From Kaiser to Führer: Germany 1900-1945 Revision help Watch

justthiskid
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
Does anyone have an condensed revision guides? Im trying to work my way through the edexcel booklet fgiven to us by our teacher but it's pretty dull and there's a lot of stuff that seems irrelevant :/
I found a booklet somewhere round here quite a while back that seemed quite useful, does anyone have it?
Thanks!
0
reply
DeterminedDreamer
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
There's always the text book for this unit on Amazon. Just search for: Edexcel: From Kaiser to Fuhrer. Germany 1900-1945. I have it and there's plenty of past paper style questions in it, for both the essay and source parts of this exam. Good Luck because you're going to need it (in addition to having done some revision of course).


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
0
reply
rys345
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report 6 years ago
#3
here you go: http://www.jrwschool.com/USERIMAGES/...isionGuide.pdf
This is pretty helpful, it's what my teacher gave us. Good luck!
0
reply
98DS11
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
Hey guys I an so scared. I just did two question As does anyone mind to have a look and give me feedback.I DONT KNOW HOW MUCH IT WILLHWLPYOU GUYS SO PLEASE NO ONE ASSUME ITS GOOD BECUASE IT'S POSTED AS IM SCAREDi MESSED UP ON ONE


The political establishment in Germany succeeded in maintaining the political status quo through a policy of moderate reform’. How far do you agree.
It could be argued how the political establishment in Germany was not successful in maintaining their political status quo due to the backward constitutional system that allowed little true democracy as well as the government’s foreign policy, that gave of bad publicity at times. However, it could be argued that their moderate reform such as improved insurance policies and the creation of an effect economy meant that Germany indeed was successful in maintaining the political status quo through a policy of moderate reform. although I maintain that overall, the moderate reform was not successful in maintaining there was a political status quo as it did not cover up the poor parliamentary system.
Form the country’s inception in 1871, it was instituted it would be a federal state of 25 sub regions, each containing their own parliament and in some regions there was universal suffrage whilst in others there was not. The overall parliamentary system consisted of the national Reichstag with the Bundesrat being the upper house. Whilst this seems to point to the fact that the system was democratic, indeed this was far from the case due to the chancellor’s indpeendce from the Reichstag and the Kaiser’s right to dissolve it and remove the chancellor at any time. Consuqently,how can there be a political status quo when the politicalsystem itse;f was so backward and undemocratic. The constitution was designed by Bismark in 1897 in order to provide total power to the elite. The Reichstag could not initiate leglisaltion and in many regions there was no sufferage at all. Therefore it seems that the political establishment did not maintain a political status quo.
Furthermore, the government’s actions often gsve of a vey bad publc image due to the poor political establishment, maintaining how it did not mainitan a a suscsessful political status quo. For example the Dialy Telegraph of 1906 proved how their was no coherent constitutional plan on freighn policy as the Kaiser publicly announce din th Britiah newpaer that Germany was looking to ally with Britian. He had not checked with his goovernemtnt before he made such a sweeping statement and it highlighted the numerous weeknesses in the political establishment. The estalishment’s flaws weakened diplomacy through manhy other fa cotrs. For example, it roginally seemed that the Kaiser wanted to maintina a positive relationship with the British yet the fact the supported the Ductch in the Boers wars (1896-1902) over the British wekaned relations. Indeed the key flaw in the government was the Kiaser’s autrocracy and ability to act freely without consulting with the cnahncellor of the Riechstag,m often resulted in rash decisions such as these. Additonly, the Kaiser rashly ordered for the navy to send the gunbouth ‘the panther’ to Agadir in 1907 when the Fench wer ein the procvess of tasking over the region. This further weakened diplomacy. It is therefore evident how due to the numerous flaws in the political establishment, a politicalstus was not established, despite any effect that moderate reform cold have.
However, the affects of ht emoderate political reform should not be overlooked despite the extneisve flawes of the political establishment. Indeed some very sucsessful reforms that seemed to provide the status quon of any advanced government. For example Bethman Hollweg made some considerable advancements to the economomy and welfare sytem when he first launched health and woprk insurance. These were yet improved by his sucsess Von Bulow who, in addition to making insurance more extensive and increasing cover, he limited the working day from 10 to 8 hours as well as prohibiting minors under the age of 13 from working. Other reforms to improve livinign conditions were also made. Therefore it is evident how there certainly was advancement in the economic and welfare system. Indeed the economic csytemw as one of the most sophisticated in the world and there economic production wass in leahgue withthe great powers. Reforms to the educates system also made it one of the most sophisticated in the world with an extremely high amount of people attending Germany’s leading universities. These reforms seemed to give Gemrany the same advanced status ad the othjer great powers. Accordingly it could be argued how these modertre reforms concealed the flaws in the political system and were sucsessful in mainitaining the political status quo.
In conclusion there is certainly room to argue that the moderate reforms served in excelling the politicalstatus quo. However, it is indistutable how the politicalestablishment had numerous falings such as it’s undemocratic constittutin that resulted in poor decisions byt heTsar as well as a lack of freedom and an autocratic reighn. Therefore, I maintain that the political establishment in Germany did not succeed in maintaining thepolitical status quo through a policy of moderate reform.


The Weimer republic had a fundamentally weak economy . Discuss.

