1. Home
Print this page Reduce font size Increase font size

2011 HSC Notes from the Marking Centre – Modern History

Contents

Introduction

This document has been produced for the teachers and candidates of the Stage 6 course in Modern History. It contains comments on responses to the 2011 Higher School Certificate examination, indicating the quality of the responses and highlighting their relative strengths and weaknesses.

This document should be read along with the relevant syllabus, the 2011 Higher School Certificate examination, the marking guidelines and other support documents developed by the Board of Studies to assist in the teaching and learning of Modern History.

General comments

Teachers and candidates should be aware that examiners may ask questions that address the syllabus outcomes in a manner that requires candidates to respond by integrating their knowledge, understanding and skills developed through studying the course.

Candidates need to be aware that the marks allocated to the question and the answer space (where this is provided on the examination paper) are guides to the length of the required response. A longer response will not in itself lead to higher marks. Writing far beyond the indicated space may reduce the time available for answering other questions.

Candidates need to be familiar with the Board’s Glossary of Key Words, which contains some terms commonly used in examination questions. However, candidates should also be aware that not all questions will start with, or contain, one of the key words from the glossary. Questions such as ‘how?’, ‘why?’ or ‘to what extent?’ may be asked, or verbs may be used that are not included in the glossary, such as ‘design’, ‘translate’ or ‘list’.

Section I – World War I 1914–1919

Question 5

Most candidates had no difficulties in identifying two dangers faced by soldiers in the trenches during World War I from the photographic source. A very small number of candidates also included extra information that was not required. Candidates are reminded to read the question carefully to ensure that they only do what is required.

Question 9

Candidates accessed information from both sources B and C and their own knowledge, to outline the strategies and tactics used to break the stalemate on the Western Front. In better responses, candidates linked their own knowledge to information from both sources to answer the question.

In weaker responses, candidates did not refer to both sources or shared limited knowledge. Some candidates tended to simply describe the Western Front or the weapons used in trench warfare.

Question 10

Most candidates made a judgement about the usefulness of both sources C and D, and made reference to the sources’ perspectives and reliability in relation to the focus of the question.

In weaker responses, candidates confused usefulness and reliability, and some focused too much on strategies and tactics. Some misunderstood the question and discussed conditions in the trenches.

Section II – National Studies

General comments

Most candidates used detailed, relevant historical knowledge and addressed the question asked, demonstrating an understanding of the key features and issues of the question. In better responses, candidates made a clear judgement and sustained and developed that judgement throughout.

Weaker responses were very general or a narrative. Candidates were not required to use historiography in their responses and its poor use detracted from the effectiveness of some responses.

The three most popular options studied by candidates were Germany 1918–1939, Russia and the Soviet Union 1917–1941, and USA 1919–1941.

Question 12 – Option B: China 1927–1949

  1. In better responses, candidates argued that the Guomindang (GMD/Kuomintang) had limited success in resolving political issues and made a value judgement about how economic and social issues were resolved. Although some responses referred to historians in their answers, this was not a necessary requirement for this question.

    In weaker responses, candidates narrated events related to the Nationalist Government and one or more of the political, economic or social issues. In these responses, candidates did not make a judgement about the accuracy of the statement or deal with the issues raised in any depth.

  2. Most candidates argued that ideology was a significant factor in the triumph of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) by 1949. In better responses, candidates showed how and why ideology contributed to the triumph of the CCP. Most candidates made comparisons between the CCP’s ideology and practice and GMD’s ideology and practice, to support their argument.

Question 13 – Option C: Germany 1918–1939

  1. In better responses, candidates made a clear judgement about the impact of the Treaty of Versailles on the Weimar Republic and supported this with a sustained argument. Some candidates only focused on the effect of the Treaty of Versailles on the Weimar Republic while others incorporated other additional reasons for the failure of the Weimar Republic.

    In weaker responses, candidates provided a narrative of events relative to the Weimar Republic from 1918 to 1929 without making a judgement about the impact of the Treaty of Versailles on these events, or they discussed the Treaty of Versailles without discussing its impact on the Weimar Republic.

  2. In better responses, candidates presented a sustained argument that addressed the reasons for the initial consolidation of Nazi power in 1933–1934, as well as how this was achieved. They also gave reasons why this initial consolidation took place. They supported their response with comprehensive, accurate historical knowledge. Historiography, while used effectively in some cases, was not a necessary requirement for this question.

    In weaker responses, candidates provided a narrative of events relative to Nazi Germany in this period without giving clear reasons as to why these events occurred. Some candidates discussed a range of events outside the given time period, which was not relevant to the question.

