In other words, the image of Hitler was seen by the people of Germany as a unifying factor designed to pursue German nationalism and the reestablishment of Germany as a leading German power following the devastation that visited Germany in the aftermaths of World War I. Thus, Gurian in 1945 utilized an approach to history that was parallel to that of Kershaw who was writing in 1987. Although these two historians were separated by over 42 years, they both realized that nationalism was a vehicle that had tremendous history changing affects. This is precisely why their methods of historical analysis are comparable. The theme of nationalism as a medium for change was also evident in the Soviet Union in the aftermath of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution.
…show more content…
In his work, Kotkin argued that Soviet officials in Moscow sought to mobilize nationalism to create a new economic paradigm that was to function as the envy of the modern world and as a symbol of the rise of the proletariat over their bourgeois oppressors. This economic vision was made manifest in the building of Magnitogorsk, the largest steel and iron producing industrial complex in the USSR. In truth, the building of this facility located in the remote Ural Mountains became an obsession for the USSR. For Soviet officials, success at Magnitogorsk legitimized the establishment of the communist USSR while simultaneously forcing the new sociopolitical order to catch up to and overtake its capitalist global rivals, which primarily consisted of the United States of America and Great Britain. Consequently, the building and operating of Magnitogorsk was seen by the USSR as a source of national pride and achievement. Indeed, the industrial complex’s operation, although plagued by many shortcomings, was seen as a vindication of nationalism and the economic success, both realistic and inflated, of the USSR. Therefore, Kotkin’s analysis of Magnitogorsk revealed that the undertakings of the new socialist state was swayed by nationalism and a desire to authenticate a new model of political, social, and economic …show more content…
For example, the Atlanta based Coca Cola Company sought to expand their overseas markets by bringing their beverage to France. The French, however, feared that the American soft drink would undermine the profitability of French products such as wine. In a very real sense, French nationalism and pride were tied to the success of their own domestic industries. To wine producers in France, the acceptance of Coca Cola was more than just the importation of an American product; it was an outright assault on their very identity of being French. As a result, the French government went to great lengths to ensure that Coca Cola could not gain a foot hold in France. Only when the United States government threatened to withhold Marshall Plan funds did the French finally remit and allow the sale of the beverage. The debate then centered on how much American influence was acceptable to their sensitivities. Despite these misgivings, France did accept American products and funds incrementally which caused France to morph slowly towards an American style consumer society. Thus, social and economic change, while slow, was impacted by the theme of
In his work, Kotkin argued that Soviet officials in Moscow sought to mobilize nationalism to create a new economic paradigm that was to function as the envy of the modern world and as a symbol of the rise of the proletariat over their bourgeois oppressors. This economic vision was made manifest in the building of Magnitogorsk, the largest steel and iron producing industrial complex in the USSR. In truth, the building of this facility located in the remote Ural Mountains became an obsession for the USSR. For Soviet officials, success at Magnitogorsk legitimized the establishment of the communist USSR while simultaneously forcing the new sociopolitical order to catch up to and overtake its capitalist global rivals, which primarily consisted of the United States of America and Great Britain. Consequently, the building and operating of Magnitogorsk was seen by the USSR as a source of national pride and achievement. Indeed, the industrial complex’s operation, although plagued by many shortcomings, was seen as a vindication of nationalism and the economic success, both realistic and inflated, of the USSR. Therefore, Kotkin’s analysis of Magnitogorsk revealed that the undertakings of the new socialist state was swayed by nationalism and a desire to authenticate a new model of political, social, and economic …show more content…
For example, the Atlanta based Coca Cola Company sought to expand their overseas markets by bringing their beverage to France. The French, however, feared that the American soft drink would undermine the profitability of French products such as wine. In a very real sense, French nationalism and pride were tied to the success of their own domestic industries. To wine producers in France, the acceptance of Coca Cola was more than just the importation of an American product; it was an outright assault on their very identity of being French. As a result, the French government went to great lengths to ensure that Coca Cola could not gain a foot hold in France. Only when the United States government threatened to withhold Marshall Plan funds did the French finally remit and allow the sale of the beverage. The debate then centered on how much American influence was acceptable to their sensitivities. Despite these misgivings, France did accept American products and funds incrementally which caused France to morph slowly towards an American style consumer society. Thus, social and economic change, while slow, was impacted by the theme of