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.