World War

As the Allies stepped up their bombing campaign, the Nazis began evacuating children from threatened cities into Hitler Youth KLV (Kinderlandverschickung) camps located mainly in the rural regions of East Prussia, the Warthegau section of Poland, Upper Silesia, and Slovakia.

From 1940 to 1945, over 2.8 million German children were sent to these camps. There were separate KLV camps for boys and girls. About 5,000 camps were eventually in operation, varying greatly in sizes from the smallest which had 18 children to the largest which held 1,200. Each camp was run by a Nazi approved teacher and a Hitler Youth squad leader. The camps replaced big city grammar schools, most of which were closed due to the bombing. Reluctant parents were forced to send their children away to the camps.

Life inside the boys’ camp was harsh, featuring a dreary routine of roll calls, para-military field exercises, hikes, marches, recitation of Nazi slogans and propaganda, along with endless singing of Hitler Youth songs and Nazi anthems. School work was neglected while supreme emphasis was placed on the boys learning to automatically snap-to attention at any time of the day or night and to obey all orders unconditionally “without any if or buts.”

Isolated in these camps and without any counter-balancing influences from a home life, the boys descended into a primitive, survival of the fittest mentality. Weakness was despised. Civilized notions of generosity and sympathy for those in need faded. Rigid pecking orders arose in which the youngest and most vulnerable boys were bullied, humiliated, and otherwise made to suffer, including sexual abuse.

Quotes and Sayings

Jungvolk Oath (taken by ten-year-old boys on first entering the Hitler Youth)

“In the presence of this blood banner which represents our Fhrer, I swear to devote all my energies and my strength to the saviour of our country, Adolf Hitler. I am willing and ready to give up my life for him, so help me God.”

Pledge of Allegiance

“I promise to do my duty in love and loyalty to the Fhrer and our flag.”

Hitler Youth ‘Prayers’ (modeled after the Lord’s Prayer)

“Adolf Hitler, you are our great Fhrer. Thy name makes the enemy tremble. Thy Third Reich comes, thy will alone is law upon the earth. Let us hear daily thy voice and order us by thy leadership, for we will obey to the end and even with our lives. We praise thee! Heil Hitler!”

“Fhrer, my Fhrer, give me by God. Protect and preserve my life for long. You saved Germany in time of need. I thank you for my daily bread. Be with me for a long time, do not leave me, Fhrer, my Fhrer, my faith, my light, Hail to my Fhrer!”

Mottos for Boys

“Live Faithfully, Fight Bravely, and Die Laughing!”

“We were born to die for Germany!”

“You are nothing–your Volk is everything!”

Motto for Girls

“Be Faithful, Be Pure, Be German!”

Sayings of Hitler Youth Leader Baldur von Schirach

“We do not need intellectual leaders who create new ideas, because the superimposing leader of all desires of youth is Adolf Hitler.”

“Your name, my Fhrer, is the happiness of youth, your name, my Fhrer, is for us everlasting life.”

“He who serves Adolf Hitler, the Fhrer, serves Germany, and whoever serves Germany, serves God.” Quotes of Adolf Hitler

“I begin with the young. We older ones are used up. We are rotten to the marrow. We are cowardly and sentimental. We are bearing the burden of a humiliating past, and have in our blood the dull recollection of serfdom and servility. But my magnificent youngsters! Are there any finer ones in the world? Look at these young men and boys! What material! With them, I can make a new world. This is the heroic stage of youth. Out of it will come the creative man, the man-god.”

“When an opponent declares, ‘I will not come over to your side,” I say calmly, “Your child belongs to us already… What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing but this new community.”

“… Knowledge would spoil my young people. I prefer that they learn only what they pick up by following their own play instinct. But they must learn self-control. I will have them master the fear of death through the most difficult trials. That is the heroic stage of youth. Out of it will grow the stage of the free man, a human being who is the measure and center of the world.”

“The German youth must be slender and supple, fast as a greyhound, tough as leather, and hard as Krupp steel. He must learn to do without, to endure criticism and injustice, to be reliable, discreet, decent, and loyal.”

September 5, 2011 Origins of World War 1: Compare and Contrast During the twentieth century Europe seemed to enjoy a period of peace and progress. But below the surface several forces were at the work and would lead Europe into the Great War. World War 1 was the mayor conflict that made its appearance in the beginning of the twentieth century. As we read in “The origins of the first World War” by Ruth Heing and in “The Iron Dice: World War 1” by John G. Stoessinger, World War 1 began in 1914 it had many countries involved but not all of them entered at the same time.

At the beginning of this war there were two sides to choose from. The triple entente that was unified by Great Britain, France and Russia; Later called the Allied Powers and also they included Italy. The other Alliance was the Triple Alliance between Germany, Austria-Hungry, and Italy; later on called the Central Powers whom instead of Italy who had join the Allied Powers, Turkey join this alliance. Although both chapters attempt to explain the origins of World War 1 they differ in various aspects. In the Reading “The origins of the first World War” by Ruth Henig, it is stated that cause of the war was the system.

The system that was managed before the war was conformed by MAIN; which stands for, Militarism: Every country in Europe except for Great Britain had conscription, which means that every men over 18 years old should register for the army; The conscription plan resulted because as the time was going by all of the countries in Europe had a great growth in their military power; Also they were working on arms race, which means that they were developing new arms, the country that was the most benefit was Germany.

