This week's question: What was the most important reason for Allied victory and German collapse?Omg yes, I'm so ready for this!
I will kick things off :)
The entry of the USA into the war was the most vital reason for Allied victory and German collapse. Given the depleted nature of Germany's resources following the Allied Naval Blockade, the introduction of 1.45 million US troops by July 1918 and the resources they brought with them condemned the disillusioned Germans to defeat.
Do you agree? Let me know below! If you guys have ideas for different debate questions also chuck them below! :)
SpoilerOmg yes, I'm so ready for this!
Okay, in terms of the most important reason for Allied victory, I'd say Germany's choice in allies brought them down the most. Considering how Austria-Hungary was already unstable prior to WW1, it was already a terrible decision for them to join the war as well (albeit, it's kinda their fault for dragging Germany into the war but that's a debate for another day). It's unfortunate we don't get to look at the Eastern Front but the fact that Austria-Hungary was exhausted in 1916 against the Russians- the Russians! and barely managed to survive the Russian offensive because of instability in Russia basically demonstrates how weak they were as an ally. And don't forget how Italy changed sides half-way through the war, leaving Germany to be like a bank to Austria-Hungary because they were relatively stable (in comparison to Austria-Hungary). And unfortunately, my judgement on Austria-Hungary's alliance with Germany was almost inevitable- culturally, they're quite similar- and the Treaty of Versailles didn't stop them from forming an Anschluss in WW2. On the other hand, looking at the Allied powers, Britain and France were already the top empires prior to WW1 in terms of economy and trade- this would benefit them tremendously during WW1 since they were able to gain support from their colonies.
In terms of your argument on the US being a turning point, to a certain extent, the US did help, however the British Blockade was already doing their bit and they were starving Germany out to the point where German civilians suffered during the Turnip Winter and had to resort in raiding dead animals (mainly horses) off the streets- 80 000 German children had already starved to death in 1916 and if the British Blockade continued to do so, they would've starved Germany out of the war. And how did Britain achieve this? They were economically strong in terms of Allies (Russia was weak but France was also a strong ally) so they had the power to prohibit trade with the Central Powers. Would this take a while? To a certain extent, yes, but at that point during 1917 onwards, the Germans were on the verge of backing out of the war because the famine had hit the civilians (and soldiers) so hard they died from the flu epidemic. Even looking at the statistics on war losses overall, Germany had 2 million dead combatants- according to historian John Keagan- in comparison to other powers such as France/Russia with 1.7 million each and the British Empire with 1 million.
So yeah, my arguments are all over the place today xD.
Omg yes, I'm so ready for this!
......
So yeah, my arguments are all over the place today xD.
So glad you're excited by this! What a great first reply! Your argument about the weakness of Germany's allies versus that of the British is one some students neglect but it is super important so props to you! I also really like how you are looking at the war as a whole and how the most important reason for collapse wasn't one event but rather that other reasons such as the Blockade added to these issues. However, given that the Germans gained troops from the Eastern Front and were gaining support, don't you think that the entry of the U.S was vitally important in countering this advantage that the Germans could have used because if the Americans didn't arrive the Germans could have regained control with the troops they were getting back?Hence my judgement on the US involvement being to a certain extent. However, their main significance was their presence, whereas you look at the role of Australians who actually helped the Allied victory. Sure, the US provided more troops but they didn't help much with the tactics. For example, the Battle of Hamel, which was a successfully planned battle led by General Monash. Why is this battle significant? Because General Monash was able plan out effectively, taking note of the strengths and weaknesses of each weapon and used it to their advantage- from my memory, I'm pretty sure they used airplanes for reconnaissance, tanks as the first line of offence and led troops behind the tanks as a support. Yes, the Americans were involved in this battle, however only a platoon was attached to each Australian company. They could've used more troops from the British colonies, French troops or transfer more Australian recruits to strengthen the battalions.
Hence my judgement on the US involvement being to a certain extent. However, their main significance was their presence, whereas you look at the role of Australians who actually helped the Allied victory. Sure, the US provided more troops but they didn't help much with the tactics. For example, the Battle of Hamel, which was a successfully planned battle led by General Monash. Why is this battle significant? Because General Monash was able plan out effectively, taking note of the strengths and weaknesses of each weapon and used it to their advantage- from my memory, I'm pretty sure they used airplanes for reconnaissance, tanks as the first line of offence and led troops behind the tanks as a support. Yes, the Americans were involved in this battle, however only a platoon was attached to each Australian company. They could've used more troops from the British colonies, French troops or transfer more Australian recruits to strengthen the battalions.
