So for germany was that a totalitarian essay question?
No, no totalitarian question - I'm kinda surprised, maybe it's saved for next year!
I've honestly forgotten the questions already haha but one was (I think) on the significance of the Great Depression for the rise of the Nazi party
Whole exam (at least personalities and Russia/Indochina options) was incredibly generic, hope my answers are enough to stand out.
Susie I disagree with you about question 3 (I answered C), it's a tough question :o how do the tactical successes mentioned in source C relate to source B? B is just doom and gloom lol
What did everyone else answer?
Whole exam (at least personalities and Russia/Indochina options) was incredibly generic, hope my answers are enough to stand out.
Susie I disagree with you about question 3 (I answered C), it's a tough question :o how do the tactical successes mentioned in source C relate to source B? B is just doom and gloom lol
What did everyone else answer?
Whole exam (at least personalities and Russia/Indochina options) was incredibly generic, hope my answers are enough to stand out.
Susie I disagree with you about question 3 (I answered C), it's a tough question :o how do the tactical successes mentioned in source C relate to source B? B is just doom and gloom lol
What did everyone else answer?
Yep also answered C for Q3 and was pretty sure of it. Hopefully it's correct!
Cheers for the answers Susie
Going back to question 1...
I see how the source was aiming to assist the Allied war effort but I don't think it's necessarily encouraging support for the effort. To me, it seems to be arguing 'u-boats are destroying our food' rather than 'you need to support this', and hence I chose c. What does everyone else think?
Going back to question 1...
I see how the source was aiming to assist the Allied war effort but I don't think it's necessarily encouraging support for the effort. To me, it seems to be arguing 'u-boats are destroying our food' rather than 'you need to support this', and hence I chose c. What does everyone else think?
Does anyone remember the exact question for Germany part b.? it was about total control but i cant remember the exact question
In relation to question 3, the way I've rationalised it in my head (and I think a big part of the confusion is the wording of the option), is the whole idea that the Ludendorff Offensive was tactically strong, but strategically weak. So their use of sturmtruppen tactics and the fact that they managed to push the past the stalemate 65 km were great in the short term, however in the long term it contributed to the over-extension of their resources (which they mention in Source B), as the sturmtruppen tacitcs meant that they lost all their best and most loyal soldiers, and their travelling 65km meant that their resources were now 65km away from the frontline, with no quick transportation available. Basically, their tactics were great, however they had no strategic plan for how they were going to deal with the resource expenditure of their successful tactics :)
So yeah, thats why I picked B instead, but honestly it was a particularly tricky question that I'm not 100% confident with, so happy to be contested :)
In relation to question 3, the way I've rationalised it in my head (and I think a big part of the confusion is the wording of the option), is the whole idea that the Ludendorff Offensive was tactically strong, but strategically weak. So their use of sturmtruppen tactics and the fact that they managed to push the past the stalemate 65 km were great in the short term, however in the long term it contributed to the over-extension of their resources (which they mention in Source B), as the sturmtruppen tacitcs meant that they lost all their best and most loyal soldiers, and their travelling 65km meant that their resources were now 65km away from the frontline, with no quick transportation available. Basically, their tactics were great, however they had no strategic plan for how they were going to deal with the resource expenditure of their successful tactics :)
So yeah, thats why I picked B instead, but honestly it was a particularly tricky question that I'm not 100% confident with, so happy to be contested :)
sorry but i would say i am 99% sure it is d. the main ideas out of it are eat less wheat and that victory depends on this, these both relate to encouraging support for the war effort rather than just showing the u boats as bad. thats my thought :)
I put d. It tells people directly to avoid eating wheat, thereby supporting the war effort. U boats weren't a direct threat to the citizens of the USA (although they definitely didn't face food shortages either)
My main issue with the question was to find the link between the u-boats and wheat. If the problem is u-boats and the solution is to eat less wheat, then there must be wheat/bread/food on the ships being sunk and so further rationing be implemented. It's true that US citizens weren't directly affected by the war, but I'm assuming the food cargo is meant for US troops in Europe ......................... other than that I can't see any other link between u-boats and wheat. And I'm still doubting myself on whether it's c or d, but yeah, what is the link between u-boats and wheat?the main reason it is D is because if you think of propaganda, by nature it is designed in WW1 to make people on the home front help out. you are correct that it is warning them about the u-boats, and by doing so, the propaganda is encouraging people to help out - that's why it is D, warning about the u-boats is the WAY/SUBJECT MATTER and the need to get involved is the PURPOSE if that makes sense
HOLY MOLYWahooo!!! Great Job HamBurr :) So glad to hear you found both Germany and Conflict in Europe accessible :) I had a look at the Germany questions, and they definitely seemed pretty fair.
THAT WAS PRETTY GOOD (Germany and Conflict in Europe)
I am shocked
Good job everyone, WE DID IT!!!
Also, did anyone find section one hard?? I don't know what happened but I found the sources so confusing haha I made it eventually though :P
It's over YAY
Whole exam (at least personalities and Russia/Indochina options) was incredibly generic, hope my answers are enough to stand out.Generic is better than convoluted ;) I'm sure you did fantastic _______! To stand out with those questions, it would have been detail and links - so how many stats, terminology, specific facts and/or quotes that you included, and whether you were able to link the Treaty or Stalin to the other factors and/or a wider theme eg. popular support, consistency of ideology, etc. etc.
Susie I disagree with you about question 3 (I answered C), it's a tough question :o how do the tactical successes mentioned in source C relate to source B? B is just doom and gloom lol
What did everyone else answer?
for the germany question, it was kinda totalitarian.I think you definitely could have referenced it, given the "total control" aspect of the question :) According to Emily (english lecturer who also got a very nice 95% in Modern History as well!) who studied Germany, what was great about this question is that though you could reference Totalitarianism, due to the wording of the question you didn't have to go into all the technical stuff regarding the concept, or historians debates :) So actually easier than a totalitarianism essay!
at least, you couldve referenced that anyway... well, i hope so coz i did!! ;)
I agree about it being generic! it was kinda 'boring'...didn't really lead to any very good argument...i thought anyway :)Ahahahahahaha I love how all of you are disappointed it was easy! That genuinely makes me so happy, that you wanted a challenge :) I'm sure you smashed it JD99! How did you find the other sections of the exam?
