Edexcel Kaiser to Fuhrer: 1900 -1945 Watch

Rachel U
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
Hi,
I recently completed my History A2 and got an A grade for the June 2012 exam.

I actually re-sat this exam because I got a really low grade (a D grade *hangs head in shame*lol) and wondered why because I knew the white textbook inside out, learnt the opinions of historians (Kershaw, Mommsen, Brozat, Bullock and Bracher etc) plus I did an English A level and so knew I didn't write like a complete idiot. So after ages of scouring on the net looking for past papers and A grade example essays from the exam board I came up with a structure that seemed to work well.

I'm not sure how much this will help people and so I've just given one example and hopefully this will at least help one person, because I was completely at a loss of how to write essays that showcased how much I knew and would get a good grade.

So the rough structure for the knowledge based question was:
(My essay is really long so if you don't write that much DON'T WORRY I didn't do it under timed conditions, this is just to give you an idea of structure and content)

Introduction
Example question -
How accurate is it to describe the years 1924-29 as a period of 'deceptive stability'

So the introduction would be –
Say how the statement is supported
Historian Peukert describes the period of 1924-29 as a period of ‘deceptive stability’ within Weimar Germany. This description is valid to an extent with Weimar still facing the economic problems faced by the great inflation and the reparations under the treaty of Versailles hindering the government and the public, the problems of Weimar’s coalition government led to their inability to deal with such problems and it was evident that the public were losing faith in parliamentary democracy, an opinion highlighted in the declining electoral turnout (1919 – 83% 1928 – 75.6%) and the decrease in votes for pro-democratic parties (1919 – 76.1% 1928 – 60%).

Say how the statement can be challenged
However it should not be ignored that during these years Weimar did make beneficial gains which were seen as an improvement on the previous years that caused the government and society to seem stable. This included the improvements on the economy, development of social welfare and foreign achievements by Stresemann.

Summary
Although improvements were made, they were not substantial enough for the government to fully establish stability and although the republic was technically active until the end of the war, parliamentary democracy effectively collapsed by 1933 when Hitler established his dictatorship.

Main body
The main thing is that the essay has to be a constant debate between the agreeing and contrasting factors. For this you could apply the Point, Evidence, Explanation method. Always follow your main point with evidence that supports it (you should definitely remember some facts and figures from the white book and if you reeeeally want impress you could remember some historians quotes although it isn't a must have) as it strengthens your argument.

What I did was do a paragraph agreeing with the question; main point, examples to support my point, explain which would summarise my main point from the paragraph and link to the question.

For paragraph

The economy after the great inflation had faced decline, most notably with the value of the mark falling drastically and the government facing a debt of up to 144,000. However at the beginning of this period of stability, the economy was seen to be recovering. Heavy industry had begun to recover even though Germany faced a loss of resources such as the Saar (16% of coal) and Silesia (48% of iron ore) because of the development of efficient means of production especially in the coal and steel industry. Consequently it led to economical benefits, an increased in exports by 40% between the years 1925-30 and the growth of cartels between industries meant that they could share joint monopolies over industry really allowing them to prosper. The two most significant examples of this are IG Farben and Vereingte Stahlwerke. IG Farben became the biggest chemicals giant in all Europe and Vereingte Stahlwerke amalgamated the industries of coal, iron and steel leading the company to control also 50% of all coal, iron and steel production and distribution in Germany. The growth and prosperity experienced didn’t just affect industry however, it had an effect on the public to. This boom in productivity led to annual wages increases with workers facing an increase of between 5-10% in the years 1927 and 1928. Not only did these wage increases prompt people to have faith in the republic once more but the development of social welfare helped benefit those who had been victims of the previous inflation like workers laid off and people who had lost their savings or lived on fixed incomes like pensioners. Therefore the introduction of pensions, unemployment insurance and sickness benefits really helped those who had previously suffered under the 1923 inflation and may be what linked to the fact that pro-democratic parties gained 60% of the vote in the 1928 elections when the extremist parties all faced a decline. It can be suggested that the public support for the pro-democratic parties was because the republic had successfully helped many people in troubling economic situations i.e. the unemployment insurance covered 17 million, the biggest of its kind in Europe with the government in 1928 investing 26% of its GNP on public expenditure, giving off the idea of a country in prosperity with the increasing number of cars and the expansion of the cinema industry. Overall, from this you could argue that it wasn’t a period of deceptive stability because people enjoyed a better lifestyle under the benefits of social welfare, economy was on the up and the democracy was voted on favour of allowing Muller 1928 Grand coalition of the DDP, SPD, DVP and Centre party to form.

Against argument
So the same structure as the 'for' paragraph; Point, Examples to support your point and a mini conclusion that links back to the question.

When writing the 'against' paragraph my point normally went against a point I mentioned in the 'for' paragraph. In the particular example I'm giving I argued both for the 1928 elections showing stability in my 'for' paragraph because the republic gained 60% support. However in my 'against' paragraph I mentioned the problems that the coalition government faced following the election because of the system of proportional representation and each parties own selfish incentives.

Against paragraph

However other factors must be considered because although the republic appeared stable, on deeper assessment shortcomings in both politics and the economy can be seen. Although the 1928 election voted in favour of democracy the fundamental nature of the republics voting system, proportional representation, led to the formation and dissolving of many coalition governments unable to compromise on policy and pass legislation, much to the resentment of the public. This can be used to explain why there was a decline in the electoral turnout compared to previous years (1919 82% - 1928 75.6%). The difficulty in passing policy stemmed from the strong regional, religious and politic ties that each party which conflicted others as well as causing internal bickering. For example the DVP, Centre and the DNVP agreed on domestic policy whereas the Centre, DDP, DVP and SPD agreed on foreign policy but not domestic. This highlights the centre minority to rely on gaining the support from the left or right wing parties in order to gain majority showing the extent of how difficult it was to reach compromise. A difficulty which stemmed from Imperial Germany under the Kaiser during that period the political parties didn’t have to compromise based on the fact that the Kaiser had the final say n which policy was to be up taken. Although it should be noted that that they was some political promise in the forms of the SPD and DNVP, both parties put their previous apprehensions aside and join the coalition. The DNVP took part in the years 1925 and 1927 whereas the SPD took part in every coalition since 1928. This gives the impression that the parties were able to accept the constitution and no longer blamed the newly formed republic for Versailles or the ‘stab in the back’ myth which accompanied its birth. Although the parties had their own incentives for joining the coalition, the DNVP joined because the party lost its power and influence to do anything once the republic has shown recovery and so believed the only way to have an impact on the way Germany was run was to be part of the coalition in order to influence it. Once the DNVP saw that this conciliatory policy wasn’t working after their decline in votes (20.5% to 14.2%) in the 1928 election they resorted back to their traditional, anti-democracy ways electing the ultra conservative Hugenburg as president. This was a true turning point in the DNVP rejection of parliamentary democracy. Similarly the SPD was reluctant to take back in coalition politics because of the fear that it would dilute their ideology and distance them from their working class roots, this hindered the government because the SPD was the largest party in the Reichstag until 1932 and if they had joined coalition governments earlier then it would have provided the republic with the stability the coalition governments needed to prevent constant disseverment.

