A Short-Lived Era

Although the Italian neorealist era is remembered as a unique phase in Italian cinema that was responsible for such masterpieces as The Bicycle Thief and Rome, Open City, the era itself did not last long. Films loyal to the neorealist techniques and themes were produced roughly only in the decade following the war. For having such a profound influence on worldwide cinematic artistic expression, the movement's short life does not make sense. But then when you look at the movement's central purpose, to illustrate the realities of Italy's postwar period, it only seems appropriate that the film movement would last as long as Italian society begged cinema to express the cultural sentiments (180). 15 years following the war, the economic and political faces of Italy had considerably improved. A new government headed by De Gasperi set up many economic reforms to regulate and reduce inflation that had been inflicting the country since the war. The results of the reform indicated Italy's positive progression to stability. Instability was such a crucial component in characterizing the Italian neorealist films that without the inspiration of political and economic instability, the film movement could no longer flourish. 

Changes with Time

All three films, The Bicycle Thief, The Third Man, and Das Boot clearly take stances opposing war and the horrible atrocities resulting from war that affect all walks of life. But it is interesting to note the different approaches these three movies take to express this point of view. The approaches are influenced greatly by both the time period in which the film was made and the country in which the film was produced. The Italian-made Bicycle Thief was released in 1948, only a few years after the war. At that time, instability still plagued Italy. Memories and guilt burdened people as consistent reminders of the past, chaotic politics and debt prevented the country from moving into a new stage post-war. Making The Bicycle Thief amidst Italy's trying times validates the sentiments expressed in the film. The tone set in the film mirrors the mood that paraded throughout Italy at the time. On the other hand, Das Boot, released in 1981, takes a German perspective. Alex explains the German expression that is present throughout the movie, a combination of abhorrence towards the acts of war and a dose of German nationalism. Italy and Germany both lost a great deal in the war, both countries had to deal with consequences and carrying the guilt for the war's occurrence. However, it is clear that the overwhelming notion of helplessness and disorder that pervades throughout The Bicycle Thief has faded with time. Das Boot, made some thirty years later, can take a more introspective look at the war. Time has passed, immediate responses to the war have subsided, grander theories and expressions of the war have been able to form. Both films look to show the disasters of war, but it's interesting to see how time can influence a perspective. 

Balance between Hope and Cynicism

This is a response to Nick's post about how The Bicycle Thieves compared to Das Boot and The Third Man appears to be more optimistic in tone. I don't believe that material or storyline of The Bicycle Thieves is anything grounded in much optimism, and while my previous post addressed the  hopeful tone of the specific scene, I feel that the contrast of hope and despair de Sica reiterates throughout the film creates a strong cynical mood. The film begins on an optimistic note: Antonio has landed a new job. In the trying times following the war, unemployment rates in Italy were high. A job is a strong source of stability and comfort, something many Italians strived to find in the war's aftermath, and Antonio has found it. A bicycle is a requirement for the job, so Antonio and his wife take various items from their house to sell at a pawn shop to work up enough money to buy a bike. Getting the bicycle seems to be the pinnacle moment in which Antonio is able to experience his new freedom provided by his job; the bicycle is his, he can travel where he wants to with it, and it is marked as a symbol of further possibilities and opportunities that await Antonio and his family. However, the surging hope the emanates throughout the first scenes of the movie collides with the following scene in which Antonio witnesses his bike being stolen. The symbolism of future prospects the bike stood for was now being taken away by a faceless man. Poverty is the driving force that drives the thief to steal the bike, yet Antonio's own impoverished state is heightened in this very moment. de Sica emphasizes the magnitude of poverty in Italy by expressing its prevalence in all parts of the Italian city, on the streets, in the home, at a restaurant. The scene at the restaurant is uplifting in many ways; the idea of a family meal is something familiar to most audiences that conjures up memories of comfort and happiness. There is lively music in the background and happy anticipation as the son waits for his meal to arrive. Yet, coupled with this is the overhanging reality that this warm atmosphere is not something Antonio can regularly offer his son; the daily expectations of a comforting meal will be forever regulated by Antonio's work pay and the family's finances. Although Antonio can bring his son to a fancy restaurant and imagine themselves wealthy, there will always be a decisive barrier between what Antonio desires to be and what he will always be defined as based on his financial limitations. The ending of the film, in which Antonio is caught attempting to steal a bike and faces repercussions for his actions, again highlights the rise and fall of hope as it collides with reality.  

Not exactly anti-fascist

Italian neorealism is often classified to be in direct opposition to fascism. As I have shown, this characterization proves true to a certain extent. Italian neorealism obviously responded to the the fascist regime's censorship on filmmaking as well as the "stylisation, heroic rhetoric, and literary tedium" of the fascist era. Many neorealist filmmakers were openly anti-fascist. But it is important to note the influence fascism had on the Italian film industry that undoubtedly influenced the development and magnitude of Italian neorealism. Fascism's focus on the domestic film industry strengthened and expanded it, allowing for Italian neorealism to be more accessible to both filmmakers and audiences. Many neorealist filmmakers even worked within the film industry structures established under the fascist regime (180). Additionally, Italian neorealism did not solely respond to the conservative measures of the fascist regime, but also to the political, economic, and cultural unstableness after the war. Although the Italian neorealist films often confronted the hypocrisies of fascism, the postwar Italian government and the Catholic Church also took offense to some of the material in the films. The Bicycle Thief was temporarily taken out of circulation at the request of both institutions. Both the Church and the government did not appreciate the helpless role they were conceived to play in the film and did not support the portrayal of Italians in hopeless poverty and without "human dignity."  Italian neorealism confronted the conservatism and the propaganda tools of the fascist regime, but the influence of fascism on the development of Italian neorealism cannot be denied.

The Bicycle Thief: analysis of a scene

Vittorio de Sica's The Bicycle Thieves is remembered as  one of the quintessential Italian neorealist films. The clip below illustrates several neorealist characteristics that defined films such as this one separate from their predecessors. Right away one notices the location. No sound stages, no Hollywood backdrops, just a simple, generic restaurant that gives off both an authentic Italian vibe as well as a sense of comfort and familiarity. Sica does not shy away from portraying the focal characters in this scene with stark contrasts. Without directly stating the discrepancies, the audience understands the differences between the father, Antonio Ricci, played by Lamberto Maggiorani, and his son, Bruno Ricci, played by Enzo Staiola, and the large family in the restaurant. Lavishly dressed, the other family is understood to be well-off, and Antonio and Bruno's yearning glances over to the family's table, covered with plates of food, suggests the Ricci's desire to live like this family, although they are constrained by their limited means. It's a contrast of wealth versus poverty, dreams versus reality, contrasts that materialized so fully in Italy following the war. However, de Sica balances the presentation of the Ricci's financial constraints with the optimistic mood created by the jolly music and by Antonio's uplifting spirits. The audience questions whether Antonio's mood is sustained to distract himself from his situation or whether Antonio simply believes in making the best of his situation. De Sica leaves the interpretation of Antonio's emotions open, but clearly hints at a mood of optimism and hope. This was a sentiment the Italian public desired to find following the war, that despite their undesirable realities, a feeling of hope would still permeate through the Italian streets. 

