media in germany after world war two

3 word format

Language : english

history 1789 to present

presentation

date published

11/12/2006

review : not yet assessed

level : Advanced

requested 5 times

Summary

The development of media in the Western Germany during the period of the Allied Occupation (1945-1949) and in the first decade of the Federal Republic (1949-1959)

The media is present all around the world. The media tries to express facts, entertainment, opinion, and other information. In this way, newspapers, magazines, cinema films, radio, television, Internet, books, and other forms of publishing are an approach to communication.
Mass media tends to reach a large audience, in particular in the 1920’s with the expansion of radio networks and the mass-circulation of newspapers and magazines.
Western Germany, between 1945 and 1959 can be separated into two periods. The first is the Allied Occupation, started after the defeat of World War II in 1945. Western Germany was divided into three areas. These areas were controlled by America, Britain and France. The Federal Republic -West Germany- was proclaimed in 1949.
What are the main points of the development of media in West Germany while it was emerging from defeat in World War II? How did the media cope with, and what were their attitudes towards the Allied Occupation and the early of the new government –the Federal Republic?
The role of print media and broadcasting (radio and television) were important in the development of media.

DeLillo’s White Noise is largely a critique of American culture after World War II and after the popularity of home television in the 1950s. In White Noise, white noise itself has covered up a gaping hole in American culture. The hole is the obtrusive, persistent, and arguably natural “fear of death,” and leading up to the mid-’80s, DeLillo’s post-War white noise has become a distraction from mass death for the mass of Americans.

There is a constant struggle in the narrative (and DeLillo suggests in American culture as well) between 'American magic and dread?
Jack and his family confuse the idea of death with actual, personal death
The fear of death syndrome is also linked to the prominent theme of consumerism in White Noise, and in DeLillo's American society microcosm
As suggested above, this type of consumerism has assumed a spiritual significance in the narrative, and as DeLillo implies, in American culture overall
At the end of White Noise DeLillo ultimately criticizes the American mass media culture as a culture of addicts
This passage, like much of White Noise, as well as television and media in general, is highly coded

$3.95

4 word format

Language : english

history 1789 to present

presentation

date published

09/07/2008

review : not yet assessed

level : General public

requested 0 times

Summary

Communism is a political structure based on economic principles that promote the establishment of a classless society in which everything is commonly owned. (“Communism” Par 1) On the contrary, Capitalism is based on the principle that land and means of production can be privately owned. In a capitalistic society, income, investments, production, and distribution are determined by a market economy rather than regulated and controlled by the state. (“Capitalism” Par 1)

The Soviet Union, a communist entity.
Since WWII Turkey had regarded the Soviet Union, as its principal enemy.
The Berlin Blockade.
United States joins with a Western European - NATO formed.
Julius and Ethel Greenglass Rosenberg .
Vietnam became the next puppet or 'proxy war?'.
The Tet Offensive.
The tension between the US and the Soviet Union.

$9.95

11 word format

Language : english

european union

research papers

date published

23/10/2007

review : not yet assessed

level : General public

requested 14 times

Summary

The European Union, which formed under this name in 1992, currently consists of 25 nations and covers much of Western Europe. The European Union is an enormous organization that was initially created to maintain peace and security between European states through various political and economic arrangements. Each E.U. member state is a democratic, independent nation, and it is represented in a complicated European system that integrates these independent states into what has become the world’s largest economic organization. Originally, the intention of this union was to prevent hostilities between European nations, mainly France and Germany, before they arise.

The European Union is comprised of various institutions which ensure that each citizen of the E.U. is fairly represented, and that all member states have their voice heard.
The idea of union between European nations was initiated a few years after the end of World War II.
During the 20th century, two great wars have broken out with France and Germany as the main instigators.
This economic system became extremely useful in terms of dealing with the world outside of Europe.
In 1952, the Schuman Plan was an important step toward European integration.
The Council of the European Union
The European Commission
Although the Commission is not responsible for setting the budget for the European Union, its members are responsible for managing, implementing, and overseeing it.