Conclusion
You kind of lean towards what you believe (shows your own opinion)

So say you believe that the republic wasn't stable (I apologise in advance for how badly I'm about to explain this lol)

You say the the 'for' point for stability but then go on to give evidence/reasons for why this is 'wrong' then again do a mini conclusion.

Structure
Sentence saying your point

In conclusion it can be said that the period 1924 – 1929 was a period of deceptive stability with economic policies merely covering up the fundamental problems of the economy which could only prevent them from emerging in the short term.

'For' arguments that would contradict this

Whilst political support for opposition parties was in decline, and the pro-democratic parties won majority in the 1928 election it was only because the extremist parties failed to unite as the Nazi’s only polled 2.6% and the KPD 10.3%.

Evidence that goes against the 'for' argument that you've been touching on throughout your essay

It should be remembered that this period was a period of ‘deceptive stability’ and did not form solid support for the democracy. The growing contempt towards the republic was seen in the disgust and rejection of Weimar’s liberal and tolerant society.

Mini summary

Therefore the period of 1924 – 29 foreshadows the beginning of the decline of the republic and the German people’s desire to seek salvation from other political parties, seen with the increasing number of extremist parties forming by 1929.

Full essay

Historian Peukert describes the period of 1924-29 as a period of ‘deceptive stability’ within Weimar Germany. This description is valid to an extent with Weimar still facing the economic problems faced by the great inflation and the reparations under the treaty of Versailles hindering the government and the public, the problems of Weimar’s coalition government led to their inability to deal with such problems and it was evident that the public were losing faith in parliamentary democracy, an opinion highlighted in the declining electoral turnout (1919 – 83% 1928 – 75.6%) and the decrease in votes for pro-democratic parties (1919 – 76.1% 1928 – 60%). However it should not be ignored that during these years Weimar did make beneficial gains which were seen as an improvement on the previous years that caused the government and society to seem stable. This included the improvements on the economy, development of social welfare and foreign achievements by Stresemann. Although improvements were made, they were not substantial enough for the government to fully establish stability and although the republic was technically active until the end of the war, parliamentary democracy effectively collapsed by 1933 when Hitler established his dictatorship.

The main factors that come into question when looking at whether the years 1924 – 29 can be considered as a period of ‘deceptive stability’ are politics, economy, foreign achievements and lastly society which the main factors being the state of the economy and party politics.

The economy after the great inflation had faced decline, most notably with the value of the mark falling drastically and the government facing a debt of up to 144,000. However at the beginning of this period of stability, the economy was seen to be recovering. Heavy industry had begun to recover even though Germany faced a loss of resources such as the Saar (16% of coal) and Silesia (48% of iron ore) because of the development of efficient means of production especially in the coal and steel industry. Consequently it led to economical benefits, an increased in exports by 40% between the years 1925-30 and the growth of cartels between industries meant that they could share joint monopolies over industry really allowing them to prosper. The two most significant examples of this are IG Farben and Vereingte Stahlwerke. IG Farben became the biggest chemicals giant in all Europe and Vereingte Stahlwerke amalgamated the industries of coal, iron and steel leading the company to control also 50% of all coal, iron and steel production and distribution in Germany. The growth and prosperity experienced didn’t just affect industry however, it had an effect on the public to. This boom in productivity led to annual wages increases with workers facing an increase of between 5-10% in the years 1927 and 1928. Not only did these wage increases prompt people to have faith in the republic once more but the development of social welfare helped benefit those who had been victims of the previous inflation like workers laid off and people who had lost their savings or lived on fixed incomes like pensioners. Therefore the introduction of pensions, unemployment insurance and sickness benefits really helped those who had previously suffered under the 1923 inflation and may be what linked to the fact that pro-democratic parties gained 60% of the vote in the 1928 elections when the extremist parties all faced a decline. It can be suggested that the public support for the pro-democratic parties was because the republic had successfully helped many people in troubling economic situations i.e. the unemployment insurance covered 17 million, the biggest of its kind in Europe with the government in 1928 investing 26% of its GNP on public expenditure, giving off the idea of a country in prosperity with the increasing number of cars and the expansion of the cinema industry. Overall, from this you could argue that it wasn’t a period of deceptive stability because people enjoyed a better lifestyle under the benefits of social welfare, economy was on the up and the democracy was voted on favour of allowing Muller 1928 Grand coalition of the DDP, SPD, DVP and Centre party to form.

However other factors must be considered because although the republic appeared stable, on deeper assessment shortcomings in both politics and the economy can be seen. Although the 1928 election voted in favour of democracy the fundamental nature of the republics voting system, proportional representation, led to the formation and dissolving of many coalition governments unable to compromise on policy and pass legislation, much to the resentment of the public. This can be used to explain why there was a decline in the electoral turnout compared to previous years (1919 82% - 1928 75.6%). The difficulty in passing policy stemmed from the strong regional, religious and politic ties that each party which conflicted others as well as causing internal bickering. For example the DVP, Centre and the DNVP agreed on domestic policy whereas the Centre, DDP, DVP and SPD agreed on foreign policy but not domestic. This highlights the centre minority to rely on gaining the support from the left or right wing parties in order to gain majority showing the extent of how difficult it was to reach compromise. A difficulty which stemmed from Imperial Germany under the Kaiser during that period the political parties didn’t have to compromise based on the fact that the Kaiser had the final say n which policy was to be up taken. Although it should be noted that that they was some political promise in the forms of the SPD and DNVP, both parties put their previous apprehensions aside and join the coalition. The DNVP took part in the years 1925 and 1927 whereas the SPD took part in every coalition since 1928. This gives the impression that the parties were able to accept the constitution and no longer blamed the newly formed republic for Versailles or the ‘stab in the back’ myth which accompanied its birth. Although the parties had their own incentives for joining the coalition, the DNVP joined because the party lost its power and influence to do anything once the republic has shown recovery and so believed the only way to have an impact on the way Germany was run was to be part of the coalition in order to influence it. Once the DNVP saw that this conciliatory policy wasn’t working after their decline in votes (20.5% to 14.2%) in the 1928 election they resorted back to their traditional, anti-democracy ways electing the ultra conservative Hugenburg as president. This was a true turning point in the DNVP rejection of parliamentary democracy. Similarly the SPD was reluctant to take back in coalition politics because of the fear that it would dilute their ideology and distance them from their working class roots, this hindered the government because the SPD was the largest party in the Reichstag until 1932 and if they had joined coalition governments earlier then it would have provided the republic with the stability the coalition governments needed to prevent constant disseverment.

