Originally published as Yale L. For educational use only.
Stargardt's Main Points Historians over the years have often answered these questions through a variety of historiographical interpretations. Mainstream historical accounts, however, have often focused on the idea that not all German citizens and soldiers were to blame for the policies and atrocities committed by the Nazi regime.
Stargardt challenges such sentiments by offering a completely different interpretation of German culpability. How far does culpability for the war truly go?
Is it limited to just the Nazi regime? Or does it encompass something much larger?
Are the German people as much to blame for the war and its atrocities as the Nazi leadership? In response to these questions, Stargardt argues the point that it is a fallacy to try and distinguish between good and bad Germans during the war. Instead, he equally places the blame for the destructive nature of World War Two on the German people, collectively.
Stargardt points out that Nazi propaganda promulgated a sense of victimhood that portrayed the German side of the war as a defensive and legitimate effort against hostile neighbors. German citizens and soldiers readily accepted these sentiments, especially as the destructive elements of the war reached the German nation itself.
Although Germans were initially wary of war as a result of World War OneGermans fought with great intensity as a result of deep-rooted feelings which included thoughts of revenge, hatred, and fear as a result of the impending doom they foresaw as a result of their genocidal actions.
As Stargardt argues, killing Jews and committing acts of genocide were not viewed in a positive light by all Germans. However, a great majority still viewed it as a means of protecting the fatherland from enemies bent on Germany's overall destruction.
Moreover, fighting to the bitter end was seen as a means of preserving the German people against the Allied forces, whom they felt only desired to annihilate Germans and German society. Thus, as the author points out, to argue that the Germans only followed Nazism because they feared the repercussions of challenging Hitler is both fallacious and deceptive.
His heavy reliance on primary source material adds a heightened level of credibility to his overarching thesis. Moreover, his intervention within the existing historiography is substantial, given the massive amount of works already devoted to Germany and World War Two.
Another thing I really enjoy about this book is how easy this book reads from cover to cover. It is easy to get lost in the details of a book this size, but Stargardt does an impressive job of presenting his overall thesis in a narrative-driven manner that is easy to follow.
As such, both scholars and general audience members can greatly appreciate the facts presented by Stargardt in this monumental piece of work. Definitely check it out! Questions for Discussion 1. Did the Cold War help absolve Germans for their atrocities due to the American propaganda surrounding West Germany and its rehabilitation?
Is this why so many historians of the past have promulgated the idea that Germans were victims of Nazism? What role did Nazi propaganda play in facilitating their ideology, and what effect did this have on the German people? What role did religion play in Nazi ideology? Was it a hindrance or supporter?
Was Nazi ideology a response to events of years prior? Did you find this work engaging? Did you find Stargardt's thesis to be convincing and persuasive?
Why or why not? What type of primary source materials does the author rely most on? What were the strengths and weaknesses of this book?
Are there any ways that this work could have been improved? Did you feel as though the chapters of this book were organized in a logical manner? Were you impressed with the author's introductory chapter? Did it effectively introduce the topic, main points, and historiography?28 Awesome Anchor Charts for Teaching Writing.
It is OK to copy! One way to adapt this chart as students develop their understanding of argument is to write each element—claim, argument, evidence—under a flap that students can lift if they need a reminder.
CUPS and ARMS.
He wrote it when he was 14 for a writing assignment. Published it when he was 15 and toured with it until it got enough attention that the big six took notice and he got picked up for a publishing contact. The organization of the Declaration of Independence reflects what has come to be known as the classic structure of argument—that is, an organizational model for laying out the premises and the supporting evidence, the contexts and the claims for argument. My first training article was published almost 10 years ago. When I started writing my primary focus was telling people how to get bigger and stronger across their entire body.
Pick your acronym when revising and editing. . Writing Workshop: The Purpose of Government study guide by mariahsolis includes 12 questions covering vocabulary, terms and more.
Quizlet flashcards, activities and games help you improve your grades. A multimedia judicial archive of the Supreme Court of the United States. The arms trade is big business, with some trillion dollars being spent on military budgets and purchases each year around the world.
This page provides some numbers and breakdowns of who sells most of the arms, and who buys them. kind of writing seen as argumentative is the debate-like "position" paper, in which the author defends his or her point of view against other, usually opposing points of view.
Such an understanding of argument is narrow because arguments come in . Mississippi. A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.