More 20th Century History Answers
Question Library
Ask a question about 20th Century History
Volunteer
Experts of the Month
Expert Login
Awards
About Us
Tell friends
Link to Us
Disclaimer
|
| |
|
|
| |
| | | |
About Michael FitzGerald
Expertise
I am an expert in German history between 1918 and 1945, particularly with regard to the Nazi era. I am also very knowledgeable about most areas of philosophy (I have an honours degree in the subject) and am able to answer questions on that subject too. In addition, I am very knowledgeable about poetry. One of my hobbies is also politics, mainly British and European though I follow the US political scene as well. Another one is the history of crime and punishment and British social history (the two often overlap!) I am willing to answer questions on all the above issues.
Experience
Author of two published works, 'Storm Troopers of Satan,' an account of the lunatic fringes of Nazi ideology, and 'Adolf Hitler: A Portrait,' a biography of the German dictator. 'Adolf Hitler' was published in July 2006 by the top history publisher Spellmount and was named historical biography of the month by the Good Book Guide. I correspond with Ian Kershaw, Peter Stachura, Jeremy Noakes, Roger Moorhouse and Stan Lauryssens. I have undertaken research for radio, television, newspapers and magazines
Organizations
Society of Authors
Education/Credentials
I have an Honours degree in philosophy.
Awards and Honors
LT prize for poetry
Historical Biography of the month, Good Book Guide
| | |
| |
You are here: Experts > Homework Help > 20th Century History > 20th Century History > History
Expert: Michael FitzGerald
Date: 12/14/2007
Subject: History
Question
QUESTION: How did the end of world war two and the rise and fall of the Cold War affect the economic, social and cultural lives of the following countries? Palestine/Israel, Eastern Europe and India/Pakistan.
On a follow up,the end of world war II launched and unprecedented liberation movements, what was the struggle between fundamentalists and secular nationalists within these movements?
Your previous answer was great help to me.
Thanks
ANSWER: Hi Ahmed,
In the first place I should like to apologise for the delay in replying to you but I had to get the manuscript of my latest book ready for the publishers this week and have not had much time to devote to anything else. That is now out of the way and I will be more rapid in my response in future.
The Palestinian/Israeli, Eastern European and India/Pakistan issues were completely different in almost every respect. In the case of the Israelis, from the very beginning there was a dichotomy between the attitudes of the secular Jews and the religious zealots. Ben-Gurion represented the secular wing of Zionism and Begin the hardline religious advocates. In the short term, the secular Zionists triumphed though the last few years have shown Israeli politics taking a different route. The Arabs too were split between the followers of the Mufti and the more Marxist-orientated Muslims who looked towards Russia and later supported Nasser, the Baath Party in Syria and Iraq and the Fatah wing of the PLO. Later still came splits with more religiously orientated movements like Hezbollah and Hamas. Ironically, Hamas is largely an Israeli creation, built up by Mossad as a counterweight against the PLO but soon taking on a life of its own.
Eastern Europe is a very complex issue. Following the Soviet occupation of the satellite states, there were several attempts to overthrow or at least modify the severity of the repression. East German workers revolted in 1953, largely out of general frustration rather than any specific political demands. In 1956, Poland rioted and managed to replace the very hardline Communist government with the slightly more liberal Gomulka regime. The same year saw an open challenge to Communism in the 1956 Hungarian uprising. This was almost entirely led by the working-classes and they did not want a capitalist regime but a more equitable and freer socialist one.
1968 saw Czechoslovakia attempt reform and that too, like the Hungarians, was largely led by the people and wanted a democratic socialist regime rather than a repressive Marxist one.
It was not until the emergence of Solidarity in Poland that religion began to become a factor in these things. Even then there is no doubt that Lech Walesa and his movement used the Catholic Church as allies rather than their main motivation being religious.
When the Iron Curtain finally collapsed, it was largely the economic difficulties and the fact that Russia no longer had the desire to crush revolt by force, rather than any religious aspects, that led to the collapse of Communism.
India definitely wanted to maintain a secular government and (though I am anything but an expert on Indian politics) the corruption and inefficiency of Congress rule was more a factor in the BJP success than any real committment to Hindu fundamentalism. In recent years that appears to be less true than it was when the BJP won power.
Pakistan on the whole has always tended to be ruled by the secularists, from Jinnah, Ayyub Khan, Yahya Khan, Bhutto and his daughter, and others. It is in my opinion largely the economic and political chaos of the last ten years or so that have led to rising support for fundamentalists in the country, although of course foreign policy decisions by Western countries and some poor domestic choices by successive leaders, together with foreign influence through the Madrashas (hope I spelt that right - apologies if I got it wrong) from Al-Qaida and Hezbollah sympathisers have certainly helped it to spread.
Hope this helps
Kind regards
Mike
---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------
QUESTION: thanks very much for yoyur deatailed answer, and good luck with your book.
Why was so much tension between fundamentalists and secularists, what was the sticking points between the two groups? Do you think either group believed the modernism was or is compatible with capitalism? what was the concern in each block in regard to modernism?
Thanks...I will not bother you with any follow up.
Answer
Hi Ahmed,
Sorry for the delay in responding. I have had a manic few days lately what with family crises and stuff like that. I am still sorry for not getting back to you sooner but hope that you understand.
There have not always been such tensions between the fundamentalists and the secularists. Jinnah flirted with fundamentalism at the establishment of Pakistan but decided to go with the secularists instead; if Gandhi's vision of India had triumphed rather than Nehru's the Congress Party would have been much closer to the BJP than the model it adopted. Congress, from the earliest days, was fractured by disagreements about both the place of Hinduism and even the secularists also disagreed about things. Many were Marxists or socialists; others were what might be called social democrats or liberals. Nehru eventually went for what might anachronistically be called a 'social market' model but the Indian economy tended to become less 'statist' from the 1960s onwards.
Secularists certainly DID believe that modernism was compatible with capitalism although many rejected it in favour of some form of socialism. Fundamentalists varied in their attitudes to capitalism but probably the majority were opposed to it.
The big counter-example is of course Turkey where the secular establishment was orientated from the start in an essentially social democrat/socialist direction. It was with the growing influence of Demirel and people of his own more conservative persuasion that capitalism became in a way associated with religious fundamentalism. This remains a rarity in Islamic societies and is almost certainly the result of the special circumstances under which Ataturk created his regime.
Ataturk and his successors were aggressively modernist, as were the Baath Party in Iraq and Syria. Nasser, under the influence of Marxism, was a moderniser too. So was the Mossadeq government in Iran.
Again, one counter-example is Saudi Arabia, where perhaps one of the most fundamentalist regimes in the world is yet very modernistic in its approach to technology and progress. In many ways Saudi (I have lived and worked there) is a Third World country with First World technology.
I do hope this helps and once again apologise for the delay in replying.
Kind regards
Mike
Add to this Answer
Ask a Question
|
|
