<\/p>\n
What is more important in a child\u2019s value to the state, their genes or their ideas? \u00a0During the interwar period Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union would have answered that question in contradictory ways even though both countries were attempting a massive increase in reproduction. \u00a0Hoffman and Timmin in \u201cUtopian Biopolitics\u201d from Beyond Totalitarianism <\/i>\u00a0argued that the summation of a child\u2019s value to the state depended on the ideology propounded by the governing party. ((David L. Hoffmann and Annette F. Timm, “Utopian Biopolitics: Reproductive Policies, Gender Roles, and Sexuality in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union” in Beyond Totalitarianism: Stalinism and Nazism Compared<\/em>, ed. Michael Geyer and Sheila Fitzpatrick (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009),\u00a087)) \u00a0In Germany under the National Socialst party racial hygiene was the most important aspect of the population increase. \u00a0The Soviet Union desired a larger population built upon the ideology of the socialist party. \u00a0Both states desired an increased population tailored to their idea of the ideal modern state.<\/p>\n Nazi Germany officially and unofficially influenced the German population to reproduce in order to create \u201cAryan\u201d children. \u00a0The repurposing of health centers into eugenics centers counts as only one example of many state sponsored attempts to ensure racial purity among newborns. ((99)) \u00a0The logical rhetoric that emerged from such gene centric ideas eliminated other social values. \u00a0The regime, and Himmler specifically, linked masculinity and prowess in battle to virility. \u00a0Therefore, men were encouraged to engage in intra- and extra-marital intercourse; the only caveat being the child produced must be Aryan. ((Hoffmann and Timm, “Utopian Biopolitics” in Beyond Totalitarianism,<\/em>106)) \u00a0Thus the genetic \u201chealth\u201d of the child overpowered the traditional, middle class nuclear family structure in Nazi politics. \u00a0The Soviet Union did the exact opposite in its attempt to raise the next generation of socialists.<\/p>\n The Soviet Union reinforced the nuclear family structure in an attempt to increase the quantity and quality of children produced by socialist couples. \u00a0Throughout the 1930s the government passed several laws outlawing abortion, establishing strict child support protocol, and, making birth registration necessary with both parents listed. ((Hoffmann and Timm, “Utopian Biopolitics” in\u00a0Beyond Totalitarianism,\u00a0<\/em>110)) \u00a0\u00a0Moreover, the government sponsored studies analyzing the best ways to ensure women\u2019s reproductive health. \u00a0In the 1920s one soviet doctor concluded that \u201cwomen would optimize their productivity by having three children, all four years apart.\u201d ((Hoffmann and Timm, “Utopian Biopolitics” in\u00a0Beyond Totalitarianism,\u00a0<\/em>111)) \u00a0These factors, combined with the increase of pro-paternity propaganda in theory ought to have increased family size and perpetuated solid, stalinist ideas.<\/p>\n The manner in which modern states attempted to increase population during the interwar period in \u201cUtopian Biopolitics\u201d brings up several interesting questions. \u00a0Why did neither Nazi Germany nor the Soviet Union experience a drastic increase in birth rates? \u00a0How much of an effect does state policy truly have on the reproductive choices of its citizens?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" What is more important in a child\u2019s value to the state, their genes or their ideas? \u00a0During the interwar period Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union would have answered that question in contradictory ways even though both countries were … Continue reading