Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    DisclaimerMod Edit: Please note that although this thread still has plenty of useful information, it was last edited in 2011 so some of this information may now be out of date. If you are unsure as to whether or not some of this information still applies to you, it would be best to ask on this thread!

    If there are people who are happy to volunteer to update this thread, please let us know by posting in Ask A Moderator: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=266


    Okay, I decided to write a mini guide for those of you studying A level History and in particular, the Edexcel examination board for History
    I've written this in mind of my own experiences and the other posts I've helped with.

    You don't have to follow this
    . In fact there are many other ways of achieving your full potential.

    You may contribute if you wish.
    Good luck

    Quick link

    General
    - How to Revise + Exam Technique
    - UMS scoring chart/grades
    - Exam Resources

    Subject specific
    - Help on Russia Essay questions

    Edexcel
    - How long is each paper (and what does it consist of?)
    - Recommended Unit 1 books
    - Unit 2 technique (specific)
    - Unit 2 examplar answer
    - Unit 3 technique (specific)
    - Historical Assignment (unit 4)

    This thread has also been wiki'd :awesome:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    How to Revise for A level History

    This is a relatively simple case.

    The revision should be broken into
    - Knowledge of the topic
    - Exam technique.

    Knowledge of the topic
    In terms of the exam, nothing will be more important than knowing your topic back to front for the exam.

    The following are helpful
    - Bulletpointing chapters, or sections of chapters in books
    - Creating cue cards in order to improve on-the-spot recollection of knowledge
    - End of topic questions in your textbook
    - Past papers

    If you have more time on your hands
    - Try reading some historiography on your subject. e.g. Germany responsible for pursuing a campaign of aggression and conquest [Fischer]
    - Read articles from credible sources to deepen your knowledge.
    - Have discussions with other people doing the same unit as you, about particular events.

    Exam technique
    At every stage you want to balance your argument against counter arguments. Always argue extent - which factor was most important, and why? You're working with balancing the various influences.

    Historiography fits in here, too. Different historians and schools of history have different weights on different aspects. Compare the evidentiary support for their conclusions and situate your own argument within their work. One way to do this is to qualify their arguments, to extend their conclusions to a different period, region, or aspect of history than they worked in, or to synthesise different approaches.

    More help here - Clicky

    A more general revision technique can be found here - Clicky
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    So what how well do I need to score to get the grade?

    Grades A-C , it is standard in terms of UMS.

    AS
    Total UMS = 200

    A = 160 - 200 UMS (80% and above)
    B = 140 - 159 UMS (70% and above
    C = 120 - 139 UMS (60% and above)
    D = 100 - 119 UMS (50% and above)
    E = 80 - 99 UMS (40% and above)
    U = 0 - 79 UMS (0% and above)

    A2
    Total UMS = 400

    A = 320/400
    B = 280/400
    C = 240/400
    D = 200/400
    E = 180/400

    How to get A* in A level History?
    CLICK HERE FOR AN A* CALCULATOR

    The rules are standard tbh
    Average 80% (A grade) in the A level and 90% average in A2.
    For example -

    AS
    Unit 1 - 80 %
    Unit 2 - 80 %

    A2
    Unit 3 - 90 %
    Unit 4 - 90 %
    Average - 85% (A grade)

    Grade - A*
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    How long is each Paper? (Edexcel)

    Unit 1 – 1 hour 20mins or 90mins
    Unit 2 - 1 hour 20mins or 90mins
    Unit 3 – 2 hours or 120 mins

    Breakdown of units maximum scores (Edexcel)
    Unit 1 - 100 UMS – 50% of AS and 25% of total A level
    Unit 2 - 100 UMS - 50% of AS and 25% of total A level

    AS = 200 UMS

    Unit 3 - 120 UMS - 60% of A2 and 30% of total A level
    Unit 4 (coursework/historical investigation) - 80 UMS - 40% of A2 and 20% of total A level

    A Level = 400 UMS Max –

    [B]How is each exam paper broken down into, mark wise?[b]

    (Edexcel)

    Unit 1
    – Two questions – 30 marks each
    – 60 marks in total
    – I recommend spending 5 mins max planning the answer to the question and 40 mins of solid writing per question.
    – Even of you run out of time for one question, conclude it and move on.

    Unit 2
    - Two questions – Section a) 20 marks. Section b) 40 marks
    - 60 Marks in total
    - No more than 25-30 minutes should be spent on Section A
    - You should aim to spend 50-55 minutes on Section B
    - Section A is a source-based answer and does not require an own knowledge based response apart from provenance
    - Section B is a combined source and own knowledge based response and the source should guide your answer. Aim for 50/50 ratio of own knowledge and Source based answering But don’t make them separate. Make sure they’re weaved in together to show you can use both skills at once.

    Unit 3
    - Two questions – Section a) 30 marks. Section b) 40 marks
    - 70 marks in total
    - 50-55 minutes, including planning should be spent on Section A
    - 65-70 minutes, including planning should be spent on Section B
    - Both units assume you have a understanding of the different historical perspectives relating to the question. Therefore historiography, not provenance is the most important aspect to understand when evaluating different perspectives.

    AQA

    Unit 1
    Written Paper, 1 hour 15 minutes
    50% of total AS marks, 25% of total A Level marks
    Written paper chosen from one of 13 options. Two questions to be answered from a choice of three two-part questions.
    Tests Understanding of change over time

    Unit 2
    Written Paper, 1 hour 30 minutes
    50% of total AS marks, 25% of total A Level marks
    Written paper chosen from one of 18 options. One compulsory two-part, source-based question + one structured two-part question from a choice of two.

