Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

Economist: Crimea parliament



On 27th February 2014, Russian soldiers without their uniform first seized the Crimea parliament. This marked the start of Russia’s war against Ukraine. On 27th February 2015, exactly a year later, Boris Nemtsov, an opposition politician in Russia was killed on a bridge in Kremlin. Before his death, he was handing out leaflets for an anti-war rally to be held on March 1st the same month. Ironically, the March he was planning to start hi anti-war campaign turned out to be his memorial procession. His death is the start of the return by Russia to campaign for political violence by Ukraine. It had been noted that aggression by Russia abroad and its repression in the country are closely linked (The Economist, 2015).

According to the state propaganda, Kiev’s revolution is considered a fascist coup while the Ukrainian government is considered a western-backed junta meant to harm the Russian rebels in Ukraine’s east. The media in the country urges all Russian patriots to fight the fascists in the country including Mr. Nemtsov who is considered a ring leader and identify pro-western liberals. Because of fear that Russia could have to face the Maidan revolution, the Kremlin has decided to use the same violence he used in Ukraine. Six days before the death of Nemtsov, Kremlin planned an anti-Maidan rally that forced Maidan troops into Moscow. The anti-Maidan rally supporters had slogans denouncing the Russian, Ukraine, and the West liberals (The Economist, 2015).

The anti-Maidan march acted as the peak of a long struggle of intolerance and hatred. This was supported by Nemtsov some hours before his death in an interview when he said that Russia was changing to a fascist state. This was because of the propaganda that was spreading that there was nucleus of assault brigades. There were also terrorist groups and pro-government extremists whose main aim was to fight opposition in areas where the police could not reach. Russian proved that it was outsourcing repression to fight against non-state groups showing a sign of state weakness. In order to conceal Nemtsov’s death that was believed to be by the government, Putin’s propagandists stated that the killing was by foreign liberals. They further argued that the opposition had warned to murder one of their own in order to blame the Kremlin. For the Russian liberals, this was believed to be a new sign of political repression, similar to what was evidenced in 1934 after the killing of Sergei Kirov (The Economist, 2015). 

Description of the Rhetorical Situation

            The article passes political messages explaining how politicians can use their power to suppress and repress those below them or those who go against them. It such cases, politicians do not care what a person is in the society or how close he is with the person. If a person does not weight his words properly, the politician will decide to silence him for good through murder. However, even when the evidence points on the politician who carried out the murder, the available evidence is not strong enough to incriminate the politician. In this case, the politician (the Kremlin) has the support of the government, which has decided to rule by oppressing anyone who goes against its leadership style. This is the fate Nemtsov suffers after deciding to belong to the liberals and challenge the government. While all the other liberals can clearly point the finger to the Kremlin as the assassin, they do not have sufficient evidence to incriminate him. And in fact, the Kremlin has words to defend himself. He blames the murder on other liberals and external forces (The Economist, 2015).

            The article is constructed for everyone who is interested in political matters and especially how some countries such as Russia are run. The author has decided to bring to light some hidden information that might never come to the surface. His content and style are clear to fit his target audience, the general public. He supports his information from the current issues that prove that Russian government is an oppressing government. The assassin ofNemtsov and the jailing of Alexei Navalny, a blogger and opposition leader to stop him from attending the organized anti-war rally are examples of current issues that have pushed the author to write the article(The Economist, 2015). He has also been pushed to write the article by the anti-Maidan protest that was conducted almost in the whole of Russia to fight against the liberals.

Evaluation of the Rhetorical Choices the Author makes

The author decided to step up and reveal his intentions, emotions, and confess what he thought to be the truth. The contents in the article are a good example of the author’s temper and mood (ethos). In the author’s opening paragraph, the mood is set as he explains the death of the greatest opposition leader in the country. The author chooses strong words that demonstrate his feelings in a country in which the government that should be protecting its people is oppressing them. He explains how the government dislikes challenge and how it mercilessly deals with it in case it happens. He uses active verbs that carry the weight of his information. For instance, the author says, “Prompted by the far-fetched fear that the Maidan revolution could be replicated in Russia, the Kremlin has re-imported the violence it deployed in Ukraine”(The Economist, 2015). This is an indication that the government is not worried of the pleas of grievances of its people but has the solution to the Maidan revolution; using violence.

