1. Home
2. HSC
3. HSC Exams
4. 2012 HSC Exam papers
5. 2012 HSC Notes from the Marking Centre — Modern History

2012 HSC Notes from the Marking Centre – Modern History

Contents

• Introduction
• General comments
• Section I – World War I 1914–1919
• Section II – National Studies
• Section III – Personalities in the Twentieth Century
• Section IV – International Studies in Peace and Conflict

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 2012 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 2012 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 that are not included in the glossary may be used, such as ‘design’, ‘translate’ or ‘list’.

Section I – World War I 1914–1919

Question 2

In most responses, candidates identified reasons why the attitudes to the war in Source A and Source B were different. Candidates could discern several reasons, ranging from time, location/proximity, knowledge of the war, and pro-war and anti-war attitudes.

Question 7

In most responses, candidates accessed information from both Sources A and C and their own knowledge to outline the variety of attitudes to the war and how they changed over time in Britain and Germany. 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 showed limited knowledge. Some candidates described initial attitudes but did not show how those attitudes changed over time.

Question 8

In most responses, candidates made a judgement about the usefulness of both Sources A and D, and made reference to the sources’ perspectives and reliability in relation to the focus of the question, recruitment and propaganda in Britain and Germany. In some responses, candidates confused perspective with the origin or the type of source.

In weaker responses, candidates struggled with Source A, not understanding that it contained primary sources within a secondary source. Some candidates misunderstood the question and discussed changing attitudes to the war. In weaker responses, candidates stated that primary sources are of the time and therefore reliable, and conversely that secondary sources are less reliable.

Section II – National Studies

General comments

To achieve in the higher mark range, candidates needed to write more than a narrative. In many responses, candidates addressed the questions asked and demonstrated an understanding of the key features. In better responses, candidates made a clear judgement and sustained and developed that judgement throughout their answer, supporting it with detailed, accurate historical information.

In weaker responses, candidates made general statements which lacked historical detail or tended to narrate rather than make a judgement. In many responses, candidates used historiography (not a syllabus requirement) unnecessarily and its poor use detracted from some answers.

Question 10 – Option B: China 1927–1949

1. In better responses, candidates made a clear judgement about the significance of Japanese invasions from 1931 in shaping and developing the leadership roles and, in many cases, the leadership styles of both Mao Zedong [Mao Tse-tung] and Jiang Jieshi [Chiang Kai-shek].
   
   In weaker responses, candidates narrated events about the Japanese invasions and/or made general statements about the leadership roles of Mao Zedong and Jiang Jieshi. In some of these responses, candidates dealt with the leadership of only one leader.

2. In better responses, candidates developed and supported sustained arguments that logically discussed the link between Civil War military successes of the CCP and Communist victory overall by 1949.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates tended to make general statements about the Civil War and the Communist victory by 1949.

Question 11 – Option C: Germany 1918–1939

1. In better responses, candidates made a clear judgement about the lack of opposition to Hitler's rise to power and sustained and developed that judgement throughout their response. These responses were well supported by detailed, historical knowledge. Although in some responses, candidates effectively used historiography as part of their historical knowledge, many stronger responses argued effectively without it.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates did not demonstrate any real judgement, but narrated the events surrounding the collapse of the Weimar Republic or the Nazi consolidation of power. In some responses, candidates did not to write about the relevant time period and instead wrote about 1934 to 1939. In weaker responses, candidates used historiography (not a syllabus requirement) poorly, which detracted from their answers.

2. In better responses, candidates made a clear, sustained judgement about the Nazi success in achieving foreign policy aims. In these responses candidates supported their argument with detailed knowledge of the relevant period and demonstrated a thorough understanding of foreign policy.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates provided a chronological narration of events relating to Nazi foreign policy, without making the necessary judgement about the extent to which the Nazis achieved their aims. In some responses, candidates confused foreign policy with domestic policy.

Question 15 – Option G: Russia and the Soviet Union 1917–1941

1. This question required candidates to deal with two key features: Communism in theory and practice and consolidation of power.
   
   In better responses, candidates dealt effectively with the question, making a clear, sustained judgement about the extent to which practice triumphed over Communist theory in the period of consolidation. In these responses, candidates supported their judgement with detailed accurate historical knowledge. In some responses, candidates used historiography well, although it is not a syllabus requirement.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates narrated details of the consolidation of power. In some responses, candidates included irrelevant material that was outside the consolidation period or demonstrated a lack of understanding of communist theory and practice. In some weaker responses, candidates made general statements and lacked depth and detail.

2. In better responses, candidates provided a clear and sustained judgement about the extent to which Soviet Foreign Policy achieved its aims. In these responses, candidates dealt with the whole time period required by the question, demonstrated a clear understanding of the aims of foreign policy and supported this with detailed, accurate historical knowledge.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates provided a narrative of events usually related to Soviet foreign policy although some confused foreign policy with domestic policy. In some responses, candidates made general statements and did not provide detailed knowledge to support them.

