Tag Archives: New Deal

Public Works

Posted on by

The chapter “Public Works” from Schivelbusch’s Three New Deals covers the transformation of undeveloped land through industrial means as a form of social mobilization. It is first explained that all major powers looked to the Soviet Union’s collectivism for inspiration. Prior to the Great Depression, Western countries perceived the Soviet agenda as “fantasy”- but as capitalism failed those countries leading up the the 1930s, they began to imitate Soviet policies. ((Schivelbusch, Wolfgang. “Public Works” in Three New Deals, 140-141. New York: Picador, 2006.))

Fascism in Italy was the first to take the reigns on this matter through the project of the Agro Pontino. Mussolini’s regime attacked the problematic swampland, transforming it into a productive area through various policy initiatives. They also used it to public effect, presenting the problem as a matter of national participation. Three New Deals contrasts this to the Tennessee Valley Authority, claiming that the Agro Pontino focused more on settlement than development. Following this segue, the reader is presented with a detailed look at the operations of the TVA. Its works are described as “monuments to the New Deal”, a comparison with the symbolism of the public works of the Fascists. ((Schivelbusch, “Public Works”, 160.)) The common vein here, as Schivelbusch argues, was that both regimes used these works as propaganda in themselves, to appeal to the national attitude and move the public to action. ((Schivelbusch, “Public Works”, 167.))

Finally, the German Autobahn is addressed. Finding commonality with the New Deal but difference from Mussolini’s policies in its emphasis on technology, it served as a powerful form of public mobilization. However, emphasis was placed on making it stand out from the environment, unlike the works of the other two nations. What qualities of the Nazi regime, I wonder, led the Germans to try to make more of a distinction?

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))

 

 

The Three New Deals: Kinship?

Posted on by

“Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt’s America, Mussolini’s Italy, and Hitler’s Germany, 1933-1939” by Wolfgang Schivelbusch gives a new take on the ideals and foundations of totalitarianism and collectivism by juxtaposing the politics and economics that dominated the US, Germany and Italy during the 1930s. In this text, Schivelbusch investigates the fundamental similarities between the “three new deals.” Putting all three of this regimes next to each other gives a different perspective on the totalitarian regimes that rose after the Great Depression, as well as on Roosevelt’s democratically praised New Deal programs. Schivelbusch begins the book with a quote by Scottish philosopher David Hume. He states, “as force is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion. It is, therefore, on opinion that government is founded; and this maxim extends to the most despotic and the most military governments as well as to the most free and popular.” Schivelbusch sets the tone using this quote by Hume from “Of the First Principles of Government” in an effort to portray and demonstrate some of the similarities and characteristics of the three governments that resulted from the First World War and the Great Depression in an effort to reestablish economic, political, and social order. Schivelbusch compares and contrasts all three new deals in order to offer a new explanation as to why Europe’s totalitarian systems became so popular. In his introduction, he explains that “the New Deal, Fascist Italy, and Nazi Germany all profited from the illusion of the nation as an egalitarian community whose members looked out for one another’s welfare under the watchful eyes of a strong leader” (15). This shows that these “three new deals” grew popular because it resulted in the improvement of its respective nations after suffering a Great Depression.

Although the United States fought against Italy and Germany in the Second World War, initially, there were many similarities between the three governments and economic systems. In the first chapter, Schivelbusch describes how similar Roosevelt’s New Deal economic policies were so similar to the policies enacted by Hitler and Mussolini especially. The chapter is titled, Kinship? From the very beginning, Schivelbusch challenges his readers to consider these close similarities despite the clear divide between the US, Italy, and Germany during WWII. It is described that the New Deal was often compared to Fascism because of its transition from a liberal free-market system to a system with corporatist characteristics. Schivelbusch cites a German paper that stated that “if not in the same words, [Roosevelt], too, demands that collective good be put before individual self-interest. Many passages in his book Looking Forward could have been written by a National Socialist. In any case, one can assume that he feels considerable affinity with the National Socialist philosophy” (19). In addition to policy, Schivelbusch also demonstrates the respect and sympathy that all politicians shared for each other. Mussolini and FDR in particular admired one another’s policy implementations as well as each other’s character up until the Italian led invasion on Ethiopiain 1935. Schivelbusch quotes Roosevelt stating, “there seems to be no question that [Mussolini] is really interested in what we are doing and I am much interested and deeply impressed by what he has accomplished and by his evidenced honest purpose of restoring Italy” (31). This is an interesting take considering that fascism is often linked to one of the many evils that the United States and its allies tried to rid the world of. Meanwhile, FDR himself praised the very beginnings and economic foundations that Mussolini preached and incorporated into Fascist Italy. Although Schivelbusch uses an ample amount of evidence that the “three new deals” may have shared similar origins, he also stresses the fundamental difference that the New Deal, unlike Fascism, had preserved individual civil liberties (30). Can we argue to opposite in terms of internment camps in the US that were formed later on in the war? Can we argue the Roosevelt indeed incorporated Fascist ideals? Lastly, can we consider collectivism as another characteristic of the rising modern world?

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.