LAST IRL EVER!

http://apartheidweek.org/

This is an article about the annual celebration of Israeli Apartheid Week, published on Apartheid Week organization, based out of Canada. It connects to our [past] study of Palestine and lasting effects of the struggle between Jews and Arabs (it makes mention of "Israel's brutal assault against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip" etc.) and adds to what we learned because I didn't know there was an "Apartheid Week" celebrated in Israel and all over different cities and stuff; it shows how the struggle in their society is still leaving marks today/trying to be resolved. A possible limitation is the exact reliability/clarity of the source, as the promotional poster claims the dates of the celebration last One week (which would make sense since it's called Apartheid WEEK), but in the article it says March 1-14, so there is some discrepancy.

IRL #20

http://www.merip.org/palestine-israel_primer/intro-pal-isr-primer.html

This is an article, by Joel Beinin and Lisa Hajjar, published in the online "Middle East Report."
It connects to our study of the Arab-Israeli conflict in Palestine, and enhances what we learned by providing a very clear explanation/contrast of the claims of both the Arabs and the Jews to the land of Palestine, an outline of events concerning the struggle over Palestine since the 19th century, and specific numbers of populations of different ethnic/religious groups in Jerusalem in 1878, etc.
A limitation is that the date of the publication of the article is not listed, and thus the reader cannot know exactly what timeframe and context this information is being given. Also, after doing some light research on one of the authors of the article, Lisa Hajjar, it appears that she is unnaturally obsessed with the subject of torture, which does make her relation to this [non-torture-related] topic seem somewhat odd, and also this article does not say much about the hatred and tensions between and against the Israeli and Arab groups.

TOK IRL #2 (based on IRLs 12-19)

Can one talk meaningfully of a historical fact? How far can we speak with certainty about anything in the past?

Because one Has to be able to speak about history and place at least Some trust in things to learn, or else everything would be useless and we wouldn't be able to glean anything from the past, and ultimately all knowledge of all facts is based on the perspective of Someone, one can talk meaningfully about history, but very few facts can be spoken about with all certainty.
When history is reported/represented, it is often reported only in part, with some parts missing, such as the [partial] map of the missile placement/target areas during the cold war in my IRL #14. When things are not taken in full context like this, they can be misleading. However, after more research to fill in the missing parts, you could speak more meaningfully about this information. IRL 15 provides some insight into how facts of 'public opinion' established by the results of polls constructed by governmental or other organizations can be inaccurate due to loaded questions, pressuring, selection of questions/wording etc. used in the taking of the polls. IRL 16, based on an article taken from "The Hindu" demonstrates the effects of subtle anti-Israeli (and thus any sort of "biased") perspectives expressed which can effect how the reader thinks or feels about the subject. IRL 18 also presents an opposite case of a pro-Israeli slant on an article. This phenomenon could/can lead to the slanted version of the "facts" being so imprinted as fact in the minds of readers that it does in fact become Fact (because if enough people with authority agree on something, in the eyes of the general world it becomes reliable truth). There is also the issue of plain mistakes being made in the recording of historical facts, such as the wrong date at the top of an article that most likely suggests faulty researching (IRL 16).

I don't think there is really a clear or correct answer to this question, but definitely confirmation with a multiple and varied diverse sources is an important factor in obtaining meaningful historical facts, and one can speak with fair certainty about things which have enough justification/evidence (e.g. photos of dead corpses in concentration camps to prove the holocaust did happen), but one always has to keep in mind the constant twisting of the "facts" done by all historians of every human type.

IRL #19

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/73_War.html

This is the URL to a complete summary of the Yom Kippur War of 1972 (one of the incidents we have been studying in class in our arab-israeli conflict unit). It was produced by the Jewish Virtual Library (a division of the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise), which implicates that the purpose of this organization/"article" to foster cooperation between the USA and Israel could present a limitation of a solely pro-Israeli and western view expressed in the communication/explanation of the events and casting Arabs and Soviets in a bad light (e.g. Russia's interest in "the APPEARANCE of detente"). However, this source is valuable for learning a western/pro-Israeli point-of-view summary of the war and it enhances what we learned in class by providing more detail as well as visual displays of the movement of the troops (2 maps on webpage).