Yeah I also answered C....fingers crossed it was right!!!
I think you definitely could have referenced it, given the "total control" aspect of the question :) According to Emily (english lecturer who also got a very nice 95% in Modern History as well!) who studied Germany, what was great about this question is that though you could reference Totalitarianism, due to the wording of the question you didn't have to go into all the technical stuff regarding the concept, or historians debates :) So actually easier than a totalitarianism essay!
I'm sure you did absolutely smashed it ~BK~, great work!
Susie
FULL SOURCE ANALYSIS NOW AVAILABLE!
Remember though, as I said within the post, the Source Analysis is the most subjective part of Section I, so even if you didn't answer it the way I did, you still could get a fantastic mark, even full marks! There are a lot of different things you could focus on, those were just the ones I chose :)
Thank you!I also said it was partially useful R.E lack of detail and also being from Hindenburg's perspective and being a memoir, that he may have been diverting attention for German collapse away from his own failings/the German army's failings and towards a lack of resources etc. Did you do similar?
And.. erm... I'm pretty sure I said Source B was partially useful... and I may have asked for another booklet and used a whole other page explaining why... oops! Hopefully it works out for me :P
Oh well, Modern History is done and dusted. Out of all my exams so far, this one makes me feel the most nostalgic as I genuinely enjoyed history.
I also said it was partially useful R.E lack of detail and also being from Hindenburg's perspective and being a memoir, that he may have been diverting attention for German collapse away from his own failings/the German army's failings and towards a lack of resources etc. Did you do similar?
OK SO HERE IT GOES:I'M READY.
Section 1: Really thankful I discovered that Events to Armistice dot point as it made up the majority of my info I used for Question 7.Yes!! I know when I saw that I was so grateful that that had come up on the question thread!
For the MC I had:Awesome! Smashing section I so far!!!
1. D, 2. B, 3. C (I personally had C here Susie as I couldn't see how it related to B - I think I get your explanation but at the same time I can't see the tactical success in Source B so I'm also not 100% at all haha). 4. A, 5. Woodrow Wilson, 6. Just contrasted Wilson's idealistic aims as shown in the source + own knowledge of 14 points vs Clemenceau's want for revenge and all victorious allies to punish Germany as in source + own knowledge of stats he wanted like 25,000 machine guns surrendered by Germans and reparations.
Question 7: Source C: I contrasted the Somme, where tanks were used ineffectively with Amiens where 552 tanks, 800 aircraft, artillery fire was all used in coordination with each other and how this demonstrated the change of tactics over time and how it was successful as 24,000 POW captured in 3 days. Also looked at Hamel for Source D and how 60 Mark V tanks were used with 600 guns and how tanks were used more effectively again also alluding to the developments eg. they now carry cribs. Referred to how as a result of all these battles combined and the change in tactics, able to break impenetrable Hindenburg Line and war over. That was that in essence :)Awesome!! Sound absolutely fantastic detail in their dancing phalanges - I'm sure you smashed it ;)
Question 8: Okay - I think I was an idiot here and off memory wrote both sources were partially useful when Source A is limited. Would I lose a mark for this?I said Source A was partially useful too! No stress :) You can definitely argue that it was partially useful :)
For Source A I said it was useful in that it provided historians with an idea into how propaganda was used on the American home front for rationing (used the stat of u boats sinking 500000 tonnes here) and thus demonstrating how America was a helpful ally contrasting this with Germany's allies who didn't even break through one line from 1914-1917.oooo interesting argument! I like how you linked it to the failure of Germany's allies as well - great point :)
I said it was limited in that it didn't show the impact of propaganda and whether it actually did lead to German collapse/Allied victory. Also did perspective American Govt. and thus highly reliable as evidence of propaganda used. From that brief summary of what I wrote, do you think they would still mark me down for partially useful rather than of limited use?Nah, sounds like that was a fantastic analysis of Source A, no worries at all!
For Source B I did partially as while Hindenburg discussed some good reasons eg. lack of manpower following Ludendorff Offensive, lack of resources, bad morale, he was writing a memoir and thus could have steered the failure of the war away from his own failings as commander and towards other reasons. Also said it lacked specifics/details and brought in some of my own to show how it would be more reliable.another very interesting point! Looks like you absolutely smashed this section Dancing Phalanges! Not that I'm surprised, but still impressed, as it was quite a tricky Section!
SECTION 2 - GERMANYSeeing as, at least for Germany, both questions looked pretty good I doubt it will have affected you that much if at all :) Well done!
So for both Germany and Pacific I feel like I picked the worse question haha!
PERSONALITY – SpeerWoohoo! Definitely think that Section III was really great overall - no curve balls, which was fantastic, and definitely would have worked well for all the different personalities :)
My most confident section out of the paper.
Part bAHAHAHAHA used to do this all the time with Lenin and Trotsky!
A nice take on the shaper/shaped by events type question.
Arguedhitler's(I literally wrote Hitler 3-4 times instead of speer and kept having to cross it out because i did personality after germany haha!!)
significance moderately influenced by his contribution to change eg.
ChangeAgain, though I don't know Speer, from what little I do know this sounds like an awesome response! No wonder you're confident ;)
Work in transforming armaments ministry with efficiency etc.
Changed public perceptions of himself at Nuremberg trials by going against other Nazis who wanted to idolise hitler thus impact his significance in history
Not change
Took advantage of existing german values of volksgemeinschaft and its sense of permanence and dominance in the success/significance of his architecture eg. Germany stadium and Nuremberg rallies as propaganda
Took advantage of existing ideology r.e other races inferior through exclusion of jews in jew flats and exploitation of slave labour in order to profit his efficiency and therefore significance in war effort
CONFLICT IN THE PACIFICBruce can be pretty scary ahaha. He a gem last year, being willing to read over my major work for extension, and one of his bits of feedback was literally just a highlight of an entire paragraph, and the word "Bollocks" right next to it ahaha, gotta love him <3
Ok – so I really feel like I should have done option B. It was way easier to write heaps about and I knew thousands of stats. However, I was scared off by the idea of someone like Bruce Dennett marking my work with years of experience in military strategy since that’s the bit I was lacking in understanding – how specifically the Japanese failed militarily etc.