Time for some new films

Mussolini's intervention in Italy's film production did ignite a strong source of capital for the fascist regime, but following the war, the Italian public appeared inclined to move away from fascist-tainted cinema. Films made during the fascist era had a Hollywood appeal, using traditional techniques and popular storylines involving heroic and fanciful events to arouse nationalistic sentiments and pride for the Italian country and its fascist regime. But the image that Mussolini's government tried to convey through Italian films was uprooted by the time the regime fell in 1943; the image of a strong, fascist Italy could no longer ring true. After the war, Italy was severely destabilized politically, economically, and culturally. Italian pride was hit hard. Provisions in the postwar treaty forced Italy to sacrifice all its colonies, to pay reparations, and to live with the burden of being "on the wrong side." Constructing a new government in Italy would not be easy, and the political divides within the country, between the outcasted Socialists and Communists, and the elected liberalist coalition, prevented almost any measure from being passed without an outspoken protest. The period following the war was one heavily concentrated on the Italian public. There was no strong government head to organize and stabilize the state, the survival of Italy was in many ways dependent on its people than it had been in in the past. It could be argued that Italian neorealism, mirroring the life and sentiments in the post-war period, valued the cultural traditions of Italy's poor and middle classes through its unembellished filming techniques and reality-based material that had previously been ignored by "'high' Italian culture."Italians were faced with an identity that was no longer truthful and one that was more of a harrowing burden than something to celebrate. Italians needed a new identity, a new source of hope and nationalism, something that represented what Italy realistically was and something that wasn't hidden behind the embellishments of filmmaking under the fascist era. Italian neorealism grew out of the need for a new Italian cultural identity to compliment the new circumstances the country had been thrown into. In describing this attitude, Costica Bradatan writes that "despite everything that had happened, there was still humanity, there was room for new hope, it was still possible to start everything anew" (181). Where Italian films produced under the fascist regime were inspired by a capitalist desire, Italian neorealism flourished as a response to a cultural need.

Fascist Cinema

In order to understand Italian neorealism and Vittorii De Sica's Bicycle Thieves, it's important to look at Italian neorealism's cinematic predecessor in order to appreciate the motivations that inspired the film genre. The Italian cinema under the Italy's fascist regime was something orchestrated to work alongside and benefit fascism's strength in Italy. Sam Rohdie argues in his "A Note on the Italian Cinema During Fascism" that the fascist state, much as any capitalist state, depends upon capitalistic enterprises, and therefore the state's interests tend to primarily benefit the development of capital. The film industry was one area of Italian society that offered vast opportunities for capital investment. It can be seen then how Mussolini used Italian cinema both as a political and economic instrument for the maturation of Italian fascism. The fascist state became heavily influential in all stages of film production, from the screenplay to the cinematography, from the acceptable actors and directors to post-production editing. Film for the fascist regime was a means of projecting its "conservative social values," as Mark Shiel suggests in his Italian neorealism: rebuilding the cinematic city, a form of propoganda reaching the Italian public through a culturally accessible way. Shiel lists some of the ways the Italian film industry was patrolled by Mussolini's regime. The film industry was systematized; several structures were established, each aiming at different elements of the industry in order to shape it according to its fascist role. For example, the Direzione Generale per la Cinematografia was established to limit the presence of foreign cinema in Italy by instituting a high taxation on its importation and dubbing over with Italian the foreign films that did make it into Italy. The institution banned some films and funded others, encouraging the production of films friendly to the fascist cause and disallowing those preaching liberalist values or including material that could appear a threat to the fascist doctrine. Although the  censorship on Italian filmmaking could be seen as a hindrance to artistic expression, the fascist approach did result in increased domestic film production--from 10 to 20 films produced per year in the early 1930s to almost 100 films per year in the early 1940s--which in turn spurred public spending on entertainment, fueling the fascist regime and proving Mussolini's involvement in film production a success.

Response to Zak: "To ban communism from itself?"

In his post, Zak discusses the question posed in the "Transcript Russian Federation Duma Session with USSR President Gorbachev" that asks whether the Communist Party should be disbanded as a criminal organization. I agree with Zak that such a question, asked to the leader of the communist party in the communist USSR, seems like a dangerous question to ask the head of the communist superpower, but the question and Gorbachev's response highlights the complete 180 Russia had taken since Lenin's reign. During Lenin's time, the communist system was confidently celebrated and was believed to be the supreme and enduring system in Russia. The strength of the Communist Party did not go unnoticed in the West, and Russia's surge to become a major economic and military power under the communist regime caused powers in the West, including the US and Britain, to grow weary of communism and the threat it posed to western democracy. The West was afraid of Russia and unknowledgeable of how great and how expansive the USSR could become. But in really a matter of six months, the entire communist system in Russia unraveled, leaving Russia quietly, a converse to its loud entrance. The pride in the communist system had been lost in years prior to 1991, but belief in the system was one of many causes that determined the USSR's fate. What I believe to have been one of the biggest flaws in the USSR that ultimately triggered its downfall was the empire's size. We have seen a trend throughout European history that as empires expand their borders, cultural tensions and disunities intensify and the reigning government has a hard time maintaining control over the empire's entirety. The USSR encapsulated many eastern european countries, that although small in size, were diverse in cultures. The communist system itself prevented an assimilation of all these cultures, which, if it was achieved, could have created a stronger foundation on which the USSR could survive. But communism relies on a populace that responds solely to the Communist Party and derives its freedoms from it. But such a unification is complicated with cultural boundaries. The specifies of communism cannot be uniform; everyone's interpretation of an ideology is slightly altered from another's according to their personal beliefs or biases. Dubcek, for example, believed in a more liberal system of communism, where additional rights were given to citizens and the economy was decentralized. Dubcek helped induce "Prague Spring," which signified that a major population under the power of the USSR was unhappy with the communist system. The inflexibility of the communist ideology would have to come into conflict with the diversity of cultures the USSR strapped together under the empire.

Reading, Pages 1029-1037

The Beatles' "Revolution 1," recorded in 1968, directly presents  the reoccurring theme of 1968, people's desire for change from above and their loud approaches for letting their voices be heard. 1968 revolution materialized in many forms; it attacked educational policies, political freedoms, and discontents with government actions. Revolution was worldwide, and each event was undoubtedly influenced by the others preceding it. It penetrated all levels of society and influenced popular culture, as it can be seen to have inspired the Beatles' song. "Revolution" was written by John Lennon who was inspired by the 1968 revolution in Paris. de Gaulle's regime suffered sharp blows to its stability following the Algerian war and the economic boom. Students at the University of Paris called for reforms and improved fundings, but petitions and demonstrations got the students nothing but the closing of the university. Without the university, students were left to protest in the streets. And while the students' calls for refinement of the educational system do not seem to be outrageous or dangerous pleas, the students were met with violence from the police trying to silence the protesters. Soon not only students were protesting against the oppressive jurisdiction of de Gaulle's regime, but millions of French workers as well began to protest against their own restrictions. Students and workers faced both similar and different oppressions, but the unification they all found in revolution speaks to the ultimate instability of de Gaulle's government. One population's dissatisfaction only influenced other groups to speak up against their own discontentments, in a sort of domino effect. The fact that revolution seemed to be an explicable answer for both students and workers shows that the problems of de Gaulle's government were not isolated or specific to one group, but rather far-reaching. John Lennon's words speak to the common desires of 1968's young revolutionaries: "change the world";"you got a real solution"; "change the constitution." But Lennon advises the revolutionaries to not take violent measures, instead advocating patience, saying that everything will work itself out in the end and "be all right." But considering the repetitious protesting in 1968, was patience going to get revolutionaries anywhere? In all 1968's revolutions, the results somehow weakened the authority. Perhaps chaos and disorder would be the only way to break down the barriers of government and leave leaders without a choice but to reconstruct the policies.

