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

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annie.humair)
    If talking about the Weimar being threatened/ weak I would talk about:
    - treaty of Versailles
    - extreme right (Munich putch, red Bavaria, kapp putsch)
    - extreme left ( Spartacus uprising)
    - Ebert-Groener agreement
    - the constitution (article 54, article 48)

    Hope that helps
    Feel free to correct me guys
    What was article 54?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mowerharvey)
    What was article 54?
    Gave judiciary their independence which is how they undermined the republic
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annie.humair)
    To what extent was the final solution a result of the chaotic nature of the nazi state?
    Yeah, that would be okay.

    Would you just talk about how no one had total control over aspects like economy and decesion making, decesions were made after events occurred, only decided their needed to be a final solution in 1941 when defeat seemed on the rise.

    And then for the argument against it being due to the chaotic nature, what could you say?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aimbx)
    Yeah, that would be okay.

    Would you just talk about how no one had total control over aspects like economy and decesion making, decesions were made after events occurred, only decided their needed to be a final solution in 1941 when defeat seemed on the rise.

    And then for the argument against it being due to the chaotic nature, what could you say?
    Against I would probably argue the impact of the war itself was the cause

    And then hitler and his world view,

    But my main point would be the war excebarated hitler antisemitic views and intensified the chaotic nazi states cumulative radicalisation towards the Jewish question leading to final solution
    If that makes sense

    That alrite?
    The question is open to different conclusions as long one backs it up
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aimbx)
    Yeah, that would be okay.

    Would you just talk about how no one had total control over aspects like economy and decesion making, decesions were made after events occurred, only decided their needed to be a final solution in 1941 when defeat seemed on the rise.

    And then for the argument against it being due to the chaotic nature, what could you say?

    And not sure about referencing to the economy because I think it wouldn't link to how it led to the final solution x
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cgureje)
    Against I would probably argue the impact of the war itself was the cause

    And then hitler and his world view,

    But my main point would be the war excebarated hitler antisemitic views and intensified the chaotic nazi states cumulative radicalisation towards the Jewish question leading to final solution
    If that makes sense

    That alrite?
    The question is open to different conclusions as long one backs it up
    Yeah, that sounds good. Thanks for your help!

    What do you think is going to come up?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annie.humair)
    Gave judiciary their independence which is how they undermined the republic
    Was that as a result of the ebert-groener pact or was it already part of the constitution?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Is there a chance that the Nazis and WW2 would not come up at all?

    And a Q could be on the second reich 1900-14 and then another on the Weimar period?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aimbx)
    Yeah, that sounds good. Thanks for your help!

    What do you think is going to come up?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I really am not sure, but I don't think hitters appointment to power will come up because that came up last year
    My teacher thinks it will be something to do with Weimar Republic tho

    So nervous x
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cgureje)
    Against I would probably argue the impact of the war itself was the cause

    And then hitler and his world view,

    But my main point would be the war excebarated hitler antisemitic views and intensified the chaotic nazi states cumulative radicalisation towards the Jewish question leading to final solution
    If that makes sense

    That alrite?
    The question is open to different conclusions as long one backs it up
    What is Cumulative radicalisation?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aimbx)
    Is there a chance that the Nazis and WW2 would not come up at all?

    And a Q could be on the second reich 1900-14 and then another on the Weimar period?
    Chances are either the Weimar Republic or Germany in ww2 are gonna come up or both so I would really focus on them or atleast one of them
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Guys I'm panicking at the moment can someone please help me
    I decided not to do the second reach because I find it quite boring and because of the lack of time but now I'm finding the nazis quite difficult to deal with what should I do?
    Any advice???
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annie.humair)
    What is Cumulative radicalisation?
    It's the way in which policies became more radical as the nazis competed against eachother, hope that helps
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    'The Final Solution to the Jewish question emerged as a result of the chaotic nature of the Nazi state' - How far do you agree with this Judgement

    Points to disagree with this statement:

    The Intentionalist argument - Historians such as Fleming and Goldhagen take this view. The Intentionalists believe that the Final Solution was planned from the start and did not result amid a situation of chaos, Hitler remains the key and was seen as having committed himself to the extermination of the Jews at an early stage in his political career. This was followed by a consistent gradualist policy which led logically from the persecution of 1933 to the gates of Auschwitz. In the simplest form they suggest that the Holocaust happened because Hitler willed it to.

    Goldhagen believed that the Holocaust was 'intended' because so many ordinary Germans were prepared to participate in the Third Reich's darkest deed. This is explained by the fact that within German culture there had developed a violent variant of anti-Semitism which was set on eliminating the Jews.

    However, Goldhagen's views are rightly widely criticised as he didn't take into account important factors: he ignored the other anti-Semitic cultures that existed at the time such as that seen in the Soviet Union and the USA, it wasn't just Germany. He also ignored the fact that many non-German's were involved in the murder of the Jews and he lacked sufficient evidence to prove his theory.

    Points that can be used to support the intentionalist theory:

    as far back as 1925 when Hitler was in prison and wrote 'Mein Kampf' which contained many anti-Semitic quotes such as: 'sacrifice of millions at the front' would have been prevented if 'twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebrew corrupters of the people had been held under poison gas'. This can be used to suggest Hitler had envisaged the elimination of the Jews for a long period, including something similar to the Final Solution.

    Hitlers speech to the Reichstag in 1939: “Today I will once more be a prophet: If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!” Many Intentionalists use this as Hitlers 'order' for the extermination of the Jews.

    Action T4 (1939-1941) : designation for a programme of forced euthanasia for people with physical and mental disabilities and was part of the Nazi ideology of 'racial hygene', many were sent to concentration camps and gassed. 'Testing' for the Final Solution?

