Auditioning for the Part

Think to yourself what it is like to audition for a part. Whether for the lead role in the school musical, the select basketball or soccer team, or even a high profile job interview, these tasks can seem daunting.  Thinking to auditioning for a dramatic production.  It requires networking with the director, casting officials, other people in the "industry" and even updating your resume so that it portrays exactly what you can bring to the role, at least on paper.  But then think, what this must have been like nearly 80 years ago.  While not specifically tied to a dramatic production, one may argue that Hitler's antics in assuming absolute power over Germany in 1933 when he became chancellor did involve a certain degree of theatrics.  For William E. Dodd, U.S. Ambassador to Germany from 1933-1937, that's exactly what this was with Roosevelt, an audition of sorts.

Imagine a piece of paper, a headshot, for all intensive purposes and it detailing all the specifics about a person.  For most job interviews, we would probably call this a resume but for acting, you get to include a fancy picture to add a face with the name in the midst of consideration.  I imagine that Dodd's would have looked something like this:

Name: William Edward Dodd
DOB: October 21, 1869
General Appearance: Trim appearance, 5'8'', blue eyes and light brown hair
Previous Work Experience: Chairman of the History Department,University of Chicago 1909- present; known for his work on the American South and a biography of Woodrow Wilson.
Marital Status: Married; wife Martha
Children: Two; Martha 24 and William Jr. (Bill) 28
Notes: Has a wittingly dry sense of humor

In 1933, as President Roosevelt, there was one position to be filled and that was ambassador to Berlin.  However, much like what I'd imagine in the streets of New York, word "got around" that this position was not one that was for the faint of heart.  Roosevelt was sifting through these different "head shots" and knowing the importance placed on this role, needed to find the "right man for the job".  For Dodd, a man of history and writing, he had found himself "unhappy" in his position at the University of Chicago, where he was chair of the history department and sought a way to escape this (Larson 10). 

A sense of frustration seemed to plague Dodd in the early waking of what is chronicled in Erik Larson's In the Garden of Beasts. His hard work ethic seemed initially as the basis for his circumstances. As part of his education, Dodd had spent some time over in Leipzig, Germany while completing his doctorate and wrote his dissertation on Thomas Jefferson.  It was in 1916, that Dodd found himself in the office of President Woodrow Wilson and according to Larson, it was an experience that "profoundly altered his life" (13).  Dodd seemed to understand the political climate and thought to himself that  indeed that Germany was responsible for starting the Great War (13).  Little did Dodd know that his broader perspective and understanding of Germany would serve as a component for his later appointment as ambassador (13).  However, it was in Wilson's death in 1924, that Dodd realized the need to shift to befriend the new "director" Roosevelt and see what he could do to aid in his 1932 campaign (13). 

As Dodd began to transition with the "new director of the show", he yearned to try and find a position where he was able to find more time to write (14).  With his passions for writing, Dodd also began to write to Roosevelt on "economic and political matters" (14).  And like many scenarios where a director is seeking to find that perfect actor or actress for the part, Dodd's name was soon thrown into the hat.  His "networking" with other government officials like Daniel Roper, Roosevelt's Secretary of Commerce, or even Cordell Hull, Roosevelt's Secretary of State, the "executive producers", proved to be how Dodd was even considered for this position (15).  However, as much as Dodd wanted to accept this role for working Western Europe, he had told Hull that he "couldn't take the position" (15). 

The allure of this particular part was not something that anyone truly wanted.  The political climate of Germany at the time said two things: violent and turbulence, which those offered this position wanted nothing to do with it.  A country that was going through a revolution with its newly appointed chancellor, Adolf Hitler, was far from what these men wanted to touch with "a ten foot pole".  The flash mob that was taking place in Germany involved "state- condoned violence" with the arrival of Hitler's armed forces.  

