SpaceDogs

This is the same aunt I got into a screaming match with many months ago, the same aunt my grandmother defended while claiming I was influenced by the devil and I was forced to apologize to. She is technically my great aunt (grandma’s sister in law) but I call her aunt because it’s easier.

Anyway when I got home from school I noticed my grandma wasn’t home and was told she was out with the aunt. I immediately felt dread as I knew that meant when my grandma came home the aunt would also be here visiting. She does this all the time and I usually just ignore her (with a cordial hello but that’s it), but I knew with the election results she’d yap away.

Almost immediately after she arrived at my house she was cackling, calling my name and telling me she was going to make me mad: “my friend trump won! Haha! My friend trump one!” Says the Portuguese immigrant in Canada. I just replied in the most deadpan voice “okay???” And left it at that. My grandma laughed and I was screaming in my head.

When we first had our argument and I flew off the handle, she went blabbing to my mother about my behaviour when my mom was visiting her place. She told my mom that we were having a nice discussion and she didn’t know why I got so angry (nice discussion my ass), my mother defended me by telling my aunt to never speak politics with me ever again because I know a lot more about this stuff than she does. I remember immediately after the fight I called my mom crying, so she already knew what went down before.

So why in gods name did this removed come cackling in the kitchen trying to drag me into a fucking argument? Probably because she knows I can’t fight back, I’m not allowed to, because last time I did I was forced to apologize to her after getting a verbal lashing from my grandma (this did not happen on the same day, my grandma picked me up from the bus stop a few days later and tore into me while driving home, it was a horrific experience especially because in her anger she pivoted away from the aunt situation into other grievances she has with me and my dog, it made me feel like a fucking monster). Sometimes I feel like my grandma loves this aunt more than me, and it makes me think “why don't you go live with her than if she’s so damn important to you?”

Anyway that’s my rant. I hate it here.

Hello comrades,

I am sharing Anaam’s gofundme to hopefully help her campaign gain some traction. I initially found her on TikTok and her posts unfortunately do not get a lot of views of likes. She has messaged me from time to time about her and her family’s plight in Gaza and their current urgent needs. It is now winter in Gaza and she needs to buy clothes for her family (she needs 100 dollars). I have donated to her myself a few times but am strapped for cash for the month. I was hoping that by posting here if anyone had spare change to send her way or at least help me spread her campaign around.

Thank you all for anything you can do to help ❤️

October 29, 2024

We continued early Europe talking about the Dutch and the Spanish. The Duke of alba was an important figure and so was William the Silent (another Orange William, I guess they really liked that name).

You’re all here for the big one. This lecture for modern Europe was all about the Russian Revolution and the USSR. Although it wasn’t a normal lecture. These were video lectures on Kanopy that I think you all can watch yourselves. The professor is not mine. We were taught by Dr. Robert Bucholz. If you want to watch the lectures yourself just go to Kanopy and find the series called “Foundations of Western Civilization II: A History of the Importance of the West.” The two episodes we had to watch were “The Russian Revolution - 1917-1922” and “Totalitarian Russia - 1918-39”. As you can tell by that last one these lectures were a doozy. They actually took me a few day to get through, because even though they were both only half an hour long, I had to keep pausing to write down every bit of what he was saying because I needed to share it with you all. So let’s get into it.

Russia is the largest state on the planet comprising of multiple ethnic groups. At the time it wasn’t just Muscovy and Siberia, but also Georgia, Ukraine, Armenia, Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and Finland. Because of being a multi-ethnic nation, there were tensions between these groups. There were also distance problems and it made it hard to maintain authority. In the 19th century there was harsh repression, Russia was considered the “prison house of nations,” and was viewed as the most conservative, economically backward state. The social structure was an ancient regime, the Tsar was considered only second to God but also “batiushka” (which means “little father”). This leadership was also reinforced by the Orthodox Church. Landed aristocracies owned most of the land, which was worked by peasants. Those peasants used to be serfs prior to the 1860s. In 1917 eighty percent of the population were peasants. There were small urban elites in the cities who were encouraged by the Tsar, and also professionals. Urban workers accounted for ten percent of the population and were poorly paid. They tried to organize labour unions but were suppressed by the Tsar. These urban workers were literate and open to new ideas, they were ready for change.

Economically, Russia was overwhelmingly agricultural. There was little machinery and everything was mostly done by manual labour. Russia would also be the last European power to industrialize. It had been trying to westernize since the times of Peter the Great. Secret organizations formed to urge reform, there were three main groups: the populists, the anarchists, and the socialists. The Populists wanted to free the serfs and improve the lot of the peasants. The Anarchists saw al forms of government as oppressive and wanted to overthrow it. The Socialists wanted revolution, but they were split between two sects: the Socialist revolutionary Party and the Marxists. The socialist Revolutionary Party (1901) sought to improve the lot of the peasants and were willing to engage in acts of terrorism. The Marxists wanted to politicize the urban workers, they were also called the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party founded in 1898, but it split into two factions in 1903: the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. The Bolsheviks were named that from the Russian word for “majority,” although they were only a majority due to people walking out. They were led by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. They wanted a centralized and disciplined party, revolution would come from a small, socialist elite. A smaller, intellectually coherent party was better. The Mensheviks were called that from the Russian word for “minority,” they were more like a big tent (loosely organized) and intellectual moderates. There was also the constitutional Democrats which were a moderate liberal party.

Let’s talk about Russian royalty. We began with Alexander II and he was willing to meet reform groups halfway. He eased censorship; reformed law so that everyone was equal under it; reduced enlistment of conscripts from 25 to 6 years; freed the serfs (endowed them with land), although they had to compensate the nobles by taking out loans which just made the serfs more impoverished; created zemstvos (local representative bodies) but those were dominated by local nobles; and imposed Russification in provinces (denial of nationalistic impulses). Radicals did not believe these went far enough, and thus Alexander II was assassinated by The People’s Will (anarchist group) in 1881. His successor was much less tolerant. Alexander III turned his back on reform and reintroduced repression. He intensified Russification, nationalist movements were crushed. Religious minorities were repressed (mainly Catholics, Protestants, and Jews). Jews were forced to live in special settlements, prohibited from being in certain professional, and were subject to pogroms which were race riots (mostly spontaneous and encouraged by the Tsar). Political freedoms were reduced: power of the zemstvos was curtailed; popular education was discouraged; press was heavily censored; secret police existed; and dissidents were imprisoned, exiled, or killed. Political assassinations became more common. Industrialization was encouraged, trade unions were outlawed, and working conditions were very poor. Now we get to the main guy, Tsar Nicholas II who ascended the thrown in 1894. The lecturer brings up Robert Massie’s famous book that paints a certain narrative of the Romanov’s:

Nicholas II was a weak man who relied on his wife, Alexandra. This marriage was diplomatic initially but would blossom into a great love story, this love story would be blighted after the birth of their first son, Alexei. Alexei had hemophilia which was certainly fatal at the time, and only the Mad Monk Rasputin seemed to have a positive (psychosomatic) effect on Alexei’s condition. Grigori Rasputin had Alexanndra’s devotion and confidence due to his effect on her son. But this sentiment was unwarranted as Rasputin was a glutton, drunkard, and apparently very smelly. He gave political advice to Alexandra, urging continued repression, so Alexandra would send the message to Nicholas so he would enforce it. So he did, alongside enforcing antisemitism. This al would lead to a series of disasters.

