Girolamo Savonarola

  Girolamo Savonarola, was born in Ferrara, Italy, September 21st 1452. Initially, his family were rather well-off with his grandfather Michele Savonarola being an esteemed Professor of Medicine at the University of Padua as well as being a court physician. Though post the death of Michele, Girolamo’s father failed to sustain the financial comfortability that had supported the Savonarola household through Michele’s wealth. Girolamo was the third of seven children and from an early age it became readily apparent that he was a keen intellectual, supposedly driven by the success of his grandfather. During his adolescence he developed an interest in classics (most notably Latin) and studied the works of countless Latin scholars. Some historians believe that Savonarola’s radical front on Christianity stems from the religious views of his grandfather who also publicly detested the ways in which Christianity was being imposed in Florence.

Interestingly, though the later Savonarola would pursue a path of religion/politics, he chose to study medicine at university following in the footsteps of his grandfather. Alongside this he studied the liberal arts. Though he failed to develop a core interest in these fields and made the decision to shift towards his real interest which was religion itself. It is important to note that Florence at this time was being governed by the de facto leadership of the House of Medici. Savonarola was horrified by Medici rule. The rise of the Medici saw the revival, the Renaissance of Ancient Greek and Roman cultures, though alongside this, this brought change to the traditional Catholic Church. He believed the clergy had dramatically shifted away from basic Christian morals and had allowed bribery and patronage from the Medici to dominate the Church and co-ordinate its actions. 

Fuelled by his new drive to studying Christianity, he left the house of his father April 24th, 1475 and set out to Bologna and joined the Dominician Order, becoming a friar. He would send letters to his father explaining his departure. The latter of his letters were in fact rather brutal and explained his aims.

“The Prince of princes, he who is infinite power, calls me with a loud voice – more, he begs me (oh vast love) with a thousand tears (as on the Cross) to gird on a sword of the finest gold and precious stones, because he wants me in the ranks of his militant Knights” – an extract from Lauro Martines’ “Scourge and Fire Savonarola and Renaissance Italy”

From this we can identify that Savonarola felt directly summoned by God. He valued himself as a prophet, a knight of Christ and believed he has a sense of fulfilment to reform the Catholic Church and to allow it to retrogress back to its traditional, fundamentalist ways. He was against art, music, humour, sex, the present clergy at the time. His very opposite views allowed for people to view him as a heretic.

In 1482, the Dominican friar was sent to San Marco, Florence to preach sermons to the local populace. However, he was rather unsuccessful with his sermons in which he preached about the apocalypse. However, in the late 1480s, his profile grew in San Gimignano. He put forward that the Catholic Church needed heavy reform in order for it to maintain its overruling power. In doing so, he concluded that the church would need to be scourged followed by a renewal of its system.

Alongside this, Savonarola became seen as the primary opposer to the Medici rule and would preach about the failures and corruption of the Medici oligarchy. He viewed the government of Lorenzo the Magnificent, the so-called “Father of the Italian Renaissance” as a benevolent tyranny who only promoted  the exploitation of the Church. He was actually surprisingly sent back to Florence by Lorenzo, a massive error on his part as it only allowed the Dominican friar to extend his criticism of the Medici rule to within Florence itself in the early 1490s. As a way of suppressing Savonarola’s dangerous criticisms Lorenzo tried and failed at bribing the friar to discontinue with his actions. Though this is altogether a rather stupid action given that Savonarola himself had always been wholeheartedly against what Lorenzo was actually trying to give him. What is also rather odd is that Lorenzo, at his deathbed, called Savonarola of all Christian priests to ask for absolution. Legend has it that Savonarola actually refused to give Lorenzo de’ Medici absolution but it has been identified that he most likely did in fact grant him his blessing. Savonarola had actually predicted Lorenzo’s death years before.

