Dec. 6th ---- Dangerous Liaisons

Yes I know this was like ages ago that we read it, but I still think it is one of the most interesting articles we have read this semester. I read an blog this week that dealt with this article and the women were bascially cast as vengeful sluts, not to put too fine a point upon it. The war certainly created a shift in power with regards to the sexes. Women became more assertive and aggresive, while at the same time their sexual mores were loosening. Yes, this was a huge change for the returning German soldiers, from the patriarchal society that they were used to. The woman was at home, raising the kids, and you get the picture. However, I think Biddiscombe give the women poor treatment and portraying their fraternization with Americans as solely based on the desire for good (cigs, chocolate), due to devastation and lack of such goods caused by the war. Why I do not have all the facts and have not researched the topic further, perhaps I should just take this at face value. I think the author really does not give any attempt to discover the emotional aspects that might have also played a role in the fraternization. Nevertheless, the treatment the women received from returning German soldiers, such as the cutting of their hair, etc., was certainly not warranted. As I said in my response, this just further shows the heartlessness of the German soldier. I understand what they were coming back to and their view that they were being betrayed by German women as they were fraternizing with the enemy who just beat them, but their obsession with the dominant patriarchal society is just sickening.

Fraternization --- 11/15/09

The initial policies governing fraternization in the US occupied zone in Germany were ridiculous. At least, this was my first impression. I thought, why shouldn't soldiers be allowed to "fraternize" with native women within the zone? They are certainly going to be doing it anyway so why are you going to establish laws that are probably going to be ignored anyhow? Wouldn't this undermine your position as a governing, occupying body within Germany? One would think so, but apparently it would not underine their ability to govern effectively inasmuch as antifraternization movements by native German and Austrian men would have. The attacks that began to occur against native women for fraternizing with US soldiers was initially a moot point for me. These attacks that included cutting womens hair in public, marking their houses, and dumping trash on their porches, etc., seemed unimportant. I thought that these men, mostly returning soldiers, were upset by what they had come back to. The world in which they were now living was one in which they could no longer control; a world that is a far cry from the paternalistic days under the rising Nazi regime. They came to back to their women having relations, whatever the reason (chocolate, cigarettes, emotional), with their enemies. The same men to whom they had just lost the war. Of course, they would be upset, and damned justified in having these feelings. Yes, their actions were certainly extreme, but they were looking for some way to gain control in a Germany in which they had lost so much, and their women had changed so much. If I could not understand their feelings exactly, I could certainly empathize. So why are these actions so important? They directly undermine the US ability of control in their occupied territory. The number of attacks, at least reported, while small are significant because they could have turned in to larger opposition against US occupation in general. It could have turned into more than just an antifraternization movement, it could have become a larger outright antioccupation resistance. While perhaps these actions were being done on the fringes, all of these theoretical problems I have mentioned become especially amplified once the US starts returning weapons to the local police. What if these police, now armed, began to see a rise in antioccupation, no longer just antifraternization, and agreed with their fellow countrymen were doing? The issue could have gotten way out of hand. The US could have been completely undermined in what they were really doing there. Thus, it is important to understand why fraternization was such a big deal, especially in US occupied Germany.

The "Hitler Myth"

The article by Kershaw was the most interesting thing to me this week. Especially interesting was Hitler's ability to create a broad base of support in Germany. The tenants of the Nazi Party appeared to have something for everyone, which was a far cry from the government during the Weimar Republic end even before. However, it should not be too surprising that Hitler was able to achieve this, although on a much larger scale than ever before, given the long history in Germany of the population to rally around or to deify one man, especially those acheived some kind of national honor usually surrounding some success. How quick the population can change once the successes stop coming though. Hitler was no different.

As Kershaw identifies, Hitler was able to provide a "positive pole in the Third Reich," while at the same time being able to separate from the less popluar aspects of Nazism that had more effect on the daily lives of the population. As we learned in class, it seems Hitler was able to do this through the Gleichshaltung. It appeared as if the asscociations below him were squabbling for the scraps and creating all the discontent and Hitler appeared as a man above it all. However, this is exactly how he wanted these groups to function. Very creative! However, while he was able to create the image of himself as the man of strength and stability perhaps....the most important thing was that Hitler continue to be successful particularly within the realm of foreign politics first. This he was able to accomplish and without blood shed as he gained back territories and ensured that if and when war came that Germany would not have to fight a two-front war. The manner in which he accomplished these successes led to a political disarmament of sorts within Germany. He was able to quiet political opponents given him and Goebbels time to amp up the propaganda machine and really penetrate deep into the heart of the population.

However, once a ways into the war and the losses began to mount he started to lose some popularity. The German population ceratinly is a fickled one. It is almost as if they will support any string leader who brings success and ignore other things they see going on. When the strength of the leader seems to wane even a bit, they jump off the bandwagon.

Hitler's propaganda certainly was interesting in its success to create a broad base of support, but ultimately longterm support from the German people seems to really some from success, success, and continued success.

Who needs the Gov't?

