Post your questions in this thread. Please include your name. Anonymous postings will not receive a response.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
A place where my students can ask questions and get answers.
About Me
- DJW
- I have been a History teacher since 1973, and Chaplain of Ipswich School since 2002. I was educated at Kingswood School, Bath, and at Jesus College, Cambridge. My main historical interest is Russian History, and I have written two books on that subject: "Russia: a Modern History" (UTP, 1984) and "Chronicle of the Russians Tsars" (Thames and Hudson, 1999). I was ordained deacon in 2004 and priest in 2005 and, as well as working at Ipswich School, I am Honorary Assistant Curate at St. Mary le Tower, the Civic Church of Ipswich. I shall be retiring from Ipswich School in July 2010 and am looking forward to part-time ministry in the Diocese of Edinburgh in the Scottish Episcopal Church.
sorry if this is a stupid comment, but did Prussia get any territorial gains after war with France?
ReplyDeletesorry meant to put that in the year 12 section!
ReplyDeleteThe answer is Alsace-Lorraine. They also forced France to pay a large indemnity (sum of money) to cover the costs of the war.
ReplyDeleteHi Sir, hope the holiday is going alright.
ReplyDeleteOlly Johnson and I were talking about Darre's role in economic policy today and we were both confused by his run in with Schacht, obviously Darre was totally incompetent but were there other contradictory issues which show polyocracy. Olly suggested that Darre represents the butter and Schacht the guns in this debate. Is this true? Also does the whole affair just show that Hitler was both trying to appease the peasants, represented by Darre while still trying to rearm under Schacht and was unable to bring himself to comedown on one side - therefore giving them both power. Finally what was Darre's power?
Hudson
It isn't quite right to say that Darre represented butter and Schacht represented guns, since Darre's principal aim in the period 1933-35 wasn't the boosting of output of food, but the protection of inefficient peasant producers. Schacht (who was economically literate, unlike Darre)understood that Darre's agricultural policies were likely to impede rearmament because Darre was failing to increase food output, and therefore food had to be imported. The recurring balance of trade deficits in 1934 and 1935 were thus made worse by Darre's policies. When Schacht explained this to Hitler in the summer of 1935, Hitler reacted as Schacht had hoped he would and ordered Darre focus on boosting German food output - launching the "Production Battle". So German agricultural policy up to the summer of 1935 is a good example of the kind of lack of joined up thinking than sometimes arose because the government was polycratic, and Hitler's insistence on the "Production Battle" is a good example of Hitler intervening to insist on his personal priorities - in this case rearmament. The "Production Battle" wasn't very effective, and even by 1939 Germany was not entirely self-sufficient in food. Slow progress towards self-sufficiency in food was one of a number of reasons for the adoption of Autarky as the Nazi government's main economic policy in 1936.
ReplyDeleteHope this help - do post supplementary questions if not.
Hey Sir,
ReplyDeleteJust going through precise detail and came across a huge difference between your work book and collier's text book.
The text book says that the 1913 Army Bill included the addition on 136,000 soldiers and officers
Your workbook says the 1912 Army Bill passed in 1913 included 29,000 men.
I'm only asking as it's quite a large difference so one is bound to be wrong.
Kind regards.
Hi Kathryn
ReplyDeleteThey are references to two different bits of legislation - from memory I don't think that Collier mentions the 1912 Bill (passed into law in 1913), but only the 1913 one. My advice is stick with the Collier figure - the key point (that most SPD deputies voted for the bill) is true of both. The examiner is likely to be familiar with the Collier figure.
Hope that helps.
Hi Sir,
ReplyDeleteA couple of questions which i have to ask, the first is, what was the actual aim of the Allied Military Control commission and when did it cease to exist? The other is, when did Von Papen stop being the minister-president of Prussia and who succeeded him?
Yours sincerely
James Burch
Hi James
ReplyDeleteTo answer the simpler question first:
When the coalition cabinet was formed at the end of January 1933, with Hitler as Chancellor, part of the deal was that the role of Minister-President of Prussia passed from von Papen to Goering. Goering then immediatel used these powers to carry out a rapid nazification of Prussia, creating the first Gestapo force anywhere in Germany and also an armed police force which played a significant role in rounding up the SA in Prussia in the Night of the Long Knives.