MAIN also stands for Alliances: Alliances were a key concept because the alliances began the conflict in Sarajevo, if it weren’t because they had a close relationship with Germany this conflict would have been local, therefore Russia and Germany and later on France and Great Britain would had not participate. There would not have been a world war. The third letter in MAIN stands for Imperialism early twentieth century saw a great deal of colonization of Asia and Africa by European powers, each trying to colonize this lands.

These colonies funded a great part of the ruling countries’ economies and expansion became necessary and desirable to advance the glory and the wealth of each European power. The last concept N stands for Nationalism, which means the identity that the government or the rulers created towards their population so they were proud of their country and wanted to fight for them. Through out the reading of “The Iron Dice: World War 1” by John G. Stoessinger, we are able to appreciate that it perfectly explains that the causes of world war 1 were attributed to the people in control.

It perfectly examples that the lack of self-confidence in the leaders, the wrong perception on their adversary and specially the lack of empathy that was based on personal decisions, not based on facts but fears were the causes of the war. The reading is perfectly stating it in the following quote: “The Kaiser was indeed to blame. His flaw was both moral and political, for his form of loyalty demanded sacrifice beyond himself. It offered up the German nation, and it emboldened the senile monarchy of Austria-Hungary o take a desperate gamble….

What is closer to the truth is that he permitted other to rattle and ultimately use the saber for him”(p. 4-5). The lack of self-confidence is stated in the last sentence, he preferred that other people made decisions; it also states that he offered up the German nation because Archduke Franz-Ferdinand was a close friend. Between these two chapters we can distinguish that both chapters state that the fault of the origins of war was of Germany.

In the second reading we can see this in the following quote: “succumbed to a power he had not reckoned with: the power of Fate; had not been for that, the war would never have started” (p. 4); and it is also clearly shown on the first reading when it is stated that if it weren’t for Germany who intervene in the conflict of Sarajevo, therefore there wouldn’t exist a war. There are not many similarities between these two texts, but different perspectives of presenting the information.

In these two chapters it is clearly marked that the contrast between each other relies on the justification they give to the origins of war; the points of view stated in each chapter are related to different points of view. In the first reading “The origins of the first World War” by Ruth Henig it is clearly marked that the problem was the system failure. And as it is stated in the second reading “The Iron Dice: World War 1” by John G. Stoessinger, “Mortals made these decisions. They made them in fear and in trembling, but they made them nonetheless. We can infer that in this reading the ones to blame are the ones that were in control of the country: the leaders. Another difference between these two chapters is how the information is managed in the first reading the type of writing is strictly informative and in the second lecture it is more like a critique as we can see in the quotes that are stated in paragraphs before. In the second reading it is shown the relationship between leaders in a level where they interacted and send telegrams to each other; which it is not shown in the first reading.

In conclusion I find more interesting the contrast between these two readings because that is the whole point of history; Specially in the causes (origins) of war can and must be shown from different perspectives. The reading I found more accurate through the reading is “The Iron Dice: World War 1” by John G. Stoessinger, because in my opinion the ones who have control of the system are the “mortals”, therefore they had in their hands the power to debilitate the system and stop the war from happening. Even if the system (MAIN) went out of control the ones how had the decisions to stop it in there hands where the leaders.

Emily Hawkins How far do you agree that Nicholas II’s downfall was caused by World War 1? 1914 was a devastating year for many countries of the world, as world war one began to take full effect. But as world war one shook the world; it began to question Nicholas II’s ability to rule Russia. In this essay i will discuss the extent of world war one’s responsibility in Nicholas II’s downfall, and the extent of other contributing factors. I will argue that Nicholas II’s own traits as a leader were the main reason for his downfall.

On the one hand, world war one had a huge impact on the Tsar and his country. Firstly, the cost of the war was placing a huge strain on Russia’s economy. Taxes increased hugely and the cost of living rose by 300%, so in order to try and help the economy through the struggling times of world war one, the government printed more money, making all money worthless. The people of Russia were now struggling even more than they were before the war had begun. Secondly, the Germans were forcing the Russians to retreat and they were therefore losing a lot of land.

The impact of the battle of Tannenburg, where 30,000 troops were killed and 95,000 captured had a huge impact on the army’s moral, and by the end of 1916, 2 million soldiers had left the army. The commander in chief shot himself because of how bad the country and the army were doing, and soon after, the Tsar himself took on the role of commander in chief, although he lacked ability and knowledge. Also, the military had a lack of resources, in each regiment in the army; there was one gun per three people; the Tsar was blamed for many of the military downfalls, and this was one of them.

The Russian transport system was also facing serious problems, and the ammunitions being made in the factories weren’t getting to the front line. Thirdly, world war one was causing huge food shortages; in Moscow in 1914, Russia was receiving 2200 wagons of grain and by Christmas 1916, the number of carts was down to just 300. This was because of distribution problems; nobody could sort the carts out properly. They were prioritized to the front line, so that the soldiers got the first carts.

But after the front line had been sent their grain, there was nobody sorting out the rest of it; there were carts found with bread rotting away, bread that the starving Russian people were missing out on. Although world war one was not the sole reason for Nicholas’ downfall, it did act as a catalyst. It increased the severity of the existing problems that Russia was facing. It also highlighted that the Tsar and the Romanov dynasty was no longer capable of ruling the country and that they didn’t have the support and determination to rule the country through a world war.

