Modern History Essay Marking

[sudodds]

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!! 

betcha glad I recommended you hop onto the forums now huh Have to agree though - that feedback was defs legendary!

[jakesilove]

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!! 

Super glad you found it helpful Looking forward to seeing Draft #2!!

[jakesilove]

betcha glad I recommended you hop onto the forums now huh Have to agree though - that feedback was defs legendary!

I do my best

[tahliamag]

Helloooooo,
I have a modern history oral coming up on Albert Speer and have almost finished writing it. I was hoping that i might be able to get some feedback on how I've written the speech and if my argument and points are strong enough to hopefully get me a somewhat decent mark.  The question / statement for the oral is 'Speer the ‘good Nazi’: an evaluation - his knowledge, complicity and guilt; his contribution, historians’ views'. Also, any tips on writing a strong conclusion would be greatly appreciated , thankyou!!!
Thankyou again!!!

Speech :::::
The question surrounding Albert Speer as the ‘good Nazi’ has remained that of fierce historical debate. Speer’s wilful plea of guilt by association regarding the atrocities committed by the Nazi state earnt him the image of an ‘apolitical technocrat’ who, while taking responsibility for the Holocaust on behalf of the regime he served, denied any personal knowledge or involvement. The result of further information being revealed concerning Speer’s knowledge, complicity and contribution to such horrific acts has contradicted his claims of innocence. He has instead been viewed by some historians, such as Dan Van der Vat, as an ‘egocentric opportunist’ who knowingly instigated and supported such acts of cruelty. The accuracy of Speer’s portrayal as the ‘good Nazi’ can be examined through his trial at Nuremberg, involvement in the Germania project, use of forced labour as Minister of Armaments and the extent of his knowledge of the Holocaust.

The perception of Speer as the ‘good Nazi’ first emerged after his attendance at the 1945-46 Nuremberg Trials. Speer was the only one, out of twenty-two Nazi leaders, to plead guilty at Nuremberg. Whilst denying any knowledge or involvement, Speer expressed remorse for the crimes committed by the Nazi regime, claiming that “As an important member of the leadership of the Reich, I therefore share in the general responsibility...”. Gitta Sereny supported Speer’s claims of innocence, stating that “...he had voluntarily accepted a moral responsibility for all crimes committed by the government he served. What more could he have done?”. While Speer’s remorseful claims of ignorance earned him a grudging admiration from the judges at Nuremberg, historian Martin Kitchen disputes Speer’s plea, arguing that “His expression of general or overall guilt at Nuremberg was an empty formula, although it turned out...to have been a masterly tactic that helped save his skin”.

Speer attempted to further his claim of general responsibility and ignorance for Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg by revealing his opposition to Hitler’s ‘Scorched Earth Decree’. When, by late 1944, it appeared the Allies were to overcome Germany, Hitler ordered the total destruction of all industry and infrastructure in the Reich that could have been of use to the enemy. Speer set about openly countermanding Hitler’s ‘insane plans of destruction’ in order to preserve any chance of post-war prosperity for the German nation. Speer’s attempts to divert Hitler’s selfish plans of destruction was utilized by his attorney at Nuremberg to help further disassociate him with the crimes of the Nazi regime, asserting that “Speer had to betray Hitler in order to remain loyal to his people”. While Speer’s defiant act of resistance was viewed favourably at Nuremberg, his motives for such opposition has been widely debated, with historians such as Van der Vat arguing that “Speer changed his views for his own safety…” and to serve his own interests.

Speer’s role in the ‘Germania’ Project and subsequent involvement in the evacuation of thousands of Jews from Berlin severely discredits his claims of innocence and further confirms his complicity to the crimes of the Nazi regime. In 1937, after being appointed General Building Inspector of the Reich, Speer was assigned the most ambitious architectural project of his career; to grandiose Berlin in a manner that would endure a ‘thousand-year Reich’. The project required the demolition of 55,000 apartments near the city centre, resulting in tens of thousands of Berlin residents facing dislodgement.

In order to support the Aryan Germans who had lost their homes due to the demolitions, Jewish residents were targeted for eviction, being forced out of their homes in order to provide them with housing. Joachim Fest maintains that “As head of department Speer certainly had nothing to do with these incidents”. Fest’s notion of Speer’s ignorance of the fate of the Berlin Jews is supported by that of Sereny, explaining 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”. In considering the perspectives of Fest and Sereny, however, both developed a personal relationship with Speer over the time spent working with him, therefore presenting a biased view of his involvement in the ‘Jewish Flats’ matter.

Considering the authority held by Speer as GBI over the entire ‘Germania’ project, it is highly implausible to suggest that he was unaware of the inevitable fate of the evicted Jewish tenants. The emergence of the ‘Wolters Chronicles’ in 1983 confirmed Speer’s involvement in the ‘evacuation’ of the Berlin Jews. The chronicle contained details of the anti-Jewish actions ordered by Speer, specifically that made by him in August, 1941, which commanded action to be taken to clear a further 5000 Jewish flats for the rehousing of demolition tenants. The events recorded in the chronicle confirmed that “Speer was not an… amoral non-spectator of Nazi anti-Semitism but an active participant in ruining the lives… of 75,000 Jews by having them evicted” (Van der Vat).

