Monthly Archives: March 2015

Keynes and the Treaty of Versailles

Posted on by

In reading the “Treaty of Versailles,” it becomes clear that the idea behind the treaty was to limit the powers and territories of Germany and have them surrender during the Great War; making them go from a very powerful country to a very weak country in the blink of an eye.  In his piece titled “The Economic Consequences of the Peace,”, English economist John Maynard Keynes spoke to the negative effects that the Versailles settlement would have on the nation of Germany.  Keynes’ highlighted that Germany would lose “her colonies, her merchant fleet and her foreign investments,” (Keynes) after signing this treaty.  Furthermore, due to these losses, Keynes argued that the industry of Germany will “be condemned inevitably to destruction,” (Keynes) and made it clear that German citizens will suffer many deaths due to the poor quality of life that will occur once the treaty is signed.  And while Keynes believed that the next logical step for German citizens would be to move to other places, for no work would be available in Germany, “many countries and the most important ones will oppose any German immigration,” (Keynes) forbidding them to move out of Germany, for once the treaty is signed they would want nothing to do with them.

Keynes believed that if Germany were to sign the Treaty of Versailles, they would be making a rash decision and could “throw back human progress for centuries.” (Keynes)  Rather than jump at this idea of a treaty, Keynes believed that Germany should wait it out and see if something more favorable might pop up.  And while Keynes’ piece was passionate and provided key points as to why the German community should not sign the treaty, Germany ended up signing anyway, ending the misery that the Great War provided them.  In signing this treaty, the German population displayed the exhaustion that the Great War had caused them and proved that they were willing to give up many of their powers in order to end their involvement in the war.  Ultimately, I think the biggest takeaway from Keynes’ piece is that Germany was willing to give up all their powers and territory in order to get out of World War I.  This is important because it showed that Germany was weak and exhausted.  By displaying their weakness in signing this treaty, a man named Adolf Hitler was able to take notice and developed a plan that involved him taking over Germany; a plan that became successful and with his leadership, Germany became a rather violent nation and caused another World War to begin.

Sevastopol and Local Identity

Posted on by

In “Who Makes Local Memories?: The Case of Sevastopol After World War II”, Qualls asserts that various conflicts, most notably the Crimean War, have shaped the construction of the identity of the city of Sevastopol and it’s people in relation to Russia. He cites the example of the Crimean War in which Lev Tolstoy, a journalist, wrote of the Russian character of the city and necessity of fighting for it as one would do for Russia. At this stage the Russian identity of the city was reinforced through examples of military valor in the Crimean War and the loyalty of those who defended it. As Qualls points out these national myths serve to reinforce the identification of the city and it’s residents with the nation. Simultaneously Russia is able to generate a sense of belonging amongst the citizens and legitimize it’s claim to the region as a national power. This process of creating national myths continues into the 1930s when the Soviet government adapts the narrative once again to redirect loyalty towards the Party through the use of myths which center around the “ideal Soviet citizen,” who serves as an example of the importance of the Party in daily life and of what can be accomplished through allegiance to the Party.

With the onset of World War Two the narrative changes from loyalty to the Party or military valor to that of duty to citizens, soldiers, and Sevastopol. It is interesting to note the adaptability of the sense of identity and it’s importance to the citizen’s identification with Russia rather than Ukraine. Furthermore Qualls analyzes the myth creation blending the World War Two narrative with that of the Russian past and the Crimean War. It would be interesting to see on an individual level from the citizens of Sevastopol, how long it took for them to internalize this new myth and sense of identification and if there was any resistance. Also in if this identification with Russia, rather than Ukraine, extended to all citizens or if it was more prevalent amongst certain age groups? In the latter part of his article, Qualls did a good job demonstrating how the Soviets supported this new myth with propaganda. The Soviets utilized new media formats, such as film, to reach a broader audience and reinforce the new narrative. Finally I found it interesting to read about connection of the reconstruction of the city to the sense of identity, specifically how Trautmann campaigned for the renaming of streets and city areas for local heroes rather than Party heroes.

Sevastopol & Local Legacy

Posted on by

Qualls’s discussion on instill a local legacy within Sevastopol in the post-World War II world seemed quite compelling, as it deviated from the narrative generally presented about cities within the Soviet Union.

Most cities and locales within the Soviet Union, it appears, followed a particular school of thought, which exalted Lenin and other important thinkers involved with the history of Communism, and integrating their own histories with the collective history of the USSR. In Sevastopol, however, local officials paid more attention to local heroes and history, highlighting the importance of Sevastopol throughout Russian history (not just the history of the Soviet Union).

