Death and Destruction Group 4

Bloxham, Donald, ‘Organized Mass Murder: Structure, Participation, and Motivation in Comparative Perspective’, Holocaust and Genocide Studies, vol. 22, no. 2 (2008), pp. 203-245 – Zak W

Bloxham’s article begins by stating that the state does not need to be intimately involved with mass murder, that organisation is the defining factor no matter how rudimentary. Though the state is not inherently necessary, it can help to legitimise acts of violence in the eyes of its people and allies. He goes on to mention that studies of genocide often take what he refers to as a ‘reductionist’ approach in that they focus on the perpetrators and trying to make broad statements about the nature of genocide, putting the perpetrators under what he calls a ‘unified analyses.’ Instead, Bloxham opts for a comparative approach, looking at different acts of genocide throughout history to see of he can draw any parallels or meaningful comparisons. From this, he goes onto deny the ‘uniqueness’ of the holocaust, stating that it shared parallels with various acts.

Throughout the article, Bloxham looks at the Soviet Ethnic Cleansings in World War II, the Rwandan Genocide and the Armenian Genocide using them as comparisons for the Holocaust. In doing so, he comes to various conclusions about the nature of genocide. For example, he assesses how each act had differing degrees of popular participation, with the Rwandan Genocide having a high degree of civilian activity in the killings, whereas the Soviet cleansings were almost closed off to popular participations and the killings were enacted by instruments of the state apparatus.

Near the beginning he introduces three main principles that he found each instance to have shared. The first of which is that in each perpetrating nation, there was a prolonged suspicion or stereotyping of a particular ethnic or societal group, leading to the subjugation of that group when there was a new regime or reform in society. Secondly, this idea of revolutionary reform into a better society gave way for ‘exclusionary ideologies’ due to the desire to redefine state identity. The third and final principle was that of war, and how it helped to radicalise the state both in terms of policy and population, leading to a general acceptance of more radical ideas such as mass killings and genocide. These remain a staple of Bloxham’s argument throughout and help to contextualise his argument about the state and bureaucracies not being the sole factor behind genocide.

Through this comparative analysis, Bloxham can provide an interesting account for the nature of genocides, showing that each example has things in common but also wildly differ from each other in ways, such as having vast amounts of bureaucratic participation like the Final Solution or having relatively little, as seen in his account of the Armenian Genocide. Bloxham provides a very complex view of genocide, critical of those who would try to simplify it or put it down to one main factor such as Michael Thad Allan, whose account of genocide he calls ‘too easy’.

Word count: 473

Student Number: 2717372

Claire Duchen – Crime and Punishment in Liberated France: The Case of Les femmes tondues

 The case of Les femmes tondues is a debate that is somewhat difficult for historians to have. Les femmes tondues was the act committed by the French after the end of the second world war to punish those who were deemed to be un-French after collaboration or involvement with the Germans. This article sets out to examine what exactly happened to the women who were punished and given the punishment of shorn (head shaving) publicly. There were 2 waves of the Les femmes tondues, first in 1944 before the allied landings with a peak in June and July which continued slowly into the autumn of that year. A second wave followed this after the return of those who were liberated from concentration camps, these punishments took place in towns villages, anywhere that was public viewing and were carried out for mainly sexual reasons with the number of cases being recorded varying in different cities across France. The head shavings however were not the only punishment carried out against women in France, usually along with the head shaving women were made to strip publicly, had swastikas painted on their bodies had things thrown at them and made to walk naked through town as a sign of them being now viewed as no longer have the right to be called French. These punishments have been argued by feminists to be a symbolic act of rape, as the victim’s suffering is portrayed in such a way to show a man’s power with rape being crucial in war, this was argued by sociologist Ruth Seifert as women are seen to represent the nation, so when women are degraded in such a way by men it also destroys the community and the nation which is the aim in war. This article argues that it is a very hard event to argue without taking one side over the other, it is clear to see both sides of the reasoning behind the head shaving as France wanted to rebuild its government after the war and seen this as an acceptable way of showing everyone the steps that they were willing to take to ensure a fresh start for France, however, it is also clear to see why it was hard for those women who were punished as they were not only stripped of their privacy for something that may have been out of their control at the time such as sexual assault from German officers but they were also stripped of their right to call themselves French as they were in a sense outcasts from society.