Group Research: Italian Neorealism

Artistic expression in Italy was able to find new freedoms following the fall of Mussolini and of fascism in Italy. Liberated from the censorship of fascist Italy, artists were able to experiment with social, political, and economic topics that would have been previously dangerous to address. According to Art + Culture, popular films in Italy during the 1920s were inherently American, detailing uncomplicated plotlines that emphasized the perfections not of Italy, but of America. A true depiction of Italian livelihood was a rarity in Italian cinema throughout the 1920s and 1930s, but the unrestricted expression that grew from the fall of fascism offered an opportunity for Italian filmmakers to explore the raw Italian life, unadorned with Hollywood techniques and embellishments. Films responding to this notion of realism produced within the time frame from 1943-1952 were collectivized as Italian neorealism. Films a part of Italian neorealism shared common characteristics all relating to creating a realistic projection of Italian life. Many times the film used a predominantly nonprofessional cast, focused on collectivity rather than individuality, were filmed on the streets or in authentic locations rather than sets and sound stages, using natural lighting and simple camera angles. Italian neorealist films did not necessarily look to outrightly critique Italian society, but rather express Italy's social problems "in an entirely new way." As Luigi Chiarini is quoted in Jacqueline Reich and Piero Garofalo's Re-viewing fascism, "the soul of neorealism was...the social reality, the human condition of the Italian people, during the German occupation, the Allied one, in the chaos immediately following the war...In the neorealist films...it is the facts that speak...in their social historical meaning" (86). Italian neorealism provided Italians with a newfound sense of nationalism and identity that had been oppressed under the fascist umbrella. Although Italian neorealism did not project positive or fantasized imagery of Italian society, it provided a more tangible connection for Italians, something that had been missing in Italian cinema during Italy's fascist years.

Group Research: Different portrayals of WWII over time

As time passes and World War II is pushed farther and farther back into history, the portrayal of the war in films has transformed in character. Films made during the war itself were often limited in the scale of perspective, resulting in biased propaganda pieces. An excerpt from Film Reference defining war films made during the wars the films portrayed states that such films are made partly "to lift morale, to help civilians understand what their fighting men are going through, to provide information, and to involve the audience in positive support for the war that might perhaps influence an outcome still in doubt." Films made during the war obviously captured sentiments of the war as they immediately occured; too little time had passed and too few events had occurred to look back on and fully analyze. Therefore, well-constructed perspective and thematic focus would come in later generations of WWII movies. The 1939 British Film, The Lion Has Wings, directed by Adrian Brunel, Brian Desmond Hurst, Michael Powell, and Alexander Korda, was a piece of propaganda illustrating the strength of the heroic English Empire against the evil-driven Nazi faction. The film contrasts peacetime with wartime, emphasizing the darkness and destruction the Nazi regime had thrown Europe into. A nationalist spirit pervades throughout the work, providing reassurance and confidence for the British people that Great Britain would be victorious in the war that was unfolding around them.

Group Research: What makes WWII a compelling subject for film

Portraying World War II in film has yet to become an out-of-date trend. Films about the war began to be made even during the war itself and more than sixty years later, it's fair to say that at least one major WWII movie makes it to theaters each year. What makes WWII such an attractive topic to depict onscreen? For one thing, the mere scale of the war made its legacy an international one, something that is remembered by communities around the world. The international involvement in WWII allowed for a multitude of different perspectives, all influenced by different political biases, cultural ties, and social distinctions. There is a limitless number of stories to tell, ones about individual players, others about entire communities; some from a military perspective, others from a political one, and some others from the home front. WWII was a unification of international cultures, and the basic humanity that is often illustrated in WWII films responds to this sense of universal understanding, even when the perspective told is one vastly different from the viewer's. While the universal human connection often prevails in WWII films, many other films concentrate on the opposing side of the spectrum of WWII. The Holocaust and Hitler's reign are dark topics that not only provide dramatic material for the screen, but also offer intriguing theses about the injustices of humanity. The cruelty that WWII often connotes seems unfathomable; the idea that humans can persecute fellow civilians so brutally is hard to grasp, and approaches to rationalize or objectify the Holocaust are sought by filmmakers to create powerful and insightful movies. WWII offers so many complex and contradicting layers, layers that invite perspectives from people around the world, from different time periods and different cultural, socioeconomic, and political backgrounds. The diversity in storytelling WWII provides makes the subject a very appealing and a very rewarding one for filmmaking.

America's "Thing" with Communism

"The spread of democracy" has been a consistent player in American foreign policy for well over a century. The name of democracy equipped the U.S. with an ideological reason to implant itself in countries around the world where faltering governments appear to need a good ole American dose of democracy. And while the argument was made that the crusade to spread democracy would help "advance" the recipient country, the rise of communism added a new flavor to America's quest to preserve and instill democracy across the world. The Cold War, the cold rivalry between America and the Soviet Union, was the ultimate challenge democracy faced in the 20th century. The two nations, prominent in the world economy and in their military strengths, stood opposite in political ideologies; the rivalry became in many ways a struggle--democracy vs. communism--to see which system of government would ultimately reign around the world. America and its western European partners became the advocators of "anticommunism." Since WWII, communism has developed to be the strongest contender to challenge the fortitude of democracy, and America's wariness towards communism did not subside following the end of the USSR nor was it directed specifically towards the Soviet Union. The U.S. was again pinned against communism in the Korean and Vietnam Wars, and the latest news with North Korea only continues the ever-escalating struggle between democracy and communism. The communist North Korea's recent missile launch and threat towards the U.S. incorporates many of the hostile feelings that surfaced during the Cold War. Although communism may not be considered a direct influence for North Korea's latest action, its desire to construct itself as a major military power and its desire to weaken or harm the strongest standing democratic state harkens back to this contest between two forms of governance. 

The Onset of WWII: A Failure of International Relations

Globalization had impacted economics drastically by the 20th century but international involvement did not seem to be taking as forceful a leap in politics and pacification as the onset of World War II began to materialize from decades of increasing tensions. The Treaty of Versailles was meant to act as a stipulation to prevent such global destruction and disarray from ensuing again. But less than twenty years later, Europe and the U.S. found themselves thrown back into such a war. There were many failures that contributed to the onset of WWII, but two important factors dealt with the weakness of international relations and the stubbornness of countries to forgo renovations to policies that had influenced the development of the first world war. The Versailles Treaty failed to promote a future of European pacification and instead instigated tensions by pinning Germany with the "guilt clause" that would stifle its economy and nationalism and encourage support for Hitler's radical government. The treaty additionally did not interfere or obstruct growing unrest. Western countries, including Britain and France, decided to turn a blind eye to the radicalism ensuing in the East, with Russia's communism and Germany's fascism. While the countries' reasoning to maintain policies of appeasement make sense to a certain degree--if you don't get involved, a global war cannot develop and hopefully the problem will remain contained--their policies also treaded on the countries' responsibilities in upholding the Versailles Treaty and remaining active participants in the League of Nations and as major European powers. Although the West's choice to distance itself from the growing disturbances in the East was one of many factors contributing to the onset of WWII, it is a significant factor in acknowledging the lessons learnt from WWI that Europe failed to uphold. WWI had shown that national incidents, for the most part, could not be recognized and could not be handled as isolated ones. Alliances, both politically and economically, changed the face of international relations and global involvement would become a constant in world affairs. Britain and France's policies of appeasement therefore ignored this modern principle. In order to maintain safety and stability in this new, globalized world, the West would have to interfere in affairs both within its borders and outside of them. The 20th century world was far too interconnected to continue to regard matters in an isolated light.

