A2 Edexcel Hitler and NSDAP revision thread!

oliviasmith05

MIND BLOCK: what was the night of the long knives? sorry i know its such a stupid question lol. Wasnt something about the SA being killed or something? Also, what year was it? cuz im sure it was 1929 so not relevent to the question period? mind u...this coming from someone who cant even remember what it was lol!

The Night of the LOng Knives has different ideas as to how it came about. Some think that it ws originally aimed at taking out von Papen and Edgar Jung, since they wanted Hindenberg to declare Martial law, hence removing Hitler and putting Jung in power. However, it is equally likely that the targets were Rohm and the SA leadership - the elite were scared of the "violent" SA "thugs", and Hitler needed their support. Perhaps more importantly, Rohm had plans to be head of the army, merging the SA into the army. The army, also elite for the most part, were horrified by the prospect of having their eliter ranks soiled by these thugs. Rohm also wanted a "second revolution", and his gay orgies were becoming embaressing for the Nazis.

The answer to these problems was a blaze of bullets on 30th June 1934. Rohm and the SA leaders were dragged to SS HQ and shot. Schleicher (the ex-chancellor and General), who had collaborated with the Strasser brothers to try and remove Hitler, was shot, as was Otto Strasser - despite the fact the Strasser brothers declined Schliecher's plan to remove Hitler. Ironically, Gregor Strasser got away, going down 5 floors in the same lift as 2 SS searching for him! Anyway, Jung was also shot, and Papen placed under house arrest.

So what did the Night of the Long Knives acheive? The elite were now supporters of Hitler, seeing him as saving Germany from a revolution. Whereas in Italy the Matteotti crisis nearly destroyed Mussolini's regime, here the bloodbath strengthened Hitler. Hitler publically accepted that he had done it, claiming that he had nipped a revolution in the bud. The army commander von Blomberg thanked Hitler, and Hindenberg did via telegram (so no signature! It is debated as to whether the telegram was really from Hindenberg, or set up to add credibility to the bloodbath). A year later, in 1935, the army swore a personal oath of loyalty to Hitler himself. Hitler had stopped the radical elements of his party, stopped any attempt by others to upstart him, and got the support of the elite. But was he responsible? Many others benefitted - Goering lost a rival in Rohm, and Himmler was free to expand his SS empire. Both of these could have planted the idea of Rohm's "revolution" in Hitler's mind, showing how it could have been one or both of them who organised the NOTLK. However, since he benefited most, and accepted that he had ordered it, most Historians agree that Hitler was ultimately responsible.

oliviasmith05

Yea it would be interesting to know what everyone has been nudged into revisin in particular? My teachers are rly unhelpful and basically just said dont bother with foreign policy. They also said propaganda knowledge can be used in any question. Oh and the structure of power as well..... so im a bit worried - any ideas from u lot?

Just the main stuff - 4 year plan, NOTLK, SS, strong/weak, propaganda, etc. Yeah, the FUhrerprinzip is good and can be used anywhere to make you sound intelligent :biggrin:

- I'll write some more on this if you want. :smile:

-Saruman

Reply 82

wow thanks that really helpful, i wasnt expecting so much detail! Bet ur gonna do fab in the exam!

Saruman

The Night of the LOng Knives has different ideas as to how it came about. Some think that it ws originally aimed at taking out von Papen and Edgar Jung, since they wanted Hindenberg to declare Martial law, hence removing Hitler and putting Jung in power. However, it is equally likely that the targets were Rohm and the SA leadership - the elite were scared of the "violent" SA "thugs", and Hitler needed their support. Perhaps more importantly, Rohm had plans to be head of the army, merging the SA into the army. The army, also elite for the most part, were horrified by the prospect of having their eliter ranks soiled by these thugs. Rohm also wanted a "second revolution", and his gay orgies were becoming embaressing for the Nazis.

The answer to these problems was a blaze of bullets on 30th June 1934. Rohm and the SA leaders were dragged to SS HQ and shot. Schleicher (the ex-chancellor and General), who had collaborated with the Strasser brothers to try and remove Hitler, was shot, as was Otto Strasser - despite the fact the Strasser brothers declined Schliecher's plan to remove Hitler. Ironically, Gregor Strasser got away, going down 5 floors in the same lift as 2 SS searching for him! Anyway, Jung was also shot, and Papen placed under house arrest.

So what did the Night of the Long Knives acheive? The elite were now supporters of Hitler, seeing him as saving Germany from a revolution. Whereas in Italy the Matteotti crisis nearly destroyed Mussolini's regime, here the bloodbath strengthened Hitler. Hitler publically accepted that he had done it, claiming that he had nipped a revolution in the bud. The army commander von Blomberg thanked Hitler, and Hindenberg did via telegram (so no signature! It is debated as to whether the telegram was really from Hindenberg, or set up to add credibility to the bloodbath). A year later, in 1935, the army swore a personal oath of loyalty to Hitler himself. Hitler had stopped the radical elements of his party, stopped any attempt by others to upstart him, and got the support of the elite. But was he responsible? Many others benefitted - Goering lost a rival in Rohm, and Himmler was free to expand his SS empire. Both of these could have planted the idea of Rohm's "revolution" in Hitler's mind, showing how it could have been one or both of them who organised the NOTLK. However, since he benefited most, and accepted that he had ordered it, most Historians agree that Hitler was ultimately responsible.

