Speer Timeline (1 Viewer)

[deeznuts]

For the first part of the question what timeline did u guys get

 

[kouklitsa]

as i mentioned in another thread (i think its the national studies/personality one) "public life" is defined to be about being in the civil service and in the government.. that type of thing..

so i outlined his accession into the nazi party, how he came to be at the centre of power.. everything until 1945 from about 1930 basically but didnt talk aboutaspects of his personal life.. just his career and politics and that type of thing

 

[fleepbasding]

30-45... though I only really concentrated on 33-45.

 

[Crazy Pomo]

I threw a Speer into the heart of the HSC

30-45... though I only really concentrated on 33-45.

Yeah I sorta defined his public life as inextricably linked to his association and roles in the Nazi Party, as apposed to any personal details or his relationship with Hitler (which I mentioned did have a bearing on the nature of his public life, albeit debatable.)

I did 30 to 45, but I did mention the Nuremburg Trials of 46 and getting outta prison like...20 years later. "Public life" is kindo of strange and, i dunno i question the relevance of the wording. However, it is just obviously the Board trying to mix things up each year when actually asking for the same or similar things, guess its about testing the students question answering abilities. Our class did a bit on his personal life, and heaps on irrelevant shit about Speer, but it's my understanding that plenty of students talk about a narrative of his life including personal irrelevancies, rather than the SIGNIFICANT features in the context of the Nazi State. Personality study I have got awesome marks all year, but I felt I was a bit Christopher Skase in some parts, because I spent so much effort and time on Germany essay. I also spent more time and probably wrote more for Speer part i) which I shouldn't have done, as they are equal marks, and the second part is evaluative and analytical. Oh well. Should get decent marks for both, what suffered as a result was my cold war, but in reflection it wasnt to bad. I couldn't have done better anyway. More time would have just equalled more shit.

 

[snickerdoodle]

After a brief mention of how he joined the Nazi party, I went with architecture (Nuremberg, new Berlin and Reich building in particular) > Minister of Armaments (with a brief explanation of his organisational skillis) > and closed with Nuremberg Trials, Spandau and his novels and work on the media circuit.

I focused on 33-45 in particular, but thought I should mentioned about his life afterwards because it was indeed very very public, considering he was a media whore.

 

[Crazy Pomo]

After a brief mention of how he joined the Nazi party, I went with architecture (Nuremberg, new Berlin and Reich building in particular) > Minister of Armaments (with a brief explanation of his organisational skillis) > and closed with Nuremberg Trials, Spandau and his novels and work on the media circuit.

I focused on 33-45 in particular, but thought I should mentioned about his life afterwards because it was indeed very very public, considering he was a media whore.

Nice nice. Dudes. We are all going to ace that section. Chill.

 

[stu_jacks88]

I basically mentioned everything from 27 - 66, but i focused on the period of 30-45 so i should go sweet. i dont think you should just start at 30-33 because then you have no background or explanation of his assention to his 'public life'. The same can be said with ending right on 1945 when he was captured; again Speer is definately in the 'public's' eye at Nuremburg in 46 and then in 66 with his release from Spandau, and with the release of his novel.

 

[fleepbasding]

I basically mentioned everything from 27 - 66, but i focused on the period of 30-45 so i should go sweet. i dont think you should just start at 30-33 because then you have no background or explanation of his assention to his 'public life'. The same can be said with ending right on 1945 when he was captured; again Speer is definately in the 'public's' eye at Nuremburg in 46 and then in 66 with his release from Spandau, and with the release of his novel.

The question didn't require the student to explain his assention to public office/life, merely outline the features of his public life. Therefore, the background details you speak of are by no means a requisite for a high mark. As for post-45 public life, it may be public but it doesn't fall into the 'period' we studied (national study: 1918-1945). However, I doubt doing either of the things you've done would harm your mark, but likewise, doing as I have done is still answering every aspect of the question.