This is a neat story, but all this does not fit the facts! Nicholas had always been incompetent, long before Rasputin entered the picture. He was ruining Russia all on his own. In 1904 he started an ill advised war with Japan: in the early 1900s, Russia had expanded into Asia, moving troops into Manchuria, threatened by Japan’s plans to move into the Korean Peninsula. Japan would make a surprise siege on Port Arthur, to combat this Nicholas dispatched the Russian Baltic Fleet, and if you know where the hell the Baltics are you’ll quickly realize how stupid this move was. It was an 8 month voyage, so by the time the fleet made contact with the Japanese they were easily destroyed. Japan had also been armed by the British too so there’s that element. This forced the Russians to sue for peace. The Treaty of Portsmouth was humiliating, it surrendered the lease to Port Arthur, made the Russians evacuate Manchuria, and recognized Japan’s right to move into Korea. Teddy Roosevelt got the Nobel Peace Prize for this. Russia’s surrender directly led to the 1905 revolution.

In the fall of 1904 there were a series of strikes or better pay and working conditions, they failed. On January 22, 1905 a peaceful crowd gathered at the Winter Palace to petition the Tsar for better working conditions, but the Royal family was not there. Th imperial guards panic and fire into the crowd killing around 100 people. This would be called Bloody Sunday, which led to the General Strike forcing the government to negotiate. In 1906 Nicholas was forced to concede the creation of a weak legislature (Duma) which granted civil liberties like the right of assembly. Works would organize elected councils called Soviets. The government would reassert itself by suppressing workers organizations and ethnic groups. 1000s of revolutionaries were imprisoned or exiled, two of them being Lenin and Trotsky. Liberal cadets opted for reform; socialist revolutionaries leaned towards terrorism; Mensheviks urged cooperation and legislation; the Bolsheviks wanted revolution, underground newspapers and illegal strikes were in the works. Nicholas and Alexandra listened to Rasputin’s calls for crushing dissent, yet Nicholas’ biggest mistake was not Rasputin’s fault: WWI. Rasputin himself was actually against getting involved in the war.

Like many other people round the world, WWI was initially seen as patriotic and God ordained. Opponents of the war were considered traitors. Radicals were swept up in the fervour of nationalism, only the Bolsheviks opposed it, arguing that the war was only for profit and killed workers. WWI would claim 7.3 million lives. Mobilization disrupted food supplies and famine ensued. March (February) 1917, protests in Petrograd and mutiny in the army led to the abdication of Nicholas II and the creation of a provincial government headed by Alexander Kerensky. This Provisional government was a liberal coalition. It needed Tsarist repression which would release the radicals from exile, Soviets of workers and soldiers were reactivated. At the end of March, Petrograd Soviets united which provided an alternate source of power from the government; it created a commission to examine food supply problems, published newspaper called “izvestia” (the facts). On march 1st they issued order #1: all soldiers and sailors obey the orders of Petrograd soviets; council of soldiers could debate said orders; no solider needs to salute their superior officers. Around this time the Germans would round up the exiled (including Lenin and Trotsky) and gave them tickets to Russia.

It’s time to talk about Vladimir Lenin. When he got to Russia he immediately gave fiery speeches some of his most famous being “Bread, Peace, Land!” “Down with the Provisional Government!” And “All power to the Soviets!” He was joined by Leon Trotsky who brought over a lot of Mensheviks. Both of them attracted dispirited soldiers, alienated workers, and students who formed the Red Guard. Workers would form factory committees and demand control of the means of production. To Lenin, Marxist revolution was happening. In the country side peasants would form Soviets, seizing land from landlords (spring and summer of 1917). All victims of the Tsar are on the move, the Kerensky government was a huge disappointment. It wanted to continue the war, refused land reform, included lots of industrialists in the cabinet, and urged that the oppressed must fight for “mother Russia.” But people said “thats not my mother!” Although, most people at the time were not radicalized and much preferred a moderate socialist platform. International communist Bolsheviks were still viewed as extremists. In June the first election for representative soviets was held. Moderate socialists won the majority and the Bolsheviks only won 137 delegates out of 1090. But hard times favour radical solutions and Lenin’s people were consistent and offered solutions. In the summer of 1917 the government was in crisis. The first congress of Soviets backed anti-war demonstrations and the Bolsheviks call for the overthrow of the government. The government would respond with repression, arresting Trotsky and forcing Lenin into hiding. September (August) 1917 saw General Kornilov turn against the government. Kerensky appears to radical leaders, like Lenin, to defend the February revolution from Kornilov. To do this he gave the Bolsheviks and their allies arms. They amassed 25000 followers to defend Petrograd and ended up convincing Kornilov to join them. The coup was successfully suppressed. But now the Bolsheviks were legitimized, Kerensky made a devil’s bargain.

October 10, Lenin urged the Bolsheviks to seize power, Trotsky formed the revolutionary military committee. November 5-6 (October 25-26) railway stations, central telephone exchange, state bank, and main post office were all occupied by the Bolsheviks. Red Guards surrounded the Winter Palace, a Naval cruiser called “Aurora” fired on the palace. The palace was stormed and the provisional government was arrested. Power was handed to the Soviet council of People’s Commissars with Lenin as chairman. Kerensky fees and the Soviet Republic is declared. It was originally multi-party; the executive was the Council of People’s Commissars; the legislature was the Congress of Soviets, elected from various local bodies with many opinions. Initially there was freedom of the press and assembly; equal rights for women; regulation of banks; nationalized healthcare; public education and housing; freedom of worship and end of Orthodox Church privileges; self-determination of ethnic groups; and government officials earn no more than factory workers. By the end of the year things would change. Lenin and the Bolsheviks would claim that the revolution was threatened by counter revolutionaries, the oldest excuse in the book. They oiled seize absolute control, freedom of the press was curtailed, liberal cadets outlawed, and the Mensheviks and Socialist revolutionaries purged. There was the creation of the Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution, Speculation and Sabotage, also known as CHEKA. They were a secret police force tasked with rooting out enemies of the revolution and were the parent of the NKVD and KGB. The greatest enemy of the revolution was the royal family and they would be executed by firing squad in 1918. A lot of the lecturers students have a hard time with this fact and he says while it is not excusable, it must be recalled that the Royals were universally blamed for Russia’s problems. Lenin and the Bolsheviks, pursuing Realpolitik, knew that as long as the royals lived then someone might try to restore them, they had to go (this is my personal thought, the Bolsheviks killed their Tsar but China rehabilitated their emperor, what’s the difference in these case studies? This is a genuine question because I’ve seen people lightly bash the Soviets for this “mistake” and praise China for their methods so I want to know what you all think).

