The Student Room Group
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

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

Scroll to see replies

Did anyone else do the 1900-14 question and if so how did you structure it??
Original post by Whitbyyy
Did anyone else do the 1900-14 question and if so how did you structure it??


I did: the nature of the constitution limited democracy, the lack of working class representation, the influence of the Kamarilla BUT right wing support for the system suggests that there was at least some form of democracy because people wanted an authoritarian system
Reply 702
Avatar for samoj1
samoj1
Original post by louise.18
Just want to check that the controversy question was: 'arose as a result of German aggression' wasn't it? and not 'did not arise as a result of German aggression? as now I'm panicking that I misread the question!!!




It asked if war "arose PRIMARILY" as a result of German aggression. The task of the question was to assess the significance of German aggression as the "primary" cause for the war. Although it seemed source 1/2 were temptingly off putting in that they simply explained the reasons why Germany became aggressive (desires of the social elite / desire to use was as a tool for economic gain) but did not assess the significance of this aggression. In Source 3 "Clark" was much more useful (although he didn't argue as strongly as Paxman or Martel) in that he assessed the importance of German aggression compared to aggressive policies of other countries (such as Serbia) or the aggressive nature of the European alliance system from 1907 onwards.
I did for and against

For
Freedom of speech and freedom of association
Reichstag more assertive (rejected colonial bill of 1906)
Lots of politcal parties to represent
Trade uniions
Pressure groups
SPD largest in reichstag 1912
All males above 20 could vote
Ruling elite had to respond to pressure from below such as centre part

Against
Kaiser could dismiss chancellor
Army and chancellor accountable to kaiser
Example of bulow not supporting kaiser and got fired and bethamnn being loyal and staying hired
Zabren affair
Then how conservative elite dominated bundesrat (had 17 votes)
And how country followed weltpolitik which was kaisers idea

You?
Reply 704
Avatar for samoj1
samoj1
Original post by tonester195
I did: the nature of the constitution limited democracy, the lack of working class representation, the influence of the Kamarilla BUT right wing support for the system suggests that there was at least some form of democracy because people wanted an authoritarian system


Yeah did that one as well, your argument looks strong , for me task was to say what extent you would agree there were 'significant steps' taken towards becoming a democracy so the hook of the question and the focus of argument wasn't on 'how' Germany came closer to becoming a democracy, but rather how 'Significant' these domestic steps were between 1900-1914.

structure for me was just to divide it up into two main themes of argument within the question: the 'significance' of (named) changes within the Kaiserreich before war in bringing Germany closer to becoming a democracy, and in counter argument, the 'insignificance' of such changes highlighted by the fact there is a continuity of autocratic rule within Germany throughout the given time frame (extent to which social elites are unchanged by rising democratic powers).

focus within these two arguments for me lay in how 'significant' the effect of the SPD was from the 1912 elections onwards, also the increased membership to trade unions and the culture of trade unions growing, and the effectiveness of the parliament in implementing change in policy such as the 1912 tax on inheritance (at the expense of Junkers)
and in counter argument, the 'insignificance' of these changes, telling evidence could be found through parliaments powerless nature over the Chancellor (as illustrated by the vote of no confidence against Bethmann Hollwegg in 1913) and also lack of government control over foreign policy. and to argue further, the lack of democratic power over separate bodies of the state such as the judiciary and army (highlighted by expansionist foreign policy and army laws of 1913/14) from 1900-1914 (inferring there was limited 'significant' change)
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 705
Avatar for fxmi_
fxmi_
1
My points for the opposition to the regime:
1. Gestapo minimising opposition (32,000)2.Threat of the army (1944 bomb plot)3.Goebells propaganda & rationing (350 Grammes for xmas 1942)
4.Communist opposition & Kresau circle (89 cells of opposition)
Are these correct?
I spoke about the consistence use of the Prussian 3 class voting system and their dominance in the Bundesrat - the failure of the Daily Telegraph Affair and the Hottentot election, arguing that they all left Germany stagnant and fundamentally undemocratic and as my for argument I wrote about Bethmann attempting to reform the Prussian voting system and although he ultimately failed, he showed some shift in ideology and progressive moves. I also made reference to the Reichstag and suffrage for men which can be considered democratic. My general conclusion was that democracy was a facade and that the Kaiserreich was unchanging in democratisation. What do you reckon? It seems I wrote a little bit differently to some other people on here but my classmates wrote similarly.