The author says that there are ‘pro-government extremists and terrorist groups which openly declare that their aim is to fight the opposition where the police cannot”(The Economist, 2015). This metonymic ‘fighting the opposition’ is onomatopoetic suggesting the extent the government is willing to go to achieve its goal of repressing its own people. The author is concerned with the words he chooses to show his emotions. He notes, “The anti-Maidan activists include the leather-clad ‘Night Wolves’ biker gang, who played an active role in the annexation of Crimea and have been patronised by Mr Putin. More alarming are MrKadyrov and his well-trained, heavily armed private militia of 15,000 men, who several months ago swore a public oath to defend Mr Putin”(The Economist, 2015). He uses metaphor ‘Night Wolves’ to explain how the government feels about people who pretend to be on its side and when out sight, they are in the opposition. Here, he also used active verbs and verbals ‘well-trained, heavily armed private militia of 15,000 men’ to explain how the government thinks the private militia is adequately prepared for war.  

Description of Choices I would have done differently

            I do not think there are things I would have done differently. The author uses all the best rhetorical choices that fit his article. His information has to be made clear by use of active verbs, metaphors, metonymic, onomatopoetic, and revealing his mood to show how he feels about the Russian government. This way, he explains how the government considers people who challenge it and how far it is prepared for the fight. From the author’s choice of words, it is evident that the government does not have friends and even those who swore to be by its side are noted to be wolves as night. I would have made the same choices as the author to pass the message to the target audience clearly. 




The Economist. (Mar 7th2015). Russia after Nemtsov: Uncontrolled violence. Retrieved from

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

Usury in Jewish During the Holocaust/Ghettos


            Many people believe that Jews spread across Europe before the holocaust was involved in usury; as such, they created many enemies across their communities such that no one was willing to rescue them after the Nazis started to exterminate them. Interestingly, Jews were merchants with their services spread across many countries in Europe. The fact that had huge amounts of cash led them to become moneylenders; however, the Christian community of the medieval times regarded this aspect as immoral and heinous. In essence, Christians believed that the Jews took advantage of those in need to make a profit through the provision of soft loans that drew interests. On the contrary, Jesus Christ was a symbol of poverty, generosity, chastity, and non-materialism (, 2015). In that respect, any person who was engaged in the business was viewed as greedy because they could not help those in need in their communities.

Usury in Jews

            Before the 19th century, anti-Semitism targeted Jews only because they were viewed as a distinct religious group that deserved hatred from all other groups. These beliefs were based on their spiritual teachings, which did not agree with the strong catholic teachings of the times. In effect, they experienced sporadic expulsions and persecutions as the people sought to have a world without them. In that effect, some Europeans countries created ghettos, which were exclusive to Jews in order to segregate them from the society. Some of the earliest European ghettos especially in Spain and Portugal date far back as the 14 century. The Jews’ merchant success created enmity with other racial groups because they believed that the Jews were only after material wealth and nothing could stop them to acquire more wealth at the expense of other people in the society.

            On the other hand, discrimination of Jews and fact that they could not own land in any part of Europe meant that they had little ways to make any money. In that respect, they became traders and usurers to sustain their livelihoods because they could not have anywhere to practice farming. Such occurrences created a lasting enmity between the Jews and other dominant religions in Europe such as Islam. They were targeted for any calamity that befell the people despite the fact that most of the accusations were unfounded. The Jews did not have any rights and as a result, they could not sustain their lives without engaging in businesses that were seen as immoral and effects of greed by all the other people in their communities (, 2015). The Jews were enormously successful economic wise and thus had vast resources, which they could lend to their neighbors for a fee. The neighbors did not take these actions lightly and engaged in spreading hatred against the Jews.

