Hi there!
Great work on your 10 marker so far. I think you have some brilliant ideas and you really understand the content well.
I have written some feedback in the spoiler below. While I didn't do the new syllabus, I did study Nazi Germany so hopefully my advice is of use.
Spoiler
- I think your thesis is good! You have identified two very important factors in the rise of the Nazi Party, but I wonder if perhaps it's a little too narrow? I haven't seen the two sources, so I don't know if there was room to discuss it (and obviously this is subject to interpretation), but one of the most important factors was actually the contextual problems that Hitler made use of, such as the Great Depression. Perhaps if you could have woven that into the thesis (maybe in the second sentence) it would have demonstrated your depth of understanding more.. For example, you could have argued that he used his excellent control of rhetoric to capitalise on the worsening conditions that Germany was facing, which consequently gave rise to public support for the Nazis.)
- As for structure – because it's a 10 marker which asks you to deal with TWO sources, I would suggest having two body paragraphs. One discussing his rhetoric (Source B) and one discussing his cult of personality (Source C). Your argument will seem much clearer and easier for the marker to give you the marks you deserve.
- While your first sentence of the body paragraph shows your extreme wealth of knowledge (you've included some great detail) I always recommend that you start with a topic sentence. For example, "Hitler's effective use of rhetoric and propaganda was a fundamental factor which contributed to the rise of the Nazi Party." Then, you would include your first sentence, "Hitler joined the party..."
- I like that you've integrated Ian Kershaw's argument as your own. It shows sophistication that you were able to use it to back up your own argument rather than just including it because you had to. I would draw it into your argument a little more by continuing with something like, "The importance of Hitler's rhetoric in the gaining of support, as proven in Source B, is further seen in ...." Here, you would include some more of your own knowledge and more facts. I would definitely suggest building on this first argument about rhetoric some more, seeing as you should be splitting this one big paragraph into two – one about rhetoric and one about cult of personality.
- I don't think your argument about cult of personality is as strong as your point about rhetoric, as you only really mention it once and then move on to describe Hitler's legal consolidation of power, not rise to power. I don't think that argument fits the question (or your thesis) as much, so perhaps you should write some more about Hitler's cult of personality (which seems to be demonstrated in Source C) and analyse some relevant detail about that instead.
- Your use of detail is really great! You include lots of dates (but I do think that Hindenburg died in 1934, not 1924, that must have just been a typo!) and have lots of knowledge about the actual events. My suggestion is to just clarify your argument more and use the great amount of detail you have to analyse, not just describe.
Overall, great effort! You should be commended for doing practice responses in the holidays! Nice job.
If you need any more help, please feel free to let me know.
Darcy :)