 

Ivtván Deák – Purging Hitler’s Europe

The Nuremberg Trials in 1945-1946 are seen as a great triumph for European history after the German atrocities during the Second World War. These trials were set to put the leaders of sovereign states not only individually but also collectively to make them responsible for the actions made during the war, however, this article explains how this didn’t happen to the extent it was meant to. The first reason for this is that the Nuremberg Trials tended to minimise other crimes committed throughout Europe by political, administrative and judicial purges ranging from Norway to Greece and from France to the Soviet Union. The Nuremberg Trials put 23 defendants up on the stand for the war crimes they had committed however even when these 23 defendants were combined with the dozen or so follow-up trials this only affected an estimated 200 people. These trials only dealt with the high-up important German leaders without however the main culprits such as Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler and Joseph Goebbels who were all dead by the time of the trials. With the importance of this well-awaited trial, there were many non-German war criminals who were brought to trial and executed outside of Germany for crimes such as treason, collaboration with the enemy and crimes against humanity. The Bulgarian government held the record for executions of war criminals, as on February 2 1945 the communists ruling executed the former Prime Minister as well as 24 cabinet members and 68 parliamentary deputies for treason and crimes against the people. The list of non-German Europeans who were executed for War Crimes included thousands of generals, police chiefs, city mayors, politicians and journalists. The Nuremberg Trials have been known for being the trial that took down the criminals who had committed the worst atrocities and bringing those who had been affected some justice, however, this article shows that because of the nature of the trial and the reasoning behind it, it did in fact overshadow other trials that had taken place across Europe for other war crimes such as treason etc but these were not given the same amount of publicity due to the nature of the Holocaust and the thousands of people who wanted justice for what had been allowed to happen to innocent people.

Prusin, ‘Zone of violence’.

In the chapter, Prusin discusses the anti-Jewish pogroms in Eastern Galicia between 1914-1915 and 1941. Prusin starts the chapter by examining the different ethnic groups within the region. In Eastern Galicia, there were the Ukrainians, Poles and Jews whose relations remained dormant until wartime brought intercommunal hostilities. The Polish mainly made up the nobility while the Ukrainians were a large percentage of the peasants. The Jews were the middlemen. They were alien to the Polish and Ukrainians due to their different religion, language and culture.

After the outbreak of war in August 1914, the Russians gained entry into Galicia. As the Austrian army began evacuation, there was a void of authority which resulted in many shops and businesses being robbed. Many of these belonged to the Jews. Prusin states that for the Russian army, ethnicity and religion were key for loyalty to the state. However, Jews were most resilient to this. Thus, in the Russian army, officers would pass anti-Semitic propaganda to the soldiers, who often considered that the war was not only against the Central Powers, but the Jews as well. During this period, Jews were blamed for treacherous acts such as allegations of shooting troops. This would be followed with plunder, rape and massacre.

Prusin then goes on to discuss Jewish pogroms in 1941. At least 10,000 were killed in Eastern Galicia. The German invasion of the Soviet Union sparked violence against the Jews who were considered as the main beneficiaries of the Soviet regime. The pogroms in 1941 began with robberies and looting which occurred under Soviet evacuation. However, in contrast to 1914-1915, the pogroms of 1941 were “native-driven” and were organised by Germany. Ultimately, Jews were targeted by violence due to the crime of being Jewish, regardless of whether they had any connection to the Soviets.

Prusin’s argument throughout the chapter is that it was the outbreak of war which produced violence between the different groups. Jews did not fit into the Russian national and Nazi racial order which resulted in them becoming a target for violence. Violence also came from segments of the population who were encouraged to participate in the genocide. Prusin explains his argument well and gives a clear overview of how Jews were treated in 1914-15 and 1941.

Thomas Ord

Overy, ‘Ordinary Men’.

Overy begins by stating that the holocaust was different from other mass killings. This is in part due to the number of men who played a direct part in the genocide was immense. Overy intended to understand why German policemen and security agents killed defenceless Jews in the Western Soviet Union between 1941 and 1942, then in the extermination centres set up in Poland.

Overy uses other historians’ arguments to understand why Germans behaved this way. He relies on Milgram who came to the conclusion that not all Nazis had to be brutal murderers to carry out genocide. Milgrim considers that those who perpetrated genocide could justify their behaviour because they were following orders from someone else who accepts responsibility.

Another historian who Overy addresses is Christopher Brown who wrote the book ordinary men. The title was chosen because those who carried out the killings were ordinary men. Brown agrees with Milgram’s argument that they were working under orders and did not want to disobey authority. Similar conclusions were reached by Dick de Mildt who considered most of the policemen had become used to brutality.

Nevertheless, Overy claims that Milgram and Browns arguments about perpetration in the holocaust have provoked challenge. An example of this was from Daniel Goldhagen. Goldhagen studied the same reserve police battalion that Browning examined but found that all Germans carried with them a historically embedded desire to exterminate Jews. Few historians agree with this statement. Other historians such as Matthaus also had different views. He considered that the police battalions who carried out the mass murders of Jews did so due to their training and the education they received.

Overy concludes that Milgram’s views divide historians over the holocaust. While some historians argue that it was pressure to conform to the demands given, others consider that it was ideology or conditioning that led to the holocaust. The perpetrators who carried out the genocide did what they believed was necessary and justified, and followed orders which they considered to be the only their only choice as they had little control.

