Weimar Republic

The Munich Putsch failed for a number of reasons. Hitler was forced to act too quickly and to make a hasty, spontaneous response because of ill-judged and flawed plans that were based on too many assumptions. Hitler assumed that the time was right. The invasion of the Ruhr resulted in the crisis of Hyperinflation which caused disorder in Germany. Hitler believed that the people wanted a weak end to Germany and he thought that he had a lot of supporters. However, Hitler was mistaken because he had left the Putsch too late.

By November 1923, the worst of Hyperinflation was over and the Germans had faith in Gustav Stresseman, as Chancellor, to solve their problems. The Putsch failed because Hitler was misguided and didn’t see the wider picture. He was too focused on Bavaria and he didn’t think things through. Hitler’s plan was to March on Berlin, gathering support, just like Mussolini had marched on Rome in 1922. Hitler was nai??ve and shortsighted, he assumed too much. He thought that he could just take over Berlin and everyone would just follow him hen nobody even knew whom he was. Hitler felt he had to act because he had heard that Ritter Von Kahr was threatening to make Bavaria a republic.

This would ruin Hitler’s plans. On the 8th November 1923, Hitler panicked. He burst into the Beer Hall because he believed that Kahr was going to announce a Republic. 600 SA surrounded the hall while Hitler put a gun to Kahr’s head and forced him to support Hitler’s revolution. Hitler also got General Luddendorff to offer his support. Hitler then et Kahr go after he promised to come back in the morning. He was nai??ve and he didn’t think that Kahr would warn the police or army about his plans. Hitler was impulsive and he didn’t think about the consequences of his actions. On the morning of 9th November Hitler began the Putsch with 2,000 instead of 55,000 men. His uncoordinated plans, poor organisation and impulsive acts left no time for clear instructions. This meant that so many Nazis turned up either late or confused.

The result of this was that the police killed 16 Nazis and injured over 100 people, including Hitler. However, Hitler and Luddendorff were later arrested and charged with treason. However, it can also be argued that in the long term the Putsch didn’t really fail. He gave Hitler widespread publicity and his name was spread all over Germany. He learnt from his mistakes, and realised that the only way to seize power was through elections. 10 years later, he would be voted leader of Germany.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was executed in a German prison camp in April 1945, aged only 39 and at a time when the war was almost over. He is generally considered to be a martyr, dying because of his tremendous Christian faith. His life however started out as the youngest son in a large, happy and wealthy family. Although his father was an agnostic Bonhoeffer entered the Lutheran ministry, unlike his brothers who preferred more well paid carers in law and research. With Hitler’s rise to power his church was not prepared to make any stand against him.

The seminary, of which he was head, was forced to move underground. At this period he wrote ‘The Cost of Discipleship’ in which he asks the questions ‘How do I live a Christian life in the world? What does it mean to be a disciple of Jesus Christ? ’ From that time he became politically active against Hitler, even travelling to America in order to gain support. He soon returns because of his belief that if he is to take an active role in post-war Germany he must also share the difficulties with his people.

He moves from the pacifism of figures such as Mahatma Ghandi, whom he had hope to visit one day to direct action, even taking part in an assassination plot. In 1943, soon after his engagement he is imprisoned. His letters from prison are positive in their nature. Two years later he is moved, first to the concentration camp at Buchenwald, and then to Flossenburg. There he asks to conduct a service for the other prisoners – his texts are Isaiah 53 v 5 which speaks of being healed by Christ, and 1 Peter 1 v 3 which talks of the hope of resurrection. That same day he is taken to his death and to eternal life.

www. studyguide. pk UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL EXAMINATIONS GCE Advanced Subsidiary Level and GCE Advanced Level MARK SCHEME for the May/June 2008 question paper 9697 HISTORY 9697/01 Paper 1, maximum raw mark 100 This mark scheme is published as an aid to teachers and candidates, to indicate the requirements of the examination. It shows the basis on which Examiners were instructed to award marks. It does not indicate the details of the discussions that took place at an Examiners’ meeting before marking began.

All Examiners are instructed that alternative correct answers and unexpected approaches in candidates’ scripts must be given marks that fairly reflect the relevant knowledge and skills demonstrated. Mark schemes must be read in conjunction with the question papers and the report on the examination. • CIE will not enter into discussions or correspondence in connection with these mark schemes. CIE is publishing the mark schemes for the May/June 2008 question papers for most IGCSE, GCE Advanced Level and Advanced Subsidiary Level syllabuses and some Ordinary Level syllabuses. www. xtremepapers. net www. studyguide. pk Page 2

Mark Scheme GCE A/AS LEVEL – May/June 2008 Syllabus 9697 Paper 01 GENERIC MARK BANDS FOR ESSAY QUESTIONS Examiners will assess which Level of Response best reflects most of the answer. An answer will not be required to demonstrate all of the descriptions in a particular Level to qualify for a Mark Band. In bands of 3 or 4 marks, examiners will normally award the middle mark/one of the middle marks, moderating it up or down according to the particular qualities of the answer. In bands of 2 marks, examiners should award the lower mark if an answer just deserves the band and the higher mark if the answer clearly deserves the band.

Band 1 Marks 21–25 Levels of Response The approach will be consistently analytical or explanatory rather than descriptive or narrative. Essays will be fully relevant. The argument will be structured coherently and supported by very appropriate factual material and ideas. The writing will be accurate. At the lower end of the band, there may be some weaker sections but the overall quality will show that the candidate is in control of the argument. The best answers must be awarded 25 marks. 2 18–20 Essays will be focused clearly on the demands of the question but there will be some unevenness.

The approach will be mostly analytical or explanatory rather than descriptive or narrative. The answer will be mostly relevant. Most of the argument will be structured coherently and supported by largely accurate factual material. The impression will be that a good solid answer has been provided. 3 16–17 Essays will reflect a clear understanding of the question and a fair attempt to provide an argument and factual knowledge to answer it. The approach will contain analysis or explanation but there may be some heavily descriptive or narrative passages. The answer will be largely relevant.

Essays will achieve a genuine argument but may lack balance and depth in factual knowledge. Most of the answer will be structured satisfactorily but some parts may lack full coherence. 4 14–15 Essays will indicate attempts to argue relevantly although often implicitly. The approach will depend more on some heavily descriptive or narrative passages than on analysis or explanation, which may be limited to introductions and conclusions. Factual material, sometimes very full, will be used to impart information or describe events rather than to address directly the requirements of the question.

The structure of the argument could be organised more effectively. 5 11–13 Essays will offer some appropriate elements but there will be little attempt generally to link factual material to the requirements of the question. The approach will lack analysis and the quality of the description or narrative, although sufficiently accurate and relevant to the topic if not the particular question, will not be linked effectively to the argument. The structure will show weaknesses and the treatment of topics within the answer will be unbalanced. 6 8-10 Essays will not be properly focused on the requirements of the question.