My main question, I suppose, is why was this able to become successful within the context of the Soviet Union–I’m not quite sure I fully understand how Sevastopol successfully achieved its local legacy, essentially rejecting the (perceived) more important legacy of the USSR as a whole.

Sevastopol

Posted on by

Professor Qualls’s article, “Who Makes Local Memories?  The case of Sevastopol after World War II” discussed who created memories of Sevastopol and how they were created after World War II. In his piece, Professor Qualls argued that despite central authorities attempts to paint Serastopals history in a certain way, it was the “municipal and naval officers” who chose to write the history of Serastopal in a “deeper Russian Historical” way, thus creating a “localized mythology.”  ((Professor Karl Qualls, “Who Makes Local Memories?: The Case of Sevastopol after World War II”  Carlisle: Dickinson College Faculty Publications, Paper 1, 2011. 3))  Citing important authors such as David Brandenberger, Karen Petrone, and Matthew P. Gallagher, Professor Qualls used his argument to show how local communities within the Soviet Union created their own mythical like images to advertise their cities.

One of the most interesting points that Professor Qualls brings up was his connection of the myths used with Sevastopal following World War II with the use of heroism in Soviet Propaganda during the 1930s.  He noted that “the military and local officials took the lead in crafting a myth of Soviet Sevastopol and its citizens as an extension of the great Russian defenders of the Motherland who sacrificed everything for a greater good.”  (Professor Karl Qualls, “Who Makes Local Memories?: The Case of Sevastopol after World War II”  Carlisle: Dickinson College Faculty Publications, Paper 1, 2011, 12)) Qualls noted here how the leaders Sevastopol took the methods of heroism in 1930s. He explained how the myths that were created had a heroism type feel to it so that the memory of Sevastopol would stand out.  I found Professor Qualls to be very effective in using 1930s Propaganda and its use of Heroism to discuss the memory of Sevastopol.  His comparison of two different periods split by World War II and his use of a variety of different scholars, showed how he was effective in writing about the memory of Sevastopol.

 

Freud: Civilization & Die Weltanschauung

Posted on by

Sigmund Freud was a controversial Austrian neurologist who is largely considered the founder of the psychoanalysis field of psychology. For this piece, Civilization & Die Weltanschauung, Freud diverts from the field of abnormal psych and the study of sexuality to write about the relationship between economics, civilization, philosophy, religion and science. Freud writes in 1918, around the end of the first World War.

It is clear that Freud is addressing an audience for this lecture, as he uses phrases such as “In an earlier lecture we have emphasized…”, beyond that Freud utilizes rhetoric skillfully to make his point, starting with the first sentence of the lecture in which he defines Weltanschauung,

 I mean an intellectual construction which gives a unified solution of all the problems of our existence in virtue of a comprehensive hypothesis, a construction, therefore, in which no question is left open and in which everything in which we are interested finds a place.

This definition can be applied to all of the topics on which he speaks. He, however, does not think that everything Weltanschauung applies to is created equal. Religion, he says, creates disastrous results by inhibiting thought, whereas he believes that reason/intellect are the human race’s best hope for the future. All of this culminates in Freud’s understanding of civilization and its evolution,  the struggle between death and the force that brings individuals together.

As an earlier poster pointed out, it is clear from Freud’s conclusion that he writes under the influence of war. In 1918 the Great War was coming to a close and Freud’s homeland of Austria was suffering massive losses. He was certainly not alone in seeking the meaning of the struggle between men.

Sevastopol’s Importance

Posted on by

This article does an excellent job in explaining how Sevastopol was crucial in the past, from the World Wars to the myths surrounding it to the importance around the city that remains today.  It’s also interesting how the Soviets deliberately displayed the city in a myth-like way, using stories of heroism and its long past as a  propaganda tool.  In addition with the presence of a naval base of the Russian Black Fleet there today, all of these factors explain the Russian perception of why the city is so important, and also helps to explain the more recent Russian annexation of Crimea.

John Maynard Keynes: The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1920)

Posted on by

John Maynard Keynes, one of the most important British economists of the 20th century, wrote The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1920) in response to the Treaty of Versailles. Keynes in his piece focuses on Germany and uses them as a representation as to what will happen, economically, if citizens of these countries follow this treaty.

Keynes argues that Germany, with a booming population and a rapidly increasing industry, can’t survive with the treaty’s proposed sanctions. He believes that the intellectual elite of the victorious countries fails to realize the stability of Europe, as a whole, and doesn’t promote economic solidarity in any way. The main danger here, Keynes believes, is that a rapid depression of the standard of life can leave to the starvation of many. He says, “Those who sign this treaty will sign the death sentence of many millions of German men, women and Children” (Keynes).

