Description
2 attachmentsSlide 1 of 2attachment_1attachment_1attachment_2attachment_2
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Exam questions:
All nine of the following nine quotations will appear on the exam; you must choose and
answer five of these. They are drawn either from the Course Documentary readings (weeks
ten through fifteen), or from the M & W lectures (and were featured on one or another
powerpoint slide).
Your task is to
a) identify the source;
b) discuss the meaning of these excerpted texts, and;
c) say something about the context in which they appeared (what,
where, why, when, addressed to whom etc.). The richer your
contextualization, the better your grade.
A) “The easiest and hence most widespread explanation of the present misfortune is that it
was brought about by the consequences of the lost War and that therefore the War is the
cause of the present evil. There may be many who will seriously believe this nonsense but
there are still more from whose mouth such an explanation can only be a lie and conscious
falsehood. . . . Didn’t these apostles of world conciliation . . . . glorify the benevolence of the
Entente, and didn’t they shove full blame for the whole bloody struggle on Germany? . . .
Will you claim that this was not so, you wretched, lying scoundrels? It takes a truly Jewish
effrontery to attribute the blame for the collapse solely to the military defeat. . . .”
B) “It is sometimes asked whether or not it is possible to slow down the tempo a bit, to put a
check on the movement. No, comrades, it is not possible! The tempo must not be reduced!
On the contrary, we must increase it as much as it is within our powers and possibilities. […]
To slacken the tempo would mean falling behind. And those who fall behind get beaten. But
we do not want to be beaten. No, we refuse to be beaten! One feature of the history of old
Russia was the continual beatings she suffered for falling behind, for her backwardness. She
was beaten by the Mongol Khans. She was beaten by the Turkish beys. She was beaten by
[many, many others]….We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We
must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or they crush us.”
C) “We entered this war because violations of right had occurred which touched us to the
quick and made the life of our own people impossible unless they were corrected and the
world secured once for all against their recurrence What we demand in this war, therefore, is
nothing peculiar to ourselves. It is that the world be made fit and safe to live in; and
particularly that it be made safe for every peace-loving nation which, like our own, wishes to
live its own life, determine its own institutions, be assured of justice and fair dealing by the
other peoples of the world as against force and selfish aggression. All the peoples of the
world are in effect partners in this interest, and for our own part we see very clearly that
unless justice be done to others it will not be done to us.”
D) “Regarding the conduct of troops towards the bolshevistic system, vague ideas are still
prevalent in many cases. The most essential aim of war against the Jewish-bolshevistic
system is a complete destruction of their means of power and the elimination of asiatic
influence from the European culture. In this connection the troops are facing tasks which
exceed the onesided routine of soldiering. The soldier in the eastern territories is not merely a
fighter according to the rules of the art of war but also a bearer of ruthless national ideology
and the avenger of bestialities which have been inflicted upon German and racially related
nations.
“Therefore the soldier must have full understanding for the necessity of a severe but just
revenge on subhuman Jewry. The Army has to aim at another purpose, i. e., the annihilation
of revolts in hinterland which, as experience proves, have always been caused by Jews.”
E) “Our strength lies in our quickness and our brutality….only in the East have I put my
death-head formations in place with the command relentlessly and without compassion to
send into death many women and children of Polish origin and language. Only thus can we
gain the living space we need.”
F) “We must not calculate on a directly communist transition. We must build on the basis of
the
peasant’s personal incentive. We are told, ‘The personal incentive of the peasant means
restoring
private property.’ But we have never interfered with the private ownership of articles of
consumption and of tools as far as the peasant is concerned. We abolished the private
ownership
of land; the peasant has carried on husbandry without the private ownership of land, for
example,
on rented land. This system has existed in many countries. There is nothing economically
impossible about it. The difficulty lies in creating personal incentive. We must give every
specialist an incentive to become interested in the development of production.
“Have we been able to do that? No, we have not…We say that every important branch of
national
economy must be built up on the principle of personal incentive: collective discussion, but
individual responsibility. We suffer at every step from our inability to apply this principle.”
G) “Death from starvation mowed down the village. First the children, then the old people,
then those of middle age. At first they dug graves and buried them, and then as things got
worse they
stopped. Dead people lay there in the yards, and in the end they remained in their huts.
Things
fell silent. The whole village died. Who died last I do not know. . . .
“Before they had completely lost their strength, the peasants went on foot across country to
the
railroad. Not to the stations where the guards kept them away, but to the tracks. And when
the
Kiev-Odessa express came past, they would just kneel there and cry: “Bread, bread!” They
would lift up their horrible starving children for people to see. And sometimes people would
throw them pieces of bread and other scraps. The train would thunder on past, and the dust
would settle down, and the whole village would be there crawling along the tracks, looking
for crusts. But an order was issued that whenever trains were traveling through the famine
provinces the guards were to shut the windows and pull down the curtains. Passengers were
not allowed at the windows. . . .”
H) “When high officials of the SS and the police call for atrocities and brutalities and
publicly praise them, then within the shortest spell of time only the brutal will rule. With
astonishing speed men of the same sick leanings and character will come together, in order to
give full vent to their beastly and pathological instincts, as is the case in Poland. There is
hardly any way to hold them in rein; for they must rightly feel themselves officially
authorized and entitled to any atrocity.”
I) “The Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin….Hitler
knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him,
all Europe may be freed and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit
uplands.
“But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have
known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new dark age made more sinister, and
perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves
to our duties, and so bear ourselves, that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for
a thousand years, men will still say, This was their finest hour.”
J) “This war is not like past wars. He whose army controls matters on the ground, is free to
impose his own social system. It cannot be otherwise.”
K) “Throughout the 17th century and the 18th century and the 19th century, this continent
teemed with manifold projects and magnificent purposes. Above them all and weaving them
all together into the most exciting flag of all the world and of all history was the triumphal
purpose of freedom. It is in this spirit that all of us are called, each to his own measure of
capacity, and each in the widest horizon of his vision, to create the first great American
Century.
“In the field of national policy, the fundamental trouble with America has been, and is, that
whereas their nation became in the 20th Century the most powerful and the most vital nation
in the world, nevertheless Americans were unable to accommodate themselves spiritually and
practically to that fact. Hence they have failed to play their part as a world power – a failure
which has had disastrous consequences for themselves and for all mankind.
“And the cure is this: to accept wholeheartedly our duty and our opportunity as the most
powerful and vital nation in the world and in consequence to exert upon the world the full
impact of our influence, for such purposes as we see fit and by such means as we see fit.”
The authors in question can be found among the following (but please note: not all the
following names are relevant to this exercise). Joseph Stalin; Neville Chamberlain; Winston
Churchill; Adolph Hitler; General Johannes Blaskowitz; Nikolai Bukharin; V.I. Lenin;
Benito Mussolini; Vassily Grossman; Field Marshal Walter von Reichenau; Francisco
Franco; Franklin Roosevelt; Henry Luce; Georges Clemenceau; Woodrow Wilson.
Week Eleven: Remaking a Shattered World
A) Woodrow Wilson: the Fourteen Points (January 8, 1918)
Having led America into declaring war upon the Central Powers, Woodrow Wilson followed up
by articulating, at the outset of 1918, the central aims for which the United States was fighting.
These “Fourteen Points” quickly became a major point of discussion, not only in America’s
domestic politics, but among Europe’s belligerent powers, as statesmen began warily
considering the possibility of a negotiated end to the war. The text of Wilson’s speech follows:
We entered this war because violations of right had occurred which touched us to the quick and
made the life of our own people impossible unless they were corrected and the world secured
once for all against their recurrence What we demand in this war, therefore, is nothing peculiar to
ourselves. It is that the world be made fit and safe to live in; and particularly that it be made safe
for every peace-loving nation which, like our own, wishes to live its own life, determine its own
institutions, be assured of justice and fair dealing by the other peoples of the world as against
force and selfish aggression. All the peoples of the world are in effect partners in this interest,
and for our own part we see very clearly that unless justice be done to others it will not be done
to us. The programme of the world’s peace, therefore, is our programme; and that programme,
the only possible programme, as we see it, is this:
I. Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private
international understanding of any kind but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the
public view.
II. Absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas, outside territorial waters, alike in peace and
in war, except as the seas may be closed in whole or in part by international action for the
enforcement of international covenants.
III. The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of an
equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating
themselves for its maintenance.
IV. Adequate guarantees given and taken that national armaments will be reduced to the
lowest point consistent with domestic safety.
V. A free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based
upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the
interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the
government whose title is to be determined.
VI. The evacuation of all Russian territory and such a settlement of all questions affecting
1
Russia as will secure the best and freest cooperation of the other nations of the world in
obtaining for her an unhampered and unembarrassed opportunity for the independent
determination of` her own political development and national policy and assure her a sincere
welcome into the society of free nations under institutions of her own choosing; and, more than a
welcome, assistance also of every kind that she may need and may herself desire. The treatment
accorded Russia by her sister nations in the months to come will be the acid test of their good
will, of their comprehension of her needs as distinguished from their own interests, and of their
intelligent and unselfish sympathy.