There may be many unsupported assertions and commentaries that lack sufficient factual support. The argument may be of limited relevance to the topic and there may be confusion about the implications of the question. 7 0-7 Essays will be characterised by significant irrelevance or arguments that do not begin to make significant points. The answers may be largely fragmentary and incoherent. Marks at the bottom of this Band will be given very rarely because even the most wayward and fragmentary answers usually make at least a few valid points. © UCLES 2008 www. xtremepapers. net www. studyguide. k Page 3 Mark Scheme GCE A/AS LEVEL – May/June 2008 Syllabus 9697 Paper 01 Section A: The Origins of World War I, 1870–1914 Source-Based Question: Analysis and Evaluation 1 ‘Serbia was most to blame for the Sarajevo Crisis. ’ Use Sources A–E to show how far the evidence confirms this statement. CONTENT ANALYSIS [L2–3] EVALUATION [L4–5] A Strong antiAustrian, antiFranz Ferdinand statement by a member of a terrorist group. Y-Threats expressed to Austria and the Archduke B Official letter from a German Ambassador to the Kaiser with his handwritten notes. Y-The Ambassador urged Austria to take a oderate attitude and avoid an extreme response. N-William II realised that the situation was very serious and fully supported Austria. He did not urge moderation. CROSSREFERENCE TO OTHER PASSAGES Y-Source C agrees Y-Source can be that there was accepted not only widespread antias the personal Austrian feeling in view of the writer but as the opinion of Serbia. N-Contradicted by other members of Source D and the Black Hand. especially Source E, N-Source comes from a member of a the views of official Serbian opinion small group. Although particularly which is anxious to reach a settlement iolent, it was not with Austria. representative of general Serbian opinion. Y-The letter is authentic and probably reflects accurately the views of the Ambassador. Y-The Kaiser’s handwritten notes are authentic and reflect his reaction to the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Y-Although the writers of B disagree about Austria’s reactions, taken together they represent different German opinions. Y-Agrees with Source A that the Austrians see danger in Serbia. Source C agrees that Serbian public opinion is very widely anti-Austrian. N-Source D gives the cautious and anxious views of the French nd British governments. There is also a reference to the fears of the Serbian government. © UCLES 2008 www. xtremepapers. net OTHER (e. g. Contextual knowledge) Y- Serbia was the leading state in the Balkans that represented a serious nationalist threat to the diverse Austrian Empire. It might have done more to suppress violent groups. N-The Serbian government was not responsible for the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. This act was condemned universally but Austria used it as an excuse to take action against Serbia. It did not enter negotiations seriously. Y-By 1914, Austria was eeply suspicious of Serbia as the leader of hostile new independent states, threatening the further break-up of its Empire. Y-Serbia did not act sufficiently to suppress anti-Austrian terrorist groups. N-The Kaiser’s notes reflect his complete support for Austria, e. g. the Blank Cheque, and his tendency to adopt hasty and immoderate attitudes. N-The conditions that Austria made on Serbia were probably too humiliating to be acceptable. www. studyguide. pk Page 4 Mark Scheme GCE A/AS LEVEL – May/June 2008 Syllabus 9697 Paper 01 C Letter of an Austrian diplomat to the Austrian Foreign

Minister Y-Anti-Austrian feeling was widespread in Serbia. All social and political groups were involved. There was even the (ludicrous) claim that Austria had caused the assassination. Y-The diplomat was in Belgrade when he wrote the letter; he had first-hand knowledge. N-He neglects the reasons for Serbian hostility to Austria. Y-Agrees with Source A, which is evidence of terrorist animosity to Austria. Agrees with the Kaiser in Source B that Austria had a justified grievance against Serbia. N-Disagrees with D, the moderate views of other major states who do not condemn Serbia. Disagrees ith Source E, which is an offer by the Serbian government to settle differences. Y-Anti-Austrian feeling in Serbia had been building up for a long time. An example was the Balkans Wars. Austria felt itself on the defensive. N-Serbia was a smaller country and did not represent a major threat, even to a declining Austria. D Letter from the French Ambassador to his Foreign Minister. N-Fears of an extreme Austrian reaction are shared by the governments of France, Britain and Serbia. Austria is seen as the major danger to peace. Y-The letter probably represents accurately the discussions in which he Ambassador was involved. N-Source does not appreciate the reasons why Austria was taking a strong line against Serbia. Y-Source B partly agrees inasmuch as the German Ambassador dissuaded the Austrians from taking extreme measures. Source E agrees as the offer of the Serbian government to resolve differences with Austria. N-Source C strongly disagrees. Source A can also be seen to disagree because it shows the unremitting hostility of an antiAustrian terrorist group. Y-France and Britain wished to defuse the Sarajevo crisis. The Serbian government was willing to make concessions. N-The British overnment did not make its exact attitude sufficiently clear. E Message from a Serbian Ambassador to his Prime Minister. N-The Serbian government condemns the assassination of Franz Ferdinand and wishes to strengthen good relations with Austria. Y-The message is reliable because it is very probably authentic. N-The Serbian government had not previously done all possible to suppress violent anti-Austrian groups. Y-Source D agrees directly and indirectly. Source B partially agrees (the words of the German Ambassador). N-Source A can be taken to disagree as can the Kaiser‘s notes in Source B.

Source C strongly disagrees: opinion in Serbia is extremely anti-Austrian. Y-The Serbian government responded positively to Austrian demands after the Sarajevo assassination. N-The Serbian government had tolerated the presence of some extreme antiAustrian groups. © UCLES 2008 www. xtremepapers. net www. studyguide. pk Page 5 Mark Scheme GCE A/AS LEVEL – May/June 2008 Syllabus 9697 Paper 01 Marking Notes [Note: all papers are to be marked using the generic marking bands for source-based and essay questions. ) 1 Source-Based Question L1 WRITES ABOUT THE HYPOTHESIS, NO USE OF SOURCES [1–5]

These answers write about Sarajevo or even generally about 1914 but will ignore the question, i. e. they will not use the sources as information/evidence to test the given hypothesis. For example, they will not discuss ‘Serbia was most to blame for the Sarajevo Crisis’ but will describe events very generally. Include in this level answers which use information taken from the sources but only in providing a summary of views expressed by the writers, rather than for testing the hypotheses. Alternatively, the sources might be ignored in a general essay answer. L2 USES INFORMATION TAKEN FROM THE SOURCES TO CHALLENGE OR SUPPORT THE HYPOTHESIS 6–8] These answers use the sources as information rather than as evidence, i. e. sources are used at face value only with no evaluation/interpretation in context. For example, ‘Austria exaggerated the crisis caused by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. The German Ambassador in Source B does not think that the Austrian government should take precipitate measures against Serbia, preferring a more considered approach. Source D states that the British Foreign Minister shared this view and believed that the Austrian government should be reasonable in its demands on Serbia.

Source E gives the view of the Serbian government, in which it promised not to allow extremism against Austria in its territories. Those proved of being involved in the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand would be punished. The Serbian government wished for good relations with Austria. ’ Or alternatively, ‘Austria did not exaggerate the crisis caused by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Source A portrays the extreme opinions of a member of a terrorist group even after the assassination. They represented a potent threat to Austria.