$6.95

7 word format

Language : english

political science

presentation

date published

29/11/2006

review : not yet assessed

level : Advanced

requested 2 times

Summary

According to the newspaper die Frankfurte Allgemeine Zeitung, the number of the unemployed people in Germany has decreased by 25.000 in November, reaching the stage of 4.531.000 jobless persons. The Federal Minister of the Economy, Michael Glos (CSU) spoke in the Bundestag „vom ersten November seit der Wiedervereinigung, in dem es zu keiner Zunahme der Arbeitslosigkeit gekommen ist“. Even long after Adenauer’s mandates, his heritage is still perceptible in Germany. His decision to anchor the Western Federal Republic in the capitalist block, rather than to pursue unification at all costs, has raised many controversies. Did the policy-making of Adenauer, consolidating democracy in the West, indeed harm the East and delay German unification?
Addressing this issue implies to focus on several matters:
-First, one should show that democracy was well consolidated in the Western Part of Germany, together with its economic situation. (I)
-Second, one should explain, as the term “pursuit of integration” shows, that Adenauer’s decision towards Western integration was not sovereign, but guided by the occupying forces. However, he actively supported Western Integration, a policy that makes him responsible for delaying unification and consequently harming the East. (II)
-Lastly, one shall see that the implementation of democracy in the West at the detriment of the East was a sacrifice that was worth it, since it was the quickest and safest way to stability in Germany. (III)
On the whole, the integration of the Federal Republic into the Western world was a sacrifice that was worth it.

The consolidation of democracy in the West.
1. Western integration in adenauer's view: A criticisable conception of democracy.
2. Undeniably however, adenauer's eestern integration of the FRG did consolidate democracy.
Adenauer's ambiguous role in the partition of Germany.
1. Adenauer cannot be held responsible for Germany's partition.
2. However, he actively supported the plans of the allies against the eastern block.
A sacrifice that was worth it.
1. The cost of the East.
2. The myth of the abandonment.
3. A possible alternative?.

$5.95

6 word format

Language : english

political science

presentation

date published

24/06/2008

review : not yet assessed

level : General public

requested 0 times

Summary

When the culture was based on rebelling against the very culture that we are seeking to explain. Attempting to understand the culture of the Vietnam era will only lead you in a circle of contradictions and ever changing ideals. In part, due to the fact that there was no dominate overlaying culture at that time, but rather fragments and social factions which often held ideals that challenged other groups. How can we describe a culture that contradicts itself? We must simplify it. The culture of the 1960’s is too much of an endeavor to decipher by looking at it in entirety so we must break into down and then break it down again, until we are left with nothing but the elemental bases from which the culture was formed. But what are these cultural elementals? How will we know that we have found one, and not just another cultural compound that needs to be broken down once more? We will know we have reached the foundation, the basic building blocks of the 1960’s culture, when we come to something that is no longer filled with riddled with internal conflict that is no longer plagued by illogical contradictions.

How can one explain the culture of 60s?
Abbie's mind, what influenced him, what motivated him, what made him tick.
Abbie didn't go to college to understand the laws of physics or business principles.
One of the two key components to the cultural revolution.
By creating an environment where people's basic needs could be satisfied.
As it becomes ever more apparent that Vietnam is over Abbie slowly begins to fade into the shadows.

$5.95

6 word format

Language : english

political science

presentation

date published

02/04/2007

review : not yet assessed

level : Advanced

requested 1 times

Summary

The fear that Britain would become, as Labour’s post-war Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin put it “just another European country” , was one of the main reasons to explain the British refusal to join a European supranational organisation. The Attlee government was indeed in favour of cooperation amongst Western European countries but did not want to be one of them . The view of the Foreign Office was that “Great Britain must be viewed as a world power of the second rank and not merely as a unit as a federated Europe” . In fact, in 1945, Britain was in a mood of triumph. It had won the war and was relatively intact. It was the only European country to have successfully defied Hitler for more than five years. It considered itself a great power, the centre of a Commonwealth and Empire covering one-fifth of the globe, and an equal of the Soviet Union and the United States of America. The British media even proudly referred to the United Kingdom as one of the Big Three and this was confirmed by Article 23 of the United Nations Charter which named Britain as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council. This led to a kind of disdain for any special relations with other European countries. The foundation for what would become the European Union was then laid without the UK. However, just four years after its rejection of the 1957 Treaty of Rome, the Macmillan government advanced its first application for membership to the European Economic Community (EEC). There were economic, political and security reasons for explaining this change in policy. The common denominator in these causes can be regarded as linked with a certain decline of Britain’s power in each of these spheres. But to what extent can we speak of Britain’s declining global status? What other reasons can be found?