Speer’s involvement and knowledge of the ‘evacuation’ of the Berlin Jews contradicts his image as the ‘good Nazi’. Equally so does his use and abuse of forced labour in the Armaments industry. Under his authority as Minister of Armaments, Speer imported 7 million foreign slave labourers from conquered territories to boost Germany’s war production. While Speer admitted he knew the workforce of his labour camps were brought into Germany against their will, he denied knowledge of the inhumane conditions endured by the labourers, stating it was not in his ‘sphere of responsibility’. Sereny argues that, “He was unaware of the blood on his hands as Armaments Minister”.

Speer’s inspection of the underground ‘Dora’ camp in December, 1943, undermines his claim that he had no knowledge of the conditions under which labourers were kept. Speer witnessed first-hand the hellish conditions in which labourers were forced to produce the German V-2 rockets, enduring an eighteen-hour work day and exposure to illness, punishment and death. Although Speer ordered improvements after witnessing the shocking conditions at Dora, such action was only taken to ensure the workers were in good enough shape to perform the demanded labour. Speer’s ultimate goal as Armaments Minister was to extract the maximum amount of work for the minimum amount of care. As outlined by Van der Vat, his “own opportunistic values overcame any feelings of morality”. It was ultimately Speer’s abuse of slave labour that earnt him a 20 year sentence in Spandau prison, serving as his most horrific contribution to the crimes of the Nazi regime. 

Speer’s knowledge of the ‘final solution’ remains a significant factor in disproving his claims of ignorance and ‘guilt by association’ to the crimes of the Nazi regime. Speer maintained throughout his trial and thereafter that he had no knowledge of the Holocaust. In his memoir, Inside the Third Reich, Speer recalls a conversation with his friend Karl Hanke in which he advised him to “Never under any circumstances” accept an invitation to inspect a concentration camp, specifically Auschwitz. Speer professed that from this moment on he “...was inescapably contaminated morally; from fear of discovering something which might have turned (him) from (his) course”, stating “I had closed my eyes”. 

Despite Speer’s insistent claims of ignorance to the Holocaust, there is ample evidence which proves him to have had knowledge of the ‘final solution’. During the Posen conference of October, 1943, Himmler delivered a speech in which he explained the details of the Holocaust, declaring the “...total elimination of all Jews”. While Speer denied being present during Himmler’s speech, it is unwise to suggest that such information would not have been repeated or acquired by him. As asserted by Van der Vat, “A man of Speer’s seniority must have known exactly what was occurring in the death camps”. The emergence of a letter written by Speer in 1971 confirmed his attendance at Posen, admitting “There is no doubt - I was present as Himmler announced...that all Jews would be killed”.

[jakesilove]

Helloooooo,
I have a modern history oral coming up on Albert Speer and have almost finished writing it. I was hoping that i might be able to get some feedback on how I've written the speech and if my argument and points are strong enough to hopefully get me a somewhat decent mark.  The question / statement for the oral is 'Speer the ‘good Nazi’: an evaluation - his knowledge, complicity and guilt; his contribution, historians’ views'. Also, any tips on writing a strong conclusion would be greatly appreciated , thankyou!!!
Thankyou again!!!

Hey! Check out my comments below.

Original essay

Spoiler

The question surrounding Albert Speer as the ‘good Nazi’ has remained that of fierce historical debate. Speer’s wilful plea of guilt by association regarding the atrocities committed by the Nazi state earnt him the image of an ‘apolitical technocrat’ who, while taking responsibility for the Holocaust on behalf of the regime he served, denied any personal knowledge or involvement. The result of further information being revealed concerning Speer’s knowledge, complicity and contribution to such horrific acts has contradicted his claims of innocence. He has instead been viewed by some historians, such as Dan Van der Vat, as an ‘egocentric opportunist’ who knowingly instigated and supported such acts of cruelty. The accuracy of Speer’s portrayal as the ‘good Nazi’ can be examined through his trial at Nuremberg, involvement in the Germania project, use of forced labour as Minister of Armaments and the extent of his knowledge of the Holocaust.

The perception of Speer as the ‘good Nazi’ first emerged after his attendance at the 1945-46 Nuremberg Trials. Speer was the only one, out of twenty-two Nazi leaders, to plead guilty at Nuremberg. Whilst denying any knowledge or involvement, Speer expressed remorse for the crimes committed by the Nazi regime, claiming that “As an important member of the leadership of the Reich, I therefore share in the general responsibility...”. Gitta Sereny supported Speer’s claims of innocence, stating that “...he had voluntarily accepted a moral responsibility for all crimes committed by the government he served. What more could he have done?”. While Speer’s remorseful claims of ignorance earned him a grudging admiration from the judges at Nuremberg, historian Martin Kitchen disputes Speer’s plea, arguing that “His expression of general or overall guilt at Nuremberg was an empty formula, although it turned out...to have been a masterly tactic that helped save his skin”.

