Related Keywords

No Related Keywords

Register NowHow It Works Need Essay Need Essay
From 1915 to 1917, the trench warfare on the western front produced remarkably few decisive results. The front line during this time didn't move more than a few miles either way with the exception of the German withdrawal to the Hindenburg line in March 1917, despite several massive and bloody offensives from both sides. This was mainly due to the nature of the war "“ a war of attrition with modern weapons. In these circumstances it was almost always the defenders who had the advantage. It became clear to commanders on both sides quite early on in the war that it was going to become a matter of numbers "“ to achieve success the attackers would have to overwhelm the defenders numerically. However due to massive errors of judgement, bad weather conditions and poor planning, numerical advantages were lost by both sides in in a series of attacks resulting in catastrophic losses of life; most notably were the Allied offensives at the Somme and Ypres and the German offensive at Verdun. Because of these neither side was in a position to win a decisive victory, and the western front remained in stalemate. But several things changed as 1918 drew closer, which eventually led to the end of the stand-off and broke the western front into open warfare. The most significant long-term cause of movement was the USA joining the allies. The USA was brought into the war on April 6th 1917 by president Woodrow Wilson after several American ships were sunk by German u-boats and the Zimmerman Telegram was sent. This would have several major affects on the western front, as it would tip the balance of troops in the allies favour as well as bring the mighty American economy to bear. However the Americans were not equipped for war it would not be until 1918 that American Troops would be arriving in any significant number. This caused the Germans to become desperate, and made the German Command realise that if they are to have any chance of winning the war they would need start an decisive offensive soon before the Americans could have any major affect on the war. Although this was indeed a strong cause for the Germans launching an all-out offensive, they were at this point still in no position to do so. The next major event leading to movement on the Western front was the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. Lenin, as he had promised, announced his intentions to withdraw Russia from the war and peace talks began immediately in November 1917, although the treaty was not actually signed until March 1918. This caused the Eastern front to close and was an extremely important event as it freed up over one million German troops and 3000 pieces of artillery which could be now be written into a plan of attack on the Western front "“ the Ludendorf Offensive was thought up and preparations began. If this event had not happened it is unlikely the Germans would have been able to launch any major offensives and therefore this is an extremely important cause of the movement. These two factors were probably the largest, but there were several others which had an effect. The British naval blockade of the Baltic sea had cut of a large proportion of Germanys food and supplies. Without these Germany was not producing enough to feed its armies and its population. In 1917 it was estimated it would be less than a year until food ran out. This added to the desperation and confirmed that, for the Germans, time was not on their side. This is also important, and means even if the Americans hadn't joined the war Germany would still be facing a time constraint to win victory in the west.
0 User(s) Rated!
Words: 632 Views: 306 Comments: 0
From 1915 to 1917, the trench warfare on the western front produced remarkably few decisive results. The front line during this time didn't move more than a few miles either way with the exception of the German withdrawal to the Hindenburg line in March 1917, despite several massive and bloody offensives from both sides. This was mainly due to the nature of the war – a war of attrition with modern weapons. In these circumstances it was almost always the defenders who had the advantage. It became clear to commanders on both sides quite early on in the war...
others which had an effect. The British naval blockade of the Baltic sea had cut of a large proportion of Germanys food and supplies. Without these Germany was not producing enough to feed its armies and its population. In 1917 it was estimated it would be less than a year until food ran out. This added to the desperation and confirmed that, for the Germans, time was not on their side. This is also important, and means even if the Americans hadn't joined the war Germany would still be facing a time constraint to win victory in the west.
