Share/Discuss your answers here
Last edited:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Speer was a pain for part b, because even though his work as minister for armaments and war production was seen as a positive impact by the NAZI state it effectively continued the war and therefore caused more deaths which is negative? I really struggled with developing a strong thesis to this one :| Part a went well though.
I agree. I just wrote a bunch of bullshit for two pages!Speer was a pain for part b, because even though his work as minister for armaments and war production was seen as a positive impact by the NAZI state it effectively continued the war and therefore caused more deaths which is negative? I really struggled with developing a strong thesis to this one :| Part a went well though.
I tried to do this but I was so hit by the question that I worded it all wrong. Nothing I can do now thoughon albert Speer i said that the extent to which albert Speer has a positive impact was completely dependant on historical interpretation. where traditionalists historians see him as positive (good nazi at N Trails view, and successful in prolonging germany war) and revisionist historians such as van der vat see him as negative ( portraying a false image at N trails to avoid death, use of forced labour ect)
You and me both my friend!I agree. I just wrote a bunch of bullshit for two pages!
HAHAHAHAHAH THIS JUST MADE MY DAY!
What was the question again? I think it was asking for an interpretation about how positive he was, not a description of his positive impacts. It wasn't really hard, I just stated that he had a positive impact in the First 6 months by allowing the Bolsheviks and their reforms to eventuate, negative impact through the Civil War, positive impact in his proposal of the NEP, and positive international impact in exile. And to those talking about linking, a and b, what the heck. Those are completely different sections, it doesn't matter if you repeat yourself or anything, or don't.I did Trotsky and found part (b) to be rather challenging. It took me a few minutes to really get my head around what I was going to write about. I spoke about it with my teacher afterwards and she agreed it was quite challenging; especially for Trotsky. Whereas if you chose Mandela (for example) it would have been much easier to answer how he positively effected his times.
This is what i tried to do but i did struggle with the argument aswell.Speer was a pain for part b, because even though his work as minister for armaments and war production was seen as a positive impact by the NAZI state it effectively continued the war and therefore caused more deaths which is negative? I really struggled with developing a strong thesis to this one :| Part a went well though.