Modern History Essay Marking

[TheCommando]

What about the french revolution?

[sudodds]

What about the french revolution?

What about it ? Definitely a very interesting period in history! Unfortunate the the HSC syllabus doesn't really touch on it, though you can study it somewhat in year 11. Did you have a response on the French revolution that you wanted someone to have a look over?

[TheCommando]

What about it ? Definitely a very interesting period in history! Unfortunate the the HSC syllabus doesn't really touch on it, though you can study it somewhat in year 11. Did you have a response on the French revolution that you wanted someone to have a look over?

It just wasnt listed on the original post as the things u guys would mark
Im in year 12 doing vce and thats what im studuying for the first semester. Its just the revolutions thread is dead

[sudodds]

It just wasnt listed on the original post as the things u guys would mark
Im in year 12 doing vce and thats what im studuying for the first semester. Its just the revolutions thread is dead

Ahh okay I getcha! Well if you really need someone to look over your work I'm more than happy to give it a go, but I'm really unfamiliar with the VCE system and only studied the French Revolution briefly in Year 11 so not sure how useful I can be :/ I can give you tips on structure, but like I can only mark it against an HSC standard, so you'd probably want to verify with a second person to make sure that my feedback is consistent with the VCE expectations  - take everything I say with a grain of salt essentially.

[TheCommando]

Ahh okay I getcha! Well if you really need someone to look over your work I'm more than happy to give it a go, but I'm really unfamiliar with the VCE system and only studied the French Revolution briefly in Year 11 so not sure how useful I can be :/ I can give you tips on structure, but like I can only mark it against an HSC standard, so you'd probably want to verify with a second person to make sure that my feedback is consistent with the VCE expectations  - take everything I say with a grain of salt essentially.

All good, i may as well put it up here and on the vce board so people can maybe benifit it. Im lucky that i have a teacher who is really willing to mark essays often. (The guy is crazy but funny)
I do learn about the russian revolution next semester as well

[sudodds]

All good, i may as well put it up here and on the vce board so people can maybe benifit it. Im lucky that i have a teacher who is really willing to mark essays often. (The guy is crazy but funny)
I do learn about the russian revolution next semester as well

All good Post whatever you wish and I'll happily have a look (feel free to ask any questions here as well!). Sounds a lot like my modern history teacher - 21 practice responses before trial exams! makes it so much easier when your teacher is so good/supportive. Will defs be able to help out a lot more when it comes to the Russian revolution - that's my ish

[chloeannbarwick]

Hi! so my recent history assessment task involves two essays with seen questions!

Here is my second essay question; Has history vindicated Trotsky, or were his critics right to condemn him as a failure?
And was wondering if I could please get my attempt marked so as I can improve it before submitting it! If you have any questions regarding it then please ask away

Essay:

Throughout human history, certain individuals stand out due to the role they have played in key historical events and the impact’s that they have had within the context of their times. This is particularly true in the case of Leon Trotsky, perhaps one of the most debated politicians in Russian history. Trotsky’s role within the Soviet parliament has rightfully been condemned a failure among both his critics and historians who despite his obvious intelligence, consider him to have been a ‘naďve idealist and politician.’ Despite having a number of positive attributes, Trotsky has been wrongly vindicated by his admirers throughout history, as seen through a study of his role within the Russian Government and the opinions of critical historians

Despite being somewhat vindicated by supporters for his many strengths and positive attributes demonstrated throughout his time in Russia, Trotsky was in many ways a failure as it is evident to see that his weaknesses truly did outweigh his strengths. Being the naiivee idealist and ruthless authoritarian he was, Trotsky stuck too rigidly to his ideology of permanent revolution to the detriment of the party and the Soviet Union. Prior to his death, Lenin’s final testament had been completed with Trotsky being the only one who stood to benefit from the publication of the testament, however he did not object when it was decided that it should be suppressed. This was a failure on Trotsky’s behalf, as it allowed Stalin to remain strong and powerful and essentially lead to his victory in the struggle for power. According to historian David Van Tol, Publishing the testimony could have called for the removal of Stalin from his position as general secretary, as stated by Lenin within the testament “Comrade Stalin, having become General secretary, has unlimited authority concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure that he will always be capable of using that power with sufficient caution.” Hence revealing one of Trotsky’s greatest weaknesses to be the fact that he completely overestimated Stalin when he chose not to publicize the testament. Besides this, and despite his intelligence he also lacked the political skills needed in order to become Commissar. According to historian Richard pipes, Trotsky’s role in the November revolution has been exaggerated throughout time, wrongly vindicating him. Pipes states that “Vladimir Lenin was primarily responsible for the success of the uprising, and Trotsky was simply carrying out demands.” It is evident that Trotsky’s lack of political and tactical skills was in many way’s a weakness resulting in condemnation as a failure, as it effected the way that he was perceived by not only the Russian people and government of the time, but also by countless people throughout history. During the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, Trotsky delayed negotiations in order to receive word from Britain and France. Pipes criticizes Trotsky for this, arguing that through delaying the negotiations, he only “riled the Germans, resulting in a more punitive and humiliating peace which otherwise would not have been the case.” It is because of these many failures and weaknesses which Trotsky possessed and revealed throughout his career which has resulted in his condemnation as a failure by his critics, and rightfully so. 

Apart from the many weaknesses which led to Trotsky’s condemnation as a failure, he also possessed a number of successful and positive strengths, though many of these strengths, despite coming from the goodness of his heart, resulted in his condemnation as a failure. During the civil war and his role as Commissar for war, Trotsky had gained a large amount of Military support. Historian Isaac Deutscher commends Trotsky for his brilliant military leadership during the conflict and excuses the abuses that were committed during the duration of the conflict, arguing that the future of the revolution was at stake. Richard Pipes however, emphasizes the fact that Trotsky was a brutal and harsh military commander, and that despite his power and support as commissar for war, the way’s in which he had gone about utilizing his military power and support was in many ways, a great failure. Another strength of Trotsky’s was his confidence within the party. According to historian Isaac Deutscher, Trotsky truly believed that Stalin would not even think to succeed Lenin because of the fact that he was an inferior candidate. Deutscher states “Trotsky refrained from attacking Stalin because he felt secure… it seemed to Trotsky almost a bad joke that Stalin, the wilful and sly but shabby and inarticulate man in the background should be his rival.” It is believed that if Trotsky had of overcome his self-confidence and spoken up about his growing concerns regarding Stalins presence within the parliament whilst Lenin was still there, he would have almost certainly supported Trotsky, and could have annihilated Stalin as a threat immediately. Lenin himself also acknowledge within his testament that trotsky’s self-confidence doubled as a weakness, stating ‘distinguished by his too far-reaching self- confidence.’ Although Trotsky’s confidence had assisted him as an asset to his personality in many ways throughout his career, it is clear to see that this confidence lead to his underestimating of Stalin’s rise within the parliament, contributing significantly to his loss in the power struggle. During the 1917 Revolution, Trotsky had evidently created a significant role for himself as a key organizer through his pragmatic tactical organisation. As a result of his organizational skills, historians such as Isaac Deutscher believe that this was what singly-handedly saved the Bolshevik regime in Revolution. However, historian Richard Pipes argues a conflicting view, stating that it was Trotsky’s ‘obsessive’ need to organize which essentially caused him to overlook the rising issue of Joseph Stalin. Hence, majority of Trotsky’s strengths can be seen, especially through the eyes of Richard Pipes, to have doubled as weaknesses in the essence that they have resulted in his condemnation as a failure through the eyes of many.

Trotsky encountered a number of factors throughout his career which were completely out of his control, and which contributed to his condemnation as a failure by critics throughout history. Upon experiencing symptoms of an undiagnosed fever, this sickness coupled with the stresses of his situation within the party put an extremely heavy weight on Trotsky’s shoulders, as he “ruefully noted that his illness could hardly have come at a worst time.” The illness which was completely out of his control had a significant impact on his performance within the party causing him to miss a number of important meetings and other important matters. Furthering his situation, censorship on Stalin’s behalf meant that only ‘bad’ or negative things could be written and published about Trotsky, creating the impression of aloofness and weakness which was not helped by the fact that, through Stalin’s plans, Trotsky was not informed in time of Lenin’s death and thus was not present at his funeral. This created a very bad image for the potential successor, although it was completely out of his control in a ploy by Stalin to take the place of Lenin. Hence, it is clear to see that these factors could not have been helped by Trotsky, although they certainly did contribute to his condemnation as a failure by critics and historians alike.