Thomas Ord

Omer Bartov, ‘Eastern Europe as the Site of Genocide’ (Marcus) Bartov points out that not enough attention has been given, by historians, to not only the testimonies of Jewish victims but also the experiences of those who lived in, what he refers as, Genocidal communities. Bartov argues that contemporary historiography tends to focus too much on the experience of the perpetrators, Germans, by focusing on policy and bureaucracy regarding the “final solution”, using the Jewish experiences to only provide context in order to illustrate the holocaust as an efficient, cold and industrial machine of mass murder. When in fact, as Bartov explores, it was far more personal and brutal for those living in the killing fields of Eastern Europe. He points out that, the majority of killings happened in the Eastern Europe, going so far as to declaring it as the centre of the holocaust. By looking deeper into the experience of Jewish victims within Poland, he argues that we can examine the relationship between Jews, Poles and German occupiers in order to richen our understanding of the causes for such extreme forms of violence in Eastern Europe. He uncovers, looking at written sources and tesomonies from “bystanders”, that the holocaust infected every aspect of peoples lives. Mass murder was witnesses on the streets by the general populace, on a daily bases. The mass killings of Jews could not entirely be credited to the Germans, as it is clear they were denounced by their neighbours. Bartov shows us that the will to survive, caused many people in Poland to betray their jewish friends, often extorting them for money under the threat of turning them into the Germans. Many of these communities, in fact, profited from the mass murder, by selling Jewish possessions, looting and moving into victims property. He points out that a large number of people in Eastern Europe today, still live in these “stolen homes”. Jews were seen as mythical money collectors, who had vast amounts of wealth hidden amongst their properties and looked for opportunities to take advantage of people for further financial gain. This views perhaps made it easier for communities to aid the German occupiers and take part in the rounding up and murdering of these people. Bartov suggests that this attitude can trace its roots to Christian anti-jewish theology during the medieval ages. Suggesting that a negative attitude towards the Jewish people is inherent in Eastern History. The Jewish community did not only experience persecution from their German occupiers but also from their neighbours and friend, as the entire community would also turn their backs on them. Which paints a far more, complex, violent and intimate picture of the holocaust, that simply was not experienced in the same way in Western Europe. However, this more realistic side of history has only recently been surfaced as a result of new access to Polish and Russian archives, thanks to the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the start of a change in attitude towards studying the holocaust, by younger historians. Soviet accounts of the German occupation tend to omit any reference to the holocaust completely, instead recording only soviet citizen deaths. Furthermore, the reluctance of historians to use these testimonies caused this part of history to be neglected. Therefore Bartov call for next generation of historians to give this aspect of the holocaust more attention.

Hannah Ardendt’s Ghosts: Reflections on the Disputable Path from Winhoek to Auschwitz.

When we look through the work of Gerwarth and Malinowski throughout this article its clear they are the link between European colonial atrocities from the past and the culmination of this violence in the Nazi execution of the ‘Jewish Problem’ in the 1930’s-40’s. This is because the turn in history to further breakdown why violence happened, and linking it to our colonial past is posing yet another challenge to the holocausts monopoly on mass violence. Sartre claims that mass violence and genocide was  “like a boomerang which came back to Europe in the form of fascism.”

When analyse the Nazi genocide of the Jewish people Ardent tells us we must take into account the racist supremist thinking of the late 1800’s into account – and even further back to the Catholic Church suppression of women and the superiority complex over other worldy religions. This amalgamation of racist superiority complexes which have lived in the mind of Europe for a millennia is the central pillar of Ardendts argument, and claim that Nazism was not the first, as when we look at how German’s treated their African colonies in Herero and Nama its clear to see where to get the ideas for “space and race.” throughout the article Gerwarth and Malinowski make reference to main great genocides throughout history showing to us that the Holocaust, although horrible is not the only genocide to have had countless deaths.

They make reference to the American Genocide in the Philippines in which over 5 times as many Filipinos died to Americans, with an U.S general Arthur MacArthur claiming that “Whites are less likely to succumb to their wounds than those of lower races.” This further reinforces Ardendt’s argument that race superiority is not a new phenomena and has pre-existed Nazi ideology. However Gerwarth and Malinowski provide an argument to Ardendt’s theory of continuity using the defeat of WW1, political and economical instability as the key driving force behind why violence was used so openly within Germany, and why it motivated the scapegoating and extermination of the Jewish people. On the other hand Hitler does claim in 1941 that “Russia is our India and so as the English ruled it with a handful of men, so will we hold our colonial assets.” Although Gerwarth and Malinowski believe Ardendts continuity proposal is wrong it is hard to argue against the years of socio and political bias which has been instilled in the European mindset that “white is right.” as racial and supremacist ideals can not be extinct within a single generation.

Word Count: 424

Student No. 2718521

Madley – Dan 

Madley’s piece is an examination of the precedent German colonial violence in Namibia set for Holocaust and Generalplan Ost. Importantly, Madley emphasises that German policy in Namibia was not qualitatively different from the colonial regimes of other empires, which themselves also inspired the Nazis, albeit less directly. Violence was the norm in Europe’s colonies – they could not be maintained without it.

