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
    (Original post by lostthelyrics)
    it is addressing the question? The question was to what extent was there significant opposition, so the early years of the war had such high morale that opposition was limited... Opposition is a consequence of low morale?
    thankyou
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fxmi_)
    thankyou
    My teacher even said you dont have to stick to a generic structure if your argument is justified and makes sense you can talk about whatever you want!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I separated it into factors-first why Germany wasnt a democracy at the time
    Factors were:
    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??
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by steph2797)
    I separated it into factors-first why Germany wasnt a democracy at the time
    Factors were:
    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??
    I did pretty much the same except I noted that the Reichstag being the only democratically elected house was growing more and more assertive e.g: break-up of blue-black bloc, Daily Telegraph Affair. I did a bit about the conservative government having popular support, as demonstrated by the Hottentot election, the fact that Bethman-Hollwegg tried to reform the Prussian voting system which proved that the elite and the establishment were somewhat understanding of change, Chancellor Von Bulow's reforms (e.g: the old age invalidity thing) to please the ever-growing SPD

    Wrote about 3.5 pages for the first and 5.5 pages for the second, I reckon I've done alright but I feel like I babbled and gave too much specific detail, not focussing succinctly on the bigger picture.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomlam)
    I did pretty much the same except I noted that the Reichstag being the only democratically elected house was growing more and more assertive e.g: break-up of blue-black bloc, Daily Telegraph Affair. I did a bit about the conservative government having popular support, as demonstrated by the Hottentot election, the fact that Bethman-Hollwegg tried to reform the Prussian voting system which proved that the elite and the establishment were somewhat understanding of change, Chancellor Von Bulow's reforms (e.g: the old age invalidity thing) to please the ever-growing SPD

    Wrote about 3.5 pages for the first and 5.5 pages for the second, I reckon I've done alright but I feel like I babbled and gave too much specific detail, not focussing succinctly on the bigger picture.

    Me too but i think a good grade is still achievable even with a bit too much detail, maybe even an A* if the controversy was good so keep your hopes up
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by steph2797)
    Me too but i think a good grade is still achievable even with a bit too much detail, maybe even an A* if the controversy was good so keep your hopes up
    haha, we can always dream

    if I got that at my school, I'd be somewhat godlike haha, the average grade on the government's league table website is a D- lol
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomlam)
    haha, we can always dream

    if I got that at my school, I'd be somewhat godlike haha, the average grade on the government's league table website is a D- lol
    well im sure you did much better than a D- hahahah
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Did anyone do the nazi regime based on consent controversy and if so what did you say about the sources.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jt18976)
    Did anyone do the nazi regime based on consent controversy and if so what did you say about the sources.
    I said consent mainly source one, terror mainly source two, selective terror mainly in source 3..
    Cross referenced source 3 about selective terror to the mention of the nuremburg laws in source 2 etc
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lostthelyrics)
    I said consent mainly source one, terror mainly source two, selective terror mainly in source 3..
    Cross referenced source 3 about selective terror to the mention of the nuremburg laws in source 2 etc
    I thought it was named source 4, 5 and 6?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    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!!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by steph2797)
    I separated it into factors-first why Germany wasnt a democracy at the time
    Factors were:
    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??
    I also done this! but just put democracy rather than parliamentary democracy
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by eddso)
    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!!
    I'm so pleased though, I literally only revised the Second Reich, controversy 1 and a bit of Weimar. I got away with it this time.

    Got away with it in AS too to a certain extent, my teacher predicted both questions correctly on the non-source one.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomlam)
    I'm so pleased though, I literally only revised the Second Reich, controversy 1 and a bit of Weimar. I got away with it this time.

    Got away with it in AS too to a certain extent, my teacher predicted both questions correctly on the non-sorce one.
    Yeah same! One of my friends hadn't revised either (((
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cgureje)
    I thought it was named source 4, 5 and 6?
    Yeah that😂 i never use sorce number i just reference the historians by their names or i get the numbers mixed up🙈
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sallygo)
    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.
    So you argued against Germany's aggression being the main cause of ww1 starting? Was that the right interpretation because I argued the opposite and that Paxman source being from a satirical piece has me worried...

    I can't remember it vividly, but I argued in my intro that the Germans did cause war as their actions/policies often had aggressive implications which resulted in them alienating other allies, forcing them to support their only ally Austria during the July crisis which resulted in war.

    I think the 3 main points I got from the sources was:

    Source 1 - planned aggression; support statement to great extent
    Source 2 - planned aggression but fear of encirclement gave it reason; support for statement but to a lessor degree
    Source 3 - shared guilt of all European countries; disagrees with statement that Germany's aggression was solely to blame for the cause of war


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    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
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by eddso)
    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
    Just to put my mind to rest though, did you do the first controversy and what did you argue with the sources briefly? Did you align with the statement?

    How did you find the exam as a whole?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
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.