Category Archives: History

World War II(1939-1945), was a brutal war, with great mass casualties and destruction. Even greater than what had been seen before in World War I. A question to ask in regards to this war is: did World War II become more brutal as time went on? If so, in what ways did the war become more brutal? Was this brutality only on one side?

When looking at this question one most likely would only see the brutality of one side. The Axis Powers(Nazis, Italy, and Japan), were very brutal, and as the war progressed on they became more brutal. The Nazis with the mass genocide of Jews and other minorities which further developed and progressed as the war went on. The unthinkable war crimes that Japan committed to many of the Asian countries which killed millions. Though this is very much true and the reality is that the Axis Powers were probably more brutal and committed more crimes to humanity than the Allied Powers, that does not mean that the Allied Powers were not brutal themselves, and that the brutality was only on one side.

Stalin who became part of the Allied side a little later on in the war(he had originally been actually on the side of the Nazis one could say), was a terrible person to say the least, and was a mass murderer of his own people. He was very brutal to the countries that the Soviet Union occupied. The United States with it’s bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Allied side was not completely innocent.  

To conclude, though the Axis Powers most definitely committed many horrible crimes to humanity; more so than the Allied Powers, both sides including the Allied Powers were brutal during the war. This brutality increased as the war progressed on both sides.

World War II(1939-1945), is considered to be the most devastating war in Western History, with millions of lives lost, and the resources of the countries involved heavily drained. The countries that were involved by the end of the war were many and included countries such as: Germany, France, Britain, United States, Italy, Russia, Japan, etc, but also included many lesser powers which had involvement in one way or another. The beginning of the war, though very much widespread, expanded more globally during its first two and a half years. In what sense did World War II become more “global,” during its first two and a half years?

World War II began originally in Germany which had become under the control of Adolf Hitler who other than wanting to “cleanse,” Germany also wanted to have influence in other countries in Europe. Germany began taking and invading some of the countries in Europe, rapidly enough  Germany occupied a wide area of territory. Japan close at this time was also involved in their own personal expanding, and were taking and occupying countries and territories of their own. When the war progressed the two sides became more established with more countries joining on each side, which further expanded the war; in turn making it more global. Ultimately the event that really influenced the war into becoming as Global as it became was when the United States entered the war which was one of the greatest turning points in the later half of the war. 

World War II became more “global,” in the sense that more and more countries joined on different sides of the war, which greatly further expanded it. An influential country that entered the war later on in the war, was the United States which changed the course of the war. 

The aftermath of World War I was a bleak time for many countries. The countries who were involved paid a heavy price during the war and the toll in the aftermath was very apparent. Only twenty years after World War I another war broke out in Europe, which escalated into another world war, which today is remembered as World War II. What problems from World War I contributed to the outbreak of World War II?

The first problem had to do with the Peace Settlement. Germany had not been able to partake in the discussion of the Peace Settlement, and had experienced heavy negative sanctions after the War. This left much resentment in Germany, which left the country in much chaos. After the War Germany set up a new constitution which the German people had mixed feelings about. Hitler who today is very remembered for the horrific things he did before and during World War II used the German resentment to his own advantage. 

The second problem was the outbreak of the Great Depression which not only affected the United States but also heavily affected other countries especially in Europe. This created more economic instability, which caused further resentment in Germany. Hitler himself used the Great Depression as a way to step into power.

During World War I Italy was on the side of the Allied Powers, after the war Italy was expecting to receive some lands, those lands were instead given away to other countries. This left resentment on the Italian side which left a divide. The Italian Facsist leader Mussolini stepped into power which turned Italy into a facist state, which later joined on the side of Germany during World War II.

In conclusion, there were many problems that had contributed to the outbreak of World War II. The problems all began with the Peace Settlement which Germany had not been able to thoroughly negotiate with the other countries. Germany after the war had faced heavy sanctions from the Allied powers as part of the Peace Conference which left much German resentment. Along with the Great Depression, the rise of Hitler, and a handful of other factors World War II was inevitable. 

Utopia, by Thomas More(1478–1535), is a satirical and political work, which is considered to be one of the earliest dystopian pieces ever written. Thomas More is a Catholic Saint, who was Lord Chancellor of England during his lifetime. The literary piece follows the character, Raphael, who is a traveler. Raphael during his journeys, observes the political and economic situations in each country. One country in particular that he journeyed to, called Utopia, was different from all the countries he had journeyed to. Utopia is a country that is free of greed and money; a country full of peace, and in Raphael’s perspective, ideal. Throughout this piece of literature, you see a transition in Raphael’s character, from a sensible reformer to a less reasonable reformer.

At the beginning of Utopia, Raphael states that he is against standing armies and unjust punishment(execution for thieves), which sounds reasonable enough. Further in the book Raphael’s character turns to a more radical note: do away with private property, no money, governments should do away with taverns and gamblings. All of these beliefs that Raphael held were influenced by the society of Utopia, which he saw as an ideal. Utopia is a society that most would not find ideal; it is a society where there are no personal careers, there are limits on the number of children a family could have, and everyone dresses in the same way. Which explains why More built Raphael’s character by first having the character introduce the more reasonable ideas, to give the reader a subtle taste of what to expect, so when the more radical ideas are being introduced the reader would not be completely scandalized.

The majority of literate people who read this literary piece during the 16th century, and the majority of people who read Utopia, throughout the centuries would not approve of the majority of the more radical ideas introduced in the book. This is unless those radical ideas were introduced in a slower manner: reasonable, less reasonable, somewhat unreasonable, and unreasonable, to ease the reader to those ideas. 

