This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Edexcel History A2 Unit 6: Nazi Germany

Scroll to see replies

slowjamz

*tries to remember* Hmm, I think for Source 2 I took their point that people viewed the Nazi regime as transitional and contradicted it by saying how those who were trying to mastermind the 'second revolution' (eg. Rohm and Strasser) had been removed in the night of the long knives, along with other dissidents, basically emphasising a point that Hitler did indeed have control. I found Source 1 even harder to incorporate so I think I only made a brief reference and now can't remember what! :tongue:

Something about people's acceptance of policies... argh I can't remember, it was my last exam so think the elation has drained me of knowledge....
Ah well, it could have been so much worse! :smile:

What did you put?

Last exam! *unfair* I have 4 more! I think I put something about the fact that control the implementation of policy, and then something tenuous about the idea that despite this, he did not control the people's hearts and minds... lol oh well! I think I did something similar as you for source 2 - the rest were easy to include.

Reply 21

waiting2smile

Aylia

I thought the questions were good - I was very relieved actually, I managed to revise those things! I don't think I planned my answer to question b very well, but it's too late now.. How did you put the first two sources into part b?
They didn't seem that relevant?

I'm starting to forget already...! Erm, something along the lines - they both showed how powerful Hitler's position was in that he had the approval of most of society. I focused on source 2 (SPD – banned party), commenting that the enabling act/emergency decrees in 1933 and the night of the long knives had pretty much removed opposition (the threat perceived by those dispelled parties were now exaggerated), and culminated in support from the army and elite for Hitler – which I linked to source 3, with Kershaw saying Hitler’s position was ‘unassailable’ = his power/control was virtually unlimited.
The questions were relatively easy today! I don’t want to tempt fate but we covered much more difficult questions in class and have gone over the ‘was Hitler a weak/strong dictator in total control over the feudal/polycratic government’ debate repeatedly! I’m only elated because OCR and AQA have been evil – well for Biology and English anyway! :smile:

Better go and revise for Biology now!

Reply 22

jossy

i took a different approach- when my teacher came out to mingle with us before we went into the exam, although she didn't tell us the question or by any means the answer (!) she told us to structure the question using three interpretations- i.e. the intentionalist view of the polycratic state, the structuarlist view of the polycratic state and the synthesis view- i.e. kershaw, and brought in the sources to all of it- for example the first source showing that Hitler had full control, because although the emancipation of the women had effectively been suspended and turned on it's head, they still seemingly accepted and even supported him...also brought in at the ends how it was no means totalitarian especially in comparison to Stalin but how ultimately it was a spider web of chaos with all the lines eventually leading into the centre...i forgot to put in opposition :confused:

did i do the wrong thing???

Reply 23

Leekey

jossy

did i do the wrong thing???

You can't do the wrong thing is this exam. You can approach the questions in one of a million ways so its all about how well you responded to the questions asked. I felt that I answered the first question quite poorly because I concentrated a bit too much on the ways in which the regime was supported and why the sources supported / contradiced that and I didn't really get as much in about the levels of resistance as I would have liked except for a bit of detail on SOAPADE and how I devalued the source because of the likelyhood of the author seeing conformity everywhere etc... I thought the second question was quite hard to structure so I took it in topics and assessed how each one aided / prevented Hitler from having control of the regime. I remember dividing it up into things like...working towards Hitler, Hitler's personal appeal giving him unassailable control, polycratic system and if it was intentional on the part of Hitler to ensure his own personal power. I tried to make it as inventive as possible and I think it should be enough to get me a B overall but History isn't a subject I need for uni so I quite enjoyed not having so much pressure to perform. I would like to think I could get a B though to prove that I am not a one-dimentional scientist. :rolleyes:

Reply 24

kingslaw

Reasonably ok exam today I thought (its the exams I though went alright that I always screw up in though!).

In a) I talked about why the Nazi's were popular, failure of the Weimar, the 'Hitler myth', and why the answer to such a question may be distorted as the terror system ensured that those who did oppose the regime were marginalised or repressed (but then contradicted this point by saying the effectiveness of the terror system was dependent on popular support, a la Gellately).

In b) I discussed the structure of the Nazi state and its polycracy, how Hitler manipulated the polycratic system (bringing in discussion of the lieutenants), how Hitlers manipulation of the polycratic state was dependent on society's support, and how the success of the Nazi regime was dependent on the propagating of Hitlers image - thus according him control over the Third Reich, even if it wasn't orthodox influence in policy (due to his leadership style).

I felt slightly dissapointed with the fluidity of my part b), especially as I managed to go through a whole paragraph without a quote from a Source!!!! But it was only a small paragraph, and there was absolutely nothing to support what I was saying. I also managed to bring in Source A and B, which a few people I spoke to afterwards failed to do (Souce A had a useful quote which seemed to emphasive the role of the ideology of the Party and never made reference to the influence of Hitler, and Source B had a useful quote from which you could discuss how strength of Hitler overcame the 'short-termism' of the Third Reich).

