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.