Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

March 29, 2024, 03:40:43 am

Author Topic: Modern History Essay Marking  (Read 92072 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

jakesilove

  • HSC Lecturer
  • Honorary Moderator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *******
  • Posts: 1941
  • "Synergising your ATAR potential"
Modern History Essay Marking
« on: February 16, 2016, 10:32:30 am »
If you'd like your essay marked, you won't be able to post it until you make an ATAR Notes account here. Once you've done that, a little 'reply' button will come up when you're viewing threads, and you'll be able to copy and paste your essay and post it up here for us to mark!

Hey everyone!! Welcome to the Modern History Marking Thread. This thread is here for you to get feedback on your essays from a Band 6 student. This resource exists to help you guys make huge improvements on your essay writing... Too often, teachers just write "good" or "needs explaining" or "expand". SUPER. FRUSTRATING. This is a place to properly improve :) :) :)

For all you Modern Historians out there who aren't 100% sure that they have the history essay writing technique down, or for those who just want that little extra boost, this forum is for you! Myself and Elyse will be handling this forum, and between us the topics that we covered were:

- World War I (Duh)
- Weimar and Nazi Germany
- Conflict in Europe
- Conflict in Indochina
- Albert Speer (Personality study)

If you want to post an essay on any of the other topics, that's totally fine as well! What we will look for is general essay technique, use of historical language, structure etc. For the most part, we won't be fact-checking or assessing whether or not your thesis is actually correct (unless you ask us to!).

Before posting, please read the essay marking rules/rationale here.

Post away, and happy studies!!  ;D ;D
« Last Edit: August 04, 2017, 08:41:25 pm by jamonwindeyer »
ATAR: 99.80

Mathematics Extension 2: 93
Physics: 93
Chemistry: 93
Modern History: 94
English Advanced: 95
Mathematics: 96
Mathematics Extension 1: 98

Studying a combined Advanced Science/Law degree at UNSW

atar27

  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 53
Re: Modern History Essay Marking
« Reply #1 on: February 16, 2016, 08:32:14 pm »
HEY! I am trying to write this essay for modern history.. here is the question
Identify and assess the impact of the Treaty of Versailles upon the emergence and establishment of the weimar republic
I am stuck as to what I should write in this Essay!

Any help will be appreciated,
Thank You :)

elysepopplewell

  • HSC Lecturer
  • Honorary Moderator
  • ATAR Notes Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 3236
  • "Hey little fighter, soon it will be brighter."
Re: Modern History Essay Marking
« Reply #2 on: February 17, 2016, 03:13:19 pm »
HEY! I am trying to write this essay for modern history.. here is the question
Identify and assess the impact of the Treaty of Versailles upon the emergence and establishment of the weimar republic
I am stuck as to what I should write in this Essay!

Any help will be appreciated,
Thank You :)

Hey! One of my class mate's was in love with this question and asked all of his lucky stars to make sure it appeared in the exam haha. For that reason, I got nervous that it actually would pop up in the exam so I did a bit of a essay break down.

Firstly, the War Guilt Claus:
•   Article 231 in the Treaty of Versailles.
•   Provided the Allied victors with moral justification for reparations.
•   Non-acceptance by the German delegation would have meant occupation of Germany.
•   It caused humiliation and last enmity.
•   Provided nationalists and the old ruling elite with the opportunity to discredit the liberalism of the new Weimar Republic.
Disarmament:
•   Another factor that provoked widespread anger.
•   Army reduced to 100,000 men and volunteers were to enlist for 12 years to prevent training of reserves.
•   Conscription was abolished.
•   No tanks or heavy artillery were permitted. No air force.
•   No submarines allowed. Navy restricted to 6 battle ships.
•   The Treaty of Rapallo, concluded with Russia in 1924, allowed German pilots to train with Soviet Forces in secret.
Germany refused entry into the League of Nations
•   Initially, Germany was refused admission to the League of Nations.
•   Russia was forbidden to join.

So, this kind of funneled Germany into an awkward position, they had to pop up a non-threatening government very quickly, which meant that they weren't really meeting the demands of the bitter citizens, but instead just following international orders.

Then you have problems about authority:
•   Chancellor Ebert did not know how to enforce the decisions of the government. There was no precedent for this republic.
•   Ebert agreed for the continuance of the Prussian militaristic tradition and placing its future in the hands of the army.
•   Writer, Sefton Delmer observed, “The republic was born with a whole in its heart.” (Use this quote!!!)
•   The communists and other left wing alike groups had no respect for the Weimar government. Russian politics gave them extra confidence.
•   The right wing, mainly ex-soldiers, still felt bitter about the Armistice and had no respect for the Weimar government because they felt the government had betrayed them.
•   Royalists who wanted the Kaiser back, had no respect for the government because it was the Social Democrats that had forced the Kaiser to abdicate.
•   The civilians were still suffering the effects of the war.
•   In many senses, Ebert was isolated, yet he was the leader.
•   The most obvious symbol of weakness is his lack of control over Berlin, the capital.
•   1918-1919 the German Revolution began. Attacks from the left and right wing.


Essentially, "the republic was born with a whole in its heart" really sums it up so well. The Treaty made people bitter, it left Germany in an awkward place politically and internationally, and it would take some time for that to recover and turn into the flourishing Golden Age of Weimar that you see under the guidance of Gustav Stresemann. Let me know if this helps :)
Not sure how to navigate around ATAR Notes? Check out this video!

atar27

  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 53
Re: Modern History Essay Marking
« Reply #3 on: February 17, 2016, 05:53:14 pm »
THANK YOU!!! THAT HELPED HEAPS!!!  :D

maddisonlee890

  • Fresh Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • School: Coffs Harbour Senior College
  • School Grad Year: 2016
Re: Modern History Essay Marking
« Reply #4 on: February 22, 2016, 02:32:24 pm »
Hey! I've done this essay on Nazi racial policy and practice. Your feedback would be great! thanks heaps

jakesilove

  • HSC Lecturer
  • Honorary Moderator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *******
  • Posts: 1941
  • "Synergising your ATAR potential"
Re: Modern History Essay Marking
« Reply #5 on: February 22, 2016, 06:46:31 pm »
Hey! I've done this essay on Nazi racial policy and practice. Your feedback would be great! thanks heaps

Hey Maddisonlee! Great essay, I've included my comments below.

The original essay:
Spoiler
Explain how and why your research area reflected change within german social, political and cultural life up to 1939

The racial policies of Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers Party, resulting in ruthless attempts of Jewish genocide, revolutionised the economically weak and politically unstable Germany form 1918-1939. Inspired by the imperial writings of German and philosophers, Hitler, and by extension the Nazis, believed in the superiority of the Aryan or Nordic ‘race’ (ubermensch) and inferiority of the Jews calling them “ a parasite in the body of other nations, contaminating the purity of blood”  in his memoir ‘Mein Kampf’ . As Hitler and the Nazi Party’s policies increased in numbers and severity, the political, cultural and social life of Germany was plunged into radical antisemitism. Accomplished through organised and effective law making (Gleichschaltung), the hatred towards Jews grew across all sectors of German life and resulted in the most most devastating attempt at genocide in human history.

The period of the democratic Weimar Germany reflected a shift in attitudes and splitting of perspectives when it came to antisemitism and racial policies.The outstanding feature of this period was the polarisation between the unprecedented integration of the Jews in every sphere of life, and the growth of political anti-Semitism among various organisations and political parties. Compared to neighbouring states like France and Russia, antisemitism was less accepted and many Jews occupied high positions in civil service and government. Jews played an important role in the first cabinet formed in 1918 after the collapse of Imperial Germany and the Weimar Constitution was drafted by a Jew (Hugo Pruess). But with this rise in Jews occupying important political positions, came right-wing traditionalists that used the Jews as scapegoats for the loss of the war, losses of territory and the change of the political system. When left-wing communist groups such as the Spartacist League made serious attempts to revolt due to their disappointment with government hostility to socialist reform, their leaders who were often Jews received the blame. Concepts such as “Jewish revolution”, “Jewish Bolshevism” and “Jewish republic” became crowd-pleasing political slogans.

