Post by: jakesilove on February 16, 2016, 10:32:30 am
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
Post by: atar27 on February 16, 2016, 08:32:14 pm
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 :)
Post by: elysepopplewell 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 :)
Post by: atar27 on February 17, 2016, 05:53:14 pm
Post by: maddisonlee890 on February 22, 2016, 02:32:24 pm
Post by: jakesilove 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.
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 :).
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 :).
Post by: imtrying on February 22, 2016, 07:15:02 pm
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 :)
Post by: jakesilove 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.
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!
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
Post by: imtrying on February 22, 2016, 08:03:12 pm
Hey Imtrying!
Below are my comments :)
Original essay:SpoilerTo 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:SpoilerTo 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 :)
Post by: atar27 on February 24, 2016, 10:07:15 am
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
Post by: jakesilove 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
Post by: chuckiecheese on February 27, 2016, 12:43:10 pm
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
Post by: jakesilove 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.
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!
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!
Post by: chuckiecheese on February 27, 2016, 01:38:28 pm
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
Post by: jakesilove 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…”
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.
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
Post by: Laura.lopresti on February 28, 2016, 07:30:06 pm
the question is To what extent did weakness in the Weimar Republic account for the growth and rise to power of the Nazi Party to 1933?
Intro: Germany’s Weimar Republic (1919-1933) had numerous flaws and weaknesses, which were vital for the growth and rise of the Nazi Party. A major frailty of the Weimar Republic was the way it formed, and constitutional flaws. These led to the army and key political groups opposing the Republic. Oppositions to Weimar included the NSPAD (Nazis), and allowed for their growth throughout the 1920s. It was predominantly the failing economic of the Weimar Republic that led to the extreme impact of the Great Depression, allowing the NSPAD to gain power.
conclusion: Without weaknesses in the Weimar Republic the Nazi Party would not have come to power in 1933. It was because of the constitutional flaws, including the abuse of article 22 and 48 by Presidents, that the army, along with major political groups including the Nazis, opposed the Republic. Finally, the failing economy during the Weimar period resulted from the unrealistic expectations of the Treaty of Versailles, and the harsh impact of the Great Depression. This forced German citizens to take extreme measures and support the NSPAD, which allowed Hitler to gain control of Germany in 1933.
Post by: jakesilove on February 28, 2016, 10:32:12 pm
Hi, would you mind reading my intro and conclusion to help improve it... topic is Germany :) thanks
the question is To what extent did weakness in the Weimar Republic account for the growth and rise to power of the Nazi Party to 1933?
Intro: Germany’s Weimar Republic (1919-1933) had numerous flaws and weaknesses, which were vital for the growth and rise of the Nazi Party. A major frailty of the Weimar Republic was the way it formed, and constitutional flaws. These led to the army and key political groups opposing the Republic. Oppositions to Weimar included the NSPAD (Nazis), and allowed for their growth throughout the 1920s. It was predominantly the failing economic of the Weimar Republic that led to the extreme impact of the Great Depression, allowing the NSPAD to gain power.
conclusion: Without weaknesses in the Weimar Republic the Nazi Party would not have come to power in 1933. It was because of the constitutional flaws, including the abuse of article 22 and 48 by Presidents, that the army, along with major political groups including the Nazis, opposed the Republic. Finally, the failing economy during the Weimar period resulted from the unrealistic expectations of the Treaty of Versailles, and the harsh impact of the Great Depression. This forced German citizens to take extreme measures and support the NSPAD, which allowed Hitler to gain control of Germany in 1933.
Hey!
Below are my comments. Hope you find them helpful! I only really included things that I think you should correct, so don't get too put off by all the red!
Original Intro/Conclusion:
Spoiler
Intro: Germany’s Weimar Republic (1919-1933) had numerous flaws and weaknesses, which were vital for the growth and rise of the Nazi Party. A major frailty of the Weimar Republic was the way it formed, and constitutional flaws. These led to the army and key political groups opposing the Republic. Oppositions to Weimar included the NSPAD (Nazis), and allowed for their growth throughout the 1920s. It was predominantly the failing economic of the Weimar Republic that led to the extreme impact of the Great Depression, allowing the NSPAD to gain power.
conclusion: Without weaknesses in the Weimar Republic the Nazi Party would not have come to power in 1933. It was because of the constitutional flaws, including the abuse of article 22 and 48 by Presidents, that the army, along with major political groups including the Nazis, opposed the Republic. Finally, the failing economy during the Weimar period resulted from the unrealistic expectations of the Treaty of Versailles, and the harsh impact of the Great Depression. This forced German citizens to take extreme measures and support the NSPAD, which allowed Hitler to gain control of Germany in 1933.
conclusion: Without weaknesses in the Weimar Republic the Nazi Party would not have come to power in 1933. It was because of the constitutional flaws, including the abuse of article 22 and 48 by Presidents, that the army, along with major political groups including the Nazis, opposed the Republic. Finally, the failing economy during the Weimar period resulted from the unrealistic expectations of the Treaty of Versailles, and the harsh impact of the Great Depression. This forced German citizens to take extreme measures and support the NSPAD, which allowed Hitler to gain control of Germany in 1933.
Intro/Conclusion with comments:
Spoiler
Intro: Germany’s Weimar Republic (1919-1933) It is definitely better to just say "The Weimar Republic", just because everyone knows that we are discussing German history had numerous flaws and weaknesses, which were vital for the growth and rise of the Nazi Party. A major frailty of the Weimar Republic was the way it formed, and constitutional flaws. Whilst obviously you can't discuss your entire thesis in the introduction, it is still worth expanding your points a little bit. "Constitutional flaws, namely Article 48" etc. etc. These led to the army and key political groups opposing the Republic. Which key political groups? Other than the Nazis? Oppositions to Weimar included the NSPAD (Nazis) Don't put Nazis in brackets, and it is the NSDAP, and allowed for their growth throughout the 1920s. This sentence doesn't really make sense. How did their opposition allow for their growth? Perhaps make it clear: "From a political perspective, by actively opposing every facet of the Weimar Republic, the NSDAP were able to gain national coverage and prestige, playing to the German people's fear of a failed state. It was predominantly the failing economic of the Weimar Republic that led to the extreme impact of the Great Depression, allowing the NSPAD to gain power. If this is the case, can you really say that it was the flaws of the Weimar Republic that caused the rise of the NSDAP? According to your last sentence, it was in fact international economic issues that brought them to power, something hard to attribute to the leaders of Weimar. Rethink this last point if you want to maintain your current thesis.
conclusion: Without weaknesses in the Weimar Republic the Nazi Party would not have come to power in 1933. You shouldn't make these kinds of sweeping conclusions in History. It may have been a factor, sure, but to say that it directly and absolutely caused the rise of the NSDAP is probably a bit presumptuous. Stick to "was a significant factor in" etc. It was because of the constitutional flaws, including the abuse of article 22 and 48 by Presidents, that the army, along with major political groups including the Nazis, opposed the Republic. Great! Specific enough, but also general. Finally, the failing economy during the Weimar period resulted from the unrealistic expectations of the Treaty of Versailles, and the harsh impact of the Great Depression. Linking the Ruhr crisis (presumably the first half of the sentence) with flaws due to Versailles is good, but again I would rethink your thesis regarding the GD.This forced German citizens to take extreme measures and support the NSPAD, which allowed Hitler to gain control of Germany in 1933. So the German people had no choice but to support the Nazi party? Probably tone this down a bit.
I think you need to spend some time going over your thesis, strengthening the sections I've pointed out above and deciding whether you can perhaps include a little bit more nuance. For instance, saying that innate flaws in the Republic (caused by Versailles, amongst other things) aided in the rise of the NSDAP, however the GD (which was not caused directly by failures of the Republic) also had a solidifying impact on their capture of power. Still, your knowledge of the time period is very good, and I can see a great introduction and conclusion coming! Just clear up what you are actually trying to say, and this will turn into a really top level response :)
conclusion: Without weaknesses in the Weimar Republic the Nazi Party would not have come to power in 1933. You shouldn't make these kinds of sweeping conclusions in History. It may have been a factor, sure, but to say that it directly and absolutely caused the rise of the NSDAP is probably a bit presumptuous. Stick to "was a significant factor in" etc. It was because of the constitutional flaws, including the abuse of article 22 and 48 by Presidents, that the army, along with major political groups including the Nazis, opposed the Republic. Great! Specific enough, but also general. Finally, the failing economy during the Weimar period resulted from the unrealistic expectations of the Treaty of Versailles, and the harsh impact of the Great Depression. Linking the Ruhr crisis (presumably the first half of the sentence) with flaws due to Versailles is good, but again I would rethink your thesis regarding the GD.This forced German citizens to take extreme measures and support the NSPAD, which allowed Hitler to gain control of Germany in 1933. So the German people had no choice but to support the Nazi party? Probably tone this down a bit.
I think you need to spend some time going over your thesis, strengthening the sections I've pointed out above and deciding whether you can perhaps include a little bit more nuance. For instance, saying that innate flaws in the Republic (caused by Versailles, amongst other things) aided in the rise of the NSDAP, however the GD (which was not caused directly by failures of the Republic) also had a solidifying impact on their capture of power. Still, your knowledge of the time period is very good, and I can see a great introduction and conclusion coming! Just clear up what you are actually trying to say, and this will turn into a really top level response :)
Post by: jakesilove on February 29, 2016, 10:49:12 pm
Hey! This is an answer I've just had peer reviewed a few times and just do't seem to be able to get to stick. Do you mind checking to see if it's a logical, sustained argument and that I haven't accidentally managed to get some very important fact wrong? If you don't mind, that is?
Obviously the bibliography and other assorted referencing isn't here... but yeah...https://docs.google.com/a/parrastu.catholic.edu.au/document/d/1Om1LkJ7FDEh6pAByloXu-72aun01V3xEAAYVj1c3aOk/edit?usp=sharing
thanks!
Hey Matilda!
Because you've linked the essay as a google doc, I would have to request access in order to look at it. Would you mind attaching the essay as a word document, or copying and pasting it into one of these replies? Then, I can get onto it straight away and have it marked asap!
Jake
Post by: CatherineSchweinsberg on March 02, 2016, 08:21:04 pm
Post by: CatherineSchweinsberg on March 02, 2016, 08:27:05 pm
This is my historical investigation but the problem is, it's supposed to be 1500 words and I'm 250 over. Feedback for the whole thing in general would be great, but especially for the analysis of sources and stuff. thanks! :D
Post by: jakesilove on March 03, 2016, 11:21:42 am
Hey, I'm not sure if I remembered to attach my essay into the last post, so that's useful...
This is my historical investigation but the problem is, it's supposed to be 1500 words and I'm 250 over. Feedback for the whole thing in general would be great, but especially for the analysis of sources and stuff. thanks! :D
Hey Catherine!
So I didn't actually do this time period, but I'll still take a look through the essay! Sorry if some of my comments don't make sense: if it's due to my lack of knowledge of the topic area, you should totally ignore me!
Original essay:
Spoiler
Assess the positive impacts of western ideas in reforming Indian society during the British Raj
The British Raj was the period of British domination over India in which many changes were made to the structure of Indian society. From 1858, Britain initiated a strong impact over how the country ran, which resulted in a westernised India. Eventually, Britain introduced western culture through literature, religion, the media and British citizens themselves. British individuals and groups evoked a variety of reforms and laws that positively affected the Indian people’s lives. Having said that, Britain didn’t just change Indian society for the better. From the point of view of an Indian citizen, Britain may have damaged and threatened the traditional cultures and beliefs of pre-colonial India. Britain had altered Indian society to a certain extent by introducing the value of education, improving the lives of Indian women, impacting the caste system and causing a growth of nationalism, whether it was intentional or not. These impacts modernised India and in some cases overall benefitted the social structure of Indian society.
Social reforms were created by the British to improve the condition of women in Indian society. Before the reforms, women were being treated as unequal and had to maintain the standards of social expectations by submitting themselves to the harming religious practices, such as Sati. Lord William Bentinck, the Governor General in India worked closely with Raja Ram Mohan Roy, to create social reforms to improve the condition of Indian women in society. Raja Ram Mohan Roy was an influential figure in India, who spread ideas of freedom and rights through the newspaper, books, treaties and organized protests. He and Bentinck successfully eradicated social evils affecting women in society, including the practice of Sati. Sati involves the burning of the widow on the late husband’s pyre, so she can be with him after death. In traditional Hindu beliefs, the practice was thought to signify female purity and valour, though in most cases the women was not willing to die. Lord Bentinck’s primary objective of removing the practice from society was to benefit the Hindu population in the long term. Since he was governor general, all he had to do was write a letter to create a change in law, in his document on the Suppression of Sati on the 8th November 1829, Bentinck stated, “The first and primary object of my heart is the benefit of the Hindus. I know nothing so important to the improvement of their future condition as the establishment of a purer morality, whatever their belief, and more just conception of the will of God.” The abolition of sati was achieved after Bentinck wrote this document. This primary source proves that he worked towards improving the treatment of women in society. This primary source is important because it’s an official government document, was written at the time of event, and was written by Bentinck himself. On the other hand, it is not clear as to what his motives were and if he just wanted more control through these reforms, or whether or not the practice actually stopped. Thus, this proves that a British individual was indeed actively attempting to improve society.
Changes in the education system benefitted Indian society a great deal, as it produced educated and inspired people with a new perspective and ability to form groups based on making India a better place. David Hare was a British philanthropist determined to make a change in the education system and devoted to the cause of Indian education. He achieved this by building a college and teaching there himself. He also, was a friend with Raja Ram Mohan Roy, who supported the western ideas. They collaborated to achieve this common goal by building the Hindu College in Calcutta for the education of Indian youths in 1817, where Hare taught 565 young men modern science and philosophy. Schools around the country were starting to be constructed. 5 years earlier, the Charter act of 1813 was a turning point in the history of education in India, as it stated that money would be applied to the revival and improvement of literature and teaching. This meant that Britain was finally starting to take an interest in the youth of India and realising the importance of schooling. However, only upper caste males were educated, which had always been the case. Girls wouldn’t be educated until later on in the century and lower castes would barely have access to British education, nevertheless, the outcome of the Hindu college was very successful, and the Young Bengal movement was formed. It incorporated the radical, free thinkers who were inspired to revolt against the social structure of Hindu society. This was thanks to David Hare, the teacher of the students. The students’ gratitude towards Hare is distinctively shown in an address of welcome, signed by Dakshinaranjan Mukherjee on the 17th February 1831. “Many have enjoyed the happiness of receiving the gift of education… we are permitted to keep among us a representation of the man who has breathed a new life into Hindu society.” Evidently, David Hare significantly changed the lives of these boys, by giving them knowledge and inspiration. This source is important in showing the attitude of a British individual and the effect he had on Indian students, who were evidently grateful for the gift of education. However, this is only a handful of students; the source doesn’t provide the nation wide opinion on the new education system. The Western education system was very positive outcome of the British Raj.
The British modernised the caste system that resulted in it being more similar to the western class system, which was a positive impact to an extent because the caste system beforehand was….. In India, the social standing you had depended on into which family you were born into, which meant that certain caste could never change. Whereas the British class system was based around levels of wealth and education. The change to the caste system was significant, as it increased nationalistic and liberalistic feelings, which led to a stronger structure of society with a common set of feelings and goals, for instance, independence. The middle… The caste system was affected greatly by the British, but never fully eradicated. The British improved the caste system by allowing the lower castes and untouchables more rights, such as the right to interact with those of higher castes. This was done to modernise India to represent it as a British colony. Many British citizens lived in India, and as they followed the class system, this was closely influencing the way society was run. Therefore, British rule had a positive effect on the Indian caste system. On the other hand, the caste system wasn’t fully eradicated. It had weakened a great deal, and mostly in areas of high British population such as Calcutta. Today, there are still area of poverty and inequality due to caste. In an interview between a Hindu women and a journalist, the Hindu women describes that all the girls who are untouchables would most certainly become housewives and would be married off to someone of the same caste by the time they are 16 when the marriageable age is now 18. She says that society is very caste bound. This source is important as it proves that the caste system is still around today, and the British didn’t completely remove it. Or though, it’s not clear as to what the restrictions of the caste-bound society are. Overall, the British had somewhat changed the caste system by weakening the majority of the system so that there were more rights for the lower castes, and less of a gap of power and superiority.
There was a huge growth of nationalism in India, particularly during the early 20th century, which was mainly caused by the influence of Western civilisation. Nationalism was hugely significant, since it meant that the Indian people were feeling a sense of unity, eventually allowing them to gain their freedom. The impact of Britain in this case was great, but whether it was positive is arguable. Some would argue that the British influence caused the greatest cause for nationalism, but on the other side, common feelings of opposition and desperation for independence among the Indian people would be enough for the movement to inaugurate. For example, western education and language being introduced allowed ideologies such as nationalism and liberalism to be discovered by the Indian people, as the ideologies were being embraced over Europe at that time. English educated Indian citizens, such as Raja Ram Mohan Roy, were leading social, religious and political movements that were supported by the majority of the population, more specifically the rising middle class. This roused a sense of nationalism among the people. Not only education, but also the exposure of British media over the country provoked the ideology, again, due to the fact that countries in Europe such as Germany were embracing nationalism. Bal Gangadha Tilak, among many things, was an Indian nationalist, social reformer and the first leader of the Indian Independence movement. He believed that nothing Britain did was beneficial to society, and passionately opposed British rule. He said that for India to make progress it must become independent, and the only way for that to happen was by a self-governing country and not thorough social reforms. This primary source is relevant in that it shows the other side of the argument, suggesting that Britain did not have a positive impact on India. However, it does not show whether or not his words had an impact on society. Therefore, the British Raj had a partial positive impact in introducing western ideas.
The British had a great impact on Indian society, by introducing ideas and enforcing laws that resulted in an overall positive outcome. Society in India had changed greatly, with a new education system, which resulted in the beginning of a more thoughtful and inspired society that formed groups and expressed ideas. Nationalism increased over the country due to the close social connections through British media, literature, education and Britain individuals themselves. The lives of women and the lower and out of castes improved to an extent, as a result of the social reforms that took place around 1929. The social impacts of the British rule, either greatly positive or fairly positive, were largely responsible for the reforming of India during the Raj.
The British Raj was the period of British domination over India in which many changes were made to the structure of Indian society. From 1858, Britain initiated a strong impact over how the country ran, which resulted in a westernised India. Eventually, Britain introduced western culture through literature, religion, the media and British citizens themselves. British individuals and groups evoked a variety of reforms and laws that positively affected the Indian people’s lives. Having said that, Britain didn’t just change Indian society for the better. From the point of view of an Indian citizen, Britain may have damaged and threatened the traditional cultures and beliefs of pre-colonial India. Britain had altered Indian society to a certain extent by introducing the value of education, improving the lives of Indian women, impacting the caste system and causing a growth of nationalism, whether it was intentional or not. These impacts modernised India and in some cases overall benefitted the social structure of Indian society.
Social reforms were created by the British to improve the condition of women in Indian society. Before the reforms, women were being treated as unequal and had to maintain the standards of social expectations by submitting themselves to the harming religious practices, such as Sati. Lord William Bentinck, the Governor General in India worked closely with Raja Ram Mohan Roy, to create social reforms to improve the condition of Indian women in society. Raja Ram Mohan Roy was an influential figure in India, who spread ideas of freedom and rights through the newspaper, books, treaties and organized protests. He and Bentinck successfully eradicated social evils affecting women in society, including the practice of Sati. Sati involves the burning of the widow on the late husband’s pyre, so she can be with him after death. In traditional Hindu beliefs, the practice was thought to signify female purity and valour, though in most cases the women was not willing to die. Lord Bentinck’s primary objective of removing the practice from society was to benefit the Hindu population in the long term. Since he was governor general, all he had to do was write a letter to create a change in law, in his document on the Suppression of Sati on the 8th November 1829, Bentinck stated, “The first and primary object of my heart is the benefit of the Hindus. I know nothing so important to the improvement of their future condition as the establishment of a purer morality, whatever their belief, and more just conception of the will of God.” The abolition of sati was achieved after Bentinck wrote this document. This primary source proves that he worked towards improving the treatment of women in society. This primary source is important because it’s an official government document, was written at the time of event, and was written by Bentinck himself. On the other hand, it is not clear as to what his motives were and if he just wanted more control through these reforms, or whether or not the practice actually stopped. Thus, this proves that a British individual was indeed actively attempting to improve society.
Changes in the education system benefitted Indian society a great deal, as it produced educated and inspired people with a new perspective and ability to form groups based on making India a better place. David Hare was a British philanthropist determined to make a change in the education system and devoted to the cause of Indian education. He achieved this by building a college and teaching there himself. He also, was a friend with Raja Ram Mohan Roy, who supported the western ideas. They collaborated to achieve this common goal by building the Hindu College in Calcutta for the education of Indian youths in 1817, where Hare taught 565 young men modern science and philosophy. Schools around the country were starting to be constructed. 5 years earlier, the Charter act of 1813 was a turning point in the history of education in India, as it stated that money would be applied to the revival and improvement of literature and teaching. This meant that Britain was finally starting to take an interest in the youth of India and realising the importance of schooling. However, only upper caste males were educated, which had always been the case. Girls wouldn’t be educated until later on in the century and lower castes would barely have access to British education, nevertheless, the outcome of the Hindu college was very successful, and the Young Bengal movement was formed. It incorporated the radical, free thinkers who were inspired to revolt against the social structure of Hindu society. This was thanks to David Hare, the teacher of the students. The students’ gratitude towards Hare is distinctively shown in an address of welcome, signed by Dakshinaranjan Mukherjee on the 17th February 1831. “Many have enjoyed the happiness of receiving the gift of education… we are permitted to keep among us a representation of the man who has breathed a new life into Hindu society.” Evidently, David Hare significantly changed the lives of these boys, by giving them knowledge and inspiration. This source is important in showing the attitude of a British individual and the effect he had on Indian students, who were evidently grateful for the gift of education. However, this is only a handful of students; the source doesn’t provide the nation wide opinion on the new education system. The Western education system was very positive outcome of the British Raj.
The British modernised the caste system that resulted in it being more similar to the western class system, which was a positive impact to an extent because the caste system beforehand was….. In India, the social standing you had depended on into which family you were born into, which meant that certain caste could never change. Whereas the British class system was based around levels of wealth and education. The change to the caste system was significant, as it increased nationalistic and liberalistic feelings, which led to a stronger structure of society with a common set of feelings and goals, for instance, independence. The middle… The caste system was affected greatly by the British, but never fully eradicated. The British improved the caste system by allowing the lower castes and untouchables more rights, such as the right to interact with those of higher castes. This was done to modernise India to represent it as a British colony. Many British citizens lived in India, and as they followed the class system, this was closely influencing the way society was run. Therefore, British rule had a positive effect on the Indian caste system. On the other hand, the caste system wasn’t fully eradicated. It had weakened a great deal, and mostly in areas of high British population such as Calcutta. Today, there are still area of poverty and inequality due to caste. In an interview between a Hindu women and a journalist, the Hindu women describes that all the girls who are untouchables would most certainly become housewives and would be married off to someone of the same caste by the time they are 16 when the marriageable age is now 18. She says that society is very caste bound. This source is important as it proves that the caste system is still around today, and the British didn’t completely remove it. Or though, it’s not clear as to what the restrictions of the caste-bound society are. Overall, the British had somewhat changed the caste system by weakening the majority of the system so that there were more rights for the lower castes, and less of a gap of power and superiority.
There was a huge growth of nationalism in India, particularly during the early 20th century, which was mainly caused by the influence of Western civilisation. Nationalism was hugely significant, since it meant that the Indian people were feeling a sense of unity, eventually allowing them to gain their freedom. The impact of Britain in this case was great, but whether it was positive is arguable. Some would argue that the British influence caused the greatest cause for nationalism, but on the other side, common feelings of opposition and desperation for independence among the Indian people would be enough for the movement to inaugurate. For example, western education and language being introduced allowed ideologies such as nationalism and liberalism to be discovered by the Indian people, as the ideologies were being embraced over Europe at that time. English educated Indian citizens, such as Raja Ram Mohan Roy, were leading social, religious and political movements that were supported by the majority of the population, more specifically the rising middle class. This roused a sense of nationalism among the people. Not only education, but also the exposure of British media over the country provoked the ideology, again, due to the fact that countries in Europe such as Germany were embracing nationalism. Bal Gangadha Tilak, among many things, was an Indian nationalist, social reformer and the first leader of the Indian Independence movement. He believed that nothing Britain did was beneficial to society, and passionately opposed British rule. He said that for India to make progress it must become independent, and the only way for that to happen was by a self-governing country and not thorough social reforms. This primary source is relevant in that it shows the other side of the argument, suggesting that Britain did not have a positive impact on India. However, it does not show whether or not his words had an impact on society. Therefore, the British Raj had a partial positive impact in introducing western ideas.
The British had a great impact on Indian society, by introducing ideas and enforcing laws that resulted in an overall positive outcome. Society in India had changed greatly, with a new education system, which resulted in the beginning of a more thoughtful and inspired society that formed groups and expressed ideas. Nationalism increased over the country due to the close social connections through British media, literature, education and Britain individuals themselves. The lives of women and the lower and out of castes improved to an extent, as a result of the social reforms that took place around 1929. The social impacts of the British rule, either greatly positive or fairly positive, were largely responsible for the reforming of India during the Raj.
Essay with comments:
Spoiler
Assess the positive impacts of western ideas in reforming Indian society during the British Raj
The British Raj was the period of British domination over India in which many changes were made to the structure of Indian society. From 1858, Britain initiated a strong impact over how the country ran, which resulted in a westernised India. Eventually, Britain introduced western culture through literature, religion, the media and British citizens themselves. British individuals and groups evoked a variety of reforms and laws that positively affected the Indian people’s lives. Having said that, Britain didn’t just change Indian society for the better. From the point of view of an Indian citizen, Britain may have damaged and threatened the traditional cultures and beliefs of pre-colonial India. Britain had altered Indian society to a certain extent by introducing the value of education, improving the lives of Indian women, impacting the caste system and causing a growth of nationalism, whether it was intentional or not. These impacts modernised India and in some cases overall benefitted the social structure of Indian society.
Good intro. Words like "having said that" can be reduced to "However", limiting total word count. That is the best way that I would recommend cutting down words: changing 2 words into 1, 500 times!
Social reforms were created by the British to improve the condition of women in Indian society. Before the reforms, women were being treated as unequal and had to maintain the standards of social expectations by submitting themselves to the harming religious practices, such as Sati. Lord William Bentinck, the Governor General in India worked closely with Raja Ram Mohan Roy, to create social reforms to improve the condition of Indian women in society. Raja Ram Mohan Roy was an influential figure in India, who spread ideas of freedom and rights through the newspaper, books, treaties and organized protests. He and Bentinck successfully eradicated social evils affecting women in society, including the practice of Sati. Sati involves the burning of the widow on the late husband’s pyre, so she can be with him after death. In traditional Hindu beliefs, the practice was thought to signify female purity and valour, though in most cases the women was not willing to die. Lord Bentinck’s primary objective of removing the practice from society was to benefit the Hindu population in the long term. Since he was governor general, all he had to do was write a letter to create a change in law, in his document on the Suppression of Sati on the 8th November 1829, Bentinck stated, “The first and primary object of my heart is the benefit of the Hindus. I know nothing so important to the improvement of their future condition as the establishment of a purer morality, whatever their belief, and more just conception of the will of God.” The abolition of sati was achieved after Bentinck wrote this document. This primary source proves that he worked towards improving the treatment of women in society. This primary source is important because it’s an official government document, was written at the time of event, and was written by Bentinck himself. On the other hand, it is not clear as to what his motives were and if he just wanted more control through these reforms, or whether or not the practice actually stopped. Thus, this proves that a British individual was indeed actively attempting to improve society.
I really like your writing style, and your content, and your argument. I think it would be quite easy to cut down words, however. Deleting things like "on the other hand", and replacing it with "conversely" etc. I really like your source analysis. Words like "primary source", drawing actual conclusions from quotes rather than just stating what they were. I think there is a little bit too much "explaining" of what actually happened; this is not to say you need to put a greater emphasis on drawing conclusions (because you've done that consistently, and well), I'm just wondering if you can cut down on the stating of what happened. That being said, I would recommend incorporating a few more facts/statistics/dates etc. to give you an extra boost in marks!
Changes in the education system benefitted Indian society a great deal, as it produced educated and inspired people with a new perspective and ability to form groups based on making India a better place. David Hare was a British philanthropist determined to make a change in the education system and devoted to the cause of Indian education. He achieved this by building a college and teaching there himself. He also, was a friend with Raja Ram Mohan Roy, who supported the western ideas. They collaborated to achieve this common goal by building the Hindu College in Calcutta for the education of Indian youths in 1817, where Hare taught 565 young men modern science and philosophy. Schools around the country were starting to be constructed. 5 years earlier, the Charter act of 1813 was a turning point in the history of education in India, as it stated that money would be applied to the revival and improvement of literature and teaching. This meant that Britain was finally starting to take an interest in the youth of India and realising the importance of schooling. However, only upper caste males were educated, which had always been the case. Girls wouldn’t be educated until later on in the century and lower castes would barely have access to British education, nevertheless, the outcome of the Hindu college was very successful, and the Young Bengal movement was formed. It incorporated the radical, free thinkers who were inspired to revolt against the social structure of Hindu society. This was thanks to David Hare, the teacher of the students. The students’ gratitude towards Hare is distinctively shown in an address of welcome, signed by Dakshinaranjan Mukherjee on the 17th February 1831. “Many have enjoyed the happiness of receiving the gift of education… we are permitted to keep among us a representation of the man who has breathed a new life into Hindu society.” Evidently, David Hare significantly changed the lives of these boys, by giving them knowledge and inspiration. This source is important in showing the attitude of a British individual and the effect he had on Indian students, who were evidently grateful for the gift of education. However, this is only a handful of students; the source doesn’t provide the nation wide opinion on the new education system. The Western education system was very positive outcome of the British Raj.
Whilst your source analysis is good, be less explicit about it! Saying "this source" once in your essay is good, but for the rest of the time get rid of the word source. Rather, just say "this is indicative of" etc. etc.; just anything other than source! Since this is an essay, not a source analysis, you don't need to treat it as though you are being marked entirely on the source component.
The British modernised the caste system that resulted in it being more similar to the western class system, which was a positive impact to an extent because the caste system beforehand was….. In India, the social standing you had depended on into which family you were born into, which meant that certain caste could never change. Whereas the British class system was based around levels of wealth and education. The change to the caste system was significant, as it increased nationalistic and liberalistic feelings, which led to a stronger structure of society with a common set of feelings and goals, for instance, independence. The middle… The caste system was affected greatly by the British, but never fully eradicated. The British improved the caste system by allowing the lower castes and untouchables more rights, such as the right to interact with those of higher castes. This was done to modernise India to represent it as a British colony. Many British citizens lived in India, and as they followed the class system, this was closely influencing the way society was run. Therefore, British rule had a positive effect on the Indian caste system. On the other hand, the caste system wasn’t fully eradicated. It had weakened a great deal, and mostly in areas of high British population such as Calcutta. Today, there are still area of poverty and inequality due to caste. In an interview between a Hindu women and a journalist, the Hindu women describes that all the girls who are untouchables would most certainly become housewives and would be married off to someone of the same caste by the time they are 16 when the marriageable age is now 18. She says that society is very caste bound. This source is important as it proves that the caste system is still around today, and the British didn’t completely remove it. Or though, it’s not clear as to what the restrictions of the caste-bound society are. Overall, the British had somewhat changed the caste system by weakening the majority of the system so that there were more rights for the lower castes, and less of a gap of power and superiority.
Seems like a really interesting period of history! Again, your skills as a historian are really quite good, with your argument being easy to follow, logical, and (probably) true. However, I think you do need to add more statistics (dates, numbers etc.) to PROVE your argument. That might be tough with the word count, but there are a lot of sentences up there ^^ that can be shortened. Remember that history isn't about using a lot of fancy vocabulary, unless the nuance of the word used is of significance to the essay. Delete anything that doesn't directly add to your thesis or your sentence. In one of my essays, I deleted every start of the sentence that went "In fact," which got rid of 38 words!
There was a huge growth of nationalism in India, particularly during the early 20th century, which was mainly caused by the influence of Western civilisation. Nationalism was hugely significant, since it meant that the Indian people were feeling a sense of unity, eventually allowing them to gain their freedom. The impact of Britain in this case was great, but whether it was positive is arguable. Some would argue that the British influence caused the greatest cause for nationalism, but on the other side, common feelings of opposition and desperation for independence among the Indian people would be enough for the movement to inaugurate. For example, western education and language being introduced allowed ideologies such as nationalism and liberalism to be discovered by the Indian people, as the ideologies were being embraced over Europe at that time. English educated Indian citizens, such as Raja Ram Mohan Roy, were leading social, religious and political movements that were supported by the majority of the population, more specifically the rising middle class. This roused a sense of nationalism among the people. Not only education, but also the exposure of British media over the country provoked the ideology, again, due to the fact that countries in Europe such as Germany were embracing nationalism. Bal Gangadha Tilak, among many things, was an Indian nationalist, social reformer and the first leader of the Indian Independence movement. He believed that nothing Britain did was beneficial to society, and passionately opposed British rule. He said that for India to make progress it must become independent, and the only way for that to happen was by a self-governing country and not thorough social reforms. This primary source is relevant in that it shows the other side of the argument, suggesting that Britain did not have a positive impact on India. However, it does not show whether or not his words had an impact on society. Therefore, the British Raj had a partial positive impact in introducing western ideas.
Again, this isn't a source analysis, so get rid of "this primary source... explanation". Instead, just talk about it as a PROOF of your thesis. There are lots of sentences that can be shortened; read through each, decide if there are any words you can delete, and be utterly ruthless.
The British had a great impact on Indian society, by introducing ideas and enforcing laws that resulted in an overall positive outcome. Society in India had changed greatly, with a new education system, which resulted in the beginning of a more thoughtful and inspired society that formed groups and expressed ideas. Nationalism increased over the country due to the close social connections through British media, literature, education and Britain individuals themselves. The lives of women and the lower and out of castes improved to an extent, as a result of the social reforms that took place around 1929. The social impacts of the British rule, either greatly positive or fairly positive, were largely responsible for the reforming of India during the Raj.
Great essay, great thesis followed through logically, great writing style, great use of historical terms. You need to make your "source analysis" less explicit: you should be using facts/quotes to BACK UP your thesis. Try to use more throw-in facts (ie. how many more men were educated? In what year was social reform implemented?) without having to necessarily explain them like you have the other sources. This will strengthen your essay incredibly. Great essay, though, and good luck cutting down words! I don't think you should have any trouble, just be ruthless in what you cut.
Hope this helps!
Jake
The British Raj was the period of British domination over India in which many changes were made to the structure of Indian society. From 1858, Britain initiated a strong impact over how the country ran, which resulted in a westernised India. Eventually, Britain introduced western culture through literature, religion, the media and British citizens themselves. British individuals and groups evoked a variety of reforms and laws that positively affected the Indian people’s lives. Having said that, Britain didn’t just change Indian society for the better. From the point of view of an Indian citizen, Britain may have damaged and threatened the traditional cultures and beliefs of pre-colonial India. Britain had altered Indian society to a certain extent by introducing the value of education, improving the lives of Indian women, impacting the caste system and causing a growth of nationalism, whether it was intentional or not. These impacts modernised India and in some cases overall benefitted the social structure of Indian society.
Good intro. Words like "having said that" can be reduced to "However", limiting total word count. That is the best way that I would recommend cutting down words: changing 2 words into 1, 500 times!
Social reforms were created by the British to improve the condition of women in Indian society. Before the reforms, women were being treated as unequal and had to maintain the standards of social expectations by submitting themselves to the harming religious practices, such as Sati. Lord William Bentinck, the Governor General in India worked closely with Raja Ram Mohan Roy, to create social reforms to improve the condition of Indian women in society. Raja Ram Mohan Roy was an influential figure in India, who spread ideas of freedom and rights through the newspaper, books, treaties and organized protests. He and Bentinck successfully eradicated social evils affecting women in society, including the practice of Sati. Sati involves the burning of the widow on the late husband’s pyre, so she can be with him after death. In traditional Hindu beliefs, the practice was thought to signify female purity and valour, though in most cases the women was not willing to die. Lord Bentinck’s primary objective of removing the practice from society was to benefit the Hindu population in the long term. Since he was governor general, all he had to do was write a letter to create a change in law, in his document on the Suppression of Sati on the 8th November 1829, Bentinck stated, “The first and primary object of my heart is the benefit of the Hindus. I know nothing so important to the improvement of their future condition as the establishment of a purer morality, whatever their belief, and more just conception of the will of God.” The abolition of sati was achieved after Bentinck wrote this document. This primary source proves that he worked towards improving the treatment of women in society. This primary source is important because it’s an official government document, was written at the time of event, and was written by Bentinck himself. On the other hand, it is not clear as to what his motives were and if he just wanted more control through these reforms, or whether or not the practice actually stopped. Thus, this proves that a British individual was indeed actively attempting to improve society.
I really like your writing style, and your content, and your argument. I think it would be quite easy to cut down words, however. Deleting things like "on the other hand", and replacing it with "conversely" etc. I really like your source analysis. Words like "primary source", drawing actual conclusions from quotes rather than just stating what they were. I think there is a little bit too much "explaining" of what actually happened; this is not to say you need to put a greater emphasis on drawing conclusions (because you've done that consistently, and well), I'm just wondering if you can cut down on the stating of what happened. That being said, I would recommend incorporating a few more facts/statistics/dates etc. to give you an extra boost in marks!
Changes in the education system benefitted Indian society a great deal, as it produced educated and inspired people with a new perspective and ability to form groups based on making India a better place. David Hare was a British philanthropist determined to make a change in the education system and devoted to the cause of Indian education. He achieved this by building a college and teaching there himself. He also, was a friend with Raja Ram Mohan Roy, who supported the western ideas. They collaborated to achieve this common goal by building the Hindu College in Calcutta for the education of Indian youths in 1817, where Hare taught 565 young men modern science and philosophy. Schools around the country were starting to be constructed. 5 years earlier, the Charter act of 1813 was a turning point in the history of education in India, as it stated that money would be applied to the revival and improvement of literature and teaching. This meant that Britain was finally starting to take an interest in the youth of India and realising the importance of schooling. However, only upper caste males were educated, which had always been the case. Girls wouldn’t be educated until later on in the century and lower castes would barely have access to British education, nevertheless, the outcome of the Hindu college was very successful, and the Young Bengal movement was formed. It incorporated the radical, free thinkers who were inspired to revolt against the social structure of Hindu society. This was thanks to David Hare, the teacher of the students. The students’ gratitude towards Hare is distinctively shown in an address of welcome, signed by Dakshinaranjan Mukherjee on the 17th February 1831. “Many have enjoyed the happiness of receiving the gift of education… we are permitted to keep among us a representation of the man who has breathed a new life into Hindu society.” Evidently, David Hare significantly changed the lives of these boys, by giving them knowledge and inspiration. This source is important in showing the attitude of a British individual and the effect he had on Indian students, who were evidently grateful for the gift of education. However, this is only a handful of students; the source doesn’t provide the nation wide opinion on the new education system. The Western education system was very positive outcome of the British Raj.
Whilst your source analysis is good, be less explicit about it! Saying "this source" once in your essay is good, but for the rest of the time get rid of the word source. Rather, just say "this is indicative of" etc. etc.; just anything other than source! Since this is an essay, not a source analysis, you don't need to treat it as though you are being marked entirely on the source component.
The British modernised the caste system that resulted in it being more similar to the western class system, which was a positive impact to an extent because the caste system beforehand was….. In India, the social standing you had depended on into which family you were born into, which meant that certain caste could never change. Whereas the British class system was based around levels of wealth and education. The change to the caste system was significant, as it increased nationalistic and liberalistic feelings, which led to a stronger structure of society with a common set of feelings and goals, for instance, independence. The middle… The caste system was affected greatly by the British, but never fully eradicated. The British improved the caste system by allowing the lower castes and untouchables more rights, such as the right to interact with those of higher castes. This was done to modernise India to represent it as a British colony. Many British citizens lived in India, and as they followed the class system, this was closely influencing the way society was run. Therefore, British rule had a positive effect on the Indian caste system. On the other hand, the caste system wasn’t fully eradicated. It had weakened a great deal, and mostly in areas of high British population such as Calcutta. Today, there are still area of poverty and inequality due to caste. In an interview between a Hindu women and a journalist, the Hindu women describes that all the girls who are untouchables would most certainly become housewives and would be married off to someone of the same caste by the time they are 16 when the marriageable age is now 18. She says that society is very caste bound. This source is important as it proves that the caste system is still around today, and the British didn’t completely remove it. Or though, it’s not clear as to what the restrictions of the caste-bound society are. Overall, the British had somewhat changed the caste system by weakening the majority of the system so that there were more rights for the lower castes, and less of a gap of power and superiority.
Seems like a really interesting period of history! Again, your skills as a historian are really quite good, with your argument being easy to follow, logical, and (probably) true. However, I think you do need to add more statistics (dates, numbers etc.) to PROVE your argument. That might be tough with the word count, but there are a lot of sentences up there ^^ that can be shortened. Remember that history isn't about using a lot of fancy vocabulary, unless the nuance of the word used is of significance to the essay. Delete anything that doesn't directly add to your thesis or your sentence. In one of my essays, I deleted every start of the sentence that went "In fact," which got rid of 38 words!
There was a huge growth of nationalism in India, particularly during the early 20th century, which was mainly caused by the influence of Western civilisation. Nationalism was hugely significant, since it meant that the Indian people were feeling a sense of unity, eventually allowing them to gain their freedom. The impact of Britain in this case was great, but whether it was positive is arguable. Some would argue that the British influence caused the greatest cause for nationalism, but on the other side, common feelings of opposition and desperation for independence among the Indian people would be enough for the movement to inaugurate. For example, western education and language being introduced allowed ideologies such as nationalism and liberalism to be discovered by the Indian people, as the ideologies were being embraced over Europe at that time. English educated Indian citizens, such as Raja Ram Mohan Roy, were leading social, religious and political movements that were supported by the majority of the population, more specifically the rising middle class. This roused a sense of nationalism among the people. Not only education, but also the exposure of British media over the country provoked the ideology, again, due to the fact that countries in Europe such as Germany were embracing nationalism. Bal Gangadha Tilak, among many things, was an Indian nationalist, social reformer and the first leader of the Indian Independence movement. He believed that nothing Britain did was beneficial to society, and passionately opposed British rule. He said that for India to make progress it must become independent, and the only way for that to happen was by a self-governing country and not thorough social reforms. This primary source is relevant in that it shows the other side of the argument, suggesting that Britain did not have a positive impact on India. However, it does not show whether or not his words had an impact on society. Therefore, the British Raj had a partial positive impact in introducing western ideas.
Again, this isn't a source analysis, so get rid of "this primary source... explanation". Instead, just talk about it as a PROOF of your thesis. There are lots of sentences that can be shortened; read through each, decide if there are any words you can delete, and be utterly ruthless.
The British had a great impact on Indian society, by introducing ideas and enforcing laws that resulted in an overall positive outcome. Society in India had changed greatly, with a new education system, which resulted in the beginning of a more thoughtful and inspired society that formed groups and expressed ideas. Nationalism increased over the country due to the close social connections through British media, literature, education and Britain individuals themselves. The lives of women and the lower and out of castes improved to an extent, as a result of the social reforms that took place around 1929. The social impacts of the British rule, either greatly positive or fairly positive, were largely responsible for the reforming of India during the Raj.
Great essay, great thesis followed through logically, great writing style, great use of historical terms. You need to make your "source analysis" less explicit: you should be using facts/quotes to BACK UP your thesis. Try to use more throw-in facts (ie. how many more men were educated? In what year was social reform implemented?) without having to necessarily explain them like you have the other sources. This will strengthen your essay incredibly. Great essay, though, and good luck cutting down words! I don't think you should have any trouble, just be ruthless in what you cut.
Hope this helps!
Jake
Post by: gevinson on March 05, 2016, 10:19:46 pm
Post by: jakesilove on March 06, 2016, 11:47:51 am
Hi there, My topic is the Russia and the Soviet Union focusing on the subtopic of Bolshevik Consolidation of power from 1917-21 and second syllabus dot point. I was wondering if you could please help me identify if i'm creating a strong sustained argument with clear thesis that links each historical feature: ie. nep, treaty of brest litosvk it back to Lenin's role enough. I also wanted to know if there's any areas i can be more succinct to cut down my word count to 800-900? Thank you so much for all of your help, i know it's difficult without having done this topic, i appreciate any general essay structure help or tips.
Hey Gevinson!
Like you say, I haven't done this topic, so take my comments with a grain of salt! Still, I've written out comments below; I hope that you find them helpful!
Original essay:
Spoiler
‘to what extent was lenin responsible for the bolshevik consolidation of power?
Lenin’s role was pivotal in the Bolshevik seizure and consolidation of power. His commitment to the Bolshevik cause is evident through his implementation of harsh policies such as war communism and his pursuit of peace at any cost. However, Lenin was able to pinpoint when he had to diverge from his communist ideals and sacrifice ideology for power through his early populist reforms and introduction of the NEP, which both proved to be crucial in the consolidation of power. Arguably Lenin’s role was of equal importance to that of Trotsky, however both showed strong leadership in the Bolshevik revolution and civil war.
Lenin’s early role within the Bolshevik revolution was crucial in seizing power for the Bolsheviks. Once the Tsar had abdicated there was a political vacuum of power and a diarchy was instated between the Petrograd Soviet and the provisional government the duma had set up. Lenin took advantage of his opportunity to expose the people’s concerns for Russia. Within his slogan-like April theses he proclaimed that the Bolsheviks would give ‘peace, land, bread’ and his noncooperation with the provisional government announcing ‘All power to the soviets’. Lenin aimed to both undermine the provisional government by targeting their inability to address the problems of the people and showing that the Petrograd soviet and by a larger extent, the Bolsheviks represented the interests of the people more than the provisional government. Thus, Lenin’s ability to deliver on his April theses with later reforms further consolidated Bolshevik power in their initial stages of seizing power. The populist workers control decrees gave factory committees the right to control production and to supervise management, instated a maximum eight-hour day for workers and provided social insurance such as sickness benefits. Lenin’s decision to appeal to the workers was strategic in order to maintain power in the early stages of Bolshevik rule. Although the early ‘Land Decree’ allowed private ownership of land by the peasants diverged from the socialist principles of the Bolsheviks, it is evident that Lenin’s ability to sacrifice his ideology was key in maintaining Bolshevik power. Historian Ulam supports the notion that these reforms were effective on Bolshevik popularity, as they focused on appealing to the proletariat and peasants at the very least satisfying them enough so they wouldn’t fight the Bolshevik regime, the civil war wasn’t yet a major threat.
Lenin’s strict delivery on his promise for ‘peace at any price’ was received negatively creating divisions within the Bolshevik party, Buhkarin who wanted a revolutionary war and Trotsky who proposed ‘no war,no peace’. Trotsky saw Germany not only as militaristic enemies but class enemies therefore ‘the Brest-Litovsk peace was like the hangman's noose’. The treaty of Brest Litosvsk was seen some member of the SNOVAROM as a ‘“betrayal... to the socialist revolution” by allowing the bourgeoisie to win by striking deals. While Trotsky attempted to stall for time within negotiations, Lenin recognized that the treaty was crucial in Bolshevik consolidation of power as the provisional government had failed due to it’s continuance of the war. Thus, Lenin’s strong leadership in signing the treating despite significant pushback from the Bolshevik party, showed his key role in maintaining Bolshevik power.
However, while Lenin’s decision to sign the treaty, it was arguably one of the catalysts for the civil war. Internally within Russia many people were discontent with the conditions of the treaty. This is evident in the severing of ties between the left socialist revolutionaries who subsequently left the SOVNARKOM and may have aggravated other banned socialist parties such as the Kadets. The treaty left the country at significant disadvantage economically and politically, Germany’s harsh demands of 90% of coal and most of its rail & iron reserves, 25% of industry, a third of Russia’s agriculture and 62 million people. Thus the treaty fostered anti-Bolshevik sentiment within the country. However, Lenin played a less important role within Civil War instead Trotsky’s role was crucial to Bolshevik victory which was indispensable in consolidation of power. Trotsky was harsh but strategic in his organization of the red army, he reintroduced conscription and used structure, ranks, saluting and uniforms. He utilised former tsarist officers used to provide training, organization and leadership. However, he utilised harsh measures to gain Bolshevik victory disciplining soldiers through flogging and death penalty. However, while Lenin played a important role within the civil war by supporting the decisions of Trotsky and presenting a highly centralised army with a united political purpose - the downfall of the white army. It is clear that Trotsky’s strategic organization of the army on the ground ultimately secured Bolshevik victory, leading to consolidation of power.
Lenin had a key role in the introduction of war communism which was important in the victory of the civil war. However, it was a less significant factor in the consolidation of power overall as it created chaos within the country. Lenin’s implementation of the extreme policies of war communism aimed to fix the dire economic and military situation of Russia. War communism became necessary as food production had decreased with the Land decree and workers were managing the factories inefficiently through the workers decree. Under war communism industry and land was brought under state control so the red forces could remain in the fields supplied with weaponry and food. The policies brought about red terror in which Lenin ordered the killing of any Bolshevik opposition. Peasants refused to cooperate and protested leading to entire villages being destroyed. Overall, War Communism alienated the peasants and led to ongoing opposition to socialism, as peasants made up a significant amount of the population. Therefore Lenin’s role in consolidation power through war communism was less significant, as war communism’s only long term contribution to the consolidation of Bolshevik power was aiding red victory in the civil war.
Lenin held a vital role in consolidating Bolshevik power as exemplified in his introduction of the new economic policy. After the Kronstadt rebellion in which the sailors who previously had been dedicated Bolshevik supporters revolted it became obvious that Lenin had to act to regain peasant support and thus, maintain Bolshevik power. The policy was important in fixing the economy and quelling any remaining opposition to Bolshevism which all led to Bolshevik consolidation of power. The NEP allowed private trade in the retail area, which lead to the class of ‘nepmen’. It became legal to hire labour and peasants were no longer required to give up all their grain to the state which regained some peasant support. The stabilization of the country overall led to Bolshevik consolidation of power, in which cereal production was up almost 25% and industrial output increased by 200%. However, the NEP was not the most significant factor in Bolshevik consolidation of power as it still diverged from communist ideals partially returning to communism and leaving some of the population and party unhappy. Contemporary leader of the Mensheviks observed the impact of the nep in which stores sold expensive goods only afforded by the bourgeoisie and prostitution had increased significantly. Therefore Lenin’s held an important role within the implementation of the NEP to consolidate power through growing support, fixing the economy and ridding any remaining opposition to the party.
Lenin’s role was pivotal in the Bolshevik seizure and consolidation of power. His commitment to the Bolshevik cause is evident through his implementation of harsh policies such as war communism and his pursuit of peace at any cost. However, Lenin was able to pinpoint when he had to diverge from his communist ideals and sacrifice ideology for power through his early populist reforms and introduction of the NEP, which both proved to be crucial in the consolidation of power. Arguably Lenin’s role was of equal importance to that of Trotsky, however both showed strong leadership in the Bolshevik revolution and civil war.
Lenin’s early role within the Bolshevik revolution was crucial in seizing power for the Bolsheviks. Once the Tsar had abdicated there was a political vacuum of power and a diarchy was instated between the Petrograd Soviet and the provisional government the duma had set up. Lenin took advantage of his opportunity to expose the people’s concerns for Russia. Within his slogan-like April theses he proclaimed that the Bolsheviks would give ‘peace, land, bread’ and his noncooperation with the provisional government announcing ‘All power to the soviets’. Lenin aimed to both undermine the provisional government by targeting their inability to address the problems of the people and showing that the Petrograd soviet and by a larger extent, the Bolsheviks represented the interests of the people more than the provisional government. Thus, Lenin’s ability to deliver on his April theses with later reforms further consolidated Bolshevik power in their initial stages of seizing power. The populist workers control decrees gave factory committees the right to control production and to supervise management, instated a maximum eight-hour day for workers and provided social insurance such as sickness benefits. Lenin’s decision to appeal to the workers was strategic in order to maintain power in the early stages of Bolshevik rule. Although the early ‘Land Decree’ allowed private ownership of land by the peasants diverged from the socialist principles of the Bolsheviks, it is evident that Lenin’s ability to sacrifice his ideology was key in maintaining Bolshevik power. Historian Ulam supports the notion that these reforms were effective on Bolshevik popularity, as they focused on appealing to the proletariat and peasants at the very least satisfying them enough so they wouldn’t fight the Bolshevik regime, the civil war wasn’t yet a major threat.
Lenin’s strict delivery on his promise for ‘peace at any price’ was received negatively creating divisions within the Bolshevik party, Buhkarin who wanted a revolutionary war and Trotsky who proposed ‘no war,no peace’. Trotsky saw Germany not only as militaristic enemies but class enemies therefore ‘the Brest-Litovsk peace was like the hangman's noose’. The treaty of Brest Litosvsk was seen some member of the SNOVAROM as a ‘“betrayal... to the socialist revolution” by allowing the bourgeoisie to win by striking deals. While Trotsky attempted to stall for time within negotiations, Lenin recognized that the treaty was crucial in Bolshevik consolidation of power as the provisional government had failed due to it’s continuance of the war. Thus, Lenin’s strong leadership in signing the treating despite significant pushback from the Bolshevik party, showed his key role in maintaining Bolshevik power.
However, while Lenin’s decision to sign the treaty, it was arguably one of the catalysts for the civil war. Internally within Russia many people were discontent with the conditions of the treaty. This is evident in the severing of ties between the left socialist revolutionaries who subsequently left the SOVNARKOM and may have aggravated other banned socialist parties such as the Kadets. The treaty left the country at significant disadvantage economically and politically, Germany’s harsh demands of 90% of coal and most of its rail & iron reserves, 25% of industry, a third of Russia’s agriculture and 62 million people. Thus the treaty fostered anti-Bolshevik sentiment within the country. However, Lenin played a less important role within Civil War instead Trotsky’s role was crucial to Bolshevik victory which was indispensable in consolidation of power. Trotsky was harsh but strategic in his organization of the red army, he reintroduced conscription and used structure, ranks, saluting and uniforms. He utilised former tsarist officers used to provide training, organization and leadership. However, he utilised harsh measures to gain Bolshevik victory disciplining soldiers through flogging and death penalty. However, while Lenin played a important role within the civil war by supporting the decisions of Trotsky and presenting a highly centralised army with a united political purpose - the downfall of the white army. It is clear that Trotsky’s strategic organization of the army on the ground ultimately secured Bolshevik victory, leading to consolidation of power.
Lenin had a key role in the introduction of war communism which was important in the victory of the civil war. However, it was a less significant factor in the consolidation of power overall as it created chaos within the country. Lenin’s implementation of the extreme policies of war communism aimed to fix the dire economic and military situation of Russia. War communism became necessary as food production had decreased with the Land decree and workers were managing the factories inefficiently through the workers decree. Under war communism industry and land was brought under state control so the red forces could remain in the fields supplied with weaponry and food. The policies brought about red terror in which Lenin ordered the killing of any Bolshevik opposition. Peasants refused to cooperate and protested leading to entire villages being destroyed. Overall, War Communism alienated the peasants and led to ongoing opposition to socialism, as peasants made up a significant amount of the population. Therefore Lenin’s role in consolidation power through war communism was less significant, as war communism’s only long term contribution to the consolidation of Bolshevik power was aiding red victory in the civil war.
Lenin held a vital role in consolidating Bolshevik power as exemplified in his introduction of the new economic policy. After the Kronstadt rebellion in which the sailors who previously had been dedicated Bolshevik supporters revolted it became obvious that Lenin had to act to regain peasant support and thus, maintain Bolshevik power. The policy was important in fixing the economy and quelling any remaining opposition to Bolshevism which all led to Bolshevik consolidation of power. The NEP allowed private trade in the retail area, which lead to the class of ‘nepmen’. It became legal to hire labour and peasants were no longer required to give up all their grain to the state which regained some peasant support. The stabilization of the country overall led to Bolshevik consolidation of power, in which cereal production was up almost 25% and industrial output increased by 200%. However, the NEP was not the most significant factor in Bolshevik consolidation of power as it still diverged from communist ideals partially returning to communism and leaving some of the population and party unhappy. Contemporary leader of the Mensheviks observed the impact of the nep in which stores sold expensive goods only afforded by the bourgeoisie and prostitution had increased significantly. Therefore Lenin’s held an important role within the implementation of the NEP to consolidate power through growing support, fixing the economy and ridding any remaining opposition to the party.
Essay with comments:
Spoiler
‘To what extent was Lenin responsible for the Bolshevik consolidation of power?
Lenin’s role was pivotal in the Bolshevik seizure and consolidation of power. Perfect. His commitment to the Bolshevik cause is evident through his implementation of harsh policies such as war communism and his pursuit of peace at any cost. However, Lenin was able to pinpoint when he had to diverge from his communist ideals and sacrifice ideology for power through his early populist reforms and introduction of the NEP, which both proved to be crucial in the consolidation of power. Arguably Lenin’s role was of equal importance to that of Trotsky, however both showed strong leadership in the Bolshevik revolution and civil war.
Fantastic introduction. Introduces real points, as well out general Thesis outline. If you follow through on discussion of these points, I'm looking forward to a great essay!
Lenin’s early role within the Bolshevik revolution was crucial in seizing power for the Bolsheviks. Once the Tsar had abdicated there was a political vacuum of power and a diarchy was instated between the Petrograd Soviet and the provisional government the duma had set up. Lenin took advantage of his opportunity to expose the people’s concerns for Russia. Within his slogan-like April theses he proclaimed that the Bolsheviks would give ‘peace, land, bread’ and his noncooperation with the provisional government announcing ‘All power to the soviets’. If these are quotes, use quotation marks: "" Lenin aimed to both undermine the provisional government by targeting their inability to address the problems of the people and showing that the Petrograd soviet and by a larger extent, the Bolsheviks represented the interests of the people more than the provisional government. Thus, Lenin’s ability to deliver on his April theses with later reforms further consolidated Bolshevik power in their initial stages of seizing power. The populist workers control decrees gave factory committees the right to control production and to supervise management, instated a maximum eight-hour day for workers and provided social insurance such as sickness benefits. Lenin’s decision to appeal to the workers was strategic in order to maintain power in the early stages of Bolshevik rule. Although the early ‘Land Decree’ allowed private ownership of land by the peasants diverged from the socialist principles of the Bolsheviks, it is evident that Lenin’s ability to sacrifice his ideology was key in maintaining Bolshevik power. Historian Ulam supports the notion that these reforms were effective on Bolshevik popularity, as they focused on appealing to the proletariat and peasants at the very least satisfying them enough so they wouldn’t fight the Bolshevik regime, the civil war wasn’t yet a major threat.'
My general comments so far: I really like the thesis you are building, and I think that your point is very, very clear. However, I think you need to back up your thesis with more specific, accurate, relevant and detailed examples. You say things like "early 'Land Decree'"; I need a date, or a year at least. More statistics, quotes, etc, just to back up your point and prove that you aren't making things up! Try to find statistics that are as specific as possible.
Lenin’s strict delivery on his promise for ‘peace at any price’ was received negatively creating divisions within the Bolshevik party, Buhkarin who wanted a revolutionary war and Trotsky who proposed ‘no war,no peace’. Trotsky saw Germany not only as militaristic enemies but class enemies therefore ‘the Brest-Litovsk peace was like the hangman's noose’. The treaty of Brest Litosvsk was seen some member of the SNOVAROM as a ‘“betrayal... to the socialist revolution” by allowing the bourgeoisie to win by striking deals. While Trotsky attempted to stall for time within negotiations, Lenin recognized that the treaty was crucial in Bolshevik consolidation of power as the provisional government had failed due to it’s continuance of the war. Thus, Lenin’s strong leadership in signing the treating despite significant pushback from the Bolshevik party, showed his key role in maintaining Bolshevik power.
Again, your argument and historical language is fantastic, but I need you to incorporate more specific statistics.
However, while Lenin’s decision to sign the treaty, it was arguably one of the catalysts for the civil war. Read this sentence: does it make sense to you?Internally within Russia many people were discontent with the conditions of the treaty. This is evident in the severing of ties between the left socialist revolutionaries who subsequently left the SOVNARKOM and may have aggravated other banned socialist parties such as the Kadets. The treaty left the country at significant disadvantage economically and politically, Germany’s harsh demands of 90% of coal and most of its rail & iron reserves, 25% of industry, a third of Russia’s agriculture and 62 million people. Beautiful! These are the kinds of statistics that I want to see!Thus the treaty fostered anti-Bolshevik sentiment within the country. However, Lenin played a less important role within Civil War instead Trotsky’s role was crucial to Bolshevik victory which was indispensable in consolidation of power. Trotsky was harsh but strategic in his organization of the red army, he reintroduced conscription and used structure, ranks, saluting and uniforms. He utilised former tsarist officers used to provide training, organization and leadership. However, he utilised harsh measures to gain Bolshevik victory disciplining soldiers through flogging and death penalty. However, while Lenin played a important role within the civil war by supporting the decisions of Trotsky and presenting a highly centralised army with a united political purpose - the downfall of the white army. It is clear that Trotsky’s strategic organization of the army on the ground ultimately secured Bolshevik victory, leading to consolidation of power.
I think that there are plenty of ways to cut down your word count here. There are heaps of sentences that you can basically remove irrelevant words; spend some time turning two words into one, taking out words that don't SPECIFICALLY add to your thesis etc. Be absolutely brutal, and you'll manage to get down the word count in no time!
Lenin had a key role in the introduction of war communism which was important in the victory of the civil war. However, it was a less significant factor in the consolidation of power overall as it created chaos within the country. Lenin’s implementation of the extreme policies of war communism aimed to fix the dire economic and military situation of Russia. War communism became necessary as food production had decreased with the Land decree and workers were managing the factories inefficiently through the workers decree.STATS STATS STATS Under war communism industry and land was brought under state control so the red forces could remain in the fields supplied with weaponry and food. The policies brought about red terror in which Lenin ordered the killing of any Bolshevik opposition. Peasants refused to cooperate and protested leading to entire villages being destroyed. Overall, War Communism alienated the peasants and led to ongoing opposition to socialism, as peasants made up a significant amount of the population. Therefore Lenin’s role in consolidation power through war communism was less significant, as war communism’s only long term contribution to the consolidation of Bolshevik power was aiding red victory in the civil war.
Look, again I think that your thesis and historical language is great, but without Statistics its hard to get a very top level response. Adding this will push this great essay to brilliant essay.
Lenin held a vital role in consolidating Bolshevik power as exemplified in his introduction of the new economic policy. After the Kronstadt rebellion in which the sailors who previously had been dedicated Bolshevik supporters revolted it became obvious that Lenin had to act to regain peasant support and thus, maintain Bolshevik power. The policy was important in fixing the economy and quelling any remaining opposition to Bolshevism which all led to Bolshevik consolidation of power. The NEP allowed private trade in the retail area, which lead to the class of ‘nepmen’. It became legal to hire labour and peasants were no longer required to give up all their grain to the state which regained some peasant support. The stabilization of the country overall led to Bolshevik consolidation of power, in which cereal production was up almost 25% and industrial output increased by 200%. However, the NEP was not the most significant factor in Bolshevik consolidation of power as it still diverged from communist ideals partially returning to communism and leaving some of the population and party unhappy. Contemporary leader of the Mensheviks observed the impact of the nep in which stores sold expensive goods only afforded by the bourgeoisie and prostitution had increased significantly. Therefore Lenin’s held an important role within the implementation of the NEP to consolidate power through growing support, fixing the economy and ridding any remaining opposition to the party.
Split this up into a paragraph and a conclusion. Really, there's never any need to include statistics in your conclusion. I really like your historical voice, essay language, logical progression etc. The main things I would recommend are:
More statistics. Try to include a bunch of specific statistics, whether that be in the form of quotes, numbers, dates etc. etc.
Turn long sentences into short ones. You can cut down the wordcount hugely by going through and deleting extra words. That way, you'll get down to your word limit!
Lenin’s role was pivotal in the Bolshevik seizure and consolidation of power. Perfect. His commitment to the Bolshevik cause is evident through his implementation of harsh policies such as war communism and his pursuit of peace at any cost. However, Lenin was able to pinpoint when he had to diverge from his communist ideals and sacrifice ideology for power through his early populist reforms and introduction of the NEP, which both proved to be crucial in the consolidation of power. Arguably Lenin’s role was of equal importance to that of Trotsky, however both showed strong leadership in the Bolshevik revolution and civil war.
Fantastic introduction. Introduces real points, as well out general Thesis outline. If you follow through on discussion of these points, I'm looking forward to a great essay!
Lenin’s early role within the Bolshevik revolution was crucial in seizing power for the Bolsheviks. Once the Tsar had abdicated there was a political vacuum of power and a diarchy was instated between the Petrograd Soviet and the provisional government the duma had set up. Lenin took advantage of his opportunity to expose the people’s concerns for Russia. Within his slogan-like April theses he proclaimed that the Bolsheviks would give ‘peace, land, bread’ and his noncooperation with the provisional government announcing ‘All power to the soviets’. If these are quotes, use quotation marks: "" Lenin aimed to both undermine the provisional government by targeting their inability to address the problems of the people and showing that the Petrograd soviet and by a larger extent, the Bolsheviks represented the interests of the people more than the provisional government. Thus, Lenin’s ability to deliver on his April theses with later reforms further consolidated Bolshevik power in their initial stages of seizing power. The populist workers control decrees gave factory committees the right to control production and to supervise management, instated a maximum eight-hour day for workers and provided social insurance such as sickness benefits. Lenin’s decision to appeal to the workers was strategic in order to maintain power in the early stages of Bolshevik rule. Although the early ‘Land Decree’ allowed private ownership of land by the peasants diverged from the socialist principles of the Bolsheviks, it is evident that Lenin’s ability to sacrifice his ideology was key in maintaining Bolshevik power. Historian Ulam supports the notion that these reforms were effective on Bolshevik popularity, as they focused on appealing to the proletariat and peasants at the very least satisfying them enough so they wouldn’t fight the Bolshevik regime, the civil war wasn’t yet a major threat.'
My general comments so far: I really like the thesis you are building, and I think that your point is very, very clear. However, I think you need to back up your thesis with more specific, accurate, relevant and detailed examples. You say things like "early 'Land Decree'"; I need a date, or a year at least. More statistics, quotes, etc, just to back up your point and prove that you aren't making things up! Try to find statistics that are as specific as possible.
Lenin’s strict delivery on his promise for ‘peace at any price’ was received negatively creating divisions within the Bolshevik party, Buhkarin who wanted a revolutionary war and Trotsky who proposed ‘no war,no peace’. Trotsky saw Germany not only as militaristic enemies but class enemies therefore ‘the Brest-Litovsk peace was like the hangman's noose’. The treaty of Brest Litosvsk was seen some member of the SNOVAROM as a ‘“betrayal... to the socialist revolution” by allowing the bourgeoisie to win by striking deals. While Trotsky attempted to stall for time within negotiations, Lenin recognized that the treaty was crucial in Bolshevik consolidation of power as the provisional government had failed due to it’s continuance of the war. Thus, Lenin’s strong leadership in signing the treating despite significant pushback from the Bolshevik party, showed his key role in maintaining Bolshevik power.
Again, your argument and historical language is fantastic, but I need you to incorporate more specific statistics.
However, while Lenin’s decision to sign the treaty, it was arguably one of the catalysts for the civil war. Read this sentence: does it make sense to you?Internally within Russia many people were discontent with the conditions of the treaty. This is evident in the severing of ties between the left socialist revolutionaries who subsequently left the SOVNARKOM and may have aggravated other banned socialist parties such as the Kadets. The treaty left the country at significant disadvantage economically and politically, Germany’s harsh demands of 90% of coal and most of its rail & iron reserves, 25% of industry, a third of Russia’s agriculture and 62 million people. Beautiful! These are the kinds of statistics that I want to see!Thus the treaty fostered anti-Bolshevik sentiment within the country. However, Lenin played a less important role within Civil War instead Trotsky’s role was crucial to Bolshevik victory which was indispensable in consolidation of power. Trotsky was harsh but strategic in his organization of the red army, he reintroduced conscription and used structure, ranks, saluting and uniforms. He utilised former tsarist officers used to provide training, organization and leadership. However, he utilised harsh measures to gain Bolshevik victory disciplining soldiers through flogging and death penalty. However, while Lenin played a important role within the civil war by supporting the decisions of Trotsky and presenting a highly centralised army with a united political purpose - the downfall of the white army. It is clear that Trotsky’s strategic organization of the army on the ground ultimately secured Bolshevik victory, leading to consolidation of power.
I think that there are plenty of ways to cut down your word count here. There are heaps of sentences that you can basically remove irrelevant words; spend some time turning two words into one, taking out words that don't SPECIFICALLY add to your thesis etc. Be absolutely brutal, and you'll manage to get down the word count in no time!
Lenin had a key role in the introduction of war communism which was important in the victory of the civil war. However, it was a less significant factor in the consolidation of power overall as it created chaos within the country. Lenin’s implementation of the extreme policies of war communism aimed to fix the dire economic and military situation of Russia. War communism became necessary as food production had decreased with the Land decree and workers were managing the factories inefficiently through the workers decree.STATS STATS STATS Under war communism industry and land was brought under state control so the red forces could remain in the fields supplied with weaponry and food. The policies brought about red terror in which Lenin ordered the killing of any Bolshevik opposition. Peasants refused to cooperate and protested leading to entire villages being destroyed. Overall, War Communism alienated the peasants and led to ongoing opposition to socialism, as peasants made up a significant amount of the population. Therefore Lenin’s role in consolidation power through war communism was less significant, as war communism’s only long term contribution to the consolidation of Bolshevik power was aiding red victory in the civil war.
Look, again I think that your thesis and historical language is great, but without Statistics its hard to get a very top level response. Adding this will push this great essay to brilliant essay.
Lenin held a vital role in consolidating Bolshevik power as exemplified in his introduction of the new economic policy. After the Kronstadt rebellion in which the sailors who previously had been dedicated Bolshevik supporters revolted it became obvious that Lenin had to act to regain peasant support and thus, maintain Bolshevik power. The policy was important in fixing the economy and quelling any remaining opposition to Bolshevism which all led to Bolshevik consolidation of power. The NEP allowed private trade in the retail area, which lead to the class of ‘nepmen’. It became legal to hire labour and peasants were no longer required to give up all their grain to the state which regained some peasant support. The stabilization of the country overall led to Bolshevik consolidation of power, in which cereal production was up almost 25% and industrial output increased by 200%. However, the NEP was not the most significant factor in Bolshevik consolidation of power as it still diverged from communist ideals partially returning to communism and leaving some of the population and party unhappy. Contemporary leader of the Mensheviks observed the impact of the nep in which stores sold expensive goods only afforded by the bourgeoisie and prostitution had increased significantly. Therefore Lenin’s held an important role within the implementation of the NEP to consolidate power through growing support, fixing the economy and ridding any remaining opposition to the party.
Split this up into a paragraph and a conclusion. Really, there's never any need to include statistics in your conclusion. I really like your historical voice, essay language, logical progression etc. The main things I would recommend are:
More statistics. Try to include a bunch of specific statistics, whether that be in the form of quotes, numbers, dates etc. etc.
Turn long sentences into short ones. You can cut down the wordcount hugely by going through and deleting extra words. That way, you'll get down to your word limit!
Hope this helps!
Jake
Post by: alinali98 on March 06, 2016, 10:41:47 pm
Thank You
To what extent was Lenin responsible for the Bolshevik consolidation of power?
The Bolshevik being only a revolutionary opposition had to go to extreme lengths to maintain their control on Russia. Lenin was of paramount importance in the consolidation of the Bolshevik power, though inevitably needed the aid of loyal supporters from his party like Trotsky, to ensure his plans were efficiently carried out. Lenin forcing Trotsky to sign the Treaty of Brest Litovsk against Trotsky’s will reduced the added pressure which external forces had imposed on the people within Russia. The Civil War and War Communism may have been introduced under Lenin’s rule, though was implemented by Trotsky, thus tightening their control on their economy and thus depicting the vital role of Trotsky in the consolidation of the Bolshevik power. The social, political and cultural reforms brought by Lenin were also imperative to the consolidation of the Bolsheviks power as it brought the possibility of a happier Russia to the already distraught and confused citizens of Russia. Therefore to a certain extent, Lenin being the mastermind behind the Bolshevik power was of paramount importance in the consolidation of power but was aided by party members like Trotsky making the consolidation of power a team effort.
Lenin’s decision of signing the Treaty of Bret-Litovsk drastically reduced unnecessary pressure, enabling Russia to focus on the betterment of its country within its borders, enabling the consolidation of Bolshevik power. During Russia’s involvement in war, its economy was falling and its peasants overworked. The country was not equipped to satisfy the needs and enormity of the World War as by 1916, only one third of Petrograd’s fuel and food allocations were for civilians and the rest were sent to the army. Lenin knew this and also this his hold on power by 1917 was hanging by a thread. He was almost certain that counter revolutionaries would soon be organising to bring down his regime which, along of his theory of “peace at any price” urged him to push Trotsky into accepting the “predatory peace.” Richard J Crampton states that the Treaty was a device for the Bolsheviks to consolidate their power, displaying Lenin’s eagerness to agree with any conditions, no matter how harsh. However Trotsky’s posturing and unwavering belief of the international revolution had left the Bolsheviks with no way of negotiating better conditions for the treaty which had recently been harshened by Germany. His determination to keep of all Russia’s territory and not annex any states forced further postponement of negotiations. When Trostky had left the conference in February 1918 Kaiser Wilhelm’s army advanced to the Gulf of Finland, dangerously close to Petrograd. Lenin understanding the need for the signing of the treaty sent Trotsky back and cost Russia 50% of its industries, one million hectares of agricultural farmlands and approximately 33% of its population. Historian Spencer Tucker agrees that the conditions imposed by the German General staff was so harsh it shocked the German negotiator, though Lenin knowing it was required for the betterment of Russia. This Treaty no matter how harsh allowed for Russian troops to come home and build new lives under the new government, whilst also enabled for the rest of the two thirds of Petrograd’s food and fuel allocations to be sent to the citizens of Russia. Thus Lenin’s pragmatic decision of forcing Trotsky into sign the treaty of Brest – Litovsk was of paramount importance in the consolidation of Bolshevik power.
The main social, political and economic changes brought by Lenin, with the help of his party, aided with the consolidation of power as it gave more opportunities for the lower and working class people to a better and brighter future. October 1917 the Sovnarkom passed the “Decree of Land” giving peasants the right take over the estate of the gentry without compensation and decide for themselves the best way to divide it. Private land would not be bought, sold or rented and belonged to the “entire people.” During October they also agreed to the maximum eight hour day for workers as well as social insurance (unemployment and sickness benefits.) In November 1917 the Bolsheviks passed the “Workers Control Decree” where factory committees were given control to the production and “supervise” the management. Class distinctions were abolished and women were now considered equal to men. Any Russians that agreed with these ideas assisted in the consolidation of Bolshevik power. Furthermore all children were entitled to 9 years of free schooling and a new curriculum was implemented. These reforms which hoped to achieve a utopian society may have been under Lenin’s rule though only through the support of his party could they have been implemented in society, portraying how the Bolshevik party as a whole aided in the consolidation of power.
The break out of the Civil War during 1918 gave Bolsheviks the chance to tighter their control on its economy. The Red Army under Trotsky’s control tamed its opponents and showcased Trotsky’s role in this consolidation of power. During this period there were two sides, the Red Army which consisted of Bolsheviks and supporters, and the White Armies, consisting of Anti-Bolsheviks. Trotsky’s brilliant military leadership, upheld discipline and unity, also reinforcing a common purpose within the Red Army thus causing it to be victorious and consolidate the Bolshevik power. The intense nature of the Civil War forced Lenin to introduce War Communism, giving Bolsheviks control over all trade and industry, directing the labour of peasants and the nationalisation of industry which unfortunately led to famine in 1920-21. The Kronstadt Rebellion lead to Lenin replacing the policy and introduce the New Economic Policy (NEP), implemented in March 1921. Soviet Historian, Figes states that after defeating the Whites, who were supported by eight foreign powers, the Bolsheviks surrendered to the peasantry with the NEP. This meant that in the country side peasants had to give 10% of their produce to the government but could sell the rest, and production could now run in state, cooperative or private systems and drastically improved living standards. Therefore, if it weren’t for Trotsky’s military and leadership skills with his Red Army, or Lenin’s party’s decision against Lenin’s former policies the whites would not have been defeated nor would have the New Economic Policy have been implemented making it definitive that Lenin’s role in the consolidation of power was important though would not have been fulfilled without the help of his party members.
Thus Lenin’s role in the consolidation of Bolshevik power was vital only to a certain extent as he was supported and to an extent guided by his loyal supporters like Trotsky.
Post by: jakesilove on March 07, 2016, 09:15:57 pm
Hey! This essay isnt on one of the topics listed but I would still like your opinion on the structure. I am not sure if I have referred to my thesis statement enough. I was also curious on what other improvements you could suggest to make this piece better.
Thank You
To what extent was Lenin responsible for the Bolshevik consolidation of power?
The Bolshevik being only a revolutionary opposition had to go to extreme lengths to maintain their control on Russia. Lenin was of paramount importance in the consolidation of the Bolshevik power, though inevitably needed the aid of loyal supporters from his party like Trotsky, to ensure his plans were efficiently carried out. Lenin forcing Trotsky to sign the Treaty of Brest Litovsk against Trotsky’s will reduced the added pressure which external forces had imposed on the people within Russia. The Civil War and War Communism may have been introduced under Lenin’s rule, though was implemented by Trotsky, thus tightening their control on their economy and thus depicting the vital role of Trotsky in the consolidation of the Bolshevik power. The social, political and cultural reforms brought by Lenin were also imperative to the consolidation of the Bolsheviks power as it brought the possibility of a happier Russia to the already distraught and confused citizens of Russia. Therefore to a certain extent, Lenin being the mastermind behind the Bolshevik power was of paramount importance in the consolidation of power but was aided by party members like Trotsky making the consolidation of power a team effort.
Lenin’s decision of signing the Treaty of Bret-Litovsk drastically reduced unnecessary pressure, enabling Russia to focus on the betterment of its country within its borders, enabling the consolidation of Bolshevik power. During Russia’s involvement in war, its economy was falling and its peasants overworked. The country was not equipped to satisfy the needs and enormity of the World War as by 1916, only one third of Petrograd’s fuel and food allocations were for civilians and the rest were sent to the army. Lenin knew this and also this his hold on power by 1917 was hanging by a thread. He was almost certain that counter revolutionaries would soon be organising to bring down his regime which, along of his theory of “peace at any price” urged him to push Trotsky into accepting the “predatory peace.” Richard J Crampton states that the Treaty was a device for the Bolsheviks to consolidate their power, displaying Lenin’s eagerness to agree with any conditions, no matter how harsh. However Trotsky’s posturing and unwavering belief of the international revolution had left the Bolsheviks with no way of negotiating better conditions for the treaty which had recently been harshened by Germany. His determination to keep of all Russia’s territory and not annex any states forced further postponement of negotiations. When Trostky had left the conference in February 1918 Kaiser Wilhelm’s army advanced to the Gulf of Finland, dangerously close to Petrograd. Lenin understanding the need for the signing of the treaty sent Trotsky back and cost Russia 50% of its industries, one million hectares of agricultural farmlands and approximately 33% of its population. Historian Spencer Tucker agrees that the conditions imposed by the German General staff was so harsh it shocked the German negotiator, though Lenin knowing it was required for the betterment of Russia. This Treaty no matter how harsh allowed for Russian troops to come home and build new lives under the new government, whilst also enabled for the rest of the two thirds of Petrograd’s food and fuel allocations to be sent to the citizens of Russia. Thus Lenin’s pragmatic decision of forcing Trotsky into sign the treaty of Brest – Litovsk was of paramount importance in the consolidation of Bolshevik power.
The main social, political and economic changes brought by Lenin, with the help of his party, aided with the consolidation of power as it gave more opportunities for the lower and working class people to a better and brighter future. October 1917 the Sovnarkom passed the “Decree of Land” giving peasants the right take over the estate of the gentry without compensation and decide for themselves the best way to divide it. Private land would not be bought, sold or rented and belonged to the “entire people.” During October they also agreed to the maximum eight hour day for workers as well as social insurance (unemployment and sickness benefits.) In November 1917 the Bolsheviks passed the “Workers Control Decree” where factory committees were given control to the production and “supervise” the management. Class distinctions were abolished and women were now considered equal to men. Any Russians that agreed with these ideas assisted in the consolidation of Bolshevik power. Furthermore all children were entitled to 9 years of free schooling and a new curriculum was implemented. These reforms which hoped to achieve a utopian society may have been under Lenin’s rule though only through the support of his party could they have been implemented in society, portraying how the Bolshevik party as a whole aided in the consolidation of power.
The break out of the Civil War during 1918 gave Bolsheviks the chance to tighter their control on its economy. The Red Army under Trotsky’s control tamed its opponents and showcased Trotsky’s role in this consolidation of power. During this period there were two sides, the Red Army which consisted of Bolsheviks and supporters, and the White Armies, consisting of Anti-Bolsheviks. Trotsky’s brilliant military leadership, upheld discipline and unity, also reinforcing a common purpose within the Red Army thus causing it to be victorious and consolidate the Bolshevik power. The intense nature of the Civil War forced Lenin to introduce War Communism, giving Bolsheviks control over all trade and industry, directing the labour of peasants and the nationalisation of industry which unfortunately led to famine in 1920-21. The Kronstadt Rebellion lead to Lenin replacing the policy and introduce the New Economic Policy (NEP), implemented in March 1921. Soviet Historian, Figes states that after defeating the Whites, who were supported by eight foreign powers, the Bolsheviks surrendered to the peasantry with the NEP. This meant that in the country side peasants had to give 10% of their produce to the government but could sell the rest, and production could now run in state, cooperative or private systems and drastically improved living standards. Therefore, if it weren’t for Trotsky’s military and leadership skills with his Red Army, or Lenin’s party’s decision against Lenin’s former policies the whites would not have been defeated nor would have the New Economic Policy have been implemented making it definitive that Lenin’s role in the consolidation of power was important though would not have been fulfilled without the help of his party members.
Thus Lenin’s role in the consolidation of Bolshevik power was vital only to a certain extent as he was supported and to an extent guided by his loyal supporters like Trotsky.
Hey!
See my comments below :)
Original Essay:
Spoiler
The Bolshevik being only a revolutionary opposition had to go to extreme lengths to maintain their control on Russia. Lenin was of paramount importance in the consolidation of the Bolshevik power, though inevitably needed the aid of loyal supporters from his party like Trotsky, to ensure his plans were efficiently carried out. Lenin forcing Trotsky to sign the Treaty of Brest Litovsk against Trotsky’s will reduced the added pressure which external forces had imposed on the people within Russia. The Civil War and War Communism may have been introduced under Lenin’s rule, though was implemented by Trotsky, thus tightening their control on their economy and thus depicting the vital role of Trotsky in the consolidation of the Bolshevik power. The social, political and cultural reforms brought by Lenin were also imperative to the consolidation of the Bolsheviks power as it brought the possibility of a happier Russia to the already distraught and confused citizens of Russia. Therefore to a certain extent, Lenin being the mastermind behind the Bolshevik power was of paramount importance in the consolidation of power but was aided by party members like Trotsky making the consolidation of power a team effort.
Lenin’s decision of signing the Treaty of Bret-Litovsk drastically reduced unnecessary pressure, enabling Russia to focus on the betterment of its country within its borders, enabling the consolidation of Bolshevik power. During Russia’s involvement in war, its economy was falling and its peasants overworked. The country was not equipped to satisfy the needs and enormity of the World War as by 1916, only one third of Petrograd’s fuel and food allocations were for civilians and the rest were sent to the army. Lenin knew this and also this his hold on power by 1917 was hanging by a thread. He was almost certain that counter revolutionaries would soon be organising to bring down his regime which, along of his theory of “peace at any price” urged him to push Trotsky into accepting the “predatory peace.” Richard J Crampton states that the Treaty was a device for the Bolsheviks to consolidate their power, displaying Lenin’s eagerness to agree with any conditions, no matter how harsh. However Trotsky’s posturing and unwavering belief of the international revolution had left the Bolsheviks with no way of negotiating better conditions for the treaty which had recently been harshened by Germany. His determination to keep of all Russia’s territory and not annex any states forced further postponement of negotiations. When Trostky had left the conference in February 1918 Kaiser Wilhelm’s army advanced to the Gulf of Finland, dangerously close to Petrograd. Lenin understanding the need for the signing of the treaty sent Trotsky back and cost Russia 50% of its industries, one million hectares of agricultural farmlands and approximately 33% of its population. Historian Spencer Tucker agrees that the conditions imposed by the German General staff was so harsh it shocked the German negotiator, though Lenin knowing it was required for the betterment of Russia. This Treaty no matter how harsh allowed for Russian troops to come home and build new lives under the new government, whilst also enabled for the rest of the two thirds of Petrograd’s food and fuel allocations to be sent to the citizens of Russia. Thus Lenin’s pragmatic decision of forcing Trotsky into sign the treaty of Brest – Litovsk was of paramount importance in the consolidation of Bolshevik power.
The main social, political and economic changes brought by Lenin, with the help of his party, aided with the consolidation of power as it gave more opportunities for the lower and working class people to a better and brighter future. October 1917 the Sovnarkom passed the “Decree of Land” giving peasants the right take over the estate of the gentry without compensation and decide for themselves the best way to divide it. Private land would not be bought, sold or rented and belonged to the “entire people.” During October they also agreed to the maximum eight hour day for workers as well as social insurance (unemployment and sickness benefits.) In November 1917 the Bolsheviks passed the “Workers Control Decree” where factory committees were given control to the production and “supervise” the management. Class distinctions were abolished and women were now considered equal to men. Any Russians that agreed with these ideas assisted in the consolidation of Bolshevik power. Furthermore all children were entitled to 9 years of free schooling and a new curriculum was implemented. These reforms which hoped to achieve a utopian society may have been under Lenin’s rule though only through the support of his party could they have been implemented in society, portraying how the Bolshevik party as a whole aided in the consolidation of power.
The break out of the Civil War during 1918 gave Bolsheviks the chance to tighter their control on its economy. The Red Army under Trotsky’s control tamed its opponents and showcased Trotsky’s role in this consolidation of power. During this period there were two sides, the Red Army which consisted of Bolsheviks and supporters, and the White Armies, consisting of Anti-Bolsheviks. Trotsky’s brilliant military leadership, upheld discipline and unity, also reinforcing a common purpose within the Red Army thus causing it to be victorious and consolidate the Bolshevik power. The intense nature of the Civil War forced Lenin to introduce War Communism, giving Bolsheviks control over all trade and industry, directing the labour of peasants and the nationalisation of industry which unfortunately led to famine in 1920-21. The Kronstadt Rebellion lead to Lenin replacing the policy and introduce the New Economic Policy (NEP), implemented in March 1921. Soviet Historian, Figes states that after defeating the Whites, who were supported by eight foreign powers, the Bolsheviks surrendered to the peasantry with the NEP. This meant that in the country side peasants had to give 10% of their produce to the government but could sell the rest, and production could now run in state, cooperative or private systems and drastically improved living standards. Therefore, if it weren’t for Trotsky’s military and leadership skills with his Red Army, or Lenin’s party’s decision against Lenin’s former policies the whites would not have been defeated nor would have the New Economic Policy have been implemented making it definitive that Lenin’s role in the consolidation of power was important though would not have been fulfilled without the help of his party members.
Thus Lenin’s role in the consolidation of Bolshevik power was vital only to a certain extent as he was supported and to an extent guided by his loyal supporters like Trotsky.
Lenin’s decision of signing the Treaty of Bret-Litovsk drastically reduced unnecessary pressure, enabling Russia to focus on the betterment of its country within its borders, enabling the consolidation of Bolshevik power. During Russia’s involvement in war, its economy was falling and its peasants overworked. The country was not equipped to satisfy the needs and enormity of the World War as by 1916, only one third of Petrograd’s fuel and food allocations were for civilians and the rest were sent to the army. Lenin knew this and also this his hold on power by 1917 was hanging by a thread. He was almost certain that counter revolutionaries would soon be organising to bring down his regime which, along of his theory of “peace at any price” urged him to push Trotsky into accepting the “predatory peace.” Richard J Crampton states that the Treaty was a device for the Bolsheviks to consolidate their power, displaying Lenin’s eagerness to agree with any conditions, no matter how harsh. However Trotsky’s posturing and unwavering belief of the international revolution had left the Bolsheviks with no way of negotiating better conditions for the treaty which had recently been harshened by Germany. His determination to keep of all Russia’s territory and not annex any states forced further postponement of negotiations. When Trostky had left the conference in February 1918 Kaiser Wilhelm’s army advanced to the Gulf of Finland, dangerously close to Petrograd. Lenin understanding the need for the signing of the treaty sent Trotsky back and cost Russia 50% of its industries, one million hectares of agricultural farmlands and approximately 33% of its population. Historian Spencer Tucker agrees that the conditions imposed by the German General staff was so harsh it shocked the German negotiator, though Lenin knowing it was required for the betterment of Russia. This Treaty no matter how harsh allowed for Russian troops to come home and build new lives under the new government, whilst also enabled for the rest of the two thirds of Petrograd’s food and fuel allocations to be sent to the citizens of Russia. Thus Lenin’s pragmatic decision of forcing Trotsky into sign the treaty of Brest – Litovsk was of paramount importance in the consolidation of Bolshevik power.
The main social, political and economic changes brought by Lenin, with the help of his party, aided with the consolidation of power as it gave more opportunities for the lower and working class people to a better and brighter future. October 1917 the Sovnarkom passed the “Decree of Land” giving peasants the right take over the estate of the gentry without compensation and decide for themselves the best way to divide it. Private land would not be bought, sold or rented and belonged to the “entire people.” During October they also agreed to the maximum eight hour day for workers as well as social insurance (unemployment and sickness benefits.) In November 1917 the Bolsheviks passed the “Workers Control Decree” where factory committees were given control to the production and “supervise” the management. Class distinctions were abolished and women were now considered equal to men. Any Russians that agreed with these ideas assisted in the consolidation of Bolshevik power. Furthermore all children were entitled to 9 years of free schooling and a new curriculum was implemented. These reforms which hoped to achieve a utopian society may have been under Lenin’s rule though only through the support of his party could they have been implemented in society, portraying how the Bolshevik party as a whole aided in the consolidation of power.
The break out of the Civil War during 1918 gave Bolsheviks the chance to tighter their control on its economy. The Red Army under Trotsky’s control tamed its opponents and showcased Trotsky’s role in this consolidation of power. During this period there were two sides, the Red Army which consisted of Bolsheviks and supporters, and the White Armies, consisting of Anti-Bolsheviks. Trotsky’s brilliant military leadership, upheld discipline and unity, also reinforcing a common purpose within the Red Army thus causing it to be victorious and consolidate the Bolshevik power. The intense nature of the Civil War forced Lenin to introduce War Communism, giving Bolsheviks control over all trade and industry, directing the labour of peasants and the nationalisation of industry which unfortunately led to famine in 1920-21. The Kronstadt Rebellion lead to Lenin replacing the policy and introduce the New Economic Policy (NEP), implemented in March 1921. Soviet Historian, Figes states that after defeating the Whites, who were supported by eight foreign powers, the Bolsheviks surrendered to the peasantry with the NEP. This meant that in the country side peasants had to give 10% of their produce to the government but could sell the rest, and production could now run in state, cooperative or private systems and drastically improved living standards. Therefore, if it weren’t for Trotsky’s military and leadership skills with his Red Army, or Lenin’s party’s decision against Lenin’s former policies the whites would not have been defeated nor would have the New Economic Policy have been implemented making it definitive that Lenin’s role in the consolidation of power was important though would not have been fulfilled without the help of his party members.
Thus Lenin’s role in the consolidation of Bolshevik power was vital only to a certain extent as he was supported and to an extent guided by his loyal supporters like Trotsky.
Essay with Comments:
Spoiler
The Bolshevik being only a revolutionary opposition had to go to extreme lengths to maintain their control on Russia. Lenin was of paramount importance in the consolidation of the Bolshevik power, though inevitably needed the aid of loyal supporters from his party like Trotsky, to ensure his plans were efficiently carried out. Great Thesis sentence! Lenin forcing Trotsky to sign the Treaty of Brest Litovsk against Trotsky’s will reduced the added pressure which external forces had imposed on the people within Russia. The Civil War and War Communism may have been introduced under Lenin’s rule, though was implemented by Trotsky, thus tightening their control on their economy and thus depicting the vital role of Trotsky in the consolidation of the Bolshevik power. The social, political and cultural reforms brought by Lenin were also imperative to the consolidation of the Bolsheviks power as it brought the possibility of a happier (Don't use this word) Russia to the already distraught and confused citizens of Russia. Therefore to a certain extent, Lenin being the mastermind behind the Bolshevik power was of paramount importance in the consolidation of power but was aided by party members like Trotsky making the consolidation of power a team effort.
Like your introduction, particularly the nuanced approach you appear to be taking! Add some dates in brackets (Brest-Litovsk was 1918 I think?) etc.
Lenin’s decision of signing the Treaty of Bret-Litovsk drastically reduced unnecessary pressure, enabling Russia to focus on the betterment of its country within its borders, enabling the consolidation of Bolshevik power. During Russia’s involvement in war, its economy was falling and its peasants overworked. The country was not equipped to satisfy the needs and enormity of the World War as by 1916, only one third of Petrograd’s fuel and food allocations were for civilians and the rest were sent to the army. Lenin knew this and also this his hold on power by 1917 was hanging by a thread. He was almost certain that counter revolutionaries would soon be organising to bring down his regime which, along of his theory of “peace at any price” urged him to push Trotsky into accepting the “predatory peace.” Richard J Crampton states that the Treaty was a device for the Bolsheviks to consolidate their power, displaying Lenin’s eagerness to agree with any conditions, no matter how harsh. However Trotsky’s posturing and unwavering belief of the international revolution had left the Bolsheviks with no way of negotiating better conditions for the treaty which had recently been harshened by Germany. His determination to keep of all Russia’s territory and not annex any states forced further postponement of negotiations. When Trostky had left the conference in February 1918 Kaiser Wilhelm’s army advanced to the Gulf of Finland, dangerously close to Petrograd. Lenin understanding the need for the signing of the treaty sent Trotsky back and cost Russia 50% of its industries, one million hectares of agricultural farmlands and approximately 33% of its population. Historian Spencer Tucker agrees that the conditions imposed by the German General staff was so harsh it shocked the German negotiator, though Lenin knowing it was required for the betterment of Russia. This Treaty no matter how harsh allowed for Russian troops to come home and build new lives under the new government, whilst also enabled for the rest of the two thirds of Petrograd’s food and fuel allocations to be sent to the citizens of Russia. Thus Lenin’s pragmatic decision of forcing Trotsky into sign the treaty of Brest – Litovsk was of paramount importance in the consolidation of Bolshevik power.