On the other hand, there were many other reasons that the Tsar’s downfall occurred. Firstly, the strikes and demonstrations in Moscow and Petrograd were causing huge disruption, and when the Tsar tried to return to Petrograd, his train was stopped and he realised that he couldn’t control the protestors; a major sign that he had no control of Russia and its people. Secondly, the revolutionary parties were spreading their radical ideas around the country, and also highlighting the weaknesses of the Romanov dynasty.

The Tsar’s downfall was prone because of the amount of opposition that he faced and his loss of support to the other political parties. Parties such as the Bolsheviks, Social Revolutionaries, Mensheviks and Populists educated the peasants and working-class people on the need for a new type of leadership; this encouraged strikes and discontent. Many of the strikes were purely because of the appalling living and working conditions, and for a while, the people united together because of the war, but when the Russian people began to feel the true cost of the war, the protests began to re-occur and more support for the Tsar was lost.

Thirdly, because of the troops refusing to shoot at protestors on 25th of February, the army felt no longer obliged to be loyal to the Tsar. As long as the Tsar was not supported by the army, he had no chance of successfully running Russia. The Duma also refused orders to dissolve, and 12 of its members formed a committee that planned to take over Russia; the called themselves ‘The Provisional Government’. The soviets also issued ‘Order number 1’ which demanded that all officers in the army be elected by their men, proving that the Tsar had lost all of his power.

Therefore, there were many factors involved in the Tsar’s downfall, such as the political opposition, strikes and the disloyalty of the army and the Duma. Once people started to support the other political parties, they lost all loyalty for the ‘God appointed’ Tsar. The strikes highlighted the weaknesses of the Tsar’s leadership skills and proved that he couldn’t no longer control and rule Russia. The disloyalty of the army and the Duma completely removed all of his power, meaning that Nicholas could no longer be Tsar.

I personally believe that Nicholas II was responsible for his own downfall. Although there was definitely contributing factors, his naive attitude and inability to effectively rule a country caused his downfall. Nicholas failed to trust key advisors such as Witte and Stolypin and despite him issuing the October Manifesto; he preserved his own autocratic power through the fundamental laws, which the Russian people didn’t like. He failed to think and plan ahead to create a better future for Russia, he didn’t think like a leader should.

Even though the war was already a huge strain on Russia, and on Nicholas, he still felt it necessary to take over the role of commander in chief of the army; although he had no experience or knowledge of the role. He was blamed for many of the army’s failure, and people stopped believing in him. By Christmas 1916, the Russian army were struggling and with Nicholas II as an unqualified leader, poor communications and shortages of food and supplies led to problems and Nicholas was blamed for the 1. million soldiers who died, the 3. 9 million wounded and the 2. 4 million who were now prisoners. As Nicholas was busy trying to incapably run the army, he left his wife in charge of Russia, his wife that nobody liked. As she was German born, the Russian people thought that she was sympathetic to the enemy, and they deeply mistrusted her. The Russian people looked at their leadership and saw the ineffectiveness; they began to look for alternative leaders.

Also, people disliked the Tsar, as he took key advice from Rasputin, who was disliked by the population for making many ministerial changes, and they thought that he was having an affair with the Tsarina. Some radical parties began to plot the death of Rasputin as the Russian people looked for alternatives to the Romanov dynasty. Therefore Nicholas was responsible for his own downfall. People began to dislike him after he failed to listen to his key advisors and improve Russia. This was made worse by his inability to share power with the Dumas or any other political opposition.

Russian people also hated the fact that Nicholas had taken the role of commander in chief of the army. He was unable to run the country, let alone the army as well. He had almost run Russia into the ground, and then he left it in the hands of someone that none of the population liked or trusted, so that he could take up a role he knew nothing about; which he failed at miserably, letting the country and the army down. Therefore, i believe that Nicholas was responsible for his own downfall.

There were many other things to blame though, such as world war one, the disloyalty of the army, and his political opposition. As soon as world war one started, the Russian people began to see that Nicholas was incapable of running Russia and they looked towards the opposition for a way out of the autocratic state they had suffered so long. Once the loyalty of the army was lost, Nicholas had no chance of getting Russia back to how it was 100’s of years before. He knew that his time of autocracy, and the time of the Romanov dynasty was up.

How far do you agree that world war one was mainly responsible for the 1917 revolution? World war one was one of the main reasons for the breakout of revolution in 1917, however other factors can be brought about to suggest that it wasn’t only the main reason for the breakout of revolution in 1917. Aspects such as the decisions and actions of Tsar Nicholas can also be identified as important features for the breakout of revolution alongside the social and economic strains and the lack of political reform.

All factors have characteristics to suggest that they were the main reason for the breakout of war, however the impact of world war one can be viewed as playing the larger role on the reason for breakout in 1917. The actions of the tsar Nicholas prove to be an important factor for the breakout of revolution in 1917. In 1915 when the Tsar decided to take full control of the army he was creating even further inconveniences for himself. Due to the fact that the Tsars main attention was spent on the army, the day to day running of the government was left to his Tsarina Alexandra Feodorovna.

