[Daniel123]

I thought the Nazi economy is separate and could be asked as a Part A?

[Dixxy]

(Original post by Daniel123)
I thought the Nazi economy is separate and could be asked as a Part A?

this is true, but, as it is such a broad factor, could be incorporated into a question into a B question. Remember 'economy' can be used throughout all time periods

[*snowflake*]

Doing this exam as well Making plans for the questions someone posted in last years thread... think it's helping, woo.
(http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...&postcount=211)

[popeofgoogle]

Does anyone know what came up for section A last year?
I'm using that thread aswell ^^^ its pretty good in terms of essay titles/plans

[*snowflake*]

(Original post by popeofgoogle)
Does anyone know what came up for section A last year?
I'm using that thread aswell ^^^ its pretty good in terms of essay titles/plans

I think there was a question about the Holocaust... not sure though (can't remember what my teacher told us!) I think it says in one of the threads on this exam.
I know my teacher said Weimar questions are very likely as they haven't come up yet, but who knows.

[SirMasterKey]

(Original post by popeofgoogle)
Does anyone know what came up for section A last year?
I'm using that thread aswell ^^^ its pretty good in terms of essay titles/plans

Is that the controvsary one or not?

If controvesary I answered something along the lines of 'Germany was solely responsible for the outbreak of WW1', the other option I can't remember.

If not then there was one about the Holocaust and the other was in different words 'Hitler was made Chancellor in 1933 because he was leader of the most popular party.' (I answered this one and my powerpoint a couple of pages back on 'Did politicians bring down the Constitution is directly aimed at this, thank you Miss for chosing me to do that one )

[popeofgoogle]

(Original post by SirMasterKey)
Is that the controvsary one or not?

If controvesary I answered something along the lines of 'Germany was solely responsible for the outbreak of WW1', the other option I can't remember.

If not then there was one about the Holocaust and the other was in different words 'Hitler was made Chancellor in 1933 because he was leader of the most popular party.' (I answered this one and my powerpoint a couple of pages back on 'Did politicians bring down the Constitution is directly aimed at this, thank you Miss for chosing me to do that one )

ahh thanks! section A is the 'could be on anything' question..
Good to know it was all post-weimar..
i reckon weimar may come up too this time around

[Rational Paradox]

(Original post by SirMasterKey)
Is that the controvsary one or not?

If controvesary I answered something along the lines of 'Germany was solely responsible for the outbreak of WW1', the other option I can't remember.

If not then there was one about the Holocaust and the other was in different words 'Hitler was made Chancellor in 1933 because he was leader of the most popular party.' (I answered this one and my powerpoint a couple of pages back on 'Did politicians bring down the Constitution is directly aimed at this, thank you Miss for chosing me to do that one )

The other one was "To what extent do you agree with the view that Hitler was a 'non-interventionalist dictator'?"

Just for reference, the other Section A question was

"The final solution evolved because of the chaotic nature of the Nazi Regime in the years 1939-42" How far do you agree?

[SirMasterKey]

(Original post by Rational Paradox)
The other one was "To what extent do you agree with the view that Hitler was a 'non-interventionalist dictator'?"

Just for reference, the other Section A question was

"The final solution evolved because of the chaotic nature of the Nazi Regime in the years 1939-42" How far do you agree?

Cheers, when I saw both of them I just went, 'nope' and did the others. Helped me ge get my A overall in History as well

[ooohlaaalaaa]

so 2 weeks exactly until the exam!
how are you guys preparing and what controversy are you doing?
I'm so nervous!
my teacher is positive weimar will come up this year since last year it was expected to and didn't. i'm also hoping for the second reich.
tell me your thoughts!

[A.L. C-Brown]

There is a thread for this - check the stickies. But anyways, hands down the first controversy and SO hoping for Weimar, particuarly the Golden Years

[Daniel123]

Im doing the second controversy. Hoping Kaiser comes up, or Weimar - particularly the Political Crisis

[Geoff89]

For the Section B Source questions, should we critically evaluate the sources like in (Section A-Unit 2) or do we just use the evidence provided in the sources to agree or disagree and then bulk up with own knowledge (Section B-Unit 2). Im about 90% its the technique used in Section B-Unit 2 but I just want to make sure.

[Stricof]

(Original post by Geoff89)
For the Section B Source questions, should we critically evaluate the sources like in (Section A-Unit 2) or do we just use the evidence provided in the sources to agree or disagree and then bulk up with own knowledge (Section B-Unit 2). Im about 90% its the technique used in Section B-Unit 2 but I just want to make sure.

A bit like Section B unit 2 except you replace provenance with relevant historiography...

[Geoff89]

(Original post by Stricof)
A bit like Section B unit 2 except you replace provenance with relevant historiography...

So you would either support or contrast the evidence provided in the source with other historian's opinions on the relevant issue, as well as using your own knowledge before coming to a conclusion.

[Stricof]

(Original post by Geoff89)
So you would either support or contrast the evidence provided in the source with other historian's opinions on the relevant issue, as well as using your own knowledge before coming to a conclusion.

That would be best, yes.

After all the sources relate to different schools of thought or different ways of approaching History. In this instance it is possible to suggest that this question takes skills you've learnt through the IA/coursework.

[ooohlaaalaaa]

i'm currently revising the whole fall of weimar/rise of nazi dictatorship jibby -- it's sooooooo confusing! i know that one reason for hitler becoming chancellor was political intrigue but all the textbooks take pages and pages explaining it - i really need to condense it into about 10 lines so that if i had to write a paragraph about it in an exam, i could get past all the unnecessary explanation and straight to the analysis. any ideas how to do this? my teacher said political intrigue was a separate point to the whole 'hitler had the support of the elites/papen and hindenburg thought they could tame hitler' thing so what on earth goes in a 'political intrigue paragraph!?!? any ideas? how does it directly and analytically link to hitler's chancellorship??

[popeofgoogle]

In terms of my own thoughts on political intrigue debate :
other parties failed to resist Hitler's rise to power- instead came to terms with it.. thus the power was handed to him..as it wasn't challenged. Many would prefer the Nazi party to be in power, than a possible communist coup etc..

but in terms of this 'debate' the majority of influential groups didn't actually want Hitler to control govt. They wanted to tame him..use his support base etc..

[tommy1311]

Something which is kind of baffling me is this whole 'use the sources as a set' malarky. I understand cross-referencing etc., but my lecturer wrote it on my mock when it seems to me that I've used them as a set. Could anyone prove me with an example of their work where they are used as a set.

What it sounds like to me is (this is simplified):

-Make a point
-Back up with sources
-Own Knowledge
-How may the other sources and that source conflict the point
-Why is this the weaker argument with own knowledge

Yet apparently I'm not getting it right.

[Stricof]

(Original post by tommy1311)
-Make a point
-Back up with sources
-Own Knowledge
-How may the other sources and that source conflict the point
-Why is this the weaker argument with own knowledge

Yet apparently I'm not getting it right.

If you're doing it this way then I don't think you're getting it right. I'd approach it differently.

Use the source, not own knowledge, to drive your answer.

- Make the point using the direction the source uses -> This anchors the point
- Use own knowledge to give evidence to this direction of the source and additionally to fill any information gaps necessary through explaination.
- Evaluate/qualify with another source to measure extent - Presumably another historiographical direction.

Clarifies or no?