The Nazi Party first came into power in 1933 immediately promoting the first ‘phase’ of antisemitic racial policies focussing on separating Jews from German social life. It aimed to revile the Jews and manipulate Germany’s ‘racially pure’ to distrust and dislike them. Hitler was rational in his method when it came to building up the aggression of his antisemitic policies and his early policies were quite general in nature. A series of trivial regulations aimed at the Jewish community were integrated that aimed to humiliate and degrade the Jews such as excluding Jews form public buses, parks and swimming pools and placing signs which said that certain building entrances were not for Jewish people. Many ex-soldiers and right-wing supporters were in favour of the petty humiliation due to the growing belief that the Jews for responsible for past and present ills. On April 3 1933, the Nazi’s called for a national boycott of Jewish businesses, professional offices and department stores. The Jews, known for their business and financial skills suffered greatly from this vilification which accelerated with the enactment of the Law for the Restoration of the Civil Service in April 1933.  It stated that civil servants who were not of ‘Aryan-descent’ were to be forced to retire. This came as a shock to many Jews and contrasted enormously with their previous acceptance and rise in employment at the time of Weimar Germany. Some of Germany’s greatest intellectuals, most notably, Albert Einstein saw that the blatantly racist law was a sign of what was to come and could see the danger of the rise in antisemitism. In a letter sent to the Prussian Academy of Science, Einstein said “(regarding his statements to the press) I also described the condition Germany is in today as a physic disease afflicting the masses”  His views were reflected in the minds of many prominent Jewish civil servants.

The manipulation of German culture by the Nazi Party aimed to remove all Jewish influence and presence in education, art, cinema, music. This ‘cultural genocide’ was skilfully guided by Joseph Goebbels head of the Ministry for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, President of the Reich Chamber of Culture and Director of the Propaganda Office of the Nazi Party and played an immense role in the strengthening of anti-semitism in Germany. In 1933 he began the synchronisation of culture, by which the arts were brought in line with Nazi goals. German "art cultivation" (a term for all measures aimed at promoting artists and the arts) also extended to film.  Some 1500 film directors and producers and actors fled Germany once the Nazi Party came into power. Notably Fritz Lang, accomplished film director, was asked by Goebbels to be the head of his propaganda film unit after being so impressed with Lang’s work, Metropolis. Lang instead fled to America fearing the repercussions. Book burning ceremonies were planned and the government purged cultural organisations of Jews and others suspected to be politically or artistically regarded as ‘risky’. In another form of literary ‘cleansing’ the Reich Chamber of Culture, consisting of the Reich Film Chamber, Reich Music Chamber, Reich Theatre Chamber, Reich Press Chamber, Reich Writing Chamber, Reich Chamber for Fine Arts, and the Reich Radio Chamber, formed a ‘blacklist’ of books deemed as ‘unacceptable’ either written by prominent Jews or literature promoting ideals that could not coexist with Nazi ideology. This started what can be viewed as the second ‘phase’ of attempt to annihilate the Jews. Hitler recognised the power of the arts and history being one of the the most powerful forms in keeping a culture active which he addresses in ‘Mein Kampf’

The unrelenting antisemitic magazine, ‘Der Stürmer’ was founded by high-ranking party member Julius Streicher in 1923 and was in circulation until the end of World War 1. Its slogan was ‘Die Juden sind unser Unglück!’, translated to ‘The Jews are our misfortune!” a phrase coined by early nationalist Heinrich von Treitschke in the 1880s. ‘Der Stürmer' was viewed by Hitler as playing a significant role in the Nazi propaganda machinery and a useful tool in influencing the "common man on the street".
The German people no longer had any (or very little) access to first hand education or portrayals of Jewish beliefs, achievements and culture. This left the Nazi party to ‘fill in the gaps’ and provided opportunity for them to continue circulating lies about the Jewish religion, race and its past and promote Aryan ‘purity’.

The transition from Weimar Government to Nazi Germany from 1918-1939 reflected an enormous amount of change in German social, cultural and political life. In the political sector, the stripping of civil rights within the first few months of Hitlers accession to power through effective law making was a considerable change from the total political acceptance of the Jews under the Weimar government. In social life Jews were slowly fazed out of jobs as well as general German life through antisemitic legislation and the role of propaganda in influencing the social ideas of the ‘Aryan’ German. Through culture, Jews were completely omitted form artistic prominence and were depicted in Nazi approved cultural propaganda as untermensch (sub-human). All of these changes clearly show the changes in German life due to antisemitic policy and practice by Hitler’s Nazi Party.

Essay with my comments added:
Spoiler
Explain how and why your research area reflected change within german social, political and cultural life up to 1939

The racial policies of Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers Party, resulting in ruthless attempts of Jewish genocide, revolutionised the economically weak and politically unstable Germany from (typo) 1918-1939. Perhaps make it clear: Was Germany politically unstable and economically weak from 1918-1939, or did the policies revolutionise these areas from 1918-1939? Obviously, the answer is “depending on the decade”, but maybe try to make this more evident. Inspired by the imperial writings of German and (typo) philosophers, Hitler, and by extension the Nazis, believed in the superiority of the Aryan or Nordic ‘race’ (ubermensch (Italics this) ) and inferiority of the Jews calling them “ a parasite in the body of other nations, contaminating the purity of blood”  in his memoir ‘Mein Kampf’ . As Hitler and the Nazi Party’s policies increased in numbers and severity, the political, cultural and social life of Germany was plunged into radical antisemitism. Accomplished through organised and effective law making (Gleichschaltung (italics this) ), the hatred towards Jews grew across all sectors of German life and resulted in the most most (typo) devastating attempt at genocide in human history.
I think this is a fantastic introduction. Besides from making some sentences a bit more clear, your thesis is very evident (although I imagine also quite obvious): Racial policy -> Antisemitism -> Change in social/political/cultural life. Great use of SARDEs.
The period of the democratic Weimar Germany (Time period? Make a call as to when the Republic ended) reflected a shift in attitudes and splitting of perspectives when it came to antisemitism and racial policies.The outstanding feature of this period was the polarisation between the unprecedented integration of the Jews in every sphere of life, and the growth of political anti-Semitism among various organisations and political parties. Compared to neighbouring states like France and Russia, antisemitism was less accepted and many Jews occupied high positions in civil service and government. I know you’re about to go into some specific dates/facts etc., but for a top level response (which this is shaping up to be) you really shouldn’t be going half a paragraph without a SARDE. Give me some specifics! Jews played an important role in the first cabinet formed in 1918 after the collapse of Imperial Germany and the Weimar Constitution was drafted by a Jew (Hugo Pruess). But with this rise in Jews occupying important political positions, came right-wing traditionalists that used the Jews as scapegoats for the loss of the war, losses of territory and the change of the political system. When left-wing communist groups such as the Spartacist League made serious attempts to revolt due to their disappointment with government hostility to socialist reform, their leaders (who were often) Jews received the blame. Concepts such as “Jewish revolution”, “Jewish Bolshevism” and “Jewish republic” became crowd-pleasing political slogans.
Reading below, I’m glad that this is the only part focused on Germany prior to 1933. However, given that the research area is “Nazi racial policy”, I think that this paragraph is too long (given that you have a word count, I assume). Try cut down as many unsubstantive sentences as possible, and bulk up the statistics supporting your argument.