So I went with a) Assess the effect of conflict in pacific on civilians in occupied territories.
I was definitely 100% comfortable with writing this – thesis being that the effect varied according to how each occupied territory aided the war effort so being:
PARA 1: Malaya – military significance – little care for human safety – destructive impact
PARA 2: Dutch east indies – natural resources – slave labour – significant impact too
Para 3: Thailand – little significance and collaboration from thai govt. – some economic sanctions – yet escaped much of destruction
Only one qualm on this – I put one statistic in the dutch east indies para instead of Malaya – reckon ill lose a mark for this or the markers wont even notice haha
SORRY FOR THE LONG POST but that is me done – just wanted to hear people’s thoughts!
Hope everyone did well!
YAYYYYY!!!!!
OVERRRR!!!! :) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) :D :D :D
CONGRATS EVERYONE!!!!
i also did C for that WW1 MC....?!?! so hope its right!!
and i alluded to totalitarianism in Germany??!? hope its ok?!...
Hell yeah - looks like its C. Cheers guys.If I had done this paper I would have done (a) as well! Was disappointed that we didn't get a B-COP question :( You lucky things you ;)
For Russia I took option (a) (probably the least popular) and went:
Affirmative:Awesome! Sounds like a fantastic way to answer the question :) I love how you linked all the different factors to the Treaty :) That is one of the harder parts, but it looks like you did it really well!
Appeased the peasants - no involvement in the Whites, instead they made their own Green armies.
Enabled Trotsky to reform the Red Army, crucial for victory by 1921.
Forced the development of War Communism (as the Treaty Terms were harsh) and hence the NEP.
For Indochina I took B (not sure if I should be talking about the Khmer Rouge here as it said "communist victory in Indochina"? did it anyway):From what I've been told this was the nicer question of the two, so good idea choosing this one :)
Affirmative:Again, sounds like a fantastic way to respond to this question!
Nationalism inspired the Viet Cong to be incredibly devoted - gave me a chance to talk about Tet
Nationalism inspired the support of the peasantry required for a People's War and also crucial for Pol Pot.
Communism was a factor - Chinese/USSR support for Khmer Rouge/North, communism forced the USA to look at the conflict from a Cold War perspective and hence led to improper strategies/tactics (war of attrition).
I feel like I did reasonably well. The core wasn't too hard and I'm quite confident with my answers (well I was, until I saw Susie's answers :-[ I picked c for 1 and c for 3). Very happy with the source analysis, shout out to Susie for the amazing breakdown in the video ;D ;DAye I'm not NESA! Nothing to say that i'm 100% correct with my answers - don't count your chickens until they hatch! :)
I feel like I had really good arguments for Sections 2 and 4 (Germany and Indochina), but I'm unsure on how well my discussion of examples were. I ensured that each paragraph was linked to the overall judgement, but I guess I won't know how well (or how bad) I went until 14th December.Arguments are always the main thing don't worry, so as long as they were strong thats the main thing!
As for the personality (we did Speer), I have to say that was the part I was most worried about. I knew the content and I had great examples, but up until yesterday I still had trouble managing to answer both parts in the required time. Luckily the questions were pretty easy (I disagreed with the statement in part b, what did everyone else do?) and I managed to finish in time. I only had two body paragraphs for part b but they were quite extensive and detailed, so would it still affect me for not having three?I'm glad you found the question accessible!! I thought it was a pretty good question too :) And 2 paragraphs is A-okay for Part B no stress! I had 2 paragraphs last year for one of my essays and they're meant to be even longer! As long as the argument and the detail is there, then you'll be fine :)
Anyways, apart from all that, I'm also very annoyed at one other thing. I want to know how much my peers' marks will affect mine and the rest of class? One of the students in my class didn't attempt one section. A WHOLE SECTION!!!! 25 MARKS!!! I'm angry and annoyed and frustrated. Even though I know there's nothing anyone can do anymore, I'm still slightly worried about how this (or any mark, really) affects the rest of the cohort.That sucks, but it shouldn't affect you too much, if at all! I had two girls in my ancient cohort literally not attempt the entire thing (one girl wrote her essay in french? but like, she can't speak french? she just wrote random french phrases?) but I still got a band 6 mark for the subject :)
I'M READY.Yes!! I know when I saw that I was so grateful that that had come up on the question thread!Awesome! Smashing section I so far!!!Awesome!! Sound absolutely fantastic detail in their dancing phalanges - I'm sure you smashed it ;)
I said Source A was partially useful too! No stress :) You can definitely argue that it was partially useful :)
oooo interesting argument! I like how you linked it to the failure of Germany's allies as well - great point :)
Nah, sounds like that was a fantastic analysis of Source A, no worries at all!
another very interesting point! Looks like you absolutely smashed this section Dancing Phalanges! Not that I'm surprised, but still impressed, as it was quite a tricky Section!
Seeing as, at least for Germany, both questions looked pretty good I doubt it will have affected you that much if at all :) Well done!
Woohoo! Definitely think that Section III was really great overall - no curve balls, which was fantastic, and definitely would have worked well for all the different personalities :)
AHAHAHAHA used to do this all the time with Lenin and Trotsky!Again, though I don't know Speer, from what little I do know this sounds like an awesome response! No wonder you're confident ;)
Bruce can be pretty scary ahaha. He a gem last year, being willing to read over my major work for extension, and one of his bits of feedback was literally just a highlight of an entire paragraph, and the word "Bollocks" right next to it ahaha, gotta love him <3
Highly doubt they'll notice, no stress :)
CONGRATULATIONS DANCING PHALANGES!!!! Sounds like you absolutely smashed this paper :) All of your hard work has paid off!!
Now go and take a well deserved break :)
Great work,
Susie
If I had done this paper I would have done (a) as well! Was disappointed that we didn't get a B-COP question :( You lucky things you ;)
Awesome! Sounds like a fantastic way to answer the question :) I love how you linked all the different factors to the Treaty :) That is one of the harder parts, but it looks like you did it really well!
From what I've been told this was the nicer question of the two, so good idea choosing this one :)
Again, sounds like a fantastic way to respond to this question!