Key Questions Assignment pp. 50-59

p. 50 What were the results of the 6 day war?
Due to aid from the French and British (airforce etc) and US technology that allowed them to intercept Arab communications, the Israelis won the war after ruining most of the Arab airforce; 15,000 Arabs died and <1,000 Israelis. The Israelis decided on military occupation of the lands they had conquered; this made their own borders more secure as there were buffer zones between Israel and each of their enemies now.

p. 54 Why did Egypt and Syria attack Israel in 1973?
There were tensions since 1968 b/w Egypt and Israel over the use of the Suez Canal, and Egypt was getting tired out by 1970 of the 'war of attrition" (both sides constantly fighting across the Canal). Nasser died and President Sadat tried to gain favor with the USA and hence convince them to force Israel into a peace agreement (Egypt wanted Sinai in return for a peace agreement), but the USA was too busy with Viet Nam and the 6 million Jews in America would not stand for bullying Israel. With the support of Syria's new president and oil-rich Saudi Arabia, Egypt decided to secretly prepare for war and then attacked Israel on October 6, 1973 (Yom KIppur).

p. 55 What happened in the early stages of the war?
Egyptian troops and tanks crossed the Suez Canal and destroyed 300 Israeli tanks and regained part of Sinai, and Syrian tanks invaded Golan Heights. Israeli air force retaliated but the Arabs had Soviet missiles. It took the Israelis 3 days to fully mobilize but then they pushed the Syrians back and surrounded the Egyptian army.

p. 57 Why and how did the superpowers become involved?
The USSR sent arms to the Arabs and the USA organized a massive airlift to Israel. The USSR and USA later met and together demanded a ceasefire. They did this because the USSR didn't want Egypt to lose Sinai and the USA was scared of the Oil Weapon, and both wanted to avoid direct confrontation.

To what extent was the war an Arab victory?
Since the Israelis only won the war on a military basis but lost in terms of all the "face" and respect gained by the Arabs via their use of planning, surprise, and the Oil Weapon (the US and rest of the world were now forced into better relations with Arabs and more likely to force Israel into a peace settlement), I would say the Arabs won the war to a fair extent.

What steps led to an Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty?
US secretary of state Henry Kissinger engaged in "shuttle diplomacy" between Israel, Egypt, and Syria. President Sadat was moved by all the Egyptian deaths and losses from the past four wars to want real peace with Israel and became willing to acknowledge Israel and visit their parliament to discuss peace. Then the Israeli prime minister flew to Egypt for peace talks. Then in 1978 US President Carter invited them both to Camp David where the frameworks for a peace agreement were arranged. In March 1978, they signed the Treaty of Washington (agreeing to what they'd set up at Camp David).

IRL #18

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/22/world/middleeast/22mideast.html

This is the URL of a news article from The New York Times. It connects to what we're studying in class about the war of 1967, and the current-day outcomes of the Arab-Israeli conflict. For example, it says "Syria’s motives are clear: it wants to regain the Golan Heights, captured by Israel in the 1967 war", suggesting reasons for the peace talks held 2 years ago. The value of our learning is enhanced by the details this articles gives about the effects of the anti-Israeli attacks/groups, etc. A limitation could be that the likely pro-Israeli source/purpose of this American newspaper is suggested by the 4th paragraph and especially the term "raw power" which appears to be an attempt to evoke sympathy from the reader for the under-attack Israelis, and could hence be presenting a slanted version of the situation. Due to the privacy of the talks as well as this article's focusing on other aspects, it is difficult to learn what was going on and/or being achieved by the talks between Syria and Israel.

IRL #17

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/suez.htm

This is a historical account of the Suez Crisis based on military accounts and published by globalsecurity.org. It connects to what we're studying about the Arab-Israeli crisis and the war over the Suez Canal in Egypt. It adds to what we learned because it's a more detailed explanation of the events in the crisis and the specific actions/contributions of the USA to the war in military terms (e.g. the fleets that were sent to the Middle East), but a limitation is because of the focus on American standpoint/involvement on/in the war and perhaps some ambiguity in the records, it is not made clear why the Anglo-French Attack on Egypt occurred/how it was justified.

SGQ # 12

Crisis in the Middle East p. 3-9

What was the Jewish claim to Palestine?
They had lived there from about 1500 B.C. and they called it the "Promised Land" of their forefather Abraham, and had historical and religious ties to Jerusalem, the city of Christ's birth.

What was the importance of the Balfour Declaration?
This was a statement that Britain would support the Jews in establishing a homeland in Palestine, and the British had only meant it as a tool to gain American support in the war (American Jews would move their government, Britain believed), but the Jews took it as a promise from Britain to help them set up a Jewish State.

What was the Arab claim to Palestine?
In the 600s the Arabs (mostly Muslims by now) swept through the Middle East and north Africa including Palestine and took over with their religion and language until the Ottoman Turks took over in the sixteenth century.

To what extent was WWI a turning point in the struggle for Arab independence?
Because the British were scared of having their oil supplies cut off by the Turks in the first world war, the Brits wanted to support the Arabs' independence in return for their rebelling/fighting against the Turks. But because the Brits were more worried about their agreements with France than with the Arabs, instead of putting Kind Feisal as king of Syria as Lawrence suggested, Britain let France take over Syria, and put Feisal as King of Iraq and his older brother as ruler of Transjordan, but both territories were still British mandates. So, WWI was only partially a turning point in the struggle for Arab independence.