1494 saw the invasion of Italy by King Charles VIII of France. Piero de’ Medici, the successor to Lorenzo the Magnificent faced hatred from the Florentine populace as he succumbed to the French King and handed over seven key fortresses. This resulted in the expulsion of the Medici family and an 18 year drought of Medici rule in Florence. Savonarola viewed King Charles as a godsend and as the man sent from God to be the scourger of Florence. The fleeing of the Medici and the departure of King Charles was the catalyst for Savonarola’s rule over Florence

He set up a democratic government based on his ideals of a city that owed its allegiance to God Himself. He imposed a system that revolved over his ideal of Christianity. He proceeded with his sermons and alongside this he set up his own police force which would monitor the streets of Florence and aid the maintenance of a city which flourished on Savonarola’s strict view on morality. Though alongside this, Savonarola faced opposition. Pope Alexander VI was opposed to Savonarola’s rule. In fact Savonarola, though he respected the papacy, viewed the Pope as a key example of how corrupt the Church had become. The Pope was by no means the greatest or most ideal religious figure. He himself had several children, already opposing the beliefs of Savonarola that people should remain sexually pure to maintain their bodies as temples of the Holy Spirit. He also faced opposition from a group known as the Arrabiati who were in league with the Pope and the Duke of Milan. This created a powerful political opposition to Savonarola’s rule of Florence. 

In fact, the Pope summoned Savonarola to preach to him his sermons but Savonarola declined stating that he was simply ill. February 7th 1497 Savonarola called for a “Bonfire of the Vanities” in which citizens of Florence threw objects that would tempt them to sin into a great fire. Jewellery, clothes, mirrors were all burned. It is even considered that the artist Boticelli through his own works into the fire as to redeem himself from his sons. The Pope banned Savonarola from preaching and May 12th, 1947 the Pope excommunicated Savonarola.

Savonarola regained his influence in Florence but soon faced opposition from Fra Domenico da Pescia, a Franciscan who challenged Savonarola to ordeal by fire. This ordeal by fire was a way of proving the supernatural capabilities claimed by both Fras. This was heavily encouraged by the citizens of Florence, however much to their anger the ordeal never took place due to the ill-arrival of the Franciscan Fra. Because no supernatural proof was presented, both Fras were tortured until pleading guilty to lying that they could perform supernatural powers. Savanorala was accused of heresy at an ecclesiastical trial and was to be put to death by hanging along with Fra Domenico and Fra Silvestro. He was burnt during his execution and was hurled with insults throughout with citizens shouting at him to save himself if he truly was a knight of Christ. This bears some resemblance to the crucifixion of Christ, though unfortunately Savonarola failed to deliver the wishes of the masses. He died May 23rd, 1498.

Tsar Alexander II

Tsar Alexander II of Russia succeeded his father Nicholas I in 1855. Russia’s European power had been gradually diminishing in the mid 19th century as it became apparent that it could not compete with the other countries of Europe.1848 saw revolutions with Piedmont-Sardinia trying to create a unified Italian state, the first steps to a new German state being taken and a revolution in Hungary. Russia was on the brink of defeat in the Crimean War and had been shamefully embarrassed by its military backwardness. Alexander II inherited an isolated nation that was dangerously weak. Alexander II shifted from a more conservative regime that had been adopted by his father, to a more liberal regime in which he sought to modernise Russia so that it could compete with industrialised Europe. Alexander II made a number of liberal reforms throughout his autocratic rule, most notably his emancipation of the serfs in 1861 alongside reforms of the judiciary system in which he introduced a more accusatorial system consisting of barristers, reforms of the local government in which he brought in elected assemblies called zemstva and dumy, reforms of the army based on the methods of Albrecht von Roon and reforms of the education system with expansionism of schools. His autocratic rule brought much change in Russia and saw a shift to modernity. Towards the end of his rule he faced considerable opposition from nihilists and populists which owed to his eventual assassination in 1881 by the narodnaya volya (The People’s Will) a political terrorist group.  

An evaluation of the roles of the policies of the United States in the origins of the Cold War between 1945 and 1949

