Question 1a: Comprehension and inference from a source by fhSiUpI

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 11

									Question 2ci: Utility – how USEFUL is a source? Comparison of sources
Source B          One view of the Five Year Plans
From The Illustrated History of the USSR, an official history published in Moscow in 1982.
  The drive towards industrialisation was an heroic struggle by all the Soviet people. It showed their enthusiasm following
  the revolution of 1917 and victory in the Civil War. The Five Year Plans gave a focus for the people’s hopes and joy. The
  whole world watched closely to see the process of industrialisation in the USSR and the success in getting rid of
  backwardness.

Source C          Another view of the Five Year Plans
From Stalin, by A ULAM. This book was published in the USA in 1973.
  At tremendous human cost, the Soviet Union was pushed within a few years (1928-1934) into becoming an industrial
  economy. To some, this is the greatest crime of modern history. To others it is a huge feat of social control, ruthless and
  cruel in its effects on millions of human beings. Yet it laid the foundations of a richer economy and enabled Russia to
  withstand a foreign invasion and become a superpower.


(cbi) Explain possible reasons why the content of Source B and C differsHow useful is Source H to
an historian studying the attitude of the German people towards Hitler in the year in which he
became Chancellor? Use Source H and your own knowledge to answer the question.(10 9 marks)

a. Source H is useful to a Historian as its true because Hitler was a leader and the people did follow                          Formatted: Right: 0.67", Tab stops: 0.33",
him he was a powerful chancellor.                                                                                               Left


 b. a. There are many possible reasons why these two sources are different these could be the fact
 that russian and Americans hated each other or they were written a long time after this had happened.
 Firstly, I think that they may be different because the Russia wanted to make their country look like it
 was successful. Whereas the American could have write it to make the Russians look bad after all
 they did despise them.
 Secondly is that both of the dates were far away from the time that it had happened.
 Over all, because of the content of the sources been different I would say that the American point of
 view is more accurate because it is near the time.

Looking at the content of source H, the poster of Hitler in terms of usefulness to a Historian studying
German people’s attitudes towards Hitler could be quite useful.
      In the provenance we can see it was put up in 1933, the year he became chancellor, giving it some
usefulness already.
      However, from my own knowledge I know that Hitler was imprisoned for an attack during the
Munich Putsch, which may have turned the people against him. However, he turned the people against
him. However, he turned it to his advantage and managed to become chancellor, making him
powerful. This got his people back.
      Again looking at the provenance, the people in the background seem happy and overjoyed that
Hitler is reigning in Germany.
      In judgement to the source the historian can note that Hitler was supreme and his people loved
him.

 c. b. The provenance helps explain a lot for both sources, both publishing times different, countries
 of publishment also different and the source of knowledge. Source B could have been an
 encouraging view published in Moscow in 1982, to show the success and determination of Stalin, the
 source is not as bleak as Source C, but seems lighter explanation praising the enthusiasm of the
 Russians, Source C could have been a more honest view, published in 1973, still showing the success
 of Stalin, but was published in the USA and describes the bleaker insight into processes of reaching
 five year plans, maybe a persuasive source, as C is very encouraging although addressing harshness.
 I know that Stalin was very powerful, his authority, stability and determination changed Russia so,
 Source B may be more of a less correct source for readers in Moscow in 1982, more praising Stalin.

I think that source H is not very useful for many reasons first of all, I think that as it was produced by
the Nazis, it may not be totally true and therefore not useful. The poster shows people holding out
their right hands, but it does not show who to. There is a picture of Hitler transferred on top and it does
not show that the people are following him. They could just be following the Nazi party. The words
on the poster suggest that the crowd are solely behind Hitler, not the whole Nazi party.
      As I can see, Hitler is posing as a sole leader, he is not doing the Nazi sign with his right hand in
the air as the people are doing. However, the votes in source E do suggest that the Nazi party had a lot
of followers.

