Modern History Exam Discussion (and Suggested Answers!)

[Korrasami]

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.

[Zainbow]

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?

[dancing phalanges]

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?

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

[_____]

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?

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)

[sudodds]

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

[Pickle00]

Does anyone remember the exact question for Germany part b.? it was about total control but i cant remember the exact question

[Dylpickle01]

Does anyone remember the exact question for Germany part b.? it was about total control but i cant remember the exact question

The ATARNotes guys have already got a copy of the exam up! Here it is: https://atarnotes.com/forum/index.php?topic=174397.msg991735#msg991735

[flashguts321]

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

I get your point of view on it. So far I've asked around and everyone has put C so if it is B nearly everyone will have gotten it wrong which is a shame. I'm still of the point of view it's C though (more hopeful than anything!). I was pretty confident in the exam of that answer although now not sure.

[_____]

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

The way I look at it, source B never mentions "tactical successes." It mentions tactics, which succeeded in the short term, as you said, but not that they actually succeeded. This is a "from the source" not "from the source and your own knowledge" question so I don't think it's reasonable for them to think we can jump to that conclusion (the storm trooper stuff is pretty obscure for the regular student), which is why I believe it's C.

[Zainbow]

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?

[dancing phalanges]

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
and german u-boats sunk american and allied supplies and eating less bread was a way that all people could help out because not all can help in the industry/factories by making more to combat the u-boats so the wheat thing is a simple way call can be involved and help

[sudodds]

OKAY SO THATS A BASIC OUTLINE OF ALL MY SOLUTIONS COMPLETE* <3

I'll go back later and write more specific answers to the Source Analysis, Russia, Trotsky and Cold War

Good work everyone! Overall I think it was a pretty good paper! Super proud of all of you for getting through it, and from what I'm seeing with people's responses, absolutely smashing it!! Keen to go through now and hear how people went

*I've added an annotation question 3, suggesting C to be a possible answer! I'm still pretty sure it's B, however, as C appears to be the consensus, and it very well is still an entirely logical answer, I think it should be recognised So don't freak out if you put C. I could very well be wrong saying B, or, even if B is correct, due to the sheer volume of C students (as it appears to be the more popular answer) NESA may take into consideration that it was a poorly worded question

[Microsoft Word]

Question 3 is C.

Source B is basically just "demoralised soldiers + lack of resources = obvious Allied victory", it mentions nothing of any victory or anything specifically about the L-offensive. With that being said, it said on the 3rd para: "the increasingly weakened German Army was forced back to Mons" and on the 2nd para "the roles were reversed" - it being that Germany now had less firepower and arms to combat the Allies. Hence, they were 'less effective'.

[sudodds]

HOLY MOLY

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

It's over YAY

Wahooo!!! 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.

I think section one was the hardest section (at least it would have been for me last year). I think that some of the questions and options for the MC were a bit weirdly worded, and that the 7 mark response should have mentioned events leading to armistice more specifically, as I think it would have confused a lot of people as to which dot point they were referring too. So don't worry, you're not alone in thinking it was tricky! And yes, you made it through and that is all that matters

I'm sure you smashed it, great work!

Susie

[Microsoft Word]

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.