My Conclusion

Overall, i want to say that through my research i've learned that Hitler is smart/pragmatic, cultured, a vegetarian, religious to a certain extent, determined, a murderer, and EVIL.

Hitler gained control because of lucky circumstances (the people were tired of a failing Weimar Republic and a horrible president); Hitler was perseverant and never lost hope in his party even when it was the "butt of jokes"; he used lots and lots of manipulative propaganda; Hitler used legal tactics (such as Article 48); the nazi party was well organized and supported (he had lots of patronage); he traveled around the country in a private plane; he appeared strong and promised the people what they wanted; hitler got rid of his opponents by blaming the Communists for the Reichstag fire; he used nationalism to gain popular support; he took the blame off the germans by saying the war guilt clause was ridiculous; he killed those against him in the "Night of Long Knives;" he used the pre-existing anti-semitism to his advantage and found a common enemy for all germans to unite against; and finally he gained the support of the President and the Army when Hitler became President and therefore the army was forced to swear allegiance to him. 

Most of my research focused on how Hitler actually gained his power because for me that was the most interesting part about this guy. I understand how he kept his power- force, murderer, relentless torture and slaughter, etc... Granted the guy needed some brains in order to come to power and to correctly carry out his plan to destroy the Jewish race- but he was bloodthirsty never the less. I obviously have some strong emotions towards Adolf Hitler (as shown in a few earlier posts), but i do respect his manipulation skills. He was definitely more of a totalitarian dictator than Peter the Great or Napoleon- but i think we all knew that before. Everyone knew that Hitler was considered the first totalitarian dictator. We were just curious what aspects of totalitarianism were used in Peter and Napoleon's respective rules. Hitler had control over EVERYTHING through the use of FORCE and propaganda. 

BUT

i have NO doubts that HITLER was a

BRUTAL 

TOTALITARIAN

DICTATOR

IN GERMANY.

Peter the Great is not a totalitarian dictator like Hitler

This is a short post-

basically i'm just surprised by how Grace talks about how honest Peter the Great was. Well at least he did what he said he was going to do. Hitler was such a manipulator through his use of religion, military, words, propaganda, etc... I respect Peter the great for protecting his "reputation in history" as Grace puts it. I like that about a ruler- but is he a tyrant or a totalitarian dictator? In the sense that he had total control over all aspects yes- but for me when i think of a totalitarian dictator i don't think of a good person who wants to respect his own reputation- i think of a brutal manipulator: Hitler. For me, Peter the Great was a great ruler because he just changed the religious aspects he didn't like and he "imposed his authority instead of tricking the public" as Hitler did. The thing is, all this makes Peter the Great a great ruler and a great and POWERFUL man- but not a TOTALITARIAN MANIPULATING DICTATOR. Maybe this is just my opinion? who knows...

Holocaust Doesn't Unite Germans

Okay, yes hitler was one to demonstrate his power through all of the propaganda and FORCE that was used, but i have to disagree a little bit with Grace about how Hitler used the Holocaust "to unite the German people." Yes, since Hitler was legally voted into power- the majority of people were united by his powerful words promoting "CHANGE," but i'm not sure that the holocaust in of itself united the german people. Perhaps the Nazi's were united by the sheer grief and terror of having to kill so many people. But i remember from some article we read in class, that a lot of Nazi's questioned Hitler and questioned his reasoning for all this killing. Also, plenty of good germans hid Jews in their homes and a good number also didn't approve of the killing at all. But i think that the majority just had NO IDEA what was actually going on. Or at least they denied the fact that they had any clue whatsoever. Therefore the Holocaust didn't actually unite the German people in a positive light of "woo hoo hitler is awesome!" But the Holocaust actually united the german people and the jewish people through sheer terror.

Jealousy

I can see that zak- considering that there is no way that Hitler could've come to power had there not been an underlying feeling of anti-semitism. The Jews in Prussia had a lot of financial success- and when one group is extra productive- everyone else tends to get jealous and feel threatened (this would be the already established aristocracy). When Napoleon established this emancipation and gave the wealthy and already established Jews equal rights, the aristocracy got even angrier. So in reality, this anti-semitism in Prussia/Germany has its seeds in jealousy. I guess Hitler just played off of this jealousy of Jews when he was trying to gain and maintain power. With my previous post, i discovered that Hitler chose the Jews as his victims because he believed them to be the most logical and pragmatic choice. This obviously wouldn't have been possible had it not been for Napoleon's contribution when he was in charge of Prussia. 

All of these tyrannical leaders seem to be interconnected in one form or another.

Hitler, The Nobility, and Machiavelli

Hmm...Hitler and the nobility- well Grace, you are definitely right about Hitler not really having a persay "nobility" to deal with since Hitler was rising to power in the 20th century when social class divisions were much different. Don't forget that Hitler rose to power legally- but i'd say that in the beginning (PRIOR to his ascent to total power) he did not have the support of the big business or of the nobility. Hitler's primary supporters were from the lower classes and the peasantry. But in order to get a majority- you can't just have one group support you- you need some people from most every group. I mean, the majority of the 'nobility' really didn't like Hitler and viewed him as a demagogue. it doesn't seem like Hitler really respected the nobility or the elite intellectuals or the high members of the military either. My evidence for how Hitler didn't like any of these people that had different views than him was that on June 30th, 1934 "Hitler carried out a purge that took the lives of a number of dissident Nazi leaders and other opponents. The exact number of victims has never been determined, although it probably exceeded one hundred. Ernst Röhm, the SA leader, was among these victims. The influence of the SA now declined, while that of Himmler's SS, which provided the executioners for the purge, increased. Himmler also controlled the Gestapo, the secret police created by the Nazis." I don't think he ever promised the nobility anything like he promised the working class jobs, etc... (although he 1did help bring Germany out of the depression); Hitler never gave anything to the nobility like Peter the Great did with having to let the nobility play a role in the government. But once Hitler had total power, which can be explained in detail by looking at this post- through the use of Article 48- Hitler didn't have to give anyone anything because he could just use total force. Hitler had total power since he "abolished the office of president and assumed the president's powers. The members of the armed forces were now required to take an oath of allegiance to Hitler. This oath represented an important step in the establishment of Hitler's control over Germany's armed forces." (same website as before)

Grace- exactly like Machiavelli since Hitler did make the people fear and respect him- love him? Well, they certainly called him the Fuhrer and gave him lots of respect and attention. So i'd say he was pretty damn good at being Machiavellian. Unlike Peter the Great i guess. After Hitler took power- he controlled all the social classes practically- since he could use FORCE FORCE FORCE. In a previous post of mine, i compared Bismarck to Machiavelli- and now i am making the comparison between Hitler and Machiavelli.

Motivations for the Holocaust

As in my previous post, Cas asked the question as to what Hitler's motivations were for wanting to slaughter the jews. Through my research i came across a couple of very interesting quotes on the internet. Obviously, Hitler had some kind of personal connection with wanting to kill the jews- he genuinely believed that they were a lesser race and were subhuman. But it also seems that he chose the Jews, because it was the most practical and logical solution. In a sens, they were the best choice.
"With this very thing in mind I scanned the revolutionary events of history and put the question to myself against which racial element in Germany can I unleash my propaganda of hate with the greatest prospects of success? I had to find the right kind of victim, and especially one against whom the struggle would make sense, materially speaking. I can assure you that I examined every possible and thinkable solution to this problem, and, weighing every imaginable factor, I came to the conclusion that a campaign against the Jews would be as popular as it would be successful" (nizkor.org) My question is- why didn't Hitler work in a more positive light- why didn't he just focus on raising the german's spirits simply by telling them how great and strong they are. Why did he have to raise the german's spirits by lowering the Jew's spirits (or should i just say slaughtering the jews)? He had to find "the right kind of victim"- that sounds almost like a murderer scowering the city below for his perfect target. This clearly wasn't solely chosen by random, or by his own personal connection- but a combination of his personal feelings and by his pragmatic tyrannical feelings. Along with his pragmatic ideals, Hitler felt that the jews "are totally defenseless, and no one will stand up to protect them"- so therefore by attacking the Jews- it is a sure win (same website as before). That seems to be something always on Hitler's mind- his need to win win win.

Nationalist Hitler

Hitler plays to people’s love of their country and always references our country and us Germans. For example, this mother’s day card talks about how Hitler says, “We all have but one thing that really makes our lives worth living on this earth: That is our own people, which for us Germans is our Germany. We stand within this people. We live with this people and are bound to it in good times and bad. Our highest duty and holiest task is to preserve this people. For that goal, no sacrifice is too great.” To me, the words/phrases that pop into my head after reading this: NATION, NATIONALISM, COUNTRY PRIDE, COUNTRY LOVE, GERMANS ARE AWESOME, WE ARE AWESOME, LETS KILL THE ENEMY- THE JEWS AND ANYONE THAT SUPPORTS THEM! KILL KILL KILL!

