How close was the world to being a Fascist-Leninist dystopia if a joint alliance of Hitler, Stalin, and Hideki Tōjō had won World War II? This could have been a consequence if it weren’t for a series of blunders made by Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, including one by Adolf Hitler, when he turned one of his most powerful allies into one of his most fateful enemies. That ally turned enemy was Joseph Stalin. But wasn’t Stalin’s Russia one of the Allied powers fighting against the tyrannical Fascists? How was Stalin an ally of Adolf Hitler? First, Stalin had no noble intentions of destroying tyranny when he joined the fight against the Fascists. He was dragged into the war by Hitler’s betrayal (Turner). Furthermore, Stalin was a notorious tyrant himself, not that different from Adolf Hitler, or Benito Mussolini, or Hideki Tōjō (Moorhouse). Despite being perpetually paranoid and famously “trusting nobody,” Stalin trusted and admired Hitler (Lukacs). Even though Fascists and Marxists are sworn enemies ideologically, and the Soviet Union is remembered for defeating Nazi Germany, their often overlooked diabolical union in the early days of World War II might have caused one of the most debilitating wars in history. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact formed by emissaries of Hitler and Stalin aided Hitler’s invasion of Poland and Eastern Europe, thereby directly causing World War II. The Fascists and Marxist-Leninists never got along. Nazi propaganda condemned the Soviet Union, and vice versa. However, after months of negotiation with Britain and France to form an alliance with them against Germany, Russia eventually relented in trying to ally with them and turned instead to an alliance with Germany. Stalin understood Britain was not eager to enter an alliance with Russia because of their distrust of the Communists (Lukacs). Britain and France agreed to defend Poland if it were ever invaded, but they had done nothing when Germany occupied Czechoslovakia despite its violation of the Munich agreement, making Stalin doubt their resolve (Klein). The Soviet Union was already engaged in a war with Japan on its eastern front and considered peace with Germany to be an attractive option (Klein). Interestingly, Imperial Japan was an ally of Nazi Germany. Meanwhile, Hitler was scrambling for an alliance with Stalin before he invaded Poland so that he would not have a two-front war like Germany did in World War I (Klein). He arranged for German Foreign Minister Ribbentrop to meet with Soviet counterpart Molotov. Stalin did voice his skepticism when he said, “For many years now, we have been pouring buckets of sh*t on each other’s heads, and our propaganda boys could not do enough in that direction. And now, suddenly, are we to make our people believe that all is forgotten and forgiven? Things don’t work that fast” (Evans). Still, within just a few hours, an ominous pact was formed between Fascist Germany and the Marxist-Leninist Soviet Union. “The sinister news broke upon the world like an explosion,” Churchill wrote (Klein). The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact directly kickstarted World War II, making the debilitating war as much Stalin’s culpability as Hitler’s. If Stalin had remained an ally of Hitler and become an Axis power, the result might have been devastating for the Allies and the entire world. Even as Western Communists left the Soviet Communist party in great numbers after the pact, and German Nazis were shocked by the alliance with the Communists they had fought for years (Moorhouse), the pact was mutually beneficial to Stalin and Hitler for nefarious reasons. The pact had secret clauses where they partitioned Poland between the two countries (Evans). They jointly invaded Poland, Germany from the west and Russia from the east, giving the world a taste of what was to come. The Soviets also invaded Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland, and parts of Romania (Evans). Moorhouse also claims that, with this pact, Stalin was ready “to set the world-historical forces of revolution in motion.” The alliance between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union even went so far that Germany provided state-of-the-art military equipment to the Soviet Union in exchange for raw materials such as oil and grain (Moorhouse). In eastern Poland, the Soviets carried out “mass arrests and deportations, shootings, torture and expropriation” (Evans). Thousands of Polish army officers were massacred in the Katyn Forest, and millions of Poles were sent to suffer in the harsh terrain and climate of remote Siberia and Central Asia (Moorhouse). Meanwhile, in Western Poland, things were even worse, where the Germans carried out “the expropriation of Polish farms and businesses, the mass confiscation and looting of private property, the deportation of more than a million young Poles to work as slaves in Germany, the brutal displacement of Polish populations, the massacres of Poles, and the confinement of the majority of Poland’s 3 million Jews in overcrowded, insanitary, and deadly ghettoes in the major cities in the Nazi zone.” (Evans). Stalin even sent German communist refugees in the Soviet Union to the Gulags, and from there, they were deported to the Nazi concentration camps (Moorhouse). What happened in occupied Poland is a horrific reminder of what could have happened to the world if Germany and Russia had stayed allies. Thankfully, Hitler and Stalin’s alliance did not last very long, and Hitler backstabbed Stalin mid-war, therefore triggering the two-front war he had feared all along. There are a few explanations as to why Hitler might have turned on one of his most powerful allies when he was winning. Many believe that Hitler turned on Stalin because he was a fanatical anti-communist with a profound hatred for Slavs (Lukacs). He was probably also disappointed by Stalin’s failed invasion of Finland. Additionally, the war was deadlocked in 1941, with neither the United Kingdom nor Nazi Germany being able to defeat each other, and USA inching closer to joining the war (Lukacs). Churchill famously inspired his troops by saying “We shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the
