World War 1 Source Analysis Assessment - Would Like Input. (1 Viewer)

[Thomasta3]

The two sources that I am not too sure on what I should elaborate on are:

"An extract from J.H. Allsopp & H.R. Cowie’s Challenge and Response: A History of the
Modern World, Melbourne, 1981.

The blockade of European ports by the British and French navies forced
Germany into making desperate improvisations . . . In retaliation the German
U-boats attempted to starve Britain by sinking supply ships. Continued violations
of American neutral shipping forced the USA to declare war on Germany in April
1917 . . . but it took her many months to raise and equip an army to send to
Europe. Meanwhile the defeat of Russia in the east had allowed Germany to send
massive reinforcements to the west, where the German forces launched a new
offensive in March 1918."

and

"Extract from a speech by British Prime Minister Lloyd George, reported in the London
newspaper The Times on 29 March 1918.

We are at the crisis of the war. Attacked by an immense superiority of German
troops, our Army has been forced to retire. The retirement has been carried out
methodically before the pressure of a steady succession of fresh German
reserves . . . but this battle, the greatest and most momentous in the history of the
world, is only just beginning. Throughout it, French and British morale is boosted
with the knowledge that the USA will neglect no effort which can hasten its
troops and ships to Europe. In war, time is vital."

With the first, I know I can elaborate on its date, meaning it has the benefit of hindsight. Although, from then onward, I am a little lost.

And with the second, I know I can talk about the swift German defeat of the Russians, allowing them to focus more on the western front. It is also evident it shows British sentiment to the war at this time.

 

[atcha]

Is this for a 'how useful' question ?

 

[Thomasta3]

Yeah, sorry. I should have elaborated on that.

 

[Thomasta3]

Here is my draft response to the first source, any constructive criticism is welcomed!
"Source B is a secondary source. It is an extract from J.H. Allsopp & H.R. Cowie’s Challenge and Response: A History of the Modern World, Melbourne written in 1981 where the authors have made a critical analysis on (and shows) the follow-on effects of the blockade of Germany’s trade. The blockade weakened Germany greatly, Germany was put in the position where it was necessary to take drastic measures and “desperate improvisations” in order to have maintained a foothold in the war. One of the consequences of the blockade for the Allied powers was the German U-boat campaign. This campaign subsequently lead to violation of the United States’ neutral shipping, where German U-boats would sink American supply ships, which lead to the eventual entrance of the United States into World War I.

The perspective of source B is that of Historians J.H. Allsopp and H.R. Cowie, from 1981, over 60 years after the end of World War I. This means that the perspective of the source has hindsight, and thus research behind the analysis. The benefit of hindsight leads to the ability to make a response based on all of the facts present.

Source B could be consider reliable as it comes from the benefit of hindsight, meaning the authors were able to form a response with all the facts present. Whilst hindsight aids reliability, the authors can still be subject to bias and prejudice, whether consciously or subconsciously, which can be derived from the cultural, political and religious background. Consequently, this means there will always be an element of unreliability due to the background even with the benefit of hindsight, as all authors leave their footprint on their work. With that being said, the information within the source reflects information already present and known, and thus making this a reliable critical analysis on the follow-on effects of the blockade on Germany’s trade.

By examining Source B we can see that it is very useful to a historian studying the follow-on effects that the Allied blockade on Germany had on the war as the perspective of the source is one that comes with hindsight, thus having research and a wider range of information at the authors’ disposal, and also aligns with previous knowledge of the events making it reliable. Thus, this source’s perspective and reliability creates a useful source for a historian studying the effects of the Allied blockade on Germany."

 

[cem]

One suggestion - make clear you assessment in the first sentence as well as at the end. That way the marker knows where you are going with your analysis. I would suggest starting with something like 'Source B is xxxxx useful to an historian studying yyyyyy because zzzzz. Then do your analysis. By leaving it to the end the marker is thinking 'what is the argument here' as they are marking.

 

[atcha]

Going off what I have been told by my teacher you do not need to go into such detail about content. I think simply saying "(and shows) the follow-on effects of the blockade of Germany’s trade" would be enough. I am a 2015'er and thus don't have the HSC marking experience and would welcome a more experienced input.

 

[Thomasta3]

One suggestion - make clear you assessment in the first sentence as well as at the end. That way the marker knows where you are going with your analysis. I would suggest starting with something like 'Source B is xxxxx useful to an historian studying yyyyyy because zzzzz. Then do your analysis. By leaving it to the end the marker is thinking 'what is the argument here' as they are marking.