Great work :)
Susie
Really annoyed with my exam technique, didn't get a chance to finish Conflict in Europe question, had to resort to using dot point form. Overall, I think I did reasonably well. :)Ah that's a shame, but don't stress too much! I was very pressed for time with Cold War last year (stupidly left myself only 30 mins to write a whole essay), and I didn't write everything that I wanted to, but it still went well in the end :)
Also, i'd just like to give a quick thank you to Sudodds for her very useful book :) It practically carried me through the core section.No worries!!! I'm so glad that you found it useful :) Overall, how did you find the exam today, Microsoft Word (love the username aha)?
Aye I'm not NESA! Nothing to say that i'm 100% correct with my answers - don't count your chickens until they hatch! :)
And yay!!!! i'm so glad you found it useful :)
Arguments are always the main thing don't worry, so as long as they were strong thats the main thing!
I'm glad you found the question accessible!! I thought it was a pretty good question too :) And 2 paragraphs is A-okay for Part B no stress! I had 2 paragraphs last year for one of my essays and they're meant to be even longer! As long as the argument and the detail is there, then you'll be fine :)
That sucks, but it shouldn't affect you too much, if at all! I had two girls in my ancient cohort literally not attempt the entire thing (one girl wrote her essay in french? but like, she can't speak french? she just wrote random french phrases?) but I still got a band 6 mark for the subject :)
GREAT WORK ZAINBOW!! Sounds like overall you went really well, even if you're a bit concerned with a few areas :) Everyone feels like that after leaving an exam - I remember I literally almost cried tell my teacher afterwards that I only gave myself 30 mins for Cold War, and it literally didn't affect me at all! We blow our "failures" up in our mind, when often they weren't even failures, they could just be "neutrals" or even "successes in disguise".
Good job and congratulations! It's over now!!!
Susie
Think I did OK but seeing the World War 1 answers kind of freaked me out a little! The 8 and 10 Marker threw me off (a bit) though I still had stuff prepared, but I think I messed up with talking about the sources properly...or I'm just second-guessing myselfAgain, remember that I'm not NESA! This is just what I *think* the answers are - I could be wrong with a few of them! Especially considering I think Section I was pretty tricky overall.
Super happy with Russia though, I saw bolshevik consolidation of power and wanted to get up and do a happy dance in the middle of the exam.Don't worry, I was doing the happy dance for you! Such good questions - especially cos i was expecting them to be brutal and give you guys power struggles and soviet foreign policy!
EITHER WAY It wasn't that bad overall. For that problematic MCQ I also put C, but I can kind of see how it could be B as well..So glad that you found the paper to be pretty decent! I definitely agree :)
Overall, well done everyone!! We're done!! Super happy and proud of all of us :)
BOOOOYEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH GO U LEETLE HISTORIANLY PPL!!!!!!!!!! history is history ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;DI'm so glad that you thought the exam was pretty good bun00! What was your favourite section? I'm sure you did so well!!
and yeh i wldnt say it was easy but damn BOSTES were much more favourable than i was expecting!!!
yipeee! ATB with the rest of ure exams!
I'm so glad that you thought the exam was pretty good bun00! What was your favourite section? I'm sure you did so well!!
finally decided to face my fears and go through this thread ahahaha here's aIt definitely was the trickiest section, so you're not alone finding it confusing - hell, as you can probably tell my responses, I found it pretty confusing as well! Most of the sources didn't relate to the most prominent aspects of the syllabus dot points they were deprived from - it was quite weird.quick rundownrant on the exam:
ww1: what the actual hell... usually i'm awful at sources but i didn't understand a thing. like, the first question i was stumped and i saw "eat less wheat" so i was like YES BREAD then didn't have time to go back over the answers which i could've changed. oh well. the rest was okay but this section was harder than trials which was strange because cssa tends to be pretty confusing. because this question went so badly, i lost confidence in the rest of the exam... so yea.
germany: i did this one last which i'm really annoyed at because in reading time, question b was really good (stood out to me most) and i wish i did it earlier because i would've finished it. at first glance, i saw "total power" so i thought totalitarianism, but then i thought it wasn't exactly? but for sure this question was the best one out of all. i'm relatively confident with this one, even though i didn't finish it and had so much more i wanted to write.Awesome work fantasticbeasts3! I'm sure you confidence is deserved - i've seen the amazing answers you've given others in relation to Germany, I'm positive that, even if you feel like you didn't have enough time, it would still have been a cracker of an essay!
personality study, gorbachev: if i didn't stuff up the first part of the response i would've been so happy with it. i finished ww1 in about 35 minutes (wtf honestly could've looked over that stupid bread question) and started writing for part a, then realised i was writing about background. wasted about 5 minutes which was just ugh. then i started again, rambled on too much of the first rise to prominence dot point, eating into my time for part b, so had to cut that one short, and had to cut down on collapse of eastern europe which is irritating because that's like half of what gorbachev did? super annoying.I feel like writing about background isn't that much of a bad thing :) Sure, it's not strictly rise to prominence, however I'm sure various aspects of background would definitely have contributed to it!
cold war: most people in my school didn't like question a which is really odd because it seemed a lot easier. probably just me. thought this one went quite well while i was writing, but looking back at it now, i don't think i sustained my thesis well enough... smh i hope whoever is marking this is less tired than me during the exam (probably not) because i can't even understand what i wrote.Yeah, probably because of the "ideology" part right?
anyway, all in all i walked out really not confident about the whole thing. crazy how it takes just one section to make you feel crap... should've done germany first, but that's okay. honestly, i'm not expecting more than 70 for this exam (no exaggeration whatsoever), but it's over.I'm sure you did better than 70, and that you're just overthinking things :) Fully appreciate that you feel disappointed, and you are 100% allowed to feel that way after an exam! I felt like utter shit after mine :) But I'm sure that everything went okay. And even if, by chance, something did go a bit iffy, then you've been working so consistently this year and that will be acknowledged through moderation! Remember that there is scaling as well :) A raw 82 in drama got me a 91 scaled, and that subject is known for scaling like shit, whereas modern scales well, so even if you did get 70, you'd probably still leave with a band 5 at the very least!
best of luck for the rest of your hsc everyone,
fantasticbeasts
You guys are all making me unsure of my answers ;(!Noooo!!! None of us here know the answers :) Just our interpretations of the question, and, especially with essays, you can interpret it completely different, but still get an awesome mark!