The conclusion to the Second World War in 1945 sparked the onset of the Cold War between the West and the East as each side aimed to impose their competing and highly contrasting ideologies onto the rest of the world. Most notably this was a war between two superpowers: capitalist USA governed by President Truman (elected after the untimely death of Roosevelt April 12th, 1945) and communist USSR, governed by Joseph Stalin. The focus of this essay will be to evaluate the roles of US policies in the origins of the Cold War, that is immediately post-WW2, within the time-frame of 1945-49. It is perhaps necessary to clarify that a “role” of a policy assesses the reasoning behind the policy as well as its effects. I plan to tackle US policy by breaking it down into the following categories: policy of containment, open door policy, foreign economic policy and military policy. Accompanying these policies will be the key events of this period of the Cold War; the Truman Doctrine (1947), Marshall Aid (1947), the Berlin Blockade (1948-49) and the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (April 4th, 1949) to name but a few. Coupled with this I will seek to explain how the USA’s policy of containment links to each of the aforementioned policies and why it is the principal and most important policy adopted by the US. I will also explain how these policies progressed through these first four years, from more US self-interest policies in the first 2 years, to more defensive policies in the latter two, and how they all contributed to a retrogression in relations between the US and the USSR as tensions heightened. But most importantly I will explain why US policies were a western success but an eastern failure. 

To begin with, the policy of containment was a commonsensical, nationally successful campaign adopted by the US between the years 1945-49, yet it only led to heavily distilling relations with the USSR. The role of the policy of containment was to essentially insulate the spread of communism in the world. Though the US were bitterly opposed to communism it is important to realise that containment did not mean the eradication of communism, but simply the prevention of its further spread. It is perhaps justifiable to assume that the basis for this policy stemmed from George Kennan’s 1946 “Long Telegram” in which he identified that the Soviet Union posed a fundamental threat to the American way of life and that the USA had a self-obligation to actively support other nations to contain the spread of communism. This fear of communism and the policy of containment was projected into the Truman Doctrine, 1947 which was created in response to the Greek government’s inability to ward off communist rebels in its civil war. The Doctrine allowed the US to prevent communist spread given that it was never officially directed at communism. The fear of the spread of communism and the need for containment was evident in Iran in 1945 when the USSR increased its number of troops in Iran going against their promises that they would remove their troops after 6 months. The US appealed to the UN Security Council and the USSR’s troops were removed. Another instance of fear of communist influence was in Turkey, August 1946, when it appeared that the Soviet Union wished to establish naval bases there and thus turn it into a satellite state. Alarmed by this, the US encouraged the Turks to resist the USSR and the US established naval bases there to deter communist influence. From this we can infer that the policy of containment was a turning point in the Cold War and highly successful for the US in the short term as it managed to prevent communist spread. However, this policy only crippled US relations with the USSR as containment made it clear that the US believed the capitalist way of life was far superior to the communist one.

 

Furthermore, the United States’ open door policy was a short term success but a long term failure. The role of the open door policy was to restructure the world economically so that American business could trade, operate, and profit without any restrictions. The leading example of the open door policy was Marshall Aid (1947) a project carried out by the US that put the ideas of the Truman Doctrine, that is to attempt to rebuild Europe (through grants of money) after the disaster of the Second World War, into effect. One could argue that Marshall Aid was indeed a success for the open-door policy given that the £13,750,000,000 of money handed over to Europe from the US allowed 17 European countries to recover much more quickly. However, the failures of the open-door policy outweigh its successes. The real reason for Marshall Aid and thus the open door policy, was to reduce communist influence in Europe. Marshall Aid would be controlled by the US’ Marshall Plan, other countries would not be able to decide for themselves how it would be carried out. In doing this Truman hoped that the US would be able to influence eastern Europe and undermine communism. But the Soviet Union pulled out of Marshall Aid along with its satellite states when they discovered they would have to join the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation (OEEC). The open-door policy was thus a short term success as it firmly strengthened US relations with Western Europe but a long term failure as it was another early confirmation that the US sought to exert capitalism onto Eastern Bloc countries as a way of containing or even extinguishing the influence of communism. The real role of the open-door policy was communist containment, therefore this policy can only be seen as a failure even more so because it intensified competition between the US and the USSR as it owed to the 1949 creation of COMECON, the Soviet equivalent to Marshall Aid.