Hence, it can be seen that Trotsky’s weaknesses surly do outweigh his strengths, and therefore it can be said that throughout history, he as been wrongfully vindicated by his admirers who see him as a ‘hero; in contrast to Stalin, although he was in actual fact a failure, and his critics and historians were right to condemn him so.

[sudodds]

Hi! so my recent history assessment task involves two essays with seen questions!

Here is my second essay question; Has history vindicated Trotsky, or were his critics right to condemn him as a failure?
And was wondering if I could please get my attempt marked so as I can improve it before submitting it! If you have any questions regarding it then please ask away

Hey Chloe! Sure thing My comments on your response can be found in the spoiler + below.

Spoiler

Throughout human history, certain individuals stand out due to the role they have played in key historical events and the impact’s that they have had within the context of their times. Your first sentence needs to be a judgement based upon what the question is asking - namely was Trotsky vindicated by history - agree/disagree? As the question specifically mentions Trotsky, you also want to explicitly address him within your judgement, and to what extent he has been "vindicated". My judgement would be "Though remaining a controversial figure, Leon Trotsky has overall been vindicated by history." - However as we ascertained from the Question thread that probably won't be yours  (and that is totally fine!)This is particularly true in the case of Leon Trotsky, perhaps one of the most debated politicians i'm not too fussed on the term politician here - he is more so known as a revolutionary in Russian history. Trotsky’s role within the Soviet parliament has rightfully been condemned a failure among both his critics and historians who despite his obvious intelligence, consider him to have been a ‘naďve idealist and politician.’ Great judgement, very strong - just needs to be at the beginning of your intro!  Despite having a number of positive attributes, I love how you have differentiated here - adding a bit of nuance to your essay, but still maintaining a strong judgement aka not sitting on the fence.Trotsky has been wrongly vindicated by his admirers throughout history, as seen through a study of his role within the Russian Government and the opinions of critical historians. I think I need a bit more of an outline of your essay - what specifically is each paragraph discussing?

Despite being somewhat vindicated by supporters for his many strengths and positive attributes demonstrated throughout his time in Russia, Trotsky was in many ways overall  (If your judgement from the intro was that he was overall a failure then that must remain consistent through your paragraphsa failure as it is evident to see that his weaknesses truly did outweigh his strengths. #shade  Being the naiivee idealist and ruthless authoritarian he was, Trotsky stuck too rigidly to his ideology of permanent revolution to the detriment of the party and the Soviet Union. I wanna debate you so hard rn. Not a bad thing, just letting ya know  Thats why I love Russian history so much, really gets me fired up haha. In my opinion he didn't stick too rigidly to his ideology, in fact the exact opposite! During the Treaty once it becomes clear that his position fails he immediately supports Lenin and resigns from his position. Some might say that that was out of frustration, but in my opinion that was more so due to the fact that he believed that he was not right of the position after this failure. This more so suggests that he didn't stick so rigidly to his ideology, because if that were the case wouldn't he want to keep the position of Commissar of Foreign Affairs given how strongly his ideology relied on foreign affairs/global revolution? I also think that the Civil War is a clear example of this, as the reinstating of rank and class within the army, and the appointment of 50 000 ex-tsarist officers greatly went against ideology - but he implemented them because on a practical level they were needed in order to secure victory. I probably will debate you throughout because I can't help it, so I'm going to mark those in red so that you know that that stuff isn't necessarily stuff that you have to change - more so just something to maybe consider  Prior to his death, Lenin’s final testament had been completed with Trotsky being the only one who stood to benefit from the publication of the testament, In a way yes - though the Testament did criticise Trotsky as well (though not as much as Stalin by any means). And yes, individually he may have benefitted, however Trotsky was also fiercely loyal to the Bolshevik party (at least imo), and the releasing of said Testament would have caused further disruptions to an already shaky party. however he did not object when it was decided that it should be suppressed. This was a failure on Trotsky’s behalf, as it allowed Stalin to remain strong and powerful and essentially lead to his victory in the struggle for power. According to historian David Van Tol, Publishing the testimony could have called for the removal of Stalin from his position as general secretary, as stated by Lenin within the testament “Comrade Stalin, having become General secretary, has unlimited authority concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure that he will always be capable of using that power with sufficient caution.” Nice integration of both primary and secondary sources Hence revealing one of Trotsky’s greatest weaknesses to be the fact that he completely overestimated Stalin when he chose not to publicize the testament. Besides this, and despite his intelligence he also lacked the political skills needed in order to become Commissar Do you mean Chairman? Trotsky was a Commissar (Commissar of War at the time, though he also fulfilled the position of Commissar of Foreign Affairs earlier). According to historian Richard pipes, Trotsky’s role in the November revolution Unless your quoting Pipes here (which in that case make sure you're using " ") I'd call it October Revolution - that is the most common iteration, and the least likely to confuse a marker (though most will understand what you mean) has been exaggerated throughout time, wrongly vindicating him. Pipes states that “Vladimir Lenin was primarily responsible for the success of the uprising, and Trotsky was simply carrying out demands.” It is evident that Trotsky’s lack of political and tactical skills was in many way’s a weakness resulting in condemnation as a failure, as it effected the way that he was perceived by not only the Russian people and government of the time, but also by countless people throughout history. During the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, Trotsky delayed negotiations in order to receive word from Britain and France. Pipes criticizes Trotsky for this, arguing that through delaying the negotiations, he only “riled the Germans, resulting in a more punitive and humiliating peace which otherwise would not have been the case.” Nice supporting quote. It is because of these many failures and weaknesses which Trotsky possessed and revealed throughout his career which has resulted in his condemnation as a failure by his critics, and rightfully so. 

Apart from the many weaknesses which led to Trotsky’s condemnation as a failure, he also possessed a number of successful and positive strengths, though many of these strengths, despite coming from the goodness of his heart, resulted in his condemnation as a failure. Might want to rephrase this a bit - a tad confusing.During the civil war and his role as Commissar for war, Trotsky had gained a large amount of Military support. Historian Isaac Deutscher bae 💕 commends Trotsky for his brilliant military leadership during the conflict and excuses the abuses that were committed during the duration of the conflict, arguing that the future of the revolution was at stake. Richard Pipes however, emphasizes the fact that Trotsky was a brutal and harsh military commander, and that despite his power and support as commissar for war, the way’s in which he had gone about utilizing his military power and support was in many ways, a great failure. You need some detail to support this - give us some examples of the brutal things that he did. Suppression of the Kronstadt Rebellion could be a good one. Another strength of Trotsky’s was his confidence within the party. Is this really a strength? According to historian Isaac Deutscher, Trotsky truly believed that Stalin would not even think to succeed Lenin because of the fact that he was an inferior candidate. Deutscher states “Trotsky refrained from attacking Stalin because he felt secure… it seemed to Trotsky almost a bad joke that Stalin, the wilful and sly but shabby and inarticulate man in the background should be his rival.” It is believed that if Trotsky had of overcome his self-confidence and spoken up about his growing concerns regarding Stalins presence within the parliament whilst Lenin was still there, he would have almost certainly supported Trotsky, and could have annihilated Stalin as a threat immediately. I don't think this is purely an issue of self-confidence though - Stalin was a sly mofo and really manipulated everyone into percieving him to be this docile boring figure.Lenin himself also acknowledge within his testament that trotsky’s self-confidence doubled as a weakness, stating ‘distinguished by his too far-reaching self- confidence.’ Although Trotsky’s confidence had assisted him as an asset to his personality in many ways throughout his career how though?, it is clear to see that this confidence lead to his underestimating of Stalin’s rise within the parliament, contributing significantly to his loss in the power struggle. I think you need to segue to your next point better -During the 1917 Revolution, Trotsky had evidently created a significant role for himself as a key organizer through his pragmatic tactical organisation. As a result of his organizational skills, historians such as Isaac Deutscher believe that this was what singly-handedly saved the Bolshevik regime in Revolution. However, historian Richard Pipes argues a conflicting view, stating that it was Trotsky’s ‘obsessive’ need to organize which essentially caused him to overlook the rising issue of Joseph Stalin. Hence, majority of Trotsky’s strengths can be seen, especially through the eyes of Richard Pipes, to have doubled as weaknesses in the essence that they have resulted in his condemnation as a failure through the eyes of many. Really interesting argument