Also, along the lines of Hitler using a strong sense of nationalism to gain the popular support- he used the Treaty of Versailles to help argue his point as well. Meaning- he talked about how horrible the Treaty was and therefore how they should fight back! As said here, "The Treaty of Versailles created economic conditions where Hitler's populist message could gain a hearing. The Allies forced a prostrate Germany, threatened by communist revolution from within, to accept full blame for the war." The cash reparation would've taken 50 years to pay off. Plus, when Germany's economy collapsed due to hyperinflation- everyone (including Hitler) blamed the Treaty. Overall, Hitler's nationalism gave hope to the common man. But the upper classes were fearful of Hitler- maybe because they detected "a genuine willingness to take risks" (same article).

"The answer is that Hitler called for European nationalism as a response to communism, liberalism and internationalism." 

The War Lord! The Manipulator!

Hitler is described as a war lord- therefore, if I’m thinking about why Hitler was such an effective dictator- one major reason was his war-lord powers to think ahead and destroy the enemy with no room for remorse. During World War II, Hitler as a human being disappeared, and he solely embodied “the historic figure of the Führer” (Hitler: A Study In Tyranny, 563). This historic figure is larger than life- Hitler became a man that no one questioned. They didn’t question his motivations, his decisions, or even his horrible actions- they respected him and followed him for as long as they could. If you remember, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia had a pact- but Hitler never had any intention of keeping that pact. Hitler was very diplomatic (or manipulative) though- so it never looked like Hitler was the one backing out of the engagement: “By no treaty or pact,’ Hitler wrote, ‘can a lasting neutrality of Soviet Russia be insure with safety. At present all reasons speak against Russia’s departure from this state of neutrality. In eight months, one year, or several years this may be altered” (564). Basically, Hitler makes it seem that it is Soviet Russia that will back out of the agreement and therefore they must strike soon!
MANIPULATOR- that’s the conclusion I’ve come to. Hitler uses his words and his control over art and propaganda to manipulate his country and his people into doing things that they never imagined they would take part in. Hitler manipulated his country through propaganda. For Hitler, art “was linked with the country life, with health, and with the Aryan race. "We shall discover and encourage the artists who are able to impress upon the State of the German people the cultural stamp of the Germanic race . . . in their origin and in the picture which they present they are the expressions of the soul and the ideals of the community." (Hitler, Party Day speech, 1935; in Adam, 1992).” All of the art glorified the soldiers, Hitler himself, the German citizens, and Hitler’s ideals. “The painters used their art to depict Hitler as the healing element that would cure the country's ills. They also painted the common "Volk" (folk) in everyday settings. The art of this racially pure country was to overcome differences in class and mold all of the people into one ideal. When not painting pastoral scenes or glorifying the war, the artists would turn their paint brushes against the Jew, depicting him as inhuman and inferior.” For example- anti-Semitic artwork. 

Hitler and Religion

After seeing Grace's post about Peter the Great and religion, i thought about Hitler.

Hitler wasn't a practicing catholic, but he did believe in the Bible.
-"But through his political and religious reasoning he established in 1933, a German Reich Christian Church, uniting the Protestant churches to instill faith in a national German Christianity. Future generations should remember that Adolph Hitler could not have come into power without the support of the Protestant and Catholic churches and the German Christian populace."

He had faith and believed in God even if he did fight against certain catholic priests that disagreed with him politically. I still don't understand how a man could kill and still believe that this was God's will... According to this website Hitler said in Mein Kampf "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." I'm sorry but this just makes me angry

very

angry

ugh! "defending" yourself! HOW HOW HOW!!!!???? YOU ARE THE ONE MURDERING THEM! THEY AREN'T ATTACKING YOU! THIS ISN'T SELF DEFENSE! THIS IS SLAUGHTER- CRUEL, INHUMANE SLAUGHTER!

i personally am not religious- but no God would call the slaughter of jew's his work that needs to be done. at least no god that i would believe in. 

-"For when a people is not willing or able to fight for its existence-- Providence in its eternal justice has decreed that people's end." (Mein Kampf) I find this odd...i mean considering the jewish people were unable to truly fight for their existence because Hitler and the Nazi's made it impossible for them to fight back at all. if they fought back they were slaughtered. so therefore this "providence in its eternal justice" is more just like man's personal will and beliefs. One man- Hitler, with his support of course, was in charge of almost bringing the end to an entire race of people. how is this just at all?

Tactics to gain power

More about how Hitler came to power. So after his party won the majority in the elections and Hindenburg appointed Adolf Hitler as Chancellor legally in 1933, Hitler was sitting on a high horse because he was slowly but surely taking over Germany. Now all he had to do was "[bring] the powerful existing institutions over to his side" (Mein Kampf, p 95)- and the two main institutions would be the Army and the President.

- He obviously was gaining popular support:  membership grew from 389,000 at the beginning of 1931 to 800,000 by the end of that year. In this book Hitler: A study in Tyranny by Alan Bullock, Hitler was almost compared to a demagogue. Since he was very good at manipulating the army and the young Party. Therefore, since Hitler was so charismatic and talented at gaining popular support- the only thing for leaders to do (such as the French Military Attaché, Colonel Chapouilly) is to"use him and win him over" (page 190). I find that similar to kind of things you see in the movies- when someone is so powerful and the people truly respect and love- if you don't get on their side then you are bound to lose.

How did Hitler gain power? What tactics did he use? According to this website:

-the Nazi Party was well organised and had the support of Alfred Hugenberg. He was a millionaire who owned 53 newspapers. Hugenberg had begun to support Hitler in the 1920s. All of his newspapers backed Hitler. IE.. PATRONAGE
-Hitler hired a private plane to fly around Germany. He was the first politician to do this. When he landed he had two Mercedes cars to carry him from place to place. This meant that he could speak in many towns on the same day. IE.. SPEAKS EVERYWHERE
-Hitler told the German people that the problems of the Depression were not their fault. He blamed the Jews for Germany's problems. He used them as a scapegoat. Hitler said that he would be able to solve the problems and promised different things to different groups of people. To businessmen he promised that he would control the Trade Unions and deal with the Communists. To workers he promised that he would provide jobs. IE.. TAKES BLAME OFF THE GERMANS- no more GUILT, such as that which they got from the war guilt clause. PROMISES PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT
-Hitler said that he would do away with the Treaty of Versailles, which had treated Germany so badly. Hitler was always backed up by large numbers of disciplined and uniformed followers - this made it appear that he was a man who could take decisions and sort out Germany's problems. I.E. HE APPEARED STRONG- a little machiavellian 
-On 27th February, just a week before the election, the Reichstag caught fire and burnt down. A communist, Franz van der Lubbe was arrested inside. Hitler used this as an excuse to arrest many members of the Communist Party, his main opponents. I.E. GET RID OF OPPONENTS BY BLAMING THEM FOR THE FIRE
- Finally on 30th June 1934 Hitler eliminated his opponents within the Nazi Party in the "Night of the Long Knives". 400 members of the Sturm Abteilung, the Brownshirts, and other people, who Hitler did not trust were murdered. I.E. GAIN POWER BY MURDERING ALL THOSE AGAINST HIM
-When President Hindenburg died in August 1934, Hitler was finally able to gain total power and combined the posts of chancellor and president, giving himself the title of Fuhrer. All members of the armed forces now had to swear an oath of loyalty to him. I.E. GAINED SUPPORT OF ARMY AND PRESIDENT SINCE HE BECAME PRESIDENT AND ARMY WAS FORCED TO SWEAR ALLEGIANCE TO HIM

More about Hitler.

Hitler wanted to "concentrate all power in his own hands" and to "re-establish the Nazi Party as a political organization which would seek power exclusively through constitutional means"(119). Hitler didn't want to use force or violence or stage a coup- he wanted to do this politically, legally, and properly- as a matter of fact- i kind of admire him for this, or at least respect his brilliance in this manner. To do something legally- even if by using Article 48 he kind of used the system to his own PERSONAL advantage- he was still being very very very smart. "If outvoting them (Catholics and Marxists) takes longer than outshooting them, at least the result will be guaranteed by their own constitution. Any lawful process is slow...Sooner or later we shall have a majority- and after that, Germany"(119).

how true is that statement?

very

scarily

true.

of course- then hitler started to threaten the state with violence even though he had promised good behavior. he shouted such things as "to this struggle of ours (the struggle against the enemy of the jews and marxists- i.e. the enemy) there are only two possible issues: either the enemy passes over our bodies or we pass over theirs!"(119). Such things as these got the government of Bavaria to forbid him from public speaking- so he was silenced for 2 years but he was still working on organizing the National Socialist German Worker's Party. His party grew from  27,000 in 1925 to 178,000 in 1929. THAT'S IMPRESSIVE! 

The Road to Power

So, as I

A)check the status of blogs and quickly realize that my group has failed YET ANOTHER WEEK to write anything on their subjects and

B)look at my Grandparent's bookshelf, i noticed this GIANT BOOK called the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany by William L. Shirer. Let me just repeat that this book is over 1,000 pages.

