Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aimbx)
    Hi,

    My teacher hasn't taught the second controversy very well, so I don't understand it compared to controversy 1.

    Could I get away with just revising controversy one?
    Some centres only teach the first controversy I think so you'll be fine. I'm only gonna do WW1 because I enjoy that more/ find it more interesting (hitlers Germany is such a cliche topic I find now) and it is kind of simpler if you understand it.

    So yeah only doing the first one will be fine
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by eddso)
    Some centres only teach the first controversy I think so you'll be fine. I'm only gonna do WW1 because I enjoy that more/ find it more interesting (hitlers Germany is such a cliche topic I find now) and it is kind of simpler if you understand it.

    So yeah only doing the first one will be fine
    Will the first controversy definetly come up tho?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aimbx)
    Will the first controversy definetly come up tho?
    Yes. The specification makes it clear that both controversies will always come up
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Hi there! I would please like someone to correct this essay for Edexcel "From Kaiser to Fuhrer" Unit 3 Option D and tell me the good points/bad points of my performance. I wish someone would grade it too. I'm sorry for my bad English.

    The question is "The final solution evolved because of the chaotic nature of the Nazi Regime in the years 1939-42." How far do you agree with this opinion?" (June 2010)

    Plan (I always do this before writing the main essay)

    For: Competing agencies // Polycratic state // Working towards the Führer// Cumulative radicalisation.
    Against: The effects of the war on the Holocaust// Hitler's commitment to erradicate the Jews (internationalist view) // Support from sectors of the German society.

    Essay

    This question asks me to evaluate the impact of the chaotic nature of the Nazi Regime on the evolution of the Final Solution. It can be argued that the competing organizations was the main factor that caused the Holocaust because every agency wanted to demonstrate its loyalty towards the Fuhrer by promoting antisemitism, every time in a more dramatic way. On the other hand, it can be considered that there were other factors which were more important in the evolution of process of planning the mass murder. During the first years of WW2, Germany witnessed an increase in the number of Jews within their borders and the war brought the desire to exterminate the Jewish population as an act of revenge. It can be also suggested that the Final Solution evolved due to Hitler's ruthless determination to annihilate the Jews, or even due to the support from sectors of the German society towards the extreme anti-semitism.

    The chaotic nature of the regime undoubtedly made the Final Solution to be more likely. For example, when Poland was invaded by the Wehrmacht in 1939, Hans Frank complained that the General Polish Government was overcrowded by Jews who were deported from Germany to this "puppet" country. This was due to the rivalry between him and Himmler. By 1941 the SS was acting "as a state within a state" and had no formal restraints to annihilate the Jewish population from the Baltic states and occupied Russia using Eissatzgruppen commands. An example of how working towards the Fuhrer had an impact on the evolution of the Holocaust can be clearly seen when Goebbels launched a propaganda campaign to portray the Jews as the menace of the Aryan race. He had lost Hitler's confidence due to his affair with a Czech actress in 1938 and he slowly gained it by demostrating that he was the most active anti-semitic politician in the Nazi ranks. For example in 1941 he constantly demanded that all Jews in Germany should wear a yellow star for identification. All this evidence shows that by 1942, the idea of working towards the Führer, the internal rivalries within the Nazi regime and the cumulative radicalisation derived from it were factors which led to the evolution of the Final Solution.

    The war also had a significant role in the evolution of the Final Solution. It is undeniable that as war progressed the restrictions upon the Jewish community, which only accounted for less than 1% of the population in whole Germany, were more strict. Firstly, France's defeat made Hitler think that Madagascar could be stripped from the French Empire and that all the Jews could be shipped there. However, the UK ruled the seas so this plan had to be discarted. Secondly, the war against Russia was said to be a racial struggle against inferior races such as the Slavs. Himmler wanted to deport the Jews beyond the Ural mountains. This was called the General Ostplan but the Operation Barbarossa in 1941 did not succeed. These two examples demonstrate that the Nazi Regime was forced to prosecute the Final Solution to achieve "racial cleansing" as all the other plans of deportation had been thwarted by the war.