Lenin’s war communism had four points: seizure of land by peasants, seizure of factories by the workers, immediate peace, and exportation of international communism. The Third Communist International would foment revolution in Germany, Austria, and Hungary; brother communist revolutions. The results of War Communism? It was a disaster. Land reform (collectivization) made communists lose support of the peasants, communists were hated for diverting food to the cities because the peasants were starving too. Any revolts they attempted were put down ruthlessly. Factory seizures did not go well, factory owners threatened sabotage and so the government moved fast (too fast). They fired factory foremen and middle management, putting workers in charge. But the workers were inexperienced as managers. Pace was negotiated by Leon Trotsky, an armistice was signed December 5, 1917. Trotsky stalled during negotiations to wait for revolution but it did not happen. Germans took territory and the Russians were exhausted. So it culminates in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (1918): Russia was forced to concede Poland and 1/4 of their European territory, which happened to contain 1/3 of Russia’s heavy industry and 1/2 of its coal and iron manufacturing. Lenin’s exporting of revolution enraged the Allies. So much so that they blockaded Russia, which increased the food crisis, and they contacted counter-revolutionaries sending them troops in 1919. This would cause Trotsky to form the Red Army. Personal freedoms and right to dissent were curtailed, CHEKA was strengthened, and the death penalty was reimposed. The Red Terror saw 1000s of opposition figures executed.

Now we move on to the second lecture video “Totalitarian Russia 1918-1939” and let me warn you that it is a DOOZY. To make a long story short this was my reaction while listening to the entire video:

The lecture begins with the definition of Totalitarianism: a form of government permitting no rival loyalties or parties. Totalitarian regimes are more repressive of dissent than absolutist monarchies. It implies the use/threat of force to ensure loyalty; surveillance, imprisonment, torture, and liquidation are all on the table. The state monitors public and private life and uses modern technology and propaganda. Leaders are presented as godlike benefactors, he then takes the time to compares posters of Hitler and Stalin. Socialism and nationalism are integral to a totalitarian state’s ideology. Socialism is used to convince citizens they have it good, that they are better off than others; while nationalism is used to justify aggressive foreign policy. Totalitarianism can apply to any ideology, left or right. He goes on to say that the Soviet Union was the granddaddy of all totalitarian states.

The Brest-Litovsk treaty was an absolute disaster. The Socialist Revolutionary Party denounced it and left the Council of People’s Commissars. Extreme members launched assassination attempts to restart the war, they even killed the German ambassador to Moscow. Bolshevik leaders were also attacked, Lenin was critically injured and would never truly recover (this really broke my heart, I wish that treaty went better, maybe this wouldn’t have happened). So in truth, the first ever counter-revolution in Russia actually came from the left, not the right. Like the Jacobins, the Bolsheviks responded with the Red Terror which set Russia on the path to becoming a one-party state. July 1918, Congress of Soviets approved the first constitution of Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic (RSFSR). From 1918 to 1922 was the Civil war. It was between the Red Russians (communists) and White Russians (Ukrainians). White Russians had a common cause with monarchists, liberals, non-communist socialists, Mensheviks, and anyone who was anti-communist. Germans, prisoners from Austria-Hungary, Americans, British, French, and Japanese all joined the Whites. Churchill justified the invasions by saying “Bolshevism must be strangled in its cradle.” Spring 1920, Poland invades (supporting the Whites) to restore historical Poland-Lithuania. In 1919, the Whites launch an offensive on Moscow, but the Red Army held and the Soviet state barely survived.

The Treaty of Riga was signed in 1921. Russia had to cede western Ukraine and Byelorussia (Belarus) to Poland, and the Soviet Union accepted the de facto independence of Finland, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. From 1914-1921, Russia’s population fell. The Soviet Union would spend much of the twentieth century getting that land and people back. Spring 1921, Petrograd workers and Kronstadt sailors revolted against Communist control, they were shot. Factionalism was outlawed within the Communist Party.

The New Economic Policy was a response to the failure of War Communism. It slowed and sometimes reversed communization. There was a partial return to pre-war capitalism. Farmers could sell their surplus yields and grow prosperous, these prosperous farmers were called Kulaks. There was an ease in control on trade and industry. Lenin also retreated from international communism. The NEP was, by and large, a success. 1928, production recovered to pre-war levels, food was plentiful, and wages increased. The West viewed the NEP as a sign of maturity (which to me is a bit condescending but what do I know). By 1925 most diplomatic relationships were restored, save for the US. There was bitter debate between gradualists and those who wanted immediate change. In 1922, Lenin suffered a paralytic stroke and was incapacitated, he died in 1924 at the age of 53. The front runner to leading the Soviet Union was Leon Trotsky. He was a close associate of Lenin post-revolution, and was a brilliant intellectual and important theorist. He was an effective organizer; established the Military Revolution Committee; and the Red Army. But he was not a good negotiator (Brest-Litovsk) He was only rivalled by one person: Josef Stalin. (Prepare yourselves for this part, its wild)

Born Josef Dzhugashvili, son of a Georgian serf turned shoemaker. He was. Expelled from theological seminary for his socialist views in 1894 and joined the Bolsheviks in 1903, he was a social democrat before this. He was imprisoned multiple times (1903-1912) and imprisoned to Siberia (1913-1917). He helped with the foundation of Pravda in 1911 and adopted the name “Stalin” in 1913, which is Russian for “man of steel.” He was not Lenin’s first choice. He thought Stalin was rude, on his death bed he said Stalin should shunted aside for someone “more tolerant, more loyal, more polite, and more considerable to comrades, less capricious,” etc. Lenin was a good judge of character. Stalin did not have great intellectual abilities. He was also only a secretary in the Party (would become general secretary in 1922). He was actually made fun of, being called “Comrade Card Index.” But we should all know never mess with the secretary. Stalin used his position to watch over membership, fill it with supporters, and purge it of Trotskyites. He kept them out of sensitive jobs and then expelling them. 1925, Stalin forced Trotsky’s resignation as minister of war and banished him to Siberia. In 1929 Trotsky was banished abroad. Trotsky wrote against Stalin in “History of the Revolution” and “Revolution Betrayed.” In 1940 Trotsky was murdered in Mexico, probably on Stalin’s orders. The Sabotage Trials(1928-1933) saw Russians and foreign engineers being accused of sabotaging Russian industry; foreigners denied the charges, but the Russians confessed, probably because they were beaten. The outside world thought this was an attempt to explain away quota failures and the slow progress of the Russian economy. The Treason Trials (1934-1938) were a series of purges after the assassination of Sergei Kirov. Stalin alleged that there was a plot by Trotsky and Hitler to assassinate him. Torture was used and paved the way for executions of important party leaders. June 1937, Red Army leaders were secretly put on trial. The purges and gulag created a whole genre of literature: Koestler’s “Darkness at Noon,” Osip Mandelstam’s memoirs, Solzhenitsyn’s “A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” and “the Gulag Archipelago” (I rolled my eyes at this part), and Shalamov’s “Kolyma Tales”. Shalamov was a 22 year old law student imprisoned without charge. His book was smuggled to the West in 1966 and he was forced to sign a statement disavowing it. The lecturer then goes on to read a lengthy excerpt from the book that I did not write down.

