Week 11 – January 5^th 1918

 

On January 5^th 1918 the influential newspaper Corriere della Sera published a piece from future President of the Republic Luigi Einaudi, under the self-explanatory title: “Is the League of Nations a possible ideal?”.

In focusing repeatedly on the shortcomings of the Italian liberal system, discussing the widespread criticism it was submitted to by contemporaries, highlighting its weak points and tracing the seeds of what would later become the institutes of the Fascist Regime, there is a risk to put too much weight on the idea of a crisis of Italian liberalism – to paint a picture where fascism becomes almost unavoidable, a necessary consequence of the failure of liberalism^1 .

Yet there was life left in the body of the liberal state – to the point where one of the main currents of criticisms against the liberal state, was that of the liberals themselves^2 ; and the rise of fascism should not be explained without taking into account how fascism was able, for a short period of time at least, to answer the liberal appeals for reforms of the state as well as the nationalistic and the radical ones.

It is therefore only fair to address also the liberal tendencies that existed – more so because their ultimate lasting influence on the Italian nation extended beyond that of fascism.

At the same time, while looking back at WW1 with our eyes, we can't help but see the dissolution of the European system, the beginning of one of the most dramatic times of human history, a legacy of conflict and violence incarnated both in the twin Fascist Regimes of Germany and Italy and in the Soviet Regime; but back then there was also a feeling that the war had not been in vain, that such an enormous event was going to have equally portentous consequences; and that those could in fact be good^3 , that one day looking back at the war, people would see a course correction, a steer that drove the world back on tracks, on their way to progress and renewal, that was also liberal and democratic in a sense not so distant from that we are now familiar with.

Yes, was in fact Einaudi's answer. But only through extreme difficulties: it was unclear in fact what League of Nations even meant, besides the generic idea of creating the United states of Europe. Certainly though, the concept that such a society already existed in in its core, formed by those twenty seven nations that had met in Paris [the inter allied conference of November-December 1917], had to be refused. What league was one where some of its members sacrificed lives and goods, others goods alone, others lives alone, while – even more – others did nothing or even profited by selling war supplies? It should have been clear indeed that, before pointing out the League of Nations as one of the ideal war goals, it was necessary to find out what the goal actually was, that pushed [the nations] to spend both lives and riches.

Most people, when discussing tha League of Nations, thought of a sort of perpetual alliance or confederacy of states […] Everyone implicitly stating that any allied or federated nation should have retained its full sovereignty and independence; that one should not have aimed at creating one super-state, empowered with direct sovereignty over the citizens of the various states, with the right to introduce its own taxes, keep a super-national army, distinct from the national armies and in control of one administrative system, distinct from that of the nations. Most didn't think of this second kind of “League of Nations” because […] they believed it would have resulted in a single sovereign state and that the various nations would have been reduced to its provinces.

Now, if historical experience was really to teach one something, all the talks held in the previous months over the league of nations would have certainly been pointless; whereas one would consider the miserable display made by the previous attempts […] of a federation of the nations and on the other hand the impressive success of the other kind of league of nations […] Experience proved that what was then desired was not possible, unable to last and could be damaging; and that instead possible, lasting and healthy, was only that which was by most considered repugnant.

As unquestionable evidence of the truth of his words Einaudi offered the United States, towards which were turning the eyes of those many who hoped for better days for our bleeding mankind.

Einaudi explained how the United States, in their original federative form of 1776, had been very close to dissolve and had begun thriving as a political system only after the establishment of a central sovereign government in 1788, with its army and its financial system.

The question was then whether the allied nation wanted to fight for a mere name or for a reality. Even admitting that the creation of a European State […] was a matter of extreme difficulty. Still the efforts undertaken for the purpose of creating a living state, alive in its own right, with the ability to impose taxes […], its own army, able to secure internal peace and protection against foreign attacks […] those efforts would at least have gone towards a concrete goal... While the efforts to create a society of the nations, retaining each their sovereignty, would have gone towards nothing […] with the only result of increasing and making more virulent the conflicts of the war.

The examples of failed attempts at a European super-structure were countless; most notable that of the Holy Roman Empire that had lagged behind while the nations outside of it (France and Great Britain) had grown stronger.

