Edexcel: From kaiser to fuhrer 1900-1945, his03/d exam friday 10th june 2016

Scroll to see replies

Well there won't be a question specifically on Weimar culture, but a question could argue that the development of Weimar culture was the result of a stable democratic state. For that you might say no because Weimar culture was often linked to escapism and the stagnation and change of the political landscape, showing that perhaps the unique Weimar culture was a result of a unstable and evolving political system. From there you could argue that it was economic/foreign policy advancements that resulted in a democratic state.

I highly doubt they would approach this kind of question with the angle of Weimar culture, I usually use culture as a little bit of context to the changing social attitudes of the time rather than a solid link to the ideas of the Stresemann years being 'golden'.

Cheers!

that means i'll go over culture but its not a necessity!

Reply 501

sixschmidt

Original post by kyungsoo

Does anyone have any tips on how to write a really good conclusion?

Focus on what the question is precisely asking you, and give a weighted judgement based on your arguments in previous paragraphs. I usually sum up my points from my argument paragraphs and finish the conclusion with a 'Overall' statement assessing/evaluating the question.

Reply 502

sixschmidt

Original post by samgriff1998

Is it okay to focus on Weimar Golden Years/Final Solution/Morale 1939-45 and then the WWI controversy or should at look at some other topics? These have been the most rumoured to come up so to concentrate my revision will I most likely be okay looking at these 4 topics?

I should add I have already looked at these in fair detail but was just wondering if I ought to look at something else as well?

Sounds fine to me, although I would personally add in early Weimar in addition to the golden years, just in case a question spanning 10 years comes up, rather than just ~5 Golden Years.

Reply 503

samgriff1998

Original post by sixschmidt

Sounds fine to me, although I would personally add in early Weimar in addition to the golden years, just in case a question spanning 10 years comes up, rather than just ~5 Golden Years.

Okay perfect! Thanks for your help, the earlier years are something I have covered so I will just compile another plan in the case of a 1919-29 question rather than 1924-29.

Reply 504

VINTAGE.WARD

Original post by sixschmidt

Sounds fine to me, although I would personally add in early Weimar in addition to the golden years, just in case a question spanning 10 years comes up, rather than just ~5 Golden Years.

Have you got an essay on this question i could look up because yours are better than mine :tongue:

How far do you agree that the weimar government was seriously threatened by political extremists 1919-1924

Reply 505

nargishoque

This is my first time on this website. I was really wondering and wanted to know what was the most likely topics to come? A pretty detailed answer would help me focus on exactly what I should spend more time revising, thank you in advance! And good luck to you all!

Reply 506

sixschmidt

Original post by nargishoque

I just posted this in the page before but i'll repost it here for you.

This year I expect a question for WW2, either on wartime opposition/morale or the Final Solution. For the second part A question I expect that a Weimar question is more likely to come up, either early political extremism or (less likely) a question from 1919-29. A Second Reich question is unlikely in my opinion to come up, although they have asked a question on that time period in a row between 2012 and 2013, one on the nature of democracy in the Second Reich and social/political tensions during the war.

If i'm wrong please don't crucify me D:

Reply 507

Annie.humair

Can someone one please give me examples of how the state was chaotic in terms of the final solution

Reply 508

nargishoque

Original post by sixschmidt

Thank you so much!! Do you think the nazi rise to power OR the consolidation of power is likely to come up at all? :smile:

Reply 509

sixschmidt

Original post by nargishoque

Thank you so much!! Do you think the nazi rise to power OR the consolidation of power is likely to come up at all? :smile:

There has never been a question on Nazi consolidation of power, as I think thats mostly contained to the controversy of whether the Nazis were popular. I am not sure though. I would assume that a question on rise to power is more likely.

Reply 510

harrietmccabe

Original post by Annie.humair

Can someone please tell me what cumalitive radicalisation was and its significance pleaseeeee
THANK YOU

Hiya, cumulative radicalisation is basically the process by which policies in Nazi Germany became more extreme. It's significant when talking about the final solution because it is argued that it led to escalating action. So, for example German Jews were subject to restrictions and repression at the start of the war, but were not confined to ghettos. Polish Jews were then subject to the same measures and ordered into overcrowded ghettos ran by the SS.

