The Holocaust was not planned from the beginning, it was the result of a chain of circumstances Do you agree?
"The Holocaust was not planned from the beginning, it was the result of a chain of circumstances" Do you agree? The Holocaust is an extremely difficult historical event to analyse and interpret for a number of reasons. The connotations of inherent evil and destruction the word has come to be associated with following the Second World War has made any attempts to pragmatically and objectively discuss the subject a complicated task. Historians who attempt to research and dissect one of the most poignant and significant events of the 20th Century are faced with an emotive and delicate area which needs to be approached in an according manner. In response to such a huge loss of human life by ridiculously inhumane means, it has become commonplace for the public, and certain historians, to accredit the guilt and blame for the catastrophe at the door of Adolf Hitler, and place his pathological and undoubted hatred of the Jewish race as central to the cause and effect of the systematic extermination of 6 million Jewish people. For many, attributing the event to the satanic evil and wickedness of one man is a comfortable way of coming to terms with the Holocaust, and makes it somewhat more believable. The notion that only the concerted evil efforts of one man could be to blame for the plight of the Jewish citizens of Europe is more appealing to many, when contrasted with the notion
How convincing do you find Meinecke's explanation for the rise of National Socialism?
How convincing do you find Meinecke's explanation for the rise of National Socialism? As a historian, I appreciate the absurdity of the rise of Nazism, however I have found Meinecke's explanation of the rise of Nazism, given its date of publication, to be not so much a disclaimer on behalf of the German people, as others have found it to be, but almost an attempt at academic vindication of the Anglo-American post-war view of Germany, often supported by uncheckable sources. Before assessing the book's contents, it is important to note certain noteworthy events surrounding the book's publication that require attention. Meinecke's book was produced in 1946 and published with the aid of Edward Y. Hartshore, an American working in the reconstruction of the German university system. Given the nature of the time, and the means by which Meinecke found a publisher, one would expect a stance on Nazism that would be helpful to the American occupation. What appear to be numerous anglicisms do appear throughout the volume, possibly suggesting that Meinecke had been priming himself on English texts (the use of the present participle in "grundstuerzende Revolution" is not a common German usage?). Meinecke, soon to accept the rectorship of the Free University of Berlin, an institute founded with the blessing of General Clay himself, would certainly have quite an incentive for
The main caiuse of the second world war
The first half of the twentieth century represented the swan song of Europe's great power status. Those who so spectacularly gathered at King Edward's wake in 1910 believed with certainty that the European progress and stability that had spawned such glorious empires would continue, if not ad infinitum, at least for the next century. Few could or would foresee the undiluted years of calamity, the destruction of once-proud imperial families, the brutal regimes of fascist, Nazi, and communist extremism. The squalor of trench warfare that slaughtered not only many of Europe's best and brightest young men but also the mirage of liberal democratic government would be no more than a ghastly hors d'oeuvre to the bloody feast served up to Europeans, soldier and civilian alike, in the war of 1939-1945. The following details some of the most significant works of the last fifty years on the historiography of the origins of that war in Europe. After World War I, a treaty was signed by the winning and losing countries, called the Treaty of Versailles. Germany, which was a losing country, was badly hurt by the severity of the treaty. Italy, one of the winning countries, was not satisfied with the territory that it gained. And Japan, also a victor, was unhappy about its failure to gain parts of China. The dissatisfaction of these three countries was one of the factors that lead to World War
Were the Roosevelt Years Inherently Conservative?