The problem was created through the fact that the Tsarina was greatly influenced by Grigori Rasputin. Rasputin damaged the Tsars reputation as anybody who wanted to gain power would have to befriend Rasputin. Many governors and politicians either resigned or were relieved of their position due to Rasputin. This had a large effect on the Russian people as the Tsars attention was fully towards the war and not on the problems faced by the people.

This would have been a growing source of discontent which backs up the argument that the Tsars neglect of the Russian troubles back in Russia would have been one of the main reasons for the outbreak of revolution in 1917. The impact of world war one in Russia can be viewed as one of the characteristics that play a large role in the reason for outbreak of revolution in 1917. The war for the Russian people meant that all fuel, food and coal were being concentrated on being provided to the soldiers on the front line.

The effect of this was that Russian people were being neglected of these goods which they needed almost as profusely as the Russian soldiers did. Growing dissatisfaction would have occurred throughout the Russian people as nothing took place to try and relieve these hardships that they were experiencing. This would have led to the even further loss of faith and support in the Tsar and would provide an evidently profound reason for revolution. Furthermore, during world war one over a million soldiers were either killed or taken prisoner.

This largely lowered morale between the soldiers and many of them fled. The support of the army would have been lost due to these results as the Tsar was seen mainly as the responsibility for the horrific results of war. Dissimilar to the 1905 revolution were the Tsar had the army on his side, the fact that the Tsar lost the support of the army made his chances of surviving the revolution very thin. Moreover, another leading factor for the breakout of revolution in 1917 was the social and economic strains faced by the Russian people.

The outbreak of revolution during 1905 was partly due to the social and economical strains experienced by the Russian people however, conditions decreased further during the build up to revolution in 1917. The war was costing profoundly more than they could afford, Russia left the gold standard and started to print money which caused inflation. This added to the discontent of the Russian people as it meant that the price of living also went up yet they had no income to afford basic goods.

This was due to the fact that many factories were closed down and the crop yield was being directed to the soldiers at war. This left the Russian people isolated as they had little, if any means of income to buy basic necessary items. Too make matters worse for both the Tsar and the Russian people, little action was taken in aid of these inconveniences. Before the war Moscow had been receiving 2200 railway wagons of grain per month in 1914; however by Christmas 1916 this reduced to only 300.

This therefore resulted in the accumulative discontent of the Russian people which only made matters worse for the Tsar as the likely hood of the occurrence of revolution was high. The lack of political reform can accountably be taken in as one of the main reasons for the outbreak of revolution in 1917. The union of zemstva provided medical facilities for the army; however the government did not know how to incorporate them into its own war effort. Moreover, the progressive Bloc called for a government of public confidence in which the ministers would be responsible for the Duma.

However, Tsar Nicholas refused to listen to any of their demands, this resulted in the ministers who campaigned for change and reform; were either dismissed or resigned. Due to the fact that no reform was made, all the blame was directed to the Nicholas. Reform was needed greatly at this time yet no reform occurred, this accumulated the ever rising dissatisfaction of the Russian people. Furthermore, as a result of Nicholas’s lack of political reform the support of political parties became very minute.

In conclusion, I agree that world war one played a large characteristic in the reason for breakout of war; however it does not act as the aspect mainly responsible for revolution. Other reasons such as the lack of reform, the economic and social strains and the actions taken by Tsar Nicholas played an equal role in the reason for the outbreak of revolution in 1917. World war one can be interpreted as a ‘trigger’ towards the revolution rather than being the main cause. Revolution would likely occur even without the impact of world war one, yet due to the timing, acts as a catalyst towards the revolution in 1917.

This essay will explain, describe, and outline factors, events and speeches that show how the cold war transformed American Foreign policy. To fully understand the cold war we must to travel to the past, even before the second wold war. America was the first democratic country in the world, with a private enterprise ideology, which can be called of capitalism. In contrast with URSS, which after the Bolshevik revolution, under Lenin controls adapted, a communist regime, where the state represents the people and owns everything.

These two ideologies communism (authoritarianism) and capitalism (democracy) are the opposite, like water and wine; they do not go together, which made of these two countries natural enemies. Even before the Great War, URSS had strong intentions to expand the communism, and US were the most powerful economic country, an example for the world, however the great depression outlined that there is no perfect system and for the eyes of the world communism was a valid option. Although both countries had massive differences, a major event made these two natural enemies became allies. The world war against Nazi camouflaged all issues behind. It brought two different ideologies under the table and formed a powerful alliance, alongside with UK and others allies countries.

American position before the Great War

US did not want to get into the world war 2, it was a massive issue inside the country, Franklin Roosevelt was elected with a promise of do not send any troops to fight a war overseas, as his remarkable speech describes “I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again: your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars” (Roosevelt, 1940).2 America was reluctant to get into the war mainly because they were focus in sort out the domestic issues left by the great depression. Firstly, US found ways to help the allies without a direct involvement, however in order to protect economic ties, other several factors, the Japanese attack and Hitler declaration War, pushed US to the war. (History Channel)

End of the World War 2

The direct involvement of US into the war was a decisive factor to defeat Hitler that attacked from all sides had no changes or whatsoever of winning. As the war ends in Europe, only one enemy remained, the empire of Japan, and URSS were willing to help , however it was not necessary as US displayed the new sensation, that would change and shake the world, the most powerful weapon the world as ever seen, the Atomic Bomb. US came out of the war as one of the top nations on the earth, without any internal infrastructure damage, almost full employment, and the economic was on edge, the country was happier and wealthier and the great depression became a ghost of past.