Speer attempted to further his claim of general responsibility and ignorance for Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg by revealing his opposition to Hitler’s ‘Scorched Earth Decree’. When, by late 1944, it appeared the Allies were to overcome Germany, Hitler ordered the total destruction of all industry and infrastructure in the Reich that could have been of use to the enemy. Speer set about openly countermanding Hitler’s ‘insane plans of destruction’ in order to preserve any chance of post-war prosperity for the German nation. Speer’s attempts to divert Hitler’s selfish plans of destruction was utilized by his attorney at Nuremberg to help further disassociate him with the crimes of the Nazi regime, asserting that “Speer had to betray Hitler in order to remain loyal to his people”. While Speer’s defiant act of resistance was viewed favourably at Nuremberg, his motives for such opposition has been widely debated, with historians such as Van der Vat arguing that “Speer changed his views for his own safety…” and to serve his own interests.

Speer’s role in the ‘Germania’ Project and subsequent involvement in the evacuation of thousands of Jews from Berlin severely discredits his claims of innocence and further confirms his complicity to the crimes of the Nazi regime. In 1937, after being appointed General Building Inspector of the Reich, Speer was assigned the most ambitious architectural project of his career; to grandiose Berlin in a manner that would endure a ‘thousand-year Reich’. The project required the demolition of 55,000 apartments near the city centre, resulting in tens of thousands of Berlin residents facing dislodgement.

In order to support the Aryan Germans who had lost their homes due to the demolitions, Jewish residents were targeted for eviction, being forced out of their homes in order to provide them with housing. Joachim Fest maintains that “As head of department Speer certainly had nothing to do with these incidents”. Fest’s notion of Speer’s ignorance of the fate of the Berlin Jews is supported by that of Sereny, explaining 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”. In considering the perspectives of Fest and Sereny, however, both developed a personal relationship with Speer over the time spent working with him, therefore presenting a biased view of his involvement in the ‘Jewish Flats’ matter.

Considering the authority held by Speer as GBI over the entire ‘Germania’ project, it is highly implausible to suggest that he was unaware of the inevitable fate of the evicted Jewish tenants. The emergence of the ‘Wolters Chronicles’ in 1983 confirmed Speer’s involvement in the ‘evacuation’ of the Berlin Jews. The chronicle contained details of the anti-Jewish actions ordered by Speer, specifically that made by him in August, 1941, which commanded action to be taken to clear a further 5000 Jewish flats for the rehousing of demolition tenants. The events recorded in the chronicle confirmed that “Speer was not an… amoral non-spectator of Nazi anti-Semitism but an active participant in ruining the lives… of 75,000 Jews by having them evicted” (Van der Vat).

Speer’s involvement and knowledge of the ‘evacuation’ of the Berlin Jews contradicts his image as the ‘good Nazi’. Equally so does his use and abuse of forced labour in the Armaments industry. Under his authority as Minister of Armaments, Speer imported 7 million foreign slave labourers from conquered territories to boost Germany’s war production. While Speer admitted he knew the workforce of his labour camps were brought into Germany against their will, he denied knowledge of the inhumane conditions endured by the labourers, stating it was not in his ‘sphere of responsibility’. Sereny argues that, “He was unaware of the blood on his hands as Armaments Minister”.

Speer’s inspection of the underground ‘Dora’ camp in December, 1943, undermines his claim that he had no knowledge of the conditions under which labourers were kept. Speer witnessed first-hand the hellish conditions in which labourers were forced to produce the German V-2 rockets, enduring an eighteen-hour work day and exposure to illness, punishment and death. Although Speer ordered improvements after witnessing the shocking conditions at Dora, such action was only taken to ensure the workers were in good enough shape to perform the demanded labour. Speer’s ultimate goal as Armaments Minister was to extract the maximum amount of work for the minimum amount of care. As outlined by Van der Vat, his “own opportunistic values overcame any feelings of morality”. It was ultimately Speer’s abuse of slave labour that earnt him a 20 year sentence in Spandau prison, serving as his most horrific contribution to the crimes of the Nazi regime. 

Speer’s knowledge of the ‘final solution’ remains a significant factor in disproving his claims of ignorance and ‘guilt by association’ to the crimes of the Nazi regime. Speer maintained throughout his trial and thereafter that he had no knowledge of the Holocaust. In his memoir, Inside the Third Reich, Speer recalls a conversation with his friend Karl Hanke in which he advised him to “Never under any circumstances” accept an invitation to inspect a concentration camp, specifically Auschwitz. Speer professed that from this moment on he “...was inescapably contaminated morally; from fear of discovering something which might have turned (him) from (his) course”, stating “I had closed my eyes”. 

