Hmm, seems like i'm missing all the numbers from the subscripts. Well, you can see where the essay ends and all the rest is just subscript with references and specification....
- 21/01/2006
- 04:56:08
- Score: 0 out of 0 people found this comment useful.
This is a nice essay :) it might be worth mentioning, though, that it was not only the Provisional Government in charge in 1917, it was a coalition of the Provisional Government and the Constituent Assembly, which mixed things up even more because they couldn't work together.
- 19/01/2006
- 12:27:05
- Score: 0 out of 0 people found this comment useful.
I agree with wootwoot, this is hardly an essay... Even your notes are extremely vague and leave the reader guessing who was who and what happened. Not much help, this is just basic information.
- 19/01/2006
- 12:15:30
- Score: 0 out of 1 people found this comment useful.
This is a great essay, covering everything necessary. Just a couple of things though: "The wall caused West Berlin's population to decrease dramatically" - no, it was to keep the East Berliners in communist East-Berlin, to stop them from fleeing to West-Berlin, which was like a capitalist oasis in the middle of Russian-dominated East-Germany. Before the wall was built, loads of East-Berliners fled to the West, mostly experts and educated people, and the wall limited their escaping and helped keep population constant on both sides of the wall.Also, I'd like to say that you totally undermine the change that happened in relations when Stalin died and Khrushchev came to power; Stalin promoted international communist revolution and believed that the two ideologies would have to fight it out with weapons sooner or later, preferably sooner! Westerners were afraid, and this made the cold war worse. Khrushchev on the other hand believed in coexistence: that capitalism and socialism could like peacefully together. He had a less aggressive foreign policy, and relations became warmer. Even though eg. the Cuban missile crisis happened during his era, he received credit for handling it maturely without open fight. Also his signing the Nuclear test-ban treaty made westerners trust him more.Oh, and I'm finding it hard to believe that the Cold War started because Russia refused the Marshall Aid... After all, it was the financial extension of the Truman doctrine, which, alhtough not said in so many words, was to help countries not only recover from the war but also to resist communist uprisings!! Now why would communist Russia take part in that... What caused tension was this step from USA and also the fact that Russia didn't let it's satellites or Finland accept the Aid.This doesn't have anything to do with the facts you stated in the essay but you could have limited the use of "during this time"...Otherwise, nice work!! I think this might be too broad a topic to explain in greater detail in one essay, which caused the mistakes you made. But you've done your homework :)
- 18/12/2005
- 12:01:47
- Score: 2 out of 2 people found this comment useful.
This starts out very well and you can see that you've researched this topic.... But basically halfway down the essay you just start repeating the same things - you even use the same words! It's one thing writing a conclusion-part and another to repeat everything you said before. But first three paragraphs and some bits and pieces afterwards, nice work.
- 17/12/2005
- 05:15:27
- Score: 2 out of 2 people found this comment useful.
You have a clear introduction, middle and conclusion. The text is quite heavy, as this type of texts tend to be, so I wouldn't recommend this essay to be used as source material unless you are really willing to go deep into the topic. (For a TOK Essay this is obviously the way to go, it doesn't have to be easy) It is clear that you have been thinking about this a lot and know what you are talking about. I also liked your example; it was well integrated into the essay and gave a real-life view on a rather abstract dilemma.
- 01/12/2005
- 11:28:47
- Score: 1 out of 1 people found this comment useful.
Sometimes it is extremely difficult to understand what you are trying to say. You have to think every sentence twice to understand it from the grammatical mistakes and misuse of words (christian-christianity). I didn't quite see the point of some examples (for example the one in the secondlast paragraph about the land claimers (=imperialists?))However, you reached a conclusion, had many examples (of which some also good) and thought about this from many points of view. I liked the fact that you summed it all up in the closing paragraph as a conclusion.
- 01/12/2005
- 11:09:15
- Score: 1 out of 1 people found this comment useful.
This essay was ok, though not very long or in-depth but covered the main points... Would have liked to see some details.
- 30/11/2005
- 14:00:49
- Score: 1 out of 1 people found this comment useful.
This is quite short.... And also, you don't explain things too much and deal with the topic only generally, not going very deep. This information is something that could be said in a text book but wouldn't be of much use in writing an in-depth-essay.
- 22/10/2005
- 03:13:56
- Score: 0 out of 0 people found this comment useful.
the essay was full of spelling mistakes and jumped from place to place. difficult to understand and you use commas in weird places. the things you said were quite irrelevant - i am now in Germany and know the country quite well, i could tell you many more important things than what you said in the essay. on what basis did you choose the cities you wrote about? 'A city of 200,00 is called Erfurt. It's mostly know as Blumenstadt, the city of flowers. As a horticultural center, it is the home of "iga" Internationale Gartenbauausstellung.' -> WTF??!
- 20/06/2005
- 05:57:24
- Score: 0 out of 0 people found this comment useful.
I thought the essay was quite good, although separate paragraphs would have been nice to make reading easier.... But helped me a lot with my essay, thanks :)
- 20/04/2005
- 02:09:39
- Score: 1 out of 1 people found this comment useful.
The councils were not called Zemstvos or Zemtvos as is said in the essay, they are Zemstvas. Also some of the peasants in areas where they were treated with respect after the emancipation wanted more freedom, as was said, but in many cases in areas where they were made pay much more for the land they were only mixed up and angry because they had been farming the land for centuries and all of a sudden they had to pay for it "to be free", so they wanted to go back to the old system.
- 03/04/2005
- 13:51:08
- Score: 1 out of 1 people found this comment useful.