Madley goes on to discuss explicit ideological continuities, demonstrating how the concept of lebensraum, which the Nazis used to justify their genocide, was first developed by the geographer Friedrich Ratzel in 1897. While Madley alludes to Namibia specifically here, he does not provide any hard evidence that it was the initial visualised site of lebensraum, although he does show the infatuation German imperialist circles, including the Nazis, had with settler-colonialism in Namibia. Another ideological continuity Madley discusses is the dehumanisation and infantilisation of so-called ‘racial inferiors’, who in the eyes of Germans were fit only to serve or die. He argues that the ubiquity of this rhetoric regarding Africans in German media, science, culture, and government was a direct precursor to its use by the Nazis, who deployed many of the same rhetorical tools and colonial racial hierarchies onto Europe. Emphasis is placed on the legality of racist violence and the illegality of ‘race-mixing’, two key components of Nazi colonial policy as well as Imperial German.

Madley also discusses continuities in war, identifying five commonalities between the Herero and Nama genocides and that conducted by the Nazis. These are: the identification of the conflict as a racial one, an emphasis on total annihilation of the enemy as a war aim, the genocidal implementation of this aim against military and civilian victims, the justification of genocidal violence by framing it as a protection of health, and the extensive use of concentration camps as a method of control and mass murder. He then gives extensive examples of these four criteria for both time periods, effectively illustrating his point.

Finally, Madley discusses personal continuity between Germany’s colonial regime in Namibia and the NSDAP. The most famous participant in both was Hermann Göring, and Madley explores his familial and professional connections with German Namibia, as well as those of von Epp and Fischer, arguing that they served as conveyors of German colonial violence in Africa to the Nazis and were greatly influential in the adoption of such. While these examples are illustrated well, it seems an overstatement to attribute such a role to individuals, especially given the evidence Madley provides earlier for said colonial violence being near-ubiquitous in German society.

 

Stone – ‘The Holocaust: Child of Modernity’ – Alex

Whilst Stone provides other historians theories as reasons behind the Holocaust, he is forceful with his own argument that bureaucratic administration was clearly the reason behind the Holocaust. Stone is very critical of Bauman’s argument and is quite forceful in his criticism.

 

On the Subject of ideology, Stone claims that the systematic murder of the Jews was down to the Nazi view that the Jews signified everything that was wrong in the World. This potentially is the most logical reason behind the Holocaust; the fact the Jews did not conform to the idea of the ideal ‘Aryan’. Those that were not Jewish, Poles or Romanians, were put to work instead and the other ‘no Germans’ went through forced ‘Germanisation’.

 

Whilst Stone pushes his argument that it was bureaucratic administration that was the reasons behind the Holocaust, he concludes by stating that modernisation (Bureaucratic administration) and barbarism from the past, compliment the thoughts behind the other. Modernity provides the means for the barbarism to be much more successful in the modern era.

 

Reichardt. Sven, ‘Violence and Community: A Micro-Study on Nazi Storm Troopers’

Reichardt’s micro-study focuses on the SA-Sturm 33 of the Berlin-Charlottenburg district and how comradeship was formed within the organisation. He begins his chapter by discussing the violent political actions this SA-Sturm group conducted within the early 1930’s. He describes the events and how they escalated form street fighting to murders and the publicity that these actions gained for the Sturm. They became known as a Moderstorm – ‘storm of murderers’ by the press and were praised by Gobbles as they had developed into what he had envisioned. The publicity they received in the early 1930’s considerably helped to grow the SA-Sturm’s membership along with the Nazi’s desire to utilise violence to further their political agenda.

The chapter then goes on to discuss what allowed the SA members to bond and create a form of unity. The comradery was created through their mutual hatred towards the Jewish communities, Communists and Social Democrats. This bond was only further enhanced through the Sturmlokal were SA members would meet on a daily basis to form friendships. This structure allowed for the SA-Sturm to become the pillar of force that extended beyond political loyalties and encompassed their members entire life.

Reichardt later discuss the leadership of the SA-Sturm. He draws parallels with two important Sturmführer’s Friedrich Eugen Hahn and his successor Hans-Eberhard Maikowski. He describes both these men to have paramilitary and violent backgrounds before their inclusion within the SA, and notes that both these men quickly ascended the ranks due to past experiences. Due to their experience and readiness to engage themselves in violence for the movement they gained and enjoyed the success and loyalty of their sturm.

Reichardt later details the configuration and the social aspects of the SA and notes that many members were from backgrounds that lacked family, and those who were often unemployed. Reichardt also states that the Great Depression helped push those who were unemployed towards paramilitary organisations. The SA offered comradeship and a better future to those who desired it. The violence the SA-Sturm conducted is largely linked to excessive alcohol consumption, as many SA members were witnessed arriving at the Sturmlokal intoxicated. They carried these attacks so they could gain recognition for their sturm and their Sturmführer.

Therefore, Reichardt has produced a captivating argument that bonds both political violence to the comradery of the SA-Sturm. He has showed that the SA were able to glorify violence through the ties of friendship and the desire to impress their Sturmführer, which allowed the Nazi’s to use the SA’s solidarity to further fuel their political agenda.