Question 17 – Option G: Russia and the Soviet Union 1917–1941

  1. In better responses, candidates made a clear judgement on the extent of Lenin’s responsibility in the Bolshevik consolidation of power, and sustained and developed that judgement throughout the response. They tended to relate other factors that created this consolidation back to Lenin, giving their response sophistication. Some responses used historiography, although this was not required in this question.

    In weaker responses, candidates tended to narrate how the Bolsheviks consolidated their power or about Lenin’s role without making a clear, sustained judgement about the extent of Lenin’s responsibility in the process. Some responses also contained irrelevant material from periods outside the time frame of consolidation, such as the power struggle or pre-revolutionary period, which was not relevant to the question.

  2. In better responses, candidates demonstrated a clear understanding of Stalinism. They made a clear judgement on the impact of Stalinism on different aspects of the Soviet state (eg economic, political and cultural), and sustained and developed that judgement throughout their answer. These candidates also examined the entire time period right up until 1941.

    In weaker responses, candidates tended to generalise about how Stalin changed aspects of Soviet society, rather than make a judgement on the extent of Stalinism’s impact on different aspects of the Soviet state. These responses tended to be a narration and took a more chronological approach than better responses.

Question 18 – Option H: South Africa 1960–1994

  1. In better responses, candidates discussed the ideology of apartheid and made a well-supported judgement on the extent to which this was evident in practice. Some responses effectively used historians’ views to support their answers, although this was not a requirement of the question.

    In weaker responses, candidates wrote about apartheid in general terms and did not demonstrate an understanding of the ideology of apartheid. These candidates tended to narrate how segregation took place or discussed apartheid before 1960.

  2. In better responses, candidates made a clear assessment of the role of the African National Congress (ANC) and at least one other anti-apartheid movement. In most of these responses, candidates supported the judgement with examples to show how effective these movements were in resisting apartheid.

    In weaker responses, candidates tended to deal with the role of the ANC alone and/or make a generalisation about the weaknesses of apartheid and/or the background history.

Question 19 – Option I: USA 1919–1941

  1. Candidates were required to provide clear reasons why Roosevelt was more successful than Hoover in his attempts to halt the Depression. They needed to be able to demonstrate how each president addressed the problems of the Depression and to support this with detailed, relevant and accurate historical information about Hoover, Roosevelt and the Depression. Historiography was not required in this question.

    In better responses, candidates developed sustained arguments that showed why Roosevelt was more successful than Hoover, drawing on the specific initiatives that impacted positively or negatively on the Depression.

    In weaker responses, candidates tended to provide a narrative on the Depression, Hoover and Roosevelt. Some responses contained extensive detail about the causes of the Depression, which had little relevance to the question.

  2. Candidates were required to clearly articulate the aims of US foreign policy in the period 1919–1941. They needed to make a clear judgement on whether these were achieved. Although reference to historians was not required, responses needed to include relevant, detailed and accurate historical knowledge that supported their argument.

    In better responses, candidates established the aims and, in some cases, how they changed, and incorporated specific detail of US involvement in foreign affairs.

    In weaker responses, candidates tended to provide a chronological narrative of US foreign policy with little or no discussion of its aims.

Section III – Personalities in the Twentieth Century

General comments

The three personalities most commonly studied were Albert Speer, Leni Riefenstahl and Leon Trotsky. Candidates are reminded to clearly identify the two different parts of the question.

Question 20

Albert Speer
  1. In better responses, candidates identified three specific significant events in the life of Albert Speer. These events were described in detail and were supported by a range of relevant and accurate historical terms and concepts.

    In weaker responses, candidates only presented an outline of the life of Speer in varying degrees of detail and with no identification of specific events. These responses also included only general descriptions of two or three events.

  2. In better responses, candidates clearly assessed the contribution of Speer to national and/or international history. These candidates sustained this assessment with a logical and coherent argument throughout, supported by detailed and relevant historical information. Historiography, while not necessary, was integrated effectively into the argument in some of these responses.

    In mid-range responses, candidates tended to rely on a prepared ‘good Nazi’ response or a descriptive narration that only related back to the question intermittently.

    In weaker responses, candidates tended to describe the role of Speer, at times referring to historians, without effectively linking either his role or the historians to the argument. These responses lacked detail and a range of historical concepts.
Leni Riefenstahl
  1. In better responses, candidates were able to identify three specific events in the life of Leni Riefenstahl. The events were presented with detailed descriptions, supported by accurate and relevant historical information.

