”Life is not to be understood; it is to be lived.” Existentialism

Existentialism has been made widely known from the works of Jean-Paul Sartre who used it in reference to his own philosophy after it was made popular in the post-war world of the 1940s and 50s as a movement in post-war arts and culture. But the term pre-dates him and was more often used as a general name for a number of thinkers and philosophers such as Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, H.J. Blackham and C. Guignon – a movement rather than a doctrine, having roots from the 19th century.

Existentialism in this broader sense refers to the backlash against sociological, philosophical, scientific and all manner of other systems that claim to have answers to the fundamental questions of human existence, better known as the human condition; why am I here? What is my purpose? How should I live my life? Etc.

It was a rejection of teleology – the 1800s had been dominated by the idea not of ‘being’ but of ‘becoming’. Christianity was naturally the prime target for attack, as religious answers to these questions have always been attractive throughout history as they remove the burden one would have to face if they tried to create personal meaning and purpose in their life.

These systems prophetize heaven on earth, or Plato’s world of forms or the leftist’s post-communist paradise. By focusing with so much effort on the future beyond present existence, such systems loose the human perspective on life. We don’t need a divine perspective of the human condition, but a human perspective, is the rallying cry of the Existentialists.

A specific problem of the divine perspective – according to these thinkers, is that it does not take into account a fundamental aspect of humanity – that being our mortality. Many religions have denied the temporary nature of life, instead subscribing to a belief of some form of immortality – if only one lives a moral and virtuous life, then they will experience unending life, in heaven or the equivalent for other religions.

Existentialists favour individuals searching for life’s answers on their own – you can not be set free by others; you must liberate yourself by means of passionate commitment to something – anything at all. They believe systems which proclaim absolute knowledge of these answers as detriment to the development of authentic and free human beings. They see a benefit to facing up to our mortality, that being the realisation of such a revelation an give people the strength to stop living in conformity with the masses and to instead live their lives with standards and values of their own choosing.

Humans are not designed by a supernatural being with a predetermined function in mind, however, our ability to make free choices gives us the chance to sculpt a unique function for ourselves during the course of our lifetime. Existentialists further claim that our own existence as unique individuals in fixed situations cannot be grasped in these theories and answers, and that such authorities try to conceal from us the entirely personal task of self-fulfilment in our lives.

Existentialism is thus a broad literary, political and philosophical movement with a primary aim to understand how the individual can achieve the richest, happiest and most fulfilling life in the modern world.

Important to add here is the difference between existentialism and nihilism, which is routinely mistakenly used as a label for the former, or simply as mud-slinging. In full similarity nihilism teaches than there is no objective meaning or purpose to life, and there is no point to the existence of anyone or anything; things are just what they are; people are just who they are. However existentialists add that with free will we can create subjective meaning for ourselves: self-creation through the structure of choices, something that under nihilistic thinking is not possible. Nietzsche himself saw nihilism as a disease and he actually set up an institution with a program aimed to help those with what he saw as an affliction.

Since a movement is rather more incoherent and unorganised than a concrete doctrine, Existentialists have held widely differing views about human existence. For example, Sartre was chiefly concerned with the moral implications of personal choices and the exercise of free will, equating it with the outcome of the actions – consequentialism. But Kirkegard was unconcerned with the moral questions, liking choice as the absolute freedom. However there are similar themes that they hold in their writings. First that humans have no divine purpose laid out for them by God or by nature; and it is up to us to define ourselves solely through our actions. This is the point of Sartre’s ‘existence precedes essence’ for humans. I.e. people simply exist and there is no refutable argument to this, and then it is up to each of us to define our identity. So our essence – our traits or characteristics, are chosen rather than given to us.

Secondly, Existentialists hold that we should be concerned with finding the most fulfilling way of living life possible. As in their view, most of us tend to conform to the ways of living of the ‘herd and similar social situations. So our lives could be said the be inauthentic as we are not really living them ourselves – we are not sovereign over them and allow ourselves to be governed by an authority or by each other, when we should be looking no further than realising that only we have the answers to ourselves.

So to become authentic, a person must take over their existence and such transformations are made possible by emotional experiences. As Nietzsche said, emotions come from thinking about the past; anxiety comes from the present; dread comes from thoughts about the future. When we do this, existentialists claim, only then will we have a clearing understanding of how to become a truly purposeful and passionate individual. Because unless we intervene to change our lives, we will be swept along by the currents of progress, and the march of history.

On Logic

Following the collapse of the Roman Empire in the fifth century, much of Aristotle’s work was lost in the West. Some of these had been translated from Greek to Latin by the scribe Boethius. But other works were not available in Western Christendom until translated in the 12th century.

The books of Aristotle were available in the Arab Empire, following the West’s fall into the Dark Ages, including the Organon, translated into Arabic sometime after 750AD. The Organon is Aristotle’s collected works on logic. Translated roughly from Greek as ‘instrument, or tool’, the books theorise Aristotle’s two universal laws on logic:

The first; the Law of Non-Contradiction, states that no asserted single proposition can be both true and false.

The Law of the Excluded Middle tells that while a propositions cannot be both true and false, it must be one – either true, or false. It is not possible to be partially true. If a proposition has even a single incorrect assertion, then it is either completely false, or partly true. If this is the case, then this is known as a compound or a complex. Based on these universal laws, Aristotle envisioned the syllogism as follows:

All men are equal
(the general premise)
Socrates is a man
{the particular premise)

Therefore, it is logical to conclude that:

Socrates is a man
(the conclusive or inference)

This syllogism is known as deductive reasoning (analysis). For Aristotle, an argument must be both valid and logically sound to be considered true. Deductive arguments mean that the conclusion follows necessarily from the two premises, without the need for further information.

Induction/causation

Science requires the discovery of new facts, which are not simply true by definition. In deductive analysis is always a general statement about the world, or existence. In inductive synthesis, the first premise is a particular statement about a subject; building upon the previous claim into a more specific assertion.

Post-Aristotle, the Enlightenment was largely a rejection of his ideals – such as Aristotelian Deduction, in favour of the scientific method, formulated by Francis Bacon. Bacon objected to Aristotle’s logic formula, attacking him via his book the Novum Organum (The New Organon), published in 1620.

In defence of Aristotle, Immanuel Kant believed that there was nothing else to invent after his contributions to the world had left nothing undiscovered on the subject of logic. Karl von Prantl – a logician, claimed that anyone who said anything new about logic was ”confused, stupid or perverse.” These select examples show the force of influence which Aristotle’s works on logic had.

Boulean logic also later confirmed his law of the Excluded Middle, by theorising partly true statements as complexes, or compounds.

Despite this, many of Aristotle’s propositions are refuted by empirical evidence, though this is only possibly since technological advances of the 20th century, I.e. his proof that heavy objects fall faster than light objects – when disregarding air resistance, was obviously proved false with the witnessing of aircraft flight and modern aerodynamics.

Aristotle’s influence continued into the Early Modern period and Organon was the foundation of most schools of philosophy into the beginning of 18th century. But since the 19th century, Aristotelian logic has mostly fallen out of favour with modern philosophers and logicians.

George Orwell’s ‘1984’ and Hannah Adrent’s ‘Ideology and Terror

George Orwell was born Eric Arthur Blair on 25 June, 1903 in British India. He worked in the Imperial Police in Burma, until he left to pursue life among the working classes in Paris, to research for his first novel, ‘Down and Out in Paris and London’.

The alias ‘George Orwell’ was born at this time, mainly because he feared a poor reception of Down and Out would damage his literary ambitions.

In 1936 he travelled to the depression-hit areas of the industrial North of England in order to research a long essay. The trip, Orwell’s first real encounter with ordinary working class people, instilled in him a vague belief in socialism.

At the end of the year, prompted by the outbreak of civil war in Spain, he traveled to Barcelona and joined an anarchist militia, the Workers’ Party of Marxist Unification (POUM). It was during his healing behind the lines after being shot in the throat, that the POUM was formally accused of being pro-fascist, by the Stalinist Government forces, and its members thrown into jail and shot. Orwell escaped and returned to England, but the experience turned him into a lifelong anti-Stalinist.