So i opened up the book to page 117, chapter 5, The Road to Power: 1925-31, which i figured would be helpful since i am trying to learn how Hitler came to power and managed to persuade the majority of the nation to VOTE away their democracy. I guess it is important to know the context for when Hitler started to come to power. So it appears that the years of 1925-1929, were "lean years for Adolf Hitler and the Nazi movement" but he persevered and never lost his hope or confidence even though he had a very excitable nature "which often led to outbursts of hysteria." During the years of 1925 and 1928, unemployment fell dramatically, wages rose, and the "lower middle classes, all the millions of shopkeepers and small-salaried folk on whom Hitler had to draw for his mass support, shared in the general prosperity" (117). So if the people are happy- i would either guess that it'd be easier for hitler to gain support since everyone is in a good mood OR and more likely, that the people don't want to listen to some politician advocating for a new way to live their lives, since their lives are going pretty well with all the money flowing in. 

During this period of time, "life seemed more free, more modern, more exciting" where the "intellectual life seemed so lively" (118). "Most Germans one met- politicians, writers, editors, artists, professors, students, businessmen, labor leaders- struck you as being democratic, liberal, even pacifist" (118). If this is the case, then how did this majority of Germans turn into the Nazis that violently killed millions. 

I love the writing of this book- "one scarcely heard of Hitler or the Nazis except as butt of jokes- usually in connection with the Beer Hall Putsch, as it came to be known" (118). So i guess at the beginning, if Hitler hadn't had perseverance- none of this would have happened. I mean, in the elections of May 20,1928- the Nazi party only polled 810,000 votes out of the total 31 million cast. It looks to me that Hitler didn't have it as easy as i might've guessed. I don't know- i guess i always have wondered how a totalitarian dictator like Adolf Hitler comes to power. I kind of just figured he TOOK IT. But not in Germany. Hitler was a the butt of jokes for a while- if anyone had made a joke about him to his face in 1940 he or she would've been slaughtered. 

Women before the French Revolution

Okay, so i'm not going to the dawn of time with this blog post/research...

Italian Renaissance: Denigration of women

- Alberti's On the Family (1443) talked about how women were consigned to purely domestic roles, asserting that "man is by nature more energetic and industrious" and that woman was created "to increase and ocnintue generations, and to nourish and preserve those already born"

- Castiglione: The Book of the Courtier (1528) talked about how court ladies could be "gracious entertainers" [all quotations taken from Coffin]

- at this point in time the exemplar of female holiness: THE CELIBATE NUN

Protestant Reformation: by the 16th century, the unmarried women were considered more sexually driven and were considered a disturbance to the "natural" order of the world (where women are supposed to be subservient and subordinate to men) --> these unmarried women chose to either go to brothels or go to convents and become nuns. But the problem was that these single women DID NOT fit with the protestant model of the FAMILY as a unit for propagating the species, new believers, and as a place to provide discipline for the uncontrollable urges. So the Protestants BANNED convents (because they upset the natural order of marriage) and Brothels because they caused chaos.

- the Protestants also took autonomy away from women by closing down any source of community such as women only communities or places to discuss religious issues in public

- the protestants viewed women as spiritually equal, but socially subordinate

- protestants viewed marriage as IDEAL- parents have control over kid's marriage and it is tightly regulated by the state/church

- exemplar of female holiness: "goodwife" 

Counter Reformation:  cloistered the nunneries and basically shut them off from the rest of the world, but women were allowed to be celibate

- new emphasis brought upon importance of religious women--> new orders of nuns create such as the Ursulines and the Sisters of Charity

[1600's: DON'T FORGET THE WITCH HUNTS- women were clearly not trusted and not given a chance to explain themselves- instead they were just murdered because of the possibility of witchcraft. ]

THEN in the late 18th century (the Enlightenment):

- women were being viewed as companions and as friends to their husbands instead of objects; women's property was protected and more bourgeois women were being educated. Basically, the enlightenment was an age of intellectual independence and freedom from old customs and traditions. This period was all about the strength of the individual- even the individual woman. A couple of fantastic women came along by the names of Mary Wollstonecraft and Olympe de Gouges who argued for equality of the sexes with their respective pieces The Vindication of the Rights of Woman and The Rights of Woman.

- Wollstonecraft believed that natural rights were universal and therefore she argued for political and economic EQUALITY; she wanted women to have equal education so therefore she could complete her duty of educating her own children, to be an equal partner with her husband, and to be recognized as a create of reason.

- It was also believed at this time for women to remain chaste and to "put duty over their sexual pleasure"

After that...it's the French Revolution....

the vegetarian

really quickly- i'll read this link on hitler at a later time- but a couple things that popped out to me were:

Hitler was a VEGETARIAN? whatttt???
"He could not bear to eat meat, because it meant the death of a living creature. He refused to have so much as a rabbit or a trout sacrificed to provide his food. He would allow only eggs on his table, because egg laying meant that the hen had been spared rather than killed."
- how could hitler feel that eating meat was bad because it was the death of a living creature- are animals better than human beings? that blows my mind

"He believed deeply in God. He called God the Almighty, master of all that is known and unknown."
- that is strange to me as well because how could hitler believe that what he was doing was something that God would approve of.
maybe i just think hitler is too horrible for any sort of justification.

although, apparently hitler was a recluse ("throughout the years of his youth, Hitler lived the life of a virtual recluse. He greatest wish was to withdraw from the world. At heart a loner, he wandered about, ate meager meals, but devoured the books of three public libraries. He abstained from conversations and had few friends"), which i find strange, especially since he became Germany's father figure and the person in the limelight. what kind of recluse likes that much attention? He also had a love for music, art, philosophy, books, etc... so i guess hitler was cultured as well? and smart?

so if this guy was religious, vegetarian, smart, cultured, and a bit of a loner- what drove him and enabled him to gain so much power and do so many horribly violent things?

The Triumph Of The Will

As Grace says, Peter the Great was a totalitarian dictator, and Hitler obviously was too. I agree that it is hard to compare the two due to the extremely different circumstances and time periods that they were both prevalent in. Hitler had a lot more technology and ability to control the media than Peter the Great had in his time. Cas told me to look at how Hitler gained his control and to what extent to which this control was taken. I am writing this blog post as i watch part of  "Triumph of the Will." This movie is a piece of Nazi Propaganda created by Leni Riefenstahl and it chronicles the 1934 Nazi Party Congress in Nuremberg. Wikipedia says, "The overriding theme of the film is the return of Germany as a great power, with Hitler as the True German Leader who will bring glory to the nation." Firstly, there has been no speaking for the first 8 minutes of the film and only a lot of intense nationalistic and triumphant music to support Hitler's parade down a long street filled with supporters. This movie further shows just how successfully Hitler converted the German nation to believe in what he advocated for. All of these people that are lined up with their arms in the air, saluting him, it's terrifying actually and almost cult-like. Now, in the movie the Nazi army is being humanized- they are laughing and joking around with a hose as they spray their friends and bathe. Wow! The Nazi's are awesome and so organized, careful, healthy, united, and supportive of their nation and their father figure of Hitler. Wow, in the movie they just called him "hail father!" Hitler does seem to be a god-like father figure- everyone supports, respects, and fears him. Do they love him? I don't know. This movie seems to show that they love "working" for him. As Hitler drives down the street once more (still no talking and we are 25 minutes into the movie) everyone is smiling- therefore i'd say that after watching this movie- i've come to the conclusion that Hitler's control was DEFINITELY all powerful and totalitarian.

I'm now curious to check the statistics for how many germans didn't follow hitler because r it looks to me like EVERYONE supported him.

Review: Henry VIII and Martin Luther

As part of my process for review, i thought i'd like to talk a bit about the answer to this question, "Compare and contrast the motives and actions of Martin Luther in the German States and King Henry VIII in England in bringing about religious change during the Reformation." I believe that Henry VIII was acting for his own selfish reasons and motivations of producing an heir and trying to gain power and reputation, whereas Martin Luther was strictly motivated by his cause and his need for justice of God. Martin Luther was able to gain the support of the German peasants (who believed religion would free them from their lords) and many German princes and towns (who thought religion would allow them to consolidate their political independence). Martin Luther’s motives did not have anything to do with trying to gain power or money of any sort- if anything he just wanted to deal with the problem of the justice of god. Martin believed that indulgences represented “the sin of selling grace in return for cash,” in the priesthood of all believers, salvation by faith alone, and that the bible was the word of God. Martin Luther took strong action through his writings of his 99 Theses in 1517. The printing press helped spread his word and it helped gain him “passionate popular support.” Luther did not back down off of his beliefs in Protestantism and showed his courage at the Diet of the Worms when he was proclaimed a heretic. Luther made a big impact on the german states because when individual princes took up Protestantism instead of following the catholic HRE it created unrest.
Whereas Henry VIII's actions were extremely selfish since he was having problems producing and heir to his throne and therefore he wanted to “divorce” his current wife, Catherine of Aragon, and marry Anne Boleyn but the Pope wouldn’t allow the divorce because the Bible said it was “an unclean thing” for a man to take his brother’s wife and curse such a marriage with childlessness. The Pope also didn’t want to annul the marriage because it would look bad for the papacy. So Henry VIII in 1531, declared himself the “protector and only supreme head” of the church in England. Henry VIII broke from Rome and basically established the new Anglican Church, he also wrote the Six Articles, which conveyed that the English church still remained overwhelmingly Catholic in organization, doctrine, ritual, and language.

