La même histoire

Things I learned this year:

• Happy people don't start revolutions. (Credits to Taylor)
  
• Most alliances are not lasting, and in some cases, not really trustworthy.
• There is usually a reason for something happening; societies don't stage upheavels because they are bored, fellow countries do not offer assistance because it is morally correct to do so. More often than not there is an ulterior motive.
• History is what we make of it, and the winner writes the story. Moral: be the winner.

While individual facts of history are surely important, the greatest purpose of school is to give us the tools necessary to learning and comprehending independently. This year in modern world history, I relearned the importance of the thesis and how it can make or break your argument. A thesis is like a boat; if it is supported by evidence and takes a firm stance, then it will float, but if it is faulty from the beginning, then it will sink your entire argument. The thesis must guide an essay, not the other way around, so that supporting ideas are organized around it.
My system for taking notes has also changed; what good does it really do to write down every single thing that a presenter or film tells you? Will you truly use your notes? No, it is better to note the concepts or events that, given research and time, will get you further. Leads. Connections. Emotions. These are both ephemeral and necessary - they will not come back, and they can be the beginnings of new arguments.
So though we learned so much, it is unlikely that I will remember most of it in two years. I will remember, however, how to write a good argumentative essay in history, how to take notes, how to "gut" a paper, what to look for in primary documents, how to look at a situation in the larger scope of things. All in all, it has been a successful year.

From Thailand to Iran

The revolutions in Iran and Thailand have many similarities, perhaps because they are occurring in the same time period. First off, both are less made up of clandestine organized groups protesting against the standing government, but rather of normal civilians who take issue with corrupt rule. It might be because of this lack of organization that both revolutions have been unsuccessful - neither can make an actual stand against the government. In spite of this, Thailand has made it farther than Iran. In Iran people protested and were injured or incarcerated as a result. In Thailand, rallies and protests were held to the point that the government conceded to the demands of the people allowing for public election. Three days after this concession, however, a general who was allied with the protesters was shot in the head. So the Thai group might have made less progress than they would have previously thought. The two also have a similarity in the purpose of their protests; they rally for democracy and the removal of corruption from their system. Again, in this case, on group has a lead over the other in that the Iranians theoretically have democracy, but they don't believe that the results of their vote was carried out properly. The Thai on the other hand have several times won and lost democracy and cry for it still today.

A Demanding People vs. The People's Demands

What do the Iranian people want?

The Iranians who protest are mostly focused on the outcome of the election, namely, how it is that Ahmadinejad is in power when Moussavi clearly had the people's vote. While this may be a single incident, this response indicates to Iranians that their system is corrupt and that their voice is something superficial but not felt prfoundly in decisions concerning their country. As evidence the have the fact that the results were announced only four hours after all the ballots came in, Moussavi had the upper hand in the running, and Ahmadinejad has powerful allies (such as the Ayatollah Ali Khameini) who could easily have changed things to his advantage. That the people's effort to retaliate has been met with violent suppression in the Revolutionary Guard, a group that constitutes 23.9% of the 523,000 troops, is further proof of Ahmadinejad's influential support within the government. He likely has a network of friends throughout leadership who can sway things in his direction during his reign. The people's protest is against all of this, and the idea of a government that is not working for the people to meet their demands, but rather for themselves.

Since it's a comic, are there any real pictures to prove this is all actually happening?

The answer is yes, there are numerous sources of documentation of the reaction to election, rallies, and reports on the crackdown from the government. In searching for this, I found several videos that show rallies at universities or acts of violence against protestors. Another video also recorded an Iranian man describing how the protests would be spread. A superb source for just this thing is at the Washington Post or the AP images website.

Finding Zahra

Questions/Leads:

• What was the controversy over the presidential elections? Who was Mahmoud Ahmadinejad before he became president? What are his policies?
  
• Is there something unique about the cemetery "Zahra's Paradise" and why is this well suited to the story? Are many revolutionaries buried here?
• What happened in the Islamic Revolution and how does it tie in with the Iran of today?
  
• What is the Freedom Square? Is the implied governmental promise more than tacit?
• What is the Revolutionary Guard, a guard made up of revolutionaries or guards against revolutionaries?
  

