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:
    (Original post by Annie.humair)
    Would you mind putting up the list of questions please.
    Thanks in advance 😊
    I have attached photos to save the typing (i hope this is OK) please excuse all the writing!

    Name:  FullSizeRender-1.jpg
Views: 141
Size:  535.0 KBAttachment 543397543399543400Attachment 543397543399543400
    Attached Images
      
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annie.humair)
    Does anyone know what points we need to talk about for the efficiency part of the controversy. I don't remember anything at all and the book isn't helping either
    I did this a while ago hope it helps...
    Attached Files
  1. File Type: docx efficiency.docx (88.8 KB, 116 views)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stateofminds)
    I did this a while ago hope it helps...
    Nothing's coming up when I open it?😅
    Would you mind copying and pasting it please?
    Thanks in advance
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Can anyone give me a structure for the controversy question, I'm going to be doing the Part A question on outbreak of war but I guess any controversy structure would help! Thank you so much
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Also I'm aware that it is part B which is the historiography question, however, in part A is it correct to mention some historians opinions, for example, in a question on parliamentary democracy in the kaiserreich mentioning that Wehler called the kaiserreich practised 'pseudo-constitution absolutism' ? Or something along those lines of that?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Libbyisconfused)
    Also I'm aware that it is part B which is the historiography question, however, in part A is it correct to mention some historians opinions, for example, in a question on parliamentary democracy in the kaiserreich mentioning that Wehler called the kaiserreich practised 'pseudo-constitution absolutism' ? Or something along those lines of that?
    You can mention historians in Part A but that won't necessarily increase or decrease your mark as it is not a requirement. Precious examiners reports have warned how some
    Students feel that they need to include historiography which has proved to detriment their analysis and essay in general. Feel free to use their names, but only really include it if it adds something to your essay and shows your analaytical skills without the writing becoming convoluted
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Libbyisconfused)
    Can anyone give me a structure for the controversy question, I'm going to be doing the Part A question on outbreak of war but I guess any controversy structure would help! Thank you so much
    I sent this to another person recently about the structure, hope it helps. The essay I mentioned is posted earlier by me in this thread.

    I saw you needed help on source questions so I'll give you the way in which I try and answer them. So for my unit its all about the controversy of who started World War One, so I've been looking into the historiographical interpretations of this. For example Fischer argues that Germany caused the First World War with malicious intent, while other historians argue that blame needs to be spread out among the great powers. In the essay I'm sending you, I point out the time in which the sources were made in my penultimate paragraph, and how opinion and views changed over time from a more moderate viewpoint to a more severe one.

    From this latent knowledge of the actual controversies surrounding the subject, I can base my argument around what I know and the question that the exam board are asking me. One year they could ask about the role of the Schlieffen plan in the causes of World War One, or they could ask me about the role of Austria-Hungary. But the main point of the essay is unchanging, for me Germany was a principal cause in the start of the First World War. I would argue that the Schlieffen plan (using the sources) was not an important factor due to its position as a theoretical wargame scenario, and that other factors such as Germany antagonistic weltpolitik or Russia's policy of pan-Slavism were greater factors in the runup to war. The key aspect of the question is to use the sources to back up your own argument, rather than the other way around. The sources should not dictate the flow of your essay, your argument should. In the essay, I start my paragraphs with an issue surrounding the start of the First World War, rather than "Source 2 says...".

    (Original post by Libbyisconfused)
    Also I'm aware that it is part B which is the historiography question, however, in part A is it correct to mention some historians opinions, for example, in a question on parliamentary democracy in the kaiserreich mentioning that Wehler called the kaiserreich practised 'pseudo-constitution absolutism' ? Or something along those lines of that?
    Yep that's definitely fine to do. I read an exemplar 30/30 which referenced AJP Taylor so it isn't something that detracts from your overall mark. Just make sure it directly relates to the question being asked so you don't lose marks from lack of focus and irrelevancy.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Libbyisconfused)
    Can anyone give me a structure for the controversy question, I'm going to be doing the Part A question on outbreak of war but I guess any controversy structure would help! Thank you so much
    I tend to be guided by the sources and questions but it's usually okay to do;

    1-2 paragraphs on Germanh aggressively causing war
    1-2 paragraphs on Germanh being defensive and trying to prevent war
    1-2 pragraphs on other issues ie all countries caused it


    I tend to find a particular issue at least 2 or 3 of the sources talk about ie the Schlieffen Plan, then argue the case for it being aggressive, but, as I passionately believe Germany cannot be held accountable for the outbreak of WW1 (I'm happy to have a debate if anyone wants to challenge me), I then knock down the argument in the same paragraph because that shows explicit evaluation.