It was shortly after this that Congress met to decide on who was to take this position of ambassador and on June 8th, Roosevelt offered this position to Dodd and he, with the support of his wife, Mattie, agreed to accept the appointment.  After a couple of "callbacks", Dodd assumed the role of ambassador quickly and arrived in Berlin in 1933.  Backed with the political ideals of Woodrow Wilson and his own, Dodd's outlook on the political climate in Germany initially was from the Germany he knew while receiving his doctorate in Leipzig. At the time when Dodd first arrived to Germany, Paul von Hinderburg was still president.  The two had agreed for "cooperation" on behalf of each of their countries.  However, "the sense of unease in Berlin became acute" (277).  Dodd had been selected as the lead role in diplomatic relations with Germany, but, in the words of Larson, the mood [in Berlin] was "tense and electric" (277). 

As Dodd continued his political appointment into 1934, he realized this unease and as the Gestapo posed a larger threat, along with the "16 year old adolescents: Hitler, Goring and Goebbels", in Larson's words, posed Germany for more of a grotesque comedy than a serious country in the throws of war (278).  The challenge of this role was proving to be a diplomat to a different country than he had remembered. 

William Dodd continued in his post as German ambassador until 1937.  He had wished to stay at his post until "at least March 1, 1938", but Roosevelt, who had voiced his concerns about "foreign affiars", thought otherwise (346).  Dodd had urged Roosevelt to have another history professor, James T. Stockwell of Colombia University, to take his place (346).  However, with urging from other departments, Roosevelt instead summoned Dodd and told him that he was needed home and so Dodd returned December 29, 1937 (347).  Dodd's leaving Germany as ambassador prompted no formal acknowledgment of his time there, which left Dodd feeling like Germany, at this point, was indeed a "hopeless task".

For a man who represents a great deal to the United States in such a pivotal time in history, the fascination with Dodd's story is something I find to be very interesting.  How is it that Erik Larson decided that he wanted to research Dodd and give such a thorough account of his time in Berlin?  What is it about Dodd, who had no previous diplomatic experience that allowed him to be considered for this role? And so, for this sake, we will call Larson, a bit of a "playwright" as he narrates the script of happenings in Germany through Dodd's eyes.

Larson's truly thoughtful account of Dodd is one that will truly seek to educate about the underlying roles that the United States had in relations with Germany.  Dodd was indeed the actor that was selected for this role, while directed by Roosevelt.  However, the sudden turns to the Germany that Dodd remembers prove that accepting of a role like his does not always allow one to finish reading the script prior to the start of production.

For more resources on William E. Dodd and Erik Larson's In the Garden of Beasts, please refer to:
1) http://www.traces.org/williamdodd.html
2) http://www.npr.org/2011/05/09/135922322/william-dodd-the-u-s-ambassador-in-hitlers-berlin
3) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/books/in-the-garden-of-beasts-by-erik-larson-review.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www


Discussion Questions
1) How did Dodd's understanding and perception of Germany based on his time in Leipzig help him to accept the position of ambassador?  How much did this contrast with his understanding of current political affairs?
2) Discuss the impact that Dodd had upon Germany.  He describes what he is able to do as a "hopeless task".  Could an argument be made to say otherwise?
3) Erik Larson uses the term in one interview "homogenous horror" to decribe the time period in Germany from 1933-1945.  What exactly does he mean by this phrase?  Is he referring to the European theater or simply the country of Germany?
4) Discuss Martha and how her perspective was shaped throughout her time in Europe.  What significant things influenced her and how did those influences shape in the way that they did?
5) In the end, as Dodd is leaving Germany, he remarks, "the world must face the sad fact that in an age when international cooperation should be the keyword, nations are farther apart then ever" (349).  Dodd really seems to doubt any of the time and effort that he made while in Germany, doubting that the duties that the ambassador does really are achieved.  How far does his current feelings about the state of Germany influence this feeling of defeat?
6) Dodd states, "mankind is in grave danger, but democratic governments seem not to know what to do.  If they do nothing, Western Civilization, religious, personal, and economic freedom are in grave danger" (349).  Last week, Roth was thought to be a "predictor of doom".  However, thinking of Dodd and his statement, does he exemplify this idea of doom in his own personal writing? Or is it his perspective in diplomacy that lends itself to a "doom and gloom" outlook on Germany when he resigns as ambassador?