Were the Roosevelt years inherently conservative? Franklin Roosevelt was not a conservative, or at least, not a self described one. His Presidency was characterised by a series of fairly radical reforms in terms of the role of the presidency, the relationship between the American people and the federal government, increasing levels of American internationalism and the pursuit of interventionist economic policies. Many of Roosevelt's critics were themselves self identified conservatives, who, sceptical about the radical and reforming nature of Roosevelt's leadership, provided staunch opposition to many of the measures of the New Deal. However; Roosevelt and his government was also subjected to a good deal of criticism from the political left, indicating that a government's ideology cannot be defined by the identity and ideology of those who oppose it. Roosevelt's government can be called conservative in neither policy nor ideology, but neither can it be called a true liberal government. In order to analyse the conservatism of Roosevelt it must be made clear from the outset that the simple dichotomy between conservative and liberal politics is insufficient. The Roosevelt era can be viewed then as an era led by a politician who was seemingly not driven by ideological dogma, but, though some historians would dispute this1, by reaction to economic and political circumstance, it
Outline and Explain the Theological and Philosophical Responses to the Holocaust.
Outline and Explain the Theological and Philosophical Responses to the Holocaust. The word Holocaust comes from the Greek word meaning 'sacrifice burnt offering.' 'Shoah' is the Hebrew word meaning 'whirlwind or catastrophe' and is always used by Jews because they reject the suggestion that they were willingly sacrificed. The Holocaust was an event that took place during the Second World War. It was the annihilation of millions of people who were regarded by the Nazi party, and Hitler in particular, as not worthy of living. The Jews in particular suffered, with six million of them being wiped out at a series of concentration camps. These camps were specifically designed for killing as many people as possible which was the quickest and easiest way. Jews were taken from their homes in trains, sorted out into groups of those that could be worked to death on one side and those who would be killed immediately on another side. Those selected for immediate death were then told they were having showers. Their hair was cut, clothes were removed and they were herded like animals into gas chambers. In addition their culture too had disappeared with many of their books, paintings, music and architecture having been destroyed. Before the Jews were sent to concentration camps, they were held in ghettos. Disease killed many Jews at ghettos. Many people died of starvation. Jews were treated
Book Review - The New Deal by Paul K. Conkin
Book Review - The New Deal by Paul K. Conkin First published in the politically turbulent years of the late 1960's, Paul Conkin's 'The New Deal' is considered now one of the defining books closely associated with the New Left school of historical criticism. The New Left was a political movement that grew up, frequently, in college and university campuses in the mid to late 1960's as a response to a growing perception of an entrenched social hierarchy within American society.1 At the time of writing, Conkin's book was not a conscious attempt to provide a New Left reading of the New Deal, as he himself states in the preface he had, 'never heard of any movement called the New Left'. Conkin was clearly, being a young professor at a dynamic and progressive institution like the University of Maryland, influenced by the spread of the radical disillusionment at the time, and this shows in the reasons he gives for writing this book. Conkin viewed the perception of the New Deal in journalism as well as in the historiographical trend prior to the 1960's as largely uncritical, that the even the most scholarly literature reflected a 'smug or superficial valuative perspective-approval, even glowing approval of almost all New Deal policies.'2 So the publication of 'The New Deal' reflected the work of a young scholar, working in a politically charged environment, seeking to make their name
Could the Allies haves saved the victims of the Holocaust?
HISTORY IA Name: Matthew Jackson IB Candidate #: D-0612-011 Topic: Could the Allies haves saved the victims of the Holocaust? Word count: 2740 words. TITLE PAGE & TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1 ESSAY PAGES 2-9 ENDNOTES PAGE 10 BIBLIOGRAPHY PAGE 11 COULD THE ALLIES HAVE SAVED THE VICTIMS OF THE HOLOCAUST? "The Holocaust" - or the systematic execution of the German Jewry during the Second World War is universally abhorred in present times. The Allied governments have spent many millions of dollars hunting down the perpetrators of these horrific crimes in order to punish them for their actions. However, this response occurred only after the defeat of Germany. Did the Allies take any action at the time to reduce the number of Jewish victims or where they inactive? Hitler's pogrom against the European Jewry began with the start of his political career. His speeches were rife with anti-sematic sentiments, but until he came to power in 1933, the direction that this policy would take was uncertain. The world was certainly aware of the "Nuremberg Laws" of September 1935 that removed the status of citizenship from all German Jews, forbidding them from marrying people of Germanic background for fear of marring the gene pool.1 "Krystalnacht", often translated as "The Night of the Broken Glass", was a night of terror for many German Jews: hundreds of synagogues and Jewish
Can Franco be described as a truly fascist dictator?
