World History for Us All Big Era 8 Landscape 1 http://worldhistoryforusall.sdsu.

edu/ Page
10 Lesson 1 Student Handout 1.1—

Schools of Thought: Causes of World War I

The assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand of Austria triggered World War I. The
assassination was the spark that ignited the conflict. Would the conflict have ended right
where it began, in Bosnia, if deeper currents did not propel the European powers on to war?
Analyze this question by considering the following schools of thought on causes of the war in
Europe. Nationalism Those who believe that nationalism was the main cause of World War I
think that it was propelled by such factors as the desire of Slavic peoples to free themselves
from the rule of the Austro-Hungarian empire, and the desire of Austria-Hungary, in turn, to
crush rising spirits of nationalism among ethnic groups within the empire. Serbian
nationalists were especially militant, Serbs within the empire demanding unification with the
small Kingdom of Serbia. In the Middle East, nationalists in Arabic-speaking lands sought
independence from the Ottoman Turkish empire. Nationalist groups in Georgia, Latvia,
Lithuania, Estonia, and Poland called for separation from the Russian empire. Russia also
promoted Pan-Slavism in the Balkans, encouraging fellow Slavic-speaking peoples in their
quest to throw off Austria-Hungary’s rule. The peace treaties following the war led to the
birth of a number of states (Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Turkey, and others) ruled by
a dominant nationalist ethnic group. This shows that nationalism was in fact the major
causative issue of the war.

The Balance of Power and ImperialismThis causative factor is summarized in a world history
textbook by Jerry Bentley and Herbert Zeigler: “Aggressive nationalism was also manifest in
economic competition and colonial conflicts, fueling dangerous rivalries among the major
European powers. The industrialized nations of Europe competed for foreign markets and
engaged in tariff wars, but the most unsettling economic rivalry involved Great Britain and
Germany. By the twentieth century Germany's rapid industrialization threatened British
economic predominance. . . . British reluctance to accept the relative decline of British
industry vis-à-vis German industry strained relations between the two economic powers.
Economic rivalries fomented colonial competition. During the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries, European nations searched aggressively for new colonies or
dependencies to bolster economic performance. In their haste to conquer and colonize, the
imperial powers stumbled over each other, repeatedly clashing in one corner of the globe or
another. . . . Virtually all the major powers engaged in the scramble for empire, but the
competition between Britain and Germany and that between France and Germany were the
most intense and dangerous. Germany, a unified nation only since 1871, embarked on the
colonial race belatedly but aggressively, insisting that it too must hate its "place in the sun."
German imperial efforts were frustrated, however, by the simple fact that British and French
imperialists had already carved up most of the world. German-French antagonisms and
German-British rivalries went far toward shaping the international alliances that contributed
to the spread of war after 1914.” Source: Jerry H. Bentley and Herbert F. Zeigler, Traditions
and Encounters: A Global Perspective on the Past (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003), 973-74.
World History for Us All Big Era 8 Landscape 1 http://worldhistoryforusall.sdsu.edu/ Page 12
Interests of Individual Nations Whatever else may have triggered World War I, it must be
remembered that nations do not send their sons to die on the battlefield simply because
they have signed onto alliances. Nations uphold or ignore alliances based on their own self-
interests. To be sure, each of the combatants believed they had interests that had to be
protected and pursued and therefore something to be gained by going to war: Russia. It saw
itself as the Protector of the Slavs and claimed that Austria-Hungary treated Serbs and other
Slavic-speaking groups unfairly. Russia also sought ready access to the Mediterranean Sea,
but this involved sailing through Ottoman territory. The Ottoman empire. It had been losing
territory since the eighteenth century and sought to preserve its integrity and great power
status. Germany. It shared history and culture with German-speaking Austria, which created
a powerful bond between the two states. It also wanted to secure the Rhineland, with its
important resources, and to ward off French desires to seek revenge for the loss of Alsace-
Lorraine to Germany in 1870. Italy. It wanted to strengthen its position as world power and
gain more colonies. Italy switched its alliance from the Central Powers to the Allied Powers
in 1915 on promises of getting colonies. France. It looked upon Germany as an aggressor
and wished to get back the territories it had lost to that power following the Franco-Prussian
War of 1871. Serbia. It wanted to bring all Serbs in the Ottoman and Austrian empires into
the Kingdom of Serbia. If these nation-states were not motivated by these interests, would
the other factors have been sufficient to drag them into war? World History for Us All Big
Era 8 Landscape 1 http://worldhistoryforusall.sdsu.edu/ Page 13

Arms Buildup. The Triple Alliance and Triple Entente were supposed to be peace-keeping
alliances, designed as deterrents to prevent any power from ganging up on any of the others. A
prospective aggressor would know that if it declared war against any member of the opposing
alliance, all members of that alliance would come to the attacked member’s defense. While the
system of alliances aimed to keep the peace, however, the opposing members were plotting
against each other. This was accompanied by a buildup of arms sometimes described as a powder
keg. If the army and navy stockpiles had not existed, both alliances would have needed at least a
year to mobilize and build defenses. A year might have been enough time to make them stop and
select a more reasonable course. Even today, those who demand reduction of armaments in the
world use the same argument. Jerry Bentley and Herbert Zeigler emphasize the naval arms race:
“Germans and Britons convinced themselves that naval power was imperative to secure trade
routes and protect merchant shipping. Moreover, military leaders and politicians saw powerful
navies as a means of controlling the seas in times of war, a control they viewed as decisive in
determining the outcome of any war. Thus when Germany' s political and military leaders
announced their program to build a fleet with many large battleships, they seemed to undermine
British naval supremacy. The British government moved to meet the German threat through the
construction of super battleships known as dreadnoughts. Rather than discouraging the Germans
from their naval buildup, the British determination to retain naval superiority stimulated the
Germans to build their own flotilla of dreadnoughts. This expensive naval race contributed
further to international tensions and hostilities between nations.” Source: Jerry H. Bentley and
Herbert F. Zeigler, Traditions and Encounters: A Global Perspective on the Past (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 2003), 974. World History for Us All Big Era 8 Landscape 1
World History for Us All Big Era 8 Landscape 1 http://worldhistoryforusall.sdsu.edu/ Page 24
Lesson 4 Student Handout 4.1—Summary of Seven Twentieth- and Twenty-First-
Century Genocides

As we remember the holocaust against Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and Slavs during the
Third Reich in World War II, we may also remember the legacy of these victims. Our
mandate is one of vigilance to prevent such atrocities from happening in our time. Yet,
similar atrocities have happened before and since World War II. Below is a chronicle of some
acts of genocide in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.

• In each case, what other facts can you add? • What other genocidal acts might you add
to this tragic chronicle of seven?

1. Armenia - 1915 During World War I, the Ottoman empire embarked on a policy of
genocide against its Armenian population. Armenians have long commemorated April 24,
1915 as the date on which the Ottoman authorities first rounded up and liquidated
Armenian intellectuals. In total, about 1.5 million men, women, and children were
murdered. The atrocities were photographed by Armand Wegner, a German photojournalist.
The Ottoman state was allied with Germany in World War I. It is noteworthy that later, when
Wegner’s pictures were shown to Hitler, he remarked, “Nobody remembers.”

2. Nanjing, China - 1937 The Rape of Nanjing (Nanking) refers to the unjustified and inhumane
atrocities that Japanese soldiers committed during Japan’s invasion of China. These atrocities
included looting, rape, and killing of Chinese civilians in Nanjing after the city had already
surrendered to Japan on December 13, 1937. Remembered as the most brutal event of the
Japanese invasion, some 300,000 civilians were reported murdered and 20,000 women raped and
murdered in this urban area alone. Victims included children as young as seven and elderly
women in their seventies. The crimes were sometimes committed in front of spouses or other
family members. The controversy flared up anew in 1982 when the Japanese Ministry of
Education censored any mention of the Nanjing Massacre in Japanese textbooks. Japan and China
continue to dispute the way Japanese textbooks describe the invasion and massacre.

3. Cambodia - 1975 In 1975, during the Vietnam War, Cambodia was plunged into chaos when
the Khmer Rouge, a Communist party led by Pol Pot, took over the country. The Khmer Rouge’s
ultimate goal was to create a primitive society of peasants with an economy based on agriculture
and barter. In the four years of its rule, the regime killed almost two million people, including
government officials and influential persons who opposed the new rulers. In 1979, the
Vietnamese army drove the Khmer Rouge out of Cambodia. But the expelled regime retreated to
the countryside and resurfaced to fight a civil war that lasted until 1998. Hun Sen, the prime
minister of Cambodia, said that “we should dig a hole and bury the past.” Today in Cambodia, the
victims of the genocide still live side-by-side with the unpunished perpetrators. Some families visit
his grave to pray for good fortune. Other families have struggled to recover from the sudden
transition to farming that the Khmer Rouge forced upon them. The people of Cambodia and the
world should not and cannot simply bury the past when it still affects the present. One genocide
survivor protested the reluctance to acknowledge the brutality of the past and cries: “I beg you
not to forget the atrocities and to remember vividly this history.”
 4. Iraqi Kurds - 1983 The Kurds, who speak the Kurdish language and practice Sunni Islam, are
the world’s largest group of people without a nation to call their own. They were promised
Kurdistan by the Treaty of Sevrès in 1920, but their dream never came to fruition. Allies who
backed the treaty pulled out after fears arose of destabilizing Iraq and Syria. Throughout the
years, the Kurdish population was divided, parts of it living in Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria.
Saddam Hussein came to power in 1968 (he became president in 1979), promising the Kurds a
lasting solution to their predicament. His promise was quickly broken when the Ba’ath party
evicted Kurdish farmers from their lands in order to tap oil wells. In the summer of 1983, Iraqi
troops broke into a Kurdish village of the Barzani tribe and swiftly took 8,000 men from their
homes and put them into concentration camps designed for testing chemical agents. All 8,000
men are now presumed dead. This was only a precursor, however, to the atrocities that occurred
during the Anfal campaigns in 1988. Between February 23 and September 6 of that year, 200,000
Iraqi troops detained thousands of Kurdish males between the ages of 15 and 70 for interrogation
and ultimate execution. Women and children were later trucked off to resettlement camps where
they, too, were brutally murdered. The estimated death toll of the holocaust was between 60,000
and 110,000. As one Iraqi soldier told a survivor of the attack on Qaranaw village, “Your men have
gone to hell.”

5. Bosnia – 1992-95 In 1990, Bosnia was made up of three major ethnic groups: it was 44
percent Bosnian, 33 percent Serbian, and 17 percent Croat. Bosnians have been Muslim
from the time when Bosnia was part of the Ottoman empire. Bosnian Muslims, however,
speak Serbo-Croatian, the same language that Serbs and Croats speak. Serbians are
traditionally Orthodox Catholics, and Croats are traditionally Roman Catholic. When
Yugoslavia was divided by the European Community into Croatia, Serbia, and Bosnia, Bosnia
was partitioned and became independent. The Serbs responded violently. They created in
Bosnia “ethnically pure” territories free of Muslims and Croats. Twenty thousand Muslim
once lived in Banja Luka, the second largest city. By the end of the “ethnic cleansing,” only
4,000 were reported to have survived. Serb militiamen killed 7-8,000 Bosnian men in
Srebrenica in July 1985. Finally, western nations charged the Serbs with genocide. Slobodan
Milosevic, the president of Serbia, went on trial in The Hague, Netherlands, for crimes
against humanity, but he died in 2006 before the trial ended. Bosnia is currently occupied by
NATO forces of France, the United States, and Britain to prevent further atrocities.

6. Rwanda - 1994 The mass genocide that took place in Rwanda during the mid-1990s was partly
a consequence of the ignorance and unjust segregating of a foreign power. Belgium, the colonial
power in Rwanda from the late nineteenth century, encouraged ethnic division between the two
groups known as the Hutu and the Tutsi. The Tutsi were a cattle-herding people who began
arriving in central Africa from Ethiopia around 1600. They became the politically dominant class.
The Hutu were World History for Us All Big Era 8 Landscape 1
http://worldhistoryforusall.sdsu.edu/ Page 26 predominantly farmers who lived in large family
units. The Belgians believed the Tutsi to be superior and thus ratified their position as a Tutsi
upper class, while the Hutu remained peasants. The demotion of the Hutu to a lower position
planted the seed for what later beaome a violent overthrow of the Tutsi. The hate war exploded
when, on April 6, 1994, the president, Juvenal Habyarimana, a Hutu, was shot down in his
airplane. Rumors spread that Tutsis ordered the assassination. These rumors expanded into Hutu
violence against Tutsi. The violence spilled into the streets as Hutu went on a three-
month blitzkrieg of massacre. The Tutsi were horrified at the speed at which the incident
escalated. By the end of just three months, over 800,000 Tutsi were reported dead. The
Rwandan genocide was widely ignored by the international community. The United Nations
deployed troops, but after ten casualties, they rapidly withdrew from the conflict, waiting
until there was a clear victor in sight, which became the RPF (Rwandan Patriotic Front). The
United States, Belgium, France, and the United Nations all had knowledge, prior to the
genocide, of the events about to unfold; however, those nations took no action. Alison Des
Forges, a scholar on Rwanda, has written: “The Americans were interested in saving money,
the Belgians were interested in saving face, and the French were interested in saving their
ally, the genocidal government.”

7. Darfur 2003 Though the conflict has no definitive beginning, the modern Darfur genocide
erupted in early 2003. The conflict centers on the ethnic differences between Arabic-
speaking Muslims and Muslim farmers and herders who speak other languages and live in
Darfur, the region of southwestern Sudan. Recent estimates have reported that 338,000
civilians have died and 1.5 million people have been displaced into the neighboring
countries such as Chad, Libya, Egypt, and Ethiopia. The local African tribes are suppressed
by government-backed militia groups known generally as the Janjaweed, even though the
government constituted these militias to protect the people of the region from the warring
rebel groups. The two largest rebel groups against the government are the Sudan Liberation
Army and the Justice and Equality Movement. The Janjaweed have turned against the
people, perpetrating mass killings, rapes, and destruction of towns and villages. Though the
UN and many nations have pressured the Sudanese government to stop the atrocities, war
and mass flight continue as of late 2006. “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice
everywhere.” Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail, April 16, 1963 “The
only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke,
British statesman and orator (1729-1797) “At what point do you and I become members of
the world community and stand up and speak?” Mr. Charles Beach, January 21, 2005
http://d-maps.com/carte.php?num_car=2071&lang=en
Before World War 1 After World War 1

http://mrknighths.weebly.com/pre-and-post-world-war-1-map-comparison.html
 The Terms of the Treaty of Versailles

th
The treaty was signed today at Versailles. At 10:30 am Washington time Phillips and I sat in the telegraph room on the 4 floor of the Dept. and had a direct
wire from there to Versailles - with only two relays, one at London and one at Newfoundland, where it went into and came out of the submarine cable. It was
5¼ hours different time at Versailles. As each signed it was signalled out over the wire and ticked off on the receiver at our side and the operator read it by
and wrote it out as received on a typewriter. We leaned over his shoulder and read the bulletins. It was a unique and most interesting experience - and a
great occasion.
Breckenridge Long, Diary (Saturday, 28 June 19
Long was an US diplom

For five months the Big Three debated the terms of the Treaty. They crawled over huge maps of Europe spread over the floor. Clemenceau and Wilson
quarrelled to the point where the Conference was in danger of failing altogether; that was where Lloyd George stepped in -- on 25 March he issued
the Fontainbleau Memorandum, then he persuaded Clemenceau to accept the League of Nations, and Wilson to accept reparations, and the Conference
w saved.

Meanwhile, thousands of people turned up to lobby the Big Three, hoping to get a hand-out in the final treaty. The Arab and Zionist Jewish delegations
competed to get control of Palestine (in the end, it was given to Britain). Queen Mary of Romania turned up in person and flirted with Wilson; he thought sh
was a dreadful woman, but Romania came away with Transylvania. A group of 20 Ukrainians turned up and tried to persuade the Big Three to recognise
th Ukraine as an independent country (they failed). The Conference became a huge goody-bag, in which everybody was trying to dip their hand.

The small German delegation in Paris, who had been watching proceedings but not allowed to take part, were at last given the text of the Treaty on 7
May 1919. They issued an outraged statement and returned home. For a while, it seemed that Germany might reject the Treaty. However, Germany had
no choice but to accept whatever was decided, and eventually two Germans were found who were prepared to sign the Treaty.

On 28 June 1919, the victors met at the Hall of Mirrors in the Palace of Versailles, near Paris, and the two Germans were called into the room and
instructe to sign.