Trotsky encountered a number of factors throughout his career which were completely out of his control, and which contributed to his condemnation as a failure by critics throughout history. Upon experiencing symptoms of an undiagnosed fever, this sickness coupled with the stresses of his situation within the party put an extremely heavy weight on Trotsky’s shoulders, as he “ruefully noted that his illness could hardly have come at a worst time.” The illness which was completely out of his control had a significant impact on his performance within the party causing him to miss a number of important meetings and other important matters. Furthering his situation, censorship on Stalin’s behalf meant that only ‘bad’ or negative things could be written and published about Trotsky, creating the impression of aloofness and weakness which was not helped by the fact that, through Stalin’s plans, Trotsky was not informed in time of Lenin’s death He wasn't just not informed in time - he was given the wrong date! and thus was not present at his funeral. This created a very bad image for the potential successor, although it was completely out of his control in a ploy by Stalin to take the place of Lenin. Hence, it is clear to see that these factors could not have been helped by Trotsky, although they certainly did contribute to his condemnation as a failure by critics and historians alike. This paragraph is a lot weaker than your others. I don't think him being ill really warrants an entire paragraph to justify your point, and doesn't really support your judgement that he was a naive idealist. Your argument is interesting, but I'm not too sure how relevant to the question.

Hence, it can be seen that Trotsky’s weaknesses surly do outweigh his strengths, and therefore it can be said that throughout history, he as been wrongfully vindicated by his admirers who see him as a ‘hero; in contrast to Stalin, although he was in actual fact a failure, and his critics and historians were right to condemn him so.

Okay! So overall comments;

This was a really strong response Chloe! Though I almost wholeheartedly disagree with your assessment ( ) that doesn't matter - you argued well and in a very interesting way. Your grasp on historiography was also very strong. The only things that I think were letting you down were:

- Detail! You need more of it, particularly as you are making such a strong judgement. Give me some specific examples, stats, etc. as to why Trotsky failed in certain areas. It's not enough to just tell me that Trotsky was involved in the 1917 Revolution - I want specifics! Was he the principle organiser of the storming of the Winter Palace? Was he instrumental in the changing of the date for the launch of the October Revolution? These are the types of specific detail that allows you to crack those top marks (though admittedly these more so support my interpretation, so you might want to find some different ones). Along with this, the more detail you add, the less it will look like you are just relying on your historians (this wasn't a major feeling that I had - but it did come across a little bit like that).

- Structure! This is a fairly minor point, but still something that I thought I should mention. Your structure confused me slightly in terms of the ways that the ideas were organised. Your second paragraph judgement I had to read quite a few times before I understood what you meant, and when I initially read it I assumed that you changed your judgement/sat on the fence. Though upon re-reading I realised that was not the case, a tired, elderly marker who's on their 50th script that night and needs to complete another 20 before they go home doesn't have that luxury. Take it or leave it, but I would recommend considering this structure - paragraph on his role as Commissar of Foreign Affairs, paragraph on his role as Commissar of War and paragraph on the Power Struggle. Though it may initially appear simplistic, this is the structure that I used during the HSC  and I got 15/15 (I know this cos my school bought back my paper/marks). The reason I recommend this structure is because a) it more closely follows the syllabus, so if you get a marker who isn't a Trotsky expert who only has the syllabus to go off of, it is easier for them. b) In terms of the syllabus, this structure more closely explores the section of the syllabus which Part B of the personality study is derived from '4. Evaluation.' c) This structure is also more adaptable, and can work for other question types. But yeah, this is only a minor point, looking beyond just this assessment at towards Trials and HSC. I don't necessarily think you HAVE to change your structure for this upcoming assessment, but just something to keep in mind/test out when you do practice questions later on

But yes! Overall this was a very good response Chloe, well done! If I had to give it a mark I'd say you'd be looking at around a 12-13/15  (understand though that my marking may be quite different from your own teachers - so this may not be entirely accurate).

Good luck with your assessment! If any of my feedback confuses you let me know

Susie

[chloeannbarwick]

Thank you once again Susie for your great feedback! I found the fact that we both have very conflicting views and arguments quite fun and exciting on this one. It's always great to see other peoples stances on things like this!

You've really helped me for this recent assessment task, and I'm so grateful! Thank you! 

[sudodds]

Thank you once again Susie for your great feedback! I found the fact that we both have very conflicting views and arguments quite fun and exciting on this one. It's always great to see other peoples stances on things like this!

You've really helped me for this recent assessment task, and I'm so grateful! Thank you! 

No worries Chloe So glad you found it helpful (and yes it is very fun - one of the reasons I loved the subject so much!)

Good luck! Let us know how it goes

Susie

[rodero]

Hi guys,
I was wondering how the post count system works when marking the personality section. Are they considered an essay each (part a 10 marker and part b 15 marker)? Or should I send them both in together so it equals 25 marks just like the nation study.

[jakesilove]

Hi guys,
I was wondering how the post count system works when marking the personality section. Are they considered an essay each (part a 10 marker and part b 15 marker)? Or should I send them both in together so it equals 25 marks just like the nation study.

Hey! Happy to mark an entire Personality study essay (part A+B) as one essay

[maria1999]

Hey!
So I have a speech on Speer thats strangely split up into two parts a speech and a source analysis report thing. It's based around historiography and this is the question: Speer the ‘good Nazi’: an evaluation - his knowledge, complicity and guilt; his contribution, historians’ views

It's such a strange question and I'm struggling because it's a statement but it doesn't have a directive term???!?!. It's in no way finished yet, it has a somewhat structure but it's mainly an overall slopfest so any criticism would be deeply appreciated! ALSO, thank you so much for answering all these Speer questions, I really appreciate it  (This is also worth 10 marks and should be 6-8 minutes)


“Historians will not and cannot be satisfied with Albert Speer’s self-portrait: too much of it is myth, legend; too little of it historical truth” -  Matthias Schmidt  // Can I start with this?

The differing interpretations and debate surrounding Albert Speer greatly provide insight into his significance and contribution as a key figure of German history. His infamous defence of ignorance regarding the atrocities committed by the regime which he served allowed him to claim a position of innocence whilst ironically being at the centre of history's greatest atrocities. The legitimacy of this defence can be assessed through his knowledge regarding the expulsion of Jews from Berlin, his use of forced labour within the armaments industry, his supposed “ignorance of the “final solution” and his opposition to Hitler’s “Scorched Earth” policy.

