Source Analysis
Part1
ARTICLE 1 (TO PLEASANTNESS BIAS IN FLASHBULB MEMORIES: POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE FLASHBULB MEMORIES OF THE FALL OF THE BERLIN WALL AMONG EAST AND WEST GERMANS)
• Context and Purpose – The purpose of this source is to describe the day that the Berlin wall fell. It described the manner in which the announcement was made as well as what followed. It also summarizes the opinions of people who were involved in the event and the reactions to the announcement . By including the public’s view of the fall of the Berlin wall, the article describes the events prior to this event which could have molded their opinion of it. The purpose of this source is to reveal to generations born after the event how the day panned out so that it would not be forgotten and also to ensure future generations would not make the same mistakes.
• Value
…show more content…
Many view the Western Powers as innocent in this conflict, however this article states otherwise. This goes against the norm, which is valuable because one person/country’s opinion should not count more than another’s. This source is also valuable because it not only describes East and West Germany’s reaction but the reaction of the rest of the world. It shows that the conflict in Germany was taking place on a much bigger scale.
• Limitations – This source is trying to make you think and questions what you have thought all along. It does this by stating radical assumptions. It is stating these assumptions as if they are facts. This source is not reliable because it could be based on speculation only. These assumptions and speculation are not supported as there is a lack of evidence. Therefore, although this article may have some truth behind it, it is not presented in a way which could be believed. It is also opinionated and one sided.
ARTICLE 3 (UNITED AND DIVIDED: GERMANY SINCE
The German government: Instable and “You take it from me, we are losing the war because we can salute too well” ( Remarque 40 ) . This quotation from the book All Quiet on the Western Front by Erich Maria Remarque stands in representation for the symbol of questioning the decisions of a government. This book shows how a government may not be making decisions regarding war that are in the best interests of the people. The German government was in a time of struggle and despair during the times of World War I (1912-1918). The instability and false trustworthiness of the German government in the time period of 1910-1930 fed the feelings and themes from the book All Quiet on the Western Front.
Company Aytch is not written at the time of the event but was Watkins’s first-hand experiences. A common criticism is that it is written 20 years after the event and the historical accuracy of what he says is not completely accurate. Strengths are the personal feel and the details about daily life that is often forgotten when writing a textbook. Another strength was the in-depth discussion on details often seen as less important by a textbook. Company Aytch is lauded as one of the best primary sources and deserves that praise.
Question: How successful was Adenauer as chacellor of FDr between 1949-1963? It’s arguable that Adenauer achieved fundamental success as Chancellor of FRG during the years of 1949-1963, particularly within the context of economic and foreign policy. The immense economic growth Germany experienced and the partial reestablishment of the German military due to successful international cooperation with other nations cannot be ignored, and it’s necessary to assess the economic and political planning by Adenauer that enabled these achievements. The 50’s and the 60’s in Germany were a time of social stability, and there was no significant revival of Nazism due to the successful reintegration of many old Nazi sympathizers into society, ensuring stabilization of democracy.
“What is essential, in the French view, is that the German government must be compelled by diplomatic pressure first and by stronger pressure if need be, to withdraw from the Rhineland” (NYT 3). After growing the military, Hitler eventually broke the Treaty of Versailles and interfered in the Rhineland, placing military control over the region. France desperately argued that Germany should leave either by negotiation or force. France originally let it slide, but held it against Germany in the back of their minds. When Hitler invaded Poland, they were finally forced to declare war which led to a six-year-long global conflict that destroyed many countries'
Still today, the allies decision to not bomb the Nazi death camp Auschwitz is discussed and questioned. One side claims that it was a huge failure, as well as a show of how much the allies actually cared for the jews, while the other argues that it was a much more complex decision; and that ultimately, the war effort had to be diverted elsewhere in order to defeat the nazis. The many different arguments and pieces of evidence on both sides make one wonder exactly how such a difficult decision should be made, especially under such pressure, and what should be prioritised in war. In this circumstance, the allies chose to put their efforts elsewhere; which one side claims ended the war quicker, rather than committing the symbolic act of attacking
The creative freedom the news has allows it to conceive a new historical consciousness. As proposed by Fukenstein, historical consciousness is essentially determined by “the degree of creative freedom in the use and interpretation of the contents of collective memory.” Audiences have unbiased memories as they are not present during the events the news captures. Their memories are mainly derived from the news’ interpretation of events, turning the news into a medium for the shaping of public memory. For example, images of protestors being gassed at Edmund Pettus Bridge conjured emotions of horror and anger in the American public.
