Modern History Essay Marking

[Newbalance101]

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?

[jakesilove]

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!

[rodero]

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

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.

[sudodds]

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.

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.

[rodero]

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.

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 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!

[sudodds]

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

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.

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!

Overall, thank you so, so much for the feedback! It will be HIGHLY beneficial for the exam tomorrow P.S I love the word geo-political, i'll put it in

I see what you did there

[mixel]

I've seen a lot of discussion about different types of essays on AN, like "differentiated" and "syllabus", etc.

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!

[sudodds]

I've seen a lot of discussion about different types of essays on AN, like "differentiated" and "syllabus", etc.

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!

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.

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

[mixel]

Thanks! That's a lot more self explanatory than I thought haha

[sudodds]

Thanks! That's a lot more self explanatory than I thought haha

No 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!

[dancing phalanges]

Hey,
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

[sudodds]

Hey,
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

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!

[dancing phalanges]

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

[Seank]

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 .

[dancing phalanges]

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 .

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!