The main points of the Treaty [BRAT]

The first 26 Articles of the Treaty set out the Covenant of the League of Nations; the rest of the 440 Articles detailed Germany's punishment:

1. Germany had to accept the Blame for starting the war (Clause 231). This was vital because it provided the justification for...
2. Germany had to pay £6,600 million (called Reparations) for the damage done during the war.
3. Germany was forbidden to have submarines or an air force. She could have a navy of only six battleships, and an Army of just 100,000 men. In
addition, Germany was not allowed to place any troops in the Rhineland, the strip of land, 50 miles wide, next to France.
4. Germany lost Territory (land) in Europe (see map, below). Germany’s colonies were given to Britain and France.

(Also, Germany was forbidden to join the League of Nations, or unite with Austria.)

http://www.johndclare.net/peace_treaties4.htm
 President Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points
8 January, 1918:
President Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points

It will be our wish and purpose that the processes of peace, when they are begun,
shall be absolutely open and that they shall involve and permit henceforth no secret
understandings of any kind. The day of conquest and aggrandizement is gone by; so is
also the day of secret covenants entered into in the interest of particular governments and
likely at some unlooked-for moment to upset the peace of the world. It is this happy fact,
now clear to the view of every public man whose thoughts do not still linger in an age that
is dead and gone, which makes it possible for every nation whose purposes are
consistent with justice and the peace of the world to avow nor or at any other time the
objects it has in view.

We entered this war because violations of right had occurred which touched us to the
quick and made the life of our own people impossible unless they were corrected and the
world secure once for all against their recurrence. What we demand in this war, therefore,
is nothing peculiar to ourselves. It is that the world be made fit and safe to live in; and
particularly that it be made safe for every peace-loving nation which, like our own, wishes
to live its own life, determine its own institutions, be assured of justice and fair dealing by
the other peoples of the world as against force and selfish aggression. All the peoples of
the world are in effect partners in this interest, and for our own part we see very clearly
that unless justice be done to others it will not be done to us. The programme of the
world's peace, therefore, is our programme; and that programme, the only possible
programme, as we see it, is this:

I. Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private
international understandings of any kind but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and
in the public view.

II. Absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas, outside territorial waters, alike
in peace and in war, except as the seas may be closed in whole or in part by
international action for the enforcement of international covenants.

III. The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment
of an equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and
associating themselves for its maintenance.

IV. Adequate guarantees given and taken that national armaments will be reduced
to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety.

V. A free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims,

based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions
of sovereignty the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with
the equitable claims of the government whose title is to be determined.

VI. The evacuation of all Russian territory and such a settlement of all questions affecting
Russia as will secure the best and freest cooperation of the other nations of the world in
obtaining for her an unhampered and unembarrassed opportunity for the independent
determination of her own political development and national policy and assure
her of a sincere welcome into the society of free nations under institutions of her own
choosing; and, more than a welcome, assistance also of every kind that she may need and
may herself desire. The treatment accorded Russia by her sister nations in the months to
come will be the acid test of their good will, of their comprehension of her needs as
distinguished from their own interests, and of their intelligent and unselfish sympathy.

VII. Belgium, the whole world will agree, must be evacuated and restored, without
any attempt to limit the sovereignty which she enjoys in common with all other free
nations. No other single act will serve as this will serve to restore confidence among the
nations in the laws which they have themselves set and determined for the government
of their relations with one another. Without this healing act the whole structure and
validity of international law is forever impaired.

VIII. All French territory should be freed and the invaded portions restored, and the
wrong done to France by Prussia in 1871 in the matter of Alsace-Lorraine, which has
unsettled the peace of the world for nearly fifty years, should be righted, in order that
peace may once more be made secure in the interest of all.

IX. A readjustment of the frontiers of Italy should be effected along clearly

recognizable lines of nationality.

X. The peoples of Austria-Hungary, whose place among the nations we wish to

see safeguarded and assured, should be accorded the freest opportunity to
autonomous development.

XI. Rumania, Serbia, and Montenegro should be evacuated; occupied territories

restored; Serbia accorded free and secure access to the sea; and the relations of the
several Balkan states to one another determined by friendly counsel along historically
established lines of allegiance and nationality; and international guarantees of the
political and economic independence and territorial integrity of the several Balkan states
should be entered into.

XII. The turkish portion of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure
sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be
assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of
autonomous development, and the Dardanelles should be permanently opened as a free
passage to the ships and commerce of all nations under international guarantees.

XIII. An independent Polish state should be erected which should include the
territories inhabited by indisputably Polish populations, which should be assured a free
and secure access to the sea, and whose political and economic independence and
territorial integrity should be guaranteed by international covenant.

XIV. A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for
the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial
integrity to great and small states alike.

In regard to these essential rectifications of wrong and assertions of right we feel

ourselves to be intimate partners of all the governments and peoples associated
together against the Imperialists. We cannot be separated in interest or divided in
purpose. We stand together until the end.
 For such arrangements and covenants we are willing to fight and to continue to fight
until they are achieved; but only because we wish the right to prevail and desire a just and
stable peace such as can be secured only by removing the chief provocations to war,
which this programme does remove. We have no jealousy of German greatness, and
there is nothing in this programme that impairs it. We grudge her no achievement or
distinction of learning or of pacific enterprise such as have made her record very bright
and very enviable. We do not wish to injure her or to block in any way her legitimate
influence or power. We do not wish to fight her either with arms or with hostile
arrangements of trade if she is willing to associate herself with us and the other peace-
loving nations of the world in covenants of justice and law and fair dealing. We wish her
only to accept a place of equality among the peoples of the world, -- the new world in
which we now live, -- instead of a place of mastery.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/wilson14.asp

The Covenant of the League of Nations

The League of Nations was set up by the first 26 clauses of the Treaty of Versailles -
called 'The Covenant of the League of Nations'. The table below is a summary.

Summary of the key articles

Article
3. Set up the assembly - a meeting of all
members of the League.
4. Set up the council (Britain, France, Italy
and Japan, plus four other countries elected
by the assembly), which met four to five
times a year and in times of crisis.
5. Said that agreements of the assembly and
council had to be unanimous.
6. Set up the Secretariat.
8. Promised to seek disarmament.
11. The League shall... safeguard the peace
of nations.'
13. Planned for the arbitration of disputes.
14. Set up the Court of International Justice.
15. Planned for trade sanctions against any
country that went to war.
22. Set up the Mandates Commission to
look after the former colonies of Germany
and Turkey.
23. The League promised to improve
Details
42 countries were members (rising to 58 in 1934). The
USA, USSR and Germany - the three greatest powers in
the world - were not members.
Allowed the League to respond quickly to crises. However,
the council members were not the most powerful countries
in the world, and were not prepared to use their armies.
Also sometimes council members were involved in the
trouble.
Made it very hard to get anything done.
Too small to handle the vast work of the League.
Conferences in 1923 and 1932-33 failed.
Over-ambitious?
Only worked if both sides agreed.
Could advise on international law and arbitrate in disputes,
but had no power to enforce its decisions.
Trade sanctions damaged the countries of the League as
well as the country that had gone to war.
The mandates were administered by France and Britain,
two council members.
Over-ambitious?
Article Details
conditions for workers, stop drug
trafficking, help trade and control disease.

The Covenant of the League of Nations was built into the Treaty of Versailles
at the end of the First World War. The League was Wilson's dream for a new
world order - a new way of conducting foreign affairs that would abolish war
and keep the world safe, but less than a quarter of a century later Wilson's
dream lay in ruins.

Aims, strengths and weaknesses - the basics

The League of Nations was set up by the Treaty of Versailles.

Its aims were to stop wars, encourage disarmament, and make the world a
better place by improving people's working conditions, and by tackling disease.
Its organisation comprised an assembly, which met once a year; a council,
which met more regularly to consider crises; a small secretariat to handle the
paperwork; a Court of International Justice; and a number of committees such as
the International Labour Organisation and the Health Committee to carry out its
humanitarian work.
Its main strengths was that it had set up by the Treaty of Versailles, which
every nation had signed, and it had 58 nations as members by the 1930s. To
enforce its will, it could offer arbitration through the Court of International
Justice, or apply trade sanctions against countries that went to war.
Its main weaknesses were the fact that it was set up by the Treaty of Versailles
(which every nation hated); that its aims were too ambitious; that Germany, Russia
and the USA were not members; that it had no army; that its organisation was
cumbersome; and that decisions had to be unanimous.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/mwh/ir1/aimsrev1.shtml

Selection from http://sharepoint.mvla.net/teachers/CarsonR/Documents/Fascism%20OuT.pdf

Textbook (Document A)

The following is an excerpt from YOUR textbook explaining Fascism.

“Fascism was a new, militant political movement that emphasized loyalty to the state and
obedience to its leader. Unlike communism, fascism had no clearly defined theory or program.
Nevertheless, most Fascists shared several ideas. They preached an extreme form of nationalism,
or loyalty to one’s country. Fascists believed that nations must struggle—peaceful states were
doomed to be conquered. They pledged loyalty to an authoritarian leader
(dictator) who guided and brought order to the state. In each nation, Fascists wore uniforms
of a certain color, used special salutes, and held mass rallies.”

Source: McDougal Littel, Modern World History: Patterns of Interaction. Published 2006. .

Benito Mussolini (Document B)

Benito Mussolini founded the first Fascist Party shortly after WWI in Italy. Promising a
strong, new Italian state modeled after the ancient Roman Empire, Mussolini gained many
followers among war veterans and the middle class. The following is an excerpt from the
Doctrine of Fascism, which Mussolini wrote. “Above all, Fascism believes neither in the
possibility nor in the usefulness of peace. War alone brings out the best in people and puts
the stamp (mark) of nobility upon the people who have the courage to face it.

Fascism attacks democratic ideals. Fascism denies that the majority can rule human
societies. It insists that the inequality of men is beneficial (helpful). Some men are greater
than others, and these men should rule.

The Fascist State organizes the nation. It takes away pointless or harmful freedoms, and
preserves those that are essential. It cannot be the individual who decides what
freedoms matter, but only the State.

In it the tradition of ancient Rome, the Fascist State seeks to create an empire. For
Fascism, the creation of an empire is a demonstration of strength and health. Its
opposite, which is staying at home, is a sign of weakness and corruption.

If every age has its own doctrine, it is clear from a thousand signs that the doctrine of the
current age is Fascism. The Italian people will rise again after many centuries of
abandonment and neglect (rejection). The Italian people will rise again to create a new
Roman Empire, and once again the Italian people will lead the world.”

Source: The Doctrine of Fascism by Benito Mussolini, written in 1932.

Adolf Hitler (Document C)

When Mussolini and his Fascist party rose to power in Italy, Adolf Hitler was a little-
known political leader in Germany. Inspired in part by Mussolini, Hitler helped form the
German Fascist movement in the mid-1920s. The following is an excerpt from Mein
Kampf (My Struggle). In it, Hitler describes his own “Fascist worldview.”

“The political parties which currently exist cannot be expected to bring about the radical
change that Germany needs. A political party will compromise with a political opponent.
The Fascist worldview never does this. The Fascist worldview knows it is never wrong.

The Fascist worldview is intolerant, and this intolerance is virtuous (good and right). It
will never share its place with the current order. It will wage a destructive battle to
abolish (destroy) the current order.

It is not necessary for every individual fighter in this battle to understand the ideas and plans
of the Fascist worldview. The Fascist worldview can exist only if leaders of great intellectual
ability are served by a large mass of men who are passionately devoted to the cause. We
must inspire discipline and blind faith, for the side with the best disciplined and most blindly
obedient (easy to control, do not question) troops always triumphs.

In order to carry the ideas of the Fascist worldview to victory, a populist party had to be
founded. The National Socialist German Labor Party (Nazi Party) is that party. The
National Socialist German Labor Party will prepare the way for the destruction of the
current order throughout the world.

The forces currently in control of the world are Jews here and Jews there and Jews
everywhere. The hardship we are now experiencing is because of them. If this continues,
the Jews will one day devour (destroy) the German nation and the world. We must wipe
out the Jewish Empire which is now in control.”

Source: Mein Kampf (My Struggle) by Adolf Hitler, written in 1925

Guiding Questions Name________________

Textbook (Document A)

1.) Identify: How does the textbook define Fascism?

2.) Summarize: According to the textbook, what are the main ideas of Fascism?

3.) Analyze: Based on the information presented in the textbook, how might Fascism
have contributed to the outbreak of WWII?
Name________________

Guiding Questions

Benito Mussolini (Document B) 1. Contextualize: Before reading the document, what do

you know about the state of affairs in Italy following the end of WWI? Were the Italians
happy with their government and the Treaty of Versailles? Explain.

2. Source: Who is Benito Mussolini and what is his relationship to Fascism? Do you think he is
a better source on the topic of Fascism than the textbook? Explain.

3. Interpret: After reading Mussolini’s ideas, define Fascism in your own words. How is
this definition similar and different to the one given by the textbook?

4. Close Reading: Why do you think Mussolini mentions the ancient Roman Empire in the
last two paragraphs? How do you think Italians might react to these references?

5. Thinking Critically: Which of Mussolini’s Fascist ideas do you find the most interesting
and/or troubling? How do you think these views might have contributed to the outbreak
of WWII?

Guiding Questions

Adolf Hitler (Document C)

1. Contextualize: Before reading the document, what do you know about the state of affairs
in Germany following the end of WWI? Were the Germans happy with their government and
the Treaty of Versailles? Explain.

2. Source: Who is Adolf Hitler and what is his relationship to Fascism? Do you think he is
a better source on the topic of Fascism than the textbook? Than Mussolini? Explain.

3. Interpret: After reading Hitler’s ideas, look back at your previous definitions of Fascism.
Is there anything you wish to add? Explain.

4. Close Reading: What does Hitler accuse the Jews of in the last paragraph? Why do you think
Hitler brings up the Jews in this way? How do you think Germans might react to this idea?

5. Thinking Critically: Which of Hitler’s Fascist ideas do you find the most interesting and/or
troubling? How do you think these views might have contributed to the outbreak of WWII?
The Spanish Civil Warfrom http://www.historyhome.co.uk/europe/spaincw.htm
This document was written by Stephen Tonge. I am most grateful to have his
kind permission to include it on the web site.

Although a war that soon took on an international character, the civil war was born
out of Spanish problems and divisions.
The Causes of the War

Spain was once the World’s most powerful country. By the 20th century it was
a poor and backward country where corruption was rife. It had lost nearly all
of its overseas possessions (e.g. Cuba, the Philippines) and great extremes of
wealth and poverty caused severe social tensions. Industry was confined
mainly to Barcelona and the Basque country. Spaniards were divided on the
type of government that they wanted. Monarchists were conservative and
Catholics and did not want to reform Spain. Those who wanted a
republic were anti-clerical and hoped to reform Spanish society. There
were a number of areas where it was felt reform were needed:

1. Agriculture

Spain was essentially an agricultural country. In the south were the vast private
estates or latifundia worked by landless labourers. 7000 owners owned 15
million acres of land. In the north small farmers worked farms that were in
many cases not economically viable. It is estimated that half of the agricultural
workers lived on the edge of starvation. The former granary of the Roman
Empire had the lowest agricultural productivity in Europe.

2. The Church

The power and wealth of the Catholic Church was greatly resented by many. It
was closely identified with the wealthy classes and was seen as an enemy of
change. Although the majority of Spaniards did not go to mass it had a strong
following in the countryside where religious devotion was strong. It had a
virtual monopoly of education. Curbing the power of the church was seen as
essential if a fairer Spain was to be created.

3. The Army
The army was grossly over-officered with about one general to every hundred
poorly equipped soldier. It had grown progressively conservative and was
prone to interfere in politics.

4. Regionalism

Spain is a country divided by rivers and mountain ranges with distinct

languages and traditions in many areas. Both the Basques and the Catalans
wanted to control their own affairs. Republicans sympathised with their
demands especially that of the Catalans while conservatives opposed them on
the grounds that it would weaken Spain.

Primo de Rivera

Post-war economic depression led to strikes and unrest and this allied to
military defeats in Morocco, led to the emergence of a right-wing military
dictatorship under Primo de Rivera in 1923. At first he was reform minded
and brought the socialist leader into his government.

The growing unpopularity of the regime forced de Rivera to resign in 1930

after he lost the support of the army. Municipal elections held the following
year showed a majority in favour of a republic andKing Alfonso
XIII abdicated the following year. A republic was declared with Alcala
Zamora as provisional prime minister.

The Government of 1931-3

The Republican government brought in a series of anti-clerical measures e.g.

the Jesuits were dissolved and Church and State were separated. Civil
marriage was instituted and divorce was allowed. It
granted Catalan autonomy. The government failed to introduce any serious
measure of land reform and this weakened its support in the countryside.

