IRL TOK, January 8, 2010

* Can one talk meaningfully of a historical fact? How far can we speak with certainty about anything in the past?

One can speak meaningfully about a historical fact, but we can rarely speak with 100% certainty about anything in the past, even if we were alive when the event we're speaking of took place.

We are able to speak meaningfully about historical facts because with most historical events come enough of a basis of evidence that a particular event took place. Even if all of the details are not known, it is possible to take the evidence that is out there and then search for further evidence and draw conclusions. However due to the use of propaganda and misinformation that is spread by countries about what is going on within their borders, one can never be 100% sure what really happened. In addition, some circumstances are mysterious in the way that there is no way to know for sure what happened because many factors were involved, and at other times, cultural values and points of view will have influence over what information is being spread.

IRL 6 (http://www.katardat.org/russia/pictures/photos-collectivisation.html) discusses photographs from Communist Russia that show collective farms and the workers, and this serves as some evidence that collective farming took place to some degree, however in many of the photographs one can observe people who are smiling and appear to be happy. Since collective farming is not known to be something that made people in Communist Russia happy and it has also been said that farmers worked harder on their own plots of land than the collective farms, it can be deduced with reason that since Stalin used propaganda to glorify himself and his decisions in other circumstances, the photographs are one form of propaganda. However it is impossible to know for sure what exactly happened, especially when relating to the history of a country that we did not know much about what was happening until the 1990s after the country collapsed and records and information was then released. The USSR in the past chose what information to let out and what not to let out, so before records were discovered, there was little certainty about what had happened in the past, and what this demonstrates is that at any given point, people may think they know the whole picture but there may still be other information that has not been released or discovered.

Another example that illustrates some of my points above is the Kirov murder. IRL 7 (http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/stalin/97020) references this. It is known beyond reasonable doubt that Kirov was murdered and by who, so one can speak meaningfully about that and use the evidence to draw conclusions as to WHY he was murdered. There are theories but will we ever know for sure? Much of the information regarding the murder is very obscured and one must use historical context of what was going on in Russia at the time to figure out who else was behind the murder. For instance Kirov was murdered by someone who did not like him, yet how do we know for sure that Stalin was directly involved? We don't, because he never admitted to being involved and all we can do is use the evidence that Kirov was winning support at the expense of Stalin and that Stalin had reason to want him dead. Therefore one can speak of this and draw conclusions but we will never know for sure because there are so many factors to take into consideration here and too little solid evidence to show exactly why it happened how it did.

Often times, someone's view of a historical event will be colored by their cultural background and the values of that society. Here in IRL 4 (http://www.cliffordmay.org/1906/a-creeping-coup-is-russia-heading-back-to-the-ussr) it is said that Russia is heading back toward its Communist ways. Is it really? That article was not written by someone from Russia and the author likely comes from a country that historically was opposed to Communism, and we do not know for sure if they are spreading accurate information or if the quotes given in that article actually came from the said speakers. Although it is often said that Russia is heading back toward Communism, will we really know unless we live there and observe the political climate for ourselves? There has to be a reason why people are saying this, but we do not know for certainty if Russian leaders today have the desire to turn back to Communism from the past. It is not known whether or not Russia really is heading back toward Communism or if the perspective that it is, comes from Communist-fearing countries that will interpret any even somewhat Communist behaviors as such. An example of cultural differences coming into play can be seen here in IRL 8 (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-russia-stalin2-2009nov02,0,2551543.story). That refers to an article about if Stalin was really as bad as we thought he was. The definition of "bad" differs among people, and some people view him as bad while others probably emphasize the good things that he did, so how will we ever know if he was "bad"? To some people he would have been and to others he wouldn't have, so opinion comes into play as well.

