Exam skills: the modern depth study

Weimar and Nazi Germany is Paper 3, worth 52 marks, including 4 for SPaG.

AO3 is about sources from the time; AO4 is about historians' interpretations.

Method: an inference is something the source suggests but does not say directly. Give two, each supported by a detail from the source.

Question: Give two things you can infer from Source A about Nazi policies towards Jewish people.

Model answer:

• Inference 1: Jewish people were no longer treated as full citizens. Detail: only people 'of German- or kindred blood' could be citizens.
• Inference 2: Jewish people lost their political rights, such as voting. Detail: 'Only the citizen of the Reich enjoys full political rights'.

Method: two or three explained reasons, with specific detail, including at least one that is not a stimulus point.

Question: Explain why the Nazis were able to reduce unemployment in the years 1933–39. (Stimulus: the RAD; autobahns.)

Model paragraph, going beyond the stimulus: Another reason was rearmament. From 1935, Hitler introduced conscription, so hundreds of thousands of young men joined the army instead of looking for work. At the same time, factories were needed to build weapons, tanks, ships and planes, which created many jobs in industry. This meant that unemployment fell sharply, although it also left Germany preparing for war.

Enquiry: How useful are Sources B and C for an enquiry into the treatment of Jewish people in Germany in the years 1933–35?

Method: judge each source using its content, its provenance and your own knowledge.

Model answer: Source B is very useful, because it is the actual law. It shows that by 1935 Jewish people were separated from other Germans by law, even in marriage. As an official government document, it is reliable evidence of Nazi policy, but it does not show how the law was enforced, or how Jewish people experienced it.

Source C is useful because it shows that persecution began soon after the Nazis came to power, in April 1933, and that the SA enforced it in public. However, a photograph shows only one moment, and it may have been taken for propaganda, so it does not show how many Germans took part in the boycott.

3(b) What is the main difference between the views?

Model answer: Interpretation 1 argues that German workers' lives improved under the Nazis, mainly because they had jobs and new leisure opportunities. Interpretation 2 argues that the improvement was more apparent than real, because workers lost freedoms, wages stayed low and hours grew longer.

3(c) Suggest one reason why the interpretations give different views.

Model answer: They may have used different sources. Interpretation 1 may be based on evidence like workers' memories of having jobs and holidays. Interpretation 2 may be based on figures for wages, working hours and food prices. Different evidence leads to different conclusions.

Method: use both interpretations, and your own knowledge, then reach a judgement.

Model conclusion: I mostly agree with Interpretation 2. It is right that workers lost their trade unions to the German Labour Front, and that hours grew longer while real wages rose only slowly. My own knowledge supports this: invisible unemployment hid the true picture, and rearmament limited consumer goods. However, Interpretation 1 is right that, compared with the Depression, regular work was a real improvement. So workers were more secure, but less free, and their living standards rose much less than the Nazis claimed.