Become A Member Become a member to continue reading this essay orLoginLogin
View Comments Add Comment

The Schlieffen plan was a plan...The Schlieffen plan was a plan created by Alfred Von Schlieffen, aimed to capture Paris and defeat France within the first few days of a war solving the problem of the two fronted war. The plan involved sweeping through neutral Belgium and Holland with little resistance, then sweeping South West through France to Paris. There, the German army would encircle Paris from behind, split up its divisions and surround the capital of France; then the Germans would capture the city or France would surrender. This plan was aimed to last for 5 weeks, by that time the Russian army would have finished mobilizing its masses and Germany would send divisions over to the Eastern front and easily crush the poorly equipped Russian army. In 1906, Alfred Von Schlieffen retired leaving Helmuth Von Moltke as head of staff and Von Moltke, completely disagreed with the plan calling it too risky. In 1911, many modifications were added to the Schlieffen plan: Von Moltke decided to pull significant number of troops out of the main force in Northern France and place them in the lightly defended area of Alsace and Lorraine and forces on the Russian border and Von Moltke decided to go through Belgium and not Holland as he thought that it would have created a longer front for the Germans stalemate of WW1. Overall these changes led to a war on two fronts like they had tried to stop as they did not Paris before Russia mobilized. These modifications weakened the German forces and in turn this made the offensive longer by using fewer men. Hence, this created a two front war against both Russia and France. Because the Germans had not entering through the Netherlands, problems arose since the Germans did not have the Dutch railways at their disposal and this created a huge supply and communication problem. A very decisive factor in the failure of the Schlieffen plan was the resistance of Belgian forces. The Germans believed that the Belgians would allow the Germans to use the country as a thoroughfare, but the Belgians resisted this and fought the Germans. Although the Belgian army was only a tenth the size of the German army, they still managed to delay the German forces for nearly a month. The Belgians were brave and continued to fight back until they were finally crushed by German artillery. This meant that the Germans were behind schedule and could not reach Paris before the Russian army mobilized. Another important factor was the intervention of the British Expeditionary Force, comprising of roughly 100 000 men and many more during the war when conscription was introduced. The Germans believed that the British would not enter the war since the alliance called the Treaty of London between Belgium and Britain was completed 75 years earlier and was considered to the Germans as a scrap of paper. Also since England was a part of the triple entente, Britain was allied with France who was at war with Germany. This meant that England was drawn into the war to defend its pride. Britain provided invaluable help by delaying the Germans at the Battle of the Mons and at Liege. In fact they were so well trained in rifle shooting that at the Mons the Germans thought the BEF were using machine guns. The British also provided priceless support at the Battle of the Marne. Plan 17 was known to the Germans, and with the French advancing into Alsace-Lorraine the Germans planned to be able to bypass the French forces and capture Paris, leaving enough forces on the defensive in Alsace-Lorraine to hold the ground while keeping the French busy until the Germans had advanced to Paris. However, in 1914 the French offensive was a major victory for the Germans. Within the first few weeks of war France made gains into Germany but after charging heedlessly into full on artillery and machine gun barrage, the French were destroyed, losing 250,000 men in the first six weeks of the war Moltke counter attacked and as a result the French armies were driven back, closer to Paris but were in a better position to react to the German advance in the north. These armies, which under the Schlieffen plan were meant to be bogged down in Alsace-Lorraine and unable to react quickly enough to stop the Germans from getting Paris were much closer and able to participate in the Marne. The general in charge of Paris was Galienni; he was in charge of defending Paris. Galienni summoned the Parisians and rallied them to defend their city. Because of this, many Parisians were sent by taxi to the front the battle of the Marne. These extra troops really were needed and were necessary for the defense of Paris. After the Germans had pushed their way through Belgium, they suddenly changed course of direction. Instead of circling Paris, Von Moltke decided to head straight for Paris, due to the tiredness of his troops, the fact that the Schlieffen Plan was behind schedule since the Belgians had resisted and because the BEF had come to France's aid. This change firstly left the German flanks wide undefended and made the Germans on course to a battle with the French and English forces. As the British and French troops were in a better defensive position they were sure to win. Also at the battle of the Marne, the Parisians joined together united and went to the battle field, to defend their town. The general in charge of Paris was Galienni; he was the soul commander in defending Paris. Galienni summoned his fellow Parisians and rallied them to defend their city. Because of this, many Parisians were sent by taxi to the front the battle of the Marne. These extra troops really were needed and were necessary for the defense of Paris. The lack of technology in 1914 helped caused the failure of the Schlieffen plan. Well, the technology of attack lagged greatly behind the technology of defense infantry and cavalry vs. carefully planned trenches, machine guns and howitzers. They couldn"t reach Paris in enough time to totally outflank the French, and when they did, they had a nightmare trying to break through. The Schlieffen plan was not a bad plan, in fact. The Nazis used pretty much the same strategy ignore eastern front, attack through Belgium and ignore massive French fortifications. The difference was the Nazis had motorized transport, and the Blitzkrieg tanks and bombers. The Schlieffen Plan failed because Moltke lacked faith in the idea of the Schlieffen plan and changed it, Schlieffen's underestimation of the difficulties faced by army"“they had to advance 640km through Belgium, the rapid deployment of the BEF surprised Germany. Germany faced many problems of supply and communication as they moved closer to Paris, Germany underestimated Belgium resistance, Germany underestimated speed of Russian mobilization, and Germany under estimated reaction of Great Britain to violation of Neutrality Treaty. Overall all these factors added up to the failure of one of the most ambitious war plans ever created. I believe that the intervention of the British Expeditionary Force was a great factor as they slowed the Germans greatly; however, I believe the key factor was Von Moltke loosing his nerve and retreating.   