I thought the first chapter that Fritzsche wrote laid out a very interesting subject. What I got most from the chapter was that the author was trying to mostly show that the people began to rely less on the government and began to rely on each other. Fritzsche does a good job in demonstrating this crucial point. He really pushes the importance of the Burgfrieden to first show that Germans began to see each other as citzizens instead of partisans. This is key because the division of class has been so relevant for such a long period in Germany. It had long determined the way in which people lived and got along in Germany. The author does a good job of of showing how the state is absent from the rise of national unity, which seems to be a key theme of his thesis showing how Germans became Nazis. It had to be a nationalism from the bottom, rather than from the top down. People stopped looking to the government to help them out and look to each other. This cohesiveness became further strengthened during the Turnip Winter. The famine was terrible during the war and the government was doing nothing to help out the people. The people were starving and in the past were able to look to the government for help. However, at this time they were only concerned with the outcome of the war. The people began to openly criticize the governmetn, which was a huge change from the past. The hardships people endured further created a sense of national unity because it was not just the lower classes who were suffering and speaking out. People began to realize they could accomplish things themselves by creating charities and etc. The government missed out on a huge opportunity to channel the rise of nationalism and would eventually lead to a people who no longer relied on the government to get things accomplished.

Prostitutes

I never thought I would be headlining anything school-related with such a title as Prostitutes, but here it is. I just happened to think it was a very interesting article. The author makes some fascinating points. He demonstrated first that in times of economic hardship it was almost commonplace for women to undertake prostitution as a means surviving. He further shows that times of economic hardships are a common occurrence during the first phases of industrialization. As a result, women were the first ones to lose their jobs, but were still expected to contribute their part to the family income. However, as the author identifies the spread of prostitution in relation to the growth of urbanization as a result of the initial thrusts of industrialization, these women were not committed to the act of prostitution. These women only used prostitution as a temporary means of survival. However, the amount of prostitution seemed like a problem of epidemic proportions to contemporaries. The government became involved in trying to stymie prostitution with laws such as Clause361/6 and Clause 180. However, these laws were contradictory and really ineffective for the most part. Although, I realize that the values of the time and the complaints made it necessary for the greater government to get involved, but I say let 'em go. The local police were doing there best to govern the conditions and were providing checkups to ensure against the spread of diseases. While they could not govern the entire whole of those engaged in prostitution, these options they were undertaking, while not doing more to lessen the occurrences, may have been creating safer sex. Give 'em checkups and let 'em go.

Who loves Eduard Bernstein...I do!

The article on German Social Democracy was by far my favorite yet in this class. The attempted reconciliation of the trade unions and the Social Democratic Party was flawlessly weaved together for a compelling historical story. My favorite part of the essay was Eduard Bernsetein's contribution to the Social Democrats dilemma on reconciling the contemporary economic landscape of the 1890's with their tenants of Marxism. His revisionist history sought to dismantle those very tenants and I thought was accomplished very well, though the Party ultimately went another route. This is probably because instead of reconciling the two, if his theory was accepted, would have completely eliminated Marxism as one of their priciples. However, Bernstein did well in his theory to present a encompassing revision on Marxism that followed the new Social Democratic principle that any immediate revolution was impossible. However, Bernstein's theory would have had longterm implications in completely seperating Marxism form the Party. Continuing on with Bernstein's revision, one of his attacks was on the fundamental Marxist tenant stating that out of capitalism comes anarchy. Bernstein used the recent history of the economy to show that in fact, for the past two decades, no major crisis had occured as capitalism continued to grow and allow for prosperity. Real wages were even increasing during the 1890's. Bernstein proposed that capitalism actually led to order, not anarchy. This in turn ruled out any crisis from occuring in the future and thus a complete separation from Marxism would have to occur. He ultimately discovered that socialism is not a necessity resulting from capitalist development. Socialism instead would have to be a result of the will of the people and thus a chosen philosophy instead of a necessity of governing dynamics from the downfall of capitalism as Marxism holds. The theory continues to state that all the classes could indulge in this will, which again breaks with Marxism as the overthrow by the proletariat was a necassary action to move forth in a new economy built upon the bases of socialism. For me, I love this theory. Bernstein's revision was relevant to the times and completely undermined the tenants of Marxism, which I love that accomplishment even more. However, it is clear to see why the Social Democratic Party could not go this way as acceptance of this theory would have completely seperated the Party with its established base of Marxist theory.

Thoughts on Karin Hausen's Article

I found Hausen's article on technical progress and women's labour to be very interesting. Hausen discusses the invention of the sewing machine and its effect on Germany's labor and social stratospheres. She focuses on mainly two topics: the move away from handmade production to capitalistic production and the effect on women's social/work roles. I love the way Hausen proceeds with this essay beginning with an outline of the history of the sewing machine and its evolution. Not just the invention itself, but also the way techniques were developed to sell the product and make it marketable to all social classes. Also, the way in which the sewing machine becomes important in the production of goods, specifically clothes, which is her main focus, really makes one understand the value and necessity of the sewing machine in the progression of the labor industry with regards to industrialization. However, the spin she takes on the sewing machine is geared to its effect on women's labor and the way they managed these changes, specifically working at home. However, this transition into the home from factories for lower class working women did not create a desirable return on their efforts. They in fact made less money because of the overall cost of the sewing machine over paying it off for a two year period, buying their own yarn and machine oil, and costly repairs. The argument she makes is opposing the traditional view that this transition of labor into the home released some of the burden for women. She argues that this transition in fact caused more hindrance in that now they were solely responsible for raising the children and working in the home for supplemental income, while the husbands were now in the factories. Her argument is flawlessy delivered and gives good supporting evidence to back up it up. The only part that was a little hazy was her reasoning that the middle class women were working to keep up appearances. This new information she presents is kind of thrown into a much stronger argument that would have been better off without. My only reasoning for this is that Hausen does not fully develop the evidence and reasoning for the inclusion for this particular case. Overall, I really enjoyed the article and thought it was well presented.