I'm pretty sure the Battle of Hamel technically isn't part of the syllabus but my point is, the Allies would've been able to strategically plan out the offensives without the US. Looking at the battle plans for the Battle of Amiens, most of the belligerents who led this battle was the British Empire and France with the US only supplying one division- even Australia had a significant role in the Hundred Days Offensive and they were used as support at the beginning of the war (with the exception of Gallipoli).
Ugh arguing against US entry is difficult xD.
I'm glad it's hard haha! It's so important to challenge yourself and you are doing brilliantly! I would say though that by 1918 the astronomical number of US troops the Allies got was perhaps the greatest strategic advantage anyone could have as the Germans could not possibly compete and this was a great psychological gain for the Allies as well.Ahaha my argument kinda fell apart. However, I would like to add a final statement that if the US didn't enter the WW1, I would think the Allies and Central Powers would've still formed an armistice, considering how the Allies had more troops than the Central Powers (not a large difference, I would say) in this was because of the number of colonies the British Empire had (going back to the importance of Allies). And also, many French and British commanders disliked the naivety of the US soldiers and how independent they were from their commanders.
Ahaha my argument kinda fell apart. However, I would like to add a final statement that if the US didn't enter the WW1, I would think the Allies and Central Powers would've still formed an armistice, considering how the Allies had more troops than the Central Powers (not a large difference, I would say) in this was because of the number of colonies the British Empire had (going back to the importance of Allies). And also, many French and British commanders disliked the naivety of the US soldiers and how independent they were from their commanders.
It was either an armistice or just mutual exhaustion- but those are my thoughts if the US didn't enter WW1 so these ideas are based on speculation xD.
snip........
To what extent would you argue Germany was totalitarian? You are completely correct in that you can never say it was completely totalitarian as there was always some form of opposition. However, how strong, in your opinion, was this opposition? There was certainly opposition in Youth Groups and the Church. I would say that Nazi Germany was to a great extent totalitarian yet total control was never gained. Do you agree or believe it was even more totalitarian or perhaps less in control as there was much instability internally in the Nazi Party?I agree with you there; and yes there may always be opposition (unless you're living in Orwells 1984) i don't think that opposition was that strong really IMO. While there may have been some intermal instability, the nazis were pretty good at eliminating their opposition, or at least keeping it to a minimum
I agree with you there; and yes there may always be opposition (unless you're living in Orwells 1984) i don't think that opposition was that strong really IMO. While there may have been some intermal instability, the nazis were pretty good at eliminating their opposition, or at least keeping it to a minimum
So what do you think was most crucial in ensuring little opposition? Was the context in which the Nazis rose to power eg. The Great Depression? I believe propaganda was by far the most important as it saw the beliefs of Nazism become part of everyday life and thus resulted in indirect indoctrination as to encourage full loyalty to the Nazis. As such, the Gestapo, I believe were important for control in the image they created rather than practically enforcing terror as much of the time, due to propaganda, the ordinary citizens denounced each other.Agreed. Definitely was the propaganda. Gobbells was a propaganda master. It contributed to the high levels of nationalism and anti-semitism.
Agreed. Definitely was the propaganda. Gobbells was a propaganda master. It contributed to the high levels of nationalism and anti-semitism.
I also believe that the method that they used was successful in stamping out opposition. They preyed on peoples weaknesses (e.g. contextually-the great depressed, WR failure, anti semitism etc) and swayed most of the population over to their cause. They eliminated all opposition from those generations and then they indoctrinated the youth. By making the youth are ALL believing in your cause (with literally no ability to think other wise) and ensuring that opposition in the older generations is suppressed until they die out : THAT is how they destroyed opposition. Hope that makes sense
Have you heard of groups such as the Swing Movement and Edelweiss Pirates? Whilst Hitler gained significant control over the German Youth, these were examples of two groups who actively went against the Hitler Youth and thus demonstrated the lack of total obedience from the youth of Germany.I hadn't actually heard about those groups so i suppose thats true, there was small pockets of resistence. But they were a definite minority compared to the hitler youth.
