Conclusion

My research of Peter the Great this semester has really given me insight into the different ways in which a ruler can persuade the public as well as to what extent some rulers will go in order to exhibit their power and insure that their power is cemented in history. As Danielle says in her concluding post, Hitler was undoubtedly a totalitarian dictator, so we wanted to see how the trends of his rule were previously exhibited by earlier rulers.

As Peter the Great demonstrated through establishing St. Petersburg and through reforming the Church, the actions of a ruler can be perceived by the public as beneficial to their lives while there are truly ulterior motives in play. As my group established initially, Hitler undoubtedly exemplifies a totalitarian dictator, however, we wanted to see how other rulers utilized similar tactics (less violently) in order to maintain their rule. As a consequence, we discovered that the period in which each ruler was in power was hugely significant in the extent to which they could fully exemplify a totalitarian dictator. While for the most part, the rulers sought the same goal of acquiring power, they were limited by their differences in means with which they could acquire such power. This gap in timing resulted in much thought about whether or not the title of totalitarian dictator could include rulers who were not as awful as Hitler.

Peter the Great changed Russia internally through reestablishing the traditional social structure and lifestyle of the Russian people by infiltrating Russian ideals with Western modernization.

Ultimately, while Peter the Great did not have access to such technological advancements as Hitler did which would have facilitated his totalitarian rule, I believe that Peter the Great was a totalitarian dictator through his internal changes to the Russian identity and his conquests outside the boundaries of Russia.

Response to "Peter the Great is not a totalitarian dictator like Hitler"

I think that it is pretty obvious that "Peter the Great is not a totalitarian dictator like Hitler" as Danielle puts it, I mean, let's be honest, Hitler is the go-to person when you think about being a totalitarian dictator, so it's not entirely fair to say that Peter the Great was not as bad of a totalitarian dictator as Hitler and therefore was not a totalitarian dictator. In Danielle's post "My Group and Totalitarianism", she defines totalitarianism as: "a political system whereby a state regulates every aspect of public and private life". While I understand that Hitler took this to an extreme and he DID manipulate the public, I think that Hitler also had the means (such as through propaganda and mass-communication) to manipulate the public. Peter the Great didn't rule during a period in which it was so easy to manipulate the masses. While Peter the Great couldn't EASILY influence the masses as Hitler could, Peter the Great DOES control "public and private life"--he forced the nobility to forfeit their power and join the government in order to maintain/regain their status (through the Table of Ranks), after he gained the territory where he would put St. Petersburg he forced families to relocate and move to this inconvenient and foreign (to the people) location, and he eliminated many Russian traditions through his process of westernization.

I didn't mean to make it sound as if Peter the Great was some sort of super nice ruler who wanted to have a "good reputation" in history--he wanted to cement his name in history as a POWERFUL ruler and he completely changed the Russian identity and evolved the Russian presence in Europe in order to insure that his power was forever remembered.

Response to "Holocaust Doesn't Unite Germans"

Ok so I have to admit that I wasn't entirely thinking when I was writing that post "The Great Northern War" and I said that the Holocaust united the Germans. I hadn't REALLY spent the time to phrase my idea well enough and so I completely agree with Danielle when she disagrees with that sentence. So anyways, just forget I ever said that because it is completely bogus--especially because the Holocaust wasn't warfare, it was the tragic murder of millions so it wasn't really fair for me to compare the Holocaust with the Great Northern War as if both were wars. 

That aside, I still think that it is valid to say that Hitler had more public support then Peter the Great did, and while the Germans were not necessarily united as a force, Hitler had managed to gain a foundation of support in which people CHOSE to join the Nazi party (and I know that once Hitler started to demonstrated his cruelty a lot of the members of the Nazi party joined out of fear, but initially I think that there was more of genuine support of Hitler). To contrast that, Peter the Great had a foundation of support that was formed solely out of his inherited title of "tsar"-- he had in no way been chosen to lead Russia. That is essentially what I meant to say in that sentence--that Hitler's foundation of support was more genuine because, initially, people truly chose to join his party, whereas Peter the Great lacked that foundation.

Improvement/modernization

A huge reason why Peter the Great has become such a powerful historical figure is due to his westernization of Russia. While much of this westernization was social, such as making the nobility cut off their traditionally long beards,  a huge component of this westernization was also in Peter's expansion of the military and technological capacity of Russia. As cited in this website, Peter extensively studied the Western methods of ship-building and navigation in order to establish a Russian navy and expand Russian influence beyond the Russian borders. Thus, Peter the Great adopted western techniques in order to one-up the Western European countries--he studied their techniques in order to allow Russia to infiltrate the Western world. Consequently, Peter's infatuation with Western traditions and techniques was not out of flattery but was instead a strategy to show Western Europe the Russian potential. Peter established a port on the Baltic Sea in St. Petersburg where the vessels built were constructed based upon the designs of Western fleets. Consequently, without the advancements of Western Europe, Peter the Great would not have been able to expand Russia to be as powerful as he made it.

Peter the Great and Napoleon: Equality

When I read Zak's post "Napoleon and civil liberties", I realized how Napoleon shared a similarity to Peter the Great in the necessity to compromise. While I realize that in my previous post I just discussed how Peter the Great did not manipulate the public, and I believe that this is true, I think that he instead manipulated his rule (much like how Napoleon did with the Napoleonic codes)--giving the public something while taking away something else. I saw a serious parallel between Napoleon's control over the press (making the press write only what the government issued) and Peter the Great linking the Church with the state while making the Church more tolerant.

It's interesting that while Hitler used manipulation in acquiring public support, Napoleon and Peter the Great seem to manipulate the liberties that they are giving their people creating a sort of facade of liberty while simultaneously tightening their control and power over the country.

Hitler and Peter the Great: RULE

So what I've realized is that a HUGE difference between Hitler and Peter the Great is that Machiavellian rule that Danielle and I have been discussing. Danielle's post "The War Lord! The Manipulator!" made me think about how Peter the Great didn't really have tactics in the same sense that Hitler did. While Hitler tricked the public into following his word through propaganda and manipulation, Peter the Great did not use such tactics. Instead, Peter the Great essentially just did what he said he was doing--it was much more black and white, Peter the Great just imposed his authority whereas Hitler tricked the public into supporting his authority. I think that a great demonstration of this difference in rule is through the use of religion. As Danielle discusses in her post "Hitler and Religion", Hitler uses Christianity as a tool to gain public support--he himself wasn't a super-religious man but he NEEDED the support of the Protestant churches in order to fulfill his goal of eliminating the Jews (or demonstrating his power), and he consequently molded to be whatever man was necessary in order to get what he wanted. To contrast, Peter the Great just did what he wanted. As I say in my post "Peter the Great and Religion", Peter made the Russian Church a more tolerant entity while tightening his own control over the Church in linking the Church with the state.

While both Hitler and Peter the Great were hoping to have military gains in order to demonstrate their international power, Hitler acted to get more groups (such as the Church) on his side, despite his personal attachment to or involvement with those groups--for him they were the means to an end. To contrast, Peter the Great completely followed his own beliefs--eliminating the aspects of the Church that he disagreed with and tightening his personal control over the Church--regardless of how the Church felt about this. In my opinion, this difference is the difference between wanting to gain something for the state (as Hitler did) and wanting to preserve your reputation in history (as Peter the Great did).

The Great Northern War

As Danielle explained in her post "Motivations for the Holocaust", Hitler was driven to eliminate the Jews by two main forces: his belief that the Jews were truly a lesser race and by his desire to WIN, his desire to demonstrate his power.

Hitler and Peter the Great were in sort of similar situations in terms of the international state of their country, for both Germany and Russia were isolated from the rest of the European powers. While the isolation of Germany was due to WWI and the Treaty of Versailles (1918) and that of Russia was more of a geographical isolation, in both cases, this isolation and consequent feeling of underestimation from the other European powers inspired Hitler and Peter the Great to prove the other European countries wrong and to demonstrate the true power of Germany and Russia (respectively). 

Whereas Hitler chose to demonstrate his power and unite the German people through the Holocaust, Peter the Great demonstrated his international power through the Great Northern War. This war was hugely significant in the reputation of Russia because it demonstrated Russian military power both internally and externally. There is something about a military victory that empowers and unites a country, and I think that, while Peter's military activity was fueled more by the desire to gain a powerful and strong reputation amongst the other European powers than the internal unity that it could provide, the Great Northern War (particularly the Battle of Poltava)  gained a reputation both internally and externally of strength.

