Modern History Exam Discussion (and Suggested Answers!)

[spragg_j]

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*!  (please appreciate what I just did there honestly some of my greatest work)

Section I - Core Study: World War I

MULTIPLE 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 ;(

[~BK~]

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

[herb123]

damn i practically based my Germany essay on totalitarianism just moulded slighlty to the q, but i mainly used the totalitarian models  to structure my essayis that fine?

[spragg_j]

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

thx!!

[mersinah]

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!

[rodero]

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!

The question for the source analysis did require your own knowledge as well as the source. If you made explicit references to the source then the marker could potentially count that and give you the full 3. Otherwise, you would probably get a 2/3 at most. For incorrect detail, markers can only give marks, they cannot take away marks. For that reason, they won't mark you down for incorrect detail, they simply won't count it. However, when seeing incorrect detail it could potentially leave a negative sentiment for the rest of your essay.

[Zamura1]

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!

In trials, I gave a great answer to a 3 marker, however, the teacher said all i needed to say 'Source C shows' to get 3/3, instead of 2. It may be different in HSC but unfortunately, i think you may be capped at 2.

[mixel]

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?

[dancing phalanges]

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

[mixel]

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?

[dancing phalanges]

Ah thanks for the reply. What other dot points do you think it was on?

It's hard to tell, I think it was just asking about total control rather than totalitarian but really there shouldn't be any reason you would lose more than 1 mark at the most. In all reality, by the sounds of what you said earlier, you'll probably get 25 anyway!

[Treesap1]

Hey,
For the Cold War Question, I discussed a paragraph on the 1945 conferences where communist ideology affected Stalin's negotiating position and led to the development of Cold War. Is it alright to mention the origins because it doesn't specify from when to discuss the development of Cold War. Thanks