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

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by eddso)
    Oh your teacher must have just condensed them then

    By edexcel textbook has 9 units; is yours the red textbook?
    its the student support material one for unit 3 D1

    what are your predictions? my teacher thinks unit 6 (final solution or morale) could come up
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by grassntai)
    its the student support material one for unit 3 D1

    what are your predictions? my teacher thinks unit 6 (final solution or morale) could come up
    I think it'll either be asking about the threat posed by ToV, or success of Golden Years for the first question

    Then either Final Solution or morale for second
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by eddso)
    I think it'll either be asking about the threat posed by ToV, or success of Golden Years for the first question

    Then either Final Solution or morale for second
    Ok cool. I'm skimming over unit 1 and 4, i hope they don't come up together or I'll cry lmao.

    BTW did you ever do the causation of WW1 essay?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by grassntai)
    I thought Hitler's consolidation of power was unit 4? My teacher is betting unit 6 to come up this year.
    Different schools call it different units!! I just go by the edexcel text book haha!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Does anyone reckon they may ask about why/how Weimar survived it's early problems? If so, does anyone have any ideas or essay plays for it?

    I can only really think of Stresseman's diplomacy ie Dawes Plan and legit nothing else
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    What topics do you reckon are most/ least likely to come up then?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by eddso)
    Does anyone reckon they may ask about why/how Weimar survived it's early problems? If so, does anyone have any ideas or essay plays for it?

    I can only really think of Stresseman's diplomacy ie Dawes Plan and legit nothing else
    Yeah stressemann achieved diplomatic influence through getting G on League of Nations council etc and monetary stability through the Dawes plan and establishing the rentenmark etc


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zikra98)
    Guys my teacher reckons morale will come up...
    Could everyone give an example on a question?
    It could be something like 'the morale of the German public remained remarkably high during the Second World War.' How far do you agree with this view?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by eddso)
    Does anyone reckon they may ask about why/how Weimar survived it's early problems? If so, does anyone have any ideas or essay plays for it?

    I can only really think of Stresseman's diplomacy ie Dawes Plan and legit nothing else
    I did an essay on this the other day and included: weakness of opponents (both right and left), role of stresseman, role of Ebert (incl ebert-groener pact), support for democracy from public (?)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sophiebucknall7)
    I did an essay on this the other day and included: weakness of opponents (both right and left), role of stresseman, role of Ebert (incl ebert-groener pact), support for democracy from public (?)
    Could you expand of those points a but please
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Do we mention propaganda when talking about rise of the nazis
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sophiebucknall7)
    It could be something like 'the morale of the German public remained remarkably high during the Second World War.' How far do you agree with this view?
    but there is literally nothing in the book about morale in the second world war?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jodie1012)
    but there is literally nothing in the book about morale in the second world war?
    Oh I found in the history textbook page 202 - 4 about morale on the home front x
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sixschmidt)
    I lost marks in AO2b mainly on a rushed conclusion I wrote in the final two minutes of the lesson; if the conclusion was more rounded and "fully substantiated" according to the mark scheme, I could have gotten full marks. AO1a/b (Source analysis) is quite simple to gain full marks in if you read the mark scheme. The key points in the mark scheme is to make sure "selected material directly addresses the focus of the question", as well as "Candidates demonstrate explicit understanding of the key issues raised by the question, evaluating arguments and – as appropriate – interpretations.The analysis will be supported by an appropriate range and depth of accurate and well-selected factual material."

    This comes naturally when you totally know a subject area, you can point out inaccuracies in some sources or argue that their opinion holds partial weight because X happened, however, they omit that Y happened. Historiography is essential as well when evaluating sources, as you must know when they were produced according to the timeline. I'll post my revision notes on historiographical change throughout the century.

    tl;dr: Make sure the quotes you use from the sources relate to the question, and you use your knowledge to support/refute historians.
    Ahhh right, so do you recommend spending a bit longer on conclusion just to make sure you really consolidate your argument??

    Thanks so much for your help, it's brilliant! And the historiography is really useful how many other historians or theories (aside from the ones mentioned in the sources) do you recommend using? I know there's no formula and it differs per question, but do you have a rough idea?