    Unit 3
    Written Paper, 1 hour 30 minutes
    30% of total A Level marks
    Written paper chosen from one of 13 options. Two essay questions to be answered from a choice of three.
    Tests understanding both in depth and breadth
    Tests understanding of a significant period of history in depth

    Unit 4
    20% of total A Level marks
    Coursework
    3500 words
    Analysis of historical issue
    Understanding change over 100 years
    Choice of topics – from range provided by AQA
    or devised by centre
    Internally assessed by centre and moderated by AQA
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Resources

    Past paper sites - external

    http://www.freeexampapers.com/
    Edexcel bank - covers all options
    AQA bank
    OCR A bank
    OCR B bank
    WJEC bank
    CIE bank

    Past Paper links - on TSR

    Russia in revolution (edexcel) practice question bank
    Stalin's Russia (edexcel) practice question bank

    Specifications

    AQA
    OCR A
    Edexcel
    WJEC
    CIE
    OCR B

    Examiners reports

    AQA
    OCR
    Edexcel
    WJEC
    CIE
    OCR B

    Speciman papers

    AQA
    OCR A
    Edexcel
    WJEC
    OCR B

    Grade Boundries






    Revision notes on our very own wiki
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Unit 1 Books recommended to purchase for the unit. (Not totally complete (Options A-C) but getting there )
    You are entered in for one Option for the exam. You are expected to complete two units from the chosen option
    For example Option D - Russia in Revolution + Stalin's Russia is compatible
    Russia in Revolution and the Reign of Henry VII are not compatible

    Option A - England in the Middle Ages and the Transition to the Early Modern World
    A1 Alfred the Great and the Vikings, 793-c900
    A2 The Norman Conquest and its Impact on England, 1066-1135
    A3 The Angevin Empire, 1154-1216
    A4 From Black Death to Great Revolt: England, 1348-81
    A5 Anglo-French Rivalry: Henry V and Henry VI, 1413-53

    A7 The Reign of Henry VII, 1485-1509

    Access to History - Henry VII (Access to History)


    Option B - Power, Belief and Conflict in Early Modern Europe
    B1 Luther, Lutheranism and the German Reformation, 1517-55


    B3 The Revolt of the Netherlands, 1559-1609

    B4 The European Witchcraze, c1580-c1650

    B5 Conflict and Conquest in Ireland, 1598-1692
    B6 The Thirty Years War and its Impact on Continental Europe, 1618-60
    B7 Crown, Conflict and Revolution in England, 1660-89


    Option C - The British Empire: Colonisation and Decolonisation
    C1 The Origins of the British Empire, c1680-1763
    C2 Relations With the American Colonies and the War of Independence, c1740-89

    C3 The Slave Trade, Slavery and the Anti-Slavery Campaigns, c1760-1833
    C4 Commerce and Conquest: India, c1760-c1835
    C5 Commerce and Imperial Expansion, c1815-70
    C6 Britain and the Scramble for Africa, c1875-1914
    C7 Retreat from Empire: Decolonisation in Africa, c1957-81


    Option D - A World Divided: Communism and Democracy in the 20th Century
    D1 Crises, Tensions and Political Divisions in China, 1900-49




    D5 Pursuing Life and Liberty: Equality in the USA, 1945-68


    D7 Politics, Presidency and Society in the USA, 1968-2001


    Option E - The Expansion and Challenge of Nationalism
    E1 The Road to Unification: Italy, c1815-70

    E2 The Unification of Germany, 1848-90

    E3 The Collapse of the Liberal State and the Triumph of Fascism in Italy, 1896-1943

    E4 Republicanism, Civil War and Francoism in Spain, 1931-75

    E5 Germany Divided and Reunited, 1945-91

    E6 The Middle East, 1945-2001: The State of Israel and Arab Nationalism


    Option F - The Expansion and Challenge of Nationalism
    F1 The Road to Unification: Italy, c1815-70

    F2 The Unification of Germany, 1848-90

    F3 The Collapse of the Liberal State and the Triumph of Fascism in Italy, 1896-1943

    F4 Republicanism, Civil War and Francoism in Spain, 1931-75

    F5 Germany Divided and Reunited, 1945-91

    F6 The Middle East, 1945-2001: The State of Israel and Arab Nationalism

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    If you do Edexcel unit 2
    Part a) - Source based response - 20 marks
    Part b) - Mixed source and own knowledge - 40 marks

    In part a) you would probably be asked a question on (for example) what extent do 'Sources 2 + 3' differ/conflict/contrast with Source 1 + 4 in reference to the question asked. There are other scenarios but this is what I’ve seen. You use 100% sources and the only times you use own knowledge is through showing provenance of the source. But want to debate which side has the stronger argument through analysing both sides. Two long paragraphs with a small-medium into and small- medium conclusion would be good

    Part b) - you are asked a more open question, with less reference to the source in the actual question. You can still be asked questions like "In what ways..." "To what extent...." "How significant were...” In all of these you create a debate, arguing both sides of the table and coming to one conclusive answer. Probably 4-6 reasonable paragraphs, with a substantial intro and conclusion will be good
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    If you do Edexcel unit 2 (useful for subsequent exams/coursework as well)
    (Original post by Lumen)
    I'm finding it difficult to structure these essays. Usually I'm OK when it just involves analysis of the sources, but I never know how to fit own knowledge into the answer. Does anyone have any tips?
    Okay here goes.