There is room to speak about historical facts meaningfully as there are various sources and remains left from the past, but we will never know what happened for sure due to misinformation being spread and propaganda (such as photos of overly enthusiastic collective farmers that contradict what is believed to be true about the unpopularity of such farms among the workers, cultural differences (i.e. ones that would lead some to believe Stalin was good and others believe he was bad), and obscure facts, for instance with the Kirov murder. In addition, 100% certainty is almost impossible to obtain because even if the large majority of history could be proven, there would likely be one or two minor details that still could not.

IRL 11, January 6, 2010

URL; http://german-history.suite101.com/article.cfm/versailles_and_the_second_world_war

This is an article written by a History student in college named George Julian, about the Treaty of Versailles and how it affected the origins of World War II. According to the article, the Treaty of Versailles cost Germany much of its important land, and limited the German army to 100,000 men, and limited their navy to 1/3 of its original strength, and gave them no air force. There were other issues such as reparations that the Germans had to pay to the countries they fought against, but the most significant issue with the Treaty was the land that Germany lost, and the limitations on their military. Germany lost Saarland, Alsace and Lorraine, among other smaller bits of land to Czechoslovakia and Poland, and German attempts to take back this land, which went against the Treaty, caused conflict with the surrounding countries and created a warlike mood in Europe, despite the original intentions of the Treaty, which were to prevent future wars and eliminate Germany as a threat.

This source is useful because it clearly outlines the ways in which the Treaty of Versailles affected the Germans, which in turn affected their actions and ultimately led to conflict, and this is what we studied in more detail in class. The information here adds value to what was learned in class because it also outlines how Germany was forced to take the blame for World War I and it describes how this created animosity between Germany and surrounding countries, which was another reason that the Germans were not inclined to obey the Treaty - they felt it was unfair to them. There is one key limitation here - one is that the author of this article did not emphasize his points in great detail - he gives a basic outline of the information which IS helpful but an example is where he says that Germany attempted to reclaim land lost by the Treaty of Versailles - how did they do this? Greater detail would definitely be beneficial because it would provide more information about the claims already made, and it's more difficult to see exactly what is being discussed when there isn't that extra detail.

SGQ11, January 4, 2010

MWH p.69-84

1. Relations between Japan and China

a. Japanese invasion of Manchuria

i. why? The Japanese viewed Manchuria as a valuable trade outlet, and they had also invested much money in the development of industry and railways there.

ii. who supported them? who was opposed? The British Foreign Secretary, Sir John Simon, supported the Japanese and stated such at the League of Nations. The Chinese were of course opposed but did nothing to stop the Japanese yet.

iii. what was done? The Japanese turned Manchuria into the independent state of Manchukuo under Pu Yi, the last of the Chinese emperors. No action was taken against them.

b. Japanese advance from Manchuria

i. explain - In 1933 the Japanese began to advance into the rest of north-eastern China. By 1935 much of China as far as Beijing had fallen under Japanese control.

c. Further invasions

i. explain - The Japanese began invading other parts of China by July 1937. The Prime Minister, Prince Konoye, was against massive intervention but the decision was up to the War Minister, General Sugiyama, so by 1938 the Japanese captured Shanghai, Nanking, and Hankow and all the way, committed atrocities against Chinese civilians. A new capital was established at Chungking, and then the Japanese captured Canton in southern China, but Chiang refused to surrender.

ii. what did the League of Nations do? They were powerless to act but they condemned Japanese aggression. They couldn't act since Japan was no longer a member and refused to attend a conference to discuss the situation. Other countries were either busy with their own problems or did not want to get involved; Britain and France were dealing with Hitler, the Russians did not want full-scale war with the Japanese.