Connections:

• Disappearing when arrested - similar to Nazis with concentration camps, the Stasi with political prisoners, or USSR with the gulag.
  
• Restrictions on the Internet - censorship/propaganda, similar to China hiding searches about Tibet, and book burnings conducted by the Nazis
  
• Hospital scene - like during a war, but this is supposedly a country at peace
  

Gut Reactions: I feel for the revolutionaries that were suppressed, while I my feelings for the government are not so kindly. Why?

• The first sentence that a child (too young to respond intelligently to a question) will regurgitate is "The nation would rather perish than accept ignominy." From the way the comic went following that caption, it seems that it will both perish AND accept ignominy.
  
• The government seems to be ignoring the human side of their people - they will remove injured revolutionaries to be incarcerated while other citizens look on in shock and families still search for lost loved ones. If they are not considering that their actions will bring grief and desire to rise up, then they intend to suppress the people by means of fear and force.
• In the article, the protests by the revolutionaries are described as peaceful, while the government responds with violence. It is as if they were trying to kill a fly with a sledgehammer. This defensiveness says to me that the government is suspect and feels that it has something to hide or protect.
  

Heartbreak Warfare

While no one culture is fundamentally better than all others, some are admittedly more successful. To answer to the fact that there is such a thing as success in terms of culture: can we truly call a culture that no longer has any members today successful? The ones that died out did so for a reason and, more often than not, this reason is that they were trumped by the technology or beliefs of another. Cultural success is judged by an ability to maintain the people's happiness, and through doing so reach for longevity and strength of numbers. If we look to our experience with colonization, in Africa for example, neither the native culture nor that of the Europeans was necessarily better - they were both distinctive and useful in their own rights - yet the Europeans were still the ones to succeed with colonization and spread of their own core beliefs and education. If Achebe's novel Things Fall Apart is to be believed, the people of the native culture were already unhappy - for this reason their own culture was easily dismantled. Some might say that success is based on longevity, but if you analyze the reason for this continuation, it is usually because the culture is able to satisfy its members. Unhappy people make for a short-lived culture while the opposite is true of the happy.
So while neither belief is necessarily better, capitalists do have a right to judge the communist system by the reaction of the people. Had members been satisfied with communism and all that it offered, then it could be deemed successful, but it was not. In fact it was recieved with hostility in many places as was evidenced by the Hungarian Revolution against soviet leaders during the Cold War. So, to a degree, I do believe that the success of a culture can be determined by hard, cold facts in the sense that a rebellion or low approval ratings imply dissatisfaction. Really though, the temperature of the populous must be taken to asses the success of capitalism or communism. To some extent, the statement that capitalists and communists can judge each other from the view point of an apposing cultural view does have validity.

Baby, It's Cold Outside

Though the main rivalry of the Cold War was that between the West and the East, or more specifically, the United States and the USSR, there were many other important ones that can be related to those that we studied previously. The tensions between countries in this time are most easily connected to those directly before World War II. In this metaphor, the USSR takes the place of Germany. As Germany did, the USSR allied itself with several countries over the course of its rising power. When these countries were no longer needed or put up rebellion, however, they were invaded in spite of agreements otherwise. Specifically, I relate the peace agreement between Germany, Britain, and France to that between Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and the USSR. The USSR's rivalry with other communist states can be related to the contention between differences between fascist nations, namely Germany and Italy. Despite having the same beliefs on government, cultural and geographical opposition between the USSR, China, and Vietnam caused dispute and brought threats of nuclear war (like fascist Japan and the United States). Though the latter pair never made it to the stage of blows, the inevitability of an eventual war between the two had they kept their power was great. So while different countries participated in each of these conflicts, this history is still one that reoccurs.