    The first thing you have to realise, is that you need to be able to use your sources effectively. Once you have done this, integrating own knowledge should be easier

    Examplar paper

    Examplar sources

    Go to page two of each - Now it doesn't matter if you do not do this particular unit - I am just using this as an example for you to look at

    (Original post by Question)
    How far do the sources suggest that the British army leaders were not concerned with the welfare of soldiers in the British army?
    Now what you are engaged in is a debate on whether they agree with the motion above, or to what extent there is doubt. No own knowledge needed apart from contextualised one.

    I shall write an answer to this and let you see: -

    -------------------
    Sources's One and Three appear to agree with the motion that there was a lack of concern with regards to the "welfare" of British Soldiers during the Crimean War whilst Source 2 defends that the Army is doing its best to supply the Army "in the Crimea". However both Sources 2 and 3 appear to blame inefficiency on the British Army's part and it has to be questioned whether inefficiency also shows a lack of welfare to the British Army in the war.

    William Russell (Source 1) appears to be very critical of the Army's control of it's soldiers welfare. The men neither have 'warm or waterproof clothing' [Russell] and the direction of blame appears to be aimed at the Army leader's for a lack of supply of such material. This is highlighted with the statement that 'even their lives' [Source 1] are not cared for by anyone - including their commanders. There is some cross consensus with Anthony Sterling [Source 3] that a lack of organisation could show a lack of welfare within the Army. When compared to the British, the French had a 'permanent' [Source 3] or continuous flow of supplies through the commissariat. But we have to take note that a lack of supply was tarnished because two British supply ships sunk in a Storm ported in the Crimea, not necessarily because the British didn't care. Furthermore we have to take note that William Russell is a reporter. A reporter writes for a populist audience and is therefore likely to fragment the reports he makes. On top of this, William Russell was not in the Crimea at this time, as he was on holiday

    --------------------------

    Now this is barely half the essay. I could add more. It would need a paragraph more and a conclusion to wrap this up. But let me explain what I have done

    The introduction anchors the answer. The first line tells the reader exactly what the point is. You must not drag. You must just write 'source x agrees/disagrees whilst sources y agree/disagree with the motion'. And then you give a small descriptor of doubts in the question and justify the answer you want to give.

    The Second paragraph anchor's in favour of the motion. Cross source analysis is very important. In my opinion it should be necessary that if you quote something then you should put [source x] in order to contextualise and anchor the words to the examiner. It also makes reading easier when you have 500 scripts . Finally you must cross analysis between the two sources. Whether they agree or not is up to you but it must flow with the answer. Finally you must not use own knowledge but to contextualise. I have used own knowledge in reference to the sinks shipping and the fact that Russell is a reporter. But no more! The sources MUST guide your answer at least 90-5% of the time.

    Now I shall explain Q2 with you but in less depth - I shall continue later.

    The theory is that you use 50% own knowledge and 50% source answers. You use the sources to guide the answer of the question and you use your own knowledge to back it up. Like source 6 says the British army got mowed down on the first battle of the somme - You would argue for that side of the argument that the British got 'mowed down' [Source 6] and add own information like the 20000 men who died on that first day and that the Lee Enfield Rifle or the Grenades they had had ineffective shrapnel to disarm Imperial Germany on the muddy battlefield, especially as the Germans were using the Mauser - The Machine gun - to kill so many British men. In this sense the British could only hold the Germans to Stalemate.

    Hope this helped.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    If you do Edexcel History Unit 3 Kaiser to Fuhrer
    Actually question B will be of similar structure to your unit 2 paper. Obviously it will be more advanced.

    Regardless, the sources guide the answer. This means that you refer to the historical interpretations such as Germany was responsible for pursuing a war of conquest and aggression according to Fischer. And then you add your own knowledge and cross reference with other sources.

    Your question A (sorry I'm working back to front) will be similar structured to the Unit 1 - in the sense that you have no sources and work from own knowledge.
    You will need strong knowledge, but technique is important.

    Point, Evidence, Explain Qualify/contrast
    Qualifying is in particular very important because you show the limitations of the argument. You are looking to show both sides of the argument and come to a weighted conclusion in the end.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    General Information



    Broad analysis



    Political Parties and groups in Germany

    SDP - (Socialist/Social Democratic)
    DAP- (Nationalist)
    DNVP- (National-conservative)
    Spartacus League
    KPD - Communist
    BVP - Conservative/ Christian Democratic
    NSDAP - National Socialist

    Information on particular issues.

    The Arms Race (1905-14)
    Statistics of the Arms Race

    The Moroccan Crisis (1905-6)

    The Daily Telegraph Affair (28 October, 1908)
    Document from the Affair

    The Haldane Mission
    Document from the Mission (Feb 1912)

    Books of interest -
    Imperial Germany 1871-1918


    Broadly speaking, your course is split into a number of issues and controversies

    • Controversy one - to what extent was Germany responsible for WW1? The main things you need to look at are German foreign policy c.1900-14 and the controversy surrounding Germany's 'war guilt'
    • Controversy two - how popular was the Nazi regime and how effectively did the Nazi state operate from 1933-39? The main issues for this one are degree of consent the Nazi regime received, extent to which this was reliant on terror and repression, the role of Hitler, cumulative radicalisation and whether Nazi state was a chaotic 'polycracy'.
    .
    But there are other issues that must be considered before tackling either controversy
    • The German Empire (1871 to 1918)
    • Weimar Republic (1919 to 1933)
    • The rise of the NSDAP/Nazi Party (1925 to 1933)
    • The Second World War (1939 to 1945)
    • The Final Solution (Jan 20, 1942 to 1945)



    How long is the paper and how many marks is each question worth?
    • Two questions – Section a) 30 marks. Section b) 40 marks
    • 70 marks in total
    • 50-55 minutes, including planning should be spent on Section A
    • 65-70 minutes, including planning should be spent on Section B
    • Both units assume you have an understanding of the different historical perspectives relating to the question. Therefore historiography, not provenance is the most important aspect to understand when evaluating different perspectives.