    The state of war caused there to be acts of revenge against the Jewish community which inevitably provoked the Final Solution. When Hitler once declared war on the USA, he said that "the USA was a half-negro/half Jew country". In addition, when the USSR defeated the German thrust into Moscow in 1941 and when Stalin deported many Germans from the Volga region, Hitler arranged the Wansee Conference when it was decided the fate of the Jewish community in occupied land. Hitler now treated the Jews as partisans. All this shows that the Nazi Regime attempted to take revenge from their enemies by inflicting suffering on those who were most vulnerable. It is perceived that the war accelerated the paranoia and therefore the final solution evolved because of the world conflict, not because of the chaotic nature of the regime.

    Some intentionalist historians simply believe that the Final Solution evolved due to Hitler's brutal commitment annihilate the Jewish population. This can be clearly seen when in 1939 he accused the "international Jewry" making all European nations plunge into a war which he said he was avoiding. He often referred to the removal of the Jewish population in his book Mein Kampf in 1924 and although he never signed a document authorizing the Holocaust, his attacks on the Jewish community can be regarded as a long term plan for the execution of the Jews. He first confined the Jews in the ghettos in 1940, he then made them have a "J" letter printed in their official documents, making them more identifiable and easily grouped together for the final execution. It can be suggested that the role of an individual and his conviction was the main factor for the evolution of the Holocaust.

    The Final Solution could not have evolved with at least some support of the German society. It is widely known that most Germans never knew what was really happening in the concentration camps, for example when Eisenhower took the population living in Bergen to the concentration camp they were astonished when they were forced to witness the crude reality. On the other hand, the Protestant Church was profoundly anti-semitic and so was the official Reich Church led by Müller. A lot of Germans participated in the burning down of many synagogues in Kristallnacht in 1938, although it cannot really be assessed if this meant that most Germans were willing to take even more extreme acts against the Jews such as mass murder. Even though it is a controversial statement, it is unconceivable that the Final Solution would not evolve with the support, or at least the complacency of some Germans.

    Overall, the Final Solution evolved due to many factors. The competing agencies and radicalization, the war, Hitler's long-term plans and the support of some of the Germans towards anti-semitism are just a few. The war promoted revenge against the Jewish community which was more vulnerable. War destroyed all plans for deportation such as Ost Plan and the Madagascar Plan. War also meant that the Nazi Regime had more Jews within its own borders who had to be executed in a more efficient way. I am more inclined to believe that the war was the primary factor for the evolution of the Nazi regime and not the chaotic nature of the Nazi state.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aimbx)
    Hi,

    My teacher hasn't taught the second controversy very well, so I don't understand it compared to controversy 1.

    Could I get away with just revising controversy one?
    Yeah, you can get away with it. At my college, we're only taught the first controversy. I suppose this helps as you can go into a lot more detail about it, and don't worry as the questions are always very similar.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I have an essay for part B from the June 2015 question:
    How far do youagree with the view that a German desire for war cannot be seen as the maincause of the First World War?
    This essay got 38/40
    Attached Files
  1. File Type: docx How far do you agree with the view that a German desire for war cannot be seen as the main caus.docx (18.8 KB, 407 views)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    What is everyones predictions for questions?

    I feel like Weimar or The Final Solution will come up
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I've been trying to find past papers for this exam, but unfortunately have been unable to find any. Would anyone happen to have a link as to where I can find them? Thanks.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Domers_)
    I've been trying to find past papers for this exam, but unfortunately have been unable to find any. Would anyone happen to have a link as to where I can find them? Thanks.
    Check this website: http://qualifications.pearson.com/en...Exam-materials
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Domers_)
    I've been trying to find past papers for this exam, but unfortunately have been unable to find any. Would anyone happen to have a link as to where I can find them? Thanks.
    It's all on the Edexcel website. This is Unit 3 Option D 'The Challenge of Fascism'.
    You can find all the past papers here: http://qualifications.pearson.com/en...Exam-materials
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    As I do not feel confident on the 1933-45 section of this scheme of work, I have already decided that I be answering the controversy question regarding Germany's involvement in the outbreak of war in 1914. I feel confident with 1900-1914, 1929-1933 and especially 1919-29. Do you think it is okay to almost disregard the 1939-45 period? Two part a questions on this topic has never come up and is likely not to, and there is no past papers where I have looked at it and not been able to answer either question, despite my lack of confidence in the Nazi war years. What do you think?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sixschmidt)
    It's all on the Edexcel website. This is Unit 3 Option D 'The Challenge of Fascism'.
    You can find all the past papers here: http://qualifications.pearson.com/en...Exam-materials
    Thanks!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by eddso)
    I like to let the sources guide how I structure my argument in the exam, as it is very much about how we use the sources and interrogate them, but there are some key things to stick to;

    Introduction: mention all 3 sources and say who says what and who agrees with who and briefly say which ones you agree with - aka tell the examiner your line of argument (very much like every other essay for this whole A level)

    Main body:

    It depends on the content that is presented in the sources but I tend to do one or two paragraphs supporting the argument in the question and using the sources that do (if I disagree with the question it's often a good idea to recognise the argument that could be presented in these two paragraphs, and then suggest why actually you disagree)

    Then j do one or two paragraphs disagreeing with the question, using sources that disagree, comparing them to the ones that agree and weighing up which argument is stronger etc etc

    Then a conclusion really just needs to reiterate what your line of argument and give one or two strong reasons why - could be a good idea to mention a quote from one of the sources and reiterate one small piece of own knowledge previously mentioned.

    I haven't done many of these essays yet - I did my first one for the hitler controversy the other week and I got 33/40 which I think is good for a first go but I would like to get more! When I do some more I will post them up for you

    Hope that helps
    Do you have a structure for part a questions
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I have compiled a list of important people for "From Kaiser to Fuhrer" The dates are related to the time these characters played a leading role in German politics.
    Wilhelm II Prussian King and Emperor of Germany. Also known as the Kaiser. 1888-1918
    Bismarck: Chancellor until 1890
    Hohenlohe: Chancellor 1894-1900
    Leo Von Caprivi Chancellor 1890-1894
    Bülow Chancellor 1900-1917
    Bethmann Hollweg Chancellor 1909-1917
    Tirpitz. Head Secretary of the Navy. Appointed in 1897.
    Kinderlen. Served as head of Foreign Office 1910-1912
    Ernst Thalmann. Leader of the KDP during the Weimar Republic.
    Hindemburg. Weimar Republic President 1925-1934
    Ludendorff- Quartermaster General in 1916.
    Walther Rathenau- Foreign Minister 1922
    Mattias Erzberg Reich Minister of Finance 1920.
    Oskar von Hindemburg: Paul's von Hindemburg son
    Schliecher Chancellor 1932-1933
    Anton Drexler- Founder of the DAP 1919-1921
    Von Papen Chancellor 1932
    Brüning ZP Chancellor 1930-1932
    Cuno Chancellor 1923
    Stresseman Chancellor 1923
    Himmler Leader of the SS
    Schiedemann Chancellor 1918
    Count von Neurath Foreign Minister 1932-1938
    More to come!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    My teacher is predicting the final solution (unit 6) to come up and for either unit 3 (golden years) or unit 4 (the debate on whether or not the Nazi's rise was a legal revolution), or unit 1 (greatest consequence of WW1 on Germany).

    Just starting revision now because i had so many resits. Is it still possible for me to get a B/A?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by grassntai)
    My teacher is predicting the final solution (unit 6) to come up and for either unit 3 (golden years) or unit 4 (the debate on whether or not the Nazi's rise was a legal revolution), or unit 1 (greatest consequence of WW1 on Germany).

    Just starting revision now because i had so many resits. Is it still possible for me to get a B/A?
    B/A will probably be possible if you apply yourself really thoroughly from now until the exam. Historically in this exam there has always been a question on the Weimar years or Hitler's Rise, and then one of the other minor topics of Second Reich or WW2 for section A, so it may be good to focus your revision on Weimar and the Rise so you get confident with a that content.