Thousands of officers were forced to retire on half pay and this caused
resentment in the army. A military revolt by General Sanjuro in 1932 was
crushed but it showed the deep dissatisfaction in the army with the new
republic.

The measures against the church alienated the right wing of Spanish society
who saw the Catholic Church at the heart of Spanish
civilisation. Zamora resigned in protest at the anti-clerical measures. The new
prime minister was the anti-clerical liberal, Manuel Azana.
The government’s measures led to the foundation of the right-wing and
Catholic CEDA party led by Gil Robles. At the same time a fascist party led
by the son of Primo de Rivera, Jose Antonio was set up. It was called
the Falange (Phalanx).

The Government of 1933-6

A right-wing government came to power after the November election in 1933.

It reversed the process of reform and cancelled the measures against the
Church. The period from 1933 to 1935 became known as the “two black
years” by those on the left.

In 1934 a general strike was called in opposition to the government and an

anarchist miners’ revolt was crushed in Asturias by General Franco. Mass
arrests followed and left wing newspapers were closed and the Catalan
Autonomy Statute was suspended. Spanish politics had become very
polarised.

The Countdown to War

In 1936 an election was called. A Popular Front of Communists, Socialists,

Republicans and Separatists was formed to oppose the government. The right
wing formed the National Front. For the Popular Front the right’s victory
would lead straight to fascism; for the National Front, a popular Front
victory would lead to “Bolshevik Revolution”.

The Popular Front narrowly won the election. Manuel Azana was appointed
president and Casares Quiroga became Prime Minister. The new government
proceeded to reintroduce the reforms of the 1931-3 government.

Disorder and political violence spread throughout the country. Peasants seized
land and there were many strikes. The Falange started to grow dramatically as
disillusioned supporters of the more moderate CEDA joined its ranks. Its
members used political violence and attack and counterattack became
common.

More seriously the army was plotting to overthrow the new government. The
generals were at heart monarchist and were very alarmed at the growing
influence of the socialists and anarchists. The leader of the plot was General
Mola.

On the 13th of July the monarchist politician, Calvo Sotelo was assassinated
by Republican police in revenge for the murder of one of their men by
a Falangist. The military now had the perfect pretext to make their move. The
revolt began on the 17th of July in Spanish Morocco.
The Civil War

The Nationalists were supported by the Church, army, landowners, and

industrialists, some of the middle-class and the Catholic peasantry. Liberals,
Socialists, Communists and Anarchists supported the Republicans.

1936 The military hoped to capture Spain in a week but they failed. About half of the
army remained loyal to the government and the revolt failed in Madrid, Valencia,
Barcelona and the Basque country. Workers and peasants militias were formed to
defend the government.

Crucially the elite army of Morocco supported the revolt. It was led by
General Franco.

By August the rebels held most of the North and North West while the
government controlled the South and the North Coast.
Both sides appealed for foreign aid but fatally for the Republic, the French and
the British decided on a policy of non-Intervention.

The Germans and the Italians helped the Nationalists while the USSR sent aid
to the republicans. German transport planes helped ferry Franco’s army from
Morocco to Spain, the first example of direct foreign involvement.

The main Nationalist setback was their failure to capture Madrid. Bloody battles
were to follow over the next months as the Republicans beat off attempts to
encircle Madrid until the Nationalists called off their offensive in November.

Communist influence inside the city increased greatly and arrests and
summary executions were carried out against suspected Nationalists.

In September Nationalists forces captured Toledo and relieved a

Nationalist garrison that had held out since the end of July.

In September, Largo Caballero became Prime Minister. The Republican

government was moved to Valencia in November. In October General
Franco was appointed head of the Nationalist government of Spain.

Most of the Spanish gold reserves (the fourth largest in the world) were sent to
the USSR in exchange for military equipment that began arriving in October.
The transfer of the gold led to a dramatic rise in inflation on the republican zone.
Foreign volunteers, organised into the International Brigades, started to arrive.

1937 In February the Nationalists began offensives at Jarama and Guadalajara that
were aimed at capturing Madrid. Both were stopped with heavy causalities.
 In March the Nationalists attacked the Basque country and in April the Basque
city of Guernica was bombed by the German Condor Legion. Basque morale
collapsed and the capital, Bilbao fell in June. The industry of the Basque country
was now in Nationalist hands.

Also in April Franco merged the Carlists, the Falange and other groups into a
single party known as the National Movement. One of the features of the
Nationalists from then on was their unity which contrasted with the divisions on the
Republican side.

In May, the divisions on the Republican side were clearly shown by events
in Barcelona. This civil war within a civil war saw the Socialists and Communists
fight street battles with the Anarchists and Trotskyites. The former won and a bloody
purge was carried out against enemies of the communists.

As a result of the events, Negrin replaced Caballero as Prime Minister and in

October, the Government moved to Barcelona. From then on the Communists
backed by Soviet help were to play an increasing role in all Republican areas of
Spain.

Their organisation helped to keep the republic fighting. Inspired speeches from
Dolores Ibárruri (La Pasionaria) the chief propagandist of the Republic, raised
morale.

However their extensive use of a brutal secret police (the SIM) and their intolerance
of opposition caused many others to wonder if life would not be better under Franco.

Republican attempts to stop the capture of Madrid led to the inconclusive battle of
Brunete. A further republican offensive at Teruel in December was defeated after
bitter fighting.

1938 The Nationalists captured the key town of Teruel and in April, they reached the
Mediterranean. They now split Republican-held Spain in two and isolated Catalonia. In
July, General Modestolaunched a Republican offensive at the Ebro River. Initial
successes were repulsed by the Nationalists and in November the offensive ended in
defeat. In December, the Nationalists began their advance into Catalonia.

1939 After two and a half years of resistance, the Republic collapsed rapidly during the first
three months of 1939. In January, the Nationalists occupied Barcelona and in March they
captured Madrid which effectively marked the end of the war. On April 1st, Franco
declared the war at an end.

About a half a million people were killed in the war with hundreds of thousands
dying in atrocities committed by both sides. Most were killed by the Nationalists
who were ruthless in establishing control in the areas they captured. For example
when they captured Badajoz in August 1936 over 1500 of the towns defenders were
shot in batches in the town’s bull ring. In all about 200,000 people were executed by
the Nationalists.
Republican violence was more spontaneous usually not official policy and directed
against landowners, businessmen, the police and especially the church. Their
victims numbered about 20,000 although the Communists shot many of their
ideological enemies, e.g. Anarchists, in Barcelona and Madrid. Half a million
republican refugees fled to France while about 200,000 republican prisoners
were executed or died in prison after the war. Some were handed back to Franco
when the Germans captured France in 1940.

Foreign Involvement

The Spanish civil war started as a distinctly Spanish war born out of Spanish
disputes but it was soon to take on an international character. It mirrored the
political disputes occurring in Europe at the time between Fascism and
democracy on one hand and the opposition to godless Communism on the
other.

Both sides realised the importance of foreign aid and support. Propaganda
played a key role. The Nationalists argued that they represented the cause of
Christianity, order and Western civilisation against Communism. The
Republicans argued that they were the legally elected government of Spain
which was under attack from anti-democratic generals and the fascist
dictatorships.

Germany and Italy sent aid to Franco. German aid totalled about 16,000 men,
200 tanks and 600 planes. Some of the activities of the German Condor
Legion especially the bombing of Guernica became infamous but
militarily Beevor noted the Condor Legion was “the most efficient and
influential assistance in Spain.”

Helped by German planes, Nationalist air superiority was crucial to their

success during the war. The Germans used Spain as a testing ground for their
new planes tanks and for the development of blitzkrieg tactics.

Italy sent about 75,000 men, 150 tanks and 660 aircraft and as Beevor wrote
“the Italian contribution to the Nationalist cause was enormous and more
general than the German contribution. “This included a major role in the
blockade of Republican ports. Portugal, led by General Salazar, sent
12,000troops. General Eoin O’Duffy led about 700 volunteers from Ireland.

Britain and France remained neutral and pursued a non-intervention policy.

They tried with little success to prevent foreign support for either belligerent.
The United States also adopted a policy of non-intervention influenced by the
powerful Catholic lobby there. This prevented the Republic from purchasing
arms openly and hampered its ability to resist the Nationalist threat.
The Republican government received aid from two main sources, the USSR
and the International Brigades. Russia sent about 2500 men, 1000 planes
and 900 tanks. Her ideological allies the Communists were to play a major
role in Republican areas.

To many in Europe the Republicans stood for freedom, democracy and

enlightenment against fascism. They pointed to Nationalist massacres and the
bombing of cities e.g. Guernica to back their case. TheInternational
Brigades were made up of men who opposed the spread of fascism. They
were mainly communist volunteers from many different countries including
France, Germany, Britain and the USA. They numbered about 50,000 men in
all from 53 countries. 200 men led by Frank Ryan volunteered from Ireland.

Many of the battalions were named after famous revolutions or revolutionaries

e.g. the French “Commune de Paris” and the American “George
Washington” battalion. Their slogans included “They will not pass” and
“Spain - the graveyard of European Fascism”.

The Brigades were under the control of the communist movement, the
Comintern and operated outside the regular command of the Spanish
Republican Army. Joseph Broz, alias “Tito”, the future dictator of
Yugoslavia, headed the principal recruiting office in Paris.

They fought with desperate courage and were subject to savage discipline.
Over 500 were shot for political offences. They were also used by the
Communists in internal struggles against their political enemies, the Socialists
and the Anarchists. They were withdrawn in October 1938 as the position of
the republic became desperate.

Many writers went to Spain to fight or to report for newspapers. The most
famous were the authors Ernest Hemmingway (For Whom the Bell Tolls)
and George Orwell (Homage to Catalonia). Most writers and journalists that
went to Spain supported the Republicans.

Although history is usually written by the victors, this is not the case of the
Spanish civil war. It has mostly been written on behalf of the losers. This
development was influenced by the two factors:

the support that was given to the Nationalists by Hitler and Mussolini
the almost unanimous support given to the Republicans by European
intellectuals (writers, artists, poets etc) who went to Spain or who, at
the time, observed events there.
Why did Franco Win?

1. Franco while lacking vision and dynamism was an excellent field commander
whose cautious and gradual tactics greatly helped to secure Nationalist victory.
2. Franco had the support of most powerful groups in Spain - army officers,
capitalists, landowners, Catholic Church
3. Hitler supported him with 16,000 troops and the Condor Air Legion, while Mussolini
supplied 75,000 soldiers - this outweighed foreign support for Republicans. The
neutrality of Britain and France denied aid tothe Republican Government.
4. Importantly German and Italian aid arrived on request and was channelled
through Franco while Soviet aid came through one of the Republic’s factions, the
Communists. Soviet aid was principally designed to prolong resistance while
German and Italian aid was designed to secure victory.
5. An embargo on arms stopped international aid from Republican sympathisers
but many countries turned a blind eye to fascist supporters of Franco.
6. Franco skilfully held together the various Nationalist groups - Republicans were
bitterly divided between communists, socialists and anarchists.

Worksheet 12.1 Propaganda in the Spanish Civil War

http://www.contentextra.com/bacconline/bacContentFiles/histWarsFiles
/Historypdfs/Worksheet_121.pdf

Please view this selection of several propaganda posters from the Spanish Civil War.

Pick out any two of the posters. Using a dictionary, translation search engine or (best
option) someone who speaks Spanish, translate the words on each poster.

Now ask the following questions of each poster. 1 What message is the poster attempting
to convey? 2 Is there any important symbolism present in the poster? How does this
contribute to the impact of the poster? 3 What artistic techniques are used to convey the
propaganda message? (Think about things such as use of colour, perspective and imagery.)
 CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF AN ARTICLE
POINT: What are the main points or arguments the author(s) make in
the article? What are the key inferences and conclusions the author(s)
make?

EVIDENCE: What evidence or information is given to support the

points, inferences, or arguments? Is the evidence a fact or
measurement about something that has actually occurred? Are data
or measurements presented? If so, what are they?

RELIABILITY: What is the source of the information or

evidence? Does the evidence have an identified source (for example a
specific person, organization, publication, web site, journal, or
book)? Is the source a primary source (original author) or is it
secondary or further removed (textbook)? If authorities are cited, what
credentials do they have? Do you think the source is credible? Why or
why not?

PERSUASIVENESS: Is the evidence consistent with the argument?

Is the argument convincing? If yes, explain why. If not, explain why
not. Is there another way to interpret the evidence? If there is
insufficient evidence for you to judge the argument, what specific
additional evidence would be needed for you to judge the validity of
the claim?

WORLD VIEW: What general assumptions does the author have

underlying their thinking? What are they taking for granted? What
World view does the author have? Is there another World view or point
of view that the author should consider?

PROPAGANDA: What examples of propaganda words and techniques

are used in the arguments?

YOUR TAKE: What do you agree and disagree with in the article?

http://www.uvm.edu/~jleonard/AGRI183/criticalanalysis.htm

What is a Primary Source?

A primary source is a document or physical object which was written or created during
the time under study. These sources were present during an experience or time period
and offer an inside view of a particular event. Some types of primary sources include:

ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS (excerpts or translations acceptable): Diaries,

 speeches, manuscripts, letters, interviews, news film footage,
autobiographies, official records
CREATIVE WORKS: Poetry, drama, novels, music, art
RELICS OR ARTIFACTS: Pottery, furniture, clothing, buildings

Examples of primary sources include:

Diary of Anne Frank - Experiences of a Jewish family during WWII

The Constitution of Canada - Canadian History
A journal article reporting NEW research or findings
Weavings and pottery - Native American history
Plato's Republic - Women in Ancient Greece

What is a secondary source?

A secondary source interprets and analyzes primary sources. These sources are one or
more steps removed from the event. Secondary sources may have pictures, quotes or
graphics of primary sources in them. Some types of seconday sources include:

PUBLICATIONS: Textbooks, magazine articles, histories, criticisms,

commentaries, encyclopedias

Examples of secondary sources include:

A journal/magazine article which interprets or reviews previous findings

A history textbook
A book about the effects of WWI

Search by keyword for Primary Sources in the Main Catalog

You can search the Main Catalog to find direct references to primary source material.
Perform a keyword search for your topic and add one of the words below:
(these are several examples of words that would identify a source as primary)

charters
correspondence
diaries
early works
interviews
manuscripts
oratory
pamphlets
personal narratives
sources
speeches
letters
documents

http://www.princeton.edu/~refdesk/primary2.html

http://ims.ode.state.oh.us/ODE/IMS/Lessons/Content/CSS_LP_S01_BE_L09_I11_01.pdf
Attachment A
Pre-Assessment Questions

Directions: Answer the questions below using pencil.

1. Why were atomic weapons used during World War II?

2. Define civilian losses.

3. Define military losses.

4. What was the Holocaust?

5. What happened to refugees after World War II?

6. Why was the United Nations formed?

7. Why was the country of Israel established?

 Attachment B

Post-Assessment Project and Rubric

Directions: Write a thesis statement and two- to three-page paper analyzing one of
the consequences of World War II. You may choose from the following topics:

The use of atomic weapons during World War II;

Civilian and military losses during World War II;
The Holocaust;
Refugees and poverty;
The United Nations;
The establishment of the state of Israel.

A thesis statement states the purpose, intent or main idea of the paper. The thesis statement
serves as an answer to your research question that you have the support with information and
argument. Use at least three sources to support your thesis statement in the body of
your paper. You will also need to provide correct citations for your sources.