            Migchels (2014) agrees that capitalism started with the Jews because of their desire to create a rich few at the expense of mass poverty. To enrich themselves, the Jews practiced all forms of trade that could bring profits and amass their wealth without caring for the needs of their neighbors. The Jews never saw anything wrong with usury because it was in terms of a willing seller willing buyer situations. However, their methods to recoup debts from the society were cruel especially for anyone who could not afford to pay their debts in time. Migchels (2014) notes,


The Jews are charged with the crime of inventing capitalism because of their involvement in businesses that did not agree with the people of the 19th century. Consequently, all the other communities believed that the Jews were responsible for all the misfortunes that the societies faced.

            The Jews ensured that they kept money scarce in the populace to access cheap labor. Such beliefs did not go down well with other communities because the desired societies that valued equitable distribution of resources. Ideally, usury cannot thrive in communities where all people have access to all basic needs because no one would be willing to take up expensive loans to finance their daily activities. The success of Jews in business ventures ensured that they controlled the economy of the countries that they resided in (, 2015).


            Even though Christianity outlawed any form of usury, the Jews lived in free and peaceful ghettos where they practiced any form of trade, which could earn them profit. Jews took up the opportunities because other communities did not have the right to practice such immoral business. According to the Jews, they were doing a public well by providing the less fortunate with loans, which they could use to acquire life’s necessities and repay them later when things improved. In brief, Jews invented capitalism, which is the most common practice in the world today.




Migchels, A. (2014). Capitalism Is Jewish Usury. Real Currencies. Retrieved 23 April 2015, from (2015). Who are the Jews? |. Retrieved 23 April 2015, from

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

The Women of Ravensbruck Concentration Camp



Ravensbruck Concentration Camp was the largest camp for women during the German Reich. It was the largest camp for women after the Lichtenburg camp was closed in 1939. It was constructed by the German authorities starting in November 1938 near Ravensbruckvillage, at a site which is around 50 miles to the northern side of Berlin. It was constructed by around 500 male prisoners who were transported by the German authorities in November 1938 from the Sachsenhausen Concentration Camp for males. The male prisoners had to build a camp with 12 barracks, an infirmary, a kitchen, and a small concentration camp for male prisoners, which was completed isolated from the Ravensbrückcamp hosting women. The entire concentration camp surrounded by a very high wall, which had electrified barbed wires at the top. The decision to have the Ravensbrück camp built was the idea of Himmler. He chose this specific location because it was easy to reach and was considered out of the way. Ravensbrück, in which the concentration camp was built, was a small village, which had beautiful scenery with several lakes and forests. The village was not far from Furstenberg. Further, there was a good road connecting Ravensbrückand Fursternberg. In addition, the Furstenberg’s rail station directly linked Ravensbrückto Berlin (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2014).    

Who the Camp Hosted

After the completion of the camp, it first hosted 867 women prisoners (7 Austrian women prisoners and 860 German women prisoners on 18th May 1939) who the authorities transferred from another camp. These women were transferred in May 1939 from the Lichtenburg Concentration Camp located in Saxony since it had been closed. The numbers of prisoners increased greatly within a very short time. On 29th May 1939, 400 gypsy women prisoners from Austria arrived at the camp. This was followed by women prisoners from Poland on 28th September 1939. By the end of 1939, the women prisoners’ population in the concentration camp was 2,290. By the start of the year 1943, the camp had a female inmate population of over 10,000. This population grew to over 50,000 inmates by January 1945. However, by 1945, the camp had both male and female inmates even though most of the inmates were female prisoners indicating that the camp was no longer solely for women(United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2014).

In order to cater for the increasing demand of women prisoners, the Ravensbrück camp was enlarged four times. Before the end of 1941, the camp had 12,000 female prisoners. In 1942, more women prisoners were transferred from Russia to the camp. Before the end of 1942, the prisoners’ population in the camp was at 15,000 and by the end of 1943, it had reached 42,000 female prisoners. Just as it was the case in other concentration camps, Ravensbrück had a crematory. The SS authorities decided to construct a gas chamber in the camp in November 1944. By this time, the female prisoners’ population had risen to 80,000(United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2014).   

