consequences of not taking responsbility

A population of people was destroyed because of two events of Scapegoating. Scapegoating is when a problem happens and people find it easier to blame someone else than to blame themselves. (Straker, 2009) The Jewish population was scapegoated by Germany for her economic dilemma. This could have been avoided had some other nations not scapegoated Germany for World War I.

Yes, Germany held a major role in starting the Great War, BUT Germany wasn’t the only country to fight. There were ten nations involved in the Great War, three of which fought alongside Germany. Yet, Germany was the only nation to be “attacked” in the Versailles Treaty as the sole country who caused all the trouble. They were made admit responsibility, return land, weaken their military, and pay reparations. (Trueman, 2009) None of the other nations involved had to follow these requirements. Germany saw herself as being squashed down. Germany was given little choice but to sign the treaty as they risked invasion by the allies if they refused. (Trueman, 2009) As a result, Germany was left virtually bankrupt.

Before and during World War II, Germany scapegoated the Jewish people, among others, for the economic problems. The German people refused to admit that their economic issues were consequences of THEIR involvement in World War I.

World War I left Germany devastated. Germany was left to pay war reparations in accordance with the Treaty of Versailles. Traditional trading could not be reinstated as those nations involved in trade with Germany had added protective tariffs to their home markets. ("The Impact of," 2004) Also, the German Mark had fallen so much in value that it made German exports cheap; causing issue because of the rising costs of raw materials. ("The Impact of," 2004) Inflation rose at a staggering rate in Germany.

Germans blamed their economic troubles on the loss of the war, but they refused to blame themselves for the loss. There were multiple scapegoats; the Kaiser, the new government, the communist, and the Jews. ("The Impact of," 2004) The Jews became the major scapegoat, suffering discrimination leading to the deaths of nearly 2 of every 3 Jews in Europe.

Had these events of scapegoating not occurred, two populations could’ve been spared devastation. The German population could’ve quickly recovered their economic status, people would not have been suffering hardships, and they would not have been looking for anyone to blame. The Jewish population would not have suffered the annihilation of their people in Europe.

References:

(2004, June 4). The Impact of the first world war on germany. Retrieved from http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/ASLevel_History/week3_impactofwar.htm.

(Accessed 10 November, 2009).

Straker, D. (2009). Scapegoat Theory. Available from

<http://changingminds.org/students.htm>. (Accessed 10 November, 2009).

Trueman, C. (2009). The treaty of versailles. Retrieved from http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/treaty_of_versailles.htm.

(Accessed 10 November, 2009)

When and when not to get involved

The Principle of the Norm of Social Responsibility states that “we should help when others are in need and dependent on us.” The Principle of the Norm of Social Justice states that we should help only when we believe that others deserve our assistance" (Glossary) In cases of conflicts between nations, this would involve another nation helping out one side because of an obvious need of aid. But should larger nations really be stepping into a war between two smaller nations when help isn’t called for?

Take, first, the case of the Vietnam War. The US went into Vietnam to stop the spread of communism. The US feared communism because communism spreads anti-western beliefs. Vietnam was in no way dependent on the US , and there was no apparent need for the US. This is a case where the US saw no responsibility but felt it was deserved by South Vietnam to help out. There was a policy put in place by the Geneva Accords to allow for an election, but the US feared that too much power would be easily granted to the communist party. The US couldn’t stand for that and decided it would be better to put a democratic party into power in Vietnam. (Brigham) This is where the US should’ve just stayed out. The US went into the Vietnam war for selfish reasons. Who is to say that a communist party wouldn’t have worked? Why must the US spread democracy to all corners of the globe? 58000 American lives and over 1 million Vietnamese lives were lost in this combat. (Mintz, 2007) No nation should be allowed to decide what form of government is best for another nation, and take action based on that decision. If this were put into international law, at least half a million lives would be saved. That includes the American lives spent over in Vietnam and a good portion of the Vietnamese as many of them were killed by the Americans out of rage. Other nations should’ve stepped in against the US based on principle.

