Blog 8: The Wall

Source: GDR. “What You Should Know About the Wall.” Sources of European History Since 1900. Ed. Marvin Perry, Matthew Berg, and James Krukones. Boston: Wadsworth, 2011. 305-309. Print.

Summary:

This brochure was published by the GDR in English in 1962 for foreign distribution, explaining the wall and why it was necessary. It is divided into ten “considerations”, kind of a “Berlin Wall FAQ”.  These are the considerations:

1.       Where, exactly is Berlin situated?

2.       Did the wall fall out of the sky?

3.       Did the wall have to come?

4.       What did the wall prevent?

5.       Was peace really threatened?

6.       Who is walled in?

7.       Who breaks off human contacts?

8.       Does the wall threaten anyone?

9.       Who is aggravating the situation?

10.   Is the wall a gymnastic apparatus?

It ends with a plea to side with the GDR over the wall:

“Decide in favour of the recognition of realities.  Don’t join in the row over the wall.  Perhaps YOU don’t want socialism.  That is your affair.

“But should we not come to an agreement jointly to refrain from doing anything that leads to war and do everything that serves peace?” (309).

My Opinion:

The whole tone of the brochure is extremely defensive and a little angry.  It is not the tone I would have chosen for foreign propaganda because it would make an already skeptical audience further discount anything that is said.  When I hear a defensive-sounding argument I usually characterize the whole thing as desperate and lacking forethought before I even really hear them out.  Also, the government of the GDR basically accepts no responsibility for the wall, making it sound as though they had no choice but to build the wall and were almost forced into it by West Germany.  I don’t think anyone who read this brochure would have found this credible.

I found it very interesting that the prevention of war was the main reason behind the wall listed in this brochure.  The comment is made, “For the first time in German history the match which was to set fire to another war was extinguished before it had fulfilled its purpose” (308).   This is illuminating.  The GDR is trying to set themselves above all the rest of German history as alone having the courage to prevent war, especially in contrast to the Nazi regime which glorified war.

In the next section the authors quote an Indian journalist who clearly was supportive of the GDR’s propaganda: “It (the protective wall of the GDR) served the cause of world peace since it halted the advance of the German neo-Hitlerites toward the East, forced the world to recognize the reality of the division of Germany and thus supports negotiation” (308).  I don’t know very much about India’s relationship to the GDR, or why this journalist had to write such highly-propagandized material.  I can’t tell if he is calling all of West Germany “neo-Hitlerites” or is he referring to some specific groups?  It’s kind of funny to say that physically separating two groups supports negotiation, as negotiation is usually about bring people together and not keeping them apart.

Under the sixth consideration (“Who is walled in?”), it reads: “According to the exceedingly intelligent explanations of the West Berlin Senate we have walled ourselves in and are living in a concentration camp.”  In the next paragraph it talks about the armament of the GDR and then comments, “What do you think of a concentration camp whose inmates have weapons in their hands?” (308).  I don’t think that such heavy sarcasm was wise, especially since the West Berliners had a point.  The people behind the wall were trapped—they were being killed if they tried to escape!  Also, they are glossing over the real “inmates”—the average citizens, who were not armed, and did not have a choice in the matter.

Overall, I found this piece repugnant as it treated the readers with contempt and was overly propagandized.  I don’t think that this brochure would have served its purpose, as it did not get off its soap box long enough to make any resounding points.

Blog 7: Freedom and Myths

Source:

Cassirer, Ernst. “The Myth of the State.” Sources of European History Since 1900. Ed. Marvin Perry, Matthew Berg, and James Krukones. Boston: Wadsworth, 2011. 280-282. Print.

Summary:

Cassirer begins by announcing new theoretical problems, new questions with new answers, and, “most alarming”, a new power: the power of mythical thought, which seemed to have won a victory over rational thought in modern political systems.  He says that there is a “deep chasm between two different fields,” with the political following different rules than the theoretical, ignoring rational and scientific thought.  Cassirer comments that the myths of his day are not products of imagination, but “artificial things fabricated by very skillful and cunning artisans.” He compares these myths to manufactured modern weapons.

Cassirer then calls this new totalitarian experience a regression to “savage life,” referring to the people as “marionettes in a puppet show.”  He then discusses freedom, arguing that man’s natural instincts do not lead someone to strive for freedom.  Finally, he states that philosophy cannot destroy political myths, but it can help us understand them.  “In order to fight an enemy you must know him.”

