July seems to be a fairly popular month for political upheavals in the modern era. After all, the American and French Revolutions happened during the summer month named after Julius Caesar, the famous Roman General/Emperor/Dictator/Conqueror. Perhaps the month's namesake served as some form of inspiration for the various forms of political unrest, especially since Julius Caesar met a pretty brutal death by betrayal. Or perhaps, and more likely, it is just coincidence. July is usually the height of the summer, it is hot, it is miserable, people are getting tired of the heat --- maybe that facilitates revolutionary actions.
The Balkan Crisis also intensified during July 1914, when the major Western Powers prepared for a war that was supposed to end all wars. Fast forward a mere three decades to July 20, 1944 and one can find another political uprising of sort: the assassination attempt on Adolf Hitler by a group of high-ranking military officers.
But back to the most widely-known and arguably most important and far-reaching events of those hot summer days of 1776 and 1789. The implications of these two revolutions would eventually be carried around the world (and still are), and they still impact us to this day. While the importance of the American Revolution cannot be underestimated, to a degree it was a somewhat isolated event. Isolated mainly because of its geography. The residents of the British colonies in the New World decided they could just as well govern themselves and rid themselves of a mad monarch and tyrannical despot some 3000 miles away. For the rest of Europe that was pretty far away and American Independence deemed no immediate threat. The ideas of the Enlightenment that influenced and shaped the rebel colonists were born in Europe and spread throughout the continent across the Atlantic ocean. The geographical isolation of the American colonies made it easier to accommodate, spread, and implement Enlightenment ideas, thus giving the American colonists (who were British subjects after all) a greater taste of freedom and self-governance. 
Just thirteen years later, European monarchs would encounter the threat of the ideas of the American Revolution and the Enlightenment on their home continent. While the American Revolution was radical in its creation of a republican government that existed only by the consent of the people, and the insistence that every man possessed inalienable rights that could not be taken away by the government the French Revolution added brutal violence to its radicalism. It was the threat of losing not only absolute power but the very real threat of being overrun by mob rule and losing one's head that threatened the existence of Europe's monarchies. 
As radical as both revolutions were, they both left out parts of society. Just like the previous ruler had limited rights and privileges to the ruling political class, the inalienable and natural rights proclaimed in the American and French Revolutions were not all-inclusive and did not extend to women, the property-less, and in the case of the newly founded United States, slaves. Nevertheless, both revolutions helped spread the ideas of inalienable rights, natural rights, liberty, equality, government by consent, and government's duty to preserve the rights of the people. These ideas continue to help create a "more perfect union," and should be the guiding light for any nation to include people who are on the margin of society. 


 

Recently, I finally watched "The Iron Lady," the movie adaptation of Margaret Thatcher's life. I thought the movie was ok. Unlike other fellow students of history, I do not watch movies about historic events to see how well or not they portray an actual event/era/person. Rather, I watch them for entertainment - because that is what they are - and if it is a subject I am not familiar with, and I enjoy the movie and want to learn more about it, then I usually do research about it. I think "history" movies are a great opportunity to get people interested and excited about a subject, and get them started to read and learn more about it. This is exactly what "The Iron Lady" did to me: even though I grew up during her government, I am not very familiar with her other than that  she was a staunch anti-communist - very much like Ronald Reagan. Obviously, ones political opinion and principles have a lot to do with how one fews these conservative Cold War warriors. However, one cannot underestimate the important role they played in tearing down the Iron Curtain, with the help of Pope John Paul II, Mikhail Gorbachev, and of course the countless courageous citizens of Eastern Europe. 
Since the movie somewhat hit home, I decided to do more research - off to the local library! The movie did not really go into detail about the close political relationship and friendship Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan had. I believe that without their special relationship, the Iron Curtain would have stayed closed longer. Both were staunch conservatives and staunch anti-communists who believed unequivocally in freedom and free-market economy. Of course, outspending the former "evil empire" also helped in its downfall but the economic side of the Cold War is a topic for another blog. 
I was able to check out Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher -  A Political Marriage by Nicholas Wapshott. The book offers a detailed look into Thatcher and Reagan's politically intimate relationship by relying on personal correspondence, as well as official records and letters/notes by their political aides and cabinet members. The book examines their upbringing, education and their eventual entry into politics. It was interesting to read how their different styles in governing (Reagan being the hands-off manager, who had broad ideas and left the nitty-gritty details to his cabinet members/aides, while Thatcher was more of a micro-manager, needing to be involved in the tiniest details of every policy decision) brought similar results. For the most part they were on the same page when it came to confronting the Soviet Union, although Thatcher was adamantly opposed to Reagan's idealistic proposal to rid the world of nuclear weapons. The Iron Lady considered it simply fantastical, unrealistic, and also wholly dangerous for Western Europe. In her view, the nuclear stand-off, the knowledge of MAD (mutual assured destruction) was somewhat an assurance to keep the Soviets in check. However, Reagan's fantastical idea also opened the door for renewed arms limitation discussions, especially after Gorbachev was (s)elected General Secretary. It was Thatcher who met Gorbachev first, at one of the funerals for the dying old communist guard that seemed to occur on a regular basis during the early 1980s. Her assessment of the new Soviet leader certainly helped to encourage Reagan to seek ways to improve US-Soviet relations. The result of this "new and improved" relationship is now history - the Iron Curtain fell, the Cold War officially ended, Germany was re-united thanks, in no small part, to the strong alliance between the political power couple of the twentieth century.