Although Keynes makes valid economic criticisms, his argument is more economic based and less political based. The political situation of 1919 has a lot of importance in what is happening throughout Europe and Keynes fails to address that and also fails to provide alternative solutions to the readers’ problems.

Russian history over Soviet values? Creating a Sevastopol identity

Posted on by

In “Who Makes Local Memories?: The Case of Sevastopol after World War II”, Qualls argues that the historical city of Sevastopol has been defined and shaped by its identification with Russian culture and history. Sevastopol’s residents and outsiders consider it to be a Russian city, and this tradition was evident as far back as 1845 when Leo Tolstoy wrote that it was “impossible to shake the spirit of the Russian people” (Qualls 3) during their defense of the city during the Seize of Sevastopol. During WWII, in creating its own wartime narrative, Sevastopol introduced their own heroes among Soviet heroes such as Zoya Kosmodemianskaia. In Soviet press, Sevastopol’s role in WWII was linked to the Crimean War and so the fight against the Nazis was coined as the “Second Great Defense.” Thus, in the creation a wartime narrative, Sevastopol’s heroes were linked and compared to pre-Soviet Russian heroes, such as Aleksandr Nevskii, Aleksandr Suvorov, and Mikhail Kutuzov. Thus, qualities such as self-sacrifice, resistance and heroism that were exhibited by these Russian heroes became “synonymous with Sevastopol” (Qualls 7). The city’s military history as the city of Catherine the Great’s fleet and its ancient Greek and Turkish origins contributed to the narrative of Sevastopol as a Russian, as opposed to Soviet city.

This replacement of Russian history over Soviet history is interesting, especially in the light of 2 decades before where Stalin called for a brotherhood of nations where the Soviet Union was national in structure but Soviet in form. Did this change in perspective happen in response to the war? If so, what about Russian history was more powerful than the Soviet narrative? Although Soviet values were not replaced completely replaced, why was history so important to Sevastopol narrative? It seems like the fact that a military history had already been such a staple of Sevastopol’s understanding of itself, from both its Soviet leaders and its population that harnessing this history would be more beneficial for the war effort than repeating Soviet propaganda.

 

A Critical Phase Shift

Posted on by

The significance of The Decline of The West, extends way beyond surface level. Oswald Spengler, a german historian and philosopher, whose ideals in the early twentieth century surrounded civilizations and paradigm shifts between them. The Decline of the West is a book that describes the miraculous changes of world history, and the changes that might be faced with civilizations within the coming years. Through a historical/historicists lens, Spengler uses his knowledge of history to show the causes and effects of the worlds phases; using a very informative tone to present his point in the segment from the book. Through his language, he seems to target the general reader, to inform them of what is to come. The reader could have sympathized with it or revolted against Spengler’s opinion. The intent and message of this piece however goes along different lines. Spengler writes in this piece specifically the end of eras where money and intellectuals reign. He spoke about blood and instinct and how it will assist with the victory of the Caesars, as civilization shifted from Napoleonism to Caesarism. The people will obey the strong, and uniformity will lead a better world suited for the conditions present at the time.

Discussion for the Audience:

-It is interesting to see how Spengler writes to say – “Life will descend to a level of general uniformity, a new kind of primitivism, and the world will be better for it…” instead of saying how the changes that are present now will make the world a better place. The world will have to conform to the conditions not the other way around.

What do you think?

Freud’s Weltanschauung

Posted on by

Sigmund Freud, known to college students everywhere for his ability to trace all human activity back to sex, published “Civilization and Die Weltanschauung” in 1918, near the end of World War I. While Freud never explicitly mentioned WWI in the excerpt discussed here, he did state that man’s natural inclination to aggression is one of the greatest impediments to civilization. The struggle between a number of contrasting factors, including the struggle between the instinct for life and the instinct for destruction (aggression) forms the evolution of human civilization, according to Freud.

Considering the time in which Freud wrote, and his references to Marxism, it seems impossible that Freud could have written on the topic of aggression without WWI influencing his thinking and writing to some extent. WWI provided a perfect example of the instinct for aggression (an unnecessary war and unnecessary loss of life) alongside an instinct for life (soldiers fighting to preserve their own lives and those of their countrymen and women). Freud also stated that the superiority of reason and intellect over other cultural forces, especially religion, provided the best hope for the future of civilization. He compared religion to neuroticism of the mind and saw it as an irrational, dangerous force. Whereas religion is divisive, in Freud’s mind, reason is unifying.

The early twentieth century was a time of great change, crisis, and rivalry in Europe. Religion and reason, life and aggression–these dichotomies explained die Weltanschauung of the time for Sigmund Freud.