u]
INTRODUCTION:[/u]
To a great extent, contribution to change is an essential element in being historically significant. Such an idea applies profoundly
Too wordy to Albert Speer as he not only had an impact upon his immediate Nazi context and the course of the war, but also the societal understanding of his own character and the Nazi legacy itself.
Fantastic! Very thought-provoking!Throughout this presentation, it will be argued that Speer’s impact was not limited to the Nazi movement and the Second World War. However, his contribution to change extends to the progression of the ripple effects of these events and the writing of history itself in relation to the following; prolonging the war by 2 years, his unique approach to culpability at the Nuremberg Trials and the pinnacle of them all, writing ‘Inside The Third Reich’ and by contributing to the writing itself and modern societal perception held today.
I would cut this into two sentences as it is a bit too long for mine but I love the approach you are going with - it is very different. Therefore, it is made evident to a great extent that through the extreme changes Speer has contributed to is ultimately the reason why he is such an important figure in history.
Again this sentence is awkwardly worded, just a clarity of expression issue. Simply change to, for example: Therefore, it is true to a great extent that the changes Speer made both during and after WW2 were a primary reason for his significance.PARAGRAPH 1 - PROLONGED THE WAR BY 2 YEARSSpeer's ultimate prolongation of the Second World War is a prime example of how he made a major impact on his immediate context and made a significant mark on history. Being in a state of a two-front war, the internal Nazi organisation of powers and resources was nothing less than chaotic and inefficient
(I need help finding a historian).
No need for a historian here! This is fine by itself. Contrast the chaotic nature of Germany pre Speer in the armaments industry with the organised work he did to bring it back to speed, referencing Kershaw who argues Speer’s “driving ambition and undoubted organisational talent” was the primary reason for his success in the armaments ministry. It was under Speer’s authority as the Minister of Armaments in World War Two he significantly increased Germany's ability to fight back against the Allies in the war by reforming the armaments industry to maximise production efficiency. In his own words of his own contribution through his position as Minister of Armaments, “I prolonged that war by many months.” Although the architect had very limited knowledge of the industry, he had expert organisational skills. In fact, in the first six months of Speer’s appointment in this position, production of guns increased by 27% and ammunition production increased by 97%, which ultimately reveals the immense impact he had on the war effort.
Great use of stats. Moreover, through Speer’s implementation of a system of specialisation in the production of all resources, he thereby as Sereny suggested: “was single-handedly responsible for the improvement of the economy.”
Fantastic integration of quotes!Hence, it is speculated that his reorganisation of the economy was so effective that Speer actually extended the Nazi’s ability to fight in the Second World War by up to two years and is ultimately the reason why Speer is still significant to this day.
Excellent paragraph, not much wrong at all! Tightly worded and well argued.PARAGRAPH 2 - NUREMBERG TRIALS - I need help cutting down this paragraph, I think its too long.
Although on a national scale his contributions as Armaments Minister made him a prominent figure, his actions at the Nuremberg trials ultimately led to Speer to becoming such a significant figure in history. The aim of Nuremberg War Crimes Trials according to the London Charter was to “bring to trial and punish the major war criminals of the Axis countries.” It is considered to be one of the most monumental events in the history as the Nazi leaders were put under the spotlight for being accused of crimes against peace, humanity and war crimes. At the Nuremberg Trials Speer took a unique approach. Although he pleaded not guilty to the four counts, as did all the other Nazi Leaders, he did not attempt to deny his responsibility for the actions of the Nazi regime. He refused to use the argument, as the others did, that he was just following orders. Speer’s composure and obvious intellect at the trials, as well as his frankness and openness of his acknowledgement of the atrocities of the Reich ultimately changed the generalisations made that all Nazis are inherently evil by displaying empathetic thought and essentially allowed him to separate himself from the other Nazi’s. Moreover, although he denied that he knew of the mass murders of the Jews in Eastern Europe, he admitted that, as apart of the regime, he had to accept responsibility for the actions of the regime. Whether in genuine remorse or through calculated planning to avoid the hangman, Speer admitted that he had carried out the orders he received.
I feel this bit about remorse can be cut down. The last two sentences for example, except for the example given, don't add much to what you said prior.Ultimately, if Speer had not changed the public perception of him through his remorseful attitude, he would have simply blended in with all the other Nazis who all instead swore an oath to protect Hitler's name in the trials. Although Speer was found guilty of crimes against humanity and war crimes and as a result, was sentenced to 20 years in prison, Speer not only managed to escape with his life, unlike the 12 out 21 accused Nazi leaders were found guilty and sentenced to death, but he also recreated an image of himself as a sympathetic technocrat.
I also don't think this part from Although Speer... to sentenced to death is needed if you need to cut down words. You want to make a clear link back to the question here, which is lacking a bit. Reference back eg. Therefore, had Speer not actively sought to change his public image at the N. Trials, his legacy would not have been as significant as he would not have been remembered so strongly for his remorseful attitude that contrasted with the malevolence of the Nazi regime.PARAGRAPH 3: ‘Inside the Third Reich’Moreover, the apex of all of Speer’s changes was writing ‘Inside the Third Reich.’ Through this, it fundamentally provided Speer with the opportunity to present a direct and first-hand insight into the workings of the Nazi party, Nazi Germany in World War Two and his role and experience of both as a prominent Nazi Leader.
I am guessing you are looking to argue again that he changed the way people looked at the Nazi regime. Very interesting and would certainly separate you from the other Modern History students. I would look at what elements of the book he fabricated to continue to build his false image of being genuine and remorseful. Although, this may border on not being relevant to the question as you are looking at change. Personally in my HSC, I balanced my essay out with 2 examples where he did not contribute to change, being how he simply adopted existing Nazi values of anti-Semitism in the Jew Flats and architectural ideas of permanency and grandness that were already existing too. Actually found the base of my argument for this question when I quickly scrambled it down in last year's paper discussion on AN:
Change
Work in transforming armaments ministry with efficiency etc.
Changed public perceptions of himself at Nuremberg trials by going against other Nazis who wanted to idolise hitler thus impact his significance in history
Not change
Took advantage of existing german values of volksgemeinschaft and its sense of permanence and dominance in the success/significance of his architecture eg. Germany stadium and Nuremberg rallies as propaganda
Took advantage of existing ideology r.e other races inferior through exclusion of jews in jew flats and exploitation of slave labour in order to profit his efficiency and therefore significance in war effort
That is what I argued but your idea is also interesting.
Anyway this is a great attempt and with a bit of work on the last paragraph looks like a definite 23+/25. 
- I need help with the paragraph, I think it is a really good idea just not sure how I can elaborate on it.
Home
Help
Search
Login
