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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Malevich and the Avant-garde

Kazimir Malevich was an impressionist, pointillist, cubo-futurist, supremist, avant-garde painter, and patron of early avant-garde theater. His early career focused on the picturesque life of the peasantry, his primitivist works drew the attention of popular avant-gardist Mikhail Larionov. He invited Malevich to exhibit his works in the upcoming “Jack of Diamonds” show in Moscow. By 1910, Malevich had joined a number of art circles within Moscow including a pointillist group, an impressionist, and Larionov’s avant-garde group.   After his appearance at “Jack of Diamonds”, in 1913, Malevich moved to Saint Petersburg and joined an avant-garde cell called the “Union of Youth”. Here, with the help of painters and futurist poets, he worked to produce futurist operas. By 1915 Malevich had entered a ‘suprematist’ period where he felt “Color and form are the only things that should matter for the painter: any painted surface is more vivid than a face with a pair of eyes and a smile on it.” This period led to the production of  the famous series of “squares” and his suprematist work made him famous abroad and across Russia.

black squareSuprematismHe would teach in Moscow for a time before dying St.Petersburg in 1935. Eventually, his grave was lost due to the rapid suburban expansion during and following the Second World War but his remains were rediscovered quite recently during construction in the area.

 

Arkhip Kuindzhi

 

Arkhip Ivanovich Kuindzhi was born in January 1841 in Mariupol, which is now Ukraine, to a Greek shoemaker. Arkhip grew up in the city of Taganrog. When he was six, he was orphaned and raised cattle and worked construction to make a living. From 1860 to 1865 he worked in a photo studio and later attempted to own a studio himself, but this plan failed. So Arkhip moved to Saint Petersburg and began studying painting on his own until he joined the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts in 1868. He also formed a realist artist group called Peredvizhniki, which later became known as the Society for Traveling Art Exhibitions. Arkhip left the academy in 1872 to pursue a freelance career and was featured in several art galleries in Russia. He received the bronze medal at the 1874 International Art Exhibition in London. During this time frame he also focused his art on landscapes and panoramas. He experimented with color and illuminating nature as he matured as an artist and later lectured at the same academy he once attended. From 1892 to 1897, he was a professor at the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts and was fired for supporting student protests. Some of his students include Arkady Rylov Nicholas Roerich and Konstantin Bogaevsky. Arkhip founded an artists group called the Society of Artists in 1909 but it was renamed for him after his death in July 1910.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkhip_Kuindzhi

 

http://www.wikigallery.org/paintings/391501-392000/391516/painting1.jpg

 

Arkhip Kuindzhi

Arkhip Kuindzhi

 

Mazower and Battleship Potemkin’s Violent Overthrow in Russia

Mark Mazower’s book Dark Continent and the film Battleship Potemkin provide insights into the causes of the Russian Revolution and the victory of the Bolsheviks over the other political parties of the time.  Although the film does not go into as much depth as Mazower’s book, both address the motivations behind the violent overthrow that occurred in Russia after World War I.

Mazower details the different types of governments that succeeded each other during the interwar period in Europe, from the autocratic Tsarist Empire to Bolshevism to communism.  The Tsarist Empire was the highest authority in Russia but the working class and peasant population of Russia no longer wanted to accept an autocratic, repressive government.  The workers and peasants of Russia believed that their voices were never heard and were suffering from massive food shortages and lack of land rights.  After the overthrow of the Tsar, Russian liberals thought that the lower classes would accept a constitutional government, but as Mazower points out: “ Russia’s liberals turned out to be the first, but not the last, to assume mistakenly that a deep-rooted social crisis could be solved by offering “the people” constitutional liberties. Such liberties were not what “the people”- and especially Russia’s fifteen million peasant conscripts—wanted. (Mazower 11). The people of Russia wanted land, food and respect.  The liberal bourgeoisie did not offer a solution to these needs and the workers and peasants opted for a radical revolution that claimed to vest power in the proletariat, or working class.

The 1925 silent Russian propaganda film, Battleship Potemkin, depicts the oppression of sailors on the battleship and of common Russian by the Tsar’s armed forces in Odessa.  The film shows the resilient behavior of the sailors and Odessans (workers) as they stand up for themselves in the face of Tsarist repression.  The sailors rebel against their officers at sea, while workers and common Russians oppose the Tsarists on land. Throughout the movie, the quote “All for one, one for all” appears frequently, demonstrating that as early as the Potemkin mutiny of 1905, the people of Russia began to unify against the tyranny of the Tsarist government.  The most dramatic depiction of that tyranny is the violent massacre of innocent Odessans by the soldiers of the Tsar.

In both the book and the film, one can see that the common people of Russia were crying for help. They wanted to be heard, but the Tsarist autocracy turned a deaf ear to their appeals.  After the overthrow of the Tsar, the liberal provisional government did nothing to reassure the people that its voice would be heard.  The people ultimately opted for a radical political solution proposed by the Bolsheviks that promised them a central role in the division of property and wealth.

Battleship Potemkin

Battleship Potemkin accurately reflects the description of Russia during this era that Mazower writes in Dark Continent. Mazower discusses briefly the living conditions of the Russian peasants as being the worst across europe. The beginning of Battleship Potemkin begins with the sailors being extremely unhappy about their conditions of living. The meat they are expected to eat is ridden with maggots, and they are told to wash it off with brine.

Mazower also discusses the anti-semitic sentiments that were spreading across Europe towards due to catholicism having more influence on the government with the rise of christian nationalism which started in portugal but also had influences which spread to Austria and beyond, where “Violent anti-semitism was the corollary” (Mazower, 31). Although Russian anti-semitism may have had other roots. When the people realized that the sailor had been killed over a bowl of soup, one of the revenge shouts was “Kill the Jews!”, which seemed random but was just part of the overall sentiment.

The mutiny on the ship projects the tensions between the Russian peasants and the government during the era of industrialization when the peasants were not getting adequate care from the state, and were tools of the states progression. This was representative of the Russian revolution