Response to Justine

I disagree with Justine's assessment of Hitler's art in relation to his second career as Führer of the Third Reich. While she argues there is a substantial divide between his two occupations, there is in fact a remarkable continuity. Artistry in no way brings about a peaceful state of mind or being (hence the caricature of the tortured, anxious artist), and the claim that Hitler's watercolors and oil paintings could in no way presage his later brutality is false. 

What I think is most interesting about Hitler's art is how traditional it is. Expressionism and the avant-garde originated in Austria and Germany during the 1920s, and Hitler's work is a stark contrast to that of his contemporaries such as Kirchner, Munch, and Kandinsky. This kind of reverence for more traditional standards of beauty (as expressed in his landscapes, which follow an almost Romantic aesthetic), starkly opposes the bold innovations in composition, color, and perspective of his time. Hitler would later express his distaste for the avant-garde through his purging of "degenerate art" from the German cultural scene, as recounted in this article. Rather than contradict his later exploits, Hitler's art exposes his rejection of modernism's core value, the deconstruction of art to represent the tumult and uncertainty of the modern world, and in that sense underlines some of fascism's core tenets.

Stanley Milgram (Response to Mia)

We briefly touched on obedience in Wednesday's class while talking about the Nazi death camps. Mia's post here about the Milgram experiments makes the classic deduction from this test, which is namely that all human beings are sheep. Milgram claimed that his tests proved he could have recruited the SS in New Haven. However, I think there are several flaws with this test that should let us breathe a little easier about ourselves.

1. If you actually watch footage of the experiment (which was on Youtube but pulled because of copyright claims by Penn State), it becomes pretty obvious that it took some SUBSTANTIAL reassurance to keep those people going. There were 5 (not 4) responses, the last being the statement that the experiment would need to be discontinued if the teacher refused to continue. If we need that many layers to restrain us from not harming our fellow man, I find it reassuring. 

2. The researchers assured the experimental subjects that they would not harm the student (no "permanent tissue damage"). Why would a rational person doubt this? Especially given the fact that they are in a laboratory setting where it could be fairly assumed that the student's health and safety were not in jeopardy. Milgram does provide one anecdote of an electrical engineer who contradicts the supervisor because of his own knowledge of electricity's potential to harm, demonstrating the circumstances under which one could rationally object to the experiment. Absent that knowledge, however, it is perfectly rational for someone to continue.

3. Obedience is in many ways a healthy thing. If we were to constantly doubt everything we hear from people in positions of influence or power, our abilities of judgment would be severely hampered. So perhaps its healthy that we defer to the men from Yale University in the white lab coats. Society depends on hierarchies, and we shouldn't just chuck obedience out the window if we value order and stability. 

Chamberlain was a Fool

In Tuesday's class, we argued whether the Munich agreement was a rational foreign policy exercise by Great Britain and France. Some argued that it was, given that the West wanted a counterweight to Soviet Russia and that Hitler presented a rational argument for expanding Germany to include all persons of German descent. However, I think the evidence shows otherwise. Germany had already shown expansionary ambitions, such as the re-militarization of the Rhineland in 1936. On the specific issue of the Sudetenland, as indicated here, Hitler initially wanted to immediately occupy the region to throw off Czech defenses. This should have signaled alarm bells among the French and English. Finally, Hitler's annexation of the entirety of the Czech Republic in March of 1939 should have made the West realize the necessity of war. They instead waited nearly six months until Germany's invasion of Poland to make that declaration.

Debate Response

As a strong anti-statist, I obviously had a hard time arguing that fascism is 'a viable form of government that fulfills the needs of the governed' today. And while I ultimately think the anti-fascists did have a stronger case as Zak decided here, a couple points are worth noting.

1. Arguments for fascism seem absurd to our ears. Charlie and company repeatedly raised concerns over who would arbitrate a uniform moral standard under fascism, an objection a fascist would reject as based on the faulty assumption that a diversity of moral opinions is intrinsically valuable (thus Charlie would be begging the question since he seeks to prove that diversity is more valuable than uniformity). But it makes sense to us because we feel a deep skepticism toward the unlimited mandate given to the state if it is to create such a moral standard. Fascism's high estimation of order and security also strike us as sinister and insidious. All this shows the degree of desperation and hopelessness felt by citizens of Germany and Italy who supported fascist movements. 'Common sense' is completely irrelevant in uncommon times.

2. We really had no good response to Mia's (I think?) point that fascism is inherently militaristic, because it is. The logic of fascism works by creating enemies and framing everything in very bellicose, militant terms (the 'war' of production). This tends to lead to the real thing.

3. Cas mentioned in class that the wished we had discussed the economic advantages of fascism to a greater extent. I touched on that in my opening statement, arguing laissez-faire capitalism had atomized society and turned people into egotistic savages in constant competition with one another. Fascism, we tried to argue, would direct the energies of capitalism in a productive direction such as by ensuring full employment and the placing the private sector under the supervision of wise government. 

Your Soldiers Are Wack Yo

Nate's post responding to Sam here about the psychological effects of war on soldiers is, I think, right on the mark. Ever since the time of the Visigoths sacking Rome warriors have committed unspeakable atrocities against the enemy and civilians. Technology simply extended the ability of soldiers to inflict that kind of suffering. In addition, though, the doctrine of total war led to more unrestrained warfare. The countries in World War I largely fought away from cities, meaning that direct harm to civilians was minimal. The perceived destruction wrought by the war largely lay in its futility, senselessness, and enormous burden upon civilian populations.

While World War I may have been a more traumatic experience for soldiers, it did not represent a paradigm shift in how soldiers felt about war. The paradigm shift lay in the instruments they used to wage war, which yielded the unprecedented scale of the conflict.

A final point is that the worst atrocities committed during the war were not perpetrated by individual soldiers but by nation states. The Armenian genocide, for example. At the level of states, perhaps, the effects of nationalism and the horrific nature of the war might have been significant.

Comment to makaveli RE: Nitti vs. Cippico

"Also, Cippico seems to take pride in the fact that imports have increased so dramatically under Italian fascism. However, this has to do with the collapse of domestic industry rather than economic expansion. If Italian companies aren't producing the same goods and services they used to, they obviously must be imported from abroad if demand remains constant."

The Weimar Republic

The constitution of the Weimar Republic is one of the most stirring and beautiful political documents ever produced. Yet by 1933 it had been totally dismantled by the National Socialist Party and Germany had become a fascist state. There are a few basic reasons for this. The first was post-war political instability. Left and right-wing groups staged insurgencies and provincial rebellions that undermined the central government particularly because paramilitary groups like the freikorps acted as police instead of the German army. Germany's demilitarization due to the Versailles treaty left the Republic unable to maintain law and order creating a power vacuum.

The second was Germany's economic condition. The Republic was defaulting on payments of its reparations by 1923 and printing money 'like gangbusters' (in the words of Jim Haley) to cover its debts (as this video explains). Hyperinflation destroyed savings and the purchasing power of ordinary German citizens, leading to their impoverishment. The Great Depression only worsened matters, and the apparent impotence of the Weimar government (which slashed taxes and expenditures during the recession) destroyed the little credibility it had left.

A demoralized, distraught, and impoverished people could not be more open to something radically and tyrannically different.