Hungary vs. Algeria

The Hungarian and Algerian revolutions were very similar in that they were both revolting against something foriegn. They were both backlash towards a foreign country taking them over and neither seem to have ended in greater stability for the country. Although they both now have their countries in their own hands, their economies have drooped and there is still a lot of political instability. They have major inflation as a result of their political unrest. They faught for their countries to be released from foriegn powers, but when they finally got their power it dissolved into economic and political instability. Algeria is ripped apart by religion and racial differences, while Hungary uses the Roma as scapegoats and fights against far right extremist nationalism.

One major difference between them is the religious aspect of the revolutions. In Algeria there is a large emphasis on Islam whereas in Hungary the revolution was purely political. Islam is based in a theocracy, so when the country revolts the religion gets involved, whereas in Hungary religion stays tucked away to make room for purely politial instability.

Iran

What exactly is a theocracy?
A theocracy is a form of government based mainly by religion. This government follows some sort of divine leader who has a special connection with a greater power/powers. It is exactly what we here in the USA try (and in many ways fail) to create, a government without any influence from religion. We've seen it in many different places, particularly from earlier time periods, including the Mughal Empire, Shah Abbas from the Safavid Empire, and King Louis XIV from France.

What happened in the Iranian revolution of 1979?
The Iranian Revolution of 1979 was the period when the monarchy led by the Shah in Iran brought down and replaced with the Islamic Republic. Many Iranians were disappointed by the lack of change that came with the revolution. The leader of the revolution brought even more oppression than before and the country was sent into political turmoil without any change.

Questions:
-How reliable was this story?
-How is this related to the Islamic Revolution from 1979?
-Why did the publisher use this medium? How did it affect the telling of the story?

Connections:
-The Gulag/Stalin
-the Hungarian Revolution
-Propaganda by the Nazi's or just Propaganda in general

Gut reaction:
-The power of backlash to suppression is huge and is seen again and again in all the things we've studied.
-Change targets the younger generations
-revolutionaries are supposedly peaceful but how much of that is relative? Relatively peaceful does not equal truely peaceful.

Culture

The superiority of a culture has no bearing on how successful it is. It is impossible to define a superior country because superiority is all a matter of opinion. Each culture judges the others in reference to their own so superiority becomes almost irrelevant. Let's say Society A likes to eat fish. They're fish fanatics and all of them just adore fish. But when Society B says they don't like fish Society A looks down at them and calls them inferior for not having any fish. Every culture has it's own view on good and bad, so judging which culture is "best" has absolutely no meaning. Success however is slightly easier to quantify. The definition of success is based in whatever the popular opinion of it is, which at this time means economic and political power. During the Industrial revolution it meant increased output with minimal input of work, and during the Englightenment it meant new ideas being brewed inside scholarly brains. Now it is defined by how large the economies of our cultures are.



The phrase "the communist/capitalist countries of the world were wrong to judge the communist/capitalist countries based on outsider cultural knowledge. The only sound judgement comes from hard economic, political, or scientific facts" may be true, but that certainly doesn't stop anyone from judging. The validity of this statement is somewhat marred by the fact that it will never be upheld. Judgement based on the ideals of our own society is inevitable. The only way to withold biased judgement is to withold judgement completely.

Cold Rivalries

The Cold War was a not a war of bombs and guns, but a war of politics between rivaling countries. The USSR and the USA were two of the main players in the Cold War. The USSR established it's position of power in a very similar way to Germany at the start of WWII. It gained power over it's neighboring countries with treaties and kept them in check and subservient with force. This rise to power caught the USA's attention and raised tensions between the two countries. It also raised tensions with the Chinese, who also had joined the race for nuclear power. All three countries were jockeying for political and technological power.

A moment in history that the cold war brings us back to is the huge leaps in technology that came out of WWI. Both instances show how conflict is what really motivates countries to improve upon their technology. There is always a constant sizzle of innovation in the background of history, but it only really boils over when major powers go to war. In WWI we saw huge innovations in airplanes, bombs (including chlorine and mustard gas bombs), and weaponry in general. Again, in the cold war we see huge improvements in nuclear technology, all in effort to get ahead of rivaling countries.

