Who's to Blame??

This week I have found the topic of the Hitler Myth to be of most interest to me. In the reading the author states that Hitler's inner circle perhaps perpetuated the myth so much then Adolf Hitler himself began to believe he was invincible. This made me think that in society we do this a lot... letting the little kid who can't sing believe they have a voice like an angel or letting people who aren't very attractive think their God's gift to Earth. We do things like this by human nature to not hurt those around us but then this perpetuation of an untruth leads the person to believe it to be the truth and they do something like embarrass themselves on American Idol or in Hitler's case, attempt world domination. Now while these two instances are not comparable in any form, they both lead to emanate failure. So the question is who is to blame?? Do we blame the loving parent for encouraging their obviously talentless child or do we blame the kid who grows up believing their parents encouragement rather than seeking the truth? I thought about this in my analysis of Hitler. I like most, are quick to blame Adolf Hitler for all of the atrocities of World War II and the Holocaust. But many of us know from first hand experience they humans tend to start believing what they are told continually and of course one wants to fulfill and live up to the praise and hype surrounding their name, whether it's false in actuality or not. I started to think maybe it wasn't Hitler's fault he basically went on a power rampage. He had to know his pitfalls from the beginning, so in order to conceal them he had to find and execute the quickest solution to fulfill all of the hype surrounding him. His successes would lead to more praise by not only his inner circle but the world also(don't forget he was Time's Man of the Year). I don't think in hindsight we will ever know anything about the real Adolf Hitler, because he was transformed into Hitler by those around him. So do we blame the man who tried to live up to the name or do we blame those who indirectly created the entity we know as Hitler??

Prostitution

I found the issue of Prostitution in Imperial Germany to be interesting. We did not discuss it, but I'm sure everyone knows that legal prostitution still exists, Amersterdam and the US even (Bunny Ranch in Nevada). We discussed many of the pitfalls of state sponsered prostitution but present advocates of state sponsered (4 lack of a better term) prostitution argue that state mandates and police protection rather than arrest, benifits all involved in the industry (prostitute, customer, and pimp). They have the same argument that their predeseccors in Imperial Germany had, that legal prostitution protects the prostitute and prevents the spread of disease.

I do agree with this argument in an ideal situation when a prostitute, male or female, decides to sell his or body because they feel this is the most benificial job for them. However, it appears that prostitution almost never occurs because of an ideal situation. Today we see many stories of women being kidnapped and forced into prostitution internationally and within the US, also we hear horror stories of victims of rape or other types of abuse choosing prostitution as a form of love and gratification not found anywhere else. This aspect of the reasons one may choose to be a prostitute was also true in Imperial Germany. Women at that time needed easy money. There were also even less job oppurtinities for women at that time. So prostitution does not ever appear to be beneficial in the long run, but the easiest and quickest solution.

When we discussed the role of the police in respect to prostitution in Imperial Germay, the first thing that came to my mind was that they actually were just glorified pimps. They made sure the women were in the right district to gain customers, they made sure the women were up to date in their medical examinations, and they reprimanded the women when they did not follow the rules. These job duties just spelled out pimp to me when thinking of them in the prostitution world. Thinking of the police as pimps made me think of other questions. Did the ptostitutes pay off the police? Did the police get free services? And if the police were doing the actual pimpming, what was the role of the brothel owner?? Just some questions to leave you guys to ponder on...

Traitors!??

I actually enjoyed reading the historiagraphy text Beyond Good and Evil? Viewing different perspectives by various historians sparked my interest in the issue of German Liberalism a little more. Jennifor also seemed to have sparked our classroom interest a little by asking us the question if we consider the German liberals at the time of the second reich traitors? There seemed to be various answers to this question and as a whole the class seemed to be split on the decision to whether or not the German Liberals were traitors or not. Instantly I was like Hell yeah they were traitors!!... but others seemed to disagree with me. This drove me to be plagued by this question for the rest of the day. Dictionary.com defines traitor as this:
1. a person who betrays another, a cause, or any trust.
2. a person who commits treason by betraying his or her country.

This is only one definition and we all do know that definitions usually vary depending on the dictionary. Nevertheless, no where in this defintion is the word intentional stated, so I think (obviously ignoring all other possible definitions) that I can say that one can be a traitor even if it that was not the foremost or overall intention. This statement would be true in relation to the case of German liberals of the second reich. It appears that they initially had good intentions and meant well, but their failures and their giving up to many of their causes in the long run draws me to believe that they were traitors. The Bielefeld argument highlights that the German liberals made concessions with the German aristocracy in order for the liberals to gain economic prosperity and economic modernity, while the arisocracy maintained relative political and social status quo. "In exchange for a free hand in the economy, the bourgoisie had been prepared to abandon its political liberalism and resign itself to the role of 'junior partner' to the aristocracy." (Beyond Good and Evil, 732) The Bielfeld argument argues for a "feudalized bourgoisie". On the other hand the Neo-Marxist perspective argues for a "bourgois aristocracy" which means that the bourgois class, while not noble by birth, were aristocratic in their economic intentions. Whether or not you believe that the liberals were feudalized by concessions made with the aristocracy or if you believe the liberals themselves were the emerging aristocracy, one can be led to believe that once the liberals that consisted of the bourgoisie class began to see things looking a little better for them they began to neglect their founding principles. Therefore becoming weaker and a relatively minute presence in the end of the second reich.

This week in class we have read about and discussed the revolutions of 1848 in the nations that will be known as Germany once unified. Theses revolutions have been looked at from a political, economic, and social perspective. In my opinion the changing economy of Germany at that period in history was the trigger for much of the revolution. Therefore, the revolution was economic at its core. The middle class of Germany, which has been defined as anyone of independence who owned land and not just those of the bourgeoisie, would be at the forefront of the revolutions. Their need for economic stability would be the stimulus for political and social changes in Germany. The rise of industrial labor in Germany triggered the demise of the guild system and much of the job market for artisans and craftsmen, therefore their economic toil would cause them to revolt."Proud artisans had their livelihood destroyed by power-driven machinery" (A History of Modern Germany, 74). This job market instability increased the poverty in Germany, and this rise of those in poverty would cause alarm for those of the middle class. The middle class saw their position in society dwindling as those struck by poverty continued to rise. The need to survive causes competition to rise and now that the working classes method of survival was beginning to disappear, their only choice of survival would be to revolt. The middle class was made up of much of the college educated elite. While they had a college education, the social order in Germany did not give them many choices of upward mobility without being of noble birth, so of course they would want to see a change in politics. If they were heads of the government then that would allow them more say and possible power beyond the noble classes of Germany. Therefore I believe that the middle classes instigated revolt in order to maintain and elevate their position in society. So with what "appeared" to be liberal constitutions the middle class was able to slightly change the overall economy of Germany by eliminating nobal priviledges and peasant debt associated through the feudal system. Also with this change in economy, the middle class was able to slightly heighten their position in society by making the working and possibly the peasant class indebted to them through industialization.