Another example would be the genocide in Rwanda. Virtually, NO ONE stepped in to stop the massacre. The US, along with all the other major world powers, should’ve stepped in, but no one did because none of the larger nations had any holdings in Rwanda. The larger nations saw no benefit to going in to stop the genocide in Rwanda. Therefore, they felt no responsibility on the whole for entering into a conflict. Lack of a belief in responsibility and Rwanda's lack of formal government caused a lack of belief that Rwanda deserved our help. The Hutus were killing the Tutsis because of an old power struggle going back to colonialism. The killings lasted for 100 days. During this time, the only force in place to keep peace was the UNAMIR. This force had no authority to step in and stop the massacre and was eventually pulled out of Rwanda. (Peace Pledge) All they could do was protect foreigners and stand back and watch. The US had proposed to send in aid to the UNAMIR, but by then it was already too late for those hundreds of thousands already killed. 800,000 civilians died in the massacre. (Genocide) At least 600, 000 lives could have easily been saved had there been something in place in international law that calls for the “world powers” to step in when human atrocities are occuring. Smaller nations are dependent on the “world powers” to help out when they are in need.

My last example is one of triumph, sort of. Aside from the economic reasons, the US stepped into the First Gulf war for a responsible reason. This intervention was due to atrocities brought against the citizens of Kuwait under the rein of Saddam Hussein. The citizens of Kuwait who were being oppressed deserved our help. Also, there was a threat to international supplies of oil, and international security. A large majority of the research and production facilities for nuclear and biological weapons were found and destroyed. Though not all of these facilities were destroyed and Saddam was not completely stripped of his powers, the US achievements were still considered a victory as they diminished the local and international threats. Only 293 American lives were lost in this effort. (Rokke) This effort can be considered as a triumph in the sense that a Nation, the US, saw fit to intervene in a conflict that involved international threats. I consider it a responsibility of a nation to deal with international threats.

Throughout history are examples of conflicts that definitely required involvement and some that would’ve been better left to those nations and people originally involved. There is a certain “understood” law of society and international society that when there are human atrocities being committed, then the world powers should come together to end it no matter whether there is a benefit or not to them. This “understood” law should be put into print and then signed as an agreement between the world powers. The nations signing this contract should be held responsible for keeping each other in check.

Brigham, Robert K. Battle field vietnam. Retrieved November 2, 2009, Web site: http://www.pbs.org/battlefieldvietnam/history/index.html

Genocide. http://www.hsdist88.dupage.k12.il.us/aths/resources/AT%20MCweb02/Teacher%20Assigns/Genocide/RwandanGenocideB.pdf

Glossary. https://facultystaff.richmond.edu/~allison/glossary.html

Mintz, S. (2007).Learn About the Vietnam War. Digital History. Retrieved November 2, 2009 from http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/modules/vietnam/index.cfm

Peace pledge union information Genocide. Retrieved November 2, 2009, from Rwanda 1994 Web site: http://www.ppu.org.uk/genocide/g_rwanda.html

Rokke, Dr. Doug Rense.com. Retrieved November 2, 2009, from Gulf War Casualties Web site: http://www.rense.com/general29/gulf.htm

Foot-in-the-door technique and propaganda in Nazi Germany

In 1933, Adolf Hitler gained official control of Germany following a win in that year’s elections (Wistrich, 1997). Hitler’s control involved creating a “master race” of people and eliminating those who’s appearances and ideas strayed from the characteristics of this race. The major target to eliminate in Nazi Germany was the Jewish community. How did one man convince a vast majority of a population to support the destruction of another group?

He understood the foot-in-the-door phenomenon/technique and applied it to his cause. The foot-in-the-door phenomenon/technique works by convincing “people to comply to a critical request by first obtaining COMPLIANCE to a minor request” (Manstead, & Hewstone, 1999). He used a long series of requests presented in the media to the German people until he got the result he was looking for. His idea was that there was only one “master race”, and the other races were holding this one back. He needed to remove or annihilate these “lesser races”. And what was the first request?

Hitler needed the German people to first believe that the Jewish people were bad. The Jewish people have committed an evil act against the German nation just by existing and taking up jobs and other precious resources. Once this is completed, which wasn’t difficult to do due to the economic turmoil Germany was left in following WWI, then he had to convince the people of Germany that the Jewish people should be shunned by them. Boycotts of Jewish shops are instigated, and Jewish students are no longer allowed to attend school (Timeline). He enforced laws forcing Jews to wear a yellow badge bearing the Star of David and the word “Jude”. These actions made a clear distinction between the Jewish people and the rest of Germany. After these actions, it wasn’t difficult to keep the “German citizens” from opposing the internment of hundreds of thousands of Jews, and other minorities, in concentration camps.

