Login | Register
Enrol now for our new online tutoring program. Learn from the best tutors. Get amazing results. Learn more.

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

January 21, 2021, 12:35:59 am

Author Topic: Modern History Essay Marking  (Read 54202 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Laura.lopresti

  • Fresh Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Modern History Essay Marking
« Reply #15 on: February 28, 2016, 07:30:06 pm »
Hi, would you mind reading my intro and conclusion to help improve it... topic is Germany :) thanks
the question is To what extent did weakness in the Weimar Republic account for the growth and rise to power of the Nazi Party to 1933?

Intro: Germany’s Weimar Republic (1919-1933) had numerous flaws and weaknesses, which were vital for the growth and rise of the Nazi Party. A major frailty of the Weimar Republic was the way it formed, and constitutional flaws. These led to the army and key political groups opposing the Republic. Oppositions to Weimar included the NSPAD (Nazis), and allowed for their growth throughout the 1920s. It was predominantly the failing economic of the Weimar Republic that led to the extreme impact of the Great Depression, allowing the NSPAD to gain power.

conclusion: Without weaknesses in the Weimar Republic the Nazi Party would not have come to power in 1933. It was because of the constitutional flaws, including the abuse of article 22 and 48 by Presidents, that the army, along with major political groups including the Nazis, opposed the Republic. Finally, the failing economy during the Weimar period resulted from the unrealistic expectations of the Treaty of Versailles, and the harsh impact of the Great Depression. This forced German citizens to take extreme measures and support the NSPAD, which allowed Hitler to gain control of Germany in 1933.

jakesilove

  • HSC Lecturer
  • Honorary Moderator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *******
  • Posts: 1941
  • "Synergising your ATAR potential"
Re: Modern History Essay Marking
« Reply #16 on: February 28, 2016, 10:32:12 pm »
Hi, would you mind reading my intro and conclusion to help improve it... topic is Germany :) thanks
the question is To what extent did weakness in the Weimar Republic account for the growth and rise to power of the Nazi Party to 1933?

Intro: Germany’s Weimar Republic (1919-1933) had numerous flaws and weaknesses, which were vital for the growth and rise of the Nazi Party. A major frailty of the Weimar Republic was the way it formed, and constitutional flaws. These led to the army and key political groups opposing the Republic. Oppositions to Weimar included the NSPAD (Nazis), and allowed for their growth throughout the 1920s. It was predominantly the failing economic of the Weimar Republic that led to the extreme impact of the Great Depression, allowing the NSPAD to gain power.

conclusion: Without weaknesses in the Weimar Republic the Nazi Party would not have come to power in 1933. It was because of the constitutional flaws, including the abuse of article 22 and 48 by Presidents, that the army, along with major political groups including the Nazis, opposed the Republic. Finally, the failing economy during the Weimar period resulted from the unrealistic expectations of the Treaty of Versailles, and the harsh impact of the Great Depression. This forced German citizens to take extreme measures and support the NSPAD, which allowed Hitler to gain control of Germany in 1933.

Hey!

Below are my comments. Hope you find them helpful! I only really included things that I think you should correct, so don't get too put off by all the red!

Original Intro/Conclusion:

Spoiler
Intro: Germany’s Weimar Republic (1919-1933) had numerous flaws and weaknesses, which were vital for the growth and rise of the Nazi Party. A major frailty of the Weimar Republic was the way it formed, and constitutional flaws. These led to the army and key political groups opposing the Republic. Oppositions to Weimar included the NSPAD (Nazis), and allowed for their growth throughout the 1920s. It was predominantly the failing economic of the Weimar Republic that led to the extreme impact of the Great Depression, allowing the NSPAD to gain power.

conclusion: Without weaknesses in the Weimar Republic the Nazi Party would not have come to power in 1933. It was because of the constitutional flaws, including the abuse of article 22 and 48 by Presidents, that the army, along with major political groups including the Nazis, opposed the Republic. Finally, the failing economy during the Weimar period resulted from the unrealistic expectations of the Treaty of Versailles, and the harsh impact of the Great Depression. This forced German citizens to take extreme measures and support the NSPAD, which allowed Hitler to gain control of Germany in 1933.

Intro/Conclusion with comments:
Spoiler
Intro: Germany’s Weimar Republic (1919-1933) It is definitely better to just say "The Weimar Republic", just because everyone knows that we are discussing German history had numerous flaws and weaknesses, which were vital for the growth and rise of the Nazi Party. A major frailty of the Weimar Republic was the way it formed, and constitutional flaws. Whilst obviously you can't discuss your entire thesis in the introduction, it is still worth expanding your points a little bit. "Constitutional flaws, namely Article 48" etc. etc. These led to the army and key political groups opposing the Republic. Which key political groups? Other than the Nazis? Oppositions to Weimar included the NSPAD (Nazis) Don't put Nazis in brackets, and it is the NSDAP, and allowed for their growth throughout the 1920s. This sentence doesn't really make sense. How did their opposition allow for their growth? Perhaps make it clear: "From a political perspective, by actively opposing every facet of the Weimar Republic, the NSDAP were able to gain national coverage and prestige, playing to the German people's fear of a failed state. It was predominantly the failing economic of the Weimar Republic that led to the extreme impact of the Great Depression, allowing the NSPAD to gain power. If this is the case, can you really say that it was the flaws of the Weimar Republic that caused the rise of the NSDAP? According to your last sentence, it was in fact international economic issues that brought them to power, something hard to attribute to the leaders of Weimar. Rethink this last point if you want to maintain your current thesis.

conclusion: Without weaknesses in the Weimar Republic the Nazi Party would not have come to power in 1933. You shouldn't make these kinds of sweeping conclusions in History. It may have been a factor, sure, but to say that it directly and absolutely caused the rise of the NSDAP is probably a bit presumptuous. Stick to "was a significant factor in" etc. It was because of the constitutional flaws, including the abuse of article 22 and 48 by Presidents, that the army, along with major political groups including the Nazis, opposed the Republic. Great! Specific enough, but also general. Finally, the failing economy during the Weimar period resulted from the unrealistic expectations of the Treaty of Versailles, and the harsh impact of the Great Depression. Linking the Ruhr crisis (presumably the first half of the sentence) with flaws due to Versailles is good, but again I would rethink your thesis regarding the GD.This forced German citizens to take extreme measures and support the NSPAD, which allowed Hitler to gain control of Germany in 1933. So the German people had no choice but to support the Nazi party? Probably tone this down a bit.

I think you need to spend some time going over your thesis, strengthening the sections I've pointed out above and deciding whether you can perhaps include a little bit more nuance. For instance, saying that innate flaws in the Republic (caused by Versailles, amongst other things) aided in the rise of the NSDAP, however the GD (which was not caused directly by failures of the Republic) also had a solidifying impact on their capture of power. Still, your knowledge of the time period is very good, and I can see a great introduction and conclusion coming! Just clear up what you are actually trying to say, and this will turn into a really top level response :)
ATAR: 99.80

Mathematics Extension 2: 93
Physics: 93
Chemistry: 93
Modern History: 94
English Advanced: 95
Mathematics: 96
Mathematics Extension 1: 98

Studying a combined Advanced Science/Law degree at UNSW

jakesilove

  • HSC Lecturer
  • Honorary Moderator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *******
  • Posts: 1941
  • "Synergising your ATAR potential"
Re: Modern History Essay Marking
« Reply #17 on: February 29, 2016, 10:49:12 pm »
Hey! This is an answer I've just had peer reviewed a few times and just do't seem to be able to get to stick. Do you mind checking to see if it's a logical, sustained argument and that I haven't accidentally managed to get some very important fact wrong? If you don't mind, that is?
Obviously the bibliography and other assorted referencing isn't here... but yeah...https://docs.google.com/a/parrastu.catholic.edu.au/document/d/1Om1LkJ7FDEh6pAByloXu-72aun01V3xEAAYVj1c3aOk/edit?usp=sharing 

thanks!

Hey Matilda!

Because you've linked the essay as a google doc, I would have to request access in order to look at it. Would you mind attaching the essay as a word document, or copying and pasting it into one of these replies? Then, I can get onto it straight away and have it marked asap!

Jake
ATAR: 99.80

Mathematics Extension 2: 93
Physics: 93
Chemistry: 93
Modern History: 94
English Advanced: 95
Mathematics: 96
Mathematics Extension 1: 98

Studying a combined Advanced Science/Law degree at UNSW

CatherineSchweinsberg

  • Fresh Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • School: Springwood High School
  • School Grad Year: 2017
Re: Modern History Essay Marking
« Reply #18 on: March 02, 2016, 08:21:04 pm »
Hey, this is my essay! It's for my historical investigation which I'm doing on the social impacts of the British Raj. The problem is, it needs to be 1,500 words but I'm about 250 words over and I don't know how to cut it down. I'm wondering if I'm analysing my sources correctly. Thanks  :D

CatherineSchweinsberg

  • Fresh Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • School: Springwood High School
  • School Grad Year: 2017
Re: Modern History Essay Marking
« Reply #19 on: March 02, 2016, 08:27:05 pm »
Hey, I'm not sure if I remembered to attach my essay into the last post, so that's useful...
This is my historical investigation but the problem is, it's supposed to be 1500 words and I'm 250 over. Feedback for the whole thing in general would be great, but especially for the analysis of sources and stuff. thanks!  :D

jakesilove

  • HSC Lecturer
  • Honorary Moderator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *******
  • Posts: 1941
  • "Synergising your ATAR potential"
Re: Modern History Essay Marking
« Reply #20 on: March 03, 2016, 11:21:42 am »
Hey, I'm not sure if I remembered to attach my essay into the last post, so that's useful...
This is my historical investigation but the problem is, it's supposed to be 1500 words and I'm 250 over. Feedback for the whole thing in general would be great, but especially for the analysis of sources and stuff. thanks!  :D

Hey Catherine!

So I didn't actually do this time period, but I'll still take a look through the essay! Sorry if some of my comments don't make sense: if it's due to my lack of knowledge of the topic area, you should totally ignore me!