VII. Belgium, the whole world will agree, must be evacuated and restored, without any
attempt to limit the sovereignty which she enjoys in common with all other free nations. No
other single act will serve as this will serve to restore confidence among the nations in the laws
which they have themselves set and determined for the government of their relations with one
another. Without this healing act the whole structure and validity of international law is forever
impaired.
VIII. All French territory should be freed and the invaded portions restored, and the wrong
done to France by Prussia in 1871 in the matter of Alsace-Lorraine, which has unsettled the
peace of the world for nearly fifty years, should be righted, in order that peace may once more be
made secure in the interest of all.
IX. A readjustment of the frontiers of Italy should be effected along clearly recognizable lines
of nationality.
X. The peoples of Austria-Hungary, whose place among the nations we wish to see
safeguarded and assured, should be accorded the freest opportunity of autonomous development.
XI. Rumania, Serbia, and Montenegro should be evacuated; occupied territories restored;
Serbia accorded free and secure access to the sea; and the relations of the several Balkan states to
one another determined by friendly counsel along historically established lines of allegiance and
nationality; and international guarantees of the political and economic independence and
territorial integrity of the several Balkan states should be entered into.
XII. The Turkish portions of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure
sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an
undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous
development, and the Dardanelles should be permanently opened as a free passage to the ships
and commerce of all nations under international guarantees.
XIII. An independent Polish state should be erected which should include the territories
inhabited by indisputably Polish populations, which should be assured a free and secure access to
the sea, and whose political and economic independence and territorial integrity should be
guaranteed by international covenant.
XIV. A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the
2
purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great
and small states alike….
From Woodrow Wilson, “Speech on the Fourteen Points,” Congressional Record, 65th Congress
2nd Session, 1918, pp. 680 681.
B) Georges Clemenceau’s Opening Address at the Paris Peace
Conference, 18 January 1919
France’s Prime Minister George Clemenceau – declaring that “war is too important to be left to
the generals” – had taken control of France’s war effort from 1917 onwards. He arrived at the
Paris Peace Conference determined to make Germany pay for the war and its terrible costs;
more, he sought to dismember and weaken Germany, thus ensuring it would never again be able
to wage war on the continent. The harsh terms of the Versailles Treaty, announced in June 1919,
were to a large degree his handiwork, and represented a sharp about-face from the more lenient
peace terms suggested by Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points.
All the Allied powers agreed to hold the Peace Conference in Paris, a decision reflecting their
acknowledgment that France had born much of the suffering of the war – and a decision that
enhanced the moral authority enjoyed by Clemenceau in the conference’s proceedings.
Reproduced below are excerpts from Clemenceau’s opening address in which he accepted the
presidency of the peace conference.
[…] It is necessary, gentlemen, to point out that my election is due necessarily to lofty
international tradition, and to the time-honoured courtesy shown toward the country which has
the honour to welcome the Peace Conference in its capital. The proofs of “friendship” – as they
will allow me to call it – of President Wilson and Mr. Lloyd George touched me profoundly,
because in these proofs may be seen a new force for all three of us which will enable us, with the
help of this entire Conference, to carry through the arduous task entrusted to us. I draw new
confidence from it for the success of our efforts.
President Wilson has good authority for his remark that we have here for the first time a
collection of delegates from all the civilized peoples of the earth. The greater the sanguinary
catastrophe which devastated and ruined one of the richest regions of France, the more ample
and more splendid should be the reparation – not merely the reparation for material acts, the
ordinary reparation, if I may venture to say so, which is due to us – but the nobler and loftier
reparation – we are going to try to secure, so that the peoples may at last escape from this fatal
embrace, which, heaping up ruins and sorrows, terrorizes the populations and prevents them
from devoting themselves freely to their work for fear of the enemies who may spring up at any
moment.
It is a great and noble ambition that has come to us all. We must hope that success will crown
our efforts. This can only be if we have our ideas clear-cut and well defined.
3
I said in the Chamber of Deputies some days ago, and I make a point of repeating the statement
here, that success is possible only if we remain firmly united. We have come here as friends. We
must pass through that door as brothers. That is the first reflection which I am anxious to express
to you. Everything must be subordinated to the necessity for a closer and closer union between
the peoples which have taken part in this great war. . . .
I am touched beyond all expression by the proof of confidence and regard which you have been
kind enough to give me. The program of the Conference, the aim marked out by President
Wilson, is no longer merely peace for the territories, great and small, with which we are directly
concerned; it is no longer merely a peace for the continents, it is peace for the peoples. . . .
I come now to the order of the day. The first question is as follows: “The responsibility of the
authors of the war.” The second is thus expressed: “Penalties for crimes committed during the
war.” The third is: “International legislation in regard to labour.” . . .
It is a very vast field. But we beg of you to begin by examining the question as to the
responsibility of the authors of the war. I do not need to set forth our reasons for this. If we wish
to establish justice in the world we can do so now, for we have won victory and can impose the
penalties demanded by justice.
We shall insist on the imposition of penalties on the authors of the abominable crimes committed
during the war. Has anyone any question to ask in regard to this? If not, I would again remind
you that every delegation should devote itself to the study of this first question, which has been
made the subject of reports by eminent jurists, and of a report which will be sent to you entitled,
“An Inquiry into the Criminal Responsibility of the Emperor William II [Wilhelm II of
Germany.]”
The perusal of this brochure will, without doubt, facilitate your work. In Great Britain and in
America studies on this point have also been published. No one having any remark to make, the
program is adopted.
It only remains for me to say, gentlemen, that the order of the day for our next sitting will begin
with the question of the Society of Nations. Our order of the day, gentlemen, is now brought to
an end. Before closing the sitting, I should like to know whether any delegate of the Powers
represented has any question to submit to the Bureau. As we must work in complete agreement,
it is to be desired that members of the Conference shall submit all the observations they consider
necessary.
The Bureau will welcome the expression of opinions of all kinds. and will answer all questions
addressed to it.
No one has anything further to say? The sitting is closed.
Source: Source Records of the Great War, Vol. VII, ed. Charles F. Horne, National Alumni 1923
4
Week Twelve: Europe in the Age of Dictators
A) Benito Mussolini, “What is Fascism?” (1932)
Amidst the turmoil and crisis of postwar Italy, Benito Mussolini boldly bluffed his way into
power. As late as 1915, Mussolini had been a rising star in Italy’s Socialist Party, editing the
party’s national newspaper. When Italy joined the war, however, he turned intensely
nationalistic, becoming an enthusiastic booster of Italy’s entry into the war. This pro-war stance
put him in stark opposition to other Socialists, most of whom opposed to the war, and Mussolini
bolted from Socialist Party ranks in 1916. He thereupon joined the army, rose to corporal, was
wounded and discharged.
At war’s end, Mussolini moved to Milan, organizing street “combat groups” (the fasci di
combattimento), whose name he took from a symbol of authority used in ancient Rome – the
fasces, a bundle of rods tied together. These street fighters were Mussolini’s so-called
Blackshirts – a rag-tag assortment of students, extreme nationalists, and recently demobilized
veterans. As for Mussolini’s financial backing, this came mainly from higher up the social
ladder: most of the fascist movement’s funds came from Italy’s wealthy elite – mainly large
estate owners and industrialists worried about growing labor militancy and political unrest, who
employed Mussolini’s Blackshirts mainly as strikebreaking thugs. By means such as these –
strikebreaking and street-fighting – Mussolini’s movement began to grow rapidly. By 1921, he
had grown so bold as to found a national political organization, the Fascist Party, with a
membership that soon swelled to over 250,000 members.
Mussolini came to power after the “March on Rome” in 1922, and was appointed Prime Minister
by King Victor Emmanuel. Over the following two years, he and his fascist movement moved to
tighten their grip over Italian governance – silencing opponents through murder and
imprisonment, displacing a weak parliamentary government with Mussolini’s fascist state.
In contrast to Hitler, Mussolini was not particularly ideological; his philosophy mostly
emphasized action – the more violent the better – as a glorious end unto itself. Only reluctantly
did he finally, in 1932, provide a more coherent account of fascism’s aims and worldview, in the
article, titled “What is Fascism?,” written for the Italian Encyclopedia with substantial help
from a leading fascist intellectual, Giovanni Gentile. This was Mussolini’s only attempt to
provide a more systematic explanation for fascism’s political program and ideology.
Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite
apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the
utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism — born of a renunciation of
the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest
tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to
meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they
have to make the great decision — the alternative of life or death. . . .
5
The Fascist accepts life and loves it, knowing nothing of and despising suicide: he rather
conceives of life as duty and struggle and conquest, but above all for others — those who are at
hand and those who are far distant, contemporaries, and those who will come after. . .
Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history
of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various
social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production….
Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions
influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history
be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the
waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the
existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied – the natural progeny of
the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the
preponderant force in the transformation of society. . . .