Why did Britain and France want mandates in the Middle East?
They agreed to split them in the Sykes-Picot Agreement; there were probably oil reserves and ports on the Mediterranean Sea and stuff that appealed to Britain and France, and of course the expansion of their empire and power.

IRL #16

http://beta.thehindu.com/news/international/article267855.ece

This is a news article, published by the [online] newspaper "The Hindu". It connects to what we just started studying about the Arab-Israeli conflict because it discusses the current relations, peace talks, and actions between the US, Israel, and Palestine. It enhances what we've learned by providing a clear example of the current (still existing) issues over land in the US, with the debate over Israel's construction of a big housing settlement in Jerusalem. A limitation faced when using this source is that I read the article on March 22, 2010, but the date at the top of the article says "March 23, 2010", suggesting that the source does not hold much validity for accuracy, or at least creates some confusion. Another limitation is the seemingly anti-Israeli commentary slanting the article through descriptions of Israeli actions such as "seemed timed to embarrass the United States and perhaps to smother the new talks". This is probably do to the pro-arab/hindu nature of a newspaper titled The Hindu.

Sino-US Relations (Group work question)

GROUP QUESTION (#5 ON PAPER ABOUT SINO-US RELATIONS sources A-C)

There is some evidence in Sources A-C to support the concept that the change in relations between the USA and the PRC was less fundamental than is sometimes supposed.
Source A says that "China's attitude toward foreign countries retains elements of aloofness, suspicion and hostility."
Source B says that China and the US were friendly but didn't like each other's foreign policies; the nationalists still think that they are right in choosing their nationalistic views...
Sources C (ii) and (iii) do not offer any specific evidence to support the fundamentality of the change in relations between the USA and the PRC; the supposed quote 'today our two peoples hold in their hand the future of the whole world' has no real power or plan behind it, it's just a nice-sounding statement, and if the change in relations had been that drastic and meaningful, there would be specific planning going on between them.

or

There is some evidence in sources A-C that the changes in relations between USA and the PRC in 1971 were less fundamental than is sometimes supposed. In source A, it is mentioned that China's foreign policy is still very hostile towards other countries. It is said that they are booth aloof and suspicious. Source B initially seems to support the idea that the change in Sino-US relations was great, but later on it goes on to mention that the relationships between the countries had been suspended for twenty years. Source C mentions that three-corner diplomacy was advantageous to the United States, showing that the US is still sticking to their own ways. There is façade of agreement, but really every country is still looking out for their own interests.

'Media' Group essay

By examining sources A through E, it quickly becomes clear that there's an intimate relationship between dictators and their media. All of the sources demonstrate how the dictator ship will use its media in order to sway popular opinion. In fact, it is often essential for dictatorships to do this to gain support for their policies and administer them in both foreign and domestic affairs.
Source A demonstrates a situation in which the media is used to replace a dictator smoothly and effectively in an authoritarian state. The first part of the source is an excerpt from Nikita Khrushchev's speech to the CCC. Khrushchev attacked the cult of personality that surrounded Stalin and was the first communist in a long time to criticize a leader and his policies. After this speech, part two of source A demonstrates how the media praises Khrushchev for his willingness to attack a cult of personality and likely impacted Khrushchev's rise to power by increasing his notoriety and authority.
Source B shows the medial reaction from two different dictatorships of the Bucharest conference. These sources illustrate how the media was used to paint conferences and other political happenings in the light of the government by which it was produced.
Source C is the first of the five sources to demonstrate the relationship between the dictatorship, the media, and the state's foreign policy. Part one of the source is an excerpt from the Chinese press, accusing the Soviets of ransacking their borders and converting their people to Soviet Communism. Part two of source C is a reactionary article from Pravda, which, in short, accuses the Chinese government of fabricating the entire incident. In both cases, the government use the media to turn the people against each other and maintain a foreign policy of tension between the two states while still keeping the approval of the public.
Source D is the people's daily on the resignation of Khrushchev and it talks about China's view and how they disagree with what Khrushchev did, and how they support the Soviets for causing him to resign. They say that Khrushchev betrayed Leninism and the proletariat and the interests of the soviet people.
Source E stands in the aftermath of the Czechoslovakian Prague Spring, which began the process of throwing off the mantle of communism in Eastern Europe. The Soviet Union paints its reaction to the incident as a staunch but at the same time compassionate attempt at pacifying the anti-soviet feelings and by doing so spreading socialist internationalism. And also, they made use of Lenin's Centinary as propaganda supporting nationalism. By contrast, the Chinese, who are at the time at odds with the Soviets paint the issue as a weakening of Soviet resolve. The Chinese, who are rather bold in their view of spreading communism around the world portray the Czech incident as a softening of Soviet doctrines in order to make themselves as the true bearers of the Communist philosophy.
In every one of these sources it is clear that authoritarian dictatorships rely on the media. Like all government types, authoritarian states need public approval to stay in power, so the media is often implemented to improve public relations and ensure the welfare of the state while simultaneously enabling them to carry out their various policies.