Speer’s role in the expulsion of Jews from Berlin and their subsequent fate to perish in the death camps is a vital aspect of his overall complicity within the horrors of the Nazi regime. In 1937, Speer was appointed Inspector general of Construction in Berlin and was therefore responsible for the entirety of the Germania project. This was the plan to rebuild Berlin to be the centre of not only the third Reich but the entire world. In achieving the caliber of grandeur for this commission, many apartments needed to be demolished and tenants relocated. In 1939, the Resettlement Division of Speer’s administration was established for solely finding alternative accommodation for those affected. The enactment of the Law for Rebuilding of German Towns was passed which gave Speer the “absolute authority to seize whatever property he wished and to award compensation according to the minimal requirements of the law” (Kitchen). A significant amount of those resettled were Jews and many did not end up finding alternative housing which the led to the displaced being deported to concentration camps. Joachim Fest “observes that Early resettlement work was purely administrative and it would be highly unlikely that Speer would have known about the relocation struggle” In considering his perspective, Fest had a personal relationship with the accused, aiding him in publishing his memoir, Inside the Third Reich, which in turn hinders his reliability in relation to perspective on the issue of the Jewish flats. His view is somewhat substantiated by Gitta Sereny as she states that  “although Speer certainly knew by 1941 that the Berlin Jews were being deported, it is virtually certain he had no idea they were going to their death”. Sereny grew close to Speer in the twelve years which she knew him and thus he was able to recount to her in a sympathetic demeanour not only his ignorance but typical response of contrition regarding the fate of the Jews. Further, with Speer having such jurisdiction over the entire commission, it simply cannot be plausible to conclude that someone of his authority would have been ignorant of the outcomes resulting in the expulsion of Jewish tenants. The emergence of Rudolf Wolters original chronicle in 1981 revealed that in 1941, Speer himself demanded a further clearing of 5000 Jewish flats for demolition survivors, of his own accord. In addition to this, a Chronicle entry from the 25th of October 1942 states that “the task of the resettlement department was to identify all Jewish flats...the number of resettled persons comprised 75000” This therefore renders the argument of his ignorance to his knowledge of the Jewish flats invalid as embodied by Martin Kitchen’s statement “Speer had made no mention that it was he, as Inspector General of Buildings, who decided their fate” . Overall, it is unwise to suggest that someone in the higher echelons of the Nazi party and Reich government such as Speer would be blind to the deportation of tens of thousands of Jews and their ultimate fate to perish in the death camps. (I need to desperately cut this down, I'm not sure where tho)

A significant factor in Speer’s twenty year prison sentence was his guilt of using forced labour within the armaments industry. Speer utilised the concentration camps within the regime to provide high-quality weapons for the war against the Allies. Mittelwerk, the underground factory under the Mittelbau-Dora concentration camp, was the main site in which the V-2 ballistic missiles were built. Workers slaved away during eighteen hour days enduring hellish conditions to produce the rockets. As typical of Speer, he denied knowledge regarding the conditions and extent to which workers were being exploited during the entirety of his time as Minister for Armaments. However this claim is invalid as the Reich minister visited the Dora camp on December 10 1943, witnessing first hand the harrowing conditions to which the workers faced. This encounter simultaneously debunks Sereny’s view that “He was unaware of the blood on his hands as armaments minister”. (What else can I say in this para?)


During the Nuremberg trials, Speer fabricated his defence regarding his knowledge of the “final solution” from the stance that he was an apolitical technocrat that remained impartial but nonetheless caught up in the barbaric horrors that the Nazi party had committed. His assumed guilt was grounded not in the direct knowledge, of which he did he have, but in the responsibility of being ignorant to the atrocities which were occurring. In his memoir, Speer writes of how he was never exposed to the Party’s potent anti-semitic agenda with Hitler “scarcely ever saying anything about the Jews… let alone about the necessity for setting up concentration camps” (Speer). As man who himself said “If Hitler had a friend it would have been me” the likelihood of Hitler’s closest confident being naive of his plans to ethnically cleanse Germany (in accordance to Nazi ideology) through process of extermination is extremely slight. Fest also affirms this position as he writes that  “Speer spoke of the criminal character of the Hitler regime and admitted his mistake in not having taken the hateful threats against the Jews seriously”  Irrespective of his naivety during his time, a speech delivered by Heinrich Himmler at the Posen Conference on the 6th of October 1943 renders Speer’s excuse of ignorance invalid as Himmler revealed the government’s ongoing systematic extermination of the Jews in labour camps.  Speer himself was present at this very conference but again claimed ignorance to the Holocaust as he was not present during Himmler’s speech, having “left early”. Speer himself states that  “As an important member of the leadership of the Reich I therefore share in the general responsibility from 1942 onwards” This statement alone demonstrates the carefully constructed myth that was his defence at Nuremberg, conveniently ignoring his directive as Inspector General of Construction to expel 5000 Jewish tenants from their property in 1941. This ultimately reveals that his complicity and guilt of the Nazi Party's Crimes against humanity, stemmed long before his appointment as Minister of Armaments and Munitions. Schmidt substantiates this view as he states that “nothing could be further than the truth than the image of Speer as an architect with purely artistic ambitions, absorbed in his work” . (I need to cut this too also)

Speer’s opposition to Hitler’s “Scorched Earth” can be seen as a tool used to portray his image as a “good nazi”. Once the Allies were almost certainly in a position to conquer Germany, Hitler issued the “Scorched Earth” decree to effectively deplete Germany’s commodities and infrastructure rather than accept defeat. Speer disputed this as he claimed to have wanted the German people to have some sort of foundation to rebuild their lives after the conclusion of the war. Speer used his resistance to the Hitler’s policy to aid his image of being a “good Nazi” as it can be seen that his “determination to thwart the destruction of German was motivated partly by a genuine concern for the future of the German people” (Noakes). Nonetheless  it must also be recognised that Speer’s actions stemmed also from his own political agenda as he wanted to gain sympathy in the eyes of Germany’s conquerors (Noakes) (What else can I say?)

[jakesilove]

Hey!
So I have a speech on Speer thats strangely split up into two parts a speech and a source analysis report thing. It's based around historiography and this is the question: Speer the ‘good Nazi’: an evaluation - his knowledge, complicity and guilt; his contribution, historians’ views
as he claimed to have wanted the German people to have some sort of foundation to rebuild their lives after the conclusion of the war. Speer used his resistance to the Hitler’s policy to aid his image of being a “good Nazi” as it can be seen that his “determination to thwart the destruction of German was motivated partly by a genuine concern for the future of the German people” (Noakes). Nonetheless  it must also be recognised that Speer’s actions stemmed also from his own political agenda as he wanted to gain sympathy in the eyes of Germany’s conquerors (Noakes) (What else can I say?)

Hey! Check out my comments below

Original speech

Spoiler

“Historians will not and cannot be satisfied with Albert Speer’s self-portrait: too much of it is myth, legend; too little of it historical truth” -  Matthias Schmidt  // Can I start with this?

The differing interpretations and debate surrounding Albert Speer greatly provide insight into his significance and contribution as a key figure of German history. His infamous defence of ignorance regarding the atrocities committed by the regime which he served allowed him to claim a position of innocence whilst ironically being at the centre of history's greatest atrocities. The legitimacy of this defence can be assessed through his knowledge regarding the expulsion of Jews from Berlin, his use of forced labour within the armaments industry, his supposed “ignorance of the “final solution” and his opposition to Hitler’s “Scorched Earth” policy.

Speer’s role in the expulsion of Jews from Berlin and their subsequent fate to perish in the death camps is a vital aspect of his overall complicity within the horrors of the Nazi regime. In 1937, Speer was appointed Inspector general of Construction in Berlin and was therefore responsible for the entirety of the Germania project. This was the plan to rebuild Berlin to be the centre of not only the third Reich but the entire world. In achieving the caliber of grandeur for this commission, many apartments needed to be demolished and tenants relocated. In 1939, the Resettlement Division of Speer’s administration was established for solely finding alternative accommodation for those affected. The enactment of the Law for Rebuilding of German Towns was passed which gave Speer the “absolute authority to seize whatever property he wished and to award compensation according to the minimal requirements of the law” (Kitchen). A significant amount of those resettled were Jews and many did not end up finding alternative housing which the led to the displaced being deported to concentration camps. Joachim Fest “observes that Early resettlement work was purely administrative and it would be highly unlikely that Speer would have known about the relocation struggle” In considering his perspective, Fest had a personal relationship with the accused, aiding him in publishing his memoir, Inside the Third Reich, which in turn hinders his reliability in relation to perspective on the issue of the Jewish flats. His view is somewhat substantiated by Gitta Sereny as she states that  “although Speer certainly knew by 1941 that the Berlin Jews were being deported, it is virtually certain he had no idea they were going to their death”. Sereny grew close to Speer in the twelve years which she knew him and thus he was able to recount to her in a sympathetic demeanour not only his ignorance but typical response of contrition regarding the fate of the Jews. Further, with Speer having such jurisdiction over the entire commission, it simply cannot be plausible to conclude that someone of his authority would have been ignorant of the outcomes resulting in the expulsion of Jewish tenants. The emergence of Rudolf Wolters original chronicle in 1981 revealed that in 1941, Speer himself demanded a further clearing of 5000 Jewish flats for demolition survivors, of his own accord. In addition to this, a Chronicle entry from the 25th of October 1942 states that “the task of the resettlement department was to identify all Jewish flats...the number of resettled persons comprised 75000” This therefore renders the argument of his ignorance to his knowledge of the Jewish flats invalid as embodied by Martin Kitchen’s statement “Speer had made no mention that it was he, as Inspector General of Buildings, who decided their fate” . Overall, it is unwise to suggest that someone in the higher echelons of the Nazi party and Reich government such as Speer would be blind to the deportation of tens of thousands of Jews and their ultimate fate to perish in the death camps. (I need to desperately cut this down, I'm not sure where tho)

