Economic control
Use of propaganda
Use of violence
Which was most effective? Explain your answer. [13]
Introduction:
The Nazis' control of Germany in the 1930s had been very effective. This was largely due to their pervasive control over all aspects of German society.
Main Body:
The use of economic control was useful in helping the Nazis retain the support of the Germans. Bearing in mind that the Nazis were voted into power because many had believed in their ability in restoring the economy, it was critical for the Nazis to fulfill their promises in resolving the problems of unemployment and poor businesses. These were achieved when the Nazi government began a programme of rearmament and public projects. These provided jobs for the people as well as business contracts for companies. To the people, these were important to them, after years of poverty during the Great Depression. In addition, all workers were influenced by the Nazi-controlled German Labour Front, since all trade unions were banned. This further ensured that workers would be brainwashed with pro-Nazi ideas.
The second method was the use of propaganda. In schools, children were brainwashed with Nazi ideas at a very young age. Subjects were adjusted to support Nazi ideas regarding history, geography and biology. Students were expected to join youth organisations set up by the Nazis, who would instill Nazi values in them. All these resulted in future generations of Germans who would remain loyal to the Nazis. For the general public, Nazi messages were constantly sent to the people through posters and radios. Censorship was very thorough in order to ensure the people would only be influenced by pro-Nazi messages.
Violence was also used as a method of control, especially in dealing with any opposition. The secret police, known as Gestapo, was created to arrest people who were expressing any sort of dissent. Informers were planted in all aspects of society to monitor the people's loyalty. These created an environment where nobody would dare to express dissent openly. Even dissent within the Nazi Party was forbidden, as the Night of the Long Knives had proven, as the more independent-minded SA was destroyed by the SS. For those Germans who were arrested, they would be sent to concentrated camps, where living conditions were purposely kept poor so that nobody was likely to survive. All these made Germans fearful of going against the Nazis in any way.
Sunday 28 March 2010
How far do you agree that the rise of the Nazi was due to their own credit? Explain your answer. [12]
Introduction:
The Nazi came into power after becoming the most popular party in the early 1930s. This was a result of a number of factors.
Main Body:
The Nazi Party played a major part in their own rise. Its propaganda tactics were quite effective, as it captured the support of many Germans. Through posters and rallies, the Nazis came across as a group of people who knew how to restore Germany to greatness. In addition, they propagated much fear about the rise of communism, which prompted the wealthy industrialists and landowners to support the Nazis. They were also led by a very charismatic leader, Adolf Hitler, who was regarded as a saviour by many Germans. With excellent public-speaking skills, he was able to convince many Germans with promises to bring prosperity and greatness to Germany once again.
Another cause for the rise of Nazism was the weaknesses of the Weimar Republic. The Republic never had much support from the beginning in 1919. By signing the humiliating Treaty of Versailles, the Republic was always regarded as the cause for Germany's surrender. Its unpopularity was already evident from the number of putsches that broke out in the early 1920s. In addition, the Republic did not perform well. In the space of 12 years, it had experienced a number of economic crises, such as the 1923-24 hyper-inflation and the Great Depression from 1929 onwards. All these caused sufferings to the Germans, who would naturally associate democracy with economic hardships. Therefore, when the Nazis began to promise the restoration of German pride and the alleviation from economic hardships, the Germans would naturally prefer the Nazis to be in power rather than maintaining the democratic system of the Weimar Republic.
Another cause for the rise of the Nazism was the Great Depression. The Great Depression brought suffering to the German people. Many of them became unemployed and thus, resulted in poverty. In addition, it exposed the weaknesses of the Weimar Republic once again. This time, it was helpless in dealing with the economic crisis. The Germans lost all confidence in the Weimar Republic and started to search for anyone or any group who could help them. This became an opportunity for the Nazis to win more influence and gain their support, especially during elections.
The Nazi came into power after becoming the most popular party in the early 1930s. This was a result of a number of factors.
Main Body:
The Nazi Party played a major part in their own rise. Its propaganda tactics were quite effective, as it captured the support of many Germans. Through posters and rallies, the Nazis came across as a group of people who knew how to restore Germany to greatness. In addition, they propagated much fear about the rise of communism, which prompted the wealthy industrialists and landowners to support the Nazis. They were also led by a very charismatic leader, Adolf Hitler, who was regarded as a saviour by many Germans. With excellent public-speaking skills, he was able to convince many Germans with promises to bring prosperity and greatness to Germany once again.