    This resource list is not exhaustive. If you feel that you would like to add to the links and resources here, please quote or PM me. Additionally if you have any questions relating to this course/events then please drop it in this thread :yy:

    Thanks.

    ---------------------

    Contributions by other users

    Exam Layout:

    Spoiler:
    Show
    Part A:

    30 marks. (I would) Spend 10 minutes planning and 40 minutes writing. Choice of two questions from anything in the entire course (except the controversies, I think!) Possible questions / areas include:

    2nd Reich:

    Kaiser’s responsibility for political problems faced by the Second Reich pre -1914.
    The role of moderate reform in maintaining the political status quo pre-1914.
    'The political system of the 2nd Reich was primarily an autocracy of the elites' How far do you agree?
    Impact of WW1 on existing social and political tensions.
    Reason for Kaiser’s abdication?

    Weimar Republic:

    Stability of the Weimar republic.
    Impact of Versailles terms on the stability of the Weimar Republic.
    How far do you agree that Germany experienced a period of political calm, economic development, and social progress in the period 1925 - 29?
    To what extent was the collapse of the Weimar Republic caused by the lurch to the right by leading politicians after 1930?

    Nazi Germany:

    Rise of the Nazis.
    Nazi consolidation of Power.
    Reasons for final solution.
    Reasons for poor WW2 War Economy.

    NB: All of the above sample questions that I have included were ones created by my (very good) history teachers. They have chosen which factor to focus the question on, but the actual question could ask about another factor instead. In any case, include 4 or 5 factors.

    Part B:

    40 marks. (I would) Spend 10-15 minutes planning 55-60 minutes writing. Choice of two controversies: Germany’s role in causing the First World War and the popularity and efficiency of the Nazi state, 1933 - 39.

    There are 24 out of the 40 marks on part b for source use, so USE THEM THROUGHOUT. As a set, have them drive your answer, using own knowledge throughout to support your argument.

    WW1:

    Germany's fault:
    -Long term expansionist aims of Germany = wanted an Empire, Weltpolitik (use both Moroccan Crises as an example), Flottenpolitik and the antagonisation of the British.
    -Use of War as a distraction from domestic problems? = SPD became biggest party in Reichstag 1912 elections, long-term political and economic problems created by Industrialisation + Urbanisation threatened the political status quo, many elites believed war was the best way to preserve the monarchy.
    -Power of military = Zabern affair, military potentially pushing Kaiser towards War.

    NOT Germany's fault:
    -Actions of other powers = Britain engaged in arms race to defend its naval superiority and Empire, A-H's aggressive actions in the Balkans
    '-> LINKS TO: -Fear of encirclement = all European powers only felt safe in the rising tension by increasing armaments and staying close to their loyal allies (Entente powers of Br, Fr + Ru. Central powers of Ger + A-H)

    NB: If you are choosing this one you SHOULD be aware of the historiography surrounding Germany's blame, particularly Fischer's thesis. In the exam, you will probably get a source where you can comment something along the lines of " '.......' (Source A) rejects Fischer's opinion that Germany went to war on imperialist ambitions alone", or whatever. Link this back to the question though... "and therefore it can be seen how Germany's fear of encirclement was a crucial factor, more so than supposed imperialist ambitions", if that is your argument.

    Pop. + Eff. of Nazi State '33 - '39:

    Well, I am not choosing this one, as I feel there is more to learn and more could be asked of you. However, I can say that you should focus on these areas:

    -Groups that it gained popularity with (e.g. Youth was the most popular?).
    -Lack of opposition + reasons (e.g. Terror, propaganda?).
    -Hitler's role as dictator in the Nazi regime.

    etc.

    How popular was the Nazi Regime 1933-39?

    Spoiler:
    Show
    Reasons for consent

    Removal of the communist threat. Reichstag fire allowed for use of legal means of seizing power.
    Propaganda. Goebbels moved quickly to ensure complete control of the media. Assosciation of German publishers purged of non-Nazis. Editor's law enforced racially pure journalism.
    Cult of the fuhrer. Aimed to identify national rebirth with Hitler. Aimed to make Hitler seem benevolent.
    Reduction of unemployed. State provided money to private companies to create new jobs. Conscription was re-introduced, taking a chunk out of unemployment. Labour Front built roads, further reducing. The unskilled working classes received apprenticeships.
    Economic recovery. Schacht appointed president of Reichsbank. Great economist. Introduced the new plan: Trade agreements with other countries, i.e. in South America. Mefo Bills stimulated economy.
    Fun stuff: KDF gave loyal workers evening classes, package holidays, sporting competitions.
    Weltpolitik once more.

    Gleichschaltung

    The 'Nazification' of German society. People joined the NSDAP to further careers. Various institutions reformed under the Nazi banner (i.e Reich Corporation of German industry) - this eliminated the possibility of rival organisations or dissent.
    All lawyers were co-ordinated into the Nazi lawyers association. This allowed Nazi legislation to be given full legal endorsement. The Reichstag Fire Decree suspended all civil liberties and rights, increased the power of the state, and re-introduced draconian penalties for crime.

