Question 2ci: Utility – how USEFUL is a source? Comparison of sources

Source B One view of the Five Year Plans

From The Illustrated History of the USSR, an official history published in Moscow in 1982.

The drive towards industrialisation was an heroic struggle by all the Soviet people. It showed their enthusiasm following the revolution of 1917 and victory in the Civil War. The Five Year Plans gave a focus for the people’s hopes and joy. The whole world watched closely to see the process of industrialisation in the USSR and the success in getting rid of backwardness.

Source C Another view of the Five Year Plans

From Stalin, by A ULAM. This book was published in the USA in 1973.

At tremendous human cost, the Soviet Union was pushed within a few years (1928-1934) into becoming an industrial economy. To some, this is the greatest crime of modern history. To others it is a huge feat of social control, ruthless and cruel in its effects on millions of human beings. Yet it laid the foundations of a richer economy and enabled Russia to withstand a foreign invasion and become a superpower.

(cbi) Explain possible reasons why the content of Source B and C differsHow useful is Source H to an historian studying the attitude of the German people towards Hitler in the year in which he became Chancellor? Use Source H and your own knowledge to answer the question. (10 9 marks)

a. Source H is useful to a Historian as its true because Hitler was a leader and the people did follow him he was a powerful chancellor.

b. a. There are many possible reasons why these two sources are different these could be the fact that russian and Americans hated each other or they were written a long time after this had happened.

Firstly, I think that they may be different because the Russia wanted to make their country look like it was successful. Whereas the American could have write it to make the Russians look bad after all they did despise them.

Secondly is that both of the dates were far away from the time that it had happened.

Over all, because of the content of the sources been different I would say that the American point of view is more accurate because it is near the time.

Looking at the content of source H, the poster of Hitler in terms of usefulness to a Historian studying German people’s attitudes towards Hitler could be quite useful.

In the provenance we can see it was put up in 1933, the year he became chancellor, giving it some usefulness already.

However, from my own knowledge I know that Hitler was imprisoned for an attack during the Munich Putsch, which may have turned the people against him. However, he turned the people against him. However, he turned it to his advantage and managed to become chancellor, making him powerful. This got his people back.

Again looking at the provenance, the people in the background seem happy and overjoyed that Hitler is reigning in Germany.

In judgement to the source the historian can note that Hitler was supreme and his people loved him.

c. b. The provenance helps explain a lot for both sources, both publishing times different, countries of publishment also different and the source of knowledge. Source B could have been an encouraging view published in Moscow in 1982, to show the success and determination of Stalin, the source is not as bleak as Source C, but seems lighter explanation praising the enthusiasm of the Russians, Source C could have been a more honest view, published in 1973, still showing the success of Stalin, but was published in the USA and describes the bleaker insight into processes of reaching five year plans, maybe a persuasive source, as C is very encouraging although addressing harshness.

I know that Stalin was very powerful, his authority, stability and determination changed Russia so, Source B may be more of a less correct source for readers in Moscow in 1982, more praising Stalin.

I think that source H is not very useful for many reasons first of all, I think that as it was produced by the Nazis, it may not be totally true and therefore not useful. The poster shows people holding out their right hands, but it does not show who to. There is a picture of Hitler transferred on top and it does not show that the people are following him. They could just be following the Nazi party. The words on the poster suggest that the crowd are solely behind Hitler, not the whole Nazi party.

As I can see, Hitler is posing as a sole leader, he is not doing the Nazi sign with his right hand in the air as the people are doing. However, the votes in source E do suggest that the Nazi party had a lot of followers.

d. c. I am going to say how these interpretations are different.

Firstly, in Source B, looking at the provenance of the source, I can see that it was published in Russia in 1982. The fact that it was a Russian book shows that it would be one-sided and would want to show Russia in a good way. Also, during Stalin’s time, I know from my own knowledge that many people were scared of Stalin. People who opposed him were killed and so everyone in Russia would have to pretend to idolise him or maybe they’d be killed. Therefore, I know that the reason this differs from source C is because of different motives people would have had to write the sources.

On the other hand, in Source C, I can see that it was an American book published in 1973. This is one reason why Source C differs from Source B, because it was written in a democratic country where the writer would have been able to see all of the facts. He would have had the benefit of hindsight. I know from my own knowledge that the five year plans did have a harsh effect on millions so it differs from the other source, which says many people were happy about the plans. This could be because of the different beliefs and aims of the USA and the USSR.

Overall, therefore, I think that the main reason why Source B and C differ is because of the different beliefs and aims of the two countries. What may have been perceived in Russia may have been a huge success but in the USA it seemed like industrialisation at the cost of millions of peoples lives. Also another main reason is the fact that the Russian people were bullied into saying good things about Stalin for fear of their and their family’s lives.


Source F One view of the Reichstag Fire, February 1933

From an account written in 1950 by RUDOLF DIELS, a Nazi and head of police in Berlin in 1933.

I think van der Lubbe started the Reichstag Fire on his own. When I arrived at the burning building, some police officers were already questioning him. His voluntary confession made me think that he was such an expert arsonist that he did not need any helpers. Why could not one person set fire to the old furniture, the heavy curtains and the bone-dry wood panelling? He had lit several dozen fires using firelighters and his burning short, which he was holding in his right hand like a torch when he was overpowered by Reichstag officials.