The election of Stresemann as chancellor in 1923 signalled the beginning of improved foreign relations between Germany and the other European nations and America. He had two main aims, to remove the treaty of Versailles and restore Germany to a great power. Although he failed to completely remove the limitations of Versailles he did successfully achieve successful foreign policy aims which secured Germany’s and the republic’s security internationally. This was done through a series of agreements; the 1924 Dawes plan, 1925 Locarno treaty, 1926 treaty of Berlin and the invitation to join the League of Nations and a permanent member, 1928 Kellogg-Briand agreement and lastly 1929 Allied evacuation of the Rhineland and the consequent development of the Young plan. The most important of the two developments were the Dawes plan and the Young plan seeing as they concerned the issue of reparations, something which has been a problem for the republic since its emergence in 1919. The 1924 Dawes plan was put forward after the agreement to resume reparations payment which was suspended under Cuno’s government, the plan didn’t change the amount due to be paid back however Germany’s economic plight gained international recognition from the allies for the first time and the payments were re-scheduled according to Germany’s ability to pay as well as the provision of a large loan from America which was more than what had to be paid back in reparations . Another allied agreement achieved by Stresemann was the 1929 Young plan which reduced the original reparations sum from $6.6 million to a quarter of the amount $1850. It would be assumed that Stresemann’s tackling of reparations would be seen positively in Germany seeing as reparation payments were resented however the Germans saw it as an allied betrayal and collection of right wing groups ‘the national opposition’ united to oppose the young plan. Following Stresemann’s sudden death the plans had no time to establish themselves providing the foreign stability that they would have for the republic. This allowed opposition groups particularly those on the right to stir up nationalist emotions within the public and direct their anger towards the republic to blame it for all their problems. The failure of Stresemann’s foreign policies to develop against reparations which would have reduced the strain on the economy meant that the fundamental economic problems within the government were exaggerated. The slump in world economic trade largely affected farmers who had already faced a decline in their wages, earning only 44% of the national average which caused them to spend less on consumer goods. With farmers making up one third of the population this greatly decreased demand making it harder for consumer industry to remain afloat. Not only this but the loss of resources under Versailles which Stresemann failed to eliminate meant that Germany’s exporting ability was reduced, removing the main method that Germany used to generate foreign exchange. This was something that was particularly important now because after the great inflation savings and foreign investments had been discouraged after many lost out on war bonds or saw their savings erode in banks as the mark became inflated. Therefore this slump in world trade really affected Germany as it was one way in which they could not only attract foreign currency but also foreign investment which they needed to stimulate the economy.

In conclusion it can be said that the period 1924 – 1929 was a period of deceptive stability with economic policies merely covering up the fundamental problems of the economy which could only prevent them from emerging in the short term. Whilst political support for opposition parties was in decline, and the pro-democratic parties won majority in the 1928 election it was only because the extremist parties failed to unite as the Nazi’s only polled 2.6% and the KPD 10.3%. It should be remembered that this period was a period of ‘deceptive stability’ and did not form solid support for the democracy. The growing contempt towards the republic was seen in the disgust and rejection of Weimar’s liberal and tolerant society. Therefore the period of 1924 – 29 foreshadows the beginning of the decline of the republic and the German people’s desire to seek salvation from other political parties, seen with the increasing number of extremist parties forming by 1929.

I really hoped that helped and wasn't completely a waste of your time! If even one person found this useful I'll just upload more of my old essays for own knowledge essays and sources essays.

Good luck!
0
reply
sc_5
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
Hey thank you! This is really useful, may I ask how far in advance before the exam did you start to revise? (completing timed essays). I've just got my AS grades and scored a B overall, but I know that I could have done better. These are my UMS scores:
Unit one 66 (C)
Unit two 74 (B)
What did you get in your AS modules? If you don't mind me asking
I'm planning on re-sitting unit one, I was just wondering how you dealt with your time management? Also do you know of any books/resources that could help with the unit four- changing nature of warfare coursework?
Thanks again and well done
0
reply
Rachel U
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#3
(Original post by sc_5)
Hey thank you! This is really useful, may I ask how far in advance before the exam did you start to revise? (completing timed essays). I've just got my AS grades and scored a B overall, but I know that I could have done better. These are my UMS scores:
Unit one 66 (C)
Unit two 74 (B)
What did you get in your AS modules? If you don't mind me asking
I'm planning on re-sitting unit one, I was just wondering how you dealt with your time management? Also do you know of any books/resources that could help with the unit four- changing nature of warfare coursework?
Thanks again and well done
Hey!
Glad you found it helpful, I read over it and was like wow this is really badly explained lol. So I got a B for AS too (ugh) I think it's good your re-taking because I'm guessing it was a low/mid B but don't worry too much about it because by focussing on your A2 coursework and the A2 exam and you could definitely pull off an A even if you don't get the grade you want in your re-take. So don't let it get in the way of your other A levels too much.

in my AS modules I got 80 in one module and 72 in the other. With time management I focussed on knowing all the content first because once you know that you can kind of put the information in order of importance if that makes sense. So in your essay you'll be able to include all the higher mark info because you mention it first so that way even if you run out of time it's only kind of 'faff' details you missed. For example Bruning passing loads of presidential decrees which discredited government is better than the fact he used to serve in the army which would be why he was perhaps politically incompetent. So just start writing your essays out first including all related content and then the more you practise the quicker you'll get and then be able to cut out what wouldn't really gain you loads of marks. Then eventually start timing yourself. I started getting to know the material around March/April then went intense by the beginning of May and would give my essays to my teachers (Coffee, room becoming a tip kind of intense lol)

I'm not sure about books for unit 4 because I did unit 3 buuuut I'm pretty sure that your teacher could provide you with the two textbooks you need (one for the sources question and the other for the own knowledge question) although if you go onto amazon and type in your exam title/module the related books will come up .

Also print out a mark scheme for both units of the exam, examiners reports and the normally include sections of full mark sample, student essays. Thats what I did I have other papers too if you want me to post those up and thanks for the congrats!
0
reply
sc_5
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
(Original post by Rachel U)
Hey!
Glad you found it helpful, I read over it and was like wow this is really badly explained lol. So I got a B for AS too (ugh) I think it's good your re-taking because I'm guessing it was a low/mid B but don't worry too much about it because by focussing on your A2 coursework and the A2 exam and you could definitely pull off an A even if you don't get the grade you want in your re-take. So don't let it get in the way of your other A levels too much.

in my AS modules I got 80 in one module and 72 in the other. With time management I focussed on knowing all the content first because once you know that you can kind of put the information in order of importance if that makes sense. So in your essay you'll be able to include all the higher mark info because you mention it first so that way even if you run out of time it's only kind of 'faff' details you missed. For example Bruning passing loads of presidential decrees which discredited government is better than the fact he used to serve in the army which would be why he was perhaps politically incompetent. So just start writing your essays out first including all related content and then the more you practise the quicker you'll get and then be able to cut out what wouldn't really gain you loads of marks. Then eventually start timing yourself. I started getting to know the material around March/April then went intense by the beginning of May and would give my essays to my teachers (Coffee, room becoming a tip kind of intense lol)

I'm not sure about books for unit 4 because I did unit 3 buuuut I'm pretty sure that your teacher could provide you with the two textbooks you need (one for the sources question and the other for the own knowledge question) although if you go onto amazon and type in your exam title/module the related books will come up .

