Albert Speer question (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter saints123
- Start date
I did this question for practice during the HSC, so I will tell you how I approached it. I argued that the statement is of mixed truth in relation to Speer. I broke down Speer's life into three parts: His early life, time as arms minister and his later life/nuremburg and analysed them individually.
Early Life: I said that he was a product of his time, as like many Germans, he joined the Nazi party mainly due to Hitlers personality and fierce nationalism. He stated that “To me, I joined Hitler’s party, as opposed to the Nazi party”.
Time as arms minister and Hitlers architect: I said that he was a product of his time, as he was indifferent to the crimes and actions of the Nazis, which reflected the attitudes of many Germans (The historian Sir Ian Kershaw, famously stated that "the road to Auschwitz was built by hate, but paved with indifference".)
Later life/Nuremburg: I said that he was not a product of his time at this point in his life. Speer admitted that he had been involved in a criminal state and accepted responsibility for the crimes he was charged with. This was in stuck contrast to his co-defendants, who argued that they were not responsible for the crimes of the regime as they were either ignorant of them, or were “acting under orders” when they were being committed. Sir Hartley Shawcross, the British Prosecutor at Nuremburg stated “Speer made the most straightforward impression of all, as unlike his co-defendants, he spoke honestly and with no attempt to shirk his responsibility and his guilt.”
Remember, there is no right or wrong answer. This is just how I argued it out.
Early Life: I said that he was a product of his time, as like many Germans, he joined the Nazi party mainly due to Hitlers personality and fierce nationalism. He stated that “To me, I joined Hitler’s party, as opposed to the Nazi party”.
Time as arms minister and Hitlers architect: I said that he was a product of his time, as he was indifferent to the crimes and actions of the Nazis, which reflected the attitudes of many Germans (The historian Sir Ian Kershaw, famously stated that "the road to Auschwitz was built by hate, but paved with indifference".)
Later life/Nuremburg: I said that he was not a product of his time at this point in his life. Speer admitted that he had been involved in a criminal state and accepted responsibility for the crimes he was charged with. This was in stuck contrast to his co-defendants, who argued that they were not responsible for the crimes of the regime as they were either ignorant of them, or were “acting under orders” when they were being committed. Sir Hartley Shawcross, the British Prosecutor at Nuremburg stated “Speer made the most straightforward impression of all, as unlike his co-defendants, he spoke honestly and with no attempt to shirk his responsibility and his guilt.”
Remember, there is no right or wrong answer. This is just how I argued it out.
Last edited: