Monthly Archives: September 2013

Precedence For Versailles

Posted on by

The Treaty of Versailles ending the First World War in 1919 forces a major change in European politics specifically Franco – German relations. The continent is drastically altered in a way that had never been done on such a grand or modern level. However the classic historic understanding that the Versailles treaty was an idiotic plan is a poor and simplistic hindsight history. Delving deeper into the precedence for the treaty and complex reasons for why its effect was so imposingly bad leads to a more adept understanding of history.

First the treaty punishes Germany with many territory based acquisitions. The Saar is taken for France in Article: 45. Alsace Lorraine is changed from German control in Article: 49, and the previous 1871 treaty of Frankfort returns previous lands under the control of the French. Along with other territory reforms the German state is drastically different. The line drawn from these reparations is towards an angry and weakened interwar period Germany leading to a drastic Hitler and World War II. That is the cause and effects of Versailles. The common understanding at the time however had set a precedence of natural territorial take over post war. The fact in the document they mention the 1871 treaty of German land conquest after the Franco German war goes to prove the natural reaction at the time. France failed to have revolution and financial disasters after forty years lacking possessions Germans controlled.

Second the significantly more complex issue of demilitarizing and putting German, Ottoman, and Austrian governments under a supranational institution does something without precedence. This act having never been able before, but now due to the growing centralization, bureaucracy, communications and overall ability to control, other powers can dictate long term semi-sovereign countries. This sovereignty question is used excessively with French aims to dominate and humiliate Germany. Article: 231 and 232 or the war guilt clause show how the French interests are to remain in power over Germany, hacking at the sovereignty and power base a state needs to function properly.

These precedence and lack of precedence more adequately break down the ways the Versailles Treaty eventually failed. The lack of precedence for how the effects of the Versailles’ demilitarization and continued French and international control meant that assuming or understanding the impacts would be near impossible. While Keynes grasped many of the problems the shifting economic, industrialization and urbanization, the changing social classes of the time and the influx of more political theories changed the social-culture landscape of the continent. This lack of precedence all combined with the great depression and interwar years built to how the Versailles failed.

Critical Summary of Mazower’s “Dark Continent”

Posted on by

Throughout the first four chapters of Dark Contienent, Mark Mazower argues in support of his thesis that in Europe, the period in between the World Wars was a time of overwhelming change.  While all of the countries of the time underwent some sort of ideological changes, from the emergence of the nation-state to the grand sense of nationalism, some countries went to dire extremes, such as Nazi Germany to the right of the political spectrum and the Bolsheviks in the USSR to the left of it.

Mazower takes a balanced look at Interwar Europe by covering a different area of developing significance in each of the four chapters.  Chapter one discusses the decline of democracies and failures of the new constitutions created after World War I. Chapter two’s focus is on the emergence of extreme nationalism and the horrifying effect this had on minorities.  Then, Chapter three covers health and social welfare programs in the nation-states, and finally, Chapter four discusses the economics of Interwar Europe.  Sometimes, Mazower’s writing style becomes too dense for the uninformed reader.  To be able to fully understand this section of the text requires at least a basic background in both economics and European history.  However, Mazower’s approach of covering one issue per chapter rather than focusing on all of the issues of a single country is a great organization tactic in relation to the complexity of the time period.  The reader is able to follow his ideas without struggle.

In his text, Mazower maintains an objective perspective on Interwar Europe.  His interpretation of it is that of many countries with similar ideological values which are often horrifying to a modern perspective, such as the use of eugenics to justify racism.  However, he paints the USSR and Nazi Germany as extremes of the social and political norm, rather than absolute abnormalities.  He shows this by discussing some the less far-fetched, yet still horrific atrocities of other European countries and even the USA, such as the legalization of sterilization of persons with disabilities for the “good” of the state.  The countries whose unethical policies Mazower discusses are both Allied nations and those aligned with the Axis Powers.  This objective strategy shows the reader that those countries who were not as extreme in their views and actions were still morally impure.

