Anyone doing A2 EDEXCEL Kaiser to Fuhrer for June? (2013)

Hey, about war economy I have,
1) shortages of labour( one of many problems that showed how Germany was unprepared for war unlike other countries, problems like focusing on consumer production rather than on arms industry causes shift of labour investment and priorities towards munitions, economy can't reach standards, made up shortages with foreign prison workers from France and other countries but not enough, Fritz Sauckel issues decree for compulsory labour and almost 6.7 million are gathered, still low production due to beheviour of nazis)
2)shortages of raw materials(conquer and control natural resources of countries to win a major war, imported from sweeden, annexations and providance of resources, economic reason for invasion of USSR, oil supplier solely Romania, generally not enough material to sustain home front and war effort of country engadged in total war)
3)Nazi ideology ( bad treatment of foreign prisoners, women
4)chaotic nature of nazi state ( agencies, looting of countries, speer benefiting by ignoring scorched earth policy)
5) Speer and his achievements ( just to say that he is the least important reason and that he mainly benefited the war economy)


Hope it helps everybody! i really hope it's the one otherwise i dont know how much im gonna cry tomorrow..

I have no where near as enough detail as this....I am getting worried now. Oh God....this is the time of the day when I become that little bit more passive.....Might have to stay awake till 3 am again by the looks of it :'( don't even know all my dates

I have no where near as enough detail as this....I am getting worried now. Oh God....this is the time of the day when I become that little bit more passive.....Might have to stay awake till 3 am again by the looks of it :'( don't even know all my dates

Basically, Fischer put the blame on Germany. I.E Germany planned for war and world domination.-- Shown in Bethmann Holwegg's secretary document as they were 'planning for war'.

He also hoped the 'blank cheque' led the outbreak of war. Other things he said are that Weltpolitik was a grand plan for world power, and that the Germany wanted the same No. of Colonies as Britain, if not more.

But, you can counter flaws in Fischer's thesis as No.1, Austria had sense of control by being granted a 'blank cheque'. No. 2, If Germany wanted world domination, why didnt they take Morocco region from the French?

Fischer's war of illusions links in with Primat Der Innenpolitk (Solve domestic issues). He stated in his book that 'Germany used war for difficult internal problems''. - Evidence from the diary of Admiral Muller from the War council in 1912. The diary stated that the path to war was decided, and B/Hollwegg had to get things prepared diplomatically for war.

That's all you need to know in regards to Fisher. But, you need to know other historians who counter him. Such as Hildlerbrand, Scholugen, David Lloyd George and James Joll. (Not them specifically, but there are many others who countered his viewpoint that Germany was to blame)

I don't think you need this extreme level of detail, don't worry. But it won't hurt you if you do! Just if you have this level of detail for all your notes, you won't be able to remember them all...

That's the thing, I have a feeling that the one I do learn in detail will not come up. And they'll be the only facts in my head. I don't know what to do.

Let's be honest guys.... would it be ok if I just revised Nazi War economy, Weimar (for Part A) and WW1 for Part B... or is this really risky? I feel I have no other choice. Nothing is going in my head down, I can really sense me having a massive breakdown in the exam. I had really high hopes for this. History is really getting to me...

Let's be honest guys.... would it be ok if I just revised Nazi War economy, Weimar (for Part A) and WW1 for Part B... or is this really risky? I feel I have no other choice. Nothing is going in my head down, I can really sense me having a massive breakdown in the exam. I had really high hopes for this. History is really getting to me...

Does anyone know how to use historiography in ww1 essays? Apparently you need to include it, is it for both section A and B?

also, can you just name a few at the end of each paragraph when relevant? Thanks to anyone who replies? I'm literally crapping bricks for the exam tomorrow

By historiography it means like traditionalist view, revisionist, anti revisionist...for example WW1: traditionalist view was that Germany was to blame and that's it. After a while historians began to look over things and they believed that Germany wasn't to blame, but other things also contributed in causing WW1 for example Ludwig = blamed leaders/politicians of all countries..

You do not need to say specifically if they were traditionalist/revisionist etc, just remember which historians argue against which ones.

For naming them: name them when your either agreeing with a source or challenging a source. For example, if there's a source by Fischer stating that Germany wanted world domination, you can argue against this and say that Hilderbrand thinks that Germany's foreign policy didnt want domination but it was defensive..they created their f.p in a way to remove themselves from encirclement OR you can can agree by bringing in own knowledge/historian to make another point agreeing with Fischer.

Hope that makes sense!! Sorry, I'm only doing WW1 controversy not the Nazi one.
Btw you don't need historiography in section A!

Thank you SO much! I literally worship you now! +1 rep for you!
I'm doing ww1 too, so no worries so lastly, can you describe what the view was? Meaning, if I mentioned hilderbrand, it doesn't need to be in quotes but simply 'hinderbrand argued that ....'

Hey everyone, I wish you all the best (don't know if I'm coming back on this that's why, I probably will, with the amount of questions in my head!) You all deserve brilliant grades, you seem to have worked hard. Keep calm and carry on! (And I'll try to practice what I preach!! ) Get back to you's after the exam.

Let's be honest guys.... would it be ok if I just revised Nazi War economy, Weimar (for Part A) and WW1 for Part B... or is this really risky? I feel I have no other choice. Nothing is going in my head down, I can really sense me having a massive breakdown in the exam. I had really high hopes for this. History is really getting to me...

Have you revised all the chapters for section A?

Hey, I have a really probably dumb question, but can the material covered in the controversies come up in the a question? I was just going to do the WW1 controversy (I mean, I kind of know the other one but... yeah) because it's so much smaller but a friend has told me that the material can come up in the a and I'm just like GEE THANKS xD

What, some people have genuinely revised all sections for partA?