Monthly Archives: September 2014

“We Do Our Part”: Looking at FDR, Hitler, and Mussolini

Posted on by

Three New Deals by Wolfgang Schivelbusch is a historical analysis comparing Roosevelt, Mussolini, and Hitler between the years of 1933 and 1939. Schivelbusch states his thesis in the introduction; he argues that the programs of FDR, Hitler, and Mussolini (specifically the New Deal, Fascism, and National Socialism) all gave a new vision to their respected nation. Each leader did this through post liberal state-capitalist or state-socialist systems, rising as autocrats through legal means, and seeking a nation of protection and equality. Schivelbusch is clear to point out that he argues commonality between these leaders’ regimes, not sameness.

In chapter one, Schivelbusch elaborates on commonalities from Europe’s view, America’s view, common ground between the two, and with a section on “liberators from capital”. In this first section on Europe’s view, Schivelbusch focuses on Roosevelt’s embracement of national socialist economic and social policies. This adaptation can be seen through Roosevelt’s philosophy of collective good of the nation over individual interest. Hitler initially agreed with FDR’s general philosophy of sacrifice, as Mussolini agreed with his economics strategy of a more state-run economy with the National Recovery Administration. However, in the mid-1930s, criticisms of FDR’s policies exploded, ending the seeming ideological harmony between these three countries. In the second section of America’s view, Schivelbusch explains why FDR’s policies were often referred to as fascist. He explains the term “Fabian socialism”: a civilized version of fascism. Schivelbusch describes how commentators during FDR’s presidency used the term fascism while still acknowledging the general preservation of individual liberties. Like any political statement, this was a highly debated topic. Was Roosevelt maintaining liberty? Roosevelt has a keen likening to Mussolini’s economic policies until the mid-30s. Roosevelt kept his research of Mussolini’s policies secretive due to the public’s eye on his policies. Roosevelt knew Germany posed a great threat to the United States than Italy, perhaps influencing his interest in Italy’s politics rather than Germany. The term pragmatism also came up in this section, being described as “America’s philosophy of modernization”. In the liberators section, Schivelbusch talks about the rise of reform, focusing of America’s Progressive movement. He ends with the Progressive ideology, “Laissez-Faire is dead. Long live social control.”

The introduction explains the importance of monumental architecture; how does this fit into what Schivelbusch discussed thus far in chapter 1?

Three New Deals

Posted on by

In the early 1930s, Germany, Italy, and the United States endured a period of economic downturn known as the Great Depression.  These three countries took separate roads toward recovery.  However, in the book, Three New Deals, Wolfgang Busch argues that the United States may have had more in common with the National Socialists in Germany and the Fascists in Italy.

In Chapter One of his book, Wolfgang Schivelbush gives a detailed narrative about Nazi Germanys’ and Fascist Italy’s perspective on Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal.  Schivelbush notes that in the first half of the 1930s, Germany and Italy held a positive position on Roosevelt and his new deal.  Nazi Germany, according to Schivelbush, believed the beginnings of the new deal echoed their “Revolutionary Program”.(Schivelbush 18).   Though FDR did adapt some socialist ideas in his policies, FDR made sure that these ideas were in line with American values and to help quell any concerns over the direction of American democracy.  While intrigued occurred in Germany over FDRs policies, Facists in Italy took interest in FDR and his policies.  Benito Mussolini stated in his book that “The Appeal to the decisiveness and masculine sobriety of the nation’s youth, with which Roosevelt here calls his readers to battle, is reminicent of the ways and means by which Fascism awakened the Italian people”.(Mussolini quote in Schivelbush’s Three New Deals, 23).  Mussolini praised FDR as a strong man who was able to take grasp of power in the United States and move it in a fascist friendly direction.

At home, the National Socialist and Fascist comparisons helped give FDR negative attention, particularly from his political opponents.  Political and civilian opponents believed  that FDR attempted to not only destroy civil liberties and gain more constitutional power, but also establish friendships with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.  Though Constitutional powers were never completely destroyed and an alliance with Italy and Germany never happened, FDR did push against these boundaries so that he could attempt to get the United States get back on its feet.

 

The Lagging Gulag

Posted on by

Professor Wilson Bell’s article on the Gulag comes as a response to the expanded use of the term in present time. Originally, the Gulag was a Soviet administration body that oversaw labor camps and later special settlements. The term Gulag has been used by Amnesty International in reference to Guantanamo Bay, by Al Gore when describing Abu Ghraib in Iraq, and by other academics to to describe work or incarceration camps throughout the modern age. Bells tracks the complex and irregular history of the Gulag to whittle down and refine the term to a more precise end.