The Battle of Poltava was very important in that it truly reflected Russian military and technological strength and ability--it demonstrated Russian modernism. In this battle, the Russians were prepared with more artillery and thus defeated the Swedes and gained the territory that would soon house St. Petersburg which consequently serves as a reminder of this Russian rise to power.

The influence of internal reforms

Peter the Great's internal reforms were extremely influential in allowing Russia to become a great European country for the process of Westernization helped integrate the Russian identity into that of Europe. The combination of these internal reforms with Peter's competitiveness and desire to utilize military power allowed Russia to transform itself into a European power. As described in this site, Peter travelled to the Western European countries in order to observe and study the techniques that separated the modern Western European countries from the dated and traditional Russia. In order to facilitate the modernization and transformation of Russia into a great European power, Peter the Great needed to insure that the Russian public could mold into a westernized identity. This internal reformation of westernization had two benefits, the first being that it united the Russian people as a more westernized group of people and the second being that it was very demonstrative of Peter the Great's power and influence over his country (especially the nobility). Thus Peter the Great's internal reforms revealed the power that Peter the Great maintained and the influence that he was capable of.

Peter and Alexis

I haven't really looked into how Peter the Great treated the Russian public, but I think that his treatment is best represented through the letters between Peter and his son Alexis. As a son, Alexis should be extremely close with and loved by his father, Peter, however, as the letters between Alexis and Peter reveal, their relationship was broken by Peter's devotion to the progression of the Russian state. While Peter is torn between his love for his son and that for his country, as demonstrated by him saying "my heart is much more penetrated with grief...seeing that you, my son, reject all means of making yourself capable of well-governing after me" his love for his country is ultimately more important. 

When Peter articulates specifically what bothers him about Alexis' manner of rule, Peter articulates what is most important to him in terms of modernizing and bettering a country. Peter emphasizes the necessity "to learn the art" of war and the appropriate time to use warfare, and Alexis' reluctance to enter warfare is entirely unbearable for Peter. Peter also references "the late King of France" in order to inspire Alexis to have an open mind when it comes to warfare which indirectly demonstrates Peter's love for Western ways. Finally, Peter also admits to his own mortality through his constant references to God, however, it appears to me that some of his references to God are a little insincere (which might just be the way in which I am reading this letter) and used as tools to manipulate Alexis into changing his opinion. An example of this is when Peter says: "I am a man and consequently I must die. To whom shall I leave after me to finish what by the grace of God I have begun, and to preserve what I have partly recovered? To a man, who like the slothful servant hides his talent in the earth, that is to say, who neglects making the best of what God has entrusted to him?" In this question, Peter essentially says that he doesn't want his works to be unfinished, that he doesn't want the progress that he has paved for the Russian state to digress with his death.

In his letter to Alexis, Peter demonstrates how important Russia is to him. Obviously, these letters were privately shared between the father and son, and thus, one can assume that they are very accurate depictions of Peter's priorities, which evidently don't include his own family. Peter's roughness with his own family is representative of how Peter would treat the public--with the interest of the state, not the people, always in mind (EXAMPLE: Peter forced families to move to St. Petersburg when the city was established).

Napoleon and Hitler with nobility/leaders...?

So ok so I'm starting to realize how much juggling Peter the Great had to do between maintaining his supreme power (authoritarian rule) and not making the nobility angry enough to rebel. Peter overwhelming flipped the social structure, particularly with the Table of Ranks, however, he also compromised with some nobility and allowed them to play a role in the government. So I was wondering how Hitler and Napoleon interacted with the nobility? Did the nobility make any difference at all? I think that with Napoleon the nobility would probably play a more significant role than with Hitler...I guess that with Hitler there wasn't necessarily a nobility--but something along the lines of a dominating social force that had to be dealt with. In the case of Peter the Great, the legitimacy of his crown meant that he didn't need to use force or violence to prove his power, it came with his title, but the downside to that is that he hadn't necessarily made the public fear him (kind of Machiavelli-style).
I guess I'm just wondering how differently Napoleon and Hitler interacted with the leading social groups while they were coming to power...

Why didn't the nobility rebel?

While Peter's rule did disrupt the traditional Russian identity and thus interacted with the lifestyles of the entire population, his actions were received with much more animosity by the nobility then with the majority of the population. Particularly with the initiation of the Table of Ranks, Peter completely altered the exclusive lifestyle that the nobility had grown accustomed to. It was not necessarily the Westernization that bothered the nobility for Western traditions had already infiltrated their society, but it was the complete loss of the exclusive social power that they had maintained that caused the nobility to be truly angry with Peter the Great's actions. Why then did they not rebel? I think that a major reason that the nobility did not form some sort of violent rebel force against Peter the Great is the sanctity of the title of tsar and the fact that ultimately, the nobility were subject to his rule. However, this reason alone would not stop the nobility from rebelling, and thus Peter compromised with the nobility and allowed some members to reclaim their governmental and social positions. While Peter did not allow all of the nobility to reclaim their positions, he appeased enough of the nobility that a strong alliance between the previously dominant class could not be formed. The power of the nobility is undeniable--they have the power, status, money and means to bribe others into allying with them and could have been a very dangerous enemy to Peter. However, in compromising with some nobility, Peter protected his ability to have jurisdiction without the overwhelming threat of the nobility.

Good or Bad?

So Peter the Great was obviously a selfish ruler, but I've been wondering if that automatically taints his internal reforms. While there are many cases of Peter acting without considering the public or the Russian identity--he completely changed traditional Russian culture by enforcing westernization and he moved the capital to a previously foreign territory, he did initiate an education system by laying "the foundations for the colleges" (173 Peter the Great by Paul Bushkokitch). What is interesting about this is that Peter actually began to return the power to the aristocracy in the educational realm, which contradicts his anti-nobility stance. While he had attempted to kind of reintegrate the nobility into the government in 1698, in giving nobility powerful roles in education, Peter is limiting who can access such education. I understand that education in this period was essentially exclusive to the nobility, but I feel as if in giving the nobility such powerful roles, Peter ties down the potential for education to spread to the masses and makes the educational realm something that is very exclusive and representative of the power of the nobility.
But to backtrack a little bit--I'm still pretty hung up on the fact that toward the end of his reign Peter began to restore the power of the nobility. What is so characteristic and unique about his reign is that he eliminated so much power from the aristocracy and that he managed to maintain rule and avoid a rebellion even though he completely altered the internal Russian social structure. While there was discontentment among the aristocracy, it was never voiced in a violent manner. Why then did Peter give in? I personally believe that Peter was only able to maintain his power because he was the rightful heir to the throne and the Russian people didn't want to dispute the sanctity of this inheritance. When compared to Hitler whose platform was almost entirely built upon the support of the public, it becomes clear that the only thing that maintained Peter's power was his title. While Peter undeniably changed Russian society, he did not influence the Russian public. What I mean by that is that Hitler completely brainwashed the majority of the German public and got them on his side (as Danielle's post "Tactics to Gain Power" cites that membership to the Nazi party increased from 389,000 in the beginning of 1931 to 800,000 by the end of that year), whereas in Peter's case, the Russian public was on his side (for the most part) by default.
Does this change the influence of Peter's reign or his reputation? To be honest, it's much more impressive when somone comes out of no where and completely imposes his rule and, beyond that, gains SUPPORT than it is for someone to stray from the norm of what their title entails.