Another cause for the rise of Nazism was the weaknesses of the Weimar Republic. The Republic never had much support from the beginning in 1919. By signing the humiliating Treaty of Versailles, the Republic was always regarded as the cause for Germany's surrender. Its unpopularity was already evident from the number of putsches that broke out in the early 1920s. In addition, the Republic did not perform well. In the space of 12 years, it had experienced a number of economic crises, such as the 1923-24 hyper-inflation and the Great Depression from 1929 onwards. All these caused sufferings to the Germans, who would naturally associate democracy with economic hardships. Therefore, when the Nazis began to promise the restoration of German pride and the alleviation from economic hardships, the Germans would naturally prefer the Nazis to be in power rather than maintaining the democratic system of the Weimar Republic.
Another cause for the rise of the Nazism was the Great Depression. The Great Depression brought suffering to the German people. Many of them became unemployed and thus, resulted in poverty. In addition, it exposed the weaknesses of the Weimar Republic once again. This time, it was helpless in dealing with the economic crisis. The Germans lost all confidence in the Weimar Republic and started to search for anyone or any group who could help them. This became an opportunity for the Nazis to win more influence and gain their support, especially during elections.
The following were 3 main terms of the Treaty of Versailles:
(i)Military terms
(ii)Territorial terms
(iii)War Guilt Clause
Which was more intolerable to the Germans? Explain your answer. [13]
Introduction:
The Treaty of Versailles was signed at the end of the First World War to restore peace in Europe. However, in doing so, it angered the Germans who not only disliked the terms but were forced to accept them.
Main Body:
The military terms of the Treaty of Versailles humiliated the Germans. Once a European military power, as testified by their ability to fight against the British, the French, the Russians and the USA in the First World War, they were now reduced to a very weak power. They could no longer attack any country, as they were not allowed to have offensive weapons like submarines, tanks and air-force. In fact, with only 100,000 soldiers and Rhineland demilitarised, they probably could not even defend themselves. In other words, the country would experience a sense of insecurity.
The territorial terms angered the Germans in many ways. Firstly, the loss of colonies meant that Germany would no longer be regarded as a Great Power. This was a humiliation. Secondly, the loss of resource-rich areas like the Saar would affect Germany, which would find itself having difficulty in recovering its economy during the postwar period. Finally, the loss of lands to Poland and Czechoslovakia was intolerable, given that these lands were inhabited by Germans. The creation of Poland and Czechoslovakia was based on the concept of self-determination and yet, the Germans were deprived of their rights to self-determination. This was certainly unfair to the Germans.
The War Guilt Clause humiliated the Germans as well when Germany was forced to accept all the blame for starting the First World War. The Germans could not understand why Germany had to accept the entire blame when all the countries were involved in the war. Furthermore, Germany's involvement was due to its need to support its ally, which was the same reason why Russia was involved in the war. The amount of £6.6 billion as reparations was to deepen the sense of injustice among the Germans. Such a large sum of money would only add a heavy burden on the German economy for a long time. Thus, this would cause long-term suffering.
(ii)Territorial terms
(iii)War Guilt Clause
Which was more intolerable to the Germans? Explain your answer. [13]
Introduction:
The Treaty of Versailles was signed at the end of the First World War to restore peace in Europe. However, in doing so, it angered the Germans who not only disliked the terms but were forced to accept them.
Main Body:
The military terms of the Treaty of Versailles humiliated the Germans. Once a European military power, as testified by their ability to fight against the British, the French, the Russians and the USA in the First World War, they were now reduced to a very weak power. They could no longer attack any country, as they were not allowed to have offensive weapons like submarines, tanks and air-force. In fact, with only 100,000 soldiers and Rhineland demilitarised, they probably could not even defend themselves. In other words, the country would experience a sense of insecurity.
The territorial terms angered the Germans in many ways. Firstly, the loss of colonies meant that Germany would no longer be regarded as a Great Power. This was a humiliation. Secondly, the loss of resource-rich areas like the Saar would affect Germany, which would find itself having difficulty in recovering its economy during the postwar period. Finally, the loss of lands to Poland and Czechoslovakia was intolerable, given that these lands were inhabited by Germans. The creation of Poland and Czechoslovakia was based on the concept of self-determination and yet, the Germans were deprived of their rights to self-determination. This was certainly unfair to the Germans.
The War Guilt Clause humiliated the Germans as well when Germany was forced to accept all the blame for starting the First World War. The Germans could not understand why Germany had to accept the entire blame when all the countries were involved in the war. Furthermore, Germany's involvement was due to its need to support its ally, which was the same reason why Russia was involved in the war. The amount of £6.6 billion as reparations was to deepen the sense of injustice among the Germans. Such a large sum of money would only add a heavy burden on the German economy for a long time. Thus, this would cause long-term suffering.
