Join TSR now and get all your revision questions answeredSign up now
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chachapoya)
    Just stumbled upon this thread. Do they still do Liberal reforms for the essays? I could post one of mine from back in the day (two years ago). Got an A at Higher and Advanced Higher History, those are my credentials haha
    (Original post by clannem)
    I have a labour essay if anyone wants me to send it to them?
    It would be great if you could send/post your essays on those since I'm kind of struggling
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'm really stuck on Nazi maintenance of power :confused: Does anyone have a plan/essay they could post?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Y2J97)
    Is it possible to still get a high mark in your essay if you don't mention all factors in the main body but mention them in your conclusion? I'd try to mention everything in the main body but it was just in case of timing.
    Dont add anything new in to your conclusion that you have not put in your essay is what my teacher always says
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chachapoya)
    Just stumbled upon this thread. Do they still do Liberal reforms for the essays? I could post one of mine from back in the day (two years ago). Got an A at Higher and Advanced Higher History, those are my credentials haha

    That would be so brilliant!! Pleeeaase!!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LCRMG)
    I'm really stuck on Nazi maintenance of power :confused: Does anyone have a plan/essay they could post?
    I do have an essay but I will warn you that it's a b and the conclusion is not the best
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chachapoya)
    Okay this is the essay, looks like it lacked analysis if I'm being honest with myself, too much facts and quotations. I hope it helps in some way.

    To what extent did the Liberal reforms (1906-1914) improve the lives of the British people?


    In 1906, the Liberal Party swept into power with a large majority over their Conservative counterparts. At this time attitudes were beginning to change a great deal. The belief of ‘Laissez Faire’, an attitude held by numerous politicians during this time meant that successive Governments felt that they could not be blamed for the problems of British society. The New Liberals were aware of the problems that many faced within British society, facilitating a move towards further state intervention. The Liberal Government was starting to gain reliable and comprehensive reports from social researchers such as Booth and Rowntree on the inherent problems of poverty in British society; furthermore, the Labour Party had sprung up and came with it increased political pressure to implement reform. The Liberals were shown to be motivated to help certain sectors of society as a result of these factors and consequently managed to put in place reform with regards to children, the elderly, the unemployed and the workers, along with the introduction of state intervention, which enviably helped out a great deal while advancing political reform. Reforms that related to these important areas were all successful to a certain extent as each had their successes and their limitations. Showing to what extent they helped is important to how we can evaluate how the Liberals improved the lives of the British people from 1906 to 1914.

    The conversion of government philosophy from ‘Laissez Faire’ towards State Intervention played a large part in improving the lives of British people. The principle of Lassiez Faire meant that the wealthier classes and the government believed that those poorest in society should be left to their own devices in the hope that self-reliance would result in an improved life for all. The views of philosophers who supported the view of Laissez Faire helped to push forward opposition towards state intervention in the 19th century. One such philosopher being John Stuart Mill, who declared that “Letting alone should be general practice, every departure from it, unless required by some good, is a certain evil.” Some also assumed that government interference would lead to laziness, as people would be presumed to not bother themselves to get a good income and instead rely on state money.

    Nevertheless, the push towards greater state intervention occurred in the early 20th century under the Liberal government. Information became apparent from key social reform activists, for example Seebohm Rowntree’s report into families who suffered from poverty concluded that 52% of the very poor were paid wages too low to maintain a decent standard of living. It was therefore evident that charity work alone and the declining Poor Law were not enough to help the most needing poor and so statistics such as these provided the catalyst for the introduction of social reform from the Liberals with the intension of improving the lives of the British people. It is also evident that stances within government changed considerably during this time when David Llyod George, the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepted that it was his duty to attempt to improve the lives of the British people when he stated that “… I can hear the moaning’s of the wounded, and I want to carry relief to them in the alleys.” An obvious change had take place in British politics, allowing for the introduction of key reform that permitted the progress with regards to specific groups within British society between 1906 to 1914 and in the future.

