Modern History Essay Marking

[Rasika]

Assess/Evaluate ONE major contribution/significance of the personality you have studied to their period of national OR international history

Trotsky’s theory of Permanent Revolution was one of his most significant contributions which had greatly impacted the Soviet Union’s national history. His theory argues that without a fully developed industrial proletariat, the proletariat can and must, therefore, seize social, economic and political power, leading an alliance with the peasantry. However, despite it having great importance in the consolidation of Bolshevik power, it was also Trotsky’s pragmatic ability to keenly manoeuvre through theoretical adherence and the practical application of this communist ideology, that he was able to ensure success and significance. During the early 1905 Russia, there was an ardent desire for revolution, which had sparked from the mass political and social unrest that spread throughout the Russian empire. This had resulted due to various reasons such as the detrimental working conditions that peasants worked under within the factories, the unpopular Tsarist policies which oppressed ethnic minorities and their forced involvement in World War I, despite their economic instability. This volatile atmosphere had resulted into the 1905 Revolution, in which, Trotsky played an active role as the main leader of the revolutionary worker’s council, the St. Petersburg Soviet and it was during this time that Trotsky won great admiration and distinction, due to, according to historian Westwood, Trotsky possessing “oratory skill to set his listeners on fire.” However, it was only after the 1905 Revolution when he was exiled to Siberia that he had begun projecting his theories, which garnered the attention of other communist leaders, and secure himself an influential position within the party. During his time in exile, Trotsky devoted himself to the study of Marxist literature and theory, solidifying his political position as a Marxist, and eventually leading him to begin writings of his own. Trotsky’s most critical work was Results and Prospects (1906), which expounded the theory of ‘Permanent Revolution.’ This theory drew the attention of other influential communists, such as Vladimir Lenin, with it later becoming the official and dominant policy within the Bolshevik Party. Therefore, as it was his theory that lay the foundations for Bolshevik party policy, it is evident that Trotsky’s writings during exile were some of his most critical successes, which enabled him, along with his oratorical successes within the 1905 Revolution, contributed to his significant impact on the national history of Russia.

[sudodds]

Assess/Evaluate ONE major contribution/significance of the personality you have studied to their period of national OR international history

Hey! My quotes can be found in the spoiler below!

Spoiler

Trotsky’s theory of Permanent Revolution was one of his most significant contributions which had greatly impacted the Soviet Union’s national history. His theory argues that without a fully developed industrial proletariat, the proletariat can and must, therefore, seize social, economic and political power, leading an alliance with the peasantry. However, despite it having great importance in the consolidation of Bolshevik power, it was also Trotsky’s pragmatic ability to keenly manoeuvre through theoretical adherence and the practical application of this communist ideology, that he was able to ensure success and significance. This sentence should still be your second sentence as it is a critical part of your judgement. Your description of what Permanent Revolution is great, however it should come after this. During the early 1905 Russia Are you trying to say that this was a different Russia? Like "the early 1905 Russia", "the post 1917 Russia" - something along those lines? If so I think it would make more sense to say "Prior to 1917 in Russia" or something like that. It still doesn't make much sense they way you have phrased it., there was an ardent desire for revolution, which had sparked from the mass political and social unrest that spread throughout the Russian empire. This resulted due to various reasons such as the detrimental working conditions that peasants worked under within the factories, the unpopular Tsarist policies which oppressed ethnic minorities and their forced involvement in World War I, despite their economic instability. Better - but I think you still need to mention the severe classism here. Marxists believe everything is about class and class warfare. This volatile atmosphere had resulted into the 1905 Revolution This sentence starts off well, then gets really messy., in which, Trotsky played an active role as the main leader of the revolutionary worker’s council, the St. Petersburg Soviet.and It was during this time that Trotsky won great admiration and distinction, due to, according to historian Westwood, Trotsky possessing “oratory skill to set his listeners on fire.” However, it was only after the 1905 Revolution when he was exiled to Siberia that he had begun projecting to formulate his theories, which garnered the attention of other communist leaders such as Lenin - he is such an important figure I think you should mention him, and secure himself an influential position within the party. During his time in exile, Trotsky devoted himself to the study of Marxist literature and theory, solidifying his political position as a Marxist, and eventually leading him to begin writings of his own. Trotsky’s most critical work was Results and Prospects (1906), which expounded the theory of ‘Permanent Revolution.’ This theory drew the attention of other influential communists, such as Vladimir Lenin, with it later becoming the official and dominant policy within the Bolshevik Party. I don't think you should end here - you haven't yet mentioned how pragmatically applied this theory throughout his time as a leader. That is key to his significance - I don't feel like you have drawn out the significance of Trotsky's Permanent Revolution enough yet - just ideology in general.Mention how the Treaty of Brest Litovsk and the Civil War demonstrate his ideological adherence yet pragmatism, even if only briefly (you can probably cut out some stuff from earlier to fit it in)Therefore, as it was his theory that lay the foundations for Bolshevik party policy, it is evident that Trotsky’s writings during exile were some of his most critical successes, which enabled him, along with his oratorical successes within the 1905 Revolution, contributed to his significant impact on the national history of Russia. Read over this last sentence -
 clunky.

Good work Rasika, this is good! However there is still room for improvement So like I mentioned last time, I really think you need to focus on making sure that your sentences are succinct, and that they make grammatical sense. This has been a consistent issue throughout your responses, and as this is a speech it is especially important. I also do think that you need to mention the significance of his theories throughout the consolidation of Bolshevik power to really draw out Trotsky's role and contribution here. Though your discussion upon the pre-revolutionary philosophical climate is great, I think you can maybe cut back a bit on that and instead replace that with more of a discussion of Trotsky's direct influence.

Hope this helps!

Susie

[Rasika]

Is it okay if i just focus on Treaty of Brest-Litovsk?

[sudodds]

Is it okay if i just focus on Treaty of Brest-Litovsk?

If you're strapped in terms of word count I think that should be fine

[Rasika]

Describe ONE Significant factor or event in the life of the personality you have studied and explain how this resulted in his/her rise to prominence
Trotsky’s role in the 1917 Revolution was a highly significant factor that contributed to his rise to prominence. This is because it allowed Trotsky to gain a powerful position within the Bolshevik party, and garner significant respect from his peers and community, which in turn afforded him significant power and opportunity. The 1917 Revolution marked the conclusion of the power struggle between the Bolsheviks and the Provisional Government after the forced abdication of Tsar Nicholas II on 15th March 1917, the Bolsheviks succeeding after the Red Guard stormed the White Palace, led by Trotsky on 25th October 1917. Trotsky played a pivotal role in the organisation and communication of orders during the 1917 revolution holding major influence over how the revolution was conducted. For example, he persuaded Lenin to delay the revolution until the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets at the end of October, so that the power could be seized in the name of the Soviets rather than the Bolshevik Party itself, thereby reducing the likelihood of proletariat opposition whom the Soviet represented. It also further increased the popularity and support of the Bolsheviks. Trotsky’s pragmatic ability coupled with his talent as an orator garnered him much popularity and respect within the Bolshevik party. This elevated his status so that he was “second only to Lenin”. This veneration Trotsky received during the 1917 Revolution led to his appointment within critical party positions, such as Commissar of Foreign Affairs in 1917 and Commissar of War, Army and Naval Affairs in 1918, allowing him to further consolidate and grow his influence within the party whilst also allowing him to gain the support and trust of the army. Therefore, it is evident that the 1917 Revolution was highly critical to Trotsky’s rise to prominence as a political and revolutionary figure.


