What. The. Hell. Only two 'short' response question in the WWI section? One visual source? Those goddamned Germany questions? And don't even get me started on Conflict in Europe. Here are my thoughts and suggested solutions from today's brutal af Modern History exam. You can find a copy of the exam
here!Section I: World War IJust quickly, what the fuck. Basically, this paper tested you on two things: Turning points, and impact of the war on Women. Two things out of the bazillions that you've learned about in the past year. Fuck you BOSTES.
Let's start off with the multiple choice questions, and a discussion of the sources. It's always frustrating when you only get one visual stimulus, but after English Paper 1 you should all be pretty used to reading long, boring texts. The first MC question wasn't as straight forward as it looks: on first glance, almost all options look like they can be correct. However, we can eliminate A, because it is very unlikely that the primary
purpose (noting that it was a GOVERNMENT poster) was to promote women's rights, particularly given that the vote was only achieved in 1928. We don't know anything about the relationship between the W.A.A.C and munition production (from the source), and morale doesn't seem to be the purpose of the source. As such, I believe that the answer should be
D, as the poster actively encourages women to join the W.A.A.C, thus becoming involved in the war effort.
For the second multiple choice, note the inclusion of your own knowledge. Firstly, the fact that munitions workers received special treatment was a clear
red herring, and certainly not the reason why women became involved in munition production. Women rarely worked prior to WWI, and so the fact that 'they were no longer required in other industries' doesn't seem to make sense. The fact of the spring offensive doesn't explain why women were working in munition production in and of itself; clearly, production was important, however the homefront is less obviously relevant here. I think the answer should be
A, total war, because by definition this requires EVERYONE working towards the war effort, increasing the number of women involved.
For the third MC, I actually think this was a stupid question. Obviously it wasn't because of the anger of the German troops. We don't actually see anything about the weapons of the Americans in Source D: Just the weapons of the Germans. War weariness experience by both sides wouldn't provide a reason for Allied victory, so I THINK that the answer must be
C, the fitness of the troops. The questions asks for 'evidence found' in both sources; and this seems to be what they were getting at.
For the fourth MC, the answer is clearly B. He understood that, without the additional troops, a negotiated peace would result due to stalemate on both sides.
For the final MC, we only know that they fought 'bunched together', suggesting a tight formation. Thus, the answer is likely
A.
The first short answer question asks for ONE impact of the Russian withdrawal. I think this is fairly straight forward; it allowed 80 German divisions in the East to move West, increasing German supplies and numbers of troops, and thus increasing the length and brutality of the war. Bolstering troops allowed for greater defensive measures, greater numbers of German troops in each battle, etc. etc. which would obviously benefit them. I think getting three marks in this question isn't difficult, as long as you bring in some information of your own. Discussion of any battles following Russian withdrawal, or specifics surrounding the withdrawal (date, cause, etc.) would be plenty. Not too difficult a question.
The second 'short' answer was pretty brutal. A 7 MARKER on USA entry into the war! There's a lot of information you can draw from source C and D, and you really needed to; the fact that fresh troops was a necessary change on the Western front, where all others soldiers were tired and injured, but also the idea that the Americans were not well trained and thus suffered many casualties. However, using source C and D alone I don't think you could get more than 3 marks. You needed to bring in your own knowledge here, quite comprehensively. Statistics like the number of US troops in specific battles (eg. 275,000 at 2nd Marne, July-August 1918), the capture of the Hindenburg line (5 Oct), the resulting German surrender (250,000, July-Nov 1918), the number of tanks utilised, all of this was good information to bring into an answer. The influence of the course of the war was to end it, to provide a means through which one side could be victorious given that both sides were beyond war-weary; they were almost ready for a negotiated peace. However, this wasn't the ONLY turning point, and an allusion to the Russian collapse could be useful in an answer. Still, you just needed to be comprehensive to get the marks here, by throwing in as much information and detail as you could muster.
