[maximus140]

Struggling to come up with paragraphs for this essay title

The impact of the First World War merely heightened existing social and political tensions
which had divided Germany before 1914.’
How far do you agree with this judgement?

Any help appreciated.

[Debbay16]

(Original post by A.L. C-Brown)
There will only be one question per controversy. You'll still get a choice between the First World War or the Nazis, but you won't get a choice of question

Oh I understand that there is only one Q, but will the style of Q differ, will it always be "responsibility of outbreak of ww1 was Germany" and "how popular and effective was the Nazi regime" ?

[jonathanalomoto]

(Original post by maximus140)
Struggling to come up with paragraphs for this essay title

The impact of the First World War merely heightened existing social and political tensions
which had divided Germany before 1914.’
How far do you agree with this judgement?

Any help appreciated.

Yeah i second this. this questions hard as ****, anybody wanna help?

[*snowflake*]

(Original post by jonathanalomoto)
Yeah i second this. this questions hard as ****, anybody wanna help?

I hated this question. This is what I decided would be the basis to my argument... (It's rubbish, I knowww. But ah well.)

1. Problems that existed before the war that got worse following it (e.g. religious and national divisions, prejudice, class barriers, workers wanted even more of a say (before war urbanisation had led to TU membership to reach 2.5m, now they resented the state more b/c of Black Market etc)
2. Weaknesses of the constitution brought out more- weaknesses of Kaiser (he was a bit useless during the war) etc
3. BUT war also lead to new problems- silent dictatorship exacerbated political divisions and also caused different ones
4. Other social problems now because of the war- military/general discontent, inflation, food shortages (16-17 'Turnip Winter')

Conclusion: Germany's weak foundations laid down before the war meant the situation would inevitably worsen through conflict. BUT also war cause lots of new problems that weren't apparent before, so it didn't 'merely heighten' tensions.

[maximus140]

Thanks for your help, had another look at it using your notes too. Was thinking along the lines of a short and long term argument.

• Ways in which war solved solved social issues initially uniting together the classes
• Ways in which war solved political issues initially eg. Idea of Burgfrieden the political parties dropped there differences and even SPD voted for war credits.
• Ways in war did not solve social issues, eg later on in war tensions developed such as strikes, mutinies lack of food inflation etc.
• Ways in which war did not solve political issues, Idea of Burgfrieden began to diminish, split of SPD, semi military dictatorship,

I ghuess the conclusion and evaluation is just looking at what new social and political issues arose because of war rather than pre war issues just arising again after an initial phase of calm.

[*snowflake*]

(Original post by maximus140)
Thanks for your help, had another look at it using your notes too. Was thinking along the lines of a short and long term argument.

• Ways in which war solved solved social issues initially uniting together the classes
• Ways in which war solved political issues initially eg. Idea of Burgfrieden the political parties dropped there differences and even SPD voted for war credits.
• Ways in war did not solve social issues, eg later on in war tensions developed such as strikes, mutinies lack of food inflation etc.
• Ways in which war did not solve political issues, Idea of Burgfrieden began to diminish, split of SPD, semi military dictatorship,

I guess the conclusion and evaluation is just looking at what new social and political issues arose because of war rather than pre war issues just arising again after an initial phase of calm.

Nice ideas Yeah, in my expanded plan thingy Burgfrieden came up too.

[ironandwine]

i hate my life, nothing is staying in my head.

[letsdothetimewarpagain]

I am so very temped not to learn chapters 7-9. 7 and 8 don't matter so much because they are the second controversy and you only need to know one and I'm pretty good with the other one. Chapter 9 is the risky one, if section A comes up with something in it I'd be screwed but at the same time it came up for both part A questions last year It's those three chapters I really struggle

[AP19]

(Original post by letsdothetimewarpagain)
I am so very temped not to learn chapters 7-9. 7 and 8 don't matter so much because they are the second controversy and you only need to know one and I'm pretty good with the other one. Chapter 9 is the risky one, if section A comes up with something in it I'd be screwed but at the same time it came up for both part A questions last year It's those three chapters I really struggle

My teacher told us that we didn't have to learn about Hitler in great detail (I've read up about it anyway) he said that Part A is broken down into these points:

1. Second Reich
2. Forming of the Weimar Republic and Golden Years
3. Ending of the Republic and the Rise of the Nazis
4. Hitler, life in Nazi Germany

So if we were to learn the first three points then there was definitely going to be a question on the paper that we would defintiely be able to answer.

[A.L. C-Brown]

(Original post by Debbay16)
Oh I understand that there is only one Q, but will the style of Q differ, will it always be "responsibility of outbreak of ww1 was Germany" and "how popular and effective was the Nazi regime" ?

The wording changes each year, which will obviously affect your whole line of argument. So last year the emphasis was on German aggression causing WW1, but this year it could be on German defence/encirclement, miscalculation, role of others, military leadership etc My teacher even went as far as to say they could give us a question on Austria's responsibility (even though the controversy itself is on German responsibility ) So the emphasis will differ, yes - that what you mean?

