Category: Blog Entries

By: Adam Paquin

The readings for this week bring up many interesting insights into Germany after the second world war. And although we see from the Fullbrook article that many of the German citizens during the war were simply bystanders that did not stand up for fear of being prosecuted themselves. This would bring up many questions about the everyday German citizen and one of the ways in which the west attempted to find the ones that did in fact participate with Hitler’s regime was shown in the Sollors article about the Nazi Questionnaire. Although it may have not been one hundred percent accurate, it showed that the western countries did in fact want to prosecute those in charge of any Nazi crimes committed during the war.

As to be expected not everyone was actually innocent in Germany and although many people did not agree with many of the Nazi regime and its laws. There was in fact a large portion that did and were now trying to hide in plain sight. In the Moeller article he goes in depth on many of the Nuremberg trials and explains how several of the former Nazi leaders now faced the American court system and the death penalty for their crimes. It was a particularly insightful article as it showed us the post war ramifications that would occur for the known leaders of the Nazi regime.  And one part that surprised me when reading this was how the media even went out of their way to prevent any ads being sent over the airways. Ones specifically for the sale of gas stoves, as this could potentially trigger remind the country about the atrocities that happened in Germany during the war.  

By: Nicole Beswitherick

In this week’s readings, we learn a lot about fascism in relation to the role of women and masculinity. What stood out to me was the key theme of the active participation of women in all situations of these readings and how they related to fascism, dictatorship, and masculinity. In Laurie Marhoeffer’s article, it was mentioned in a nutshell that men-men relationships were viewed as this bad and evil thing, especially by the Nazi party. As most of us can gather, homosexuality was not always as accepted as it is by today’s standards. However, while all of this was going on, while it still wasn’t considered a good thing, lesbianism was not “as bad”. The author states that asking whether lesbians were persecuted for lesbianism obscures what happened. This is because neither terms serve well in an analysis of this historical issue. Marhoeffer also includes statistics like, only 2% had a run-in of any kind with the Gestapo, and only 17% of women or “transvestites” were concerned they would have an encounter. It is also known that women are typically more affectionate and loving towards friends than men are. So criminalizing lesbianism would allow for many unfounded denunciations. In a humanities class at Carleton, I learned in my first year that in the old testament of the Christian Bible, things like this are viewed similarly from a historical standpoint as opposed to a religious one. Men-men relationships were frowned upon because to not love a woman is unmanly, but a relationship between two women was not looked upon as much because they are already the “weaker sex”. That is the summary of it anyways.

In the reading by Lopez and Sanchez, women played another key role in the Spanish Civil War by hiding and helping in the survival of men. However, they’d be murdered for it, along with other reasons. Women still fought on the front lines in this war, but the reading said it would be only about 1,000 women. I think that during this era, and of WW2 Nazi Germany, there was this strong persona of what a man should look like, and what a woman should look like. Thomas Kuhne gave a good example when showing a photograph of a man pushing a baby stroller. This was looked down upon because that was a job of a woman. This ideology has been engraved into the heads of so many men and women, and yet we wonder why there is so much toxic masculinity. Men, in this time specifically as it is the focus, were told they cannot push the baby stroller, instead, they must work, fight for their country, etc, etc. They are supposed to be these figures that are strong, powerful and brave. I think this is also partially why it was (and still is) difficult for some men when women can do the same work as them and sometimes better. It really hasn’t been until recently that society is normalizing, for example, that men can cry and show these “feminine” emotions.

By Adam Paquin

The reading from this week showed some very interesting aspects of the Nazi regime and fascism in general. While also showing how well some governments can hide a strict dictatorship to the public through the means of immense tourism. In the Huhne article we see typical stereotypes of masculinity in the military which I am sure was of no surprise to anyone. I was slightly surprised to see the extent as to how this masculinity was upheld. Having men unable to show any sort of femininity towards their family or even children.

With the Marhoefer article we did get to see a different light of the Nazi regime that I sound quite astonishing and that was how they ran the country while in power. I always pictured the SS as an overarching entity that watched and paid close attention to everything that happened under their reign. But this in fact was not entirely true. In her article she shows us that if you were Aryan, there was quite a few things you could get away with. This was simply because if you were not on their radar, they were essentially to busy to be bothered by you. And in circumstances such as speaking out against the regime or hanging out with Jews again as long as you were Aryan they would give you a warning or a slap on the wrist.