Original post by Whitbyyy
Did anyone else do the 1900-14 question and if so how did you structure it??
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 707
Avatar for samoj1
samoj1
Original post by Libbyisconfused
I spoke about the consistence use of the Prussian 3 class voting system and their dominance in the Bundesrat - the failure of the Daily Telegraph Affair and the Hottentot election, arguing that they all left Germany stagnant and fundamentally undemocratic and as my for argument I wrote about Bethmann attempting to reform the Prussian voting system and although he ultimately failed, he showed some shift in ideology and progressive moves. I also made reference to the Reichstag and suffrage for men which can be considered democratic. My general conclusion was that democracy was a facade and that the Kaiserreich was unchanging in democratisation. What do you reckon? It seems I wrote a little bit differently to some other people on here but my classmates wrote similarly.


I think your content looks really good. As far as the mark scheme goes it doesn't really matter what evidence you pick to use as long as you can go into depth in your analysis (show knowledge) and you offer a range of relevant peices of information to back up your thesis. The information you've used looks very good with info on an arguement both for and against whether there was "significant" steps taken towards becoming a democracy. The question assumes we are already aware that there was change and is only asking us to assess their "significance", so as long as you linked your theses and therefore evidence back to the question of whether this change was significant or not, with the info you've put in you can't really drop below band 5 because you will be displaying both ability to coherently answer the question directly (whereas some essays will just list what had changed and what didn't which is good but can't get you top marks) and you'll clearly also be displaying your knowledge through use of examples to back up your points.
Original post by samoj1
I think your content looks really good. As far as the mark scheme goes it doesn't really matter what evidence you pick to use as long as you can go into depth in your analysis (show knowledge) and you offer a range of relevant peices of information to back up your thesis. The information you've used looks very good with info on an arguement both for and against whether there was "significant" steps taken towards becoming a democracy. The question assumes we are already aware that there was change and is only asking us to assess their "significance", so as long as you linked your theses and therefore evidence back to the question of whether this change was significant or not, with the info you've put in you can't really drop below band 5 because you will be displaying both ability to coherently answer the question directly (whereas some essays will just list what had changed and what didn't which is good but can't get you top marks) and you'll clearly also be displaying your knowledge through use of examples to back up your points.

Thank you for the feedback :-)
Hi, i did it slightly different to you
I did for and against
For Freedom of speech and freedom of association
Reichstag more assertive (rejected colonial bill of 1906)
Lots of politcal parties to represent Trade uniionsPressure groupsSPD largest in reichstag 1912All males above 20 could voteRuling elite had to respond to pressure from below such as centre part
AgainstKaiser could dismiss chancellor Army and chancellor accountable to kaiser
Example of bulow not supporting kaiser and got fired and bethamnn being loyal and staying hired
Zabren affairThen how conservative elite dominated bundesrat (had 17 votes)And how country followed weltpolitik which was kaisers idea

And argued these saying that it showed 'significant steps' or it didnt such as 'reichstag opposed the colonial bill of 1906, thus showing they they had made steps to democracy as the democratic body was opposing the ruling class'Have I answered it wrong? :/
Original post by samoj1
I think your content looks really good. As far as the mark scheme goes it doesn't really matter what evidence you pick to use as long as you can go into depth in your analysis (show knowledge) and you offer a range of relevant peices of information to back up your thesis. The information you've used looks very good with info on an arguement both for and against whether there was "significant" steps taken towards becoming a democracy. The question assumes we are already aware that there was change and is only asking us to assess their "significance", so as long as you linked your theses and therefore evidence back to the question of whether this change was significant or not, with the info you've put in you can't really drop below band 5 because you will be displaying both ability to coherently answer the question directly (whereas some essays will just list what had changed and what didn't which is good but can't get you top marks) and you'll clearly also be displaying your knowledge through use of examples to back up your points.
Hi guys :smile:

For the Nazi Opposition question I spoke of the Army and Conservatives, as well as the Socialists and Church, arguing that the significance of the former was undermined by internal weakness whilst the significance of the latter was undermined by both the benefits and terror of the Nazi State.

However, I did not mention the Youth Movement. How much do you think this matters? Is it essential to mention every outlet of opposition?


Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 711
Avatar for samoj1
samoj1
Original post by jono__.__
Hi, i did it slightly different to you
I did for and against
For Freedom of speech and freedom of association
Reichstag more assertive (rejected colonial bill of 1906)
Lots of politcal parties to represent Trade uniionsPressure groupsSPD largest in reichstag 1912All males above 20 could voteRuling elite had to respond to pressure from below such as centre part
AgainstKaiser could dismiss chancellor Army and chancellor accountable to kaiser
Example of bulow not supporting kaiser and got fired and bethamnn being loyal and staying hired
Zabren affairThen how conservative elite dominated bundesrat (had 17 votes)And how country followed weltpolitik which was kaisers idea

And argued these saying that it showed 'significant steps' or it didnt such as 'reichstag opposed the colonial bill of 1906, thus showing they they had made steps to democracy as the democratic body was opposing the ruling class'Have I answered it wrong? :/



That sounds like you've used a lot of relevant content which should if you've applied it right push you into minimum band 3/4 without even assessing the situation. With very good analysis you may even be able to get a B or even an A if you just force it through with a huge amount of knowledge.
Given you've answered the question directly stating to what extent you feel the changes were "significant" regardless of whether you felt they were or not you've answered it correctly. As the examiners reports should show. The question assumes we are aware of the changes and it's asking us to assess their "significance" if you've answered the question directly and not given a generic list of how Germany changed and how it resisted change then you'll achieve band 5 and you're looking at the highest marks. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the statement, there is no right or wrong answer.
Also, has anyone managed to get hold of the Sources used for German Aggression Controversy? I'd love to re-read them and check I got the main points!


Posted from TSR Mobile
Thank you so much you have calmed my nerves haha
Original post by samoj1
I think your content looks really good. As far as the mark scheme goes it doesn't really matter what evidence you pick to use as long as you can go into depth in your analysis (show knowledge) and you offer a range of relevant peices of information to back up your thesis. The information you've used looks very good with info on an arguement both for and against whether there was "significant" steps taken towards becoming a democracy. The question assumes we are already aware that there was change and is only asking us to assess their "significance", so as long as you linked your theses and therefore evidence back to the question of whether this change was significant or not, with the info you've put in you can't really drop below band 5 because you will be displaying both ability to coherently answer the question directly (whereas some essays will just list what had changed and what didn't which is good but can't get you top marks) and you'll clearly also be displaying your knowledge through use of examples to back up your points.
Original post by fxmi_
My points for the opposition to the regime:
1. Gestapo minimising opposition (32,000)2.Threat of the army (1944 bomb plot)3.Goebells propaganda & rationing (350 Grammes for xmas 1942)
4.Communist opposition & Kresau circle (89 cells of opposition)
Are these correct?


That isn't really addressing the focus of the question - propaganda and rationing would be more suitable for a morale essay had it come up - morale is different to opposition
Reply 715
Avatar for fxmi_
fxmi_
1
Original post by WWJoe380
That isn't really addressing the focus of the question - propaganda and rationing would be more suitable for a morale essay had it come up - morale is different to opposition


Propaganda helped dissolusion the people from the reality of war & suffering, thus reducing the opposition from the people. Is that the only point you don't agree with in my essay? Are the other 3 ok
I did the 1900-14 question! My essential argument was that there were steps taken towards a democracy but these were not to be of any real significance as the elite, by the nature of the constitution, were continually able to stop them coming to fruition. I spoke about it being a 'sham democracy' with germany really being an entrenched oligarchic state - wherein it took war and revolution to evoke any significant steps towards a genuine democracy (of course i used counterarguments throughout etc etc). I loved this question!
Did anyone do the second controversy - 'to what extent was the nazi regime based on consent?' (wording to that effect)
Reply 718
Avatar for fxmi_
fxmi_
1
Original post by Frankie32
Do you think it was okay to say that Goebells February 1943 total war speech led to less opposing the nazi regime as it motivated germans rather than make them hostile to the regime???


This is What I said as well! plus 4.5m ppl had radio in 1939 & he used rationing to suppress them
It is addressing the question? The question was to what extent was there significant opposition, so the early years of the war had such high morale that opposition was limited... Opposition is a consequence of low morale?

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you