I understand what you are saying here, but my teacher has a template that she got from one of the head HSC markers when she went to one of their conferences. The templates goes:
Source A is a (primary/secondary) source. It is a (cartoon, diary entry, speech extract, photograph, table of statistics, etc.) from (comment on the origin of the source in as much detail as you can). It shows (describe the context of the source in detail).
The perspective of source A is that of (talk in detail about the perspective - consider nationality, class, gender, age, politics, involvement in an event, time source created)
Source A (could/could not) be considered reliable because (say why we can/cannot trust the information in the source- is it an accurate reflection of events, is it for personal or public consumption, can the information be verified by other sources).
By examining Source A we can see that it is (very/partially) useful to a historian studying (restate the topic from the question) because (give a reason for your judgement based on the tests you have applied for perspective and reliability).

This is why my response is laid out the way it is.

 

[Thomasta3]

This is my response to the second source, like before, any constructive criticism is welcomed!

Source C

Source C is a primary source. It is an extract from a speech by British Prime Minister Lloyd George, reported in the London newspaper The Times on the 29th of March 1918. This was a pivotal point in the war as Germany had defeated Russia in the east. Russia’s defeat allowed Germany to shift its focus towards its initial goal of the Schlieffen Plan, to take Paris. Germany was now able to send massive reinforcements to aid the Western Front. Germany launched a new offensive in March of 1918 (the same month of the publication of this source). The March 1918 German offensive is known as the ‘Spring Offensive’ or by the Germans, Kaiserschlacht meaning Kaiser’s Battle. This offensive was to be a series of attacks on the Western Front. It shows the sentiment of the Prime Minister of Britain at this time, Lloyd George. In this speech he conveys the situation as a “crisis of the war”, and is indicative of the pressure that Germany’s offensive has put on the Allied powers. Lloyd George illustrates the situation in his speech, that this battle will be “the greatest and most momentous in the history of the world” and that it has only just begun. This indicates the seriousness of this engagement and that Germany still had an upper-hand at this point in the war, but, as Lloyd George points out, the entrance of the United States into the war had boosted morale and will need to be swift in their deployment as “in war, time is vital”.

The perspective of source C is that of British Prime Minister Lloyd George. Lloyd George was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 7 December 1916 - 22 October 1922, and played a major role in the war, not only as Prime Minister, but, as Minister of Munitions. Where he gained the reputation he used as stepping stones towards becoming Prime Minister. The source was created 7 months before the end of World War 1 and thus is created during a time when the war was closing to an end, and Germany were making their last major offensives of the war.

Source C could be considered reliable because, although it has potential bias due to it being from the perspective of Britain’s prime minister, it illustrates British sentiment towards Germany’s military strength at this stage in the war. The source’s information is backed up by other sources of information, such as Source B, J.H. Allsopp & H.R. Cowie’s Challenge and Response: A History of the Modern World. Thus, while this source has potential biases embedded within the author’s background, it is still an accurate reflection of the events of this time and is as a result a reliable source.

By examining Source C we can see that it is very useful to a historian studying British sentiment towards the German offensive in March 1918 because the source is from the perspective of the British Prime Minister and thus is a reflection of government attitudes towards the war, which in turn swayed public opinions. The source is also reliable as it reflects previously known information and is verified by previous sources.

 

[cem]

Again - the marker has to wait until the end to know your argument and thus would be already thinking more along the lines of 7/8 than 9/10.

There is way too much detail in there for a 10 marker. You try writing all that in an exam and you will run out of time at the end.

Remember that to do the two of them you will have a page and a half given to you.

I have marked the Core - did so for about 12 years before going across to Personalities and now Essays and have been on the judging panel a few times as well.

I am putting that last bit it to explain my reasoning for addressing the question from the get-go rather than leaving it to the end.

 

[Thomasta3]

Again - the marker has to wait until the end to know your argument and thus would be already thinking more along the lines of 7/8 than 9/10.

There is way too much detail in there for a 10 marker. You try writing all that in an exam and you will run out of time at the end.

Remember that to do the two of them you will have a page and a half given to you.

I have marked the Core - did so for about 12 years before going across to Personalities and now Essays and have been on the judging panel a few times as well.

I am putting that last bit it to explain my reasoning for addressing the question from the get-go rather than leaving it to the end.

This is for an assignment, not for an exam. Does this change your opinion on the detail? My teacher has expressed that this is the format she would like to see the response in, and thus I have continued with it even with your recommendation not to.

 

[cem]

I am sending you a PM.

Moderators - can you delete my last two messages as the 'delete' option seems to have disappeared from the Edit Post.

 

[D94]

I understand what you are saying here, but my teacher has a template that she got from one of the head HSC markers when she went to one of their conferences. The templates goes:
[...]
This is why my response is laid out the way it is.

You're not going to have enough time in the exam if you follow a template to the letter. You should really answer the 10 mark question directly, and spend that saved time on your Peace and Conflict essay, which anecdotally is the most rushed essay/section of the Modern History exam. It would be better to capitalise on 25 marks than perfecting 10 marks - and you can still do both, if you avoid using that template. You can write much more succinctly and combined several of those template points together.