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
history
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
Why Bobby Kennedy Is Inspirational
“Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.” – Robert F. Kennedy I am inspired by Robert F Kennedy. His “Ripple of Hope” Speech in South Africa was truly a masterpiece, delivered with passion and genuine belief. As Attorney General, he made great progress in fighting organized crime. He was very involved in the Civil Rights Movement as well. He was a key member in the presidency of John F. Kennedy and was often joked about as co-president. He played a very important role in ending the Cuban Missile Crisis and averting a possible third Word War at the height of the Cold War. After the assassination of President Kennedy, he became more involved in fighting for the poor and the disenfranchised. He worked on improving conditions for migratory labor along with Cesar Chavez. As a NY senator, he worked on the renewal of Bedford-Stuyvesant (a Brooklyn neighborhood). He took a stance against the Vietnam War, even though his brother’s administration had played a part in starting it. He went against the sitting president of his own party, Lyndon B. Johnson, for supporting the Vietnam War. I think Robert F. Kennedy would have made a fantastic president, but unfortunately his life was cut short when he was assassinated in California. Co-President “I don’t care if anyone likes me, so long as they like Jack.” As JFK’s campaign manager, RFK played a key role in getting him elected as President. JFK was a great President too, but RFK was very committed to his brother’s success. He was made one of the youngest Attorney Generals, and he was also involved in all major decisions to help his brother. When the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred, RFK played a crucial role in de-escalating the situation and preventing a possible World War III. During the height of the Cold War, the Soviet Union began to store nuclear weapons in Cuba, a communist island country within striking range of the United States. This was clearly not acceptable as it was a threat to America’s National Security. Over the next thirteen days, while there was tremendous pressure on the brothers from the military and the cabinet for an all-out strike against Cuba and the Soviet Union, they resisted the pressure and stopped a war that could’ve had horrible consequences. Organized Crime “To see people sit in front of us and lie and evade makes me boil inside.” As one of the youngest Attorney Generals of the United States, RFK took on organized crime and mobsters. He saw the “Mafia” as a criminal organization that operated on a national level, and for the first time, the Department of Justice (DOJ) would take on an entire criminal organization instead of seemingly unrelated crimes. Civil Rights Movement “We must recognize the full human equality of all of our people before God, before the law, and in the councils of government. We must do this, not because it is economically advantageous, although it is; not because of the laws of God command it, although they do; not because people in other lands wish it so. We must do it for the single and fundamental reason that it is the right thing to do.” “We will not stand by or be aloof. We will move. I believe that the 1954 (Supreme Court School Desegregation) decision was right. But my belief doesn’t matter. It is the law. Some of you may believe the decision was wrong. That does not matter. It is the law.” As Attorney General, RFK campaigned for equal rights and desegregation. He supported the Freedom Riders and threatened to deploy U.S. Marshalls when they were threatened. When a black student got admitted into the University of Mississippi, RFK sent the National Guard to ensure his registration even though there were horrible riots with hundreds dead and injured. He did the same thing for the University of Alabama the next year. In 1963, on RFK’s insistence, President Kennedy called civil rights “a moral issue.” He also made huge contributions to the Civil Rights Bill. Robert Kennedy saw voting as the key to racial justice and collaborated with President Kennedy when he proposed the most far-reaching civil rights statute since Reconstruction, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was passed after President Kennedy was slain on November 22, 1963. Poverty “I believe that, as long as there is plenty, poverty is evil.” RFK visited in various impoverished areas of the country, including Mississippi Delta and urban slums, and was startled by their conditions. He tried to bring national attention to this issue and tried to influence government law-makers to help reduce the divisions of income and opportunity, and thereby reduce poverty. He believed the best way to tackle poverty was not to provide welfare, but to help people not rely on the government and to rely on themselves. He started the Bedford-Stuyvesant Restoration Project to rebuild businesses within the community and provide more opportunity for its residents. Migratory Labor “Why is a New York Senator dragging himself all the way out to California?” RFK was already tackling multiple issues including racism, poverty and the Vietnam war, and so he didn’t want to also get involved in issues of migratory labor related to the plight of farm workers in California. But when he flew down to California and met Cesar Chavez, and heard all the details, he became angered with the situation and quickly changed his mind. RFK served on a senate subcommittee to improve conditions of migratory labor and became good friends with Cesar Chavez during this time. He displayed great responsibility by asking “How can I help?” rather than just doing what he thought was right. Vietnam War