Question 16 – Option H: South Africa 1960–1994

1. In better responses, candidates discussed the impact of apartheid on both rural and urban communities. In these responses, candidates also addressed the impact of apartheid on all South Africans and provided a balanced discussion of both rural and urban communities.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates made general statements about changes in living and working conditions or the impact of apartheid in broad terms.

2. In better responses, candidates made a clear judgement about the significance of the role of South African security forces in maintaining apartheid from 1960 to 1994. In these responses, candidates often discussed a number of other issues that contributed to maintaining apartheid in this period.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates tended to deal with apartheid in general terms and/or the role of South African security forces but did not link these two issues to the set question.

Question 17 – Option I: USA 1919–1941

1. In better responses, candidates made a clear and sustained statement that considered the extent to which urbanisation and industrialisation were the dominant influences on US society in the period 1919–1941. In these responses, candidates supported their judgement with relevant, accurate historical information. They used a broad selection of information from the period, linked it to the key features and concepts, and included information from both the 1920s and 1930s, although the treatment of the decades did not need to be equal.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates provided some argument, but wrote in a largely descriptive, narrative style. In some responses, candidates were not selective in content, made general statements and/or limited their discussion to the 1920s.

2. In better responses, candidates clearly identified the problems created by the Great Depression and made a sustained judgement as to the effectiveness of the New Deal in solving them. In these responses, candidates used relevant, detailed and accurate historical information that included the Great Depression, focusing on Roosevelt and the effectiveness of the New Deal.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates provided some judgement, but these responses were largely generalised, descriptive accounts of Hoover’s and Roosevelt’s attempts to halt the Great Depression.

Section III – Personalities in the Twentieth Century

Question 18

General comments

In many responses, candidates provided a relevant and accurate description; however, in better responses candidates included greater detail and a range of appropriate historical terms and concepts.

In better responses, candidates provided clear assessment of the extent to which the personality studied had a positive impact on their times, in a well-supported argument. However, in some responses, candidates wrote either a prepared response or a description of the personality’s life.

Candidates are reminded to clearly identify the two different parts of the question.

Albert Speer

1. In better responses, candidates identified three significant factors which resulted in the prominence of Albert Speer. These factors were described in detail and were supported by a range of relevant and accurate historical terms and concepts.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates presented an outline of the life of Speer in varying degrees of detail with little identification of specific factors. In some of these responses, candidates included a generalised description of two or three events.

2. In better responses, candidates provided a clear assessment of the extent to which Speer had a positive impact on his times. In these responses, candidates sustained the assessment throughout with a logical and cohesive argument, 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 upon a prepared ‘good Nazi’ response or a descriptive narration which only related back to the question intermittently.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates tended to describe the role of Speer, sometimes with reference to historians, without effectively linking either of these to any argument. These responses lacked detail and a range of historical concepts.

Leni Riefenstahl

1. In better responses, candidates provided a detailed, relevant description of three significant factors which resulted in the prominence of Leni Riefenstahl. The factors were supported by accurate historical information.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates tended to provide a limited outline of the life of Riefenstahl.

2. In better responses, candidates made a clear assessment of the extent to which Leni Riefenstahl had a positive impact on her times. In these responses, candidates integrated historical opinion, in a sustained and logical fashion.
   
   In mid-range responses, candidates tended to address the question with relevant but largely narrative description.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates provided descriptive narration without addressing the question.

Leon Trotsky

1. In better responses, candidates clearly identified three factors which resulted in the prominence of Trotsky. These candidates also provided detailed, relevant descriptions of these three factors. The clarity of the description and the depth of the detail across all three factors was the discriminating element.
   
   In mid-range and weaker responses, candidates were either limited in detail across some or all of the factors or simply provided an outline of the life of Trotsky.

2. In better responses, candidates made a clear judgement of the extent of the impact of Trotsky on his times. This judgement did not require historiography but when it was used it was effective in the response. These candidates presented a logical, sustained, cohesive argument, supported with detailed, relevant and accurate historical information.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates provided a description of the positive or negative elements of Trotsky with little if any judgment about the extent of his impact. In these responses, candidates also lacked depth of detail as well as a basic understanding of the question.

Ho Chi Minh

1. In better responses, candidates were able to identify and provide a detailed description of three significant factors which resulted in Ho Chi Minh’s prominence.
   
   In some mid-range responses, candidates provided a detailed description of two factors or a detailed outline of his life.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates provided a general outline of Ho Chi Minh’s life and lacked accurate and detailed historical information.

2. In better responses, candidates provided a clear assessment of the impact of Ho Chi Minh on his times. These candidates supported their argument with accurate, detailed historical information.
   
   In mid-range responses, candidates tended to present a simplistic argument which was not sustained or was a largely narrative response.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates presented a basic description of the life of Ho Chi Minh with limited reference to his impact.

Section IV – International Studies in Peace and Conflict

General comments

Most candidates demonstrated 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 addressed the question with largely narrative or descriptive responses that did not make a judgement.