During the brink of the century, fierce competition among the European powers escalated with the rise of industrialization and imperialism for colonies. For instance, France joined the Allied Forces with claims of defense, but they were suspected to have an ulterior motive that seeked the vengeance of their economic and militaristic rival— Germany (Document 7). Count Brockdorff-Rantzau, who served as leader of the German delecation in the Versailles Peace Conference, asserts that Germany is not alone guilty, and also describes that recent imperialism “has chronically poisoned international relations” (Document 5). Despite these protests, Article 231 of the Versailles Treaty, better known as the War Guilt Clause, places full responsibility and consequences on Germany, specifically, and their allies for causing all of the damages and losses (Document 4). Several present-day historians also challenge the War Guilt clause, with cases proving all countries to be, in part, responsible to a bolder or slighter extent.
This shows that Germany wouldn’t fully take credit for starting the war to begin with, and remained stubborn to their beliefs. Strong feelings towards one’s country developed a stubborn characteristic that led to disagreements and
In “The Next Genocide,” Snyder begins with, “Before he fired the shot, the Einsatzgruppe commander lifted the Jewish child in the air and said, ‘You must die so that we can live.’ As the killing proceeded, other Germans rationalized the murder of Jewish children in the same way: them or us” (Snyder par. 1). The austere illustration of German soldiers massacring innocent Jewish children emphasizes the stark horror and terror of a twisted ideology in the readers’ minds. Such an emotional appeal strengthens Snyder’s argument that pointless bloodshed occurs whenever empiricism is disregarded in favor of fanaticism, creating desperate countries that are willing to commit genocide to sustain themselves. While the horrors of the Holocaust seem a distant memory, the greater terror is that those same factors are still viable reasons for alarm.
often, people had a glimpse into the very negative nightly from their homes. Many families with fathers.” When the war was publically telecasted, individuals got the genuine perspective of the truth. After seeing something as traumatizing as that it scared many Americans to not trust the government. In the event that the government had been coming clean, it wouldn't have been such a manipulating occasion since we knew.
Of course, all the rest of the countries was still major contributors to the cause of the war, but they weren 't as conspicuous as Germany. All were to be responsible for the war, and all should be paying the price. After so many lives spared and damages, in the end, maybe it wasn 't worth for such of a large scaled war to happen; but it is still important to analyze the possible causes in order to alleviate future
I found the concept of Germany “stabbing” its army in the back to be very interesting. It is apparent in both Paul von Hindenburg’s Testimony before the Parliamentary Investigatory Committee and the epilogue of General Ludendorff’s War Memories. Both are very dramatic in the language and tones that they use. Neither show evidence of taking any part of the blame for Germany’s defeat. In both of these readings the government is the blame for Germany’s severe loss.
Jana Hensel was thirteen when the Berlin wall fell, and in her memoir, After the Wall, she laments her youth and the sudden disappearance of the German Democratic-Republic that occurred almost overnight, especially in her memories. While Hensel finds nothing wrong with her now Western life, this memoir is dedicated towards people like her, who even now are straddling the line between the East German past and the West German future, and she discusses her loss of identity through her nostalgia, her transitions, and her parents. In the first chapter, Hensel mentions a moment when she was hanging out with her friends. They had gotten a little drunk and euphoric and nostalgic, and her friends, who were from Italy and France and Austria, suddenly
This paragraph is going to talk about the Germans’ reaction to the Treaty of Versailles. Germans had a negative impact about the Treaty of Versailles. In a German newspaper called Deutsche Zeitung, published on 28 June 1919, it stated that “The disgraceful Treaty is being signed today. Don’t forget it! We will never stop until we win back what we deserve.”
When understanding the context and function of the speech, it opens up new avenues into Germany history, and a deeper appreciation of its merit. By understanding these elements of the source, it allows the reader to have a clearer interpretation of the text as a whole, and a better understanding of the environment in which it was