In Source B, the Kaiser supported Austria and did not agree that Austria should be advised to be cautious. In Source C, the Austrian diplomat describes widespread extreme anti-Austrian feeling in Serbia after the assassination. ’ L3 USES INFORMATION TAKEN FROM SOURCES TO CHALLENGE AND SUPPORT THE HYPOTHESIS. [9–13] These answers know that testing the hypothesis involves both attempting to confirm and to disconfirm it. However, sources are used only at face value. For example, ‘There is evidence for and against the claim that Serbia was most to blame for the Sarajevo Crisis.

Source A supports the claim because it is evidence of the views of a member of a terrorist group that was completely anti-Austrian and completely critical of the visit to Sarajevo of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. He was not only expressing his own opinion. This is supported in Source B by the views of Kaiser William II and in Source C, the description of anti-Austrian feeling in Serbia. On the other hand, the claim is contradicted by other Sources. Source C records the fears of a Serbian Ambassador in Britain that Austria would overreact whilst Grey, the British Foreign Minister, had asked the Austrian government to pursue oderate policies. Source E proves that the Serbian government was willing to punish those who were responsible for the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and sought good relations with Austria. ’ © UCLES 2008 www. xtremepapers. net www. studyguide. pk Page 6 Mark Scheme GCE A/AS LEVEL – May/June 2008 L4 BY INTERPRETING/EVALUATING SOURCES CHALLENGE OR SUPPORT THE HYPOTHESIS. IN CONTEXT, Syllabus 9697 FINDS Paper 01 EVIDENCE TO [14–16] These answers are capable of using sources as evidence, i. e. demonstrating their utility in testing the hypothesis, by interpreting them in their historical context, i. . not simply accepting them at face value. For example, ‘It is more accurate that Austria exaggerated the crisis caused by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Source A is violently anti-Austrian and regards the Archduke as a tyrant. It was particularly offensive to issue such a statement soon after the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife. However, the Black Hand group was a small minority and not necessarily representative of the wider Serbian opinion. The Kaiser’s support of stern Austrian action in Source B is typical of his volatile tendencies.

It is not reliable as evidence of Austria’s reaction. Source C is a long account of anti-Austrian feeling in Serbia but is not necessarily reliable although it is written by a diplomat. It is contradicted by the views of the Serbian Ambassador in Source D, who claims that Austria had pursued anti-Serbian policies for a long time, and even more by the Serbian Ambassador in Source E. There might have been strong anti-Austrian feeling in Serbia, as Source C reports, but Source E is strong evidence of the wish of the Serbian government not to provoke Austria.

Source D includes the views of other governments. Both the French and British governments believe that the Austrian government should remain calm. There was a long history of ill feeling between Austria and the Balkan states, especially in Serbia. The assassination of a leading member of the Austrian royal family (the Emperor’s heir) was particularly dramatic but Austria shared the blame for the poor relations between these countries. ’ L5 BY INTERPRETING AND EVALUATING SOURCES IN CONTEXT, FINDS EVIDENCE TO CHALLENGE AND SUPPORT THE HYPOTHESIS. 17–21] These answers know that testing the hypothesis involves attempting both to confirm and disconfirm the hypothesis, and are capable of using sources as evidence to do this (i. e. both confirmation and disconfirmation are done at this level). For example, (L4 plus) ‘… However, the sources can also be interpreted to show that Serbia was most to blame for the Sarajevo Crisis. Source A comes from a member of a terrorist group that had carried out the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and its programme was widely supported in Serbia.

There is no sign that the Black Hand would end its activities and, although it had few members, the danger that they represented had already been proved by their role in the assassination. Source B includes the provocative views of the Kaiser but the German Ambassador’s letter does not criticise the Austrians for exaggerating the crisis; he only wishes the Austrians to be moderate in their response. Source C is strong evidence of the anti-Austrian sentiments in Serbia. The diplomat was correct in his belief that such feelings were very widespread in Serbia.

It is also true that Serbia, like other Balkan states, believed that Austria was a declining power. Austria had to take strong action to counter this opinion. Even more insulting was the allegation that Austria had caused the assassination. ’ © UCLES 2008 www. xtremepapers. net www. studyguide. pk Page 7 Mark Scheme GCE A/AS LEVEL – May/June 2008 Syllabus 9697 Paper 01 L6 AS L5, PLUS EITHER (a) EXPLAIN WHY EVIDENCE TO CHALLENGE/SUPPORT IS BETTER/ PREFERRED, OR (b) RECONCILES/EXPLAINS PROBLEMS IN THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT NEITHER CHALLENGE NOR SUPPORT IS TO BE PREFERRED. [22–25]

For (a), the argument must be that the evidence for challenging or supporting the claim is more justified. This must involve a comparative judgement, i. e. not just why some evidence is better, but why some evidence is worse. For example, ‘Although there is evidence in the Sources both to challenge and support the claim that Serbia was most to blame for the Sarajevo Crisis, the more convincing case contradicts the claim. The strongest evidence is from the Sources that show how anxious the Serbian government was to defuse the situation. These are Source D and especially Source E.

Although Source D is a letter from the Ambassador of a country that was not friendly towards Austria, it is probably an accurate account of the discussions that he was involved in. It can be supported by own knowledge that the Serbian government was fearful of Austria and that the British government, represented by Grey, called for moderation. Source E is very probably an accurate account of a Serbian government’s message to Austria and its wish to avoid extreme action. Source A should not be given much weight as justification for harsh policies by Austria. The members of the Black Hand group were few.

They were a danger to Austria but this did not justify action against Serbia as a whole. The handwritten notes of William II in Source B are an exaggerated response in support of Austria. They contrast with the more sensible attitude of the German Ambassador in this extract. Whilst Source C is probably a generally accurate account of anti-Austrian feeling in Serbia, it ignores Austria’s responsibility for bad relations between the states. ’ For (b) include all L5 answers which use the evidence to modify the hypothesis (rather than simply seeking to support/contradict) in order to improve it.

For example, ‘An alternative explanation is that, although Austria did not exaggerate the horror of the assassination in the short term, it was not justified in using it as the excuse for a major war against Serbia which was then to involve all of the major countries in Europe. The assassination did not only horrify Austria but all major European countries, the members of the Triple Entente as well as those of the Triple Alliance. Austria used the assassination to justify the complete suppression of Serbia, which had been its enemy for a long time. Source C is the only extract that refers to long-term issues and it is very one-sided.