    The Liberal Government also made attempts to improve the lives of children.
    Child poverty and neglect were becoming increasingly sensitive issues by the early 20th century. In an effort to try to combat the problems that children faced, the Liberals brought in acts of reform to help children. First of all, The 1906 Education Act resulted in local authorities were entitled to provide free school meals to poor children in the hope of aiding development and growth. The act was successful in providing meals for some; with some 158,000 children receiving meals after the act was implemented. Nonetheless, it was non-compulsory for local authorities and so many to save money did not take part and so therefore limited. In 1911 only a third of all authorities had taken up on the scheme. It was not until 1914 that the government realized the scheme was faltering and so made the system compulsory for all authorities. Limitation of this act is again shown by the fact that during the holidays children would revert back to a cycle of poor nutrition and so consequently the scheme was not so advantageous in reality.

    The 1908 Children and young persons Act must also be considered with relation to the well being of children. This act aimed to specifically target areas that concerned the welfare of young people as they were now seen as “protected persons” and of separate responsibility to adults. The Act was successful in implementing measures by which children who broke the law were to be sent to separate prisons, preventing prisons from becoming ‘universities for crime’. Parents who were adjudged to have committed crimes of neglect could also be prosecuted and as a result could no take out insurance on their children. Author Roy Parker notes that- “The Children Act of 1908 was welcomed in many quarters as a charter that marked a new era in the way… vulnerable children, were to be regarded and treated.” However, this only reduced crimes of neglect to an extent as it was extremely had to police, with individuals often lying to protect themselves from prosecution and people often saw mistreatment of children as not as important of an issue in reality. The act had also put in raised the minimum age for buying cigarettes to 16 and introduced fines on those selling cigarettes to those under 16. Again, the extent to which this improved the lives of children is uncertain, with children still easily able to obtain cigarettes. Subsequently, reforms put in place specifically with the intension of helping children had only supported the lives of a select number as there was evidently still many uncared for and unhealthy children.

    The assisting of the unemployed in Britain had also served to advance the lives of some in the population. Unemployment was shown to be a factor in poverty in certain areas. In the 1901 census it was shown that there was just over 38,000 unemployed people in Britain. The 1909 Labour Exchanges Act was set up with the aim of providing stable jobs for the unemployed. Prior to this act, there was no other scheme that offered assistance that would help those in unemployed to find work. The extent of the success is shown by the large growth of Labour Exchanges throughout the country. There was 420 Labour Exchanges in use by 1913 in Britain with 3000 people a day being given some kind of payed work by 1914. Labour Exchanges even provided washing facilities, clothes mending assistances and refreshments for the unemployed. Despite the successes, not all employers informed Labour Exchanges of available jobs in their businesses and only 25% of those who signed up to Labour Exchanges actually found employment.

    The 1911 Insurance Act, Part 2 was also brought in to tackle unemployment. Those who contributed to the insurance scheme for a certain amount of time would be rewarded with benefit if they found themselves unemployed. There were many trades that had taken up on the system, including; ship building, mechanical engineering and construction, with workers and employers accepting the scheme as part of their job. Again, there was several limitations when looking at this act. It just covered temporary and not long term unemployed, which in reality was the greatest problem. It could also be said that government policy alone did not have such a profound influence as A J P Taylor outlines that “Factors other than government policy helped to improve employment prospects and reduce unemployment.” To summarise, the Liberals attempts to improve the lives of the unemployed were successful in helping in some ways in that people were starting to find work, however the scheme was not comprehensive enough and only laid the foundations of later reform.

    Reforms had also been made in an effort to provide assistance to the elderly. Poverty in old age became a significant problem once people retired from work, as much of the population would not have made savings to cover themselves for the rest of their lives. The Liberals decided to step up their efforts to try and improve the lives of the elderly and so instigated reform. The 1908 Old age Pensions Act provided people over 70 with between 1 to 5 shillings per week to the elderly who earned an income of up to £21 per annum. It is documented by Martin Pugh that “By 1914 the number of pensioners had reached 967000", a significant number when considering how the British people’s lives were improved by the Liberal Reforms. Again, success is shown by the many elderly people were extremely thankful for the support they received, in the book Larkrise to Candleford it is noted that those who received pensions stated “God bless that Lord George”. However as with most of the Liberal reforms, there were drawbacks. People who had avoided work or had a criminal record were not entitled to the scheme and so it was therefore not universal. Pensions were also adjudged to be not enough to live on alone and many of the elderly were poor and had little or no savings and were still therefore subjected to a life of poverty.
    The large cost of providing pensions was considered another limitation, as the balance between cost and effectiveness meant that many have questioned the usefulness of the reform. The lives of the elderly in poverty would therefore not be improved enough.