Research question:
_____________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________

Thesis statement:

_____________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
Student Handout Background on the United Nations Basic Facts of the United
Nations from http://d43fweuh3sg51.cloudfront.net/media/media_files/UN_Background_Page.pdf

The United Nations was founded in 1945 with the mission to maintain world peace, develop
good relations between countries, promote cooperation in solving the world’s problems, and
encourage a respect for human rights. It provides the nations of the world a forum to balance
their national interests with the interests of the global whole. It operates on the voluntary
cooperation and participation of its member nations. Nothing can be accomplished without their
agreement and participation. Creation of the United Nations While fighting the Axis powers of
Germany, Italy, and Japan during World War II, United States President, Franklin Roosevelt,
British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin met several times
between 1941 and 1945 to develop an international peacekeeping organization with the goal of
preventing future wars on the scale of World War II. In April of 1945, even before the war was
officially over, representatives from 50 countries met in San Francisco to create the charter for
the United Nations. Similar to the League of Nations, the U.N. was created to promote
international peace and prevent another world war. To avoid the structural failures of the
League, the U.N. founders gathered the support of the world’s most powerful nations. U.S.
participation was secured when the U.N. headquarters were located in New York City. To provide
enough power to impose and enforce its will, a security council was developed with authority to
take action against aggressor nations. To reassure powerful nations that their sovereignty would
not be threatened, the U.N provided veto authority over its actions. The five victors of World
War II – the U.S. Britain, France, the Soviet Union (which Russia gained at the break up of the
U.S.S.S.) and China – received this veto power. A veto provides any one of the five permanent
Security Council members the authority to reject any U.N. resolution. The Structure and
operation of the United Nations Accomplishments of the United Nations: During its 60-year
history, the U.N. has achieved many remarkable accomplishments in fulfilling it goals. The U.N.
has peacefully negotiated 172 peace settlements that have ended regional conflicts and is
credited with participation in over 300 international treaties on topics as varied as human rights
conventions to agreements on the use of outer space and the oceans. The U.N. has been
involved in every major war and international crisis since its inception and has served as a
catalyst for the prevention of others. It authorized the international coalitions that fought in the
Korean War (1950-53) and the Persian Gulf War (1991). It provided a forum for mediation in the
Arab-Israeli conflict resulting in numerous peace accords and keeping the conflict localized to the
Middle East. During the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, the U.N. was used as a podium by the
United States to challenge the Soviet Union’s placement of nuclear missiles in Cuba. The
embarrassment of public indictment was instrumental in forcing the Soviets to remove the
missiles. U.N. military forces (provided by member states) have conducted over 35 peacekeeping
missions providing security and reducing armed conflict. In 1988, the U.N. Peace-Keeping Forces
received the Nobel Prize for Peace. The U.N. has also set up war crimes tribunals to try war
criminals in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The U.N. has also made great strides in raising
the consciousness of human rights beginning with the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”
adopted by the General Assembly in 1948. The U.N. Commission on Human Rights through its
investigations and technical assistance in promoting free and fair elections has helped many
countries in the transition to democracy. The U.N.’s intense attention to specific human rights
abuses helped end apartheid in South Africa. In its humanitarian efforts, more than 30 million
refugees fleeing war, persecution, or famine have received aid from the U.N. High Commissioner
for Refugees. The International Court of Justice has helped settle numerous international disputes
involving territorial issues, hostage-taking and economic rights. Since the end of the Cold War, the
U.N. has become increasingly involved in providing humanitarian assistance and promoting
improvements in the health of the world’s peoples. In addition to providing relief for
humanitarian crises caused by international conflicts, the U.N. can also respond to emergencies
caused by natural disasters such as floods and hurricanes. On a proactive level, the World Health
Organization (WHO) and other U.N. affiliated groups have eliminated smallpox and are actively
pursuing a battle against AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria around the world. The WHO played a
significant role in diagnosing and containing the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome
(SARS) in 2003. U.N. programs, like the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) have saved and
enriched the lives of the world’s children through immunization programs for polio, tetanus,
measles, whooping cough, diphtheria and tuberculosis. The lives of over 3 million children a year
have been saved. The U.N. operates under the principle that promoting economic and social
development will help bring about lasting world peace. The United Nations Development Program
provides economic assistance through expert advice, training, and limited equipment to
developing countries. The U.N. Development Program coordinates all the U.N. efforts in
developing nations and has had success in part because it is not perceived as an outside group
threatening a developing countries’ authority or degenerating it to colonial rule. In addition to
promoting workers rights and the right to organize and bargain for better pay and working
conditions, the U.N. has also played a significant role in improving agricultural techniques and
increasing crop yields in Asia, Africa and South America. The U.N. has also helped developing
nations obtain funding projects through the International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development, also known as the World Bank. A related U.N. agency, the International Monetary
Fund (IMF) promotes international cooperation on monetary issues and encourages stable
exchange rates among nations. Source: The United Nations -
https://www.un.org/en/aboutun/history/ Source: The History Channel -
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-united-nations-is-born
LESSON PLAN: THE UNITED NATIONS AND REFORM

Discussion Questions on the Background of the United Nations:

Basic Facts and the Creation of the U.N. 1. What is the mission of the U.N.? 2. To accomplish
its mission, what do member countries agree to do? 3. What was one of the earlier attempts
to create an institution to promote international cooperation? 4. Describe the two flaws this
institution suffered from and explain how these ultimately led to its failure. 5. Discuss some
of the main events of World War II. How did these experiences rekindle the idea of
establishing a world organization dedicated to world peace and international cooperation? 6.
How did the founders of the United Nations try to avoid the failures of the League of
Nations? Explain how these actions would avoid the problems encountered by the League.

The Structure and Operation of the U.N. 1. Identify and briefly describe the function of the six
bodies of the United Nations. 2. Identify the legislative, executive, and judicial operations
contained in these bodies. 3. Explain the different ways the United Nations operates on
democratic principles such as rule of law, due process, separation of powers, and majority rule. 4.
Why can it be said that the Security Council does not operate as a democracy? 5. What kind
of occupational skills would someone need to be a staff member or a diplomat at the U.N.?
6. Explain how each of the six bodies helps the U.N. achieve its mission.

Accomplishments of the U.N. 1. List the four areas of accomplishment described in the
reading on the U.N. 2. Describe the different types of military action the U.N. has taken in its
history. 3. Explain how this use of military action is in keeping with the U.N.’s mission and
goals? 4. What efforts has the U.N. made in protecting human rights? In what ways has the
U.N. extended these efforts in the other areas of accomplishment described in the reading?
5. Describe the areas where the U.N. has made improvements in the health of people in the
world. Why has the end of the Cold War made it easier for this to happen? 6. Describe how
the U.N.’s Development Program has provided both economic/agricultural assistance and
promoted workers’ rights in countries it has worked in. Why has this agency been successful
in gaining the trust of developing countries?
Women and Work After World War II

Museum of Broadcast Communications, Chicago

Women joined the workforce in WWII

During the Second World War, women proved that they could do "men's" work, and do it well. With men
away to serve in the military and demands for war material increasing, manufacturing jobs opened up to
women and upped their earning power. Yet women's employment was only encouraged as long as the
war was on. Once the war was over, federal and civilian policies replaced women workers with men.

The Boom
After the war, the birth rate increased dramatically. Although many people assume that the baby boom happened
because peace and prosperity returned, historian Elaine Tyler May points out inHomeward Bound: American Families
in the Cold War Era that the rise in the number of births went far beyond what was expected from a return to peace.
Previous periods of post-war prosperity, notably the period after World War I, had not led to such dramatic increases in
marriage and childbearing. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, Americans in their childbearing years had weathered the
Depression and adevastating war, and they were living under a cloud of
possible nuclear war. After studying statistics, personal testimony, and popular culture imagery and language,
May concluded, "Americans turned to the family as a bastion of safety in an insecure world... cold war ideology
and the domestic revival [were] two sides of the same coin."
Rigid Gender Roles

The dramatic dichotomy in gender imagery in the 1950s makes people laugh 50 years later. InDick and Jane
readers, advertisements, educational films, and television shows, post-war Americans saw feminine, stay-at-home
moms cleaning, cooking, and taking care of children while masculine dads left home early and returned late each
weekday, tending to their designated roles as lawnmowers and backyard BBQers on the weekend. In More Work for
Mother, Ruth Schwartz Cowan wrote that psychiatrists, psychologists, and popular writers of the era critiqued
women who wished to pursue a career, and even women who wished to have a job, referring to such "unlovely
women" as "lost," "suffering from penis envy," "ridden with guilt complexes," or just plain "man-hating."
Yet Married Women Worked
With the international expansion

Tupperware, Inc

Tupperware targeted women who were interested in working

of the American economy after the war, men's wages were higher than ever before, making it possible
for the first time in U.S. history for a substantial number of middle class families to live comfortably on
the income of one breadwinner. Yet the figures reveal that by the early 1960s, more married women
were in the labor force than at any previous time in American history.

Domesticity and Money Pressures

The reality of many middle- and aspiring middle-class families' finances didn't match their dreams. Many families
wanted extra income -- and required a wife's earnings -- to afford the lifestyle they desired. Yet middle-class women
felt the pressure of the culture telling them to stay home. Many also had little desire to work in the nine-to-five jobs
open to them. They didn't want to be factory workers, secretaries, bookkeepers or department store salespeople in an
increasingly bureaucratic, corporate workplace, which demanded that home and work life be clearly separated. In
The Organization Man, a best-selling book of the period, William Whyte, Jr. wrote that organization men "are the
ones of our middle class who have left home, spiritually as well as physically, to take the vows of organization life."
How could a woman reconcile the ideal of female domesticity and the desire to earn?
Home-Centered and Lucrative
Tupperware home sales offered a solution, providing women with work they could do in their homes -- part-
time, for as many or as few hours as they chose, on flexible schedules that accommodated the needs of children and
the demands of housework. Home party selling allowed women to do income-producing work they didn't need to
call "work," but instead "having parties." When they joined "the Tupperware family," they didn't need to leave their
own families behind.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/tupperware-work/
Civil Rights Movement

Nearly 100 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, African

Americans in Southern states still inhabited a starkly unequal world of
disenfranchisement, segregation and various forms of oppression,
including race-inspired violence. “Jim Crow” laws at the local and state
levels barred them from classrooms and bathrooms, from theaters and
train cars, from juries and legislatures. In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court
struck down the “separate but equal” doctrine that formed the basis for
state-sanctioned discrimination, drawing national and international
attention to African Americans’ plight. In the turbulent decade and a half
that followed, civil rights activists used nonviolent protest and civil
disobedience to bring about change, and the federal government made
legislative headway with initiatives such as the Voting Rights Act of
1965 and the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Many leaders from within the
African American community and beyond rose to prominence during
the Civil Rights era, including Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks,
Malcolm X, Andrew Goodman and others. They risked—and
sometimes lost—their lives in the name of freedom and equality.

BACKGROUND

Because large segments of the populace–particularly African-

Americans, women, and men without property–have not always been
accorded full citizenship rights in the American Republic, civil rights
movements, or “freedom struggles,” have been a frequent feature of
the nation’s history. In particular, movements to obtain civil rights for
black Americans have had special historical significance. Such
movements have not only secured citizenship rights for blacks but
have also redefined prevailing conceptions of the nature of civil rights
and the role of government in protecting these rights. The most
important achievements of African-American civil rights movements
have been the post-Civil War constitutional amendments that
abolished slavery and established the citizenship status of blacks and
the judicial decisions and legislation based on these amendments,
notably the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka
decision of 1954, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and theVoting
Rights Act of 1965. Moreover, these legal changes greatly affected the
opportunities available to women, nonblack minorities, disabled
individuals, and other victims of discrimination.

DID YOU KNOW?

The 1955-56 Montgomery Bus Boycott, a protest

against segregated public facilities in Alabama, was
led by Martin Luther King Jr. and lasted for 381 days.

The modern period of civil rights reform can be divided into several
phases, each beginning with isolated, small-scale protests and
ultimately resulting in the emergence of new, more militant movements,
leaders, and organizations. The Brown decision demonstrated that the
litigation strategy of the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People (NAACP) could undermine the legal foundations of
southern segregationist practices, but the strategy worked only when
blacks, acting individually or in small groups, assumed the risks
associated with crossing racial barriers. Thus, even after the Supreme
Court declared that public school segregation was unconstitutional,
black activism was necessary to compel the federal government to
implement the decision and extend its principles to all areas of public
life rather than simply in schools. During the 1950s and 1960s,
therefore,NAACP–sponsored legal suits and legislative lobbying were
supplemented by an increasingly massive and militant social
movement seeking a broad range of social changes.

MONTGOMERY BUS BOYCOTT AND THE SOUTHERN CHRISTIAN

LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE,

The initial phase of the black protest activity in the post-Brown period
began on December 1, 1955. Rosa Parks of Montgomery, Alabama,
refused to give up her seat to a white bus rider, thereby defying a
southern custom that required blacks to give seats toward the front of
buses to whites. When she was jailed, a black community boycott of
the city’s buses began. The boycott lasted more than a year,
demonstrating the unity and determination of black residents and
inspiring blacks elsewhere.

Martin Luther King, Jr., who emerged as the boycott movement’s most
effective leader, possessed unique conciliatory and oratorical skills. He
understood the larger significance of the boycott and quickly realized
that the nonviolent tactics used by the Indian nationalist Mahatma
Gandhi could be used by southern blacks. “I had come to see early that
the Christian doctrine of love operating through the Gandhian method
of nonviolence was one of the most potent weapons available to the
Negro in his struggle for freedom,” he explained. Although Parks and
King were members of the NAACP, the Montgomery movement led to
the creation in 1957 of a new regional organization, the clergy-led
Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) with King as its
president.

King remained the major spokesperson for black aspirations, but, as in

Montgomery, little-known individuals initiated most subsequent black
movements. On February 1, 1960, four freshmen at North
Carolina Agricultural and Technical College began a wave of student
sit-ins designed to end segregation at southern lunch counters. These
protests spread rapidly throughout the South and led to the founding,
in April 1960, of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee
(SNCC). This student-led group, even more aggressive in its use of
nonviolent direct action tactics than King’s SCLC, stressed the
development of autonomous local movements in contrast toSCLCs
strategy of using local campaigns to achieve national civil rights
reforms.
BIRMINGHAM AND THE MARCH ON WASHINGTON

TheSCLC protest strategy achieved its first major success in 1963

when the group launched a major campaign in Birmingham, Alabama.
Highly publicized confrontations between nonviolent protesters,
including schoolchildren, on the one hand, and police with clubs, fire
hoses, and police dogs, on the other, gained northern sympathy. The
Birmingham clashes and other simultaneous civil rights efforts
prompted President John F. Kennedy to push for passage of new civil
rights legislation. By the summer of 1963, the Birmingham protests had
become only one of many local protest insurgencies that culminated in
the August 28 March on Washington, which attracted at least 200,000
participants. King’s address on that occasion captured the idealistic
spirit of the expanding protests. “I have a dream,” he said, “that one day
this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed– we
hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”

Although some whites reacted negatively to the spreading protests of

1963, King’s linkage of black militancy and idealism helped bring about
passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This legislation outlawed
segregation in public facilities and racial discrimination in employment
and education. In addition to blacks, women and other victims of
discrimination benefited from the act.

FREEDOM SUMMER

While theSCLC focused its efforts in the urban centers, SNCC‘s

activities were concentrated in the rural Black Belt areas of Georgia,
Alabama, and Mississippi, where white resistance was intense.
Although theNAACP and the predominantly white Congress of Racial
Equality (CORE) also contributed activists to the Mississippi movement,
youngSNCC organizers spearheaded civil rights efforts in the state.
Black residents in the Black Belt, many of whom had been involved in
civil rights efforts since the 1940s and 1950s, emphasized voter
registration rather than desegregation as a goal. Mississippi residents
Amzie Moore and Fannie Lou Hamer were among the grass-
roots leaders who worked closely withSNCC to build new
organizations, such as the Mississippi Freedom Democratic party
(MFDP). Although theMFDP did not succeed in its attempt to claim the
seats of the all-white Mississippi delegation at the 1964 National
Democratic Convention in Atlantic City, it attracted national attention
and thus prepared the way for a major upsurge in southern black
political activity.

After the Atlantic City experience, disillusionedSNCC organizers

worked with local leaders in Alabama to create the Lowndes County
Freedom Organization. The symbol they chose–the black panther–
reflected the radicalism and belief in racial separatism that increasingly
characterized SNCCduring the last half of the 1960s. The black panther
symbol was later adopted by the California-based Black Panther party,
formed in 1966 by Huey Newton and Bobby Seale.

SELMA TO MONTGOMERY MARCH

Despite occasional open conflicts between the two groups,

both SCLCs protest strategy and SNCC’S organizing activities were
responsible for major Alabama protests in 1965, which prompted
President Lyndon B. Johnson to introduce new voting rights legislation.
On March 7 an SCLC planned march from Selma to the state capitol in
Montgomery ended almost before it began at Pettus Bridge on the
outskirts of Selma, when mounted police using tear gas and wielding
clubs attacked the protesters. News accounts of “Bloody Sunday”
brought hundreds of civil rights sympathizers to Selma. Many
demonstrators were determined to mobilize another march,
andSNCCactivists challenged King to defy a court order forbidding such
marches. But reluctant to do anything that would lessen public support
for the voting rights cause, King on March 9 turned back a second
march to the Pettus Bridge when it was blocked by the police. That
evening a group of Selma whites killed a northern white minister who
had joined the demonstrations. In contrast to the killing of a black man,
Jimmy Lee Jackson, a few weeks before, the Reverend James
Reeb’s death led to a national outcry. After several postponements of
the march, civil rights advocates finally gained court permission to
proceed. This Selma to Montgomery march was the culmination of a
stage of the African-American freedom struggle. Soon afterward,
Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which greatly
increased the number of southern blacks able to register to vote. But it
was also the last major racial protest of the 1960s to receive
substantial white support.

