Author Archives: franciss

Understanding the Holocaust

Posted on by

In”Hitler and the Holocaust,” Ian Kershaw begins his historiography stating,

“Explaining the Holocaust stretches the historian to the limits in the central task of providing rational explanation of complex historical developments. Simply to pose the question of how a highly cultured and economically advanced modern state could ‘carry out the systematic murder of a whole people for no reason other than they were Jews’ suggests a scale of irrationality scarcely susceptible to historical understanding.” (Kershaw, Ian. “Hitler and the Holocaust.” In Hitler, the Germans, and the Final Solution, 237 – 281. Binghamton, New York: Vail-Ballou Press, 2008).

In both Kershaw’s and Nicholas Stargardt’s pieces, the central point is the discussion that currently surrounds the Holocaust. Many historians are and have discussed how anti-Semitism became a key component in the practice of government and what role Hitler played throughout the implementation of anti-Semitism on a national level. Both Kershaw and Stargardt discuss the different points that are made in the current controversy on the Holocaust. The two main arguments for the questions posed above are the ‘Hitlerist’ or ‘intentionalist’ point-of-view and the ‘structuralist’ or ‘functionalist’ point-of-view.

Intentionalists or ‘Hitlerists’ argue that Hitler was the central actor who planned the murder of the Jews. The ‘Hitlerist’ interpretation stresses Hitler’s personal anti-Semitic attitude and his notions of scientific racism, as well as his personal vendetta against Jews when it comes to blaming them for Germany’s defeat in WWI. Generally, the systematic killing of Jews in Europe was Hitler’s intention from the very beginning and was central to the ideology of the Nazi party. Functionalists or ‘structuralist’ view the bigger picture and take other factors and agents such as, timing that led to the eventual systematic killings of millions of Jews. Although, these two points defer from each other, according to Stargardt, historians have generally accepted that 1941 was a crucial year. Would you say the same?  Which argument do you find the most convincing – ‘structuralists’ or ‘intentionalists’? Why?

 

“Imperialist” Violence vs. “Developmental” Violence: The Violent Societies of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Soviet Union

Posted on by

One of the primary characteristics and areas of study on European dictators of the interwar period is the use and degree of violence in these regimes. In Christian Gerlach’s and Nicolas Werth’s chapter in Beyond Totalitarianism on “State Violence – Violent Societies,” the role that violence played in Nazi Germany in Stalinist Soviet Union respectively, as well as past historical interpretations of state violence within these regimes are assessed with a focus on the methods of violence, the degree of the violence, the role of the state, and the incorporation of ideologies ( (Christian Gerlach and Nicolas Werth, “State Violence- Violent Societies” in Beyond Totalitarianism: Stalinism and Nazism Compared, ed. Michael Geyer and Sheila Fitzpatrick (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 133) ). Gerlach and Werth argued that state violence is much more complex than the systematic killings that were seen in concentration camps and gulags. Throughout the chapter, Gerlach and Werth investigated state violence at a smaller degree and concluded that in both regimes, “initiative from below” and public participation/ support were important key components of such violence for the sake of creating a perfect society that would benefit the state through a mass consensus within the collective population. (Christian Gerlach and Nicolas Werth, 172).

According to Gerlach and Werth, mass violence in Nazi Germany is characterized as a form of “imperialist” violence, while mass violence in Stalinist Soviet Union was characterized as “developmental violence”(Christian Gerlach and Nicolas Werth, 179). The difference in mass violence between both regimes reflects on different case studies discussed by Gerlach and Werth. The discussion on “socially harmful elements” in the Soviet Union and “asocials” in Nazi Germany supports the idea that mass violence was “developmental” or “imperialist” in the respective dictatorships. In Nazi Germany, different social subgroups were persecuted as “asocials,” people who were accused of deviant behavior. By 1939, “asocials” were categorized as Gemeinschaftsfremde and Gemeinschaftunfahige, “alien to the community” and “socially unfit” (Christian Gerlach and Nicolas Werth, 144). It is important to note the use of diction in describing those who were targets of exclusion and eventually mass violence. By stating that “asocials” were “alien” to  the “people’s community,” it antagonizes them and creates a divide between native Germans and those who are not considered to be part of a “greater Germany.” For this reason, Gerlach and Werth argue that mass violence in Nazi Germany is characterized as a form of “imperialist” violence since it was externally driven considering that most victims were people residing on Nazi-occupied territories.