Trotsky’s theory of Permanent Revolution was one of his most significant contributions which greatly impacted the Soviet Union’s national history. However, despite it having great importance in the consolidation of Bolshevik power, it was also Trotsky’s pragmatic ability to keenly manoeuvre through theoretical adherence and the practical application of this communist ideology, that he was able to ensure success and significance. His theory argues that without a fully developed industrial proletariat, the proletariat can and must, therefore, seize social, economic and political power, leading an alliance with the peasantry.   Prior to 1917 in Russia, there was an ardent desire for revolution, which had sparked from the mass political and social unrest that spread throughout the Russian empire. This resulted due to various reasons such as the detrimental working conditions that peasants worked under within the factories and the severe classism that was prevalent across the regime. This volatile atmosphere had resulted into the 1905 Revolution, in which, Trotsky played an active role as the main leader of the revolutionary worker’s council, the St. Petersburg Soviet. However, he was exiled to Siberia, where he began to formulate his theories, which garnered the attention of other communist leaders such as Lenin, and secure himself an influential position within the party.  During his time in exile, Trotsky devoted himself to the study of Marxist literature and theory, solidifying his political position as a Marxist, and eventually leading him to begin writings of his own. Trotsky’s most critical work was Results and Prospects (1906), which expounded the theory of ‘Permanent Revolution.’ This theory drew the attention of other influential communists, such as Vladimir Lenin, with it later becoming the official and dominant policy within the Bolshevik Party.  Though Trotsky’s  Permanent Revolution was highly influential within the Communist Party, he knew and understood that theory was not always possible due to the complex and dynamic nature of Russian society at the time, currently dealing with the repercussions of war, famine and civil unrest. Therefore, it was necessary to adapt his ideas and policies in order to better suit this ever changing country. This is shown through the signing of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk where Trotsky was willing to sacrifice his theory and principle for the good of the Bolsheviks’ consolidation of power and Russian populous. His readiness to adapt his beliefs to better suit the socioeconomic conditions of Russia, demonstrate his pragmatism to change his ideological adherence in order for the success.  Furthermore, as it was also his theory that lay the foundations for Bolshevik party policy, it is evident that Trotsky’s writings during exile brought a lot of his critical successes. His overall theory of Permanent Revolution significantly impacted on the national history of Russia.
 

‘History is about winners’
How accurate is this statement in relation to the personality you have studied? (Oral Exam 2min)
Analyse and Evaluate how accurate this statement is in relation to Trotsky by referring to ONE of the following to either support or refute this above statement/claim:
Trotsky's efforts and contributions within the Russian Civil War clearly demonstrate that he was overall a winner, thus the statement is accurate. The Bolshevik success within the Russian Civil War was a significant achievement of Trotsky, as it principally achieved through his ruthless and pragmatic leadership of the Red Army as Commissar of War. After his failures as Commissar of Foreign Affairs, Trotsky was appointed Commissar of War. As Commissar of War, Trotsky played the crucial role of leading the Bolshevik Red Army, against the anti-Bolshevik (a mixture of tsarists, Mensheviks, social revolutionaries and foreign troops from Britain and France) White Army. 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.  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 endeavour, as they were, in their eyes essentially working with an enemy. Eventhough, Trotsky was faced with the daunting task of leading the Bolshevik Red Army to victory, he completed it successfully, with political activist John G. Wright stating that “Not only the leadership in organizing and building the army, but the initiative for its formation came from Leon Trotsky. He was the untiring inspirer of every decisive step taken in this direction.”  Additionally, Trotsky also 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. Furthermore, 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

Mod Edit: Merged

[sudodds]

Heya My comments on each response can be found in the spoiler below. As this is all three responses for remarking, this counts as your 3rd essay submitted.

Spoiler

Trotsky’s role in the 1917 Revolution was a highly significant factor that contributed to his rise to prominence. Great JudgementThis is because it allowed Trotsky to gain a powerful position within the Bolshevik party, and garner significant respect from his peers and community, which in turn afforded him significant power and opportunity. The sentence is much better than before.The 1917 Revolution marked the conclusion of the power struggle between the Bolsheviks and the Provisional Government, after the forced abdication of Tsar Nicholas II on 15th March 1917, the Bolsheviks succeeding after the Red Guard stormed the White Palace, led by Trotsky on 25th October 1917. Great Trotsky played a pivotal role in the organisation and communication of orders during the 1917 revolution, holding major influence over how the revolution was conducted. For example, he persuaded Lenin to delay the revolution until the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets at the end of October, so that the power could be seized in the name of the Soviets rather than the Bolshevik Party itself, thereby reducing the likelihood of proletariat opposition whom the Soviet represented. It also further increased the popularity and support of the Bolsheviks. Trotsky’s pragmatic ability, coupled with his talent as an orator garnered him much popularity and respect within the Bolshevik party. This elevated his status so that he was “second only to Lenin”. This veneration Trotsky received during the 1917 Revolution led to his appointment within critical party positions, such as Commissar of Foreign Affairs in 1917 and Commissar of War, Army and Naval Affairs in 1918, allowing him to further consolidate and grow his influence within the party, whilst also allowing him to gain the support and trust of the army. Therefore, it is evident that the 1917 Revolution was highly critical to Trotsky’s rise to prominence as a political and revolutionary figure.

Great! I don't see any major problems here that you need to fix A few small grammar issues, but other than that this is a fantastic response!