After the start of the war, the population in the camp was more international. Prisoners were soon coming from over 20 European countries. The inmates were from different countries mostly Poland with a representation of 36%, Soviet Union with 21%, German Reich with 18%, Hungary with 8%, France with 6%, Czechoslovakia at 3%, Yugoslavia and the Benelux countries at 2% each. The camp had different types of prisoners including Jews, political prisoners known as asocials such as Sinti and Roma, ‘work-shy’, criminals, race defilers, and Jehovah’s witnesses. The numbers of prisoners in each of these categories were varied (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2014).

The Camp Leadership

The camp leadership had five leadership departments namely the political department, the commandant’s office, camp doctor department, protective custody camp, and administration department. Tamaschke was the first commandant serving from 1938 December to 31st April 1939. His leadership was followed Koegel who started his leadership tenure on 1st January 1940. He was succeeded by Fritz Suhren who served as the camp commandant starting on 20th August 1942 to April 1945(United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2014).

All the SS administratorsin the camp were male but with female guards who did not belong to the SS group but rather belonged to a group known as ‘the female civilian employees of the SS’. The camp was also used as a training site for female guards starting the beginning of 1942. Additionally, the camp had 18 barracks with different functions for each of the barracks. Two of the 18 barracks served as the prisoner’s sickbay, two more as warehouses, one as a penal block, and another one as the camp prison until a different block to serve as the prison was built in 1939. The remaining twelve of the eighteen barracks was the prisoners’ housing with prisoners sleeping in three-tiered bunks, which were wooden(United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2014).

The Prisoner’s Experiences in the Camp

Life at Ravensbrück concentration camp was difficult and shameful just like in other concentration camps. Awful activities such as death by starvation, shooting, beating, and torture were on daily basis. Initially, the barracks that served as prisoners’ housing were in good condition with a washroom and toilets for each of the barracks. However, these conditions deteriorated to a large extent starting the year 1943. At the start, the provided rations of foods to the prisons were in small quantities and these quantities were decreased further by 1942. By the start of 1945, the camp was overcrowded and this led to poor sanitary conditions resulting to typhus epidemic spreading throughout the camp. The infected and ill prisoners were not taken care of. In fact, the weak and sick prisoners were subjected to selection and the selected prisoners were isolated and killed. The selected prisoners were initially shot to death. This changed in 1942 in which the SS officers transferred the weak and injured prisoners to the Bernberg sanitarium, a place that was fitted with gas chambers initially meant for killing the people diagnosed with intellectual and physical disabilities in the process referred to as euthanasiaduring the Nazi regime. An approximated 1600 female and 300 male prisoners were sent to the Bernberg sanitarium to face their deaths in 1942. Around 50% of these prisoners sent to death were Jewish, while 25% were Sinti/ Roma, and 13% belonged to the Jehovah’s Witnesses group (American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, 2015).

A second round of killing was initiated by the Camp authorities in the later part of 1942 and went on until 1944. During this period, over 60 trucks left the camp for euthanasia killing in Hartheim center, which is located near Linz in Austria. Each of this truck had 1,000 prisoners implying that a total of 60,000 prisoners were killed during this phase. Prisoners in the camp were also murdered by the SS staff through transfer to the Auschwitz-Birkenau killing center or through lethal injection. In 1945, the killing method and transfer to killing centers changed after the SS built a gas chamber near the camp’s crematorium. In this crematorium, around 6,000 prisoners were gassed by the Germans before the camp was freed by Soviet troops in April 1945(United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2014).

The selection of the weak and ill women to be transported to Mittweida for death was done after every two or three weeks by the SS commandant (Suhren) and the SS doctors (Pflaumand Schwarzhuber). The selection process was a very surprising process. The women had to run in front of the guards and the doctors with their skirts lifted over their hips so that any women with scars, swollen feet, injuries, or found too weak and ill to run fit in the selected group. The selected women were argued to be taken to a ‘recovery period’ that involved jailing in sealed barracks without food and medical care until death saved them. Most of the women in the selected groups did not arrive at Uckermark Youth Camp because they were gassed on the way in special vans that served as mobile gas chambers. The engine’s exhaust pipe was directly linked to the freight compartment of the van with gassing done for 15-20 minutes(United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2014).