After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and
repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies
that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that
numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable,
beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through
the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage. . . .
Fascism denies democracy’s absurd untruth of political equality, dressed out in the garb of
collective irresponsibility, and the myth of “happiness” and indefinite progress. . . .
Given that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of
Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of
Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may
rather be expected that this will be a century of authority. . . a century of Fascism. For if the
nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century
of collectivism and hence the century of the State. . . .
The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim.
Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or
groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the
Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and
spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on
the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality — thus it
may be called the “ethic” State. . . .
The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual;
the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential;
the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone….
For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential
6
manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence. Peoples which are rising, or rising
again after a period of decadence, are always imperialist; and renunciation is a sign of decay and
of death. Fascism is the doctrine best adapted to represent the tendencies and the aspirations of a
people, like the people of Italy, who are rising again after many centuries of abasement and
foreign servitude. But empire demands discipline, the coordination of all forces and a deeply felt
sense of duty and sacrifice: this fact explains many aspects of the practical working of the
regime, the character of many forces in the State, and the necessarily severe measures which
must be taken against those who would oppose this spontaneous and inevitable movement of
Italy in the twentieth century, and would oppose it by recalling the outworn ideology of the
nineteenth century – repudiated wheresoever there has been the courage to undertake great
experiments of social and political transformation; for never before has the nation stood more in
need of authority, of direction and order. If every age has its own characteristic doctrine, there
are a thousand signs which point to Fascism as the characteristic doctrine of our time. For if a
doctrine must be a living thing, this is proved by the fact that Fascism has created a living faith;
and that this faith is very powerful in the minds of men is demonstrated by those who have
suffered and died for it.
Source: Internet Modern History Sourcebook, a collection of public domain and copy-permitted
texts for introductory level classes in modern European and World history. Accessed at
http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.asp (10/15/2012); minor editing by jra.
B) Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (selections, 1926)
In November 1923 Adolf Hitler joined General Erich Ludendorff in launching a rightwing
insurrection in the southern German city of Munich. Hitler’s National Socialist German
Workers’ Party (better known as the Nazi party) was small at the time, and Hitler himself little
more than a local beer-hall politician. But after the uprising was put down, and its ringleaders
arrested and put on trial, Hitler seized this opportunity to promote himself as Germany’s
foremost rightwing politician. His political performance at the trial generated much favorable
press coverage, gaining him a growing national reputation. For his part in the failed uprising,
he was sentenced to five years confinement and fined the paltry sum of 55 Reichsmarks. As it
turns out, he served only eight months of his sentence, under conditions we would describe today
as country-club incarceration. It was during this jail term that he wrote what would become
Mein Kampf, in which he set forth his ideas before the world. The book proved a substantial
publishing success – most editions were very expensive, providing Hitler a steady source of
income throughout the 1920s. After Hitler’s seizure of power in 1933, Mein Kampf became one
of the most broadly distributed works under the National Socialist regime. Though most
Germans seem not to have read it especially closely, there is no question but that millions of
Nazi true believers embraced its ideas with dead seriousness.
Volume One, Chapter Six: “War Propaganda”
7
{1}The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in
calling the masses’ attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is
thus for the first time placed within their field of vision.
{2}The whole art consists in doing this so skillfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact
is real, the process necessary, the necessity correct, etc. But since propaganda is not and cannot
be the necessity in itself, since its function. . . consists in attracting the attention of the crowd,
and not in educating those who are already educated or who are striving after education and
knowledge, its effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited
degree at the so-called intellect. . . .
{3}The art of propaganda lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the great masses and
finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and thence to the heart
of the broad masses. The fact that our bright boys do not understand this merely shows how
mentally lazy and conceited they are. . . .
{4}The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power
of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited
to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public
understands what you want him to understand by your slogan. As soon as you sacrifice this
slogan and try to be many-sided, the effect will piddle away, for the crowd can neither digest nor
retain the material offered. In this way the result is weakened and in the end entirely cancelled
out.
{5}Thus we see that propaganda must follow a simple line and correspondingly the basic tactics
must be psychologically sound. For instance, it was absolutely wrong to make the enemy
ridiculous, as the Austrian and German comic papers did. It was absolutely wrong because actual
contact with an enemy soldier was bound to arouse an entirely different conviction, and the
results were devastating; for now the German soldier, under the direct impression of the enemy’s
resistance, felt himself swindled by his propaganda service. His desire to fight, or even to stand
film, was not strengthened, but the opposite occurred. His courage flagged.
{6}By contrast, the war propaganda of the English and Americans was psychologically sound.
By representing the Germans to their own people as barbarians and Huns, they prepared the
individual soldier for the terrors of war, and thus helped to preserve him from disappointments.
After this, the most terrible weapon that was used against him seemed only to confirm what his
propagandists had told him; it likewise reinforced his faith in the truth of his government’s
assertions, while on the other hand it increased his rage and hatred against the vile enemy For the
cruel effects of the weapon, whose use by the enemy he now came to know, gradually came to
confirm for him the ‘Hunnish’ brutality of the barbarous enemy, which he had heard all about;
and it never dawned on him for a moment that his own weapons possibly, if not probably, might
be even more terrible in their effects. . . .
{7}The function of propaganda is . . . not to weigh and ponder the rights of different people, but
exclusively to emphasize the one right which it has set out to argue for. Its task is not to make an
8
objective study of the truth, in so far as it favors the enemy, and then set it before the masses
with academic fairness; its task is to serve our own right, always and unflinchingly.
{8}It was absolutely wrong to discuss war-guilt from the standpoint that Germany alone could
not be held responsible for the outbreak of the catastrophe; it would have been correct to load
every bit of the blame on the shoulders of the enemy, even if this had not really corresponded to
the true facts, as it actually did. . . .
Volume One, Chapter Ten: “Causes of the Collapse”
{9}The easiest and hence most widespread explanation of the present misfortune is that it was
brought about by the consequences of the lost War and that therefore the War is the cause of the
present evil.
{10}There may be many who will seriously believe this nonsense but there are still more from
whose mouth such an explanation can only be a lie and conscious falsehood. . . . Didn’t these
apostles of world conciliation . . . . glorify the benevolence of the Entente, and didn’t they shove
full blame for the whole bloody struggle on Germany? . . . Will you claim that this was not so,
you wretched, lying scoundrels?
{11}It takes a truly Jewish effrontery to attribute the blame for the collapse solely to the military
defeat. . . .
{12}The foremost connoisseurs of this truth regarding the possibilities in the use of falsehood
and slander have always been the Jews; for after all, their whole existence is based on one single
great lie, to wit, that they are a religious community while actually they are a race – – -and what a
race! . . .
Hitler continues along these lines, asserting a connection between Jewish
businessmen and the process of industrialization and modernization.
{13}In proportion as economic life grew to be the dominant mistress of the state, money became
the god whom all had to serve and to whom each man had to bow down. More and more, the
gods of heaven were put into the corner as obsolete and outmoded, and in their stead incense was
burned to the idol Mammon. . . .
{14}Unfortunately, the domination of money was sanctioned even by that authority which
should have most opposed it: His Majesty the Kaiser acted most unfortunately by drawing the
aristocracy into the orbit of the new finance capital. . . . It was clear that once a beginning had
been made in this direction, the aristocracy of the sword would in a short time inevitably be
overshadowed by the financial aristocracy. Regarded purely from the standpoint of blood, such a
development was profoundly unfortunate: more and more, the nobility lost the racial basis for its
existence, and in large measure the designation of “ignobility” would have been more suitable
for it.
9
{15}A grave economic symptom of decay was the slow disappearance of the right of private
property, and the gradual transference of the entire economy to the ownership of stock
companies.
{16}Now for the first time labor had sunk to the level of an object of speculation for
unscrupulous Jewish business men; the alienation of property from the wage-worker was
increased ad infinitum. The stock exchange began to triumph and prepared slowly but surely to
take the life of the nation into its guardianship and control. . . .
{17}What food did the German press of the pre-War period dish out to the people? Was it not
the worst poison that can even be imagined? Wasn’t the worst kind of pacifism injected into the
heart of our people at a time when the rest of the world was preparing to throttle Germany,
slowly but surely? Even in peacetime didn’t the press inspire the minds of the people with doubt
in the right of their own state, thus from the outset limiting them in the choice of means for its
defense? Was it not the German press which knew how to make the absurdity of ‘Western
democracy’ palatable to our people until finally, ensnared by all the enthusiastic tirades, they
thought they could entrust their future to a League of Nations? . . . Did it not ridicule morality
and ethics as backward and petty-bourgeois, until our people finally became ‘modern’? . . . Did it
not belittle the army with constant criticism, sabotage universal conscription, demand the refusal
of military credits, etc., until the result became inevitable?
{18}The so-called liberal press was actively engaged in digging the grave of the German people
and the German Reich. We can pass by the lying Marxist sheets in silence; to them lying is just
as vitally necessary as catching mice for a cat; their function is only to break the people’s
national and patriotic backbone and make them ripe for the slave’s yoke of international capital
and its masters, the Jews. . . .