Damned If You Do

Though the United Nations may have good intentions, their charter will likely be an utter failure, promoting only the appearance of peace rather than the truth of it. First off, their laws are flawed; the articles are often vague and self-contradictory, leaving more than enough room for any country to go back on an agreement while staying within the bounds of their judgement system. For example, the second articles states that they should "settle their international disputes by peaceful means," but at the same time "take appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace." The only way to "strengthen peace" in the face of aggression is with equal or greater force. They also often promote equality of all kinds but give some countries more power on the Security Council than others. Kindly as they are, these rules are not restrictive of anything. Really, this group of self-proclaimed judges has no right to press their standards on other nations that have had no say, even if these standards are of the highest quality. From the creation of their laws can we see the failure already begin. For example, Article 23 of the Declaration of Human Rights states that all people have the right to equal pay, yet men are still paid more than women. From this instance and others we can see that there is no way for the UN to enforce their law other than by breaking their own pact of nonaggression or pledge to not interfere in the domestic affairs of any country. Really, this charter is only a spectator (of sorts) that encourages the nations of the world to act ethically and for the greater good rather than for self interest. Even this can cause some evil though; such a watcher only forces those with bad intentions to veil them even further so that none will suspect that they are not a true alliance. This follows the line of Hitler, who made nonaggression agreements with several countries before going back on them a few years later. The fact that he agreed to the treaties meant nothing to him and only succeeded in lulling his "allies" into a false sense of complacency. The same will be true of the United Nations. Countries will think that those involved are their supporters, while in truth it can be quite the opposite. In the end, this charter will cause countries to merely feign the appearance of friendship while hiding deceit.

The Same Old Song and Dance

1) This document presents the standing charter of the United Nations, which has been amended four times (in Articles 23, 27, 61, and 109) since its creation in June 1945. It was created in June and was put into force in October of the same year. Note that all amendments to the charter took 2-3 years to be put into force. Evidently, the United Nations felt that there was some urgency to the enforcement of their charter. Articles 23, 27, and 61 were changed to enlarged both the memberships of the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council considerably (the first changing from 7 to 9, and the latter changing from 18 to 54). Article 109 was changed to compensate for these increases in the democratic choosing of a date to review the charter (to a 2/3 majority and the vote of 9 members instead of 7 on the Security Council). However, a reference to a 7 member vote was not removed in a later part of the article.
The purpose of the charter is to maintain peaceful and respectful relations between countries, to ally and unite UN members with the common goal of justice, and suppress violence when it arises in a peaceful manner if it is at all possible. The charter requests that member of the UN be given priority over the UN's enemies and that members resist the urge to assist others whose goals differ from those stated in the charter.
Within the articles, it is stated that there will be 6 permanent members (China, France, USSR, UK, Northern Ireland, and the U.S.) of the security council of 15 total. The remaining spots for members will be elected for two-year terms.

2) The charter seems bent on trying to prevent war or aggression in any shape or form, as well as anything that might provoke it. In the preamble, they specifically cite WWI and WWII, which they refer to as "the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind." The charter also seems to promote the ideal society in which all members truly are equal and the more powerful and technologically advanced countries help the poorer ones.

3) Problems:

• While the charter may believe that in the ideal world there should be perfect equality, it does not desire it enough to give all member countries the same opportunity for a place on the Security council. Of the only 15 spots available, 6 are automatically given to six countries, while the rest are given to elected officials. Somehow this is not concurrent with the goals that were previously stated giving "equal rights [to].... countries large and small." The number of available seats is limited enough without giving 6 to the same countries annually.
  
• Part 6 of Article 2 states that the UN will strive to make sure that all other countries act as follows the goals of the charter. Though there goals seem to be sound, it does not seem entirely right that countries that have made no agreement to follow these rules will be judged by them nonetheless.
  

Talking Maps

Thesis: While geography may still have played a consequential role in war-time strategy, this was significantly lessened by the efficiency and might of modern systems and technology that had, comparatively, only been hinted at by WWI.