Rudolf Höss

Rudolf Höss, in his memoir about his role in the Holocaust, writes that "I had received an order [for a mass anihilation of the Jews]; I had to carry it out." It is with this straightforward, unembellished, unemotional diction that Höss recounts his experiences as a commandant and overseer of concentration camps. Höss explains the hierarchy of the Nazi system and his capabilities and restrictions as an SS officer. Perhaps some sympathy should be given here to officers like Höss in the system; severe consequences would face them if they disobeyed or questioned their superiors, so how would they dodge the order for the Final Solution? Suicide would be one answer, alcohol another. The truth is that many involved in the order for the extermination of the Jews had little mobility to escape the role designed for them, regardless of their personal beliefs. I think many oversee the mental suffering such people had, in being forced to perform such inhumane acts on innocent human beings. But then again, Höss does not seem to extend much remorse towards what he did against the Jewish people; he writes that he "personally never hated the Jews" but "considered them to be the enemy" of the German nation, which therefore justified the order for him. The only guilt that seems to surface is when Höss describes his relief that the Jews would be put to death by gassing and not by firing squads that were much more painful to witness. But in Höss' accounts of Jews hopelessly awaiting their fate a clear sense of human suffering is understood and shared by Höss.  Human suffering reached over both sides of the Holocaust, and although things are often easier to digest in black and white, it is not fair to assume that all Germans were evil. Such an assumption has tainted the German people since World War II. 

Nazi Propaganda

Propaganda was a tool vital to the Nazi Party in order to sustain power in Germany. Propaganda allowed the party to move through with radical and controversial plans without little resistance; propaganda gave Hitler and his party the means to implant their goals of German expansion and the Final Solution. And however ridiculous or far-fetched the reasonings provided by propaganda may seem today, in a country suffering from starvation, unemployment, and a desolate economy, the promises offered by the Nazi Party and the arguments the party proposed acted as a seedling of hope for many Germans. A major component of Nazi propaganda was anti-Semitism. The Nazi Party argued that the stabilization of Germany was reliant on the advancement of the Aryan race and that the Jewish people were at fault for the current disorder in Germany. While it seems ludicrous that an entire people could be blamed for the conditions in Germany, which relied on many different political and economic factors, could be held responsible, the Nazi Party addressed their crafty proponents of propaganda to a populace that so wished to trust in their government to bring long-awaited stability that it was willing to believe in the information its government provided for them. In a Nazi propaganda film, the Jewish persona is catalogued and discussed. The narrator paints a picture of a people who are sly and malicious in intent, disguising themselves and their Jewish background to threaten "the health of the Aryan peoples." Without providing so much as any scientific or historical proof, the film simply generalizes the Jewish people as the source of corruption in mankind. Later on in the film, the narrator says "It is not true that Jews are forced into trade because other professions are closed to them. On the contrary, they welcome trade eagerly, because it suits their character and natural inclination." Depending on when this film was made, this claim could be in direct contradiction with one of the laws passed under the Nuremberg Laws that stated that Jews would not be allowed to practice any profession they chose to. Although the film today seems absurd, detailing how to tell a Jew from a member of the Aryan race, in Germany, during the 1920s and 1930s, people, distracted by their wants of stabilization and prosperity, were hypnotized into believing in the Nazi Party and its aims.

Hitler's Art

If art is a form of self-expression, a means for the artist to communicate a certain perspective to the viewer, then examining Adolf Hilter's art provides an immediate conundrum. Although it might not be fair to say, one could assume, by the fascist leader's reputation alone, that his art would be filled with dark subjects and twisted logic. But Hitler's art is anything but. The gentle, serene architectural scenes or colorful depictions of flowers that fill his artistic repertoire present an artistic Hilter that contradicts the fascist Hilter who led Germany into World War II and who was responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent people. In a way, Hitler's drawings and water-colorings make him a little more human, that someone who seemed so capable of destroying lives without remorse also seemed to hold some gratitude for beauty. But at the same time, this reading makes me uncomfortable. It makes Hitler seem all the more senseless; the fact that he had this appreciation for beauty and yet still had the capacity to destroy it makes him even more inhumane. The Hitler as an artist does not match the Hitler as a fascist leader, but I am curious about how Hitler was able to transform himself from this artistic persona to a destructive one, or if these two seemingly opposing personas actually work hand-in-hand to define Hitler's character. In an article by the Hitler Historical Museum it is suggested that Hitler's creative genius, his "instinctual drive to create something out of nothing makes the artist uniquely qualified to lead and inspire a nation." This hypothesis is pretty generalized but maybe such a simple interpretation is the only kind we are willing to accept; the relationship between Hitler's art and his political career is something that delves deep into Hitler's mind and psyche, something that for many appears uncomfortable in that it requires trying to reason and understand the workings of a man reputed for one of the greatest evils in world history.

Response to Group Work

Both Alex and Nick discussed fascism in relation to democracy in their posts. Alex examined Stalin's terminology of the word "democracy" to describe the U.S.S.R. while Nick suggested a way in which democracy could lead to fascism. Both topics brush on the interesting relationship democracy and fascism share. On the broadest level, democracy and fascism seem to be at opposite ends of the governmental system scale; a democracy is focused on the individual, and his or her decisive role in government, while fascism holds the state above the individual, and the individual's power only comes in relation to the state. So how could Stalin describe a fascist government as the best example of democracy, and how could a democracy move so drastically to a fascist state? Democracy is strangely similar to fascism when you consider the ideology of the two political systems. For starters, the two systems believe in the common man, or the proletariat, as the heart of the people. The systems refute any favoring of the elite class. Both systems believe in rationally-guided and civilized societies, where actions are justified as either beneficial to the populace or to the state and where stability is forever an aim. I think Nick's point that fascism was able to develop post-World War I because of political instability and demoralized citizens is right on. It can be assumed that a populace will always desire a democracy, citizens will always want a say in their government. And while democracy might be the ultimate goal, the destruction the war brought urged people to grasp onto any hope of stability they could find; fascism promised stability as well as "democratic" goals of equality. This latter point is one that Alex talked about: fascism could be seen as democratic in the way that it eliminated class distinctions, paving an equal playing field for all citizens. Democracy and fascism are drastically different political systems when considering their entireties , but it is interesting that such different systems can still share similar goals and beliefs.

Fascism: the next step or a seized opportunity?

Marx theorized that communism would be the natural resultant of the collapse of capitalism. For Marx, it wasn't if capitalism would ever fail, but when. In this light, it would be justifiable why fascism became popular following the end of WWI. Following the war, Europe's economies were shot--war had consumed too much money and now countries were left in debt to other countries and practically immobile economically. Stalin stood against capitalism, saying that capitalism depended on and led to war, and here was the proof. Capitalism was in no way the sole cause of WWI, but its gross presence in Europe certainly influenced the war's onset. People were disgruntled and afraid in the aftermath of the war and all looked for some sense of stability. Fascism grew out of the war's destruction as a hope for stability and as an answer to capitalism's failures. While capitalism promoted individuality, under fascism, the state was everything--everyone and everything did not work for themselves but for the prosperity of the state. For the countries that lost most in the war, including Russia, Germany, and Italy, fascism became a means for nationalism and revitalization. Capitalism had knocked them all down, and they were going to remake themselves in a new fashion. Fascist leaders argued that fascism was the way of the future, but we know now that things did not turn out the way these leaders envisioned. Capitalism has continued to thrive and the major fascist and communist states have not only disintegrated, but subsequently turned to capitalism. In this way, Marx's theory has so far proved to be false, and that maybe fascism was only a marker of its time. The delicate emotions and tensions involved in the aftermath of WWI provided ground for such radical governments to grow from. If it wasn't for the way policies were handled following the war--if Russia, Germany, and Italy hadn't come out on the more unfavorable side--it is possible that the fascist era wouldn't have developed at all. Fascism relied on turmoil and dissatisfaction in order to prosper; the aftermath of WWI provided it with the tools to do so.

