SOAPS, SPECS and gutting

The single important thing I learned this year in Modern World History was how to organize information. SOAPS, SPECS and learning how to gut a book were concrete skills that I can continue to utilize in my studies. I'm not an abstract thinker or a very creative person so I need structure when I work. I would get stressed out when I had a source because I didn't know what to do with it. I would just annotate and take notes but couldn't glean the most important info. SOAPS and SPECS help me identify background info on the source and where the argument is coming from. When doing research I would completely avoid books because I didn't know the most effective way to extract information. I thought that you had to read the entire book, which was more time than I wanted to dedicate to my research. But now I know the most efficient way to use a book in research and am not limited to just the internet any more.  

Iranian and Thai Revolution Comparison

Protests rage in Bangkok, Thailand. 

Thailand and Iran, two countries that had revolutions in the 1970s, are back in the news again regarding political protests. Thailand is the big story nowadays because there are violent protests in the streets led by a group called the Red Shirts that represent the urban and rural poor. There are less stories about Iran but there are still protests about the disputed elections that occurred last summer. Both Iran and Thailand's original revolutions must have failed because 30 years later they're still in turmoil. 


So why exactly are these two countries still struggling for stability 3 decades after they revolted?


In Iran the economy was the root of their instability. Rasfanjani strengthened the theocratic republic but the country's economy faltered. With an economy so heavily centered around oil and a less than perfect government there was a lot of corruption and the wealth was not spread around. Nowadays the United States is also imposing economic sanctions on Iran which further deepens their economic problems. 


In Thailand I don't understand the underlying problem with their government but it seems like the couldn't figure out what type of government worked best for them. After a coup in 1932 the government became a constitutional monarchy then it became a democracy briefly before quickly becoming ruled by the military. In 1992 Thailand held democratic elections once again and now the government has violent protesters attacking them. All the political flip-flopping makes the people anxious and revolution much more tangible because protests are in their blood. 

Supreme Leaders and Such

The questions I answer are from Robby. 


What about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made so many people protest about unfairness? 


The Middle East and South Asia doesn't have much of a history of successful democratic elections. Or democratic elections for that matter. I try to follow the news and the pattern with all elections in this region of the world is one of accused cheating and delays. The elections in Iran, Afghanistan and most recently, Iraq have all included political candidates accusing one another of various things like ballot stuffing or throwing away votes. 


The mostly student protesters called the president Ahmadinejad "a liar." Protesters see the elections as being unfair because of fraud, because they think that Ahmadinejad threatened Mir Hussein Moussavi and because it is unjust and suspicious that they jailed and beat hundreds of protesters. 


How does the government operate?


The government is a theocratic republic which means it is a country ruled by Islamic societal rules. It's kind of confusing because the head of state, or president is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad but the "Supreme Leader" is Ali Hoseini-Khamenei. Whereas most Middle Eastern countries are moving away from Islam in their governments Iran still is a theocratic republic. 

Zahra's Paradise

a.) questions/leads

• Is this publisher of this article anonymous? How does she maintain her safety?
• Islamic Revolution of 1979
• how gov't's crackdown could relate to its nuclear program

b.) connections

• The little boy was obviously affected by propaganda, this is similar to the youth in Germany being indoctrinated into the Nazi party. The youth are more easily swayed than older generations.
• ''being arrested can mean disappearing altogether" - like Stalin's Gulag

c.) gut reactions

• scared
• the comic makes the Iranian protest more personal, I feel her desperation, easier to empathize

Measures of Success

Like I was saying in class, the longevity of a culture is the main indicator of success. For the last 60 or so years the United States of America has been arguably the world's most successful country but when compared with the Ancient Romans or the Mayans, America's cultural success has lasted only a short while. Even if a culture is incredibly prosperous or the people are happy it can't be considered successful if it last for only 100 hundred years. But if an empire or country can sustain themselves for centuries then they can be a successful society. In a couple hundred years we will only remember the societies that lasted for a long time and made an impact on the world, there won't be time for remembering countries that burn out and fade away. 