Words – 425

Chris Millington ‘Street fighting men: Political Violence in Inter-War France’ by Jennifer Anderson

In this article, Millington discusses violence in inter-war France and France, appearing less violent than its other European counterparts, such as Italy and Germany.  Millington discusses violence in French politics and to provides an insight into the beliefs and values of the actors leading to the creation of legitimate and illegitimate behaviours during confrontations.

Millington argues that political violence in inter-war France mostly consisted of a ‘bitter struggle’ between the left and the right, often described by historians as ‘the French Civil war’.   Millington does this by looking at the parliamentary leagues on both sides and how they conducted their campaigns. One example Millington looks at is the escalation of political violence between 1924-26 under the left-wing Cartel Des Gauches which saw extreme right-wing parliamentary formations already existing elsewhere in Europe emerging in France.

Millington successfully explains key events that characterised French political violence, such as the Nationalist Riot on the 6th of February 1934 when thousands of leaguers and ex-combatants protested against the perceived corrupt government increasing political tensions.  The guards deployed by the state specialised in non-violent crowd control methods; however, they carried weapons which they often used on left-wing demonstrators. On the night of the 6th of February, 13 were killed, and hundreds were injured.

Millington also looks at public encounters between political opponents that often lead to violence after groups attempting to assert their authority in the street.  Millington analyses attempts to control propaganda and ownership of public spaces while incorporating the use of political symbols such as uniform and insignia.  One example used by Millington is political symbols like insignia rings doubling as knuckledusters.

Millington details French street fighters arming themselves mostly with weapons for hand to hand combat such as knuckledusters and knives.  Millington discusses the idea of cultural factors influencing the choice of weapon in his analysis of street confrontations and its connection to the notion of ‘manliness’.  When used in self-defence, violence was determined to be legitimate under what he goes on to describe as the ‘masculine code of conduct’.  With this association, Millington goes on to discuss how the connection left little room for female participation.  Millington acknowledges female attendance of parades and ceremonies and their active role in violence, however, he also acknowledges that women were often used to prove the brutality and cowardice of those on the opposing political agenda.

Millington concludes that violence in inter-war France sees frequent encounters between the left and right; although it did not always end in violence, it did see large amounts of street violence to control public influence and propaganda.  Millington illustrates the political divide between the left and right and its relations to the development of violence.  Millington ends by stating that while violence in France differed from its European counterparts, the Republic’s enemies were also unsuccessful at undermining law and order, unlike the other states in Europe.

Javier Rodrigo, “Under the Sign of Mars: Violence in European Civil Wars, 1917-1949” by Emily Crainie.

In this article Javier Rodrigo discusses the history of violence in European civil wars during the period between 1917-1949, looking at a variety of conflicts throughout this period to ensure success in his comparative approach. Rodrigo discusses how useful the term ‘civil war’ can be when describing internal conflicts (pg.489), Rodrigo also considers why civil wars and internal conflicts can appear to be particularly violent (pg.487).

Rodrigo manages to conclude that civil war is a useful term when considering the nature of and labelling internal conflicts (pg.506). Rodrigo does this by further analysing internal conflicts that he believes are not as universally accepted or recognised as Finland to give a more comprehensive comparison (pg.489). Rodrigo also mentions that a formal declaration of war does not need to be made in order for an internal conflict to become known as a civil war (pg.495).

Rodrigo also successfully understands and explains why civil wars can seem so cruel, Rodrigo does this by focusing on the violence used against non-combatant civilians and the increasing number of deaths of innocent people as a result (pg.489-491). One example of this Rodrigo gives is the Spanish civil war where he states that the number of non-combatant civilian deaths outnumbered the deaths of combatants by more than half (pg.497). Rodrigo suggests that civil wars and internal conflicts are a way of ‘purging’ and ‘cleansing’ in order shape the future society and this is why they always lead to some sort of “purification” (pg.506). This ties in with Rodrigos concluding paragraph as to why civil wars seem so violent he states that they do not recognise non-combatant civilians and believes they are a form or total war (pg.505-6/489).

Overall Rodrigo manages to come to a conclusion on both of the aims he set out to achieve in this article, Rodrigo gives several examples of civil wars and internal conflicts from the period 1917-1949 to give a wide comparison. This allows the reader to come to their own conclusion based on the variety of different conflicts present.  

Sanborn – ‘The Genesis of Russian Warlordism’ by Kieran Donohue

Sanborn begins this article by noting the different ways of defining a ‘Warlord’ -which he defines as ‘a military commander who autonomously exercises political power through the threatening use of force’ – and how the use of the word became more popular in a post-Cold War period when it was used to define unfamiliar political situations. Sanborn then states that he seeks to study warlordism within the context of Russia through the period of war and revolution, with the aim of his article being to analyse the processes that developed over the course of WWI which led to the genesis of Russian warlordism, but also to highlight the ways in which warlordsism manifested itself in Civil War Russia through the experiences of two prominent Russian Warlords – General Lavr Kornilov and Baron Roman von Ungern Shternberg. 

