OCR 2015: History A2 - Debates about the Holocaust

This exam, strange as it may be, has its benefits. Seeing as the date of the exam differs across colleges from around the country, has anybody sat it yet? IF SO what can the rest of us expect to find? If anybody can let me know I will literally be forever in your debt!

Reply 1

demiwebster

Hey! I'm new to this site so I'm not sure i'm doing it all right but I came on here with the same question as you - and I got the paper this morning.

The extract is quite complicated

and question B - '' In their work o the Holocaust, some historians hae focused on those who carried out the killing of the Jews, explain how this approach has contributed to our understanding of the Holocaust - Advantages/Shortcomings etc.

Not so sure how I feel about the question! :frown:

Reply 2

Samba_21

OP

1

Original post by demiwebster

Hey! I'm new to this site so I'm not sure i'm doing it all right but I came on here with the same question as you - and I got the paper this morning.

The extract is quite complicated

and question B - '' In their work o the Holocaust, some historians hae focused on those who carried out the killing of the Jews, explain how this approach has contributed to our understanding of the Holocaust - Advantages/Shortcomings etc.

Not so sure how I feel about the question! :frown:

OMG THANKYOU! Seriously it's a huge help! To me that sounds like it's talking about perpetrators, so I'd assume we should talk about things like German volk and ideology to explain, so maybe some historians like Goldhagen and Browning, probably Arendt as well! I've got word on question A, I heard it was from the book bloodlands and it does seem complex. I searched for a lecture from the author on youtube, it's helpful in understanding what he thinks, maybe could help us understand what the markers are expecting us to talk about! (I haven't seen the extract though so hopefully this will help!)

Reply 3

demiwebster

Original post by Sam Brown

OMG THANKYOU! Seriously it's a huge help! To me that sounds like it's talking about perpetrators, so I'd assume we should talk about things like German volk and ideology to explain, so maybe some historians like Goldhagen and Browning, probably Arendt as well! I've got word on question A, I heard it was from the book bloodlands and it does seem complex. I searched for a lecture from the author on youtube, it's helpful in understanding what he thinks, maybe could help us understand what the markers are expecting us to talk about! (I haven't seen the extract though so hopefully this will help!)

You're welcome!

Question B - yes, definitely about the perpetrators and who were to blame for the genocide - be careful not to think about the obvious e.g killing squads.
Arendt potentially, as she goes on to discuss how Eichmann and his elite were only conforming to the orders of Hitler, though he fully understood the orders. I recall Eichmann saying he was adhering to the Golden Rule by Kant? Maybe that's something to consider?

Any questions, just ask - I'm glad we have this thread going though!!!

Reply 4

Samba_21

OP

1

Original post by demiwebster

You're welcome!

Question B - yes, definitely about the perpetrators and who were to blame for the genocide - be careful not to think about the obvious e.g killing squads.
Arendt potentially, as she goes on to discuss how Eichmann and his elite were only conforming to the orders of Hitler, though he fully understood the orders. I recall Eichmann saying he was adhering to the Golden Rule by Kant? Maybe that's something to consider?

Any questions, just ask - I'm glad we have this thread going though!!!

Yeah that's a good point, we've gotta remain focussed on the question. I think there's potentially a lot to talk about if we word our writing correctly, justify our points, explain the process and make the links! I feel as though Kershaw could fit to some extent, possibly considering how that, yes people killed, but because of the context of Poland, to which explains that it wasn't a one-dimensional drive. It could be used to discuss the jump from 'who' killed to 'why' they killed nearer the latter half of the discussion. Just throwing an idea in, something to consider! :smile:

Reply 5

elderprices

Do we have Question A? What is the extract about?

Reply 6

Samba_21

OP

1

I'm not sure if the extract is out there yet, but I have been told that it's from Timothy Snyder's book 'Bloodlands'. The approach generally focusses on the fact that the Nazi's failure to capture Moscow and the turning tide of war lead to the accelleration of genocide from the Jews. (Don't quote me on this, I'm literally taking some guy's word for it!)

Reply 7

Loolah

Hi, this is is a god send, you have literally just saved my life. Any chance you could spill the beans on what Question A is?

Any help would be much appreciated. Thanksssssss :smile:

Reply 8

FearsomeHippo74

Firstly a MASSIVE thank you to you all. B definitely sounds like perpetrators so Goldhagen, Arendt, possibly a little on the Wehrmacht? Question A seems like it's just that the decision for the Holocaust was made in the face of defeat - NOT the euphoria of victory. Thinking I might leave that one for the second day...

Reply 9

Aleext58

1

Hi guys,

Does anyone know what the part A or B on the American West is? Anyone doing holocaust had a quick peek at this question, if so you'll save my university application. Thanks

Reply 10

*tips fedora*

It's okay m'lady

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 11

emmanuelg

alright,

not sure exactly the best way around structuring question b, would you focus sections on specific contributions? or look at who, why and how perpetrators carried out the killings?

obviously would include goldhagen and browning but not sure how well any of the arendt or kershaw stuff links to the question on specifically who carried out the killings

Reply 12

Flowertopsfi

Original post by emmanuelg

alright,

not sure exactly the best way around structuring question b, would you focus sections on specific contributions? or look at who, why and how perpetrators carried out the killings?

obviously would include goldhagen and browning but not sure how well any of the arendt or kershaw stuff links to the question on specifically who carried out the killings

You could do it by mentioning all the perpetrators (separate paragraphs for each) then once you had mentioned them all do all of the advantages then the disadvantages or you could do sort of mini essays in the one big one by mentioning one perpetrator, their advantages and disadvantage and then move onto the next. I think when you just have to go with whatever style fits best when you write it!?

Reply 13

Jamiejaminson

For approach it does seem to be focused around the idea of the role of the war in the decision for the final solution. The method seems to focus on quotes from speeches and other powerful individuals but what's the interpretation as it doesn't seem to be any individual one

Reply 14

sophiecorah

2

I've found that i've made an entire paragraph just explaining the extract and basically re-writing what it already tells you. I'm thinking I should probably cut it out as feel its a bit pointless and my teacher always tells us not to re-write the extract, although it does have some knowledge in it. Help please?
I hate this extract :/

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 15

brsmith