RISE OF BLACK NATIONALISM

By the late 1960s, organizations such as the NAACP,

SCLC, andSNCC faced increasingly strong challenges from new
militant organizations, such as the Black Panther party. The Panthers’
strategy of “picking up the gun” reflected the sentiments of many inner-
city blacks. A series of major “riots” (as the authorities called them), or
“rebellions” (the sympathizers’ term), erupted during the last half of the
1960s. Often influenced by the black nationalism of Elijah Muhammad
and Malcolm X and by pan-African leaders, proponents of black
liberation saw civil rights reforms as insufficient because they did not
address the problems faced by millions of poor blacks and because
African-American citizenship was derived ultimately from the
involuntary circumstances of enslavement. In addition, proponents of
racial liberation often saw the African-American freedom struggle in
international terms, as a movement for human rights and national self-
determination for all peoples.

POST 1960′S CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

Severe government repression, the assassinations of Malcolm X and

Martin Luther King, and the intense infighting within the black militant
community caused a decline in protest activity after the 1960s. The
African-American freedom struggle nevertheless left a permanent mark
on American society. Overt forms of racial discrimination and
government-supported segregation of public facilities came to an end,
although de facto, as opposed to de jure, segregation persisted in
northern as well as southern public school systems and in other areas
of American society. In the South, antiblack violence declined. Black
candidates were elected to political offices in communities where blacks
had once been barred from voting, and many of the leaders or
organizations that came into existence during the 1950s and 1960s
remained active in southern politics. Southern colleges and universities
that once excluded blacks began to recruit them.

Despite the civil rights gains of the 1960s, however, racial

discrimination and repression remained a significant factor in American
life. Even after President Johnson declared a war on poverty and King
initiated a Poor People’s Campaign in 1968, the distribution of the
nation’s wealth and income moved toward greater inequality during the
1970s and 1980s. Civil rights advocates acknowledged that
desegregation had not brought significant improvements in the lives of
poor blacks, but they were divided over the future direction of black
advancement efforts. To a large degree, moreover, many of the civil
rights efforts of the 1970s and 1980s were devoted to defending
previous gains or strengthening enforcement mechanisms.

The modern African-American civil rights movement, like similar

movements earlier, had transformed American democracy. It also
served as a model for other group advancement and group pride efforts
involving women, students, Chicanos, gays and lesbians, the elderly,
and many others. Continuing controversies regarding affirmative action
programs and compensatory remedies for historically rooted patterns of
discrimination were aspects of more fundamental, ongoing debates
about the boundaries of individual freedom, the role of government, and
alternative concepts of social justice.

The Reader’s Companion to American History. Eric Foner and John A.

Garraty, Editors. Copyright © 1991 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/civil-rights-movement

We Didn't Start The Fire

http://www.metrolyrics.com/we-didnt-start-the-fire-lyrics-billy-joel.html

Harry Truman, Doris Day, Red China, Johnnie Ray

South Pacific, Walter Winchell, Joe DiMaggio

Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon, Studebaker, television

North Korea, South Korea, Marilyn Monroe
Rosenbergs, H-bomb, Sugar Ray, Panmunjom Brando, "The King and
I" and "The Catcher in the Rye"

Eisenhower, vaccine, England's got a new queen Marciano,

Liberace, Santayana goodbye

We didn't start the fire

It was always burning
Since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
No we didn't light it
But we tried to fight it

Joseph Stalin, Malenkov, Nasser and Prokofiev

Rockefeller, Campanella, Communist Bloc

Roy Khan, Juan Peron, Toscanini, Dacron Dien Bien Phu

falls, "Rock Around the Clock"

Einstein, James Dean, Brooklyn's got a winning team Davy Crockett,

Peter Pan, Elvis Presley, Disneyland

Bardot, Budapest, Alabama, Krushchev

Princess Grace, "Peyton Place", trouble in the Suez

We didn't start the fire

It was always burning
Since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
No we didn't light it
But we tried to fight it
Little Rock, Pasternak, Mickey Mantle, Kerouac Sputnik, Chou
En-Lai, "Bridge on the River Kwai"

Lebanon, Charlse de Gaulle, California baseball Starkweather,

homicide, children of thalidomide

Buddy Holly, "Ben Hur", space monkey, Mafia Hula hoops,

Castro, Edsel is a no-go

U2, Syngman Rhee, payola and Kennedy Chubby Checker,

"Psycho", Belgians in the Congo

We didn't start the fire

It was always burning
Since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
No we didn't light it
But we tried to fight it

Hemingway, Eichmann, "Stranger in a Strange Land" Dylan, Berlin,

Bay of Pigs invasion

"Lawrence of Arabia", British Beatlemania Ole Miss, John

Glenn, Liston beats Patterson

Pope Paul, Malcolm X, British politician sex JFK, blown

away, what else do I have to say

We didn't start the fire

It was always burning
Since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
No we didn't light it
But we tried to fight it

Birth control, Ho Chi Minh, Richard Nixon back again Moonshot,

Woodstock, Watergate, punk rock
Begin, Reagan, Palestine, terror on the airline Ayatollah's in
Iran, Russians in Afghanistan

"Wheel of Fortune", Sally Ride, heavy metal, suicide Foreign debts,

homeless vets, AIDS, crack, Bernie Goetz Hypodermics on the shores,
China's under martial law Rock and roller cola wars, I can't take it
anymore
We didn't start the fire
It was always burning
Since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
But when we are gone
Will it still burn on, and on, and on, and on

We didn't start the fire

It was always burning
Since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
No we didn't light it
But we tried to fight it
We didn't start the fire
It was always burning
Since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
No we didn't light it
But we tried to fight it

Songwriters
JOEL, BILLY

Published by
Lyrics © Universal Music Publishing Group

Who was to Blame for the Start of the Cold War?

http://sheg.stanford.edu/upload/Lessons/Unit%2011_Cold%20War/Cold%20War%20Lesson%2
0Plan3.pdfWhoStartedColdWar.pdf

You will be given three class days to prepare an oral presentation with an accompanying
poster defending
your position on who was to blame for the start of the Cold War. You may decide that the
US, USSR, or
both the US and USSR were to blame for the start of the Cold War.

National Security Council Paper #68 (1950):

Declassified in 1975, NSC-68 was the blueprint for US foreign policy for 20 years and
is essential for an
understanding of US policy during the Cold War.
http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/pdocs/nsc68.pdf
It is apparent from the preceding sections that the integrity and vitality of our system is
in greater
jeopardy than ever before in our history. Even if there were no Soviet Union we would face
the great
problems of the free society, accentuated many fold in this industrial age, of reconciling
order, security, and
the need for participation, with the requirements of freedom….
It is quite clear from Soviet theory and practice that the Kremlin seeks to bring the free
world under its dominion by the methods of the cold war. The preferred technique is to
subvert by infiltration and
intimidation.
At the same time the Soviet Union is seeking to create overwhelming military force, in order
to back up infiltration with intimidation. In the only terms in which it understands strength,it is
seeking to
demonstrate to the free world that force and the will to use it are on the side of the Kremlin,
that those who
lack it are decadent and doomed….
A further increase in the number and power of our atomic weapons is necessary in order
to assure
the effectiveness of any U. S. retaliatory blow, but would not of itself [be sufficient.
Greatly increased
general air, ground and sea strength, and increased air defense and civilian defense
programs would also be
necessary to provide reasonable
assurance that the free world could survive an initial surprise atomic attack of the weight
which it is
estimated the U.S.S.R. will be capable of delivering by 1954…Furthermore, such a build-up
of strength
could…might put off for some time the date when
the Soviet Union could calculate that a surprise blow would be advantageous. This
would provide
additional time for the effects of our policies to produce a modification of the Soviet system….
The “overall policy [of the United States is] designed to foster a world environment in which
the American system can survive and flourish.”

Document B
Franklin Delano Roosevelt to Ambassador to USSR, William C. Bullitt 1943
William C. Bullitt, "How We Won the War and Lost the Peace,"
Life, August 30, 1958, p. 94
Letter from President Roosevelt to US Ambassador to the USSR, William C. Bullitt
I just have a hunch that Stalin...doesn't want anything but security for his country, and I
think that if I give
him everything I possibly can and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he
wouldn't try to annex
anything and will work with for a world of democracy and peace.

Document C
Excerpts from a telegram by George Kennan from the US Moscow embassy to the
State Department,
February 22, 1946
The Origins of The Cold War: US Choices After WWII. CHOICES for the 21st Century
Education Program. Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University.
USSR still lives in antagonistic ‘capitalist encirclement’ with which in the long run there can
be no
permanent peaceful coexistence….[They believe that the] capitalist world is beset with
internal conflicts,
inherent in the nature of capitalist society…Internal conflicts of capitalism inevitably generate
wars…Everything must be done to advance relative strength of USSR…no opportunity must
be missed to
reduce strength and influence…of capitalist powers….At bottom of Kremlin’s neurotic view
of world
affairs is traditional and instinctive Russian sense of insecurity.”
Document D
Excerpts from Secretary of Commerce Henry Wallace’s letter to President Truman, July 1946.
The Origins of The Cold War: US Choices After WWII. CHOICES for the 21st Century
Education Program. Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University.
“American [military] actions since V-J Day…make it appear either (1) that we are
preparing ourselves to
win a war which we regard as inevitable or (2) that we are trying to build up a predominance
of force to
intimidate the rest of mankind. How would it look to us if Russia had the atomic bomb and
we did not, if
Russia had ten-thousand-mile bombers and air bases within a thousand miles of our coast
lines and we did
not?”
APPENDIX A, page 1
USSR after the breakup – locations to identify

Directions: Read the information on each of the countries described below. On

your map, label the countries, capitals, bodies of water, and any other landforms
that are described. You may usean atlas, but make sure that you follow the
description to help put the country in the right place.
-Color the map using the information on how the countries were divided after
the breakupof the Soviet Union. Be sure to include a key.

NEW EUROPEAN STATES

Lithuania- Capital – Vilnius; Borders the Baltic Sea; Classified as a Baltic country.
In 1990,Lithuania was the first republic to declare its independence from the Soviet
Union. Though notrecognized as independents until September 1991 – during that 18
months the Soviets stationedtroops and enforced an economic blockade.
Latvia- Capital- Riga; Russian population – 2.4 million; Large coastal area and
mountains forskiing; Located in the middle of the Baltic between Lithuania and
Estonia. August 1991, two days after the Moscow coup Latvia declared its
independence. This independence was not recognized until the same day as
Lithuania’s. Three years prior to theirindependence Latvians were demonstrating to be
able to elect nationalists to parliament and forself-rule.
Estonia- Capital- Tallinan (up north on the Gulf of Finland) considered a very
modern city;
Smallest Baltic state and the one farthest north; 50 miles from Helsinki, Finland. Lost
its democracy in 1930, when is became dominated by the Soviet Union in 1939.
Estonia always desired its freedom, in 1988 as a start to their revolt against the
Soviets; theEstonians started singing songs that had previously been banned. It
became known as theSinging Revolution – over 300,000 people attend this rally.
Estonia declared independence in August 1991 and soon after joined the United
nations. Belarus- Capital – Minsk; Population of ten million people of Belarusian
and Russian descent;
Large, flat country; Suffered serious contamination from the meltdown of
the Chernobyl nuclearpower station in 1986.
This large country borders Lithuania, Latvia, Poland and Russia. Due to many
Russian –German battles during WWII, Belarus was destroyed – since 1944, they
have worked to rebuildthe capital. Communism was strong even after the war, but
the contamination from the nuclearmeltdown turned the country toward
independence. In August 1991, Belarus declared itssovereignty and complete
independence from the Soviet Union. Moldova- Capital- Chisinau; Smallest of the
former republics; 4.5 million people; Shares
borders with Romania and Ukraine, which nearly surrounds it on all three sides.
This is a country of rolling hill, rich, fertile soil, some of the best vineyards in
Europe and
beautiful lakes. In 1991, Moldova, also declared its independence from the
Soviet Union, but
certain groups of rebels have tried to become independent from Moldova. The
rebels have set up
their own government called Transdniestria, between the Ukraine and the Nistra River.
It All Came Tumbling Down! 2003 Colorado Unit Writing Project 13
APPENDIX A, page 2
Ukraine- Capital –Kiev, called the mother city of not only the Ukraine, but Russia
and Belarus;
second largest country in Europe;
Ukraine has rich soil and produce wheat, barley, oats, rye and sugar beets in its
stretches of agricultural countryside. In December of 1991, Ukraine declared its
independence from the
Soviet Union. Throughout the 20th Century Ukraine lost 50% of its males and 25% of
its females to famine, war and elimination in the first half of the century. After the
Chernobyl
accident, the Ukrainians became unhappy with the Soviets, because they responded
slowly andeven denied that the accident had occurred. The Ukraine’s began to fight
for freedom, but many
say that true independence and economic development and not going to happen
any time soon,because so many Soviet elites still live within the Ukraine border.
Russia- Capital- Moscow; Part of Russia is in Europe and part is in Asia.
Russia is a former Soviet Republic that was in Europe.
Uzbekistan- Capital –Tashkent; The capital has been devastated by earthquakes;
Half of thepeople speak Russian; Russians not happy in other countries often
migrate to Uzbekistan It islocated between Turkmenistan and Kazakstan.
This country is independent in name only –when Uzbekistan claimed its
independence the Soviets changed its name and nothing else. It is a mostly flat
desert country, with most of thepopulation living along its banks, but does boast the
Amu-Darya River, a great waterway.Citizens are not allowed to hold free-election, it
is basically a police state and the party’sleader allows no dissent.
Tajikistan- Small, landlocked country south of Uzbekistan and nest to Krygyzstan;
6.4 millionpeople live in this country, but large areas are unpopulated or under-
populated; It is a poorcountry, and relies on other countries even for basic needs; Most
inhabitants are Muslims, thoughnot strict or militant.
Tajikistan is the fifth Central Asian country created from the Soviet Union. Since
declaring its independence in 1991 there have been at least three changes in government.
Eventen years later Russian peacekeeping troops were still in the country.
MUSLIM STATES IN ASIA
Kazakstan (also spelled Kazakhstan)- Capital- Astana (called Aqmola until 1998);
17 millionpeople live there; Located in Central Asia; One million square miles in size
and the secondlargest of the republics; The ninth largest country in the world.
When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991 it was one of the Muslim states created. The
Soviets have caused ecological nightmares here by using the country as a nuclear
testing groundwhile trying to make it a major wheat producer. This country adopted
its own constitution in1995.
Kyrgyzstan- Capital- Bishkek; Small landlocked country; Much of it is mountainous
and onearea of the Tian Shan range forms a natural boundary with China; The capital
boast that there aremore trees per person than any other Asian city.
Kyrgyzstan appears to be more interested in developing itself as a tourist destination
thanany other former Soviet possession. Out of fifteen republics it was the first to
declaresovereignty in December 1990 and then independence in August 1991 it quickly
elected leaderand established its own constitution.It All Came Tumbling Down! 2003 Colorado Unit
Writing Project 14
APPENDIX A, page 3
Turkmenistan- Capital – Ashghabat; Capital was destroyed by earthquake in
1948, killing
110,000 people; Sparsely populated desert country; Located on the Caspian Sea;
Inhabitants,known as Turkmen, live a mostly nomadic live; The country is
basically poor, though it is amajor cotton producer and has large natural gas
reserves: Shares borders with Iran, Afghanistan,Uzbekistan and Kazakstan.
Turkmenistan declared its independence in 1991, but it is run by a former
Communist that has prevented economic and political reform.
THREE COUNTRIES OF THE CAUCASUS MOUNTAIN REGION
Armenia- Capital – Yerevan; Landlocked country, smaller than Belgium; Neighbors
areTurkey, Iran, Georgia, and Azerbaijan; Taken over by many large countries
throughout historyand controlled by the Soviet Union for 70 years; Mountains in the
north of the country spread outto flat lands in the south; The capital is reported to be
one of the oldest continuously inhabitedsettlements in the world; Largely Christian
country. Armenia voted for independence in 1991, but for many years before and after
they were involved in a violent conflict with Azerbaijan. Throughout the recent past
the ongoing battleswithin its own borders and with its neighbor Azerbaijan, travel to
Armenia and Azerbaijan hasbeen strongly discouraged.
Azerbaijan- Capital – Baku; Largely Muslim country; Small country on the west
shore of the
Caspian Sea in the southeastern area of the Caucasus Mountains; One small portion
of Azerbaijan is separated from the rest of the country by Armenia.
Azerbaijan gained it independence in 1991, but it still has close ties to its Soviet
past. Many other countries have a more advanced democratic system. The country
has large and richoil and natural gas deposits that they have recently begun to export
in hopes to see the reward soon. They have a high unemployment rate brought on by
the conflicts with Armenia, increasedby the fact that many people are entering the
country as refugees.
Georgia- Capital – Tbilisi; Sits at the juncture of Europe and Asia on the Black
Sea; Much of itsland is mountainous; Capital is an economic and cultural center
with about 1.5 million people.Russian troops are stationed in the northern regions at
four military bases forpeacekeeping purposes, since the northern border is a
disputed area (tourists are not advised tostop here). In 1990, the first multi-party
elections were held in Georgia. Due to a brief civil wasand economic difficulties the
country is experiencing some difficult situations. These problemsinclude energy
shortage and a transportation system that is dangerous and poor.
Adapted from Baltimore Curriculum Project and Core Knowledge Foundation
It All Came Tumbling Down! 2003 Colorado Unit Writing Project 15