    I think it's best to be guided by the sources but take an issue at a time
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    What on earth would you write on war moral???? Like what would a question be and how would you structure a response? Swear there haven't been any questions on it before(((


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stateofminds)
    I did this a while ago hope it helps...
    Could someone please copy and paste this for me, nothing comes up when I try
    Thanks in advance
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aubergine7)
    What on earth would you write on war moral???? Like what would a question be and how would you structure a response? Swear there haven't been any questions on it before(((


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I didn't thunk there had been one one either.
    There's a section in the book from page 202-204. Hope that helps
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annie.humair)
    Nothing's coming up when I open it?😅
    Would you mind copying and pasting it please?
    Thanks in advance
    I couldn't copy and paste it due to the formatting put I have put it on google drive instead, hopefully you can view it now.

    Here is the link:
    https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5...Us4REY2cVJvSUk
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stateofminds)
    I couldn't copy and paste it due to the formatting put I have put it on google drive instead, hopefully you can view it now.

    Here is the link:
    https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5...Us4REY2cVJvSUk
    Thank you 😘
    So is this all we would need to know for this bit of the controversy?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annie.humair)
    I didn't thunk there had been one one either.
    There's a section in the book from page 202-204. Hope that helps
    Thank you but what kind of question would there be? Like I can't imagine how I would structure all that stuff😭😭😭😭


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annie.humair)
    Thank you 😘
    So is this all we would need to know for this bit of the controversy?
    I think so, theres also a bit on working towards the Fuhrer which should have been on the end of the document put I will just post it here instead

    Shown particularly in Jewish and disabled policy:
    • Spontaneous attacks on Jews following Hitler’s appointment Streicher demanded a boycott of Jewish shops and businesses 1933. Hitler agreed that it could only last a day as was worried about international backlash

    • Unease began about the violence on the streets
    Introduce laws to discriminate instead - Law for the restoration of the civil service 1933 - prohibited Jews from the civil service

    • September 1935 Wagner (Reich Doctors’ lawyer) made aspeech indicating that a law banning mixed marriages was imminent Marriages between Jews and Aryans were made illegal
    The Nuremberg Laws followed which removed citizenship from German Jews

    • Anschluss incorporated 195,000 extra Jews
    Resurgence of street violence
    Jewish property be valued and registered to the state
    June 1938 Jewish doctors were forbidden to treat Aryan patients.

    • Kristallnacht orchestrated by Goebbels after affair with wife - attempt to get back in favour with Hitler.

    • 1939: Reich Central Office for Jewish Emigration

    • 1939: Aktion T4 - child ‘euthanasia’ established under Bouhler - 90,000 children killed
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aubergine7)
    Thank you but what kind of question would there be? Like I can't imagine how I would structure all that stuff😭😭😭😭


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No worries, this is the topic I struggle with the most so I could with some advice on what key areas I should really focus on.
    I think it would be something along the lines of to what extent was morale damaged because of [insert factor]?
    So I guess you would talk about bombing, Goebbels trying to keeps it up, victories of the Germans, rationing

    I don't think it's a good question since there's not a lot to write about

    If anyone else thinks this is wrong ori need to include something else then please feel free to tell me.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stateofminds)
    I think so, theres also a bit on working towards the Fuhrer which should have been on the end of the document put I will just post it here instead

    Shown particularly in Jewish and disabled policy:
    • Spontaneous attacks on Jews following Hitler’s appointment Streicher demanded a boycott of Jewish shops and businesses 1933. Hitler agreed that it could only last a day as was worried about international backlash

    • Unease began about the violence on the streets
    Introduce laws to discriminate instead - Law for the restoration of the civil service 1933 - prohibited Jews from the civil service

    • September 1935 Wagner (Reich Doctors’ lawyer) made aspeech indicating that a law banning mixed marriages was imminent Marriages between Jews and Aryans were made illegal
    The Nuremberg Laws followed which removed citizenship from German Jews

    • Anschluss incorporated 195,000 extra Jews
    Resurgence of street violence
    Jewish property be valued and registered to the state
    June 1938 Jewish doctors were forbidden to treat Aryan patients.

    • Kristallnacht orchestrated by Goebbels after affair with wife - attempt to get back in favour with Hitler.

    • 1939: Reich Central Office for Jewish Emigration

    • 1939: Aktion T4 - child ‘euthanasia’ established under Bouhler - 90,000 children killed
    Thanks again
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Who else is doing effectiveness and popularity for the controversy. My college doesn't teach ww1 so I'm stuck with this one
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Why was it important that Nazi consolidation of power was considered legal?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    They had to have a legal foundation to justify their power and what they were doing. Ie they used laws to justify the terror and violence they used against political opponents. It made them legally untouchable
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
  • 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.