This is off topic, but dinosaurs are a perfect example of a successful society based on their longevity. If you consider the race of dinosaurs with the human race, the dinosaurs were way more successful. Dinosaurs were around for hundreds of millions of years, and would have kept going if not for a freak meteor. Humans on the other hand have only been around for a few million years. We may be more intelligent and live more comfortably, but our societal tendencies are destructive. A nuclear war is a possibility that could wipe out everyone and our need for innovation has lead to irreversible effects on the environment. Global warming is an immediate danger to mankind in the next century. 

I disagree with the second sentence of the statement "The (capitalist/communist) countries of the world..." because there are so many other ways to measure a society's success besides the "P," "E," and the last "S" in SPECS. In my essay about how we remember Genghis Khan I talk about how in today's world, 1 in 200 people are direct descendants of Genghis Khan. One could argue that another measure of cultural success is literally the legacy of that society. Khan's empire could be seen as the most successful empire in the history of the world purely because his presence is still around 800 years later. 

Connections With the Cold War

I just read about the emergence of the United States as a global superpower from 1945-1975. The United States's political influence was everywhere in its attempts to stop the spread of communism during the Cold War, its economy was booming and, perhaps most importantly, the US's culture spread to many countries around the world. At the same time Communism was at its peak from the 1950s-1970s. Despite internal problems like the death and denunciation of Stalin, the revealing suppression of individual movements, and squabbles between China and the Soviet Union, communism was just as influential globally as American democracy and capitalism.

"Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it." A famous quote about history whose author fails me. The United States and the Soviet Union during the years after World War II almost came to a nuclear war in a clear repeat of the rivalry between European nations in the years leading up to World War I.

The Industrial Revolution and the advanced technology Europe possessed allowed countries like Great Britain, France, Germany and Russia to emerge as the more powerful countries in the world. But the new power also came with an insatiable desire for more power and the countries engaged in an arms race. Tensions between these countries about weapons along with many other factors exploded and led to the Great War where millions of citizens were killed.

A very similar chain of events occurred between the international rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Both were powerful after defeating the Germans in World War II. Both countries wanted to be more powerful than the other and went to great lengths to assert themselves. Just like the great arms race leading up to World War I, the US and the USSR built up their military capability, to the nth degree because this time nuclear weapons were being built. The principal difference was that these tensions resulted in a World War with many countries being involved. Many countries were involved in the struggle between the two global superpowers, but luckily an actual war was avoided. Narrowly avoided.

In Defense of the UN

I believe the UN hasn't accomplished anything meaningful in terms of something concrete the UN has accomplished. They throw around big words like "international peace" and "Task Force on the Global Food Security Crisis," but this doesn't mean the UN has solved any problems. Sure the world hasn't launched any nukes at each other, but is that really the UN's doing? Countries like the United States and Russia reduced their arsenals but that was because Prez Obama wanted this to happen. The United Nations has admirably and foolishly taken on the task of being the world's largest philanthropic organization. They tackle every single problem and it results in no confirmed solutions. Last time I checked there are still billions of people without enough food, 1 million people a year dead from malaria and more civil wars than I can count. I see the UN as an idealistic group of people in a sweet blue building in New York City that took on more than they could handle.

The United Nations, Have They Actually Done Anything?

1.) The most interesting, surprising and important things I learned from the Charter of the United Nations were: Of course the main purpose of the charter was "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war." It was 1945, right after World War II had ended and the world didn't want to ever have its kids and grandkids partake in a war. The charter also said that both big and small nations would have equal rights. The charter said countries would "practice tolerance," which is a direct reference to the lack of tolerance Germans had for Jews, which resulted in the Holocaust. A weird thing I saw was that these countries would "employ international machinery" to help out their people. Seems kind of odd to put this in a peace charter. The charter said it would strive for the freedoms for everyone without distinguishing race, sex, language or religion, and I think especially in extreme Islamic countries this is definitely not followed today. Probably the most layered quote I found was that

All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventative or enforcement action.

2.) The main goal of the charter is to maintain peace for the future citizens of the world. The UN doesn't want any more huge wars, no more civilian casualties and no more genocides. The charter at the same time is working for the equality and general social improvement of citizens everywhere. By countries letting their citizens be equal and free, peace will be achieved.

3.) A big flaw I see in the Charter of the United Nations is that the permanent members are limited to the members that were listed back in 1945. Other countries can be members, but they are temporary. The world has changed in the last 65 years so it doesn't make sense for a document to set in stone the countries that are "permanent" members.