Reply 511

harrietmccabe

Original post by carolind

is anyone just learning controversy a

Yep, I'm only focusing on the first controversy

Reply 512

nargishoque

What is the likeliness of the golden years coming up?

Reply 513

harrietmccabe

Original post by nargishoque

What is the likeliness of the golden years coming up?

Very likely because it hasn't come up before

Reply 514

AJC1997

Original post by grassntai

i suppose you could when you're evaluating the arguments. for instance one of your factors could be church but then you would balance it by saying although they opposed certain policies of the regime, they were motivated by self-interest to preserve their institution and not actual opposition to the regime reflected through their passiveness to the holocaust.

have you got any A grade essays on weimer republic/golden years or nazi consolidation of power?

How far do you agree with the view that the period 1924 - 1929 was one of both political stability and genuine recovery?

Grade A* answer:

The period of 1924 to 1929 did see a recovery in Germany to some extent, certainly when compared with the turmoil that came after. However, the extent to which this was genuine and stable is questionable. While in economic terms there was an overall recovery and no significant negative events, such as were seen before of afterwards with hyperinflation and the onset of the depression from 1929 onwards, this was both artificial and vulnerable in the sense it relied on overseas loans. Similarly, while the political system appeared more stable, with fewer elections being required and less of a threat from extremism, it is hard to consider this stable, with shifting coalitions and little sign that parties were maturing beyond interest groups to be capable of sustaining a successful democracy over the longer term.

In political terms there was a sense of stability, at least relative to the periods before and after. The lack of significant extra-parliamentary threat after the defeat of the Beer Hall Putsch and a dramatic reduction in political murders since 1922 must be seen to be a success. While combat leagues did develop on both sides of the political spectrum, these were marginal and of little threat to stability, with clashes between these only starting to grow from 1928 onwards. However, the absence of such negatives was not in itself a sign of real political stability, rather what Kolb described as 'relative stability'; it gave the Weimar Republic the chance to concentrate on establishing genuine democratic roots, but can only be seen as a qualified success in that it had recovered from the traumatic year of 1923.

When viewed from the perspective of the time, the experience of parliamentary democracy in the Reichstag appeared to offer a cautious optimism for the stability and potential long-term success of democracy. Extreme parties on both sides lost their share of the votes, with the KPD down 9% by 1928 from a combined communist peak of 20% in 1920 while, on the extreme right, the Nazis vote over halved in the two elections of 1924, from 6.5% in May and were not significant again until the 1930 election. However, while there was support for democratic parties, this did not translate to stable government. Proportional representation was never likely to produce single-party rule, but the deeper problem was the failure of the parties to mature to create stability within the system. Most parties still acted as interest groups, partly a legacy of the Second Reich, and were unable to act with a sufficient 'spirit of compromise' necessary to make coalitions work. Even in these relatively peaceful years, there were seven different governments in the period 1924-1930, the longest of which lasted 21 months. These issues significantly undermined political stability as the predominantly minority coalitions failed to command effective government, agreeing more on foreign policy than domestic issues, and were easily collapsed by changed in party leadership or when faced with difficult issues. While the problems they had to content with were by no means on the scale of later issues, they were by no means stable, and even before 1930, political legitimacy was being lost, particularly in the eyes of the crucial middle class.

The period did also see a recovery in economic terms, although the extent of this is questionable as it was vulnerable to external shocks and ultimately brought down with the depression. Alongside the stabilisation of the currency with the Rentenmark, the Dawes Plan of 1924 brought a more realistic settlement on the reparations and a loan of 800 million gold marks. The recovery as a result of this appeared remarkable; Stolper saw this as 'unparalleled in recent German history'. Output levels for heavy industries and coal, iron and steel equaled and in cases surpassed pre-WW1 levels. In one sense the recovery was genuine, productivity increased through improved technology and efficiency. However, although the higher wages and the generous social welfare benefits supported by the Weimar coalitions gave a sense of recovery and certainly benefited ordinary Germans, these were unsustainable - a burden on the fragile recovery struggled to bear even with the US loans it was dependent upon. Production actually declined in 1926, with declining exports and unemployment never falling below 1.3 million. Industrial disputes such as the huge lockout at the Ruhr ironworks in 1928 disrupted production and limited the competitiveness of German producers. Such problems were merely masked by the high level of foreign investment. Thus, while there were elements of a genuine recovery, the reliance upon US loans left the economy vulnerable. The weaknesses were evident before 1929 and, with US investment being withdrawn from 1928, in economic terms the recovery should not be overstated.