{19}And what did the state do against this mass poisoning of the nation? Nothing, absolutely
nothing. A few ridiculous decrees, a few fines for villainy that went too far, and that was the end
of it. Instead, they hoped to curry favor with this plague by flattery, by recognition of the ‘value’
of the press, its ‘importance,’ its ‘educational mission,’ and more such nonsense – – -as for the
Jews, they took all this with a crafty smile and acknowledged it with sly thanks. . . .
{20}This poison was able to penetrate the bloodstream of our people unhindered and do its
work, and the state did not possess the power to master the disease. . . . For an institution which
is no longer resolved to defend itself with all weapons has for practical purposes abdicated.
Every half-measure is a visible sign of inner decay which must and will be followed sooner or
later by outward collapse.
{21}I believe that the present generation, properly led, will more easily master this danger. It has
experienced various things which had the power somewhat to strengthen the nerves of those who
did not lose them entirely. In future days the Jew will certainly continue to raise a mighty uproar
in his newspapers if a hand is ever laid on his favorite nest, if an end is put to the mischief of the
press and this instrument of education is put into the service of the state and no longer left in the
hands of aliens and enemies of the people. But I believe that this will bother us younger men less
10
than our fathers. A thirty-centimeter shell has always hissed more loudly than a thousand Jewish
newspaper vipers – so let them hiss!
Volume One, Chapter Eleven: “Nation and Race”
{22}Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the
level of the two parents. This means: the offspring will probably stand higher than the racially
lower parent, but not as high as the higher one. Consequently, it will later succumb in the
struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher
breeding of all life. The precondition for this does not lie in associating superior and inferior, but
in the total victory of the former. The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker,
thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all
is only a weak and limited man. . . .
{23}The consequence of this racial purity, universally valid in Nature, is not only the sharp
outward delimitation of the various races, but their uniform character in themselves. . . .
{24}Nature looks on calmly, with satisfaction, in fact. In the struggle for daily bread all those
who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the
female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. And struggle is always
a means for improving a species’ health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its
higher development.
{25}No more than Nature desires the mating of weaker with stronger individuals, even less does
she desire the blending of a higher with a lower race, since, if she did, her whole work of higher
breeding, over perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, night be ruined with one blow.
{26}Historical experience offers countless proofs of this. It shows with terrifying clarity that in
every mingling of Aryan blood with that of lower peoples the result was the end of the cultured
people. North America, whose population consists in by far the largest part of Germanic
elements who mixed but little with the lower colored peoples, shows a different humanity and
culture from Central and South America, where the predominantly Latin immigrants often mixed
with the aborigines on a large scale. By this one example, we can clearly and distinctly recognize
the effect of racial mixture. The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has
remained racially pure and unmixed, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master
as long as he does not fall a victim to defilement of the blood. . . .
{27}If we pass all the causes of the German collapse in review, the ultimate and most decisive
remains the failure to recognize the racial problem and especially the Jewish menace.
{28}The defeats on the battlefield in August, 1918, would have been child’s play to bear. They
stood in no proportion to the victories of our people. It was not they that caused our downfall; no,
it was brought about by that power which prepared these defeats by systematically over many
decades robbing our people of the political and moral instincts and forces which alone make
nations capable and hence worthy of existence.
11
{29}The lost purity of the blood alone destroys inner happiness forever, plunges man into the
abyss for all time, and the consequences can never more be eliminated from body and spirit.
Volume Two, Chapter Fourteen: “Eastern Orientation or Eastern Policy”
{30}We National Socialists must hold unflinchingly to our aim in foreign policy, namely, to
secure for the German people the land and soil to which they are entitled on this earth. And this
action is the only one which, before God and our German posterity, would make any sacrifice of
blood seem justified: before God, since we have been put on this earth with the mission of
eternal struggle for our daily bread, beings who receive nothing as a gift, and who owe their
position as lords of the earth only to the genius and the courage with which they can conquer and
defend it; and before our German posterity in so far as we have shed no citizen’s blood out of
which a thousand others are not bequeathed to posterity. The soil on which some day German
generations of peasants can beget powerful sons will sanction the investment of the sons of
today, and will someday acquit the responsible statesmen of blood-guilt and sacrifice of the
people, even if they are persecuted by their contemporaries.
{31}And I must sharply attack those folkish pen-pushers who claim to regard such an acquisition
of soil as a ‘breach of sacred human rights’ and attack it as such in their scribblings. One never
knows who stands behind these fellows. But one thing is certain, that the confusion they can
create is desirable and convenient to our national enemies. By such an attitude they help to
weaken and destroy from within our people’s will for the only correct way of defending their
vital needs. For no people on this earth possesses so much as a square yard of territory on the
strength of a higher will or superior right. Just as Germany’s frontiers are fortuitous frontiers,
momentary frontiers in the current political struggle of any period, so are the boundaries of other
nations’ living space. And just as the shape of our earth’s Furnace can seem immutable as granite
only to the thoughtless soft-head, but in reality only represents at each period an apparent pause
in a continuous development, created by the mighty forces of Nature in a process of continuous
growth, only to be transformed or destroyed tomorrow by greater forces, likewise the boundaries
of living spaces in the life of nations. . . .
{32}But we National Socialists must go further. The right to possess soil can become a duty if
without extension of its soil a great nation seems doomed to destruction. And most especially
when not some little Negro nation or other is involved, but the Germanic mother of life, which
has given the present-day world its cultural picture. Germany will either be a world power or
there will be no Germany. And for world power she needs that magnitude which will give her the
position she needs in the present period, and life to her citizens.
12
Week Thirteen:
From Revolutionary Russia to Stalinist Rule
A) Lenin Versus Stalin?
To this day, historians quarrel over what comparisons can be drawn between Lenin and Stalin.
At issue our not only our judgment of these two men, but the very nature of the Soviet state itself.
Were the atrocities and crimes of Stalin’s rule consistent with the Bolshevik Revolution, or did
they represent a major deviation from the ideas and practices of Lenin and his followers?
The following readings by no means exhaust this question, but do provide some basis for
comparison between Lenin and Stalin regarding policy. In the first, Lenin proposes harsh
policies in dealing with the “kulaks” – better-off peasants who were suspected of hoarding grain
amidst the widespread privations of Russia’s Civil War (1918-21). The second finds Lenin after
the conclusion of that war, wrestling with the question of economic reconstruction. Who was
going to build the new socialist economy, and on what basis? The third selection, from 1922,
reflects another problem in the new Soviet Union – the shortcomings of the Bolshevik Party in
directing the new Soviet state, and the elusive character of revolutionary authority.
The Stalin reading, his famous “Industrialize or Perish” speech from 1931, certainly leaves an
impression, and has been often cited by Stalin’s defenders and detractors alike. Are his language
and themes consistent with other socialist thinkers we’ve encountered in this class? If not, why
not?
1. V.I. Lenin (1870-1924; leader of Bolshevik Party & founder of Soviet State)
a) From proposed amendments to an “antikulak” decree in 1918
Lay it down more precisely that owners of grain who possess surplus grain and do not send it to
the depots and places of grain collection will be declared enemies of the people and will be
subject to imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years, confiscation of their property, and
expulsion forever from the community.1
b) From 1921
We must not calculate on a directly communist transition. We must build on the basis of the
peasant’s personal incentive. We are told, “The personal incentive of the peasant means restoring
private property.” But we have never interfered with the private ownership of articles of
consumption and of tools as far as the peasant is concerned. We abolished the private ownership
of land; the peasant has carried on husbandry without the private ownership of land, for example,
on rented land. This system has existed in many countries. There is nothing economically
impossible about it. The difficulty lies in creating personal incentive. We must give every
specialist an incentive to become interested in the development of production.
1
Lenin, Selected Works, vol. XXXVI, p. 316.
13
Have we been able to do that? No, we have not…We say that every important branch of national
economy must be built up on the principle of personal incentive: collective discussion, but
individual responsibility. We suffer at every step from our inability to apply this principle.2
c) From 1922
If we take Moscow, with its 4,700 Communists in responsible positions, and if we take that huge
bureaucratic machine, that gigantic heap, we must ask: Who is directing whom? I doubt very
much whether it can truthfully be said that the Communists are directing that heap. To tell the
truth, they are not directing, they are being directed…[The] culture [of the old bureaucracy] is
miserable, insignificant, but it is still on a higher level than ours. Miserable and low as it is, it is
higher than that of any responsible Communist administrators, for the latter lack administrative
ability.3
There is no doubt that our party, to judge from the bulk of its present membership, is not
sufficiently proletarian… If we do not shut our eyes to reality, we must admit that at the present
time the proletarian policy of the party is not determined by the character of its membership, but
by the enormous, undivided prestige of that very thin stratum which may be called the party’s
Old Guard. A small conflict within this stratum would be enough, if not to destroy this prestige,
in any event to weaken it to such a degree as to rob this stratum of its power to determine
policy.4
2. Joseph Stalin (1878-1953; Lenin’s successor as head of the Soviet Union)
a) The “Industrialize or Perish” Speech to Bolshevik Industrial Managers, 1931
It is sometimes asked whether or not it is possible to slow down the tempo a bit, to put a check
on the movement. No, comrades, it is not possible! The tempo must not be reduced! On the
contrary, we must increase it as much as it is within our powers and possibilities. This is dictated
to us by our obligations to the workers and peasants of the USSR. This is dictated to us by our
obligations to the working class of the whole world.