Also print out a mark scheme for both units of the exam, examiners reports and the normally include sections of full mark sample, student essays. Thats what I did I have other papers too if you want me to post those up and thanks for the congrats!
Thanks for all of the advice! It was a very low B xD. I'll get onto sorting out the printing and buying of text books I would be really grateful if you could post up your other papers Haha the history teachers are good at college so hopefully they will mark essays for me Good luck with uni? or whatever you have gone on to
0
reply
Rachel U
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#5
(Original post by sc_5)
Thanks for all of the advice! It was a very low B xD. I'll get onto sorting out the printing and buying of text books I would be really grateful if you could post up your other papers Haha the history teachers are good at college so hopefully they will mark essays for me Good luck with uni? or whatever you have gone on to
Off to Imperial in October, argh!! So nervous!
Best of luck with History and I'll post some other essays in the nest few days for you
0
reply
sc_5
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#6
Report 6 years ago
#6
(Original post by Rachel U)
Off to Imperial in October, argh!! So nervous!
Best of luck with History and I'll post some other essays in the nest few days for you

Well done that's great hope you enjoy Thank you again
0
reply
orsonwelles
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
(Original post by Rachel U)
Hi,
I recently completed my History A2 and got an A grade for the June 2012 exam.

I actually re-sat this exam because I got a really low grade (a D grade *hangs head in shame*lol) and wondered why because I knew the white textbook inside out, learnt the opinions of historians (Kershaw, Mommsen, Brozat, Bullock and Bracher etc) plus I did an English A level and so knew I didn't write like a complete idiot. So after ages of scouring on the net looking for past papers and A grade example essays from the exam board I came up with a structure that seemed to work well.

I'm not sure how much this will help people and so I've just given one example and hopefully this will at least help one person, because I was completely at a loss of how to write essays that showcased how much I knew and would get a good grade.

So the rough structure for the knowledge based question was:
(My essay is really long so if you don't write that much DON'T WORRY I didn't do it under timed conditions, this is just to give you an idea of structure and content)

Introduction
Example question -
How accurate is it to describe the years 1924-29 as a period of 'deceptive stability'

So the introduction would be –
Say how the statement is supported
Historian Peukert describes the period of 1924-29 as a period of ‘deceptive stability’ within Weimar Germany. This description is valid to an extent with Weimar still facing the economic problems faced by the great inflation and the reparations under the treaty of Versailles hindering the government and the public, the problems of Weimar’s coalition government led to their inability to deal with such problems and it was evident that the public were losing faith in parliamentary democracy, an opinion highlighted in the declining electoral turnout (1919 – 83% 1928 – 75.6%) and the decrease in votes for pro-democratic parties (1919 – 76.1% 1928 – 60%).

Say how the statement can be challenged
However it should not be ignored that during these years Weimar did make beneficial gains which were seen as an improvement on the previous years that caused the government and society to seem stable. This included the improvements on the economy, development of social welfare and foreign achievements by Stresemann.

Summary
Although improvements were made, they were not substantial enough for the government to fully establish stability and although the republic was technically active until the end of the war, parliamentary democracy effectively collapsed by 1933 when Hitler established his dictatorship.

Main body
The main thing is that the essay has to be a constant debate between the agreeing and contrasting factors. For this you could apply the Point, Evidence, Explanation method. Always follow your main point with evidence that supports it (you should definitely remember some facts and figures from the white book and if you reeeeally want impress you could remember some historians quotes although it isn't a must have) as it strengthens your argument.

What I did was do a paragraph agreeing with the question; main point, examples to support my point, explain which would summarise my main point from the paragraph and link to the question.

For paragraph

The economy after the great inflation had faced decline, most notably with the value of the mark falling drastically and the government facing a debt of up to 144,000. However at the beginning of this period of stability, the economy was seen to be recovering. Heavy industry had begun to recover even though Germany faced a loss of resources such as the Saar (16% of coal) and Silesia (48% of iron ore) because of the development of efficient means of production especially in the coal and steel industry. Consequently it led to economical benefits, an increased in exports by 40% between the years 1925-30 and the growth of cartels between industries meant that they could share joint monopolies over industry really allowing them to prosper. The two most significant examples of this are IG Farben and Vereingte Stahlwerke. IG Farben became the biggest chemicals giant in all Europe and Vereingte Stahlwerke amalgamated the industries of coal, iron and steel leading the company to control also 50% of all coal, iron and steel production and distribution in Germany. The growth and prosperity experienced didn’t just affect industry however, it had an effect on the public to. This boom in productivity led to annual wages increases with workers facing an increase of between 5-10% in the years 1927 and 1928. Not only did these wage increases prompt people to have faith in the republic once more but the development of social welfare helped benefit those who had been victims of the previous inflation like workers laid off and people who had lost their savings or lived on fixed incomes like pensioners. Therefore the introduction of pensions, unemployment insurance and sickness benefits really helped those who had previously suffered under the 1923 inflation and may be what linked to the fact that pro-democratic parties gained 60% of the vote in the 1928 elections when the extremist parties all faced a decline. It can be suggested that the public support for the pro-democratic parties was because the republic had successfully helped many people in troubling economic situations i.e. the unemployment insurance covered 17 million, the biggest of its kind in Europe with the government in 1928 investing 26% of its GNP on public expenditure, giving off the idea of a country in prosperity with the increasing number of cars and the expansion of the cinema industry. Overall, from this you could argue that it wasn’t a period of deceptive stability because people enjoyed a better lifestyle under the benefits of social welfare, economy was on the up and the democracy was voted on favour of allowing Muller 1928 Grand coalition of the DDP, SPD, DVP and Centre party to form.

Against argument
So the same structure as the 'for' paragraph; Point, Examples to support your point and a mini conclusion that links back to the question.

When writing the 'against' paragraph my point normally went against a point I mentioned in the 'for' paragraph. In the particular example I'm giving I argued both for the 1928 elections showing stability in my 'for' paragraph because the republic gained 60% support. However in my 'against' paragraph I mentioned the problems that the coalition government faced following the election because of the system of proportional representation and each parties own selfish incentives.

Against paragraph

However other factors must be considered because although the republic appeared stable, on deeper assessment shortcomings in both politics and the economy can be seen. Although the 1928 election voted in favour of democracy the fundamental nature of the republics voting system, proportional representation, led to the formation and dissolving of many coalition governments unable to compromise on policy and pass legislation, much to the resentment of the public. This can be used to explain why there was a decline in the electoral turnout compared to previous years (1919 82% - 1928 75.6%). The difficulty in passing policy stemmed from the strong regional, religious and politic ties that each party which conflicted others as well as causing internal bickering. For example the DVP, Centre and the DNVP agreed on domestic policy whereas the Centre, DDP, DVP and SPD agreed on foreign policy but not domestic. This highlights the centre minority to rely on gaining the support from the left or right wing parties in order to gain majority showing the extent of how difficult it was to reach compromise. A difficulty which stemmed from Imperial Germany under the Kaiser during that period the political parties didn’t have to compromise based on the fact that the Kaiser had the final say n which policy was to be up taken. Although it should be noted that that they was some political promise in the forms of the SPD and DNVP, both parties put their previous apprehensions aside and join the coalition. The DNVP took part in the years 1925 and 1927 whereas the SPD took part in every coalition since 1928. This gives the impression that the parties were able to accept the constitution and no longer blamed the newly formed republic for Versailles or the ‘stab in the back’ myth which accompanied its birth. Although the parties had their own incentives for joining the coalition, the DNVP joined because the party lost its power and influence to do anything once the republic has shown recovery and so believed the only way to have an impact on the way Germany was run was to be part of the coalition in order to influence it. Once the DNVP saw that this conciliatory policy wasn’t working after their decline in votes (20.5% to 14.2%) in the 1928 election they resorted back to their traditional, anti-democracy ways electing the ultra conservative Hugenburg as president. This was a true turning point in the DNVP rejection of parliamentary democracy. Similarly the SPD was reluctant to take back in coalition politics because of the fear that it would dilute their ideology and distance them from their working class roots, this hindered the government because the SPD was the largest party in the Reichstag until 1932 and if they had joined coalition governments earlier then it would have provided the republic with the stability the coalition governments needed to prevent constant disseverment.

