Section II - National Study / Personality (1 Viewer)

[johnny_87]

Japan - the question was ok although it only asked about the period 1918-1932, which meant that you could not include the Marco Polo Bridge incident in Manchuria, 1937.

Kita Ikki - The outline question was simple. The 2nd question was just a little left field, asking about his role in attempts to achieve liberal democracy in the period up to 1941.
First of all, Kita was socialist and nationalist so was against liberal democracy because of those who corrupted it, and 2nd, he was executed in 1937. Err, ok.

 

[zelba]

China

Did anyone do China for the national study??? I did ii and thought it was really easy but I thought part ii for Sun Yixian was HARD.

 

[laureng]

im the same with jennylim. if i didnt accually come one this website and read about possibility of questions then i wouldnt of learnt about totalitarian, so thank u guys! the only reason im going to pass this exam is because of this website and you guys ahhh i was so happy to see that question, all my friends thought i was weird for learning ova the last 2days casue we didnt learn it in class, but i tell u what they couldnt even answer either germany questions becasue of it so yeah im so gratefull to everyone that was lame like me to try and perdict the question u guys rock

 

[johnny_87]

I think my class is one of just a few in the state that did Japan for the national study, and I'm pretty sure we are the ONLY class that did Kita Ikki as the personality. Soft by everyone who did Germany/Russia/US

 

[jackal8]

i think the easiness of the second trotsky question was too easy ...

not fair for those who are good at arguing through stimulus =(

but all in all, i cant complain easy is easy marks.

russia was also... easy.. lol

 

[*Ya_So_CuTe*]

Did anyone do China for the national study??? I did ii and thought it was really easy but I thought part ii for Sun Yixian was HARD.

i did china! my whole class was like WTF!? with the second sun yat sen q! how do u think u went in the essay? i did the second one and think i did okay but not as well as i would have liked

 

[zelba]

Yayy someone else does China

Yes my whole class was like WTF with the second Sun question as well I mean seriously what were you meant to write - I argued Sun played a minor role in resisting Japan what about you?? I did the second essay as well! I thought it was pretty good. Did you use heaps of Quotes??? what raw mark do you reckon we will need to get over 90??

 

[myrna]

it was all good...

sa q b was weird so i went for qa... not what i predicted for sa but that dont matter...


russia was rad... as was trotsky

hopefully all will b well @ the end ... ask me again dec 16th

 

[Homercles]

I've got a simple question, was the "period you have studied" or whatever for Trotsky 1879 until 1940 or 1917 until 1940?

 

[mauz]

Hot damn! This exam was so sweet. I did national studies first ... got a bit carried away. The Russian question on Stalin's economic and social reforms was sweet, and the Trotsky questions! They were the same but required slightly different wording in their response! Woo! I've never written so much in one exam, but modern is my creaming subject so yeah five booklets for national question and four for Trotsky ... or maybe it was the other way around.

 

[EmMindelan]

I think it's 1917-1940 for Trotsky. I had a brief "Lev Bronstein was born to middle-class parents in the Ukraine on November 7th, 1879. He began his involvement with Marxist discussion groups at an early age..." and then launched straight into 1917 and Trotsky and the October Revolution....

 

[Stefcia87]

The exam was suprisingly straightforward. I thought it would be much harder than it was. The world war 1 questions were really good and i was ecstatic when i saw the totalitarian question for Germany, cos i was hoping it would be in the exam. The Leni question was easy although the wording was ambiguous as i did not know how far into the period of her life i needed to outline. The conflict in indochina question about the anti war movements being responsible for the American withdrawal from Vietnam, was quite easy considering that it was my weakest area.

 

[fleepbasding]

for anyone who did the totalitarian question (germany), did you just evaluate the view that Germany was totalitarian or did you evaluate the view that Germany was a totalitarian SOCIETY? Is there a difference? Is the structuralist criticism that the state was a 'polyocracy' even relevant to the question's apparent focus on SOCIETY? How did you approach this question and what did you talk about?

Somehow in the exam I sort of missed the word 'society' (probably because I was that excited they put a totalitarianism question in) and really just evaluated whether Germany was totalitarian firstly by assesing it in terms of Friedrichs six point syndrome, and then introducing the structuralist criticism of the term/polyocracy element. Now I worry that my focus was too much on the state and not enough on the society, though the two are really inseperable. Thoughts? Please, I want to know how youse did this one.

 

[c_james]

for anyone who did the totalitarian question (germany), did you just evaluate the view that Germany was totalitarian or did you evaluate the view that Germany was a totalitarian SOCIETY? Is there a difference? Is the structuralist criticism that the state was a 'polyocracy' even relevant to the question's apparent focus on SOCIETY? How did you approach this question and what did you talk about?

Somehow in the exam I sort of missed the word 'society' (probably because I was that excited they put a totalitarianism question in) and really just evaluated whether Germany was totalitarian firstly by assesing it in terms of Friedrichs six point syndrome, and then introducing the structuralist criticism of the term/polyocracy element. Now I worry that my focus was too much on the state and not enough on the society, though the two are really inseperable. Thoughts? Please, I want to know how youse did this one.

I mixed it up with society and the state. Like you, I mentioned Friedrich's six point syndrome, but brought society into it by examining how the masses erroneously believed they were living in a totalitarian society thanks to the systematic use of propaganda (the 'Fuhrer Myth') and terror. I also mentioned the 'nazification' of education and the deep social and peer group divisions encouraged by Nazism, in all contradiction to its unifying ideal of Volksgemeinschaft and its supposed classification as a totalitarian society. I also mentioned how anti-Semitic policy divided German society, evidencing that Germany was not totalitarian when compared to regimes such as Stalin's, which promoted Marxist-Leninist ideology and the equality of all peoples.

Really, though, the question was so broad that I think the term 'society' was really arbitrary - it does, after all, include the regime itself.

 

[stv_87]

come on peoples di\ont just use friedrichs syndrome thingy he didnt make it up, get your own.

does anyone think its bad that i made continual f\reference to stalin-his rule compared to hitlers, his purge of red army by NKVD compared to hitlers purge of SA instead of army,stalins command economy compared to the inefficient bureaucratic turf war of hitlers and failure to exploit workers to achieve autarky and rearmament compared to stlains.
did people mention how hitlers postion as der fuhrer was based upon charisma and popularity instead of ruthlessness and uncompromised, thus once the facadebreaks becomes uncontrollable as it did from 43-45

i dont even know what a command economy is but i described it how itsounds

my paragraphs were
-intro basically defining totalitarianism and its use to encapsulate internally divergent regimes. then not explaining why hitlers was just put that the image was totaliotaruina but reality was not
-hiotler as fuhrer did not s\idctate and based upon popularity thus fragile
-role of henchmen and empirical organix\zations and how this contradicts theideal of tot as power in entire party not within various individuals who competed
-bureua\cratic turf wars within economy and policing = inefficincy thus not tot
-vranging hisorigraphy structuralist, intentionist, vague distinction of totalitarian
-hitlers treatment of inherent forces such as army- not taken control
-the society based upon propaganda and terror and how volksgemeinschaft just a facade that masked worker resistance
-non eradication of opposiotion-concentrated on youth resistance to militarisation, political parties suprppressed not eradicated
-conclusion

your thoughts

 

[a8o]

I only wrote 3 1/2 pages for the second Trotsky question, I thought I'd done more, except that was for the first part where I did about 7, so I fucked up. Still should get most of the marks for it though.

 

[stv_87]

germany was not easy
totalitarina refferred to by teachers as the hardest question within germany and conc\servatives are deep and buried the rise of hitler and why weimar failed. virtually needed practiced the essay toachieve a good mark of 16-20

 

[jennylim]

for anyone who did the totalitarian question (germany), did you just evaluate the view that Germany was totalitarian or did you evaluate the view that Germany was a totalitarian SOCIETY? Is there a difference? Is the structuralist criticism that the state was a 'polyocracy' even relevant to the question's apparent focus on SOCIETY? How did you approach this question and what did you talk about?

Somehow in the exam I sort of missed the word 'society' (probably because I was that excited they put a totalitarianism question in) and really just evaluated whether Germany was totalitarian firstly by assesing it in terms of Friedrichs six point syndrome, and then introducing the structuralist criticism of the term/polyocracy element. Now I worry that my focus was too much on the state and not enough on the society, though the two are really inseperable. Thoughts? Please, I want to know how youse did this one.

hey fleep, i did the six point syndrome, but mixed the analysis within my application. like this:
- single party state with mass leader. present through enabling act, etc...but revisionist historians challenge the extent to which this existed due to the polyocracy...blah
- control of army - yes, oath of allegiance, blomberg-fritsch, BUT lost it during war (see july plot)
- system of terror - yeah, but undermined by genuine support of society (kershaw). This is where i sort of addressed the society issue. Kind of. in like, two sentences.
- media- yeah, they had that.
- economy, no, they didn't
conclusion: no, it wasn't. i mainly just did totalitarian, with minimal addressing of the society. but i think that's right.

 

[_dhj_]

Lol I kinda dismissed the friedrich and brzezinski in the first paragraph saying how its crap.. and almost half of mine was like one the leadership structure. Talked about society, terror, conformity/dessent but not in much detail. Oh well hope that's what they want..

 

[nwatts]

for anyone who did the totalitarian question (germany), did you just evaluate the view that Germany was totalitarian or did you evaluate the view that Germany was a totalitarian SOCIETY? Is there a difference? Is the structuralist criticism that the state was a 'polyocracy' even relevant to the question's apparent focus on SOCIETY? How did you approach this question and what did you talk about?

Totalitarian society for me. I think there's a difference, because evaluating whether Nazi Germany was totalitarian would lend to a discussion on the party and how it acts with respect to a given definition of totalitarianism. Discussing how Nazi Germany was a totalitarian society will lend to an essay more focused on the public (or, society) and how it's changed/transformed/revolutionised/(or not) over the period of Nazi rule.