[Solen.132]

(Original post by Agenda Suicide)
If anybody did the World war 1 question with them sources did they find source 2 a horrendous source? I really struggled trying to fit it in as well as I did with my other sources.

It was like historianception, historians talking about historians disagreeing with historians.

It's one of those exams I've no idea if it went really well or went horrendous....

I thought the sources for the World War question were horrible! The second one as you say, had no real opinion itself but just talked about others, so I just focused on Fischers argument with that source... I think I definitely messed that up

What did everyone do for Section A; I did the democracy question... how did people answer that?

[lostlizzy]

So relieved that everyone else found the WW1 source question hard - i really felt i had to twist their words - horrible. Did anyone else find that source 1 was just really stupid? it said there was no plan when there was the schlieffen plan. the sources were hard to compare and it was a tricky question with the negative - hope they push the grade boundaries down.
I thought that Section A was lovely though with the Hitler question, just wrote itself really

[Perseverance]

I don't remember the second question/sources too well haha, I ended up spending 1 hour 15 on Section A so just wrote everything I could to finish on time!

[Perseverance]

(Original post by Solen.132)
I thought the sources for the World War question were horrible! The second one as you say, had no real opinion itself but just talked about others, so I just focused on Fischers argument with that source... I think I definitely messed that up

What did everyone do for Section A; I did the democracy question... how did people answer that?

I did democracy too, err something like:
Agree - Social reforms
Agree - Constitutional
Agree - Political power SPD/Reichstag
Disagree - Power of elites
Disagree - Constitutional
Disagree - Limited power of socialists

Main argument was that it was an entrenched authoritarian state but not necessarily an absolute monarchy - SPD weren't banned/socialist laws needed to placate them - but this was still far from a democracy.

[Smuke]

What did people put for Nazi Transformation of Fortunes question in Section A?

[FuzzySheep]

(Original post by Smuke)
What did people put for Nazi Transformation of Fortunes question in Section A?

Yes: The economic depression and his exploitation of it, moulding party politics to various groups, gaining favour of conservative/industrialist interests, and I think something about charisma/propaganda and his insistence that he becomes nothing less than chancellor.

No: without depression nothing would have changed and Weimar could have survived (comparison of 1928/1930 election votes), polarisation of politics already occuring pre-1930, failure of Bruning to provide good government made Hitler seem good, decline in democracy made his policies more acceptable, dependent on strong influences rather than his own political genius, and did a bit on the nature of political intrigue.

I'm not sure whether 1933 included that year or it meant up to that year, which is why I rushed intrigues. Hell, I don't even think I answered the question correctly.

[FaxFan]

(Original post by Smuke)
What did people put for Nazi Transformation of Fortunes question in Section A?

First paragraph: (For)
- Hitler provided a strong face for the Nazi party (eg - Presidential election) and that 'stability' attracted people who had become alienated from Weimar. The simple 'catch all' policies he promoted were well received in the economic circumstances. Overall, he made them a very desirable and seemingly professional alternative to Weimar.

Second: (Against)
- However, the Nazi party's policies wouldn't have been so popular if it hadn't of been for the Wall Street Crash which polarized politics and propelled the Nazis into the limelight. Extreme conditions calls for extreme measures etc. The collapse made them the strongest party in Germany by 1932(?).

Third: (Against)
- Although the Nazis had become the leading party in Germany, the clinical grab of power came due to the 'backstage intrigue'/Cabinets attempt at using and controlling Hitler. So it was the cabinets naivety that promoted the Nazi party even further.

Fourth: (Added this afterwards as I didn't initially think it wanted the Consolidation period) (For)
- Hitler pragmatically took apart Weimar eg - Reichstag Fire and led the Nazis to be the only political party in Germany by July 1933.

Conclusion - Although Hitler had influenced the Nazi party's policies which became a huge success during the economic collapse, if it had not been for the economic collapse it is most likely the Nazi party would have remained a fringe party. Following on, the accession of Chancellorship was not due to Hitler but due to the Weimar cabinet who foolishly believed they could control and use the Nazi movement. But on the other hand Hitler did play a strong role in the consolidation of power. Overall, due to several factors.

[Xalziz]

(Original post by sortedguy)
hi, how did you answer the parliamentary democracy questions?

and did anyone do the first ww1 controversy?

I talked about the Prussian three-tier franchise not being representative of a parliamentary democracy: 418k conservative = 212 seats, 600k SPD = 6 seats

Mentioned the failure of the Reichstag to follow up on pushing B-Hollweg's resignation following the Zabern Affair

In favour I mentioned how the Reichstag was still needed to pass legislation, that the very existence of voting blocs meant parliamentary democracy did exist.