 d. c. I am going to say how these interpretations are different.
 Firstly, in Source B, looking at the provenance of the source, I can see that it was published in Russia
 in 1982. The fact that it was a Russian book shows that it would be one-sided and would want to
 show Russia in a good way. Also, during Stalin’s time, I know from my own knowledge that many
 people were scared of Stalin. People who opposed him were killed and so everyone in Russia would
 have to pretend to idolise him or maybe they’d be killed. Therefore, I know that the reason this
 differs from source C is because of different motives people would have had to write the sources.
 On the other hand, in Source C, I can see that it was an American book published in 1973. This is
 one reason why Source C differs from Source B, because it was written in a democratic country
 where the writer would have been able to see all of the facts. He would have had the benefit of
 hindsight. I know from my own knowledge that the five year plans did have a harsh effect on
 millions so it differs from the other source, which says many people were happy about the plans.
 This could be because of the different beliefs and aims of the USA and the USSR.
 Overall, therefore, I think that the main reason why Source B and C differ is because of the different
 beliefs and aims of the two countries. What may have been perceived in Russia may have been a
 huge success but in the USA it seemed like industrialisation at the cost of millions of peoples lives.
 Also another main reason is the fact that the Russian people were bullied into saying good things
 about Stalin for fear of their and their family’s lives.
                                                                                                              Formatted: Font: 11 pt
Source F        One view of the Reichstag Fire, February 1933
From an account written in 1950 by RUDOLF DIELS, a Nazi and head of police in Berlin in 1933.                         Formatted: Tab stops: 0.33", Left
 I think van der Lubbe started the Reichstag Fire on his own. When I arrived at the burning                           Formatted: Right: 0.67", Tab stops: 0.33",
 building, some police officers were already questioning him. His voluntary confession made                           Left
 me think that he was such an expert arsonist that he did not need any helpers. Why could
 not one person set fire to the old furniture, the heavy curtains and the bone-dry wood
 panelling? He had lit several dozen fires using firelighters and his burning short, which he
 was holding in his right hand like a torch when he was overpowered by Reichstag officials.

Source G          Another view of the Five Year Plans
From Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, by the British historian ALAN BULLOCK, 1952.                                         Formatted: Tab stops: 0.33", Left
 Goering had been looking for an excuse to smash the Communist Party. He at once                                      Formatted: Right: 0.67", Tab stops: 0.33",
 declared that van der Lubbe was only part of a larger Communist plot t start a campaign of                           Left
 terror. The burning of the Reichstag was to be the signal for Communist revolt.
 In fact, I believe that the burning of the Reichstag was planned and carried out by the Nazis
 themselves. Van der Lubbe was picked up by the S.A. after he had attempted to set fire to
 other buildings. He had been allowed to climb into the Reichstag and start a fire on his own
 in one part of the building while the Nazis started the main fires.


(bi) Explain possible reasons why the content of Source F and G differs.                                 (10 marks)

a. There are a number of reasons why the two interptations might differ Source F was wrote by a Nazi                  Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Right: 0.67",
who were accused of starting the fire themselves and source G was wrote by a Historian who isn’t                      Border: Top: (No border), Bottom: (No border),
                                                                                                                      Left: (No border), Right: (No border), Tab
going to be likely to make stuff up is he.                                                                            stops: 0.33", Left + 2.11", Left
                                                                                                                      Formatted: Right: 0.67", Tab stops: 0.33",
The usefulness of Source H to an historian studying the attitudes of German people towards Hitler in                  Left
the year he became chancellor is very useful. The poster shows Hitler being the main figure in the
middle of the poster being admired by ordering fans behind him and with writing underneath saying ‘
leader we are following you’.
       I know from source H and my own knowledge that opinion polls towards the Nazi’s were at an all
time high until the year Hitler became chancellor. So the poster is very useful to an historian studying
German people’s attitudes towards the Nazi’s and Hitler.
       But however the poster may not be as useful as it could be. The poster says ‘yes leader, we are
following you’ Hitler was a leader but not of the country. He was only Chancellor not fuehrer so that
meant not everyone was siding with Hitler and the Nazi’s and though through my own knowledge I
know the majority of German people supported the Hitler and the Nazi’s there was still a minority the
still would not follow.
       But overall the usefulness of the poster to an historian would prove useful because the poster even
created by the Nazi’s is very useful to a historian studying German attitudes Hitler because through my
own knowledge I know that the German people felt like the feeling given by the poster that Hitler was
a leader and that they were ready to follow him.

