From Kaiser to Führer: Germany 1900-1945
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
Hope everyone did well!!
Al
Scroll to see replies
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.
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.
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!
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.
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!
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
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
(edited 10 years ago)
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
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.
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
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!
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!
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.
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
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
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!
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
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
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.
Can't remember what I put for B on WWI but much more confident on that.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Edexcel IGCSE History | DEPTH STUDIES
- Free GCSE textbooks - history of medicine
- free GCSE textbooks - Germany modules
- Gcse past papers
- aqa gcse history 2022
- AQA GCSE History Paper 1 (8145/1) - 18th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- a level history - edexcel cold war coursework
- Cold War 8 marker - can someone read what I've written and feedback?
- Edexcel GCSE History Paper 3 (1HI0 30-33) - 15th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- GSCE Cold war question help
- OCR AS-Level History Unit 2 (Y243,Y249,Y251-253) - 23rd May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- EPQ artefact or essay?
- AQA A-level History USA: Making of a Superpower (7042/1K) - 24 May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- History NEA question for the coursework
- predictions for Edexcel GCSE history !!
- Edexcel GCSE History Paper 1 (1HI0 10-13) - 18th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- An Inspector Calls
- English A Level Coursework
- 2022 papers
- A level english literature
Latest
Trending
Last reply 15 hours ago
AQA A Level History Paper 1 (7042/1A-1L) - 23rd May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 15 hours ago
AQA A Level History Paper 2 (7042/2A-2T) - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 2 days ago
Edexcel A Level History Paper 2 (9HI0 2A-2H) - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 4 days ago
Edexcel GCSE HISTORY PAPER 1 (1HI0 10-13) - 15th MAY [Exam Chat]Last reply 4 days ago
Edexcel A Level History Paper 1 (9HI0 1A-1H) - 23rd May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 week ago
OCR A-Level HISTORY PAPER 3 (Y301-Y321) - 23rd MAY [Exam Chat]Last reply 2 weeks ago
History Edexcel A level Britain Transformed and USA Conformity and ChallengeLast reply 3 months ago
AQA A-level History USA: Making of a Superpower (7042/1K) - 24 May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 months ago
AQA A Level History - Making of Modern Britain(2S) Exam Chat - 9th June 2023Trending
Last reply 15 hours ago
AQA A Level History Paper 1 (7042/1A-1L) - 23rd May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 15 hours ago
AQA A Level History Paper 2 (7042/2A-2T) - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 2 days ago
Edexcel A Level History Paper 2 (9HI0 2A-2H) - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 4 days ago
Edexcel GCSE HISTORY PAPER 1 (1HI0 10-13) - 15th MAY [Exam Chat]Last reply 4 days ago
Edexcel A Level History Paper 1 (9HI0 1A-1H) - 23rd May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 week ago
OCR A-Level HISTORY PAPER 3 (Y301-Y321) - 23rd MAY [Exam Chat]Last reply 2 weeks ago
History Edexcel A level Britain Transformed and USA Conformity and ChallengeLast reply 3 months ago
AQA A-level History USA: Making of a Superpower (7042/1K) - 24 May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 months ago
AQA A Level History - Making of Modern Britain(2S) Exam Chat - 9th June 2023
