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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    hey guys sorry to be a debbie-downer on this thread but does this course completely terminate this year, or will I still be able to resit this A2 unit next year? (I am definitely not confident I am going to get my grades for uni this year)
    good luck everyone!!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Could someone please explain the significance in the dispute between Himmler and Hans frank for final solution. I'm not really sure what went on
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vickybirkss)
    hey guys sorry to be a debbie-downer on this thread but does this course completely terminate this year, or will I still be able to resit this A2 unit next year? (I am definitely not confident I am going to get my grades for uni this year)
    good luck everyone!!
    The course terminates so no one else will study it

    But a retake will still be available for this years cohort
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by eddso)
    The course terminates so no one else will study it

    But a retake will still be available for this years cohort
    PHEW thank god! thank you!!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by grassntai)
    Isn't the morale question for WW2 synonymous with opposition to the Nazis in WW2? Or am I wrong? My school never set us a question on morale and we've done every single question possible.

    If I'm wrong could someone post their morale essay?

    Hey I found this essay plan on a morale question that may help you

    http://heathenhistory.co.uk/wp-conte.../05/morale.doc
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    would you say that if i made a detailed plan for this question 'how far do you agree that 1924-29 was one of both political stability and genuine recovery' it'd cover all questions that could up for the golden years?

    Edit: Oh I spoke too soon.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cgureje)
    Hey I found this essay plan on a morale question that may help you

    http://heathenhistory.co.uk/wp-conte.../05/morale.doc
    You have literally just saved so many people's lives
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    For argument and counter argument, can I assert a line of argument in my introduction and then in my paragraph start by showing one side of the argument but then counter that by saying the other argument is better in the same paragraph?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by eddso)
    For argument and counter argument, can I assert a line of argument in my introduction and then in my paragraph start by showing one side of the argument but then counter that by saying the other argument is better in the same paragraph?
    Absolutely. I prefer to integrate my argument/ counter-argument in that way as it makes for a more sophisticated essay. Ensure that at the end of each paragraph which side of the debate thus dominates in light of the two sides of the argument you have presented.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    So, day before the exam, what has everyone and their teachers predicted for the A questions?
    I've seen on here, Final Solution, WW2 morale, and Golden Years? But they've repeated themselves before so now I'm really confused...

    Also, could two Nazi controversy questions come up and no WW1?!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by charmantell)
    Absolutely. I prefer to integrate my argument/ counter-argument in that way as it makes for a more sophisticated essay. Ensure that at the end of each paragraph which side of the debate thus dominates in light of the two sides of the argument you have presented.
    Is it ok to end each paragraph with the same point though?

    Like for golden years, my line of argument would be that nothing was really stable

    So I'd present the economy argument for it being stable then counter it with its instability

    I'd do the same with politics (no putsch as pro, but coalitions etc as con)

    Then I'd do the same with culture (lots of cultural expansion as pro but political divisions exacerbated as con)

    Then diplomacy (good relations as pro, internal political tensions as con)

    I'm technically arguing both sides and maintaining the argument throughout so would that be allowed?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by eddso)
    Is it ok to end each paragraph with the same point though?

    Like for golden years, my line of argument would be that nothing was really stable

    So I'd present the economy argument for it being stable then counter it with its instability

    I'd do the same with politics (no putsch as pro, but coalitions etc as con)

    Then I'd do the same with culture (lots of cultural expansion as pro but political divisions exacerbated as con)

    Then diplomacy (good relations as pro, internal political tensions as con)

    I'm technically arguing both sides and maintaining the argument throughout so would that be allowed?
    Yes! In fact, that was essentially my argument for a similar question I did recently. So long as you recognise the counter arguments there is no problem with you being certain that every factor points to the same conclusion (again, providing you can consistently justify why the counter argument is weaker than your main argument, that, in essence, the 'golden years' were not genuinely stable. Like I said, that's precisely what I did in a similar question - wherein I received full marks. Siding with one side of the argument the whole way through your essay does not give way to criticism of a lack of balance but, I repeat, ensure the counter arguments are acknowledged. I hope this helps
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by laxu79)
    So, day before the exam, what has everyone and their teachers predicted for the A questions?
    I've seen on here, Final Solution, WW2 morale, and Golden Years? But they've repeated themselves before so now I'm really confused...