For both Weimar and Conflict in Europe, I chose question a. To be honest, I felt as though I could have answered either a or b for both so I spent about 5 minutes panicking about which question to do.Better to be able to answer both, than none at all! Great work preparation wise!!
For the Weimar essay I was able to inject quotes from historians but for the conflict question I only mentioned Turner and Churchill and basically paraphrased what they said. I didn't really use statistics but I tried to connect the smaller ideas to the main overarching theme and make lots of links so I'm a bit worried.Hey! stats and quotes only count as detail, so don't worry if you don't have many of them specifically! So glad that you had a lot of links! They're awesome, and really good to have in order to push you into the higher bands! Don't stress, I'm sure you did fantastic!
Oh well, Modern History is done and dusted. Out of all my exams so far, this one makes me feel the most nostalgic as I genuinely enjoyed history.I feel nostalgic just looking at your paper! Definitely one of the subjects that sticks with you :) I still tag/get tagged in modern memes by my friends, even a year later!
glad it's over, really good questions!! I did the Russian campaign question for CIE but ran out of time at the end and only got 5 pages only about Barbarrossa and Stalingrad!! :-\ :-\ how much will this effect my mark?? :-\ asking for a friendHey! Don't worry about it :) I can't say much about content as I didn't study this topic, but I definitely didn't get through everything that I wanted to for Cold War last year (only gave myself 30 mins to write the whole essay :( ), but it still turned out fine! Got the same mark for Cold War as I did for Russia, which I spent way more time on :) Potentially didn't affect your mark at all, so don't stress!
Thank you!
And.. erm... I'm pretty sure I said Source B was partially useful... and I may have asked for another booklet and used a whole other page explaining why... oops! Hopefully it works out for me :P
I also said it was partially useful R.E lack of detail and also being from Hindenburg's perspective and being a memoir, that he may have been diverting attention for German collapse away from his own failings/the German army's failings and towards a lack of resources etc. Did you do similar?Don't worry! Perfectly legitimate to argue partially useful for Source B :), and both of your arguments justifying it sounds great!
saaaaame. i can't bring myself to throw out any handouts/past papers/notes at the moment, i'm not ready to let go just yetThen don't ;) I still have all of my old stuff. Also guys, make sure that, before you do throw out your notes if you eventually do, to upload them to the notes section to help out next years group of students!!!
Overall it was a pretty decent exam! I definitely can't complain with the questions at all :)Instantly thought of you when I saw that question! Sure you absolutely smashed it!!!
I was so happy to see that as the own knowledge question - I instantly recalled the info that I posted the day before, so that helped out heaps :)
I will say though, that the wording of the question was a bit vague. You would have needed to understand the sources to see where they were really pointing you towards. I.E, the photograph of the Capture of the Hindenburg Line, and the recount of the technologies used in the final stages of war would have pointed to events leading to the Armistice.I agree. It was worded like something from the next dot point - 'Reasons for Allied Victory', which was frustrating. But luckily you did have the sources there to guide your response!
I'd say that the question that I was least confident would be the Germany, Great Depression question. Ironically, it was the question that I wanted to get, because I still hadn't covered much of the content. However, after a painful day of cramming I actually became better at other sections of the syllabus than the one that was assessed... I just feel like it was such a vague question, as it didn't specify a time frame or anything! So I worked my way up from the Depression to Hitler's consolidation of power, and I don't know if that's correct or not :/Thats disappointing, but I'm sure it went better than you think!
Regardless, I felt really confident after WW1, Speer and much of the Conflict in Europe essay. I reckon if I can dish out a solid 19/25 for Germany, then a Band 6 could still be possible
ahhh definitely germany!! it was the only section that i pretty much let my hand dance all over the paper (with gorgeous handwriting ::)) and all over the desk and all over the examiner and everywhere without having to stop and think "is wot im saying the legit truth or am i just making up crap to fill in time?"..sooo was definitely my best!! i chose the great depression question as im def more confident with the earlier syllabus dotpoints (and hey...."the great depression was the only thing that put the wind in hitlers sails" ;D)! also i did germany first so that put me on 10 confident arrogant lil toes for the next sections (of which i made up a lot of stuff :D nah it was prolly true!) :Dahahahahaha well it was a well deserved happy dance, so i'm sure the examiner didn't mind too much ;)
thanks soooo much susie for everything ure a legendarrryyy laddeee!!
hey, during the exam i was really stressed out that i forgot to add historian quotes.. but i answered everything properly and added a lot of information. do you think i will lose marks for not having quotes? also in the conflict in the pacific question, i didnt talk about the A-bomb, as one of the stragies allies use to defeat japan because i was running out of time. do you think that will affect my mark? because i talked about all the battles the allies had defeated japan in.. please replyyy :(
Ah that's a shame, but don't stress too much! I was very pressed for time with Cold War last year (stupidly left myself only 30 mins to write a whole essay), and I didn't write everything that I wanted to, but it still went well in the end :)
Glad you think it went well overall though! What was your favourite section?
thank you !! and will it really affect my mark that i did not add any historians and their opinons throughout my essays?
wait for conflct i didnt even use stats!! HAHAHA i think im going to die :( but thank you, you made me feel better!! i also couldnt use quotes for my personality (kita ikki) due to time management! i really hope it wont affect my mark..
YOU MADE IT!!!!!
Congratulations!!!! You are Verdun with Modern History! I'm sure Somme of you are ready to completely chuck out your notes (not before uploading them here!) and forget that the Schlieffen Plan ever existed, but first, if you want to make sure you Pass(chendael)ed, here are some suggested answers that I've come up with*! 8) (please appreciate what I just did there honestly some of my greatest work)Section I - Core Study: World War IMULTIPLE CHOICE
1) What was the primary purpose of Source A?
a. To increase bread production
b. To bring the USA into the war
c. To warn about the German U-boat strategy
d. To encourage support for the Allied war effort
Honestly, this question had me stumped for a bit (great start Susie aha)! The first two we can discount - definitely not asking to increase bread production, and though we don't know the exact date this was published, the USA entered the War in early 1917 so this is most likely produced after they declared war. C and D though? Hmmmm. I think its weirdly worded, because, in essence, both c and d appear to be correct. The source IS warning the citizens about the German U-boat strategy, however, I think overall D is the correct answer, as even though it is warning them, it is more focused upon how to respond to the thread of the U-boats ('EAT LESS WHEAT'), encouraging US citizens to do their part to help out the allies :)
2) According to Source B, why had the allied been victorious?
a) The Germans had been over-confident
b) The German resources were exhausted
c) German technology was inferior
d) The British counter-thrust had been successful
Pretty confident with this one. "We had not the men and more particularly the guns", "required stronger reserves than we had at our disposal" pretty much just screams B.
