Hey,
Just wondering if anyone has ideas on the following question: Evaluate the importance of the army in German political life from 1919-1939. I have 1919-1933 all done but am struggling with what to write for 1933-39 that specifically relates to the role of the army in politics (as I don't think I can relate the Terror and Repression to this much). All I can think of at the moment is how the army were a key figure of power and the only political threat to the Nazis and that therefore to gain their support, Hitler enacted the Night of the Long Knives and the policy of rearmament. Any other ideas would be greatly appreciated in case this is not enough, I just need to find things that are specifically related to political life, which makes it tough
Sorry guys, just in reference to the 2008 Speer question about outlining his historical context and background... it said the better responses linked his background with the context. I can see how to do this with the rise of the Nazi party and the personal charisma of Adolf Hitler but I am so confused on what to write R.E development of the Nazi state after 1933, Nazi war effort to 1945 and Nuremberg War Crimes Trials. I'm really confused on what I am doing here because I thought this was all his background and stuff Any help would be fantastic!
Hey I can't really provide much insight for the first question unfortunately, but I may be able to help a bit with the second, even though it is content related, just because it does have that structural element. Yes, it is definitely a good idea to relate background to historical context if you can, but sometimes its not possible, particularly for historical context dot points that happen later in life. For example with Trotsky, I could link the development of his political ideals (a background dot point), to pre-revolutionary russia and the 1905-1917 revolution effectively, but as power struggles happened so many years after his views were fully formed, there is less of a clear link for development, so don't worry about it too much (like I know Nuremburg Trials happen much later for Speer, so I would be surprised if they expected you to link that with background somehow)!
Sorry for the bombardment of questions! This one may be easier for anyone to answer. If a question is asking about the popular support of the Nazi Party and the extent to which this enable them to gain control from 1934-1939, is this the same as a lack of opposition in the essence that you can argue that Propaganda, Terror and Repression, Economic and Political Policies etc. all helped them gain popular support by indoctrinating support to the Nazi Party? In essence, is popular support and lack of opposition interchangeable or is popular support more political?
Thanks
No need to apologise! That is what this thread is here for! And yes, though I didn't study Nazi Germany, I definitely believe you could argue this! Though I wouldn't say they are "interchangeable" per say, as you can have an unpopular totalitarian dictatorship, censoring the opposing voice will definitely have an impact on popular support, as they are only hearing the "good stuff" or the propaganda, rather than the bad
Hi! I'm having a bit of trouble writing a thesis for the personality study question that asks to evaluate the statement - "Differing perspectives and interpretations assist us in gaining an understand got the personality's significance in history". I was thinking of arguing that a wide spectrum of different perspectives helps to broaden our understanding of a figure, and to avoid developing a more parochial view. My personality is Speer, so would an argument that different interpretations of his innocence by historians allow us to gain a broader understanding of his historical significance be appropriate? I just want to make sure I'm interpreting the question correctly. Thank you!
Hey! So I got full marks for that question in the HSC last year (though my personality was Trotsky, not Speer). When constructing a thesis, I looked at the broader reasons as to why certain interpretations for Trotsky arose (naive idealist v practical revolutionary). For my personality, there was a clear difference between right wing and left wing interpretations of his significance. Though for Speer I don't think this will exactly work, I do recommend considering what are the common links between historians who agree, and disagree with one another.
Overall though, I think you are interpreting the question fine, and that your thesis is clear and easily sustainable. Just make sure that you don't just sit on the fence and go, "well some agree with this and others agree", have some sort of judgement somewhere, whether that is a) which side you agree with more, or b), the one I used last year, that there is a common thread within different beliefs and ideas.
Hope this helps!
Susie