In contrast with URSS, that was completely destroyed, all major reforms to the industry made by Stalin were destroyed, with almost 27 million deaths. Despite all losses and destruction, URSS came off as a super power nation leaded by Stalin as a great leader with huge desire to expand, control and spread the communism in all central Europe and thereafter to the world.

Alliances

After the war Europe was divided by URSS and the allies (western powers). Despite massive losses URS controlled all central Europe based on terror policy and heavy policies. However it was no enough for Stalin, his famous speech suggested that he wanted to dominate the world under the statement that is only to protect URSS from being invaded again, and that a war against capitalism is inevitable, therefore US knew that they should be prepared and start gaining position in order to stop or impede the communism and URSS influences to spread out.

URSS controlled central Europe and US had strong influence in Europe. American created and formed an alliance Nato3 and in response Soviets formed the Warsaw pact4 with Eastern European Allies. UN was also a world organization that begun under the aegis of the U.S.

Fig 1 Nato organisation VS Warsaw Pact

Truman Dourine and NSC Plan

One of the moments that marked a change in American foreign policy was a speech of Truman on the congress where he announced that United States would advance against communism everywhere in the world, and due to the decline of Britain and withdraw of their influences on the Mediterranean, US had to advance as quickly as possible, essentially the declaration of the cold war. The Truman doctrine and the NSC plan (National Council Report 68) expressed the fear of America and it was the turning point of American foreign policy from passive to active introducing the first steps of containment and thereafter followed by the marshal plan. US started growing up its influences, firstly by rescuing Greece and Turkey and, then the head to head regarding Iran issue that can be said under UN, US won as UN denied URSS troops in Iran.

Marshal Plan

Due to the economic struggles, war losses and bombings, all Europe was destroyed, lack of houses, industries or whatsoever. The URSS pretended seize this opportunity by spreading communism, which caused a generalized fear and US responded with the Marshal Plan to rebuild Europe.5

Firstly US helped some countries such as Greece and Turkey with loans to secure western influences over communism; however the main response came through General Marshal 6with the Marshal plan. It was approved on congress with a huge bill and it was open to everyone including URSS however as imaginable URSS refused saying that this plan had intentions to divide Europe. According with historians it was a fake hand of US to URSS to improve US image in Europe.

The plan was signed by sixteen making an accentuated of the cold war lines as the fig 2 describes. The plan consisted in 20% of loans and 80% of gross (food, fertilizers, and machines to improve agriculture). This plan was extremely beneficial for US as it established strong alliances; more congenial environment for American investment, and domestic gave an industrial and economy boom. The marshal plan is the vital turning point in American foreign policy as it was the beginning of what we call economic globalization; it was the beginning of economic integration.

Fig 1.Western Europe Recovery
Foreign Policy and Atomic Age
US strived to avoid communism in all senses, from economic to political all over the world, therefore they had to get involved also in countries election. Italy elections described these efforts made by US to secure western influences. The Italy elections were vital to secure position on western therefore US created CIA to deal with these types of actions and support democracy parties. CIA had an essential role on the cold war against the rival KGB undertaking thousands of under-operations.

The church also expressed refusal against communism, and it was beneficial to US and it created a generalized idea that communism is a work of devil and everyone that supports communism is against Christ. It emphases the flag that US want to free the world, and legitimated a lot of US actions.8 At that time America was one step ahead, it was the only country with atomic bombs, which originated a race to the atomic bomb and arms, however in 1949 URSS also detonated the first nuclear bomb. It was the official statement that the world is divided by two superpowers countries. The atomic bomb had a dual role it instigate the race to the arms but also prevent these two superpowers countries to get into a direct war as it could destroy both.

Fig.3 Atomic Bomb
1.5 From Clash to Clash

The descolonialization by European countries and Japan of the third world countries left an emptiness of power around the word. As America could not do anything regarding Central Europe they truly strived and sought to influence new governments on these countries under democracy flag. The first major clash was the Korea War, as the Japanese abandoned the country, North Korea attacked to the south equipped with URSS army and thereafter the south responded alongside with US and Allies (UN). It was the first time UN came involved directly with designated army force to fight against North Invasion, although the army was mainly compost by US troop’s it was under UN flag.

There were no winners as both alliances North and China that joined the war and South and UN came to a cease fire.9 The construction of the Berlin wall by the Soviets raised dramatically the tensions and it outlined the lines between both. The Cuba missile crisis was one of the closest moments that these two could face directly each other’s has American felt extremely vulnerable. It was under JFK presidential period, one of the cold warriors that totally expressed that the country should stop communism as it is a national threat. 10 Vietnam was the first direct involvement of US on its own, as it was essential to secure the Asia opposition because if Vietnam tumbled it would originated a domino fall and give strength to URSS and its biggest allied China.

The Space war was also changed American foreign policy. It was basically propaganda of superiority to show to the world, which is the stronger or has more capabilities. Despite this entire propaganda what was most important was the development of rockets used in the space. These rockets to the space could be used or were similar to intercontinental missiles with atomic warhead. 11 There were several battlegrounds all over the world and Africa was including, countries like Mozambique, Angola, Congo, Chad, Nigeria and etc suffered the cold war impact. US made such effort in its ideals of self-determination that they support even dictators as long as they were no communists.