The Weimer Republic was clearly flawed from its outset due to a number of intrinsic weaknesses. After the war, the entire German infostructure was in dire chaos with its economy virtually in ruins. With the huge reparations bill of £6600 million, it seemed as if there was almost no chance of possible recovery. The Weimer republic was faced with numerous difficulties and it could clearly be argued that the economy was inherently flawed due to Germany’s enormous war debts. Although, on the other hand, it could be argued that although the Weimer Republic economy was met with a multitude of difficulties, it wasn’t fundamentally week as with assistance from America and a change of currency helped facilitate a growth in Germany’s economy.
After the treaty of Versailles was signed in June 1919, Germany’s economic future seemed unpromising. The country’s banks and export industries were badly disrupted due to the war and due to the inability to import fertilisers due to the blockade, thousands died of malnutrition. Even before the war, the country was in large debt so the huge reparations bill seemed to almost tipple the economy. The inability to import raw materials such as oil, steel, nitrates and copper due to the blockade severely curtailed mass production. Germany lost her main industrial zone, the Ruhr, due to the treaty. Moreover, at the birth of the Weimar Republic millions of working days were lost due to strikes. One of the greatest threats which hit the constitution shortly after it’s birth was the currency collapse in 1923. This was due to the fact that in 1922, the national debt stood at an astounding 469 million Marks. What made matters worse was the fact that the French Prime Minister Poincare refused to suspend reparation payments in July 1922 and demanded various ‘productive guarantees’. These included 60% of the dyestuff industry on the left bank of the Rhine as well as the statemines of the ruhr. The only way for the government to attempt to bail themselves out of this economic disaster was to print more money. This led to hyper inflation, the affects being even more disastrous than the first world war. Thousands died of malnutrition due to food shortages and people could be seen queuing for hours just to purchase basic amenities such as a loaf of bread, of which costed many their entire life savings due to the affects of the inflation.
This clearly points to the fact that the Weimer republic’s economy was fundamentally weak. However, it could be argued that although the economy was faced with numerous problems at its outset, it was not fundamentally weak. The finance minister Gustav Stressman went to every effort to restore the state of the economy from 1923, he chanced the currency to the Rentenmark and made full advantage of loans from America. It seems that his predecessors were not as adept as him in financial matters so it could be argued that they were able to revive the economy earlier.
It is therefore evident how although the Weimer Republic was met with numerous difficulties form it’s outset, it was not intrinsically weak. The finance ministers should have been able to sort out the numerous problems that faced them but most of them were just aristocrats with little knowledge on managing finances.


To what extent was the effective government of Germany in the years 1919-33 handicapped by the nature of the Weimar constitution? 9 46
As a result of the numerous flaws evident in the Weimer constitution of 1920, it could be said how it was a dominant factor of the weaknesses of the effective government. However, it could be argued that the government was not initially effective due to flaws outside the constitution such as it was born out of defeat and the vast opposition. Consequently it could be argued how the effective government of Germany was not solely handicapped by the Weimer constitution. However due to the fact that the constitution maintained numerous flaws from its inception such as Article 48, the parties inability to work within the realms of proportional representation and the misdemeanour of the judiciary system; I maintain that the effective government of Germany in the years 1919-1933 was handicapped by the nature of the Weimar constitution to a remarkably high extent.
Matthias Ertzberger, leader of the Catholic Centre party, was responsible for the new Weimar constitution. Whilst, it appeared to be one of the most democratic of Europe with universal suffrages granted to anyone over 20, a key flaw was Article 48. This emergency law was able to override any other term of the constitution, accordingly it decreases it’s substance to a ‘temporal democracy’. This is due to the fact that if it was misused, the constitution could be devoid of democracy. Indeed, this is what exactly occurred when Hindenburg became Chancellor in 1927. Politically, the situation was spiralling out of control due to weak coalitions, so he deemed it necessary to use Article 48 to override the constitution. The fundamental weakness of this article was the ambiguity of what was to be an ‘emergency’, indeed it was led open to interpretation. Incredibly, Hindenburg used it 66 times in 1933 to pass every single law due to the weakness of the Reichstag. Article 48 was manipulated by Hitler in 1933 after the Reichstag fire, and used it to temporarily suspend freedom of press and speech. Consequently, Article 48 proved to be the catalyst for the constitution’s demise. Therefore the effective government of Germany from 1919-33 seems handicapped by the Weimar constitution to a great extent.
The existence of proportional representation was an additional weakness. Although it was originally advocated by socialists to facilitate greater equality, in reality it led to friction amongst parties that resulted in weak coalitions. As the constitution was somewhat different than what had presided pre 1919 since political parties were far more insignificant than; the burst of democracy meant that many were not able to tolerate the new voting system. It primarily resulted in week coalitions due to the inability of parties to gain the majority in the Reichstag; this was not achieved even once in the years of Weimar. Furthermore, friction between parties was highly extensive and they were not able to cooperate with each other. This was most evident in the late 1920’s when the SPD and DVP entered into a collation yet their clash in left and right ring ideals led to an ineffective government, consequently Hindenburg felt the need to use Article 48. This was clearly an apparent weakness that lead to Hindenburg’s disbandment of the Reichstag. Therefore, it is further evident how the effective government in the years 1919-1933 was handicapped by the constitution.
The weakness in the government was also represented in the judicial system. The majority of the judiciary served before the war and were known to be conservative and right wing. This resulted in disdain for the SPD when it was in government and a lack of cooperation. Moreover, sentences were often misbalanced due to bribery, nepotism and corruption. Some sentences for seemingly minor cases were unnecessary long whilst other s for more serious offences were deemed too short. For example, after the Munich Putch when Hitler was tried on account of treason; he was friends with the judge so he got of with a light charge of only 5 years. It was than shortened to an incredible 9 months; clearly portraying the corruption in the system. A key flaw of the constitution therefore was the fact that the judiciary system was made completely independent of the Reichstag. This resulted in a lack of enforcement and consequently bribery, nepotism and corruption. This clearly portrays how the flaws in the Weimar constitution handicapped what was an effective government from 1919-33.
However, it could be argued that the rise of extremism and the fall of the Stock Market in 1929 were more fundamental causes for the government’s demise. Indeed the government was running most effectively until the late 1920’s when fascism was on the horizon. The emergence of extremism sapped away from support for the mainstream parties such as the SDP or the Centre Party. This was facilitated by the fall of the Wall Street Crash in 1929 where unemployment significantly rose. By 1933 6 million (one in three of the workforce) were unemployed. There is a key correlation between the economic crisis and the successes of extremist parties. Indeed the Nazis only achieved 3% of the vote in 1928 yet in 1933 they received the majority of seats in the Reichstag from any lone party, over 200. Therefore, it could be argument how the effective government was mainly handicapped by problems outside the constitution.
Ultimately however, I maintain that the effective government from 1919-1933 was predominantly hindered by flaws in the constitution. Article 48 was subject to constant abuse and manipulation that ultimately resulted in the removal of a democratic government in 1933. Moreover, the proportional representation voting system gave rise to exceedingly week coalitions and a lack of cooperation between parties. This consequently resulted in Hindenburg’s overlookment of the Reichstag when passing legislation. These flaws outweigh that of the rise of extremism that served in toppling the constitution in 1933.
0
reply
monk_keys
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#5
Report 6 years ago
#5
Just a quick point of format. You would benefit from planning out your answers in your introduction as you would the whole question.