Despite Speer’s insistent claims of ignorance to the Holocaust, there is ample evidence which proves him to have had knowledge of the ‘final solution’. During the Posen conference of October, 1943, Himmler delivered a speech in which he explained the details of the Holocaust, declaring the “...total elimination of all Jews”. While Speer denied being present during Himmler’s speech, it is unwise to suggest that such information would not have been repeated or acquired by him. As asserted by Van der Vat, “A man of Speer’s seniority must have known exactly what was occurring in the death camps”. The emergence of a letter written by Speer in 1971 confirmed his attendance at Posen, admitting “There is no doubt - I was present as Himmler announced...that all Jews would be killed”.

Essay with comments

Spoiler

The question surrounding Albert Speer as the ‘good Nazi’ has remained that of fierce historical debate. You need a stronger opening sentence.
 'Much historical debate has surrounded...', and use some strong, emotive words (ie. words commonly used by historians to describe Speer). Speer’s wilful plea of guilt by association regarding the atrocities committed by the Nazi state earned him the image of an ‘apolitical technocrat’ These are the sorts of words I'm talking about! Nice who, while taking responsibility for the Holocaust on behalf of the regime he served Remember that the Holocaust is different to the War generally. It's fine if you intended to use the systematic murder of Jews, but just something to think about, denied any personal knowledge or involvement. The result of further information being revealed concerning Speer’s knowledge, complicity and contribution to such horrific acts has contradicted his claims of innocence 'the result'? Maybe 'subsequent discovery of'?. He has instead been viewed by some historians, such as Dan Van der Vat, as an ‘egocentric opportunist’ some more of those great words who knowingly instigated and supported such acts of cruelty. The accuracy of Speer’s portrayal as the ‘good Nazi’ can be examined through his trial at Nuremberg, involvement in the Germania project, use of forced labour as Minister of Armaments and the extent of his knowledge of the Holocaust.

Good first paragraph. Not entirely sure what your thesis is; you've outlined historical debate (ie. we used to think, but now we think). However, be STRONGER about Speer's personality. This is clearly going to be a high-level essay, so I would recommend giving the introduction a bit more oomph. Potentially, get rid of the quotes and use those phrases yourself.

The perception of Speer as the ‘good Nazi’ first emerged after his attendance at the 1945-46 Nuremberg Trials lol. Dunno if 'attendance' is the correct word. Speer was the only one, out of twenty-two Nazi leaders, to plead guilty at Nuremberg. Whilst denying any knowledge or involvement, Speer expressed remorse for the crimes committed by the Nazi regime, claiming that “As an important member of the leadership of the Reich, I therefore share in the general responsibility...” Don't need ellipses if it's at the end of the quote. Gitta Sereny supported Speer’s claims of innocence, stating that “...he had voluntarily accepted a moral responsibility for all crimes committed by the government he served. What more could he have done?”. While Speer’s remorseful claims of ignorance earned him a grudging admiration from the judges at Nuremberg, historian Martin Kitchen disputes Speer’s plea, arguing that “His expression of general or overall guilt at Nuremberg was an empty formula, although it turned out...to have been a masterly tactic that helped save his skin”. Lots of quoting, not very much analysis. I assume you go into more depth later on about specific occurrences, but perhaps a few more facts/statistics/your own analysis here. It's obviously very good, but at the moment it's really just a paragraph containing a collection of quotes.

Speer attempted to further his claim of general responsibility and ignorance for Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg by revealing his opposition to Hitler’s ‘Scorched Earth Decree’. This is a bit off topic, but I think now's the time to mention it. It seems like what you're doing is going through Speer's claims at Nuremberg, and deconstructing them (would that be a fair characterisation?). If so, then your introductions should TELL me that you're planning to do that. It's a really great structure, actually, one that I hadn't thought of. However, a sentence in your intro along the lines of 'By deconstructing Speer's claims at Nuremberg, claims of innocence and ignorance, the depiction of Speer as a 'good Nazi' can be seen to be a facade built to save the opportunistic technocrat from a fate befitting his station'. #noplagiarismplease When, by late 1944, it appeared the Allies were to overcome Germany, Hitler ordered the total destruction of all industry and infrastructure in the Reich that could have been of use to the enemy When did he order this? What was the actual order called? Remember, despite this being a historiographical study, statistics are still important. Speer set about openly countermanding Hitler’s ‘insane plans of destruction’ If this is a quote, use " ". in order to preserve any chance of post-war prosperity for the German nation. Speer’s attempts to divert Hitler’s selfish are you saying they are selfish? Seems a bit... childish if you are. Rather, 'spiteful'? 'Desperate'? plans of destruction was utilized by his attorney at Nuremberg to help further disassociate him with the crimes of the Nazi regime, asserting that “Speer had to betray Hitler in order to remain loyal to his people”. While Speer’s defiant act of resistance was viewed favourably at Nuremberg, his motives for such opposition has been widely debated, with historians such as Van der Vat arguing that “Speer changed his views for his own safety…” and to serve his own interests.

