Tag Archives: Germany

Treaty of Versailles

Posted on by

Main Points:

1. Territory– The following territories were taken away from Germany:

  • Alsace-Lorraine (given to France)
  • Eupen and Malmedy (given to Belgium)
  • Northern Schleswig (given to Denmark)
  • Hultschin (given to Czechoslovakia)
  • West Prussia, Posen and Upper Silesia (given to Poland)

Germany must relinquish power over any overseas colonies to the League of Nations as well as any additional territory seized in the war not mentioned above.

2. Military– Germany’s army was reduced to 100,000 men and no tanks were allowed. Germany was not allowed any airforce or submarines and only 6 capital naval ships.No german soldier was allowed in the demilitarized zone west of the Rhineland and 50 kms east of the River Rhine. The Allies were allowed to keep an occupational army on the west bank of the Rhine for the next 15 years.

3. Financial– Germany would be required to accept full responsibility for the war, and therefore must pay reperations for any damage caused by the war to civilian property (most of which would go to France and Belgium to pay for the damage done to their infrastructure). Germany would not be permitted to unite with Austria, for fear this would help improve the diminished German economy.

Questions:

1. Was the Treaty of Versailles an appropriate and sensible way to ensure that Germany did not pose a military threat in the future?

2. Did the Treaty of Versailles subsidize the rise of the Nazis in Germany? Did it make way for facism?

Observations:

1. The Treaty did not completely crush Germany nor did it attempt to bring Germany into the League of Nations. I found it interesting that the League of Nations understood they could not crush Germany entirely but did not understand the repercussions that would surely ensue from such strict and oppressive guidlines regarding German land, military, and economy.

2. The Treaty essentially ensures that no “spoils” from the war stay in German hands and were in turn given to the countries participant in the League of Nations.

3. I think it is also important to envisage the sentiments of internationalism, national and global security, unity and collaboration, as well as prevention of conflict and total war while reading this document, as they were prominent notions shared by the end of the war.

Keynesian Economics

Posted on by

3 Points:

Keynes compares the livelihood of Europe before and after the war. He boasts about how self-sufficient Europe was, with the population secured for itself with dedicated organization and steady income of supplies. He believes the disruption of this system has contributed to the decline in livelihood.

To follow his first point, Keynes warns the population of the lurking danger of the rapid decline in the standard of living that will leave people starved, as well as mentally and physically disabled. He fears that the population’s distress will eventually disrupt the organization and lead individuals to doing whatever they can in order to satisfy their own desires.

Keynes notes that Germany, which was once an abundant agricultural state, has become completely dependent on industry. Following the economic depression, Germany will have suffered the loss of foreign investments and will be unable to import from abroad, which will ultimately lead to the diminishing of food and lives.

 2 Questions

Why does Keynes believe those who sign the Treaty are essentially “signing the death sentence of millions of German men, women and children?”

Whom or what does Keynes blame for Europe’s growing insufficiencies?

Interesting

It is clear that Keynes is vehemently against the treaty, however, I find it rather strange that he offers no possible solutions or resolutions to the problems he addresses.

Wilhelm, Bismarck, and Fichte on Austria

Posted on by

Fichte, Wilhelm and Bismark all had similar ideas regarding the unification of Germany; their ideas of why and how to do that varied, however. Fichte wrote about how Germany was divided by foreign imperialists who failed to see and value the unity of the German people under one state. He believed that the primary reason to seek German unification was to unify the German people, not to bolster the power of the German Empire or that of Prussia. He simply wanted to unify the German people. He wrote,“it is not because men dwell between certain mountains and rivers that they are a people, but, on the contrary, men dwell together-and, if their luck has so arranged it, are protected by rivers and mountains-because they were a people already by a law of nature which is much higher.” The German people had been divided and needed to be reunited according to a higher power.

Wilhelm had different reasoning for why he wanted to go to war with Austria and reunite Germany. He wanted to wage war in order to unite Austria with the German Empire, to the dismay of Bismarck. Wilhelm initially wanted to unite the German people under his crown by peaceful means: “And may God grant that We and our successors on the imperial throne may at all times increase the wealth of the German Empire, not by military conquests, but by the blessings and the gifts of peace, in the realm of national prosperity, liberty, and morality.” Once he began to gain power, however, he sought a less peaceful means to an end. The acquisition of land was not even the primary motive; Wilhelm and his generals primarily wanted Austria to submit to German hegemony. Bismarck feared “that the king and his advisors would be intoxicated by the brilliant victory over Austria and would wish to press on, and perhaps lose much in the end.”

