Most German people benefitted from Nazi rule 1933-39 Do you agree? Explain you answer.
Eloise Sear 11P Hitler's Germany 1929-39 b) 'Most German people benefitted from Nazi rule 1933-39" Do you agree? Explain you answer. (12 marks) Between 1933 and 1939, it is clear that whilst some people benefitted from Nazi rule, others did not. However, most German people accepted Nazi rule due to the benefits it did bring. One group of people that did benefit were the unemployed. Hitler reduced unemployment from 6 million in 1933 to just 300,000 in 1939 by starting huge public work schemes including planting forests, and building hospitals and schools. The construction of the autobahns created work for 80,000 men. A further fall in unemployment came when Hitler brought about rearmament and introduced conscription. Although the newly employed were earning little, at least they were receiving money. To people who had been unemployed and starving, 'work and bread' was something amazing. Also, the schemes meant that new facilities were being constructed in Germany benefitting the German people further. However, it did come at a cost. To achieve this, many Jews and women were sacked and replaced with non-Jewish men. People who were already working also benefitted. Workers were allowed to go on holidays for the first time. Hitler's 'joy through work' scheme allowed people to have free trips to the German coast and go to place like Norway. The scheme
Why did the Germans hate the treaty of Versailles?
Why did the Germans hate the treaty of Versailles? Germans hated the Treaty of Versailles because they did not understand they were responsible for starting the war neither they felt as they had lost. Another reason that the German hated the treaty was the terms of the treaty, which created political and economic problems. This includes territorial restriction on Germany, military Restrictions on Germany, territorial losses, reparations, League of Nations etc. As a result, a piece of land was split in centre of Germany for Poland to have a coastline, which weaken Germany from East Prussia (East Prussia had been a source of great revenue and the political elite for Germany). Another territorial restriction on Germany that the Germans did not expect was that the Saar coal fields were to be given to France for fifteen years. This was a great source of coal for the Germans and losing it meant that the Germans didn't have a supply of coal and raw materials for its industries. There are many more reasons that the Germans hated the treaty of Versailles. When the treaty was announced on the 7th May 1919, Germans were horrified. One of the reasons why they were horrified was Germany had been blamed unfairly for starting the war. However, the allies could blame Bosnia for killing Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, in Sarajevo. Germany was not allowed to
Why was Hitler so Popular in 1933?
Why was Hitler so popular in Germany from 1933 onwards? Hitler became popular in a range of various different ways and clever techniques. A few of these powerful methods were; his use to deliver inspiring speeches, propaganda and deceivingly terror as well (More techniques described later in assessment). He soon had the nation of Germany under his control. Firstly one of the ways Hitler gained popularity was the fact that after the German economy failed during the Great Depression, more people started for Hitler because he promised to change the country. A lot of Germans hated Jews so Hitler also blamed the Jews for losing World War 1, so he promised to get rid of them. He offered them hope and promised to restore Germany's power and excellence. Hitler had a gifted talent of delivering inspiring speeches saying how great Germany was, which gave the Germans a feeling of pride and dignity. Evidence that Hitler gave motivational speeches is in source B, this source stated that his speeches were so powerful, that he compared it to a "religious conversion". This connects with my point, Hitler's use of powerful speeches made people vote for him which meant an increase in popularity. Another way he gained reputation was by targeting youths by opening up clubs which proved very enjoyable for young people at that time this was targeted for both boys and
Was America justified in dropping the atom bomb on Hiroshima in August 1945?
Was America justified in dropping the atom bomb on Hiroshima in August 1945? The Atomic bomb was dropped on 6th August 1945 on Hiroshima and on 9th August on Nagasaki, Japan by the order president of America, Harry S. Truman. These two events are the only use of nuclear weapons in history up to date. In most of Europe war had ended, but in Asia, Japan were still resisting. With the recent surprise attack on Pearl Harbor (December 7, 1941), America was thinking on launching a full scale invasion. However it was said that there would be too many casualties on both sides Was America justified in using the atomic bomb? In my opinion America was justified because America had only attempted to end the war and they gave Japan a chance to surrender before they dropped the Atom bombs known as The Potsdam Declaration. The Potsdam Declaration, issued in July, demanded that Japan surrender by August third or face "prompt and utter destruction." The Japanese did not surrender, and destruction came in the form of the atom bomb. Much of Hiroshima was destroyed by the "Little Boy," with perhaps as many as 90,000 deaths almost instantaneously and estimates of additional deaths by the end of the year from injury, burns, and radiation poison 100,000. The Japanese still did not surrender, even after the Soviet Union entered the war against Japan on August 8 and on August 9 the A-bomb was
Had Public Health improved in towns and cities by 1854?
Had Public Health improved in towns and cities by 1854? The rapid industrialisation and urbanisation continued so the size of towns and cities continued to grow. As a result, the central government were forced to acknowledge the problems with public health and do something about it. The continuing Cholera outbreaks of 1842, 1848 and 1854 brought death tolls up to a level that the government could not ignore. The 1836 Registration of Births and Deaths Act meant that deaths were being recorded, along with the cause of death. A continuous rise in the number of deaths from Cholera showed the government that something definitely had to be done, but since they did not understand the cause of Cholera - and many other diseases around at the time - there was not a great deal they could do about it. Pasteur and the germ theory had not come about yet, and Dr John Snow had not yet published his work on the cause of Cholera. The government therefore didn't think to replace dirty water pipes, or keep sewage away from drinking water. There were also numerous reports, as well as Board of Health medical officers informing the government of the poor levels of sanitation which appeared to be leading to an increase in disease in those areas. This is another factor that led to the government recognising that something needed to be done about public health. The first Public Health Act in
What Were the Consequences of the First World War for the British People 1914 - 1924?