End of Cold War

The cold war came to an End in 1989 with the fall of Berlin wall, and it mainly ended not due to military power but the monetary power. American economy was great whereas URSS stagnated. URSS could not maintain the vital technology and military updates to continue the war. Therefore under Gorbachev leadership, URSS opened up and begun to build relations with US. The cold war impacted America in all views, and it required a massive propaganda tool, and it changed American civilians and also stimulated the American to be proud and patriotism. The massive propaganda tool as it gave patriotism, also demanded more and more foreign policy, to spread the American ideology of democracy and prosperity. 13 Fig.4 Fall of Berlin wall

Conclusion
As described on previous topics, the Cold War changed American foreign policy drastically, if before America would only be focus in trade and economic matters with the world. The Cold war influenced the heavy machinery that America is today. Communism represented such treat to America and American Dream (lifestyle) that the only alternative way, was to grow influences all over the word and impede the spread of communism. In order to do it, America invested huge amounts of money not only military but by healing the big wound left by the world war destruction.

Therefore much of American spending went to strategic defence initiative, military aid, infrastructure recovery and most important propaganda of the America lifestyle and ideology. The containment policy can be described as the key policy that changed America foreign Policy. Foreign policy changed so drastically that after the cold war, America became the world police, the leaders of the free world, as they like to be characterized. Iraq and Panama invasion are prove that after the cold war America did not stop, only substituted the name by calling it the fight against injustice.

To conclude Cold War was an Ideology, Political, Economic, indirect and Spy war, where almost lead the world to destruction and created a generalized fear. Despite all, it made US became the Leader of the free world, spreading American ideology (capitalism and democracy) all over the world. American foreign policy is what it is today, due to the consequences of cold war; it woke a sleeping giant, that today controls all major events in the world and that even without authorisation of UN can attack and invade countries.

Abstract:

In this essay I plan to explore how the national patriotism engendered by the outbreak of the First and Second World Wars may have been more effective in achieving women’s suffrage than the comparatively impotent methods attempted prior by Millicent Fawcett and Emmeline Pankhurst. I will be studying the social perception of women before, during and after the wars, and comparing these views to gender treatments enacted in other countries. As a capricious issue pning many decades and with no definitive date at which women’s enfranchisement was granted, I consider this to be an intriguing subject, and potentially a positive outcome that can be drawn from the bleak horrors of the war-time period. To ensure an objective analysis of this matter I have utilized a range of source material, including both detached, encyclopaedic annals of the topic, as well as more emotive diatribes from the women this subject personally affected.

Introduction:

“The war that has traditionally been defined as an apocalypse of masculinism seems to have led to an apotheosis of femaleness” (Gilbert 1983: p.424-425)

Little erodes the order of a status quo quite like war, a time where superficial social prejudices must be cast aside in order to unite in the name of preserving national identity. They can be regarded as “discontinuities”, moments or periods where “assumptions, rules or possibilities are so altered by events that the future, whatever it proves to be, cannot be the same as the past” (Butler and Bonnett 2007: p.18), and the two World Wars that stretched European and American resources and willpower to their most taut serve as archetypes of this rule. The assassination of Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand by Serbian Nationalist Gavrilo Princip in 1914 led to events which would leave European nations at their most insecure. World War I consumed over 70 million military personnel, and the Second World War 100 million, separated by an uneasy 21 year truce under the precarious demands of the Treaty of Versailles. It is unsurprising, then, that with all manpower mobilized in battle, and the manufacture of military resources at their most crucial, that gender discriminations should be lifted, and for women to be provided the same opportunities as men. This did not just result in increased aggregates of steel and munitions – this epitomized the change women had been actively pursuing for almost 50 years.

Chapter 1 – The Suffragettes:

The struggle for women’s suffrage had been prevalent since the inauguration of the 1832 Reform Act which prohibited women from voting, but until the outbreak of the First World War campaigns had been largely ineffectual. This was likely due to the contrasting extremist approaches undertaken by the two leaders of the Women’s Social and Political Union during this period; Millicent Fawcett believed in the merits of a patient, non-violent protest which, though maintaining a composed logic to the women’s arguments, simply was not forceful enough to convince the men in Parliament to allow women into the electoral process, and Emmeline Pankhurst who took control in 1903 encouraged militant tactics, including arson, hunger strikes and violent demonstrations, significantly raising influential attention, but proportionately more controversy to the cause. Whilst it is fair to say that campaigns for women’s enfranchisement have been controversial since their inception, taking the form of Mary Wollstonecraft’s 1792 treatise ‘A Vindication of the Rights of Women’ , feminist propaganda which “earned her considerable criticism as she dared to acknowledge the existence of women’s sexual desires” (Shukla 2006: p.7), the actions under the Pankhursts were amongst the most combative, forcing the Government to pass the Cat and Mouse Act which permitted the force feeding and imprisonment of those women undertaking hunger strikes. The suffrage efforts were disbanded by Pankhurst at the outbreak of the First World War, deeming it more important to conserve a robust nationalistic stance supporting the British government, and it was actually in working in the war effort that women proved the redundancy of sexual prejudice that they had been campaigning against.