In the Soviet Union, those who were perceived as “socially dangerous” and “socially harmful” were deprived of rights that were granted to “good” Soviets, those who were involved with the collective good of the nation and the party. Mass violence in the Soviet Union eventually targeted those who were “socially harmful” to the state in an effort to create a harmonious and conflict-free society. Amir Weiner added in his article, “Nature, Nurture, and Memory in a Socialist Utopia: Delineating the Soviet Socio-Ethnic Body in the Age of Socialism,” that state violence in the Soviet Union was internally driven and sought to rid Soviet society of “divisive and obstructing elements.” Weiner stated that, “the Soviet state emerged and operated within an ethos aptly named by Zygmunt Bauman as the ‘gardening state,’ which appeared ever more universal in the wake of the Great War. This cataclysmic event brought to fruition the desires for a comprehensive plan for the transformation and management of society, one that would create a better, purer, and more beautiful community through the removal of unfit human weeds” ( (Weiner, Amir. “Nature, Nurture, and Memory in a Socialist Utopia: Delineating the Soviet Socio-Ethnic Body in the Age of Socialism.” The American Historical Review 104, no. 4, 1999,  pp. 1116.) ) Considering that most societies of the interwar period aimed towards perfecting their populations and creating an organized and controlled society, can’t “developmental violence” also apply to Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany? Do you agree with Gerlach and Werth or do you think that both “imperialist violence” and “developmental violence” could be applied to all three regimes? Is the aim of mass violence, as discussed in both readings, to create utopian societies?

Back to the Land: Restoring “Balance” and Morale

Posted on by

In Chapter 4 of Three New Deals, Wolfgang Schivelbusch discussed how the return to and the love for the land was an important component of Hitler’s Third Reich, Mussolini’s Fascist Italy, and FDR’s presidency. The Great Depression and the First World War devastated all three of the nations and balance and morale was completely destroyed. All three of these countries were in search for a response to both events to would build up the economy, as well as the collective community. The land symbolized both wealth and identity, and therefore, it became a crucial component in helping nations recover since it helped restore the balance and morale that was lost after the Depression and WWI. All three systems were in favor of state planning, which is the complete opposite of laissez-faire capitalism, a system that was strongly favored amongst Western nations and the United States.

Schivelbusch stated,”The common denominator among the various ideas in the various countries was the effort to restore some of the qualities of life that had been destroyed or seriously damaged by fifty (in Britain, one hundred) years of laissez-faire capitalism.” (Wolfgang Schivelbusch, Three New Deals, (New York: Picador, 2006), 110.) The revival of regionalism, agriculture, and the decentralization of the economy represent efforts to get rid of the industrialized and capitalist past that “destroyed” these nations in the first place. Furthermore, Schivelbusch added how the land and one’s native soil was seen as “reassuringly elemental and stable” as opposed to “what Edmund Wilson called the ‘gigantic fraud’ of pre-Depression prosperity.” (Wolfgang Schivelbusch, Three New Deals, (New York: Picador, 2006), 115). The way out of the Depression was to revive the “humane” preindustrial society and continue to move forward with technological advances. Would you argue that all three systems were illiberal since they looked for ways to incorporate the pre-industrial past into their modern governments? Why or why not?

The idea of returning to and gaining love for the land in addition to having its economic motives, also had the social motive of creating a community amongst the collective population. One of the many goals of going back to the land was to help create a new type of “organic” and “humane” citizen in contrast to the “mechanized workers” of the industrial period. (Wolfgang Schivelbusch, Three New Deals, (New York: Picador, 2006), 119). However, knowing the history of all three governments, particularly, Nazi Germany, the means used to create a master race were not humane, but were rather systematic. How can we explain this contradiction between nature and “mechanized” culture that pertains to the industrial age? Is there a medium in the case of Nazi Germany? Is there a medium in any one of these three systems or did they all fail to pull away from the “mechanized” culture of the industrial age?

Frameworks of Social Engineering

Posted on by

How can we truly go about with categorizing populations? In the case of Stalin’s USSR and Nazi Germany, populations were categorized by class and race respectively. Chapter 6 of Beyond Totalitarianism, Christopher R. Browning and Lewis H. Siegelbaum examine the different “radical recategorizations” of the populations in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. <Christopher R. Browning and Lewis H. Siegelbaum, “Frameworks for Social Engineering: Stalinist Schema of Identification and the Nazi Volksgemeinschaft,” in Beyond Totalitarianism: Stalinism and Nazism Compared, ed. Michael Geyer and Shelia Fitzpatrick (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009)> Browning and Siegelbaum discuss both the Stalinist schema of identification and the Nazi ideal of Volksgemeinschaft and conclude that the need to reach a utopian and ideal society, justified imposing categorizations to better identify “enemies of the state.” In order to categorize populations, identification plays in big role in make categories that have to do with race and class. According to Browning and Siegelbaum,

“The Bolsheviks, without much controversy, identified the landless (batraki) and poor (bedniaki) among the peasantry as proletarians even if many of them did not identify themselves as such.”

