Historians have disagreed about the extent to which the Hol - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

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? Slide2

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.Slide3

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?Slide4

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 Slide5

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)Slide6

Evaluation

70 Nonsensical/ Absurd

-60 Wrong

-50 Implausible

-40 Improbable

-30 Unconvincing

-20 Limited/Incomplete

-10 Not wholly convincing

0 Possible

+10 Plausible

+20 Credible

+30 Valid+40 Persuasive+50 Compelling+60 Convincing+70 Definitive

Consider also using

combinations

of these:

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.Slide7

Pearson Edexcel Level 3 Advanced GCE in History

Centre name:

Candidate name:

Resources used.

The three works chosen for the assignment must be asterisked.

Page/web reference

Student comments

Student date(s) when accessed

Teacher initials & date checked

Alan Farmer, Why was the Confederacy defeated?

History Review

2005

http://www.historytoday.com/alan-farmer/why-was-confederacy-defeated

This article argues that the maintaining of northern will was crucial to 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.

19.9.16

CHW

23.9.16

* Richard Carwardine, ‘Abraham Lincoln, the Presidency and the mobilisation of Union sentiment’ in The American Civil War: Explorations and reconsiderations, London 2000

p.68-97

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.yale.edu/history/hist-119/lecture-18#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.

 Slide8

http://blogs.dickinson.edu/quallsk/2014/11/24/conflict-of-perceptions-intentionalists-vs-structuralists/Slide9

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.