The 8 Mark "Which Interpretation is More Convincing" Question: Germany (Q3) (AQA GCSE History)
Revision Note
Written by: Natasha Smith
Reviewed by: Bridgette Barrett
Summary of Question Three
Question Three requires you to evaluate which interpretation is more convincing about the issue outlined
The interpretations used in Question Three will be the same interpretations used in Questions One and Two
Amount of marks | 8 |
|---|---|
The time that you should spend on the question | No more than 10 minutes |
An example of the type of question you may encounter can be seen below:
In previous years this question has focused on the following topics in German history:
Year of Exam | Question Topic |
|---|---|
2018 | |
2019 | |
2020 | |
2021 | |
2022 | |
Sample 1 | Hitler’s appeal to the people of Germany |
Sample 2 | Life of young people in Nazi Germany |
How to Analyse an Interpretation
For the example question above, you will use the same two interpretations as you did in Questions One and Two. These are found in an insert
An insert is an additional booklet to your answer paper. It provides key sources or interpretations needed to answer specific questions in the exam
When analysing an interpretation you should:
Read the interpretations carefully
If you have time, read the interpretations more than once
Focus on just the content of the interpretation
If you refer to the provenance you will receive no marks for the comments made
Whilst reading the interpretation underline or highlight relevant pieces of text
Annotate the interpretation by attaching your knowledge to the content of the interpretation
When analysing an interpretation many students forget to focus on the issue outlined in the question
For example, if a question is asking you about the reactions to the Treaty of Versailles and the interpretation includes reactions towards the Kaiser's abdication, you disregard the information about the abdication
Why are Some Interpretations More Convincing?
Interpretations are used in history to explain the past by looking at history from different points of view
However, some interpretations are more convincing than others
More convincing interpretations could have one of the following:
More accurate knowledge
A greater understanding of the historical period
A more typical experience from the historical period
A more accepted point of view
The easiest way to decide if an interpretation is more convincing is by using your own knowledge
For the example question, you could use the Nuremberg Rallies as a reason why Interpretation A is more convincing for understanding Hitler's appeal
Judging Interpretations
The “How Convincing” question requires you to make a judgement
The common mistakes that students make when making a judgement are:
Not giving a clear judgement. Students do this by:
Explaining that both interpretations are more convincing
Failing to decide which interpretation is more convincing
Using language in their answer which is not decisive e.g. “kind of” or “maybe”
Contradicting your judgements
Students sometimes haven’t planned their answers properly. They start to write their answer with one judgement and then change their opinion halfway through
Doing this means that there is not a sustained judgement and you can not access Level 4 (6-8 marks)
Good judgements will:
Explain which interpretation is more convincing
Have a substantiated judgement
Be supported with specific knowledge
Relevant to the interpretations and the question
Although you need to decide if one interpretation is more convincing, it does not mean that one interpretation will be right and the other will be wrong
Your judgement does not need to include limitations and you can receive full marks without one
Students responses are stronger when they are decisive and clear about which interpretation is more convincing
However, if you include a limitation you will be credited, you must make sure the limitation is:
Supported by knowledge
Focused on the question
Relevant to your answer
“Which Interpretation is More Convincing” Structure
Your answer should consist of:
Specific relevant knowledge
Both interpretations A and B
The wider context of the time
Your answer could be written in PEE paragraphs
P- Make a point about the question
Make it clear which interpretation you are going to discuss
Identify if you find the interpretation more convincing
E- Use information from the interpretation and knowledge to support the point you have made
Your knowledge should be specific
Focus on the content from the interpretation
E- Explain why you find the interpretation more or less convincing
Focus on the given issue in the question
For top marks, you need to show your understanding of the wider context of the time
To achieve full marks, you need to repeat this once for each interpretation
Worked Example of a “Which Interpretation is More Convincing” Question
Worked Example
Which interpretation do you find more convincing about the appeal of Hitler?
[8 marks]
Interpretation A: Adapted from Jutta Rüdiger’s autobiography, published in 1999. In the interpretation, Jutta Rüdiger describes the appeal of Hitler the first time she heard him speak. At the time, Rüdiger had already joined the Nazi party and was a 22-year-old student of psychology. She became the leader of the League of German Maidens (BDM). “It was a huge rally in 1932 and everyone was waiting for Hitler to arrive as if he were a saviour. It was an electric atmosphere but when he went onto the stage it all went quiet. He began with a serious voice, speaking calmly and slowly but then became more and more enthusiastic. I can’t remember exactly what he said, but afterwards, I thought, ‘This is a man who does not want anything for himself, but only thinks of the German people’.” |
Interpretation B: Adapted from the autobiography of Christabel Bielenberg, published in 1968. In it she writes about life in Berlin under the Nazis. Christabel was an English woman who married a German lawyer, Peter Bielenberg. He was associated with the resistance against the Nazis and was arrested after the failed plot against Hitler’s life in 1944. Christabel was questioned by the Gestapo but lived through the war as a German citizen. “I gave up trying to read Mein Kampf after four pages. It had no appeal for me. However, in the autumn of 1932, I persuaded my husband to hear Hitler speak at a rally. We put up with the community singing, the drums, and the boring Nazi anthems. Halfway through Hitler’s speech my husband dragged me out and made one of his rare political statements, ‘you may think that Germans are political idiots but they won’t be so stupid as to fall for that clown’.” |
Answer:
Interpretation A is more convincing about the appeal of Hitler. The Nazis were very good at staging big events, such as the Nuremberg Rallies, as in Interpretation A and they created an atmosphere that stopped them from questioning what was said. Germany was in the Great Depression so Hitler’s simple messages offered quick solutions to Germany’s problems. Interpretation A is more convincing because as the Nazis gained support even in towns where they were not strongly represented, Hitler’s appeal was only part of the story. In contrast to the other German politicians at the time who were dull. Most Germans could recognise a charismatic leader figure and buy into the myth.
Interpretation B is less convincing about the appeal of Hitler. Many Germans did not support Hitler as the Nazi ideas did not impress all Germans and many people, for example, Christians did not agree with Hitler’s ideas. However, this interpretation is less convincing because although many Germans did not find Hitler appealing the Nazis knew that many Germans shared their fears and dislikes about Weimar Germany. Which resulted in “negative cohesion” and led to these Germans supporting the Nazis, especially after the Great Depression.
Last updated:
You've read 0 of your 5 free revision notes this week
Sign up now. It’s free!
Did this page help you?
