WWI - not a bad section, I felt like the sources were a bit simplistic in comparison to previous years but nonetheless it was still a fairly easy section. One of the mcs (the intended audience of source A) threw me off and I think I might have got it wrong + I really disliked the 2 marker on how the text added to the message of the image (but it was only 2 marks so no big deal). It wasn't as directly linked to the syllabus as I was expecting but I've never found WWI particularly difficult so I'm fairly happy with my performance in this section.
Germany - ah, Nazi consolidation of power. The dotpoint I completely skipped. Luckily I was prepared for a racial policy essay and so I found this section okay. I argued that racial policy was definitely a key factor in the Nazi consolidation of power because they first used the whole Jews = November Criminals/scapegoat for TOV to garner support for Nazism, and then once they rose to power in 1933/1934 they introduced basic social reforms, then formal legislation, then the Nuremburg laws which were all underpinned by racial policy and were able to help the Nazis consolidate power -> this culminated in kristallnacht and shows the power the Nazis had over society/how they'd been able to consolidate their power using racial policy. I'm pretty pissed at myself for not including more information on how they used propaganda, terror and repression but not much I can do now since it's over.
Speer - not a bad section, but I felt it difficult to link the quote in with Speer who didn't really face any "challenges". I basically argued about how Speer was an opportunist and when faced with different challenges (like the growing dominance of Nazism in society when he claimed to be 'apolitical', the demands placed on him as armaments minister and how he responded to them, and the Nuremburg trials) he basically used/abused the things around him (like using the Nazis to fulfil his own architectural desires, using slave labour for armaments production, and adopting the image of the 'repentant Nazi' to save his own life) and therefore both Speer and his "achievements" were underpinned by deceit, lies, opportunism etc. Ah, what a load of bullshit. Probs my weakest section and I barely used historiography in part b so I have soo many regrets.
Indochina - good questions! I particularly liked the links between Tet and anti-war (plus I was banking on an anti-war question so I'd prepared for it). Basically argued that Tet was a turning point in the anti-war movement and led to its significant growth in America as although it was a military defeat, it won the "media war" and undermined General Westmoreland's claims that victory was close etc. Also talked about how the My Lai massacre was essentially caused by the Tet Offensive and this played a huge role in the anti-war movement -> Americans had started to question the morality of the war etc and caused a huge shift in the general public opinion towards the war. Also mentioned how the resulted in incidents like the Kent State University shooting which shows how intense/significant the anti-war movements had become and how they'd polarised America etc etc. I felt like I did okay, probably not my best essay but I'm still happy with how I went.
Overall, the paper wasn't too difficult. I found it surprising that they began to link dotpoints/sections of the syllabus together (i.e Nazi consolidation with racial policy or Tet offensive with anti-war) because they normally only ask questions on one dotpoint, but it definitely does allow you to make your answers more sophisticated and show how extensive your knowledge is of the links between the syllabus dotpoints. I regret not studying more, but not much I can do now haha. Expecting a mid-high band 5 at this point but idk how hard they mark in HSC so we'll just have to wait and see
How/what did you do? and btw is that username a supernatural reference I see