IRL #15

http://www.mediaed.org/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&key=106

This is the URL to an article and a video clip from the documentary Constructing Public Opinion (Executive Producer: Sut Jhally; Director/Editor: Susan Ericsson, Speaker Professor Justin Lewis). The clip relates to what we're studying in class because we are talking about the influence of mass media in the formation of public opinion in authoritarian states, and this video brings that down to a level we live at today - in America, not even an authoritarian state, but where we still have corporately-controlled mass media greatly influencing public opinion, via use of "public polls" formulated and reflected by the Media, etc. It adds value by providing examples of this common occurrence such as with the campaign of Bush and Algore that show us how relevant this issues is in today's world, and the video obviously also uses visual and audio techniques to drive across the message. Limitations when using this source could be that: if you were trying to learn about authoritarian states in particular, the US is not one; the documentary was published in 2001 and does include more recent and relevant examples such as the Obama campaign; and because this was a presentation by a form of media itself, there could have been existing motivations to play even more with the viewers' minds... How do we know the polls They presented were accurate?

IRL #14

http://unimaps.com/cuba-crisis/mainmap.gif

This is a site with a map that explains the location, events, and some of the implications of the Cuban Missile Crisis (how far the missiles could reach and what US cities could have been wiped out etc.). Unimaps.com is a site with no guarantees on accuracy, which is a definite limitation when using the source, but all the information provided in the image, except for the perimeter of the missiles' range (which is supposed to represent "medium range missiles", so maybe the full-range ones would have reached closer to california). They claim all the text below the image is from the Marxist Internet Archive.
It connects to what we're studying because it relates to the role of the Cuban Missile Crisis in the development of the Cold War (such close missiles increased tension, etc.). It enhances what we've learned by providing visual geographical context and a summary for/of the Crisis.
Another limitation besides the uncertainty of the source is that the map is cut off and the whole extent of the possible damage to the US that the missiles could have done cannot be seen with this image.

IRL #12

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/kowar/kowar.htm

This is a link to a site about the Korean War (which connects to our study of the Korean war and Cold war) that includes an overview and a bunch of pictures with specific names and explanations. It was produced by the "DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY" / "NAVAL HISTORICAL CENTER". The photographs enhance our knowledge of the subject by demonstrating US naval efforts in the war and providing more visual detail about the technology (planes, ships, weapons, etc.) the soldiers used, and the scale and effect of some of the explosions. A limitation faced when using this source is that because the focus is on American involvement and it could be argued that the purpose is to lift up the American navy, nothing is mentioned of the other nations' troops that were also sent into Korea, and all North Korean actions are painted in a negative light.

SGQ # 11

IBSL2 SGQ11

Guiding questions:

Why did the Cold War spread from Europe to other parts of the world after 1950?

For what reasons, and with what results for East-West relations, did the superpowers become involved
in the affairs of one of the following: Korea; Vietnam; the Middle East?

What were the effects of the Korean War on international relations?

MWH p. 143-147

1. Background
a. Explain the evolution of control of Korea from 1910 to 1948
Korea had been under Japanese occupation since 1910 -> After Japanese were defeated in August 1945, America and USSR divided Korea into 2 sections along 38th parallel to 'guide their half's withdrawal of Japanese' and then in August/September 1948 they each set up a government in their half of Korea - the Americans/UN the independent Republic of Korea w/ Syngman Rhee as president and its capital at Seoul, and USSR the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
b. What was the leadership situation in Korea in 1949?
America + USSR had removed troops, and Syngman Rhee became a "ruthless authoritarian", and Kim II Sung (North Korea) was even worse, modeling after Stalin and arresting/executing many of his critics

2. Why did the North invade the South (June 1950)?
Possible answers:
a. Kim's idea - It was his own idea, encouraged by Dean Acheson's lacking to include Korea in his earlier statement of areas the US would protect

b. Chinese role - Kim Il Sung was encouraged by new Communist gov't (who was getting ready to attack Chiang Kai-shek)

c. Russian role - Stalin/Russians wanted to test Truman's determination. They had already supplied North Korea, and a victory over the south would strengthen their position and make up for their loss against the americans in West Berlin

d. S. Korea's role - Communists claim that Syngman Rhee's troops had crossed the 38th parallel