Freedom of Speech Series: Public Schools
In 1966, in a packed hearing in Delano, California, then New York Senator, Robert F Kennedy, was arguing with the county sheriff, LeRoy Gaylen. LeRoy had arrested union organizers who had committed no crime, claiming the organizers “looked ready to violate the law.” Bobby Kennedy retorted, “May I suggest that during the luncheon period of time that the sheriff and the district attorney read the Constitution of the United States?” (PBS). Freedom of expression is probably the the most well-known, most agreed upon, and most treasured right in the United States of America; a country in which people disagree on almost everything else, including how the constitution should be interpreted, and the degree to which civil liberties, such as the right to bear arms, should be enforced. Despite these disagreements, almost all Americans—including liberals, conservatives, libertarians, democratic socialists, or folks of almost any other ideology—support and respect the First Amendment and believe there should be little to no restrictions on the free exchange of facts, opinions, ideas, values, and beliefs. But what does freedom of expression exactly mean, and how much practical protection is there for it? When is it or is it not okay to express yourself? Freedom of expression is not as solid, straightforward, nor black-and-white as many people think. The level of protection this right has been offered has changed over time, gone through many reforms and rethinking, and ultimately depends on a variety of factors (LegalInformationInstitute). I seek to explain the evolution of freedom of expression in the United States, and the laws, past and present, regarding one of the most important and basic human rights. In this blog, I’ll focus on public schools. The primary component of freedom of expression is freedom of speech, which can take place in a direct (verbal), or indirect (actions) way (LegalInformationInstitute). Freedom of speech, like all other civil liberties, is protection of our rights by the United States constitution from the government. This means that the level of protection free speech is offered ultimately boils down to the forum on which it takes place. If you are expressing yourself on a certain forum, the regulators of that forum are allowed to curtail your free speech as they see fit, and are not violating your constitutional rights, as it is their forum, and therefore their rules. A prominent example of this is the authority of schools to curtail the free speech of students in order to create a stable environment in which all the students feel safe, and nobody is disturbed by other students’ free expression. This can be seen in the case of Morse V. Frederick in 2007. In a school-supervised demonstration, a student named Joseph Frederick held up a banner with the message “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.” Debora Morse, the principal of his school, confiscated his banner and suspended him for 10 days (Oyez). She justified her action by arguing that Frederick had advocated illegal drug use, which was a breach of the school’s policy, kind of like how when I went to elementary school, the students, such as myself, were not allowed to create any violent material (whether it was pretend play, a gesture, a drawing) within the school campus. Frederick sued under 42 U.S. Code § 1983, the federal civil rights statute, which stated that “Any citizen or resident of any US state, territory, or the District of Columbia subjected by another citizen or resident of any US state, territory, or the district of Columbia, of any constitutionally guaranteed rights, privileges, or immunities, will be liable to the injured party in legal action or other forms of proceeding for redress” (LegalInformationInstitute). The district court, however, found no constitutional violation in the school’s curtailing of Frederick’s free speech, and ruled in favor of Morse. And the court ruled that even if it was decided that Morse’s action was unconstitutional, Morse would have “qualified immunity” against a lawsuit. However, the US court of appeals for the ninth circuit rebuked the ruling of the District Court, and decided that Morse’s censoring of Frederick’s message was a violation of his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Furthermore, Morse would have no qualified immunity because “any reasonable principal would have known that Morse’s actions were unlawful” (Oyez). So, this leaves us with two questions: does the first amendment allow public schools to curtail the free speech of students if they advocate illegal drug use? And does a school official have qualified immunity against a lawsuit under 42 U.S. Code § 1983, when they curtailed Frederick’s first amendment right to freedom of speech? The answer to these questions is “yes and not reached” (Oyez). This case ultimately made itself all the way to the Supreme Court, and they made a 5-4 decision to reverse the decisions of the ninth circuit. Justice John Roberts Jr voiced the majority opinion that school officials do have the right to curtail the free speech of their students if they advocate illegal drug use. Though Frederick’s message was cryptic, it was clearly advocating illegal drug use; therefore, the school had the right to discipline Frederick for his message. However, the four dissenters argued that while they agreed that Principle Morse should have immunity from lawsuit, “the majority opinion was “[…] deaf to the constitutional imperative to permit unfettered debate, even among high-school students […]” (Oyez). This is only one example which shows that freedom of speech depends on the forum in which it takes place. Public school students do not have as strong a right to freedom of speech as adults do because the schools can regulate the behavior of its students in order to make sure that the school is a safe, comfortable environment for all. On the other hand, this does not mean that students have no freedom of speech in public schools, and this can be seen in the case Tinker V. Des Moines Independent Community School District. In Tinker, the Supreme Court ruled that Iowa Public School officials had violated the