2. Mussolini's foreign policy

a. 1923-1934 (summarize)

i. He attended the Locarno Conference but was disappointed when the agreements signed did not guarantee the Italian frontier with Austria.

ii. He was friendly toward Greece, Hungary, and especially Albania, the rival neighbor of Yugoslavia. Economic and defense agreements were signed and Albania came to be controlled by Italy, which had a strong position around the Adriatic Sea.

iii. He cultivated good relations with Britain, and supported her demand that Turkey hand over Mosul province to Iraw, and in return the British gave Italy a small part of Somaliland.

iv. Italy became the first state after Britain to recognize the USSR; a non-aggression pact was signed between Italy and the USSR in September 1933.

v. He tried to bolster up Austria against Nazi German threat by supporting the anti-Nazi government of Chancellor Dollfuss, and signed trade agreements with Austria and Hungary. After Dollfuss was murdered, three Italian divisions were sent to the frontier in case the Germans tried to invade Austria, which they did not. This improved relations between Italy and France, who also disliked the Nazis.

b. after 1934 - how had Mussolini's attitude changed? examples:

i. He began to be suspicious of British cynicism and self-interest. The British and French did not mention the Abyssinian crisis, and Mussolini took this to mean they would turn a blind eye to an Italian attack on Abyssinia, regarding it as a bit of old-fasioned colonial expansion, and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement signed in June convinced him further.

ii. The Italian invasion of Abyssinia in October of 1935 was the great turning point in Mussolini's career.

1. what did the League of Nations do?

iii. Condemned Italy as an aggressor and

iv. Applied economic sanctions, which were useless because they did not include banning sales of oil and coal to Italy

v. Only took a weak stand against Italy

vi. The League's prestige suffered a blow when Britain and France made a deal to hand over more of Abyssinia to Italy

vii. Did not ban oil sales

3. Hitler's foreign policy

a. aims

i. destroying the hated Versailles settlement

ii. Building up the army

iii. Recovering lost territory such as the Saar and the Polish Corridor

iv. Bringing all German-speaking peoples inside the Reich; annexing Austria and taking land from Czechoslovakia and Poland, which had large German minorities.

b. successes

i. Withdrew Germany from the World Disarmament Conference and the League of Nations, insisting that Germany was willing to disarm if other states would do the same and that he only wanted peace. He acted boldly while soothing his opponents with the kind of conciliatory speeches they wanted to hear.

ii. Signed a ten-year non-aggression pact with the Polish, who showed some alarm in case the Germans tried to take back the Polish Corridor. Britain took this as further evidence of Hitler's peaceful intentions, ruined France's Little Entente, and guaranteed Polish neutrality whenever Germany decided to move against Austria and Czechoslovakia. It improved relations between France and Germany too.

iii. Hitler convinced the Austrian Nazis to murder the Chancellor, Engelbert Dollfuss, who had been supported by Mussolini.

iv. The Saar was returned to Germany (January 1935) after a plebiscite resulting in a 90% vote in favour. Hitler then announced that all causes of grievance between France and Germany were removed.

v. Hitler announced the reintroduction of conscription in March 1935, using Britain's air force increases and France's extension of conscription as an excuse. Hitler also told his generals and the rest of the world that he would build up his peacetime army to 36 divisions.

vi. Hitler limited the German navy to 35 percent the strength of the British navy, which detached Britain. They signed the Anglo-German Naval Agreement in June 1935. Britain condoned German rearmament without consulting her allies, which the army stood at 51 divisions plus reserves with 21 large naval vessels, many more under construction, and 47 U-boats. A large airforce of over 5000 aircraft had also been built up.

vii. Hitler sent troops into the demilitarized zone of the Rhineland in March 1936, a breach of both Versailles and Locarno. To sooth his opponents Hitler offered a peace treaty to last 25 years.

viii. Hitler consolidated Germany's position by reaching an understanding with Mussolini (Rome-Berlin Axis) and by signing the Anti-Comintern Pact with Japan. Germans and Italians helped Franco to victory in the Spanish Civil War, which gained them military practice.

ix. The Anschluss with Austria (March 1938) was Hitler's greatest success to date. The Austrian Nazis staged huge demonstrations in Vienna, Graz, and Linz, which Chancellor Schuschnigg's government could not control. German troops moved in and Austria became part of the Third Reich.

