EUR200Y1 Lecture Notes - Erich Ludendorff, Long Knives, Sturmabteilung

20 views3 pages

orangegnat547

1 Mar 2022

School

UTSG

Department

European Studies

Course

EUR200Y1

Professor

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

Introduction of idea of private army https://www. history. com/this-day-in-history/night-of-the-long-knives https://www. britannica. com/place/third-reich/the-rohm-affair-and-the-night-of-the-long- Ernst r hm was born november 28, 1887, munich, germany died july 1, 1934, He was a german army officer and chief organizer of adolf hitler"s sa which i will discuss later. He was also a captain in the first world war and helped found the. Fun fact he was imprisoned for his involvement in the beer hall putsch of november. 8-9 1923 which was a failed attempt at an insurrection in germany against the. The sa sturmabteilung, aka the assault division, stormtroopers or brownshirts, was a paramilitary organization founded in october 1921. Rohm helped hitler win the support of the army in bavaria which became the sa. And here we are introduced to the concept of a paramilitary, or private military in. Hitler"s case, which would be a semi-militarized force that serves similar functions as a professional military but is not formally included in a nation"s armed forces.

Related Questions

Case Study #2

WHO OWNS THE ART ANYWAY?

* Moscow recently announced that the so-called Priam's Treasure (which was excavated on the site of ancient Troy between 1873 and 1890 by the German amateur archaeologist Heinrich Schlieman and then looted by the Red Army from Nazi Germany) is still in Russia at the Pushkin Museum and went on public view in early 1996, for the first time since the Second World War.

The public admission by Moscow of the Treasure's existence raises questions about the 30,000 to 100,000 other stolen works of art that the German embassy in Moscow estimates are still in Russian Hands. Whose property are they? The Germans say they are stolen and should be returned. The Russians say the Germans stole thousands of artifacts during the occupation of the Soviet Union, many of which have been disbursed into private and public collections in Europe and the United States and are impossible to trace. The Russians state that while many journalists call it theft, it is really reparation for the damages inflicted on their country in World War ll.

How can one argue with that, given the loss of millions of Russian lives during the long war and the flagrant and wanton destruction of the Russian Royal palaces during the retreat of the Germans from Leningrad (now St. Petersburg)? Who has the moral high ground here? Who has the right to the property now, 50 years after the war? Whose property is it anyway?

If the treasures had been excavated under today's standards, the Treasure would have had to remain in Turkey. It would never have gotten to Germany in the first place. Shouldn't the Turks be brought into the negotiations between the Germans and the Russians since they could have a claim on the objects taken to Germany by Schlieman 50 years before?

* What about the heirs of Frank Calvert, the British field archaeologist and diplomat, who preceded Heinrich Schlieman as excavator of Troy? They are planning to file a claim to a portion of Schlieman's Trojan treasures that were found on his land in Hisarlik, Turkey. Frank Calvert owned the eastern half of the Hisarlik mound, site of the ancient city, and the Turkish government the western half. If during the 1873-90, excavations, Schlieman recovered artifacts on Calvert's land, Calvert's heirs might have a basis for claiming a share.

In the morality of determining ownership of archeological materials, who has priority: the country of possession or the country of origin? Modern day Turkey would have a tough claim to make if it said it and Ancient Troy are in any way one and the same.

If the country of possession should have priority, then wouldn't Russia have just as much of a claim as Germany since it has possession and promises to exhibit it in 1996?

IF YOU ARE THE JUDGE, WHAT HAPPENS TO THE TREASURE?

viridianweasel783

Please read this article. It discusses foreign currency issues for the Euro. Please elaborate and explain your thoughts on the article below.

