-
Looking for HSC notes and resources? Check out our Notes & Resources page
Albert Speer and Treaty of Versailles questions (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter wogboy23
- Start date
Treaty of Versailles
I started with the immediate impact of the Treaty of Versailles - Germany's reation/its signage/to what extent it was a harsh treaty/effects of the treaty like November Criminals etc
then I went to economic impact - 1923 French occupation of the Ruhr - Stresseman years - and I just briefly stretched into the Great Depression
in contesting to some extent the TOV as the 'significant factor' - basic constitutional weaknesses - Article 22 and 48
also more socio-military impacts - growing recognition of Nazi Party after Mein Kumpf and its policies (25 Point Program due to the impositions of the TOV)
Finally as a result of the Treaty of Versailles I highlighted the changing nature and role of conservative elites - Hindenburg - Hugenberg of the Centre Party with over 700 newspapers - allowed Nuremberg Rally in 1929 attracting more than 200,000 people - catalyst to Hitler as Chancellor
What do you think peepz?
I started with the immediate impact of the Treaty of Versailles - Germany's reation/its signage/to what extent it was a harsh treaty/effects of the treaty like November Criminals etc
then I went to economic impact - 1923 French occupation of the Ruhr - Stresseman years - and I just briefly stretched into the Great Depression
in contesting to some extent the TOV as the 'significant factor' - basic constitutional weaknesses - Article 22 and 48
also more socio-military impacts - growing recognition of Nazi Party after Mein Kumpf and its policies (25 Point Program due to the impositions of the TOV)
Finally as a result of the Treaty of Versailles I highlighted the changing nature and role of conservative elites - Hindenburg - Hugenberg of the Centre Party with over 700 newspapers - allowed Nuremberg Rally in 1929 attracting more than 200,000 people - catalyst to Hitler as Chancellor
What do you think peepz?
The personality questions for Speer were quite annoying. I found myself writing similar information for both the 10 and 15 markers. What do you guys think? Are part a abd b marked by separate markers?
10 marker - I wrote about Speer becoming architect (after his redecoration of Hitler's Chancellery) and his various works reflecting Volksgermeinschaft and both the conservative and progressive values of the Nazi party - contributions such as redecoration of Goebbels Ministry of Propaganda, his "cathedral of light" and inspector of proceedings for Germania in 1937 - also allowed him to become closer in Speer's inner circle with visits to Obersalzburg (1935) - allowed him to develop his skills as architect
I also talked about how he became armaments minister following the death of Todt and basically what he did - based of Rathenau's "eminent technicians" and Todt's "Memorandum on the Simplification of Our Armaments Industry" - huge economic gains - industrial self-responsibility and factory autonomy in allowing him to extend the war by 2 years
and finally for the 10 marker as my third significant event I mentioned Speer's post-Nurmeberg contribution after his release of Spandau as an esteemed author, allowing greater insight into the inner Nazi circle throught the 20,000 sheets, toilet paper squares he smuggled with the help of Rathenau in creating his two autobiographies; Inside the Third Reich, Spandau:The Secret Diaries - as well as making himself to historians and those interested to know about him and the Nazi Party even those of his unfavourables following his release from Spandau - Van der vat, Schmidt
Do you guys think that's alright for a 10 marker? I also had a bit of assessing but I think that's only natural
For the 15 marker I wrote similar things for the architect and armaments - few more statistics here and there in assessing
I also wrote about the controversy surrounding Speer's implementation of racial policy in allowing his WWII armaments contribution - and changing the view of "good Nazi" - Dora/Mauthausen - no evidence of increase in the Budget to facilitate the construction of these German war machines -statistics
and finally in terms of contributions, I wrote about the differing perceptions regarding his rebellion against Hitler's "scorched earth policy" - whilst this contribution was initially regarded as an act of loyalty in preserving German infrastructure needed for its post-WWII recovery, it also was seen as politically manoeuvring his way out of execution
Overall, Speer's contributions seen in a positive light for German public, and seen in a negative light for Nazi regime
Historians views and statistics/historical evidence underpinned throughout
Mark out of 10 and 15 perhaps? What do u guys think?
