Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    My brother and I are having heated discussions about whether this:

    "Opposition to Nazi rule within Germany did exist between 1931 and 1945. This opposition took place at a civilian, church and military level. None of this opposition was ever successful and it is difficult to judge the true extent of this resistance. However, the consequences for those opposing Hitler were indeed dire. There was so little seeming opposition to the Nazis because these used Terror, Propaganda and Popular Policies to win the trust of Germans. In this piece of writing I will be evaluating and interpreting the causes and consequences of these three main methods used by the Nazis to minimize opposition. However, this will be only a quick evaluation and interpretation, as there are countless concepts needed to be analyzed before even a small conclusion can be drawn on such an important topic."

    is a good introduction to the question "Why was there so little opposition to the Nazis". My point of view is that it is a realistic intro, however he says that it is bad to start an essay saying that you cannot fully evaluate and interpret something. Any ideas???
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nikkoch)
    My brother and I are having heated discussions about whether this:

    "Opposition to Nazi rule within Germany did exist between 1931 and 1945. This opposition took place at a civilian, church and military level. None of this opposition was ever successful and it is difficult to judge the true extent of this resistance. However, the consequences for those opposing Hitler were indeed dire. There was so little seeming opposition to the Nazis because these used Terror, Propaganda and Popular Policies to win the trust of Germans. In this piece of writing I will be evaluating and interpreting the causes and consequences of these three main methods used by the Nazis to minimize opposition. However, this will be only a quick evaluation and interpretation, as there are countless concepts needed to be analyzed before even a small conclusion can be drawn on such an important topic."


    is a good introduction to the question "Why was there so little opposition to the Nazis". My point of view is that it is a realistic intro, however he says that it is bad to start an essay saying that you cannot fully evaluate and interpret something. Any ideas???
    Get rid of the i right now, everything in the bold should be scrapped, the other stuff is great. Also perhaps say one of these Terror or propaganda policies in the introduction, e.g. the gestapo to make sure people are firmly supporting Nazis by instigating fear into the hearts of German citizens.

    You need to address both sides of the argument in your introduction, why one thing prevented opposition, why another thing was more significant in preventing opposition.

    Here's an example of one of my Russia paragraphs:

    Shortly after tsar abdication on March 2nd 1917, the Provisional Committee took up the ‘’poisoned chalice of Nicholas’’ and attempted to rebuild Russia as a strong economic and political force within 1917, however this would be to only last until October. A few things unexpected which contributed its downfall were the importance of Lenin’s return and the issuing of his April Thesis, the rise in the Bolshevik majority, Trotsky’s excellent organisational skills, the July Days and the severe lack of military discipline under the Provisional Government. However there is more significant evidence to suggest the Provisional Governments mistakes such as the Kornilov Affair, dual authority and the Land Question significantly undermined the Provisional government and led to its eventual downfall.

    The question is ''How far was the Provisional Government responsible for its own downfall''?
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nikkoch)
    My brother and I are having heated discussions about whether this:

    "Opposition to Nazi rule within Germany did exist between 1931 and 1945. This opposition took place at a civilian, church and military level. None of this opposition was ever successful and it is difficult to judge the true extent of this resistance. However, the consequences for those opposing Hitler were indeed dire. There was so little seeming opposition to the Nazis because these used Terror, Propaganda and Popular Policies to win the trust of Germans. In this piece of writing I will be evaluating and interpreting the causes and consequences of these three main methods used by the Nazis to minimize opposition. However, this will be only a quick evaluation and interpretation, as there are countless concepts needed to be analyzed before even a small conclusion can be drawn on such an important topic."

    is a good introduction to the question "Why was there so little opposition to the Nazis". My point of view is that it is a realistic intro, however he says that it is bad to start an essay saying that you cannot fully evaluate and interpret something. Any ideas???
    He has a point. After all, it's pretty obvious that you are not going to be able to analyse the problem fully within the limits of a student essay, especially if you are writing it under formal exam conditions. I would prefer to make the point by summarising 'the main reasons' - using that expression or something similar - in my opening paragraph.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robbie242)
    Get rid of the i right now, everything in the bold should be scrapped, the other stuff is great. Also perhaps say one of these Terror or propaganda policies in the introduction, e.g. the gestapo to make sure people are firmly supporting Nazis by instigating fear into the hearts of German citizens.

