General Thoughts: Modern History (1 Viewer)

[Currlz]

i am not whining. i am asking for advice and if some1 actually gave me advice for like 10th time then i may not have "fucked it"

I was agreeing with you..what advice do you want?

 

[S o r - P o r]

Yeah well 1967 war shaping conflict is the main thing...so fucking learn to learn yos huit !

geez. i just wanted to express my thoughts, no need to get so defensive.

 

[Brontozaurus]

I think it went well, particularly in the personality questions. B was basically a rehash of A with some analysis thrown in-we didn't even have to mention the whole 'penitent Nazi' deal with Speer. The essay questions were great-I saw the conflict in North Africa one and went YES because I knew how it related to the rest of the European War and the Allied victory.

For the first essay, I did A. I argued that while the weaknesses in Weimer contributed to the growth of the Nazi party by driving people towards it, they did not contribute to their final rise to power-rather, all the shady deals that got Hitler the chancellorship did. For that, I wrote about 8 pages, and for the second, I did about 7. I'm not a fast writer, so I tried to make sure that I included enough detail while keeping within time contraints.

I did the national studies essay first, then the WWI source analysis (because I could do that quickly), then the conflict essay, then the personality, which I juuust managed to finish.

 

[vantastic]

anybody else feel that 'write a biography' was a bit general? i could've used the full 45 minutes for that section! part b kinda felt like i was repeating myself in some ways, but the analysis was pretty good

 

[driaxx]

CHINA? for the origins???

shit im scared now.

 

[Freshjiver]

I thought the question fitted well for Speer. I said that he was a product of his timein the sense that he was invlved in antisemitism, and this wouldn't of occurrd if he wasn't living during the third Reich. And then I used historical perspectives to solidify that he was a product of his time as he was guilty of what was occurijg around him?

I sort of get what you mean.

But what i did for Speer was like;

I firstly defined what "times" aka contexts meant for Speer, like; the love of hitler, conflicts, anti-semitism etc.

Then i went through and used i think 8 historians, and each of their relevant views on whether he was a 'product of his time'.

For example, Van Der Vat believed that Speer was definitely a product of his time, as he was of the belief that speer was an anti-semitist and a participator in the horrors of nazi germany.

On the other hand, Joachim Fest believed that Speer was more of an individual; since he percieved Speer as an 'apolitical technocrat', ie someone completely focused on his work and not political in any way, he was not swept up in the times around him.

So yeah, and i used other historians and linked their own views to the statement.

My conclusion alluded to the idea that certain elements of Speer can be thought upon as making him a product of his time, yet other beliefs about him lead the scholar of history to think that maybe he was different.

 

[untitled....]

I sort of get what you mean.

But what i did for Speer was like;

I firstly defined what "times" aka contexts meant for Speer, like; the love of hitler, conflicts, anti-semitism etc.

Then i went through and used i think 8 historians, and each of their relevant views on whether he was a 'product of his time'.

For example, Van Der Vat believed that Speer was definitely a product of his time, as he was of the belief that speer was an anti-semitist and a participator in the horrors of nazi germany.

On the other hand, Joachim Fest believed that Speer was more of an individual; since he percieved Speer as an 'apolitical technocrat', ie someone completely focused on his work and not political in any way, he was not swept up in the times around him.

So yeah, and i used other historians and linked their own views to the statement.

My conclusion alluded to the idea that certain elements of Speer can be thought upon as making him a product of his time, yet other beliefs about him lead the scholar of history to think that maybe he was different.

You just made me feel like shit...

 

[ajk92]

I sort of get what you mean.

But what i did for Speer was like;

I firstly defined what "times" aka contexts meant for Speer, like; the love of hitler, conflicts, anti-semitism etc.

Then i went through and used i think 8 historians, and each of their relevant views on whether he was a 'product of his time'.

For example, Van Der Vat believed that Speer was definitely a product of his time, as he was of the belief that speer was an anti-semitist and a participator in the horrors of nazi germany.

On the other hand, Joachim Fest believed that Speer was more of an individual; since he percieved Speer as an 'apolitical technocrat', ie someone completely focused on his work and not political in any way, he was not swept up in the times around him.

So yeah, and i used other historians and linked their own views to the statement.

My conclusion alluded to the idea that certain elements of Speer can be thought upon as making him a product of his time, yet other beliefs about him lead the scholar of history to think that maybe he was different.

Fest only thought Speer was an apolotical technocrat when the office chronicle wasnt presented to him. i watched "the devils architect" about speer and hitler and Fest said "he hoodwinked us all"- meaning he didnt think Speer was apolotical.

but i think your overall argument is still pretty sweet

 

[staplers...YAY]

anybody else feel that 'write a biography' was a bit general? i could've used the full 45 minutes for that section! part b kinda felt like i was repeating myself in some ways, but the analysis was pretty good

Totally agree! I felt like I was just re-writing the first answer with some analysis and the extra line -'thus Kollontai was a product of her time'.