Defense: Of course, geography still controlled the form in which governments would plan an offensive, be it by land, sea, or air, but the important point was that geography no longer proved an insuperable obstacle. Wars could be launched across oceans with full expectation of success. This itself is proven by the U.S. attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki; in two sittings, the Americans destroyed their enemy's morale and ensured that the war was won for them, all done with only a handful of airplanes and a couple of ships. The Japanese were cowed into submission by the shock of such horrific and advanced weaponry, the atrocity that such a thing was possible. Though this situation was by far the best example of long-distance war-fare, similar things could be said of Germany (annexed Austria; invaded France, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Yugoslavia, and Greece; attempted to take the USSR; "allied" itself with Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Finland, and Croatia) and the USSR (annexed northeaster Romania; attacked Finland; occupied Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia.); they annexed, invaded, and allied, with whole mouthfuls of countries, between the two of them almost engulfing Europe (see map of WWII and the Holocaust). For this they crossed puddles, rivers, oceans, you name it. Overall, it was as if political and physical geography did not exist within central Europe. Of course, the matching technology in Britain, with the help of the English Channel, was enough to hold the Germans at bay. Still, both were able to push on with remarkable successful offensives against each other with the use of Jets and bombs. An example of this would be the fire-bombing of Dresden by the British air force. From afar they completely destroyed a city, literally razing it to the ground. Not only with war was geography negligible, but with transportation too. Jews and other "lesser races" were shipped from all over Europe to extermination and labor camps centered mostly in Poland. Again, the geography was not an issue, mostly due to the German organization and efficient construction of trains and train tracks that criss-crossed the continent. So while, geography still held its own in places of middling to high technology and severe topography, it was no longer the maker and the breaker that it was before the 20th century.

Extra Points:

• Controlled the discovery of German actions - only as the USSR swept into POLAND from the North-east could they find evidence of the death camps
• Restricted liberation - those in the middle of German territory had to wait longer to be freed and helped
• Highlights the conditions that Jews had to live with - Warsaw contained 350,000 people, 30% of which were Jews. This population and more was held within 2.4% of the city of Warsaw- 400,000 at height.
  

The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is certainly successful as a memorial: it is a strong reminder of the Holocaust simply as a general event; it focuses into more detail, giving specific data on every possible point; there are stories chronicling the short lives of some Holocaust victims. Each of these things were represented within the maps, from numbers to personal anecdotes. Obviously, in such a memorial, there will be a bias. In this case it is towards the victims of the Holocaust and against the Germans, done by paying closer detail to the atrocities that were inflicted. I noted also that while the Germans were often subtly or tacitly rebuked, no such feeling was given towards those who were allied with Germany. Perhaps the makers of the website were a little to focused on those who they felt bore the blame. I am not sure, however, that this memorial assumes anything about the audience that views the site. Obviously, it would be a less argument-arousing experience should the person viewing the maps happen to agree on the guilt of the Nazis. I do believe that while there is a slight bias, it is fairly negligible. Even did I believe differently (which I don't) this site would still be a good source of information. As it is, the Holocaust is memorialized well in this website, a form that the modern world is more likely to connect to.

Digging Deeper

The Brandenburg Gate does not represent any particular event or group, but is more like Paris's Arc du Triomphe in that it is a general symbol of victory for the German people. It is an important monument and landmark of Berlin. We want to find out the following about this monument: Where does the name come from? Does it have any significance to specific victories by Germany or is it simply general in nature? What is the feeling of Berliners towards the monument? Is it a cultural center of sorts? (Is it a place to rally?) What important things occurred by this monument? How did the Berlin Wall affect access to the gate?

The Stanford Mausoleum was built as the tomb of the Stanford family. It holds Leland and Jane Stanford, as well as their son, Leland, Jr. for whom they created Stanford University. The mausoleum is on the Stanford campus, on Quarry Road and Palm Drive. We would like to find out: Is there any special significance to the sphinxes that guard the entrance, or are they simply for aesthetic design? What role does it play in the community activities? What is the layout within the Mausoleum? Was it common for the wealthy to build elaborate structures upon their death in that time? How did this affect public perception of the mausoleum? What, if anything, did the presence of the Mausoleum on the campus do for the public opinion of the college?

Stop, Drop, and Roll

“The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb,” though it relates both reasons for and against dropping the bomb, seems to condemn the decision that was made. It demonstrates that this act that may trouble today's Americans only once and a while, still has a serious impact on the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is an interesting perspective because it does not attempt to cover American guilt in the situation any more than it does that of the Japanese; on the whole, it is without bias. That people's idea on this event has changed over time is unquestionable. Trueman may have been ecstatic when he heard that "the baby was born alive and kicking," but most people of today would feel deep guilt or at least grim resignation even if they felt that what we did was necessary. Of course, everything is easier in retrospect. Yet, even then, Major Sweeney had misgivings about their decision, made evident when he says, "I did have an instant thought that, for better or for worse, if it works or if it doesn't work, it's too late now, because there are no strings on it to pull it back in." On World War II in general, this proves that none involved were wholly guiltless, not even the victors who knew the horror of what they did even as it was done. Though history may be written by the winner, we tell ours in a way that expresses our dissatisfaction that we chose this path.

