Modern History Debate Thread

[owidjaja]

Ideology doesn't matter. Whether it is Communism, Nationalism, Nazism, Conservatism - no one actually cares about this stuff. Time and time again we see supposed "ideologues" like Hitler, Stalin and Ho Chi Minh, but the thing is that they were less so ideologues and more so just power hungry. All they cared about was power, and ideology can be a means to achieve this power. But if it came to a point where their ideology threatened their control, they'd drop it or change it in a heartbeat.

I feel like ideologies are significant to a great extent. On one hand, these ideologies allow individuals to take a stance on political issues that have occurred and believe their ideology is an improvement to the current one. It is this belief that their ideology is better can result in improvement that allows them to gain more power. Going with the Weimar Germany example, many Germans despised socialism- conservatives called it the 'Jew's Republic.' Remember, these ideologies are what political parties use to gain popularity. Once they put this ideology into action, it doesn't usually work out as well, which is basically what happened to Weimar Germany- they tried to make things more equal (e.g. proportional representation) but there was a lingering desire to bring back old Germany. This use of ideologies in allowing someone to gain popularity is used with Hitler and the Nazis. Hitler used nationalism to stir up the pride that was lost in WW1. The confusing thing about the Nazis, however, is that the German translation of the Nazis is National Socialism. How does one apply Socialism when they're placed in the far right? I think they used this as a way to try and satisfy the left- and right- wing, but in the end, all they did was appeal to the conservatives.

TL;DR: Are ideologies significant? Yes, to some extent. These ideologies are used to spread their influence and gain popularity, but when applying these ideologies, it generally doesn't work out. tbh idk if any of that made sense lmao I tried

[dancing phalanges]

This week's question is accessible to all and was the 2017 HSC Question for the Personality section!

‘To be significant, an individual must contribute to change.’

Do you believe that in order to be influential, your personality had to make some sort of change? Or would you argue that your personality can still be significant by sticking to the status quo and just strengthening it? For instance, if you study Albert Speer, which was more significant - his work in transforming the armaments ministry (change) or his architectural work and use of slave labour which was built upon pre-existing values of anti-Semitism and permanence from Nazi ideology (not change). Interested to hear your thoughts!

[owidjaja]

This week's question is accessible to all and was the 2017 HSC Question for the Personality section!

‘To be significant, an individual must contribute to change.’

Do you believe that in order to be influential, your personality had to make some sort of change? Or would you argue that your personality can still be significant by sticking to the status quo and just strengthening it? For instance, if you study Albert Speer, which was more significant - his work in transforming the armaments ministry (change) or his architectural work and use of slave labour which was built upon pre-existing values of anti-Semitism and permanence from Nazi ideology (not change). Interested to hear your thoughts!

Omg yasss (I swear I'm not procrastinating; my half-yearlies are on my Personality Study xD).

I would say that statement is accurate to a great extent. Personalities can cause change or strengthen the ideologies circulating during their time. I'm studying Leni Riefenstahl and the great thing about her is that her life is the epitome of ambiguity. On one hand, her role as a female director was revolutionary in being a Feminist pioneer. She used filters and film techniques that were innovative at the time. For example, her films prior to her meeting of Hitler established the 'Leni touch'- she loved to use dramatic intensity and even ordered some new filters to give her films a mystical aesthetic. You can clearly see this in her film 'The Blue Light.' These techniques resonate with her propagandistic-style films where she would use telephoto lenses in her films.

On the other hand, Riefenstahl's ambitious personality also resulted her in reaffirming Nazi ideologies, which is why there is a common debate whether or not Riefenstahl's films were propagandistic or artistic. Personally, both ideas aren't mutually exclusive- films can be propagandistic in an artistic way. Her admiration for Hitler was extremely obvious- her calling Hitler 'the greatest man who ever lived' to her stories on how her first time listening to Hitler speak made her so amazed she had no energy to hail a taxi (although this is questionable since Riefenstahl is notorious for saying disingenuous comments) and then Riefenstahl initiating a meeting with Hitler. Her admiration was obvious (although, at the same time, 90% of Germany was also swept away by Hitler- who could blame her?). The fact that the opening scene in 'Triumph of the Will' was Hitler descending from the clouds and a motorcade through the cheering crowds of Nuremberg is pretty darn obvious how much she admires him. However, she did state numerous times that she did not agree with the Nazis' racial policy. She remained nonchalant towards the banning of Jews in the film industry (and her friends being forced to move in Hollywood), which reflects how much of an opportunist Riefenstahl is. As a result, she didn't really do much in the field of social justice and continued to work with the Nazis until the end of WW2.