Peter the Great and Religion

So while Peter's restructure of Russian society is pretty well known, I didn't really know much about how Peter interacted with the church and religion. Before doing any specific research on Peter's relationship with the church, based on what I had learned about Peter's rule, I had assumed that Peter would have strictly imposed some sort of Russian church, but perhaps one that was more secular because of Western European trends. What I found in the book ""Peter the Great" by Robert K. Massie was not far from my assumption. I found it interesting that "he accepted God's omnipotence and saw His hand in everything", just because seeing as he was an authoritarian ruler who seemed to be primarily concerned with himself, I would have thought that his faith and belief in God would have been minimal, and for that I assumed that he would have secularized the Church (783). But in fact, Peter secularized the Church to make it more tolerant of other religious sects aside from Orthodox Catholicism. So while this act was a pretty bold move, the most impressive action on the part of Peter the Great would undoubtedly be in the 1721 enactment of the Ecclesiastical Regulation. This regulation linked the church with the state (big surprise that Peter the Great wanted to control the Church too), established an institution called the Holy Governing Synod and abolished all aspects of the Church that Peter didn't agree with, inforcing that all bishops and priests were schooled in religion to terminate ignorance within the Church.
Essentially, Peter simultaneously loosened the regulations of the Church while tightening his personal control over the Church, what I see as sort of killing two birds with one stone because he allows for more enclusion within the Church (which rallies support for his actions) while he gains control over the establishment that now has a larger membership. I have to ask AGAIN...did he do it for the Russian state or for his own reputation?

The Bronze Horseman

So I was looking up images of St. Petersburg and I came across the picture of the sculpture, "The Bronze Horseman" which I had quite honestly forgotten all about. So then I started looking up some information and I found this poem of some sort that I guess kind of tells the tale of the establishment of St. Petersburg. What I though was super interesting about this work is the sense of pride and love that is associated with St. Petersburg. The writer says, "I love thee, city of Peter's making" and makes other references to his or her love for St. Petersburg and I was pretty surprised to see such an emotional attachment to St. Petersburg. I had assumed that the relocation of the Russian capital to St. Petersburg had completely disturbed and fractured the Russian identity and that Russian people felt distanced and detached from the new capital. But I guess that this poem or work proved me wrong. This work demonstrates a sense of pride, ownership over and entitlement to St. Petersburg, in the way that the capital was acquired from the Swedes, which did undeniably reveal Russian military power, but I was still pretty surprised to find such a celebration and embrace of this foreign territory. While I still think that Peter was not interested in benefiting the lives of the Russian people, I guess that the establishment of St. Petersburg did, to a certain extent, unite the people and form a sense of Russian nationalism. I mean, I'm a little skeptical of the Russian people's embrace of St. Petersburg just because I think about what would happen if all of a sudden the US acquired some new land and just decided to relocate the capital, the CENTER of the country to this random new land, and I think that while it is the ultimate way for a country to show it's power, I think that it would do more internal damage to the country than it would unite or help the country.

St. Petersburg

HEY GROUP.
So I was thinking about how Peter the Great had just uprooted the traditional Russian social structure and lifestyle and I realized that I haven't even written/thought much about St. Petersburg. I mean, while Peter the Great demonstrated his authoritarian power through his social reforms, attempts to modernize Russia and his military pursuits, I think that his establishment of St. Petersburg truly encompasses all of Peter's goals and influences on 17th-18th century Russian society. So St. Petersburg was established on territory that Peter had gained from the Swedes in the Great Northern War. In relocating the Russian capital to St. Petersburg, a territory that Russia had JUST acquired, Peter is again disrupting Russian tradition and showing that the most important thing for him is to insure that his power and the influence and spread of his power is understood by the Russian civilians as well as other European countries (since in moving the capital to St. Petersburg, Peter is encroaching on Western Europe). Peter cares more about his reputation as "Great" then he does about the Russian identity, in fact, I would say that Peter does not care at all about the Russian identity, for he seems to only truly be interested in his ability to influence and change that identity.
I think that what differentiates Peter the Great from Hitler is in their causes. Hitler, although his "cause" was terrible and unimaginably destructive, was extending his influence and his BELIEFS to the German public. To contrast, Peter the Great didn't seem to really have any "cause" except to secure his reputation. While Peter did make very aggressive and influential changes in Russian society, it is clear that his actions were not based upon his considerations of the Russian public. Peter used the Russian public as well as the Russian identity as tools that he could reshape in order to ultimately demonstrate his power and influence, which makes me wonder whether he was more interested in making Russia a great military and European power to strengthen Russia or if he was interested in transforming Russia to a European power to demonstrate his strength.

Peter the Great vs Hitler (again...AGAIN)

OKOKOK so I've been going back and forth with whether or not Peter the Great is a totalitarian dictator because I keep on comparing his SPECIFIC actions with those of Hitler. I think that the circumstances of these two leaders are SO different that it makes little sense to compare them on such an in-depth level, especially since Hitler was the first to really "earn" the title of totalitarian dictator. However, when you look at the broader actions of these two leaders, the two really aren't that different. Both were hoping to reestablish the power of their country and, moreover, insure that their country was no longer overlooked by western European nations. Both reordered the social structure in order to accomplish this goal of reestablishing the power of their country--Hitler through implementing the Nazi system and Peter the Great through his implementation of the Table of Ranks (a system that essentially FORCED the nobility to put the government first if they wanted to hold onto their noble title). Finally, both beefed up their military systems to prove that their country was there to stay and would not be pushed around by other European nations.

Final Point: Peter the Great was a totalitarian dictator.

Globalization

So in class we've been talking a bit about the future of Europe. With the progression of globalization in modern times, I suppose that one could argue that soon the culture and people the define specific European countries will be so integrated that the distinctions between those European countries would be indistinguishable. I just really don't see this happening. While globalization DOES mean that countries are very integrated and interconnected, and it does imply a continuation and intensification of such integration, I for one believe that nationalist sentiment will prevail. I think that European countries are keen on maintaining their own identities--that there is a certain pride in what is Italian, Spanish, French, etc, and that these countries are too proud to forfeit their cultural gains. While there was the establishment of the EU and the implementation of the Euro as currency in many European countries, the countries that became members of the EU and who adopted the Euro as their currency did not lose a piece of their own identity, all that they did was strengthen the European identity as a whole.

Peter the Great vs Hitler (again)

Ok so I was thinking about it and I realized that I'm really on the fence about whether or not Peter the Great would qualify as a totalitarian dictator. 

I was reading over Danielle's post "Zak and Grace...now back to our discussion" where she links Rousseau to totalitarian dictatorship, and I have to say that I agree with what she says.

While I had been pretty much exclusively talking about the differences in technological advancements between Hitler and Peter the Great before, I am now beginning to realize the Hitler had something that Peter the Great never truly had and that was support from the masses. Hitler didn't inherit his power, but instead, he gained his power through getting the public on his side. He was able to create an army of supporters that proved to be an international threat, he did not merely impose his ideas on everyone and kind of hope that it all worked out. While Hitler DID manipulate his way through the governmental system through his use of propaganda as well as taking advantage of the vulnerable position that nationalism put the Germans in, his manipulation, though dishonest and morally wrong, worked. Hitler was able to convince the public that what he was doing was right, that they should join his force to preserve the European race and in that way he was able to change the societal structure.

To contrast, Peter the Great essentially just imposed his power. He didn't really care whether or not the masses agreed with his westernization or not, Peter the Great was determined to earn a legacy, to have his name go down in history as "great", and he would make whatever internal changes necessary to do so. I don't mean to say that this is completely illegitimate or anything of that nature, but I do think that another key difference between Hitler and Peter the Great is the difference between convincing the public that the proposed rule is the RIGHT rule (as Hitler did) and just imposing societal changes upon the public without any sort of attempt to keep the public on your side (as Peter the Great did).

While Peter the Great DID have many great internal changes (he didn't earn the title "great" for no reason), he did not do a great job of insuring that these changes would or could be sustained. Peter made no attempt at keeping the nobility on his side--he was too focused on consolidating his own power and making a name for himself to concern himself with the needs or wants of the nobility. As a result, Peter the Great established a system that was not sustainable, it was only truly great while he was in power.

Mass Consumerism and Culture

During the 1960s, there was a massive cultural revolution pretty much throughout the US as well as Europe. This cultural revolution was rooted in the unified "masses"--the mass consumption and mass culture. Music, material goods and artwork were no longer exclusively accessible to the upper class, but instead, all classes were given access to such staples of culture. As a consequence, social divides deteriorated. Whereas shows had previously been exclusive to the upper class, through the invention of films, shows were now accessible to the majority. Since the exclusivity factor had been so definitive and important for the upper class, I was wondering if there was any sort of opposition to the initiation of mass consumerism and culture? Exclusivity had been central to the existence of the upper class--the upper class could afford the cultural and material advances whereas the lower class could only afford to "get by". However, with the modernization of the 1960s, it became easier to produce for the masses. I guess that I'm answering my own question right now in that the wealthy were still controlling the factories and the material goods, and, as a consequence, when more were produced and purchased, the wealthy became wealthier. So there was a symbiotic relationship between the upper and lower classes in terms of consumerism because both gained. But I would imagine that on the cultural front there would be some form of opposition to the accessibility to the masses because in this case, the upper class would be losing their factor of exclusivity and the lower class would gain access to what was previously exclusive.