    Propaganda

    Goebbels became minister of public enlightenment and propaganda.
    He moved quickly to seize control of ALL forms of communication. The NSDAP had complete control of the media.
    Association of German publishers was purged. The Editor's law enforced racially pure journalism. All Jewish, communist, and socialist journalists were dismissed.
    The cult of the Fuhrer. Aimed to identify national rebirth with Hitler. Aimed to make Hitler appear benevolent. Goebbels used him sparingly to preserve his "god-like mystique"
    The successes of the regime were all linked to Hitler. Most Germans blamed the problems on the extremists rather than the NSDAP.
    Film used. Had innovative directors. Examples include the Triumph of the Will and Olympia.
    State press agency, the DNB, monitored all news material.
    Used the new technology of radio. Produced a very cheap radio for Germans. Could sustain huge audience.

    Economic Recovery

    Working class support was conditional on an improvement in the economic situation.
    NSDAP introduced legislation and initiatives to reduce unemployment.
    Work schemes introduced. Involved many Germans. Built the Autobahn. "The best possible way to bring the German people back into work is to set German economic life once more in motion through great monumental works"
    The state lent money to private companies so that they could create jobs.
    Military conscription was re-introduced which further reduced unemployment.
    NSDAP also tried to help peasantry. Reich food estate took control of planning of agriculture. Reich Farm Law attempted to enhance security of peasant ownership of land.
    A 'battle for production' aimed to stimulate grain production to feed the German population.
    Training schemes for the unskilled and apprenticeships for the working class school leavers.

    Indoctrination

    Boys aged 10-14 joined the German Young People. From 14-16 they joined the Hitler Youth. The Youth Leader of the Reich was told to educate young people "Physically, Mentally, and Morally in the spirit of National Socialism.
    Girls were taught to be loyal, submissive and prolific mothers. They joined the league of young girls at 10 and the league of German girls at 14.
    Membership for groups became compulsory.
    Jewish teachers were fired. Teachers encouraged to join NS Teachers alliance - 97% of teachers joined. Teachers went on courses in Nazi ideology.

    Tensions between armed forces and state

    Aristocratic generals let Hitler take power as they thought he could be tamed within a conservative dominated coalition.
    To Hitler, the "Nazi revolution" meant bringing about cultural change based on the concept of race. The SA called for a "second revolution" - Hitler called for an end to revolution, and changed SA leader Rohm's role.
    The SA got slightly out of hand. For example, in some areas it had its own police force. It had a huge membership. Rohm wanted to turn the SA into a militia - he demanded SA take over national defence.
    Hitler instead gave his support to the Armed Forces. He told Rohm the SA's function was political not military.

    How did the Regime curtail the army?

    Hitler went out if his way to reassure the armed forces of his support. "My faith in the Wehrmacht in unshakable".
    Some army leaders were sceptical about his plans to gain Lebensraum and expand eastwards. They felt Germany was not ready to go to war.
    Hitler found out that War Minister von Blomberg's wife was a prostitute. He fired him.
    Hitler took over the leadership of the army himself.
    Hitler took the opportunity to remove from post those who were not considered to be completely loyal. Hitler had complete control.

    Opposition from the left

    The Communists/KPD are the most obvious threat. The German people themselves felt threatened by a Communist seizure of power. Hitler made it clear his intention was 'To destroy the Marxist threat'.
    The Reichstag Fire gave the Nazis the legal opportunity (through the Fire Decree) to seize power. 10,000 communists arrested.
    Himmler set up a concentration camp at Dachau to house political opponents in 'protective custody'. The repressive state made organisation very, very difficult.
    Evidence of some working class opposition: Wages stagnated, working hour’s lengthened, industrial accidents increased.
    Communist and Socialist divisions once again ****** things up, they couldn’t agree.
    Exiles produced leaflets which were smuggled into Germany.

    Opposition from the Right

    Conservatives thought they'd be able to control Hitler once he'd gotten into power.
    They agreed with Hitler's destruction of democracy. They actively worked towards the Fuhrer.
    Few were willing to resist. Those who did felt that the NSDAP was undermining and morally corrupting Germany.
    Von Papen's "Marburg speech". Praised some aspects of the Regime. Warned against the second revolution. Was a potential rallying call for the army to act. It clarified to Hitler the level of discontent in conservative circles. For the Regime to continue it needed continued economic growth and for this he needed the conservative support.
    Operation Hummingbird was the name of a purge that took place on 30th June. Hitler had heard rumours of an SA rebellion. He arrested Rohm. Political enemies were murdered such as ex-chancellor von Schleicher and Von Bose (the author of the Marubrg speech) and Nazi Radical Strausser.
    Lutze took over Rohm's place. SA's influential position was finished.

    Opposition from Churches

    Protestant national bishop was elected by Hitler.
    Dissident Protestants formed the confession church led by Niemoller. They wanted independence from the regime. Didn't necessarily disagree with it as a whole.
    Leading dissidents easily intimidate and imprisoned.
    Catholics generally answered to the pope moreso than Hitler.
    Hitler signed concordat with Catholics to give church control over education and youth groups in return for political neutrality.

    Terror

    The SS had been accumulating police powers. Goring incorporated the Prussian political police with the Gestapo. Himmler control of police in Bavaria. Himmler became 'inspector of the Gestapo'.
    SS Created a huge concentration camp system in which enemies of the Nazi's could be imprisoned and their Labour exploited.
    SS assumed complete control of running these camps.
    After operation hummingbird, SS became main police arm of the NSDAP with the aim of eliminating opposition within the state.
    Himmler became head of German police in 1936. Controlled everything.
    "Never before in no other land, had an organisation attained such a comprehensive penetration of society, possessed such power and reached such a degree of completeness in its ability to arouse terror and horror".
    Courts deemed that all police actions carrying out the will of the leadership must be legal. They were unrestrained.

