The Berlin wall was constructed for economic and political reasons. Too many well-educated people moved from East Germany and some worked in West Berlin and lived in East Berlin, where the cost of living was less expensive. What was more problematic was the west side interfering with the Russians on the east side.
The vast majority of East Germans could not emigrate to West Germany. Many families were split, numerous individuals lost their jobs, and West Germany gradually grew more hostile. West Berliners demonstrated against the wall, especially their mayor, Willy Brant who criticized the United States for not taking action (Ultimately John F Kennedy would denounce the wall, but [as we discussed in my history 3090 course] the United States would get slammed on the world stage because of the tumultuous civil rights environment of the late 1950s and early 1960s).
Still, the East German government said the wall was a buffer against fascism. It seems like they were also concerned about the regular purchasing of out-sourced goods from West Germany. No matter what the more accurate or influential reasoning for the wall's construction, it would soon become accepted that it was there to prevent Germans from commuting from one side of the country to the other. Furthermore, although the wall was generally regulated peacefully, the use of guards and instances of citizens getting fired upon would make the wall a symbol of communist tyranny in West German media.
I find it interesting how West Germans regarded the wall, because I feel their side had most often been the aggressor in the years leading up to the construction of the wall. Also, I feel like the American government saw the wall was necessary in order to keep two radically different systems apart to keep peace.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Did the German public make genocide inevitable?
Obviously the Nazi party's charisma, solidarity, and nationalism was very attractive to German citizens. But were those reasons enough to persuade a nation to commit genocide? It seems although Nazi measures such as the Nuremberg Laws and boycotts of Jewish-owned businesses were significant in they clearly targeted the race, the strongest force behind the condemnation and oppression of the Jews was the German public.
My argument of this comes from Bernward Dorner's study of denunciations. Of the 481 reports, less than one third were political, a little less than half were in regards to personal considerations, and 114 had no mentioned informant.
The absense of legitimate reason, opinionated justifications, and anonymous informants displays the antisemitism of the German public. No matter how much the Nazis enforced consequences of marriage laws, business boycotts, and star decrees, these policies would not have been as affective if it were not for the support of the public.
The fact Germans were anonymously reporting information regarding Jews to the Gestapo based on personal grievances reveals that citizens were doing away with traditional means of resolving conflicts, and instead relying on coercion.
Something else to consider is the depth of which denuciations were reported to the Gestapo. Informants were from within families, friends, and spouses, but soon they had spread to other Germans as well.
Overall, I believe antisemitism was already a staple of Germany, and, more importantly, was a major factor in the development of Nazi genocide.
My argument of this comes from Bernward Dorner's study of denunciations. Of the 481 reports, less than one third were political, a little less than half were in regards to personal considerations, and 114 had no mentioned informant.
The absense of legitimate reason, opinionated justifications, and anonymous informants displays the antisemitism of the German public. No matter how much the Nazis enforced consequences of marriage laws, business boycotts, and star decrees, these policies would not have been as affective if it were not for the support of the public.
The fact Germans were anonymously reporting information regarding Jews to the Gestapo based on personal grievances reveals that citizens were doing away with traditional means of resolving conflicts, and instead relying on coercion.
Something else to consider is the depth of which denuciations were reported to the Gestapo. Informants were from within families, friends, and spouses, but soon they had spread to other Germans as well.
Overall, I believe antisemitism was already a staple of Germany, and, more importantly, was a major factor in the development of Nazi genocide.
Monday, October 12, 2009
When Compromise Leads to Unbalanced Power
When the Social Democratic Party divided into two subsets, the Majority SPD and the USPD, its communist counterpart, the decisions made would ultimately lead to unequal power. More importantly, this power struggle would lead to a significant occurence that would be an important precoursor to World War II.
The Majority SPD succeeded in establishing an eight-hour work day and make a deal with big businesses to consider free trade rights and unions. They would also choose to accept military support for the revolution in exchange for avoiding any revolutionary changes within the army. Although their deals looked good, this second decision would form an unequal balance of power.
As more and more actions are caused by the military compromise, the communist subset of the SPD would revolt for Marxism. Shortly after, the Majority SPD would use the right-wing military groups on their side to crush the opposing socialists.
