I must admit that I found trying to read this article rather tedious. Whether it be because all of those acronyms were annoying or I just flat out didnt understand the article... At any rate, I found the discussion of the article to be fascinating. Seriously. There is a lot that can be learned from this article.
It is interesting to me that the peasants have only recently come under study. And I think that many good points were brought up as to why this was the case. But their importance in deceptive. Yes, these may be "only peasants" as opposed to workers who kept the cities running. Plus workers rebelling in a worker oriented state would seem to be much more telling than mere farmers. This of the PR nightmare! The state would be a laughingstock! However if one sits down and thinks for a moment, farmer discontent is an excellent marker of a regimes success. After all, how the agriculture sector of the economy is doing is an indicator of how the economy is doing as a whole.
It never fails to amaze me just how, pardon me, idiotic some people can be. I mean seriously, I am not joking. I do not understand why someone thought that he was just so smart and important that though he had absolutely NO knowledge of farming, that he would make rules regarding how that sector should run (quotas, LPGs...etc). Actually, it wasn't even just one person but a whole GROUP of men. What on earth!? How are these men in leadership positions? How can you be so arrogant and to believe you know everything? This arrogance is their greatest weakness and that is clear to see in this revolt by the peasants. They knew that the demands on them were absurd and ridiculous to maintain. Hence the uprising.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
The Jewish Question
We talked about the situation regarding the Jewish population in class today, and I believe that I have come to a more accurate understanding of the reality in which they lived. A question that I have always had is: why not just leave? I mean, my gracious, if i am faced with death and the possibility of being destitute the rest of my life, I will take my chances with the latter and work my way back to an acceptable standard of living. Yes I realize this could be construed as a demeaning way of looking at these peoples problems, but I do not mean it in this way. I truly believe that if it were me (disregarding the fact that I am female and women just "did not" work during this era) in that situation, I would do everything I could to keep my family alive and then fight my hardest to provide for them and myself in a way that I could be proud of.
As we discussed further, other factors began to weigh in and started to change my mindset about the Jewish populations predicament. When drawing an opinion on the matter there were a couple of "facts" that I took for granted. One, you have to go back and look at the time line. At what point was the "point of no return"? Again, if you look at the functionalist point of view (which I am more inclined to believe, along with a few intentionalist notions), it is not clear that from the beginning the holocaust was inevitable. If I put myself in their shoes, would I want to gamble and lose everything? I have to remember that that they did not necessarily know what lay ahead. It very easy in hindsight to say "oh you should have left", but living in the situations that they did I no longer think that line was so clear.
Another "truth" that I took for granted was that the Jews would have a place to go. I mentioned in class that I felt like either the Jews should leave or that the Nazi's should just deport them all (especially if they had no where to go. just leave them out on their own, its their problem). But one has to consider where could they go? I mean the could illegally sneak into other countries, but remember that many countries that would be "desirable" were at war! And no body wanted them. Somebody mentioned in class that they would not even let them settle in Alaska. Wow. And that's all I have to say about that.
Something that I think is important to remember and that is often overlooked in the history of the Jewish people. As Professor Malto said, what was happening back then (before the mass executions began) was not the worst tragedy to befall the Jewish population. Since the beginning of their existence, the Jews had been persecuted and abused. None of which were truly justifiable. I think that knowledge of their historical resilience hurt them in that it made their thresh hold for pain so great, they couldn't monitor the catastrophe they could face with normal amount of fear.
As we discussed further, other factors began to weigh in and started to change my mindset about the Jewish populations predicament. When drawing an opinion on the matter there were a couple of "facts" that I took for granted. One, you have to go back and look at the time line. At what point was the "point of no return"? Again, if you look at the functionalist point of view (which I am more inclined to believe, along with a few intentionalist notions), it is not clear that from the beginning the holocaust was inevitable. If I put myself in their shoes, would I want to gamble and lose everything? I have to remember that that they did not necessarily know what lay ahead. It very easy in hindsight to say "oh you should have left", but living in the situations that they did I no longer think that line was so clear.
Another "truth" that I took for granted was that the Jews would have a place to go. I mentioned in class that I felt like either the Jews should leave or that the Nazi's should just deport them all (especially if they had no where to go. just leave them out on their own, its their problem). But one has to consider where could they go? I mean the could illegally sneak into other countries, but remember that many countries that would be "desirable" were at war! And no body wanted them. Somebody mentioned in class that they would not even let them settle in Alaska. Wow. And that's all I have to say about that.