However, the crisis in Sarajevo can only be understood when we consider these long term issues, including the animosity between the Austrian Empire and the more recently independent Balkan states and Austria’s membership of the Triple Alliance, with its rivalry to the major states in the Triple Entente. The Serbian government could have done more to suppress anti-Austrian terrorist groups but it did not have direct responsibility for the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand at Sarajevo and tried seriously to defuse the situation. ’ © UCLES 2008 www. xtremepapers. net www. studyguide. pk Page 8

Mark Scheme GCE A/AS LEVEL – May/June 2008 Syllabus 9697 Paper 01 Section B Essay Questions 2 How far did Napoleon Bonaparte ensure liberty and equality in his domestic government of France? The key issue is the nature of Napoleon’s government of France. The question clearly refers to domestic issues; discussions of foreign policy or the impact of Napoleon’s rule on other countries will not be relevant unless they are a brief part of introductions or conclusions. One would expect answers in Bands 1 (21–25) and 2 (18–20) to consider arguments for and against Napoleon’s support for liberty and equality.

However, examiners should not require an equal balance. The balance will reflect the argument. For example, it might reject ’liberal’ measures as of minor importance. Answers in other Bands might plump for an argument that accepts or rejects ’liberty and equality;’ without considering the alternative at all. It will be relevant to discuss the Code Napoleon (1804), an attempt to unify the diverse laws of France. Its confirmation of equality before the law and the end of privilege, and religious toleration would point towards Napoleon’s liberalism. Careers were open to talent.

However, associations of workers were banned and women were given fewer rights than men. Napoleon kept a tight hold on power through his autocratic rule. Officials were nominated and the Empire ensured Napoleon’s personal rule. Opposition was suppressed and reference might be made to the work of Fouche as Minister of Police. Equality was limited by the restriction of promotion to Napoleon’s supporters. 3 Why did industrialisation have important political effects on Europe during the nineteenth century? (You should refer to developments in at least two of the following countries: Britain, France and Germany in your answer. The key issue is the link between industrialisation and political developments. Candidates are asked to refer to at least two countries. This should help to avoid vague responses. However, examiners will not expect any balance between the two or three countries and the question does not specify how much time should be given to particular examples. It will not be necessary to describe the development of the Industrial Revolution per se but to link developments to the key issue. It might be argued that the Industrial Revolution encouraged the growth of a new middle class.

Its economic wealth enabled it to play a more important political role. Reference might be made to the Reform Acts (1832 and 1867) in Britain and to political advances in France from 1848. The position of the urban working class, although it lacked economic power, was enhanced by its concentration in large towns. Gradually political concessions had to be made to them, partly to avoid unrest. Reference might be made to the Reform Acts (1867 and 1884), with its supplements such as the Secret Ballot Act, in Britain and to political events in France.

Political concessions were also made to the working class in Germany by the end of the nineteenth century. It will be relevant to discuss social reform, for example in education and housing, which came about largely because of the political pressures from the working class. High credit should be given when candidates point out the link between industrialisation and new political ideas such as Socialism and Marxism. © UCLES 2008 www. xtremepapers. net www. studyguide. pk Page 9 4 Mark Scheme GCE A/AS LEVEL – May/June 2008 Syllabus 9697 Paper 01

Why was Bismarck more successful than the revolutionaries of 1848–49 in unifying Germany? The key issue is the contrast between Bismarck’s success and the failure of the German revolutionaries in 1848–49. Examiners should expect a reasonable balance. 60:40 either way can merit any mark but 70:30 would normally lead to the award of one Band lower than would otherwise be given. However, as in all answers, the overall quality of the argument will be the most important criterion. An excellent discussion of Bismarck in an otherwise unbalanced answer might still be worth a high mark.

Band 5 (11–13) will require a basic understanding of either Bismarck or the 1848–49 revolutions. The question asks ‘Why? ’ and the most effective answers will be analytical but answers that contain sequential analyses of Bismarck and 1848–49 should not be undervalued. Bismarck was helped by Prussia’s strong military power whereas the earlier revolutionaries had been militarily weak. He was supported by William I whereas Frederick William IV spurned the possibility of a German crown. However, Frederick William IV did introduce a comparatively liberal constitution that became attractive to other German states.

Prussia’s economy was strong; candidates can discuss the importance of the Zollverein. Bismarck was more skilful in handling the other German states. He was more successful in dealing with other countries through his diplomacy and use of war. Candidates can illustrate this through the Danish War (1864), the Austro-Prussian War (1866) and the Franco-Prussian War (1870). Meanwhile, Austria was a weaker rival by the 1860s and less able to prevent German unification. 5 Explain the problems European countries faced in promoting imperial expansion during the later nineteenth century.

The key issue is the problems faced by European countries when they engaged in imperial enterprises. Examiners will look for some examples, both from Europe and overseas. However, the range of possible overseas examples is wide and examiners will be realistic in their expectations. For example, some very good arguments might be supported by examples from a limited range of regions. There were problems in communication. Governments were sometimes involved in enterprises because of the actions of local officials, for example Britain and Cecil Rhodes. Sometimes different policies were favoured.

For example, Bismarck was less enthusiastic than German public opinion. In spite of hopes for profits, imperial expansion could be expensive. Imperialism resulted in tensions between countries and added to military costs because larger and more expensive navies were needed. There was the danger of war and reference can be made to some crises such as Britain and France’s involvement at Fashoda (1898). Some candidates might slant the question to use ‘problems’ as a device to explain the causes of imperialism, for example economic advantage or strategic interests.

This will be valid as long as the link is made between causes and problems. © UCLES 2008 www. xtremepapers. net www. studyguide. pk Page 10 6 Mark Scheme GCE A/AS LEVEL – May/June 2008 Syllabus 9697 Paper 01 Why was the First World War so important in the downfall of the Romanov regime and the victory of the Bolsheviks? The key issue is the link between the First World War and the events of 1917. Candidates might take either of two approaches. 1914–17 might be seen as the culmination of a long decline of tsarist government, with less attention being given to the wartime period.

Alternatively, answers might begin in 1914. Either approach is possible but the temptation in the first will be to spend too long on the pre-war period. In particular, the Bolsheviks were not in a strong position in 1914 and answers in Band 1 (21–25) and Band 2 (18–20) will need to show a sound understanding of the Bolshevik victory by the end of 1917. Answers that deal only with the February or the October Revolutions might find it difficult to get beyond Band 3 (16–17). The war discredited Nicholas II’s regime. Russia suffered heavy defeats with massive casualties.

The resulting inflation ruined an economy that had been improving by 1914 but was still too weak to sustain the pressures of the conflict. Food became short. The Tsar’s decision to take personal command showed his lack of ability as a military leader but it also discredited him politically. Russia was left to the rule of Tsarina Alexandra and Rasputin. The outcome was the February Revolution. In spite of their later propaganda, Lenin and the Bolsheviks were not important in this rising. Kerensky and the Provisional Government failed to establish a stable government.

They tried to deal with grievances about food and land but ineffectively. The many political groups could not be managed. The war continued unsuccessfully and the resulting grievances increased. Although Lenin and the Bolsheviks were checked in the July Days, Kornilov’s attempted coup discredited Kerensky. The October Revolution showed the ability of Lenin and the Bolsheviks, although a minority, to take decisive action. Lenin’s promise of major reforms and slogans such as ‘All power to the soviets’ had an enthusiastic response. Lenin soon abandoned his offer of a coalition government to install the Bolsheviks firmly in power. ‘The unpopularity of the Versailles settlement was the most important reason why Hitler gained power in 1933. ’ How far do you agree with this judgement? The key issue is the reasons why Hitler came to power in 1933. Candidates might continue the explanation throughout 1933 by explaining the sequence of events from his appointment as Chancellor to the introduction of the Enabling Act. However, answers that end with the Chancellor’s appointment can merit any mark. The question asks candidates to consider particularly the importance of the Versailles settlement.

