Challenges Facing Historians Looking to Interpret a Source

Within the realm of history, a source of evidence is essential in order to differentiate the fact from fiction. This is why a primary source is so vital! Because, a primary source provides the reader with direct evidence of an event or a speech; giving them a better understanding of the material. The only problem is: these sources do not provide the full facts, leaving the readers with a plethora of questions. Don’t get me wrong though, the readers should be asking a lot of questions! Because, with all of those questions, the reader can be engaged with the content in order to find some concrete evidence.

This was exemplified in Menzies speech on the declaration of war when he stated, “…. Great Britain has declared war on her, and that, as a result, Australia is also at war…There can be no doubt that where Great Britain stands, there stands the people of the entire British world.” (Mason 2014, pg.163) This explains that wherever Britain was, Australia would be by their side showing their mateship between the two countries. When Menzies states ‘There can be no doubt’, it portrayed a strong message to all Australian soldiers meaning that no matter what happened they were committed to their ‘Mother Country’. Additionally, Australia was very close to Britain, explaining that we fought together and protected one another until the very end. This was depicted in a primary source image of a kangaroo, representing Australia, and a vicious dog, representing Britain, taking down a soldier together. (Refer to Appendix 1) By showing Australia and Britain as a team, it shows how the war made them a team and the strength between them if they worked together. In the image, the kangaroo wears a cowboy hat, stating their national identity as a relaxed country lifestyle whereas, the vicious dog wears a steal war helmet stating its seriousness and confidence at war. (Japan & Australia in World War 2, N.D) Thus, the strong alliance with Britain undeniably resulted Australia to enter the

The Second World War was a massive event that left the whole world shocked and saddened of the outcomes. World War 2 was known mostly because of who ruled, Adolf Hitler was the leader of the Nazis. The Nazis where a German army who terrorized Europe and the world with the in humane treatment of people and mostly the treatment of the Jews. Australia’s involvement in ww2 will be the main focus of this essay. Australia lost over 30 000 people who became in prisoned by the Nazis. To follow on with the hypothesis of Australia’s involvement and contributions to WW2 was significant due to their alliances with Great Britain and the USA largely affect Australia even to this day, I will be discussing this through the rest of the essay.

Although Australia’s relationship with the British was weakened as the result of actions during WW2 our relationship with the USA was the reciprocal; this period resulted in a strengthening of ties with the Americans. A few key events were pivotal in this change. The first of these was when General Douglas MacArthur took over the defence of Australia and the Pacific Campaign in March 1942, discarding the current battle plan of holding ‘The Brisbane Line’. Instead in his quote “...so I instantly changed the conception (The Brisbane Line) with the basic thought that the ‘battle of Australia’ would be settled in the little islands to the north, north-east and north-west. I would make my fight there - win, lose or draw” explains that the battles, in which the fate of Australia would be decided, were to occur in the Philippines.

Australia’s response to the threat of communism after WW2 was extraordinary. Australia and its politicians immediately recognised what could happen of a result of the domino theory. With the Soviet Union influencing so many countries and causing China, Vietnam, and North Korea to turn Communist it was only matter of time until it reached Australia, and all in all this was when Australia took action.

As stated before, history is inaccurate if there is no evidence to support. Historians rely heavily upon primary and

Primary sources are sources of information or data that are not interpreted, evaluated, or analyzed, and secondary sources are sources that only interpret, evaluate, or analyze secondary sources.

Discuss the extent to which the Australian Nation was changed by its involvement in WWII

Australia had a natural sense of loyalty to Britain which ultimately led them to war. The declaration of war was greeted with great enthusiasm all over the country. This is because over 90% of Australians had a British heritage. (Skwirk, 2014) and Australia was and still is part of the British Empire and willingly found itself at war. The nation’s financial resources and manpower were used by the labour leader, Andrew Fisher, who quoted, "Australians

Over one million Australians were involved in World War 2. The war effort came from women and men alike, serving interstate and internationally. At the end of this war, there were 40,000 dead and more than 30,000 taken as prisoners of war. This was the first time in history that Australia's mainland had come under direct attack. The war was a catastrophic global conflict which did have a significant impact on Australians. World War 2 started in 1939, with the German invasion of Poland, and ended in 1945, by Japan being bombed by the USA. The two main sides in the fight were the Axis powers which were the countries Germany, Italy and Japan and the Allies which featured USA, France, Britain and consequently Australia. The role of women,

Source 1 is a secondary as it analyses an event that occurred in the past. This source is about the spread of smallpox to the Aztecs. The picture was published by ……… in October 2012. The source provides us information today about the spread of smallpox. You can tell by looking at the picture that smallpox were red spots covered all over the body. Because it’s a secondary source, it is not very reliable and only serves as an opinion. The spread of smallpox was severe as 50% of the population got affected. The language used in the source is a picture. That’s also another reason the source is not accurate as it is from the author's point of view. Overall source 1 is not reliable as it is a secondary source and an opinion of someone.

Another issue is that it is the only source we have that tells us about past events that have occurred. Primary sources do not tell the whole story or truth about what happened in previous

Primary sources are first-hand or direct sources of information and research such as words of a person who is the subject, official records from the government and memoirs or witness accounts. Primary sources are original and not subject to amendment by any third party. Primary sources are resourceful in studying Germany’s history than through consultation of the original documents or publications within the time in question. Primary sources are vital to understanding the German history because of the development of the critical thinking skills since such sources provide first and accounts of historic occurrences.

This article indicates Britain couldn’t provide assistance for Australia which was under threat by the Japanese despite Australia supplying its available resources to Britain which was in a desperate struggle to win against Nazi Germany (Mason, 2014 pg. 200). This was a significant issue for Australia as they saw Britain as their protector within Asia and counted on their strong military force which was weak in the Pacific due to the fall of Singapore as they were no longer able to use Singapore as a place for communication and supplies. This cartoon from the Daily Telegraph created towards the end of the fall of Singapore, corroborates with the newspaper quote above:

When studying history, the way to obtain knowledge from it is to use primary and secondary sources, because we can only use sources from the events of past, and we cannot actually perceive the events. By the reason of that, I believe that history is an area of knowledge that is mostly made up of stories, and what we call history is the modern interpretation of those stories. This is because when I was studying about the atomic bombing in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I found out that primary sources such as newspaper articles from America had bias in them. They