 

[stu_jacks88]

Good point. meh, i still reckon i'll go very well in the section.

 

[fleepbasding]

Good point. meh, i still reckon i'll go very well in the section.

I'm sure you will. Like I said earlier, anyone who is writing beyond 1945 will be the types who get close to full marks (for Speer) anyway, so yeah.

 

[Crazy Pomo]

The question didn't require the student to explain his assention to public office/life, merely outline the features of his public life. Therefore, the background details you speak of are by no means a requisite for a high mark. As for post-45 public life, it may be public but it doesn't fall into the 'period' we studied (national study: 1918-1945). However, I doubt doing either of the things you've done would harm your mark, but likewise, doing as I have done is still answering every aspect of the question.

I still have a problem with this. I know full well that the national study is 18 - 45 but speers public life extended beyond 45 and it was part of the period we studied, if it only wanted up to 45, why didn't it say so. Of course it could well imply that 'in the period you have studied' means up to 45 and it is a discriminator phrase of the question, but Speers public life only really started in 33, which means 18 - 33 (part of the national study) and also speers birth and life previous to that was irrellevant to the question which was part of 'the period we studied'. I would argue that post 45 there were events in Speers 'public life' and fell into 'the period we studied' while not strictly being 18 - 45 (national study) If the question each year never asks anything either side of 18 - 45, then why do we learn it? The answer is not as obvious as it seems I think. Spending time in class on something that is allegedly never tested seems a waste of time. I'm neither here or there on the issue, but I think the question definately allowed a small amount of knowledge post 45 to be included, (if you didn't you could still get full marks).

If you think about it, much of Speers historical notoriety surrounds his life post 45, with the raging debate about whether he knew about this and that or not.

 

[fleepbasding]

I still have a problem with this. I know full well that the national study is 18 - 45 but speers public life extended beyond 45 and it was part of the period we studied, if it only wanted up to 45, why didn't it say so. Of course it could well imply that 'in the period you have studied' means up to 45 and it is a discriminator phrase of the question, but Speers public life only really started in 33, which means 18 - 33 (part of the national study) and also speers birth and life previous to that was irrellevant to the question which was part of 'the period we studied'. I would argue that post 45 there were events in Speers 'public life' and fell into 'the period we studied' while not strictly being 18 - 45 (national study) If the question each year never asks anything either side of 18 - 45, then why do we learn it? The answer is not as obvious as it seems I think. Spending time in class on something that is allegedly never tested seems a waste of time. I'm neither here or there on the issue, but I think the question definately allowed a small amount of knowledge post 45 to be included, (if you didn't you could still get full marks).

If you think about it, much of Speers historical notoriety surrounds his life post 45, with the raging debate about whether he knew about this and that or not.

I have thought about it of course. And I could have written pages about post-45 life, as I'd covered it throughly (in study) out of interest.

"I would argue that post 45 there were events in Speers 'public life' and fell into 'the period we studied' while not strictly being 18 - 45 (national study)"

How can the events post-45 fall into the period we studied when they actually don't fall into the period we studied? Remember, personality study is the bastard son of national study.

"then why do we learn it?"

quite frankly, I'm not sure if we did learn it, or if we were supposed to learn it. My teacher said on a couple of occasions not to write about nuremburg, Spandau etc.

I'm pretty sure you'd get marks for discussing post-45, but likewise I don't think it was either encouraged (by the question) or necessary.

I did justify near the end of my response that I wouldn't be going into his life post-45 because it falls outside "the period we studied" for the national study, namely 1918-45.

 

[Crazy Pomo]

I have thought about it of course. And I could have written pages about post-45 life, as I'd covered it throughly (in study) out of interest.

"I would argue that post 45 there were events in Speers 'public life' and fell into 'the period we studied' while not strictly being 18 - 45 (national study)"

How can the events post-45 fall into the period we studied when they actually don't fall into the period we studied? Remember, personality study is the bastard son of national study.