My Opinion:

When Cassirer talks about the lack of rationality in the politics of his day (particularly Nazi Germany), it made me wonder about our politics today?  Are we led more by myth or rational thought?  In all honesty, I think I would have to lean more towards myth.  We don’t listen to speeches for content; we rely on sound bites and negative ads to make our decisions.  We don’t take the time to understand the system; we generally go along with what the government does because we don’t care to find out our options for helping change things.  We might complain about the actions of political leaders, but usually only after the media tells us we should complain.  So we are surrounded by two myths: the political myth, and the media myth.  Sometimes they work hand in hand, and sometimes they are at odds with one another, and we just get swept along with their opinions, never forming our own original political thoughts.

I’m going to put the following quote (even though it is a bit long) because it really struck me and caused me to think:

“Freedom is not a natural inheritance of man. In order to possess it we have to create it.  If man were to simply follow his natural instincts he would not strive for freedom; he would rather choose dependence.  Obviously it is much easier to depend upon others that to think, to judge, and to decide for himself.  That accounts for the fact that both in individual and in political life freedom is so often regarded much more as a burden than a privilege.  Under extremely difficult conditions man tries to cast off this burden.  Here the totalitarian state and the political myths step in.  The new political parties promise, at least, an escape from the dilemma.  They suppress and destroy the very sense of freedom: but at the same time, they relieve men from all personal responsibility.”

This quote made me wonder: how often do I look for freedom, and how often am I much more content with dependence?  I have been raised on rhetoric of the freedom of our country, and how blessed I am to be in it.  Certainly, especially compared to Nazi Germany, we do have a lot of freedoms in our country.  But do I take advantage of them?  Or do I depend on others to tell me what to do, because it is easier?  Even as I am writing this, a little part of me is thinking, “This is exhausting thinking about all this stuff.  It’s easier to just do what you’re told.”  That frightens me.  Would I be prepared to resist, and not just complain, if a really repressive government came into power here?

Blog 6: The Long-lasting Consequences of Foreign Policy

Source:

Hitler, Adolf. “Poland Will Be Depopulated and Settled With Germans.” Sources of European History Since 1900. Ed. Marvin Perry, Matthew Berg, and James Krukones. Boston: Wadsworth, 2011. 209-211. Print.

Summary:

This is a speech that Hitler gave to his generals on August 22, 1939.  In it, Hitler claims that “there are only three great statesmen in the world, Stalin, I and Mussolini” (210).  He calls Mussolini the weakest, and so he determines to “stretch out my hand to Stalin at the common German-Russian frontier and with him undertake to re-distribute the world.”  We know that the day after this speech the nonaggression pact with the Soviet Union was signed, which basically gave Hitler the go-ahead to invade Poland. 

Hitler’s speech makes the brutality of his plans blatantly obvious.  He says, “the goal to be obtained in the war [with Poland] is not that of reaching certain lines but of physically demolishing the opponent… Only thus can we gain the living space that we need.”  He then makes a very illuminating and poignant remark: “Who after all is today speaking about the destruction of the Armenians?”  Then, later, “The world believes only in success.”  His advice to his generals in their style of war is downright bloodthirsty: “Be hard, be without mercy, act more quickly and brutally than the others.  The citizens of Western Europe must tremble with horror.  That is the most human way of conducting a war.  For it scares the others off.”

My Opinion:

This speech makes very clear the long-lasting consequences of foreign policy.  Hitler had a very shrewd understanding of what the rest of Europe was (and wasn’t) prepared to do, and he exploited it in order to invade Poland with very little resistance.  Of course this officially started World War II, but the damage had already been done in Poland, and it would be some time before the Nazis could be slowed down. 

What I would like to focus on is Hitler’s comment, “Who after all is today speaking about the destruction of the Armenians?” and “The world believes only in success.”  Even today, people don’t really speak about what happened to the Armenians—I had only vaguely heard of it, and so I had to look it up in our book.  On pages 64-70 of Source of European History Since 1900, there is an account of “The Turkish Assault on Armenians”.  Basically it was genocide much like Hitler’s Final Solution conducted by the Turks during World War I.  Viewing the Armenians as subversive because of their “strong sense of identity—both as a distinct ethnic group and as a Christian religious community” (65).  The descriptions of Turkish methods bear strong resemblance to Hitler’s actions twenty years later.  Hitler was clearly influenced by this first genocide, and gained confidence from the fact that the Turks pretty much got away with it—again notice the comment that “the world believes only in success.” 