The Spanish Civil War played the most important part in defining Orwell’s politics. Having witnessed the success of the anarcho-syndicalists in Anarchist Catalonia, he said “I have seen wonderful things and at last really believe in Socialism, which I never did before.”

Orwell worked on propaganda for the BBC during World War Two. In 1943, he became editor of the Tribune, a weekly left-wing magazine.

In 1945, Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’ was published. A political novel set in a farmyard but based on Stalin’s betrayal of the Russian Revolution. ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ was published in 1949. By now Orwell’s health was deteriorating and he died of tuberculosis the next year.

‘1984’

Orwell was fascinated by the capacity of totalitarian regimes to attempt to control minds, by manipulating language. Orwell had already set forth his distrust of totalitarianism and the betrayal of revolutions in Homage to Catalonia and Animal Farm. Down and Out, and Coming Up For Air both celebrate the individual freedom that is lost in Nineteen Eighty-Four. Throughout history tyrants have enslaved people; but remained unable to enslave the mind. With modern mass media and government, Orwell thought, it might be possible to enslave minds. This was the central theme of his final novel, which for a title he chose the year he wrote it, with the last two digits swapped.

The world of 1984 is a futuristic description of life in England after a socialist revolution, in a state of constant war, no one is free, and everyone is ignorant. The society parallels Stalin’s Soviet Union and Hitler’s Nazi Germany. There are similarities: the betrayed-revolution; the subordination of individuals to ‘the Party’; and the rigorous distinction between inner party, outer party and everyone else, and joycamps, which are a reference to concentration camps or the Gulag.

The party’s slogans ‘War is peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is strength’ are analysed in a fictional book that appears in the novel. The slogans embody the Party. Through constant war, the Party can keep domestic peace; when freedom is brought about, the people are enslaved to it, and the ignorance of the people is the strength of the Party. And through their constant repetition, the terms become meaningless.

The Party’s power – as in all totalitarian systems, can be seen to be dependent on those who view it as an oppressive force; those who desire to resist it. If the Party’s power is to continue to exist, those who desire to resist – regardless of whether they intend to or not, must be eliminated. However, if all the resistors are eliminated then the Party’s power would disappear. Therefore, if it is to remain powerful, the Party must also create dissidence, if only to destroy it.

Orwell’s theorised government used a complex system of thought control, or ‘reality control’. As Orwell explains in the book, the Party could not protect its iron grip on power without exposing its people to constant propaganda. Yet knowledge of this brutality and deception within the Party itself could lead to disillusioned collapse of the state from within. Newspeak was the method for controlling thought through language; Doublethink was the method of controlling thought directly, to champion belief over rational thought.

Doublethink means to hold two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind at the same time, and accepting both of them. In the case of Winston Smith, Orwell’s protagonist, it meant being able to work at the Ministry of Truth deleting inconvenient facts from public records, and then believing in the new history which he himself had written.

Through doublethink, the Party was able to not only bomb its own people and tell its citizens that the bombs were sent by the enemy, but all Party members – even the ones that launched the rockets themselves – were able to believe that the bombs were launched from outside.

Together, these tools hid the government’s evil not only from the people, but also from the government itself. The phrase “two plus two makes five” is used throughout the book as a representation of an illogical statement, especially one made and maintained to suit an ideological agenda. Winston Smith, uses it to consider the possibility that the State might declare “two plus two makes five” as a fact; he ponders that if everybody believes in it, does that make it true?

The Thinkpol were the secret police of the novel whose job it was to uncover and punish thoughtcrime. The Thought Police used psychology and omnipresent surveillance to find and eliminate members of society who were capable of the mere thought of challenging ruling authority

Some believe governments may be currently enforcing laws that implement a de-facto kind of thoughtcrime legislation. Hate crime laws that mandate harsher penalties for people who commit crimes out of racism or bigotry. Opponents of those laws claim that all crimes are committed out of an element of hate, so that defining a specific subset of laws as ‘hate crimes’ is meaningless, and that these very laws in fact imply the inequality of citizens before the law.

Simplification of language

But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. The appendix chapter describes the development of Newspeak, and explains how the language is designed to standardise thought. The underlying theory of Newspeak is that if something can’t be said, then it can’t be thought. One question raised by this is whether we are defined by our language, or whether we actively define it. This can be seen by Ludwig Wittgenstein’s proposition, ”The limits of my language mean the limits to my world.”

Orwell bases this system on his critical view of the quality of written English in his time, citing examples of dying metaphors and meaningless words, and that the end result of this language corruption is the literary and vocal system used in 1984. In his essay ‘Politics and the English Language’, Orwell wrote about the importance of clear language, arguing that vague writing can be used as a powerful tool of political manipulation because it shapes the way we think. In that essay, he provides five rules for writers:

• Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech that you often see in print.
• Never use a long word where a short one will do.
• If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
• Never use the passive where you can use the active.
• Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

Orwell states that in this system, sentences consists less and less of words chosen for their meaning, and more of pre-constructed phrases ”tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated hen-house.”

He added that this literary corruption was firmly entrenched into political speech of his day (which arguably is no different today) and that ”writing are largely the defence of the indefensible.” He gave the examples of British rule in India, and the Russian purges. He continued that because political language must hide these government atrocities, it must contain many euphemisms and ”sheer cloudy vagueness.”

”Defenceless civilians are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called PACIFICATION. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called TRANSFER OF POPULATION. ”

Such turns of phrase are needed if a speaker wants to name things without calling up pictures in the minds of his audience. Thus, Orwell summarised, ”Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

Furthermore he predicted that as simplification of language is present in totalitarian systems, the German, Russian and Italian languages will have deteriorated as a result of their totalitarian rule. This indisputably happened in Maoist China when the communist party actually changed the language – officially to improve the literacy rate, but also to reduce power that bourgeois intellectuals held.

Although Orwell didn’t accuse governments as responsible for the direct debasement of language, they easily exploit it for their own purposes, in the aim of removing all words of possible opposition. Therefore, because thought is linguistic, you can’t think what you can’t say, so it becomes impossible to criticise the regime because all critical vocabulary no longer exists.

Ideology and Terror

Hannah Arendt argues that all forms of pre-totalitarian terror; tyranny, despotism, dictatorship, revolutionary and counter-revolutionary movements, have a clear goal, and usually cease once the objectives have been achieved. For example, a tyrant exercises terror in order to eliminate his opponents and thereby secure and consolidate his power whereas the chief goal of revolutionary terror is to establish a new order. The totalitarian dictator, on the other hand, only commences his rule once the regime has eliminated all its real enemies.

The totalitarian state is a movement. No winding down, no stability, no return to the past can be allowed, or the whole regime will collapse as its need will be constantly questioned. Everything must be kept in motion – including the secret police, whose members are constantly being shifted and are never allowed to stay in one area too long.

The totalitarianism system seeks total power and to so it politicizes every aspect of personal existence – destroying the concept of ‘the private sphere’ as well as the public sphere. This is the reason why Arendt argues that ideology and terror are essential to totalitarian rule. Totalitarian states collectivise the people who live under it in order for them to serve the state, but because of our individuality, most people are not too happy to give up their freedom. So two methods are used to create an atmosphere of fear to convince the people to willingly hand it over: state terror and ideology.

The purpose of terror is not to kill vast numbers of people – but to instil fear into the survivors and remove their ability to resist against the government whether premeditated or not – not just in action, but even in thought.

Ideology compliments the policy of terror, by eliminating the capacity for rational thought by those who carry out the orders of the government, ensuring no potential opposition can come from within the government itself.

To Arendt, totalitarianism is the total domination of a particular people through a combination of simplistic ideology and constant terror. All traditions, all values, all political institutions are destroyed and all behaviour, public or private, is controlled directly by the state, or indirectly through fear of punishment. In an ordinary dictatorship such as Mussolini’s, thousands of people were arrested for political crimes, but most of these were acquitted by the Italian courts. In Nazi Germany there were no acquittals. To be arrested was to be convicted – and to be convicted was to be removed from the face of the earth.