The Nazi Party first came into power in 1933 immediately promoting the first ‘phase’ of antisemitic racial policies focussing on separating Jews from German social life. It aimed to revile the Jews and manipulate Germany’s ‘racially pure’ to distrust and dislike them. Hitler was rational in his method when it came to building up the aggression of his antisemitic policies and his early policies were quite general in nature. A series of trivial regulations aimed at the Jewish community were integrated that aimed to humiliate and degrade the Jews such as excluding Jews form public buses, parks and swimming pools and placing signs which said that certain building entrances were not for Jewish people. I need the specific regulation here: What was it called, on what date was it passed. Your logical sentence structure, building of your thesis etc. is really fantastic, but I need more PROOF that you’re not just making things up! Many ex-soldiers and right-wing supporters were in favour of the petty humiliation due to the growing belief that the Jews for responsible for past and present ills. On April 3 1933, the Nazi’s called for a national boycott of Jewish businesses, professional offices and department stores. The Jews, known for their business and financial skills suffered greatly from this vilification which accelerated with the enactment of the Law for the Restoration of the Civil Service in April 1933. I’ve realized here something that applies to much of the above: You need to make sure you are directly referencing the question. Is this social, political or cultural? All three? Just make sure it is really clear which section of the thesis you are addressing. Right click, synonyms, the words in the question so it doesn’t feel repetitive. It stated that civil servants who were not of ‘Aryan-descent’ were to be forced to retire. This came as a shock Try to avoid colloquialisms to many Jews and contrasted enormously with their previous acceptance and rise in employment at the time of Weimar Germany. Stats! Stats! Stats! Some of Germany’s greatest intellectuals, most notably, Albert Einstein saw that the blatantly racist law was a sign of what was to come and could see the danger of the rise in antisemitism. In a letter sent to the Prussian Academy of Science, Einstein said “(regarding his statements to the press) I also described the condition Germany is in today as a physic disease afflicting the masses”  His views were reflected in the minds of many prominent Jewish civil servants. Again, your assessment and use of facts (whilst not specific enough) is really great, I just need you to make it a bit clearer that this is building your thesis.

The manipulation of German culture by the Nazi Party aimed to remove all Jewish influence and presence in education, art, cinema, music. This ‘cultural genocide’ Why did you use this term? Is it a quote? If not, don’t use ‘these’ was skilfully guided by Joseph Goebbels head of the Ministry for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, President of the Reich Chamber of Culture and Director of the Propaganda Office of the Nazi Party and played an immense role in the strengthening of anti-semitism in Germany. In 1933 he began the synchronisation of culture, Perfect place to introduce the term Gleichschaltung, and explain what it means. by which the arts were brought in line with Nazi goals. German "art cultivation" (a term for all measures aimed at promoting artists and the arts) also extended to film.  Some Again, use less colloquial terms (approximately 1500 etc.) 1500 film directors and producers and actors fled Germany once the Nazi Party came into power. Notably Fritz Lang, accomplished film director, was asked by Goebbels to be the head of his propaganda film unit after being so impressed with Lang’s work, Metropolis. Lang instead fled to America fearing the repercussions. Book burning ceremonies were planned and the government purged cultural organisations of Jews and others suspected to be politically or artistically regarded as ‘risky’. In another form of literary ‘cleansing’ the Reich Chamber of Culture, consisting of the Reich Film Chamber, Reich Music Chamber, Reich Theatre Chamber, Reich Press Chamber, Reich Writing Chamber, Reich Chamber for Fine Arts, and the Reich Radio Chamber, formed a ‘blacklist’ of books deemed as ‘unacceptable’ either written by prominent Jews or literature promoting ideals that could not coexist with Nazi ideology. This started what can be viewed as the second ‘phase’ of attempt to annihilate the Jews. Hitler recognised the power of the arts and history being one of the the most powerful forms in keeping a culture active which he addresses in ‘Mein Kampf’. Address your thesis! Clearly, this paragraph spoke of cultural changes due to anti-semitism. Have an introductive and concluding statement. The intro statement should say something like “Nazi racial policies, including but not limited to the notion of  Gleichschaltung, caused a rapid deterioration and standardization of cultural movement in post-1933 Germany” You've got one that is very general; try to work on the intro statements in each of your paragraphs.
The unrelenting antisemitic magazine, ‘Der Stürmer’ was founded by high-ranking party member Julius Streicher in 1923 and was in circulation until the end of World War 1. Its slogan was ‘Die Juden sind unser Unglück!’, translated to ‘The Jews are our misfortune!” a phrase coined by early nationalist Heinrich von Treitschke in the 1880s. ‘Der Stürmer' was viewed by Hitler as playing a significant role in the Nazi propaganda machinery and a useful tool in influencing the "common man on the street".
The German people no longer had any (or very little) access to first hand education or portrayals of Jewish beliefs, achievements and culture. This left the Nazi party to ‘fill in the gaps’ and provided opportunity for them to continue circulating lies about the Jewish religion, race and its past and promote Aryan ‘purity’. There are some great stats about the diminishing numbers of students in higher education. Try to find some!

The transition from Weimar Government to Nazi Germany from 1918-1939 reflected an enormous amount of change in German social, cultural and political life. In the political sector, the stripping of civil rights within the first few months of Hitlers (typo) accession to power through effective law making was a considerable change from the total political acceptance of the Jews under the Weimar government. In social life Jews were slowly fazed out of jobs as well as general German life through antisemitic legislation and the role of propaganda in influencing the social ideas of the ‘Aryan’ German. Through culture, Jews were completely omitted form artistic prominence and were depicted in Nazi approved cultural propaganda as untermensch (sub-human). All of these changes clearly show the changes in German life due to antisemitic policy and practice by Hitler’s Nazi Party.
Not very keen on your last sentence, I’ll be honest. Make it sound foreboding: ‘indicative of the horror to come’ etc. I do like the summary of each of the thesis points (although possibly reword them, when you read it outloud they are quite jarring sentences); THIS IS WHAT YOU NEED MORE OF THROUGHOUT THE ESSAY! I also think, perhaps, you need to explore the political side of this question in greater depth (although I don't think there is much depth to go into). This is a top-notch essay, and your use of historical language etc. is fantastic. By addressing your thesis more regularly (by utilizing the words of the question) and adding more specific, accurate, relevant and detailed examples, I see a great essay ahead for you :).

ATAR: 99.80

Mathematics Extension 2: 93
Physics: 93
Chemistry: 93
Modern History: 94
English Advanced: 95
Mathematics: 96
Mathematics Extension 1: 98

Studying a combined Advanced Science/Law degree at UNSW

imtrying

  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 115
Re: Modern History Essay Marking
« Reply #6 on: February 22, 2016, 07:15:02 pm »
Hey:)
I'm trying to work through a few past HSC questions, and this is an attempt at "To what extent was the Great Depression responsible for the collapse of the Weimar Republic? I haven't added any historiography yet, but I'd just like some feedback on a) whether this flows okay and b) is there any event/factors I'm missing because the essay feels a bit too short.

Thankyou :)
Year 12 2016 (94.20)
English (Adv), Maths Ext.1, Modern History, Biology and Physics

jakesilove

  • HSC Lecturer
  • Honorary Moderator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *******
  • Posts: 1941
  • "Synergising your ATAR potential"
Re: Modern History Essay Marking
« Reply #7 on: February 22, 2016, 07:41:20 pm »
Hey:)
I'm trying to work through a few past HSC questions, and this is an attempt at "To what extent was the Great Depression responsible for the collapse of the Weimar Republic? I haven't added any historiography yet, but I'd just like some feedback on a) whether this flows okay and b) is there any event/factors I'm missing because the essay feels a bit too short.

Thankyou :)


Hey Imtrying!

Below are my comments :)

Original essay:
Spoiler
To what extent was the Great Depression responsible for the collapse of the Weimar Republic?

The Great Depression and the significant impacts it had on the German economy, although a factor,
was only a small part of the reasons for the collapse of the Weimar Republic. It served largely,
however, as a catalyst for the actions and events which led to its eventual demise.
In October 1929 the Wall Street Crash led to a Great Depression which spread throughout Europe,
eventually reaching Germany and affecting it most severely. Although this economic disaster was to
become a contributing factor in the collapse of the Weimar Republic, Germany was in possession of
a long tradition of authoritarian rule. Ideologically, this meant that the stability of the Weimar was
fragile. Democracy had never been fully accepted by powerful conservative groups and the Great
Depression became a catalyst for expression of their disaffection and the bid for an authoritarian
rule which would serve their interests. In addition, the labour movement, a strong supporter of
democracy was undermined by the mass employment that resulted.