Sanborn moves on to state the preconditions that would first need to be met before a change from state rule to warlord rule could be achieved – the biggest necessity being state failure and eventual collapse. A suitable candidate to become a warlord would also be needed, and both conditions would have to occur at the same time. That time came during the First World War. Sanborn catalogues three insecurities which can be seen to lead to state collapse – judicial insecurity, physical insecurity and ethnic insecurity. Sanborn then highlights the importance of this ethnic security, with the annexing and deportation of ethnic Germans and Jews from so called ‘Russian territories’ laying the groundwork for a genesis of warlordism. 

The revolution led to the leadership having a lack of legitimacy, which led to many armed men being more loyal to their commander than to high command or even their fellow soldiers. This loyalty along with the desire to be involved in civilian affairs led to the periods first true warlord – Kornilov. Kornilov saw the state of the Russian military in the aftermath of the revolution and sought to strengthen the military once more. This led to conflict between himself and the Provisional Govt. As he wanted not only to have complete autonomy in selecting military commanders, but to reinstate the death penalty for soldiers as well, showing his unwillingness to submit to civilian authority. In the end, Kornilov came to the conclusion that dictatorship was necessary to save the army – however, he never openly admitted this nor that he should be the dictator. However, he eventually did attempt a failed coup and was subsequently dismissed and arrested. This attempted coup destroyed the last remnants of trust between the military and civilian spheres, but also within the army itself between soldiers and officers. 

Sanborn catalogues the Russian Civil War as the ‘Playgroiund of Warlords’. Warlords embarked on terror campaigns targeting political groups. Jews were again one of the most affected groups in the west, however civilians were targeted by warlords all across Civil War Russia. The most prominent warlord of this period was von Ungern-Shternberg. Ungern like Kornilov believed fear was a necessity in military discipline, and also harboured a distaste for civilian rule.  he also subsequently met the same fate as Kornilov as he was defeated, arrested, tried and executed. 

Sanborn concludes by stating that warlordism was inevitable in the midst of state collapse and a brutal war. He then questions why men such as Trotsky never made a power grab, concluding that politicians who become involved in military affairs are more aware of the pitfalls of combining both military and political power than military men who seek to become involved in the political sphere. 

Suss, ‘The War of the Future’ (Alix B)

In this chapter, Suss describes the time of war in the introduction of aerial bombing and aerial warfare that started in the 20th century during the First World War. Suss describes the different ways people felt towards the changing of war life as we know it, some people were excited whilst others terrified and fleeing from big cities.

He firstly discusses the type of aerial warfare used specifically the germans use of Zeppelins to attack the enemy in their homeland. The attack on London from Germany was the first time Britain was attacked on home soil and this riddled fear and panic amongst civilians. The use of aerial bombing during the First World War was proven not to be the main factor in winning the war but it was definitely significant in effecting the emotions and the moral of citizens in large cities especially with munitions factories being a main target. Suss discusses how the people of Britain for the first time did not feel some on their home soil, that an attack like that could happen again at any time and fighting on the front line wasn’t enough anymore.

Suss also discusses the difference in strategies to bombing that Germany and Britain had. The German bombing was described as inhumane and barbaric due to it hitting a high populated place of civilians whereas Britain’s retaliation in the same way with intent to kill civilians was declined by the government. Instead large factories and industrial areas were to be hit instead as Britain seen themselves creating a state of ‘total war’ if they retaliated in the way of killing innocent civilians. Aerial bombing now put forward what the future of wars would look like describing it as a miracle of warfare.

The pilots were seen as honourable and noble men fighting a clean war, the were called ‘the Knight of the Skies’ in comparison to the bloody soldiers that were in the battle fields below and being labeled as murders the pilots watched from above and were idealised as heroes.

Suss then moves on to the inter-war period in Britain and in Germany. He notes that wars in the future would change as fighting each other on the front line in battle was not enough, the victor of any war would be the nation with the best military, economic and civilian resources and being able to wipe out enemy resources in their own territory not in a battlefield. In Britain it was made sure that when aerial bombing was discussed the morale of the civilians and keeping it high was the main priority so when it was discussed it was made inhumane so it didn’t sound like innocent lives being lost it looked more like just a number to them than a human being.

I found it disturbing that British morale was affected immensely after the London attack but Britain was using the same type of attack on the colonies against protesters and tribes who they weren’t even at war with.

However, in Germany after the First World War and the Treaty of Versailles now in place it banned the possession of military aircraft. Germany recognised how important air defences was becoming as they knew something much bigger was to come and prepared the people of Germany in better air attacks resulting in a higher moral in comparison to British morale.

Suss ends the chapter by saying neither Britain or Germany wanted to be the first to start the aerial warfare but if anything was to happen the RAF had the go ahead to succeed with maximum effectiveness, but, the only thing that happened was a false alarm on the day war was declared in September 1939 which was accidentally set off by two British pilots. Suss notes that for the reminder of the time London and Berlin both reminded quiet.

