that's not change, that's more of the same

The textbook makes the point, on several occasions, that Khrushchev believed Stalin to have been overzealous and overly repressive. As a result of Stalin’s brutality many Soviets wanted reform. Coming to power in 1956, a whole three years after Stalin died, Khrushchev gained control of the Communist party and attempted to appease the masses, while of course, protecting the party. New freedoms were available, which meant that maintaining absolute control over the country, like Stalin had, would be much more difficult. After Khrushchev took power thousands were release from the Soviet prison camps. This new reform, when scrutinized, proved to be a façade; Alexander Solzhenitsyn was released after 8 years in a prison camp; he had been sent there originally because of a letter he wrote criticizing Stalin. Once he was released he started working on a book, reflecting on his own experience in a gulag. This book was published in 1973, twenty years since Stalin died; yet Solzhenitsyn was arrested a year later for treason. For publishing his victimization at the hands of his own government, and emphasizing a point made by Khrushchev himself, Solzhenitsyn was exiled for treason. That this happened shows that in those twenty years since Stalin’s death, no social progress was made.

Replaceable?

In response to Danielle’s post, I do think it would have been very different. However, It is true, especially in Hitler’s case, that there was a very strong sense of anti-Semitism and a general feeling of betrayal emanating throughout Germany. Hitler was definitely not personally responsible for the millions of deaths, I would actually point as much of the Blame at Heinrich Himmler, who actually oversaw the concentration and extermination camps. Though he might have been as ruthless and evil, Himmler was in charge of the SS and may not have had the manipulative skills which Hitler possessed. In response to Danielle’s question about whether another Frenchman would have stepped in if Napoleon were absent, I believe the answer is no. I believe that Napoleon was unique, though at the time of his rise to power France was ripe for change, nobody expected Napoleon to take on the kind of power which he did, he had originally been chosen to be a figurehead, only to go on and stage a coup d'état. I have never considered Napoleon to be a tyrant, even after studying him this year; I consider him to be a brilliant, but egotistical leader who could not have been replaced by anybody, let alone another Frenchman.

I guess that I should respond

In response to Danielle’s choosing of Hitler as her main focus, I claim Napoleon. As one of the earlier benevolent dictators in modern European history, I plan on comparing his system of direct control with those of Hitler, and whomever grace chooses (Peter the Great), and judging them on the basis of economic progress and support and happiness of the people. I will have to be careful that I am comparing the different systems under similar conditions, all three “tyrants” as Danielle puts it in her blog, waged major wars, but their people were affected differently by them. It would be interesting to talk about what could have happened to the state if their respective totalitarian leader had never taken power. Without Napoleon, for instance, there would have been far less of a squabble over the balance of power. Without Peter the Great would Russia have been able to keep up with Europe? Without each of these leaders millions of peoples’ lives could have been spared, was any of it worth it?

the debate

Question: Is fascism a viable form of government that can meet the needs of the governed?

The fascists (Nick, Laura, Liz, Alex): Had a persuasive opening statement on why capitalism and liberal democracy have led to a loss of common purpose and to failure, and that in its place needed to be a new birth of unity. While this was a very good argument against a democratic government, that is not who they were debating. They were debating Anti-fascists, as Mia pointed out, they were not necessarily democrats. After Nick’s statement Charlie pointed out that Fascism was too militaristic, he held that a belief that war was necessary for human progress would inevitably lead to disaster. It took the fascists some time to respond to this. Nick and Laura tried to gain the offensive, claiming that the values established by the entire state could not be incorrect, but Mia was able to regain the offensive by calling the stability generated by fascism forced, which would lead to revolts.

The other folk (Charlie, Sam, Justine, Grace, Mia): Did not have an actual stance on a form of government that would be better than Fascism. Charlie quickly rebuffed Nick’s point about the safety and stability created by Fascism, claiming that these are illusions, and the people actually become more vulnerable. From this point on, mostly because the other folk didn’t actually have a platform to defend, they were on the offensive. When Mia questioned the ideal of Fascism, as well as how they would establish it; the fascists took some time, they even tried to sidestep the question. Once Nick responded, however, Justine was able to refute his point about Fascism keeping deviants from performing evil acts by asking how the fascists judged what evil was.

In general the anti-fascists, or other folk, had the advantage, because there wasn’t anything for the fascists to attack, and they were therefore forced on the defensive. Disregarding this however, as the teams were chosen randomly, I award the victory to the anti-fascists.

the sense in fascism

The way that the fascists operated insured that their tradition was undermined. Rather than preserving tradition, as a good nationalist would, the fascists were more interested in maintaining control over the minds of the people, and therefore control of the state. The fascists used their influence to convince people that they needed to do what was best for the state, and not necessarily what was best for them. They enforced tradition, like religion, by declaring that all marriages were non-secular, but at the same time, a deal was made with the Vatican, giving independence to the pope—so that he no longer has any political power in Italy. The fascists were good at rallying the people, to make them feel spirited. They are like a huge sports arena, full of energized fans that have no role in the game itself; however they are made to feel like they are part of the team.

In both Grace's post and Danielle's post, they argue that the Bolsheviks were able to take power by taking advantage of the chaos that gripped the land. I would definitely have to agree. As Danielle pointed out, the Russian army was making minimal progress against the Germans considering their death toll—this led to many deserters and a feeling amongst the soldiers that they were underappreciated by their governments, which they were. Sentiments were low at home as well—Nicholas II was busy trying to forcefully assimilate non Russian peoples under his rule. As a result of this Russification the Finns lost their constitution, the poles had nothing to call a home, and during all of this there were waves of violent anti-Semitism that were ignored by the government. In 1903 the Social Democratic Party split, yielding the majority party of the Bolsheviks, led by Lenin. Then in 1905 after “Bloody Sunday” the tsar pledged individual liberties, and a more democratic Duma. This was revoked less than two years later. By the time of the Great War the Russian peasants had been convinced that they needed to overthrow the tsar.

Truly Modern History

Woodrow Wilson’s fourteen points illustrate the kind of political thought that today, we consider logical. The horrors of the Great War rocked the world so hard that it became more humane. It was after the second great wave of colonization that the War began; a war in which there were great advances in technology that had not been met by advances in strategy, leading to absolutely senseless killings and sacrifices. It appears to me that the officers and soldiers were either too stupid or lazy to realize their mistakes, which were never corrected until the very end of the war. The hundreds of thousands of deaths on all sides showed the world that something was wrong with it, and it needed to be fixed everywhere. In his fourteen points Wilson calls for free trade, shared waters, the restoration of a more balanced Europe, and a covenant of nations—in a sense uniting the world into one nation that cares for all of its citizens equally. This is a radical change from common interests and opinions prior to the war. He shows a concern for the interests and sovereignty of colonial populations, considering their well being to be as important as the economic interests of the homeland. To me this is very significant; I have gotten used to interpreting history as motivated by peoples’ self-interest, either for leisure or wealth. Humanity was never a motivation, its sudden appearance is truly modern.