historical

The Satanic Pact that Kickstarted World War II

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

My Encounter with Nelson Mandela, a short story by Olivia Shekou, 12

My Encounter with Nelson Mandela Olivia Shekou, 12 Just last week, I flew to New York to visit my aunt, a lawyer for the United Nations who speaks three official languages of the United Nations. She allowed me access to the United Nations’ library for the day while she was working on an international human rights case. So, there I was, sitting at an ornate wooden desk at the lavishly decorated United Nations library. The soft glow of the tabletop candelabra illuminated the book that sat right at my fingertips. I was surprised to discover it was a copy of Laaren Brown and Lenny Hort’s biography of Nelson Mandela. As I questioned whether I was dreaming or awake, I reached for the biography to find out whether it was tangible or just an illusion. As soon as I reached for it, Nelson Mandela suddenly stepped out of the biography like a holographic Star Wars action figure. The sixty-year-old man’s brown eyes and chocolate skin gently framed his white hair. When he smiled at me, I noticed three creases on his forehead and around each eye. I gaped in awe, unable to believe what I was seeing. Was this really him or was I hallucinating? He reassured me that he wasn’t a holographic transmission but that he had time-traveled from South Africa from the year 1980. But how was this possible? Nelson Mandela was born on July 18, 1918 in the village of Mvezo in the Eastern Cape of South Africa. Had he been alive today, he would be 102 years old! He passed away at age 95 in December of 2013 and since then, the United Nations commemorates his birthday as the Nelson Mandela International Day, celebrated each year on July 18th in his honor. But there he was standing before me, cerebral-looking yet casually dressed, while smiling and radiating a warm peaceful glow. He was wearing a colorful shirt, matching shorts, and looked as if he had just come back from a tropical vacation. He reminded me of my grandfather, with his slightly hunched posture and his friendly handshake. I looked Nelson Mandela in the eye and he returned my gaze. Diverting my gaze to his feet, I noticed his bright blue flip flops. Had he just come from a peace rally in a tropical destination? Who exactly was this man? Nelson Mandela lived a long purposeful life combatting apartheid and racial segregation in South Africa. His 40-year battle against segregation began in Johannesburg, where he faced backlash from the government for protesting against apartheid laws that segregated the Black citizens of South Africa. Nelson Mandela was known for his peaceful protests against apartheid through an organization called the African National Congress. The government banned his organization, forcing him to create a secret army called “Spear of the Nation,” and he became South Africa’s most wanted fugitive. He was hunted down by the police and had to hide and disguise himself. In 1962, Nelson Mandela was arrested and sentenced to life in prison on the brutal Robben Island for conspiring to overthrow South Africa’s government. Nelson Mandela overcame many hardships while confined to a small cell without a bed or plumbing, all the while being subjected to hard labor in a quarry. During his time at Robben Island, he was only allowed one visitor a year and was restricted from writing letters more than once every few months. However, he stayed committed to stopping apartheid by leading protests from within prison while also demanding better conditions for inmates. Nelson Mandela spent 27 years in prison. In 1990, he was finally pardoned from prison and, by 1994, all Black people in South Africa were able to vote for the first time. He is considered one of the most significant political figures today because of his efforts to end racism and apartheid. And here I was looking right at him with my mouth gaping wide. I knew of Nelson Mandela as a peaceful visionary who could see the big picture as well as the end goal of what he was fighting for. He was also forgiving and showed the world what forgiveness looks like. I asked him about his time in prison and how it felt to be treated as a criminal for fighting against racism and apartheid. “As I walked out of the prison door toward the gate that would lead to my freedom, I knew if I didn’t leave my bitterness and hatred behind, I’d still be in prison,” he said. Nelson Mandela was a freedom fighter to his core, fighting for the freedom and democratic rights of Black citizens of South Africa. In doing so, he had to let go of his own anger toward his wrongdoers in order to stand for his cause. He didn’t seek revenge or self-glory and didn’t hold on to anger. He used nonviolent protests against the South African government and its racist policies, setting the ultimate example of a nonviolent civil rights activist. Nelson Mandela was also a fearless leader. Leaders everywhere should study him, his conviction to fairness and his ability to peacefully protest against the injustices of apartheid. He had all the characteristics of a great leader that helped shape a more democratic South Africa. Even from prison, he never accepted failure or defeat. For this reason, he is one of the most significant and impactful political activists of our recent past. In honor of Nelson Mandela’s memory, Mr. Ban, Chief of the United Nations, said that “Through his extraordinary life, Mr. Mandela showed that tyranny and oppression never have the last word. That is the heritage of hope he bestowed upon every one of us.” “What’s going on and why are you here?” I inquired. “Well, when you opened the biography of me, you brought back my 62-year-old self who had lived out eighteen years in prison. I had a bad feeling about the year 2020 and felt that the American people needed me. Plus, I needed a