Chapter 2 – War-time efforts:

World War I saw a significant shortage of British manpower, and hence with the majority of able-bodied men embroiled in conflict, it fell to the women to take on stereotypically masculine roles. The ability of women to comfortably tackle physically demanding jobs in ship yards, steel mills, foundries and munitions plants, “exercising springs of resourcefulness and courage without showing off or indulging in macho behaviour” (Stikker 2002: p.209), revolutionized the perception of what women were capable of achieving. Under the iconic image of Rosie the Riveter, garbed in work overalls and polka-dot bandana, women were motivated towards and celebrated for “their ability to excel in a man’s world” (Butler and Bonnett 2007: p.12), not only in labour-intense positions of production, but also economic roles such as bank-tellers and cashiers, as well as the millions more who volunteered through the Red Cross and other such organizations. Meanwhile, the prior efforts of the Suffragettes had almost been forgotten amongst the newfound sense of national allegiance, which had the WSPU replacing their published The Suffragette journal with Britannia.

In recognition of the efforts exerted by women during this period, in 1918 an act was granted that allowed female householders and graduates to vote, and full suffrage to all women was endorsed in the United Kingdom 10 years later. With women’s enfranchisement already solidly grounded by 1939, the Second World War allowed an even greater permeation of women into men’s roles, with female patrols being absorbed into First World Metropolitan Police Officers, giving “women police the chance to show that they were capable of performing every type of duty” (Majumdar 2005: p.146). The World Wars, then, were vastly more effective in securing women’s rights in Britain than the preceding Suffragette demonstrations.

Chapter 3 – Women’s rights elsewhere:

In other nations, however, women’s independence was not so permanent. Russia, for instance, saw Lenin and then Stalin appointing women to high status roles concerning family matters, only to have the male-orientated hierarchy abolish these policies in 1929 once their practicality had been exhausted. Mussolini promised improvements for women in Italy, but limited within a Catholic, family-centred ideology, making it inarguably evident that “he considered women different to men”, and only permitting Fasci Femminili, the women’s wing of the Fascist party, authority over “women’s issues” (Stikker 2002: p.211). Germany, meanwhile, was too overwhelmed following the First World War by the severe retributions enforced by the Treaty of Versailles, and thus attributed little significance to the consideration of women’s issues. Although Hitler during World War II asserted the value of women in the maintenance of an Aryan race, all matters of women and motherhood within the Nazi party regime were ultimately under male leadership. Consequently it seems reasonable to believe that the supposed recognition of women by these States actually possessed greater imperial motives – women’s labour was utilized not to equalize employment opportunities but rather “to supply cheap labour for their… economies, to back their military build-up and to add their demographic ‘weight’ in Europe”, and their “exaltation of motherhood” was actually in response to a ‘population problem’ harboured by the nations, attempting to counter declining birth rates which had arisen from increased practice of contraception and family planning. Once feminine value had depleted, it was back to the “macho nature of totalitarian systems” (Stikker 2002: p.212).

Conclusion:

Although other nations may have disbanded positions of female power, Britain maintained gender equality as a direct response to women’s efforts during the war. Whilst it is true that as post-war manpower returned to swell employment figures many women lost their jobs to the pre-existing male masses, the critical part they played was not forgotten and served as a paradigm for the attitude towards women’s working roles. Although wartime women succeeded in achieving suffrage as well as equal employment opportunities, it was really the next generation of women who could appreciate this social change. Returning to domesticity, women never neglected the “economic hardship and social disruption during the Depression and World War II” and, wary of what the capricious future might hold, subsequently “encouraged their daughters to attend college and acquire employment skills” (Butler and Bonnett 2007: p.16). As a result, the current state of British gender isonomy can be traced back to the industrious efforts of women during the First and Second World Wars, periods when the nation could not afford to be discriminatory, and women were first allowed a true opportunity to demonstrate their capabilities.

Bibliography:

1. Bonnet, K. and Butler, M., 2007. Rosie’s Daughters: The “First Woman To” Generation tells its story. Iaso Books.
2. Gilbert, S.M., 1983. Soldier’s Heart: Literary Men, Literary Women, and the Great War. Signs: University of Chicago Press.
3. Majumdar, M., 2005. Encyclopaedia of Gender Equality through Women Empowerment. Sarup & Sons.
4. Shukla, B.A., 2006. Women on Women: A feminist study. Sarup & Sons.
5. Stikker, A., 2002. Closing the gap: Exploring the history of gender relations.

Abstract

This essay explores how much the enfranchisement of women was facilitated by the two World Wars. It discusses the ways in which women were viewed in their newly discovered wartime roles, both the positive and negative responses from British society towards their place at work, and to what extent a predominantly male-led society encouraged the changes.

Introduction

Joanna Bourke, a Professor of History at Birkbeck College, states in her online article ‘Women on the Home Front in World War One’ (BBC History, 2011) that:

‘The war bestowed two valuable legacies on women. First, it opened up a wider range of occupations to female workers and hastened the collapse of traditional women’s employment, particularly domestic service… wages were higher, conditions better, and independence enhanced.’

Much of the suffrage movement was put on hold during war time, with energies channelled instead into the war effort. Despite this however, women over the age of 21 were given the right to vote in 1928, meaning equal voting rights with men. During the Second World War women were encouraged to join not only the Land Army, but the army, air force and navy. There was also the Auxiliary Territorial Service (ATS), of which over 200,000 women were members.

