Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

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

Scroll to see replies

Personally:
• Terror and violence
• Veneer of legality
• Key support of elites
• Pragmatism

Posted from TSR Mobile

I personally wouldn't plan it this way, my teacher felt that combining concessions into support from elites which seems to be the case is a bad way to go about it.

Of course, it is up to you

But I would do it like this:
- Veneer of Legality
- Propaganda
- Use of laws
- Terror

Reply 801

username1529975

Original post by swagyolo420

Ah okay aha, its unlikely though right?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Okay look, everyone is trying to base their revision on what they think will come up. Do NOT.

If you want a good grade, revise everything in as much detail - so that you can answer any question.

I can't say whether it is likely or not - just that they could do it and we have no right to complain about it.

Either you take a gamble and put all your eggs in one basket, or you revise reasonably and do all the sections.

The choice is yours.

Reply 802

swagyolo420

Original post by Tow

I understand... Haha

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 803

username1529975

Original post by swagyolo420

I understand... Haha

Posted from TSR Mobile

Germany really isn't hard.

Part A is ridiculously easy.

Part B however is another matter. They could seriously screw us all over by giving really hard sources - and it's worth more marks anyway.

Reply 804

swagyolo420

Original post by Tow

Germany really isn't hard.

Part A is ridiculously easy.

Part B however is another matter. They could seriously screw us all over by giving really hard sources - and it's worth more marks anyway.

The one positive about sources is it isnt a wide range and they can only test us on a minority of things. As long as sources are decent, they can be nice.

Its just with section A, my brain is not great with remembering dull topics and that is what is what the kaiser reich is to me. I find it SO boring and it makes it harder to memorise in my opinion 😂

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 805

username1529975

Original post by swagyolo420

Part B tests your ability to understand sources, compare them and explain them with your own knowledge. It is source driven.

Part A only tests your ability to understand a question and write a coherent and structured response with your own knowledge. For those aiming for the top bands, this response should have a clear line of argument with causal significance given to factors that perhaps are less important than the given factor, or even more, in bringing out the given outcome.

E.g. How far do you agree that the fall of the Weimar was due to its weak constitution?

Etc etc

Reply 806

cuppa

I don't want to put my eggs in one basket (who does?) but it's always nice to spend your time wisely -- ie I'm not planning on spending a lot of time on War economy for the last unit because it's probably not going to come up. Of course we need to know everything, but there's no need to constantly repeat that we all need to know everything. We just wanna be smart learners ya?

Also, if a German revolution question came up, what would you write? I feel like there's not very much to say about whether it's from above or below. There's probably more to say about whether it was democratic or not?

Reply 807

CD223

Original post by Tow

My teacher likes the way I wrote my key support from elites paragraph in my Nazi consolidation mock so I won't change what I wrote lol.

If it comes up that's what I'm gonna talk about - maybe you're misinterpreting what I mean by key support.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 808

username1529975

Original post by CD223

Do you mean like the support he gained from the people and like conservative elites etc?

Yeah you can stick to the way you wrote it but I'm just saying that I would write it differently - and my teacher agrees with me on that one. The reason is, I personally wouldn't consider 'key support' as a factor, but rather something that he gained through other things like veneer of legality etc.

I think I wrote an essay for her on this question anyway.

Reply 809

CD223

Original post by cuppa

I agree.

At the end of the day the boundaries are low anyway, so I wouldn't worry even if your knowledge isn't as pitch perfect as other topics, so long as you can think of 3/4 causations/judgements you're sorted.

I would talk of:
• Abdication of the Kaiser
• Divisions amongst classes and in political circles
• Kiel mutiny
• Prince Max's government
• Ludendorff's motivation for a parliamentary democracy
• Ebert Groener Pact
• Stinnes-Legien Agreement
• Suppression of spartacist/Bavarian revolts
• Ebert's early problems
• Reliance on right wing as a buffer against communism
• Lack of reformation of key institutions
• Weimar constituent assembly elections

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 810

CD223

Original post by Tow

By key support I essentially mean he wouldn't have been able to pass the emergency decree laws following the Reichstag fire without Hindenburg's permission, which was not guaranteed, meaning he relied on Hindenburg and those around him to persuade legislation against communism.

Further, Papen's personal motives for a military dictatorship meant he encouraged Hitler to flood the secret police in Prussia on 22nd February with "auxiliary volunteers" (SA, Stahlhelm, SS).

Without either act being supported by key players high up in the government and in elitist circles, it is unlikely that such laws would have been passed, limiting the veneer of legality the party so desperately sought after.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 811

username1529975

Original post by cuppa

A lot of people have said that they're gonna gamble their revision and only study one topic - so to answer your question, yes, there are people who would put 'all their eggs in one basket'.

Also, I thought that 'revising smartly' was already obvious. I would never recommend it however because people get carried away and seem to think that revising smartly means revise the units you think will come up. I personally revise everything regardless of what comes up.

Please note: the examiners themselves have said that there is NO pattern to their questions. They could, theoretically ask the exact same question 3 times, or however many times they wanted. It seems unlucky to us because it's never really happened but you should never forget that there is no intentional pattern.

So no, revising smartly isn't really great - in my opinion. Revise everything :smile:

Reply 812

username1529975

Original post by CD223

Where would you talk about the Enabling Act then?

And I would instead argue the emergency decree laws etc would come under 'use of laws' or 'use of democratic system' etc etc. Key support and veneer of legality are basically the same. He appeared legal (due to the use of excessive violence + terror) and gained support. What you just explained would pretty much go under veneer of legality imo.