This in turn encouraged President Hindenburg to move to a policy aimed at bringing about a more
authoritarian style of rule. Hindenburg, a monarchist with right-wing sympathies had no qualms
about using the powers afforded him under article 48 to carry this out, and appointed monarchist
Heinrich Bruning as chancellor. Bruning himself wished to restore the monarchy under a right wing
government.

On 27th March 1930, the Muller government resigned due to a coalition disagreement. From this
point, subsequent chancellors were chosen by Hindenburg, who moved to make the Reichstag
increasingly uninvolved in the political decision making process. Already, the democratic aspects of
the republic were being greatly reduced, to the point were true democracy was no longer possible.

Bruning’s chancellorship sealed the fate of the republic. His contempt for the parliamentary process
was obvious – if the Reichstag refused to support his policies, he would simply make use of the
powers afforded him under Article 48 of the constitution. Under his rule, the meeting days of the
Reichstag fell dramatically, and the number of emergency decrees under Article 48 skyrocketed.
Essentially, with the combined efforts of Hindenburg and Bruning, along with the influence of the
right-wing conservative elite, democracy was dying in Germany, and along with it, the republic itself.

The economic depression had served to radicalise the voting public and polarise the political system,
causing voters to turn to new parties and new hopes for government, such as the Nazis whose
dynamic and disciplined approach was seen as preferable to the tired, old established parties. This
loss of faith in the current system of government showed clearly in the election results. Following
the elections of 1930, and the rise in popularity of extremist parties such as the Nazis and
Communists, it became impossible to form a republican government in the Reichstag. By 1932,
Bruning had been replaced by equally conservative von Papen, and the Nazis had become the largest
party in the Reichstag. This paved the way for Hitler, and in January 1933, Hitler became chancellor,
determined to replace Weimar democracy with an authoritarian system, which ultimately, he did.

Although there is no direct inevitability of the republic’s collapse associated with the Great
Depression, it served to create a chain of events which would lead to its downfall. The republic,
already tainted by the memory of the 1923 hyperinflation was yet again associated with economic
disaster, radicalising the electorate and aiding the rise of the Nazi party at the expense of moderate
parties who were in favour of democracy. It was a final confirmation in the minds of Hindenburg and
his associates that the time had come to effect a move to authoritarian rule, which they achieved
through a strategic series of right-wing appointments of chancellors who removed power from the
Reichstag and therefore the people. Therefore, although it was by no means the sole or even the
central cause of the collapse of the Weimar Republic, the Great Depression provided the perfect
opportunity for those opposed to democracy to rid themselves (and indeed the nation) from it and
to aid Hitler and his Nazi party in establishing their own authoritarian system of rule in Germany.

Essay with comments:
Spoiler
To what extent was the Great Depression responsible for the collapse of the Weimar Republic?

The Great Depression and the significant impacts it had on the German economy, although a factor,
was only a small part of the reasons for the collapse of the Weimar Republic. Great, quick summary of your entire thesis. Since this is the first sentence, and therefore the first impression the marker will get of you, perhaps reword to make the sentence a little bit less... clunky?It served largely,
however, as a catalyst for the actions and events which led to its eventual demise. Whilst I get what you mean here, I worry it could appear slightly contradictory. If an event was the catalyst for events which caused the collapse, surely the question "To what extent was the Great Depression responsible for the collapse of the Weimar Republic?" should be answered "It was a necessary factor"? Maybe, here, suggest it was one of MANY factors.
In October 1929 the Wall Street Crash led to a Great Depression which spread throughout Europe,
eventually reaching Germany and affecting it most severely. Definitely check me on this, but I'm pretty sure the GD began in Germany earlier than the rest of Europe (final quarter, 1928?). I could certainly be wrong.Although this economic disaster was to
become a contributing factor in the collapse of the Weimar Republic, Germany was in possession of
a long tradition of authoritarian rule. Ideologically, this meant that the stability of the Weimar was
fragile. Democracy had never been fully accepted by powerful conservative groups and the Great
Depression became a catalyst for expression of their disaffection and the bid for an authoritarian
rule which would serve their interests. In addition, the labour movement, a strong supporter of
democracy was undermined by the mass employment that resulted. Love the introduction as a whole, especially the second half. You have captured the point of a History introduction: a great balance of thesis and facts supporting it.

This in turn encouraged President Hindenburg to move to a policy aimed at bringing about a more
authoritarian style of rule. You can't have the start of the next paragraph lead directly from the previous (ie. "this in turn". State something like "Massive unemployment, in turn", ideally quoting an unemployment statistic (6 million comes to mind?).Hindenburg, a monarchist with right-wing sympathies had no qualms
about using the powers afforded him under article 48 to carry this out What is A.48? Obviously I know, but who knows if the marker does? It is very important to include an explanation, not just a statement., and appointed monarchist
Heinrich Bruning as chancellor. Bruning himself wished to restore the monarchy under a right wing
government. How do you know? Don't forget, Modern history is the study of FACT! Include as many statistics as is humanly possible. A quote from Bruning would be great.

On 27th March 1930, the Muller government resigned due to a coalition disagreement. From this
point, subsequent chancellors were chosen by Hindenburg, who moved to make the Reichstag
increasingly uninvolved in the political decision making process. Already, the democratic aspects of
the republic were being greatly reduced, to the point were true democracy was no longer possible. There are great stats out there about the number of times A.48 was used compared with democratically passed legislation. This would definitely strengthen your point!

Bruning’s chancellorship sealed the fate of the republic. His contempt for the parliamentary process
was obvious – if the Reichstag refused to support his policies, he would simply make use of the
powers afforded him under Article 48 of the constitution. Under his rule, the meeting days of the
Reichstag fell dramatically, and the number of emergency decrees under Article 48 skyrocketed. STATS! STATS! STATS!
Essentially, with the combined efforts of Hindenburg and Bruning, along with the influence of the
right-wing conservative elite, democracy was dying in Germany, and along with it, the republic itself.

The economic depression had served to radicalise the voting public and polarise the political system,
causing voters to turn to new parties and new hopes for government, such as the Nazis whose
dynamic and disciplined approach was seen as preferable to the tired, old established parties. This
loss of faith in the current system of government showed clearly in the election results. Following
the elections of 1930, and the rise in popularity of extremist parties such as the Nazis and
Communists, it became impossible to form a republican government in the Reichstag. By 1932,
Bruning had been replaced by equally conservative von Papen, and the Nazis had become the largest
party in the Reichstag. This paved the way for Hitler, and in January 1933, Hitler became chancellor,
determined to replace Weimar democracy with an authoritarian system, which ultimately, he did. I definitely need more statistics here. Voting records etc. I also need direct policy-related or cultural-related reasons as to WHY they turned to the Nazis. If you are saying that the Weimar Republic fell when Hitler was appointed, and that the GD helped lead to that: WHY? Okay, unemployment caused a disenfranchisement with the current system, but which Nazi policies made them appealing? I'm being quite harsh here, just pointing out what you need to add, because your historical writing skills and logical progression is very, very good. I just want you to be able to write a top notch essay!