A significant factor in Speer’s twenty year prison sentence was his guilt of using forced labour within the armaments industry. Speer utilised the concentration camps within the regime to provide high-quality weapons for the war against the Allies. Mittelwerk, the underground factory under the Mittelbau-Dora concentration camp, was the main site in which the V-2 ballistic missiles were built. Workers slaved away during eighteen hour days enduring hellish conditions to produce the rockets. As typical of Speer, he denied knowledge regarding the conditions and extent to which workers were being exploited during the entirety of his time as Minister for Armaments. However this claim is invalid as the Reich minister visited the Dora camp on December 10 1943, witnessing first hand the harrowing conditions to which the workers faced. This encounter simultaneously debunks Sereny’s view that “He was unaware of the blood on his hands as armaments minister”. (What else can I say in this para?)


During the Nuremberg trials, Speer fabricated his defence regarding his knowledge of the “final solution” from the stance that he was an apolitical technocrat that remained impartial but nonetheless caught up in the barbaric horrors that the Nazi party had committed. His assumed guilt was grounded not in the direct knowledge, of which he did he have, but in the responsibility of being ignorant to the atrocities which were occurring. In his memoir, Speer writes of how he was never exposed to the Party’s potent anti-semitic agenda with Hitler “scarcely ever saying anything about the Jews… let alone about the necessity for setting up concentration camps” (Speer). As man who himself said “If Hitler had a friend it would have been me” the likelihood of Hitler’s closest confident being naive of his plans to ethnically cleanse Germany (in accordance to Nazi ideology) through process of extermination is extremely slight. Fest also affirms this position as he writes that  “Speer spoke of the criminal character of the Hitler regime and admitted his mistake in not having taken the hateful threats against the Jews seriously”  Irrespective of his naivety during his time, a speech delivered by Heinrich Himmler at the Posen Conference on the 6th of October 1943 renders Speer’s excuse of ignorance invalid as Himmler revealed the government’s ongoing systematic extermination of the Jews in labour camps.  Speer himself was present at this very conference but again claimed ignorance to the Holocaust as he was not present during Himmler’s speech, having “left early”. Speer himself states that  “As an important member of the leadership of the Reich I therefore share in the general responsibility from 1942 onwards” This statement alone demonstrates the carefully constructed myth that was his defence at Nuremberg, conveniently ignoring his directive as Inspector General of Construction to expel 5000 Jewish tenants from their property in 1941. This ultimately reveals that his complicity and guilt of the Nazi Party's Crimes against humanity, stemmed long before his appointment as Minister of Armaments and Munitions. Schmidt substantiates this view as he states that “nothing could be further than the truth than the image of Speer as an architect with purely artistic ambitions, absorbed in his work” . (I need to cut this too also)

Speer’s opposition to Hitler’s “Scorched Earth” can be seen as a tool used to portray his image as a “good nazi”. Once the Allies were almost certainly in a position to conquer Germany, Hitler issued the “Scorched Earth” decree to effectively deplete Germany’s commodities and infrastructure rather than accept defeat. Speer disputed this as he claimed to have wanted the German people to have some sort of foundation to rebuild their lives after the conclusion of the war. Speer used his resistance to the Hitler’s policy to aid his image of being a “good Nazi” as it can be seen that his “determination to thwart the destruction of German was motivated partly by a genuine concern for the future of the German people” (Noakes). Nonetheless  it must also be recognised that Speer’s actions stemmed also from his own political agenda as he wanted to gain sympathy in the eyes of Germany’s conquerors (Noakes) (What else can I say?)

Speech with comments

Spoiler

“Historians will not and cannot be satisfied with Albert Speer’s self-portrait: too much of it is myth, legend; too little of it historical truth” -  Matthias Schmidt  // Can I start with this?

No, I don't think you can start with this. Remember, it's a speech; how will you make that clear? How will you convey the message? What will the sentence sound like? You should have a strong, self-written opening. This may include a quote, such as the one above ('as noted by historian Matthias Schmidt...' etc) however starting a speech with a quote may be a bit cliche.

The differing interpretations and debate surrounding Albert Speer greatly provide Greatly provide? insight into his significance and contribution as a key figure of German history. His infamous defence of ignorance regarding the atrocities committed by the regime Defence where? Against whom? which he served allowed him to claim a position of innocence whilst ironically being at the centre of history's greatest atrocities Is that ironic? Is it not just an orchestrated, obvious attempt to avoid the death penalty?. The legitimacy of this defence can be assessed through his knowledge regarding the expulsion of Jews from Berlin, his use of forced labour within the armaments industry, his supposed “ignorance of the “final solution” I think your quotation marks don't match here and his opposition to Hitler’s “Scorched Earth” policy.
 

Overall, you've set yourself up for a strong essay. However, you definitely need to read through it a few times and fix up the spelling and grammar. The sentences could definitely be clearer (read it out loud, and see if you like it!). This makes complete sense, since this is just a first draft, but still something worth doing. I particularly like the final sentence, which really defines where this speech will go. However, you haven't introduced a thesis. You've said that one may assess Speer's influence through X Y and Z, but you haven't actually completed that assessment. This is paramount in an introduction; what is your thesis?

Speer’s role in the expulsion of Jews from Berlin and their subsequent fate to perish (?) Revise this sentence in the death camps is a vital aspect of his overall complicity within the horrors of the Nazi regime. Perfect In 1937, Speer was appointed Inspector Ggeneral of Construction in Berlin and was therefore responsible for the entirety of the Germania project. This was the Hitler's? plan to rebuild Berlin to be the centre of not only the Tthird Reich but the entire world. In achieving the caliber of grandeur for this commission, many apartments needed to be demolished and tenants relocated. In 1939, the Resettlement Division of Speer’s administration was established for solely (?) finding alternative accommodation for those affected. The enactment of the Law for Rebuilding of German Towns When? was passed which gave Speer the “absolute authority to seize whatever property he wished and to award compensation according to the minimal requirements of the law” (Kitchen). A significant amount of those resettled were Jews Statistic here? and many did not end up finding alternative housing Statistic? which the led to the displaced being deported to concentration camps Really? That's great, but I need more evidence. Also, ideally there would be a bit less 'telling', and a bit more analysis.. Joachim Fest How can the word observes be within this quote? Or is this from another source? “observes that Early resettlement work was purely administrative and it would be highly unlikely that Speer would have known about the relocation struggle”full stop? In considering his perspective, Fest had a personal relationship with the accused, aiding him in publishing his memoir, Inside the Third Reich, which in turn hinders his reliability in relation to perspective on the issue of the Jewish flats. Whilst I get your point, it needs to be made more succinctly and more clearly. His view is somewhat substantiated by Gitta Sereny as she states that  “although Speer certainly knew by 1941 that the Berlin Jews were being deported, it is virtually certain he had no idea they were going to their death”. Sereny grew close to Speer in the twelve years which she knew him and thus he was able to recount to her in a sympathetic demeanour not only his ignorance but typical response of contrition regarding the fate of the Jews Again, this sentence needs some serious rework. Read it outloud to check if it makes sense. Further, with Speer having such jurisdiction over the entire commission, it simply cannot be plausible to conclude that someone of his authority would have been ignorant of the outcomes resulting in the expulsion of Jewish tenants. The emergence of Rudolf Wolters original chronicle in 1981 revealed that in 1941, Speer himself demanded a further clearing of 5000 Jewish flats for demolition survivors, of his own accord Brilliant. More sentences like this. In addition to this, a Chronicle entry from the 25th of October 1942 states that “the task of the resettlement department was to identify all Jewish flats...the number of resettled persons comprised 75000” Full stop!!!! This therefore renders the argument of his ignorance to his knowledge of the Jewish flats invalid as embodied by Martin Kitchen’s statement “Speer had made no mention that it was he, as Inspector General of Buildings, who decided their fate” . Overall, it is unwise to suggest that someone in the higher echelons of the Nazi party and Reich government such as Speer would be blind to the deportation of tens of thousands of Jews and their ultimate fate to perish in the death camps. (I need to desperately cut this down, I'm not sure where tho)