    The workers are also to be considered under reforms brought in by the Liberals from 1906 to 1914. The working class in the early 20th century had grown to be a dominant force within society; this coincided with the rise of the Labour party meant that pressure from the workers resulted in acts to improve their welfare. The 1906 Workers Compensation Act aimed to provide improvement for the lives of the workers, as the act delivered compensation for those injured at work. This was crucial to those in heavy industry, were injury was common and so some sort of safety net was established therefore. However, there were exceptions to the act such as excluding non-manual workers on an annual pay of over £250 and also all of agricultural workers. So this did not cover much of the working populations lives, but the one’s who were permitted to the cover of compensation would have seen an improved life if there was injury. The Liberals also brought in The Trade Boards Act of 1909 was another act that aided the development of the life of the workers. The reform set up committees to negotiate a minimum wage, which applied to certain trades such as box, lace and tailoring trades. Churchill stated, “It is a national evil that any class of Her Majesties subject should receive less than a living wage.” Indicating the importance felt among politicians at the time with regards to this act and what it set out to achieve. The extent of this act covered around 200,000 workers in the population, but it was limited in the fact that it had only attempted to set up a minimum wage for a selected number and so others in the population were not accounted for.
    Consequently, it is shown that reforms passed by the Liberals aimed to improve the lives of a number of workers, however, there was limitation in that schemes were not universal enough and were restricted to a select few.

    In conclusion, reform brought in by the Liberal Government between 1906 and 1914 to improve the lives of the British people achieved a number of successes, although there were notable shortcomings. The reforms helped in further acceptance of state intervention in the lives of the poor, which could lead to reforms in the future. Reform acts passed were shown to have helped the young, the old and the unemployed in certain ways. On the other hand, reforms were not comprehensive enough as the government did not have an overall plan to tackle social problems in Britain and had only responded to specific and separate problems. Some of the vestiges of the old Poor Law remained such as the workhouses along with the shame attributed to them. There were also some sections of the population that were not covered by the reforms. Agricultural workers remained among the lowest paid workers and did not benefit specifically from the reforms. Poverty in Britain also still very much in existence and for many their situation remained the same as it was prior to the reforms. Reforms could be said to have only scratched the surface, as the reforms were not comprehensive enough in tackling all the social problems in Britain and the benefits were too low. In the words of Martin Pugh, they “Only tackled discrete parts of the problem of poverty.” So as a whole, the reforms introduced helped some and did not help others, but were the start of the process of social reform to improve the lives of British people.
    Thank you!:')
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Here's another essay I did about appeasement, again hope this helps people

    To what extent does British public opinion explain the policy of appeasement between 1936 and 1938?

    Aggressive fascist foreign policies began to dominate European and world politics in the 1930’s. As fascist Italy, led by Benito Mussolini and Nazi Germany, led by Adolf Hitler began to step up their efforts in expanding their power, Britain consequently began to adopt a policy of appeasing these countries. Appeasement was seen my many, including the Prime minister Neville Chamberlain and Stanley Baldwin before him, as a tactic which could successfully prevent another major war from erupting. There was several reasons which explain why this policy was implemented, not only did British public opinion play a major part, but there was other significant factors. Britain was facing severe economic difficulties, with the weakened economy after World War 1 and the Wall Street Crash of 1929 doing much to support the cause of appeasement. Concern over the empire was crucial, Britain wanted to remain a significant world power and so appeasement would hopefully allow this to continue. Military weakness along with the fear of modern warfare was another factor due to the fact that Britain had cut back much of it’s armed forces and the general conscious that such a war should not be fought ever again. There was also a perceived lack of reliable allies as a result of French political weakness, isolationism from the US, along with the failure of the League of Nations. Britain therefore undertook a policy of appeasement as a consequence of these factors, a move that would have a dramatic impact upon the interwar period and the build up to eventual war.

