Category Archives: Uncategorized

Culture In Post Kievan-Rus’- The Minstrels

Posted on by

One of the more overlooked aspects of culture of post- Kievan Rus’ was the role of the minstrel.  The minstrel, or skomorokhi, was a musician, actor, and all-around entertainer that operated in a wide variety of venues.  These could range from small villages to large cities such as Novgorod.  The minstrel sub population moved Northeast in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries into the region more known as Russia.

It is very surprising to note that Minstrels often played secular music and preformed secular entertainment.  Despite this, they were not banned from performing for nearly 400 years in Novgorod.

The minstrels, as depicted by manuscripts from 1323, were always dressed in elaborate costumes, some with headdresses.  It is possible that these may have been religious in nature. This is reinforced by the fact that a large majority of the artifacts recording their existence are maintained in the north where their beliefs would be more tolerated.

The influence of Christianity continued to grow in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, thus creating working conditions for minstrels more difficult.  Since the skomorokhi were secular in nature, the church was vehemently against any of their behavior and work.  In 1470, they were banned from all of Muscovy by Iurii Dmitrov.  Maksim Grek continued this opposition into the sixteenth century, stating “the skomorokhi have learned their trade from Satan himself” and by virtue of this are already cursed and damned”.  Despite this, the minstrels continued to be a integral part to Russian Culture. Some were wealthy enough to even be required to pay taxes, but many were peasants or even serfs.

Why were minstrels more accepted in the north versus the south?

What was the gusli and what purpose did it serve to the skomorokhi?

Were the headdresses worn during performances religious?  Was this a reason for their eventual expulsion from Christian regions?

 

Leadership

Posted on by

Leadership from the top.   Two books, Three New Deals by Wolfgang Schivelbusch and Beyond Totalitarianism, a book with a collection of works by various authors, explored the term leadership and how it applied to FDR, Hitler, and Stalin. Schivelbusch’s book two new deals focused on the connection FDR and Hitler had with its population using the term ‘charisma’ while Chapter 2 of Beyond Totalitarianism primarily focused on the political make up of Hitler and Stalin and the differences between the two men.

In Chapter two of Schivelbush’s book, he focuses on the how FDR and Hitler made connections with its population using ‘Charisma.’ Specifically, Schivelbush refers to the term “Charisma” when he discusses FDR and Hitler.  Schivelbush discussed what a charismatic leader is and how they arise.  He stated that a charismatic leader “is a man who stands above party politics” and that the charismatic leader “arises in crisis situations”. ((SchivelBusch, WolfGang. Three New Deals. New York: Henry Holt and Company 2006. 50))  As examples, Schivelbusch pointed out how FDRs fireside chat and Hitlers rallies were used to rally the population.  In his fireside chats, FDR attempted to rally the US population in hopes to raise their moral levels during the Great Depression and World War II.   Interestingly enough, Schivelbusch notes that no other person could pull off the fireside chats like Roosevelt. ((SchivelBusch, WolfGang. Three New Deals. New York: Henry Holt and Company 2006. 56))  In his way of boosting the German population, Hitler used speeches to promote his opinions and facts.  Schivelbusch noted that Hitler had a particular way of presenting his speeches.  He noted that Hitler’s speeches had three parts.  Hitler speeches entailed presenting facts, then angrily blame German enemies for the problems, and then end his speeches with “positive” tone.  ((SchivelBusch, WolfGang. Three New Deals. New York: Henry Holt and Company 2006. 56))  Hitler used these speeches to let the German population know that Germany was going to be strong and that its ‘enemies’ would not get in the way.  While FDR’s speech came in a more calm and collected manner in hopes to boost American moral, Hitler wanted Germans to get excited about the future, a future where Germany would be strong again.

Yoram Gorlizki and Hans Mommsen’s piece on Stalinism and National Socialism in the book Beyond Totalitarianism also discussed Hitlers ability to talk.  Like Schivelbush’s chapter on leadership, Girlizki and Mommsen discussed how Hitlers ability to talk was key to his authority.  The authors argued that all of Hitlers “most important policy decisions were accompanied by major speeches.” ((Gorlizki, Yoram and Hans Mommsen.  “The Political ‘dis’orders of Stalinism and National Socialism” in Beyond Totalitarianism: Stalinism and Nazism Compared, edited by Michael Geyer and Sheila Fitzpatrick. 64-65. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009))

 

Schivelbush’s chapter on Hitler and FDR and Gorlizki and Mommsen’s share a common theme.  They both discuss the characteristics of leaders and how they were a leader of men.  Although Schivelbush used FDR instead of Gorlizki and Mommsen’s use of Stalin, they both discuss how these leaders have certain characteristics that make them capable of leading their countries and boosting their populations moral, regardless of how history views them. FDR had the ability to give a strong and confident voice to the American people to get through hard times in his Fire side chats.  Hitler also used speeches to boost German unity and confidence through his rally’s.  Stalin on the contrary used his ability of working long hours “on the machinery of the government” to push his regime forward. ((Gorlizki, Yoram and Hans Mommsen.  “The Political ‘dis’orders of Stalinism and National Socialism” in Beyond Totalitarianism: Stalinism and Nazism Compared, edited by Michael Geyer and Sheila Fitzpatrick. 64-65. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009))

 

 

A Crisis of Leadership

Posted on by

Gorlizki and Mommsen along with Schivelbusch present information regarding the political rise and eventual control of the Nazi Party in Germany under Hitler, and the Communist Party in the USSR under Stalin. Mommsen and Gorlizki conclude that, in addition to a variety of economic, agricultural, and social reasons, Stalin and his party maintained control over its subordinates so well through the “centralized and institutionally integrated party” ((Gorlizki and Mommsen, 85)) which essentially formed the core of the state. Gorlizki and Mommsen go on to discuss the rise of Hitler and the Nazi party in Germany, and they contend that “the state
and ideology relied to a far greater extent for what coherence they had on the
cult of the Fuhrer.” ((Gorlizki and Mommsen, 85)) This concept of a “cult of the Fuhrer” is a concept touched upon (and explained in detail) by Schivelbusch. In Schivelbusch’s chapter entitled “Leaders”, he contends that Adolf Hitler had an extraordinary ability to “speak to the soul of the people” ((Schivelbusch, 54)), which (as Gorlizki and Mommsen mentioned) helped create the “cult of the Fuhrer”, or, in more simple terms, the love of the German people for their leader contributed greatly to the success garnered by Hitler and the Nazi party; the people of Germany, (unlike the people of the USSR, who as pointed out by Mommsen and Gorlizki became infatuated with, and allowed for the development of “the party”), allowed Hitler to become larger than life.

The idea of leadership and its evolution and importance in the USSR and Germany is an important area to look at in order to bring context to our class, but since Schivelbusch touched on Roosevelt, it would be interesting to bring more context to the American political sphere of that time, and see how closely the opinions of Roosevelt held by the American people parralled with the opinions of German and Soviet citizens with regard to their respective rulers.

The Race or the State

Posted on by

Many often link Fascism and Nazism together and even believe that Nazism is a form of Fascism. However, that is completely not the case. Both ideologies although developed during the same time period with similar motives have their very own definition. Nazism derived as the ideology of the NSDAP (National Socialist German Worker’s Party), most commonly known as the Nazi Party. Meanwhile, Fascism came about Benito Mussolini’s new political movement to bring Italy back on its feet through authoritarian rule. As stated in the beginning of “Benito Mussolini: What is Fascism, 1932,” the word fascism came from the word fasces, which is the symbol of bound sticks that were used as a totem of power in ancient Rome. The image of the fasces conveys power and jurisdiction, living up to the authoritarian and strict regime that dominated Italy with the influence of Fascist ideals.

