Europe in the 19th century

The thing I found most intersting about this period was the German construction of the dreadnought. This was the latest and greatest in Naval Warfare technology and it seemed quite odd to me that Germany would have the need for such an expensive piece of Naval equipment when there was no need for one, other than to piss off the British as well as many other countries. What I wonder is why Germany is so obsessed with having the latest and greatest military tool when a proven piece of equipment better suits their needs. During this period of time it was the Naval Dreadnought and during the WWII era it was the Tiger Tank. This tank had all the bells and whistles but often broke down and was expensive to fix.

As Europe moved toward war the idea that each ethnic group should have their own nation and self rule became more important.  During class the artificially created states came up and Israel was mentioned.  The problems with the Israelis and Palestinians still exist today over the land dispute that stared when Israel was created (or given back to the Jews).  What I find interesting about the problem is that the Jew are a separate group altogether and so, from this idea of national self-determination, they should have their own place but the Palestinians are very similar to all the other Muslim Arab states in that area so, again along the idea of national self-determination, it would make more sense for them to join one of the other states.  I know there are many more issues involved; I’m just looking at it in this narrow way.  And maybe I’m a little biased toward Israel.

 The Balkan region has always been an area of conflict and cultural differences. Many of the problems in the region today can be traced back to the 19th century. Just like today people in the rest of Europe had a hard time figuring out what to do with the region, they have tried to avoid the issue and they have also tried direct intervention, but nothing seems to be truly effective at quelling the ethnic disputes. It seems like conflict is almost impossible to avoid with the mixed ethnic population of the region. The Serbs and other ethnic groups have desired national unity as much as any other people but unlike other areas in Europe, the Balkans proved to be a large hurdle to over come which they are still trying to overcome to this day.

I found the October Manifesto of 1905 very interesting. Emperor Nicholas was trying to stop the October Revolution of the Russian population when he wrote this manifesto. In the manifesto he attempted to compromise with Russian people. He decided to grant fundamental civil freedoms to the entire Russian population, he decided to all social classes to participate in the Duma, and he declared that no law could be enacted without approval from the Duma. These are all freedoms that most European nations had gained earlier in the 19th century, not the 20th century. Finally Russia was making strides towards modernization. It was also interesting to me that Emperor Nicholas called on the Russian people “to remember the homeland, to help put a stop to this unprecedented unrest, and….to devote all their strength to the restoration of peace to their native land.” It was as if he was pulling the stings of Russian nationalism which had previously been kept down in order to keep the Tsar r and in complete control.

I am perplexed by Wilhelm II’s aggressive program of naval shipbuilding. Winks asks us on page 323 if “Wilhelm’s militarism increased German security or placed Germany in greater danger?” I think the answer is pretty clear when we look at the threat that German shipbuilding brought to the international spectrum and the direct challenge that it presented to British naval superiority in the Atlantic. Wilhelm’s reasoning seems to be destructive in its nature when we look at the “Memorandum Appended to German Navy Bill, 1900″. I am particularly intrigued by the paradox that Wilhelm presents to us when he begins the memorandum by stating “The German Empire Needs Peace at Sea” and then going on to state “Germany must have a fleet so strong that even for the adversary with great sea power a war against it would involve such dangers as to imperil his position in the world”. Wilhelm also goes on to state ” the defeat of a strong German Fleet would so substantially weaken the enemy that, in spite of the victory he might have obtained, his own position in the world would no longer be secured by an adequate fleet.” I enjoyed Wilhelm’s distasteful attempt at peaceful guise, but in my opinion peace was the last thing on his mind.

The logic behind Wilhelm’s plan is absurd. Where is Wilhelm’s sense in fighting a war with Britain in order to weaken the British fleet at the cost of his own? I fail to see the logical sense in Wilhelm’s aggressive militaristic foreign policy to the extent of threatening a superior navy. Wilhelm was setting Germany up for failure, destruction, and defeat.

I think that there is a serious flaw in Nietzsche’s theory that society and its various institutions suppress man’s potential for greatness.   Nietzsche glorifies barbarian culture because it depends upon strength, as opposed to Christianity, Democracy or Socialism which (to him) encourage weakness.  Yet, he values artistic and literary creation.  This seems paradoxical to me; maybe I do not understand all of the nuances of his thinking…  How many great barbarian thinkers can you think of?  How many great barbarian artists?  Poets?  Linguists?  These things were made possible by the comforts and quality of life that society offers.  

Ultimately, while Nietzsche may have had good intentions, I think that he left his work far too open to interpretation.  I know that he was a brilliant linguist, but common people like me don’t have the brainpower (or time…) to decipher his riddles and maxims…  To me, Nietzsche’s legacy has to be tied to the Nazi’s, because he offered a justification for their actions: the Will to Power, the idea that the Weak are an obstacle to human progress, and the call for an ‘over-man’ who would ignore the rules and conventional wisdom and propel society forward.  Obviously, Nietzsche would not have approved of Nazi Germany, but I consider it to be in part a byproduct of reckless philosophizing.

Nietzsche likes to philosophize with a hammer, destroying everything he touches.  However, it seems to me that he offers no viable alternatives, no workable solutions, nothing to fill the voids he hopes to create.  For someone who describes humanity as “violent and ugly,” isn’t it peculiar to try to strike down anything which might hold it in check?  Can he have it both ways?  I hear a lot of frustration and bitterness in his writing…  Any thoughts?

First I would like to ask a question. Why is it that when the rest of the European world was becommig more democratic does the Russian Tzar reist the movement?  It seems to me that he just does not want to lose his own power and have to give it up to the people.  Finally when they do call for him to step down and give them a constitution he has the guards shoot the protesters. That sounds like a good idea. This leads to them becomming even more made. Finally Nichols gives them civil rights, universal male suffrage, and a national assembly. But he holds the right to dissove the assembly at any time. No wonder why people are mad. They get nothing from their govertnment.

What I found most interesting about class on Tuesday, was the music of Schoenberg. It’s very interesting how he wanted to branch out and try something different than what was the comfortable norms. He’s trying to capture something that is totally out of rhythm with our bodies. Most music is appealing or likeable, because it has a melody or a rhythm that can flow along with our own bodies natural rhythm. However, his music was a chaotic capturing of the mind that seems to be showing not only what he is feeling, but what he is thinking. The music reminded me of someone not being able to concentrate, and allowing their brain to jumble all these ideas together. Even the ballet Rite of Spring shows this, in it’s primitive dancing and abrupt and jerky movements.