3) What evidence found in Source C supports the information in Source B?
a) German troops were demoralised
b) The German army was having tactical success
c) The German army was becoming less effective <-- POTENTIALLY THIS ONE
d) Political influence on the home front weakened the German army.
Another tricky one, again because of what I think it some confusing word! It doesn't mention morale, so I think we can cross that one out (even if it could be inferred from "weakened German army". I also don't think it can be D, because they don't mention Political influence at all.
B and C though? To be honest, I'm not 100% confident with either answer. It mentions that the German army was becoming "increasingly weakened", so that could definitely allude to them being "less effective" as C suggests. However the "tactical success" that B describes relates very well to Source B, in that it discusses the lack of available resources (which was a result of the tactical success of the Ludendorff Offensive, but at the same time its strategic failure, as they had no actual plan in place as to how they could sustain the resource expenditure of their tactical success), just the fact that they don't mention "strategic failure" within the option (though it is part of the source) which makes me feel a bit shaky.
Overall though, I'm going to (tentatively) say that I believe B to be the answer, just because it relates the best to Source B in my opinion :) Don't freak out if you said C though, as I could very well be wrong here, and, even if I am correct, the likelihood that NESA realises that this question was weirdly worded and takes that into account while marking is strong :)
4) According to Source E, why did the leaders at the Paris Peace Conference come into conflict?
a) The leaders had competing aims.
b) The leaders mistrusted each other.
c) The leaders had limited experience.
d) The leaders had a desire for world peace.
Again, pretty confident here. Doesn't mention anything about mistrust or limited experience within the source, and definitely doesn't suggest that all the leaders had a desire for "world" peace (peace for the allies maybe - but Clemenceau sure as hell didn't want Germany to have a peaceful time in the next few years).
5) According to Source E and your own knowledge, which of the leaders at the Paris Peace Conference wanted a peace more sympathetic towards Germany?
a) Vittorio Orlando
b) Woodrow Wilson
c) David Lloyd George
d) Georges Clemenceau
Vittorio who*? Not in the source, so not important. And in the same breath, neither is Lloyd George, so we can cancel both of them out right now. That leaves us with Woodrow Wilson and Clemenceau as the only leaders mentioned in the source - we know that Clemenceau in NO WAY wanted to be sympathetic towards Germany, and Woodrow Wilson had the much kinder 14 points that he wanted to implement, so the answer is a confident B!
*he's an Italian leader. many of you probably didn't even touch on him in class. confused as to why they used him as an example ahaha NESA running out of ideas...
SHORT ANSWERS
6) Using Source E and your own knowledge, outline how the perspectives of the leaders differed at the Paris Peace Conference. In your answer, refer to TWO of the following leaders; Clemenceau, Lloyd George, Wilson (3 marks)
Here is what I would have written. As Clemenceau and Wilson are both referenced in the source, they are the leaders I would have chosen to refer to (however of course there is nothing stopping you from choosing Lloyd George!)
Wilson and Clemenceau's perspectives at the Paris Peace Conference greatly differed. According to Source E, Wilson's goal was for the "worlds nations" to cooperate "in a common passion for world peace", which he aimed to implement through the establishment of the League of Nations, which could resolve future conflict through diplomacy rather than war. Thus, he advocated for a more sympathetic treatment of Germany, opposing harsh reparations and the War Guilt Clause. However, as further suggested by Source E, Clemenceau's perspective, shaped by his constituencies desire for revenge against Germany, advocated for a return to the "balance of power" system, with Germany significantly weakened economically.
Overall, a pretty easy question!
7) Using Sources C and D and your own knowledge, answer the following question. Explain how changes to Allied tactics contributed to victory.
Here is what I would have written (this is also a bit longer than expected, so if you didn't write this much that's okay - just trying to give you guys as much of what you could have mentioned as possible!)
Changes to Allied tactics greatly contributed to victory, as showed through Sources C and D. During the latter half of the war, and particularly after the Allied Counter-attack towards Ludendorff Spring Offensive, the effectiveness of the Allied Generals had dramatically increased. French Marshall Foch, the Australian General Monash and Canadian General Currie effectively utilised the now more plentiful and accurate war technology. This is evident within Source C, which suggests that the "Allied armies deployed immense infantry and artillery firepower", which ultimately culminated in their success. Though prior to the war, German artillery production out-numbered the British 700 to 250 000 per day, this margin had narrowed significantly overtime. When combined with the exhaustion of German resources, this dramatic increase in artillery fire power (that was also more effective due to sound-ranging and flash-spotting technology) and man power due to the physical entry of the American soldiers on the Western Front in Summer 1918 greatly contributed to the success of the allies. Furthermore, as suggested by Source D, tanks were now being used more effectively. Rather than being used as weapons, the primary purpose of tanks had shifted towards the protection and mobility of soldiers across no mans land. Their more effective use was most clearly evident through the Battle of Hamel, whereby Tanks achieved the work of 1200 men, and the Capture of the Hindenburg Line (as shown within Source D), the event which prompted Ludendorff to demand an Armistice, as the German war effort was futile.
This was an okay question, though I'm sure many people would have struggled as it features content from "Events leading to Armistice, 1918", a section of the syllabus that people hardly ever focus on that much (as I predicted they would)! It is also a bit of a deviation away from the common pattern of just giving you a syllabus dot point with a question mark at the end - at first, you may have thought that it was focusing on "Reasons for Allied Victory and German Collapse", yet the content of the syllabus was definitely more geared towards "Reasons for Armistice, 1918". Definitely not a shocker of a question, but I'm sure it would have caught some people out.
