Name: ……………………………………….. Teacher: …………………………..
Germany 1890-1945:
Exam Guide and Practice Questions
1
,Question One
The first question on this exam will ask you to compare two interpretations of
an event and explain how their version of that event differs. You do not need
to use any contextual knowledge and your do not talk about the provenance
at all.
Your answer will follow a PEEEE structure:
Point: How the interpretations actually differ
Evidence: Evidence from Interpretation B
Explanation: Explanation of what this evidence shows you
Evidence: Evidence from Interpretation A
Explanation: Explanation of what this evidence shows you
An example with a model answer has been provided for you. Look carefully at
the example, and then complete the three examples that follow. The sub-
topic you need to revise is highlighted in bold for each question.
Example and Model Answer
Interpretation A: William Shirer, in his book ‘The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich’
(1959). William Shirer was an American journalist who lived in Germany from 1926 to
1941.
Support for the Nazi Party had grown in 1923 due to the country’s problems of
hyperinflation and the French invasion of the Ruhr. By 1928, however, Nazism
appeared to be a dying cause. Now that Germany’s outlook was suddenly bright,
the Nazi Party was rapidly withering away. One scarcely heard of Hitler or the
Nazis, except as a joke.
Interpretation B: Adolf Hitler, in the conclusion to a 1939 special edition of his book
‘Mein Kampf’. Hitler originally wrote the book while in Landsberg Prison in 1924, and
this updated version was released to celebrate Hitler’s 50th birthday.
On November 9th, 1923, four and a half years after its foundation, the National 2
Socialist German Workers’ Party was dissolved and forbidden throughout the
,How does Interpretation B differ from Interpretation A about the level of
success of the Nazis in the 1920s? [4 marks]
Interpretation A differs from Interpretation B
about the success of the Nazi Party in the 1920s
because A says that the Nazis were floundering
whereas B suggests that the Nazis were
flourishing. Evidence from A to prove this is that
the Nazis are called “a dying cause”. This shows
that support for the Nazis was disappearing.
However B insists that the Nazis were “stronger”
and “more popular” than ever before. This shows
that support for the Nazis had grown throughout
the 1920.
As you can see, I have followed the PEEEE structure:
Point
Interpretation A differs from Interpretation B
about the success of the Nazi Party in the 1920s
because A says that the Nazis were floundering
whereas B suggests that the Nazis were
flourishing.
Evidence
Evidence from A to prove this is that the Nazis are
called “a dying cause”.
Explanation
This shows that support for the Nazis was
disappearing.
Evidence
3
, However B insists that the Nazis were “stronger”
and “more popular” than ever before.
Explanation
This shows that support for the Nazis had grown
throughout the 1920.
Now do the three examples yourself. Look back at the example I’ve just done
for you if you get stuck. Bring them back to me to mark once you’ve done
them!
Interpretation A: An extract from Adolf Hitler’s book, ‘Mein Kampf’, published in
1926, where he recorded his thoughts on the Treaty of Versailles.
Each point of that treaty could have been engraved on the hearts and minds of
the German people and burned into them, until sixty million men and women
would find their souls aflame with a feeling of rage and shame.
Interpretation B: Adapted from a book by historian Sally Marks called ‘The Illusion of
Peace: International Relationships in Europe 1918-1933’, written in 1976.
The Treaty of Versailles is severe, but it is amazing it is not more so. Thanks to
Wilson’s insistence, Germany lost remarkably little territory, considering how
thoroughly it had lost the war. True, the colonies were gone, but the European
losses were relatively few. The real difficulty was not that the treaty was
exceptionally severe, but that the Germans thought it was, and in time persuaded
others it was.
4
Germany 1890-1945:
Exam Guide and Practice Questions
1
,Question One
The first question on this exam will ask you to compare two interpretations of
an event and explain how their version of that event differs. You do not need
to use any contextual knowledge and your do not talk about the provenance
at all.
Your answer will follow a PEEEE structure:
Point: How the interpretations actually differ
Evidence: Evidence from Interpretation B
Explanation: Explanation of what this evidence shows you
Evidence: Evidence from Interpretation A
Explanation: Explanation of what this evidence shows you
An example with a model answer has been provided for you. Look carefully at
the example, and then complete the three examples that follow. The sub-
topic you need to revise is highlighted in bold for each question.
Example and Model Answer
Interpretation A: William Shirer, in his book ‘The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich’
(1959). William Shirer was an American journalist who lived in Germany from 1926 to
1941.
Support for the Nazi Party had grown in 1923 due to the country’s problems of
hyperinflation and the French invasion of the Ruhr. By 1928, however, Nazism
appeared to be a dying cause. Now that Germany’s outlook was suddenly bright,
the Nazi Party was rapidly withering away. One scarcely heard of Hitler or the
Nazis, except as a joke.
Interpretation B: Adolf Hitler, in the conclusion to a 1939 special edition of his book
‘Mein Kampf’. Hitler originally wrote the book while in Landsberg Prison in 1924, and
this updated version was released to celebrate Hitler’s 50th birthday.
On November 9th, 1923, four and a half years after its foundation, the National 2
Socialist German Workers’ Party was dissolved and forbidden throughout the
,How does Interpretation B differ from Interpretation A about the level of
success of the Nazis in the 1920s? [4 marks]
Interpretation A differs from Interpretation B
about the success of the Nazi Party in the 1920s
because A says that the Nazis were floundering
whereas B suggests that the Nazis were
flourishing. Evidence from A to prove this is that
the Nazis are called “a dying cause”. This shows
that support for the Nazis was disappearing.
However B insists that the Nazis were “stronger”
and “more popular” than ever before. This shows
that support for the Nazis had grown throughout
the 1920.
As you can see, I have followed the PEEEE structure:
Point
Interpretation A differs from Interpretation B
about the success of the Nazi Party in the 1920s
because A says that the Nazis were floundering
whereas B suggests that the Nazis were
flourishing.
Evidence
Evidence from A to prove this is that the Nazis are
called “a dying cause”.
Explanation
This shows that support for the Nazis was
disappearing.
Evidence
3
, However B insists that the Nazis were “stronger”
and “more popular” than ever before.
Explanation
This shows that support for the Nazis had grown
throughout the 1920.
Now do the three examples yourself. Look back at the example I’ve just done
for you if you get stuck. Bring them back to me to mark once you’ve done
them!
Interpretation A: An extract from Adolf Hitler’s book, ‘Mein Kampf’, published in
1926, where he recorded his thoughts on the Treaty of Versailles.
Each point of that treaty could have been engraved on the hearts and minds of
the German people and burned into them, until sixty million men and women
would find their souls aflame with a feeling of rage and shame.
Interpretation B: Adapted from a book by historian Sally Marks called ‘The Illusion of
Peace: International Relationships in Europe 1918-1933’, written in 1976.
The Treaty of Versailles is severe, but it is amazing it is not more so. Thanks to
Wilson’s insistence, Germany lost remarkably little territory, considering how
thoroughly it had lost the war. True, the colonies were gone, but the European
losses were relatively few. The real difficulty was not that the treaty was
exceptionally severe, but that the Germans thought it was, and in time persuaded
others it was.
4