Also in favour I stated how the increased number of seats for the SPD reflected the urbanisation seen in Germany following the industrial revolution.

However I mentioned that the unassailable position of the Kaiser, an unelected head of state, was not indicative of a parliamentary democracy.

Can't remember what else I put!

[RaRaRasp]

(Original post by FaxFan)
First paragraph: (For)
- Hitler provided a strong face for the Nazi party (eg - Presidential election) and that 'stability' attracted people who had become alienated from Weimar. The simple 'catch all' policies he promoted were well received in the economic circumstances. Overall, he made them a very desirable and seemingly professional alternative to Weimar.

Second: (Against)
- However, the Nazi party's policies wouldn't have been so popular if it hadn't of been for the Wall Street Crash which polarized politics and propelled the Nazis into the limelight. Extreme conditions calls for extreme measures etc. The collapse made them the strongest party in Germany by 1932(?).

Third: (Against)
- Although the Nazis had become the leading party in Germany, the clinical grab of power came due to the 'backstage intrigue'/Cabinets attempt at using and controlling Hitler. So it was the cabinets naivety that promoted the Nazi party even further.

Fourth: (Added this afterwards as I didn't initially think it wanted the Consolidation period) (For)
- Hitler pragmatically took apart Weimar eg - Reichstag Fire and led the Nazis to be the only political party in Germany by July 1933.

Conclusion - Although Hitler had influenced the Nazi party's policies which became a huge success during the economic collapse, if it had not been for the economic collapse it is most likely the Nazi party would have remained a fringe party. Following on, the accession of Chancellorship was not due to Hitler but due to the Weimar cabinet who foolishly believed they could control and use the Nazi movement. But on the other hand Hitler did play a strong role in the consolidation of power. Overall, due to several factors.

Wow, I wrote something comparable to that, here's hoping it gets me a decent grade, at the moment I am just seeing it as bonus points cos I carried on with four subjects.

[Tom172]

Thought it was quite a good paper

I did parliamentary democarcy

Agree: Wide suffrage compared to other nations. All men 25< could vote
Agree: The embryonic social state that Bismarck had left was maintained

Disagree: Government heavily weighted towards Prussia, Kaiser was Hohenzollern and Prussia had most members in the Bundesrat so could veto proposal

Disagree: Power of the Reichstag was limited, used Zabern incident as evidence. Pointed out that Reichstag members were not paid, so had to be from upper class

Disagree: Tariffs introduced through Sammlungspolitik meant cost of living for ordinary people increased, benefitted rich product producers.

Disagree: Three class voting in Landtag

Disagree: Treatment of SPD, seats not redistributed after population shifts

Conclusion, not a parliamentary democracy


Then did the war question

Germany: Blank cheque, Schlieffen plan, War council and September Memorandum, Aggression in Moroccan crises, idea that a "strong foreign policy was needed to unity Germany" Sammlungspolitik. Arms race and Risk Theory

France: Desire to retake Alsace-Lorraine, increase in conscription
Russia: "Great Military Programme", inflexible war plan- partial mobilisation impossible, desire to take Constantinople and access to Straights

Britain: Didn't negotiate with Germany to limit naval expansion, Treaty of London tied Britain to Belgium

Austria: Aggression towards Serbia "need to eliminate Serbia as political power in Balkans", unreasonable nature of ultimatum to Serbia and first attack on July 28th

Serbia: Did little to control nationalism in the Slav states, didn't attempt to negotiate with Austria over ultimatum.

Conclusion: German aggression was responsible

Didn't think the sources were great, still got quite a few quotes in though.

Got 91% in AS, 93% in Russian Coursework, hoping I can get an A* overall!
Edit: if whoever downvoted me did so because I'm in a position to get an A*, they're incredibly petty

[DannyW94]

(Original post by FaxFan)
First paragraph: (For)
- Hitler provided a strong face for the Nazi party (eg - Presidential election) and that 'stability' attracted people who had become alienated from Weimar. The simple 'catch all' policies he promoted were well received in the economic circumstances. Overall, he made them a very desirable and seemingly professional alternative to Weimar.

Second: (Against)
- However, the Nazi party's policies wouldn't have been so popular if it hadn't of been for the Wall Street Crash which polarized politics and propelled the Nazis into the limelight. Extreme conditions calls for extreme measures etc. The collapse made them the strongest party in Germany by 1932(?).

