Essay
A* A Level History NEA Essay- Germany (AQA)
Top mark essay for AQA A Level history. Covers sources, interpretations, and content, with footnotes. In the word count.
[Show more]
Content preview
How far was political extremism the greatest threat to stability in Germany in the period 1888-1991?The period of 1888-1991 was an incredibly unstable time in German history. Starting with the accession of Kaiser
Wilhelm II and ending with the fall of the Soviet Union, the period saw immense change in German government,
economy, foreign relationships and politics. Many factors are attributed to this instability, however political
extremism, foreign influence and individuals are the most significant, as there is clear unrest caused by these. While
political extremism posed a great threat to stability, it is overshadowed by the failures of individuals in leadership.
Although extremism did cause political and social unrest, the climate for this to take place would not have been
possible without the past actions of powerful individuals. They damaged international relations, isolated Germany,
and grew the perfect breeding ground for extremism to flourish. Foreign influence was also a significant factor in
creating instability, since a physical split emerged in Germany as a result. While this argument is valid, the damage
caused would not have been possible without the previous failures of those in power, such as Kaiser Wilhelm, who
severely damaged foreign relations. Overall, the greatest threat to stability in Germany was not political extremism
but the actions of individuals.
Anthony Nicholls is arguing that the Versailles Treaty’s biggest impact was to cause previously moderate Germans to
lean towards extremism, whilst John Hiden is suggesting that the Treaty added complications to issues already
existing. Nicholls was one of the first British scholars to enter the study of German history after World War Two,
suggesting that he offered a perspective that was unlikely to have been influenced by other historians, making his
interpretation convincing. However, Nicholls was not German, and therefore would have lacked the deeper cultural
understanding of events that contemporary Germans would have had, reducing the convincingness of his argument.
However, in 1994, Nicholls was awarded the Bundesverdienstkreuz by the German government, suggesting that he
had close ties with Germany, with an insight into both the British and German experience. His viewpoint is therefore
more convincing since his arguments presented must align with those of the German people. In his 1979 work,
Nicholls argues that the main damage caused by the Treaty of Versailles was that it forced people who had
previously been moderate to lean towards extremism, since extremist groups supported their outrage at the
Versailles Diktat (“disillusion more moderate men who might otherwise have supported their new republic.”) This is
certainly true, as election statistics from the 1919 federal election clearly indicate that the popularity of extremist
parties increased. Furthermore, more ordinary Germans came to oppose the government in response, as shown by
the popular ‘Stab in the Back’ myth that was adopted by many 1. Thus, Nicholls’ is more convincing. Nicholls was
writing during the heart of the Cold War, where tensions between the Soviets and the West were heating up
significantly. This influence of context makes Nicholls convincing as he was writing during a time when the impacts of
the treaty were continuing “to poison the political atmosphere.” Nicholls’ work is intended to be informative, and he
used a range of sources such as voter’s statistics from the time, increasing his convincingness. Furthermore, Nicholls
receiving an honorary doctorate from Munich University in 2003 does seem to suggest that his work is supported by
credible sources, and reflects a viewpoint supported in German academia. The dramatic language (“poison”
“ruined”) used in this interpretation does reduce its convincingness. This language suggests a strong and personal
viewpoint, rather than something informative. It also gives it a more fictional tone, as if the piece serves to engage
its audience rather than inform. However, when you consider the wider context, this viewpoint is certainly very
convincing. The Treaty of Versailles gave rise to a number of extremist groups, and votes for extremist parties
increased dramatically. Furthermore, a number of uprisings (such as the Munich Putsch) took place in retaliation for
the aftereffects the Treaty caused. As such, the interpretation gains more credibility. Overall, however, Nicholls
presents a very convincing argument in relation to the impact of the Treaty of Versailles on Germany.
John Hiden was a leading figure in Baltic studies, who worked Cold War, criticising events from a Baltic perspective.
On the one hand, this adds convincingness, as he was analysing events during a period in which the impacts of the
Treaty were obvious. However, Hiden was more specialised in Baltic studies, and only focused on Germany majorly
during the start of his academic career, whereas Nicholls was very influential in developing understanding of German
history, and this area was his focus. As such, Hiden’s viewpoint is emerging, not yet developed by the growth of
experience (as Nicholls’ was), reducing his convincingness. Hiden’s specialisation led him to have a different
interpretation to Nicholls, who focused mainly on the impact on the German people. In ‘The Weimar Republic,’
Hiden argues that we cannot attribute the failure of the Weimar Republic to the Versailles Treaty. Instead, it “added
dimensions to existing internal conflicts” (whilst Nicholls posited the Treaty had an impact on the political leanings of
1
E.J. Passant, A short history of Germany 1815 – 1945 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960), 158.