The Annual Abstract of Statistics 1938-1950 (Great Britain Central Statistics Office, HMSO 1952) cites that, in 1938, 14.4 million men and almost 5 million women worked. By 1945 the figures had changed to 14.8 million men and 6.7 million women.

The shift in the number of women at work and the kind of work available to them as a result of the World Wars is not the whole story, however. Wages were still unequal, and at the close of war thousands of women workers were simply expected to return to domestic life. To what extent, then, were social attitudes towards women really altered as a result of the World Wars?

World War One – Women on the Home Front

At the time of World War One, there had been no previous comparable situation in which everyone, both men and women, were suddenly required to help defend their country. Thus there was no clear role into which women could fall; men were expected to fight, as was usual in a time of war, but what were women expected to do in a conflict of this scaleTraditional perceptions of what it meant to be a woman were already being challenged by the suffrage movement, and now the rest of the country had no choice but to re-think the place of women, specifically in the workplace. This re-thinking remained, however, within certain boundaries. In his book ‘British Culture and the First World war’ (Palgrave, 2002), George Robb asserts:

• ‘During the war women received a great deal of praise and positive attention for their work as nurses, munitions workers, and military auxiliaries, but were also the subject of gossip, parody, and censure whenever their behaviour seemed too unconventional.’ (p32)
• The resistance towards a shift in the role of women in society was not only expressed by men. As Robb goes on to point out, ‘Domestic magazines like Everywoman’s Weekly and Woman’s Own published war recipes and military sewing patterns, but urged women not to be seduced by the glamour of war into ‘inappropriate’ war work.’ (p39).
• Things were changing, including more freedom for women in fashion (shorter hemlines, more make-up) as well as a shift from the more Victorian attitudes of women’s place in the home, and yet in work such as munitions for example, women’s wages were still half that of men. Then once the war was over, many women were expected to return to domesticity:
• ‘During the war, the news media, government propaganda, and even commercial advertisements had celebrated women’s non-traditional war work, though almost as soon as the war was over, these popular representations reverted to images of women in the home, as wives and mothers.’ (Robb, 2002, p63)

World War Two: Further calls to Arms

In her book ‘Feminism and the Family’ (St Martin’s Press, 2000), Jennifer Somerville states that ‘The mass unemployment and poverty of the 1930s made agitation for equal opportunities and equal pay for women an unpopular cause’ (p43). At the onset of the Second World War however, women were expected to take on further roles that would previously have been viewed as ‘men’s work’, including more governmental positions, roles in the army, navy and air force. White-collar jobs were opened up to women, who by this time had also been given equal voting rights. It would, however, be far later in the century that women would begin to experience more equal pay. Things were only beginning to change:

‘The Second World War occasioned a substantial increase in the women in the workforce (from 25 per cent in 1939 to 36 per cent in 1944)… While women in the traditional male sector were laid off to make way for the returning veterans, the service and sales sectors became permanent. These sectors became major recruiters of female employees in the late 1940s and 1950s.’ (Somerville, 2000, p44)

Senior positions in spheres such as the government would remain rare until later in the century, but change was afoot never the less. The question remains: would these advancements have been made had the World Wars not happened, and to what extent was each war a catalyst to speeding up the enfranchisement of women, the process of which had already got under way?

Conclusion: World War As A Catalyst For Change?

The enfranchisement of women and fundamental social change is a complex issue, and one which is still prevalent in Britain today, not least in the issue of equal pay. One of the fundamental misconceptions faced by women at the turn of the 20th Century was that of capability: it was viewed very much that they were less capable than men in spheres outside of the home; that they were somehow not designed both mentally and physically to join men in the workplace. The World Wars forced this issue, and despite the ongoing problem of pay, worker’s rights (highly ‘skilled’ work – better paid – was still generally given over to men) and a fundamental attitude that men were better equipped to ‘fight’ in the traditional sense, women were able to prove themselves capable both mentally and physically. Not only capable, in fact, but essential to the war effort. During the Second World War, women were perhaps viewed slightly less through the lens of the paternal, rather patronising male-dominated society – a sign of gradual progress.

Despite the fact that the total acceptance of women in all spheres of work would come later, I do believe that the two World Wars were a valuable catalyst for social change, empowering women to gain confidence as more independent, better paid and more appreciated members of society. It was not the end of the struggle for equality, but it certainly facilitated its beginnings.

In ‘The World in the Twentieth Century’ (Longman, 2002), Jeremy Black sums up the tentative catalyst for change:

‘… across the developed world, there was a measure of liberalization in the treatment of women in the first four decades of the century. New opportunities were related to increased mobility and independence. This included a decline in control and influence over young women by their elders’ (Black, 2002, 74).

In my view, the shift in attitudes within these decades cannot be viewed without reference to the impact of the two World Wars that marked the period.

Bibliography

1. Black, Jeremy, 2002: The World in the Twentieth Century, London: Longman
2. Bourke, Joanna, 2011: Women on the Home Front in World War One. Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/britain_wwone/women_employment_01.shtml. Last accessed 16th October 2011
3. Great Britain Central Statistics Office, 1952: The Annual Abstract of Statistics 1938-1950, London: HMSO
4. Robb, George, 2002: British Culture and the First World War, London: Palgrave
5. Somerville, Jennifer, 2000: Feminism and the Family, New York: St Martin’s Press