I did only skim the answers but I felt all your introductions gave the impression you were listing any relevant factor as it came into your head. This meant there was a lot of 'on the one hand THIS, but on the other hand THIS, but on the other hand THIS' as you tried to cover all bases.

This can lead to incoherent answers because you haven't got a focus from the outset, for example in answer 2 you actually start making one assertion (Weimar Republic was intrinsically weak) and end on the opposite assertion (Weimar Republic merely faced difficulties).

Always take a a moment before you start writing to plan how you will tackle the question, what are the most important points and what your conclusion will be. Fight the urge to just start writing.


Best of luck!
0
reply
98DS11
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#6
Report 6 years ago
#6
thanks v much,much appreciated good luck toyou too
0
reply
98DS11
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7
Report 6 years ago
#7
Im doing from kaiser to fuhrer, does anyone mind looking at this question B the sources are to be found on page 46 in the edexcelt textbook. even if you dont have the sources does anyone mind seeing if the strucutre or writing style is allright as I really want an A and at the moment I feel really unprepeared. cheers.



The outbreak of war in Europe was due to an aggressive German foreign policy which had been waged since c.1900 how far do you agree?
It has been a matter of fervent controversy that Germany went to war with aggressive or defensive intentions. Source V seems to be of the opinion that Germany went to war solely for defensive reasons due to the extensive array of alliances that encircled her as well as diplomatic tension. On the whole, Source W seems to take the opposite approach deeming how Germany’s aggressive actions since the turn of the century resulted in war. Source X seems to be the synthesis for both these approaches and admits how it is a matter of great controversy but points towards the fact that Germany had always wanted colonial expansion. Indeed there is an array of information that supports this. Therefore, I maintain that outbreak of war in Europe was due to an aggressive foreign policy which had been waged c.1900.
Source states that Germany, ‘felt encircled not only by the triple entente but also by the forces of change’. Indeed an extensive alliance system did surround Germany but the question is how much of a threat were they. In 1904 Britain ended her policy of ‘splendid isolation’ creating the entente cordiale with France, Russia joined three years later resulting in the Tipple Entente. Although it could be argued that Germany felt threatened by this alliance system as it seemed to encircle her, it is essential to note that an ‘entente’ does not have the same status as an official treaty and many historians render it to be a mere ‘handshake’ or an ‘expression of good will’. In contrast, Germany seemed to maintain a more secure treaties as she was a member of the triple alliance with Austria- Hungary and Italy. These countries had officially declared their allegiance towards each other so therefore it could be argued how Germany did not feel encircled as she was in a stronger position due to her secure alliance system. Indeed the alliance was so strong as immediately when there was immense tension between Austria Hungary and Serbia towards the end of July 1914, she started mobilising her army. Therefore, this statement could be challenged and portrays how Germany’s intentions were not entirely defensive. Indeed the source goes on to reiterate how ‘the 1913 Army Bill...had in part been a response to the tension in the Balklands’. Although there was considerable tension in the Balklands due to the immense tension between Serbia and Austria- Hungary due to Serbia’s interests in annexing the Balklands, it is not safe to say that the Army Bill in 1913 was entirely in result of that. Since the turn of the century, Germany had expressed interests in expanding her military. Conscription was increased from 3-3 and a half years and the naval expansion policy of ‘Flottenpolotik’ went to exhaustive efforts of making the navy match that of Britain. Nonetheless, it could still be argued how these military expansions were solely defensive due to Germany’s paranoia that ‘her internal and external enemies...wanted to destroy them’. Indeed this synthesises with an excerpt from Source W, ‘Tripitz, who built a battle feet aimed at the British...professed his peaceful intentions’. An excerpt from Source X also, to an extent, agrees with the assumption made in this source that the war was mainly defensive as it mentions how, ‘the constellation of forces against the central powers was unexpected’, implying how Germany had no plans for a wide scale war.