Resources
Fulbrook, Mary. A History of Germany: 1918-2008 The Divided Nation. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2009. Print.
Larson, Erik. In the Garden of Beasts. New York: Crown Publishing, 2011. Print.

Joseph Roth, Joseph Roth...What Did You See?

Growing up, one of my favorite books that my parents used to read me was Eric Carle's Brown Bear, Brown Bear What do You See? I remember taking note of things in the surrounding environment and continually observing all that is around me.  Since then, I have always been fascinated by my surroundings and taking note of things, both big and small.  Whether a changing political climate or watching the sunrise greet you in the morning, there are things that are meant to be noticed.  And at the risk of sounding too elementary, I believe that the "Brown Bear, Brown Bear" mentality is exactly what Roth seeks to do in his account of What I Saw.  His account details his portrait of Berlin in the interwar period and how the aftermath of World War I in addition to the changing political structure truly left an imprint on him. 

To use the words of the New Yorker, contributing writer Willing Davidson says "Roth was a predictor of doom, both of civilizations and his own".  Following World War I, Germany is left in a standstill and knee deep in the devastation due to the outcomes.  It is interesting that Roth's portrait of life in Berlin (which is detailed in this video above) during this interwar period truly is one that focuses on what I believe to be the "unseen".  The state that Germany finds itself is one of despair due to the repercussions following the war; however, the changing political climate seems to place a veil over the city of Berlin, which, at the time was the current capital of the Weimar Republic and reveal the true nature of people and certain people groups.

Roth's attention to different people groups seeks to give a voice to all those inhabiting the city.  Coming from a Jewish background himself, his portrait of the "Solomon's temple" or even of his journey to Grenadierstrasse of which life is detailed in the photograph above.  In reading this particular portion of his account, it was very interesting that he mentions, "the weakest and far from loveliest of peoples was given the most dreadful curse and most dreadful blessing, the hardest law and the most difficult mission: to sow love on the earth and to reap hatred" (47).  And to recount Davidson's point earlier, Roth indeed seemed to be one that was a "predictor of doom", which in fact he appears to be doing here.  It seems to only be an objective blanket statement of the Jewish people themselves but almost as if it too is a charge that he himself notices solely by being a Jew, which begs the question, how much does his Jewish heritage influence his perceptions, especially in the interwar period?

And it wasn't just the people groups that were being rebuilt during this interwar period, it was also a change to the physical structure of the city.  Whether the simple look of a housing complex, a train station or even a department store in 1930 Berlin, Roth takes notice of how the structures that support the people for all sorts of purposes, truly take on different shapes of their own.  The phrase "a city to meet the people's needs" slowly starts to come to mind in reading his account of the changes to the architecture.  Even Roth's use of the term "industrialized merriment" as he details Berlin's pleasure industry, suggests that a certain degree of frivolity exists in the city. From Roth's perspective, "the entire mechanism by which fun is produced and communicated these days seems ever more simplistic and transparent the more human nature is forced to import entertainment from the outside" (171).  According to his observations, it no longer seems that Berlin is stripped to basics due to the state of the country itself but in turn seeks to find a way to escape from the present through losing itself in the sometimes frivolous nature of entertainment.

And then, as the year 1933 approaches and the ever changing political climate gives rise to Hitler and the Third Reich, Roth's Jewish heritage seems to leap from the pages.  Here, his perspective is not only that of a Jewish man, but also a writer as he attempts to discern the Third Reich's purpose in targeting the Jews (207).  And as we know today, Roth passed away in Paris in 1939 just as Hitler was "destroying Europe".
This video (until 3:30) paints a portrait of this charismatic leader that Roth, "a predictor of doom" saw to an extent the power that Hitler portrayed in becoming chancellor of Germany.