Spoiler

Trotsky’s theory of Permanent Revolution was one of his most significant contributions which greatly impacted to the Soviet Union’s national history. However, despite it having great importance in the consolidation of Bolshevik power, it was also Trotsky’s pragmatic ability to keenly manoeuvre through theoretical adherence and the practical application of this communist ideology, that he was able to ensure success and significance. His theory argues that without a fully developed industrial proletariat, the proletariat can and must, therefore, seize social, economic and political power, leading an alliance with the peasantry.   Prior to 1917 in Russia, there was an ardent desire for revolution, which had sparked from the mass political and social unrest that spread throughout the Russian empire. This resulted due to various reasons such as the detrimental working conditions that peasants worked under within the factories and the severe classism that was prevalent across the regime. This volatile atmosphere had this has happened a few times - its this word that often makes your sentences seem a bit clunky to meresulted into the 1905 Revolution, in which, Trotsky played an active role as the main leader of the revolutionary worker’s council, the St. Petersburg Soviet. However, Does 'However' really work here? Sounds a bit narrative. Probably would be better to say something along the lines of "His activity during the 1905 revolution saw him exiled to Siberia in 1906... etc. etc. he was exiled to Siberia, where he began to formulate his theories, which garnered the attention of other communist leaders such as Lenin, and secure himself an influential position within the party. During his time in exile, Trotsky devoted himself to the study of Marxist literature and theory, solidifying his political position as a Marxist, and eventually leading him to begin writings of his own. Trotsky’s most critical work was Results and Prospects (1906), which expounded the theory of ‘Permanent Revolution.’ This theory drew the attention of other influential communists, such as Vladimir Lenin, with it later becoming the official and dominant policy within the Bolshevik Party.  Though Trotsky’s  Permanent Revolution was highly influential within the Communist Party, he knew and understood that theory was not always possible due to the complex and dynamic nature of Russian society at the time, currently dealing with the repercussions of war, famine and civil unrest. Therefore, it was necessary to adapt his ideas and policies in order to better suit this ever changing country. This is shown through the signing of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk where Trotsky was willing to sacrifice his theory and principle for the good of the Bolsheviks’ consolidation of power and Russian populous. ...when he realised that his original position 'neither peace nor war' had failed. Though I defs agree with this point, I think it is important to reference that, because it looks like you've cherry picked. You need to make a judgement that though he stuck to ideology strongly before, once Germany invaded Russia it became clear to him that this wasn't applicable and he switched to support Lenin's position. His readiness to adapt his beliefs to better suit the socioeconomic conditions of Russia, demonstrate his pragmatism to change he's not really "changing" his ideological adherence - he was still a very strong believer of Permanent Revolution. What was critical is he knew when to forgo/relax his ideological adherence. his ideological adherence in order for the success.  Furthermore, as it was also his theory that lay the foundations for Bolshevik party policy, it is evident that Trotsky’s writings during exile brought a lot of his critical successes. His overall theory of Permanent Revolution significantly impacted on the national history of Russia.

Overall this is a much stronger response Rasika! Though I think you need to add a bit more on the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (see my comments for specifics), the last part of your response was very strong - your language and sentence structure was also much better, however there are still a few little odd words/conjunctions floating around which I have highlighted

Spoiler

Trotsky's efforts and contributions within the Russian Civil War clearly demonstrate that he was overall a winner, thus the statement is highly accurate. The Bolshevik success within the Russian Civil War was a significant achievement of Trotsky Rather than saying "was a significant achievement of Trotsky" which is clunky and in a passive tone, say "The Bolshevik's success within the Russian Civil War was one of Trotsky's most significant accheivements, as it was principally achieved through his ruthless and pragmatic leadership of the Red Army as Commissar of War great explanation of judgement!. After his failures as Commissar of Foreign Affairs, Trotsky was appointed Commissar of War. Is this really necessary to mention? As Commissar of War, Trotsky played the crucial role of leading the Bolshevik Red Army, against the anti-Bolshevik (a mixture of tsarists, Mensheviks, social revolutionaries and foreign troops from Britain and France) White Army You had a stat before with the number of foreign armies, why did you delete it? That was fantastic detail - if I remember correctly it was 255 503 foreign troops.. 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. Not sure if you should mention moral beliefs unless you are going to back that up with evidence.  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 endeavour, as they were, in their eyes essentially working with an enemy. Even though, Trotsky was faced with the daunting task of leading the Bolshevik Red Army to victory, he completed it successfully, with political activist John G. Wright stating that “Not only the leadership in organizing and building the army, but the initiative for its formation came from Leon Trotsky. He was the untiring inspirer of every decisive step taken in this direction.” Great quote Additionally, Trotsky also 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. Furthermore, Thus (furthermore looks like you're going to make a new point. 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, much better than before, well done See my comments within the spoiler for specifics, but there is again nothing major that I think needs to be addressed. Some more detail would be nice however - detail is what differentiates a band 5 from a band 6 response (and a band 6 from a high band 6 etc. etc.).

Well done,

Susie

[JD99]

This is my essay (speech) on Albert Speers. The question is:
People have the ability to change the world for the better. How accurate is this statement in relation to the personality you are studying.
Other criteria include:
- there must be four historians used (so far i have only used three, i need something for the third paragraph)
- it must be 6 minutes in length

I need help particularly with paragraph three...i just can't seem to bring it together at all...
Also, am I answering the question directly? Sometimes I feel i'm more saying that he did not change the world for the better, rather than whether or not he had the ability to... but then again I'm not sure if this is wrong??!

Thanks!!

Here it is...
Albert Speers had the ability to change the world for the better. In this setting, Speer's world was Germany and her occupied territories including Poland and Ukraine, during World War 2. Within this world, Speer played a significant role as a friend to Hitler and as the Reich Minister for Armaments. He did not change the world for the better because He chose to tacitly accept the atrocities occurring in Nazi Germany, he chose to use slave labour to enhance war production and he chose to support Hitler and Hitler's ideals. However, His closeness to Hitler, his position in the Nazi Party and his control over slave labourers gave him the ability to change the world for the better.

