Transcript File

Historians have disagreed about the
extent to which the Holocaust was a
long-term plan.
What is your view about the extent to which the
Holocaust was a long-term plan?
What do you need to do?
With reference to three chosen works:
• analyse the ways in which interpretations of the
question, problem or issue differ
• explain the differences you have identified
• evaluate the arguments, indicating which you
found most persuasive and explaining your
judgements
• make use of supplementary reading as appropriate.
What are historical
interpretations?
You need to understand that:
• historical interpretations are constructions – things
that historians actively make rather than simply
find
• histories are more like theories – developed in
answer to questions or in response to problems –
than they are like pictures
• although histories involve representation
(description, explanation, etc.), they are not simply
re-presentations of a fixed past?
Summary of differences in
interpretation
• Intentionalist interpretation that the Holocaust was predetermined
o Hildebrand and Andreas Hillgruber: Hitler's unique and direct authorship
going back to the earliest years as Mein Kampf was the blueprint
o Fleming and Dawidowicz: Hitler was key and committed to the Holocaust
from the start of his career)
• Extreme structuralist interpretation that the Holocaust arose due to the
failure of emigration and the impact of war.
o Mommsen and Broszat: the turning to genocide as such was something
new resulting from the years 1939–41.
• Moderate structuralists interpretation advocating gradualism
o Schleunes: no direct path and lack of clear directions
o Kershaw: twisted road o Aly: bureaucracy
Booklist
• Hildebrand, Klaus The Third Reich (1984)
• Fleming, Gerald Hitler and the Final Solution (1992)
• Schleunes, Karl A. The Twisted Road to Auschwitz: Nazi Policy Toward German Jews, 1933–39
(1990)
•
Berghahn, V R Modern Germany (1982)
•
Peukert, Detlev Inside Nazi Germany (1982)
•
Goldhagen, Daniel Jonah Hitler’s Willing Executioners (1996)
•
Kershaw, Ian Hitler (2000)
•
Dawidowicz, Lucy The War against the Jews 1933–45 (1975)
•
Mayer, Arno J. Why did the Heavens Not Darken: the Final Solution in History (1988) Aly, Gotz
Final Solution (1999)
•
Aly, Gotz and Heim, Susanne Architects of Annihilation (2003)
•
Browning, Christopher The Origins of the Final Solution (2005)
•
Longrich, Peter The Unwritten Order: Hitler’s Role in the Final Solution (2005)
•
Farmer, Alan ‘Hitler and the Holocaust’ in History Today, Issue 58 (Sept 2007)
Evaluation
• 70
Nonsensical/ Absurd
• -60
Wrong
• -50
Implausible
• -40
Improbable
Consider also using combinations of these:
• -30
Unconvincing
• -20
Limited/Incomplete
• -10
Not wholly convincing
• 0
Possible
While plausible, this argument is incomplete because...
While valid, X’s argument is less compelling than Y’s
because...
While improbable, this argument is definitive because...
etc, etc.
• +10
Plausible
• +20
Credible
• +30
Valid
• +40
Persuasive
• +50
Compelling
• +60
Convincing
• +70
Definitive
Pearson Edexcel Level 3 Advanced GCE in History
Centre name:
Candidate name:
Resources used.
The three works chosen for the
assignment must be asterisked.
Alan Farmer, Why was the
Confederacy defeated?
History Review 2005
Page/web
reference
Student comments
http://ww
w.historyto
day.com/al
anfarmer/wh
y-wasconfederac
y-defeated
This article argues that the maintaining of northern will was crucial to
19.9.16
northern victory in the American Civil War. It provides a useful summary of
the main debate, but since Farmer’s argument depends on arguing against
the other possible causes rather than a developed argument for northern
will itself, it will be background reading rather than a chosen work.
However I will now read more on the importance of maintaining morale in
the North as well as the South.
* Richard Carwardine, ‘Abraham
p.68-97
Lincoln, the Presidency and the
mobilisation of Union sentiment’
in The American Civil War:
Explorations and reconsiderations,
London 2000
As the title suggests, this article focuses on the role of Lincoln in achieving
northern victory. Carwardine argues that one of Lincoln’s greatest
achievements was his justification for the war and its sacrifices, which
arguably sustained northern will which led to victory. This will be one of
my three chosen works because its focus on political leadership can be
contrasted with the other two historians who argue for the significance of
northern military leadership and the superiority of northern resources.
Beringer, Hattaway, Jones & Still,
‘Chapter 3: The Impact of the
Blockade’ in Why the South Lost
the Civil War, US 1986
p53–63
This chapter provides a useful counter-argument as the historians argue
here that the Union naval blockade was ineffective and not a major cause
of the demoralisation of the South. Therefore this will be one of my
supplementary works since it will provide an additional perspective within
the historical debate.
Professor Blight, “War So
Terrible": Why the Union Won and
the Confederacy Lost at Home and
Abroad, Open Yale Lecture 18
(transcript Yale University Press,
2016)
http://oyc.y
ale.edu/his
tory/hist119/lecture18#ch4
This Yale lecture looks at the reasons for Confederate defeat and Union
victory. Professor Blight begins with the southern loss-of-will argument
for their defeat before considering other explanations: industrial capacity,
political leadership and military leadership. It provides useful background
research, but does not in my view have a strong enough argument for one
of the causes for it to be a chosen work.
Student
date(s)
when
accessed
Teacher
initials &
date
checked
CHW
23.9.16
• http://blogs.dickinson.edu/quallsk/2014/11/24/co
nflict-of-perceptions-intentionalists-vsstructuralists/
Assignment
• The assignment has taken account of a range of views, and these are
compared and contrasted in a discussion of relevant issues. The decision
to write one overall response, rather than divide it into sections, has
resulted in a coherent and focused response that deals well with
identifying issues for debate and reaching a personal judgment. Most of
the relevant issues are discussed, although it does not present a
sustained evaluative argument.
• The discussion of chosen works has become embedded rather than
explicit, and this element of the assignment is consequently not strongly
evident. The separation of chosen works from further reading is unclear
and the evaluation of the views in three chosen works is not sufficiently
explicitly addressed. Ultimately the assignment has concentrated on
using reading to provide an explanation, rather than on discussing issues
of interpretation and evaluating views.
• The assignment is stronger in the AO1 elements than the AO3 elements
of the mark scheme. Weaker performance particularly in bullet points 2
and 3 places the work overall on the L3/4 borderline, although
performance in bullet points 1, 4 and 5 shows qualities of secure L4.