Questions and discussion - Germany: (1 Viewer)

[roar84eighty]

the Board of studies recognise postmodern concerns in the english syllabus such as Barthes' notion of the death of the author (implicit in referring to authors/directors/poets etc. as "composers") BUT cannot acknowledge the epistemological conundrum that is the tangibility of totalitarianism!

this is madness!!!

 

[cem]

the Board of studies recognise postmodern concerns in the english syllabus such as Barthes' notion of the death of the author (implicit in referring to authors/directors/poets etc. as "composers") BUT cannot acknowledge the epistemological conundrum that is the tangibility of totalitarianism!

this is madness!!!

The problem is that totalitarianism isn't the topic but Germany 1918 - 1939 and so that has to be the topic discussed not the different interpretations of totalitarianism. It is a matter of where the emphasis lies. By all means indicate a range of interpretations but make clear what you understand it to be and focus on how it applies to Germany as that is the focus of the topic - how well it relates to Germany.

 

[Ruby Rose]

To what extent was Germany a Totalitarian state between 1918-33 considering comparisons between Stalin's and Mussolini's state controls?

Totalitarianism is defined as a government system which holds total power. All aspects of state affairs are in the hands of the one party and opposition is not tolerated. The party doesn't tolerate parties holding different opinions and it seeks complete control over the citizens.
Can other's please include more points because I can't really think of them.

It appears to me that Germany was not so much a Totalitarian state from 1919-late 1920's but became increasingly Totalitarian from 1930.

Arguments Against:
- Ebert's new German republic - Democracy -> Universal Suffrage, 1919.
- Proportional representation from 1919 (fault is that small minor parties -eg Nazi's and Communists - can gain support)
- Lack of extreme propaganda resulting in cultural golden age, expressionist period.
- Germany is federation - different parts of German quite self-sufficient.


Arguments for:
- Article 48 as part of 1919 constitution ->fundamentally gives a form of totalitarian rule, although it was initially intended to be in case of emergency and used ONLY then but became more regularly used toward the end of the period (Bruning). -> presidential powers can be used and abused, most decisively used by Hindenburg as democracy began to fail in 1930.

Also, what would you say about 1918? I would think the question would start from Ebert's new government and Versailles as in 1918 the country was reeling from the shock of WWI, the starvation, economic turmoil and shock of defeat.
Please help.

 

[roar84eighty]

The problem is that totalitarianism isn't the topic but Germany 1918 - 1939 and so that has to be the topic discussed not the different interpretations of totalitarianism. It is a matter of where the emphasis lies. By all means indicate a range of interpretations but make clear what you understand it to be and focus on how it applies to Germany as that is the focus of the topic - how well it relates to Germany.

Can you please read my question above that was a just a joke.

I'm not even mentioning that some say totalitarianism is just a phenomenon

Originally Posted by cem:
"Just a note that the syllabus doesn't require any form of comparison and so learning it as a comparison would simply be a waste of time."

I agree, but simple reading surely can do no harm right? Would looking at other topics (at least the Germany and Russia comparison) help in more than foreign policy?

I know you are a marker and I would appreciate your advice.

Also, do the markers get defensive like 'hey mate you can hardly even show an understanding of your topic let alone talk about the rise of Nazism in Germany as a result of the Bolsheviks diminished support of the German Communist Party/the ex-Spartacists!'

Also, does this happen in areas other than foreign policy (i know this was a cheap example lol) such as in the case of totalitarianism: perhaps the passing comment in regards to totalitarianism involving control of the population through fear + coercion through secret police type agencies and through propaganda campaigns?

E.g. linking Stalin's personality cult, photo doctoring and socialist realism to Nazi propaganda under Riefenstahl and the Hitler personality cult of sorts?

EDIT: how do we address the orthodoxies/trends/"elements" of totalitarianism without breaking the SACRED ESSAY STRUCTURE and CONVENTIONAL INTRODUCTION???? I do Russia/Soviet Union

 

[roar84eighty]

Arguments Against:
- Ebert's new German republic - Democracy -> Universal Suffrage, 1919.
- Proportional representation from 1919 (fault is that small minor parties -eg Nazi's and Communists - can gain support)
- Lack of extreme propaganda resulting in cultural golden age, expressionist period.
- Germany is federation - different parts of German quite self-sufficient.

Do markers see this counter-argument of "wait totalitarianism means total control of everything and everyone and their thoughts so if they didn't control all of da country then it's not total control" weak or pointless ??

It applies for the Soviet Union also (some say it's immense size was an immediate barrier).