10 marker - I wrote about Speer becoming architect (after his redecoration of Hitler's Chancellery) and his various works reflecting Volksgermeinschaft and both the conservative and progressive values of the Nazi party - contributions such as redecoration of Goebbels Ministry of Propaganda, his "cathedral of light" and inspector of proceedings for Germania in 1937 - also allowed him to become closer in Speer's inner circle with visits to Obersalzburg (1935) - allowed him to develop his skills as architect
I also talked about how he became armaments minister following the death of Todt and basically what he did - based of Rathenau's "eminent technicians" and Todt's "Memorandum on the Simplification of Our Armaments Industry" - huge economic gains - industrial self-responsibility and factory autonomy in allowing him to extend the war by 2 years
and finally for the 10 marker as my third significant event I mentioned Speer's post-Nurmeberg contribution after his release of Spandau as an esteemed author, allowing greater insight into the inner Nazi circle throught the 20,000 sheets, toilet paper squares he smuggled with the help of Rathenau in creating his two autobiographies; Inside the Third Reich, Spandau:The Secret Diaries - as well as making himself to historians and those interested to know about him and the Nazi Party even those of his unfavourables following his release from Spandau - Van der vat, Schmidt
Do you guys think that's alright for a 10 marker? I also had a bit of assessing but I think that's only natural
For the 15 marker I wrote similar things for the architect and armaments - few more statistics here and there in assessing
I also wrote about the controversy surrounding Speer's implementation of racial policy in allowing his WWII armaments contribution - and changing the view of "good Nazi" - Dora/Mauthausen - no evidence of increase in the Budget to facilitate the construction of these German war machines -statistics
and finally in terms of contributions, I wrote about the differing perceptions regarding his rebellion against Hitler's "scorched earth policy" - whilst this contribution was initially regarded as an act of loyalty in preserving German infrastructure needed for its post-WWII recovery, it also was seen as politically manoeuvring his way out of execution
Overall, Speer's contributions seen in a positive light for German public, and seen in a negative light for Nazi regime
Historians views and statistics/historical evidence underpinned throughout
Mark out of 10 and 15 perhaps? What do u guys think?
I agree, my part a and part b for albert speer were pretty much the same, in part a i spoke of the three sign events as first architect of the reich, armaments minister and his invovlement in the jewish flats. Then in part b the reasons he has impacted upon history or whatever the question was, was because of the significant events i had already spoken of, but im pretty certain they are marked by separate markers otherwise why make a point of starting part b in a new booklet. I also thought part b wasn't really an analysis question, very difficult and that was the one going in the exam i was most confident about!
Agree all round. I hope my ideas stick well though
Part a and Part b are marked by the same marker but they are marked to different criteria and it is made very clear during the briefing process that the two sections are to be treated separately.
Don't worry about the fact that there is a large overlap between the two parts - that is normal.
Kids who don't repeat relevant information from Part a to Part b are the ones in trouble.
Don't worry about the fact that there is a large overlap between the two parts - that is normal.
Kids who don't repeat relevant information from Part a to Part b are the ones in trouble.
Until I see the actual criteria (assuming I am marking personalities again this year) I wouldn't like to comment definitely on that but you appear to have addressed both questions quite well.
It is one mainstream interpretation - there are others of course but TOV is an argument used by many historians who have studied Weimar.
Remember its not about what you argue, its how you argue it. There are no "right" answers for this question, there are many valid arguments for and against TOV.
is it alright to have a counter argument, arguing that yes the tov was significant because it generated hatred towards democracy + weimar (November criminals), which was fueled during the great depression, however internal factors such as article 48 + proportional voting and external influences such as the rise of the nazi party were more significant?
and is it alright to call the treaty of versailles (tov) throughout the essay if i stated it earlier on?
and is it alright to call the treaty of versailles (tov) throughout the essay if i stated it earlier on?
Of course that argument is fine. It isn't just the argument that gets marks but the way it is argued and how well it is supported - what evidence is used and how it is used.
I don't know of any marker who would get upset with TOV so long as you have spelt out somewhere early what you mean (although the markers would be able to work it out anyway given the question).
I don't know of any marker who would get upset with TOV so long as you have spelt out somewhere early what you mean (although the markers would be able to work it out anyway given the question).