What Were the Consequences of the First World War for the British People 1914 - 1924? There were many consequences and changes to British society because of the war, both positive and negative, however if you look closely some of the changes such as women obtaining the right to vote could have happened naturally - war or no war. The war provided many changes both socially, economically and politically. One such social change was the population of men declining drastically, this was of course because of the death toll as a result of the war. As a result of this the population of women went up from 595 per thousand to 638 per thousand and the proportion of widows went from 38% - 43% and there were also now 3.5 million orphans. (1) So since women now outnumbered men it would be harder to ignore them, which meant since they outnumbered men more than they used to, they would have to be treated better, since women were the ones who had to bring up all the kids to make up for the loss. The other consequence of the great loss of men is that children lost their fathers and people had lost friends and relatives. `It was virtually impossible to avoid losing a relative or close acquaintance' (2). The severe loss was the most important change in society. The sadness of losing loved ones would have been unbearable. It also had a knock on effect towards industry and unemployment, because
To what extend do you agree with Rhodes view that the British Empire was beneficial to both Britain and the colonies?
This term in history we have been learning about the British Empire and what impacts the British Empire had on the countries they conquered and on the world itself. The British Empire was the largest Empire in history and for a period of time it was the world's globally strongest countries. By 1921 the British Empire was in command of a population of about 458 million people roughly one quarter of the world's population. The land that Britain had conquered covered about a quarter of the earth's surface area (14.2 million squares miles. The legacy that is the British Empire is well known throughout the world; at the peak of its power, people often said" The sun never sets on the British Empire, "As the sun will always be shining on one of Britain's colonies all over the world." However people had many different interpretations on the empire some say they were positive some say negative. There is evidence to support Cecil's Rhodes view the empire was beneficial for both sides. However there is more persuasive evidence that the empire had negative effects. Furthermore if considering why each gave the interpretations that they did , it is obvious that Cecil's Rhodes interpretation is particularly unreliable .In this essay I will be examine different interpretations on the British Empire to answer the following question "To what extend do you agree with Rhode's view that the
Why Were The British Troops Sent Into Northern Ireland In 1969?
Why Were The British Troops Sent Into Northern Ireland In 1969? The violent events of 1969 started mainly because of the Civil Rights marches (which started in 1968), that often ended up in violence, one particular event was at Burntollet Bridge on a march from Belfast to Londonderry. The Catholics were fed up of being treated badly by the Protestants and having unfair rights. Due to the violent events the Republic's Prime Minister, Jack Lynch, threatened to send troops into Northern Ireland to stop the violence. But the British saw this as an invasion of part of their country, so they decided to send in their own troops to control the violence. This measure can be linked back to some long-term courses, as well as some more recent causes. A combination of these causes led to the violent events of 1969 and then to the British troops being sent into Northern Ireland. In 1916 the Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB) took over the General Post Office (GPO) in Dublin. This event was led be Padraig Pearce, and James Connolly, they decided that they no longer wanted to be ruled by the British and wanted Ireland to become its own nation. British troops quickly suppressed the rebels and gained control again. This event became known as the Easter Rising. It was a major turning point in Irish history, even though it failed, as it gathered more support for Home Rule, partly because of how
How effective were the suffragists and suffragettes.
How effective were the suffragists and suffragettes The suffragists and suffragettes campaigned for votes for women from 1906 to 1914. The suffragists campaigned politically, organising petitions, marches and meetings. The suffragettes were violent protesters, vandalising public property, private property, and men's affairs. But how effective were these campaigns, of violence and peace. The suffragist's greatest achievement was arguably the introduction of the conciliation bill. Whilst Asquith removed female suffrage from this bill, the prime minister, it was the only bill to pass completely through parliament without being blocked. This bill was undoubtedly influenced by the long campaigns of suffragists. A suffragist would probably not look back on this bill as their greatest achievement because if was eventually blocked and made no difference. A suffragist might look back on the funeral of Emily Davidson, which was attended by suffragists and suffragettes in London and created great publicity for the suffragist cause. This would be because it was not a violent protest, which the suffragettes condemned and was co-ordinated between suffragettes and suffragists and created the most non-violent publicity in the 8 years of campaigning. Suffragettes would also look back on the funeral and death of Emily Davidson as their greatest achievement. Emily Davidson was an important
Did Medicine Improve In the Middle Ages?
Did Medicine Improve In the Middle Ages? After the collapse of the Roman Empire midway through the first millennium A.D. many of its former provinces suffered from regression. As the affluent empirical resources had been taken away with the withdrawal of the Roman armies from Britain, few had the knowledge or skill to continue their work or to preserve their foundations of a great society. With the chaos following the Romans' withdrawal, while Britain was invaded by the Vikings, Saxons and Normans, much of their knowledge was lost. Very few people could read or write so the books the Romans had learned from were useless. As the British people were conquered by nations who had never been under the Roman influence and therefore had no understanding of their literature or practical beliefs, they regressed to a similar way of life they led from before the Romans came. The Roman doctors had followed practical methods of diagnosis, prognosis, treatment and surgery but this approach was soon replaced by superstitious and spiritual remedies. The Romans had many Gods but their religion had never been truly accepted in Britain and the native people held mainly pagan beliefs. With these beliefs went methods of medicinal treatment that were based on appeasing specific spirits or superstition. When Britain became a Christian nation these beliefs continued and, although the spiritual