3. What did the USA do?
a. Why did Truman decide to intervene?
i. he saw it as Stalin's doing and a big plan to spread communism
ii. the invasion could be seen as similar to Hitler's policies in the 1930s (appeasement had failed then, so they shouldn't use it now)
iii. Truman was determined to support the UN because the USA had not supported the League and it had been bad.
iv. [Democrat] Truman wanted to dispel Republican attacks about not taking action against communism and them working for the USSR
b. What nations joined the US in support of S. Korea?
14 other countries also sent troops after UN ordered members to send help. (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Nationalist China, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Columbia, Greece, Turkey, Panama, Phillipines, Thailand and Britain)
c. Briefly summarize the course of the war in 1950
By september, communists had captured all but port of Pusan in south-east South Korea -> american troops land in Pusan and clear Seoul -> communist forces collapse -> Truman (w/ approval of UN) orders invasion of North Korea to unite country for free elections
d. How and why did China get involved?
They became alarmed that America was at its border (of Manchuria) and had a fleet between them and Taiwan (Chiang kai-shek), so they sent a full offensive (>300,000 troops) and drove the americans back down through Korea and captured Seoul. [But then the americans fought their way back to the mid line of Korea)
e. How did the war end?
Peace talks came to a close in 1953 w/ an agreement that the border should be along the 38th parallel (pretty much where it had been before the war)

4. What were the results of the war?
a. Korea - Disaster: ~4 million Korean soldiers and civilians killed, 5 million people homeless, Division seemed permanent (each side suspicious, ceasefire agreements often broken)

b. the US - Some satisfaction from having contained communism and American rearmament, but lost opportunity to destroy communism in China

c. the UN - had successfully exerted authority and reversed aggression, but communists called it a capitalist tool

d. China - had put up impressive fight against americans and prevented korean unification -> was clearly a world power, but still denied seat in UN

e. the Cold War - American relations now permanently strained with Russia and China, especially because of situation with Taiwan. --> China tries to build up alliances with struggling communists in other countries (India and Burma), and America tries to set up bases around China while allying with Asian states (South East Asia Treaty Organization)

IRL (TOK)

TOK QUESTION: Can history provide a guide to understanding contemporary affairs? Can it provide a guide to the future? What might be “the lessons of history” for future generations?


History can provide an understanding to many contemporary affairs, because human nature follows patterns: we will always seek survival and profit for oneself. It is our nature to form opinions and to trust them no matter what others say... Hence the battles such as that between capitalism and communism.

As seen in my first IRL (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/39528.stm) about Communism in Cuba and the incident in 1997 of how the Christian Liberation Movement was not allowed to stand for election, it is evident that in Cuba (as well as in China and other places around the world) Communism, and control over parties and opposition, still exist in our world - almost 60 years after it was invented by Carl Marx and implemented (not too successfully) in China and other places. This is because some people will probably always be convinced that central ownership etc. is the best way to run a country.

My fifth IRL (http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/coll.html) showed Stalin's plans for carrying out his Communism (collectivization and central industrialization). While I don't know any countries that are really doing that now, I know that the government of America took over GM (the car company) when they had to bail them out of the recent recession ~2009. I can imagine in the future, that an attempt on the part of the government to create jobs could lead to them owning many businesses etc. and we only being employees... And the current issues right now with Obama and his wanting to impose healthcare plans/laws, follow a sort of socialist path. Maybe the 'Change' we think we're going to get is really just a revolution back to old historical patterns that they tried in the last century.

The clear racism expressed in the source for my third IRL (a poster handed out by Nazis) (http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~rar4619/Images/chart.jpg)
is still very present in some societies; even in America many African Americans suffer injustices such as court charges/accusations because of prejudices against them and their supposed criminal tendencies, and I still find it fairly unusual to see a married couple of different colors.

I think it is hard for history to provide a "guide to the future" because yes, it makes us aware of past mistakes and possible future ones, but it is rare that actual answers to past problems were ever reached, and it is likely that any answers had some sort of consequence that someone didn't like (for example, Germany's unhappiness after the Treaty of Versailles). In addition, events here and now feel very different than something read about in a history text book, so we are inclined to feel differently and make different choices when it is our problem. Further, the world is changing so quickly with the development of technology, growing of populations and environmental effects, that it is hard many times to make an accurate comparison between a current condition and a past one.
I think "lessons of history" that I've learned from this class and these IRLs are 1) what I said before about there being patterns in human nature and behavior that will probably always result in close ideas and solutions to our problems, 2) you always have to think about many different aspects: the viewpoint of each party in a deal etc. has to be considered and understood, and there is more to "history" than dates and events - there is humanity, emotion, culture... A more specific lesson might be the failing of extreme Communism, seeing as the Cubans protested against the law against opposing parties --> Ideals are nice but they almost never function so well.