    In weaker responses, candidates tended to provide limited detail of relevant events, or simply presented a general outline of Riefenstahl’s life.

  2. In better responses, candidates included a clear and well supported assessment of the contribution of Riefenstahl. These candidates were able to integrate historical opinion, with a judgement, in a sustained and logical fashion.

    In mid-range responses, candidates included elements of prepared responses of ‘Leni the filmmaker versus Leni the propagandist’. These candidates tended to present a simplistic argument that was not clearly supported.

    In weaker responses, candidates included a descriptive narrative of the role of Riefenstahl without addressing the question.
Leon Trotsky
  1. In better responses, candidates gave detailed, relevant descriptions of three significant events in the life of Trotsky. The major events of his life were well covered, using accurate and relevant historical information.

    In some mid-range responses, candidates provided a limited description of the life of Trotsky and a shallow outline of relevant events or periods.

    In weaker responses, candidates gave a very limited description or merely an outline of some events. These responses lacked both order and detail.

  2. In better responses, candidates provided a clear assessment of Trotsky’s contribution. These responses were supported by accurate and relevant historical information. Historiography, while effectively used by some candidates, was not essential to achieve marks in the top mark range.
Ho Chi Minh
  1. In better responses, candidates gave detailed information on three significant events, which could have been individual events or a series of thematically linked events.

    In weaker responses, candidates provided a general outline of Ho Chi Minh’s life. These responses lacked accurate, detailed historical information.

  2. In better responses, candidates provided a clear assessment of Ho Chi Minh’s contribution, supported by well structured and accurate, detailed historical information. Candidates were able to achieve marks in the top range without the use of historiography.

    In weaker responses, candidates did not provide any reference to Ho Chi Minh’s contribution to national and/or international history. These responses lacked accurate historical detail. Some candidates attempted to present a communist/nationalist response.
Mikhail Gorbachev
  1. In better responses, candidates provided detailed, relevant descriptions of three significant events in Gorbachev’s life, which contained relevant and accurate historical information.

    In mid-range responses, candidates presented less detail and/or their responses were less relevant.

    In weaker responses, candidates’ answers had serious omissions, presenting only a general description of Gorbachev’s life with limited use of historical information.

  2. This question required an assessment of Gorbachev’s contribution, supported by a sustained, logical and cohesive argument. In better responses, candidates made a clear judgement on Gorbachev’s contribution.

    In mid-range responses, candidates simply provided a chronological account of Gorbachev’s life with a simplistic attempt to relate to the question in the conclusion.
Nelson Mandela
  1. In better responses, candidates presented a detailed, relevant descriptions of three significant events in Mandela’s life.

    In mid-range responses, candidates did not provide sufficient detail or gave a general outline of the life of Mandela.

    In weaker responses, candidates tended to provide a simple narrative of one or two events in Mandela’s life without historical detail.

  2. In better responses, candidates made a clear assessment of the contribution of Mandela to South African and/or international history. Candidates provided a sustained, logical and cohesive argument.

    In mid-range responses, candidates tended to provide a narrative description of Mandela’s life with an attempt to relate this to the question.

    In weaker responses, candidates did not provide detail and often included inaccuracies without addressing the question.

Section IV – International Studies in Peace and Conflict

General comments

The most popular options studied were Conflict in Indochina 1954–1979, Conflict in Europe 1935–1945, Conflict in the Pacific 1937–1951 and the Cold War 1945–1991.

Most candidates demonstrated an appropriate use of terms and concepts and an understanding of the relevant key features. In better responses, candidates sustained a clear judgement throughout and supported their argument with detailed, accurate historical information without the need for historiography.

In weaker responses, candidates provided largely narratives or descriptions without making a judgement.

Question 22 – Option B: Conflict in Europe 1935–1945

  1. In better responses, candidates made a clear judgement, based on a sustained and cohesive assessment, on the effectiveness of the League of Nations to maintain peace in Europe up until 1939. These candidates provided detailed and accurate historical information about key events that clearly demonstrated the effectiveness of the League in the time period.

    In weaker responses, candidates provided a narrative account of events leading up to World War Two. These candidates used only limited historical information, often dealing with the League’s involvement outside Europe or before 1935.

  2. In better responses, candidates addressed the question with a clear evaluation of the significance of D-Day and the liberation of France up until the end of conflict in Europe in 1945. These candidates dealt substantially with both D-Day and the liberation of France and made a judgement on their significance before considering other factors. These candidates clearly identified relevant key features, supported their argument with detailed, accurate historical information, and used terms and concepts appropriately.