4. Appeasement

a. what is appeasement? summarize the two phases:

i. From the mid 1920s to 1937, to avoid war at all costs, Britain and France accepted the acts of aggression and breaches of Versailles (examples are Manchuria, Abyssinia, etc)

ii. Neville Chamberlain, the new British Prime Minister, found out what Hitler wanted and showed him that reasonable claims could be met by negotiation and not force.

b. how was it justified?

i. It was thought essential to avoid war, which was likely to be more devastating than ever before. Memories of WWI still horrified many people and no one wanted to go back to war. Britain couldn't afford vast rearmament and many other countries had similar issues.

ii. Many felt that Germany and Italy had genuine grievances; Italy was cheated at Versailles and Germany was treated too harshly.

iii. Chamberlain believed that personal contact between leaders was the only way to settle disputes, since the League of Nations seemed helpless.

iv. Economic cooperation between Britain and Germany would benefit both.

v. Fear of Communist Russia was great especially among British Conservatives, many of whom believed Communism was a greater threat than Hitler.

vi. There was an underlying belief that Britain ought to not take any military action because they were totally unprepared for a full-scale war.

c. what was the role of appeasement leading up to WWII?

i. No action was taken to check the obvious German rearmament.

ii. The Anglo-German Naval Agreement condoning German rearmament was giend without consultation of France and Italy.

iii. There was only half-hearted action against the Italian invasion of Abyssinia.

iv. The French did not mobilize their troops, and they received no backing from the British, who were impressed by Hitler's offer for a 25-year peace.

v. Neither Britain nor France intervened in the Spanish Civil War, although Germany and Italy helped Franco.

vi. Many in Britain saw the Anschluss between Germany and Austria as a natural union of one German group with another. Chamberlain's appeasement led to Hitler's greatest triumph in Munich.

5. Munich to the outbreak of war

a. Czechoslovakia - what were the three steps to the conquest of Czechoslovakia?

i. Propaganda campaign in the Sudetenland - Hitler's excuse was that 3.5 million Sudeten Germans were being discriminated against by the Czech government.

ii. The Munich Conference, 29 September 1938 - Hitler invited Chamberlain and Daladier to a four-power conference which met in Munich, and a plan produced byMussolini was accepted, the Sudetenland was to be handed over to Germany, and Germany along with the other three powers could take the rest of Czechoslovakia.

iii. The destruction of Czechoslovakia, March 1939. Czechoslovakia was crippled by a 70% loss of heavy industry, a third of her population, a third of her territory and all of her fortifications, most of which to Germany.

b. Poland - what were the two steps to the conquest of Poland?

i. Hitler demands the return of Danzig

ii. The Germans invade Poland

IRL 10, December 16, 2009

URL; http://campus.udayton.edu/~hst-102/fern.html (the text is the same color as the page so you need to highlight it to read it).

This is an essay written by a college student about the role of women in Nazi Germany, and it is titled "Individual vs. Society; Women In Nazi Germany". It mentions the way women were viewed in Germany prior to the rise to power of the Nazis. In 1918, women in Germany were given the right to vote, and after WWI, many women joined the labour force in factories and offices to replace the men who had been killed in the war, but it also says that this was short lived, because once the Nazis took over Germany, one of the first things they did (in 1921) was make it so that women could never hold positions of power in the Party, and this set the trend for the following years, and eventually women were stripped of everything except their ability to take care of their husband, children, and household and (hopefully) keep having children. The Nazi Party took from women everything they had worked for in the previous three decades, such as the right to vote. One other key fact that I picked out from that essay was that Hitler set up a National Socialist Women's Movement to ensure that women had help raising their children. While I did not know all of the facts mentioned, such as that women had previously been getting equal rights such as suffrage only to have them revoked by the Nazis, the basis of the essay is consistent with what we have learned in class - the Nazis saw women primarily as mothers, housekeepers, and the people who would raise the country's children. This adds value to what we learned in class because knowing that the women of Germany had been working for their rights prior to the Nazis shows me that the Nazis changed the way society viewed women and put them in a certain position - one that only allowed for housekeeping and the raising of children, which limited women's capabilities in the workforce as well and made women fill one specific role that the Nazis wanted women to fill. The only thing I'd really doubt about this source is that it was written by a college student and not by a professional writer or a historian, but then again the sources used were quoted at the bottom of the page in a bibliography. It's just difficult to determine the accuracy of the information, although for the most part it sounds plausible and consistent with what I have learned in class.

