaign, and as Stalin was General Secretary, he was in charge of conducting this. Through his position, he only appointed individuals who supported his ideology (or who would support his ideology as they owed him a debt for their position).
- Ban of Factionalism - the Ban was started by Lenin (I believe in 1921?), because the party had a real problem with disagreeing with one another, and rather than resolve their differences and form a compromise, they'd "factionalise", ie. split off into their own subsection of the party. This caused a lot of issues, and meant that it was difficult to get stuff done, so Lenin banned factionalism, suggesting that if you disagree with the majority view, essentially "shut up". This was manipulated by Stalin, due to the fact that as he slowly exploited Lenin's levy, he made it so that 'Socialism in One Country' was the majority, and 'Permanent Revolution' was the minority! This effectively silenced Trotsky, and when he finally spoke out, gave Stalin an excuse to call for his expulsion.

Hope this helps! I have a feeling this dot point might come up, so hopefully this clears up a lot of stuff up for other people as well, who may not have studied this dot point as specifically as Bolshevik Consolidation or Stalinism

Susie

[sudodds]

Any source analysis predictions guys???

I wouldn't be surprised if you got something from the final section of the syllabus, specifically "events leading to Armistice" or "reasons for Allied Victory and German collapse" as it hasn't been asked in a long while (or ever? can't remember). Plus they know that the last few dot points are the ones that are typically neglected by students!

[HamBurr17]

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

No worries, plenty of detail and extremely helpful!
Thank you!

[yarie]

Hi, I just wanted to ask about the usefulness question, as it has been my weakest point throughout the year. When we are asked to consider perspective and reliability - does this mean we have to analyse those two areas so we can make a judgement to the extent to which it is useful for the historian (if that makes sense). Also, how do you suggest I structure this response...

[sudodds]

Hi, I just wanted to ask about the usefulness question, as it has been my weakest point throughout the year. When we are asked to consider perspective and reliability - does this mean we have to analyse those two areas so we can make a judgement to the extent to which it is useful for the historian (if that makes sense). Also, how do you suggest I structure this response...

Hey! I go through this + how to structure a response within the first video lecture! Here's the link!

[marcusgrahamm]

Thanks Susie!
That was more the avenue I would have thought the question would have been based around as well (success and failure) it was just a q my friend created and sent to me and I wasn't sure how to go about it.
Thanks for all your assistance

[fantasticbeasts3]

hi everyone,

on a scale of 1-10, how likely do you think they'll ask for historical context for the personality study?

[~BK~]

I wouldn't be surprised if you got something from the final section of the syllabus, specifically "events leading to Armistice" or "reasons for Allied Victory and German collapse" as it hasn't been asked in a long while (or ever? can't remember). Plus they know that the last few dot points are the ones that are typically neglected by students!

i am one of those students that does typically neglect those points, especially events leading to the armistice, would you be able to give me a fews ideas of what this actually was?? thanks so much!

[yarie]

Hey! I go through this + how to structure a response within the first video lecture! Here's the link!

Thank you so much! I wish I had found this earlier...

[marcusgrahamm]

Hey Susie,

I was watching your video on the 10 mark source question, and I'm just a little distressed because the whole year my teacher has been teaching us to do:

O-rigin
M-otive
A-udience
C-ontent
P-erspective
R-eliability (obvs unreliable as well)
U-sefulness (why usefulness was limited as well)

I feel myself that your way is way more effective in answering the question...
But I don't feel comfortable in changing the way I've been doing them all year, so I was wondering as long as I still answer the question through the avenue of my structure will it still be just as efficient to score full marks?

Thanks again!!

[_____]

Hmmm I'm really not sure if your position is the easiest to argue, judging by the fact that your paragraphs seem very specific to one area of your study with those dot points (ie. political tactics), whereas changes in society, ideology, and personality are all really important as well.

You don't have to take my word for it - at the end of the day, if you can argue "little importance" well, then you can definitely still get a band 6 - but I think suggesting that it was actually of HIGH importance would be easier to sustain, and this would be how I would do it.