Although there is no direct inevitability of the republic’s collapse associated with the Great
Depression, it served to create a chain of events which would lead to its downfall. I don't know if your essay really gave me this thesis, until now. You've only given a reader that A) GD caused unemployment and B) Unemployment caused elected officials who destroyed democracy. That seams pretty direct to me. I agree with your statement, this essay just needs to expand more on OTHER factors that caused the downfall (think entrenched right-wing elites, War-guilt clause, Versailles, antisemitism even)The republic,
already tainted by the memory of the 1923 hyperinflation was yet again associated with economic
disaster, radicalising the electorate and aiding the rise of the Nazi party at the expense of moderate
parties who were in favour of democracy. It was a final confirmation in the minds of Hindenburg and
his associates that the time had come to effect a move to authoritarian rule, which they achieved
through a strategic series of right-wing appointments of chancellors who removed power from the
Reichstag and therefore the people. Therefore, although it was by no means the sole or even the
central cause of the collapse of the Weimar Republic, the Great Depression provided the perfect
opportunity for those opposed to democracy to rid themselves (and indeed the nation) from it and
to aid Hitler and his Nazi party in establishing their own authoritarian system of rule in Germany. Really love the second half of your conclusion. Strong, decisive, beautifully worded. Expand on what I've discussed above: If you say that the GD was NOT the sole cause, you need to expand on what was. A good rule of thumb is at least 2/3 of the essay should be on the actual question, and 1/3 can be on offering alternatives. This will expand your essay quite a bit, and justify your concern re length. You have a great 'historical voice', and so I'm just trying to make sure you nail the thesis and stats so you can get great marks. This essay has great potential, and you are clearly a very keen student, so keep at it! I've only really pointed out the things I would recommend improving, but absolutely most of the essay is already fantastic!

Jake
ATAR: 99.80

Mathematics Extension 2: 93
Physics: 93
Chemistry: 93
Modern History: 94
English Advanced: 95
Mathematics: 96
Mathematics Extension 1: 98

Studying a combined Advanced Science/Law degree at UNSW

imtrying

  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 115
Re: Modern History Essay Marking
« Reply #8 on: February 22, 2016, 08:03:12 pm »

Hey Imtrying!

Below are my comments :)

Original essay:
Spoiler
To what extent was the Great Depression responsible for the collapse of the Weimar Republic?

The Great Depression and the significant impacts it had on the German economy, although a factor,
was only a small part of the reasons for the collapse of the Weimar Republic. It served largely,
however, as a catalyst for the actions and events which led to its eventual demise.
In October 1929 the Wall Street Crash led to a Great Depression which spread throughout Europe,
eventually reaching Germany and affecting it most severely. Although this economic disaster was to
become a contributing factor in the collapse of the Weimar Republic, Germany was in possession of
a long tradition of authoritarian rule. Ideologically, this meant that the stability of the Weimar was
fragile. Democracy had never been fully accepted by powerful conservative groups and the Great
Depression became a catalyst for expression of their disaffection and the bid for an authoritarian
rule which would serve their interests. In addition, the labour movement, a strong supporter of
democracy was undermined by the mass employment that resulted.

This in turn encouraged President Hindenburg to move to a policy aimed at bringing about a more
authoritarian style of rule. Hindenburg, a monarchist with right-wing sympathies had no qualms
about using the powers afforded him under article 48 to carry this out, and appointed monarchist
Heinrich Bruning as chancellor. Bruning himself wished to restore the monarchy under a right wing
government.

On 27th March 1930, the Muller government resigned due to a coalition disagreement. From this
point, subsequent chancellors were chosen by Hindenburg, who moved to make the Reichstag
increasingly uninvolved in the political decision making process. Already, the democratic aspects of
the republic were being greatly reduced, to the point were true democracy was no longer possible.

Bruning’s chancellorship sealed the fate of the republic. His contempt for the parliamentary process
was obvious – if the Reichstag refused to support his policies, he would simply make use of the
powers afforded him under Article 48 of the constitution. Under his rule, the meeting days of the
Reichstag fell dramatically, and the number of emergency decrees under Article 48 skyrocketed.
Essentially, with the combined efforts of Hindenburg and Bruning, along with the influence of the
right-wing conservative elite, democracy was dying in Germany, and along with it, the republic itself.

The economic depression had served to radicalise the voting public and polarise the political system,
causing voters to turn to new parties and new hopes for government, such as the Nazis whose
dynamic and disciplined approach was seen as preferable to the tired, old established parties. This
loss of faith in the current system of government showed clearly in the election results. Following
the elections of 1930, and the rise in popularity of extremist parties such as the Nazis and
Communists, it became impossible to form a republican government in the Reichstag. By 1932,
Bruning had been replaced by equally conservative von Papen, and the Nazis had become the largest
party in the Reichstag. This paved the way for Hitler, and in January 1933, Hitler became chancellor,
determined to replace Weimar democracy with an authoritarian system, which ultimately, he did.

Although there is no direct inevitability of the republic’s collapse associated with the Great
Depression, it served to create a chain of events which would lead to its downfall. The republic,
already tainted by the memory of the 1923 hyperinflation was yet again associated with economic
disaster, radicalising the electorate and aiding the rise of the Nazi party at the expense of moderate
parties who were in favour of democracy. It was a final confirmation in the minds of Hindenburg and
his associates that the time had come to effect a move to authoritarian rule, which they achieved
through a strategic series of right-wing appointments of chancellors who removed power from the
Reichstag and therefore the people. Therefore, although it was by no means the sole or even the
central cause of the collapse of the Weimar Republic, the Great Depression provided the perfect
opportunity for those opposed to democracy to rid themselves (and indeed the nation) from it and
to aid Hitler and his Nazi party in establishing their own authoritarian system of rule in Germany.

Essay with comments:
Spoiler
To what extent was the Great Depression responsible for the collapse of the Weimar Republic?

The Great Depression and the significant impacts it had on the German economy, although a factor,
was only a small part of the reasons for the collapse of the Weimar Republic. Great, quick summary of your entire thesis. Since this is the first sentence, and therefore the first impression the marker will get of you, perhaps reword to make the sentence a little bit less... clunky?It served largely,
however, as a catalyst for the actions and events which led to its eventual demise. Whilst I get what you mean here, I worry it could appear slightly contradictory. If an event was the catalyst for events which caused the collapse, surely the question "To what extent was the Great Depression responsible for the collapse of the Weimar Republic?" should be answered "It was a necessary factor"? Maybe, here, suggest it was one of MANY factors.
In October 1929 the Wall Street Crash led to a Great Depression which spread throughout Europe,
eventually reaching Germany and affecting it most severely. Definitely check me on this, but I'm pretty sure the GD began in Germany earlier than the rest of Europe (final quarter, 1928?). I could certainly be wrong.Although this economic disaster was to
become a contributing factor in the collapse of the Weimar Republic, Germany was in possession of
a long tradition of authoritarian rule. Ideologically, this meant that the stability of the Weimar was
fragile. Democracy had never been fully accepted by powerful conservative groups and the Great
Depression became a catalyst for expression of their disaffection and the bid for an authoritarian
rule which would serve their interests. In addition, the labour movement, a strong supporter of
democracy was undermined by the mass employment that resulted. Love the introduction as a whole, especially the second half. You have captured the point of a History introduction: a great balance of thesis and facts supporting it.

This in turn encouraged President Hindenburg to move to a policy aimed at bringing about a more
authoritarian style of rule. You can't have the start of the next paragraph lead directly from the previous (ie. "this in turn". State something like "Massive unemployment, in turn", ideally quoting an unemployment statistic (6 million comes to mind?).Hindenburg, a monarchist with right-wing sympathies had no qualms
about using the powers afforded him under article 48 to carry this out What is A.48? Obviously I know, but who knows if the marker does? It is very important to include an explanation, not just a statement., and appointed monarchist
Heinrich Bruning as chancellor. Bruning himself wished to restore the monarchy under a right wing
government. How do you know? Don't forget, Modern history is the study of FACT! Include as many statistics as is humanly possible. A quote from Bruning would be great.

On 27th March 1930, the Muller government resigned due to a coalition disagreement. From this
point, subsequent chancellors were chosen by Hindenburg, who moved to make the Reichstag
increasingly uninvolved in the political decision making process. Already, the democratic aspects of
the republic were being greatly reduced, to the point were true democracy was no longer possible. There are great stats out there about the number of times A.48 was used compared with democratically passed legislation. This would definitely strengthen your point!

