It is evident after WWII that communist regimes appealed to many European nations, especially in Eastern Europe - as seen by the number of communist governments that arose. As we've discussed in class, communism was seen as having a kind of "moral high-ground" because it was among the major forces that defeated the Nazis. However, populations slowly began to see the flaws of communism as enacted under the USSR. While this movement was steadily growing, many still supported the communist cause and saw the Soviet Union as generally benevolent and willing to allow "bloc" countries to dictate their own policies.
When the Czechoslovakia attempted to reform their government to be a bit more liberal, the armies from several Warsaw Pact countries invaded. This sparked resentment around the world. Naturally Western European countries vocalized their opposition to the occupation. The most notable reaction, however, came from within satellite Soviet states. This popular opposition gave anti-soviet movement something to grant them legitimacy. The different reactions to the invasion also created a divide among the communist party world wide - the more conservative communists that supported the forcing of Soviet doctrine, and those that saw the need for reform. Several communist governments spoke out against the invasion and some even held "springs" of their own.
Overall, the "Prague Spring" wiped away the illusion that the USSR merely accepted the choice of sovereign nations to join the Eastern Bloc. Instead it showed that the USSR would enforce its beliefs on one of its satellites. In a manner of speaking, it took away the legitimacy of soviet policy. Since the people of Czechoslovakia obviously had the right to self-govern taken away, suddenly all the USSR countries (to a degree) began to quest their own sovereignty.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Nationalism
Orwell defines nationalism as (in my own summary) a basic self-diluted desire for glory, power, and prestige for something (not necessarily a nation). He describes how a nationalist constantly exerts his/her efforts to furthering his/her cause – even to the point of convincing themselves of lies, and forcing beliefs on themselves without question.
One of the characteristics of nationalism that he mentions is Obsession. In my opinion, this is the over-riding theme throughout his definition. He characterizes the nationalist as someone that will cross any line, say whatever needs to be said, and perform any duty that might benefit their “power unit”.
Although Orwell classifies nationalism as either “positive nationalism” or “negative nationalism”, he argues that either form can lead to extreme conservatism and “political quietism.” While he doesn’t attempt to demonize the pride people can feel for their “power unit” of choice, he warns that people need to be willing to accept reality and admit faults of their associations.
One of the characteristics of nationalism that he mentions is Obsession. In my opinion, this is the over-riding theme throughout his definition. He characterizes the nationalist as someone that will cross any line, say whatever needs to be said, and perform any duty that might benefit their “power unit”.
Although Orwell classifies nationalism as either “positive nationalism” or “negative nationalism”, he argues that either form can lead to extreme conservatism and “political quietism.” While he doesn’t attempt to demonize the pride people can feel for their “power unit” of choice, he warns that people need to be willing to accept reality and admit faults of their associations.
Cold War
Cold War is a term used for the decades of undeclared conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union. The reason they call it a “Cold” war is because there was never any open engagement of armies from either nation. That’s not to say that forces from either side never collided. Instead, either super power would support opposing war efforts in various peripheral nations in order to further their own influence or oppose the spread of the other’s influence.
Numerous “peripheral” conflicts occurred all over the globe. The Korean War and the Vietnam Conflict are both examples where the U.S. military had to face armies that weren’t from the Soviet Union, but were using Soviet weaponry and at times heeding Soviet advice – both were fought by the U.S. in hopes of preventing the spread of communism. Another such war was fought in Afghanistan. This war, however, was fought by Soviet forces against the U.S. supported Taliban. These “puppet” conflicts also happened to be opportunities for either super power to test out new equipment and tactics without necessarily having to lose their own soldiers.
Although Europe never saw the same kind of conflict, the Cold War was every bit as much of a threat. Constant espionage, spying, political maneuvering, and propaganda (sometimes subtle, sometimes not) operations from either side always threatened to ignite another major conflict in Europe. This also encompassed either faction taking measures to solidify their influence within a European culture that didn’t, in general, feel as polarized as either opposing super power. This can be observed in how the capitalists cracked down on communist movements within their borders, as well as how eastern European nations underwent “Sovietization” (the process of promoting Soviet communist culture through laws, and customs). At times this was voluntary for individual nations, but often nations were given little alternatives by either super power.
Political/military aligning between nations supporting either faction was another characteristic of the Cold War. NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) was the west’s attempt at offering the Soviet Union a coordinated opposition. Naturally, the Soviet Union responded in kind with the Warsaw Pact between Russia and most communist nations.