Therefore Henry VIII and Martin Luther, both advocated and made change happen in Europe, but they had different motivations.

COME ON GROUP! hitler's the worst...

So, this little meh blog project is slowly getting harder and harder since my group ISN'T responding. Oh well.

i want to argue that Hitler is a totalitarian dictator. obviously, everyone knows this. But in comparison to Peter the Great and Bismarck- neither of them fulfill the qualities of a totalitarian dictator as Hitler does. I want to look at how Hitler fully embodied the title of the FIRST totalitarian tyrant. i want to prove that he was the worst of the three. maybe zak and grace will disagree but honestly- after learning about the holocaust and what he did in WWII makes me believe that he was the worst. did either of the other two commit suicide? i know hitler did- probably just because he didn't want to get punished by others and he'd rather kill himself than apologize for killing so many people (especially a race of people that he thought inferior). I realize this post isn't adding a whole lot of new ideas- but i need help from my group: so please zak and grace look at my previous posts, look at this one- do you think i'm on the right track or perhaps you think that bismarck and peter the great were WAY worse? than we will actually have something to argue about. LET'S DO THIS TOGETHER!!

The Future of Europe

Mia's post really got me thinking: if we can't fight about blood and race and nations than what can we fight about? Cas, you asked us in class what the future of Europe looked like? Honestly, i think it's in human nature to fight, to be brutal, to kill, to take, to conquer, etc... I don't think that Europe could ever be truly unified or that the world could ever be truly unified. Now, that would be amazing and peaceful and PERFECT. But perfection is an absolute that is impossible to attain. We will always fight- it's obviously in our past. If there is one thing i've learned from reading this textbook it's that EVERYONE is involved in some kind of war or disagreement. Some country is always fighting another country over money, oil, blood, or perhaps even religion as Mia pointed out. 

I just searched on google for "the future of europe" and found this website about how the European Union is going to commit suicide because the union CANNOT find common identity- which i find totally true: they've tried numerous times such as with the League of Nations- but these things fail. Nationalism of the individual nation usually outweighs the nationalism of a continent. I mean it's not like Canada, Mexico, and the USA are best friends with one common identity. It's too hard to find this common identity when each country is so freaking different! The website also claims that in the European Union there is a decline in population which "is a pretext to massive migration." Also that there is a huge amount of unemployment and bad governance. Now this is just an opinion- but i mean: Europe doesn't exactly look like it's on the best path right now, but neither is the United States of America.  I have no idea what the world will look like in 50 years or which country will be on the top. Will it still be the USA? who knows? What will we be fighting about then- still oil? still religion? still money? still boundaries? still blood? my guess is- we will find something to fight about!

This is still happening?

I just want to say that i am appalled by what i am reading in the textbook, "The Serbs and Croats, both of whom disliked the Muslim Bosnians, were especially well equipped and organized. They rained shells and bullets on towns and villages, burned houses with families inside, imprisoned Muslim men in detention camps and starved them to death, and raped thousands of Bosnian women. All sides committed atrocities. The Serbs...carried out the worst crimes. these included what came to be called ethnic cleansing... campaigns of murder and terror" (1044). SERIOUSLY? I would've thought that by now, people would've learned to stop all this ethnic cleansing. After learning about the holocaust and all the anti-semitism- I had hoped that as I continued to learn more about the history of Europe and of the world i would learn that man is better than this: better than killing someone just because he/she is different. I know that may sound cliché or corny or whatever, but it is honestly what I am thinking and feeling. I am outraged by reading of the horrors of mankind. Maybe I am just snapping right now because it's hard to learn about the history of Europe and see just how horrible (and obviously how great) man can be. But truly, those people that did "ethnic cleansing" are showing that their true essence (existentialism) is EVIL.

In both Czechoslavakia and Yugoslavia- there was a mix of people that belonged to different races, traditions, etc... but there was still a lack of toleration. Ethnic tension that had been suppressed by "centralized communist governments" returned and racial violence continued throughout Eastern Europe (1044). As I keep reading, I learn that even more ethnic cleansing occurred when the Serbs forced hundreds of thousands of Albanians from their homes in 1999. 1999 was during my lifetime- that is what scares me. THIS IS STILL HAPPENING? 

Solidarity in Poland!

The textbook talks about how polish workers in 1980 organized strikes and laid out several key demands: "first, they objected to working conditions imposed by the government to combat a severe economic crisis. Second, they protested high prices and, especially shortages, both of which had roots in government policy and priorities. Above all, though, the Polish workers in Solidarity demanded truly independent labor unions instead of labor organizations sponsored by the government" (1039). By questioning high prices, working conditions, and the basis of the structure of the labor unions- the workers were questioning the socialist government- and therefore questioning communism as a whole. This clearly angered the mother country of the Soviet Union. The Soviet response was that this solidarity movement (lead by Lech Walesa) was the "growth of anti-sovietism in Poland" and that this aroused hatred among poles towards the Soviet Union and Soviet people and to go even further, the response said that this meant "to break the bonds of fraternal friendship linking our peoples and as a result to tear Poland from the socialist community and to liquidate socialism in Poland." I found this to be EXTREME- but I guess that if the Soviets didn't overreact, then Poland might drop out of theWarsaw Pact and be lost to democracy forever and ever. This website claims that "Solidarity was an independent labour union instrumental in the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union, and the primary catalyst that would transform Poland from a repressive communist satellite to the EU member democracy it is today." In my opinion, I am happy that Poland is now a democracy today and no longer a communist state.

In most of these documents, something that i found interesting was that the communists in the Soviet Union had a very strong fear of this anti-soviet power building up in Poland, and it reminded me a little bit of the fear of communism that took hold of western europe and the United States in particular (which in turn lead to the concept of containment). I guess you are always afraid of THE OTHER!

Something else that I noticed was the brilliant diplomacy of Wojciech Jaruzelski's Announcement of Martial Law in Poland. I just liked how he announced that the soviet union would be bringing in their army into Poland for the "sole task of the protection of legal order in the country and the creation of executive guarantees that will make it possible to restore order and discipline." I just think that Wojciech was able to please the people of Poland and the Soviets by mentioning the "Polish-Soviet alliance...which will remain, the cornerstone of the Polish raison d'etat, the guarantee of the inviolability of our borders." Of course Wojciech did have to repress Solidarity itself. 

All in all, I feel as though this incident in Poland was mainly just one of the factors that caused the collapse of communism. 

Zak and Grace...now back to our discussion!

Okay, so basically GROUP- i figured since our conversation has died in the past couple weeks and neither of you answered the questions i posed in my last post- i'll bring our conversation back to the root of our debate: totalitarianism. You guys should check out this website because it compares a totalitarian regime and a dictatorship once again showing that a totalitarian regime wants TOTAL control, and not merely political control and the tot. regime is usually lead by a "charismatic leader," in Germany's situation that charismatic leader would be Mr. Adolf Hitler. This video, Hitler spoke with great conviction the words, "germany will be revenged, a new and greater reich will rise form the ashes, every german will have a job and bread." The masses responded in favor of this man who had a "stronger will" than the rest of the people. Maybe I have mentioned this before, but i am certain that cas has talked about this in class- that Rousseau's concept of the general will, played a big role in the coming about of the Totalitarian state.  Wikipedia says that " Jacob Talmon characterized Rousseau's "general will" as leading to a Totalitarian Democracy because, Talmon argued, the state subjected its citizens to the supposedly infallible will of the tyranny of the majority." If I am not mistaken, with the concept of the general will, if the people were unhappy with the way they were being lead, they could uproot the leaders and rule the country with a better general will. Hitler certainly uprooted Germany, took control (even if he was democratically elected), and made the citizens follow this supposed "infallible will of the tyranny of the majority." 

So now that i've proposed this link between Rousseau's general will and Hitler's totalitarian state- do either of you guys agree with me or disagree with me? Perhaps you can think back to another philosopher from the enlightenment that influenced the coming of the totalitarian state? ANY NEW IDEAS? 