    British public opinion can in some ways explain the adoption of the policy of appeasement from 1936 to 1938. There was widespread support against another war within the British public; a mood of pacifism was therefore surrounding the general public at the time. Organisations, which supported peace, were becoming extremely prominent, gaining thousands of members who openly campaigned as to prevent war. The Peace Pledge Union was one such organisation. At the height of its power it had over 100,000 members throughout Britain. Historian Richard Overy documents their increasing power, when he states, “The union secured 11 million signatures in its so-called ‘Peace Ballot’” This ballot had shown huge support for collective security along with disarmament. Again British public opinion was at the forefront of the Munich agreement in 1938, in which Chamberlain gained guaranties that there would not be war between Britain and Germany. A large crowd had gathered as Chamberlain got out of his plane and he was greeted with cheers when he proclaimed that there would be peace. Most of the British public at the time were opposed to war and so this attempt to prevent it was in most quarters, well received. With a large proportion of the British population in favour of appeasement, the British government was entitled to represent their opinions. So therefore, appeasement was in a large part a result of the British public’s opinion.

    Economic difficulties were another issue which should be discussed with regards to influences upon the implementation of the policy of appeasement. The British economy was left in significantly worse state post World War 1; many of the industries, which had supported wartime production, were no longer needed, so as a result many lost jobs and profits from industry fell dramatically. This had a detrimental impact upon the British economy, forcing yet further industrial decline within Britain. Post war debts to the US had forced money out of the economy; Britain’s national debt had increased from £650m in 1914 to £7.4 billion in 1919, leading to yet more economic difficulties. Due to this decline post World War 1, compounded by the Great depression in the early 1930’s, Britain by 1936 was in no shape to fight a war economically. Unemployment had increased dramatically at this time; McDonough notes; “After the Wall Street crash…unemployment soared above the 3 million mark.” Cuts to defence budgets were inevitable during this time as the faltering economy meant that more money was to be spent on other sectors. It was only until 1937, when economic difficulties lessened, defence spending, primarily on the navy and the air force began to increase rapidly. Appeasement was therefore seen as a way of delaying war until Britain could be in a position to defend itself and have an economy capable helping to fight a war, so economic difficulties played a large part in explaining the policy of appeasement from 1936 to 1938.

    Concern over the British Empire had a large influence over the policy of appeasement between 1936 and 1938. The British Empire post World War 1 covered one fifth of the world’s population. It was overstretched to an extent; Britain could no longer defend all of its territories with the military capability that was required.
    Many British politicians were of the opinion that preserving the empire was of greater concern than European affairs at the time and that appeasement was the way forward. There is no doubt that the Empire allowed Britain to remain a world power, but the cost of maintaining it and protecting such a large Empire was a clear downside. Overy notes that; “Britain wanted an empire, but baulked at the cost of maintaining it.” On top of this, the general conscious was that these dominions would not support Britain in another major war and favoured appeasement. In the Great War, troops from all around the world had fought for Britain, but owing to the great loss of life during this conflict, most of these countries felt less inclined to fight another war, especially in Europe. When members of an Imperial Conference in 1937 had discussed a potential war, there was unanimous agreement on how to go about dealing with the threat that Germany held. Some delegate countries now had power over foreign affairs, so support for a potential war was even more crucial. Concern for the empire therefore made up a large part of Britain adopting a policy of appeasement between 1936 and 1938.

    Military weakness and the fear of modern warfare was also a key basis of how we can explain Britain’s policy of appeasement between 1936 and 1938. Military spending was cut back severely in the years after World War 1, as it was believed that there was no need for a large army considering that there was no wars to fight. The Ten Year Rule, founded in 1928, meant that the armed forces and RAF would be cut back due to the fact that Britain did not plan to fight another war for the foreseeable future. Only 120 aircraft were still in use three years after the Ten Year Rule, a huge cut back from the 130,000 that were previously in operation. However, the rise of fascist dictators in both Italy and Germany made this plan seem unrealistic and so it was abandoned in the early 1930’s. This therefore left Britain’s military in a vulnerable state, meaning that appeasement of Germany would be needed to bide time to build up the armed forces in an attempt to ensure Britain could fight a war. The fear of modern warfare must also be discussed; conflicts between China and Japan along with the Spanish civil war were showed in British cinemas, the scale of destruction caused by new technology in wars began to alarm many in the population. In a speech to parliament in 1932, Stanley Baldwin had warned, “ The bomber will always get through” this stirred up much worry in the British public who now felt that in the event of war, there would inevitably be the destruction of cities and many deaths. This fear of war gravitated into a mood of widespread pacifism among the British population, so support for appeasement greatly increased. Therefore this is crucial in explaining the policy of appeasement from 1936 to 1938.