Now, moving on to the source analysis, which I'll just briefly discuss. Women's lives? Again? Anyway, whatever. Remember that the question is about IMPACT OF THE WAR ON WOMEN'S LIVES AND EXPERIENCE IN BRITAIN. So, Source A displays the encouragement by the government of women getting involved in the war effort, a strain of total-war. However, what does it say about the impact of the war? Not too much, actually; it doesn't explain if any women actually DID sign up as a result of government pressure, the perspective is not from women, it is clearly propaganda which limits the reliability of this source as representative of Women in Britain, and the fact that it was a poster from 1918 really limits the amount of information a historian can glean about the impact of the COURSE of the war on Women. I would say it's useful in displaying the pressure placed on women to join the war effort, and perhaps the opportunities afforded to women in a country classically very oppressive of that sex, however usefulness is limited for the above reasons.
I also want to mention that there are heaps of ways you can interpret the source, this is just mine! Feel free to chat about other interpretations below
For Source B, you get a bit more of a quantitative study. Identify it as a secondary source, published quite recently. Potentially, the fact that it appears very anecdotal limits is reliability, however it is still very useful in displaying the impact on THIS WOMAN'S LIFE, which can be thought of as representative of a whole experience. Again, it only shows a snapshot of late 1918, however it encompasses some primary sources (quotes from someone who was there), which is extremely useful to historians. There's so much you can talk about, and I can't give you a comprehensive list, however, between the two sources you do get a good snapshot of the experience of, and the pressure felt by, women AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE WAR. This doesn't quite answer the question, though; we don't see the impact of the war, just a certain time within it. Still, whatever conclusion you draw is up to you, these are just general points I'm observing.
What did you think of Section I? Comment below
More discussion to come!
Section II: Countries and shitThis was a seriously varied section. I did Germany, so I'll only really properly discuss that, but first just a quick overview of my thoughts. I think a lot of the options were almost a gift; Indonesia allowed for heaps of breadth of argument, Russia (although specifying a timeframe) pretty much gave students exactly what I imagine most of you expected/hoped for, and the USA gave you two 'To what extent' questions, allowing for literally any argument about anything you wanted. So, great job guys. They fucked out over in WWI, but hopefully you were fairly comfortable with Section II!
The Germany questions were beautiful. Like, this is just an opinion, but these are the two questions I would have hoped for in an exam. Let's quickly break them down.
To what extent were political issues responsible for the failure of democracy in Germany by 1933?I love 'To what extent' questions. It means you can spend most of your time talking about the question, but also a lot of your time talking about other factors. Hopefully, you picked that up, and exploited it for your advantage. I think it would be important to identify what the 'failure of democracy' actually meant. Whilst obvious to all of us, placing a date/appointment of certain despicable historical figures gives the feel of a proper History essay.
My answer to this would be 'to a large extent'. I think you needed to spend at least 50% of the time discussing political issues. This could range from the original constitution, and issues surrounding that (Art. 48 and proportional representation) to the rise of the right wing parties, particularly the NSDAP. Discuss the succession of Parliamentary leaders, bring in results of elections, and think about where support for the Nazis actually came from. This discussion requires a lot of outlining (this is what happened), but you really needed to bring it strongly back to your thesis. THESE factors resulting in a failure of democracy for THIS specific reason. There are just so many things you could have talked about that there's almost no point me going through them here.
I think it could have been really useful to say something like 'although Political factors played a key role, there were also other contributing factors'. Specifically, in my opinion, economic turmoil and potentially social change. Economic distress is the easiest to discuss; briefly touch on the Ruhr crisis and hyperinflation, but going into more depth regarding the Great Depression. How did this swing Weimar away from democracy, or at least towards radical groups? What does this say about the fundamental aspects of German society in this period? You could also talk about the importance of the Army ('state within a state' type stuff), and general nationalist sentiments, to the downfall.
So many things to talk about. So little time. Hope you managed to fit in everything you wanted!
Assess the impact of ideology on Nazi foreign policy to September 1939You needed to identify WHAT Nazi foreign policy was. It was expansionist, with the policy of Lebensraum, Grossdeuche etc. etc. being implemented by Nazi figureheads. Identify specific foreign policy endeavors; Czeck, Spanish civil war, Austria, etc. etc. etc.
Assess the impact is an interesting one. You could really argue both ways. Was the expansionist nature ideologically based? Or practically based? No matter what you argue, as long as you back yourself up, I think that you would be right. I think an easier answer would be to agree, just based on how the curriculum is framed, as you have a whole bunch of information you can include. The NSDAP 20 (or 25?) point plan, Hitler's twitter-rage Mein Kampf, really any number of ideologically based concepts resulting in aggressive expansionism. This was certainly the more difficult of the two questions, so I imagine fewer of you chose it. I won't go into more detail that this; if you have any questions/suggestions, post them up below!