The current war served as the definitive sentence over the attempt to establish European unification through the use of force by an over ambitious empire^4 ; but at the same time was the bloody struggle to establish a superior political form. That had to be the purpose of the efforts […] not towards the proclamation of a semblance of the truth, but towards ideals concrete, real and historically possible.

And Einaudi would further explain his view in the following July, arguing against the tendency to dismiss the “non historical blandnesses of jusnaturalism and democracy”; instead pointing out that the war was clear proof of how empty was the contradiction that certain “realist politicians” wanted between the principles of might and those of justice. There was a truth in the principle of might: that if the people had been weak, and had refused to take up arms and sacrifice their lives, then they would have earned their servitude. Instead the allied had not demanded that the Germans knelt before idle talks of “immortal principles”. They had fought back. But why?

For Einaudi there was no might, no power, unless driven by some ideal […] Justice, Nationality had proven to be two true, great forces, the day the allied peoples had sacrificed on their altar not words but their blood. Might was not an end in itself […] it was a mean to reach that end that the peoples had set for themselves through the various historical periods. At that point the ideal was the establishment of justice in international relations. And that ideal was not an empty word, not idle talk […] it was a force that had conquered [the people's] blood, that had shaped [their] minds and prompted [them] to action. [They] could proudly oppose, to the idea of a super-state of the mitteleuropa where the race, or better the dominant class wanted to guide to happiness hordes of subjects, that of a state body where the associated nations truly were equal because in each one of them lived, already rooted deeply, the principles of freedom of the citizens and equality of the citizens with foreigners.

(1/2)

Well I really like all kinds of music and I listen to a lot of it and I have huge playlists of medieval music. People seemed to really like my other list of “pirate songs” so I thought I’d try to compile a list of my favorite medieval songs here. I’m definitely NOT an expert on medieval times, much less medieval music -- so big disclaimer. I’ve used Wikipedia and the Internet to the best of my ability, but I know a lot of the earlier medieval music is sometimes very speculative when the original melodies aren’t preserved.

I’ve tried to link all my sources here so others can have a starting point do their own research.

German:

Hildebrandslied. Old High German. Written circa 8th century or earlier; first recorded in an early 9th century manuscript. No recorded melody with it but I believe it's supposed to just be sung as a poem. Makes many clear references to people and events from the late 5th century around the fall of the Roman Empire, such as Odoecar (433-493) and Attila the Hun (406-453). Summary from the Wiki article:

The opening lines of the poem set the scene: two warriors meet on a battlefield, probably as the champions of their two armies.

As the older man, Hildebrand opens by asking the identity and genealogy of his opponent. Hadubrand reveals that he did not know his father but the elders told him his father was Hildebrand, who fled eastwards in the service of Dietrich (Theodoric) to escape the wrath of Otacher (Odoacer), leaving behind a wife and small child. He believes his father to be dead.

Hildebrand responds by saying that Hadubrand will never fight such a close kinsman (an indirect way of asserting his paternity) and offers gold arm-rings he had received as a gift from the Lord of the Huns (the audience would have recognized this as a reference to Attila, whom according to legend Theodoric served).

Hadubrand takes this as a ruse to get him off guard and belligerently refuses the offer, accusing Hildebrand of deception, and perhaps implying cowardice. Hildebrand accepts his fate and sees that he cannot honourably refuse battle: he has no choice but to kill his own son or be killed by him.

They start to fight, and the text concludes with their shields smashed. But the poem breaks off, not revealing the outcome.

Wessobrunn Prayer. Old High German. Circa 8th century. No recorded melody but this is a modern interpretation I like. Translation of lyrics:

This I learnt among mortal men as the greatest wonder

That there was neither the earth nor the heaven above

Nor was there any tree nor mountain

Neither any star at all, nor did the sun shine

Nor the moon gleam, nor was there the glorious sea.

When there was nothing, no ending and no limits,

There was the One Almighty God

Of all beings the greatest in grace, and many with him,

Good spirits, and God is holy.

Ordo Virtutum. Latin. Written circa 1151. Excerpt from Ordo Virtutum by Hildegard von Bingen. Full version here. About the struggle between a human soul and the Devil.

Das Nibelungenlied. Middle High German. About a dragon slayer who is murdered and his wife takes revenge. Excerpt.