Even though she reaffirmed Nazi ideologies and didn't 'contribute to change', she did help the Nazis propagate their ideologies. One of the reasons why the Nazis were so successful in spreading their ideologies was through their domination of the culture- Hitler and Goebbels were huge film nerds (and Hitler was an artist before moving into politics) so this significantly impacted the way Hitler wanted to gain power. (Fun fact: Hitler and Goebbels loved Metropolis so much they approached Fritz Lang to be their propagandist but his mother was Jewish so he booked the next plane ticket to Paris!).

TL;DR; Yes, to be significant one should be able to 'contribute to change' as seen in Riefenstahl's contributions to the film industry. But one of the reasons why Riefenstahl is so significant is her affirmation of the Nazi ideologies and the controversy on whether she was a Nazi supporter or not.

(Hopefully my arguments make sense- using this as an indicating on how ready I am for my Modern exam on Wednesday!)

[Mada438]

I was neglecting this thread because of my study for half yearlies 
But no more!

This week's question is accessible to all and was the 2017 HSC Question for the Personality section!

‘To be significant, an individual must contribute to change.’

Do you believe that in order to be influential, your personality had to make some sort of change? Or would you argue that your personality can still be significant by sticking to the status quo and just strengthening it? For instance, if you study Albert Speer, which was more significant - his work in transforming the armaments ministry (change) or his architectural work and use of slave labour which was built upon pre-existing values of anti-Semitism and permanence from Nazi ideology (not change). Interested to hear your thoughts!

Ouch, this one's difficult for me because i only did 1 lesson my personality study (Albert Speer) before the end of term.
I agree with this, because in general terms if someone just follows the status quo they're not going to be noticed. Like if Speers contribution was to the status quo: "his architectural work and use of slave labour which was built upon pre-existing values of anti-Semitism and permanence from Nazi ideology" then he would've not been as important. I can just see it now.... Someone asks "who was Albert speer" and someone replies "oh he was a good architect who was a close mate of Hitlers who subtly was anti-semitic (this is what i believe through his use of slave labour and his careful selection of the living spaces of Jews only to knock down).
Albert Speer was important because he contributed to change. He kept Germany in the war for a few extra years. When the Soviets stopped the Germans near Moscow and with the United States now entering the war, the Germans idea of waging Blitzkrieg was coming to an end. Faced with a long lasting two-front war with two superpowers, Germany had to significantly increase its armaments production to cope.
For some reason, it won't allow me to upload images but This table shows the increase in German armaments production before and during Speers time as the minister; as well as this one
To summarise this:
 97% increase in ammunition Production
Tank production up 25%
Overall arms production up 59%
Part of the Speer legacy is the way his control of the armaments industry kept Germany in the war for longer.

Briefly, i want to mention another way he contributed to change: His acknowledgement of the atrocities of the Reich at the Nuremberg Trials
By admitting to this, he changed the generalisations (that all Nazis were inherently evil and could not acknowledge what had happened) by admitting to what the Reich had done. This was also a change, as it changed the perceptions and generalisations made about all Nazis by displaying empathetic thought and acknowledgement.
This is part of the reason why Speer is so well remembered today.

If Speer had not contributed to these two changes, it can be argued that he would not have been as significant.

[dancing phalanges]

I was neglecting this thread because of my study for half yearlies 
But no more!Ouch, this one's difficult for me because i only did 1 lesson my personality study (Albert Speer) before the end of term.
I agree with this, because in general terms if someone just follows the status quo they're not going to be noticed. Like if Speers contribution was to the status quo: "his architectural work and use of slave labour which was built upon pre-existing values of anti-Semitism and permanence from Nazi ideology" then he would've not been as important. I can just see it now.... Someone asks "who was Albert speer" and someone replies "oh he was a good architect who was a close mate of Hitlers who subtly was anti-semitic (this is what i believe through his use of slave labour and his careful selection of the living spaces of Jews only to knock down).
Albert Speer was important because he contributed to change. He kept Germany in the war for a few extra years. When the Soviets stopped the Germans near Moscow and with the United States now entering the war, the Germans idea of waging Blitzkrieg was coming to an end. Faced with a long lasting two-front war with two superpowers, Germany had to significantly increase its armaments production to cope.
For some reason, it won't allow me to upload images but This table shows the increase in German armaments production before and during Speers time as the minister; as well as this one
To summarise this:
 97% increase in ammunition Production
Tank production up 25%
Overall arms production up 59%
Part of the Speer legacy is the way his control of the armaments industry kept Germany in the war for longer.