You're doing a good study of the general topic area. What isn't coming through is any sort of thesis, any sort of conclusion. What do you think? Was Speer complicit? Was his act of defiance positive for Germany? Was he looking out for himself? Is it important which of these theories is true?

Personality study sections are always tough. But, don't forget that at the end of the day this is still a history essay. Thus, a thesis is key.

Speer’s role in the ‘Germania’ Project and subsequent involvement in the evacuation of thousands of Jews from Berlin severely discredits his claims of innocence and further confirms his complicity to the crimes of the Nazi regime. GREAT! More of this. Actual substantive assertions by you, backed up by statistics. Love it. In 1937, after being appointed General Building Inspector of the Reich, Speer was assigned the most ambitious architectural project of his career; to grandiose grandiose isn't a verb, as far as I know Berlin in a manner that would endure a ‘thousand-year Reich’. The project required the demolition of 55,000 apartments near the city centre, resulting in tens of thousands of Berlin residents facing dislodgement. Perfect

In order to support the Aryan Germans who had lost their homes due to the demolitions, Jewish residents were targeted for eviction, being forced out of their homes in order to provide them with housing. Joachim Fest maintains that “As head of department Speer certainly had nothing to do with these incidents”. Fest’s notion of Speer’s ignorance of the fate of the Berlin Jews is supported by that of Sereny, explaining 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”. In considering the perspectives of Fest and Sereny, however, both developed a personal relationship with Speer over the time spent working with him, therefore presenting a biased view of his involvement in the ‘Jewish Flats’ matter. Nup. Sorry, but this is a lesson worth learning early on. Calling a historian bias is like calling Speer a Nazi. A badly educated person might disagree, but they would be wrong. Speer was a Nazi. All historians are bias.

The fact that Fest (and, in particular, Sereny) became close to Speer is absolutely important. But, don't use 'Bias' as some sort of take-down. Everyone's bias. However, THEIR bias may create a greater level of sympathy towards Speer. You can't discredit their claims by calling them 'bias'; you can do so by explaining their bias, and offering a counter-claim.

Also, this paragraph is a little bit too much telling + quotes + more telling.

Considering the authority held by Speer as GBI over the entire ‘Germania’ project, it is highly implausible to suggest that he was unaware of the inevitable fate of the evicted Jewish tenants. Great The emergence of the ‘Wolters Chronicles’ in 1983 confirmed Speer’s involvement in the ‘evacuation’ Why is this 'in commas'? of the Berlin Jews. The chronicle contained details of the anti-Jewish actions ordered by Speer, specifically that made by him in August Reread this sentence, 1941, which commanded action to be taken to clear a further 5000 Jewish flats OH! The 'Jewish Flats' literally mean the Jewish flats! Like, apartments! I've never noticed that before. Far out I'm stupid for the rehousing of demolition tenants. The events recorded in the chronicle confirmed that “Speer was not an… amoral non-spectator of Nazi anti-Semitism but an active participant in ruining the lives… of 75,000 Jews by having them evicted” (Van der Vat). Brilliant.

Just another quick point. You don't need to oscillate back and forward all the time (ie. Sereny said he was a 'Good' Nazi, Van der Vat said he was a 'good Nazi'. Stick with the fact that he was a shit human being the entire time, and when bringing up Sereny etc don't change your tone.

Speer’s involvement and knowledge of the ‘evacuation’ of the Berlin Jews contradicts his image as the ‘good Nazi’. Equally so does his use and abuse of forced labour in the Armaments industry. Under his authority as Minister of Armaments, Speer imported 7 million foreign slave labourers from conquered territories to boost Germany’s war production. I didn't know that. Fuck. While Speer admitted he knew the workforce of his labour camps were brought into Germany against their will, he denied knowledge of the inhumane conditions endured by the labourers, stating it was not in his ‘sphere of responsibility’. Sereny argues that, “He was unaware of the blood on his hands as Armaments Minister”. Again, just re tone, if you believe he was a proper honest-to-god Nazi, you could change words like 'stating' to 'claiming'. Connotations of words are important; a claim is different to a statement. And, if you do think he was a freakin maniac, don't end a paragraph with a claim that he was great. Makes it seem like that was a point you're making. Rip it the hell apart (even if briefly), then move on.

I just really hate Speer

Speer’s inspection of the underground ‘Dora’ camp in December, 1943, undermines I think you've said 'undermines his claim' 80000 times. I could be wrong. his claim that he had no knowledge of the conditions under which labourers were kept. Speer witnessed first-hand the hellish conditions in which labourers were forced to produce the German V-2 rockets, enduring an eighteen-hour work day and exposure to illness, punishment and death. There are some great stats you can use here; I think one in every 5 workers died whilst building V-2 Rockets, more than the people that the Rockets killed in Britain. Check that stat. Although Speer ordered improvements after witnessing the shocking conditions at Dora, such action was only taken to ensure the workers were in good enough shape to perform the demanded labour. Nice Speer’s ultimate goal as Armaments Minister was to extract the maximum amount of work for the minimum amount of care. As outlined by Van der Vat, his “own opportunistic values overcame any feelings of morality”. It was ultimately Speer’s abuse of slave labour that earnt him a 20 year sentence in Spandau prison, serving as his most horrific contribution to the crimes of the Nazi regime. 