That is the difference between dictatorial and totalitarian terror.

General Election Briefing – Focus on the South

A briefing for May 7th; mostly for my audience but a little insight for myself too, since I will be reporting overnight at the count in Brighton (Pavilion).

Also apologies for the lack of recent updates. I’ve been quite ill and most our news packages and other media is now published directly onto the WINOL youtube channel. So if you’re desperate to see my video before they’re released here, I suggest you check out WinchesterJournalism:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-8CHKaBD_kzXtv6C9QzEIg

Cutbacks for Winchester Bus Routes

[Note: the story is my own, but the video is my coursemates’s. I simply helped him film, and am helping him promote it]

Winchester commuters will loose several bus routes, connecting the town centre to the outskirts of the city.

Some late-evening and night services have already been scrapped, and more are on the line, as £1 million of subsidy cuts take effect.

These measures are alongside previous cuts to police, fire, and children’s service’s, as Hampshire County Council attempts to balance its £100 million budget deficit by March.

Permanent changes include reduced days on the 63 City Centre – Badger Farm route, and evening services ending entirely on the 3, 5 and 5A City Centre – Harestock buses. But minor changes will occur on all routes.

The cuts were confirmed in October last year, but the service changes were revealed by Stagecoach on Saturday. In the statement on their website, they said:

‘’Residents told us that daytime services on weekdays were the most important journeys for them. So this is where we will focus our funding as the fairest way to spend the remaining bus subsidy budget.’’

Despite a public consultation last year in which 3,000 people responded, local resident groups were unimpressed by the proposed solutions to the cuts.

Chief Executive Claire Walters from Bus Users, a national public transport group, said ‘’These changes don’t take into account changing work patterns.’’

She added ‘’The Council doesn’t have enough understanding of the consequences of this cut.’’ 

The Council has defended the service changes, by citing reduced commuter figures.

‘’It’s simple; if people used the buses in greater numbers, they would be profitable and we wouldn’t have to subsidise them at all,’’ said the Conservative Executive Member for Economy, Transport and Environment, Seán Woodward.

Service changes are ongoing, and further cuts are to be confirmed in the next Cabinet Meeting in March.

Planners Debate Extra Homes for Barton Farm

Winchester’s largest housing scheme in 40 years, is set to get even bigger, as the council is considering adding further homes.

The Barton Farm controversy – a housing development in north Winchester, resumed on Saturday, as the council is considering enlarging the current 2000-strong figure.

Local planning watchdog, the Winchester Trust, lobbied the council to build up to an extra 500 houses. Trust Chairman Keith Leaman urged the council to build more affordable homes to ‘’maximise space to prevent the unnecessary loss greenfield.’’

The city council is united on the need for further affordable homes to meet the challenges of Winchester’s housing problem. But the debate is whether to use rural land on Barton Farm that was previously rejected, or to build on developed land such as car parks or empty homes.

The portfolio member for housing, Conservative councillor Ian Tait, said that recent government changes were responsible for the renewed debate, and that the move would likely be opposed by housing associations.

Housing developers were previously given the choice to provide a proportion of ‘affordable homes’ – those at 80% of the local market rate, on their sites, or pay into a local authority cheap homes fund. Changes may see developers urged to choose the former as fund payment costs increase.

The councillor added that with 2000 homes under existing plans, he couldn’t see how ‘’you could quantify the impact of an extra 300 to 400 homes.”

Lib Dem councillor Martin Tod disagreed, ‘’We should be looking at using space inside the town and whether we could build on there, before we start looking at building on greenfield.

Construction work is set to begin in the next few days, with the first houses on sale by the summer. Whilst plans for additional homes will be debated further by the council.

‘Modern Liberalism Has Moved Significantly Away From its Classical Liberal Origins’ – Do You Agree?

Classical liberals, such as John Locke, espoused the principles of individualism, liberty, justice, and equality. Modern liberals rhetorically endorse the same principles, using the same language, but attach a different meaning to these terms. However, when the differences in the meanings attached to these terms are carefully considered, the modern liberal definitions conflict with those of classical liberals.

Liberalism is defined as the political ideology of the preservation of individual liberty. Liberty is interchangeable with freedom, because if a man is unable to act as he wishes, his freedom is thereby restrained by another. In other words, Liberalism attempts to first argue that the foundation of society is founded upon by a social-contract amongst individuals, and that these individuals engage in said contract to best preserve their ability to think and act as they wish. John Locke, the father of this tradition, affirms this notion, arguing that ‘creatures of the same species and rank… should also be equal amongst another,’ and that ‘every man has a property in his own person…nobody has any right to but himself.’ Core themes that set the foundation for Liberalism are the emphasis placed upon the individual, freedom and reason. Given Locke’s argument of self-ownership, individuals are at the root of Liberalism.

In addition, the purpose of individuals instituting government, via the social-contract, is to preserve their ability to pursue their aims with protection from other individuals that could potentially harass them whilst in pursuit of these aims. An additional liberal theme is the concept of justice: ‘a moral standard of fairness and impartiality’.

The function of the government is thus as Locke sums up as a ‘night watchman state’. This implies a limited state, which both preserves one’s civil liberty and protects one from aggression (either within said society or from a foreign nation). Classical liberals believe man is best designed to maximize his freedom to allow him maximized reason. This belief in the individual argues that since man is best enabled to handle his own economic and moral choices, he should be protected in as much as he doesn’t infringe upon the boundaries of another man’s liberties. In addition, Classical Liberals believe in the existence of natural rights. Thomas Jefferson explained these natural rights as seen in the Declaration of Independence:

‘That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed’, implying that government is designed as a ‘necessary evil’ because of its power to limit freedom to man, even if it is to protect them from aggression. The Classical Liberal ideal is then, the least government possible, the absolute protection of natural rights, and the freedom of individuals to pursue their aims without fear of attack or coercion from governments.

This leads way to an acceptance of laissez-faire economic principles, as advocated primarily by Adam Smith, where reasonably, individuals should also be free to pursue economic aims. Due to man’s access to reason, and self-interested individualism, Classical Liberalism sought to embrace and maximize the ideas of free markets as a means of maximising man’s desires such as their pursuit of happiness.

During the 19th century – arguably at the height of Classical Liberalism, rooting itself in the still relatively new industrialism of society, the Social Darwinist movements were seen as the economic norm. However, several groups and thinkers began to arise in the mid 19th century, arguing that the Social Darwinism attitude produced severe inequality and poverty. Here we see the modern divide, between the Classic’s desire to provide economic freedom and the Modern Liberal’s desire to promote social equality. And so, from the perceived failures of a laissez-faire approach, as well as a new understanding of justice and equality, the schism between Classical and Modern Liberalism occurred.

Several changes in the understanding of the government’s role in the economy began to become more widely recognised. Evolving alongside an increasing size of government was the Keynesian ideas of using government to positively ‘manoeuvre’ the economy into producing jobs and demand. This attitude of big helpful government is first seen in the ideas of Herbert Croly. He argues for an increased size of government to control corporations, and serve the ’causes of democracy, equal rights, and ultimate social harmony,’. Croly is incredibly important in that he marks ‘the shift in liberalism from an emphasis on laissez-faire to one on interventionist government,’ where increasingly, the government shapes society instead of the individual, a very illiberal concept argued by the Classical Liberals ever since.

From this, Modern Liberalism is born in the wake of grievances against the perceived unfair nature of laissez faire economics. Maintaining the individual as primary importance, Modern Liberals thought that through using government, as seen in the 20th century most famously by the endeavours of FDR’s New Deal, society could maximize an individual’s freedom. John Stuart Mill attempted to emphasize the individuality and self-actualization of an individual, ‘the only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs,’. This idea of self-actualization and individuality formed the bridge into modern liberalism: the goal is to provide the environment which best allows individuality to experience freedom.