Socialism Reexplained: Age of Reason to Cold War

Anirudh Parthasarathy, 13 (San Jose, CA) Socialism Reexplained: Age of Reason to Cold War Anirudh Parthasarathy, 13 History of Socialism In order to understand socialism as a whole, we have to understand how nineteenth century capitalism worked, the critiques of uncontrolled capitalism, and the reasoning behind the call for a more equitable economic system that eventually led to the birth of both socialism and communism. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, feudalism and absolute monarchism were abolished with people wanting more liberty, self-determination, democracy, and individualism. These ideals started becoming popular during the Enlightenment of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, which in turn led to the Age of Reason, French Absolutism, and English Constitutionalism. In England, eventually, people were tired of being subjugated by an authoritarian government. Whether the oppressors were a monarch, members of an aristocracy, or even the parliament and government officials, the British people wanted true liberty, eventually leading to a revolution that destroyed the feudal system. England became the first democratic/republican and capitalist country the world had seen since antiquity. Many people probably hoped this new system of governance would be better than the anti-humanistic authoritarian feudal system. They were wrong. England practiced a form of uncontrolled libertarian capitalism in which there was no government intervention. Because of this, nineteenth century England had a small, extremely wealthy capitalist class who owned all the organizations and economic resources—such as land and capital—while the majority were an extremely poor working class who worked very low-paying jobs with terrible conditions. The workers often worked in monotonous jobs for long hours and with wages so low they lived in extreme poverty, while the capitalist class got all the profits and luxury derived from the hard work of the workers! First Socialists This extreme inequality frustrated many people including many intellectuals/philosophers, who became the first socialists. Some of the very first socialists were known as utopian socialists. Such socialists advocated for things like collective ownership of the means of production and enterprises, government intervention (or sometimes even central planning of the economy and of production), solidarity among the working class, a more equitable distribution of wealth, and general empowerment of workers. Another group called the chartists advocated for universal male suffrage (not nearly as impressive as universal suffrage in which females also have a vote). Utopian socialism started with Henri de Saint Simon and then continued with Charles Fourier, Pierre Joseph Proudhon (one of the first anarchists and one who declared “property is theft”), Pierre Leroux, and Robert Owen. Another more far-left brand of socialism called revolutionary socialism believed that rather than creating a socialist system through the cooperation of the workforce, government, and the wealthy, it was up to the workers to launch a revolution in order to completely overthrow the capitalist government and replace it with a socialist system. Communism is a type of revolutionary socialism, but communism and revolutionary socialism aren’t the same because there are other types of revolutionary socialism, some of which have anarchist ideals. A prominent socialist community was the Paris Commune created in 1871. The Paris Commune was designed to benefit the poor and working class over the wealthy. The Paris Commune secularized politics and education, provided subsidized food and housing, created a minimum wage, required private firms to have a delegation elected by the workers, recognized freedom of the press, and made all people legally equal. However, the Paris Commune only lasted for two months and ten days before it was crushed. Despite all the confusion and varying ideas on how to implement socialism, all those socialists were opposed to capitalism and believed the economic system was fundamentally doomed. One problem they believed capitalism had is its competitive nature which led to the continual driving down of profits. For example, suppose one business sells yogurt at $10 while a different business is willing to sell yogurt with the same or perhaps better quality at the much cheaper price of $7. Most people would buy from the cheaper business. The Socialists believed that eventually competition would lead to a decrease in profits to a level that businesses could barely eke out a profit. They also argued that businesses competed to sell their products at the same time workers competed to sell their labor. Socialists argued that this competition among workers was what caused workers to be paid only what they needed in order to afford the most basic food and housing and nothing more. They pointed out that as businesses started making less profits, they’d compensate by paying the workers even less wages until eventually only the most essential workers would be kept with the rest being laid off. Eventually, businesses that weren’t able to keep up would go out of business, causing even more unemployment among both the working and capitalist classes. At this point, socialists believed that either serious reforms or an outright revolution were needed to end capitalism and usher in an era of socialism. Among other reasons, this hasn’t happened in practice in the west because capitalism has been reformed to include elements of welfare and regulation, which has helped reduce inequality. But socialism is unsustainable over time. Drawbacks of Socialism Overall, proponents of socialism argue that it leads to equality, economic security, production for use rather than profit, and the kind of system in which people selflessly contribute to society according to their ability and receive all their needs. As a famous socialist slogan says, “From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs”. However, critics of socialism argue that the system is based on faulty principles and is too utopian to actually happen, and that ultimately the inherent inefficiencies of socialism will lead to major economic problems, with socialism suffering mainly from the motivation and knowledge problem. First, we must understand the motivation problem. One major problem with socialism is that it doesn’t truly reward people with tangible rewards for going beyond the minimum. For example, most people aren’t JUST working in their jobs