Just the main stuff - 4 year plan, NOTLK, SS, strong/weak, propaganda, etc. Yeah, the FUhrerprinzip is good and can be used anywhere to make you sound intelligent :biggrin:

- I'll write some more on this if you want. :smile:

-Saruman

Reply 83

oliviasmith05

wow thanks that really helpful, i wasnt expecting so much detail! Bet ur gonna do fab in the exam!

That's fine :smile:

. Thanks, but unlikely - I seem to always do something wrong such as commentating too much, and end up with a C when I need an A....

-Saruman

Reply 84

Yea i need an A too! My problem is i tend to write this essay based just on the sources and use little own knowledge...eeek!

Reply 85

oliviasmith05

Yea i need an A too! My problem is i tend to write this essay based just on the sources and use little own knowledge...eeek!

I don't know if this is something you already do, or if it will help, but anyway... I find that, when planning, jotting down little segments of own knowledge next to a highlighted point really helps - then when I write the quote from the source, I see the note and do that too! :smile:

-Saruman

Reply 86

Sunshine and happiness

Yeh I am just revising Goebbels and I don't have a huge amount on him... any good quotes to remember etc. Also how much do we need to know about the church and anti semitism? Obviously with the church you have the concordat and church struggle but do you need to know much more than this? For anti semitism I just know the key dates really. Thanks for all the help :biggrin:

Reply 87

I just want to check that I am revising everything that I need to...ok I've done a timeline from 33-39 which includes the main events and stuff, revised opposition, Goering, Goebbels and Himmler and Hitler weak/strong etc. Is there anything I've missed out?

Reply 88

aw thanks, yea il try that! Do examiners like plans lots? I mean surely u dont get extra marks for it, unless of course u run out of time and they can see what u would have written, had u had more time?

Saruman

I don't know if this is something you already do, or if it will help, but anyway... I find that, when planning, jotting down little segments of own knowledge next to a highlighted point really helps - then when I write the quote from the source, I see the note and do that too! :smile:

-Saruman

Reply 89

terror and intimidation?

sheryl06

I just want to check that I am revising everything that I need to...ok I've done a timeline from 33-39 which includes the main events and stuff, revised opposition, Goering, Goebbels and Himmler and Hitler weak/strong etc. Is there anything I've missed out?

Reply 90

ruthjane

Yeh I am just revising Goebbels and I don't have a huge amount on him... any good quotes to remember etc. Also how much do we need to know about the church and anti semitism? Obviously with the church you have the concordat and church struggle but do you need to know much more than this? For anti semitism I just know the key dates really. Thanks for all the help :biggrin:

Here is some stuff I've got on Goebbels:
(1897-1945)
1922 -joined Nazi party
1926 - appointed Gauleiter of Berlin-Brandenburg
V successful, brought together m/c and w/c
1927- founded newspaper, Der Angeriff (The Assault)
1928 - elected to the Reichstag
Played a major role in exploiting Reichstag Fire
1933, March 13th - Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda
Known as ‘Poisen Dwarf’
1933, Sept 22nd - Reich Chamber of Culture formed
7 sub-chambers
Bringing every aspect of Ger. Culture under Goebbel’s control
1933, Oct 4th - Reich Press Law tightens control on the press
Newspapers told what to write
Gov. had right to suppress any publication that it wanted
One of the main orchestrates of the Final Solution and was dedicated to racial purity
1945, April - Goebbels and his family committed suicide with H

Reply 91

the whole 'strong/weak' dictator thing - now is this something like propaganda in which u need to know and understand it cuz it applies to every question - OR is everyone going on about it because they have been told/or have guessed, its going to be a specific question?

Reply 92

oliviasmith05

terror and intimidation?

o yea i have done that lol

Reply 93

isn't the weak/strong thing like the basis of the b question?

Reply 94

i dont think u rly need to know a great deal, but as long as u understand it and could apply it to oppositon (church) or social policy (anti-semitism) then i think ud be ok :smile:

for anti-semitism, a lot of ppl were 'supposedly' unaware of the actual extent to which the Nazi party were against them, in other words they didnt know that they were gonna kill loads of them...also, its fairly agreed upon by most that anti-semitism wasnt the main reason they joined/supported the NP - there were other extreme opposition groups who were anti-jew and Hitler focused on anti communism more!

ruthjane

Yeh I am just revising Goebbels and I don't have a huge amount on him... any good quotes to remember etc. Also how much do we need to know about the church and anti semitism? Obviously with the church you have the concordat and church struggle but do you need to know much more than this? For anti semitism I just know the key dates really. Thanks for all the help :biggrin:

Reply 95

i dunno! Thats why im confused!

sheryl06

isn't the weak/strong thing like the basis of the b question?

Reply 96

oliviasmith05

i dunno! Thats why im confused!

This is from the specification on the edexcel website:

• Hitler: ‘weak dictator’ or ‘master in the Third Reich’?
− Structure of the Nazi state and the personal role of Hitler; the development of policies leading to genocide
− The power of Hitler’s lieutenants, their role in the evolution and implementation of policy.

Reply 97

FINDING THIS VERY USEFUL: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=hitler+-+strong+or+weak+dictator%3F&meta=

Click the 5th one down ellen or something - downloadable file, (no virus!)
Basically summary of points to various types of questions - could be useful if anyone (like me) is struggling to think what information is relevant to what type of question...

Reply 98