Something that I think is important to remember and that is often overlooked in the history of the Jewish people. As Professor Malto said, what was happening back then (before the mass executions began) was not the worst tragedy to befall the Jewish population. Since the beginning of their existence, the Jews had been persecuted and abused. None of which were truly justifiable. I think that knowledge of their historical resilience hurt them in that it made their thresh hold for pain so great, they couldn't monitor the catastrophe they could face with normal amount of fear.
Friday, October 16, 2009
national nazis?
Actually I want to throw out there that i was going to go on a rant about the selfish ignorance of the German people. How on earth could they support a political group such as the Nazi's!? They were a part of the problem, not the solution. In fact, they created a whole new set of problems! But after talking about them in class i have reached a new understanding of the Nazi party, and yes, i am a touch impressed. They saw the needs of the people and modified their doctrine and methods to appeal to the majority. To me, that is extremely clever. Especially in a time that was so divisive, where individual interests groups reigned, to recognize that the people truly desired unity and then to offer them that security is astounding. No other political party can truly make that claim. Every single on was angled to a specific set of people- which in turn inherently divides the nation. So by bringing all of these divisions together, the Nazi's were essentially creating a brand new country, not just government or economic system. Therefore the Nazi party garnered and unprecedented sense of nationalism, pride and unity that I would argue hasnt been replicated. That is not to say this party did not have enemies, or that they maintained this support, but for that moment in time, they were a forced to be reckoned with.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
all for one and one for all...
but the Jews dont count.
during the first world war the german peoples banded together to help one another survive. they actively chose to rely on one another rather than the government. someone, though they were apart of this coming together of people, the Jews became further ostracized. more and more they were differentiated from being "true" germans
how this logic makes sense escapes me. much like many of the decisions that the German population seems to have made socially, politically or militarily. (disregarding a few people of course, who seem to have been radically sane from their bretheren).
somehow, before/during/after the war this feeling on antisemitism began to take hold on the country. but why? why was it more socially acceptable to have anti-semetic views now than before? where does the beginning of this shift lie?
Of course, the Jewish nation has been the pariah of every country since practically the start of history. their persecution is not novel, but it is still terrible. and i am always amazed at the hatred mankind can have for one another. and this hatred does not even have valid grounds!! I digress.
Germany had previously been a center for Jewish persecution (during the 1500's i believe. if you are interested, look up the myth of ritual murder. its fascinating what people can come up with... basically they accused the Jews of stealing children to sacrifice their blood and use their bodies in grotesques rituals. another aspect of this was the desecration of the host: the Host would be stolen and tortured until it became a small child (Christ symbol. someone had a rampant imagination). It seems that they just really really wanted to bring it back. But i dont understand how being a Jews makes you not suffer as much as anyone else, or not stand in line as long, or even look different than the average German. The Jews were not exempt from the Burgfrieden. Can someone please explain to me how on earth the German population cam to the point where the majority did not like the Jews?
during the first world war the german peoples banded together to help one another survive. they actively chose to rely on one another rather than the government. someone, though they were apart of this coming together of people, the Jews became further ostracized. more and more they were differentiated from being "true" germans
how this logic makes sense escapes me. much like many of the decisions that the German population seems to have made socially, politically or militarily. (disregarding a few people of course, who seem to have been radically sane from their bretheren).
somehow, before/during/after the war this feeling on antisemitism began to take hold on the country. but why? why was it more socially acceptable to have anti-semetic views now than before? where does the beginning of this shift lie?
Of course, the Jewish nation has been the pariah of every country since practically the start of history. their persecution is not novel, but it is still terrible. and i am always amazed at the hatred mankind can have for one another. and this hatred does not even have valid grounds!! I digress.
Germany had previously been a center for Jewish persecution (during the 1500's i believe. if you are interested, look up the myth of ritual murder. its fascinating what people can come up with... basically they accused the Jews of stealing children to sacrifice their blood and use their bodies in grotesques rituals. another aspect of this was the desecration of the host: the Host would be stolen and tortured until it became a small child (Christ symbol. someone had a rampant imagination). It seems that they just really really wanted to bring it back. But i dont understand how being a Jews makes you not suffer as much as anyone else, or not stand in line as long, or even look different than the average German. The Jews were not exempt from the Burgfrieden. Can someone please explain to me how on earth the German population cam to the point where the majority did not like the Jews?