The charter also incorrectly assumes that countries in the United Nations will place a top priority on maintaining peace and loyalty to the UN. In my long quote earlier it shows that countries are bound by the charter "to give every assistance," and I just don't think it's realistic to think that these countries will care enough to follow this rule.

Geography's Role in the Holocaust

Geography played a role in determining the countries that were targeted by the Nazis, but improved transportation made geography less of a factor in the Holocaust. In the "WWII and the Holocaust" animated map, the Nazis first took over in countries southeast of Germany like Czechoslovakia and then moved east to capture Poland. Geography affected the countries that were taken over because Germany had to initially work away from Britain and France. The Fatherland also took over countries that were closer to its secretive ally at the time, the Soviet Union. Germany had to start out with the bordering countries and build a bigger empire before venturing across the many miles to take over France. We learned that during the Industrial Revolution Europe built many railroads. As shown by "Railroads," most of the extermination camps during the Holocaust were located close to cities with Jewish populations of over 40,000 and were in the thick of Europe's railroad system. The segment "Rescue" made me believe that during the 1930s and 1940s technology and transportation had improved enough to negate geographical advantages and disadvantages. Even though Denmark's government succumbed to Germany the Danish were still able to move many Jews to neutral Sweden by boat. There were also secretive escape routs all the way in France leading out to Spain. The great distances covered by the escapees and types of geography overcome show how the layout of the land (or water) was less of an issue.

I could definitely sense an aspect of memorial in the animated maps through the still images on screen. It's hard to believe but there are a lot of people who downplay the horrors of the Holocaust, and others don't even believe it happened. The USHMM assumes that the people who view the website see the Holocaust as a tragic event and, as shown by the definition of the Holocaust in the segment "WWII and the Holocaust" was the "systematic killing." Museums definitely count as monuments, probably more of memorials, but museums will have more bias than a more simple statue.

This represents exactly 30 minutes of work.

Genghis Khan Questions

1. What exactly were the exploits of Genghis Khan that made him so famous?

2. How have Mongolian views of Genghis Khan changed over the years, and what are they currently?

3. Why is Genghis Khan's image ubiquitous in Mongolia? Why is he so famous now, hundreds of years after his death?

4. Why is the equestrian statue so excessive?

5. How does the western world see Khan and why do we know so little about him?

6. What is the importance of Genghis Khan's legacy to the Mongolians of today?

Little Boy and the Enola Gay

NBC decided to air "The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb" in 1995 because it was still close to the Cold War and nuclear tensions between America and the Soviet Union. In years closer to the war's end, the American public wasn't aware of the true horrors that the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They were just happy the war that took away their men was over and they could return to their normal lives. The veterans who fought against the Japanese experienced the extreme tenacity of Japan's soldiers and the American lives estimated to have been lost if an invasion was necessary range from 100,000 to 1 million. I don't know when the Cold War was, but judging by Bryant Gumbel's reference to the US's cutting of their nuclear stockpile by a third it was probably pretty recent. The American public had experienced and learned about the power of nuclear weapons when Kennedy called the Soviet Union's bluff at Cuba and felt a lot of guilt toward what had happened to Japan during the war. NBC thought that American citizens would understand the immeasurable damage caused by the atomic bombs and the 50th anniversary was a good time to air this news segment.

Communication during the War

The first picture of dead American servicemen since Pearl Harbor.

Today I researched a little of what was going on in the home front. The PBS website had good information about communication during the war.

When I hear the word censorship I automatically think of communist countries like China or countries whose governments have more control over its people. I didn't know how much censorship there was in the United States during the war. Not only was there censorship in the newspapers, but government agencies and President Roosevelt himself played a leading role. All news was passed through the government controlled Office of War Information (OWI) and reporters felt an obligation to protect the public from grisly news or else a nationwide panic might ensue.

The people got their news primarily from radio broadcasts, newspapers and newsreels that preceded movies at the theaters. 50 million Americans watched newsreels each week to catch the latest on the war. As the war dragged on and Americans realized just how serious the war was people scanned the newspapers more frequently to see if anyone they knew had died.

It was only after two years of the fighting against Japan that the government allowed the release of pictures showing dead Americans in LIFE magazine at a beach in New Guinea.

