Opposition, control and consent, 1918–89 — Edexcel A-Level History
Verified courseTeaching note checked against the official specification.
Opposition, control and consent, 1918–89 explained
Opposition, control and consent, 1918–89 covers 3 specification points, including The impact of Versailles, political extremism… and Attempts to control extremism, 1918–32;….
Read the full explanation
Open a point below for its explanation and revision guidance.
Opposition to government, 1918–89: the impact of Versailles, political extremism and crises, 1918–33; opposition and dissent in Nazi Germany, 1933–45; political dissent and active challenge, 1949–89.
Opposition to German governments took varied forms. After 1918, the impact of Versailles fuelled resentment and political extremism and crises from left and right during the Weimar Republic, 1918–33. Under Nazi rule, opposition and dissent in Nazi Germany, 1933–45, ranged from underground resistance to non-conformity, met by terror and propaganda. In the FRG, political dissent and active challenge, 1949–89, included parliamentary opposition, extra-parliamentary movements (APO), and terrorism (RAF), while the state used legal measures to defend democracy. The nature and effectiveness of opposition depended on the regime's willingness to tolerate or suppress it.
Controlling the people, 1918–89: attempts to control extremism, 1918–32; censorship, repression and propaganda, 1933–45; the de-Nazification policies of the western allies, 1945–49; the constitutional and legal response to political extremism, 1949–89.
This theme traces how German states tried to control extremism across four phases. In 1918–32 the Weimar Republic used emergency powers under Article 48, bans on paramilitary groups and political police to check both communist and nationalist violence, yet courts often treated right-wing offenders leniently. From 1933–45 the Nazi regime combined censorship of press, radio and film, terror through the Gestapo and camps, and propaganda under Goebbels to manufacture consent. After 1945 the western allies pursued de-Nazification: questionnaires, internment, removal from office and denazification tribunals, though Cold War priorities soon softened enforcement. From 1949–89 the Federal Republic used the Basic Law, the Constitutional Court and party bans to defend democracy against extremism at both ends of the spectrum.
Popular support, 1919–89: the nature of support for the Weimar government, 1919–32; support for the Nazi regime, 1933–45; the nature of support for democracy 1945–89.
This theme examines popular support, 1919–89, exploring why people supported, tolerated or withdrew support from three different political orders. For the nature of support for the Weimar government, 1919–32, backing rested on the new constitution, democratic parties and early achievements, but was eroded by economic crisis and anti-democratic movements. Support for the Nazi regime, 1933–45, came from genuine ideological commitment, economic recovery, foreign policy success and propaganda, alongside fear and conformity. The nature of support for democracy 1945–89 in West Germany grew from the Basic Law, the economic miracle and generational change, consolidating democratic values.
Your focus
- Explain how the Versailles Treaty and extremism fuelled opposition in Weimar Germany, 1918–33.
- Analyse the nature and effectiveness of opposition and dissent in Nazi Germany, 1933–45.
- Evaluate the significance of political dissent and active challenge in the FRG, 1949–89.
Show all 9 objectives
- Describe methods used to control extremism in each of the four phases.
- Explain how censorship, repression and propaganda interacted in the Nazi regime.
- Evaluate the effectiveness of de-Nazification and of the Federal Republic's legal response to extremism.
- Describe the main sources of support for each regime between 1919 and 1989.
- Explain how economic, political and ideological factors shaped popular support.
- Evaluate the extent to which support for democracy after 1945 differed from earlier patterns.
Opposition, control and consent, 1918–89 flashcards
Card 1 of 10
Popular support, 1919, 89
Opposition, control and consent, 1918–89 exam tips
Marking Points
- Explains how the impact of Versailles contributed to political extremism and crises in the Weimar Republic, 1918–33, including the 'stab-in-the-back' myth and uprisings.
- Analyses the forms of opposition and dissent in Nazi Germany, 1933–45, such as political resistance, youth groups, and the church, and the regime's responses.
- Evaluates political dissent and active challenge in the FRG, 1949–89, including student protests, the Green movement, and the Red Army Faction.
- Compares the effectiveness of opposition across different regimes, considering factors like repression, popular support, and organisation.
- Uses specific examples, such as the Kapp Putsch (1920), the White Rose (1942–43), and the 1968 student movement.
- Explains Weimar methods of controlling extremism, such as Article 48 emergency decrees, bans on the Freikorps and SA, and political policing, with reference to the 1920s.
- Analyses Nazi censorship and repression, including control of the press, radio, film and the Gestapo, and links these to propaganda under Goebbels.
- Evaluates the aims and implementation of western allied de-Nazification, including questionnaires, internment, removal from office and tribunals, and explains why it was scaled back.
- Assesses the constitutional and legal response in the Federal Republic, such as the Basic Law, the Constitutional Court and bans on extremist parties, and weighs their effectiveness.
- Compares phases to judge continuity and change in the balance between repression and consent across 1918–89.
- Explains the nature of support for the Weimar government, 1919–32, including the constitution, democratic parties and early stability, and the reasons for its erosion.
- Analyses support for the Nazi regime, 1933–45, distinguishing ideological commitment, economic and foreign policy success, propaganda and coercion.
- Evaluates the nature of support for democracy 1945–89, including the Basic Law, economic recovery and generational change in the Federal Republic.
- Compares the extent to which support in each period was genuine, passive or manufactured, using evidence of elections, membership and dissent.
- Judges change over time, for example the shift from Weimar fragility to later democratic stability in the FRG.
Examiner Tips
- 💡Categorise opposition by type (political, religious, youth, etc.) and assess its impact on government policy or stability.
- 💡Use precise examples to illustrate the scale and limits of opposition, such as the 1962 Spiegel Affair or the 1968 protests in the FRG.
- 💡When discussing 'active challenge', distinguish between dissent within the system and attempts to overthrow it.
- 💡Anchor each phase with one precise example, such as the 1923 banning of the NSDAP or the 1956 ban on the KPD.
- 💡Use the wording of the question to decide whether you are explaining methods, consequences or relative effectiveness.
- 💡Plan paragraphs by phase so that change over time is explicit rather than implied.
- 💡Use specific evidence such as election results, party membership or the 1968 protests to support claims about support.
- 💡Distinguish between active support, passive acceptance and coerced compliance in your analysis.
- 💡Link each period back to the question's focus on the nature of support rather than narrating events.
Common Mistakes
- Equating all opposition with violent resistance; correction: opposition included peaceful protest, non-conformity, and parliamentary dissent.
- Assuming opposition in Nazi Germany was widespread and effective; correction: it was diverse but often isolated and brutally suppressed.
- Ignoring the legal channels of dissent in the FRG; correction: opposition parties and the Constitutional Court provided legitimate means of challenge.
- Treating Nazi propaganda as separate from repression; the correction is to show how censorship and terror enabled propaganda to work.
- Assuming de-Nazification was uniformly enforced; the correction is to note regional variation and the shift in allied priorities after 1947.
- Confusing Weimar Article 48 with the Federal Republic's Basic Law; the correction is to distinguish emergency presidential rule from constitutional court-based defence of democracy.
- Equating electoral success with genuine support; the correction is to consider intimidation, propaganda and restricted choice.
- Treating Nazi support as uniform across 1933–45; the correction is to note decline in morale during the war and variation between social groups.
- Assuming post-1945 democracy was immediately popular; the correction is to trace its consolidation through the 1950s and 1960s.