 e. b. There are many reasons why these two sources differ. Source F being written by a Nazi,                         Formatted: Font: 11 pt
 Source G written by a British historian. Both sources are completely opposite.
 First reason, I think these interpretations are different is because as F was written by a Nazi he is
 trying to cover up the real fact while the other source is British it is slating the Nazi claiming that they
 planned it.
 However, the Nazi was head of police s he would have a clearer interpretation than that of an
 historian.
 The dates are also apart and from my own knowledge I know that the Reichstag fire did take place in
 1933.
 There are endless possibilities why these sources are different, but for me the ones that I have singled
 out seem to be the most obvious.

Source H clearly shows a picture of Hitler standing in front of thousands of people, with the words
“Yes, leader, we are following you”. The many people behind Hitler appear to be happy that he is
there and are saluting him. Therefore if anyone saw this poster, they would see that Hitler was very
popular and loved by his people,
      The words in the poster make Hitler indestructible almost, because they give the opinion that the
people of Germany relied totally on him. From my own knowledge I know this is fairly accurate.
Hitler did have an immense power over the German people, and they did see him as a father figure.
However, this poster was issued in the year Hitler became Chancellor not when he became dictator.
Therefore I think that this poster exaggerates how poplar he was, although it does reflect how popular
he became.
      Furthermore, the poster was issued by the Nazis in 1933. Therefore I think that it does reflect
some of the love the German people had for Hitler, but it is glorified in an attempt to get the German
people to vote for him.
The fact that it was created by the Nazis makes the poster slightly less useful to a historian studying
German attitudes to Hitler in this year. The poster would be deliberately trying to show Hitler in a
positive way, and, although he was very popular at this time, I don’t think he was as popular as the
poster makes him out to be.

f. How useful source H to an historian studying the attitude of the German people towards Hitler in
the year in which he became chancellor is very useful. What can be seen is Hitler’s followers
respecting and obeying Hitler, from the People’s faces they are happy and shows no sign of corruption.
I know from my own knowledge that when Hitler became chancellor everyone did love him and
respect him because of everything he had promised them in return if they vote for him. And since it
was published at the time he became chancellor (1933) it adds to the usefulness and it was also a Nazi
party poster to show the thoughts of people about him. However, the source is also useful because the
poster was used as propaganda to influence German Citizens to love him and follow most importantly
it shows what people thought of him on the surface – they lived in terror.
      Overall the usefulness of source H it shows the attitudes of the German people towards Hitler is
quite useful, even though their were many hidden grudges towards him, other Germans benefited from
his rule as chancellor which shows their attitudes in the poster.

g. This poster was produced by the Nazi party, so was designed to encourage support of Hitler. It was
basically propaganda. This is useful to a historian when looking for pubic opinion of Hitler’s rise to
power, but it shows how his image as ‘sold’ to the German people by the Nazi party. It was also
created in 1933, when Nazi support was very high in comparison to previous years. Overall, this
means that it is quite useful in giving a historian a picture of Nazi propaganda and when looking at
how and why Nazi support increased in the early 30’s. It shows how Hitler appeared to the Germans,
but shows no real German public opinions, so is only partly useful to a historian.
      The poster also holds the claim ‘Leader, we are following you’ to show that Hitler has the support
of the public. I know from my own knowledge that the Nazis gained a record number of seats in
parliament that year – 44% of the vote. Therefore, we see that the posters claim can be trusted, and at
this moment in time, Hitler had the support of thousands of Terms, even though the poster was
designed to attract more.
      Overall, this poster is quite useful to a historian. It shows Nazi propaganda at a time of success.
The provenance shows the image Hitler portrayed, and the actual content shows he aimed to create
support. I know that at the tie, many Germans did in fact support him, showing that source H is a
useful source for a historian looking at Hitler’s image and public opinion in 1933.