Numerous “peripheral” conflicts occurred all over the globe. The Korean War and the Vietnam Conflict are both examples where the U.S. military had to face armies that weren’t from the Soviet Union, but were using Soviet weaponry and at times heeding Soviet advice – both were fought by the U.S. in hopes of preventing the spread of communism. Another such war was fought in Afghanistan. This war, however, was fought by Soviet forces against the U.S. supported Taliban. These “puppet” conflicts also happened to be opportunities for either super power to test out new equipment and tactics without necessarily having to lose their own soldiers.
Although Europe never saw the same kind of conflict, the Cold War was every bit as much of a threat. Constant espionage, spying, political maneuvering, and propaganda (sometimes subtle, sometimes not) operations from either side always threatened to ignite another major conflict in Europe. This also encompassed either faction taking measures to solidify their influence within a European culture that didn’t, in general, feel as polarized as either opposing super power. This can be observed in how the capitalists cracked down on communist movements within their borders, as well as how eastern European nations underwent “Sovietization” (the process of promoting Soviet communist culture through laws, and customs). At times this was voluntary for individual nations, but often nations were given little alternatives by either super power.
Political/military aligning between nations supporting either faction was another characteristic of the Cold War. NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) was the west’s attempt at offering the Soviet Union a coordinated opposition. Naturally, the Soviet Union responded in kind with the Warsaw Pact between Russia and most communist nations.
Monday, April 2, 2007
Stalin's Hymn
In this hymn, the author seems to worship Stalin. Why? Well, just from off the top of my head, I can come up with three possible reasons:
1) He truly loved Stalin. Believe it or not, there was a time (however short) when many Russians really did have hopes for the leadership of Stalin. While most probably didn't have quite the adoration as exemplified by the author of this hymn - it can be assumed that there may have been some fringe Stalin-fanatics. This hymn could simply have been the work of one. Of course it didn't take long for all of the Soviet Union to become fully aware of what Stalin had in mind for them.
2) The author could have written it out of fear or out of the hope of winning Stalin's good graces. For a man as egotistical as Stalin appears to have been, what better way to show your loyalty to him than by writing a song that worships him like a diety.
3) The last possibility, which is also very likely. Is that this hymn was the author's own way of actually rebelling against Stalin. We've all received a compliment at least once in our lives that was way over-board, and said with a very obvious tone of sarcasm. Perhaps this hymn is the same sort of thing. If someone came up and began singing my praises like this person sang of Stalin's, I think I would be more than a little skeptical.
1) He truly loved Stalin. Believe it or not, there was a time (however short) when many Russians really did have hopes for the leadership of Stalin. While most probably didn't have quite the adoration as exemplified by the author of this hymn - it can be assumed that there may have been some fringe Stalin-fanatics. This hymn could simply have been the work of one. Of course it didn't take long for all of the Soviet Union to become fully aware of what Stalin had in mind for them.
2) The author could have written it out of fear or out of the hope of winning Stalin's good graces. For a man as egotistical as Stalin appears to have been, what better way to show your loyalty to him than by writing a song that worships him like a diety.
3) The last possibility, which is also very likely. Is that this hymn was the author's own way of actually rebelling against Stalin. We've all received a compliment at least once in our lives that was way over-board, and said with a very obvious tone of sarcasm. Perhaps this hymn is the same sort of thing. If someone came up and began singing my praises like this person sang of Stalin's, I think I would be more than a little skeptical.
Profile on Hitler
Hitler was of all things, an idealist. However ascewed was his view of how he thought the world should be, one can almost be certain that it was clear in his mind. Were his views shared by all of those that followed him? Not at all. Anti-semitism was abundant in the 1920s, sure - only a few, however, shared his hatred for Jews and all "lower" races, as well as his desire to vastly expand Germany's borders.
So why did so many follow him? I think it was partially due to the fact that he painted such a vivid image of what Germany should look like for his listeners, whereas so many other politicians and government officials only seemed to fall into a failing bureacracy. While too many offered empty, broken promises, Hitler offered action.
I had a mentor of mine tell me once that often young soldiers in a fire-fight become overwhelmed with fear, excitement, and exhaustion. As this soldier is enveloped in chaos, logic and reason get pushed further and further away. To counter this reaction in soldiers, leaders have to be loud, direct, and make decisions without hesitation when bullets start flying and the situation becomes dire. The firm, direct tone of a leader can bring the measure of order to that soldier that is so desparately needed - even if the decisions being made by the leader are totally wrong. I think this relates in many ways to how Germany reacted to Hitler. Germany was that scared soldier in a world of chaos and Hitler was that leader, spouting out directions.
