Prediction for Essays (1 Viewer)

[ccc123]

Yeah, Wiemar is awesome. Im really conting on a Weimar question this year, there has been one every year from 2001 except last year. So definite Weimar? I HOPE!

Yeah i do Indochina, there doesnt really seem to be much of a pattern for that, except i think theres almost always one on American involvment.

Yeah I love Weimer. Techically though, both qs could be from Nazi section. I hate Indochina though. Its repetitive and teaches you nothing but America's need to act as world saviour (and that we already knew)

 

[old.skool.kid]

Yeah but that would be dog to not ask it 2 years in a row!
Na indochina's ok, Pol Pots regime is pretty interesting, but unlikely to get that q.

 

[ccc123]

Yeah but that would be dog to not ask it 2 years in a row!
Na indochina's ok, Pol Pots regime is pretty interesting, but unlikely to get that q.

Actually they've never asked a question on the aims and methods of Pol Pot, which is a syllbus point, so here's hoping.

 

[old.skool.kid]

Well they asked one on Pol Pot last year.
Last years exam was pretty wack.

 

[Xpl0siv3]

Hey just on the section 1 WW1, do we even really need to know anything?
Theres restricted space to write and everything, I've always got almost full marks in this section never studying it, all you do is assess sources n provide a little bit of knowledge...

 

[A.Chair]

Hey just on the section 1 WW1, do we even really need to know anything?
Theres restricted space to write and everything, I've always got almost full marks in this section never studying it, all you do is assess sources n provide a little bit of knowledge...

I think you should study it, just not in as much depth as any of your other topics as you will only need to give your own knowledge for one question worth 10 marks, and half of that is expected to come from the sources they give you. My teacher said that if you only use infrmation from the sources and don't exhibit your own knowledge then the most the HSC markers can give you is a 5 or 6, so i'd say it'd be worth studying for.

 

[biltz]

In reference to Germany:
Initial consolidation 33-34 - never been asked
Role of the German Army in bringing the collapse of the Weimar Republic - never been asked
Perhaps a propaganda and terror in the maintenence of a totalitarian state could be adequate.

 

[Xpl0siv3]

Is it possible for the to ask 2 Weimar questions? I relly didnt revise that at all I'm pretty sure they would have a NAzi question for sure though?

 

[brad616]

on what topic? WW1? i guess it has too be WW1

WW1

-total war
-reasons for allied victory
-asses US involvement and its importance in the allied victory (that was our trial Q)
-treaty of Versailles

I think WW1 will be on the Russian Withdrawal since they have never ever tested it.

 

[brad616]

Hey just on the section 1 WW1, do we even really need to know anything?
Theres restricted space to write and everything, I've always got almost full marks in this section never studying it, all you do is assess sources n provide a little bit of knowledge...

Question 2 requires more than a little bit of knowledge to get 8-10/10 sorry.

 

[knots&crosses]

In reference to Germany:
Initial consolidation 33-34 - never been asked PLEASE
Role of the German Army in bringing the collapse of the Weimar Republic - never been asked PLEASE
Perhaps a propaganda and terror in the maintenence of a totalitarian state PLEASE
could be adequate.

My bet for WW1 is something on the homefronts.

Germany-definitely something about rise to power, ch2. Doubting weimar, just cos its there too often, esp last year, but that one was a beautiful question.

Indochina-Definitely Something directly with the war-Strategies and Tactics, Tet offensive, and the other will be America related. eg- nature and development of US policy, and anti-war movement.
I would not mind a fall of the South q, but hate the hell out of impact dot points. Theres just too many.

 

[JDurrant]

How much could we write on 'role of German army in bringing the collapse of Weimar'.

If there's a Weimar question it will be basic, which is why everyone likes the question.

 

[Kujah]

Lots I guess....ranging from the Ebert-Groener Pact, the influence of von Seeckt in the early years, the election of Hindenburg and the growing impact of army advisors in his inner circle, the political role of von Schleicher and if it extends to the Nazi regime, you got the fact that it was the only insitution that would (initially i.e) have had the capability to thwart Hitler's ambitions, you've got Night of the Long Knives, re-armament, the growing personal influence of Hitler over the Wehrmacht etc etc.

 

[JDurrant]

If it's about army and Weimar, basically useless to mention occurred after they were displaced

 

[Kujah]

Probabaly. But it could be like this year's CSSA trial... the influence of the army on German political life from '18 to '39.

Nazi consolidation would be good though

 

[lucidassembly]

Cold War:

The 2007 paper has Gorbachev's policies and attitudes as one essay choice.

Since it's unlikely that they'd do the same thing twice in a row, do you think they could flip it and make it about Reagan's influence in ending the Cold War?

I haven't read this whole thread, so if this has been covered, my apologies lol.

Any other possible opinions?