Geography in the Holocaust

The Holocaust and Hitler's plan to control the world was heavily influenced by the geography of his surrounding area. His first claim to Poland and Czechoslovakia was based on their close proximity to Germany. As illustrated in the video "World War 2 and the Holocaust," Germany conquered and allied with all the countries surrounding it, slowly spreading it's influence to all surrounding areas. They didn't just shoot through one direction, but instead extended their power out in all directions until they were stopped and pushed back. It is important to note that many Jews were moved from the edges of German power to Poland which was closer to the center of their growing empire. This may also have been because the Jewish population in Poland was "relatively numerous and densely settled." As the Soviets started cutting into Germany's territory they began to pull people out of the extermination camps in the northeast and move them further into the center their territory. As shown in the video "Liberation," the marches and transportation methods to get the Jews to the center of Germany's power were brutal. Many referred to them as "death marches." These death marches and worsening conditions of the concentration camps as more and more people packed into fewer and fewer camps killed many, many more people.

There is always a bias in memorials and monuments. A memorial by default has a good connotation, even if it commemorates something bad. It demands respect for whatever it is memorializing, whether it be a person, place, or event. It does not necessarily demand an appreciation for whatever it memorializes, but it does demand recognition for it. Even if the respect is given towards something bad like the Holocaust, a monument still requires people to respect it.

Monument Questions

The Trevi Fountain:
How and when was it built?
Why is it considered a monument today?
What kind of Italian folklore does it represent? What kind of significance do those stories represent in Italin culture?
What were a few ways that aquaducts shape the history of Rome? How did it affect Rome's political position at the time they were first built?
Why do people throw coins in?
Does it have any other significance in the modern day Italy than as a monument/sculpture?
What influenced it's design?

Munich Agreement Reconsidered

France and Britain were right in giving Germany what it wanted in Sudetenland. It was a sacrifice that they were willing to make in order to stay on good terms. They knew that Germany had been willing to start a war over it so they gave it up freely rather than losing lives and resources to a useless conflict over a small piece of land. They saved Eastern Europe from being torn apart by simply giving Germany what they wanted. Their release of power and land demonstrated their confidence in their own strength. They knew that that Germany wouldn't be able to overthrow them so they didn't have to waste money on Sudetenland if Germany tried to take it by force. A good relationship between Germany, France, and Britain was much more important than the small territories that Germany was willing to fight for.

"Peace"

In her 1938 broadcast, Dorothy Thompson tells us she thinks that Germany's not-so-subtle take over of Czechoslovakia was quite appalling and should have been stopped by the governments who made the initial Treaty of Varsailles. The German's dangerous rise to power goes unchecked by England and France. Not only does Germany proceed without being stopped, but they are actually given what they want rather than being beaten back down. This was a gamble on the part of Germany's keepers. They thought Germany would stop after taking what it wanted, but instead it kept rising higher and higher until it regained its seat as a major power in the world. They believed that loosening their hold on Germany would keep it from reaching for more, but as we and Dorothy Thompson can see, they were wrong. Germany's sudden shift in power should have alerted those who could have stopped it and Germany should have been stopped dead before it could even start it's evacuation.

The so-called peace was barely a shadow. It was more an agreement not to fight over the land that the German's wanted, but instead just to give it to them and hope they don't want more. It was a risk that the other super powers in the world took without truly looking at the consequences of this seemingly minor release of power. Their "peace" was meant to loosen their hold on Germany's collar in hopes that it wouldn't bite back. This was unwise, but I don't think they could have forseen the final outcome of their actions.

WWII

Things I know:
-The Nazis targeted a number of groups, including Jews, homosexuals, and gypsies.
-Enormous numbers of people were killed in concentration camps.
-America was pulled in after being bombed by the Japanese.
-We dropped atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
-It lasted from 1939-1945
-Germany was defeated, again.

How did the Japanese get involved? What pulled them into the war?
How did the war start?
Why did Hitler choose to target Jews and not some other group?

Caberet

Berlin: The atmosphere in Berlin was filled with economic tension and social instability which drew people towards things like escapism and the caberet.

Nazis: The Nazi's began as a small group of unpopular activists that did "the dirty work" but snowballed into an uncontrolled fascist movement.

Caberet: The caberet is all about escaping reality, it distorts what's actually happening and makes it entertaining so the world seems manageable and people can feel somehwat in control.

