Category Archives: HIST107-Archive

Convention on Genocide

Posted on by

3 Points

1) The Convention’s definition of genocide encompasses a much broader array of offenses than I had considered. In addition to “killing members of the group,” genocide includes the forced relocation of children and the prevention of reproduction.
2) Accused parties could be charged with a number of punishable acts, including “conspiracy to commit genocide” and “complicity in genocide.” They should be judged by those with authority in the state in which the crimes were committed.
3) If the number of representatives serving the Convention should at any point fall below 16, then the Convention would renounce its authority.

Questions

1) In what situations did the Convention exercise its power to arrest criminals?
2) Were there any revisions made to the original Convention document?

Observation

The Convention articles are very thorough, and I believe they would be effective preventing and punishing genocidal activities. Opposition to the document would be unfounded unless said opponents had intentions of committing genocide themselves.

The Genocide Convention

Posted on by

1.  I thought it was interesting that the act of trying only to exterminate part of a population was considered genocide as well as forced sterilization of certain individuals in a population.

2.  Publicly urging on or advertising of genocide was also punishable rather than just the act itself along along with complicity.  Even saying something out, serious or not, could get one punished for a public display of genocide without having actually killed another human being .

3.  The conference was left open for over a year to all countries who were part of the United Nations and those who had been invited to sign.

Questions:

1. Why was the convention left open so long? Was it in an effort to get as many countries as possible to sign?

2. Is this convention being used to protect the rights of any of the groups being targeted in the present day?

Observation:

A good portion of the countries that opposed the article were slavic, in that region or were part of the Soviet Union at the time.  Perhaps there was a connection between the these countries opposition and the Soviet Union’s rise to power in the coming years.

Survival in Auschwitz

Posted on by
Three Points:
  1. In these camps, one of the largest barriers between those living there was language. Most of them had Jewish background and many of them were educated; however, there was little access to communication. Not only did this make work more difficult when listening to the commanders who spoke German and the other workers that one was working with, but also an enormous feeling of isolation.
  2. The demoralizing of the people in the concentration camps proves to be one of the founding steps in the process of their success. Levi often discusses how the process would make the officers go out of their way to demean the people coming into the camps, such as when they would have to stand naked for hours when waiting to enter the camp. Not only did the Nazis make their presence known through physical trauma towards these people, but in addition they made sure that their living circumstances were all they could think about.
  3. I was surprised to hear that people within the camps were not always aware of the extreme circumstances there. For some time, Levi was unaware about the crematoriums and how prevalent the Germans used them in the concentration caps. The Germans attempted to keep the prisoners in the dark about as many things as possible, but specifically this surprised me because of how frequently they were used.
Questions:
  1. I was wondering more about the levels of hierarchy in the concentration camps, specifically the kapos. How did their roles affect the way that they were perceived by the other prisoners, and how were they perceived by the Germans running the camp?
  2. Levi mentions that he would rather have disclosed his religion than his political affiliation. However, in Levi’s youth, he participated in the Avanguardisti- a section of the youth organization run by the Italian fascists, Opera Nazionale Balilla, for 14 to 18 year olds.  Was there any possibility in using this to cover up his political affiliation to avoid being taken?
Observation:
When Levi publishes this book, it was through a small Italian publisher. However, as the book grew in popularity and fame he expanded through Europe. When he began the translation into German in 1961, Levi apparently was very careful on which German publisher to use, and was supervising the whole process. Most importantly with his decision to maintain a part of this process was his introduction written specifically for this version to the German people, condemning them for what they allowed to happen. We discussed in class how after WWII many Germans denied knowledge of these events or participation, and Levi immediately shuts that down by investing the time in forcing these people to acknowledge the actual horrors of the war.

The Genocide Convention

Posted on by

Three points

1. The Genocide Convention regards a genocide as a illegal movement. It includes not only actual homicides but also attempted homicide and violence.

2. The Genocide Convention defines the concrete trial system. People who committed this convention can be judged by ICC or domestic courts.

3. This convention plays a quite significant role to prevent people from repeating a massacre, which was conducted by Nazi Germany during the second world war .

Two questions

1. How much did this convention actually contribute to the protection of human right in Europe?

2. Did this convention enhance the right of minority group such as Jewish people?

Obeservation

This content of Genocide Convention defines punishable acts in detail . The article three includes five kinds of punishable acts. One of them prohibits people from suggesting any plan of massacres.  Therefore, people can be punished even if they do not actually kill people. From this idea, I felt the strong will of countries to prevent the cruel acts in advance.