h. From the poster of source H we can see that it is saying that everyone will be obeying Hitler and
following him as people do with Gods. It seems as if that everybody loves him and looks up to him as
if it is obvious from the poster as the crowd seems to be saluting him and the figure of Hitler is
outstanding and striking with character. There is no hint of opposition and disloyalty at all. This is a
contrast to what I know actually happened. Although some people genuinely trusted Hitler as there
‘father & mother’ and did think of him as a God, many lived in terror as they lost freedom of speech
and religion. Also the poster doesn’t include Communists or Jews as they were being discriminated
against and treated like animals therefore the poster does not portray a balanced view of Germany.
        The poster was a Nazi poster which automatically decreases its reliability a lot as Nazi’s were
under Hitler’s control too and only good things were said about him. The Nazi’s all supported Hitler
so he was obviously going to have a lot of appraisal from a Nazi poster.
        Therefore, I can say that the source is unreliable as it isn’t providing a balanced view of everyone,
every race in Germany, but in providing only views of the Aaryn race (if even that!) as I know many
were unhappy when trade unions were banned. Also it was a Nazi poster as propaganda at the time
(1933) when Hitler was rising to his peak of power. The only sources that were distributed at this time
were Nazi propaganda posters gaining support from the German people because opposition had been
abolished.
      Overall, from looking at source’s context and provenance I can say that the source is not very
trustworthy, only giving limited formation. So the source isn’t very useful in the way that it was
propaganda and could be exaggerating and finding how people actually felt that it can be useful saying
what Nazi’s felt towards Hitler.
                                                                                                         Formatted: Font: 1 pt
 c. There are many reasons why these two interpretations of the
                                                                                                         Formatted: Right: 0.67"
 Reichstag fire are different. Using the information we have from the
                                                                                                         Formatted: Font: 14 pt, Bold
 sources, if we observe the provenance, this is a clear indication as to
 why the interpretations are different.
 Firstly, looking at Source F, we can see that it was written by a Nazi
 member. Contrastingly, Source F was compiled by a British
 historian. We can therefore see why these 2 interpretations are
 different, because a Nazi member would have been one-sided
 towards the Nazi view-point, as they would have wanted the Nazis to
 succeed. On the other hand a British historian would be able to
 have a more balanced view, and be able to summarise the event,
 without being one-sided. The historian wrote the source in 1952,
 and therefore has the benefit of hindsight to help in the judgement.
 The Nazi member, however, wrote his source at the time, and so
 would have only had his first instinctive reaction, rather than time to
 think about it.
 I can also tell from my own knowledge why the interpretations are
 different. I know that it is widely believed that the Nazis started the
 Reichstag fire. It is believed that they used these means of terror to
 help Hitler become dictator rather than just chancellor. The
 historian would think this, as it is what many people believe today. I
 also know from my own knowledge that the Nazis did try to blame it
 on others, and so the sources are bound to differ, as the Nazis aren’t
 likely to admit that.

 d. One possible reason why these two interpretations are different is
 because they are giving their views on how the Reichstag fire started.
 In Source F we here that the fire was started by Van der Lubbe on
 his own. Although this is possible it does seem unlikely and it was
 written by a Nazi head of police, which tells me that it will be
 inaccurate and might be a cover up of the truth. However in source
 G we hear that the Nazi started the main fires while van der Lubbe
 started a little fire on his own.
 Another reason why these two interpretations are different is that
 they were written by opposite people. Source F was written by a Nazi
 head of police and Source G was written by a British historian.
 Both don’t seem very trustworthy because source F would want to
 cover up what really happened and Source G would just want to
 blame the Nazi/Germany. However, Source G may have been
 written by the British it was also written by a historian who really
 just wants to uncover the truth.
From the two possible reasons I think that my first reason explains a
possible reason why the two sources are different. I think this is the
most important one because it shows the differences between the two
clearly an I think it is a more important reason.
                                                                         Formatted: Font: 14 pt
Question Type: Utility – hWHY two interpretations are differentow USEFUL is a
      source?.                                                             (109)