What made me think of this was John Lennon's statement that the Beatles were "more popular than Jesus", which resulted in outrage from many Christians and showed a great loss of religious power during the 1960s (1021). What had previously been definitive of culture--exclusivity as well as religion--lost their power and cultural influence during the 1960s, and I think that it is pretty clear that the accessibility of goods and cultural ideas to the masses is the cause of this. If the Beatles hadn't had such international popularity, would John Lennon's statement that the Beatles were "more popular than Jesus" have been taken as seriously as it was (1021)?

PETER THE GREAT vs Hitler

DANIELLE I AM RESPONDING!!!

So I undoubtedly agree that Hitler was an awful person who truly embodies the definition of a totalitarian dictator, but I also think that a lot of what made him such an awful dictator is the fact that he had access to so much power through machinery and technology. Hitler rose to power during a really unstable period and was able to take advantage of the nationalist sentiment which occupied Germany--I feel as if there was a lot more that Hitler could manipulate to facilitate his totalitarian dictatorship than say with Peter the Great. Since Hitler is sort of the "standard" for a totalitarian dictator (he was the first person to truly "earn" that title...right?) I don't think that it makes any sense to argue that his actions do not follow those of a totalitarian dictator. However, I do think that it is a little difficult to compare his actions to those of Peter the Great. 

Since Hitler and Peter the Great were in power during such different time periods, not only did they had access to different materials, but they also had different goals or focuses. When Hitler rose to power, much of the European continent was already set. What I mean by that is that Hitler wasn't necessarily focused on gaining territory, but rather, he was more concerned with creating a pure European race. To contrast, when Tsar Peter 1, the act of westernizing Russia was a huge accomplishment, for, prior to Peter the Great's reign, Russia had been disconnected for western Europe. Peter was focused on making Russia a great military power and establishing "the basics" of a militaristic country (such as a strong army and navy, for, prior to Peter's reign, Russia did not have a navy).

However, the book mentions an act of striking cruelty that I think draws a parallel between Hitler and Peter the Great through a shared interest in maintaining power, and that is when Peter the Great executed over 1,000 of his palace guards for rebelling against his power and leaving their bodies outside "as a graphic reminder of the fate awaiting those who dared to challenge the tsar's authority" (557).

While it is fair to say that Hitler, through his access to greater technology as well as his ability to mold the fragile German peoples, was the most public totalitarian dictator, I believe that, in his act of westernizing Russia, Peter the Great seriously altered the foundation of the Russian society by taking away the power of the nobility (such as through the Table of Ranks) a point that Karl Loewnstein, makes clear in his distinction of Authoritarian government and Totalitarian government. Loewnstein says:

 "the term ‘Authoritarian’ denotes a political organization in which the single power holder - an individual person or 'dictator', an assembly, a committee, a junta, or a party monopolizes political power. The term 'Authoritarian' refers rather to the structure of government than to the structure of society. An Authoritarian regime confines itself to political control of the state"

I believe that, despite his lack of technological access, Peter the Great successfully changed the social structure to the point where his title crosses the line from being an Authoritarian to a Totalitarian dictator.

The Decline of the Soviet Union Continued

As I discussed in my previous blog, I really believe that the Polish Solidarity Movement essentially triggered a state of panic in the Communist state by revealing the cracks in the Communist system--revealing the vulnerability of the Communist system. While the Polish Solidarity Movement did undoubtedly reveal the cracks in the Communist system, Grobachev's briefing of the Russian Duma in 1991 reveals the severity of the weakness of the Communist Party.

For me, one question in particular asked to Grobachev stood out as being particularly shocking, and it was when "Someone asks whether socialism should be banned from the USSR and the Communist Party disbanded as a criminal organization". If this had been asked at any previous period of time, whoever asked the question would undoubtedly face severe consequences for asking such a controversial question, however, since the Polish Solidarity Movement had already revealed the cracks in the Communist System, this question was taken seriously. Grobachev responds to this question by saying "The question is worded in a very straightforward manner, and I will answer accordingly". While his actual answer follows this statement (obviously) I think that this response is hugely important and cannot be overlooked. While this response doesn't necessarily imply that the question should be considered a possibility or the truth, it does address the question as a legitimate one. Why is it that, all of a sudden, questions such as this one can be asked to Grobachev and not be considered a direct threat to the state? Why isn't this question just ignored as ludicrous? Grobachev in fact seems to take the question seriously, as if he understands where this question is rooted and why someone would even consider it. The fact that even the leader of the Soviet Union can address such a question about the Communist state in such a calm manner and take it so seriously reveals the true fragility of the Soviet Union. 

The Decline of the Soviet Union

When Gorbachev became the leader of the Soviet Union in 1985, he initiated many changes that seemingly accelerated the fall of the Soviet Union in August of 1991. Gorbachev stopped Russian economic reform as well as decreased the use of brute force that had been used to maintain the stability and strength of the Russian and Communist states. However, Gorbachev was not the only power to have propelled the Soviet Union into rapid decline, for his actions were actually just reactions to preexisting sentiments of rebellion against the Soviet Union and the Communist state. What truly revealed the growing fragility of the Communist state was the Polish Solidarity Movement.

Gorbachev came to power after the Polish Solidarity Movement during the 1980s. This movement is critical when looking at the decline of the Soviet Union for it truly revealed the cracks in the Communist system. During this movement, millions of Polish workers rebelled against the Communist state, demanding trade unions and thus, liberties. It is essential to acknowledge that the Polish workers chose to proceed with this movement with the knowledge of the implementation and activity of the Breshnev Doctrine, and had the 1968 Invasion of Prague to set an example for what would happen to those who chose to pose a threat to the international Communist state. Despite this very active threats, the Polish workers still rebelled, essentially demanding freedom. 

What is so important about the persistence of the Polish workers to rebel and demand rights is that the Communist system is essentially built upon the support of the workers. Consequently, how can the Communist state exist when it's own foundation, the workers, no longer want to support it?

While the Polish Solidarity Movement was stopped by the Soviets in order to sustain the Communist empire, the impact of this movement on the Communist empire is undeniable and revealed the true potential for the collapse of the Communist state.

Response to In-Class Cold War Simulation

What struck me the most after our in-class simulation of the Cold War was how both superpowers used essentially all other countries available to provide the means to an end. For example, a neutral country (such as Mexico) could become influenced by either superpower if that country would provide that specific superpower with a strategic advantage. While the actions of the superpowers in our in-class simulation were not particularly historically accurate in terms of which countries became involved in the Cold War, I think that the superpowers definitely took advantage of the fact that they were superpowers and used that power to persuade and influence other countries. 

In my opinion, the Soviet Union's implementation of the Warsaw Pact was a demonstration of such manipulation of power. While the Warsaw Pact is technically an agreement between the Soviet Union, Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and East Germany, it seems to me as if the members of the Warsaw Pact didn't really have a choice--the Soviet Union was a powerful, threatening force. Thus, in agreeing to the Warsaw Pact, those other countries gain the "support" of the Soviet Union, however, those other countries probably didn't have much choice--they couldn't exactly just reject the Soviet Union. While the Warsaw Pact wasn't necessarily an active invasion or imposition of influence, that same influence was still implied through such a pact.

The influence of the rivalry between the superpowers was ultimately the unwilling (or maybe superficial) alliance formed between other countries and the superpowers. Since the US and the Soviet Union were two of the strongest countries in the world, they essentially had control or influence over whatever  country they wanted. Such involvement of other countries was temperamental--able to change depending on whether or not the superpower needed that country for a particular reason.

The Berlin Wall

Did the United States provoke the Eastern German government (under the power of Khrushchev in the Soviet Union) into constructing the Berlin Wall? Or was the Soviet Union just extremely paranoid and sensitive after WWII and this paranoia caused them to overreact and take extreme measures in literally dividing Eastern Europe from Western Europe? A combination of these two?