Original essay:
Spoiler
Assess the positive impacts of western ideas in reforming Indian society during the British Raj

   The British Raj was the period of British domination over India in which many changes were made to the structure of Indian society. From 1858, Britain initiated a strong impact over how the country ran, which resulted in a westernised India. Eventually, Britain introduced western culture through literature, religion, the media and British citizens themselves. British individuals and groups evoked a variety of reforms and laws that positively affected the Indian people’s lives. Having said that, Britain didn’t just change Indian society for the better. From the point of view of an Indian citizen, Britain may have damaged and threatened the traditional cultures and beliefs of pre-colonial India. Britain had altered Indian society to a certain extent by introducing the value of education, improving the lives of Indian women, impacting the caste system and causing a growth of nationalism, whether it was intentional or not. These impacts modernised India and in some cases overall benefitted the social structure of Indian society.

     Social reforms were created by the British to improve the condition of women in Indian society. Before the reforms, women were being treated as unequal and had to maintain the standards of social expectations by submitting themselves to the harming religious practices, such as Sati. Lord William Bentinck, the Governor General in India worked closely with Raja Ram Mohan Roy, to create social reforms to improve the condition of Indian women in society. Raja Ram Mohan Roy was an influential figure in India, who spread ideas of freedom and rights through the newspaper, books, treaties and organized protests.  He and Bentinck successfully eradicated social evils affecting women in society, including the practice of Sati. Sati involves the burning of the widow on the late husband’s pyre, so she can be with him after death. In traditional Hindu beliefs, the practice was thought to signify female purity and valour, though in most cases the women was not willing to die. Lord Bentinck’s primary objective of removing the practice from society was to benefit the Hindu population in the long term. Since he was governor general, all he had to do was write a letter to create a change in law, in his document on the Suppression of Sati on the 8th November 1829, Bentinck stated, “The first and primary object of my heart is the benefit of the Hindus. I know nothing so important to the improvement of their future condition as the establishment of a purer morality, whatever their belief, and more just conception of the will of God.” The abolition of sati was achieved after Bentinck wrote this document. This primary source proves that he worked towards improving the treatment of women in society. This primary source is important because it’s an official government document, was written at the time of event, and was written by Bentinck himself. On the other hand, it is not clear as to what his motives were and if he just wanted more control through these reforms, or whether or not the practice actually stopped. Thus, this proves that a British individual was indeed actively attempting to improve society.

   Changes in the education system benefitted Indian society a great deal, as it produced educated and inspired people with a new perspective and ability to form groups based on making India a better place. David Hare was a British philanthropist determined to make a change in the education system and devoted to the cause of Indian education. He achieved this by building a college and teaching there himself. He also, was a friend with Raja Ram Mohan Roy, who supported the western ideas. They collaborated to achieve this common goal by building the Hindu College in Calcutta for the education of Indian youths in 1817, where Hare taught 565 young men modern science and philosophy. Schools around the country were starting to be constructed. 5 years earlier, the Charter act of 1813 was a turning point in the history of education in India, as it stated that money would be applied to the revival and improvement of literature and teaching. This meant that Britain was finally starting to take an interest in the youth of India and realising the importance of schooling. However, only upper caste males were educated, which had always been the case. Girls wouldn’t be educated until later on in the century and lower castes would barely have access to British education, nevertheless, the outcome of the Hindu college was very successful, and the Young Bengal movement was formed. It incorporated the radical, free thinkers who were inspired to revolt against the social structure of Hindu society. This was thanks to David Hare, the teacher of the students. The students’ gratitude towards Hare is distinctively shown in an address of welcome, signed by Dakshinaranjan Mukherjee on the 17th February 1831. “Many have enjoyed the happiness of receiving the gift of education… we are permitted to keep among us a representation of the man who has breathed a new life into Hindu society.” Evidently, David Hare significantly changed the lives of these boys, by giving them knowledge and inspiration. This source is important in showing the attitude of a British individual and the effect he had on Indian students, who were evidently grateful for the gift of education.  However, this is only a handful of students; the source doesn’t provide the nation wide opinion on the new education system. The Western education system was very positive outcome of the British Raj.
   
   The British modernised the caste system that resulted in it being more similar to the western class system, which was a positive impact to an extent because the caste system beforehand was….. In India, the social standing you had depended on into which family you were born into, which meant that certain caste could never change. Whereas the British class system was based around levels of wealth and education. The change to the caste system was significant, as it increased nationalistic and liberalistic feelings, which led to a stronger structure of society with a common set of feelings and goals, for instance, independence. The middle… The caste system was affected greatly by the British, but never fully eradicated. The British improved the caste system by allowing the lower castes and untouchables more rights, such as the right to interact with those of higher castes. This was done to modernise India to represent it as a British colony. Many British citizens lived in India, and as they followed the class system, this was closely influencing the way society was run. Therefore, British rule had a positive effect on the Indian caste system. On the other hand, the caste system wasn’t fully eradicated. It had weakened a great deal, and mostly in areas of high British population such as Calcutta. Today, there are still area of poverty and inequality due to caste. In an interview between a Hindu women and a journalist, the Hindu women describes that all the girls who are untouchables would most certainly become housewives and would be married off to someone of the same caste by the time they are 16 when the marriageable age is now 18. She says that society is very caste bound. This source is important as it proves that the caste system is still around today, and the British didn’t completely remove it. Or though, it’s not clear as to what the restrictions of the caste-bound society are. Overall, the British had somewhat changed the caste system by weakening the majority of the system so that there were more rights for the lower castes, and less of a gap of power and superiority.

     There was a huge growth of nationalism in India, particularly during the early 20th century, which was mainly caused by the influence of Western civilisation. Nationalism was hugely significant, since it meant that the Indian people were feeling a sense of unity, eventually allowing them to gain their freedom.  The impact of Britain in this case was great, but whether it was positive is arguable. Some would argue that the British influence caused the greatest cause for nationalism, but on the other side, common feelings of opposition and desperation for independence among the Indian people would be enough for the movement to inaugurate.  For example, western education and language being introduced allowed ideologies such as nationalism and liberalism to be discovered by the Indian people, as the ideologies were being embraced over Europe at that time. English educated Indian citizens, such as Raja Ram Mohan Roy, were leading social, religious and political movements that were supported by the majority of the population, more specifically the rising middle class. This roused a sense of nationalism among the people. Not only education, but also the exposure of British media over the country provoked the ideology, again, due to the fact that countries in Europe such as Germany were embracing nationalism. Bal Gangadha Tilak, among many things, was an Indian nationalist, social reformer and the first leader of the Indian Independence movement. He believed that nothing Britain did was beneficial to society, and passionately opposed British rule. He said that for India to make progress it must become independent, and the only way for that to happen was by a self-governing country and not thorough social reforms. This primary source is relevant in that it shows the other side of the argument, suggesting that Britain did not have a positive impact on India. However, it does not show whether or not his words had an impact on society. Therefore, the British Raj had a partial positive impact in introducing western ideas.

    The British had a great impact on Indian society, by introducing ideas and enforcing laws that resulted in an overall positive outcome. Society in India had changed greatly, with a new education system, which resulted in the beginning of a more thoughtful and inspired society that formed groups and expressed ideas. Nationalism increased over the country due to the close social connections through British media, literature, education and Britain individuals themselves. The lives of women and the lower and out of castes improved to an extent, as a result of the social reforms that took place around 1929. The social impacts of the British rule, either greatly positive or fairly positive, were largely responsible for the reforming of India during the Raj.

Essay with comments:
Spoiler
Assess the positive impacts of western ideas in reforming Indian society during the British Raj

   The British Raj was the period of British domination over India in which many changes were made to the structure of Indian society. From 1858, Britain initiated a strong impact over how the country ran, which resulted in a westernised India. Eventually, Britain introduced western culture through literature, religion, the media and British citizens themselves. British individuals and groups evoked a variety of reforms and laws that positively affected the Indian people’s lives. Having said that, Britain didn’t just change Indian society for the better. From the point of view of an Indian citizen, Britain may have damaged and threatened the traditional cultures and beliefs of pre-colonial India. Britain had altered Indian society to a certain extent by introducing the value of education, improving the lives of Indian women, impacting the caste system and causing a growth of nationalism, whether it was intentional or not. These impacts modernised India and in some cases overall benefitted the social structure of Indian society.

Good intro. Words like "having said that" can be reduced to "However", limiting total word count. That is the best way that I would recommend cutting down words: changing 2 words into 1, 500 times!

     Social reforms were created by the British to improve the condition of women in Indian society. Before the reforms, women were being treated as unequal and had to maintain the standards of social expectations by submitting themselves to the harming religious practices, such as Sati. Lord William Bentinck, the Governor General in India worked closely with Raja Ram Mohan Roy, to create social reforms to improve the condition of Indian women in society. Raja Ram Mohan Roy was an influential figure in India, who spread ideas of freedom and rights through the newspaper, books, treaties and organized protests.  He and Bentinck successfully eradicated social evils affecting women in society, including the practice of Sati. Sati involves the burning of the widow on the late husband’s pyre, so she can be with him after death. In traditional Hindu beliefs, the practice was thought to signify female purity and valour, though in most cases the women was not willing to die. Lord Bentinck’s primary objective of removing the practice from society was to benefit the Hindu population in the long term. Since he was governor general, all he had to do was write a letter to create a change in law, in his document on the Suppression of Sati on the 8th November 1829, Bentinck stated, “The first and primary object of my heart is the benefit of the Hindus. I know nothing so important to the improvement of their future condition as the establishment of a purer morality, whatever their belief, and more just conception of the will of God.” The abolition of sati was achieved after Bentinck wrote this document. This primary source proves that he worked towards improving the treatment of women in society. This primary source is important because it’s an official government document, was written at the time of event, and was written by Bentinck himself. On the other hand, it is not clear as to what his motives were and if he just wanted more control through these reforms, or whether or not the practice actually stopped. Thus, this proves that a British individual was indeed actively attempting to improve society.

I really like your writing style, and your content, and your argument. I think it would be quite easy to cut down words, however. Deleting things like "on the other hand", and replacing it with "conversely" etc. I really like your source analysis. Words like  "primary source", drawing actual conclusions from quotes rather than just stating what they were. I think there is a little bit too much "explaining" of what actually happened; this is not to say you need to put a greater emphasis on drawing conclusions (because you've done that consistently, and well), I'm just wondering if you can cut down on the stating of what happened. That being said, I would recommend incorporating a few more facts/statistics/dates etc. to give you an extra boost in marks!