    Target: EAnalysis and evaluation of a source for interpretationsutility (AO 6.32) in
    context (AO 6.1)
    Level 1: Simple response statements                                                                          1-2
    Either looks at the provenance and draws simple contrasts with little or no explanation – e.g. F was a
    Nazi and G was a British historianor the content and makes a simple factual statement (e.g. ‘It is
    useful for showing that crowds of people saluted Hitler’.)
    Or ‘learned response’: makes simple statements, accepting the sources at face value – e.g. Source F
    is different to source G because they say different things/ because F is correct and G is incorrect
    which could apply to any source (e.g. ‘It is useful because it is an official poster and must be
    accurate.’).
    Level 2: Undeveloped Simple points                                                                           3-5
    Either uses the provenance of the source to suggest reasonsmake statements based on ORIGIN –
    e.g. the Nazi would have been biased and the British textbook writer would not. Includes ‘learned
    response’ explanations (e.g. benefit of hindsight/ more documents to draw onit was a Nazi poster and
    so will be biased).
    Or uses factual informationthe content to make simple comments on the reasons – e.g. there are
    different theories about the Reichstag fire which these two sources representit shows people cheering
    him and I know he was popular at this time.
    To get to this level, these ideas MUST include some an explanation of why this led them to be
    differentmakes it useful.

    Level 3: Developed points                                                                                   6-87
    Either Ddevelops an argument using provenance or content to draw out the PURPOSE of the source                                Formatted: Font: Not Italic
    to and then suggest reasons why it is useful – e.g. Diels wanted to make the Nazis look innocent/                             Formatted: Font: Not Italic
    Bullock aimed to show Hitler as a tyrant and wanted to make the Nazis look guiltyit shows us how the
    Nazis used propaganda to attract support.
    Or develops an argument using factual information about its context – e.g. compares content closely
    with own detailed knowledge to evaluate and then compare the two interpretations.
    Level 4: Sophistication                                                                                  98-109
    As Level 3, but develops convincing arguments using BOTH provenance and facts/ debating
    limitations/ showing depth of knowledge to substantiate the arguments about usefulness.
                                                                                                                                  Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.25"

When evaluating provenanceutility:, look for NOP:                                                                                 Formatted: Font: 11 pt
                                                                                                                                  Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.25",
1. Begin AND END by emphasising how it is useful. You may wish to point out limitations, but don’t concentrate on this –           No bullets or numbering
   every source is useful in some way.                                                                                            Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.25"
                                                                                                                                  Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.25",
2. Look at the PROVENANCE, and come up with some ideas of why it is useful based on its:                                          Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at: 0" + Tab
                                                                                                                                  after: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.25"
   Nature --
 Is it a letter, speech, diary, autobiography, textbook, etc.cartoon, photo, painting, novel, reported conversation, obituary,   Formatted: Font: 11 pt
   newspaper article, propaganda poster etc.?                                                                                     Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.25"
 What differences does this explain, if any – for instance, is one more likely to be truer than another? Why might therefore     Formatted: Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at:
   it be useful?                                                                                                                  0" + Tab after: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.25"
   NOTE that, last year, answers which addressed this were largely ignoredless valued by the examiner, who paid MUCH              Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
   more attention to:
                                                                                                                                  Formatted: Bullets and Numbering