The Schlieffen plan was a plan created by Alfred Von Schlieffen, aimed to capture Paris and defeat France within the first few days of a war solving the problem of the two fronted war. The plan involved sweeping through neutral Belgium and Holland with little resistance, then sweeping South West...

Words: 1212 View(s): 376 Comment(s): 0
In March 1917, the... In March 1917, the situation for the Russians had become desperate, there was a serious mood of discontent. The climate in Russia is cold and harsh so the soil is poor making trade very difficult and sometimes not at all. The workers wanted political changes as well as food and fuel. In Petrograd as St. Petersburg had been renamed to avoid any German connection, 40,000 workers went on strike for higher wages and the people and troops overthrew the Tsar Nicholas II, as he was an autocrat absolute ruler. The outbreak of World War One had some positive effects for the Tsar Nicholas II. It created a sense of unity amongst the Russian population; it increased Russian's feelings of pride and patriotism. Also all the different strands of Russia's population looked to Tsar for leadership. However, these feelings of hope and prosperity were short lived. As the Tsar was very much influenced by his wife, Tsarina Alexandra, due to her encouraging him to withdraw from public events to a private family world and her determination that Nicholas should not share power with the people of Russia. Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich was one of the many contemporaries Nicholas's had, he stated that, 'Nicholas never had an opinion of his own"¦always agreeing with the judgement of the last person he spoke to'; As Sergei Witte's, chief minister under Nicholas; opinion of the Tsar was in his favor 'he has a quick mind and learns easily. In this respect he is far superior to his father' it is also known that Sergei disliked Nicholas but knew him to make this judgement, this proves that people had mixed opinions on him. Nicholas's way in dealing with protests, strikes and any other suggestion of trade unions was violence. Such as Bloody Sunday The 1905 revolution, this was the spark for an increase in opposition. It was the uprising of strikes, petitions and peasants. By June and July, the strikes had spread to other cities; workers demanded an eight-hour working day, higher wages and better working conditions. Different groups were demanding changes, the middle-class demanded open elections, freedom of speech and the right to form political parties. Poles and Fihns demanded independence and the Jews wanted equal rights; a peace treaty was signed between the Russians and the Japanese in September. However, on the 30th October 1905, the Tsar had the choice of giving in or using force as the strikes were co-ordinated and the soviets were formed in other cities. He gave in and issued the October manifesto. He promised the people of Russia a parliament or Duma elected by people, Civil Rights and uncensored newspapers and the right to form political parties. But later that same year, when the army returned the Tsar felt strong enough to take the control he had lost. He sent troops to take revenge on workers and peasants; their houses were looted and burned. After a year of violence 1905, Tsar Nicholas had an opportunity to address the grievances of his people middle-class, liberals, workers, peasants. However, the Tsar failed to do this, leading to increased resentment from many strands of Russian Society. Russian socialists and their relationship to the war played a crucial role for revolution in Russia. Lenin, the leader of the radical Bolsheviks otherwise known as Trotsky, was an outlaw and actually lived in Finland at the beginning of World War I. The Bolsheviks were workers and intellectual students, who worked in a secretive, organised party, that wanted to overthrow the Tsar and wanted to create a socialist state. Lenin carried lively debates with the mass organisation on the more moderate side of the Russian Social Democrats called Mensheviks. Who also wanted to overthrow the Tsar and create a socialist state, with the exception that they worked in a widely known party, which co-operated with trade unions unlike the Bolsheviks. Different to the other socialist, Lenin was actually in favour of war at this point because he thought that it would weaken capitalism. Simultaneously, many Russian soldiers were dying due to lack of leadership, shortage of munitions and very limited medical care. Millions of male peasants were sent to help the war so there was a shortage of farm workers therefore less food was being produced. In addition, the Russian railway system was being used to carry food to the home front and so the trains that carried the food to the cities had been reduced. Many factories were closed, making people unemployed. Coal and industrial materials were short, and meant that people were not only hungry but cold as well. As a result of the shortages, prices were rising but wages were kept the same. Tsar Nicholas II made a terrible mistake in September 1915. He decided to take over the running of the war and go to the war front himself. This may be due to Nicholas being trained as a soldier, not to become statesmanship. Never the less, this had serious consequences. Firstly, Nicholas himself was directly held responsible for defeats in the war. Following, the tsar handed over the control of the country to the tsarina. Due to her