   Changes in the education system benefitted Indian society a great deal, as it produced educated and inspired people with a new perspective and ability to form groups based on making India a better place. David Hare was a British philanthropist determined to make a change in the education system and devoted to the cause of Indian education. He achieved this by building a college and teaching there himself. He also, was a friend with Raja Ram Mohan Roy, who supported the western ideas. They collaborated to achieve this common goal by building the Hindu College in Calcutta for the education of Indian youths in 1817, where Hare taught 565 young men modern science and philosophy. Schools around the country were starting to be constructed. 5 years earlier, the Charter act of 1813 was a turning point in the history of education in India, as it stated that money would be applied to the revival and improvement of literature and teaching. This meant that Britain was finally starting to take an interest in the youth of India and realising the importance of schooling. However, only upper caste males were educated, which had always been the case. Girls wouldn’t be educated until later on in the century and lower castes would barely have access to British education, nevertheless, the outcome of the Hindu college was very successful, and the Young Bengal movement was formed. It incorporated the radical, free thinkers who were inspired to revolt against the social structure of Hindu society. This was thanks to David Hare, the teacher of the students. The students’ gratitude towards Hare is distinctively shown in an address of welcome, signed by Dakshinaranjan Mukherjee on the 17th February 1831. “Many have enjoyed the happiness of receiving the gift of education… we are permitted to keep among us a representation of the man who has breathed a new life into Hindu society.” Evidently, David Hare significantly changed the lives of these boys, by giving them knowledge and inspiration. This source is important in showing the attitude of a British individual and the effect he had on Indian students, who were evidently grateful for the gift of education.  However, this is only a handful of students; the source doesn’t provide the nation wide opinion on the new education system. The Western education system was very positive outcome of the British Raj.

Whilst your source analysis is good, be less explicit about it! Saying "this source" once in your essay is good, but for the rest of the time get rid of the word source. Rather, just say "this is indicative of" etc. etc.; just anything other than source! Since this is an essay, not a source analysis, you don't need to treat it as though you are being marked entirely on the source component.
   
   The British modernised the caste system that resulted in it being more similar to the western class system, which was a positive impact to an extent because the caste system beforehand was….. In India, the social standing you had depended on into which family you were born into, which meant that certain caste could never change. Whereas the British class system was based around levels of wealth and education. The change to the caste system was significant, as it increased nationalistic and liberalistic feelings, which led to a stronger structure of society with a common set of feelings and goals, for instance, independence. The middle… The caste system was affected greatly by the British, but never fully eradicated. The British improved the caste system by allowing the lower castes and untouchables more rights, such as the right to interact with those of higher castes. This was done to modernise India to represent it as a British colony. Many British citizens lived in India, and as they followed the class system, this was closely influencing the way society was run. Therefore, British rule had a positive effect on the Indian caste system. On the other hand, the caste system wasn’t fully eradicated. It had weakened a great deal, and mostly in areas of high British population such as Calcutta. Today, there are still area of poverty and inequality due to caste. In an interview between a Hindu women and a journalist, the Hindu women describes that all the girls who are untouchables would most certainly become housewives and would be married off to someone of the same caste by the time they are 16 when the marriageable age is now 18. She says that society is very caste bound. This source is important as it proves that the caste system is still around today, and the British didn’t completely remove it. Or though, it’s not clear as to what the restrictions of the caste-bound society are. Overall, the British had somewhat changed the caste system by weakening the majority of the system so that there were more rights for the lower castes, and less of a gap of power and superiority.

Seems like a really interesting period of history! Again, your skills as a historian are really quite good, with your argument being easy to follow, logical, and (probably) true. However, I think you do need to add more statistics (dates, numbers etc.) to PROVE your argument. That might be tough with the word count, but there are a lot of sentences up there ^^ that can be shortened. Remember that history isn't about using a lot of fancy vocabulary, unless the nuance of the word used is of significance to the essay. Delete anything that doesn't directly add to your thesis or your sentence. In one of my essays, I deleted every start of the sentence that went "In fact," which got rid of 38 words!

     There was a huge growth of nationalism in India, particularly during the early 20th century, which was mainly caused by the influence of Western civilisation. Nationalism was hugely significant, since it meant that the Indian people were feeling a sense of unity, eventually allowing them to gain their freedom.  The impact of Britain in this case was great, but whether it was positive is arguable. Some would argue that the British influence caused the greatest cause for nationalism, but on the other side, common feelings of opposition and desperation for independence among the Indian people would be enough for the movement to inaugurate.  For example, western education and language being introduced allowed ideologies such as nationalism and liberalism to be discovered by the Indian people, as the ideologies were being embraced over Europe at that time. English educated Indian citizens, such as Raja Ram Mohan Roy, were leading social, religious and political movements that were supported by the majority of the population, more specifically the rising middle class. This roused a sense of nationalism among the people. Not only education, but also the exposure of British media over the country provoked the ideology, again, due to the fact that countries in Europe such as Germany were embracing nationalism. Bal Gangadha Tilak, among many things, was an Indian nationalist, social reformer and the first leader of the Indian Independence movement. He believed that nothing Britain did was beneficial to society, and passionately opposed British rule. He said that for India to make progress it must become independent, and the only way for that to happen was by a self-governing country and not thorough social reforms. This primary source is relevant in that it shows the other side of the argument, suggesting that Britain did not have a positive impact on India. However, it does not show whether or not his words had an impact on society. Therefore, the British Raj had a partial positive impact in introducing western ideas.

Again, this isn't a source analysis, so get rid of "this primary source... explanation". Instead, just talk about it as a PROOF of your thesis. There are lots of sentences that can be shortened; read through each, decide if there are any words you can delete, and be utterly ruthless.

    The British had a great impact on Indian society, by introducing ideas and enforcing laws that resulted in an overall positive outcome. Society in India had changed greatly, with a new education system, which resulted in the beginning of a more thoughtful and inspired society that formed groups and expressed ideas. Nationalism increased over the country due to the close social connections through British media, literature, education and Britain individuals themselves. The lives of women and the lower and out of castes improved to an extent, as a result of the social reforms that took place around 1929. The social impacts of the British rule, either greatly positive or fairly positive, were largely responsible for the reforming of India during the Raj.

Great essay, great thesis followed through logically, great writing style, great use of historical terms. You need to make your "source analysis" less explicit: you should be using facts/quotes to BACK UP your thesis. Try to use more throw-in facts (ie. how many more men were educated? In what year was social reform implemented?) without having to necessarily explain them like you have the other sources. This will strengthen your essay incredibly. Great essay, though, and good luck cutting down words! I don't think you should have any trouble, just be ruthless in what you cut.

Hope this helps!

Jake
ATAR: 99.80

Mathematics Extension 2: 93
Physics: 93
Chemistry: 93
Modern History: 94
English Advanced: 95
Mathematics: 96
Mathematics Extension 1: 98

Studying a combined Advanced Science/Law degree at UNSW

gevinson

  • Fresh Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • School: Asquith Girls High School
  • School Grad Year: 2016
Re: Modern History Essay Marking
« Reply #21 on: March 05, 2016, 10:19:46 pm »
Hi there, My topic is the Russia and the Soviet Union focusing on the subtopic of Bolshevik Consolidation of power from 1917-21 and second syllabus dot point. I was wondering if you could please help me identify if i'm creating a strong sustained argument with clear thesis that links each historical feature: ie. nep, treaty of brest litosvk it back to Lenin's role enough. I also wanted to know if there's any areas i can be more succinct to cut down my word count to 800-900?  Thank you so much for all of your help, i know it's difficult without having done this topic, i appreciate any general essay structure help or tips.

jakesilove

  • HSC Lecturer
  • Honorary Moderator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *******
  • Posts: 1941
  • "Synergising your ATAR potential"
Re: Modern History Essay Marking
« Reply #22 on: March 06, 2016, 11:47:51 am »
Hi there, My topic is the Russia and the Soviet Union focusing on the subtopic of Bolshevik Consolidation of power from 1917-21 and second syllabus dot point. I was wondering if you could please help me identify if i'm creating a strong sustained argument with clear thesis that links each historical feature: ie. nep, treaty of brest litosvk it back to Lenin's role enough. I also wanted to know if there's any areas i can be more succinct to cut down my word count to 800-900?  Thank you so much for all of your help, i know it's difficult without having done this topic, i appreciate any general essay structure help or tips.

Hey Gevinson!

Like you say, I haven't done this topic, so take my comments with a grain of salt! Still, I've written out comments below; I hope that you find them helpful!

Original essay:
Spoiler
‘to what extent was lenin responsible for the bolshevik consolidation of power?

Lenin’s role was pivotal in the Bolshevik seizure and consolidation of power. His commitment to the Bolshevik cause is evident through his implementation of harsh policies such as war communism and his pursuit of peace at any cost. However, Lenin was able to pinpoint when he had to diverge from his communist ideals and sacrifice ideology for power through his early populist reforms and introduction of the NEP, which both proved to be crucial in the consolidation of power. Arguably Lenin’s role was of equal importance to that of Trotsky, however both showed strong leadership in the Bolshevik revolution and civil war.

Lenin’s early role within the Bolshevik revolution was crucial in seizing power for the Bolsheviks. Once the Tsar had abdicated there was a political vacuum of power and a diarchy was instated between the Petrograd Soviet and the provisional government the duma had set up. Lenin took advantage of his opportunity to expose the people’s concerns for Russia. Within his slogan-like April theses he proclaimed that the Bolsheviks would give ‘peace, land, bread’ and his noncooperation with the provisional government announcing ‘All power to the soviets’. Lenin aimed to both undermine the provisional government by targeting their inability to address the problems of the people and showing that the Petrograd soviet and by a larger extent, the Bolsheviks represented the interests of the people more than the provisional government. Thus, Lenin’s ability to deliver on his April theses with later reforms further consolidated Bolshevik power in their initial stages of seizing power. The populist workers control decrees gave factory committees the right to control production and to supervise management, instated a maximum eight-hour day for workers and provided social insurance such as sickness benefits. Lenin’s decision to appeal to the workers was strategic in order to maintain power in the early stages of Bolshevik rule. Although the early ‘Land Decree’ allowed private ownership of land by the peasants diverged from the socialist principles of the Bolsheviks, it is evident that Lenin’s ability to sacrifice his ideology was key in maintaining Bolshevik power. Historian Ulam supports the notion that these reforms were effective on Bolshevik popularity, as they focused on appealing to the proletariat and peasants at the very least satisfying them enough so they wouldn’t fight the Bolshevik regime, the civil war wasn’t yet a major threat.

