This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

seeds of evil AS source paper - anti-semitism.

My teacher says we must write a balanced argument in the source paper, against and for the question. But I have a paper asking

'Do you agree that anti-semitism played a crucial part in the development of the Nazi Party before 1929?'

We didn't really learn much on anti-semitism, I know that he played it down in order to gain support and focused mainly on the 'threat' of communism, because industrialists didn't care for anit-semitism.

I also know that anti-semitism gained the support of earlier members of the Nazi Party, but thats it...

Does anyone have any other facts on the NSDAP and anti-semitism?

Thanks.

Reply 1

AYBG

1

Anti-Semitism was very important to National Socialism...

You've got to remember that Hitler's personal ideology was always extended to that of Nazism itself. So race is at the very centre of Nazi social policy.

There was a long tradition of Anti-Semitism across Europe, and in 19th century Germany, this became more clearly defined. By 1900, specifically anti-Semitic parties were winning seats in the Reichstag. Hitler was the product, not the creator, of this racism, though he was particularly obsessive.

Here's a good stat to remember in opposition to the question: in a 1934 survey into the reasons why people joined the Nazis, over 60 percent did not even mention anti-Semitism [that's from Layton's 'Germany: The Third Reich']

Pre-1934 there wasn't a hint that there would be an end result to anti-Semitism.

Reply 2

NickEM

I think this question was a really horrible one to ask, and from what I understand candidates struggled with it somewhat. When you get a question like that, I imagine you're going to rely on the sources somewhat.

Either way, I doubt very much that they would ask another question regarding anti-semitism.

Reply 3

NazB

1

when you say development if it means support NO it did not. WHY?

WELL..
there were more important factors like the communist threat
Economic decline and want for a better life escpecially 1929 wallstreet crash
The anti-versailles attitude
The hate of the weimar republic
the thirst for Germany's autocratic leadership and militaristic nature
Hitler himself downplayed anti-semitism, I even read somewhere that even a few Jews voted for the NSDAP!
balance your answer yes but rely ALMOST completely on the sources since the shources account for the majority mark like 45:15 source :redface:

wn knowledge I think..

Does anyone know the questions which came in jAN 2008 UNIT 4 Hitlers foreign policy or have access to it???

Reply 4

1pamplemousse1

OP

our teacher told us for the second part to ALWAYS use own knowledge and back that up by evidence from the sources :s-smilie:

It seems to be the opposite of what everyones doing on here.

Reply 5

AYBG

1

well yes, but there's not much you can write about anti-semitism pre-1929
if I were you I'd take NazB's advice and write about the things that actually did help the Nazis rise to power, and of course the limitations to the effects of anti-semitism...

Reply 6

robinsons

Ergh this was the question that came up for my first sitting of this paper (resitting it on Monday) and we hadn't been taught anything about anti-semitism's role. I nearly died. And one of the sources was just a poster about the Jews.
Anywayys from what I remember, other people (who did well) said the whole jist of the argument should be that pre-29 the party was not popular, only after wall street crash people turned to it, and that was for economic reasons/disillusionment with Weimar. Also referring to the 25 Point Programme, (the anti-semitic clauses) and maybe Mein Kampf.
We were always taught that anti-semitism was not a main reason why the Nazis came to power. So this, teamed with the fact that the party was not actually popular at this time and rubbish sources, made for a very difficult exam paper.

Reply 7

NazB

1

yes very true...

1pampelmousse with all due respect your teacher is wrong. Even my teacher thought the same thing untill I showed her what examiners ask for in the Edexcel Teacher's guide, Examiners Report and Marking Scheme! Base your answers mostly on the sources and add on with your own knowledge to describe vague topics, add on and interpret and state things that are relevent to the question.

But I do have one question. How do you guys analyse the sources as sources o evidence in relation to secondary sources by historians? That puzzels me and I end up saying inaccurate, memory loss,biased lol?!! what do you all say ? Like Ian Kershaw an extract fromHubris?

Reply 8

AYBG

1

NazB

1pampelmousse with all due respect your teacher is wrong. Even my teacher thought the same thing untill I showed her what examiners ask for in the Edexcel Teacher's guide, Examiners Report and Marking Scheme!

haha! I wish I had seen that!

Reply 9

robinsons

NazB

yes very true...

1pampelmousse with all due respect your teacher is wrong. Even my teacher thought the same thing untill I showed her what examiners ask for in the Edexcel Teacher's guide, Examiners Report and Marking Scheme! Base your answers mostly on the sources and add on with your own knowledge to describe vague topics, add on and interpret and state things that are relevent to the question.

But I do have one question. How do you guys analyse the sources as sources o evidence in relation to secondary sources by historians? That puzzels me and I end up saying inaccurate, memory loss,biased lol?!! what do you all say ? Like Ian Kershaw an extract fromHubris?

Ian Kershaw is like THE historian for Nazi Germany. In general any historians they include in this paper are not going to be majorly biased, and their interpretation is based on a broad range of research. You can challenge their interpretation using the sources, if they contradict it, and your own knowledge.

Reply 10

NazB

1

yeah lol he is THE historian.. but how exactly would you use such a source as a source of 'evidence' instead of cahllenging its information with th use of other sources...

Reply 11

evilmoo

1pamplemousse1

My teacher says we must write a balanced argument in the source paper, against and for the question. But I have a paper asking

'Do you agree that anti-semitism played a crucial part in the development of the Nazi Party before 1929?'

We didn't really learn much on anti-semitism, I know that he played it down in order to gain support and focused mainly on the 'threat' of communism, because industrialists didn't care for anit-semitism.

I also know that anti-semitism gained the support of earlier members of the Nazi Party, but thats it...

Does anyone have any other facts on the NSDAP and anti-semitism?

Thanks.

It's certainly true what people are saying about anti-semitism not being a major factor for support but the question isn't asking about support explicitly, it's only implicit in the question. It asks if whether it was important in the development of the party, which regards the policy, ideology etc. although you could say a bit on attracting key members at the beginning.

Also, your teacher is right, a balanced argument is important but more importantly you should use this to FORM A CLEAR OPINION. If you can have a clear stance and justify it using the sources and your own knowledge then you'll get good marks.

Reply 12

1pamplemousse1

OP

NazB

yeah lol he is THE historian.. but how exactly would you use such a source as a source of 'evidence' instead of cahllenging its information with th use of other sources...

You have to do that for the second part of the question. You basically read all 3 sources and see what they're saying, what kind of points they make and ur view on it. Then you make a point and say, source bla bla supports this as it states.

However, there are other factors, such as bla bla, this is supported by source bla bla..

something like that I think.
I dunno.. Im not sure..

seeds of evil AS source paper - anti-semitism.

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you