While Mazower’s text sometimes becomes too dense for the average uninformed yet intelligent undergraduate student, he provides a variety of extra resources in the back of the book, such as maps and charts.  The maps show the constantly changing boundaries of Interwar Europe while the charts convey the decline of minorities in Eastern Europe starting in 1931.  Both of these help clarify the information Mazower discusses, as well as giving visuals for some of his most important points.  Mazower also lists the wide variety sources he used.  His bibliography is extensive, however he relies heavily on secondary sources dating as late as the 1990’s and not as much on primary sources.  A better balance of the different types of sources would have made his argument more credible.

The objective perspective that Mark Mazower uses in Dark Continent gives readers an interesting and fresh perspective on Interwar Europe.  He effectively shows how the policies of the USSR and Germany are not simply abnormalities, but variations on those of the rest of the continent and all around the world gone horribly extreme.  While the density of the writing style sometimes allows for the reader’s attention to stray, the unique perspective overall keeps the reader’s interest and makes it worthwhile for interested undergraduates to study.

 

Olga Rozanova

Posted on by

Olga Rozanova was born in 1886 in the province of Vladmir. She is known as a painter, poet, graphic designer, and illustrator.

From a young age she was trained in the arts, attending Bolshakov Art School and the Stroganov School of Applied Art in Moscow.   In 1911 she moved to St. Petersburg where she attended the Zvantseva School of Art from 1912 to 1913. She became an active member of the Union of Youth Group, exhibiting with them regularly from 1911 to 1914.

In 1912 she met Russian Futurist poet Aleksey Kruchonykh and they began collaborating. Olga illustrated the first of his Futurist poetry books, which is how she was first exposed to the Futurist movement. They were married in 1916. She and her husband belonged to the group of Russian avant-guard artists called Supremus, and from there she collaborated with other colleagues. Supremus was intended to be a magazine about Suprematism, a style of art created by Kazimir Malevich, however no editions were ever published.

Her art started in the styles of neo-primitivism, Futurism and Cubism, but as she experimented it became more abstract, eventually morphing into a style all her own. She attended the lectures of the Italian Futurist Filippo Tommaso Marinetti in St Petersburg, which undoubtedly inspired some of her work. Shortly after meeting him, her work was shown at La Prima esposizione libera futurista internazionale in Rome.

Through her art she expressed her support for the Bolshevik Revolution. Following the revolution she became involved in social movements, such as the Proletarian Cultural Organisation.

She died in 1918 of diphtheria. She was 32 years old.  After her death in 1918 a major exhibition was staged in her honor in Moscow.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Rozanova_Ducks_Nest.jpg

Illustration to the book of Kruchenykh Duck’s Nest.

Self portrait, painted in the neo-primitivist style.

To view more of her work, including illustrations for various poetry books, follow this link to her page at the Museum of Modern Art. Olga Rozanova–MOMA

Critical Summary of Mazower’s “Dark Continent” (Chapters 1-4)

Posted on by

The opening four chapters of Mark Mazower’s Dark Continent provide a thoroughly informative analysis of early twentieth-century European governments that manages to be both balanced and provocative.  By recounting the social, political, and economic climates of the continent’s constituent nations leading up to, during, and between the two world wars, Mazower examines the conditions that led to the establishment of Europe’s dominant governmental systems.  The underlying thesis of these chapters is that democracy was not, as many historiographers have claimed, a foregone conclusion for Europe.  Conversely, Mazower argues that the competing fascist and socialist efforts also vying for primacy during the interwar period seemed at times to be equally if not more viable options.