Stalin and Russia's Industrialization

The debate over how to view Stalin's approach to industrializing Russia is a delicate one; on the one hand, you have a leader who deemed it necessary to ruthlessly kill millions of citizens in the name of Russia and industrialization, but on the other hand, you have someone who saw the critical need for industrialization and took perhaps the fastest and most effective way possible of grasping that industrialization. After reading about Nate's, Andra's, and Mia's perspectives on the topic, I feel I should contribute my own. I find myself in agreement with Mia. Coming from a democratic nation, where dictatorship is prevented by checks and balances and where justice is considered an integral part of the legal system, we naturally see only the brutal side of Stalin's approach. And no matter if our own ideologies conflict with Stalin's on every level, I don't think what Stalin did for Russia in terms of industrialization can be overlooked. Russia was far behind; the Crimean War had begun Russia's downfall politically and militarily in the world, and the outcomes of World War I only solidified Russia's fading presence. As we have seen, it had taken Russia centuries to build itself up to the power it was before the Crimean War; reigns of corrupt and weak tsars had stalled progress between the progressive reigns of such tsars as Peter the Great and Catherine the Great and medieval traditions such as serfdom plagued Russia's progression all the way up until the 19th century. And now, a country that was burdened with traditions and systems of the past was met with the prosperous capitalism of the west, which only highlighted even more Russia's delay in progression. While it could be argued that Stalin's drastic approach only quickened a process that would come naturally to Russia over time, I believe the key part that refutes this argument is capitalism. The nature of capitalism is speed: capitalism allowed for rapid industrialization in the west, it allowed for swift market expansion, and it allowed for countries to gain prosperity more quickly, building them up as major powers of politics and economics in Europe. Capitalism would not accept a slow industrialization of Russia over centuries, as had been its trend in the past, and capitalism would be heartless; if Russia couldn't keep up, it would simply be left behind. Although Stalin was against capitalism, an industrialized Russia would have to be built to compete with the West's capitalism. Speed was Stalin's focus; he needed to industrialize Russia, and he needed to do it fast. Any time lost would inhibit Russia's reinstatement as a powerful figure in Europe. His methods for industrializing Russia might be tasteless from a western perspective--but a country, whose foundations had been shook to the ground, whose military and economic strength had been decimated, would not have been able to get back on its feet in a matter of decades unless drastic measures were implemented.  Stalin's methods, however brutal they can be seen to be, industrialized Russia, tightened its structure, stabilizing its political system and providing a structured society that could more or less support the population, and reinstating Russia as one of the great world powers. 

Group Summary

In Nick's March 5th post, he talks about the ideological and imperialistic tone of Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points. The Fourteen Points symbolized the United States' strengthening role as a global power, suggesting the amendments Europe needs to make following the war with emphases on the United States' liberal and democratic values. While Nick points out that Wilson's rhetoric recalls an imperialistic tone, calling for the world to "be made fit and safe to live in," I do think that the setting in which the Fourteen Points was written in should not be lost. The Fourteen Points responded to World War I and its aims, although idealistic and maybe far to generalized, were meant to inspire peace and hopes of prosperity in Europe in the aftermath of the war. When Wilson writes that "every peace-loving nation,...like our own, wishes to live its own life [and] determine its own institutions," he seems to be referring to the peaceful and respecting stance European countries can take in the future instead of the hostile  and suspicious ones that helped lead Europe into war initially. Although relations to imperialism can be made here, I think it is more important to understand the democratic and independent sentiments Wilson wished to instill in Europe. In Alex's March 10th post, Alex critiques the vagueness, indeterminacy, and perhaps contradictions of several points in Wilson's Fourteen Points. Alex points out that in several points, Wilson suggests that people in specified countries need to be evacuated and redistributed. Although his intent is to create more balanced and culturally-united countries so that internal feuds between different cultures would not arise, Wilson fails to take into account what exactly would be required to do such a reorganization, including reformation of governments, territorial lines, and internal feuds. Wilson's Fourteen Points was not an official document incorporated into European countries' rebuilding plan following the war--therefore, I think it is okay that Wilson's points are so vague. The significance of the Fourteen Points is not so much the specified steps it suggests Europe should take, but rather the democratic undertone that signified America's growing influence on Europe. The Fourteen Points represents a generalized ideology for peace, fair trade, and democracy that, while symbolic of what values America believed Europe should follow, did not represent a document that could ever be fully utilized or implemented. 

The Treaty of Versailles

By the end of World War I, Europe was exhausted. Lives had been sacrificed, money had been absorbed, and Europe lay in ruins, both physically and figuratively. Public sentiment hoped for an end to the war and its disastrous effects, but it also grew weary of what to expect from the war's aftermath. Europe needed to stabilize itself and the Treaty of Versailles, signed on June 28, 1919, became the source of hope for Europe's revitalization. However, the negotiations reached in the treaty did not attempt to mask the feelings much of Europe held towards Germany. Germany was forced to take the blame for the outcome of the war. The major powers overseeing the decisions for the treaty were Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan, and the United States, and Germany's absence from the conference gave the other powers an opportunity to burden Germany with all sorts of reparations that Germany could not refuse. This cartoon illustrates Germany's muted position after the war, being force-fed terms from the main constituents of the treaty. Great Britain, France, and Italy, all in major debt to the United States, saw Germany as the scapegoat for their financial straits. Germany's territory was jabbed with as well as its military capabilities. The country was "demilitarized" and other nations' forces were sent to Germany to monitor the country. Germany entered the war, confident in their skills and determined to come out on top. Germany left the war without a functioning military, a barely afloat economy, a frustrated people, and the burden of the entire war. The Versailles Treaty had the intentions to resurface Europe, but its focus was imbalanced and favored. The major powers benefited, but other countries besides Germany suffered as well from the terms, having their territory reshaped or redefined; even Italy faced frustration when terms from the London Treaty were overlooked. The Versailles Treaty looked to immediate aid for Europe rather than creating prose that could last into the future; it's terms furthered tension between countries that would rise until the onset of WWII. 

WWI

For the first time in a long time, Europe was united in 1918--not in harmony and peace--but in grief. The effects of World War I were felt across the entirety of Europe. It was impossible to escape news of death and destruction caused by the warfare remained as markers to evoke memories of war. Nothing like World War I had ever been fought before: people, countries, and strategies worked together in ways that they never before had to interact in. World War I was fought on unfamiliar and untried territory; its mixing of old, traditional battlefield strategies with modern technological innovations resulted in destruction of such mass proportions Europe had never been exposed to. This video illustrates several new practices that were utilized during the war that helped shape the war into something beyond what any European could have projected. The footage in the beginning of the video shows the soldier recruitment process. Hundreds of thousands of civilians signed up for regimens, clueless on what they were about to be taking part in. The video demonstrates the sheer mechanicalness of the entire process: massive lines of citizens were rolled through assembly lines of recruiters, shuffling through to fill out papers confirming their recruitment with as much ease as products would move down a conveyor belt in a factory. There was certainly a spirit of nationalism in the recruitment process, committing one's life to the service of his country. But in this dedication to the nation, there was also a sense of lost individuality. Citizens, coming from all different kinds of backgrounds and occupational work, were drawn into a homogenous mass of soldiers, all fighting and dying for a single cause. The monstrous number of soldier deaths during the war could not allow an emphasis on individual memorialization; the scale of death just became a symbol for the unruly destruction more so than a count of individuals lost. Many soldiers who died at the battlefields were never even identified. The number of soldiers employed in the war was something Europe had never dealt with before; the deaths amounting from such numbers were justifiably hard to comprehend. Later in the video, machine guns are heard, pointing out another new element World War I brought to the table. Traditional strategies calling on soldiers to run and directly attack their opponents had worked for centuries in Europe; however, these strategies applied to WWI failed horribly as they failed to take into account the strength of 20th century warfare. Machine guns, grenades, and canons could wipe out huge numbers fast, and a change in strategy was necessary but was not realized until the end of the war. New weaponry changed the course of battle, but amid transition from traditional to 20th century warfare, many lives were lost as armies tried to fight an 18th century war with modern technology. The radicalness and inexperience World War I introduced to Europeans immortalized the war forever in European history.