This passage struck me the most because it demonstrates the power of the state and its capability to play the role of the “identifier.” In addition, this passage brings many things into question. How do was a proletarian defined as? Better yet, what if many did not identify as such? Similar to Nazi Germany, who was Jewish and who identifies as such? In terms of race, to what extent was someone of Aryan descent or how far can individuals trace back to the Jewish traditions of their families? One important point that I would make about this passage is the idea of human agency. Human agency is the capacity for human beings to make choices and to act in the world. When it comes to identity, it is difficult to categorize individuals in an effort to create a utopian society, because human agency will always exist. Although the state may assume the right to inscribe identity and place the population under categories, does order within these authoritarian societies have the potential to prevail?

The Race or the State

Posted on by

Many often link Fascism and Nazism together and even believe that Nazism is a form of Fascism. However, that is completely not the case. Both ideologies although developed during the same time period with similar motives have their very own definition. Nazism derived as the ideology of the NSDAP (National Socialist German Worker’s Party), most commonly known as the Nazi Party. Meanwhile, Fascism came about Benito Mussolini’s new political movement to bring Italy back on its feet through authoritarian rule. As stated in the beginning of “Benito Mussolini: What is Fascism, 1932,” the word fascism came from the word fasces, which is the symbol of bound sticks that were used as a totem of power in ancient Rome. The image of the fasces conveys power and jurisdiction, living up to the authoritarian and strict regime that dominated Italy with the influence of Fascist ideals.

Although Fascism and Nazism are two different ideologies, they share the same origins, and as a result, share similar positions. Both Italy and Germany came out as losers of the Great War. Germany suffered with the many restrictions and reparations that were placed on them as a result of Article 231 in the Treaty of Versailles. Italy, on the other hand, was on the winning side, but suffered significant a loss since they did not receive the land that they were promised when they joined the war. As a result, both nations suffered economically, politically and socially, as well with public humiliation. Nazism and Fascism in an effort to bring Germany and Italy back on its feet respectively as powerful nations once again after suffering such great losses after the First World War. Therefore, it makes sense why there are so many similarities between both ideologies. In Benito Mussolini’s “What is Fascism, 1932,” he states that “the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority…a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State….” This excerpt shows the shift that was made in the twentieth century as a result of the perceived failure of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy following the Great War and the Great Depression. Therefore, Fascism and Nazism were similar in the sense that both ideologies sought to replace individualism with collectivism. Another one of the striking similarities between Fascism and Nazism is the need for expansion. In both ideologies, expansion was the key to a prosperous nation. Lastly, extreme nationalism was another similarity between both ideologies. However, although both Fascism and Nazism shared these similarities, both are approached differently with different motives.

One of the key components of Nazism was the idea of Lebensraum. Lebensraum is directly translated as “living space.” It was the idea that territorial expansion was needed in order to gain living space for all people of the superior races. In the process of doing so, in Nazism it was believed to be a law of nature for the people of superior races to displace people of inferior races, especially if the people of the superior race were facing overpopulation in their given territories. Generally, the expansionist position of the Nazis was completely motivated by race. “The 25 Points 1920: An Early Nazi Program” repeatedly reiterated the importance for living space for all “members of the race” and place a special emphasis on clarifying who makes up the Aryan race and who does not, blatantly singling out the Jewish population. With this came the sense of extreme nationalism; Nazis believed in a greater Germany for all Germans (members of the race) and the need to collectively lead the nation to its supposed greatness. In Mussolini’s “What is Fascism, 1932” he states in regards to expansionism and nationalism that, “…For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence. Peoples which are rising, or rising again after a period of decadence, are always imperialist; and renunciation is a sign of decay and of death. Fascism is the doctrine best adapted to represent the tendencies and the aspirations of a people, like the people of Italy, who are rising again after many centuries of abasement and foreign servitude.” In this excerpt, Mussolini refers to the great defeats that Italy has suffered from in the past and makes the point that that can no longer happen again. Mussolini’s main concern is the state, and in order for Italy to rise as the most powerful power in the world, it must act with aggression and authority. With that being said, he goes on describing the need to mobilize the Italian masses in order to bring the state back on its feet. He even goes as far as personifying the state by stating, “the Fascist state is wide awake and has a will of its own.” Clearly, Mussolini creates a national character in order to help convince the Italian masses to help the state get to its supposed greatness.

The Three New Deals: Kinship?