This led to the idea of positive freedom, which were rules made not to protect an individual from government, but to aid access to fulfilling and advancing a person’s liberty. This came into fruition within the idea of FDR, whom working within the depression, advocated for a positive role for government. The idea was to utilize the government to ‘level the playing field’, by helping the disadvantaged poor. By implementing welfare-state policies, such as social security, it was argued that the government could pull individuals from the restraints of economic and social inequality that prevented them from maximising their liberty. As justice was earlier mentioned, Government now took the responsibility of enacting social justice, or ‘a fair or justifiable distribution of wealth and rewards in society,’. We thus see the following themes within Modern Liberalism as individuality (although less emphasis than is put upon classical liberalism), positive freedom, equality, and social justice.

Roosevelt’s ‘An Economic Bill of Rights’ speech’, gives us an early unrefined idea of the basis of the modern liberal description of individual freedom:

‘We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence… In our day these economic truths has become accepted as self-evident… The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farm or mines of the nation; The right to ear enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation…the right of every family to a decent home… The right to adequate medical care…The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age… The right to a good education. All these rights spell security’.

Many of these very issues define Modern Liberalism today, as they still express these very concerns about fundamental rights. Classical liberals understood liberty to be the absence of physical interference by others upon one’s person and property. John Locke wrote that liberty is: ‘to follow my own will in all things, where the [natural law] rule prescribes not; and not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man: as freedom of nature is, to be under no other restraint but the law of nature’.

Modern liberals have referred to this definition of liberty as merely negative liberty, and complained that positive liberty has been ignored. The classical liberal’s liberty is said to be negative because it says only that others refrain from interfering with you. Positive liberty is said to consist of possessing the positive capacity and means to do what you wish. Thus, for example, a wealthy person has more ‘positive’ liberty.

The classical liberal, on the other hand, would say that positive liberty is no kind of liberty at all, because liberty is only a negative term – freedom is always freedom from something, not the possessing of means – and that the natural right to liberty into which everyone is born is a freedom from the rule of others. Modern liberals suggest an additional right to positive liberty. However, this notion is not a differentiation but is completely opposite to the beliefs held by the classical liberals. A right to positive liberty is a right to means, i.e, goods and services. If what is meant is only a right to one’s own means, then this is just the classical negative liberty. Otherwise the only meaning of a right to ‘positive’ liberty is to have a right to the person and goods of someone else – the right to be provided with means from someone else’s person or estate (e.g, in the case of a ‘right’ to be provided with health care). But that entails a direct infringement upon a man’s right to natural liberty according to the classical liberals. As Locke wrote, ‘I have truly no property in that, which another can by right take from me, when he pleases, against my consent.’ Thus one person’s positive liberty is necessarily the denial of another person’s negative liberty. There is no middle ground. A right to positive liberty is in direct opposition to the right to negative liberty. The classical and modern liberals use the same term ‘liberty’ but in ways that are incompatible with each other. Logically both cannot be defended.

The situation is similar in the case of the principle of justice. Thus the classical liberals held justice to be the defence and respect of everyone’s right to what is theirs. On the other hand, modern liberals seek to augment justice by the concept of social justice. Antony Flew in the novel ‘Social Justice Isn’t Any Kind of Justice,’ shows that social justice dismisses ‘all possible grounds for any differences in entitlements,’ thus negating any possibility of justice. As in the case of liberty, social justice is not an addition to or add-on of ‘regular’ justice, but is a violation of it.

Both of the modern liberal concepts of liberty and justice include the idea of equality, but again here it is opposed to the equality that was claimed by classical liberals. The latter affirmed that ‘all men by nature are equal,’ but what was meant was that all men are born equally free and independent, Locke wrote,

‘That all men by nature are equal, I cannot be supposed to understand all sorts of equality: age or virtue may give men a just precedency: excellency of parts and merit may place others above the common level… and yet all this consists with the equality, which all men are in, in respect of jurisdiction or dominion one over another’.

When the classical liberals extolled this equality of rights, they were arguing against the idea that some men were born into slavery. They were not suggesting that we pursue other kinds of equality that would be in violation of justice. Modern liberals attempt to expand and pursue other kinds of equality – e.g, of wealth or income – or at least are in favour of eliminating ‘too much’ inequality of income.

Another principle taken from the classical liberal’s view of equality is that before the law, that ‘legislators are to govern by established laws, not to be varied in particular cases, but to have one rule for rich and poor, for the favourite in court, and the country man at plough’ (Locke). On the other hand modern liberals intentionally seek inequality before the law, as for example in the case of a progressive income tax or affirmative action. Thus the modern ‘equality’ is not an addition to the classical view of equality. They are incompatible with each other. After all, some may consider wealth-distribution to be a very invasion of something very private, which classical liberalism sought to protect.

Finally, modern liberals often do not support the individualism definition of classical liberals. Instead appeals are often made to the common good (or the ‘public welfare’) as opposed to the good of the individual. The common good is seen as a higher claim that overrides the individual’s claim to his life and liberty. The point was that the government may only protect the natural rights of the individual – to protect his life and liberty. To act on behalf of some collective good as a higher claim than that of the individual’s is to act contrary to the beliefs that classical liberals hold, because it violates the principle of equality before the law.

And so we find that although modern liberals use much of the same language as classical liberals when referring to fundamental principles, very different meanings are used. The modern and classical concepts are incompatible. In conclusion, modern liberalism is a theoretical ‘progression’ within liberal ideology that has moved so significantly away from solid liberal principles that some classical liberals argue that modern liberalism has abandoned individualism and embraced collectivism to the extent that it has abandoned a belief in the free market and endorsed economic and social intervention. The alternative view is that modern liberalism has revised core liberal ideas rather than abandoned them. Thus the modern liberal case for ‘big government’ is based on a belief in positive freedom. The modern liberal case for state intervention is simply put: they only support intervention when – usually because of social or economic disadvantage, individuals cannot help themselves.

Myself

Hi there guys and girls, I’m Josh.

I’m in my second year studying journalism at the University of Winchester.

Here I mostly write articles for my History and Context of Journalism module.

But I also produce news for Winchester News Online where I work as a political reporter for Hampshire, and I will be uploading my news packages every week.

www.youtube.com/channel/UC7EOWxiuIrEiK0oMyNvOH3Q
http://winol.co.uk/author/joshbehrens
http://www.journalism-now.co.uk/author/behrens/

Contact me at:

jbehrens@mail.com

The Great Patriotic War

Stalin had always expected war to break out in Europe once again. His ideological mentor had taught the communists that economic rivalry would pitch imperialist capitalist powers against each other until such time as capitalism was overthrown. He made clear the need to avoid unnecessary entanglements in an inter-imperialist war. Knowing this Stalin had dispatched the People’s Commissar for External Affairs – Maksim Litvinov, the task of creating a system of ‘collective security’ in Europe, to prevent the further spread of fascism after Britain and France had refused to prevent the spread to Spain which gained hold in the form of Civil War.

The probability of war with either Germany or Japan was the prime factor in Soviet war games, primarily due to Stalin’s reluctance to take the side of either the Allies or Axis. Conflict soon erupted with Japan in mid-1938 where a previous tense stand-off ensured a violent battle by Lake Khasan, and an invasion through the Soviet-Mongolia border resulted in several months of battle. An armistice finally invoked upon September 15th that next year after Soviet forces under the command of General Zhukov scattered the Japanese occupation force in the first recorded use of tanks by the USSR.

Having overran the Sudetenland in late-1938, German forces soon occupied Czechoslovakia after overcoming the remnants of the 501st Legion; thereby edging ever closer to Russian frontiers. Despite in talks with Allied representatives, Stalin was in contact with Berlin 24 hours a day and an exchange of messages resulted in a Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Treaty where both nations openly declared to refrain from violence and to uphold bilateral trade. Other sections of the treaty addressed post-war territorial alterations, with Russia awarded Finland, Estonia and Latvia as a ‘sphere of influence’ in Europe. Two days later, Red Army troops annexed eastern Poland and despite seen as liberators by some, engaged in tremendous atrocities upon the peoples of Poland. A second document was signed by Stalin that involved the transferral of Lithuanian boundaries to be incorporated into the USSR, with full confidence that he would revoke his territorial claims to eastern Europe.