I think you need to include more specific, accurate and relevant detailed examples. I like the 50%, 33% etc, but I want MORE! More dates, more numbers, more quotes! Remember, in History you can't rely on "he thought"; you have to back that up with a REASON you are making that assertion!
The main social, political and economic changes brought by Lenin, with the help of his party, aided with the consolidation of power as it gave more opportunities for the lower and working class people to a better and brighter future. October 1917 the Sovnarkom passed the “Decree of Land” giving peasants the right take over the estate of the gentry without compensation and decide for themselves the best way to divide it. Private land would not be bought, sold or rented and belonged to the “entire people.” During October they also agreed to the maximum eight hour day for workers as well as social insurance (unemployment and sickness benefits.) In November 1917 the Bolsheviks passed the “Workers Control Decree” where factory committees were given control to the production and “supervise” the management. Class distinctions were abolished and women were now considered equal to men. Any Russians that agreed with these ideas assisted in the consolidation of Bolshevik power. Furthermore all children were entitled to 9 years of free schooling and a new curriculum was implemented. These reforms which hoped to achieve a utopian society may have been under Lenin’s rule though only through the support of his party could they have been implemented in society, portraying how the Bolshevik party as a whole aided in the consolidation of power.
I like that you've brought things back to your thesis at the end, but I would strongly recommend linking your thesis more clearly throughout this paragraph. Even just throwing a few words from the question in here or there will help to strengthen your essay!
The break out of the Civil War during 1918 gave Bolsheviks the chance to tighter their control on its economy. Try put something more specific than "1918"The Red Army under Trotsky’s control tamed its opponents and showcased Trotsky’s role in this consolidation of power. During this period there were two sides, the Red Army which consisted of Bolsheviks and supporters, and the White Armies, consisting of Anti-Bolsheviks. Numbers? Trotsky’s brilliant military leadership, upheld discipline and unity, also reinforcing a common purpose within the Red Army thus causing it to be victorious and consolidate the Bolshevik power. The intense nature of the Civil War forced Lenin to introduce War Communism, giving Bolsheviks control over all trade and industry, directing the labour of peasants and the nationalisation of industry which unfortunately led to famine in 1920-21. The Kronstadt Rebellion lead to Lenin replacing the policy and introduce the New Economic Policy (NEP), implemented in March 1921. Soviet Historian, Figes states that after defeating the Whites, who were supported by eight foreign powers, the Bolsheviks surrendered to the peasantry with the NEP. This meant that in the country side peasants had to give 10% of their produce to the government but could sell the rest, and production could now run in state, cooperative or private systems and drastically improved living standards. Therefore, if it weren’t for Trotsky’s military and leadership skills with his Red Army, or Lenin’s party’s decision against Lenin’s former policies the whites would not have been defeated nor would have the New Economic Policy have been implemented making it definitive that Lenin’s role in the consolidation of power was important though would not have been fulfilled without the help of his party members.
This paragraph is really great: look to the way you directly discuss your thesis, and try to add it to your others! Also, the use of stats, dates and quotes is quite good
Thus Lenin’s role in the consolidation of Bolshevik power was vital only to a certain extent as he was supported and to an extent guided by his loyal supporters like Trotsky.
Definitely expand your conclusion to include key points from your argument. Keep your sentence as your concluding sentence, perhaps
Overall, a good essay. I think you need to proof read it a bit more; try reading every sentence out loud to see if there is anything that doesn't make sense. Try to add more SPECIFIC accurate relevant detailed examples, and work on weaving your thesis into more sentences. Overall, though, a good essay with the potential to be a great essay!
Like your introduction, particularly the nuanced approach you appear to be taking! Add some dates in brackets (Brest-Litovsk was 1918 I think?) etc.
Lenin’s decision of signing the Treaty of Bret-Litovsk drastically reduced unnecessary pressure, enabling Russia to focus on the betterment of its country within its borders, enabling the consolidation of Bolshevik power. During Russia’s involvement in war, its economy was falling and its peasants overworked. The country was not equipped to satisfy the needs and enormity of the World War as by 1916, only one third of Petrograd’s fuel and food allocations were for civilians and the rest were sent to the army. Lenin knew this and also this his hold on power by 1917 was hanging by a thread. He was almost certain that counter revolutionaries would soon be organising to bring down his regime which, along of his theory of “peace at any price” urged him to push Trotsky into accepting the “predatory peace.” Richard J Crampton states that the Treaty was a device for the Bolsheviks to consolidate their power, displaying Lenin’s eagerness to agree with any conditions, no matter how harsh. However Trotsky’s posturing and unwavering belief of the international revolution had left the Bolsheviks with no way of negotiating better conditions for the treaty which had recently been harshened by Germany. His determination to keep of all Russia’s territory and not annex any states forced further postponement of negotiations. When Trostky had left the conference in February 1918 Kaiser Wilhelm’s army advanced to the Gulf of Finland, dangerously close to Petrograd. Lenin understanding the need for the signing of the treaty sent Trotsky back and cost Russia 50% of its industries, one million hectares of agricultural farmlands and approximately 33% of its population. Historian Spencer Tucker agrees that the conditions imposed by the German General staff was so harsh it shocked the German negotiator, though Lenin knowing it was required for the betterment of Russia. This Treaty no matter how harsh allowed for Russian troops to come home and build new lives under the new government, whilst also enabled for the rest of the two thirds of Petrograd’s food and fuel allocations to be sent to the citizens of Russia. Thus Lenin’s pragmatic decision of forcing Trotsky into sign the treaty of Brest – Litovsk was of paramount importance in the consolidation of Bolshevik power.
I think you need to include more specific, accurate and relevant detailed examples. I like the 50%, 33% etc, but I want MORE! More dates, more numbers, more quotes! Remember, in History you can't rely on "he thought"; you have to back that up with a REASON you are making that assertion!
The main social, political and economic changes brought by Lenin, with the help of his party, aided with the consolidation of power as it gave more opportunities for the lower and working class people to a better and brighter future. October 1917 the Sovnarkom passed the “Decree of Land” giving peasants the right take over the estate of the gentry without compensation and decide for themselves the best way to divide it. Private land would not be bought, sold or rented and belonged to the “entire people.” During October they also agreed to the maximum eight hour day for workers as well as social insurance (unemployment and sickness benefits.) In November 1917 the Bolsheviks passed the “Workers Control Decree” where factory committees were given control to the production and “supervise” the management. Class distinctions were abolished and women were now considered equal to men. Any Russians that agreed with these ideas assisted in the consolidation of Bolshevik power. Furthermore all children were entitled to 9 years of free schooling and a new curriculum was implemented. These reforms which hoped to achieve a utopian society may have been under Lenin’s rule though only through the support of his party could they have been implemented in society, portraying how the Bolshevik party as a whole aided in the consolidation of power.
I like that you've brought things back to your thesis at the end, but I would strongly recommend linking your thesis more clearly throughout this paragraph. Even just throwing a few words from the question in here or there will help to strengthen your essay!
The break out of the Civil War during 1918 gave Bolsheviks the chance to tighter their control on its economy. Try put something more specific than "1918"The Red Army under Trotsky’s control tamed its opponents and showcased Trotsky’s role in this consolidation of power. During this period there were two sides, the Red Army which consisted of Bolsheviks and supporters, and the White Armies, consisting of Anti-Bolsheviks. Numbers? Trotsky’s brilliant military leadership, upheld discipline and unity, also reinforcing a common purpose within the Red Army thus causing it to be victorious and consolidate the Bolshevik power. The intense nature of the Civil War forced Lenin to introduce War Communism, giving Bolsheviks control over all trade and industry, directing the labour of peasants and the nationalisation of industry which unfortunately led to famine in 1920-21. The Kronstadt Rebellion lead to Lenin replacing the policy and introduce the New Economic Policy (NEP), implemented in March 1921. Soviet Historian, Figes states that after defeating the Whites, who were supported by eight foreign powers, the Bolsheviks surrendered to the peasantry with the NEP. This meant that in the country side peasants had to give 10% of their produce to the government but could sell the rest, and production could now run in state, cooperative or private systems and drastically improved living standards. Therefore, if it weren’t for Trotsky’s military and leadership skills with his Red Army, or Lenin’s party’s decision against Lenin’s former policies the whites would not have been defeated nor would have the New Economic Policy have been implemented making it definitive that Lenin’s role in the consolidation of power was important though would not have been fulfilled without the help of his party members.
This paragraph is really great: look to the way you directly discuss your thesis, and try to add it to your others! Also, the use of stats, dates and quotes is quite good
Thus Lenin’s role in the consolidation of Bolshevik power was vital only to a certain extent as he was supported and to an extent guided by his loyal supporters like Trotsky.
Definitely expand your conclusion to include key points from your argument. Keep your sentence as your concluding sentence, perhaps
Overall, a good essay. I think you need to proof read it a bit more; try reading every sentence out loud to see if there is anything that doesn't make sense. Try to add more SPECIFIC accurate relevant detailed examples, and work on weaving your thesis into more sentences. Overall, though, a good essay with the potential to be a great essay!
Post by: jkkke on March 08, 2016, 08:38:50 pm
Post by: jakesilove on March 09, 2016, 03:52:42 pm
Hey this is the half yearly draft I did the question is: To what extent was the collapse of the Weimar Republic the result of the Depression? Could you please look at the layout and thesis if it makes sense. Don't think my layout is very good and might have too many paragraphs and maybe some pointless information. Also any general feedback would be good, thanks heaps :)
Hey!
Below are my comments. Thanks for the post!
Original Essay:
Spoiler
Question: To what extent was the collapse of the Weimar Republic the result of the Depression?
The Great depression had a major impact for the collapse of the Weimar Republic however there were other factors involved politically, socially and militaristically. The Weimar Republic had to battle with a long ideology of authoritarian rule, the German people blaming them for Article 241 as well as never having the support of the Reichshwer.
Before the Great Depression happened there were issues that Weimar Republic still had to deal with. Article 241 from the Treaty of Versailles was extremely harsh to the German people and stated the entire war was Germanys fault. The signing of this Treaty outraged the German people and were left very bitter which is a stigma the Weimar Republic had to deal with and never got rid of. Article 48 was also criticized by the German people as it stated the president could appoint and dismiss chancellor at any time as well as suspend German people’s fundamental rights.
The Weimar Republic also faced political opposition who tried to overthrow they’re form of government. The first right wing attempt to overthrow the government came in 1920. Kapp Putsch who wanted an authoritarian style of government, Putsch gained the support of General Von Luttwittz and on March 13 entered Berlin, however the workers of Berlin declared a workers strike which paralysed the city. This proved the Weimar Republics instability as a government.
Throughout the Weimar Republic time, the Reichswehr maintained itself a superior place in German society and practically being a ‘state within a state’. The army never backed Weimar, which also lead to the collapse. When Weimar requested help from the army in the Putsch situation they responded saying ‘Reichswehr don’t fire on Reichswehr’. When they’re influence rose in politics such as Hindenburg being president in 1925 onwards and army officers such as Von scleider 1930-1932 it led to the demise of the Weimar Republic as they never supported them from the start thus making strategies to throw them from government.
The Great depression was not the only economic troubles Weimar faced and when France occupied the Ruhr on January 1923 to make the workers’ pay for their reparations in stopped their industrial r region. By the end of March Germany only received 1% of their usual coal deliveries this sent German economy into hyperinflation which caused workers to struggle making them further question the Weimar Governments approach.
When the Great Depression comes in 1929 the German people, army and other parties all have reasons to dislike the approach they have and want a totalitarian state back. The Depression allowed powerful groups such as the army, large landowners and leading civil servants that never supported Weimar to express their disaffection. This is best explained in the quote by Kershaw ‘In Germany where the roots of democracy are shallow, looked to change a system they felt, less and less upheld their interests, and move to an authoritarian rule.
On October 1929 when Walls street share prices began to drop rapidly which sent people to sell their shares this had a huge impact on Germans banks who were major investors. People rushed to draw out their investments which caused banks to run out of cash. To make this money back Germany had to recall all loans to German businesses which forced them into close. This increased unemployment which made Germany lose their tax revenue making it difficult to pay of their repayments. The Depression encouraged Hindenburg to move from his quiescent attitude towards a more interventionist policy based on authoritarian rule. This first came in the appointment of Heinrich Burning who Kolb describes as ‘not the last chancellor to before the breakup of Weimar, but the first chancellor in destroying democracy. Brunings policies to raise taxes for unemployment benefit and reduce unemployment benefits t make it more affordable made Germans plunge deeper into unemployment rising from 2258000 in 1930 to 6031000 in 1932. This didn’t please any political parties and when Brunings government had to rely on article 48 to govern. In 1930 only 5 decrees were used, by 1931 this had increased to 44 and 66 in 1932. The decrees undermined the confidence in the Weimar Republic which benefited extremist parties such s the communists and Nazis as the public anger grew towards Weimar. Brunings downfall came in May 1932 as he has done enough to move government sufficiently to the right. This marked the end for Weimar Republic. In the elections of July 1932 the Nazis and Communists controlled 52 per cent of the Reichstag making the Weimar effectively dead and in January 1933 Hitler was named chancellor and the authoritarian system was back in place.
All these factors played a role in the collapse of Weimar Republic and when the Great Depression came it gave everyone an opportunity to express their disaffection towards Weimar. Although these events did play a significant role it was the Great Depression that was the major impact of Weimar Republic collapsing as the powerful groups such as the army wouldn’t of has a chance to dismise Weimar.
The Great depression had a major impact for the collapse of the Weimar Republic however there were other factors involved politically, socially and militaristically. The Weimar Republic had to battle with a long ideology of authoritarian rule, the German people blaming them for Article 241 as well as never having the support of the Reichshwer.
Before the Great Depression happened there were issues that Weimar Republic still had to deal with. Article 241 from the Treaty of Versailles was extremely harsh to the German people and stated the entire war was Germanys fault. The signing of this Treaty outraged the German people and were left very bitter which is a stigma the Weimar Republic had to deal with and never got rid of. Article 48 was also criticized by the German people as it stated the president could appoint and dismiss chancellor at any time as well as suspend German people’s fundamental rights.
The Weimar Republic also faced political opposition who tried to overthrow they’re form of government. The first right wing attempt to overthrow the government came in 1920. Kapp Putsch who wanted an authoritarian style of government, Putsch gained the support of General Von Luttwittz and on March 13 entered Berlin, however the workers of Berlin declared a workers strike which paralysed the city. This proved the Weimar Republics instability as a government.
Throughout the Weimar Republic time, the Reichswehr maintained itself a superior place in German society and practically being a ‘state within a state’. The army never backed Weimar, which also lead to the collapse. When Weimar requested help from the army in the Putsch situation they responded saying ‘Reichswehr don’t fire on Reichswehr’. When they’re influence rose in politics such as Hindenburg being president in 1925 onwards and army officers such as Von scleider 1930-1932 it led to the demise of the Weimar Republic as they never supported them from the start thus making strategies to throw them from government.
The Great depression was not the only economic troubles Weimar faced and when France occupied the Ruhr on January 1923 to make the workers’ pay for their reparations in stopped their industrial r region. By the end of March Germany only received 1% of their usual coal deliveries this sent German economy into hyperinflation which caused workers to struggle making them further question the Weimar Governments approach.
When the Great Depression comes in 1929 the German people, army and other parties all have reasons to dislike the approach they have and want a totalitarian state back. The Depression allowed powerful groups such as the army, large landowners and leading civil servants that never supported Weimar to express their disaffection. This is best explained in the quote by Kershaw ‘In Germany where the roots of democracy are shallow, looked to change a system they felt, less and less upheld their interests, and move to an authoritarian rule.
On October 1929 when Walls street share prices began to drop rapidly which sent people to sell their shares this had a huge impact on Germans banks who were major investors. People rushed to draw out their investments which caused banks to run out of cash. To make this money back Germany had to recall all loans to German businesses which forced them into close. This increased unemployment which made Germany lose their tax revenue making it difficult to pay of their repayments. The Depression encouraged Hindenburg to move from his quiescent attitude towards a more interventionist policy based on authoritarian rule. This first came in the appointment of Heinrich Burning who Kolb describes as ‘not the last chancellor to before the breakup of Weimar, but the first chancellor in destroying democracy. Brunings policies to raise taxes for unemployment benefit and reduce unemployment benefits t make it more affordable made Germans plunge deeper into unemployment rising from 2258000 in 1930 to 6031000 in 1932. This didn’t please any political parties and when Brunings government had to rely on article 48 to govern. In 1930 only 5 decrees were used, by 1931 this had increased to 44 and 66 in 1932. The decrees undermined the confidence in the Weimar Republic which benefited extremist parties such s the communists and Nazis as the public anger grew towards Weimar. Brunings downfall came in May 1932 as he has done enough to move government sufficiently to the right. This marked the end for Weimar Republic. In the elections of July 1932 the Nazis and Communists controlled 52 per cent of the Reichstag making the Weimar effectively dead and in January 1933 Hitler was named chancellor and the authoritarian system was back in place.
All these factors played a role in the collapse of Weimar Republic and when the Great Depression came it gave everyone an opportunity to express their disaffection towards Weimar. Although these events did play a significant role it was the Great Depression that was the major impact of Weimar Republic collapsing as the powerful groups such as the army wouldn’t of has a chance to dismise Weimar.
Essay with Comments:
Spoiler
Question: To what extent was the collapse of the Weimar Republic the result of the Depression?
The Great depression had a major impact for the collapse of the Weimar Republic however there were other factors involved politically, socially and militaristically. Good Thesis statement, and layout of (what I hope to be) your coming structure! The Weimar Republic had to battle with a long ideology of authoritarian rule, the German people blaming them for Article 241 as well as never having the support of the Reichshwer. Reread and proof read your essay: a few misspellings, "a long ideology" doesn't make sense (a long standing ideology?). I also think you should put "the War Guilt clause" in brackets, to prove you know what Art 241 was! Also, I would expand your introduction a little bit.
Before the Great Depression happened A bit colloquial, try to use historical voice. there were issues that Weimar Republic still had to deal with. Article 241 from the Treaty of Versailles was extremely harsh to the German people and stated the entire war was Germanys fault. Again, very colloquial The signing of this Treaty outraged the German people and were left very bitter which is a stigma the Weimar Republic had to deal with and never got rid of. Article 48 was also criticized by the German people as it stated the president could appoint and dismiss chancellor at any time as well as suspend German people’s fundamental rights. Did they dislike this? You already said that Germany was used to a long standing ideology of authoritative rule: isn't this the example of remnants of that rule, and so wouldn't your thesis suggest that Germany was used to it?
I think you've done a good job offering examples of different reasons for the fall of the Republic (or at least issues that it had to deal with other than the GD). I would link these issues more strongly with the actual collapse of the Republic (which is the question) and make sure that your thesis follows logically.
The Weimar Republic also faced political opposition who tried to overthrow they’re form of government. Grammar, spelling[/b ]The first right wing attempt to overthrow the government came in 1920. Kapp Putsch who wanted an authoritarian style of government, Putsch gained the support of General Von Luttwittz and on March 13 entered Berlin, however the workers of Berlin declared a workers strike which paralysed the city. Facts are correct, but your use of language isn't quite. "Kapp Putch" didn't want anything; that was just the name of the event. This proved the Weimar Republics instability as a government. Does it? You just said that the Government managed to combat (successfully) a right wing movement to overthrow them. Doesn't that display its strength? You could argue either way, but whichever you choose you need to be stronger on that point.
Throughout the Weimar Republic time, Spelling, grammar. the Reichswehr maintained itself a superior place in German society and practically being a ‘state within a state’. If you're using a quote, tell me who you're quoting. The army never backed Weimar, which also lead to the collapse. When Weimar requested help from the army in the Putsch situation they responded saying ‘Reichswehr don’t fire on Reichswehr’. When they’re influence Spelling rose in politics such as Hindenburg being president in 1925 onwards and army officers such as Von scleider 1930-1932 it led to the demise of the Weimar Republic as they never supported them from the start thus making strategies to throw them from government. Read this sentence out loud, and see if it makes sense to you. This is complicated stuff you're talking about, so it is really easy to lose track of the point; make sure to proof read your essay so that you know exactly where you can improve and rewrite sections.
The Great depression was not the only economic troubles Weimar faced and when France occupied the Ruhr on January 1923 to make the workers’ Grammar pay for their reparations in stopped their industrial r region I don't think you've proof read this essay. By the end of March Germany only received 1% of their usual coal deliveries this sent German economy into hyperinflation which caused workers to struggle making them further question the Weimar Governments approach. Grammar, spelling. However, a good point, and definitely an example of troubles facing the Republic: However, did this lead to the downfall of the Republic? I'm still not clear on that point.
When the Great Depression comes in 1929 the German people, army and other parties all have reasons to dislike the approach they have and want a totalitarian state back. You repeatedly use "they" throughout this essay. Are you talking about the Weimar Government, the Weimar Republic in general, the Chancellor...? The Depression allowed powerful groups such as the army, large landowners and leading civil servants that never supported Weimar to express their disaffection. Great sentence; concise, clear and true. Try to rewrite some of your wordiest sentences like this. This is best explained in the quote by Kershaw ‘In Germany where the roots of democracy are shallow, looked to change a system they felt, less and less upheld their interests, and move to an authoritarian rule. Again, really great summary and conclusions drawn! I feel like you really GET what's going on, but you need to rethink how to express it and which conclusions you draw. Look to the successes of the second half of this paragraph, and try to emulate it across the essay./color]
On October 1929 when Walls street share prices began to drop rapidly which sent people to sell their shares this had a huge impact on Germans banks who were major investors. Grammar, spelling. Don't resolve the GD down to a sentence; that's not really entirely true. You don't need to understand why the GD took place, just its impact on the Weimar Republic. People rushed to draw out their investments which caused banks to run out of cash. To make this money back Germany had to recall all loans to German businesses which forced them into close. This increased unemployment which made Germany lose their tax revenue making it difficult to pay of their repayments. The Depression encouraged Hindenburg to move from his quiescent attitude towards a more interventionist policy based on authoritarian rule. This first came in the appointment of Heinrich Burning This is not his name who Kolb describes as ‘not the last chancellor to before the breakup of Weimar, but the first chancellor in destroying democracy. You don't end the quote, and the quote must have been typed out wrong Brunings Grammar policies to raise taxes for unemployment benefit and reduce unemployment benefits t make it more affordable made Germans plunge deeper into unemployment rising from 2258000 in 1930 to 6031000 in 1932. Great statistic, try to use more like it! This didn’t please any political parties and when Brunings government had to rely on article 48 to govern. Re read this sentence; there's no ending to it. In 1930 only 5 decrees were used, by 1931 this had increased to 44 and 66 in 1932. The decrees undermined the confidence in the Weimar Republic which benefited extremist parties such s the communists and Nazis as the public anger grew towards Weimar. Brunings downfall came in May 1932 as he has done enough to move government sufficiently to the right. Always use past tense This marked the end for Weimar Republic. In the elections of July 1932 the Nazis and Communists controlled 52 per cent of the Reichstag making the Weimar effectively dead and in January 1933 Hitler was named chancellor and the authoritarian system was back in place.
All these factors played a role in the collapse of Weimar Republic and when the Great Depression came it gave everyone an opportunity to express their disaffection towards Weimar. Although these events did play a significant role it was the Great Depression that was the major impact of Weimar Republic collapsing as the powerful groups such as the army wouldn’t of has a chance to dismise Weimar.
You need to proof read your essay, quite thoroughly, because a lot of the sentences don't really finish or, to be honest, make sense. You have a good understanding of the time period, and you understand your thesis quite well, which is really, really impressive. However, you need to think through each point in more detail. A couple of the examples you use don't lend themselves to your thesis based on your argument, and so either change the examples or strengthen their link to the thesis. You need to link each point to the COLLAPSE of the Weimar republic, and so you should explain WHEN the collapse happened at the START, not the end. Then, you should link each point to the collapse (ie. you say that Bruning ended the Republic).
You need to talk more about the G.D. Because the question is SPECIFICALLY asking about it, you should generally spend 60% of the time of the G.D, and 40% on other factors (50/50 max, but even that is not ideal).
I think that you need to, first, proof read, and second, think about each point and relate it directly to your thesis. To do this, write out your thesis is one sentence, then contemplate the issue you are discussing. Think about how you can use it to support your thesis because your thesis is absolutely correct. The G.D had a huge impact, but relied on previously instated conditions.
This has the potential to be a really great essay, but you definitely need to put more work into it. Good luck!
Jake
The Great depression had a major impact for the collapse of the Weimar Republic however there were other factors involved politically, socially and militaristically. Good Thesis statement, and layout of (what I hope to be) your coming structure! The Weimar Republic had to battle with a long ideology of authoritarian rule, the German people blaming them for Article 241 as well as never having the support of the Reichshwer. Reread and proof read your essay: a few misspellings, "a long ideology" doesn't make sense (a long standing ideology?). I also think you should put "the War Guilt clause" in brackets, to prove you know what Art 241 was! Also, I would expand your introduction a little bit.
Before the Great Depression happened A bit colloquial, try to use historical voice. there were issues that Weimar Republic still had to deal with. Article 241 from the Treaty of Versailles was extremely harsh to the German people and stated the entire war was Germanys fault. Again, very colloquial The signing of this Treaty outraged the German people and were left very bitter which is a stigma the Weimar Republic had to deal with and never got rid of. Article 48 was also criticized by the German people as it stated the president could appoint and dismiss chancellor at any time as well as suspend German people’s fundamental rights. Did they dislike this? You already said that Germany was used to a long standing ideology of authoritative rule: isn't this the example of remnants of that rule, and so wouldn't your thesis suggest that Germany was used to it?
I think you've done a good job offering examples of different reasons for the fall of the Republic (or at least issues that it had to deal with other than the GD). I would link these issues more strongly with the actual collapse of the Republic (which is the question) and make sure that your thesis follows logically.
The Weimar Republic also faced political opposition who tried to overthrow they’re form of government. Grammar, spelling[/b ]The first right wing attempt to overthrow the government came in 1920. Kapp Putsch who wanted an authoritarian style of government, Putsch gained the support of General Von Luttwittz and on March 13 entered Berlin, however the workers of Berlin declared a workers strike which paralysed the city. Facts are correct, but your use of language isn't quite. "Kapp Putch" didn't want anything; that was just the name of the event. This proved the Weimar Republics instability as a government. Does it? You just said that the Government managed to combat (successfully) a right wing movement to overthrow them. Doesn't that display its strength? You could argue either way, but whichever you choose you need to be stronger on that point.
Throughout the Weimar Republic time, Spelling, grammar. the Reichswehr maintained itself a superior place in German society and practically being a ‘state within a state’. If you're using a quote, tell me who you're quoting. The army never backed Weimar, which also lead to the collapse. When Weimar requested help from the army in the Putsch situation they responded saying ‘Reichswehr don’t fire on Reichswehr’. When they’re influence Spelling rose in politics such as Hindenburg being president in 1925 onwards and army officers such as Von scleider 1930-1932 it led to the demise of the Weimar Republic as they never supported them from the start thus making strategies to throw them from government. Read this sentence out loud, and see if it makes sense to you. This is complicated stuff you're talking about, so it is really easy to lose track of the point; make sure to proof read your essay so that you know exactly where you can improve and rewrite sections.
The Great depression was not the only economic troubles Weimar faced and when France occupied the Ruhr on January 1923 to make the workers’ Grammar pay for their reparations in stopped their industrial r region I don't think you've proof read this essay. By the end of March Germany only received 1% of their usual coal deliveries this sent German economy into hyperinflation which caused workers to struggle making them further question the Weimar Governments approach. Grammar, spelling. However, a good point, and definitely an example of troubles facing the Republic: However, did this lead to the downfall of the Republic? I'm still not clear on that point.
When the Great Depression comes in 1929 the German people, army and other parties all have reasons to dislike the approach they have and want a totalitarian state back. You repeatedly use "they" throughout this essay. Are you talking about the Weimar Government, the Weimar Republic in general, the Chancellor...? The Depression allowed powerful groups such as the army, large landowners and leading civil servants that never supported Weimar to express their disaffection. Great sentence; concise, clear and true. Try to rewrite some of your wordiest sentences like this. This is best explained in the quote by Kershaw ‘In Germany where the roots of democracy are shallow, looked to change a system they felt, less and less upheld their interests, and move to an authoritarian rule. Again, really great summary and conclusions drawn! I feel like you really GET what's going on, but you need to rethink how to express it and which conclusions you draw. Look to the successes of the second half of this paragraph, and try to emulate it across the essay./color]
On October 1929 when Walls street share prices began to drop rapidly which sent people to sell their shares this had a huge impact on Germans banks who were major investors. Grammar, spelling. Don't resolve the GD down to a sentence; that's not really entirely true. You don't need to understand why the GD took place, just its impact on the Weimar Republic. People rushed to draw out their investments which caused banks to run out of cash. To make this money back Germany had to recall all loans to German businesses which forced them into close. This increased unemployment which made Germany lose their tax revenue making it difficult to pay of their repayments. The Depression encouraged Hindenburg to move from his quiescent attitude towards a more interventionist policy based on authoritarian rule. This first came in the appointment of Heinrich Burning This is not his name who Kolb describes as ‘not the last chancellor to before the breakup of Weimar, but the first chancellor in destroying democracy. You don't end the quote, and the quote must have been typed out wrong Brunings Grammar policies to raise taxes for unemployment benefit and reduce unemployment benefits t make it more affordable made Germans plunge deeper into unemployment rising from 2258000 in 1930 to 6031000 in 1932. Great statistic, try to use more like it! This didn’t please any political parties and when Brunings government had to rely on article 48 to govern. Re read this sentence; there's no ending to it. In 1930 only 5 decrees were used, by 1931 this had increased to 44 and 66 in 1932. The decrees undermined the confidence in the Weimar Republic which benefited extremist parties such s the communists and Nazis as the public anger grew towards Weimar. Brunings downfall came in May 1932 as he has done enough to move government sufficiently to the right. Always use past tense This marked the end for Weimar Republic. In the elections of July 1932 the Nazis and Communists controlled 52 per cent of the Reichstag making the Weimar effectively dead and in January 1933 Hitler was named chancellor and the authoritarian system was back in place.
All these factors played a role in the collapse of Weimar Republic and when the Great Depression came it gave everyone an opportunity to express their disaffection towards Weimar. Although these events did play a significant role it was the Great Depression that was the major impact of Weimar Republic collapsing as the powerful groups such as the army wouldn’t of has a chance to dismise Weimar.
You need to proof read your essay, quite thoroughly, because a lot of the sentences don't really finish or, to be honest, make sense. You have a good understanding of the time period, and you understand your thesis quite well, which is really, really impressive. However, you need to think through each point in more detail. A couple of the examples you use don't lend themselves to your thesis based on your argument, and so either change the examples or strengthen their link to the thesis. You need to link each point to the COLLAPSE of the Weimar republic, and so you should explain WHEN the collapse happened at the START, not the end. Then, you should link each point to the collapse (ie. you say that Bruning ended the Republic).
You need to talk more about the G.D. Because the question is SPECIFICALLY asking about it, you should generally spend 60% of the time of the G.D, and 40% on other factors (50/50 max, but even that is not ideal).
I think that you need to, first, proof read, and second, think about each point and relate it directly to your thesis. To do this, write out your thesis is one sentence, then contemplate the issue you are discussing. Think about how you can use it to support your thesis because your thesis is absolutely correct. The G.D had a huge impact, but relied on previously instated conditions.
This has the potential to be a really great essay, but you definitely need to put more work into it. Good luck!
Jake
Post by: beatrizmorais98 on March 13, 2016, 05:14:29 pm
I don't know what to write in this Essay... Suggestions?
Thank You :)
Post by: elysepopplewell on March 14, 2016, 05:12:43 pm
Hi! I am trying to write an essay for modern history. The question is: Account for the initial consolidation of Nazi power in 1933-1934.
I don't know what to write in this Essay... Suggestions?
Thank You :)
Hey there! I would use this as an opportunity to talk about the following:
-The manipulation of the legal process (the dismantling of democracy through votes)
-Extensive use of terror
-Extensive use of propaganda
-Removal of all opposition.
Once you flesh out these ideas, you have a whole essay ready to be written! Let me know if something doesn't make sense :)
Post by: sydneyg on March 20, 2016, 10:39:04 am
Post by: imtrying on March 21, 2016, 04:36:56 pm
I have my half yearlies next week and the question I have answer is "To what extent was the collapse of the Weimar Republic the result of the Depression?" which, coincidentally is almost the exact question to a practice essay I uploaded on here a few weeks ago. I've added to and modified the essay a fair bit since then, but your feedback last time was a huge help so I was wondering if you'd mind having a read over this one?
Thankyou so much:)
Post by: elysepopplewell on March 21, 2016, 09:47:49 pm
Hey there! I'm just wondering if I could get some feedback on this draft essay on the question - To what extent did economic weaknesses contribute to the collapse of the Weimar Republic? So that I can do a final edit by Tuesday. Thanks so much!
Hey Sydney!
This has an enormous word count. Over 2000 words is very very difficult to achieve in an exam situation - you would have to sacrifice other areas in order to fit this one in!
Your original essay:
Spoiler
To what extent did economic weaknesses contribute to the collapse of the Weimar Republic?
Economic weaknesses contributed to the collapse of the Weimar Republic to a great extent, as economic weakness gave rise to further political and social issues. Not only did the Republic face hyperinflation and the great depression, the new leaders had to face political hardships such as the terms of the treaty of Versailles and faults within it’s constitution. The new government had to face these matters without the support of the German public and the mass of political competition, particularly the rise of the of the Nazi party. Ultimately the impacts of economic weakness lead to the collapse of the Weimar Republic in 1933.
Economic weaknesses alone proved to be a significant contributor to the collapse of the Weimar Republic. By 1918 the German economy was severely impacted by their funding of the First World War. The obstruction of imports and exports through the naval blockade, as well as the strict control of all European exports to Germany, through the 1917 Memorandum to the War Cabinet on the trade blockade, destroyed the trade industry in Germany. This significant decrease of income and increase of war expenditure, including the spending of all German gold reserves, amounted in German bankruptcy. The Treaty of Versailles aggravated the economic strain upon Germany, as Germany was; ordered to pay upwards of $30 billion USD and stripped of income generating industrial areas such as Silesia, including the occupation of the Ruhr. British economist John Keynes criticised the severe impact that the treaty of Versailles would have upon Germany “The policy of reducing Germany to servitude for a generation, of degrading the lives of millions of human beings, and depriving a nation of happiness should be abhorrent and detestable.”1 Before the Weimar Republic was even established, the economic challenges were too great to overcome. In order to combat unemployment, and generate income to pay back reparations, the Weimar implemented social spending and raised prices nationwide. This increased the demand for money and thus resulted in the increased printing of paper marks, sparking hyperinflation.
Hyperinflation swept through Germany in 1923, as a result of the imposition of the Treaty of Versailles and the economic circumstances of Germany Post-World War One. The terms of the Treaty meant that capital was geared towards the payment of reparations, however passive resistance during the French occupation of the Ruhr reduced output significantly. German industry was majorly diminished and trade was weak, but the government did not carry out economic reforms to spare the suffering of the German people. Meanwhile the Weimar Republic carried out heavy expenditure on welfare and nationalised industries such as the railroad and postal service. In October 1923 only 0.8% of government expenses were funded through tax revenue. Therefore more money was required to match the demand for wages, war pensions, industry and most importantly, reparations. The value of the German currency fell and hyperinflation quickly set in, at the peak of hyperinflation in November 1923 one US dollar was worth 4.2 quadrillion marks. Stresemann introduced the new currency, the Rentenmark, backed by German land and industrial assets to stabilise the German economy. The legacy of this hyperinflation crisis worsened the impact of the Great Depression in 1929.
In October 1929 the New York stock market collapsed and the United States recalled their short-term loans to Germany, and in turn the German economy began to collapse. David Childs affirms, “There were fears about Germany’s political future which caused massive repatriation of short term credits.”2 Globally, countries moved to protect their own domestic assets, placing high prices on trade and tariffs on foreign goods. This shattered the German economy as it majorly relied on international trade. As a solution to the crisis Chancellor Heinrich Brüning applied a policy of deflation – detailing the increase of taxation and the decrease of government expenditure – in order to balance the budget and restore confidence to stimulate investment. Despite being rejected in the Reichstag Brüning appealed to the president and used Article 48 to implement the new budget and later dissolve the Reichstag. This display of absolute power marks a significant moment for the failure of democracy in Germany. The impact of the Great Depression was greatly social and political as much as it was economical. Vast unemployment plagued Germany causing significant dissatisfaction with the Weimar Republic to emerge as it did in 1923, “As Germany plunged deeper into the Depression, growing numbers of middle class citizens began to see in the youthful dynamism of the Nazi Party a possible way out of the situation.” 3 Therefore it can be seen that the economic crisis in Germany emphasised and gave rise to social and political issues.
Economic weakness also impacted the social and political circumstances of Germany. Unemployment was rife and the German people became deeply dissatisfied with democracy and the new politicians governing them. Although the Weimar Republic was able to overcome this instance, the German economy never fully recovered from the effects of hyperinflation. The introduction of the Dawes plan in 1924 implemented a German reliance on American loans. The prosperity of the Weimar Republic during 1924-1929 was reliant on these loans, while it allowed industry to be rebuilt, improved the standard of living and encouraged Germany’s cultural sphere to flourish - it also had devastating impacts on the middle class and agricultural sector. The middle class were reduced down to the same status as the working class, as “Middle-class savers experienced the trauma of seeing the value of their savings completely wiped out.”4
Neither identifying with the working class nor cooperating with big business; this deep social class divide emphasised their dissatisfaction with the Weimar Republic . Farmers suffered greatly after hyperinflation, lack of profit led them further into debt and discouraged investment in new machinery. In reality this period is only known as the ‘Golden Years’ in stark comparison to the periods of suffering proceeding and following them. This dissatisfaction forced these groups to seek change from extremist parties like the Nazi party. This dissatisfaction occurred again on a greater scale during the Great Depression.
The Great depression had a significant social impact upon the German people. As the social and psychological state of the German people was already tainted by the impact of the Treaty of Versailles, the economic crises worsened the existing situation. AJP Taylor recognises that “the depression put the wind into Hitler’s sails”5, the working classes were subjected to poverty as many suffered eviction, children were forced to work and health levels significantly deteriorated. Middle class families became humiliated as they descended the ranks of the proletariat. This humiliation was a nationwide phenomenon, which snowballed from the establishment of the Republic and proved to be a major factor to its collapse. The Weimar Republic was responsible for signing the shameful Treaty of Versailles, accepting defeat and humiliation onto Germany, especially in clause 231 – the Guilt Clause. The stab in the back myth worked to concentrate hatred upon the new government and promote anti-Semitism in Germany, which Adolf Hitler later used to gather widespread support for the Nazi Party. While this humiliation was evident surrounding the French occupation of the Ruhr and the Hyperinflation crisis in 1923, the wider populous had not yet turned to extreme options as the Nazi party only received 6.6% of seats in the Reichstag. However, in July 1932 the Nazi party received 38% of seats in the Reichstag, making it the majority party.6 This proves that the Great Depression had significant social impacts on the Weimar Republic which lead to the rise of the Nazi Party, and in turn its collapse. The Great Depression also sparked greater political challenges for the Republic.
Political competition and constitutional weakness also contributed to the collapse of the Weimar republic. Most of these political issues are not a direct result of economic weakness as according to Ian Kershaw “some of the causes of Germany’s problems stemmed from the world economic setting, but many of them were endogenous (growing from within).”7AJP Taylor argues that the main contributors to the collapse of the Weimar republic were the faults in its constitution, “the economic crisis of 1929-33 did not give the deathblow to the republic, at most it drew attention to the fact that the republic was dead.”8. Proportional representation was seen as the most democratic system; nonetheless it created the political instability of the Weimar republic as it led to the growth of many small and often extremist parties. Conversely, Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution undermined any protection from an abuse of power that proportional representation, theoretically, guaranteed, “the Reich President may take the measures necessary to re-establish law and order, if necessary using armed force. In the pursuit of this aim he may suspend civil rights”9. Article 48 proved to be a significant contributor to the collapse of the Weimar Republic. From 1919 to 1923 President Ebert utilised Article 48 on 135 occasions, and President Von Hindenburg applied the emergency powers almost continuously until Hitler’s appointment as chancellor in 1933. The system of proportional representation contributed to the legitimacy and frequency of the Republic’s political opponents.
Similarly, some social issues facing the Republic were also endogenous, including the lack of democratic tradition as well as the role of the army and judiciary. Long standing military tradition in Germany meant that the imposition of democracy upon the Republic was rushed and flawed from the outset. Richard Evans maintains, “It (the Weimar Republic) was unloved and undefended by its servants in the army and the bureaucracy.”10 This lack of democratic tradition in Germany established the opposition to the Republic from traditional conservative institutions such as the Judiciary and the Army. The loyalty of the judiciary can be observed through the light sentencing of Adolf Hitler and others involved in the Munich Beerhall Putsch, as the conservative judges sympathised with this extreme right wing ideology. The role of the Army was a significant social factor in the collapse of the Weimar Republic.
The Weimar Republic faced threat from both the Left and Right wing. While the terms of the Ebert-Groener pact effectively worked to quell the Spartacist Uprising in January 1919, the loyalty of the army lay in the Right. During the Kapp Putsch of 1920 the army did not protect the government, as “Reichswehr does not fire on Reichswehr.” 11 While the Kapp Putsch failed, it exposed the weaknesses of the government, as well as the power and loyalty of the army, for the first time. Carsten argues that “During the subsequent 13 years the two lived next to each other, but not with each other”12. The actions of Von Seeckt, in refusing to protect the government from the Freikorps, separated the army from the government, essentially creating an independent state, as the Weimar “recognised the Army’s position as a state within a state and subject only to itself.”13 Later uses of the army by von Schliecher would remove Chancellor von Papen from power and legitimise the Nazis claim to power.
Economic weakness of the Weimar Republic provided significant opportunity for the Nazi party, however there were political and social elements, which also contributed. Political weaknesses of the Weimar republic significantly contributed to the rise of the Nazi party. The circumstances under which the Weimar government was formed, shameful submission to the treaty of Versailles, established the social distrust and opposition to the Republic. The flaws in the constitution of the Weimar Republic ultimately proved to be arguably the most significant factor in Rise of the Nazi Party, as it allowed Hitler to gain power legally, and also in the collapse of the Weimar Republic. The social disposition of the army and the bureaucracy legitimised Hitler’s rise to power in 1933, the support of Chancellors von Schliecher and von Papen assisted in bringing Hitler into power, and the SA were powerful sources of intimidation and propaganda to bring the Nazi party to victory in the Reichstag. While social and political circumstances did impact the rise of the Nazi Party, economic weaknesses were the most significant contributor to the Nazi Party’s rise to power.
JW Hiden contends that the Great Depression was the key element to the growth of the Nazi Party “More than any other party the NSDAP depended on the crisis for its successful growth… in 1933…the SA… reached nearly 300 000 men.”14 Nazi support was strong in the lower-middle classes who were the most effected by the Great Depression. The Depression drastically impacted the voting patterns of the German people as they turned away from democratic parties like the DVP, DPP and DVNP towards more extreme alternatives like the NSDAP in hopes of dramatic reform “the NSDAP had grown from a radical splinter party into a mass movement. It had changed the framework of politics in Germany in a revolutionary way.”15 The Nazi Party utilised the social and political weaknesses to their advantage in order to gain power and support, however the most significant contributor to the rise of the Nazi Party was the vulnerability coming out of the economic weaknesses of the Weimar Republic. The Rise of the Nazi Party was a crucial element in the collapse of the Weimar Republic.
Economic weaknesses contributed to the collapse of the Weimar Republic to a great extent, as economic weakness gave rise to further political and social issues. Social and political weaknesses of the Weimar Republic, like the lack of democratic tradition and the weaknesses in the constitution, compromised the operation of the Republic from its outset. However the economic weaknesses faced by the Weimar Republic, like hyperinflation in 1923 and the great depression, created further political and social challenges as well as opportunity for an opponent to gain power.
Economic weaknesses contributed to the collapse of the Weimar Republic to a great extent, as economic weakness gave rise to further political and social issues. Not only did the Republic face hyperinflation and the great depression, the new leaders had to face political hardships such as the terms of the treaty of Versailles and faults within it’s constitution. The new government had to face these matters without the support of the German public and the mass of political competition, particularly the rise of the of the Nazi party. Ultimately the impacts of economic weakness lead to the collapse of the Weimar Republic in 1933.
Economic weaknesses alone proved to be a significant contributor to the collapse of the Weimar Republic. By 1918 the German economy was severely impacted by their funding of the First World War. The obstruction of imports and exports through the naval blockade, as well as the strict control of all European exports to Germany, through the 1917 Memorandum to the War Cabinet on the trade blockade, destroyed the trade industry in Germany. This significant decrease of income and increase of war expenditure, including the spending of all German gold reserves, amounted in German bankruptcy. The Treaty of Versailles aggravated the economic strain upon Germany, as Germany was; ordered to pay upwards of $30 billion USD and stripped of income generating industrial areas such as Silesia, including the occupation of the Ruhr. British economist John Keynes criticised the severe impact that the treaty of Versailles would have upon Germany “The policy of reducing Germany to servitude for a generation, of degrading the lives of millions of human beings, and depriving a nation of happiness should be abhorrent and detestable.”1 Before the Weimar Republic was even established, the economic challenges were too great to overcome. In order to combat unemployment, and generate income to pay back reparations, the Weimar implemented social spending and raised prices nationwide. This increased the demand for money and thus resulted in the increased printing of paper marks, sparking hyperinflation.
Hyperinflation swept through Germany in 1923, as a result of the imposition of the Treaty of Versailles and the economic circumstances of Germany Post-World War One. The terms of the Treaty meant that capital was geared towards the payment of reparations, however passive resistance during the French occupation of the Ruhr reduced output significantly. German industry was majorly diminished and trade was weak, but the government did not carry out economic reforms to spare the suffering of the German people. Meanwhile the Weimar Republic carried out heavy expenditure on welfare and nationalised industries such as the railroad and postal service. In October 1923 only 0.8% of government expenses were funded through tax revenue. Therefore more money was required to match the demand for wages, war pensions, industry and most importantly, reparations. The value of the German currency fell and hyperinflation quickly set in, at the peak of hyperinflation in November 1923 one US dollar was worth 4.2 quadrillion marks. Stresemann introduced the new currency, the Rentenmark, backed by German land and industrial assets to stabilise the German economy. The legacy of this hyperinflation crisis worsened the impact of the Great Depression in 1929.
In October 1929 the New York stock market collapsed and the United States recalled their short-term loans to Germany, and in turn the German economy began to collapse. David Childs affirms, “There were fears about Germany’s political future which caused massive repatriation of short term credits.”2 Globally, countries moved to protect their own domestic assets, placing high prices on trade and tariffs on foreign goods. This shattered the German economy as it majorly relied on international trade. As a solution to the crisis Chancellor Heinrich Brüning applied a policy of deflation – detailing the increase of taxation and the decrease of government expenditure – in order to balance the budget and restore confidence to stimulate investment. Despite being rejected in the Reichstag Brüning appealed to the president and used Article 48 to implement the new budget and later dissolve the Reichstag. This display of absolute power marks a significant moment for the failure of democracy in Germany. The impact of the Great Depression was greatly social and political as much as it was economical. Vast unemployment plagued Germany causing significant dissatisfaction with the Weimar Republic to emerge as it did in 1923, “As Germany plunged deeper into the Depression, growing numbers of middle class citizens began to see in the youthful dynamism of the Nazi Party a possible way out of the situation.” 3 Therefore it can be seen that the economic crisis in Germany emphasised and gave rise to social and political issues.
Economic weakness also impacted the social and political circumstances of Germany. Unemployment was rife and the German people became deeply dissatisfied with democracy and the new politicians governing them. Although the Weimar Republic was able to overcome this instance, the German economy never fully recovered from the effects of hyperinflation. The introduction of the Dawes plan in 1924 implemented a German reliance on American loans. The prosperity of the Weimar Republic during 1924-1929 was reliant on these loans, while it allowed industry to be rebuilt, improved the standard of living and encouraged Germany’s cultural sphere to flourish - it also had devastating impacts on the middle class and agricultural sector. The middle class were reduced down to the same status as the working class, as “Middle-class savers experienced the trauma of seeing the value of their savings completely wiped out.”4
Neither identifying with the working class nor cooperating with big business; this deep social class divide emphasised their dissatisfaction with the Weimar Republic . Farmers suffered greatly after hyperinflation, lack of profit led them further into debt and discouraged investment in new machinery. In reality this period is only known as the ‘Golden Years’ in stark comparison to the periods of suffering proceeding and following them. This dissatisfaction forced these groups to seek change from extremist parties like the Nazi party. This dissatisfaction occurred again on a greater scale during the Great Depression.
The Great depression had a significant social impact upon the German people. As the social and psychological state of the German people was already tainted by the impact of the Treaty of Versailles, the economic crises worsened the existing situation. AJP Taylor recognises that “the depression put the wind into Hitler’s sails”5, the working classes were subjected to poverty as many suffered eviction, children were forced to work and health levels significantly deteriorated. Middle class families became humiliated as they descended the ranks of the proletariat. This humiliation was a nationwide phenomenon, which snowballed from the establishment of the Republic and proved to be a major factor to its collapse. The Weimar Republic was responsible for signing the shameful Treaty of Versailles, accepting defeat and humiliation onto Germany, especially in clause 231 – the Guilt Clause. The stab in the back myth worked to concentrate hatred upon the new government and promote anti-Semitism in Germany, which Adolf Hitler later used to gather widespread support for the Nazi Party. While this humiliation was evident surrounding the French occupation of the Ruhr and the Hyperinflation crisis in 1923, the wider populous had not yet turned to extreme options as the Nazi party only received 6.6% of seats in the Reichstag. However, in July 1932 the Nazi party received 38% of seats in the Reichstag, making it the majority party.6 This proves that the Great Depression had significant social impacts on the Weimar Republic which lead to the rise of the Nazi Party, and in turn its collapse. The Great Depression also sparked greater political challenges for the Republic.
Political competition and constitutional weakness also contributed to the collapse of the Weimar republic. Most of these political issues are not a direct result of economic weakness as according to Ian Kershaw “some of the causes of Germany’s problems stemmed from the world economic setting, but many of them were endogenous (growing from within).”7AJP Taylor argues that the main contributors to the collapse of the Weimar republic were the faults in its constitution, “the economic crisis of 1929-33 did not give the deathblow to the republic, at most it drew attention to the fact that the republic was dead.”8. Proportional representation was seen as the most democratic system; nonetheless it created the political instability of the Weimar republic as it led to the growth of many small and often extremist parties. Conversely, Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution undermined any protection from an abuse of power that proportional representation, theoretically, guaranteed, “the Reich President may take the measures necessary to re-establish law and order, if necessary using armed force. In the pursuit of this aim he may suspend civil rights”9. Article 48 proved to be a significant contributor to the collapse of the Weimar Republic. From 1919 to 1923 President Ebert utilised Article 48 on 135 occasions, and President Von Hindenburg applied the emergency powers almost continuously until Hitler’s appointment as chancellor in 1933. The system of proportional representation contributed to the legitimacy and frequency of the Republic’s political opponents.
Similarly, some social issues facing the Republic were also endogenous, including the lack of democratic tradition as well as the role of the army and judiciary. Long standing military tradition in Germany meant that the imposition of democracy upon the Republic was rushed and flawed from the outset. Richard Evans maintains, “It (the Weimar Republic) was unloved and undefended by its servants in the army and the bureaucracy.”10 This lack of democratic tradition in Germany established the opposition to the Republic from traditional conservative institutions such as the Judiciary and the Army. The loyalty of the judiciary can be observed through the light sentencing of Adolf Hitler and others involved in the Munich Beerhall Putsch, as the conservative judges sympathised with this extreme right wing ideology. The role of the Army was a significant social factor in the collapse of the Weimar Republic.
The Weimar Republic faced threat from both the Left and Right wing. While the terms of the Ebert-Groener pact effectively worked to quell the Spartacist Uprising in January 1919, the loyalty of the army lay in the Right. During the Kapp Putsch of 1920 the army did not protect the government, as “Reichswehr does not fire on Reichswehr.” 11 While the Kapp Putsch failed, it exposed the weaknesses of the government, as well as the power and loyalty of the army, for the first time. Carsten argues that “During the subsequent 13 years the two lived next to each other, but not with each other”12. The actions of Von Seeckt, in refusing to protect the government from the Freikorps, separated the army from the government, essentially creating an independent state, as the Weimar “recognised the Army’s position as a state within a state and subject only to itself.”13 Later uses of the army by von Schliecher would remove Chancellor von Papen from power and legitimise the Nazis claim to power.
Economic weakness of the Weimar Republic provided significant opportunity for the Nazi party, however there were political and social elements, which also contributed. Political weaknesses of the Weimar republic significantly contributed to the rise of the Nazi party. The circumstances under which the Weimar government was formed, shameful submission to the treaty of Versailles, established the social distrust and opposition to the Republic. The flaws in the constitution of the Weimar Republic ultimately proved to be arguably the most significant factor in Rise of the Nazi Party, as it allowed Hitler to gain power legally, and also in the collapse of the Weimar Republic. The social disposition of the army and the bureaucracy legitimised Hitler’s rise to power in 1933, the support of Chancellors von Schliecher and von Papen assisted in bringing Hitler into power, and the SA were powerful sources of intimidation and propaganda to bring the Nazi party to victory in the Reichstag. While social and political circumstances did impact the rise of the Nazi Party, economic weaknesses were the most significant contributor to the Nazi Party’s rise to power.
JW Hiden contends that the Great Depression was the key element to the growth of the Nazi Party “More than any other party the NSDAP depended on the crisis for its successful growth… in 1933…the SA… reached nearly 300 000 men.”14 Nazi support was strong in the lower-middle classes who were the most effected by the Great Depression. The Depression drastically impacted the voting patterns of the German people as they turned away from democratic parties like the DVP, DPP and DVNP towards more extreme alternatives like the NSDAP in hopes of dramatic reform “the NSDAP had grown from a radical splinter party into a mass movement. It had changed the framework of politics in Germany in a revolutionary way.”15 The Nazi Party utilised the social and political weaknesses to their advantage in order to gain power and support, however the most significant contributor to the rise of the Nazi Party was the vulnerability coming out of the economic weaknesses of the Weimar Republic. The Rise of the Nazi Party was a crucial element in the collapse of the Weimar Republic.
Economic weaknesses contributed to the collapse of the Weimar Republic to a great extent, as economic weakness gave rise to further political and social issues. Social and political weaknesses of the Weimar Republic, like the lack of democratic tradition and the weaknesses in the constitution, compromised the operation of the Republic from its outset. However the economic weaknesses faced by the Weimar Republic, like hyperinflation in 1923 and the great depression, created further political and social challenges as well as opportunity for an opponent to gain power.
Your essay with bolded comments:
Spoiler
To what extent did economic weaknesses contribute to the collapse of the Weimar Republic?
Economic weaknesses contributed to the collapse of the Weimar Republic to a great extent, as economic weakness gave rise to further political and social issues. (It's great how your first sentence responds to the question with your own opinion. However, in either your first or second sentences, you need to provide the details about the time period.)Not only did the Republic face hyperinflation and the great depression (capital letters!), the new leaders had to face political hardships such as the terms of the treaty of Versailles and faults within it’s constitution (this sounds like you are saying the faults within the Treaty's Constitution. I think you need to rephrase this to make sure it is clear that you are talking about the Republic's Constitution.). The new government (Can you be more concise here? Who was the new government? What kind of government? Democratic? Republic? Monarchy? This is a key detail in this time period! :)had to face these matters without the (Well, there was support, but only to a certain degree. So make sure you clarify that there wasn't overwhelming/majority support) support of the German public and the mass of political competition, particularly the rise of the of the Nazi party. Ultimately the impacts of economic weakness lead to the collapse of the Weimar Republic in 1933.
Economic weaknesses alone proved to be a significant contributor to the collapse of the Weimar Republic. This is essentially your thesis. Instead, we want to see what will dictate this paragraph specifically, not what your whole introduction aims at. Your paragraph needs to show a direct link to what is yet to come in your body paragraph, in the first line of the para.By 1918 the German economy was severely impacted by their funding of the First World War Can you get a figure here to show how much they spent? How much in debt they were?. The obstruction of German imports and exports through the naval blockade, as well as the strict control of all European exports to Germany, through the 1917 Memorandum to the War Cabinet on the trade blockade, destroyed the trade industry in Germany. This significant decrease of income and increase of war expenditure, including the spending of all German gold reserves, amounted in German bankruptcy. The Treaty of Versailles aggravated the economic strain upon Germany, as Germany was; ordered to pay upwards of $30 billion USD and stripped of income generating industrial areas such as Silesia, including the occupation of the Ruhr. British economist John Keynes criticised the severe impact that the treaty of Versailles would have upon Germany “The policy of reducing Germany to servitude for a generation, of degrading the lives of millions of human beings, and depriving a nation of happiness should be abhorrent and detestable.”1 Before the Weimar Republic was even established, the economic challenges were too great to overcome. In order to combat unemployment, and generate income to pay back reparations, the Weimar implemented social spending and raised prices nationwide. This increased the demand for money and thus resulted in the increased printing of paper marks, sparking hyperinflation. You've raised a lot of points in this paragraph. Unfortunately, it lacks direction. This comes down to the way you opened the paragraph, I wasn't given the direction you wanted to take.
Hyperinflation swept through Germany in 1923, as a result of the imposition of the Treaty of Versailles and the economic circumstances of Germany Post-World War One. Yas!!! This is what I'm talking about. Hyperinflation - key term - i know what to expect now!) The terms of the Treaty meant that capital was geared towards the payment of reparations, however passive resistance during the French occupation of the Ruhr reduced output significantly.(give me the year details for this - just so you show the marker that you know that this happened early on). German industry was majorly diminished and trade was weak, but the government did not carry out economic reforms to spare the suffering of the German people. Meanwhile the Weimar Republic carried out heavy expenditure on welfare and nationalised industries such as the railroad and postal service. In October 1923 only 0.8% of government expenses were funded through tax revenue. Therefore more money was required to match the demand for wages, war pensions, industry and most importantly, reparations. The value of the German currency fell and hyperinflation quickly set in, at the peak of hyperinflation in November 1923 one US dollar was worth 4.2 quadrillion marks.(this is a great specific stat - great work! Stresemann (Explain a little about Stresemann and about when he came in.) introduced the new currency, the Rentenmark, backed by German land and industrial assets to stabilise the German economy. The legacy of this hyperinflation crisis worsened the impact of the Great Depression in 1929. In this paragraph, you start and end with the focus on hyperinflation. There is a part in the middle where it isn't so clear. You can mention smaller facts like that restaurant's didn't print menus with prices because the prices went up before the food arrives - or that people were carrying around wheelbarrows of money because there was not a note with a large enough monetary quantity to buy even a loaf of bread.
In October 1929 the New York stock market collapsed and the United States recalled their short-term loans to Germany, and in turn the German economy began to collapse. David Childs affirms, “There were fears about Germany’s political future which caused massive repatriation of short term credits.”(Tell me who David Childs is? You need to specify these things in an exam - just so that your marker isn't suspicious that David Childs is the boy you sit next to in class). Globally, countries moved to protect their own domestic assets, placing high prices on trade and tariffs on foreign goods. This shattered the German economy as it majorly relied on international trade. As a solution to the crisis Chancellor Heinrich Brüning applied a policy of deflation – detailing the increase of taxation and the decrease of government expenditure – in order to balance the budget and restore confidence to stimulate investment. Despite being rejected in the Reichstag, Brüning appealed to the President and used Article 48 of?to implement the new budget and later dissolve the Reichstag. This display of absolute power marks a significant moment for the failure of democracy in Germany. The impact of the Great Depression was greatly social and political as much as it was economical. Vast unemployment plagued Germany causing significant dissatisfaction with the Weimar Republic to emerge as it did in 1923, “As Germany plunged deeper into the Depression, growing numbers of middle class citizens began to see in the youthful dynamism of the Nazi Party a possible way out of the situation.” 3 Therefore it can be seen that the economic crisis in Germany emphasised and gave rise to social and political issues.
Economic weakness also impacted the social and political circumstances of Germany. Unemployment was rife and the German people became deeply dissatisfied with democracy and the new politicians governing them. Although the Weimar Republic was able to overcome this instance(when? How?), the German economy never fully recovered from the effects of hyperinflation. The introduction of the Dawes plan in 1924 implemented a German reliance on American loans. The prosperity of the Weimar Republic during 1924-1929 was reliant on these loans, while it allowed industry to be rebuilt, improved the standard of living and encouraged Germany’s cultural sphere to flourish - it also had devastating impacts on the middle class and agricultural sector. The middle class were reduced down to the same status as the working class, as “Middle-class savers experienced the trauma of seeing the value of their savings completely wiped out.” (Quote from where?)
Neither identifying with the working class nor cooperating with big business; this deep social class divide emphasised their dissatisfaction with the Weimar Republic . Farmers suffered greatly after hyperinflation, lack of profit led them further into debt and discouraged investment in new machinery. In reality this period is only known as the ‘Golden Years’ in stark comparison to the periods of suffering proceeding and following them. This dissatisfaction forced these groups to seek change from extremist parties like the Nazi party. This dissatisfaction occurred again on a greater scale during the Great Depression.
The Great depression had a significant social impact upon the German people. As the social and psychological state of the German people was already tainted by the impact of the Treaty of Versailles, the economic crises worsened the existing situation. AJP Taylor (Tell us that AJP Taylor is a historian - don't assume we know that they aren't any old person on the street ;) ) recognises that “the depression put the wind into Hitler’s sails”5, the working classes were subjected to poverty as many suffered eviction, children were forced to work and health levels significantly deteriorated. Middle class families became humiliated as they descended the ranks of the proletariat. This humiliation was a nationwide phenomenon, which snowballed from the establishment of the Republic and proved to be a major factor to its collapse. The Weimar Republic was responsible for signing the shameful Treaty of Versailles, accepting defeat and humiliation onto Germany, especially in clause 231 – the Guilt Clause. The stab in the back myth worked to concentrate hatred upon the new government and promote anti-Semitism in Germany, which Adolf Hitler later used to gather widespread support for the Nazi Party. (We've moved from talking about the Great Depression at the start, to yalking about Hitler, the Treaty and Hyperinflation. Each paragraph must have a clear direction.) While this humiliation was evident surrounding the French occupation of the Ruhr and the Hyperinflation crisis in 1923, the wider populous had not yet turned to extreme options as the Nazi party only received 6.6% of seats in the Reichstag. However, in July 1932 the Nazi party received 38% of seats in the Reichstag, making it the majority party.6 This proves that the Great Depression had significant social impacts on the Weimar Republic which lead to the rise of the Nazi Party, and in turn its collapse. The Great Depression also sparked greater political challenges for the Republic.
Political competition and constitutional weakness also contributed to the collapse of the Weimar republic. You haven't credited this in your introduction. Your argument/take on the question never argued this side of things. I suggest that you revisit your initial thesis and propose the idea that there were other factors that lead to the downfall other than economics. Most of these political issues are not a direct result of economic weakness as according to Ian Kershaw “some of the causes of Germany’s problems stemmed from the world economic setting, but many of them were endogenous (growing from within).”7AJP Taylor argues that the main contributors to the collapse of the Weimar republic were the faults in its constitution, “the economic crisis of 1929-33 did not give the deathblow to the republic, at most it drew attention to the fact that the republic was dead.”8. Proportional representation was seen as the most democratic system; nonetheless it created the political instability of the Weimar republic as it led to the growth of many small and often extremist parties. Conversely, Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution undermined any protection from an abuse of power that proportional representation, theoretically, guaranteed, “the Reich President may take the measures necessary to re-establish law and order, if necessary using armed force. In the pursuit of this aim he may suspend civil rights”9. Article 48 proved to be a significant contributor to the collapse of the Weimar Republic. From 1919 to 1923 President Ebert utilised Article 48 on 135 occasions, and President Von Hindenburg applied the emergency powers almost continuously until Hitler’s appointment as chancellor in 1933. The system of proportional representation contributed to the legitimacy and frequency of the Republic’s political opponents.
Similarly, some social issues facing the Republic were also endogenous, including the lack of democratic tradition as well as the role of the army and judiciary. Long standing military tradition in Germany meant that the imposition of democracy upon the Republic was rushed and flawed from the outset. (who? We need a title :) )Richard Evans maintains, “It (the Weimar Republic) was unloved and undefended by its servants in the army and the bureaucracy.”10 This lack of democratic tradition in Germany established the opposition to the Republic from traditional conservative institutions such as the Judiciary and the Army. The loyalty of the judiciary can be observed through the light sentencing of Adolf Hitler and others involved in the Munich Beerhall Putsch, as the conservative judges sympathised with this extreme right wing ideology. The role of the Army was a significant social factor in the collapse of the Weimar Republic. These are good points, and these are the things you should be considering in your introduction! :)
The Weimar Republic faced threat from both the Left and Right wing. While the terms of the Ebert-Groener pact effectively worked to quell the Spartacist Uprising in January 1919, the loyalty of the army lay in the Right. During the Kapp Putsch of 1920 the army did not protect the government, as “Reichswehr does not fire on Reichswehr.” 11 While the Kapp Putsch failed, it exposed the weaknesses of the government, as well as the power and loyalty of the army, for the first time. Carsten argues that “During the subsequent 13 years the two lived next to each other, but not with each other”12. The actions of Von Seeckt, in refusing to protect the government from the Freikorps, separated the army from the government, essentially creating an independent state, as the Weimar “recognised the Army’s position as a state within a state and subject only to itself.”13 Later uses of the army by von Schliecher would remove Chancellor von Papen from power and legitimise the Nazis claim to power.
Economic weakness of the Weimar Republic provided significant opportunity for the Nazi party, however there were political and social elements, which also contributed. Political weaknesses of the Weimar republic significantly contributed to the rise of the Nazi party. The circumstances under which the Weimar government was formed, shameful submission to the treaty of Versailles, established the social distrust and opposition to the Republic. The flaws in the constitution of the Weimar Republic ultimately proved to be arguably the most significant factor in Rise of the Nazi Party, as it allowed Hitler to gain power legally, and also in the collapse of the Weimar Republic. The social disposition of the army and the bureaucracy legitimised Hitler’s rise to power in 1933, the support of Chancellors von Schliecher and von Papen assisted in bringing Hitler into power, and the SA were powerful sources of intimidation and propaganda to bring the Nazi party to victory in the Reichstag. While social and political circumstances did impact the rise of the Nazi Party, economic weaknesses were the most significant contributor to the Nazi Party’s rise to power.
JW Hiden contends that the Great Depression was the key element to the growth of the Nazi Party “More than any other party the NSDAP depended on the crisis for its successful growth… in 1933…the SA… reached nearly 300 000 men.”14 Nazi support was strong in the lower-middle classes who were the most effected by the Great Depression. The Depression drastically impacted the voting patterns of the German people as they turned away from democratic parties like the DVP, DPP and DVNP towards more extreme alternatives like the NSDAP in hopes of dramatic reform “the NSDAP had grown from a radical splinter party into a mass movement. It had changed the framework of politics in Germany in a revolutionary way.”15 The Nazi Party utilised the social and political weaknesses to their advantage in order to gain power and support, however the most significant contributor to the rise of the Nazi Party was the vulnerability coming out of the economic weaknesses of the Weimar Republic. The Rise of the Nazi Party was a crucial element in the collapse of the Weimar Republic.
Economic weaknesses contributed to the collapse of the Weimar Republic to a great extent, as economic weakness gave rise to further political and social issues. Social and political weaknesses of the Weimar Republic, like the lack of democratic tradition and the weaknesses in the constitution, compromised the operation of the Republic from its outset. However the economic weaknesses faced by the Weimar Republic, like hyperinflation in 1923 and the great depression, created further political and social challenges as well as opportunity for an opponent to gain power.
The last three paragraphs weren't specifically commented on because the same critiques would have been repeated.
Essentially:
-Your thesis must incorporate the perspectives you will raise.
-Your introduction should briefly label a few points you will discuss, hyperinflation, for example.
-Each scholar must have their title identified.
-Provide as many dates as possible. If you don't know the date but you do know whether it was early on in the Republic or near its collapse - identify that!
-Ensure that each paragraph starts with a very specific direction and follows that path throughout - no tangents.
Your understanding of the era and the question is very thorough. You know a lot about the era and all different kinds of facts, and you can also look at it wholesomely and make an informed opinion. It is your clarity of expression that needs a bit of improvement so that it sits at the same level that your knwoledge does!
Also, this is very long. You will need to cut it down for an exam style situation! Try condensing your paragraphs into each other :)
Hopefully this makes sense. Structure is the issue here, not knowledge. So that is easily fixed! :)
Economic weaknesses contributed to the collapse of the Weimar Republic to a great extent, as economic weakness gave rise to further political and social issues. (It's great how your first sentence responds to the question with your own opinion. However, in either your first or second sentences, you need to provide the details about the time period.)Not only did the Republic face hyperinflation and the great depression (capital letters!), the new leaders had to face political hardships such as the terms of the treaty of Versailles and faults within it’s constitution (this sounds like you are saying the faults within the Treaty's Constitution. I think you need to rephrase this to make sure it is clear that you are talking about the Republic's Constitution.). The new government (Can you be more concise here? Who was the new government? What kind of government? Democratic? Republic? Monarchy? This is a key detail in this time period! :)had to face these matters without the (Well, there was support, but only to a certain degree. So make sure you clarify that there wasn't overwhelming/majority support) support of the German public and the mass of political competition, particularly the rise of the of the Nazi party. Ultimately the impacts of economic weakness lead to the collapse of the Weimar Republic in 1933.
Economic weaknesses alone proved to be a significant contributor to the collapse of the Weimar Republic. This is essentially your thesis. Instead, we want to see what will dictate this paragraph specifically, not what your whole introduction aims at. Your paragraph needs to show a direct link to what is yet to come in your body paragraph, in the first line of the para.By 1918 the German economy was severely impacted by their funding of the First World War Can you get a figure here to show how much they spent? How much in debt they were?. The obstruction of German imports and exports through the naval blockade, as well as the strict control of all European exports to Germany, through the 1917 Memorandum to the War Cabinet on the trade blockade, destroyed the trade industry in Germany. This significant decrease of income and increase of war expenditure, including the spending of all German gold reserves, amounted in German bankruptcy. The Treaty of Versailles aggravated the economic strain upon Germany, as Germany was; ordered to pay upwards of $30 billion USD and stripped of income generating industrial areas such as Silesia, including the occupation of the Ruhr. British economist John Keynes criticised the severe impact that the treaty of Versailles would have upon Germany “The policy of reducing Germany to servitude for a generation, of degrading the lives of millions of human beings, and depriving a nation of happiness should be abhorrent and detestable.”1 Before the Weimar Republic was even established, the economic challenges were too great to overcome. In order to combat unemployment, and generate income to pay back reparations, the Weimar implemented social spending and raised prices nationwide. This increased the demand for money and thus resulted in the increased printing of paper marks, sparking hyperinflation. You've raised a lot of points in this paragraph. Unfortunately, it lacks direction. This comes down to the way you opened the paragraph, I wasn't given the direction you wanted to take.
Hyperinflation swept through Germany in 1923, as a result of the imposition of the Treaty of Versailles and the economic circumstances of Germany Post-World War One. Yas!!! This is what I'm talking about. Hyperinflation - key term - i know what to expect now!) The terms of the Treaty meant that capital was geared towards the payment of reparations, however passive resistance during the French occupation of the Ruhr reduced output significantly.(give me the year details for this - just so you show the marker that you know that this happened early on). German industry was majorly diminished and trade was weak, but the government did not carry out economic reforms to spare the suffering of the German people. Meanwhile the Weimar Republic carried out heavy expenditure on welfare and nationalised industries such as the railroad and postal service. In October 1923 only 0.8% of government expenses were funded through tax revenue. Therefore more money was required to match the demand for wages, war pensions, industry and most importantly, reparations. The value of the German currency fell and hyperinflation quickly set in, at the peak of hyperinflation in November 1923 one US dollar was worth 4.2 quadrillion marks.(this is a great specific stat - great work! Stresemann (Explain a little about Stresemann and about when he came in.) introduced the new currency, the Rentenmark, backed by German land and industrial assets to stabilise the German economy. The legacy of this hyperinflation crisis worsened the impact of the Great Depression in 1929. In this paragraph, you start and end with the focus on hyperinflation. There is a part in the middle where it isn't so clear. You can mention smaller facts like that restaurant's didn't print menus with prices because the prices went up before the food arrives - or that people were carrying around wheelbarrows of money because there was not a note with a large enough monetary quantity to buy even a loaf of bread.
In October 1929 the New York stock market collapsed and the United States recalled their short-term loans to Germany, and in turn the German economy began to collapse. David Childs affirms, “There were fears about Germany’s political future which caused massive repatriation of short term credits.”(Tell me who David Childs is? You need to specify these things in an exam - just so that your marker isn't suspicious that David Childs is the boy you sit next to in class). Globally, countries moved to protect their own domestic assets, placing high prices on trade and tariffs on foreign goods. This shattered the German economy as it majorly relied on international trade. As a solution to the crisis Chancellor Heinrich Brüning applied a policy of deflation – detailing the increase of taxation and the decrease of government expenditure – in order to balance the budget and restore confidence to stimulate investment. Despite being rejected in the Reichstag, Brüning appealed to the President and used Article 48 of?to implement the new budget and later dissolve the Reichstag. This display of absolute power marks a significant moment for the failure of democracy in Germany. The impact of the Great Depression was greatly social and political as much as it was economical. Vast unemployment plagued Germany causing significant dissatisfaction with the Weimar Republic to emerge as it did in 1923, “As Germany plunged deeper into the Depression, growing numbers of middle class citizens began to see in the youthful dynamism of the Nazi Party a possible way out of the situation.” 3 Therefore it can be seen that the economic crisis in Germany emphasised and gave rise to social and political issues.
Economic weakness also impacted the social and political circumstances of Germany. Unemployment was rife and the German people became deeply dissatisfied with democracy and the new politicians governing them. Although the Weimar Republic was able to overcome this instance(when? How?), the German economy never fully recovered from the effects of hyperinflation. The introduction of the Dawes plan in 1924 implemented a German reliance on American loans. The prosperity of the Weimar Republic during 1924-1929 was reliant on these loans, while it allowed industry to be rebuilt, improved the standard of living and encouraged Germany’s cultural sphere to flourish - it also had devastating impacts on the middle class and agricultural sector. The middle class were reduced down to the same status as the working class, as “Middle-class savers experienced the trauma of seeing the value of their savings completely wiped out.” (Quote from where?)
Neither identifying with the working class nor cooperating with big business; this deep social class divide emphasised their dissatisfaction with the Weimar Republic . Farmers suffered greatly after hyperinflation, lack of profit led them further into debt and discouraged investment in new machinery. In reality this period is only known as the ‘Golden Years’ in stark comparison to the periods of suffering proceeding and following them. This dissatisfaction forced these groups to seek change from extremist parties like the Nazi party. This dissatisfaction occurred again on a greater scale during the Great Depression.
The Great depression had a significant social impact upon the German people. As the social and psychological state of the German people was already tainted by the impact of the Treaty of Versailles, the economic crises worsened the existing situation. AJP Taylor (Tell us that AJP Taylor is a historian - don't assume we know that they aren't any old person on the street ;) ) recognises that “the depression put the wind into Hitler’s sails”5, the working classes were subjected to poverty as many suffered eviction, children were forced to work and health levels significantly deteriorated. Middle class families became humiliated as they descended the ranks of the proletariat. This humiliation was a nationwide phenomenon, which snowballed from the establishment of the Republic and proved to be a major factor to its collapse. The Weimar Republic was responsible for signing the shameful Treaty of Versailles, accepting defeat and humiliation onto Germany, especially in clause 231 – the Guilt Clause. The stab in the back myth worked to concentrate hatred upon the new government and promote anti-Semitism in Germany, which Adolf Hitler later used to gather widespread support for the Nazi Party. (We've moved from talking about the Great Depression at the start, to yalking about Hitler, the Treaty and Hyperinflation. Each paragraph must have a clear direction.) While this humiliation was evident surrounding the French occupation of the Ruhr and the Hyperinflation crisis in 1923, the wider populous had not yet turned to extreme options as the Nazi party only received 6.6% of seats in the Reichstag. However, in July 1932 the Nazi party received 38% of seats in the Reichstag, making it the majority party.6 This proves that the Great Depression had significant social impacts on the Weimar Republic which lead to the rise of the Nazi Party, and in turn its collapse. The Great Depression also sparked greater political challenges for the Republic.
Political competition and constitutional weakness also contributed to the collapse of the Weimar republic. You haven't credited this in your introduction. Your argument/take on the question never argued this side of things. I suggest that you revisit your initial thesis and propose the idea that there were other factors that lead to the downfall other than economics. Most of these political issues are not a direct result of economic weakness as according to Ian Kershaw “some of the causes of Germany’s problems stemmed from the world economic setting, but many of them were endogenous (growing from within).”7AJP Taylor argues that the main contributors to the collapse of the Weimar republic were the faults in its constitution, “the economic crisis of 1929-33 did not give the deathblow to the republic, at most it drew attention to the fact that the republic was dead.”8. Proportional representation was seen as the most democratic system; nonetheless it created the political instability of the Weimar republic as it led to the growth of many small and often extremist parties. Conversely, Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution undermined any protection from an abuse of power that proportional representation, theoretically, guaranteed, “the Reich President may take the measures necessary to re-establish law and order, if necessary using armed force. In the pursuit of this aim he may suspend civil rights”9. Article 48 proved to be a significant contributor to the collapse of the Weimar Republic. From 1919 to 1923 President Ebert utilised Article 48 on 135 occasions, and President Von Hindenburg applied the emergency powers almost continuously until Hitler’s appointment as chancellor in 1933. The system of proportional representation contributed to the legitimacy and frequency of the Republic’s political opponents.
Similarly, some social issues facing the Republic were also endogenous, including the lack of democratic tradition as well as the role of the army and judiciary. Long standing military tradition in Germany meant that the imposition of democracy upon the Republic was rushed and flawed from the outset. (who? We need a title :) )Richard Evans maintains, “It (the Weimar Republic) was unloved and undefended by its servants in the army and the bureaucracy.”10 This lack of democratic tradition in Germany established the opposition to the Republic from traditional conservative institutions such as the Judiciary and the Army. The loyalty of the judiciary can be observed through the light sentencing of Adolf Hitler and others involved in the Munich Beerhall Putsch, as the conservative judges sympathised with this extreme right wing ideology. The role of the Army was a significant social factor in the collapse of the Weimar Republic. These are good points, and these are the things you should be considering in your introduction! :)
The Weimar Republic faced threat from both the Left and Right wing. While the terms of the Ebert-Groener pact effectively worked to quell the Spartacist Uprising in January 1919, the loyalty of the army lay in the Right. During the Kapp Putsch of 1920 the army did not protect the government, as “Reichswehr does not fire on Reichswehr.” 11 While the Kapp Putsch failed, it exposed the weaknesses of the government, as well as the power and loyalty of the army, for the first time. Carsten argues that “During the subsequent 13 years the two lived next to each other, but not with each other”12. The actions of Von Seeckt, in refusing to protect the government from the Freikorps, separated the army from the government, essentially creating an independent state, as the Weimar “recognised the Army’s position as a state within a state and subject only to itself.”13 Later uses of the army by von Schliecher would remove Chancellor von Papen from power and legitimise the Nazis claim to power.
Economic weakness of the Weimar Republic provided significant opportunity for the Nazi party, however there were political and social elements, which also contributed. Political weaknesses of the Weimar republic significantly contributed to the rise of the Nazi party. The circumstances under which the Weimar government was formed, shameful submission to the treaty of Versailles, established the social distrust and opposition to the Republic. The flaws in the constitution of the Weimar Republic ultimately proved to be arguably the most significant factor in Rise of the Nazi Party, as it allowed Hitler to gain power legally, and also in the collapse of the Weimar Republic. The social disposition of the army and the bureaucracy legitimised Hitler’s rise to power in 1933, the support of Chancellors von Schliecher and von Papen assisted in bringing Hitler into power, and the SA were powerful sources of intimidation and propaganda to bring the Nazi party to victory in the Reichstag. While social and political circumstances did impact the rise of the Nazi Party, economic weaknesses were the most significant contributor to the Nazi Party’s rise to power.
JW Hiden contends that the Great Depression was the key element to the growth of the Nazi Party “More than any other party the NSDAP depended on the crisis for its successful growth… in 1933…the SA… reached nearly 300 000 men.”14 Nazi support was strong in the lower-middle classes who were the most effected by the Great Depression. The Depression drastically impacted the voting patterns of the German people as they turned away from democratic parties like the DVP, DPP and DVNP towards more extreme alternatives like the NSDAP in hopes of dramatic reform “the NSDAP had grown from a radical splinter party into a mass movement. It had changed the framework of politics in Germany in a revolutionary way.”15 The Nazi Party utilised the social and political weaknesses to their advantage in order to gain power and support, however the most significant contributor to the rise of the Nazi Party was the vulnerability coming out of the economic weaknesses of the Weimar Republic. The Rise of the Nazi Party was a crucial element in the collapse of the Weimar Republic.
Economic weaknesses contributed to the collapse of the Weimar Republic to a great extent, as economic weakness gave rise to further political and social issues. Social and political weaknesses of the Weimar Republic, like the lack of democratic tradition and the weaknesses in the constitution, compromised the operation of the Republic from its outset. However the economic weaknesses faced by the Weimar Republic, like hyperinflation in 1923 and the great depression, created further political and social challenges as well as opportunity for an opponent to gain power.
The last three paragraphs weren't specifically commented on because the same critiques would have been repeated.
Essentially:
-Your thesis must incorporate the perspectives you will raise.
-Your introduction should briefly label a few points you will discuss, hyperinflation, for example.
-Each scholar must have their title identified.
-Provide as many dates as possible. If you don't know the date but you do know whether it was early on in the Republic or near its collapse - identify that!
-Ensure that each paragraph starts with a very specific direction and follows that path throughout - no tangents.
Your understanding of the era and the question is very thorough. You know a lot about the era and all different kinds of facts, and you can also look at it wholesomely and make an informed opinion. It is your clarity of expression that needs a bit of improvement so that it sits at the same level that your knwoledge does!
Also, this is very long. You will need to cut it down for an exam style situation! Try condensing your paragraphs into each other :)
Hopefully this makes sense. Structure is the issue here, not knowledge. So that is easily fixed! :)
Post by: elysepopplewell on March 22, 2016, 08:24:15 am
Hey :)
I have my half yearlies next week and the question I have answer is "To what extent was the collapse of the Weimar Republic the result of the Depression?" which, coincidentally is almost the exact question to a practice essay I uploaded on here a few weeks ago. I've added to and modified the essay a fair bit since then, but your feedback last time was a huge help so I was wondering if you'd mind having a read over this one?
Thankyou so much:)
Hey there! I really want to give you a hand but it is awkward to edit a PDF file, the reason being, when I copy and paste it into the chat here the line breaks that exist in the PDF, exist here, even though it should reformat to the size of the text box. It is awkward to explain, but if you copy and paste it from a PDF you'll realise too haha. If you could please upload as a word document or as a comment on the forum, I will get back to you ASAP! :)
Post by: imtrying on March 22, 2016, 02:21:19 pm
Post by: birdwing341 on April 28, 2016, 11:50:19 am
I've written an essay on "Assess the view that Nazism was totalitarian". I've added an extra paragraph at the beginning which is kinda redundant and I was wondering how I could integrate this into my other three paragraphs.
Thanks!
Post by: jakesilove on April 28, 2016, 02:18:23 pm
Hello :)
I've written an essay on "Assess the view that Nazism was totalitarian". I've added an extra paragraph at the beginning which is kinda redundant and I was wondering how I could integrate this into my other three paragraphs.
Thanks!
Hey!
I know you only really wanted me to help you integrate that first paragraph into the rest of the text, but I couldn't help read through the rest of your essay. My first general comment: absolutely phenomenal essay. I was completely blown away.
The depth of your knowledge is immense, and the level that you are analysing an already complex question is seriously impressive. Keep going along this path, and you will get an incredible mark. The only corollary to this would perhaps be to include a few more specific details (dates, stats, etc. etc.) to solidify some of the more ideological argument.
As for the specific paragraph, I honestly think that, for the most part (other than the Friedrich vs Dietrich model discussion) you've already covered it elsewhere in the essay. I would be really wary being TOO 'broad' (I'm not sure what the right word to use is: You discuss ideology generally as opposed to discussing matters specifically, which is good, but make sure to do both rather than focusing on one).
You could definitely work a sentence about the criticism of the test you are using into your introduction or conclusion, but honestly I probably wouldn't go further than that. Whilst it is an amazing essay, you want to make sure it is amazing FOR THE HSC. Being too 'conceptual' can sometimes be problematic; discuss conceptual frameworks, then apply it to specific circumstances.
I think that basically sums up my general feedback! It's a great essay, really incredible.
Jake
Post by: birdwing341 on April 28, 2016, 07:54:23 pm
Post by: matilda_woody on May 04, 2016, 09:26:28 pm
Sorry and thank you.
Post by: jakesilove on May 05, 2016, 11:26:25 am
Hey! So i'm writing a German national study essay. It's a very easy question but i'm still not doing the best (that I know I can). I'm great at talking, but not at writing and I'm just generally practicing my writing. I'm not sure if it's succinct or properly proven, though? Do you mind having a look at it?
Sorry and thank you.
Hey Matilda! Didn't want to keep you hanging, so I thought I'd just quickly let you know that I'm super busy until tomorrow, but will definitely take a look at your essay tomorrow morning!!
Jake
Post by: matilda_woody on May 05, 2016, 11:29:34 am
Post by: jakesilove on May 06, 2016, 03:11:46 pm
Hey! So i'm writing a German national study essay. It's a very easy question but i'm still not doing the best (that I know I can). I'm great at talking, but not at writing and I'm just generally practicing my writing. I'm not sure if it's succinct or properly proven, though? Do you mind having a look at it?
Sorry and thank you.
Hey! Firstly, I just want to mention that this is not at all an easy essay question. In fact, when I was doing MH, I would have started crying during any exam with this in it. It's not really a focus of the curriculum, and to be honest I don't think it's a particularly interesting section. Answering an essay question on this topic is definitely tricky :)
Original Essay:
Spoiler
To what extent was Germany’s social and
cultural life transformed between 1933 and 1939?
The German social and cultural life was drastically transformed between 1933 and 1939.
Between 1933 and 1939, Germany was gripped under the Führer principle, trying to attempt a
gleichschaltung, eventuating in the volksgemeinschaft. This allowed for political, military,
religious, legal, education, ideological and media representation to change, alongside business
and industry economical manipulation and the family role within the Nazi Government,
impacting social and cultural life. The significant changes that then occurred caused widespread
socioeconomicjudicial change that meant that further transformation occurred.
The aim of increasing terror within the population of Nazi Germany through political and military
transformations caused major changes to social and cultural life of the German population.
There were no free elections with the only party being the National Socialist German Worker’s
Party (NSDAP) due to the emergency decrees of 1933. This essentially allowed Hitler to
predominantly hold all the power. This meant that the Sturmabteilung (SA), Schutzstaffel (SS),
Sicherheitsdienst des ReichsführersSS (SD), and the Foreign Office gained a role of terror,
operating as separate organisations towards the ongoing social and cultural change
domestically.
Propaganda, through racism, beliefs in the inferiority of the mentally and physically
handicapped, and the media, allowed for a revolutionary transformation of the social and
cultural lives of the population in Germany between 1933 and 1939, creating inclusion and
exclusion within the volksgemeinschaft, allowing for gleichschaltung. The message of
propaganda was conveyed through radio, press, film, posters, paintings, sculptures,
architecture, literature, social policies, youth movements, schools, sport, parades and rallies. It
was an allconsuming resource of infiltration, to which Goebbels states: “only repetition can
finally bring success in the matter of instilling ideas into the memory of the crowd.” The culture of
Germany in the 1930s, was played upon continuously. T. Golomstock in his work ‘Totalitarian
Art’ (1990, pg. xii) hypothesised that “in a totalitarian system, art performs the function of
transforming the raw material of dry ideology into the fuel” of the masses. For example,
antisemitism was initiated through governmental measures, such as the Jewish Affairs Offices,
outcasting them and eventuating in programs such as the 1939 Euthanasia Policy. Book
burnings portrayed the mass censorship of the media, with newspapers only being able to print
progovernmental pieces, of the sorts of Der Stürmer’s ‘The Poisonous Mushroom’. Any form of
public, consumerist information and entertainment (radio and film, for example) were heavily
laden with propaganda, with ‘The Eternal Jew’ as an example, becoming the norm from the
Geobbel’s Reich Ministry of Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda. Press, radio and film
swiftly became the most efficient and rewarding way to ‘enlighten’ the masses. Speer suggested
that “through technical devices like the radio… 80 million people were deprived of independent
thought. It was thereby possible to subject them to the will of one man.” Propaganda played a
crucial role in the creation of the Volksgemeinschaft, the Führer principle, allowing for
gleichschaltung.
Through the institutionalisation of Nazi ideologies, the cultural and social life of the German
peoples transformed dramatically, as portrayed through religion, the legal system and
education. One of the ways that Nazi aims failed was through the usurpation of religious
traditions. Hitler initiated a policy of control to weaken and replace the Churches. Despite the
Concordat, Hitler worried about the influence of the Churches over the public. Due to the
disorganisation of the Nazi party, many people still rebelled against their radical beliefs. The
majority of Bavarian peo continued to use the traditional greeting ‘Gruss Gott’, meaning ‘God
greet you,’ rather than the official ‘Heil Hitler.’ In 1936, church groups were disbanded and the
Hitler Youth had an increase in registration because of it and there was a lesser pressure upon
schools to teach religious studies enabling the a decrease of 60% of attendance of Church run
schools to 5% between 1935 and 1939. Over 200 priests were also accused of sexual
misconduct and financial misbehaviour, eventuating in show trials and numerous monasteries
being closed down. The Nazi Party also launched a ‘Church Succession Campaign’ to
encourage the abandonment of faith. In 1937 over 100,000 Christians left the Church, and in
1939 3.5 million Germans were members of the neopagan movement. Also, the legal system’s
Nazi indoctrination, as evidenced through the Nuremberg Laws and the establishment of the
People’s Court, meant that judges’ decisions were determined by Nazi policy, not law,
eventuating massive judicial change. The education system also followed Nazi ideology.
Rassenkunde, a type of racial social studies, was initiated, introducing elements of the Hitler
Youth’s teachings, with Dr. Schuster, a geography teacher describing the issue in an interview
in 1938 (quoted in E. Amy Buller’s ‘Darkness Over Germany’ (1945)) as no longer having “any
intellectual freedom… And education is being degraded by political interference… Political
agents, often ignorant and stupid men… Interfere with my teaching of geography. Some of them
don't seem to realise that any countries exist except Germany…” The Nazi Party Teacher’s
Union (1936) became mandatory, Jewish professors and students were banned, and a
stereotypical masculine preference was prefered, with those seen as intellectuals ranking lower
than those of great physical ability in the social order. By institutionally ingraining Nazi
ideologies, the social and cultural life of Germany was greatly impacted, causing a
transformation between 1933 and 1939.
Business and industry allowed for the volksgemeinschaft to successfully transform cultural and
social, employing a “get the job done” objective. Under the Nazi Government, large firms
expanded and smaller firms declined. A Nazi ideologue was one of Gottfried Feder, wanting to
‘protect the small businessman.’ The Four Year Plan allowed for state supervision of industry in
the interests of national unity. This meant that the order of goods, supplies and products trade to
be controlled by IG Farben, with the expertise from Krupps, and fixed prices, the control of raw
materials and control investment to be regulated by DaimlerBenz. Originally, thanks to the Law
to Protect Retail Trade (1933), the Mittelstand seemed to be in favour of the Nazi Government
(once being their main supply of votes), but the number of independent artisans fell from
1,645,000 to 1,500,000 within 193639 even though their value of trade doubled due to the
autarky ideology. The struggles of the small business was not helped by the government’s
cartelisation processes, either. In a report for SOPADE in 1037 on farmers’ views, it is quoted
that “the ‘production battle’... Has limited even further the right of the farmer to market his
products freely,” essentially indicating a centrally planned economy with large firms
monopolising industry. There was no major growth in foreign trade during the 1930s as
Schacht’s series of bilateral deals were replaced by an emphasis on autarky. The government
looked to domestic production, rather than external trade, and foreign conquest to obtain critical
resources. The Wannsee Conference set forth a goal to be achieved, a plan on which experts’
skills (with E.G. Farbon supplying Zyklon B and Krupp supplying weaponry). Efficiency and the
time management associated with it was a major concern with final resources being taken into
account. Trade unions were outlawed, being considered communist, and the banking industry
working closely with the Finance Ministry in acquiring money from the Jewish community (for
example, the golden teeth of the Jews would be taken). Professionals were highly sought after.
Doctors, with the extreme of Mengeles, chemists, those who perfected the gas, engineers and
architects, who designed the gas chambers and crematoriums, and physicists, who conducted
experimentations with weaponry, were the most crucial. Other professionals, however, were
placed in a hierarchy of importance within the Volksgemeinschaft, affecting the exclusion of the
asocials, disabled and Jewish communities. By excluding those from outside the
volksgemeinschaft from professions and major affairs, by placing emphasis on time
management, resources and efficient affairs, business, industry and professionals manipulated
the volksgemeinschaft for their own profit and success, causing a gleichschaltung of economy
and enterprise to occur.
Family life, on a meso and micro level of society, underwent a gleichschaltung, impacting the
German social and cultural life dramatically. The role of the family and the people within the
family changed. German youth’s roles transformed into a stereotypically traditional sense.