Conclusion
You kind of lean towards what you believe (shows your own opinion)

So say you believe that the republic wasn't stable (I apologise in advance for how badly I'm about to explain this lol)

You say the the 'for' point for stability but then go on to give evidence/reasons for why this is 'wrong' then again do a mini conclusion.

Structure
Sentence saying your point

In conclusion it can be said that the period 1924 – 1929 was a period of deceptive stability with economic policies merely covering up the fundamental problems of the economy which could only prevent them from emerging in the short term.

'For' arguments that would contradict this

Whilst political support for opposition parties was in decline, and the pro-democratic parties won majority in the 1928 election it was only because the extremist parties failed to unite as the Nazi’s only polled 2.6% and the KPD 10.3%.

Evidence that goes against the 'for' argument that you've been touching on throughout your essay

It should be remembered that this period was a period of ‘deceptive stability’ and did not form solid support for the democracy. The growing contempt towards the republic was seen in the disgust and rejection of Weimar’s liberal and tolerant society.

Mini summary

Therefore the period of 1924 – 29 foreshadows the beginning of the decline of the republic and the German people’s desire to seek salvation from other political parties, seen with the increasing number of extremist parties forming by 1929.

Full essay

Historian Peukert describes the period of 1924-29 as a period of ‘deceptive stability’ within Weimar Germany. This description is valid to an extent with Weimar still facing the economic problems faced by the great inflation and the reparations under the treaty of Versailles hindering the government and the public, the problems of Weimar’s coalition government led to their inability to deal with such problems and it was evident that the public were losing faith in parliamentary democracy, an opinion highlighted in the declining electoral turnout (1919 – 83% 1928 – 75.6%) and the decrease in votes for pro-democratic parties (1919 – 76.1% 1928 – 60%). However it should not be ignored that during these years Weimar did make beneficial gains which were seen as an improvement on the previous years that caused the government and society to seem stable. This included the improvements on the economy, development of social welfare and foreign achievements by Stresemann. Although improvements were made, they were not substantial enough for the government to fully establish stability and although the republic was technically active until the end of the war, parliamentary democracy effectively collapsed by 1933 when Hitler established his dictatorship.

The main factors that come into question when looking at whether the years 1924 – 29 can be considered as a period of ‘deceptive stability’ are politics, economy, foreign achievements and lastly society which the main factors being the state of the economy and party politics.

The economy after the great inflation had faced decline, most notably with the value of the mark falling drastically and the government facing a debt of up to 144,000. However at the beginning of this period of stability, the economy was seen to be recovering. Heavy industry had begun to recover even though Germany faced a loss of resources such as the Saar (16% of coal) and Silesia (48% of iron ore) because of the development of efficient means of production especially in the coal and steel industry. Consequently it led to economical benefits, an increased in exports by 40% between the years 1925-30 and the growth of cartels between industries meant that they could share joint monopolies over industry really allowing them to prosper. The two most significant examples of this are IG Farben and Vereingte Stahlwerke. IG Farben became the biggest chemicals giant in all Europe and Vereingte Stahlwerke amalgamated the industries of coal, iron and steel leading the company to control also 50% of all coal, iron and steel production and distribution in Germany. The growth and prosperity experienced didn’t just affect industry however, it had an effect on the public to. This boom in productivity led to annual wages increases with workers facing an increase of between 5-10% in the years 1927 and 1928. Not only did these wage increases prompt people to have faith in the republic once more but the development of social welfare helped benefit those who had been victims of the previous inflation like workers laid off and people who had lost their savings or lived on fixed incomes like pensioners. Therefore the introduction of pensions, unemployment insurance and sickness benefits really helped those who had previously suffered under the 1923 inflation and may be what linked to the fact that pro-democratic parties gained 60% of the vote in the 1928 elections when the extremist parties all faced a decline. It can be suggested that the public support for the pro-democratic parties was because the republic had successfully helped many people in troubling economic situations i.e. the unemployment insurance covered 17 million, the biggest of its kind in Europe with the government in 1928 investing 26% of its GNP on public expenditure, giving off the idea of a country in prosperity with the increasing number of cars and the expansion of the cinema industry. Overall, from this you could argue that it wasn’t a period of deceptive stability because people enjoyed a better lifestyle under the benefits of social welfare, economy was on the up and the democracy was voted on favour of allowing Muller 1928 Grand coalition of the DDP, SPD, DVP and Centre party to form.

However other factors must be considered because although the republic appeared stable, on deeper assessment shortcomings in both politics and the economy can be seen. Although the 1928 election voted in favour of democracy the fundamental nature of the republics voting system, proportional representation, led to the formation and dissolving of many coalition governments unable to compromise on policy and pass legislation, much to the resentment of the public. This can be used to explain why there was a decline in the electoral turnout compared to previous years (1919 82% - 1928 75.6%). The difficulty in passing policy stemmed from the strong regional, religious and politic ties that each party which conflicted others as well as causing internal bickering. For example the DVP, Centre and the DNVP agreed on domestic policy whereas the Centre, DDP, DVP and SPD agreed on foreign policy but not domestic. This highlights the centre minority to rely on gaining the support from the left or right wing parties in order to gain majority showing the extent of how difficult it was to reach compromise. A difficulty which stemmed from Imperial Germany under the Kaiser during that period the political parties didn’t have to compromise based on the fact that the Kaiser had the final say n which policy was to be up taken. Although it should be noted that that they was some political promise in the forms of the SPD and DNVP, both parties put their previous apprehensions aside and join the coalition. The DNVP took part in the years 1925 and 1927 whereas the SPD took part in every coalition since 1928. This gives the impression that the parties were able to accept the constitution and no longer blamed the newly formed republic for Versailles or the ‘stab in the back’ myth which accompanied its birth. Although the parties had their own incentives for joining the coalition, the DNVP joined because the party lost its power and influence to do anything once the republic has shown recovery and so believed the only way to have an impact on the way Germany was run was to be part of the coalition in order to influence it. Once the DNVP saw that this conciliatory policy wasn’t working after their decline in votes (20.5% to 14.2%) in the 1928 election they resorted back to their traditional, anti-democracy ways electing the ultra conservative Hugenburg as president. This was a true turning point in the DNVP rejection of parliamentary democracy. Similarly the SPD was reluctant to take back in coalition politics because of the fear that it would dilute their ideology and distance them from their working class roots, this hindered the government because the SPD was the largest party in the Reichstag until 1932 and if they had joined coalition governments earlier then it would have provided the republic with the stability the coalition governments needed to prevent constant disseverment.