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sophiebucknall7)
    Oh I found in the history textbook page 202 - 4 about morale on the home front x
    thank you!! How would they expect us to write an essay tho as you can't really say a lot haha! x
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jodie1012)
    thank you!! How would they expect us to write an essay tho as you can't really say a lot haha! x
    For morale I would split the time period;

    Para 1: early years in war (until 1941-42) morale was fairly decent with the early victories

    Para 2: although rationing had to be implemented straight away, it was does in a reasonable way which managed to at least pacify the people and morse didn't seriously decline

    Para 3: after failed invasion of Soviet Union 1941 morale began to decline, and despite attempts to pacify it, the authorities couldn't do much to hide the realities which were accentuated with the allied bombing

    Para 4: women's morale also declined because of the extra work they had to take up etc etc

    It is a tough ask if they set a question on morale but I think there is just about enough there
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Can someone please tell me how much I would need to say about the Prussian coup d'etat when talking about rise of the nazis
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annie.humair)
    Can someone please tell me how much I would need to say about the Prussian coup d'etat when talking about rise of the nazis
    In my opinion that has a rather weak link to the rise of the Nazis. I would use it more as evidence of how Weimar declined (I think the rise of the Nazis and the decline of Weimar do not necessarily go hand in hand), so I would use it simply to highlight the increasing use of Article 48 which summoned a move away from parliamentary democracy and towards presidential democracy. You could then make a slightly tenuous link about how the decline of parliamentary democracy meant that intrigue could happen with greater impact. Although for that intrigue to happen, Hitler still requires democratic support.

    So in a nutshell, you won't need to talk lots about that I don't think
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by eddso)
    In my opinion that has a rather weak link to the rise of the Nazis. I would use it more as evidence of how Weimar declined (I think the rise of the Nazis and the decline of Weimar do not necessarily go hand in hand), so I would use it simply to highlight the increasing use of Article 48 which summoned a move away from parliamentary democracy and towards presidential democracy. You could then make a slightly tenuous link about how the decline of parliamentary democracy meant that intrigue could happen with greater impact. Although for that intrigue to happen, Hitler still requires democratic support.

    So in a nutshell, you won't need to talk lots about that I don't think
    Thank you
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sally.7)
    Ahhh right, so do you recommend spending a bit longer on conclusion just to make sure you really consolidate your argument??

    Thanks so much for your help, it's brilliant! And the historiography is really useful how many other historians or theories (aside from the ones mentioned in the sources) do you recommend using? I know there's no formula and it differs per question, but do you have a rough idea?
    It depends on the sources they give you really. You will almost always mention Fischer and his thesis on the causes of World War One, and you use the other historians based on when the others were produced. For example, a source produced in the interwar years I would link to American revisionism and the shifting of blame from Germany to other powers. For a source during the Cold War I would argue it is influenced by either Ritter and his primat der aussenpolitik viewpoint, or Fischer's primat der innenpolitik argument, depending on what the source says. If the source mentions the Schlieffen plan I might mention AJP Taylor's 'War by Timetable' and how the Germans were prisoners of their own logic and need to be first to mobilise. Ferguson has a differing historical view entirely compared to previous historians and mentions the activities of the British Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey, and how they were ambiguous to those in Berlin, so I would mention him when anything about the British role comes up. To counter him I quote the political pamphlet published in 1916 by Prince Lichnowsky the German Ambassador to the UK, which totally absolves Grey and places blame upon the policy makers in Berlin ignoring his reports. You can read it here: https://archive.org/details/mymissiontolondo00inlich. It is a fantastic contemporary source to support the idea that Germany caused the war, and shows great wider reading around the topic.

    On average, you would probably only mention two or maybe three, in that essay I just mentioned Fischer extensively and gave a counter balance by mentioning Ritter's critique of Fischer's sources. Just knowing the historiography means you can quote historians ideas based on the sources they give you, giving greater flexibility; they like it when historians other than Fischer are quoted as it shows wider knowledge.
 
 
 
  • 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
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • 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.