However, despite these assumptions made in Source V that Germanys’ military plans were mainly defensive, Source W and part of Source X argues how the outbreak was a result of an aggressive foreign policy that originated from the turn of the century. Indeed it mentions how ‘German actions going back to the 1890’s had done much to create tension. There is considerable evidence that supports it due to Germany’s expansion policy of ‘Weltpolotik’. The Kaiser professed his desire to have ‘a place in the sun and be on par with Britain and France whom maintained numerous policies. This programme resulted in considerable friction with Britain at many times. For example, in the 1902 Boer wars Germany supported the Dutch rather than the British in the hope they will divide the land they conquer with Germany. Her actions in Morroco further incensed Britain both in 1904 at Tangia and in 1907y at Agadir. This collaborates with part of Source X, ;the German plan to unleash a continental war...’ The expansion policy was initially initiated by Chancellor Von Bismark who followed it extensively despite little gains, accordingly the source states how ‘bethman Hollweg was faced with reaping the whirlwind sown by his predecessors’. Consequently the overall stance of the source is that despite the fact that Bethman Hollwg ‘was a sensitive passive...man’ and Germany ‘prefered to get what they wanted without war’, their agresive actions intiated it. However, it could be argued how this source maintains severallimitartions. Firstly, it places no emphasis on matters that further accelerated tension both diplomaticly and internally such as the Zabern Afair and the Daily Telegraph Affair. Moreover, the source attributes a large amount of Germny’s aggressive actions to the head of the navy Admiral Von Tirpitz, ‘others bore more responsibility, like Tirpitz’. However, it could be argued that this suggestion was unfair as Tirpitz’s expansion of the navy was based on the Kaiser’s wishes, moreover Germany’s surrounding countries such as Russia, France and Britain were rapidly expanding their military so accordingly Germany had just as much right too.
In conclusion it seems evident how it is a tentative matter if the outbreak of war in Europe was due to an aggressive foreign policy. However, despite Source V’s assertions that it was caused by defensive reasons, there is considerable evidence to challenge it such as Germnay’s expansion policy that caused very week diplomacy. On the contrary there is more evidence to support W that it was caused by a history of Germany’s aggressive foreign policy and there is considerable evidence to support this such as Weltpolotik or both Morrocon crisises. Source, X seems to be a synthesis of both opinions. Ultimately, however I agree with SourceB that the war resulted as a result of an aggressive German foreign policy
0
reply
monk_keys
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#8
Report 6 years ago
#8
Nice.

Remember although it's a source based question it's still an essay in which you are persuading the examiner so lead with your your key points. In your answer it starts with the rebuttal and then you make your case in the following paragraphs which means the key argument you are trying to make isn't as clear.

As with the other answers you posted, try to be more formulaic. Rank the arguments and EXPLICITLY state whether you evaluate that argument to be the most important or barely relevant.

For example you mention Africa, this should be a paragraph themed imperialism in which you state 'and this is, I believe the key factor'. Relevant source.

Then on to the next most important factor, growing nationalism or whatever. Relevant source.

Then on to opposing argument, source to back it up, WHY YOU THINK IT'S LESS IMPORTANT.

Next opposing argument and so on.

Have this template in your head when you write and it will make your argument convincing and logical without you having to think about it.

I don't know the sources so I can't help you with the quality of your analysis of the sources but as long as you write based on your argument, and use the sources to back them up (instead of writing based on the sources) you'll be golden.
0
reply
98DS11
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#9
Report 6 years ago
#9
(Original post by monk_keys)
Nice.

Remember although it's a source based question it's still an essay in which you are persuading the examiner so lead with your your key points. In your answer it starts with the rebuttal and then you make your case in the following paragraphs which means the key argument you are trying to make isn't as clear.

As with the other answers you posted, try to be more formulaic. Rank the arguments and EXPLICITLY state whether you evaluate that argument to be the most important or barely relevant.

For example you mention Africa, this should be a paragraph themed imperialism in which you state 'and this is, I believe the key factor'. Relevant source.

Then on to the next most important factor, growing nationalism or whatever. Relevant source.

Then on to opposing argument, source to back it up, WHY YOU THINK IT'S LESS IMPORTANT.

Next opposing argument and so on.

Have this template in your head when you write and it will make your argument convincing and logical without you having to think about it.