     Origin --                                                                                                                    Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.5",
                                                                                                                                  Tab stops: 0.25", Left
    Wwho wrote it, when and where? What context (e.g. in a totalitarian state?) And how might this affect it – e.g. bias/
                                                                                                                                  Formatted: Font: 11 pt
     ‘blind-spots’/ perspective (eyewitness v. hindsight).How might this make it useful?
     NOTE that, last year, answer which addressed this reached level 2. To get level 3 you had to address:                        Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
                                                                                                                                  Formatted: Font: 11 pt
     Purpose --                                                                                                                   Formatted: Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at:
                                                                                                                                  0" + Tab after: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.25"
    Why did the author produce the source (e.g. advertisements, propaganda, speeches to persuade etc./ cartoons to get a           Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
     point across in a fun way/ diaries and autobiographies to justify/ books to attack or just to record)? How does this make it
     useful?
                                                                                                                                    Formatted: No bullets or numbering
     3. Look at the CONTENT, and find some way that it is useful to an historian.                                                   Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.25",
                                                                                                                                     No bullets or numbering
    NOTE that ideas which come up with general reasons of utility (e.g. ‘diaries give us insight into people’s inner thoughts’)
     scores less highly that arguments which address the specific context of the source (e.g. ‘this is a diary by Goebbels in
     1945 so is shows us his inner thoughts as the war was coming to an end and the Nazis were losing it.’)And how might this
     affect it – e.g. bias/ ‘blind-spots’/ perspective (eyewitness v. hindsight).


Sentence Starters:
1.     This source is useful because of its provenance…
a.     When I look at the origin of this source I notice…
             … and tBecause they were written by different peoplehis is useful because it
helps us to understand how…
b.     When I look at the purpose of this source I notice…
             … and this is useful because it helps us to understand how…
         Start by stating two or three factual differences between the provenance.
         You MUST explain how/ why these led to differences in the sources (e.g. bias).

2.       This source is useful because of its content…
               … and this is useful because it tells us that…
                                                                                                                                    Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
EXAMPLE QUESTION
Source H      A poster saying: 'Yes Leader, we are following you.'
                A Nazi Party poster of 1933.




(c) How useful is Source H to an historian studying the attitude of the German people towards Hitler in                 Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"
the year in which he became Chancellor? Use Source H and your own knowledge to answer the
question.                                                                         (9 marks)

a. Source H is useful to a Historian as its true because Hitler was a leader and the people did follow him he was a
powerful chancellor.                                                                                                    Formatted: Font: 11 pt
                                                                                      No Level Awarded        Mark: 0   Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 10 pt
b. Looking at the content of source H, the poster of Hitler in terms of usefulness to a Historian studying German       Formatted: Right
people’s attitudes towards Hitler could be quite useful.                                                                Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 10 pt
     In the provenance we can see it was put up in 1933, the year he became chancellor, giving it some
                                                                                                                        Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 10 pt
usefulness already.L1
     However, from my own knowledge I know that Hitler was imprisoned for an attack during the Munich                   Formatted: Font: 4 pt
Putsch, which may have turned the people against him. However, he turned the people against him. However,               Formatted: Font: 5 pt
he turned it to his advantage and managed to become chancellor, making him powerful. This got his people                Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
back.                                                                                                                   Formatted: Font: 11 pt
     Again looking at the provenance, the people in the background seem happyL1and overjoyed that Hitler is
                                                                                                                        Formatted: Font: 11 pt
reigning in Germany.
     In judgement to the source the historian can note that Hitler was supreme and his people loved him.                Formatted: Font: 11 pt
                                                                                                  Level: 1    Mark: 2   Formatted: Font: 11 pt

