Turn on thread page Beta

From Kaiser to Führer: Germany 1900-1945 watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    So...... how did everyone find it??? I did the Weimar question for Part A and the 'Germans accepted Hitler as Fuhrer' for Part B. Overall I think I was more confident on Part B since I really wanted the golden years to come up for A, although I have to say I'm glad that a Weimar question did come up in some shape.

    Hope everyone did well!!

    Al
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    We are allowed to talk about this edexcel exam now aren't we since it is after midnight???
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Did the Weimar question 1919-1924 which actually wasn't a bad question. It could have been much worse a question. I also did the "After 1933..." question. I have to say though they really went out with the Historians names in these sources. Ludcke and Acyoberry. Every two seconds I had to look whether the Umlaut was in the right place!

    For the Weimar question I'm skeptical about the points I made so could somebody please clarify. Were the points meant to be.

    Right Wing Violence
    Left Wing Violence
    Traditional Elites Hostility (In relation to both forms of violence)
    Weimar Constitution

    Just I wasn't 100% sure about the points for this exam.

    Either way it could have been a lot worse.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PierceBrosnan)
    I have to say though they really went out with the Historians names in these sources. Ludcke and Acyoberry. Every two seconds I had to look whether the Umlaut was in the right place!
    Ahaha the unusual names caught be out too!! I have to say the last source (source 6?) about the camps was rather naffs... it should of been more opinionated rather than stating facts!
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PierceBrosnan)
    Did the Weimar question 1919-1924 which actually wasn't a bad question. It could have been much worse a question. I also did the "After 1933..." question. I have to say though they really went out with the Historians names in these sources. Ludcke and Acyoberry. Every two seconds I had to look whether the Umlaut was in the right place!

    For the Weimar question I'm skeptical about the points I made so could somebody please clarify. Were the points meant to be.

    Right Wing Violence
    Left Wing Violence
    Traditional Elites Hostility (In relation to both forms of violence)
    Weimar Constitution

    Just I wasn't 100% sure about the points for this exam.

    Either way it could have been a lot worse.
    I did the Weimar one, I wrote about left wing political extremism in regards to the Spartacists (and mentioned the KPD and their support in the Reichstag, but felt I didn't have the time to expand on this so just mentioned it linked to the Spartacists, think I mentioned about proportional representation but i'm not sure, didn't get to write what I'd have linked to tho), wrote about right wing in regards to the Kapp Putsch, which I mentioned along with the Munich Putsch, and the Consul Organisation and assassinations and linked those to in the army/judiciary like you did, by this time I was running out of time so I did my conclusion and shoved in everything I hadn't wrote about but would like to mention - treaty of Versailles, economic situation (inflation), mentioned a historian. looks like we did similar points though, which is a relief because I wasn't 100% either!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Seems likes was the only person in my school and on here that did the impact of WW1 question for part A. :/ my paragraphs were that divisions did increase politically and socially, that they decreased and then that they didn't change. Did the causes question for part B
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I did the Impact of WW1 Question, I would have probably done better on the Weimar question but the wording of the question threw me off so I just did the other one.

    It looks like I was the only one at my 6th form to do that question :/


    I split it as political: Start of wars unity, then military failures
    political: key individuals
    social: shortages


    I know I should of written more for social really but my mind was blank
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BulletproofHeart)
    I did the Impact of WW1 Question, I would have probably done better on the Weimar question but the wording of the question threw me off so I just did the other one.

    It looks like I was the only one at my 6th form to do that question :/


    I split it as political: Start of wars unity, then military failures
    political: key individuals
    social: shortages


    I know I should of written more for social really but my mind was blank
    For the social side of the essay I just talked about how divisions were widening near the end of the war because you had the turnip famine, infant mortality rate rose by 50%, 1.8 mil died on the German side and then you had the spanish flu epidemic which killed 20-40 million in europe. Then for divisions narrowing I had real trouble with the social side but I put the auxiliary service law in because it was meant to mobilise the entire workforce. As for divisions not changing, I didn't really balance my argument I just used the social bit more as an evaluative point by saying there definitely had been a change because near the end you had workers strikes, the navy strike in Kiel. etc

    Overall I did write more about the political side of things but there's more to write about.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Everything i wanted came up so the exam was good. I did Weimar and Causes of WWI.

