Changing Tides in Germany

This week we talked about one of the most devastating events in world History, the Holocaust. Since its occurrence over sixty years ago, many people have asked how the majority of the German population could have been seduced into compliance with the government to go against the Jewish people who had resided in the country for so long. Before the laws began to develop against the Jewish people living in Germany, before the boycotts of their shops and the elimination of kosher meat, many Germans had close relations with Jews. In one of the articles we read for class this week, it discussed how, almost overnight, many Jewish people suffered the loss of their friends and neighbors. Although it is hard to believe how so many individuals could turn their backs on people they had known for so long, the explanation for why it occurred can be quite simple.

In my sociology class, we discussed how strong an individual’s need for conformity is. In one experiment we discussed, a sociologist gathered a group of people into a room together and had them answer a series of relatively simple questions. He implanted a person into the experiment and had him purposely deliver a wrong answer on several of the questions. In many instances, the other people in the group would also give wrong answers after hearing his response. Even though their was only one obvious answer, they felt as though they could possibly have been missing something that this man clearly saw because he gave his answers with such confidence. It was noted that even the people who would give the right answers gave so with an uneasy stature, feeling unsure about going against most of the group.

During the boycott of Jewish stores, many Germans remained loyal to the Jewish owners. However, as the boycott continued and more Germans began to stray away from their involvement with the Jewish residents, even those who had remained loyal in the beginning soon followed suit. Exceptions did of course exist. Some Germans cut ties to keep their Jewish friends safe as well as themselves from the harassment inflicted by other Germans. Despite the exceptions, conformity did lead a large group of human beings away from any sense of humanity. Conformity occurs everyday in our society, but the events that occurred in Germany over sixty years ago can show how dangerous it can become when taken to an extreme.

My Thoughts on Fascism

What does it mean to be Fascist? It is a good question, and one that is not answered with a few words as mentioned in class on Thursday. The problem with Fascism is that there are no clear-cut lines that dictate what it is. There is no book like how the communist base their ideas on. Democracy is based on individualism and freedoms. Where communism and democracy are opposites, I would say that Fascism is still the opposite of both ideas. I believe Fascism is an idea that is resorted to when democracy does not seem to work and when communism is not wanted. In certain places, democracy does not always work. As much as we hate to admit, it may not have the response time of that of an authoritarian government. Democracy is in no ways a perfect system, but there is no perfect system, and it is the best alternative. Democracy has always been plagued with getting locked up, and then becoming ineffective. The good and bad thing about Fascism is that there is no set definition. I think that helps make it so appealing to people. Hitler and Mussolini were able to adapt it to how they wanted to come to power. This is the appeal to Fascism. The negative aspect of Fascism is that there is no set rules or ideas. This allows the rulers to decide to do whatever they want in the name of Fascism. When you have a great orator like Mussolini or Hitler, it is easier to sway people to your side and get away with things that are wrong.

I also understand how people can get swept up in the Fascist movement. An example of people getting swept up in the modern world is when Obama ran for office. He did not have the qualifications of McCain. He had only been in the Senate for a short time. The thing that was appealing about him was that he was something different and new. People were not happy with the current system, and they wanted to something new. Obama was young and “cool” where as McCain was old and stodgy. This could be compared to that of what was going on Germany. Hitler was young and “cool” and the former chancellor was an older, suit wearing man as mentioned in class today. I am not saying that Obama and Hitler have anything in common. I am just saying that their rise to power is similar. Hitler had the overwhelming support of the youth in Germany, as did Mussolini in Italy. In Clarke County, a college area with a large youth population gave overwhelming support to Obama despite the way the rest of Georgia voted. When people are dissatisfied with their current government they tend to go in the opposite direction of what they didn’t like. Obama was the complete opposite of Bush, and Fascism is the complete opposite of democracy.