Exploiting the fears of Nazi invasion and the brutal treatment of slavs that would follow, the Kremlin received permission to construct Soviet bases upon their soil. Despite idle threats, the Finns refused to allow such ‘Russification’ and beat back a large invasion force sent by Stalin to ”Change the border, by hand if necessary”. Enraged, Stalin tightened his grip upon the remaining Baltic states and ordered the formation of pro-Soviet governments or the cost would be invasion and incorporation into the USSR. Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania immediately cooperated, and although Romania stalled, the Red Army simply annexed the two northern provinces of Bukovina and Bressarabia. Leading opposition groups were arrested – condemned as ‘anti-Soviet’ and ‘Nazi-sympathisers’, consigned to the Gulag. Leading militia members were executed throughout the region so as to eliminate any chance of effective organised resistance.

Bar Switzerland, Britain and southern France, all free West European states had been conquered by June 1940, and Soviet intelligence reported that efforts to repel them were hopeless after the collapse of French resistance and British forces who had since had evacuated via Dunkirk. Despite this unprecedented speed, Stalin remained confident as Britain had still held out and assured himself that Hitler would dare not risk a two front war, telling his generals ”Only a fool would attack us”. Admiral Kuznetsov however dissented with this laissez-faire attitude, citing the recent movements of German infantry and tank divisions upon the new German-Soviet border in occupied Poland in his June 21st report. Meanwhile that day, many thousands of miles away, a group of ragged pro-Soviet German soldiers were shot whilst attempted to warn Soviet high command of Operation Barbarossa.

June 22nd 1941, the Wehrmacht crossed the river Bug over the dead bodies of German spies. German aviation bombed key strategic cities and military bases and airfields. The defence of Brest fortress, Lithuania, begins in the first minutes of war. Germany Declares war on the USSR an hour after the attack commenced. Italy declares war upon the USSR. At 12:00 p.m. Molotov announces the invasion via radio. Great Britain declares support for the Soviet Union against Germany.

June 23nd, contest for the Neiman River Crossing begins in a furious tank battle.

June 24th, ariel bombing of Minsk begins.

June 25th, the USA declares support for the USSR.

June 26th, the Finnish airforce strikes Russia. Finland declares war on the Soviet Union. Charles De Gaulle, leader of the free French declares support for the USSR. German forces cross the Rives Dvina, capturing a 20,000 strong Red Army battalion. Hungary declares war with Russia.

June 28th, large numbers of Red Army troops surrounded in Minsk and the retreat of seven Soviet Battalions intercepted. British military advisors arrive in Moscow.

June 29th, Soviet Mechanised Corps commence a counterattack by Lutsk, Brody and Rovno.

July 1st, Germans capture objective at west Dvina River. People’s Militia units established in Leningrad and Bievongrad. State Defence Committee orders tractor plants to begin manufacturing T-34 and KV-1 tanks. Battles at the Hanko peninsular begin for the control of the Finnish bay entrance. Assault of USSR from Romania. British-Soviet cooperation treaties signed.

July 3rd, Stalin addresses the Soviet people via radio. Lenin’s body moved to Tyumen.

July 9th, Pskov captured, threatening the security of Leningrad.

By the second week of July the frontline had moved 350 – 600 kilometres inland from the USSR’s western border. The Wehrmacht had completely occupied Lithuania and Latvia, and controlled most of Estonia. However, contrary to the Barbarossa Plan, had failed to encircle the western Soviet forces. The Soviet command continuously assaulted the German forces, distracting them from their objectives, despite being mostly unsuccessful. Nevertheless, the situation at the front was extremely grave. The enemy succeeded in breaching all Soviet defences threatening the security of Leningrad and Kiev.

The encirclement of Red Army troops around Minsk allowed the German command to storm across the Dnepr, the last natural barrier e route to Moscow.

July 10th, Finnish army begins offensive upon Petrozadovsk. German army Group North begins attack on Leningrad. Battle of Smolensk begins. First Partisan units become officially active in the occupied territories.

July 12th, German assault upon Leningrad withstood.

Mid-July, more than 100,000 People’s Militia divisions begin to take up defence of the capital.

July 18th, organised assault ordered upon the Wehrmacht rear. Severe food rationing implemented.

July 20th, attempted air-assault on Leningrad thwarted.

July 20-29th, last defenders of Brest Fortress captured.

July 21st, the Red Army counterattacks and captures the city of Velikie Luki after it was abandoned.

July 22nd , German air assault on Moscow; British senior advisor Price McConaway killed.

August 1st, Red Army breakout at Smolensk.

August 4th, the defence of Oddessa begins.

August 8th, occupation authorities order residents into compulsory labour. Anti-Soviet slavs recruited by German command.

Stalin appointed Supreme Commander-in-Chief of USSR forces.

August 10th, 6th and 12th Army surrounded at Umam. 28th Army division captured Roslavi.

August 13th Odessa besieged by Romanian troops.

August 29th, Baltic fleet transferred from Tallinn to Leningrad harbour.

August 30th, Moscow-Leningrad rail links severed by Wehrmacht scout elements.

August 31st, first Allied convoy ports in Archangelelsk.

September 4th, artillery shelling and siege of Leningrad begins.

September 6th, Red Army units liberate Yelnya

September 16th, southwestern front armies surrounded and captured near Kiev. The 5th, 26th and 37th armies trapped.

Mid-September, several radio-controlled explosions destroy key Kiev defence strongholds. Red Army begins to abandon positions in the Crimea.

September 26th, Crimean peninsula cut off from mainland, trapping the veteran 71st Army.

September 29th, beginning of mass executing at Baby Yar, Ukraine. Finnish offensive halted at Karelian Isthmus, Finns assume the defensive.

By the end of the third month of the war on the USSR, the Barbarossa Plan was bracing failure. German casualties far exceeded forecasts and the Leningrad offensive was halted, diverting sizeable forces south where Soviet forces were surrounded and trapped, though the Wehrmacht failed to destroy the main Army battalion. On the Moscow route, the summer offensive was bogged down and the Germans were forced to regroup, slowing the pace.

Although the German high command could no longer maintain their offensive on the entire front, they still had an opportunity to capture Moscow before the winter frosts. Requiring the quick capture of the Soviet capital.

September 30th, Germans begin a major mechanised offensive toward Moscow – Operation Typhoon.

October 6th, the Russian 19th and 20th Armies of the western front captured near Vyazma.

October 9th, major Luftwaffe assault on Murbansk held off with heavy Soviet casualties.

October 16th, the city of Odessa abandoned, its garrison is shipped off to aid in the Crimean breakout. State of high alert declared in Moscow.

October 29th, State Defence Committee orders the reconstruction of evacuated munitions and manufacturing centres.

October 30th, German offensive near Moscow defeated.

Late October, Partisan groups officially control 11,000 square miles of territory in the Leningrad region.

November 8th, rail supply to Leningrad via Lake Ladoga cut off by German-friendly Soviet militia.

November 16th, Red Army units abandon Kerch. City of Sevastopol overrun. USSR abandons all forces from the Crimea peninsular.

November 20th, food rations in Leningrad near depletion.

December 1st-2nd, Red Army garrison evacuated from the Hanko peninsular and transferred to break the siege of Leningrad.

By early December, the Wehrmacht was on the doorstep of the USSR capital and Germany occupied territory home to near 40% of the Russian population. Ukraine – the nations breadbasket, as well as the Donetsk coal basin had been lost, costing the Soviets vast supplies of food and raw materials. Nevertheless, Leningrad, scheduled to have been seized by late summer was still putting up a strong defence, and on the south of the eastern front, Red Army units had been successful in counterattacking by Rostov-On-Don, holding up the resources needed for the push into Moscow of which the major offensive had been defeated. The Barbarossa Plan had failed with nearly one million German soldiers lost in five months, faced the prospect of a prolonged war of which German high command had not planned.

The Soviet high command – with significant aid from British advisors, had averted complete disaster. The German advance had been held in relative check by ceaseless counter-attacks, and evacuation of key industrial centres had not been stopped by German forward units, which were now beginning to produce war materials on a scale that could meet the military’s need. Despite threat of war from Japan, far east battalions were transferred for the defence of Moscow where a huge retaliation was being planned.