Synthesis, synthesis, synthesis. Go back through this above paragraph, and summarise the points you make in dot points. There are probably only a few. Then, expand on those dot points, cutting down anything unnecessary. Whilst historiography is important, and you've used it well, your direct analysis of each historiographer is probably too far. Summarise your point, make it, and move on. Additionally, make your thesis more clear throughout (I still don't know what it is, by the way). Was Speer the 'Good Nazi'? Was he complicit in every way? Was he a technocratic opportunist?

A significant factor in Speer’s twenty year prison sentence was his guilt of using forced labour within the armaments industry. Really need to rework these sentences, particularly the introductory ones. They need to be more hard-hitting! Speer utilised the concentration camps within the regime to provide high-quality weapons for the war against the Allies. Mittelwerk, the underground factory under? the Mittelbau-Dora concentration camp, was the main site in which the V-2 ballistic missiles were built How many rockets? When was this?. Workers slaved away during eighteen hour days enduring hellish conditions to produce the rockets. As typical of Speer, he denied knowledge regarding the conditions and extent to which workers were being exploited during the entirety of his time as Minister for Armaments. However this claim is invalid as the Reich minister visited the Dora camp on December 10 1943, witnessing first hand the harrowing conditions to which the workers faced. This encounter simultaneously debunks Sereny’s view that “He was unaware of the blood on his hands as armaments minister”. (What else can I say in this para?)

You can use way more statistics, as outlined above. Statistics and quotes prove your point; thus, a point stated is 'wrong' without content to back it up.
 
Overall, this is your structure:

1. Content-related description
2. Explanation of Speer's attempted explanation of innocence
3. Reason for the falsity of that explanation

This is a pretty good structure, that clearly displays your point. However, I'm really failing to see a sustained thesis. Instead, your speech so far is a collection of points. There should be a running thread; what are you trying to prove? What words will you use to describe Speer? What is your answer to the 'question' (I know there isn't actually a question, but you need to be painting some picture of Speer).


During the Nuremberg trials, Speer fabricated his defence regarding his knowledge of the “final solution” from the stance that he was an apolitical technocrat that remained impartial but nonetheless caught up in the barbaric horrors that the Nazi party had committed. Same comments as above.
 His assumed guilt was grounded not in the direct knowledge, of which he did he have He didn't? I thought you argued he did?, but in the responsibility of being ignorant to the atrocities which were occurring. In his memoir, Speer writes of how he was never exposed to the Party’s potent anti-semitic agenda with Hitler “scarcely ever saying anything about the Jews… let alone about the necessity for setting up concentration camps” (Speer). As a man who himself said “If Hitler had a friend it would have been me” the likelihood of Hitler’s closest confident being naive of his plans to ethnically cleanse Germany (in accordance to with Nazi ideology) through process of extermination is extremely slight. You can't argue how slight this likelihood it. Instead, you can say things like 'implausible' or 'absurd'. This also strengthens your argument. Fest also affirms this position as he writes that  “Speer spoke of the criminal character of the Hitler regime and admitted his mistake in not having taken the hateful threats against the Jews seriously” Full stops  Irrespective of his naivety during his time WAS HE NAIVE?!? His CLAIMED naivety, a speech delivered by Heinrich Himmler at the Posen Conference on the 6th of October 1943 renders Speer’s excuse of ignorance invalid as Himmler revealed the government’s ongoing systematic extermination of the Jews in labour camps.  Speer himself was present at this very conference but again claimed ignorance to the Holocaust as he was not present during Himmler’s speech, having “left early”. Speer himself states that  “As an important member of the leadership of the Reich I therefore share in the general responsibility from 1942 onwards” This statement alone demonstrates the carefully constructed myth that was his defence at Nuremberg, conveniently ignoring his directive as Inspector General of Construction to expel 5000 Jewish tenants from their property in 1941. This ultimately reveals that his complicity and guilt of the Nazi Party's Crimes against humanity, stemmed long before his appointment as Minister of Armaments and Munitions. Schmidt substantiates this view as he states that “nothing could be further than the truth than the image of Speer as an architect with purely artistic ambitions, absorbed in his work” . (I need to cut this too also)

Speer’s opposition to Hitler’s “Scorched Earth” can be seen as a tool used to portray his image as a “good nazi” Capitalise letters. But, didn't he actually oppose this policy? What do you mean by good Nazi? Who claims this? You need more explanation, or more analysis. Once the Allies were almost certainly in a position to conquer Germany, Hitler issued the “Scorched Earth” decree to effectively deplete Germany’s commodities and infrastructure rather than accept defeat. Speer disputed this as he claimed to have wanted the German people to have some sort of foundation to rebuild their lives after the conclusion of the war. Speer used his resistance to the Hitler’s policy to aid his image of being a “good Nazi” as it can be seen that his “determination to thwart the destruction of German was motivated partly by a genuine concern for the future of the German people” (Noakes). Nonetheless  it must also be recognised that Speer’s actions stemmed also from his own political agenda as he wanted to gain sympathy in the eyes of Germany’s conquerors (Noakes) (What else can I say?)

This speech has a very good foundation, but still needs a lot of work. You need to clarify your points, read your sentences out loud, add statistics and more importantly decide on a thesis. This thesis needs to be sustained throughout the speech. I do understand that this is a difficult assessment task, but you really do need a sustained argument, rather than a collection of points, if you want to write a high-achieving response.

You've done the bulk of the work already. This is best thought of as a first draft, and now it's time to work on your second. I would put this essay up on one tab, and a blank document on another, and start rewriting with reference to your original. Read everything outloud, and keep in mind the comments I've made above.

I've only really mentioned the negatives, because there's no real need for me to tell you the amazing parts! So, don't be discouraged, this is on it's way to being a great speech.

Let me know if you have any more questions about my comments above!

[maria1999]

Hey! Check out my comments below

Original speech

Spoiler

“Historians will not and cannot be satisfied with Albert Speer’s self-portrait: too much of it is myth, legend; too little of it historical truth” -  Matthias Schmidt  // Can I start with this?

The differing interpretations and debate surrounding Albert Speer greatly provide insight into his significance and contribution as a key figure of German history. His infamous defence of ignorance regarding the atrocities committed by the regime which he served allowed him to claim a position of innocence whilst ironically being at the centre of history's greatest atrocities. The legitimacy of this defence can be assessed through his knowledge regarding the expulsion of Jews from Berlin, his use of forced labour within the armaments industry, his supposed “ignorance of the “final solution” and his opposition to Hitler’s “Scorched Earth” policy.