In Utopia, the reasoning behind why Thomas More presented Raphael the traveler as a sensible reformer early in the first book, but not later on in the book, is because the majority of the beliefs portrayed in the book would not be accepted by the majority. It was a tactic most likely to help draw readers in, by first presenting the ideas that Raphael believed that was more believable first, before introducing the ideas that would be considered to be more radical.

Russia became a communist country under Lenin, who was the first of a series of leaders under the new Russian communistic government. What was the Russian like under Lenin? What kind of tasks did it attempt to achieve?

The government under Lenin was ruthless, harsh, and disastrous(the original revolutionaries had never run anything before). Lenin was a cruel and ruthless leader who exploited the people he was leading. He for example ordered the confiscation of many churches, saying that he would use the wealth of the churches toward the people. Not surprisingly enough that was very much not true and that money was used to buy weapons from Germany. During the end of his life, he ordered the exiling of many opposing scholars, which is one example of how easy it was to be deported or thrown into a prison camp in Russia at the time. The worst thing that Lenin and his government did during his leadership was being responsible for a famine that could have been prevented. This famine ended up killing over five million.

In conclusion, this was what the Russian Government under Lenin looked like, and these were some of the tasks that it attempted to achieve.

Soviet Russia is remembered and considered to be one of the primary examples of a communistic inspired government. Soviet Russia during its existence put in place many absurd and insane policies, which were damaging to the economy and the overall society. A well-known historian named Richard Pipes wrote, “Soviet Russia was the First Society in History to Outlaw Law.” What did he mean precisely by this?

The communist government in Russia came up with the policy that to become a judge in a court of law one did not need proper higher education, that a judge merely had to rely on their own personal morals. This was a disastrous decision because people who were definitely unfit for the job of a judge became judges. This policy more or less outlawed the law, which is a policy that only Soviet Russia could have come up with.

In turn, this is what the historian Richard Pipes meant when he wrote, “Soviet Russia was the first society in the history of outlaw law,” which just comes to show another example of the insanity and corruption of Soviet Russia.

Karl Marx was one of the key figures in the creation of the political ideology of communism. Vladimir Lenin on the other hand was the key orchestrator of the Revolution in Russia, which led to the founding of a new communistic government in Russia. Though Lenin acquired many of his beliefs and ideas from Marx himself, he added his own twist to the idea of communism, which is commonly known as Leninism. Bringing up the question: what are the primary differences between Leninism and Marxism?

The primary difference between Leninism and Marxism is that Marxism states the belief that communism will happen inevitably. Due to communism being the ideal political form of organization it will occur in the natural flow of history. Leninism on the other hand stated the opposite of the belief on how communism would be embodied into society. Lenin believed that society would never adopt communism on its own, that it needed a push for it to be embodied into society. People would never adopt communism on their own so they had to be forced to adopt it.

In conclusion, the primary differences between Leninism and Marxism was the belief in how communism would be embodied in society. Marx believed that society would ultimately adopt communism eventually, and Lenin believed that people would never adopt communism on their own, and the only way they would adopt it is if they were pushed to do so.

World War I officially ended in late 1918. Due to it being the end of a major war each country involved had to discuss and come up with specific arrangements for going forward. The main countries that came together that discussed the peace settlement were: France, Britain, United States, and Italy. Recent historians have argued that the peace settlement at the end of World War I helped pave the way for World War II, how did they argue this point?

The first issue that arose with the peace settlement was Germany not being allowed to be involved in any of the peace settlement discussions directly. This put Germany into a difficult position because they themselves could not directly discuss the terms of peace. The outcome of the peace settlement for Germany was that the country itself was broken into smaller parts, and divided between the countries of Italy, France, and Poland. Germany lost most of its outside territories and colonies. This in and of itself left much room for resentment and anger in the German people. Thus this was how some historians argued that the peace settlement at the end of World War I helped pave the way for World War II.

Germany during the later half of the 19th century was under the control of the Prussians which was led by a man named Otto von Bismarck(1815-1898). Bismarck was heavily involved in the idea of reforming and changing Germany into a more modern country. A term that was used during this time in regards to Bismarck and his reforms to Germany is the term, Kulturkampf? What was Kulturkampf?

Kulturkampf means “culture war,” and was used to refer to the conflict between the Prussians and Catholics. This conflict began thanks to Bismarck seeing the Catholics as being backward, and needed to be reformed. This struggle between the two groups was mainly a struggle on religious and educational control, which the Catholic church had heavy influence upon.

In conclusion, Kulturkampf refers to the “culture war,” or conflict between the Catholics and Prussians in Germany during the later period of the 19th century. 

William Gladstone was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1868-1894. He was primarily interested in domestic affairs, especially ones involving Ireland, which during this time, did not have good relations with England. Ireland at the time endured some unfair policies which were enforced by the English, such as a tax for Irish Catholics that had to be paid to the Protestant Church. Gladstone believed that Ireland should have some independence from England, and made arguments in favor of home rule for Ireland. What were the arguments that Gladstone made in favor of home rule for Ireland?

The first argument that Gladstone made was that home rule for Ireland would help improve the suffering relations between Ireland and England. He pointed out that putting more regulations, and unfair policies upon the Irish their relationship with Ireland would suffer further, and leave an opening for the Irish to rebel against England. His other argument was that giving more freedoms and the power of home rule to the Irish would prevent them from separating from Britain altogether. 

Though the arguments of Gladstone were reasonable enough, and may have helped with the poor relationship between Ireland and England, nothing was actually done. England and Ireland’s relationship continued to suffer on, which led to further conflicts down the line.