Modern History Essay Marking

[sudodds]

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 Seank!

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 Lucky you have someone like dancing phalanges' around though to give you some pointers in the meantime - their feedback is A+++++

[mixel]

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.

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

[sudodds]

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.

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

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.

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 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 Hope everything is working out okay both in theory and practice for ya

Susie

[mixel]

Spoiler

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.

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 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 Hope everything is working out okay both in theory and practice for ya

Susie

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.

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 

[sudodds]

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.

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 

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

[mixel]

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?

[sudodds]

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...

[jelena]

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!

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.

[dancing phalanges]

Spoiler

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!

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)

[sudodds]

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

[dancing phalanges]

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

[mixel]

Spoiler

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!

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 did this question a few days ago 
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 

[jakesilove]

Hey, I did this question a few days ago 
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!

[sudodds]

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

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

[dancing phalanges]

defs showing us up aye Absolutely amazing feedback, mixel - every one of your (ever growing) posts makes me smile

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