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.