Thesis Statement
Advice
Content
Perspectives
November 2019
Evaluate domestic resistance to the Nazis.
Discuss the impact of political polarization during the Second Spanish Republic.
May 2019
“Germany experienced a ‘Golden Era’ during the Stresemann years (1924–1929).” To what extent do you agree with this statement?
Evaluate the successes and failures of Mussolini’s domestic policies between 1922 and 1939.
November 2018
Discuss the reasons for the rise to power of Mussolini.
Evaluate social developments in one European country (other than Germany or Italy) in the inter-war years.
May 2018
“Hitler’s consolidation of power between January 1933 and August 1934 was a political revolution.” To what extent do you agree with this statement?
Evaluate the importance of economic and political problems in allowing Mussolini to gain power in Italy in 1922.
November 2017
To what extent do you agree that Hitler was able to consolidate his power by August 1934 because he had the support of the German people?
Evaluate the successes and failures of Primo de Rivera’s government between 1923 and 1930.
May 2017
“Opposition to the Nazi regime was limited and unsuccessful between 1933 and 1939.” To what extent do you agree with this statement?
Discuss the reasons for political polarization in Spain between 1931 and 1936.
Previous Examination Questions
1. Examine the successes and failures of Mussolini’s domestic policies.
2. “In years 1922 to 1939 Mussolini’s foreign policy was a disaster for Italy” Discuss.
3. Analyse the political impact of the Great Depression on any one country of the region.
4. Mussolini wrote “war alone drives men to make their greatest efforts”. In what ways, and with what success, did Mussolini seek to put this belief into practice?
5. “Mussolini’s greatest skill lay in projecting himself through propaganda as a great leader.” How far do you agree with this assertion?
6. What were the main factors that enabled Mussolini to rise to power, and consolidate his position in Italy, between 1918 and 1926?
7. Assess the successes and failures of Mussolini’s domestic policies.
8. “The key factor was their control of the media.” How far does this statement explain the success of Mussolini and Hitler in retaining power in Italy and Germany respectively?
9. Discuss the reasons for the rise to power of Mussolini.
10. Hitler’s greatest skill lay in projecting himself through propaganda as a great leader. How far do you agree with this assertion?
Analyse ‘greatest skill’, ‘projecting himself’ and ‘great leader’. The academic debate on Hitler is how he rose and maintained power so successfully in Germany. It could be the intentionalist V structuralist argument over how he became the Fuhrer. Also, who really knows how much opposition was in Germany. The threat of the Gestapo and the lack of records kept means that evidence is limited.
TS – Throughout the 1930s, German and other European statesmen underestimated Hitler. He took power, made it absolute, and established German as a major power on the continent. The manipulation of others, with the help of propaganda, was arguably his greatest skill.
Underestimated by von Papen and President Hindenburg in 1933. Reichstag Fire and Enabling Act allowed him to acquire much more power. Also underestimated by other European governments, evidence of Rhineland, Sudetenland and the spring/summer of 1940 (Norway and France). Moreover, the Wehrmacht needed Hitler to limit the influence of the SA for them to support the NDSAP.
But propaganda was successful as there was little opposition to the Nazis.
Nationalists would see him as a great leader as he rebuilt the reputation of the country.
OR
TS – To his supporters, Hitler was the saviour Germany badly needed to restore the country. But for the two-thirds of people who did not vote for the National Socialist German Workers Party, he needed an effective propaganda ministry to persuade them he was the great leader Germany needed.
Yes – Hitler set up the Ministry of Propaganda and Enlightenment. Rallies, foreign policy successes screened in cinemas and, as the press was under Reich control, also all over the newspapers. Promoted himself in youth groups
No – Great Man theory – did not need propaganda to explain this. Goebbels in charge of this ministry rather than Hitler – he famously did not involve himself in matters of the state very much, preferring to sleep and lecture subordinates for hours. The economy grew out the Depression, Versailles was torn up, and Germany began to reassert itself on the European stage with foreign policy successes. There was no need for propaganda when policies were successful.
11. How was the Weimar Republic able to survive the crises of 1918 to 1923?
Although the Weimar Republic faced many problems between 1918 to 1923, they were able to survive by focusing on repairing the economy as well as the use of force to quell the political uprisings from the Left and the Right.
Germany was in a heavy financial crisis due to their heavy debt from their loans, hyperinflation and refusal to pay their reparations. The German economy was already slow and the government wanted to stimulate an increase in total demand, hence they refused to raise the taxes. Instead, they resorted to printing money, allowing them to focus on their economy. Furthermore, delays in their reparation payments in 1923 led to the invasion of the Ruhr, eventually resulting in the Dawes Plan , allowing for Germany to make staggered payments.