To what extent was the League of Nations weakened by its lack of authority? EYA. [12]
Introduction:
The League of Nations was set up in 1919 to stop the outbreak of another war. However, as its history would show, the League suffered from a number of weaknesses that would hamper its effectiveness.
Main Body:
One of the key weaknesses of the League was its membership. The absence of USA was a major blow to the credibility and reputation of the organisation. Without the strongest country in the world as a member, the League commanded less respect from potential aggressors. At the same time, any economic and military sanctions would be less effective in practice, since USA was not obliged to be involved. The absence of Germany and Russia were also regrettable. As these two countries had numerous grievances against the postwar arrangements, depriving them a place to voice their unhappiness meant that they could only seek change through war. In addition, the European dominance of the League meant that European affairs received extensive attention, compared to non-European affairs. These made non-European members less interested in supporting the League.
Another major weakness of the League was its lack of authority. As it had no international army of its own, it had to rely on its members to contribute their soldiers and equipment. This was not always forthcoming, as the members might not always be willing to commit their troops for the League's causes. With limited resources, it became difficult to deter aggression through collective security. Even for economic sanctions, the League could not enforced them, as members were not always willing to bear the economic losses resulting for the sanctions. As such, sanctions of any sort became ineffective.
The third major weakness of the League was its inability to deal with the Great Powers. As the Great Powers were usually the key members of the League, they exercised considerable influence over the decisions of the League. This would be most evident when Great Powers were involved in international conflicts. For instance, during the Ruhr Invasion and the Corfu Incident, both France and Italy were able to influence the League to make decisions favourable to them in resolving the conflict. Such tendencies to protect the interests of the Great Powers would cause a loss of faith among the weaker countries, who joined the League to seek protection in the first place.
The League of Nations was set up in 1919 to stop the outbreak of another war. However, as its history would show, the League suffered from a number of weaknesses that would hamper its effectiveness.
Main Body:
One of the key weaknesses of the League was its membership. The absence of USA was a major blow to the credibility and reputation of the organisation. Without the strongest country in the world as a member, the League commanded less respect from potential aggressors. At the same time, any economic and military sanctions would be less effective in practice, since USA was not obliged to be involved. The absence of Germany and Russia were also regrettable. As these two countries had numerous grievances against the postwar arrangements, depriving them a place to voice their unhappiness meant that they could only seek change through war. In addition, the European dominance of the League meant that European affairs received extensive attention, compared to non-European affairs. These made non-European members less interested in supporting the League.
Another major weakness of the League was its lack of authority. As it had no international army of its own, it had to rely on its members to contribute their soldiers and equipment. This was not always forthcoming, as the members might not always be willing to commit their troops for the League's causes. With limited resources, it became difficult to deter aggression through collective security. Even for economic sanctions, the League could not enforced them, as members were not always willing to bear the economic losses resulting for the sanctions. As such, sanctions of any sort became ineffective.
The third major weakness of the League was its inability to deal with the Great Powers. As the Great Powers were usually the key members of the League, they exercised considerable influence over the decisions of the League. This would be most evident when Great Powers were involved in international conflicts. For instance, during the Ruhr Invasion and the Corfu Incident, both France and Italy were able to influence the League to make decisions favourable to them in resolving the conflict. Such tendencies to protect the interests of the Great Powers would cause a loss of faith among the weaker countries, who joined the League to seek protection in the first place.
To what extent was the desire for revenge the main objective of the Big Three at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919? Explain your answer. [12]
Introduction:
When the Big Three met at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, Europe had just experienced four years of war. As victors of the war, representatives from France, Britain and the US had a responsibility to decide what to do. However, the representatives from these 3 countries might not have the same objectives in deciding what to do.
Main body:
France was certainly bent on revenge. Much of the fighting took place in France. It suffered more losses than Britain and the USA in terms of casualties and damages. The people in France wanted a harsh treaty as a retribution for the Germans, who were regarded as being responsible for their suffering. Therefore, it was not surprising that Clemenceau, the French Prime Minister, wanted the terms in the Treaty of Versailles to be harsh. He demanded that lands be taken away from Germany. He wanted to cripple Germany as a military power. He also wanted Germany to pay large sums of reparations over many years, so that the Germans would suffer from poverty for a long time.