Summary of Nietzsche and Freud

By the 20th century, capitalism, imperialism, and centuries of political and militaristic dominance had lodged a seed of confidence deep into the European mindset. It is interesting that amidst the imperialist endeavors of major powers Britain, France, and Germany that the work of Nietzsche and Freud began to be popularized. Nietzsche and Freud both worked with abstract theories of the human nature that both questioned and undermined civilization's preconceptions and institutions. Above all, Nietzsche and Freud emphasized humans' irrefutable animalness and the constant tension that arises from civilization's attempted suppression of humans' natural impulses. Civilization stresses peace over war, community over individualism, generosity over selfishness; but Nietzsche and Freud argued that these ideals were artificial, mere paintings of what humanity could be, maybe should be, but not what humanity was itself in actuality. Nietzsche and Freud stripped society from its romanticized entities, removing the blinds people in society had been living through and exposing them to the less-than-pleasant realities of their actions and emotions. Nietzsche, for example, attacked a founding distinction that separates civilization from nature: morality. He states that "morality is a hindrance to the development of new and better customs: it makes stupid" (Nietzsche, Daybreaks). Civilization is meant to improve, refine humanity, to advocate the best for humankind; but Nietzsche claims that civilization is actually handicaps humankind, that morality, defined and stipulated by civilization, is detrimental to humanity. Does this mean that people instead should act immorally, without the barriers imposed by society? Freud likewise posed an argument against love, a seemingly gentle and natural occurrence in society. Freud dissolves all of love's poetic associations to say that love is no more than an "aim-inhibited" sexuality. Love is nothing special nor romantic, but rather a natural, raw impulse. This means that centuries of European literature and artwork inspired by love and longstanding ideals of love as a strong force that can stabilize a relationship and a nation all boil down to nothing more than a sexual impulse. Both Nietzsche and Freud de-romanticized European society and devalued the special niche humanity over centuries had constructed for itself. 

Freud

Freud's studies on the subconscious and psychoanalysis brought a new element to the field of science that is still hard to grasp even today. 19th century science and society ran on notions of tangibility. Naturally people are much more willing to agree and be confident about ideas that can be witnessed and experienced. Nietzsche challenged this safe tangibility and Freud seemed to incorporate a similar thinking into his own work. The human mind is something so abstract, yet so powerful that analysis of it seems necessary. But the sheer vagueness of it is foreboding. The mind is a central component of the human psyche, an entity that endows humans with independent thought, but its abstractness narrows the success of any classically scientific approach taken to it. Freud's extensive theories on the mind provided introspective views to its indefinite nature, but Freud's work did not model itself in traditional scientific approach to theories, which relied on hard evidence and provable hypotheses. Freud's work explores the mind's depths through complex terms, but it would forever remain hypotheses; no manufactured scientific tool or practice could affirm or refute Freud's studies. The unprovable nature of Freud's work further influenced science in a way that Nietzsche had first contributed to. The idea that science was exact, proven truths, was refuted by Nietzsche with his belief that truth was in itself unprovable. Freud's scientific endeavours incorpated scientific study that was founded in the irrational and intangible; his ideas were well-respected but could never be accepted as truths. As the 20th century approached, Freud's work expanded the realm of science by suggesting that science did not have to lead to final conclusions.

Nietzsche

Nietzsche challenged the late 19th century preconceptions of reason, the human condition, science, and truth with a negativity and bluntness that shook the foundations of these deep-rooted ideas. Beginning in the Enlightenment, European society began to center around the rational, believing that everything is propelled by reason. Philosophers and scientists drove this ideology into a common belief system in Europe, which science, politics, and economic institutions were designed to follow. But the assumption that society is driven by reason cemented in political or scientific proof was refuted by Nietzsche, who said that reason came into this world, not as a result of enlightened and scientific thinking, but "in an irrational manner, by accident" (Nietzsche, Daybreak). Reason, which gives society justification and purpose, did not materialize itself as a proponent of reason, but as some sort of fluke? This idea not only questions the viability of science and reason-directed activity in society, but weakens the idea of human nature. The enlightened characterization of humanity painted humans with capabilities of thought and rationale exclusive to the human population over all of earth's other creatures. However, Nietzsche suggests that reason's development in society was mere happenstance and not a natural manifestation of human nature. Could humans therefore not be as unique and specialized that centuries of philosophy and science had told them? Nietzsche not only attacked the notion of reason, but directly challenged science's association with truth. By the 19th century, science was a well-founded and well-respected institution in society, and scientific theories and discoveries were not only prominent issues discussed in society, but they led the way to "truths" society, its institutions and its people, believed in. Scientific evidence seemed to prove concrete truths, but Nietzsche instead believed that truths were not as substantial and existing as science made them out to be, but were "illusions," metaphors of human connections and interactions that have been so engraved into the minds of individuals that their abstractness and unprovable nature had been lost in science's interpretation of truths as exacting and solidifying. Suggesting that truth is in fact nothing that can be forever assumed to be true and unchanging questions the existence and belief in science as well as the foundations of society, which if not built on concrete evidence, is built on unstable and worrisome ground. Nietzsche's challenge of European society's well-implemented beliefs in reason and truth shaped society into a dangerous setting, one that is spontaneous and untrusting. This version of society is unsettling, but such a tone seems to be a common theme of Nietzsche. Amidst the industrialization and new imperialism of 19th century Europe that inflated countries' prides and superiority more than ever, Nietszche tears through society's foundations with a pessimistic drive, cautioning Europeans to regard themselves and society in a different light, one that challenged the confident 19th century mindset.

Summary

As we enter the beginning of the 20th century, it is clear that science will play a prominent role in all aspects of society. Science in Europe began under the radar, limited in application and influence by the domination of religion. But through the centuries, as the church has weakened and science has garnered more attention, we have seen scientific breakthroughs and influences both challenging and shaping society. The 19th century was home to critical scientific studies and theories whose influences expanded beyond the scientific community. Darwin's theories challenged the way society was structured and the way humanity viewed itself. Herbert Spencer's belief of social Darwinism merged scientific and social proponents, underlining the significance and influence science now held in European society. Scientific innovations modernized warfare and manufacturing. Science affected Europe's modernization and its role will strengthen as Europe enters the 20th century.