Fascism and the Taliban

Despite the similarities striking similarities, I would not consider the Taliban a fascist regime. A fascist regime needs to be an official government, not just an organized group of terrorists. Some of the values are that they are based on are the same, but the overarching ideas of them are very different. As a government system, a fascist regime focuses on the wellbeing of its people. The people may have no power, but the leaders are still focused on what they believe is best for the majority of the population. These leaders are often very misguided, but the main goal of fascism, and any government system in fact, is to preserve it’s own people and let them live in an ever more prosperous world.

However, the Taliban are not like this. Their goals are based more around squashing their opposition and wiping out everyone who disagrees with them. Both systems are trying to destroy people who are different from them, but fascists destroy the minorities that are different, whereas the Taliban themselves are the minority and try to destroy everyone else. This connects to another main difference between them, fascism is very paternal and that Taliban is not. The Taliban try establishing supremacy above everyone else, but the leaders of a fascist regime take their power and use for what they believe is good.

There are some huge similarities that would make them seem the same. They are both very violent political movements. And they’re not just violent, but their main ideas center around violence, which is an important distinction to make. Some countries are violent simply because they are threatened by other countries so often, but both of these political groups are centered on violence. Most of their ideology would be taken away if you made them peaceful. Despite their similar focus on violence, they have very different types of violence, as well as different reasons for it. A fascist regime would use violence to prove their greatness and their strength, but the Taliban use violence simply as a political tool to assert their power and eliminate the opposition. This is a subtle, but very important divide. If everybody agreed with the Taliban and wanted to live by their rules, they would not fight. However, if everyone agreed with fascism, there would still be wars because of it’s foundation. For the Taliban there is an ideal situation where they can exist in peace with the rest of the world. Their perfect world is peaceful and has only people like themselves. This is obviously unattainable, but still important. On the other hand, the fascist ideal is to be at war and to prove their greatness over other countries. They believe that war brings out the best in a nation, so their ideal state is to be at war.

Propaganda

This bit of propaganda is from the Nazi Party made in 1932. The caption reads "Enough! Vote Hitler!" It is not only a strong drawing, but also a strong, clear message. The simplicity of the entire piece is very striking and I think it sends a stronger message than it would have if it had been more complex. The man in the drawing is breaking free from chains with his hands held high. The background of the picture emphasizes his hands and his broken shackels. There is almost an aura of light around him. The white background is centered around his head and arms, highlighting his newfound freedom coming from voting for Hitler. He is drawn as a tall and strong man and is meant to show that the strongest and manliest men free themselves and vote for Hitler. It also may be promoting Germans in general, by depicting them as strong, tall, newly freed and virile. The message in the caption is clear even without the image. Germans should no longer lie down to those who oppress them, but they should stand up and fight against it. The name Hitler takes up a good 25% of the poster and it's bold, blocky letters dominate the image. The man is wearing a belt buckle with the Nazi symbol, emphasizing the man's devotion to the Nazi party.

PTSD in the Trenches

PTSD is a common disorder that can be seen throughout history, but was only given proper name in the 1970s. There is a huge amount of trauma in any kind of war situation, but the kind of warfare that we see in World War One was particularly traumatic. The technology was geared more towards mass destruction than ever before. The machine gun could wipe out an entire line of men in a matter of seconds, whereas not long before the 1910s opponents would only shoot volleys at each other. Poison gas was particularly destructive and new. If soldiers didn't get their proper gear on quickly enough they would die a horrible, drawn out death. Witnessing deaths like this once in a lifetime would be enough to cause some serious mental scarring, but seeing it again and again in a war was extremely traumatic. The close quaters of the trenches certianly would have contributed to the high trauma level in WW1. Being so close to people when they die must have been an extremely scarring experience. Soldiers in WW1 could be standing right next to someone dying from any number of causes. Although PTSD was not officially named until much later in history, there were most certainly cases of it in the aftermath of WW1.

The Home Front

The Home Front shows the heavy toll that total war takes on the average civillian. The food shortages that Evelyn Blucher talks about stem from the war and make their living much harder than it was before the war. One of the more powerful parts of the document is when she descibes the government taking away the church bell to be melted down and used for the war. Total war spares nothing, not even religion in an effort to give the country a little extra push for victory. This can make the war very unpopular among the general public. People are stolen out of their normal lives and shoved into roles that support the war, which causes a lot of tension within the country. It also effects all the economy of the country. Total war sucks up money with little or no return until the war is won and neglects things that are not necessary for the war, but are necessary to keep the country and it's economy running smoothly. The drooping economy causes things mentioned in the document, like food shortages and poverty. Total war is meant to increase chances of victory by shoving everything and everyone into the war, but in doing so it ruins the country's nationalism and support for the war.

