History MC (1 Viewer)

[studentcheese]

Okay. From 'skwirk' it shows that the party Menzies led was named the Liberal Country Coalition. Back in those days, maybe it was called that. (I'm not really sure. Just guessing)

Check here: http://www.skwirk.com.au/p-c_s-14_u...period/prime-minister-and-policies-1945-1972- It

And with the Labor Party.. They did not support the bill or referendum.

Quote from Retroactive 2: 'The bill was challenged by ten trade unions and the Australian Labour Party for violating human rights.'
Quote from Wikipedia: 'At first his leadership went well and he campaigned successfully against Menzies's attempt to amend the Constitution to ban the Communist Party. Many moderates in the Labor Party believed this was both bad politics and bad policy because of the active communist opposition to Labor within trade unions and because of the threat to national security posed by communists.'
(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._V._Evatt)

Hence, I believe the answer to be Liberal Country Coalition

 

[bemer]

Okay. From 'skwirk' it shows that the party Menzies led was named the Liberal Country Coalition. Back in those days, maybe it was called that. (I'm not really sure. Just guessing)

Check here: http://www.skwirk.com.au/p-c_s-14_u-117_t-320_c-1087/robert-menzies/nsw/robert-menzies/power-people-and-politics-in-the-post-war-period/prime-minister-and-policies-1945-1972- It

And with the Labor Party.. They did not support the bill or referendum.

Quote from Retroactive 2: 'The bill was challenged by ten trade unions and the Australian Labour Party for violating human rights.'
Quote from Wikipedia: 'At first his leadership went well and he campaigned successfully against Menzies's attempt to amend the Constitution to ban the Communist Party. Many moderates in the Labor Party believed this was both bad politics and bad policy because of the active communist opposition to Labor within trade unions and because of the threat to national security posed by communists.'
(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._V._Evatt)

Hence, I believe the answer to be Liberal Country Coalition

were exactli does it say that and nyways those labor parties didnt form till the 1950s so yeh

 

[speedofsound]

Okay. From 'skwirk' it shows that the party Menzies led was named the Liberal Country Coalition. Back in those days, maybe it was called that. (I'm not really sure. Just guessing)

Check here: http://www.skwirk.com.au/p-c_s-14_u-117_t-320_c-1087/robert-menzies/nsw/robert-menzies/power-people-and-politics-in-the-post-war-period/prime-minister-and-policies-1945-1972- It

And with the Labor Party.. They did not support the bill or referendum.

Quote from Retroactive 2: 'The bill was challenged by ten trade unions and the Australian Labour Party for violating human rights.'
Quote from Wikipedia: 'At first his leadership went well and he campaigned successfully against Menzies's attempt to amend the Constitution to ban the Communist Party. Many moderates in the Labor Party believed this was both bad politics and bad policy because of the active communist opposition to Labor within trade unions and because of the threat to national security posed by communists.'
(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._V._Evatt)

Hence, I believe the answer to be Liberal Country Coalition

It wasn't called the Liberal Country Coalition back then, as Menzies was the founder of the Liberal Party. It's impossible for it to be that.

I can't remember where I found the statement that Labor Party supported the bill/referendum, must've been some papers from school. But this is what's in my notes:

Labor supported the bill (in an attempt to make it seem that they were not communist). However, they were concerned the bill took away freedom of beliefs and speech and a person accused of being a communist had to prove innocence (as opposed to the usual innocent until proven guilty).

 

[victoria10]

It wasn't called the Liberal Country Coalition back then, as Menzies was the founder of the Liberal Party. It's impossible for it to be that.

I can't remember where I found the statement that Labor Party supported the bill/referendum, must've been some papers from school. But this is what's in my notes:

Labor supported the bill (in an attempt to make it seem that they were not communist). However, they were concerned the bill took away freedom of beliefs and speech and a person accused of being a communist had to prove innocence (as opposed to the usual innocent until proven guilty).

this was the question i did eenie meenie mynie mo with. lol
i couldnt remember so that was my next guess.

 

[studentcheese]

lol okay. I'm confused. That's two marks gone so far

 

[speedofsound]

haha I'll ask my History teacher about it tomorrow, she'll know- she's the best

 

[b00m]

I put

1. Korea - thoguht that was fairly obvious
2. First - true, 2nd False (yep, the guy with the sign .. forward defence policy)
3. Moratorium march...... looks like i got it wrong >.<" !?!?!