Question 20 – Option B: Conflict in Europe 1935–1945

1. In better responses, candidates addressed the question with a sustained, coherent and logical judgement as to why Germany was successful in the European War up to the start of Operation Barbarossa. In these responses, candidates supported their interpretation with detailed, relevant and accurate historical information. Key features surrounding the aims and strategies of the Allied and Axis powers were addressed.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates provided a narrative/descriptive account of events during World War II such as Blitzkrieg. In these responses, candidates provided limited historical knowledge and often dealt with events outside the framework of the question. In many weaker responses, candidates tried to reinterpret the question and wrote about Germany’s lack of success after Operation Barbarossa.

2. In better responses, candidates provided a comprehensive assessment of both the social and economic effects of the war on civilians in two countries, Britain and either Germany or the Soviet Union. In these responses, candidates supported their judgement with detailed and accurate historical information and appropriate terms and concepts.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates described a range of impacts on civilians, often with reference to one country, usually Britain. In these responses, candidates often made general statements with limited, relevant historical knowledge.

 

Question 21 – Option C: Conflict in Indochina 1954–1979

1. In better responses, candidates presented a sustained and detailed assessment of the significance of the Vietnamese victory against the French to 1964. In these responses, candidates showed a comprehensive understanding of the issues raised in the question and assessed a range of events that occurred as a result of victory. They addressed developments in both North and South Vietnam and made strong links to events such as the Geneva Accords, partition and US involvement in Indochina. In these responses, candidates supported their assessment with appropriate terms and concepts, and relevant and accurate historical information.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates narrated key events and developments in the conflict in Indochina and/or described the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu. In these responses, candidates often made general statements with limited historical knowledge.

2. In better responses, candidates accounted for Communist victory in the Second Indochina War. They included a range of perspectives focusing on both North and South Vietnam and US involvement. In these responses, candidates examined how and why particular factors contributed to Communist victory. They presented sustained and well-structured responses, supported with detailed, accurate and relevant historical information.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates were largely descriptive or narrative about reasons for the defeat of the US and South Vietnamese or concentrated on specific turning points such as the Tet Offensive.

Question 22 – Option D: Conflict in the Pacific 1937–1951

1. In better responses, candidates presented a clear argument that assessed the role that both US and British policies played in the outbreak of war in the Pacific. In these responses, candidates presented a sustained and comprehensive assessment, and supported their argument with detailed, accurate and relevant historical information. Both US and British foreign policies were addressed substantially and assessed in these responses. In more sophisticated responses, candidates also dealt with a range of other factors including Japanese nationalism, militarism and imperialism in the period.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates wrote a narrative of events from the 1937 Japanese invasion of Manchuria to the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941 and did not make a judgement. They were uneven in their treatment of US and British foreign policies and did not provide links between the policies and the events, or assess their impact on the outbreak of the Pacific war.

2. In better responses, candidates addressed the statement directly and a coherent and sustained argument was demonstrated. They made a clear judgement about how the success of the Japanese advance to 1942 could not be maintained and led to Japanese defeat. In the most sophisticated responses, candidates made strong links between the aggressive expansionism of Japan, the responses of the Allies, and other domestic and external factors, rather than just examine key battles such as Coral Sea and Midway. In better responses, candidates clearly identified relevant key features, supported their argument with detailed, accurate historical information and used terms and concepts appropriately.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates addressed the question with a description of the strategies and tactics of the Allies and Japan, such as island hopping and protection of the home islands, without judging their impact on defeat. In these responses, candidates tended to ignore the statement and concentrate on the reasons for Japanese defeat.

Question 23 – Option E: Arab–Israeli Conflict 1948–1996

1. In better responses, candidates assessed the impact of Israeli occupation of the Occupied Territories on Israel and its political and social landscape, as well as its impact on the Palestinians. In these responses, candidates displayed a breadth of knowledge and made links with the emergence of Palestinian nationalism and the shift of power in the Arab world. In better responses, candidates also linked subsequent events to Israeli occupation.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates narrated the events of the Arab-Israeli Conflict and/or described the events following Israeli occupation.

2. In better responses, candidates demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of the question and acknowledged the complexity of the peace process from 1987 to 1996. In these responses, candidates clearly accounted for both successes and setbacks in the peace process, and supported their interpretation with detailed, relevant and accurate historical information.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates described key events as a setback or success, or presented a narration of the peace process.

Question 24 – Option F: The Cold War 1945–1991

1. In better responses, candidates accounted for the emergence of detente. They presented a sustained argument that focused on the economic and political factors that led both the USA and USSR to seek improved relations. In these responses, candidates demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of the Cold War, placed US–Soviet relations within the wider global context and supported their interpretation with detailed, relevant and accurate historical information.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates addressed the questions with a narration or description of the events or major crises of the Cold War, or events that were outside the period of detente such as the Korean War.

2. In better responses, candidates made a clear assessment regarding the impact that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan had on the course of the Cold War. In these responses, candidates demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of the invasion of Afghanistan, signalling the end of detente and the emergence of ‘the second Cold War’. They were able to link economic and political impacts to both the United States and the Soviet Union, and supported their argument with detailed historical information and appropriate terms and concepts such as Strategic Defence Initiative.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates showed a limited understanding of the impact of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. In these responses, candidates provided a narrative or descriptive overview of a number of Cold War crises without relating their impact on the course of the Cold War.