    Was the Gestapo overestimated?

    Gestapo only had 32k members in all of Germany. Often short-staffed. In the city of Hanover there were on 42 officers.
    Not that many informers.
    Claims most prosecutions were the result of reporting from hostile or jealous neighbours.

    Resistenz

    Broszat claimed that indifference towards the regime undermined it's authority and impact.
    Examples of resistants include independent institutions such as the church, the armed forces. Expression through groups i.e. factory strike, religious criticisms. Civil disobedience such as not going to NSDAP gatherings, refusal to give Hitler salute. Communities outside those of NS i.e. Social gatherings of SPD, youth groups.
    They played an actual role in curtailing the impact of the nation socialist regime and national socialist ideology.

    Loyal Reluctance

    The idea of people and Resistenz was not so much from a desire to dissent against the regime but for other purposes. For example women wore make up to look good, not dissent.
    A lot of the population were indifferent to politics.
    Their grumbles would have been the same regardless of who had power.


    This post will contain notes uploaded by other users.
    Contribution list

    dancinginrainbows
    SirMasterKey


    Revision notes on our very own wiki
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Unit 4) Historical Assignment/Coursework HELP
    The first thing I do is to get a basic reading list together and try to build up a picture of what the historiography looks like (ie what different writers on the topic have to say about it, and how their works agree/disagree with one another). To do this you might want to contact your teacher, but another good idea would be to e-mail a university professor who might be able to help you out. As long as you're polite about it I'm certain that they wouldn't mind pointing you in the direction of some of the most important texts in the field.

    Once I begin reading I take notes the entire time. Simultaneously I have a document open on my laptop entitled 'ESSAY THOUGHTS' or something similar in which I write down all of the ideas and concerns that spring to mind about the existing texts, their relationship with one another, the problems of the period, the key themes and issues, and — most importantly — how I can say something original on the topic. On the subject of originality, and to pass on a great piece of advice one of my professors gave me: producing 'original' work as a history student doesn't mean unearthing some lost document which transforms the way scholars look at a subject — it means putting the existing evidence together in a different way to give a fresh look at the subject.

    The stage of the research process is two way: reading helps inform my critical thinking about the subject, which in turn informs my reading. Generally speaking, I find that the further into the reading I get the fewer notes I'm lifting directly from the text and the more I'm thinking for myself and adding to my 'essay thoughts' document. To give you an example of what I'm talking about, here's the 'essay thoughts' document on a third year undergraduate essay I wrote on the seventeenth century philosopher Sir Robert Filmer and his contribution to witchcraft theory. Notice how it's almost stream-of-consciousness stuff; I'm noting down vague thoughts, questions which need answering in my essay, and developing a prospective plan for the piece. All of this stuff gets transformed into my essay in some way or another.

    Developing the plan is the next stage of the process, and your introduction and conclusion are the easier parts. My introductions are always straightforward: in my opening sentence I state plainly what my argument is using the phrasing of the question. For example, if the question is "To what extent was Adolf Hitler responsible for the Second World War?" my first sentence will be "This essay argues that Adolf Hitler was entirely responsible for the Second World War". The second introductory sentence sets out how it will be argued (for example "in three parts: the first arguing x, the second y, and the third z"). That's it. There really isn't enough room for waffling on in essays when you've got a couple thousand words to state a case.

    My conclusions all refer back to the issues raised, how they've been tackled, and what remains to be done by historians. For example, in the Filmer essay mentioned above I finished it with the passage:


    "That the Advertisement contains an underlying political message adds to the argument that Filmer should be treated as an altogether more systematic and powerful thinker, with a positive argument about political authority and its grounds which was developed systematically across a range of works, the biblical and philosophical assumptions of which were not always obvious. We thus have the opportunity to reconsider Filmer’s intellectual identity, and can resolve Ian Bostridge's criticism (quoted at the start of this essay) by showing the existence of a relationship between politics and the European witch craze—a relationship which demands further exploration."

    See how I acknowledged that my answer isn't the final say on the question?

    Before you write your introduction and conclusion you need to know what you will be arguing. To do this I write down as part of my 'essay thoughts' document my argument in a single sentence, and all of the reasons why I believe it to be true. Consider your argument to be the skeleton of your essay, and your evidence the muscle which you place upon that skeleton. So, for example, my Filmer essay...

    Argument in a sentence: Sir Robert Filmer's Advertisement for the Jury-Men of Kent concerning witches (1651) is more than a legal guide for identifying and killing witches, but rather it reveals his religious and political prejudices in a way that historians haven't considered.
    Why?: His argument against existing legal practices concerning witches correspond to arguments against certain religious practices as well as social contractarian philosophies.

    The main thing you need to do is START READING. Your ideas will come from that.

    (Original post by Howfener)
    Credit for fine help!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Help on Russia Essay questions

    How significant was the role of war in the development of modern Russia in the years 1856 to 1964?
    The way OCR want you to answer these question to achieve any respectable mark is thematically. The standard three themes that I use for these questions are Economy Society and Politically. Look at the main wars of the period and split the change they brought to Russia.