The crushing of the Spartacist revolt for full Marxism is a significant turning point in the events leading up to World War II because it shows the emergence of political powers being completely unwilling to cooperate with opposition. Instead, they began using force to exert power, rather than political motions.
On a bigger level, it seems the division of the SPD and the power struggle that would follow left a window open for Nazi control. Just as the Majority SPD would not accept or reason with the other socialists' discontent, the Nazis would not consider compromising to help their opposition, no matter if it consisted of German citizens.
The Majority SPD succeeded in establishing an eight-hour work day and make a deal with big businesses to consider free trade rights and unions. They would also choose to accept military support for the revolution in exchange for avoiding any revolutionary changes within the army. Although their deals looked good, this second decision would form an unequal balance of power.
As more and more actions are caused by the military compromise, the communist subset of the SPD would revolt for Marxism. Shortly after, the Majority SPD would use the right-wing military groups on their side to crush the opposing socialists.
The crushing of the Spartacist revolt for full Marxism is a significant turning point in the events leading up to World War II because it shows the emergence of political powers being completely unwilling to cooperate with opposition. Instead, they began using force to exert power, rather than political motions.
On a bigger level, it seems the division of the SPD and the power struggle that would follow left a window open for Nazi control. Just as the Majority SPD would not accept or reason with the other socialists' discontent, the Nazis would not consider compromising to help their opposition, no matter if it consisted of German citizens.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
A "War for Everyone": The Double-Edged Sword
It is clear one of the biggest factors that contributed to the mobilization of the young nation of Germany was the Great War. Germany's declaration of war against France, Great Britain, and Russia was followed by a surge of nationalism. Never before had such a movement made German citizens comprehend the idea of a nation. Furthermore, both socialists and nationalists felt their political programs were justified by the national war efforts.
As Hitler would put it, "the declaration for war produced a sense of Germaness that filled him with ecstasy." 1914, the year of the monumental gathering in Munich, would become a model for what national mobilization could achieve.
However, towards the end of World War I the hopeful times celebrated by Germany would be a distant memory. Similar to other nations, Germany lost hundreds of thousands of men. But what is more significant is how the mass mobilization of the wartime economy would lead to severe inflation and a major depression, as well as political turmoil between the Left and Right sides of the political spectrum, as well as a food crisis which would cause many individuals to turn to the black market in an effort to avoid giving everything to the army and/or be able to eat feed one's family.
Because of all this, the measure of Germany's political future had now become the citizens, all of the soldiers, workers, and consumers. I feel that although the rapid wartime mobilization caused many problems for both the citizens and monarchy, it led to a realisation as to what the new European power of Germany needs to have.
As Hitler would put it, "the declaration for war produced a sense of Germaness that filled him with ecstasy." 1914, the year of the monumental gathering in Munich, would become a model for what national mobilization could achieve.
However, towards the end of World War I the hopeful times celebrated by Germany would be a distant memory. Similar to other nations, Germany lost hundreds of thousands of men. But what is more significant is how the mass mobilization of the wartime economy would lead to severe inflation and a major depression, as well as political turmoil between the Left and Right sides of the political spectrum, as well as a food crisis which would cause many individuals to turn to the black market in an effort to avoid giving everything to the army and/or be able to eat feed one's family.
Because of all this, the measure of Germany's political future had now become the citizens, all of the soldiers, workers, and consumers. I feel that although the rapid wartime mobilization caused many problems for both the citizens and monarchy, it led to a realisation as to what the new European power of Germany needs to have.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Blackburn's "Revolution from Below" (Continued)
Blackburn believes it is not solely because of Junker domination that fascism took hold of Germany.
As peasants remained unhappy with their lives on the farm and at their attempts of moving up the social ladder in the cities, the next reich had less difficulty gaining power.
As peasants remained unhappy with their lives on the farm and at their attempts of moving up the social ladder in the cities, the next reich had less difficulty gaining power.
Blackburn's "Revolution from Below"
While it is easy for one to become distracted with contributions towards a revolution from the Parliament, the aristocracy, and middle class conflicts, it is important to take into account how German peasants led to the rise of fascism as well.
