3. Some tips for interpretation 1: It is from an academic historian and the title of the book suggests that he is a specialist in Weimar Germany. This argues that Stresemann achieved very little apart from the rescheduling of reparations payments and the early evacuation of the Rhineland. Even this came at a price, which suggests that he was an ineffective negotiator. You might agree with Lee that Stresemann may not have achieved what he set out to do. Lee argues that Stresemann’s moderate diplomacy (fulfillment) collapsed after 1929. This is a revisionist view as Stresemann is usually seen as a positive force working for Germany. Despite the specialist nature of the publication, this appears a rather simplistic view as it does not take into account the constraints under which he was working.

4. Start with an introduction stating that there has been a debate amongst historians about the topic mentioned in the question. Look at the first interpretation and state whether it agrees with the idea in the question, is opposed to it, or seems to be a more balanced view showing evidence for both sides of the debate. Pick out some key information that the writer mentions (and expand on it if you can). The best answers will be able to pick out information and then analyse it (e.g. saying that the view seems a little simple for a certain reason). You must think about where the interpretation comes from and when it was written. For example, you could compare the publication dates of the two interpretations. As part of this, you should mention why and how you think this historian has come to their conclusion. You then need to look at the second interpretation and do the same. Finally, you need to mention anything else that you know about this debate (e.g. are there any other interpretations or facts that aren’t mentioned). At the end, there needs to be a conclusion that answers the question that you have been asked. Don’t forget that this conclusion should not include any new information: it should be a summing up section.

5. The years 1925-28 were the heyday of the Weimar Republic. Prosperity was restored and the parliamentary institutions seemed to be accepted by the majority of the electorate. Indeed, no observer of the political scene in 1928 could have prophesied that five years later Hitler would be in power and parliamentary democracy in ruins. While the Volkisch [parties] and National Socialists still polled nearly two million votes in May 1924, by December this was reduced to 900,000, and in May 1928 to 800,000 votes. The voting strength of the communists equally declined, while that of the moderate parties increased. Overall, the economy of the Weimar Republic did recover between 1924 and 1929, but this recovery was highly fragile. It will not do, therefore, to say that external forces in 1929 wrecked a thriving system. They brought down one which was struggling to find an internal equilibrium between a series of conflicting developments. The German economy was living on borrowed time as well as on borrowed money. Francis Carsten, an academic historian, writing in a specialist book on German history, The Rise of Fascism, 1982. Stephen Lee, an academic historian, writing in a specialist book on German history, The Weimar Republic, 1998. Historians have made different interpretations on the 1924 to 1929 period of Weimar Germany. Analyse, evaluate and use the two extracts above and your understanding of the historical debate to answer the following question: How valid is the view that the period 1924 to 1929 was a ‘golden age’ for Weimar Germany? [30]

9. Does the answer…Out of 10 Tell you what view the interpretation has? Make a comment about any of the information in the interpretation? Agree or disagree with the interpretation? Make a comment about the date when the interpretation was made? Make a comment about the attribution of the source other than the date? Suggest that the issue has been interpreted in different ways? Compare the interpretation to the other interpretation? Contain a conclusion answering the question? Contain a good standard of spelling, punctuation and grammar? TOTAL