I hadn't actually heard about those groups so i suppose thats true, there was small pockets of resistence. But they were a definite minority compared to the hitler youth.
But were these groups full of children who ddin't agree with Hitlers way of thinking (were they free thinking) or where they influenced into joining these groups through ways such as propaganda?
Big shout out to both Owidjaja and Mada438 who spearheaded the debate last week!Let's be real-the Nazi's wouldn't have got anywhere without Hitler in the first place. He's the reason everything happened the way it did.
This week, we are kicking it off with a much more interesting question: Was Hitler a lazy dictator?
There has been much written about how Hitler spent countless days in his mansion in the Alps eating cream cakes and watching television and that he, in fact, had little interest in the politics of Germany. In addition, Hitler's role appears to have been overemphasised as a result of the propaganda ministry, which under Goebells, was in my opinion even more important in Hitler's success than his own actions as without Goebells Hitler would not have gained nearly as much power and support. The Propaganda Ministry portrayed Hitler as an everyday man and also a leader destined by fate to direct Germany to greatness. It also projected Hitler as at the head of all decisions when in actual fact he scarcely showed much interest and in reality just signed decisions off. As a result, he was not the strong dictator as made out and was rather disengaged at times. There are countless opinions on this question so keen to hear them :)
I'm going to agree with dancing phalanges here! There has been evidence Hitler delegated a lot of stuff to departments he created - he never really ran anything himself personally. In terms of actually gaining support, Hitler was a great speaker, and was able to convince the people, but he often retreated to his holiday(?) house.If it wasn't clear before, i do agree that he was a bit lazy; but with good reason.SpoilerAlso going to drop a documentary here that I watched on SBS on Sunday! It's called Hitler's Secrets, and focuses more on his role during WW2, but nonetheless, super interesting and very much worth the watch. There are bits about his personal life, and his role in actually leading Nazi Germany.
Let's be real-the Nazi's wouldn't have got anywhere without Hitler in the first place. He's the reason everything happened the way it did.
He just didn't micromanage everything
Can Malcolm Turnball make literally every decision and oversee EVERY SINGLE PART, every little detail about Australia? No, he can't and neither can Hitler.
That's why he had various ministers to do some of the mircro management for him. Being the dictator of a country isn't an easy job
If it wasn't clear before, i do agree that he was a bit lazy; but with good reason.
Also another cool documentary series: "Hitlers Cirlce of Evil" on netflix :)
(http://i66.tinypic.com/2is7aqr.jpg)Keen for when you get back and are active again so we can continue our debating! ;D
Through an intentionalist historian view, it can be seen that Hitler was not lazy but a strong dictator who ruled over Germany. However, he liked creating chaos as it would secure his own position. As Hitler came across unfortunate incidents in Germany's history such as the Great Depression 1929, he would turn these to his advantage. Therefore, Hitler had an opportunistic role in the Nazi state. However, within the chaos of his forced reign, Hitler would eliminate the opposition who seemed to be strong against him or able to rise up. This can be seen in the Night of Long Knives 1934 as Hitler recruited the SS army under Himmler to eradicate the powerful and growing SA. Hitler was someone who had a firm grasp on politics and could sway the populace opinion to his favour, yet was not necessarily a professed "puppet-master" as some historians would call it. Hitler's role in the Nazi state was not a lazy dictator but a calculating one who could sit back and let others "do his dirty work for him;" as the Fuhrer myth allowed him to keep a strong grip and hold of Germany's totalitarian governance.You make some good points; but they're centered more around the early 1930s, when he rose and consoslidated power
*Note: Sorry for the "bracketed" things! I couldn't think of a nice way to say it on the spot. Haha. ;) But hope y'all like it and can take something new from it.
Lots of love, history budd, LochNess.
You make some good points; but they're centered more around the early 1930s, when he rose and consoslidated powerBy that time (late 1930's), had Hitler "taught" (maybe indoctrinated through fear) his inner circle e.g. Goebbels, Himmler, so well on his philosophy, that they carried out their actions 'the way Hitler would have wanted'? Without him even saying anything?