I am trying to incorporate different aspects of history into my website's theme, Zonenrand. While I started this blog primarily to explore various aspects of living near the Iron Curtain during the Cold War, I also envision this blog to engage with all aspects of living near a border - be it a physical or psychological border. I am trying to involve this blog with exploring and engaging the history of people(s) who were marginalized and thus found themselves at the edge of society/culture, either voluntarily or forced by a majority. Several groups come to mind: minorities, immigrants, women, and even people who deliberately chose not to participate and/or withdraw from society. The role of these groups in history was often (and at times still is) relegated to the edge of society. Thus, their contributions and their role in society were either not acknowledged or marginalized as not being important. Nevertheless, even in their marginalized role these groups have an impact on society and on history. Over the next couple of months, time permitting, I will explore the history of groups who have been at one point in their history at the edge of society. 

I was watching this documentary about the Cold War in my hometown area (produced by the MDR, a regional TV channel out of Thüringen), and it reminded me how blissful ignorant I was throughout my childhood. Unfortunately, it is in German but it highlights why and how the Rhön region developed into one of the hottest placers during the Cold War. While the border between the two Germanys was more permeable in the countryside than in Berlin, East Germany tightened its border security and reinforced the inner-german border after the Berlin Wall was built. Already in the 1950s, East Germany implemented forced relocations of families who lived within 5km of the border, in the so-called Speergebiet. Nevertheless, both sides recognized the importance of the era and started building observation points. For the US Army, Observation Point Alpha near Rasdorf become its most important "peephole" into the East. As James Hamilton states in the video, OP Alpha "was the end of the Western World." Its main purpose was to observe East German and Soviet troop movements, recognize a potential attack from the East, and try to delay Soviet advancements as much as possible. Hopelessly outnumbered, at best, the US troops would act as a speed bump. At worst, the area would be turned into a nuclear wasteland. 
Growing up at the Zonenrandgebiet, within close proximity of the Iron Curtain, it simply never occurred to me that the Cold War was being played out in my backyard and what potential danger we might face. Yes, there was the presence of US soldiers. My hometown is located between 2 US bases of the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment ("Blackhorse Regiment"), Fulda and Bad Hersfeld, both of them have been closed since 1994. While US soldiers were a familiar presence in our lives I had very little interaction with them. My parents did not "adopt a US soldier" to have him or her spent Christmas with a German family, nor were my parents farmers and had soldiers helping them during harvest time. Nevertheless, US soldier were part of the daily life and it was quite "normal" for us to see them. Of course, officials on both sides stressed the importance of creating a friendly atmosphere between the local population and the US Military by encouraging interaction. 
And yet, throughout my childhood I remained blissfully ignorant about the role my hometown region played in the global significance of the Cold War. I am wondering if this ignorance was part of the US Military's strategy for the region. For me, it was "normal" to live near the Iron Curtain, and I do not think my childhood was any different than someone who grew up hundreds of miles away from the inner-german border. While the daily reminder of the divided Germany was right there, I simply did not think my life would be cut short by a Soviet invasion. Perhaps by creating this atmosphere of "normalcy" for the local population, the US appeared as protectors and defenders of freedom and our way of life in the Zonenrandgebiet, thus winning the "hearts and minds" of the local population. I am curious to see how others experienced the border - Germans and Americans alike.