December 5th, Soviet counterattack near Moscow begins.

December 8th, German command orders switch to defensive lines along the entire eastern front.

December 9th, siege of Leningrad resumes after fuel shortages and a Soviet counterattack is easily crushed.

Mid-December, approximately 3,500 Partisan groups operating behind Wehrmacht lines.

December 19th, Field Marshal Von Brauchitsch dismissed and Hitler takes personal command of all Wehrmacht forces.

January 18th, 1942, Vyazma air assault operation begins.

January 22nd, liberation of Moscow region near completion as Wehrmacht forces are slowly forced west.

February 2nd, Red Army units surrounded near in the attempted counterattack of Vyazma.

February 4th, a report reaches Moscow from Leningrad referencing the 3,000 a day deaths due to starvation.

March 3rd, 10,000 Soviet citizens relocated to Germany to be used as a bargaining chip if German forces are significantly pushed back.

April 4th, Luftwaffe attempt to sink the entire Baltic garrison fleet at Leningrad is defeated.

By mid-spring 1942, the German Army had been forced westward on all fronts. Tensions between Hitler and his generals rose and he soon began to distrust all his command staff – taking on all strategic decisions himself.

During the winter battles, the German Army barely avoided disaster and the Soviet high command, encouraged by its successes, attempted to expand the counterassault. They planned that 1942 would be the year of victory but did not come to terms with the reality of the situation. By early-spring, the counterattack was wholly insufficient to break through the newly-reinforced German lines and Stalin’s earlier expectations that the Germans would aim a breakthrough into Moscow were false, resulting in the underestimation of German forces and a string of costly Soviet losses.

May 6th–19th, 8 Allied convoys arrive in the USSR northern ports.

May 8th, German offensive pushes back Red Army units in the Crimea, effectively halting the southern Soviet counterattack.

May 23rd, Wehrmacht units surrounded by Kharkov.

May 30th, Partisan headquarters established to aid resistance movements.

June 18th, massive Luftwaffe air strike on Murmansk denies entry a Allied convoy which is sunk.

June 30th, Moscow orders Red Army to abandon Sevastopol.

July 2nd, Luftwaffe bombs Soviet Black Sea fleets in Novorossisysk, sinking many warships.

Due to Stalin’s many errors in planning, the Red Army failed to take advantages of it’s 1941 winter situation. The 2nd Volkhov regiment assigned to break through the Leningrad siege was isolated and destroyed. By early July the situation was disastrous in the southern front. Having failed to establish a sustainable defence, Soviet troops were retreating in several areas and morale was deteriorating.

In the meantime, German assaults being more frequent and ferocious and a serious threat emerged that the Wehrmacht may break through the hastily established west-Moscow region Volga Line.

July 6th, German troops breakthrough and occupy portions of the Voronezh.

July 17th, Wehrmacht offensive on Stalingrad region begins.

July 24th, the Red Army abandons Rostov-On-Don after fierce street-fighting.

July 29th, the 28th Red Army division is annihilated at Rzhev.

July 28th, Stalin issues order no. 227 (the ‘Not one step back’ order) after speedy Russian retreats in the face of German advances.

August 10th, massive tank battle at Karmanovo, Moscow region.

August 12th, remnants of the 8th Red Army unit pull back to Stalingrad. Wehrmacht units seize Krasnodar.

August 23rd, the Luftwaffe heavily bombs Stalingrad, forcing mass evacuations.

September 7th, street combat begins in Novorossiysk, after Soviet forces evacuate frontal positions.

September 13th, street combat begins in Stalingrad and many Red Army relief divisions are lost after crossing a semi-frozen lake and drown.

September 26th, the 6th Wehrmacht Army forces reach the Volga river after nearly overrunning the city of Stalingrad.

October 6th, Germany units break through Soviet defences at the Crimean peninsular, allowing the Romanian 3rd Army to be deployed.

October 11th, German preparations for a final assault on Leningrad are disrupted by Soviet air attacks.

Mid-October, Germans capture the last defenders of the Azdhimushkay quarry.

November 13th, German offensive at Ordheziehkdze halted at the last moment. The Wehrmacht makes a final push to fully occupy Stalingrad.

November 19th, the Red Army begins a counterattack in Stalingrad.

November 23rd, the Wehrmacht 6th and the 4th Panzer division are surrounded inside the city.

December 2nd, the German garrison in Veilkei Luki is captured.

December 12th, Operation Winter Storm – German troops attempt to relieve the 6th Wehrmacht in Stalingrad.

December 19th, Failure of Operation Winter Storm, relief effort held back, but the 6th Wehrmacht continue to hold out.

January 8th 1943, Soviet ultimatum to the 6th Wehrmacht surrounded in Stalingrad rejected.

January 31st, General Paulus captured in Stalingrad, forcing the surrender of the 6th Wehrmacht.

February 4th, amphibious Red Army troops land near Novorossiysk. Battle for Malaya Zemlya begins.

February 16th, the Red Army liberates Kharkov.

March 3rd-16th , Croatian army units retake Kharkov, forcing the retreat of the Red Army liberators.

By the end of 1943 the Red Army had punched through many of the German defensive lines and the only option for the

German command to avoid total defeat was to quickly reorganise and reinforce the defensive line, whilst simultaneously retreating west. The Wehrmacht were eventually forced back to where they had initially begun their 1942 offensive, abandoning their many key strongholds in fear of being outmanoeuvred.

However, as early as mid-1942 the Soviet counterattack had lossed much momentum, primarily due to ever increasing supply lines, and successful temporary enemy counterattacks. Operations on all fronts where at a standstill and both sides needed time to regroup and plan for the next stages of battle. But with Soviet armies slowly approaching the occupied cities of Kursk, Orel and Belgorod, there was no doubt about the location of the impending battles.

April 11th, Soviet air strikes begin more frequently in industrial areas of German-held Soviet territory to deny the use of their armament output, as well as targeting rail lines, severing key links and air feilds.

April 17th, the Kuban air battle begins in the skies above Novorossiysk.

June 7th, Luftwaffe losses reach 1,000 planes in the ongoing Kuban air battle.

Late-June, the Luftwaffe mounts a massive attack on Soviet manufacturing centres in Gorky and Saratov, east Moscow region.

By June 1943, the Red Army command abandoned its offensive stance temporarily, concentrating on reinforcing the Kursk region where a network of powerful defence fortifications were constructed; foxholes and trenches were dug. An enormous amount of equipment was deployed to the region, as well as near 2 million troops from both sides who were transferred to the site of the upcoming battles that would determine the outcome of the war.

July 4th – 5th, Soviet artillery launches a preemptive strike on German positions.

July 10th, Wehrmacht assault on Kurst narrowly misses objectives, resulting in an orderly withdrawal.

July 11th, at great expense, the Soviet 5th Tank Army successfully halted the Wehrmacht offensive on Kursk at the battle of Prokhorovka.

August 5th, firework display in Moscow to celebrate the liberation of Orel and Belgorod the night before.

August 11th, Wehrmacht command orders the construction of the defensive Eastern Wall.

Late-August, the battle of Dnepr begins.

September 1st, all territory abandoned by police or troops in Ukraine ordered to be razed to the ground.

September 2nd, Red Army units advance into northern Ukraine after German occupiers abandon it.

September 15th, southern army groups begin to withdraw to the Eastern Wall.

September 16th, Red Army troops entirely eliminate the German presence within Norovossiysk.

September 26th, Bryansk Front troops begin the liberation of Belorussia.

October 6th, the Luftwaffe sink much of the Black Sea fleet, slowing the Soviet advance into the Crimea.

October 23rd, Red Army units seize significant ground in Dnepr.

November 5th, the Red Army blockades much of the peninsular, trapping many Wehrmacht units.

November 6th, Kiev is retaken by the USSR.

