Join TSR now and get all your revision questions answeredSign up now

Anyone doing A2 EDEXCEL Kaiser to Fuhrer for June? (2013) Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ExamWhizz)
    So am i right in saying that, what you wrote is all they can ask you in both sections?

    Thanks for replying btw
    Yes, that is the whole course, divided into each section where a question could be asked.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indyy)
    One about the Weimar 1919-23 and Golden Years 1924-29.
    So ToV would come under 'the early problems of Weimar' right? Yes,,, Oh God, still got all the Nazi section to do.... ARGHHHHHH
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kousar)
    What kind of question would include the treaty of Versailles in its answer? I'm really stuck. Im just focusing on Weimar and doing nothing on the holocaust etc
    Threats to Weimar as associated with the treaty
    and...
    Golden years due to reparations
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kousar)
    So ToV would come under 'the early problems of Weimar' right? Yes,,, Oh God, still got all the Nazi section to do.... ARGHHHHHH

    Early Years:
    Hindenburg called it a Dikat (Dictated without negotiation) and that shouldn't of been signed because it was a shameful peace.

    ToV fuelled the right with growing resentment and hatred. I.E stab in the back, november criminal myths, Article 231. Therefore, making them pose a much bigger threat to Weimar.

    Army hated Weimar because ToV reduced her army to 100,000 men. You can talk about the issues of reparations and link the ToV to the Ruhr Crisis which led to hyperinflation.

    Golden years:
    Then for Stresemann, you focus on the extent that the ToV was revised. I.E his policy of fulfilment, the Dawes/Young Plans, influx in capital by foreign countires to help repayments etc.

    I hope that helped!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indyy)
    Early Years:
    Hindenburg called it a Dikat (Dictated without negotiation) and that shouldn't of been signed because it was a shameful peace.

    ToV fuelled the right with growing resentment and hatred. I.E stab in the back, november criminal myths, Article 231. Therefore, making them pose a much bigger threat to Weimar.

    Army hated Weimar because ToV reduced her army to 100,000 men. You can talk about the issues of reparations and link the ToV to the Ruhr Crisis which led to hyperinflation.

    Golden years:
    Then for Stresemann, you focus on the extent that the ToV was revised. I.E his policy of fulfilment, the Dawes/Young Plans, influx in capital by foreign countires to help repayments etc.

    I hope that helped!
    Dank youuu!! ahah, another question (I'm probably damn right bugging you now, you want to revise, right?!) What questions do you think they can torture us with for the 1939-1945 section?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kousar)
    Dank youuu!! ahah, another question (I'm probably damn right bugging you now, you want to revise, right?!) What questions do you think they can torture us with for the 1939-1945 section?
    Everyone thinks War Economy. Final Solution/Opposition has come up already.

    But then again, 1939-45 might not even come up because it already came up twice in three years.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Another thing, Ludendorff was a hypocrite right? Because he deliberately wanted the democratic government to get blame for the WW1 defeat even though he's the one who suggested signing an armistice etc....
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    They could easily 'throw' you though, they tend to do that. They might end up chucking another Final Solution one at us- I'd possibly weep in the exam if they did that......
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kousar)
    Another thing, Ludendorff was a hypocrite right? Because he deliberately wanted the democratic government to get blame for the WW1 defeat even though he's the one who suggested signing an armistice etc....
    Hindenburg suggested the armistice in September 1918 and this was hypocritical because he said the TofV was a diktat and shameful peace that should not have been signed.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by grace_amelia)
    Hindenburg suggested the armistice in September 1918 and this was hypocritical because he said the TofV was a diktat and shameful peace that should not have been signed.
    Thanks for the correction
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kousar)
    Another thing, Ludendorff was a hypocrite right? Because he deliberately wanted the democratic government to get blame for the WW1 defeat even though he's the one who suggested signing an armistice etc....
    I got that as Hindenburg.. LOL

    Edit- Yeah, i saw someone corrected ya!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gingerbread95)
    Oh god i hope there won't be anything horrible
    I have no idea what to concentrate on but i'm kind of just doing an overview of everything now What did you get last year?
    I got a in russia and full marks in ireland... so two a's.