Bell chiefly examines the motivation behind establishing the Gulag as a means to arrive at its more accurate definition. He identifies three main genesis theories supported by various Gulag historians: economic, socio-political, and ideological. Many historians believe that the Gulag supplied the rapidly industrializing Soviet Union with crucial cheap labor. However logical, this argument falls apart in Bell’s eyes when you examine some of the more economically “dubious” labor projects, sites, and the composition of the labor force. This last point leads many scholars to attach a strictly political agenda to the Gulag, a system by which unwanted classes (criminals), thinkers, or ethnicities could be isolated. Again, this notion unwinds when one identifies the Gulag’s semi-colonial value (in establishing new towns and settlements) and its re-education goals (somewhere between 20-40% of prisoners were released back into society). Bell’s thesis mimics his dismantle of others’. He believes that the three main approaches to the Gulag’s establishment are not mutually exclusive but include parts of one another. Nevertheless, he ultimately ends by saying that far more research needs to be done on the Gulag. It’s hostile environment, diversity, and other nuances, remain enigmatic to the world.

I learned that producing a thorough historiography requires the historian to delve into each deep lead he finds. Bell does not just discuss the fact that political revolutionaries or counter cultural thinkers were targeted by the Soviet Union he moves deeper, researching their distinct experience, their numbers in relation to the entire labor camp population, and the changes of the aforementioned over time. History is not one dimensional, it permeates throughout, affects and is effected by society. One must meticulously track minute changes over time because progress is often an entities most defining feature.

Gulag Historiography

Posted on by

Bell’s piece focuses on the historiographical analyses of Gulags. He notes that the term “gulag” has taken on several meanings throughout recent history and the term has even been applied to more recent examples such as Guantanamo Bay and the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. However for the purpose of his paper he defines a Gulag as Soviet-era prison camp.

The focus of his paper is on the developments amongst scholars about the possible motivations of these forced labor camps. He cites scholars such as D. Dallin and B. Nicolaevsky who argued that there were economic motives behind the development of the Gulag as a result of rapid industrialization (Bell, 4). Other scholars have argued that the Gulags provided expansion into unsettled territory. Another argument discussed is that Gulags were used with political motives as a way to subdue unsettled citizens. Much of the evidence for this argument relies on the first-hand accounts of survivors (Bell, 6-7). There are other historians such as G. Alexopoulos who argue that Gulags acted as a penal system for the Soviet government (Bell, 11). Finally, Bell looks at the argument that Gulags were an attempt at social engineering. He cites S.A. Barnes as a proponent of such engineering theory. Barnes argues that the Gulags were important in the government’s attempt to “purify society” (Bell, 12).

As the author, Wilson Bell creates his own narrative amongst the presentation of the historiography by evaluating which scholars made particularly weak arguments and which made strong and well developed arguments. He also brings in several different scholars to provide depth not only to Bell’s writing but also to the conversation between historians about this topic.

One thing that I found particularly interesting is how access to new information and primary documents can create a deeper understanding of a particular subject. This is evident when Bell references that prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union historian relied mostly on memoir and first-hand accounts of Gulag conditions. However, after the collapse many archival documents containing reports, documents and statistics became available to historians (Bell, 9).

Commonalities vs. Sameness

Posted on by

In Three New Deals, author Wolfganf Schivelbusch  argues how three powerful states were all led by common ideals leading up to WWII.  This is not to confuse with ‘same’ ideals in any sense.  While these terms may seem alike, Schivelbusch clearly states there is a difference.  He argues that while the United States, Germany, and Italy had common features the three cannot be considered identical in any way.  It is difficult to place the United States, a democratic society, in the same category as two authoritative countries, but Schivelbusch continues to explain how they represent one another while being different at the same time.

Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal consisted of a series of acts that were established to help the United States recover from the Great Depression.  While the New Deal looks as it could help the recovery process, it ultimately did nothing but create criticism both internationally and domestically.  Much of the criticism was towards FDR and his Fascist and National Socialist fascinations.  Schivelbusch argues how Germany and Italy identified the similarities of FDR’s economic solutions and supported his dictatorial leadership style.  While these solutions may have been similar to those of the Fascist or National Socialist, they are not identical in any matter.

