The Student Room Group

Edexcel: From kaiser to fuhrer 1900-1945, his03/d exam friday 10th june 2016

Scroll to see replies

Reply 360
Surely they have to ask a question on the golden years of Weimar cause they haven't asked one yet? If they don't and its in the course the exam board will slated because this is the last year of the course....
Last minute panic guys. Does anyone have a semi detailed plan on the rise of the nazis.
They points I've been told to include are
1 hitler himself
2 other leading nazis
3 members of the traditional elite
4 other political parties
5 the economic situation 1930-33

If someone could please point me in the right direction with what I would write for each point and the examples I would include would be great.
Thank you!!
Original post by JWhizz
Surely they have to ask a question on the golden years of Weimar cause they haven't asked one yet? If they don't and its in the course the exam board will slated because this is the last year of the course....


I thought either that or final solution should come up. I mean they haven't asked it in 5 years and what better way to round up the course by teaching students about one of the most important events in history.
Reply 363
Original post by grassntai
I thought either that or final solution should come up. I mean they haven't asked it in 5 years and what better way to round up the course by teaching students about one of the most important events in history.


What question you thinking for part b?
Original post by JWhizz
What question you thinking for part b?


i dont think you can predict part B. honestly it's all about the sources

i've only revised for causes of ww1 so im doing that controversy.
Guys please someone help me with an answer on the nazi rise to power
Pleaseeeee
Weimar was doomed from the start. how far do you agree?

How would you plan this?
:smile::smile::smile:
Original post by Annie.humair
Guys please someone help me with an answer on the nazi rise to power
Pleaseeeee


Could you specify a question please?
Reply 368
Hiya, could anyone help me on what this question actually means;

To what extent was the effective government of Germany in the years 1919-1933 handicapped by the nature of the Weimar constitution'

I really don't like the structure of the question, and don't get what you'd put in the answer.

Also, does anyone know what year this paper was?

And does anyone have an examplar question on the final solution?

Thank you!!!!
Original post by zikra98
Weimar was doomed from the start. how far do you agree?

How would you plan this?
:smile::smile::smile:


If talking about the Weimar being threatened/ weak I would talk about:
- treaty of Versailles
- extreme right (Munich putch, red Bavaria, kapp putsch)
- extreme left ( Spartacus uprising)
- Ebert-Groener agreement
- the constitution (article 54, article 48)

Hope that helps
Feel free to correct me guys
Original post by zikra98
Could you specify a question please?


'The nazis were able to rise to power because of Hitler's talent as a politician'

Something along those lines
Original post by aimbx
Hiya, could anyone help me on what this question actually means;

To what extent was the effective government of Germany in the years 1919-1933 handicapped by the nature of the Weimar constitution'

I really don't like the structure of the question, and don't get what you'd put in the answer.

Also, does anyone know what year this paper was?

And does anyone have an examplar question on the final solution?

Thank you!!!!


To what extent was the final solution a result of the chaotic nature of the nazi state?
Original post by aimbx
Hiya, could anyone help me on what this question actually means;

To what extent was the effective government of Germany in the years 1919-1933 handicapped by the nature of the Weimar constitution'

I really don't like the structure of the question, and don't get what you'd put in the answer.

Also, does anyone know what year this paper was?

And does anyone have an examplar question on the final solution?

Thank you!!!!


I did this question recently! It's June 2011.
The way I laid it out was:
-Legacy of WW1
TOV/ Stab in the Back/ disillusionment with democracy from the start
-Constitution (why it was bad)
PR voting system (60,000 votes for a seat, allows extremist parties exposure)/ coalition government
Constitution (why it was allllright)
Article 48 allowed Ebert to rule effectively (Munich Putsch) and maintain control/ Article 54 maintained positions of elite, leading to Ebert-Goener pact & thus ability to use Freikorps and Army to put down Spartacist Revolution & the like

I followed a really simple structure but my teacher marked it 29/30 (obvs too generous) but they're the basic points I included.
Hope that helps!
Original post by Annie.humair
'The nazis were able to rise to power because of Hitler's talent as a politician'

Something along those lines


I wouldn't worry about it too much, this came up last year :

Howfar do you agree with the view that Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor in 1933came about primarily as a result of the misjudgements of Weimar politicians inthe years 1929–33?

Which is relatively similar in my understanding.
Reply 374
Can i get away with not revising nazi rise to power as thats come up twice and came up last year. Struggling to remember everything so trying to focus i think will come up
I'm not revising the second reich because of the lack of time and now I'm starting to feel not too confident with the nazis either what should I do?
Original post by Annie.humair
'The nazis were able to rise to power because of Hitler's talent as a politician'

Something along those lines


-Political alliances - with von papen who disliked von schleicher Or the army
-ability to exploit situations to his advantage (Reichstag fire and Great Depression)
Great Depression - made people oppose Weimar
Reply 377
Has anyone got any example essays/ a plan for a wartime opposition question?
Reply 378
Yeah, thank you!!!

I really hope that wouldn't come up again!!!
Reply 379
Yeah, that would be okay.

Would you just talk about how no one had total control over aspects like economy and decesion making, decesions were made after events occurred, only decided their needed to be a final solution in 1941 when defeat seemed on the rise.

And then for the argument against it being due to the chaotic nature, what could you say?

Quick Reply