IRL 9, December 7, 2009

URL; http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/hitlerssuccesses.htm

This source is a webpage from the United Kingdom designed for history students who are looking for a brief outline on Hitler's rise to power and why he appealed to the German people. This is pertinent to what we are studying in class because we learned how Hitler rose to power and why he appealed to the people of Germany and what led to his success, but this source gives a basic outline of the political and social climate at the time. According to this source, Germany at the time was recovering from the Treaty of Versailles and its restrictions on the country, which angered many Germans. Hitler used this for political gain, promising the people of Germany that he would restore the country to its former condition and do away with the Treaty of Versailles and this is one way that he won approval of some of the people. One thing we learned in class that is consistent with my findings here is that Hitler did not like the Communist party of Germany, and his rise to power was made able by his sneaky tactics of eliminating this political opposition, and I read here that the German middle class did not like the Communists either and was worried they would end up in power, so Hitler won their support as well. Other contributions to Hitler's success are outlined as well, such as his ability to convince the Germans that the Jews were responsible for their troubles, and that Hitler's book Mein Kampf was a great success as it showed the people of Germany what his intentions were, which many were supportive of. This adds value to what we studied in class because it is consistent with what was learned in class and it also provides an easy-to-read, summarized outline of Hitler's rise to power and how he appealed to the people. It is well organized and outlines the information, and in addition I read information here that I did not already know much about, such as Hitler's initial attempts at the Munich Putsch to weasel his way into power, and that since this tactic was a failure and landed him in prison, it was then that he had to think of another way to get into power, which is what he did. He became Chancellor not too long after this incident either so I learned that his rise to power was relatively quick. This source is just a good summary of what I already know and contains information that I did not know, or was less clear on, so it was useful to me in my understanding of Hitler's rise to power. The main limitation is that many situations or methods used by Hitler are mentioned here, such as his blaming the Jews for Germany's problems, and his desire to end the effects of the Treaty of Versailles, but it was not described exactly how he did this or HOW it contributed to his rise of power, it is just stated that he did these things. This source would be more helpful if it was more detailed and gave a little bit of description. If it says Hitler did such-and-such to gain the support of the people, it'd be more useful if it was explained what he did, or an example was given of when he did this or that.

SGQ10, December 3, 2009

MWH 309-318

1. What did National Socialism stand for? It did not refer to a redistribution of wealth or nationalization, but it was meant to attract the support of German workers.

A. What were the movements four general principles?

i. It was a way of life dedicated to the rebirth of the nation. All classes in society must be united into a 'national community' to make Germany a great nation and to have national pride restored. To do this, all other political parties, especially the communists, must be eliminated.

ii. Great emphasis was placed on the ruthlessly efficient organization of the lives of the masses under the central government in order to achieve greatness, even with violence and terror if necessary. The interests of the state came first, and Germany was to be a totalitarian state.

iii. The entire state must be organized on a military footing.

iv. The race theory. The ideal person was believed to be Aryan, or German; blond, blue eyed, handsome, and these people were considered the master race who were destined to rule the world. All other people including Slavs, colored people, and Jews were inferior and unfit to belong, and would be excluded from the 'national community' along with gypsies and homosexuals, who were also believed to be inferior. The Slavs were destined to become the slave race of the Germans.

B. What evidence suggests Nazism was a "natural development of German history"?

i. It was a natural extension of earlier Prussian militarism and German traditions.

ii. Marxist historians believed that National Socialism and fascism in general were the final stage of western capitalism, which they felt was bound to collapse due to fatal flaws.