SOURCE ANALYSIS
How useful would Source A and B be for a historian studying the Reasons for Allied Victory and German Collapse in World War I
This is what I would have written in the exam. Again, this is probably a bit longer that you could write in the exam, just wanted to put in as much detail as possible, so that you guys know some of the different angles you could have taken. Now a source analysis out of all of the questions is probably one of the most subjective, and there are many other points that I could have discussed within this response that I didn't (as I would have run out of time aha). So if your source analysis looks different to this, no worries! As long as you had a judgement, and you backed it up, then you should have been sweet :)
Source A would be partially useful to a historian studying the reasons for allied victory and german collapse, as though the source does provide a highly reliable insight into one aspect in which the US aimed to contribute to the war effort, it lacks detail in regards to their overall impact. Source A is a propaganda poster from the United States, whom after entering the war in 1917, were attempting to persuade citizens on the home front to voluntarily limit their consumption of wheat, in order to maintain and conserve resources against the threat of the German U-boats, which, through their use of unrestricted submarine warfare, threatened cargo ships. However, the source lacks a discussion upon the more critical way in which the US entry contributed to Allied victory, through supplying in total 2.1 million American soldiers to the Western Front, who were not inhibited by injury or war weariness, which provided the necessary impetus and manpower to defeat the demoralised German soldiers. The source provides the perspective of the US Government, specifically the 'United States Food Administration', and thus reveals their intentions to aid the allies through further contributing towards the war effort, conserving resources so that they could provide much need supplies to the war weary troops on the Western Front. Though by nature as propaganda, the factual accuracy of the source may be limited due to the ulterior political motive, the source is still highly reliable as evidence of the US's aims of involvement within the war effort. Furthermore, the reliability of the source is corroborated by the understanding that Germany was currently engaged within a campaign of unrestricted submarine warfare which did affect cargo ships, as 500 000 tonnes of British goods had been destroyed by German U-boats. Thus, as the source is highly reliable, yet lacks a critical discussion upon the more substantial ways in which the US contributed to the war effort, it can be concluded that Source A would be partially useful to a historian studying the reasons for allied victory and german collapse.
Source B would be highly useful to a historian studying the reasons for allied victory and German collapse, as it provides a highly reliable and relevant perspective upon the limitations of the Germans, contributing to their collapse. Source B is a secondary source (memoir), outlining the how the German Army could no longer sustain the war effort, due to their over-extension of resources during the Ludendorff Spring Offensive, which was ultimately a failure. As a memoir, the source provides the critical perspective of German Chief of Staff Paul Hindenburg, who was highly involved with the administration of the German Army, and the coordination of battle plans. Thus, due to his high ranking position, Hindenburg would have a well informed perspective, as he was privy to more information than the average individual, contributing to the high reliability of the source, which is further corroborated by the factual accuracy of its content, which can be assured through the fact that during the last months of the war, approximately 750 000 to 1 million German soldiers surrendered, disappeared or feigned light injury or sickness. Therefore, due to Source B's highly reliable and relevant perspective, it is evident that Source B would be highly useful to a historian studying the reasons for allied victory and German collapse.
Pretty decent source analysis question! Source A is a bit tricky, as there isn't much to play around with, but Source B there is a tonne which is fantastic :) Once I've gone through the rest of the exam, I'll come back and write a full source analysis for this question!
Overall WW1 looks to me like the trickiest section of the exam! So well done everyone for getting through it :)Section II - National Study (general commentary + FULL solutions for Russia and the Soviet Union)
If you studied either Russia or Germany, then I'd say most of you were pretty happy with those questions!
The Russia questions were a blessing especially. Like both options. SO GOOD. A Bolshevik and a Stalin question?! Literally heaven.
For the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk question, all you needed to do was differentiate :) If you managed to write a whole essay just on the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, then good on you! However, it wasn't necessary to do so, as long as you stated so within your judgement. For me, I would have said:
"The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was highly significant to the Bolshevik Consolidation of Power, however it's significance must be assessed as just one factor within many, that collectively contributed to the maintenance of control and popular support."
Then I would have structured my essay like this:
Paragraph 1 - Treaty of Brest-Litovsk
Paragraph 2 - The Social and Political Reforms
Paragraph 3 - The Civil War/War Communism
Paragraph 4 - The New Economic Policy.
For the Stalin question, the important thing here is to emphasise the role of Stalin specifically (that may seem like an "uh duh" statement, but a lot of people can forget to do this!), not just "Stalinism" (even though Stalinism is what Stalin does, you needed to reference that explicitly). In order to crack the really top marks, you also would have needed to emphasise the "development" aspect of the question - Stalinism didn't start off with almost total control, he developed it through stuff like the purges, show trials, collectivisation, etc. etc.
This would have been my judgement:
"Stalin greatly influenced the development of the Soviet State in the period to 1941, as the all-encompassing nature of Stalinism impacted all areas of Soviet society."
There were so many options that you could have chosen, but I personally would have gone with thematic.
Paragraph 1 - Political (Political Purges, Show Trials)
Paragraph 2 - Economic (Collectivisation and Industrialisation)
Paragraph 3 - Socio-Cultural (The Terror and the purging of Kulaks and the Intelligentsia, and Stalin's impact on education, the media and art!)
(Once i've gone through the whole paper, I'll come back to this and go through the Russia questions in a bit more detail :) )Section III - Personality Study (general commentary + FULL solutions for Trotsky)
Part A
Isn't that, like, the exact same question as a lot of you got for your trial exam? Sweet!
With this question, no matter who you studied, you would have to make sure that the events that you chose fell under the "RISE TO PROMINENCE" section of your syllabus :) So for example, for Speer, Leni and Trotsky, that is;
SPEER:
– 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
LENI:
– direction of ‘The Blue Light’ 1932
– 1933 meeting with Hitler at Wilmershaven
– ban on Jews working in the film industry
– commission for ‘Victory of Faith’ (Nazi Party rally 1933)
TROTSKY (I'll go through Trotsky more specifically once I've finished going through the entire paper):
– emerging political role 1905–1917
– role in 1917 revolution
Then just separate it into three, mini paragraphs on each event! Pretty stock standard question :)
Part B
Sticking with the theme from 2014 onwards, you were given a quote, and it's a pretty nice one if I do say so myself! Looks like NESA learned their lesson from the appalling question we got given last year.