The election of Stresemann as chancellor in 1923 signalled the beginning of improved foreign relations between Germany and the other European nations and America. He had two main aims, to remove the treaty of Versailles and restore Germany to a great power. Although he failed to completely remove the limitations of Versailles he did successfully achieve successful foreign policy aims which secured Germany’s and the republic’s security internationally. This was done through a series of agreements; the 1924 Dawes plan, 1925 Locarno treaty, 1926 treaty of Berlin and the invitation to join the League of Nations and a permanent member, 1928 Kellogg-Briand agreement and lastly 1929 Allied evacuation of the Rhineland and the consequent development of the Young plan. The most important of the two developments were the Dawes plan and the Young plan seeing as they concerned the issue of reparations, something which has been a problem for the republic since its emergence in 1919. The 1924 Dawes plan was put forward after the agreement to resume reparations payment which was suspended under Cuno’s government, the plan didn’t change the amount due to be paid back however Germany’s economic plight gained international recognition from the allies for the first time and the payments were re-scheduled according to Germany’s ability to pay as well as the provision of a large loan from America which was more than what had to be paid back in reparations . Another allied agreement achieved by Stresemann was the 1929 Young plan which reduced the original reparations sum from $6.6 million to a quarter of the amount $1850. It would be assumed that Stresemann’s tackling of reparations would be seen positively in Germany seeing as reparation payments were resented however the Germans saw it as an allied betrayal and collection of right wing groups ‘the national opposition’ united to oppose the young plan. Following Stresemann’s sudden death the plans had no time to establish themselves providing the foreign stability that they would have for the republic. This allowed opposition groups particularly those on the right to stir up nationalist emotions within the public and direct their anger towards the republic to blame it for all their problems. The failure of Stresemann’s foreign policies to develop against reparations which would have reduced the strain on the economy meant that the fundamental economic problems within the government were exaggerated. The slump in world economic trade largely affected farmers who had already faced a decline in their wages, earning only 44% of the national average which caused them to spend less on consumer goods. With farmers making up one third of the population this greatly decreased demand making it harder for consumer industry to remain afloat. Not only this but the loss of resources under Versailles which Stresemann failed to eliminate meant that Germany’s exporting ability was reduced, removing the main method that Germany used to generate foreign exchange. This was something that was particularly important now because after the great inflation savings and foreign investments had been discouraged after many lost out on war bonds or saw their savings erode in banks as the mark became inflated. Therefore this slump in world trade really affected Germany as it was one way in which they could not only attract foreign currency but also foreign investment which they needed to stimulate the economy.

In conclusion it can be said that the period 1924 – 1929 was a period of deceptive stability with economic policies merely covering up the fundamental problems of the economy which could only prevent them from emerging in the short term. Whilst political support for opposition parties was in decline, and the pro-democratic parties won majority in the 1928 election it was only because the extremist parties failed to unite as the Nazi’s only polled 2.6% and the KPD 10.3%. It should be remembered that this period was a period of ‘deceptive stability’ and did not form solid support for the democracy. The growing contempt towards the republic was seen in the disgust and rejection of Weimar’s liberal and tolerant society. Therefore the period of 1924 – 29 foreshadows the beginning of the decline of the republic and the German people’s desire to seek salvation from other political parties, seen with the increasing number of extremist parties forming by 1929.

I really hoped that helped and wasn't completely a waste of your time! If even one person found this useful I'll just upload more of my old essays for own knowledge essays and sources essays.

Good luck!

You have literally saved my life. Thank you so much lol x
0
reply
nybor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
(Original post by Rachel U)
Off to Imperial in October, argh!! So nervous!
Best of luck with History and I'll post some other essays in the nest few days for you
Would you be able to do this for the Second Reich section of the course and the controversy section (origins of ww1) please?? this is such a help!
0
reply
zzinah
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
(Original post by Rachel U)
Hi,
I recently completed my History A2 and got an A grade for the June 2012 exam.

I actually re-sat this exam because I got a really low grade (a D grade *hangs head in shame*lol) and wondered why because I knew the white textbook inside out, learnt the opinions of historians (Kershaw, Mommsen, Brozat, Bullock and Bracher etc) plus I did an English A level and so knew I didn't write like a complete idiot. So after ages of scouring on the net looking for past papers and A grade example essays from the exam board I came up with a structure that seemed to work well.

I'm not sure how much this will help people and so I've just given one example and hopefully this will at least help one person, because I was completely at a loss of how to write essays that showcased how much I knew and would get a good grade.

So the rough structure for the knowledge based question was:
(My essay is really long so if you don't write that much DON'T WORRY I didn't do it under timed conditions, this is just to give you an idea of structure and content)

Introduction
Example question -
How accurate is it to describe the years 1924-29 as a period of 'deceptive stability'

So the introduction would be –
Say how the statement is supported
Historian Peukert describes the period of 1924-29 as a period of ‘deceptive stability’ within Weimar Germany. This description is valid to an extent with Weimar still facing the economic problems faced by the great inflation and the reparations under the treaty of Versailles hindering the government and the public, the problems of Weimar’s coalition government led to their inability to deal with such problems and it was evident that the public were losing faith in parliamentary democracy, an opinion highlighted in the declining electoral turnout (1919 – 83% 1928 – 75.6%) and the decrease in votes for pro-democratic parties (1919 – 76.1% 1928 – 60%).

Say how the statement can be challenged
However it should not be ignored that during these years Weimar did make beneficial gains which were seen as an improvement on the previous years that caused the government and society to seem stable. This included the improvements on the economy, development of social welfare and foreign achievements by Stresemann.

Summary
Although improvements were made, they were not substantial enough for the government to fully establish stability and although the republic was technically active until the end of the war, parliamentary democracy effectively collapsed by 1933 when Hitler established his dictatorship.

Main body
The main thing is that the essay has to be a constant debate between the agreeing and contrasting factors. For this you could apply the Point, Evidence, Explanation method. Always follow your main point with evidence that supports it (you should definitely remember some facts and figures from the white book and if you reeeeally want impress you could remember some historians quotes although it isn't a must have) as it strengthens your argument.

What I did was do a paragraph agreeing with the question; main point, examples to support my point, explain which would summarise my main point from the paragraph and link to the question.