Op-ed on Munich Conference

The Munich Conference demonstrated timidity from the British people in response to illegal German actions. It is obvious that Germany is exhibiting more warlike behavior, just like at the onset of World War I. Then and now Germany is assembling an army, building up their navy and seizing other countries' land. Why are we, Great Britain, victors of the Great War, the people who wrote up the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, allowing Germany to get away with their actions? They are blatantly breaking the terms set upon them by the Treaty of Versailles and should be punished. So what does our government do? Chamberlain goes to Munich and instead of rebuking Germany and drawing up new punishment for the rule-breakers, he allows Germany to keep Sudetenland. Not only does Neville Chamberlain not do anything to chastise Germany, but he comes home and declares the Munich Conference to be a success! What a joke. How can you call allowing Germany to occupy the demilitarized Rhineland, annex Austria and keep the Sudetenland a milestone for Anglo-German relations?! Pull the wool off of your eyes Chamberlain! Hitler's playing you for a fool. And just because we have agreed on this peace settlement now doesn't mean there won't be war later. Yeah, I listened to our prime minister say there won't be any more wars between Germany and Great Britain, but how long will this "peace" last? Peace isn't a settlement, it's a continental wide mutual agreement.

Response to Munich Conference

The Munich Conference of 1938 was a good thing because peace was (temporarily) achieved when Europe was at the precipice of another war, only 20 years after World War I. Germany was obviously in the wrong here, they broke the terms of the Versailles treaty because they started expanding and developing their military. France and Britain were anxiously watching and hoping that Germany wouldn't be so brash as to stir up another war that could potentially have the same ramifications as World War I had. Eventually Germany went to far, but France and Britain were correct when they agreed on peace. The allies didn't want another war that would leave ten million people dead, and with a worldwide economic depression a war would only further their troubles. Of course Britain and France would want to proclaim that a successful peace treaty had been achieved, probably to galvanize public support in a time when people were suffering economically and hadn't fully recovered from the lost of loved ones in World War I. It is also a mini-success that French, British and German leaders were able to discuss volatile political matters because these countries historically had been great rivals. 

Intro to World War II

Back in the day (6th or 7th grade) I was a World War II nut. My friend Pete Foster got me interested with the tv show "Band of Brothers," and I was really into the first Call of Duty computer game. I ended up reading a few WWII books including a monstrous book that covered literally everything in the war.

Here is a brief rundown of what I know.

Germany was being a real nuisance under their new leader Adolf Hitler. They invaded Austria and Poland and then used a lightning fast type of warfare called Blietzkrieg to take over some other countries, including France. They bombed England a ton and this was called the Blitz. Meanwhile Japan was taking over most of East Asia and bombed Pearl Harbor to cripple America's military fleet while they captured more places and took over oil reserves. This backfired because it enraged Americans and motivated them to defeat Japan. A lot of people don't know that the US was fighting against Japan on a bunch of tiny islands in the Pacific that no one had ever heard of before we fought against the Nazis. On June 6, 1944 the Americans, British and Canadians stormed the beach at Normandy to fight back against the Nazis and get a toehold in France. The operation was a success and allied forces slowly fought their way to Berlin. Some battles included Operation Market Garden, the Battle of the Bulge and over in Russia, the battle over Stalingrad was major.

Animal Farm Reflection

The story Animal Farm by George Orwell obviously is an allegory for communism, and probably the Communist movement in Russia. Animal Farm follows the ascension of power of Napoleon in contrast to the defamation of Snowball. Napoleon probably represents Josef Stalin while Snowball represents Trotsky.

The three parallels to history that interest me the most are spreading the idea of animal rebellion, the unforeseen shrewdness of Napoleon and the animals becoming what they had worked to overthrow.

In Chapter 5 Napoleon and Snowball disagree over whether it is better to focus efforts on defending the farm another possible Jones attack or spread against ing the idea of animal rebellion. The chauvinistic Napoleon thinks it is more prudent to focus on military strategy while Snowball believes in stirring up rebellion in neighboring farms. We can see from history that Stalin was a very violent man and his personality is reflected in Napoleon.