    You need to address both sides of the argument in your introduction, why one thing prevented opposition, why another thing was more significant in preventing opposition.

    Here's an example of one of my Russia paragraphs:

    Shortly after tsar abdication on March 2nd 1917, the Provisional Committee took up the ‘’poisoned chalice of Nicholas’’ and attempted to rebuild Russia as a strong economic and political force within 1917, however this would be to only last until October. A few things unexpected which contributed its downfall were the importance of Lenin’s return and the issuing of his April Thesis, the rise in the Bolshevik majority, Trotsky’s excellent organisational skills, the July Days and the severe lack of military discipline under the Provisional Government. However there is more significant evidence to suggest the Provisional Governments mistakes such as the Kornilov Affair, dual authority and the Land Question significantly undermined the Provisional government and led to its eventual downfall.

    The question is ''How far was the Provisional Government responsible for its own downfall''?
    I wonder, gently, if your first sentence was necessary, or even a good idea. The question, as you clearly appreciate, asks for analysis. But the very first thing the examiner reads is a statement about facts that everybody studying this period will know. A muttered 'Oh get on with it!' is likely to be the response. (And if he or she has already marked 20 or so scripts that start by referring to facts in a similar way, the response is likely to be a good deal more robust.)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Felix1944)
    I wonder, gently, if your first sentence was necessary, or even a good idea. The question, as you clearly appreciate, asks for analysis. But the very first thing the examiner reads is a statement about facts that everybody studying this period will know. A muttered 'Oh get on with it!' is likely to be the response. (And if he or she has already marked 20 or so scripts that start by referring to facts in a similar way, the response is likely to be a good deal more robust.)
    I do see your point, but I do like to set it up rather than going into the straight generic ''There is evidence to suggest'' there is ''stronger evidence to suggest'' which is what quite a few people end up doing
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nikkoch)
    My brother and I are having heated discussions about whether this:

    "Opposition to Nazi rule within Germany did exist between 1931 and 1945. This opposition took place at a civilian, church and military level. None of this opposition was ever successful and it is difficult to judge the true extent of this resistance. However, the consequences for those opposing Hitler were indeed dire. There was so little seeming opposition to the Nazis because these used Terror, Propaganda and Popular Policies to win the trust of Germans. In this piece of writing I will be evaluating and interpreting the causes and consequences of these three main methods used by the Nazis to minimize opposition. However, this will be only a quick evaluation and interpretation, as there are countless concepts needed to be analyzed before even a small conclusion can be drawn on such an important topic."

    is a good introduction to the question "Why was there so little opposition to the Nazis". My point of view is that it is a realistic intro, however he says that it is bad to start an essay saying that you cannot fully evaluate and interpret something. Any ideas???
    Ok, I think it is pretty good but needs a few edits.

    1.This is very big assertion, which depends on your definition of successful-tone this down a tad

    2. Ok, here is where you need to introduce you EVALUATION AND interpr. of the methods. To be honest you need to introduce your argument more, the examiner will already know the background anyway. Perhaps after your statement of aims introduce which strand had the greatest cause? and why? etc.

    Also a helpful but small tip if you struggling to write intros is to make sure your intro includes roughly the same stuff that is in the first sentence of every paragraph. Finally, once again, you must show your position in the argument.

    Sorry for spelling mistakes i was writing quickly!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robbie242)
    Get rid of the i right now, everything in the bold should be scrapped, the other stuff is great. Also perhaps say one of these Terror or propaganda policies in the introduction, e.g. the gestapo to make sure people are firmly supporting Nazis by instigating fear into the hearts of German citizens.

    You need to address both sides of the argument in your introduction, why one thing prevented opposition, why another thing was more significant in preventing opposition.