Life for the children was very hard. So many children were confined in the camp. However, the sadism and cruelty against them did not have limits and their fate was awful. In fact, most children were sentenced to their deaths before they were born. The newborn babies were separated from their mothers immediately after birth and thrown into a sealed room or drowned to death. The murdering of these innocent souls was mostly done in the presence of their mothers. There are evidences provided that most children were thrown to the crematory alive, were buried alive, or were drowned, strangled, or poisoned in Ravensbrück. Other children suffered as research subjects with young girls at the age of eight sterilized as a result of direct exposure to X-rays on their genitals. In the initial days, children were killed immediately after birth. However, this changed when Rosenthal, the SS doctor, together with his fiancée, GerdaQuernheim, forced women to abort their pregnancies through bestial methods. Later, the children were allowed to survive but died soon after as a result of very poor sanitary conditions and lack of food (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2014). 

The prisoners in the camp were also subjected to unethical medical experiments by the SS medical doctors at around August 1942. This included experimenting the use of a number of chemical substances including sulfanilamide in treatment of wounds to prevent infections. The SS doctors also experimented various transplanting methods such as amputations experiments. In these experiments, around 80 women (generally Polish) were selected by the SS doctors for the experiments and many of them died in the process. The survivors were left with permanent physical damages. In order to develop an efficient sterilization method, the SS doctors conducted sterilization experiments on both women and children mostly from Roma (Gypsies)(United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2014).

The SS opened brothels in 1942 in most of the concentration camps. The camp authorities wanted to reward make prisoners who exceeded the production quotas to be rewarded by female prisoners who were working on the brothels. Most of the women who suffered this fate of working in the brothels were from RavensbrückCamp with around 100 women selected. Most of the women working in the brothels were forced to do so. However, other few numbers volunteered after the SS authorities promised them that they would receive special treatment and might be released from the camp after a span of six months. None of these promises were made and no releases were made. In short, life for the prisoners in the concentration camps and especially at Ravensbrückcamp was terribly unbearable(United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2014).

It is notable that over 132,000 prisoners, both women and children were confined in the concentration camp. However, around 92,000 of these prisoners died out of starvation, weakness for hard labor, and executions. Towards the end of the war and as a result of rapid advance of the Russian Army, the SS authorities had a decision to eliminate as many prisoners as it was possible. This was to avoid provision of testimonies by the surviving prisoners regarding the happenings in the camp. In order to achieve their goal of killing as many prisoners as possible, 130 pregnant women and children were killed through gassing in March 1945. Before April 1945, the SS authorities transferred the camp machines and archives to a safer place. All this was meant to destroy evidence. On 27th and 28th April 1945, all women who could walk were ordered vacate the camp in a death march. By this time, around 300 men and 3,000 ill and exhausted women prisoners could not leave the camp(United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2014).   


The SS authorities forced prisoners from the Ravensbrückcamp to unpaid and hard labor mostly in local industries and agricultural projects. By 1944, most of the German producers relied on free and forced labor from the camp prisoners in the production of armaments. In order to conduct their practices effectively, Ravensbrückcamp was made the administrative center for more than 40 sub-camps with more than 70,000 prisoners, mostly women prisoners. The sub-camps were constructed next to the factories that produced armaments, near the famous place known as Greater German Reich, which is located in the south of Austria and north of Baltic Sea. Some of the sub-camps were also used in provision of prisoner labor required in construction projects as well as labor required to clear city rubbles from Allied air attacks. The SS authorities also established a number of factories dealing with production of electrical components and textiles near Ravensbrück where they could get free labor. The largest of these sub-camps required for provision of free and forced labor held more than 1,000 prisoners each. Some of these sub-camps are Rechlin/ Retzow, Neustadt-Glewe, Malchow, Altenburg, Gruneberg, Magdeburg, Neubrandenburg, Leipzig-Schonefeld, Karlshagen I, and Barth(United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2014).


