Albert Speer (1 Viewer)

[stuart123]

hey im having trouble finding information on how different historians view Speer. Does anybody know of a historian who has a different view on Speer to other historians? what i mean is, do all historians think of him in the same way? or are there different perspectives? any information would be great!

 

[misskris6]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]The historians/writers could include: [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Albert Speer (1966) [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Henry King (1966)[/FONT]
William Hamsher (1970)
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Joachim Fest (1970 and 2002) [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Erich Goldhagen (1991) [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Matthias Schmidt (1984) [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Gitta Sereny (1995) [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Dan Van der Vat (1997) [/FONT]

 

[Kujah]

^Like above. They each hold their own perspectives on the actual reliability of his memoirs and have debated whether or not he was a "Good Nazi" or was simply a skilled manipulator. This especially applies with Van der Vat who's pretty scathing of Speer and his role as an "apolitical technocrat"- he believes that Speer knew much more information on the Holocaust than what he actually said at the Nuremberg trials.

 

[kirby101]

i have to do the same thing...
im not having trouble with finding information on how historians view Speer differently.... (Dan van Der Vat's book is good, as well as Matthias Schmidts...)

my problem is trying to find background information on Matthias Schmidt.... i have to research his context and background and analyse why he said certain things about Albert Speer...

does anyone know where i could find information about Matthias Schmidt??