The NKVD was created in 1934, called the People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs. It was originally under Nikolay Yezhov where it arrested several million, shot 1 million, and maybe 2 million died in the camps. The purges ended in 1938 because even Stalin believed they went too far. He purged Yezhov and replaced him with Lavrentiy Beria (the lecturer called him “one of his cronies”) as head of the NKVD. Art and the press were strictly censored t ensure loyalty to Stalin. The had writers and composer unions, which were a good deal for starving artists, all they had to do was never think for themselves. Art was prohibited from ever critiquing Stalin or the state and they had to avoid avant garde and anything too difficult for ordinary people—or Stalin—to understand. Socialist realism was the only approved art style. It worked to praise the party and the new state.many great artists fled but some were brave enough to push the envelope. Like Dmitri Shostakovich who alternated between being an enemy of the people and hailed as the people’s artists. Boris Pasternak was denounced by the party due to his book “Dr. Zhivago” which got him a Nobel prize. He was forced to refuse it. All of this was necessary for Stalin to make him the undisputed master of the Soviet Union. H was marked by paranoia and egotism. The “ultimate basis of Stalin’s power was not the assent of his people, or even of the communist party; it was fear, the fear of CHEKA or the NKVD knocking on your door in the middle of the night.”

On the surface, the Soviet constitution was progressive. The union was defined as a loose federal system with elements of democracy, 16 republics in federal union. The republics were initially granted great autonomy; over time they would be increasingly controlled by Moscow. The legislature was the supreme Soviet, and when not in session it was taken over by a presidium of 27. The Council of the People’s Commissars was appointed by the Supreme Soviet. Regional and local Soviets gave the impression of devolved power. There was also universal suffrage. The Bill of Rights and Freedoms seemed to guarantee rights and freedoms. Rights and freedoms were always interpreted for the good of the workers; the workers state; the Soviet Union. Suffrage was pointless since there was only one party. The whole superstructure of the Stalin Constitution was an empty shell because there were barely any choices.

Stalin had three 5 Year Plans to catapult Russia’s industry into modern times. It poured national resources into developing steel, coal, heavy machinery and railways, sacrificing everything else. The 5 Year Plans were largely successful, from 1927-1937 machinery production expanded by 1400%. Russian production was second only to the USA. Collectivization in agriculture was less successful. Stalin reversed the NEP and in the late 20s, brutally liquidated the Kulaks and confiscated land (he did not explain how this was done, just assume that if a statement is made with no details he did not give any because I would’ve written it down). The resulting murder and food supply disruption in Ukraine and Kazakhstan from 1932-35 killed perhaps 5-7 million. In the late 30s grain yields were up by 30-40 million tons.

Social welfare seemed progressive. It guaranteed full employment, free healthcare, housing, and education. Post-revolution encouraged gender equality with birth control and abortion. The medical care and housing were provided at a rudimentary level, especially for drafted workers; whole families would be crowded into one room, few houses had running water, electricity, and central heating. Washing clothes typically took all day, in 1935 there were only 180 laundries in the USSR. Worried about the birth rate, Stalin rolled back gender equality. 1934 saw abortion and homosexuality criminalized (it was not mentioned that homosexuality was decriminalized after the revolution). The family was made responsible for state crimes of its members; you could go to the Gulag if your relative did or said something bad. 1936, limits on divorce and the state emphasized childbearing as a social duty; promoting women to management positions were also rolled back. Education was often very good but was as much indoctrination as education. Religion was grudgingly tolerated and was used in a program to revive Russian nationalism, this program glorified the Russian past as a prelude to Stalin. Stalin was portrayed as the true ancestor of the great Tsars. This program was contrary to Marx; religion, nationalism, the family: all strengthen the state, it was not withering away.

Now we move on to Stalin’s foreign. Policy. The world saw the USSR as a rogue nation, this sentiment came from both the fear of the spread of communism and moral disgust of the execution of the Tsar. But the USSR was too big and valuable to shove aside. The Treaty of Rapallo was signed between Germany and the USSR, both countries had no other friends so they thought “why not?” From the USSR’s point of view they were the one surrounded by enemies (this sentiment would last until the fall of the Kremlin 1989-1991). In 1931, Japan invaded Manchuria and created border tensions that erupted into fighting in 1938. Stalin was initially supportive of Hitler as an ally against the Liberal West, but he would grow fearful of Hitler’s anti-communism. By the mid 30s Stalin urged for an alliance against the Axis powers. He begged the League of Nations to do something about the rising menace but they did nothing. In 1938 Stalin offered to defend Czechoslovakia when Hitler wanted Sudetenland and asked the British and French to do the same. Instead they signed the Munich agreement. Western democracies feared Stalin’s international revolutionary communism more than Mussolini’s fascism and Hitler’s Nazism. This strikes us now as strange and can be explained in the next (video) lecture.

That was the end of this unit. And no, the next lecture of my actual class from my actual professor was not about this, I was just quoting what Dr. Robert Bucholz said. So what did you think? I apologize for this being so long but I went a bit crazy constantly pausing and writing down what was said so I could share it with you. I did a little bit of research on Dr. Robert Bucholz and it turns out he’s a historian of Britain, which makes so much sense.

October 28, 2024

This day was presentations on Women’s and Gender history.

The only bit of Queer historiography that was covered in class was the last presentation. The book talked about is called Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World. It was an interesting presentation but it just made me realize how little queerness is talked about ever. I was hoping it would be mentioned during our lectures but it just wasn’t, which left me lost as I wanted to write my paper comparing Queer historiography and Marxist historiography.

With that in mind I went to office hours, which I have been avoiding since I feel like I am taking up too much time and am a bit of a nuisance. I asked him if I would even be allowed to do my paper on Queer historiography since it wasn’t covered at all in our lectures, he said I could but there were caveats. I needed to understand that it would be covered under the “gender” category and what not. That’s fine, I suppose. I also needed to be careful with language as well since terms like cisgender weren’t really used in the 60s and 70s. I then asked him questions about courses for next year but that doesn’t really need to be talked about here. He just told me to talk to a special guy for the history department to get that all sorted.

October 25, 2024

This was a continuation of our last lecture, so more about gender history, but weirdly enough it didn’t touch on anything queer related at all, which is what I was looking forward to as a queer person but it is what it is.

He started the lecture by asking “is the revelation that of women’s power/agency/status in the Middle Ages empowering to women today?” The general consensus was that it can certainly show that things now do not have to be the way they currently are. He then told us a personal story about when he was in France many years ago to illustrate that paternalistic attitudes still permeate French society: he went to restaurant to meet his girlfriend (now wife) and saw her sitting at a table surrounded by men, I guess they were flirting with her and she was trying her best to handle them. The second they notice my professor they immediately apologize to him, respecting his “ownership” over her. He is not an intimidating guy at all, and it would’ve been four on one byway, but they still backed off for him (he made the comment about his stature, not me, although I agree that he is not physically imposing).