I believe that Europe’s lack of response to the Armenian’s plight directly led to Hitler’s confidence and brutality in Nazi Germany.  This begs the question—at what point should nations get involved in wars or atrocities that don’t involve them directly?  Is merely condemning them with words enough, or should force be exerted?  I think if enough nations come together, the show of strength may be enough to avoid war.  Hitler’s opinion of the Armenia situation shows that lack of action can be just as decisive as too much—it sets a dangerous precedent that can have massive repercussions later on.

We need to care about foreign policy.  Americans need to worry about what is going on in other nations.  With the world even more connected now than ever before, crimes against humanity shouldn’t be qualified by nationality—we should all be involved.  Those who talk about minding our own business should take care: today’s Armenia could be tomorrow’s World War III.

Blog 5: The Spiritual Significance of Book Burning

Source:

Roth, Joseph. “The Auto-Da-Fé of the Mind.” Sources of European History Since 1900. Ed. Marvin Perry, Matthew Berg, and James Krukones. Boston: Wadsworth, 2011. 165-167. Print.

Summary:

In this piece, Jewish writer Roth comments on the meaning of the Nazi book burnings.   He says, “The European mind is capitulating.”   The German Jewish writers, like him, have been defeated.  “We are proud of our defeat,” he declares, and is thankful that Jewish writers “are, thank God, safe from any temptation to take the side of the barbarians in any way.”  Then, interestingly, Roth places those Jewish writers on the side of Christendom as well as Judaism.

My Opinion:

I found this piece illuminating.  It caused me to ponder the spiritual significance of book burning to Western culture, and perhaps humanity.  Book burning is associated with fanaticism in our minds.  I wonder how much of the tragedy of book burning is the loss itself of the books versus the symbolism behind it—an assault on ideas and the freedom to express them.  To our culture, the books on the pyre could be ones that we detest, and yet we would still find it tragic.  Surely other copies of the books themselves exist—the words themselves are not being blotted out of existence.  This leads me to think that it is the symbolic and spiritual significance of book burning that resonates rather than something literal. 

It is because of the spiritual nature of book burning—its attack on intellect and conviction—that Roth could rightly claim that he and the other authors whose works were burned were part of “the noble ranks of the European army,” and “the only legitimate German representatives of that culture,” because they stood for liberty of conscience.  Their works were burned because they did not compromise with Nazi philosophy, preferring symbolic death over life as a sellout.  He proclaims, “God himself—and we are proud of the fact—will not allow us to betray Europe, Christendom, and Judaism.  God is with the vanquished, not with the victors!”   

He also claims that “[b]y destroying Jews they are persecuting Christ.  For the first time the Jews are not being murdered for crucifying Christ but for having produced him from their midst.  If the books of Jewish or supposed Jewish authors are burned, what is really set fire to is the Book of Books: the Bible.”  I’d like to explore this claim a little.  What is Roth’s basis for essentially equating Judaism and Christianity?  Certainly in the eyes of his opponents this is an audacious remark.  But it leads me to consider: what is the spirit of Christianity, Judaism, and European culture?  Here a couple of quotes might be illuminating. 

The first is from Jürgen Habermas, a modern German philosopher: “Egalitarian universalism, from which sprang the ideas of freedom and social solidarity, of an autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, of the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct heir to the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love.” 

The second is from Gorman Beauchamp: “Liberals have felt free to advocate elimination of ‘repressive’ external restraints precisely because they still live in a social sphere created and conditioned by Judeo-Christian moral values, whose chastening custom and habit they expect to be internalized … For how many post-Christian generations can it endure? […] We are like the heirs to a great fortune, but one that has stopped growing: we live on the principle of that fortune which with each generation grows smaller and smaller.  At some point bankruptcy, inevitably, looms.” 

According to these men, the spirit of Christianity and Judaism has nurtured our sense of justice, equality, and morality.  Certainly these values were burned along with the books without a trial.  Without these values, the Western culture could not continue—it would bankrupt as Beauchamp said.  There are many differences between Judaism and Christianity, but for Joseph Roth, and for me as well, the spiritual tragedy of book burning makes differing religions into brothers threatened by a common enemy, fearlessly defending an entire culture.