For paragraph

The economy after the great inflation had faced decline, most notably with the value of the mark falling drastically and the government facing a debt of up to 144,000. However at the beginning of this period of stability, the economy was seen to be recovering. Heavy industry had begun to recover even though Germany faced a loss of resources such as the Saar (16% of coal) and Silesia (48% of iron ore) because of the development of efficient means of production especially in the coal and steel industry. Consequently it led to economical benefits, an increased in exports by 40% between the years 1925-30 and the growth of cartels between industries meant that they could share joint monopolies over industry really allowing them to prosper. The two most significant examples of this are IG Farben and Vereingte Stahlwerke. IG Farben became the biggest chemicals giant in all Europe and Vereingte Stahlwerke amalgamated the industries of coal, iron and steel leading the company to control also 50% of all coal, iron and steel production and distribution in Germany. The growth and prosperity experienced didn’t just affect industry however, it had an effect on the public to. This boom in productivity led to annual wages increases with workers facing an increase of between 5-10% in the years 1927 and 1928. Not only did these wage increases prompt people to have faith in the republic once more but the development of social welfare helped benefit those who had been victims of the previous inflation like workers laid off and people who had lost their savings or lived on fixed incomes like pensioners. Therefore the introduction of pensions, unemployment insurance and sickness benefits really helped those who had previously suffered under the 1923 inflation and may be what linked to the fact that pro-democratic parties gained 60% of the vote in the 1928 elections when the extremist parties all faced a decline. It can be suggested that the public support for the pro-democratic parties was because the republic had successfully helped many people in troubling economic situations i.e. the unemployment insurance covered 17 million, the biggest of its kind in Europe with the government in 1928 investing 26% of its GNP on public expenditure, giving off the idea of a country in prosperity with the increasing number of cars and the expansion of the cinema industry. Overall, from this you could argue that it wasn’t a period of deceptive stability because people enjoyed a better lifestyle under the benefits of social welfare, economy was on the up and the democracy was voted on favour of allowing Muller 1928 Grand coalition of the DDP, SPD, DVP and Centre party to form.

Against argument
So the same structure as the 'for' paragraph; Point, Examples to support your point and a mini conclusion that links back to the question.

When writing the 'against' paragraph my point normally went against a point I mentioned in the 'for' paragraph. In the particular example I'm giving I argued both for the 1928 elections showing stability in my 'for' paragraph because the republic gained 60% support. However in my 'against' paragraph I mentioned the problems that the coalition government faced following the election because of the system of proportional representation and each parties own selfish incentives.

Against paragraph

However other factors must be considered because although the republic appeared stable, on deeper assessment shortcomings in both politics and the economy can be seen. Although the 1928 election voted in favour of democracy the fundamental nature of the republics voting system, proportional representation, led to the formation and dissolving of many coalition governments unable to compromise on policy and pass legislation, much to the resentment of the public. This can be used to explain why there was a decline in the electoral turnout compared to previous years (1919 82% - 1928 75.6%). The difficulty in passing policy stemmed from the strong regional, religious and politic ties that each party which conflicted others as well as causing internal bickering. For example the DVP, Centre and the DNVP agreed on domestic policy whereas the Centre, DDP, DVP and SPD agreed on foreign policy but not domestic. This highlights the centre minority to rely on gaining the support from the left or right wing parties in order to gain majority showing the extent of how difficult it was to reach compromise. A difficulty which stemmed from Imperial Germany under the Kaiser during that period the political parties didn’t have to compromise based on the fact that the Kaiser had the final say n which policy was to be up taken. Although it should be noted that that they was some political promise in the forms of the SPD and DNVP, both parties put their previous apprehensions aside and join the coalition. The DNVP took part in the years 1925 and 1927 whereas the SPD took part in every coalition since 1928. This gives the impression that the parties were able to accept the constitution and no longer blamed the newly formed republic for Versailles or the ‘stab in the back’ myth which accompanied its birth. Although the parties had their own incentives for joining the coalition, the DNVP joined because the party lost its power and influence to do anything once the republic has shown recovery and so believed the only way to have an impact on the way Germany was run was to be part of the coalition in order to influence it. Once the DNVP saw that this conciliatory policy wasn’t working after their decline in votes (20.5% to 14.2%) in the 1928 election they resorted back to their traditional, anti-democracy ways electing the ultra conservative Hugenburg as president. This was a true turning point in the DNVP rejection of parliamentary democracy. Similarly the SPD was reluctant to take back in coalition politics because of the fear that it would dilute their ideology and distance them from their working class roots, this hindered the government because the SPD was the largest party in the Reichstag until 1932 and if they had joined coalition governments earlier then it would have provided the republic with the stability the coalition governments needed to prevent constant disseverment.

Conclusion
You kind of lean towards what you believe (shows your own opinion)

So say you believe that the republic wasn't stable (I apologise in advance for how badly I'm about to explain this lol)

You say the the 'for' point for stability but then go on to give evidence/reasons for why this is 'wrong' then again do a mini conclusion.

Structure
Sentence saying your point

In conclusion it can be said that the period 1924 – 1929 was a period of deceptive stability with economic policies merely covering up the fundamental problems of the economy which could only prevent them from emerging in the short term.

'For' arguments that would contradict this

Whilst political support for opposition parties was in decline, and the pro-democratic parties won majority in the 1928 election it was only because the extremist parties failed to unite as the Nazi’s only polled 2.6% and the KPD 10.3%.

Evidence that goes against the 'for' argument that you've been touching on throughout your essay

It should be remembered that this period was a period of ‘deceptive stability’ and did not form solid support for the democracy. The growing contempt towards the republic was seen in the disgust and rejection of Weimar’s liberal and tolerant society.

Mini summary

Therefore the period of 1924 – 29 foreshadows the beginning of the decline of the republic and the German people’s desire to seek salvation from other political parties, seen with the increasing number of extremist parties forming by 1929.

Full essay

Historian Peukert describes the period of 1924-29 as a period of ‘deceptive stability’ within Weimar Germany. This description is valid to an extent with Weimar still facing the economic problems faced by the great inflation and the reparations under the treaty of Versailles hindering the government and the public, the problems of Weimar’s coalition government led to their inability to deal with such problems and it was evident that the public were losing faith in parliamentary democracy, an opinion highlighted in the declining electoral turnout (1919 – 83% 1928 – 75.6%) and the decrease in votes for pro-democratic parties (1919 – 76.1% 1928 – 60%). However it should not be ignored that during these years Weimar did make beneficial gains which were seen as an improvement on the previous years that caused the government and society to seem stable. This included the improvements on the economy, development of social welfare and foreign achievements by Stresemann. Although improvements were made, they were not substantial enough for the government to fully establish stability and although the republic was technically active until the end of the war, parliamentary democracy effectively collapsed by 1933 when Hitler established his dictatorship.

The main factors that come into question when looking at whether the years 1924 – 29 can be considered as a period of ‘deceptive stability’ are politics, economy, foreign achievements and lastly society which the main factors being the state of the economy and party politics.

