With the reference of all the three cases of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Militarist Japan in the inter-war period, explain why the dictators were so appealing to their people.
The Italians were dissatisfied with the Paris Peace Conference; they felt cheated by the allies as they were not given the land they had been promised. They also faced serious economic problems after the First World War such as high inflation, unemployment of soldiers and national debt. The country was in social rest. Yet the democratic government was unable to solve these problems. Therefore, people wanted a strong leader and government to restore national glory, economic strength and social order. This created an opportunity for Benito Mussolini to rise to power. In1919, he formed the Fascist Party and in 1922 he seized power and later declared himself Il Duce of Italy. Under his rule, the Fascist party was well organized and well disciplines. It also followed an expansionist foreign policy, which help him gain support from his people.
Germany faced more serious problems than Italy. The Germans felt resentful, humiliated and frustrated over the Treaty of Versailles since Germany had to give up all its colonies and pay a huge indemnity. The USA lent money to Germany till the Great Depression broke out. The USA recalled foreign loans from the Europeans powers and so they both demanded Germany to pay its reparations. As a result, the Germany economy collapsed that it suffered from hyperinflation, unemployment and social unrest. The Germans blamed all these to the weak Weimar Republic government who had signed the treaty and failed to solve the economic problems.
Their discontent helped Adolf Hitler, who was a veteran of the First World War, rise to power. He was a gifted speaker and was treated as a hero. In 1921, he became the leader of the Nazi Party. He promised to abolish the Treaty of Versailles, restore national glory and solve economic problems. Therefore, many Germans saw him as their savior, saying that only he could save Germany and make it strong again. He became Chancellor in 1933 and then took over the place of president – became the Fuhrer of Germany in 1934.
After the Meji Modernization, the Japan government started to follow an expansionist foreign policy, militarism started to rise. In the early 1930s, Japan economy was badly hit by the Great Depression. Exports decreased sharply due to the high tariffs imposed in the US, unemployment was serious and the working labour was exploited. However, the democratic government failed to solve the economic problems. The militarist suggested setting up a military dictatorship and carrying out expansion in China and the Pacific region in order to save the economy. They planned to invade the Northeast Provinces of China first then the whole country, and to build a Japanese empire in the Pacific region. Therefore, the militarists such as Ito, Nogi and Yamagota were very appealing to the Japanese because they were making Japan the dominating power in the world and improving the economy.
In conclusion, the Fascist Italy, the Nazi Germany and the Militarist Japan faced these common problems – bad economy, unemployment and a weak government – that helped the dictators rise to power. First, they understood the needs of people. They gave speeches to people and promised them to solve the socio-economic problems. They also made use of propaganda to promote their ideas. Second, as the original governments were not functioning well, they could be overthrown easily. Third, these countries all followed an expansionist foreign policy which claimed to be glorifying wars and help solve those economic problems. As a result, they were very appealing to the people and gained support from them. Eventually, Italy, Germany and Japan were turned into totalitarian states, which were against liberalism, democracy and individualism.
Sunday In The Park Analysis
This is a short story called Sunday in the Park and it was published in 1985. The story takes place in a public park in some unknown city. The story is about a family who is relaxing at a park on a Sunday afternoon. The two parents are reading on a bench while their son is playing in a sandbox. Suddenly a big boy is throwing some sand at their son, Larry and the mother asks him to stop. The boy´s father is sitting at another bench reading in some comic books and he tells the boy to ignore the woman. Then Larry´s father steps in and starts to argue with the other man. The big man stops reading his comics and makes fun of Larry´s father who is very small. At last the family leaves and walks home.
Morton, who is Larry´s father, wears glasses and probably isn’t the biggest man. He is described as an office worker who doesn’t come out in the sun a lot. He seems to be well educated and tries to find a peaceful solution and doesn’t like to fight. This is described when he continuously smiles at the big man and speaks friendly when he is getting picked at himself. Even though the big man tells him to shut up he says: “This is ridiculous. I must ask you” in a tone that isn’t very rough. He knows he has no chance in fight with the big man so he chickens out and doesn’t have the bravery to stand up for his family. The big man on the other hand is big and he thinks that his son has the right to do whatever he wants and he is prepared to fight for it. He is a really bad guy and rather punches a fist than talk about things.