Before the ostracizing of Snowball, I had thought that Napoleon had gained his power through his brute force. It appeared that was what happened, he bided his time and was secretly training, in essence, his own ruthless secret police, like the NKVD, that was loyal to him. Napoleon wasn't just keeping quiet because he isn't as smart as Snowball, he was hatching a brilliant scheme to get rid of the other alpha male. I was most impressed though with Napoleon's theft of Snowball's brainchild, the windmill. Napy, realizing the windmill would be good, or at least good for his political purposes, said he had supported the idea all along and only pretended to oppose it in order to purge the dangerous Snowball.

Orwell says how the police dogs were "noticed that they wagged their tails to him in the same way as the other dogs had been used to do to Mr. Jones," (38). In agreeing with Freddy's view on Russia in the real world, the animals's society has become exactly what it sought to get rid of. The way of life on Animal Farm is now the same totalitarian system that existed when Jones was in charge. The only change is that Napoleon is the new leader. The animals's main ideal of "Four legs good, two legs bad" has been severely compromised because now the animals trade with a human and view Snowball, who walks on four legs, as the enemy.

Analyzing Post WWI Fascism and Communism

World War I had enormous consequences for European countries. It reshaped political borders, took millions of lives, charred the land, crippled economies and caused new political movements to emerge. Nobody really emerged as the clear cut victor of the Great War and so there was a lot of dissatisfaction with the current governments in place in Russia, Germany and Italy. Russia emerged from a civil war with a communist government and Germany and Italy had fascist regimes. Germany and Italy's insecurity after losing the war led to a sense of nationalistic elitism and superiority while Russia's slightly more successful war effort led to a nationalistic government that promoted the common man.

Downtrodden states like Germany and Italy wanted to have a new government that not only would restore their previous glory, but would make them even stronger than before. Economic troubles were the main factor for Russia's support of the working man. Losing the war awakened the German people. Germans did not lose wars, what happened to the good old days of the early 20th century when Germany prospered? It was the Fatherland's rightful place to be atop the world, Germany is better than this. The country was stunned at how far it had fallen and embraced the government that promised to make the country even stronger than it was before. Russia had a little more self-esteem than the fascist countries had. They knew they were a strong country, their country made up about 10% of the world's land area and Russia had an enormous population. Russia knew that its strength lay in the grittiness of its people, so the public favored a government that supported the common working man. The person that fascist and communist governments wanted to create was different. The fascist government wanted a militaristic upper class man with condescending views on the rest of the world. The communist government wanted a hard-nosed member of the middle class with inner strength.

Parallels Between the Russian and French Revolution

The Russian revolutionaries did take the mystique of the French Revolution of 1789 as basis for their basic ideals, but the fundamental difference was revolution for economic purposes.

Both revolutions were progressive, their views on a better society was a more modern one. The Russian revolutionaries had no desire for a traditional right-wing government. They wanted change, just like the French did. The Russians got rid of the old aristocracies and gave the lower class of peasants more power. They also placed an emphasis on educated leaders like the Third Estate did, too.

The French Revolution was over one hundred years ago so modern society's complexities were apparent in the Russian Revolution that weren't as prevalent in the French Revolution. The rising up of the Third Estate was mostly political, they wanted a constitution drafted that would give equal rights to all citizens. Besides that though they didn't have too many demands that weren't political. The Russian revolutionaries recognized that besides political inequality that the lower class suffered from, they also suffered from economic inequality. The Russians claimed that their revolution supported these poor urban and rural workers. In the social upheaval that followed the falling of Czar Nicholas II trade unions were established to protect the workers and many factories were taken over.

I also consider the civil war that followed the Bolshevik takeover to be like a second revolution. The civil war that lasted from 1918-21 had similarities to France during the time when Maximilien Robespierre ruled. The Bolsheviks were an authoritarian government during this time, they were extremely violent, suppressed any type of resistance and killed many people. The Bolsheviks knew that during such an unstable time like revolution sometimes the only answer was to silence the opposition. France underwent a bloody period like this during the Reign of Terror. It is rare that a revolution goes peacefully and without blood being shed.

During the French Revolution France's government was starkly different from other European countries' governments. France had a democracy in place with a constitution that promised equal rights for all people. The rest of Europe was still entrenched in traditional monarchies with kings ruling over his subjects. The world had changed and the Russians emerged with different ideals from the other European countries. Now most of the European countries where capitalist and Russia was communist. Just like French's democracy inspired more equality in other European countries, Russia's communism also spread to Eastern European countries (although not necessarily organically).