The Three Fates

To be perfectly honest, I'm having trouble grasping what existentialism truly is. JED talks about how existentialism usually questions humanity's existence, but i found that on this website existentialism is defined as a philosophy that "assumes that people are entirely free and thus responsible for what they make of themselves". This certainly combats the previous concepts of free will and pre-determination. Also- ideas about fate and how we never can be in charge of our own choices since it is also planned out for us by fate. Who knows, maybe the three fates do exist and they are weaving our lives together with a bunch of colorful threads. Our lives and deaths are in their hands. Unlikely, but in my mind, not completely impossible. But more on that definition that I found, I like the part about how people are responsible for what they make of themselves- this is definitely true. Just like how Sysiphus makes his own conscious choices and is responsible for his own actions and therefore for his own punishment of being forced to push this rock up the hill forever and ever and all of eternity! His is also conscious of his fate when he watches the rock roll back down the hill. I found this part about what Camus was saying absolutely fascinating: "he is superior to his fate. he is stronger than his rock. if this myth is tragic, that is because its hero is conscious."  This may seem random, but this concept of how it is tragic because he understands and is conscious of his ever-lasting fate, reminds me of this story that we read in spanish called San Manuel Bueno Mártir where it talked about la cruz del nacimiento (literally: the cross of birth). Basically, our original sin of being born makes life tragic if we are conscious of this fact because we will always go through life knowing that we can never escape sin. It's connected because of this concept of being conscious of our punishment or our sin- therefore making life tragic. Granted, this is just my opinion. The rest of what Camus was talking about definitely went over my head a little bit... Something about Absurdism  and happiness being "two sons of the same earth." What does that even mean?? 

Oh Sweden!

SWEDEN IS RIDICULOUS! I had no idea that Sweden is so focused on this "antisecrecy model" where tax returns are public documents. I found that entire second article on how more people lost their chances at being government officials due to problems with taxes than with extramarital affairs: "democrat Gary Hart lost his bid for the U.S. presidency in 1988 after admitting to an extramarital affair" VERSUS "social democrat Mona Sahlin lost her shot at the swedish prime minister's post seven years later after acknowledging she used her government cash card to buy 600 kronor worth of chocolate, diapers, and perfume." I mean TAXES vs. AFFAIRS- to me it just seems that having an affair is a sign of disloyalty to one's spouse and perhaps even to one's country, but a small, probably accidental, cheat on one's taxes is just a sign of stupidity or the human race's lack of perfection. 

Also, I was very surprised at how everyone has "free access to official documents" and how children are regarded as full citizens who not only have the right to know their true father, but their opinion can also play a part in the divorce. I just don't agree with this because children are too young to know what is best for them and kids under 18 should not be able to make some decisions just because they are considered "full citizens." I mean, also the whole law on corporal punishment- how spanking is illegal- a little ridiculous. I mean spanking is bad- but there shouldn't be a LAW against it. That's one step too far. How is this concept so idealistic? I mean sweden is very open with communication and trust for sure. Everyone has a say in the community and there isn't really much of a PRIVATE LIFE. Therefore it is a very communitarian society where the only sense of individualism is "the island, the archipelago, and the sailboat" and the only sense of deviant behavior in swedish society is with violence, alcoholism, and drugs.  I guess, i just don't really see the appeal to having no private life and no ability to converse because people in Sweden "never raise their voices and rarely gesticulate" (especially since gesticulation is a skill and hobby of mine!) 

Why didn't we blow ourselves up during the Cold War?

After completing that simulation today in class- it's hard to see why we didn't blow ourselves up. The USSR gave us an ultimatum that we didn't want to follow or abide by, so we went against their wishes but i didn't actually think they'd blow us up. I mean, I honestly wanted to blow them up too, but this is just a game: not the real thing. I definitely couldn't live with knowing that I killed MILLIONS of people with the push of a button. They had a partial victory and we had total defeat: okay, i can live with that. I realize my team didn't save the United States, but at least we didn't succumb to their level and resort to blowing things up in order to get their way. That's one of the reasons I think we didn't all blow the world up- it's because no one wanted to be the first to strike, no one wanted to be blamed for the war. If the USSR shot first, then we could counterattack and blame all the destruction on the evil communists. BUT if we struck first than all the blame would be on us. We would be blamed for all the destruction and deaths in the USSR and the US citizens (that would still be alive) would find it hard to blame the USSR for something that they didn't even start. It's just like in any fight, both sides want to win and blow stuff up, but no one also wants to strike first. It's partially about fear as well, fear of what exactly would happen if we pushed the button and nuked the world. I know they all saw what happened in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, but that's Asia- what exactly would our home country, the USA, look like if most of it was ruins, ruins, and more ruins covered in nuclear radiation? Therefore, I think that we didn't blow ourselves up during the Cold War because we were scared of what would happen and we didn't want to be blamed for the destruction of the world. I mean, who would want that kind of guilt? the guilt of killing millions! DAVID JONATHAN AND NATE! YOU KILLED MILLIONS/you destroyed the USA! OH WELL!

Division and Destruction

For me, this section of the reading is symbolized by the Berlin Wall. Division between East and West Germany. Division between East and West Berlin. Division between the USA (West) and the Soviet Union (East). It just seems to me that the rift between those that support communism and those that support democracy has gotten so much bigger after the war ended. "The nuclearization of warfare fed into the polarizing effect of the cold war, for countries without nuclear arms found it difficult to avoid joining either the Soviet or American pact" (987). Basically, the smaller countries without the H-bomb were forced to take sides and help fight against "the others." That phrase in the textbook: "to defend family and home against the menacing other" reminds me of LOST. Anyways...  Everyone was almost forced to take sides: as shown by the creation of both NATO and the Warsaw Pact of 1955. The democracies around the world formed NATO and the USA led the way against communism with the Marshall Plan (provide military assistance to anticommunists) and the Truman Doctrine (support the resistance of "free peoples" to communism" (985)). Basically, I just felt that the world was divided even more than it was during the war. COMMUNISM VS DEMOCRACY.

"It seemed to confirm both humanity's power and its vulnerability" (987). This statement is true just because with technology and power comes responsibility. Even though I am an American, I don't agree with the US's decision to drop the atom bomb on Hiroshima or Nagasaki. It is horrible the amount of innocent lives that were destroyed in just a few seconds. That is a scary thought- that humans hold the power to destroy all of humanity. One push of a button and we are all wiped out.  BAM! TOTAL DESTRUCTION!

What do you think about this Zak?

Okay, okay, okay Zak- you're right in the sense that Napoleon was definitely not a fascist tyrant like Hitler. Napoleon was definitely brilliant and didn't have the same anti-semitic mindset that Hitler did. Looking back in our textbook, I see that "in most areas, the empire gave civil rights to Protestants and Jews...made Jews subject to conscription" (662). But Napoleon fought just as much for expansionism and imperialism as Hitler. Both sought to change and create a new Europe. Hitler called it a "new Europe" (965) that was safe for aryans and Napoleon called it a new European empire "modeled on Rome and ruled from Paris" (663). Wherever there is one person trying to rule over the rest of the continent- there will be rebellion. With the invasion of Spain in 1808 and the following Peninsular Wars- the Spanish guerillas fought hard for their independence. Napoleon was ruthless here and the French military tortured and executed the guerillas in horrible ways. Of course, Napoleon does not compare to Hitler on a scale of evilness, especially since everyone can be brutal in war. But one similarity between the two rulers that i find hilarious is Napoleon's attempted invasion of Russia. It ended in a disaster in 1812 because of poor tactics and the terrible Russian winter. Hitler should've learned from the past and not made the same stupid mistake that he did when he attempted to take over Russia and destroy the city of Stalingrad in 1943. 

So firstly, GRACE I ask you this: what about Peter the Great- do you notice any similarities between these 3 rulers? And Zak, Zak, Zak, firstly i understand why you think that no one would've come in and taken Napoleon's place- but do you have any evidence that there wasn't someone else that could've done the same job? Also- how would've been so different in Germany? Sure the details would've been different, but overall? How?

Yes! You should respond!

Look, as Zak says "what could have happened to the state if their respective totalitarian leader had never taken power?" Well- I pose this same question: hitler? Would Germany/Europe have be a happier or different place? Most definitely a different place; however, one thing to consider is the fact that if Hitler didn't come to power, some other bloodthirsty tyrant might have had similar ideas, destroyed many cultures, and waged war on the world itself. Hitler isn't the only fascist dictator to come to power in Europe- we've got Mussolini and Stalin as examples that even if Hitler hadn't come to power- there would still have been a lot of death in Europe during the first half of the 20th century. Would the "Final Solution" ever have been proposed or put into action if Hitler wasn't its ringleader? As i've said in previous posts- after WWI, Germany was in a rough place and it needed a change. This changed took the form of Adolf Hitler. A man bent of changing the order of Europe and doing whatever he needed to do to feel as though he created a safe and pure environment for his fellow aryans to live in. I'd like to believe that if Hitler had never come to power- millions of Jews would have been spared. But we know this isn't true. Due to the environment that Hitler came out of- i'm sure that some other power thirsty individual would have jumped up at the chance to take control of Germany and try and spread Germany's cloak of power all over Europe. As said on this website, Hitler did not personally kill 6 million Jews and therefore we shouldn't place all the blame on one individual. I understand what this website is saying- maybe we should blame the environment and perhaps even the malleability of the society that fragile Europe had created during the 20th century. BUT- it certainly is easier to blame one person. It always is because no one wants to take the blame on themself. Zak- for Napolean: do you agree that if he had never come to power someone else would have come and done similiar things (sure the details would be different) due to the structure of society and the environment that had been created by prior events? Basically- would things really have been that different? Do you actually think that millions of people's of lives would have been saved if, for example, Hitler hadn't come to power? I don't think it would've been that different. But who knows!

Cruelty

Hitler clearly lays out in his Mein Kampf his true feelings for the Jewish race. As Declan says in his post, Hitler believes that the Jew "whose striving for world domination will be ended by his own dying out." Well isn't that ironic, by the Jew's own dying out- more like Hitler making them die out by murdering them in mass numbers. In tonight's reading, I didn't get a sense that the slaughter was solely done in order to reach this "final solution," but actually it was done for the enjoyment of the process as well. A lot of the killing was done in "face-to-face encounters outside the camps. Jews and other victims were not simply killed. They were tortured, beaten, and executed publicly while soldiers and other onlookers recorded the executions with cameras"  (961). The point of this slaughter was not just death- but terror! Hitler believed the Jews to have a "bestial cruelty" and therefore he viewed them as subhuman. Well, when i am killing a bug (i realize it's not an animal- but it is alive) i don't try and make it suffer so i can hear the screams of the dying bug. I kill it as a kind of cleansing- but i don't want to torture the bug. As if the killing of millions of Jews and gypsies and Russians wasn't enough, Hitler had to bring even more pain by making their deaths and journeys absolutely miserable. Life in the ghetto's meant starvation and disease; life in the concentration camps meant starvation, disease, humiliation, torture, and ultimately death. One woman describes Auschwitz to be "hell on earth"where the sun didn't represent life or hope, but rather "destruction." When people did try and rebel in Auschwitz and Treblinka- the rebellions were "repressed with savage efficiency" (965). In one instance in the Warsaw ghetto, a group of 1000 jews banned together with a tiny arsenal of gasoline bombs, pistols, and ten rifles- only to be destroyed. The Nazis burned the ghetto and executed/deported everyone who was left. "Some 56,000 Jews died" (965). 

I can't justify Hitler's actions. I could try- but i'd fail. Hitler wanted to create a "New Europe" that was "safe for ethnic Germans and their allies and secure against communism" except that he wanted to build this new europe "on the graveyards of whole cultures" (965). Hitler didn't realize or care that he was destroying the diversity of whole cultures and races with their own heritage. But these peoples were still humans- they were not subhuman. They were my ancestors and i don't view myself as subhuman. What would it have been like if i had been alive in the 1940's, if i had lived in Russia or Poland or Romania (where my mom's family is from) would i still be alive to this day? Probably not. That is what scares me. Hitler wiped out between 4.1 and 5.7 million Jews- in a matter of years- and he doesn't even care because he believed he wasn't doing it for a good cause. If that's the case then why couldn't he have just slaughtered everyone in the least painless way possible? Why torture them, punish them, starve them? WHY?

My Group and Totalitarianism

My group is interested in discussing the concept of totalitarianism, which is described as "a political system whereby a state regulates every aspect of public and private life." I would definitely say that Nazi Germany, under the rule of Hitler, was a totalitarian state since the government had total control over the economy, the mass media, people's liberties of speech/press/religion, and exercised its power through propaganda and state terrorism (Grace mentioned how Hitler "took the rise of the Nazi party to a new level). Wikipedia talks about how totalitarianism didn't emerge until the 1920's; however, I think that aspects of this total dictatorship were present throughout Europe at a much earlier stage. I believe that both Zak and Grace will be looking at different dictators such as Napoleon and Peter the Great to see if there are distinct differences or similarities between these three (including Hitler) great tyrants and also to look at how this concept of totalitarianism has changed over time. According to Wikipedia authoritarian governments and totalitarian governments are not seen as the same thing because the former doesn't deal with the structure of society and merely the fact that a political organization in which the single power holder monopolizes political power. Did Peter the Great change the structure of society? How about Napoleon? On that note- did Hitler flat out change the structure of society since his government (the Nazi Party) is considered a totalitarian government? I believe he did change the structure of society by helping the working class and destroying an entire class or race of people. Of course this same website states that the Nazi's didn't completely destroy the social structure since Germany could quickly return to normalcy after their defeat in WWII. I'd like to look more into this concept of just how easy it was for Germany to return to normalcy and just what kind of long lasting damage did this totalitarian regime do to its country.

To Choose No Choice

In concordance with Charlie's post, Fascism's main goal is definitely not to allow freedom of expression- but rather to build up the military, increase a sense of national unity, and to also tighten the amount of control the government has over the people. Charlie also went on to say that as long as the people felt that they were involved in the government- they were happy. The scary thing that has been mentioned in class on numerous occasions is that in many of these countries- people CHOSE to give up their CHOICE (democracy). This competing world view of totalitarianism was more popular during these times after WWI than the world view of a liberal democracy where majority rules. In countries such as Italy and Germany- people would rather have a dictator dictate their lives than be forced to participate in a failing democracy (such as the Weimar Republic). I do find it terrifying that people in Germany legally elected the Nazi party to power, which in just a matter of years, would soon basically take over the country, kill millions of Jews, and wreak havoc across Europe. Of course- these dictators came into power at the PERFECT time- right after the countries were upset with what they had been allotted in the Versailles Treaty (such as the war guilt clause, which blamed Germany), the World economy was in shambles, the liberal democracies were failing, and overall the social structure in Europe was very unstable- the  "authoritarian solution" was a plausible and attractive alternative that made a strong impact on Europe during the 1910's, 20's, 30's, and 40's! 

Mass Media

After the debate today, and learning that the fascists (my group) had lost i was at first slightly disappointed- but honestly, I'm no fascist. I do see the appeal- nationalistic country, more jobs for me, a better economy, more military strength, more confidence in our nation, etc... but actually, the people lost a lot of freedom. The Nazi's censored the media and started to use this mass media as "efficient means of indoctrination and control" (935). These media campaigns and big parades/rallies were designed to show off the glorious Reich and how awesome Hitler really was! Of course this new mass culture (such as radio, film, propaganda, advertising) wasn't just in Germany- but all over the world. The United States media industry was all about "Hollywood westerns, cheap dime novels, jazz music", and new concepts of femininity ("with bobbed haircuts and short dresses")(933). The Nazi's tried to get rid of all influences of American popular culture because it would tarnish the purity of the German race since it "accepted" the blacks and most importantly, the Jews. The German film industry (UFA- taken over by the Nazis in the 1920's) created a lot of anti-Semitic films, such as The Eternal Jew (1940), where a line from the video is "there is a plague here (in the ghettos)- a plague  that threatens the health of the Aryan people." Apparently the Jews couldn't be civilized and their homes were filthy and barbaric. Also- Hitler associated the modern, international style of art to be a "Jewish conspiracy" and therefore he only like the "Aryan" art. It's hard to read about this kind of anti-semitism in my textbook. I visited the Holocaust Memorial Museum this past summer and there are lots of videos, statistics, articles of clothing (such as the millions of pairs of burnt shoes from the concentration camps), pictures, etc...  but what is even harder to accept is that it wasn't just one evil man (Hitler) that believed all of these horrible things- but many, many people for thousands and thousands of years. Cas pointed out earlier today that this anti-Semitism started off being about religion, but now it is just about race and how the Germans want to purify their race of any bad pathogens. Therefore- one must save the country and get rid of all those dirty Jews- and that is exactly what he did- violence, murder, destruction, lies, deceit, more murder. 

The Rise of Naziism

How did the Nazi's come to power? Well, the Weimar Republic was in shambles and therefore German democracy had clearly failed due to a combination of social, political, and economic crises. Also, the Treaty of Versailles had magnified Germany's sense of dishonor and therefore when Hitler came around preaching let's get germany back to it's national greatness and overthrow the Versailles settlement, the people were quick to jump on his nationalistic bandwagon. We cannot forget how poor the economic situation was in Germany in the 1920's. After the war-guilt clause, Germany owed 33 billion dollars, and pretty soon inflation got so bad that a pound of potatoes went from costing 9 marks to 2 trillion marks. THAT IS RIDICULOUS! Also, the "Great Depression pushed Weimar's political system to the breaking point" because the unemployment had risen from 2 million in 1929 to 6 million in 1932 (919). Basically, everyone in Germany was unhappy and needed a change- and pretty soon the Nazi party came in to "rescue" Germany and save the day!

The Nazis slowly rose to power because of this overall feeling in Germany, the bad economic situation, the splintering of the electorate, and also due to the mass amounts of propaganda (especially that which was written by Joseph Goebbels) that was targeted to attract members of the urban and rural middle classes. The Nazis needed popular support and they gained support from the small property holders and rural middle class by offering them economic protection and renewing their social status; they gained support from the pensioners, the elderly, the war widows, the elitist, and the workers (jobs) as well. Overall, Hitler gained mass amount of popular support by using violence (gestapo and SA-SS) and playing on "deep-seated fears of communism" and by speaking a lot about racial national pride and unity (922). Hitler also wanted to restore Germany to it's national greatness by rearming the country and creating economic self-sufficiency. 