    The lack of perceived allies again had a profound effect upon the adoption of the strategy of appeasement between 1936 and 1938. Britain’s main ally in Europe, France, was divided politically following a succession to weak coalition governments; this therefore made any decisions on war and rearming difficult. As discussed before Britain could also no longer rely on its empire to back it up in a full scale military conflict, therefore again limited potential allies. Woodrow Wilson had adopted a stance of isolation which had remain in American politics throughout the 1930’s, a war in Europe did not interest them as their only concern was building up industry and prosperity within their own country. Without the industrial might of America behind it, Britain would inescapably find a prolonged war with Germany a tough task. Germany had strong allies of its own, with the backing of both Japan and Italy by the late 1930’s; they presented Britain with a formidable threat close to home and also in the dominions in the east. It can therefore be argued that because Britain would potentially be fighting a war on its own. Adopting appeasement was therefore in some part due to the lack Britain’s lack of allies in this period as Britain alone could not effectively stand up to strong fascist powers.

    In conclusion, British public opinion can in part explain the policy of appeasement between 1936 and 1938. On one hand, the British public through their support for appeasement influenced politicians to represent their wishes with regards to war with Germany. Be it through the popularity of peace supporting organisation or the constant reminders of the horrors of World War 1, appeasement was in part adopted from 1936 to 1938 as a result of what public opinion had dictated. On the other hand, other important factors must also be taken account when explaining the policy of appeasement between 1936 and 1938. Concern over the empire, military weakness along with the fear of modern warfare, economic difficulties and a lack of reliable allies, all forced Britain in some way into implementing appeasement of Germany and her allies. Overall, when taking all points into account it can therefore be concluded that a combination of all factors discussed had an similarly profound effect upon explaining the policy of appeasement between 1936 and 1938. British public opinion alone clearly was not the catalyst in the decision to undertake appeasement.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ami_)
    I do have an essay but I will warn you that it's a b and the conclusion is not the best
    I don't mind I have no idea what to write for it anyway haha! Could you please post/send it?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EatAndRevise)
    Could you scan: impact on industry and economy, and Scots on the Western Front please?
    Industry/economy - Scots on Western Front in a few minutes
    Attached Images
        
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:

    "Fear and terror were crucial to the maintenance of power by the Nazis." How accurate is this view?



    Despite only gaining 37% of votes in 1932, Hitler successfully led the Nazi party's maintenance of their power over Germany between 1933 to 1939. The Nazis used methods such as: indoctrination and by creating the illusion that Germany was a stable country through their economic and political policies. Yet, arguably it was the method of leading Germany as a totalitarian police state through fear and terror that were crucial to the maintenance of power by the Nazis.


    The creation of a fearful atmosphere during Nazi Germany was arguably vital in guarding the power of the government. The use of the Enabling Act in 1933 was helpful to the government since it allowed them to alter the law without any opposition -- thus the Nazi party banned all political opponents. The ban of other political parties caused fear among members and persuaded them to flee abroad, which lead to the Nazis gaining more support from the middle classes who detested the communists and ensured their power; this demonstrates that fear was necessary to the maintenance of power by the Nazis. Yet on the other hand the use of the Enabling Act as a vehicle for fear only affected a minority of Germany, therefore this contests the view that fear was crucial to the maintenance of power by the Nazis. But, perhaps the 'Night of the Long Knives' in 1934 was more effective in creating fear than the Enabling Law since the public saw how the Nazis dealt with issues; the event involved a series of murders by the SS against those who threatened the power of the Nazis. The event was undeniably shows that fear was necessary to the maintenance of power by the Nazis since it prevented opposition towards the government.