To slacken the tempo would mean falling behind. And those who fall behind get beaten. But we
do not want to be beaten. No, we refuse to be beaten! One feature of the history of old Russia
was the continual beatings she suffered for falling behind, for her backwardness. She was beaten
by the Mongol Khans. She was beaten by the Turkish beys [governors within the Ottoman
empire]. She was beaten by the Swedish feudal lords. She was beaten by the Polish and
Lithuanian gentry. She was beaten by the British and French capitalists. She was beaten by the
Japanese barons. All beat her – for her backwardness, for military backwardness, for cultural
2
Lenin, Selected Works, vol. IX, p. 265.
3
Lenin, Selected Works, vol. XXXIII, p. 288
4
Cited in Roy Medvedev, “The Social Basis of Stalinism,” in Robert Daniels, The Stalin
Revolution (3rd ed.), p. 220.
14
backwardness, for political backwardness, for industrial backwardness, for agricultural
backwardness. […] Such is the law of the exploiters – to beat the backward and the weak. It is
the jungle law of capitalism. You are backward, you are weak – therefore you are wrong; hence,
you can be beaten and enslaved. You are mighty – therefore you are right; hence, we must be
wary of you.
That is why we must no longer lag behind.
In the past we had no fatherland, nor could we have one. But now that we have overthrown
capitalism and power is in the hands of the working class, we have a fatherland, and we will
defend its independence. Do you want our socialist fatherland to be beaten and to lose its
independence? If you do not want this you must put an end to its backwardness in the shortest
possible time and develop genuine Bolshevik tempo in building up its socialist system of
economy. There is no other way. That is why Lenin said during the October Revolution: “Either
perish, or overtake and outstrip the advanced capitalist countries.”
We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance
in ten years. Either we do it, or they crush us. That is what our obligations to the workers and
peasants of the USSR dictate to us.5
B) Ukraine: Forced Collectivization and Famine
Eyewitness Accounts: Vassily Grossman and Lev Kopelev
1. Vasily Grossman, from Forever Flowing
Vassily Grossman was a Soviet journalist, whose correspondence from World War II is justly
celebrated for its vivid description and searing intensity. During the early 1930s, he worked in
the Donbas region of Ukraine, where he saw first-hand the famine. In his autobiographical
novel, Forever Flowing, he describes life under Stalin, devoting two chapters to the famine in
Ukraine (Ch. 14 & 15).
I don’t want to remember it. It is terrible. But I can’t forget it. It just keeps on living within me;
whether or not it slumbers, it is still there. A piece of iron in my heart, like a shell fragment.
Something one cannot escape. I was fully adult when it all happened…
No, there was no famine during the campaign to liquidate the kulaks. Only the horses died. The
famine came in 1932, the second year after the campaign to liquidate the kulaks…
And so, at the beginning of 1930, they began to liquidate the kulak families. The height of the
fever was in February and March. They expelled them from their home districts so that when it
was time for sowing there would be no kulaks left, so that a new life could begin. That is what
we all said it would be: “the first collective farm spring.”…
5
Stalin, Selected Works, Vol. XIII, p. 38f.
15
Our new life began without the co-called “kulaks.” They started to force people to join the
collective farms. Meetings were underway from morning on. There were shouts and curses.
Some of them shouted: “We will not join!”…
And we thought, fools that we were, that there could be no fate worse than that of the kulaks.
How wrong we were! The axe fell upon the peasants right where they stood, on large and small
alike. The execution by famine had arrived. By this time I no longer washed floors but was a
book-keeper instead. And, as a Party activist, I was sent to Ukraine in order to strengthen a
collective farm. In Ukraine, we were told, they had an instinct for private property that was
stronger than in the Russian Republic. And truly, truly, the whole business was much worse in
Ukraine…
Moscow assigned grain production and delivery quotas to the provinces, and the provinces then
assigned them to the districts. And our village was given a quota that it couldn’t have fulfilled in
ten years! In the village rada (council) even those who weren’t drinkers took to drink out of
terror…
Of course, the grain deliveries could not be fulfilled. Smaller areas had been sown, and the crop
yield on those smaller areas had shrunk. So where could it come from, that promised ocean of
grain from the collective farms? The conclusion reached up top was that the grain had all been
concealed, hidden away. By kulaks who had not yet been liquidated, by loafers! The “kulaks”
had been removed, but the “kulak” spirit remained. Private property was master over the minds
of the Ukrainian peasant.
Who was it who then signed the act which imposed mass murder? … For the decree required that
the peasants of Ukraine, the Don, and the Kuban be put to death by starvation, put to death along
with their tiny children. The instructions were to take away the entire seed fund. Grain was
searched for as if it were not grain but bombs and machine guns. The whole earth was stabbed
with bayonets and ramrods. Cellars were dug up, floors were broken through, and vegetable
gardens were turned over. From some they confiscated grain, and dust hung over the earth. And
there were no grain elevators to accommodate it, and they simply dumped it out on the earth and
set guards around it. By winter the grain had been soaked by the rains and began to ferment — the
Soviet government didn’t even have enough canvases to cover it up!…
Fathers and mothers wanted to save their children and hid a tiny bit of grain, and they were told:
“You hate the country of socialism. You are trying to make the plan fail, you parasites, you prokulaks, you rats.” … The entire seed fund had been confiscated…
Everyone was in terror. Mothers looked at their children and began to scream in fear. They
screamed as if a snake had crept into their house. And this snake was famine, starvation, death…
And here, under the government of workers and peasants, not even one kernel of grain was given
them. There were blockades along all the highways, where militia, NKVD men, troops were
stationed; the starving people were not to be allowed into the cities. Guards surrounded all the
railroad stations. There were guards at even the tiniest of whistle stops. No bread for you,
16
breadwinners! … And the peasant children in the villages got not one gram. That is exactly how
the Nazis put the Jewish children into the Nazi gas chambers: “You are not allowed to live, you
are all Jews!” And it was impossible to understand, grasp, comprehend. For these children were
Soviet children, and those who were putting them to death were Soviet people…
Death from starvation mowed down the village. First the children, then the old people, then those
of middle age. At first they dug graves and buried them, and then as things got worse they
stopped. Dead people lay there in the yards, and in the end they remained in their huts. Things
fell silent. The whole village died. Who died last I do not know. Those of us who worked in the
collective farm administration were taken off to the city…
Before they had completely lost their strength, the peasants went on foot across country to the
railroad. Not to the stations where the guards kept them away, but to the tracks. And when the
Kyiv-Odesa express came past, they would just kneel there and cry: “Bread, bread!” They would
lift up their horrible starving children for people to see. And sometimes people would throw
them pieces of bread and other scraps. The train would thunder on past, and the dust would settle
down, and the whole village would be there crawling along the tracks, looking for crusts. But an
order was issued that whenever trains were travelling through the famine provinces the guards
were to shut the windows and pull down the curtains. Passengers were not allowed at the
windows…
And the peasants kept crawling from village into the city. All the stations were surrounded by
guards. All the trains were searched. Everywhere along the roads were roadblocks — troops,
NKVD. Yet despite all this the peasants made their way into Kyiv. They would crawl through
the fields, through empty lots, through the swamps, through the woods — anywhere to bypass the
roadblocks set up for them. They were unable to walk; all they could do was crawl…
What I found out later was that everything fell silent in our village… I found out that troops were
sent in to harvest the winter wheat. The army men were not allowed to enter the village,
however. They were quartered in their tents. They were told there had been an epidemic. But
they kept complaining that a horrible stink was coming from the village. The troops stayed to
plant the spring wheat too. And the next year new settlers were brought in from Orel Province
(Russia). This was the rich Ukrainian land, the black earth, whereas the Orel peasants were
accustomed to frequent harvest failures.
Source: Vasily Grossman, Forever Flowing (New York: Harper & Row, 1972), Chapter 14.
2. Lev Kopelev
Lev Kopelev (1912-97) was a young Communist activist in the 1930s, one of the party cadre
entrusted with implementing the collectivization drive in the Ukraine. Later, after having served
with the Red Army in World War II, he was arrested at war’s end for having spoken out against
Red Army abuses against German civilians as the Red Army made its final push towards Berlin.
Sentenced to a ten-year term in the Gulag for having promoted “bourgeois humanism” and
“compassion towards the enemy,” he was released only in 1954. Over the following years, he
17
became increasingly outspoken in his dissident opinion and was stripped of his Soviet citizenship
in 1980. His memoirs, entitled The Education of a True Believer, were written in 1976; excerpts
follow.