    Weimar i sectioned it out between the Left, Right, ToV and Constitution.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vaguity)
    I did the Weimar one, I wrote about left wing political extremism in regards to the Spartacists (and mentioned the KPD and their support in the Reichstag, but felt I didn't have the time to expand on this so just mentioned it linked to the Spartacists, think I mentioned about proportional representation but i'm not sure, didn't get to write what I'd have linked to tho), wrote about right wing in regards to the Kapp Putsch, which I mentioned along with the Munich Putsch, and the Consul Organisation and assassinations and linked those to in the army/judiciary like you did, by this time I was running out of time so I did my conclusion and shoved in everything I hadn't wrote about but would like to mention - treaty of Versailles, economic situation (inflation), mentioned a historian. looks like we did similar points though, which is a relief because I wasn't 100% either!
    Awesome, thanks! You've made me feel a lot better about how this exam went. A grade hopefully here we come.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I opened the booklet and spent about 10 minutes trying to decide which question to do for Part A, did the impact of WW1 in the end actually think I wrote a decent essay for that

    Then for part B I did the one about accepting Hitler as Fuhrer. I think I might have gone off on a tangent a bit and the sources weren't the most easy to use but hopefully I've done enough!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PierceBrosnan)
    Did the Weimar question 1919-1924 which actually wasn't a bad question. It could have been much worse a question. I also did the "After 1933..." question. I have to say though they really went out with the Historians names in these sources. Ludcke and Acyoberry. Every two seconds I had to look whether the Umlaut was in the right place!

    For the Weimar question I'm skeptical about the points I made so could somebody please clarify. Were the points meant to be.

    Right Wing Violence
    Left Wing Violence
    Traditional Elites Hostility (In relation to both forms of violence)
    Weimar Constitution

    Just I wasn't 100% sure about the points for this exam.

    Either way it could have been a lot worse.
    hey i did the same question though as it was worded to what extent did polictical extremists threaten weimar, i only focused on the polictical threats. i didnt think the constitution or the economic crash would be suitable points due the fact that it was specific to the political threats not the general threat to weimar. i grouped my points in terms of

    the threat from the right - kapp/munich/organisational consul
    threat from the left - sparactists
    i then argued that neither side was a proper threat due to the fact that neither succeeded in overthrowing government. from that i argued that extremists became a threat due to the government moving to the right - seen through hitler only serving 6 months for the munich putsch and the left, who were not a threat at all, being treated harshly from the friekorps
    i then duscussed how weimar was able to overcome these threats ie the fact that the right did not have widespread support etc

    How do you think this sounds?

    i did the nazis for part b and argued the points of how they accepted hitler due to popular benefits/accepted the nazis due to the fact that the terror of dachau was cleverly presented in the media
    my other side was that there was little acceptance due to the failures of policies such industrialists being heavily taxed yet the presence of camps prevented discontent from becoming public/and that there was little acceptance for hitler due to the fact that opposition existed ie through the church

    Do you think my approach to the questions sound decent?

    Cheers
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mcwall1)
    hey i did the same question though as it was worded to what extent did polictical extremists threaten weimar, i only focused on the polictical threats. i didnt think the constitution or the economic crash would be suitable points due the fact that it was specific to the political threats not the general threat to weimar.
    Cheers
    You are right. This is something they will pick up on. Although I do think mentioning the constitution is important. Ie Ebert's use of article 48 in the Sparticist uprising. I also talked about the threats from left and right including Red Bavaria and the Munich Putsch. I also talked a bit about why political extremists did not pose a threat from a popularity of the Republic basis and also the disunity of the extremists. I did the WW1 controversy, I thought it was a really nice question!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mcwall1)
    hey i did the same question though as it was worded to what extent did polictical extremists threaten weimar, i only focused on the polictical threats. i didnt think the constitution or the economic crash would be suitable points due the fact that it was specific to the political threats not the general threat to weimar. i grouped my points in terms of

    the threat from the right - kapp/munich/organisational consul
    threat from the left - sparactists
    i then argued that neither side was a proper threat due to the fact that neither succeeded in overthrowing government. from that i argued that extremists became a threat due to the government moving to the right - seen through hitler only serving 6 months for the munich putsch and the left, who were not a threat at all, being treated harshly from the friekorps
    i then duscussed how weimar was able to overcome these threats ie the fact that the right did not have widespread support etc