c. I think that source H is not very useful for many reasons first of all, I think that as it was produced by the       Formatted: Font: 11 pt
Nazis, it may not be totally true and therefore not useful.L2 The poster shows people holding out their right          Formatted: Font: 11 pt
hands, but it does not show who to. There is a picture of Hitler transferred on top and it does not show that the       Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
people are following him. They could just be following the Nazi party. The words on the poster suggest that the
                                                                                                                        Formatted: Font: 11 pt
crowd are solely behind Hitler, not the whole Nazi party.
     As I can see, Hitler is posing as a sole leader, he is not doing the Nazi sign with his right hand in the air as   Formatted: Font: 11 pt
the people are doing. However, the votes in source E do suggest that the Nazi party had a lot of followers.             Formatted: Font: 11 pt
                                                                                                  Level: 2    Mark: 3
                                                                                                                        Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
d. The usefulness of Source H to an historian studying the attitudes of German people towards Hitler in the year
he became chancellor is very useful. The poster shows Hitler being the main figure in the middle of the poster
being admired by ordering fans behind him and with writing underneath saying ‘ leader we are following you’.            Formatted: Font: 11 pt
      I know from source H and my own knowledge that opinion polls towards the Nazi’s were at an all time high
until the year Hitler became chancellor. So the poster is very useful to an historian studying German people’s
attitudes towards the Nazi’s and Hitler.L2                                                                             Formatted: Font: 11 pt
      But however the poster may not be as useful as it could be. The poster says ‘yes leader, we are following
you’ Hitler was a leader but not of the country. He was only Chancellor not fuehrer so that meant not everyone
was siding with Hitler and the Nazi’s and though through my own knowledge I know the majority of German
people supported the HitlerL2 and the Nazi’s there was still a minority the still would not follow.                    Formatted: Font: 11 pt
      But overall the usefulness of the poster to an historian would prove useful because the poster even created       Formatted: Font: 11 pt
by the Nazi’s is very useful to a historian studying German attitudes Hitler because through my own knowledge I
know that the German people felt like the feeling given by the poster that Hitler was a leader and that they were
ready to follow him.                                                                                                    Formatted: Font: 11 pt
                                                                                                  Level: 2    Mark: 4
                                                                                                                        Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
e. Source H clearly shows a picture of Hitler standing in front of thousands of people, with the words “Yes,
leader, we are following you”. The many people behind Hitler appear to be happy that he is there and are
saluting him. Therefore if anyone saw this poster, they would see that Hitler was very popular and loved by his
people,
      The words in the poster make Hitler indestructible almost, because they give the opinion that the people of
Germany relied totally on him.L2 From my own knowledge I know this is fairly accurate. Hitler did have an
immense power over the German people, and they did see him as a father figure. However, this poster was
issued in the year Hitler became Chancellor not when he became dictator. Therefore I think that this poster
exaggeratesL2 how poplar he was, although it does reflect how popular he became.
      Furthermore, the poster was issued by the Nazis in 1933. Therefore I think that it does reflect some of the
love the German people had for Hitler, but it is glorifiedL2 in an attempt to get the German people to vote for
him.
The fact that it was created by the Nazis makes the poster slightly less useful to a historian studying German
attitudes to Hitler in this year. The poster would be deliberately trying to show Hitler in a positive way,L2 and,
although he was very popular at this time, I don’t think he was as popular as the poster makes him out to be.
                                                                                                         Level: 2     Mark: 5
f. How useful source H to an historian studying the attitude of the German people towards Hitler in the year in                   Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
which he became chancellor is very useful. What can be seen is Hitler’s followers respecting and obeying Hitler,
from the People’s faces they are happy and shows no sign of corruption. I know from my own knowledge that
when Hitler became chancellor everyone did love him and respect him because of everything he had promised
them in return if they vote for him. And since it was published at the time he became chancellor (1933) it adds
to the usefulness and it was also a Nazi party poster to show the thoughts of people about him. However, the
                                                                                                                                  Formatted: Font: 10 pt
source is also useful because the poster was used as propaganda to influence German Citizens to love himL3
and follow most importantly it shows what people thought of him on the surface – they lived in terror.                            Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
     Overall the usefulness of source H it shows the attitudes of the German people towards Hitler is quite useful,               Formatted: Font: 9 pt
even though their were many hidden grudges towards him, other Germans benefited from his rule as chancellor                       Formatted: Font: 10 pt
which shows their attitudes in the poster.
                                                                                                                                  Formatted: Font: 9 pt
                                                                                                         Level: 3     Mark: 6
                                                                                                                                  Formatted: Font: 10 pt
g. This poster was produced by the Nazi party, so was designed to encourage support of Hitler. It was basically
propaganda.L3 This is useful to a historian when looking for pubic opinion of Hitler’s rise to power, but it shows how his       Formatted: Font: 9 pt
image as ‘sold’ to the German people by the Nazi party. It was also created in 1933, when Nazi support was very high in          Formatted: Font: 11 pt
comparison to previous years. Overall, this means that it is quite useful in giving a historian a picture of Nazi propaganda      Formatted: Font: 10 pt
and when looking at how and why Nazi support increased in the early 30’s. It shows how Hitler appeared to the Germans,
but shows no real German public opinions, so is only partly useful to a historian.                                               Formatted: Font: 11 pt
     The poster also holds the claim ‘Leader, we are following you’ to show that Hitler has the support of the public. I know     Formatted: Font: 10 pt
from my own knowledge that the Nazis gained a record number of seats in parliament that year – 44% of the vote.                   Formatted: Font: 11 pt
Therefore, we see that the posters claim can be trusted, and at this moment in time, Hitler had the support of thousands of
Terms, even though the poster was designed to attract more.                                                                       Formatted: Font: 10 pt
     Overall, this poster is quite useful to a historian. It shows Nazi propaganda at a time of success. The provenance shows     Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
the image Hitler portrayed, and the actual content shows he aimed to create support. I know that at the tie, many Germans         Formatted: Font: 9 pt
did in fact support him, showing that source H is a useful source for a historian looking at Hitler’s image and public opinion
in 1933.                                                                                                                          Formatted: Font: 10 pt
                                                                                                            Level: 3 Mark: 7      Formatted: Font: 9 pt