Lenin’s strict delivery on his promise for ‘peace at any price’ was received negatively creating divisions within the Bolshevik party, Buhkarin who wanted a revolutionary war and Trotsky who proposed ‘no war,no peace’. Trotsky saw Germany not only as militaristic enemies but class enemies therefore ‘the Brest-Litovsk peace was like the hangman's noose’. The treaty of Brest Litosvsk was seen some member of the SNOVAROM as a ‘“betrayal... to the socialist revolution” by allowing the bourgeoisie to win by striking deals. While Trotsky attempted to stall for time within negotiations, Lenin recognized that the treaty was crucial in Bolshevik consolidation of power as the provisional government had failed due to it’s continuance of the war. Thus, Lenin’s strong leadership in signing the treating despite significant pushback from the Bolshevik party, showed his key role in maintaining Bolshevik power.
 
However, while Lenin’s decision to sign the treaty, it was arguably one of the catalysts for the civil war. Internally within Russia many people were discontent with the conditions of the treaty. This is evident in the severing of ties between the left socialist revolutionaries who subsequently left the SOVNARKOM and may have aggravated other banned socialist parties such as the Kadets. The treaty left the country at significant disadvantage economically and politically, Germany’s harsh demands of 90% of coal and most of its rail & iron reserves, 25% of industry, a third of Russia’s agriculture and 62 million people. Thus the treaty fostered anti-Bolshevik sentiment within the country. However, Lenin played a less important role within Civil War instead Trotsky’s role was crucial to Bolshevik victory which was indispensable in consolidation of power. Trotsky was harsh but strategic in his organization of the red army, he reintroduced conscription and used structure, ranks, saluting and uniforms. He utilised former tsarist officers used to provide training, organization and leadership. However, he utilised harsh measures to gain Bolshevik victory disciplining soldiers through flogging and death penalty. However, while Lenin played a important role within the civil war by supporting the decisions of Trotsky and presenting a highly centralised army with a united political purpose - the downfall of the white army. It is clear that Trotsky’s strategic organization of the army on the ground ultimately secured Bolshevik victory, leading to consolidation of power.

Lenin had a key role in the introduction of war communism which was important in the victory of the civil war. However, it was a less significant factor in the consolidation of power overall as it created chaos within the country. Lenin’s implementation of the extreme policies of war communism aimed to fix the dire economic and military situation of Russia.  War communism became necessary as food production had decreased with the Land decree and workers were managing the factories inefficiently through the workers decree. Under war communism industry and land was brought under state control so the red forces could remain in the fields supplied with weaponry and food. The policies brought about red terror in which Lenin ordered the killing of any Bolshevik opposition. Peasants refused to cooperate and protested leading to entire villages being destroyed. Overall, War Communism alienated the peasants and led to ongoing opposition to socialism, as peasants made up a significant amount of the population. Therefore Lenin’s role in consolidation power through war communism was less significant, as war communism’s only long term contribution to the consolidation of Bolshevik power was aiding red victory in the civil war.

Lenin held a vital role in consolidating Bolshevik power as exemplified in his introduction of the new economic policy. After the Kronstadt rebellion in which the sailors who previously had been dedicated Bolshevik supporters revolted it became obvious that Lenin had to act to regain peasant support and thus, maintain Bolshevik power. The policy was important in fixing the economy and quelling any remaining opposition to Bolshevism which all led to Bolshevik consolidation of power.  The NEP allowed private trade in the retail area, which lead to the class of ‘nepmen’. It became legal to hire labour and peasants were no longer required to give up all their grain to the state which regained some peasant support. The stabilization of the country overall led to Bolshevik consolidation of power, in which cereal production was up almost 25% and industrial output increased by 200%. However, the NEP was not the most significant factor in Bolshevik consolidation of power as it still diverged from communist ideals partially returning to communism and leaving some of the population and party unhappy. Contemporary leader of the Mensheviks observed the impact of the nep in which stores sold expensive goods only afforded by the bourgeoisie and prostitution had increased significantly.  Therefore Lenin’s held an important role within the implementation of the NEP to consolidate power through growing support, fixing the economy and ridding any remaining opposition to the party.

Essay with comments:
Spoiler
‘To what extent was Lenin responsible for the Bolshevik consolidation of power?

Lenin’s role was pivotal in the Bolshevik seizure and consolidation of power. Perfect. His commitment to the Bolshevik cause is evident through his implementation of harsh policies such as war communism and his pursuit of peace at any cost. However, Lenin was able to pinpoint when he had to diverge from his communist ideals and sacrifice ideology for power through his early populist reforms and introduction of the NEP, which both proved to be crucial in the consolidation of power. Arguably Lenin’s role was of equal importance to that of Trotsky, however both showed strong leadership in the Bolshevik revolution and civil war.

Fantastic introduction. Introduces real points, as well out general Thesis outline. If you follow through on discussion of these points, I'm looking forward to a great essay!

Lenin’s early role within the Bolshevik revolution was crucial in seizing power for the Bolsheviks. Once the Tsar had abdicated there was a political vacuum of power and a diarchy was instated between the Petrograd Soviet and the provisional government the duma had set up. Lenin took advantage of his opportunity to expose the people’s concerns for Russia. Within his slogan-like April theses he proclaimed that the Bolsheviks would give ‘peace, land, bread’ and his noncooperation with the provisional government announcing ‘All power to the soviets’. If these are quotes, use quotation marks: "" Lenin aimed to both undermine the provisional government by targeting their inability to address the problems of the people and showing that the Petrograd soviet and by a larger extent, the Bolsheviks represented the interests of the people more than the provisional government. Thus, Lenin’s ability to deliver on his April theses with later reforms further consolidated Bolshevik power in their initial stages of seizing power. The populist workers control decrees gave factory committees the right to control production and to supervise management, instated a maximum eight-hour day for workers and provided social insurance such as sickness benefits. Lenin’s decision to appeal to the workers was strategic in order to maintain power in the early stages of Bolshevik rule. Although the early ‘Land Decree’ allowed private ownership of land by the peasants diverged from the socialist principles of the Bolsheviks, it is evident that Lenin’s ability to sacrifice his ideology was key in maintaining Bolshevik power. Historian Ulam supports the notion that these reforms were effective on Bolshevik popularity, as they focused on appealing to the proletariat and peasants at the very least satisfying them enough so they wouldn’t fight the Bolshevik regime, the civil war wasn’t yet a major threat.'

My general comments so far: I really like the thesis you are building, and I think that your point is very, very clear. However, I think you need to back up your thesis with more specific, accurate, relevant and detailed examples. You say things like "early 'Land Decree'"; I need a date, or a year at least. More statistics, quotes, etc, just to back up your point and prove that you aren't making things up! Try to find statistics that are as specific as possible.

Lenin’s strict delivery on his promise for ‘peace at any price’ was received negatively creating divisions within the Bolshevik party, Buhkarin who wanted a revolutionary war and Trotsky who proposed ‘no war,no peace’. Trotsky saw Germany not only as militaristic enemies but class enemies therefore ‘the Brest-Litovsk peace was like the hangman's noose’. The treaty of Brest Litosvsk was seen some member of the SNOVAROM as a ‘“betrayal... to the socialist revolution” by allowing the bourgeoisie to win by striking deals. While Trotsky attempted to stall for time within negotiations, Lenin recognized that the treaty was crucial in Bolshevik consolidation of power as the provisional government had failed due to it’s continuance of the war. Thus, Lenin’s strong leadership in signing the treating despite significant pushback from the Bolshevik party, showed his key role in maintaining Bolshevik power.

Again, your argument and historical language is fantastic, but I need you to incorporate more specific statistics.
 
However, while Lenin’s decision to sign the treaty, it was arguably one of the catalysts for the civil war. Read this sentence: does it make sense to you?Internally within Russia many people were discontent with the conditions of the treaty. This is evident in the severing of ties between the left socialist revolutionaries who subsequently left the SOVNARKOM and may have aggravated other banned socialist parties such as the Kadets. The treaty left the country at significant disadvantage economically and politically, Germany’s harsh demands of 90% of coal and most of its rail & iron reserves, 25% of industry, a third of Russia’s agriculture and 62 million people. Beautiful! These are the kinds of statistics that I want to see!Thus the treaty fostered anti-Bolshevik sentiment within the country. However, Lenin played a less important role within Civil War instead Trotsky’s role was crucial to Bolshevik victory which was indispensable in consolidation of power. Trotsky was harsh but strategic in his organization of the red army, he reintroduced conscription and used structure, ranks, saluting and uniforms. He utilised former tsarist officers used to provide training, organization and leadership. However, he utilised harsh measures to gain Bolshevik victory disciplining soldiers through flogging and death penalty. However, while Lenin played a important role within the civil war by supporting the decisions of Trotsky and presenting a highly centralised army with a united political purpose - the downfall of the white army. It is clear that Trotsky’s strategic organization of the army on the ground ultimately secured Bolshevik victory, leading to consolidation of power.

I think that there are plenty of ways to cut down your word count here. There are heaps of sentences that you can basically remove irrelevant words; spend some time turning two words into one, taking out words that don't SPECIFICALLY add to your thesis etc. Be absolutely brutal, and you'll manage to get down the word count in no time!

Lenin had a key role in the introduction of war communism which was important in the victory of the civil war. However, it was a less significant factor in the consolidation of power overall as it created chaos within the country. Lenin’s implementation of the extreme policies of war communism aimed to fix the dire economic and military situation of Russia.  War communism became necessary as food production had decreased with the Land decree and workers were managing the factories inefficiently through the workers decree.STATS STATS STATS Under war communism industry and land was brought under state control so the red forces could remain in the fields supplied with weaponry and food. The policies brought about red terror in which Lenin ordered the killing of any Bolshevik opposition. Peasants refused to cooperate and protested leading to entire villages being destroyed. Overall, War Communism alienated the peasants and led to ongoing opposition to socialism, as peasants made up a significant amount of the population. Therefore Lenin’s role in consolidation power through war communism was less significant, as war communism’s only long term contribution to the consolidation of Bolshevik power was aiding red victory in the civil war.