SGQ # 10

Guiding questions:
Analyze the origin of East-West rivalry and explain why it developed into the Cold War.
When and why did the Cold War end?
How did the Cold War develop?

MWH p. 117-140

1. What were the effects of WWII?
a. evidence of enormous destruction?
-almost 40 million people were killed
-21 million people had been uprooted from their homes (sent to concentration/labor camps, or fled)
-destruction of cities and French wealth
b. no all-inclusive peace settlement - what was there?
# of separate treaties:
-Italy lost african territories and and claims to Albania and Ethiopia
-USSR took eastern Czech and some others...
-Romanians took back Transylvania from Hungary
-in 1950 Japan agreed to give back all territory gained in last 90 yrs -? full withdrawal from china
c. examples social changes?
-populations movements during war; after war people had to move, especially germans to west germany so germany couldn't claim areas in future
-urban redevelopment as ruined cities were rebuilt (esp. in germany and USSR)
-1942 Beveridge Report, a plan for introducing a Welfare State in Britain
d. nuclear weapons - so what?
-had horrifying effects, but made both sides of Cold War so scared of consequences that they wouldn't fight each other
e. European domination of the world ended - why?
Because the biggest powers were weakened: Germany was ruined and divided, France and Italy were on the verge of bankruptcy, and Britain was closely and uncomfortably dependent on the USA for loans (which came at high interest)
f. emergence of the superpowers - who?
USA and USSR (no longer as isolated as during war; America had biggest air-force and navy, and altho weakened Russia had biggest army) --> they were both suspicious about each other's intentions
g. decolonization - what happened to the territories?
gradually they achieved full independence, but not without a struggle many times
h. the United Nations - so what?
the United Nations ORGANIZATION became the successor and did a much better job keeping world peace.

2. What caused the Cold War?
a. what are the differences of principle?
-the communist system of following Karl Marx; centrally planned... life.
-the capitalist system based on private ownership and pursuing profits
b. what were Stalin's foreign policies?
He wanted to take advantage of military situation to strengthen russian influence over Europe -> he tried to occupy as much german and other land as he could
c. what were US and British policies?
-After Roosevelt died and Truman became president, the attitude was tightened towards communists
-Britain's delay in launching invasion of France was aimed towards exhausting russian army ?
-West had atomic bomb, USSR did not.

3. How did the Cold War develop between 1945 and 1953?
a. what four things were agreed upon at the Yalta Conference?
i. United Nations created instead of League of Nations
ii. Germany was split into Russian, American, British (and later French) zones
iii. Free elections would be allowed in the states of eastern Europe
iv. Stalin promised to join war against Japan if he could have some territory (partly from Manchuria)

b. why were Germany and Poland the major concerns at the Potsdam Conference (July 1945)?
-It was a big question of When Germany's parts would be able to re-join (other things like her reparations and trade/food supply from russia were settled).
-Poland made the biggest disagreement: the pro-communist Polish government expelled 5 million Germans, which was not agreed on at Yalta
c. how was Communism established in eastern Europe?
-Russia systematically interfered in countries (such as poland) and imprisoned or murdered opponents if necessary
-allowed free elections in Hungary but made sure Cabinet was full of communists
d. how did Russia exert its influence in eastern Europe?
-they kept enforcing communism, rigging elections and ditching opponents
-Stalin treated russian part of germany like russian; only communist party was allowed, and Germany was drained of resources
-Yugoslavia was the only one with an elected leader and less russian control
e. what were the Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan?
-Truman Plan helped grecians receive arms and supplies to defeat communists, and gave turkey 60 million dollars of aid
-Marshall Plan (June 1947) economic extension of truman doctrine --> one of its aims was to promote european recovery --> Marshall Aid fostered recovery of agriculture and industry
f. what was Cominform?
Communist Information Bureau, soviet response to Marshall Plan (set up by Stalin in September 1947) which tightened grip on communism throughout europe (industrialized, collectivized, centralized) --> later Molotov Plan offered russian aid to satellites
g. what happened to Czechoslovakia?
Communists were blamed for Czech rejection of Marshall aid --> Communist coup seized power before elections could be held
h. what happened in Berlin?
after the 3 western zones of germany united and requested the russian zone join too, the russians blockaded their zone, but the americans kept flying in food and supplies on planes to the zone, and the russians finally gave up and removed blockade --> power to west but bad relations with Russia, formation of NATO
i. what is NATO?
North Atlantic Treaty Organization: America, Britain, and lots of other european countries signed this to guarantee each other future military security if one of them was attacked
j. what happened to Germany?
westerners set up WEST germany, and russia set up east germany, so they were separated until 1990 when communism collapsed
k. what developed with nuclear weapons?
america was scared of russia and newly Communist (Maoist) China --> USA increased expenditure on arms and invented hydrogen bomb much bigger than atomic bomb

