Part B:
‘History is about winners.’ How accurate is this statement in relation to the personality you have studied?
The history of an individual is ultimately dictated by differing perspectives and dependant on their levels of achievement as well as failures. When making a judgement about whether an individual such as Albert Speer is a winner or not, it is integral for historians to take into consideration his multitudal achievements and failures. One may argue that his greatest achievements included his indulgence in archiectural projects, his rise into nazi hierarchy and even his ability to increase German weapons production as the Armaments Minister, in the face of serious adversity and opposition. However, to say that Albert Speer is …show more content…
(Van der Vat, 1997, ‘The good Nazi: the life and lies of Albert speer’ Pg. 67). Through this, Van der Vat reinforces Schmidt’s idea of which Speer’s impression as an architect in combination with his work ethics and skills distinguished him from other architects, hence why Hitler was so enthralled with him. As Speer’s designs and works became more professional and monumental, his influence and power transcended his preconceived idea as an average architect. Soon enough, from bold, looming edifices, to giant swastika banners, to the intimidating searchlights of the ‘cathedral of light’ piercing the night sky, Speer’s deisgns became icons of Nazi megalomania. His thirst to excel in architecture was manifested through his ambitions and motives, as he himself stated “for the commission to do a great building, I would have sold my soul.” (http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-architecture-of-evil ). As an architect, Speer sought pride and position and the opportunity to create on a heroic scale. The soul he offered was his architectural soul, as he seeked only the external goods of his profession, denying himself his morality and humanitarianism. (Jack L. Sammons, Jr. ‘Rebellious ethics ad Albert Speer’ pg.134). According to Fest, Speer soon found himself …show more content…
Following Fritz Todt’s suspicious death, Speer was appointed as the Minister of Armaments, which irritated many of the Nazi officials, especially Hermann. It can be said that achievements stemmed during Speer’s role as Armaments minister, but what he did not realise was the moral corruption and fear of stimagisation as a loser that came along with it. Initially, Spper proved to be spectacularly successful in ‘rationalisaing economic organisation and overcoming the obstacles placed before him by party hacks and civilian bureaucrats’. (Webb, ch.5 Pg 38) In the face of serious adversity and opposition, Speer consolidated his power by instigating terms and agreements, including his permission to use non-political experts in his ministry. Speer also had all bureaucrats and army supply people sign a deed giving him full power over armaments decisions. By 1944, Speer’s role as the minister of Armaments ‘had tripled the production aircraft, tanks and artillery shells’ (Ibid.) Scmidt notes that while Speer was given the role suddenly after Todt’s death with no experience, he fulfilled his obligation and role far better than his predecessor (Schmidt, 1985 ‘Albert Speer: the end of a myth’ Pg.73). Schmidt also denotes that within this position, Speer was ensured “more power and influence” than he ever achieved as
‘History is about winners.’ How accurate is this statement in relation to the personality you have studied?
The history of an individual is ultimately dictated by differing perspectives and dependant on their levels of achievement as well as failures. When making a judgement about whether an individual such as Albert Speer is a winner or not, it is integral for historians to take into consideration his multitudal achievements and failures. One may argue that his greatest achievements included his indulgence in archiectural projects, his rise into nazi hierarchy and even his ability to increase German weapons production as the Armaments Minister, in the face of serious adversity and opposition. However, to say that Albert Speer is …show more content…
(Van der Vat, 1997, ‘The good Nazi: the life and lies of Albert speer’ Pg. 67). Through this, Van der Vat reinforces Schmidt’s idea of which Speer’s impression as an architect in combination with his work ethics and skills distinguished him from other architects, hence why Hitler was so enthralled with him. As Speer’s designs and works became more professional and monumental, his influence and power transcended his preconceived idea as an average architect. Soon enough, from bold, looming edifices, to giant swastika banners, to the intimidating searchlights of the ‘cathedral of light’ piercing the night sky, Speer’s deisgns became icons of Nazi megalomania. His thirst to excel in architecture was manifested through his ambitions and motives, as he himself stated “for the commission to do a great building, I would have sold my soul.” (http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-architecture-of-evil ). As an architect, Speer sought pride and position and the opportunity to create on a heroic scale. The soul he offered was his architectural soul, as he seeked only the external goods of his profession, denying himself his morality and humanitarianism. (Jack L. Sammons, Jr. ‘Rebellious ethics ad Albert Speer’ pg.134). According to Fest, Speer soon found himself …show more content…
Following Fritz Todt’s suspicious death, Speer was appointed as the Minister of Armaments, which irritated many of the Nazi officials, especially Hermann. It can be said that achievements stemmed during Speer’s role as Armaments minister, but what he did not realise was the moral corruption and fear of stimagisation as a loser that came along with it. Initially, Spper proved to be spectacularly successful in ‘rationalisaing economic organisation and overcoming the obstacles placed before him by party hacks and civilian bureaucrats’. (Webb, ch.5 Pg 38) In the face of serious adversity and opposition, Speer consolidated his power by instigating terms and agreements, including his permission to use non-political experts in his ministry. Speer also had all bureaucrats and army supply people sign a deed giving him full power over armaments decisions. By 1944, Speer’s role as the minister of Armaments ‘had tripled the production aircraft, tanks and artillery shells’ (Ibid.) Scmidt notes that while Speer was given the role suddenly after Todt’s death with no experience, he fulfilled his obligation and role far better than his predecessor (Schmidt, 1985 ‘Albert Speer: the end of a myth’ Pg.73). Schmidt also denotes that within this position, Speer was ensured “more power and influence” than he ever achieved as