    What did you get last year for AS history because that'll probably help your grade this year if you got good? And what about your coursework?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ShogunShien)
    Do you have a structure for part a questions
    Simple structure for Part A;

    Introduction; keep it brief but set up your argument

    Para 1; agree with statement
    Para 2; agree with statement (if there's enough content material to)
    Para 3: disagree with statement
    Para 4: disagree with statement

    Conclusion: tell the examiner which is the most important point, why, and your overall conclusion
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Libbyisconfused)
    As I do not feel confident on the 1933-45 section of this scheme of work, I have already decided that I be answering the controversy question regarding Germany's involvement in the outbreak of war in 1914. I feel confident with 1900-1914, 1929-1933 and especially 1919-29. Do you think it is okay to almost disregard the 1939-45 period? Two part a questions on this topic has never come up and is likely not to, and there is no past papers where I have looked at it and not been able to answer either question, despite my lack of confidence in the Nazi war years. What do you think?
    Yes they will never ask two questions from the same unit so I would say it's perfectly fine to disregard 1933-45. I also won't be revising 1933-39 or 1900-1914 because I find them the most tedious and, therefore, challenging.

    Some centres don't even teach both controversies nor do they teach WW2 so you will be fine
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Carlos52004)
    Hi there! I would please like someone to correct this essay for Edexcel "From Kaiser to Fuhrer" Unit 3 Option D and tell me the good points/bad points of my performance. I wish someone would grade it too. I'm sorry for my bad English.

    The question is "The final solution evolved because of the chaotic nature of the Nazi Regime in the years 1939-42." How far do you agree with this opinion?" (June 2010)

    Plan (I always do this before writing the main essay)

    For: Competing agencies // Polycratic state // Working towards the Führer// Cumulative radicalisation.
    Against: The effects of the war on the Holocaust// Hitler's commitment to erradicate the Jews (internationalist view) // Support from sectors of the German society.

    Essay

    This question asks me to evaluate the impact of the chaotic nature of the Nazi Regime on the evolution of the Final Solution. It can be argued that the competing organizations was the main factor that caused the Holocaust because every agency wanted to demonstrate its loyalty towards the Fuhrer by promoting antisemitism, every time in a more dramatic way. On the other hand, it can be considered that there were other factors which were more important in the evolution of process of planning the mass murder. During the first years of WW2, Germany witnessed an increase in the number of Jews within their borders and the war brought the desire to exterminate the Jewish population as an act of revenge. It can be also suggested that the Final Solution evolved due to Hitler's ruthless determination to annihilate the Jews, or even due to the support from sectors of the German society towards the extreme anti-semitism.

    The chaotic nature of the regime undoubtedly made the Final Solution to be more likely. For example, when Poland was invaded by the Wehrmacht in 1939, Hans Frank complained that the General Polish Government was overcrowded by Jews who were deported from Germany to this "puppet" country. This was due to the rivalry between him and Himmler. By 1941 the SS was acting "as a state within a state" and had no formal restraints to annihilate the Jewish population from the Baltic states and occupied Russia using Eissatzgruppen commands. An example of how working towards the Fuhrer had an impact on the evolution of the Holocaust can be clearly seen when Goebbels launched a propaganda campaign to portray the Jews as the menace of the Aryan race. He had lost Hitler's confidence due to his affair with a Czech actress in 1938 and he slowly gained it by demostrating that he was the most active anti-semitic politician in the Nazi ranks. For example in 1941 he constantly demanded that all Jews in Germany should wear a yellow star for identification. All this evidence shows that by 1942, the idea of working towards the Führer, the internal rivalries within the Nazi regime and the cumulative radicalisation derived from it were factors which led to the evolution of the Final Solution.

    The war also had a significant role in the evolution of the Final Solution. It is undeniable that as war progressed the restrictions upon the Jewish community, which only accounted for less than 1% of the population in whole Germany, were more strict. Firstly, France's defeat made Hitler think that Madagascar could be stripped from the French Empire and that all the Jews could be shipped there. However, the UK ruled the seas so this plan had to be discarted. Secondly, the war against Russia was said to be a racial struggle against inferior races such as the Slavs. Himmler wanted to deport the Jews beyond the Ural mountains. This was called the General Ostplan but the Operation Barbarossa in 1941 did not succeed. These two examples demonstrate that the Nazi Regime was forced to prosecute the Final Solution to achieve "racial cleansing" as all the other plans of deportation had been thwarted by the war.

    The state of war caused there to be acts of revenge against the Jewish community which inevitably provoked the Final Solution. When Hitler once declared war on the USA, he said that "the USA was a half-negro/half Jew country". In addition, when the USSR defeated the German thrust into Moscow in 1941 and when Stalin deported many Germans from the Volga region, Hitler arranged the Wansee Conference when it was decided the fate of the Jewish community in occupied land. Hitler now treated the Jews as partisans. All this shows that the Nazi Regime attempted to take revenge from their enemies by inflicting suffering on those who were most vulnerable. It is perceived that the war accelerated the paranoia and therefore the final solution evolved because of the world conflict, not because of the chaotic nature of the regime.