Robert Ley, the leader of the Labour Front (DAF), reportedly said that they started their “work
when the child is three. As soon as it begins to think, a little flag is put into his hand,” evidencing
the Nazi aims of boys and girls to join the DAF and NSDAP. They were to be independent,
idolise the Führer, be physically fit, sacrifice themselves for the national good and to do
everything to strengthen the health and racial purity of the German nation (through their
respective gender roles and contributions). Nazi youth policy is debated in its effectiveness with
some claiming that “amongst working class youths one can hear much criticisms” (from
SOPADE reports, 1935), but realistically the only real importance is that of the fact that they
were “politically programmed : to obey orders, to cultivate the soldierly ‘virtue’ of standing to
attention and saying ‘Yes, sir,’ and to stop thinking when the magic word ‘Fatherland’ was
uttered” (a German reflecting upon his youth in the Third Reich as quoted from D. Peukert’s ‘Life
in the Third Reich, ed. R. Bessel, 1987, pg. 27). Men were to run and work the country, women
were to breed and care for the country. In 1935, during a rally of 100,000 members of the Hitler
Youth and League of German Girls (BDM) in Nuremberg, 900 fifteen to eighteen year old girls
became pregnant, and a German describes her experience in the BDM as it having “a bad
effect on [their] school reports. We had no time for homework,” portraying the girls’ jobs as being
physically fit and fertile, but not as intelligent or dominant. Women within the Nazi ideology were
deemed to have a mission of being “beautiful and [to] bring children into the world” (Geobbels,
1929), with sexual activity serving the function of procreation and the maintenance of the life of
the nation, not for enjoyment. In 1943 a Marriage Law was drawn up but never enacted, stating
that:
“All single and married woman up to the age of 35 who do not already have four children should
be obliged to produce four children by racially pure German men. Whether these men are
married is of no significance. Every family that already has four children must set the father free
for this action.”
This proposal for a law showed that while marriage was considered to be a “long lasting, lifelong
union of two people genetically healthy persons of the same race… And is based upon ties of
loyalty, love and respect,” (extract from contemporary Nazi publication), the mission of breeding
was deemed more socially important, reimagining the family role and structure. Gaining the
Honour Cross of German Motherhood was, of course, then seen as one of the highest honours
to be bestowed among a women and her family. The Nazi policy, however, was mainly driven
towards the propaganda of the creation of a healthy, Aryan family. This gleichschaltung of the
volksgemeinschaft’s familiar and gender roles and structures allowed for widespread,
transformative social and cultural change due to the goal of reproduction and maintenance of
the micro and meso levels of the German nationality.
Terror, propaganda, the institutionalisation of Nazi ideologies, business and industry
manipulation and family life alterations, allowed for political, military, religious, legal, education,
ideological and media representation to change, impacting social and cultural life. These
methods of attempting to promote gleichschaltung eventuated in the volksgemeinschaft,
allowing for mass transformation of the social and cultural life of Germans under Nazi rule
between the years of 1933 and 1939.
cultural life transformed between 1933 and 1939?
The German social and cultural life was drastically transformed between 1933 and 1939.
Between 1933 and 1939, Germany was gripped under the Führer principle, trying to attempt a
gleichschaltung, eventuating in the volksgemeinschaft. This allowed for political, military,
religious, legal, education, ideological and media representation to change, alongside business
and industry economical manipulation and the family role within the Nazi Government,
impacting social and cultural life. The significant changes that then occurred caused widespread
socioeconomicjudicial change that meant that further transformation occurred.
The aim of increasing terror within the population of Nazi Germany through political and military
transformations caused major changes to social and cultural life of the German population.
There were no free elections with the only party being the National Socialist German Worker’s
Party (NSDAP) due to the emergency decrees of 1933. This essentially allowed Hitler to
predominantly hold all the power. This meant that the Sturmabteilung (SA), Schutzstaffel (SS),
Sicherheitsdienst des ReichsführersSS (SD), and the Foreign Office gained a role of terror,
operating as separate organisations towards the ongoing social and cultural change
domestically.
Propaganda, through racism, beliefs in the inferiority of the mentally and physically
handicapped, and the media, allowed for a revolutionary transformation of the social and
cultural lives of the population in Germany between 1933 and 1939, creating inclusion and
exclusion within the volksgemeinschaft, allowing for gleichschaltung. The message of
propaganda was conveyed through radio, press, film, posters, paintings, sculptures,
architecture, literature, social policies, youth movements, schools, sport, parades and rallies. It
was an allconsuming resource of infiltration, to which Goebbels states: “only repetition can
finally bring success in the matter of instilling ideas into the memory of the crowd.” The culture of
Germany in the 1930s, was played upon continuously. T. Golomstock in his work ‘Totalitarian
Art’ (1990, pg. xii) hypothesised that “in a totalitarian system, art performs the function of
transforming the raw material of dry ideology into the fuel” of the masses. For example,
antisemitism was initiated through governmental measures, such as the Jewish Affairs Offices,
outcasting them and eventuating in programs such as the 1939 Euthanasia Policy. Book
burnings portrayed the mass censorship of the media, with newspapers only being able to print
progovernmental pieces, of the sorts of Der Stürmer’s ‘The Poisonous Mushroom’. Any form of
public, consumerist information and entertainment (radio and film, for example) were heavily
laden with propaganda, with ‘The Eternal Jew’ as an example, becoming the norm from the
Geobbel’s Reich Ministry of Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda. Press, radio and film
swiftly became the most efficient and rewarding way to ‘enlighten’ the masses. Speer suggested
that “through technical devices like the radio… 80 million people were deprived of independent
thought. It was thereby possible to subject them to the will of one man.” Propaganda played a
crucial role in the creation of the Volksgemeinschaft, the Führer principle, allowing for
gleichschaltung.
Through the institutionalisation of Nazi ideologies, the cultural and social life of the German
peoples transformed dramatically, as portrayed through religion, the legal system and
education. One of the ways that Nazi aims failed was through the usurpation of religious
traditions. Hitler initiated a policy of control to weaken and replace the Churches. Despite the
Concordat, Hitler worried about the influence of the Churches over the public. Due to the
disorganisation of the Nazi party, many people still rebelled against their radical beliefs. The
majority of Bavarian peo continued to use the traditional greeting ‘Gruss Gott’, meaning ‘God
greet you,’ rather than the official ‘Heil Hitler.’ In 1936, church groups were disbanded and the
Hitler Youth had an increase in registration because of it and there was a lesser pressure upon
schools to teach religious studies enabling the a decrease of 60% of attendance of Church run
schools to 5% between 1935 and 1939. Over 200 priests were also accused of sexual
misconduct and financial misbehaviour, eventuating in show trials and numerous monasteries
being closed down. The Nazi Party also launched a ‘Church Succession Campaign’ to
encourage the abandonment of faith. In 1937 over 100,000 Christians left the Church, and in
1939 3.5 million Germans were members of the neopagan movement. Also, the legal system’s
Nazi indoctrination, as evidenced through the Nuremberg Laws and the establishment of the
People’s Court, meant that judges’ decisions were determined by Nazi policy, not law,
eventuating massive judicial change. The education system also followed Nazi ideology.
Rassenkunde, a type of racial social studies, was initiated, introducing elements of the Hitler
Youth’s teachings, with Dr. Schuster, a geography teacher describing the issue in an interview
in 1938 (quoted in E. Amy Buller’s ‘Darkness Over Germany’ (1945)) as no longer having “any
intellectual freedom… And education is being degraded by political interference… Political
agents, often ignorant and stupid men… Interfere with my teaching of geography. Some of them
don't seem to realise that any countries exist except Germany…” The Nazi Party Teacher’s
Union (1936) became mandatory, Jewish professors and students were banned, and a
stereotypical masculine preference was prefered, with those seen as intellectuals ranking lower
than those of great physical ability in the social order. By institutionally ingraining Nazi
ideologies, the social and cultural life of Germany was greatly impacted, causing a
transformation between 1933 and 1939.
Business and industry allowed for the volksgemeinschaft to successfully transform cultural and
social, employing a “get the job done” objective. Under the Nazi Government, large firms
expanded and smaller firms declined. A Nazi ideologue was one of Gottfried Feder, wanting to
‘protect the small businessman.’ The Four Year Plan allowed for state supervision of industry in
the interests of national unity. This meant that the order of goods, supplies and products trade to
be controlled by IG Farben, with the expertise from Krupps, and fixed prices, the control of raw
materials and control investment to be regulated by DaimlerBenz. Originally, thanks to the Law
to Protect Retail Trade (1933), the Mittelstand seemed to be in favour of the Nazi Government
(once being their main supply of votes), but the number of independent artisans fell from
1,645,000 to 1,500,000 within 193639 even though their value of trade doubled due to the
autarky ideology. The struggles of the small business was not helped by the government’s
cartelisation processes, either. In a report for SOPADE in 1037 on farmers’ views, it is quoted
that “the ‘production battle’... Has limited even further the right of the farmer to market his
products freely,” essentially indicating a centrally planned economy with large firms
monopolising industry. There was no major growth in foreign trade during the 1930s as
Schacht’s series of bilateral deals were replaced by an emphasis on autarky. The government
looked to domestic production, rather than external trade, and foreign conquest to obtain critical
resources. The Wannsee Conference set forth a goal to be achieved, a plan on which experts’
skills (with E.G. Farbon supplying Zyklon B and Krupp supplying weaponry). Efficiency and the
time management associated with it was a major concern with final resources being taken into
account. Trade unions were outlawed, being considered communist, and the banking industry
working closely with the Finance Ministry in acquiring money from the Jewish community (for
example, the golden teeth of the Jews would be taken). Professionals were highly sought after.
Doctors, with the extreme of Mengeles, chemists, those who perfected the gas, engineers and
architects, who designed the gas chambers and crematoriums, and physicists, who conducted
experimentations with weaponry, were the most crucial. Other professionals, however, were
placed in a hierarchy of importance within the Volksgemeinschaft, affecting the exclusion of the
asocials, disabled and Jewish communities. By excluding those from outside the
volksgemeinschaft from professions and major affairs, by placing emphasis on time
management, resources and efficient affairs, business, industry and professionals manipulated
the volksgemeinschaft for their own profit and success, causing a gleichschaltung of economy
and enterprise to occur.
Family life, on a meso and micro level of society, underwent a gleichschaltung, impacting the
German social and cultural life dramatically. The role of the family and the people within the
family changed. German youth’s roles transformed into a stereotypically traditional sense.
Robert Ley, the leader of the Labour Front (DAF), reportedly said that they started their “work
when the child is three. As soon as it begins to think, a little flag is put into his hand,” evidencing
the Nazi aims of boys and girls to join the DAF and NSDAP. They were to be independent,
idolise the Führer, be physically fit, sacrifice themselves for the national good and to do
everything to strengthen the health and racial purity of the German nation (through their
respective gender roles and contributions). Nazi youth policy is debated in its effectiveness with
some claiming that “amongst working class youths one can hear much criticisms” (from
SOPADE reports, 1935), but realistically the only real importance is that of the fact that they
were “politically programmed : to obey orders, to cultivate the soldierly ‘virtue’ of standing to
attention and saying ‘Yes, sir,’ and to stop thinking when the magic word ‘Fatherland’ was
uttered” (a German reflecting upon his youth in the Third Reich as quoted from D. Peukert’s ‘Life
in the Third Reich, ed. R. Bessel, 1987, pg. 27). Men were to run and work the country, women
were to breed and care for the country. In 1935, during a rally of 100,000 members of the Hitler
Youth and League of German Girls (BDM) in Nuremberg, 900 fifteen to eighteen year old girls
became pregnant, and a German describes her experience in the BDM as it having “a bad
effect on [their] school reports. We had no time for homework,” portraying the girls’ jobs as being
physically fit and fertile, but not as intelligent or dominant. Women within the Nazi ideology were
deemed to have a mission of being “beautiful and [to] bring children into the world” (Geobbels,
1929), with sexual activity serving the function of procreation and the maintenance of the life of
the nation, not for enjoyment. In 1943 a Marriage Law was drawn up but never enacted, stating
that:
“All single and married woman up to the age of 35 who do not already have four children should
be obliged to produce four children by racially pure German men. Whether these men are
married is of no significance. Every family that already has four children must set the father free
for this action.”
This proposal for a law showed that while marriage was considered to be a “long lasting, lifelong
union of two people genetically healthy persons of the same race… And is based upon ties of
loyalty, love and respect,” (extract from contemporary Nazi publication), the mission of breeding
was deemed more socially important, reimagining the family role and structure. Gaining the
Honour Cross of German Motherhood was, of course, then seen as one of the highest honours
to be bestowed among a women and her family. The Nazi policy, however, was mainly driven
towards the propaganda of the creation of a healthy, Aryan family. This gleichschaltung of the
volksgemeinschaft’s familiar and gender roles and structures allowed for widespread,
transformative social and cultural change due to the goal of reproduction and maintenance of
the micro and meso levels of the German nationality.
Terror, propaganda, the institutionalisation of Nazi ideologies, business and industry
manipulation and family life alterations, allowed for political, military, religious, legal, education,
ideological and media representation to change, impacting social and cultural life. These
methods of attempting to promote gleichschaltung eventuated in the volksgemeinschaft,
allowing for mass transformation of the social and cultural life of Germans under Nazi rule
between the years of 1933 and 1939.
Essay with Comments:
Spoiler
To what extent was Germany’s social and
cultural life transformed between 1933 and 1939?
The German social and cultural life was drastically transformed between 1933 and 1939. Good
Between 1933 and 1939, Germany was gripped under the Führer principle, Use German wherever possible: Fuhrerprincip if I recall correctly! trying to attempt a
gleichschaltung, eventuating in the volksgemeinschaft. I think you may be using these words slightly incorrectly in terms of grammar: talk about a 'policy of gleichschaltung' rather than attempting one. This allowed for political, military,
religious, legal, education, ideological and media representation to change, alongside business
and industry economical manipulation and the family role within the Nazi Government,
impacting social and cultural life. The significant changes that then occurred caused widespread
socioeconomicjudicial change that meant that further transformation occurred. Bit of a wish-washy sentence, try to clean it up a little bit.
I think that, for an essay like this, it is always a good idea to outline what social/cultural life was like in 1933 first, outlining key identifyers. Then, it becomes easy to point to change within the prescribed time period.
The aim of increasing terror within the population of Nazi Germany through political and military
transformations caused major changes to social and cultural life of the German population.
There were no free elections with the only party being the National Socialist German Worker’s
Party (NSDAP) due to the emergency decrees of 1933. Try to get a bit more specific: what was the date of the decree? What was it called? Who implemented it?This essentially allowed Hitler to
predominantly hold all the power. Bit of tautology here This meant that the Sturmabteilung (SA), Schutzstaffel (SS),
Sicherheitsdienst des ReichsführersSS (SD), and the Foreign Office gained a role of terror, A role of terror? Maybe a role in implementation of terror etc.?
operating as separate organisations towards the ongoing social and cultural change
domestically.
Propaganda, through racism, beliefs in the inferiority of the mentally and physically
handicapped, and the media, allowed for a revolutionary transformation of the social and
cultural lives of the population in Germany between 1933 and 1939, creating inclusion and
exclusion within the volksgemeinschaft, allowing for gleichschaltung. I like this point a lot: the fact that a volksgemeinschaft was being created, defined, and standardised necessarily causes certain classes or types of individuals to be excluded from it. However, try to make that point a bit clearer by explain the general concept first (as I have done) and then go into jargon, explanations etc. Again, I really like this point, and had not thought about it before. Very strong stuff! The message of
propaganda was conveyed through radio, press, film, posters, paintings, sculptures,
architecture, literature, social policies, youth movements, schools, sport, parades and rallies Way, way too long of a list. Also, grab some specific, accurate, relevant and detailed examples to through in: how mayn students were involved in youth movement? How many propaganda filsm were produced?. It
was an allconsuming resource of infiltration, to which Goebbels Who? Like obviously I know, but include a title. states: “only repetition can
finally bring success in the matter of instilling ideas into the memory of the crowd.” The culture of
Germany in the 1930s, was played upon continuously. T. Golomstock in his work ‘Totalitarian
Art’ (1990, pg. xii) hypothesised that “in a totalitarian system, art performs the function of
transforming the raw material of dry ideology into the fuel” of the masses. For example,
antisemitism was initiated through governmental measures, such as the Jewish Affairs Offices,
outcasting them and eventuating in programs such as the 1939 Euthanasia Policy Which was what? Great examples, but don't assume a marker knows exactly what is happening in your time period. What did the policy result in?. Book
burnings portrayed the mass censorship of the media, with newspapers only being able to print
progovernmental pieces, of the sorts of Der Stürmer’s ‘The Poisonous Mushroom’. Any form of
public, consumerist information and entertainment (radio and film, for example) were heavily
laden with propaganda, with ‘The Eternal Jew’ as an example, becoming the norm from the
Geobbel’s Reich Ministry of Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda. Press, radio and film
swiftly became the most efficient and rewarding way to ‘enlighten’ the masses. Speer Who? suggested
that “through technical devices like the radio… 80 million people were deprived of independent
thought. It was thereby possible to subject them to the will of one man.” Propaganda played a
crucial role in the creation of the Volksgemeinschaft, the Führer principle, allowing for
gleichschaltung. You seem to be randomly capitalizing German words; just make sure its consistent
Through the institutionalisation of Nazi ideologies, the cultural and social life of the German
peoples transformed dramatically, as portrayed through religion, the legal system and
education. One of the ways that Nazi aims failed was through the usurpation of religious
traditions. Hitler initiated a policy of control to weaken and replace the Churches. Despite the
Concordat Huh? Explanation, date, etc., Hitler worried about the influence of the Churches over the public. Due to the
disorganisation of the Nazi party, many people still rebelled against their radical beliefs. The
majority of Bavarian peo Typo continued to use the traditional greeting ‘Gruss Gott’, meaning ‘God
greet you,’ rather than the official ‘Heil Hitler.’ In 1936, church groups were disbanded and the
Hitler Youth had an increase in registration because of it and there was a lesser pressure upon
schools to teach religious studies enabling the a decrease of 60% of attendance of Church run
schools to 5% between 1935 and 1939. Long winded sentence. Some great stats, but neaten it up a little Over 200 priests were also accused of sexual
misconduct and financial misbehaviour, eventuating in show trials and numerous monasteries
being closed down. The Nazi Party also launched a ‘Church Succession Campaign’ to
encourage the abandonment of faith. In 1937 over 100,000 Christians left the Church, and in
1939 3.5 million Germans were members of the neopagan movement. Also, the legal system’s
Nazi indoctrination, as evidenced through the Nuremberg Laws and the establishment of the
People’s Court, meant that judges’ decisions were determined by Nazi policy, not law,
eventuating massive judicial change. New paragraph. The education system also followed Nazi ideology.
Rassenkunde, a type of racial social studies, was initiated, introducing elements of the Hitler
Youth’s teachings, with Dr. Schuster, a geography teacher describing the issue in an interview
in 1938 (quoted in E. Amy Buller’s ‘Darkness Over Germany’ (1945)) as no longer having “any
intellectual freedom… And education is being degraded by political interference… Political
agents, often ignorant and stupid men… Interfere with my teaching of geography. Some of them
don't seem to realise that any countries exist except Germany…” Bit long of a quote, but great stuff The Nazi Party Teacher’s
Union (1936) became mandatory, Jewish professors and students were banned, and a
stereotypical masculine preference was prefered, with those seen as intellectuals ranking lower
than those of great physical ability in the social order. By institutionally ingraining Nazi
ideologies, the social and cultural life of Germany was greatly impacted, causing a
transformation between 1933 and 1939. You've tried to make sure you answer the question, but in reality you have just restated it. Throughout your paragraphs, I need to feel a clearer connection between what you are saying and why you are saying it. What impact did it have? There was clearly a shift from A to B; in a single sentence, explain that there was a change, thereby answering the question. You tend you talk about a lot of great content, and ignore the question, and then answer the question in the conclusion. Your content is all really relevant; just make that clearer throughout the essay
Business and industry allowed for the volksgemeinschaft to successfully transform cultural and
social typo, employing a “get the job done” objective. Under the Nazi Government, large firms
expanded and smaller firms declined Give me a statistic, or don't make the claim. A Nazi ideologue was one of Gottfried Feder, wanting to
‘protect the small businessman.’ The Four Year Plan Beginning in? Be slightly more specific: there are about 5 simultanious Russian 4 year plans/5 year plans/infinity year plans that a marker could confuse it with allowed for state supervision of industry in
the interests of national unity. This meant that the order of goods, supplies and products trade to
be controlled by IG Farben, with the expertise from Krupps, and fixed prices, the control of raw
materials and control investment to be regulated by DaimlerBenz. Originally, thanks to the Law
to Protect Retail Trade (1933), the Mittelstand seemed to be in favour of the Nazi Government
(once being their main supply of votes), but the number of independent artisans fell from
1,645,000 to 1,500,000 within 193639 typo even though their value of trade doubled due to the
autarky ideology. The struggles of the small business was not helped by the government’s
cartelisation processes, either. In a report for SOPADE ? in 1037 on farmers’ views, it is quoted
that “the ‘production battle’... Has limited even further the right of the farmer to market his
products freely,” essentially indicating a centrally planned economy with large firms
monopolising industry. There was no major growth in foreign trade during the 1930s as
Schacht’s series of bilateral deals were replaced by an emphasis on autarky. The government
looked to domestic production, rather than external trade, and foreign conquest to obtain critical
resources. The Wannsee Conference set forth a goal to be achieved, a plan on which experts’
skills (with E.G. Farbon supplying Zyklon B and Krupp supplying weaponry). Efficiency and the
time management associated with it was a major concern with final resources being taken into
account. Trade unions were outlawed, being considered communist, and the banking industry
working closely with the Finance Ministry in acquiring money from the Jewish community (for
example, the golden teeth of the Jews would be taken). Professionals were highly sought after.
Doctors, with the extreme of Mengeles, chemists, those who perfected the gas, engineers and
architects, who designed the gas chambers and crematoriums, and physicists, who conducted
experimentations with weaponry, were the most crucial. Other professionals, however, were
placed in a hierarchy of importance within the Volksgemeinschaft, affecting the exclusion of the
asocials, disabled and Jewish communities. By excluding those from outside the
volksgemeinschaft from professions and major affairs, by placing emphasis on time
management, resources and efficient affairs, business, industry and professionals manipulated
the volksgemeinschaft for their own profit and success, causing a gleichschaltung of economy
and enterprise to occur. But the question is about social and cultural changes. This entire paragraph is really about economic changes, but you can definitely link it to the question. Unfortunately, as of yet, you haven't really. Go back and delete anything purely economic. If it is economic and social (ie. impact on workers, Jews etc.) then keep it, but draw a clearer link between the question and your content!
Family life, on a meso and micro level of society, underwent a gleichschaltung I do believe that this is a misuse of the term, but I could be wrong, impacting the
German social and cultural life dramatically. The role of the family and the people within the
family changed. German youth’s roles transformed into a stereotypically traditional sense.
Robert Ley, the leader of the Labour Front (DAF), reportedly said that they started their “work
when the child is three. As soon as it begins to think, a little flag is put into his hand,” evidencing
the Nazi aims of boys and girls to join the DAF and NSDAP. The question asks for change from 33-39. You've outlined what the Nazi party created in terms of a youth policy, but perhaps throw in a sentence about the differences pre 33. They were to be independent,
idolise the Führer, be physically fit, sacrifice themselves for the national good and to do
everything to strengthen the health and racial purity of the German nation (through their
respective gender roles and contributions). Nazi youth policy is debated in its effectiveness with
some claiming that “amongst working class youths one can hear much criticisms” (from
SOPADE reports, 1935), but realistically the only real importance is that of the fact that they
were “politically programmed : to obey orders, to cultivate the soldierly ‘virtue’ of standing to
attention and saying ‘Yes, sir,’ and to stop thinking when the magic word ‘Fatherland’ was
uttered” (a German reflecting upon his youth in the Third Reich as quoted from D. Peukert’s ‘Life
in the Third Reich, ed. R. Bessel, 1987, pg. 27). Careful saying "Realistically, the only real importance": Are you sure about that? Just don't risk it. Men were to run and work the country, women
were to breed and care for the country. There are some great quotes about this re Geobbels, try to find some! In 1935, during a rally of 100,000 members of the Hitler
Youth and League of German Girls (BDM) in Nuremberg, 900 fifteen to eighteen year old girls
became pregnant wow, and a German describes her experience in the BDM as it having “a bad
effect on [their] school reports. We had no time for homework,” portraying the girls’ jobs as being
physically fit and fertile, but not as intelligent or dominant. Women within the Nazi ideology were
deemed to have a mission of being “beautiful and [to] bring children into the world” (Geobbels,
1929), Nope there you go, you found the quote. with sexual activity serving the function of procreation and the maintenance of the life of
the nation, not for enjoyment. In 1943 a Marriage Law was drawn up but never enacted, stating
that:
“All single and married woman up to the age of 35 who do not already have four children should
be obliged to produce four children by racially pure German men. Whether these men are
married is of no significance. Every family that already has four children must set the father free
for this action.” Don't include such a long quote; summarise it yourself. I would also note that this falls outside of your time period; I'm not saying that you can't use it, but be careful
This proposal for a law showed that while marriage was considered to be a “long lasting, lifelong
union of two people genetically healthy persons of the same race… And is based upon ties of
loyalty, love and respect,” (extract from contemporary Nazi publication), the mission of breeding
was deemed more socially important, reimagining the family role and structure. Gaining the
Honour Cross of German Motherhood was, of course, then seen as one of the highest honours
to be bestowed among a women and her family. The Nazi policy, however, was mainly driven
towards the propaganda of the creation of a healthy, Aryan family. This gleichschaltung of the
volksgemeinschaft’s familiar and gender roles and structures allowed for widespread,
transformative social and cultural change due to the goal of reproduction and maintenance of
the micro and meso levels of the German nationality.
Terror, propaganda, the institutionalisation of Nazi ideologies, business and industry
manipulation and family life alterations, allowed for political, military, religious, legal, education,
ideological and media representation to change, impacting social and cultural life. These
methods of attempting to promote gleichschaltung eventuated in the volksgemeinschaft,
allowing for mass transformation of the social and cultural life of Germans under Nazi rule
between the years of 1933 and 1939.
Overall, great essay. Perhaps a bit long, but I don't know what the purpose of the essay is so that might be totally fine. I would definitely find some more specific statistics to back up your points, but that's easily done. The biggest change I would make is in ensuring that every sentence is tailored to answer the question, rather than just doing that at the start and end of each paragraph. Do you best to draw links to your paragraph and the social/cultural changes in Germany. I think its a really good essay, with potential to be a really great essay. Good job!
cultural life transformed between 1933 and 1939?
The German social and cultural life was drastically transformed between 1933 and 1939. Good
Between 1933 and 1939, Germany was gripped under the Führer principle, Use German wherever possible: Fuhrerprincip if I recall correctly! trying to attempt a
gleichschaltung, eventuating in the volksgemeinschaft. I think you may be using these words slightly incorrectly in terms of grammar: talk about a 'policy of gleichschaltung' rather than attempting one. This allowed for political, military,
religious, legal, education, ideological and media representation to change, alongside business
and industry economical manipulation and the family role within the Nazi Government,
impacting social and cultural life. The significant changes that then occurred caused widespread
socioeconomicjudicial change that meant that further transformation occurred. Bit of a wish-washy sentence, try to clean it up a little bit.
I think that, for an essay like this, it is always a good idea to outline what social/cultural life was like in 1933 first, outlining key identifyers. Then, it becomes easy to point to change within the prescribed time period.
The aim of increasing terror within the population of Nazi Germany through political and military
transformations caused major changes to social and cultural life of the German population.
There were no free elections with the only party being the National Socialist German Worker’s
Party (NSDAP) due to the emergency decrees of 1933. Try to get a bit more specific: what was the date of the decree? What was it called? Who implemented it?This essentially allowed Hitler to
predominantly hold all the power. Bit of tautology here This meant that the Sturmabteilung (SA), Schutzstaffel (SS),
Sicherheitsdienst des ReichsführersSS (SD), and the Foreign Office gained a role of terror, A role of terror? Maybe a role in implementation of terror etc.?
operating as separate organisations towards the ongoing social and cultural change
domestically.
Propaganda, through racism, beliefs in the inferiority of the mentally and physically
handicapped, and the media, allowed for a revolutionary transformation of the social and
cultural lives of the population in Germany between 1933 and 1939, creating inclusion and
exclusion within the volksgemeinschaft, allowing for gleichschaltung. I like this point a lot: the fact that a volksgemeinschaft was being created, defined, and standardised necessarily causes certain classes or types of individuals to be excluded from it. However, try to make that point a bit clearer by explain the general concept first (as I have done) and then go into jargon, explanations etc. Again, I really like this point, and had not thought about it before. Very strong stuff! The message of
propaganda was conveyed through radio, press, film, posters, paintings, sculptures,
architecture, literature, social policies, youth movements, schools, sport, parades and rallies Way, way too long of a list. Also, grab some specific, accurate, relevant and detailed examples to through in: how mayn students were involved in youth movement? How many propaganda filsm were produced?. It
was an allconsuming resource of infiltration, to which Goebbels Who? Like obviously I know, but include a title. states: “only repetition can
finally bring success in the matter of instilling ideas into the memory of the crowd.” The culture of
Germany in the 1930s, was played upon continuously. T. Golomstock in his work ‘Totalitarian
Art’ (1990, pg. xii) hypothesised that “in a totalitarian system, art performs the function of
transforming the raw material of dry ideology into the fuel” of the masses. For example,
antisemitism was initiated through governmental measures, such as the Jewish Affairs Offices,
outcasting them and eventuating in programs such as the 1939 Euthanasia Policy Which was what? Great examples, but don't assume a marker knows exactly what is happening in your time period. What did the policy result in?. Book
burnings portrayed the mass censorship of the media, with newspapers only being able to print
progovernmental pieces, of the sorts of Der Stürmer’s ‘The Poisonous Mushroom’. Any form of
public, consumerist information and entertainment (radio and film, for example) were heavily
laden with propaganda, with ‘The Eternal Jew’ as an example, becoming the norm from the
Geobbel’s Reich Ministry of Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda. Press, radio and film
swiftly became the most efficient and rewarding way to ‘enlighten’ the masses. Speer Who? suggested
that “through technical devices like the radio… 80 million people were deprived of independent
thought. It was thereby possible to subject them to the will of one man.” Propaganda played a
crucial role in the creation of the Volksgemeinschaft, the Führer principle, allowing for
gleichschaltung. You seem to be randomly capitalizing German words; just make sure its consistent
Through the institutionalisation of Nazi ideologies, the cultural and social life of the German
peoples transformed dramatically, as portrayed through religion, the legal system and
education. One of the ways that Nazi aims failed was through the usurpation of religious
traditions. Hitler initiated a policy of control to weaken and replace the Churches. Despite the
Concordat Huh? Explanation, date, etc., Hitler worried about the influence of the Churches over the public. Due to the
disorganisation of the Nazi party, many people still rebelled against their radical beliefs. The
majority of Bavarian peo Typo continued to use the traditional greeting ‘Gruss Gott’, meaning ‘God
greet you,’ rather than the official ‘Heil Hitler.’ In 1936, church groups were disbanded and the
Hitler Youth had an increase in registration because of it and there was a lesser pressure upon
schools to teach religious studies enabling the a decrease of 60% of attendance of Church run
schools to 5% between 1935 and 1939. Long winded sentence. Some great stats, but neaten it up a little Over 200 priests were also accused of sexual
misconduct and financial misbehaviour, eventuating in show trials and numerous monasteries
being closed down. The Nazi Party also launched a ‘Church Succession Campaign’ to
encourage the abandonment of faith. In 1937 over 100,000 Christians left the Church, and in
1939 3.5 million Germans were members of the neopagan movement. Also, the legal system’s
Nazi indoctrination, as evidenced through the Nuremberg Laws and the establishment of the
People’s Court, meant that judges’ decisions were determined by Nazi policy, not law,
eventuating massive judicial change. New paragraph. The education system also followed Nazi ideology.
Rassenkunde, a type of racial social studies, was initiated, introducing elements of the Hitler
Youth’s teachings, with Dr. Schuster, a geography teacher describing the issue in an interview
in 1938 (quoted in E. Amy Buller’s ‘Darkness Over Germany’ (1945)) as no longer having “any
intellectual freedom… And education is being degraded by political interference… Political
agents, often ignorant and stupid men… Interfere with my teaching of geography. Some of them
don't seem to realise that any countries exist except Germany…” Bit long of a quote, but great stuff The Nazi Party Teacher’s
Union (1936) became mandatory, Jewish professors and students were banned, and a
stereotypical masculine preference was prefered, with those seen as intellectuals ranking lower
than those of great physical ability in the social order. By institutionally ingraining Nazi
ideologies, the social and cultural life of Germany was greatly impacted, causing a
transformation between 1933 and 1939. You've tried to make sure you answer the question, but in reality you have just restated it. Throughout your paragraphs, I need to feel a clearer connection between what you are saying and why you are saying it. What impact did it have? There was clearly a shift from A to B; in a single sentence, explain that there was a change, thereby answering the question. You tend you talk about a lot of great content, and ignore the question, and then answer the question in the conclusion. Your content is all really relevant; just make that clearer throughout the essay
Business and industry allowed for the volksgemeinschaft to successfully transform cultural and
social typo, employing a “get the job done” objective. Under the Nazi Government, large firms
expanded and smaller firms declined Give me a statistic, or don't make the claim. A Nazi ideologue was one of Gottfried Feder, wanting to
‘protect the small businessman.’ The Four Year Plan Beginning in? Be slightly more specific: there are about 5 simultanious Russian 4 year plans/5 year plans/infinity year plans that a marker could confuse it with allowed for state supervision of industry in
the interests of national unity. This meant that the order of goods, supplies and products trade to
be controlled by IG Farben, with the expertise from Krupps, and fixed prices, the control of raw
materials and control investment to be regulated by DaimlerBenz. Originally, thanks to the Law
to Protect Retail Trade (1933), the Mittelstand seemed to be in favour of the Nazi Government
(once being their main supply of votes), but the number of independent artisans fell from
1,645,000 to 1,500,000 within 193639 typo even though their value of trade doubled due to the
autarky ideology. The struggles of the small business was not helped by the government’s
cartelisation processes, either. In a report for SOPADE ? in 1037 on farmers’ views, it is quoted
that “the ‘production battle’... Has limited even further the right of the farmer to market his
products freely,” essentially indicating a centrally planned economy with large firms
monopolising industry. There was no major growth in foreign trade during the 1930s as
Schacht’s series of bilateral deals were replaced by an emphasis on autarky. The government
looked to domestic production, rather than external trade, and foreign conquest to obtain critical
resources. The Wannsee Conference set forth a goal to be achieved, a plan on which experts’
skills (with E.G. Farbon supplying Zyklon B and Krupp supplying weaponry). Efficiency and the
time management associated with it was a major concern with final resources being taken into
account. Trade unions were outlawed, being considered communist, and the banking industry
working closely with the Finance Ministry in acquiring money from the Jewish community (for
example, the golden teeth of the Jews would be taken). Professionals were highly sought after.
Doctors, with the extreme of Mengeles, chemists, those who perfected the gas, engineers and
architects, who designed the gas chambers and crematoriums, and physicists, who conducted
experimentations with weaponry, were the most crucial. Other professionals, however, were
placed in a hierarchy of importance within the Volksgemeinschaft, affecting the exclusion of the
asocials, disabled and Jewish communities. By excluding those from outside the
volksgemeinschaft from professions and major affairs, by placing emphasis on time
management, resources and efficient affairs, business, industry and professionals manipulated
the volksgemeinschaft for their own profit and success, causing a gleichschaltung of economy
and enterprise to occur. But the question is about social and cultural changes. This entire paragraph is really about economic changes, but you can definitely link it to the question. Unfortunately, as of yet, you haven't really. Go back and delete anything purely economic. If it is economic and social (ie. impact on workers, Jews etc.) then keep it, but draw a clearer link between the question and your content!
Family life, on a meso and micro level of society, underwent a gleichschaltung I do believe that this is a misuse of the term, but I could be wrong, impacting the
German social and cultural life dramatically. The role of the family and the people within the
family changed. German youth’s roles transformed into a stereotypically traditional sense.
Robert Ley, the leader of the Labour Front (DAF), reportedly said that they started their “work
when the child is three. As soon as it begins to think, a little flag is put into his hand,” evidencing
the Nazi aims of boys and girls to join the DAF and NSDAP. The question asks for change from 33-39. You've outlined what the Nazi party created in terms of a youth policy, but perhaps throw in a sentence about the differences pre 33. They were to be independent,
idolise the Führer, be physically fit, sacrifice themselves for the national good and to do
everything to strengthen the health and racial purity of the German nation (through their
respective gender roles and contributions). Nazi youth policy is debated in its effectiveness with
some claiming that “amongst working class youths one can hear much criticisms” (from
SOPADE reports, 1935), but realistically the only real importance is that of the fact that they
were “politically programmed : to obey orders, to cultivate the soldierly ‘virtue’ of standing to
attention and saying ‘Yes, sir,’ and to stop thinking when the magic word ‘Fatherland’ was
uttered” (a German reflecting upon his youth in the Third Reich as quoted from D. Peukert’s ‘Life
in the Third Reich, ed. R. Bessel, 1987, pg. 27). Careful saying "Realistically, the only real importance": Are you sure about that? Just don't risk it. Men were to run and work the country, women
were to breed and care for the country. There are some great quotes about this re Geobbels, try to find some! In 1935, during a rally of 100,000 members of the Hitler
Youth and League of German Girls (BDM) in Nuremberg, 900 fifteen to eighteen year old girls
became pregnant wow, and a German describes her experience in the BDM as it having “a bad
effect on [their] school reports. We had no time for homework,” portraying the girls’ jobs as being
physically fit and fertile, but not as intelligent or dominant. Women within the Nazi ideology were
deemed to have a mission of being “beautiful and [to] bring children into the world” (Geobbels,
1929), Nope there you go, you found the quote. with sexual activity serving the function of procreation and the maintenance of the life of
the nation, not for enjoyment. In 1943 a Marriage Law was drawn up but never enacted, stating
that:
“All single and married woman up to the age of 35 who do not already have four children should
be obliged to produce four children by racially pure German men. Whether these men are
married is of no significance. Every family that already has four children must set the father free
for this action.” Don't include such a long quote; summarise it yourself. I would also note that this falls outside of your time period; I'm not saying that you can't use it, but be careful
This proposal for a law showed that while marriage was considered to be a “long lasting, lifelong
union of two people genetically healthy persons of the same race… And is based upon ties of
loyalty, love and respect,” (extract from contemporary Nazi publication), the mission of breeding
was deemed more socially important, reimagining the family role and structure. Gaining the
Honour Cross of German Motherhood was, of course, then seen as one of the highest honours
to be bestowed among a women and her family. The Nazi policy, however, was mainly driven
towards the propaganda of the creation of a healthy, Aryan family. This gleichschaltung of the
volksgemeinschaft’s familiar and gender roles and structures allowed for widespread,
transformative social and cultural change due to the goal of reproduction and maintenance of
the micro and meso levels of the German nationality.
Terror, propaganda, the institutionalisation of Nazi ideologies, business and industry
manipulation and family life alterations, allowed for political, military, religious, legal, education,
ideological and media representation to change, impacting social and cultural life. These
methods of attempting to promote gleichschaltung eventuated in the volksgemeinschaft,
allowing for mass transformation of the social and cultural life of Germans under Nazi rule
between the years of 1933 and 1939.
Overall, great essay. Perhaps a bit long, but I don't know what the purpose of the essay is so that might be totally fine. I would definitely find some more specific statistics to back up your points, but that's easily done. The biggest change I would make is in ensuring that every sentence is tailored to answer the question, rather than just doing that at the start and end of each paragraph. Do you best to draw links to your paragraph and the social/cultural changes in Germany. I think its a really good essay, with potential to be a really great essay. Good job!
Post by: matilda_woody on May 06, 2016, 03:56:56 pm
Post by: tasiakuz on May 29, 2016, 08:33:58 pm
Post by: jakesilove on May 30, 2016, 10:42:51 am
Hi! This is my conflict in Indochina Essay, it is at 1200 words and I would ideally like to cut it to 1000, so whatever is not succinct or unnecessary please let me know so I can cut it :) The question is at the top. Thanks so much!
Hey Tasia! Check out your essay with comment below :)
Original Essay:
Spoiler
The Geneva Peace Agreement of 1954 attempted to cease conflict in Vietnam; ultimately it was not the end of the struggle for the Vietnamese people. As the Geneva conference ensure the division of Vietnam on the 17th parallel, it also affected the development of the two halves of the country. Most importantly, the US became heavily interested in Diem’s South Vietnam, who feared the spread of Communism across the globe, whilst Ho Chi Minh facilitated a rise in nationalist sentiment due to his goal of unifying Vietnam, jeopardised by the Accords failed promise for election. This ideological incongruity resulted in the creation of the National Liberation Front (NLF) and the escalation of conflict between North and South Vietnam. Ultimately, the true consequences of the Geneva Peace Agreement became the Second Indochina War. The importance of the Agreement therefore lies not only in its terms, but the failure to uphold those terms.
The Geneva Conference’s creation of a power vacuum transformed the nation into a Cold War flash point, spurring the U.S. to establish the artificial state of South Vietnam under Diem. After the division of Vietnam at the 17th parallel, the future of South Vietnam’s control was uncertain after the French withdrawal mandated by the Accord. It presented a classic ideological dilemma between the US’ historic antipathy to European colonialism dating back to 1776, and their fear as to what would fill the ‘vacuum’. In accordance with his ‘Domino Theory’ published in 1954, Eisenhower committed the US to ‘preserving Vietnam from Communist domination’. They saw no harm in violating the ‘no foreign bases’ term of the Geneva Agreement, implementing Diem as a ‘puppet leader’ supported, funded and advised by the US. Consequently, Diem never had a true connection with the people and thus, ran an almost totalitarian regime, nepotistic and biased to the Catholics; his regime was devoid of a functioning government and angered a 95% non-Catholic population. This conflict between a traditional Emperor system and the US desire for American political idea and democratic nation building provoked an ongoing ideological clash. South Vietnam became an artificial state kept alive by massive transfusions of American aid; Reynolds suggesting the Geneva conference effectively birthed a US colony. The Geneva Peace Agreement was highly significant to the creation of South Vietnam as a quasi-democratic state; the beginning of US involvement in Vietnam can thus also be attributed to the Accords.
Simultaneously, the Geneva Accords contributed considerably to the growth of nationalism in North Vietnam and enabled Ho Chi Minh to consolidate his power. The North gained strength after the Geneva Agreements due to a combination of communist camaraderie and Viet Minh nationalism that ensured people were devoted to Ho, especially important for the lead up to the promised elections of 1956 of the Accords. Nonetheless, due in part to the sense of resentment and disillusionment created by the failure to exclusively recognise Ho’s Vietnam at the conference, Ho ordered the arrest and execution of hundreds of Vietnamese Francophiles in a reform period that was destructive for the DRV, with Harpur arguing that North Vietnam ‘floundered in an atmosphere of suspicion and apprehension.’ This was further exacerbated by Chinh’s Agricultural Reform Tribunals established to supervise the redistribution of land and the purging of ‘feudalists’ leading to food production declining and many turning away from the Ho regime. Nonetheless, by 1960 86% of the population was working in Cooperatives that were introduced in an attempt to win back peasant population. North Vietnam had changed from a country facing impending famine to a country with the fastest growing economy in South-East Asia. The Geneva Accords provided the impetus for the economic and social reform of the DRV that enabled the state to gain considerable prosperity.
It was not the Geneva Accords themselves, but rather a failure to uphold their terms that was the primary factor in the creation of the NLF and the escalation of conflict between North and South Vietnam. The non-elections of July 1956 provoked retaliation by the Viet Minh that escalated violence in the South, triggering the US to step in as ‘peacekeepers’ and ‘advisors’ and Ho officially committing Communist North to a revolutionary war with the creation of the Nation Liberation Front of South Vietnam on December 20th 1960. All soldiers in NLF received extensive political training focused on nationalism, the fraud of the Geneva Conference and Diem’s oppression in South Vietnam, the Geneva Accords thus proving significantly relevant to the growing tension between the states. US policies exacerbated this, while Lansdale and Diem were successful in paying off the Hoa Hao and Cao Dai, other policies such as Ordinance 47, which made it a capital offence to be a communist, and the Agrovilles simply increased discontent. Eisenhower and his advisors were considerably deluded about the success of their policies in Indochina following the Geneva accords. The Geneva Accords played an extremely important role in instigating conflict between North and South Vietnam due to the manner in which they created an artificial division of land and two states with vastly different ideologies and goals.
This conflict between the NLF and the RVN, deriving from the Peace Agreement, directly resulted in US involvement that led to the Second Indochina War. By December 1962 there were 11,300 U.S. personnel in the RVN, a direct breach of the terms of the Geneva Accords and therefore kept secret. The assassination of Diem, carried out with the unspoken approval of the U.S., represented a significant turning point as it created dire political instability only remediable by further intervention or complete withdrawal. As the U.S. would not compromise, the Geneva Accords thus established the course of U.S. policy: the most significant problem was that Diem being in power for so long, and deposing of him abruptly, gave the Communists propaganda to exploit. As Kennedy stated, ‘this is our offspring, we cannot abandon it’, and the U.S. was therefore forced to recognise a series of military regimes to justify U.S. presence in South Vietnam. Nonetheless, the U.S. could have withdrawn from South Vietnam following Diem’s assassination but misjudged the geopolitical intentions of their adversaries and the power of nationalism to motivate, along with the fertile source of propaganda their actions regarding the Geneva accords provided. The 1964 Tonkin resolution ultimately provided the pretext for a legitimate introduction of US troops and expanded US involvement from South to North: the course of action initiated by the Geneva Agreement had thus reached its logical conclusion.
The Geneva Peace Agreement was extremely important to the respective political, social and economical developments in North and South Vietnam to 1964, as the division of Vietnam at the 17th parallel created two distinct states in an entirely artificial manner that proved an ongoing source of conflict. Due to the removal of French influence under the Accords, the US adopted a neo-colonialist role to serve their own Cold War interests, while Ho’s disappointment at this outcome facilitated his consolidation of nationalistic control over North Vietnam. Ultimately, this culminated to a guerrilla war campaign by 1964 that resulted in direct US military intervention in Vietnam in the Second Indochina War.
The Geneva Conference’s creation of a power vacuum transformed the nation into a Cold War flash point, spurring the U.S. to establish the artificial state of South Vietnam under Diem. After the division of Vietnam at the 17th parallel, the future of South Vietnam’s control was uncertain after the French withdrawal mandated by the Accord. It presented a classic ideological dilemma between the US’ historic antipathy to European colonialism dating back to 1776, and their fear as to what would fill the ‘vacuum’. In accordance with his ‘Domino Theory’ published in 1954, Eisenhower committed the US to ‘preserving Vietnam from Communist domination’. They saw no harm in violating the ‘no foreign bases’ term of the Geneva Agreement, implementing Diem as a ‘puppet leader’ supported, funded and advised by the US. Consequently, Diem never had a true connection with the people and thus, ran an almost totalitarian regime, nepotistic and biased to the Catholics; his regime was devoid of a functioning government and angered a 95% non-Catholic population. This conflict between a traditional Emperor system and the US desire for American political idea and democratic nation building provoked an ongoing ideological clash. South Vietnam became an artificial state kept alive by massive transfusions of American aid; Reynolds suggesting the Geneva conference effectively birthed a US colony. The Geneva Peace Agreement was highly significant to the creation of South Vietnam as a quasi-democratic state; the beginning of US involvement in Vietnam can thus also be attributed to the Accords.
Simultaneously, the Geneva Accords contributed considerably to the growth of nationalism in North Vietnam and enabled Ho Chi Minh to consolidate his power. The North gained strength after the Geneva Agreements due to a combination of communist camaraderie and Viet Minh nationalism that ensured people were devoted to Ho, especially important for the lead up to the promised elections of 1956 of the Accords. Nonetheless, due in part to the sense of resentment and disillusionment created by the failure to exclusively recognise Ho’s Vietnam at the conference, Ho ordered the arrest and execution of hundreds of Vietnamese Francophiles in a reform period that was destructive for the DRV, with Harpur arguing that North Vietnam ‘floundered in an atmosphere of suspicion and apprehension.’ This was further exacerbated by Chinh’s Agricultural Reform Tribunals established to supervise the redistribution of land and the purging of ‘feudalists’ leading to food production declining and many turning away from the Ho regime. Nonetheless, by 1960 86% of the population was working in Cooperatives that were introduced in an attempt to win back peasant population. North Vietnam had changed from a country facing impending famine to a country with the fastest growing economy in South-East Asia. The Geneva Accords provided the impetus for the economic and social reform of the DRV that enabled the state to gain considerable prosperity.
It was not the Geneva Accords themselves, but rather a failure to uphold their terms that was the primary factor in the creation of the NLF and the escalation of conflict between North and South Vietnam. The non-elections of July 1956 provoked retaliation by the Viet Minh that escalated violence in the South, triggering the US to step in as ‘peacekeepers’ and ‘advisors’ and Ho officially committing Communist North to a revolutionary war with the creation of the Nation Liberation Front of South Vietnam on December 20th 1960. All soldiers in NLF received extensive political training focused on nationalism, the fraud of the Geneva Conference and Diem’s oppression in South Vietnam, the Geneva Accords thus proving significantly relevant to the growing tension between the states. US policies exacerbated this, while Lansdale and Diem were successful in paying off the Hoa Hao and Cao Dai, other policies such as Ordinance 47, which made it a capital offence to be a communist, and the Agrovilles simply increased discontent. Eisenhower and his advisors were considerably deluded about the success of their policies in Indochina following the Geneva accords. The Geneva Accords played an extremely important role in instigating conflict between North and South Vietnam due to the manner in which they created an artificial division of land and two states with vastly different ideologies and goals.
This conflict between the NLF and the RVN, deriving from the Peace Agreement, directly resulted in US involvement that led to the Second Indochina War. By December 1962 there were 11,300 U.S. personnel in the RVN, a direct breach of the terms of the Geneva Accords and therefore kept secret. The assassination of Diem, carried out with the unspoken approval of the U.S., represented a significant turning point as it created dire political instability only remediable by further intervention or complete withdrawal. As the U.S. would not compromise, the Geneva Accords thus established the course of U.S. policy: the most significant problem was that Diem being in power for so long, and deposing of him abruptly, gave the Communists propaganda to exploit. As Kennedy stated, ‘this is our offspring, we cannot abandon it’, and the U.S. was therefore forced to recognise a series of military regimes to justify U.S. presence in South Vietnam. Nonetheless, the U.S. could have withdrawn from South Vietnam following Diem’s assassination but misjudged the geopolitical intentions of their adversaries and the power of nationalism to motivate, along with the fertile source of propaganda their actions regarding the Geneva accords provided. The 1964 Tonkin resolution ultimately provided the pretext for a legitimate introduction of US troops and expanded US involvement from South to North: the course of action initiated by the Geneva Agreement had thus reached its logical conclusion.
The Geneva Peace Agreement was extremely important to the respective political, social and economical developments in North and South Vietnam to 1964, as the division of Vietnam at the 17th parallel created two distinct states in an entirely artificial manner that proved an ongoing source of conflict. Due to the removal of French influence under the Accords, the US adopted a neo-colonialist role to serve their own Cold War interests, while Ho’s disappointment at this outcome facilitated his consolidation of nationalistic control over North Vietnam. Ultimately, this culminated to a guerrilla war campaign by 1964 that resulted in direct US military intervention in Vietnam in the Second Indochina War.
Essay with Comments:
Spoiler
The Geneva Peace Agreement of 1954 attempted to cease conflict in Vietnam; However? This sentence doesn't quite make sense. ultimately it was not the end of the struggle for the Vietnamese people. As the Geneva conference ensured the division of Vietnam at the 17th parallel, it also affected the development of the two halves of the country. Most importantly, the US became heavily interested in Diem’s South Vietnam, who feared the spread of Communism, whilst Ho Chi Minh facilitated a rise in nationalist sentiment. This ideological incongruity resulted in the creation of the National Liberation Front (NLF) and the escalation of conflict between North and South Vietnam. Ultimately, the consequences of the Geneva Peace Agreement was the Second Indochina War. The importance of the Agreement therefore lies not only in its terms, but the failure to uphold those terms.
Quite a good introduction, but I think that most of your sentences could benefit from a quick read through to ensure clarity and a typo-free essay (I've deleted some words above, hopefully that helps). Whilst I haven't read the rest of your essay yet, I'm imaging that there will be plenty of space to cut down words. I might just bold bits that I think are unnecessary, or could use with a reword etc.
The Geneva Conference’s creation of a power vacuum transformed the nation into a Cold War flash point, spurring the U.S. to establish the artificial state of South Vietnam under Diem. After the division of Vietnam at the 17th parallel, the future of South Vietnam’s control was uncertain after the French withdrawal mandated by the Accord When did the French withdraw? Which paragraph of the Accord stated this? Be more specific with the facts you use; this is important in a top-notch essay!. It presented a classic ideological dilemma between the US’ historic antipathy to European colonialism dating back to 1776, and their fear as to what would fill the ‘vacuum’. In accordance with his ‘Domino Theory’ published in 1954 Save yourself some words; just write "Domino Theory" after the quote , Eisenhower committed the US to ‘preserving Vietnam from Communist domination’. They saw no harm in violating the ‘no foreign bases’ term of the Geneva Agreement, implementing Diem as a ‘puppet leader’ supported, funded and advised by the US. Consequently, Diem never had a true connection with the people and thus, ran an almost totalitarian regime, nepotistic and biased to the Catholics; his regime was devoid of a functioning government and angered a 95% non-Catholic population. This conflict between a traditional Emperor system and the US desire for American political idea and democratic nation building provoked an ongoing ideological clash. South Vietnam became an artificial state kept alive by massive transfusions of American aid; Reynolds suggesting the Geneva conference effectively birthed a US colony. The Geneva Peace Agreement was highly significant to the creation of South Vietnam as a quasi-democratic state; the beginning of US involvement in Vietnam can thus also be attributed to the Accords.
Really liked this. If you need to cut words down, you can definitely go through and delete single words here or there etc.
Simultaneously, the Geneva Accords contributed considerably to the growth of nationalism in North Vietnam and enabled Ho Chi Minh to consolidate his power. The North gained strength after the Geneva Agreements due to a combination of communist camaraderie and Viet Minh nationalism that ensured people were devoted to Ho, especially important for the lead up to the promised elections of 1956 of the Accords. Nonetheless, due in part to the sense of resentment and disillusionment created by the failure to exclusively recognise Ho’s Vietnam at the conference, Ho ordered the arrest and execution of hundreds of Vietnamese Francophiles in a reform period that was destructive for the DRV When? How many exactly?, with Harpur arguing that North Vietnam ‘floundered in an atmosphere of suspicion and apprehension.’ This was further exacerbated by Chinh’s Agricultural Reform Tribunals established to supervise the redistribution of land and the purging of ‘feudalists’ leading to food production declining and many turning away from the Ho regime. Nonetheless, by 1960 86% of the population was working in Cooperatives that were introduced in an attempt to win back peasant population. North Vietnam had changed from a country facing impending famine to a country with the fastest growing economy in South-East Asia. The Geneva Accords provided the impetus for the economic and social reform of the DRV that enabled the state to gain considerable prosperity.
It was not the Geneva Accords themselves, but rather a failure to uphold their terms that was the primary factor in the creation of the NLF and the escalation of conflict between North and South Vietnam. The non-elections of July 1956 provoked retaliation by the Viet Minh that escalated violence in the South, triggering the US to step in as ‘peacekeepers’ and ‘advisors’ and Ho officially committing Communist North to a revolutionary war with the creation of the Nation Liberation Front of South Vietnam on December 20th 1960. A bit too much reciting factsAll soldiers in NLF received extensive political training focused on nationalism, the fraud of the Geneva Conference and Diem’s oppression in South Vietnam, the Geneva Accords thus proving significantly relevant to the growing tension between the states. US policies exacerbated this, while Lansdale and Diem were successful in paying off the Hoa Hao and Cao Dai, other policies such as Ordinance 47, which made it a capital offence to be a communist, and the Agrovilles simply increased discontent. Eisenhower and his advisors were considerably deluded about the success of their policies in Indochina following the Geneva accords. The Geneva Accords played an extremely important role in instigating conflict between North and South Vietnam due to the manner in which they created an artificial division of land and two states with vastly different ideologies and goals.
This conflict between the NLF and the RVN, deriving from the Peace Agreement, directly resulted in US involvement that led to the Second Indochina War. By December 1962 there were 11,300 U.S. personnel in the RVN, a direct breach of the terms of the Geneva Accords and therefore kept secret. The assassination of Diem, carried out with the unspoken approval of the U.S., represented a significant turning point as it created dire political instability only remediable by further intervention or complete withdrawal. As the U.S. would not compromise, the Geneva Accords thus established the course of U.S. policy: the most significant problem was that Diem being in power for so long, and deposing of him abruptly, gave the Communists propaganda to exploit. As Kennedy stated, ‘this is our offspring, we cannot abandon it’, and the U.S. was therefore forced to recognise a series of military regimes to justify U.S. presence in South Vietnam. Nonetheless, the U.S. could have withdrawn from South Vietnam following Diem’s assassination but misjudged the geopolitical intentions of their adversaries and the power of nationalism to motivate, along with the fertile source of propaganda their actions regarding the Geneva accords provided. The 1964 Tonkin resolution ultimately provided the pretext for a legitimate introduction of US troops and expanded US involvement from South to North: the course of action initiated by the Geneva Agreement had thus reached its logical conclusion.
The Geneva Peace Agreement was extremely important to the respective political, social and economical developments in North and South Vietnam to 1964, as the division of Vietnam at the 17th parallel created two distinct states in an entirely artificial manner that proved an ongoing source of conflict. Due to the removal of French influence under the Accords, the US adopted a neo-colonialist role to serve their own Cold War interests, while Ho’s disappointment at this outcome facilitated his consolidation of nationalistic control over North Vietnam. Ultimately, this culminated to a guerrilla war campaign by 1964 that resulted in direct US military intervention in Vietnam in the Second Indochina War.
Really great essay. I really like your tone, style and argument quality. You do need to add some more specific statistics (dates, numbers, paragraphs in the Accord etc.) however that's easy to fix. I've highlighted some areas that you can definitely reword and cut down, but to be honest it's overall very good. I think you can easily cut down 200 words, just by turning two words into one, getting rid of unnecessary descriptive words (very, in fact etc.)
Hope this helps a bit!
Jake
Quite a good introduction, but I think that most of your sentences could benefit from a quick read through to ensure clarity and a typo-free essay (I've deleted some words above, hopefully that helps). Whilst I haven't read the rest of your essay yet, I'm imaging that there will be plenty of space to cut down words. I might just bold bits that I think are unnecessary, or could use with a reword etc.
The Geneva Conference’s creation of a power vacuum transformed the nation into a Cold War flash point, spurring the U.S. to establish the artificial state of South Vietnam under Diem. After the division of Vietnam at the 17th parallel, the future of South Vietnam’s control was uncertain after the French withdrawal mandated by the Accord When did the French withdraw? Which paragraph of the Accord stated this? Be more specific with the facts you use; this is important in a top-notch essay!. It presented a classic ideological dilemma between the US’ historic antipathy to European colonialism dating back to 1776, and their fear as to what would fill the ‘vacuum’. In accordance with his ‘Domino Theory’ published in 1954 Save yourself some words; just write "Domino Theory" after the quote , Eisenhower committed the US to ‘preserving Vietnam from Communist domination’. They saw no harm in violating the ‘no foreign bases’ term of the Geneva Agreement, implementing Diem as a ‘puppet leader’ supported, funded and advised by the US. Consequently, Diem never had a true connection with the people and thus, ran an almost totalitarian regime, nepotistic and biased to the Catholics; his regime was devoid of a functioning government and angered a 95% non-Catholic population. This conflict between a traditional Emperor system and the US desire for American political idea and democratic nation building provoked an ongoing ideological clash. South Vietnam became an artificial state kept alive by massive transfusions of American aid; Reynolds suggesting the Geneva conference effectively birthed a US colony. The Geneva Peace Agreement was highly significant to the creation of South Vietnam as a quasi-democratic state; the beginning of US involvement in Vietnam can thus also be attributed to the Accords.
Really liked this. If you need to cut words down, you can definitely go through and delete single words here or there etc.
Simultaneously, the Geneva Accords contributed considerably to the growth of nationalism in North Vietnam and enabled Ho Chi Minh to consolidate his power. The North gained strength after the Geneva Agreements due to a combination of communist camaraderie and Viet Minh nationalism that ensured people were devoted to Ho, especially important for the lead up to the promised elections of 1956 of the Accords. Nonetheless, due in part to the sense of resentment and disillusionment created by the failure to exclusively recognise Ho’s Vietnam at the conference, Ho ordered the arrest and execution of hundreds of Vietnamese Francophiles in a reform period that was destructive for the DRV When? How many exactly?, with Harpur arguing that North Vietnam ‘floundered in an atmosphere of suspicion and apprehension.’ This was further exacerbated by Chinh’s Agricultural Reform Tribunals established to supervise the redistribution of land and the purging of ‘feudalists’ leading to food production declining and many turning away from the Ho regime. Nonetheless, by 1960 86% of the population was working in Cooperatives that were introduced in an attempt to win back peasant population. North Vietnam had changed from a country facing impending famine to a country with the fastest growing economy in South-East Asia. The Geneva Accords provided the impetus for the economic and social reform of the DRV that enabled the state to gain considerable prosperity.
It was not the Geneva Accords themselves, but rather a failure to uphold their terms that was the primary factor in the creation of the NLF and the escalation of conflict between North and South Vietnam. The non-elections of July 1956 provoked retaliation by the Viet Minh that escalated violence in the South, triggering the US to step in as ‘peacekeepers’ and ‘advisors’ and Ho officially committing Communist North to a revolutionary war with the creation of the Nation Liberation Front of South Vietnam on December 20th 1960. A bit too much reciting factsAll soldiers in NLF received extensive political training focused on nationalism, the fraud of the Geneva Conference and Diem’s oppression in South Vietnam, the Geneva Accords thus proving significantly relevant to the growing tension between the states. US policies exacerbated this, while Lansdale and Diem were successful in paying off the Hoa Hao and Cao Dai, other policies such as Ordinance 47, which made it a capital offence to be a communist, and the Agrovilles simply increased discontent. Eisenhower and his advisors were considerably deluded about the success of their policies in Indochina following the Geneva accords. The Geneva Accords played an extremely important role in instigating conflict between North and South Vietnam due to the manner in which they created an artificial division of land and two states with vastly different ideologies and goals.
This conflict between the NLF and the RVN, deriving from the Peace Agreement, directly resulted in US involvement that led to the Second Indochina War. By December 1962 there were 11,300 U.S. personnel in the RVN, a direct breach of the terms of the Geneva Accords and therefore kept secret. The assassination of Diem, carried out with the unspoken approval of the U.S., represented a significant turning point as it created dire political instability only remediable by further intervention or complete withdrawal. As the U.S. would not compromise, the Geneva Accords thus established the course of U.S. policy: the most significant problem was that Diem being in power for so long, and deposing of him abruptly, gave the Communists propaganda to exploit. As Kennedy stated, ‘this is our offspring, we cannot abandon it’, and the U.S. was therefore forced to recognise a series of military regimes to justify U.S. presence in South Vietnam. Nonetheless, the U.S. could have withdrawn from South Vietnam following Diem’s assassination but misjudged the geopolitical intentions of their adversaries and the power of nationalism to motivate, along with the fertile source of propaganda their actions regarding the Geneva accords provided. The 1964 Tonkin resolution ultimately provided the pretext for a legitimate introduction of US troops and expanded US involvement from South to North: the course of action initiated by the Geneva Agreement had thus reached its logical conclusion.
The Geneva Peace Agreement was extremely important to the respective political, social and economical developments in North and South Vietnam to 1964, as the division of Vietnam at the 17th parallel created two distinct states in an entirely artificial manner that proved an ongoing source of conflict. Due to the removal of French influence under the Accords, the US adopted a neo-colonialist role to serve their own Cold War interests, while Ho’s disappointment at this outcome facilitated his consolidation of nationalistic control over North Vietnam. Ultimately, this culminated to a guerrilla war campaign by 1964 that resulted in direct US military intervention in Vietnam in the Second Indochina War.
Really great essay. I really like your tone, style and argument quality. You do need to add some more specific statistics (dates, numbers, paragraphs in the Accord etc.) however that's easy to fix. I've highlighted some areas that you can definitely reword and cut down, but to be honest it's overall very good. I think you can easily cut down 200 words, just by turning two words into one, getting rid of unnecessary descriptive words (very, in fact etc.)
Hope this helps a bit!
Jake
Post by: Maddy.caldwell on May 31, 2016, 05:49:46 pm
Post by: jakesilove on June 03, 2016, 05:31:38 pm
Hey, I want to impress my teacher with this essay due soon, she thinks really low of me. Anyway the task is to do three essays on Albert Speer and this one was "assess the range of opinions on Speer being a willing and enthusiastic Nazi. I have always done really badly in modern history essays. My teacher refuses to teach me how to write one, HELP! :) thanks (it's messy don't worry about the referencing)
Hey!
See my comments below :)
Spoiler
Maddy, this essay is going to need a lot of work. If I'm honest, it feels chaotic and inconsistent. My main advice is to basically start again, from scratch, but after having done a lot more preparation. I know that this seems dire, but honestly you can definitely pull together a good essay. It's just going to take some work. How can you bring your essay up to scratch? First of all, check out the article that I wrote here.
Your thesis needs to be clearer, your sentences need more structure, and your historical tone/language needs improvement. Read up on some historians that have researched and written about Speer; try utilising their language and style. Sentences like "It’s known that Albert Speer was not like most of the other Nazi’s from the beginning of when he first joined the party" is clunky, and doesn't get the point across. Similarly, talking about the "loving and warm ambiance" of Speer's household (or lack thereof) is not using any historical tone. You need to be far more formal; please focus on that whenever you write a History essay in the future.
You use some good quotes, and some good general factual analysis, but that needs to be much more the focus of your essay. Use way more quotes, and way more facts/statistics, to back up whatever point you're trying to make (on that note: make the point/thesis clear. At the start, you seem to believe Speer was a good guy. As you continue, it's like you realise he was a piece of shit, and your conclusion reflects that. Having a sustained thesis throughout).
Here is what I think you should do. Write down two or three themes (eg. relationship with Hitler, Antisemitism and Nuremburg). Then, write down a whole bunch of quotes and facts that relate to that topic underneath (all in list form). Then, write out your thesis in like one sentence, so that you can always refer back to it as you're writing your essay (this ensures that your thesis is sustained). Finally, expand this into an essay. Use historical language, a sustained thesis, and formal language. You definitely have the potential for writing a good essay, and I know that there are a lot of things to keep in mind, but if you want to improve in the subject these are all things you'll need to take on board.
This is a lot to think about. I don't know when your assessment is due, but if you ever want to post another essay, or even just a few sentences/paragraphs, I'd love to take a look to make sure you're on the right track. If you have any other questions, or want me to be clearer on any of my above points, please feel free to post again or send me a message. I hope we can help boost your teacher's perception of you! It's definitely possible, it will just take a bit of work :)
Jake
Your thesis needs to be clearer, your sentences need more structure, and your historical tone/language needs improvement. Read up on some historians that have researched and written about Speer; try utilising their language and style. Sentences like "It’s known that Albert Speer was not like most of the other Nazi’s from the beginning of when he first joined the party" is clunky, and doesn't get the point across. Similarly, talking about the "loving and warm ambiance" of Speer's household (or lack thereof) is not using any historical tone. You need to be far more formal; please focus on that whenever you write a History essay in the future.
You use some good quotes, and some good general factual analysis, but that needs to be much more the focus of your essay. Use way more quotes, and way more facts/statistics, to back up whatever point you're trying to make (on that note: make the point/thesis clear. At the start, you seem to believe Speer was a good guy. As you continue, it's like you realise he was a piece of shit, and your conclusion reflects that. Having a sustained thesis throughout).
Here is what I think you should do. Write down two or three themes (eg. relationship with Hitler, Antisemitism and Nuremburg). Then, write down a whole bunch of quotes and facts that relate to that topic underneath (all in list form). Then, write out your thesis in like one sentence, so that you can always refer back to it as you're writing your essay (this ensures that your thesis is sustained). Finally, expand this into an essay. Use historical language, a sustained thesis, and formal language. You definitely have the potential for writing a good essay, and I know that there are a lot of things to keep in mind, but if you want to improve in the subject these are all things you'll need to take on board.
This is a lot to think about. I don't know when your assessment is due, but if you ever want to post another essay, or even just a few sentences/paragraphs, I'd love to take a look to make sure you're on the right track. If you have any other questions, or want me to be clearer on any of my above points, please feel free to post again or send me a message. I hope we can help boost your teacher's perception of you! It's definitely possible, it will just take a bit of work :)
Jake
Jake
Post by: jamonwindeyer on June 14, 2016, 11:33:24 pm
Post by: birdwing341 on June 26, 2016, 03:30:53 pm
Thanks in advance!!
Post by: jakesilove on June 26, 2016, 09:25:10 pm
Hello again, I've written an essay on Hitler's role in the Nazi State from 1933-1939. I'm not too confident in terms of structure or content, so any advice, on everything, would be handy.
Thanks in advance!!
Hey! Below are my comments :)
Original Essay:
Spoiler
Evaluate Hitler’s role in the Nazi state between 1933 and 1939
Adolf Hitler’s impressive rise to power culminated in his appointment as Chancellor on 30 January 1933. Yet Hitler and Nazi Party were established as a party of negative consensus, a party built to come into power, but not one prepared to rule. It seems likely, then, that Hitler ruled Germany the only way he knew, as he ran the Nazi party; maintaining full authority and relying on public support, yet choosing to use it only when absolutely necessary or when he desired, increasingly rarely as time passed, as his focus shifted towards the establishment of “the greater German Reich”. Once in power, the establishment of the Führerprinzip, which characterised the state, the polycratic system of government, and the Führer Myth, combined with his foreign policy success all saw Hitler’s power and popularity soar as he maintained his position as dictator.
After Hitler assumed his position as head of the Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (DAP), the predecessor to the Nazi party, in 1921, he introduced the Führerprinzip into the party ideology. In essence, it gave the Führer the final decision in settling critical issues and gave Hitler the ability to create Nazi ideology. Once in power, this allowed Hitler the ultimate authority over any potential crisis that was occurring in Germany. Hitler used his position extensively in the consolidation of the party’s power, including in the draft of the Reichstag Fire Decree on 27 February 1933, which suspended key articles of the constitution that guaranteed the right to the freedom of speech. In response to the fire, the Volkischer Beobachter, the Nazi newspaper, declared that “the constitution is the will of the Führer”, a perfect example of the power Hitler’s position wielded. His power was reinforced through the Gauleiter system, which atomised society, and placed Hitler at the top of a chain of power that ran through each district, region, area and block. This ensured any decision Hitler made was effectively carried out throughout all of Germany, and gave his dictatorial position dictatorial power.
However, it was not in Hitler’s personality to take an active stance in the day-to-day running of the state, and instead he developed a system known as polycracy, where individuals and groups would be in constant conflict with other individuals and groups performing the same task. Whilst some historians interpret this system as a sign he was a “weak dictator”, the constant conflict actually enhanced Hitler’s position of power significantly, as Dietrich Bracher says “the antagonism between rival agencies was resolved solely in the key position of the Führer, which derived precisely from the complex opposition of power groups and personal ties”. Hitler’s lack of consistent and concrete beliefs also allowed individuals to interpret his statements in their own way and implement policy according to their beliefs, granting them further power, a process known as “Working towards the Führer”. One example is Philipp Bouhler’s policy of euthanasia, which came into being after he recognised Hitler’s views on race and belief in a world where the strong rule over the weak, and presented his idea to Hitler. The constant fighting between groups and the willingness of individuals to take governing into their own hands allowed Hitler to distance himself from government, and preserved his authority.
Yet according to Kershaw, the German people believed in Hitler as a man on a “historical mission to save Germany”, and thus his role in the Nazi state was not an “institutional one” but rather “charismatic”. And therefore in the eyes of the people, Hitler needed to be a man who was actively working to ensure the revival of German national sovereignty. The myth of Hitler as a hardworking leader was propagated in the Führer Myth by Joseph Goebbels, which he considered to be his greatest work. Goebbels portrayed Hitler as a man destined to rule over Germany, a man who gave up his family life for the service of a nation and a source of unification for an otherwise divided nation. Goebbels’ myth encouraged Germans to look at the harsh measures imposed by the regime and attribute them to Hitler’s subordinates and instead express a longing that “If only the Führer knew” everything would be alright. This was in deep contrast to the reality of Hitler, who was incredibly lazy, woke up at 11 am each morning and did little practical work in the running of the state, yet knew about everything that went on and cared little. The myth was so successful that even though Hitler contributed little to the everyday running of the state, his presence was vital for the popularity and survival of the regime, cementing his authority, which he rarely ever used.
As Hitler’s ultimate aim of creating a “greater Reich” became increasingly tenable, he began to use his power to engage in aggressive foreign policy. This is the area in which Hitler took the most interest in over the years from 1933 to 1939. He began first, in 1935, with a referendum in the Saarland on whether they wished to unite with Germany. The result was a 90% majority for affirmative, which boosted Hitler’s image as a man who was to restore German national honour. His successes continued with the “invasion” of the demilitarised Rhineland in 1936, which further emphasised Hitler’s ability to restore sovereignty. Hitler consistently portrayed himself as a man of peace to European leaders, but one that wished for a return of all the German people into one greater German Reich. This begun with the Anschluss with Austria in March 1938 and culminated in the Munich Conference in which Hitler was given access to the Czech Sudetenland later in 1938. For the German people, who had been so downcast by the diminutive Treaty of Versailles, Hitler’s actions in expanding the army and taking land for their nation gave him credibility and cemented his position further.
Therefore, it can be said that Hitler played an important role within the Nazi State from 1933 to 1939. Whilst he rarely played a role in the government of Germany, outside of pursuing foreign policy success, his position, heightened in power by the Führerprinzip and Führer Myth, gave him ultimate authority over the country.
Adolf Hitler’s impressive rise to power culminated in his appointment as Chancellor on 30 January 1933. Yet Hitler and Nazi Party were established as a party of negative consensus, a party built to come into power, but not one prepared to rule. It seems likely, then, that Hitler ruled Germany the only way he knew, as he ran the Nazi party; maintaining full authority and relying on public support, yet choosing to use it only when absolutely necessary or when he desired, increasingly rarely as time passed, as his focus shifted towards the establishment of “the greater German Reich”. Once in power, the establishment of the Führerprinzip, which characterised the state, the polycratic system of government, and the Führer Myth, combined with his foreign policy success all saw Hitler’s power and popularity soar as he maintained his position as dictator.
After Hitler assumed his position as head of the Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (DAP), the predecessor to the Nazi party, in 1921, he introduced the Führerprinzip into the party ideology. In essence, it gave the Führer the final decision in settling critical issues and gave Hitler the ability to create Nazi ideology. Once in power, this allowed Hitler the ultimate authority over any potential crisis that was occurring in Germany. Hitler used his position extensively in the consolidation of the party’s power, including in the draft of the Reichstag Fire Decree on 27 February 1933, which suspended key articles of the constitution that guaranteed the right to the freedom of speech. In response to the fire, the Volkischer Beobachter, the Nazi newspaper, declared that “the constitution is the will of the Führer”, a perfect example of the power Hitler’s position wielded. His power was reinforced through the Gauleiter system, which atomised society, and placed Hitler at the top of a chain of power that ran through each district, region, area and block. This ensured any decision Hitler made was effectively carried out throughout all of Germany, and gave his dictatorial position dictatorial power.
However, it was not in Hitler’s personality to take an active stance in the day-to-day running of the state, and instead he developed a system known as polycracy, where individuals and groups would be in constant conflict with other individuals and groups performing the same task. Whilst some historians interpret this system as a sign he was a “weak dictator”, the constant conflict actually enhanced Hitler’s position of power significantly, as Dietrich Bracher says “the antagonism between rival agencies was resolved solely in the key position of the Führer, which derived precisely from the complex opposition of power groups and personal ties”. Hitler’s lack of consistent and concrete beliefs also allowed individuals to interpret his statements in their own way and implement policy according to their beliefs, granting them further power, a process known as “Working towards the Führer”. One example is Philipp Bouhler’s policy of euthanasia, which came into being after he recognised Hitler’s views on race and belief in a world where the strong rule over the weak, and presented his idea to Hitler. The constant fighting between groups and the willingness of individuals to take governing into their own hands allowed Hitler to distance himself from government, and preserved his authority.
Yet according to Kershaw, the German people believed in Hitler as a man on a “historical mission to save Germany”, and thus his role in the Nazi state was not an “institutional one” but rather “charismatic”. And therefore in the eyes of the people, Hitler needed to be a man who was actively working to ensure the revival of German national sovereignty. The myth of Hitler as a hardworking leader was propagated in the Führer Myth by Joseph Goebbels, which he considered to be his greatest work. Goebbels portrayed Hitler as a man destined to rule over Germany, a man who gave up his family life for the service of a nation and a source of unification for an otherwise divided nation. Goebbels’ myth encouraged Germans to look at the harsh measures imposed by the regime and attribute them to Hitler’s subordinates and instead express a longing that “If only the Führer knew” everything would be alright. This was in deep contrast to the reality of Hitler, who was incredibly lazy, woke up at 11 am each morning and did little practical work in the running of the state, yet knew about everything that went on and cared little. The myth was so successful that even though Hitler contributed little to the everyday running of the state, his presence was vital for the popularity and survival of the regime, cementing his authority, which he rarely ever used.
As Hitler’s ultimate aim of creating a “greater Reich” became increasingly tenable, he began to use his power to engage in aggressive foreign policy. This is the area in which Hitler took the most interest in over the years from 1933 to 1939. He began first, in 1935, with a referendum in the Saarland on whether they wished to unite with Germany. The result was a 90% majority for affirmative, which boosted Hitler’s image as a man who was to restore German national honour. His successes continued with the “invasion” of the demilitarised Rhineland in 1936, which further emphasised Hitler’s ability to restore sovereignty. Hitler consistently portrayed himself as a man of peace to European leaders, but one that wished for a return of all the German people into one greater German Reich. This begun with the Anschluss with Austria in March 1938 and culminated in the Munich Conference in which Hitler was given access to the Czech Sudetenland later in 1938. For the German people, who had been so downcast by the diminutive Treaty of Versailles, Hitler’s actions in expanding the army and taking land for their nation gave him credibility and cemented his position further.
Therefore, it can be said that Hitler played an important role within the Nazi State from 1933 to 1939. Whilst he rarely played a role in the government of Germany, outside of pursuing foreign policy success, his position, heightened in power by the Führerprinzip and Führer Myth, gave him ultimate authority over the country.
Essay with comments:
Spoiler
Evaluate Hitler’s role in the Nazi state between 1933 and 1939
Adolf Hitler’s impressive rise to power culminated in his appointment as Chancellor on 30 January 1933. I would probably be careful using the word "impressive" to describe Hitler; whilst I don't necessarily disagree (on an objective level), let's not forget he was a bit of a dickhead. Maybe his "rapid and complete rise to power"? however, Hitler and Nazi Party were established as a party of negative consensus, a party built to come into power, but not one prepared to rule. nice It seems likely, then, that Hitler ruled Germany the only way he knew, as he ran the Nazi party; maintaining full authority and relying on public support, yet choosing to use it only when absolutely necessary or when he desired, increasingly rarely as time passed, as his focus shifted towards the establishment of “the greater German Reich”. Once in power, the establishment of the Führerprinzip, which characterised the state, the polycratic system of government, and the Führer Myth, combined with his foreign policy success all saw Hitler’s power and popularity soar as he maintained his position as dictator. Your use of historic language is phenomenal, and I really like your argument. I need you to make it a bit clearer though; was Hitler's role simply as a figurehead, a strong leader, or was it substantial? Was it a mix of both? You clearly understand the concepts, and are doing a great job of displaying your knowledge. but I need a single sentence that outlines your thesis in a clear, succinct way.
After Hitler assumed his position as head of the Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (DAP), the predecessor to the Nazi party, in 1921, he introduced the Führerprinzip into the party ideology. In essence, it gave the Führer the final decision in settling critical issues and gave Hitler the ability to create Nazi ideology. From memory, this was part of the 1921 25 point plan. See if you can get a bit more concrete here; find a quote, a proper date etc. Once in power, this allowed Hitler the ultimate authority over any potential crisis that was occurring in Germany. Hitler used his position extensively in the consolidation of the party’s power, including in the draft of the Reichstag Fire Decree on 27 February 1933, which suspended key articles of the constitution that guaranteed the right to the freedom of speech. In response to the fire, the Volkischer Beobachter, the Nazi newspaper, declared that “the constitution is the will of the Führer”, a perfect example of the power Hitler’s position wielded. His power was reinforced through the Gauleiter system, which atomised society, and placed Hitler at the top of a chain of power that ran through each district, region, area and block. This ensured any decision Hitler made was effectively carried out throughout all of Germany, and gave his dictatorial position dictatorial power. I need more here. This is really good, so I want to push you a bit further. Maybe you talk about it further below, but Hitler consolidated his power in many more ways than just the Reichstag Fire Decree. Think the Rohm massacre (I think it was Rohm, I could be wrong. A death toll of 200 comes to mind) in which the inner sanctum was culled, displaying the need for a SINGLE power etc. A few more examples would push this paragraph over the edge.
However, it was not in Hitler’s personality to take an active stance in the day-to-day running of the state, and instead he developed a system known as polycracy, where individuals and groups would be in constant conflict with other individuals and groups performing the same task. Whilst some historians interpret this system as a sign he was a “weak dictator”, the constant conflict actually enhanced Hitler’s position of power significantly, as Dietrich Bracher says “the antagonism between rival agencies was resolved solely in the key position of the Führer, which derived precisely from the complex opposition of power groups and personal ties”. I've always been a sucker for this argument; absolutely love it. Make your thesis clearer though: Hitler's role may have been one of a figurehead, but this was in no way any less calculated than the direct dictatorial power he exercised over Germany. Hitler’s lack of consistent and concrete beliefs also allowed individuals to interpret his statements in their own way and implement policy according to their beliefs, granting them further power, a process known as “Working towards the Führer”. One example is Philipp Bouhler’s policy of euthanasia, which came into being after he recognised Hitler’s views on race and belief in a world where the strong rule over the weak, and presented his idea to Hitler. The constant fighting between groups and the willingness of individuals to take governing into their own hands allowed Hitler to distance himself from government, and preserved his authority. Try to add some more specific, accurate, relevant and detailed examples. Action T4 took a certain number of lives, over a certain period of time; It's also not quite clear how this links into your overall thesis (I understand how it does, but make it clearer to the marker). Were there squabbles between Party leaders? The answer is obviously yes; use those examples to your advantage. I don't remember who it was, but I'm recalling something to do with Himmler.
Yet according to Kershaw, the German people believed in Hitler as a man on a “historical mission to save Germany”, and thus his role in the Nazi state was not an “institutional one” but rather “charismatic”. If you think that you're "not too confident in terms of structure or content", you're dreaming; the structure and content has been fantastic so far. You clearly sum up what you're about to talk about at the start of the paragraph, lead into your thesis and bring it home with some gorgeously selected facts. I think, though, that given the nuance of this argument, you should critique each point a bit more. Agreeing with historians is easy; disagreeing is far more fun. Yes, Hitler had an actual role, a 'figurehead' role, and a 'charismatic' role, but is there a reason to think that any of these were not actually the case? You claim he took no heed of the day-to-day operations; are you sure about that? Are there ways to critique each of your thesis pillars, and thus make them seem stronger and more nuanced? I'm only suggesting this because this has been a great essay so far; extending yourself will only make it better. And 0o
therefore in the eyes of the people, Hitler needed to be a man who was actively working to ensure the revival of German national sovereignty. The myth of Hitler as a hardworking leader was propagated in the Führer Myth by Joseph Goebbels, which he considered to be his greatest work. Where did Goebbels paint this epic picture? There are some great stats about the number of televisions increasing exponentially from 1933-39, propaganda films released, etc. etc. Use those facts to your advantage.Goebbels portrayed Hitler as a man destined to rule over Germany, a man who gave up his family life for the service of a nation and a source of unification for an otherwise divided nation. Goebbels’ myth encouraged Germans to look at the harsh measures imposed by the regime and attribute them to Hitler’s subordinates and instead express a longing that “If only the Führer knew” everything would be alright. Use the Kristallnacht example (as it falls within your time period); despite mass outcry at the horrors commitment (or, more aptly, outcry regarding the property damage), the sentiment was defensive of the Fuhrer at every turn. Truly incredible, really. Disgusting, but incredible. This was in deep contrast to the reality of Hitler, who was incredibly lazy, woke up at 11 am each morning and did little practical work in the running of the state, yet knew about everything that went on and cared little. Given the high level of your use of historical language thus far, Hitler being described as "incredible lazy" was pretty jarring. Probably change that entire sentence, cutting it down to a few words if possible. Also, get a primary source quote, because this statistic sounds juvenile (not untrue, but like something you could have made up on the spot). The myth was so successful that even though Hitler contributed little to the everyday running of the state, his presence was vital for the popularity and survival of the regime, cementing his authority, which he rarely ever used.
As Hitler’s ultimate aim of creating a “greater Reich” If you know the relevant German, use that, and put the English translation in brackets. became increasingly tenable, he began to use his power to engage in aggressive foreign policy. This is the area in which Hitler took the most interest in over the years from 1933 to 1939. He began first, in 1935, Lots of things happened in 1935; the more specific the date, the better. with a referendum in the Saarland on whether they wished to unite with Germany. The result was a 90% majority for affirmative, which boosted Hitler’s image as a man who was to restore German national honour. His successes continued with the “invasion” of the demilitarised Rhineland in 1936, which further emphasised Hitler’s ability to restore sovereignty. Hitler consistently portrayed himself as a man of peace to European leaders, but one that wished for a return of all the German people into one greater German Reich. This begun with the Anschluss with Austria in March 1938 and culminated in the Munich Conference in which Hitler was given access to the Czech Sudetenland later in 1938. For the German people, who had been so downcast by the diminutive Treaty of Versailles, Hitler’s actions in expanding the army and taking land for their nation gave him credibility and cemented his position further. Not a massive fan of this paragraph. In all the others, you discuss facts/statistics, use them to build your thesis, and then support it with more facts/stats. I think here you've just really explained what happened. Instead, make an argument, and say something like "this is evident in the Anschluss with Australia, etc. etc. Also, emotive language like "downcast" doesn't have any place in History, unless you are quoting a historian. You can definitely find a quote somewhere, but don't get too teary eyed for the German people.
Therefore, it can be said that Hitler played an important role within the Nazi State from 1933 to 1939. Whilst he rarely played a role in the government of Germany, outside of pursuing foreign policy success, his position, heightened in power by the Führerprinzip and Führer Myth, gave him ultimate authority over the country.
You conclusion needs to actually sum up your argument, which is far more nuanced that two sentences can describe. Hitler was a man with many roles; authoritative, administrative, idolatry and adversarial. He played each role in a varying capacity, and Historians have long debated over which was most prevalent, or in any way purposive. Your essay is great, and I think the comments above are enough to turn this into something really really incredible. The only thing I think this is missing overall is a sense of debate among historians. You don't need to turn it into a historiographical study, but answering this question is one of the hardest things Modern Historians are faced with, and many disagree vehemently with each other. Bring that in; "A says this. B, in disagreement, suggests this" etc. Even do this a little, and the marker will be blown away. Congratulations on a great essay.
Adolf Hitler’s impressive rise to power culminated in his appointment as Chancellor on 30 January 1933. I would probably be careful using the word "impressive" to describe Hitler; whilst I don't necessarily disagree (on an objective level), let's not forget he was a bit of a dickhead. Maybe his "rapid and complete rise to power"? however, Hitler and Nazi Party were established as a party of negative consensus, a party built to come into power, but not one prepared to rule. nice It seems likely, then, that Hitler ruled Germany the only way he knew, as he ran the Nazi party; maintaining full authority and relying on public support, yet choosing to use it only when absolutely necessary or when he desired, increasingly rarely as time passed, as his focus shifted towards the establishment of “the greater German Reich”. Once in power, the establishment of the Führerprinzip, which characterised the state, the polycratic system of government, and the Führer Myth, combined with his foreign policy success all saw Hitler’s power and popularity soar as he maintained his position as dictator. Your use of historic language is phenomenal, and I really like your argument. I need you to make it a bit clearer though; was Hitler's role simply as a figurehead, a strong leader, or was it substantial? Was it a mix of both? You clearly understand the concepts, and are doing a great job of displaying your knowledge. but I need a single sentence that outlines your thesis in a clear, succinct way.
After Hitler assumed his position as head of the Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (DAP), the predecessor to the Nazi party, in 1921, he introduced the Führerprinzip into the party ideology. In essence, it gave the Führer the final decision in settling critical issues and gave Hitler the ability to create Nazi ideology. From memory, this was part of the 1921 25 point plan. See if you can get a bit more concrete here; find a quote, a proper date etc. Once in power, this allowed Hitler the ultimate authority over any potential crisis that was occurring in Germany. Hitler used his position extensively in the consolidation of the party’s power, including in the draft of the Reichstag Fire Decree on 27 February 1933, which suspended key articles of the constitution that guaranteed the right to the freedom of speech. In response to the fire, the Volkischer Beobachter, the Nazi newspaper, declared that “the constitution is the will of the Führer”, a perfect example of the power Hitler’s position wielded. His power was reinforced through the Gauleiter system, which atomised society, and placed Hitler at the top of a chain of power that ran through each district, region, area and block. This ensured any decision Hitler made was effectively carried out throughout all of Germany, and gave his dictatorial position dictatorial power. I need more here. This is really good, so I want to push you a bit further. Maybe you talk about it further below, but Hitler consolidated his power in many more ways than just the Reichstag Fire Decree. Think the Rohm massacre (I think it was Rohm, I could be wrong. A death toll of 200 comes to mind) in which the inner sanctum was culled, displaying the need for a SINGLE power etc. A few more examples would push this paragraph over the edge.
However, it was not in Hitler’s personality to take an active stance in the day-to-day running of the state, and instead he developed a system known as polycracy, where individuals and groups would be in constant conflict with other individuals and groups performing the same task. Whilst some historians interpret this system as a sign he was a “weak dictator”, the constant conflict actually enhanced Hitler’s position of power significantly, as Dietrich Bracher says “the antagonism between rival agencies was resolved solely in the key position of the Führer, which derived precisely from the complex opposition of power groups and personal ties”. I've always been a sucker for this argument; absolutely love it. Make your thesis clearer though: Hitler's role may have been one of a figurehead, but this was in no way any less calculated than the direct dictatorial power he exercised over Germany. Hitler’s lack of consistent and concrete beliefs also allowed individuals to interpret his statements in their own way and implement policy according to their beliefs, granting them further power, a process known as “Working towards the Führer”. One example is Philipp Bouhler’s policy of euthanasia, which came into being after he recognised Hitler’s views on race and belief in a world where the strong rule over the weak, and presented his idea to Hitler. The constant fighting between groups and the willingness of individuals to take governing into their own hands allowed Hitler to distance himself from government, and preserved his authority. Try to add some more specific, accurate, relevant and detailed examples. Action T4 took a certain number of lives, over a certain period of time; It's also not quite clear how this links into your overall thesis (I understand how it does, but make it clearer to the marker). Were there squabbles between Party leaders? The answer is obviously yes; use those examples to your advantage. I don't remember who it was, but I'm recalling something to do with Himmler.
Yet according to Kershaw, the German people believed in Hitler as a man on a “historical mission to save Germany”, and thus his role in the Nazi state was not an “institutional one” but rather “charismatic”. If you think that you're "not too confident in terms of structure or content", you're dreaming; the structure and content has been fantastic so far. You clearly sum up what you're about to talk about at the start of the paragraph, lead into your thesis and bring it home with some gorgeously selected facts. I think, though, that given the nuance of this argument, you should critique each point a bit more. Agreeing with historians is easy; disagreeing is far more fun. Yes, Hitler had an actual role, a 'figurehead' role, and a 'charismatic' role, but is there a reason to think that any of these were not actually the case? You claim he took no heed of the day-to-day operations; are you sure about that? Are there ways to critique each of your thesis pillars, and thus make them seem stronger and more nuanced? I'm only suggesting this because this has been a great essay so far; extending yourself will only make it better. And 0o
therefore in the eyes of the people, Hitler needed to be a man who was actively working to ensure the revival of German national sovereignty. The myth of Hitler as a hardworking leader was propagated in the Führer Myth by Joseph Goebbels, which he considered to be his greatest work. Where did Goebbels paint this epic picture? There are some great stats about the number of televisions increasing exponentially from 1933-39, propaganda films released, etc. etc. Use those facts to your advantage.Goebbels portrayed Hitler as a man destined to rule over Germany, a man who gave up his family life for the service of a nation and a source of unification for an otherwise divided nation. Goebbels’ myth encouraged Germans to look at the harsh measures imposed by the regime and attribute them to Hitler’s subordinates and instead express a longing that “If only the Führer knew” everything would be alright. Use the Kristallnacht example (as it falls within your time period); despite mass outcry at the horrors commitment (or, more aptly, outcry regarding the property damage), the sentiment was defensive of the Fuhrer at every turn. Truly incredible, really. Disgusting, but incredible. This was in deep contrast to the reality of Hitler, who was incredibly lazy, woke up at 11 am each morning and did little practical work in the running of the state, yet knew about everything that went on and cared little. Given the high level of your use of historical language thus far, Hitler being described as "incredible lazy" was pretty jarring. Probably change that entire sentence, cutting it down to a few words if possible. Also, get a primary source quote, because this statistic sounds juvenile (not untrue, but like something you could have made up on the spot). The myth was so successful that even though Hitler contributed little to the everyday running of the state, his presence was vital for the popularity and survival of the regime, cementing his authority, which he rarely ever used.