The Result of Tension

Question: Why would Japan tempt the United States into the war with the Pearl Harbor (7 Dec. 1941) attack?
Answer: Japan's recent aggression towards neighboring countries had long been troubling to the United States. In 1937, Japan fully invaded China after several years of conflict following its capture of Manchuria. 1940 saw the Japanese occupation of Indochina. This actions did not sit well with the United States, especially not with the president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. In reaction and discouragement, FDR stopped trade between the two countries with a series of embargoes, which Japan accused was an "unfriendly act." The truth was, Japan was desperate for American oil - it had no ties in the Middle East and relied greatly upon trade with the U.S. to fuel the very machines that had taken over China. Indeed, without the oil, Japan could not hope to continue to hold China for much longer. As a result of this tension, both countries predicted that Japan would seize American assets in the Far East, which would call the U.S. Navy across the Pacific to help their isolated troops. U.S. Pacific Fleet commander Admiral Husband E. Kimmel and army Lieutenant General Walter C. expected this and requested further equipment from the government. However, the Japanese saw this possibility and decided to step from the mold with a preemptive strike on Pearl Harbor, completely skipping the seizure of the resources that they needed. They did not see their strategy as a call to arms for Americans, rather as a gambit to defeat the U.S. effort before it was even begun. In short, they hoped to subdue us for the duration of the war. Unluckily for the Japanese, they had completely misread our policy of isolationism, and instead of having the desired effect, the attack on Pearl Harbor succeeded only in kindling American fervor to join the war.

A Time to Grow

While France and Britain's decision to give Sudetenland to Germany may have felt like submitting when they should have been strong,  it was one made with the best interests of their countries in mind. The Munich Conference decided to sacrifice a small region of Austria for the greater  good of other, much larger, lands. There was no way that they could have known that Hitler would go on to such horrendous acts, willfully breaking promises made to Britain and France. The leaders of Britain and France would have believed themselves to be pacifying a country, stopping it by giving it exactly what it wants. They, as victims of the situation, hoped that Hitler would be content with the concessions it was given. While, the lack of Czechoslovakian representation may be slightly disturbing, to have made this decision, it was necessary; the Czechs would never have resigned themselves to what was necessary had they a say. 

Looking at the situation, even from hindsight, one comes up with the same conclusions. If Britain and France hadn't made the decisions that they did, the war would have begun much sooner, perhaps in a time when the world was even less recovered from the depression. The time afforded by compromise of Sudetenland won the Allies time, both to realize Hitler's power and purpose, and to strengthen themselves for the oncoming battle. While no treaty could have prevented World War II, the Munich Conference allowed the Allies the strength they needed to win it much later. 

Prelude to War

Hindsight is not necessary to inferring injustice in the decisions made in the Munich Conference. What struck me the most about the Munich Pact was that the very country being argued over, Czechoslovakia, had no representation in the deliberations. The conference itself was held between only the leaders of Germany, Britain, France, and Italy. As Dorothy Thompson stated in her broadcast, "Czechoslovakia was disposed of by four men who in four hours made a judgment of the case in which the defendant was not even allowed to present a brief or be heard." This put me in mind of the Berlin conference of 1884-1885 where Europeans divided the Congo amongst them; except, the Munich Pact was not even equal to those dividing the country (since all the spoils go to Germany) AND this time, Europeans were doing it to one of their own. To lather the wound with salt, the demands of this treaty pushed the Czechoslovakians out of their country without consideration. Only ten days were given for the people to remove from their own country without protest or rebellion. Those of German descent, however, were allowed to remain, thus filtering the jewels from dirt (I speak only their thoughts, not my own).
Now, the fact of Czechoslovakian occupation is for us a clear indication of further conquests to come, and Thompson's words on the treaty ("armistice made in advance of a war ") prove that this possibility was foreseeable from that time. The very principles of fascism require almost constant military action and expansion. Knowing this, as politicians of the time must have (Germany and Italy were open about fascism), giving into their demands hardly seems the best thing to do. Hopefully, this was realized soon after the mistake was made, when Germany siezed the rest of Czechoslovakia in March of 1939.