Albert Speer had the ability to change the world for the better cause he knew what was going on. Although he had the ability, he chose not to use it. He chose to ignore the atrocities being committed by the organisation he was a part of, yet later accepted them. Speer said himself that he was the ‘second man in the Reich’, leaving us with no doubt that HE had the knowledge of what was going on, but, as Trevor Roper said “for ten years he sat the very centre of political power, but he did nothing”. This prolonged the plight of those affected by the Nazi regime including Jewish and Slavic men, women and children, and shows that Speer did nothing for them, and thus did NOT change the world for the better.  Oh, and one more thing? In 1978, in an interview with Gitta Sereny, Speer used the word ‘Billigung’ in relation to his involvement with Nazi atrocities. This commonly translates to ‘tacit acceptance’, however Speer also gave us his interpretation of the word. “connivance (willingness to allow or be secretly involved in an immoral or illegal act) through looking away”. In other words, he accepted the atrocities, but turned a blind eye. If he accepted them, then isn’t it obvious that he knew about them? How can a man who has willingly ignored the ugly fate of millions of men, women and children be said to have changed the world for the better? Albert Speer knew what was going on and therefore had the ability to change the world for the better. But he did not.
Albert Speer had the ability to change the world for the better because he was key to the Nazi regime, and ultimately key to Hitler’s ideals. As Henry King said ‘“From 1942 to 1945 not only was he one of the men closest to Hitler, but he was also [the] one who influenced Hitler’s decisions.” A totalitarian regime, such as the Third Reich, cannot operate on one man alone. No matter how strong his ideals, no matter how powerful his speeches, Hitler needed his henchmen. Without the likes of Speer, Nazism would never have seized Germany the way it did. Speer claims that “I just stood aside and said that as long as I did not personally participate it had nothing to do with me”. However, he cannot claim this. The fact that he worked both in architecture, which doubled as grandiose Nazi propaganda, and production of armaments using forced labour, meant that he did not ‘just stand aside’. He was in fact heavily involved in the Nazi regime, and therefore had the ability to change the world for the better, had he been able to make a stand against his so called ‘friend’ Hitler.
Albert Speer had the ability to change the world because he controlled the use of slave labour. He could have effectively used the German labour force, including women who were barely used in Germany. Instead, he chose to forcefully conscript millions of workers from occupied territories. These people lived and worked in unsafe, unsanitary conditions and millions ended up dying due to being overworked, starved or diseased . Now, some would argue that Speer improved working conditions for labourers. This was true for some, but he did it in view of getting them working most efficiently, not in view of making the world a better place. And in the end, he even turned a blind eye on this, as can be seen in images we have all seen of the awful conditions in concentration camps.
In conclusion, it is clear that Albert Speer had the ability to change the world of Germany and her occupied territories during World War 2 for the better. He knew what was going on, he was key to the Nazi regime and to Hitler himself, and he had ultimate control over the use of slave labourers. This man had the ability to change the world for the better.

[jakesilove]

This is my essay (speech) on Albert Speers. The question is:
People have the ability to change the world for the better. How accurate is this statement in relation to the personality you are studying.
Other criteria include:
- there must be four historians used (so far i have only used three, i need something for the third paragraph)
- it must be 6 minutes in length

I need help particularly with paragraph three...i just can't seem to bring it together at all...
Also, am I answering the question directly? Sometimes I feel i'm more saying that he did not change the world for the better, rather than whether or not he had the ability to... but then again I'm not sure if this is wrong??!

Thanks!!

Hey! Check out my comments below
Original speech

Spoiler

Albert Speers had the ability to change the world for the better. In this setting, Speer's world was Germany and her occupied territories including Poland and Ukraine, during World War 2. Within this world, Speer played a significant role as a friend to Hitler and as the Reich Minister for Armaments. He did not change the world for the better because He chose to tacitly accept the atrocities occurring in Nazi Germany, he chose to use slave labour to enhance war production and he chose to support Hitler and Hitler's ideals. However, His closeness to Hitler, his position in the Nazi Party and his control over slave labourers gave him the ability to change the world for the better.

Albert Speer had the ability to change the world for the better cause he knew what was going on. Although he had the ability, he chose not to use it. He chose to ignore the atrocities being committed by the organisation he was a part of, yet later accepted them. Speer said himself that he was the ‘second man in the Reich’, leaving us with no doubt that HE had the knowledge of what was going on, but, as Trevor Roper said “for ten years he sat the very centre of political power, but he did nothing”. This prolonged the plight of those affected by the Nazi regime including Jewish and Slavic men, women and children, and shows that Speer did nothing for them, and thus did NOT change the world for the better.  Oh, and one more thing? In 1978, in an interview with Gitta Sereny, Speer used the word ‘Billigung’ in relation to his involvement with Nazi atrocities. This commonly translates to ‘tacit acceptance’, however Speer also gave us his interpretation of the word. “connivance (willingness to allow or be secretly involved in an immoral or illegal act) through looking away”. In other words, he accepted the atrocities, but turned a blind eye. If he accepted them, then isn’t it obvious that he knew about them? How can a man who has willingly ignored the ugly fate of millions of men, women and children be said to have changed the world for the better? Albert Speer knew what was going on and therefore had the ability to change the world for the better. But he did not.
Albert Speer had the ability to change the world for the better because he was key to the Nazi regime, and ultimately key to Hitler’s ideals. As Henry King said ‘“From 1942 to 1945 not only was he one of the men closest to Hitler, but he was also [the] one who influenced Hitler’s decisions.” A totalitarian regime, such as the Third Reich, cannot operate on one man alone. No matter how strong his ideals, no matter how powerful his speeches, Hitler needed his henchmen. Without the likes of Speer, Nazism would never have seized Germany the way it did. Speer claims that “I just stood aside and said that as long as I did not personally participate it had nothing to do with me”. However, he cannot claim this. The fact that he worked both in architecture, which doubled as grandiose Nazi propaganda, and production of armaments using forced labour, meant that he did not ‘just stand aside’. He was in fact heavily involved in the Nazi regime, and therefore had the ability to change the world for the better, had he been able to make a stand against his so called ‘friend’ Hitler.
Albert Speer had the ability to change the world because he controlled the use of slave labour. He could have effectively used the German labour force, including women who were barely used in Germany. Instead, he chose to forcefully conscript millions of workers from occupied territories. These people lived and worked in unsafe, unsanitary conditions and millions ended up dying due to being overworked, starved or diseased . Now, some would argue that Speer improved working conditions for labourers. This was true for some, but he did it in view of getting them working most efficiently, not in view of making the world a better place. And in the end, he even turned a blind eye on this, as can be seen in images we have all seen of the awful conditions in concentration camps.
In conclusion, it is clear that Albert Speer had the ability to change the world of Germany and her occupied territories during World War 2 for the better. He knew what was going on, he was key to the Nazi regime and to Hitler himself, and he had ultimate control over the use of slave labourers. This man had the ability to change the world for the better.

Speech with comments

Spoiler

You've already misspelled the name of your personality. You do so multiple times. That's a bad sign. Albert Speers had the ability to change the world for the better. In this setting, Speer's world was Germany and her occupied territories including Poland and Ukraine, during World War 2. Within this world, Speer played a significant role as a friend to Hitler and as the Reich Minister for Armaments. He did not change the world for the better because He chose to tacitly accept the atrocities occurring in Nazi Germany, he chose to use slave labour to enhance war production and he chose to support Hitler and Hitler's ideals. Not a great sentence. I get your point, but you can definitely reword it to be more coherent. Read it out loud; that's always the best way to judge whether a sentence works. This is particularly true for a speech. However, His closeness to Hitler, his position in the Nazi Party and his control over slave labourers gave him the ability to change the world for the better.