German background, the people mistrusted her and believed she was a spy. Her reputation was falling drastically. Tsarina Alexandra' s relationship with Rasputin contributed further to the collapse of her reputation; some even thought they were lovers. She refused to work with the Duma, which caused many problems. She worked with 'our men' who were friends of Rasputin. So many changes were made, that no one organised food, fuel and other supplies. To such an extent that food was just left to rot on the broken down railways. By this time, the Tsar was losing support severely. The middle-class were unhappy with the Tsar by the end of 1916, one of the many reasons was due to soldiers not receiving appropriate medical treatment. Copious amounts of industrialists complained about the lack of raw materials. The aristocracy were also depressed about the lack of workers for their estates and the control that the Tsarina and Rasputin had over the Russian government. This is when most of strikes broke out. There was no return now"¦the revolution had begun. The Tsar ordered that protests and marches be crushed with force; after all there had been many riots before. But when the leader of Duma, Rodzianko, sent Nicholas a telegram notifying him that the situation was at crisis point, however what Nicholas failed to realise is that they now wanted to get rid of him! So as a result the Tsar decided not to take any notice of this warning. Meanwhile, the Army had taken sides. Soldiers in Petrograd refused to fire on the swarm of people gathered in streets; even some regiments shot their officers and joined the demonstrations. The soldiers had had enough of the war and demanded that the Duma should take the control of the Russian government. Also on March 12 the revolutionary instinct of the people was released. Prisons were opened and the prisoners mingled with the demonstrators. Street fights developed with the troops and the police sent in to suppress them. Only two days later, on March 14, the Tsarist Regime is overthrown in St. Petersburg while an uprising in Moscow is also successful. Nicholas did try to return to Petrograd but it was too late. Railway workers refused to let his train into cities The Duma Committee then sent a delegation to see the tsar in Pskov and force him to abdicate - which he does on the following day, March 15th. His brother Grand Duke Michael took over but the people had had enough of the Royal Family. On 22nd March 1917, Nicholas II was arrested at the army headquarters and imprisoned at Tsarkoe Selo, the famous royal palace in the countryside. It was then the Tsar and his whole family were killed at Ekaterinburg in the Urals in July 1918. From this we can easily see that the Russian Government was poorly run, however from this evidence it is not whether that the Tsar's himself approved on the approach taken towards his dictatorship. Moreover, from our sources it is clear that, whether genetically inherited or purely leisure that violence was his way of moving himself up Russia's political hierarchy. Due to Nicholas's hatred and unpopularity his death was inevitable. Ironically, he was overthrown by his people that he was slaughtering for, thus leaving the thrown for the citizens decree.   

In March 1917, the situation for the Russians had become desperate, there was a serious mood of discontent. The climate in Russia is cold and harsh so the soil is poor making trade very difficult and sometimes not at all. The workers wanted political changes as well as...

Words: 1433 View(s): 353 Comment(s): 0
Question I Source B shows...Question I Source B shows Hitler surrounded by others leading Nazis digging in the start of one of Germany's many new Autobahns. These "Autobahns" were the equivalent of our motorways; and the first of their kind anywhere in the world. Their creation in turn created around 100,000 new jobs, what with the industrial power needed to support them"¦for each manual labourer working on them, 3 jobs industry would be created to support the sheer material need Autobahns needed. The fact that Hitler allowed himself to pictured digging into an Autobahn project proves their importance to the Nazi regime; certainly Hitler was very rarely pictured whilst physically working any other time during Nazi rule. Question II Source C shows Germany's G.N.P. steadily having a large chunk of itself being spent on the Armed Forces from 3% in 1933 when Hitler first gained absolute power, to 23% in 1939 when Germany and Britain stood on the brink of World War. The increases on spending on Armed Forces in Germany follows the typical "Rolling Stone" increase pattern; where increase is a constant, and where each increase gets steadily larger on it's predecessor. The G.N.P. percentile peaks at 1939 for obvious and given reasons; but even before Germany was busy creating Lebensraum, the amount being spent on Armed Forces was incredibly high for a German who's welfare system should have been in economic overdrive. The Nazi can, therefore, be shown to have had a lot of determination to rebuild Germany's forces. Coincidently or not, as Germany's forces grew, unemployment dropped. But I firmly believe Nazi politics where to create a huge Army, not reduce unemployment; the Army came before social policies. The reason for a large percentage of the drop in unemployment is due to the fact that before Hitler and supposedly during, Germany's Armed Forces where still limited by the Treaty of Versailles