Friday, October 2, 2009
oh wilhelm...
wilhelm the second was quite a fascinating character. Not that i admire him or even really like him all that much. but he is really interesting to observe. his decision making process was just wild.
when "willie" was born there was a complication and this resulted in the laming of his arm. In photographs he was able to hide this disability but it plagued him emotionally. It undoubtedly influenced his emotional stability and growth through his childhood. not to mention his parents, the crown prince and princess of germany, were influenced to raise him harshly to compensate for his weakness. Not that they raised him themselves of course, this was not how it was done. but the tutors hired to watch over the boy were very strict. one in particular was extremely harsh and he remembers him as not ever uttering a word of praise but being a very harsh critic.
it is important to note, i believe, that the crown princess was a very significant woman in her own right. She was the eldest daughter of Queen Victoria and her husband Prince Albert (who was never crowned king). She was also her fathers favorite child. She was bright and precocious. her younger brother, the crown prince of england, was less so. he was tricky and rebellious. In many ways he was like willie. yet where Albert (later Edward VII) was a renegade, I feel that Willie was unstable.
Willie was a very jealous person given to fits of indecision. it is evident that his rearing in a society that glorified the military had a profound impact: he loved to dress up in uniform. he loved the discipline and "glory" of the military. of course he was not himself given to the hard work and discipline that the military required, but it was a nice idea.
Wilhelm II assumed the title Kaiser upon the early death of his father, Frederick III. Unfortunately, the cruelness in his nature became even more apparent. He had him mother placed under house arrest and charged her with sending state papers out of the country and into England (this charge is actually somewhat true. Frederick and Vicky were wary of their sons impending rise to the throne and had sent papers out of the country for safe keeping prior to fredericks death. what these papers were i dont remember...). But this cruel streak would reappear numerous times over the course of his rule. He did not have particularly sound relations with his family, particularly his elder sister Sophie, the Crown Princess and eventual Queen of Greece. He was a tyrant, bent on being the "patriarch" of the family. He felt that his siblings should acquiesce to his "almighty power". hah. His mother wrote numerous concerned letters to her daughter articualting her fear and concerns for her son.
when "willie" was born there was a complication and this resulted in the laming of his arm. In photographs he was able to hide this disability but it plagued him emotionally. It undoubtedly influenced his emotional stability and growth through his childhood. not to mention his parents, the crown prince and princess of germany, were influenced to raise him harshly to compensate for his weakness. Not that they raised him themselves of course, this was not how it was done. but the tutors hired to watch over the boy were very strict. one in particular was extremely harsh and he remembers him as not ever uttering a word of praise but being a very harsh critic.
it is important to note, i believe, that the crown princess was a very significant woman in her own right. She was the eldest daughter of Queen Victoria and her husband Prince Albert (who was never crowned king). She was also her fathers favorite child. She was bright and precocious. her younger brother, the crown prince of england, was less so. he was tricky and rebellious. In many ways he was like willie. yet where Albert (later Edward VII) was a renegade, I feel that Willie was unstable.
Willie was a very jealous person given to fits of indecision. it is evident that his rearing in a society that glorified the military had a profound impact: he loved to dress up in uniform. he loved the discipline and "glory" of the military. of course he was not himself given to the hard work and discipline that the military required, but it was a nice idea.
Wilhelm II assumed the title Kaiser upon the early death of his father, Frederick III. Unfortunately, the cruelness in his nature became even more apparent. He had him mother placed under house arrest and charged her with sending state papers out of the country and into England (this charge is actually somewhat true. Frederick and Vicky were wary of their sons impending rise to the throne and had sent papers out of the country for safe keeping prior to fredericks death. what these papers were i dont remember...). But this cruel streak would reappear numerous times over the course of his rule. He did not have particularly sound relations with his family, particularly his elder sister Sophie, the Crown Princess and eventual Queen of Greece. He was a tyrant, bent on being the "patriarch" of the family. He felt that his siblings should acquiesce to his "almighty power". hah. His mother wrote numerous concerned letters to her daughter articualting her fear and concerns for her son.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
A Giant's Fall
i think that the fall of the Iron Chancellor, Otto von Bismark, had as great of an impact as his rise. His fall, expedited by the new Kaiser, altered the course of German history in that one of Germany's greatest political influences was no longer there. Bismark was a remarkable man. He took an dynamic fractured "confederation" and solidified it into a static, unified nation. Not only did he unite these individual kingdoms/dutchies/provinces, but he turned them into a viable, powerful entity. In the middle of nowhere was a militarized country. Its a fear inspiring prospect.