Silesian Weavers

Posted on by

Heinrich Heine’s poem, “Silesian Weavers” was inspired by a protest over the working conditions of weaving laborers in Silesian, Prussia. The poem confronts the issue of workers’ rights and their continuous exploitation and oppression by the rich and, along with worker riots, served as a key asset for the revolution that subsequently forced the King of Prussia to allow his people a constitution.

Heine’s poem, which pays sympathy to the working class, was intended to inspire and even arouse anger amongst his lower-class compatriots. He tacitly implies that a day of retribution is coming and that the rich will soon be forced to atone for their wrongdoings. While it was not uncommon for philosophers, writers, and artists to condemn wealthy individuals and their monarchy for their treatment of those less fortunate, Heine’s also denounces the less tangible set of institutions of religion and nationalism.

“One curse upon the God to whom we prayed […]”

“A curse upon the king, the rich man’s king[…]”

“A curse upon the false fatherland[…]”

Heine begins each stanza by damning an institution in which people were once comforted by. He curses to God, to whom the people once prayed, implying that the Germans clung to their faith even in the most despondent of times and foolishly hoped for savior, receiving nothing in return.

In his next stanza, Heine asserts that the people are not the ones being represented by the king and it is only the rich who benefit from the monarchy’s existence. Here, he insinuates that it is not the monarchy that will assist in terminating the workers’ struggle, but rather it will be the body that sucks them dry.

Heine criticizes the country of Germany, addressing it as a “false fatherhood” and rather than patriotism and nationalism thriving, despair and shame are the only things to prosper.

Unlike Herder and de Lisle, along with other political writers of the time who advocated that things such as religion and nationalism were essential, Heine actually blames these institutional practices for the deterioration of the working class.

Einstein’s Science and Religion

Posted on by

The reading “Science and Religion” consists of two articles written by Albert Einstein. They both argue science and religion are interdependent.  Einstein wrote that science could not exist without the questioning of one’s surroundings and pushing the boundaries of knowledge and fact, which are fundamental principles accompanying any religion. Likewise, religion could not exist without knowledge and fact, as knowledge lays the groundwork for ethics and rules.

Throughout the reading, Einstein made a couple of references to the Church. At the end of the second article segment, Einstein wrote why he believes a priest must become a teacher in order to get his message across. As Einstein was Jewish, I found it very interesting how he offered examples from the Catholic religion instead of Judaism. I thought of a reason this might be. My thought is that Einstein was a self-loathing Jew. He experienced the rise of Nazi Germany first hand, and was fortunately saved and allowed to immigrate to America because of his scientific work. He won the Nobel Prize in 1921, and moved to American in 1933. The Nazis burned his books and put out a hit on him in spite of all of his accomplishments. From the reading, it is obvious that Einstein believed that religion is important to incorporate into society and into one’s life, but is it possible he hated his own religion? Was he hiding his Judaism to be taken more seriously, as anti-Semetism was running rampant at this time? Or was he just appealing to the public and the majority?

Berlin Stories

Posted on by

In The Berlin Stories, Christopher Isherwood explains the daily life of a British ex-patriot living in Germany during the early 1930s. His section called “A Berlin Diary: Autumn 1930” explores the daily life and activities of the protagonist and his friends/acquaintances. Within this chapter, the reader is introduced to daily life, seeing a glimpse of how an everyday person may have lived during that time.
One line within this chapter was especially surprising given the financial and economic difficulties of the time. The protagonist, in talking about the character of another, states, “like everyone else in Berlin, she refers continually to the political situation, but only briefly, with a conventional melancholy, as when one speaks of religion. It is quite unreal to her” (223). This reaction is surprising given how dire the situation in Germany was at the time. Did the average person tend to ignore or dwell on these problems?
This piece of the text brings up interesting questions about the time. The timeless issue of the strength of a semi-fictitious piece as a source for historical analysis. This type of interpretation forces the reader to interpret and analyze questions about population demographics and popular support. How was the population so unsupportive of attempts made to help them during such an uncertain time? How did people like Hippi talk only briefly about the problems that were present in Germany, but also in almost every other European country during the latter part of the 20th century?