Taliban Fascistas

James Huber

Mama Pugs

Modern World History

February 28 and March 1, 2010

Are the Taliban Fascistas?

Recently we have studied the Taliban and fascist movements in Italy and Germany. Coincidence? I think not. Mama Pugs is not so subtly trying to show how the Taliban represent a modern day fascist movement. That of course means that I will try to disprove her argument. But I will grudgingly admit that after coming up with a template for the causes and actions of a fascist government I spot many similarities with the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

down-trodden country

economic problems

labeling the scapegoat

we'll fix all your problems, just give us political power!

quick suppression of anything not similar

tapping into public's feelings

tradition

not necessarily not progressive?

So yes, I'll say that the Taliban are a fascist movement. But because I like my old argument and I don't want to completely ditch it, here is my first Taliban - fascist argument.

The Taliban have been receiving more attention in the United States recently because of the US’s push to secure strategic points in Marja in the southern province of Helmand. This offensive naturally raises questions about the Taliban and what they stand for. What do they want? Who in history are they similar to? Are they, gasp, a fascist movement? No, they are not. The Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan cannot be seen as fascist movements because of their confined national goals and lack of elitism.

1. The Taliban Don’t Want to Take Over the World

I’ll admit that I don’t know much about fascism, but when I think fascist I immediately think about the Nazis and Italians under Mussolini during World War II. They’re the only fascist movement I know and they exemplify the expansionist ideals of fascism. Germany took over basically all of Europe and was poised to invade Great Britain.

The Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan are not like that. They are trying to disrupt the Afghan government and the goals of US forces. They are essentially a nuisance, a very powerful terrorist group, but just a nuisance. Maybe back in their heyday the Taliban had greater plans of spreading their rule forcibly onto other Muslim states, but after being ousted from power the Taliban have more realistic goals. They just want to get in the way and not allow the Afghan government to function. They want to regain their past power, but don’t have any grand goals of domination in the Muslim world because they realize those goals are farfetched.

1. The Taliban are Scruffy

The Taliban may have elitist ideals like they derogatory views on women, but these ideals are undermined by their less than elite appearances.

The class said that elitism is an aspect of fascism, but would we really consider a loosely organized terrorist group that hides out in mountains to be elitist? The Taliban scuttle back and forth between Afghanistan and Pakistan and fight sporadically, instead picking the right moment for a cowardly suicide bombing. This doesn’t seem similar to the proud Nazi Germany of WWII that had wealth, clean pressed uniforms and brought the fight to other countries.

And now here is why the Taliban are fascist.

Going solely off of my knowledge from The Kiterunner, the Soviets briefly held control in Afghanistan before the Taliban booted them out and took over. This is a classic case of a previously proud country, perhaps having just lost a war or was invaded and disgraced by a foreign country. The Nazis took advantage of a hurting country and got rid of the democratic Weimar Republic just like the Taliban got rid of the Soviets and were seen as heroes.

Maybe Afghanistan was doing all right economically when the Soviets were in power, but most likely they weren't. I mean, Afghanistan isn't exactly an economic powerhouse unless you count the opium they produce. So most likely the Taliban made some promises that they would improve the country's economy.

The Taliban were also able to take advantage of how Islamic their country was. Afghanistan is essentially a Muslim state and Islam doesn't exactly sing the praises of women. The Taliban took advantage of this by enforcing traditional Islam just like the Nazis did by going back to the more rural days of the past in Germany.

Paul Joseph Goebbels Propaganda

This is a German "total war" propaganda poster. Paul Joseph Goebbels was appointed by Adolf Hitler to lead the war propaganda movement in Germany during World War II.

The big drawing of the man shows him rolling up his sleeve. The man is getting down to business and is about to do some tough work. He's determined and seems committed to the task ahead of him.

The propaganda poster is small so it's hard to see details, but on the bottom some men are striding purposefully. They are dressed plainly and simply, just like the man on top, to portray an earnest working man. The poster is appealing to the German people by insinuating that they should go to the war cause and be like these good, hard-working men.