Speer’s knowledge of the ‘final solution’ remains a significant factor in disproving his claims of ignorance and ‘guilt by association’ to the crimes of the Nazi regime. Speer maintained throughout his trial and thereafter that he had no knowledge of the Holocaust. In his memoir, Inside the Third Reich, Speer recalls a conversation with his friend Karl Hanke in which he advised him to “Never under any circumstances” accept an invitation to inspect a concentration camp, specifically Auschwitz. Speer professed that from this moment on he “...was inescapably contaminated morally; from fear of discovering something which might have turned (him) from (his) course”, stating “I had closed my eyes”. 

Despite Speer’s insistent claims of ignorance to the Holocaust, there is ample evidence which proves him to have had knowledge of the ‘final solution’. During the Posen conference of October, 1943, Himmler delivered a speech in which he explained the details of the Holocaust, declaring the “...total elimination of all Jews”. While Speer denied being present during Himmler’s speech, it is unwise to suggest that such information would not have been repeated or acquired by him. As asserted by Van der Vat, “A man of Speer’s seniority must have known exactly what was occurring in the death camps”. The emergence of a letter written by Speer in 1971 confirmed his attendance at Posen, admitting “There is no doubt - I was present as Himmler announced...that all Jews would be killed”.

Great. I've outlined the majority of my suggestions above, but I just have a few things to add.

Firstly, statistics. You need more of them.

Secondly, a thesis. You need to sustain an argument throughout the essay. Likely, this argument will just be 'Speer claimed to be ignorant. He wasn't'. However, whatever the argument is, it needs to be more clear. From this argument, you can build a strong conclusion: 'ultimately.... these factors indicate... Speer is....' etc etc

Overall, your examples are great, your historical tone is good, and your flow is good. I particularly like the smaller paragraphs; many students fall for the trap of assuming they should use 3 massive paragraphs.

Incorporate the above comments, and this is on it's way to being a fantastic speech! Let me know if I can clarify anything

[tahliamag]

Thankyou so so much for your comments jake I will definitely make those changes before I present the speech. I really appreciate how much time you put in, thankyou again

[jakesilove]

Thankyou so so much for your comments jake I will definitely make those changes before I present the speech. I really appreciate how much time you put in, thankyou again

No problem, glad you found the comments helpful

[tahliamag]

Hi again,
Just following on from my Speer essay I sent in yesterday, I forgot to include my conclusion when I sent the essay so I was wondering if you might be able to take a look just so I can make sure I finish on a strong note? I put in a historian to kind of sum up my argument but im not sure if thats a bad idea or if it works ok??
Thankyou !!!!

'In conclusion, the depiction of Albert Speer as the ‘good Nazi’ remains nothing but a fabricated misconception. While Speer maintained at Nuremberg and thereafter that he was ‘ignorant’ and subsequently ‘innocent’ to the atrocities committed by the Nazi regime, the extensive proof regarding Speer’s knowledge, complicity and guilt to such crimes invalidates such claims of innocence. Speer’s involvement in the Germania project, use of forced labour as Armaments Minister and knowledge of the ‘Final Solution’ denounce his ploy as the ‘good Nazi’ and, as described by historian Hugh Trevor-Roper, reveal him as the “...real criminal of Nazi Germany...For ten years he sat the very centre of political power… but he did nothing”. '
 

[sudodds]

Hi again,
Just following on from my Speer essay I sent in yesterday, I forgot to include my conclusion when I sent the essay so I was wondering if you might be able to take a look just so I can make sure I finish on a strong note? I put in a historian to kind of sum up my argument but im not sure if thats a bad idea or if it works ok??
Thankyou !!!!

hey hey! So I'm not Jake (I know, how disappointing  ), however, as this is a conclusion, thus feedback is mainly structural, I think i can help ya out I've had a look over your essay so that I have a good understanding of your argument and this is what I think:

Spoiler

'In conclusion, I personally would prefer 'Thus' or 'Therefore it is evident..." rather than 'In conclusion', but this is a very superficial, picky point. I think it sounds more sophisticated, but you're unlikely to lose marks. the depiction of Albert Speer as the ‘good Nazi’ remains nothing but a fabricated misconception. lovely, strong judgement! Nice! While Speer maintained at Nuremberg and thereafter that he was ‘ignorant’ and subsequently ‘innocent’ to the atrocities committed by the Nazi regime, the extensive proof regarding Speer’s knowledge, complicity and guilt to such crimes invalidates such claims of innocence. Speer’s involvement in the Germania project, use of forced labour as Armaments Minister and knowledge of the ‘Final Solution’ denounce his ploy as the ‘good Nazi’ and, as described by historian Hugh Trevor-Roper, reveal him as the “...real criminal of Nazi Germany...For ten years he sat the very centre of political power… but he did nothing”. Okay so in regards to your question as to whether it is acceptable to end with a quote - as it is a speech I think it is okay. The quote is great and really encapsulates your argument in an interesting (almost literary, and dramatic) way, that is perfect for a speech. However in the future when you are writing this as an essay I'd avoid using quotes in your introduction and conclusion. You're not meant to be including any new information in a conclusion, and a quote counts as new detail.