Thoughts on World War I

Today, we discussed World War I. I believe this war only occurred as a means for Germany to show how strong it was and as a catalyst to unite the people of their country. I believe that Germany being a fairly new country did not get the recognition that it deserved. They believed that they were stronger than the countries of Great Britain and France, who they felt looked down on them. This war was primarily to show that Germany deserved recognition.

I do not believe that the Germans particularly hated the French or the British. I believe the French hated the Germans for all the crimes the Germans committed against them and also the destruction the war had caused the French countryside. I believe that there was really no hatred for the Germans by the British.

Based on the readings we had, I do not feel that there were any bad feelings between the British and the German soldiers. They both were simply obeying orders. World War I was unlike World War II because in the Second World War, hatred was mutual between Germany and the countries they were fighting against. But, in World War I, I believe that a British soldier would have given water to a dying German and the German would have done the same for a British soldier. In one of the letters that an English soldier wrote home, he said that at times they preferred to speak to the German prisoners rather than their French counterparts. I do not believe this to be true during World War II. Also, in the story of Christmas day, where the German and British soldiers agreed not to fire a shot shows that they were not holding resentment towards these men. In World War II, the battles were much more heated, not by mere obligation, but revulsion.

I also believe that the German soldiers on the front lines did not want to use chemical warfare on the British and the French. They were forced to. I believe that the war would have been more civilized if it had not been led by the aristocrats. I believe the aristocrats were willing to do whatever it would take to win and show that Germany was superior to Great Britain and France. I believe this war was one of the last wars that was fought with dignity by both sides. I believe this, like many other wars, was decided by the rich and fought and died by the poor.

I believe the reason there were so many deaths in this war was not because the soldiers were improperly trained, but because the commanding aristocracy was not properly trained, and they also would not admit when they were wrong. I believe the best commanders work their way up; they do not start out at the top. The reason is because they have no true experience, and they have no idea how the conditions truly are and what it takes to be successful in battle. They also do not know the true value of life. Some one who fought in the front lines knows this value, and would never do anything that would put their soldiers in harms way. However, the aristocrats do not know this value; they just want to win. They see soldiers as chess pieces.

Thoughts on the Class Material

While studying for our first test, I looked over the notes and realized how much information we have gone over. I have 18 pages front and back of notes. When we first started the class we started with the Protestant Reformation in 1517. The last day before the test we discussed social and political issues of the 1860s and 1870s. During this time we have learned a lot of in-depth information about European history and how it has changed.

Before the class, I did not know that much about European History unless it pertained to US History. Looking over French history, I am really surprised that the American Revolution went so well. Comparing it to the multiple French Revolutions, it was far more successful. After the French Revolution, the people of France could not agree on anything, and it led to tyranny. On the contrast, when the American Revolution occurred, the people did not agree on solution, but there was compromise. This I believe prevented rebellions or tyranny.

I believe that Britain had a more stable government than France because it had a constitutional monarchy as opposed to an absolute one. I believe that the French monarchy was too short sighted to see that they were going to lose power one way or another. The British monarchy realized that the people wanted power and were going to revolt to get it if needed. The French Monarchy was too stubborn to take the example of their hated enemy, the British, to see how well it worked for them. I believe the French monarchy thought they were better than the British monarchy and that they would never lose control.

I think that discussing the different reasons of war for multiple countries during the class was interesting. At the beginning of the semester, people fought wars or had rebellions to have the right to practice religion in they way they saw fit. By the time of the first test, wars had mainly been fought for political power, or they were fought for land.

People’s attitudes also changed during this time. At the beginning of the semester, common people’s worries were about whether they should be Catholic or Protestant. This changed many times. Once it changed to having concerns over taxes. This leads to wanting political power, which leads to end of serfdom. Along with the agricultural and industrial revolutions, it became mainly concerned for their family and being able to feed them.