    Here's an example of one of my Russia paragraphs:

    Shortly after tsar abdication on March 2nd 1917, the Provisional Committee took up the ‘’poisoned chalice of Nicholas’’ and attempted to rebuild Russia as a strong economic and political force within 1917, however this would be to only last until October. A few things unexpected which contributed its downfall were the importance of Lenin’s return and the issuing of his April Thesis, the rise in the Bolshevik majority, Trotsky’s excellent organisational skills, the July Days and the severe lack of military discipline under the Provisional Government. However there is more significant evidence to suggest the Provisional Governments mistakes such as the Kornilov Affair, dual authority and the Land Question significantly undermined the Provisional government and led to its eventual downfall.

    The question is ''How far was the Provisional Government responsible for its own downfall''?
    Yes, the stuff this user highlights should be in the conclusion, not really intro.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nikkoch)
    My brother and I are having heated discussions about whether this:

    "Opposition to Nazi rule within Germany did exist between 1931 and 1945. This opposition took place at a civilian, church and military level. None of this opposition was ever successful and it is difficult to judge the true extent of this resistance. However, the consequences for those opposing Hitler were indeed dire. There was so little seeming opposition to the Nazis because these used Terror, Propaganda and Popular Policies to win the trust of Germans. In this piece of writing I will be evaluating and interpreting the causes and consequences of these three main methods used by the Nazis to minimize opposition. However, this will be only a quick evaluation and interpretation, as there are countless concepts needed to be analyzed before even a small conclusion can be drawn on such an important topic."

    is a good introduction to the question "Why was there so little opposition to the Nazis". My point of view is that it is a realistic intro, however he says that it is bad to start an essay saying that you cannot fully evaluate and interpret something. Any ideas???
    May I ask what level this piece of writing is for? GCSE, AS, A2 or degree-level?
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Felix1944)
    I wonder, gently, if your first sentence was necessary, or even a good idea. The question, as you clearly appreciate, asks for analysis. But the very first thing the examiner reads is a statement about facts that everybody studying this period will know. A muttered 'Oh get on with it!' is likely to be the response. (And if he or she has already marked 20 or so scripts that start by referring to facts in a similar way, the response is likely to be a good deal more robust.)
    I agree that you should avoid the rather dull 'there is evidence to suggest' approach as an introduction. That would be just as big a turn off. I would try to start with a bang. It's not my period, but I would aim to say something like, 'The Provisional Government was almost entirely responsible for its own downfall, but it received considerable help from outside factors.' That tells the examiner in the very first sentence where you are going to go, and from there you can go straight into your analysis. I cannot over-emphasise the need to make the examiner sit up and take notice from the very beginning. Journalistic principles apply in these conditions. More generally, look at some of David Cannadine's essays, or, better still, some by A.J.P. Taylor, and you should get a feel for the sort of approach that makes a short piece of historical writing interesting.

    Do you really understand how bored examiners can get? Grab their attention, make them feel that this is going to be a good read, and your script will stand head and shoulders above the majority of the others.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Felix1944)
    I agree that you should avoid the rather dull 'there is evidence to suggest' approach as an introduction. That would be just as big a turn off. I would try to start with a bang. It's not my period, but I would aim to say something like, 'The Provisional Government was almost entirely responsible for its own downfall, but it received considerable help from outside factors.' That tells the examiner in the very first sentence where you are going to go, and from there you can go straight into your analysis. I cannot over-emphasise the need to make the examiner sit up and take notice from the very beginning. Journalistic principles apply in these conditions. More generally, look at some of David Cannadine's essays, or, better still, some by A.J.P. Taylor, and you should get a feel for the sort of approach that makes a short piece of historical writing interesting.

    Do you really understand how bored examiners can get? Grab their attention, make them feel that this is going to be a good read, and your script will stand head and shoulders above the majority of the others.
    Hey there thanks a lot for the advice, so its good to have a short and snappy but eyecatching introduction, I will try do this... thought it is quite hard applying it to every question. But cheers from the advice, hopefully this distinguishes me from other candidates
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Okies thanks for the info, I changed some of the things, however still can't think of a snappy opening line.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.