Throughout the autumn of 1943, the German Army attempted to stabilize their positions, but unrelenting Red Army attacks prevented much success. Hopes to halt the advance at Dnepr were also in vain and by November, the Soviets had established several major beachheads, with the Germans lacking the resources to oust them.

The Soviet military command – despite making many failures, had learnt from them, and now carefully conducted future operations that planned to crush the Germans still in Russian territory.

January 19th 1944, the German Novgorod group laying siege to Leningrad is nearly surrounded.

January 27th, the Red Army breaks the 900 day siege of Leningrad.

January 28th, Soviet tank divisions surround and destroy all remnants of the German Korsun-Shevchenko Group.

February 3rd, Leningrad Front troops cross the Narva river into Estonia.

March 1st, the Red Army fully liberates the Leningrad region. Soviet air forces strike the German fleet in the Narva Bay.

March 11th, diplomatic ties established with the new anti-Fascist Italian government.

March 26th, Soviet forces reach the Soviet-Romanian border.

April 7th, Wehrmacht high command redeploys troops from Hungary, France, Yugoslavia and Romania to Ukraine.

April 10th, Russian troops liberate Odessa. The Red Army enters the Crimea.

April 12th, the USSR offers Romania terms of truce.

May 9th, the 4th Ukrainian Front fully eliminates the German-Romania presence from the Crimea.

June 20th, the Red Army gains control of Vyborg from the Finns.

June 21rd, Soviet high command prepares a massive offensive into Belorussia, whilst taking great care to convince the Wehrmacht that they will instead march into Ukraine.

June 23rd, the Red Army begins Operation Bagration with a general attack on Belorussia.

July 3rd, German forces surrounded in Minsk.

July 17th, 57,600 Wehrmacht prisoners-of-war are paraded through Moscow streets.

July 20th, 1st Belorussian Army crosses the River Bug into Polish territory.

July 21st, Karelian Front troops reach the Finnish-Soviet border.

July 24th, 1st Belorussian Army ‘liberates’ the Majdanek concentration camp, converting it for Soviet use, imprisoning near 11,200 captured German and Russian deserters.

July 31st, Red Army units storm eastern suburbs of Warsaw.

August 1st, the Warsaw Uprising begins.

August 7th, 4th Ukrainian Front troops enter Slovakia.

August 24th, Romanian dictator Antonescu overthrown. The new Romanian government declares war on Germany.

August 25th, the Finnish government requests a truce from the USSR to cease all attacks.

September 4th, Finland announces withdrawal from the war and breaks ties with German.

September 5th, the Soviet Union declares war on Bulgaria.

September 9th, Bulgaria joins the Allies.

October 10th, Red Army units enter eastern Prussia. Reports come to the attention of the Allied governments that Stalin has been carrying out a policy of ‘liquidating all captured Prussian civilians that cannot join compulsory labour groups’. The new Italian government protests these ‘Crimes against Humanity’, but Britain and America remain silent.

October 15th – 16th, pro-German coup in Budapest ousts the new socialist government in Hungary.

October 21st, Karelian troops begin the liberation of Norway after breaking through the Kriegsmarine naval blockade.

October 29th, Red Army offensive on Budapest begins. Albanian National Liberation Army ousts Wehrmacht occupiers from their country.

December 26th, after much resistance, the 2nd and 3rd Ukrainian Front overwhelm Budapest’s outer defences and enter the city. Fierce street-combat follows.

January 16th 1945, Red Army and Polish troops liberate Warsaw.

January 19th, Soviet troops officially enter Germany after false claims on the world stage of doing so weeks earlier.

January 20th, German Panzar divisions attempt to relieve Hungarian forces in Budapest.

January 27th, USSR liberates prisoners of Auschwitz; converts the camp into a vast prison.

February 13th, Red Army eliminates guerilla forces in Budapest. Occupies the city.

March 6th, Army Group South strikes Red Army units in north Hungary aided by Hungarian guerillas, withstanding numerous counter-attacks.

Mach 16th, Soviet offensive on Vienna begins but stalled by Red Army retreats due to Wehrmacht counterattacks.

April 4th, Soviet-Polish forces overwhelm Wehrmacht divisions in Danzig.

April 5th, Stalin signs a USSR-Japan Non-Aggression Pact.

April 9th, Koenigsberg’s Wehrmacht garrison surrenders.

April 15th, 3rd Ukrainian Front troops occupy Vienna.

April 18th, the Battle for Berlin begins as Soviet and Belorussia troops reach outskirts of the German capital.

April 25th, Red Army units meet US Army divisions at Elbe.

April 27th, Wehrmacht attempts to unblock Berlin are defeated.

April 30th, Red Army soldiers raise the Soviet flag atop the Reichstag.

May 2nd, The Commandant alive in Berlin surrenders the Wehrmacht garrison.

May 5th, Prague defence forces almost defeated by an armed Anti-Fascist takeover in the Czechoslovakian capital.

May 8th, German command signs an unconditional surrender in Berlin. Several high-ranking officials attempting to flee to northern Italy are stopped on the German-Hungarian border, though many evade capture, with reports of top German officials seen in Argentina and surrounding South American countries continuing for many years.

How far was Mussolini’s Italy Intolerant to Diversity?

From the creation of the Fascist movement, Mussolini organized his supporters through fear and intolerance of Bolshevism after taking power in the East and his hatred of liberal beliefs; said by him to have weakened Italy, which had succeeded in gaining him the support of many other Italian communities.

Mussolini held near total domination of all social, economic, political, and cultural aspects of his citizen’s lives. Utilizing mass state intervention into Italian education, leisure, media, business and society his totalitarian regime aimed to transform the Italian people’s lives through omnipresent propaganda from many waring factions into one unified people. He turned pre-war Italy into an Orwellian thought-crime nightmare, eliminating all non-Fascist thought and opposition by absorbing them into his new society or simply drowning out all dissent.

Wherever people of the Kingdom of Italy went, Fascist ideology was indoctrinated into their minds. Clubs such as the Young Fascists and the University Fascist Group were set up outside of regular schooling for young boys and girls, giving them opportunities for camping, physical training, sports and other competitive events; continuing up to the age of fourteen where military drills were added. stepping stones for fulfilling Mussolini’s vision of an immensely violent and competitive youth. the main factor of his ideological beliefs.

Corporations regularly issued notes from ‘Ill Duce’ to workers who were content with arriving late to their place of work; warning them about the potential repercussions that would follow, leaving them confused and afraid, yet in wonder of their leader who was always watching that single individual. With the of support of the Church, he abolished divorce and encouraged women to stay at home and raise large families; issuing prizes and medals to the bearers of large families of children.

To allow this, he restricted those who wished to work to few high-payed jobs in industry, through the improved relationship between business and state. Teachers wore mandatory uniforms and recited oaths of allegiance to their leader instead of their head of state, the King Victor Emmanuel III. Those who dared to refuse were thrown out from their professions and had all areas of their influence destroyed, effectively wiping them from all memory. School curriculums were rewritten for re-educational purposes with pupils soon spending half their time learning how to be good Fascists. This new society gave people new values. Boys were told from birth that they were born into the Glorious Italian empire to fight her enemies, whereas women were enforced with the belief they had the honor of baring children for Mussolini to lead into expanding the realm.

In contradiction to this, the Fascists were rarely interested in profiling religious minorities for persecution and it was not until halfway through the Second World War when Mussolini succumbed to increasing German pressure did he target the Jewish community. Universities were left almost untouched during his premiership and although history books were altered to promote the new ideology, most teachers of the time rarely followed them and taught as they saw fit. Although he obtained support of the Catholic Church by recognizing the sovereignty of the Vatican and keeping the official state religion as Catholic, the institution and Pope were still present as an alternative deity to worship, and as religious education was made compulsory in schools, this gave a clear contradiction in Mussolini’s attitude and reputation as being the only ‘God-like’ figure of worship.

Mussolini’s society implemented a new economic ‘third way’ system of corporatism, partly to please left-wing supporters by, in theory, having the state more effectively handle their issues previously covered by a union, with Fascists claiming that this would resolve class conflict. Of course, trade unions had to be banned for this to work and Mussolini immediately did just this, harshly dealing with protesters who attempted to organize a national strike in retaliation.