_____________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX C, page 1
Arms Race and Helsinki Accords – Questions
1) Describe the events that led up to the Soviet arms buildup.
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
________________________
2) The Soviets spent large amounts of money and energy on developing a large and powerful
military with many atomic weapons. Explain what part of the Soviet life suffered. Why do
you think they ran the country this way?
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________
3) Explain how détente may have contributed to the downfall of Communism in the
Soviet Union.
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________
4) Explain what the Helsinki Accords were. Include details about what human rights
were discussed
within them and explain what those human rights were.
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
________________
5) Describe the economic and social /cultural situation in the Soviet Union in the
1970s described inprevious units.
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________
It All Came Tumbling Down! 2003 Colorado Unit Writing Project 17
APPENDIX D
USSR and Afghanistan at WAR
1978-92, there arose a conflict between anti-Communist Muslim Afghan
guerrillas(mujahidin) and Afghan government and Soviet forces. The conflicts
origin was found inthe 1978 coup that overthrew Afghan president Muhammad
Daud Khan, who had cometo power by removing the king in 1973. The president
was assassinated and a pro-SovietCommunist government under Nur Mohammad
Taraki was established. In 1979 anothercoup, which brought Hafizullah Amin to
power, provoked an invasion (Dec., 1979) bySoviet forces and the installation of
Babrak Karmal as president. The Soviet invasionsparked Afghan resistance, which
at the onset involved approximately 30,000 troops.
This intimidating force grew 100,000 in time. The mujahidin were supported with
aidfrom the United States, China, and Saudi Arabia, that passed through Pakistan,
and fromIran. The rebel eluded the USSR with great skill even though the USSR
had betterweapons and controlled the air. After battling the conflict reached a
stalemate, Soviet andgovernment forces controlled the urban areas, and Afghan
guerrillas operated inmountainous rural regions. The rebels, as the war drug on,
improved their organization,tactics and began using imported and captured
weapons, including U.S. antiaircraftmissiles, to neutralize the technological
advantages of the USSR.
In 1986, Mohammad Najibullah became head of a collective leadership. In Feb.
1988, President Mikhail Gorbachev declared that the withdrawal of USSR troops
would begin. This task was completed within one year. This was brought on by
the fact that theSoviet citizens were increasingly discontented with the war, which
dragged on withoutsuccess, but with continuing casualties. In the spring of 1992,
the existing government in Afghanistan collapsed and, after 14 years of rule by the
People's Democratic party, Kabul
fell to a coalition of mujahidin under new military leadership.
It All Came Tumbling Down! 2003 Colorado Unit Writing Project 20

APPENDIX D, page 2
The war left Afghanistan with major political, economic, and ecological
problems.
During the war, more than one million Afghans died and five million became
refugees inneighboring countries. In addition, 15,000 Soviet soldiers were killed
and 37,000wounded. Economic production was drastically slowed down, and
much the land was laidto waste. At the end of the war more than five million
mines were coveringapproximately 2% of the country, where they still pose a
threat to human and animal life,and will continue to do so into the 21st century.
The desperate guerrilla forces that hadtriumphed, were unable to come to an
agreement and Afghanistan became divided intospheres of control. These
political divisions set the stage for the rise of the Taliban laterin the decade.
It All Came Tumbling Down! 2003 Colorado Unit Writing Project 21
http://www.coreknowledge.org/mimik/mimik_uploads/lesson_plans/1538/8_ItAllCameTumbli
ngDown.pdf
China’s Rising Economy
October 4, 2005 at 12:00 AM EDT

[Sorry, the video for this story has expired, but you can still read the transcript below.
PAUL SOLMAN: Traditional China, still on display in modern Beijing: Tai chi;
calligraphy practiced using Chairman Mao’s poems and his penmanship; a daily
song to welcome the dawn.

And yet, almost every week, an old neighborhood is razed to the ground to make
way for sci-fi skylines, hip new clubs, Mao as merchandise, every luxury product
you can think of — sometimes real, often not.

With more than twice as many people as the U.S. and Europe combined, this is
the most populous, fastest-growing major economy in world history. Will the
good times just keep rolling? When you first arrive, it would certainly seem so.

PHILIPPE CARETTI: Welcome to the Pudong Shangri-La Tower 2.

PAUL SOLMAN: Just about to open in Shanghai: A second tower of the Hotel
Shangri-La, with 375 new rooms.

PAUL SOLMAN: And what’s the top of the line?

PHILIPPE CARETTI: Well, the top suite would be 2,500 U.S. dollars.
PAUL SOLMAN: A night?

PHILIPPE CARETTI: A night.

PAUL SOLMAN: To general manager Philippe Caretti, an Italian-Swiss who’s

worked in a dozen countries for the hotel chain, Shanghai’s the hub of the new
global economy. So he’s hired a dozen international chefs, backed up by
hundreds of workers, to contribute native specialties to the global feast.

PHILIPPE CARETTI: He is the great-great- grandson of the man who invented

the noodles. Three minutes and we have fresh noodles. We currently have a total
of 1,800 contractors and workers finishing the building.

PAUL SOLMAN: 1,800 people.

PHILIPPE CARETTI: Working three shifts a day around the clock. This actually
reflects very much the drive and dynamics of China.

PAUL SOLMAN: You know, in a number of interactions we’ve had, –

PHILIPPE CARETTI: Yes.

PAUL SOLMAN: I don’t want to say lazy, but a slow kind of pace, an old sort of
bureaucratic mentality, maybe. I couldn’t tell. But not in your hotel.

PHILIPPE CARETTI: Not in our hotel and, to be honest with you, not in
Shanghai. Shanghai has a drive that no other city in China has.

PAUL SOLMAN: Well, except maybe at noon on a 100-degree day.

PAUL SOLMAN: But part of what’s so remarkable is that, for centuries, much
of the Chinese economy had been sound asleep.

Since the late ’70s, however, China’s economy has doubled every eight years. In
that same period, the U.S. economy has doubled once.

Today, average Chinese have some ten times the purchasing power they had just
a quarter century ago. At this rate, China reaches our current level in about two
decades, passes us in about three, which may explain the sky’s-the-limit sound
bites we kept getting on tape.

GIRL AT TSINGHUA U: I will be the most successful woman in the history of

China.

YOUNG MAN IN BEIJING (Translated): Just like your President Lincoln, I also
want to do something big for Beijing and for China.

PHILIPPE CARETTI: There is no terrorism. Tell me one country today which is

safer than China and I invite you for lunch!

PAUL SOLMAN: The boom in Chinese self-confidence is mirrored in the rise of

its skylines. You see it in the sprawling profile of Beijing, seat of the central
government; and in Shanghai, China’s money and media capital, home to the
Grand Hyatt Hotel– floors 53 to 87– in a building taller than the Empire State or
Sears Tower and the Oriental Pearl, which dwarfs the Eiffel Tower. On a clear
day, though there aren’t many here, you can see more than 300 skyscrapers in
Shanghai; in 1985, there was one.

But according to this tour guide at the city’s Urban Planning Museum, the
building boom has barely begun.

SPOKESPERSON: All of here is Shanghai, but it’s only 1/60 of Shanghai, the
downtown of Shanghai.

PAUL SOLMAN: 1/60 or 1/16?

SPOKESPERSON: 6-0.

PAUL SOLMAN: Oh, 1/60.

SPOKESPERSON: Yes!

PAUL SOLMAN: Really? So the city goes on and on and on.

SPOKESPERSON: Yes.

PAUL SOLMAN: And how many people are here now?

SPOKESPERSON: Now in the model area the population is eight million people.

PAUL SOLMAN: And in all of Shanghai?

SPOKESPERSON: All of Shanghai is 16 million people.

PAUL SOLMAN: And Shanghai’s got plenty of company. By the most

conservative count, China now boasts 47 cities with at least 1 million people. The
U.S., using the same measure, has nine.

PAUL SOLMAN: However, 60 percent of Chinese still live down on the farm;
one out of every eight people in the world is a Chinese peasant. And each year,
some 20 million of them leave the countryside for the city to get jobs, as at Three
Gun, China’s largest textile factory.

WOMAN (Translated): There’s not much work in the country, unless you want
to work in the fields.

PAUL SOLMAN: At current rates then by the year 2020, China’s cities should
add some 300 million newcomers, more than the entire population of the U.S. To
house them, China has to build a couple of extra Shanghais every single year. It’s
planning to.

SPOKESPERSON: The colored buildings all exist, and the white buildings are to
be built in the future.

PAUL SOLMAN: And that’s all planned already?

SPOKESPERSON: Yes.

PAUL SOLMAN: Meanwhile, our tour guide has her own plans of what to be
when she grows up.

SPOKESPERSON: Director of city planning bureau.

PAUL SOLMAN: The director of the city planning bureau.

SPOKESPERSON: Yes.

PAUL SOLMAN: That’s a big job in Shanghai.

SPOKESPERSON: Oh, yes, yes, I think so; it’s very –it’s a huge job.

PAUL SOLMAN: A very huge job made possible in part because so many are
willing to work for so little. Philippe Caretti pays his crew about 80 cents an
hour– the lowest wage, he says, of any of the 17 countries in which the Shangri-
La chain operates.

PHILIPPE CARETTI: The quality of the work– I mean the expertise, comparing
to a worker in the U.S. of course the laborers are not as professional, but the
passion and the fact of having a job to be able to build a five-star hotel… the
Shanghainese are very, very proud people and they –everybody in this city is
participating in the success of China. And that’s how they see it.

PAUL SOLMAN: In the factories, the pay’s a bit higher: About $1.25 an hour,
including benefits, according to management at Three Gun Textiles.

Now manufacturing has taken China’s total trade past that of Japan, and today, to
the surprise of many, it’s second only to the U.S. But more significantly perhaps,
China is moving up the value chain with higher-tech exports like computer chips
being loaded onto this Danish ship headed to the U.S. flying the Chinese flag.

Last year, Shanghai surpassed Rotterdam to become the world’s second busiest
port. This model of the city’s new deep sea docks, to be reachable by the world’s
longest bridge, will become a working reality in a few years. When it does,
Shanghai will overtake Singapore and become the world’s biggest port, bar none.

But China’s not just manufacturing for export; the domestic market has exploded
as well, meaning that investing in China is a no-brainer for multinationals looking
to grow their brands. The head of Wal-mart Asia, Joe Hatfield:

JOE HATFIELD: Average incomes are going up. Car ownership is going up. I
mean, you’re seeing what occurred in the U.S. thirty, forty years ago but in a
much more compressed timeframe.

PAUL SOLMAN: At this school for children of workers at a Shanghai

semiconductor plant, the consumers and producers of the future are getting a
global head start.
(Children singing alphabet)

PAUL SOLMAN: The company’s kindergarten teacher, John Pelaschier:

JOHN PELASCHIER: All of these kids are growing up learning at least two
languages, at least Chinese and English. And that’s, I believe, a great advantage.

(Child singing alphabet)

JOHN PELASCHIER: Good job!

PAUL SOLMAN: For some perspective, we turn to an old China hand: Jim
McGregor, formerly the Wall Street Journal’s bureau chief in China, now a
businessman.

JIM McGREGOR: It’s an accident of history this place was ever communist.
They’re capitalist down to their bone marrow. China is hungry and come from
nothing, and they’ve still got a lot of poor people who are lining up to work hard
and be the next person who makes money. And that’s going to last for decades
and decades and decades.

PAUL SOLMAN: But will it really? No slowdowns? No bumps in the road?

Yes, a powerful central government has unleashed immense productive energy,
but the hurdles are equally immense.

It’s not just the obvious irony of the world’s biggest communist country ever
creating in some ways the most freewheeling market in world history. It’s also
that the world’s biggest country faces a pack of the world’s biggest problems:
Trying to innovate in a repressive culture; trying to privatize property in an
economy where intellectual property is so famously pirated; trying to invest
productively where corruption runs rampant, bringing the stock market, for
example, to a standstill; trying to find work for millions of unskilled peasants
from the countryside in factories ever more mechanized; trying to keep growing
at a pace that, in a few decades, would mean China is consuming all the output
— iron, oil, food, cars, clothing, et cetera — all of what the world consumes right
now; just trying to breathe, for goodness’ sake, in a country with 16 of the world’s
20 most polluted cities.
And yet, China’s spirit is infectious; its economic energy, practically viral.

PAUL SOLMAN: I bet it’s hard to get stuff done in China.

PHILIPPE CARETTI: No, it’s easy. Everything is easy because you have the
human resources.

PAUL SOLMAN: In future stories, then, we’ll explore the question: Is the
American century about to be followed by the Chinese millennium? Or could it
be that China, at the moment, is flying a little too high?

JIM LEHRER: We’ll have another of Paul’s reports later this week.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia-july-dec05-china_10-04/

Why did Communism survive in China

but not in the USSR?
CHRISTOPHER AMACKER, NOV 17 2010

THIS CONTENT W AS W RITTEN BY A STUDENT AND ASSESSED AS PART OF A UNIVERSITY DEGREE.

E -IR PUBLISHES STUDENT ESSAYS & DISSERTATIONS TO ALLOW OUR READERS TO BROADEN
THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF W HAT IS POSSIBLE WHEN ANSWERING SIMILAR QUESTIONS IN THEIR
OWN STUDIES.

The Communist Party in the Soviet Union and the Communist Party in China both
had similarities. Among them were immoral leaders as well as effective leaders, a
way of keeping their constituents in line, and the end of Communism as the party
began with. However, among the few similarities both parties possessed the
ultimate demise of Communism in the Soviet Union was their failure to adapt to
times. The Soviet Union’s miscalculation of national identity, the lack of a strong
connection between Soviet led bloc states, and having a leader that supported
Western-Democracy more than Communism were essentially the three
paramount factors that led to the disintegration of the Soviet Union and of
Communism in it. While Communist China did have an immoral leader, Mao tse-
tung, the Communist Party was able to adapt to the times by putting economic
reform before political reform. Ultimately this historically brilliant move led by
Deng Xiaoping was arguably what kept the Communist Party in rule in China for
many years to come, among other things.

Before analyzing how Communism fell in the Soviet Union and succeeded in China,
one must look at how they came to power first. While China had a historical uprising
of the masses, namely the peasants, the Soviet Union did not have a revolution
supported by the majority of the people. October 1st, 1949 was the date
when the Communist Party in China officially came to power and established a
China that was led by one party. However, it was a long process from a regime-
change from the Qing Dynasty, similar to the change of regimes in the Soviet
Union from Tsarist Russia. 1937 marked an important year for the Chinese,
because it was the start of Communist ideology spreading to the masses. The
Japanese are mainly acclaimed as the catalyst for the widespread of Communist
thought in China, because the country invaded China in July 7tth of 1937. During
the years the Second Sino-Japanese War was being fought, puppet governments
supported by the Communist Party were set up in rural villages. Peasants
supported these governments because not only did they give them a say, but the
governments “provided self-defense, education agricultural cooperation, support
for full-time guerillas, and other needs of the villages”.[i] Essentially these local
institutions taught peasants the meaning of government, especially during times
of war. In addition to teaching government, the mass movements endorsed by the
Communist Party sparked “the feeling of belonging and of having a stake in
government [which] grew up in this period”.[ii] This was entirely novel to the
Chinese masses; and it brought with an exhilarating sense of self-
determination. As a result of the peasants’ reaction to the local governments,
the Communist Party in China gained massive support from the peasants.
Moreover, the peasants of China had a significant influence under Mao’s reign.