Bruning’s chancellorship sealed the fate of the republic. His contempt for the parliamentary process
was obvious – if the Reichstag refused to support his policies, he would simply make use of the
powers afforded him under Article 48 of the constitution. Under his rule, the meeting days of the
Reichstag fell dramatically, and the number of emergency decrees under Article 48 skyrocketed. STATS! STATS! STATS!
Essentially, with the combined efforts of Hindenburg and Bruning, along with the influence of the
right-wing conservative elite, democracy was dying in Germany, and along with it, the republic itself.

The economic depression had served to radicalise the voting public and polarise the political system,
causing voters to turn to new parties and new hopes for government, such as the Nazis whose
dynamic and disciplined approach was seen as preferable to the tired, old established parties. This
loss of faith in the current system of government showed clearly in the election results. Following
the elections of 1930, and the rise in popularity of extremist parties such as the Nazis and
Communists, it became impossible to form a republican government in the Reichstag. By 1932,
Bruning had been replaced by equally conservative von Papen, and the Nazis had become the largest
party in the Reichstag. This paved the way for Hitler, and in January 1933, Hitler became chancellor,
determined to replace Weimar democracy with an authoritarian system, which ultimately, he did. I definitely need more statistics here. Voting records etc. I also need direct policy-related or cultural-related reasons as to WHY they turned to the Nazis. If you are saying that the Weimar Republic fell when Hitler was appointed, and that the GD helped lead to that: WHY? Okay, unemployment caused a disenfranchisement with the current system, but which Nazi policies made them appealing? I'm being quite harsh here, just pointing out what you need to add, because your historical writing skills and logical progression is very, very good. I just want you to be able to write a top notch essay!

Although there is no direct inevitability of the republic’s collapse associated with the Great
Depression, it served to create a chain of events which would lead to its downfall. I don't know if your essay really gave me this thesis, until now. You've only given a reader that A) GD caused unemployment and B) Unemployment caused elected officials who destroyed democracy. That seams pretty direct to me. I agree with your statement, this essay just needs to expand more on OTHER factors that caused the downfall (think entrenched right-wing elites, War-guilt clause, Versailles, antisemitism even)The republic,
already tainted by the memory of the 1923 hyperinflation was yet again associated with economic
disaster, radicalising the electorate and aiding the rise of the Nazi party at the expense of moderate
parties who were in favour of democracy. It was a final confirmation in the minds of Hindenburg and
his associates that the time had come to effect a move to authoritarian rule, which they achieved
through a strategic series of right-wing appointments of chancellors who removed power from the
Reichstag and therefore the people. Therefore, although it was by no means the sole or even the
central cause of the collapse of the Weimar Republic, the Great Depression provided the perfect
opportunity for those opposed to democracy to rid themselves (and indeed the nation) from it and
to aid Hitler and his Nazi party in establishing their own authoritarian system of rule in Germany. Really love the second half of your conclusion. Strong, decisive, beautifully worded. Expand on what I've discussed above: If you say that the GD was NOT the sole cause, you need to expand on what was. A good rule of thumb is at least 2/3 of the essay should be on the actual question, and 1/3 can be on offering alternatives. This will expand your essay quite a bit, and justify your concern re length. You have a great 'historical voice', and so I'm just trying to make sure you nail the thesis and stats so you can get great marks. This essay has great potential, and you are clearly a very keen student, so keep at it! I've only really pointed out the things I would recommend improving, but absolutely most of the essay is already fantastic!

Jake


Thankyou so much for your feedback, its a huge help :)
Year 12 2016 (94.20)
English (Adv), Maths Ext.1, Modern History, Biology and Physics

atar27

  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 53
Re: Modern History Essay Marking
« Reply #9 on: February 24, 2016, 10:07:15 am »
Hi, This question
Account for the success and failures of democracy in Germany from the emergence of the weimar republic to the stressmann era
I am thinking of doing paragraphs under
1. Ecnomic
2. Political
3. Socially
But I am not quite sure what to write under them! :(

Thank You

jakesilove

  • HSC Lecturer
  • Honorary Moderator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *******
  • Posts: 1941
  • "Synergising your ATAR potential"
Re: Modern History Essay Marking
« Reply #10 on: February 24, 2016, 11:38:11 am »
Hi, This question
Account for the success and failures of democracy in Germany from the emergence of the weimar republic to the stressmann era
I am thinking of doing paragraphs under
1. Ecnomic
2. Political
3. Socially
But I am not quite sure what to write under them! :(

Thank You

Hey Atar27!

This is one of the biggest questions you can get, in terms of the amount of content you could choose the include. The entire first half of the Weimar/Nazi part of the curriculum addresses answers to this question!

Whilst we can't write an essay for you, we can definitely take a look at the content and ideas that you have, in terms of what you want to include in an answer.

I recommend you write up a table, with headings "Social", "Political" and "Economic". Then, use subheadings to have a "Successes" and a "Failures" column. Finally, just go through the notes you've taken, or what you remember, and fill in as much information in the table as possible! Once you have a fair few advantages and disadvantages, write up a short paragraph on each, including some statistics from your studies. Once you've done that, I'd be more than happy to take a look at your working!

Good luck!

Jake
ATAR: 99.80

Mathematics Extension 2: 93
Physics: 93
Chemistry: 93
Modern History: 94
English Advanced: 95
Mathematics: 96
Mathematics Extension 1: 98

Studying a combined Advanced Science/Law degree at UNSW

chuckiecheese

  • Adventurer
  • *
  • Posts: 20
  • School: Trinity Catholic College Lismore
  • School Grad Year: 2016
Re: Modern History Essay Marking
« Reply #11 on: February 27, 2016, 12:43:10 pm »
Hey Guys,

Ive posted one of my Weimar essays and I don't feel as if my argument is as correct/succinct as it could be.
The question is: Analyse the reasons for the collapse of the Weimar Republic

It would be great if you could have a look at it!!

Cheers

jakesilove

  • HSC Lecturer
  • Honorary Moderator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *******
  • Posts: 1941
  • "Synergising your ATAR potential"
Re: Modern History Essay Marking
« Reply #12 on: February 27, 2016, 01:10:41 pm »
Hey Guys,

Ive posted one of my Weimar essays and I don't feel as if my argument is as correct/succinct as it could be.
The question is: Analyse the reasons for the collapse of the Weimar Republic

It would be great if you could have a look at it!!

Cheers

Hey Chuckie!

Thank you for posting your essay! Since it looks like you want comments on your Thesis and general writing style, I haven't gone through and edited your essay. Rather, I've written some general comments below :)

Original essay:
Spoiler
Analyse the reasons for the collapse of the Weimar Republic

Indisputably, the collapse of the Weimar Republic can be attributed to the Treaty of Versailles, which enabled a multitude of other elements to come to the furore of the Republic and consequently exacerbate its collapse. These elements, such as economic struggles, the role of conservative elites, as well as the exploitation of the constitution, played irrefutable roles in the collapse of the Weimar Republic.

When shown the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, in 1919, Chancellor Sheidden, along with half his cabinet, resigned rather than sign it. When the new government had no choice but to sign the Treaty in the November of 1919, the right wing, conservative elites attributed the blame to them, instead of the Kaiser government they valued so much. Thus, the new government who signed the treaty became known as the ‘November Criminals.’ Losing the support of the conservative elite was an impediment to the fledgling government and although the government was now democratic in nature, every other power structure in Germany was dominated and controlled by those who had intrinsically conservative values and, as historian Meinecke opined: “True loyalty to the Fatherland requires disloyalty to the Republic.” These conservative elites posed a greater threat to the government than the left, as they had the support of the military, the state bureaucracy, the educational system, the media and the judiciary system.