h. From the poster of source H we can see that it is saying that everyone will be obeying Hitler and following him as people      Formatted: Font: 10 pt
do with Gods. It seems as if that everybody loves him and looks up to him as if it is obvious from the poster as the            Formatted: Font: 9 pt
crowd seems to be saluting him and the figure of Hitler is outstanding and striking with character. There is no hint of
                                                                                                                                  Formatted: Font: 11 pt
opposition and disloyalty at all. This is a contrast to what I know actually happened. Although some people genuinely
trusted Hitler as there ‘father & mother’ and did think of him as a God, many lived in terror as they lost freedom of speech     Formatted: Font: 10 pt
and religion. Also the poster doesn’t include Communists or Jews as they were being discriminated against and treated like        Formatted: Font: 9 pt
animals therefore the poster does not portray a balanced view of Germany.
                                                                                                                                  Formatted: Font: 11 pt
     The poster was a Nazi poster which automatically decreases its reliability a lot as Nazi’s were under Hitler’s control too
and only good things were said about him. The Nazi’s all supported Hitler so he was obviously going to have a lot of              Formatted: Font: 10 pt
appraisal from a Nazi poster.                                                                                                    Formatted: Font: 9 pt
     Therefore, I can say that the source is unreliable as it isn’t providing a balanced view of everyone, every race in
                                                                                                                                  Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Germany, but in providing only views of the Aaryn race (if even that!) as I know many were unhappy when trade unions
were banned. Also it was a Nazi poster as propaganda at the timeL3 (1933) when Hitler was rising to his peak of power.          Formatted: Font: 11 pt
The only sources that were distributed at this time were Nazi propaganda posters gaining support from the German people           Formatted: Font: 10 pt
because opposition had been abolished.
                                                                                                                                  Formatted: Font: 9 pt
     Overall, from looking at source’s context and provenance I can say that the source is not very trustworthy, only giving
limited formation. So the source isn’t very useful in the way that it was propagandaL3 and could be exaggerating and            Formatted: Font: 10 pt
finding how people actually felt that it can be useful saying what Nazi’s felt towards Hitler.                                    Formatted: Font: 11 pt
                                                  Level: 3 Mark: 72. Because the authors had different motives…                   Formatted: Right, Right: 0"
        Explain the different MOTIVES . Explain how this led to differences.

And for the most able pupils:
3.      Because they are selecting different facts for their different purposes…
              Compare facts to own knowledge and explain how this explains the differences in tone and emphasis.   Formatted: Right

								
To top