You've answered the question far too literally, in my opinion. I suppose that your thesis is that he COULD HAVE changed the world for the better, but that he DIDN'T. I would argue pretty strongly against this, with specific regards to Speer. If he had been a 'good' guy, if he had actively opposed Nazi policies, would he still have gained the powerful positions he occupied throughout the pre-war and war periods? No, he wouldn't have. So, he could either have tried to 'change the world for the better', and fail (ie. be killed by the Nazi's) or become a Nazi himself, and thus change the world for the worse. Does that make sense? I'm not defending Speer, but you seem to be saying that, as a general principle, people do have the power to improve the world around them. I'm not sure how you could make that argument, in any meaningful way. Still, your tone is good, and the examples you've picked out are ideal.

Albert Speer had the ability to change the world for the better cause Cause? Really? Way too colloquial. he knew what was going on 'Knew what was going on'? You need to rewrite much of this; what did he know, exactly?. Although he had the ability, he chose not to use it. He chose to ignore the atrocities being committed by the organisation he was a part of, yet later accepted them Not 'yet'; rather 'and'. You've got a nice, complex argument here (which could be made far clearer); initially, Speer ignored the atrocities. Later, he accepted them. When did he accept them? Why? What changed?. Speer said himself that he was the ‘second man in the Reich’, leaving us Who? Us? Too colloquial again with no doubt that HE Don't do this. had the knowledge of what was going on, but, as Trevor Roper said “for ten years he sat the very centre of political power, but he did nothing”. This prolonged the plight of those affected by the Nazi regime including Jewish and Slavic men, women and children, and shows that Speer did nothing for them, and thus did NOT Again change the world for the better.  Oh, and one more thing? Seriously? No. You're writing a history speech, not chatting to your friend. In 1978, in an interview with Gitta Sereny, Speer used the word ‘Billigung’ in relation to his involvement with Nazi atrocities. This commonly translates to ‘tacit acceptance’, however Speer also gave us his interpretation of the word. “connivance (willingness to allow or be secretly involved in an immoral or illegal act) through looking away”. In other words, he accepted the atrocities, but turned a blind eye. If he accepted them, then isn’t it obvious that he knew about them Yes? How can a man who has willingly ignored the ugly fate of millions of men How many exactly. There are plenty of statistics out there; use them., women and children be said to have changed the world for the better? Albert Speer knew what was going on and therefore had the ability to change the world for the better. But he did not. Just because he knew what was going on does not mean he could change it for the better. When it comes to Speer, it's very hard to argue that he could, simply because he didn't. What evidence can you use? It's a tough question, which isn't your fault, but one you need to spend more time considering.
Albert Speer had the ability to change the world for the better You've said this far too many times in a short speech. because he was key to the Nazi regime, and ultimately key to Hitler’s ideals. As Henry King said ‘“From 1942 to 1945 not only was he one of the men closest to Hitler, but he was also [the] one who influenced Hitler’s decisions.” A totalitarian regime Careful here; was the Third Reich totalitarian? Whilst that would depend on your answer to such an essay question, the general consensus is that no, it wasn't. , such as the Third Reich, cannot operate on one man alone Operate on? Or do you mean cannot be operated by?. No matter how strong his ideals, no matter how powerful his speeches, Hitler needed his henchmen Colloquial. Henchmen? Come on. Without the likes of Speer, Nazism would never have seized Germany the way it did. Speer claims that “I just stood aside and said that as long as I did not personally participate it had nothing to do with me”. However, he cannot claim this He did.
 So he can. However, his claim may be false.. The fact that he worked both in architecture, which doubled as grandiose Nazi propaganda, and production of armaments using forced labour, meant that he did not ‘just stand aside’. He was in fact heavily involved in the Nazi regime Yes. This last sentence and a half is very good, but could be improved through the use of specific statistics or facts (what did he build? How was it Nazi propaganda?), and therefore had the ability to change the world for the better, had he been able to make a stand against his so called ‘friend’ Hitler.

Albert Speer had the ability to change the world Probably the 8th time you've said this because he controlled the use of slave labour. Wow what. So, he had control of slave labour, so he could have changed the world for the better? NO. He had control of slave labour because he was a Nazi, and thus (most would argue) NOT changing the world for the better. It's a subtle distinction, but also absurd to say that once he got to the top of the ladder, he should have turned around and burned it all down. Unrealistic; by this point, Speer was just as bad as the rest of them. He could have effectively used the German labour force, including women who were barely used in Germany Were they 'barely used'? Where are you getting that from?. Instead, he chose to forcefully conscript millions of workers from occupied territories How many millions?. These people lived and worked in unsafe, unsanitary conditions and millions ended up dying due to being overworked, starved or diseased How many died?. Now, some would argue that Speer improved working conditions for labourers 'Now,' is a no no. This was true for some, but he did it in view of getting them working most efficiently, not in view of making the world a better place. And in the end, he even turned a blind eye on this, as can be seen in images we have all seen of the awful conditions in concentration camps 'we have all'?.

In conclusion, it is clear that Albert Speer had the ability to change the world of Germany and her occupied territories during World War 2 for the better. He knew what was going on, he was key to the Nazi regime and to Hitler himself, and he had ultimate control over the use of slave labourers. This man had the ability to change the world for the better.

This speech needs a lot of work, but you've got the general structure down. Keep the flow of the piece (ie. the broad topics of each paragraphs).
 However, completely rewrite the speech, using this as a basis. You need to ensure that your language remains formal throughout. You need to incorporate specific, accurate, relevant and detailed examples. And, whilst you certainly 'answer' the question quite a lot in the above piece, you need to refine that thesis into something more coherent, and ideally a bit more nuanced. While there's a way to go here, it's clear that you're on the right track. Keep it up, and I'm sure you can create an impressive piece of work!

[JD99]

Thank you so much for the detailed feedback! As you can probably tell, I was getting more confused the more I wrote, and the essay just wasn't moving in the direction I wanted it too! You have really given me something to work with!  thank you!!

Could you please just help me with what you mean by 'ideally a bit more nuanced'? thanks!

[jakesilove]

Thank you so much for the detailed feedback! As you can probably tell, I was getting more confused the more I wrote, and the essay just wasn't moving in the direction I wanted it too! You have really given me something to work with!  thank you!!

Could you please just help me with what you mean by 'ideally a bit more nuanced'? thanks!

Hey! I just mean that, rather than taking a simple 'yes' or 'no' stance with regards to the question, introduce a bit more complexity. Eg. 'Yes but...' or 'No but...' etc. Just be more complex in your analysis!

[JD99]

Ok, I see what you mean now!!

Thanks again!

[marcusgrahamm]

This is my speech that we had to do an assessment on The Cold War for.

It was a personality of our choice, we had to create a thesis and discuss it.

I haven't done a conclusion yet could you help maybe configure one in line with my thesis which is in the introduction (exacerbation)

Its due on Monday, thanks!!

Did Nikita Khrushchev save a world on the brink of nuclear warfare?

Or rather did he drive humanity closer to creating one?

I pose the question to you ladies and gentlemen who was this man and what were his real intentions?
 