to 100,000 men. For those 100,000 soldiers, perhaps another 250,000 industrial workers would be kept in their jobs as support for the army. By enlarging the Armed Forces, Hitler was not only fulfilling a rabid Nazi view that a strong Germany need a strong Army; he was creating, from thin air, 2,500,000 jobs"¦ conscription forced 1,000,000 men into the army and created up to an additional 2,500,000 jobs in blue and white collar workers. This drastically improved unemployment figures see Source A, and, on a more sinister note, connected with the Autobahn projects in preparing Germany for all out war. It is a grim fact the all #Autobahn routes lead to Austria, Holland, Belgium, France and Poland- Hitler's central targets during the World War that was to follow. Question III Source D is a German poem which offers "advice" in that it makes statements and expects them to be followed to German women. This poem was written in the 1930's, during the rise of Nazism. Today, such a poem would rightly be considered sexist; but Nazis enjoy dividing society up into rank and file, with each "type" of person being given, and expected to fulfil, and set role in their idea of a society. Hitler's Nazis tried with regrettable success to force all their ideals on the German population, and Source D is a typical example of the way in which they typically achieved this. These sorts of pressures where applied throughout education and into adulthood. As such, Education differed greatly between Aryans and Jews, boys and girls. An Aryan German boy would learn mainly maths, German, and physics, based around things like the trajectory of bombs, war stories and the amount of money Germany could save if it killed all those with mental health problems. Girls, however, used maths only as far as working out how to change a cooking recipe from a meal for 4, to a meal for 5, for example. Nazi indoctrination would continue through a teenager's life, with The Hitler Youth or the League of German Maidens eventually becoming compulsory. Whilst a teenage male would learn how to polish his jack-boots and march in a straight line, a teenage girl would be taught "The Three K's"- Children, Church and Cooking. Finally, as Source D shows, a young woman would be steadily, eventually even forcefully, be removed from the labour market, and persuaded to marry and have children with a "genetically healthy" Aryan man, ofcourse. Incentives were provided, such as marriage loans- given by the state to young couples. A loan of worth 6 months average pay would be issued, and upon each child after the first, would be split with the number of children produced as the denominator. The fraction left would be cancelled out all together upon the fifth child; medals where even given to women after having given birth enough times. It all basically boils down to the Nazi obsession with the Army. Hitler wanted lots of "perfect" Germans for his "perfect" Reich Army, to create his rather twisted idea of a "perfect" world. Question IV Sources E and F are both reasonably useful in finding out what life was really like in 1930's Nazi Germany. Source E, being that it is a statement of opposition to the Nazis in an Anti-Nazi newspaper, shows us that some opposition, however small, existed within Germany itself, and that it was not entirely silent. Source E's actual content that the worker in question states that he got higher wages and more freedom before Hitler, and that ""¦the whole thing stinks"¦" should be seen as at least as close to the Nazi idea of truth. Germany was so full of Nazi propaganda, that rather naturally opposition to the Nazis is likely to have been equally asquew from the truth. Since all forms of opposition banned in Nazi Germany, only a VERY small minority of people would even talk to opposition parties. Fewer still were members of such groups. The Nazi Secret Police the notorious Gestapo were not above pretending to be opposition members, and tricking people into breaking the law. Source F is the analysis of Germany's economic status and unemployment figures. Written by an American, this source could be biased for two reasons; firstly- the fact that most Americans fundamentally opposed Nazism because it ignored the American principles of personal and political freedom. Secondly, America has, and had, a relatively high Jewish population. It is, therefore, very likely that the writer of Source F would disagree with Nazism, possibly be Jewish himself, or know several Jewish people himself and therefore know the Nazi view to be utterly incorrect. However, that I completely agree with be anti-Nazi doesn't matter; the fact is Source F is likely to be sceptical to say the least towards Hitler's economic progress. Yet what Source F states is what we now know to be true"¦that a lot of "hidden unemployment" was created. Not at all a biased report- merely a truthful one. Sources E and F both lead us to consider things about Nazi Germany that would not be considered otherwise. Firstly, that Germany was not a Utopia without any opposition, and secondly that not even Germany's economic "success" was steeped in a sinister background. Question V Source A shows unemployment figures between 1933 and 1939 drop by 5,000,000. Very large by today's standards, but almost unbelievably huge in a depression wracked 1930's Germany. If something looks too good to be true, it probably is; this is certainly the case with Source A. Firstly- Source F tells us all Jews