I don't know the sources so I can't help you with the quality of your analysis of the sources but as long as you write based on your argument, and use the sources to back them up (instead of writing based on the sources) you'll be golden.
Thank sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oo much i really aprreicate it. do you know what grade orlevel it fits into. I really need an A! ,also I know in the question A we need 4 or 5 factors that we mention in the introduction and than say most important one but in the B do we also need sub facotrs or is it just safe to say if you agree or disagree. I am desperate toimprove my essay technique! Cheers
1
reply
monk_keys
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#10
Report 6 years ago
#10
I couldn't comment on marking these days, I did my A2 in 2006 so it's not something I'm hot on, did you follow the link posted by rys345? This looks to be a good break down of what the examiners are looking for
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...l9CdJ4RfgUN4Dg

Definitely give sub factors, you will never be marked down for making too many good points

Your essays will improve so much if you take 3-5 minutes at the start of each question and plan what you're going to write. Write a list of pros and then write a list of cons, then order them in importance and write about them in that order (pro 1,2,3. con 1,2,3,). It eats up a few minutes but you always make it up because you never get stuck in the middle of an answer because you've already planned it out.
0
reply
98DS11
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#11
Report 6 years ago
#11
(Original post by monk_keys)
I couldn't comment on marking these days, I did my A2 in 2006 so it's not something I'm hot on, did you follow the link posted by rys345? This looks to be a good break down of what the examiners are looking for
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...l9CdJ4RfgUN4Dg

Definitely give sub factors, you will never be marked down for making too many good points

Your essays will improve so much if you take 3-5 minutes at the start of each question and plan what you're going to write. Write a list of pros and then write a list of cons, then order them in importance and write about them in that order (pro 1,2,3. con 1,2,3,). It eats up a few minutes but you always make it up because you never get stuck in the middle of an answer because you've already planned it out.
cheeers for your help It has been so useful! I just did this question A, is i tpoossible to have a look? I am a bit confused how to firt my counter arguments in the structure, should we have a seperate paragraph at the end for counter argument or should it just be in the middle.


It could clearly be argued that Kaiser Wilheim II was responsible for the political problems faced by the second Reich before 1913 to a high extent due to his desire to preserve the status of the ruling class elites that resulted in undemocratic constitution. Other aspects where the Kaiser was responsible for the political problems faced were his own personal character deficiencies such as his indecisiveness as well as his failure to fully cooperate with the subsequent chancellors after Bismark. It could be argued that the actions of the chancellors were also an integral element that resulted in the political problems faced by the second Reich. However, I maintain that the Kaiser bore the majority of the responsibility for the political failings due to his desire to maintain the status of the elites, personal deficiencies and failure to fully cooperate with the chancellors.


The most significant reason why the Kaiser was responsible for the political problems. The Kaiser wielded the ultimate power and authority of the second Reich, not only was he head of the army he was the guardian of the entire constitution; making the chancellor and the Reichstag subservient to him. Therefore, despite the fact that there was universal suffrage for men to vote on policies put forward by the Reichstag, it is clear due to the Kaiser’s ultimate power that the constitution was highly undemocratic. Indeed he had the authority to dissolve the Reichstag and dismiss the chancellor at his own will. The Kaiser was a firm believer in ‘Divine Rule’ and believed he had been appointed by G-D to rule over Germany. He was devoutly conservative and only wanted the Junker class to preserve power. This facilitated all the political problems that occurred. The first major political problem was the rise of the socialist party that resulted in immense friction between the Junker class who had always held them in disdain. The right wing groups were determined to keep the socialists out of power and in 1906 formed the Bulow Bloc to preserve ideals of the conservatives by uniting the Junkers, the liberals and the liberal progressives against the socialists. Therefore the lack of balance in power led to numerous friction between these parties. This ultimately resulted from the constitutions advocated by the Kaiser that was devoid of democracy. It is therefore evident how the Kaiser’s dominance resulted in the political problems faced by the second Reich before 1914.


In addition to the Kaiser’s dominance of the constitution, his character defects also were responsible for the political problems faced by the second Reich before 1914. He was often indecisive, impulsive and seemed to neglect the needs of the Reichstag. The Daily Telegraph affair of 1906 seems to portray his impulsiveness as his rants about how the British ‘are as mad as March hares’ resulted in extremely bad publicity. Furthermore, his impulsiveness upset Britain in numerous other ways such as in the Boers wars 1902 where his appraisal of the Dutch on their victory over England highly upset the British In the Zabern Affair of 1913 he expressed how he considered his personal life above the needs of the state by being absent when the whole crisis occurred and failed to get involved. It is therefore evident how these deficiencies were another key factor that resulted in the political problems of the second Reich.
Moreover, the Kaiser’s inability to cooperate with the chancellors was also vital in the country’s political failings. After the death of Bismark 1880, the Kaiser was unable to effectively cooperate with the chancellors. Indeed Bismark proved to be highly successful in launching numerous diplomatic as well as economic reforms. However after his death, his successor Caprivi was not as successful. The Kaiser wanted to carry on the diplomatic prestige pursued by Bismarck and always wanted his dominant position to be untarnished. Accordingly he always made sure he had the upper hand and this was most evident where he forced Bulow to resign in 1906 as he blamed him for the Daily Telegraph Affair. Therefore his inability to cooperate with the Kaiser was also a crucial theme in the political failings.