When I was doing the reading, the paragraph that covered the Berlin Wall seemed to be a simplified version of a seemingly complex series of events. Given, all that I know of the construction of the Berlin Wall is what is in the textbook, I was still given the impression that there was a lot of manipulation going on, particularly on the part of Western Europe in order to drive the Soviet Union into a state of panic which materialized itself in the extreme measure of building the Berlin Wall. I have to agree with Danielle in that the Berlin Wall is the almost a materialization of the previously existing divide between Eastern and Western Europe; communism and democracy.

 However, was the construction of this wall truly necessary? NATO had put "battlefield nuclear weapons in West Germany" after already being aware of the Khrushchev's desire to maintain "peaceful coexistence" with the West (991). While I understand that there was a huge amount of fear in Western Europe that communism would bleed into its borders and there was a fair amount of uncertainty in the trustworthiness of the Soviet Union and better safe than sorry, I can't help but wonder what purpose the placement of weaponry in West Germany served. Was it sincerely for defense, was it meant to be a fear tactic, a demonstration of Western power, or all of these?

European Threat

Was it fair for the Soviet Union to receive control over Eastern Europe? After WWII, the combined effects of the Tehran and Yalta Conferences allowed the Soviet Union to gain control over Eastern Europe. This immediately accelerated the Soviet threat and also eliminated the idea of the balance of power that had shaped the framework of European relations since the Treaty of Utrecht (1713). The combined effect of these conferences essentially divided Europe between Soviet and Western European powers and thus inspired Churchill’s “Iron Curtain Speech”. The combined result of these two conferences was undoubtedly severe and detrimental to the European structure and therefore makes me wonder whether such an extreme forfeit of power (on the Western side) was a rational and just solution or whether it was one out of impulse and fear of another war. Personally, I think that the act was one out of impulse and fear, void of any rational thought whatsoever, particularly with Stalin as a leader. In giving so much power to the Soviets, Western Europe pretty much created their own worst enemy and threat, and though it did avoid an immediate war, it did not create any sort of a solution between the capitalist and communist parties, and thus the rivalry between these two parties remained unresolved. The Soviets had suffered great losses during WWII, and, as history has shown with the Germans, when a country suffers greatly during warfare there is a desire to redeem the power and international threat of that country. Although Churchill denied the inevitability of warfare in his “Iron Curtain Speech”, it seems clear to me that the Soviets were not willing to bargain for peace, but rather, they were still hungry to prove themselves and the greatness of the Communist state to the rest of Europe.

The Atom Bomb

The textbook describes the atomic bomb as "one of the most terrifying results of the new relationship between science and political power" (973). Not only were the full consequences of the bomb unknown, but the real consequences of the bomb (such as the 60% obliteration of the population of Hiroshima (971)) are unimaginable. In President Truman's memoirs, he takes full responsibility for the dropping of the atomic bomb and acknowledges the positive response to the idea of the atomic bomb from scientific advisers as well as Churchill himself (who evidently told Truman "unhesitatingly told me that he favored the use of the atomic bomb if it might aid to the end of the war" (973)).

Since Truman seemed so convinced that not only was the atomic bomb the right way to end WWII but also that his advisers and allies were in agreement with his use of the atomic bomb, I was surprised to read "A Petition to the President of the United States" (on page 972) which was written to President Truman from the scientists who were designing the atomic bomb. This petition essentially says that the use of the atomic bomb in that stage of the war was unnecessary, for the bomb was only constructed due to the "fear that the United States might be attacked by atomic bombs". However, with that threat no longer in existence, the scientists seemed convinced (convinced enough to write a petition to the President to not use the atomic bomb) that the atomic bomb should not be used. 

This makes me wonder whether the atom bomb was used out of necessity or out of the desire to prove the strength and power of the United States. Japan was already weakened, the atomic bomb was not the necessary end to the war, yet the US proceeded to completely obliterate the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Prior to reading the petition by the scientists, I'll admit that I was proud of the US use of the atom bomb, for, while I knew that it was morally wrong, it was such an act of power that I couldn't help but feel pride in the US ability to construct and then use such a weapon. However, I think that this pride was pretty blind. As Danielle said, in her post "Division and Destruction", the atom bomb killed innocent people in seconds--not giving them the chance to escape. The petition by the scientists who constructed the atom bomb really but the immensity of the bomb into perspective for me. They really only created such a weapon to be used in US defense--they had anticipated a similar German attack. They had not meant for the bomb to be used as it was. Was the use of the atomic bomb fair?

Stalin's Reply to Churchill, March 14, 1946

What struck me the most about Stalin's "Reply to Churchill" was the tone of Stalin's speech. In this speech, Stalin is responding to Churchill's "Iron Curtain Speech", in which Churchill discusses the threat of the "Soviet sphere", the presence of communism within this sphere and the threat of the Soviet influence on German communism. In this speech, Churchill essentially discusses the Soviet desire to demonstrate "the indefinite expansion of their power and doctrines", to which his solution is to exclude the Soviets in order to maintain "unity in Europe", and control Soviet power under the United Nations.

While Churchill's speech talks of the necessary actions in order to maintain peace in Europe, Stalin's response seems cold and condescending, almost provoking other European nations to initiate warfare against Russia. Stalin equates Churchill's words with those of Hitler in regards to "racial theory", and, saying that Churchill only calls to the English speaking nations of the world. In making such an accusation, Stalin divides the teams between the English speaking nations and the non-English speaking nations, only he is able to place this blame on Churchill. In his response, Stalin is very abrasive and seems intent on making Churchill look like the bad guy, like the instigator, and, in comparing Churchill with Hitler, would have done a convincing job (for those people who supported Stalin). Stalin's speech was given less than a year after the terror of World War II, a war that Hitler is to blame entirely for. Consequently, Stalin's comparison of Churchill with Hitler was potent and was probably made to instill fear in many people of the possible threat of Churchill.

Although Churchill had discussed his desire for peace and his repulsion "that a new war is inevitable" in his Iron Curtain speech, Stalin managed to twist he words of Churchill around to make it look as if Churchill had plans or the foundation to initiate another war. I guess that I wonder whether or not this was a convincing argument to the followers of Stalin, or whether this speech made any other nations worried about English-speaking nations initiating warfare?

"Fuhrer, You Order. We Obey"

When I read the memoirs of Rudolf Hoss, I was pretty much overwhelmed with shock. It was the first time that I really read a first-hand account from a Nazi commandant, especially one who was in such high command of the concentration camps, and I guess that I expected SOME ounce of regret or sorrow in this account. What initially struck me was how Hoss seemed to disassociate himself from the act of killing so many Jews, he says, "I want to emphasize here that I personally never hated the Jews. I considered them to be the enemy of our nation". This (among MANY other parts of the memoir) was just appalling to me, for it truly revealed how robotic the actions of many Nazis were--Hoss doesn't even seem aware, really, of the fact that the Jews that were being killed were people, he had detached them even from being human beings to just being "enem[ies]". Throughout the piece it seemed to me as if Hoss was searching for any reason to maintain this detachment, he admits that he was worried about having to do executions by guns, "especially when [he] thought of the number of women and children who were to be killed", and was therefore relieved when the idea for mass execution by Cyclon B, prussic acid (gas chambers) was conceived. Hoss needed to distance himself as much as possible from the humanity of the Jews in order to continue killing them in masses, however, it was clear throughout the piece that this distance was not easy to maintain.

What really horrified me (out of this entire piece) was how Hoss was almost asking for pity for the Nazi soldiers who had to obey such cruel orders and follow through with such acts of merciless killings. I guess that I had never really thought of Nazis as being humans, for their actions, especially at death camps, were so cruel and inhumane that it is inconceivable to me for someone to be able to follow through with them. I by no means am saying that I feel any pity for the Nazi soldiers working at death camps, but this piece by Hoss did reveal to me how the Nazis almost acted robotically out of the necessity to maintain their ability to follow through with the orders of Hitler, about which Hoss explains: "There was no reflection, no interpretation, no explanation about these orders. They were carried out ruthlessly, regardless of the final consequences..."