What about the late 1930's as well as in WW2, where his "style" kind of changed
yooooo do a question on USAYou could make your response to the current question include aspects of USA influence if you wanted to and felt it answered the question?
No worries prickles :)
(Adam I know I quoted you here, but it is not just directed at you, it's for everyone :))
Hello, hello!While in the essay i wrote for my assessment, i argued that the economic depression was indeed the greatest factor influencing the WR's downfall, I'm going to present another reason as well. This is:
Thank you to Mada438 and LochNess Monster who contributed to last week's debate!
This week's question is: What had the largest impact on the fall of the Weimar Republic?
While there were many factors that contributed to the fall of the Weimar Republic, the Great Depression had the largest impact. Prior to the Great Depression, Germany wasn't very economically stable; the strength of the economy was built on foreign loans. In relying on foreign loans, the Great Depression caused the withdrawal of the loans from the US, as economies around the world began to collapse. The Great Depression took away any form of stability Germany had, thus leading to the fall of the Weimar Republic.
Hello, hello!
Thank you to Mada438 and LochNess Monster who contributed to last week's debate!
This week's question is: What had the largest impact on the fall of the Weimar Republic?
While there were many factors that contributed to the fall of the Weimar Republic, the Great Depression had the largest impact. Prior to the Great Depression, Germany wasn't very economically stable; the strength of the economy was built on foreign loans. In relying on foreign loans, the Great Depression caused the withdrawal of the loans from the US, as economies around the world began to collapse. The Great Depression took away any form of stability Germany had, thus leading to the fall of the Weimar Republic.
I think the Great Depression was only a short term cause of the Collapse. The Republic could have actually overcome the Depression if they had handled it better but instead they cut unemployment funding when it was needed most. In contrast, Hitler promised reforms and hope for the masses. What does everyone else think?It wasn't so much about unemployment, as the relience on foregin loans.
It wasn't so much about unemployment, as the relience on foregin loans.
With an already weak economy, the relience on these donations was quite high. With the removal of these loans Germany was far from prepared to handle the economic problems that ensued. Thus, i don't believe it would've been possible for Germany to overcome the depression.
The promises Hitler made only really seemed appealing because of the depression.
And is it really about short or long term cause? There are various short and long term causes that can be argued multiple ways as to how they contributed. I believe the depression was a big factor, regardless of whether it was short term or long term.
I'll argue the rest of this another time. My brain has pretty much switched off ahahaha.
i also wouldn't argue that the republic was doomed from its establishment as you argued, if not for the heavy reliance on foreign loans, the republic likely would have survived without the depression
the rise of Hitler and his brand of Nazism (which was still happening regardless of the effect of the depression)-the depression just accelerated that rise; they were still there.Just to kill your brain even more ;D Do you think Hitler and his party would have been so powerful if the Great Depression hadn't of happened at all?
Just to kill your brain even more ;D Do you think Hitler and his party would have been so powerful if the Great Depression hadn't of happened at all?Taylor "the depression put the wind in Hitler's sails"
I think one of the largest impacts on the fall of the Weimar Republic was Hitler's ability to 'pick up the shreds' of everything - GD, ToV, social unrest, unfulfilled nationalism, hyperinflation etc etc, and his manipulation of the aforesaid nationalism of the people.
Taylor "the depression put the wind in Hitler's sails"Looking at the contextual environment of Germany...
this sums it up i think....adding to what has been said...Hitler already had the power...but took advantage of the opportunity to attract Germans in a time of social disillusionment- he appealed to their nationalism....
Looking at the contextual environment of Germany...Yes ;) Hitler did not come to power BECAUSE of the depression...it was simply the weak handling by the WR that Hitler used to attract Germans. Hitler came to power because of nationalism, political intrigue and opportunism. The back-room conspiracy, mishandling of economic issues- including Depression ;), fundamental flaws of the Weimar Constitution and the social and psychological distress of the German citizens all contributed to his accession to power....because he used the weaknesses of the WR to appeal to their nationalism....Hitler was a protest vote, he gave them a sense of identity, a sense of hope when everything else was failing....
Hypothetically speaking do you think Hitler could've still come to power if it was not for an event such as the depression?
