Sub-Conclusions – they’re not hard (honest!)

In your sub-conclusions you must do three things:

1. Think!

2. Analyse the section that you have just finished writing about.

3. Refer to the question by using the WORDS OF THE QUESTION!

Example: ‘The economic depression of 1929 – 1932 was the turning point in Nazi fortunes.’ How well does this explain Hitler’s achievement of power in

1933?

This is a sub-conclusion to the section on the legacy of the Great War

Thus, it could be argued that the Weimar Republic was ‘doomed from the start’. It was always associated with Germany’s defeat in the Great War. Although the Republic recovered in the years 1924 – 29, the Nazis’ promises to rescind Versailles and restore Germany’s honour seemed all the more attractive when hard times returned during the economic depression of 1929 - 32.

Example: ‘The economic depression of 1929 – 1932 was the turning point in Nazi fortunes.’ How well does this explain Hitler’s achievement of power in

1933?

Now you try.

Same question, only this time do it for the end of the section on:

The attractions of the Nazi Party.

Example: ‘Austrian strength was the greatest obstacle to German unification.’ How accurate is this view?

This is a sub-conclusion to the section on Wartburg/Carlsbad.

At this point Austrian strength clearly was the greatest obstacle to German Unification. The Carlsbad Decrees, instigated by Metternich crushed German nationalism for a generation. However, it is unlikely that this romantic nationalism would have been able to unite the German states. As F. McKichan said, ‘these people were talkers and dreamers with no real plan of action.’

Example: ‘Austrian strength was the greatest obstacle to German unification.’ How accurate is

this view?

Now you try.

Same question, only this time do it for the end of the section on:

the 1848 revolutions and the Frankfurt Parliament.

It should be something along the lines of:

This time, Austrian strength was clearly not the greatest obstacle to German unification. The Austrians were not in a position to intervene in German affairs at this point. The failure of the Frankfurt Parliament to unite Germany was due to the indecision of the intellectuals and the nationalists to draw up a constitution before the ‘moment had passed’ and the revolutions had subsided. The Frankfurt parliament also did not have the support of the leaders of the individual German states, nor any military backing.

Example: ‘Austrian strength was the greatest obstacle to German unification.’ How accurate is

this view?

OK, once more.

Same question, only this time do it for the end of the section on:

Erfurt/Olmutz.

Here’s mine:

Once again, Austrian strength had proved to be the greatest obstacle to German unification. By 1850, the revolutions of 1848 had subsided, the Austrians had a new Chancellor and were in a position to assert their authority. By 1850 it was becoming apparent that German unification would be the result of some kind of confrontation between Austria and Prussia, but that did not come until1866.