Blackburn discusses how the forces that are changing the lives of peasants are being determined beyond their control. For example, standardized school systems are taking away from the farm labor force and influencing children to do otherwise. At the same time, railroads enable easy access from villages to cities, so all of the new components to the city are going to the villages.
I think his point is the idea of the lives of peasants going unchanged (i.e. the notion of farmers standing out in a field unaffected by the political and industrial atmosphere) is no longer valid. Blackburn says we must take into account that these new factors are changing their lives. Thus, explaining his claim that "history is made from below, not just from above".
As attempts at peasant integration and the lives of peasants going without aide of modern innovations continue, these two factors will create discontent among peasants and would ultimately be an outlet for fascists to gain power.
Blackburn discusses how the forces that are changing the lives of peasants are being determined beyond their control. For example, standardized school systems are taking away from the farm labor force and influencing children to do otherwise. At the same time, railroads enable easy access from villages to cities, so all of the new components to the city are going to the villages.
I think his point is the idea of the lives of peasants going unchanged (i.e. the notion of farmers standing out in a field unaffected by the political and industrial atmosphere) is no longer valid. Blackburn says we must take into account that these new factors are changing their lives. Thus, explaining his claim that "history is made from below, not just from above".
As attempts at peasant integration and the lives of peasants going without aide of modern innovations continue, these two factors will create discontent among peasants and would ultimately be an outlet for fascists to gain power.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Anderson and the New Voting System
In preparation for tomorrow's exam, I reread Anderson's essay regarding Kulturkampf and the history that followed. Here is what I have interpreted.
(*In relevance to the upcoming exam, maybe you'll want to go on ahead and tell me if you agree.)
In a nation with a more democratic system of electing officials, allegations surrounding the motives and power of the Catholic church are likely to surface.
Non-Catholic districts fined public houses for holding discussions, outlawed open-air protests, debates, and political meetings, and placed physical boundaries and trespassing orders making it physically impossible for a poor male to vote (Because candidates still had to produce and distribute ballots themselves) for anyone other than the squire's choice. However, Catholic districts were just the opposite. The Catholic institutions that were already in place, namely the school system, allowed pastors and priests to expedite ballot distribution via teachers. While it was not a teacher's job to do so, it certainly turned out to be this way. This gave Catholicism's mass appeal towards this new democratic process (Because priests tended to be from their neighborhoods, new the issues at hand, and thus could easily be elected).
Obviously, conservatives took notice of this and Bizmarck would put into place the School Supervision Laws of 1872, in order to weaken the church's power by replacing religious supervisors with secular ones.
But, on a bigger level (And this is the point I'd like to see some kind of criticism or confirmation thereof), it seems like these factors come back to Anderson's argument that the new voting system is what caused the culture war to surface and really gain momentum.
Any thoughts?
JS
(*In relevance to the upcoming exam, maybe you'll want to go on ahead and tell me if you agree.)
In a nation with a more democratic system of electing officials, allegations surrounding the motives and power of the Catholic church are likely to surface.
Non-Catholic districts fined public houses for holding discussions, outlawed open-air protests, debates, and political meetings, and placed physical boundaries and trespassing orders making it physically impossible for a poor male to vote (Because candidates still had to produce and distribute ballots themselves) for anyone other than the squire's choice. However, Catholic districts were just the opposite. The Catholic institutions that were already in place, namely the school system, allowed pastors and priests to expedite ballot distribution via teachers. While it was not a teacher's job to do so, it certainly turned out to be this way. This gave Catholicism's mass appeal towards this new democratic process (Because priests tended to be from their neighborhoods, new the issues at hand, and thus could easily be elected).
Obviously, conservatives took notice of this and Bizmarck would put into place the School Supervision Laws of 1872, in order to weaken the church's power by replacing religious supervisors with secular ones.
But, on a bigger level (And this is the point I'd like to see some kind of criticism or confirmation thereof), it seems like these factors come back to Anderson's argument that the new voting system is what caused the culture war to surface and really gain momentum.
Any thoughts?
JS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)