ADD MORE DETAIL ON EBERT AND GROENER, WHO WHAT WHY

This concentration of power led to the Ebert-Groener pact: Ebert would oppose revolutionary activity, while Groener would maintain military support ensuring there would be no right wing coup. The government would also overlook the violence of the right wing whether it be violent suppression at the hands of the ultra-conservative, paramilitary group, the Freikorps or the 356 political assassinations, which occurred between 1919 and 1923. During the same time, the German left was dealt with harshly, and uprisings were many. As R.F. Holt and Rickard opined: ‘the old rotten thing – the state – will not be smashed by well-tempered parliamentarians… the new can only be affected by the political, economic and cultural activity of the whole German proletariat.” However, this was never able to come to fruition as the conservative elites, so embedded in the German political structure, had such an iron hold over the government. This led to greater levels of resentment and distrust amongst the German left and eventual attempted revolutions. Thus, a political inclination of the conservative elites of Germany paved the way for a political spectrum that would always be, as Richard Evans notes, “…weak in political legitimacy from the start…it was beset by insurmountable problems of political violence…”, and thus, foreshadow the collapse of the fledgling Republic.

With the imposition of democracy onto Germany through the Treaty of Versailles, or the Versailles Diktat, a constitution was to be created to ensure the rights of citizens were recognised, outlined and upheld. The Republic’s constitution was at first held up as an example of a post-war and increasingly equalitarian Europe. Extraordinary powers were given to the president, whereby, outlined in Article 48, a ‘suicide clause’ could be initiated in certain circumstances, which allowed the president to initiate emergency measures without the consent of the Reichstag. These powers given to the president reflect a predilection for monarch rule amongst conservative elites inherent throughout the Republic’s multiple power structures. This ‘suicide clause’, was invoked more than 130 times between 1919 and 1924 to safeguard the Republic from leftist and rightist elements within the Republic. As Eric Weitz notes, “…the flaws in the constitution had less to do with the political system it established than with the fact that German society was so fragmented. A less divided society, and one with a more expansive commitment to democratic principles could have made it work.” The extremist aspects of Germany’s political spectrum were able to take advantage of and undermine the German government by promoting instability that would be exacerbated by the instigation of Article 48, the ‘suicide clause’. Thus, as Feuchtwanger observes, the Weimar constitution was “…born in adversity…”

The Treaty of Versailles, as John Maynard Keynes noted at the time, “…includes no provisions for the economic rehabilitation of Europe…nothing to stabilise the new states of Europe…or to adjust the systems of the old world and the new.” As well as the imposition of democratic principles through the Treaty, Germany was, Keynes also noted, “…pushed back to the phase of development that corresponds to her economic condition and the numbers of her population as they were half a century ago.” Germany was required, by the Treaty, to pay for all civillian damage, as well as the rebuilding of all devastated areas throughout war-torn Europe. Much of Germany’s pre-war economy was built on the import and export of raw materials, arms and munitions. However, Germany was required, by the terms of the Treaty, to relieve itself of its colonies, as well as banning the trade of armaments. Additionally, 13% of Germany’s land was to be controlled through an Allied Commission, established through the Versailles Diktat, with the majority being fertile and resource rich land, such as the Saar Basin. Thus, industrial production decreased, with coal production decreasing drastically from 258,854,000 metric tonnes to 180,474,000 creating an unbreakable trade deficit. The key to future economic crises, such as hyperinflation, in the Republic, could have been solved by the exportation of minerals and resources, however the Diktat did not allow this. As Keynes noted at the time: “Those who sign this treaty will sign the death sentence of many millions of German men, women, and children”, as well as the Republic itself.

Whilst there a multitude of elements that can be considered responsible for the collapse of the Weimar Republic, such as economic struggles, the role of conservative elites and the exploitation of the constitution, they collectively or individually cannot be considered the sole instigators for the collapse of the Republic. Rather it was the Treaty of Versailles, which enabled a chain reaction of downward spiralling events to become inevitable and thus facilitated and exacerbated those other elements, which came to the furore of the Weimar Republic.

My comments:
Spoiler
Firstly, I want to compliment you on your use of statistics and quotes. Most of the comments I make on student's essays is to USE MORE QUOTES! USE MORE STATISTICS! The choices you made in terms of the statistics and quotes you used were fantastic, really great summaries of what you were trying to say. I especially like your specific knowledge political assassinations, German terminology and land and coal values. Keep it up, because really that was pushing a good essay over the edge, to become a great essay.

That being said, when you ask me to assess how "correct/succinct" your thesis is, I would definitely have a few more points of construction. Let's start with your thesis itself.

I think that, for a question as broad as "analyse the reasons for the collapse of the Weimar Republic", to put it down to a single cause is probably a little bit simplistic, if you want a high level essay (which I imagine you do, given how extensive your research is!). Your introduction should introduce a plethora of reasons. You could absolutely say that the fall was largely caused by the Dictat, however you really also need to say "however, significant other factors (for instance the Great Depression) played a substantial role in the eventual demise of the Republic)" etc.

Don't use words like "indisputably" in a history essay. The point of history is that EVERYTHING can be in dispute.

So, my main point is to diversify your thesis. Your introduction should be a bit longer, and introduce everything you are planning to talk about. You can say that the Versailles treaty was a large factor, but don't exclude things like economic factors, entrenched right wing elites etc. etc. Since you talk about these things throughout the essay, it doesn't really make sense to say that it was ONLY because of the treaty.

You also do need to assess the latter ends of the Republic. In your first paragraph, you should decide WHEN the Republic ends, and why IN THAT YEAR the Republic ends. Then, try to link those specific reasons to the paragraphs you have written regarding the early years of the Republic. I don't get a very clear idea, from your essay, why the reasons you outlined caused the actual demise (other than a whole era of foreshadowing).

I think that you write well in a historical sense, and definitely succinctly. I wouldn't worry about summarising your Thesis more; in fact, I would expand it!

The points that you've written about are written very, very well. I'm only suggesting that you think about the question in greater detail, and make sure to actually answer it. You absolutely have the potential to write a top-notch essay, just make sure it directly answers the question.

Feel free to post another draft sometime! Hope this helps!
ATAR: 99.80

Mathematics Extension 2: 93
Physics: 93
Chemistry: 93
Modern History: 94
English Advanced: 95
Mathematics: 96
Mathematics Extension 1: 98

Studying a combined Advanced Science/Law degree at UNSW

chuckiecheese

  • Adventurer
  • *
  • Posts: 20
  • School: Trinity Catholic College Lismore
  • School Grad Year: 2016
Re: Modern History Essay Marking
« Reply #13 on: February 27, 2016, 01:38:28 pm »
Hey man,

Thanks heaps for your comments above. I think my thesis is pretty similar in this essay as well. So the next few Ill do i will try to diversify the thesis, that makes sense. I just have an assessment on tuesday (FREAKING!)

Could you have a look at this one too?

Cheers

jakesilove

  • HSC Lecturer
  • Honorary Moderator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *******
  • Posts: 1941
  • "Synergising your ATAR potential"
Re: Modern History Essay Marking
« Reply #14 on: February 27, 2016, 02:41:42 pm »
Hey man,

Thanks heaps for your comments above. I think my thesis is pretty similar in this essay as well. So the next few Ill do i will try to diversify the thesis, that makes sense. I just have an assessment on tuesday (FREAKING!)

Could you have a look at this one too?

Cheers

No problem Chuckie!

I've done a similar thing with this essay: Just general comments, rather than specifically "marking" the attached essay. Hope it helps! Let me know if you have any other questions.

Original Essay:
Spoiler
Explain Weimar Germany’s political, economic and social issues between 1919-1929

The political, economic and societal dynamics present within Weimer Germany from 1919 to 1929 can be attributed to the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, or the Versailles Diktat, which exacerbated greatly, those elements within the fledgling Republic.

