Personality Questions (Help)-What do you think?

[Mada438]

So we've got a task on our personality study (Albert Speer) and we've recieved the "general areas" of the two questions. But the teacher pretty much said these will be it.
They are:
Part A: An outline of the early life of your personality which includes 3 significant events up to the time of his/her promience
Now realistically this means looking at the second heading AND NOTHING ELSE "Background" and its two associated dot points "family background and education" and "introduction to nazism and his reasons for joining the nazi party" but im not sure whether i should look  at perhaps the first point under "rise to prominence" which is "early work for the nazi party". I'm also curious to see what everyone would talk about, given the question.

And Part B: An evaluation of the life of your personality supported by historiography. The focus on this section will be the achievements of your personality during his time of prominence and his legacy.
Now this ones even weirder. You'd definitely look at heading 3 "rise to prominence" and some parts of heading 4 "significance and evaluation" but im not 100% sure
How do you guys interpret this question? What would you write about with what historiography?

Thanks!
Keen to hear your opinions!

[fantasticbeasts3]

Okay so -

For the Part A question, it's just asking for 3 significant events so you can choose which events you think are the most significant in Speer's life. For my personality study (I did Gorbachev) I chose the three events I thought were most important within the Background and Rise to Prominence sections. If a question is asking about significant events, you don't have to tie yourself to the dot points. :-)

For the Part B question, same idea - don't tie yourself to specific dot points. I would suggest looking up past HSC questions so you know what kind of things could be asked. Historiography should just be supporting your argument w what you're writing, because you're the one arguing the extent to which your personality is significant, not the historian ahaha.

Just my two cents - hope this helps!

[dancing phalanges]

So we've got a task on our personality study (Albert Speer) and we've recieved the "general areas" of the two questions. But the teacher pretty much said these will be it.
They are:
Part A: An outline of the early life of your personality which includes 3 significant events up to the time of his/her promience
Now realistically this means looking at the second heading AND NOTHING ELSE "Background" and its two associated dot points "family background and education" and "introduction to nazism and his reasons for joining the nazi party" but im not sure whether i should look  at perhaps the first point under "rise to prominence" which is "early work for the nazi party". I'm also curious to see what everyone would talk about, given the question.

And Part B: An evaluation of the life of your personality supported by historiography. The focus on this section will be the achievements of your personality during his time of prominence and his legacy.
Now this ones even weirder. You'd definitely look at heading 3 "rise to prominence" and some parts of heading 4 "significance and evaluation" but im not 100% sure
How do you guys interpret this question? What would you write about with what historiography?

Thanks!
Keen to hear your opinions!

For the 3 significant events, I focused on:

1. His meeting with Hanke as it essentially led to him gaining his early architectural work and strengthened his relationship with Hitler as a result.
2. His architectural work particularly the Nuremberg Rallies and Germania as his success in this area saw him gain further acclaim from Hitler.
3. His revolution of the armaments ministry strengthened his standing in the Nazi regime.

For Part B, I would say to look at:

1. Architectural Work > look at how Speer understood the ideology of the Nazi movement and applied this to architecture (Speer “understood the psychology of the movement” (Fest) as evidenced in the success of the Nuremberg Rally design (search lights, 10-foot high banners) as well as his knowledge of the ‘theory of ruins’ and neo-Classical designs.)
2. Armaments Ministry (Speer’s “driving ambition and undoubted organisational talent” (Kershaw) was the primary reason for his success in the armaments ministry. Link to stats eg. Speer increased armaments ministry by 250% from 1942-1944 and increased ammunitions and guns production in the first six months by 97% and 27% respectively.)
3. Jew Flats/Anti-Semitism (look at the ethical controversy of his work - eg. Sereny suggests human cost was not Speer’s concern and rather efficiency was more important. “Tacit acceptance of persecution.” (Fest)
4. Nuremberg Defence (look obviously at historians views on whether this was truthful or not/at historians who argue how he was very smart in how he presented himself eg. Schmidt saw Speer as the “organiser of his own legend.”