This dismantled the German military. Colonies were surrendered. There were territorial concessions in Europe, especially the return of Alsace-Lorraine to France and the loss of areas in the east to Poland. People who were regarded as German were living in other countries. Reparations had to be paid. Unification with Austria was forbidden. The War Guilt clause attributed blame for the First World War to Germany. Hatred of the settlement, the ‘stab in the back’ and the ‘November Criminals’ united Germans. This can form the basis of a good answer.

However, answers in Band 1 (21–25) and Band 2 (18–20) can be expected to go further and compare Versailles as a reason with other factors. Weimar Germany did not establish a stable democracy. Proportional representation allowed small parties to exert undue politician influence. Changes of government were frequent. Extreme right and left-wing parties caused tensions. However, high credit should be given to candidates who understand the limited appeal of the Nazis in the 1920s. The Munich Putsch (1923) was put down easily. The army and the Junkers/traditionally strong right-wing social classes continued to exert influence.

Nevertheless, Weimar seemed to have been more successful in the 1920s. It alleviated the worst economic effects of the war, came to agreements about the repayment of reparations and was accepted as a leading member of the League of Nations. The death of Stresemann was a blow and it can be argued that the Wall Street Crash (1929) that drove the Weimar Republic off-course. Hitler himself was an effective leader. He built up the Nazis through organisation and propaganda to become the second largest party in the 1930 election and the largest in 1932 – but they actually lost support in a later election that year.

He kept his nerve when others, such as von Papen, thought that they could control him, refusing to accept any office except Chancellor. © UCLES 2008 www. xtremepapers. net www. studyguide. pk Page 11 8 Mark Scheme GCE A/AS LEVEL – May/June 2008 Syllabus 9697 Paper 01 How different were Stalin’s policies in governing Russia to 1939 from those of Nicholas II? The key issue is the contrast between Stalin and Nicholas II. Examiners can look for a balanced approach. 60:40 either way can merit any mark but 70:30 would normally lead to the award of one Band lower than would otherwise be given.

However, as in all answers, the overall quality of the argument will be the most important criterion. An excellent discussion of either Stalin or Nicholas II in an otherwise unbalanced answer might still be worth a high mark. Candidates are free to argue that the similarities were more important than the differences: they were both autocrats; they suppressed political opposition; their secret police operated outside the law; they represented a personal cult of government. However, it might be claimed that Stalin’s rule was more brutal. The millions of casualties went far beyond the numbers who were prosecuted/persecuted by Nicholas II.

Their ideologies were different. Stalin claimed, justifiably or not, that his regime was based on Marxism. Nicholas II ruled by divine right. A few candidates might mention their different attitudes to religion and the Church but this is not necessary for any mark. Their economic policies were different. Stalin regarded economic change as a high priority. He pushed through radical reforms in agriculture and industry that had wholesale social implications. Nicholas II allowed some economic reforms – for example the policies of Witte and Stolypin – but they were not particularly important to his conservative mind.

Nicholas II was averse to change, unlike Stalin who introduced constant political social and economic change. Although he enjoyed an autocratic position, Nicholas II was personally weak, open to advice especially from the Tsarina. He allowed some courtiers and Rasputin to have too much influence. Stalin shared power with nobody. He destroyed those who helped him to power, including Kamenev, Zinoviev and Bukharin. The purges destroyed people who were not a real threat to his regime. © UCLES 2008 www. xtremepapers. net

The Weimar republic was failed from the beginning. It began with the collapses of political governments within the Weimar republic. Stresemann’s government collapsed in late 1923 to be replaced by another government led by Wilhelm Marx of the Centre party. However the main contributing catalyst to the failure of the Weimar republic was the ever rising inflation in the country. The Weimar republic was failed from the start as the inflation started at the begging of the war as Bonnel points out “Inflation began in 1914 and was linked to the way in which the imperial government chose to pay for the war effort.

Undoubtedly the imperial government had indirectly doomed the Weimar republic. This was the reason for the growing disillusionment within the Weimar Republic. The growing disillusion with the Weimar Republic was the deteriorating economy . This view is generally accepted but most historians are that of the German economist Kurt Borchardt (1982) . Borchardt suggests the slow growth within the Weimar republic was because that the trade union power kept wages high and therefore squeezed profits and middle class income. Borchardt believes that the Weimar Republic was unstably weak before 1929.

This backs up Bonnels statement and is supported by K. J. Mason statement “The economic prosperity of the 1920s, however, was built on weak foundations” . However there are historians such as C-L Holtfrerich that have challenged such a view that high wages were the cause of the Weimar unstable economy . The weight of the evidence shows that C-L Holtfrerich could not have a significantly large change in the economy as the economy was already plummeting into inflation. Hyper-inflation initiated by the government to pay back reparations however it was blamed on the invasion of the Ruhr.

There response to the economic situation was to print more money. Salmon suggests “The government simply printed more money…. Banknotes became increasingly worthless”. By 1923 the Reichsmarck became so worthless that 4 200 000 000 000 was worth one U. S. dollar. This alienated the middle class from the regime. The social and political cost of the hyperinflation was high. Scholars note that the inflation did more to undermine the middle classes than the ostensibly socialist revolution of 1918. A lifetime of savings would no longer buy a loaf of bread.

Money was being carried in a wheel barrow to carry money to buy loaves of bread, it end up that the wheel barrow was worth more than the money in it. Trade union funds wiped out the middle classes and Capitalists losing there savings there for making the rich poor over night. Pensions planned for a lifetime were wiped out completely. Politically, the hyperinflation fuelled radicalism on both the left and the right. The Communists, badly damaged by their failure in January 1919, saw greatly improved prospects for a successful revolution.

In Munich the leader of the small National Socialist German Workers’ (Nazi) Party, Adolf Hitler, used the turmoil to fashion an alliance with other right-wing groups and attempt a coup in November 1923—the Beer of the left succeeded in imposing their will. In the short run they did not succeed because of ineptitude and miscalculation; in the long run they failed because the government sponsored a currency reform that restabilized the mark and also decided to end its policy of passive resistance in the Ruhr in exchange for an end to the occupation and a rescheduling of the reparation payments that it owed to the Allies .

Hall Putsch—that sought to use Bavaria as a base for a nationalist march on Berlin. He hoped to overthrow the democratic system of Weimar that he believed was responsible for Germany’s political and economic humiliation. Neither the radicals of the right nor those of the left succeeded in imposing their will .