Germany had never had a strong democratic tradition: it was an authoritarian and autocratic monarchy. However, with the end of World War I, Germany’s Kaiser, Wilhelm II, abdicated and fled to Holland – laying the blame in the hands of the government of the day. Consequently, the government of the day signed the Treaty of Versailles, in 1919, and Germany became a newly minted democracy. Thus, those that signed the treaty became known as the ‘November Criminals’.

The deep currents of nationalism and jingoism, which were so entrenched in Germany long before the establishment of democracy, reared its head through the guise of conservative elites. These elites, as Mowrer opines, “stalled the Republic”, a “…Republic that allowed its laws to be interpreted by monarchist judges, its government to be administered by old time functionaries…and reactionary school teachers…” Consequently, every power structure but the government was dominated by conservative elites, which fostered an intense hatred and resentment of the ‘November Criminals’. This can be largely observed in the Eber-Groener Pact. The agreement notarised that Ebert’s government would oppose politically charged revolutionary activity whilst Groener would maintain army support. This meant that there would be no right-wing coup and thus guaranteed the survival of the Ebert government. However, as no radical socio-economic changes occurred under the Ebert government, it ensured the survival of the conservative elites.

With the establishment of democracy in Germany, a constitution was required. The constitution was held up as a tribute around the world as an example of the new equalitarian, post-war Europe. It allowed for all citizens, regardless of gender, the right to vote, directly for the executive. However, Germany’s electoral system primarily leaned on a system of proportional representation. This system meant that the amount of votes cast for a party reflected the number of seats that party garnered within the Reichstag. This system created a multitude of difficulties for potential governments as it often meant that parties would have to enter into coalitions together –often spanning Germany’s polarised political spectrum. As Shepard notes, “…conservative political culture…made it hard for parties to be effective.” The deeply entrenched conservative attitudes inherent within Germany’s various power structures coupled with a volatile and frenetic electoral and political system made it extremely difficult for those in power to govern. This can be seen evidently in the Ruhr Crisis of 1923.

Under the Treaty of Versailles, Clause 231 blamed Germany for the war and thus justified the Allies demands for compensation. This allowed the Allies to take ten per-cent of Germany’s land, which was some of its most fertile and resource rich land. Thus Germany could not generate the revenue it was indebted to pay the reparations imposed on itself and consequently in December of 1922, Germany defaulted on its reparation payments. In the January of 1923, France invaded the Ruhr, one of Germany’s most industrious and resource rich areas. The French were supported by Belgium and Italian troops, who were met by a local population practising passive resistance at the request of the then Cuno government. As Adam Ferguson notes, “the industrial heart of Germany practically stopped beating. Hardly anyone worked: hardly anything ran.” France basically severed the Ruhr regions economic ties with the rest of Germany. This meant that the German government had to import copious amounts of coal, as well as subsidising the passive resistance still being undertaken in the Ruhr. This subsidisation continued on until the autumn of 1923 and at this stage, the German government began printing bank notes. This process rendered Germany’s foreign exchange impossible and hyperinflation ensued with up to 23 400.3 billion trillion marks in circulation by the November of 1923. A public servant at the time, Leopold Ullsteing, observed that, “…people just didn’t understand what was happening…there was a feeling of utter dependence on anonymous powers.” This economic dislocation allowed the volatile forces of Germany’s political scene to come to the furore, with the Black Reichswehr rebelling in Berlin and communists taking control of the governments in Saxony and Thuringia. The government at this time was caused to confront its own extinction, with various revolutions and military putsch’s on the forefront at all times.

In the latter part of 1923, Gustav Stresemann was appointed Chancellor and Foreign Minister of a grand coalition government at a time of crises. At this time, Stresemann announced the end to passive resistance against the French during their occupation of the Ruhr. As he wrote at the time: “The most important objective is the liberation of German territory from foreign occupation. First we must remove the strangler from our throat”. Consequently, Stresemann introduced a new currency, the Rentenmark, which ended hyperinflation. He also persuaded the French to pull back from the Ruhr in return for a promise that reparations payments would resume. The coalition he was Chancellor of eventually deposed of him, but he remained in the post of Foreign Minister until his death in 1929. During this time, Stresemann negotiated both the Dawes and Young plan. Both of these plans drastically restructured the international loan system. Both plans included loans from the U.S. to Germany, which Germany in turn would deliver to the Allies in reparations payments, who then in turn delivered this sum as war debt payments. These plans, in the short-term, worked brilliantly in Germany’s favour with the fledgling Republic becoming a cultural icon of Europe and the world. Additionally, by 1929 it seemed as if the volatility and polarisation that was German politics had subsided, with the centre parties, who were committed to the idea of a democratic and republican Germany, polled up to fifty per-cent of the vote – with the extreme left and extreme right ignored. However, in 1929, ‘Black Thursday’ occurred – the U.S. stock market crashed, and the U.S. Government required the immediate return of all loans, with Germany again the country in question. This meant that Germany, again, would plunge into hyperinflation and further economic dislocation.

There is no denying these factors alone had a drastic effect on the Republic, but none would have occurred without the chain reaction set in motion by the Treaty of Versailles of 1919. As historian Michael Burleigh opines: “…by pre-1914 or post-1945 standards, Weimar politics were highly unstable…but instability combined with chronic economic problems was liable to engender a sense of despair and hopelessness…”

General comments:
Spoiler
Again, great job with reliable and valuable use of quotes and statistics, as well as historical terms. You use German language and curriculum wording like a pro, which means you're right on your way to a seriously high level response. Your vocabulary is also fantastic!

My main point regarding this essay is structure. Questions like this come with an in-built structure: One paragraph on Political, one paragraph on Economic, one paragraph on Social. Whilst I understand how each of your points relate to the question, you need to make it much more evident. In your "golden sentence" at the start of each paragraph, it should be abundantly clear which of the above point you are speaking to. As such, I would highly recommend you write an essay plan before attacking this sort of question on Tuesday. Spend literally two minutes, and write out something like this at the front of the exam booklet.

- Introduction

- Para 1: Political
     - Traditional (pre Weimar)
     - Entrenched Nationalism
     - Constitution
- Para 2: Economic
     - Ruhr Crisis
     - Great Depression (this is important, INCLUDE THIS!)
     - Foreign loans
- Para 3: Social
     - Coups (Spartacus, Kapp, Beerhall)
     - Culture
     - etc.
- Conclusion

This takes no time at all, but gives you a really clear way to move forward without worrying about structure, forgetting information, or making it clear which aspect of the question you are answering.

I think that you need to address Social aspects to a greater extent, and cut down on Economic. Your introduction should be longer, expanding on what you will actually talk about rather than just stating your thesis. I'm also not a bit fan of ending your essay with a quote: perhaps put a final sentence in, summarising the essay that is YOUR OWN.

I think you should be doing an essay plan like the one above for ANY question that you get. A lot of your marks will come from structure, since you seem to have the knowledge and the statistics down. Making your essay flow smoothly, and making sure it actually answers the question, is the top area for improvement I would recommend you work on. Have topic sentences making it clear what you are addressing, and at the end of the paragraph summarise your point and move seamlessly into the next area of contention.

I also think that, like your previous essay, you focus slightly too much on the very early stages of the time period you were given. That is totally fine: but you need to explain why you've made the decision to do that. So, in your introduction, a single sentence like "the Political, Economic and Social issues were especially prevalent in the formative years of the Republic, and thus this essay will describe and deconstruct some problems faced in those areas in these years" etc (probably more eloquently worded).

Again, your knowledge and use of stats is fantastic. Just spend a bit more time focusing on structure, and making sure you actually answer the question.

Hope this helps! Good luck on Tuesday, I'm sure you'll smash it! You seem very prepared :)

Jake
ATAR: 99.80

Mathematics Extension 2: 93
Physics: 93
Chemistry: 93
Modern History: 94
English Advanced: 95
Mathematics: 96
Mathematics Extension 1: 98

Studying a combined Advanced Science/Law degree at UNSW