Third: (Against)
- Although the Nazis had become the leading party in Germany, the clinical grab of power came due to the 'backstage intrigue'/Cabinets attempt at using and controlling Hitler. So it was the cabinets naivety that promoted the Nazi party even further.

Fourth: (Added this afterwards as I didn't initially think it wanted the Consolidation period) (For)
- Hitler pragmatically took apart Weimar eg - Reichstag Fire and led the Nazis to be the only political party in Germany by July 1933.

Conclusion - Although Hitler had influenced the Nazi party's policies which became a huge success during the economic collapse, if it had not been for the economic collapse it is most likely the Nazi party would have remained a fringe party. Following on, the accession of Chancellorship was not due to Hitler but due to the Weimar cabinet who foolishly believed they could control and use the Nazi movement. But on the other hand Hitler did play a strong role in the consolidation of power. Overall, due to several factors.

I also wrote something quite similar to that. Let's hope it achieves a decent grade

[helliethepinapple21]

I'm surprised so few people mentioned the fact women couldn't vote as being evidence it wasn't a democracy?

[FedorDan]

(Original post by helliethepinapple21)
I'm surprised so few people mentioned the fact women couldn't vote as being evidence it wasn't a democracy?

It was worth mentioning, although not really an overriding factor considering that in most European nations from 1900-1914, women were not enfranchised (not until after the war at least). It could however, be easily argued that most countries were considered significantly more democratic than Germany.

[lauharvey2]

I am totally panicking about how I did in this exam!!!
I did Germany: From Kaiser to Fuhrer and I did the question about the transformation of the Nazi party.

This is what I put: & does it sound ok?
1. Intro
2. Hitler - and how he made many speeches that helped gain support used Bullock's "It's not what Hitler said, its how he said it" , also transformation of hitler youth helped create a allegiance from the youths.
3. Intrinsic weakness of Weimar and how it helped - economic depression, people liked Hitler's patriotic attitude, showed how democracy was a failure and so were willing to accept a different approach , + versailles treaty made weimar a failure from the beginning
4. leading industrialists funding Hitler , helped to make the nazi party respectable
5. Rivalry between Scheicher and Papen - unknowingly in their bid to defeat one another brought Hitler into the government and so raised the profile and reputation of the Nazi party hugely as Hindenburg had given his approval.
6. Communist threat - nazis party was seen as an alternative and protection against it , hence why people voted.
7. how it can be said that it was who transformed the party through propaganda and not Hitler - used "without Goebels there was no Hitler"
7. conclusion

what do you think?

[dizzyfingers4-5789]

How did everyone do in the exam? I got a B which I'm over the moon with. Considering I got a U last year I say it's a vast improvement! Hope everyone did okay, and hope your results are what you want

[FaxFan]

How did people do? Luckily my other exams went really well because I really didn't do too cracky in this, only scraped a C. So i'm considering a remark because I'm 2 UMS off a B overall.

[DayOfTheBees]

Did anyone else get a much lower mark than expected?
There was only one A (apparently) at my sixth form, and some people got really low marks compared to the rest of their exams. The History teachers are going to talk to the exam board about it, I just wonders if anyone else had the same problem.

[marimo]

I'm so happy with my result! I got a B overall , checked my edexcel to see my marks; I got an A on the exam with 106/120 ?! (I was expecting a C!) ;D and 50/80 on my C/W which gave me a C .

So overall I'm pretty happy !!! (:

[FaxFan]

(Original post by DayOfTheBees)
Did anyone else get a much lower mark than expected?
There was only one A (apparently) at my sixth form, and some people got really low marks compared to the rest of their exams. The History teachers are going to talk to the exam board about it, I just wonders if anyone else had the same problem.

I was definitely expecting better, especially as the questions that came up were areas I thought I was strong at. I'm gonna book a remark on Monday in the hope that whoever remarks my work see's it differently.

But ye, in comparison to my other subjects and other history exams it does stand out as quite low.

[Sesshomaru24U]

(Original post by DayOfTheBees)
Did anyone else get a much lower mark than expected?
There was only one A (apparently) at my sixth form, and some people got really low marks compared to the rest of their exams. The History teachers are going to talk to the exam board about it, I just wonders if anyone else had the same problem.

Yeah, I think I got the highest in my 6th form which was 94 ums. Funny thing is I really didn't work that hard the entire year and banged out revision 2 days before the exam. Although, I only revised the 2nd reich, I guessed it would come up. So happy