Reply 813

CD223

Original post by Tow

Enabling Act would definitely come under veneer of legality and use of terror.

It is important to remember you can mention the same event or reasoning more than once. It's a quality of the top mark essays not to just "block" events into each factor, but to appreciate events can belong to several factors.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 814

username1529975

Original post by CD223

Enabling Act - under terror?! I must detest! This is why I feel that you should have a paragraph on use of laws because you would otherwise have nowhere to put the Enabling act. The enabling act was a clear demonstration of manipulation of the legal system - he persuaded other parties to vote for him + concessions etc etc to gain support. He had no intention of creating a participatory democracy and thus, while his votes still remained high, he urgently seeker diplomatic ways to pass the act. If anything, this was the exact opposite of terror! So no, I really don't think it would go under terror, and it's not just my opinion, I think it's fairly obvious.

And I am COMPLETELY aware that you should appreciate that factors can be placed in other parts. They're meant to be like that so you can link them! However, you cannot say the same point twice - that's not demonstrating anything. The fact that factors can fit into other paragraphs means you would be able to link one paragraph to the next, but only in such a way that would allow you to continue your line of argument - you should not reiterate what you said in the paragraph before.

Reply 815

CD223

Original post by Tow

Enabling Act - under terror?! I must detest!

This is why I feel that you should have a paragraph on use of laws because you would otherwise have nowhere to put the Enabling act.

However, you cannot say the same point twice - that's not demonstrating anything. The fact that factors can fit into other paragraphs means you would be able to link one paragraph to the next, but only in such a way that would allow you to continue your line of argument - you should not reiterate what you said in the paragraph before.

That's not what I said. I said you can refer to a previous point in backing up your next factor. You should always maintain a consistent line of argument. Reiterating what you said before is not in any way a bad thing - by compounding the argument with a link back to your previous points you are demonstrating that you know each factor isn't self-contained or self-fulfilling, and in reality is a good example of how events may demonstrate several factors.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 816

Bunny2014

Original post by Tow

Germany really isn't hard.

Part A is ridiculously easy.

Part B however is another matter. They could seriously screw us all over by giving really hard sources - and it's worth more marks anyway.

Saying Part A is easy? Its subjective to everyone.

Reply 817

username1529975

Original post by CD223

It is frankly naive to dismiss the enabling act as not being an example of Nazi terror. How do you think the act was passed in the first place?!

It belongs in veneer of legality and terror imo.

Not only have you overlooked my appreciation that the act was an example of the veneer of legality, but you have also suggested that the enabling act was simply an act passed with support from all necessary parties and no outside ulterior factors allowing its passage. Violence of the SA in the run up to the act was paramount to it being drafted into law.

That's not what I said. I said you can refer to a previous point in backing up your next factor. You should always maintain a consistent line of argument. Reiterating what you said before is not in any way a bad thing - by compounding the argument with a link back to your previous points you are demonstrating that you know each factor isn't self-contained or self-fulfilling, and in reality is a good example of how events may demonstrate several factors.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Please refer to any online article that will clearly explain that the enabling act came about due to manipulation of laws. Sure, it links to veneer of legality but it's not violence.

Okay, I don't know whether I'm misunderstanding you or you're misunderstanding me.

I know that violence was used to reduce the 'opposition' to the enabling act, that's fine. That is how you would link it. But what I'm talking about is the NATURE of the Enabling Act - not how it was passed. I'm very much aware that there were brown shirted SA guys around the chamber and in some way intimidated the Reichstag etc etc. But Enabling Act is an example of manipulation of laws in itself because he passes a legal law with the Reichstags support - he does not ban all parties without consulting the Reichstag. Now, yes, again, he did use violence to intimidate them, and yes, again, this is a link you would make, but the Enabling Act as a law and also as an event comes under something like use of laws or (in your case where you don't have that) veneer of legality. I hope that cleared the air of any misunderstanding and 'naivety'.

Regarding the matter on reiteration, it's clear we misunderstood each other. To, again, clear the air, let me give you an example.

Hitler used laws to consolidate power. One key example is the Enabling Act which ensured that the Nazi party alone was the only legal party allowed to exist - any other party was legally banned. This reduced opposition blah blah blah.

Hitler used violence to consolidate power. Indeed, while the Enabling Act was passed through a democratic election, it could be argued that this was only due to the use of violence and intimidated prior to the act being passed. Before the election began, in fact, brown shirted SA men were milled around the outside chamber and packed the public gallery. What is more, communist deputies were illegally barred by Goering, reducing the votes need to pass the law from 432 to 378. Etc etc.

THIS is what I mean by a good link. I didn't reiterate what I said. I proposed a new context in which the event could be viewed. This is what a top level answer should aim to do at least 2/3 times. Reiterating what I said in the previous paragraph would only support the point I had previously made - that gets you nowhere.

I do hope you agree with me now. Lol.

Reply 818

Bunny2014

What were the opposing groups to the Nazi regime? And what possible question could come up with this title?

Thanks x

Reply 819

username1529975

Original post by Bunny2014

Saying Part A is easy? Its subjective to everyone.

It certainly is.

I guess it depends on where you're more comfortable.

But the bottom line is, if you practiced essay writing and know your content, you're guaranteed a good mark. However with Part B there's that sense of the unknown - you don't know what sources will come up and how hard they will be.

Now you might say that's the same with Part A but, again, I would say that if you know your content, there is not a single question you cannot answer.