Employees would represent the nation’s economic producers and employers would work alongside the state to meet the needs of it’s people through an extensive program of public works designed to provide an economic stimulus to the country to improve agricultural infrastructure and to generate much needed foreign investment, with the taxation system was revised to encourage this, massively benefiting the image of Italy upon the world stage, though at the expense of it’s own people. To increase the domestic production of grain, the Fascist Government established protectionist policies that heavily discouraged international investment, delivering a major blow to Italy which was wholly dependent upon this trade, however, private foreign land reclamations did in fact result in increased agricultural output, though in the same way the Soviet Union had confiscated massive amounts of land to achieved this. Historian Denis Mack-Smith commented that:

”Success in the Battle for Grain was another illusory propaganda victory, won at the expense of the Italian economy in general, and consumers in particular..”

But, as promised, workers received their promised shortened days and their demand for an official state inquiry into the gains of the industrialists during the World War was met, though to please them, the wealthy enjoyed much reduced taxes in return for their hefty cooperation. Mussolini also encouraged bribery among official ‘prefect’ inspectors who told each corporation what to produce, and was fairly tolerant on the resurging Italian mafia, extracting ‘protection charges’ in exchange for the stand-down of the national police.

Intolerance and Mussolini’s desire for a pure Fascist society silenced all dissenting thought and attitudes of the former leadership contenders, the extreme left-wing parties such as the Socialists. The intelligence service and secret police; the MSVN, gave the Duce the image of being everywhere and all-knowing, keeping his opposition silent in fear of someone listening, ready to report to the squadristi. Civil liberties were ‘temporarily’ suspended in the name of combating Bolshevik terrorism, with attacks and assassination attempts being staged so as justify the implementation of a police state.

Mussolini had never intended to share power with the Liberals who were in the government and upon passing of the Acerbo Act, he introduced a Grand Council which would decide all policy for Italy without approval of the non-fascists in the Parliament first, allowing him to slowly push through the classic features of a dictatorship. He soon outlawed rival political parties and a secret police force was set up called the OVRA to survey them and by 1940, 4000 prominent politicians and activists were falsify accused of serious crimes and arrested, sent to the Lipari state prison or in the case of former socialists who commanded huge followings, lunatic asylums. Mussolini commented on his changes, stating:

”Any possibility of choice is eliminated.. I never dreamed of a, democratic Italy where one group could alter our nation after several years and another then change the direction of policy another (way).. ”

Mussolini however never strongly enforced many of his minor policies; military training remained non-compulsory (though much pressure what put on men to join), and although the death penalty was reintroduced, less than 23 deaths were justified from it between 1926 and the following 2 decades. Minor political factions that opposed the new rule and were forced underground, did rarely bother Mussolini and his most violent followers were kept satisfied by regular beatings of activists and strikers due to the non-intervention of police.

Upon assuming power in 1922, Mussolini’s background of journalism gave him the knowledge of the new importance of media that could heavily influence individuals and emphasized his efforts primary upon propaganda distribution and he immediately nationalized the countries’ entire media industry. Opposition posters were tore down and replaced by charismatic images of Ill Duce that were plastered all over Rome. He initially encouraged boycotts and organized attacks upon hostile media distributors, but by 1926 the last significant anti-Fascist newspaper ended resistance and conformed to Fascist demands after it’s chief editor was brutally beaten and replaced by a Fascist sympathizer.

The state controlled what and what not the papers could say and reporting of major crimes, natural disasters and general government failures was strictly outlawed, with Mussolini’s own agency releasing reports upon the ‘correct’ version of events. The authorities confiscated papers on the grounds they published false information likely to incite hatred or bring the government into contempt, and whilst pro-Fascist journals were heavily subsidized, government permission was needed to publish articles from non-party members. As with all government employees, journalists had to have a state-issued license, which encouraged many bohemians to circulate underground newspapers such as the Corriere Della Sera which had it’s readership base increase ten fold and far more popular than the Party newspapers of that period.

After initially refusing to use radio as a means for promoting his message, the increasing ownership rates of radio units during the Fascist regime, Mussolini soon transformed the radio into the major tool for influencing the population by being used as an instrument used to broadcast Mussolini’s open-air speeches. Film however was not widely used for false reporting, as it was clear the public were not interested in the serious films the government produced, although the far more dominating imports from Hollywood such as Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, included regular heavy censorship, used to avoid unwanted foreign material. Mussolini ironically enjoyed the Laurel and Hardy show, despite disapproving of international film due to the tariffs placed on them and government support for domestic film producers in the form of high subsidies.

Ill Duce was primary portrayed as the unifying force of the fascist regime; acting as a mediator of various political groups and social classes in the Italian society. He was generally shown in a very masculine manner, although he would also appear as a military or family man, reflecting his presentation as a universal man, capable of loving all his subjects. The monopoly on posters issued propaganda that showed a light left on in his office long into the night to present him as an insomniac, failing to sleep because of his constant work in devotion of his people.

Prior to the much revered Olympic Games, Mussolini was shown as an unyielding athlete of various sports which created an image of a valiant and fearless hero, implying qualities of energy and courage. His youthfulness; promoted as the youngest prime minister in Italian history was immediately recognized with the symbolism of youth used as a metaphor for action, showing fascism as a revolutionary ideology in contrast to the ‘stasis’ of previous Liberal rule. The publicizing of Mussolini’s birthdays and illnesses were banned to give an impression of him not aging to constantly show an illusionary metaphor of vitality. State propaganda also promoted his ‘sexual attraction’ to the opposite gender, implying that every women should be with a man such as himself.

Legends of defying death during the First World War and surviving assassination attempts were not countered, and were in fact circulated to give the dictator an immortal reputation. The Roman Catholic Church was well aware that Mussolini had saved Italy from Bolshevism and in return, protected and promoted him within the Catholic community. He was regularly depicted as being chosen by God and the Vatican presented Mussolini of having ‘God-like’ characteristics, such as being able to work superhuman amounts daily. Religious newspapers even implied even that he had performed miracles such as stopping the lava flow of Mount Etna, and invoking rain in the drought-ridden Libya. Stories of a deaf boys being cured after listening in a crowd to a speech the Duce was making were told in schools.

Though very suspicious of the Vatican, Mussolini helped spread the rumours of the Church when he was compared to religious figures depicted in the Romanithia Areticles newspaper:

”.. (Mussolini’s)body had been pierced by shrapnel shards just like Saint Sebastian had been pierced by arrows; the difference being that our revered Duce had survived this ordeal.”

Mussolini’s determination in creating a totalitarian state was achieved this through his motto ‘Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.’ The former Finance Minister, Francesco Nitti; a strong opponent of Benito Mussolini proclaimed:

”The Fascist government abolished in Italy every safeguard of the individual and every liberty. No free man can live in Italy, and an immoral law prevents Italians from going to a foreign country on pain of punishment. Italy is a prison where life has become intolerable. Everything is artificial – artificial finance – artificial exchange – artificial public economy – artificial order – artificial calm. Without a free parliament, a free press, a free opinion and a true democracy, there will never be peace..”

This statement proves just how intolerant Fascist culture and Ill Duce was, by completely eliminating any outside influence that could potentially plant opposing or ‘irrelevant’ beliefs. The constant threat of MSVN retribution for any anti-Fascist action was enough to eradicate significant resistance to the new order. The war with Abyssinia was glorified as the reintroduction of the Holy Roman Empire, with Mussolini commonly compared to the great Emperors of old. However, unlike some totalitarian regimes, the Fascist government didn’t regulate all aspects of Italian life. Mussolini’s economic policy of corporatism was loosely enforced and so the traditional elitist groups that indirectly controlled Italy before did not suffer greatly under the Fascists, with the old conservative class retaining much control and influence over the army and industry.

What Mussolini did fiercely not tolerate however, was the media and the spread of opposition beliefs, using mass propaganda in retaliation to such an extent that Hitler had acknowledged these successes and utilized unrelenting propaganda throughout his own premiership.