I wonder what the ratio of skill to luck there was in Bismarks success. In the very least he had the wit and cunning to turn potentially neutral situations into an advantage for Germany. For example: what if the King of Denmark hadn't died? Or if he had died even just one year later. Would the impact have been the same? Would Austria have been as vulnerable (does anyone know if they were getting better or worse at this time)? I mean, even if the new Danish King hadn't been so aggressive with trying to absorb Schleiswig and Holstein, would Bismark have been able to nullify the threat posed by the Austrian Empire? His success at defeating the French was also based on the "lucky" timing of the deposition of the Spanish Queen Isabella II. These events cannot be planned out. I mean you could guess that something might happen given the temperament of a country or the health of a king and I dont know if Bismark had that advantage. But even with the luck, Bismark had to have an extraordinary knack for turning these situations into a positive for Prussia. He had almost a sixth sense about it (which i feel gives alot of credence to the mittelege idea of geopolitics).
By taking out Bismark, Willhelm II got rid of the key behind the Empire. Wilhelm was certainly not the strategizer or the stabilizer that Bismark was. (Which, by the way, I dont think its possible to evaluate the rise of the german empire and not recognize Bismarks influence). With Bismark gone, who would be able to do for the Empire what he did? He had decades worth of knowledge and experience. I feel that those who came after him did not understand the nature of the politics to the extent that Bismark did and by neglect harmed the power and position of the Chancellor.
I wonder what the ratio of skill to luck there was in Bismarks success. In the very least he had the wit and cunning to turn potentially neutral situations into an advantage for Germany. For example: what if the King of Denmark hadn't died? Or if he had died even just one year later. Would the impact have been the same? Would Austria have been as vulnerable (does anyone know if they were getting better or worse at this time)? I mean, even if the new Danish King hadn't been so aggressive with trying to absorb Schleiswig and Holstein, would Bismark have been able to nullify the threat posed by the Austrian Empire? His success at defeating the French was also based on the "lucky" timing of the deposition of the Spanish Queen Isabella II. These events cannot be planned out. I mean you could guess that something might happen given the temperament of a country or the health of a king and I dont know if Bismark had that advantage. But even with the luck, Bismark had to have an extraordinary knack for turning these situations into a positive for Prussia. He had almost a sixth sense about it (which i feel gives alot of credence to the mittelege idea of geopolitics).
By taking out Bismark, Willhelm II got rid of the key behind the Empire. Wilhelm was certainly not the strategizer or the stabilizer that Bismark was. (Which, by the way, I dont think its possible to evaluate the rise of the german empire and not recognize Bismarks influence). With Bismark gone, who would be able to do for the Empire what he did? He had decades worth of knowledge and experience. I feel that those who came after him did not understand the nature of the politics to the extent that Bismark did and by neglect harmed the power and position of the Chancellor.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
a question and a comment...
This week has really been a struggle for me. Not just in class but trying to figure out what to blog about. I have, however, found this second reading to be fascinating. Who would have thought that there were so many ways to interpret this stuff!? (yes im a little biased...) It is extremely interesting the different directions that historians have gone on. I am curios to see how much political affinity, nationality and time affect what these people say. Of course people writing while the country was divided would have a much different opinion that those who wrote right after the fall. What about internal or external pressures? What if work wouldn't get published unless it presented facts in a certain way? What about governmental or social pressure? If people disagreed with what he said they wouldn't purchase his book or perhaps react even more strongly. How much of what these people write is what they truly believe?
To go off on a little different direction (and I may be incorrect in this, so don’t attack. Remember I don’t do the whole politics thing well. This is my uneducated opinion)…
Is anyone else extraordinarily irked with the social democrats? I mean they get enough support to create a political party, which splits. well alright, but they spend THIRTY YEARS trying to decided what ideology to believe, how to influence the government, what kind of government they wanted, "who they were" etc... and what did they accomplish? NOTHING. well ok they were able to disagree to every bit of legislation that came to the Riechstag there for a little while, until Bismark (thank goodness) kicked them out. Not that I only disagree with their ideals, but my gracious. What a waste of space! Get voters in there who will actually vote on the issues. Voting against stuff to “prove a point” and be antagonistic is a useless exercise. Yeah, whatever I am sure that you have some nice plans and pretty ideas but not doing anything is not going to implement them. At some point you have to be realistic. Its like the girlfriend who gets mad at her boyfriend because, I don’t know, say he fell asleep and forgot to call her. Rather than say, “Hey baby it really hurt that you didn’t find me important enough to talk to…”, she is furious, rants to her closest girlfriends, gets a manicure, goes shopping and ignores him for a week. I mean he might get the hint (smart boy). But to get any sort of real change you have to confront the underlying issue head on. Giving the cold shoulder or pretending to not be angry is NOT going to solve anything. At all. Grow a pair and tackle the issues at stake. Don’t waste thirty years of my time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