The wisdom in the eurozone is that if the European Central Bank would only follow the lead of the Federal Reserve and move to far more aggressive monetary policy, which it is now doing, all will be hunky-dory.
Of course, drenching the single currency area in euros will help, and make it easier for banks to lend again.
It is also a brave act for the ECBâs Italian president, Mario Draghi. His promise to expand the balance sheet of the ECB by â¬1trillion flies in the face of historic German concerns about overexuberant monetary policy and the horrors of the Weimar Republic.
The bigger question, however, is whether the source of the eurozoneâs problems is simply a lack of credit, or is it more deeply rooted?
Many euroland economies simply are loaded down with too much debt. The âtroikaâ solution offered by the IMF, European Commission and ECB to this has been austerity. But still the debt levels rise.
Even the IMFâs own internal monitoring group has questioned the wisdom of the policy. The traditional solution for countries in trouble are the double âDâ approach â devaluation and default. The first is impossible in a single currency area unless nations drop out, as happened in 1993 when the euro predecessor, the European Monetary System, fell-apart.
That leaves the eurozone with default. It sound horrible and irresponsible, but as Harvardâs Benjamin Friedman recently observed, the debt of the 18 countries in the single currency region is more akin to American municipal bonds, rather than national debt. And managed defaults of American state and city debt have long been a feature of the landscape.
Official Greek debt could, for instance, be restructured so that payments could be stretched out over far longer time horizons and the coupons paid slashed. This was how the Latin American debt crisis in the 1980s, and some of the problems in East Asia a decade later, were fixed.
Standing in the way of such radical answers is Germany with its economic absolutes. Sometimes, however, German leaders choose to forget the fiscal history that they want to bury. In the 1930s it essentially defaulted on debts built up in the First World War and as a result of reparations.
At the London Debt Conference in 1953, the amount of debt Germany built up before, during and after the Second World War was halved and payment of principal suspended for five years and drawn out over 30 years to give a recovering and rebuilding economy breathing space.
That is the kind of precedent that Germany should be looking at now instead of insisting on hardship among its neighbours. It could also refrain from winding up friends by discouraging Brussels from presenting the UK with bills for Â£1.7billion in the knowledge that it would be a huge political embarrassment.
It is only by sleight of hand that the invoice has been halved.
Peace talk
The notion that Standard Charteredâs woes stem from the fact it was unfairly targeted by New York regulators is poppycock. The 29 per cent decline in the bankâs share price this year is representative of a much deeper malaise.
So far Standard Chartered has paid Â£400million in fines, in two tranches, to US enforcers, the most recent for failing to fix problems first identified in 2012: not smart.
Badly treated? Not if compared to BNP Paribas that had to stump up Â£5.5billion. As for the idea that foreign banks have been singled out â that also is ill-informed. Fines levied on JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America Merrill Lynch have been in the tens of billions of pounds.
One person who is certainly not taking Standard Charteredâs sliding reputation for granted is chairman Sir John Peace. He admitted to investors in Singapore, home to its largest shareholder Temasek with 17.7 per cent, that it was too complex and âtoo bureaucraticâ and takes too long to make decisions.
One critical action still pending is the removal of chief executive Peter Sands, who sought to brush aside charges of Iranian sanctions-busting and now has presided over a series of profits warnings. Temasek this week expressed its unanimous support for âPeter and Johnâ. Football fans will recognise the significance of that.
Slow coach
No one can question the determination of the Financial Conduct Authority to punish market offenders. But the speed at which it and the British courts deliver financial justice is farcical.
Julian Rifat, of hedge fund Moore Capital, was arrested on insider trading charges in 2010 but it was only yesterday that he was convicted of a Â£250,000 conspiracy as part of the Tabernula investigation involving six others.
Now we have another two month wait for sentencing.
The FCA says the probe was âpainstakingâ but that is no excuse for a lethargic process.

greycoyote871

ead The Economist's articles, "Obama to raise trade talk concerns with Merkel."

Do you think the reduction or elimination of tariffs and notariff barriers between the U.S. and the EU through the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership will increase demand for U.S. goods and services in Europe and make european goods and services cheaper for Americans? In the face of a global recession is it wise for nations to begin raising tariffs and increasing subsidies to domestic producers? Why or why not?