Look, again I think that your thesis and historical language is great, but without Statistics its hard to get a very top level response. Adding this will push this great essay to  brilliant essay.

Lenin held a vital role in consolidating Bolshevik power as exemplified in his introduction of the new economic policy. After the Kronstadt rebellion in which the sailors who previously had been dedicated Bolshevik supporters revolted it became obvious that Lenin had to act to regain peasant support and thus, maintain Bolshevik power. The policy was important in fixing the economy and quelling any remaining opposition to Bolshevism which all led to Bolshevik consolidation of power.  The NEP allowed private trade in the retail area, which lead to the class of ‘nepmen’. It became legal to hire labour and peasants were no longer required to give up all their grain to the state which regained some peasant support. The stabilization of the country overall led to Bolshevik consolidation of power, in which cereal production was up almost 25% and industrial output increased by 200%. However, the NEP was not the most significant factor in Bolshevik consolidation of power as it still diverged from communist ideals partially returning to communism and leaving some of the population and party unhappy. Contemporary leader of the Mensheviks observed the impact of the nep in which stores sold expensive goods only afforded by the bourgeoisie and prostitution had increased significantly.  Therefore Lenin’s held an important role within the implementation of the NEP to consolidate power through growing support, fixing the economy and ridding any remaining opposition to the party.

Split this up into a paragraph and a conclusion. Really, there's never any need to include statistics in your conclusion. I really like your historical voice, essay language, logical progression etc. The main things I would recommend are:

More statistics. Try to include a bunch of specific statistics, whether that be in the form of quotes, numbers, dates etc. etc.
Turn long sentences into short ones. You can cut down the wordcount hugely by going through and deleting extra words. That way, you'll get down to your word limit!

Hope this helps!

Jake
ATAR: 99.80

Mathematics Extension 2: 93
Physics: 93
Chemistry: 93
Modern History: 94
English Advanced: 95
Mathematics: 96
Mathematics Extension 1: 98

Studying a combined Advanced Science/Law degree at UNSW

alinali98

  • Fresh Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • School: Asquith Girls High School
  • School Grad Year: 2016
Re: Modern History Essay Marking
« Reply #23 on: March 06, 2016, 10:41:47 pm »
Hey! This essay isnt on one of the topics listed but I would still like your opinion on the structure. I am not sure if I have referred to my thesis statement enough. I was also curious on what other improvements you could suggest to make this piece better.
Thank You

To what extent was Lenin responsible for the Bolshevik consolidation of power?

The Bolshevik being only a revolutionary opposition had to go to extreme lengths to maintain their control on Russia. Lenin was of paramount importance in the consolidation of the Bolshevik power, though inevitably needed the aid of loyal supporters from his party like Trotsky, to ensure his plans were efficiently carried out. Lenin forcing Trotsky to sign the Treaty of Brest Litovsk against Trotsky’s will reduced the added pressure which external forces had imposed on the people within Russia. The Civil War and War Communism may have been introduced under Lenin’s rule, though was implemented by Trotsky, thus tightening their control on their economy and thus depicting the vital role of Trotsky in the consolidation of the Bolshevik power. The social, political and cultural reforms brought by Lenin were also imperative to the consolidation of the Bolsheviks power as it brought the possibility of a happier Russia to the already distraught and confused citizens of Russia. Therefore to a certain extent, Lenin being the mastermind behind the Bolshevik power was of paramount importance in the consolidation of power but was aided by party members like Trotsky making the consolidation of power a team effort. 
Lenin’s decision of signing the Treaty of Bret-Litovsk drastically reduced unnecessary pressure, enabling Russia to focus on the betterment of its country within its borders, enabling the consolidation of Bolshevik power. During Russia’s involvement in war, its economy was falling and its peasants overworked. The country was not equipped to satisfy the needs and enormity of the World War as by 1916, only one third of Petrograd’s fuel and food allocations were for civilians and the rest were sent to the army. Lenin knew this and also this his hold on power by 1917 was hanging by a thread. He was almost certain that counter revolutionaries would soon be organising to bring down his regime which, along of his theory of “peace at any price” urged him to push Trotsky into accepting the “predatory peace.” Richard J Crampton states that the Treaty was a device for the Bolsheviks to consolidate their power, displaying Lenin’s eagerness to agree with any conditions, no matter how harsh.  However Trotsky’s posturing and unwavering belief of the international revolution had left the Bolsheviks with no way of negotiating better conditions for the treaty which had recently been harshened by Germany. His determination to keep of all Russia’s territory and not annex any states forced further postponement of negotiations. When Trostky had left the conference in February 1918 Kaiser Wilhelm’s army advanced to the Gulf of Finland, dangerously close to Petrograd. Lenin understanding the need for the signing of the treaty sent Trotsky back and cost Russia 50% of its industries, one million hectares of agricultural farmlands and approximately 33% of its population. Historian Spencer Tucker agrees that the conditions imposed by the German General staff was so harsh it shocked the German negotiator, though Lenin knowing it was required for the betterment of Russia. This Treaty no matter how harsh allowed for Russian troops to come home and build new lives under the new government, whilst also enabled for the rest of the two thirds of Petrograd’s food and fuel allocations to be sent to the citizens of Russia. Thus Lenin’s pragmatic decision of forcing Trotsky  into sign the treaty of Brest – Litovsk was of paramount importance in the consolidation of Bolshevik power. 
The main social, political and economic changes brought by Lenin, with the help of his party, aided with the consolidation of power as it gave more opportunities for the lower and working class people to a better and brighter future. October 1917 the Sovnarkom passed the “Decree of Land” giving peasants the right take over the estate of the gentry without compensation and decide for themselves the best way to divide it. Private land would not be bought, sold or rented and belonged to the “entire people.” During October they also agreed to the maximum eight hour day for workers as well as social insurance (unemployment and sickness benefits.)  In November 1917 the Bolsheviks passed the “Workers Control Decree” where factory committees were given control to the production and “supervise” the management.  Class distinctions were abolished and women were now considered equal to men. Any Russians that agreed with these ideas assisted in the consolidation of Bolshevik power. Furthermore all children were entitled to 9 years of free schooling and a new curriculum was implemented. These reforms which hoped to achieve a utopian society may have been under Lenin’s rule though only through the support of his party could they have been implemented in society, portraying how the Bolshevik party as a whole aided in the consolidation of power.
The break out of the Civil War during 1918 gave Bolsheviks the chance to tighter their control on its economy. The Red Army under Trotsky’s control tamed its opponents and showcased Trotsky’s role in this consolidation of power. During this period there were two sides, the Red Army which consisted of Bolsheviks and supporters, and the White Armies, consisting of Anti-Bolsheviks. Trotsky’s brilliant military leadership, upheld discipline and unity, also reinforcing a common purpose within the Red Army thus causing it to be victorious and consolidate the Bolshevik power. The intense nature of the Civil War forced Lenin to introduce War Communism, giving Bolsheviks control over all trade and industry, directing the labour of peasants and the nationalisation of industry which unfortunately led to famine in 1920-21. The Kronstadt Rebellion lead to Lenin replacing the policy and introduce the New Economic Policy (NEP), implemented in March 1921. Soviet Historian, Figes states that after defeating the Whites, who were supported by eight foreign powers, the Bolsheviks surrendered to the peasantry with the NEP. This meant that in the country side peasants had to give 10% of their produce to the government but could sell the rest, and production could now run in state, cooperative or private systems and drastically improved living standards. Therefore, if it weren’t for Trotsky’s military and leadership skills with his Red Army, or Lenin’s party’s decision against Lenin’s former policies the whites would not have been defeated nor would have the New Economic Policy have been implemented making it definitive that Lenin’s role in the consolidation of power was important though would not have been fulfilled without the help of his party members.
Thus Lenin’s role in the consolidation of Bolshevik power was vital only to a certain extent as he was supported and to an extent guided by his loyal supporters like Trotsky.


jakesilove

  • HSC Lecturer
  • Honorary Moderator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *******
  • Posts: 1941
  • "Synergising your ATAR potential"
Re: Modern History Essay Marking
« Reply #24 on: March 07, 2016, 09:15:57 pm »
Hey! This essay isnt on one of the topics listed but I would still like your opinion on the structure. I am not sure if I have referred to my thesis statement enough. I was also curious on what other improvements you could suggest to make this piece better.
Thank You

To what extent was Lenin responsible for the Bolshevik consolidation of power?