I could talk about Hitler's racism or how when he spoke in front of a crowd he gave me chills. But I'd rather not- Hitler was good at gaining power. Once he became the chancellor of Germany he seized power and gave himself unlimited power. Hitler took over Germany at this weak point in it's history and turned Germany into the strongest power in Europe, and probably, the World.  

My Group!

Grace mentioned that the success of the Russian Communist Revolution was based on the already weakened Russian political state and on the gathered support of the "enraged peasants' and workers. Mass support is key in any revolution or take over of power because without numbers- it's hard to have success. Fascism and Naziism also depended on mass national support and that is why both Mussolini and Hitler advocated for nationalism. Mussolini also spoke about militarism and statism, whereas Hitler spoke about racial nationalism, improving the economy by stopping inflation, giving people jobs, stabilizing the currency, and sealing Germany off from the world economy, and by using a lot of violence. Of course Mussolini used violence as well- but Hitler was even more brutal because he had a very powerful hatred for communists and especially for the Jews. In order to gain national support, any leader needs to give the people what they want. But if you give the people everything they want- then there is no reason to continue giving support. So basically, just give the people a taste of what they want and they'll follow you until the end. Zak also talks about this in his post when he mentions that the fascists were "good at rallying people, to make them feel spirited. They are like a huge sports arena, full of energized fans that have no role in the game itself; however, they are made to feel like they are part of the team." Therefore, we all agree that this mass popular support is incredibly important to succeeding in a rebellion. Obviously- in order to gain this support propaganda is also important and instilling fear in your people can be helpful too. 

I am a Democracy-Girl

Is Fascism a better deal- for the country, for the people, for the world? That's what I'm wondering. Mussolini comes into Italy with his "legally granted" power and ends up creating a dictatorship that focuses on statism, nationalism, and militarism. Mussolini basically changed the constitution and the government in order to suit his own parties' needs. In his Doctrine of Fascism (1932) Mussolini wrote that no individuals or groups outside the state could exist since this is a TYRANNY! I also found this document interesting because he talks about how "as it is embodied in the State, this higher personality becomes a nation." The way Mussolini phrases "the higher personality" reminds me of the sovereign and the general will that Rousseau preached not so long ago. Granted, these things definitely stand for different things since the sovereign was the culmination of all the people's general wills and it did not represent a dictator. Despite the many facts that fascism in Italy weakened the production and economy (according to Nitti), lowered food supplies, increased poverty, destroyed freedom of press and speech, killed off the intellectuals and anyone with varying opinions, and overall just resorted to violence on WAY TO MANY occasions- there was still a HUGE following in Italy as seen by this video of Mussolini's speech. Granted, we can't really understand what he's saying- but i think we can all get the gist and see the HUGE CROWD of people listening. I mean i can see why people would like this- especially after how the previous government FAILED at getting what they wanted from the outcome of WWI. Plus, Mussolini preached "the end of the class conflict and its replacement by national unity" (916). According to this book, fascism in Italy didn't destroy the economy but instead, Mussolini tried to reorganize the economy and labor, "taking away the power of the country's labor movement and the Italian economy was placed under the management of twenty-two corporations, each responsible for a major industrial enterprise" (916). Of course the decisions made by these corporations were closely monitored by the government and therefore by Mussolini since this was a dictatorship. Should we believe our textbook or Nitti- Mussolini's opponent? I'm not sure. I'd prefer to take Nitti's side even if he is biased just because i don't believe in what fascism preaches. Sure i see the perks- national unity, one leader to tell me what to do so i don't have to think for myself, etc... but I don't think that all of that violence was justified and that fascism was not better for the country. I'm a democracy-girl.

Failed Economic Policies 903-913

After the October Revolution, one would've expected Russia, I mean the Soviet Union, to be more calm and for people to be happy; however, no matter who is in control of a country- someone is always unhappy. In this case, after the Soviet Union withdrew from WWI, the country was divided between the "Whites" (Bolsheviks' opponents, who were varied among lots of different groups) and the "Reds." The "Whites" got their military support for the civil war from supporters of the old regime, "liberal supporters of the provisional government, Mensheviks, Social Revolutionaries, and anarchist bands known as "Greens" who opposed all central state power" (904). In the end, the Bolsheviks won the civil war because they had the majority of the support. What i found so strange was that after this civil war- there was a ridiculous amount of FAILED economic policy. First in 1917 Lenin tried to push the government toward the radical economic stance known as "war communism," which meant that grain was requisitioned from the peasantry, private trade in consumer goods was outlawed, production facilities were militarized, and money was abolished. However, this FAILED at helping the economy and agriculture was practically doomed, i.e. FAMINE!! So after this failure, the Bolsheviks tried to help the peasantry by creating this New Economic Policy which allowed "individuals to own private property, trade freely within limits, and -most important- farm their land for their own benefit" (906). The problem was that the peasants didn't participate in markets to benefit urban areas and the Bolsheviks got increasingly frustrated, which lead to the peasants holding all their grain and therefore there was a grain shortage. FAILURE! In fact, the Bolsheviks went back to war communism. After this, Stalin came into power with plans to speed up the industrialization process via the Five-Year Plan. I believe that this did succeed and it wasn't a failure on economic terms because new industries were built in new cities, populations of cities doubled, and the Soviet Union became a world industrial power in the span of a few short years; however, this plan was a failure in loss of human lives and happiness. The peasants were unhappy when Stalin forced them to give up their private farmlands  (collectivization) in order to work on state farms or join collective farms. In fact, many peasants rebelled violently and lost their lives The laborers that did the brunt work of all this industrialization were unhappy because the working conditions were really hard and many died (of course a lot of these workers were from prisons- although not all were guilty). Stalin also eliminated any enemies he had during the "Great Terror" (1937-38) when he killed any individuals (intellectuals, nonparty elites, industrial managers) or groups that he didn't like. Basically, in the beginning all of the economic plans were failing, and when one plan finally worked- it was only because the leader forced everyone to do as his plan intended- even if it was against their will. 

The Incomplete League

Zak commented on the modernity of Woodrow Wilson's 14 points speech in his post. Zak talked about how people are usually motivated by their own self-interests and are never motivated by the prospect of bettering humanity. I definitely agree with this point, and therefore that would be why the French, in particular, did not accept Wilson's idealism and instead they wanted Germany to pay. This need for revenge was driven solely by the country's self-interest and not by the prospect of bettering all of humanity- especially not Germany. Germany was forced to pay a huge sum of money (the book says 33 billion dollars= the war-guilt clause), surrender a large amount of its land to France, Denmark, and Poland. The Treaty of Versailles also "disarmed Germany, forbid a German air force, and reduced its navy to a token force to match an army capped at 100,000 volunteers" (898). Basically Germany was not in good shape after the war, which definitely contributed to the lasting resentment that Germany felt towards the rest of Europe (which would lead to WWII). Also the rivalries that caused the Great War were not ended by the war or this newly established peace since Germany was still unhappy. I think that if Wilson's 14 points had been brought to fruition Europe would be in a much more stable place than it was after the war because international conflicts would've been settled. As Zak said, humanity on a whole would have been in a better position because everyone would've been united under one title: the League of Nations. Unfortunately Japan refused to join the League, France didn't want Russia or Germany to be allowed to join, and due to conflicts inside the US government- the United States didn't join the League of Nations either. So all in all, "the league began as a utopian response to global conflict and registered the urgency of reorganizing world governance," however, it never succeeded in becoming complete since some major nations were MAJORLY lacking from the League of Nations (900). 

Russian Revolution!!!

Tsar Nicholas II had been ruling on shaky ground for many years now. No one really liked him ever since the days of the October Manifesto when he undermined the minimal political power that had been granted to the Duma (Russia's parliament). Also, the fact that the royal court was very corrupt due to the tsar’s wife’s spiritual mentor (Rasputin) and his “self-aggrandizing schemes” "further tarnished the tsar's image" (890). When I think of Rasputin, I have to mention Anastasia because a few minutes ago it all clicked- she was the last surviving member of the Romanov family and Rasputin must have been her father’s spiritual mentor who turned evil and ended up coming back to life and trying to kill Anastasia. WEIRD! Anyways, the tsar appeared to his people as being stuck in the past and therefore not ready to continue ruling Russia. Another cause of the revolution was the overall feel of unrest from the liberal Duma and from the urban population. The urbanites were unhappy due to inflation and food/fuel shortages. The Russian army fighting in WWI was unhappy and lost their will to fight because they kept losing due to their lack of training and supplies; there were a lot of deserters. In February there was a revolution in Petrograd and this succeeded in getting rid of the tsar; however, after this success the rest was just chaos; who will lead Russia now? The soviets? The Duma? The Bolsheviks (under Lenin’s lead) ended up taking control and electing a Constituent Assembly, nationalizing banks, giving workers control of factories, and approving the “spontaneous redistribution of the noble’s land to peasants without compensation of former owners” (891). This new government after the revolution didn’t like being in WWI and they signed the Brest-Litovsk treaty with Germany, which basically gave the win of the war on the Eastern Front to the Germans. Overall, this new government was able to come to power due to the instability of Russia and the overall political and social CHAOS!!