Although Fascism and Nazism are two different ideologies, they share the same origins, and as a result, share similar positions. Both Italy and Germany came out as losers of the Great War. Germany suffered with the many restrictions and reparations that were placed on them as a result of Article 231 in the Treaty of Versailles. Italy, on the other hand, was on the winning side, but suffered significant a loss since they did not receive the land that they were promised when they joined the war. As a result, both nations suffered economically, politically and socially, as well with public humiliation. Nazism and Fascism in an effort to bring Germany and Italy back on its feet respectively as powerful nations once again after suffering such great losses after the First World War. Therefore, it makes sense why there are so many similarities between both ideologies. In Benito Mussolini’s “What is Fascism, 1932,” he states that “the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority…a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State….” This excerpt shows the shift that was made in the twentieth century as a result of the perceived failure of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy following the Great War and the Great Depression. Therefore, Fascism and Nazism were similar in the sense that both ideologies sought to replace individualism with collectivism. Another one of the striking similarities between Fascism and Nazism is the need for expansion. In both ideologies, expansion was the key to a prosperous nation. Lastly, extreme nationalism was another similarity between both ideologies. However, although both Fascism and Nazism shared these similarities, both are approached differently with different motives.

One of the key components of Nazism was the idea of Lebensraum. Lebensraum is directly translated as “living space.” It was the idea that territorial expansion was needed in order to gain living space for all people of the superior races. In the process of doing so, in Nazism it was believed to be a law of nature for the people of superior races to displace people of inferior races, especially if the people of the superior race were facing overpopulation in their given territories. Generally, the expansionist position of the Nazis was completely motivated by race. “The 25 Points 1920: An Early Nazi Program” repeatedly reiterated the importance for living space for all “members of the race” and place a special emphasis on clarifying who makes up the Aryan race and who does not, blatantly singling out the Jewish population. With this came the sense of extreme nationalism; Nazis believed in a greater Germany for all Germans (members of the race) and the need to collectively lead the nation to its supposed greatness. In Mussolini’s “What is Fascism, 1932” he states in regards to expansionism and nationalism that, “…For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence. Peoples which are rising, or rising again after a period of decadence, are always imperialist; and renunciation is a sign of decay and of death. Fascism is the doctrine best adapted to represent the tendencies and the aspirations of a people, like the people of Italy, who are rising again after many centuries of abasement and foreign servitude.” In this excerpt, Mussolini refers to the great defeats that Italy has suffered from in the past and makes the point that that can no longer happen again. Mussolini’s main concern is the state, and in order for Italy to rise as the most powerful power in the world, it must act with aggression and authority. With that being said, he goes on describing the need to mobilize the Italian masses in order to bring the state back on its feet. He even goes as far as personifying the state by stating, “the Fascist state is wide awake and has a will of its own.” Clearly, Mussolini creates a national character in order to help convince the Italian masses to help the state get to its supposed greatness.

Fascism v. Nazism

Posted on by

Fascism and Nazism have often been grouped together with little, if any differentiation. In reality, there are significant differences between the two ideologies, which are clearly seen by examining Benito Mussolini’s What is Fascism, and Hitler’s The 25 Points 1920: An Early Nazi Program. Reading these two sources in conversation with each other reveals that the reasoning was different for both ideologies.

Mussolini’s What is Fascism was written in 1932 with the help of Giovanni Gentile. With this definition, Mussolini stove to define what Fascism was, and how it would bring Italy back into it’s former glory. The essence of Fascism was defined as the state, which was absolute.  Additionally, Mussolini believed that individuals were only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. ((“Modern History Sourcebook: Benito Mussolini: What is Fascism,” Fordham University, accessed September 19, 2014, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.asp)) Furthermore, Mussolini noted why Fascism was different than other ideologies, (and therefore better in his mind). He stated that Fascism now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. ((Ibid)) In addition, he discussed how Fascism was an ideology that would be able to organize the state, and allow it to expand. He continues with the idea of expansion as essential for the growth and subsequent success of the nation.