    Crimean war
    Social change = emancipation of the Serfs
    Political = shows the weakness of the Russia army

    1905 revolution (Russo-Japanese war 1904-5)
    Social change = October manifesto
    Political change = Duma, first time political parties were legal in Russia (stopped in 1921), shows the weakness of the Russia army

    First World War
    Social change = The land the peasants worked on became their own
    Political = massive change, moved from one diametrically opposed ideology to another, but the actual change in the day-to-day running of the country minimal? Also soured the relationship with the West
    --- Pre-Cold War tensions?(good link)
    economic = 1/5 of the pre-war industrial output, but the soviets which were brought in, brought a change in approach from agriculture to industry -- allowed the industrialisation of Russia in the 1930's, never of happened under Tsarism

    Civil War
    Social = The requisition squads destroyed the agriculture / mass hunger
    Political = The agricultural sector resented Communism as it took all their produce seemed unjust to them attempted to hide it and were killed
    Economical = Russia refused to pay the US / UK for the goods given in the war hard to get imports, the economy of the USSR was in turmoil because it couldn't produce itself

    World War Two
    Social = destroyed most of Eastern European part of Russia, 27million died
    Political = great victory for the USSR, the first time Russia 'Won' a war for a century
    Economic = shifted the heavy industry of Russia from west to more central and east

    Cold War
    Economic = made the USSR focus on showing its industrial skill, space race
    Political = frosty reception with the West made it more self-reliant

    Draw all these together into 3 different paragraphs and then say which war was the most important in each, and hopefully you'll have the same war twice or more, then this would be the most significant.

    My general argument would be along the lines of war was the integral factor in Russian development; the First World War was the most significant of these as it brought not just a physical change, but a change in attitudes. It facilitated the quickest industrialisation of a country to date, bringing it from a mediocre menace to arguably the strongest and most influential country in the world. Furthermore the change in approach and attitude improved agriculture by the 1950's Russia was rivalling the US for grain produced per capita. Socially it also was key in changing the focus from agriculture to industry.

    To what extent did the Russian economy improve between 1894 and 1914?


    Here’s some facts

    Industrialisation improved the economy
    Industrial output and mining ( 1900 is 100% the numbers are difficult to convert)
    1880 - 28.2% of the 1900 figure
    1890 - 50.7% of the 1900 figure
    1895 - 70.4% of the 1900 figure
    1904 - 109.5% of the 1900 figure
    1910 - 141.4% of the 1900 figure
    (From 1888 - 1913 the figures show a 5% per year growth in industrial output - GREATER than the USA or Germany in the same period)
    (In 1900 Russia was the biggest producer of oil in the world)

    The great spurt from the 1890's onwards helped the Russian heavy economy develop rapidly. However you've got to bear in mind that the smaller cottage industries were not helped by industrialisation. This is an interesting and useful figure, in 1915 67% (5.2 million) workers involved in industry were employed in cottage industries producing 33% of the output. This meant that 2/3's of the people were producing 1/3 of the good.

    Railways
    (Relative to population and area)
    USA - (1860) 19 (1910) 122
    Germany - (1860) 21 (1910) 75
    UK - (1860) 44 (1910) 69
    Russia (european part) (1860) 1 (1910) 24

    Industrialisation goes where the railway leads. Interesting how by 1910 that it's increased 24 fold in Russia.


    Overseas trade was curbed by import taxes imposed in 1891 by Count Witte to help the Russian economy use Russian goods. This mean't that the Russian economy kept a lot of it's production within the country creating jobs. Furthermore it allowed the production rate to increase which in turn allowed for cheaper exports.

    Agriculture
    Raw cotton ( kilograms per head )
    USA - (1860) 5.8 (1910) 12.7
    Germany - (1860) 1.4 (1910) 6.8
    UK - (1860) 15.1 (1910) 19.8
    Russia (european part) (1860) 0.5 (1910) 3.0

    Seems to suggest Russian agriculture increased 6-fold whereas USA doubled, Germany 4-fold and UK hardly changed.


    Could do a counter argument with this saying that although this did improve, the full force of Count Witte's changes were not felt because of the First World War. Furthermore you can say all the improvements were out-shadowed in scale with Stalin's Five Year Plans.


    Assess the view that the failures of the Provisional Govt were the main factors in enabling Lenin and the Bolsheviks to seize power

    The first thing to do with a question like this is tackle the named factor. The Bolshevik slogan 'Peace, Land and Bread' showed where the weakness in the Prov. Govt. lied. The provisional Govt. continued the war which pushed the strained country to breaking point with a futile war. The food shortages continued under the Prov. Gov. and the spark in the frying pan of revolution was at a bread protest. Finally the peasants still felt aggrieved with the land situation as it resembled greatly the Tsarist regime, the Bolsheviks exploited this by saying that the land which the peasants had would become solely theirs if they took power. Finally I would conclude this with the fact that the Prov. Gov. was just that; provisional. It was not a fixture in Russian politics, it was a stop-gap until the Russian people chose what to replace it permanently.

    Could also mention that they relaxed the strict political laws of Russia allowing free speech i.e radical new political styles (Bolshevism) to be openly considered as realistic styles of govt. Furthermore you can say that the Prov. Gov. allowed political exiles to return to Russia and this is how Lenin was allowed to come back with his April Thesis (with the help of the Germans and a sealed train).


    To what extent did Soviet military power shape the development of the Cold
    War in Europe between 1945 and 1949?


    Military
    - Korean invasion by Russia / Containment adopted by Truman to stop communist spreading. Showed that Soviet military might was a serious threat to the Western bloc. (Although not in Europe certainly shaped the US / Britain's approach to Russia in Europe)
    -Russia annexed large parts of Eastern Europe (eastern Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania part of eastern Finland eastern and Romania) left the US / Britain worried that it would attempt to spread further into Europe, and Britain was worried that they would attempted to dominated the Med. (internal Greek civil war between Royalists and Socialists Britain backed Royalists with money / arms).