But overall, great exam.

Almost began purring when I read it...wonderful. Did anyone else do Russia/Kollontai/Cold War?? Only myself and another girl in a group of 31 picked Kollontai over Trotsky. Was it the same for anyone else?

 

[annabackwards]

Totally agree! I felt like I was just re-writing the first answer with some analysis and the extra line -'thus Kollontai was a product of her time'.

But overall, great exam.

Almost began purring when I read it...wonderful. Did anyone else do Russia/Kollontai/Cold War?? Only myself and another girl in a group of 31 picked Kollontai over Trotsky. Was it the same for anyone else?

I only learnt Trotsky so i only picked Trotsky

 

[Pyrokinetic]

I only learnt Trotsky so i only picked Trotsky

There were people who studied more than one personality?

 

[annabackwards]

There were people who studied more than one personality?

Most only do one, but some would learn 2 and just pick the one they want on the day. I also know a few people who learn whole topics for subjects like chem and physics and do the same thing XD

Of course learning someone else aside from Trotsky isn't hard if you're doing Russia/USSR seeing as most of his life is intertwined with the origins of Bolshevism ^^

 

[Pyrokinetic]

Most only do one, but some would learn 2 and just pick the one they want on the day. I also know a few people who learn whole topics for subjects like chem and physics and do the same thing XD

Of course learning someone else aside from Trotsky isn't hard if you're doing Russia/USSR seeing as most of his life is intertwined with the origins of Bolshevism ^^

More so with the practical application of Bolshevism into Russian polity & Stalin's rise to power though, but yeah the study of Trotsky forms the backbone of the USSR syllabus.

Although don't see why there would be a need to learn another personality in MH especially if you did the USSR topic, you'd have to be a real pedant. There really is only Kollontai and Trotsky to choose from given that the two personality questions are always of the same style - requiring similar analysis.

Whereas for the sciences its a random handful of dot points and learning more than 1 option would cover your bases..

Meh.

 

[annabackwards]

More so with the practical application of Bolshevism into Russian polity & Stalin's rise to power though, but yeah the study of Trotsky forms the backbone of the USSR syllabus.

Although don't see why there would be a need to learn another personality in MH especially if you did the USSR topic, you'd have to be a real pedant. There really is only Kollontai and Trotsky to choose from given that the two personality questions are always of the same style - requiring similar analysis.

Whereas for the sciences its a random handful of dot points and learning more than 1 option would cover your bases..

Meh.

If i'm right, Tsar Nicholas II is another personality that you could study seeing as we learn him in year 11 ^^

When i said people learning more than one option for science, i mean like in physics where people learn Quanta to Quarks at school and decide to teach themselves the Astrophysics option at home XD

But yeah, whatever floats your boat i guess.

 

[cem]

If i'm right, Tsar Nicholas II is another personality that you could study seeing as we learn him in year 11 ^^

When i said people learning more than one option for science, i mean like in physics where people learn Quanta to Quarks at school and decide to teach themselves the Astrophysics option at home XD

But yeah, whatever floats your boat i guess.

Nicholas II is NOT on the HSC syllabus which is why you were able to study him in Year 11.

The Russian/Soviet personalites are Trotsky, Kollantai and Gorbachev.

 

[annabackwards]

Nicholas II is NOT on the HSC syllabus which is why you were able to study him in Year 11.

The Russian/Soviet personalites are Trotsky, Kollantai and Gorbachev.

Oh i see

But then how come i learnt about Ho Chi Minh in year 11 when it's in year 12? Or are we allowed to do that if we're not doing that option in year 12?

 

[cem]

Oh i see

But then how come i learnt about Ho Chi Minh in year 11 when it's in year 12? Or are we allowed to do that if we're not doing that option in year 12?

If you did the topic De-colonisation in Indo-China then a study of Ho would be essential (just as a study of the Fall of the Romanovs would necessitate a study of Nicholas II).

De-colonisation is a study on the Preliminary course but you shouldn't have taken Ho past 1954 until the Year 12 course.

 

[annabackwards]

If you did the topic De-colonisation in Indo-China then a study of Ho would be essential (just as a study of the Fall of the Romanovs would necessitate a study of Nicholas II).

De-colonisation is a study on the Preliminary course but you shouldn't have taken Ho past 1954 until the Year 12 course.

Ah, thanks for clearing that up ^^

 

[Eddo003]

yeah i thought modern was a pretty decent exam.
sounds like im the only one who did china for national study, zhu de for personality and arab-israeli. i'm only a small writer when it comes to exams so i dont smash out the numbers of pages many of you guys do but ive always done pretty well in class essays and practice ones so its not really much of a worry for me.
i found wwi pretty easy hey? what did people write for the second section of it about the stalemate? i just used the schlieffen plan sources as a base then talked about the 'race to the sea' and how defence became the most important factor as well as artillery and new war technologies

 

[lionking1191]

so it was stalemate this year? damn i'd loved to have gotten stalemate