Overall I think you are definitely ending on a high note! One of the problems highlighted by Jake's feedback was that your thesis/argument needs to be clearer (which I agree with), but in your conclusion that definitely doesn't appear to be a problem - your judgements are strong and direct. Include some more judgements like this throughout your response and you'll be set!

Great work, good luck with your assessment 

Susie

[tahliamag]

Thanks alot for your feedback! Very much appreciated

[sudodds]

Thanks alot for your feedback! Very much appreciated

No worries Happy to help!

[maria1999]

hi jake!, you've already marked my first draft of this essay (THANK YOU AGAIN BY THE WAY!!) and I was just wondering if you could have a look over this paragraph on "scorched earth" if you had some time. Thank you so much!!

Speer: “The good nazi” an evaluation- his knowledge, complicity and guilt; his contribution; historians views

Speer’s opposition to Hitler’s “Scorched Earth” policy was a tactic used to further his own political agenda within the conclusion of the war. Once the Allies were almost certainly in a position to conquer Germany, Hitler issued the “Nero Decree” also known as the “Scorched Earth” decree on March 19 1945. This was a policy that would effectively rid Germany of any valuable commodities or infrastructure, including buildings, industries, bridges and factories that would be of any worth to the Allies. This specifically included destroying all bridges in and around Berlin which were vital for the army retreating from the Eastern and Western Front’s of Germany. The Reich Minister made over 70 trips around Germany to countermeasure the Fuhrer’s destructive orders. Speer disputed all of Hitler’s command, claiming he wanted the German people to have a foundation to rebuild their lives after the conclusion of the war. This claim was ultimately just a ploy to further his facade as a Nazi that had, according to Noakes, "some concern for the future of the German people". He attempted to use his response of this policy to adorn his image of being a “good nazi” but it can be clearly seen that it was ultimately to “gain sympathy in the eyes of Germany’s conquerors” (Noakes)

[jakesilove]

hi jake!, you've already marked my first draft of this essay (THANK YOU AGAIN BY THE WAY!!) and I was just wondering if you could have a look over this paragraph on "scorched earth" if you had some time. Thank you so much!!

Speer: “The good nazi” an evaluation- his knowledge, complicity and guilt; his contribution; historians views

Speer’s opposition to Hitler’s “Scorched Earth” policy was a tactic used to further his own political agenda within the conclusion of the war. Once the Allies were almost certainly in a position to conquer Germany, Hitler issued the “Nero Decree” also known as the “Scorched Earth” decree on March 19 1945. This was a policy that would effectively rid Germany of any valuable commodities or infrastructure, including buildings, industries, bridges and factories that would be of any worth to the Allies. This specifically included destroying all bridges in and around Berlin which were vital for the army retreating from the Eastern and Western Front’s of Germany. The Reich Minister made over 70 trips around Germany to countermeasure the Fuhrer’s destructive orders. Speer disputed all of Hitler’s command, claiming he wanted the German people to have a foundation to rebuild their lives after the conclusion of the war. This claim was ultimately just a ploy to further his facade as a Nazi that had, according to Noakes, "some concern for the future of the German people". He attempted to use his response of this policy to adorn his image of being a “good nazi” but it can be clearly seen that it was ultimately to “gain sympathy in the eyes of Germany’s conquerors” (Noakes)

Hey! Check out my comments below

Spoiler

Speer’s opposition to Hitler’s “Scorched Earth” policy was a tactic used to further his own political agenda within during the conclusion of the war. Once the Allies were almost certainly in a position to conquer Germany, Hitler issued the “Nero Decree” also known as the “Scorched Earth” decree on March 19 1945. Brilliant! This was a policy that would effectively rid Germany of any valuable commodities or infrastructure, including buildings, industries, bridges and factories that would be of any worth to the Allies. Even more brilliant! This specifically included destroying all bridges in and around Berlin which were vital for the army retreating from the Eastern and Western Front’s of Germany. The Reich Minister Maybe say 'Reich Minister Speer' made over 70 trips around Germany to countermeasure the Fuhrer’s destructive orders. Speer disputed all of Hitler’s command, claiming he wanted the German people to have a foundation to rebuild their lives after the conclusion of the war. This claim was ultimately just a ploy to further his facade as a Nazi that had, according to Noakes, "some concern for the future of the German people". Is that necessarily a 'ploy' then? He was actually concerned for the future of Germany, AND that happened to make him seem favourable at Nuremberg.
 It's not necessarily black and white; maybe it's a mix of the two? He attempted to use his response of this policy to adorn his image of being a “good nazi” but it can be clearly seen that it was ultimately to “gain sympathy in the eyes of Germany’s conquerors” Brilliant. Such an improvement. Nothing to add content-wise, but perhaps think a bit more deeply about your thesis for this paragraph. At some points, you say that he was ONLY concerned about the future of Germany. At other points, you say that he was ONLY concerned about his own future. Bringing up both is important; however, your thesis can certainly be that he real intentions were a mix of both!