My thought on Marx and Communism

When we discussed the Decembrist movement in class on Monday, we agreed that it was different from other revolutions. I believe these differences made the revolution unsuccessful. The biggest problem was that there was not enough support behind it. In this revolution, only the noble men participated; it was not a revolution for the noble to have more power. Instead, it was a revolution to give more power and wealth to the peasants. This was one of the first revolutions in history that was started for unselfish reasons and I believe that it is why they did not have support of all the nobles. Another problem was that they failed to get support from the peasants.

I believe the inflexibility of the Monarchy during the 19^th century led to the radical change of the communist revolution. I believe that if some concessions were made in Russia, like in other countries, instead of the never-ending oppression then the communist revolution may have never happened. I believe the people that headed the revolution believed they could not take this oppression anymore, and felt it was the only way. Since they had been oppressed for so long and given no concessions, they took the most extreme anti-monarchy and anti-noble ideas.

I believe this is the reason that no other country had a communist revolution like Russia. All the other countries in Europe ended their serfdom and put in place a capitalist economy. They also somewhat gave into the lower class. I believe that the words of Karl Marx had extra meaning to them due to the fact they were given nothing. As they read his words they were better able to relate to what he was saying over people of other countries.

The way I look at Karl Marx is someone who is an instigator. I feel like if there was a Communist Revolution attempted while he was still alive, he would not take any blame for the occurrences saying that all he did was write a book about what he thought would happen, not what should happen. I believe his “scientific” way of looking at what happened is crap. He just saw one example and applied it to the future saying that it was inevitable. In sciences classes, you learn not to assume things are going to happen. You must first test and then retest; also having your peers test your work before you can say that it is a definite. If you do not retest and have other people test your work, you are made to look like a foul when you are wrong. This is the case with Karl Marx. I feel like Karl Marx enjoyed stirring people up, but would never have taken the leadership role if need be.

Today at the end of class, the question was asked if Karl Marx was wrong then why does nobody in here want to work in a factory. I know people who have worked in factories, and they say it is not that bad, and the pay is good. I know many people today would love to have a factory job. Today, a factory job entails that you will get paid well, no need for a college education, and good benefits. A lot of Michigan’s jobs were factory jobs, and everybody who lost their factory would like it back. I think there is still a bad image of working in a factory, which is not true anymore. For not having a college degree, a factory job is a great option. In the 50s, 60s, and 70s, factory jobs were very common. I watch That 70s Show a lot, and when Red (the father of the family) loses his factory job, it takes a long time for him to find another job of close to equal pay. I think factory jobs would be looked at more favorably if they were more common today and the majority had not been sent overseas for cheaper labor.