Larry seems like a normal three-year-old. He likes to play in the sandbox and cries if he is hurt. He doesn’t confront the other child but searches for his mother´s help. It is clear that he has been raised by peaceful parents that have taught him what´s right and wrong. The other boy on the other hand is a real trouble maker. He continues to throw sand at Larry and it is amusing him. He has been raised by perhaps a single father who rarely is there for him and he is left alone and is never punished.
In the end when the family is walking home, the mother is a bit disappointed that Morton didn’t have the guts to stand up for the family. In her mind she tries to defend Morton but then she gets angry and yells at Larry who is crying because he doesn’t want to go home. Larry won’t listen and the Morton says: “If you can´t discipline the child, I will”. The mother replies: “You and who else”. Just like the big man said to Morton. She says this because she realized that he is a bit of a nerd and a person who can’t step up for himself and get angry. She thinks he is a loser and afraid of confronting people.
The Guilt Of The Protagnoist In ‘Cal’ By Bernard Maclaverty Analysis
Set during the sixties and using the Troubles in Northern Ireland as a suitably depressing backdrop, “Cal” by Bernard MacLaverty is the tale of a tragic love affair and the hopelessness of life during the Troubles. Cal’s struggle for normality within the chaos which was life in Northern Ireland, has enabled MacLaverty to create a complex situation where society’s view of right and wrong can be questioned.
The book’s factual base gives the novel a degree of realism, which permits MacLaverty to develop the characters and their emotions to the full hence allowing greater involvement on my part. Cal’s guilt plays a huge part in his actions and are therefore integral to my understanding of life in Ireland.Before I read Cal, I held the view that the IRA had no place in today’s society. Yet for Cal the situation is not so clear cut, as the period in which the novel is set saw divisions between the Catholic and Protestant communities at their deepest, as people remained with their “own kind” in a bid to avoid the sectarian violence associated with the ongoing Civil Rights Movement.
This hostile atmosphere would make the sense of security and belonging provided by the IRA particularly attractive to Cal, as he is in the vulnerable position of being one of only two Catholics on a Protestant housing estate. Fear was not the only reason for many young catholics joining the IRA – peer pressure and a feeling of responsibility were strong factors behind joining:Cal’s attempt to learn Gaelic “?for the sake of the movement” and Crilly’s opinion that “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.” illustrate this. There was also the fear of the consequences of not becoming a member: “What you have done is called desertion.
You know the penalties”. Cal’s situation is simple – either he joins the IRA and suffers from guilt or he does not and suffers the consequences. Coming from a minority myself means that I sympathise with Cal to a greater extent and, knowing what it is like to be excluded and to feel isolated, I saw Cal’s joining of the IRA as an understandable, even justifiable action – not as an act of malice or prejudice, but as an act of desperation and hope.Throughout the first chapter, the idea of the IRA as a fact of life is introduced and strengthened.
I found one of the most effective methods that MacLaverty uses to do this is through the mention of TV programmes. On several occasions Cal and his father are watching television, while speaking at the same time. This allows the juxtaposition of sentences like’A Catholic father of three had been stabbed to death in a Belfast entry..
..”Any jobs in the paper today?” his father asked’emphasising the normality of Cal’s situation, as Cal and his father have become inured to the frequent murders and bombings. Sentences such as”No one had been killed because the first item was about redundancies in the Belfast shipyards” strengthens this image.
These sentences do not only support the view that the IRA are a normal part of everyday life, but they are also evidence of the brutality of life in Northern Ireland. To my mind it is both shocking and sad that the taking of a human life is seen as normal, insignificant everyday occurrence.Cal is not so blasï¿½, however, about the death of Robert Morton, a result of his involvement with the IRA and the event around which all his feelings and, consequently, most of his actions abound.From the outset of the novel Cal’s feelings of guilt are obvious, as his emotions manifest themselves in different guises throughout the book.
The most common of these is MacLaverty’s use of the flashback, a technique which was central to my degree of involvement within the novel, as they allowed deeper insight into and greater understanding of Cal’s mind. Cal suffers from frequent flashbacks, which can be triggered by almost anything, from the distant memories of his mother to the present – the sight of Robert’s widow. Flashbacks convey Cal in an endearing light, as they allow the strength of Cal’s guilt to be shown: “He felt physically sick looking at himself “. Cal is also constantly repressing his thoughts, a feature that further emphasises the depth of Cal’s feelings: “Thinking of it made it worse”.