    Economic
    -Marshall Plan attempted to rebuild Europe under the US wing. USSR saw this as a thread to the newly gained countries; and therefore distrusted it. It clearly separated the East and West of Europe, because Stalin denied any of the Soviets to accept US aid. Whereas Greece who accepted the aid won the Civil War against Socialists (could use this as a link between paragraphs) and Italy kept out a strong socialist party with the backing of the US.

    Political
    - Two diametrically opposed ideologies meeting in Europe in 45 inevitable that there was going to be a clash. Stalin openly stated that if he co-operated with capitalist states he was regressing communism in the USSR (ComIntern called for communist revolutions abroad)
    - Yelta conference in Feb. 45 failed to agree with the USSR a way for dividing post-Second World War Europe. West wanted democratic states where ever possible, whilst the USSR wanted to keep all the land it gained to strengthen its position.


    Was Tsar Nicholas to blame for the collapse of the Tsarist government?


    The easiest way to answer this question is to have three paragraphs, social economic and political. answer it along the lines of how the economy for example, contributed to the collapse of the Tsarist regime then explore whether Nicholas II was influential in that factor.

    I.e. politically the Tsarist regime collapsed because of poor military performance and weak government at home (he left his wife and Rasputin in Moscow to run internal affairs) therefore you can say that he was to blame for the political failure. This is a very basic paragraph you would need to explore in more depth what I’ve put above but if you did this for the economy and society and draw the conclusion from each paragraph together to give you your conclusion you should have a sound essay.

    To what extent was The First World War a key turning point in the development of modern Russia between 1856-1964?


    A turning point question is not as difficult as people think. Choose three factors (economy, society and politics) and analyse the change brought to these by world war one. then within each of the individual paragraphs choose 2 or 3 if coursework other significant changes and analyse which is the most important in your opinion.

    For example, The First World War brought political change to Russia, First liberalising it with the Provisional Government and then tightened with Communism. The day-to-day running of the country had little change, in fact Bureaucracy increased under Communism and they could be called 'Red Tsars'. However the First World War brought a fundamental change in political thinking. It planted a seed which was not exploited to years after - but this is where it was placed in Russian soil.
    The Russo-Japanese war also brought political reformation and allowed a Duma, and political parties in Russia for the first time. This was seen at the time to be taking Russia down the constitutional monarchy path. If the First World War didn't interrupt I could have been the most significant political reform.
    Thirdly you could talk about the tightening of internal politics in the 1930's this led to the dominance of communism for the next 50/60 years. It tightened the party line and eliminated political factionalism (illegal in the 1920's).

    basic outline of the political turning point paragraph - it needs a conclusion I would prob. agree with the Q that the FWW was the most important here as it didn't bring much physical change, but brought a change in approach.

    (Original post by crocker710)
    Credit for fine help!
    Source: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=1500448
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Thanks dude
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bodybuilder22)
    sorry chap, i realise i sounded rather confrontational. wasn't intended.

    this is bloody useful stuff. thanks.
    Don't worry. I get over-defence as well.

    Glad you like it Its been made a sticky thread now :top:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stricof)
    If you do Edexcel History Unit 3 Kaiser to Fuhrer
    Actually question B will be of similar structure to your unit 2 paper. Obviously it will be more advanced.

    Regardless, the sources guide the answer. This means that you refer to the historical interpretations such as Germany was responsible for pursuing a war of conquest and aggression according to Fischer. And then you add your own knowledge and cross reference with other sources.

    Your question A (sorry I'm working back to front) will be similar structured to the Unit 1 - in the sense that you have no sources and work from own knowledge.
    You will need strong knowledge, but technique is important.

    Point, Evidence, Explain Qualify/contrast
    Qualifying is in particular very important because you show the limitations of the argument. You are looking to show both sides of the argument and come to a weighted conclusion in the end.
    Great stuff! How about this though: instead of PEE (point, explain etc.) you have:

    Statement
    E vidence
    Xplanation

    What do you reckon? :sexface:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inzamam99)
    Great stuff! How about this though: instead of PEE (point, explain etc.) you have:

    Statement
    E vidence
    Xplanation

    What do you reckon? :sexface:
    If it works for you then go for it!! Same principle tbh.. What ever helps you remember
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stricof)
    Okay, I decided to write a mini guide for those of you studying A level History and in particular, the Edexcel examination board for History
    I've written this in mind of my own experiences and the other posts I've helped with.

    You don't have to follow this
    . In fact there are many other ways of achieving your full potential.

    You may contribute if you wish.
    Good luck
    thanks
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Are the access to history books worth it? I got an E in my Britain and Ireland paper and my two main problems were the way the edexcel text book worked for it and exam technique. Was just wandering if these books are worth investing in? :holmes:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by letsdothetimewarpagain)
    Are the access to history books worth it? I got an E in my Britain and Ireland paper and my two main problems were the way the edexcel text book worked for it and exam technique. Was just wandering if these books are worth investing in? :holmes:
    Access to History is better than the exam board book
    The only good thing about the exam board book is that it it has exam questions that could come up in the exam; for they are the exam board :p:

    But Access to history also has exam tuned questions and has been often better with information and technique
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stricof)
    Access to History is better than the exam board book
    The only good thing about the exam board book is that it it has exam questions that could come up in the exam; for they are the exam board :p:

    But Access to history also has exam tuned questions and has been often better with information and technique
    Awesome thanks, I have a copy of the exam board book too but it hurts my brain too much I am going to kick serious ass on this resit
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: July 7, 2017

2,258

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process

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.