Cinematography and Youth in Triumph des Willens

Posted on by

Triump des Willens (1935) succeeds in convincing the viewer that Adolf Hitler’s rise—and the rise of the Nazi party, was an enthusiastic national movement that served as the core of Germany’s ascension to dominance. The camera work is marvelous. The cameras spend the majority of time with their lenses pointed upwards at Hitler’s face or the structure upon which he stands, a subtle yet effective tactic to generate a larger than life feel. The long shots used in Trimph des Willens are the longest I have seen done in a film so aged, and are strategically placed to absorb as much of the parade or rally as possible. The music accompanying the shots in between the cuts of Hitler’s speeches are very upbeat, which exudes a type of happiness—almost eagerness that the Nazi’s are feeling at the opportunity to participate (although, many of them seem quite austere).

At the forty-five minute mark, Hitler addresses the young men of Germany, who are known as the Hitler Youth or Hitlerjugend. Males and females between the ages of 10-18 were indoctrinated into this program, which began in 1922 and ceased activity in 1945. The Hitler Youth were seen as the future of German purity, and had Nazi ideologies instilled on them at an early age, as well as physical training, military training, and academia. The Nazi Party also used them as spies in order to gain control over the Church to gain ground in the power struggle between the Church and state. Similarities can be drawn between the activities the Hitler Youth were involved in and American Boy Scouts, as they were trained in basic skills that could be very useful in dire situations. The Hitler Youth were groomed to be the next generation of the Schutzstaffel or SS, meaning protection squadron.

The Role of the Youth in Triumph of the Will

Posted on by

The 1935 documentary, Triumph of the Will, by Leni Riefenstahl, portrays powerful propaganda images of the Nazi regime. It focuses in on speeches made by both high-ranking Nazi officers and Hitler himself. In between every scene change are minutes of marching and rejoicing in the German nation. The film encompasses many facets of Nazi ideology.

In one scene in particular, we see the mobilization of the children in the Nazi youth. There is a seemingly endless sea of kids, both boys and girls, in uniform listening to the Fuhrer speak. What Hitler was preaching was national unity, and the youth were the “vessels” for this: “We want to be a united nation, and you, my youth, are to become this nation. In the future, we do not wish to see classes and cliques, and you must not allow them to develop among you. One day, we want to see one nation” (Hitler). Hitler, in essence, was influencing the youth to make Germany the nation he wanted it to be, and to make sure the most important thing to them was the nation itself.

With this, were these youth told by their parents to attend these rallies, or were they drawn to them because of the the “power” Hitler was instilling in them?

Norris and the Role of Luxury in Communism

Posted on by

When readers are first introduced to the character of Arthur Norris, he is offered a cigarette by William Bradshaw, a luxury reserved more or less “for the common folk”. As we see his character develop, the amount of wealth he flaunts becomes greater and greater, bragging about having a bedroom in Paris that he customized himself and worth a small fortune. Later he goes on to show this wealth with the amount of servants and the quality of decoration his house has to Bradshaw, which in turn helps characterize him for the reader.

These characterizations are important because than Isherwood goes against the stereotypes of communism. By making this rich socialite a communist, Isherwood was not only showing the rapidly changing politics of German society, but was showing the hypocrisy that the rich intellectuals were living in the Wiemar Republic. These folks truly were disconnected with the realities of Germany at the time. Even though people such as Norris were attempting to solve reform and improve living conditions, they failed to realize that this radical reform would never occur and ultimately, their attempts at change were actually hampering the working classes cries for help. While Norris thinks he is helping workers like those oppressed in China, in reality he is part of the problem, delaying any chance of democratic reform and allowing the Nazis to eventually rise to power.

Mr. Norris and Communism

Posted on by

Christopher Isherwood’s The Berlin Stories consists of two novellas set in Berlin right before and during the rise of the Nazi party in the 1930s, the first of which is The Last of Mr. Norris.  This stories chronicles the friendship between William Bradshaw and Arthur Norris.  Mr. Norris proves to be a mysterious and interesting character, as he is a communist during a time which it is dangerous to be so in Germany.

While Norris holds onto his communist beliefs despite the political dangers they cause him, there are some aspects of his personality that do not completely fit with the communist ideology.  Norris holds a few somewhat aristocratic tendencies as a result of his upbringing, despite his poverty at the time which the novel is set.  Bradshaw states that Norris’ “…spirits always sufficiently indicated the state of his finances,” and when he is better off financially, he is more cheerful (41-42).  He also believes that he is at his best when he is surrounded by the material objects which he desires and revels.  Even though Norris holds aristocratic values to more importance than his communist comrades, he is shown to believe steadfastly that the wealthy should use their resources to help the poor.  This characterization portrays Norris as more of a moderate who resonates with more and joins a radical group than a pure communist.