1. Quote the central thesis of the Gellately article, and give a page number.

2. Paraphrase Gellately's central thesis, in your own words.

3. What sources and kinds of sources does Gellatelly use?

4. In no less than 50 words, explain whether you feel that the types of sources use are

suitable for each argument and, moreover, whether they determine the nature of the

argument. (In other words: how are his conclusions and sources he uses shaped by the

central question he is posing?)

5.

What historical actors in his account have "agency:" e.g., the capacity to act

independently and to make their own choices. List the groups you feel he indicates have

agency, and in a short paragraph explain why you identify these.

6.

Gellately discussions the ways in which the state enforced obedience; in no less than 75

words, explain how much ability to act Gellately suggests remained in the hands of

individuals.

7.

What is the historiography of Gellately's article - who is he speaking to?

8. Looking to the article, in no less than 100 words and no more than 300, synthesize the

article. What does it offer in explaining how the Nazi state sought to exert control over

the country?

9. Write a short (no less than 75 words, no more than 150) critique of the reading that looks

to flaws or gaps in the reasoning, suggest where the need for more research exists.

(HINT: I am asking you to critique an established and noteworthy historian. Be wary in

your critique - I am not asking you for opinion, but rather to use critical analysis. I may

well ask you to defend your position in discussion.)

10. How would you classify this article? What kind of work is it? (Primary, historiographical

etc..) How would this classification influence how you would use it in a paper?