Another element Schivelbusch recognizes that is common within these three states is the use of  propaganda, particularly war propaganda.  War propaganda was used create a sense of nationalism through the respected states, and Italy and Germany seemed to create a strong idea of nationalism.  Stated, “fascism and National Socialism saw themselves as the continuation of solders’ solidarity, as heroic, messianic movements that would invigorate nations still ruled by outdated ideas with new revolutionary spirit.  Politics was a call to arms on the home front” (39).  FDR and the United States did not have anywhere near the strength of the Germans or Italians, but was convinced he could spread it.

Through-Lining Historical Perspectives: The Approach of an Historiographer

Posted on by

Wilson Bell’s article on the machinations of the Gulag draws from and interprets a great many viewpoints, with the primary argument being that though the term “Gulag” has been used to encompass a wide berth of topics, its primary use is to describe the Stalin-era concentration camps. Bell touches on various points of contention between different historiographers while attempting to find common threads of agreement that can stand on their own as fact in relation to the topic of the Gulag. He begins by discussing how the settlements of relocated peasants have only recently been inducted into the broader scope of the Gulag in a historical sense, moving on to the various possible motivations for the Gulag as an economic tool to bring in cheap labor, a politically repressive bureaucracy, and a method of isolating the outliers of Stalinist-Utopian society. Bell brings up several differing perspectives, supporting points by other historiographers such as Ivanova, Khleuniuk, Alexopoulos, and Klimkova, while drawing their arguments under a common theme of the inefficiency and harshness of the Gulag. Some relatively unfounded claims are made- see Alexopoulos’s supposition that prisoner release implies a high level of Soviet/prisoner interaction with little supporting evidence other than base conjecture- but overall this piece serves as an excellent introduction into the model of historiography. In particular, I took away that historiography focuses primarily on bringing bits and pieces of previous research together to support or contradict one another and develop a new historical perspective. Bell assertion towards the end of the piece that there is plenty of research to be done underlines this historiographical approach.

The similarities of the Roosevelt Administration to Fascism

Posted on by

As the 1930’s began the governments of Italy and Germany descended into Fascism. Many saw this as the answer to the world’s economic crisis however despite this the U.S. did not go into a fascist state. It did although initiate several programs that many of the population and the media compared to the fascist governments of Europe.

Wolfgang Schivelbusch explores these comparisons in the book Three New Deals. In the early 1930’s when the Roosevelt administration had just taken office they looked toward the Italian government to model their economic reforms. Many did not appreciate the similarities of FDR and the Fascist dictators of Europe. However most of his polices were a mixture of Democratic and Fascist ideals. After FDR had initiated the NRA or National Recovery Administration Mussolini wrote in a book review of Roosevelt’s Looking Forward “The appeal to the decisiveness and masculine sobriety of the nations youth, with which Roosevelt here calls his readers to battle, is reminiscent of the ways and means by which Fascism awakened the Italian People.” Here we have one of the most infamous Dictators of the world comparing the process that FDR had began to that of Fascist uprising in Italy. When this review was published the Press department was ordered not to compare the new deal as fascist because it would have given Roosevelt’s political enemies welcomed ammunition. Even that fact that there was potential to label the new deal and the president himself to fascism grants one to imagine that there may have been fascist ideals in Roosevelt’s policies. Within Roosevelt’s 1933 inaugural address there is fascist qualities. However it is more of wartime propaganda comparing the economic crisis as an enemy that the country must rise up in arms to fight against the foe. French and English commentators also compared Roosevelt to a strong leader and in most cases they depicted him as commander in chief similar to the roman Dictator called into service in times of Crisis, another way that they usually depicted him, as was a plebiscitary autocrat a la Mussolini. The comparisons of FDR to the fascist regimes of Europe were not confined to the political enemies and the fascist regimes themselves; many out side of the expected drew comparisons. Personally I would like to know how despite the recovery that was clearly happening after FDR’s polices were put into effect, that some people still feared that his programs where to fascist and would in the long term destroy the liberties of the American people.

Economics in Kievan Russia

Posted on by

Both trade and agriculture were vital parts of the economy of Kievan Rus. We know this based off of materials found in archaeological excavations as well as evidence in written works, such as chronologies and law documents.