A Struggle with Character

At the very beginning of the fall semester, we debated as a class whether to classify Russia as a part of Europe. There is no right answer, but as we have followed the development of Russia through the centuries, it is clear that our MEH class was not the only group befuddled about the correct way to view Russia's association with Europe. The country itself had trouble defining its character. This struggle is clearly explicated in the late 19th and early 20th century Russia. Through class struggles and a conflicted government, we see the country torn between abiding to western influences and maintaining a strictly traditional Russia. As industrialization renovated western Europe into a stronger basis for economic and political expansion and stability, Russia was forced to consider industrializing for the sake of their military power amidst strengthening western countries. Russia was behind in modernization, and its rapid push towards industrialization intensified class struggles. The state took a militaristic approach to structure the industrial workforce, leaving little leeway for fair working conditions already fought for and established in the west. Although Russia attempted to model itself industrially like western Europe, the country was resistant to makeover its legal and political systems to match a modernizing society. It is here where Russia's identity crisis takes a grave turn as Russia's western and Russian influences clash without any authority willing to concretely choose one over the other. Tsars attempted to maintain conservative policies, but industrialization asked for more liberalizing policies and control. Although Russia was behind western Europe industrially, the country did not consider looking at the effects and consequences of western Europe's industrialization and the country instead opted for a weird and imbalanced blend of western Europe and Russia to model its society after. The Russian government's indecisiveness on how to handle Russia's modernization and stubbornness to retain a traditional Russian society created such a discordance that a revolution would be inevitable and necessary.

Darwin

Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection was certainly a radical scientific claim. The idea that variations within a species determined their fitness for survival added a new element to the system of nature, the notion of competition and the survival of the fittest. The most interesting part of Darwin's theory is how we see it manifested in all aspects of society. Darwin proves competition's relevance in the natural world, but 19th century society had been grounded with a sense of competition for centuries. Competition defined social structures and developed the basis for capitalism and imperialism. Humans' natural impulse towards competition and securing dominance over one another is closely tied with the natural world in Darwin's theory. In the countless ways we have seen European society modernize and structure itself to command itself superior not only over nature, but over other nations, Darwin claims that all of this motion is natural occurrence. Such a claim weakens the superior stance Europeans assumed. Modernization and innovation were signs of superior success, something that alloted a greater sense of power to one country over another. But Darwin suggests that the ability to compete on such a level is not a mark of a superior European but is a natural impulse shared by all organisms on earth. Society had constructed ways to interpret competition and the rank of countries, and Darwin suggests that it must simply remain a construction, not a natural law. Darwin's studies surpassed a strictly scientific vector and challenged the way society conceived hierarchy. Society's uses of competition, for economic and political powers, were not resultant of a modernizing society. The ability to compete was not a societal invention, but rather an ability derived from the natural world.

The Machine Gun in Africa

The mid-nineteenth century renovated machine gun provided new points of access to global powers searching for dominance in Africa. The "Scramble for Africa" had pinned powers against each other in a struggle to claim the most rewarding and economically beneficial lands in all parts of Africa. It was no coincidence that the first wave of imperialist Europeans struck northern Africa first as the region was the easiest to access. Other colonies blossomed around the coastline of Africa, following the popular trading route. But while these colonies were certainly progressive and helpful in staking countries' claims on the African continent, no countries dared to set foot in Africa's interior. Ample resources resided in there no doubt, but without sufficient equipment to guide the Europeans into Africa's depths, no one would venture in unarmed. Populations of African tribes, diverse in itself, would have remained virtually unaffected by European invasions on the coast and in the north if it were not for technological innovations that granted Europeans the means for Africa's further exploitation. The maxim automatic machine gun, developed in 1884, gave Europeans the ultimatum in imperialist warfare. The gun drastically imbalanced wars with Africa's natives and acted as a sure sign of European superiority in Africa. The employment of a single utility allowed Europeans to advance their claims in Africa and to move swiftly, with little native retaliation, into Africa's interior. The significance the machine gun played in the 19th century imperialism suggests the power technological innovation now held in the modern world. Industrialization and the inventions it inspired changed the European scene. Countries bathing in the prosperity of industrialization were now equipped with new tools that cemented their superiority over unindustrialized countries. 

Summary of New Imperialism

In studying European history, I have become aware of its cyclic nature through the centuries. Similar themes and players reemerge over and over again. One of these reoccurrences is imperialism. Although the two imperialist movements were both influenced by  the environments of their centuries, the two movements also share common motivations.The first imperialism was set in an era where governments in Europe were predominantly autocracies and where navigation and exploration were gaining importance on the European stage. Religion played an important role in the daily lives of Europeans.  The first imperialist movement, characterized by the motto "Gold, God, and Cathay" relied on religious and economic aims. The discovery of the New World attracted major European powers to the new land, using missionaries and brutal wars to suppress and christianize natives. The colonies established worked many times as a source of income for the mainland, using native labor to harvest and excavate natural resources to then import to the European mother countries. 

The 15th and 16th century European society undoubtedly influenced the ways in which imperialism was handled, but we see similar motives for the new imperialism in the 19th century even though the political, economic, and social climates of Europe had significantly shifted. 19th century European society was set in an ever industrializing environment, far different from the atmosphere of the 15th and 16th centuries. Politics had gained more complexities and the notion of capitalism united both government and industrialism in the drive for state and industry income. Expansionism and imperialism were key instrumentations in acquiring this money and power in the intensifying relations between Europe's main powers. New technologies allowed for different approaches and strategies for imperialism and allotted a greater sense of superiority to the imperialists, who, equipped with armed armies, could seize control over a native population more swiftly than before. The railroad helped define these colonies as purely moneymakers for the mother countries, withdrawing natural resources from the colonies to deliver them to the "superior" nations. In an age dominated by science, religion played a lesser role in the new imperialism, and rather beliefs in Europeans' natural ascension to lands 

populated with "savages" provided reason to suppress and civilize these populations. 

Although the two imperialist movements emerged from drastically different environments, the underlining political, economic, and social motivations are shared in both. The only stark difference I see that differentiates new imperialism from its former is the interesting role the populace played. Nationalism was definitely a tool employed by governments to reason the nations' imperialist actions, but not all people were swayed by the generalized concepts nationalism preached. The development of journals, newspapers, and photography allowed individuals to witness the realities of imperialism and the treatment in the colonies. Such developments allowed people to take a more forceful role in their countries' partaking in imperialism, something they would not have assumed in the earlier imperialism, where Europeans were mainly left obscured to the realities of the colonies.

A New Role for Nationalism

The Franco-Prussian War of 1870 weakened France in many respects, one of which helped to redefine the nation's political atmosphere. The installment of the Third Republic in 1875 represented a desired democratic pathway following the Second Empire, but the transfer from an authoritative government to a democratic one was not smooth and allowed for the advancement of radical right-wing politics. The new conservatism responded negatively to the new system of government, labeling itself as anti-parliamentary and against the protection of individual liberties. While it could be said that right-wing politics in the past have had the same values, late 19th century conservatism relied on one principle it had not associated itself with before: nationalism. When it was formally related to liberalist values, nationalism stood as a celebration of the nation and a union of the people of that nation. The liberalist nationalism provided reason for representation for the common man in society. However, this new conservative nationalism interpreted the celebration of a nation and its principles in a different manner. Conservatives used nationalism to promote the supremacy of their nation and culture over others. Nationalism provided reason to distrust and reject foreigners as well as prove to be an essential component for the promotion of anti-Semitism. Nationalism provided a basis for racism and injustice and a moral reason for imperialism, in which the stronger nation would help "civilize" the weaker and savage nation.  The idea of nationalism is a flexible one; one that can be molded to fit into a certain ideology. The way nationalism had been used in the 19th century, amongst revolutionaries and governments, liberals and conservatives, acknowledges nationalism's morphology. 