Next we talked about Joan Scott. I made sure to check the slides for this sections because my notes seemed to be lacking but said slides aren’t help fill out this section so I guess I was on the right track. I think Scott focused on gender and the politics of history (which was a piece we had to read for class), and she pushed the idea of writing not only a history of women, but a new history in general. Gender vs Sex, the English language s finicky because “gender” is used to refer to both the social and biological definitions. Again, women’s history is about women’s social experiences, while gender history is based around language and rhetoric. Gender historians are interested in politics. Like “why did the French Revolution allow divorce?” Previous divorce laws were too related to the Old Regime so it was all just thrown out. Is that true? Who’s to say, because this was the answer I was given. Please don’t shoot the messenger, but I do appreciate further information and corrections.

Anna Clark is a Gender historian tat wrote “Struggle for the Breeches” which he had to read a very long excerpt for class. It was another version of E. P. Thompson’s book, because Marxist historians seem to struggle with covering women in working class movements. To me it would depend on the Marxist, but what do I know. Chartists wanted the cote; men, women, and children all worked in the textile factories. Women engaged with chartist politics during this time and Chartists would begin to use more gendered language like “breadwinner’s wage”or instead of “living wage.” Chartists do not want to compete for wages and factories were not a place for women, thats what they argued. A respectable household has a woman taking care of the home while the husband works. Workers were not considered respectable because they get drunk with their workmates and cannot provide for their families. How does this narrative affect E.P. Thompson’s story of the working class? Well, it showed that the Chartists were very sexist just to make a few gains, male workers would even side with “the man” in certain ways to push female workers out.

Apparently Anna Clark was one of thee peer reviewers of my professor’s new book, and he said it was fantastic expect he missed some crucial gendered elements with regard to one of the chapters.

We ended the class by looking at gendered analysis of different events. The great cat massacre had male workers committing violence against feminine cats. The Ottawa trucker protest: the Marxist analysis would be that it was a working class protest and problems with wages, the Gender analysis would be that a lot of big masculine trucks were used and Trudeau is considered a feminine man that they want to oppose (and fuck, based on their flags which my professor poked fun at). Do I think the Marxist analysis is right with regard to the Ottawa truckers? No.

October 24, 2024

Early Europe covered the Dutch and Spain. I don’t know why I had such a hard time with this lecture but I think keeping up with everything was what confused me. The Netherlands was sort of split in half? I think the Spanish owned the southern half while the Dutch unionized the north? I may be confused, maybe they did the unionizing afterwards? All I know is that Calvinism was popular and the Catholic Spaniards did not like that at all and it was a big issue for Philip II. The timeline for me was confusing. Union of Utrecht? I don’t know, I will have to read the textbook about it.

Modern History was our discussion day for All Quiet on the Western Front. Again, I do not participate in these as it requires us to get into groups, which I am not willing to do unless they are assigned but the professor, if that makes sense. I do not like to insert myself into other people’s business, yes I am aware that they are also getting into fairly random groups rather than congregating with friends but still. My anxieties are unfounded, I know but they still manifest quite strongly. Apparently the Netflix version changed the ending of the book and my professor is unsure as to how they were able to get the estate to sign off on it. Is the 2022 movie worth the watch? Are the older ones better? Maybe I should watch all three?

October 23, 2024

Women’s history and gender history were next for historiography. He started the lecture by going on about how 50% of the population has XX chromosomes (I don’t think that’s actually accurate but okay), he was basically saying this to push the point that women make up pretty much half of the population and yet have been fairly neglected in history. Obviously not all women had XX chromosomes, and not everyone with XX are women. Anyway he went on to list many powerful women throughout history (mostly monarchs) to further cement his point. We were then shown a paintings of Elizabeth I and queen Victoria, and were asked to talk about the differences: Victoria was almost always painted with her children while Elizabeth did not have any, I guess one queen had a motherly image while the other was more militaristic. To me the main difference was time and art style, but whatever.

Women’s history emerged in the 60s as a distinct study but was always a part of social history. Then we defined the different waves of feminism: first wave = suffrage, second wave = economic equality/sexual revolution, third wave = intersectional and queer (very focused on what a woman even is). Women’s history tends to focus on second wave feminism and its definition of what a woman is, which he said is being born female (not that he believes that personally, thats just what the definition was in second wave feminism, I do not think my professor is transphobic). He then talked about Susan Groag Bell who was rejected by Stanford University PhD program because she was a woman, thats literally what was stated in her rejection letter. My professor said universities do not do that anymore, I guess some students made faces and he pointed that out that maybe they didn’t believe him but he clarified that what he meant was that rejection letters can’t be like that anymore. Universities here will not state outright that the reason they rejected you is because you are a woman. Statistically there are more women in undergraduate programs, but in PhD programs there are way more men, faculty of universities also are mostly men, why is that? A student said that women have a biological clock and the societal expectation of having a family. Another student said that upper education tends to be a bros club, my understanding is that he was saying that these places are hostile to women (just look at how women are treated in engineering). There are also implicit biases against women. But our school in particular has a woman president so there is some progress! But I don’t know if that means much considering the president doesn’t really do anything substantial. So what is the difference between women’s history and gender history? Well apparently gender history focuses on how gender is constructed and deployed to maintain power, while women’s history focuses on women through history.

We had to read “Did women have a renaissance?” By Kelly-Gadol for this class and the idea was that in the so-called “Middle Ages” women had more power than they did during the renaissance, there was still inequality but it was worse during the “rebirth.” During the renaissance, military power became more important and thus women were actively pushed out. Kelly-Gadol makes references to the bourgeoisie and early capitalism, bourgeoisie capitalism leads to new sexual politics (men are in the public while women were pushed into the private): women now have to please men, rather than what it used to be (men winning a woman’s favour and old timey romance). Looks like Marx can NEVER be avoided!

October 22, 2024

Early Europe class covered James II, the Glorious Revolution, and William III and Mary. I find it funny that they call it the Glorious Revolution but it really wasn’t all that “glorious,” although it did establish the constitutional monarchy so I guess there’s that.

Modern Europe began with the quiz, I was woefully unprepared as I was unable to study everything on the guide (it was MUCH longer than the previous guide), the quiz was the exact same length as the last one. I was stressed as hell but when I did I realized that I remembered a lot more than I thought, but I also did fumble a bit too. This quiz will not be my best and will most likely be the one that gets thrown out, but at the end of the day I am pretty sure my grade was just fine.

Anyway, after the quiz we continued the lecture on WWI. This was all to get us ready for our discussion class about All Quiet on the Western Front. We started off on going over what total war was and mobilization on the home front. WWI was the origin of modern state propaganda and all belligerent nations invested in propaganda for the war effort. Propaganda was key to totalizing the war. Belgium was invoked in British posters which was interesting, poor little Belgium (it was treated like a damsel in distress). The Germans were framed in a very particular way, sometimes they were portrayed as literal monsters. But as the war would go on, all sides would essentially turn into monsters, everything was on the table. Liberty bonds/victory bonds/etc. were used and encouraged to fund the war. Women were expected to hold down the home front like with the White Feather Campaign.