The Inter Allied Control Commission was set up in 1919 and functioned until 1926, when its role was taken over by the Conference of Allied Ambassadors. Its principal task was to ensure that the Germans complied with the disarmament clauses of the Versailles Treaty, and British and French army officers were based in Germany to carry out inspections. The Commission was very unpopular in Germany (especially during and after the Franco-Belgian occupation of the Ruhr) and there were examples of attacks on Commission officials by ex Freikorps members and Nazis. The Locarno Pact (1925) and Stresemann's fulfilment policy meant that the Commission wasn't really needed any more.
There was a separate Inter-Allied Control Commission for the Rhineland, whose job was to make sure that the Rhineland remained demilitarised in accordance with the terms of the Versailles Treaty. Another consequence of the Locarno Pact was that that Commission was gradually scaled down, with a phased withdrawal of Allied troops from the Rhineland which began in 1927 and was completed in 1930, five years earlier than had been envisaged under the Versailles Treaty.
Hope that helps
DJW
Just quick a question on the essay skills side of things: you laboured heavily the necessity of questioning the interpretations/assumptions in the question in the last Section B/sources questions we did. However I couldn't see this noted in any of the section A feedback sheets we have been given. Is evaluating the question's interpretations still necessary in Part A or would it just be wasted words,
ReplyDeleteThanks, Ben
Hi Ben
ReplyDeleteGood question. The simple answer is "yes, it is worthwhile in Section A", but I need to elaborate that a bit.
Interpretations and assumptions aren't exactly the same thing. Section B questions always offer an interpretation for discussion, and may also contain assumptions. Section A questions don't always offer an interpretation for discussion, and may also contain assumptions.
Examples of possible Section A questions:
" 'The Weimar Republic collapsed because of the impact of the Great Depression' To what extent to you agree? "
That is a question which offers an interpretation for discussion.
"Why were the Nazis able to gain power in January 1933?"
That is a question which does not offer an interpretation for discussion, but does contain a couple of assumptions that need to be questioned - (1)that it was "the Nazis" who gained power, rather than Hitler and a few senior part members (2) that they gained power in January 1933 - to what extent was that the case?
Hope that helps
DJW
Hi Sir,
ReplyDeleteSlightly confused by Collier- at the end of the first chapter he explains that the constituency boundaries benefitted conservative and liberal parties, hence elections were not decided on the popular vote. Am I right in thinking the the system in place was proportional representation, but this operated within each constituency rather than nationally? If so, did this change in 1919?
Thank you very much.
Morning Sir,
ReplyDeleteIm trying to get the order of radicalisation that led to the final solution clear in my head. From my understanding of the text books it went as follows: encouragement of emigration, deportation to poland and thoughts of madagascar, deportation to ghettos (occurring at the same time), Einsatzgruppen random killings, Walansee conference, death camps. obviously there was considerable overlap between all of these areas. Is this all correct?
Hi Tilly
ReplyDeleteYes - there was proportional representation under the 1871 Constitution - large constituencies (large by UK standards) with several members. The 1919 system was very, very similar (you don't need to know about the minor ajdustments). Under both systems, you voted for a party list rather than for individual candidates, and the parties decided the order of candidates in their lists. The 1871 constituency boundaries discriminated against the SPD, in the sense that (apart from in conurbations such as Hamburg, Berlin and the Ruhr) working class voters in provincal towns were outnumbered by middle class and peasant voters in the same towns and the surrounding rural areas. There was some adjustment of constituency boundaries in 1919, which benefited the SPD, but did not enable them to win overall majorities.
Hope that helps.
DJW
Hi Hudson
You've got the developments in the correct order, and you are right to say that there was overlap. Key dates:
September 1939: Einsatzgruppen established in Poland, where concentration of Jews into ghettos begins.
February 1940: First deportations of German Jews to concentration camps in Poland.