Oh, and I went on to extra paper, which always give me some level of irrational confidence!

Reply 25

llama boy

How far do you agree with the view that Hitler was "not in control" of the Third Reich in the years 1933-39?

hahaha! what an easy question!! :biggrin:

Reply 26

paymaster

Just what the doctor ordered.... a nice Nazi paper. It's kinda settled me more about history, i'll just have to wait and c how it all works out. I thought today's paper was very approachable, from a variety of angles. I shall be interested to see what mark I get for that.

Reply 27

Acid_Rain

Yeah, I thought that was a pretty good paper. For a) I should have written about actual opposition to the Nazis tho, just kind of said that sources showed that people overlooked failings of the regime because of improvements over Weimar etc. Talked about Hitler myth, Hitler's popularity allowing him to get away with events such as Night of the Long Knives etc.

For b), I compared structuralist vs intenionalist viewpoints, to what extent could his deputies manipulate him/ gain power, , combo of Hitler's popularity and leadership style made him 'unassailable' etc... managed to get in all the sources.

How much did people write... I did about 2.5 pages for each, went a bit O.T.T on part a) :rolleyes:

Anywayz, exams finished for me :biggrin:

Reply 28

rutera

It's interesting what a wide variety of approaches that there are, and just here on this thread. Personally I went for the typical master in the Third Reich/weak dictator and intentionalist/structuralist arguments for the second part arrving at a synthesis of all of them as a conclusion. I incorporated source 2 talking about how doubts about the future of the regime might suggest that control was not as tight as there seemed to be. As for part A, I talked about how any parts which may have been unpopular about the regime where glossed over with propaganda. I felt pretty good about the exam but now I'm reading all you've written and that I didn't write about which is nerve-racking. I wonder how they pick which approaches they most liked when it comes to writing the examiner's reports....

Reply 29

Leekey

rutera

I wonder how they pick which approaches they most liked when it comes to writing the examiner's reports....

Based on Edexcel's track record I would say that they will pick a random answer that they think is written quite cogently and then make that the pin-up for the rest. They could actually take the time to evaluate the work of all the students who sat the exam and make a balanced decision on the quality of response but this is Edexhell...ermmm....sorry....edexcel we are dealing with here. :rolleyes:

Reply 30

Acid_Rain

rutera

I felt pretty good about the exam but now I'm reading all you've written and that I didn't write about which is nerve-racking. I wonder how they pick which approaches they most liked when it comes to writing the examiner's reports....

Don't worry, I felt the same way reading this thread... and my conclusion for b) sucked because I just ran out of time. Your gut feeling coming out of an exam is usually fairly reliable, and I usually find I do better than I expect (not hard, I usually panic soooo much :rolleyes:

)

Reply 31

rutera

Leekey

this is Edexhell...ermmm....sorry....edexcel we are dealing with here. :rolleyes:

LOL... damn right

Reply 32

Acid_Rain

Leekey

How depressing that we have to worry more about the exam board's (in)ability to mark properly than how we've actually done :frown:

Reply 33

jossy

How much did people write... I did about 2.5 pages for each, went a bit O.T.T on part a) :rolleyes:

i finished the booklet and wrote two extra pages is that bad???

Reply 34

Leekey

jossy

How much did people write...

3 pages for the first (plus plan) and 4 and a bit (plus plan) for the second. :smile:

Reply 35

Leekey

Acid_Rain

How depressing that we have to worry more about the exam board's (in)ability to mark properly than how we've actually done :frown:

Fortunately it doesn't matter for me but I hope everyone here gets the grade they need / want / deserve etc... :smile:

Reply 36

Acid_Rain

jossy

i finished the booklet and wrote two extra pages is that bad???

I have fairly small writing - about 12 words a line in those booklets I think. Plus, my teacher says I write as if I were being charged for each word I use -i.e. concise. I got on to the last page of the booklet.

Reply 37

legalbeagle

jossy

did i do the wrong thing???

Yo! Exactly what I did in part B!

I wrote ten sides...but my writing is miniscule.

Got 300/300 last year in AS history...would quite like to equalise that this year. Reading all your answers...I put in everything you've mentioned....hope Mussolini and Irish coursework go as well with these random markers! :eek:

Reply 38

rutera

legalbeagle

300/300.... that's really impressive... Correct me if I'm wrong here but aren't you the girl who decided to accept Law with French Law at LSE???

Reply 39

jossy

legalbeagle

thank goodness!! i'm so relieved that u did the same as me because i thought i got it wrong! i did unit 4 in january and i got 90 in units 2 3 and 4 and 110 in unit 1 so basically don't need to do that well but i'm hopefully going to do history at uni in september so i don't want to fail these two units and when everyone started saying what they did and it was different from me i thought i'd had it!!!! my writing is HUGE btw so i filled the booklet and some!!
where is everyone going to uni?