C . What evidence suggests Nazism was a "distortion of normal development" of German history?

German historians stressed the personal contribution of Hitler, stating that Hitler was striving to break away from the past and introduce something completely new. They believed National Socialism was a grotesque departure from the normal and logical historical development. This point of view absolves the German people from most of the blame.

D . What evidence suggests Nazism was a bit of both?

Most of the elements of political culture that fed into Nazism were peculiarly German. Hitler exploited these conditions which is what contributed to his rise to power and what happened after. The conditions that made Hitler's rise possible were plainly recognizable in the 20 years or so before WWI.

2. How did Hitler consolidate his power?

A. Actions leading up to the March election of 1933

i. Nazis were able to use all the apparatus of state in order to influence the elections.

ii. Senior police officers were replaced with reliable Nazis and 50,000 auxiliary policemen were called up.

iii. These police officers showed no mercy to communists and other 'enemies of the state' and meetings of all parties except Nazis were wrecked and speakers were beaten up.

B. The Reichstag fire

i. What happened?

The Reichstag building was badly damaged by a fire started by the young Dutch anarchist called van der Lubbe, who was arrested, tried, and executed. It was believed that the SA knew of this plan, and allowed van der Lubbe to go ahead and burn down the Reichstag so it could be blamed on the communists, who would then be punished.

ii. what did it mean?
Hitler used the fire to stir up fear of communism and as a pretext for the banning of the party. This meant that the communists could not participate in the election and as a result, the Nazis won more support in the election, although not an overall majority.

3. How was Hitler able to stay in power?

A. What was the Enabling Law? The Enabling Law stated that the government could introduce laws without the approval of the Reichstag for the next four years, could ignore the constitution and could sign agreements with foreign countries. All laws would be drafted by the Chancellor and come into operation the day they were published. This meant that Hitler would be the complete dictator for the next four years, or however long he wanted since he was now in complete control.

B. How did the Enabling Law pass?

The Kroll Opera House (where the Reichstag had been meeting since the fire) was surrounded by Hitler's private armies, and MPs had to push their way through the solid ranks of SS troops to get into the building. The 81 communist MPs were not allowed to pass. Inside the building the SA troops lined the walls and the SS could be heard chanting outside "We want the bill, or fire and murder." It took courage to vote against the bill in such surroundings and it passed 441 votes to 94 (all Social Democrats).

C. What was gleichschaltung?

Forcible co-ordination. This is what turned Germany into a fascist/totalitarian state. The government tried to control as many aspects of life as possible, using a huge police force and the Gestapo to do this. It became dangerous to criticise the government in any way.

D. What were the characteristics of gleichschaltung?

i. All political parties except the National Socialists were banned, causing Germany to be a single-party state.

ii. The separate state parliaments still existed but lost all power. Most of their functions were taken over by a Nazi Special Commissioner. There were no more state, provincial, or municipal elections.

iii. The civil service was purged; all Jews and other suspected 'enemies of the state' were removed so that it became fully reliable.

iv. Trade unions were abolished, their funds confiscated and their leaders arrested. They were replaced with the German Labour Front, to which all workers had to belong. Strikes were not allowed, and the government dealt with all grievances.

v. The education system was closely controlled so that children could be indoctrinated with Nazi opinions. For instance, textbooks were rewritten to fit in with Nazi theory, the best examples in history and biology. Human biology was dominated by the Nazi race theory as well. Teachers, lectures, professors had to make sure they did not express opinions which strayed from the party line and many lived in fear in case they were reported to the Gestapo by children of convinced Nazis. This was supplemented by the Hitler Youth to which all boys had to join at 14, and to the League of German Maidens for girls.

vi. There was a special policy concerned with the family. Since the Nazis worried about a decline in the birth rate, healthy families that were racially pure were encouraged to have more children. Family planning centres were closed down and contraceptives were banned.