While Mussolini remained focused on expansionism and creating a national fervor for a better Italy, Hitler demonstrated through The 25 Points 1920: An Early Nazi Program that purification of the nation was his ideological goal to better the nation. A significant number of points deal in some way with race and purifying the German population down to the ideal citizen. Hitler discusses how citizenship should be defined by one’s race, and that only those of German blood could reap the benefits of citizenship. Foreigners and Jews specifically are not included as citizens. Hitler believed that through purification of the population, Germany would cleanse itself of any impurities, and return again to it’s former glory.

Both Hitler and Mussolini arguably had a common goal in asserting their ideologies. They both wanted to restore their respective nations to their former glory. However, the methodology for each leader was significantly different. Mussolini believed that fascism was defined by an absolute state, while Hitler believed that success could be achieved through purification of the German race.

What I found intriguing about reading these sources was specifically looking at the language and word choice in Mussolini’s definition. He writes fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and heroism. ((Ibid)) I find it interesting that he used the word “holy” in his definition. I believe in class we discussed that Mussolini was not religious. However, perhaps the choice in wording here was deliberate. Creating a mission to make a “holy and heroic” population would arguably attract both the Church and the population in general, most of whom were Roman Catholic. Thoughts? What other instances do you see where language and word choice was significant in either the Mussolini or Hitler document?

Dictators… Aren’t They All The Same?

Posted on by
Hitler and Mussolini standing together during a visit to Munich

Hitler and Mussolini standing together during a visit to Munich

Dictators. We tend to think of Hitler and Mussolini as having similar ideals and regimes based on the sole fact that they are both dictators. However, when analyzing their doctrines’ theories, one can see their goals and philosophies were not similar. In Hitler’s The 25 Points 1920: An Early Nazi Program the focus is on the purification of Germany. Contrastingly, in Benito Mussolini: What is Fascism, the focus is on the State’s importance exercised through expansion.

Mussolini’s fascist state focuses on the State’s absolutism, expansion, and emphasis on man’s character. Mussolini came from a socialist background as an editor for a socialist newspaper. Once appointed Prime Minister in 1922, his career began in state leadership. In Mussolini’s What is Fascism he placed an emphasis on heroism of the man. He, as the spokesperson of the Fascist regime, believed man should not have any economic motive but rather see life as “duty and struggle and conquest”. For what purpose should man be dutiful and charismatic? The State, of course! Mussolini believed the State was the foundation of Fascism. As man provides ethics (discipline, duty, sacrifice), the State is able to expand.

Hitler’s philosophy focuses on maintaining the German population in all aspects. From the formation of a national army to restrictions on immigration, the Nazi program aimed to unify the Germans into one single ideal of biology, culture, policy, and geography. They attained this by an emphasis on nationality. Although in The 25 Points there is a demand of land and/or colonization for the German people, the physical land is not a central point. Rather, the significance is this sense of German priority. Contrasting to Mussolini and Fascism, the Nazi party placed an emphasis on economy. Hitler demanded nationalization of some industries and a division of profits for others.

The collective priority of the State over the individual is shared between both Mussolini and Hitler. Although they achieved “common good” differently through their individual philosophies and actions, the overarching concept of commonality is evident in both regimes.

Mussolini demands the deprivation of “all useless and possibly harmful freedom” but the retention of essential liberty. What are some examples of “useless freedom”? Do you think it is possible to place such a specific margin of liberty on a population?

 

Nazism or Fascism

Posted on by

Today we categorize the regimes of the Nazis and Mussolini as both being a Fascist state. In the early years of their regimes however if one looks closely would find that there is a stark difference in ideals of the two Dictators. One’s early ideals were to create the genetically perfect populace. While the second’s focused on empowering the individual and expanding to create a vast territorial empire.

Reading the Fordham university article The 25 Points 1920: An Early Nazi Program It could be understood that the Nazis viewed the well fair and purification of Germany as their main objective. Within these 25 points there is no mention of territorial expansion. At an early glance of these points and the lack of any territorial policies one could not categorize the early Nazi party with the regime of Mussolini.