    Wbu?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ExamWhizz)
    I got a in russia and full marks in ireland... so two a's.

    Wbu?
    Wow that's amazing! I got two B's in Ireland and Medieval history
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If anyone is doing Controversy A, I am really confused about the two Fischer (things?)

    Fischer 1 - Thesis - what does it do?

    Fischer 2 - what does it do thats different to 1?

    Is Fischer 1 laying the sole blame on Bethmann-Hollweg?
    Is Fischer 2 solely about the War Council of 1912 or is that just a random piece of evidence that can be used to support/challenge and nothing to do with Fischer?
    Who is being blamed in Fischer 2? Is it still Bethmann-Hollweg?

    Also, is there any difference between a continental and a general European War? Does Britain's involvement make it a European War (because it's part of Europe) or a World War (because of its colonies?) Or does it not even become a world war until the USA enters?

    And, was Italy relevant in this war in accordance to what we need to know?

    Sorry and thanks!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sarah-marsbars)
    If anyone is doing Controversy A, I am really confused about the two Fischer (things?)

    Fischer 1 - Thesis - what does it do?

    Fischer 2 - what does it do thats different to 1?

    Is Fischer 1 laying the sole blame on Bethmann-Hollweg?
    Is Fischer 2 solely about the War Council of 1912 or is that just a random piece of evidence that can be used to support/challenge and nothing to do with Fischer?
    Who is being blamed in Fischer 2? Is it still Bethmann-Hollweg?

    Also, is there any difference between a continental and a general European War? Does Britain's involvement make it a European War (because it's part of Europe) or a World War (because of its colonies?) Or does it not even become a world war until the USA enters?

    And, was Italy relevant in this war in accordance to what we need to know?

    Sorry and thanks!
    Hey no need to apologise, this is what the thread is for In terms of Fischer 1 and 2, I only know one Fischer! I think you're worrying too much about, Fischer just simply believed Germany pursued a war of aggression. If you google this you might get additional information and reassurance, I might type some stuff up about Fischer for you if you want? You don't need to worry about Italy
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kousar)
    Hey no need to apologise, this is what the thread is for In terms of Fischer 1 and 2, I only know one Fischer! I think you're worrying too much about, Fischer just simply believed Germany pursued a war of aggression. If you google this you might get additional information and reassurance, I might type some stuff up about Fischer for you if you want? You don't need to worry about Italy
    Oh ok aha to clarify I meant:
    Fischer Thesis (1961) - where he talked about Bethmann-Hollweg (and the September Programme?)
    And his book 'War of Illusions' (1969) - that's the bit I'm mainly confused on - he believed that Germany pursued a war of aggression but who in Germany like the Kaiser, Bethmann-Hollweg, all the elite, general public consensus, just the military generals?
    And I thought that Fischer was the one who brought the War Council of 1912 to light (where they plan the annexation of the countries before WWI started) but now I can't find anything relating the two anywhere ><

    But yeah, you're right I think I am delving too much into it, the main point is his interpretation on the situation - which is that Germany was aggressive and is to blame

    Thank you for replying!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sarah-marsbars)
    Oh ok aha to clarify I meant:
    Fischer Thesis (1961) - where he talked about Bethmann-Hollweg (and the September Programme?)
    And his book 'War of Illusions' (1969) - that's the bit I'm mainly confused on - he believed that Germany pursued a war of aggression but who in Germany like the Kaiser, Bethmann-Hollweg, all the elite, general public consensus, just the military generals?
    And I thought that Fischer was the one who brought the War Council of 1912 to light (where they plan the annexation of the countries before WWI started) but now I can't find anything relating the two anywhere ><

    But yeah, you're right I think I am delving too much into it, the main point is his interpretation on the situation - which is that Germany was aggressive and is to blame

    Thank you for replying!
    Basically, Fischer put the blame on Germany. I.E Germany planned for war and world domination.-- Shown in Bethmann Holwegg's secretary document as they were 'planning for war'.