Peter the Great

As Danielle has said, my group will be studying the different presences of totalitarianism in European history. These differences will be not only in terms of time period, but also in terms of means (the use of propaganda, military force, etc) as well as the reason why totalitarianism was used. While totalitarianism is greatly associated with the reigns of Stalin and Hitler in the 20th century, Danielle, Zak and I are going to look at the roots of totalitarianism, and why totalitarianism is almost exclusively associated with Stalin and Hitler. I will be studying Peter the Great's reign and whether or not his reign shares any similarities with those of Hitler and Napoleon.

The definition of totalitarianism that Danielle found, as "a political system whereby a state regulates every aspect of public and private life", completely applies to the reign of Peter the Great. I think that a factor that might differentiate Hitler's reign and that of Peter the Great is perhaps the reason WHY they implemented such structures. To me, it seems as if Hitler wasn't necessarily acting to prove himself as the greatest power, instead, he was acting to expedite proving the power of the German state. Hitler wanted to create a pure world, one exclusive to the Aryan race, and he also wanted to demonstrate the power of the German peoples. Consequently, Hitler's regulation of the German state seems to be very dependent on using the German state as an example for the rest of the world. The Russian reforms implemented by Peter the Great, such as the reformation of the Russian Orthodox Church as well as the switch to have the state control the economy, were all attempts to modernize Russia to make it a great world power.

In both cases, that of Hitler and that of Peter the Great, the rulers were acting on behalf of their state in an attempt to prove the power, not necessarily of themselves, but of their country to the rest of Europe, which I believe to be a defining characteristic of a totalitarian leader.

The Power of Literature during the Great Depression

The chaos of the Great Depression (1929) forced definite economic and political changes such as the abandonment of the gold standard and the implementation of Keynesian policy through the New Deal. While these changes were necessary reactions to the economic travesty, the chaos of this period had significant effects of the environment in which people lived. Such dramatic losses and changes in governmental and economic systems resulted in a very expressive cultural period. The writing created in during the Great Depression was very personal and representative of the experience of the artist. Authors, such as John Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath (video clip) began to deviate from focusing of the subconscious and instead using their writing to write about a common experience (the Great Depression) and thus create a sense of unity and inclusivity—those experiencing hardship from the Great Depression were not alone in their suffering. I wouldn’t go as far to say that this writing the Great Depression offered a sense of hope in the idealized connotation—it did not portray a future with some sort of paradise after such suffering, but I do believe that such honest and real writing provided hope in that it eliminated the feeling of complete and total loss and isolation. While literature is typically used as a form to escape from one’s reality, books such as The Grapes of Wrath mirrored the reality of the audience, thus allowing the audience to escape (to a certain degree) from the feeling of isolation and emptiness that the Great Depression imposed on many.

Summary

In his post "A sense in fascism" Zak points out the interesting hypocrisy within the fascist party. As Zak points out, "They enforced tradition, like religion, by declaring that all marriages were non-secular, but at the same time, a deal was made with the Vatican, giving independence to the pope—so that he no longer has any political power in Italy". In order to establish and maintain stability within Italy, Mussolini needed to tackle the greater issue that Italy, while it had been contractually unified, was never culturally or socially unified. This lack of unification was due to the presence of opposing powers, opposing needs, etc. Consequently, for Mussolini to truly establish a secure foundation upon which he could form his fascist regime, he had no choice but to act hypocritically (such as what Zak pointed out), for he needed to please opposing sides without initiating some sort of civil war or revolution. While this system of contradiction is useful in implementing a governmental change (such as establishing Fascist rule in Italy), does it have longevity? Or will the older, more traditional Italian components (such as the power of the Catholic Church) be replaced by the newer, modern Italian components that are driven by nationalist sentiment to further the Italian state?

Summary

With the rise of communism in Russia, fascism in Italy and Naziism in Germany, there is an undeniable trend in the reason WHY these extremely radical, powerful and dangerous political groups were capable of gaining national power and support, and it is that in all three cases, the people of those countries were desperate for change. Prior to the rise of each political group, the country is a complete mess, and these manipulative political groups fed off of the desperation of the masses in order to have their system of government "save the day" (as Danielle puts it).
I absolutely agree with Danielle's statement that Hitler took over Germany at its weakest point--when it was economically unstable due to it's war debts from the Treaty of Versailles, and the confidence in itself was lost. While the similarities between all three governmental systems "rise to power" are undeniable (for all fed off of the unstable situation to gain power), Hitler took the rise of the Nazi party to the next level, particularly with the use of propaganda to stir national sentiment. The master of propaganda was Joseph Goebbel. An example of his "work" shows a happy child with the Nazi flag--thus implying that Nazi children were the happiest children. Once the Nazi party had been established, Goebbel demonstrated his ability to persuade the people through passionate speeches that, much like his artistic propoganda, manipulated people's emotions in order to gain their support.
As Danielle said, the Nazi party came in and was the party that could "save the day" for Germany--restore it's international power and reputation, and the use of propoganda reiterated and solidified that ability of the Nazi party.

919-925

It is interesting that, while many people will say that through art they discovered the meaning to their lives, for Adolf Hitler, it was the German army, not the artistic route, that allowed him to "finally [find] meaning in his life" (919). Art typically serves as a free expression of oneself in which one attempts to depict a personal emotion, event or opinion--an artist's work ultimately defines him or her and serves as the thread that pieces the artists life together. While the army typically is associated with having little to no freedoms, much like art, it too is an expression of self. Whereas art demonstrates how one lives one's life, the army provides a reason to live ones life. While the Austrian Adolf Hitler had moved to Vienna to become an artist, he was only able to find himself (or understand himself) upon joining the German army--a country that he was not associated with and therefore should not "naturally" have had any reason to sympathize with or understand. However, it was in the foreign German territory and as a member of the restrictive German army that Hitler began to truly define himself and his beliefs, as his autobiography Mein Kampf demonstrates. While this autobiography lays down Hitler's political foundation, it also manipulates the German nationalist sentiment against the rest of the continent (Germany was pretty mad about the results of the Treaty of Versailles, 1918) to further his anti-Semitic perspective. Is it fair for Hitler, a stranger in German land, to use German nationalism as a tool to further his own beliefs and to also further his own political popularity and power?

913-919

While Italy had never been completely stable after it's unification, it's unstable conditions worsened after WWI, for Italy was a complete and total mess. Rising inflation, high rates of unemployment and a national dissatisfaction for the Italian involvement in WWI resulted in a pretty chaotic scene. As the Russian Communist Revolution demonstrated, a state of national chaos allows for great governmental change for the (practically) unanimous discontent facilitates a national sentiment that embraces change. While socialism was on the rise (as an immediate response to the dissatisfied national sentiment), the fascist movement, lead by Mussolini, started to slowly gain popularity and awareness. Fascists aggressively smothered the socialist movement, and, as a result, "as the national regime weakened, Mussolini's coercive politics made him look like a solution to the absence of leadership" (915). In other words, Italians were essentially cornered into supporting Mussolini. The three main pillars of fascism are statism, nationalism and militarism, and the Italian fascist flag successfully encompasses these elements. Drawing pretty much directly from the etymology of the word "fascism", the image of the bird carrying the bundle of sticks tied together with an ax head sticking out successfully depicts the fascist cause while simultaneously inspiring pride in that cause; the subtle ax head demonstrating the unexpected nature of the fascist strength, power and potency.

Summary

As Danielle discusses in her post "Russian Revolution!!!", the Bolsheviks were "able to come to power due to the instability of Russia and the overall political and social CHAOS!!". I agree with this point entirely--the Bolsheviks proposed a solution to such chaos in the seemingly stable Soviet governmental system. I do not think that it is difficult to say whether or not the Communist Revolution would have been so successful if Russia had been more stable--the revolution was so greatly dependent on the support of the proletariat that ONLY such a state of chaos (and consequently desperation) facilitated the implementation of the Soviet government. This essentially follows the Marxist understanding that a communist revolution would inevitably occur due to contradiction and civil warfare, except that the fall of the English and French systems had not yet occurred. The proletariat were desperate to be acknowledged by their government, and the Soviet government appealed to that desire, offering a breath of fresh air amongst such chaos and instability. The Bolsheviks sympathized with the discontent of the Russian army and forfeited tremendous amounts of territory in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (1918) just to get out of WWI. The Bolsheviks (somewhat) stabilized the discontentment of the peasants by randomly distributing the land of the nobility without requiring compensations of any sort, and, in giving the workers control within the workplace, appealed to the workers as well. Essentially, I entirely agree with what Danielle said. The fact that Russia was in such a great state of chaos worked well with the fact that the Bolshevik party wanted to entirely change the foundations of Russia, because the state of chaos provided the proletariat with a reason to embrace this change.

