Is history about winners? (1 Viewer)

[imqt]

yes + no

said some paradox thing about trotsky being a winner that lost in some instances but also being a winner/loser
wow that was badly articulated...
basically i said yes, but no, but yes

same

i said that he was seen as a winner in like the october revolution, civil war etc,....yet also argued that other historians didnt see him as a winner

in other cases such as the power struggle, trotsky still managed to make history and his life is still heatly debated even though he didnt win the leadership of the ussr

 

[Johnny1323]

Speer was a winner as he was percieved as penitent, apolitical etc. but with the damming office chronicle, Goldhagen's work and continual research historians began to portray him in a different light. Van der Vat - a "liar, a fruad and a hypocrite" therefore history was no longer about a winner

 

[hypnotic-jazz]

man i hated this question, but i said 'no' (Leni Riefenstahl)

 

[meechfan]

Speer was good.. I'm happy, I talked about achievements from architect to minister for war armaments right down to Nuremberg 1945 then post- 1945, recognition as an international celebrity in 1981... that's how you would do it and conclude the extent to which he was a winner remained a historical enigma but can only be broken through an individual's interpretation

 

[catmaree]

I said that history is not about winners, but about the controveries.
I did Speer so it was much easier for me to argue that he solidated his place in history due to his controversial presentation at Nuremburg and his work with the Jew Flat. Whilst I agree that he is a winner for he managed to escape the death penalty that isnt exactly what i wanted to focus on in the question so i gave my own thesis to the question and argued that instead. Like seriously HISTORY IS ABOUT THE CONTROVERSIES, we wouldn't study them if they werent debateable and made you think.

 

[*2512*]

i said yes + no too
Speer originally on the winning team and seen as a winner by Hitler however is remembered in history as part of the losing team and for his mistakes not always his "winnings"

 

[rach19]

I said yes for Speer. I used an extension quote from John Vincent to back it up, An Intelligent Persons Guide to History (1995), "History is about winners, not about losers"

Evidently if you can manipulate Nazi era historans into thinking you were soory and your escaped death then I'd say you won. Especially when the Wolters Chronicles were hidden for so long and Speer died before they were debated and postmodernism came into being.

 

[jennieTalia]

In hindsight (lol) I think this question was actually a good one to get us thinking but I was so woah wtf in the exam, although I think I managed to get most of the points down

 

[stillwaters]

yea i said something about history being about the complexities, so it's neither about the winners or losers... it made sense during the exam

 

[pickledvictory]

I did speer.
i said he was a winner, because he made himself one (ability to survive and such)
but i said history isn't always about winners. but in speer's case, it is.

 

[h1958buglid]

I said yes for Speer. I used an extension quote from John Vincent to back it up, An Intelligent Persons Guide to History (1995), "History is about winners, not about losers"

Evidently if you can manipulate Nazi era historans into thinking you were soory and your escaped death then I'd say you won. Especially when the Wolters Chronicles were hidden for so long and Speer died before they were debated and postmodernism came into being.

omg what the fuck

 

[settle*precious]

this question was effing stupid, everyone is my class hated it.