The Bolshevik being only a revolutionary opposition had to go to extreme lengths to maintain their control on Russia. Lenin was of paramount importance in the consolidation of the Bolshevik power, though inevitably needed the aid of loyal supporters from his party like Trotsky, to ensure his plans were efficiently carried out. Lenin forcing Trotsky to sign the Treaty of Brest Litovsk against Trotsky’s will reduced the added pressure which external forces had imposed on the people within Russia. The Civil War and War Communism may have been introduced under Lenin’s rule, though was implemented by Trotsky, thus tightening their control on their economy and thus depicting the vital role of Trotsky in the consolidation of the Bolshevik power. The social, political and cultural reforms brought by Lenin were also imperative to the consolidation of the Bolsheviks power as it brought the possibility of a happier Russia to the already distraught and confused citizens of Russia. Therefore to a certain extent, Lenin being the mastermind behind the Bolshevik power was of paramount importance in the consolidation of power but was aided by party members like Trotsky making the consolidation of power a team effort. 
Lenin’s decision of signing the Treaty of Bret-Litovsk drastically reduced unnecessary pressure, enabling Russia to focus on the betterment of its country within its borders, enabling the consolidation of Bolshevik power. During Russia’s involvement in war, its economy was falling and its peasants overworked. The country was not equipped to satisfy the needs and enormity of the World War as by 1916, only one third of Petrograd’s fuel and food allocations were for civilians and the rest were sent to the army. Lenin knew this and also this his hold on power by 1917 was hanging by a thread. He was almost certain that counter revolutionaries would soon be organising to bring down his regime which, along of his theory of “peace at any price” urged him to push Trotsky into accepting the “predatory peace.” Richard J Crampton states that the Treaty was a device for the Bolsheviks to consolidate their power, displaying Lenin’s eagerness to agree with any conditions, no matter how harsh.  However Trotsky’s posturing and unwavering belief of the international revolution had left the Bolsheviks with no way of negotiating better conditions for the treaty which had recently been harshened by Germany. His determination to keep of all Russia’s territory and not annex any states forced further postponement of negotiations. When Trostky had left the conference in February 1918 Kaiser Wilhelm’s army advanced to the Gulf of Finland, dangerously close to Petrograd. Lenin understanding the need for the signing of the treaty sent Trotsky back and cost Russia 50% of its industries, one million hectares of agricultural farmlands and approximately 33% of its population. Historian Spencer Tucker agrees that the conditions imposed by the German General staff was so harsh it shocked the German negotiator, though Lenin knowing it was required for the betterment of Russia. This Treaty no matter how harsh allowed for Russian troops to come home and build new lives under the new government, whilst also enabled for the rest of the two thirds of Petrograd’s food and fuel allocations to be sent to the citizens of Russia. Thus Lenin’s pragmatic decision of forcing Trotsky  into sign the treaty of Brest – Litovsk was of paramount importance in the consolidation of Bolshevik power. 
The main social, political and economic changes brought by Lenin, with the help of his party, aided with the consolidation of power as it gave more opportunities for the lower and working class people to a better and brighter future. October 1917 the Sovnarkom passed the “Decree of Land” giving peasants the right take over the estate of the gentry without compensation and decide for themselves the best way to divide it. Private land would not be bought, sold or rented and belonged to the “entire people.” During October they also agreed to the maximum eight hour day for workers as well as social insurance (unemployment and sickness benefits.)  In November 1917 the Bolsheviks passed the “Workers Control Decree” where factory committees were given control to the production and “supervise” the management.  Class distinctions were abolished and women were now considered equal to men. Any Russians that agreed with these ideas assisted in the consolidation of Bolshevik power. Furthermore all children were entitled to 9 years of free schooling and a new curriculum was implemented. These reforms which hoped to achieve a utopian society may have been under Lenin’s rule though only through the support of his party could they have been implemented in society, portraying how the Bolshevik party as a whole aided in the consolidation of power.
The break out of the Civil War during 1918 gave Bolsheviks the chance to tighter their control on its economy. The Red Army under Trotsky’s control tamed its opponents and showcased Trotsky’s role in this consolidation of power. During this period there were two sides, the Red Army which consisted of Bolsheviks and supporters, and the White Armies, consisting of Anti-Bolsheviks. Trotsky’s brilliant military leadership, upheld discipline and unity, also reinforcing a common purpose within the Red Army thus causing it to be victorious and consolidate the Bolshevik power. The intense nature of the Civil War forced Lenin to introduce War Communism, giving Bolsheviks control over all trade and industry, directing the labour of peasants and the nationalisation of industry which unfortunately led to famine in 1920-21. The Kronstadt Rebellion lead to Lenin replacing the policy and introduce the New Economic Policy (NEP), implemented in March 1921. Soviet Historian, Figes states that after defeating the Whites, who were supported by eight foreign powers, the Bolsheviks surrendered to the peasantry with the NEP. This meant that in the country side peasants had to give 10% of their produce to the government but could sell the rest, and production could now run in state, cooperative or private systems and drastically improved living standards. Therefore, if it weren’t for Trotsky’s military and leadership skills with his Red Army, or Lenin’s party’s decision against Lenin’s former policies the whites would not have been defeated nor would have the New Economic Policy have been implemented making it definitive that Lenin’s role in the consolidation of power was important though would not have been fulfilled without the help of his party members.
Thus Lenin’s role in the consolidation of Bolshevik power was vital only to a certain extent as he was supported and to an extent guided by his loyal supporters like Trotsky.

Hey!

See my comments below :)

Original Essay:
Spoiler
The Bolshevik being only a revolutionary opposition had to go to extreme lengths to maintain their control on Russia. Lenin was of paramount importance in the consolidation of the Bolshevik power, though inevitably needed the aid of loyal supporters from his party like Trotsky, to ensure his plans were efficiently carried out. Lenin forcing Trotsky to sign the Treaty of Brest Litovsk against Trotsky’s will reduced the added pressure which external forces had imposed on the people within Russia. The Civil War and War Communism may have been introduced under Lenin’s rule, though was implemented by Trotsky, thus tightening their control on their economy and thus depicting the vital role of Trotsky in the consolidation of the Bolshevik power. The social, political and cultural reforms brought by Lenin were also imperative to the consolidation of the Bolsheviks power as it brought the possibility of a happier Russia to the already distraught and confused citizens of Russia. Therefore to a certain extent, Lenin being the mastermind behind the Bolshevik power was of paramount importance in the consolidation of power but was aided by party members like Trotsky making the consolidation of power a team effort. 
Lenin’s decision of signing the Treaty of Bret-Litovsk drastically reduced unnecessary pressure, enabling Russia to focus on the betterment of its country within its borders, enabling the consolidation of Bolshevik power. During Russia’s involvement in war, its economy was falling and its peasants overworked. The country was not equipped to satisfy the needs and enormity of the World War as by 1916, only one third of Petrograd’s fuel and food allocations were for civilians and the rest were sent to the army. Lenin knew this and also this his hold on power by 1917 was hanging by a thread. He was almost certain that counter revolutionaries would soon be organising to bring down his regime which, along of his theory of “peace at any price” urged him to push Trotsky into accepting the “predatory peace.” Richard J Crampton states that the Treaty was a device for the Bolsheviks to consolidate their power, displaying Lenin’s eagerness to agree with any conditions, no matter how harsh.  However Trotsky’s posturing and unwavering belief of the international revolution had left the Bolsheviks with no way of negotiating better conditions for the treaty which had recently been harshened by Germany. His determination to keep of all Russia’s territory and not annex any states forced further postponement of negotiations. When Trostky had left the conference in February 1918 Kaiser Wilhelm’s army advanced to the Gulf of Finland, dangerously close to Petrograd. Lenin understanding the need for the signing of the treaty sent Trotsky back and cost Russia 50% of its industries, one million hectares of agricultural farmlands and approximately 33% of its population. Historian Spencer Tucker agrees that the conditions imposed by the German General staff was so harsh it shocked the German negotiator, though Lenin knowing it was required for the betterment of Russia. This Treaty no matter how harsh allowed for Russian troops to come home and build new lives under the new government, whilst also enabled for the rest of the two thirds of Petrograd’s food and fuel allocations to be sent to the citizens of Russia. Thus Lenin’s pragmatic decision of forcing Trotsky  into sign the treaty of Brest – Litovsk was of paramount importance in the consolidation of Bolshevik power. 
The main social, political and economic changes brought by Lenin, with the help of his party, aided with the consolidation of power as it gave more opportunities for the lower and working class people to a better and brighter future. October 1917 the Sovnarkom passed the “Decree of Land” giving peasants the right take over the estate of the gentry without compensation and decide for themselves the best way to divide it. Private land would not be bought, sold or rented and belonged to the “entire people.” During October they also agreed to the maximum eight hour day for workers as well as social insurance (unemployment and sickness benefits.)  In November 1917 the Bolsheviks passed the “Workers Control Decree” where factory committees were given control to the production and “supervise” the management.  Class distinctions were abolished and women were now considered equal to men. Any Russians that agreed with these ideas assisted in the consolidation of Bolshevik power. Furthermore all children were entitled to 9 years of free schooling and a new curriculum was implemented. These reforms which hoped to achieve a utopian society may have been under Lenin’s rule though only through the support of his party could they have been implemented in society, portraying how the Bolshevik party as a whole aided in the consolidation of power.
The break out of the Civil War during 1918 gave Bolsheviks the chance to tighter their control on its economy. The Red Army under Trotsky’s control tamed its opponents and showcased Trotsky’s role in this consolidation of power. During this period there were two sides, the Red Army which consisted of Bolsheviks and supporters, and the White Armies, consisting of Anti-Bolsheviks. Trotsky’s brilliant military leadership, upheld discipline and unity, also reinforcing a common purpose within the Red Army thus causing it to be victorious and consolidate the Bolshevik power. The intense nature of the Civil War forced Lenin to introduce War Communism, giving Bolsheviks control over all trade and industry, directing the labour of peasants and the nationalisation of industry which unfortunately led to famine in 1920-21. The Kronstadt Rebellion lead to Lenin replacing the policy and introduce the New Economic Policy (NEP), implemented in March 1921. Soviet Historian, Figes states that after defeating the Whites, who were supported by eight foreign powers, the Bolsheviks surrendered to the peasantry with the NEP. This meant that in the country side peasants had to give 10% of their produce to the government but could sell the rest, and production could now run in state, cooperative or private systems and drastically improved living standards. Therefore, if it weren’t for Trotsky’s military and leadership skills with his Red Army, or Lenin’s party’s decision against Lenin’s former policies the whites would not have been defeated nor would have the New Economic Policy have been implemented making it definitive that Lenin’s role in the consolidation of power was important though would not have been fulfilled without the help of his party members.
Thus Lenin’s role in the consolidation of Bolshevik power was vital only to a certain extent as he was supported and to an extent guided by his loyal supporters like Trotsky.

Essay with Comments:
Spoiler
The Bolshevik being only a revolutionary opposition had to go to extreme lengths to maintain their control on Russia. Lenin was of paramount importance in the consolidation of the Bolshevik power, though inevitably needed the aid of loyal supporters from his party like Trotsky, to ensure his plans were efficiently carried out. Great Thesis sentence! Lenin forcing Trotsky to sign the Treaty of Brest Litovsk against Trotsky’s will reduced the added pressure which external forces had imposed on the people within Russia. The Civil War and War Communism may have been introduced under Lenin’s rule, though was implemented by Trotsky, thus tightening their control on their economy and thus depicting the vital role of Trotsky in the consolidation of the Bolshevik power. The social, political and cultural reforms brought by Lenin were also imperative to the consolidation of the Bolsheviks power as it brought the possibility of a happier (Don't use this word) Russia to the already distraught and confused citizens of Russia. Therefore to a certain extent, Lenin being the mastermind behind the Bolshevik power was of paramount importance in the consolidation of power but was aided by party members like Trotsky making the consolidation of power a team effort. 

Like your introduction, particularly the nuanced approach you appear to be taking! Add some dates in brackets (Brest-Litovsk was 1918 I think?) etc.

Lenin’s decision of signing the Treaty of Bret-Litovsk drastically reduced unnecessary pressure, enabling Russia to focus on the betterment of its country within its borders, enabling the consolidation of Bolshevik power. During Russia’s involvement in war, its economy was falling and its peasants overworked. The country was not equipped to satisfy the needs and enormity of the World War as by 1916, only one third of Petrograd’s fuel and food allocations were for civilians and the rest were sent to the army. Lenin knew this and also this his hold on power by 1917 was hanging by a thread. He was almost certain that counter revolutionaries would soon be organising to bring down his regime which, along of his theory of “peace at any price” urged him to push Trotsky into accepting the “predatory peace.” Richard J Crampton states that the Treaty was a device for the Bolsheviks to consolidate their power, displaying Lenin’s eagerness to agree with any conditions, no matter how harsh.  However Trotsky’s posturing and unwavering belief of the international revolution had left the Bolsheviks with no way of negotiating better conditions for the treaty which had recently been harshened by Germany. His determination to keep of all Russia’s territory and not annex any states forced further postponement of negotiations. When Trostky had left the conference in February 1918 Kaiser Wilhelm’s army advanced to the Gulf of Finland, dangerously close to Petrograd. Lenin understanding the need for the signing of the treaty sent Trotsky back and cost Russia 50% of its industries, one million hectares of agricultural farmlands and approximately 33% of its population. Historian Spencer Tucker agrees that the conditions imposed by the German General staff was so harsh it shocked the German negotiator, though Lenin knowing it was required for the betterment of Russia. This Treaty no matter how harsh allowed for Russian troops to come home and build new lives under the new government, whilst also enabled for the rest of the two thirds of Petrograd’s food and fuel allocations to be sent to the citizens of Russia. Thus Lenin’s pragmatic decision of forcing Trotsky  into sign the treaty of Brest – Litovsk was of paramount importance in the consolidation of Bolshevik power. 

I think you need to include more specific, accurate and relevant detailed examples. I like the 50%, 33% etc, but I want MORE! More dates, more numbers, more quotes! Remember, in History you can't rely on "he thought"; you have to back that up with a REASON you are making that assertion!

The main social, political and economic changes brought by Lenin, with the help of his party, aided with the consolidation of power as it gave more opportunities for the lower and working class people to a better and brighter future. October 1917 the Sovnarkom passed the “Decree of Land” giving peasants the right take over the estate of the gentry without compensation and decide for themselves the best way to divide it. Private land would not be bought, sold or rented and belonged to the “entire people.” During October they also agreed to the maximum eight hour day for workers as well as social insurance (unemployment and sickness benefits.)  In November 1917 the Bolsheviks passed the “Workers Control Decree” where factory committees were given control to the production and “supervise” the management.  Class distinctions were abolished and women were now considered equal to men. Any Russians that agreed with these ideas assisted in the consolidation of Bolshevik power. Furthermore all children were entitled to 9 years of free schooling and a new curriculum was implemented. These reforms which hoped to achieve a utopian society may have been under Lenin’s rule though only through the support of his party could they have been implemented in society, portraying how the Bolshevik party as a whole aided in the consolidation of power.

I like that you've brought things back to your thesis at the end, but I would strongly recommend linking your thesis more clearly throughout this paragraph. Even just throwing a few words from the question in here or there will help to strengthen your essay!

The break out of the Civil War during 1918 gave Bolsheviks the chance to tighter their control on its economy. Try put something more specific than "1918"The Red Army under Trotsky’s control tamed its opponents and showcased Trotsky’s role in this consolidation of power. During this period there were two sides, the Red Army which consisted of Bolsheviks and supporters, and the White Armies, consisting of Anti-Bolsheviks. Numbers? Trotsky’s brilliant military leadership, upheld discipline and unity, also reinforcing a common purpose within the Red Army thus causing it to be victorious and consolidate the Bolshevik power. The intense nature of the Civil War forced Lenin to introduce War Communism, giving Bolsheviks control over all trade and industry, directing the labour of peasants and the nationalisation of industry which unfortunately led to famine in 1920-21. The Kronstadt Rebellion lead to Lenin replacing the policy and introduce the New Economic Policy (NEP), implemented in March 1921. Soviet Historian, Figes states that after defeating the Whites, who were supported by eight foreign powers, the Bolsheviks surrendered to the peasantry with the NEP. This meant that in the country side peasants had to give 10% of their produce to the government but could sell the rest, and production could now run in state, cooperative or private systems and drastically improved living standards. Therefore, if it weren’t for Trotsky’s military and leadership skills with his Red Army, or Lenin’s party’s decision against Lenin’s former policies the whites would not have been defeated nor would have the New Economic Policy have been implemented making it definitive that Lenin’s role in the consolidation of power was important though would not have been fulfilled without the help of his party members.

This paragraph is really great: look to the way you directly discuss your thesis, and try to add it to your others! Also, the use of stats, dates and quotes is quite good

Thus Lenin’s role in the consolidation of Bolshevik power was vital only to a certain extent as he was supported and to an extent guided by his loyal supporters like Trotsky.

Definitely expand your conclusion to include key points from your argument. Keep your sentence as your concluding sentence, perhaps

Overall, a good essay. I think you need to proof read it a bit more; try reading every sentence out loud to see if there is anything that doesn't make sense. Try to add more SPECIFIC accurate relevant detailed examples, and work on weaving your thesis into more sentences. Overall, though, a good essay with the potential to be a great essay!
ATAR: 99.80

Mathematics Extension 2: 93
Physics: 93
Chemistry: 93
Modern History: 94
English Advanced: 95
Mathematics: 96
Mathematics Extension 1: 98

Studying a combined Advanced Science/Law degree at UNSW

jkkke

  • Adventurer
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • School: yr12
  • School Grad Year: 2016
Re: Modern History Essay Marking
« Reply #25 on: March 08, 2016, 08:38:50 pm »
Hey this is the half yearly draft I did the question is: To what extent was the collapse of the Weimar Republic the result of the Depression? Could you please look at the layout and thesis if it makes sense. Don't think my layout is very good and might have too many paragraphs and maybe some pointless information. Also any general feedback would be good, thanks heaps :)

jakesilove

  • HSC Lecturer
  • Honorary Moderator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *******
  • Posts: 1941
  • "Synergising your ATAR potential"
Re: Modern History Essay Marking
« Reply #26 on: March 09, 2016, 03:52:42 pm »
Hey this is the half yearly draft I did the question is: To what extent was the collapse of the Weimar Republic the result of the Depression? Could you please look at the layout and thesis if it makes sense. Don't think my layout is very good and might have too many paragraphs and maybe some pointless information. Also any general feedback would be good, thanks heaps :)

Hey!

Below are my comments. Thanks for the post!

Original Essay:
Spoiler
Question: To what extent was the collapse of the Weimar Republic the result of the Depression?
The Great depression had a major impact for the collapse of the Weimar Republic however there were other factors involved politically, socially and militaristically. The Weimar Republic had to battle with a long ideology of authoritarian rule, the German people blaming them for Article 241 as well as never having the support of the Reichshwer.
Before the Great Depression happened there were issues that Weimar Republic still had to deal with. Article 241 from the Treaty of Versailles was extremely harsh to the German people and stated the entire war was Germanys fault. The signing of this Treaty outraged the German people and were left very bitter which is a stigma the Weimar Republic had to deal with and never got rid of. Article 48 was also criticized by the German people as it stated the president could appoint and dismiss chancellor at any time as well as suspend German people’s fundamental rights.
The Weimar Republic also faced political opposition who tried to overthrow they’re form of government. The first right wing attempt to overthrow the government came in 1920. Kapp Putsch who wanted an authoritarian style of government, Putsch gained the support of General Von Luttwittz and on March 13 entered Berlin, however the workers of Berlin declared a workers strike which paralysed the city. This proved the Weimar Republics instability as a government.
Throughout the Weimar Republic time, the Reichswehr maintained itself a superior place in German society and practically being a ‘state within a state’. The army never backed Weimar, which also lead to the collapse. When Weimar requested help from the army in the Putsch situation they responded saying ‘Reichswehr don’t fire on Reichswehr’. When they’re influence rose in politics such as Hindenburg being president in 1925 onwards and army officers such as Von scleider 1930-1932 it led to the demise of the Weimar Republic as they never supported them from the start thus making strategies to throw them from government.
The Great depression was not the only economic troubles Weimar faced and when France occupied the Ruhr on January 1923 to make the workers’ pay for their reparations in stopped their industrial r region. By the end of March Germany only received 1% of their usual coal deliveries this sent German economy into hyperinflation which caused workers to struggle making them further question the Weimar Governments approach.
When the Great Depression comes in 1929 the German people, army and other parties all have reasons to dislike the approach they have and want a totalitarian state back. The Depression allowed powerful groups such as the army, large landowners and leading civil servants that never supported Weimar to express their disaffection. This is best explained in the quote by Kershaw ‘In Germany where the roots of democracy are shallow, looked to change a system they felt, less and less upheld their interests, and move to an authoritarian rule.
On October 1929 when Walls street share prices began to drop rapidly which sent people to sell their shares this had a huge impact on Germans banks who were major investors.  People rushed to draw out their investments which caused banks to run out of cash. To make this money back Germany had to recall all loans to German businesses which forced them into close. This increased unemployment which made Germany lose their tax revenue making it difficult to pay of their repayments. The Depression encouraged Hindenburg to move from his quiescent attitude towards a more interventionist policy based on authoritarian rule. This first came in the appointment of Heinrich Burning who Kolb describes as ‘not the last chancellor to before the breakup of Weimar, but the first chancellor in destroying democracy. Brunings policies to raise taxes for unemployment benefit and reduce unemployment benefits t make it more affordable made Germans plunge deeper into unemployment rising from 2258000 in 1930 to 6031000 in 1932. This didn’t please any political parties and when Brunings government had to rely on article 48 to govern. In 1930 only 5 decrees were used, by 1931 this had increased to 44 and 66 in 1932. The decrees undermined the confidence in the Weimar Republic which benefited extremist parties such s the communists and Nazis as the public anger grew towards Weimar. Brunings downfall came in May 1932 as he has done enough to move government sufficiently to the right. This marked the end for Weimar Republic. In the elections of July 1932 the Nazis and Communists controlled 52 per cent of the Reichstag making the Weimar effectively dead and in January 1933 Hitler was named chancellor and the authoritarian system was back in place.
All these factors played a role in the collapse of Weimar Republic and when the Great Depression came it gave everyone an opportunity to express their disaffection towards Weimar. Although these events did play a significant role it was the Great Depression that was the major impact of Weimar Republic collapsing as the powerful groups such as the army wouldn’t of has a chance to dismise Weimar.