In 1932 in order to put a defining definition of fascism Mussolini sat down with Giovanni Gentile and wrote Bento Mussolini: What is Fascism, 1932. Mussolini argues that Fascism believes in that the support of the individual takes priority over that of the state. However it is also mentioned within his article that the growth of an empire where during this expansion the people can be invigorated.

While today it is easy to say that these two leaders were similar it is not completely true. Mussolini believed that Fascism is the system to invigorate a people and expand to become an empire. The early Nazi belief was much different in that they only believed in a genetically pure country. It can be argued that the two eventually merged into one and the same but the early parts of the regimes had a different idea of what it meant to be a Fascist.

 

Nazism vs. Fascism

Posted on by

While Nazism and Fascism are virtually known as having similar government styles, they were created with different ideals and meaning.  Fordham University wrote two different articles, The 25 Points 1920: An Early Nazi Program and Benito Mussolini: What is Fascism, 1932.  In these two articles, the two governments are explained as different, one focusing on purifying the country and the other in expanding the state’s territory.

In the article about Benito Mussolini, Italy’s fascist dictator, he argues that Fascism, “believes in holiness and in heroism… in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect”(1).  The Fascism ideals support the individuals apart of the state.  Mussolini focuses on expanding the Italian state and creating an empire in which believes in the living faith of the individuals.

On the the other hand, Adolf Hitler supports the purifying of the German state, according to the Fordham University article, The 25 Points 1920: An Early Nazi Program.  In this, the 25 points of the NSDAP show the unification of the non-Jewish German citizens.  The points included those that support the elimination of Jews and non-citizens of Germany.

These two articles show the contrast in dictator leadership.  While they may have developed into the same idea later on, the fundamental ideas of these two governments were essentially different in the sense that they support the individuals of their countries respectively in different means.

Novgorod Chronicle and Mongol Invasion

Posted on by

The Novgorod Chronicle presents the Mongol invasion as a punishment sent by God. The Mongols invaded because the princes were selfish and fought against one another, disobeying both their father and God. The Chroniclers write that the Devil himself is responsible for inciting this discord among the princes.

The Chronicle lessens the importance of the Mongol’s role in the invasion because God is named as the one pulling all of the strings. God allowed the Mongols attack as punishment for the people’s sins. If God had not intervened, then the Mongols would never have invaded; therefore, God plays the central role in this story, not the Mongols.

Did the Mongols practice Paganism? Was there religious tolerance under Mongol rule? If God is the one responsible for this devastation, then shouldn’t the people of Rus direct their anger towards God and not towards the Mongols? If the princes had behaved more righteously, does that mean the Mongol invasion would never have happened? What is the point of being a Christian if God offers no protections from such horrors?

Totalitarianism: A Comparison

Posted on by

Ian Kershaw’s Totalitarianism Revisited: Nazism and Stalinism in Comparative Perspective applies the modern definition of totalitarianism to Nazism, Fascism, and Stalinism. On the surface level, these three governments appear to be similar in their nature. A powerful figurehead dominating the governments ideologies and fueling the motives at large, while controlling their state with force and surveillance. Kershaw does a good job in pointing out while the term authoritarianism needs to be adjusted based on the evolution of Nazism and Stalinism, the term can be applied to Italy’s, Russia’s, and Germany’s governments spanning from a pre-WWII era to the transition the USSR endured following Stalin’s death, but emphasizes the importance of not losing track of their singularities.

Modernity is the reason why these government systems are so similarly equated under the scope of totalitarianism. The organized bureaucracy and structure share similar characteristics while the overall motive of the state differs greatly. Both Nazi Germany and Stalin’s USSR were surveillance states, but with different purposes. Stalin wanted surveillance to be used as a tool of repression; to weed out counter-revolutionaries and stabilize politics. In contrast, Nazi Germany used surveillance to concentrate its power in the State and to promote its ultimately racist motives and to strengthen expansion. Italy had a more similar goal to Germany than the USSR. Mussolini also desired to expand and strengthen the Italian empire to return it to its former glory.

What can historians potentially gain by comparing these three forms of government? How are they similar to the British and American governments during the same period?