However, it could be argued how there were numerous other factors that were integral in the numerous political problems that ensued . A key flaw was the chancellors were always conservative and belonged to the Junker class. This led to great apathy with the socialist party and the centre party. The friction and lack of interparty cooperation was primarily caused by the fact that each party primarily represented the interests of their own class due to the regimented social hierarchy. The immense friction was apparent from the turn of the century due to different approaches to wltpolotik,global expansion. Whilst the conservative parties tended to advocate the policy; the socialists were against it. As weltpolotik was a recurring ideal up unitll 1914 culminated in both Morrocon crisises,it is evident how the difference of opinion had huge ramifications. Therefore,it could be argued how the Kaiser was not entirely responsible for the problems faced by the Tsar up until 1914.


In conclusion it is clearly evident how Kaiser Wilhelm was responsible for the political problems faced by the Reich before 1914 to a high extent. This was due to his desire to preserved the class of the elites, his dominance of the constituition, his character defects and his lack of cooperation with the chancellors. These factors clearly surpass that of the failings of the chancellors and the interparty friction. Therefore I maintain how the Kaiser was responsible for the problems in the Reichstag to a high extent.
Last edited by 98DS11; 4 Minutes Ago at 20:30.
0
reply
monk_keys
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#12
Report 6 years ago
#12
This is a noticeably better structured essay.

It's fine to put your contrasting points at the end, but just like your main points they should be separated by paragraph per theme. In this case you only have one example so it's only one paragraph but a second paragraph would be preferable with another point.


The conclusion is not long enough for me. You should be using at least one sentence per paragraph (so at least 4-5 sentences in this case) to allow you to fully synthesis your argument...

sentence 1 - restate the line of argument (done)
sentence 2 - desire to preserve elites which caused disenchantment and rise of SDP
sentence 3 - character defects which caused bad publicity and neglect of Reichstag
sentence 4 - This also caused strained relations with chancellors, particularly after Bismarck.
sentence 5 - Friction and poor co-operation between conservative and revolutionary elements in Reichstag was also a problem but this was secondary to other issues.

In terms of actual content I don't really know much about domestic affairs of the second reich.
0
reply
98DS11
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#13
Report 6 years ago
#13
(Original post by monk_keys)
This is a noticeably better structured essay.

It's fine to put your contrasting points at the end, but just like your main points they should be separated by paragraph per theme. In this case you only have one example so it's only one paragraph but a second paragraph would be preferable with another point.


The conclusion is not long enough for me. You should be using at least one sentence per paragraph (so at least 4-5 sentences in this case) to allow you to fully synthesis your argument...

sentence 1 - restate the line of argument (done)
sentence 2 - desire to preserve elites which caused disenchantment and rise of SDP
sentence 3 - character defects which caused bad publicity and neglect of Reichstag
sentence 4 - This also caused strained relations with chancellors, particularly after Bismarck.
sentence 5 - Friction and poor co-operation between conservative and revolutionary elements in Reichstag was also a problem but this was secondary to other issues.

In terms of actual content I don't really know much about domestic affairs of the second reich.
Thanks very much I really aprreciate it. Has my strucuture for this Question Bimproved?
0
reply
monk_keys
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#14
Report 6 years ago
#14
yes.
0
reply
98DS11
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#15
Report 6 years ago
#15
(Original post by monk_keys)
yes.
Sorry I was supposed to attach a question B I did last night. i know you have helped me a lot allready but do you mind having a look. I relly appreciate it as I know how hard this exam is!



