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

it is addressing the question? The question was to what extent was there significant opposition, so the early years of the war had such high morale that opposition was limited... Opposition is a consequence of low morale?

thankyou

I separated it into factors-first why Germany wasnt a democracy at the time
Factors were:
The Kaiser and his powers, with the exampla of the Daily Telegraph Affair
The elites who were the Kaiser's staunch supporters and how they had legislative and economic power thus keeping Germany an entrenched authoritarian state rather than a parliamentary democracy
The army who were part of the elites and how the way they functioned kept Germany an authoritarian regime and i gave the example of the Zabern Affair
Then I said that despite this, Wilhelimine Germany still had some democratic aspects so i spoke about the Reichstag and its powers, the constitution and its democratic aspects and the growth kf political parties.
Then i talked about the weaknesses of the Reichstag and concluded by linking back to the title and stating that although some steps were made towards becoming a parliamentary democracy, it was still very much an entrrenched authoritarian regime.
What do you guys think??

I did pretty much the same except I noted that the Reichstag being the only democratically elected house was growing more and more assertive e.g: break-up of blue-black bloc, Daily Telegraph Affair. I did a bit about the conservative government having popular support, as demonstrated by the Hottentot election, the fact that Bethman-Hollwegg tried to reform the Prussian voting system which proved that the elite and the establishment were somewhat understanding of change, Chancellor Von Bulow's reforms (e.g: the old age invalidity thing) to please the ever-growing SPD

Wrote about 3.5 pages for the first and 5.5 pages for the second, I reckon I've done alright but I feel like I babbled and gave too much specific detail, not focussing succinctly on the bigger picture.

Me too but i think a good grade is still achievable even with a bit too much detail, maybe even an A* if the controversy was good so keep your hopes up

haha, we can always dream

if I got that at my school, I'd be somewhat godlike haha, the average grade on the government's league table website is a D- lol

Did anyone do the nazi regime based on consent controversy and if so what did you say about the sources.

I said consent mainly source one, terror mainly source two, selective terror mainly in source 3..
Cross referenced source 3 about selective terror to the mention of the nuremburg laws in source 2 etc

I separated it into factors-first why Germany wasnt a democracy at the time
Factors were:
The Kaiser and his powers, with the exampla of the Daily Telegraph Affair
The elites who were the Kaiser's staunch supporters and how they had legislative and economic power thus keeping Germany an entrenched authoritarian state rather than a parliamentary democracy
The army who were part of the elites and how the way they functioned kept Germany an authoritarian regime and i gave the example of the Zabern Affair
Then I said that despite this, Wilhelimine Germany still had some democratic aspects so i spoke about the Reichstag and its powers, the constitution and its democratic aspects and the growth kf political parties.
Then i talked about the weaknesses of the Reichstag and concluded by linking back to the title and stating that although some steps were made towards becoming a parliamentary democracy, it was still very much an entrrenched authoritarian regime.
What do you guys think??

Wow we have now done our History A Level!!! Never thought I would make it!!

They were very snakey to not give us a Weimar or Hitler's rise question!!

I'm so pleased though, I literally only revised the Second Reich, controversy 1 and a bit of Weimar. I got away with it this time.

Got away with it in AS too to a certain extent, my teacher predicted both questions correctly on the non-sorce one.

I thought it was named source 4, 5 and 6?

I also did the controversy WW1 question:

I thought the argument of source one was planned war of aggression, with evidence of Schlieffen plan and railway timetables to back up but no real analysis of situation. I picked up on the weakness of the Source, drawing attention to the title 'Great Britain's Great War' and its imperialistic connotations. I completely dismissed this source and thought Paxman's scathing criticism of the Kaiser felt too personal and subjective. Moreover, I felt his argument was a regurgitation of Fischer's theses and A.J.p Taylor's railway timetables argument. He did not add anything to those arguments already said. I was quite shocked by the stance of Paxman, so I looked up the source after my exam, turns out the book is a satirical-esque narrative history written from the point of view of Briton's in the First World War. I think it was quite cheeky for edexcel to include this source but it was easy to dismiss.

For Source 2 I'm not sure thats what the author was implying, his stance suggested the 'preventative' argument but made out as if it was only used by Germans to justify the war by labelling it defensive and therefore take the responsibility for war away from themselves. However, I disagreed with this partially, stating it was unfair to imply blame for diplomatic failures was completely German. I thought the source went on the agree with Wehler and the other Structuralists by chalking the war up to the Ger elites' willingness to go to war to mask domestic and social problems and maintain their status and prestige. I agreed with this but outlined the difference between the willingness to risk war as 'an escape forwards' and the belief that the war was coherently planned from an early staged. I dismissed the later argument.

I felt as if source 3 was a mix of different interpretations but especially the view that Europe 'slithered' into war, drawing attention to the use of 'Sleepwalk' in the title. I don't think the source was saying Germany wasn't aggressive, it actually thought it was but mentions the aggression or 'paranoia' of other parties and doesn't believe this primarily led to war. Instead it suggested long-term causes such as tensions between powers, the alliance system and especially the power structures of all main parties. I picked up on the last point, linking it back to the argument of source 2 which also stated that.

How did everyone think the questions went? I thought the democracy question for the 30 marker was a very good question, bit worried about the grade boundaries as it felt a bit too easy. The 40 marker was a good question too although I think I messed up slightly with the structure and I'm a bit worried that my explanation of the sources wasn't as clear as it could have been. No point overthinking it now though, guess I'll have to wait till August to see if I've done enough.

In all honesty guys, the exam is done

I know it's sometimes natural to want to think about what you wrote and then get worried about that but it won't do any good. The exam is done so try to push that to the back of your mind and focus on your next exams