[letsdothetimewarpagain]

(Original post by AP19)
My teacher told us that we didn't have to learn about Hitler in great detail (I've read up about it anyway) he said that Part A is broken down into these points:

1. Second Reich
2. Forming of the Weimar Republic and Golden Years
3. Ending of the Republic and the Rise of the Nazis
4. Hitler, life in Nazi Germany

So if we were to learn the first three points then there was definitely going to be a question on the paper that we would defintiely be able to answer.

That's reassuring, cheers!

How do people write their intro's and conclusions?

It's the intros that seem to be more difficult aha

[Marinated_in_Joy]

(Original post by letsdothetimewarpagain)
I am so very temped not to learn chapters 7-9. 7 and 8 don't matter so much because they are the second controversy and you only need to know one and I'm pretty good with the other one. Chapter 9 is the risky one, if section A comes up with something in it I'd be screwed but at the same time it came up for both part A questions last year It's those three chapters I really struggle

Bit risky though, seeing as usually one of the questions are always worded dodgily.
E.g. one of the controversies last year was talking about Hitler being a "despotic tyrant" and a question we were asked once was "Hitler was appointed to power purely due to the intrigue of the 1930s". If you don't understand one question, the topic of which you've revised heavily, but you can't answer because you don't want to misinterpret the question, and you've not learnt the other option, you're pretty screwed.....



P.S. I applaud the username

[AP19]

Who is doing the first controversy?

I'm planning on writing about Fischer and Ritter. with point from other historians backing up both Fischer and Ritter like Rohl and Wehler

I was just wondering how everyone will be structuring it? I have what I want to say in mind I just don't know how to word it really

Thanks

[ironandwine]

(Original post by letsdothetimewarpagain)
I am so very temped not to learn chapters 7-9. 7 and 8 don't matter so much because they are the second controversy and you only need to know one and I'm pretty good with the other one. Chapter 9 is the risky one, if section A comes up with something in it I'd be screwed but at the same time it came up for both part A questions last year It's those three chapters I really struggle

I don't think I'll bother with chapter nine, since it came up for both parts last year. I might skim over it/learn it if I have time, but my history teacher seems to think the Weimar Republic is the hot potato this year and he's usually pretty solid at guessing.
Gonna learn both controversies though, 'cos one of the questions might be worded really weirdly... Good luck if you don't though!

[letsdothetimewarpagain]

I'm confused, we've been taught absolutely nothing other than Fischer and sourcework for the first controversy. Everyone seems to be making it overly complicated...

[A.L. C-Brown]

(Original post by AP19)
Who is doing the first controversy?

I'm planning on writing about Fischer and Ritter. with point from other historians backing up both Fischer and Ritter like Rohl and Wehler

I was just wondering how everyone will be structuring it? I have what I want to say in mind I just don't know how to word it really

Thanks

I am! Planning on using Fischer and AJP Taylor for sure, and others such as Wehler if possible. Otherwise, all depends on how they word the question. I know where each argument slots in, so its just a case of tweaking them slightly to suit the question

[Stricof]

(Original post by letsdothetimewarpagain)
I'm confused, we've been taught absolutely nothing other than Fischer and sourcework for the first controversy. Everyone seems to be making it overly complicated...

The range of Historiography is rounded off here. But yes, Fischer is key to this controversy as his point is one of the main factors for there being a controversy about the origins of WWI in the first place.

If you'd like me to explain a little further then I'd be more than happy to.

[letsdothetimewarpagain]

(Original post by Stricof)
The range of Historiography is rounded off here. But yes, Fischer is key to this controversy as his point is one of the main factors for there being a controversy about the origins of WWI in the first place.

If you'd like me to explain a little further then I'd be more than happy to.

Do I just need to the different arguments as laid out as opposed to Historians themselves? We've always been told to let the sources given drive your arguments and bring in other aspects of the historiography around them

[Schnecke]

Argh I'm struggling to revise for this atm. I've decided not to bother with any of the 2nd Reich stuff and concentrate fully on Weimar onwards but there still seems to be so much damn content. Awesome notes on the front page, thankyou OP (Y)



...oh and people are talking about historiography? What is this?

[Stricof]

(Original post by letsdothetimewarpagain)
Do I just need to the different arguments as laid out as opposed to Historians themselves? We've always been told to let the sources given drive your arguments and bring in other aspects of the historiography around them

As far as I've seen from past/spec papers, you are given a number of Historians as sources that outline the different positions in this argument. So yes, as i've always said to everyone, let the sources drive the answer.

But additionally, it would probably help you to know 1-2 historians from each position just to show depth and contrast to the sources in the exam.

(Original post by Schnecke)
...oh and people are talking about historiography? What is this?

Broadly speaking, for A level, it is more about the different interpretations of History. What was to blame? Who was to blame? What other factors were there? Some may blame imperialism and the economy. Some may blame aggression from other countries.

So it's about the interpretation, really.