General Thoughts: Modern History (2 Viewers)

[Lolzipops]

I did the Germany part a question, think I stuffed it up by taking a negative line to it though saying it was only true to a 'small extent':l
I talked about how opposition was present in the beginning-> talked about the Beer Hall Putsch, how the army oppossed Hitler's plans/showed that their was still overall support for democracy. (democracy successful and provided opposition during the golden period, as the elites dealt with the middle parties when the situation was acceptable)

Then I talked about Hitler's involvment in the anti-young plan causing him to become more prominent, historian quote in here.

Talked about the impact of the great depression and how this caused political polarisation and the rise of support for extremist parties (stats on the KPD, communists)

Talked about his campaign before the election where he flew to 50 cities to gain support. This having to be done indicates the opposition present and how he had to convince people of the Nazi cause.

Stats where he gained 37.5% of seats the in Reichstag in 1932, which can be seen as a majority but the issue of proportional representation meant many parties were getting seats and therefore the amount of opposition was small yet it still exisited.

The deal with Hitler, papen and Hindenburg that led him being elected as Chancellor.

Talked then about how before he became Fuhrer he abolished all opposition through the use of intimitation (SA) and taking advantage of teh Reichstag fire to play up the threat of communism.

Then concluded that to take power he had to defeat his opponents, and the lack of oponents was only present after he became Chancellor and that the lack of opposition was more signifianct in relation to him maintaining power rather than gaining it.
I'm wrong aren't I?
gah

I'm praying you're correct because that's pretty much what I did (although you did have some more intelligent lines of argument in yours!).

 

[Cheesecake_a]

^Ah okay, so all those talking part a, I did similar to you guys. I think that you could talk about it however you like, as long as you can back it up. I mean, something one person mentioned above I didn't use, so I got worried, but then again, it is up to the individual what they think is important in their argument, not everyone will use the same events/evidence.

But I think maybe I will stop reading what other people did now, because then I get really worried lol.

 

[DeeDazza]

I thought the Germany and Conflict in Europe questions were great!

I liked the Germany questions, but not Conflict in Europe. My teacher was terrible and didn't even teach us about Operation Barbarosa!

 

[MK888]

I think negativley arguging the quesiton may have stuffed me up, I should have made more emphasis on the fact that their wasn't a diffeent strong political party. Oh well, goodbye band 6 :/

 

[ArguablyMitch]

Was it just the military/economic/political strategies as well as A bomb?

As long as you related those to why their advance could not be maintained, then sure. I talked about Japan's poor planning, technological inferiority, and internal/leadership issues as well as how America's superiority in these areas allowed them to halt and then reverse Japan's advance and cause defeat by taking the fight to Japanese shores.

 

[teganjoyy]

I thought the Indochina questions were great, I did b, accounting for communist victory, there was so much to talk about!

 

[purplelamp]

I think negativley arguging the quesiton may have stuffed me up, I should have made more emphasis on the fact that their wasn't a diffeent strong political party. Oh well, goodbye band 6 :/

As long as you had a sustained argument and linked to the question, I'm sure it won't matter which way you argued, especially if you used historiography like you said! As long as you didn't dismiss the question, I'm positive you'll be fine. Hitler had plenty of opposition, the KPD and the social democrats to name two parties. The strength of those parties is questionable, but even Hindenburg himself opposed Hitler, needing Papen to be vice chancellor in order to trust him. Your line of argument sounds pretty logical to me. I answered part b) because it seemed like a more straightforward question at the time

 

[tnek95]

before the exam : "hope they don't give two questions on hitler, and nothing on the turning points of wwii"
Reading time: * screams inside

 

[kiwigirl159]

I was so pleased when I read the questions... Predicted every single one for Germany and conflict in Europe
I said to my friend before we walked it, "it'll either be this or this..." and I was right!!! Haha
Fingers crossed for when the marks come out!!!

 

[inJust]

I was so pleased when I read the questions... Predicted every single one for Germany and conflict in Europe
I said to my friend before we walked it, "it'll either be this or this..." and I was right!!! Haha
Fingers crossed for when the marks come out!!!

I guess someone beat me then...

 

[inJust]

double post*

 

[TheOptimist]

WW1: Fine
Russia: Had trouble between picking between the two Qs! Would have traded doing an Indochina question to do both! SO it was good
Personality: No idea that was pretty weird, freaked out over factors cause it wasn't three events, really bizarre both Qs were like part b normally, but no quote. I find the A part was fine, but B my answer was a little all over the shop.
Indochina: Hahaha I didn't really like either Q, think it went a bit too narrative in the structure.

Overall, highish band 5 perhaps hopefully.

Hahah, exactly this

 

[doormatt2012]

I generally think the Modern History exam is relatively ok. Section I focused on the home front at the start of the war, so it was pretty easy referring to and comparing the sources. For Section II, I chose a) from the Germany option, however I don't think I went too well in that section as I think my essay eventually turned into a recount of events...

Section III was ok, but it's pretty hard to remember how Albert Speer had a positive impact on his times, and trying to remember three significant factors resulting in the prominence of Speer was proving to be difficult.

However, Section IV was where I thrived. I have chosen b) from the Conflict in Indochina option and it has to be one of the most straightforward questions that I have ever received. It was easy to "account for the Communist victory in the Second Indochina War" as I have done that essay question or a similar essay question before. As I think that question was a no-brainer, I'm generally confident about that question and that I think I'm going to get a good mark for it.