The Relevance of Fahrenheit 451
Fahrenheit 451 has never been more relevant than it is today. The parlor walls that Ray Bradbury envisioned in his iconic story are similar to the large wall-mounted TV screens with continuous streaming content available for binge-watching. Video games have become immersive with Oculus and Metaverse. Many people (especially children) are addicted to video games, and some play them for a living. City planning often bolsters car culture, with the assumption that everyone has a car, which, majoritively, they do. People either rush to shops in cars through freeways to make good time or order in through Amazon, Instacart, and/or Doordash. A pedestrian walking to a grocery store is a rare sight indeed! As more and more books are made into movies, people prefer to consume the movie version rather than read the same book, which requires a lot more work and time. Movies lack richness, detail, and the nuances of a book, and there’s less power of imagination involved when everything is shown exactly as it is. Beatty summarizes this well when he says “Books cut shorter. Condensations. Digests. Tabloids. Everything boils down to the gag, the snap ending. Classics cut to fit fifteen-minute radio shows, then cut again to fill a two-minute book column, winding up at last as a ten- or twelve-line dictionary resume” (26). In Fahrenheit 451, Bradbury demonstrates how mindless consumption of entertainment over the pure joy and fulfillment of reading and existing as one with nature leads to addiction to technology. Through the striking contrast between Clarisse and Mildred, Bradbury exemplifies the difference between a book-lover aware of the world around her and an addict whose life revolves around technology. Mildred is always in bed, looking at her parlor wall, believing actors—who neither know nor care about her—to be her family. Montag, Milred’s husband, walks home and despite the presence of his wife he finds the room empty. He expects to find “his wife stretched on the bed, uncovered and cold, like a body displayed on the lid of a tomb, her eyes fixed to the ceiling by invisible threads of steel, immovable. And in her ears the little Seashells, the thimble radios tamped tight, and an electronic ocean of sound, of music and talk and music and talk coming in, coming in on the shore of her unsleeping mind. The room was indeed empty” (5). This excerpt shows there’s no true connection between them, romantic or otherwise. It also shows that Mildred seeks gratification in cheap, superficial, unhealthy ways, and does not seem to be truly happy. When Mildred overdoses on sleeping tablets, it’s such a common problem that they don’t even need a doctor for it. The handymen say, “We get these cases nine or ten a night. Got so many, starting a few years ago, we had the special machines built. With the optical lens, of course, that was new; the rest is ancient. You don’t need an M.D., case like this; all you need is two handymen, clean up the problem in half an hour” (6). This indicates people are deeply unhappy in this society. Mildred also says, “Books aren’t people, my family is people. They tell me things; I laugh, they laugh. And the colors!” (34). She seems to find television more tangible than books. It’s almost as if she believes that people on television have a personal connection to her and are her family. When Montag asks her, “Does your `family’ love you, love you very much, love you with all their heart and soul, Millie?” (36), she’s unable to answer. She doesn’t want to acknowledge that the cast neither knows nor cares about her, and she’d rather remain in denial. Clarisse, on the other hand, has a deep personal connection with nature, books, and people. She admits she rarely watches the parlor walls. Instead, Clarisse likes to “smell things and look at things, and sometimes stay up all night, walking, and watch the sun rise” (3). And for this, she is sent to a psychiatrist, because it’s not considered normal. She even admits that her uncle was once arrested “for being a pedestrian” (4), and once “jailed for two days” (3) for driving slowly on the highway to observe the scene around him. Clarisse loves being outside and being one with nature. She likes enjoying the small things that no one else pays attention to, like “walking in the center of the sidewalk with her head up and the few drops falling on her face” (9). “Rain even tastes good,” she says (9). In this book, Clarisse is a breath of fresh air compared to the jaded Mildred. Bradbury uses the universal concept of book burning, which has always been a constant across multiple authoritarian regimes, because books foster independent thought—the dictator’s bane, and the seed of a democratic system. Therefore, burning books is how dictators enforce conformity. There have been instances of book burnings in China, the Soviet Union, and Nazi Germany, where the authoritarian regimes carried out large scale purges of authors, intellectuals, and teachers. Countless books and the ideas they contained have been destroyed. Closer to home, in the United States, book burnings were planned during the McCarthy era, when there was a red scare. Beatty explains the dictator’s perspective, and how this might have a populist basis when he says, “We must all be alike. Not everyone born free and equal, as the Constitution says, but everyone made equal. A book is a loaded gun in the house next door. Burn it” (28). He says books create inequality because it makes some people seem smarter than others. If everyone can’t be intellectuals, then no one should be, thereby forcibly removing diversity. Beatty also says, “You must understand that our civilization is so vast that we can’t have our minorities upset and stirred” (29). So, according to him, if people are upset with a book, then burn it, thereby removing all freedom of expression, forcing everyone to conform. Bradbury imagines how life would be