Paragraph 1 - Changes in Society and Ideology
- After Civil War, there was a significant decline in the urban proletariat, as they kinda "gave up" on the socialist dream, and went back to peasant life + many of the old Bolsheviks (devoted to Trotsky's 'Permanent Revolution', which was the dominant ideology at the time) had died.
- Trotsky's position of 'Permanent Revolution' relied on an international revolution, thus by extension, it relied on further conflict, which this war weary society was not keen for.
- Stalin's position of 'Socialism in One Country' not only appealed to the people because it did NOT rely on further conflict, but also it appealed to their desire for Nationalism (which Stalin further exploited, suggesting that Trotsky's ideology "lacked faith" in the Russian people, in that he didn't believe they could do it on their own).
- Stalin also renamed his ideology "Marxist-Leninism" in order to appeal to the growing Cult of Lenin (which he himself was helping to spread), and make his ideology appear to be the direct descendent of Lenin's, despite the fact that Lenin actually supported Permanent Revolution.

Paragraph 2 - Personality
- Both Stalin and Trotsky are the faces of their ideology, thus their personalities helped to shape peoples interpretations of the ideology themselves.
- Trotsky = arrogant, rude, condescending. His personality here made it look like he was clinging onto an "old" ideology, that had been in many ways proven ineffective (eg. Treaty of Brest-Litovsk), that had died along with the "Old Bolsheviks".
- Trotsky had been ruthless as leader of the Red Army during the Civil War - a lot of people held resentment towards him for that.
- Stalin's charismatic, yet unassuming personality (which he perfectly curated in order to mask his actual cunning and sly one) represented the "New Way" in a sense. They tried Trotsky's way - it failed. Now onto something better.
- Stalin further manipulated Trotsky's image by giving him the wrong date to Lenin's funeral, making him appear apathetic and disrespectful, whereas Stalin looked like Lenin's bff (and thus would likely continue "Lenin's vision", which is what people wanted).

Paragraph 3 - Political Tactics
- All the stuff you mentioned about to Troika/Triumvirate, and switching sides in order to get rid of Trotsky is definitely important, however they were not the only political tactics that Stalin employed.
- Suppression of Lenin's Testament - the suppression of Lenin's testament (or his Will) was critical, because within it Lenin literally calls for Stalin to be kicked out of the party, suggesting he is "rude" and "dangerous", whereas he praises Trotsky. Trotsky helps to suppress this however, as he didn't want to cause party disunity.
- Lenin's Levy - after the Civil War, Lenin realised that many of the Old Bolsheviks had died, and thus they needed to replenish their ranks. This lead to a massive recruitment campaign, and as Stalin was General Secretary, he was in charge of conducting this. Through his position, he only appointed individuals who supported his ideology (or who would support his ideology as they owed him a debt for their position).
- Ban of Factionalism - the Ban was started by Lenin (I believe in 1921?), because the party had a real problem with disagreeing with one another, and rather than resolve their differences and form a compromise, they'd "factionalise", ie. split off into their own subsection of the party. This caused a lot of issues, and meant that it was difficult to get stuff done, so Lenin banned factionalism, suggesting that if you disagree with the majority view, essentially "shut up". This was manipulated by Stalin, due to the fact that as he slowly exploited Lenin's levy, he made it so that 'Socialism in One Country' was the majority, and 'Permanent Revolution' was the minority! This effectively silenced Trotsky, and when he finally spoke out, gave Stalin an excuse to call for his expulsion.

Hope this helps! I have a feeling this dot point might come up, so hopefully this clears up a lot of stuff up for other people as well, who may not have studied this dot point as specifically as Bolshevik Consolidation or Stalinism

Susie

Thanks a lot for the help 

I just don't get how you'd link the paragraphs to an affirmative response? Most of that seems to argue that Stalin had no "vision" because he was just undermining Trotsky using whatever means necessary (politicking, far-flung allies, etc). I thought Trotsky's vision was well-regarded among the proletariat and he was liked because he won the war. It seemed to work for Stalin in 1928 when combined with SiOC albeit after a few years to cool off from the war.

It also seems to assume that the people as a whole had some sort of say in how the party was run (if their receptiveness to Stalin's ideas enabled him to come to power)? I thought this wasn't the case particularly after Stalin became General Secretary - didn't Trotsky try to call for more democratisation?

[diesxel]

What kind of questions could they ask us for historical context in personality study? I personally haven't really gone over it and focused more on background and rise to prominence, do I need to know it in a lot of detail?

Thanks

[bun00]

heyyy ppl!!
jst having a freak out session here over getting a question about the army for weimar republic!?
any tips on how to structure it??
tks hps!! and ATB