Sorry that I can't really talk about the other options, but seriously, we would love to hear your thoughts in the comments. How did your question treat you? More discussion to come soon
Section III: People are generally shit. Unless you did Mandela What is there to say. This section was ideal. It was 100% what you expected, with the 'three significant events' as the cherry on top.
Part AIf you didn't specifically outline THREE events, then you did yourself a disservice. It's okay if you didn't, as long as there ARE three events, but seriously I think the best structure is sub-headings. '
Event 1: Jake bought an Ice-cream', with obviously a heaps broader reach and much more detail beneath it. The trick to Part A is to just chuck as much information onto a page as physically possible, without brain-dumping. In this case, you could limit discussion to the three events, but hopefully you did choose the MOST SIGNIFICANT events. Again, this won't matter, it just makes life easier for yourself when writing up your response to Part A. Noting the usual 10 mark - 15 mark divide, hopefully you allocated your time accordingly.
Part BTalk about a quintessential question. You get to talk about the persons significance in history (as expected), and the surrounding historical debate (as expected). I think the difficult part here would be structuring your response: the natural way would be by opinion (ie. There is this opinion, here is a discussion of it, and there is this opinion, here is a discussion of it) but that's really hard to do in a limited time, with limited sources memorised. Something more likely to be easy to pull off is a general discussion about their historical significance, comparing historical sources consistently. 'A thinks B, C thinks D' for such and such reason. Back up each argument you can (ie. A thinks B, particularly given Statistics #353). Hopefully, you used strong language ('the opportunistic technocrat', 'the apologetic narcissist') but again these things are all just icing on the cake. You could essentially have smashed out any sort of pre-prepared essay, and be confident that the markers will love it. Lucky you!
What did you think? Did the question match your personality? Was it what you expected?
Section IV: Peace and (mostly) ConflictOoft. I reckon most questions were fairly straight forward (I'm looking at you Conflict in the Pacific), but those Conflict in Europe questions had me reeling. Let's break it down a little.
To what extent were the dictatorships in Germany and Italy responsible for the growth of European tensions?Far out, like, I mean, really? You're not going to give me a general question about the War so I can just smash out statistics left right and center? Well, fuck you too then.
I think this essay gives a fair amount of wiggle room. You can basically discuss anything about the lead-up to war, from appeasement to Hitler, Mussolini to Spain. In fact, you would have done well to mention ALL of it, focusing in on the events caused by the dictators themselves. The Spanish civil war, Austria, Czeck, Munich conference; there's so much to talk about, and so little time.
The tricky part here is building a thesis. I imagine a lot of you would say 'Yes, to some extent, but appeasement was the root cause of increased tensions'. Personally, I couldn't disagree more, but it's still a totally valid thesis. As long as you maintained argument throughout, you'll seriously be fine. Bring the discussion back to the dictators at least half the essay, if not more, so that you actually answer the question. I'm sure you all did a good job here
Assess the significance of the Battle of El Alamein as a turning point in the European conflict This question was for the true Modern History battlers. I never, ever would have picked it; for some reason, I always hated El Alamein and the whole African conflict altogether. I could just never place it properly in the war, in terms of significance, and that is exactly what you needed to do here. A general discussion of turning points was a good idea, but the bulk of your response needed to be specifically abotu El Alamein (presumably, the second battle, however an in-depth discussion of both wouldn't go astray).
This is one of the sections that I promptly forgot about following my HSC, because I hated it so much, but I'd love you to share your thoughts below! If you chose it, you must be a Modern History god, so I'm sure you smashed it. What did you include? What was your thesis?
So, those are my thoughts! You fucking did it! Smashed the hardest exam in your HSC! We're here to help you for the rest of your exams, so chat about Modern below, and ask questions about any other subjects around the rest of the forum. It's all free, it's easy as to get answers, so why not get a leg up in your HSC exam?
Peace out fam
Home
Help
Search
Login
Topic: Modern History Exam Discussion Thread! (Read 16237 times)