888-893

The Russian Communist Revolution craftily utilized the weakened political state of Russia in order to unite the masses in support of a Communist state. The Russian morale was low during WWI and Lenin, who led the Bolshevik party and thus the Communist revolution, used this discontented state to rally support against the provisional government. While there were slight efforts made to maintain contentment amongst the nobility, the general Bolshevik energy was directed to obtaining the support of the peasantry. The Bolsheviks empowered the workers and peasantry, giving them control in the workplace and also redistributing noble land without compensation for the nobles. The success of the Communist revolution was the utilization of the enraged peasants, who were frustrated with being ignored by their government. Instead of continuing a spirit of negligence, the Bolsheviks essentially devoted their entire platform to satisfying some of the peasants needs. Obtaining such support benefited the Bolshevik cause for not only did it increase the potency of the political group but it also insured that the peasants would not rebel against the Bolsheviks.

876-888

While the feminist movement had been gaining momentum prior to WWI, the war called on women to serve their countries internally while the men fought in the foreign wars. Since the men were called off to fight in war, the jobs that they performed needed to continue in order to maintain the internal functioning of the country. Consequently, the women were beckoned to join the workforce and, though they were not constantly working right next to men, the fact that women could perform the same tasks as men was hugely significant in the societal perception of women. The dependency of country’s on the women workforce during WWI fostered the growth of a new identity for women, one in which they were independent from the guidance and aid of men and were instead equally capable within society as men. However, while the growth of the female identity was great during WWI, the spectrum of the growth seemed to be confined to the period of warfare, when the male workforce was driven out of the country and the women were thus needed to replace them. Consequently, the strength of the female presence in the workforce was fleeting. Despite the fleeting nature of the female presence within the male-dominated workforce, the spirit of female independence and equality persevered and inspired further search for this spirit to be realized within society (and it slowly was with the initiation of female suffrage first in the U.S., Germany and the Soviet Union). WWI allowed women to penetrate not only the workforce but also to embrace a new empowered identity that was distinct and independent from men.

865-876

World War I occurred during a great technological transition. While armies now carried tanks and machine guns, they were still using strategies that had functioned before the presence of such powerful weaponry. This gap between technological preparation and strategic ability resulted in an outrageously large number of deaths for seemingly insignificant results. Despite the blatant presence of such a gap, countries were determined to demonstrate their military strength and ability, and allowed such determination to blind them of the grave reality of the war. Such blindness is demonstrated in Germany’s Schlieffen Plan, for, while they were not prepared to initiate the Schlieffen Plan, it was what they believed to be the only way to weaken both France and Germany and they consequently carried through with it despite their unpreparedness. While this particular plan didn’t necessarily demonstrate a multitude of deaths, the rushed nature of the procedure reveals the desire to acquire the title of most powerful country. While each country entered the war with the impression that, due to technological advancements, the war would be quick and a victor could be determined with one sweeping blow, the gap between advanced technology and almost primitive war plans weakened each country and caused WWI to be a long and drawn out war that had insignificant territorial gains.

855-862

Up until the late 19th century, science had been utilized to provide order and logic in an otherwise chaotic and uncontrolled realm. However, Freud and Nietzsche used science to prove the innate human lack of control. While science had previously focused on tangible facts and evidence, Freud and Nietzsche focused on the abstract nature of the consciousness and mind, having only human behavior and actions to serve as the foundation of their analysis. Not only did the foundation of their studies stray from the traditional, but they also specifically targeted the traditional social establishments that shaped the culture of that time, blaming such confining structures for the restriction of the human potential and for thus altering the true nature of the human reality. The separation of Freud and Nietzsche from the traditional conformities of society initiated a paralleled transformation in the artistic realms, inspiring artistic creations such as Black Lines by Wassily Kandinsky, 1913 (page 859). This abstract painting seems to be a complete expression of emotion. It follows no strategic pattern or form, however, despite the chaos that this painting conveys, it also shares an oddly tangible emotion to which the audience can relate. The studies of Freud and Nietzsche broke from the norm and, in doing so, broadened the potential understandings of the human reality and inspired humans to seek other forms of expression outside of what society deemed normal.

Summary

In class, we simulated a debate between the three leading Russian political groups: the Mensheviks, Bolsheviks and Octoberists. While these political groups that were all in agreement of the Russian necessity to undergo some form of political change. However, while they shared that common understanding of the deteriorating Russian state, they differed in not only the manner of implementing the necessary governmental change but also in the urgency or timing that this change required. The Mensheviks were tied strongly to Marx’s theory, and thus believed that Russia was not at the appropriate time for Russia to undergo a shift from feudalism to communism, especially since Russia had not yet transitioned to capitalism, which, according to Marx, was an essential component in the proper establishment of communism. To contrast this belief that Russia was not ready to shift to communism was the opinion of the minority, the Bolsheviks, who believed that they could divert from Marx’s complete theory and instead relieve Russia from its dismal political state by forcing Russia to switch to communism through a revolution. While the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks at least had common ground about the inevitability of this revolution and shift to communism, the Octoberists believed that somehow, the communist state could coexist with the current Russian government.

            While the Bolsheviks had been the minority, it was their argument that ultimately proved to be the most poignant and gained the most momentum. The Russian people were impatient, having waited and suffered too long with little to no governmental response or help. It is much easier to present the argument that the Bolsheviks did: one that would provide seemingly instant results for the discontented masses. It is much more difficult to tell people to wait and suffer even longer.   

844-851

While much of Europe experienced industrial change, and in countries, such as Germany, this change served as a unifying factor, Russia’s process of industrialization was particularly unique and further divided the enormous European country. Since it is such a huge country, Russia couldn’t industrialize in a uniform pattern, thus leaving some urban, industrialized patches amongst the immense rural area. Russia was further destabilized as a result of the economic downturn that it experienced, which inevitably resulted in increased unemployment and thus peasant discontent. Russia’s economic and industrial split resulted in a greater cultural divide. The peasants desperately believed that they could express their discontentment to Tsar Nicholas II, however, when a group of them attempted to articulate their dissatisfaction to the Tsar, they were met with a group of military officers, who, instead of being open to listening to the needs of the people, chose to shoot the dissatisfied peasants along with their faith in the security of their Tsar. The unequal spread of industrialization and employment opportunities inevitably led to peasant dissatisfaction. However, while this unhappiness was almost expected, the governmental refusal to adhere to or even listen to the complaints and needs of the people was not anticipated and demonstrated how, in order to industrialize, the Russian proletariat were going to suffer. 

823-837

Toward the end of the 19^th century, Europe experienced an industrial change that intensified European dependency on foreign goods and work, strengthened mass media and reorganized the preexisting capitalist institutions. This European cultural development was founded strongly in the technological development that resulted in a utilization of new materials, particularly steel. The transition from the use of iron to the use of steel shaped the European cultural for it provided more efficient technology that allowed for mass production, thus increasing the European desire for rapid production of manufactured goods. The European demand for rapid access to products was supported by innovation in technology, such as the Thomas Edison’s invention of the incandescent-filament light, which provided seemingly instant results.

            Aside from the technological innovations at home, the later part of the 19^th century also marked the spread of European influence and thus culture into other countries that were considered less developed in the eyes of the Europeans. This intensified imperialism was greatly supported by the new European dependency on oil (as opposed to the prior dependency on coal). Dependency on oil allowed European industries to move, since they were no longer tied to coal as an energy source. The use of oil as an energy source also allowed Europeans to travel farther faster, thus expediting the European sphere of influence and potential to exploit those less developed countries.

            The end of the 19^th century was the period in which the foundation was laid for the demand for seemingly instant results. Europeans had faster access to materials, information and countries, and thus grew accustomed to such quick results.