In the short run they did not succeed because of ineptitude and miscalculation; in the long run they failed because the government sponsored a currency reform that restabilized the mark and also decided to end its policy of passive resistance in the Ruhr in exchange for an end to the occupation and a rescheduling of the reparation payments that it owed to the Allies. The wages of the working class became worthless. This caused society to turn to extreme anti-republican groups, the evidence of this was shown in the 1932 elections as anti republican parties gaining majority such as the Nazi party and the KPD.

The financial recovery that began with the restabilisation of the German currency in late 1923 received a boost in 1924 when the Allies agreed to end their occupation of the Ruhr and to grant the German government a more realistic payment schedule on reparations. A committee of the Allied Reparations Commission headed by the American financier and soon-to-be vice president Charles Dawes had recommended these changes and urged the Allies to grant sizable loans to Germany to assist its economic recovery . The Dawes Plan marked a significant step in the upswing of the German economy that lasted until the onset of the Great Depression.

The 800 million gold marks in foreign loans had by 1927 enabled German industrial production to regain its 1913 pre-war high . That same year the Reichstag addressed the vital need for social and class reconciliation by voting for a compulsory unemployment insurance plan. Reconciliation on the political level seemed achieved in 1925 when the 77-year-old Hindenburg was elected to succeed the deceased Ebert as president . Although no democrat, the aged field marshal took seriously his duty to support the constitution and the republic . The economy played a major part in the fall of the Weimar Republic.

The hyper inflation in the 1920s was a catalyst which sped up the obvious fall of the Weimar Republic. This is supported by Feuchtwanger as he states “… in the final years of the Republic the governments chances for survival were slim ‘. Furthermore supports the fact that Weimar was doomed from the beginning with the debts of the war which passed on during the Weimar “ the principle causes for the failure, however,, to be sought in the years after 1918. as for these the many reason of the economy led to the fall of the Weimar Republic by 1933.

When the Germans spoke of Lebensraum, which means “living space”, they used the term to denote a perceived need to have enough physical room to provide for themselves comfortably. This was used as propaganda in the invasion of Russia in 1941. Using children’s school books and the education system Hitler put in place to brain wash society into believing that this is how Germans should be. Propaganda might take the form of persuading others that your military might is too great to be challenged; that your political might within a nation is too great or popular to challenge etc. In Nazi Germany, Dr Joseph Goebbels was in charge of propaganda.

Goebbels official title was Minister of Propaganda and National Enlightenment. As Minister of Enlightenment, Goebbels had two main tasks to ensure nobody in Germany could read or see anything that was hostile or damaging to the Nazi Party. To ensure that the views of the Nazis were put across in the most persuasive manner possible. To ensure success, Goebbels had to work with the SS and Gestapo and Albert Speer. The former hunted out those who might produce articles defamatory to the Nazis and Hitler while Speer helped Goebbels with public displays of propaganda. The Nazis understood human psychology.

It was Goebbels’ simple realisation that, for instance in cinematic propaganda, there was a need for the viewer to be entertained. Otherwise, there would be no interest in watching at all. This is simply a single instance of the successfulness of Nazi propaganda. Goebbels realised this and corrected it. How Successful was Nazi Propaganda 1933-39? The relevance of how successful propaganda was at reaching people is that: it would be largely true to say – if it had reached people, if it had influenced peoples thought in a way beneficial to the rise of the Nazi party, therefore it had achieved a primary aim.

The cinema allowed people to see the might of Germany… but far from via raw imagery – the influence of propagandists was initially clear, however became more transparent and therefore more effective: Cinema attendance figures quadrupled. Propaganda, however slight or extreme, was being seen. The object of Riefenstahl’s ‘Triumph of the Will’ was also another facet of propaganda. The ensure that everybody could hear Hitler speak, Goebbels organised the sale of cheap radios. These were called the “People’s Receiver” and they cost only 76 marks. A smaller version cost just 35 marks.

Goebbels believed that if Hitler was to give speeches, the people should be able hear to him. Loud speakers were put up in streets so that people could not avoid any speeches by the Fuhrer. Cafes and other such properties were ordered to play in public speeches by Hitler. Goebbels and his skill at masterminding propaganda are best remembered for his night time displays at Nuremberg . Although it was his idea Speer brought it to life. Here, he and Speer, organised rallies that were designed to show to the world the might of the Nazi nation. In August of each year, huge rallies were held at Nuremberg. Arenas to hold 400,000 people were built.

In the famous night time displays, 150 search lights surrounded the main arena and were lit up vertically into the night sky. Their light could be seen over 100 kilometres away in what a British politician, Sir Neville Henderson, called a “cathedral of light”. The propaganda allowed people to feel a sense of pride for there nation even though they themselves were suffering. That there suffering was for a reason and that it was not all in vain because that it was being fixed. They believed this because of all the great feats of design that Speer and Goebbels had put up inspired them this was he effect of Nazi propaganda.

Political, economic and social issues in the Weimar Republic to 1929 Year 12 Modern History 2013 * Mrs Lynch Jenni Hamilton Due Date; 26th of March 2013 Word Count; 1,665 The collapsement of the Weimar Republic was due to many social, political and economical issues within. From its birth it faced numerous political problems, for which the causes were many and varied. These problems included political instability, deep divisions within society and economic crisis; problems were constantly appearing for the new government.

The Weimar Republic never really had a stable political party, having a whole six different parties between 1924-1928 does not create stability. Many of these parties were also narrowly sectioned, with messed up priorities such as to look after the interests of class area of religion that they represented within the Weimar Republic, loyalty to democracy was of least importance. In 1929 the misery that had aided the efforts of Weimar’s enemies in the early 20s had been relieved by five years of economic growth and rising incomes.

Germany had been admitted to the League of Nations and is once more an accepted member of the international community. The bitterness at Germany’s defeat in the Great War and the humiliation of the Treaty of Versailles had not been forgotten but most Germans appear to have come to terms with the new Republic and its leaders. Gustav Stresemann had decided to take on the job of leading a battle for a policy he felt was in his nation’s vital interest even though he was tired and ill and knew that the opposition would be stubborn. Stresemann was the major force in negotiating and guiding the Young Plan through a ‘plebiscite’.

This plan although opposed by those on the right-wing won majority approval and further reduced Germany’s reparations payments. The Weimar Republic was a bold experiment. It was Germany’s first democracy, a state in which elected representatives had real power. The new Weimar constitution attempted to blend the European parliamentary system with the American presidential system. In the pre- World War I period, only men twenty-five years of age and older had the right to vote, and their elected representatives had very little power. The Weimar constitution gave all men and women twenty years of age the right to vote.

Women made up more than 52% of the potential electorate, and their support was vital to the new Republic. From a ballot, which often had thirty or more parties on it, Germans chose legislators who would make the policies that shaped their lives. Parties pning a broad political spectrum from Communists on the far left to National Socialists (Nazis) on the far right competed in the Weimar elections. The Chancellor and the Cabinet needed to be approved by the Reichstag (legislature) and needed the Reichstag’s continued support to stay in power.