vii. All communications in the media were controlled by the Minister of Propaganda, Dr. Joseph Goebbels. Radio, newspapers, books, magazines, theatre, film, and art were all supervised. By the end of 1934, 4000 books were on the forbidden list because they were un-German. Opinions could not be given that strayed from Nazi ideology.

viii. How was the economic life of the country organized?

a. Industrialists were told what to produce depending on what the country needed at the moment, closing factories down if their products weren't needed was not required.

b. Workers were moved around the country to places where jobs existed and labour was needed.

c. Farmers were encouraged to increase agricultural yields.

d. Food prices and rents were controlled.

e. Foreign exchange rates were manipulated to avoid inflation.

f. Vast schemes of public works; slum clearance, land drainage, and motorway building, were introduced.

g. Foreign countries were forced to buy German goods, either by refusing to pay cash for goods brought from those countries, so they had to accept German goods instead, or refusing permission to foreigners with bank accounts in Germany to withdraw their cash, so that they'd have to spend it in Germany on German goods.

h. Manufacturing synthetic rubber and wool and experimenting to produce petrol from coal in order to reduce dependence on foreign countries.

i. Increasing expenditure on armaments; in 1938-9, the military budget accounted for 52% of government spending.

ix. How was religion handled?

a. Catholics

Hitler at first signed an agreement with the Pope in which he agreed to not interfere with German Catholics in any way, in return they agreed to dissolve the Catholic Centre Party and take no further part in politics. The government, however, broke the Concordat by dissolving the Catholic Youth League because it rivaled the Hitler Youth. When Catholics protested their schools were closed down, and by 1937 Catholics were completely disillusioned with the Nazis. The Pope issued an Encyclical in which he condemned the Nazi movement, and Hitler was unimpressed and thousands of priests and nuns were sent to concentration camps as a result.

b. Protestants
A majority of Germans were Protestant, so Hitler tried to organize them into a 'Reich Church' with a Nazi as the first Reich bishop. Many pastors objected and a group of them protested to Hitler about government interference and about his treatment of the Jews. The Nazis were ruthless and 800 other pastors were sent to concentration camps. Hundreds more were arrested and the rest were forced to swear an oath of obedience to the Fuhrer.

x.

xi. Anti-Semitism

a. how was it legalized?

The Nuremberg Laws gave legal status to the campaign against the Jews, in which Jews were denied German citizenship, lost their jobs as journalists, doctors, lawyers, and teachers, forbade to marry non-Jews, and a rule was made that someone who was 1/4 or more Jewish was classified as a Jew.

b. examples of the law being carried out

1. Kristallnacht ('Night of the Broken Glass') which was a vicious attack on Jewish synagogues and other property throughout the whole country.

2. When WWII began the Jews were harassed in every way; their property attacked and burnt, their shops looted, synagogues destroyed and eventually, they were sent to concentration camps.

3. Hitler called it his 'Final Solution' - he intended to wipe out the whole Jewish race. He was able to lay his hands on non-German Jews during the war when Germany occupied such countries as Czechoslovakia, Poland, and western Russia.

E. How popular were Hitler's policies?

i. personal appeal - Military parades, torchlight processions, and fireworks displays were held in Nuremberg every year, and this appealed to the masses.

ii. unemployment - Hitler eliminated unemployment. When he came to power the unemployment figure was over 6 million, but by 1939 it disappeared completely. This is because the public works schemes provided many jobs. The party was expanding rapidly and this provided thousands of extra office and administrative posts. In addition, there were purges of Jews and anti-Nazis from the civil service and from other jobs connected with law, education, journalism, broadcasting, theatre, and music, leaving tons of vacancies. This was one of his biggest successes that made him popular.

iii. working people - The Strength through Joy Organization provided benefits such as subsidized holidays in Germany and abroad, cruises, ski-ing holidays, cheap theatre and concert tickets and convalescent homes. Other benefits were holidays with pay and control of rents. This made Hitler popular with workers.