"then why do we learn it?"

quite frankly, I'm not sure if we did learn it, or if we were supposed to learn it. My teacher said on a couple of occasions not to write about nuremburg, Spandau etc.

I'm pretty sure you'd get marks for discussing post-45, but likewise I don't think it was either encouraged (by the question) or necessary.

I did justify near the end of my response that I wouldn't be going into his life post-45 because it falls outside "the period we studied" for the national study, namely 1918-45.

Well, I'll start by saying that I justified at the end of my response that some events post 45 were part of his public life and that they WERE part of the area we studied. I know full well that 'the period we studied was apparentlyt 18 - 45, and I would like to call upon a point of order Mr Speaker on the relevance of purposely misinterpreting my phrasing (haha jokes).

I'm starting to have my doubts about the wording of the question as a scam to unhinge the feeble minds of HSC students. The key words from memory were 'main features', 'public life' and 'in the period you have studied.' Now, I think I addressed the first to correctly but in response to the third, I am now beginning to think it was a trick and that "in the period you studied" is the BOS (BS) way of saying 18 - 45. However, it is difficult with Speer because his life falls either side of that, but I suppose the reason we study a personality is limited to their RELEVANCE and ROLE in the NATION studied.

I'm not backing down...but I am definately on my way.

 

[fleepbasding]

Well, I'll start by saying that I justified at the end of my response that some events post 45 were part of his public life and that they WERE part of the area we studied. I know full well that 'the period we studied was apparentlyt 18 - 45, and I would like to call upon a point of order Mr Speaker on the relevance of purposely misinterpreting my phrasing (haha jokes).

I'm starting to have my doubts about the wording of the question as a scam to unhinge the feeble minds of HSC students. The key words from memory were 'main features', 'public life' and 'in the period you have studied.' Now, I think I addressed the first to correctly but in response to the third, I am now beginning to think it was a trick and that "in the period you studied" is the BOS (BS) way of saying 18 - 45. However, it is difficult with Speer because his life falls either side of that, but I suppose the reason we study a personality is limited to their RELEVANCE and ROLE in the NATION studied.

I'm not backing down...but I am definately on my way.

ha ha ha ha... "The member for ballina is in order, member for Ballina."

Thank you Mr Speaker, as for the member's questions, Mr Speaker, well, I won't dent that they are important issues. And I know that the member for rurality has taken a keen interest in this issue, and it's a very important one to his electorate.

May I just say this: he is largely correct. I completely agree with everything he just expressed. Infact, the only thing debatable here, is whether or not the BOS was trying to fuck us over this year...

TONY ABBOT- "I'd like to call a point of order, the leader of the opposition just made an offensive remark, and I'd like him to withdraw it"

SPEAKER: The leader of the opposition will withdraw"

ME: I withdraw Mr Speaker... in conclusion, we may never know, but the markers notes may be a good indication nect year, if any members of parliament still give a shit in a few months time.

 

[Crazy Pomo]

ha ha ha ha... "The member for ballina is in order, member for Ballina."

Thank you Mr Speaker, as for the member's questions, Mr Speaker, well, I won't dent that they are important issues. And I know that the member for rurality has taken a keen interest in this issue, and it's a very important one to his electorate.

May I just say this: he is largely correct. I completely agree with everything he just expressed. Infact, the only thing debatable here, is whether or not the BOS was trying to fuck us over this year...

TONY ABBOT- "I'd like to call a point of order, the leader of the opposition just made an offensive remark, and I'd like him to withdraw it"

SPEAKER: The leader of the opposition will withdraw"

ME: I withdraw Mr Speaker... in conclusion, we may never know, but the markers notes may be a good indication nect year, if any members of parliament still give a shit in a few months time.

BAHAHA. Woohoo question time is in ... one hour. Fuck yeah. Lets take up arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing, end them. FUCK YOU BOARD OF STUDIES. Lets hope we get full marks for Speer anyway.