The government of the Nazi state was chaotic and lacked coherence in the years 1933 1939. How far do you agree?
All these three sources seem to maintain that the Nazi government was highly chaotic in nature. Indeed the structuralism historian Ian Kershaw goes as far as to say in source X that ‘historians are in no fundamental disagreement that the government of Nazi Germany was chaotic in structure’. However, what is disputed amongst the sources is the extent of the chaotic structure and whether it was a key flaw that depicts Hitler’s lack of complete dominion. Source X and W seems to be of a structuralist viewpoint that the state was highly chaotic and resulted in a threat to Hitter’s autocracy. Indeed Source V provides an internationalist view and admits the government was chaotic but it was not unique from conventional governments. Source W seems to provide a similar view emphasising how, despite its chaotic nature, Hitler was in complete control of the state. Although I disagree with this source and maintain that the political structure of the regime was highly chaotic and it portrayed weaknesses in Hitler’s autocratic rule.
There is considerable evidence to support the structuralist viewpoint that the multifaceted nature of the Nazi government portrayed how it completely lacked coherence. Indeed Source X describes how it can ‘aptly depicted as chaotic’ as there was ‘over lapping, conflicting and sometimes highly contradictory spheres of authority’. Similarly, Source W states how there was a ‘complex mosaic of party state agencies’ that resulted in ‘ill defined and overlapping jurisdictions...more often than not mutually antagonistic’. Indeed there were numerous occasions where Hitler gave conflicting advice to his seniors such as over the final solution. More often than not, the key figures of the party were left to decipher Hitler’s ideology and implement what they maintain that he wanted. The Atikon T4 programme resulted in this way due to Hitler’s ideogical ideal of ‘racial purity’. This viewpoint became known as ‘working towards the Fuhrer’ and indeed there were many occasions where key parties made implementations to impress Hitler. For example Kristelnacht or the Neuremburg laws. Source W maintains how the lack of coherence ‘permitted men such as Himler and Goring to build up immensely powerful bases’. However, this statement could be challenged as the purges of the army and full implementation of the foreign policy showed how Hitler was in absolute control of both the army. Source X can also be challenged as it could be argued how it exaggerates the chaotic structure when describing ‘the fragmentation and lack of co-ordination’. However, due to the lack of beurocracy and the friction between leading Nazis caused by the struggle to ‘work towards the Fuhrer’, this claim can be refuted. Therefore, it is evident how according to these two sources, the state completely lacked coherence.
Nonetheless, despite the fact that Source V agrees that ‘the government was characterised by multicentred incoherence’ it seems to downplay it’s effect stating how it ‘typifies many other governments and regimes’. Indeed many other parliamentary structures did have flaws but it could be argued how Michael Burleigh is downplaying it’s significance as it was rare in 20th century politics that a leader lived such as bohemian lifestyle as Hitler. Indeed he was notorious for waking up late and take a leisurely lifestly be taking strolls or watching movies instead of dealing with state related matters. The source misses out how it was this deficncy that resulted in the overall chaotic structure. The source seems to emphasise how ‘there was multicentred incoherence’ and indeed this links to the intrinsic argument that the Nazi state lacked incoherence. Indeed this could be supported by the excerpt from Source W that describes the reich to be a ‘monotholic entity’. However, it certainly does not highlight the conflicting coordination of Source X ‘outrighly contradictory spheres of authority’ or of W, ‘mutually antagonistic’. It seems that Burleigh takes on the viewpoint of intentionalist historians that Hitler’s chaotic government was actually a portrayal of his supreme power. These historians deem it to be a strength, not a weakness so it could be said that the source agreed that the state says the party lacked coherence to a high extent but does not maintain that it was acutely a flaw. Overall however, this source seems to downplay the chaotic structure of the state and it is possible to argue that accordingly it lacks credibility.
Ultimately, agree with the structuralsit viewpoint put forward in both sourcesW and X of how the chaotic structure was a key flaw of the parliamentary structure and meant that it lacked coherence to a high extent. Indeed there is numerous evidence to support this due to the Nazi leaders desire to ‘work towards the Fuhrer’ as they knew that Hitler’s lack of dominanance lead to a potnential for increased power. indeed sourcr W emphasises how Himmler and Goering acted this way. Source V seems to downplay the chaotic manner of the state deeming it to run in par with conventional govermenments but there is considerable evidence that challenges it. Therefore I maintain that the govenremnt of the Nazi state laxked coherernace to an extremely high extent.
0
reply
monk_keys
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#16
Report 6 years ago
#16
This is a good answer, well structured, you've got most of the main points.

To take this answer up to the next level you need a way of assessing the level and relevancy of chaos. You use the argument 'there are more examples of chaos than consistency', which is fine. The next level of analysis would be 'these were Hitler's main aims, he did/did not achieve them therefore his rule was/wasn't coherent. This can be purely opinion, e.g. I could say to you, despite the examples of chaos I believe Hitler's ultimate aim was a powerful Reich achieved through expansion. He achieved this through the taking of Austria, the Sudetenland and Czech. Therefore although chaos was present, it was not a defining feature.

In the conclusion you use 'parliamentary structure', you MUST stick to 'government' because they are not one and the same thing. I get the impression there was something in source V that has made you slip up here because you use 'government' for the majority of the essay. The question asks specifically from 1933, when the Reichstag was suspended, this is not a coincidence.
0
reply
98DS11
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#17
Report 6 years ago
#17
(Original post by monk_keys)
This is a good answer, well structured, you've got most of the main points.

To take this answer up to the next level you need a way of assessing the level and relevancy of chaos. You use the argument 'there are more examples of chaos than consistency', which is fine. The next level of analysis would be 'these were Hitler's main aims, he did/did not achieve them therefore his rule was/wasn't coherent. This can be purely opinion, e.g. I could say to you, despite the examples of chaos I believe Hitler's ultimate aim was a powerful Reich achieved through expansion. He achieved this through the taking of Austria, the Sudetenland and Czech. Therefore although chaos was present, it was not a defining feature.

In the conclusion you use 'parliamentary structure', you MUST stick to 'government' because they are not one and the same thing. I get the impression there was something in source V that has made you slip up here because you use 'government' for the majority of the essay. The question asks specifically from 1933, when the Reichstag was suspended, this is not a coincidence.
Thanks, do you think this is a levle 4 or 3? also how many paragrpahs do you recomnd having that agree with the question and how many that disagee.

I am sorry for the inconvineice but I did another question A this morning. Mind having a look




Germany experienced a period of political calm, economic development and social progress in the mid 1920’s. How far do you agree?
The extent of social, political and social progress in the mid 1920’s should not be over estimated. Many are of the viewpoint that the mid 1920’s were a time of renewed revival and prosperity for the German people but when the aspects of the political, social and economic system are closely examined; it could be argued that whilst in the short term things took a turn for the best, the changes were clearly not substantial. Indeed, the political structure was still highly week, the economy was being rectified in the short term by foreign loans but not in the long term and there was still widespread social discontent with the Weimer constitution. Therefore, despite the fact that appeared that Germany experienced political calm, economic development and social progress in the mid 1920’s; I maintain it was only to a certain extent.
Firstly, it is essential to retire whether Germany really experienced political calm in the mid 1920’s. Although the last major stand off against the constitution was the Munich Putch in 1923, the flaws in the Weimar constitution were becoming exposed in this period. Despite the fact that the proportional representation voting system as supposed to be the ‘fairest’ and universal suffrage was granted to everyone over the age of 20 being one of the most democratic in the world, the constitution was home to many flaws. Indeed the proportional representation system facilitated in week coalition governments due to the fact that no party was able to achieve the majority vote and were not able to cooperate with other parties due to ideogical differences. Indeed despite being the most popular party by 1923, the SPD refused to join forces with any other ‘beugoise’ party. Their isolation resulted in a lack of amount of influence and in the period of the mid 1920’s the right wing parties seemed to be dominant. However, these parties also were un successful in cooperating with eachother and in 1923 Gustav Stressman’s DVP party collapsed after only a few months; despite the fgact that Stressman proved to be highly effective leader. Another key flaw in the constitution was article 54 that gave the judicory independence from the Reichstag. Many of the judiciary were extremely conservative and were fervently against the new found repuclic, this lead to unproportianal sentences due to personal bias. For example when a certain government official violated the press law he was arrested for 11 years yet when Adolf Hitler was convicted for treason his sentence was intialy only 5 years and then got shortened to a mere 9 months. Nonetheless it could still be argued that there was relative political calm in this period due to the fact there were no direct uprisings. Although this should not be over estimated as it clearly evident how there was still numerous fallings in the political system. Therefore I maintain that Germany did not completely experience political calm in the mid 1920’s.
In the same vein, on surface level it seemed that there was great political devilment in the mid 1920’s due to finance minister, Gustav Stresemann’s implementations . He was successful in securing the Dawes Plan in 1924 that secured billions of rentenmarks of foreign loans and investments. This stimulated economic recovery. He was also highly successful when he secured the Young Plan as this extended reparation times even longer . Although his main economic successes was undisputedly his ceasure of hyper inflation. It resulted in extensive difficulties for Germans from all walks of life yet Stressman changed the currency from Marks to Rentenmarks. The new currency as well as foreign loans clearly rejuvenated the economy. However, the effect of this too should not be over estimated as the developments were only in the short term, indeed when the stock market collapsed just a few years after, foreign loans were cut short and Germany was forced to repay them yet they were not able to. Furthermore, in the mid 1920’s unemployment started to decline and by 1929 over 2 million Germans were unemployed. Stressman’s main efforts were on the currency and inflation yet he failed to focus on unemployment issues, moreover, whislt industry prospered, those in the countryside had it considerably worse off due to a collapse in food prices due to the influx of imported productus. Therefore it could be argued how the affects of the economic problems were not overly sucsessful in the mid 1920’s, despite some important developments.
Another area where there was not considerable progress was in social life. Unemployment was low and many were still revering from hyperinflation having lost all their life savings. Malnutrition and diseases were still high and widespread poverty was prevalent. Furthermore, the vast number of socialists were disheartened by the new regime and desired a communist revolution. Those of a conservative denomination were also against the new republic and considered it to be ‘un German’. They were disgusted with the newfound culture where sex and immorality was prevalent as well as the wave of night clubs that emerged in this period, However, despite the unrest, dissolution was clearly not as high as before 1923 as there were no uprisings, in the period up to 1923 there were over four. Although despite the fact that there were no immediate stand offs in this period, it could be argued how there was not significant social development.
In conclusion, it seems evident that there were significant changes in the economic, political and social info structure in this period. However, despite the seemingly political calm; it was obvious that the constitution was highly flawed due to the numerous political problems that the government faced. On a economic level, changes were made but only in the short term and by 1929 the economy almost reverted back to its poor state. On a social level, there was also great discontent. Therefore I maintain that Germany did experience a period of political, social and economic development in the mid 1920’s but it was not to a significant extent.
0
reply
Fr1997
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 years ago
#18
Hi, I have my history exam tomorrow and I am practising planning the essays. I am confused what to write for this question: To what extent was the effective government of Germany in the years 1919-33 handicapped by the nature of the Weimar Constitution? I am unsure whether I have to say whether it was due to the nature or whether I have to consider other factors or whether I just argue if it was the nature or not. Can someone help me please. Thanks
0
reply
eliezel1992
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 years ago
#19
Good article ! Just to add my thoughts , others are requiring a a form , I filled a template version here pdffiller.com
0
reply
Hurbad
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 years ago
#20
Divide into three sections , Kaiser Era , Weimar Era , and Nazi Era
Then look at all the pros and cons of the Kaiser Era and how the people enjoyed the strong man leadership
after look at the the 12 years of democracy aka Weimar Era and how people revolted against it and how it worsened after the wall street crash .
Nazi Era then talk about how people found solace in this brief time of stability and how bad it was for some i.e. communist , minorities.

Kaiser -> Establishment of the second reich -> Germany experiencing economic growth and stability -> Kaiser going to war -> Fait Accompli....... Weimar -> Revolts , coups and hyperinflation -> Golden Era ->wall street crash -> decay of democracy -> Rise of Nazism you see where im going with this ?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Where do you need more help?

Which Uni should I go to? (89)
16.57%
How successful will I become if I take my planned subjects? (55)
10.24%
How happy will I be if I take this career? (96)
17.88%
How do I achieve my dream Uni placement? (81)
15.08%
What should I study to achieve my dream career? (54)
10.06%
How can I be the best version of myself? (162)
30.17%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed