Personalities....

[clairebear41]

You can hide this advertisement by registering.

I did Emperor Hirohito which i think about zero people in the state do lol

This was my fav topic, however the "product of his time" statment was really irrelevent to my personality, therefore i screwed up on it.
I left myself over an hour to do this section, i wrote 14 pages and i still think i went pretty shit in it. Ah well the rest of the modern paper was exellent

Out of interest does anyone else do Hirohito?

[stolenhotelpen]

My school studied Albert Speer - loved the very OPEN part a, and for part b I took a "events shape people more than people shape events" stance (past HSC question). Felt good with part a, and relatively okay with b. Not too sure if my argument was strong enough for b.

[annabackwards]

Originally Posted by penguin.ali

I did Trotsky and basically manipulated the "times" to mean when he grew up and such, as heaps of people are always bleating about how his childhood had no revolutionary indicators - which it did, if you could be bothered to read his autobiography.

That's what people at my school did. Gah, i always interpret these sort of questions in a weird way lol

[driaxx]

Originally Posted by C-BAS

I'd just like to extend a big ol' FUCK YOU to Albert Speer. You single handedly ruined my Modern paper.

How'd your personalities treat you? I was thrown by "products of their times" and blanked on key dates. Shit. I should have studied more of it and spent less time on everything else.

Same! I did Speer too. I argued whether his character was raised as cold/apolitical or whether he was entirely changed by Hitler 'under his spell' as he said in Nuremburg, and argued that regardless he still did unethical things, but on the other hand this could be a result of his cold childhood where his family disliked him (and therefore a result of his lifestyle that evolved through his time)

I don't even think I related to dates, just events that happened. I might have thrown in some dates here and there.

[hugh789]

First of all im not sure if anyone's critcised the first question but I HAVE to
Firstly cant rember the exact question something like: Out line the life of your choosen peresonality

The most ambiguous bullshit I've ever seen in a Modern history paper. Firstly my interpretation of "life" is extremlley different from anyone else, the person who lives next door or the next person who posts in this forum. I mainly focused on my person's education and childhood as I personally believe that your childhood and education has one of the biggest influence on your life. So for Trotsky I focused on his development of socilist communist marxist beliefs and how this influenced his role in emigre politics etc.

TO THE POINT HOW DO I COVER SOMEONE'S LIFE In 20 mins or 15mins whatever your choose to spend on it WTF. I didnt get to his life in exile or even get into detail about Commisar for WAR.

BIGGEST RANT BUT WTF!!
OVERALL very good paper though... hahah seroiusly other sections were great

[penguin.ali]

Originally Posted by hugh789

First of all im not sure if anyone's critcised the first question but I HAVE to
Firstly cant rember the exact question something like: Out line the life of your choosen peresonality

The most ambiguous bullshit I've ever seen in a Modern history paper. Firstly my interpretation of "life" is extremlley different from anyone else, the person who lives next door or the next person who posts in this forum. I mainly focused on my person's education and childhood as I personally believe that your childhood and education has one of the biggest influence on your life. So for Trotsky I focused on his development of socilist communist marxist beliefs and how this influenced his role in emigre politics etc.

TO THE POINT HOW DO I COVER SOMEONE'S LIFE In 20 mins or 15mins whatever your choose to spend on it WTF. I didnt get to his life in exile or even get into detail about Commisar for WAR.

Oh yes, I agree fully. I'm trying to understand why they did a question so broad? They probably only wanted the important bits, but what everyone sees as important is different - like I don't really care about Trotsky's childhood but others in my class love it.

It just seems silly to compact 60 years of a life into 10 marks

[Niek]

I did Leni Riefenstahl - the question was a complete gift!!
Rambled a bit much in part a and wrote waaaay too much for it but oh well, I got it all down..
And then part b - I thought it fit really well for Leni, but I can see now I'm one of the lucky ones - I guess they can't exactly have a question that fits EVERYONE...

[aektzis]

Originally Posted by annabackwards

I did Trotsky and probably approached it in a strange way as usual.

I basically said that because he came into power during a time when the idea of "Permanent Revolution" was popular and he believed in it, he could not abandon the idea because it had served him well for such a long time despite it ultimately leading to his defeat in the power struggle.

Of course i used examples to show how he whole heartedly supported the idea/used it as motivation and used historians to back everything up

i approached it by delving into trotsky's achievements as the voice of the revolution and leader of the red army in consolidating bolshevik power and therefore shaping russian history (not to mention the influence of trotskyism), but also talked about how his failure at brest-litovsk and in the power struggle shaped him as an arrogant, politically naive and overly self-confident individual

[spazamataz]

I covered the historical context for part b, writing mostly on that. I did Ho Chi Minh, and yeah i had memorised the syllabus for that section cause some guy at some lecture said you probably should.
But yeah, part a was way too broad!!!

[emilyo]

perfect question for leni reifenstahl, i discussed how she was a female revolusionist in that she suceeded in a career in a regime where women were only allowed to be mothers and wives. Then i discussed how she was blacklisted following the war and how the anti-nazi time ruined her.

[annabackwards]

Originally Posted by aektzis

i approached it by delving into trotsky's achievements as the voice of the revolution and leader of the red army in consolidating bolshevik power and therefore shaping russian history (not to mention the influence of trotskyism), but also talked about how his failure at brest-litovsk and in the power struggle shaped him as an arrogant, politically naive and overly self-confident individual

I was thinking of doing that but thought it might be boring lol. So i took a different approach as usual... let's hope the markers appreciate my approach XD