Post WWII Germany

After the War ended, Germany was divided into four sections, one for each victorious Allied nation. Eventually, the British, French, and American sectors combined to create the independent state of West Germany, or the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG). The Soviets "turned" their sector over to East German communist who created, with the support of the USSR, the "independent" state of the German Democratic Republic (GDR). The Germans were on the front line of the Cold War and therefore, many tense moments occurred, challenging the post war peace between the Soviets and the Western Europeans/Americans.

Look at the 1955 map of Europe and explain why Germany became the major battlefield of the Cold War.

Finally, think about these questions; you may have to do some research to answer the questions.

1. How did the United States confront the threat of communism in Western Europe?
2. Why was the Berlin Airlift so important to establishing the relationship between the USSR and USA?
3. What does the term "Cold War" refer to?
4. Explain why containment was the policy of the US relative to the USSR?
5. How did the proliferation of nuclear weapons affect the relationship between the West and East?

You need to comment on all these questions.

Churchill and Stalin

In the last months of the war and even beyond, it was apparent that Josef Stalin saw the liberation of Europe as a way to spread communism throughout Eastern Europe. His counterpart at Yalta, Winston Churchill, realized that getting Stalin to move his troops back to the USSR and allow free elections in the liberated nations of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, etc. was an impossibility thus, creating a so-called "Iron Curtain".

In the "Iron Curtain" speech given on March 5, 1946, Churchill warns of the "war" that will be waged between the "evil" forces of Soviet communism and the liberating forces of democracy. Stalin's response to Churchill came later that year. Read both speeches and comment on their message and tone? What does Stalin accuse Churchill of doing? In your opinion, who get the better of the exchange?

The Russian Revolution--Leninism

In his paper, What is to Be Done (1902), Vladimir Lenin, the future founder and leader of the Soviet Union, outlines his argument for what will eventually be called Leninism. Rather than strictly adhere to the ideas of Karl Marx for creating a communist state, Lenin determined that Russia was not the prototypical industrial society ready for a Marxist revolution. Therefore, he determined that a “hybrid” form of Marxism was necessary for Russia. What is to Be Done argues for these alterations specific to Russia.

As you read the paper, explain how Lenin’s theory veers away from orthodox Marxism? What does Lenin think of the lower classes? Where will the power of the revolution reside? Why?

The Irrational

Explain who the Underground Man is? Why is the Underground Man so dangerous to the "rational world" of modern Europe?

The Sadler Commission

Excerpt from The Victorian Web:

In 1832 Michael Sadler secured a parliamentary investigation of conditions in the textile factories and he sat as chairman on the committee. The evidence printed here is taken from the large body published in the committee's report and is representative rather than exceptional. It will be observed that the questions are frequently leading; this reflects Sadler's knowledge of the sort of information that the committee were to hear and his purpose of bringing it out. This report stands out as one of three great reports on the life of the industrial class — the two others being that of the Ashley Commission on the mines and 's report on sanitary problems. The immediate effect of the investigation and the report was the passage of the Act of 1833 limiting hours of employment for women and children in textile work.

The Sadler Commission evoked some change in the attention paid to child labor in 19th century Britain and although the testimony was damning in some respects, the British government was not quite ready to address all the problems caused by classical liberalism. Read the rest of the excerpt taken from The Victorian Web and comment on the testimony of the children called into the hearings.

Here's the link

Jacques-Louis David and the Revolution

The art historian Simon Schama did a series a few years ago called, The Power of Art where he looked at the impact of a number of influential artists in Western History. One of the men he discusses is Jacques-Louis David, the man who painted many famous works, among them "The Death of Socrates", "The Oath of Horatii", "The Oath of the Tennis Court", "Napoleon Crossing the Alps", and "The Death of Marat". Schama's discusses all these works but it is "The Death of Marat" that he is most focused on. David's painting showing the radical, Jean Paul Marat, dead in his bathtub is controversial because Marat is depicted as a victim, not the bloodthirsty friend to Robespierre and the man most responsible for the thousands of arbitrary deaths during the Terror.

So, the question is why would David paint Marat as a victim? I have included the video for you to watch. Please comment on David and how he represents the dilemma historians face understanding the true meaning of the French Revolution.

Part I is below; the other parts are linked here

Conservative Reaction to the Revolution

Edmund Burke welcomed revolutions but despised the one in France. To him, it was a murderous, bloodbath that displayed the ugliness of man. In his writing, "Reflections on The Revolution in France, 1791", Burke is scathing in his attack of the leaders of the Revolution by calling them highwaymen and murderers and provides us with a contrary view of the Revolution's importance; all before the real terror consumed France from 1792-1794.

In the Burke excerpt from Perry (154-155) comment on what he accuses the French citizens of acting as. What are his criticisms?

In "Reactionary Prophet", Christopher Hitchens, in his piece on Burke writes, "Edmund Burke understood before anyone else that revolutions devour their young—and turn into their opposites."

What does Hitchens mean by this? Comment please

Finally,

Burke writes," By following those false lights, France has bought undisguised calamities at a higher price than any nation has purchased the most unequivocal blessings! France has bought poverty by crime! France has not sacrificed her virtue to her interest, but she has abandoned her interest, that she might prostitute her virtue. All other nations have begun the fabric of a new government, or the reformation of an old, by establishing originally, or by enforcing with greater exactness some rites or other of religion. All other people have laid the foundations of civil freedom in severer manners, and a system of a more austere and masculine morality. France, when she let loose the reins of regal authority, doubled the license of a ferocious dissoluteness in manners, and of an insolent irreligion in opinions and practices; and has extended through all ranks of life, as if she were communicating some privilege, or laying open some secluded benefit, all the unhappy corruptions that usually were the disease of weal"

What does Burke mean by this? Why did Burke find the Revolution so appalling and destructive? Please comment.