WWII

The main players of WWII were Germany, Italy, Japan, the United States, Britain, and France (similarly to the powers of WWI - Axis v. Allies). Several widely remembered events occurred during this war, such as the Holocaust, Pearl Harbor, and Hiroshima.
The Holocaust was brought about by the Nazi party in Germany led by Adolf Hitler. It was centered around the eradication of people that the Nazis deemed lesser, such as Jews and gypsies. These people were sent to concentration camps where all their belongings were confiscated and they were either mass murdered or set to hard, grueling work. Sometimes they left their homes relatively voluntarily, thinking that they were only being deported. Few Germans knew that this was happening to the Jews. The Nazis also had other camps for their prisoners of war, which were much nicer than those for the Jews.
Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack made by the Japanese on a Hawaiian battle port where many troops were stationed. This was the deciding point for America in WWII. Prior to this point, the United States had abstained from entering the war, but this forced the public to rally against the injustice of the attack. Afterwards, we entered on the side of Britain and France. Japan would not let up in its efforts and was entirely ruthless, turning their own people out of villages for the cause of the war. Kamikaze pilots were not uncommon. Within the U.S. weaponry creation and testing was being done for the purpose of solving this terrible war. Finally, the Oppenheimer came up with the atomic bomb, which he hoped was the weapon to end all wars, or at least the one raging across Europe and Asia. It was dropped twice, in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Oppenheimer was successful and the Japanese conceded defeat.

Questions I Have:

• Why did the Japanese provoke U.S. involvement in the war?
• What set Hitler so firmly against Jews?

The Makings of a Pig

As a reflection on communism, Animal Farm is likely to have many distinctive connections to true events and people of communist governments. It is evident from the first that there are characters in the book that are specific to officials within the USSR. The ties between Old Major and Marx are strong, since they were both the pioneers of communism (or Animalism rather). On the other hand, Old Major has a tie to Lenin as well, since they popularized their ideals and died shortly after. For his skill as an orator, Snowball may be placed as Trotsky, and Napoleon as his aggressive opponent may be assumed Stalin. This fits in perfectly with the scheme of things in Russia, since (as Napoleon did to Snowball) Stalin removes Trotsky from the government through force and slander. The horses, Boxer and Clover, are likely representative of the workers, those that were favored most by communism, while vain Mollie is the bourgeoisie. As the ones removed from power, the Jones' can be taken for either the monarchy before the revolution in Russia, or the temporary government that was instated and later removed.
Orwell clearly makes a case in Animal Farm for the corruption of communist governments. In the book, charismatic leaders extol the virtues of specific ideals, but once in power, quickly go back on these to strengthen themselves and not others. In the beginning, all animals are equal, but by chapter six, the pigs have special privileges that they are afforded because they are cleverer than the other animals and so need more to maintain their higher state. They change the rules, but promote a sense of mystery about the origin of the commandments so that none can question their rectitude. This is exemplified through the adding of words ("with sheets") to the commandments so that technically the pigs aren't violating anything. Also, through the reactions of the other animals, Orwell seems to argue that there are similarities between communism and fascism, which is dependant upon the leaders being vastly more intelligent than the populous. The leaders can rise to power on this assumption - their intellect deserves luxury, and without it, the entire system would fail. Once in power, they must use terror to subdue a public that is increasingly unhappy for a feeling of unfairness, thus the nine dogs or CHEKA. Perhaps the true argument though, is that it is not the man(or animal) that corrupts and abuses their power, but rather the power that corrupts the man, to make the pig. For this reason, Animal Farm can be seen as a cautionary tale to all, both leader and quiescent public.

