Edexcel A2 History - Germany 1900-45 - Monday 8th June 2015 [Exam Discussion Thread]

I agree. I would say that there is an indication that he doesn't have total control (even though this is a feeble link because he can't have total control anyway!!! God I hate this)

But what do you mean by Night of the Long Knives, that's an indication that he did have control after it of course. Or do you mean the occurrence of such an event illustrates that there wasn't total consolidation - in which case you could argue that it was consolidated but not fully.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Yeah I know!! It's in unit 6!

as far as I know these are the things you need to know:

I've got them on a mind map and I'll send it to you

This is what you need to know for WW1 controversy


This is what you need to know for Part A


So like you do need to know stuff like the origins of Nazi party and Mein Kampf etc

Hope this helped!


Posted from TSR Mobile

It's only feeble because it's arbitrary as to when he holds "total power" or when indeed this "consolidation" has definitely taken place.

I would argue the occurrence of Night of the Long Knives demonstrates a clear insecurity on behalf of Hitler with regards to his party's military control and the continuing problem of the state and party clash - in this case over the roles of the SA and Reichswehr.

Linking that to the 1933 question, it means he can't have "totally" consolidated power in that year.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Could you possibly upload the pic for the ww1 controversy again pls. Idk if it's just my phone being weird but I can only see the mind map for part A. Sorry to bother you haha


Posted from TSR Mobile

Hmmmmm I wouldn't say it's arbitrary xD he definitely has consolidated his power by 1934. Depends to be honest. Hitler could never achieve the totalitarian state that Stalin managed to create, he wasn't as effective as him - simple as xD

But regarding the question, isn't that what I said? That the fact that the Night of the Long Knives happened was a clear indication that he hadn't actually consolidated his power

Either way, I do believe that there is muuuch more to this question then we're invited to study. Firstly, to what extent does this 'consolidation' take place?! There's countless variables that perhaps remain unnoticed which would have undermined Hitler in some particular way!!!

But moving back towards A-level History, lol, I wouldn't expect a question like this to come up anyway, it doesn't have much potential - by that I mean it's a peculiar question that would otherwise seem wasted. Just my opinion! Of course, this could come up, and if so, it wouldn't be too difficult; you just need to tweak some of the knowledge you have to say how they were/weren't successful!

Btw, are you aware of the causation/judgement structure that I explained, rather briefly, to someone in an earlier post? Just as like a check up! Because some question may appear causation but are actually judgement and you would generally get marked harsher if you answered it as such xD

Posted from TSR Mobile

By causation you mean factor and judgement you mean agreement, right? (Essentially the same, just the terms my teacher uses).



Posted from TSR Mobile

Sure!

WW1


Hitler - Part A



Posted from TSR Mobile

Yeah pretty much!

So a key skill is being able to identify if it's factor or agree/disagree and I'm sure you're already aware of the difference and how to spot it so I'll spare you the lecture xD

Just make sure you read the question, goes for everyone! Someone last year rushed into it in my year and answered one of the questions as a causation/agreement when it was the other and they got a D! Or was it the year before? Not sure xD


Posted from TSR Mobile

How did Hitler consolidate power?

Can someone help me with what to put down as my key points:

1.) Reichstag Fire
2.)Night of the Long knives possibly?
3.)Elections?

Thanks x

My key points are:

• Terror and violence:
- Emergency decree laws, 28th Feb 1933
- SA police brought in (50,000) in Prussia on 23rd Feb 1933
- Dachau concentration camp set up 20th March 1933
- 150,000-200,000 political prisoners arrested in 1933
- March elections and Enabling Law vote contested with SA intimidation

• Pragmatism:
- Speech to Reichstag committing to conservative values, 1st Feb 1933
- International Labour Day celebrated, 1st May 1933 to please workers before TUs shut down next day
- Concordat with Papacy, 20th July 1933 meant church reduced its political influence but not religious influence - any further oppression of churches would bring opposition
- Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service, 7th April 1933 cut only 5% of civil servants - Hitler needed them to co-operate so the state could function


• Key support:
- Hindenburg happy to pass emergency decree laws
- Potsdam Day impresses Hindenburg and Kaiser's son
- Elites happy for Hitler to consolidate power so a compliant mass movement could be taken advantage of at a later date when Hitler would be deposed and replaced by an authoritarian alternative

• Veneer of legality:
- Emergency decree laws cement in law the legal discrimination of KPD members
- March elections 'prove' Nazis to rise in popularity - from 33.1% to 43.5% November 1932 to March 1933
- All other parties legally banned by 14th July 1933.


I suppose you could mention Night of the Long Knives, but not if the question restricted it to 1933.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Oh my. Didn't realise it could be that fatal!

Usually the causation ones are "how far do you agree XXX because..." or "XXX happened due to..."

Extent/judgement ones are "to what extent..." or "how far do you agree that..."


Posted from TSR Mobile

You're missing Reichstag Fire in 1933!! he used that to blame the left

Also, I would put Potsdam Day under Veneer of Legality - just a preference. Because he was outlawed as a sort of rebel and so dressing as 'one of them' made him appear as though he was genuine. With all the terror etc he needed things like Potsdam Day to maintain his status and popularity among the conservatives mostly.





Posted from TSR Mobile

See that's the thing. Last year, the way the question was worded allowed us to definitively work out how to approach it. There's a 'how far do you agree X was because of X' (don't know which one) that was a agree/disagree.

And you yourself outlined the issue, the overlap is right there! In both judgement and causation questions you can get 'how far' starts and it makes it difficult to know how to structure it unless you have full knowledge of everything and then you have to make a logical and rational choice whether to do agree/disagree or factors based on the amount of knowledge you have.

Generally, more knowledge allows you to answer judgement questions; causation ones are much easier - I think it's fair to say that.


Posted from TSR Mobile

I said the emergency decree laws? That's what the main event was - the actual fire itself was just a burning building lol.

Why would Potsdam be under legality if no laws were passed related to it?
It is not more applicable to "key support" rather than "legality" with that reasoning?


Posted from TSR Mobile

I prefer the causation questions - thinking of alternative factors is easier than points of agreement/extent imo


Posted from TSR Mobile

Hi guys sorry to be a pain but do any of you have any good advice/tips for answering a part B controversy question, I've been getting Cs/Bs in my practise essays and I need an A in the exam (banter) so any pearls of wisdom would be greatly appreciated

Oh I didn't even see the emergency decree laws! But anyway, we were told to call it the Reichstag Fire. So I'd say something like: Hitler used the Reichstag Fire to issue the emergency decree law etc...

Veneer of Legality basically means the appearance of being 'genuine' - as I'm sure you already know. Potsdam Day certainly can be under 'key support' but I personally felt it was better under Veneer of Legality simply because he appeared to be 'one of them' by dressing as them etc.

And this is the thing, by doing this, I could link my next paragraph (which is a requirement for those aiming for A* etc) because I'd say in my next paragraph something like: what is more, Hitlers appearance of being 'genuine' increased his support and approval from Hindenburg. <- This would be my next paragraph (Key support)

So I'd have key support after veneer of legality to connect those two dots.

If you don't understand why Potsdam Day could go under Veneer of Legality just let me know I'll try explaining in more detail - sorry if this was too brief xD


Posted from TSR Mobile

Definitely! That's why people tend to sometimes mistake judgement questions as causation ones!! So just like read through the question properly before deciding what it is.


Posted from TSR Mobile