Stupid Weimar question grrrrrrrrr (1 Viewer)

[roseysparkles]

I studied heaps for weimar and then i got the question about industrial elites and conservative parties...i so wrecked it I did what my teacher calls a 'brain dump and just said everything i thought might be related and said that other political problems were more important than the role of industrial elites...i think i went well in everything else, but it ,means anything i did do ok in will go down because of the crap mark i will get for national study:'( ANYONE ELSE WRECK NATIONAL STUDY??? I need to know that im not the only one.

 

[neafoo]

yeah i just talked shit for 8 pages... fun ;(

i didnt actually know anything about the "convervative elites", im guessing it would be the army and the industrialists, so i had to answer the totalitarian question.

wish we got a question about foreign policy or ww2 ;<

 

[roseysparkles]

hmm

yeah i studied particularly for weimar...like the weaknesses of the constitution and stuffed it up:'(

 

[Crazy Pomo]

yeah i studied particularly for weimar...like the weaknesses of the constitution and stuffed it up:'(

Yeah, it is always wise to study up on Weimar, but you must do so in it's entirety. Don't worry though, you probably didn't go as badly as you think you did. And if you did then blah, it's only one essay, and sometimes drain dumping can hit the mark if your lucky.

 

[fleepbasding]

I have no sympathy for those who only studied collapse of Weimar. It serves you right, quite frankly.

things you could've talked about...
Ebert-Groener Pact- 1918
Kapp Putsch- 1920
harzburg front- 1929
intrigues of military elites in governement (eg- Hindenburg, Von Schliecher etc)- throughout Weimar
NSDAP party and Hitler

These are just my initial thoughts, and I can't remember the question exactly.

 

[Crazy Pomo]

I have no sympathy for those who only studied collapse of Weimar. It serves you right, quite frankly.

things you could've talked about...
Ebert-Groener Pact- 1918
Kapp Putsch- 1920
harzburg front- 1929
intrigues of military elites in governement (eg- Hindenburg, Von Schliecher etc)- throughout Weimar
NSDAP party and Hitler

These are just my initial thoughts, and I can't remember the question exactly.

Also:
Conservative elites in the Judiciary directly undermining democracy
Munich Putsch
Other Stuff ... hah

 

[DementedDonkey]

More annoyed because our teacher told us we need not studying the weimar period in much depth because the bos had said they weren't going to be assessing that period anymore. Grr

 

[belissimo]

I was happy with the weimar question. I was hoping for one, because I know that period better then 33 onwards. I think I was a little bit lucky with that question though. We did an assessment where we each got a dot point in the syllabus to research and present an oral on. The role of elites and such was my dot point, so I was happy.

 

[roseysparkles]

dont be so mean

I have no sympathy for those who only studied collapse of Weimar. It serves you right, quite frankly.

things you could've talked about...
Ebert-Groener Pact- 1918
Kapp Putsch- 1920
harzburg front- 1929
intrigues of military elites in governement (eg- Hindenburg, Von Schliecher etc)- throughout Weimar
NSDAP party and Hitler

These are just my initial thoughts, and I can't remember the question exactly.

It dosent serve me or orthers right for studieying a particular period and learning its ins and outs...I mentioned the hole in its heart theory etc, but it was a difficult question for me and the rest of my class as we had spent more time on Weimar and none of us studied idustrial elites...
Give us a break myself and four other people in my class are only in year 11 and did a year 12 paper...(at my school we do pathways)..

 

[Sarah168]

i'm surprised the q was so narrow.

does anyone remember the exact question?

Edit: Ooo found it.

Question 12 (20 marks)
(a) Assess the impact of conservative parties and elites on German politics in the
period 1918–1934.

OR

(b) Evaluate the view that Germany was a totalitarian society in the period
1933–1945

The Weimar q is tricky indeed. I don't remember focussing that much on the conservatives and elites last year. The 2nd question is very very easy though for those who studied post 33.

Dont worry too much about the brain dumping roseysparkles. nothing much you can do now and who knows? might not turn out as bad as you think.

 

[fleepbasding]

It dosent serve me or orthers right for studieying a particular period and learning its ins and outs...I mentioned the hole in its heart theory etc, but it was a difficult question for me and the rest of my class as we had spent more time on Weimar and none of us studied idustrial elites...
Give us a break myself and four other people in my class are only in year 11 and did a year 12 paper...(at my school we do pathways)..

Well I'm sorry, but you have to study beyond what your teachers teach you in class. And you being in year 11 is no excuse really, you made that choice to accelerate. For one thing, you probably didn't have as many subjects to juggle as the current year 12 group.

the question, while being somewhat more specific than usual, wasn't that hard. If you'd studied Weimar a bit more thoroughly I'm sure you would have had a lot to say.

I'm actaully glad that this years paper didn't have an ultra-basic collapse of Weimar question, because I'm sick of seeing students get by having only studied this aspect of the course. It isn't/wouldn't be fair on those of us who studied the whole course in depth.

 

[belissimo]

Well I'm sorry, but you have to study beyond what your teachers teach you in class. And you being in year 11 is no excuse really, you made that choice to accelerate. For one thing, you probably didn't have as many subjects to juggle as the current year 12 group.

the question, while being somewhat more specific than usual, wasn't that hard. If you'd studied Weimar a bit more thoroughly I'm sure you would have had a lot to say.

I'm actaully glad that this years paper didn't have an ultra-basic collapse of Weimar question, because I'm sick of seeing students get by having only studied this aspect of the course. It isn't/wouldn't be fair on those of us who studied the whole course in depth.

I agree with you, and with roseysparkles. I hate being a fence sitter. As much as I love the collapse of democracy, a question on that would have been predictable and unfair to the candidates who studied the whole course instead of just one section, which is a fairly easy section. But, at the same time, I know that if there was a question in there that I couldnt answer I would have been really upset. So You have my sympathy, although I think you should have studied according to the syllabus.

 

[kouklitsa]

can i just say.. there is a syllabus for a REASON... you are supposed to study the WHOLE thing, not selected parts.. i spent hours and hours slaving over the WHOLE topic, not limiting myself to just one area.. and i think it paid off in the end because i walked out feeling confident...

a tip to those in the future... never just study one area, because u dont know what u will be asked in the exam...