The author paints a portrait of Europe as a continent fraught with the challenge of establishing proficient governments.  Beginning with the example of the Russian revolution, “liberalism’s first wartime triumph…and most frightening defeat,” Mazower categorically breaks down his period of interest, emphasizing a different perspective in each chapter (Mazower, 11).  Chapter one discusses political theory primarily in terms of Europe’s endeavors with constitutional liberalism.  Chapter two then focuses this scope to a geopolitical evaluation of the emergence of nationalism, flowing eloquently into chapter three’s analysis of the collective ideological shift toward socialist policies after World War I.  Chapter four concludes this quartet with a survey of the role of economics in this period, particularly with regard to the various successes and failures of capitalism in dealing with postwar reconstruction.

Although these chapters do not provide comprehensive historiographical information on the subject matter, Mazower’s four-fronted approach does create a unique portrait of Europe’s “inter-war experiment with democracy” that would be an excellent introduction for a historical neophyte or a refreshing new perspective for a seasoned professional.  The author expounds on his thesis by referencing a variety of historical sources (e.g. newspaper headlines, popular pamphlets, and relevant speeches) and contemporary commentaries (e.g. academic journal articles and historical books), including a number of translations from texts published in pertinent European languages (e.g. French, German, etc.) (Mazower, 5).  While this thorough research lends credibility and color to the prose, the distribution of elements such as direct quotations and statistics is somewhat unbalanced at times, making some passages difficult to absorb in just one reading and leaving others lacking in support.  Despite this, the ends (in this case, the first four chapters as a whole) justify the means; readers will lift their heads from these sometimes challenging pages stimulated and informed, but never bored.

Collectively, Dark Continent’s first four chapters establish Mazower’s distinctive interpretation of Europe’s attempts to settle into a stable state of government during the interwar period.  They also simultaneously set the stage for the discussion of later chronological events such as the phenomenon of Nazism and the establishment of peace after World War II in subsequent chapters.  Mazower’s synthesis of a large body of information into a tight and intellectually challenging work makes Dark Continent a worthwhile read appropriate for undergraduates, enthusiasts, and researchers alike.

A Critical Summary of Mazower’s “Dark Continent”, Chapters 1-4

Posted on by

In the first four chapters of his text Dark Continent, Mark Mazower not only elaborates on the events of Europe’s interwar period, going into detail about the reasons for the development of these events, he also gives his readers an objective and analytical view on the continent as a whole. As opposed to going through Europe’s interwar period country by country, Mazower structures his chapters around the main issues and developments that affected all of Europe. Mazower pushes the idea that the countries of Europe progressed simultaneously with different ideological goals, but using similar means to achieve these goals. While Mazower occasionally strays away from his main points and sites more secondary sources than primary ones, he gives a new prospective on Europe at a volatile point in its history, explaining how even those countries that seem extreme in hindsight, differed in their methodology and ideology only slightly from the rest of the continent.

The examining of Europe as an entity, and not each individual European country during the Interwar period, really adds to the ingenuity Mazower’s text. He showed the developments throughout Europe that led to such events as the rise of Nazi Germany and the Russian Revolution, and that the formation of these governments was not as sudden or surprising as is commonly thought. For example, Eugenics, invoking such tactics as sterilization, was alive in the majority of European countries, as well as The United States, at the time; the Nazis just took the next step in purifying their population by killing those that they deemed undesirable (97). As for the Bolsheviks, Lenin introduced a “New Economic Policy” in the 1920’s that allowed from some forms of capitalism, such as private business, in Russia (117).

In the back of his text, Mazower lists his sources, as well as providing the reader with charts and maps that help to clarify his relatively dense writing. Maps, for example, that show the countries of European before and after the First World War, giving the reader a better idea of what he is discussing, such as invasions and minority issues within countries. In his bibliography, Mazower sites numerous sources, ranging in date from before the First World War to the 1990’s. While this use of sources from through out the twentieth century brings the perspectives of different time periods into the text, Mazower uses more secondary sources than primary ones, which effectually distances his text from the historical evens themselves.