“Without the poor peasants it would never have been possible to bring about in
the countryside the present state of revolution, to overthrow the local bullies and
bad gentry, or to complete the democratic revolution. Being the most
revolutionary, the poor peasants have won the leadership in the peasant
association […] This leadership of the poor peasants is absolutely necessary.
Without the poor peasants there can be no revolution. To reject them is to reject
the revolution. To attack them is to attack the revolution. Their general direction of
the revolution has never been wrong”.[iii]

The Communist ideology is one that is clearly widespread among the masses,
and because of this its not only the most viable form of government for China but
also the most productive. While China had a massive revolution from the bottom
up, the Communist Party in the Soviet Union came to power without the masses.

The way the Communist Party of the Soviet Union took power was far less
emotional than the way the Chinese did. To begin with the people that were
against the Tsarist Empire were largely upper class educated citizens, which were
bred in the Russian institutions of higher learning in the 1860s.[iv] Unlike China,
the majority was not involved in bringing the Communist Party to power. In fact
the Soviet Communists came to power officially after the October Revolution,
which was led by Vladimir Lenin. The Bolshevik Revolution led by Lenin and the
Bolshevik Party, which was a creation of Lenin, turned into the Communist Party,
and essentially never changed. Unlike the Communist Party in China, one person
created the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. As Russian historian Richard
Pipes adequately states, “The Bolshevik Party was Lenin’s creation: as its
founder, he conceived it in his own image and, overcoming all opposition from
within and without, kept it on the course he had charted”.[v] The Communist Party
of China had many founders, its founders was an entire set of people, the
peasants. Without them the Party could arguably never have come to power.
Tsarist Russia had no need for a Communist Party, simply because the masses
had more rights than they did in the Soviet Union. In fact
“all authoritarian regimes had market economies with relatively well defined private
property rights, whereas none of the established communist regimes had a market
economy or legally protected private assets of production before transition”.[vi]

Many historians argue that the October Revolution was merely a set back for
Russia’s democratization, and that there should never have been a Communist
rule in the first place. [vii] In addition to the introverted way Communism came to
power in the USSR, its downfall can also be contributed to the Soviet Union’s
inability to set up a national identity.

While the Soviets did not have an effective way of establishing national identity in the
Soviet Union, the Chinese used their inclusive mindset and Confucius ideology to
create a national identity everyone could relate to. While there were many ethnicities
in China ranging form the incorporations of the Tibetans, Mongols, and Uyghurs in
the 17th century, the Chinese government was able to keep all of these ethnicities
under one ideology, namely Confucianism. However, in contemporary times the
PRC states that China is a multi-ethnic state. In the Soviet Union on the other hand,
there were far too many ethnic minorities in the state. What the Soviet Union
attempted to achieve was a classless national identity by limiting everybody to one
class, the Proletariats. Rather than recognizing that there were many ethnicities, like
China did, the Soviet Union rejected the ethnicities and instead

“[the] non-Russian ethnics were systematically and firmly incorporated into the
Soviet Union by the promotion of a proletariat class mentality. The development
of the theory and policy of ‘Socialism in One Country’ thus served to forge the
unitary national identity of the Soviet Union around the concept of common
Soviet class identity”.[viii]

Prior to looking at the nationalism in the Soviet Union, the word “nation” should be
defined first. Ronald Grigor Suny offers a good definition stating that a nation is

“a group of people that imagines itself to be a political community that is distinct

from the rest of humankind, believes that it shares characteristics, perhaps
original values, historical experiences, language, or any of many other elements,
and on the basis of its defined culture deserves self-determination”.[ix]
According to this definition, the Soviet Union did not possess any kind of unity,
because within the ethnic minorities and Soviet blocs, different languages were
spoken, a different history applied for each state, and cultures varied between each
ethnicity. The main reason for the Soviet Union’s attempt to categorize everyone
under the Proletariat class was because the state lacked one. As Karl Marx clearly
stated, Communism would not be achieved unless there would be an international
revolution of the Proletariat class.[x] Evidently the Soviets’ attempt to spark an
international Proletariat revolution failed. Professor of Chinese cultural studies Liu
Kang at Duke University states that “the current Chinese communist government is
more a product of nationalism than a product of ideology like Marxism and
Communism”[xi]. Nationalism was a key component used by the CPC that was the
glue in sticking the people to the party. Rightfully so, because the Chinese had gone
through many invasions; dating back to the Sino-Japanese War, along with more
recent underlying anti-west sentiment caused by western media’s coverage on Tibet,
even during the Chinese Olympics. As Kenneth G. Lieberthal, from the University of
Michigan accurately states, “the Western view is shaped by a notion of Shangri-La
while the Chinese views are shaped by the assumption that Tibetans are backward,
feudal, superstitious, and badly in need of modernization—Chinese
style”.[xii] Essentially, the problem at its core is that while China is a world-
player, many in the West will not fully accept it as one, and will seek to humiliate
China. A recent example is how western media tried to link the Olympics with
protests in Tibet. Thus, while nationalism is the glue that keeps society and the
government closely together for China, it can also ultimately lead to its downfall
in the international community, and also affect the CPC’s legitimacy. Therefore,
the Soviet Union in comparison to China did not possess a common history to
which Soviet nationalism could arise.

Although the Soviet Union was not able to create a clear national identity with its
constituents, and the Communist Party did not have the consent of the majority as it
came to power, the key events that lead to the Soviet Union’s downfall and the
survival of Communism in China were the reforms. Once Mikhail Gorbachev became
General Secretary his political reforms Perestroika and Glasnost, both proved to be
major failures within the Soviet Union. China on the other hand flourished with the
reforms of Deng Xiaoping. Both leaders were different to begin with. It’s a common
misconception that they were similar, because while Deng Xiaoping’s reforms proved
to be a success, the reforms of Gorbachev were a failure. Moreover, Mikhail
Gorbachev came from a 5th generation of Leninists. He was the first leader to be
born after the October Revolution. On the other hand, Deng Xiaoping lived through
the years of Mao, and was a Maoist himself. It’s indeed quite remarkable that a
Maoist was able to change the entire social system.

“Because of Deng, globalization is no longer a choice, but a condition. Mikhail

Gorbachev, celebrated for ending the cold war, closed the door on the 20th century
through his miscalculations. By pursuing political reform before economic reform, he
inadvertently dissolved the Soviet empire. Deng chose wisely, pursuing economic
reform before political liberalization, and, in the farthest-reaching act of the 20th
century, catapulted America’s most precious gift to humanity–our American system-
cum-globalization–into worldwide majority status”[xiii].

Thus the paramount different between the Soviet Union and China is that China
placed an emphasis on the economy rather than on political reform. By having a
strong economy, political reform come eventually. This system is much more viable,
at least within a Communist government, because in order to have a good economy
a country has to trade and be open to international activity. Simply with international
activity, political reform will come. Simply looking comparing the CCP and the
Communist Party in the Soviet Union one can see how the parties are ideologically
different. Dr. Wei-Wei Zhang states that “even the most ardent reformer in China
does not try to abandon the Party in carrying out
reforms”.[xiv] This notion not only points out the impeccable sense of pride the
Chinese have for their countries, but it also points out a flaw of the Soviet model,
in its final days. Mikhail Gorbachev seemingly did not carry his allegiance with
the Communist Party, nor did he have a pragmatic mindset that would benefit the
Soviet Union. Ultimately, while Gorbachev was accepted in the west for his
democratic reforms, he was not accepted among his own people in the Soviet
Union.

While there were many factors that contributed to the downfall of Communism in
the Soviet Union, the main one was that during the 1980s nobody believed in it
anymore; which was the key difference between the survival of Communism in
China. In the 1980s the people did not trust the Communist ideology anymore.
Quite frankly, once Mikhail Gorbachev introduced his liberal reforms of Glasnost,
people were more inclined to talk to the government; in doing so the people spoke
badly of the Communist government because they did not give the people what
they promised. China on the other hand put less of an influence on controlling the
entire country, and more of an influence on the economy. By putting less of an
influence on control of the state, people remained happy with the government. In
addition, new economic reforms that were being introduced, gave more economic
freedom to the people of China. In addition, as already mentioned China had a
truly mass movement with Communism, while the Soviet Union was largely
created with the ideas of one man, Lenin. China’s pragmatic ideology can be
seen in every corner of the country. The 5-year plans are a bold way of testing
whether a specific policy is efficient for the country. The people of China trust and
believe in their government. On the other hand, the Soviet Union, was a failed
attempt at internationalizing Communism. Largely one man, Vladimir Lenin, which
resulted in the Soviet government not adapting to times, influenced it. The Soviet
Union miscalculated the national identity of the ethnicities it took under its wing.
Political reform was put before economic reform, and this essentially resulted in
the downfall of Soviet Union and of Communism therein.
http://www.e-ir.info/2010/11/17/why-did-communism-survive-in-china-but-not-in-the-ussr/

The Arab Israeli Conflict

The History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict – Part I Since 1922 and the establishment of the British
mandate for Palestine, the question of what to do with Palestine had been a continuing problem.
When Britain accepted Palestine as a mandate, it expected to establish two states: a homeland
for Jews of the Diaspora despite Arab opposition. Its ability to satisfy either Arabs or Jews
frustrated everyone involved. As the time approached for the actual establishment of an
independent Jewish state, the Arabs continued to voice uncompromising opposition. Feeling that
it had done all that one nation could do, and unwilling to risk the Arab animosity that was sure to
result from partition, Britain turned to the United Nations for help. 1. STEPS TO ISRAELI
INDEPENDENCE: The UN sent a commission to survey the situation in Palestine. With both Jews
and Arabs demanding complete sovereignty in all of Palestine, the UN General Assembly voted to
end the mandate and recommend that Palestine be partitioned into three separate areas. The
first are was to be a Jewish state inhabited mostly by Jews. The second area was to be an Arab
state. The third area was to be an international zone that would include Jerusalem, Bethlehem,
and other nearby holy sites. Both sides were prepared to fight for their objectives. The Palestine
Arabs protested that the UN recommendation violated the principle of self-determination. They
began to use force to oppose partition and the establishment of a Jewish state. Armed bands
from Syria and Trans-Jordan began to infiltrate Palestine to assist the Palestinian Arabs. The
Zionists, on the other hand, received the United Nations proposal with enthusiasm and resolved
to implement it regardless of Arab reaction. The Jews had previously formed a defense force
called the Haganah, largely to protect themselves against Arab attacks. Out of the Haganah, and
other underground military units, the Jews of Palestine began to build a national army. At first
their troops were familiar only with light arms and hit-and-run guerilla tactics. Gradually,
however, they were able to acquire heavier weapons from sympathetic parties. After the UN
partition resolution in November 1947, conflict between Jews and Arabs grew more intense.
Raids, reprisals, and counter-reprisals from both sides were frequent.
Neither the British nor the UN was able to stop the fighting. The British mandate ended on May
14, 1948, the same day that Israel proclaimed its independence. The next day Arab armies from
five neighboring Arab states (Egypt, Trans-Jordan, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon) invaded the new
Israeli state. Despite their determination, the Arab armies could not defeat the Israelis. Finally by
July 1949, the UN persuaded all the invading nations except Iraq to sign separate armistice
agreements with Israel. 2. CONTINUING TENSIONS, 1949-1956: Several issues plagued Israel’s
relations with Arab nations during the early years of its independence. One of these was the
refugee question. About 725,000 Arabs fled Israel to settle in surrounding Arab territories. The
fleeing refugees charged that they were driven from their homes by the Israelis. The Israelis,
however, claimed that most Arab refugees fled because they were persuaded to leave by their
own Arab leaders. Reacting to Israeli refusal to allow them to return to their homes, armed
Palestinian groups infiltrated across Israel’s borders, causing hundreds of minor and several major
incidents of terrorism. Many of the Palestinian refugee population, which today numbers over
two and a half million, have continued to demand a return to their homes to Israel. Besides
demands on Israel to allow the return of Arab refugees, Arab leaders demanded compensation for
property acquired by Israel and the surrender of territory held by Israel beyond its armistice
frontiers. The Israelis rejected most demands for concessions. They believed that concessions
would be interpreted as a sign of weakness. Charging the Arab states with trying to destroy Israel,
they stated that they would never surrender territory gained in a conflict they did not start. As
invaders, Israel charged, the Arab states were responsible for the flight and continuing plight of
the Palestinian refugees. They further charged that permitting a return to Israel of these refugees
who had been indoctrinated with a hatred of Israel would seriously jeopardize Israel’s security. A
further issue complicating the search for peace in the Middle East was the tensions between the
United States and the former Soviet Union. The Arabs charged Israel with being a tool of Western
imperialism and a means of continuing the Western presence in the Arab world. Israel’s economy
had been bolstered by Western funds, both from United States government sources and from
many people in the United States, and Western Europe who were sympathetic to the Israeli
cause. At the same time, many Arab states accepted military and economic aid from the Soviet
Union and other Communist countries as well as from the United States, France, and Great
Britain. Still another issue was the presence of a UN peacekeeping force in the Middle East. The
UN Truce Supervision Organization was established to carry out the provisions of the 1949
armistice agreements. Its main job was to patrol the borders between Israel and its neighbors.
After Egypt’s conflict with Israel, Great Britain, and France over the Suez Canal in 1956, a United
Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) was set up to patrol the frontiers between Egypt and Israel. But
Egypt continued to bar Israeli shipping from the Canal. Although the UNEF did have some success
in preventing terrorist acts along the border between Israel and Egypt, such incidents continued
along the Syrian and Jordanian frontiers. 3. THE SIX-DAY WAR, 1967: For some years Egypt had
been receiving large supplies of arms from the Soviet Union. In May 1967 Egypt demanded that
the UNEF leave its territory and began to send troops and tanks into the Sinai Peninsula to
threaten Israel. Another act of provocation was the closing of the strategic Strait of Tiran, thus
cutting off Israel’s access to the Red Sea and preventing ships from reaching the Suez Canal. These
incidents accompanied by threats to destroy Israel precipitated an Israeli attack on Egypt that
quickly spread to Syria. Jordan then entered the conflict against Israel. Within six days the Israelis
had destroyed the Arab armies. Israel took
the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip from Egypt; East Jerusalem and the West Bank from Jordan;
and the Golan Heights from Syria. During the height of the brief war, Egypt sank ships in the Suez
Canal to block traffic. The waterway remained closed long after the Six-Day War had come to an
end. 4. SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS 242 AND 338: During the 1960s and 1970s, the United
Nations adopted two resolutions that attempted to establish the principles for a negotiated
settlement in the Middle East. In 1967, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 242, calling for
an end to all declarations of war and the withdrawal of Israeli troops from territories captured
from the Arabs. In addition, Israel and the Arab states were to respect one another’s
independence and right to live in peace within secure and recognized borders. The resolution also
called for a “just settlement” of the Palestinian refugee problem. Advancing a step further, in
1973 the United Nations passed UN Security Council Resolution 338, which states that Resolution
242 proposals should be pursued through negotiations. 5. THE OCTOBER (YOM KIPPUR) WAR,
1973: Many Israelis believed that their country was the dominant military power in the Middle
East. Because of this belief, they thought they would be able to maintain the status quo without
making any territorial concessions. Anwar Sadat, Egypt’s president, however, was determined to
regain the Sinai Peninsula. He convinced Syria to join him in a surprise attack on Israel during
October 1973, hoping to return to international attention the question of the territories occupied
by Israel. The attack occurred on the holiest of Israel’s holy days. Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement),
which in 1973 occurred during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. The war lasted only three
weeks. Some of the heaviest battles fought since World War II took place on the Egyptian and
Syrian fronts. More Israelis were killed in the war than in the entire period since 1948. Although
Israel was taken by surprise and initially suffered setbacks on both fronts, it soon recovered and
seized the offensive against Egypt and Syria. But the war ended in a stalemate when the United
States, the Soviet Union, and the United Nations intervened. During 1973 and 1974, Henry
Kissinger, Secretary of State of the United States, negotiated disengagement agreements
between the warring parties. Israel agreed to withdraw its forces from parts of both the Sinai
Peninsula and the Golan Heights. Preparations were also made for an international peace
conference to settle issues outstanding in the Arab-Israeli conflict. The conference met only once,
however. 6. DIRECT PEACE TALKS, 1977-1979: By November 1977 Anwar Sadat had become
impatient with efforts to achieve a peace settlement through an international conference and
decided to take the initiative himself. In a surprise announcement he told the Egyptian parliament
that he was about to fly to Jerusalem in a direct bid for peace. Sadat’s visit and his address to the
Israeli parliament was the first direct overture for peace by an Arab leader. It was an event that
stirred great enthusiasm throughout Israel. Despite these positive steps, the process of peace
negotiations was long and difficult, taking over a year to finally reach agreement. During the year
the negotiations frequently were broken off because of disagreements over the Sinai Peninsula
and Jewish settlers in Arab territory. Personal conflicts between Sadat and Menachem Begin, the
Israeli prime minister, also occurred. Nevertheless, the negotiations were saved from failure by
the mediation of President Jimmy Carter of the United States. In 1978 President Carter convened
a meeting between Sadat and Begin at Camp David, the Presidential retreat near Washington, DC.
At the conclusion of this 12-day meeting a preliminary agreement was signed. The war between
Egypt and Israel ended formally in March 1979 with the signing of a peace treaty in Washington.
The treaty provided for normalization of relations between Egypt and Israel, the exchange of
ambassadors, the return of the Sinai
Peninsula with an international peacekeeping force in the region. For their efforts, both Sadat and
Begin were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. 7. THE WEST BANK AND GAZA STRIP: Israel’s
continued occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip was not resolved by the 1979 treaty.
The treaty, however, made provisions for future negotiations about the West Bank and the Gaza
Strip. Ever since these territories were occupied in the 1967 war, Israelis have been divided over
their disposition. Except for Jerusalem, which Israel has made its capital, many Israelis have
opposed annexation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Those who favor annexation argue that all
of Palestine belongs by historic right to the Jewish state and should not be given up, even as part
of a peace settlement. Opponents feel that it is inadvisable to keep territory with such a large
Arab population. They point to the high Arab birthrate and argue that Arabs would outnumber
Jews in an Israel that included the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. 8. LEBANON INVASION: Israel’s
continued occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip stirred deep resentment among the
Palestinian Arabs. By the 1980s demonstrations and protests were frequent. Most inhabitants
sympathized with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the Palestinian nationalist
organization that led the fight against Israel. Israeli leaders at the time believed that unrest in the
occupied territories could be suppressed if the PLO’s bases and headquarters in Lebanon were
destroyed. They also felt that destruction of the PLO would end the terrorist attacks launched
from Lebanon across Israel’s northern border. In June 1982 Israel began a massive invasion of
Lebanon. The invasion was intended to destroy the PLO and to force Lebanon to sign a peace
treaty with Israel. Ariel Sharon, Israel’s minister of defense, confidently told his government that
the fighting would be over in a few days. The fighting lasted for longer, however, and Israeli forces
surrounded Beirut, Lebanon’s capital, pushing farther into Lebanon than was planned. The Israelis
besieged the PLO forces in Beirut for several weeks. Then through United States intervention, the
fighting was ended. Thousands of civilians had been wounded, and many killed. Large-scale
destruction took place in southern Lebanon and in the capital. Israel lifted the siege in August
after an agreement was reached to withdraw PLO forces from Beirut. After the PLO forces were
withdrawn, Lebanese Maronite Christian militias, allies of Israel, entered two Palestinian refugee
camps in Beirut and massacred hundreds of Palestinian men, women, and children. The massacre
had a traumatic effect in Israel. To begin with, the war in Lebanon had been unpopular. The
massacre aroused widespread criticism and mass protests against Sharon and the war. Many
young men refused to serve in the occupation forces in Lebanon. Although Israel agreed to a
gradual withdrawal of its forces, the opposition wanted a hastier departure. The issue of the war
in Lebanon and demands that Israel end its occupation of Lebanon became major issues in the
1984 election campaign in the Israeli Knesset (parliament). After that election, the withdrawal
from Lebanon was completed except for a narrow strip of land along the Israeli border. None of
Israel’s major objectives in the 1982 invasion were achieved. Syrian forces remained in Lebanon,
which refused to sign a peace treaty with Israel. After several months, PLO forces returned to
Lebanon. Lebanon’s civil war left the economy and much of the country in ruins. Rival groups
representing all sides agreed to a power-sharing arrangement in 1989. Under this accord,
Lebanese leaders are trying to set up an effective government. However, Syria maintains 35,000
troops in Lebanon and has a strong influence over local politics. In spring 200, Israel withdrew its
troops from a none-mile-wide strip in southern Lebanon, which it had occupied since 1978. Israel
referred to this area as a “security zone” needed to defend itself against military attacks by radical
Islamic groups operating in Lebanon. 9. FIRST PALESTINIAN
UPRISING: In December 1987 a major uprising of Palestinians, known as the intifada, in the
occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip occurred. More than half the inhabitants in these
territories had lived all their lives under Israeli military control. They had become resentful
of the restrictions imposed on them by the Israeli army. These included frequent curfews,
deportation of many politically active leaders, arrests without trial for hundreds suspected
of terrorist acts, school and university closings, and interference in daily life. Although the
uprising began as a spontaneous demonstration, it soon became an organized movement
with an underground leadership that demanded an end to Israeli occupation, the release of
all political prisoners, and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. More than
800 people were killed during the intifada. Most Palestinians supported the PLO as the
leader of the Palestinian nationalist movement. Israel, however, never recognized the PLO,
labeling it a “terrorist” organization and never allowing it to operate in its territories.
Furthermore, the Israeli government opposed the establishment of a Palestinian state in the
West Bank and Gaza Strip. But disagreement over what to do with the occupied territories
continued. The minimum that Palestinians were willing to accept was far more than most
Israelis were willing to concede. The maximum that most Israelis were willing to give was far
too little for the Palestinians. All the Arab states, including Egypt, supported Palestinian
demands for an independent state. This intifada ended in 1993.