Fascism Leading the Charge

While the values of fascism and communism are different, they both work to attain the same goal through different means. Both are successful in gaining allegiance because they seek to increase material/social/political wealth for people who have nothing. Thus, a follower has nothing to lose and everything to gain. A certain tacit promise is made that convinces people to join fascist or communist governments. A fascist government asks that the people give everything to their nation with the promise that later, when fascism has taken the world, all the people will have more. Fascism works using the idea that alone, one is powerless, while strength and power can be found in unity. Communism, on the other hand, begs dedication so that all may be shared amongst the followers of communism. Alone a single person may have nothing, but when all property is united, that same person may be given the world. In this way, Fascism and Communism are different answers to the same question of political decline and poverty, and were made so successful because both rose during the depression and after WWI, a time when everyone was poor and sought a means to better their station in life. One takes the path of uniting to conquer and become rich with land and power, while the other chooses to consolidate all the wealth of a country, redistributing the riches of the higher classes to everyone. Both are extreme, but one errs on the side of excess, the other on minimalism.
However, for capitalists or those seeking to raise the fortunes(which is generally the majority of a society), only one of these would seem the poor choice. For this reason, people tended to be more fearful of communism than of fascism. Ironically, the rise of communism was the empowering force for fascist regimes even though both were in direct opposition to one another. Since so many were afraid of the alternative, they took the side of fascism (seeing the need to chose one or the other, not neither). Fascism grew, partially because it promised an end to communism. As the lesser of the two evils, it was given power freely, while the communists in Russia had to trick and fight their way to the top.
The idea of choosing them on this basis alone is sensible, for in many other ways they are extremely similar. As seen in Nazi Germany and Civil War era Russia, both put stake in public violence and terror. This gives way to authoritarian systems that keep the people on their toes. Since communism and fascism share these similarities in practice, it makes little difference to the day to day life of civilians, which they choose. So decisions to join whichever party must be based on ideology. It might be said then that fear of minimalistic communism and aggressive fascism both, led a terrified people to support fascist ideals, despite their own misgivings on the matter.

In a Constant State of [R]Evolution

Strayer is somewhat justified in saying that there were connections between the two revolutions, but not so much so in saying that one inspired the other. As in France, the Russian revolution took place during a time of poverty (due to the war) and malcontent. Not only were the people hungry, but they were also disappointed by the incompetence of their Czar, whose skill as a military figure was unimpressive. This ties in with the unpopularity of Louis XVI, who was by no means a malicious man, just not terribly skilled at his job. In both cases, the lower classes (Third Estate/"workers and soldiers") united to bring down the monarchy. In due course, a temporary leadership was set up (Robespierre's commitee for public safety/Provisional Government) and then overthrown again due to further dissatisfaction with political performance. Yet out of the people's confusion and righteuos despair came a charismatic leader who quickly won support (Napoleon/Lenin). After the resulting civil wars followed a time of relative peace, in which the people found that their chosen commanders were not who they had been supposed to be. In Napoleon, the people discovered a dictator (or rather, Emperor), while Lenin's authoritarian and aggressive methods proved less than ideal. From this general timeline of both revolutions, it can be said that they followed the same course, but by no means would one have inspired the latter.
The ideologies of each revolution, while similar, are subtley (yet importantly) different. In the French Revolution, the people fought to overthrow the monarchy because they believed in "liberty, equality, and fraternity." The soviets and Bolsheviks on the other hand, fought for communism. Now, one might say that communism is the practice of absolute equality, which follows the ideals of the French revolutionaries. Yet, I believe that there is a difference in that in communism, the equality is won by absolute abolition of private property, whereas in the French revolution it was thought to be done by redistribution of belongings and an equality in what was owned. So, one is about have an equal amount of something, whereas the other is about having absolutely nothing (or rather sharing everything with everyone). As I said, subtley different. Also, in all practicality, I doubt that Russian revolutionaries fashioned their revolution after that of the french because, really, who would want to go through that? So while it coincidentally happened thus, I doubt that it was a conscious effort to make it so.

Cabaret

Berlin: The politically dissatisfied and turbulent atmosphere in Berlin of the early thirties made the German people more susceptible to the Nazi party’s charisma and propaganda.

Nazi: The Nazi party came to power due to fear of communism, but remained there because the Germans were too weak to take control once the goal had been achieved.

Cabaret: The cabaret, while still a form of escapism, reflected the troubles of the outside world in a way that an audience could happily, mindlessly, relate to.

A Fascist Taliban?