The grain front! Stalin said the struggle for grain was the struggle for socialism. I was convinced
that we were warriors on an invisible front, fighting against kulak sabotage for the grain which
was needed by the country, by the five-year plan. Above all, for the grain, but also for the souls
of these peasants who were mired in unconscientiousness, in ignorance, who succumbed to
enemy agitation, who did not understand the great truth of communism. . . ..
The Myrhorod district had not fulfilled its plan of grain collection in December 1932. The
district committee dispatched a delegation of two newspapers, the Socialist Kharkov Register
and our Locomotive Worker, to issue news sheets in the lagging villages. There were four of us:
two lads from Myrhorod — a typesetter and a printer; and two from Kharkov – my assistant
Volodya and myself. . .
The highest measure of coercion on the hard-core holdouts was “undisputed confiscation.”
A team consisting of several young collective farmers members of the village Soviet . . . would
search the hut, barn, yard, and take away all e stores of seed, lead away the cow, the horse, the
pigs. In some cases they would be merciful and leave some potatoes, peas, corn for feeding the
family. But the stricter ones would make a clean sweep. They would take not only the food and
livestock, but also “all valuables and surpluses of clothing,” including icons in their frames,
samovars, painted carpets and even metal kitchen utensils which might be silver. And any money
they found stashed away. Special instructions ordered the removal of gold, silver and
currency….
Several times Volodia and I were present at such plundering raids. We even took part: we were
entrusted to draw up inventories of the confiscated goods. . . . The women howled hysterically,
clinging to the bags. . . .
I heard the children echoing them with screams, choking, coughing with screams. And I saw the
looks of the men: frightened, pleading, hateful, dully impassive, extinguished with despair or
flaring up with half-mad, daring ferocity…
And I persuaded myself, explained to myself I mustn’t give in to debilitating pity. We were
realising historical necessity. We were performing our revolutionary duty. We were obtaining
grain for the socialist fatherland, for the five-year plan. . . .
II
I have always remembered the winter of the last grain collections, the weeks of the great famine.
And I have always told about it. But I did not begin to write it down until many years later.
And while I wrote the rough drafts and read them to friends, questions arose… Questions put to
18
history, the present day, myself.
How could all this have happened? Who was guilty of the famine which destroyed millions of
lives? How could I have participated in it?
We were raised as the fanatical [believers] of a new creed, the only true religion of scientific
socialism. The party became our church militant, bequeathing to all mankind eternal salvation,
eternal peace and the bliss of an earthly paradise. It victoriously surmounted all other churches,
schisms and heresies. The works of Marx, Engels and Lenin were accepted as holy writ, and
Stalin was the infallible high priest. . . .
Stalin was the most perspicacious, the most wise (at that time they hadn’t yet started calling him
“great” and “brilliant”). He said: “The struggle for grain is the struggle for socialism.” And we
believed him unconditionally. And later we believed that unconditional collectivization was
unavoidable if we were to overcome the capriciousness and uncertainty of the market and the
backwardness of individual farming, to guarantee a steady supply of grain, milk and meat to the
cities. And also if we were to reeducate millions of peasants, those petty landowners and hence
potential bourgeoisie, potential kulaks, to transform them into laborers with a social conscience,
to liberate them from “the idiocy of country life,” from ignorance and prejudice, and to accustom
them to culture, to all the blessings of socialism….
With the rest of my generation I firmly believed that the ends justified the means. Our great goal
was the universal triumph of Communism, and for the sake of that goal everything was
permissible – to lie, to steal, to destroy hundreds of thousands and even millions of people, all
those who were hindering our work or could hinder it, everyone who stood in the way. And to
hesitate or doubt about all this was to give in to “intellectual squeamishness” and “stupid
liberalism,” the attributes of people who “could not see the forest for the trees.”
That was how I had reasoned, and everyone like me, even when I did have my doubts, when I
saw what “total collectivization” meant — how…mercilessly they stripped the peasants in the
winter of 1932-33. I took part in this myself, scouring the countryside, searching for hidden
grain, testing the earth with an iron rod for loose spots that might lead to buried grain.
With the others, I emptied out the old folks’ storage chests, stopping my ears to the children’s
crying and the women’s wails. For I was convinced that I was accomplishing the great and
necessary transformation of the countryside; that in the days to come the people who lived there
would be better off for it; that their distress and suffering were a result of their own ignorance or
the machinations of the class enemy; that those who sent me – and I myself – knew better than
the peasants how they should live, what they should sow and when they should plow.
In the terrible spring of 1933 I saw people dying from hunger. I saw women and children with
distended bellies, turning blue, still breathing but with vacant, lifeless eyes. And corpses –
corpses in ragged sheepskin coats and cheap felt boots; corpses in peasant huts, in the melting
snow of old Vologda, under the bridges of Kharkov…. I saw all this and did not go out of my
mind or commit suicide. Nor did I curse those who had sent me to take away the peasants’ grain
19
in the winter, and in the spring to persuade the barely walking, skeleton-thin or sickly-swollen
people to go into the fields in order to “fulfill the Bolshevik sowing plan in shock-worker style.”
. . . In February 1933 I was sick… My father arrived after a trip through the provinces, where he
had been checking on the preparations for planting sugar beets. He sat hunched over; his face
was dark and his eyes inflamed, as if after a bout of malaria. But he was not emaciated. People
don’t go hungry at the sugar refineries…
Father was gloomy and immediately let into me. “Everything is done for! Do you understand?
No grain in the village! I’m not talking about the Central Workers Co-op or the city story, but the
village. The grain growers are dying of starvation! Not some derelict. tramps, not some
unemployed Americans, but the Ukrainian grain growers are dying from want of grain! And my
dear little boy helped to take it away.”
Source: Lev Kopelov, The Education of a True Believer (New York: Harper & Row, 1980),
Chapter IX (“The Last Grain Collections”)
Grossman account accessed from http://faminegenocide.com/resources/witnesses.html (August
10, 2012). The Kopelov account is a composite drawn from that site and
http://personal.ashland.edu/~jmoser1/kopelev.htm (accessed 11/26/2012)
C) Stalin’s Cult of Personality
In the old, pre-revolutionary Russia, the Tsar had provided his people a unifying symbol of
fatherly affection and divine grace. In overthrowing the Tsarist system, the Bolsheviks had
sought to replace this old, superstitious reverence for the Tsar with a new, more hard-headed
and realist view of government – as an instrument, above all, of class rule and negotiation.
Lenin, for his part, disdained any suggestion of cultish practices regarding his leadership,
rejecting for example some followers’ attempt to name one or another Moscow city street after
him. All that changed upon Lenin’s death, of course, as his body was mummified and made the
object of state veneration.
Stalin’s own rise to power had come in part through the skill by which he presented himself as
Lenin’s most loyal and true supporter. As he consolidated his power, an ever-growing cult grew
around his rule and person. One example comes from the following: a stupefyingly slavish hymn
to Stalin written by the hack writer A. O. Avidenko.
“Ode to Stalin”
Thank you, Stalin. Thank you because I am joyful. Thank you because I am well. No matter how
old I become, I shall never forget how we received Stalin two days ago. Centuries will pass, and
the generations still to come will regard us as the happiest of mortals, as the most fortunate of
men, because we lived in the century of centuries, because we were privileged to see Stalin, our
inspired leader. Yes, and we regard ourselves as the happiest of mortals because we are the
20
contemporaries of a man who never had an equal in world history.
The men of all ages will call on thy name, which is strong, beautiful, wise and marvelous. Thy
name is engraven on every factory, every machine, every place on the earth, and in the hearts of
all men.
Every time I have found myself in his presence I have been subjugated by his strength, his
charm, his grandeur. I have experienced a great desire to sing, to cry out, to shout with joy and
happiness. And now see me–me!–on the same platform where the Great Stalin stood a year ago.
In what country, in what part of the world could such a thing happen.
I write books. I am an author. All thanks to thee, O great educator, Stalin. I love a young woman
with a renewed love and shall perpetuate myself in my children–all thanks to thee, great
educator, Stalin. I shall be eternally happy and joyous, all thanks to thee, great educator, Stalin.
Everything belongs to thee, chief of our great country. And when the woman I love presents me
with a child the first word it shall utter will be : Stalin.
O great Stalin, O leader of the peoples,
Thou who broughtest man to birth.
Thou who fructifies the earth,
Thou who restorest to centuries,
Thou who makest bloom the spring,
Thou who makest vibrate the musical chords…
Thou, splendour of my spring, O thou,
Sun reflected by millions of hearts.