    Fear and terror was heightened further by the introduction of the Gestapo, the organisation surveyed the public so that any threats to the Nazis could be eliminated promptly. All members of society -including young children- were instructed to report to the Gestapo if they knew someone who failed to comply with the government. By establishing the Gestapo, no one in society could trust anyone and people lived in constant anxiety of being transported to concentration camps -- therefore by controlling the population by scaring them into remaining silent or torturing them in concentration camps; thus this helped made sure that Nazis power would be unthreatened. The historian, Jacques Delarue states, "Never before had an organisation possessed such power, attained such a comprehensive penetration of society, had such ability to arouse terror".


    Since fear and terror only affected a minority of Germans some historians would argue that propaganda was crucial. Joseph Goebbels the minister of propaganda said, "it is the absolute right of the state to supervise the formation of public opinion." The Nazi government used propaganda in four main forms: cinema, for example 'the eternal jew'; radio; rallies, organisations, for example the Hitler youth; and speeches by Hitler. Propaganda was successful in aiding the conservation of the Nazis' power since it indoctrinated children and unlike fear and terror, this method ensured that future generations of Germans would remain obedient to the Nazis. On the other hand some films like 'the eternal jew' received a poor response from the public since the majority realised that it was blatant propaganda, therefore propaganda was only necessary to the maintenance of power by the nazis to a small extent.


    Regardless of the lack of freedom Germans had, the illusion that Germany was doing better under nazi dictatorship also must have encouraged them to obey the government. By 1933 Germany was in a state of economic depression and unemployment was rife but when the Nazis came into power the German Labour Front and Hjalmer Schnacht's economic plan depicted Germany as an economically stable country. The German Labour Front conscripted men into building the 'autobahns' and constructing buildings -- this led to the belief that unemployment had decreased thus the Nazis had greater maintenance over power since the public believed that they were helping society. Also by reoccupying the Rhineland and Anschluss this created greater support for the Nazis, since it helped society regain their pride. In comparison with propaganda, the illusion of Germany's political and economic policies contributed further to the maintenance of power by the nazis since the majority of public were more willing to support the government's policies rather than following Nazi doctrine.


    The view that fear and terror was crucial to the maintenance of power by the Nazis is accurate to a certain extent. Fear and terror was certainly needed to prevent opposition, but perhaps the support of the public towards the Nazis and their policies was equally crucial in conserving power of the Nazi government.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abbie :))
    Industry/economy - Scots on Western Front in a few minutes
    Thank you so much! I will look all of the notes over as soon as my maths exam is finished (urgh). I will try to look over them tonight
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Do they do essays about the 5 giants? Got one of those too
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EatAndRevise)
    Could you scan: impact on industry and economy, and Scots on the Western Front please?
    Scots on the Western Front
    Attached Images
          
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chachapoya)
    Do they do essays about the 5 giants? Got one of those too
    Yep
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EatAndRevise)
    Thank you so much! I will look all of the notes over as soon as my maths exam is finished (urgh). I will try to look over them tonight
    Same boat, I'm just making sure that if I can help anyone with history notes I'll do it now, then its a maths night as I am desperate for an A in maths haha
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chachapoya)
    Okay this is the essay, looks like it lacked analysis if I'm being honest with myself, too much facts and quotations. I hope it helps in some way.
    Thank you!!!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abbie :))
    Same boat, I'm just making sure that if I can help anyone with history notes I'll do it now, then its a maths night as I am desperate for an A in maths haha
    Thanks for the help! Yes same, I just need to look over some essays for history first, then it's maths all the way!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Anyone else need notes scanned for paper 2? Or even paper 1? I have both course notes books so if anyone is in need please let me know! Also got the grade booster, How to Pass book, practice papers and the blue book on Britain/Germany. I don't like the thought that someone is sitting there without the notes they need
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abbie :))
    Anyone else need notes scanned for paper 2? Or even paper 1? I have both course notes books so if anyone is in need please let me know! Also got the grade booster, How to Pass book, practice papers and the blue book on Britain/Germany. I don't like the thought that someone is sitting there without the notes they need
    Could I get notes for factors towards German nationalism please?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ami_)
    Could I get notes for factors towards German nationalism please?
    Sure, reasons for growth (issue 1)?
 
 
 
Poll
Which web browser do you use?
Applying to university

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.