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.