My Opinion of Napoleon

At the end of class one day this week, we were shown several pictures of Napoleon and asked what images do we have of him and what image should we have of him. Should we see him as a great general who conquered all of Europe, or as a little man who was insecure with his height and felt he had to take over the world? Should we see him as a person who delivered the constitution to all of Europe, or should we see him as being tyrannical? Should we see him as being loved by his army, or should we see him as the man who killed countless men in the desire to be an Emperor. Should we see him as one who represented the average French men, or should we see him as the son of the Devil as many did? Should we see him as someone who conquered France twice, or should we see him as someone who was exiled twice?
We may never know Napoleon’s true reason for wanting to conquer all of Europe. It could have been because of his insecurities with his height. It may have been because he thought he was truly doing something good by delivering a constitution to every country he did conquer. I believe it was to end the rule of Kings and write a constitution for the people.
It is hard to have an opinion about someone who has such contrasting views. He had people representing him one way while there were other people who represented him in a completely different light. How do we know which one is true? He seemed to be loved by the people of France. He was exiled to Elba not by the people of France, but by the rulers of Austria, British, Prussia, and Russia. When he came back to France, he conquered it once again. The very soldiers that were sent to kill him instead joined him. He reigned the nation for 100 days, and I did not hear of any rebellions going on during the time of his ruling. There were rebellions due to Louis XVIII becoming the ruler. He was once again exiled, but once again not by the French people, but by rulers of countries.
He may have been a good man that happened to make mistakes, or he may have been an evil person that did a few good things along the way. I believe in some way he was a good man or he at least he attempted to be a good man that happened to have his downfalls like we all do, but the difference between a ruler having a downfall and an average person having a downfall is that the average person does not have the resources or the public eye on him to do and have those downfalls exposed to the world.
It is very obvious that he was egotistical, but in some ways he had the right to be. He had done something that had not happened since Roman times and that was the conquering of Europe. His other downfall was that he was too prideful to listen to someone about attacking Russia. I think one characteristic that is positive and also negative is his ambition. He was ambitious enough to become ruler of France, but he was too ambitious in attacking Russia. I think the laws he set forth in France were for the betterment of the French people. I do not believe he purposefully set any laws with the intention of hurting people. I believe everything he did; he did for the betterment of the people, not just the French but the Germans, Spanish, and Italians.
He realized that he made mistakes. Even though he did make mistakes, the people of France still loved him. Even though he lost a lot of soldiers, his soldiers still loved him. Today we learned that after he was exiled, and Louis XVIII tried to get people to forget about him and his revolution, people still would yell long live the Emperor instead of saying long live the King. This shows that despite Napoleon's many critics, he was both a good ruler and person, with the right idea in mind, but not always the execution.

My thoughts on the week of June 7-11 discussions and lecture

One day in class this past week, we discussed the Scientific Revolution. I believe that the Scientific Revolution would not have happened so early. If it had not been for Martin Luther and John Calvin having a spiritual reformation before the Scientific Revolution, people would not have begun to question the church in a way that they never had before. This leads scientists to throw their ideas out there of a universe that runs independently from God. If these ideas would not have been put out there before the spiritual reformation happened, people would have been even less accepting to them then they already were. I believe that the Protestants already had questionable doubt about the church. This doubt led them to being more open minded to a universe that runs without God’s intervention.

Another day, we discussed the Philosophes; I believe the people that closely believed in and followed what the Philosophes taught were more likely to believe in the abolition of the slave trade. If they were true followers then they would believe that all men are created equal no matter their skin color; they deserved, at the least, not to travel across the ocean on vessels where as many as 15% died in transit. People who followed the Philosophes carefully should believe that all men are born with a clean slate and that people are born equally. This leads people to question authority because if all people are born equally then who has the right to enslave people based on their skin color.

Today, we talked about Olaudah Equiano and the question of whether or not he was born or even lived in Africa and if it really matters. Personally, I do not think he was born in Africa; I believe he was born in South Carolina. I believe he heard stories from other slaves about Africa and the trip over and later wrote them down in his Interesting Narrative and Other Stories. I believe it does truly matter if he was born in Africa or in South Carolina; It makes parts of his story unbelievable. If he heard the stories from other people and rewrote them even the same way he heard them, everything about what really happened could have changed. This second hand account could be largely based on fabrications of some one else. The reason I believe this is because a person who truly experienced the Middle Passage could have made up facts to make it more interesting. He could have made Africa sound like a better place, and the boat ride over a more horrible experience than what it truly was. I am not saying it was not a horrible experience. This is if Equiano wrote down word for word what he was told. He could have forgotten parts of the story and elaborated it to make the point he wanted to make. Equiano was a very intelligent man there is no doubt about it. I think he knew that if he were born in South Carolina then he his whole story would have been different, and that it would not have had the same impact that he wanted it to have. He could no longer say, look at me, I was born an African and with an education look what I have done. He also knew that without the part about the horrors of the slave ship then he could not have the same anti-slave trade stance that he had. His voice was very influential for the movement, due to his education and his first hand experience, but without that first hand experience his influence would not have been nearly the same. I believe that if he were not born in Africa it would have a made difference at that time and now. His book would not be a historical source; it would have to be used as a fictional story.