 

Survival in Auschwitz

Posted on by
  1. Primo Levi was an Italian Jew born in Turin, Italy, in 1919. At age twenty-four, he was part of a political resistance group that was caught by the fascist militia. When interrogated, he disclosed that he was a Jewish Italian citizen rather than explaining his political affiliation because he feared torture and certain death. He was sent to a vast detention camp in Fossoli, near Modena.
  2. After SS troops inspected the detention camp, they announced the deportation of all Jews. The SS troops sent the Jews to a work camp near Auschwitz called Monowitz. Here, Levi is reduced to a number and experiences the severe horrors of the Holocaust: extreme starvation, fatigue, illness, uncertainty, and terror.
  3. Levi remained at the work camp until January 1945. The SS troops knew that a Russian bombing was imminent and decided to take all of the “healthy” prisoners on a death march to the next camp. Levi, who had caught scarlet fever, was left behind. The bombings caused the Germans to flee the camp. Levi, along with other prisoners, managed to survive the bombings and ultimately escape the deserted camp.

Questions:

Even though Levi believed he would have been executed for announcing his political resistance, would he had fared better had he not disclosed his religion to the fascist militia?

How is Levi able to refuse to consent to his treatment by the SS troops? How is he able to keep a clear mind and possess the will to survive against all odds?

Observation:

I find it most interesting how lucky Levi was during his imprisonment in the work camp. He was not only sent to the infirmary after a foot injury, which meant forty days free of work, but he only got ill once, contracting scarlet fever right before the death march, and he survived the bombings by the Russian allies. Statistically, Levi was one of the very few that survived from his original group.

Genocide: Definitely Not Allowed

Posted on by

Interesting Points:

– The definition of Genocide is all encompassing. Even if there are just nine or ten people in a religious cult the conspiracy to wipe them out would be defined as Genocide. I guess I find it interesting that this term doesn’t just apply to large numbers of people – it has to do with any sized group.

– If it is possible, the offenders will be tried in a state judicial system, instead of an international war crimes tribunal. I was under the impression that all trials as serious as these would be on an international level.

– The ratification process extends for quite a long period of time. It is not over in one day with countries voting “yay” or “nay”. The process begins on 9 December 1948 and goes up until 31 December 1949 – over one year long.

Questions:

– I understand that people had never seen controlled killings like the Holocaust before, but don’t you think the countries of the world should’ve had legislation in place before any of this happened in the first place?

– Why would any country NOT ratify this legislation. Some African countries may have wanted to stay away from it so they could continue their use of “crowd control” (Rwanda), but denying the bill is just begging to be scorned by the international community.

Observation:

– The convention would cease to exist if the number of countries went below sixteen. I have no idea why they would include this stipulation as I would want to keep the legislation in effect even if there was only one country holding onto it.

 

Hitler-Stalin Pact

Posted on by

Thee Points:

1. The first section of the document The non-confidential pieces Show that the pact was not necessarily an alliance, but as a promise to stay neutral (hence the name non-aggression pact)

2. The Second part of the document takes into account territorial agreements.  This heavily alludes to the collusion of Russia and Germany and their ‘alliance’ and their support for one another in starting a new war.

3.The time the pact was signed, August 23rd 1939 is extremely close to the beginning of the war (about 8 days).  This could mean that the pact was the only thing standing in the way of Germany and its invasion of Poland.

Questions:  Why do you think that Germany signed this document so late/ close to the beginning of the war?  Why do you think the Germans would ultimately end up breaking the pact when they invaded Russia.

Observation:  I find in incredibly ironic that the champion of Fascism, Germany and the champion of Communism/Socialism, Russia, despite being opposite political ideologies, were able to create a pact of non-aggression.