, everyday Germans.) ‘The Weimar Republic’ was used as a key text for those studying German policy before 1914,
adding convincingness since the text is of significance. Furthermore, Hiden’s book was one of the first on early
German policy since World War Two, suggesting that he relied on sources (such as newspaper reports), rather than
other historian’s interpretations, adding convincingness since he presents an initial reaction to events. The tone is
informative, and Hiden was noted for separating Weimar policy from Nazi policy. This tactic allowed a clearer
analysis of early Germany to form. As he is viewing events in isolation, rather than allowing future events to
overshadow them, Hiden’s argument is more convincing. Hiden therefore draws different conclusions than Nicholls,
who used hindsight, such as the influence of the Treaty on the rise of Nazism, to form his interpretation. When
considering context, Hiden is convincing when he arguing that the Treaty “added dimensions to existing internal
conflicts,” since the Treaty allowed more to outwardly criticise the government, as shown by the number of uprisings
in the 1920s. Furthermore, the Treaty highlighted the great mistrust in Germany of foreign influence, which had
existed previously (during the Kaiser’s reign) but was less obvious. This adds convincingness since context supports
Hiden’s viewpoint. However, Hiden seems to have missed the fact that the Treaty had long-term effects (which
Nicholls points out), affecting events in the Cold War, reducing the interpretation’s convincingness. Overall, Hiden is
somewhat convincing in his argument, however his missed fact and specialisation in different areas, reduces the
value his interpretation holds. As a result, Nicholls’ specialisation, recognition by the German government, and
attention to contexts make his interpretation overall the most convincing.
Political extremism is defined as the advocacy of extreme views in a political setting and using those views to
influence country politics. From1888-1991, political extremism in Germany played a great role in the country’s
instability. In 1920s, the country faced a series of putsches and uprisings from different political standpoints. Most
notably, the Kapp Putsch, which caused social unrest and highlighted the weaknesses of the democratic Republic. 2
Whilst never a serious threat to the government itself 3, it exemplifies how political extremism caused great
insecurity, especially as army refused to attack the Freikorps 4, and how Putsch was only put down due to a strike of
German workers. This shows instability, since social structures faltered with the uprising, causing unrest.
Additionally, it highlighted that the government had little authority; completely dependent on the will of the people,
and therefore easily undermined. The social volatility caused by political extremism is further evidenced by the
events of Kristallnacht, which caused great civilian fatalities, and clearly highlighted that there was no longer any just
and fair control over Germany. Most concerning was the fact that this extremist violence was officially instigated by
the Nazi regime5, on the nights of the 9th and 10th November 1938. This is a change from the 1920s, since extremism
had now become a part of the government itself, demonstrating the power extremism had over Germany, since the
stability of the country was now directly controlled by the extremist government. Kristallnacht marked the start of
policy being given into the hands of the violent extremist Nazis: the SS. 6 Since country policy was now directly
influenced by extremists, stability in Germany was almost non-existent, highlighting the significance of extremism.
Additionally, Kristallnacht caused great civilian fatalities. Around 1,000-2,000 Jewish civilians died across these two
nights7. This shows the impact political extremism was having on Germany: it not only caused unrest, but even
endangered the lives of civilians. This highlights how extremism had a great impact on the stability of Germany: the
people could no longer rely on a guarantee of their safety and were instead relying on laying low to avoid harm. The
period following the Nazi regime did not present many threatening extremist groups until the Cold War, most
notably the 1970s. A final example of the power political extremism held over Germany during this period was
during the 1970s, wherein terrorist activities were carried out by the Red-Army faction, a left-wing group 8.
Established as a result of university student uprisings in the 1960s, they organised random acts of terror alarmingly
entwined with the German public, hoping for an aggressive response from the government, to cause further
revolution. The wider impact of their terrorist activities was of great importance, due to the gang’s links with
international terrorist groups and their range of actions (from assassinations of key figures such as Alfred
2
E.J. Passant, A short history of Germany 1815 – 1945 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960), 160.
3
Anthony Wood, Europe: 1815-1960 (Essex: Longman Press, 1984), 362.
4
Ibid., 363.
5
Ibid., 396.
6
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. “Kristallnacht”. Holocaust Encyclopedia. Oct 18, 2019. Accessed Sep 11, 2023 at
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/kristallnacht
7
Richard J. Evans. “The November Pogrom”. The British Library. Accessed Oct 29, 2023 at https://www.bl.uk/voices-of-the-
holocaust/articles/the-november-pogrom-kristallnacht
8
Norman Stone, The Atlantic and Its Enemies: A Personal History of the Cold War (New York: Basic Books, 2010), 348.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller sc226039. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £4.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
51292 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 15 years now