Niall Ferguson speculates that the Weimar government only paid 19 billion gold marks from the original 132 billion, further estimating the sum only accounted for 2.4%* of Germany’s national income. Hence, if the Weimar government kept the money in Germany, it would have helped them focus on rebuilding the economy by helping the domestic economy.
Niall Ferguson is a historian specialising in economics, international history and financial history. Thus, his perspectives can be seen as valid as he has knowledge of high quality and can be used to support the current argument.
Force was used to quell both Right-Wing and Left-Wing revolutions such as the Spartacist Revolution and the Kapp Putsch. The army was mainly Right-wing and did not want the communists to gain power. When the right-wing Kapp Putsch occurred, it was not supported by right-wing civil servants. The revolution was put on a workers strike, and they were cut off from water, power and transport. The Spartacist Uprising was quelled by the government army and the Freikorps. However, this caused discontent amongst Left-wing politicians as they felt that Ebert had begun to favour the Right.
“The army had preserved a degree of independence which left it virtually untouched by political change. It was a ‘birth defect’ of the Republic that it relied upon an officer corps” – Fritz Fischer. Due to the weak nature of the Weimar Republic during the early 1920s, it had to rely on its army to maintain order and democracy.
Fritz Fischer was a German historian who mainly favoured Right-Wing politics. Hence, his perspective may hold a considerable bias towards the Right and against the Left.
OR
The Weimar Republic was able to survive as a democratic government as they received support due to their democratic legitimacy, the Weimar Republic was respected even during the turmoil experienced from 1918 to 1923. The government also received support from the army because they were a buffer against communism, and was therefore able to overcome the Munich Putsch.
Reichswehr never revolted against the Weimar government in respect for their legitimacy, despite the instability of the government. During the Munich Putsch, the army supported the government in suppressing the revolt despite the fact that the country was dealing with severe hyperinflation, the Reichswehr
Extreme right politicians who had strong ties to the army would encourage their support of the Weimar republic not only due to the decent relations between the SPD and right-winged parties but also to avoid a communist revolution
The right wanted to maintain the rule of the Weimar Republic – power vacuum that the communists could have filled
After the signing of Versailles, many were wary of the government for signing such humiliating terms but as the government was elected with legitimacy, the citizens still abided by the rule of the new government (+ voter turnout)
When the government began disbanding Friekorp groups as a part of the terms of Versailles, a general led 12000 troops to Berlin to declare a new government, however, many civilians did not agree or want to participate in the revolt. The government managed to get the workers to go on strike, leaving the railways, food, water and power supplies to be cut off. The city was a wasteland and the revolt was put to a halt.
British Historian Anthony Wood argues that the response to Versailles was emotional rather than rational. So when the citizens were faced with the revolt, they rationalized the consequences of dethroning the legitimate government and decided against it, ultimately they would support the government as this was the practical course of action. He was British historian, an expert on nineteenth and twentieth-century European history and has written multiple books on these areas of study as a publishing author his research needs to be of substantial reliability therefore giving the argument credibility.
Despite their legitimacy, due to the economic condition of the country, there was a lot of discontent which led to the increase of support for left and right parties. The government had to form coalitions of the SPD with the right-wing German People’s Party and German Democratic Party (DVP and DDP). This was accepted by centre-right parties but added to the conflict of decision making and stability that Germany needed.
Therefore it can be argued that they did not respect the legitimacy of the government because of the coups that were formed and the multiple recurring attempts for revolution
During the uprising prior to the June 1920 elections, the Weimar Republic moved to Dresden when 12000 soldiers were led into Berlin. The army was commanded to stop the uprising, but commander Hans von Seekt replied: “troops do not fire on troops”. First-Hand account that may not be reliable due to issues in translation, however, the army actually did not get involved, so the likelihood that the consensus of the army was to avoid getting involved is likely
Conclusion
The Weimar Republic was able to survive as a democratic government as it received support due to their democratic legitimacy, the Weimar Republic was respected even during the turmoil experienced from 1918 to 1923. While the government received support from the army during the Munich Putsch, the army was not involved in other revolts and the government relied mainly on the support of citizens and workers.
Remains a debate as the Weimar republic is seen as a failure as it was overthrown by Hitler’s party, but during their time in power, they were able to face a significant amount of turmoil and maintain the majority support of the country