    General anti-Semitic policies that existed from 1933 - for example the Boycott of Jewish businesses began on the 1st of April 1933. Nazi ideology of 'Lebensraum' and an Aryan pure population were important factors leading up to the Final Solution.

    Kristallnacht - November 1938 - Nazis torched synagogues, vandalised Jewish homes, schools and businesses and killed close to 100 Jews. 30,000 Jewish men were arrested and sent to Nazi concentration camps. This occured due to the assassination of the German diplomat Ernst vom Rath by Herschel Grynzspan who was a German-born Polish Jew living in Paris.

    It is also reported that Hitler gave the order for the Final Solution prior to the Wannsee conference of 1942 as reported by Adolf Eichmann - one of Heydrichs senior aids. Could be used to argue that Hitler envisaged the Final Solution, pre planned to some extent?

    Points to agree with the statement:

    on the other side is the Structuralist argument: Historian K. Schleunes takes this view - no direct path for the Final Solution with a lack of clear objectives but this does not reduce the guilt of Hitler himself who was in total agreement with such a policy. Final Solution resulted due to the chaotic nature of the Nazi state and the events of the War. No written proof that Hitler gave the order for the Final Solution. Majority of the young men in SS Action squads were not motivated by some kind of zealous anti-Semitism but by much more mundane factors.

    Christopher Browning believed that the perpatrators were influenced by peer pressure, cowardice, careerism and alcohol - all exaggerated by a brutalising context which was entirely alien to their home environment.

    Points to support the structuralist statement:

    There were many different plans/solutions that came about at different years during the war, suggesting that there was no clear objective and the Nazi state was unorganized/chaotic.

    For example - Invasion of Poland in 1939 led to the Nazi's inheriting millions of Jewish people. At first they were put into 'Ghettos' in Poland and used for slave labour.

    It was up until the end of 1940 that the 'Final Solution' to the Jewish question in the minds of most leading Nazi's was to be a territorial one. For example the foreign office suggested the deportation of Jews to Madagascar and Hitler was openly enthusiastic about this suggesting there was no clear plan for extermination.

    1941 - Invasion of the Soviet Union further increased the number of Jews under Nazi control. At first it was discussed that they be deported to the other side of the Ural's but this was not an effective plan. the SS Einsatzgruppen (action squads) were authorised by Hitler to exterminate Jews in Russia - in 8 months 700,000 had been murdered - a spontaneous decision made given a situation of changing circumstances? lack of organisation?

    the fate of Europe's Jews was still undecided by the Nazi regime even in 1941 - neither shooting or deportation was an effective 'solution' and Hitler considered using them was potential pawns/hostages for future dealings with the USA. However, his attitude changed given Roosevelts order to shoot German warships considered as threatening.

    Hitler then decided that he could not wait any longer to deal with the Jewish question. Parts of Poland had been divided into regions (Gau) led/ran by Gauleiter who were eager to move the Jews out of their territory. However many Gauleiter demanded a more radical course of action to be taken against the Jews as deporation Eastwards would simply put the Jews in the hands of another Gauleiter who wished to then move them further.

    New initiatives were taken by local and regional Nazi leaders 'working towards the Fuhrer' In Lublin, Poland Police Chief Globocnik ordered the construction of gassing facilities at a camp at Belzec for killing Jews incapable of work.

    Hitler demanded an 'aggressive' policy to rid Berlin of Jews while Goebbels inspired propaganda spoke about the prophecy of the 'annhilation of the Jewish race in Europe'. Declaration of War on USA > Hitler decalred the Jews were to be 'exterminated as partisans'.

    Wannsee conference 20th January 1942 chaired by Reinhard Heydrich (again, 'working towards the Fuhrer' - Hitlers hands off approach leading to a polycratic, chaotic state) led to the structured execution of the Jews.

    The Nazi government was a polycratic state, unorganised, no clear line of accountability.

    Disputed between Gauletiers and officials in different regions shows how policies were created locally, for example clashes occured between the Polish Governor Hans Frank and Heinrich Himmler over the movement of 20,000 Jews into Frank's region.

    Ian Kershaw's theory of 'working towards the Fuhrer': Hitlers uninvolved style of leadership gave his subordinates opportunities to impress him by creating their own policy that was broadly in line with Hitler's objectives. For example - Heinrich Himmler had a key role in the implementation of the Final Solution and the SS Einsatzgruppen. Reinhard Heydrich wanted to succeed Hitler and he organised and chaired the Wannsee conference, many local officials and Gau almost took matters into their own hands.

    Conclusion - Final Solution did emerge as a result of the Chaotic nature of the Nazi state - e.g. working towards Fuhrer, freedom of subordinates but the context and events of the War also very important.

    Please correct me if anything is wrong or if i missed any important points
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    How would you go about a question about opposition in WW2?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    hello I was wondering if its a good idea to perhaps insert the opinions of historians which are also relevant yet not appear in the sources in part B and using their opinion to further advance my argument. Also, should I state my opinion/argument in the introduction and always refer back to it or attempt to weigh in the factors and then in the conclusion state my opinion?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alvosm)
    hello I was wondering if its a good idea to perhaps insert the opinions of historians which are also relevant yet not appear in the sources in part B and using their opinion to further advance my argument. Also, should I state my opinion/argument in the introduction and always refer back to it or attempt to weigh in the factors and then in the conclusion state my opinion?
    Yeah as long as it's relevant it's fine but make sure to not focus on other historians too much
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    has anyone got example unit 3 essays? on golden years and threat/early stability of the weimer republic?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Could they ask a question on my democracy had failed by 1933?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I'm REALLY desperate. If anyone could post good essays on unit 3 golden years/threat to republic/stability of weimer republic essay, you will actually save my life.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • 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

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