Source G Another view of the Five Year Plans

From Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, by the British historian ALAN BULLOCK, 1952.

Goering had been looking for an excuse to smash the Communist Party. He at once declared that van der Lubbe was only part of a larger Communist plot t start a campaign of terror. The burning of the Reichstag was to be the signal for Communist revolt.

In fact, I believe that the burning of the Reichstag was planned and carried out by the Nazis themselves. Van der Lubbe was picked up by the S.A. after he had attempted to set fire to other buildings. He had been allowed to climb into the Reichstag and start a fire on his own in one part of the building while the Nazis started the main fires.

(bi) Explain possible reasons why the content of Source F and G differs. (10 marks)

a. There are a number of reasons why the two interptations might differ Source F was wrote by a Nazi who were accused of starting the fire themselves and source G was wrote by a Historian who isn’t going to be likely to make stuff up is he.

The usefulness of Source H to an historian studying the attitudes of German people towards Hitler in the year he became chancellor is very useful. The poster shows Hitler being the main figure in the middle of the poster being admired by ordering fans behind him and with writing underneath saying ‘ leader we are following you’.

I know from source H and my own knowledge that opinion polls towards the Nazi’s were at an all time high until the year Hitler became chancellor. So the poster is very useful to an historian studying German people’s attitudes towards the Nazi’s and Hitler.

But however the poster may not be as useful as it could be. The poster says ‘yes leader, we are following you’ Hitler was a leader but not of the country. He was only Chancellor not fuehrer so that meant not everyone was siding with Hitler and the Nazi’s and though through my own knowledge I know the majority of German people supported the Hitler and the Nazi’s there was still a minority the still would not follow.

But overall the usefulness of the poster to an historian would prove useful because the poster even created by the Nazi’s is very useful to a historian studying German attitudes Hitler because through my own knowledge I know that the German people felt like the feeling given by the poster that Hitler was a leader and that they were ready to follow him.

e. b. There are many reasons why these two sources differ. Source F being written by a Nazi, Source G written by a British historian. Both sources are completely opposite.

First reason, I think these interpretations are different is because as F was written by a Nazi he is trying to cover up the real fact while the other source is British it is slating the Nazi claiming that they planned it.

However, the Nazi was head of police s he would have a clearer interpretation than that of an historian.

The dates are also apart and from my own knowledge I know that the Reichstag fire did take place in 1933.

There are endless possibilities why these sources are different, but for me the ones that I have singled out seem to be the most obvious.

Source H clearly shows a picture of Hitler standing in front of thousands of people, with the words “Yes, leader, we are following you”. The many people behind Hitler appear to be happy that he is there and are saluting him. Therefore if anyone saw this poster, they would see that Hitler was very popular and loved by his people,

The words in the poster make Hitler indestructible almost, because they give the opinion that the people of Germany relied totally on him. From my own knowledge I know this is fairly accurate. Hitler did have an immense power over the German people, and they did see him as a father figure. However, this poster was issued in the year Hitler became Chancellor not when he became dictator. Therefore I think that this poster exaggerates how poplar he was, although it does reflect how popular he became.

Furthermore, the poster was issued by the Nazis in 1933. Therefore I think that it does reflect some of the love the German people had for Hitler, but it is glorified in an attempt to get the German people to vote for him.

The fact that it was created by the Nazis makes the poster slightly less useful to a historian studying German attitudes to Hitler in this year. The poster would be deliberately trying to show Hitler in a positive way, and, although he was very popular at this time, I don’t think he was as popular as the poster makes him out to be.

f. How useful source H to an historian studying the attitude of the German people towards Hitler in the year in which he became chancellor is very useful. What can be seen is Hitler’s followers respecting and obeying Hitler, from the People’s faces they are happy and shows no sign of corruption. I know from my own knowledge that when Hitler became chancellor everyone did love him and respect him because of everything he had promised them in return if they vote for him. And since it was published at the time he became chancellor (1933) it adds to the usefulness and it was also a Nazi party poster to show the thoughts of people about him. However, the source is also useful because the poster was used as propaganda to influence German Citizens to love him and follow most importantly it shows what people thought of him on the surface – they lived in terror.

Overall the usefulness of source H it shows the attitudes of the German people towards Hitler is quite useful, even though their were many hidden grudges towards him, other Germans benefited from his rule as chancellor which shows their attitudes in the poster.

g. This poster was produced by the Nazi party, so was designed to encourage support of Hitler. It was basically propaganda. This is useful to a historian when looking for pubic opinion of Hitler’s rise to power, but it shows how his image as ‘sold’ to the German people by the Nazi party. It was also created in 1933, when Nazi support was very high in comparison to previous years. Overall, this means that it is quite useful in giving a historian a picture of Nazi propaganda and when looking at how and why Nazi support increased in the early 30’s. It shows how Hitler appeared to the Germans, but shows no real German public opinions, so is only partly useful to a historian.

The poster also holds the claim ‘Leader, we are following you’ to show that Hitler has the support of the public. I know from my own knowledge that the Nazis gained a record number of seats in parliament that year – 44% of the vote. Therefore, we see that the posters claim can be trusted, and at this moment in time, Hitler had the support of thousands of Terms, even though the poster was designed to attract more.