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.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)