Posted on by

“Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt’s America, Mussolini’s Italy, and Hitler’s Germany, 1933-1939” by Wolfgang Schivelbusch gives a new take on the ideals and foundations of totalitarianism and collectivism by juxtaposing the politics and economics that dominated the US, Germany and Italy during the 1930s. In this text, Schivelbusch investigates the fundamental similarities between the “three new deals.” Putting all three of this regimes next to each other gives a different perspective on the totalitarian regimes that rose after the Great Depression, as well as on Roosevelt’s democratically praised New Deal programs. Schivelbusch begins the book with a quote by Scottish philosopher David Hume. He states, “as force is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion. It is, therefore, on opinion that government is founded; and this maxim extends to the most despotic and the most military governments as well as to the most free and popular.” Schivelbusch sets the tone using this quote by Hume from “Of the First Principles of Government” in an effort to portray and demonstrate some of the similarities and characteristics of the three governments that resulted from the First World War and the Great Depression in an effort to reestablish economic, political, and social order. Schivelbusch compares and contrasts all three new deals in order to offer a new explanation as to why Europe’s totalitarian systems became so popular. In his introduction, he explains that “the New Deal, Fascist Italy, and Nazi Germany all profited from the illusion of the nation as an egalitarian community whose members looked out for one another’s welfare under the watchful eyes of a strong leader” (15). This shows that these “three new deals” grew popular because it resulted in the improvement of its respective nations after suffering a Great Depression.

Although the United States fought against Italy and Germany in the Second World War, initially, there were many similarities between the three governments and economic systems. In the first chapter, Schivelbusch describes how similar Roosevelt’s New Deal economic policies were so similar to the policies enacted by Hitler and Mussolini especially. The chapter is titled, Kinship? From the very beginning, Schivelbusch challenges his readers to consider these close similarities despite the clear divide between the US, Italy, and Germany during WWII. It is described that the New Deal was often compared to Fascism because of its transition from a liberal free-market system to a system with corporatist characteristics. Schivelbusch cites a German paper that stated that “if not in the same words, [Roosevelt], too, demands that collective good be put before individual self-interest. Many passages in his book Looking Forward could have been written by a National Socialist. In any case, one can assume that he feels considerable affinity with the National Socialist philosophy” (19). In addition to policy, Schivelbusch also demonstrates the respect and sympathy that all politicians shared for each other. Mussolini and FDR in particular admired one another’s policy implementations as well as each other’s character up until the Italian led invasion on Ethiopiain 1935. Schivelbusch quotes Roosevelt stating, “there seems to be no question that [Mussolini] is really interested in what we are doing and I am much interested and deeply impressed by what he has accomplished and by his evidenced honest purpose of restoring Italy” (31). This is an interesting take considering that fascism is often linked to one of the many evils that the United States and its allies tried to rid the world of. Meanwhile, FDR himself praised the very beginnings and economic foundations that Mussolini preached and incorporated into Fascist Italy. Although Schivelbusch uses an ample amount of evidence that the “three new deals” may have shared similar origins, he also stresses the fundamental difference that the New Deal, unlike Fascism, had preserved individual civil liberties (30). Can we argue to opposite in terms of internment camps in the US that were formed later on in the war? Can we argue the Roosevelt indeed incorporated Fascist ideals? Lastly, can we consider collectivism as another characteristic of the rising modern world?

Modernity in the Soviet Union

Posted on by

In this article, historian, David Hoffman discusses the trends of modernity during the late 19th to 20th century, particularly in Russia as it became the Soviet Union. According to Hoffman, modernity is linked with the many ideals of the Enlightenment. Many tend to link the term modernity with democracy and associate it with the political and economic systems of the United States, England, and France. Hoffman briefly discusses the ideas of the enlightenment and the need for reason. Instead of associating modernity with democracy and the spread of industrial capitalism, particularly in Western Europe, the basis of modernity are science and reason, and therefore, Hoffman argues that many facets of Enlightenment thought were integral in the emergence of the Soviet Union. Hoffman also makes the argument that modernity also largely consists of the idea of stemming away from tradition and transforming into something new using rational thinking.  Hoffman continues by giving examples of how certain aspects of Russian society such as, education, the military, health, etc. transformed into the Soviet state with the use of reason and rational thinking. Hoffman focuses a lot on the creation of the welfare state. Hoffman states, “throughout Europe the interventionist welfare state resulted from new forms of knowledge, new goals of government, and new technologies of social control … in their [government officials, political leaders, and professionals] quest to order society rationally and scientifically, they strove to know the population statistically” (252). With the use of rationale and scientific thinking, statistics and studies paved the way from new observations and developments within Russian society. Hoffman describes that when observing poverty, which had been previously been viewed as “human errors,” statistics showed that poverty was a social issue that called out for the establishment of a welfare state with social work and programs that could help the impoverished become better citizens (252). Ultimately, modernity in Russia consisted of an attempt to transform individuals and society in rational and productive manner.