Although the constitution makers expected the Chancellor to be the head of government, they included emergency provisions that would ultimately undermine the Republic. Gustav Stresemann was briefly Chancellor in 1923 and for six years foreign minister and close advisor to Chancellors. The constitution gave emergency powers to the directly elected President and made him the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. In times of crisis, these presidential powers would prove decisive.

During the stable periods, Weimar Chancellors formed legislative majorities based on coalitions primarily of the Social Democrats, the Democratic Party, and the Catholic Center Party, all moderate parties that supported the Republic. As the economic situation deteriorated in 1930, and many disillusioned voters turned to extremist parties, the Republic’s supporters could no longer command a majority. German democracy could no longer function as its creators had hoped. Ironically by 1932, Adolf Hitler, a dedicated enemy of the Weimar Republic, was the only political leader capable of commanding a legislative majority.

On January 30, 1933, an aged President von Hindenburg reluctantly named Hitler Chancellor of the Republic. Using his legislative majority and the support of Hindenburg’s emergency presidential powers, Hitler proceeded to destroy the Weimar Republic. Germany emerged from World War I with huge debts incurred to finance a costly war for almost five years. The treasury was empty, the currency was losing value, and Germany needed to pay its war debts and the huge reparations bill imposed on it by the Treaty of Versailles, which officially ended the war.

The treaty also deprived Germany of territory, natural resources, and even ships, trains, and factory equipment. Germany’s population was undernourished and contained many widows, orphans, and disabled veterans living in poverty. The new German government struggled to deal with these crises, which had produced a serious hyperinflation. By 1924, after years of crisis management and attempts at tax and finance reform, the economy was stabilised with the help of foreign, particularly American, loans. This relative “golden age” was reflected in the strong support for moderate pro-Weimar political parties in the 1928 elections.

However, economic disaster struck with the onset of the world depression in 1929. The American stock market crash and bank failures led to a recall of American loans to Germany. This development added to Germany’s economic hardship. Mass unemployment and suffering followed. Many Germans became increasingly disillusioned with the Weimar Republic and began to turn toward radical anti-democratic parties whose representatives promised to relieve their economic hardships. The government no longer had sufficient resources to support the German economy, but continued to print paper money.

This caused rapid inflation, which Germany used as an excuse for not being able to pay its second instalment towards the reparations. The French government, however, decided to force Germany to pay. It did this by sending French and Belgian troops to the industrial heartland of Germany, the Ruhr to collect reparations still owing to them, but the German Chancellor called for “passive resistance” by the workers of the Ruhr; a refusal to co-operate with the troops. This, however, led to the collapse of the German economy, as the government was forced to print more paper money in order to pay the striking workers in the Ruhr.

This caused hyperinflation as Germany was not producing anything; its industrial heartland had been destroyed and yet the number of notes in its economy was increasing. The German currency soon became worthless and prices were constantly rising (For example, an American dollar in July 1914 was worth about 4 marks, whilst in November 1923, its equivalent in marks was 4,000,000,000,000 marks). This struggle is then proved by Gustav Stresemann in the following source; “We in Germany in recent years have lived on borrowed money, if a crisis ever hits us and the American withdraw their short-term credits then we would be bankrupt … e are not only militarily disarmed, we are also financially disarmed” The social effects of this hyperinflation were disastrous, particularly for the German middle classes who had lost all their savings and pensions as a result. Then, in September 1923, Gustav Stresemann called for the end of passive resistance in order to begin the restoration of the German economy. This led to great political humiliation however, as it showed that Germany had been forced to do what the French wanted.

This led to the Munich Putsch, which was an attempt by the Nazi Party leader, Adolf Hitler to overthrow the government; Hitler was determined to show the German people that not all Germans were going to accept what the French had forced the German government to do. Bavarian police broke up the revolt however and Hitler was arrested. In Saxony, there was another revolt against the republic, but this was a communist revolt and a communist government was set up, but Stresemann ordered this government to resign or else it would face military action.

Therefore, the Ruhr Crisis led to economic collapse, political humiliation, dissatisfaction within society, further opposition to the Weimar Republic and finally, it’s devastating effects caused people to start looking towards extreme solutions. The Weimar Republic, in spite of all its problems, did survive the crisis that had befallen it between 1919 and 1923; even though it had inspired violent political opposition from right and left wing groups, it had faced a devastating economic situation creating a high level of discontent within society, and had brought about serious political humiliation upon itself, it had still managed to survive.

All these problems contributed to the political difficulties which Weimar faced during its first few years; a general hatred amongst Germans of the new system and constant opposition towards it. The political issue of the Treaty of Versailles was probably the most important individual cause of Weimar’s crisis however. It had been the Treaty of Versailles that caused nationalist opposition to Weimar and the

German nation to step down to a second class power, losing much of its territory, having extreme military restrictions imposed on it, and it had been the treaty of Versailles that had brought about reparations, leading Germany into an extremely difficult economic situation causing further social tensions, and it had been this treaty that had inspired communist opposition by bringing about the need to get Germany back to work, causing the majority socialists (SPD) to cooperate with the old order.

It can be argued that this treaty was responsible for most of the hatred of the German people towards Weimar between 1919 and 1923, but on the other hand, Germany would not have been able to negotiate peace had they not signed the treaty. Germany managed to survive this crisis of economic collapse, political humiliation and dissatisfaction within society.

Bibliography

1. Secondary Sources – Republic to Reich, A history of Germany 1918-1939
2. Third Edition: K J Mason; Published 2007
3. Primary Source – Republic to Reich, A history of Germany 1918-1939
4. Third Edition: K J Mason; Published 2007 Gustav Stresemann – page 43
5. “We in Germany in recent years have lived on borrowed money, if a crisis ever hits us and the American withdraw their short-term credits then we would be bankrupt … we are not only militarily disarmed, we are also financially disarmed”

There are many people that would agree on the statement above due to the Consul Organisation and the Kapp Putch , these were political violence of the extreme right and indeed created instability in Germany however other people would disagree and say that the extreme left (spartasis) and other factors such the economical and constitional issues which had caused the Weimar Government to be unstable. Overall this essay will argue that the other factors such as economical and consitional issues were the main threat to the stability of the Weimar Republic.

The extreme right created a new threat in a form of a political assassination also known as “consul organisation” between the years 1919-1922 resulting to 376 politicians being murdered , 22 of which left winged while the remaining 354 were right winged politicians. This organisations had targeted key republican politicians such as Matthas Erzberger who was the finance minster during the years 1919-21 , he was assassinated because he had signed the Armistice , there are other factors to consider for Erzberger such as he was a catholic and a member of the centre party.

Another key politicians that was assassinated was Walther Rathenau who was the foreign minister between 1921-22 , the foreign minister was assassinated because he was Jewish , committed to democracy and had contributed to the Rapallo Treaty1 with Russia. The fact that this organisation had assassinated key republican politicians had caused the government to become unstable , by removing talented politicians it meant that there the replacements wouldn’t be as talented and driven as the previous member , there’s also a fact that politicians would be scared to replace the people that were assassinated because they know they would be killed to.