It was a simple "shaped by vs. shaped events", focusing specifically on the latter half of that debate. You'd want to emphasise, depending on your personality, how they contributed to change through their time. I think for the most part, people would have argued the affirmative, suggesting that the statement was "highly" accurate in relation to their personality, however, if you didn't that doesn't mean that you didn't do it properly, I just assume it would have been the easier thing to argue. You probably would have wanted a three paragraph structure, with each one centered around a particular way they contributed to change, or an event where they had a particularly significant impact.
Overall, I think this was a really decent personality study! In comparison to the past few years it was relatively accessible :)Section IV - International Conflict and Peace Study(general commentary + FULL solutions for Cold War)This is the section where I am the most unfamiliar with some of the other topics, so unfortunately I can really only comment specifically on the Cold War questions. I have heard that the Indochina questions however were okay - that the first one would have been quite hard, but that the second was accessible :)
For Cold War, I think they were pretty good! However I think a lot of people would have been apprehensive about the first question, just because of it's explicit reference to ideology, and would have been worried that they'd have to incorporate difficult ideological theory within their essays. You definitely COULD have done that, but it wasn't essential :)
My judgement for the first question would be:
Ideology was highly critical to the development of the Cold War, as ideological tensions underpinned all action and activity by the US and the USSR during the period.
I would have structured my essay one of two ways:
Paragraph 1: Impact of Ideology on Containment
Paragraph 2: Impact of Ideology on the Arms Race
Paragraph 3: Impact of Ideology on the Crises (Berlin, Cuba, Cz)
OR I would have structured it according to the crises, and how ideology impacted them :)
Paragraph 1: Berlin Wall
Paragraph 2: Cuban Missile Crisis
Paragraph 3: The Invasion of Czechoslovakia
The second question was reasonably simple :) Yes, it may seem specific at first, but you can talk about all the factors after the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, as you can link its impact pretty easily to all the other factors. Thus this would have been my judgement:
"The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan was highly critical to the end of the Cold War, as it influenced both US and USSR diplomacy, contributing to a power imbalance towards the US".
I'd then just structure it according to the syllabus dot points.
Paragraph 1: Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan
Paragraph 2: How the soviet invasion of Afghanistan impacted the US attitudes and policies under Reagan
Paragraph 3: How the soviet invasion of Afghanistan impacted the USSR attitudes and policies under Gorbachev (incorporating collapse of communism within this one, through linking it to Glasnost)
Paragraph 4: How this all culminated in the Disarmament agreements
But yeah, for Cold War, overall pretty decent questions!
*DISCLAIMER: Remember that any history course is subjective - just because you didn't write exactly (or even at all!) what I would have in the exam, DOES NOT mean that you have failed, or that you can't get a Band 6. Your interpretation of a question could be completely different to mine, but still completely valid! This is just what I would have written :) Feel free to contribute to these suggested answers as well, or contest if you think there are any issues with my solutions, as of course I am nothing more than a humble past student who can still make mistakes :)*
Make sure to let us know how you felt about the exam :) Did it go well? Did you like the sources? Were the essay questions what you expected? Just glad it's over? Really keen to hear your thoughts!!
Again, massive congratulations! I'm sure you all smashed it <3
Great work,
Susie
WANNA HAVE ANOTHER LOOK AT THE WHOLE PAPER? CHECK IT OUT HERE!!
heya, the link to the actual paper isn't working for me ;(
see why here: https://atarnotes.com/forum/index.php?topic=174416.msg992040;topicseen#msg992040
the exam will be on the NESA website within the nxt few days tho as the english and science ones are already on there
I just realised I forgot to reference the source for the 3 mark question, is that okay or will I lose marks? Also, how strict are HSC markers with putting an incorrect date for an event in history essays- I accidently wrote 1973 instead of 1978 :/ Please reply!
I just realised I forgot to reference the source for the 3 mark question, is that okay or will I lose marks? Also, how strict are HSC markers with putting an incorrect date for an event in history essays- I accidentally wrote 1973 instead of 1978 :/ Please reply!
I'm also wondering about the total control question for Germany. I think my thesis used the wording of the question, but I just wrote it as if it was a totalitarianism question and based my structure around the definitional criteria of totalitarianism. Do you think that'd get me slammed for seeming too prepared? I honestly don't know how else I would've written it because the Carl Friedrich definitions are how I learned and understood that dot point. IIRC my judgement was something like that Hitler secured near total control, but by failing to achieve it to its full extent, Nazi Germany can't be considered fully totalitarian. I argued it with something like these paragraphs/subpoints, mostly based off Friedrich's criteria:
1. Nazi Germany definitely had a charismatic leader and a central party, but did not have a guiding ideology as Nazism was vague, self-contradictory, and sometimes even antithetical to the reality of Nazi policy
2. Nazi Germany mostly had control over media and mass-communications, but Germans were regularly unwilling to engage with Goebbels' propaganda machine regardless of its immensity.
3. Nazi Germany had effectively complete control over the armed forces and a state-terror apparatus, but until 1939 subversive elements remained in the army.
4. Even in 1939, Nazi Germany had an economy that was in many ways more laissez-faire than the preceding Weimar Republic, and the aspects that could be considered totalitarian were unremarkable in 1930s Europe.
5. In comparison to the total control of the CPSU's control over the USSR, the NSDAP's control over Germany cannot be considered total, and such comparison was the result of the ideologically-motivated historiography of the 1950s which sought to create moral authority against Communism by comparing it to Nazism.
I'm kind of worried the last point was straying too far from the question or too 'meta' for modern? I just wrote it because I had time and I wanted to add perspective to the treatment of totalitarianism in my essay, but I'm starting to think I went too far in the other direction. Do I have any reason to worry or am I just being paranoid?
Hey all your arguments sound fine and very well written. I think that you'll be fine, I've had a guy in my year pose a similar question, but I mainly think you needed to say at the end and start of your paragraphs - total control rather than totalitarian - just so you are clearly answering the question as while you could definitely bring in totalitarian paragraphs, the question wasn't 100% on the totalitarian dot point. But as long as you said, therefore Nazi Germany did not have total control through propaganda and stuff like that making a judgement on the total control you will be sweet :)
Ah thanks for the reply. What other dot points do you think it was on?