4. To what extent was there a thaw after 1953?
a. why was there a thaw?
i. Stalin died and new russian leaders wanted better relations with USA (mostly because of hydrogen bomb)
ii. anti-communist senator mccarthy was discredited after he went too far with accusations and then america had better feelings toward soviet people

b. how do we know there was a thaw?
i. singing of peace treaty at Panmunjom ended Korean War in 1953, in 1954 the war in Indo-china ended
ii. Russians made important concessions
1. gave up military bases in finland
2. lifter veto on admission of 16 new member states to UN
3. quarrel w/ Yugoslavia healed
4. Cominform was abandoned -> more freedom to satellite states
iii. Austrian State Treaty (May 1955)

c. what evidence suggests only a partial thaw?
i. Warsaw Pact 1955
ii. Russians continued to build up nuclear armaments
iii. situation in Berlin caused more attention
iv. Khrushchev installed soviet missiles in Cuba (<100 miles from American coast)

5. The nuclear arms race and the Cuban missile crisis
a. how did the arms race accelerate?
Russians produced own atomic bomb -> America makes more powerful H bomb -> Russia does too, w/ far range -> Americans remain ahead in numbers of bombs, but -> 1957 Russians produce Inter-continental ballistic missile -> americans make own version, and lots of them, plus shorter range bombs -> Russia launches earth satellite -> america does too.
b. what happened in Cuba? how was it resolved?
Fidel breaks off USA relations and buddies up with Russia -> america tries to invade Cuba with 1400 troops but fails -> Fidel claims Cuba as Marxist -> america keeps attacking -> russians set up missile base in cuba, pointing at USA -> USA and Russia come to agreement to remove missiles from Cuba and turkey
c. what happened to the arms race in the 1970s?
Russia continued competing with america, and caught up (they both developed several new types of missiles - multi-headed ones, low-flying ones...)
d. how effective were anti-nuclear protests?
British protested for a one-country banning of nuclears but the gov't was scared of an attack from USSR... However, maybe the grand scale of this contributed to the eventual understandings...

IRL #11

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/video/2008/oct/09/cold-war-modern-design

This is a video actually about the opening of an exhibit in the Victoria and Albert museum, but the exhibit contains furniture and objects from the Cold War era, and the video talks about some of the political connections, main images associated with the Cold War... It connects to what we're studying because obviously we just started studying the Cold War, and it enhances what we've learned by providing some visual images and a different twist on what the cold war produced (not only war but fashion and STUFF). The source of the video is "Andrew Dickson, Shehani Fernando and agencies" on and I don't know much about them, but the information shown is not too affected by the source... The limitations of this source include its brevity and its focus being on the material in the museum, so there is not much in-depth information available to a historian studying the Cold War.

SGQ #9

Origins of WWII
Why was the time period 1933 to 1939 such a crucial era in world history?

MWH p.69-84

1. Relations between Japan and China
a. Japanese invasion of Manchuria
i. why?
It was a valuable trade outlet; wanted to take it before the Chinese (getting stronger under Chang Kaishek); had been involved there since 1890s, won a port in the russo-japanese war, and invested millions of pounds into their industry and railroad. Since Japan was suffering economically, they couldn't stand by while they were squeezed out of Manchuria.
ii. who supported them? who was opposed?
The British Foreign Secretary because he noticed all the investments Japan had there.
Chinese were opposed?
iii. what was done?
Japan declared Manchuria an independent state under Pu Yi, the last of the Chinese emperors.

b. Japanese advance from Manchuria
i. explain - In 1933 japan advances from manchuria into north-eastern China; by 1935 a large part of china (up to Beijing) is under japanese political and commercial control (while Chinese are in civil war b/w Mao and GMT)

c. Further invasions
i. explain - Signed anti-comintern pact with Germany (1936) -> Japanese use as excuse an incident b/w chinese and japanese troops -> invade other parts of China (July 1937). [The Prime Minister didn't want big intervention but he gave into the wishes of General Sugiyama the War Minister] --> Autumn 1938 Japanese had captured Chiang Kaishek's capital and done terrible things to the Chinese, but didn't victor because Mao had joined against Japanese, and the Russians were helping both communist groups --> League of Nations condemns japanese aggression but is powerless to act because Japan was not a member --> none of the other countries were available to help, so japan conquered eastern china and Chiang held west and center
ii. what did the League of Nations do?
League of Nations condemns japanese aggression but is powerless to act because Japan was not a member