The application for membership and the decline of Britain's power
The Suez Crisis which: its crucial significance on the erosion of relations with the Commonwealth and the USA
Economical aspects
Success of the EEC compared to the European Free Trade Association (EFTA): consequences of decolonisation
Parties' strategies and the change in attitude towards sovereignty
The situation of post-war Britain and the Britain of the 1960s

$9.95

11 word format

Language : english

political science

presentation

date published

20/02/2007

review : not yet assessed

level : Expert

requested 32 times

Summary

This essay deals with one of the most controversial questions in today’s social science debates: the relationship between the nation-state and globalisation. Globalisation, understood quite loosely here as a series of contemporary and unprecedented developments in the economic, social and cultural integration of world market and societies – in other words, a general sense of the shortening of distance between here and there, us and the Other – implies a new definition of the field of social relationships, a definition that is much less centred on the national level and takes more account of the global.
In these conditions, the end of the nation-state may be at hand. According to this view, the nation-state, which has been the only entity of international importance since the Westphalia treaties of 1648, is now the subject of increasing strains. It is doomed to lose more and more of its power in the twenty-first century. In the realm of worldwide action and global participation, how can the territorially limited and ideologically outdated nation-state survive ?
One should always be cautious about seemingly-obvious statements, especially on issues of national reach. Lessons from the past show us that the nation-state has flourished from very sturdy roots, roots that have many times proven stronger than the winds of change. Still, some signs, such as the appearance of many new institutions of global governance, cannot be ignored: what scope remains for the state in the new distribution of power brought about by globalisation ?
I will attempt here to show that the most challenging aspect of globalisation for the nation-state is not economic revolution, contrary to common belief. Indeed integration of world markets adds as many opportunities for states as it does bounds to their sovereignty. Globalisation also means new forms of contacts and exchanges between cultures, making people ever more aware of global issues that concern all of humanity. I will argue that it is in this new “global consciousness” that the greatest threats for the sovereignty and legitimacy of nation-states lie, with one crucial question lying in waiting: will future globalisation be up to the challenge of democracy and accountability?
This essay will be structured around two parts. In the first one, I will tackle the still burning debate of economic globalisation and the fate of the nation-states, taking sides with those who do not want to proclaim the end of the nation-state too soon. In the second part, I will concentrate on more political and social issues, attempting in a few words to show that globalisation requires new forms of democracy that may prove a big challenge to contemporary political organisations.

Defining nationalism before considering its development and emergence in the second half of the 19th century and the early 20th is useful because it offers us a good base for a greater comprehension of the phenomenon during this period of time. As Michael Hughes correctly points out in ‘Nationalism in Society’, commentators generally seem to agree that the nation is a concept of unity (1). The unity he is speaking of can be based on a variety of criteria ranging from language and culture to religious beliefs, of which Israel and Pakistan are examples. A nation has characteristics that isolates or differentiates it from others, individual features, which render it unique. Professor Mancini puts it as ‘a natural community of people with a common territory and common origins, customs and language, united for a common life and common social awareness’ (2). New nations forming in the 19th century meant fertile ground for new political organisations, and differences in between the political right and left became very apparent. Whereas the right commonly backed nationalism, socialists and the traditional left never came to terms with it. Methods of propaganda were obviously used to gather popular support but these methods varied from country to country, some using racism and xenophobic slogans and some relying solely on the love of the nation. For a nation to be stable it needed to be prosperous and free, like Guizot said, and in 1848 the revolutions broke out because countries had none of these features. The population’s unrest developed into revolts and manifestations, some furthering their actions by going on and forming national ‘revolutionary’ groups. I will call them ‘revolutionary’ because they were a destabilising factor for the ruling forces. All over Europe in the period between 1880 and 1914 nationalism took a dramatic leap, becoming an important actor in politics and creating a number of fanatical movements. These were movements that focused on their nation, proudly lifting a national flag against foreigners, Jews and liberals. Movements within countries or empires developed like in the Austro-Hungarian Empire where local populations, Magyars in particular, demanded independence or at least more liberties.
Commonly, a high degree of aggressiveness could also be attributed to these forces originating from a will to expand or consolidate territories but this wasn’t a general rule of nationalism, some simply wanted to expel foreigners. What is interesting to consider too is if the States drove the people to the First World War or if it is the people who led the nations into it.

The decline of the Empire can be considered inversely proportional to the rise in nationalism
The intellectuals originally wanted to form a nation based on the language and history but also a common envy to expel foreigners was present in the population
Nationalism and the Franco- Prussian war
Racial theories exerted powerful attractions all over Europe in the 19th century - ‘Social Darwinism' and its deformation

$3.95

4 word format

Language : english

civil law

case study

date published

22/04/2008

review : not yet assessed

level : General public

requested 0 times