Plow agriculture was the basis of the economy from the tenth through the thirteenth centuries in Kievan Rus. We know that this form of agriculture has ancient roots in Southern Rus because  of the depiction of a light plow on a coin from second century BC. Also, excavations produced iron shares, plow blades, and moldboards (all used in plow agriculture) dated between the tenth and thirteenth centuries. We even know the Russian light plow originated in the North due to a sixteenth-century miniature from the life of St. Sergei, in which a light plow is depicted, as well as in juridicial materials which describe plowshares being stolen from peasants in the Iur’ev district. Further evidence of the centrality of agriculture is seen in the heavy penalties for moving field boundaries, which are outlined in the Russian Justice, along with references to the “plough” as a basic unit in tributes and taxes.

Trade was also the basis of the Kievan economy, as evidenced by Viking activity, and amber was a widely-traded item, which we know from  archaeological digs in Novgorod. These Novgorod excavations also indicate that amber came only from the Dnieper region in the tenth through early thirteenth centuries, as do coincidences between graphs of amber with graphs of other objects which reached Novgorod through the Dneiper River trade route. The high value of amber is seen in the Teutonic Order’s establishment of an “amber monopoly” of sorts, in which they declared the exclusive right to amber income and trade. In an order from one of these new rulers, any person caught collecting amber without permission was ordered to be executed. As further evidence of Kievan trade, a Byzantine narrative written by Constantine Porphyrogenitus describes the Kievan princes’ annual collection of tribute down the Dnieper toward the Black Sea and Constantinople, which formed the foundation of future trade routes.

 

The Economy in Kiev

Posted on by

In the latest section of readings we learn that there were two primary staples of the economy throughout the 10th-13th century in Russia. One being the practice of agriculture, the second being trade. Archaeology plays a key role in our understanding of the subject. For instance, we learn about basic tools such as plows used and also the great desire for amber.

Because of Russia’s vast size and land diversity, farming regions were greatly divided. The northern plains were much harsher to grow crops on but on the contrary the southern lands in the right season could be very plentiful. From coins dug up in modern day exhibitions, carved out illustrations display the use of light plows for peasants and live-stock used to soil and clear the lands to be farmed on in more southern regions. While the North used slash and burn techniques to clear out dense forests.

The trade economy was mostly dominated by Russian bureaucrats and land owners, as Novgorod became the central hub of trade. Vikings played a significant role as they introduced amber to this society. The amber came unfinished and then was turned into products such as jewels, crosses and beads. We know this because these items were all found by archaeologists. Novgorod, or “New Town” was primarily built with wood, as it preserved well in the humid forest and lake. By the late 12th century and into the beginning of the 13th, trade routes to the Baltic sea were temporarily deemed threatening as outside Prussian forces were encroaching on Novgorod so amber was scarce. However, peace resumed and the amber supply regained stability.

The Russian economy was supported by trade and agriculture. In my personal opinion agriculture was more important because although the lands were not favorable to farm on it made more sense to be self sustainable than to rely on others for trade.

Antiquated Modernity

Posted on by

Hoffman defines the traditional sense of modernity as liberal democracy and industrial capitalism. This idea or narrow concept of modernity, in my mind, proceeds from our desire to clearly identify the others: to separate the proverbial tares from the wheat. However, in our insatiable egotism and self justification we construct rigid lines of demarcation by which to separate ourselves from the others. Hoffman deconstructs this archaic version of modernity to define the more fundamental, rational sense of true modernity.

The key lies in the governments evolved relationship with the people. During the modern era, people became the focus of governments. All forms government, fascist, democratic, communist, or socialist, invested significant time and resources into the lives of the people. I really enjoyed following Hoffman’s clear logic and connections between democratic and communist governments, seemingly polar government structures. The author argues that perhaps the most distinguishing factor between government types are their goals. Communist or fascist governments heavily invest in citizens’ lives to further a particular agenda or cultivate a certain national mindset. Conversely, Hoffman says that although liberal democracies intrude on person liberties, just like communist or socialist states, they do so for the national good without pursuing “grand ideological claims.” I struggle with this argument. Although there are certainly differences between government types, the lines are not so clear.

All governments absolutely try to disperse perceived national values through their institutions, programs, and other actions. During the Second World War the United States conducted immense advertising campaigns to rally support for the war and also demonize any anti-war or American sentiments, whether actively antagonistic to the United States or simply ideological. Perhaps I am just naturally inclined to distrust governments, but I believe that all powerful organizations are concerned with their own history and the way it will be told.

I realize the article largely pertains to the end of the 19th century to the middle of the 20th century; nevertheless, I still think about the direction western society is now traveling. European countries, and slowly the United States as well, are starting to adopt more social or collective policies and programs. This is not a criticism, only an observation on how the tares and wheat are becoming obsolete upon our embracing of a new form of modernity.