— A. O. Avidenko
D) Yevgeny Yevtushenko, Reflections upon the Stalinist Era (1963)
In the late 1950s and early 1960s, then-Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev promoted a partial
public criticism of Stalin, his crimes and rule. Yevgeny Yevtushenko (1933- ) appeared at the
crest of this critical wave; his Autobiografia, published in 1963, reflected at length upon the
broad shadows that, ten years after his death, Stalin still cast upon Soviet life. Yevtushenko,
whose role as a leading Soviet dissident won him some acclaim in the West, was of course
writing under the Soviet system, and there were limits to what he was willing to acknowledge
and say. But the psychological insights that follow help explain, at least in part, some of the
appeal of Stalinism – and the dread and inertia that led so many to remain silent so long as it
prevailed. Excerpts follow:
Blankly smiling workers and collective farmers looked out from the covers of books. Almost
every novel and short story had a happy ending. Painters more and more often took as their
subject state banquets, weddings, solemn public meetings, and parades.
The apotheosis of this trend was a movie which in its grand finale showed thousands of
21
collective farmers having a gargantuan feast against the backdrop of a new power station.
Recently I had a talk with its producer, gifted and intelligent man. “How could you produce such
a film?” I asked. “It is true that I also once wrote verses in that vein, but I was still wet behind the
ears, whereas you were adult and mature.” The producer smiled a sad smile. “You know, the
strangest thing to me is that I was absolutely sincere. I thought all this was a necessary part of
building communism. And then I believed Stalin.”
So when we talk about “the cult of personality,” we should not be too hasty in accusing all those
who, one way or another, were involved in it, debasing themselves with their flattery. There were
of course sycophants who used the situation for their own ends. But that many people connected
with the arts sand Stalin’s praises was often not vice but tragedy.
How was it possible for even gifted and intelligent people to be deceived?
To begin with, Stalin was a strong and vivid personality. When he wanted to do, Stalin knew
how to charm people. . . .
In the second place, in the minds of the Soviet people, Stalin’s name was indissolubly linked with
Lenin’s. Stalin knew how popular Lenin was and saw to it that history was rewritten in such a
way as to make his own relations with Lenin seem much more friendly than they had been in
fact. . . .
In reality, however, Stalin distorted Lenin’s ideas, because to Lenin — and this was the whole
meaning of his work — communism was to serve man, whereas under Stalin it appeared that man
served communism.
Stalin’s theory that people were the little cogwheels of communism was put into practice and
with horrifying results. . . . Russian poets, who had produced some fine works during the war,
turned dull again. . . .
The size of a printing was not determined by demand but by the poet’s official standing. As a
result bookstores were cluttered up with books of poetry which no one wanted. . . .
Now that ten years have gone by [Stalin died in 1953], I realize that Stalin’s greatest crime was
not the arrests and the shootings he ordered. His greatest crime was the corruption of the human
spirit.
22
Week Fifteen: Nazi-Occupied Europe
Radicalizing Racial Policies: the War for “Living Space” (1939-45)
1. Mass Murder: the Einsatzgruppen
The Einsatzgruppen (translates as “operations squads”; “mobile death squads” more accurately
conveys their role) were essential to the Nazi way of war in the east. Introduced during the
invasion of Poland in 1939, these SS units swept into Nazi-occupied areas, rounding up Jews,
Poles, Roma and other racial or political undesirables. “Red Commissars” from the Soviet
Union, as well as anyone suspected of resistance against the Nazi occupiers, were also targeted
by the Einsatzgruppen for summary execution. From 1941 to 1943, these squads murdered more
than one million Jews, and tens of thousands of others (from 1942 onwards, the Nazi killing
machine shifted from the death-by-bullets techniques of the Einsatzgruppen towards the newly
established death camps such as Sobibor, Belzec and Auschwitz-Birkenau).
In October 1942, the Einsatzgruppen carried out mass executions of the Jewish population of
Dubno, in Ukraine. Their actions were observed by Herman Friedrich Graebe (1900 – 1986),
who was serving at the time as manager of a German construction company in Ukraine.
After Germany’s defeat in 1945, Graebe wrote an account those executions, excerpted below,
which was entered as testimony against Einsatzgruppen leaders tried before the U.S. Military
Tribunal in Nuremberg in 1947.1 For publicly testifying against his countrymen, Graebe was
vilified by other Germans; in 1948, fearing for his family’s safety, he emigrated to the United
States, where he lived until his death in 1986.
Hermann Graebe’s Eyewitness Account
My foreman and I went directly to the pits. Nobody bothered us. Now I heard rifle shots in quick
succession from behind one of the earth mounds. The people who had got off the trucks – men,
women and children of all ages – had to undress upon the order of an SS man who carried a
riding or dog whip. They had to put down their clothes in fixed places, sorted according to shoes,
top clothing and undergarments. I saw heaps of shoes of about 800 to 1000 pairs, great piles of
under-linen and clothing. Without screaming or weeping these people undressed, stood around in
family groups, kissed each other, said farewells, and waited for a sign from another SS man, who
stood near the pit, also with a whip in his hand.
1
The first and best known of the Nuremberg Trials, in which leading figures of the Nazi regime were tried
and sentenced by the International Military Tribunal, occurred in 1945. Twelve Subsequent Nuremberg
Trials were held from 1945 to 1949, bringing to justice other Nazi functionaries and German interests
guilty of war crimes and other crimes against humanity. The Einsatzgruppen Trial was the ninth of these
proceedings, and ran from September 1947 to April 1948).
23
During the fifteen minutes I stood near, I heard no complaint or plea for mercy. I watched a
family of about eight persons, a man and a woman both of about fifty, with their children of
about twenty to twenty-four, and two grown-up daughters about twenty-eight or twenty-nine. An
old woman with snow white hair was holding a one year old child in her arms and singing to it
and tickling it. The child was cooing with delight. The parents were looking on with tears in their
eyes. The father was holding the hand of a boy about ten years old and speaking to him softly;
the boy closely wedged together and lying on top of each other so that only their heads were
visible. Nearly all had blood running over their shoulders from their heads. Some of the people
shot were still moving. Some were lifting their arms and turning their heads to show that they
were still alive. The pit was nearly two-thirds full. I estimated that it already contained about a
thousand people.
I looked for the man who did the shooting. He was an SS man, who sat at the edge of the narrow
end of the pit, his feet dangling into the pit. He had a tommy-gun on his knees and was smoking
a cigarette. The people, completely naked, went down some steps which were cut in the clay wall
of the pit and clambered over the heads of the people lying there to the place to which the SS
man directed them. They lay down in front of the dead or wounded people; some caressed those
who were still alive and spoke to them in a low voice. Then I heard a series of shots. I looked
into the pit and saw that the bodies were twitching or the heads lying already motionless on top
of the bodies that lay beneath them. Blood was running from their necks. The next batch was
approaching already. They went down into the pit, lined themselves up against the previous
victims and were shot.”
.
I was surprised that I was not ordered away, but I saw that there were two or three postmen in
uniform nearby. The next batch was approaching already. They went down into the pit, lined
themselves up against the previous victims and were shot. When I walked back around the
mound, I noticed another truckload of people which had just arrived. This time it included sick
and infirm persons. An old, very thin woman with terribly thin legs was undressed by others who
were already naked, while two people held her up. The woman appeared to be paralyzed. The
naked people carried the woman around the mound. I left with Moennikes and drove in my car
back to Dubno.
On the morning of the next day, when I again visited the site, I saw about 30 naked people lying
near the pit-about 30 to 50 meters away from it. Some of them were still alive; they looked
straight in front of them with a fixed stare and seemed to notice neither the chilliness of the
morning nor the workers of my firm who stood around. A girl of about 20 spoke to me and asked
me to give her clothes, and help her escape. At that moment we heard a fast car approach and I
noticed that it was an SS detail. I moved away to my site. Ten minutes later we heard shots from
the vicinity of the pit. The Jews still alive had been ordered to throw the corpses into the pit; then
they had themselves to lie down in this to be shot in the neck …’
Source: “Affidavits of Hermann Friedrich Graebe, 10 November 1945, concerning the execution
of Jews in Russia.” Excerpts compiled from http://www.auschwitz.dk/Graebe.htm and
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/engineer.htm (accessed October 15, 2012)
24
2) Crimes of the Wehrmacht : The Reichenau Order
For decades after the 1945, most Germans insisted that their army, the Wehrmacht, was
innocent of the crimes committed by Nazi Germany in World War II. The Wehrmacht, after all,
was made up of millions of soldiers, most of them conscripts – unlike, say, the monstrous SS,
which was a voluntary organization. Wehrmacht troops were, in other words, the sons,
husbands, boys next door, about whom civilians back home wanted to believe only the best. Even
after the war, when Germans reckoned with the disasters committed in their name, they sought to
displace all responsibility onto the Hitler himself, along with the Nazi Party and the SS. They
continued, meanwhile, to venerate the army, as Germany’s “shield of honor”; for most postwar
German patriots, the army’s “purity of arms” remained a central article of faith.
However comforting these notions may have been to everyday Germans, they have no foundation
in the historical record. The overwhelming body of evidence shows conclusively how the
Wehrmacht had become, on the eve of World War II, “Hitler’s Army” – a thoroughly nazified
force, whose officers largely subscribed to Hitler’s ruthless racial geopolitics and military
strategies.