2. Mussolini's foreign policy
a. 1923-1934 (summarize)
i. attended Locarno Conference (1925) -> disappointed that treaty did not guarantee the Italy-Austria border
ii. he was friendly towards greece, hungary and albania; economic and defense agreements were signed
iii. cultivated good relations w/ britain (he supported her decision about turkey, and in turn she gave italy small part of Somalialand.
iv. after britain, he was the 1st to recognize the USSR; he signed a non-aggression pact with the USSR
v. he helped defend austria from the germans -> improved relations w/ france, but mussolini was getting impatient

b. after 1934 - how had Mussolini's attitude changed? examples:
i. joined the british and french in condemning the german action of re-introducing conscription (events convinced Muss. that britain was selfish, and would turn a blind eye to his invasion of abyssinia
ii. Italian invasion of abyssinia (ethiopia) --> demonstrated ineffectiveness of collective security

1. what did the League of Nations do?

iii. condemned italy as an aggressor
iv. applied economic sanctions, which were useless because france and britain wanted to keep italy as an ally


3. Hitler's foreign policy
a. aims
i. destroying hated Versailles settlement
ii. building up army
iii. recovering lost territory (e.g. Saar an d Polish Corridor)
iv. bring all german-speaking people inside the Reich (annex austria and take territory from Czech and Poland)

b. successes
i. (since Germany's military was still weak in 1933 he had to move slow at first) Withdrew Germany from World Disarmament Conference and from League of Nations
ii. signed a 10-yr. non-aggression pact with the poles (Jan 1934) -> calmed down Britain and Poland but worried France and Russia
iii. suffered setback when Austrian Nazi revolt was put down because Italians had moved to protect Austrian border
iv. the Saar was returned to Germany and propagandized
v. 1935 first break of Versailles when he re-introduced conscription
vi. signed the Anglo-German Naval agreement with britain (germany was basically encouraged to do re-armament, but only to 35% of Britain's navy --> by 1938, german army, navy, airforce was doing very well
vii. he sent troops into the demilitarized section of the rhineland -> no real resistance was offered, and to soothe his enemies he made a peace treaty for 25 years
viii. 1936 he signed Rome-Berlin Axis with Mussolini and Anti-Comintern Pact with Japan --> italian and german troops gain experience from winning Spanish Civil War
ix. March 1938 Anschluss with Austria (Hitler's greatest success because showed relations with italy, and rendered Czech attackable from west, north and south

4. Appeasement
a. what is appeasement? summarize the two phases:
-avoiding war with big powers by giving into other reasonable demands
i. from mid 1920s to 1937 attitude "war must be avoided" so france and britain ignored all the breaches of Versailles by germany and france
ii. may 1937 Chamberlain becomes british prime minister and decides to take initiative and show hitler that reasonable claims could be met by negotiation rather than force

b. how was it justified?
i. it was thought essential to avoid war (fear of defenseless cities being bombed) and britain didn't have money for vast rearmament
ii. they felt bad about harshness of Versailles on germany and italy
iii. Chamberlain thought he could civilize hitler and mussolini by personal contact since the League wasn't powerful enough to do anything
iv. Economic cooperation b/w britain and germany would be good for both (if britain helped ger. economy to get better, their internal violence would die down)
v. they feared Communist russia even more than Hitler, and thought Nazism would be a buffer against western spread of communism
vi. Britain was totally unprepared for full-scale war, so it wanted to avoid military action; Chamberlain sped rearmament in hopes of preventing attacks

c. what was the role of appeasement leading up to WWII?
i. no action was taken to stop obvious german rearmament
ii. Anglo-German Naval agreement was signed without consulting italy or france -> broke Stresa front
iii. only half-hearted british action against italian invasion of ethiopia
iv. French didn't mobilize troops when Germans re-occupied Rhineland
v. neither Britain nor France intervened in Spanish Civil War
vi. they protested against Anschluss of germany and austria but lacked action

5. Munich to the outbreak of war
a. Czechoslovakia - what were the three steps to the conquest of Czechoslovakia?
i. The propaganda campaign in Sudetenland : Hitler encouraged Germans' in Sudetenland hatred of Czech for supposed "discrimination" against Germans (employment rate there WAS low)
ii. The Munich conference, September 29, 1938 : Hitler invites Britain France and Italy to meeting to sign Munch agreement, giving Germany sudetenland (if the Czech resisted Munich decision, they would get no help from Britain or France - breach of Locarno)
iii. The Destruction of Czech, March 1939 : loss of 70% of industry, 1/3 of population and territory... Eventually Germany seized whole of Czech -> even appeasers weren't ok with this

b. Poland - what were the two steps to the conquest of Poland?
i. In April 1939 Hitler demanded the return of Danzig and a road and railway across the corridor, linking east prussia with the rest of Germany --> Foreign Minister Colonel Beck refuses to go to conference and accept
ii. Germany signs non-aggression pact with USSR --> started full-scale invasion of Poland --> Germany ignores threats from Britain about war starting if troops not removed --> Sep. 3 Britain starts war against germany; soon after, France did too