One thing is for certain he was a prominent figure throughout the discourse of The Cold War acting as the main advocate for The Soviet Union in both positive and negative lights on a global front. Nonetheless, despite his supposed aim of peace, Nikita Khrushchev played a significant role in the exacerbation of political and ideological tensions between the United States and the United Soviet & Social Republic (USSR). In a “conflict of words that nearly brought humanity to its knees” Khrushchev called for passiveness amongst nations “You do not like Communism. We do not like capitalism. There is only one way out – peaceful co-existence.” Yet, as time proceeded into the 1960’s the alteration of his supposed policy on a ‘non-violent’ harmonic stance shifted to newfound philosophies which enacted major repercussions for the War’s preceding events to come.
 
Contrasting national interests that arose during World War II between the united states and USSR would soon be replaced by a disparagement lasting some 45 years. Beginning as a dispute over the futuristic stance of Europe, this era would come to be known as the Cold War sparked from the genesis of unease and confrontation across the world. Hence, Nikita Khrushchev can be considered a foremost catalyst in alleviating early conflict through his conceptualisation that change is necessary if “we are to avoid capitalism and socialism to go to war". Through congruence of views he believed "both can peacefully get along".
 
But why would Soviet leaders seek to live harmoniously amongst a non-communist world?
 
And here ladies and gentlemen lies the predicament. Whilst it is clear Khrushchev maintained a desire to avoid an outbreak of war, as time progressed and events negatively impacted the USSR, his outlook shifted as an act of defence and to maintain nationalistic pride amidst the country.
 
March 1953 brought with it Joseph Stalin’s death, situating Khrushchev as a likely successor due to his commitment to Communist Ideology post and throughout the proceedings of World War II. Accordingly, by 1955 Khrushchev was one of the most influential and powerful individuals within the USSR. In 1957, he foiled a Malenkov-led coup and took the premier position.  Immediately, he began to reshape a broken country hounding on Stalin as a “killer and tyrant”. Therefore, The Soviet Union underwent a process of ‘de-Stalinisation’ through the release of unjustly held prisoners and reforming their communist outlooks. In an effort to humanize the nation state- without sacrificing core beliefs Khrushchev stressed the importance of enlarging consumeristic production rather than previous heavy industries. Furthermore, the release of millions of captives from the infamous Gulag labour camps, instigated the impression of a newfound thriving, politically free civilisation. Hence, in early 1961 Khrushchev addressed the nation implying, “the dictatorship of the proletariat” had ended. Yet, heading forward he dictated Russia’s global position implying “there were only two ways to live- either in peaceful co-existence or in the most destructive war of history. There is no third way'. You’re probably thinking, he doesn’t seem half bad, he was actually trying to reform Russia positively. And you’re not wrong. Initially Khrushchev had the aim of peace and prosperity on an internal and external level. However, as time altered and tensions broke out between the capitalist east and communist west his foreign policy converted considerably.
 
So, what happened next?
 
How did the stable nature between these global superpowers boil to a breaking point?
 
Well, ladies and gentlemen the answers lie in weapons, missiles, submarines, tanks and probably any other destructive military arsenal you can think of.  The competitive, somewhat ignorant stance of both the US & Russia ultimately fuelled the arms race to the point whereby JFK suggested every “inhabitant of this planet must contemplate the day when this earth may no longer be habitable”. Here we witness a distinct alteration in Khrushchev’s transcontinental policies. Paradoxical in his remarks Khrushchev was a believer in 'peaceful co-existence', suggesting in his 1956 ‘secret speech’ at the Communist Party Congress "[they] may argue. The main thing is to argue without using weapons". Nevertheless, he juxtaposed such claims by going to excessive lengths, in the development of the Soviet Union’s military and nuclear arsenal, both on a literal sense and symbolic front. When speaking about future global connections, Khrushchev stated he wanted a strong-bonded relationship with America. Whilst this intention did help in thawing the war, he still did various things “that no doubt aggravated and increased apprehensions”. At a Moscow reception, he directed the renowned “we will bury you!” comment towards the right wing west. Similarly, in a 1959 meeting with US Vice President Richard Nixon amidst the ‘Kitchen Debate’, Khrushchev boasted that the Soviet Union would indefinitely surpass America after being unimpressed by their technological innovation. He cautioned Eisenhower that whilst he would not enact a war “some lunatics might”. Again, referencing to the possibility of conflict. Tensions remained minimal and there was hope that perhaps this conciliatory stance would pervade the minor disagreements. Although that just couldn’t happen could it!
In 1960 Soviet forces shot down an American U2 spy plane within Russian airspace. Khrushchev once again opted for a confrontational agenda with the US. Eisenhower had hoped that the Paris Summit would defuse trepidations but this incident had convinced Khrushchev he could no longer bestow faith in a healthy, stable Soviet-US relationship.

Video plays.

Through this visual representation, we can understand that The Cold war’s progression into the 1960’s brought with it negative modifications in the world superpower’s relationships. Khrushchev waged a propaganda war against Britain and the US flaunting that the USSR were “turning out missiles like sausages,” and even paraded around a single missile during a military parade multiple times, so it looked like they had more than they did. It was now that the prospect of war did not seem too far off the horizon. Khrushchev even referenced the forthcoming possibility suggesting war “would be fought on the American continent, which can be reached by our rockets”. Consequently, this infused the arms race to grow into a battle of militia capacity between the two nations, in turn heightening angsts that an all out nuclear war would soon erupt. Historian William Tauban surmised this hypothesis “Khrushchev knew NATO forces in Europe would be devastated from war, leaving it as a veritable cemetery. Whilst the Soviet Union would suffer immensely, forces of communism would ultimately crush capitalism”. Now we can understand, comprehend and bluntly see Nikita Khrushchev did not at all have the sole intent of maintaining peace, but rather was readily preparing for warfare in the event capitalistic endeavours began to domineer the left wing regime.
 
So what made Khrushchev such a prominent figure in the stabilisation of war and driving the world to the brink of nuclear conflict?
 
Perhaps his charismatic leadership?
 
Or maybe an ambitious, competitive attitude?
 
It was not a singular facet but rather a range of features that shaped Khrushchev’s complicated relationship with the west. An avid advocate for communistic ideals, he did have a purposeful aim for maintaining some level of peace between nations. However, several factors in his control and others not played crucial roles in the deteriorating relationship between Russia and America. Majorly, in 1961 Khrushchev ordered for the construction of the Berlin Wall to begin to stop Germans from fleeing to the capitalist west. Nikita himself proposed “Berlin is the testicle of the west…every time I want to make the west scream I squeeze on Berlin”. Following this in the October of 1962 The United States learnt of a Soviet nuclear missile station within Cuba. A 13 day stand off, and the world only a pin drop away from nuclear war, saw JFK call Khrushchev a bluff, and the latter was forced to remove missiles from Cuban soil. Subsequently this came with great loss at home and abroad. Nikita Khrushchev now had the world against him, political leaders, his own government and Russian citizens themselves had given up faith in his leadership capabilities and thus in 1964 he was ousted by opponents within the Politburo. Hereafter, Khrushchev’s role in The Cold War had become obsolete.
 