 

Moreover, the foreign economic policy of the US acted as more of a retaliating defensive policy as opposed to an active policy that was driven by the self-interest of the US. The overriding role of the US foreign economic policy was to support their idea of western European integration, a process of creating a western Europe that was united politically, economically and militarily. The most notable example of the foreign economic policy of the US was the crisis in Berlin between 1948-49. The ultimate difference between the foreign economic policy of the west and the east was that the west wanted the German economy to rebuild itself whereas the east wanted to continue suppressing the German economy as the Soviet Union feared that Germany would stir up trouble within Europe again given they had already invaded the USSR twice before in 1914 and 1941. General Lucius Clay, governor of the US zone tried to force the Soviets to accept their economic policy in Germany by announcing in May 1946 that no further deliveries of reparation goods would be made to the Soviet Union. The US along with the other western powers introduced the German currency the Deutschmark in western Germany dividing the economic growth within Germany. After the 1946 Conference of Foreign Ministers it was decided that the US and British zones would merge to form Bizonia and the French zone was later added in January 1947, The alliance of these zones brought economic prosperity to Western Germany and allowed for it to rebuild itself much quicker. Stalin responded with a blockade aimed to suppress western Germany but was unsuccessful and called it off 12th May 1949. The US foreign economic policy was thus an eventual success given that it completely achieved its role which was the idea of western European integration. Its foreign economic policy became more effective in the latter years of this four year period and demonstrates a shift away from US self-interest policies and a move towards western European liberalisation and defence from the threat of Sovietization. Though one can again argue that this is another instance of the policy of containment, and one that was successful given that the west managed to repel communist infection. However, the consequence of the United States’ early foreign economic policy was that it amplified the mistrust between the US and the USSR and persuaded the USSR to focus on communist domination in Asia.

 

Lastly, the US military policy was a national success in both 1945 and 1949 but a failure with unprecedented consequences in regards to the response of Eastern Europe. The role of the US military policy was essentially to build up a strong defence mechanism against the communist east. There are two prime examples between the years 1945-1949 that highlight the USA’s military policy. The first example of the US military policy was the US 1945 creation of the atomic bombs Fat Man and Little Boy which they detonated on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the Second World War. The second example is the 1949 military alliance known as the North-Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) which stressed that it “will take such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain security in the North Atlantic area.” Both of these examples show that the focus of the US military policy was to protect the west from the East. It is right to believe that these instances were indeed a national success because the US became the first country to possess nuclear weaponry giving the world further reason to implore peace so as to avert itself from Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). NATO was a national success as well as a western one as it strengthened the defensive alliance of the west from the fear of a communist attack. The 1945 creation of the atomic bomb demonstrated dramatic progression for the US military policy but there was relative stasis in terms of US military policy up until the creation of NATO in 1949 which was a turning point for the Cold War, as it was a military division between East and West. The military policy of the US was thus a success in terms of fulfilling its role but the effects of this defensive policy highlight its failure in the long term. It was yet another policy that contributed to the breakdown of relations to the east. It was another camouflaged containment policy which had the intention at heart of fighting off communism. The military policy of the United States only drove the USSR to research into nuclear development with the eventual creation of the Soviet atomic bomb in 1949 and also to push for an eastern military alliance that was the Warsaw Pact of 1955.

 

To conclude, the policies of the United States usually seemed to be successful in achieving the basic roles they were given and maintaining a strong hold on western Europe. However they were generally very unsuccessful in stabilising and thawing relations with Eastern Europe. It is thus very justifiable to believe that the US was in fact the scapegoat for the Cold War as its policies only provoked an understandable response from the east in the forms of the Soviet atomic bomb, COMECON and the Warsaw Pact. The actions of the US showed a retrogression in US-USSR relations as it amplified the prejudice of communism that was previously seen in 1920s America with the Red Scare. It seems that their military policy begins the 1945-49 period and ends it as it was the flame that sparked the Cold War with their creation of the atomic bomb and by 1949 the US military policy soon became the fire that ignited the standoff between the US and the USSR with NATO being a clear division between the East and West, shortly followed by the formal division of Germany. It is also noticeable that the US progressed into more defensive policies in the latter half of this four year period with their resistance to Stalin’s blockade in Berlin. Though what links all these policies together and what is in fact fundamental to each of them is Truman’s policy of containment. Each of these policies were a camouflage for the ultimate policy of the US which was containment. The policy of containment was a successful policy for the US and western Europe as they managed to fight off and prevent the spread of parasitic communism. Despite certain failures in these separate policies, the success of containment between 1945-49 is the overruling factor which decides that the role of US policy was overall successful in the bigger picture.