Is this even a historical question? (1 Viewer)

[la.la]

Hey anyone who can help,

For my Extension project I was thinking of analysing: whether it was necessary for the Americans to bomb Hiroshima and Negasaki to bring an end to war.

My question is, is this a suitable sort of question? Does this cover historiography? Any suggestions how I can twist this topic into a suitable historiographical question?

If not, I was also thinking of doing the changing views of responsibilty of the breakdown of Soviet-US relations post ww2. But it's really broad, so if anyone help who help narrow it down...and point me in the right direction?

Also, which seems like a better topic to do, considering workload etc.?

If anyone can help, thanks!

 

[hitachi88]

An excellent, albeit cliche, idea that has been done many times.
This has one main advantage, and one disadvantage.

The disadvantage is that the marker will be used to seeing papers like yours, and thus you must either do EXTRORDINARILY WELL, or have a very radical and strong argument in yours to stand out, or risk being waste-bucketed into an 'average essay'. Which of course shouldn't be what you are aiming for.

The advantage is that there will be a LOT OF INFORMATION on this topic, which makes researching primary, secondary and tiertary sources relatively easy.

Yes, it definitely is a suitable question. YOu can examine
oral history (interview of survivors, soldiers, generals, etc)
primary sources (newspapers' reactions, journals, diaries)
secondary sources (historians writing immeidately, in 10 years, now; Japanese/American/British/Canadian historians, liberal/communist/pro-fascist/pro-jap; etc historians and so on)

lots of different options, but why not analyze it further and discuss the historiographical IMPACTs of the writings:
"A study into the changing interpretations of the American atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and its historiographical impact on
modern perception of nuclear weapons
OR
modern perception of weapons of mass destruction
OR
modern perception of Strategic Bombing / airforce tactics.

 

[veridis]

agree with first half of post, warn that attempting second half with the only motivation being 'i have to be different' will lead to you writing an answer for the first question anyway.

i reckon try the breakdown of negaotiations one. and at this stage broad is probably a good thing. the great thing about hist ext is that its your one real chance to just write an interesting essay. is you're too specific too early you limit yourself. you only ask specific questions when you already know the answer, get too specific too early and it will show that you approached your sources with an answer in mind. read broadly, draft your essay and see what specifics come up that you can explore.

 

[brolgaballet]

i think your topic is too over-done and unless you have a really confronting and powerful argument that will challenge the markers to re-think how they have always thought....go for something different.

otherwise it will just be a regurgitation of other peoples' essays

i hope that helps. don't worry i stuggled for ages to come up with a topic

 

[***chichi***]

hey, well i am doing ext history atm, and i am having trouble with my topic as well but your american atomic bomb question sounds really good. i had a friend who finished year 12 last yr and she actualy did that for hers and she got 50/50!! she is a great writer, and was really interested in the topic, so i guess that is what it really comes down to, you really have to be intrigued by the topic!! i hope this helps!!
good luck oxoxox

 

[gib91]

Hey anyone who can help,

For my Extension project I was thinking of analysing: whether it was necessary for the Americans to bomb Hiroshima and Negasaki to bring an end to war.

My question is, is this a suitable sort of question? Does this cover historiography? Any suggestions how I can twist this topic into a suitable historiographical question?

If not, I was also thinking of doing the changing views of responsibilty of the breakdown of Soviet-US relations post ww2. But it's really broad, so if anyone help who help narrow it down...and point me in the right direction?

Also, which seems like a better topic to do, considering workload etc.?

If anyone can help, thanks!

if your into the ussr stuff then gorbachev or boris yeltsin are good ones to do...if your interested in personalities alittle closer abroad then surharto or ferdinand marcos are controvertial although there may be difficulty in finding info on them....also something during the apartheid era in south africa (fw de klerk, nelson mandela or even something like
'is the post-apartheid era the new apartheid but in reverse?' im doing marechal petain

 

[expertdkx]

if i was to modify the question
it might be something like this

How the many different perspectives are there on the American bombing in Hiroshima and Negasaki influenced our understanding in our modern study.

 

[xeuyrawp]

if i was to modify the question
it might be something like this

How the many different perspectives are there on the American bombing in Hiroshima and Negasaki influenced our understanding in our modern study.

It would probably help if it actually made sense.

 

[Kujah]

The MW must have been completed by now

 

[xeuyrawp]

hahah I didn't even notice the date of the original post. I just looked at the one I quoted and the one above that.

Anyway, it's still good to discuss these things.

I wonder how it all worked out?

 

[Kujah]

Yeah, its a good discussion point because some might eventually use this area of study as a main point for their future Major Work. It probabaly ended up being completed and done well, but who knows? That's unless the OP replies back.

 

[katie13]

Hi
I'm doing the same topic for my project, although looking at the varying reasons i.e was it needed to end the war or was it used to start the cold war with Russia etc, i think that is a valid question... Hope that helps in some way