I separated it into factors-first why Germany wasnt a democracy at the time
The Kaiser and his powers, with the exampla of the Daily Telegraph Affair
The elites who were the Kaiser's staunch supporters and how they had legislative and economic power thus keeping Germany an entrenched authoritarian state rather than a parliamentary democracy
The army who were part of the elites and how the way they functioned kept Germany an authoritarian regime and i gave the example of the Zabern Affair
Then I said that despite this, Wilhelimine Germany still had some democratic aspects so i spoke about the Reichstag and its powers, the constitution and its democratic aspects and the growth kf political parties.
Then i talked about the weaknesses of the Reichstag and concluded by linking back to the title and stating that although some steps were made towards becoming a parliamentary democracy, it was still very much an entrrenched authoritarian regime.
What do you guys think??
Did anyone do the nazi regime based on consent controversy and if so what did you say about the sources.
Wow we have now done our History A Level!!! Never thought I would make it!!
They were very snakey to not give us a Weimar or Hitler's rise question!!
For the controversy world war 1 question am I right in thinking that this is what the sources were saying?
Source 1: Planned and executed war of aggression.
Source 2: Not German aggression but rather a 'preventative war' of necessity.
Source 3: Shared guilt, Germany is to blame, but not aggressive and Germany was only doing what every other country was doing.
I also did the controversy WW1 question:
I thought the argument of source one was planned war of aggression, with evidence of Schlieffen plan and railway timetables to back up but no real analysis of situation. I picked up on the weakness of the Source, drawing attention to the title 'Great Britain's Great War' and its imperialistic connotations. I completely dismissed this source and thought Paxman's scathing criticism of the Kaiser felt too personal and subjective. Moreover, I felt his argument was a regurgitation of Fischer's theses and A.J.p Taylor's railway timetables argument. He did not add anything to those arguments already said. I was quite shocked by the stance of Paxman, so I looked up the source after my exam, turns out the book is a satirical-esque narrative history written from the point of view of Briton's in the First World War. I think it was quite cheeky for edexcel to include this source but it was easy to dismiss.
For Source 2 I'm not sure thats what the author was implying, his stance suggested the 'preventative' argument but made out as if it was only used by Germans to justify the war by labelling it defensive and therefore take the responsibility for war away from themselves. However, I disagreed with this partially, stating it was unfair to imply blame for diplomatic failures was completely German. I thought the source went on the agree with Wehler and the other Structuralists by chalking the war up to the Ger elites' willingness to go to war to mask domestic and social problems and maintain their status and prestige. I agreed with this but outlined the difference between the willingness to risk war as 'an escape forwards' and the belief that the war was coherently planned from an early staged. I dismissed the later argument.
I felt as if source 3 was a mix of different interpretations but especially the view that Europe 'slithered' into war, drawing attention to the use of 'Sleepwalk' in the title. I don't think the source was saying Germany wasn't aggressive, it actually thought it was but mentions the aggression or 'paranoia' of other parties and doesn't believe this primarily led to war. Instead it suggested long-term causes such as tensions between powers, the alliance system and especially the power structures of all main parties. I picked up on the last point, linking it back to the argument of source 2 which also stated that.
How did everyone think the questions went? I thought the democracy question for the 30 marker was a very good question, bit worried about the grade boundaries as it felt a bit too easy. The 40 marker was a good question too although I think I messed up slightly with the structure and I'm a bit worried that my explanation of the sources wasn't as clear as it could have been. No point overthinking it now though, guess I'll have to wait till August to see if I've done enough.
In all honesty guys, the exam is done
I know it's sometimes natural to want to think about what you wrote and then get worried about that but it won't do any good. The exam is done so try to push that to the back of your mind and focus on your next exams