So why did so many follow him? I think it was partially due to the fact that he painted such a vivid image of what Germany should look like for his listeners, whereas so many other politicians and government officials only seemed to fall into a failing bureacracy. While too many offered empty, broken promises, Hitler offered action.
I had a mentor of mine tell me once that often young soldiers in a fire-fight become overwhelmed with fear, excitement, and exhaustion. As this soldier is enveloped in chaos, logic and reason get pushed further and further away. To counter this reaction in soldiers, leaders have to be loud, direct, and make decisions without hesitation when bullets start flying and the situation becomes dire. The firm, direct tone of a leader can bring the measure of order to that soldier that is so desparately needed - even if the decisions being made by the leader are totally wrong. I think this relates in many ways to how Germany reacted to Hitler. Germany was that scared soldier in a world of chaos and Hitler was that leader, spouting out directions.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Einstein's Theories in the Inter-war Years
Much like the literature of Hemingway or Yeats, or the paintings of Picasso, or Freud's theories in psychology, Albert Einstein's revolutionary theories in physics changed European culture. Prior to the Great War his theories had been disregarded. This reflected the Victorian reliance on boundaries and limitations. Newtonian physics were still the mainstay of physics because it presented a clear and concise view of motion and matter.
After the war, Einstein's theories built off Newton's theories, but constrasted them inthat they presented a universe that was neither definite, nor limited. While Picasso was changing the way people viewed their world by depicting that world in a surrealistic manner, Einstein's theories were forcing even the science community to view their world in much the same way. Scientists everywhere were forced to admit that perhaps there were elements within the universe that they couldn't observe and that didn't obey the previously-upheld laws of nature.
After the war, Einstein's theories built off Newton's theories, but constrasted them inthat they presented a universe that was neither definite, nor limited. While Picasso was changing the way people viewed their world by depicting that world in a surrealistic manner, Einstein's theories were forcing even the science community to view their world in much the same way. Scientists everywhere were forced to admit that perhaps there were elements within the universe that they couldn't observe and that didn't obey the previously-upheld laws of nature.
Hitler's 1921 Speech
In this speech from 1921, Hitler likened the peace settlement of 1918 to the loss of Germany's sovereignty - even claiming that Germany had been made into a colony of outside nations. He pointed out that the people had not been represented in the settlement. According to Hitler the settlement made slaves of the German people, stating that Germany's workers would never be free of reparations that France could perpetually increase as it saw fit. He stated that the loss of Germany's "military prerogatives" was further proof that it had lost its ability to rule itself.
Hitler went on to explain that the cause of Germany's problems stems from Jewish capitalism. He claimed that Jewish bankers had profitted from the war where the rest of Germany had lost. He gave several examples of "fat Jews" relaxing in hotels or in the mountains while the rest of Germany endures the role of a work-horse for the national debt. This "Jewish capitalism", according to Hitler, would eventually lead to the ruin of Germany by leading it down the road of Marxism.
In order to prevent the collapse of Germany into communism, Hitler stated, Germans (specifically Aryans) everywhere had to band together under "socialism" in order to bring about several changes. This new party had to cast away the class system, cast away "Jewish" democracy, and establish itself as a capable movement for Germany's glory - through force if necessary.
Hitler went on to explain that the cause of Germany's problems stems from Jewish capitalism. He claimed that Jewish bankers had profitted from the war where the rest of Germany had lost. He gave several examples of "fat Jews" relaxing in hotels or in the mountains while the rest of Germany endures the role of a work-horse for the national debt. This "Jewish capitalism", according to Hitler, would eventually lead to the ruin of Germany by leading it down the road of Marxism.
In order to prevent the collapse of Germany into communism, Hitler stated, Germans (specifically Aryans) everywhere had to band together under "socialism" in order to bring about several changes. This new party had to cast away the class system, cast away "Jewish" democracy, and establish itself as a capable movement for Germany's glory - through force if necessary.
Wilsonian War in Iraq
"Baghdad 2003 has some shadows of the Great War... The first shadow is the belief that the victors carry democracy with them. This is an American idea from 1917-18. Woodrow Wilson believed that democracy was inherently peaceful and dictatorships, the kind that ruled in Germany in 1914, were inherently hostile and bellicose. By insisting that Germany change regimes, there was a better chance of guarding the peace of the world than if Germany had remained a quasi-military dictatorship. The notion that you can create democracy and therefore peace is Woodrow Wilson's. And George W. Bush is a Wilsonian. ... one that harks back to a period in which armed force brings democracy to those who are suffering under dictatorship."