Increased political stability, due to the impact of Germany's rehabilitation in foreign relations, was also evident. However, as with the increased foreign investment that brought economic recovery, the permanence of this is questionable. Along with the Dawes Plan, the signing of the Locarno Treaty in 1925 saw Germany's relations with other nations rehabilitated to a considerable degree, leading to Germany joining the League of Nations in 1926. While this measures provoked anger among nationalists, Stresemann's efforts were welcomed by most, seeing the DNVP move to supporting coalition government, and produced real gains for Germany, such as financial support of the Dawes Plan and a reduction in the Rhineland occupation forces in 1927, with full withdrawal in 1929. The recovery this investment brought was undoubted, with over 25 billion marks stimulating economic output and higher wages. In cultural terms, Weimar Germany increasingly gained a reputation as a place of toleration and creativity, from Bauhaus architecture to the modernity of Neue Sachlichkeit in literature and theatre. The extent to which either of these developments constitutes a genuine recovery is a different matter. The latter was somewhat a departure of the more conservative culture of the Second Reich, but these cultural developments really highlight the division in Germany. There was a reaction against the cultural freedom among more conservative elements of German society and, while this didn't stop this being a recovery of sort, it emphasises the more fundamental divisions that were not healing during this period. Perhaps more significantly, while the domestic benefits resulting from foreign policy, both in terms of real economic gains, as well as the improved public optimism towards Germany's prospects under democratic government shown by the reduced attraction of extreme parties, was one of the greatest successes of this period, Stresemann's methods of revision through fulfilment were a work in progress. He himself felt that by 1929 this was beginning to disappoint, and certainly was not successfully embedded enough to survive more testing circumstances that came after, and thus the implications of this for Germany cannot be seen as a recovery with long-term prospects.

Thus the period of 1924-29 cannot be seen as one of political stability and genuine recovery. While a recovery of sorts did take place, with significant economic growth, this was reliant upon external support, and while this hadn't failed by 1929, the gains made were already being eroded. As far as political stability was concerned, in relative terms the period was a success. However, this was in part dependent upon a recovery in areas such as the economy and foreign policy, which were themselves fragile. Thus, while the Weimar Republic was under less threat and the functioning of government was broadly smooth, this had failed to mature in a way that would have prepared it to deal with the problems that came later, and was increasingly losing legitimacy even before 1929 and so cannot be see as a genuine recovery.

Reply 515

Annie.humair

What else can I say about the role of the war in the final solution?
I've already got:
Occupation of other countries meant that more Jews were in German 3 million from Poland
Operation Barbarossa highlighted more issues such as invasion of USSR put strain in the German war economy and highlighted that the cost of keeping Jews in ghettos was too much therefore hitter ordered war of extermination. 700,000 Jews were killed in the winter of 1941

What else can I say?
Thanks

Reply 516

samgriff1998

Original post by Annie.humair

I think that is pretty much it from what i've got. Maybe that the Wannsee Conference came about as Germany continued with a policy of Blitzkrieg and therefore it required a final solution in order to fulfil their goals but apart from that basically just use those points along with everything else and you should be fine

Reply 517

Student1245

anyone got a link/file for the June 2009 paper? Can't find it on Edexcel website.

Reply 518

izzy_hill

I'm so nervous for this exam - don't feel like I know the content well enough :/ I got 47/50 in coursework which has been the A* point in previous grade boundaries, and i got an A in my AS exams last year. Can anyone estimate what I would have to get in tomorrow's exam to get an A/B for my overall a level grade? I am confident for the controversy question but honestly feel like i'll screw up the 30 marker. I personally think it'll be a Weimar related question, and a question on the Final Solution. What do you guys think?