Speer’s role in the expulsion of Jews from Berlin and their subsequent fate to perish in the death camps is a vital aspect of his overall complicity within the horrors of the Nazi regime. In 1937, Speer was appointed Inspector general of Construction in Berlin and was therefore responsible for the entirety of the Germania project. This was the plan to rebuild Berlin to be the centre of not only the third Reich but the entire world. In achieving the caliber of grandeur for this commission, many apartments needed to be demolished and tenants relocated. In 1939, the Resettlement Division of Speer’s administration was established for solely finding alternative accommodation for those affected. The enactment of the Law for Rebuilding of German Towns was passed which gave Speer the “absolute authority to seize whatever property he wished and to award compensation according to the minimal requirements of the law” (Kitchen). A significant amount of those resettled were Jews and many did not end up finding alternative housing which the led to the displaced being deported to concentration camps. Joachim Fest “observes that Early resettlement work was purely administrative and it would be highly unlikely that Speer would have known about the relocation struggle” In considering his perspective, Fest had a personal relationship with the accused, aiding him in publishing his memoir, Inside the Third Reich, which in turn hinders his reliability in relation to perspective on the issue of the Jewish flats. His view is somewhat substantiated by Gitta Sereny as she states that  “although Speer certainly knew by 1941 that the Berlin Jews were being deported, it is virtually certain he had no idea they were going to their death”. Sereny grew close to Speer in the twelve years which she knew him and thus he was able to recount to her in a sympathetic demeanour not only his ignorance but typical response of contrition regarding the fate of the Jews. Further, with Speer having such jurisdiction over the entire commission, it simply cannot be plausible to conclude that someone of his authority would have been ignorant of the outcomes resulting in the expulsion of Jewish tenants. The emergence of Rudolf Wolters original chronicle in 1981 revealed that in 1941, Speer himself demanded a further clearing of 5000 Jewish flats for demolition survivors, of his own accord. In addition to this, a Chronicle entry from the 25th of October 1942 states that “the task of the resettlement department was to identify all Jewish flats...the number of resettled persons comprised 75000” This therefore renders the argument of his ignorance to his knowledge of the Jewish flats invalid as embodied by Martin Kitchen’s statement “Speer had made no mention that it was he, as Inspector General of Buildings, who decided their fate” . Overall, it is unwise to suggest that someone in the higher echelons of the Nazi party and Reich government such as Speer would be blind to the deportation of tens of thousands of Jews and their ultimate fate to perish in the death camps. (I need to desperately cut this down, I'm not sure where tho)

A significant factor in Speer’s twenty year prison sentence was his guilt of using forced labour within the armaments industry. Speer utilised the concentration camps within the regime to provide high-quality weapons for the war against the Allies. Mittelwerk, the underground factory under the Mittelbau-Dora concentration camp, was the main site in which the V-2 ballistic missiles were built. Workers slaved away during eighteen hour days enduring hellish conditions to produce the rockets. As typical of Speer, he denied knowledge regarding the conditions and extent to which workers were being exploited during the entirety of his time as Minister for Armaments. However this claim is invalid as the Reich minister visited the Dora camp on December 10 1943, witnessing first hand the harrowing conditions to which the workers faced. This encounter simultaneously debunks Sereny’s view that “He was unaware of the blood on his hands as armaments minister”. (What else can I say in this para?)


During the Nuremberg trials, Speer fabricated his defence regarding his knowledge of the “final solution” from the stance that he was an apolitical technocrat that remained impartial but nonetheless caught up in the barbaric horrors that the Nazi party had committed. His assumed guilt was grounded not in the direct knowledge, of which he did he have, but in the responsibility of being ignorant to the atrocities which were occurring. In his memoir, Speer writes of how he was never exposed to the Party’s potent anti-semitic agenda with Hitler “scarcely ever saying anything about the Jews… let alone about the necessity for setting up concentration camps” (Speer). As man who himself said “If Hitler had a friend it would have been me” the likelihood of Hitler’s closest confident being naive of his plans to ethnically cleanse Germany (in accordance to Nazi ideology) through process of extermination is extremely slight. Fest also affirms this position as he writes that  “Speer spoke of the criminal character of the Hitler regime and admitted his mistake in not having taken the hateful threats against the Jews seriously”  Irrespective of his naivety during his time, a speech delivered by Heinrich Himmler at the Posen Conference on the 6th of October 1943 renders Speer’s excuse of ignorance invalid as Himmler revealed the government’s ongoing systematic extermination of the Jews in labour camps.  Speer himself was present at this very conference but again claimed ignorance to the Holocaust as he was not present during Himmler’s speech, having “left early”. Speer himself states that  “As an important member of the leadership of the Reich I therefore share in the general responsibility from 1942 onwards” This statement alone demonstrates the carefully constructed myth that was his defence at Nuremberg, conveniently ignoring his directive as Inspector General of Construction to expel 5000 Jewish tenants from their property in 1941. This ultimately reveals that his complicity and guilt of the Nazi Party's Crimes against humanity, stemmed long before his appointment as Minister of Armaments and Munitions. Schmidt substantiates this view as he states that “nothing could be further than the truth than the image of Speer as an architect with purely artistic ambitions, absorbed in his work” . (I need to cut this too also)

Speer’s opposition to Hitler’s “Scorched Earth” can be seen as a tool used to portray his image as a “good nazi”. Once the Allies were almost certainly in a position to conquer Germany, Hitler issued the “Scorched Earth” decree to effectively deplete Germany’s commodities and infrastructure rather than accept defeat. Speer disputed this as he claimed to have wanted the German people to have some sort of foundation to rebuild their lives after the conclusion of the war. Speer used his resistance to the Hitler’s policy to aid his image of being a “good Nazi” as it can be seen that his “determination to thwart the destruction of German was motivated partly by a genuine concern for the future of the German people” (Noakes). Nonetheless  it must also be recognised that Speer’s actions stemmed also from his own political agenda as he wanted to gain sympathy in the eyes of Germany’s conquerors (Noakes) (What else can I say?)

Speech with comments

Spoiler

“Historians will not and cannot be satisfied with Albert Speer’s self-portrait: too much of it is myth, legend; too little of it historical truth” -  Matthias Schmidt  // Can I start with this?

No, I don't think you can start with this. Remember, it's a speech; how will you make that clear? How will you convey the message? What will the sentence sound like? You should have a strong, self-written opening. This may include a quote, such as the one above ('as noted by historian Matthias Schmidt...' etc) however starting a speech with a quote may be a bit cliche.

The differing interpretations and debate surrounding Albert Speer greatly provide Greatly provide? insight into his significance and contribution as a key figure of German history. His infamous defence of ignorance regarding the atrocities committed by the regime Defence where? Against whom? which he served allowed him to claim a position of innocence whilst ironically being at the centre of history's greatest atrocities Is that ironic? Is it not just an orchestrated, obvious attempt to avoid the death penalty?. The legitimacy of this defence can be assessed through his knowledge regarding the expulsion of Jews from Berlin, his use of forced labour within the armaments industry, his supposed “ignorance of the “final solution” I think your quotation marks don't match here and his opposition to Hitler’s “Scorched Earth” policy.
 

Overall, you've set yourself up for a strong essay. However, you definitely need to read through it a few times and fix up the spelling and grammar. The sentences could definitely be clearer (read it out loud, and see if you like it!). This makes complete sense, since this is just a first draft, but still something worth doing. I particularly like the final sentence, which really defines where this speech will go. However, you haven't introduced a thesis. You've said that one may assess Speer's influence through X Y and Z, but you haven't actually completed that assessment. This is paramount in an introduction; what is your thesis?