As Hitler’s ultimate aim of creating a “greater Reich” If you know the relevant German, use that, and put the English translation in brackets. became increasingly tenable, he began to use his power to engage in aggressive foreign policy. This is the area in which Hitler took the most interest in over the years from 1933 to 1939. He began first, in 1935, Lots of things happened in 1935; the more specific the date, the better. with a referendum in the Saarland on whether they wished to unite with Germany. The result was a 90% majority for affirmative, which boosted Hitler’s image as a man who was to restore German national honour. His successes continued with the “invasion” of the demilitarised Rhineland in 1936, which further emphasised Hitler’s ability to restore sovereignty. Hitler consistently portrayed himself as a man of peace to European leaders, but one that wished for a return of all the German people into one greater German Reich. This begun with the Anschluss with Austria in March 1938 and culminated in the Munich Conference in which Hitler was given access to the Czech Sudetenland later in 1938. For the German people, who had been so downcast by the diminutive Treaty of Versailles, Hitler’s actions in expanding the army and taking land for their nation gave him credibility and cemented his position further. Not a massive fan of this paragraph. In all the others, you discuss facts/statistics, use them to build your thesis, and then support it with more facts/stats. I think here you've just really explained what happened. Instead, make an argument, and say something like "this is evident in the Anschluss with Australia, etc. etc. Also, emotive language like "downcast" doesn't have any place in History, unless you are quoting a historian. You can definitely find a quote somewhere, but don't get too teary eyed for the German people.
Therefore, it can be said that Hitler played an important role within the Nazi State from 1933 to 1939. Whilst he rarely played a role in the government of Germany, outside of pursuing foreign policy success, his position, heightened in power by the Führerprinzip and Führer Myth, gave him ultimate authority over the country.
You conclusion needs to actually sum up your argument, which is far more nuanced that two sentences can describe. Hitler was a man with many roles; authoritative, administrative, idolatry and adversarial. He played each role in a varying capacity, and Historians have long debated over which was most prevalent, or in any way purposive. Your essay is great, and I think the comments above are enough to turn this into something really really incredible. The only thing I think this is missing overall is a sense of debate among historians. You don't need to turn it into a historiographical study, but answering this question is one of the hardest things Modern Historians are faced with, and many disagree vehemently with each other. Bring that in; "A says this. B, in disagreement, suggests this" etc. Even do this a little, and the marker will be blown away. Congratulations on a great essay.
Post by: birdwing341 on June 27, 2016, 04:48:44 pm
Post by: jakesilove on June 27, 2016, 05:34:48 pm
Thanks for the feedback Jake. Will probably cut that last paragraph and put more effort into clearing up my thesis both in the introduction and other paragraphs. Given my exam is coming up soon, I wanted to have some idea of where I should be going if a question like this appeared in the exam (which I think is very likely). Thanks very much!!
No problem at all! Let me know if I can help in any other way; it was a great essay, congratulations
Post by: atar27 on July 08, 2016, 06:12:47 pm
Evaluate the view that Operation Barbarossa was a significant turning point that led to Germany’s defeat.
Any help will be much appreciated!!
Thank you :)
Post by: bethtyso on July 21, 2016, 11:02:04 am
'To what extent was the collapse of collective security the main cause of the tensions that led to the outbreak of conflict in Europe?'
Could you help me out please?
Post by: atar27 on July 21, 2016, 04:21:15 pm
Thank You
P.S. Please mark the essay as soon as possible please, i need it by tomorrow morning
I highly appreciate your help! THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!
Post by: jamonwindeyer on July 27, 2016, 12:43:39 am
Post by: jakesilove on July 27, 2016, 10:51:30 pm
Hi, Could you please check my history essay, and if it is okay could you please send the feedback on a word document since I cannot access the spoilers
Thank You
P.S. Please mark the essay as soon as possible please, i need it by tomorrow morning
I highly appreciate your help! THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!
Hey! Sorry that I didn't get to your essay in time; unfortunately, there's no way that we manage a one day turn around. Hope that you managed to complete an essay that you were happy with, and I'd love to take a look at any future drafts!
Jake
Post by: Emerald99 on September 28, 2016, 07:39:13 pm
Post by: sudodds on September 28, 2016, 08:11:47 pm
How many historians should I include in an essay?
Maybe 1-2 per paragraph? However don't stress too much about historians, as from what I have been told the marking centre is moving away from them being a necessity. They'd much rather see you formulate your own ideas and judgements, than regurgitate those of a historian. Basically, don't use a historian to replace your own judgement, but moreso, if necessary, just to strengthen or back up your own judgement. According to my teacher, you can still probably get a 23+/25 in an essay without using historians, but I don't know if that is a definitive fact. Hope this helped :)
Post by: onepunchboy on October 01, 2016, 07:29:32 pm
Post by: jakesilove on October 02, 2016, 10:13:49 am
hello this is my revision essay for one of the past hsc questions could someone take a look at it? thanks !!!!
Hey! Check out my comments below :) I'll just note that I didn't do this topic, so I can't really help when it comes to deciding what you should or shouldn't include. I'll just take a look at your essay as a whole!
Original essay
Spoiler
Assess the consequences of the war in 1948 for both Israel and the Palestinians in the period up to 1967
The 1948 war had huge unforeseen consequences on both the Israeli’s and Palestinian people. For the Jews, the most significant effect was the growth of Arab nationalism that created a more forceful adversary; however the influx of immigrants and the acquired territory were also important results. The Palestinian people had simultaneous highly significant outcomes of the war which overall created a changed of attitude. A large amount of their population was displaced, a new form of warfare was established and the Palestinian Liberation Organisation was initiated.
The UN partition Resolution on 29 November 1947, partitioning the territory of Palestine into an Israel State and an Arab state had been the impetus for the War of Independence/ Catastrophe. Further more with Plan D being implemented in April and May 1948 aiming to quell the increasing Arab violence against Jews, it involved the destruction of Arab villages for the first time. With implications of ethnic cleansing, it further lead to increased hostility in both sides leading to the 1948 war.
There were many adverse consequences for both sides, particularly the Palestinians due to their loss in the War of Catastrophe. One consequence was the creation of the Israeli state and the simultaneous ceasing of Palestine to exist. For Israel however suffering high casualties , its territory expanded to include that the UN had originally allocated for the new Arab State, covering about 80 percent of the old Palestine. Meanwhile the Arab states and Palestinians refused diplomatic recognition to Israel and would not acknowledge the Jewish right to exist. Schlaim states that “Israel emerged from the war economically exhausted but with superior organisation and morale, a tremendous sense of achievement, and a confident outlook on the future that formed a solid foundation for the development of parliamentary democracy”. Contrastingly no Arab states emerged after 1949, Palestinian historians assert this was because Israel, supported by Western powers prevented it.
A highly significant consequence of the 1948-9 war to the Palestinians was the refugee crisis with about 700,000 Palestinians fleeing their homes in Israeli-controlled territory. Resolution 194 called for reparation of Palestinian Refugees, but Israel refused the return of thousands of Arabs to their homes. For many Jews, this was justified on the account that Arabs had not accepted the UN partition, and thus shouldn't need to cater for their return. Many also simply claimed it was a hindrance to the new state. The bulk of the refugees ended up in the West Bank and Gaza strip and in neighbouring Arab countries especially Transjordan, Syria and Lebanon. Intellectual Palestinians went to the big cities but the majority fellaheen were unskilled and went to appalling UN camps in neighbouring Arab cities. Those in camps had limited access to employment and were heavily reliant on charity, many became extremely ill due to poverty and poor living conditions. The camps were places of desperation, degradation and insecurity, and remain so until this very day. Arab hosts did little to integrate them into their places of refuge, as they believed it was Israel’s problem because they had created the issue. This situation resulted in the Arab states continuing refusal to negotiate directly with, or recognize Israel.
After the 1948-9 war there was a massive growth of Jewish immigrants in to Israel, which caused a large strain on its economy but also a strengthening of the Zionist cause. The outbreak of the war caused an increase in anti-Jewish violence in the countries of the Middle East and North Africa. In Cairo and Berut synagogues were attacked and Jewish houses looted, however there is controversy among historians concerning whether Israeli agents planted bombs in Jewish synagogues in order to stimulate immigration to Israel. Within weeks of the establishment of the Israeli state, a steady stream of immigrants began to arrive; within 5 years the population had doubled, from approximately 650,000 in 1948 to 1.4 million in 1951. Causing immense strains on Israels undeveloped economy with severe housing shortages. Although some Jews emigrated because of the influence of Zionism that proclaimed the law of return of the Jewish people , many came as a result of persecution by Arab and other countries. The largest single influx of Jews came from Iraq , 123371 in total, with their property seized and being unable to take assets with them. The second largest group of immigrants were the 120 000 survivors of the Holocaust, many of whom had been held in British detention camps in Cyprus. The Jewish exodus was also influenced by the Zionist underground movement, which convinced many Jews that emigration offered the best solution to their problems. Thus due to the large influxes of Jews there were hard strains on the economy but ultimately strengthened the Zionist cause as a consequence of the 1948 war.
The growth of Arab nationalism and introduction of the Fedayeen was the most significant consequences for Israel, as they had to deal with a more assertive, drastic adversary. Fedayeen attacks across the border were a constant source of tension for the Israelis. These raids led to the murder of Israeli citizens and terrorist attacks and according to the U.N. Truce Supervision Organisation nearly 500 Arabs and over 120 Israeli’s were killed. Because Arab governments denied responsibility, these attacks severely increased tension; with Israel responding with major retaliatory raids across armistice lines. In 1954, Gamal Abdel Nasser became president of Egypt and for months Nasser had been unsuccessfully seeking weapons from USA to modernize his army. After the Gaza Raid in 1955 there was a new urgency, so Nasser turned to the communist bloc and purchased weapons from Czech in September 1955, officially sponsoring Fedayeen raids into Israel. Egypt’s growing ties with the Soviet Union aroused the anger of the Western powers and apprehensions in Israel about Nasser’s ultimate ambitions, with many in west believing Egypt was on the way to becoming a dominant regional power as they pursued a fiercely nationalistic policy. Nasser also led the Free Officers movement which composed of young junior army officers devoted to unseat the Egyptian monarchy and its British counterparts, leading to an enhancement of Arab nationalism. Furthermore it played a major role in founding the Palestinian Liberation Organisation in 1964 and angering the superpowers (Britain, France and America) by pursing a fiercely independent nationalistic policy. By attempting to unite Arab countries and establishing himself as the leader of the Arab world, Nasser created a more forceful and radical opposition to the Israeli Zionist movement. By contrast Efraim Karsh states that “The actual policies of the Arab states show they have been less motivated by concern for pan-Arabism, let alone for the protection of the Palestinians, than by their own interest”, however this doesn’t negate the fact that arab nationalism increased anyhow creating a more assertive and drastic adversary. Thus as a consequences of the 1948, the nature of conflict changed;involving foreign powers and a different type of warfare fuelled with increased arab nationalism.
It can be clearly seen that the 1948-9 war had huge consequences on both the Palestinian and Jewish people. However primarily, the Palestinians had a radical change of attitude due to the refugee crisis and and increase in arab nationalism , which resulted in a new form of warfare that impacted the Israeli’s
Should I mention the Suez War? Is there anything I should add that is appropriate for the Q?
The 1948 war had huge unforeseen consequences on both the Israeli’s and Palestinian people. For the Jews, the most significant effect was the growth of Arab nationalism that created a more forceful adversary; however the influx of immigrants and the acquired territory were also important results. The Palestinian people had simultaneous highly significant outcomes of the war which overall created a changed of attitude. A large amount of their population was displaced, a new form of warfare was established and the Palestinian Liberation Organisation was initiated.
The UN partition Resolution on 29 November 1947, partitioning the territory of Palestine into an Israel State and an Arab state had been the impetus for the War of Independence/ Catastrophe. Further more with Plan D being implemented in April and May 1948 aiming to quell the increasing Arab violence against Jews, it involved the destruction of Arab villages for the first time. With implications of ethnic cleansing, it further lead to increased hostility in both sides leading to the 1948 war.
There were many adverse consequences for both sides, particularly the Palestinians due to their loss in the War of Catastrophe. One consequence was the creation of the Israeli state and the simultaneous ceasing of Palestine to exist. For Israel however suffering high casualties , its territory expanded to include that the UN had originally allocated for the new Arab State, covering about 80 percent of the old Palestine. Meanwhile the Arab states and Palestinians refused diplomatic recognition to Israel and would not acknowledge the Jewish right to exist. Schlaim states that “Israel emerged from the war economically exhausted but with superior organisation and morale, a tremendous sense of achievement, and a confident outlook on the future that formed a solid foundation for the development of parliamentary democracy”. Contrastingly no Arab states emerged after 1949, Palestinian historians assert this was because Israel, supported by Western powers prevented it.
A highly significant consequence of the 1948-9 war to the Palestinians was the refugee crisis with about 700,000 Palestinians fleeing their homes in Israeli-controlled territory. Resolution 194 called for reparation of Palestinian Refugees, but Israel refused the return of thousands of Arabs to their homes. For many Jews, this was justified on the account that Arabs had not accepted the UN partition, and thus shouldn't need to cater for their return. Many also simply claimed it was a hindrance to the new state. The bulk of the refugees ended up in the West Bank and Gaza strip and in neighbouring Arab countries especially Transjordan, Syria and Lebanon. Intellectual Palestinians went to the big cities but the majority fellaheen were unskilled and went to appalling UN camps in neighbouring Arab cities. Those in camps had limited access to employment and were heavily reliant on charity, many became extremely ill due to poverty and poor living conditions. The camps were places of desperation, degradation and insecurity, and remain so until this very day. Arab hosts did little to integrate them into their places of refuge, as they believed it was Israel’s problem because they had created the issue. This situation resulted in the Arab states continuing refusal to negotiate directly with, or recognize Israel.
After the 1948-9 war there was a massive growth of Jewish immigrants in to Israel, which caused a large strain on its economy but also a strengthening of the Zionist cause. The outbreak of the war caused an increase in anti-Jewish violence in the countries of the Middle East and North Africa. In Cairo and Berut synagogues were attacked and Jewish houses looted, however there is controversy among historians concerning whether Israeli agents planted bombs in Jewish synagogues in order to stimulate immigration to Israel. Within weeks of the establishment of the Israeli state, a steady stream of immigrants began to arrive; within 5 years the population had doubled, from approximately 650,000 in 1948 to 1.4 million in 1951. Causing immense strains on Israels undeveloped economy with severe housing shortages. Although some Jews emigrated because of the influence of Zionism that proclaimed the law of return of the Jewish people , many came as a result of persecution by Arab and other countries. The largest single influx of Jews came from Iraq , 123371 in total, with their property seized and being unable to take assets with them. The second largest group of immigrants were the 120 000 survivors of the Holocaust, many of whom had been held in British detention camps in Cyprus. The Jewish exodus was also influenced by the Zionist underground movement, which convinced many Jews that emigration offered the best solution to their problems. Thus due to the large influxes of Jews there were hard strains on the economy but ultimately strengthened the Zionist cause as a consequence of the 1948 war.
The growth of Arab nationalism and introduction of the Fedayeen was the most significant consequences for Israel, as they had to deal with a more assertive, drastic adversary. Fedayeen attacks across the border were a constant source of tension for the Israelis. These raids led to the murder of Israeli citizens and terrorist attacks and according to the U.N. Truce Supervision Organisation nearly 500 Arabs and over 120 Israeli’s were killed. Because Arab governments denied responsibility, these attacks severely increased tension; with Israel responding with major retaliatory raids across armistice lines. In 1954, Gamal Abdel Nasser became president of Egypt and for months Nasser had been unsuccessfully seeking weapons from USA to modernize his army. After the Gaza Raid in 1955 there was a new urgency, so Nasser turned to the communist bloc and purchased weapons from Czech in September 1955, officially sponsoring Fedayeen raids into Israel. Egypt’s growing ties with the Soviet Union aroused the anger of the Western powers and apprehensions in Israel about Nasser’s ultimate ambitions, with many in west believing Egypt was on the way to becoming a dominant regional power as they pursued a fiercely nationalistic policy. Nasser also led the Free Officers movement which composed of young junior army officers devoted to unseat the Egyptian monarchy and its British counterparts, leading to an enhancement of Arab nationalism. Furthermore it played a major role in founding the Palestinian Liberation Organisation in 1964 and angering the superpowers (Britain, France and America) by pursing a fiercely independent nationalistic policy. By attempting to unite Arab countries and establishing himself as the leader of the Arab world, Nasser created a more forceful and radical opposition to the Israeli Zionist movement. By contrast Efraim Karsh states that “The actual policies of the Arab states show they have been less motivated by concern for pan-Arabism, let alone for the protection of the Palestinians, than by their own interest”, however this doesn’t negate the fact that arab nationalism increased anyhow creating a more assertive and drastic adversary. Thus as a consequences of the 1948, the nature of conflict changed;involving foreign powers and a different type of warfare fuelled with increased arab nationalism.
It can be clearly seen that the 1948-9 war had huge consequences on both the Palestinian and Jewish people. However primarily, the Palestinians had a radical change of attitude due to the refugee crisis and and increase in arab nationalism , which resulted in a new form of warfare that impacted the Israeli’s
Should I mention the Suez War? Is there anything I should add that is appropriate for the Q?
Essay with comments
Spoiler
Assess the consequences of the war in 1948 for both Israel and the Palestinians in the period up to 1967
The 1948 war had huge unforeseen consequences on both the Israeli’s and Palestinian people. For the Jews, the most significant effect was the growth of Arab nationalism that created a more forceful adversary; however the influx of immigrants and the acquired territory were also important results. The Palestinian people had simultaneous highly significant outcomes of the war which overall created a changed of attitude. This last sentence is very vague; try to be specific when discussing your thesis (you don't want to FORESHADOW it, to be proven later, you want to STATE it in its entirety). Explain what the specific outcomes are, and what the change in attitude actually was A large amount of their population was displaced, How much? You need to use specific, accurate, relevant and detailed examples here! a new form of warfare was established and the Palestinian Liberation Organisation was initiated.
Good introduction, which clearly answers the question and brings a lot of nuance to your thesis. You need to be more specific about your points; in History, you don't want to be saying "I will prove an interesting point in this essay", you want to say "I will prove THIS SPECIFIC interesting point in this essay". The 'first half' of your intro is present, but you need to add a 'second half' of explanation/depth/detail
The UN p [P? Capitalise?]artition Resolution on 29 November 1947, Great stat partitioning the territory of Palestine into an Israel State and an Arab state had been the impetus for the War of Independence/ Catastrophe. Be careful when making definitive statements. Rather than THE impetus, perhaps a significant factor? Further more with Plan D being implemented in April and May 1948 aiming to quell the increasing Arab violence against Jews, it involved the destruction of Arab villages for the first time. Restructure this last sentence; read it outloud and see if it makes sense! Good detail though. With implications of ethnic cleansing, it further lead to increased hostility in both sides leading to the 1948 war.
Great points, but I think you could do with some 'linking' words to show that this is all one argument. 'A' primarily caused 'B'. Significantly, 'A' did this, which led to this, with in turn resulted in 'B'. etc.
There were many adverse consequences for both sides, particularly the Palestinians due to their loss in the War of Catastrophe. Can you be more specific here? How many died? Also, introduce the fact that there are two names for this war (depending on the side of the war one fought) from the start, or at least make it more clear One consequence was the creation of the Israeli state and the simultaneous ceasing of Palestine to exist. For Israel however suffering high casualties , its territory expanded to include that the UN had originally allocated for the new Arab State, covering about 80 percent of the old Palestine. Restructure this sentence; needs to make more sense Meanwhile the Arab states and Palestinians refused diplomatic recognition to Israel and would not acknowledge the Jewish right to exist. Schlaim states that “Israel emerged from the war economically exhausted but with superior organisation and morale, a tremendous sense of achievement, and a confident outlook on the future that formed a solid foundation for the development of parliamentary democracy”. Careful using such long historian's quotes. Try to cut it down to the main point, and then explain the thesis yourself. Contrastingly no Arab states emerged after 1949, Palestinian historians assert this was because Israel, supported by Western powers prevented it.
So what is your conclusion? A bit too much (only a bit) is explaining what happened; there isn't QUITE enough analysis of your own here. Good use of historians, but try to link together ideas; OF COURSE the two sides will have differing opinions; is there any way to make an overall assessment? Probably not, but it's worth bringing up.
A highly significant consequence of the 1948-9 war to the Palestinians was the refugee crisis with about 700,000 Palestinians fleeing their homes in Israeli-controlled territory. Resolution 194 called for reparation of Palestinian Refugees, but Israel refused the return of thousands of Arabs to their homes. For many Jews, Careful here. Was it the Jews, or the Israelis? Just make sure your terminology is correct; their defining feature may not be their religion, but their nationality. this was justified on the account that Arabs had not accepted the UN partition, and thus shouldn't need to cater for their return. Many also simply claimed it was a hindrance to the new state. Who claimed this? The bulk of the refugees ended up in the West Bank and Gaza strip and in neighbouring Arab countries especially Transjordan, Syria and Lebanon. Intellectual Palestinians went to the big cities Bit colloquial here; 'Larger cities, such as...' but the majority fellaheen? What is this? were unskilled and went to appalling UN camps in neighbouring Arab cities. Appalling how? How did you make that assessment? Those in camps had limited access to employment and were heavily reliant on charity, many became extremely ill due to poverty and poor living conditions. The camps were places of desperation, degradation and insecurity, and remain so until this very day. Arab hosts did little to integrate them into their places of refuge, as they believed it was Israel’s problem because they had created the issue. This situation resulted in the Arab states continuing refusal to negotiate directly with, or recognize Israel.
I need way more statistics here. Who made the claims? How many died? What were the conditions specifically like?
After the 1948-9 war there was a massive growth of Jewish immigrants in to Israel, which caused a large strain on its economy but also a strengthening of the Zionist cause. WHAT WAS THIS INCREASE? 40%? 100%? The outbreak of the war caused an increase in anti-Jewish violence in the countries of the Middle East and North Africa. In Cairo and Berut synagogues were attacked and Jewish houses looted, however there is controversy among historians concerning whether Israeli agents planted bombs in Jewish synagogues in order to stimulate immigration to Israel. Which historians? Within weeks of the establishment of the Israeli state, a steady stream of immigrants began to arrive; within 5 years the population had doubled, from approximately 650,000 in 1948 to 1.4 million in 1951. Causing immense strains on Israels undeveloped economy with severe housing shortages. Although some Jews emigrated because of the influence of Zionism that proclaimed the law of return of the Jewish people , many came as a result of persecution by Arab and other countries. The largest single influx of Jews came from Iraq , 123371 in total, with their property seized and being unable to take assets with them. The second largest group of immigrants were the 120 000 survivors of the Holocaust, many of whom had been held in British detention camps in Cyprus. Great use of statistics; keep doing this throughout the rest of your essay! The Jewish exodus was also influenced by the Zionist underground movement, which convinced many Jews that emigration offered the best solution to their problems. Thus due to the large influxes of Jews there were hard strains on the economy but ultimately strengthened the Zionist cause as a consequence of the 1948 war.
The growth of Arab nationalism and introduction of the Fedayeen was the most significant consequences for Israel, as they had to deal with a more assertive, drastic adversary. Good. Use words like 'most significant' when developing your thesis; it makes it clear that different factors have different weights. I need to feel this more strongly throughout the first part of your essay, though. Potentially, you might want to put your 'most significant' factor first; if not, you should ALLUDE to it throughout your previous discussion. ie. This factor is important, however other factors were far more significant etc. Fedayeen attacks across the border were a constant source of tension for the Israelis. These raids led to the murder of Israeli citizens and terrorist attacks and according to the U.N. Truce Supervision Organisation nearly 500 Arabs and over 120 Israeli’s were killed. Because Arab governments denied responsibility, these attacks severely increased tension; with Israel responding with major retaliatory raids across armistice lines. In 1954, Gamal Abdel Nasser became president of Egypt and for months Nasser had been unsuccessfully seeking weapons from USA to modernize his army. After the Gaza Raid in 1955 there was a new urgency, so Nasser turned to the communist bloc and purchased weapons from Czech in September 1955, officially sponsoring Fedayeen raids into Israel. Egypt’s growing ties with the Soviet Union aroused the anger of the Western powers and apprehensions in Israel about Nasser’s ultimate ambitions, with many in west believing Egypt was on the way to becoming a dominant regional power as they pursued a fiercely nationalistic policy. Nasser also led the Free Officers movement which composed of young junior army officers devoted to unseat the Egyptian monarchy and its British counterparts, leading to an enhancement of Arab nationalism. Furthermore it played a major role in founding the Palestinian Liberation Organisation in 1964 and angering the superpowers (Britain, France and America) by pursing a fiercely independent nationalistic policy. That was a lot reciting (great) facts; try to weave in some more analysis throughout By attempting to unite Arab countries and establishing himself as the leader of the Arab world, Nasser created a more forceful and radical opposition to the Israeli Zionist movement. By contrast Efraim Karsh states that “The actual policies of the Arab states show they have been less motivated by concern for pan-Arabism, let alone for the protection of the Palestinians, than by their own interest” Again, this quote is probably too long, however this doesn’t negate the fact that arab nationalism increased anyhow creating a more assertive and drastic adversary. Brilliant Thus as a consequences of the 1948, the nature of conflict changed;involving foreign powers and a different type of warfare fuelled with increased arab nationalism.
It can be clearly seen that the 1948-9 war had huge consequences on both the Palestinian and Jewish people. However primarily, the Palestinians had a radical change of attitude due to the refugee crisis and and increase in arab nationalism , which resulted in a new form of warfare that impacted the Israeli’s
Should I mention the Suez War? Is there anything I should add that is appropriate for the Q?
As for your last question, unfortunately I can't help you out there. Overall, this is a great essay that just needs some final tweaking. Bring down the word count of your quotes, and increase the number of specific, accurate, relevant and detailed examples that you use. Make your thesis slightly more prominent throughout; you shouldn't ever go even half a paragraph without bringing the argument back to the thesis. Still, great job; keep working on it!
The 1948 war had huge unforeseen consequences on both the Israeli’s and Palestinian people. For the Jews, the most significant effect was the growth of Arab nationalism that created a more forceful adversary; however the influx of immigrants and the acquired territory were also important results. The Palestinian people had simultaneous highly significant outcomes of the war which overall created a changed of attitude. This last sentence is very vague; try to be specific when discussing your thesis (you don't want to FORESHADOW it, to be proven later, you want to STATE it in its entirety). Explain what the specific outcomes are, and what the change in attitude actually was A large amount of their population was displaced, How much? You need to use specific, accurate, relevant and detailed examples here! a new form of warfare was established and the Palestinian Liberation Organisation was initiated.
Good introduction, which clearly answers the question and brings a lot of nuance to your thesis. You need to be more specific about your points; in History, you don't want to be saying "I will prove an interesting point in this essay", you want to say "I will prove THIS SPECIFIC interesting point in this essay". The 'first half' of your intro is present, but you need to add a 'second half' of explanation/depth/detail
The UN p [P? Capitalise?]artition Resolution on 29 November 1947, Great stat partitioning the territory of Palestine into an Israel State and an Arab state had been the impetus for the War of Independence/ Catastrophe. Be careful when making definitive statements. Rather than THE impetus, perhaps a significant factor? Further more with Plan D being implemented in April and May 1948 aiming to quell the increasing Arab violence against Jews, it involved the destruction of Arab villages for the first time. Restructure this last sentence; read it outloud and see if it makes sense! Good detail though. With implications of ethnic cleansing, it further lead to increased hostility in both sides leading to the 1948 war.
Great points, but I think you could do with some 'linking' words to show that this is all one argument. 'A' primarily caused 'B'. Significantly, 'A' did this, which led to this, with in turn resulted in 'B'. etc.
There were many adverse consequences for both sides, particularly the Palestinians due to their loss in the War of Catastrophe. Can you be more specific here? How many died? Also, introduce the fact that there are two names for this war (depending on the side of the war one fought) from the start, or at least make it more clear One consequence was the creation of the Israeli state and the simultaneous ceasing of Palestine to exist. For Israel however suffering high casualties , its territory expanded to include that the UN had originally allocated for the new Arab State, covering about 80 percent of the old Palestine. Restructure this sentence; needs to make more sense Meanwhile the Arab states and Palestinians refused diplomatic recognition to Israel and would not acknowledge the Jewish right to exist. Schlaim states that “Israel emerged from the war economically exhausted but with superior organisation and morale, a tremendous sense of achievement, and a confident outlook on the future that formed a solid foundation for the development of parliamentary democracy”. Careful using such long historian's quotes. Try to cut it down to the main point, and then explain the thesis yourself. Contrastingly no Arab states emerged after 1949, Palestinian historians assert this was because Israel, supported by Western powers prevented it.
So what is your conclusion? A bit too much (only a bit) is explaining what happened; there isn't QUITE enough analysis of your own here. Good use of historians, but try to link together ideas; OF COURSE the two sides will have differing opinions; is there any way to make an overall assessment? Probably not, but it's worth bringing up.
A highly significant consequence of the 1948-9 war to the Palestinians was the refugee crisis with about 700,000 Palestinians fleeing their homes in Israeli-controlled territory. Resolution 194 called for reparation of Palestinian Refugees, but Israel refused the return of thousands of Arabs to their homes. For many Jews, Careful here. Was it the Jews, or the Israelis? Just make sure your terminology is correct; their defining feature may not be their religion, but their nationality. this was justified on the account that Arabs had not accepted the UN partition, and thus shouldn't need to cater for their return. Many also simply claimed it was a hindrance to the new state. Who claimed this? The bulk of the refugees ended up in the West Bank and Gaza strip and in neighbouring Arab countries especially Transjordan, Syria and Lebanon. Intellectual Palestinians went to the big cities Bit colloquial here; 'Larger cities, such as...' but the majority fellaheen? What is this? were unskilled and went to appalling UN camps in neighbouring Arab cities. Appalling how? How did you make that assessment? Those in camps had limited access to employment and were heavily reliant on charity, many became extremely ill due to poverty and poor living conditions. The camps were places of desperation, degradation and insecurity, and remain so until this very day. Arab hosts did little to integrate them into their places of refuge, as they believed it was Israel’s problem because they had created the issue. This situation resulted in the Arab states continuing refusal to negotiate directly with, or recognize Israel.
I need way more statistics here. Who made the claims? How many died? What were the conditions specifically like?
After the 1948-9 war there was a massive growth of Jewish immigrants in to Israel, which caused a large strain on its economy but also a strengthening of the Zionist cause. WHAT WAS THIS INCREASE? 40%? 100%? The outbreak of the war caused an increase in anti-Jewish violence in the countries of the Middle East and North Africa. In Cairo and Berut synagogues were attacked and Jewish houses looted, however there is controversy among historians concerning whether Israeli agents planted bombs in Jewish synagogues in order to stimulate immigration to Israel. Which historians? Within weeks of the establishment of the Israeli state, a steady stream of immigrants began to arrive; within 5 years the population had doubled, from approximately 650,000 in 1948 to 1.4 million in 1951. Causing immense strains on Israels undeveloped economy with severe housing shortages. Although some Jews emigrated because of the influence of Zionism that proclaimed the law of return of the Jewish people , many came as a result of persecution by Arab and other countries. The largest single influx of Jews came from Iraq , 123371 in total, with their property seized and being unable to take assets with them. The second largest group of immigrants were the 120 000 survivors of the Holocaust, many of whom had been held in British detention camps in Cyprus. Great use of statistics; keep doing this throughout the rest of your essay! The Jewish exodus was also influenced by the Zionist underground movement, which convinced many Jews that emigration offered the best solution to their problems. Thus due to the large influxes of Jews there were hard strains on the economy but ultimately strengthened the Zionist cause as a consequence of the 1948 war.
The growth of Arab nationalism and introduction of the Fedayeen was the most significant consequences for Israel, as they had to deal with a more assertive, drastic adversary. Good. Use words like 'most significant' when developing your thesis; it makes it clear that different factors have different weights. I need to feel this more strongly throughout the first part of your essay, though. Potentially, you might want to put your 'most significant' factor first; if not, you should ALLUDE to it throughout your previous discussion. ie. This factor is important, however other factors were far more significant etc. Fedayeen attacks across the border were a constant source of tension for the Israelis. These raids led to the murder of Israeli citizens and terrorist attacks and according to the U.N. Truce Supervision Organisation nearly 500 Arabs and over 120 Israeli’s were killed. Because Arab governments denied responsibility, these attacks severely increased tension; with Israel responding with major retaliatory raids across armistice lines. In 1954, Gamal Abdel Nasser became president of Egypt and for months Nasser had been unsuccessfully seeking weapons from USA to modernize his army. After the Gaza Raid in 1955 there was a new urgency, so Nasser turned to the communist bloc and purchased weapons from Czech in September 1955, officially sponsoring Fedayeen raids into Israel. Egypt’s growing ties with the Soviet Union aroused the anger of the Western powers and apprehensions in Israel about Nasser’s ultimate ambitions, with many in west believing Egypt was on the way to becoming a dominant regional power as they pursued a fiercely nationalistic policy. Nasser also led the Free Officers movement which composed of young junior army officers devoted to unseat the Egyptian monarchy and its British counterparts, leading to an enhancement of Arab nationalism. Furthermore it played a major role in founding the Palestinian Liberation Organisation in 1964 and angering the superpowers (Britain, France and America) by pursing a fiercely independent nationalistic policy. That was a lot reciting (great) facts; try to weave in some more analysis throughout By attempting to unite Arab countries and establishing himself as the leader of the Arab world, Nasser created a more forceful and radical opposition to the Israeli Zionist movement. By contrast Efraim Karsh states that “The actual policies of the Arab states show they have been less motivated by concern for pan-Arabism, let alone for the protection of the Palestinians, than by their own interest” Again, this quote is probably too long, however this doesn’t negate the fact that arab nationalism increased anyhow creating a more assertive and drastic adversary. Brilliant Thus as a consequences of the 1948, the nature of conflict changed;involving foreign powers and a different type of warfare fuelled with increased arab nationalism.
It can be clearly seen that the 1948-9 war had huge consequences on both the Palestinian and Jewish people. However primarily, the Palestinians had a radical change of attitude due to the refugee crisis and and increase in arab nationalism , which resulted in a new form of warfare that impacted the Israeli’s
Should I mention the Suez War? Is there anything I should add that is appropriate for the Q?
As for your last question, unfortunately I can't help you out there. Overall, this is a great essay that just needs some final tweaking. Bring down the word count of your quotes, and increase the number of specific, accurate, relevant and detailed examples that you use. Make your thesis slightly more prominent throughout; you shouldn't ever go even half a paragraph without bringing the argument back to the thesis. Still, great job; keep working on it!
Jake
Post by: imtrying on October 04, 2016, 04:22:18 pm
This is an essay for 2008 Personality section:" Describe the personal background and historical context of the personality you have studied." Its a bit different from the usual significant events/rise to prominence stuff, so just wanting to know if I'm on the right track.
Thanks!
Post by: jakesilove on October 05, 2016, 01:13:04 pm
Hey:)
This is an essay for 2008 Personality section:" Describe the personal background and historical context of the personality you have studied." Its a bit different from the usual significant events/rise to prominence stuff, so just wanting to know if I'm on the right track.
Thanks!
Hey!
See my comments below :)
Original essay
Spoiler
Describe the personal background and the historical context of the personality you have studied.
Leni (Helene) Riefenstahl was a German dancer, actress and filmmaker whose long career brought her into both great success and condemnation for the role she played in developing innovative film techniques in productions which would ultimately be deemed propaganda in aid of the Nazis. Born in 1902, Riefenstahl’s life spanned several momentous historical events such as the years of the Weimar government, Hitler’s rise to power and the process of denazification, all of which joined the nature of her own personal background to play a role in determining the events of her life and career.
Riefenstahl was born on 22nd August 1902 to a middle class Berlin family, allowing her to attend school, where she excelled in the pursuits of sports, especially gymnastics. Becoming interested in dance, Riefenstahl began taking lessons and in 1922, with the help of funding from her lover Harry Sokal, a Jewish banker, Riefenstahl began her dance career. After performing regularly from October 1923 to June 1924, a knee injury ended her dancing career. This however, along with the assistance of further funds from Sokal, became a stepping stone into a career in film. Riefenstahl acted her first significant role in Dr Arnold Franck’s Berg genre film The Holy Mountain in 1926, and continued acting in films directed by Franck up until 1933. The techniques learned and experience received by Riefenstahl on the set of Franck’s films would stand her in good stead when the time came for Riefenstahl to embark on directing films of her own.
The historical context in which Riefenstahl forged her career had significant impact on the path it took. During the years of the Weimar government, the German film industry flourished, spurred on by a stream of investors under the belief in the stability of the economy. Circumstances were so favourable that the Ufa, the largest German film studios of the time, were producing a major film each week, with cast and directors becoming internationally recognised. Such films, typical of the expressionist and alpine genre, likely attracted Riefenstahl to both the artistic opportunity and fame they offered, whilst the huge size of the industry at that time allowed her to pursue this.
By the time Riefenstahl was involved in acting and filmmaking, Hitler and the Nazis had made their rise to power. This regime, though oppressive, would create opportunities for some. In Riefenstahl’s case, it was as a result of Hitler’s recognition of the power of film in propaganda. As a result, Riefenstahl was commissioned by Hitler to direct several films, notably of the Nazi rallies at Nuremburg. Riefenstahl would also be given the task of creating a film documenting the 1936 Olympic Games, yet another opportunity for Hitler to inspire support for and to showcase his Third Reich.
Riefenstahl too would be implicated in the process of denazification following the war. As part of an Allied attempt to bring to justice those identified as playing a role within the Nazi regime, Riefenstahl was arrested in 1945 and interrogated before being released with no charges laid. Riefenstahl was to be involved in four such tribunals between 1948 and 1952.
Leni (Helene) Riefenstahl was a German dancer, actress and filmmaker whose long career brought her into both great success and condemnation for the role she played in developing innovative film techniques in productions which would ultimately be deemed propaganda in aid of the Nazis. Born in 1902, Riefenstahl’s life spanned several momentous historical events such as the years of the Weimar government, Hitler’s rise to power and the process of denazification, all of which joined the nature of her own personal background to play a role in determining the events of her life and career.
Riefenstahl was born on 22nd August 1902 to a middle class Berlin family, allowing her to attend school, where she excelled in the pursuits of sports, especially gymnastics. Becoming interested in dance, Riefenstahl began taking lessons and in 1922, with the help of funding from her lover Harry Sokal, a Jewish banker, Riefenstahl began her dance career. After performing regularly from October 1923 to June 1924, a knee injury ended her dancing career. This however, along with the assistance of further funds from Sokal, became a stepping stone into a career in film. Riefenstahl acted her first significant role in Dr Arnold Franck’s Berg genre film The Holy Mountain in 1926, and continued acting in films directed by Franck up until 1933. The techniques learned and experience received by Riefenstahl on the set of Franck’s films would stand her in good stead when the time came for Riefenstahl to embark on directing films of her own.
The historical context in which Riefenstahl forged her career had significant impact on the path it took. During the years of the Weimar government, the German film industry flourished, spurred on by a stream of investors under the belief in the stability of the economy. Circumstances were so favourable that the Ufa, the largest German film studios of the time, were producing a major film each week, with cast and directors becoming internationally recognised. Such films, typical of the expressionist and alpine genre, likely attracted Riefenstahl to both the artistic opportunity and fame they offered, whilst the huge size of the industry at that time allowed her to pursue this.
By the time Riefenstahl was involved in acting and filmmaking, Hitler and the Nazis had made their rise to power. This regime, though oppressive, would create opportunities for some. In Riefenstahl’s case, it was as a result of Hitler’s recognition of the power of film in propaganda. As a result, Riefenstahl was commissioned by Hitler to direct several films, notably of the Nazi rallies at Nuremburg. Riefenstahl would also be given the task of creating a film documenting the 1936 Olympic Games, yet another opportunity for Hitler to inspire support for and to showcase his Third Reich.
Riefenstahl too would be implicated in the process of denazification following the war. As part of an Allied attempt to bring to justice those identified as playing a role within the Nazi regime, Riefenstahl was arrested in 1945 and interrogated before being released with no charges laid. Riefenstahl was to be involved in four such tribunals between 1948 and 1952.
Essay with comments
Spoiler
Describe the personal background and the historical context of the personality you have studied.
Leni (Helene) Riefenstahl was a German dancer, actress and filmmaker whose long career brought her into both great success and condemnation for the role she played in developing innovative film techniques in productions which would ultimately be deemed propaganda in aid of the Nazis. Freaking incredible first sentence Born in 1902 Where?, Riefenstahl’s life spanned several momentous historical events such as the years of the Weimar government, Hitler’s rise to power and the process of denazification, all of which joined the nature of her own personal background to play a role in determining the events of her life and career.
Riefenstahl was born on 22nd August 1902 to a middle class Berlin family, allowing her to attend school, where she excelled in the pursuits of sports, especially gymnastics. Becoming interested in dance, Riefenstahl began taking lessons and in 1922, with the help of funding from her lover Harry Sokal, a Jewish banker, Riefenstahl began her dance career. After performing regularly from October 1923 to June 1924, a knee injury ended her dancing career. This however, along with the assistance of further funds from Sokal, became a stepping stone into a career in film. Riefenstahl acted her first significant role in Dr Arnold Franck’s Berg genre film The Holy Mountain in 1926, and continued acting in films directed by Franck up until 1933. The techniques learned and experience received by Riefenstahl on the set of Franck’s films would stand her in good stead when the time came for Riefenstahl to embark on directing films of her own. Great. Really no comments to make here; this section only really requires you to list facts in chronological order, which you've clearly done.
The historical context in which Riefenstahl forged her career had significant impact on the path it took. During the years of the Weimar government, the German film industry flourished, spurred on by a stream of investors under the belief in the stability of the economy. I need to stats here; there are great ones about the number of TVs, Radios etc. Circumstances were so favourable that the Ufa, the largest German film studios of the time, were producing a major film each week, with cast and directors becoming internationally recognised. How many in total? How does that compare to prior to Weimar? Such films, typical of the expressionist and alpine genre, likely attracted Riefenstahl to both the artistic opportunity and fame they offered, whilst the huge size of the industry at that time allowed her to pursue this. Get more specific in your use of examples here, but great narrative
By the time Riefenstahl was involved in acting and filmmaking, Hitler and the Nazis had made their rise to power. This regime, though oppressive, would create opportunities for some. In Riefenstahl’s case, it was as a result of Hitler’s recognition of the power of film in propaganda. How did he recognise this? Why? Goebbels etc. etc.; be specific. As a result, Riefenstahl was commissioned by Hitler to direct several films, notably of the Nazi rallies at Nuremburg. Riefenstahl would also be given the task of creating a film documenting the 1936 Olympic Games, yet another opportunity for Hitler to inspire support for and to showcase his Third Reich. Give me more random statistics; this is obviously a band 6 response, but you can easily get full marks in this section by just out-statisticsing every other student. How many people were at the rallies? The Olympics?
Riefenstahl too would be implicated in the process of denazification following the war. As part of an Allied attempt to bring to justice those identified as playing a role within the Nazi regime, Riefenstahl was arrested in 1945 and interrogated before being released with no charges laid. Riefenstahl was to be involved in four such tribunals between 1948 and 1952.
Obviously a fantastic response, and I have very little to comment on. Part A is always just listing facts, which you've done really really well. Make sure to add a billion statistics in this section; really, every sentence should have one or two. If you can 10/10, why wouldn't you? Additonally, go into slightly more depth re: context so that your answer is evenly balanced (as the question required). However, overall, I have extremely little to comment on, because it's a brilliant response.
Leni (Helene) Riefenstahl was a German dancer, actress and filmmaker whose long career brought her into both great success and condemnation for the role she played in developing innovative film techniques in productions which would ultimately be deemed propaganda in aid of the Nazis. Freaking incredible first sentence Born in 1902 Where?, Riefenstahl’s life spanned several momentous historical events such as the years of the Weimar government, Hitler’s rise to power and the process of denazification, all of which joined the nature of her own personal background to play a role in determining the events of her life and career.
Riefenstahl was born on 22nd August 1902 to a middle class Berlin family, allowing her to attend school, where she excelled in the pursuits of sports, especially gymnastics. Becoming interested in dance, Riefenstahl began taking lessons and in 1922, with the help of funding from her lover Harry Sokal, a Jewish banker, Riefenstahl began her dance career. After performing regularly from October 1923 to June 1924, a knee injury ended her dancing career. This however, along with the assistance of further funds from Sokal, became a stepping stone into a career in film. Riefenstahl acted her first significant role in Dr Arnold Franck’s Berg genre film The Holy Mountain in 1926, and continued acting in films directed by Franck up until 1933. The techniques learned and experience received by Riefenstahl on the set of Franck’s films would stand her in good stead when the time came for Riefenstahl to embark on directing films of her own. Great. Really no comments to make here; this section only really requires you to list facts in chronological order, which you've clearly done.
The historical context in which Riefenstahl forged her career had significant impact on the path it took. During the years of the Weimar government, the German film industry flourished, spurred on by a stream of investors under the belief in the stability of the economy. I need to stats here; there are great ones about the number of TVs, Radios etc. Circumstances were so favourable that the Ufa, the largest German film studios of the time, were producing a major film each week, with cast and directors becoming internationally recognised. How many in total? How does that compare to prior to Weimar? Such films, typical of the expressionist and alpine genre, likely attracted Riefenstahl to both the artistic opportunity and fame they offered, whilst the huge size of the industry at that time allowed her to pursue this. Get more specific in your use of examples here, but great narrative
By the time Riefenstahl was involved in acting and filmmaking, Hitler and the Nazis had made their rise to power. This regime, though oppressive, would create opportunities for some. In Riefenstahl’s case, it was as a result of Hitler’s recognition of the power of film in propaganda. How did he recognise this? Why? Goebbels etc. etc.; be specific. As a result, Riefenstahl was commissioned by Hitler to direct several films, notably of the Nazi rallies at Nuremburg. Riefenstahl would also be given the task of creating a film documenting the 1936 Olympic Games, yet another opportunity for Hitler to inspire support for and to showcase his Third Reich. Give me more random statistics; this is obviously a band 6 response, but you can easily get full marks in this section by just out-statisticsing every other student. How many people were at the rallies? The Olympics?
Riefenstahl too would be implicated in the process of denazification following the war. As part of an Allied attempt to bring to justice those identified as playing a role within the Nazi regime, Riefenstahl was arrested in 1945 and interrogated before being released with no charges laid. Riefenstahl was to be involved in four such tribunals between 1948 and 1952.
Obviously a fantastic response, and I have very little to comment on. Part A is always just listing facts, which you've done really really well. Make sure to add a billion statistics in this section; really, every sentence should have one or two. If you can 10/10, why wouldn't you? Additonally, go into slightly more depth re: context so that your answer is evenly balanced (as the question required). However, overall, I have extremely little to comment on, because it's a brilliant response.
Post by: jamonwindeyer on October 07, 2016, 10:53:04 pm
Note: We will be very harsh on our posting rules over the coming days. Posting in old threads, multi-posting, shit-posting and spamming (etc) to access essay marking won't work. Immediate 48 hour posting bans will be applied in all circumstances :)
Post by: atar27 on October 09, 2016, 11:18:05 pm
Post by: sudodds on October 09, 2016, 11:29:50 pm
Hey, I was just wondering with modern history part A (world war 1) how can we study for that? Because whenever I have tried to upload a HSC exam it does not show me all sources needed to answer the question.hey! Here is a link to a PDF that has all the HSC sources from 2008 to 2013 (I can't find any 2014/15 ones sorry :( ) It sucks that the HSC can't retain copyright on their past papers, it took me forever to find this but when I did it was a god send haha.
https://smcc12modhist-conflictineurope.wikispaces.com/file/view/2008-13+mh+hsc+sources.pdf
Good luck xx
Post by: jakesilove on October 09, 2016, 11:30:53 pm
Hey, I was just wondering with modern history part A (world war 1) how can we study for that? Because whenever I have tried to upload a HSC exam it does not show me all sources needed to answer the question.
Sudodds beat me to it, which is pretty standard when it comes to Modern History because buddy you are an absolute gun. Give those a go! Other than that, just learn your statistics, and practice any source analysis that you completed in past assessments :)
Post by: atar27 on October 10, 2016, 08:47:40 am
Post by: atar27 on October 14, 2016, 10:20:48 pm
Post by: sudodds on October 14, 2016, 10:47:30 pm
Hey, I'm not quite sure how to study for the usefulness and reliability questions in section 1 other than doing past papers?Past papers is probably the best way to go now (especially if you can get them checked over!)
However something that might help would be to create a sort of "short cut sheet" for the perspective and reliability stuff. There are lots of ways to assess the reliability of a source (you should probably aim for 2-3 tests within your response for each source), some of which present themselves very easily depending upon what type of source they are, and can pretty much be used whenever you encounter this source type.
For example, If you are given an extract of a historians work, these tests for reliability will almost always be valid:
The source is HIGHLY (remember these buzzwords) reliable because it is:
- The product of extensive research
- peer reviewed
- neutral/academic perspective (I know, if you do history extension that this is painful to write, but for modern its okay)
However the limitation of the source is that it is:
- Incomplete by nature as an extract
Another example: A diary entry of someone at the time.
The source is HIGHLY reliable because it:
- was created within close proximity to the time by someone who was (potentially if indicated by the sources) involved within the events discussed.
- was not written to be published ie. why would someone lie to themselves? (again this has issues, but they're not expecting you to be amazing historiographers in modern)
etc. etc.
See? Of course it would be perfectly fine to discuss other stuff, particularly if within the extract something else really jumped out to you that impacts upon reliability, but if you have these little cheat sheets, where you know that pretty much whatever source they throw you you will have a response will make you feel a lot more confident going into an exam. Just think of all the different types of sources they can give you, and try to create these short little note tables on each of them.
You can also do this with perspective.
For example, if the source is a diary entry or a letter, we can say that it presents a "deeply personal perspective".
Historian extract: "neutral, academic perspective"
Poster: "propaganda, thus presents and ideologically/politically motivated perspective"
If the source was written by someone/something that occupies a high-ranking position, eg. Lloyd George, mention that! Even though the "British perspective" doesn't really exist because everyone experience of the War was different, if it was from a high-ranking individual, you can say that they are presenting the "externally recognised perspective of the British" in that that was what other nations perceived to be the British perspective (If that makes sense. I'm still looking for a better phrase than "externally recognised perspective" if anyone has any ideas haha)
etc. etc. :)
So yeah, if you're getting bored just going over your notes and doing past papers, this would probably be a pretty good way to study instead, and will definitely help you feel more confident going into the exam, because pretty much no matter what type of source is given and no matter how complicated the contents of it may be, you'll still have something to write about.
Hope this helps and good luck! It'll all be over soon haha
*omg just realised how much I wrote sorry haha, a lot of this is probably just word vomit, a lot of me repeating myself, and stuff you probably know already, but hopefully somewhere along the way is something useful :)
Post by: atar27 on October 15, 2016, 08:53:42 am
and no worries about the long message it actually helped heaps!!!
Post by: sudodds on October 15, 2016, 09:26:48 am
Thank you so much sudodds! You are a legend! Your so good at this!Awesome! Glad it helped :) Good luck!
Post by: tennis1 on October 16, 2016, 01:44:51 am
I'm from WA and the curriculum is different so we're studying Cold War and Russia
If anyone knows anything about these topics^, could I email essays for feedback??
thanks so much
Post by: jakesilove on October 16, 2016, 11:28:35 am
Hi ATAR notes,
I'm from WA and the curriculum is different so we're studying Cold War and Russia
If anyone knows anything about these topics^, could I email essays for feedback??
thanks so much
Unfortunately, I didn't do anything related to those topics. However, if you make the post count (check the rule above, in Jamon's post) I would be happy to take a look for a more structural analysis!
Post by: sudodds on October 16, 2016, 08:10:09 pm
Hi ATAR notes,
I'm from WA and the curriculum is different so we're studying Cold War and Russia
If anyone knows anything about these topics^, could I email essays for feedback??
thanks so much
Hey I don't mind having a look, though I can't guarantee the quality of the feedback since I'm still a student and don't have much experience marking essays. But I do both of those topics (the HSC syllabus though so I don't know if that is very different to WA) and might be able to help a bit :)
It'll be good study for me as well haha :)
Post by: imtrying on October 18, 2016, 12:19:40 pm
Thanks:)
Post by: jakesilove on October 18, 2016, 12:34:05 pm
This is a practise essay for Evaluate the significance of the personality you have studied to his/her period of national and/or international history. Just hoping someone could read through it and give me any suggestions? Also, its a little over 700 words, wondering if that's okay for a part b) response.
Thanks:)
Hey! I didn't do Leni, but check out my general comments below :)
Original Essay
Spoiler
Evaluate the significance of the personality you have studied to his/her period of national and/or international history.
Throughout human history, certain individuals stand out as significant due to the role they played in key historical events and the impact they had in the context of their time. This is particularly true in the case of German actress and filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl, noteworthy for the key role she played in the promotion of Nazi ideology through propaganda in the Third Reich and her artistic skill and the pioneering cinematic nature of her films. Through an analysis of Riefenstahl’s filmic career and the part she played within the Nazi regime, the extent of Riefenstahl’s significance to both German national and international history may be established.
Long before Riefenstahl’s significance in German or international history was considered, Riefenstahl’s significance in her contribution to the history of the film industry was recognised. Her films became noted for the innovative techniques they showcased, evidenced in her use of unusual camera angles and use of lighting in her 1934 film of the Nuremberg Rallies Triumph of the Will, which was awarded several prizes, not just in Germany but also receiving an award at the 1937 Paris Worlds Fair. Her pioneering use of moving cameras, aerial photography, long focus lenses and revolutionary approach to the combination of music and visuals established Riefenstahl as a successful filmmaker, yet the significance of her work would have been limited if it were not for the context in which she worked. According to Rother, without the Nazi regime, Riefenstahl’s career would be no more than ‘interesting.’
Of far greater significance, however, is Riefenstahl’s involvement in the promotion of Nazi ideology and her relationship with Adolf Hitler. Realising Riefenstahl’s talent for filmmaking and her willingness to produce his films, Hitler met with Riefenstahl in 1933 and commissioned her to produce films of the Nuremberg Nazi Party rallies. Hitler had already begun to exploit the media in his production of propaganda which supported Nazi ideology and presented the Nazi cause, and Hitler himself, in a favourable light, primarily through the institution of the Reich Ministry of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment headed by Goebbels. The first of Riefenstahl’s Nazi commissioned films, Victory of Faith, depicted the rally of 1933, whilst her second, and most noteworthy Triumph of the Will, was shot at the Nuremberg Rally in 1934, and is seen today as one of the most skilfully made propaganda films of all time. Given free-reign over artistic and organisational concerns for the project, Riefenstahl produced a powerful visual piece featuring carefully rehearsed movements and elaborate scenes promoting the supposed unity of the German people under the direction of their Fuhrer, who was depicted as a heroic, almost god-like figure.
In 1935, Hitler privately commissioned Riefenstahl to create her ambitious film of the 1936 Olympic Games. Riefenstahl’s film forms historic significance due to the insights it reveals into the Nazi regime and its goals. The film primarily focusses on the physical strength and beauty of the athletes themselves, historian Susan Sontag claiming that such a focus, also typical of Riefenstahl’s later films of the Nuba, reveal a strong Fascist aesthetic with its focus on Aryan strength and physical form, reinforced by the name of part two of Riefenstahl’s film Festival of Beauty. Frequent images of Hitler himself overseeing the games, complimented by the cheering of the crowds, further promotes the view Hitler evidently wished to present to the world at this stage of history: a strong and thriving people united by their Fuhrer. Thus, Riefenstahl’s film takes on the significance of more than simply an example of Nazi propaganda, but reveals to an extent the values of the German nation of the mid-1930s and the nature of Nazi ideology.
Leni Riefenstahl thus becomes a figure of significance in the history of both the German nation, and internationally. Whilst the innovative techniques Riefenstahl employed within her work gave her limited significance within the film industry, it was Riefenstahl’s role in the creation of propaganda and the era in which her films were created which give her significance on both a national and international level. The impact of her propaganda films on the German people of her time, their promotion of Nazi ideology and the insight they provide into the nature of the Nazi regime and the diplomatic goals of Hitler himself thus ensure Riefenstahl and her work maintain a lasting importance.
Throughout human history, certain individuals stand out as significant due to the role they played in key historical events and the impact they had in the context of their time. This is particularly true in the case of German actress and filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl, noteworthy for the key role she played in the promotion of Nazi ideology through propaganda in the Third Reich and her artistic skill and the pioneering cinematic nature of her films. Through an analysis of Riefenstahl’s filmic career and the part she played within the Nazi regime, the extent of Riefenstahl’s significance to both German national and international history may be established.
Long before Riefenstahl’s significance in German or international history was considered, Riefenstahl’s significance in her contribution to the history of the film industry was recognised. Her films became noted for the innovative techniques they showcased, evidenced in her use of unusual camera angles and use of lighting in her 1934 film of the Nuremberg Rallies Triumph of the Will, which was awarded several prizes, not just in Germany but also receiving an award at the 1937 Paris Worlds Fair. Her pioneering use of moving cameras, aerial photography, long focus lenses and revolutionary approach to the combination of music and visuals established Riefenstahl as a successful filmmaker, yet the significance of her work would have been limited if it were not for the context in which she worked. According to Rother, without the Nazi regime, Riefenstahl’s career would be no more than ‘interesting.’
Of far greater significance, however, is Riefenstahl’s involvement in the promotion of Nazi ideology and her relationship with Adolf Hitler. Realising Riefenstahl’s talent for filmmaking and her willingness to produce his films, Hitler met with Riefenstahl in 1933 and commissioned her to produce films of the Nuremberg Nazi Party rallies. Hitler had already begun to exploit the media in his production of propaganda which supported Nazi ideology and presented the Nazi cause, and Hitler himself, in a favourable light, primarily through the institution of the Reich Ministry of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment headed by Goebbels. The first of Riefenstahl’s Nazi commissioned films, Victory of Faith, depicted the rally of 1933, whilst her second, and most noteworthy Triumph of the Will, was shot at the Nuremberg Rally in 1934, and is seen today as one of the most skilfully made propaganda films of all time. Given free-reign over artistic and organisational concerns for the project, Riefenstahl produced a powerful visual piece featuring carefully rehearsed movements and elaborate scenes promoting the supposed unity of the German people under the direction of their Fuhrer, who was depicted as a heroic, almost god-like figure.
In 1935, Hitler privately commissioned Riefenstahl to create her ambitious film of the 1936 Olympic Games. Riefenstahl’s film forms historic significance due to the insights it reveals into the Nazi regime and its goals. The film primarily focusses on the physical strength and beauty of the athletes themselves, historian Susan Sontag claiming that such a focus, also typical of Riefenstahl’s later films of the Nuba, reveal a strong Fascist aesthetic with its focus on Aryan strength and physical form, reinforced by the name of part two of Riefenstahl’s film Festival of Beauty. Frequent images of Hitler himself overseeing the games, complimented by the cheering of the crowds, further promotes the view Hitler evidently wished to present to the world at this stage of history: a strong and thriving people united by their Fuhrer. Thus, Riefenstahl’s film takes on the significance of more than simply an example of Nazi propaganda, but reveals to an extent the values of the German nation of the mid-1930s and the nature of Nazi ideology.
Leni Riefenstahl thus becomes a figure of significance in the history of both the German nation, and internationally. Whilst the innovative techniques Riefenstahl employed within her work gave her limited significance within the film industry, it was Riefenstahl’s role in the creation of propaganda and the era in which her films were created which give her significance on both a national and international level. The impact of her propaganda films on the German people of her time, their promotion of Nazi ideology and the insight they provide into the nature of the Nazi regime and the diplomatic goals of Hitler himself thus ensure Riefenstahl and her work maintain a lasting importance.
Essay with Comments
Spoiler
Evaluate the significance of the personality you have studied to his/her period of national and/or international history.
Throughout human history, certain individuals stand out as significant due to the role they played in key historical events and the impact they had in the context of their time. This is particularly true in the case of German actress and filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl, noteworthy for the key role she played in the promotion of Nazi ideology through propaganda in the Third Reich and her artistic skill and the pioneering cinematic nature of her films. Your introduction to her is great, but I think it could be stronger. 'the prominent German actress and influential filmmaker' etc.; use more buzzwords if possible! Through an analysis of Riefenstahl’s filmic is this the right word? It might be, I just haven't used it before! career and the part she played within the Nazi regime, the extent of Riefenstahl’s significance to both German national and international history may be established.
Long before Riefenstahl’s significance in German or international history was considered, Riefenstahl’s significance in her contribution to the history of the film industry was recognised. So then why are you using this to answer the question? Either link it to the question, or don't use it Her films became noted for the innovative techniques they showcased, evidenced in her use of unusual camera angles and use of lighting in her 1934 film of the Nuremberg Rallies Triumph of the Will, which was awarded several prizes, not just in Germany but also receiving an award at the 1937 Paris Worlds Fair. Can you get a bit more specific here? What are the names of the awards? Any other specific years? Details? Her pioneering use of moving cameras, aerial photography, long focus lenses and revolutionary approach to the combination of music and visuals established Riefenstahl as a successful filmmaker, yet the significance of her work would have been limited if it were not for the context in which she worked. According to Rother, without the Nazi regime, Riefenstahl’s career would be no more than ‘interesting.’ Nice. Just so it's clear, this is a really great essay, I'm just trying to get you to think about some additional factors so that when you sit the exam, you might use one or two of my suggestions :)
Of far greater significance, however, is Riefenstahl’s involvement in the promotion of Nazi ideology and her relationship with Adolf Hitler. Realising Riefenstahl’s talent for filmmaking and her willingness to produce his films, Hitler met with Riefenstahl in 1933 Month? This is actually significant. and commissioned her to produce films of the Nuremberg Nazi Party rallies. Hitler had already begun to exploit the media in his production of propaganda which supported Nazi ideology and presented the Nazi cause, and Hitler himself, in a favourable light, primarily through the institution of the Reich Ministry of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment headed by Goebbels. Can you throw in more detail here? How did he exploit the media? Radio? Television? How many listeners? The first of Riefenstahl’s Nazi commissioned films, Victory of Faith, depicted the rally of 1933, whilst her second, and most noteworthy Triumph of the Will, was shot at the Nuremberg Rally in 1934, and is seen today as one of the most skilfully made propaganda films of all time. Given free-reign over artistic and organisational concerns for the project, Riefenstahl produced a powerful visual piece featuring carefully rehearsed movements and elaborate scenes promoting the supposed unity of the German people under the direction of their Fuhrer, who was depicted as a heroic, almost god-like figure. In answer to the question, would you say she was particularly significant? Or was she just a puppet of Hitler, who could have been replaced by anyone? Try to introduce nuance in your response; markers love that shit
In 1935, Hitler privately commissioned Riefenstahl to create her ambitious film of the 1936 Olympic Games. Riefenstahl’s film forms historic significance due to the insights it reveals into the Nazi regime and its goals. The film primarily focusses on the physical strength and beauty of the athletes themselves, historian Susan Sontag claiming that such a focus, also typical of Riefenstahl’s later films of the Nuba, reveal a strong Fascist aesthetic with its focus on Aryan strength and physical form, reinforced by the name of part two of Riefenstahl’s film Festival of Beauty. Frequent images of Hitler himself overseeing the games, complimented by the cheering of the crowds, further promotes the view Hitler evidently wished to present to the world at this stage of history: a strong and thriving people united by their Fuhrer. Thus, Riefenstahl’s film takes on the significance of more than simply an example of Nazi propaganda, but reveals to an extent the values of the German nation of the mid-1930s and the nature of Nazi ideology. Love this last part. Just make sure to use the words of the question to link it back to your thesis; really great stuff though
Leni Riefenstahl thus becomes a figure of significance in the history of both the German nation, and internationally. Whilst the innovative techniques Riefenstahl employed within her work gave her limited significance within the film industry, it was Riefenstahl’s role in the creation of propaganda and the era in which her films were created which give her significance on both a national and international level. The impact of her propaganda films on the German people of her time, their promotion of Nazi ideology and the insight they provide into the nature of the Nazi regime and the diplomatic goals of Hitler himself thus ensure Riefenstahl and her work maintain a lasting importance.
Great response. Really quite brilliant, you're going to do great in the exam. My comments above are just extra things to think about, small things that would improve the response slightly. Totally up to you whether you want to take them on board, though, because the essay is great! I wouldn't worry about the word count, you should be able to get through it all. You'll do great; relax, get some sleep, and good luck :)
Throughout human history, certain individuals stand out as significant due to the role they played in key historical events and the impact they had in the context of their time. This is particularly true in the case of German actress and filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl, noteworthy for the key role she played in the promotion of Nazi ideology through propaganda in the Third Reich and her artistic skill and the pioneering cinematic nature of her films. Your introduction to her is great, but I think it could be stronger. 'the prominent German actress and influential filmmaker' etc.; use more buzzwords if possible! Through an analysis of Riefenstahl’s filmic is this the right word? It might be, I just haven't used it before! career and the part she played within the Nazi regime, the extent of Riefenstahl’s significance to both German national and international history may be established.
Long before Riefenstahl’s significance in German or international history was considered, Riefenstahl’s significance in her contribution to the history of the film industry was recognised. So then why are you using this to answer the question? Either link it to the question, or don't use it Her films became noted for the innovative techniques they showcased, evidenced in her use of unusual camera angles and use of lighting in her 1934 film of the Nuremberg Rallies Triumph of the Will, which was awarded several prizes, not just in Germany but also receiving an award at the 1937 Paris Worlds Fair. Can you get a bit more specific here? What are the names of the awards? Any other specific years? Details? Her pioneering use of moving cameras, aerial photography, long focus lenses and revolutionary approach to the combination of music and visuals established Riefenstahl as a successful filmmaker, yet the significance of her work would have been limited if it were not for the context in which she worked. According to Rother, without the Nazi regime, Riefenstahl’s career would be no more than ‘interesting.’ Nice. Just so it's clear, this is a really great essay, I'm just trying to get you to think about some additional factors so that when you sit the exam, you might use one or two of my suggestions :)
Of far greater significance, however, is Riefenstahl’s involvement in the promotion of Nazi ideology and her relationship with Adolf Hitler. Realising Riefenstahl’s talent for filmmaking and her willingness to produce his films, Hitler met with Riefenstahl in 1933 Month? This is actually significant. and commissioned her to produce films of the Nuremberg Nazi Party rallies. Hitler had already begun to exploit the media in his production of propaganda which supported Nazi ideology and presented the Nazi cause, and Hitler himself, in a favourable light, primarily through the institution of the Reich Ministry of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment headed by Goebbels. Can you throw in more detail here? How did he exploit the media? Radio? Television? How many listeners? The first of Riefenstahl’s Nazi commissioned films, Victory of Faith, depicted the rally of 1933, whilst her second, and most noteworthy Triumph of the Will, was shot at the Nuremberg Rally in 1934, and is seen today as one of the most skilfully made propaganda films of all time. Given free-reign over artistic and organisational concerns for the project, Riefenstahl produced a powerful visual piece featuring carefully rehearsed movements and elaborate scenes promoting the supposed unity of the German people under the direction of their Fuhrer, who was depicted as a heroic, almost god-like figure. In answer to the question, would you say she was particularly significant? Or was she just a puppet of Hitler, who could have been replaced by anyone? Try to introduce nuance in your response; markers love that shit
In 1935, Hitler privately commissioned Riefenstahl to create her ambitious film of the 1936 Olympic Games. Riefenstahl’s film forms historic significance due to the insights it reveals into the Nazi regime and its goals. The film primarily focusses on the physical strength and beauty of the athletes themselves, historian Susan Sontag claiming that such a focus, also typical of Riefenstahl’s later films of the Nuba, reveal a strong Fascist aesthetic with its focus on Aryan strength and physical form, reinforced by the name of part two of Riefenstahl’s film Festival of Beauty. Frequent images of Hitler himself overseeing the games, complimented by the cheering of the crowds, further promotes the view Hitler evidently wished to present to the world at this stage of history: a strong and thriving people united by their Fuhrer. Thus, Riefenstahl’s film takes on the significance of more than simply an example of Nazi propaganda, but reveals to an extent the values of the German nation of the mid-1930s and the nature of Nazi ideology. Love this last part. Just make sure to use the words of the question to link it back to your thesis; really great stuff though
Leni Riefenstahl thus becomes a figure of significance in the history of both the German nation, and internationally. Whilst the innovative techniques Riefenstahl employed within her work gave her limited significance within the film industry, it was Riefenstahl’s role in the creation of propaganda and the era in which her films were created which give her significance on both a national and international level. The impact of her propaganda films on the German people of her time, their promotion of Nazi ideology and the insight they provide into the nature of the Nazi regime and the diplomatic goals of Hitler himself thus ensure Riefenstahl and her work maintain a lasting importance.
Great response. Really quite brilliant, you're going to do great in the exam. My comments above are just extra things to think about, small things that would improve the response slightly. Totally up to you whether you want to take them on board, though, because the essay is great! I wouldn't worry about the word count, you should be able to get through it all. You'll do great; relax, get some sleep, and good luck :)
Jake
Post by: imtrying on October 18, 2016, 12:39:33 pm
Hey! I didn't do Leni, but check out my general comments below :)
Original EssaySpoilerEvaluate the significance of the personality you have studied to his/her period of national and/or international history.
Throughout human history, certain individuals stand out as significant due to the role they played in key historical events and the impact they had in the context of their time. This is particularly true in the case of German actress and filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl, noteworthy for the key role she played in the promotion of Nazi ideology through propaganda in the Third Reich and her artistic skill and the pioneering cinematic nature of her films. Through an analysis of Riefenstahl’s filmic career and the part she played within the Nazi regime, the extent of Riefenstahl’s significance to both German national and international history may be established.
Long before Riefenstahl’s significance in German or international history was considered, Riefenstahl’s significance in her contribution to the history of the film industry was recognised. Her films became noted for the innovative techniques they showcased, evidenced in her use of unusual camera angles and use of lighting in her 1934 film of the Nuremberg Rallies Triumph of the Will, which was awarded several prizes, not just in Germany but also receiving an award at the 1937 Paris Worlds Fair. Her pioneering use of moving cameras, aerial photography, long focus lenses and revolutionary approach to the combination of music and visuals established Riefenstahl as a successful filmmaker, yet the significance of her work would have been limited if it were not for the context in which she worked. According to Rother, without the Nazi regime, Riefenstahl’s career would be no more than ‘interesting.’
Of far greater significance, however, is Riefenstahl’s involvement in the promotion of Nazi ideology and her relationship with Adolf Hitler. Realising Riefenstahl’s talent for filmmaking and her willingness to produce his films, Hitler met with Riefenstahl in 1933 and commissioned her to produce films of the Nuremberg Nazi Party rallies. Hitler had already begun to exploit the media in his production of propaganda which supported Nazi ideology and presented the Nazi cause, and Hitler himself, in a favourable light, primarily through the institution of the Reich Ministry of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment headed by Goebbels. The first of Riefenstahl’s Nazi commissioned films, Victory of Faith, depicted the rally of 1933, whilst her second, and most noteworthy Triumph of the Will, was shot at the Nuremberg Rally in 1934, and is seen today as one of the most skilfully made propaganda films of all time. Given free-reign over artistic and organisational concerns for the project, Riefenstahl produced a powerful visual piece featuring carefully rehearsed movements and elaborate scenes promoting the supposed unity of the German people under the direction of their Fuhrer, who was depicted as a heroic, almost god-like figure.
In 1935, Hitler privately commissioned Riefenstahl to create her ambitious film of the 1936 Olympic Games. Riefenstahl’s film forms historic significance due to the insights it reveals into the Nazi regime and its goals. The film primarily focusses on the physical strength and beauty of the athletes themselves, historian Susan Sontag claiming that such a focus, also typical of Riefenstahl’s later films of the Nuba, reveal a strong Fascist aesthetic with its focus on Aryan strength and physical form, reinforced by the name of part two of Riefenstahl’s film Festival of Beauty. Frequent images of Hitler himself overseeing the games, complimented by the cheering of the crowds, further promotes the view Hitler evidently wished to present to the world at this stage of history: a strong and thriving people united by their Fuhrer. Thus, Riefenstahl’s film takes on the significance of more than simply an example of Nazi propaganda, but reveals to an extent the values of the German nation of the mid-1930s and the nature of Nazi ideology.
Leni Riefenstahl thus becomes a figure of significance in the history of both the German nation, and internationally. Whilst the innovative techniques Riefenstahl employed within her work gave her limited significance within the film industry, it was Riefenstahl’s role in the creation of propaganda and the era in which her films were created which give her significance on both a national and international level. The impact of her propaganda films on the German people of her time, their promotion of Nazi ideology and the insight they provide into the nature of the Nazi regime and the diplomatic goals of Hitler himself thus ensure Riefenstahl and her work maintain a lasting importance.
Essay with CommentsSpoilerEvaluate the significance of the personality you have studied to his/her period of national and/or international history.
Throughout human history, certain individuals stand out as significant due to the role they played in key historical events and the impact they had in the context of their time. This is particularly true in the case of German actress and filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl, noteworthy for the key role she played in the promotion of Nazi ideology through propaganda in the Third Reich and her artistic skill and the pioneering cinematic nature of her films. Your introduction to her is great, but I think it could be stronger. 'the prominent German actress and influential filmmaker' etc.; use more buzzwords if possible! Through an analysis of Riefenstahl’s filmic is this the right word? It might be, I just haven't used it before! career and the part she played within the Nazi regime, the extent of Riefenstahl’s significance to both German national and international history may be established.
Long before Riefenstahl’s significance in German or international history was considered, Riefenstahl’s significance in her contribution to the history of the film industry was recognised. So then why are you using this to answer the question? Either link it to the question, or don't use it Her films became noted for the innovative techniques they showcased, evidenced in her use of unusual camera angles and use of lighting in her 1934 film of the Nuremberg Rallies Triumph of the Will, which was awarded several prizes, not just in Germany but also receiving an award at the 1937 Paris Worlds Fair. Can you get a bit more specific here? What are the names of the awards? Any other specific years? Details? Her pioneering use of moving cameras, aerial photography, long focus lenses and revolutionary approach to the combination of music and visuals established Riefenstahl as a successful filmmaker, yet the significance of her work would have been limited if it were not for the context in which she worked. According to Rother, without the Nazi regime, Riefenstahl’s career would be no more than ‘interesting.’ Nice. Just so it's clear, this is a really great essay, I'm just trying to get you to think about some additional factors so that when you sit the exam, you might use one or two of my suggestions :)
Of far greater significance, however, is Riefenstahl’s involvement in the promotion of Nazi ideology and her relationship with Adolf Hitler. Realising Riefenstahl’s talent for filmmaking and her willingness to produce his films, Hitler met with Riefenstahl in 1933 Month? This is actually significant. and commissioned her to produce films of the Nuremberg Nazi Party rallies. Hitler had already begun to exploit the media in his production of propaganda which supported Nazi ideology and presented the Nazi cause, and Hitler himself, in a favourable light, primarily through the institution of the Reich Ministry of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment headed by Goebbels. Can you throw in more detail here? How did he exploit the media? Radio? Television? How many listeners? The first of Riefenstahl’s Nazi commissioned films, Victory of Faith, depicted the rally of 1933, whilst her second, and most noteworthy Triumph of the Will, was shot at the Nuremberg Rally in 1934, and is seen today as one of the most skilfully made propaganda films of all time. Given free-reign over artistic and organisational concerns for the project, Riefenstahl produced a powerful visual piece featuring carefully rehearsed movements and elaborate scenes promoting the supposed unity of the German people under the direction of their Fuhrer, who was depicted as a heroic, almost god-like figure. In answer to the question, would you say she was particularly significant? Or was she just a puppet of Hitler, who could have been replaced by anyone? Try to introduce nuance in your response; markers love that shit
In 1935, Hitler privately commissioned Riefenstahl to create her ambitious film of the 1936 Olympic Games. Riefenstahl’s film forms historic significance due to the insights it reveals into the Nazi regime and its goals. The film primarily focusses on the physical strength and beauty of the athletes themselves, historian Susan Sontag claiming that such a focus, also typical of Riefenstahl’s later films of the Nuba, reveal a strong Fascist aesthetic with its focus on Aryan strength and physical form, reinforced by the name of part two of Riefenstahl’s film Festival of Beauty. Frequent images of Hitler himself overseeing the games, complimented by the cheering of the crowds, further promotes the view Hitler evidently wished to present to the world at this stage of history: a strong and thriving people united by their Fuhrer. Thus, Riefenstahl’s film takes on the significance of more than simply an example of Nazi propaganda, but reveals to an extent the values of the German nation of the mid-1930s and the nature of Nazi ideology. Love this last part. Just make sure to use the words of the question to link it back to your thesis; really great stuff though
Leni Riefenstahl thus becomes a figure of significance in the history of both the German nation, and internationally. Whilst the innovative techniques Riefenstahl employed within her work gave her limited significance within the film industry, it was Riefenstahl’s role in the creation of propaganda and the era in which her films were created which give her significance on both a national and international level. The impact of her propaganda films on the German people of her time, their promotion of Nazi ideology and the insight they provide into the nature of the Nazi regime and the diplomatic goals of Hitler himself thus ensure Riefenstahl and her work maintain a lasting importance.
Great response. Really quite brilliant, you're going to do great in the exam. My comments above are just extra things to think about, small things that would improve the response slightly. Totally up to you whether you want to take them on board, though, because the essay is great! I wouldn't worry about the word count, you should be able to get through it all. You'll do great; relax, get some sleep, and good luck :)
Jake
Thank you! This seriously helps so much:)
Post by: atar27 on October 18, 2016, 06:20:21 pm
I do Germany and conflict in Europe!
Post by: jakesilove on October 18, 2016, 08:54:20 pm
Hey, how do you guys suggest we study for the essays? I have plans from past papers, but what now?
I do Germany and conflict in Europe!
Hey! At this stage, I think any study you've done is going to be enough. Revise your notes, think about how you would answer various questions, and have an early night. You've studied as much as you think appropriate, and that's all that's important. Now isn't the time to start studying different; it's a time to reflect on your past results, to think about where you need to focus in tomorrow's exam, and most importantly getting it over and done with!
Post by: atar27 on October 18, 2016, 09:28:16 pm
Post by: tennis1 on October 30, 2016, 05:58:23 pm
Is it too late to ask for feedback on one of my history essays? The exam's tomorrow....
Or should I mainly just focus on going through my notes and understanding everything? And also is it bad to do a prac doc study the night before?
Btw I'm studying Cold War and Russia
Thank you!
Post by: jakesilove on October 30, 2016, 06:53:25 pm
Hey :)
Is it too late to ask for feedback on one of my history essays? The exam's tomorrow....
Or should I mainly just focus on going through my notes and understanding everything? And also is it bad to do a prac doc study the night before?
Btw I'm studying Cold War and Russia
Thank you!
I think it's probably best that you just study from your notes, write out essay plans, and relax the night before a History exam. You've put the hard work in already, and there isn't much you can do tonight to change the amount of knowledge you have. So, look over some notes, sit back, and relax! It'll all be over soon :)
Post by: tennis1 on October 30, 2016, 07:57:32 pm
I think it's probably best that you just study from your notes, write out essay plans, and relax the night before a History exam. You've put the hard work in already, and there isn't much you can do tonight to change the amount of knowledge you have. So, look over some notes, sit back, and relax! It'll all be over soon :)
ok thanks yeah I've mainly just been doing that anyways
Post by: Newbalance101 on February 10, 2017, 06:07:01 pm
Post by: jakesilove on February 12, 2017, 08:51:11 pm
Hi I was wondering if you could mark this essay for me. Its on the Conflict In Indochina Topic
Hey Newbalance! Welcome to the forum. At the moment, we have a 15 post requirement for essay marking (15 posts = 1 free essay marking!). When you get to 15, shoot me a message, and I'll take a look at your essay. You can get there by asking questions on other forums, answering questions, or just having a chat in some of our games forums!
Post by: beril.akbulut on February 23, 2017, 11:31:05 pm
I wrote my first draft for this but Im not sure if the way Ive chosen to structure it is the best way. Also i think there is too much narrative and not enough synthesis so it would be great to receive some feedback on this. Would love to know what else i can include or exclude from my speech.
Speech[/b]
The rise of the Nazi party in post war Germany gave way to social, cultural and political revolution to impact the lives of German citizens, often through means of propaganda, terror and repression. Everyday German life was restricted to conservative, nationalistic activities and beliefs the Nazi’s enforced, including the deification of Adolf Hitler, nationalistic pride and anti-semitism. Thus these ideals were heavily prevalent in the propaganda administered by influencers Joseph Goebbels and Adolf Hitler, ultimately ‘terrorising’ and repressing everyday life to a significant extent.
Propaganda in the Nazi regime was utilized to enforce terror accordingly to the policy of Gleichschaltung, which meant that the public accepted terror as a significant part of everyday life. Dr Joseph Goebbels, the head of the ministry of propaganda stated that purpose of propaganda was to unify the nation into supporting the Nazi revolution (Gleichschlatung). The population was expected to be actively involved in the regime as he said ‘We are not satisfied with having 52% of the nation terrorizing the other 48%. We want the people as the people not only passively but actively’. Propaganda being one of the most vital methods of maintaining the Reich, was therefore used to enforce terror and achieve Volksgemeinschaft. Terror was mainly inflicted on minority groups such as the Jews and Communists as they were targeted in propaganda material such as the Anti-Semitic film ‘The Eternal Jew’. The terror Nazi’s enforced was not secretive, but rather accepted by the public as it was the consequence of opposing the Nazi regime, hence proving the success of the propaganda for Gleichschlatung. Furthermore, while the people were in a state of terror and control, this made it easier for Goebbels to perpetuate the Fuhrer myth which deified Hitler as the hero Germany had been waiting for. Hitler was the protector and leader of their nation which the people believed as greetings such as ‘Heil Hitler’ came into common circulation and as W. Shirer said ‘… they looked at him as if he were a messiah, their faces transformed into something positively inhuman’. Thus the use of propaganda was able to enforce terror without disillusioning the public but while still impacting and repressing everyday German life significantly.
The Nazi’s employed propaganda to promote ideals of the fuhrer myth, and nationalism but also to gain support of Gleichschaltung and Volksgemeinschaft while enforcing terror and repression. Hitler knew the significance of propaganda as he stated in Mein Kampf ‘In every really world-shaking movement, propaganda will first have to spread the idea’. He believed in the power of simple, emotional propaganda that touched the individual and evidently this occurred as the public adopted Nazi ideals and the fuhrer myth. Goebbels enforced the purchase of radios so all citizens would be able to hear Hitler’s captivating speeches of propaganda, and thus the Reich produced low-cost radios at 76 marks known as the Volksempfanger. By 1939, 70% of households owned a radio proving how much propaganda the public had exposure to as a part of everyday life. This enforced repression, as the radio was used for propaganda rather than entertainment, and the media was censored. By 1935, 1600 newspapers were shut down and by 1938 10,000 publications had disappeared. Films had to be approved by the Nazi’s and Jewish or Communist works were not permitted. As much as the propaganda aimed to repress opposing Nazi ideals, rallies were used to accentuate the might of the Nazi’s. By repressing the negatives of the system through Gleichschaltung, the Nuremberg rallies promoted Volksgemeinschaft through the assembly of 400,000 people watching propaganda and their fuhrer shine. Hence, the use of propaganda tremendously impacted everyday German life as it repressed opposing Nazi ideals and promoted their beliefs.
The use of propaganda in Nazi Germany was a vital tool in setting up and maintaining the reich, as it convinced people to conform to Nazi beliefs, while terrorising and repressing them so much so that opposing was not an option to consider. This majorly impacted everyday life with restrictions such as the Malicious Gossip Law, meaning that Germans had to actively conform to these radical ideals or face consequences.
Post by: sudodds on February 24, 2017, 12:38:13 am
Hey I have speech on Nazi Germany due that assesses the syllabus point: The nature and impact of Nazi propaganda, terror and repression within Germany. For this i was assigned the topic of propaganda so i have to answer the question "In relation to the topic you have studied, to what extent was everyday German life impacted by Nazi use of propaganda, terror and repression?"
I wrote my first draft for this but Im not sure if the way Ive chosen to structure it is the best way. Also i think there is too much narrative and not enough synthesis so it would be great to receive some feedback on this. Would love to know what else i can include or exclude from my speech.
Hey hey! Welcome to the forums :) We'll defs have a good look over your speech (or more specifically jake and/or elyse will as I didn't study Germany :P) but first you'll have to increase your post count - atm 15 posts qualifies for one piece of (hella) detailed marking :) It's super easy to get up to 15, just ask/answer a few questions and you'll reach it in no time! Having a little read of your speech myself though (again I didn't study this unit so content wise I'm pretty useless haha), I can see a structural issue that you can work on in the meantime while you try to increase your post count. I think your topic sentences need to be clearer, and focus more on making a judgement in relation to the question, rather than explaining a concept (that makes for a nice second sentence). Your judgement can be super simple, but it is also super important that it is there - something more along the lines of this:
The use of propaganda had a highly (remember these buzzwords - super important in a to what extent question!) significant impact on the everyday experience of German citizens, as it was used to normalise terror as a dominating force within their lives.
Then you'd go into a more detailed explanation. Hope this helps to get you started! Let us know when you reach the 15 posts for the rest of the speech :)
Post by: emilybrooks99 on February 26, 2017, 11:35:40 am
Thanks
Post by: ash_mcalpine on March 13, 2017, 08:51:32 pm
Post by: jakesilove on March 13, 2017, 08:55:59 pm
Post by: kyle.robbins on March 17, 2017, 09:31:48 am
I've written an essay on the Nazi party's consolidation of power.
It's here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12yfur-p2nMeb0K8GVRkpZP0E-E82AkYd06MASTElWAo/edit let me know if you cannot access.
Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks guys :)
Post by: jakesilove on March 17, 2017, 09:43:42 am
Hey guys,
I've written an essay on the Nazi party's consolidation of power.
It's here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12yfur-p2nMeb0K8GVRkpZP0E-E82AkYd06MASTElWAo/edit let me know if you cannot access.
Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks guys :)
Hey Kyle! We currently have a 15 post requirement for essay marking; for every 15 posts you make (ie. asking/answering questions, etc.) you get one essay marked! Let me know when you reach the 15 post requirement :)
Jake
Post by: sophiemacpherso on March 19, 2017, 11:41:29 am
Government intervention came to the rescue of American capitalism – To what extent is this statement accurate for the USA in the period 1919 to 1941?
The disintegration of American capitalism was as gradual as it was consequential. Through their laissez faire policies, three successive Republican administrations cumulatively escalated the volatility of the capitalist ideology. However, their inability to leverage any government action deferred the unprecedented economic deterioration to the presidency of Franklin D Roosevelt. His revolutionary implementation of the New Deal constructed an economic scaffold that established unparalleled stability, thus saving American capitalism.
Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods. Characterised by a free competitive consumer economy, and motivation by profit, it has invariably been a fundamental aspect of American society. Capitalism is facilitated by a two-tier social class structure comprised of private business owners and a reciprocal working class, to enable the expanding accumulation of profit by private owners. However, three successive Republican administrations saw growing disparities in this social hierarchy permeate throughout the American society, creating a deteriorating capitalist economy that ultimately required intervention.
When elected in 1921, shortly after the commencement of the First World War, Warren Harding formulated precursory measures of low taxes and high tariffs. He established the Emergency Tariff Act of 1921, introducing taxes of up to 50% on imports, rejecting internationalism and promoting an isolationist, protectionist approach to maintain the American economic market.4 Initially, this led America into an era of unparalleled, capitalist prosperity. However, when Calvin Coolidge, elected in 1923, extended Harding’s policies with further tax cuts for expensive businesses and corporations it stretched the consumer economy. His incessant belief in the ‘free market’ instigated a lack of regulation in businesses and an ignorance regarding notions of poverty and civil rights, and by 1929, the richest 5% of the population owned 35.5% of the nation’s wealth. These policies led to a deteriorating economy, extended by Republican radical advocacy of right wing capitalism.
Left to attempt to disseminate the repercussions of his predecessors, Herbert Hoover continued Republican policies of high tariffs and tax cuts when elected in 1929. Widening disparities in wealth were overlooked as issues for local and state governments. Hoover believed charities were responsible for providing unemployment relief, and voluntarism would ultimately remove the United States from the state of Depression. He urged businesses to refrain from retrenching workers despite the impetus of deteriorating business conditions. Hoover’s political philosophies regarding ‘rugged individualism’ and isolationism obscured his ability to recognise the severity of the Depression. His inability to leverage any strategy of government intervention directly contributed to the failure of capitalism.
This lack of government intervention saw the Great Crash of 1929 reverberate through the stock market, decimating billions of dollars in asset values and forcing bank closures, epitomising the urgency for reform. Almost 70000 businesses went bankrupt with 5000 banks failing, and between 1929 and the presidential election of 1932 the US national income fell from $87.4 billion to $41.7 billion. The 1929 Wall Street crash reflected the volatility of both public confidence and capitalism. Stemming from the recognition of the imbalance of consumption and production, the United States entered a state of paranoia.
Thus, it was no surprise that Franklin D Roosevelt (FDR) held complete sovereignty at the presidential election of 1933. In the first ‘100 days’ of his presidency, he passed 15 major bills through Congress. He was seen to be was seen to be active and dynamic in addressing the challenges of the depression, reflected in the implementation of this First ‘New Deal’. This collection of counter cyclical measures focused on the three aspects of reform, relief and recovery. The implementation of recovery strategies placed regulations on the economy whilst alleviating discrepancies in wealth.
FDR’s recovery strategies were integral to the preservation of the capitalist ideology. In the First New Deal of 1933, he effected the National Recovery Agency (NRA) to stabilise production and limit price and wage competition. It involved the restoration of industry incorporated with elements of reform, with the aim to raise workers’ wages so they could participate in the consumer economy by increasing the price of factory goods. It also instigated codes for businessmen and industry, which fixed minimum wages, forbade child labour, limited worker’s hours and gave workers the right to join trade unions. This prevented the overproduction of goods whilst reinvigorating the economy through the provision of increased income. This regulatory initiative precipitated an equilibrium in wealth so citizens could participate in the previously stagnated consumer economy, creating a more equitable form of capitalism.
Announced to the public in a ‘Fireside Chat’, the Emergency Banking Act (EBA) of 1933 mandated a structural change to separate investment banks from commercial banks. It was used to secure depositors’ savings from being used for speculative purposes. It created a new entity, the ‘Federal Bank Deposit Insurance Corporation’, which liberated banks and depositors from the fearful psychology of bank “runs”. This supported trustworthy banks, giving the American public confidence to participate in the consumer economy. The EBA was extremely effective at preserving the failing capitalist ideology. It did not establish an oppressive bureaucracy within the American banking system, but instead precipitated unparalleled stability within businesses, rectifying the industrial market and promoting profit-motivated corporate gain on a more equitable scale.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SECA) of 1934’s integral aim was recovery and the regulation of the stock market. It guarded against attempts to fix the prices of stocks and shares, through sanctioning the disclosure of detailed information such as balance sheets, profit and loss statements and the names and compensation of corporate officers. This aimed to end the monopoly on investment information and prevent speculation on the stock market. Data that was relevant, accessible and easily comparable infiltrated Wall Street, enabling improved economic efficiency of the financial market. Rather than constituting an assault on capitalism, FDR improved the ability of the public to make well-informed consumer decisions, increasing their ability to participate in the economy and support businesses, thus rationalising the ideology.
The implementation of FDR’s Second New Deal saw the establishment of the Social Security Act of 1935. This reform act proposed a state pension to everyone over the age of 65 and initiated an unemployment insurance scheme provided by individual states with aid from the federal government. Its culmination with corporate liberal ideas provided a democratic approach to the growing issue of inadequate American social justice, instigated by the FDR’s predecessors. This act shaped a manpower policy which enabled more predictable, efficient labour system whilst increasing the ability of the public to participate in the consumer economy, promoting the capitalist ideology.
FDR’s measures of reform, relief and recovery in both the First and Second New Deal were integral to the restoration of the capitalist economy. They rekindled corporate gain and stimulated fiscal earning within the Depression era through economic reform and new employment opportunities. Although FDR’s First and Second New Deal did not entirely salvage America from a state of economic stagnation, David Kennedy states that they “would serve as latticework on the post-war economy”, establishing unprecedented economic vitality within the post 1940’s decades. The beginning of the Second World War saw America rise from the Great Depression, indicating the restoration of capitalism.
Ultimately, Republican policies of laissez faire capitalism spurred the necessity for government intervention to save the very same ideology 10 years later. FDR’s New Deal liberated the economy by moulding its unparalleled stability and predictability. Thus, Republican policies of isolationism and individualism spurred a volatile form of capitalism, instigating the necessity for FDR to implement progressive intervention strategies to save the failing ideology.
Post by: sudodds on March 19, 2017, 10:46:58 pm
Hey, I'm super sorry I know none of you did the USA option, but I was wondering if I could grab some general feedback about this essay? :)
Hey Sophie!
You can find my comments in the spoiler tab (plus a few general remarks underneath).
Spoiler
"Government intervention came to the rescue of American capitalism" – To what extent is this statement accurate for the USA in the period 1919 to 1941?
The disintegration of American capitalism was as gradual as it was consequential. You need to start off all modern essays with a judgement. It many not look as nice and pretty in a literary sense, but you need to have somewhere a statement like this: "Government intervention was highly responsible for the maintaining the continued significance/disintergration (you pick) of American capitalism, therefore the statement is highly/only partially/limited accurate/" Through their laissez faire policies, three successive Republican administrations cumulatively escalated the volatility of the capitalist ideology. However, their inability to leverage any government action deferred the unprecedented economic deterioration to the presidency of Franklin D Roosevelt. His revolutionary implementation of the New Deal constructed an economic scaffold that established unparalleled stability, thus saving American capitalism. In regards to what I said about judgements, you also need to pick a judgement and stick to it. From your introduction, I'm going to assume that you are planning to sit on the fence a bit, saying that sometimes government intervention was good, sometimes it was bad. That is fine to say, but you still need to make an overall assessment as to whether it was a good or a bad thing for American capitalism. From this, I can assume that your judgment should probably be that the statement is partially accurate.
Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods. Again you must start every paragraph off with a judgement, NOT a definition. This judgement must be consistent with the overall judgement you made in your introduction, but with a particular focus on one element of your arguement (ie the focus of the paragraph). In my opinion, this definition should probably have been in the introduction anyway.Characterised by a free competitive consumer economy, and motivation by profit, it has invariably been a fundamental aspect of American society. Capitalism is facilitated by a two-tier social class structure comprised of private business owners and a reciprocal working class, to enable the expanding accumulation of profit by private owners. However, three successive Republican administrations saw growing disparities in this social hierarchy permeate throughout the American society, creating a deteriorating capitalist economy that ultimately required intervention. This paragraph provides us excellent detail as to what American capitalism is, but it isn't answering the question. A lot of this information could be included within the introduction, rather than in a separate paragraph.