[sudodds]

This is my speech that we had to do an assessment on The Cold War for.

It was a personality of our choice, we had to create a thesis and discuss it.

I haven't done a conclusion yet could you help maybe configure one in line with my thesis which is in the introduction (exacerbation)

Its due on Monday, thanks!!

Hey Marcus!

My comments can be found in the spoiler, plus a few general ones below

Spoiler

Did Nikita Khrushchev save a world on the brink of nuclear warfare?

Or rather did he drive humanity closer to creating one?

I pose the question to you ladies and gentlemen who was this man and what were his real intentions? As this is a speech, I'm going to assume that the use of dramatic language here is fine - you might want to clarify with your teacher if you are unsure though. Rule of thumb essay wise is that language like this is a no go, so good idea to check

One thing is for certain, he was a highly - these judgment words are really important, and its good to get into the habit of using them prominent figure throughout the discourse of The Cold War, acting as the main advocate for The Soviet Union in both positive and negative lights is lights really the best word to use here? 'ways' perhaps would have made more sense on a global front scale. Nonetheless, despite his supposed aim of peace hmmm if this was your first sentence, then just leaving it at that would be fine, however as this comes in later on, I think you need to give a tiny bit more content here as to how he supposedly had "aims of peace". I think maybe you could rephrased this to "Despite his advocacy of peaceful co-existence" or something along those lines , Nikita Khrushchev you can just refer to him by his last name played a highlysignificant role in the exacerbation of political and ideological tensions between the United States and the United Soviet & Social Republic (USSR). In a “conflict of words that nearly brought humanity to its knees” Who said this? Reference. I know that is often uncomfortable in a speech, but it's important. You can phrase it like this if you like "In a, as suggest by _____________, "conflict of words...." etc. etc. Khrushchev called for passiveness I don't know if passiveness is the right word. It was more an open acceptance of each others spheres of influence.amongst nations, stating “You do not like Communism. We do not like capitalism. There is only one way out – peaceful co-existence.” Yet, as time proceeded into the 1960’s, the alteration of his supposed policy on a ‘non-violent’ harmonic stance shifted to newfound philosophies which enacted major repercussions for the War’s preceding events to come. Fab sentence, however I think you need to round back to your thesis. "It is through this paradoxical leadership that Khrushchev contributed to increasing tensions," etc. etc.
 
Contrasting national interests that arose during World War II between the united states and USSR would soon be replaced by a disparagement lasting some 45 years. Hmmm I think you need to rephrase this. I can see that there is a judgement there, but it isn't reading like one - instead it is reading a little bit narrative. A judgement assesses the significance of what you are discussing - I need to see that more clearly. Also, where they replaced by disparagement? or did they evolve into that? Beginning as a dispute over the futuristic stance of Europe, this era would come to be known as the Cold War, sparked from the genesis of unease and confrontation across the world. Mention ideology here. It was, at its core, an ideological conflict, so it is super important to include. Hence, Nikita Khrushchev can be considered a foremost catalyst in alleviating early conflict through his conceptualisation that change is necessary if “we are to avoid capitalism and socialism to go to war". Through congruence of views he believed "both can peacefully get along". Did he actually alleviate conflict? Provide examples. Remember:
 detail, detail, detail!
 
But why would Soviet leaders seek to live harmoniously amongst a non-communist world? I think you have misunderstood peaceful co-existence. Peaceful co-existence wasn't the soviets being content to live in a non-communist world, but was instead the acceptance and recognition of the spheres of influence. Basically, the Soviets wouldn't try and "turn" already established capitalist territory and vice versa. They didn't want to live in a non-communist world, more so the intention was to live side by side with the capitalists, without confrontation.
 
And here,ladies and gentlemen, lies the predicament. Whilst it is clear Khrushchev maintained a desire to avoid an outbreak of war, as time progressed and events negatively impacted the USSR, his outlook shifted as an act of defence and to maintain nationalistic pride amidst the country.
 
March 1953 brought with it Joseph Stalin’s death, situating Khrushchev as a likely successor due to his commitment to Communist Ideology post and throughout the proceedings of World War II. Again, rephrase this a judgement - a lot of the time it is just reversing your sentence structure! "Khrushchev's commitment to Communist ideology throughout and after the proceedings of WWII were highly critical in situating Khrushchev as the likely successor, after the death of Stalin in 1953." Accordingly, by 1955 Khrushchev was one of the most influential and powerful individuals within the USSR. In 1957, he foiled a Malenkov-led coup and took the premier position.  Immediately, he began to reshape a broken country hounding on Stalin as a “killer and tyrant”. Therefore, The Soviet Union underwent a process of ‘de-Stalinisation’ through the release of unjustly held prisoners and reforming their communist outlooks. In an effort to humanize the nation state- without sacrificing core beliefs Khrushchev stressed the importance of enlarging consumeristic production rather than previous heavy industries. Furthermore, the release of millions of captives from the infamous Gulag labour camps, instigated the impression of a newfound thriving, politically free civilisation. Hence, in early 1961 Khrushchev addressed the nation implying, “the dictatorship of the proletariat” had ended. Yet, heading forward he dictated Russia’s global position implying “there were only two ways to live- either in peaceful co-existence or in the most destructive war of history. There is no third way'. You’re probably thinking, he doesn’t seem half bad, he was actually trying to reform Russia positively. The slang, informal language is kinda stressing me out tbh. Like I know that this is a speech so I don't want to comment too heavily on this - but please check with your teacher that this is okay. And you’re not wrong. Initially Khrushchev had the aim of peace and prosperity on an internal and external level. However, as time altered and tensions broke out between the capitalist east and communist west his foreign policy converted considerably. Hmmm. I like this paragraph! But aren't you just arguing the same thing as before? I'd take this paragraph over that, but still. Might be a good idea to merge.
 
So, what happened next? Be careful of narrative structure. Narrative does not equal analysis. You want to be extrapolating themes that were interplaying, not presenting them as a sequential system. If this is confusing, let me know and I'll try and explain further.
 
How did the stable nature between these global superpowers boil to a breaking point? Was it stable? Tensions were still really high, even if they had improved a bit under Stalin.
 