Totus Floreo. Latin. Circa late 12th century, from the Carmina Burana. About revelry and debauchery in the spring.

O Fortuna. Latin. Circa early 13th century. About fortune and fate. Famously adapted by Carl Orff along with other songs from the Carmina Burana.

Palästinalied. Middle High German. Written in the early 13th century by Walther von der Vogelweide. About a pilgrim traveling to the Holy Land during the time of the Fifth Crusade. Contains these lines:

All the world is warring here /

Our claim is the just one /

It is right that God grants it.

Norse:

Fehu. Old Norse. Based on Old Norse Rune Poems for the Fehu rune. The melody is made up. Translation of Icelandic Fehu rune poem written probably circa 9th-10th centuries or earlier:

Wealth is a source of discord amongst kin

and fire of the sea

and path of the serpent.

Helvegen. Old Norse. Interpretation of some Old Norse poems including an excerpt from the Hávamál probably dating from the 9th-10th centuries (recorded circa 1270) with these lines:

Cattle die, kinsmen die,

You yourself will also die,

I know one that never dies:

the judgement of those who died.

Völuspá. Old Norse. Icelandic poem from possibly circa 10th century; preserved in the Icelandic Coden Regius manuscript circa 1270. The melody is made up. Poem prophesying Ragnarök and the end of the world. Translated excerpt:

39 I saw there wading through rivers wild

Treacherous men and murderers too,

And workers of ill with the wives of men;

There Nithhogg sucked the blood of the slain,

And the wolf tore men; would you know yet more?

...

41 There feeds he full on the flesh of the dead,

And the home of the gods he reddens with gore;

Dark grows the sun, and in summer soon

Come mighty storms: would you know yet more?

Drømde mik en drøm i nat. Early Old Swedish. Circa 1300; this is the oldest Norse song with the original melody preserved.

I just wanted to add a personal anecdote to this question, by /u/Search from earlier in the week, and to just back up what /u/sunagainstgold so expertly answered, also because /u/CommodoreCoCo said they'd like to see it. :)

While I was growing up my parents bought and ran a movie theater in a small town that was built originally in 1911 as a silent film theater. Originally, the theater was single screen, with an orchestra pit in front of the screen. in the 80's the theater had a wall built down the middle to allow for two screens, but the pit is still there beneath some easily lifted boards. In the pit is some old instruments (in various states of disassembly, such as horns, trumpets, a coronet, and old recorders, stands for sheet music, and the wooden chairs I assume were for the musician(s). In behind the screen we found boxes and cabinets with stacks of sheet music, some with labels on them of film names, other papers had lists of what music was best to use for certain moods (action, suspense, love, etc..), and had time stamps wrote for films, so I think either studios sent lists of time stamps or the musicians watched the films prior. But there were also studio stamped or headed pieces that were listed for specific films in this stack.

Unfortunately I no longer have access to the theater as my parents sold it 3 years ago and in my youth I never thought to preserve or photograph any of these things as I didn't think they were of much interest to anyone else.

I would like to thank whoever my AskHistorians Secret Santa was for getting me Christopher Pool's book Olmec archaeology and early Mesoamerica. It's been on my list of books to read for awhile and now I can finally read it! Thank you!

Recently there was a removed post asking about lame myths. This made me curious as to what myths do we have about lame, crippled, or deformed Gods/demigods? I am aware of Vulcan and Hodr but who else is/was there?

Hi guys! Random question, but I asked this on Twitter and got a little help, so I thought I might ask around here too.

Does anyone know much about American perceptions of Soviet strategy in the immediate post-WWII period, like late in Truman's first term or early in his second? See, a friend of mine recalled reading a late 40s strategic study of Stalin's industrialization efforts, and the American conclusion was that Stalin had only one goal: Win a land war with Germany. The study's authors concluded he succeeded. Alas, that description is all my friend has, he doesn't remember the author or title! He thinks it was American military strategic review done shortly post-WWII, but isn't 100% sure. Has anyone here heard of any strategic studies from that time period on Soviet industrialization that came to that conclusion, or similar conclusions? Thanks!

In the long history of military tactics, has there ever been an instance of a tactic being used that was so foolish and tactically irresponsible that it actually worked BECAUSE it was so unexpected and seemingly dumb?

Any book recommendations on the Sumer and Scythian civilizations?