Britain also wanted revenge, but not to the extent that France wanted. After all, Britain did not suffered as much damage as the French. Britain's desire for revenge was also coupled with its intention to restore Europe to peace and prosperity. Permanently weakening the Germans was not regarded as a way to help Europe's recovery. Terms that were too harsh would generate German resentment and thus, not conducive to the restoration of peace. Keeping Germany economically weak would also obstruct Europe's attempts to regain its prosperity. Therefore, Lloyd George, British Prime Minister, was mainly concerned with the reduction of German military strength in order to ensure peace. His demand for huge sums of reparations was not as strong as the French.
The USA had the least desire for revenge and its main concern was to prevent war from breaking out again in the future. As it suffered the least in terms of casualties and damages, it could afford to be more forgiving to the Germans. Woodrow Wilson, the US President, came up with ideas like self-determination and collective security in the Fourteen Points in order to minimise the outbreak of conflicts. With self-determination, it was assumed that there would be less desire for conflict, since the people could choose their countries to leave in. The idea of collective security was also aimed at deterring aggression as it was assumed that the combined strength of the majority would be enough to convince aggressors the futility of their aggressive acts.
Conclusion:
When we examine the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, we can actually see that each of the Big Three did attempt to influence the direction of the treaty through their objectives. However, judging from the terms, it certainly seemed that France's desire for revenge was the dominant objective. The loss of lands, the destruction of the German military and the huge sums of reparations were the dominant features of the treaty and thus, fulfilling France's desire for revenge. While Wilson's ideas of self-determination and collective security were also reflected with the creation of various independent states and the League of Nations respectively, these were imperfect creation. The Germans were deprived of self-determination as well as membership of the League as a punishment. Thus, the desire for revenge turned out to be the dominant objective of the Big Three.
When the Big Three met at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, Europe had just experienced four years of war. As victors of the war, representatives from France, Britain and the US had a responsibility to decide what to do. However, the representatives from these 3 countries might not have the same objectives in deciding what to do.
Main body:
France was certainly bent on revenge. Much of the fighting took place in France. It suffered more losses than Britain and the USA in terms of casualties and damages. The people in France wanted a harsh treaty as a retribution for the Germans, who were regarded as being responsible for their suffering. Therefore, it was not surprising that Clemenceau, the French Prime Minister, wanted the terms in the Treaty of Versailles to be harsh. He demanded that lands be taken away from Germany. He wanted to cripple Germany as a military power. He also wanted Germany to pay large sums of reparations over many years, so that the Germans would suffer from poverty for a long time.
Britain also wanted revenge, but not to the extent that France wanted. After all, Britain did not suffered as much damage as the French. Britain's desire for revenge was also coupled with its intention to restore Europe to peace and prosperity. Permanently weakening the Germans was not regarded as a way to help Europe's recovery. Terms that were too harsh would generate German resentment and thus, not conducive to the restoration of peace. Keeping Germany economically weak would also obstruct Europe's attempts to regain its prosperity. Therefore, Lloyd George, British Prime Minister, was mainly concerned with the reduction of German military strength in order to ensure peace. His demand for huge sums of reparations was not as strong as the French.
The USA had the least desire for revenge and its main concern was to prevent war from breaking out again in the future. As it suffered the least in terms of casualties and damages, it could afford to be more forgiving to the Germans. Woodrow Wilson, the US President, came up with ideas like self-determination and collective security in the Fourteen Points in order to minimise the outbreak of conflicts. With self-determination, it was assumed that there would be less desire for conflict, since the people could choose their countries to leave in. The idea of collective security was also aimed at deterring aggression as it was assumed that the combined strength of the majority would be enough to convince aggressors the futility of their aggressive acts.
Conclusion:
When we examine the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, we can actually see that each of the Big Three did attempt to influence the direction of the treaty through their objectives. However, judging from the terms, it certainly seemed that France's desire for revenge was the dominant objective. The loss of lands, the destruction of the German military and the huge sums of reparations were the dominant features of the treaty and thus, fulfilling France's desire for revenge. While Wilson's ideas of self-determination and collective security were also reflected with the creation of various independent states and the League of Nations respectively, these were imperfect creation. The Germans were deprived of self-determination as well as membership of the League as a punishment. Thus, the desire for revenge turned out to be the dominant objective of the Big Three.
Thursday 25 March 2010
A New Hope
My Disciples,
This is to help you gain a better idea on how to write essays, not as model answers to memorise them.
Mr L.
This is to help you gain a better idea on how to write essays, not as model answers to memorise them.
Mr L.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)