Another effect the consul had caused was the public criticise and lose moral the government in a sense because if the government couldn’t protect its own politicians , how would it protect its citizens, therefore consul was indeed a threat to the stability of the Weimar Republic. The Kapp Putch was another extreme right which had caused instability for the Weimar republic . Wolfgang Kapp and General Lutttwitz had assembled 12,00 troops to march Berlin with intention to over throw democracy .

The government had called the army in-order to crush the threat as agreed in the Erbert – Groners Agreement however the army refused to go against the right wingers . General Von Seeckt the defence ministry stated “troops do not fire on troops” this states that there is instability within the German government because the army which is supposed to go enforce the government’s actions had actually gone against it and enforced its own interest hence the government had to call for a general strike which paralysed the capital therefore after 4 days Kapp realised he cannot run Germany and fled the city.

Hence the Kapp Putch was a threat to the stability of the German Republic however compared if compared to the consul , it wasn’t as big threat to their stability . However the Kapp Putch was described as poorly lead and un coordinated therefore it could be argued how could a unorganised and limited demonstration cause the government to become unstable. However it could be argued that the extreme left was a bigger threat then the extreme right .

The spartacist was led by Karl Liebknecht launched an armed uprising in Berlin , aiming to overthrow the provisional government and creating a soviet union . The government feared the a communist uprising therefore was seen a major threat and the army and freikorps were sent to crush the threat . if the spartacist were not a major threat then there would be no need to send the army as well as the freikorps therefore highlighting what a major threat the spartacist were to the German Republic .

On the other hand it could be argued that demonstration was badly coordinated , poorly lead and within the party there were divisions . when the demonstration had taken place the extreme left were not able to handle the governments unified attacked therefore leading to the spartacist downfall this enforces that the extreme right were indeed the main threat to the Weimar Republic . It could be argued that the constitution was actually the main threat for the Weimar Republic .

Germany was using a PR system which resulted into coalitions because it meant that there were more parties in the Reichstag therefore in-order to receive a majority and pass legislation through they had to receive 50. 1% of the votes leading to coalitions with parties that don’t want to compromise an example of this is a had broke down because they couldn’t agree about what colour a flag should be .

This enforces the fact that it was extremely hard to actually make the government agree on a certain topic therefore the constitution would be seen as the biggest threat because the public can see that the government is not actually helping them but bickering about small thing which are less important , leading to loss of faith/moral in the government which ultimately would lead to the downfall of the Weimar republic for the reason that if the public has no faith in the system then everything goes downhill , because democracy is ultimately for the people and if they rise against it , it means that the system is not working .

However it could be argued that the PR system had given all German people a voice which is the ultimate aim in a democracy on the hand it could be argued by using the pr system it is a allowing extremist such as Volikish Nationalist a platform to herd from which would only lead to trouble in the future.

The economy was also threat to the Weimar Republic stability, during this period Germany was undergoing hyperinflation2 an example of this is the price of 1kg of bread , in 1913 this loaf of bread cost 0.29 , in the summer 1923 the loaf of bread cost 1,200 by November it cost 428,000,000,000 . Because was due to the terms in the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was made to pay back repartitions to Britain and France , this meant that government had to print more money in-order to pay back the reparations which were due , because they had to pay back the reparations it meant that they couldn’t fund companies and boast there trading , there was also the fact countries refused to trade with Germany leading to Germany importing more goods than exporting .

Eventually the government had stopped paying the reparations therefore Belgium and French troops occupied the Ruhr , with fuelled the inflation more because the government had called a general strike and had printed off money to in-order to compensate the workers . Because the money wasn’t backed up by gold it meant that the value of the money decreased leading to prices of goods spiralling out of control.

The fact that the government was not helping with people during this situation caused mass discontent and made the German people lose faith in the currency and the government altogether so when extremist parties said they would be able to provide them with bread and work , the people would support those parties therefore resulting into the downfall of the Weimar republic.

Overall it can be argued that the extreme right indeed was the biggest threat towards the Weimar Republic because the army had refused to go up against them however as mentioned above there were flaws within the demonstration which represent that they were no infract the biggest threat to stability the Government had faced .

The extreme left was also a threat to the stability to the Weimar republic and mentioned above was not the main threat as to the stability of the Weimar Government. Overall the economic and constitutional was the biggest threat to the Weimar republic for the reason that both of these issues had caused mass discontent which ultimately would lead to a uprising against the government .

When Chamberlain went to Munich on September 29th, 1938, to ask Hitler to discontinue, as he would have said, his plans to take over Poland, Chamberlain had good intention, but bad execution. He claimed that the appeasement was for, “The peace of our time,” and that his agreement with Hitler, that which Hitler biblically disregarded 7 days later, would allow Europe to continue war-free, sparing It from the trauma and anxiety associated with war. It Is well known that Chamberlain failed utterly to accomplish anything with the appeasement, and war did in fact break out he following year.

Recently, President Obama went to Geneva to negotiate peace terms with Iran regarding them physically possessing nuclear weapons, and failed to accomplish anything. In fact, Iran slapped America in the face by completely undermining America’s request, and this is the cause for much controversy and ill feelings toward Obama as of late. In comparison to Chamberlain’s utter failure at Munich, Beam’s inability to impose his country will Is far more severe than what happened in 1938.

While It Is rue that both Britain and the US practically surrendered to Germany and Iran, respectively, Nazi Germany was much larger of a world power In its day when compared to modern day Iran. In addition, Brutal was In a weak state economically and militarily, while the united States, although Isn’t In tip-top shape economically due to the recent recession, has one of, if not, the largest and most powerful militaries in the entire world. To have to surrender to a country whose inferiority on the world scale of sovereignty is an obvious step in the wrong direction.

In defense of Chamberlain, he didn’t have the power of hindsight in terms of WI. The same cannot be said for Obama and Iran. Obama had clear historical evidence and resources to show that appeasement, in large part, does not work. Ben Shapiro, who hosts his own radio talk show and is author of a bestseller, said “The deal with Iran Is Worse than Munich’ in part because In 1938 Hitler had not made known his plans to exterminate European Jews, while Iran has explicitly expressed a desire to completely wipe Israel off the map.

How, then, could Obama simply request that Iran hand over one of Its most prized possessions, that being nuclear weapons, which are clearly documented as present in the country, when America’s greatest ally is at risk and is the direct victim of Iran’s plans? This isn’t acceptable, and is a clear sign that Obama, who was supposed to be America’s FAD, is becoming America’s Nixon. Obama VS. Chamberlain By Broadband disregarded 7 days later, would allow Europe to continue war-free, sparing it from the trauma and anxiety associated with war.

It is well known that Chamberlain failed impose his country’s will is far more severe than what happened in 1938. While it is respectively, Nazi Germany was much larger of a world power in its day when compared to modern day Iran. In addition, Britain was in a weak state economically and militarily, while the United States, although isn’t in tip-top shape economically deal with Iran is Worse than Munich’ in part because in 1938 Hitler had not made that Iran hand over one of its most prized possessions, that being nuclear weapons,