When elected in 1921, shortly after the commencement of the First World War, Warren Harding formulated precursory measures of low taxes and high tariffs. Judgment? Perhaps - "John Warren Harding's economic policies greatly aided in the disintegration/maintenance (again you decide) of American Capitalism, thus the statement is partially accurate"? He established the Emergency Tariff Act of 1921, introducing taxes of up to 50% on imports, rejecting internationalism and promoting an isolationist, protectionist approach to maintain the American economic market. Initially, this led America into an era of unparalleled, capitalist prosperity. However, when Calvin Coolidge, elected in 1923, extended Harding’s policies with further tax cuts for expensive businesses and corporations it stretched the consumer economy ...which had significantly negative implications for the continued significance of american capitalism... these sentences are important as you need to be continually linking back to the question.. His incessant belief in the ‘free market’ instigated a lack of regulation in businesses and an ignorance regarding notions of poverty and civil rights, and by 1929, the richest 5% of the population owned 35.5% of the nation’s wealth nice detail. These policies led to a deteriorating economy, extended by Republican radical advocacy of right wing capitalism. In general, much of your essay is reading too much like a narrative, a list of events. Your detail and understanding is great, and I can see what your saying, but your style needs to be adapted to accomodate for more analysis. I'll discuss further how you can change this down below.
Left to attempt to disseminate the repercussions of his predecessors, Herbert Hoover continued Republican policies of high tariffs and tax cuts when elected in 1929. Judgement? To what extent did the continuation of these policies under Herbert Hoover further disintergrate/reinvigorate American capitalism? Widening disparities in wealth were overlooked as issues for local and state governments. Hoover believed charities were responsible for providing unemployment relief, and voluntarism would ultimately remove the United States from the state of Depression. He urged businesses to refrain from retrenching workers despite the impetus of deteriorating business conditions. Hoover’s political philosophies regarding ‘rugged individualism’ and isolationism obscured his ability to recognise the severity of the Depression. His inability to leverage any strategy of government intervention directly contributed to the failure of capitalism. A JUDGEMENT. YES. OKAY. Do this more please!
This lack of government intervention saw the Great Crash of 1929 reverberate through the stock market, decimating billions of dollars in asset values and forcing bank closures, epitomising the urgency for reform. Judgment? Almost 70000 businesses went bankrupt with 5000 banks failing, and between 1929 and the presidential election of 1932 the US national income fell from $87.4 billion to $41.7 billion. fantastic detailThe 1929 Wall Street crash reflected the volatility of both public confidence and capitalism. Stemming from the recognition of the imbalance of consumption and production, the United States entered a state of paranoia.
Thus, it was no surprise Very narrative like language, avoid saying stuff like this in the future that Franklin D Roosevelt (FDR) held complete sovereignty at the presidential election of 1933. Judgement? In the first ‘100 days’ of his presidency, he passed 15 major bills through Congress. He was seen to be active and dynamic in addressing the challenges of the depression, reflected in the implementation of this First ‘New Deal’. This collection of counter cyclical measures focused on the three aspects of reform, relief and recovery. The implementation of recovery strategies placed regulations on the economy whilst alleviating discrepancies in wealth. I think this paragraph is a bit weak on its own. Maybe try and include it within the paragraphs either before or after it, rather than separated?
FDR’s recovery strategies were integral to the preservation of the capitalist ideology. FANTASTIC JUDGEMENT. YES. GOOD. Maybe a little bit more use of the phrasing from the question, but overall keep this up. In the First New Deal of 1933, he effected the National Recovery Agency (NRA) to stabilise production and limit price and wage competition. It involved the restoration of industry incorporated with elements of reform, with the aim to raise workers’ wages so they could participate in the consumer economy by increasing the price of factory goods. It also instigated codes for businessmen and industry, which fixed minimum wages, forbade child labour, limited worker’s hours and gave workers the right to join trade unions. This prevented the overproduction of goods whilst reinvigorating the economy through the provision of increased income. This regulatory initiative precipitated an equilibrium in wealth so citizens could participate in the previously stagnated consumer economy, creating a more equitable form of capitalism. You need to link back to the question and your judgement at the end of the paragraph, and include a few more historical examples, however overall this paragraph was better :)
Announced to the public in a ‘Fireside Chat’, the Emergency Banking Act (EBA) of 1933 mandated a structural change to separate investment banks from commercial banks. Judgement?It was used to secure depositors’ savings from being used for speculative purposes. It created a new entity, the ‘Federal Bank Deposit Insurance Corporation’, which liberated banks and depositors from the fearful psychology of bank “runs”. This supported trustworthy banks, giving the American public confidence to participate in the consumer economy. The EBA was extremely effective at preserving the failing capitalist ideology good link. Something like this should also have been part of your judgement. It did not establish an oppressive bureaucracy within the American banking system, but instead precipitated unparalleled stability within businesses, rectifying the industrial market and promoting profit-motivated corporate gain on a more equitable scale.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SECA) of 1934’s integral aim was recovery and the regulation of the stock market Judgement? It's kinda there, but needs to be drawn out more. It guarded against attempts to fix the prices of stocks and shares, through sanctioning the disclosure of detailed information such as balance sheets, profit and loss statements and the names and compensation of corporate officers. This aimed to end the monopoly on investment information and prevent speculation on the stock market. Data that was relevant, accessible and easily comparable infiltrated Wall Street, enabling improved economic efficiency of the financial market. Rather than constituting an assault on capitalism, FDR improved the ability of the public to make well-informed consumer decisions, increasing their ability to participate in the economy and support businesses, thus rationalising the ideology. One of the better paragraphs :)
The implementation of FDR’s Second New Deal saw the establishment of the Social Security Act of 1935. Judgement? This reform act proposed a state pension to everyone over the age of 65 and initiated an unemployment insurance scheme provided by individual states with aid from the federal government. Its culmination with corporate liberal ideas provided a democratic approach to the growing issue of inadequate American social justice, instigated by the FDR’s predecessors. This act shaped a manpower policy which enabled more predictable, efficient labour system whilst increasing the ability of the public to participate in the consumer economy, promoting the capitalist ideology. good link at the end.
FDR’s measures of reform, relief and recovery in both the First and Second New Deal were integral to the restoration of the capitalist economy. GREAT JUDGMENT! Wahoo!They rekindled corporate gain and stimulated fiscal earning within the Depression era through economic reform and new employment opportunities. Although FDR’s First and Second New Deal did not entirely salvage America from a state of economic stagnation, David Kennedy states that they “would serve as latticework on the post-war economy”, nice intergration of quoteestablishing unprecedented economic vitality within the post 1940’s decades. The beginning of the Second World War saw America rise from the Great Depression, indicating the restoration of capitalism.
Ultimately, Republican policies of laissez faire capitalism spurred the necessity for government intervention to save the very same ideology 10 years later. FDR’s New Deal liberated the economy by moulding its unparalleled stability and predictability. Thus, Republican policies of isolationism and individualism spurred a volatile form of capitalism, instigating the necessity for FDR to implement progressive intervention strategies to save the failing ideology.
Okay! So here are the things that I think you need to work on (structurally):
- Judgements! You made some throughout that were great, but for the most part they were lacking. You MUST start off every paragraph with a clear and simple judgment, assessing the significance of that paragraphs focus in regards to the question. This is really important, you can lose marks if you don't do this. Along with this, make sure that your judgement remains consistent throughout, and that you don't sit on the fence. Nuance is great, but you MUST make an overall judgement.
- Slipping into re-tell/Not addressing the question. A lot of your writing (particularly near the beginning), slipped into a lot of re-tell and narrative. Make sure that you aren't just listing events of issues. You need to analyse them in regards to their significance to the question. A really easy way to just, every time you mention a new event or issue, explictly assert its significance, rather than just assuming that it is obvious to the marker. At the end of a sentence, state "therefore it is clear that blah blah blah contributed to the disintergration of American capitalism, which was further emphasised within blah blah blah." Make sense?
- Paragraph structure. Okay so this might just be because I don't know the content, but I found the structure of your essay a bit confusing, and you had SO MANY paragraphs. I think (again in my limited knowledge of your topic) that it may be better to try and structure this essay thematically. Rather than just writing a paragraph on each event/policy, instead try and find common threads amongst all of them (the most common ones are social, economic, political themes etc.) and discuss multiple policies within one paragraph. Writing a thematic essay will also prevent you from drifting off too far into narrative as you can't just write down the basic outline of the policies, but instead must extrapolate why certain policies were significant, and relate them to other influential factors.
-Detail You have some fantastic detail within this essay, but you need more. More stats, more explicit events examples, even some more quotes. These will all serve to increase the sophistication of your response, and by extension you final mark :)
I'd really love to have a look at this essay again after you've addressed the above points :) I can defs see potential in regards to your knowledge of your course, it appears very thorough! Now you just need to work on maximising your marks through an adjustment of your structure, and making sure that you are really nailing the key aspects of the question!
Hope this helps! If any of the feedback is confusing to you please let me know! Good luck ;D
Susie
Post by: sophiemacpherso on March 21, 2017, 04:29:08 pm
Hey Sophie!
You can find my comments in the spoiler tab (plus a few general remarks underneath).Spoiler
"Government intervention came to the rescue of American capitalism" – To what extent is this statement accurate for the USA in the period 1919 to 1941?
The disintegration of American capitalism was as gradual as it was consequential. You need to start off all modern essays with a judgement. It many not look as nice and pretty in a literary sense, but you need to have somewhere a statement like this: "Government intervention was highly responsible for the maintaining the continued significance/disintergration (you pick) of American capitalism, therefore the statement is highly/only partially/limited accurate/" Through their laissez faire policies, three successive Republican administrations cumulatively escalated the volatility of the capitalist ideology. However, their inability to leverage any government action deferred the unprecedented economic deterioration to the presidency of Franklin D Roosevelt. His revolutionary implementation of the New Deal constructed an economic scaffold that established unparalleled stability, thus saving American capitalism. In regards to what I said about judgements, you also need to pick a judgement and stick to it. From your introduction, I'm going to assume that you are planning to sit on the fence a bit, saying that sometimes government intervention was good, sometimes it was bad. That is fine to say, but you still need to make an overall assessment as to whether it was a good or a bad thing for American capitalism. From this, I can assume that your judgment should probably be that the statement is partially accurate.
Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods. Again you must start every paragraph off with a judgement, NOT a definition. This judgement must be consistent with the overall judgement you made in your introduction, but with a particular focus on one element of your arguement (ie the focus of the paragraph). In my opinion, this definition should probably have been in the introduction anyway.Characterised by a free competitive consumer economy, and motivation by profit, it has invariably been a fundamental aspect of American society. Capitalism is facilitated by a two-tier social class structure comprised of private business owners and a reciprocal working class, to enable the expanding accumulation of profit by private owners. However, three successive Republican administrations saw growing disparities in this social hierarchy permeate throughout the American society, creating a deteriorating capitalist economy that ultimately required intervention. This paragraph provides us excellent detail as to what American capitalism is, but it isn't answering the question. A lot of this information could be included within the introduction, rather than in a separate paragraph.
When elected in 1921, shortly after the commencement of the First World War, Warren Harding formulated precursory measures of low taxes and high tariffs. Judgment? Perhaps - "John Warren Harding's economic policies greatly aided in the disintegration/maintenance (again you decide) of American Capitalism, thus the statement is partially accurate"? He established the Emergency Tariff Act of 1921, introducing taxes of up to 50% on imports, rejecting internationalism and promoting an isolationist, protectionist approach to maintain the American economic market. Initially, this led America into an era of unparalleled, capitalist prosperity. However, when Calvin Coolidge, elected in 1923, extended Harding’s policies with further tax cuts for expensive businesses and corporations it stretched the consumer economy ...which had significantly negative implications for the continued significance of american capitalism... these sentences are important as you need to be continually linking back to the question.. His incessant belief in the ‘free market’ instigated a lack of regulation in businesses and an ignorance regarding notions of poverty and civil rights, and by 1929, the richest 5% of the population owned 35.5% of the nation’s wealth nice detail. These policies led to a deteriorating economy, extended by Republican radical advocacy of right wing capitalism. In general, much of your essay is reading too much like a narrative, a list of events. Your detail and understanding is great, and I can see what your saying, but your style needs to be adapted to accomodate for more analysis. I'll discuss further how you can change this down below.
Left to attempt to disseminate the repercussions of his predecessors, Herbert Hoover continued Republican policies of high tariffs and tax cuts when elected in 1929. Judgement? To what extent did the continuation of these policies under Herbert Hoover further disintergrate/reinvigorate American capitalism? Widening disparities in wealth were overlooked as issues for local and state governments. Hoover believed charities were responsible for providing unemployment relief, and voluntarism would ultimately remove the United States from the state of Depression. He urged businesses to refrain from retrenching workers despite the impetus of deteriorating business conditions. Hoover’s political philosophies regarding ‘rugged individualism’ and isolationism obscured his ability to recognise the severity of the Depression. His inability to leverage any strategy of government intervention directly contributed to the failure of capitalism. A JUDGEMENT. YES. OKAY. Do this more please!
This lack of government intervention saw the Great Crash of 1929 reverberate through the stock market, decimating billions of dollars in asset values and forcing bank closures, epitomising the urgency for reform. Judgment? Almost 70000 businesses went bankrupt with 5000 banks failing, and between 1929 and the presidential election of 1932 the US national income fell from $87.4 billion to $41.7 billion. fantastic detailThe 1929 Wall Street crash reflected the volatility of both public confidence and capitalism. Stemming from the recognition of the imbalance of consumption and production, the United States entered a state of paranoia.
Thus, it was no surprise Very narrative like language, avoid saying stuff like this in the future that Franklin D Roosevelt (FDR) held complete sovereignty at the presidential election of 1933. Judgement? In the first ‘100 days’ of his presidency, he passed 15 major bills through Congress. He was seen to be active and dynamic in addressing the challenges of the depression, reflected in the implementation of this First ‘New Deal’. This collection of counter cyclical measures focused on the three aspects of reform, relief and recovery. The implementation of recovery strategies placed regulations on the economy whilst alleviating discrepancies in wealth. I think this paragraph is a bit weak on its own. Maybe try and include it within the paragraphs either before or after it, rather than separated?
FDR’s recovery strategies were integral to the preservation of the capitalist ideology. FANTASTIC JUDGEMENT. YES. GOOD. Maybe a little bit more use of the phrasing from the question, but overall keep this up. In the First New Deal of 1933, he effected the National Recovery Agency (NRA) to stabilise production and limit price and wage competition. It involved the restoration of industry incorporated with elements of reform, with the aim to raise workers’ wages so they could participate in the consumer economy by increasing the price of factory goods. It also instigated codes for businessmen and industry, which fixed minimum wages, forbade child labour, limited worker’s hours and gave workers the right to join trade unions. This prevented the overproduction of goods whilst reinvigorating the economy through the provision of increased income. This regulatory initiative precipitated an equilibrium in wealth so citizens could participate in the previously stagnated consumer economy, creating a more equitable form of capitalism. You need to link back to the question and your judgement at the end of the paragraph, and include a few more historical examples, however overall this paragraph was better :)
Announced to the public in a ‘Fireside Chat’, the Emergency Banking Act (EBA) of 1933 mandated a structural change to separate investment banks from commercial banks. Judgement?It was used to secure depositors’ savings from being used for speculative purposes. It created a new entity, the ‘Federal Bank Deposit Insurance Corporation’, which liberated banks and depositors from the fearful psychology of bank “runs”. This supported trustworthy banks, giving the American public confidence to participate in the consumer economy. The EBA was extremely effective at preserving the failing capitalist ideology good link. Something like this should also have been part of your judgement. It did not establish an oppressive bureaucracy within the American banking system, but instead precipitated unparalleled stability within businesses, rectifying the industrial market and promoting profit-motivated corporate gain on a more equitable scale.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SECA) of 1934’s integral aim was recovery and the regulation of the stock market Judgement? It's kinda there, but needs to be drawn out more. It guarded against attempts to fix the prices of stocks and shares, through sanctioning the disclosure of detailed information such as balance sheets, profit and loss statements and the names and compensation of corporate officers. This aimed to end the monopoly on investment information and prevent speculation on the stock market. Data that was relevant, accessible and easily comparable infiltrated Wall Street, enabling improved economic efficiency of the financial market. Rather than constituting an assault on capitalism, FDR improved the ability of the public to make well-informed consumer decisions, increasing their ability to participate in the economy and support businesses, thus rationalising the ideology. One of the better paragraphs :)
The implementation of FDR’s Second New Deal saw the establishment of the Social Security Act of 1935. Judgement? This reform act proposed a state pension to everyone over the age of 65 and initiated an unemployment insurance scheme provided by individual states with aid from the federal government. Its culmination with corporate liberal ideas provided a democratic approach to the growing issue of inadequate American social justice, instigated by the FDR’s predecessors. This act shaped a manpower policy which enabled more predictable, efficient labour system whilst increasing the ability of the public to participate in the consumer economy, promoting the capitalist ideology. good link at the end.
FDR’s measures of reform, relief and recovery in both the First and Second New Deal were integral to the restoration of the capitalist economy. GREAT JUDGMENT! Wahoo!They rekindled corporate gain and stimulated fiscal earning within the Depression era through economic reform and new employment opportunities. Although FDR’s First and Second New Deal did not entirely salvage America from a state of economic stagnation, David Kennedy states that they “would serve as latticework on the post-war economy”, nice intergration of quoteestablishing unprecedented economic vitality within the post 1940’s decades. The beginning of the Second World War saw America rise from the Great Depression, indicating the restoration of capitalism.
Ultimately, Republican policies of laissez faire capitalism spurred the necessity for government intervention to save the very same ideology 10 years later. FDR’s New Deal liberated the economy by moulding its unparalleled stability and predictability. Thus, Republican policies of isolationism and individualism spurred a volatile form of capitalism, instigating the necessity for FDR to implement progressive intervention strategies to save the failing ideology.
Okay! So here are the things that I think you need to work on (structurally):
- Judgements! You made some throughout that were great, but for the most part they were lacking. You MUST start off every paragraph with a clear and simple judgment, assessing the significance of that paragraphs focus in regards to the question. This is really important, you can lose marks if you don't do this. Along with this, make sure that your judgement remains consistent throughout, and that you don't sit on the fence. Nuance is great, but you MUST make an overall judgement.
- Slipping into re-tell/Not addressing the question. A lot of your writing (particularly near the beginning), slipped into a lot of re-tell and narrative. Make sure that you aren't just listing events of issues. You need to analyse them in regards to their significance to the question. A really easy way to just, every time you mention a new event or issue, explictly assert its significance, rather than just assuming that it is obvious to the marker. At the end of a sentence, state "therefore it is clear that blah blah blah contributed to the disintergration of American capitalism, which was further emphasised within blah blah blah." Make sense?
- Paragraph structure. Okay so this might just be because I don't know the content, but I found the structure of your essay a bit confusing, and you had SO MANY paragraphs. I think (again in my limited knowledge of your topic) that it may be better to try and structure this essay thematically. Rather than just writing a paragraph on each event/policy, instead try and find common threads amongst all of them (the most common ones are social, economic, political themes etc.) and discuss multiple policies within one paragraph. Writing a thematic essay will also prevent you from drifting off too far into narrative as you can't just write down the basic outline of the policies, but instead must extrapolate why certain policies were significant, and relate them to other influential factors.
-Detail You have some fantastic detail within this essay, but you need more. More stats, more explicit events examples, even some more quotes. These will all serve to increase the sophistication of your response, and by extension you final mark :)
I'd really love to have a look at this essay again after you've addressed the above points :) I can defs see potential in regards to your knowledge of your course, it appears very thorough! Now you just need to work on maximising your marks through an adjustment of your structure, and making sure that you are really nailing the key aspects of the question!
Hope this helps! If any of the feedback is confusing to you please let me know! Good luck ;D
Susie
I honestly can't thank you enough, your feedback was beyond helpful!! I've updated it to add in more judgements and make my thesis clearer, although I feel as though it's a bit clunky and lacks flow.. As for the paragraph structure, my teacher recommended we do a chronology as we have to address the most important aspects of 1919-1941 in the question, although if you have any suggestions as to how to fix them I'd be super interested to hear! This is the updated version, 100% all good if you don't have time to read it! :))
A lack of government intervention was highly responsible for the disintegration of American capitalism in the ‘Jazz Age’, therefore the statement is inaccurate between 1919 and 1933. Through their laissez faire policies, three successive Republican administrations cumulatively escalated the volatility of the capitalist ideology. However, their inability to leverage any government action deferred the unprecedented economic deterioration of the Great Depression to the presidency of Franklin D Roosevelt. His revolutionary implementation of the New Deal constructed an economic scaffold that established unparalleled stability. FDR’s policies of government intervention came to the rescue of American capitalism, accentuating the statement as accurate from 1933 to 1941.
Throughout the 1920’s, capitalism flourished in the United States. However, Republican economic policies greatly precipitated the disintegration of American capitalism from 1919 to 1933. As an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods, capitalism became an integral aspect of the American society. Whilst it is characterised by a free competitive consumer economy and motivation by profit, a lack of government intervention promoted by Harding, Coolidge and Hoover allowed businesses to operate at pervasive levels. This extended the ability of the public to consume and inevitably led to the Great Depression. This spurred the failure of the ideology, denoting the inaccuracy of the statement from 1919 to 1933.
Warren Harding, elected in 1921, initiated policies that spurred the disintegration of American capitalism from 1919 to 1933. He established the Emergency Tariff Act of 1921, introducing taxes of up to 50% on imports, rejecting internationalism and promoting an isolationist, protectionist approach to maintain the American economic market.4 Initially, this led the nation into an era of unparalleled prosperity. However, when Calvin Coolidge, elected in 1923, extended Harding’s policies with further tax cuts for expensive businesses and corporations, it enabled business to operate at fundamentally unsound levels, producing large quantities of supplies for inadequate demand. This stretched the consumer economy, causing it to stagnate and thereby negating American capitalism. A lack of regulation in businesses and an ignorance regarding notions of poverty and civil rights instigated the ownership of 35.5% of the nation’s wealth by the richest 5% of the population in 1929. This prevented the working class from participating in the consumer boom. Right wing Republican political philosophies led to the Great Depression, denoting the failure of American capitalism from 1919 to 1933 and the inaccuracy of the statement in this time period.
The continuation of these policies by Herbert Hoover largely spurred the disintegration of American capitalism. Left to disseminate the repercussions of his predecessors, Hoover continued Republican policies of high tariffs and tax cuts when elected in 1929. Widening disparities in wealth were overlooked as issues for local and state governments. Hoover believed charities were responsible for providing unemployment relief, and voluntarism would ultimately remove the United States from the state of Depression. He urged businesses to refrain from retrenching workers despite the impetus of deteriorating conditions. In an attempt to combat the effects of the Depression, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff was initiated, which imposed import duties to their highest rates ever and instead provoked high tariff retaliation. Hoover’s political philosophies regarding ‘rugged individualism’ and isolationism obscured his ability to recognise the severity of the Depression. His inability to leverage any strategy of government intervention directly contributed to the failure of capitalism from 1919 to 1933.
A lack of government intervention saw the Great Crash of 1929 indicate the destruction of American capitalism and epitomise the urgency for reform. The Crash obscured the public’s ability to participate in the consumer economy, leading to the disintegration of the fundamental aspect of capitalism; business. As David Kennedy stated, the Great Crash “reverberated through the stock market, decimating billions of dollars in asset values and forcing bank closures”. Almost 70000 businesses went bankrupt with 5000 banks failing, and between 1929 and the presidential election of 1932 the US national income fell from $87.4 billion to $41.7 billion. The 1929 Wall Street crash reflected the volatility of both public confidence and capitalism, leading America into the Great Depression era. Stemming from the recognition of the imbalance of consumption and production, the United States entered a state of paranoia, denoting the failure of the American capitalism from 1919 to 1933 and the subsequent inaccuracy of the statement in this period.
American capitalism was rescued after the presidential election of 1933, thus the statement is accurate from the period of 1933 to 1941. Franklin D Roosevelt (FDR) held complete sovereignty at the election, and in the first ‘100 days’ of his presidency he passed 15 major bills through Congress. His government intervention was viewed as dynamic in addressing the challenges of the Great Depression, reflected in the implementation of his First ‘New Deal’. This collection of counter cyclical measures focused on the three aspects of reform, relief and recovery. The employment of these strategies gave citizens the opportunity to participate in the consumer economy, prompting business activity and thus rescuing American capitalism from 1933 to 1941.
FDR’s recovery strategies were integral to the rescue of American capitalism. In the First New Deal of 1933, he effected the National Recovery Agency (NRA) to stabilise production and limit price and wage competition. It involved the restoration of industry incorporated with elements of reform, with the aim to raise approximately 22 million workers’ wages so they could participate in the consumer economy. It also instigated codes for businessmen and industry, which fixed minimum wages, forbade child labour, limited worker’s hours and gave workers the right to join trade unions. This prevented the overproduction of goods whilst reinvigorating the economy through the provision of increased income. This regulatory initiative precipitated an equilibrium in wealth so citizens could participate in the previously stagnated consumer economy. This saved the capitalist economy, and in turn American capitalism, highlighting the accuracy of the statement from 1933 to 1941.
The Emergency Banking Act (EBA) of 1933 was essential to the rescue of American capitalism. It mandated a structural change to separate investment banks from commercial banks, and was used to secure depositors’ savings from being used for speculative purposes. It created a new entity, the ‘Federal Bank Deposit Insurance Corporation’, which liberated banks and depositors from the fearful psychology of bank “runs”, which caused citizens to withdraw their entire savings. This corporation supported trustworthy banks, giving the American public confidence to participate in the consumer economy. By the end of March, the public had redeposited two thirds of the money they had withdrawn due to fear of bank runs, thus denoting the effectiveness of the EBA at rescuing American capitalism. Rather than establishing an oppressive bureaucracy within the American banking system, it instead precipitated unparalleled stability within businesses. This rectified the industrial market and promoted profit-motivated corporate gain on a more equitable scale, rescuing the capitalist economy and exemplifying the accuracy of the statement between 1933 to 1941.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SECA) of 1934’s integral aim was recovery and the regulation of the stock market. These regulatory measures rescued American capitalism by precipitating economic activity. It guarded against attempts to fix the prices of stocks and shares, through sanctioning the disclosure of detailed information such as balance sheets and profit and loss statements. By 1935, 2808 applications for trading rights on the stock market were submitted to SECA, with 2776 granted and 32 denied. The denial of trading rights aimed to end the monopoly on investment information and prevent speculation on the stock market, thus saving American capitalism. Data that was relevant and accessible infiltrated Wall Street, enabling improved efficiency of the financial market. Rather than constituting an assault on capitalism, FDR improved the ability of the public to make well-informed consumer decisions. This increased their capacity to participate in the economy, epitomising the rescue of capitalism from 1933 to 1941.
Social reform was another integral aspect of the rescue of capitalism from 1933 to 1941. The implementation of FDR’s Second New Deal saw the establishment of the Social Security Act of 1935, that proposed a state pension to everyone over the age of 65. It also initiated an unemployment insurance scheme provided by individual states with aid from the federal government. These funds came from a 1 percent payroll tax on the first $3000 of annual earnings, starting in 1937. The Act’s culmination with corporate liberal ideas provided a democratic approach to the growing issue of inadequate American social justice. This act shaped a manpower policy which enabled more predictable, efficient labour system whilst increasing the ability of the public to participate in the consumer economy, rescuing the capitalist ideology and denoting the accuracy of the statement from 1933 to 1941.
FDR’s measures of reform, relief and recovery in both the First and Second New Deal were integral to the restoration of American capitalism, highlighting the accuracy of the statement regarding the 1933 to 1941 period. They rekindled corporate gain and stimulated fiscal earning within the Depression era through economic reform and new employment opportunities. Although FDR’s First and Second New Deal did not entirely salvage America from a state of economic stagnation, David Kennedy states that they “would serve as latticework on the post-war economy”, establishing unprecedented economic vitality within the post 1940’s decades. The beginning of the Second World War saw America rise from the Great Depression, indicating the restoration of capitalism.
Ultimately, Republican policies of laissez faire capitalism spurred the necessity for government intervention to save the very same ideology 10 years later. FDR’s New Deal liberated the economy by moulding its unparalleled stability and predictability. Republican policies of isolationism and rugged individualism spurred a volatile form of capitalism, instigating the necessity for FDR to implement progressive intervention strategies to save the failing ideology. Thus, the statement is inaccurate regarding the period of 1919 to 1933, as a lack of government intervention triggered the failure of capitalism. However, the statement is completely accurate when addressing the implementation of FDR’s New Deal from 1933 to 1941, as it fundamentally came to the rescue of American capitalism.
Post by: sudodds on March 21, 2017, 07:51:29 pm
I honestly can't thank you enough, your feedback was beyond helpful!! I've updated it to add in more judgements and make my thesis clearer, although I feel as though it's a bit clunky and lacks flow.. As for the paragraph structure, my teacher recommended we do a chronology as we have to address the most important aspects of 1919-1941 in the question, although if you have any suggestions as to how to fix them I'd be super interested to hear! This is the updated version, 100% all good if you don't have time to read it! :))
Hi Sophie!
So glad you found the feedback helpful!! Unfortunately I cannot fully mark you essay until you've accumulated another 15 posts (you're almost there! Only 12 more to go ;D ), however I've had a quick skim over and I can definitely see an improvement! Overall your judgements are much better and clearer which is a major plus. I am a little bit hesitant in regards to the judgment "the statement is inaccurate," as I was always instructed to agree with the statement, and within your final few paragraphs your judgement changes. This is called a split judgement, and you can get bitten for those in the HSC exam. I think it would be better to make your overall judgement this (again based on my limited knowledge of the course):
"Government intervention did come to the rescue of American Capitalism during the Roosevelt administration, however as this was proceeded by an extended period of government inactivity or ineffective policy that diminished the significance of American Capitalism, the statement is only partially accurate."
In regards to structuring your essay as a chronology I'm not 100% sure. I still think that in most cases, it is better to write your essay according to the syllabus dot points or thematically, as I feel like chronologies allow students to slip into re-tell too easily. However I'd say safe bet is to go with your teacher on this one. They are going to be other ones marking this essay, and in the end have a greater knowledge of the topic than I do as I didn't study America.
Let me know when you've reached the post count and I'll give you some more detail :D
Susie
Post by: chloeannbarwick on May 04, 2017, 09:22:00 am
I was wondering if I could please have it marked and annotated, and if you could, could you please estimate what you imagine my mark would be? (It's okay if you can't do that)
My main concerns are:
- Have I included a strong enough argument? If not, how can I strengthen it?
- Is my structure ok?
- Have I included sufficient quotes? Do I need more?
- Have I referenced enough historians opinions? Should I reference more?
- Have I covered all significant events which should be covered?
Thank you in advanced!
Post by: sudodds on May 04, 2017, 12:47:48 pm
Attatched is my Modern history essay for the Soviet Russia unit, the question is : Evaluate the view that Stalinism produced positive changes for the Soviet Union.
I was wondering if I could please have it marked and annotated, and if you could, could you please estimate what you imagine my mark would be? (It's okay if you can't do that)
My main concerns are:
- Have I included a strong enough argument? If not, how can I strengthen it?
- Is my structure ok?
- Have I included sufficient quotes? Do I need more?
- Have I referenced enough historians opinions? Should I reference more?
- Have I covered all significant events which should be covered?
Thank you in advanced!
Hey Chloe! My comments can be found in the spoiler (plus a few general comments + an estimate mark below) :).
Spoiler
Question: Evaluate the view that Stalinism produced positive changes for the Soviet Union.
A minority of the policies introduced within the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, now dubbed “Stalinism,” proved to be quite beneficial for Russian society as they produced a number of positive changes assisting in the transformation of the considerably backward country into a strong and modern state. Okay so I love that you have a judgement - but it needs to be simplified. A lot of the information that you provide in this judgement would be better suited to the explanation right after. Your judgement needs to be just the bare bones, do I agree with this statement or not, something like this: Stalinism produced limited positive changes for the Soviet Union, however overall they were highly negative. However, Though a great many of these policies had a number of admittedly not really sure about the word "admittedly" here negative consequences, the price paid again not sure about the use of the term "price paid" - a little bit too casual. for such progressive change being the intensive misery a bit too emotive and extensively devastating impacts had on the people of the Soviet Union. Where is the outline of your essay? What are you going to be discussing? What is each of your paragraphs about? Are you writing a thematic, factors or syllabus essay?
Ignoring the totalitarian and autocratic nature of Stalinism, economically, Stalin produced a number of positive changes for the Soviet Union, Judgement should have ended here. I also probably wouldn't say "ignoring the...." and rather say "despite" instead. My other problem here is that your judgement needs to remain consistent. If you say that Stalinism produced limited positive changes in your intro, then you need to justify that within all your paragraphs. declaring that it was vital to “convert the USSR from an agrarian and weak country, dependent upon the caprices of capitalist countries, into an industrial and powerful country…” Don't use quotes in your judgement and make sure to reference The industrial policies implemented under Stalin wereextremely highly successful in transforming Russia from the considerably backward and semi-developed nation it once was, into one which stood amongst equals not sure I like this phrase - to whom were they equal to? regarding industrial output. Prior to Stalin’s rule, the Russian economy was at a barely industrialised and weak economic standing. Stalin launched the concept of ‘revolution from above,’ in which two exceedingly large goals were set for the Soviet Union, these being rapid industrialisation and the collectivization of agriculture. Great! Five-year plans were adopted in 1928 and emphasized heavy industry through the implementation of unrealistic goals such as a 250 percent increase in overall industrial development and a 330 percent expansion in heavy industry alone. Fantastic detail! To meet these five-year year plans, immense pressure was applied to the working class with harsh penalties being distributed to those who didn’t meet set production standards. Despite the pressure, living conditions in the towns had slightly improved and were now better than that of the villages. It is obvious Thus it is evident that Stalin’s collectivization policy benefited some more than others, as those who had little in means of land and machinery stood to gain the most from collectivization in the sense that the poorest peasant would receive an equal amount to the richest kulak in a collective farm. Stalin’s reason for the use of this method was that he The Soviet Union simply could not afford to keep agriculture as it was due to the food crisis of the 1920’s and that he had grown tired of the yearly struggle to collect grain that was needed desperately to feed the hungry mouths of the workers and to keep the industrial side of the Soviet Union expanding. I think this sentence needs re-working - it is quite confusingThus collectivization was the most important part of Stalin’s drastic transformation of Russia ooft - this judgement is quite strong! I wouldn't really say that it was the "most important.' It was very important! But don't discount the significance of the political purges/terror and changes in society.and as a result of the strict resistance penalties, a fearful and chaotic environment had been created. In turn, this fearful environment contributed to an enormous increase in production and industrialisation rates with the Soviet Gross National product tripling in the 1930s, a considerably positive change for the economy, although at an alarming cost to the lives of the working class citizens. You need to back this up more - how did creating a fearful society mean that production increased? In many ways the opposite occured (eg. cattle drastically decreased as disaffected workers killed their livestock in protest). Also your paragraph ends quite abruptly - you need a sentence at the end linking back to your judgement. Something along the lines of; Thus through ____________ it is evident that the positive economic changes of the Soviet Union under Stalinism were limited etc etc.
Within the early stages of his rule, Stalin managed to gain a popular social standing through maintaining most of the reforms which had been introduced during the 1920’s. Many of these social reforms produced positive changes within Soviet society, although they had a number of negative impacts within the lives of the people. This second sentence needs to be your first sentence. If your first sentence is not a judgment you can get marked down. Also I think with a lot of your judgements you are sitting to much on the fence, shall elaborate more under outside the spoiler. The right to education was emphasized under Stalin as a means to indoctrinate children with the communist ideology. The communist government had complete control over education with school children being taught virtues of the communist party from a young age to assure total compliance, and professors and teachers who questioned or failed to teach this were imprisoned or sent to labor camps. However,Literary rates had improved significantly due to compulsory education and the curriculum had been altered with children being schooled in the areas of science and engineering developments resulting in positive changes for the Soviet industry as production rates continued to rise. Despite the positive changes that the Stalinist education system had on production and industrialisation, there were a number of setbacks find a better word than "setback" in the more advanced levels of schooling as many scientists had been purged or had their ideas suppressed. Fantastic point!On account of this, Soviet students received a flawed education in all studies which did not directly benefit industrialisation. A number of women’s rights were also implemented throughout Stalin’s rule. Women were permitted and encouraged to work, but were also expected to maintain their roles as housewife’s, known as the dual burden which majority of Soviet women carried. Women working in factories positively impacted the economy because of the influx of new workers that it brought, speeding up industrialisation. The piece-rate system meant that individuals wages were directly tied to the amount of product they produced rather than the number of hours they had worked. This encouraged workers to work harder and again resulted in an increase in production rates. Great point, but I think this is more of an economic factor than a social one.Despite it’s positive effects on the nations production, immense pressure was applied to the workers, pushing them beyond limits and impacting both their mental and physical health. These social reforms introduced by Stalin produced a number of positive changes within the Soviet Union regarding the economy and the industry, and at times benefitted both the nation and the people. However, this was done at the cost of the people, as a large majority of these policies hade devastating consequences on the both their mental and physical health.
Stalinism saw very little change in regards to politics, and almost every political action on behalf of Stalin had devastating impacts on the Soviet people. Stalinism saw very little change? Purges? Show Trials? These all drastically changed the nature of politics under Stalin and Stalinism. The best Stalinism essays always show development. Increases were seen in the defense capabilities of the armed forces, presumably due to the fact that military units received ample amounts of food, majority of which should have been going to the peasants and working class citizens conflicting against the communist values of the Nation, as stated by David Christian “Where the plan conflicted with the priorities of the government, the plan was adjusted.” Despite malnourishing almost 98% of the nation nice detail, this injustice had a positive impact on both the nation and the people as it was in many ways, the key to Russia’s ability to deter the German invasion in 1948 and to eventually defeat Nazi Germany. This is also one of the only benefits of Stalinism that was shared by all. Police were under orders to destroy synagogues, breakdown religious groups and gatherings, and to send religious leaders to either labor camps or kill them. Communists aimed to replace religious teachings with ideals of communism, resulting in a greater amount of communist support and unity, and creating more free time for people to work and to fully dedicate themselves to communism. Despite positively impacting the Industrialisation and communist ideologies, this suppressed the religious needs of the people and deprived them of their freedoms. Yeah you really needed to mention purges, show trials, etc.
Hence, it is obvious to see that Stalinism was a political order in which the powerful few controlled the powerless many. A minority of the change which occurred under Stalin demonstrated the nature of “positive change,” this minority benefiting mainly the interests of the apparatchik’s and other ruling elite at the cost of the remainder of society who endured suffering and hardship in the names of ‘communism’ and ‘industrialisation’.
A minority of the policies introduced within the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, now dubbed “Stalinism,” proved to be quite beneficial for Russian society as they produced a number of positive changes assisting in the transformation of the considerably backward country into a strong and modern state. Okay so I love that you have a judgement - but it needs to be simplified. A lot of the information that you provide in this judgement would be better suited to the explanation right after. Your judgement needs to be just the bare bones, do I agree with this statement or not, something like this: Stalinism produced limited positive changes for the Soviet Union, however overall they were highly negative.
Ignoring the totalitarian and autocratic nature of Stalinism, economically, Stalin produced a number of positive changes for the Soviet Union, Judgement should have ended here. I also probably wouldn't say "ignoring the...." and rather say "despite" instead. My other problem here is that your judgement needs to remain consistent. If you say that Stalinism produced limited positive changes in your intro, then you need to justify that within all your paragraphs. declaring that it was vital to “convert the USSR from an agrarian and weak country, dependent upon the caprices of capitalist countries, into an industrial and powerful country…” Don't use quotes in your judgement and make sure to reference The industrial policies implemented under Stalin were
Within the early stages of his rule, Stalin managed to gain a popular social standing through maintaining most of the reforms which had been introduced during the 1920’s. Many of these social reforms produced positive changes within Soviet society, although they had a number of negative impacts within the lives of the people. This second sentence needs to be your first sentence. If your first sentence is not a judgment you can get marked down. Also I think with a lot of your judgements you are sitting to much on the fence, shall elaborate more under outside the spoiler. The right to education was emphasized under Stalin as a means to indoctrinate children with the communist ideology. The communist government had complete control over education with school children being taught virtues of the communist party from a young age to assure total compliance, and professors and teachers who questioned or failed to teach this were imprisoned or sent to labor camps. However,Literary rates had improved significantly due to compulsory education and the curriculum had been altered with children being schooled in the areas of science and engineering developments resulting in positive changes for the Soviet industry as production rates continued to rise. Despite the positive changes that the Stalinist education system had on production and industrialisation, there were a number of setbacks find a better word than "setback" in the more advanced levels of schooling as many scientists had been purged or had their ideas suppressed. Fantastic point!On account of this, Soviet students received a flawed education in all studies which did not directly benefit industrialisation. A number of women’s rights were also implemented throughout Stalin’s rule. Women were permitted and encouraged to work, but were also expected to maintain their roles as housewife’s, known as the dual burden which majority of Soviet women carried. Women working in factories positively impacted the economy because of the influx of new workers that it brought, speeding up industrialisation. The piece-rate system meant that individuals wages were directly tied to the amount of product they produced rather than the number of hours they had worked. This encouraged workers to work harder and again resulted in an increase in production rates. Great point, but I think this is more of an economic factor than a social one.Despite it’s positive effects on the nations production, immense pressure was applied to the workers, pushing them beyond limits and impacting both their mental and physical health. These social reforms introduced by Stalin produced a number of positive changes within the Soviet Union regarding the economy and the industry, and at times benefitted both the nation and the people. However, this was done at the cost of the people, as a large majority of these policies hade devastating consequences on the both their mental and physical health.
Stalinism saw very little change in regards to politics, and almost every political action on behalf of Stalin had devastating impacts on the Soviet people. Stalinism saw very little change? Purges? Show Trials? These all drastically changed the nature of politics under Stalin and Stalinism. The best Stalinism essays always show development. Increases were seen in the defense capabilities of the armed forces, presumably due to the fact that military units received ample amounts of food, majority of which should have been going to the peasants and working class citizens conflicting against the communist values of the Nation, as stated by David Christian “Where the plan conflicted with the priorities of the government, the plan was adjusted.” Despite malnourishing almost 98% of the nation nice detail, this injustice had a positive impact on both the nation and the people as it was in many ways, the key to Russia’s ability to deter the German invasion in 1948 and to eventually defeat Nazi Germany. This is also one of the only benefits of Stalinism that was shared by all. Police were under orders to destroy synagogues, breakdown religious groups and gatherings, and to send religious leaders to either labor camps or kill them. Communists aimed to replace religious teachings with ideals of communism, resulting in a greater amount of communist support and unity, and creating more free time for people to work and to fully dedicate themselves to communism. Despite positively impacting the Industrialisation and communist ideologies, this suppressed the religious needs of the people and deprived them of their freedoms. Yeah you really needed to mention purges, show trials, etc.
Hence, it is obvious to see that Stalinism was a political order in which the powerful few controlled the powerless many. A minority of the change which occurred under Stalin demonstrated the nature of “positive change,” this minority benefiting mainly the interests of the apparatchik’s and other ruling elite at the cost of the remainder of society who endured suffering and hardship in the names of ‘communism’ and ‘industrialisation’.
Okay so, my overall thoughts - it was definitely a good attempt :) But there is room for improvement (as there always will be!):
- Your judgement sits on the fence quite a bit. You need to make a stronger and more definitive overall judgement as to whether it was overall positive, or overall negative. Nuance is fine, and briefly mentioning both sides of the argument is great, but that overall part is really important.
- Consistent judgments. If you make a judgement early on, this judgement needs to be followed through in each of your paragraphs. This wasn't too big of an issue, but some of your paragraphs really delved into the positives, whereas others the negatives. A bit more consistency in your argument will make this essay stronger.
- You have missed out on a lot of really important content - namely the purges, show trials and the terror. These had a really really really significant impact both socially (kulaks, nep-men, intellectuals) and politically (kamenev/zinoviev, kirov, the military etc.). Politically in particular, your judgement that nothing really changed is just not true - the political landscape of Russia was changed dramatically under Stalinism as it began to more closely resemble totalitarianism. Other things that I think would have been good to mention include; control of the media, control of art and entertainment. A bit more on industrialisation would have been nice as well.
- More detail! You have some fantastic stats throughout this response but I want to see more! Maybe a few more quotes as well (though they are less important).
- Your understanding of the content is pretty strong :) Some of the arguments that you are making are really well thought out, well done!
So to answer your specific questions:
My main concerns are:
- Have I included a strong enough argument? If not, how can I strengthen it? Not bad, but does need to be stronger, more consistent and less on the fence.
- Is my structure ok? Thematic structure so A okay :)
- Have I included sufficient quotes? Do I need more? You have enough quotes don't worry :) Quotes aren't as important as some people make them out to be - in the HSC for my Cold War essay I had next to none but I still got a high band 6.
- Have I referenced enough historians opinions? Should I reference more? See above comment. Unless you have a particularly pedantic teacher you should be fine.
- Have I covered all significant events which should be covered? Purges/Show Trials/Terror!
But yes, overall this is a good essay :) I'm not 100% comfortable giving it a definitive "mark", but my best estimate would be around the 19-21/25 range. However the problems that I have identified are really easy to fix up - just a little bit of tweaking :) If any of this feedback is confusing please let me know! Happy to clarify any of my comments :)
Great work Chloe!
Susie
Post by: chloeannbarwick on May 04, 2017, 12:51:31 pm
Post by: sudodds on May 04, 2017, 12:53:48 pm
Thank you Susie for your amazing feeback! Everything is making sense to me and I'll be sure to take your suggestions and alterations into consideration! Thank you for your help and time!No worries Chloe! Happy to help a fellow comrade ;) Feel free to post a revised version once you're done if you want me to check over it again :)
EDIT: Also realised I jumped the gun a bit and marked before you reached the post count haha. My fault not yours (missed your name on our spreadsheet), just letting you know you'll need 60 posts for the next set of feedback :)
Post by: chloeannbarwick on May 04, 2017, 01:00:52 pm
Post by: sudodds on May 04, 2017, 01:20:38 pm
I've only had one essay marked in the past and you only need 15 pints for each right? I'm bot sure how that could be correct, but once again, thank you!Oh? Hmm maybe I missed something. Currently at uni but when I get home ill check for you :)
Post by: chloeannbarwick on May 04, 2017, 01:30:43 pm
Post by: jamonwindeyer on May 04, 2017, 01:52:13 pm
Oh? Hmm maybe I missed something. Currently at uni but when I get home ill check for you :)
It's all good! Don't worry too much about it!
Totally my fault, I edited the wrong cell in the spreadsheet - You'll need 45 for your next one Chloe ;D
Post by: chloeannbarwick on May 05, 2017, 10:08:50 am
Totally my fault, I edited the wrong cell in the spreadsheet - You'll need 45 for your next one Chloe ;D
All good! Thank you Jamon ;D
Post by: TheCommando on May 06, 2017, 11:44:14 pm
Post by: sudodds on May 06, 2017, 11:53:37 pm
What about the french revolution?What about it :)? Definitely a very interesting period in history! Unfortunate the the HSC syllabus doesn't really touch on it, though you can study it somewhat in year 11. Did you have a response on the French revolution that you wanted someone to have a look over?
Post by: TheCommando on May 06, 2017, 11:56:14 pm
What about it :)? Definitely a very interesting period in history! Unfortunate the the HSC syllabus doesn't really touch on it, though you can study it somewhat in year 11. Did you have a response on the French revolution that you wanted someone to have a look over?It just wasnt listed on the original post as the things u guys would mark
Im in year 12 doing vce and thats what im studuying for the first semester. Its just the revolutions thread is dead
Post by: sudodds on May 07, 2017, 12:10:53 am
It just wasnt listed on the original post as the things u guys would markAhh okay I getcha! Well if you really need someone to look over your work I'm more than happy to give it a go, but I'm really unfamiliar with the VCE system and only studied the French Revolution briefly in Year 11 so not sure how useful I can be :/ I can give you tips on structure, but like I can only mark it against an HSC standard, so you'd probably want to verify with a second person to make sure that my feedback is consistent with the VCE expectations - take everything I say with a grain of salt essentially.
Im in year 12 doing vce and thats what im studuying for the first semester. Its just the revolutions thread is dead
Post by: TheCommando on May 07, 2017, 12:16:27 am
Ahh okay I getcha! Well if you really need someone to look over your work I'm more than happy to give it a go, but I'm really unfamiliar with the VCE system and only studied the French Revolution briefly in Year 11 so not sure how useful I can be :/ I can give you tips on structure, but like I can only mark it against an HSC standard, so you'd probably want to verify with a second person to make sure that my feedback is consistent with the VCE expectations - take everything I say with a grain of salt essentially.All good, i may as well put it up here and on the vce board so people can maybe benifit it. Im lucky that i have a teacher who is really willing to mark essays often. (The guy is crazy but funny)
I do learn about the russian revolution next semester as well
Post by: sudodds on May 07, 2017, 12:34:08 am
All good, i may as well put it up here and on the vce board so people can maybe benifit it. Im lucky that i have a teacher who is really willing to mark essays often. (The guy is crazy but funny)All good :) Post whatever you wish and I'll happily have a look (feel free to ask any questions here as well!). Sounds a lot like my modern history teacher - 21 practice responses before trial exams! makes it so much easier when your teacher is so good/supportive. Will defs be able to help out a lot more when it comes to the Russian revolution - that's my ish ;)
I do learn about the russian revolution next semester as well
Post by: chloeannbarwick on May 07, 2017, 06:22:00 pm
Here is my second essay question; Has history vindicated Trotsky, or were his critics right to condemn him as a failure?
And was wondering if I could please get my attempt marked so as I can improve it before submitting it! If you have any questions regarding it then please ask away
Essay:
Throughout human history, certain individuals stand out due to the role they have played in key historical events and the impact’s that they have had within the context of their times. This is particularly true in the case of Leon Trotsky, perhaps one of the most debated politicians in Russian history. Trotsky’s role within the Soviet parliament has rightfully been condemned a failure among both his critics and historians who despite his obvious intelligence, consider him to have been a ‘naïve idealist and politician.’ Despite having a number of positive attributes, Trotsky has been wrongly vindicated by his admirers throughout history, as seen through a study of his role within the Russian Government and the opinions of critical historians
Despite being somewhat vindicated by supporters for his many strengths and positive attributes demonstrated throughout his time in Russia, Trotsky was in many ways a failure as it is evident to see that his weaknesses truly did outweigh his strengths. Being the naiivee idealist and ruthless authoritarian he was, Trotsky stuck too rigidly to his ideology of permanent revolution to the detriment of the party and the Soviet Union. Prior to his death, Lenin’s final testament had been completed with Trotsky being the only one who stood to benefit from the publication of the testament, however he did not object when it was decided that it should be suppressed. This was a failure on Trotsky’s behalf, as it allowed Stalin to remain strong and powerful and essentially lead to his victory in the struggle for power. According to historian David Van Tol, Publishing the testimony could have called for the removal of Stalin from his position as general secretary, as stated by Lenin within the testament “Comrade Stalin, having become General secretary, has unlimited authority concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure that he will always be capable of using that power with sufficient caution.” Hence revealing one of Trotsky’s greatest weaknesses to be the fact that he completely overestimated Stalin when he chose not to publicize the testament. Besides this, and despite his intelligence he also lacked the political skills needed in order to become Commissar. According to historian Richard pipes, Trotsky’s role in the November revolution has been exaggerated throughout time, wrongly vindicating him. Pipes states that “Vladimir Lenin was primarily responsible for the success of the uprising, and Trotsky was simply carrying out demands.” It is evident that Trotsky’s lack of political and tactical skills was in many way’s a weakness resulting in condemnation as a failure, as it effected the way that he was perceived by not only the Russian people and government of the time, but also by countless people throughout history. During the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, Trotsky delayed negotiations in order to receive word from Britain and France. Pipes criticizes Trotsky for this, arguing that through delaying the negotiations, he only “riled the Germans, resulting in a more punitive and humiliating peace which otherwise would not have been the case.” It is because of these many failures and weaknesses which Trotsky possessed and revealed throughout his career which has resulted in his condemnation as a failure by his critics, and rightfully so.
Apart from the many weaknesses which led to Trotsky’s condemnation as a failure, he also possessed a number of successful and positive strengths, though many of these strengths, despite coming from the goodness of his heart, resulted in his condemnation as a failure. During the civil war and his role as Commissar for war, Trotsky had gained a large amount of Military support. Historian Isaac Deutscher commends Trotsky for his brilliant military leadership during the conflict and excuses the abuses that were committed during the duration of the conflict, arguing that the future of the revolution was at stake. Richard Pipes however, emphasizes the fact that Trotsky was a brutal and harsh military commander, and that despite his power and support as commissar for war, the way’s in which he had gone about utilizing his military power and support was in many ways, a great failure. Another strength of Trotsky’s was his confidence within the party. According to historian Isaac Deutscher, Trotsky truly believed that Stalin would not even think to succeed Lenin because of the fact that he was an inferior candidate. Deutscher states “Trotsky refrained from attacking Stalin because he felt secure… it seemed to Trotsky almost a bad joke that Stalin, the wilful and sly but shabby and inarticulate man in the background should be his rival.” It is believed that if Trotsky had of overcome his self-confidence and spoken up about his growing concerns regarding Stalins presence within the parliament whilst Lenin was still there, he would have almost certainly supported Trotsky, and could have annihilated Stalin as a threat immediately. Lenin himself also acknowledge within his testament that trotsky’s self-confidence doubled as a weakness, stating ‘distinguished by his too far-reaching self- confidence.’ Although Trotsky’s confidence had assisted him as an asset to his personality in many ways throughout his career, it is clear to see that this confidence lead to his underestimating of Stalin’s rise within the parliament, contributing significantly to his loss in the power struggle. During the 1917 Revolution, Trotsky had evidently created a significant role for himself as a key organizer through his pragmatic tactical organisation. As a result of his organizational skills, historians such as Isaac Deutscher believe that this was what singly-handedly saved the Bolshevik regime in Revolution. However, historian Richard Pipes argues a conflicting view, stating that it was Trotsky’s ‘obsessive’ need to organize which essentially caused him to overlook the rising issue of Joseph Stalin. Hence, majority of Trotsky’s strengths can be seen, especially through the eyes of Richard Pipes, to have doubled as weaknesses in the essence that they have resulted in his condemnation as a failure through the eyes of many.
Trotsky encountered a number of factors throughout his career which were completely out of his control, and which contributed to his condemnation as a failure by critics throughout history. Upon experiencing symptoms of an undiagnosed fever, this sickness coupled with the stresses of his situation within the party put an extremely heavy weight on Trotsky’s shoulders, as he “ruefully noted that his illness could hardly have come at a worst time.” The illness which was completely out of his control had a significant impact on his performance within the party causing him to miss a number of important meetings and other important matters. Furthering his situation, censorship on Stalin’s behalf meant that only ‘bad’ or negative things could be written and published about Trotsky, creating the impression of aloofness and weakness which was not helped by the fact that, through Stalin’s plans, Trotsky was not informed in time of Lenin’s death and thus was not present at his funeral. This created a very bad image for the potential successor, although it was completely out of his control in a ploy by Stalin to take the place of Lenin. Hence, it is clear to see that these factors could not have been helped by Trotsky, although they certainly did contribute to his condemnation as a failure by critics and historians alike.
Hence, it can be seen that Trotsky’s weaknesses surly do outweigh his strengths, and therefore it can be said that throughout history, he as been wrongfully vindicated by his admirers who see him as a ‘hero; in contrast to Stalin, although he was in actual fact a failure, and his critics and historians were right to condemn him so.
Post by: sudodds on May 07, 2017, 07:55:30 pm
Hi! so my recent history assessment task involves two essays with seen questions!
Here is my second essay question; Has history vindicated Trotsky, or were his critics right to condemn him as a failure?
And was wondering if I could please get my attempt marked so as I can improve it before submitting it! If you have any questions regarding it then please ask away
Hey Chloe! Sure thing :) My comments on your response can be found in the spoiler + below.
Spoiler
Throughout human history, certain individuals stand out due to the role they have played in key historical events and the impact’s that they have had within the context of their times. Your first sentence needs to be a judgement based upon what the question is asking - namely was Trotsky vindicated by history - agree/disagree? As the question specifically mentions Trotsky, you also want to explicitly address him within your judgement, and to what extent he has been "vindicated". My judgement would be "Though remaining a controversial figure, Leon Trotsky has overall been vindicated by history." - However as we ascertained from the Question thread that probably won't be yours ;) (and that is totally fine!)This is particularly true in the case of Leon Trotsky, perhaps one of the most debated politicians i'm not too fussed on the term politician here - he is more so known as a revolutionary in Russian history. Trotsky’s role within the Soviet parliament has rightfully been condemned a failure among both his critics and historians who despite his obvious intelligence, consider him to have been a ‘naïve idealist and politician.’ Great judgement, very strong - just needs to be at the beginning of your intro! :) Despite having a number of positive attributes, I love how you have differentiated here - adding a bit of nuance to your essay, but still maintaining a strong judgement aka not sitting on the fence.Trotsky has been wrongly vindicated by his admirers throughout history, as seen through a study of his role within the Russian Government and the opinions of critical historians. I think I need a bit more of an outline of your essay - what specifically is each paragraph discussing?
Despite being somewhat vindicated by supporters for his many strengths and positive attributes demonstrated throughout his time in Russia, Trotsky wasin many ways overall (If your judgement from the intro was that he was overall a failure then that must remain consistent through your paragraphsa failure as it is evident to see that his weaknesses truly did outweigh his strengths. #shade 8) Being the naiivee idealist and ruthless authoritarian he was, Trotsky stuck too rigidly to his ideology of permanent revolution to the detriment of the party and the Soviet Union. I wanna debate you so hard rn. Not a bad thing, just letting ya know 8) Thats why I love Russian history so much, really gets me fired up haha. In my opinion he didn't stick too rigidly to his ideology, in fact the exact opposite! During the Treaty once it becomes clear that his position fails he immediately supports Lenin and resigns from his position. Some might say that that was out of frustration, but in my opinion that was more so due to the fact that he believed that he was not right of the position after this failure. This more so suggests that he didn't stick so rigidly to his ideology, because if that were the case wouldn't he want to keep the position of Commissar of Foreign Affairs given how strongly his ideology relied on foreign affairs/global revolution? I also think that the Civil War is a clear example of this, as the reinstating of rank and class within the army, and the appointment of 50 000 ex-tsarist officers greatly went against ideology - but he implemented them because on a practical level they were needed in order to secure victory. I probably will debate you throughout because I can't help it, so I'm going to mark those in red so that you know that that stuff isn't necessarily stuff that you have to change - more so just something to maybe consider ;) Prior to his death, Lenin’s final testament had been completed with Trotsky being the only one who stood to benefit from the publication of the testament, In a way yes - though the Testament did criticise Trotsky as well (though not as much as Stalin by any means). And yes, individually he may have benefitted, however Trotsky was also fiercely loyal to the Bolshevik party (at least imo), and the releasing of said Testament would have caused further disruptions to an already shaky party. however he did not object when it was decided that it should be suppressed. This was a failure on Trotsky’s behalf, as it allowed Stalin to remain strong and powerful and essentially lead to his victory in the struggle for power. According to historian David Van Tol, Publishing the testimony could have called for the removal of Stalin from his position as general secretary, as stated by Lenin within the testament “Comrade Stalin, having become General secretary, has unlimited authority concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure that he will always be capable of using that power with sufficient caution.” Nice integration of both primary and secondary sources :) Hence revealing one of Trotsky’s greatest weaknesses to be the fact that he completely overestimated Stalin when he chose not to publicize the testament. Besides this, and despite his intelligence he also lacked the political skills needed in order to become Commissar Do you mean Chairman? Trotsky was a Commissar (Commissar of War at the time, though he also fulfilled the position of Commissar of Foreign Affairs earlier). According to historian Richard pipes, Trotsky’s role in the November revolution Unless your quoting Pipes here (which in that case make sure you're using " ") I'd call it October Revolution - that is the most common iteration, and the least likely to confuse a marker (though most will understand what you mean) has been exaggerated throughout time, wrongly vindicating him. Pipes states that “Vladimir Lenin was primarily responsible for the success of the uprising, and Trotsky was simply carrying out demands.” It is evident that Trotsky’s lack of political and tactical skills was in many way’s a weakness resulting in condemnation as a failure, as it effected the way that he was perceived by not only the Russian people and government of the time, but also by countless people throughout history. During the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, Trotsky delayed negotiations in order to receive word from Britain and France. Pipes criticizes Trotsky for this, arguing that through delaying the negotiations, he only “riled the Germans, resulting in a more punitive and humiliating peace which otherwise would not have been the case.” Nice supporting quote. It is because of these many failures and weaknesses which Trotsky possessed and revealed throughout his career which has resulted in his condemnation as a failure by his critics, and rightfully so.
Apart from the many weaknesses which led to Trotsky’s condemnation as a failure, he also possessed a number of successful and positive strengths, though many of these strengths, despite coming from the goodness of his heart, resulted in his condemnation as a failure. Might want to rephrase this a bit - a tad confusing.During the civil war and his role as Commissar for war, Trotsky had gained a large amount of Military support. Historian Isaac Deutscher bae 💕 commends Trotsky for his brilliant military leadership during the conflict and excuses the abuses that were committed during the duration of the conflict, arguing that the future of the revolution was at stake. Richard Pipes however, emphasizes the fact that Trotsky was a brutal and harsh military commander, and that despite his power and support as commissar for war, the way’s in which he had gone about utilizing his military power and support was in many ways, a great failure. You need some detail to support this - give us some examples of the brutal things that he did. Suppression of the Kronstadt Rebellion could be a good one. Another strength of Trotsky’s was his confidence within the party. Is this really a strength? According to historian Isaac Deutscher, Trotsky truly believed that Stalin would not even think to succeed Lenin because of the fact that he was an inferior candidate. Deutscher states “Trotsky refrained from attacking Stalin because he felt secure… it seemed to Trotsky almost a bad joke that Stalin, the wilful and sly but shabby and inarticulate man in the background should be his rival.” It is believed that if Trotsky had of overcome his self-confidence and spoken up about his growing concerns regarding Stalins presence within the parliament whilst Lenin was still there, he would have almost certainly supported Trotsky, and could have annihilated Stalin as a threat immediately. I don't think this is purely an issue of self-confidence though - Stalin was a sly mofo and really manipulated everyone into percieving him to be this docile boring figure.Lenin himself also acknowledge within his testament that trotsky’s self-confidence doubled as a weakness, stating ‘distinguished by his too far-reaching self- confidence.’ Although Trotsky’s confidence had assisted him as an asset to his personality in many ways throughout his career how though?, it is clear to see that this confidence lead to his underestimating of Stalin’s rise within the parliament, contributing significantly to his loss in the power struggle. I think you need to segue to your next point better -During the 1917 Revolution, Trotsky had evidently created a significant role for himself as a key organizer through his pragmatic tactical organisation. As a result of his organizational skills, historians such as Isaac Deutscher believe that this was what singly-handedly saved the Bolshevik regime in Revolution. However, historian Richard Pipes argues a conflicting view, stating that it was Trotsky’s ‘obsessive’ need to organize which essentially caused him to overlook the rising issue of Joseph Stalin. Hence, majority of Trotsky’s strengths can be seen, especially through the eyes of Richard Pipes, to have doubled as weaknesses in the essence that they have resulted in his condemnation as a failure through the eyes of many. Really interesting argument :)
Trotsky encountered a number of factors throughout his career which were completely out of his control, and which contributed to his condemnation as a failure by critics throughout history. Upon experiencing symptoms of an undiagnosed fever, this sickness coupled with the stresses of his situation within the party put an extremely heavy weight on Trotsky’s shoulders, as he “ruefully noted that his illness could hardly have come at a worst time.” The illness which was completely out of his control had a significant impact on his performance within the party causing him to miss a number of important meetings and other important matters. Furthering his situation, censorship on Stalin’s behalf meant that only ‘bad’ or negative things could be written and published about Trotsky, creating the impression of aloofness and weakness which was not helped by the fact that, through Stalin’s plans, Trotsky was not informed in time of Lenin’s death He wasn't just not informed in time - he was given the wrong date! and thus was not present at his funeral. This created a very bad image for the potential successor, although it was completely out of his control in a ploy by Stalin to take the place of Lenin. Hence, it is clear to see that these factors could not have been helped by Trotsky, although they certainly did contribute to his condemnation as a failure by critics and historians alike. This paragraph is a lot weaker than your others. I don't think him being ill really warrants an entire paragraph to justify your point, and doesn't really support your judgement that he was a naive idealist. Your argument is interesting, but I'm not too sure how relevant to the question.
Hence, it can be seen that Trotsky’s weaknesses surly do outweigh his strengths, and therefore it can be said that throughout history, he as been wrongfully vindicated by his admirers who see him as a ‘hero; in contrast to Stalin, although he was in actual fact a failure, and his critics and historians were right to condemn him so.
Despite being somewhat vindicated by supporters for his many strengths and positive attributes demonstrated throughout his time in Russia, Trotsky was
Apart from the many weaknesses which led to Trotsky’s condemnation as a failure, he also possessed a number of successful and positive strengths, though many of these strengths, despite coming from the goodness of his heart, resulted in his condemnation as a failure. Might want to rephrase this a bit - a tad confusing.During the civil war and his role as Commissar for war, Trotsky had gained a large amount of Military support. Historian Isaac Deutscher bae 💕 commends Trotsky for his brilliant military leadership during the conflict and excuses the abuses that were committed during the duration of the conflict, arguing that the future of the revolution was at stake. Richard Pipes however, emphasizes the fact that Trotsky was a brutal and harsh military commander, and that despite his power and support as commissar for war, the way’s in which he had gone about utilizing his military power and support was in many ways, a great failure. You need some detail to support this - give us some examples of the brutal things that he did. Suppression of the Kronstadt Rebellion could be a good one. Another strength of Trotsky’s was his confidence within the party. Is this really a strength? According to historian Isaac Deutscher, Trotsky truly believed that Stalin would not even think to succeed Lenin because of the fact that he was an inferior candidate. Deutscher states “Trotsky refrained from attacking Stalin because he felt secure… it seemed to Trotsky almost a bad joke that Stalin, the wilful and sly but shabby and inarticulate man in the background should be his rival.” It is believed that if Trotsky had of overcome his self-confidence and spoken up about his growing concerns regarding Stalins presence within the parliament whilst Lenin was still there, he would have almost certainly supported Trotsky, and could have annihilated Stalin as a threat immediately. I don't think this is purely an issue of self-confidence though - Stalin was a sly mofo and really manipulated everyone into percieving him to be this docile boring figure.Lenin himself also acknowledge within his testament that trotsky’s self-confidence doubled as a weakness, stating ‘distinguished by his too far-reaching self- confidence.’ Although Trotsky’s confidence had assisted him as an asset to his personality in many ways throughout his career how though?, it is clear to see that this confidence lead to his underestimating of Stalin’s rise within the parliament, contributing significantly to his loss in the power struggle. I think you need to segue to your next point better -During the 1917 Revolution, Trotsky had evidently created a significant role for himself as a key organizer through his pragmatic tactical organisation. As a result of his organizational skills, historians such as Isaac Deutscher believe that this was what singly-handedly saved the Bolshevik regime in Revolution. However, historian Richard Pipes argues a conflicting view, stating that it was Trotsky’s ‘obsessive’ need to organize which essentially caused him to overlook the rising issue of Joseph Stalin. Hence, majority of Trotsky’s strengths can be seen, especially through the eyes of Richard Pipes, to have doubled as weaknesses in the essence that they have resulted in his condemnation as a failure through the eyes of many. Really interesting argument :)
Trotsky encountered a number of factors throughout his career which were completely out of his control, and which contributed to his condemnation as a failure by critics throughout history. Upon experiencing symptoms of an undiagnosed fever, this sickness coupled with the stresses of his situation within the party put an extremely heavy weight on Trotsky’s shoulders, as he “ruefully noted that his illness could hardly have come at a worst time.” The illness which was completely out of his control had a significant impact on his performance within the party causing him to miss a number of important meetings and other important matters. Furthering his situation, censorship on Stalin’s behalf meant that only ‘bad’ or negative things could be written and published about Trotsky, creating the impression of aloofness and weakness which was not helped by the fact that, through Stalin’s plans, Trotsky was not informed in time of Lenin’s death He wasn't just not informed in time - he was given the wrong date! and thus was not present at his funeral. This created a very bad image for the potential successor, although it was completely out of his control in a ploy by Stalin to take the place of Lenin. Hence, it is clear to see that these factors could not have been helped by Trotsky, although they certainly did contribute to his condemnation as a failure by critics and historians alike. This paragraph is a lot weaker than your others. I don't think him being ill really warrants an entire paragraph to justify your point, and doesn't really support your judgement that he was a naive idealist. Your argument is interesting, but I'm not too sure how relevant to the question.
Hence, it can be seen that Trotsky’s weaknesses surly do outweigh his strengths, and therefore it can be said that throughout history, he as been wrongfully vindicated by his admirers who see him as a ‘hero; in contrast to Stalin, although he was in actual fact a failure, and his critics and historians were right to condemn him so.
Okay! So overall comments;
This was a really strong response Chloe! Though I almost wholeheartedly disagree with your assessment ( ;)) that doesn't matter - you argued well and in a very interesting way. Your grasp on historiography was also very strong. The only things that I think were letting you down were:
- Detail! You need more of it, particularly as you are making such a strong judgement. Give me some specific examples, stats, etc. as to why Trotsky failed in certain areas. It's not enough to just tell me that Trotsky was involved in the 1917 Revolution - I want specifics! Was he the principle organiser of the storming of the Winter Palace? Was he instrumental in the changing of the date for the launch of the October Revolution? These are the types of specific detail that allows you to crack those top marks (though admittedly these more so support my interpretation, so you might want to find some different ones). Along with this, the more detail you add, the less it will look like you are just relying on your historians (this wasn't a major feeling that I had - but it did come across a little bit like that).
- Structure! This is a fairly minor point, but still something that I thought I should mention. Your structure confused me slightly in terms of the ways that the ideas were organised. Your second paragraph judgement I had to read quite a few times before I understood what you meant, and when I initially read it I assumed that you changed your judgement/sat on the fence. Though upon re-reading I realised that was not the case, a tired, elderly marker who's on their 50th script that night and needs to complete another 20 before they go home doesn't have that luxury. Take it or leave it, but I would recommend considering this structure - paragraph on his role as Commissar of Foreign Affairs, paragraph on his role as Commissar of War and paragraph on the Power Struggle. Though it may initially appear simplistic, this is the structure that I used during the HSC and I got 15/15 (I know this cos my school bought back my paper/marks). The reason I recommend this structure is because a) it more closely follows the syllabus, so if you get a marker who isn't a Trotsky expert who only has the syllabus to go off of, it is easier for them. b) In terms of the syllabus, this structure more closely explores the section of the syllabus which Part B of the personality study is derived from '4. Evaluation.' c) This structure is also more adaptable, and can work for other question types. But yeah, this is only a minor point, looking beyond just this assessment at towards Trials and HSC. I don't necessarily think you HAVE to change your structure for this upcoming assessment, but just something to keep in mind/test out when you do practice questions later on :)
But yes! Overall this was a very good response Chloe, well done! If I had to give it a mark I'd say you'd be looking at around a 12-13/15 :) (understand though that my marking may be quite different from your own teachers - so this may not be entirely accurate).
Good luck with your assessment! If any of my feedback confuses you let me know :)
Susie
Post by: chloeannbarwick on May 08, 2017, 10:25:16 am
You've really helped me for this recent assessment task, and I'm so grateful! Thank you! ;D
Post by: sudodds on May 08, 2017, 11:32:37 am
Thank you once again Susie for your great feedback! I found the fact that we both have very conflicting views and arguments quite fun and exciting on this one. It's always great to see other peoples stances on things like this!
You've really helped me for this recent assessment task, and I'm so grateful! Thank you! ;D
No worries Chloe :) So glad you found it helpful (and yes it is very fun - one of the reasons I loved the subject so much!)
Good luck! Let us know how it goes :)
Susie
Post by: rodero on May 13, 2017, 03:42:28 pm
I was wondering how the post count system works when marking the personality section. Are they considered an essay each (part a 10 marker and part b 15 marker)? Or should I send them both in together so it equals 25 marks just like the nation study.
Post by: jakesilove on May 13, 2017, 10:57:19 pm
Hi guys,
I was wondering how the post count system works when marking the personality section. Are they considered an essay each (part a 10 marker and part b 15 marker)? Or should I send them both in together so it equals 25 marks just like the nation study.
Hey! Happy to mark an entire Personality study essay (part A+B) as one essay :)
Post by: maria1999 on May 14, 2017, 10:24:34 am
So I have a speech on Speer thats strangely split up into two parts a speech and a source analysis report thing. It's based around historiography and this is the question: Speer the ‘good Nazi’: an evaluation - his knowledge, complicity and guilt; his contribution, historians’ views
It's such a strange question and I'm struggling because it's a statement but it doesn't have a directive term???!?!. It's in no way finished yet, it has a somewhat structure but it's mainly an overall slopfest so any criticism would be deeply appreciated! ALSO, thank you so much for answering all these Speer questions, I really appreciate it :) :) (This is also worth 10 marks and should be 6-8 minutes)
“Historians will not and cannot be satisfied with Albert Speer’s self-portrait: too much of it is myth, legend; too little of it historical truth” - Matthias Schmidt // Can I start with this?
The differing interpretations and debate surrounding Albert Speer greatly provide insight into his significance and contribution as a key figure of German history. His infamous defence of ignorance regarding the atrocities committed by the regime which he served allowed him to claim a position of innocence whilst ironically being at the centre of history's greatest atrocities. The legitimacy of this defence can be assessed through his knowledge regarding the expulsion of Jews from Berlin, his use of forced labour within the armaments industry, his supposed “ignorance of the “final solution” and his opposition to Hitler’s “Scorched Earth” policy.
Speer’s role in the expulsion of Jews from Berlin and their subsequent fate to perish in the death camps is a vital aspect of his overall complicity within the horrors of the Nazi regime. In 1937, Speer was appointed Inspector general of Construction in Berlin and was therefore responsible for the entirety of the Germania project. This was the plan to rebuild Berlin to be the centre of not only the third Reich but the entire world. In achieving the caliber of grandeur for this commission, many apartments needed to be demolished and tenants relocated. In 1939, the Resettlement Division of Speer’s administration was established for solely finding alternative accommodation for those affected. The enactment of the Law for Rebuilding of German Towns was passed which gave Speer the “absolute authority to seize whatever property he wished and to award compensation according to the minimal requirements of the law” (Kitchen). A significant amount of those resettled were Jews and many did not end up finding alternative housing which the led to the displaced being deported to concentration camps. Joachim Fest “observes that Early resettlement work was purely administrative and it would be highly unlikely that Speer would have known about the relocation struggle” In considering his perspective, Fest had a personal relationship with the accused, aiding him in publishing his memoir, Inside the Third Reich, which in turn hinders his reliability in relation to perspective on the issue of the Jewish flats. His view is somewhat substantiated by Gitta Sereny as she states that “although Speer certainly knew by 1941 that the Berlin Jews were being deported, it is virtually certain he had no idea they were going to their death”. Sereny grew close to Speer in the twelve years which she knew him and thus he was able to recount to her in a sympathetic demeanour not only his ignorance but typical response of contrition regarding the fate of the Jews. Further, with Speer having such jurisdiction over the entire commission, it simply cannot be plausible to conclude that someone of his authority would have been ignorant of the outcomes resulting in the expulsion of Jewish tenants. The emergence of Rudolf Wolters original chronicle in 1981 revealed that in 1941, Speer himself demanded a further clearing of 5000 Jewish flats for demolition survivors, of his own accord. In addition to this, a Chronicle entry from the 25th of October 1942 states that “the task of the resettlement department was to identify all Jewish flats...the number of resettled persons comprised 75000” This therefore renders the argument of his ignorance to his knowledge of the Jewish flats invalid as embodied by Martin Kitchen’s statement “Speer had made no mention that it was he, as Inspector General of Buildings, who decided their fate” . Overall, it is unwise to suggest that someone in the higher echelons of the Nazi party and Reich government such as Speer would be blind to the deportation of tens of thousands of Jews and their ultimate fate to perish in the death camps. (I need to desperately cut this down, I'm not sure where tho)
A significant factor in Speer’s twenty year prison sentence was his guilt of using forced labour within the armaments industry. Speer utilised the concentration camps within the regime to provide high-quality weapons for the war against the Allies. Mittelwerk, the underground factory under the Mittelbau-Dora concentration camp, was the main site in which the V-2 ballistic missiles were built. Workers slaved away during eighteen hour days enduring hellish conditions to produce the rockets. As typical of Speer, he denied knowledge regarding the conditions and extent to which workers were being exploited during the entirety of his time as Minister for Armaments. However this claim is invalid as the Reich minister visited the Dora camp on December 10 1943, witnessing first hand the harrowing conditions to which the workers faced. This encounter simultaneously debunks Sereny’s view that “He was unaware of the blood on his hands as armaments minister”. (What else can I say in this para?)
During the Nuremberg trials, Speer fabricated his defence regarding his knowledge of the “final solution” from the stance that he was an apolitical technocrat that remained impartial but nonetheless caught up in the barbaric horrors that the Nazi party had committed. His assumed guilt was grounded not in the direct knowledge, of which he did he have, but in the responsibility of being ignorant to the atrocities which were occurring. In his memoir, Speer writes of how he was never exposed to the Party’s potent anti-semitic agenda with Hitler “scarcely ever saying anything about the Jews… let alone about the necessity for setting up concentration camps” (Speer). As man who himself said “If Hitler had a friend it would have been me” the likelihood of Hitler’s closest confident being naive of his plans to ethnically cleanse Germany (in accordance to Nazi ideology) through process of extermination is extremely slight. Fest also affirms this position as he writes that “Speer spoke of the criminal character of the Hitler regime and admitted his mistake in not having taken the hateful threats against the Jews seriously” Irrespective of his naivety during his time, a speech delivered by Heinrich Himmler at the Posen Conference on the 6th of October 1943 renders Speer’s excuse of ignorance invalid as Himmler revealed the government’s ongoing systematic extermination of the Jews in labour camps. Speer himself was present at this very conference but again claimed ignorance to the Holocaust as he was not present during Himmler’s speech, having “left early”. Speer himself states that “As an important member of the leadership of the Reich I therefore share in the general responsibility from 1942 onwards” This statement alone demonstrates the carefully constructed myth that was his defence at Nuremberg, conveniently ignoring his directive as Inspector General of Construction to expel 5000 Jewish tenants from their property in 1941. This ultimately reveals that his complicity and guilt of the Nazi Party's Crimes against humanity, stemmed long before his appointment as Minister of Armaments and Munitions. Schmidt substantiates this view as he states that “nothing could be further than the truth than the image of Speer as an architect with purely artistic ambitions, absorbed in his work” . (I need to cut this too also)
Speer’s opposition to Hitler’s “Scorched Earth” can be seen as a tool used to portray his image as a “good nazi”. Once the Allies were almost certainly in a position to conquer Germany, Hitler issued the “Scorched Earth” decree to effectively deplete Germany’s commodities and infrastructure rather than accept defeat. Speer disputed this as he claimed to have wanted the German people to have some sort of foundation to rebuild their lives after the conclusion of the war. Speer used his resistance to the Hitler’s policy to aid his image of being a “good Nazi” as it can be seen that his “determination to thwart the destruction of German was motivated partly by a genuine concern for the future of the German people” (Noakes). Nonetheless it must also be recognised that Speer’s actions stemmed also from his own political agenda as he wanted to gain sympathy in the eyes of Germany’s conquerors (Noakes) (What else can I say?)
Post by: jakesilove on May 14, 2017, 09:42:27 pm
Hey!
So I have a speech on Speer thats strangely split up into two parts a speech and a source analysis report thing. It's based around historiography and this is the question: Speer the ‘good Nazi’: an evaluation - his knowledge, complicity and guilt; his contribution, historians’ views
as he claimed to have wanted the German people to have some sort of foundation to rebuild their lives after the conclusion of the war. Speer used his resistance to the Hitler’s policy to aid his image of being a “good Nazi” as it can be seen that his “determination to thwart the destruction of German was motivated partly by a genuine concern for the future of the German people” (Noakes). Nonetheless it must also be recognised that Speer’s actions stemmed also from his own political agenda as he wanted to gain sympathy in the eyes of Germany’s conquerors (Noakes) (What else can I say?)
Hey! Check out my comments below :)
Original speech
Spoiler
“Historians will not and cannot be satisfied with Albert Speer’s self-portrait: too much of it is myth, legend; too little of it historical truth” - Matthias Schmidt // Can I start with this?
The differing interpretations and debate surrounding Albert Speer greatly provide insight into his significance and contribution as a key figure of German history. His infamous defence of ignorance regarding the atrocities committed by the regime which he served allowed him to claim a position of innocence whilst ironically being at the centre of history's greatest atrocities. The legitimacy of this defence can be assessed through his knowledge regarding the expulsion of Jews from Berlin, his use of forced labour within the armaments industry, his supposed “ignorance of the “final solution” and his opposition to Hitler’s “Scorched Earth” policy.
Speer’s role in the expulsion of Jews from Berlin and their subsequent fate to perish in the death camps is a vital aspect of his overall complicity within the horrors of the Nazi regime. In 1937, Speer was appointed Inspector general of Construction in Berlin and was therefore responsible for the entirety of the Germania project. This was the plan to rebuild Berlin to be the centre of not only the third Reich but the entire world. In achieving the caliber of grandeur for this commission, many apartments needed to be demolished and tenants relocated. In 1939, the Resettlement Division of Speer’s administration was established for solely finding alternative accommodation for those affected. The enactment of the Law for Rebuilding of German Towns was passed which gave Speer the “absolute authority to seize whatever property he wished and to award compensation according to the minimal requirements of the law” (Kitchen). A significant amount of those resettled were Jews and many did not end up finding alternative housing which the led to the displaced being deported to concentration camps. Joachim Fest “observes that Early resettlement work was purely administrative and it would be highly unlikely that Speer would have known about the relocation struggle” In considering his perspective, Fest had a personal relationship with the accused, aiding him in publishing his memoir, Inside the Third Reich, which in turn hinders his reliability in relation to perspective on the issue of the Jewish flats. His view is somewhat substantiated by Gitta Sereny as she states that “although Speer certainly knew by 1941 that the Berlin Jews were being deported, it is virtually certain he had no idea they were going to their death”. Sereny grew close to Speer in the twelve years which she knew him and thus he was able to recount to her in a sympathetic demeanour not only his ignorance but typical response of contrition regarding the fate of the Jews. Further, with Speer having such jurisdiction over the entire commission, it simply cannot be plausible to conclude that someone of his authority would have been ignorant of the outcomes resulting in the expulsion of Jewish tenants. The emergence of Rudolf Wolters original chronicle in 1981 revealed that in 1941, Speer himself demanded a further clearing of 5000 Jewish flats for demolition survivors, of his own accord. In addition to this, a Chronicle entry from the 25th of October 1942 states that “the task of the resettlement department was to identify all Jewish flats...the number of resettled persons comprised 75000” This therefore renders the argument of his ignorance to his knowledge of the Jewish flats invalid as embodied by Martin Kitchen’s statement “Speer had made no mention that it was he, as Inspector General of Buildings, who decided their fate” . Overall, it is unwise to suggest that someone in the higher echelons of the Nazi party and Reich government such as Speer would be blind to the deportation of tens of thousands of Jews and their ultimate fate to perish in the death camps. (I need to desperately cut this down, I'm not sure where tho)
A significant factor in Speer’s twenty year prison sentence was his guilt of using forced labour within the armaments industry. Speer utilised the concentration camps within the regime to provide high-quality weapons for the war against the Allies. Mittelwerk, the underground factory under the Mittelbau-Dora concentration camp, was the main site in which the V-2 ballistic missiles were built. Workers slaved away during eighteen hour days enduring hellish conditions to produce the rockets. As typical of Speer, he denied knowledge regarding the conditions and extent to which workers were being exploited during the entirety of his time as Minister for Armaments. However this claim is invalid as the Reich minister visited the Dora camp on December 10 1943, witnessing first hand the harrowing conditions to which the workers faced. This encounter simultaneously debunks Sereny’s view that “He was unaware of the blood on his hands as armaments minister”. (What else can I say in this para?)
During the Nuremberg trials, Speer fabricated his defence regarding his knowledge of the “final solution” from the stance that he was an apolitical technocrat that remained impartial but nonetheless caught up in the barbaric horrors that the Nazi party had committed. His assumed guilt was grounded not in the direct knowledge, of which he did he have, but in the responsibility of being ignorant to the atrocities which were occurring. In his memoir, Speer writes of how he was never exposed to the Party’s potent anti-semitic agenda with Hitler “scarcely ever saying anything about the Jews… let alone about the necessity for setting up concentration camps” (Speer). As man who himself said “If Hitler had a friend it would have been me” the likelihood of Hitler’s closest confident being naive of his plans to ethnically cleanse Germany (in accordance to Nazi ideology) through process of extermination is extremely slight. Fest also affirms this position as he writes that “Speer spoke of the criminal character of the Hitler regime and admitted his mistake in not having taken the hateful threats against the Jews seriously” Irrespective of his naivety during his time, a speech delivered by Heinrich Himmler at the Posen Conference on the 6th of October 1943 renders Speer’s excuse of ignorance invalid as Himmler revealed the government’s ongoing systematic extermination of the Jews in labour camps. Speer himself was present at this very conference but again claimed ignorance to the Holocaust as he was not present during Himmler’s speech, having “left early”. Speer himself states that “As an important member of the leadership of the Reich I therefore share in the general responsibility from 1942 onwards” This statement alone demonstrates the carefully constructed myth that was his defence at Nuremberg, conveniently ignoring his directive as Inspector General of Construction to expel 5000 Jewish tenants from their property in 1941. This ultimately reveals that his complicity and guilt of the Nazi Party's Crimes against humanity, stemmed long before his appointment as Minister of Armaments and Munitions. Schmidt substantiates this view as he states that “nothing could be further than the truth than the image of Speer as an architect with purely artistic ambitions, absorbed in his work” . (I need to cut this too also)
Speer’s opposition to Hitler’s “Scorched Earth” can be seen as a tool used to portray his image as a “good nazi”. Once the Allies were almost certainly in a position to conquer Germany, Hitler issued the “Scorched Earth” decree to effectively deplete Germany’s commodities and infrastructure rather than accept defeat. Speer disputed this as he claimed to have wanted the German people to have some sort of foundation to rebuild their lives after the conclusion of the war. Speer used his resistance to the Hitler’s policy to aid his image of being a “good Nazi” as it can be seen that his “determination to thwart the destruction of German was motivated partly by a genuine concern for the future of the German people” (Noakes). Nonetheless it must also be recognised that Speer’s actions stemmed also from his own political agenda as he wanted to gain sympathy in the eyes of Germany’s conquerors (Noakes) (What else can I say?)
The differing interpretations and debate surrounding Albert Speer greatly provide insight into his significance and contribution as a key figure of German history. His infamous defence of ignorance regarding the atrocities committed by the regime which he served allowed him to claim a position of innocence whilst ironically being at the centre of history's greatest atrocities. The legitimacy of this defence can be assessed through his knowledge regarding the expulsion of Jews from Berlin, his use of forced labour within the armaments industry, his supposed “ignorance of the “final solution” and his opposition to Hitler’s “Scorched Earth” policy.
Speer’s role in the expulsion of Jews from Berlin and their subsequent fate to perish in the death camps is a vital aspect of his overall complicity within the horrors of the Nazi regime. In 1937, Speer was appointed Inspector general of Construction in Berlin and was therefore responsible for the entirety of the Germania project. This was the plan to rebuild Berlin to be the centre of not only the third Reich but the entire world. In achieving the caliber of grandeur for this commission, many apartments needed to be demolished and tenants relocated. In 1939, the Resettlement Division of Speer’s administration was established for solely finding alternative accommodation for those affected. The enactment of the Law for Rebuilding of German Towns was passed which gave Speer the “absolute authority to seize whatever property he wished and to award compensation according to the minimal requirements of the law” (Kitchen). A significant amount of those resettled were Jews and many did not end up finding alternative housing which the led to the displaced being deported to concentration camps. Joachim Fest “observes that Early resettlement work was purely administrative and it would be highly unlikely that Speer would have known about the relocation struggle” In considering his perspective, Fest had a personal relationship with the accused, aiding him in publishing his memoir, Inside the Third Reich, which in turn hinders his reliability in relation to perspective on the issue of the Jewish flats. His view is somewhat substantiated by Gitta Sereny as she states that “although Speer certainly knew by 1941 that the Berlin Jews were being deported, it is virtually certain he had no idea they were going to their death”. Sereny grew close to Speer in the twelve years which she knew him and thus he was able to recount to her in a sympathetic demeanour not only his ignorance but typical response of contrition regarding the fate of the Jews. Further, with Speer having such jurisdiction over the entire commission, it simply cannot be plausible to conclude that someone of his authority would have been ignorant of the outcomes resulting in the expulsion of Jewish tenants. The emergence of Rudolf Wolters original chronicle in 1981 revealed that in 1941, Speer himself demanded a further clearing of 5000 Jewish flats for demolition survivors, of his own accord. In addition to this, a Chronicle entry from the 25th of October 1942 states that “the task of the resettlement department was to identify all Jewish flats...the number of resettled persons comprised 75000” This therefore renders the argument of his ignorance to his knowledge of the Jewish flats invalid as embodied by Martin Kitchen’s statement “Speer had made no mention that it was he, as Inspector General of Buildings, who decided their fate” . Overall, it is unwise to suggest that someone in the higher echelons of the Nazi party and Reich government such as Speer would be blind to the deportation of tens of thousands of Jews and their ultimate fate to perish in the death camps. (I need to desperately cut this down, I'm not sure where tho)
A significant factor in Speer’s twenty year prison sentence was his guilt of using forced labour within the armaments industry. Speer utilised the concentration camps within the regime to provide high-quality weapons for the war against the Allies. Mittelwerk, the underground factory under the Mittelbau-Dora concentration camp, was the main site in which the V-2 ballistic missiles were built. Workers slaved away during eighteen hour days enduring hellish conditions to produce the rockets. As typical of Speer, he denied knowledge regarding the conditions and extent to which workers were being exploited during the entirety of his time as Minister for Armaments. However this claim is invalid as the Reich minister visited the Dora camp on December 10 1943, witnessing first hand the harrowing conditions to which the workers faced. This encounter simultaneously debunks Sereny’s view that “He was unaware of the blood on his hands as armaments minister”. (What else can I say in this para?)
During the Nuremberg trials, Speer fabricated his defence regarding his knowledge of the “final solution” from the stance that he was an apolitical technocrat that remained impartial but nonetheless caught up in the barbaric horrors that the Nazi party had committed. His assumed guilt was grounded not in the direct knowledge, of which he did he have, but in the responsibility of being ignorant to the atrocities which were occurring. In his memoir, Speer writes of how he was never exposed to the Party’s potent anti-semitic agenda with Hitler “scarcely ever saying anything about the Jews… let alone about the necessity for setting up concentration camps” (Speer). As man who himself said “If Hitler had a friend it would have been me” the likelihood of Hitler’s closest confident being naive of his plans to ethnically cleanse Germany (in accordance to Nazi ideology) through process of extermination is extremely slight. Fest also affirms this position as he writes that “Speer spoke of the criminal character of the Hitler regime and admitted his mistake in not having taken the hateful threats against the Jews seriously” Irrespective of his naivety during his time, a speech delivered by Heinrich Himmler at the Posen Conference on the 6th of October 1943 renders Speer’s excuse of ignorance invalid as Himmler revealed the government’s ongoing systematic extermination of the Jews in labour camps. Speer himself was present at this very conference but again claimed ignorance to the Holocaust as he was not present during Himmler’s speech, having “left early”. Speer himself states that “As an important member of the leadership of the Reich I therefore share in the general responsibility from 1942 onwards” This statement alone demonstrates the carefully constructed myth that was his defence at Nuremberg, conveniently ignoring his directive as Inspector General of Construction to expel 5000 Jewish tenants from their property in 1941. This ultimately reveals that his complicity and guilt of the Nazi Party's Crimes against humanity, stemmed long before his appointment as Minister of Armaments and Munitions. Schmidt substantiates this view as he states that “nothing could be further than the truth than the image of Speer as an architect with purely artistic ambitions, absorbed in his work” . (I need to cut this too also)
Speer’s opposition to Hitler’s “Scorched Earth” can be seen as a tool used to portray his image as a “good nazi”. Once the Allies were almost certainly in a position to conquer Germany, Hitler issued the “Scorched Earth” decree to effectively deplete Germany’s commodities and infrastructure rather than accept defeat. Speer disputed this as he claimed to have wanted the German people to have some sort of foundation to rebuild their lives after the conclusion of the war. Speer used his resistance to the Hitler’s policy to aid his image of being a “good Nazi” as it can be seen that his “determination to thwart the destruction of German was motivated partly by a genuine concern for the future of the German people” (Noakes). Nonetheless it must also be recognised that Speer’s actions stemmed also from his own political agenda as he wanted to gain sympathy in the eyes of Germany’s conquerors (Noakes) (What else can I say?)
Speech with comments
Spoiler
“Historians will not and cannot be satisfied with Albert Speer’s self-portrait: too much of it is myth, legend; too little of it historical truth” - Matthias Schmidt // Can I start with this?
No, I don't think you can start with this. Remember, it's a speech; how will you make that clear? How will you convey the message? What will the sentence sound like? You should have a strong, self-written opening. This may include a quote, such as the one above ('as noted by historian Matthias Schmidt...' etc) however starting a speech with a quote may be a bit cliche.
The differing interpretations and debate surrounding Albert Speer greatly provide Greatly provide? insight into his significance and contribution as a key figure of German history. His infamous defence of ignorance regarding the atrocities committed by the regime Defence where? Against whom? which he served allowed him to claim a position of innocence whilst ironically being at the centre of history's greatest atrocities Is that ironic? Is it not just an orchestrated, obvious attempt to avoid the death penalty?. The legitimacy of this defence can be assessed through his knowledge regarding the expulsion of Jews from Berlin, his use of forced labour within the armaments industry, his supposed “ignorance of the “final solution” I think your quotation marks don't match here and his opposition to Hitler’s “Scorched Earth” policy.