Yet not until the third chapter does MacLaverty decide to reveal what “it” exactly is, by dramatically recreating Robert’s murder in one long flashback. By delaying the revelation that Cal is an accessory to murder, MacLaverty is able to arouse greater sympathy towards Cal than if the murder been described first. Had this been the case, then the reader would have a pre-conceived idea of Cal’s nature and disposition, a situation that never arises due to Maclaverty’s technique of displaying Cal’s guilt then revealing the cause. As with the other flashbacks, the murder allowed me to see the extent of Cal’s remorse and consequently dispelled my belief that all IRA members are cold, calculated killers.
I had also previously believed that extreme religious groups were contradictory in their very nature – their extreme violence is forbidden by the religion they are fighting for. Yet, as I witnessed Cal’s religious turmoil over Robert’s murder, this perspective changed also.Even as a lapsed Catholic Cal applies the Catholic belief that penance achieves absolution to himself with particular zeal. His attitude can be summed up by his reaction to Robert’s murder leaving him, like the biblical Caine, with:” A brand stamped in the middle of his forehead which would take him the rest of his life to purge.
“1His relationship with Marcella Morton is the area of his life where he applies this belief with singular determination. As an accessory to her husband’s murder, Cal should regard a relationship with Marcella as unattainable. At first I agreed with Cal that”..
.. by his action he had outlawed himself from her.” As Cal begins to fall in love with Marcella, however, I began to sympathise more with Cal, for he is caught between two opposing forces – love and guilt.
His guilt and religious belief become part of his relationship with Marcella with his constant reminders to himself that he should behave as a “proper” Catholics should and ” ? feel guilty about being happy with her”Cal’s guilt often expresses itself in his frequent introductions to the topic of sinning when with Marcella -“Did you ever do anything – really bad?”. I saw this, not just as a manifestation of guilt, but also as a cry for help: by bringing up the subject of sinning, Cal is subconsciously hoping that the matter of Robert’s death will arise and he can clear his conscience through confession: “He wanted to confess to her, to weep and be forgiven. He saw the scene in his mind of her holding him, comforting him; he saw the scene as he knew it would be in reality and it horrified him.”As well as conveying the strength of Cal’s guilt, this extract gave me an insight into Cal’s psyche, as I felt that, although he was upset, Cal was also being selfish.
Cal wants to tell Marcella about the murder, not to give her peace of mind, but to ease his own conscience. This made me further consider the real nature of Cal and Marcella’s relationship – was Cal really in love with Marcella or was he punishing himself in the worst possible way? I believe that Cal, in a convoluted way, saw the relationship as a form of extreme penance. This action, while damaging to my impression of the character of Cal, epitomises his confused state of mind – the Catholic in him is calling for him to punish himself, while human nature is telling him not to.It was at this point in the novel I realised how deep my involvement in the plot was, as I had begun to see as Cal as a person not just a creation of prose.
This is a testament to MacLaverty’s skilful use of detached writing, as he has managed to create a character with a distinct personality who evokes different reactions in different people. In my case the reaction is one of sympathy, aroused by the clear portrait of Cal’s torment. I did not feel, however, that the emotional complexity of the relationship was realistic, even though love, guilt and deception are often parts of relationships.The authenticity of Cal’s character is finally confirmed in his relationship with his father, Shamie.
As in all of Cal’s relationship, guilt is an intrinsic feature and in most instances MacLaverty would employ Cal’s guilt as a means of illustrating his conflicting emotions. Yet here Cal’s guilt is used to a different effect, revealing a cooler, more selfish side to his character: while speaking to Shamie, who is suffering from depression, Cal feels “guiltily good”. In previous situations this paradox would have been used to convey the idea of Cal’s attitude towards his guilt and his desire for penance but this is not the image portrayed here, as an almost frivolous tone is used. The effect was the creation of a more realistic character, and an inventive use of the medium of guilt.
MacLaverty’s description of Cal and his guilt allowed me to see the Troubles in their true context for the first time – “Cal” showed me that the people affected by the Troubles are human too, not merely statistics, and it revealed the futility of their lives. MacLaverty’s factual narrative means that judgement is left up to the reader and my own judgement on Cal surprised me at first – how could I sympathise with an IRA member? Yet this is only confirmation of MacLaverty’s skill as a writer, as “Cal” has changed my views on the IRA. As a study in guilt “Cal” shows the extent to which guilt can effect a person and, what I found most interesting, its effect on other people. The guilt and degree of realism of the protagonist Cal, paints a poignant picture of life in Ulster – during the 60’s at least – and it is the reality of this picture which is the most saddening aspect of the novel, a picture which I am indebted to MacLaverty for making me see.