One last thing that stood out to me was the way that they acted towards lesbianism, it is well known that Hitler was not fond of homosexuality. But this pretty much only pertained to male homosexuality and not female. Which I guess should not have surprised me, but it did certainly catch me off guard because they certainly would not help maintain or grow the German population or produce future mini-Nazis.

In the readings for this week there are many representations of fascism during the Second World War, not only in Germany but other parts of Europe as well.  In the Hanebrink article the author tells us how a large majority is afraid of Judeo-bolshevism and the potential that it will spread across the continent. Through this mentality all Jewish people are seen as communist and so this also spreads a fear of them in other countries in Europe.

With the Motadel article it was made relatively clear that fascism can mean many different things depending in the leaders’ ideals at the time. As he writes about anti colonist groups coming to Germany to gain support from Hitler. They end up receiving support from Hitler but only because he is looking for help to fight the allies. This may give off the appearance of nationalism but in turn to only fit the agenda of the Nazi state. Through this we are shown that Fascism has no clear definition, and it can be malleable to ones will especially during times of war if the greater result ends with a victorious fascist state.

After these readings we are shown that Fascism can have various faces and truly only show its true colors in the shadows. While in the light it has been made evident that Fascism can trick even the smartest and most intelligent of us all. And with its leaders often being loud, confident, and entirely self centered. And all of this is made even worse through their ability to create followers that show the same mentality as the leader to rise to the top.

Paul Hanebrink, A Specter Haunting Europe: The Myth of Judeo-Bolshevism (Harvard University Press, 2018), pp. 1-10, 11-45.

David Motadel, “The Global Authoritarian Moment: The Revolt Against Empire” American Historical Review Vol. 124, Issue 3 (July 2019): 843-877.

Adam Paquin

In this weeks readings we looked at media that discussed fascism and populism, these articles and one podcast looked to define and explore how these ideologies occur. What stuck me as I read each article was the overlapping terms, especially when discussing the group each ideology was representing. Mudde states that the group that a populist is representing share common ethnic, religious or class identities that often over lap. This can be related to Paxton’s view that fascist leaders look to lead a group that is a majority and looks to “other” minorities in the state. Though Mudde doesn’t outright state that populist leaders look to the majority population to seek a cultural basis it is stated that populist look to create one group that leads the state.

I read the Anatomy of Fascism first and what struck me as I read portions of the chapter was the striking similarity to what has been called illiberal democracy. Where Paxton describes how fascist leaders lack a set public agenda/program, it struck me that is seemed very similar to hoe Viktor Orban wanted Hungary’s political system to be shaped like. This similarity was confirmed by Paxton as he showed data that had Hungary as the state that voted the most for populist parties (one party).

There is though a line that divides these two ideologies. Most importantly fascism and fascist movements have a violent undertone to their message that often threatens or delivers violence if their agenda is not meet or just to meet said agenda. This differs from populist movements that thrive in a quasi democratic space, where they control the levers of power while still offering an illusion of choice. Populist as described by Mudde aren’t populist first, they normally have a stronger more concrete ideology that guides their larger policy. They using populist thought and practice to garner support and create smaller more distinct policy based on the specific nature of their populist movement (anti-latin American in the United States vs anti middle eastern policy in Europe). This is juxtaposed to the firmly fascist governments that proclaim that as fascist they have risen above other ideologies to understand a superior movement.

In summation, fascism and populism share similar traits, ideas and aspirations but the methods in which they look to achieve them are different. As populists look to work within the confines of some democratic process versus the fascist approach as succeeding in their goals at whatever the cost, whether that includes violence or not.

Hello class! My name is Frank and I am a third-year MA student at the Institute of European, Russian, and Eurasian studies. My research interest is 20th century Russian cultural history, but I am also very keen to learn about other histories to study issues and topics through other disciplinary lenses. Populism and Authoritarianism are two ideologies which are unfortunately becoming increasingly salient in our political and cultural climate. I have learned about them in other European history courses as topics. However, I have never taken a course dedicated to their study that analyzes them from a transnational perspective, which is why I am looking forward to doing so in this course!