And to Mr. Joseph Roth, I thank you for the raw and yet bold account that you provided.  With sincere thanks to see truly through your eyes, how the changing landscape, whether physical, political or even emotional drove you to stand up and not leave it "unnoticed", I thank you.  In reading some of your last thoughts, I was struck by your words: "now, as the smoke of our burned books rises into the sky, we German writers of Jewish descent must acknowledge above all that we have been defeated.  Let us, who are fighting on the front line, under the banner of the European mind, let us fulfill the noblest duty of the defeated warrior: Let us concede our defeat" (207).  Mr. Roth, may you know that while I understand your writing and purpose for concession, may you know how this account seeks to provide perspective, not only from your Jewish heritage but also from your understanding of this political dictatorship is to be a revered account from history.  So, simply, thank you for gifting us with your raw and honest written words.

Discussion Questions
1) Discuss any of the specific people groups or even "characters" that Roth takes note to mention.  What seems to be the significance of including them?  How did their story influence this interwar period in Berlin?
2) Discuss Joseph Roth and his writings.  He seems to be an observer who can explore his surroundings through a written account.  Is this the way that he approaches all of his writings? If so, why? And if not, why does Just What I Saw receive a different approach?
3) The NY times article coins the phrase and states that Roth is a "predictor of doom".  How does the understanding of that phrase influence the perception of his writing?
Link to NY article: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2012/01/book-excerpt-the-letters-of-joseph-roth.html
4) The religious implications of the Third Reich's rise to power that Roth alludes to in the end of his novel; it seems that it is the beginning of a statement made directly to the Third Reich on behalf of the Jewish people.  Is this the case?  And was it the attack to the Jews specifically or the way that Roth appeared to take offense to how the Third Reich destroyed the written word that influenced his last chapter?
5) On pg. 217, Roth states, "Many of us served in the war, many died. We have written for Germany, we have died for Germany. We have spilled our blodd for Germany in two ways: the blood that runs in our veins, and the blood with which we write. We have sung Germany, the real Germany! And that is why today we are being burned by Germany!" (217).  Discuss the implications of this quote and the role that "hindsight" plays in our understanding of Roth's account.


Resources
Fulbrook, Mary. A History of Germany: 1918-2008 The Divided Nation. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2009. Print.
Roth, Joseph. What I Saw: Reports from Berlin 1920- 1933. London: W.W. Norton & Company., 1996. Print.

A Different Perspective...

When looking at the history of Germany, there are a few key words that truly stand out; Nazi, Hitler, Weimar Republic, Berlin Wall, etc.  Hearing those words almost instantly makes an impression on you as if you are having those words stamped into your mind.  It is true that after hearing those words, they will never leave.  But an interesting aspect of this German word association is that that perspective voids out the possibilities of seeing beyond that narrow and deeply rooted evil time period in Germany’s long history.

The concept of modern German history centers all different components, which make the stories rich; however, it is important to develop a true understanding of Germany in the 20^th century.  Personally, I have grown up immersing myself in history and learning the politics of different governments and policies, the battlefronts in the European theater and how the home fronts rallied to support their troops.  But never, have I ever examined history from this viewpoint; singly focused on one particular country.  It is interesting in Fulbrook’s A History of Germany 1918-2008, she mentions terms like Gotterdammerung and Sonderweg, as means of trying to explain the twists of turns to this German “roller coaster” ride (3).  However, as I continued to pour through accounts of German history, it seemed that Fulbrook had “hit the nail on the head” so to speak.  According to Fulbrook, “to narrate the course of German history in terms of failures and distortions presupposes a ‘normal’ or ‘healthy’ pattern of development” (4).  This seemed interesting to me: it was almost if historians and others only saw failure for Germany and truly reaching beyond that might indeed be near impossible. 

While recognizing that this pattern exists in this somewhat cyclic pattern of 20^th century German history, it is important to examine their history and recognize that current thinking of broad debates of long term patterns of continuity and discontinuity as well as “issues with the collapse of the Weimar democracy, the rise of the Nazis, and of course, the explanation of the ultimately explicable- the mass murder of over 6 million people in the death camps” (Fulbrook 5).  So, while aware of these events that seem to be what people think of in those games of German history word association, let’s take a look at the past and truly start at the beginning of the 20^th century.