That campaign was weird as hell: women would go around town with white feathers, and would forcefully pin said feathers onto seemingly civilian men to shame them for not fighting in the war. White was chosen because of its association with peace, it was a shaming tactic. This campaign would backfire as they would unintentionally target minors, soldiers who were honourably discharged, legitimately exempt men, injured people, etc. all of which felt pressured to go to the front, so many people who should not have been there died. Because of this special badges were created by governments to protect their service members from getting pinned with feathers. My professor told us one story of a woman on a bus who sees a man sitting, looking out the window. She marches up to him demanding to know why he wasn’t fighting, because her bother was. He then shows that he is missing an arm and everyone cheers. Such a strange thing.

Income tax was also introduced as a temporary measure to fund the war, but we all know that it never went away.

At the front lines soldier morale tanked in 1917 due to the Russians pulling out, the war became a lot more uncertain as to who would’ve won. In the home front many countries were on the brink of revolution; at the front lines mutinies were happening, mostly in retaliation to secret court martials on troops, this made them lose faith, they would even shoot their own soldiers we were then shown a photo of this happening, soldiers made to shoot one of their own who is bound and blind folded. It was incredibly bleak.

There were technological breakthroughs during the war like basic tanks (before the “standardized” ones from WWII onwards), advances in aviation (propeller planes gaining firing capabilities, reconnaissance and bombing to actual air combat), and u-boa/submarines. That last one led us to learning about why the Americans joined the war: the Lusitania incident. So what happened there was Germany was enforcing ship blockades via their u-boats, and the Lusitania had enemy nation passengers on it and a bunch of Americans too. Germany basically threatened the USA saying the if they allowed that ship to leave their shores and come to Europe then they would sink it. America didn’t believe they would sink a civilian vessel and sent it off anyway. The Germans made a gamble, dunk the ship, and thus provoked the US into the war. The Germans tried to claim that the ship had a lower compartment full of weapons and therefore what they did was legitimate, but the Americans say this is a lie. We were not told who was correct in this instance, maybe nobody was. Even if there were weapons I don’t think sinking a ship with civilians on it was a good thing.

So the Americans enter the war spring 1917, they were very isolationist before but the u-boat tactics outweighed that policy. Their entering the battle gave a boost to morale.

When I was a kid I was always confused as to how the war ended on the eleventh day of the eleventh month at the eleventh hour at the eleventh minute. Because how did they time it so perfectly? What a crazy coincidence! Well, turns out it was not an accident. When the war ended an armistice was signed at 5:10 AM on November 11, but politicians wanted a symbolic end so i was put into effect at 11:11. Eleven thousand solider died within those six hours. During this time some generals pushed their troops to keep fighting until the bitter end while other generals told them to relax. The last soldier to die was apparently running towards a group of Germans who were trying to wave him off since the fighting would be over very soon, he did not stop so they shot him. I forgot his name, but it’s such a tragic thing… all because of symbolism.

For the winner, this was a hollow victory. Unlike WWII, the Great War did not have any clear bad guys which left people uneasy as to what would come next, what was this all for? There was a radical shift in tone from the start of the war to the end. People were incredibly enthusiastic, at the end they were anything but. To illustrate this we were shown a poem by Wilfred Owen, who was very jaded compared to Rupert Brooke. For the losers news of an armistice was unbelievable. The Treaty of Versailles was signed and the Weimar Republic was established. Because of just how humiliating the treaty was this term called “November Criminals” popped up which created scapegoats to blame for Germany’s defeat in the war (mainly Jewish people and socialists, although a quick google search also brought up Catholics), that alongside the “stabbed in the back” conspiracy. There were a lot of mixed feelings, some came out of the war like Erich Maria Remarque and others were Adolf Hitler, they could not accept the loss and would be obsessed with a rematch.

We ended the lecture by going over some facts about All Quiet on the Western Front and how it was despised by Hitler and the Nazis. The 1930s adaptation was even accused of being Judenfilm.

October 21, 2024

Today in historiography was presentations. I barely paid attention, not out of disrespect but because I wanted to spend the time studying for my modern Europe quiz that was happening the next day. There was a lot more material that we needed to study for this quiz so I was kind of freaking out. Even though we had a lot more to study, the quiz was the exact same length so… yeah. I will get into it a bit more in the next post (day 33).

I did pop my head up here and there to look at the presenters and not seem like a total asshole, hopefully my professor didn’t notice my lack of attention.

So let me take some time to talk about the baptism I went to briefly because it actually did throw off my week quite a bit. It was for my cousin’s baby and it happened on the 20th. I never liked church, even as a kid I never enjoyed going. From kindergarten to grade 5 I went to a catholic school and grew up Roman Catholic but I was never truly deep in it. Yes I had all the sacraments (which I hated because it required me to attend classes) but I was a child and didn’t really have a choice, I did pray every night before sleeping. I do not hate religion and I think when people have faith it can be great. But attending mass and going to these things always gives me a sense of unease. That feeling has gotten worse ever since my grandmother accused me of being influenced by the Devil. Do I believe I am possessed by a demon? No, of course not. But just having something like that thrown in my face gave me a bitter taste in my mouth. When it comes to these baptisms I am always early (because of my grandma), which means I have to attend mass and sit there feeling awkward as hell. Churches feel like an oppressive force, in the narrative sense, not structural. It’s a pressure, a weird aura bearing down.

I stand when the priest says, I sit when permitted, but I never pray or sing along nor do I do the sign of the cross. The peace be with you thing? I do not participate in it, I just sit and make myself look as small and forgettable as possible. Do I sound like an asshole? I hope not. Church is a social place and that is not for me, plus I think it would be weird for me to pretend to be something I am not, wouldn’t it be disrespectful? I don’t want to be inauthentic. I know my grandmother finds this frustrating but she hasn’t said anything about it. I sit through these sermons, checking my phone for the time here and there, listening to what they preach about and it makes me… disappointed? The priest brought up a story about his blind grandmother who lived in essentially poverty and yet she was never sad because she had faith in god and that could keep you going even with structural challenges. He used the word structural. It is so interesting to hear these concepts talked about during mass and yet the solution is always faith in God, which makes me upset. You can rest assured I do not make a fuss, I just sit there and think. It just makes me sad that these are material problems with actual tangible solutions, and yet that is never touched on. In the end I get it, this is church, I don’t expect the priest to preach Marxism and whatnot, I just find this strange to me. I am glad people can find comfort and meaning in religion, but it just will not solve these issues.

Maybe it’s the Catholic guilt that still lingers within me, or the Devil.

Anyway the song “Fable” by Gigi Perez means a lot to me.

October 18th 2024,

Today I was weirdly annoyed and I do not know why. I was just in a bad mood.

My professor began with asking us if we considered ourselves “middle class.” Most students put their hands up, I did not. He then goes on to say that our families most likely have wildly different incomes from each other and yet we consider ourselves part of the same class. So maybe class has more to do with culture and what not rather than income. A person working at 7/11 and a surgeon making half a million will both consider themselves middle class. With this I thought to myself “I wonder if the labelling of oneself as middle class has to do with perceived morality.”