    He also hoped the 'blank cheque' led the outbreak of war. Other things he said are that Weltpolitik was a grand plan for world power, and that the Germany wanted the same No. of Colonies as Britain, if not more.

    But, you can counter flaws in Fischer's thesis as No.1, Austria had sense of control by being granted a 'blank cheque'. No. 2, If Germany wanted world domination, why didnt they take Morocco region from the French?

    Fischer's war of illusions links in with Primat Der Innenpolitk (Solve domestic issues). He stated in his book that 'Germany used war for difficult internal problems''. - Evidence from the diary of Admiral Muller from the War council in 1912. The diary stated that the path to war was decided, and B/Hollwegg had to get things prepared diplomatically for war.

    That's all you need to know in regards to Fisher. But, you need to know other historians who counter him. Such as Hildlerbrand, Scholugen, David Lloyd George and James Joll. (Not them specifically, but there are many others who countered his viewpoint that Germany was to blame)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    NAZI WAR ECONOMY

    -how efficient was it? THE POSITIVES

    ~between 1939 and 1941 (Germany military expenditure doubled)

    ~by 1941 55% of the workforce was involved with war related projects

    DESPITE SUCH EFFORTS: G productivity was disappointing as they were far below that of their enemies=

    Britain produced TWICE as many AIRCRAFT as G in 1941

    USSR 2600 MORE TANKS!!!!!

    *The chaotic organisation of the Nazi state hindered economic efficiency: The Office of the Four Year Plan, parts of the SS, Ministry of Economics , the Ministry of Armaments and the armed forces ALL HAD SAME RESPONSIBILITIES FOR ARAMAMENTS PRODUCTION....

    THE APPOINTMENT OF ALBERT SPEER- FEBRUARY 1942 (following Fritz Todt's death)

    Todt (head of MoA) resolved these difficulties and SIMPLIFIED the production of armaments in January 1942

    SEPTEMBER 1943: Speer's powers extended whenhe was given full responsibility for ALL industry and RAW MATERIALS as MoA and Production
    He took a number of actions:

    1) CENTRAL PLANNING BOARD established to coordinate economic organisation

    2) Trying to EXCLUDE the military from economic planning

    3) Encouraging the EMPLOYMENT of women

    4) Using CC prisoners as labour

    5) Preventing the conscription of skilled workers

    6) DEPLOYING production lines


    AMMUNITION PRODUCTION ROSE BY 97 per cent

    TANK by 25 per cent

    TOTAL ARMS by 59 per cent

    BETWEEN 1942 AND 1944 GERMAN WAR PRODUCTION TREBLED
    PRODUCTION= 60% in munitions (is this all there is for war economy??) :/
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M86)
    How would you guys structure a ww2 economy essay?
    I have chaotic nature, raw materials and labour as main paragraphs but don't know if this is enough?

    Thanks
    Hey, about war economy I have,
    1) shortages of labour( one of many problems that showed how Germany was unprepared for war unlike other countries, problems like focusing on consumer production rather than on arms industry causes shift of labour investment and priorities towards munitions, economy can't reach standards, made up shortages with foreign prison workers from France and other countries but not enough, Fritz Sauckel issues decree for compulsory labour and almost 6.7 million are gathered, still low production due to beheviour of nazis)
    2)shortages of raw materials(conquer and control natural resources of countries to win a major war, imported from sweeden, annexations and providance of resources, economic reason for invasion of USSR, oil supplier solely Romania, generally not enough material to sustain home front and war effort of country engadged in total war)
    3)Nazi ideology ( bad treatment of foreign prisoners, women
    4)chaotic nature of nazi state ( agencies, looting of countries, speer benefiting by ignoring scorched earth policy)
    5) Speer and his achievements ( just to say that he is the least important reason and that he mainly benefited the war economy)


    Hope it helps everybody! i really hope it's the one otherwise i dont know how much im gonna cry tomorrow..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Does anyone reckon the Wiemar republic will likely to come up in part a)?
 
 
 
Poll
Which web browser do you use?

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.