This week, it was an opportunity to start fresh at the beginning.  With the writings of Erich Maria Remarque’s classic German war story All Quiet on the Western Front and Sean McMeekin’s The Berlin- Baghdad Express, it provides the beginning to the framework for 20^th century German history.  Beginning in the late 1800s and early 1900s, McMeekin’s account of the Baghdad railway credits “imagination to voyage back in time to the bitter fin de siècle {as it} struggles over the Baghdad railway, when the Orient was still full of mystery, a romantic dream world to the West, still partly unmapped, the last and potentially greatest frontier of European exploration” and how this mystical expression provides the inspiration to various modern culture references (33).  The use of Baghdad was thought to be “a sleepy backwater of the Ottoman Empire” (34).  In order to have this proposed railway set-up, it was necessary to “internationalize the financing” and Germany wanted to play a large role in the construction of this route (39).  However, Germany was unable to raise the finances on their own and continued to arouse the suspicions of the French, British and the Russians (39).  According to McMeekin, “the essential thing was camouflage: Germany must appear not to be building the railway alone, while somehow securing the strategic benefit” (39).  The only advantage that the Germans truly had over France, Britain and Russian bids was that the Sultan “backed” their efforts to secure the construction of this railway; more specifically, he had wanted the Germans to only build the Berlin- Basra line (39-40).  Beyond this initial trust that was formed among parties, Germany had to “pay many prices in order for the rights to build this railway” (43). 

In the wake of 1914 and the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, this event had many implications for this railway.  The beginning of the “holy war” allowed for a platform of German jihad propaganda in British India (McMeekin, 91).  The tensions and constraints of the beginning of the Holy War surged within the Muslim community and it was rumored that the Sultan- Caliph “would proclaim a holy-war against the British” (91).  Not only in the European theater, but also in Muslim countries, the holy war seemed to increase and mount tensions between these countries and further fuel the German jihad (96). 

On the heels of the construction of the railway as well as the surging tensions of war, allegiances were not only tested between countries but also with comrades, as detailed in All Quiet on the Western Front. In this account, Remarque details perspectives of young recruits to the German warforce and truly is a testament to human character in war times.  From initial words of the first pages, I found myself needing to refocus my attention that this was an account from the German perspective and remembering that fact throughout reading this novel.  It seemed that almost in an instant, you are transported to the No. 9 platoon with the likes of Kropp, Tjaden, Kemmerich under Corporal Himmelstoss (23).  The picture that Remarque paints is one of raw contrast, where his accounts of fellow comrades are united under the common cause of fighting for Germany.  Details of the battlefront to the barracks to the hospitals and wards all show the common traits that even the Germans have with our commonly held perspectives of war. 

The beginning to the 20^th century of Germany presents many elements.  It is the themes of rebuilding, struggling, war, comradeship and others that provide this framework and perspective for what lies ahead.  This portion of Germany history is foreign terroritory and a bit of uncharted waters for myself so I look forward to exploring these themes and ideas together and building upon that foundation as time goes on.

Discussion Questions

1)      Review the timeline of the Berlin- Baghdad express and see the interworking of its significance in German’s early 20^th century.

2)      Discuss what the implications of Reamarque’s novel on German perspective entirely.  What was his motivation in writing this novel? How does it contribute to the understanding of Germany in the context it was written?

3)      Discuss the term cyclic failure and how it serves as the basis for how Germany is viewed by other countries and historians today.

4)      Begin a rough timeline of this early period of 20^th century German history.  Examine how knowledge of early German history might have a causal relationship with later events for Germany.

Resources:

Fulbrook, Mary. A History of Germany: 1918-2008 The Divided Nation. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2009. Print.

McMeekin, Sean. The Berlin- Baghdad Express: The Ottoman Empire and Germany’s Bid for World Power. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2010. Print.

Remarque, Erich Maria. All Quiet on the Western Front. New York: Ballantine Books, 1956. Print.