Anyone doing A2 EDEXCEL Kaiser to Fuhrer for June? (2013)

Guys this whole exam really stresses me because of the time limit! How many pages are you planning to write in 1. Reason for WWI (chptr. 2) 2. stresemann 3. polarisation 4. war economy, opposition and final solution!

Thanks! by polarisation i mean chptr 3 , the impact of WWI, political divisions and stuff.

Hey can someone list out all the official questions that have come up in past papers please, if you've got it online..just to save me looking at every past paper on the edexcel website!

I've got a whole bunch of questions from my teacher but half are made up, so its slightly confusing :/

thanks

Hi, can someone give me a good explanation of the controversies please, I've just realised they were completely different to what I thought they were

what do you mean by an explanation? What don't you understand about them? !

Section A questions:

'to what extent was Germany a parliamentary democracy in the year 1900-1914?'

'Hitler became Chancellor in January 1933 because he was the leader of the moost popular party in Germany"

'to what extent was the effective governemnt of Germany in the years 1919-33 handicapped by the nature of the Weimar constitution?'

'the transformation in the fortunes of the Nazi party in the years 1930-33 was largely because of Hitler's remarkable talents as a politician'

'the final solution evolved because of the chaotic nature of the Nazi regime in the years 1939-42'

'to what extent did the Nazi regime face serious opposition within Germany during the years 1939-45?'


In terms of the controversy, I have only studied the Nazi regime 1933-39 so cannot give you the WW1 controversy. However, the Nazi regime ones are as follows:

'to what extent do you agree with the view that Hitler was a 'non interventionist dictator'?'

'How far do you agree that Hitler's regime was a 'consensus dictatorship'?'

'Hitler was a dictator who did not dictate'

Well my teacher said the controversies were all about the structuralist/intentionalist debate.

Do you believe that by revising chapters 2 3 5 9 one should be covered for the exam? desperately running out of time hereee!

My other essays:


‘The political establishment in Germany succeeded in maintaining the political status quo through a policy of moderate reform.’ How far do you agree with this judgement? - 24/30 marks = A grade.

In this essay, I will be stating my opinion to the extent that maintaining political status quo through a policy of moderate reform had help Germany to succeed political establishment. I believe that there are many other important factors to consider such as nationalistic foreign policies, constitutional power & the power of the Kaiser and the importance of the disunity of parties in the Reichstag. The question concerns moderate reform and I agree with this judgement to a large extent. The reason for this is because moderate reform helped placate and divide socialists & liberals, and the groups that were demanding social & constitutional change. However, it can be argued that the power the Kaiser had in his hands had succeeded in maintaining the political status quo to a significant extent. The reason for this is because the nationalism and patriotism upholding the Kaiser’s constitutional powers were very important, as the vast majority of the German population and the political nation valued the Kaiser. Therefore, he did not face any serious challenges throughout this period and it was unpatriotic to challenge him. Thus, this helped him in maintaining political status quo. It should also be noted that, nationalistic foreign policy was pressed against by traditional elites in order to unite against the threats to the status quo. However, the attempt to unite against the threats had developed a disunity of the parties in the Reichstag. Therefore, many parties were unable to work together and to make any real challenges.

It is clear that the Social Democratic Party (SPD) wanted and demanded social reform. They were a growing party and by 1912 they were a huge threat to the elites, as they became the biggest party. The policy of moderate reform satiated socialist demand for social reform and this kept the liberals divided. The Liberals had wished for constitutional reform within the Reichstag and more of a parliamentary style of Government. However, the Socialist muted the demand for constitutional reform. The clearest example of this is the new law amendments and extensions that were passed. The increased in Old Age Pensions in 1899, in 1900 Accident Insurance was extended, Tariff Laws for imported goods in 1902, Sickness insurance Law in 1903 and the 1908 law to reduce hours of factory work show that social reform was being given to the socialists throughout this period. This was important to the political establishment in maintaining the political status quo as it kept the working class satisfied and the involvement of the SPD to the minimum. Further more, this made the working class believe that they can live successfully through the social reforms. However, this shows the increasing influence of socialism. The political establishment underestimated them and the socialist movement were becoming a threat to the elites. This misconception implies that the political establishment perceived the socialist threat. It was the already existing structure of the Kaiserreich in place that maintained the political status quo best. The 1902 Tariff Law put higher taxes on imported goods into Germany. This allowed Germany to protect their businesses from foreign businesses. This law led to the rise in votes for the SPD (Social democrats). This can be seen in the rise of votes in the 1903 general elections (56 seats in 1898 to 81 seats in 1903). This Tariff Law supports the idea that moderate reform was never intended to be a mechanism to keep the status quo. However, on the other hand, this Law did placate protectionist liberals and displease the progressives as there influence for constitutional reform was decreasing. In relation to the question, the policy of moderate reform did help maintain the political status quo, through placatory and divisionary tactics, but was not always effective and perhaps did more to placate the political establishment in their misconstrued fear of the threat of socialist revolution. However, it gave the working class hope and minimised the opposition (SPD) to challenge the elites.

Fundamentally, constitutional power and the power of the Kaiser were very limited within this period. Therefore, I believe to a fair extent as it can be argued for the signifance it had for political status quo within Germany. The majority of the German population did not challenge the Kaiser as it was seen unpatriotic. The Kaiser was valued and he therefore did not face any real serious threats and challenge. An example of this is the Zabern Affair 1993. The focus of this is when the war-spoil; Alsace-Lorraine in 1911, was being undermined by the Zabern Affair of 1913. This is where intended integration resulted in clashes between the army and the locals.
This affair presents the lack of power the Reichstag had against the Kaiser, as their ‘no confidence vote’ against Bethmann-Hollweg was ignored. This further inspired SPD’s protest. This lack of power was a contradistinction to the power of the Kaiser and the Elites.

In addition, another example of the lack of power of the Reichstag had to challenge the Kaiser is the Daily Telegraph Affair 1908. The Reichstag criticised the foreign policy he had came up with, without consulting the appropriate individuals. Consequently, Chancellor Bulow supported this Reichstag and this therefore in return made the Kaiser to lose confidence with him and he was forced out of his position as Chancellor. Therefore, a judgement can be made that the Kaiser controlled the Reichstag and the Chancellor and there was no serious challenge thrown at him. This allowed him to keep political status quo effectively.

There was support for nationalist foreign policies. This showed nationalism and patriotism. This was particularly important to the working class. Policies were introduced by the elites and they maintained them. For an example, the policy of Sammlungspolitik was under Bulow’s chancellorship. His aim was to build up an alliance of Conservatives, Liberals, Junkers and industrialists who would present a broad front against Socialism and towards the Kaiser and his ideals. This particularly provided support for the political status quo. Consequently, this was achieved through protectionism and a strong colonial policy called Weltpolitik. This enforced support for political establishment by giving a channel for strong nationalism for the people of Germany. The way this was achieved was through Flottenpolitik. This was to expand Germany’s current fleet to match the Royal Navy’s of Great Britain as it was seen as a great threat and power. The momentum of Flottenpolitik was maintained by the Navy League, which held countless meetings and demonstrations to support Germany’s right to build a navy, showing synthesis of popular pressure and government policy. Subsequently two Naval Laws passed through the Reichstag in 1900 and 1906. The first of which proposed to build 38 battleships over the next 20 years, which pleased not only the Naval League but industrialists too, who profited from the commissioning of so many new ships. This clearly shows Sammlungspolitik being achieved, bringing the elites together and enforcing nationalism and patriotism. The 1906 Naval Law added 6 battle cruisers to the programme and widening the Kiel Canal to allow the passage of dreadnought-type ships from Germany’s main naval bases to the North Sea, in response to the Royal Navy’s launch of HMS Dreadnought. The navy had become a focus for popular patriotism and nationalism, actively rivalling the Royal Navy, which soaked up the pressure and tensions of the political status quo’s potential challenges. However, Weltpolitik had limitations, because the opportunities to expand after 1900 were minimal as most territory had been already been seized by other European powers. The pressure and tension that came from the supporters of Weltpolitik, in particular the German Colonial League and Pan German League, was alleviated only to an extent by the 1899 approval to extend the German-built Constantinople-Konia railways through to Baghdad. This kept imperialist dreams alive but was not a force of strong cohesion like the Naval Laws were.

In conclusion, I believe with the judgement in the question to a large extent. The reason for this is because moderate reform helped placate and divide socialists & liberals, and the groups that were demanding social & constitutional change. For an example, the Tariff Laws to support peasants & the working class and other laws such as Old Age Pensioners and Sickness Insurance. However, other factors to help maintain political status quo should not be overlooked as they also have significance. The Kaiser was unchallenged throughout this period and his opinions and his personal preference in undermining the Reichstag was key. This is because it shows the lack of power the Reichstag had overall as he dismissed their authority. This is shown in the Affairs of Zabern and Daily Telegraph. Therefore, it can be argued the Reichstag’s maintained political status quo through their ‘little involvement’ or the Kaisers personal views and him restricting the Reichstag. Also, nationalistic foreign policies should be considered.

Just so you know, my teacher has stressed all year to us that you do not have to mention specifically 'structuralist' and 'intentionalist' views and specific historians to get a high level 5. You can achieve full marks without doing so! Sorry if you already knew this, and good luck

I would panic if I was faced with such a question in the exam. Oh goodness me. Am I safe if I revise these topics: Causes of WW1, Stresemann: Golden years, Nazi consolidation of power.... I don't know what topics to focus on in the Nazi section, what could they potentially ask a question on?