iv. upper class - Wealthy industrialists and businessmen were delighted with the Nazis. They felt safe from a communist revolution and they were glad to be rid of trade unions, which had constantly pestered them with demands for shorter working hours and increased wages. They were also able to buy back at low prices the shares that they had sold to the state during the crisis of 1929-32. There was a promise of great profits from the public works schemes, rearmament, and other orders which the government placed with them.

v. farmers - They gradually warmed toward the Nazis despite initial hesitation once it became clear that the farmers were in a specially favored position in the state because of the declared Nazi aim of self-sufficiency in food production. Prices on agricultural produce were fixed so that they assured of a reasonable profit.

vi. the Army - they were much impressed with Hitler's handling of the troublesome SA in the Rohm Purge of 30 June 1934.

a. officers - well-disposed toward Hitler because of his aim of setting aside the restrictions of the Versailles Treaty by rearmament and the expansion of the army to its full strength.

b. lower ranks - there was a steady infiltration of the National Socialists into the lower ranks and this was beginning to work through to the lower officer classes.

c. Night of Long Knives - This was a way to purge society of the SA, because their leader Ernst Rohm was becoming an embarrassment to the chancellor. Rohm wanted his brownshirts to be merged with the Reichswehr and he made himself a general. In addition Rohm was homosexual and Hitler disapproved of this as well, and he considered the SA to be a bunch of gangsters, and Rohm was persistent with his demands which caused Hitler to have to choose between the Sa and the Reichswehr. Hitler used one of his private armies to deal with the other and he had the SA murdered as well as Rohm, in addition to people who were not even connected in any way.

vii. foreign policy - With each successive triumph, more and more Germans began to think of Hitler as infallible.

IRL 8, November 23, 2009

URL; http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-russia-stalin2-2009nov02,0,2551543.story

This is an article from Los Angeles Times, written by Megan K. Stack on November 2, 2009. Titled "Russia reconsiders; Was Stalin Really So Bad?" this article outlines how in Russia today, people view their Soviet past and Stalin with nostalgia and that the late Soviet dictator is "enjoying a renaissance of sorts in Russia." An example of this in the article is the picture that goes with it, which is of a man who resembles Stalin dressed exactly like him, on an escalator on his way to Red Square, so that people can have their picture taken with him. Throughout the course of the article, several people were quoted, including one Russian man who stated the following;

"The same doctors, teachers, builders and steelworkers continue to live and work in the same country, and everything in our midst was built by the hands of people in the Soviet Union. The state changes, but the country remains the same."

Another man quoted in the article states that maybe the deaths of millions of people under Stalin could have been justified by some higher state goal. The article states that many now view Stalin in a way of "hazy nostalgia" and that after having portrayed him as negative ever since the USSR collapsed in the 1990s, now people are starting to reconsider whether or not he was really as bad as they had thought. This relates to what we're studying in class because we had recently learned that Stalin had a very charismatic personality and that people held him in high regard despite all that he did that wasn't good, and that he attained a godlike status and was celebrated, with images of him everywhere. It adds value because it demonstrates that even today, after many years have passed, this trend, to view Stalin as good and worthy of celebration, is returning. This is the reason why you'd have Russians reconsidering Stalin and how to view him, and why you'd have impersonators dress up as him so that people could have their picture taken with him. People are looking at Stalin with nostalgia and fonder memories, showing that the attraction to him has not completely gone away and is in fact returning. The limitation to this article that makes me highly skeptical is the fact that it quotes a select few people and shows a picture of a Stalin impersonator, leading one to believe that the majority of Russians are starting to think highly of Stalin. However, no poll was taken, and there is no way of determining whether or not the people quoted in the article were chosen to prove a point or even if their opinion is the minority one. There's not enough information to be 100% clear, but still enough sufficient evidence to determine that to SOME extent, people still see Stalin as a benefactor of the past.