Hitler made large use of the media to convince the German people that his beliefs should be theirs. Magazines, newspapers, radio, television (occuring later for those able to afford it), and public speeches were filled with anti-Semitism. This massive amount of propaganda aided in changing the beliefs of an entire nation. If the media hadn’t been as available and had Germany not been suffering major economic hardships, then it is possible that Hitler would not have become as powerful as quickly if he were able to become powerful at all.

There are ways of avoiding this in the future. People need to be educated on persuasion and the techniques used. They need to be able to recognize what is happening so they may predict a future event. If the German people had seen that Hitler was actually changing their beliefs in such a way earlier on in his dictatorship, then there may have been more opposition and a possible overthrow of the government.

Citations

Manstead, A.S.R., & Hewstone, M. (1999). Foot-in-the-Door.
The Blackwell encyclopedia of social psychology. Oxford,
U.K. ; Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers.

Timeline. Compiled from various, unspecified sources. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Chronology_1933.html

Wistrich, R.S. (1997). Who's who in nazi germany. Retrieved from http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/hitler.html

Social Identity and World War I

As nationalism grew in Europe in the 19^th century, spreading through mainly the middle class but also into the lower economic class, it brought with it some major problems.

Social identity and Nationalism were major causes of WWI. Social identity is when people “classify themselves and others into various social categories” (Ashworth and Mael 20). Typically people within these categories tend to think more positively of their categories over others. Citizens of the nations of Western Europe and of Russia certainly fell under this definition as they classified themselves, along with each other, by which nation they lived in; hence the term nationalism.

With nationalism came the extremists. The extremists were the ones who took everything one step farther. They saw their nation as being better than all others. The extremists made sure to rally the people. They went above and beyond what the average citizen would do to prove that their nation was the best and that everyone knew it. “Governments were willing to go to the brink of war or beyond” (Lyons 1) to protect their ideologies. The citizens were ready to fight for their nation. The citizens were encouraged by the extremists to encourage the government to stand up for what were the nation’s ideals. With this nationalistic view, of needing to prove one’s nation is indeed better, comes competition, because what better way to prove one’s superiority than in a display of strength?

With the governments’ will to protect and the citizens’ will to fight, there was little thinking to be done. It only seemed reasonable at the time to each nation to build up defenses in case of an invasion by another nation trying to prove its superiority. The nations were in a competition arms race to see who could build and maintain the bigger navy and who had the better army. With this competition came fear that some nations had too much strength and should be brought down to an equal playing field (Lyons 1). This mentality brought about the idea that a nation had to strike first or be quickly overtaken. Unfortunately for Europe, this was the mentality of a majority of the nations. They formed alliances to better protect themselves; Germany, Italy, and Austria-Hungary in the Triple Alliance and Britain, France, and Russia forming the Triple Entente. These alliances caused major tension as both sides feared attack and didn’t want to be the first to fall.

And so World War I began; the result of something as harmless as citizens and governments feeling connected by their nationality growing into something monstrous. If only the nationalism could’ve been directed towards a more positive purpose.

Even now in world conflicts, social identity is still a major cause. People are still more than willing to fight for what their social identification group feels is right. The only difference is what the conflicts are about and how they are fought. We could still stand to learn from our mistakes. We all need to look for better alternatives to war. There has to be a better way to prove that one nation has better ideas than everyone else and forcing other nations to take on these ideas. That is, if one nation truly is better than everyone else.

Potential possibilities for expenditure of nationalist energies without resorting to war are numerous. A few ideas include the Olympics, helping less developed nations to prosper, or finding cures for diseases. It not only sounds more pleasant but it is more pleasant to say my nation won the Olympic gold medal for such and such event versus my country took over and destroyed this country.

Citations

Ashworth, Blake, and Fred Mael. Social Identity Theory and the Organization.
1989. Print. http://www.jstor.org/pss/258189

Lyons, Michael. World war II: A Short history. 5. Prentice Hall, 2009. Print.