 

[cem]

I agree, but simple reading surely can do no harm right? Would looking at other topics (at least the Germany and Russia comparison) help in more than foreign policy?

I know you are a marker and I would appreciate your advice.

Also, do the markers get defensive like 'hey mate you can hardly even show an understanding of your topic let alone talk about the rise of Nazism in Germany as a result of the Bolsheviks diminished support of the German Communist Party/the ex-Spartacists!'

Also, does this happen in areas other than foreign policy (i know this was a cheap example lol) such as in the case of totalitarianism: perhaps the passing comment in regards to totalitarianism involving control of the population through fear + coercion through secret police type agencies and through propaganda campaigns?

E.g. linking Stalin's personality cult, photo doctoring and socialist realism to Nazi propaganda under Riefenstahl and the Hitler personality cult of sorts?

EDIT: how do we address the orthodoxies/trends/"elements" of totalitarianism without breaking the SACRED ESSAY STRUCTURE and CONVENTIONAL INTRODUCTION???? I do Russia/Soviet Union

A lot of what you are suggesting is simply irrelevant to the topic in hand and could easily be ignored by the markers.

I am not saying you are not right but more that you would be wasting your time in the HSC - where the aim is to maximise your marks and doing anything that could throw the marker isn't a good idea.

Making a simple comparison might work in some instances but the topic is Germany so 90% of your discussion has to refer to Germany as anyting outside Germany is irrelevant.

The same goes for the Soviet Union - don't waste time doing a comparison. Markers can also get confused and not know if you have done the right topic by the way and mark accordingly.

I agree with your arguments by the way - just not in an exam like the HSC where the markers have 4 minutes to read and assess your essay so if it is outside the box there is a chance that you won't get the credit.

The same with the approach to the essay - stick to the convention and remember to relate your response always to the question asked and to the set topic i.e. Germany or USSR/Russia and not to the issue over a range of topics. The Section is called National Study so that you study it within one nation (oh for the syllabus I studied in the 1970s when we studied 8 nations over 200 years and could make the sorts of comparisons that you are wanting to do as the course allowed us to do that).

Foreign Policy again is National based for that section but for the Conflict in Europe topic it becomes International as the section is International Relations so a comparison and explanation of the different foreign policies would be expected, and even demanded. The same for a home front question in this section.

 

[roar84eighty]

How can you avoid at least a passing comment in a FOREIGN POLICY essay (again, I am studying the Soviet Union) to:

- The lack of Bolshevik support and a failed propaganda campaign contributing somewhat to Ebert's support of the Freikorps + suppression of Marxist uprisings.
- The Comintern's support of the Chinese left whilst the Commissariat supported Chiang-Kai-Shek (non-Communist) – conflict in interest resulting in the weakening of Chinese communists.
- The supression of the communists by Stalin in the Spanish Civil War just to preserve treaty with France.
- The Nazi-Soviet pact just for peaceful coexistence.

I don't want the marker to take such a negative stance towards my essay from the introduction lol. How can I evaluate foreign policy without considering its influence/impact (positive or negative)??

 

[cem]

How can you avoid at least a passing comment in a FOREIGN POLICY essay (again, I am studying the Soviet Union) to:

- The lack of Bolshevik support and a failed propaganda campaign contributing somewhat to Ebert's support of the Freikorps + suppression of Marxist uprisings.
- The Comintern's support of the Chinese left whilst the Commissariat supported Chiang-Kai-Shek (non-Communist) – conflict in interest resulting in the weakening of Chinese communists.
- The supression of the communists by Stalin in the Spanish Civil War just to preserve treaty with France.
- The Nazi-Soviet pact just for peaceful coexistence.

I don't want the marker to take such a negative stance towards my essay from the introduction lol. How can I evaluate foreign policy without considering its influence/impact (positive or negative)??

Of course with foreign policy you have to consider other countries but from the perspective of the National Study.

You first point is written the way you would write it for a Germany essay but not for a Soviet one - a soviet essay would explain why the Bolsheviks didn't support the German Spartacists for instance so you emphasise the NATIONAL but for a domestic issue question such as totalitarianism you wouldn't necessarily mention any foreign country.

 

[roar84eighty]

Of course with foreign policy you have to consider other countries but from the perspective of the National Study.

You first point is written the way you would write it for a Germany essay but not for a Soviet one - a soviet essay would explain why the Bolsheviks didn't support the German Spartacists for instance so you emphasise the NATIONAL but for a domestic issue question such as totalitarianism you wouldn't necessarily mention any foreign country.

They were just a list of my possible passing references. I might scrap some of them.

But thanks for the advice. Much appreciated.