Well done

[Rasika]

Hello.

This is my Trotsky's speech. It is not finished. I still have to do the last part and then i am done. But this is what i have done so far.

[sudodds]

Hello.

This is my Trotsky's speech. It is not finished. I still have to do the last part and then i am done. But this is what i have done so far.

Hey Rasika! My comments can be found in the spoiler below (and don't worry about it being unfinished, post the next bit when you're ready - I'll count all three together as one response). As I already marked the first bit I'm just going to focus on the second question

Spoiler

‘History is about winners’ : How accurate is this statement in relation to the personality you have studied? (Oral Exam 2min)

Trotsky’s efforts and contributions within the Russian Civil War clearly accentuated that he was a winner than a loser, as his crucial role within the leadership and organization of the Red Army had led to the Bolshevik victory being considered one of Trotsky’s greatest achievements. Two things: 1. I think your judgement can be a bit simpler (you have quite a lot packed in there that I think would be better served in your explanation of judgement rather than the judgement itself). 2. You haven't fully addressed the question - you need to make an explicit judgement as to whether the statement is accurate. This can just be tagged along at the end, so "Trotsky's efforts and contributions within the Russian Civil War clearly demonstrate that he was overall a winner, thus the statement is accurate."He was given the task why? What position had he earned that meant that he was given this responsibility? of manufacturing an effective war machine from the ruins of the Tsarist regime in order to protect the Bolshevik government from counter-revolution in the form of the White Army and twenty-one foreign imperialist armies who else made up the white army? That is great detail . Trotsky’s decisive pragmatism as the Commissar for War almost single-handedly saved the Bolshevik regime in its infancy why in its infancy?Dunno if that really adds anything. Other than that I love the judgement. As Commissar of War, Trotsky played a pivotal role I love how consistently you are making and supporting your initial judgement - fantastic within the success of the Bolshevik Army, to which he achieved through his ruthless determination and pragmatism during the time enabled Bolshevik success. Check your grammar and expression here - sentence is messy. He was responsible for the leadership and administration of the Red Army, in which he had to make many difficult and controversial decisions in order to secure a Bolshevik victory, many of which went against popular Bolshevik opinion, and his own ideological and moral beliefs. Great point! Love how you integrated that it went against his ideological beliefs as well The most significant example of this was Trotsky’s decision to include 75 000 ex-Tsarist officers within the Red Army, which many, even within the Bolshevik Party saw as a risky endeavor, as they were, in their eyes essentially working with an enemy. Great example, you might also want to mention that another decision he made was the re-introduce rank and class to the army, which similarly went against Bolshevik ideology but was critical in ensuring greater efficiency and organisation. However, in the long term this decision proved to be very positive rather than positive, I'd use the word effective. I think "positive" can be perceived as having moral implications., as they brought the necessary military expertise to the Red Army, greatly enhancing their chances of a Bolshevik victory. Trotsky reintroduced harsh discipline and order to the Russian army Detail? Examples?, transforming it from a disorganised people’s militia to the ruthlessly drilled Red Army. This was a crucial action as, although going back on initial Bolshevik decrees Detail? Examples?, it created a defence force how big was this defence force? stat? which successfully defended Petrograd and, hence, the revolution. Furthermore, Trotsky used his skills as a charismatic orator through his propaganda train, which rode from front to front across Russia spreading Bolshevism to the masses, as well as delivering supplies, in order to boost morale in a period of intense conflict. The effect of such morale was crucial, as when Petrograd was on the verge of collapsing to the White Army, Trotsky’s charisma spurred on the Red Army, defending the city against all odds. As the Civil War was a highly crucial event in terms of securing the Bolshevik consolidation of power against the white army, Trotsky’s critical role within it solidifies his importance as a political figure during the time, therefore proving that he was a winner, and affirming the accuracy of the statement Again, fantastic judgement. The way you continually link back is excellent - a lot of people don't start doing this until much later on.

Okay! So overall, another great response Rasika However there are some things that I think you can improve on:

- Detail! You need way more of it - get specific, that is how you score the top marks

- Quotes! So though overall in Modern the importance of quotes are inflated, they are a nice inclusion, particularly within a personality study essay which relies on interpretation. I think maybe one or two quotes/reference to a historian could have been quite effective

- Clarity! I think I've said this before, but be careful with word choice/sentence structure, particularly as this is a speech. Some of your grammar/expression is a little bit off.

However yes, overall this is a great response Looking forward to reading the next section!

Susie