Each student replies to instructorâs initial discussion question with a substantive post (minimum 250 words). Your initial post as well as a response to two other classmates initial discussion question should be done by 11:59 PM Central Standard Time (CST) - Sunday evening.

February 9, 2015 3:05 am

Obama to raise trade talk concerns with

Merke

Shawn Donnan, World Trade Editor

Â©AFP

US President Barack Obama is expected to raise concerns about the pace of

trans

Atlantic trade

talks with Angela Merkel when the German chancellor visits Washington on Monday with US

officials fretting that supposedly reinvigorated negotiations are instead getting off to a false start.

Following the November appointment of Cecil

ia Malmstrom, the new European trade

commissioner, both sides pledged a âfresh startâ to talks over a

Trans

Atlantic Trade and

Investment Partnership

, or TTIP, that had been crawling along since beginning in July 2013.

But a senior US official told the Financial Times that Washington was disappointed with the

progress made in last weekâs round of formal negotiations, the first since the re

launch, and had

decided to press

its case with Ms Merkel on Monday and in European capitals in the coming

weeks.

That frustration was partly in evidence in Brussels last week. âThis weekâs round was

constructive, but we do need to see more, further concrete progress ... if we are to turn

this fresh

start into a reality,â the chief US negotiator, Dan Mullaney, told reporters on Friday as the

discussions wrapped up.

The US has in recent months been pressing the European Union to agree to exchange new offers

on the number of tariff

free goods

. Many see this as the easier part of the negotiations compared

with the more complex question of easing regulatory barriers to trade across the Atlantic.

Last year the US offered to eliminate tariffs on 88 per cent of goods traded between the two

economie

s, significantly lower than the 96 per cent put forward by the EU. But since then US

officials have been trying to improve their offer while also extracting more from the EU.

Liberalisation of services is another bone of contention for Washington, which is

irked that the

EU has refused to offer a similar package to that negotiated with Canada in a recently concluded

trade agreement.

The decision to raise the issue with Ms Merkel did not reflect any conflict between the German

chancellor and Mr Obama over TT

IP, the official said. Washington remains convinced she

supports the trans

Atlantic talks, in spite of

scepticism

among many Germans.

The concerns were instead focused on EU officials and the European Commission, the senior US

official said, and whether officials in Brussels were meeting their leadersâ desire for

more rapid

progress

. David Cameron, the UKâs prime minister, last year called for ârocket boostersâ to be

placed und

er the talks.

Two senior EU trade officials on Sunday dismissed the US concerns as âspinâ and told the FT

that they hoped to exchange new tariffs and services offers by July.

The EU officials also said that there had been progress in discussions over the i

nclusion of

financial services regulation in TTIP, something the US side has resisted in part because of fears

that it might water down the strict Dodd

Franck regulations introduced in the wake of the 2008

crisis.

But the disagreement highlights how tensio

ns remain between both sides despite efforts to make

a fresh start.

European officials have also privately raised concerns that Mr Obamaâs administration is more

focused on sealing a 12

country Pacific Rim trade agreement now nearing conclusion, the Trans

Pacific Partnership, or TPP, than the trans

Atlantic one.

Speaking at a security conference in Munich on Saturday, Vice President Joe Biden sought to

placate the EU. âTTIP is not the stepchild to TPP,â the vice president

said

âWe have not taken our focus off of Europe. We have not decide

d that the future lies in the

Pacific Basin. We are a Pacific power. We will assert that power, and we will remain a Pacific

power. But we are also an Atlantic power.â

EUR200Y1 Lecture Notes - Erich Ludendorff, Long Knives, Sturmabteilung

Document Summary

Get access

Related Documents

History 2147A/B Lecture Notes - Lecture 5: Hitler Youth, Reichstag Fire, Volksgemeinschaft

History 3415E Study Guide - Final Guide: Reichstag Fire Decree, Reinhard Heydrich, Nuremberg Rally

HIST 1003 Chapter : From Dictatorship To World War

Related Questions