Churchill’s Iron Curtain Speech and Stalin’s Response

Posted on by

Main Points:
1. Churchill acknowledged that the Soviet Union did not want war, they wanted “the fruits of war and the indefinite expansion of their power and doctrines.” It is important to note that neither the west nor the Soviet Union wanted another war. It would preposterous to think that any state involved so heavily in World War II would actively seek war with a superpower less than a year after the conclusion of the war in Europe. It is very easy to see how a state would want to assert its power and influence in Europe so soon after the end of the war however, which is exactly what started the Cold War.
2. Churchill also mentioned the balance of power in his speech. He recalled how no one wanted to match or check Germany’s military buildup and fascism in the early 1930’s, and how World War II might have easily been avoided if Germany had been kept in check instead of being allowed to gain strength and momentum. Churchill said that the balance of power could easily be maintained in such a way that it would keep the Soviet Union in check if “the population of the English-speaking Commonwealth be added to that of the United States, with all that such cooperation implies in the air, on the sea, all over the globe, and in science and in industry, and in moral force, there will be no quivering, precarious balance of power to offer its temptation to ambition or adventure.”
3. In his response to Churchill, Stalin compared the west to Hitler and his racial theory, possibly confusing Churchill’s mention of the English-speaking Commonwealth with a declaration of English speakers as a dominant race. Churchill also compared the Soviet Union to Hitler’s Germany in his speech when he mentioned the balance of power. Stalin also conflated Churchill’s emphasis on freedom and democracy with a desire to take over Europe as Hitler did. Churchill clearly emphasized these principles in his speech as the ultimate goal in Europe, not domination by English speakers.

Questions:
1. How could Stalin accuse Churchill of being a collaborator with fascism, when Stalin backed the signing of the Nazi-Soviet Pact in 1939? Did that not make Stalin a collaborator with fascism?
2. How true are Churchill’s claims that he rose the alarm about Hitler’s Germany gaining power and why did no one listen to him?

Observation:
It is interesting that Stalin would point the finger at the west and compare their ideology to Hitler’s racial theory when he was guilty of killing millions of his own people and facilitating Hitler’s early success with the Nazi-Soviet Pact.

Winston Churchill and “The Iron Curtain”

Posted on by

3 Points

1 – The U.S. is at its peak of power and now has a great responsibility to determine the future. One must feel a strong sense of duty and it is necessary to have constancy of mind, persistency, and the simplicity of decision making in determining the future of the English-speaking population.

2 – The fact about the current situation in Europe is that an “iron curtain” has fallen across the continent and the cities behind it are under the Soviet influence and control of Moscow. The safety of our world lies in the future unification of Europe.

3 – Communism presents a threat and challenge to the Christian civilization, however, the idea of another war is repulsing and the the English speaking people have the power to save the future. What the Soviets want are the positive outcomes of winning a war and expansion of their power, control and beliefs.

2 Questions

1 – Do you think Churchill makes a valid point when he says about WWII: “there was never a war in history easier to prevent by timely action than the one which has just desolated such great areas of the globe”?

2 – How does Stalin respond to Churchill’s speech and who does he compare him and his “English racial theory” to?

1 Observation

During the time that Churchill spoke of the dangers of the Soviet power and the iron curtain, many people in the west still viewed the Soviet Union as an ally coming out of WWII.

Stalin’s Speech at a Meeting of Voters of The Stalin Electoral District

Posted on by

Three Points:

1. Stalin started his speech with the discussion of the nature of the two world wars, that the first world war was mainly a result of rising capitalism countries’ demand for redistribution of  “sphere of influence” and that the second world war was one of anti-fascism and liberation.

2. He then brought up the point that the second world war served as a test of the Soviet Union in many ways. Constructed as a multi-national union, Soviet Union succeeded in muting the sceptic who doubted if the multi-nation political institution could survive. Soviet Union’s winning of the war also solidified the power of communism.

3. The latter part of the speech focused on the future development of Soviet Union by the next five-year plan. With the heavy industry developing first than light industry and collective agriculture instead of capitalist one, the Soviet Communist party aimed to restore the productivity to pre-war level at a relatively short time and with high efficiency.

Two Questions:

1. If the pre-war five-year plans were focusing on heavy industry as a preparation for the war, why did Stalin and the communist party still focus on heavy industry after the war? It was a quicker route for the GDP to go up but not for the overall living standard of people.

2. It seems that collectivism works quite efficiently towards a collective goal, usually a expanding one (politically or economically). But it lacks the ability to recover once it crashed (Germany, Soviet Union, even Japan during the bubble burst in the 1990s). Do you agree that eventually it is individualism that propel the society forward? Meaning, should people eventually increase their own productivity solely based on personal goal instead of a collective one?

One Observation:

The planned economic policy works against the “natural” development of industrialization by developing heavy industry first. In a time when there is no war, heavy manufacture can result in excess capacity since no one will be using the products once they are made. Stalin described a prospective future in terms of national productivity, but how this prosperity turns into individual’s life is not clear. Nevertheless, Stalin succeeded in winning votes by his plan for the country.