Needless to say, the majority of scientific community considers the entire Fomenko’s work to be pseudoscience, although it has a number of followers. In my opinion, what it reminds me most is one giant, elaborate hoax, for it is way too eccentric to be treated seriously. If everything before certain date is a reflection of later events, what to do with objects from that period that do not fit into any later time? What about written sources? Were they all falsified by some immeasurably powerful organization that had enough time and effort to spare to write and distribute them, destroying everything that doesn’t fit?
It’s as well to keep in mind what you should not be doing. Do not introduce lots of fresh evidence at this stage, though you can certainly introduce the odd extra fact that clinches your case. Nor should you go on to the ‘next’ issue. If your question is about Hitler coming to power, you should not end by giving a summary of what he did once in power. Such an irrelevant ending will fail to win marks. Remember the point about answering ‘nothing but the question’? On the other hand, it may be that some of the things Hitler did after coming to power shed valuable light on why he came to power in the first place. If you can argue this convincingly, all well and good; but don’t expect the examiner to puzzle out relevance. Examiners are not expected to think; you must make your material explicitly relevant.