While Mazower’s writing can become dense and hard to follow at times, for the most part, this text is clear and accessible to undergraduate students. A basic knowledge of European history would improve a reader’s comprehension of this text because major events and facts are skimmed over, so as to focus on the details and driving forces behind these events more intently. Mazower’s method of examining Europe as a whole sheds new light on a complicated and significant period in history, showing connections and common themes between countries that have been previously overlooked.

Treaty of Versailles

Posted on by

The Treaty of Versailles was presented by the allied powers, and was clearly devastating for Germany.  Throughout World War I, Germany strove to be an authoritarian power, and France suffered as a result.  Following Germany’s loss, France was in the position of power over Germany, and fully took advantage of this opportunity by limiting their access to land and weakening their military.

Following World War I, France’s aim was primarily to weaken Germany’s power as much as possible.  Because Germany equated land with power, the Treaty prevented Germany from, “construct[ing] any fortifications either on the left bank of the Rhine, or on the right bank to the west of a line drawn 50 kilometres to the East of the Rhine,” and restored much of Germany’s land to France (Treaty of Versailles, Article 42).  Because Germany placed so much emphasis on acquiring land, the Treaty of Versailles certainly aimed to prevent them from having a future as a powerful nation.

The Treaty of Versailles also placed severe limitations on the German military.  The allied powers hoped that this would sever the power that Germany previously held, and force them to completely rebuild their armies.

The Treaty of Versailles was very harsh, and had the potential to take all the power away from Germany.  This was important to the allied powers, especially France.  In that sense, because Germany had taken so much from France during the war, the Treaty served as France’s revenge, and they were eager to take as much power away from Germany as possible.

Treaty of Versailles Post

Posted on by

What struck me when reading the selected articles of the Treaty of Versailles was how the Allied Powers used the treaty as an instrument of revenge. This feeling of anger had much to do with the rather aggressive nature that Germany took when the war began. They were quicker to mobilize than the other Western Powers, and they made the opening move in the war with their invasion of France through neutral Belgium. Germany’s decision to go through Belgium made sense tactically, but they did not realize the political ramifications that it would cause in the long run. As a result of this action the war was not seen by the Allies and neutral powers as one created by a series of tangled alliances, but it was seen as a war of German aggression. When it was time to draw up the armistice that ended the hostilities, Germany was not able to negotiate with the Allies in any way. They were at the mercy of the victors who decided to strip Germany bare of anything of value. In Articles 45,119,231,232 of the treaty the Allies are clearly taking anything of value from the German economy including coal mines and overseas colonies, and they also made the Germans pay restitution for all damages caused by the war. These harsh measures taken by the Allies destroyed the German economy and it was one of the many reasons behind the radicalization of the German populous after World War One.

Natalia Goncharova

Posted on by

Natalia Goncharova (1881-1962) was born in Nagaevo, Russia.  Her great-grandfather was the famous poet Aleksandr Pushkin.  She enrolled in the Moscow Institute of Painting, Sculpture, and Architecture.  She and her lifelong partner, fellow painter Mikhail Larionov, helped found the Russian avant-garde movement.    Goncharova was best known for Primitivism, but she also painted in the Cubist, Cubo-Futurist, and Rayist styles.  Aside from painting, Goncharova also designed sets and illustrated books.  She finally married Larionov in 1955.  She died in Paris.

Painting “Electric Lamps” by Natalia Goncharova.

Sources
 http://www.guggenheim.org/new-york/collections/collection-online/artists/bios/1257
“The Avant- Garde” by Suzanne Massie

France’s fears displayed in the Treaty of Versailles

Posted on by

The Treaty of Versailles was an extremely punitive solution to officially end of WWI. The response of the Triple Entente at the end of the war is not surprising; these countries lost so many soldiers during the war that the true level of pain and suffering is difficult to understand today. France especially blamed Germany for the loss of almost an entire generation, literally and figuratively. The toll of war and the use of new and dangerous technologies ravaged farmland as they became battlefields. It is not surprising that these countries wanted retribution for all of the suffering they had already endured and would continue to endure. The other strong motivation behind the treaty was to ensure that Germany would be unable to start another war. France wanted Germany to pay for all of the suffering it had caused, but also wanted to ensure that she would not be subject to another German attack.