American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise. (2015). Ravensbrück Concentration Camp: History and overview. Retrieved from

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.(2014). Ravensbrück.Retrieved from


Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive


The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution

            The Vietnam War happened to be a thorn in the flesh for the United States of America President, Lyndon Baines Johnson, and that made the president to have to power to control the army without the approval of the Congress as empowered by the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. As a result, the government spent most of its resources on war and was unable to implement the Great Society Program. The Great Society Program was a strategy by the United States aimed at improving the quality of education and guarantying natural beauty and also ensured that income was distributed evenly among the American. However, although the Vietnam War was important to the American, it affected their lives negatively. This essay evaluates the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

            The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution gave the United States of America power to control the military and this resolution was approved by the Congress. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was created after North Vietnam arm attacked the US destroyer. After these attacks, the resolution was passed by the Congress. To date, whether these attacks were factual or fiction still remains a debatable issue. This resolution empowered the president to declare war any time he found it necessary. Even though the attacks were controversial, Johnson employed the power bestowed to him by the congress to send the United States of America troops to Vietnam. About four hundred soldiers were sent to the war front.

            As Johnson sent the soldiers to Vietnam, power conflicts emerged between the president and the congress. The power conflict was created by the fact that before the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, it was the congress that had the sole power to declare war. After some struggles between the president and the congress, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution empowered the president to have the power to declare war any time he found it necessary. Another cause of power struggle was the amount of money that could be spent on war. The President, Johnson, also won, and made a decision to spend the whole amount on the Vietnam War. It is this decision on spending that resulted to abandonment of the Great Society Program.  It is Johnson who created the Great Society Program and ended up neglecting it. The Great Society program was aimed at improving the living standards of the Americans through equal distribution of wealth, improved education programs, and maintenance of the environment through preservation of natural beauty. However, the decision by Johnson to engage in the Vietnam War left limited or no resources for the program to be implemented.

            The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution adversely affected the lives of the Americans. As the war escalated, conflicts of interest between the congress and the president continued to be evident. The involvement of the United States of America troops in the Vietnam War left permanent scars on Johnson’s presidency. There are a number of reasons why Johnson along with the majority of Americans were scared by the Vietnam War. It is these fears that made the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution to make a haste decision and the president made a decision to attack Northern Vietnam. While making the decision to attack Northern Vietnam, he had to forego the Great Society Program. The Great Society Program was a vision by Johnson for the American people. Through it poverty would be eradicated, there would be improved health care, and unemployment rates would decline. Nonetheless, both the Great Society Program and the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution had great effect on the American society (Dare, 2010).

Although Johnson was focused on protecting the United States of America citizens, he should have made some efforts to confirm the American destroyers had actually been attacked. More so, decision by the congress to pass the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was a big mistake. While passing the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, the congress was not clear whether the United States of America destroyers has actually been attacked. Mores, the Congress did not know whether the United States of America President had drafted the resolution three months prior to the destroyers being attacked. As a result, there was suspicion of foul play between the Congress and the presidency (Moise, 1996).

            As the American troops joined the Vietnam War, there were major conflicts between the US president and the government’ legislative branch. The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator William Fulbright was against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution because the president gained so much power. In his opposition to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, he organized a public congressional hearing to enable the citizens to  have first hand information about what was happening in Vietnam. Many cabinet members were asked to provide the information they knew about the war. The audience asked many questions in respect to the tactics, strategies, and expenses being employed in Vietnam. Most of the cabinet members refused to respond appropriately, while other claimed to have had very little information about the war. The failure by Johnson to implement the Great Society Program and the decision to engage the American troops in the Vietnam War made Johnson to leave the Whitehouse a discouraged and disappointed man. Many Americans do not find the justification of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.




Dare, L. (2010). CIA's Gulf of Tonkin secrets: A novel based on true events. New York ; Bloomington: iUniverse.

Moise, E. E. (1996). Tonkin Gulf and the escalation of the Vietnam War. Chapel Hill [u.a.: University of North Carolina Press.