Hey guys, I've been a bit slack with continuing this given my busy schedule so to both counter that issue and also get you guys discussing things you want to debate - what debate questions do you guys want to tackle! Post your suggestions here and we can have a poll when they are all in and take it from there!Something that we don't know. Like we all study different options, so something we equally are knowledgeable about would make sure everyone could contribute!
Something that we don't know. Like we all study different options, so something we equally are knowledgeable about would make sure everyone could contribute!I've got an idea :)
I've got an idea :)Their idealologies were just their view about how to gain power and how to govern once in power. Its the leaders opinion on which way is best. Hitler took the Nazism approach to gaining his power. Stalin took the "communist" (or was it more communism that lead to facism. Thats how it works isn't it?)route to gaining his power. An ideology is merely a means to and end.
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.
This should work for pretty much all the different case studies :) Pls rip me to shreds!
Their idealologies were just their view about how to gain power and how to govern once in power. Its the leaders opinion on which way is best.I don't believe that this is true, I think that in all the cases I mentioned (bar potentially Ho Chi Minh, I don't know much about him to be able to make a definitive statement on that though), ideology was actually VERY important to the individuals at hand. It was the reason that they wanted to gain power in the first place - to implement their ideology. Yes, I definitely believe that their is also an innate desire for power as well, I just don't think that a thirst for power, and a strong ideological view is mutually exclusive!
Hitler took the Nazism approach to gaining his power.Yes, but I don't think that means he didn't actually believe what he was saying. He wasn't a liberal that thought "oo people don't like Jewish people very much, I should get on that to become the eventual leader of Germany", he was a Nazi through and through, not just in presentation. You've just got to look at his context to see how this developed. Growing up in Austria at the time (which was a very ant-Semitic country even before Nazism came about) fuelled the development of these hideous views. Being Austrian also fuelled his sense of German nationalism (given that Austria felt a very strong connection to Germany, to the extent whereby the Treaty of Saint Germain (their equivalent of the Treaty of Versailles) literally had to force them to be independant, because they wanted to be annexed by Germany so bad. According to many that were stationed with him during World War I, Hitler would often make wild outbursts about how communists and Jews were conspiring against the German war effort, and this was at a time when those kind of views were less acceptable - people thought he was a bit mad while he was in the army. This was only worsened by the fact that he was injured when the Germans conceded defeat, so he didn't actually see the utter hopelessness of the situation, and wholeheartedly believed the stab-in-the-back myth that he was fed.
Stalin took the "communist" (or was it more communism that lead to facism. Thats how it works isn't it?)route to gaining his power.But the Communist Government was already in power when Stalin became leader, and had been for some time, so I don't think its really correct to say that he "took" the communist route. He was already a pretty active member of the party before then as well, even when he wasn't in such a prominent leadership position. He did transform communism, so it wasn't exactly the same as it was when Lenin was in charge (basically shifted from "communism from below" to "communism from above", forcing it on the people rather than facilitating a grass roots revolution), but it was still a communist system (just a really terrible one). His commitment to Communism is only really challenged by other communists, who have a different view of what communism should be (ie. Trotskyites will say he wasn't a communist, because he doesn't fit their definition of communism, and vice versa).
Although i don't think they'd change their ideology if their power was threatened. Their ideology is their idea of the ideal way to govern once in power. The way that they ruled doesnr change significantly. In the cases of both hitler and stalin; they were respectively nazi and communist until their downfall.You've kind of changed your argument here a bit. This must suggest some level of commitment to their ideology then though beyond just being a means to an end? If not changing their ideology means the 'end' of their power, don't you think, if they weren't actually ideologues, they'd give it up?
I'm not sure whether i actually agreed with you or not but i just wanted to put this out there 😂You kind of did both aha! But that's great, its good to test out different sides, will help you work out later on which one you agree with :) The best way to support your own argument in an essay is to disprove the opposition, and that means you have to understand the opposition first :) Great work!
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.
This week's question is accessible to all and was the 2017 HSC Question for the Personality section!Omg yasss (I swear I'm not procrastinating; my half-yearlies are on my Personality Study xD).
‘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! :)
This week's question is accessible to all and was the 2017 HSC Question for the Personality section!Ouch, this one's difficult for me because i only did 1 lesson my personality study (Albert Speer) before the end of term.
‘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! :)
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!Hmmmmmmmmm
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