Section III - Personalities in the Twentieth Century (1 Viewer)

[enoilgam]

Share/Discuss your answers here

 

[Cheesecake_a]

I liked this one, I always find this section the easiest imo.

 

[HAZZA12]

Did anyone do Leon Trotsky? i talked about the same things in part a that i did in part b. felt as if i was writing the same thing all over again. anyone else have this problem?

 

[Cheesecake_a]

^Yeah, I felt I was doing that too. My personality was Leni Riefenstahl.

I mean b) was a little different, but I was able to link it with what I talked about in part a) which was good.

 

[teganjoyy]

Speer was a pain for part b, because even though his work as minister for armaments and war production was seen as a positive impact by the NAZI state it effectively continued the war and therefore caused more deaths which is negative? I really struggled with developing a strong thesis to this one :| Part a went well though.

 

[inJust]

Speer was a pain for part b, because even though his work as minister for armaments and war production was seen as a positive impact by the NAZI state it effectively continued the war and therefore caused more deaths which is negative? I really struggled with developing a strong thesis to this one :| Part a went well though.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[emayms]

I did Trotsky and found part (b) to be rather challenging. It took me a few minutes to really get my head around what I was going to write about. I spoke about it with my teacher afterwards and she agreed it was quite challenging; especially for Trotsky. Whereas if you chose Mandela (for example) it would have been much easier to answer how he positively effected his times.

 

[DeeDazza]

Speer was a pain for part b, because even though his work as minister for armaments and war production was seen as a positive impact by the NAZI state it effectively continued the war and therefore caused more deaths which is negative? I really struggled with developing a strong thesis to this one :| Part a went well though.

I agree. I just wrote a bunch of bullshit for two pages!

 

[emmmasson12]

on albert Speer i said that the extent to which albert Speer has a positive impact was completely dependant on historical interpretation. where traditionalists historians see him as positive (good nazi at N Trails view, and successful in prolonging germany war) and revisionist historians such as van der vat see him as negative ( portraying a false image at N trails to avoid death, use of forced labour ect)

 

[lauren6511]

tricky for Riefenstahl! I argued that her false promotion of Nazi Germany as a peaceful nation and the propagandist nature of her work for the Nazi regime made her impact overall quite negative, esp. in addition to her refusal to apologise, exploitation of the Nuba tribe and using gypsies from concentration camps as extras etc. but had a degree of positive impact with her filmmaking skills and technical ability as well as her success as a woman in Nazi Germany. what did everyone else write?

 

[WhatCnut]

Zhu De was easy as piss for this section. Found time management to be difficult though.

 

[gip213]

For my Speer I focused on his three occupations (architect, minister, author). I started with the "positives", then argued that this subjective positive and then historiography and show it general the negatives of each . So like architecture, he claimed to be apolitical technocrat, etc, but then argued about the inherent political messages, propaganda, use of slave labour; armaments, he improved economy, argued at tribunal that he was disinterested in nazism - focuses on his achievements purely on numbers, assisted in bombing survey, but then used schmittyboys' 'chameleon like opportunism' type spam speer's naughty side; author- he gave the first in depth look into the third reich, ITR, but altogether manipulative, crafting his self image, lying -e.g berlin flats.
I hope that works for moi

 

[teganjoyy]

on albert Speer i said that the extent to which albert Speer has a positive impact was completely dependant on historical interpretation. where traditionalists historians see him as positive (good nazi at N Trails view, and successful in prolonging germany war) and revisionist historians such as van der vat see him as negative ( portraying a false image at N trails to avoid death, use of forced labour ect)

I tried to do this but I was so hit by the question that I worded it all wrong. Nothing I can do now though

I agree. I just wrote a bunch of bullshit for two pages!

You and me both my friend!

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

View attachment 26889

HAHAHAHAHAH THIS JUST MADE MY DAY!

 

[ocstew]

I did Trotsky and found part (b) to be rather challenging. It took me a few minutes to really get my head around what I was going to write about. I spoke about it with my teacher afterwards and she agreed it was quite challenging; especially for Trotsky. Whereas if you chose Mandela (for example) it would have been much easier to answer how he positively effected his times.

What was the question again? I think it was asking for an interpretation about how positive he was, not a description of his positive impacts. It wasn't really hard, I just stated that he had a positive impact in the First 6 months by allowing the Bolsheviks and their reforms to eventuate, negative impact through the Civil War, positive impact in his proposal of the NEP, and positive international impact in exile. And to those talking about linking, a and b, what the heck. Those are completely different sections, it doesn't matter if you repeat yourself or anything, or don't.

 

[mickk794]

Speer was a pain for part b, because even though his work as minister for armaments and war production was seen as a positive impact by the NAZI state it effectively continued the war and therefore caused more deaths which is negative? I really struggled with developing a strong thesis to this one :| Part a went well though.

This is what i tried to do but i did struggle with the argument aswell.