Modern History Essay Marking

[sudodds]

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

[dancing phalanges]

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?

[sudodds]

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?

[dancing phalanges]

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

[sudodds]

Hi Susie,
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

Okay!! Sorry this took so long to sort out, but here is my feedback

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

[dancing phalanges]

Okay!! Sorry this took so long to sort out, but here is my feedback

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!

[sudodds]

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 ). Very common in junior history, but I'd personally avoid it like the plague for HSC Modern

[dancing phalanges]

No worries! So glad you found it helpful Sounds like that example source analysis was using a structure like TOMCARUP or OMCAPUR (yuck ). 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

[elysepopplewell]

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!

[dancing phalanges]

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

[elysepopplewell]

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

[dancing phalanges]

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!

[Ishodinkha17]

Hello Could you please mark my Conflict in Europe essay?

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.
 

[sudodds]

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

[harry77]

Hello

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?