It is surprising, however, that the treaty punished Germany for the Franco-Prussian War. The war was fought and won in 1871—almost half a century before. The bitterness and fear of a German invasion into France pervaded any sense of fairness and justice. The treaty included articles that targeted Prussian actions at the end of the Franco-Prussian War, “The High Contracting Parties, recognizing the moral obligation to redress the wrong done by Germany in 1871 both to the rights of France and to the wishes of the population of Alsace and Lorraine, which were separated from their country in spite of the solemn protest of their representatives at the Assembly of Bordeaux” (Treaty of Versailles, Article 49). France had been invaded two times in less than 50 years by her neighbor to the east. These two wars had traumatized the French and, therefore, they wanted to see “justice” delivered.

It is interesting to note that this fear of German force did not ease in France with all of the Treaty’s stipulations about the size of the German Army. The French had an incredible sense of “puissance” at the end of the war because they had finally defeated their archrival after the humiliation of 1871. This “puissance” did not fully reassure the French and the government quickly worked to further secure the country. The Maginot Line was constructed to prevent another German invasion because, according to French thought, it was inevitable. Mazower points out in Chapter 2 of Dark Continent that this line of defense would prove to be completely ineffective at the start of WWII.

In attempting to protect themselves from the might and ambitions of Germany, the French pushed the international community to accept such a punitive treaty. Many historians have argued, however, that this treaty may have indirectly led to the success of Hitler’s propaganda and his rise to power, leading to France’s next defeat as a result of another German invasion.

The Last Witness

Posted on by

Friday, September 6th, 2013; the second day of the Jewish new year called Rosh Hashannah. Today marks a day of new beginnings, and an end to the past. Today, Hitler’s bodyguard Rochus Misch, the last surviving witness of Hitler’s suicide, has died. I am Jewish, and my Grandpa Larry’s whole family was brutally murdered in Auchwitz during the “Final Solution.” For me, Mr. Misch’s passing brings a mixture of feelings. Of course I do not rejoice in the death of a human being; if I did so I am no better than Hitler himself. At the same time, I cannot help but feel a sense of closure for my family members that I never got to meet.

Now, Rochus Misch claims that he had no idea that 6 million Jews were being slaughtered  or worked to their deaths. To me, that is a completely absurd concept. There is no way that he being Hitler’s bodyguard never overheard a conversation or had any idea of what was really going on in Germany. He said that he was constantly by Hitler’s side; eating with him, living with him, protecting him. Misch obviously knew what Hitler’s agenda was, and the fact that Misch was never held accountable for any actions whatsoever dumbfounds me. He was never tried for crimes against humanity, even though in my opinion him simply protecting Hitler should be a crime in itself. Instead, Misch spent nine years in a prisoner of war camp in the Soviet Union (Rising).

All of my personal feelings aside, Rochus Misch’s life directly relates to Mark Mazower’s historical writing Dark Continent. In Chapter 1 of Dark Continent, Mazower speaks of Communism and Facism in the 1930s. When Misch was 20 years old, he said he joined the SS  because he saw it as a “counterweight to the threat of the left.” This exact point was made in Mazower’s writings. Misch was so anti-communism that he joined a Fascist group. Speaking about his decision to join the SS, Misch said “It (joining the SS) was anti-communist, against Stalin — to protect Europe.” He noted that thousands of other Western Europeans served in the Waffen SS. “I signed up in the war against Bolshevism, not for Adolf Hitler.”

Shanah Tovah ooh Metukah. Have a happy and sweet new year. The last witness to Hitler’s suicide is now gone. Never forget.

Bibliography: RISING, DAVID. “Hitler Bodyguard Rochus Misch Dies at 96.” Ap.org. Associated Press, 6 Sept. 2013. Web. 06 Sept. 2013.