Speer’s role in the expulsion of Jews from Berlin and their subsequent fate to perish (?) Revise this sentence in the death camps is a vital aspect of his overall complicity within the horrors of the Nazi regime. Perfect In 1937, Speer was appointed Inspector Ggeneral of Construction in Berlin and was therefore responsible for the entirety of the Germania project. This was the Hitler's? plan to rebuild Berlin to be the centre of not only the Tthird Reich but the entire world. In achieving the caliber of grandeur for this commission, many apartments needed to be demolished and tenants relocated. In 1939, the Resettlement Division of Speer’s administration was established for solely (?) finding alternative accommodation for those affected. The enactment of the Law for Rebuilding of German Towns When? was passed which gave Speer the “absolute authority to seize whatever property he wished and to award compensation according to the minimal requirements of the law” (Kitchen). A significant amount of those resettled were Jews Statistic here? and many did not end up finding alternative housing Statistic? which the led to the displaced being deported to concentration camps Really? That's great, but I need more evidence. Also, ideally there would be a bit less 'telling', and a bit more analysis.. Joachim Fest How can the word observes be within this quote? Or is this from another source? “observes that Early resettlement work was purely administrative and it would be highly unlikely that Speer would have known about the relocation struggle”full stop? In considering his perspective, Fest had a personal relationship with the accused, aiding him in publishing his memoir, Inside the Third Reich, which in turn hinders his reliability in relation to perspective on the issue of the Jewish flats. Whilst I get your point, it needs to be made more succinctly and more clearly. His view is somewhat substantiated by Gitta Sereny as she states that  “although Speer certainly knew by 1941 that the Berlin Jews were being deported, it is virtually certain he had no idea they were going to their death”. Sereny grew close to Speer in the twelve years which she knew him and thus he was able to recount to her in a sympathetic demeanour not only his ignorance but typical response of contrition regarding the fate of the Jews Again, this sentence needs some serious rework. Read it outloud to check if it makes sense. Further, with Speer having such jurisdiction over the entire commission, it simply cannot be plausible to conclude that someone of his authority would have been ignorant of the outcomes resulting in the expulsion of Jewish tenants. The emergence of Rudolf Wolters original chronicle in 1981 revealed that in 1941, Speer himself demanded a further clearing of 5000 Jewish flats for demolition survivors, of his own accord Brilliant. More sentences like this. In addition to this, a Chronicle entry from the 25th of October 1942 states that “the task of the resettlement department was to identify all Jewish flats...the number of resettled persons comprised 75000” Full stop!!!! This therefore renders the argument of his ignorance to his knowledge of the Jewish flats invalid as embodied by Martin Kitchen’s statement “Speer had made no mention that it was he, as Inspector General of Buildings, who decided their fate” . Overall, it is unwise to suggest that someone in the higher echelons of the Nazi party and Reich government such as Speer would be blind to the deportation of tens of thousands of Jews and their ultimate fate to perish in the death camps. (I need to desperately cut this down, I'm not sure where tho)

Synthesis, synthesis, synthesis. Go back through this above paragraph, and summarise the points you make in dot points. There are probably only a few. Then, expand on those dot points, cutting down anything unnecessary. Whilst historiography is important, and you've used it well, your direct analysis of each historiographer is probably too far. Summarise your point, make it, and move on. Additionally, make your thesis more clear throughout (I still don't know what it is, by the way). Was Speer the 'Good Nazi'? Was he complicit in every way? Was he a technocratic opportunist?

A significant factor in Speer’s twenty year prison sentence was his guilt of using forced labour within the armaments industry. Really need to rework these sentences, particularly the introductory ones. They need to be more hard-hitting! Speer utilised the concentration camps within the regime to provide high-quality weapons for the war against the Allies. Mittelwerk, the underground factory under? the Mittelbau-Dora concentration camp, was the main site in which the V-2 ballistic missiles were built How many rockets? When was this?. Workers slaved away during eighteen hour days enduring hellish conditions to produce the rockets. As typical of Speer, he denied knowledge regarding the conditions and extent to which workers were being exploited during the entirety of his time as Minister for Armaments. However this claim is invalid as the Reich minister visited the Dora camp on December 10 1943, witnessing first hand the harrowing conditions to which the workers faced. This encounter simultaneously debunks Sereny’s view that “He was unaware of the blood on his hands as armaments minister”. (What else can I say in this para?)

You can use way more statistics, as outlined above. Statistics and quotes prove your point; thus, a point stated is 'wrong' without content to back it up.
 
Overall, this is your structure:

1. Content-related description
2. Explanation of Speer's attempted explanation of innocence
3. Reason for the falsity of that explanation

This is a pretty good structure, that clearly displays your point. However, I'm really failing to see a sustained thesis. Instead, your speech so far is a collection of points. There should be a running thread; what are you trying to prove? What words will you use to describe Speer? What is your answer to the 'question' (I know there isn't actually a question, but you need to be painting some picture of Speer).


During the Nuremberg trials, Speer fabricated his defence regarding his knowledge of the “final solution” from the stance that he was an apolitical technocrat that remained impartial but nonetheless caught up in the barbaric horrors that the Nazi party had committed. Same comments as above.
 His assumed guilt was grounded not in the direct knowledge, of which he did he have He didn't? I thought you argued he did?, but in the responsibility of being ignorant to the atrocities which were occurring. In his memoir, Speer writes of how he was never exposed to the Party’s potent anti-semitic agenda with Hitler “scarcely ever saying anything about the Jews… let alone about the necessity for setting up concentration camps” (Speer). As a man who himself said “If Hitler had a friend it would have been me” the likelihood of Hitler’s closest confident being naive of his plans to ethnically cleanse Germany (in accordance to with Nazi ideology) through process of extermination is extremely slight. You can't argue how slight this likelihood it. Instead, you can say things like 'implausible' or 'absurd'. This also strengthens your argument. Fest also affirms this position as he writes that  “Speer spoke of the criminal character of the Hitler regime and admitted his mistake in not having taken the hateful threats against the Jews seriously” Full stops  Irrespective of his naivety during his time WAS HE NAIVE?!? His CLAIMED naivety, a speech delivered by Heinrich Himmler at the Posen Conference on the 6th of October 1943 renders Speer’s excuse of ignorance invalid as Himmler revealed the government’s ongoing systematic extermination of the Jews in labour camps.  Speer himself was present at this very conference but again claimed ignorance to the Holocaust as he was not present during Himmler’s speech, having “left early”. Speer himself states that  “As an important member of the leadership of the Reich I therefore share in the general responsibility from 1942 onwards” This statement alone demonstrates the carefully constructed myth that was his defence at Nuremberg, conveniently ignoring his directive as Inspector General of Construction to expel 5000 Jewish tenants from their property in 1941. This ultimately reveals that his complicity and guilt of the Nazi Party's Crimes against humanity, stemmed long before his appointment as Minister of Armaments and Munitions. Schmidt substantiates this view as he states that “nothing could be further than the truth than the image of Speer as an architect with purely artistic ambitions, absorbed in his work” . (I need to cut this too also)

Speer’s opposition to Hitler’s “Scorched Earth” can be seen as a tool used to portray his image as a “good nazi” Capitalise letters. But, didn't he actually oppose this policy? What do you mean by good Nazi? Who claims this? You need more explanation, or more analysis. Once the Allies were almost certainly in a position to conquer Germany, Hitler issued the “Scorched Earth” decree to effectively deplete Germany’s commodities and infrastructure rather than accept defeat. Speer disputed this as he claimed to have wanted the German people to have some sort of foundation to rebuild their lives after the conclusion of the war. Speer used his resistance to the Hitler’s policy to aid his image of being a “good Nazi” as it can be seen that his “determination to thwart the destruction of German was motivated partly by a genuine concern for the future of the German people” (Noakes). Nonetheless  it must also be recognised that Speer’s actions stemmed also from his own political agenda as he wanted to gain sympathy in the eyes of Germany’s conquerors (Noakes) (What else can I say?)

This speech has a very good foundation, but still needs a lot of work. You need to clarify your points, read your sentences out loud, add statistics and more importantly decide on a thesis. This thesis needs to be sustained throughout the speech. I do understand that this is a difficult assessment task, but you really do need a sustained argument, rather than a collection of points, if you want to write a high-achieving response.

You've done the bulk of the work already. This is best thought of as a first draft, and now it's time to work on your second. I would put this essay up on one tab, and a blank document on another, and start rewriting with reference to your original. Read everything outloud, and keep in mind the comments I've made above.

I've only really mentioned the negatives, because there's no real need for me to tell you the amazing parts! So, don't be discouraged, this is on it's way to being a great speech.

Let me know if you have any more questions about my comments above!

hey jake! I can't tell you how much I appreciate this feedback! I'll definitely take all the comments on board and hopefully have another draft soon!
Legend!!