[InfernoUk]

hey got my exam later today just wrote an A and B question in practice just wondered if it would be possible for anyone to look through and highlight any obvious errors or improvments i only have 2 hours so quicker the better, thanks

How far do these sources agree in their attitudes to the First World War?
These sources go far in explaining Germans feelings on the war; they have some contrasting views but can be seen to give an overview of how they felt about the conflict. Both Sources 1 and 3 show a pro war opinion, this is clear through their speech and choice of words, Source 1 uses complex language such as ‘iron greeting’ and ‘the first cheer arose’ demonstrating a heroic and brave image of the war, source 3 strengthens this view stating the people had a ‘warriors spirit’ and that ‘no one can rob us of our value’ giving the same heroic and brave views as source 1. The provenance of these sources however must be taken into account, source 1 was written by Hitler himself, this would suggest a pro war attitude and possibly we would not expect any less of the attitude given in the source from him, also he was a frontline solider and bitter at their defeat they write about war as if they are hero’s as backed up by source 3 which is written by another soldier, his opinion may be less bias as it does not state his political preference however the language implies he was also pro war and conveys it with an image of heroism.
Source 2 is in opposition to the other two sources views, it shows the war hungry nature of the German people showing their feelings toward war as a ‘drunkenness’ and that they have no other cure than to be ‘drunk again’, the main factor that gives the impression this source is in opposition to war is the description of drunkenness as if they are now addicted to the fight. It writes of the ‘bodies changed to corpses’ which ‘left the spirit completely untouched’ conveying the image that war only left many dead and gave them nothing back. In comparison to the other two sources there is a large contrast, with source 1 and 3 giving a heroic image where as source 2 gives a largely dreary and depressed opinion of the war and of the German people, source 2 seems to be a fairly neutral opinion the source does not state he was a solider or a member of any particular political party and so his opinion doesn’t seem to be influenced strongly unlike the others.
From what the source show us it seems that the opinions of the soldiers are pro war but the status of a non solider looking at the war shows it as a pointless addiction of the German people. Both source 1 and 3 are clearly pro war in their attitudes although not directly quoting this the way they retell their experiences shows they are proud, however source 2’s disagreement is well founded and seemingly non bias from the information provided in the source he does not take a clear side and just ‘tells it as it is’. The only source I would question reliability is that of source 1 as it is from Hitler who was of course, pro war however as the view of another soldier is the same it shows this may just be a common view shared by those who fought, source 2 is from a non soldier and so it may and does show an alternate view.


B.) Study Sources 4 and 5 and use your own knowledge. How important was the threat of violence by Nazis in their gaining of power in 1933?
Violence can be seen as an important factor in the Nazi’s rise to power, the sources show it was the threat that gave them some essential gains and also that gained them support from the people, source 4 demonstrates that it was the initial ‘threat of civil war’ that lead Papen to form a new government with Hitler to keep order, source 5 shows that their ‘willingness to bloody the streets’ gained them many votes showing that their pro change and active image gained them popularity with the public, the sources provenance must also be addressed, source 4 from Papen may be reliable as he is from the government and so would understand the strain the country was in with the threats of civil war outbreak and as demonstrated in his source this was the primary factor for Hindenburg to reform government, source 5 written by a historian in 1998 shows an overview of the situation at the time and may be more reliable as he has knowledge of the whole event and information that Papen may have not had access to at that time, however they show little disagreement that it was their threat of violence that brought the Nazis power, at this time their anti communist propaganda won them much support and their parades installed a military strictness to their image which the people liked and this is reflected in voting outcomes.
Another factor may that failure of current governments however, in source 4 it is stated that von Schleicher government had little support and its ineffectiveness would cause civil war. This demonstrates that the Nazis may have gained power due to the poor states of governments put together by the Weimar system, as no party could gain enough votes there was always a coalition government which lead to little success at anything, it was hoped that with Hitler in government he could unite the parties as said in source 5 he had the ability to ‘twist together strands of left and right without being loyal to their beliefs’ this is what they would aim for in government as then they may be able to progress. It may be seen from this that Nazi’s gained power as they were the only suitable party at the time for the task of preventing civil war rather than their violent approach to the situations in Germany.
A third factor may be that of Hitler’s non violent aim after the Munich Putsch’s failure he vowed to achieve electoral successes through the ballot box rather than violence and so the Nazi’s were not primarily using violence to get elected, as mentioned in source 5 their patriotism and energy won them equal success with the people ‘capturing one in every two votes’ and their ‘rejection of class based politics’ also gained them a wider range of people to gain votes from. And so this factor must also be considered when it is said that violence was important in gaining power
In conclusion the threat of civil war did ultimately bring Hitler into government however their violent image only appealed to ex soldiers and those who wanted war as well as strong anti communists, overall Hitler’s aim was not to use direct violence after its failure in the Putsch and their ability to exploit other parties and bring them together to achieve person gains for the Nazi party lead to success as it made them the only viable party for government at this time and not their threat of violence against opposition.


didnt have time to type out all the sources but it would be good if anyone has time to help with any problems before i do the exams, thanks

[Coursework.info]

As it's been a while since you posted and nobody's responded, maybe you want to check out our sister site -Coursework.Info - the UK's largest academic coursework library.
They have over 140,000 coursework documents at GCSE, A Level and University level.

They submit all their documents to Turnitin anti-plagiarism software and the site is used and approved by hundreds of thousands of UK teachers and students.

I am an automated bot who posts this jolly helpful message in our academic forums on behalf of the owners of both The Student Room and Coursework.Info when posts don't get a quick response.

Hopefully you'll find my advice useful, otherwise my existence is even more futile than it already feels.