Is this accurate? I believe this to be flawed in more ways than I care to describe in this brief blog. However, the primary reason this argument is completely misleading is that Woodrow Wilson never advocated the use of military force to change regimes prior to, or throughout most of, the Great War. In fact, President Wilson won the 1916 election partially by promoting how he had kept America out of the war up until that point.
Was he a proponent of democracy? Sure, why wouldn't he be as the president of the United States. Where Wilson and Bush differ, however, is that Wilson didn't initiate a war in order to "secure democracy". He did it because Germany was posing a direct threat to U.S. citizens via unrestricted submarine warfare and attempting to coordinate an attack with Mexico.
Another point, when George Bush asked congress to declare war, he asked under the pretense that Iraq was constructing WMDs and were looking to attack Israel or even the U.S. Only after the invasion did this reason come into question, and did people begin to question Bush's true intentions.
Is this accurate? I believe this to be flawed in more ways than I care to describe in this brief blog. However, the primary reason this argument is completely misleading is that Woodrow Wilson never advocated the use of military force to change regimes prior to, or throughout most of, the Great War. In fact, President Wilson won the 1916 election partially by promoting how he had kept America out of the war up until that point.
Was he a proponent of democracy? Sure, why wouldn't he be as the president of the United States. Where Wilson and Bush differ, however, is that Wilson didn't initiate a war in order to "secure democracy". He did it because Germany was posing a direct threat to U.S. citizens via unrestricted submarine warfare and attempting to coordinate an attack with Mexico.
Another point, when George Bush asked congress to declare war, he asked under the pretense that Iraq was constructing WMDs and were looking to attack Israel or even the U.S. Only after the invasion did this reason come into question, and did people begin to question Bush's true intentions.
Sunday, February 4, 2007
Death in Masses
The line in Barbusse's "Under Fire" that best captures the experiences of mass death in WWI comes from chapter 20 "Fire". "The ground is so full of bodies that landslides uncover places bristling with feet, half-clothed skeletons and ossuaries of skulls, one beside the other in the sheer wall, like china jars."
I chose this line because it sounds like an image straight out of fiction apocolypse novels. What struck me most about this line, however, is that Barbusse will throw these lines out there on occasion, but then simply continue on with his narrative. As in the instance above, he just went on describing how he and his unit continued advancing through the trenches. He doesn't appear to be a particularly special guy in the beginning of this novel, yet somewhere along the way he became so desensitized to an environment saturated with death and suffering that he could then mention it as a side note, versus losing his story to it. This lack of focus on the masses of dead bodies speaks volumes about how the horrors of the war must have affected the soldiers.
I chose this line because it sounds like an image straight out of fiction apocolypse novels. What struck me most about this line, however, is that Barbusse will throw these lines out there on occasion, but then simply continue on with his narrative. As in the instance above, he just went on describing how he and his unit continued advancing through the trenches. He doesn't appear to be a particularly special guy in the beginning of this novel, yet somewhere along the way he became so desensitized to an environment saturated with death and suffering that he could then mention it as a side note, versus losing his story to it. This lack of focus on the masses of dead bodies speaks volumes about how the horrors of the war must have affected the soldiers.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Black Hand vs. Al Queda
In comparing the assassination of Franz Ferdinand by the Black Hand and the attack on the World Trade Center by Al Qaeda, there are many similarities and distinct differences. The primary similarity includes the relationship between the victims and the targets. As with any attack labeled as “terrorism”, the victims of either attack were not the true targets. The Black Hand attack was targeting the government of Austria-Hungary. Al-Qaeda was not targeting the workers of the World Trade Center, but the U.S. government and the world population.
Another important similarity between the attacks was their effectiveness. Both attacks caused dramatic changes to government policies and international relations around the world.
Finally, where these attacks differ the most are the types of victims targeted. Franz Ferdinand was an Austro-Hungarian government official, while the workers inside the World Trade Center were mostly not directly associated is the U.S. government. While this difference does not justify one attack more so than the other, many people (including myself) believe that targeting civilians for political gain is much more heinous and monstrous.
Another important similarity between the attacks was their effectiveness. Both attacks caused dramatic changes to government policies and international relations around the world.
Finally, where these attacks differ the most are the types of victims targeted. Franz Ferdinand was an Austro-Hungarian government official, while the workers inside the World Trade Center were mostly not directly associated is the U.S. government. While this difference does not justify one attack more so than the other, many people (including myself) believe that targeting civilians for political gain is much more heinous and monstrous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)