    Some intentionalist historians simply believe that the Final Solution evolved due to Hitler's brutal commitment annihilate the Jewish population. This can be clearly seen when in 1939 he accused the "international Jewry" making all European nations plunge into a war which he said he was avoiding. He often referred to the removal of the Jewish population in his book Mein Kampf in 1924 and although he never signed a document authorizing the Holocaust, his attacks on the Jewish community can be regarded as a long term plan for the execution of the Jews. He first confined the Jews in the ghettos in 1940, he then made them have a "J" letter printed in their official documents, making them more identifiable and easily grouped together for the final execution. It can be suggested that the role of an individual and his conviction was the main factor for the evolution of the Holocaust.

    The Final Solution could not have evolved with at least some support of the German society. It is widely known that most Germans never knew what was really happening in the concentration camps, for example when Eisenhower took the population living in Bergen to the concentration camp they were astonished when they were forced to witness the crude reality. On the other hand, the Protestant Church was profoundly anti-semitic and so was the official Reich Church led by Müller. A lot of Germans participated in the burning down of many synagogues in Kristallnacht in 1938, although it cannot really be assessed if this meant that most Germans were willing to take even more extreme acts against the Jews such as mass murder. Even though it is a controversial statement, it is unconceivable that the Final Solution would not evolve with the support, or at least the complacency of some Germans.

    Overall, the Final Solution evolved due to many factors. The competing agencies and radicalization, the war, Hitler's long-term plans and the support of some of the Germans towards anti-semitism are just a few. The war promoted revenge against the Jewish community which was more vulnerable. War destroyed all plans for deportation such as Ost Plan and the Madagascar Plan. War also meant that the Nazi Regime had more Jews within its own borders who had to be executed in a more efficient way. I am more inclined to believe that the war was the primary factor for the evolution of the Nazi regime and not the chaotic nature of the Nazi state.

    Hi,

    Good essay

    There is some good content used and you explore some range of different possibilities.

    You showed an understanding of the question.

    Main points for improrocement I would say;

    I think your introduction doesn't need to be as long. You started by outlining the different possibilities ie chaotic state, war etc. but then started going into actual content about how Germany inherited more Jews - save this detail for the main body of your essay and, instead, use your words to tell the examiner what your line of argument is. do you agree with the statement or not?

    Your main body was sound I think. Some good content used, although I think you could be slightly more convincing with your analysis in places. Also be careful to stay in the time period - you started talking about kristallnacht in 1938 but the question starts at 1939. Can you find any public support (or lack of public opposition) within the 1939-42 period to make it more focused on the question?

    What I would also say is there was the occasional subtle misunderstanding or lack of question focus. The first sentence of your first paragraph after the intro said the chaotic nature of the state made the final solution "more likely". The question isn't about what made the final solution likely, but what caused it to evolve. It's very subtle but just be careful with your choice of words.

    This leads me on to my next point about content; I was surprised you didn't really mention anything abou how the government were jumping from policy to policy (Madagascar, nisko etc) in order to find a solution to the Jewish question - I think that's good evidence for the 'evolution'. Although you did use good knowledge so don't worry too much about that

    Overall I think I'd put the essay in low level 4 - around 20 marks
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by eddso)
    B/A will probably be possible if you apply yourself really thoroughly from now until the exam. Historically in this exam there has always been a question on the Weimar years or Hitler's Rise, and then one of the other minor topics of Second Reich or WW2 for section A, so it may be good to focus your revision on Weimar and the Rise so you get confident with a that content.

    What did you get last year for AS history because that'll probably help your grade this year if you got good? And what about your coursework?
    I was 4 raw marks off an A last year, and I got 44/50 for my coursework (I don't know what grade that is)

    What units should I revise the content for the most? I learn best from doing essay plans but I might make some quick notes first. I'm gonna spend 12 hours a day this half term focusing on revision, will this do?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Have you ever participated in a Secret Santa?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.