Briefly, i want to mention another way he contributed to change: His acknowledgement of the atrocities of the Reich at the Nuremberg Trials
By admitting to this, he changed the generalisations (that all Nazis were inherently evil and could not acknowledge what had happened) by admitting to what the Reich had done. This was also a change, as it changed the perceptions and generalisations made about all Nazis by displaying empathetic thought and acknowledgement.
This is part of the reason why Speer is so well remembered today.

If Speer had not contributed to these two changes, it can be argued that he would not have been as significant.

I'm so glad you brought up the Nuremberg Trials point as that was a key if not the key reason supporting that an individual must contribute to change in order to be significant. I want to pose another question to you guys to see how you would argue this VERY INTERESTING question - To what extent did your significant figure make a positive contribution to their times? For Speer, I would argue he made both a positive and negative contribution through his work as armaments minister. Also I would say his work in architecture and also discrimination against the Jews (anti-semitic policies) were both positive and negative too. I will explain later but before I do I want to see what you think Adam. Was his work predominantly positive or negative or a mix of both? And anyone else contribute too in regards to your personality!

[Mada438]

I'm so glad you brought up the Nuremberg Trials point as that was a key if not the key reason supporting that an individual must contribute to change in order to be significant. I want to pose another question to you guys to see how you would argue this VERY INTERESTING question - To what extent did your significant figure make a positive contribution to their times? For Speer, I would argue he made both a positive and negative contribution through his work as armaments minister. Also I would say his work in architecture and also discrimination against the Jews (anti-semitic policies) were both positive and negative too. I will explain later but before I do I want to see what you think Adam. Was his work predominantly positive or negative or a mix of both? And anyone else contribute too in regards to your personality!

Hmmmmmmmmm
Both positive and negative; but thats very subjective.
For example, if you were to ask a high ranking German Nazi abou Speers contributions to German armaments, they would say it was definitely positive as it allowed Germany to keep on fighting.
Whereas if you to ask anyone else, they might say it was negative, because it prolonged the war and forced the allies to keep fighting which had consequences for them.
In terms of domestic life, looking at Speers archietecual acomplishments and greater ambitions, it was definitely positive. I mean, the catheadral of light looks awesome!

His anti-semitism is not positive, i really cannot see how its making a positive contribution, unless you're looking at it from the Germans perspective where most of them were also anti-semitic so they would support this.

Keen to see what you come up with

[dancing phalanges]

Hmmmmmmmmm
Both positive and negative; but thats very subjective.
For example, if you were to ask a high ranking German Nazi abou Speers contributions to German armaments, they would say it was definitely positive as it allowed Germany to keep on fighting.
Whereas if you to ask anyone else, they might say it was negative, because it prolonged the war and forced the allies to keep fighting which had consequences for them.
In terms of domestic life, looking at Speers archietecual acomplishments and greater ambitions, it was definitely positive. I mean, the catheadral of light looks awesome!

His anti-semitism is not positive, i really cannot see how its making a positive contribution, unless you're looking at it from the Germans perspective where most of them were also anti-semitic so they would support this.

Keen to see what you come up with

Whoops! So sorry I completely missed this! What I would argue is that the extent to which Speer's work is seen as positive/negative depends on the context in which it is viewed (as you have alluded to).

For instance, in the context of Nazi Germany, as you have said, his anti-Semitic work such as the clearance of Jew flats was positive as this sort of racism was accepted at the time, particularly by the higher ranking Nazis who he wished to impress. In contrast, in today's society as you said it would be seen as immoral.

If you think about his architectural work - in his time it was positive as it reinforced the Nazi party's dominance and permanence in its grand scale. Conversely, today his architecture is viewed as propaganda which helped fuel the Nazi effort (which is today seen as one of the great horrors of humanity).

With that in mind, do you believe that Speer's 20 year prison sentence was too lenient or justified given that if he didn't obey orders he may have risked his own life?