Overall, you've set yourself up for a strong essay. However, you definitely need to read through it a few times and fix up the spelling and grammar. The sentences could definitely be clearer (read it out loud, and see if you like it!). This makes complete sense, since this is just a first draft, but still something worth doing. I particularly like the final sentence, which really defines where this speech will go. However, you haven't introduced a thesis. You've said that one may assess Speer's influence through X Y and Z, but you haven't actually completed that assessment. This is paramount in an introduction; what is your thesis?
Speer’s role in the expulsion of Jews from Berlin and their subsequent fate to perish (?) Revise this sentence in the death camps is a vital aspect of his overall complicity within the horrors of the Nazi regime. Perfect In 1937, Speer was appointed Inspector Ggeneral of Construction in Berlin and was therefore responsible for theentirety of the Germania project. This was the Hitler's? plan to rebuild Berlin to be the centre of not only the Tthird Reich but the entire world. In achieving the caliber of grandeur for this commission, many apartments needed to be demolished and tenants relocated. In 1939, the Resettlement Division of Speer’s administration was established for solely (?) finding alternative accommodation for those affected. The enactment of the Law for Rebuilding of German Towns When? was passed which gave Speer the “absolute authority to seize whatever property he wished and to award compensation according to the minimal requirements of the law” (Kitchen). A significant amount of those resettled were Jews Statistic here? and many did not end up finding alternative housing Statistic? which the led to the displaced being deported to concentration camps Really? That's great, but I need more evidence. Also, ideally there would be a bit less 'telling', and a bit more analysis.. Joachim Fest How can the word observes be within this quote? Or is this from another source? “observes that Early resettlement work was purely administrative and it would be highly unlikely that Speer would have known about the relocation struggle”full stop? In considering his perspective, Fest had a personal relationship with the accused, aiding him in publishing his memoir, Inside the Third Reich, which in turn hinders his reliability in relation to perspective on the issue of the Jewish flats. Whilst I get your point, it needs to be made more succinctly and more clearly. His view is somewhat substantiated by Gitta Sereny as she states that “although Speer certainly knew by 1941 that the Berlin Jews were being deported, it is virtually certain he had no idea they were going to their death”. Sereny grew close to Speer in the twelve years which she knew him and thus he was able to recount to her in a sympathetic demeanour not only his ignorance but typical response of contrition regarding the fate of the Jews Again, this sentence needs some serious rework. Read it outloud to check if it makes sense. Further, with Speer having such jurisdiction over the entire commission, it simply cannot be plausible to conclude that someone of his authority would have been ignorant of the outcomes resulting in the expulsion of Jewish tenants. The emergence of Rudolf Wolters original chronicle in 1981 revealed that in 1941, Speer himself demanded a further clearing of 5000 Jewish flats for demolition survivors, of his own accord Brilliant. More sentences like this. In addition to this, a Chronicle entry from the 25th of October 1942 states that “the task of the resettlement department was to identify all Jewish flats...the number of resettled persons comprised 75000” Full stop!!!! This therefore renders the argument of his ignorance to his knowledge of the Jewish flats invalid as embodied by Martin Kitchen’s statement “Speer had made no mention that it was he, as Inspector General of Buildings, who decided their fate” . Overall, it is unwise to suggest that someone in the higher echelons of the Nazi party and Reich government such as Speer would be blind to the deportation of tens of thousands of Jews and their ultimate fate to perish in the death camps. (I need to desperately cut this down, I'm not sure where tho)
Synthesis, synthesis, synthesis. Go back through this above paragraph, and summarise the points you make in dot points. There are probably only a few. Then, expand on those dot points, cutting down anything unnecessary. Whilst historiography is important, and you've used it well, your direct analysis of each historiographer is probably too far. Summarise your point, make it, and move on. Additionally, make your thesis more clear throughout (I still don't know what it is, by the way). Was Speer the 'Good Nazi'? Was he complicit in every way? Was he a technocratic opportunist?
A significant factor in Speer’s twenty year prison sentence was his guilt of using forced labour within the armaments industry. Really need to rework these sentences, particularly the introductory ones. They need to be more hard-hitting! Speer utilised the concentration camps within the regime to provide high-quality weapons for the war against the Allies. Mittelwerk, the underground factory under? the Mittelbau-Dora concentration camp, was the main site in which the V-2 ballistic missiles were built How many rockets? When was this?. Workers slaved away during eighteen hour days enduring hellish conditions to produce the rockets. As typical of Speer, he denied knowledge regarding the conditions and extent to which workers were being exploited during the entirety of his time as Minister for Armaments. However this claim is invalid as the Reich minister visited the Dora camp on December 10 1943, witnessing first hand the harrowing conditions to which the workers faced. This encounter simultaneously debunks Sereny’s view that “He was unaware of the blood on his hands as armaments minister”. (What else can I say in this para?)
You can use way more statistics, as outlined above. Statistics and quotes prove your point; thus, a point stated is 'wrong' without content to back it up.
Overall, this is your structure:
1. Content-related description
2. Explanation of Speer's attempted explanation of innocence
3. Reason for the falsity of that explanation
This is a pretty good structure, that clearly displays your point. However, I'm really failing to see a sustained thesis. Instead, your speech so far is a collection of points. There should be a running thread; what are you trying to prove? What words will you use to describe Speer? What is your answer to the 'question' (I know there isn't actually a question, but you need to be painting some picture of Speer).
During the Nuremberg trials, Speer fabricated his defence regarding his knowledge of the “final solution” from the stance that he was an apolitical technocrat that remained impartial but nonetheless caught up in the barbaric horrors that the Nazi party had committed. Same comments as above.
His assumed guilt was grounded not in the direct knowledge, of which he did he have He didn't? I thought you argued he did?, but in the responsibility of being ignorant to the atrocities which were occurring. In his memoir, Speer writes of how he was never exposed to the Party’s potent anti-semitic agenda with Hitler “scarcely ever saying anything about the Jews… let alone about the necessity for setting up concentration camps” (Speer). As a man who himself said “If Hitler had a friend it would have been me” the likelihood of Hitler’s closest confident being naive of his plans to ethnically cleanse Germany (in accordance to with Nazi ideology) through process of extermination is extremely slight. You can't argue how slight this likelihood it. Instead, you can say things like 'implausible' or 'absurd'. This also strengthens your argument. Fest also affirms this position as he writes that “Speer spoke of the criminal character of the Hitler regime and admitted his mistake in not having taken the hateful threats against the Jews seriously” Full stops Irrespective of his naivety during his time WAS HE NAIVE?!? His CLAIMED naivety, a speech delivered by Heinrich Himmler at the Posen Conference on the 6th of October 1943 renders Speer’s excuse of ignorance invalid as Himmler revealed the government’s ongoing systematic extermination of the Jews in labour camps. Speer himself was present at this very conference but again claimed ignorance to the Holocaust as he was not present during Himmler’s speech, having “left early”. Speer himself states that “As an important member of the leadership of the Reich I therefore share in the general responsibility from 1942 onwards” This statement alone demonstrates the carefully constructed myth that was his defence at Nuremberg, conveniently ignoring his directive as Inspector General of Construction to expel 5000 Jewish tenants from their property in 1941. This ultimately reveals that his complicity and guilt of the Nazi Party's Crimes against humanity, stemmed long before his appointment as Minister of Armaments and Munitions. Schmidt substantiates this view as he states that “nothing could be further than the truth than the image of Speer as an architect with purely artistic ambitions, absorbed in his work” . (I need to cut this too also)
Speer’s opposition to Hitler’s “Scorched Earth” can be seen as a tool used to portray his image as a “good nazi” Capitalise letters. But, didn't he actually oppose this policy? What do you mean by good Nazi? Who claims this? You need more explanation, or more analysis. Once the Allies were almost certainly in a position to conquer Germany, Hitler issued the “Scorched Earth” decree to effectively deplete Germany’s commodities and infrastructure rather than accept defeat. Speer disputed this as he claimed to have wanted the German people to have some sort of foundation to rebuild their lives after the conclusion of the war. Speer used his resistance to the Hitler’s policy to aid his image of being a “good Nazi” as it can be seen that his “determination to thwart the destruction of German was motivated partly by a genuine concern for the future of the German people” (Noakes). Nonetheless it must also be recognised that Speer’s actions stemmed also from his own political agenda as he wanted to gain sympathy in the eyes of Germany’s conquerors (Noakes) (What else can I say?)
This speech has a very good foundation, but still needs a lot of work. You need to clarify your points, read your sentences out loud, add statistics and more importantly decide on a thesis. This thesis needs to be sustained throughout the speech. I do understand that this is a difficult assessment task, but you really do need a sustained argument, rather than a collection of points, if you want to write a high-achieving response.
You've done the bulk of the work already. This is best thought of as a first draft, and now it's time to work on your second. I would put this essay up on one tab, and a blank document on another, and start rewriting with reference to your original. Read everything outloud, and keep in mind the comments I've made above.
I've only really mentioned the negatives, because there's no real need for me to tell you the amazing parts! So, don't be discouraged, this is on it's way to being a great speech.
Let me know if you have any more questions about my comments above!
No, I don't think you can start with this. Remember, it's a speech; how will you make that clear? How will you convey the message? What will the sentence sound like? You should have a strong, self-written opening. This may include a quote, such as the one above ('as noted by historian Matthias Schmidt...' etc) however starting a speech with a quote may be a bit cliche.
The differing interpretations and debate surrounding Albert Speer greatly provide Greatly provide? insight into his significance and contribution as a key figure of German history. His infamous defence of ignorance regarding the atrocities committed by the regime Defence where? Against whom? which he served allowed him to claim a position of innocence whilst ironically being at the centre of history's greatest atrocities Is that ironic? Is it not just an orchestrated, obvious attempt to avoid the death penalty?. The legitimacy of this defence can be assessed through his knowledge regarding the expulsion of Jews from Berlin, his use of forced labour within the armaments industry, his supposed “ignorance of the “final solution” I think your quotation marks don't match here and his opposition to Hitler’s “Scorched Earth” policy.
Overall, you've set yourself up for a strong essay. However, you definitely need to read through it a few times and fix up the spelling and grammar. The sentences could definitely be clearer (read it out loud, and see if you like it!). This makes complete sense, since this is just a first draft, but still something worth doing. I particularly like the final sentence, which really defines where this speech will go. However, you haven't introduced a thesis. You've said that one may assess Speer's influence through X Y and Z, but you haven't actually completed that assessment. This is paramount in an introduction; what is your thesis?
Speer’s role in the expulsion of Jews from Berlin and their subsequent fate to perish (?) Revise this sentence in the death camps is a vital aspect of his overall complicity within the horrors of the Nazi regime. Perfect In 1937, Speer was appointed Inspector Ggeneral of Construction in Berlin and was therefore responsible for the
Synthesis, synthesis, synthesis. Go back through this above paragraph, and summarise the points you make in dot points. There are probably only a few. Then, expand on those dot points, cutting down anything unnecessary. Whilst historiography is important, and you've used it well, your direct analysis of each historiographer is probably too far. Summarise your point, make it, and move on. Additionally, make your thesis more clear throughout (I still don't know what it is, by the way). Was Speer the 'Good Nazi'? Was he complicit in every way? Was he a technocratic opportunist?
A significant factor in Speer’s twenty year prison sentence was his guilt of using forced labour within the armaments industry. Really need to rework these sentences, particularly the introductory ones. They need to be more hard-hitting! Speer utilised the concentration camps within the regime to provide high-quality weapons for the war against the Allies. Mittelwerk, the underground factory under? the Mittelbau-Dora concentration camp, was the main site in which the V-2 ballistic missiles were built How many rockets? When was this?. Workers slaved away during eighteen hour days enduring hellish conditions to produce the rockets. As typical of Speer, he denied knowledge regarding the conditions and extent to which workers were being exploited during the entirety of his time as Minister for Armaments. However this claim is invalid as the Reich minister visited the Dora camp on December 10 1943, witnessing first hand the harrowing conditions to which the workers faced. This encounter simultaneously debunks Sereny’s view that “He was unaware of the blood on his hands as armaments minister”. (What else can I say in this para?)
You can use way more statistics, as outlined above. Statistics and quotes prove your point; thus, a point stated is 'wrong' without content to back it up.
Overall, this is your structure:
1. Content-related description
2. Explanation of Speer's attempted explanation of innocence
3. Reason for the falsity of that explanation
This is a pretty good structure, that clearly displays your point. However, I'm really failing to see a sustained thesis. Instead, your speech so far is a collection of points. There should be a running thread; what are you trying to prove? What words will you use to describe Speer? What is your answer to the 'question' (I know there isn't actually a question, but you need to be painting some picture of Speer).
During the Nuremberg trials, Speer fabricated his defence regarding his knowledge of the “final solution” from the stance that he was an apolitical technocrat that remained impartial but nonetheless caught up in the barbaric horrors that the Nazi party had committed. Same comments as above.
His assumed guilt was grounded not in the direct knowledge, of which he did he have He didn't? I thought you argued he did?, but in the responsibility of being ignorant to the atrocities which were occurring. In his memoir, Speer writes of how he was never exposed to the Party’s potent anti-semitic agenda with Hitler “scarcely ever saying anything about the Jews… let alone about the necessity for setting up concentration camps” (Speer). As a man who himself said “If Hitler had a friend it would have been me” the likelihood of Hitler’s closest confident being naive of his plans to ethnically cleanse Germany (in accordance to with Nazi ideology) through process of extermination is extremely slight. You can't argue how slight this likelihood it. Instead, you can say things like 'implausible' or 'absurd'. This also strengthens your argument. Fest also affirms this position as he writes that “Speer spoke of the criminal character of the Hitler regime and admitted his mistake in not having taken the hateful threats against the Jews seriously” Full stops Irrespective of his naivety during his time WAS HE NAIVE?!? His CLAIMED naivety, a speech delivered by Heinrich Himmler at the Posen Conference on the 6th of October 1943 renders Speer’s excuse of ignorance invalid as Himmler revealed the government’s ongoing systematic extermination of the Jews in labour camps. Speer himself was present at this very conference but again claimed ignorance to the Holocaust as he was not present during Himmler’s speech, having “left early”. Speer himself states that “As an important member of the leadership of the Reich I therefore share in the general responsibility from 1942 onwards” This statement alone demonstrates the carefully constructed myth that was his defence at Nuremberg, conveniently ignoring his directive as Inspector General of Construction to expel 5000 Jewish tenants from their property in 1941. This ultimately reveals that his complicity and guilt of the Nazi Party's Crimes against humanity, stemmed long before his appointment as Minister of Armaments and Munitions. Schmidt substantiates this view as he states that “nothing could be further than the truth than the image of Speer as an architect with purely artistic ambitions, absorbed in his work” . (I need to cut this too also)
Speer’s opposition to Hitler’s “Scorched Earth” can be seen as a tool used to portray his image as a “good nazi” Capitalise letters. But, didn't he actually oppose this policy? What do you mean by good Nazi? Who claims this? You need more explanation, or more analysis. Once the Allies were almost certainly in a position to conquer Germany, Hitler issued the “Scorched Earth” decree to effectively deplete Germany’s commodities and infrastructure rather than accept defeat. Speer disputed this as he claimed to have wanted the German people to have some sort of foundation to rebuild their lives after the conclusion of the war. Speer used his resistance to the Hitler’s policy to aid his image of being a “good Nazi” as it can be seen that his “determination to thwart the destruction of German was motivated partly by a genuine concern for the future of the German people” (Noakes). Nonetheless it must also be recognised that Speer’s actions stemmed also from his own political agenda as he wanted to gain sympathy in the eyes of Germany’s conquerors (Noakes) (What else can I say?)
This speech has a very good foundation, but still needs a lot of work. You need to clarify your points, read your sentences out loud, add statistics and more importantly decide on a thesis. This thesis needs to be sustained throughout the speech. I do understand that this is a difficult assessment task, but you really do need a sustained argument, rather than a collection of points, if you want to write a high-achieving response.
You've done the bulk of the work already. This is best thought of as a first draft, and now it's time to work on your second. I would put this essay up on one tab, and a blank document on another, and start rewriting with reference to your original. Read everything outloud, and keep in mind the comments I've made above.
I've only really mentioned the negatives, because there's no real need for me to tell you the amazing parts! So, don't be discouraged, this is on it's way to being a great speech.
Let me know if you have any more questions about my comments above!
Post by: maria1999 on May 14, 2017, 09:58:58 pm
Hey! Check out my comments below :)
Original speechSpoiler“Historians will not and cannot be satisfied with Albert Speer’s self-portrait: too much of it is myth, legend; too little of it historical truth” - Matthias Schmidt // Can I start with this?
The differing interpretations and debate surrounding Albert Speer greatly provide insight into his significance and contribution as a key figure of German history. His infamous defence of ignorance regarding the atrocities committed by the regime which he served allowed him to claim a position of innocence whilst ironically being at the centre of history's greatest atrocities. The legitimacy of this defence can be assessed through his knowledge regarding the expulsion of Jews from Berlin, his use of forced labour within the armaments industry, his supposed “ignorance of the “final solution” and his opposition to Hitler’s “Scorched Earth” policy.
Speer’s role in the expulsion of Jews from Berlin and their subsequent fate to perish in the death camps is a vital aspect of his overall complicity within the horrors of the Nazi regime. In 1937, Speer was appointed Inspector general of Construction in Berlin and was therefore responsible for the entirety of the Germania project. This was the plan to rebuild Berlin to be the centre of not only the third Reich but the entire world. In achieving the caliber of grandeur for this commission, many apartments needed to be demolished and tenants relocated. In 1939, the Resettlement Division of Speer’s administration was established for solely finding alternative accommodation for those affected. The enactment of the Law for Rebuilding of German Towns was passed which gave Speer the “absolute authority to seize whatever property he wished and to award compensation according to the minimal requirements of the law” (Kitchen). A significant amount of those resettled were Jews and many did not end up finding alternative housing which the led to the displaced being deported to concentration camps. Joachim Fest “observes that Early resettlement work was purely administrative and it would be highly unlikely that Speer would have known about the relocation struggle” In considering his perspective, Fest had a personal relationship with the accused, aiding him in publishing his memoir, Inside the Third Reich, which in turn hinders his reliability in relation to perspective on the issue of the Jewish flats. His view is somewhat substantiated by Gitta Sereny as she states that “although Speer certainly knew by 1941 that the Berlin Jews were being deported, it is virtually certain he had no idea they were going to their death”. Sereny grew close to Speer in the twelve years which she knew him and thus he was able to recount to her in a sympathetic demeanour not only his ignorance but typical response of contrition regarding the fate of the Jews. Further, with Speer having such jurisdiction over the entire commission, it simply cannot be plausible to conclude that someone of his authority would have been ignorant of the outcomes resulting in the expulsion of Jewish tenants. The emergence of Rudolf Wolters original chronicle in 1981 revealed that in 1941, Speer himself demanded a further clearing of 5000 Jewish flats for demolition survivors, of his own accord. In addition to this, a Chronicle entry from the 25th of October 1942 states that “the task of the resettlement department was to identify all Jewish flats...the number of resettled persons comprised 75000” This therefore renders the argument of his ignorance to his knowledge of the Jewish flats invalid as embodied by Martin Kitchen’s statement “Speer had made no mention that it was he, as Inspector General of Buildings, who decided their fate” . Overall, it is unwise to suggest that someone in the higher echelons of the Nazi party and Reich government such as Speer would be blind to the deportation of tens of thousands of Jews and their ultimate fate to perish in the death camps. (I need to desperately cut this down, I'm not sure where tho)
A significant factor in Speer’s twenty year prison sentence was his guilt of using forced labour within the armaments industry. Speer utilised the concentration camps within the regime to provide high-quality weapons for the war against the Allies. Mittelwerk, the underground factory under the Mittelbau-Dora concentration camp, was the main site in which the V-2 ballistic missiles were built. Workers slaved away during eighteen hour days enduring hellish conditions to produce the rockets. As typical of Speer, he denied knowledge regarding the conditions and extent to which workers were being exploited during the entirety of his time as Minister for Armaments. However this claim is invalid as the Reich minister visited the Dora camp on December 10 1943, witnessing first hand the harrowing conditions to which the workers faced. This encounter simultaneously debunks Sereny’s view that “He was unaware of the blood on his hands as armaments minister”. (What else can I say in this para?)
During the Nuremberg trials, Speer fabricated his defence regarding his knowledge of the “final solution” from the stance that he was an apolitical technocrat that remained impartial but nonetheless caught up in the barbaric horrors that the Nazi party had committed. His assumed guilt was grounded not in the direct knowledge, of which he did he have, but in the responsibility of being ignorant to the atrocities which were occurring. In his memoir, Speer writes of how he was never exposed to the Party’s potent anti-semitic agenda with Hitler “scarcely ever saying anything about the Jews… let alone about the necessity for setting up concentration camps” (Speer). As man who himself said “If Hitler had a friend it would have been me” the likelihood of Hitler’s closest confident being naive of his plans to ethnically cleanse Germany (in accordance to Nazi ideology) through process of extermination is extremely slight. Fest also affirms this position as he writes that “Speer spoke of the criminal character of the Hitler regime and admitted his mistake in not having taken the hateful threats against the Jews seriously” Irrespective of his naivety during his time, a speech delivered by Heinrich Himmler at the Posen Conference on the 6th of October 1943 renders Speer’s excuse of ignorance invalid as Himmler revealed the government’s ongoing systematic extermination of the Jews in labour camps. Speer himself was present at this very conference but again claimed ignorance to the Holocaust as he was not present during Himmler’s speech, having “left early”. Speer himself states that “As an important member of the leadership of the Reich I therefore share in the general responsibility from 1942 onwards” This statement alone demonstrates the carefully constructed myth that was his defence at Nuremberg, conveniently ignoring his directive as Inspector General of Construction to expel 5000 Jewish tenants from their property in 1941. This ultimately reveals that his complicity and guilt of the Nazi Party's Crimes against humanity, stemmed long before his appointment as Minister of Armaments and Munitions. Schmidt substantiates this view as he states that “nothing could be further than the truth than the image of Speer as an architect with purely artistic ambitions, absorbed in his work” . (I need to cut this too also)
Speer’s opposition to Hitler’s “Scorched Earth” can be seen as a tool used to portray his image as a “good nazi”. Once the Allies were almost certainly in a position to conquer Germany, Hitler issued the “Scorched Earth” decree to effectively deplete Germany’s commodities and infrastructure rather than accept defeat. Speer disputed this as he claimed to have wanted the German people to have some sort of foundation to rebuild their lives after the conclusion of the war. Speer used his resistance to the Hitler’s policy to aid his image of being a “good Nazi” as it can be seen that his “determination to thwart the destruction of German was motivated partly by a genuine concern for the future of the German people” (Noakes). Nonetheless it must also be recognised that Speer’s actions stemmed also from his own political agenda as he wanted to gain sympathy in the eyes of Germany’s conquerors (Noakes) (What else can I say?)
Speech with commentsSpoiler“Historians will not and cannot be satisfied with Albert Speer’s self-portrait: too much of it is myth, legend; too little of it historical truth” - Matthias Schmidt // Can I start with this?
No, I don't think you can start with this. Remember, it's a speech; how will you make that clear? How will you convey the message? What will the sentence sound like? You should have a strong, self-written opening. This may include a quote, such as the one above ('as noted by historian Matthias Schmidt...' etc) however starting a speech with a quote may be a bit cliche.
The differing interpretations and debate surrounding Albert Speer greatly provide Greatly provide? insight into his significance and contribution as a key figure of German history. His infamous defence of ignorance regarding the atrocities committed by the regime Defence where? Against whom? which he served allowed him to claim a position of innocence whilst ironically being at the centre of history's greatest atrocities Is that ironic? Is it not just an orchestrated, obvious attempt to avoid the death penalty?. The legitimacy of this defence can be assessed through his knowledge regarding the expulsion of Jews from Berlin, his use of forced labour within the armaments industry, his supposed “ignorance of the “final solution” I think your quotation marks don't match here and his opposition to Hitler’s “Scorched Earth” policy.
Overall, you've set yourself up for a strong essay. However, you definitely need to read through it a few times and fix up the spelling and grammar. The sentences could definitely be clearer (read it out loud, and see if you like it!). This makes complete sense, since this is just a first draft, but still something worth doing. I particularly like the final sentence, which really defines where this speech will go. However, you haven't introduced a thesis. You've said that one may assess Speer's influence through X Y and Z, but you haven't actually completed that assessment. This is paramount in an introduction; what is your thesis?
Speer’s role in the expulsion of Jews from Berlin and their subsequent fate to perish (?) Revise this sentence in the death camps is a vital aspect of his overall complicity within the horrors of the Nazi regime. Perfect In 1937, Speer was appointed Inspector Ggeneral of Construction in Berlin and was therefore responsible for theentirety of theGermania project. This was the Hitler's? plan to rebuild Berlin to be the centre of not only the Tthird Reich but the entire world. In achieving the caliber of grandeur for this commission, many apartments needed to be demolished and tenants relocated. In 1939, the Resettlement Division of Speer’s administration was established for solely (?) finding alternative accommodation for those affected. The enactment of the Law for Rebuilding of German Towns When? was passed which gave Speer the “absolute authority to seize whatever property he wished and to award compensation according to the minimal requirements of the law” (Kitchen). A significant amount of those resettled were Jews Statistic here? and many did not end up finding alternative housing Statistic? which the led to the displaced being deported to concentration camps Really? That's great, but I need more evidence. Also, ideally there would be a bit less 'telling', and a bit more analysis.. Joachim Fest How can the word observes be within this quote? Or is this from another source? “observes that Early resettlement work was purely administrative and it would be highly unlikely that Speer would have known about the relocation struggle”full stop? In considering his perspective, Fest had a personal relationship with the accused, aiding him in publishing his memoir, Inside the Third Reich, which in turn hinders his reliability in relation to perspective on the issue of the Jewish flats. Whilst I get your point, it needs to be made more succinctly and more clearly. His view is somewhat substantiated by Gitta Sereny as she states that “although Speer certainly knew by 1941 that the Berlin Jews were being deported, it is virtually certain he had no idea they were going to their death”. Sereny grew close to Speer in the twelve years which she knew him and thus he was able to recount to her in a sympathetic demeanour not only his ignorance but typical response of contrition regarding the fate of the Jews Again, this sentence needs some serious rework. Read it outloud to check if it makes sense. Further, with Speer having such jurisdiction over the entire commission, it simply cannot be plausible to conclude that someone of his authority would have been ignorant of the outcomes resulting in the expulsion of Jewish tenants. The emergence of Rudolf Wolters original chronicle in 1981 revealed that in 1941, Speer himself demanded a further clearing of 5000 Jewish flats for demolition survivors, of his own accord Brilliant. More sentences like this. In addition to this, a Chronicle entry from the 25th of October 1942 states that “the task of the resettlement department was to identify all Jewish flats...the number of resettled persons comprised 75000” Full stop!!!! This therefore renders the argument of his ignorance to his knowledge of the Jewish flats invalid as embodied by Martin Kitchen’s statement “Speer had made no mention that it was he, as Inspector General of Buildings, who decided their fate” . Overall, it is unwise to suggest that someone in the higher echelons of the Nazi party and Reich government such as Speer would be blind to the deportation of tens of thousands of Jews and their ultimate fate to perish in the death camps. (I need to desperately cut this down, I'm not sure where tho)
Synthesis, synthesis, synthesis. Go back through this above paragraph, and summarise the points you make in dot points. There are probably only a few. Then, expand on those dot points, cutting down anything unnecessary. Whilst historiography is important, and you've used it well, your direct analysis of each historiographer is probably too far. Summarise your point, make it, and move on. Additionally, make your thesis more clear throughout (I still don't know what it is, by the way). Was Speer the 'Good Nazi'? Was he complicit in every way? Was he a technocratic opportunist?
A significant factor in Speer’s twenty year prison sentence was his guilt of using forced labour within the armaments industry. Really need to rework these sentences, particularly the introductory ones. They need to be more hard-hitting! Speer utilised the concentration camps within the regime to provide high-quality weapons for the war against the Allies. Mittelwerk, the underground factory under? the Mittelbau-Dora concentration camp, was the main site in which the V-2 ballistic missiles were built How many rockets? When was this?. Workers slaved away during eighteen hour days enduring hellish conditions to produce the rockets. As typical of Speer, he denied knowledge regarding the conditions and extent to which workers were being exploited during the entirety of his time as Minister for Armaments. However this claim is invalid as the Reich minister visited the Dora camp on December 10 1943, witnessing first hand the harrowing conditions to which the workers faced. This encounter simultaneously debunks Sereny’s view that “He was unaware of the blood on his hands as armaments minister”. (What else can I say in this para?)
You can use way more statistics, as outlined above. Statistics and quotes prove your point; thus, a point stated is 'wrong' without content to back it up.
Overall, this is your structure:
1. Content-related description
2. Explanation of Speer's attempted explanation of innocence
3. Reason for the falsity of that explanation
This is a pretty good structure, that clearly displays your point. However, I'm really failing to see a sustained thesis. Instead, your speech so far is a collection of points. There should be a running thread; what are you trying to prove? What words will you use to describe Speer? What is your answer to the 'question' (I know there isn't actually a question, but you need to be painting some picture of Speer).
During the Nuremberg trials, Speer fabricated his defence regarding his knowledge of the “final solution” from the stance that he was an apolitical technocrat that remained impartial but nonetheless caught up in the barbaric horrors that the Nazi party had committed. Same comments as above.
His assumed guilt was grounded not in the direct knowledge, of which he did he have He didn't? I thought you argued he did?, but in the responsibility of being ignorant to the atrocities which were occurring. In his memoir, Speer writes of how he was never exposed to the Party’s potent anti-semitic agenda with Hitler “scarcely ever saying anything about the Jews… let alone about the necessity for setting up concentration camps” (Speer). As a man who himself said “If Hitler had a friend it would have been me” the likelihood of Hitler’s closest confident being naive of his plans to ethnically cleanse Germany (in accordance to with Nazi ideology) through process of extermination is extremely slight. You can't argue how slight this likelihood it. Instead, you can say things like 'implausible' or 'absurd'. This also strengthens your argument. Fest also affirms this position as he writes that “Speer spoke of the criminal character of the Hitler regime and admitted his mistake in not having taken the hateful threats against the Jews seriously” Full stops Irrespective of his naivety during his time WAS HE NAIVE?!? His CLAIMED naivety, a speech delivered by Heinrich Himmler at the Posen Conference on the 6th of October 1943 renders Speer’s excuse of ignorance invalid as Himmler revealed the government’s ongoing systematic extermination of the Jews in labour camps. Speer himself was present at this very conference but again claimed ignorance to the Holocaust as he was not present during Himmler’s speech, having “left early”. Speer himself states that “As an important member of the leadership of the Reich I therefore share in the general responsibility from 1942 onwards” This statement alone demonstrates the carefully constructed myth that was his defence at Nuremberg, conveniently ignoring his directive as Inspector General of Construction to expel 5000 Jewish tenants from their property in 1941. This ultimately reveals that his complicity and guilt of the Nazi Party's Crimes against humanity, stemmed long before his appointment as Minister of Armaments and Munitions. Schmidt substantiates this view as he states that “nothing could be further than the truth than the image of Speer as an architect with purely artistic ambitions, absorbed in his work” . (I need to cut this too also)
Speer’s opposition to Hitler’s “Scorched Earth” can be seen as a tool used to portray his image as a “good nazi” Capitalise letters. But, didn't he actually oppose this policy? What do you mean by good Nazi? Who claims this? You need more explanation, or more analysis. Once the Allies were almost certainly in a position to conquer Germany, Hitler issued the “Scorched Earth” decree to effectively deplete Germany’s commodities and infrastructure rather than accept defeat. Speer disputed this as he claimed to have wanted the German people to have some sort of foundation to rebuild their lives after the conclusion of the war. Speer used his resistance to the Hitler’s policy to aid his image of being a “good Nazi” as it can be seen that his “determination to thwart the destruction of German was motivated partly by a genuine concern for the future of the German people” (Noakes). Nonetheless it must also be recognised that Speer’s actions stemmed also from his own political agenda as he wanted to gain sympathy in the eyes of Germany’s conquerors (Noakes) (What else can I say?)
This speech has a very good foundation, but still needs a lot of work. You need to clarify your points, read your sentences out loud, add statistics and more importantly decide on a thesis. This thesis needs to be sustained throughout the speech. I do understand that this is a difficult assessment task, but you really do need a sustained argument, rather than a collection of points, if you want to write a high-achieving response.
You've done the bulk of the work already. This is best thought of as a first draft, and now it's time to work on your second. I would put this essay up on one tab, and a blank document on another, and start rewriting with reference to your original. Read everything outloud, and keep in mind the comments I've made above.
I've only really mentioned the negatives, because there's no real need for me to tell you the amazing parts! So, don't be discouraged, this is on it's way to being a great speech.
Let me know if you have any more questions about my comments above!
hey jake! I can't tell you how much I appreciate this feedback! I'll definitely take all the comments on board and hopefully have another draft soon!
Legend!! :) :)
Post by: sudodds on May 14, 2017, 10:07:21 pm
hey jake! I can't tell you how much I appreciate this feedback! I'll definitely take all the comments on board and hopefully have another draft soon!
Legend!! :) :)
betcha glad I recommended you hop onto the forums now huh ;) Have to agree though - that feedback was defs legendary!
Post by: jakesilove on May 14, 2017, 10:18:45 pm
hey jake! I can't tell you how much I appreciate this feedback! I'll definitely take all the comments on board and hopefully have another draft soon!
Legend!! :) :)
Super glad you found it helpful :) Looking forward to seeing Draft #2!!
Post by: jakesilove on May 14, 2017, 10:19:05 pm
betcha glad I recommended you hop onto the forums now huh ;) Have to agree though - that feedback was defs legendary!
I do my best :)
Post by: tahliamag on May 15, 2017, 09:35:24 pm
I have a modern history oral coming up on Albert Speer and have almost finished writing it. I was hoping that i might be able to get some feedback on how I've written the speech and if my argument and points are strong enough to hopefully get me a somewhat decent mark. The question / statement for the oral is 'Speer the ‘good Nazi’: an evaluation - his knowledge, complicity and guilt; his contribution, historians’ views'. Also, any tips on writing a strong conclusion would be greatly appreciated , thankyou!!!
Thankyou again!!!
Speech :::::
The question surrounding Albert Speer as the ‘good Nazi’ has remained that of fierce historical debate. Speer’s wilful plea of guilt by association regarding the atrocities committed by the Nazi state earnt him the image of an ‘apolitical technocrat’ who, while taking responsibility for the Holocaust on behalf of the regime he served, denied any personal knowledge or involvement. The result of further information being revealed concerning Speer’s knowledge, complicity and contribution to such horrific acts has contradicted his claims of innocence. He has instead been viewed by some historians, such as Dan Van der Vat, as an ‘egocentric opportunist’ who knowingly instigated and supported such acts of cruelty. The accuracy of Speer’s portrayal as the ‘good Nazi’ can be examined through his trial at Nuremberg, involvement in the Germania project, use of forced labour as Minister of Armaments and the extent of his knowledge of the Holocaust.
The perception of Speer as the ‘good Nazi’ first emerged after his attendance at the 1945-46 Nuremberg Trials. Speer was the only one, out of twenty-two Nazi leaders, to plead guilty at Nuremberg. Whilst denying any knowledge or involvement, Speer expressed remorse for the crimes committed by the Nazi regime, claiming that “As an important member of the leadership of the Reich, I therefore share in the general responsibility...”. Gitta Sereny supported Speer’s claims of innocence, stating that “...he had voluntarily accepted a moral responsibility for all crimes committed by the government he served. What more could he have done?”. While Speer’s remorseful claims of ignorance earned him a grudging admiration from the judges at Nuremberg, historian Martin Kitchen disputes Speer’s plea, arguing that “His expression of general or overall guilt at Nuremberg was an empty formula, although it turned out...to have been a masterly tactic that helped save his skin”.
Speer attempted to further his claim of general responsibility and ignorance for Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg by revealing his opposition to Hitler’s ‘Scorched Earth Decree’. When, by late 1944, it appeared the Allies were to overcome Germany, Hitler ordered the total destruction of all industry and infrastructure in the Reich that could have been of use to the enemy. Speer set about openly countermanding Hitler’s ‘insane plans of destruction’ in order to preserve any chance of post-war prosperity for the German nation. Speer’s attempts to divert Hitler’s selfish plans of destruction was utilized by his attorney at Nuremberg to help further disassociate him with the crimes of the Nazi regime, asserting that “Speer had to betray Hitler in order to remain loyal to his people”. While Speer’s defiant act of resistance was viewed favourably at Nuremberg, his motives for such opposition has been widely debated, with historians such as Van der Vat arguing that “Speer changed his views for his own safety…” and to serve his own interests.
Speer’s role in the ‘Germania’ Project and subsequent involvement in the evacuation of thousands of Jews from Berlin severely discredits his claims of innocence and further confirms his complicity to the crimes of the Nazi regime. In 1937, after being appointed General Building Inspector of the Reich, Speer was assigned the most ambitious architectural project of his career; to grandiose Berlin in a manner that would endure a ‘thousand-year Reich’. The project required the demolition of 55,000 apartments near the city centre, resulting in tens of thousands of Berlin residents facing dislodgement.
In order to support the Aryan Germans who had lost their homes due to the demolitions, Jewish residents were targeted for eviction, being forced out of their homes in order to provide them with housing. Joachim Fest maintains that “As head of department Speer certainly had nothing to do with these incidents”. Fest’s notion of Speer’s ignorance of the fate of the Berlin Jews is supported by that of Sereny, explaining that “...although Speer certainly knew by 1941 that the Berlin Jews were being deported, it is virtually certain he had no idea they were going to their death”. In considering the perspectives of Fest and Sereny, however, both developed a personal relationship with Speer over the time spent working with him, therefore presenting a biased view of his involvement in the ‘Jewish Flats’ matter.
Considering the authority held by Speer as GBI over the entire ‘Germania’ project, it is highly implausible to suggest that he was unaware of the inevitable fate of the evicted Jewish tenants. The emergence of the ‘Wolters Chronicles’ in 1983 confirmed Speer’s involvement in the ‘evacuation’ of the Berlin Jews. The chronicle contained details of the anti-Jewish actions ordered by Speer, specifically that made by him in August, 1941, which commanded action to be taken to clear a further 5000 Jewish flats for the rehousing of demolition tenants. The events recorded in the chronicle confirmed that “Speer was not an… amoral non-spectator of Nazi anti-Semitism but an active participant in ruining the lives… of 75,000 Jews by having them evicted” (Van der Vat).
Speer’s involvement and knowledge of the ‘evacuation’ of the Berlin Jews contradicts his image as the ‘good Nazi’. Equally so does his use and abuse of forced labour in the Armaments industry. Under his authority as Minister of Armaments, Speer imported 7 million foreign slave labourers from conquered territories to boost Germany’s war production. While Speer admitted he knew the workforce of his labour camps were brought into Germany against their will, he denied knowledge of the inhumane conditions endured by the labourers, stating it was not in his ‘sphere of responsibility’. Sereny argues that, “He was unaware of the blood on his hands as Armaments Minister”.
Speer’s inspection of the underground ‘Dora’ camp in December, 1943, undermines his claim that he had no knowledge of the conditions under which labourers were kept. Speer witnessed first-hand the hellish conditions in which labourers were forced to produce the German V-2 rockets, enduring an eighteen-hour work day and exposure to illness, punishment and death. Although Speer ordered improvements after witnessing the shocking conditions at Dora, such action was only taken to ensure the workers were in good enough shape to perform the demanded labour. Speer’s ultimate goal as Armaments Minister was to extract the maximum amount of work for the minimum amount of care. As outlined by Van der Vat, his “own opportunistic values overcame any feelings of morality”. It was ultimately Speer’s abuse of slave labour that earnt him a 20 year sentence in Spandau prison, serving as his most horrific contribution to the crimes of the Nazi regime.
Speer’s knowledge of the ‘final solution’ remains a significant factor in disproving his claims of ignorance and ‘guilt by association’ to the crimes of the Nazi regime. Speer maintained throughout his trial and thereafter that he had no knowledge of the Holocaust. In his memoir, Inside the Third Reich, Speer recalls a conversation with his friend Karl Hanke in which he advised him to “Never under any circumstances” accept an invitation to inspect a concentration camp, specifically Auschwitz. Speer professed that from this moment on he “...was inescapably contaminated morally; from fear of discovering something which might have turned (him) from (his) course”, stating “I had closed my eyes”.
Despite Speer’s insistent claims of ignorance to the Holocaust, there is ample evidence which proves him to have had knowledge of the ‘final solution’. During the Posen conference of October, 1943, Himmler delivered a speech in which he explained the details of the Holocaust, declaring the “...total elimination of all Jews”. While Speer denied being present during Himmler’s speech, it is unwise to suggest that such information would not have been repeated or acquired by him. As asserted by Van der Vat, “A man of Speer’s seniority must have known exactly what was occurring in the death camps”. The emergence of a letter written by Speer in 1971 confirmed his attendance at Posen, admitting “There is no doubt - I was present as Himmler announced...that all Jews would be killed”.
Post by: jakesilove on May 16, 2017, 03:13:38 pm
Helloooooo,
I have a modern history oral coming up on Albert Speer and have almost finished writing it. I was hoping that i might be able to get some feedback on how I've written the speech and if my argument and points are strong enough to hopefully get me a somewhat decent mark. The question / statement for the oral is 'Speer the ‘good Nazi’: an evaluation - his knowledge, complicity and guilt; his contribution, historians’ views'. Also, any tips on writing a strong conclusion would be greatly appreciated , thankyou!!!
Thankyou again!!!
Hey! Check out my comments below.
Original essay
Spoiler
The question surrounding Albert Speer as the ‘good Nazi’ has remained that of fierce historical debate. Speer’s wilful plea of guilt by association regarding the atrocities committed by the Nazi state earnt him the image of an ‘apolitical technocrat’ who, while taking responsibility for the Holocaust on behalf of the regime he served, denied any personal knowledge or involvement. The result of further information being revealed concerning Speer’s knowledge, complicity and contribution to such horrific acts has contradicted his claims of innocence. He has instead been viewed by some historians, such as Dan Van der Vat, as an ‘egocentric opportunist’ who knowingly instigated and supported such acts of cruelty. The accuracy of Speer’s portrayal as the ‘good Nazi’ can be examined through his trial at Nuremberg, involvement in the Germania project, use of forced labour as Minister of Armaments and the extent of his knowledge of the Holocaust.
The perception of Speer as the ‘good Nazi’ first emerged after his attendance at the 1945-46 Nuremberg Trials. Speer was the only one, out of twenty-two Nazi leaders, to plead guilty at Nuremberg. Whilst denying any knowledge or involvement, Speer expressed remorse for the crimes committed by the Nazi regime, claiming that “As an important member of the leadership of the Reich, I therefore share in the general responsibility...”. Gitta Sereny supported Speer’s claims of innocence, stating that “...he had voluntarily accepted a moral responsibility for all crimes committed by the government he served. What more could he have done?”. While Speer’s remorseful claims of ignorance earned him a grudging admiration from the judges at Nuremberg, historian Martin Kitchen disputes Speer’s plea, arguing that “His expression of general or overall guilt at Nuremberg was an empty formula, although it turned out...to have been a masterly tactic that helped save his skin”.
Speer attempted to further his claim of general responsibility and ignorance for Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg by revealing his opposition to Hitler’s ‘Scorched Earth Decree’. When, by late 1944, it appeared the Allies were to overcome Germany, Hitler ordered the total destruction of all industry and infrastructure in the Reich that could have been of use to the enemy. Speer set about openly countermanding Hitler’s ‘insane plans of destruction’ in order to preserve any chance of post-war prosperity for the German nation. Speer’s attempts to divert Hitler’s selfish plans of destruction was utilized by his attorney at Nuremberg to help further disassociate him with the crimes of the Nazi regime, asserting that “Speer had to betray Hitler in order to remain loyal to his people”. While Speer’s defiant act of resistance was viewed favourably at Nuremberg, his motives for such opposition has been widely debated, with historians such as Van der Vat arguing that “Speer changed his views for his own safety…” and to serve his own interests.
Speer’s role in the ‘Germania’ Project and subsequent involvement in the evacuation of thousands of Jews from Berlin severely discredits his claims of innocence and further confirms his complicity to the crimes of the Nazi regime. In 1937, after being appointed General Building Inspector of the Reich, Speer was assigned the most ambitious architectural project of his career; to grandiose Berlin in a manner that would endure a ‘thousand-year Reich’. The project required the demolition of 55,000 apartments near the city centre, resulting in tens of thousands of Berlin residents facing dislodgement.
In order to support the Aryan Germans who had lost their homes due to the demolitions, Jewish residents were targeted for eviction, being forced out of their homes in order to provide them with housing. Joachim Fest maintains that “As head of department Speer certainly had nothing to do with these incidents”. Fest’s notion of Speer’s ignorance of the fate of the Berlin Jews is supported by that of Sereny, explaining that “...although Speer certainly knew by 1941 that the Berlin Jews were being deported, it is virtually certain he had no idea they were going to their death”. In considering the perspectives of Fest and Sereny, however, both developed a personal relationship with Speer over the time spent working with him, therefore presenting a biased view of his involvement in the ‘Jewish Flats’ matter.
Considering the authority held by Speer as GBI over the entire ‘Germania’ project, it is highly implausible to suggest that he was unaware of the inevitable fate of the evicted Jewish tenants. The emergence of the ‘Wolters Chronicles’ in 1983 confirmed Speer’s involvement in the ‘evacuation’ of the Berlin Jews. The chronicle contained details of the anti-Jewish actions ordered by Speer, specifically that made by him in August, 1941, which commanded action to be taken to clear a further 5000 Jewish flats for the rehousing of demolition tenants. The events recorded in the chronicle confirmed that “Speer was not an… amoral non-spectator of Nazi anti-Semitism but an active participant in ruining the lives… of 75,000 Jews by having them evicted” (Van der Vat).
Speer’s involvement and knowledge of the ‘evacuation’ of the Berlin Jews contradicts his image as the ‘good Nazi’. Equally so does his use and abuse of forced labour in the Armaments industry. Under his authority as Minister of Armaments, Speer imported 7 million foreign slave labourers from conquered territories to boost Germany’s war production. While Speer admitted he knew the workforce of his labour camps were brought into Germany against their will, he denied knowledge of the inhumane conditions endured by the labourers, stating it was not in his ‘sphere of responsibility’. Sereny argues that, “He was unaware of the blood on his hands as Armaments Minister”.
Speer’s inspection of the underground ‘Dora’ camp in December, 1943, undermines his claim that he had no knowledge of the conditions under which labourers were kept. Speer witnessed first-hand the hellish conditions in which labourers were forced to produce the German V-2 rockets, enduring an eighteen-hour work day and exposure to illness, punishment and death. Although Speer ordered improvements after witnessing the shocking conditions at Dora, such action was only taken to ensure the workers were in good enough shape to perform the demanded labour. Speer’s ultimate goal as Armaments Minister was to extract the maximum amount of work for the minimum amount of care. As outlined by Van der Vat, his “own opportunistic values overcame any feelings of morality”. It was ultimately Speer’s abuse of slave labour that earnt him a 20 year sentence in Spandau prison, serving as his most horrific contribution to the crimes of the Nazi regime.
Speer’s knowledge of the ‘final solution’ remains a significant factor in disproving his claims of ignorance and ‘guilt by association’ to the crimes of the Nazi regime. Speer maintained throughout his trial and thereafter that he had no knowledge of the Holocaust. In his memoir, Inside the Third Reich, Speer recalls a conversation with his friend Karl Hanke in which he advised him to “Never under any circumstances” accept an invitation to inspect a concentration camp, specifically Auschwitz. Speer professed that from this moment on he “...was inescapably contaminated morally; from fear of discovering something which might have turned (him) from (his) course”, stating “I had closed my eyes”.
Despite Speer’s insistent claims of ignorance to the Holocaust, there is ample evidence which proves him to have had knowledge of the ‘final solution’. During the Posen conference of October, 1943, Himmler delivered a speech in which he explained the details of the Holocaust, declaring the “...total elimination of all Jews”. While Speer denied being present during Himmler’s speech, it is unwise to suggest that such information would not have been repeated or acquired by him. As asserted by Van der Vat, “A man of Speer’s seniority must have known exactly what was occurring in the death camps”. The emergence of a letter written by Speer in 1971 confirmed his attendance at Posen, admitting “There is no doubt - I was present as Himmler announced...that all Jews would be killed”.
The perception of Speer as the ‘good Nazi’ first emerged after his attendance at the 1945-46 Nuremberg Trials. Speer was the only one, out of twenty-two Nazi leaders, to plead guilty at Nuremberg. Whilst denying any knowledge or involvement, Speer expressed remorse for the crimes committed by the Nazi regime, claiming that “As an important member of the leadership of the Reich, I therefore share in the general responsibility...”. Gitta Sereny supported Speer’s claims of innocence, stating that “...he had voluntarily accepted a moral responsibility for all crimes committed by the government he served. What more could he have done?”. While Speer’s remorseful claims of ignorance earned him a grudging admiration from the judges at Nuremberg, historian Martin Kitchen disputes Speer’s plea, arguing that “His expression of general or overall guilt at Nuremberg was an empty formula, although it turned out...to have been a masterly tactic that helped save his skin”.
Speer attempted to further his claim of general responsibility and ignorance for Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg by revealing his opposition to Hitler’s ‘Scorched Earth Decree’. When, by late 1944, it appeared the Allies were to overcome Germany, Hitler ordered the total destruction of all industry and infrastructure in the Reich that could have been of use to the enemy. Speer set about openly countermanding Hitler’s ‘insane plans of destruction’ in order to preserve any chance of post-war prosperity for the German nation. Speer’s attempts to divert Hitler’s selfish plans of destruction was utilized by his attorney at Nuremberg to help further disassociate him with the crimes of the Nazi regime, asserting that “Speer had to betray Hitler in order to remain loyal to his people”. While Speer’s defiant act of resistance was viewed favourably at Nuremberg, his motives for such opposition has been widely debated, with historians such as Van der Vat arguing that “Speer changed his views for his own safety…” and to serve his own interests.
Speer’s role in the ‘Germania’ Project and subsequent involvement in the evacuation of thousands of Jews from Berlin severely discredits his claims of innocence and further confirms his complicity to the crimes of the Nazi regime. In 1937, after being appointed General Building Inspector of the Reich, Speer was assigned the most ambitious architectural project of his career; to grandiose Berlin in a manner that would endure a ‘thousand-year Reich’. The project required the demolition of 55,000 apartments near the city centre, resulting in tens of thousands of Berlin residents facing dislodgement.
In order to support the Aryan Germans who had lost their homes due to the demolitions, Jewish residents were targeted for eviction, being forced out of their homes in order to provide them with housing. Joachim Fest maintains that “As head of department Speer certainly had nothing to do with these incidents”. Fest’s notion of Speer’s ignorance of the fate of the Berlin Jews is supported by that of Sereny, explaining that “...although Speer certainly knew by 1941 that the Berlin Jews were being deported, it is virtually certain he had no idea they were going to their death”. In considering the perspectives of Fest and Sereny, however, both developed a personal relationship with Speer over the time spent working with him, therefore presenting a biased view of his involvement in the ‘Jewish Flats’ matter.
Considering the authority held by Speer as GBI over the entire ‘Germania’ project, it is highly implausible to suggest that he was unaware of the inevitable fate of the evicted Jewish tenants. The emergence of the ‘Wolters Chronicles’ in 1983 confirmed Speer’s involvement in the ‘evacuation’ of the Berlin Jews. The chronicle contained details of the anti-Jewish actions ordered by Speer, specifically that made by him in August, 1941, which commanded action to be taken to clear a further 5000 Jewish flats for the rehousing of demolition tenants. The events recorded in the chronicle confirmed that “Speer was not an… amoral non-spectator of Nazi anti-Semitism but an active participant in ruining the lives… of 75,000 Jews by having them evicted” (Van der Vat).
Speer’s involvement and knowledge of the ‘evacuation’ of the Berlin Jews contradicts his image as the ‘good Nazi’. Equally so does his use and abuse of forced labour in the Armaments industry. Under his authority as Minister of Armaments, Speer imported 7 million foreign slave labourers from conquered territories to boost Germany’s war production. While Speer admitted he knew the workforce of his labour camps were brought into Germany against their will, he denied knowledge of the inhumane conditions endured by the labourers, stating it was not in his ‘sphere of responsibility’. Sereny argues that, “He was unaware of the blood on his hands as Armaments Minister”.
Speer’s inspection of the underground ‘Dora’ camp in December, 1943, undermines his claim that he had no knowledge of the conditions under which labourers were kept. Speer witnessed first-hand the hellish conditions in which labourers were forced to produce the German V-2 rockets, enduring an eighteen-hour work day and exposure to illness, punishment and death. Although Speer ordered improvements after witnessing the shocking conditions at Dora, such action was only taken to ensure the workers were in good enough shape to perform the demanded labour. Speer’s ultimate goal as Armaments Minister was to extract the maximum amount of work for the minimum amount of care. As outlined by Van der Vat, his “own opportunistic values overcame any feelings of morality”. It was ultimately Speer’s abuse of slave labour that earnt him a 20 year sentence in Spandau prison, serving as his most horrific contribution to the crimes of the Nazi regime.
Speer’s knowledge of the ‘final solution’ remains a significant factor in disproving his claims of ignorance and ‘guilt by association’ to the crimes of the Nazi regime. Speer maintained throughout his trial and thereafter that he had no knowledge of the Holocaust. In his memoir, Inside the Third Reich, Speer recalls a conversation with his friend Karl Hanke in which he advised him to “Never under any circumstances” accept an invitation to inspect a concentration camp, specifically Auschwitz. Speer professed that from this moment on he “...was inescapably contaminated morally; from fear of discovering something which might have turned (him) from (his) course”, stating “I had closed my eyes”.
Despite Speer’s insistent claims of ignorance to the Holocaust, there is ample evidence which proves him to have had knowledge of the ‘final solution’. During the Posen conference of October, 1943, Himmler delivered a speech in which he explained the details of the Holocaust, declaring the “...total elimination of all Jews”. While Speer denied being present during Himmler’s speech, it is unwise to suggest that such information would not have been repeated or acquired by him. As asserted by Van der Vat, “A man of Speer’s seniority must have known exactly what was occurring in the death camps”. The emergence of a letter written by Speer in 1971 confirmed his attendance at Posen, admitting “There is no doubt - I was present as Himmler announced...that all Jews would be killed”.
Essay with comments
Spoiler
The question surrounding Albert Speer as the ‘good Nazi’ has remained that of fierce historical debate. You need a stronger opening sentence.
'Much historical debate has surrounded...', and use some strong, emotive words (ie. words commonly used by historians to describe Speer). Speer’s wilful plea of guilt by association regarding the atrocities committed by the Nazi state earned him the image of an ‘apolitical technocrat’ These are the sorts of words I'm talking about! Nice who, while taking responsibility for the Holocaust on behalf of the regime he served Remember that the Holocaust is different to the War generally. It's fine if you intended to use the systematic murder of Jews, but just something to think about, denied any personal knowledge or involvement. The result of further information being revealed concerning Speer’s knowledge, complicity and contribution to such horrific acts has contradicted his claims of innocence 'the result'? Maybe 'subsequent discovery of'?. He has instead been viewed by some historians, such as Dan Van der Vat, as an ‘egocentric opportunist’ some more of those great words who knowingly instigated and supported such acts of cruelty. The accuracy of Speer’s portrayal as the ‘good Nazi’ can be examined through his trial at Nuremberg, involvement in the Germania project, use of forced labour as Minister of Armaments and the extent of his knowledge of the Holocaust.
Good first paragraph. Not entirely sure what your thesis is; you've outlined historical debate (ie. we used to think, but now we think). However, be STRONGER about Speer's personality. This is clearly going to be a high-level essay, so I would recommend giving the introduction a bit more oomph. Potentially, get rid of the quotes and use those phrases yourself.
The perception of Speer as the ‘good Nazi’ first emerged after his attendance at the 1945-46 Nuremberg Trials lol. Dunno if 'attendance' is the correct word. Speer was the only one, out of twenty-two Nazi leaders, to plead guilty at Nuremberg. Whilst denying any knowledge or involvement, Speer expressed remorse for the crimes committed by the Nazi regime, claiming that “As an important member of the leadership of the Reich, I therefore share in the general responsibility...” Don't need ellipses if it's at the end of the quote. Gitta Sereny supported Speer’s claims of innocence, stating that “...he had voluntarily accepted a moral responsibility for all crimes committed by the government he served. What more could he have done?”. While Speer’s remorseful claims of ignorance earned him a grudging admiration from the judges at Nuremberg, historian Martin Kitchen disputes Speer’s plea, arguing that “His expression of general or overall guilt at Nuremberg was an empty formula, although it turned out...to have been a masterly tactic that helped save his skin”. Lots of quoting, not very much analysis. I assume you go into more depth later on about specific occurrences, but perhaps a few more facts/statistics/your own analysis here. It's obviously very good, but at the moment it's really just a paragraph containing a collection of quotes.
Speer attempted to further his claim of general responsibility and ignorance for Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg by revealing his opposition to Hitler’s ‘Scorched Earth Decree’. This is a bit off topic, but I think now's the time to mention it. It seems like what you're doing is going through Speer's claims at Nuremberg, and deconstructing them (would that be a fair characterisation?). If so, then your introductions should TELL me that you're planning to do that. It's a really great structure, actually, one that I hadn't thought of. However, a sentence in your intro along the lines of 'By deconstructing Speer's claims at Nuremberg, claims of innocence and ignorance, the depiction of Speer as a 'good Nazi' can be seen to be a facade built to save the opportunistic technocrat from a fate befitting his station'. #noplagiarismplease When, by late 1944, it appeared the Allies were to overcome Germany, Hitler ordered the total destruction of all industry and infrastructure in the Reich that could have been of use to the enemy When did he order this? What was the actual order called? Remember, despite this being a historiographical study, statistics are still important. Speer set about openly countermanding Hitler’s ‘insane plans of destruction’ If this is a quote, use " ". in order to preserve any chance of post-war prosperity for the German nation. Speer’s attempts to divert Hitler’s selfish are you saying they are selfish? Seems a bit... childish if you are. Rather, 'spiteful'? 'Desperate'? plans of destruction was utilized by his attorney at Nuremberg to help further disassociate him with the crimes of the Nazi regime, asserting that “Speer had to betray Hitler in order to remain loyal to his people”. While Speer’s defiant act of resistance was viewed favourably at Nuremberg, his motives for such opposition has been widely debated, with historians such as Van der Vat arguing that “Speer changed his views for his own safety…” and to serve his own interests.
You're doing a good study of the general topic area. What isn't coming through is any sort of thesis, any sort of conclusion. What do you think? Was Speer complicit? Was his act of defiance positive for Germany? Was he looking out for himself? Is it important which of these theories is true?
Personality study sections are always tough. But, don't forget that at the end of the day this is still a history essay. Thus, a thesis is key.
Speer’s role in the ‘Germania’ Project and subsequent involvement in the evacuation of thousands of Jews from Berlin severely discredits his claims of innocence and further confirms his complicity to the crimes of the Nazi regime. GREAT! More of this. Actual substantive assertions by you, backed up by statistics. Love it. In 1937, after being appointed General Building Inspector of the Reich, Speer was assigned the most ambitious architectural project of his career; to grandiose grandiose isn't a verb, as far as I know Berlin in a manner that would endure a ‘thousand-year Reich’. The project required the demolition of 55,000 apartments near the city centre, resulting in tens of thousands of Berlin residents facing dislodgement. Perfect
In order to support the Aryan Germans who had lost their homes due to the demolitions, Jewish residents were targeted for eviction, being forced out of their homes in order to provide them with housing. Joachim Fest maintains that “As head of department Speer certainly had nothing to do with these incidents”. Fest’s notion of Speer’s ignorance of the fate of the Berlin Jews is supported by that of Sereny, explaining that “...although Speer certainly knew by 1941 that the Berlin Jews were being deported, it is virtually certain he had no idea they were going to their death”. In considering the perspectives of Fest and Sereny, however, both developed a personal relationship with Speer over the time spent working with him, therefore presenting a biased view of his involvement in the ‘Jewish Flats’ matter. Nup. Sorry, but this is a lesson worth learning early on. Calling a historian bias is like calling Speer a Nazi. A badly educated person might disagree, but they would be wrong. Speer was a Nazi. All historians are bias.
The fact that Fest (and, in particular, Sereny) became close to Speer is absolutely important. But, don't use 'Bias' as some sort of take-down. Everyone's bias. However, THEIR bias may create a greater level of sympathy towards Speer. You can't discredit their claims by calling them 'bias'; you can do so by explaining their bias, and offering a counter-claim.
Also, this paragraph is a little bit too much telling + quotes + more telling.
Considering the authority held by Speer as GBI over the entire ‘Germania’ project, it is highly implausible to suggest that he was unaware of the inevitable fate of the evicted Jewish tenants. Great The emergence of the ‘Wolters Chronicles’ in 1983 confirmed Speer’s involvement in the ‘evacuation’ Why is this 'in commas'? of the Berlin Jews. The chronicle contained details of the anti-Jewish actions ordered by Speer, specifically that made by him in August Reread this sentence, 1941, which commanded action to be taken to clear a further 5000 Jewish flats OH! The 'Jewish Flats' literally mean the Jewish flats! Like, apartments! I've never noticed that before. Far out I'm stupid for the rehousing of demolition tenants. The events recorded in the chronicle confirmed that “Speer was not an… amoral non-spectator of Nazi anti-Semitism but an active participant in ruining the lives… of 75,000 Jews by having them evicted” (Van der Vat). Brilliant.
Just another quick point. You don't need to oscillate back and forward all the time (ie. Sereny said he was a 'Good' Nazi, Van der Vat said he was a 'good Nazi'. Stick with the fact that he was a shit human being the entire time, and when bringing up Sereny etc don't change your tone.
Speer’s involvement and knowledge of the ‘evacuation’ of the Berlin Jews contradicts his image as the ‘good Nazi’. Equally so does his use and abuse of forced labour in the Armaments industry. Under his authority as Minister of Armaments, Speer imported 7 million foreign slave labourers from conquered territories to boost Germany’s war production. I didn't know that. Fuck. While Speer admitted he knew the workforce of his labour camps were brought into Germany against their will, he denied knowledge of the inhumane conditions endured by the labourers, stating it was not in his ‘sphere of responsibility’. Sereny argues that, “He was unaware of the blood on his hands as Armaments Minister”. Again, just re tone, if you believe he was a proper honest-to-god Nazi, you could change words like 'stating' to 'claiming'. Connotations of words are important; a claim is different to a statement. And, if you do think he was a freakin maniac, don't end a paragraph with a claim that he was great. Makes it seem like that was a point you're making. Rip it the hell apart (even if briefly), then move on.
I just really hate Speer
Speer’s inspection of the underground ‘Dora’ camp in December, 1943, undermines I think you've said 'undermines his claim' 80000 times. I could be wrong. his claim that he had no knowledge of the conditions under which labourers were kept. Speer witnessed first-hand the hellish conditions in which labourers were forced to produce the German V-2 rockets, enduring an eighteen-hour work day and exposure to illness, punishment and death. There are some great stats you can use here; I think one in every 5 workers died whilst building V-2 Rockets, more than the people that the Rockets killed in Britain. Check that stat. Although Speer ordered improvements after witnessing the shocking conditions at Dora, such action was only taken to ensure the workers were in good enough shape to perform the demanded labour. Nice Speer’s ultimate goal as Armaments Minister was to extract the maximum amount of work for the minimum amount of care. As outlined by Van der Vat, his “own opportunistic values overcame any feelings of morality”. It was ultimately Speer’s abuse of slave labour that earnt him a 20 year sentence in Spandau prison, serving as his most horrific contribution to the crimes of the Nazi regime.
Speer’s knowledge of the ‘final solution’ remains a significant factor in disproving his claims of ignorance and ‘guilt by association’ to the crimes of the Nazi regime. Speer maintained throughout his trial and thereafter that he had no knowledge of the Holocaust. In his memoir, Inside the Third Reich, Speer recalls a conversation with his friend Karl Hanke in which he advised him to “Never under any circumstances” accept an invitation to inspect a concentration camp, specifically Auschwitz. Speer professed that from this moment on he “...was inescapably contaminated morally; from fear of discovering something which might have turned (him) from (his) course”, stating “I had closed my eyes”.
Despite Speer’s insistent claims of ignorance to the Holocaust, there is ample evidence which proves him to have had knowledge of the ‘final solution’. During the Posen conference of October, 1943, Himmler delivered a speech in which he explained the details of the Holocaust, declaring the “...total elimination of all Jews”. While Speer denied being present during Himmler’s speech, it is unwise to suggest that such information would not have been repeated or acquired by him. As asserted by Van der Vat, “A man of Speer’s seniority must have known exactly what was occurring in the death camps”. The emergence of a letter written by Speer in 1971 confirmed his attendance at Posen, admitting “There is no doubt - I was present as Himmler announced...that all Jews would be killed”.
Great. I've outlined the majority of my suggestions above, but I just have a few things to add.
Firstly, statistics. You need more of them.
Secondly, a thesis. You need to sustain an argument throughout the essay. Likely, this argument will just be 'Speer claimed to be ignorant. He wasn't'. However, whatever the argument is, it needs to be more clear. From this argument, you can build a strong conclusion: 'ultimately.... these factors indicate... Speer is....' etc etc
Overall, your examples are great, your historical tone is good, and your flow is good. I particularly like the smaller paragraphs; many students fall for the trap of assuming they should use 3 massive paragraphs.
Incorporate the above comments, and this is on it's way to being a fantastic speech! Let me know if I can clarify anything :)
'Much historical debate has surrounded...', and use some strong, emotive words (ie. words commonly used by historians to describe Speer). Speer’s wilful plea of guilt by association regarding the atrocities committed by the Nazi state earned him the image of an ‘apolitical technocrat’ These are the sorts of words I'm talking about! Nice who, while taking responsibility for the Holocaust on behalf of the regime he served Remember that the Holocaust is different to the War generally. It's fine if you intended to use the systematic murder of Jews, but just something to think about, denied any personal knowledge or involvement. The result of further information being revealed concerning Speer’s knowledge, complicity and contribution to such horrific acts has contradicted his claims of innocence 'the result'? Maybe 'subsequent discovery of'?. He has instead been viewed by some historians, such as Dan Van der Vat, as an ‘egocentric opportunist’ some more of those great words who knowingly instigated and supported such acts of cruelty. The accuracy of Speer’s portrayal as the ‘good Nazi’ can be examined through his trial at Nuremberg, involvement in the Germania project, use of forced labour as Minister of Armaments and the extent of his knowledge of the Holocaust.
Good first paragraph. Not entirely sure what your thesis is; you've outlined historical debate (ie. we used to think, but now we think). However, be STRONGER about Speer's personality. This is clearly going to be a high-level essay, so I would recommend giving the introduction a bit more oomph. Potentially, get rid of the quotes and use those phrases yourself.
The perception of Speer as the ‘good Nazi’ first emerged after his attendance at the 1945-46 Nuremberg Trials lol. Dunno if 'attendance' is the correct word. Speer was the only one, out of twenty-two Nazi leaders, to plead guilty at Nuremberg. Whilst denying any knowledge or involvement, Speer expressed remorse for the crimes committed by the Nazi regime, claiming that “As an important member of the leadership of the Reich, I therefore share in the general responsibility...” Don't need ellipses if it's at the end of the quote. Gitta Sereny supported Speer’s claims of innocence, stating that “...he had voluntarily accepted a moral responsibility for all crimes committed by the government he served. What more could he have done?”. While Speer’s remorseful claims of ignorance earned him a grudging admiration from the judges at Nuremberg, historian Martin Kitchen disputes Speer’s plea, arguing that “His expression of general or overall guilt at Nuremberg was an empty formula, although it turned out...to have been a masterly tactic that helped save his skin”. Lots of quoting, not very much analysis. I assume you go into more depth later on about specific occurrences, but perhaps a few more facts/statistics/your own analysis here. It's obviously very good, but at the moment it's really just a paragraph containing a collection of quotes.
Speer attempted to further his claim of general responsibility and ignorance for Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg by revealing his opposition to Hitler’s ‘Scorched Earth Decree’. This is a bit off topic, but I think now's the time to mention it. It seems like what you're doing is going through Speer's claims at Nuremberg, and deconstructing them (would that be a fair characterisation?). If so, then your introductions should TELL me that you're planning to do that. It's a really great structure, actually, one that I hadn't thought of. However, a sentence in your intro along the lines of 'By deconstructing Speer's claims at Nuremberg, claims of innocence and ignorance, the depiction of Speer as a 'good Nazi' can be seen to be a facade built to save the opportunistic technocrat from a fate befitting his station'. #noplagiarismplease When, by late 1944, it appeared the Allies were to overcome Germany, Hitler ordered the total destruction of all industry and infrastructure in the Reich that could have been of use to the enemy When did he order this? What was the actual order called? Remember, despite this being a historiographical study, statistics are still important. Speer set about openly countermanding Hitler’s ‘insane plans of destruction’ If this is a quote, use " ". in order to preserve any chance of post-war prosperity for the German nation. Speer’s attempts to divert Hitler’s selfish are you saying they are selfish? Seems a bit... childish if you are. Rather, 'spiteful'? 'Desperate'? plans of destruction was utilized by his attorney at Nuremberg to help further disassociate him with the crimes of the Nazi regime, asserting that “Speer had to betray Hitler in order to remain loyal to his people”. While Speer’s defiant act of resistance was viewed favourably at Nuremberg, his motives for such opposition has been widely debated, with historians such as Van der Vat arguing that “Speer changed his views for his own safety…” and to serve his own interests.
You're doing a good study of the general topic area. What isn't coming through is any sort of thesis, any sort of conclusion. What do you think? Was Speer complicit? Was his act of defiance positive for Germany? Was he looking out for himself? Is it important which of these theories is true?
Personality study sections are always tough. But, don't forget that at the end of the day this is still a history essay. Thus, a thesis is key.
Speer’s role in the ‘Germania’ Project and subsequent involvement in the evacuation of thousands of Jews from Berlin severely discredits his claims of innocence and further confirms his complicity to the crimes of the Nazi regime. GREAT! More of this. Actual substantive assertions by you, backed up by statistics. Love it. In 1937, after being appointed General Building Inspector of the Reich, Speer was assigned the most ambitious architectural project of his career; to grandiose grandiose isn't a verb, as far as I know Berlin in a manner that would endure a ‘thousand-year Reich’. The project required the demolition of 55,000 apartments near the city centre, resulting in tens of thousands of Berlin residents facing dislodgement. Perfect
In order to support the Aryan Germans who had lost their homes due to the demolitions, Jewish residents were targeted for eviction, being forced out of their homes in order to provide them with housing. Joachim Fest maintains that “As head of department Speer certainly had nothing to do with these incidents”. Fest’s notion of Speer’s ignorance of the fate of the Berlin Jews is supported by that of Sereny, explaining that “...although Speer certainly knew by 1941 that the Berlin Jews were being deported, it is virtually certain he had no idea they were going to their death”. In considering the perspectives of Fest and Sereny, however, both developed a personal relationship with Speer over the time spent working with him, therefore presenting a biased view of his involvement in the ‘Jewish Flats’ matter. Nup. Sorry, but this is a lesson worth learning early on. Calling a historian bias is like calling Speer a Nazi. A badly educated person might disagree, but they would be wrong. Speer was a Nazi. All historians are bias.
The fact that Fest (and, in particular, Sereny) became close to Speer is absolutely important. But, don't use 'Bias' as some sort of take-down. Everyone's bias. However, THEIR bias may create a greater level of sympathy towards Speer. You can't discredit their claims by calling them 'bias'; you can do so by explaining their bias, and offering a counter-claim.
Also, this paragraph is a little bit too much telling + quotes + more telling.
Considering the authority held by Speer as GBI over the entire ‘Germania’ project, it is highly implausible to suggest that he was unaware of the inevitable fate of the evicted Jewish tenants. Great The emergence of the ‘Wolters Chronicles’ in 1983 confirmed Speer’s involvement in the ‘evacuation’ Why is this 'in commas'? of the Berlin Jews. The chronicle contained details of the anti-Jewish actions ordered by Speer, specifically that made by him in August Reread this sentence, 1941, which commanded action to be taken to clear a further 5000 Jewish flats OH! The 'Jewish Flats' literally mean the Jewish flats! Like, apartments! I've never noticed that before. Far out I'm stupid for the rehousing of demolition tenants. The events recorded in the chronicle confirmed that “Speer was not an… amoral non-spectator of Nazi anti-Semitism but an active participant in ruining the lives… of 75,000 Jews by having them evicted” (Van der Vat). Brilliant.
Just another quick point. You don't need to oscillate back and forward all the time (ie. Sereny said he was a 'Good' Nazi, Van der Vat said he was a 'good Nazi'. Stick with the fact that he was a shit human being the entire time, and when bringing up Sereny etc don't change your tone.
Speer’s involvement and knowledge of the ‘evacuation’ of the Berlin Jews contradicts his image as the ‘good Nazi’. Equally so does his use and abuse of forced labour in the Armaments industry. Under his authority as Minister of Armaments, Speer imported 7 million foreign slave labourers from conquered territories to boost Germany’s war production. I didn't know that. Fuck. While Speer admitted he knew the workforce of his labour camps were brought into Germany against their will, he denied knowledge of the inhumane conditions endured by the labourers, stating it was not in his ‘sphere of responsibility’. Sereny argues that, “He was unaware of the blood on his hands as Armaments Minister”. Again, just re tone, if you believe he was a proper honest-to-god Nazi, you could change words like 'stating' to 'claiming'. Connotations of words are important; a claim is different to a statement. And, if you do think he was a freakin maniac, don't end a paragraph with a claim that he was great. Makes it seem like that was a point you're making. Rip it the hell apart (even if briefly), then move on.
I just really hate Speer
Speer’s inspection of the underground ‘Dora’ camp in December, 1943, undermines I think you've said 'undermines his claim' 80000 times. I could be wrong. his claim that he had no knowledge of the conditions under which labourers were kept. Speer witnessed first-hand the hellish conditions in which labourers were forced to produce the German V-2 rockets, enduring an eighteen-hour work day and exposure to illness, punishment and death. There are some great stats you can use here; I think one in every 5 workers died whilst building V-2 Rockets, more than the people that the Rockets killed in Britain. Check that stat. Although Speer ordered improvements after witnessing the shocking conditions at Dora, such action was only taken to ensure the workers were in good enough shape to perform the demanded labour. Nice Speer’s ultimate goal as Armaments Minister was to extract the maximum amount of work for the minimum amount of care. As outlined by Van der Vat, his “own opportunistic values overcame any feelings of morality”. It was ultimately Speer’s abuse of slave labour that earnt him a 20 year sentence in Spandau prison, serving as his most horrific contribution to the crimes of the Nazi regime.
Speer’s knowledge of the ‘final solution’ remains a significant factor in disproving his claims of ignorance and ‘guilt by association’ to the crimes of the Nazi regime. Speer maintained throughout his trial and thereafter that he had no knowledge of the Holocaust. In his memoir, Inside the Third Reich, Speer recalls a conversation with his friend Karl Hanke in which he advised him to “Never under any circumstances” accept an invitation to inspect a concentration camp, specifically Auschwitz. Speer professed that from this moment on he “...was inescapably contaminated morally; from fear of discovering something which might have turned (him) from (his) course”, stating “I had closed my eyes”.
Despite Speer’s insistent claims of ignorance to the Holocaust, there is ample evidence which proves him to have had knowledge of the ‘final solution’. During the Posen conference of October, 1943, Himmler delivered a speech in which he explained the details of the Holocaust, declaring the “...total elimination of all Jews”. While Speer denied being present during Himmler’s speech, it is unwise to suggest that such information would not have been repeated or acquired by him. As asserted by Van der Vat, “A man of Speer’s seniority must have known exactly what was occurring in the death camps”. The emergence of a letter written by Speer in 1971 confirmed his attendance at Posen, admitting “There is no doubt - I was present as Himmler announced...that all Jews would be killed”.
Great. I've outlined the majority of my suggestions above, but I just have a few things to add.
Firstly, statistics. You need more of them.
Secondly, a thesis. You need to sustain an argument throughout the essay. Likely, this argument will just be 'Speer claimed to be ignorant. He wasn't'. However, whatever the argument is, it needs to be more clear. From this argument, you can build a strong conclusion: 'ultimately.... these factors indicate... Speer is....' etc etc
Overall, your examples are great, your historical tone is good, and your flow is good. I particularly like the smaller paragraphs; many students fall for the trap of assuming they should use 3 massive paragraphs.
Incorporate the above comments, and this is on it's way to being a fantastic speech! Let me know if I can clarify anything :)
Post by: tahliamag on May 16, 2017, 05:03:37 pm
Post by: jakesilove on May 16, 2017, 05:04:32 pm
Thankyou so so much for your comments jake I will definitely make those changes before I present the speech. I really appreciate how much time you put in, thankyou again :)
No problem, glad you found the comments helpful :)
Post by: tahliamag on May 16, 2017, 08:28:43 pm
Just following on from my Speer essay I sent in yesterday, I forgot to include my conclusion when I sent the essay so I was wondering if you might be able to take a look just so I can make sure I finish on a strong note? I put in a historian to kind of sum up my argument but im not sure if thats a bad idea or if it works ok??
Thankyou !!!!
'In conclusion, the depiction of Albert Speer as the ‘good Nazi’ remains nothing but a fabricated misconception. While Speer maintained at Nuremberg and thereafter that he was ‘ignorant’ and subsequently ‘innocent’ to the atrocities committed by the Nazi regime, the extensive proof regarding Speer’s knowledge, complicity and guilt to such crimes invalidates such claims of innocence. Speer’s involvement in the Germania project, use of forced labour as Armaments Minister and knowledge of the ‘Final Solution’ denounce his ploy as the ‘good Nazi’ and, as described by historian Hugh Trevor-Roper, reveal him as the “...real criminal of Nazi Germany...For ten years he sat the very centre of political power… but he did nothing”. '
Post by: sudodds on May 16, 2017, 09:08:39 pm
Hi again,
Just following on from my Speer essay I sent in yesterday, I forgot to include my conclusion when I sent the essay so I was wondering if you might be able to take a look just so I can make sure I finish on a strong note? I put in a historian to kind of sum up my argument but im not sure if thats a bad idea or if it works ok??
Thankyou !!!!
hey hey! So I'm not Jake (I know, how disappointing :'( ), however, as this is a conclusion, thus feedback is mainly structural, I think i can help ya out :) I've had a look over your essay so that I have a good understanding of your argument and this is what I think:
Spoiler
'In conclusion, I personally would prefer 'Thus' or 'Therefore it is evident..." rather than 'In conclusion', but this is a very superficial, picky point. I think it sounds more sophisticated, but you're unlikely to lose marks. the depiction of Albert Speer as the ‘good Nazi’ remains nothing but a fabricated misconception. lovely, strong judgement! Nice! While Speer maintained at Nuremberg and thereafter that he was ‘ignorant’ and subsequently ‘innocent’ to the atrocities committed by the Nazi regime, the extensive proof regarding Speer’s knowledge, complicity and guilt to such crimes invalidates such claims of innocence. Speer’s involvement in the Germania project, use of forced labour as Armaments Minister and knowledge of the ‘Final Solution’ denounce his ploy as the ‘good Nazi’ and, as described by historian Hugh Trevor-Roper, reveal him as the “...real criminal of Nazi Germany...For ten years he sat the very centre of political power… but he did nothing”. Okay so in regards to your question as to whether it is acceptable to end with a quote - as it is a speech I think it is okay. The quote is great and really encapsulates your argument in an interesting (almost literary, and dramatic) way, that is perfect for a speech. However in the future when you are writing this as an essay I'd avoid using quotes in your introduction and conclusion. You're not meant to be including any new information in a conclusion, and a quote counts as new detail.
Overall I think you are definitely ending on a high note! One of the problems highlighted by Jake's feedback was that your thesis/argument needs to be clearer (which I agree with), but in your conclusion that definitely doesn't appear to be a problem - your judgements are strong and direct. Include some more judgements like this throughout your response and you'll be set!
Great work, good luck with your assessment :)
Susie
Post by: tahliamag on May 16, 2017, 09:25:56 pm
Post by: sudodds on May 16, 2017, 10:24:40 pm
Thanks alot for your feedback! Very much appreciated :)No worries :) Happy to help!
Post by: maria1999 on May 17, 2017, 08:55:31 pm
Speer: “The good nazi” an evaluation- his knowledge, complicity and guilt; his contribution; historians views
Speer’s opposition to Hitler’s “Scorched Earth” policy was a tactic used to further his own political agenda within the conclusion of the war. Once the Allies were almost certainly in a position to conquer Germany, Hitler issued the “Nero Decree” also known as the “Scorched Earth” decree on March 19 1945. This was a policy that would effectively rid Germany of any valuable commodities or infrastructure, including buildings, industries, bridges and factories that would be of any worth to the Allies. This specifically included destroying all bridges in and around Berlin which were vital for the army retreating from the Eastern and Western Front’s of Germany. The Reich Minister made over 70 trips around Germany to countermeasure the Fuhrer’s destructive orders. Speer disputed all of Hitler’s command, claiming he wanted the German people to have a foundation to rebuild their lives after the conclusion of the war. This claim was ultimately just a ploy to further his facade as a Nazi that had, according to Noakes, "some concern for the future of the German people". He attempted to use his response of this policy to adorn his image of being a “good nazi” but it can be clearly seen that it was ultimately to “gain sympathy in the eyes of Germany’s conquerors” (Noakes)
Post by: jakesilove on May 18, 2017, 09:20:19 am
hi jake!, you've already marked my first draft of this essay (THANK YOU AGAIN BY THE WAY!!) and I was just wondering if you could have a look over this paragraph on "scorched earth" if you had some time. Thank you so much!!
Speer: “The good nazi” an evaluation- his knowledge, complicity and guilt; his contribution; historians views
Speer’s opposition to Hitler’s “Scorched Earth” policy was a tactic used to further his own political agenda within the conclusion of the war. Once the Allies were almost certainly in a position to conquer Germany, Hitler issued the “Nero Decree” also known as the “Scorched Earth” decree on March 19 1945. This was a policy that would effectively rid Germany of any valuable commodities or infrastructure, including buildings, industries, bridges and factories that would be of any worth to the Allies. This specifically included destroying all bridges in and around Berlin which were vital for the army retreating from the Eastern and Western Front’s of Germany. The Reich Minister made over 70 trips around Germany to countermeasure the Fuhrer’s destructive orders. Speer disputed all of Hitler’s command, claiming he wanted the German people to have a foundation to rebuild their lives after the conclusion of the war. This claim was ultimately just a ploy to further his facade as a Nazi that had, according to Noakes, "some concern for the future of the German people". He attempted to use his response of this policy to adorn his image of being a “good nazi” but it can be clearly seen that it was ultimately to “gain sympathy in the eyes of Germany’s conquerors” (Noakes)
Hey! Check out my comments below :)
Spoiler
Speer’s opposition to Hitler’s “Scorched Earth” policy was a tactic used to further his own political agenda within during the conclusion of the war. Once the Allies were almost certainly in a position to conquer Germany, Hitler issued the “Nero Decree” also known as the “Scorched Earth” decree on March 19 1945. Brilliant! This was a policy that would effectively rid Germany of any valuable commodities or infrastructure, including buildings, industries, bridges and factories that would be of any worth to the Allies. Even more brilliant! This specifically included destroying all bridges in and around Berlin which were vital for the army retreating from the Eastern and Western Front’s of Germany. The Reich Minister Maybe say 'Reich Minister Speer' made over 70 trips around Germany to countermeasure the Fuhrer’s destructive orders. Speer disputed all of Hitler’s command, claiming he wanted the German people to have a foundation to rebuild their lives after the conclusion of the war. This claim was ultimately just a ploy to further his facade as a Nazi that had, according to Noakes, "some concern for the future of the German people". Is that necessarily a 'ploy' then? He was actually concerned for the future of Germany, AND that happened to make him seem favourable at Nuremberg.
It's not necessarily black and white; maybe it's a mix of the two? He attempted to use his response of this policy to adorn his image of being a “good nazi” but it can be clearly seen that it was ultimately to “gain sympathy in the eyes of Germany’s conquerors” Brilliant. Such an improvement. Nothing to add content-wise, but perhaps think a bit more deeply about your thesis for this paragraph. At some points, you say that he was ONLY concerned about the future of Germany. At other points, you say that he was ONLY concerned about his own future. Bringing up both is important; however, your thesis can certainly be that he real intentions were a mix of both!
Well done :)
It's not necessarily black and white; maybe it's a mix of the two? He attempted to use his response of this policy to adorn his image of being a “good nazi” but it can be clearly seen that it was ultimately to “gain sympathy in the eyes of Germany’s conquerors” Brilliant. Such an improvement. Nothing to add content-wise, but perhaps think a bit more deeply about your thesis for this paragraph. At some points, you say that he was ONLY concerned about the future of Germany. At other points, you say that he was ONLY concerned about his own future. Bringing up both is important; however, your thesis can certainly be that he real intentions were a mix of both!
Well done :)
Post by: Rasika on May 20, 2017, 07:08:45 pm
This is my Trotsky's speech. It is not finished. I still have to do the last part and then i am done. But this is what i have done so far.
Post by: sudodds on May 20, 2017, 07:38:10 pm
Hello.
This is my Trotsky's speech. It is not finished. I still have to do the last part and then i am done. But this is what i have done so far.
Hey Rasika! My comments can be found in the spoiler below (and don't worry about it being unfinished, post the next bit when you're ready - I'll count all three together as one response). As I already marked the first bit I'm just going to focus on the second question :)
Spoiler
‘History is about winners’ : How accurate is this statement in relation to the personality you have studied? (Oral Exam 2min)
Trotsky’s efforts and contributions within the Russian Civil War clearly accentuated that he was a winner than a loser, as his crucial role within the leadership and organization of the Red Army had led to the Bolshevik victory being considered one of Trotsky’s greatest achievements. Two things: 1. I think your judgement can be a bit simpler (you have quite a lot packed in there that I think would be better served in your explanation of judgement rather than the judgement itself). 2. You haven't fully addressed the question - you need to make an explicit judgement as to whether the statement is accurate. This can just be tagged along at the end, so "Trotsky's efforts and contributions within the Russian Civil War clearly demonstrate that he was overall a winner, thus the statement is accurate."He was given the task why? What position had he earned that meant that he was given this responsibility? of manufacturing an effective war machine from the ruins of the Tsarist regime in order to protect the Bolshevik government from counter-revolution in the form of the White Army and twenty-one foreign imperialist armies who else made up the white army? That is great detail :). Trotsky’s decisive pragmatism as the Commissar for War almost single-handedly saved the Bolshevik regime in its infancy why in its infancy?Dunno if that really adds anything. Other than that I love the judgement. As Commissar of War, Trotsky played a pivotal role I love how consistently you are making and supporting your initial judgement - fantastic :) within the success of the Bolshevik Army, to which he achieved through his ruthless determination and pragmatism during the time enabled Bolshevik success. Check your grammar and expression here - sentence is messy. He was responsible for the leadership and administration of the Red Army, in which he had to make many difficult and controversial decisions in order to secure a Bolshevik victory, many of which went against popular Bolshevik opinion, and his own ideological and moral beliefs. Great point! Love how you integrated that it went against his ideological beliefs as well :) The most significant example of this was Trotsky’s decision to include 75 000 ex-Tsarist officers within the Red Army, which many, even within the Bolshevik Party saw as a risky endeavor, as they were, in their eyes essentially working with an enemy. Great example, you might also want to mention that another decision he made was the re-introduce rank and class to the army, which similarly went against Bolshevik ideology but was critical in ensuring greater efficiency and organisation. However, in the long term this decision proved to be very positive rather than positive, I'd use the word effective. I think "positive" can be perceived as having moral implications., as they brought the necessary military expertise to the Red Army, greatly enhancing their chances of a Bolshevik victory. Trotsky reintroduced harsh discipline and order to the Russian army Detail? Examples?, transforming it from a disorganised people’s militia to the ruthlessly drilled Red Army. This was a crucial action as, although going back on initial Bolshevik decrees Detail? Examples?, it created a defence force how big was this defence force? stat? which successfully defended Petrograd and, hence, the revolution. Furthermore, Trotsky used his skills as a charismatic orator through his propaganda train, which rode from front to front across Russia spreading Bolshevism to the masses, as well as delivering supplies, in order to boost morale in a period of intense conflict. The effect of such morale was crucial, as when Petrograd was on the verge of collapsing to the White Army, Trotsky’s charisma spurred on the Red Army, defending the city against all odds. As the Civil War was a highly crucial event in terms of securing the Bolshevik consolidation of power against the white army, Trotsky’s critical role within it solidifies his importance as a political figure during the time, therefore proving that he was a winner, and affirming the accuracy of the statement :) Again, fantastic judgement. The way you continually link back is excellent - a lot of people don't start doing this until much later on.
Trotsky’s efforts and contributions within the Russian Civil War clearly accentuated that he was a winner than a loser, as his crucial role within the leadership and organization of the Red Army had led to the Bolshevik victory being considered one of Trotsky’s greatest achievements. Two things: 1. I think your judgement can be a bit simpler (you have quite a lot packed in there that I think would be better served in your explanation of judgement rather than the judgement itself). 2. You haven't fully addressed the question - you need to make an explicit judgement as to whether the statement is accurate. This can just be tagged along at the end, so "Trotsky's efforts and contributions within the Russian Civil War clearly demonstrate that he was overall a winner, thus the statement is accurate."He was given the task why? What position had he earned that meant that he was given this responsibility? of manufacturing an effective war machine from the ruins of the Tsarist regime in order to protect the Bolshevik government from counter-revolution in the form of the White Army and twenty-one foreign imperialist armies who else made up the white army? That is great detail :). Trotsky’s decisive pragmatism as the Commissar for War almost single-handedly saved the Bolshevik regime in its infancy why in its infancy?Dunno if that really adds anything. Other than that I love the judgement. As Commissar of War, Trotsky played a pivotal role I love how consistently you are making and supporting your initial judgement - fantastic :) within the success of the Bolshevik Army, to which he achieved through his ruthless determination and pragmatism during the time enabled Bolshevik success. Check your grammar and expression here - sentence is messy. He was responsible for the leadership and administration of the Red Army, in which he had to make many difficult and controversial decisions in order to secure a Bolshevik victory, many of which went against popular Bolshevik opinion, and his own ideological and moral beliefs. Great point! Love how you integrated that it went against his ideological beliefs as well :) The most significant example of this was Trotsky’s decision to include 75 000 ex-Tsarist officers within the Red Army, which many, even within the Bolshevik Party saw as a risky endeavor, as they were, in their eyes essentially working with an enemy. Great example, you might also want to mention that another decision he made was the re-introduce rank and class to the army, which similarly went against Bolshevik ideology but was critical in ensuring greater efficiency and organisation. However, in the long term this decision proved to be very positive rather than positive, I'd use the word effective. I think "positive" can be perceived as having moral implications., as they brought the necessary military expertise to the Red Army, greatly enhancing their chances of a Bolshevik victory. Trotsky reintroduced harsh discipline and order to the Russian army Detail? Examples?, transforming it from a disorganised people’s militia to the ruthlessly drilled Red Army. This was a crucial action as, although going back on initial Bolshevik decrees Detail? Examples?, it created a defence force how big was this defence force? stat? which successfully defended Petrograd and, hence, the revolution. Furthermore, Trotsky used his skills as a charismatic orator through his propaganda train, which rode from front to front across Russia spreading Bolshevism to the masses, as well as delivering supplies, in order to boost morale in a period of intense conflict. The effect of such morale was crucial, as when Petrograd was on the verge of collapsing to the White Army, Trotsky’s charisma spurred on the Red Army, defending the city against all odds. As the Civil War was a highly crucial event in terms of securing the Bolshevik consolidation of power against the white army, Trotsky’s critical role within it solidifies his importance as a political figure during the time, therefore proving that he was a winner, and affirming the accuracy of the statement :) Again, fantastic judgement. The way you continually link back is excellent - a lot of people don't start doing this until much later on.
Okay! So overall, another great response Rasika :) However there are some things that I think you can improve on:
- Detail! You need way more of it - get specific, that is how you score the top marks :)
- Quotes! So though overall in Modern the importance of quotes are inflated, they are a nice inclusion, particularly within a personality study essay which relies on interpretation. I think maybe one or two quotes/reference to a historian could have been quite effective :)
- Clarity! I think I've said this before, but be careful with word choice/sentence structure, particularly as this is a speech. Some of your grammar/expression is a little bit off.
However yes, overall this is a great response :) Looking forward to reading the next section!
Susie
Post by: Rasika on May 21, 2017, 09:28:16 pm
Trotsky’s theory of Permanent Revolution was one of his most significant contributions which had greatly impacted the Soviet Union’s national history. His theory argues that without a fully developed industrial proletariat, the proletariat can and must, therefore, seize social, economic and political power, leading an alliance with the peasantry. However, despite it having great importance in the consolidation of Bolshevik power, it was also Trotsky’s pragmatic ability to keenly manoeuvre through theoretical adherence and the practical application of this communist ideology, that he was able to ensure success and significance. During the early 1905 Russia, there was an ardent desire for revolution, which had sparked from the mass political and social unrest that spread throughout the Russian empire. This had resulted due to various reasons such as the detrimental working conditions that peasants worked under within the factories, the unpopular Tsarist policies which oppressed ethnic minorities and their forced involvement in World War I, despite their economic instability. This volatile atmosphere had resulted into the 1905 Revolution, in which, Trotsky played an active role as the main leader of the revolutionary worker’s council, the St. Petersburg Soviet and it was during this time that Trotsky won great admiration and distinction, due to, according to historian Westwood, Trotsky possessing “oratory skill to set his listeners on fire.” However, it was only after the 1905 Revolution when he was exiled to Siberia that he had begun projecting his theories, which garnered the attention of other communist leaders, and secure himself an influential position within the party. During his time in exile, Trotsky devoted himself to the study of Marxist literature and theory, solidifying his political position as a Marxist, and eventually leading him to begin writings of his own. Trotsky’s most critical work was Results and Prospects (1906), which expounded the theory of ‘Permanent Revolution.’ This theory drew the attention of other influential communists, such as Vladimir Lenin, with it later becoming the official and dominant policy within the Bolshevik Party. Therefore, as it was his theory that lay the foundations for Bolshevik party policy, it is evident that Trotsky’s writings during exile were some of his most critical successes, which enabled him, along with his oratorical successes within the 1905 Revolution, contributed to his significant impact on the national history of Russia.