 

[pandaemon]

oh hey guys, about the vietnam war protesters, i noticed one of them held up a sign saying "fight in vietnam or in your backyard" and thats pretty much a pro-war slogan, so that woul;d technically make it a display of "a wide variety of views".. right...?

 

[bemer]

oh hey guys, about the vietnam war protesters, i noticed one of them held up a sign saying "fight in vietnam or in your backyard" and thats pretty much a pro-war slogan, so that woul;d technically make it a display of "a wide variety of views".. right...?

BUT HE/SHE HAD sos BANNER ON

 

[x jiim]

Hmm, I thought they were just standing behind the SOS people. It couldn't have been Moratorium, because Moratorium was in 70-71, and the photo was dated 66 [or something like that]. The guy with the sign had a different view to the mothers, as he was pro-fighting over there instead of over here, and if they need conscripts then so be it. Well, that's what I thought, anyway.

 

[pandaemon]

BUT HE/SHE HAD sos BANNER ON

no, the fat lady on the left had the banner. this guy was on the right and you couldnt see his face since he was standing behind another anti-war protestor. but you could see his sign though.

 

[akrinis]

oh hey guys, about the vietnam war protesters, i noticed one of them held up a sign saying "fight in vietnam or in your backyard" and thats pretty much a pro-war slogan, so that woul;d technically make it a display of "a wide variety of views".. right...?

Weren't that guy standing next to one of those SOS ladies? Personally, if I were marching in a protest, I wouldn't be near someone whose views' differs greatly from my own.

And about the sign.. I think what he was trying to say was, fight on your own soil, in your own country.

 

[x jiim]

And about the sign.. I think what he was trying to say was, fight on your own soil, in your own country.

The sign said "Vietnam, or your backyard." [well, something like that]. Going by what we learnt about forward defence, people believed that threats to Australia should be met as far away from the mainland as possible. I think he's suggesting that fighting and defeating [well, they hoped] the communists in Vietnam is preferable to potentially having to defend Australia against invasion in[/in] Australia.

 

[Cardea]

And about the sign.. I think what he was trying to say was, fight on your own soil, in your own country.

That's how I interpreted it! I didn't see it the other way.. so I circled both statements are true. I do indeed think it's wrong now. One mark down the drain..

 

[studentcheese]

You people are overthinking this.

 

[ASNSWR127]

Okay, what were the answers to these questions... :S

1) Said something like, what war did Australian participate in, in an United Nations combat against communism... was it Korea or Vietnam? I wrote Vietnam, but crossed it out and put Korea because I thought Vietnam was just the US...

2) The "statement I is true, statement II is false, etc" question... were both statements true? I hope so.

3) And the question, which best describes a conscientious objector? Was it the one about someone who marches in a moratorium or the one about someone who refuses military call up on moral grounds?

The first question is of course inherently false in its asking - they were fighting against state capitalism not communism... that aside.

um it was definetaly Nth Korea - that was the only action which was sanctified by the UN, this is because the USSR was out having a sook and china was not part of the security council.

no more info on the second ones - don't know the questions...

then 3rd one was certainly the 2nd option

cheers

 

[pandaemon]

Weren't that guy standing next to one of those SOS ladies? Personally, if I were marching in a protest, I wouldn't be near someone whose views' differs greatly from my own.

And about the sign.. I think what he was trying to say was, fight on your own soil, in your own country.

nah, it happens a lot. they try upstaging each other's protests by comin in themselves...

 

[hc.pmt]

do you remember why you put the second one false?

I did the same as you Speed of Sound

the second one was false because it states "all people in the source were against war" or something along those lines.
but in the source there was some guy holding a poster that said "fight communism in Vietnam. or your own backyard / soil" -- if i remember correctly.

i fluked the SC, but overall it was relatively easy. maths was easiest.

 

[speedofsound]

We went through the MC in History today with answers, the native title question is C. traditions and customs.

Although one question we didn't have a definite answer for was the one "what does source F suggest about why we went to Vietnam?" and the two options we were debating between were "to support South Vietnam" and "to show loyalty for the US and LBJ".

 

[bemer]

We went through the MC in History today with answers, the native title question is C. traditions and customs.

Although one question we didn't have a definite answer for was the one "what does source F suggest about why we went to Vietnam?" and the two options we were debating between were "to support South Vietnam" and "to show loyalty for the US and LBJ".

our teacher says 2 support vietnam
and it is true/false
and provides a range of views about the war for the qn after it