    How do you think this sounds?

    i did the nazis for part b and argued the points of how they accepted hitler due to popular benefits/accepted the nazis due to the fact that the terror of dachau was cleverly presented in the media
    my other side was that there was little acceptance due to the failures of policies such industrialists being heavily taxed yet the presence of camps prevented discontent from becoming public/and that there was little acceptance for hitler due to the fact that opposition existed ie through the church

    Do you think my approach to the questions sound decent?

    Cheers
    I didn't really cover economics though now I realised I could have chucked the Dawes Plan in.

    With Part B I Kind of made a majority argument on popularity and the bits why. Referenced quite a few historians Goldhagen, Brozat, Galletly, Johnson, Kershaw, Mommsen, Fullbrook etc... I have always put Roger Griffin in to argue that Paligenesis was obviously going to be popular but for some reason I didn't. I put the Church is as opposition particularly when Boullhier's T4 Plan came in. Although, they weren't really in opposition to the Anti Semetism hence the Reichskonkordat with Pius XI.

    I also referenced Galletly from another source where there was a "communal bonding based on the exclusion of Jews and others deemed racially inferior."

    Oh and loyal reluctance.

    I'm sure you did fine

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I was far too vague on my Weimar question. Just did general paragraphs for each wing's violence without naming anyone other than Ebert and then something about how most Germans thought the system was naff, which I have a feeling I made up..

    Can't remember what I put for B on WWI but much more confident on that.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'm slightly confused with the Weimar question.

    I believe the question was 'how far do you agree that the new Weimar Republic faced serious threats from political extremists in the years 1919-1924?'

    In the end I went for a 'for/against' answer rather than an 'other factors' answer, I only mentioned the ToV/Constitution in passing and in reference to my argument rather than going for seperate paragraphs.

    In the end I went for why the left/right were NOT a serious threat, then why they CAN be considered a serious threat, then came to a judgement. My basic judgement was that both left and right can be considered a threat but not a serious threat. They did not acheive their aims of overthrowing the Republic however they were able to expose its weaknesses, ie lack of reliable defense (Freikorps) / judiciary system / constitution.

    The WWI controversy was a dream, the Sources were easy to link and pit against each other and drew out plenty of own knowledge. I actually enjoyed that question!

    How did you guys approach it?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    My approach to part A was to sit sobbing my way through 1 and a half pages of pure unadulterated ****e, and then part B was pretty much as you described it. I took the argument the question asked you to discuss and made a paragraph of it then went on to explain other ideas about why the war broke out ranging from the alliances to paranoia of possible attack from Russia and France. I also hinted at German superiority complex at one point.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JD95)
    I was far too vague on my Weimar question. Just did general paragraphs for each wing's violence without naming anyone other than Ebert and then something about how most Germans thought the system was naff, which I have a feeling I made up..

    Can't remember what I put for B on WWI but much more confident on that.
    Did you not mention Spartacists, Bavarian Republic, Munich or Kapp-Lutwitz Putsch?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by YoloPirate)
    Did you not mention Spartacists, Bavarian Republic, Munich or Kapp-Lutwitz Putsch?
    I mentioned the Spartacist revolt but I couldn't remember the name of it so just had to refer to it as a left wing uprising, and I referred to the Kapp putsch but vaguely. I've done horrifically on that question and I know it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hey I did the Weimar Q and then the Nazi popularity Controversy

    For part A I stated that my points were all threats but then debated whether they could be considered 'serious' or not. I did a similar thing on a past paper and it got me a good mark do fingers crossed

    I was not a fan of the sources for part B but what can you do, eh? Overall I thought the questions were not half bad this year


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 

University open days

  1. University of Bradford
    University-wide Postgraduate
    Wed, 25 Jul '18
  2. University of Buckingham
    Psychology Taster Tutorial Undergraduate
    Wed, 25 Jul '18
  3. Bournemouth University
    Clearing Campus Visit Undergraduate
    Wed, 1 Aug '18
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?

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.