Post by: sudodds on May 21, 2017, 10:10:52 pm
Assess/Evaluate ONE major contribution/significance of the personality you have studied to their period of national OR international history
Hey! My quotes can be found in the spoiler below!
Spoiler
Trotsky’s theory of Permanent Revolution was one of his most significant contributions which had greatly impacted the Soviet Union’s national history. His theory argues that without a fully developed industrial proletariat, the proletariat can and must, therefore, seize social, economic and political power, leading an alliance with the peasantry. However, despite it having great importance in the consolidation of Bolshevik power, it was also Trotsky’s pragmatic ability to keenly manoeuvre through theoretical adherence and the practical application of this communist ideology, that he was able to ensure success and significance. This sentence should still be your second sentence as it is a critical part of your judgement. Your description of what Permanent Revolution is great, however it should come after this. During the early 1905 Russia Are you trying to say that this was a different Russia? Like "the early 1905 Russia", "the post 1917 Russia" - something along those lines? If so I think it would make more sense to say "Prior to 1917 in Russia" or something like that. It still doesn't make much sense they way you have phrased it., there was an ardent desire for revolution, which had sparked from the mass political and social unrest that spread throughout the Russian empire. This resulted due to various reasons such as the detrimental working conditions that peasants worked under within the factories, the unpopular Tsarist policies which oppressed ethnic minorities and their forced involvement in World War I, despite their economic instability. Better - but I think you still need to mention the severe classism here. Marxists believe everything is about class and class warfare. This volatile atmosphere had resulted into the 1905 Revolution This sentence starts off well, then gets really messy., in which, Trotsky played an active role as the main leader of the revolutionary worker’s council, the St. Petersburg Soviet.and It was during this time that Trotsky won great admiration and distinction, due to, according to historian Westwood, Trotsky possessing “oratory skill to set his listeners on fire.” However, it was only after the 1905 Revolution when he was exiled to Siberia that he had begun projecting to formulate his theories, which garnered the attention of other communist leaders such as Lenin - he is such an important figure I think you should mention him, and secure himself an influential position within the party. During his time in exile, Trotsky devoted himself to the study of Marxist literature and theory, solidifying his political position as a Marxist, and eventually leading him to begin writings of his own. Trotsky’s most critical work was Results and Prospects (1906), which expounded the theory of ‘Permanent Revolution.’ This theory drew the attention of other influential communists, such as Vladimir Lenin, with it later becoming the official and dominant policy within the Bolshevik Party. I don't think you should end here - you haven't yet mentioned how pragmatically applied this theory throughout his time as a leader. That is key to his significance - I don't feel like you have drawn out the significance of Trotsky's Permanent Revolution enough yet - just ideology in general.Mention how the Treaty of Brest Litovsk and the Civil War demonstrate his ideological adherence yet pragmatism, even if only briefly (you can probably cut out some stuff from earlier to fit it in)Therefore, as it was his theory that lay the foundations for Bolshevik party policy, it is evident that Trotsky’s writings during exile were some of his most critical successes, which enabled him, along with his oratorical successes within the 1905 Revolution, contributed to his significant impact on the national history of Russia. Read over this last sentence -
clunky.
clunky.
Good work Rasika, this is good! However there is still room for improvement :) So like I mentioned last time, I really think you need to focus on making sure that your sentences are succinct, and that they make grammatical sense. This has been a consistent issue throughout your responses, and as this is a speech it is especially important. I also do think that you need to mention the significance of his theories throughout the consolidation of Bolshevik power to really draw out Trotsky's role and contribution here. Though your discussion upon the pre-revolutionary philosophical climate is great, I think you can maybe cut back a bit on that and instead replace that with more of a discussion of Trotsky's direct influence.
Hope this helps!
Susie
Post by: Rasika on May 21, 2017, 11:41:28 pm
Post by: sudodds on May 21, 2017, 11:44:20 pm
Is it okay if i just focus on Treaty of Brest-Litovsk?If you're strapped in terms of word count I think that should be fine :)
Post by: Rasika on May 22, 2017, 12:00:42 am
Trotsky’s role in the 1917 Revolution was a highly significant factor that contributed to his rise to prominence. This is because it allowed Trotsky to gain a powerful position within the Bolshevik party, and garner significant respect from his peers and community, which in turn afforded him significant power and opportunity. The 1917 Revolution marked the conclusion of the power struggle between the Bolsheviks and the Provisional Government after the forced abdication of Tsar Nicholas II on 15th March 1917, the Bolsheviks succeeding after the Red Guard stormed the White Palace, led by Trotsky on 25th October 1917. Trotsky played a pivotal role in the organisation and communication of orders during the 1917 revolution holding major influence over how the revolution was conducted. For example, he persuaded Lenin to delay the revolution until the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets at the end of October, so that the power could be seized in the name of the Soviets rather than the Bolshevik Party itself, thereby reducing the likelihood of proletariat opposition whom the Soviet represented. It also further increased the popularity and support of the Bolsheviks. Trotsky’s pragmatic ability coupled with his talent as an orator garnered him much popularity and respect within the Bolshevik party. This elevated his status so that he was “second only to Lenin”. This veneration Trotsky received during the 1917 Revolution led to his appointment within critical party positions, such as Commissar of Foreign Affairs in 1917 and Commissar of War, Army and Naval Affairs in 1918, allowing him to further consolidate and grow his influence within the party whilst also allowing him to gain the support and trust of the army. Therefore, it is evident that the 1917 Revolution was highly critical to Trotsky’s rise to prominence as a political and revolutionary figure.
Trotsky’s theory of Permanent Revolution was one of his most significant contributions which greatly impacted the Soviet Union’s national history. However, despite it having great importance in the consolidation of Bolshevik power, it was also Trotsky’s pragmatic ability to keenly manoeuvre through theoretical adherence and the practical application of this communist ideology, that he was able to ensure success and significance. His theory argues that without a fully developed industrial proletariat, the proletariat can and must, therefore, seize social, economic and political power, leading an alliance with the peasantry. Prior to 1917 in Russia, there was an ardent desire for revolution, which had sparked from the mass political and social unrest that spread throughout the Russian empire. This resulted due to various reasons such as the detrimental working conditions that peasants worked under within the factories and the severe classism that was prevalent across the regime. This volatile atmosphere had resulted into the 1905 Revolution, in which, Trotsky played an active role as the main leader of the revolutionary worker’s council, the St. Petersburg Soviet. However, he was exiled to Siberia, where he began to formulate his theories, which garnered the attention of other communist leaders such as Lenin, and secure himself an influential position within the party. During his time in exile, Trotsky devoted himself to the study of Marxist literature and theory, solidifying his political position as a Marxist, and eventually leading him to begin writings of his own. Trotsky’s most critical work was Results and Prospects (1906), which expounded the theory of ‘Permanent Revolution.’ This theory drew the attention of other influential communists, such as Vladimir Lenin, with it later becoming the official and dominant policy within the Bolshevik Party. Though Trotsky’s Permanent Revolution was highly influential within the Communist Party, he knew and understood that theory was not always possible due to the complex and dynamic nature of Russian society at the time, currently dealing with the repercussions of war, famine and civil unrest. Therefore, it was necessary to adapt his ideas and policies in order to better suit this ever changing country. This is shown through the signing of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk where Trotsky was willing to sacrifice his theory and principle for the good of the Bolsheviks’ consolidation of power and Russian populous. His readiness to adapt his beliefs to better suit the socioeconomic conditions of Russia, demonstrate his pragmatism to change his ideological adherence in order for the success. Furthermore, as it was also his theory that lay the foundations for Bolshevik party policy, it is evident that Trotsky’s writings during exile brought a lot of his critical successes. His overall theory of Permanent Revolution significantly impacted on the national history of Russia.
‘History is about winners’
How accurate is this statement in relation to the personality you have studied? (Oral Exam 2min)
Analyse and Evaluate how accurate this statement is in relation to Trotsky by referring to ONE of the following to either support or refute this above statement/claim:
Trotsky's efforts and contributions within the Russian Civil War clearly demonstrate that he was overall a winner, thus the statement is accurate. The Bolshevik success within the Russian Civil War was a significant achievement of Trotsky, as it principally achieved through his ruthless and pragmatic leadership of the Red Army as Commissar of War. After his failures as Commissar of Foreign Affairs, Trotsky was appointed Commissar of War. As Commissar of War, Trotsky played the crucial role of leading the Bolshevik Red Army, against the anti-Bolshevik (a mixture of tsarists, Mensheviks, social revolutionaries and foreign troops from Britain and France) White Army. He was responsible for the leadership and administration of the Red Army, in which he had to make many difficult and controversial decisions in order to secure a Bolshevik victory, many of which went against popular Bolshevik opinion, and his own ideological and moral beliefs. The most significant example of this was Trotsky’s decision to include 75 000 ex-Tsarist officers within the Red Army, which many, even within the Bolshevik Party saw as a risky endeavour, as they were, in their eyes essentially working with an enemy. Eventhough, Trotsky was faced with the daunting task of leading the Bolshevik Red Army to victory, he completed it successfully, with political activist John G. Wright stating that “Not only the leadership in organizing and building the army, but the initiative for its formation came from Leon Trotsky. He was the untiring inspirer of every decisive step taken in this direction.” Additionally, Trotsky also used his skills as a charismatic orator through his propaganda train, which rode from front to front across Russia spreading Bolshevism to the masses, as well as delivering supplies, in order to boost morale in a period of intense conflict. The effect of such morale was crucial, as when Petrograd was on the verge of collapsing to the White Army, Trotsky’s charisma spurred on the Red Army, defending the city against all odds. Furthermore, as the Civil War was a highly crucial event in terms of securing the Bolshevik consolidation of power against the white army, Trotsky’s critical role within it solidifies his importance as a political figure during the time, therefore proving that he was a winner, and affirming the accuracy of the statement
Mod Edit: Merged
Post by: sudodds on May 22, 2017, 10:37:30 am
Spoiler
Trotsky’s role in the 1917 Revolution was a highly significant factor that contributed to his rise to prominence. Great JudgementThis is because it allowed Trotsky to gain a powerful position within the Bolshevik party, and garner significant respect from his peers and community, which in turn afforded him significant power and opportunity. The sentence is much better than before.The 1917 Revolution marked the conclusion of the power struggle between the Bolsheviks and the Provisional Government, after the forced abdication of Tsar Nicholas II on 15th March 1917, the Bolsheviks succeeding after the Red Guard stormed the White Palace, led by Trotsky on 25th October 1917. Great Trotsky played a pivotal role in the organisation and communication of orders during the 1917 revolution, holding major influence over how the revolution was conducted. For example, he persuaded Lenin to delay the revolution until the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets at the end of October, so that the power could be seized in the name of the Soviets rather than the Bolshevik Party itself, thereby reducing the likelihood of proletariat opposition whom the Soviet represented. It also further increased the popularity and support of the Bolsheviks. Trotsky’s pragmatic ability, coupled with his talent as an orator garnered him much popularity and respect within the Bolshevik party. This elevated his status so that he was “second only to Lenin”. This veneration Trotsky received during the 1917 Revolution led to his appointment within critical party positions, such as Commissar of Foreign Affairs in 1917 and Commissar of War, Army and Naval Affairs in 1918, allowing him to further consolidate and grow his influence within the party, whilst also allowing him to gain the support and trust of the army. Therefore, it is evident that the 1917 Revolution was highly critical to Trotsky’s rise to prominence as a political and revolutionary figure.
Great! I don't see any major problems here that you need to fix :) A few small grammar issues, but other than that this is a fantastic response!
Spoiler
Trotsky’s theory of Permanent Revolution was one of his most significant contributions which greatly impacted to the Soviet Union’s national history. However, despite it having great importance in the consolidation of Bolshevik power, it was also Trotsky’s pragmatic ability to keenly manoeuvre through theoretical adherence and the practical application of this communist ideology, that he was able to ensure success and significance. His theory argues that without a fully developed industrial proletariat, the proletariat can and must, therefore, seize social, economic and political power, leading an alliance with the peasantry. Prior to 1917 in Russia, there was an ardent desire for revolution, which had sparked from the mass political and social unrest that spread throughout the Russian empire. This resulted due to various reasons such as the detrimental working conditions that peasants worked under within the factories and the severe classism that was prevalent across the regime. This volatile atmosphere had this has happened a few times - its this word that often makes your sentences seem a bit clunky to meresulted into the 1905 Revolution, in which, Trotsky played an active role as the main leader of the revolutionary worker’s council, the St. Petersburg Soviet. However, Does 'However' really work here? Sounds a bit narrative. Probably would be better to say something along the lines of "His activity during the 1905 revolution saw him exiled to Siberia in 1906... etc. etc. he was exiled to Siberia, where he began to formulate his theories, which garnered the attention of other communist leaders such as Lenin, and secure himself an influential position within the party. During his time in exile, Trotsky devoted himself to the study of Marxist literature and theory, solidifying his political position as a Marxist, and eventually leading him to begin writings of his own. Trotsky’s most critical work was Results and Prospects (1906), which expounded the theory of ‘Permanent Revolution.’ This theory drew the attention of other influential communists, such as Vladimir Lenin, with it later becoming the official and dominant policy within the Bolshevik Party. Though Trotsky’s Permanent Revolution was highly influential within the Communist Party, he knew and understood that theory was not always possible due to the complex and dynamic nature of Russian society at the time, currently dealing with the repercussions of war, famine and civil unrest. Therefore, it was necessary to adapt his ideas and policies in order to better suit this ever changing country. This is shown through the signing of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk where Trotsky was willing to sacrifice his theory and principle for the good of the Bolsheviks’ consolidation of power and Russian populous. ...when he realised that his original position 'neither peace nor war' had failed. Though I defs agree with this point, I think it is important to reference that, because it looks like you've cherry picked. You need to make a judgement that though he stuck to ideology strongly before, once Germany invaded Russia it became clear to him that this wasn't applicable and he switched to support Lenin's position. His readiness to adapt his beliefs to better suit the socioeconomic conditions of Russia, demonstrate his pragmatism to change he's not really "changing" his ideological adherence - he was still a very strong believer of Permanent Revolution. What was critical is he knew when to forgo/relax his ideological adherence. his ideological adherence in order for the success. Furthermore, as it was also his theory that lay the foundations for Bolshevik party policy, it is evident that Trotsky’s writings during exile brought a lot of his critical successes. His overall theory of Permanent Revolution significantly impacted on the national history of Russia.
Overall this is a much stronger response Rasika! Though I think you need to add a bit more on the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (see my comments for specifics), the last part of your response was very strong - your language and sentence structure was also much better, however there are still a few little odd words/conjunctions floating around which I have highlighted :)
Spoiler
Trotsky's efforts and contributions within the Russian Civil War clearly demonstrate that he was overall a winner, thus the statement is highly accurate. The Bolshevik success within the Russian Civil War was a significant achievement of Trotsky Rather than saying "was a significant achievement of Trotsky" which is clunky and in a passive tone, say "The Bolshevik's success within the Russian Civil War was one of Trotsky's most significant accheivements, as it was principally achieved through his ruthless and pragmatic leadership of the Red Army as Commissar of War great explanation of judgement!. After his failures as Commissar of Foreign Affairs, Trotsky was appointed Commissar of War. Is this really necessary to mention? As Commissar of War, Trotsky played the crucial role of leading the Bolshevik Red Army, against the anti-Bolshevik (a mixture of tsarists, Mensheviks, social revolutionaries and foreign troops from Britain and France) White Army You had a stat before with the number of foreign armies, why did you delete it? That was fantastic detail - if I remember correctly it was 255 503 foreign troops.. He was responsible for the leadership and administration of the Red Army, in which he had to make many difficult and controversial decisions in order to secure a Bolshevik victory, many of which went against popular Bolshevik opinion, and his own ideological and moral beliefs. Not sure if you should mention moral beliefs unless you are going to back that up with evidence. The most significant example of this was Trotsky’s decision to include 75 000 ex-Tsarist officers within the Red Army, which many, even within the Bolshevik Party saw as a risky endeavour, as they were, in their eyes essentially working with an enemy. Even though, Trotsky was faced with the daunting task of leading the Bolshevik Red Army to victory, he completed it successfully, with political activist John G. Wright stating that “Not only the leadership in organizing and building the army, but the initiative for its formation came from Leon Trotsky. He was the untiring inspirer of every decisive step taken in this direction.” Great quote :) Additionally, Trotsky also used his skills as a charismatic orator through his propaganda train, which rode from front to front across Russia spreading Bolshevism to the masses, as well as delivering supplies, in order to boost morale in a period of intense conflict. The effect of such morale was crucial, as when Petrograd was on the verge of collapsing to the White Army, Trotsky’s charisma spurred on the Red Army, defending the city against all odds. Furthermore, Thus (furthermore looks like you're going to make a new point. as the Civil War was a highly crucial event in terms of securing the Bolshevik consolidation of power against the white army, Trotsky’s critical role within it solidifies his importance as a political figure during the time, therefore proving that he was a winner, and affirming the accuracy of the statement.
Again, much better than before, well done :) See my comments within the spoiler for specifics, but there is again nothing major that I think needs to be addressed. Some more detail would be nice however - detail is what differentiates a band 5 from a band 6 response (and a band 6 from a high band 6 etc. etc.).
Well done,
Susie
Post by: JD99 on May 24, 2017, 05:09:28 pm
People have the ability to change the world for the better. How accurate is this statement in relation to the personality you are studying.
Other criteria include:
- there must be four historians used (so far i have only used three, i need something for the third paragraph)
- it must be 6 minutes in length
I need help particularly with paragraph three...i just can't seem to bring it together at all...
Also, am I answering the question directly? Sometimes I feel i'm more saying that he did not change the world for the better, rather than whether or not he had the ability to... but then again I'm not sure if this is wrong??!
Thanks!!
Here it is...
Albert Speers had the ability to change the world for the better. In this setting, Speer's world was Germany and her occupied territories including Poland and Ukraine, during World War 2. Within this world, Speer played a significant role as a friend to Hitler and as the Reich Minister for Armaments. He did not change the world for the better because He chose to tacitly accept the atrocities occurring in Nazi Germany, he chose to use slave labour to enhance war production and he chose to support Hitler and Hitler's ideals. However, His closeness to Hitler, his position in the Nazi Party and his control over slave labourers gave him the ability to change the world for the better.
Albert Speer had the ability to change the world for the better cause he knew what was going on. Although he had the ability, he chose not to use it. He chose to ignore the atrocities being committed by the organisation he was a part of, yet later accepted them. Speer said himself that he was the ‘second man in the Reich’, leaving us with no doubt that HE had the knowledge of what was going on, but, as Trevor Roper said “for ten years he sat the very centre of political power, but he did nothing”. This prolonged the plight of those affected by the Nazi regime including Jewish and Slavic men, women and children, and shows that Speer did nothing for them, and thus did NOT change the world for the better. Oh, and one more thing? In 1978, in an interview with Gitta Sereny, Speer used the word ‘Billigung’ in relation to his involvement with Nazi atrocities. This commonly translates to ‘tacit acceptance’, however Speer also gave us his interpretation of the word. “connivance (willingness to allow or be secretly involved in an immoral or illegal act) through looking away”. In other words, he accepted the atrocities, but turned a blind eye. If he accepted them, then isn’t it obvious that he knew about them? How can a man who has willingly ignored the ugly fate of millions of men, women and children be said to have changed the world for the better? Albert Speer knew what was going on and therefore had the ability to change the world for the better. But he did not.
Albert Speer had the ability to change the world for the better because he was key to the Nazi regime, and ultimately key to Hitler’s ideals. As Henry King said ‘“From 1942 to 1945 not only was he one of the men closest to Hitler, but he was also [the] one who influenced Hitler’s decisions.” A totalitarian regime, such as the Third Reich, cannot operate on one man alone. No matter how strong his ideals, no matter how powerful his speeches, Hitler needed his henchmen. Without the likes of Speer, Nazism would never have seized Germany the way it did. Speer claims that “I just stood aside and said that as long as I did not personally participate it had nothing to do with me”. However, he cannot claim this. The fact that he worked both in architecture, which doubled as grandiose Nazi propaganda, and production of armaments using forced labour, meant that he did not ‘just stand aside’. He was in fact heavily involved in the Nazi regime, and therefore had the ability to change the world for the better, had he been able to make a stand against his so called ‘friend’ Hitler.
Albert Speer had the ability to change the world because he controlled the use of slave labour. He could have effectively used the German labour force, including women who were barely used in Germany. Instead, he chose to forcefully conscript millions of workers from occupied territories. These people lived and worked in unsafe, unsanitary conditions and millions ended up dying due to being overworked, starved or diseased . Now, some would argue that Speer improved working conditions for labourers. This was true for some, but he did it in view of getting them working most efficiently, not in view of making the world a better place. And in the end, he even turned a blind eye on this, as can be seen in images we have all seen of the awful conditions in concentration camps.
In conclusion, it is clear that Albert Speer had the ability to change the world of Germany and her occupied territories during World War 2 for the better. He knew what was going on, he was key to the Nazi regime and to Hitler himself, and he had ultimate control over the use of slave labourers. This man had the ability to change the world for the better.
Post by: jakesilove on May 25, 2017, 01:11:00 pm
This is my essay (speech) on Albert Speers. The question is:
People have the ability to change the world for the better. How accurate is this statement in relation to the personality you are studying.
Other criteria include:
- there must be four historians used (so far i have only used three, i need something for the third paragraph)
- it must be 6 minutes in length
I need help particularly with paragraph three...i just can't seem to bring it together at all...
Also, am I answering the question directly? Sometimes I feel i'm more saying that he did not change the world for the better, rather than whether or not he had the ability to... but then again I'm not sure if this is wrong??!
Thanks!!
Hey! Check out my comments below
Original speech
Spoiler
Albert Speers had the ability to change the world for the better. In this setting, Speer's world was Germany and her occupied territories including Poland and Ukraine, during World War 2. Within this world, Speer played a significant role as a friend to Hitler and as the Reich Minister for Armaments. He did not change the world for the better because He chose to tacitly accept the atrocities occurring in Nazi Germany, he chose to use slave labour to enhance war production and he chose to support Hitler and Hitler's ideals. However, His closeness to Hitler, his position in the Nazi Party and his control over slave labourers gave him the ability to change the world for the better.
Albert Speer had the ability to change the world for the better cause he knew what was going on. Although he had the ability, he chose not to use it. He chose to ignore the atrocities being committed by the organisation he was a part of, yet later accepted them. Speer said himself that he was the ‘second man in the Reich’, leaving us with no doubt that HE had the knowledge of what was going on, but, as Trevor Roper said “for ten years he sat the very centre of political power, but he did nothing”. This prolonged the plight of those affected by the Nazi regime including Jewish and Slavic men, women and children, and shows that Speer did nothing for them, and thus did NOT change the world for the better. Oh, and one more thing? In 1978, in an interview with Gitta Sereny, Speer used the word ‘Billigung’ in relation to his involvement with Nazi atrocities. This commonly translates to ‘tacit acceptance’, however Speer also gave us his interpretation of the word. “connivance (willingness to allow or be secretly involved in an immoral or illegal act) through looking away”. In other words, he accepted the atrocities, but turned a blind eye. If he accepted them, then isn’t it obvious that he knew about them? How can a man who has willingly ignored the ugly fate of millions of men, women and children be said to have changed the world for the better? Albert Speer knew what was going on and therefore had the ability to change the world for the better. But he did not.
Albert Speer had the ability to change the world for the better because he was key to the Nazi regime, and ultimately key to Hitler’s ideals. As Henry King said ‘“From 1942 to 1945 not only was he one of the men closest to Hitler, but he was also [the] one who influenced Hitler’s decisions.” A totalitarian regime, such as the Third Reich, cannot operate on one man alone. No matter how strong his ideals, no matter how powerful his speeches, Hitler needed his henchmen. Without the likes of Speer, Nazism would never have seized Germany the way it did. Speer claims that “I just stood aside and said that as long as I did not personally participate it had nothing to do with me”. However, he cannot claim this. The fact that he worked both in architecture, which doubled as grandiose Nazi propaganda, and production of armaments using forced labour, meant that he did not ‘just stand aside’. He was in fact heavily involved in the Nazi regime, and therefore had the ability to change the world for the better, had he been able to make a stand against his so called ‘friend’ Hitler.
Albert Speer had the ability to change the world because he controlled the use of slave labour. He could have effectively used the German labour force, including women who were barely used in Germany. Instead, he chose to forcefully conscript millions of workers from occupied territories. These people lived and worked in unsafe, unsanitary conditions and millions ended up dying due to being overworked, starved or diseased . Now, some would argue that Speer improved working conditions for labourers. This was true for some, but he did it in view of getting them working most efficiently, not in view of making the world a better place. And in the end, he even turned a blind eye on this, as can be seen in images we have all seen of the awful conditions in concentration camps.
In conclusion, it is clear that Albert Speer had the ability to change the world of Germany and her occupied territories during World War 2 for the better. He knew what was going on, he was key to the Nazi regime and to Hitler himself, and he had ultimate control over the use of slave labourers. This man had the ability to change the world for the better.
Albert Speer had the ability to change the world for the better cause he knew what was going on. Although he had the ability, he chose not to use it. He chose to ignore the atrocities being committed by the organisation he was a part of, yet later accepted them. Speer said himself that he was the ‘second man in the Reich’, leaving us with no doubt that HE had the knowledge of what was going on, but, as Trevor Roper said “for ten years he sat the very centre of political power, but he did nothing”. This prolonged the plight of those affected by the Nazi regime including Jewish and Slavic men, women and children, and shows that Speer did nothing for them, and thus did NOT change the world for the better. Oh, and one more thing? In 1978, in an interview with Gitta Sereny, Speer used the word ‘Billigung’ in relation to his involvement with Nazi atrocities. This commonly translates to ‘tacit acceptance’, however Speer also gave us his interpretation of the word. “connivance (willingness to allow or be secretly involved in an immoral or illegal act) through looking away”. In other words, he accepted the atrocities, but turned a blind eye. If he accepted them, then isn’t it obvious that he knew about them? How can a man who has willingly ignored the ugly fate of millions of men, women and children be said to have changed the world for the better? Albert Speer knew what was going on and therefore had the ability to change the world for the better. But he did not.
Albert Speer had the ability to change the world for the better because he was key to the Nazi regime, and ultimately key to Hitler’s ideals. As Henry King said ‘“From 1942 to 1945 not only was he one of the men closest to Hitler, but he was also [the] one who influenced Hitler’s decisions.” A totalitarian regime, such as the Third Reich, cannot operate on one man alone. No matter how strong his ideals, no matter how powerful his speeches, Hitler needed his henchmen. Without the likes of Speer, Nazism would never have seized Germany the way it did. Speer claims that “I just stood aside and said that as long as I did not personally participate it had nothing to do with me”. However, he cannot claim this. The fact that he worked both in architecture, which doubled as grandiose Nazi propaganda, and production of armaments using forced labour, meant that he did not ‘just stand aside’. He was in fact heavily involved in the Nazi regime, and therefore had the ability to change the world for the better, had he been able to make a stand against his so called ‘friend’ Hitler.
Albert Speer had the ability to change the world because he controlled the use of slave labour. He could have effectively used the German labour force, including women who were barely used in Germany. Instead, he chose to forcefully conscript millions of workers from occupied territories. These people lived and worked in unsafe, unsanitary conditions and millions ended up dying due to being overworked, starved or diseased . Now, some would argue that Speer improved working conditions for labourers. This was true for some, but he did it in view of getting them working most efficiently, not in view of making the world a better place. And in the end, he even turned a blind eye on this, as can be seen in images we have all seen of the awful conditions in concentration camps.
In conclusion, it is clear that Albert Speer had the ability to change the world of Germany and her occupied territories during World War 2 for the better. He knew what was going on, he was key to the Nazi regime and to Hitler himself, and he had ultimate control over the use of slave labourers. This man had the ability to change the world for the better.
Speech with comments
Spoiler
You've already misspelled the name of your personality. You do so multiple times. That's a bad sign. Albert Speers had the ability to change the world for the better. In this setting, Speer's world was Germany and her occupied territories including Poland and Ukraine, during World War 2. Within this world, Speer played a significant role as a friend to Hitler and as the Reich Minister for Armaments. He did not change the world for the better because He chose to tacitly accept the atrocities occurring in Nazi Germany, he chose to use slave labour to enhance war production and he chose to support Hitler and Hitler's ideals. Not a great sentence. I get your point, but you can definitely reword it to be more coherent. Read it out loud; that's always the best way to judge whether a sentence works. This is particularly true for a speech. However, His closeness to Hitler, his position in the Nazi Party and his control over slave labourers gave him the ability to change the world for the better.
You've answered the question far too literally, in my opinion. I suppose that your thesis is that he COULD HAVE changed the world for the better, but that he DIDN'T. I would argue pretty strongly against this, with specific regards to Speer. If he had been a 'good' guy, if he had actively opposed Nazi policies, would he still have gained the powerful positions he occupied throughout the pre-war and war periods? No, he wouldn't have. So, he could either have tried to 'change the world for the better', and fail (ie. be killed by the Nazi's) or become a Nazi himself, and thus change the world for the worse. Does that make sense? I'm not defending Speer, but you seem to be saying that, as a general principle, people do have the power to improve the world around them. I'm not sure how you could make that argument, in any meaningful way. Still, your tone is good, and the examples you've picked out are ideal.
Albert Speer had the ability to change the world for the better cause Cause? Really? Way too colloquial. he knew what was going on 'Knew what was going on'? You need to rewrite much of this; what did he know, exactly?. Although he had the ability, he chose not to use it. He chose to ignore the atrocities being committed by the organisation he was a part of, yet later accepted them Not 'yet'; rather 'and'. You've got a nice, complex argument here (which could be made far clearer); initially, Speer ignored the atrocities. Later, he accepted them. When did he accept them? Why? What changed?. Speer said himself that he was the ‘second man in the Reich’, leaving us Who? Us? Too colloquial again with no doubt that HE Don't do this. had the knowledge of what was going on, but, as Trevor Roper said “for ten years he sat the very centre of political power, but he did nothing”. This prolonged the plight of those affected by the Nazi regime including Jewish and Slavic men, women and children, and shows that Speer did nothing for them, and thus did NOT Again change the world for the better. Oh, and one more thing? Seriously? No. You're writing a history speech, not chatting to your friend. In 1978, in an interview with Gitta Sereny, Speer used the word ‘Billigung’ in relation to his involvement with Nazi atrocities. This commonly translates to ‘tacit acceptance’, however Speer also gave us his interpretation of the word. “connivance (willingness to allow or be secretly involved in an immoral or illegal act) through looking away”. In other words, he accepted the atrocities, but turned a blind eye. If he accepted them, then isn’t it obvious that he knew about them Yes? How can a man who has willingly ignored the ugly fate of millions of men How many exactly. There are plenty of statistics out there; use them., women and children be said to have changed the world for the better? Albert Speer knew what was going on and therefore had the ability to change the world for the better. But he did not. Just because he knew what was going on does not mean he could change it for the better. When it comes to Speer, it's very hard to argue that he could, simply because he didn't. What evidence can you use? It's a tough question, which isn't your fault, but one you need to spend more time considering.
Albert Speer had the ability to change the world for the better You've said this far too many times in a short speech. because he was key to the Nazi regime, and ultimately key to Hitler’s ideals. As Henry King said ‘“From 1942 to 1945 not only was he one of the men closest to Hitler, but he was also [the] one who influenced Hitler’s decisions.” A totalitarian regime Careful here; was the Third Reich totalitarian? Whilst that would depend on your answer to such an essay question, the general consensus is that no, it wasn't. , such as the Third Reich, cannot operate on one man alone Operate on? Or do you mean cannot be operated by?. No matter how strong his ideals, no matter how powerful his speeches, Hitler needed his henchmen Colloquial. Henchmen? Come on. Without the likes of Speer, Nazism would never have seized Germany the way it did. Speer claims that “I just stood aside and said that as long as I did not personally participate it had nothing to do with me”. However, he cannot claim this He did.
So he can. However, his claim may be false.. The fact that he worked both in architecture, which doubled as grandiose Nazi propaganda, and production of armaments using forced labour, meant that he did not ‘just stand aside’. He was in fact heavily involved in the Nazi regime Yes. This last sentence and a half is very good, but could be improved through the use of specific statistics or facts (what did he build? How was it Nazi propaganda?), and therefore had the ability to change the world for the better, had he been able to make a stand against his so called ‘friend’ Hitler.
Albert Speer had the ability to change the world Probably the 8th time you've said this because he controlled the use of slave labour. Wow what. So, he had control of slave labour, so he could have changed the world for the better? NO. He had control of slave labour because he was a Nazi, and thus (most would argue) NOT changing the world for the better. It's a subtle distinction, but also absurd to say that once he got to the top of the ladder, he should have turned around and burned it all down. Unrealistic; by this point, Speer was just as bad as the rest of them. He could have effectively used the German labour force, including women who were barely used in Germany Were they 'barely used'? Where are you getting that from?. Instead, he chose to forcefully conscript millions of workers from occupied territories How many millions?. These people lived and worked in unsafe, unsanitary conditions and millions ended up dying due to being overworked, starved or diseased How many died?. Now, some would argue that Speer improved working conditions for labourers 'Now,' is a no no. This was true for some, but he did it in view of getting them working most efficiently, not in view of making the world a better place. And in the end, he even turned a blind eye on this, as can be seen in images we have all seen of the awful conditions in concentration camps 'we have all'?.
In conclusion, it is clear that Albert Speer had the ability to change the world of Germany and her occupied territories during World War 2 for the better. He knew what was going on, he was key to the Nazi regime and to Hitler himself, and he had ultimate control over the use of slave labourers. This man had the ability to change the world for the better.
This speech needs a lot of work, but you've got the general structure down. Keep the flow of the piece (ie. the broad topics of each paragraphs).
However, completely rewrite the speech, using this as a basis. You need to ensure that your language remains formal throughout. You need to incorporate specific, accurate, relevant and detailed examples. And, whilst you certainly 'answer' the question quite a lot in the above piece, you need to refine that thesis into something more coherent, and ideally a bit more nuanced. While there's a way to go here, it's clear that you're on the right track. Keep it up, and I'm sure you can create an impressive piece of work!
You've answered the question far too literally, in my opinion. I suppose that your thesis is that he COULD HAVE changed the world for the better, but that he DIDN'T. I would argue pretty strongly against this, with specific regards to Speer. If he had been a 'good' guy, if he had actively opposed Nazi policies, would he still have gained the powerful positions he occupied throughout the pre-war and war periods? No, he wouldn't have. So, he could either have tried to 'change the world for the better', and fail (ie. be killed by the Nazi's) or become a Nazi himself, and thus change the world for the worse. Does that make sense? I'm not defending Speer, but you seem to be saying that, as a general principle, people do have the power to improve the world around them. I'm not sure how you could make that argument, in any meaningful way. Still, your tone is good, and the examples you've picked out are ideal.
Albert Speer had the ability to change the world for the better cause Cause? Really? Way too colloquial. he knew what was going on 'Knew what was going on'? You need to rewrite much of this; what did he know, exactly?. Although he had the ability, he chose not to use it. He chose to ignore the atrocities being committed by the organisation he was a part of, yet later accepted them Not 'yet'; rather 'and'. You've got a nice, complex argument here (which could be made far clearer); initially, Speer ignored the atrocities. Later, he accepted them. When did he accept them? Why? What changed?. Speer said himself that he was the ‘second man in the Reich’, leaving us Who? Us? Too colloquial again with no doubt that HE Don't do this. had the knowledge of what was going on, but, as Trevor Roper said “for ten years he sat the very centre of political power, but he did nothing”. This prolonged the plight of those affected by the Nazi regime including Jewish and Slavic men, women and children, and shows that Speer did nothing for them, and thus did NOT Again change the world for the better. Oh, and one more thing? Seriously? No. You're writing a history speech, not chatting to your friend. In 1978, in an interview with Gitta Sereny, Speer used the word ‘Billigung’ in relation to his involvement with Nazi atrocities. This commonly translates to ‘tacit acceptance’, however Speer also gave us his interpretation of the word. “connivance (willingness to allow or be secretly involved in an immoral or illegal act) through looking away”. In other words, he accepted the atrocities, but turned a blind eye. If he accepted them, then isn’t it obvious that he knew about them Yes? How can a man who has willingly ignored the ugly fate of millions of men How many exactly. There are plenty of statistics out there; use them., women and children be said to have changed the world for the better? Albert Speer knew what was going on and therefore had the ability to change the world for the better. But he did not. Just because he knew what was going on does not mean he could change it for the better. When it comes to Speer, it's very hard to argue that he could, simply because he didn't. What evidence can you use? It's a tough question, which isn't your fault, but one you need to spend more time considering.
Albert Speer had the ability to change the world for the better You've said this far too many times in a short speech. because he was key to the Nazi regime, and ultimately key to Hitler’s ideals. As Henry King said ‘“From 1942 to 1945 not only was he one of the men closest to Hitler, but he was also [the] one who influenced Hitler’s decisions.” A totalitarian regime Careful here; was the Third Reich totalitarian? Whilst that would depend on your answer to such an essay question, the general consensus is that no, it wasn't. , such as the Third Reich, cannot operate on one man alone Operate on? Or do you mean cannot be operated by?. No matter how strong his ideals, no matter how powerful his speeches, Hitler needed his henchmen Colloquial. Henchmen? Come on. Without the likes of Speer, Nazism would never have seized Germany the way it did. Speer claims that “I just stood aside and said that as long as I did not personally participate it had nothing to do with me”. However, he cannot claim this He did.
So he can. However, his claim may be false.. The fact that he worked both in architecture, which doubled as grandiose Nazi propaganda, and production of armaments using forced labour, meant that he did not ‘just stand aside’. He was in fact heavily involved in the Nazi regime Yes. This last sentence and a half is very good, but could be improved through the use of specific statistics or facts (what did he build? How was it Nazi propaganda?), and therefore had the ability to change the world for the better, had he been able to make a stand against his so called ‘friend’ Hitler.
Albert Speer had the ability to change the world Probably the 8th time you've said this because he controlled the use of slave labour. Wow what. So, he had control of slave labour, so he could have changed the world for the better? NO. He had control of slave labour because he was a Nazi, and thus (most would argue) NOT changing the world for the better. It's a subtle distinction, but also absurd to say that once he got to the top of the ladder, he should have turned around and burned it all down. Unrealistic; by this point, Speer was just as bad as the rest of them. He could have effectively used the German labour force, including women who were barely used in Germany Were they 'barely used'? Where are you getting that from?. Instead, he chose to forcefully conscript millions of workers from occupied territories How many millions?. These people lived and worked in unsafe, unsanitary conditions and millions ended up dying due to being overworked, starved or diseased How many died?. Now, some would argue that Speer improved working conditions for labourers 'Now,' is a no no. This was true for some, but he did it in view of getting them working most efficiently, not in view of making the world a better place. And in the end, he even turned a blind eye on this, as can be seen in images we have all seen of the awful conditions in concentration camps 'we have all'?.
In conclusion, it is clear that Albert Speer had the ability to change the world of Germany and her occupied territories during World War 2 for the better. He knew what was going on, he was key to the Nazi regime and to Hitler himself, and he had ultimate control over the use of slave labourers. This man had the ability to change the world for the better.
This speech needs a lot of work, but you've got the general structure down. Keep the flow of the piece (ie. the broad topics of each paragraphs).
However, completely rewrite the speech, using this as a basis. You need to ensure that your language remains formal throughout. You need to incorporate specific, accurate, relevant and detailed examples. And, whilst you certainly 'answer' the question quite a lot in the above piece, you need to refine that thesis into something more coherent, and ideally a bit more nuanced. While there's a way to go here, it's clear that you're on the right track. Keep it up, and I'm sure you can create an impressive piece of work!
Post by: JD99 on May 25, 2017, 04:42:43 pm
Could you please just help me with what you mean by 'ideally a bit more nuanced'? thanks!
Post by: jakesilove on May 26, 2017, 04:34:34 pm
Thank you so much for the detailed feedback! As you can probably tell, I was getting more confused the more I wrote, and the essay just wasn't moving in the direction I wanted it too! You have really given me something to work with! thank you!!
Could you please just help me with what you mean by 'ideally a bit more nuanced'? thanks!
Hey! I just mean that, rather than taking a simple 'yes' or 'no' stance with regards to the question, introduce a bit more complexity. Eg. 'Yes but...' or 'No but...' etc. Just be more complex in your analysis!
Post by: JD99 on May 26, 2017, 04:36:23 pm
Thanks again!
Post by: marcusgrahamm on June 08, 2017, 09:07:38 pm
It was a personality of our choice, we had to create a thesis and discuss it.
I haven't done a conclusion yet could you help maybe configure one in line with my thesis which is in the introduction (exacerbation)
Its due on Monday, thanks!!
Did Nikita Khrushchev save a world on the brink of nuclear warfare?
Or rather did he drive humanity closer to creating one?
I pose the question to you ladies and gentlemen who was this man and what were his real intentions?
One thing is for certain he was a prominent figure throughout the discourse of The Cold War acting as the main advocate for The Soviet Union in both positive and negative lights on a global front. Nonetheless, despite his supposed aim of peace, Nikita Khrushchev played a significant role in the exacerbation of political and ideological tensions between the United States and the United Soviet & Social Republic (USSR). In a “conflict of words that nearly brought humanity to its knees” Khrushchev called for passiveness amongst nations “You do not like Communism. We do not like capitalism. There is only one way out – peaceful co-existence.” Yet, as time proceeded into the 1960’s the alteration of his supposed policy on a ‘non-violent’ harmonic stance shifted to newfound philosophies which enacted major repercussions for the War’s preceding events to come.
Contrasting national interests that arose during World War II between the united states and USSR would soon be replaced by a disparagement lasting some 45 years. Beginning as a dispute over the futuristic stance of Europe, this era would come to be known as the Cold War sparked from the genesis of unease and confrontation across the world. Hence, Nikita Khrushchev can be considered a foremost catalyst in alleviating early conflict through his conceptualisation that change is necessary if “we are to avoid capitalism and socialism to go to war". Through congruence of views he believed "both can peacefully get along".
But why would Soviet leaders seek to live harmoniously amongst a non-communist world?
And here ladies and gentlemen lies the predicament. Whilst it is clear Khrushchev maintained a desire to avoid an outbreak of war, as time progressed and events negatively impacted the USSR, his outlook shifted as an act of defence and to maintain nationalistic pride amidst the country.
March 1953 brought with it Joseph Stalin’s death, situating Khrushchev as a likely successor due to his commitment to Communist Ideology post and throughout the proceedings of World War II. Accordingly, by 1955 Khrushchev was one of the most influential and powerful individuals within the USSR. In 1957, he foiled a Malenkov-led coup and took the premier position. Immediately, he began to reshape a broken country hounding on Stalin as a “killer and tyrant”. Therefore, The Soviet Union underwent a process of ‘de-Stalinisation’ through the release of unjustly held prisoners and reforming their communist outlooks. In an effort to humanize the nation state- without sacrificing core beliefs Khrushchev stressed the importance of enlarging consumeristic production rather than previous heavy industries. Furthermore, the release of millions of captives from the infamous Gulag labour camps, instigated the impression of a newfound thriving, politically free civilisation. Hence, in early 1961 Khrushchev addressed the nation implying, “the dictatorship of the proletariat” had ended. Yet, heading forward he dictated Russia’s global position implying “there were only two ways to live- either in peaceful co-existence or in the most destructive war of history. There is no third way'. You’re probably thinking, he doesn’t seem half bad, he was actually trying to reform Russia positively. And you’re not wrong. Initially Khrushchev had the aim of peace and prosperity on an internal and external level. However, as time altered and tensions broke out between the capitalist east and communist west his foreign policy converted considerably.
So, what happened next?
How did the stable nature between these global superpowers boil to a breaking point?
Well, ladies and gentlemen the answers lie in weapons, missiles, submarines, tanks and probably any other destructive military arsenal you can think of. The competitive, somewhat ignorant stance of both the US & Russia ultimately fuelled the arms race to the point whereby JFK suggested every “inhabitant of this planet must contemplate the day when this earth may no longer be habitable”. Here we witness a distinct alteration in Khrushchev’s transcontinental policies. Paradoxical in his remarks Khrushchev was a believer in 'peaceful co-existence', suggesting in his 1956 ‘secret speech’ at the Communist Party Congress "[they] may argue. The main thing is to argue without using weapons". Nevertheless, he juxtaposed such claims by going to excessive lengths, in the development of the Soviet Union’s military and nuclear arsenal, both on a literal sense and symbolic front. When speaking about future global connections, Khrushchev stated he wanted a strong-bonded relationship with America. Whilst this intention did help in thawing the war, he still did various things “that no doubt aggravated and increased apprehensions”. At a Moscow reception, he directed the renowned “we will bury you!” comment towards the right wing west. Similarly, in a 1959 meeting with US Vice President Richard Nixon amidst the ‘Kitchen Debate’, Khrushchev boasted that the Soviet Union would indefinitely surpass America after being unimpressed by their technological innovation. He cautioned Eisenhower that whilst he would not enact a war “some lunatics might”. Again, referencing to the possibility of conflict. Tensions remained minimal and there was hope that perhaps this conciliatory stance would pervade the minor disagreements. Although that just couldn’t happen could it!
In 1960 Soviet forces shot down an American U2 spy plane within Russian airspace. Khrushchev once again opted for a confrontational agenda with the US. Eisenhower had hoped that the Paris Summit would defuse trepidations but this incident had convinced Khrushchev he could no longer bestow faith in a healthy, stable Soviet-US relationship.
Video plays.
Through this visual representation, we can understand that The Cold war’s progression into the 1960’s brought with it negative modifications in the world superpower’s relationships. Khrushchev waged a propaganda war against Britain and the US flaunting that the USSR were “turning out missiles like sausages,” and even paraded around a single missile during a military parade multiple times, so it looked like they had more than they did. It was now that the prospect of war did not seem too far off the horizon. Khrushchev even referenced the forthcoming possibility suggesting war “would be fought on the American continent, which can be reached by our rockets”. Consequently, this infused the arms race to grow into a battle of militia capacity between the two nations, in turn heightening angsts that an all out nuclear war would soon erupt. Historian William Tauban surmised this hypothesis “Khrushchev knew NATO forces in Europe would be devastated from war, leaving it as a veritable cemetery. Whilst the Soviet Union would suffer immensely, forces of communism would ultimately crush capitalism”. Now we can understand, comprehend and bluntly see Nikita Khrushchev did not at all have the sole intent of maintaining peace, but rather was readily preparing for warfare in the event capitalistic endeavours began to domineer the left wing regime.
So what made Khrushchev such a prominent figure in the stabilisation of war and driving the world to the brink of nuclear conflict?
Perhaps his charismatic leadership?
Or maybe an ambitious, competitive attitude?
It was not a singular facet but rather a range of features that shaped Khrushchev’s complicated relationship with the west. An avid advocate for communistic ideals, he did have a purposeful aim for maintaining some level of peace between nations. However, several factors in his control and others not played crucial roles in the deteriorating relationship between Russia and America. Majorly, in 1961 Khrushchev ordered for the construction of the Berlin Wall to begin to stop Germans from fleeing to the capitalist west. Nikita himself proposed “Berlin is the testicle of the west…every time I want to make the west scream I squeeze on Berlin”. Following this in the October of 1962 The United States learnt of a Soviet nuclear missile station within Cuba. A 13 day stand off, and the world only a pin drop away from nuclear war, saw JFK call Khrushchev a bluff, and the latter was forced to remove missiles from Cuban soil. Subsequently this came with great loss at home and abroad. Nikita Khrushchev now had the world against him, political leaders, his own government and Russian citizens themselves had given up faith in his leadership capabilities and thus in 1964 he was ousted by opponents within the Politburo. Hereafter, Khrushchev’s role in The Cold War had become obsolete.
Post by: sudodds on June 09, 2017, 03:12:45 pm
This is my speech that we had to do an assessment on The Cold War for.
It was a personality of our choice, we had to create a thesis and discuss it.
I haven't done a conclusion yet could you help maybe configure one in line with my thesis which is in the introduction (exacerbation)
Its due on Monday, thanks!!
Hey Marcus!
My comments can be found in the spoiler, plus a few general ones below :)
Spoiler
Did Nikita Khrushchev save a world on the brink of nuclear warfare?
Or rather did he drive humanity closer to creating one?
I pose the question to you ladies and gentlemen who was this man and what were his real intentions? As this is a speech, I'm going to assume that the use of dramatic language here is fine - you might want to clarify with your teacher if you are unsure though. Rule of thumb essay wise is that language like this is a no go, so good idea to check :)
One thing is for certain, he was a highly - these judgment words are really important, and its good to get into the habit of using them :)prominent figure throughout the discourse of The Cold War,acting as the main advocate for The Soviet Union in both positive and negative lights is lights really the best word to use here? 'ways' perhaps would have made more sense on a global front scale. Nonetheless, despite his supposed aim of peace hmmm if this was your first sentence, then just leaving it at that would be fine, however as this comes in later on, I think you need to give a tiny bit more content here as to how he supposedly had "aims of peace". I think maybe you could rephrased this to "Despite his advocacy of peaceful co-existence" or something along those lines :), Nikita Khrushchev you can just refer to him by his last name played a highlysignificant role in the exacerbation of political and ideological tensions between the United States and the United Soviet & Social Republic (USSR). In a “conflict of words that nearly brought humanity to its knees” Who said this? Reference. I know that is often uncomfortable in a speech, but it's important. You can phrase it like this if you like "In a, as suggest by _____________, "conflict of words...." etc. etc. Khrushchev called for passiveness I don't know if passiveness is the right word. It was more an open acceptance of each others spheres of influence.amongst nations, stating “You do not like Communism. We do not like capitalism. There is only one way out – peaceful co-existence.” Yet, as time proceeded into the 1960’s, the alteration of his supposed policy on a ‘non-violent’ harmonic stance shifted to newfound philosophies which enacted major repercussions for the War’s preceding events to come. Fab sentence, however I think you need to round back to your thesis. "It is through this paradoxical leadership that Khrushchev contributed to increasing tensions," etc. etc.
Contrasting national interests that arose during World War II between the united states and USSR would soon be replaced by a disparagement lasting some 45 years. Hmmm I think you need to rephrase this. I can see that there is a judgement there, but it isn't reading like one - instead it is reading a little bit narrative. A judgement assesses the significance of what you are discussing - I need to see that more clearly. Also, where they replaced by disparagement? or did they evolve into that? Beginning as a dispute over the futuristic stance of Europe, this era would come to be known as the Cold War, sparked from the genesis of unease and confrontation across the world. Mention ideology here. It was, at its core, an ideological conflict, so it is super important to include. Hence, Nikita Khrushchev can be considered a foremost catalyst in alleviating early conflict through his conceptualisation that change is necessary if “we are to avoid capitalism and socialism to go to war". Through congruence of views he believed "both can peacefully get along". Did he actually alleviate conflict? Provide examples. Remember:
detail, detail, detail!
But why would Soviet leaders seek to live harmoniously amongst a non-communist world? I think you have misunderstood peaceful co-existence. Peaceful co-existence wasn't the soviets being content to live in a non-communist world, but was instead the acceptance and recognition of the spheres of influence. Basically, the Soviets wouldn't try and "turn" already established capitalist territory and vice versa. They didn't want to live in a non-communist world, more so the intention was to live side by side with the capitalists, without confrontation.
And here,ladies and gentlemen, lies the predicament. Whilst it is clear Khrushchev maintained a desire to avoid an outbreak of war, as time progressed and events negatively impacted the USSR, his outlook shifted as an act of defence and to maintain nationalistic pride amidst the country.
March 1953 brought with it Joseph Stalin’s death, situating Khrushchev as a likely successor due to his commitment to Communist Ideology post and throughout the proceedings of World War II. Again, rephrase this a judgement - a lot of the time it is just reversing your sentence structure! "Khrushchev's commitment to Communist ideology throughout and after the proceedings of WWII were highly critical in situating Khrushchev as the likely successor, after the death of Stalin in 1953." Accordingly, by 1955 Khrushchev was one of the most influential and powerful individuals within the USSR. In 1957, he foiled a Malenkov-led coup and took the premier position. Immediately, he began to reshape a broken country hounding on Stalin as a “killer and tyrant”. Therefore, The Soviet Union underwent a process of ‘de-Stalinisation’ through the release of unjustly held prisoners and reforming their communist outlooks. In an effort to humanize the nation state- without sacrificing core beliefs Khrushchev stressed the importance of enlarging consumeristic production rather than previous heavy industries. Furthermore, the release of millions of captives from the infamous Gulag labour camps, instigated the impression of a newfound thriving, politically free civilisation. Hence, in early 1961 Khrushchev addressed the nation implying, “the dictatorship of the proletariat” had ended. Yet, heading forward he dictated Russia’s global position implying “there were only two ways to live- either in peaceful co-existence or in the most destructive war of history. There is no third way'. You’re probably thinking, he doesn’t seem half bad, he was actually trying to reform Russia positively. The slang, informal language is kinda stressing me out tbh. Like I know that this is a speech so I don't want to comment too heavily on this - but please check with your teacher that this is okay. And you’re not wrong. Initially Khrushchev had the aim of peace and prosperity on an internal and external level. However, as time altered and tensions broke out between the capitalist east and communist west his foreign policy converted considerably. Hmmm. I like this paragraph! But aren't you just arguing the same thing as before? I'd take this paragraph over that, but still. Might be a good idea to merge.
So, what happened next? Be careful of narrative structure. Narrative does not equal analysis. You want to be extrapolating themes that were interplaying, not presenting them as a sequential system. If this is confusing, let me know and I'll try and explain further.
How did the stable nature between these global superpowers boil to a breaking point? Was it stable? Tensions were still really high, even if they had improved a bit under Stalin.
Well, ladies and gentlemen the answers lie in weapons, missiles, submarines, tanks and probably any other destructive military arsenal you can think of NUCLEAR WEAPONS. I know you said missiles. BUT NUCLEAR WEAPONS.. The competitive, somewhat ignorant ? explain stance of both the US & Russia ultimately fuelled the arms race to the point whereby JFK suggested every “inhabitant of this planet must contemplate the day when this earth may no longer be habitable”. Here we witness a distinct alteration in Khrushchev’s transcontinental policies. Paradoxical in his remarks Khrushchev was a believer in 'peaceful co-existence', suggesting in his 1956 ‘secret speech’ at the Communist Party Congress "[they] may argue. The main thing is to argue without using weapons". Nevertheless, he juxtaposed such claims by going to excessive lengths, in the development of the Soviet Union’s military and nuclear arsenal, both on a literal sense and symbolic front. YES YES YESWhen speaking about future global connections, Khrushchev stated he wanted a strong-bonded relationship with America. Whilst this intention did help in thawing the war, he still did various things “that no doubt aggravated and increased apprehensions”. At a Moscow reception, he directed the renowned “we will bury you!” comment towards the right wing west. Similarly, in a 1959 meeting with US Vice President Richard Nixon amidst the ‘Kitchen Debate’, Khrushchev boasted that the Soviet Union would indefinitely surpass America after being unimpressed by their technological innovation. He cautioned Eisenhower that whilst he would not enact a war “some lunatics might”. Again, referencing to the possibility of conflict. Tensions remained minimal and there was hope that perhaps this conciliatory stance would pervade the minor disagreements. Although that just couldn’t happen could it! Uncomfortably casual :-/ I also think that you are making it sound like Khrushchev was the only reason that tensions raised - American was pulling some shit as well. It is absolutely fine (recommended even, given your thesis) to focus more on Khrushchev's actions, just make sure your essay doesn't appear as if you haven't considered the alternative. Basically, state both sides, but assert that Khruschev's actions were more significant/detrimental to their relationship.
In 1960 Soviet forces shot down an American U2 spy plane within Russian airspace. Khrushchev once again opted for a confrontational agenda with the US. Eisenhower had hoped that the Paris Summit would defuse trepidations, but this incidenthad convinced Khrushchev he could no longer bestow faith in a healthy, stable Soviet-US relationship.
Video plays.
Through this visual representation, we can clearly understand that The Cold war’s progression into the 1960’s brought with it negative modifications in the world superpower’s relationships. Khrushchev waged a propaganda war against Britain and the US, flaunting that the USSR were “turning out missiles like sausages,” and even paraded around a single missile during a military parade multiple times, so it looked like they had more than they did. Rework this sentence to make it more formal.It was now that the prospect of war did not seem too far off the horizon. Khrushchev even referenced the forthcoming possibility suggesting war “would be fought on the American continent, which can be reached by our rockets”. Consequently, this infused the arms race to grow into a battle of militia capacity between the two nations, in turn heightening angsts is angsts the best word here? that an all out nuclear war would soon erupt. Historian William Tauban surmised this hypothesis “Khrushchev knew NATO forces in Europe would be devastated from war, leaving it as a veritable cemetery. Whilst the Soviet Union would suffer immensely, forces of communism would ultimately crush capitalism”. Now we can understand, comprehend and bluntly see Nikita Khrushchev did not at all have the sole intent of maintaining peace, but rather was readily preparing for warfare in the event capitalistic endeavours began to domineer the left wing regime. YES! Lovely judgement - would quite like that to have been integrated throughout your introduction as well to remain consistent.
So what made Khrushchev such a prominent figure in the stabilisation of war and driving the world to the brink of nuclear conflict?
Perhaps his charismatic leadership?
Or maybe an ambitious, competitive attitude?
It was not a singular facet but rather a range of features that shaped Khrushchev’s complicated relationship with the west. An avid advocate for communistic ideals, he did have a purposeful aim for maintaining some level of peace between nations. However, several factors in his control and others not played crucial roles in the deteriorating relationship between Russia and America. Majorly, in 1961 Khrushchev ordered for the construction of the Berlin Wall to begin to stop Germans from fleeing to the capitalist west. Nikita himself proposed “Berlin is the testicle of the west…every time I want to make the west scream I squeeze on Berlin”. I did not know this was a quote. I love that this is a quote. I love this quote. Following this in the October of 1962 The United States learnt of a Soviet nuclear missile station within Cuba. A 13 day stand off, and the world only a pin drop away from nuclear war, saw JFK call Khrushchev a bluff, and the latter was forced to remove missiles from Cuban soil. This paragraph is reading quite narrative. My teachers tips for working out if you were writing narrative was to put "meanwhile" before a sentence. If it makes grammatical sense, then you need to work on the analysis. Also continually linking back, explicitly, to your thesis will help. Subsequently this came with great loss at home and abroad. Nikita Khrushchev now had the world against him, political leaders, his own government and Russian citizens themselves had given up faith in his leadership capabilities and thus in 1964 he was ousted by opponents within the Politburo. Hereafter, Khrushchev’s role in The Cold War had become obsolete.
Or rather did he drive humanity closer to creating one?
I pose the question to you ladies and gentlemen who was this man and what were his real intentions? As this is a speech, I'm going to assume that the use of dramatic language here is fine - you might want to clarify with your teacher if you are unsure though. Rule of thumb essay wise is that language like this is a no go, so good idea to check :)
One thing is for certain, he was a highly - these judgment words are really important, and its good to get into the habit of using them :)prominent figure throughout the discourse of The Cold War,
Contrasting national interests that arose during World War II between the united states and USSR would soon be replaced by a disparagement lasting some 45 years. Hmmm I think you need to rephrase this. I can see that there is a judgement there, but it isn't reading like one - instead it is reading a little bit narrative. A judgement assesses the significance of what you are discussing - I need to see that more clearly. Also, where they replaced by disparagement? or did they evolve into that? Beginning as a dispute over the futuristic stance of Europe, this era would come to be known as the Cold War, sparked from the genesis of unease and confrontation across the world. Mention ideology here. It was, at its core, an ideological conflict, so it is super important to include. Hence, Nikita Khrushchev can be considered a foremost catalyst in alleviating early conflict through his conceptualisation that change is necessary if “we are to avoid capitalism and socialism to go to war". Through congruence of views he believed "both can peacefully get along". Did he actually alleviate conflict? Provide examples. Remember:
detail, detail, detail!
But why would Soviet leaders seek to live harmoniously amongst a non-communist world? I think you have misunderstood peaceful co-existence. Peaceful co-existence wasn't the soviets being content to live in a non-communist world, but was instead the acceptance and recognition of the spheres of influence. Basically, the Soviets wouldn't try and "turn" already established capitalist territory and vice versa. They didn't want to live in a non-communist world, more so the intention was to live side by side with the capitalists, without confrontation.
And here,ladies and gentlemen, lies the predicament. Whilst it is clear Khrushchev maintained a desire to avoid an outbreak of war, as time progressed and events negatively impacted the USSR, his outlook shifted as an act of defence and to maintain nationalistic pride amidst the country.
March 1953 brought with it Joseph Stalin’s death, situating Khrushchev as a likely successor due to his commitment to Communist Ideology post and throughout the proceedings of World War II. Again, rephrase this a judgement - a lot of the time it is just reversing your sentence structure! "Khrushchev's commitment to Communist ideology throughout and after the proceedings of WWII were highly critical in situating Khrushchev as the likely successor, after the death of Stalin in 1953." Accordingly, by 1955 Khrushchev was one of the most influential and powerful individuals within the USSR. In 1957, he foiled a Malenkov-led coup and took the premier position. Immediately, he began to reshape a broken country hounding on Stalin as a “killer and tyrant”. Therefore, The Soviet Union underwent a process of ‘de-Stalinisation’ through the release of unjustly held prisoners and reforming their communist outlooks. In an effort to humanize the nation state- without sacrificing core beliefs Khrushchev stressed the importance of enlarging consumeristic production rather than previous heavy industries. Furthermore, the release of millions of captives from the infamous Gulag labour camps, instigated the impression of a newfound thriving, politically free civilisation. Hence, in early 1961 Khrushchev addressed the nation implying, “the dictatorship of the proletariat” had ended. Yet, heading forward he dictated Russia’s global position implying “there were only two ways to live- either in peaceful co-existence or in the most destructive war of history. There is no third way'. You’re probably thinking, he doesn’t seem half bad, he was actually trying to reform Russia positively. The slang, informal language is kinda stressing me out tbh. Like I know that this is a speech so I don't want to comment too heavily on this - but please check with your teacher that this is okay. And you’re not wrong. Initially Khrushchev had the aim of peace and prosperity on an internal and external level. However, as time altered and tensions broke out between the capitalist east and communist west his foreign policy converted considerably. Hmmm. I like this paragraph! But aren't you just arguing the same thing as before? I'd take this paragraph over that, but still. Might be a good idea to merge.
So, what happened next? Be careful of narrative structure. Narrative does not equal analysis. You want to be extrapolating themes that were interplaying, not presenting them as a sequential system. If this is confusing, let me know and I'll try and explain further.
How did the stable nature between these global superpowers boil to a breaking point? Was it stable? Tensions were still really high, even if they had improved a bit under Stalin.
Well, ladies and gentlemen the answers lie in weapons, missiles, submarines, tanks and probably any other destructive military arsenal you can think of NUCLEAR WEAPONS. I know you said missiles. BUT NUCLEAR WEAPONS.. The competitive, somewhat ignorant ? explain stance of both the US & Russia ultimately fuelled the arms race to the point whereby JFK suggested every “inhabitant of this planet must contemplate the day when this earth may no longer be habitable”. Here we witness a distinct alteration in Khrushchev’s transcontinental policies. Paradoxical in his remarks Khrushchev was a believer in 'peaceful co-existence', suggesting in his 1956 ‘secret speech’ at the Communist Party Congress "[they] may argue. The main thing is to argue without using weapons". Nevertheless, he juxtaposed such claims by going to excessive lengths, in the development of the Soviet Union’s military and nuclear arsenal, both on a literal sense and symbolic front. YES YES YESWhen speaking about future global connections, Khrushchev stated he wanted a strong-bonded relationship with America. Whilst this intention did help in thawing the war, he still did various things “that no doubt aggravated and increased apprehensions”. At a Moscow reception, he directed the renowned “we will bury you!” comment towards the right wing west. Similarly, in a 1959 meeting with US Vice President Richard Nixon amidst the ‘Kitchen Debate’, Khrushchev boasted that the Soviet Union would indefinitely surpass America after being unimpressed by their technological innovation. He cautioned Eisenhower that whilst he would not enact a war “some lunatics might”. Again, referencing to the possibility of conflict. Tensions remained minimal and there was hope that perhaps this conciliatory stance would pervade the minor disagreements. Although that just couldn’t happen could it! Uncomfortably casual :-/ I also think that you are making it sound like Khrushchev was the only reason that tensions raised - American was pulling some shit as well. It is absolutely fine (recommended even, given your thesis) to focus more on Khrushchev's actions, just make sure your essay doesn't appear as if you haven't considered the alternative. Basically, state both sides, but assert that Khruschev's actions were more significant/detrimental to their relationship.
In 1960 Soviet forces shot down an American U2 spy plane within Russian airspace. Khrushchev once again opted for a confrontational agenda with the US. Eisenhower had hoped that the Paris Summit would defuse trepidations, but this incident
Video plays.
Through this visual representation, we can clearly understand that The Cold war’s progression into the 1960’s brought with it negative modifications in the world superpower’s relationships. Khrushchev waged a propaganda war against Britain and the US, flaunting that the USSR were “turning out missiles like sausages,” and even paraded around a single missile during a military parade multiple times, so it looked like they had more than they did. Rework this sentence to make it more formal.It was now that the prospect of war did not seem too far off the horizon. Khrushchev even referenced the forthcoming possibility suggesting war “would be fought on the American continent, which can be reached by our rockets”. Consequently, this infused the arms race to grow into a battle of militia capacity between the two nations, in turn heightening angsts is angsts the best word here? that an all out nuclear war would soon erupt. Historian William Tauban surmised this hypothesis “Khrushchev knew NATO forces in Europe would be devastated from war, leaving it as a veritable cemetery. Whilst the Soviet Union would suffer immensely, forces of communism would ultimately crush capitalism”. Now we can understand, comprehend and bluntly see Nikita Khrushchev did not at all have the sole intent of maintaining peace, but rather was readily preparing for warfare in the event capitalistic endeavours began to domineer the left wing regime. YES! Lovely judgement - would quite like that to have been integrated throughout your introduction as well to remain consistent.
So what made Khrushchev such a prominent figure in the stabilisation of war and driving the world to the brink of nuclear conflict?
Perhaps his charismatic leadership?
Or maybe an ambitious, competitive attitude?
It was not a singular facet but rather a range of features that shaped Khrushchev’s complicated relationship with the west. An avid advocate for communistic ideals, he did have a purposeful aim for maintaining some level of peace between nations. However, several factors in his control and others not played crucial roles in the deteriorating relationship between Russia and America. Majorly, in 1961 Khrushchev ordered for the construction of the Berlin Wall to begin to stop Germans from fleeing to the capitalist west. Nikita himself proposed “Berlin is the testicle of the west…every time I want to make the west scream I squeeze on Berlin”. I did not know this was a quote. I love that this is a quote. I love this quote. Following this in the October of 1962 The United States learnt of a Soviet nuclear missile station within Cuba. A 13 day stand off, and the world only a pin drop away from nuclear war, saw JFK call Khrushchev a bluff, and the latter was forced to remove missiles from Cuban soil. This paragraph is reading quite narrative. My teachers tips for working out if you were writing narrative was to put "meanwhile" before a sentence. If it makes grammatical sense, then you need to work on the analysis. Also continually linking back, explicitly, to your thesis will help. Subsequently this came with great loss at home and abroad. Nikita Khrushchev now had the world against him, political leaders, his own government and Russian citizens themselves had given up faith in his leadership capabilities and thus in 1964 he was ousted by opponents within the Politburo. Hereafter, Khrushchev’s role in The Cold War had become obsolete.
Overall, good work Marcus! It is clear that you have a thorough understanding of the content, and of Khrushchev's significance! I definitely think it was a good idea that you swapped over to him from Stalin. However there are areas to improve on. The big one for me is that though you do provide some great analysis, overall your speech is quite narrative, and I think this has a lot to do with your structure, which is chronological. This isn't really bad, however there are some problems with this structure. a) it becomes so much easier to slip into narrative and re-tell, and b) it encourages split judgements (ie. where one paragraph is arguing a different thesis). Though I agree with the points that you have made in your essay, rather than having some paragraphs suggesting Khrushchev has peaceful aims and others where this had changed, If I were you, rather than writing a chronological essay, I would instead write the essay by factors that weren't necessarily sequential, but more so seen throughout the period. You touched on a lot of them here that I would be discussing. For example the arms race :)
Also I have said this multiple times, but please check with your teacher in regards to their opinion of the colloquial/casual nature of a lot of your writing. I know this is a speech, but it still concerned me a bit.
Finally, though you had some great detail throughout this response, I WANT MORE! Detail is what differentiates between a band 5 and a band 6 response (and a band 6 from a high band 6!). Stats, dates, exact names, etc etc. are all great to include :)
But yes! Overall a good response Marcus :) Well done. If any of my feedback confuses you please let me know!
Susie
Post by: marcusgrahamm on June 12, 2017, 04:41:28 pm
That was all so helpful I've changed my structure to have three main concerns rather then the chronological structure.
I checked about the colloquial expression and my teacher liked it for the speech format.
Thanks for all that feedback again!
Post by: sudodds on June 12, 2017, 05:06:58 pm
Thanks so much!!No worries! So glad you found it helpful :) I think that change will do a great deal to enhance your response - and good work checking with your teacher about the expression!
That was all so helpful I've changed my structure to have three main concerns rather then the chronological structure.
I checked about the colloquial expression and my teacher liked it for the speech format.
Thanks for all that feedback again!
Great work Marcus, if you need anything else please let us know :)
Post by: Newbalance101 on June 15, 2017, 09:06:24 pm
Or should we include it into our discussion. And if so how much should I put in?
Post by: jakesilove on June 15, 2017, 09:14:00 pm
Hi I would really appreciate it if someone could clarify this for me. In questions about the collapse of the Weimar Republic do we avoid discussing points from other dot points ie the way hitler's rise to power contributed to the collapse
Or should we include it into our discussion. And if so how much should I put in?
You can definitely include both. How you do it is up to you. Typically, when discussion the fall of the Weimar Republic, students just talk about economic, social and political factors generally, rather than specifically detail the rise of the NSDAP. And, I think this may be for a good reason. When did Weimar fall? Was in when Hitler came to power? Or, perhaps, was in a few years earlier, when Article 48 started being used regularly, and democracy was all but a sham? This is a decision you have to make for yourself, and will inform the point you make during any essay.
Basically, you need to come up with a thesis as to why the Republic fell. Then, decide which dot points best fit into that thesis. Come up with a plan, and I'd be happy to take a look at it!
Post by: rodero on June 20, 2017, 07:44:00 pm
I was wondering if I could have some feedback for an essay on The Conflict in Europe. The exam is tomorrow but if you don't make it in time this will be useful for trials prep. This is my first ever essay for Modern History, so I've had to exert a bit of my evaluative skills from Legal Studies.
As well as general feedback, please let me know whether or not I've gone overboard on historiography. Also, if there are any areas that could be culled, or key events which need to be in my essay, please let me know. Thanks
Spoiler
To what extent were the dictatorships in Germany and Italy responsible for the growth of European tensions?
Throughout 1935-45, the Fascist dictators of Hitler and Mussolini promoted a foreign policy of imperial expansion and national glorification. Though their ideologies contributed to the growth of European tension, they were not purely responsible for the outbreak of World War 2. Rather, these dictators capitalised on the unenforceable nature of the League of Nations and the Allies’ policy of appeasement. It was this continued inaction that urged Stalin’s agreeance to the Non-Aggression Pact - a pact that sealed the fate of a war once granting passage for Hitler to invade Poland. Ultimately, the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939 was a collective result of world-wide inadequacies. Hence, the dictatorships of Germany and Italy were merely partially responsible for the growth of European tensions.
It is undeniable that the aggressive foreign policies of Germany and Italy were a contributing factor to the growth of European tensions. In pursuit of an ideal, Aryan race, Hitler’s ideology of lebensraum (living space) sought to “remove the shame of defeat” in the Treaty of Versailles (TOV) and “restore national greatness” (Ian Kershaw). As an opportunist, Hitler gained confidence following Britain and France’s inaction to his territorial gains in the Saar region in 1935, and the remilitarisation of the Rhineland in 1936. In this clear rejection to the TOV, it became clear that Germany would endeavour for European dominance. Accordingly, Hitler’s achievement of ‘Anschluss’ in 1938 was in complete disregard to clause 80; that “Germany will accept the independence of Austria”. These continued acts of aggression spurred global tension and thus contributed significantly to the outbreak of the Second World War. Similarly, Mussolini’s foreign policy followed a like-minded approach to cultural superiority and national glorification. In response to the League of Nations’ (LoN) inaction to the Manchuria crisis, Italy capitalised on it’s aim for imperial expansion in Abyssinia on the 3rd of October, 1935. Clearly, the failures of the LoN highlight that dictatorships were not purely responsible for the outbreak of the Second World War, but is intrinsically linked to other global factors. With a foreign policy that was markedly similar to that of Germany, the creation of the 1936 Rome-Berlin Axis confirmed their ideals for European dominance. It was this alliance that consolidated world-wide contention and commenced the collapse of ‘collective security. Therefore, it undeniable that the German and Italian dictators were significant in the growth of European tensions. However, these leaders were not entirely responsible for the outbreak of World War 2; Rather, European tension was a collective result of dictators and the LoN’s ineffective response to their foreign policies.
With the LoN being a significant factor to the outbreak of the Second World War, the German and Italian dictators were merely partially responsible for the growth of European tensions. As a post-war inter-governmental organisation, the LoN was responsible for the maintenance of “international peace and security” (Covenant on the LoN). However, its system of governance was manifestly flawed and promoted unrealistic goals for world order. In particular, its policy of ‘collective security’ seemed to promote “internationalism in a world obsessed by nationalism” (Ken Webb). This was worsened with a lack of British commitment and the absence of fundamental European powers, such as the US and the Soviet Union. As well as the League’s failures in the Manchuria crisis and Abyssinia, European tension escalated following the axis power’s involvement in the Spanish Civil War (SCW); the fascist dictators supported Nationalists, while the allies empathised with the Republicans. In this war, the divide between European nations had solidified - the policies of internationalism and collective security had unequivocally collapsed. Accordingly, the failure of the Stresa Front removed any objection to Hitler’s aggressive foreign policy. As the League had now been coined the “toothless tiger”, a new policy was required to appease Hitler’s expansionist ideals. Therefore, it is clear that the fascist dictatorships capitalised on the unenforceable nature of the LoN. However, the League itself was heavily flawed and failed to respond to their foreign policies, rendering the dictators partially responsible for the outbreak of World War 2.
In response to the failures of the League and the dictator’s continuing desire for expansion, Britain and France’s adoption of appeasement was equally responsible for the growth of European tensions. With Hitler’s announced intention to occupy the Sudetenland, the European nations saw the increasing likelihood for a World War. Accordingly, the naive British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, seemingly achieved “peace in” his “time” once meeting a mutual agreement with Hitler at the Munich Conference of 1938. However, the agreement was heavily flawed in that it failed to consult with the Czechoslovaks and the USSR. Additionally, appeasement had unrealistic expectations and failed to recognise Hitler’s foreign policy of lebensraum; Considering Hitler’s acts of aggression in the SCW, Austria and the Rhineland, why would “a scrap of paper” (HItler) stop him from invading the rest of Czechoslovakia? In accordance with Winston Churchill’s view, Hitler’s character parallels to that of a boa constrictor - that time would be taken to digest, before hunting once more. It is for this reason that the German and Italian dictator’s, and the policy of appeasement are jointly responsible for increasing European tensions. These warnings became apparent on the 15th of March 1939, where German troops invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia. Britain’s declaration to defend Polish independence on the 31st of March heightened European tensions and forced Stalin’s agreement to the Non-Aggression Pact.. Therefore, it is clear that the policy of appeasement and the dictator’s foreign policy were jointly responsible for the outbreak of World War 2.
The Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact was equally responsible for the increase of European tensions. To the USSR, it became clear that the continued failures of the Allied Powers could not pacify the German and Italian dictators. Despite Stalin’s ideological differences, the pact was a necessity due to the inevitability of a Second World War; The signing of the pact would benefit the USSR and provide time to rearm and prepare for the imminent German threat. However, the pact in itself - together with Hitler’s foreign policy - contributed immensely to the outbreak of war. The neutralisation of the Soviet Union avoided the fear of encirclement, and in effect provided Hitler the “green light” (Ken Webb) to invade Poland. However, the consistent inaction of the Allies convinced Hitler that Britain would not uphold it’s guarantee of Polish independence. With this, the outbreak of war in 1939 was a collective result of dictators, the allied failures, and the non-aggression pact.
Therefore, the dictatorships of Germany and Italy were partially responsible for the rise of European tensions. Undeniably, their foreign policies for national glorification spurred world-wide contention. However, these dictators capitalised on the enforceable nature of the LoN and their naivety to the policy of appeasement. With these continued Allied failures, the Soviet Union saw the inevitability of war and felt compelled to sign the Non-Aggression Pact. However, it was this very pact that sealed the fate of Europe as it gave passage for Hitler’s invasion of Poland in 1939. Ultimately, axis powers and their ideologies are intrinsically linked to other world-wide inadequacies.
Throughout 1935-45, the Fascist dictators of Hitler and Mussolini promoted a foreign policy of imperial expansion and national glorification. Though their ideologies contributed to the growth of European tension, they were not purely responsible for the outbreak of World War 2. Rather, these dictators capitalised on the unenforceable nature of the League of Nations and the Allies’ policy of appeasement. It was this continued inaction that urged Stalin’s agreeance to the Non-Aggression Pact - a pact that sealed the fate of a war once granting passage for Hitler to invade Poland. Ultimately, the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939 was a collective result of world-wide inadequacies. Hence, the dictatorships of Germany and Italy were merely partially responsible for the growth of European tensions.
It is undeniable that the aggressive foreign policies of Germany and Italy were a contributing factor to the growth of European tensions. In pursuit of an ideal, Aryan race, Hitler’s ideology of lebensraum (living space) sought to “remove the shame of defeat” in the Treaty of Versailles (TOV) and “restore national greatness” (Ian Kershaw). As an opportunist, Hitler gained confidence following Britain and France’s inaction to his territorial gains in the Saar region in 1935, and the remilitarisation of the Rhineland in 1936. In this clear rejection to the TOV, it became clear that Germany would endeavour for European dominance. Accordingly, Hitler’s achievement of ‘Anschluss’ in 1938 was in complete disregard to clause 80; that “Germany will accept the independence of Austria”. These continued acts of aggression spurred global tension and thus contributed significantly to the outbreak of the Second World War. Similarly, Mussolini’s foreign policy followed a like-minded approach to cultural superiority and national glorification. In response to the League of Nations’ (LoN) inaction to the Manchuria crisis, Italy capitalised on it’s aim for imperial expansion in Abyssinia on the 3rd of October, 1935. Clearly, the failures of the LoN highlight that dictatorships were not purely responsible for the outbreak of the Second World War, but is intrinsically linked to other global factors. With a foreign policy that was markedly similar to that of Germany, the creation of the 1936 Rome-Berlin Axis confirmed their ideals for European dominance. It was this alliance that consolidated world-wide contention and commenced the collapse of ‘collective security. Therefore, it undeniable that the German and Italian dictators were significant in the growth of European tensions. However, these leaders were not entirely responsible for the outbreak of World War 2; Rather, European tension was a collective result of dictators and the LoN’s ineffective response to their foreign policies.
With the LoN being a significant factor to the outbreak of the Second World War, the German and Italian dictators were merely partially responsible for the growth of European tensions. As a post-war inter-governmental organisation, the LoN was responsible for the maintenance of “international peace and security” (Covenant on the LoN). However, its system of governance was manifestly flawed and promoted unrealistic goals for world order. In particular, its policy of ‘collective security’ seemed to promote “internationalism in a world obsessed by nationalism” (Ken Webb). This was worsened with a lack of British commitment and the absence of fundamental European powers, such as the US and the Soviet Union. As well as the League’s failures in the Manchuria crisis and Abyssinia, European tension escalated following the axis power’s involvement in the Spanish Civil War (SCW); the fascist dictators supported Nationalists, while the allies empathised with the Republicans. In this war, the divide between European nations had solidified - the policies of internationalism and collective security had unequivocally collapsed. Accordingly, the failure of the Stresa Front removed any objection to Hitler’s aggressive foreign policy. As the League had now been coined the “toothless tiger”, a new policy was required to appease Hitler’s expansionist ideals. Therefore, it is clear that the fascist dictatorships capitalised on the unenforceable nature of the LoN. However, the League itself was heavily flawed and failed to respond to their foreign policies, rendering the dictators partially responsible for the outbreak of World War 2.
In response to the failures of the League and the dictator’s continuing desire for expansion, Britain and France’s adoption of appeasement was equally responsible for the growth of European tensions. With Hitler’s announced intention to occupy the Sudetenland, the European nations saw the increasing likelihood for a World War. Accordingly, the naive British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, seemingly achieved “peace in” his “time” once meeting a mutual agreement with Hitler at the Munich Conference of 1938. However, the agreement was heavily flawed in that it failed to consult with the Czechoslovaks and the USSR. Additionally, appeasement had unrealistic expectations and failed to recognise Hitler’s foreign policy of lebensraum; Considering Hitler’s acts of aggression in the SCW, Austria and the Rhineland, why would “a scrap of paper” (HItler) stop him from invading the rest of Czechoslovakia? In accordance with Winston Churchill’s view, Hitler’s character parallels to that of a boa constrictor - that time would be taken to digest, before hunting once more. It is for this reason that the German and Italian dictator’s, and the policy of appeasement are jointly responsible for increasing European tensions. These warnings became apparent on the 15th of March 1939, where German troops invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia. Britain’s declaration to defend Polish independence on the 31st of March heightened European tensions and forced Stalin’s agreement to the Non-Aggression Pact.. Therefore, it is clear that the policy of appeasement and the dictator’s foreign policy were jointly responsible for the outbreak of World War 2.
The Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact was equally responsible for the increase of European tensions. To the USSR, it became clear that the continued failures of the Allied Powers could not pacify the German and Italian dictators. Despite Stalin’s ideological differences, the pact was a necessity due to the inevitability of a Second World War; The signing of the pact would benefit the USSR and provide time to rearm and prepare for the imminent German threat. However, the pact in itself - together with Hitler’s foreign policy - contributed immensely to the outbreak of war. The neutralisation of the Soviet Union avoided the fear of encirclement, and in effect provided Hitler the “green light” (Ken Webb) to invade Poland. However, the consistent inaction of the Allies convinced Hitler that Britain would not uphold it’s guarantee of Polish independence. With this, the outbreak of war in 1939 was a collective result of dictators, the allied failures, and the non-aggression pact.
Therefore, the dictatorships of Germany and Italy were partially responsible for the rise of European tensions. Undeniably, their foreign policies for national glorification spurred world-wide contention. However, these dictators capitalised on the enforceable nature of the LoN and their naivety to the policy of appeasement. With these continued Allied failures, the Soviet Union saw the inevitability of war and felt compelled to sign the Non-Aggression Pact. However, it was this very pact that sealed the fate of Europe as it gave passage for Hitler’s invasion of Poland in 1939. Ultimately, axis powers and their ideologies are intrinsically linked to other world-wide inadequacies.
Post by: sudodds on June 20, 2017, 09:11:51 pm
Hey guys :)
I was wondering if I could have some feedback for an essay on The Conflict in Europe. The exam is tomorrow but if you don't make it in time this will be useful for trials prep. This is my first ever essay for Modern History, so I've had to exert a bit of my evaluative skills from Legal Studies.
As well as general feedback, please let me know whether or not I've gone overboard on historiography. Also, if there are any areas that could be culled, or key events which need to be in my essay, please let me know. Thanks
Yo! So Jake is currently attempting to not fail uni so unfortunately you're gonna have to deal with my not-studied-conflict-in-europe-marking! Not too big of a deal, but basically just means I won't be able to help you too much with the content, only structural stuff sorry! :)
That being said, my comments can be found in the spoiler :)
Spoiler
To what extent were the dictatorships in Germany and Italy responsible for the growth of European tensions?
Throughout 1935-45, the Fascist dictators of Hitler and Mussolini promoted a foreign policy of imperial expansion and national glorification. Okay so your first sentence needs to be a JUDGEMENT - not context. You're hinting at one there, but it is not explicit enough. Along with this you have a bit too much information packed in - for any other part of the essay that'd be great! - but not for your judgement. Simplicity is key: "The dictatorships in Germany and Italy were highly responsible for the growth of European tensions." That is literally all you need to say. I highlighted the word highly there, not because it is right (again - I haven't studied this unit), but because it is super important that you have a word like that (partially or limited also work well) in order to properly answer the question!Though their ideologies contributed to the growth of European tension, they were not purely responsible for the outbreak of World War 2. THIS IS YOUR JUDGEMENT. This should have been your first sentence. Looks like you are setting yourself up to write a differentiated essay which is awesome, but can be tricky to get right without some practice. What I'm going to be looking for here is that you still make a strong overall judgement and that you do not sit on the fence. Rather, these dictators capitalised on the unenforceable nature of the League of Nations and the Allies’ policy of appeasement. It was this continued inaction that urged Stalin’s agreeance to the Non-Aggression Pact - a pact that sealed the fate of a war once granting passage for Hitler to invade Poland. Ultimately, the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939 was a collective result of world-wide inadequacies. Hence, the dictatorships of Germany and Italy were merely partially YAY you're already getting it ;) responsible for the growth of European tensions. Great first attempt at a modern introduction rodero! Only a few things you need to tweak. The judgment as your first sentence point is REALLY important - you will lose marks if you do not do so. Furthermore, I would quite like to see more of an outline of your essay - what specifically is each paragraph going to focus on? You can literally just list them, but it is important that it is there so that the marker knows that you are being consistent with your argument :)
It is undeniable that the aggressive foreign policies of Germany and Italy were a contributing factor to the growth of European tensions. Okay so you're probably going to think that I'm being really picky here - but technically you have not answered the question. The word undeniable doesn't actually make a judgement as to what extent something contributed, by whether or not it contributed (I only picked this out because this was literally an argument my friend had with my teacher last year haha). Furthermore you haven't addressed dictatorships. As it is the stem of the question, that must be the focus of your first paragraph, even if you are writing a differentiated essay. Then each subsequent paragraph can be on another factor, while still relating back to the dictatorships - does that make sense? In pursuit of an ideal, Aryan race, Hitler’s ideology of lebensraum (living space) sought to “remove the shame of defeat” in the Treaty of Versailles (TOV) and “restore national greatness” (Ian Kershaw). Great integration of quotes. As an opportunist, Hitler gained confidence following Britain and France’s inaction to his territorial gains in the Saar region in 1935, and the remilitarisation of the Rhineland in 1936. In this clear rejection to the TOV, it became clear that Germany would endeavour for European dominance, thus... what does this mean in terms of growing tensions in Europe? That may seem obvious, like of course it'd increase tensions right? However you need to link back to the question, to avoid your response looking to narrative. This sentence breaks up what could look a bit like an outline of events, and instead shift the focus to analysis!. Accordingly, Hitler’s achievement of ‘Anschluss’ in 1938 was in complete disregard to clause 80; that “Germany will accept the independence of Austria”. Awesome detail!These continued acts of aggression spurred global tension and thus contributed significantly to the outbreak of the Second World War. See this linking sentence was great - more of them please! Similarly, Mussolini’s foreign policy followed a like-minded approach to cultural superiority and national glorification. Awesome! In response to the League of Nations’ (LoN) inaction to the Manchuria crisis, Italy capitalised on it’s aim for imperial expansion in Abyssinia on the 3rd of October, 1935. Clearly, the failures of the LoN highlight that dictatorships were not purely responsible for the outbreak of the Second World War, but is intrinsically linked to other global I like "geo-political" better factors See this needed to be mentioned earlier - I still 100% stand by that dictatorships should have been your first paragraph, but even so just having this sentence earlier reminds the marker that you are addressing the question.. With a foreign policy that was markedly similar to that of Germany, the creation of the 1936 Rome-Berlin Axis confirmed their ideals for European dominance. It was this alliance that consolidated world-wide contention and commenced the collapse of ‘collective security'. Some really strong analysis and judgements being made here - I love it! Therefore, it undeniable again i'd maybe avoid this word - not as bad in this context due to your next sentence, but even still... that the German and Italian dictators were significant in the growth of European tensions. However, these leaders were not entirely responsible for the outbreak of World War 2; Rather, European tension was a collective result of dictators and the LoN’s ineffective response to their foreign policies. Really great paragraph rodero well done!
With the LoN being a significant factor to the outbreak of the Second World War, the German and Italian dictators were merely partially responsible for the growth of European tensions. A much better judgement! If you basically just repeat this but replace with the relevant topic you'll be sweet! That may sound like weird advice - repeat almost word for word my topic sentence? But remember that this isn't english :) My teacher recommended keeping your judgements as similar as possible (down to minute word choices - eg. if you say significant in the intro, don't say influential in your paragraph), so that there is no excuse for a marker to accuse you or changing/splitting your judgement :) As a post-war inter-governmental organisation, the LoN was responsible for the maintenance of “international peace and security” (Covenant on the LoN). However, its system of governance was manifestly flawed and promoted unrealistic goals for world order. GREAT! In particular, its policy of ‘collective security’ seemed to promote “internationalism in a world obsessed by nationalism” (Ken Webb) Woah - do NOT quote Ken Webb. Not just because I (personally) really dislike his modern resources and would advise against using them, but also because he is NOT a historian. Don't quote textbooks! (they're shit anyway why would you want to haha? - I go into my opinions on Webb in the Modern History resource thread if you're interested!). This was worsened with a lack of British commitment and the absence of fundamental European powers, such as the US the US? A fundamental European power? Western power, but certainly not European I'd presume? Unless this is some weird aspect of the unit that I just have no idea about since I didn't study this (Cold War baby!) and the Soviet Union. As well as the League’s failures in the Manchuria crisis and Abyssinia, European tension escalated following the axis power’s involvement in the Spanish Civil War (SCW); the fascist dictators supported Nationalists, while the allies empathised with the Republicans. In this war, the divide between European nations had solidified - the policies of internationalism and collective security had unequivocally collapsed. Awesome You analytical abilities are really strong rodero, I'm impressed! Accordingly, the failure of the Stresa Front removed any objection to Hitler’s aggressive foreign policy. As the League had now been coined the “toothless tiger” who says this?, a new policy was required to appease Hitler’s expansionist ideals. Therefore, it is clear that the fascist dictatorships capitalised on the unenforceable nature of the LoN. However, the League itself was heavily flawed and failed to respond to their foreign policies, rendering the dictators partially responsible for the outbreak of World War 2. Love love love this final judgement. You are doing what many people fail to do - provide a nuanced, but still strong judgement. Most people fall into the trap of sitting on the fence, but you haven't - well done! This essay is defs strong so far rodero, very impressive considering this is your first attempt at a modern essay (which really confuses me - how haven't you written one already?!?!)
In response to the failures of the League and the dictator’s continuing desire for expansion, Britain and France’s adoption of appeasement was equally responsible for the growth of European tensions. Hmmm, I liked the judgement in the paragraph above better. Would prefer you to replicate that more, though this isn't bad :) I just want that whole "partially accurate" thing to come through. With Hitler’s announced intention to occupy the Sudetenland, the European nations saw the increasing likelihood for a World War. Accordingly, the naive British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, seemingly achieved “peace in” his “time” once meeting a mutual agreement with Hitler at the Munich Conference of 1938. However, the agreement was heavily flawed in that it failed to consult with the Czechoslovaks and the USSR, which further contributed to the development of tensions in Europe? Feel like a link back could have worked really well there. Additionally, appeasement had unrealistic expectations and failed to recognise Hitler’s foreign policy of lebensraum; Considering Hitler’s acts of aggression in the SCW, Austria and the Rhineland, why would “a scrap of paper” (HItler) stop him from invading the rest of Czechoslovakia? Don't use rhetorical questions in a essay! In accordance with Winston Churchill’s view, Hitler’s character parallels to that of a boa constrictor - that time would be taken to digest, before hunting once more. It is for this reason that the German and Italian dictator’s, and the policy of appeasement are jointly responsible for increasing European tensions. These warnings became apparent on the 15th of March 1939, where German troops invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia. Britain’s declaration to defend Polish independence on the 31st of March heightened European tensions and forced Stalin’s agreement to the Non-Aggression Pact.. Therefore, it is clear that the policy of appeasement and the dictator’s foreign policy were jointly responsible for the outbreak of World War 2.
The Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact was equally responsible for the increase of European tensions. To the USSR, it became clear that the continued failures of the Allied Powers could not pacify the German and Italian dictators. Despite Stalin’s ideological differences, the pact was a necessity due to the inevitability of a Second World War; The signing of the pact would benefit the USSR and provide time to rearm and prepare for the imminent German threat. However, the pact in itself - together with Hitler’s foreign policy - contributed immensely to the outbreak of war. The neutralisation of the Soviet Union avoided the fear of encirclement, and in effect provided Hitler the “green light” (Ken Webb) to invade Poland. However, the consistent inaction of the Allies convinced Hitler that Britain would not uphold it’s guarantee of Polish independence. With this, the outbreak of war in 1939 was a collective result of dictators, the allied failures, and the non-aggression pact. Great paragraph!
Therefore, the dictatorships of Germany and Italy were partially responsible for the rise of European tensions. Undeniably, their foreign policies for national glorification spurred world-wide contention. However, these dictators capitalised on the enforceable nature of the LoN and their naivety to the policy of appeasement. With these continued Allied failures, the Soviet Union saw the inevitability of war and felt compelled to sign the Non-Aggression Pact. However, it was this very pact that sealed the fate of Europe as it gave passage for Hitler’s invasion of Poland in 1939. Ultimately, axis powers and their ideologies are intrinsically linked to other world-wide inadequacies.