Essay with Comments:
Spoiler
Question: To what extent was the collapse of the Weimar Republic the result of the Depression?

The Great depression had a major impact for the collapse of the Weimar Republic however there were other factors involved politically, socially and militaristically. Good Thesis statement, and layout of (what I hope to be) your coming structure! The Weimar Republic had to battle with a long ideology of authoritarian rule, the German people blaming them for Article 241 as well as never having the support of the Reichshwer. Reread and proof read your essay: a few misspellings, "a long ideology" doesn't make sense (a long standing ideology?). I also think you should put "the War Guilt clause" in brackets, to prove you know what Art 241 was! Also, I would expand your introduction a little bit.

Before the Great Depression happened A bit colloquial, try to use historical voice. there were issues that Weimar Republic still had to deal with. Article 241 from the Treaty of Versailles was extremely harsh to the German people and stated the entire war was Germanys fault. Again, very colloquial The signing of this Treaty outraged the German people and were left very bitter which is a stigma the Weimar Republic had to deal with and never got rid of. Article 48 was also criticized by the German people as it stated the president could appoint and dismiss chancellor at any time as well as suspend German people’s fundamental rights. Did they dislike this? You already said that Germany was used to a long standing ideology of authoritative rule: isn't this the example of remnants of that rule, and so wouldn't your thesis suggest that Germany was used to it?
I think you've done a good job offering examples of different reasons for the fall of the Republic (or at least issues that it had to deal with other than the GD). I would link these issues more strongly with the actual collapse of the Republic (which is the question) and make sure that your thesis follows logically.


The Weimar Republic also faced political opposition who tried to overthrow they’re form of government. Grammar, spelling[/b ]The first right wing attempt to overthrow the government came in 1920. Kapp Putsch who wanted an authoritarian style of government, Putsch gained the support of General Von Luttwittz and on March 13 entered Berlin, however the workers of Berlin declared a workers strike which paralysed the city. Facts are correct, but your use of language isn't quite. "Kapp Putch" didn't want anything; that was just the name of the event. This proved the Weimar Republics instability as a government. Does it? You just said that the Government managed to combat (successfully) a right wing movement to overthrow them. Doesn't that display its strength? You could argue either way, but whichever you choose you need to be stronger on that point.

Throughout the Weimar Republic time, Spelling, grammar. the Reichswehr maintained itself a superior place in German society and practically being a ‘state within a state’. If you're using a quote, tell me who you're quoting. The army never backed Weimar, which also lead to the collapse. When Weimar requested help from the army in the Putsch situation they responded saying ‘Reichswehr don’t fire on Reichswehr’. When they’re influence Spelling rose in politics such as Hindenburg being president in 1925 onwards and army officers such as Von scleider 1930-1932 it led to the demise of the Weimar Republic as they never supported them from the start thus making strategies to throw them from government. Read this sentence out loud, and see if it makes sense to you. This is complicated stuff you're talking about, so it is really easy to lose track of the point; make sure to proof read your essay so that you know exactly where you can improve and rewrite sections.

The Great depression was not the only economic troubles Weimar faced and when France occupied the Ruhr on January 1923 to make the workers’ Grammar pay for their reparations in stopped their industrial r region I don't think you've proof read this essay. By the end of March Germany only received 1% of their usual coal deliveries this sent German economy into hyperinflation which caused workers to struggle making them further question the Weimar Governments approach. Grammar, spelling. However, a good point, and definitely an example of troubles facing the Republic: However, did this lead to the downfall of the Republic? I'm still not clear on that point.

When the Great Depression comes in 1929 the German people, army and other parties all have reasons to dislike the approach they have and want a totalitarian state back. You repeatedly use "they" throughout this essay. Are you talking about the Weimar Government, the Weimar Republic in general, the Chancellor...? The Depression allowed powerful groups such as the army, large landowners and leading civil servants that never supported Weimar to express their disaffection. Great sentence; concise, clear and true. Try to rewrite some of your wordiest sentences like this. This is best explained in the quote by Kershaw ‘In Germany where the roots of democracy are shallow, looked to change a system they felt, less and less upheld their interests, and move to an authoritarian rule. Again, really great summary and conclusions drawn! I feel like you really GET what's going on, but you need to rethink how to express it and which conclusions you draw. Look to the successes of the second half of this paragraph, and try to emulate it across the essay./color]

On October 1929 when Walls street share prices began to drop rapidly which sent people to sell their shares this had a huge impact on Germans banks who were major investors. Grammar, spelling. Don't resolve the GD down to a sentence; that's not really entirely true. You don't need to understand why the GD took place, just its impact on the Weimar Republic. People rushed to draw out their investments which caused banks to run out of cash. To make this money back Germany had to recall all loans to German businesses which forced them into close. This increased unemployment which made Germany lose their tax revenue making it difficult to pay of their repayments. The Depression encouraged Hindenburg to move from his quiescent attitude towards a more interventionist policy based on authoritarian rule. This first came in the appointment of Heinrich Burning This is not his name who Kolb describes as ‘not the last chancellor to before the breakup of Weimar, but the first chancellor in destroying democracy. You don't end the quote, and the quote must have been typed out wrong Brunings Grammar policies to raise taxes for unemployment benefit and reduce unemployment benefits t make it more affordable made Germans plunge deeper into unemployment rising from 2258000 in 1930 to 6031000 in 1932. Great statistic, try to use more like it! This didn’t please any political parties and when Brunings government had to rely on article 48 to govern. Re read this sentence; there's no ending to it. In 1930 only 5 decrees were used, by 1931 this had increased to 44 and 66 in 1932. The decrees undermined the confidence in the Weimar Republic which benefited extremist parties such s the communists and Nazis as the public anger grew towards Weimar. Brunings downfall came in May 1932 as he has done enough to move government sufficiently to the right. Always use past tense This marked the end for Weimar Republic. In the elections of July 1932 the Nazis and Communists controlled 52 per cent of the Reichstag making the Weimar effectively dead and in January 1933 Hitler was named chancellor and the authoritarian system was back in place.

All these factors played a role in the collapse of Weimar Republic and when the Great Depression came it gave everyone an opportunity to express their disaffection towards Weimar. Although these events did play a significant role it was the Great Depression that was the major impact of Weimar Republic collapsing as the powerful groups such as the army wouldn’t of has a chance to dismise Weimar.

You need to proof read your essay, quite thoroughly, because a lot of the sentences don't really finish or, to be honest, make sense. You have a good understanding of the time period, and you understand your thesis quite well, which is really, really impressive. However, you need to think through each point in more detail. A couple of the examples you use don't lend themselves to your thesis based on your argument, and so either change the examples or strengthen their link to the thesis. You need to link each point to the COLLAPSE of the Weimar republic, and so you should explain WHEN the collapse happened at the START, not the end. Then, you should link each point to the collapse (ie. you say that Bruning ended the Republic).
You need to talk more about the G.D. Because the question is SPECIFICALLY asking about it, you should generally spend 60% of the time of the G.D, and 40% on other factors (50/50 max, but even that is not ideal).

I think that you need to, first, proof read, and second, think about each point and relate it directly to your thesis. To do this, write out your thesis is one sentence, then contemplate the issue you are discussing. Think about how you can use it to support your thesis because your thesis is absolutely correct. The G.D had a huge impact, but relied on previously instated conditions.
This has the potential to be a really great essay, but you definitely need to put more work into it. Good luck!

Jake

ATAR: 99.80

Mathematics Extension 2: 93
Physics: 93
Chemistry: 93
Modern History: 94
English Advanced: 95
Mathematics: 96
Mathematics Extension 1: 98

Studying a combined Advanced Science/Law degree at UNSW

beatrizmorais98

  • Fresh Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • School: Randwick Girls' High School
  • School Grad Year: 2016
Re: Modern History Essay Marking
« Reply #27 on: March 13, 2016, 05:14:29 pm »
Hi! I am trying to write an essay for modern history. The question is: Account for the initial consolidation of Nazi power in 1933-1934.
I don't know what to write in this Essay... Suggestions?

Thank You :)

elysepopplewell

  • HSC Lecturer
  • Honorary Moderator
  • ATAR Notes Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 3236
  • "Hey little fighter, soon it will be brighter."
Re: Modern History Essay Marking
« Reply #28 on: March 14, 2016, 05:12:43 pm »
Hi! I am trying to write an essay for modern history. The question is: Account for the initial consolidation of Nazi power in 1933-1934.
I don't know what to write in this Essay... Suggestions?

Thank You :)

Hey there! I would use this as an opportunity to talk about the following:
-The manipulation of the legal process (the dismantling of democracy through votes)
-Extensive use of terror
-Extensive use of propaganda
-Removal of all opposition.

Once you flesh out these ideas, you have a whole essay ready to be written! Let me know if something doesn't make sense :)
Not sure how to navigate around ATAR Notes? Check out this video!

sydneyg

  • Adventurer
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • School: St Paul's Grammar School
  • School Grad Year: 2016
Re: Modern History Essay Marking
« Reply #29 on: March 20, 2016, 10:39:04 am »
Hey there! I'm just wondering if I could get some feedback on this draft essay on the question - To what extent did economic weaknesses contribute to the collapse of the Weimar Republic? So that I can do a final edit by Tuesday. Thanks so much!