In summary, the exam was a thoroughly good one, and although I believe that I should've made a better response in some of the questions, I think that I'm going to do relatively well for that exam.
trollface.jpg

 

[ocstew]

Core: Some multiple choice questions were vague, like the intention of the poster.
Russia: Consolidation of power - the cliched Russia question - Not particularly sure how I did though
Personality: Pretty straight forward with Trotsky
Indochina: Account for the Communist Victory up to 1975. Basically why did the North win. I did Strengths of the North, Impact of anti-war movements on the US decision to withdraw and negotiate, and Southern/US weaknesses politically and militarily. Pretty straight forward

 

[brarbie95]

I thought it was a very nice exam!
wwi was pretty easy, a lot of the time i end up getting 9 for usefulness and reliability so i went a bit hardout with the 10 marker and wrote 3 extra pages LOL using freaking "perspective" and "bias" 0935092850235 times, with the 8 markers, i only saw "varied" written near the end so i had to add another page to talk about pacifists and women lobbying and everything
so hopefully 23-25/25

trotsky- reallllllly good, i was sorta happy that it wasnt ur usual question because now everyone had to think on the spot haha but idk my teacher said there would be a very broad range of factors, and the second question was great, thanks to trots i was able to agree and disagree so hopefully 23-25/25 for personality

Russia - i did the soviet foreign policy question, but i was told off for storytelling in a similar task at school so i didnt really mention too much factual detail and instead just talked shitloads about ideological aims vs pragmatism so hopefully 22-24/25

Cold War- AMEN! the only crisis i studied for the Cold War was afghanistan because of how interesting the mujahedin are! i forgot some facts here and there such as the leader of the adpa, but all in all there were only 2-3 points in the syllabus about the impact so i had an agreement and a slight disagreement where some cool afghan historian said that afghanistan sped things up because shit went craycray!
22-24/25
all in all, pretty good
hopefully hsc mark of 93-96, BEST OF LUCK EVERYONE

 

[Ryan_T90]

World War I - Great section, very easy to smash out some good answers. I think I may have stuffed up on the multiple choice question regarding the Red Cross poster.

South Africa (National Study) - The question I chose regarding the South Africa Security Forces was a good question, though I don't think I did fantastic in it, but nor did I do bad.

Nelson Mandela (Personality Study) - I did terrible, only because I didn't space my time out well enough and left only 30 minutes for this section. I managed to get answers down for both questions but they were far from good.

Conflict in Indochina - Fantastic, smashed this section. I did the second question about accounting for the communist victory. It was a very open question and considering I thought it would've been my weakest section, I am over the moon with how I performed.

 

[cornchips1]

OMG THAT RUSSIA QUESTION, PRACTICE TRIUMPHING COMMUNIST THEORY <3333333333333
And Cold War - accounting for detente, also <3

 

[pb1234]

OMG THAT RUSSIA QUESTION, PRACTICE TRIUMPHING COMMUNIST THEORY <3333333333333
And Cold War - accounting for detente, also <3

I thought that the russia question/section was the hardest of the paper! haha what did you write about?

 

[cornchips1]

I thought that the russia question/section was the hardest of the paper! haha what did you write about?

Haha nah it's only because it was the exact same question as my trial and I did weirdly well by bs so I was cheering!

Mostly that a dominant concern during the Bolshevik consolidation of power was essentially survival of the regime and so how that really shaped the political and social policies implemented, it was a reflection of the domestic situation of Russia and thus resulted in practicality triumphing as it secured Bolshevik survival. So, like talked about Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which was frowned upon as it was a practical measure that oversaw theory as it meant associating with an imperialist and capitalist nation and thus stifled the international revolution. Then like, War Communism which was stemmed from communist theory but as it devastated the proletariat who were the main supporters of the Bolsheviks and then they started to resist due the poor living conditions imposed thus threatening the Bolshevik survival and consolidation so they had to implement NEP. NEP was very much practical rather than ideological, it implemented capitalist ordeals: private land ownership, self-profit etc. Though it was necessary to revive the large working class and to thus upkeep the main supporters of the Bolsheviks and therefore it allowed their survival/continuation of their consolidation of power.

Sorry that was a massive brain dump. I hope that's the last time I have to ever write that out Sure you did great! It's over. WOO.

 

[pb1234]

Haha nah it's only because it was the exact same question as my trial and I did weirdly well by bs so I was cheering!

Mostly that a dominant concern during the Bolshevik consolidation of power was essentially survival of the regime and so how that really shaped the political and social policies implemented, it was a reflection of the domestic situation of Russia and thus resulted in practicality triumphing as it secured Bolshevik survival. So, like talked about Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which was frowned upon as it was a practical measure that oversaw theory as it meant associating with an imperialist and capitalist nation and thus stifled the international revolution. Then like, War Communism which was stemmed from communist theory but as it devastated the proletariat who were the main supporters of the Bolsheviks and then they started to resist due the poor living conditions imposed thus threatening the Bolshevik survival and consolidation so they had to implement NEP. NEP was very much practical rather than ideological, it implemented capitalist ordeals: private land ownership, self-profit etc. Though it was necessary to revive the large working class and to thus upkeep the main supporters of the Bolsheviks and therefore it allowed their survival/continuation of their consolidation of power.

Sorry that was a massive brain dump. I hope that's the last time I have to ever write that out Sure you did great! It's over. WOO.

haha lucky! yeah it looks like i touched on everything you mentioned, so it should be okay.