One such officer was General Field Marshal Walter von Reichenau (1884 – 1942), who
commanded the German Sixth Army during the opening months of Operation Barbarossa. In
October 1941, he issued the infamous “Reichenau Order,” a chilling document that suggests
how thoroughly Hitler’s generals had, by this time, internalized Nazi racial doctrines, not least
the idea of “Judeo-Bolshevism” – the idea that Jews and Soviet communists were identical, and
equally deserving of annihilation. Excerpts from the order follow:
Secret Field Marshal von.Reichenau Order Concerning
Conduct of Troops in the Eastern Territories.
Dated 10 October, 1941
[…]
SECRET !
Army H. Q., 10.10.41
Army Command 6., Sec. Ia-A. 7
Subject: Conduct of Troops in Eastern Territories.
Regarding the conduct of troops towards the bolshevistic system, vague ideas are still prevalent
in many cases. The most essential aim of war against the Jewish-bolshevistic system is a
complete destruction of their means of power and the elimination of asiatic influence from the
European culture. In this connection the troops are facing tasks which exceed the onesided
routine of soldiering. The soldier in the eastern territories is not merely a fighter according to the
rules of the art of war but also a bearer of ruthless national ideology and the avenger of
bestialities which have been inflicted upon German and racially related nations.
Therefore the soldier must have full understanding for the necessity of a severe but just revenge
on subhuman Jewry. The Army has to aim at another purpose, i. e., the annihilation of revolts in
25
hinterland which, as experience proves, have always been caused by Jews.
The combating of the enemy behind the front line is still not being taken seriously enough.
Treacherous, cruel partisans and unnatural women are still being made prisoners of war and
guerilla fighters dressed partly in uniforms or plain clothes and vagabonds are still being treated
as proper soldiers, and sent to prisoner of war camps. In fact, captured Russian officers talk even
mockingly about Soviet agents moving openly about the roads/ and very often eating at German
field kitchens. Such an attitude of the troops can only be explained by complete thoughtlessness,
so it is now high time for the commanders to clarify the meaning of the present struggle.
The feeding of the natives and of prisoners of war who are not working for the Armed Forces
from Army kitchens is an equally misunderstood humanitarian act as is the giving of cigarettes
and bread. Things which the people at home can spare under great sacrifices and things which
are being brought by the Command to the front under great difficulties, should not be given to
the enemy by the soldier not even if they originate from booty. It is an important part of our
supply.
When retreating the Soviets have often set buildings on fire. The troops should be interested in
extinguishing of fires only as far as it is necessary to secure sufficient numbers of billets.
Otherwise the disappearance of symbols of the former bolshevistic rule even in the form of
buildings is part of the struggle of destruction. Neither historic nor artistic considerations are of
any importance in the eastern territories. The command issues the necessary directives for the
securing of raw materials and plants, essential for war economy. The complete disarming of the
civil population in the rear of the fighting troops is imperative considering the long and
vulnerable lines of communications. Where possible, captured weapons and ammunition should
be stored and guarded. Should this be impossible because of the situation of the battle so the
weapons and ammunition will be rendered useless. If isolated partisans are found using firearm
in the rear of the army drastic measures are to be taken. These measures will be extended to that
part of the male population who were in a position to hinder or report the attacks. The
indifference of numerous apparently anti-soviet elements which originates from a “wait and see”
attitude, must give way to a clear decision for active collaboration. If not, no one can complain
about being judged and treated a member of the Soviet System.
The fear of the German counter-measures must be stronger than the threats of the wandering
bolshevistic remnants. Being far from all political considerations of the future the soldier has to
fulfill two tasks:
1. Complete annihilation of the false bolshevistic doctrine of the Soviet State and its armed
forces.
2. The pitiless extermination of foreign treachery and cruelty and thus the protection of the lives
of military personnel in Russia.
This is the only way to fulfil our historic task to liberate the German people once forever from
26
the Asiatic-Jewish danger.
Commander in Chief
(Signed) von Reichenau
Field Marshal
Source: Translation of Document UK-81. Source: Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression. Volume
VIII. USGPO, Washington, 1946/pp.572-582. Accessed at
http://ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/USSR2.htm (Oct. 15, 2012)
3) General Blaskowitz’s Lonely Dissent
General Johannes Blaskowitz (1883-1948), an officer of the old Prussian school, commanded
Germany’s Eighth Army in the invasion of Poland and received the surrender of Warsaw at the
end of September. The following month, he was named Military Governor of German-occupied
Poland. Almost immediately he began speaking out against atrocities committed against Polish
Jews and gentiles.
In late 1939 and early 1940, Blaskowitz issued two detailed memoranda to his superiors,
complaining of the problems created by the indiscriminate slaughter of tens of thousands of
Poles and Jews by SS Einsatzgruppen units. His argument was that, in strictly military terms,
these actions were counterproductive. Mainly, he said, they forged solidarity among Polish
gentiles and Jews, as the two peoples found themselves victimized by a common enemy. More,
Blaskowitz warned,
“When high officials of the SS and the police call for atrocities and brutalities and publicly
praise them, then within the shortest spell of time only the brutal will rule. With astonishing
speed men of the same sick leanings and character will come together, in order to give full vent
to their beastly and pathological instincts, as is the case in Poland. There is hardly any way to
hold them in rein; for they must rightly feel themselves officially authorized and entitled to any
atrocity.”
Blaskowitz remained a lonely voice within the Wehrmacht, however; Chief of Staff Alfred Jodl
spoke contemptuously of his “naïve” and “uncalled for” protests. Hitler was still more scornful
about Blaskowitz’s “childish” concerns and “Salvation Army attitude.” At the end of May 1940,
Blaskowitz was relieved of his command and transferred out of Poland. He served the rest of the
war on Germany’s Western Fronts, was captured by Allied forces in 1945 and died (suicide)
while awaiting trial in Nuremberg in 1948.
27
Week Sixteen: the Holocaust
A) Jewish Population of Europe, 1933
Total Jewish population ran at about 9.5 million across Europe in 1933, making up about 60
percent of the global Jewish population (estimated at 15.3 million). The great majority of
European Jews resided in eastern Europe, with about 5 1/2 million living in Poland and the
Soviet Union.
In little more than a decade, most European Jews – two out of every three – would be dead.
28
B) Creating a Racial State
In the picture below, a German “anthropologist” measures the cranium of a Roma woman; the
Nazis fetishized the “precision” of such measurements as one way to shore up the “scientific”
underpinnings of their racialist worldview. This emphasis upon superficial physical features, of
course, went hand in hand with a crude “racial” stereotyping of peoples –constructing such
stereotypes was essential to the popularization of Nazi ideology.
The Roma and Sinti (sometimes referred to as “gypsies”) suffered cruelly for all this; somewhere
between 400,000 and 500,000 perished at Nazi hands during World War II.
29
C) Stigmatizing and Isolating Germany’s Jews
“For Aryans Only” – Berlin Park Bench, 1935
From the earliest days of the regime, the Nazis pushed discriminatory laws and other measures
against the roughly 525,000 Jews living in Germany.
Beginning in 1934, signs appeared throughout Germany public spaces – parks, restaurants,
theaters, libraries – declaring “Jews not wanted.”
30
D) The Nuremberg Laws
This chart shows the racial categorization schemes codified in the 1935 Nuremberg Laws. The
first column (on left) proposes that to be regarded as of full “German blood,” all four
grandparents had to be German. The final two columns on the right present the ancestry
specifications for “full Jews” – either three or four grandparents. The middle columns specify the
ancestry of the “Mischlinge” (those of mixed race), both “First & Second Grade.” The flow chart
also specifies cases in which marriages are forbidden or allowed. In the years to follow, these
categories meant life or death for hundreds of thousands of German and European Jews.
31
E) The “Euthanasia” Program – Murder in the Name of Racial Hygiene
The above picture spread is from a 1937 Nazi publication entitled, The Nazi State Protects the
German People from Vermin through its Criminal Code and through its Racial Legislation
against the Reproduction of Inferiors.
Portrayed in these photos are the allegedly “inferior” individuals and groups who are presented
as a clear and present danger to German “racial health.” The page on the right profiles residents
of a psychiatric facility, described here as dangerous “vermin.” On the left, concentration camps
are presented as the solution.
32
Poster above proclaims: “60,000 Reichsmarks – that is what this hereditary defective costs the
German Racial Community over the course of his life. Racial comrades, that is your money,
too.” At bottom, an appeal to “Read New Race, the monthly magazine of the Racial Policy
Office of the NSDAP. “
This public propaganda campaign promoting racial hygiene led, in 1939, to Germany’s so-called
“Euthanasia” program, in which the wards of German mental hospitals and other institutions
were rounded up and killed. It was this campaign that first introduced the technologies of
cyanide gassing. By war’s end, historians estimate that some 200,000 Germans had been killed
through the Nazi state’s “euthanasia” programs.
33
F) The Death Camp System
34
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
Tags:
movement
Soviet Union
countries
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool’s honor code & terms of service.