Well, ladies and gentlemen the answers lie in weapons, missiles, submarines, tanks and probably any other destructive military arsenal you can think of NUCLEAR WEAPONS. I know you said missiles. BUT NUCLEAR WEAPONS.. The competitive, somewhat ignorant ? explain stance of both the US & Russia ultimately fuelled the arms race to the point whereby JFK suggested every “inhabitant of this planet must contemplate the day when this earth may no longer be habitable”. Here we witness a distinct alteration in Khrushchev’s transcontinental policies. Paradoxical in his remarks Khrushchev was a believer in 'peaceful co-existence', suggesting in his 1956 ‘secret speech’ at the Communist Party Congress "[they] may argue. The main thing is to argue without using weapons". Nevertheless, he juxtaposed such claims by going to excessive lengths, in the development of the Soviet Union’s military and nuclear arsenal, both on a literal sense and symbolic front. YES YES YESWhen speaking about future global connections, Khrushchev stated he wanted a strong-bonded relationship with America. Whilst this intention did help in thawing the war, he still did various things “that no doubt aggravated and increased apprehensions”. At a Moscow reception, he directed the renowned “we will bury you!” comment towards the right wing west. Similarly, in a 1959 meeting with US Vice President Richard Nixon amidst the ‘Kitchen Debate’, Khrushchev boasted that the Soviet Union would indefinitely surpass America after being unimpressed by their technological innovation. He cautioned Eisenhower that whilst he would not enact a war “some lunatics might”. Again, referencing to the possibility of conflict. Tensions remained minimal and there was hope that perhaps this conciliatory stance would pervade the minor disagreements. Although that just couldn’t happen could it! Uncomfortably casual :-/ I also think that you are making it sound like Khrushchev was the only reason that tensions raised - American was pulling some shit as well. It is absolutely fine (recommended even, given your thesis) to focus more on Khrushchev's actions, just make sure your essay doesn't appear as if you haven't considered the alternative. Basically, state both sides, but assert that Khruschev's actions were more significant/detrimental to their relationship.
In 1960 Soviet forces shot down an American U2 spy plane within Russian airspace. Khrushchev once again opted for a confrontational agenda with the US. Eisenhower had hoped that the Paris Summit would defuse trepidations, but this incident had convinced Khrushchev he could no longer bestow faith in a healthy, stable Soviet-US relationship.

Video plays.

Through this visual representation, we can clearly understand that The Cold war’s progression into the 1960’s brought with it negative modifications in the world superpower’s relationships. Khrushchev waged a propaganda war against Britain and the US, flaunting that the USSR were “turning out missiles like sausages,” and even paraded around a single missile during a military parade multiple times, so it looked like they had more than they did. Rework this sentence to make it more formal.It was now that the prospect of war did not seem too far off the horizon. Khrushchev even referenced the forthcoming possibility suggesting war “would be fought on the American continent, which can be reached by our rockets”. Consequently, this infused the arms race to grow into a battle of militia capacity between the two nations, in turn heightening angsts is angsts the best word here? that an all out nuclear war would soon erupt. Historian William Tauban surmised this hypothesis “Khrushchev knew NATO forces in Europe would be devastated from war, leaving it as a veritable cemetery. Whilst the Soviet Union would suffer immensely, forces of communism would ultimately crush capitalism”. Now we can understand, comprehend and bluntly see Nikita Khrushchev did not at all have the sole intent of maintaining peace, but rather was readily preparing for warfare in the event capitalistic endeavours began to domineer the left wing regime. YES! Lovely judgement - would quite like that to have been integrated throughout your introduction as well to remain consistent.
 
So what made Khrushchev such a prominent figure in the stabilisation of war and driving the world to the brink of nuclear conflict?
 
Perhaps his charismatic leadership?
 
Or maybe an ambitious, competitive attitude?
 
It was not a singular facet but rather a range of features that shaped Khrushchev’s complicated relationship with the west. An avid advocate for communistic ideals, he did have a purposeful aim for maintaining some level of peace between nations. However, several factors in his control and others not played crucial roles in the deteriorating relationship between Russia and America. Majorly, in 1961 Khrushchev ordered for the construction of the Berlin Wall to begin to stop Germans from fleeing to the capitalist west. Nikita himself proposed “Berlin is the testicle of the west…every time I want to make the west scream I squeeze on Berlin”. I did not know this was a quote. I love that this is a quote. I love this quote. Following this in the October of 1962 The United States learnt of a Soviet nuclear missile station within Cuba. A 13 day stand off, and the world only a pin drop away from nuclear war, saw JFK call Khrushchev a bluff, and the latter was forced to remove missiles from Cuban soil. This paragraph is reading quite narrative. My teachers tips for working out if you were writing narrative was to put "meanwhile" before a sentence. If it makes grammatical sense, then you need to work on the analysis. Also continually linking back, explicitly, to your thesis will help. Subsequently this came with great loss at home and abroad. Nikita Khrushchev now had the world against him, political leaders, his own government and Russian citizens themselves had given up faith in his leadership capabilities and thus in 1964 he was ousted by opponents within the Politburo. Hereafter, Khrushchev’s role in The Cold War had become obsolete.

Overall, good work Marcus! It is clear that you have a thorough understanding of the content, and of Khrushchev's significance! I definitely think it was a good idea that you swapped over to him from Stalin. However there are areas to improve on. The big one for me is that though you do provide some great analysis, overall your speech is quite narrative, and I think this has a lot to do with your structure, which is chronological. This isn't really bad, however there are some problems with this structure. a) it becomes so much easier to slip into narrative and re-tell, and b) it encourages split judgements (ie. where one paragraph is arguing a different thesis). Though I agree with the points that you have made in your essay, rather than having some paragraphs suggesting Khrushchev has peaceful aims and others where this had changed, If I were you, rather than writing a chronological essay, I would instead write the essay by factors that weren't necessarily sequential, but more so seen throughout the period. You touched on a lot of them here that I would be discussing. For example the arms race

Also I have said this multiple times, but please check with your teacher in regards to their opinion of the colloquial/casual nature of a lot of your writing. I know this is a speech, but it still concerned me a bit.

Finally, though you had some great detail throughout this response, I WANT MORE! Detail is what differentiates between a band 5 and a band 6 response (and a band 6 from a high band 6!). Stats, dates, exact names, etc etc. are all great to include

But yes! Overall a good response Marcus Well done. If any of my feedback confuses you please let me know!

Susie
 

[marcusgrahamm]

Thanks so much!!
That was all so helpful I've changed my structure to have three main concerns rather then the chronological structure.
I checked about the colloquial expression and my teacher liked it for the speech format.
Thanks for all that feedback again!

[sudodds]

Thanks so much!!
That was all so helpful I've changed my structure to have three main concerns rather then the chronological structure.
I checked about the colloquial expression and my teacher liked it for the speech format.
Thanks for all that feedback again!

No worries! So glad you found it helpful I think that change will do a great deal to enhance your response - and good work checking with your teacher about the expression!

Great work Marcus, if you need anything else please let us know