The economy after the great inflation had faced decline, most notably with the value of the mark falling drastically and the government facing a debt of up to 144,000. However at the beginning of this period of stability, the economy was seen to be recovering. Heavy industry had begun to recover even though Germany faced a loss of resources such as the Saar (16% of coal) and Silesia (48% of iron ore) because of the development of efficient means of production especially in the coal and steel industry. Consequently it led to economical benefits, an increased in exports by 40% between the years 1925-30 and the growth of cartels between industries meant that they could share joint monopolies over industry really allowing them to prosper. The two most significant examples of this are IG Farben and Vereingte Stahlwerke. IG Farben became the biggest chemicals giant in all Europe and Vereingte Stahlwerke amalgamated the industries of coal, iron and steel leading the company to control also 50% of all coal, iron and steel production and distribution in Germany. The growth and prosperity experienced didn’t just affect industry however, it had an effect on the public to. This boom in productivity led to annual wages increases with workers facing an increase of between 5-10% in the years 1927 and 1928. Not only did these wage increases prompt people to have faith in the republic once more but the development of social welfare helped benefit those who had been victims of the previous inflation like workers laid off and people who had lost their savings or lived on fixed incomes like pensioners. Therefore the introduction of pensions, unemployment insurance and sickness benefits really helped those who had previously suffered under the 1923 inflation and may be what linked to the fact that pro-democratic parties gained 60% of the vote in the 1928 elections when the extremist parties all faced a decline. It can be suggested that the public support for the pro-democratic parties was because the republic had successfully helped many people in troubling economic situations i.e. the unemployment insurance covered 17 million, the biggest of its kind in Europe with the government in 1928 investing 26% of its GNP on public expenditure, giving off the idea of a country in prosperity with the increasing number of cars and the expansion of the cinema industry. Overall, from this you could argue that it wasn’t a period of deceptive stability because people enjoyed a better lifestyle under the benefits of social welfare, economy was on the up and the democracy was voted on favour of allowing Muller 1928 Grand coalition of the DDP, SPD, DVP and Centre party to form.

However other factors must be considered because although the republic appeared stable, on deeper assessment shortcomings in both politics and the economy can be seen. Although the 1928 election voted in favour of democracy the fundamental nature of the republics voting system, proportional representation, led to the formation and dissolving of many coalition governments unable to compromise on policy and pass legislation, much to the resentment of the public. This can be used to explain why there was a decline in the electoral turnout compared to previous years (1919 82% - 1928 75.6%). The difficulty in passing policy stemmed from the strong regional, religious and politic ties that each party which conflicted others as well as causing internal bickering. For example the DVP, Centre and the DNVP agreed on domestic policy whereas the Centre, DDP, DVP and SPD agreed on foreign policy but not domestic. This highlights the centre minority to rely on gaining the support from the left or right wing parties in order to gain majority showing the extent of how difficult it was to reach compromise. A difficulty which stemmed from Imperial Germany under the Kaiser during that period the political parties didn’t have to compromise based on the fact that the Kaiser had the final say n which policy was to be up taken. Although it should be noted that that they was some political promise in the forms of the SPD and DNVP, both parties put their previous apprehensions aside and join the coalition. The DNVP took part in the years 1925 and 1927 whereas the SPD took part in every coalition since 1928. This gives the impression that the parties were able to accept the constitution and no longer blamed the newly formed republic for Versailles or the ‘stab in the back’ myth which accompanied its birth. Although the parties had their own incentives for joining the coalition, the DNVP joined because the party lost its power and influence to do anything once the republic has shown recovery and so believed the only way to have an impact on the way Germany was run was to be part of the coalition in order to influence it. Once the DNVP saw that this conciliatory policy wasn’t working after their decline in votes (20.5% to 14.2%) in the 1928 election they resorted back to their traditional, anti-democracy ways electing the ultra conservative Hugenburg as president. This was a true turning point in the DNVP rejection of parliamentary democracy. Similarly the SPD was reluctant to take back in coalition politics because of the fear that it would dilute their ideology and distance them from their working class roots, this hindered the government because the SPD was the largest party in the Reichstag until 1932 and if they had joined coalition governments earlier then it would have provided the republic with the stability the coalition governments needed to prevent constant disseverment.

The election of Stresemann as chancellor in 1923 signalled the beginning of improved foreign relations between Germany and the other European nations and America. He had two main aims, to remove the treaty of Versailles and restore Germany to a great power. Although he failed to completely remove the limitations of Versailles he did successfully achieve successful foreign policy aims which secured Germany’s and the republic’s security internationally. This was done through a series of agreements; the 1924 Dawes plan, 1925 Locarno treaty, 1926 treaty of Berlin and the invitation to join the League of Nations and a permanent member, 1928 Kellogg-Briand agreement and lastly 1929 Allied evacuation of the Rhineland and the consequent development of the Young plan. The most important of the two developments were the Dawes plan and the Young plan seeing as they concerned the issue of reparations, something which has been a problem for the republic since its emergence in 1919. The 1924 Dawes plan was put forward after the agreement to resume reparations payment which was suspended under Cuno’s government, the plan didn’t change the amount due to be paid back however Germany’s economic plight gained international recognition from the allies for the first time and the payments were re-scheduled according to Germany’s ability to pay as well as the provision of a large loan from America which was more than what had to be paid back in reparations . Another allied agreement achieved by Stresemann was the 1929 Young plan which reduced the original reparations sum from $6.6 million to a quarter of the amount $1850. It would be assumed that Stresemann’s tackling of reparations would be seen positively in Germany seeing as reparation payments were resented however the Germans saw it as an allied betrayal and collection of right wing groups ‘the national opposition’ united to oppose the young plan. Following Stresemann’s sudden death the plans had no time to establish themselves providing the foreign stability that they would have for the republic. This allowed opposition groups particularly those on the right to stir up nationalist emotions within the public and direct their anger towards the republic to blame it for all their problems. The failure of Stresemann’s foreign policies to develop against reparations which would have reduced the strain on the economy meant that the fundamental economic problems within the government were exaggerated. The slump in world economic trade largely affected farmers who had already faced a decline in their wages, earning only 44% of the national average which caused them to spend less on consumer goods. With farmers making up one third of the population this greatly decreased demand making it harder for consumer industry to remain afloat. Not only this but the loss of resources under Versailles which Stresemann failed to eliminate meant that Germany’s exporting ability was reduced, removing the main method that Germany used to generate foreign exchange. This was something that was particularly important now because after the great inflation savings and foreign investments had been discouraged after many lost out on war bonds or saw their savings erode in banks as the mark became inflated. Therefore this slump in world trade really affected Germany as it was one way in which they could not only attract foreign currency but also foreign investment which they needed to stimulate the economy.

In conclusion it can be said that the period 1924 – 1929 was a period of deceptive stability with economic policies merely covering up the fundamental problems of the economy which could only prevent them from emerging in the short term. Whilst political support for opposition parties was in decline, and the pro-democratic parties won majority in the 1928 election it was only because the extremist parties failed to unite as the Nazi’s only polled 2.6% and the KPD 10.3%. It should be remembered that this period was a period of ‘deceptive stability’ and did not form solid support for the democracy. The growing contempt towards the republic was seen in the disgust and rejection of Weimar’s liberal and tolerant society. Therefore the period of 1924 – 29 foreshadows the beginning of the decline of the republic and the German people’s desire to seek salvation from other political parties, seen with the increasing number of extremist parties forming by 1929.

I really hoped that helped and wasn't completely a waste of your time! If even one person found this useful I'll just upload more of my old essays for own knowledge essays and sources essays.

Good luck!
I'm doing my AS history exam From second Reich to third Reich 1919-45 and this really helped! Thank you so much!
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? (17)
14.41%
How successful will I become if I take my planned subjects? (8)
6.78%
How happy will I be if I take this career? (24)
20.34%
How do I achieve my dream Uni placement? (19)
16.1%
What should I study to achieve my dream career? (14)
11.86%
How can I be the best version of myself? (36)
30.51%

Watched Threads

View All