Summary

As demonstrated in, “A Place in the Sun” (1901), by Kaiser Wilhelm II, the strength of nationalism is a tool used by nations to promote imperialism. Wilhelm explains how through imperialism, citizens focus their attention abroad and on servicing the German nation instead of worrying about “the pettiness which surrounds him in daily life”.  Consequently, imperialism would strengthen a nation such as Germany internally and externally, for while people’s attention is refocused to German expansion, Germany is simultaneously achieving an international reputation.

            However, despite its power in affecting the people, nationalism was not the only tool used to encourage imperialism. There was the civilizing mission, or, as Rudyard Kipling writes of, “The White Man’s Burden” (1899). While Kipling could either be presenting sarcastic or genuine beliefs, imperialism was undoubtedly presented to citizens as an act to help those less fortunate and uncivilized nations. In his piece, Kipling’s descriptions of the members of imperialized nations as “savages” and “half-devil and half-child” distances those people from the civilized world and would most likely inspire anger or minimally a desire to change (and, as it is implied, therefore help) those “savages”.

            While there were other, more political devices used to awaken public support for imperialism, nations rallied the most support through playing the sentiments of the public. Both nationalism and the use of the “civilizing mission” touched the core and identity of the public—whether a national or more spiritual identity, and from this manipulation of human sentiment, imperialism created a foundation of public support.

793-806: Imperialism and the Opium Trade

European imperialism allowed the technologically advanced European nations to exploit the less technologically advanced and therefore vulnerable colonized nations. This exploitation is demonstrated through European imperialism in India, in which British traders exploited the Indian workers and opium sources. The British East India Company managed the opium trade that was initiated due to Britain’s abundant opium-growing territory in northeast India. The British exploitation of India’s opium sources and the desperation of the Indians for work yielded an industry that expanded rapidly, and a European addiction to this drug established quickly. Soon an “Opium Trade Triangle” of sorts was created between India (who provided the opium) Europe (who traded the highly valued product) and China (whose goods were purchased by European traders). In this triangle, the European traders maintained the power and influence over China and India, who were subject to the will of the British. Imperialism gave Europeans access to new markets, such as the opium trade, thus expanding European influence territorially as well as economically.

787-793

The 19^th century imperialist movement was not driven by one exclusive force. However, nationalism was an undeniably powerful component that propelled imperialism. The imperialist movement followed the 18^th century nationalistic movement and was thus rooted in a desire to expand a nation’s sphere of influence. Imperialism served as a manner through which nations could demonstrate their technological and military power and establish Western superiority over the “inferior” occupants of the lands that Europeans colonized. The lingering nationalist sentiment sought the powerful reputation that successfully colonizing a nation would yield. The act of formal imperialism is an immediate demonstration of the strength of a nation, but this powerful reputation extends beyond a nation’s ability to colonize. After colonizing an “inferior” nation, Europeans are able to exploit the local resources, which expands the European economy, further strengthening the European nation. Nationalism gave European nations the momentum to colonize other countries, for it was based in the innate desire to create a powerful nation, and European nations would do whatever it takes in order to establish a strong reputation.

Summary

The presence of a common cultural identity allowed for the growth of nationalism, the unification of a country and the establishment of a public voice. As demonstrated by the unification of the German Confederation (1871), there is an undeniable strength that a common culture maintains. The strength of a common culture within a nation allows the role of the public within a nation to be established and thus expedites the social and governmental progression of the nation. The strength of a common culture comes from the fact that it creates a sense of trust within a nation, that the citizens of a nation seek the same goals. As a result of this trusting environment, the public is more willing to have an active voice, such as the British did after the Crimean War. The example of how Great Britain responded to public complaints after the Crimean War demonstrates how the presence of a common culture is conducive to national progression and betterment. 

767-780

The Crimean War (1854-1856) revealed both the decline of the Ottoman Empire as well as the reality of the hardship of war. While there was no decisive military victory for the French and British or the Russians, the ultimate end of the Crimean War in a treaty seriously dampened the pride of the Russians and thus maintained the balance of power. What is equally significant to the maintenance of the balance of power that the Crimean War achieved is the publicity that the reality of the Crimean War gained through the photograph of Roger Fenton. While the public could previously hear stories of the hardships of war, the photography of British Fenton revealed the poor conditions that the British army suffered during the Crimean War and inspired a public response. Fenton’s photography brought the reality of the hardships of war home to Britain and inspired not only a public demand for change of the conditions of army but also the artistic movement of realism. The basic foundation of realism is the artistic depiction of their reality without the interference of artistic “interpretations” of this reality. The realist movement was revolutionary not only because of its new artistic implications but also because it demonstrated a new form to communicate the realities of either the army (such as Fenton’s Captain Dames of the Royal Artillery) or the menial tasks of common workers (such as Courbet’s The Stone Breakers). The Crimean War was historically and artistically influential for it allowed the maintenance of the balance of European power as well as being the source of the foundation of realism.

762-767

The divisions of European land in the 19th century left patchwork nations were comprised of either divided states (such as the German Confederation) or disjointed cultures (such as the Habsburg Empire of Austria-Hungary). While the nations were divided in both of these cases, the difference between cultural and geographical division is significant and produces considerably different outcomes. Geographical division, such as in the case of the German Confederation (which was broken into 38 individual states), inspired the creation of a united German identity, and, consequently, a united German nation. To contrast, the cultural division of the Habsburg Empire proved to be its weakness. The empire was attempting to bridge the opposing cultures of Austria and Hungary, a unification which was threatened by Hungarian Kossuth in 1848 and would have successfully broken the ties between Austria-Hungary had it not been for Russian intervention in 1849 which ended the Hungarian revolt. Instead of acknowledging the blatant cultural division between Austria and Hungary, the Habsburg Empire struggled to just barely hold itself together, creating the allusion of a united Austria-Hungary through shared legal institutions in order to avoid the reality that the cultural divide was too powerful to maintain a unified empire. 

Summary

In order to avoid revolution, a government essentially has two options. Great Britain and Prussia demonstrated these two options in the later half of the 19^th century, when the governmental systems of both countries were facing opposition from their respective liberal parties. A government must act as Great Britain did (with the Reform Bill of 1867) and compromise with the discontented party, or it can act as Prussia did (with the influence of Bismarck) and unite the country with a common cause, such as nationalism, in order to almost distract the opposing party. Clearly, between these two options (that of compromise and that of “distracting” the opposing party), the former will result in an overall more contented country and will consequently have longer-lasting peace. The act of compromise demonstrates the humbleness of a government and it’s willingness to adhere to the complaints of the people in order to better the state of the country as a whole. To contrast, the use of nationalism to momentarily unite a country only stalls the threat of revolution and allows a ruler (such as Bismarck) to focus on exterior gains (such as Germany) instead of interior problems. Creating a sense of nationalism within a country does not achieve anything aside from temporarily uniting that country; the problems that existed before the presence of that nationalism will still exist after that sense of nationalism fades away. Consequently, if a government truly wants to avoid revolution (and not just stall the threat of a revolution), it only really has one option: to put aside its ego and mold itself to fit the needs of its people.

762-767: Power of Nationalism

The German Confederation could not have been united without Bismarck’s understanding of the power of nationalism. Driven by his desire for power, Bismarck tactfully maintained his ultra-conservative values without bothering the Prussian liberals. While Bismarck did not necessarily go out of his way to compromise his values in order to please Prussian liberals, he managed to avoid revolution by appealing to the uniting factor of liberal and conservative Prussians: their nationality. Ultimately, Bismarck wanted Prussian control over the German Confederation, which, when Bismarck rose to power, was under the combined powers of Austria and Prussia. By engaging in the Seven Weeks War (1866), Bismarck was able to weaken Austria militarily and also establish a sense of Prussian pride. Austria ceded its lands to Prussia and thus allowed Bismarck to create the Northern German Confederation. Following this victory, Bismarck needed to unite Southern German states and again used nationalism as a uniting factor. Bismarck created a conflict between France and Germany in order to unite Southern Germans against France and in support of Prussia. Bismarck understood that when a nation is put in a vulnerable position, the nation is strengthened and unites in order to defeat the threat. Through military victories, Bismarck created a sense of Prussian nationalism, and this maintenance of public support allowed him to expand his power without the threat of revolution from Prussian liberals.