Can Franco be described as a truly fascist dictator? General Francisco Franco served as head of state of Spain from victory in the Spanish Civil in 1939 until his death in 1975. Since Franco's death there has been much debate as to whether the Generalissimo’s dictatorship can be described as a truly fascist regime. The crux of this debate hinges on each individual historian's definition of a fascist dictator. Therefore first of all it is important to define what makes a truly fascist dictator. To do this it is essential to bear in mind the definitions of other historians. Firstly as Payne states a fascist dictator must adhere to the concept of 'anti isms', this means a fascist's inherent ideology is antiliberalism, anticommunism and antidemocratic.[1] Secondly Paxton says a fascist dictator 'pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraint goals of internal cleansing and external expansion' which means a fascist dictator uses tactics of terror and violence and holds expansionist foreign policy aims.[2] Thirdly as Passmore states all aspects of a fascist dictator's policies are suffused with ultranationalism.[3] Fourthly as Griffin states a fascist dictator must implement an authoritarian and totalitarian form of government.[4] These are the four key components of what makes a truly fascist dictator. It is clear that Franco shared some of these key
What are the grounds on which the dropping of the nuclear bombs on Japan have been either condemned or justified?
What are the grounds on which the dropping of the nuclear bombs on Japan have been either condemned or justified? It was precisely 8.15 in the morning on 6th August 1945 when a lone B-52 bomber, the Elona Gay, commonly seen over Japanese airspace come the end of the war dropped the first atomic bomb in history on Hiroshima. Nicknamed ‘Little Boy’, it produced a “white flash of blinding intensity”, seen for miles around and packed “more explosive power than 20,000 tonnes of TNT”. However, this essay is concerned as to how and why the Elona Gay did not encounter any form of resistance in the air or on the ground. It has been argued that Japan’s effectiveness as a fighting force, by the time the bomb was dropped, had long been diminished. [1] Exhausted of soldiers, unable to rebuild industries or even produce enough food for the remaining civilians, Japan was on it’s knees, for this reason this essay will seek to analyse whether the use of nuclear warfare was the sole reason for the Japanese unconditional surrender. In this essay I will seek to analyse the bombs in terms of Japanese suffering and American desire for a quick resolution to end the war. Furthermore, I will have to justify or condemn the effect of the event where the entire world was thrust into the new nuclear age with such brutal and devastating force. Throughout this essay I will not be arguing
Compare and contrast the persecution of the Jews, Gypsies, Jehovah(TM)s Witnesses and Homosexuals in Nazi Germany
Compare and contrast the persecution of at least two of the following: Jews, Gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses and Homosexuals. Following on from the Second World War, the biggest focus of world history became Hitler and the rise of the Nazis in Germany. When one hears of the horrors and atrocities committed by the Nazis during the War, we often stop to question how and why such policies of racial hatred could have been so easily undertaken and readily accepted by an educated and 'civilised' nation. In order to create their 'utopian society', the Nazis sought to forcibly 'remove' certain groups from existence, these groups included Jews, Gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses and homosexuals. This essay examines the different experiences of these groups in detail, commenting on their similarities and highlighting the different degrees of racial abuse used against them. Shortly after Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of the Reich in January 1933, there was an increase in tensions with the Jewish community in Germany, with reports of violence against individual Jews and Jewish shops by members of the NSDAP and the SA in March of 1933. This marked the beginning of a barrage of 'racial politics' directed primarily at the small German Jewish community, which only accounted for roughly 1% of the German population.1On the 22nd of March 1933 Hitler established a department of 'Racial Hygiene' in the