Summary

Industrialization and Nationalism were two constant themes in the 19th century that interestingly shared a lot of connections. Industrialization greatly transformed the social atmosphere, reconstructing the role of workers and imposing new social issues. The colossal size and mechanism industry favored lessened the importance of an individual worker, paving the way for protests for workers' rights and unions. The worker's role was one of many new social issues industrialization introduced, others including the loss of a rural environment and the role of industrialization for the state that often times influenced particular political, economic, and social measures. These social changes created issues that needed to be dealt with reform. Nationalism in the 19th century acted as a valuable mechanism for reform. Nationalism meant tearing down the political, social, and economic barriers within a state in hopes of unifying the state under common law and common goals. Under unification, reform would be much easier to pass in legislature. In this case, nationalism acted as a response to Europe's growing industrialization. 

Additionally, industrialization, particularly modernized transportation with the railroad, encouraged the growth of nationalism. With railroads, regions within a state or nation that had once seemed so distant from each other were pulled closer together economically and socially as people, food, and other items could travel across large distances faster. Railroads encouraged a unified trade and economy as well as a singular cultural identification. Industrialization and nationalism both worked as independent events in the 19th century, but their simultaneous presence in Europe allowed the two ideas to influence one another.

The Eastern Question

In the second half of the 19th century, a weakening Ottoman Empire prompted the reemergence of the "Eastern Question." In what eventually culminated in the Crimean War (1854-1856), the tensions between great European powers for control of the territory of the Ottoman Empire begs another question: what happened to the "balance of powers"? The 19th century began with a pan-European idealism to pacify and stabilize Europe while preventing any country from becoming overly dominant. But halfway through the 19th century, the goals set forth by the Congress of Vienna seemed to be obscured by arising prosperous opportunities as the Ottoman Empire began to fade. The Balkans appeared so desirous that personal interests had to trump goals agreed to in the Congress of Vienna and as a part of the Concert of Europe. Does this make the intentions of the Congress of Vienna a failure? Or did the Crimean War merely mark the end of an era for European peace? The Great Power politics that arose during the onset of the Crimean War harken back to traditional dominating and power-seeking intentions of countries. The Great Power politics would remain the go-to strategy up to World War I. 

Bismarck

I find Bismarck to be one of the most interesting political figures we have studied thus far in MEH. His strict, anti-liberal measures and manipulative foreign policy may not have made him a popular leader, but his aggressive strategies secured Prussia decisive victories to solidify the state as the dominant one in the German Confederacy. August Ludwig von Rochau's Realpolitik describes Bismarck's motivation "to the T", that power does not come to those arguing for just causes such as enlightened values of reason and rights, but to those through economic expansion and social institutions. It appears that Bismarck's first and foremost thought was that for the Prussian state, not for his image.

It is interesting to compare Bismarck's politics to those of the politicians we see in American politics today. In American politics, image is everything. A politician's policies are crucial, but American politics have been crafted in such a way that it is sometimes better to subtly manipulate the way a politician presents his policies rather than straightforwardly present them. Image determines popularity which determines votes and the win or loss of a political seat. This is ultimately a function of a democracy, but a political process in which image may occasionally be weighted more so than policies does not represent the way I believe politics should be handled. It is in this light when Bismarck's state-focused leadership stands out. Although Bismarck's political role came as an appointment by the Prussian king, a political figure who is willing to devote all areas to the benefit of the state is something that rarely is found in its pure form today.

Art in the 19th Century

Two elementally different art styles bookended the 19th century. The Romantic era in the first half of the 19th century that celebrated emotional, imagined, and subjective expression was beginning to be replaced at the end of the 19th century by the forthcoming Realism, which tossed imagination to the wind in favor of a raw approach to the dreary human realities and sufferings. However, despite the two styles' differing approaches, the forms can relate in both the influence current political and social dealings had as well as the influence the art styles in turn imposed on these issues. 

Romanticism developed as a rejection of many of the Enlightenment values that had inspired Europe in the past century. While the Enlightenment stressed that all individuals in a society and the governments that govern them should be driven by reason, Romanticism insisted that reason was a limited value and that instead people should be guided by the boundless possibilities provided by emotions and imagination. Romanticism also grew to act as a response to the quickly developing industrialization of the Western European landscape. Romanticism protested industrialization's mechanism and societal corruptions by exploring the power of nature, emphasizing its gentle simplicity and emotional power. Romanticism also became important nearing the mid-19th century as revolutions and causes for nationalism began to spark across Europe. The Romantic emphasis on individuality worked nicely with the uniqueness of cultures that nationalism drove to value and celebrate.

Realism began to emerge following the revolutions of 1848. Realism took a different approach to the revolutionary and nationalistic spirit from Romanticism, celebrating the common people by making them the focus of their work. Never before had middle and lower class individuals been given central artistic representation in a movement. Realism also critiqued the brutalities of war. The Crimean War in the later half of the 19th century marked one of the first appearances for photojournalists, and their capturing of honest, but brutal images of war horrified people on the home front, who could have never before imagined with such rawness the realities of war. Additionally, the artists of Realism critiqued contemporary society by illustrating the unglamorous lives of common men and women.

The 19th century was a century of changing politics, revolution, and the growing power of nationalism. The Romantic and Realist art styles are not only important in providing artistic interpretations of the political and social matters surrounding the artists, but they represent an emotional view that adds a dimension to the impact issues had on the common people. Additionally, the way artists interpreted issues influenced the way people regarded them. Paintings bolstering nationalistic fervor could excite a nation while a harsh portrayal of the lower middle-class life could incite protest against injustices this population faced. Especially during a time when common people revolted for better representation in their governments, it is interesting to see the impact and emotional insight art styles had on the century.

The Congress of Vienna’s staunch motives for securing a peace-driven Europe with a balance of powers indeed prevented a major European war for sometime, but the shifting balance of powers in the 19^th century that gave way as some countries grew stronger as others began to fall created undeniable tensions that ultimately fashioned the Congress of Vienna’s hope for a neutral Europe as an ideal that would never be reached as long as power and self-interest remained desirable motives for the European countries. 

It was in Russia more so than anywhere else during the 19^th century where the country’s growing strength caught the attention of Western countries and motivated them to curb Russia’s influence in order to protect their own interests in Eastern Europe. Russia’s conquest of the Ottoman-governed territories of Moldavia and Walachia in 1853 unsettled leaders in Britain and France, who saw Russia’s expansion as an imposition to the countries’ economic interest in the Balkans and the Eastern Mediterranean. In what would later be known as the Crimean War (1854-1856), France and Britain, along with support from the Ottomans and Piedmont-Sardinia, fought Russia in a gruesome war, which ended favorably on the western nations’ side. Russia was forced to give up its newly won territories and the country’s influence in the Balkans was greatly curbed.

From studying the 19^th century, the idea of a “balance of powers” seems too idealistic to ever function successfully in a constantly shifting world. Countries’ self-interested and power-driven impulses cannot be avoided as they represent universal human compulsions. At the first signs of Russia’s growing power, France and Britain stepped in not to reaffirm their belief in the abstract “balance of powers” but to protect their interests and power standings. We cannot look at the “balance of powers” as a straightforward initiative, but maybe the idea works in a frame that suggests it is a naturally occurring system. As we have seen, once one country begins to assert dominating strength, the impulse of other countries is to inhibit that growing power through warfare. The other countries act to preserve their own strength, and as a result, a “balance of powers” is maintained by inhibiting the growth of one nation. But this “balance of powers” is ever shifting and is at its base unstable. Perhaps this form of a “balance of powers” is just one element of the dynamic power play that is constantly shifting, but as a political initiative, a “balance of powers” is unreachable, as one country will always try to hunt for power when conditions are favorable.