    Also, could two Nazi controversy questions come up and no WW1?!

    no way, my school has only taught the world war one one.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Any plans or essays for questions to do with resistance during WW2?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Can someone please help me with putting up a simple plan of how you should answer part a/b questions like would the peel technique i think it is and explain what the letters represent thanks.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by charmantell)
    Yes! In fact, that was essentially my argument for a similar question I did recently. So long as you recognise the counter arguments there is no problem with you being certain that every factor points to the same conclusion (again, providing you can consistently justify why the counter argument is weaker than your main argument, that, in essence, the 'golden years' were not genuinely stable. Like I said, that's precisely what I did in a similar question - wherein I received full marks. Siding with one side of the argument the whole way through your essay does not give way to criticism of a lack of balance but, I repeat, ensure the counter arguments are acknowledged. I hope this helps
    Thank you so much you absolute star! This method will make my argument so much more succinct as well which is good because, although I've been getting around 27/30, I can always tell I could be so much more succinct
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Anyone else getting this horrible last minute feeling that they are going to ask a question on something that you haven't covered? I'm panicking that they won't ask either final solution or golden years which is what I'm most prepared on. Anyone able to reassure me?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by samgriff1998)
    Anyone else getting this horrible last minute feeling that they are going to ask a question on something that you haven't covered? I'm panicking that they won't ask either final solution or golden years which is what I'm most prepared on. Anyone able to reassure me?
    I feel the same! Except I haven't prepared the golden years as I just can't remember anything on the culture aspect of it. I feel okay for the final solution but ideally I'd like opposition,morale,threats to Weimar Republic or rise of hitler to come up

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by laxu79)
    So, day before the exam, what has everyone and their teachers predicted for the A questions?
    I've seen on here, Final Solution, WW2 morale, and Golden Years? But they've repeated themselves before so now I'm really confused...

    Also, could two Nazi controversy questions come up and no WW1?!
    WW1 Controversy question is guaranteed to come up.

    I'd say it would also be more than likely to come up in part A as well (Kaiserreich).

    Basic outline for Stresemann:
    • Hyperintlation CA: Rentemark = Argument that Stresemann did everything in his power to avert economic crisis from becoming exacerbated, decisively not an argument in favour of these being called the 'Golden Years' as the political and economic circumstances were fragile.
    • Ruhr Valley/Rhineland occupation CA: Calling off passive resistance, Franco-German border agreement, restart of reparation payment.
    • Locarno Treaty CA: Germany allowed in the League of Nations, status of 'Great Power'. Counter-argument to that: Loss of casus belli for lost territory. Agreement of reparations payment infuriates German populace.
    • Dawes Plan: Stresemann's main concern was in reinvigorating Germany's post-war economic slumber. Allows US investment in Germany>Allows German economy to recover. French finally leave Ruhr region. Reparations paid over a longer period of time and in lower quantities. Reichbank restructured under Allied supervision. CA: Many saw the reparations enforced upon Germany under the Treaty of Versailles as unjust. CATT: Arguably shows Stresemann's pragmatic side - he was aware that if Germany is to begin growing again it must accept these measures. His pragmatism was a display of the stability of the period (arguably as it could be said he was merely 'plastering the cracks'.
    • Young Plan (1930): Achieves total French evacuation of the Ruhr region. Was Stresemann's last major political achievement and arguably his most important. Comes right after onset of GD and the WSC. It caused the successful revision of reparations payment - 2,000 million marks to be paid yearly until 1988>This easened the burden on the German people and easened the political tension in Germany, wherein many externalised internal German problems on the US and the Versailles treaty. CA: Defeatism and appeasement of Allies. It was a rallying cry to those forces within the republic which were intrinsically against the new deal>promulgated Hitler and the NSDAP to national prominence.
    • Lack of political violence (comparison to previous years where there was plenty) Argument for stability or just merely the calm before the storm?

      Did I miss anything? Please tell me.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    BTW and apologies for doublepost. How f***** is everyone if Stresemann years (1923-30) don't come up?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?

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.