Though there is a marked similarity in ideals between past fascist regimes and today’s Taliban, important differences between the two don’t allow the latter to be “officially” defined as fascist. It would seem from its actions that the Taliban desires the status of a fascist regime, but has not achieved this state to this point due to lack of control over followers and citizens. In what ways does the Taliban resemble fascist administrations of the past? The Taliban is violent, conservative, and youthful
Violent. While their methods differ slightly, it is characteristic of fascist governments and the Taliban to use violence in influencing followers. Due to the Taliban’s lack of an actual army, their means of exerting power on reluctant civilians are much more severe and open, employing such tactics as public executions and floggings. In a fascist system, a great deal more energy is spent on appeasing the people, though their threats are fairly transparent as well. For this reason, the violence caused by a fascist government is slightly more discrete so as to hide the true face of the leaders from the followers. There are great similarities though, in severity of punishment. In Moussilini’s Italy, for example, his Black Shirts “destroyed offices of socialist newspapers attacked striking workers, and forced socialists to drink castor oil.” By comparison, the Taliban almost seems gentle in carrying out public floggings and executions. It can be seen, that both groups use terror as a weapon against opposition.
Conservative. One of the more important distinctions of a fascist regime is a deeply ingrained conservatism and paternalism. In the past, this has been shown in aggression towards Marxism, or even as simply as in a more traditional role for womankind, where her only purpose is as a producer of children and caretaker for men. Racism is also hugely popular in that it eliminates minorities and strengthens the majority’s uniformity. This is shared slightly by the Taliban in that it promotes one sect of Islam above all others and preaches Shariah Law. It too opposes the education of women and instates a code of dress for them. In their minds, a woman is “worth” half of a man. In this way, the Taliban is successfully conservative.
Youthful. A seemingly negligible, but hugely significant detail of the Taliban and fascism is their mutual emphasis on the youth. Both of these groups rely heavily on a continuous stream of new followers to support their rampant militarism. They succeed only through brainwashing the younger generation to believe in their ideals and grow into young soldiers and “producers” for future campaigns. In old fascist systems, children were required to have notebooks covered in propaganda and to join youth groups that supported the fascist government. It might be said that the Taliban does something similar with the many Pakistani madrassas , schools where children are taught from the Qur’an. In this way, they share an emphasis on youth as the future of their form of government.
Yet, if the Taliban shares so much with fascism, what holds it back from actually becoming a fascist government? 1) Decentralization 2) No Expansionist Movement 3) Lack of Power
Decentralization. A centralized government is an absolute necessity to a successful fascist regime. Fascism gains much of its power from having a single dictator who makes all the decisions without opposition. This is demonstrated by the fascist symbol of the fasces, which are only strong when held together (thus, centralized). With an autocrat at its head, a fascist government has “strength in unity,” because there is no one to dispute the commands of the leader. None of this is present in the Taliban. Centered around numerous local warlords, such as Maulana Fazlullah in Swat valley, it does not act as a force united, but as many different, self-interested parties. This prevents it from claiming fascism.
Negligible Imperialism. Restricted by the many warlords, it is more difficult for the Taliban to expand, because it already wars for land within itself. It cannot seek to battle other countries for land without first having a homeland of its own. Without unity, the Taliban as a whole cannot be fascist; indeed, the smaller groups within the entire Taliban might be considered more fascist than the Taliban itself is. They are not so wholly lacking in this area though as in others as can be seen by the capture of the Swat valley. Should the Taliban make more catches like this one, it would display a much more fascist front.
Lack of Power. The Taliban fights to become the governing force in Pakistan, but has not yet achieved absolute power. So, while most fascist governments have an official military power, the Taliban is made up of guerrilla fighters. As long as it remains thus, the Taliban will not have the ability to demand anything of the populous and expect independent compliance – they need to supplement their orders with terror. This is not a totalitarian system. The Nazis in Germany, for example, “controlled the press and radio, and in general assumed police power over society.” Meanwhile, the girl’s school headmaster in Swat valley has the defiance to protest closing his doors, demonstrating that the Taliban has not sufficiently reigned in the people. In this state, the Taliban can hardly claim the title of government, let alone a fascist one.
So, while the Taliban seems to be trying to attain the seemingly unreachable state of fascism, it has both successes and failures. Though it has not achieved fascism yet, it is well on its way to getting there.