    In weaker responses, candidates either focused on the reasons for the Allied victory or provided narratives of key events, such as Operation Barbarossa, and dismissed the significance of the liberation of France in ending the conflict. These responses contained limited historical knowledge.

Question 23 – Option C: Conflict in Indochina 1954–1979

  1. In better responses, candidates presented a sustained and detailed assessment of the importance of nationalism to the Vietnamese up to 1965. These candidates had a comprehensive understanding of the issues raised in the question. For example, these candidates addressed nationalism in both North and South Vietnam. Candidates supported their assessment with appropriate terms and concepts and as well as relevant and accurate historical information.

    Weaker responses were either a narrative or description of the key events of the conflict in Indochina, and often went beyond the time period. These responses were often very  general with limited historical knowledge.

  2. In better responses, candidates provided a sustained evaluation of the consequences of US military involvement in Vietnam. These candidates identified key effects both in Indochina (including Cambodia) and the USA. These candidates presented a sustained and comprehensive argument, were logical, cohesive and well structured in their response, and supported their argument with detailed, accurate and relevant historical information.

    In weaker responses, candidates provided largely descriptions or narratives about key events and issues in Indochina with limited accurate historical knowledge.

Question 24 – Option D: Conflict in the Pacific 1937–1951

  1. In better responses, candidates addressed the question with a clear judgement on ‘to what extent’ Japanese foreign policy was responsible for the increasing tensions that led to war. These candidates presented a sustained and comprehensive argument, were logical, cohesive and well-structured in their response, and supported their argument with detailed, accurate and relevant historical information. Japanese foreign policy was addressed substantially before the analysis and judgement of other factors. In more sophisticated responses, candidates dealt with a range of other factors, including pre-existing tensions, the effect of the Allies’ foreign policies, the European war and conflicting interests.

    In weaker responses, candidates addressed the question with a narration of events from the 1937 Japanese invasion of Manchuria to the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941 and did not make a judgement.

  2. In better responses, candidates provided a sustained argument that made a clear judgement on how successful the Allied Occupation of Japan was in achieving its aims up to 1951. In more sophisticated responses, candidates identified and judged the success of a range of areas of reform, the aims of the Allies, and other external factors such as the spread of the Cold War to Asia. These candidates clearly identified relevant key features, supported their arguments with detailed, accurate historical information, and used terms and concepts appropriately.

    In weaker responses, candidates addressed the question by providing descriptions of the aims and achievements of the Allied Occupation without judging how successful each one was. Some candidates confused the term ‘Allied Occupation’ with ‘Occupied Territories’ or focused on the reasons for the Japanese defeat and did not address the question asked.

Question 25 – Option E: Arab–Israeli Conflict 1948–1996

  1. In better responses, candidates made a clear judgement based on a sophisticated and sustained assessment of the impact of the 1973 Yom Kippur on the Arab–Israeli conflict. These candidates displayed an extensive knowledge and made clear links between the 1973 war and subsequent events.

    In weaker responses, candidates narrated the events of the Arab–Israeli conflict and described the events that followed 1973 rather than assessed the impact of the Yom Kippur War.

  2. In better responses, candidates demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of the significance of Rabin’s assassination and the election of Netanyahu to the peace process. These candidates addressed the significance of these events with a clear judgment that was supported by detailed, relevant and accurate historical information.

    In weaker responses, candidates presented simply a narrative of the peace process in the Arab–Israeli conflict and struggled to explain the significance of Rabin’s assassination and the election of Netanyahu in 1996.

Question 26 – Option F: The Cold War 1945–1991

  1. In better responses, candidates were able to address the question with a comprehensive, sophisticated and sustained assessment of the importance of the arms race to the development of the Cold War up to 1968. These candidates used detailed, relevant and accurate historical information to support their argument. They had a clear understanding of the term ‘development’ and used examples such as Berlin and Cuba in the context of the arms race within the given time period to answer the question. Terms and concepts were used appropriately.

    In weaker responses, candidates provided largely descriptions or narratives of key events or crises, or provided general information on the Cold War.

  2. In better responses, candidates presented a clear judgement that was sustained, logical and coherent. These candidates addressed the question with a definite judgement on the statement’s accuracy, which was supported by detailed, relevant and accurate historical information. They also acknowledged the significance of other factors, such as the role of Reagan and Gorbachev, in their argument.

    In weaker responses, candidates provided largely descriptions or narratives about key Cold War events and issues with limited accurate historical knowledge.
Print this page Reduce font size Increase font size