Glienke, ‘The Allied Air War’

In this chapter, Glienke discusses Air Warfare in the Second World War and the huge effects which it had on German society and the German population, both directly and indirectly. He points out two main approaches of historians on the impact of air war on Germans with Groehler who believed that it only really effected a specific portion of German society, and Heinl who argues that the impact of air war was far reaching as he puts forward the psychological perspective of this aspect of war. Glienke views seem to align more with Heinl’s.

The direct impacts of air warfare on Germany are seen more in the targeted cities through the destruction of houses and other buildings, which had huge consequences. With this destruction came problems such as poverty and homelessness, which were severe problems as by March 1944 there were 1.5 million homeless people in Berlin alone. Along with these issues, the need for units to put out fires, set up emergency medical care and find emergency accommodation became overwhelming. There were also Armed Forces Units sent to clear unexploded bombs and save those who had been buried in the explosions. All of these jobs required labour which there was a shortage of, therefore they resorted to the use of convicts and concentration camp prisoners, who also required guards to be present putting a further strain on the country.

Glienke also discusses the indirect impacts that people all across Germany experienced as a result of the bombings. Even if they were not living in a city, which were often targeted more, the fear and anxiety of being bombed or their loved ones being bombed was hugely impactful on the lives of Germans. The lack of sleep due to the sirens or anxiety led to a decrease in production from workers which had an impact on the economy. The main concern of Germans was the victims of these bombings, however propaganda focused on the destruction of German cultural monuments and architecture in order to encourage more hatred towards the allies. With no information on the deaths and victims, people began to find their own sources through friends, relatives etc, which caused for a lot of rumours being spread. For example, the raid in Wuppertal in 1943 had left 1800 dead, but in the rumours being spread this number was 10,000-12,000. Glienke makes a clear argument that the air raids effected all Germans not just specific segments of the population, just in various ways as individual regions had different fears.

 

Chickering and Forster, ‘Are We There Yet?’

In this article, Chickering and Forster explore the definition of ‘total war’ in relation to WW2. This is achieved through their examination of the nature of this war in comparison to two previous major wars: the American Civil War and WW1.

Chickering and Forster explore “total war” through Gordon Wright’s definition of the “ideal type”. This emphasises the importance of civilians in the war, as workforce for the war efforts and as targets. They go on to explain that with “total war” the distinction between soldiers and civilians doesn’t exist as civilians became the preferred targets of military attacks. This emphasis on the importance of civilians as targets can be seen in the comparison between the number of soldiers killed in theatres of war, which is 15 million, to the number of civilians killed sitting at 45 million. Civilians were central to the fight in WW2 which was not previously seen on this scale.

Chickering and Forster explore WW1 in relation to “total war” and conclude that it lacked key features of “total war” as it was limited in scope due to the stalemate and in the military violence against civilians. However, they state that “total war” was partially the product of WW1 due to the essential role of the mobilisation of civilians which is a critical feature of “total war”. Air Warfare is also something that separates WW2 from WW1, as it was crucial in the attacks on civilians.

However, Chickering and Forster also discuss the limitations of WW2 in it’s totality. While WW2 was fought on a global scale, it was mainly concentrated in one area which is not a typical feature of “total war”. It was also limited in it’s totality as women were excluded from combat roles. Chickering and Forster also state that German life on the Home front was not as disrupted as in WW1, which would limit the war in it’s totality also.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kramer, ‘The Burning of Louvain’ by Calum. H 

In this article Alan Kramer discusses atrocities committed by German soldiers in a wealthy Belgian town called Louvain at the beginning of the First World War. In summary – Kramer begins with an in-depth study of the barbaric acts committed in Louvain, taking on various victim’s accounts who share their stories of the horror faced in their hometown. Kramer explains how civilians were targeted for supposedly being ‘franc-tireurs’ (civilians who resisted the occupation with arms), despite there being very little evidence to suggest this was true. He places a great deal of emphasis on the burning of the university library in Louvain, and also crucially refers to the shelling of the Rheims cathedral in France in order to paint a wider picture of the German army’s lack of respect for foreign culture. Kramer makes connections between Louvain to similar events in Dinant and Andenne to insist the unfair treatment of civilians in Louvain by the German Army during WWI was not an isolated event. He concludes the chapter with the German justification for their actions, how their actions went against international law, and allied responses to the atrocities.

Kramer does an excellent job in associating the events in Louvain within a wider historical context. He demonstrates how such atrocities ‘wiped out sympathy with Germany in America’ (p. 30), and similarly led to Italian ‘estrangement’ from her allies (p. 15). His inclusion of the atrocities in Dinant and Andenne, and the similar ‘franc-tireur’ defence used by the Germans is also very useful, but his jumping between the case studies could confuse the reader and tarnishes what was a very clear structure up until this point. Kramer concludes that the barbarism in Louvain was a result of anti-Catholic sentiment within the German army and that it was the driving force in German military nationalism (p. 20). Whilst this is a thought-provoking statement, his argument needs more substantial evidence and it would be a stronger assertion if this was made clear earlier on in the chapter.