Summary Post Week 5

 Andra wrote in a post about how Freud was definitely a product of his time because he lived in a time of class struggle, war (WWI), and modernization. I definitely agree with this statement because Freud wrote a lot about our inner desires and drives and since WWI was a very brutal war- it makes sense that Freud (or anyone concerned with human nature) would want to figure out why men were so brutal with one another. What was going on in their subconscious that pushed them to act this way? I'm sure that Freud was also greatly impacted by Darwin, who wrote the Origin of Species in 1859 (3 years after Freud was born) and argued that man evolved from apes, from animals, from beasts. Darwin took man out of the lime light and once again tossed our understanding of human nature out the door. Darwin argued that man, at his basest form, was an animal- and Freud also argued that man, at his basest level (the id), was a primitive animal with the two essential desires of sex and violence. In my opinion, Freud was definitely influenced by Charles Darwin's concept of evolution/the origin of species. Therefore, when deciding if Freud was a product of his time, we can't just look at the key events happening while Freud was alive, but also that which happened before Freud was even born. We are all influenced by the present, but also by the past. 

Causes of WWI??

When I think about the causes of World War I, my mind jumps back to 8th grade history class. I remember something about Serbia, Bosnia, some dude named Franz Ferdinand getting assassinated, and that after the assassination BAM- war started. This reading opened my mind to some more accurate details. Yes, the assassination of Franz Ferdinand (the archduke of Austria and the heir to the Austro-Hungarian empire) was the spark for the war, but there were many other factors that contributed. Britain wanted to maintain the balance of power since no single nation should be allowed to dominate the whole Continent. Also, Britain was upset because of the German invasion of neutral Belgium. Germany thought that their super cool Schlieffen Plan to attack France first to "secure a quick victory that would neutralize the Western Front and free the German army to fight Russia in the east" was going to work (873). However, in fact, this plan miserably failed due to the ridiculous speed of the operation- it was too fast for the soldiers and supply lines to keep up with, the resistance of the poorly armed but determined Belgian army, the intervention of Britain's "small but highly professional field army," and the combined attack of Britain and France against Germany at the battle of the Marne (873). Austria declared war because they viewed this conflict as a "matter of prestige and power politics- a chance to reassert the fraying empire's authority in the face of the rising nationalism of its peoples"(869). Seeing as the Austria-Hungary empire was actually struggling to survive amidst all of the different nationalist groups living in the various sections of the empire. Russia declared war in order to "regain some of the tsar's authority by standing up for the rights of "brother slavs"' (869). 

However, I believe that a huge reason that this big war started was because of the lack of communication between countries. The book even mentions that there was not enough "reasoned debate about the problem" and the government officials had little contact with one another, in fact, several heads of states, the kaiser, the president of France, and a few ministers were actually on vacation during the month of July! ON VACATION while the military generals started mobilizing their armies in order to get ahead of the game. People felt a sense of urgency to jump on the band wagon and start mobilizing armies because they felt the lure of success of being the first to successfully strike against one's enemies, and the fear of loosing all that was at stake.

Freud! Nietzsche!

"Darwin had already called into question the notion that humanity was fundamentally superior to the rest of the animal kingdom" (855). Clearly, Freud did not agree with this concept because he believed that human beings were one of the four great apes (humans, gorillas, chimps, orangutans) and therefore humans on their most basic level were animals. Freud's psychoanalysis was rather unsettling because it dealt with our two drives (aggressive and sexual) and how these two drives are always conflicting with our rational and moral conscience. Basically, only 10% of our brain is dealing with conscious thoughts (i.e. our free will) and the other 90% is all unconscious thoughts (most likely violent and sexual). Another key idea that Freud talked about was his model of the psyche "which contained three elements (1) the id, or undisciplined desires for pleasure, sexual gratification, aggression, and so on (2) the superego, or conscience, which registers the prohibitions of morality and culture; and (3) the ego, the arena in which the conflict between id and superego works itself out" (855). Freud stressed the "irrational," which just fed this growing tension and stress about human reason and what exactly defines reason, truth, science, etc... 

A quote from Freud's Civilization and Its Discontents "in consequence of this primary mutual hostility of human beings, civilized society is perpetually threatened with disintegration," reminded me Nietzsche's concept of Nihilism because Nihilism dealt with human's innate drive to self-destruction. However, Nihilism talked more about how humans need to believe that life has meaning and to do this they must create new values (such as artists) instead of believing in truth, science, reason, or religion. Whereas, Freud is talking about how due to the strength of man's aggressive and sexual drives he will at some point not be able to control his drives and therefore end up killing or raping someone. 

Overall, both Freud, Nietzsche, and all the rebellious artists provoked the minds of lots of lower, middle, and upper class people; however, "millions undoubtedly went about the business of life untroubled by the implications of evolutionary theory, content to believe as they had believed before" (857). So therefore these questions of human reason and primal urges made people wonder what the heck was going on, but they were still not as preoccupied with these questions as with the socialist question!!

Summary Post #4

Mia's blog post in response to the question that I posted, stated that the reason that Alexander II, III, or Nicholas II didn't reform in the face of a revolution was because of tradition: Why should the tsar think that this situation would be any different from other situations where the previous tsars were able to use their autocratic power to dispel the revolutions? Well, it was different- these tsar's were foolish to crush the people's hopes- just like on Bloody Sunday. These peasants went to the tsar with a list of grievances, pleading 'help us, we believe in you!' and his response was 'guards, seize them!' BAM BAM BAM- DEAD! Nicholas II should have listened or at least kept the October Manifesto in action, instead of just undermining the Duma after the strikes, unrest, and overall crisis has passed. 

This week in class we've covered Europe in the late 19th century/early 20th century and the main idea that we learned was that the tensions and pressures of this period were leading to something big... This period was all about "mass politics," mass production, mass consumption of decadent items of luxury, socialism (many different branches of it), a new sense of darker nationalism was instilled in Europeans, there was social upheaval (old allegiances were being broken), an increasing integration of the world (economically, technologically, etc...), and overall there was a great deal of SPEED SPEED SPEED. Russia was also going through all of these changes; however, if I'm remembering correctly, Russia is so big and expansive it is hard to modernize and westernize as quickly or with as much SPEED SPEED SPEED as the rest of Europe. So Russia is still a little behind the times. Alexander II definitely instilled a lot of reform with the zemstvo, the bar exam, economic state bank, etc... however; what impact did the fact that Russia was farther behind with industrialization and modernization have on the stability of Russia? What will happen to Russia in the next century or so? Will it fall apart even more?

Russia is Ripe for Revolution (844-851)

What I've realized so far, is that no matter HOW you try and reform or rule your country, SOME ONE will always be unhappy and try and change the way you are ruling. For example (well, there are a LOT of examples in history, but let's just look at Russia right now), in the 19th century, Russia was doing a lot of industrialization which was creating a very tense, unbalanced, uneasy, and overall BAD situation- the "western industrialization challenged Russia's military might" and the "western political doctrines- liberalism, democracy, socialism- threatened its internal political stability" (844). Also, this rapid industrialization heightened social tensions since the transition from farm life to city life  was harsh for the workers; PLUS, social changes strained Russia's legal system because the system did not  "recognize trade unions or employers' associations" (844). Finally, the "outdated banking and financial laws failed to serve the needs of a modern economy"(844). So basically, Russia was in need of some change- but instead of going left, tsar Alexander II went RIGHT with a whole lot of censorship and restrictions. Now, I'm sure some people thought this was a great idea, but others did not and this tsar was assassinated most likely with the hopes of a promising future, but Alexander III stayed on this same path: repression, more secret police, villages were subjected to the governmental authority of the nobles, etc... Nicholas II continued this as well- just out of curiosity, why didn't one of these tsars break this chain of repression and conservatism! WHY NO LIBERALISM? I think that if one of these guys had broken the chain than this revolution might not have happened- or at least happened so suddenly. Although I don't really know; however, I am certain that the result of this "russification"with coercion, expropriation, and physical oppression resulted in the creation of many opposing groups: populists (russia needs to modernize on its own terms, not the West's), Social Revolutionary Party (political power of the peasants), Russian Marxists organized into the Social Democratic party- which broke into the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. Overall, Russia was "RIPE FOR REVOLUTION" with all the different social and political groups opposing the government and its oppression (846). After all the revolt and revolution- Russia basically ended up stuck in the middle of an "emerging capitalist system and the traditional peasant commune;" Russia was modern but still stuck in the past- which would put a lot of pressure on Russia during World War I (848).