Throughout 1935-45, the Fascist dictators of Hitler and Mussolini promoted a foreign policy of imperial expansion and national glorification. Okay so your first sentence needs to be a JUDGEMENT - not context. You're hinting at one there, but it is not explicit enough. Along with this you have a bit too much information packed in - for any other part of the essay that'd be great! - but not for your judgement. Simplicity is key: "The dictatorships in Germany and Italy were highly responsible for the growth of European tensions." That is literally all you need to say. I highlighted the word highly there, not because it is right (again - I haven't studied this unit), but because it is super important that you have a word like that (partially or limited also work well) in order to properly answer the question!Though their ideologies contributed to the growth of European tension, they were not purely responsible for the outbreak of World War 2. THIS IS YOUR JUDGEMENT. This should have been your first sentence. Looks like you are setting yourself up to write a differentiated essay which is awesome, but can be tricky to get right without some practice. What I'm going to be looking for here is that you still make a strong overall judgement and that you do not sit on the fence. Rather, these dictators capitalised on the unenforceable nature of the League of Nations and the Allies’ policy of appeasement. It was this continued inaction that urged Stalin’s agreeance to the Non-Aggression Pact - a pact that sealed the fate of a war once granting passage for Hitler to invade Poland. Ultimately, the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939 was a collective result of world-wide inadequacies. Hence, the dictatorships of Germany and Italy were merely partially YAY you're already getting it ;) responsible for the growth of European tensions. Great first attempt at a modern introduction rodero! Only a few things you need to tweak. The judgment as your first sentence point is REALLY important - you will lose marks if you do not do so. Furthermore, I would quite like to see more of an outline of your essay - what specifically is each paragraph going to focus on? You can literally just list them, but it is important that it is there so that the marker knows that you are being consistent with your argument :)
It is undeniable that the aggressive foreign policies of Germany and Italy were a contributing factor to the growth of European tensions. Okay so you're probably going to think that I'm being really picky here - but technically you have not answered the question. The word undeniable doesn't actually make a judgement as to what extent something contributed, by whether or not it contributed (I only picked this out because this was literally an argument my friend had with my teacher last year haha). Furthermore you haven't addressed dictatorships. As it is the stem of the question, that must be the focus of your first paragraph, even if you are writing a differentiated essay. Then each subsequent paragraph can be on another factor, while still relating back to the dictatorships - does that make sense? In pursuit of an ideal, Aryan race, Hitler’s ideology of lebensraum (living space) sought to “remove the shame of defeat” in the Treaty of Versailles (TOV) and “restore national greatness” (Ian Kershaw). Great integration of quotes. As an opportunist, Hitler gained confidence following Britain and France’s inaction to his territorial gains in the Saar region in 1935, and the remilitarisation of the Rhineland in 1936. In this clear rejection to the TOV, it became clear that Germany would endeavour for European dominance, thus... what does this mean in terms of growing tensions in Europe? That may seem obvious, like of course it'd increase tensions right? However you need to link back to the question, to avoid your response looking to narrative. This sentence breaks up what could look a bit like an outline of events, and instead shift the focus to analysis!. Accordingly, Hitler’s achievement of ‘Anschluss’ in 1938 was in complete disregard to clause 80; that “Germany will accept the independence of Austria”. Awesome detail!These continued acts of aggression spurred global tension and thus contributed significantly to the outbreak of the Second World War. See this linking sentence was great - more of them please! Similarly, Mussolini’s foreign policy followed a like-minded approach to cultural superiority and national glorification. Awesome! In response to the League of Nations’ (LoN) inaction to the Manchuria crisis, Italy capitalised on it’s aim for imperial expansion in Abyssinia on the 3rd of October, 1935. Clearly, the failures of the LoN highlight that dictatorships were not purely responsible for the outbreak of the Second World War, but is intrinsically linked to other global I like "geo-political" better factors See this needed to be mentioned earlier - I still 100% stand by that dictatorships should have been your first paragraph, but even so just having this sentence earlier reminds the marker that you are addressing the question.. With a foreign policy that was markedly similar to that of Germany, the creation of the 1936 Rome-Berlin Axis confirmed their ideals for European dominance. It was this alliance that consolidated world-wide contention and commenced the collapse of ‘collective security'. Some really strong analysis and judgements being made here - I love it! Therefore, it undeniable again i'd maybe avoid this word - not as bad in this context due to your next sentence, but even still... that the German and Italian dictators were significant in the growth of European tensions. However, these leaders were not entirely responsible for the outbreak of World War 2; Rather, European tension was a collective result of dictators and the LoN’s ineffective response to their foreign policies. Really great paragraph rodero well done!
With the LoN being a significant factor to the outbreak of the Second World War, the German and Italian dictators were merely partially responsible for the growth of European tensions. A much better judgement! If you basically just repeat this but replace with the relevant topic you'll be sweet! That may sound like weird advice - repeat almost word for word my topic sentence? But remember that this isn't english :) My teacher recommended keeping your judgements as similar as possible (down to minute word choices - eg. if you say significant in the intro, don't say influential in your paragraph), so that there is no excuse for a marker to accuse you or changing/splitting your judgement :) As a post-war inter-governmental organisation, the LoN was responsible for the maintenance of “international peace and security” (Covenant on the LoN). However, its system of governance was manifestly flawed and promoted unrealistic goals for world order. GREAT! In particular, its policy of ‘collective security’ seemed to promote “internationalism in a world obsessed by nationalism” (Ken Webb) Woah - do NOT quote Ken Webb. Not just because I (personally) really dislike his modern resources and would advise against using them, but also because he is NOT a historian. Don't quote textbooks! (they're shit anyway why would you want to haha? - I go into my opinions on Webb in the Modern History resource thread if you're interested!). This was worsened with a lack of British commitment and the absence of fundamental European powers, such as the US the US? A fundamental European power? Western power, but certainly not European I'd presume? Unless this is some weird aspect of the unit that I just have no idea about since I didn't study this (Cold War baby!) and the Soviet Union. As well as the League’s failures in the Manchuria crisis and Abyssinia, European tension escalated following the axis power’s involvement in the Spanish Civil War (SCW); the fascist dictators supported Nationalists, while the allies empathised with the Republicans. In this war, the divide between European nations had solidified - the policies of internationalism and collective security had unequivocally collapsed. Awesome You analytical abilities are really strong rodero, I'm impressed! Accordingly, the failure of the Stresa Front removed any objection to Hitler’s aggressive foreign policy. As the League had now been coined the “toothless tiger” who says this?, a new policy was required to appease Hitler’s expansionist ideals. Therefore, it is clear that the fascist dictatorships capitalised on the unenforceable nature of the LoN. However, the League itself was heavily flawed and failed to respond to their foreign policies, rendering the dictators partially responsible for the outbreak of World War 2. Love love love this final judgement. You are doing what many people fail to do - provide a nuanced, but still strong judgement. Most people fall into the trap of sitting on the fence, but you haven't - well done! This essay is defs strong so far rodero, very impressive considering this is your first attempt at a modern essay (which really confuses me - how haven't you written one already?!?!)
In response to the failures of the League and the dictator’s continuing desire for expansion, Britain and France’s adoption of appeasement was equally responsible for the growth of European tensions. Hmmm, I liked the judgement in the paragraph above better. Would prefer you to replicate that more, though this isn't bad :) I just want that whole "partially accurate" thing to come through. With Hitler’s announced intention to occupy the Sudetenland, the European nations saw the increasing likelihood for a World War. Accordingly, the naive British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, seemingly achieved “peace in” his “time” once meeting a mutual agreement with Hitler at the Munich Conference of 1938. However, the agreement was heavily flawed in that it failed to consult with the Czechoslovaks and the USSR, which further contributed to the development of tensions in Europe? Feel like a link back could have worked really well there. Additionally, appeasement had unrealistic expectations and failed to recognise Hitler’s foreign policy of lebensraum; Considering Hitler’s acts of aggression in the SCW, Austria and the Rhineland, why would “a scrap of paper” (HItler) stop him from invading the rest of Czechoslovakia? Don't use rhetorical questions in a essay! In accordance with Winston Churchill’s view, Hitler’s character parallels to that of a boa constrictor - that time would be taken to digest, before hunting once more. It is for this reason that the German and Italian dictator’s, and the policy of appeasement are jointly responsible for increasing European tensions. These warnings became apparent on the 15th of March 1939, where German troops invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia. Britain’s declaration to defend Polish independence on the 31st of March heightened European tensions and forced Stalin’s agreement to the Non-Aggression Pact.. Therefore, it is clear that the policy of appeasement and the dictator’s foreign policy were jointly responsible for the outbreak of World War 2.
The Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact was equally responsible for the increase of European tensions. To the USSR, it became clear that the continued failures of the Allied Powers could not pacify the German and Italian dictators. Despite Stalin’s ideological differences, the pact was a necessity due to the inevitability of a Second World War; The signing of the pact would benefit the USSR and provide time to rearm and prepare for the imminent German threat. However, the pact in itself - together with Hitler’s foreign policy - contributed immensely to the outbreak of war. The neutralisation of the Soviet Union avoided the fear of encirclement, and in effect provided Hitler the “green light” (Ken Webb) to invade Poland. However, the consistent inaction of the Allies convinced Hitler that Britain would not uphold it’s guarantee of Polish independence. With this, the outbreak of war in 1939 was a collective result of dictators, the allied failures, and the non-aggression pact. Great paragraph!
Therefore, the dictatorships of Germany and Italy were partially responsible for the rise of European tensions. Undeniably, their foreign policies for national glorification spurred world-wide contention. However, these dictators capitalised on the enforceable nature of the LoN and their naivety to the policy of appeasement. With these continued Allied failures, the Soviet Union saw the inevitability of war and felt compelled to sign the Non-Aggression Pact. However, it was this very pact that sealed the fate of Europe as it gave passage for Hitler’s invasion of Poland in 1939. Ultimately, axis powers and their ideologies are intrinsically linked to other world-wide inadequacies.
Really really great essay rodero!! Only a few little things to fix up that I have highlighted within the spoiler, but really that was a fantastic essay! Obviously I can't comment too much in terms of the accuracy of your content, however from an outsiders perspective it certainly looked like you know your stuff! Maybe a little bit more detail would be good (you'll never have enough detail in my eyes however), but other than that and my other comments I'd say you should be feeling pretty confident for your assessment task tomorrow!!
Great work and good luck, if any of my feedback is confusing please let me know and I'll clarify!
Susie
EDIT: FORGOT A MAJOR POINT! Dammit haha. I do think that you need to demonstrate the importance of the dictatorships more. You've demonstrated very well how other factors are just as important, but you need to justify the other side of "partially" as well! Your first paragraph must always be on the stem of the question.
Post by: rodero on June 20, 2017, 10:13:34 pm
Yo! So Jake is currently attempting to not fail uni so unfortunately you're gonna have to deal with my not-studied-conflict-in-europe-marking! Not too big of a deal, but basically just means I won't be able to help you too much with the content, only structural stuff sorry! :)
That being said, my comments can be found in the spoiler :)SpoilerTo what extent were the dictatorships in Germany and Italy responsible for the growth of European tensions?
Throughout 1935-45, the Fascist dictators of Hitler and Mussolini promoted a foreign policy of imperial expansion and national glorification. Okay so your first sentence needs to be a JUDGEMENT - not context. You're hinting at one there, but it is not explicit enough. Along with this you have a bit too much information packed in - for any other part of the essay that'd be great! - but not for your judgement. Simplicity is key: "The dictatorships in Germany and Italy were highly responsible for the growth of European tensions." That is literally all you need to say. I highlighted the word highly there, not because it is right (again - I haven't studied this unit), but because it is super important that you have a word like that (partially or limited also work well) in order to properly answer the question!Though their ideologies contributed to the growth of European tension, they were not purely responsible for the outbreak of World War 2. THIS IS YOUR JUDGEMENT. This should have been your first sentence. Looks like you are setting yourself up to write a differentiated essay which is awesome, but can be tricky to get right without some practice. What I'm going to be looking for here is that you still make a strong overall judgement and that you do not sit on the fence. Rather, these dictators capitalised on the unenforceable nature of the League of Nations and the Allies’ policy of appeasement. It was this continued inaction that urged Stalin’s agreeance to the Non-Aggression Pact - a pact that sealed the fate of a war once granting passage for Hitler to invade Poland. Ultimately, the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939 was a collective result of world-wide inadequacies. Hence, the dictatorships of Germany and Italy were merely partially YAY you're already getting it ;) responsible for the growth of European tensions. Great first attempt at a modern introduction rodero! Only a few things you need to tweak. The judgment as your first sentence point is REALLY important - you will lose marks if you do not do so. Furthermore, I would quite like to see more of an outline of your essay - what specifically is each paragraph going to focus on? You can literally just list them, but it is important that it is there so that the marker knows that you are being consistent with your argument :)
It is undeniable that the aggressive foreign policies of Germany and Italy were a contributing factor to the growth of European tensions. Okay so you're probably going to think that I'm being really picky here - but technically you have not answered the question. The word undeniable doesn't actually make a judgement as to what extent something contributed, by whether or not it contributed (I only picked this out because this was literally an argument my friend had with my teacher last year haha). Furthermore you haven't addressed dictatorships. As it is the stem of the question, that must be the focus of your first paragraph, even if you are writing a differentiated essay. Then each subsequent paragraph can be on another factor, while still relating back to the dictatorships - does that make sense? In pursuit of an ideal, Aryan race, Hitler’s ideology of lebensraum (living space) sought to “remove the shame of defeat” in the Treaty of Versailles (TOV) and “restore national greatness” (Ian Kershaw). Great integration of quotes. As an opportunist, Hitler gained confidence following Britain and France’s inaction to his territorial gains in the Saar region in 1935, and the remilitarisation of the Rhineland in 1936. In this clear rejection to the TOV, it became clear that Germany would endeavour for European dominance, thus... what does this mean in terms of growing tensions in Europe? That may seem obvious, like of course it'd increase tensions right? However you need to link back to the question, to avoid your response looking to narrative. This sentence breaks up what could look a bit like an outline of events, and instead shift the focus to analysis!. Accordingly, Hitler’s achievement of ‘Anschluss’ in 1938 was in complete disregard to clause 80; that “Germany will accept the independence of Austria”. Awesome detail!These continued acts of aggression spurred global tension and thus contributed significantly to the outbreak of the Second World War. See this linking sentence was great - more of them please! Similarly, Mussolini’s foreign policy followed a like-minded approach to cultural superiority and national glorification. Awesome! In response to the League of Nations’ (LoN) inaction to the Manchuria crisis, Italy capitalised on it’s aim for imperial expansion in Abyssinia on the 3rd of October, 1935. Clearly, the failures of the LoN highlight that dictatorships were not purely responsible for the outbreak of the Second World War, but is intrinsically linked to other global I like "geo-political" better factors See this needed to be mentioned earlier - I still 100% stand by that dictatorships should have been your first paragraph, but even so just having this sentence earlier reminds the marker that you are addressing the question.. With a foreign policy that was markedly similar to that of Germany, the creation of the 1936 Rome-Berlin Axis confirmed their ideals for European dominance. It was this alliance that consolidated world-wide contention and commenced the collapse of ‘collective security'. Some really strong analysis and judgements being made here - I love it! Therefore, it undeniable again i'd maybe avoid this word - not as bad in this context due to your next sentence, but even still... that the German and Italian dictators were significant in the growth of European tensions. However, these leaders were not entirely responsible for the outbreak of World War 2; Rather, European tension was a collective result of dictators and the LoN’s ineffective response to their foreign policies. Really great paragraph rodero well done!
With the LoN being a significant factor to the outbreak of the Second World War, the German and Italian dictators were merely partially responsible for the growth of European tensions. A much better judgement! If you basically just repeat this but replace with the relevant topic you'll be sweet! That may sound like weird advice - repeat almost word for word my topic sentence? But remember that this isn't english :) My teacher recommended keeping your judgements as similar as possible (down to minute word choices - eg. if you say significant in the intro, don't say influential in your paragraph), so that there is no excuse for a marker to accuse you or changing/splitting your judgement :) As a post-war inter-governmental organisation, the LoN was responsible for the maintenance of “international peace and security” (Covenant on the LoN). However, its system of governance was manifestly flawed and promoted unrealistic goals for world order. GREAT! In particular, its policy of ‘collective security’ seemed to promote “internationalism in a world obsessed by nationalism” (Ken Webb) Woah - do NOT quote Ken Webb. Not just because I (personally) really dislike his modern resources and would advise against using them, but also because he is NOT a historian. Don't quote textbooks! (they're shit anyway why would you want to haha? - I go into my opinions on Webb in the Modern History resource thread if you're interested!). This was worsened with a lack of British commitment and the absence of fundamental European powers, such as the US the US? A fundamental European power? Western power, but certainly not European I'd presume? Unless this is some weird aspect of the unit that I just have no idea about since I didn't study this (Cold War baby!) and the Soviet Union. As well as the League’s failures in the Manchuria crisis and Abyssinia, European tension escalated following the axis power’s involvement in the Spanish Civil War (SCW); the fascist dictators supported Nationalists, while the allies empathised with the Republicans. In this war, the divide between European nations had solidified - the policies of internationalism and collective security had unequivocally collapsed. Awesome You analytical abilities are really strong rodero, I'm impressed! Accordingly, the failure of the Stresa Front removed any objection to Hitler’s aggressive foreign policy. As the League had now been coined the “toothless tiger” who says this?, a new policy was required to appease Hitler’s expansionist ideals. Therefore, it is clear that the fascist dictatorships capitalised on the unenforceable nature of the LoN. However, the League itself was heavily flawed and failed to respond to their foreign policies, rendering the dictators partially responsible for the outbreak of World War 2. Love love love this final judgement. You are doing what many people fail to do - provide a nuanced, but still strong judgement. Most people fall into the trap of sitting on the fence, but you haven't - well done! This essay is defs strong so far rodero, very impressive considering this is your first attempt at a modern essay (which really confuses me - how haven't you written one already?!?!)
In response to the failures of the League and the dictator’s continuing desire for expansion, Britain and France’s adoption of appeasement was equally responsible for the growth of European tensions. Hmmm, I liked the judgement in the paragraph above better. Would prefer you to replicate that more, though this isn't bad :) I just want that whole "partially accurate" thing to come through. With Hitler’s announced intention to occupy the Sudetenland, the European nations saw the increasing likelihood for a World War. Accordingly, the naive British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, seemingly achieved “peace in” his “time” once meeting a mutual agreement with Hitler at the Munich Conference of 1938. However, the agreement was heavily flawed in that it failed to consult with the Czechoslovaks and the USSR, which further contributed to the development of tensions in Europe? Feel like a link back could have worked really well there. Additionally, appeasement had unrealistic expectations and failed to recognise Hitler’s foreign policy of lebensraum; Considering Hitler’s acts of aggression in the SCW, Austria and the Rhineland, why would “a scrap of paper” (HItler) stop him from invading the rest of Czechoslovakia? Don't use rhetorical questions in a essay! In accordance with Winston Churchill’s view, Hitler’s character parallels to that of a boa constrictor - that time would be taken to digest, before hunting once more. It is for this reason that the German and Italian dictator’s, and the policy of appeasement are jointly responsible for increasing European tensions. These warnings became apparent on the 15th of March 1939, where German troops invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia. Britain’s declaration to defend Polish independence on the 31st of March heightened European tensions and forced Stalin’s agreement to the Non-Aggression Pact.. Therefore, it is clear that the policy of appeasement and the dictator’s foreign policy were jointly responsible for the outbreak of World War 2.
The Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact was equally responsible for the increase of European tensions. To the USSR, it became clear that the continued failures of the Allied Powers could not pacify the German and Italian dictators. Despite Stalin’s ideological differences, the pact was a necessity due to the inevitability of a Second World War; The signing of the pact would benefit the USSR and provide time to rearm and prepare for the imminent German threat. However, the pact in itself - together with Hitler’s foreign policy - contributed immensely to the outbreak of war. The neutralisation of the Soviet Union avoided the fear of encirclement, and in effect provided Hitler the “green light” (Ken Webb) to invade Poland. However, the consistent inaction of the Allies convinced Hitler that Britain would not uphold it’s guarantee of Polish independence. With this, the outbreak of war in 1939 was a collective result of dictators, the allied failures, and the non-aggression pact. Great paragraph!
Therefore, the dictatorships of Germany and Italy were partially responsible for the rise of European tensions. Undeniably, their foreign policies for national glorification spurred world-wide contention. However, these dictators capitalised on the enforceable nature of the LoN and their naivety to the policy of appeasement. With these continued Allied failures, the Soviet Union saw the inevitability of war and felt compelled to sign the Non-Aggression Pact. However, it was this very pact that sealed the fate of Europe as it gave passage for Hitler’s invasion of Poland in 1939. Ultimately, axis powers and their ideologies are intrinsically linked to other world-wide inadequacies.
Really really great essay rodero!! Only a few little things to fix up that I have highlighted within the spoiler, but really that was a fantastic essay! Obviously I can't comment too much in terms of the accuracy of your content, however from an outsiders perspective it certainly looked like you know your stuff! Maybe a little bit more detail would be good (you'll never have enough detail in my eyes however), but other than that and my other comments I'd say you should be feeling pretty confident for your assessment task tomorrow!!
Great work and good luck, if any of my feedback is confusing please let me know and I'll clarify!
Susie
EDIT: FORGOT A MAJOR POINT! Dammit haha. I do think that you need to demonstrate the importance of the dictatorships more. You've demonstrated very well how other factors are just as important, but you need to justify the other side of "partially" as well! Your first paragraph must always be on the stem of the question.
Thanks susie ! :)
Completely died laughing at your rant about Ken Webb! Not gonna lie, I've been warned so many times not to quote him, but with the exam so close and with no historiography, I felt that maybe I could sneak him in a bit. And yes, those quotes were straight out of my textbook.
For the "toothless tiger" quote, I can't seem to find the historian who says it - it's more-so just a term to describe the League's inadequacies (which is why I tried to get away with "the League has been coined a toothless tiger").
No rhetorical questions, really?:-\ To me it seemed like an interesting way of evaluating - that personal voice thing. I'll re-word it ASAP :)
Overall, thank you so, so much for the feedback! It will be HIGHLY beneficial for the exam tomorrow :D P.S I love the word geo-political, i'll put it in
EDIT: I dunno, maybe my school's obsession with Ken Webb is screwing with my ATAR but, under his dictatorships heading it only goes on to mention their foreign policies. That's basically what I tried to cover in the first paragraph i.e. lebensraum, imperial expansion. However, I can see that from the perspective of someone who didn't study the course, I may have made it confusing since I didn't exactly mention the word 'dictatorships' very often. I'll try to change it up so it's clear!
Post by: sudodds on June 20, 2017, 10:24:28 pm
Thanks susie ! :)No worries! Was a pleasure reading through such a strong essay :) Hahahaha you'll never sneak a Ken Webb past me - I can smell that shit from a mile away ;) Don't worry too much about historiography (unless your teachers are particularly insistent on it). Is it great to include? Yes. If you asked the top students in the state would they most likely be using historiography? Yes. But can you still get a band 6 without it? YES! In the end the marker is assessing you on your own judgements and opinions, not your ability to parrot a historian. When you use historians in your essay (apart from Webb...) you use them well. In my opinion you should be fine.
Completely died laughing at your rant about Ken Webb! Not gonna lie, I've been warned so many times not to quote him, but with the exam so close and with no historiography, I felt that maybe I could sneak him in a bit. And yes, those quotes were straight out of my textbook.
For the "toothless tiger" quote, I can't seem to find the historian who says it - it's more-so just a term to describe the League's inadequacies (which is why I tried to get away with "the League has been coined a toothless tiger").
No rhetorical questions, really?:-\ To me it seemed like an interesting way of evaluating - that personal voice thing. I'll re-word it ASAP :)
If the toothless tiger quote is something that is commonly said then you'll probably be fine. Like is it a slogan? For example I wouldn't have to keep referencing Churchill whenever I say 'Iron Curtain' for a Cold War essay - just wanted to make sure :)
Rhetorical questions are a speech feature, not an essay feature. Besides, rather than letting the reader form their opinion, why don't you instead give your own? That'd demonstrate your voice more than anything!
Quote
Overall, thank you so, so much for the feedback! It will be HIGHLY beneficial for the exam tomorrow :D P.S I love the word geo-political, i'll put it inI see what you did there ;)
Post by: mixel on July 15, 2017, 12:14:41 pm
I'm not familiar with this terminology. I'm sorry if this has been asked before, but could somebody please post a link where these are explained if so?
Thanks :)
Edit: I'm an idiot, just realised this isn't the question thread, sorry!
Post by: sudodds on July 15, 2017, 12:57:15 pm
I've seen a lot of discussion about different types of essays on AN, like "differentiated" and "syllabus", etc.Hi Mixel, no worries about the wrong thread, it still relates to this so completely fine :) In my opinion, there are three different types of essays (not including differentiated thats something else we'll discuss) - Thematic, Factors and Syllabus. It basically just indicates what each of your paragraph will be dealing with. A thematic essay will have a paragraph on the different themes - socio-cultural, political, economic (sometimes military, sometimes ideological) - in relation to your topic. So lets say the question was "Assess the impact of Stalinism on Soviet Society" - i'd analyse the impact through how it influenced the socio-cultural, political and economic landscape of the Soviet Union at the time :) Benefits of this structure: Looks pretty sophisticated, and if you aren't 100% comfortable with your knowledge on a specific event, it doesn't matter as much with this structure. Downsides: It quite tricky, as it requires you to extrapolate themes from the events, rather than just assess them as a whole.
I'm not familiar with this terminology. I'm sorry if this has been asked before, but could somebody please post a link where these are explained if so?
Thanks :)
Edit: I'm an idiot, just realised this isn't the question thread, sorry!
A factors essay and a syllabus essay are often the same thing - a factors essay doesn't have to be a syllabus essay, but a syllabus essay is always a factors essay. These essays basically deal with the key factors that impact your case study. Sometimes these factors are written on the syllabus, sometimes they aren't. So for example, the factors for the Bolshevik Consolidation of Power are; social and political reforms, the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, the Civil War and War Communism and the New Economic Policy :) Benefits of this structure: Pretty easy, and if you get a marker who doesn't know your topic very well its easy for them as well! They can tell that you are ticking all the dot points, as they'll have the syllabus next to them (if you are writing a syllabus essay). Downsides: You have to be really confident in your knowledge of the factor, because you'll have to write an entire paragraph on that very specific event/issue :)
A differentiated essay can be any of these essays (though it is usually a factors essay from my experience). Essentially you use a differentiated essay approach when you get a question that asks you to discuss one particular factor, as if it was the most critical - eg. "To what extent was the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk the most critical factor in the Bolshevik consolidation of power?". Writing a whole essay on the treaty of Brest-Litovsk would be pretty darn difficult! So rather than doing that, we can use a differentiated essay approach, which allows us to discuss other factors as well! So my first paragraph would be on the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, but the others will be on the other factors, within each paragraph emphasising how they were also highly significant, and if I can how they are all linked to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in some way :)
Hope this helps!
Susie
Post by: mixel on July 15, 2017, 01:14:12 pm
Post by: sudodds on July 15, 2017, 05:00:14 pm
Thanks! That's a lot more self explanatory than I thought hahaNo worries! It can definitely get confusing, especially when teachers just assume you know how to write these essay types, even though most of us have only been shown one method since year 7!
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 15, 2017, 05:43:07 pm
Just finished an essay plan on The impact of Japanese occupation in SE Asia on the civilians. My thesis was basically that the impact on civilians varied according to the purpose of each occupied territory in relation to Japan's war effort (basically 1. militarily strategic areas eg. malaya = no concern for civilian welfare 2. natural resources areas eg. indonesia = destructive impact with lots of slave labour 3. not much significance/collaboration between jap. and occupied area eg. thailand = escaped the destructive impact) Would it be easier to argue structured around political, social, economic impacts etc. I did it the other way just because I thought it was more sophisticated in capturing the true essence of the topic. Which one do you guys prefer?
Thanks :)
Post by: sudodds on July 15, 2017, 11:41:55 pm
Hey,Okay! So heads up that I didn't study this option, but it looks like what you are describing is a factors essay, which is absolutely A okay! A completely valid structure! I definitely think a thematic structure would work within this type of question as well, a would perhaps make for a simpler judgement (which is easier to sustain), as you could just say "Japanese occupation had a highly significant impact on the lives of civilians in South East Asia", however neither structure is better than the other :) It is purely up to you which structure you choose - whatever you find most comfortable!
Just finished an essay plan on The impact of Japanese occupation in SE Asia on the civilians. My thesis was basically that the impact on civilians varied according to the purpose of each occupied territory in relation to Japan's war effort (basically 1. militarily strategic areas eg. malaya = no concern for civilian welfare 2. natural resources areas eg. indonesia = destructive impact with lots of slave labour 3. not much significance/collaboration between jap. and occupied area eg. thailand = escaped the destructive impact) Would it be easier to argue structured around political, social, economic impacts etc. I did it the other way just because I thought it was more sophisticated in capturing the true essence of the topic. Which one do you guys prefer?
Thanks :)
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 16, 2017, 11:24:53 am
Okay! So heads up that I didn't study this option, but it looks like what you are describing is a factors essay, which is absolutely A okay! A completely valid structure! I definitely think a thematic structure would work within this type of question as well, a would perhaps make for a simpler judgement (which is easier to sustain), as you could just say "Japanese occupation had a highly significant impact on the lives of civilians in South East Asia", however neither structure is better than the other :) It is purely up to you which structure you choose - whatever you find most comfortable!
Okay great I'll ask my teacher when I get back on Tuesday :)
Post by: Seank on July 17, 2017, 06:52:44 pm
I was wondering if I'd be able to get feedback on my essay/ speech (4.5 to 5 mins in length) for Conflict in the Pacific attached bellow.
The criteria for a 5/5 is:
- Demonstrates a comprehensive knowledge of their topic that explores issues raised by their set question in great depth. (Q in file)
- Provides a sophisticated evaluation of their topic & its significance in the Conflict in the Pacific.
- Integrates a range of relevant details pertaining to events, personalities, movements & key dates relating to the topic.
Any feed back would be greatly appreciated :D.
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 17, 2017, 07:04:45 pm
Hey
I was wondering if I'd be able to get feedback on my essay/ speech (4.5 to 5 mins in length) for Conflict in the Pacific attached bellow.
The criteria for a 5/5 is:
- Demonstrates a comprehensive knowledge of their topic that explores issues raised by their set question in great depth. (Q in file)
- Provides a sophisticated evaluation of their topic & its significance in the Conflict in the Pacific.
- Integrates a range of relevant details pertaining to events, personalities, movements & key dates relating to the topic.
Any feed back would be greatly appreciated :D.
Hey Sean, the more experienced guys will probably look at this soon, I'm just a Year 12 like you. I've been working on this exact topic the past couple of days and it's been doing my head in. All in all from my perspective it flows very well. I particularly like your second paragraph which reveals the reasons why the Greater Prosperity Sphere caused tensions (ie. America had interest in the Philippines). If this was an essay you would have to write in the HSC, it might be a bit short but as I was discussing with other people on here, in an essay like this, you can include other factors eg. US foreign policy by arguing that to a great extent Jap. foreign policy was responsible yet it was not the only factor (then you bring in things such as US foreign policy) Another tip would be that my class was told by our teacher to never say anything in history ie. the Pacific War in this case, was unavoidable or inevitable. But that's just a small thing. As I said, I'm sure the others will give you more thorough feedback although there is a post count that you have to reach before that can happen in case you are new, but if you're like me you'll reach that in no time by just asking questions and answering other peoples questions. Hope that helped!
Post by: sudodds on July 17, 2017, 09:49:14 pm
HeyHey Seank!
I was wondering if I'd be able to get feedback on my essay/ speech (4.5 to 5 mins in length) for Conflict in the Pacific attached bellow.
The criteria for a 5/5 is:
- Demonstrates a comprehensive knowledge of their topic that explores issues raised by their set question in great depth. (Q in file)
- Provides a sophisticated evaluation of their topic & its significance in the Conflict in the Pacific.
- Integrates a range of relevant details pertaining to events, personalities, movements & key dates relating to the topic.
Any feed back would be greatly appreciated :D.
Happy to have a look over your response, however as dancing phalanges' said, you'll have to reach the post count first for a full essay mark :) 25 posts = 1 essay marked! So really not that many - very easy to rack up that many posts in a couple of days :D Lucky you have someone like dancing phalanges' around though to give you some pointers in the meantime - their feedback is A+++++ :)
Post by: mixel on July 18, 2017, 09:18:52 pm
Sorry for the bad handwriting! I never got my pen licence in primary school ;)
Also very sorry for any inconvenience but I had to use dropbox, I couldn't upload it directly because the pdf exceeds the file size limit.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vwcrbmjtzms1uj8/20170718192606.pdf?dl=0
Post by: sudodds on July 18, 2017, 11:10:03 pm
Hey, this is a section 1 response, not an essay, but I figured I should post it here because it seems equivalent to an essay. Could someone please mark it for me? Don't worry about multis because I can just check the marking criteria for those, but if you could read my written responses and give them a rough mark I'd be very appreciative :) Please be brutally honest, I really need to get my section 1 shipshape because I think it's pretty bad.Hey hey! Sure thing, I'll have a look now :) Since these are handwritten responses, I'm going to put my feedback in dot points below, rather than writing everything up in a spoiler.
Sorry for the bad handwriting! I never got my pen licence in primary school ;)
Also very sorry for any inconvenience but I had to use dropbox, I couldn't upload it directly because the pdf exceeds the file size limit.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vwcrbmjtzms1uj8/20170718192606.pdf?dl=0
Question 2
- "The attitude in Source B is much more anti-war than Source A" - not bad, but I feel like we could be more sophisticated in terms of our language choices. "Source B presents a more negative interpretation of the war in comparison to Source A" would have been better.
- Make sure you underline every time you use a source - you won't be marked down for this necessarily, however it is good practice to do this, as it makes sure that your marker is 100% aware that you are addressing them consistently.
- I think a little bit more on Source A would have been nice - but that is me being really picky.
Overall you'd probably be given 2/2 for this response as you fully addressed the question - but the above suggestions will solidify that mark for me :)
Question 7
- The question is asking for you to discuss both attitudes in Britain AND Germany - thus your first sentence must mention both, even if you are planning on discussing the British first.
- rather than "dragged on" --> "progressed"
- Great detail! Love the stats :D You clearly have a very strong core understanding of the topic.
- handwriting - it needs to be fixed. I found some areas of this response really difficult to read. I was in exactly the same boat last year - my handwriting was absolutely atrocious. I suggest getting a weighted pen to build up strength, and to try your best to round out your letters a bit more, because they're quite tall and spiky right now :)
- For Britain, could have maybe discussed the impact of Total War a bit more, and more explicit reference to the Battle of the Somme. That Battle was a significant turning point for attitudes, as people began to question the war and its purpose: Was the huge sacrifice worth only 6 miles of land? Also, war profiteers could have been another excellent mention, as many individuals began to suspect that the war was being intentionally prolonged for monetary purposes. You don't have to mention these, just some other suggestions :) Even though these may not be featured in the source, still great to mention :)
- You need to balance your discussion more - I know I just mentioned a bunch of other Britain things that could have been mentioned, but first priority needs to be to pad out Germany. Go into more detail about Ersatz Goods, the raw materials board, forced conscription of labour, failing propaganda campaign, impact of revolutionary ideas (eg. communism, socialism and anarchism) etc. etc. :)
Overall, I'd probably give this response a 6/8 - mainly because of this imbalance.
Question 8 (Source Analysis) - a tad hard for me to mark as I don't have the sources, so I'm purely going to look at this from a structural point of view.
- Great first sentence!
- I'd probably say "high reliability" in your second sentence :)
- Rather than mentioning the limitations of the source in that it doesn't provide the German perspective in the middle of your response, either say that the source is moderately useful within your judgement, or keep it as highly useful and justify that throughout, and then mention the limitations at the end, providing other sources to supplement our understanding - otherwise it looks like you are splitting your judgement away from highly a bit!
- Underline perspective and reliability throughout your response, so that there is no doubt you have addressed those aspects of the question.
- Great detail!
- Again, if your judgement was "highly useful" - don't discuss the negatives too much, unless you can demonstrate why they are insignificant in comparison to the positives. I feel as though you would have benefited more from making your initial judgement "moderately useful" :)
- Mention the peer-reviewal process for reliability! All historical works undergo this!
- I loveeeee the distinction made between factual reliability and reliability as evidence for the second Source, but it needs to be a bit clearer - I got the first part, but not the second part (ie. "it is still highly reliable as evidence blah blah blah :)" )
- I know what you are saying when you are saying that the source is "highly unreliable" at the beginning - you mean according to evidence. However another marker may perceive that as a split judgement, so instead say "though the reliability of the source is negatively impacted by (blah blah blah), it is still overall highly reliable as (blah blah blah)" :)
- I'd avoid saying that the source is "outstanding"
- I love your little bit at the end, on enhancing the usefulness of the source through looking at other sources! Make sure that you get an extra piece of paper to write on though in the exam, rather than cramming it all in at the end. Also, you could enhance this section of your response by providing some specific examples if you have any!
I think this was a fantastic attempt - I'd say personally you'd be looking at an 8/10 (maybe higher depending on the marker) :) Just fix up some of the stuff I mentioned and you'll be sweet!
Overall great work Mixel! Glad to see you implementing some of the stuff we went through in the lecture ;D Hope everything is working out okay both in theory and practice for ya ;)
Susie
Post by: mixel on July 18, 2017, 11:33:16 pm
Thanks so much for giving such helpful feedback so quickly! I should probably read the questions more carefully because by the time I realised the 8 marker wasn't just on Britain it was too late to restart haha.SpoilerHey hey! Sure thing, I'll have a look now :) Since these are handwritten responses, I'm going to put my feedback in dot points below, rather than writing everything up in a spoiler.
Question 2
- "The attitude in Source B is much more anti-war than Source A" - not bad, but I feel like we could be more sophisticated in terms of our language choices. "Source B presents a more negative interpretation of the war in comparison to Source A" would have been better.
- Make sure you underline every time you use a source - you won't be marked down for this necessarily, however it is good practice to do this, as it makes sure that your marker is 100% aware that you are addressing them consistently.
- I think a little bit more on Source A would have been nice - but that is me being really picky.
Overall you'd probably be given 2/2 for this response as you fully addressed the question - but the above suggestions will solidify that mark for me :)
Question 7
- The question is asking for you to discuss both attitudes in Britain AND Germany - thus your first sentence must mention both, even if you are planning on discussing the British first.
- rather than "dragged on" --> "progressed"
- Great detail! Love the stats :D You clearly have a very strong core understanding of the topic.
- handwriting - it needs to be fixed. I found some areas of this response really difficult to read. I was in exactly the same boat last year - my handwriting was absolutely atrocious. I suggest getting a weighted pen to build up strength, and to try your best to round out your letters a bit more, because they're quite tall and spiky right now :)
- For Britain, could have maybe discussed the impact of Total War a bit more, and more explicit reference to the Battle of the Somme. That Battle was a significant turning point for attitudes, as people began to question the war and its purpose: Was the huge sacrifice worth only 6 miles of land? Also, war profiteers could have been another excellent mention, as many individuals began to suspect that the war was being intentionally prolonged for monetary purposes. You don't have to mention these, just some other suggestions :) Even though these may not be featured in the source, still great to mention :)
- You need to balance your discussion more - I know I just mentioned a bunch of other Britain things that could have been mentioned, but first priority needs to be to pad out Germany. Go into more detail about Ersatz Goods, the raw materials board, forced conscription of labour, failing propaganda campaign, impact of revolutionary ideas (eg. communism, socialism and anarchism) etc. etc. :)
Overall, I'd probably give this response a 6/8 - mainly because of this imbalance.
Question 8 (Source Analysis) - a tad hard for me to mark as I don't have the sources, so I'm purely going to look at this from a structural point of view.
- Great first sentence!
- I'd probably say "high reliability" in your second sentence :)
- Rather than mentioning the limitations of the source in that it doesn't provide the German perspective in the middle of your response, either say that the source is moderately useful within your judgement, or keep it as highly useful and justify that throughout, and then mention the limitations at the end, providing other sources to supplement our understanding - otherwise it looks like you are splitting your judgement away from highly a bit!
- Underline perspective and reliability throughout your response, so that there is no doubt you have addressed those aspects of the question.
- Great detail!
- Again, if your judgement was "highly useful" - don't discuss the negatives too much, unless you can demonstrate why they are insignificant in comparison to the positives. I feel as though you would have benefited more from making your initial judgement "moderately useful" :)
- Mention the peer-reviewal process for reliability! All historical works undergo this!
- I loveeeee the distinction made between factual reliability and reliability as evidence for the second Source, but it needs to be a bit clearer - I got the first part, but not the second part (ie. "it is still highly reliable as evidence blah blah blah :)" )
- I know what you are saying when you are saying that the source is "highly unreliable" at the beginning - you mean according to evidence. However another marker may perceive that as a split judgement, so instead say "though the reliability of the source is negatively impacted by (blah blah blah), it is still overall highly reliable as (blah blah blah)" :)
- I'd avoid saying that the source is "outstanding"
- I love your little bit at the end, on enhancing the usefulness of the source through looking at other sources! Make sure that you get an extra piece of paper to write on though in the exam, rather than cramming it all in at the end. Also, you could enhance this section of your response by providing some specific examples if you have any!
I think this was a fantastic attempt - I'd say personally you'd be looking at an 8/10 (maybe higher depending on the marker) :) Just fix up some of the stuff I mentioned and you'll be sweet!
Overall great work Mixel! Glad to see you implementing some of the stuff we went through in the lecture ;D Hope everything is working out okay both in theory and practice for ya ;)
Susie
I've just got some questions about your advice for handwriting because I feel like that's holding me back in most of my subjects. When you say a weighted pen, do you mean just a pen with a battery taped to the end, or like a pen that's designed with a weight? Because I've heard of the battery taped to the end trick but not a purpose made pen. Does using a weighted pen let me write more neatly at the same pace? Because I've always worried that improving my handwriting would be trading quantity for legibility in the assumption that it'd slow me down, because I can put together decently neat handwriting if I slow it down a lot. Should I focus more on getting in the habit of writing letters in more rounded and distinct form?
Thanks :)
Post by: sudodds on July 18, 2017, 11:42:30 pm
Thanks so much for giving such helpful feedback so quickly! I should probably read the questions more carefully because by the time I realised the 8 marker wasn't just on Britain it was too late to restart haha.No worries! Hmm, either way works well, however I think they serve a different purpose. The battery technique is to strengthen the muscles in your hand - by the exam you should take the batteries off, and theoretically be able to write faster! However the weighted pen does this, but also trains you to not put so much pressure on the pen, as you don't feel the need to press down as hard (which tires your hand which makes handwriting messier). It's up to you which approach you use - I did the weighted pen technique, but used a lighter pen and it worked for me. Also I know this might sound super childish - but I used one of those handwriting books hahaha. The most important thing I think is to train your hand to write in a different style, so like you said, get into the habit of making the letters more round and distinct from one another!
I've just got some questions about your advice for handwriting because I feel like that's holding me back in most of my subjects. When you say a weighted pen, do you mean just a pen with a battery taped to the end, or like a pen that's designed with a weight? Because I've heard of the battery taped to the end trick but not a purpose made pen. Does using a weighted pen let me write more neatly at the same pace? Because I've always worried that improving my handwriting would be trading quantity for legibility in the assumption that it'd slow me down, because I can put together decently neat handwriting if I slow it down a lot. Should I focus more on getting in the habit of writing letters in more rounded and distinct form?
Thanks :)
Hope this helps!
Susie
Post by: mixel on July 18, 2017, 11:45:22 pm
No worries! Hmm, either way works well, however I think they serve a different purpose. The battery technique is to strengthen the muscles in your hand - by the exam you should take the batteries off, and theoretically be able to write faster! However the weighted pen does this, but also trains you to not put so much pressure on the pen, as you don't feel the need to press down as hard (which tires your hand which makes handwriting messier). It's up to you which approach you use - I did the weighted pen technique, but used a lighter pen and it worked for me. Also I know this might sound super childish - but I used one of those handwriting books hahaha. The most important thing I think is to train your hand to write in a different style, so like you said, get into the habit of making the letters more round and distinct from one another!
Hope this helps!
Susie
Ah I've been meaning to get one of those handwriting books for so long, where did you find one? Was it just in a newsagent or did you have to order one?
Post by: sudodds on July 18, 2017, 11:50:38 pm
Ah I've been meaning to get one of those handwriting books for so long, where did you find one? Was it just in a newsagent or did you have to order one?ahaha my handwriting was so bad my school gave me one...
Post by: jelena on July 20, 2017, 09:31:33 am
Question: To what extent was Nazi racial policy the key factor in the consolidation of Nazi power in Germany up to 1939?
Nazi racial policy was only a partially key factor in the consolidation of Nazi power in Germany up to 1939. The significance of other methods by which they asserted their dominance, detracts from the nonetheless prominent significance of their racial policy. The nationalist ideology imbedded in their wider Nazi ideology underpinned racial policy in Germany during this time, which was fundamental to its influence in consolidating power. There were two main functions of Nazism which assisted the Nazis’ ascent to power; firstly their social vilification of targeted races as an outlet for public tensions, and secondly, their discrimination, which provided a sense of unity as an antithesis social and political instability of the preceding Republic. However, there were certainly other factors which were significant, particularly in the earlier stages of consolidating power. Thus, Nazi racial policy was one of a number of key factors in the consolidation of Nazi power, and thus only partially “the” key factor up to 1939.
Nazi ideology underpinned the racial policies which partially fuelled their ascension to power up to 1939. Nationalism formed a large constituent of their ideology, of which racism and xenophobia was often a prominent factor as it encouraged the promotion of one’s nation above others’. This was based in Hitler’s conception of social Darwinism, by which he believed that the Aryans were genetically superior to all other races- particularly Jews, Gypsies, and Slavs. This led to the notion of herrenvolk (racial purity) which underpinned racial policy, and thus aided in the Nazi consolidation of power up to 1939.
British historian Richard Overy, suggests that there are four distinct phases of Nazi racial policy, the first of these, vilification, is demonstrative of a fashion by which Nazi racial policy contributed to the consolidation of power. ‘Dolchstosslegende’ necessitated an enemy to be targeted as an outlet for German sufferinf and humiliation following the 1919 Treaty of Versaille, and Jewish people were generalised as constituents of the ‘November Criminals’. Thus they were held responsible for the subsequent hyper-inflation of 1923 which Allan Bullock said ‘undermined the foundations of German society’. On the back of further suffering caused by the October 1929 Depression from which over 6 million were unemployed by 1933, Germans sought somebody to blame, and Nazi racial policy allowed the party to provide an enemy in the Jews, thus stabilizing Germany socially and thus their power. This entailed such vilified races to be targeted by the simplistic and emotive propaganda under Goebbels, often involving caricatures and zoomorphism such as in Der Strümer’s 1938 school reading book, ‘The Poisonous Mushroom’. Furthermore, physical assaults upon such minorities were not punished throughout their early policy. However, a testament to the limited effect of early racial policies in consolidating power, was the Nazi’s initial caution with such policies, due to a lack of support from the middle class and city areas. However, this initial vilification of racial minorities through making them a target of social anger, was effective in consolidating power to an extent.
Discrimination and separation were the subsequent phases of Nazi racial policy suggested by Richard Overy, successful in providing a sense of unity amongst the German people under Nazi ideology, therefore affirming their position. The effects of social, political and economic instability in the Weimar Republic, saw a public vastly polarised. This was evidenced in the September 1930 Reichstag election, in which the extreme right (SPD)’s Reichstag representation increased from 12 to 107 seats, and the extreme left (KPD) won 77 seats. Consequently, discrimination regulations such as ‘The Law of Overcrowding German schools’, as well as the April 1 boycott on Jewish businesses, provided a sense of unified superiority amongst Germans under Nazi ideology. The separation stage of Nazi racial policy, evidenced a deepening of this approach, with the Reich Citizenship Act and the Blood Protection Act, announced at the Nuremberg Rally in September 1935. Consequently, it can be said that Nazi racial policy contributed to the consolidation of their power, through the ability to unify Germany under their ideology.
The demonstration of Nazi power and terror through the persecution of racial minorities, and particularly Jews, also assisted in the consolidation of power. William S Shirer writes that “... the Jews had been excluded either by law or by Nazi terror- the latter often preceded the former-“. This was encapsulated in the violent events of Kristallnacht in November 1938, in which almost 1000 Jewish shops and businesses were looted, and 20 000 Jewish men and boys were rounded up over the next few days to be sent to concentration camps. Hitler’s January 1939 speech, reinforced the sum of Nazi power, which was exhibited against the Jews, and which contributed to their wider consolidation, saying ‘...if the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations into a world war, then the result will... (be) the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.’ Consequently, the display of might which helped the Nazis to assert their dominance over racial minorities, also assisted in assisting their police terror state.
Nazi racial policy however, was not crucial to the extent of other factors, to the consolidation of Nazi power. These factors included political intrigue such as the 1933 Enabling Act, allowing Hitler dictatorial powers, as well as the ‘despair and hopelessness’ which Michael Burleigh described as engendered from Weimar ‘instability combined with chronic economic problems’, such problems particularly encompassing the Depression of 1929, which AJP Taylor describes to have ‘put wind in Hitler’s sails’. Each of these key factors, completely disengaged from racial policy, were axiomatic to Hitler’s consolidation of power.
Nazi racial policy was thus not wholly “the” key factor in the consolidation of power to 1939, however it was significant. The ideology which underpinned this was fundamental to the regime, and the policies which constituted Nazi racism did in fact contribute to their assertion of dominance. However, the comparative importance of other factors in fulfilling this function, evidence that it was not necessarily an exclusively axiomatic factor, despite its undeniable importance to the consolidation of Nazi power to 1939.
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 20, 2017, 09:50:50 am
SpoilerHey :) Just wondering if you could give this essay a look cause my teacher was a bit confused about how to answer it so I kind of just made my own way. Thanks!
Question: To what extent was Nazi racial policy the key factor in the consolidation of Nazi power in Germany up to 1939?
Nazi racial policy was only a partially key factor in the consolidation of Nazi power in Germany up to 1939. The significance of other methods by which they asserted their dominance, detracts from the nonetheless prominent significance of their racial policy. The nationalist ideology imbedded in their wider Nazi ideology underpinned racial policy in Germany during this time, which was fundamental to its influence in consolidating power. There were two main functions of Nazism which assisted the Nazis’ ascent to power; firstly their social vilification of targeted races as an outlet for public tensions, and secondly, their discrimination, which provided a sense of unity as an antithesis social and political instability of the preceding Republic. However, there were certainly other factors which were significant, particularly in the earlier stages of consolidating power. Thus, Nazi racial policy was one of a number of key factors in the consolidation of Nazi power, and thus only partially “the” key factor up to 1939.
Nazi ideology underpinned the racial policies which partially fuelled their ascension to power up to 1939. Nationalism formed a large constituent of their ideology, of which racism and xenophobia was often a prominent factor as it encouraged the promotion of one’s nation above others’. This was based in Hitler’s conception of social Darwinism, by which he believed that the Aryans were genetically superior to all other races- particularly Jews, Gypsies, and Slavs. This led to the notion of herrenvolk (racial purity) which underpinned racial policy, and thus aided in the Nazi consolidation of power up to 1939.
British historian Richard Overy, suggests that there are four distinct phases of Nazi racial policy, the first of these, vilification, is demonstrative of a fashion by which Nazi racial policy contributed to the consolidation of power. ‘Dolchstosslegende’ necessitated an enemy to be targeted as an outlet for German sufferinf and humiliation following the 1919 Treaty of Versaille, and Jewish people were generalised as constituents of the ‘November Criminals’. Thus they were held responsible for the subsequent hyper-inflation of 1923 which Allan Bullock said ‘undermined the foundations of German society’. On the back of further suffering caused by the October 1929 Depression from which over 6 million were unemployed by 1933, Germans sought somebody to blame, and Nazi racial policy allowed the party to provide an enemy in the Jews, thus stabilizing Germany socially and thus their power. This entailed such vilified races to be targeted by the simplistic and emotive propaganda under Goebbels, often involving caricatures and zoomorphism such as in Der Strümer’s 1938 school reading book, ‘The Poisonous Mushroom’. Furthermore, physical assaults upon such minorities were not punished throughout their early policy. However, a testament to the limited effect of early racial policies in consolidating power, was the Nazi’s initial caution with such policies, due to a lack of support from the middle class and city areas. However, this initial vilification of racial minorities through making them a target of social anger, was effective in consolidating power to an extent.
Discrimination and separation were the subsequent phases of Nazi racial policy suggested by Richard Overy, successful in providing a sense of unity amongst the German people under Nazi ideology, therefore affirming their position. The effects of social, political and economic instability in the Weimar Republic, saw a public vastly polarised. This was evidenced in the September 1930 Reichstag election, in which the extreme right (SPD)’s Reichstag representation increased from 12 to 107 seats, and the extreme left (KPD) won 77 seats. Consequently, discrimination regulations such as ‘The Law of Overcrowding German schools’, as well as the April 1 boycott on Jewish businesses, provided a sense of unified superiority amongst Germans under Nazi ideology. The separation stage of Nazi racial policy, evidenced a deepening of this approach, with the Reich Citizenship Act and the Blood Protection Act, announced at the Nuremberg Rally in September 1935. Consequently, it can be said that Nazi racial policy contributed to the consolidation of their power, through the ability to unify Germany under their ideology.
The demonstration of Nazi power and terror through the persecution of racial minorities, and particularly Jews, also assisted in the consolidation of power. William S Shirer writes that “... the Jews had been excluded either by law or by Nazi terror- the latter often preceded the former-“. This was encapsulated in the violent events of Kristallnacht in November 1938, in which almost 1000 Jewish shops and businesses were looted, and 20 000 Jewish men and boys were rounded up over the next few days to be sent to concentration camps. Hitler’s January 1939 speech, reinforced the sum of Nazi power, which was exhibited against the Jews, and which contributed to their wider consolidation, saying ‘...if the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations into a world war, then the result will... (be) the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.’ Consequently, the display of might which helped the Nazis to assert their dominance over racial minorities, also assisted in assisting their police terror state.
Nazi racial policy however, was not crucial to the extent of other factors, to the consolidation of Nazi power. These factors included political intrigue such as the 1933 Enabling Act, allowing Hitler dictatorial powers, as well as the ‘despair and hopelessness’ which Michael Burleigh described as engendered from Weimar ‘instability combined with chronic economic problems’, such problems particularly encompassing the Depression of 1929, which AJP Taylor describes to have ‘put wind in Hitler’s sails’. Each of these key factors, completely disengaged from racial policy, were axiomatic to Hitler’s consolidation of power.
Nazi racial policy was thus not wholly “the” key factor in the consolidation of power to 1939, however it was significant. The ideology which underpinned this was fundamental to the regime, and the policies which constituted Nazi racism did in fact contribute to their assertion of dominance. However, the comparative importance of other factors in fulfilling this function, evidence that it was not necessarily an exclusively axiomatic factor, despite its undeniable importance to the consolidation of Nazi power to 1939.
Hey I'm just in between classes at school but here's a couple of other things you could include in terms of other reasons why they consolidate their power:
I would include propaganda as a whole as a key way the Nazis consolidated power (ie. propaganda in culture such as the Burning of the books, films, the media, the radio - all different ways that they influenced the German people with Nazi ideology)
Their working class/social reforms were also important in gaining the control of the people as was the SS and Gestapo and the fear they engendered within the populations (denunciations)
Post by: sudodds on July 20, 2017, 11:26:07 am
Hey :) Just wondering if you could give this essay a look cause my teacher was a bit confused about how to answer it so I kind of just made my own way. Thanks!Hey Jelena! We'd love to take a look at your essay, however first you'll need to reach 25 posts, as 25 posts = 1 essay marked! Super easy to reach that post count, just ask/answer a couple of questions, join in on the discussion, etc. etc. :)
Thanks,
Suse
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 23, 2017, 10:48:32 am
Just wondering if you can take a look at my source analysis, especially on making it more succinct and making a stronger argument I guess.
I've attached the 2012 HSC and I'm sure you know where to find the sources that are copyrighted ;)
https://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/hsc_exams/hsc2012exams/pdf_doc/2012-hsc-exam-modern-history.pdf
Thanks!
https://www.dropbox.com/preview/SOURCE%20ANALYSIS%202012.docx?role=personal
Post by: mixel on July 23, 2017, 12:35:24 pm
Hey, I did this question a few days ago ;DSpoilerHey :) Just wondering if you could give this essay a look cause my teacher was a bit confused about how to answer it so I kind of just made my own way. Thanks!
Question: To what extent was Nazi racial policy the key factor in the consolidation of Nazi power in Germany up to 1939?
Nazi racial policy was only a partially key factor in the consolidation of Nazi power in Germany up to 1939. The significance of other methods by which they asserted their dominance, detracts from the nonetheless prominent significance of their racial policy. The nationalist ideology imbedded in their wider Nazi ideology underpinned racial policy in Germany during this time, which was fundamental to its influence in consolidating power. There were two main functions of Nazism which assisted the Nazis’ ascent to power; firstly their social vilification of targeted races as an outlet for public tensions, and secondly, their discrimination, which provided a sense of unity as an antithesis social and political instability of the preceding Republic. However, there were certainly other factors which were significant, particularly in the earlier stages of consolidating power. Thus, Nazi racial policy was one of a number of key factors in the consolidation of Nazi power, and thus only partially “the” key factor up to 1939.
Nazi ideology underpinned the racial policies which partially fuelled their ascension to power up to 1939. Nationalism formed a large constituent of their ideology, of which racism and xenophobia was often a prominent factor as it encouraged the promotion of one’s nation above others’. This was based in Hitler’s conception of social Darwinism, by which he believed that the Aryans were genetically superior to all other races- particularly Jews, Gypsies, and Slavs. This led to the notion of herrenvolk (racial purity) which underpinned racial policy, and thus aided in the Nazi consolidation of power up to 1939.
British historian Richard Overy, suggests that there are four distinct phases of Nazi racial policy, the first of these, vilification, is demonstrative of a fashion by which Nazi racial policy contributed to the consolidation of power. ‘Dolchstosslegende’ necessitated an enemy to be targeted as an outlet for German sufferinf and humiliation following the 1919 Treaty of Versaille, and Jewish people were generalised as constituents of the ‘November Criminals’. Thus they were held responsible for the subsequent hyper-inflation of 1923 which Allan Bullock said ‘undermined the foundations of German society’. On the back of further suffering caused by the October 1929 Depression from which over 6 million were unemployed by 1933, Germans sought somebody to blame, and Nazi racial policy allowed the party to provide an enemy in the Jews, thus stabilizing Germany socially and thus their power. This entailed such vilified races to be targeted by the simplistic and emotive propaganda under Goebbels, often involving caricatures and zoomorphism such as in Der Strümer’s 1938 school reading book, ‘The Poisonous Mushroom’. Furthermore, physical assaults upon such minorities were not punished throughout their early policy. However, a testament to the limited effect of early racial policies in consolidating power, was the Nazi’s initial caution with such policies, due to a lack of support from the middle class and city areas. However, this initial vilification of racial minorities through making them a target of social anger, was effective in consolidating power to an extent.
Discrimination and separation were the subsequent phases of Nazi racial policy suggested by Richard Overy, successful in providing a sense of unity amongst the German people under Nazi ideology, therefore affirming their position. The effects of social, political and economic instability in the Weimar Republic, saw a public vastly polarised. This was evidenced in the September 1930 Reichstag election, in which the extreme right (SPD)’s Reichstag representation increased from 12 to 107 seats, and the extreme left (KPD) won 77 seats. Consequently, discrimination regulations such as ‘The Law of Overcrowding German schools’, as well as the April 1 boycott on Jewish businesses, provided a sense of unified superiority amongst Germans under Nazi ideology. The separation stage of Nazi racial policy, evidenced a deepening of this approach, with the Reich Citizenship Act and the Blood Protection Act, announced at the Nuremberg Rally in September 1935. Consequently, it can be said that Nazi racial policy contributed to the consolidation of their power, through the ability to unify Germany under their ideology.
The demonstration of Nazi power and terror through the persecution of racial minorities, and particularly Jews, also assisted in the consolidation of power. William S Shirer writes that “... the Jews had been excluded either by law or by Nazi terror- the latter often preceded the former-“. This was encapsulated in the violent events of Kristallnacht in November 1938, in which almost 1000 Jewish shops and businesses were looted, and 20 000 Jewish men and boys were rounded up over the next few days to be sent to concentration camps. Hitler’s January 1939 speech, reinforced the sum of Nazi power, which was exhibited against the Jews, and which contributed to their wider consolidation, saying ‘...if the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations into a world war, then the result will... (be) the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.’ Consequently, the display of might which helped the Nazis to assert their dominance over racial minorities, also assisted in assisting their police terror state.
Nazi racial policy however, was not crucial to the extent of other factors, to the consolidation of Nazi power. These factors included political intrigue such as the 1933 Enabling Act, allowing Hitler dictatorial powers, as well as the ‘despair and hopelessness’ which Michael Burleigh described as engendered from Weimar ‘instability combined with chronic economic problems’, such problems particularly encompassing the Depression of 1929, which AJP Taylor describes to have ‘put wind in Hitler’s sails’. Each of these key factors, completely disengaged from racial policy, were axiomatic to Hitler’s consolidation of power.
Nazi racial policy was thus not wholly “the” key factor in the consolidation of power to 1939, however it was significant. The ideology which underpinned this was fundamental to the regime, and the policies which constituted Nazi racism did in fact contribute to their assertion of dominance. However, the comparative importance of other factors in fulfilling this function, evidence that it was not necessarily an exclusively axiomatic factor, despite its undeniable importance to the consolidation of Nazi power to 1939.
Just some quick feedback:
- Very good use of historiography: there's not much I could except that Daniel Goldhagen's "Hitler's Willing Executioners" characterisation of German society (whether you agree with it or not -- it can be pretty extreme) makes a good counterfactual if you want to go further down the chicken or egg route of whether Nazi propaganda and rule made Germany antisemitic, or whether antisemitism put Nazis in power. If you're going with the former, it makes a very good case that racial policy was used to polarise German society against an internal enemy that endangered the prosperity of the Volksgemeinschaft, and thus consolidate Nazi power by justifying more restrictions on civil liberties.
- It's good that you gravitated towards a differentiated thesis on this question, because questions from this section of the Germany syllabus (3: Nazism in power or something) are usually designed to give wide scope for interpretation / debate. However, I think you'd be making it quite hard for yourself to disagree much with this specific question. It seems that you've had issues sustaining your thesis. 4/5 of your paragraphs affirm the question (and do a very good job of it, with loads of detail), but your last paragraph is considerably shorter than the other ones and only refers to Hitler's political manipulation vis a vis the Enabling Act and the NSDAP's populism in light of the Great Depression. This is problematic, because both of these could be just as easily used to justify how key racial policy was in consolidating the NSDAP's power -- some of the first political decrees Hitler made after passing the enabling was the dissolution of other parties on the basis of their Jewish membership (basically every party except the NSDAP and the DNVP) and the Law for the Restoration of a Professional Civil Service, which banned Jews from any public office (both of these empowered the NSDAP greatly); and the populism with which Hitler responded to the Depression advocated the nationalisation of Jewish property (which they got around to in 1938 I think). To address this imbalance in your argument, I'd suggest simply changing your thesis to moderately affirm with the question; perhaps with a negative caveat because that would match your current analysis.
- This is a minor thing, but I mention it because my teacher roasted me for leaving it out -- the racial policy went far beyond antisemitism. You can still get very high marks only discussing antisemitism, but because that's all most students centre their essays on this topic around, you'll stand out if you mention the German affirming aspects as well. You've already alluded to it with the Herrenvolk idea, but you could flesh this out: early German nationalism a la the Volkisch movement; Himmler and the SS's weird dungeons and dragons esque fairy tales where they portrayed themselves as the new Teutonic Order, the Liebensborn / Motherhood encouraging programs that accorded certain medals and respect to women who birthed more than 9 children so that Hitler could fulfil his dream of colonising the Ukraine with 20 million Germans in 20 years, etc. These are just minor aspects of the racial policy, but they're good because they intersect with other dot points in this section of the Germany syllabus and make your analysis shine; especially if you argue how they were used to enforce conformity and therefore consolidate Nazi power.
Hope that helps. I really am splitting hairs here because this is already a great essay :)
Post by: jakesilove on July 23, 2017, 01:20:02 pm
Hey, I did this question a few days ago ;D
Just some quick feedback:
- Very good use of historiography: there's not much I could except that Daniel Goldhagen's "Hitler's Willing Executioners" characterisation of German society (whether you agree with it or not -- it can be pretty extreme) makes a good counterfactual if you want to go further down the chicken or egg route of whether Nazi propaganda and rule made Germany antisemitic, or whether antisemitism put Nazis in power. If you're going with the former, it makes a very good case that racial policy was used to polarise German society against an internal enemy that endangered the prosperity of the Volksgemeinschaft, and thus consolidate Nazi power by justifying more restrictions on civil liberties.
- It's good that you gravitated towards a differentiated thesis on this question, because questions from this section of the Germany syllabus (3: Nazism in power or something) are usually designed to give wide scope for interpretation / debate. However, I think you'd be making it quite hard for yourself to disagree much with this specific question. It seems that you've had issues sustaining your thesis. 4/5 of your paragraphs affirm the question (and do a very good job of it, with loads of detail), but your last paragraph is considerably shorter than the other ones and only refers to Hitler's political manipulation vis a vis the Enabling Act and the NSDAP's populism in light of the Great Depression. This is problematic, because both of these could be just as easily used to justify how key racial policy was in consolidating the NSDAP's power -- some of the first political decrees Hitler made after passing the enabling was the dissolution of other parties on the basis of their Jewish membership (basically every party except the NSDAP and the DNVP) and the Law for the Restoration of a Professional Civil Service, which banned Jews from any public office (both of these empowered the NSDAP greatly); and the populism with which Hitler responded to the Depression advocated the nationalisation of Jewish property (which they got around to in 1938 I think). To address this imbalance in your argument, I'd suggest simply changing your thesis to moderately affirm with the question; perhaps with a negative caveat because that would match your current analysis.
- This is a minor thing, but I mention it because my teacher roasted me for leaving it out -- the racial policy went far beyond antisemitism. You can still get very high marks only discussing antisemitism, but because that's all most students centre their essays on this topic around, you'll stand out if you mention the German affirming aspects as well. You've already alluded to it with the Herrenvolk idea, but you could flesh this out: early German nationalism a la the Volkisch movement; Himmler and the SS's weird dungeons and dragons esque fairy tales where they portrayed themselves as the new Teutonic Order, the Liebensborn / Motherhood encouraging programs that accorded certain medals and respect to women who birthed more than 9 children so that Hitler could fulfil his dream of colonising the Ukraine with 20 million Germans in 20 years, etc. These are just minor aspects of the racial policy, but they're good because they intersect with other dot points in this section of the Germany syllabus and make your analysis shine; especially if you argue how they were used to enforce conformity and therefore consolidate Nazi power.
Hope that helps. I really am splitting hairs here because this is already a great essay :)
You. Absolute. Legend. How good is this feedback!
Post by: sudodds on July 23, 2017, 04:51:32 pm
You. Absolute. Legend. How good is this feedback!defs showing us up aye ;) Absolutely amazing feedback, mixel - every one of your (ever growing) posts makes me smile :D
Also dancing phalanges - I'll take a look over your source analysis as soon as I can, don't worry, haven't forgotten about cha ;)
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 23, 2017, 07:32:48 pm
defs showing us up aye ;) Absolutely amazing feedback, mixel - every one of your (ever growing) posts makes me smile :D
Also dancing phalanges - I'll take a look over your source analysis as soon as I can, don't worry, haven't forgotten about cha ;)
Sweet as! Thanks :)
Post by: sudodds on July 24, 2017, 11:02:17 am
Sweet as! Thanks :)hey! I tried opening the dropbox link, however apparently the "folder does not exist?" - almost definitely a case of me not knowing how to use dropbox, but do you think you might be able to send the file to me another way? If it's a case of the document being too big, you can find PDF compressors online for free :)
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 24, 2017, 11:39:47 am
hey! I tried opening the dropbox link, however apparently the "folder does not exist?" - almost definitely a case of me not knowing how to use dropbox, but do you think you might be able to send the file to me another way? If it's a case of the document being too big, you can find PDF compressors online for free :)It still doesn't work after compressing? Do you have an email I can send it to you through at all? :)
Post by: sudodds on July 24, 2017, 11:42:20 am
It still doesn't work after compressing? Do you have an email I can send it to you through at all? :)Would it be possible to upload it to a google drive, then send me the link?
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 24, 2017, 11:55:35 am
Would it be possible to upload it to a google drive, then send me the link?
https://onedrive.live.com/edit.aspx?cid=24ddc0d7a25db4fc&page=view&resid=24DDC0D7A25DB4FC!2798&parId=24DDC0D7A25DB4FC!273&app=Word
copy all of the link, dont know why it cut off
hopefully this works aha
Post by: sudodds on July 25, 2017, 05:31:31 pm
Hi Susie,Okay!! Sorry this took so long to sort out, but here is my feedback :D
Just wondering if you can take a look at my source analysis, especially on making it more succinct and making a stronger argument I guess.
I've attached the 2012 HSC and I'm sure you know where to find the sources that are copyrighted ;)
https://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/hsc_exams/hsc2012exams/pdf_doc/2012-hsc-exam-modern-history.pdf
Thanks!
https://www.dropbox.com/preview/SOURCE%20ANALYSIS%202012.docx?role=personal
Question 2
This is a full mark response, no doubt about that - however you don't need to write this much for it to be a full mark response :) You've most likely spent a bit too long on this question, you could cut out that whole last sentence and I still would have given you 2 marks.
Question 7
- Fairly minor point, but I suggest underlining every time you use the source. Make it as easy for the markers to see your source integration as possible.
- "in saying that" - a bit too colloquial, and looks like you're sitting on the fence. Would prefer - "Despite this..." or "In contrast to..."
- Might sound like weird advice, but I think you potentially integrate the source TOO much. Don't get me wrong - integrating the source is super important! However remember that this question isn't a source analysis - you don't need to analyse source A and C for their usefulness, you just need to use its content to answer the question.
Overall though a great attempt :) I'd give this probably a 6/8, as I think more of your own detail is required.
Question 8 - Source Analysis
- FIRST SENTENCE MUST BE A JUDGEMENT. It must be - you'll lose marks if it isn't. So, "Source A would be (highly/partially) useful to a historian studying recruitment and propaganda in Britain and Germany, as it (explain your judgement)." It's really important that you have a sentence like this, before delving into the content/source type.
- Underline the words "perspective" and "reliability", every time that you use them. Again, just making sure that the marker 100% can see that you're addressing the question.
- Couldn't it be said that the absence of a mention of conscription in regards to the German perspective actually makes the source useful? As it would highlight to a historian that it was not as great of a concern than in Britain due to conscription? Though I personally, outside of source analysis structure, agree with your assessment, the constant back and forth between "useful" and "useless" makes it look as though you are sitting on the fence. I think it'd be better to try and argue that it is "overall" something and mention the limitations.
- Really really strong analysis here. But I want a bit more of a consistent judgement, and that will come from it being at the beginning of your response. At the moment, as I said before, it looks like you're sitting on the fence. What I think you should make your judgement be is "Source A would be partially useful to a historian studying recruitment and propaganda in Britain and Germany, as though it provides a detailed analysis of the role of recruitment, the sources discussion upon the role of propaganda is limited". That is what you're arguing (though I think you need to simplify and try your best to assert that the second perspective is useful for recruitment), but by making this your judgement, it'll look less like you're sitting on the fence.
- You have a judgement for Source D :) Fantastic, but why not Source A?
- Not sure about your first point - 1917 was still pretty far into the war, so I don't think it's usefulness is that limited in this regard.
- Great discussion of how the source is still reliable as evidence of attitudes, despite some factual inconsistencies.
- I think you are perhaps a bit too harsh on sources haha. Not many sources will be able to cover all aspects of the content, however I don't think that is necessarily means a source is of limited usefulness. If the source is focusing on women in the red cross, I don't think that the source is "limited" because it doesn't discuss other occupations. I'd say that the source is still useful, however other sources must be used in conjunction with this source in order to provide a more complete picture :) However, that being said, I LOVE how in depth you are going, I am splitting straws a bit here.
Overall, I'd probably give you an 8/10 :) This was a really good response, and your analysis was great, however you potentially go a bit too far, and sometimes your judgements got a bit confusing because of it. Rather than attempting to dissect every last minute detail of the source, just focus on the bigger picture :)
Great work dancing phalanges! These responses were awesome (I'm quite a hard marker btw, just because I know that in the HSC they can be brutal). Sorry again that it took so long!
Susie
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 25, 2017, 06:07:15 pm
Okay!! Sorry this took so long to sort out, but here is my feedback :D
Question 2
This is a full mark response, no doubt about that - however you don't need to write this much for it to be a full mark response :) You've most likely spent a bit too long on this question, you could cut out that whole last sentence and I still would have given you 2 marks.
Question 7
- Fairly minor point, but I suggest underlining every time you use the source. Make it as easy for the markers to see your source integration as possible.
- "in saying that" - a bit too colloquial, and looks like you're sitting on the fence. Would prefer - "Despite this..." or "In contrast to..."
- Might sound like weird advice, but I think you potentially integrate the source TOO much. Don't get me wrong - integrating the source is super important! However remember that this question isn't a source analysis - you don't need to analyse source A and C for their usefulness, you just need to use its content to answer the question.
Overall though a great attempt :) I'd give this probably a 6/8, as I think more of your own detail is required.
Question 8 - Source Analysis
- FIRST SENTENCE MUST BE A JUDGEMENT. It must be - you'll lose marks if it isn't. So, "Source A would be (highly/partially) useful to a historian studying recruitment and propaganda in Britain and Germany, as it (explain your judgement)." It's really important that you have a sentence like this, before delving into the content/source type.
- Underline the words "perspective" and "reliability", every time that you use them. Again, just making sure that the marker 100% can see that you're addressing the question.
- Couldn't it be said that the absence of a mention of conscription in regards to the German perspective actually makes the source useful? As it would highlight to a historian that it was not as great of a concern than in Britain due to conscription? Though I personally, outside of source analysis structure, agree with your assessment, the constant back and forth between "useful" and "useless" makes it look as though you are sitting on the fence. I think it'd be better to try and argue that it is "overall" something and mention the limitations.
- Really really strong analysis here. But I want a bit more of a consistent judgement, and that will come from it being at the beginning of your response. At the moment, as I said before, it looks like you're sitting on the fence. What I think you should make your judgement be is "Source A would be partially useful to a historian studying recruitment and propaganda in Britain and Germany, as though it provides a detailed analysis of the role of recruitment, the sources discussion upon the role of propaganda is limited". That is what you're arguing (though I think you need to simplify and try your best to assert that the second perspective is useful for recruitment), but by making this your judgement, it'll look less like you're sitting on the fence.
- You have a judgement for Source D :) Fantastic, but why not Source A?
- Not sure about your first point - 1917 was still pretty far into the war, so I don't think it's usefulness is that limited in this regard.
- Great discussion of how the source is still reliable as evidence of attitudes, despite some factual inconsistencies.
- I think you are perhaps a bit too harsh on sources haha. Not many sources will be able to cover all aspects of the content, however I don't think that is necessarily means a source is of limited usefulness. If the source is focusing on women in the red cross, I don't think that the source is "limited" because it doesn't discuss other occupations. I'd say that the source is still useful, however other sources must be used in conjunction with this source in order to provide a more complete picture :) However, that being said, I LOVE how in depth you are going, I am splitting straws a bit here.
Overall, I'd probably give you an 8/10 :) This was a really good response, and your analysis was great, however you potentially go a bit too far, and sometimes your judgements got a bit confusing because of it. Rather than attempting to dissect every last minute detail of the source, just focus on the bigger picture :)
Great work dancing phalanges! These responses were awesome (I'm quite a hard marker btw, just because I know that in the HSC they can be brutal). Sorry again that it took so long!
Susie
Hey yeah sorry I always do a judgement at the start I was just basing it off an example source analysis I saw which started with the origins of the source. other than that i 100% agree i need to argue more than sit on the fence, definitely agree. and in terms of being not as reliable because it doesnt give a full view haha i think i did that because my brother did that on all his exams but i understand if thats too harsh. and also thanks for the feedback r.e using your own knowledge more, i understand the need for balance more now thanks for the feedback much appreciated! :)
Post by: sudodds on July 25, 2017, 08:00:31 pm
Hey yeah sorry I always do a judgement at the start I was just basing it off an example source analysis I saw which started with the origins of the source. other than that i 100% agree i need to argue more than sit on the fence, definitely agree. and in terms of being not as reliable because it doesnt give a full view haha i think i did that because my brother did that on all his exams but i understand if thats too harsh. and also thanks for the feedback r.e using your own knowledge more, i understand the need for balance more now thanks for the feedback much appreciated! :)No worries! So glad you found it helpful :) Sounds like that example source analysis was using a structure like TOMCARUP or OMCAPUR (yuck :P). Very common in junior history, but I'd personally avoid it like the plague for HSC Modern ;)
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 25, 2017, 08:10:05 pm
No worries! So glad you found it helpful :) Sounds like that example source analysis was using a structure like TOMCARUP or OMCAPUR (yuck :P). Very common in junior history, but I'd personally avoid it like the plague for HSC Modern ;)
Yep that was it haha! Luckily there are experts at ATAR Notes to help ;)
Post by: elysepopplewell on July 26, 2017, 05:37:32 pm
Not to fear - you still have 48 hours to post your work and we will get to marking them even after the threads are locked (if there's backlog).
We'll still be here to help you during the trials with all of our Q+A threads, downloadable notes, and so on. Thanks for understanding! We're still here to help on all of the boards that aren't marking threads! :)
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 26, 2017, 05:47:21 pm
Hey all, in 48 hours from now we will be locking these marking threads for the trial period. The two main reasons being, we want to be able to help lots of students in the time it takes to mark an essay/creative (usually 30-45 minutes at least) while lots of students need the help during trials, and also because feedback becomes less constructive with minimal time until the exam because we want to avoid panicking you with big changes, so the feedback isn't as worthwhile for you.
Not to fear - you still have 48 hours to post your work and we will get to marking them even after the threads are locked (if there's backlog).
We'll still be here to help you during the trials with all of our Q+A threads, downloadable notes, and so on. Thanks for understanding! We're still here to help on all of the boards that aren't marking threads! :)
Hey Elyse could you possibly look at my Extension English creative if I post it in the appropiate thread :)
Post by: elysepopplewell on July 26, 2017, 05:53:11 pm
Hey Elyse could you possibly look at my Extension English creative if I post it in the appropiate thread :)
If you do so before Friday 5pm, absolutely :)
Post by: dancing phalanges on July 26, 2017, 06:21:43 pm
If you do so before Friday 5pm, absolutely :)
Just posted it then, just have some concerns with what my teacher wrote which I do not entirely agree with but at the same time do realise that I in effect should be doing everything he says since he is marking it :) Any feedback would be much appreciated!
Post by: Ishodinkha17 on September 03, 2017, 10:25:48 pm
To what extent were the dictatorships in Germany and Italy responsible for the growth of European tensions?
It is clear that during the decade which preceded the outbreak of the Second World War, two dictators rose to power, Adolf Hitler of Germany and Benito Mussolini of Italy. The expansionist and fascist ideals of both dictators was the impetus for the growth of tension in Europe, till the outbreak. However, despite their primary responsibility in the formulation of these tensions, these tensions did not equate directly to the outbreak of war, but instead hold a catalytic significance to a number of events which led to the outbreak of war in Europe in 1939, namely the failure of the League of Nations, the policy of appeasement and the significance of the Nazi-Soviet Non Aggression Pact.
Adolf Hitler became German Fuhrer in 1934, and granted himself the dictatorship of Germany. His aggressive foreign policy and motives behind the expansion of the German Empire (known as Lebensraum) significantly influenced his actions in instigating tensions. Hitler’s foreign policy was based upon avenging the injustices of the Treaty of Versailles on Germany and retuning the empire to its former glory. As such, his actions were expansionist and imperialist, with the continual annexation of ‘rightful German territory’. Hitler’s remilitarisation of the Rhineland in 1936, the ‘Anschluss’ of the late 1930s and the occupation of the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia were all catalytic, aggressive actions, which, having met no resistance, signalled the imminence of war. Hitler’s belief or ‘lebensraum’ (living space), which he referred to in his diary ‘Mein Kampf’ and the power of the ‘Volkgemeinschaft’ (pure German racial power in Europe); instigated his aggressive expansionist motives. Similarly, however to a lesser degree, Mussolini’s empirical motives through the revival of the Roman Empire, led him to invade Abyssinia and neighbouring countries, as did Hitler and Mussolini both had a powerfully catalytic effect on the creation and growth of tensions leading up to 1939. Their aggressive, fascist and expansionist actions inaugurates them as a focal part of the outbreak of war. Furthermore, the powerlessness of the League, intended arbiter of collective security, in preventing Italy’s Abyssinian invasion and German and Italian interference in the Spanish Civil War, allowed Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler to assert their dominance by claiming territories and extensively, militarising, thereby exacerbating European tensions. The lack of political consensus and military resources undermined any capacity for the League to enforce collective security. Additionally, failed attempts to appease Germany, allowed expansion of its’ militaristic and territorial dominance, thus heightening European animosity. The League’s intended aim of collective security failed due to the nationalistic priorities of member nations, which destroyed the possibility of mutual peace and sparked European conflict. Following 1919, the internationalist ideal of peace ensured by member nations collectively defending victims of aggression, was an impractical notion for world peace. A desire for security and national economic prosperity spawned support for Nationalist Conservatives and burgeoning fascist movements.
Appeasement was a major foreign policy that was used with little success by nations such as France and Britain against the aggressive powers Germany and Italy. It allowed for them to develop into states that were prepared for international conflict and empowered by the apparent weakness of the international community. It allowed the aggressors to rearm and gain territorial advantage over the eventual allied powers, greatly influencing their ability to go to war during the 1940s. Appeasement during and after the Second World War has been viewed exceptionally negatively, saying that it was one of the main causes of the war. Appeasement at the time, however, did seem like the logical solution. Britain and France were in no position to go to war to defend the Treaty of Versailles after the Great Depression, and the British public viewed many of Hitler’s policies as reasonable, with him simply restoring some of Germany’s liberties as a sovereign nation. This included allowing Germany to increase its military assets through rearmament in 1935. Hitler, during the period obtained support by building upon the Western’s world anti-communist sentiments, showing that Germany would need to fend them off to prevent the spread into Europe. He also attempted to gain support through the concept of equality, saying that Germany had the right to protect itself like any other nation. This led to the Allies seeing rearmament as inevitable, rather than something that could be controlled. Similar arguments were used for conscription, receiving only a minor protest from Britain, James Levy suggests that this helped to increase Germany and Italy’s potential for war, especially through allowances such as the Anglo-German Naval Agreement in 1935, allowing for the Kriegsmarine to grow to 35% of the size of the Royal Navy. Had the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles been followed, war would have been inevitably prevented from occurring, thus removing the opportunity for Germany to have waged war in Europe. Historian WN Medlicott states in ‘The Coming of War’ (1939); ‘Throughout, from the days of Mein Kampf until 1944, the objective was the black-soil region of Russia and east Europe generally, as living space for German colonists’. WN Medlicott argues the line that Hitler never wavered in his long term aims but that like Bismarck, he was an opportunist, willing to change policy along the way if the situation demanded. Medlicott argues that there is a consistency in Hitler’s thinking from the days of Mein Kampf to the Hossbach Memorandum to his wartime table-talk. Therefore, it is clear that the policy of appeasement contributed to the growth of European tensions.
The principle of collective security was the great idealistic hope of the inter-war period. It was believed that the powers, working through the League of Nations, could work together to prevent aggression and the chain of events which had led to war in 1914. Collective security collapsed, unable to handle the realities of European and world politics. This collapse meant there was no means to stop the aggression of the Axis powers whose actions increased the tensions in Europe. The only response to this aggression came in the form of appeasement which was doomed to fail. The League of Nations was split into three structures including the Council, Assembly and the Secretariat. However, the League of Nations failed due to relying on the principle of ‘internationalism’, the notion that nations would sacrifice selfish national gain for the common good. The League’s aim of disarmament rested on a fatal contradiction. Article 8 called for powers to disarm to a level consistent with national safety. Collective security was unable to function die to the realities of European and world politics. The failure of collective security enabled the dictators to act without fear of any retribution. Each action of Hitler and Mussolini further acted to heighten tensions in Europe. Manchuria showed them the way.
Hitler and Stalin signed a Non-Aggression Pact due to Britain’s guarantee to Poland made a war in the west inevitable. Hopefully, Hitler would exhaust himself against France and Britain. A deal with Hitler would give Stalin a share of Poland and provide a security buffer between Germany and Russia. With Hitler busy in the west, Russia would have time to consolidate and strengthen its forces. The Soviet Union could be dealt with once the western nations had been defeated and neutralising the Soviet Union would avoid getting into the mess Germany found itself in July/August 1914. The Nazi-Soviet Non Aggression Pact was officially signed on the 23rd of August, 1939. Germany and the Soviet Union signed a ten year non-aggression pact. This pact was significant as it was the catalyst for the German invasion into Poland. Article 2 stated; “If either Germany or Russia become involved in a war with a third power, the other would not get involved”, for example if Germany invade Poland, Russia would not intervene. Article 7 stated; “The agreement would take immediate effect”. The Nazi-Soviet Pact significantly contained secret protocols which created German and Soviet spheres of influence. Germany would receive western Poland and Lithuania. The Soviet Union would receive Estonia, Latvia, Finland and Romania. Phillip Bell states in the Origins of the Second World War in Europe; “Instead of risk a war, they could offer certain neutrality ... spheres of influence and were ready to carve up Poland .. the Germans could deliver the goods forthwith, whereas the British and French could deliver nothing. Bell poses the questions, why did Stalin choose the Germans over the British and French in August 1939. He places much of the blame on Britain’s hesitancy, lack of seriousness and its distrust of Stalin. However, he argues that the decisive reason was that Hitler offered Stalin what he wanted, and offered it immeadiatly. Stalin was involved in skirmishes with Japan in the far east. The last thing he needed was a two-front war. He sought certain neutrality and hoped for a band of states in eastern Europe which could provide some security to the Soviet state.
To conclude, it is clear that the failure of the League of Nations, the policy of appeasement and the signing of the Nazi-Soviet Non Aggression Pact significantly contributed to the growth of tensions in Europe. The following factors as listed above contributed to both Germany and Italy seizing power and allowed for them to expand their empires.
Post by: sudodds on September 04, 2017, 08:43:35 am
Hello Could you please mark my Conflict in Europe essay?Hey Ishodinkha17! Happy to have a look over your essay, but first you'll need to reach 25 posts! 25 posts = 1 essay marked :) Really easy to do, just ask some questions, maybe answer some, contribute to discussion, etc, etc. :) Let me know when you've reached the post quota, and I'll get to marking your response ASAP!
Susie
Post by: harry77 on September 08, 2017, 07:18:36 am
I have a question on Albert Speer- The significance of an individual is created more by themselves than by the events of their life. How accurate is this statement in relation to the personality you have studied and their period of national or international history?
i have decided to agree with the question and have broken my paragraphs into significance of himself
P1: architecture
P2: Armaments Minister
P3: Scorched Earth Policy
P4: Nuremberg Trials
Do you think this is sufficient in answering the question of his prominence.? Can you please help? ;D ;D
Post by: sudodds on October 04, 2017, 12:26:39 pm
HelloHey! What exactly are you struggling with when it comes to the personality study response :)
i need some help with albert speer essay writing
Post by: Korrasami on October 07, 2017, 02:07:28 pm
Source A would be highly useful for a historian studying the impact of the war on women's lives and experiences in Britain as it is a primary poster encouraging women to enlist in the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps, to ensure more men engage in the battle efforts. As a poster however, it is limited in providing excessive information such as what roles women played in the WAAC, however the source still proves to be a valuable source for the historian when used in conjunction with other sources to gain a greater understanding of the impact of war on women's lives in Britain. Due to the source being a British government poster, its reliability is upheld as the historian is able to gain a British perspective which is vital for a historian studying the impact of war on women in Britain, which therefore establishes its usefulness.
Source B would also be highly useful for a historian studying the impact of the war on women's lives and experiences in Britain, as it reveals the roles, conditions women experienced when undergoing work in munition factories, providing information on the wages and the differing views of women working in munition factories. Furthermore, this source is highly useful as it a book entailing historical detail, which has been peer-reviewed to ensure any non-factual information has not been included, therefore increasing its reliability, despite being a secondary source. Moreover, as the source is being told from a British perspective, it increases its usefulness for the historian wanting to learn about women's lives in Britain. However, assessing its limitations show that it does not mention the impact and experiences of women outside munition factories, however it still useful when used in conjunction with other sources to gain a greater understanding. Nevertheless, the source still ensures its usefulness to an historian studying the impact of war on women's lives and experiences in Britain.
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 07, 2017, 02:13:12 pm
Can anyone please mark my source analysis from the 2016 paper?
Source A would be highly useful for a historian studying the impact of the war on women's lives and experiences in Britain as it is a primary poster encouraging women to enlist in the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps, to ensure more men engage in the battle efforts. As a poster however, it is limited in providing excessive information such as what roles women played in the WAAC, however the source still proves to be a valuable source for the historian when used in conjunction with other sources to gain a greater understanding of the impact of war on women's lives in Britain. Due to the source being a British government poster, its reliability is upheld as the historian is able to gain a British perspective which is vital for a historian studying the impact of war on women in Britain, which therefore establishes its usefulness.
Source B would also be highly useful for a historian studying the impact of the war on women's lives and experiences in Britain, as it reveals the roles, conditions women experienced when undergoing work in munition factories, providing information on the wages and the differing views of women working in munition factories. Furthermore, this source is highly useful as it a book entailing historical detail, which has been peer-reviewed to ensure any non-factual information has not been included, therefore increasing its reliability, despite being a secondary source. Moreover, as the source is being told from a British perspective, it increases its usefulness for the historian wanting to learn about women's lives in Britain. However, assessing its limitations show that it does not mention the impact and experiences of women outside munition factories, however it still useful when used in conjunction with other sources to gain a greater understanding. Nevertheless, the source still ensures its usefulness to an historian studying the impact of war on women's lives and experiences in Britain.
Do you have a copy of the exam as all the sources are copyrighted?
Post by: Korrasami on October 07, 2017, 02:27:13 pm
Do you have a copy of the exam as all the sources are copyrighted?
Here's the link: http://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/wcm/connect/2798031b-db0c-4098-b049-067d26fff4a9/2016-hsc-modern-history.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=ROOTWORKSPACE-2798031b-db0c-4098-b049-067d26fff4a9-lEmx5SX
The source booklet is at the bottom of the page. Some of the sources you can view
Post by: dancing phalanges on October 07, 2017, 03:12:51 pm
Can anyone please mark my source analysis from the 2016 paper?
Source A would be highly useful for a historian studying the impact of the war on women's lives and experiences in Britain as it is a primary poster encouraging women to enlist in the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps, to ensure more men engage in the battle efforts. As a poster however, it is limited in providing excessive information such as what roles women played in the WAAC, however the source still proves to be a valuable source for the historian when used in conjunction with other sources to gain a greater understanding of the impact of war on women's lives in Britain. Due to the source being a British government poster, its reliability is upheld as the historian is able to gain a British perspective which is vital for a historian studying the impact of war on women in Britain, which therefore establishes its usefulness.
Source B would also be highly useful for a historian studying the impact of the war on women's lives and experiences in Britain, as it reveals the roles, conditions women experienced when undergoing work in munition factories, providing information on the wages and the differing views of women working in munition factories. Furthermore, this source is highly useful as it a book entailing historical detail, which has been peer-reviewed to ensure any non-factual information has not been included, therefore increasing its reliability, despite being a secondary source. Moreover, as the source is being told from a British perspective, it increases its usefulness for the historian wanting to learn about women's lives in Britain. However, assessing its limitations show that it does not mention the impact and experiences of women outside munition factories, however it still useful when used in conjunction with other sources to gain a greater understanding. Nevertheless, the source still ensures its usefulness to an historian studying the impact of war on women's lives and experiences in Britain.
Okay sweet, Susie can probably provide better feedback but mainly I would say for Source A, it is of limited usefulness in my opinion as you have said, it does not specify the impact of the WAAC on women and would thus, only be useful to historians in that it is an example of a way women in Britain were given employment and contributed to the war effort, yet as you have said, a historian would need to study this in conjunction with other sources to gain a better understanding of the impact of the war on women in Britain. Also, with perspective, as it is from the perspective of the British Government it is likely propaganda, and thus displays the impact of the WAAC on women in a positive light. As such, it is limited in its usefulness for historians studying the negative impact of the WAAC on women such as the risk of artillery shelling as while they did not actively participate in combat, they were close enough to the front line to be at risk.
For Source B, I would make the distinction clearer that it is more useful than Source A as it presents both the positive and negative impacts of war on women. With perspective, you could mention it is from the perspective of a historian specifically rather than saying it is from a historical book - only a small thing just so you are mentioning perspective more. To your criticism of the source, I agree it is limited in that it only discusses munitions but maybe just double check with Susie as obviously sources generally don't have info relating to everything. I think it should be fine but I would double check :)
Post by: Korrasami on October 07, 2017, 04:07:31 pm
Okay sweet, Susie can probably provide better feedback but mainly I would say for Source A, it is of limited usefulness in my opinion as you have said, it does not specify the impact of the WAAC on women and would thus, only be useful to historians in that it is an example of a way women in Britain were given employment and contributed to the war effort, yet as you have said, a historian would need to study this in conjunction with other sources to gain a better understanding of the impact of the war on women in Britain. Also, with perspective, as it is from the perspective of the British Government it is likely propaganda, and thus displays the impact of the WAAC on women in a positive light. As such, it is limited in its usefulness for historians studying the negative impact of the WAAC on women such as the risk of artillery shelling as while they did not actively participate in combat, they were close enough to the front line to be at risk.
For Source B, I would make the distinction clearer that it is more useful than Source A as it presents both the positive and negative impacts of war on women. With perspective, you could mention it is from the perspective of a historian specifically rather than saying it is from a historical book - only a small thing just so you are mentioning perspective more. To your criticism of the source, I agree it is limited in that it only discusses munitions but maybe just double check with Susie as obviously sources generally don't have info relating to everything. I think it should be fine but I would double check :)
Thanks heaps! You definitely mentioned things that I could've mentioned! Hopefully Susie can have a look at it, I like having differing feedbacks! :D