This lead into a discussion on linguistics and how the interpretation of language changes things. For example we were shown a sign on an elevator (a crude drawing) that said “seeing eye dogs only.” Students were then prompted to give their own insights as to what the sign meant. Most people agreed that it meant only service dogs for the blind could enter the elevator, no normal dogs allowed. Others chimed in about how the sign could be misinterpreted as meaning only dogs with clear vision could enter, or it could mean only seeing eye dogs can use the elevator (no humans allowed). It was a strange discussion and since I was already in a bad mood I was more annoyed at this than I should’ve been. The whole point was to illustrate that language is imperfect.

We had to read an excerpt from Imagining the Middle Class by Dror Wahrman, which is a different narrative from E. P. Thompson’s. We were asked what the difference is between “making” and “imagining,” one is material while the other is subjective. According to the book by Wahrman class is not material, but rather a discursive construct that is deployed in different ways. This is why I do not like the term “middle class,” it is just too vague for me and is weaponized a lot in politics (i.e. “we need a strong middle class”).

My professor then drew two rectangles to show how the language of classes is different. One rectangle was separated into three even parts with the top labeled upper class, the middle labeled middle class, and the bottom was labelled working class, an arrow pointing both ways with the top labeled rich and the bottom labeled poor. The second triangle was similar except the two bottom rectangles were combined to be just the working class while the top smaller rectangle is still called upper class. Is this confusing? I hope not. It’s literally just a visual representation of rhetoric around class structure, Marxists would see the two classes while others might see three.

We finished the lecture with comparing Wahrman and Ranke, and discourse analysis using the French Revolution. Was there a big middle class leading it or not? Well, he showed us quotes from two politicians at the time that share different yet similar sentiments. One politician said that the revolution devolved into terror because there was a lack of a big middle class, while the other said the revolution was a success because there was the presence of a middle class. Both agree that the middle is good, but neither can say whether it actually existed. The middle class is considered “moderate” and is used by both radicals and conservatives, the social meaning is meaningless, but politically it’s everything. With comparing Wahrman and Ranke, the former uses a wide array of sources while the latter focuses on sources from/about elites. Why is language usage important? Returning back to Marx, why was there no proletarian revolution in Britain? According to one student the English were trained to be obedient and educated, while in Russia the hordes took over and it had a larger population. This was a wild thing to say, I did not appreciate the word “horde” being used. My professor didn’t seem to approving of this answer but also didn’t outright dismiss it. Another student said that in England there were small changes made to appease the masses while nothing of the sort was done in Russia. I think that one was a better answer.

After class I went to office hours, it was meant to be short meeting but it actually took up the entire time slot he has which was insane. I first asked him about what the term “middle class” means and whether it was a measurement of morality. He told me when h asked the class if we considered ourselves middle class he noticed I was one of the very few that didn’t raise their hand and that he totally expected that from me. I told him I did not put up my hand because the term means nothing to me, it is not a good descriptor because anyone can call themselves middle class. He agreed and then answered my question saying that the term cold be used for morality, because it can be noting and everything. I then led him my last question which was about Marx and Russia, because that whole thing was brought up during our Marxist unit and it bothered me. I had already asked my modern Europe professor this same thing but because I heard it AGAIN I figured I would bring it up. I asked him why this same thing is being said by three of my professors (includes him)? Yes, Marx was looking towards the industrialized countries in his younger years as the source of revolution but in his later life he actually had an interest in Russia. He said that early Marx believed that revolution in Russia would be sparked by revolutions in England and Germany first. I do not think this answered my question well, but it is what it is.

He then went on to talk about Marxism being quite popular early on but died out later in the 20th century, except when it comes to Africa as Historians of the continent are wedded to Marxism (he also brought up David Harvey and Joseph Schumpeter’s creative destruction). I asked in a sarcastic tone “I wonder why that is,” with regard to Marxism dying in the West, and immediately tried to cover my ass by saying I was asking sincerely, although I definitely think he saw past it as he literally told me he assumed I was asking a rhetorical question. He then told me that France still has a fairly prominent left, he even saw red banners around Paris, and Canada has a party but it only gets a few hundred votes. I was tempted to bring up Portugal’s Communist Party but held my tongue.

He kind of grinned at me (not in a sinister way) and asked what I thought of that. I said that I think whatever the school approves of, he was clearly disturbed by this because his grin fell almost instantly. He expressed that I didn’t need to do that but I just kept pushing that I only say what is allowed, as a professor he tried to convince me that I was free to think what I wanted (within reason) but I argued that it didn’t matter what he thought and said as a professor, I had heard the same thing from my Modern Europe professor so I get it, because while I believed he would not hurt me the people above him will, especially with regards to CISIS (I briefly told him about the PhD candidate that was detained by CISIS and how I didn’t want that to happen to me).

He asked who I was afraid of and I refused to say, so he went through all his higher ups (head of the department, the Dean, the president of the school, etc.) and what they can do, none of them have to ability to sick CISIS on me (unless I was uttering threats which he doubts I would ever do). After he was done listing them he asked if it was any of them, I said no. Because it wasn’t. While the person I am worried about isn’t any of those people, he still has a powerful position that I am not willing to challenge because I am just a student, without school I have nothing going for me, this is it, this is all I have. That is what I told him. He understood what I was saying but was still quite sad about it. He then asked me if I knew who Antonio Gramsci was, I said I was aware of him and “cultural hegemony.” He took that as a jumping off point to explain that yes, the school does have its own cultural hegemony that can be hard to deal with but there are people who work for the school, professors, who go against it and are fine.

The school doesn’t control what he can teach and lecture about. He also expressed sympathy about my fears of CISIS, that when it comes to his new book he was worried about the Chinese government being mad about the cover depicting a drawing of the Uyghur camps but he also believes he is not important enough for the CPC to care. At the end of the day I would be fine, but I told him I didn’t want to do anything to get me another email, and it clicked for him. It always comes back to that email. I pressed on him that I wasn’t mad at him or anything, I understood why he did it but that left a huge mental scar on me that I don’t think I will ever recover from, not while I’m still in Canada anyway. Because I used to be open about my thoughts and interests, but ever since that day I’ve never been the same. I still write about topics I want but there is great hesitation and fear whenever I do, I can’t even speak in class anymore (I seldom did before, but my first two semesters I did speak here and there), talking about my interests and the like are off the table, and I am also unable to speak without a monotone. All of this was because of that damn email. He apologized again, which I didn’t ask for nor was I looking for it (he had done so previously), and told me the email guy was a sociology professor (he also has a powerful position outside of just being a prof.) and that maybe it would be good for me to take a class from him. I immediately shut that down because, while I am A-okay with differing opinions, I do not have the space in my schedule for a sociology class. He then told me of a Russian professor here that strays away from the cultural hegemony of the school (and the sociology professor) and yet she is still employed, he encouraged me to take a class with her. So far the classes i need are not being taught by her in the next coming semesters but I will try my best to secure something with her, she seems cool and when I looked her up she lived in the USSR! We finished office hours when I asked him about the independent study course.

