Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

What do you ask in an interview?

Recommended Posts

I am writing my EE on the Battle of Tannenberg 1914 and my focus is the Tannenberg myth which basically claims that the Germans won the battle because of their own superiority over the slavic race. I am also looking at factors that contributed to a German victory and to a Russian loss. I came to the conclusion that Russian weaknesses outweigh the German advantages, and there was a little bit of luck involved in the victory too

I am in e-mail contact with a Historian who is specialized in this field, and he said he'd be glad to answer any questions. I don't really know what, or how many questions I should ask him to satisfy the ''holistic judgement'' criteria in for the EE markscheme. I mean I analyzed the battle... should I just ask him what he thinks of how important the victory and loss factors were?

I'd appreciate any help XD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that you should rather ask too many questions than too few, so that you wouldn't regret anything later. And I think it'd be a plus if your questions are quite specific, so that the context is never blurred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, just ask plenty of questions. And for history, try to ask his own interpretations and maybe what other historians have said it so you can relate it to work already done on the topic. You know questions like "What in you opinion were the most significant factors in X and why?", etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, so how are these? :)

Do you think the German victory can rightly be accredited to the influences of Erich Ludendorff and Paul von Hindenburg, both of whom take credit of the great victory?

Do you think that Francois and Hoffmann should've receive more credit than they got for this victory?

Do you think that the German armies' supplies, training, reinforcements and morale were more important to contribute to victory than the leadership of Hindenburg and Ludendorff?

Given the many weaknesses in the russian army such as lack of communication, shortages in supplies and falling victim of a surprise attack, do you think the Germans would have won that battle without Ludendorff/Hindenburg?

Do you think many germans/historians/people still believe that Tannenberg can be accredited to only Hindenburg/Ludendorff?

The battle of Tannenberg is ranked as a very decisive battle, do you think this is so?

What do you think of the change in German military planning, which has changed from focusing on the west to focusing on the east due to the decisive victories of Tannenberg 1914 and Masurian lakes 1914 and due to a slow advancement in the western front?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think your questions are a great start.

I am doing my EE on the inevitability of the October Revolution after the abdication of the Tsar. I found a historian that I am corresponding with, and for me she has been an amazing asset, when it comes to sorting through facts, conflicting sources, and seeing the forest through the trees.

When talking about the Russian weaknesses, don't forget the inconsistent, overlapping strategies and weak leadership. >.<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.