The Epsom Derby

The video we watched mentioned the Emily Davison and her death at the Epsom Derby. I thought this was an interesting bit of information, so I decided to look into it more. Emily Davidson was a very active and one of the more violent members of the Suffragettes. She'd had several arrests within the few years leading up to her death. This particular public statement was not meant to be a suicide mission. She'd been planning on raising the Suffragette flag on the King's horse so it would finish the race with the Suffragette colors. About a year or so before this happened she did try to commit suicide, but most people believe that this was not an attempt to kill herself because she'd had a train ticket and tickets for a Suffragette event later that day. Her actions not only killed her, but also permanantly injured the jockey that was riding the horse. Many people speculate that the jockey's suicide 40 years later was somehow caused by Emily Davidson's death. Davidson's death was highly publicized and used as a tool for the Suffragette's cause.

Nationalism

Nationalism is a concious attempt to create a unified sense of pride in a country and/or group of people. It can bring small, insignificant countries to power as with Japan or bring large empires down, as with the Ottomans. It may be tempting to say that the success of nationalism is based solely on the size of area it covers, bit it is not. It's success is based off it's unification. If a country is has a lot of nationalism, but it's not for the country as a whole, it will inevitably be brought down and nationalism would be it's destroying force. It is similar to what happened in France during the French Revolution. The Third Estate became nationalistic and unified. France as a whole was ripped apart and it's social structure remade, but the Third Estate remained strong until it fell to corruption. The provincial leaders of the Ottomans were very similar. The Ottoman Empire as a whole died out because it was not unified, but the provincial leaders remained strong because they had an easier time of keeping their smaller territories together and tightly knit.

The Young and Old Ottoman Empire

Religion played a key role in the rise and fall of the Ottoman Empire. In the 16th and 17th centuries the empire was seen as the center of Islam. It was dominated by Muslims, but it allowed for other religions to live under them. It was this open attitude that ultimately led to their downfall. By losing the Muslim superiority they lost their religious identity which was the glue that held such an enormous nation together. The younger generations wanted to base their system off more westernized ideas and equality between religions. The Muslim power became diluted and power fell from it's the central ruler to more local and smaller leaders. They tried to reunite and bring back the old Muslim supremacy, but they ultimately failed. Once there was equality among the different religions the younger generations would not fold back into the past ideals. They began to advocate for a Turkish nation rather than an Islamic nation. The empire crumbled from a lack of unification and European dominance.

Strayer Reading, 577-580

The reading that we did in our textbook gave us some significant details about Japan's attitude and situation in the 19th century. The primary documents gave us mostly just a sense of how much pride Japan had at that time. The documents didn't show us the process of the shoganate being brought down from power. This struggle for power between the shogunate and the revolutionary samurai from the south was brief and not very bloody, but still significant. It shows that there was some political unrest in that time, not just a scientific and economic growth spurt. It was also a little surprising to learn just how much the Japanese despised foreigners. They wouldn't even take in shipwrecked refugees from European or US ships. Despite this, they still adopted some of the foreign ideas to strengthen their own sense of self as a country. In fact, it seems like the acceptance of western ideas partially led to the downfall and overruling of the shogunate because it showed signs of weakeness in the govrenment, despite being better for Japan.

China and Cambodia

The drug trafficking in China and Cambodia are similar, but have some striking differences. The videos we watched about Cambodia were much more centered on the enviromental aspect of the drug trade, whereas the opium in China was based much more on politics and undermining the Chinese government to gain power. I also think that in Cambodia it's much more of a simple economic advantage to harvest the oil there rather than somewhere else, but the opium in China was a much more deliberate and controlled move by the Brittish governments. China was not the only place that the Brittish could have sold opium to, but they did because it let them enormous control over a once powerful country. Now, the Cambodians are being exploited out of convenience rather than some complicated power play. They are also being used in very different ways. Cambodia is being used as a cheap way to harvest the oil for ecstacy. Most of the money is not made from selling ecstacy to Cambodians, but it's made from the middle man buys the oil cheaply and sells it in the form of ecstacy at a huge profit margin. Britan, on the other hand, made all it's money from exporting opium to China, not harvesting it in China and reselling it.