It might sound like I haven’t forgiven this professor, but I truly have, I would never speak to him again if I didn’t. He apologized and I know he wont pull the same stunt again, I am just deeply damaged from that whole fiasco. I actually cried when I read the email and haven’t really recovered. I believe that my whole momentum was permanently ruined just by that one event. And that really sucks. Maybe you can relate, maybe not, but it is what it is…

(Sorry this post is super late, I had to go to a baptism on Sunday and school got overwhelming, Day 32-36 should be out soon)

October 17th 2024,

My early Europe class covered quite a lot: Charles I, Treaty of Susa, Internal Affairs, the Moderate revolution, Civil War 1642-1647, the Radical Revolution 1647-1649, the Puritan Revolution, and the Restoration in England. Again, it’s a lot of religious stuff.

My modern Europe class was finally about the Great War, and because of this my normal professor told us that my historiography professor was going to do this lecture, so I was going to have this man three days in a row. Nothing wrong with that, of course, I just find it funny. My modern Europe professor is teaching his other class as she is an expert on France and I guess that class reached its France unit. My historiography prof. Specializes in late 19th and early 20th century Europe (he describes himself as a historian of the British empire) so that’s why he taught us today. Yes, he did acknowledge my existence before class started. Also sorry if that was confusing: Historiography Professor (a man) was swapping lectures with my Modern Europe Professor (a woman).

The Great War takes us into the 20th century, and it happened over 100 years ago. Charles Choule was the last combat veteran and Florence Green was the last veteran. WWI was what is called “total war” which is when the entirety of society is mobilized for the war effort. This war left a great impact on the world, we live in a time with less and less people alive to remind us of that.

It was called the Great War due to scale. 10 million soldiers died, which is more than any other war (WWII had the largest civilian casualties, I believe). He showed us soldier death counts from other wars and the most recent was of Ukraine-Russia, which he called the largest war in Europe since WWII. When we were shown the casualties, he specified that the 120,000 number for Russian casualties was from Russian stats, Western intelligence suggests it is much higher. Animals from WWI are now being commemorated alongside the soldiers as many died for the war effort. Sir Douglas Haig was stupid as he pushed for traditional methods of fighting (horses over tanks). Aristocrats were known for making the most idiotic decisions, which made them seem untrustworthy.

He then showed us a map of everyone who was involved in the war, and it was everyone. The whole globe was involved. He did this because how WWI has been taught in our schools has always been centred on Europe, with little to no mention of soldiers from other countries. Maybe it’s better now but when I was a kid I remember asking “why was it called a world war if it was only Europe?” The Middle East was also a major arena for the war what with the Ottoman Empire and Sultan Mehmed V. He mentioned Lawrence of Arabia and how Britain helped rebellion against the OE. This Lawrence guy also wrote a book called Seven Pillars of Wisdom, and it was the only piece to come out of WWI labeled a “romance.” Lawrence also said something about bring Jerusalem into the British Empire, my professor asked if that was a success and I guess the consensus was “no,” although I thought maybe it would be a “yes” since Palestine was colonized by Britain and then “given” to Israel. Am I making sense? Anyway WWI occurred during a time of mass literacy so many letters and poetry were written, so much so you could fill an entire library with just poetry from WWI. My professor then took a light hearted jab at our school’s library.

What do you know about Archduke Franz Ferdinand? Well I learned that he was quite unpopular! So much so that no one was really sad that he died. Austria-Hungary was a multi-ethnic/national empire that was incompatible with the idea of national-state. With New Key politics on the rise, compromise was not a priority, society was degrading and becoming more violent. Serbian nationalists want to divide the Austro-Hungarian Empire and to have their own Serbian nation-state. Internal politics helped in triggering the war, much more was going on than an assassination attempt nobody cared about.

With that we went into the causes of the war. The contingent event was the assassination, the structural causes were national, geopolitical, and commercial rivalry. Could the war have been predicted? What if the assassination attempt was botched? Well, it actually was! The guy who killed Ferdinand, Gavrilo Princip, wasn’t actually the person who was supposed to kill him, Princip was a lower member of the Black Hand and was not in on the main plan. The original plan was to throw a bomb into the Archduke’s car, but the Black Hand ended up throwing it into the wrong vehicle and the Archduke’s car made a wrong turn somewhere. When the car tried to turn around it stalled. Princip saw this (he as standing in line for lunch) and decided to shoot his shot (no pun intended). Ferdinand died and the rest is history. But what if the car hadn’t stalled? Well, it probably would’ve happened anyway as history is poised at the hands of fate (quote from my professor, I thought it was neat).

Some of the underlying causes for the war was nationalism and the weakness of empires (Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire).

Next we covered the great powers of the war. First was Germany: its rise threw off the geopolitical balance (weltpolitick), industrialized rapidly wanting to be a global power, had an arms are with Britain, and wanted oil in the Middle East. Britain was the global hegemon, it wanted control over German Tanganyika for the Cape to Cairo Railway (Rhodes talked about annexing the planets, which is wild), it also wanted oil in the ME, and the Berlin-Baghdad railway was considered a threat. France was all about revanchism, which is the politics of revenge, mainly for the Franco-Prussian war but they lost had issues with the Agadir crisis. Russia was considered a sleeping giant, it had an interest in the Balkans (wanting warm-water ports) and its own industrialization was throwing off the balance of power. So who started the war? When the allies win they claim Germany started, and that was the narrative I grew up with although even then I never understood why. But it was more than just Germany. That is my main issue with people reminiscing about WWI (mainly Canadians as it was a genuine policy to glorify WWI as the “birth of Canada”), they gloat about war crime being committed and defeating the enemy, but the enemy wasn’t bad? They weren’t the Nazis and I think people forget that.

The alliances explain the course of events a bit. The Triple alliance was Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy (although Italy pulled out fairly early). Germany had a previous pact with Austria-Hungary s thats why they got involved in the fighting. The Triple Entente was Britain, France, and Russia. British royals had very strong German connections, Kitchener Ontario actually used to be called “New Berlin” but that was changed, I guess they preferred naming the city after a war criminal. After the assassination of Ferdinand Austria-Hungary invades Serbia, then Russia swoops in to defend the Serbs, Germany attacks due to the pact, France also fights (I don’t remember why, it must have been said in the lecture but I can’t find it), when Germany invades neutral Belgium to get to Paris faster Britain invades as they had a protection pact with Belgium. If Belgium wasn’t invaded then the war could have probably been contained to just Central Europe. But people in 1914 just really wanted war, and I know this because Canadians were super enthusiastic about the war effort in the beginning (they have a chip on their shoulder with regard to not fighting for their independence like the Americans). The war was facilitated by naive sentiment, the memory of wars back then were smaller, shorter colonial conquests. The last war in memory was France v. Prussia and that was won quite swiftly. People were certain the war would be just as short, pessimists thought it would last 6 months. Soldiers thought they would be heroes (“may the best soldier win” type fighting was expected, not being mowed down by Maxim guns). We ended the lecture with a poem by Rupert Brooke, who was wistful about dying in the war, in the end he died by a mosquito bite.

Probably one of the most frustrating interviews I have ever watched. A lot of interruptions and the tone was super off, at least for me.