were removed from their jobs, replaced by Hitler's "Aryans", and packed off somewhere, never to be included in any unemployment figures. Source A would only show the course of action I just mentioned as a creation of jobs or a cutting of unemployment, when, in fact, it's just job shifting! Secondly, Source D shows us that women were encouraged, and later forced, to leave the labour market. Once more, Source A would show the unemployment figures dropping- and, once more, it was just a case of job shifting. More Nazi men would be drafted in to fill the jobs women left behind, and since housewives don't count as unemployed, Hitler has "created" more jobs. Thirdly, the Autobahn projects and Conscription forced hundreds of thousands of young, working-class men the social group mostly affected by unemployment into work. Not only that, but every army man needed equipment, and every man on an Autobahn project needed materials to work with. It can be said that up to 3 times as many industrial workers were needed to support such projects as there were army men or frontline workers. Source E shows us that many workers were forced into producing set products for whatever project the Nazis where undertaking at the time. Finally, Norman Thomas's Source F makes so many calculated arguments against Source A's accuracy that even if he is wildly biased, in all probability at least one of his accusations will be correct. I would say that merely in its existence, Source F is evidence enough to throw Source A's numbers in disrepute. Linked with Source D, I'd say Source A looks no more truthful than anything the Nazis ever created. Question VI I disagree with the statement, "Economic success was the main reason for the popularity of the Nazis before the Second World War". Firstly, I cannot believe that under the Nazis there can ever be any way of telling if people were really happy"¦intimidation from the Gestapo and dog-eat-dog relationships with neighbours meant vast majorities of Germans were too scared to disagree with Nazis; I believe to the point of convincing themselves they were happy-though I don't believe that early on in Hitler's leadership any one reason can be used to excuse the German population for their 32% support for Hitler. Secondly then, most "economic success" in Nazi Germany was either achieved through brutal means and subtle tweaking of stats see Sources F and A, or through the introduction of Conscription which, in turn, obviously stimulated the arms industry into a German army that took utmost priority in Hitler's Meisterwerk. However, there is 1 social group that benefited from Nazism the most. Middleclass, non-Jewish Germans if they managed to ignore all their disappearing neighbours. Hitler recreated transport systems and general infrastructure was greatly improved; whilst he managed to hide from the general public the fact he was murdering hundreds of thousands of people in the same breath. That ordinary Germans never, as one mass, revolted against Hitler can be accredited to the reasons given earlier in this paragraph. Another group of Germans appeased by Hitler were the more right-wing members of society found at the top and bottom of the financial ladder. His annexing of Austria, the reclaiming of the Ruhr and Rhine lands, and the absorption of Czechoslovakia would have pleased a group of people who really only needed to have a small excuse to feel good about themselves and wave a Nazi flag. Hitler had given them more than enough. That would have only left the more socialist or liberal members of Germany. In the last election Hitler ran in, a rough 50% of the vote was left wing"¦Hitler won with a 33% "majority". Since we know left-wingers or labour minded working class people still existed in Germany see Source E it strikes me a sinister to say the least! that the views of half a country suddenly changed and became happy with any Nazi government. It is understandable that they would not of complained, but to mistake their silence for happiness is an insult to their collect memory. In conclusion, I would say that while what economic success Source A, and in general infrastructural improvements Hitler had would have honestly pleased a naïve majority of Germans, though many would have either felt or known it was all very sinister. As for those Germans to left of Hitler at the last election, around 95% of them would have been silenced by concentration camps, intimidation or a feeling of being alone, and used "economic success" as the cleanest reason for remaining silent about their views. Hitler's Nazi Party ruled under a dictatorship; a system of government which never comes under open vote To expect open opinions under such a system would be idiocy- therefore any "facts" given by Nazis are to be treated with the utmost of suspicion and caution. I would say most Germans realised Nazis lied, but also realised they would be made to disappear should the speak out; it is only logical, then, that when asked why not if they were happy with the Nazis, they would say, "economic success"- because after all, there really is nothing Nazi about economic progress.   

Question I Source B shows Hitler surrounded by others leading Nazis digging in the start of one of Germany's many new Autobahns. These "Autobahns" were the equivalent of our motorways; and the first of their kind anywhere in the world. Their creation in turn created around 100,000 new jobs,...

Words: 2166 View(s): 369 Comment(s): 0