July 1940: Adolf Eichmann comes up with the Madagascar Plan.
March 1941: Systematic killing of Jews in Poland by Einsatzgruppen begins.
from June 1941: Einsatzgruppen killings are extended into the Baltic Republics and the occupied parts of the USSR.
July 1941: Probable date of the decision to carry out the Final Solution - ie systematic genocide in death camps.
July 31 1941: Memorandum from Goering to Reinhard Heydrich using the word Endlosung (Final Solution)
September 1941: experiments with Zyklon B gas carried out at Auschwitz.
January 20 1942: Wannsee Conference.
March 1942: First death camp opened at Belzec.
Hope that helps
DJW
Hello Sir,
ReplyDeleteI am sorry this is a petty question.
Whilst looking through the workbook, textbook and Mr GRay's notes I have been a little worried by the slightly different names used for groups, parties, events etc. (SA/ Sturmabteilung, Free Conservatives/ RP, Freisinnige/ DFP)... I was wondering how likely it would be that the exam question might throw me, in using a term I am unfamiliar with. Is just it worth remembering as many different terms as possible?
Thank you.
Hi Sophia
ReplyDeleteIt certainly doesn't help that some political parties either came into being or changed their names after the First World War. Pages 8 and 70-71 of Collier gives good briefings on this, though he fails to explain that the DDP were the successors of the Liberal Progressives (also known as theFreisinnige), or that the DNVP were the successors of the Conservatives and Free Conservatives. I think you can take it that the examiner will use the party names and initials that Collier uses (which are the German initials). Provided you are clear about the material on pages 8 & 70-71, you are unlikely to have a problem.
Hope this helps
Hello again,
ReplyDeleteOn the subject of terror should the line we take be: in 1933 it was used against left (Dachau and the publicity) and that this was, by-enlarge popular? While it was an important element in nazi control it was not the only factor and the gestapo were small. It was then used on the Jews - this was not as popular?
Not a bad summary, but see the material in Collier for the debate about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the Gestapo. Terror was also used very publicly against Conservative and Radical Nazi opponents in the Night of the Long Knives, and that shook people who had hitherto felt that the Terror was only an attack on the Left. Terror against the Jews (eg. the Reichskristallnacht) was relatively unusual - a legalistic and bureaucratic approach was much more common, and this became secretive once the Final Solution got under way. Hope that helps.
ReplyDeleteSorry- Just really quick question. Are Reinhard Heydrich and Richard Heydrich the same person, or different people? The book refers to both Richard and Reinhard, but their roles seem so similar, that I'm wondering if they're actually just the same person. Thank you, Tilly
ReplyDeleteHi Tilly
ReplyDeleteBy "the book" I take it that you mean Collier. There's a reference to Richard Heydrich on p146. It is clear from the context that Collier meant Reinhard Heydrich, who was among other things the head of the SD. It's a misprint.
DJW
hello sir,
ReplyDeleteanother pretty small question, but could you name a few Structuralist/ Functionalist historians we can use in our essays?
-I cant find any specifically referred to as such. though this may be because we can just take the entire weak dictator camp (i.e. Broszat, Mommsen etc)along with Kershaw as being Functionalists. is this true?
Also is it possible to have a summary of Richard Overy's historiographical opinions, as I keep seeing his name, however have no concrete understanding of what it represents.
thanks, Ben
Hi Ben
ReplyDeleteGood questions. You are basically right - believers in Weak Dictator theory tend to be structuralists, also known as functionalists.
Kershaw position on this, as on most things, is fairly middle of the road. He and Evans acknowledge that there were key policy areas which were driven by the intentions of Hitler and other leaders, but that there was also an element of functionalism/structuralism in decision making.
Richard Overy is principally a historian of the economy of the Third Reich and has also written a biography of Goering. He acknowledges that the regime was polycratic and that this weakened economic management. On the other hand, he has made a case for arguing that Goering was in many ways a competent economic manager who got results, though the targets set in the Four Year Plan were unrealistically high. He would on on the intentionalist side of the median line in his view of how policy was made. Hope that helps.
DJW