Overall, Kramer’s ‘The Burning of Louvain’ is an excellent piece of work which encourages us to reflect on the horrors faced by many civilians across Europe during WWI. His inclusion of various victim’s accounts is most fitting and allows us to consider the unnecessary nature of violence faced by civilians during the war. There is no doubt that the German soldiers broke international law during their campaign, but to improve his argument, Kramer should have included evidence from the atrocities committed in Dinant and Andenne which would support his belief that there was a strong anti-Catholic sentiment within the German army.

(Word Count – 434, including mini references)

Bach Jensen: ‘Daggers, Rifles and Dynamite’

In this article Bach Jensen summarises the dynamics of terrorism in Europe in the late nineteenth century, which he depicts as constituting a relatively coherent wave. There were isolated attacks in the 1880 in countries like Germany, and these became more severe and more successful in the 1890s, as well as shifting to countries like Spain, Italy and France.

He describes a range of factors that led to this wave of anarchism, including ideology, repression, economic problems and technological innovation (e.g. dynamite). The principle of ‘Propaganda by the Deed’ emerged in the 1870s in a context of failure and defeat for revolutionary groups, and seized on the alleged revolutionary potential of dynamite. On the role of ideology, given his later scepticism at the centrality of anarchism to this terrorism, it is not clear why such an emphasis on ideology and the background to the anarchist movement is useful here. I also find the economic backdrop to be less convincing, at least in terms of it is described here. The 1870s are important context, but how do they describe the 1890s? Don’t these factors need to be related much more closely to individual attacks?

Bach Jensen emphasises the importance of the media. The sensationalist press whipped up fears around anarchism and contributed to a situation of ‘mass hysteria’. The role of the media was important, perhaps, in elevating the symbolic role of dynamite as a potent weapon, given that this technological innovation was not infallible. While emphasising the media, he does fail to analyse one particular point in sufficient detail, however. He fails to explain why attacks proliferated in Spain and Italy given that literacy was lower and a mass media less developed in these countries (p. 142).

On the whole, Bach Jensen is sceptical regarding the role of anarchism in this wave of terrorism. Anarchists and terrorists were not one and the same. Few anarchist thinkers ‘sympathised’ with the attackers, but they did often apologise for them, particularly given the response of the state to terrorism. This meant that anarchists appeared to associate themselves with terrorism. Nevertheless, he argues, quite convincingly, that attacks were planned and executed by individuals or small groups. (Although I’m doubtful personally that there was anything approximating a coherent transnational anarchist movement at this time anyway.)

Morrissey, ‘Terrorism and Ressentiment’

Morrissey adopts a very different approach to terrorism compared to Bach Jensen. She focuses on Russia in the early twentieth century and examines the texts and testimonies produced by attackers or those sympathetic to them. She interrogates the tone, emotions and language of these texts in order to understand the narrative “framing” of terrorism. What others have dismissed as emotive rhetoric, she examines. She argues that vengeance was central to the dynamics of terrorism and that we need to understand the violence of individuals in the context of violence by the state. Terrorism was, she argues, an act of ‘popular sovereignty’, a means of claiming rights, dignity and a voice; it was an act of ‘self-defence and self-affirmation’, and perhaps by extension of declaring oneself to be a citizen.

Terrorists constructed their acts as fundamentally moral. They saw themselves as ‘heroic, virtuous individuals [battling] the arbitrary, violent state’. Individuals linked their own experience of state violence to other episodes and a wider understanding of the political, social and economic context in Russia. Gender is also mentioned – perhaps too briefly? State violence was on occasion understood as the ‘rape’ of the ‘(feminine) body of the Russian nation’.

Morrissey shows us that Russia experienced a large number of attacks – into the thousands – in the first decade of the twentieth century. It is not clear, however, how thousands of small scale attacks constituted terrorism as opposed to acts of politically motivated violence. In other words, what is terroristic about these attacks, particularly if they were quite isolated (p. 133)? These attacks seem quite different to what Bach Jensen is describing.

In addition, the definition of terrorism could be clearer. She opens with a comment on the importance of ‘spectacle’ to terrorism. But there is not much here on the actual ‘spectacle’ of terrorism itself.

I think it can be useful to bring state violence into dialogue with terrorism, but I wonder if this objective is achieved successfully here. The emphasis is solely on attackers’ narratives of themselves; does this mean that her analysis is incomplete – and also problematic?

Summary Comment

These two readings offer contrasting approaches to terrorism, which is perhaps a result of their different primary sources. Bach Jensen is sceptical of the relationship of anarchist politics to violence and does not centre his analysis on the role of the state in the same way. Morrissey places much more emphasis on the thoughts and ideas of attackers themselves. They also define terrorism differently. Yet there is, I think, a common understanding of the importance of the media and public communication that underpins both articles and of escalating dynamics of terroristic violence in Europe between 1890 and 1914.