http://www.historyteacher.net/GlobalStudies/Readings/reading-Arab-IsraeliConflict-1.pdf

US must buck up Israel

by Daniel Pipes
JERUSALEM POST
December 6, 2000

It's time for a drastic change in US policy toward Israel. Since about 1967, the
US has pursued a fairly consistent line: helping Israel to be strong while
pressuring it to make concessions to the Arabs. So ingrained has this dual
approach become, it is barely even noticed.

But it has not worked. Those concessions - mainly the handing over of
territory - which were supposed to win reciprocal goodwill from the Arabs,
thereby ending the conflict, have been seen as a sign of Israeli weakness.
Not only have concessions not achieved the expected harmonious peace, they
have actually harmed Israel, making it less fearsome to its neighbors, and
resulting in a climaxing of Palestinian and Arab ambitions and violence. If
concessions have had precisely the wrong effect on Arab attitudes, they have
won goodwill for the US. The Oslo process softened some of the anti-
Americanism endemic to the Middle East, thereby rendering oil sources
slightly more secure, terrorism a bit less likely, and political harangues shorter
and less impassioned.

It would therefore be convenient for the US if the burgeoning hostility were

Israel's problem alone. But the point has now been reached where concessions
entail greater dangers to American interests than they bring benefits.

Israel's perceived weakness is now an American problem: the aggressive anti-

Zionist euphoria being expressed by Arabs poses a direct danger to the US.

Were the excitement of the Arab "street" and its fury at Israel to lead to war,
the US could experience enormously harmful repercussions in terms of the oil
market, relations with Moslem-majority states, and terrorism against American
institutions and individuals.

Worse, were that war to go badly for Israel, implications for the US could
become truly dire. Like it or not, the US serves as the informal, but very real,
ultimate security guarantor for Israel, and it is hard to conjure up a prospect
that American policy planners would relish less than coming to its aid.

What is Washington's best course, given the prospects of an Arab-Israeli war

that it desperately wishes to avoid?

Washington should take steps that discourage Israel's potential enemies - by

helping to rebuild Israel's deterrent capabilities.

As I argue at greater length in the December issue of Commentary magazine,

Washington should urgently adopt four policies:

1. No more Israeli territorial concessions. This shift is needed, at least for

some years, to staunch the Arab perception that Israel is a weak state
pleading for terms. The short-term goal is not to solve the Arab-Israeli
conflict, but to enhance Israeli deterrence capabilities.
2. Encourage Israel to appear fearsome. It would have a huge impact
were American leaders to call on Jerusalem to reinstate its tough old
policies, whereby it punished enemies for assaults on its persons and
its property. The goal, again, is to prove that it is not demoralized.
 3. Maintain Israel's military edge. While US politicians glibly repeat this
mantra, their willingness to sell arms to some of Israel's potential
enemies (notably Egypt but also Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and several
Persian Gulf emirates) vastly enhances the latters' military capabilities,
and so makes war more likely.
4. Bind Israel more tightly and consistently to the US. From time to time
Washington permits an ugly, one-sided resolution to pass the Security
Council; most recently, it abstained from UN resolution 1322 on
October 7. Another problem concerns the US government's sometime
treatment of both Israel and its opponents as moral equals. This sends
a signal of Israeli isolation that might encourage warmongers.

This approach of bucking up Israel may sound unlikely for Washington to

pursue, but a dramatic reversal in policy usually seems unimaginable before it
actually happens. It also bears note that some important American politicians
(notably Senators Charles Schumer of New York and Jesse Helms of North
Carolina) have already expressed their wish for such a change.

Israel's unwillingness to protect its own interests presents its principal ally, the
US, with an urgent and unusual burden; the need to firm up its partner's will.
Never before has a democratic state presented an ally with such a dilemma.

http://www.danielpipes.org/362/us-must-buck-up-israel

Iraq and the Middle East Crisis

Nov. 25, 1997 Al-Hayat article by Edward Said*

The present crisis concerning Iraq contains all the elements of the much
larger situation -- one of almost desperate complexity and fragmentation -- now
beginning to overtake the region, perhaps irrecoverably. It would be a mistake,
I think, to reduce what is happening between Iraq and the United States simply
to an assertion of Arab will and sovereignty on the one hand versus American
imperialism, which undoubtedly plays a central role in all this. However
misguided, Saddam Hussein's cleverness is not that he is splitting America
from its allies (which he has not really succeeded in doing for any practical
purpose) but that he is exploiting the astonishing clumsiness and failures of US
foreign policy. Very few people, least of all Saddam himself, can be fooled into
believing him to be the innocent victim of American bullying; most of what is
happening to his unfortunate people who are undergoing the most dreadful and
unacknowledged suffering is due in considerable degree to his callous cynicism
-- first of all, his indefensible and ruinous invasion of Kuwait, his persecution
of the Kurds, his cruel egoism and pompous self-regard which persists in
aggrandizing himself and his regime at exorbitant and, in my opinion, totally
unwarranted cost. It is impossible for
him to plead the case for national security and sovereignty now given his
abysmal disregard of it in the case of Kuwait and Iran. Be that as it may, US
vindictiveness, whose sources I shall look at in a moment, has exacerbated the
situation by imposing a regime of sanctions which, as Sandy Berger, the
American National Security adviser has just said proudly, is unprecedented for
its severity in the whole of world history. 567,000 Iraqi civilians have died
since the Gulf War, mostly as a result of disease, malnutrition and deplorably
poor medical care. Agriculture and industry are at a total standstill. This is
unconscionable of course, and for this the brazen inhumanity of American
policy-makers is also very largely to blame. But we must not forget that
Saddam is feeding that inhumanity quite deliberately in order to dramatize the
opposition between the US and the rest of the Arab world; having provoked a
crisis with the US (or the UN dominated by the US) he at first dramatised the
unfairness of the sanctions. But by continuing it as he is now doing, the issue
has changed and has become his non-compliance, and the terrible effects of the
sanctions have been marginalised. Still the underlying causes of an Arab/US
crisis remain.

A careful analysis of that crisis is imperative. The US has always opposed

any sign of Arab nationalism or independence, partly for its own imperial
reasons and partly because its unconditional support for Israel requires it to do
so. Since the l973 war, and despite the brief oil embargo, Arab policy up to and
including the peace process has tried to circumvent or mitigate that hostility by
appealing to the US for help, by "good" behavior, by willingness to make peace
with Israel. Yet mere compliance with the US's wishes can produce nothing
except occasional words of American approbation for leaders who appear
"moderate": Arab policy was never backed up with coordination, or collective
pressure, or fully agreed upon goals. Instead each leader tried to make separate
arrangements both with the US and with Israel, none of which produced very
much except escalating demands and a constant refusal by the US to exert any
meaningful pressure on Israel. The more extreme Israeli policy becomes the
more likely the US has been to support it. And the less respect it has for the
large mass of Arab peoples whose future and well-being are mortgaged to
illusory hopes embodied, for instance, in the Oslo accords.

Moreover, a deep gulf separates Arab culture and civilization on the one
hand, from the United States on the other, and in the absence of any collective
Arab information and cultural policy, the notion of an Arab people with
traditions, cultures and identities of their own is simply inadmissible in the US.
Arabs are dehumanized, they are seen as violent irrational terrorists always on
the lookout for murder and bombing outrages. The only Arabs worth doing
business with for the US are compliant leaders, businessmen, military people
whose arms purchases (the highest per capita in the world) are helping the
American economy keep afloat. Beyond that there is no feeling at
all, for instance, for the dreadful suffering of the Iraqi people whose identity
and existence have simply been lost sight of in the present situation.

This morbid, obsessional fear and hatred of the Arabs has been a constant
theme in US foreign policy since World War Two. In some way also, anything
positive about the Arabs is seen in the US as a threat to Israel. In this respect
pro-Israeli American Jews, traditional Orientalists, and military hawks have
played a devastating role. Moral opprobium is heaped on Arab states as it is on
no others. Turkey, for example, has been conducting a campaign against the
Kurds for several years, yet nothing is heard about this in the US. Israel
occupies territory illegally for thirty years, it violates the Geneva conventions
at will, conducts invasions, terrorist attacks and assassinations against Arabs,
and still, the US vetoes every sanction against it in the UN. Syria, Sudan,
Libya, Iraq are classified as "rogue" states. Sanctions against them are far
harsher than against any other countries in the history of US foreign policy.
And still the US expects that its own foreign policy agenda ought to prevail
(eg., the woefully misguided Doha economic summit) despite its hostility to the
collective Arab agenda.

In the case of Iraq a number of further extenuations make the US even

more repressive. Burning in the collective American unconscious is a
puritanical zeal decreeing the sternest possible attitude towards anyone
deemed to be an unregenerate sinner. This clearly guided American policy
towards the native American Indians, who were first demonized, then
portrayed as wasteful savages, then exterminated, their tiny remnant confined
to reservations and concentration camps. This almost religious anger fuels a
judgemental attitude that has no place at all in international politics, but for
the United States it is a central tenet of its worldwide behavior. Second,
punishment is conceived in apocalyptic terms. During the Vietnam war a
leading general advocated -- and almost achieved -- the goal of bombing the
enemy into the stone age. The same view prevailed during the Gulf War in
l99l. Sinners are meant to be condemned terminally, with the utmost cruelty
regardless of whether or not they suffer the cruelest agonies. The notion of
"justified" punishment for Iraq is now uppermost in the minds of most
American consumers of news, and with that goes an almost orgiastic delight
in the gathering power being summoned to confront Iraq in the Gulf. Pictures
of four (or is now five?) immense aircraft carriers steaming virtuously away
punctuate breathless news bulletins about Saddam's defiance, and the
impending crisis. The President announces that he is thinking not about the
Gulf but about the 21st century: how can we tolerate Iraq's threat to use
biological warfare even though (this is unmentioned) it is clear from the
UNSCOM reports that he neither has the missile capacity, nor the chemical
arms, nor the nuclear arsenal, nor in fact the anthrax bombs that he is alleged
to be brandishing? Forgotten in all this is that the US has all the terror
weapons known to humankind, is the only country to have used a nuclear
bomb on civilians, and as recently as seven years ago dropped 66,000 tons of
bombs on Iraq. As the only country involved in this crisis that has never had to
fight a war on its own soil, it is easy for the US and its mostly brain-washed
citizens to speak in apocalyptic terms. A report out of Australia on Sunday,
November l6 suggests that Israel and the US are thinking about a neutron
bomb on Baghdad.

Unfortunately the dictates of raw power are very severe and, for a weak
state like Iraq, overwhelming. Certainly US misuse of the sanctions to strip
Iraq of everything, including any possibility for security is monstrously
sadistic. The so-called UN 661 Committee created to oversee the sanctions is
composed of fifteen member states (including the US) each of which has a
veto. Every time Iraq passes this committee a request to sell oil for medicines,
trucks, meat, etc., any member of the committee can block these requests by
saying that a given item may have military purposes (tires, for example, or
ambulances). In addition the US and its clients -- eg., the unpleasant and racist
Richard Butler, who says openly that Arabs have a different notion of truth
than the rest of the world -- have made it clear that even if Iraq is completely
reduced militarily to the point where it is no longer a threat to its neighbors
(which is now the case) the real goal of the sanctions is to topple Saddam
Hussein's government. In other words according to the Americans, very little
that Iraq can do short of Saddam's resignation or death will produce a lifting of
sanctions. Finally, we should not for a moment forget that quite apart from its
foreign policy interest, Iraq has now become a domestic American issue whose
repercussions on issues unrelated to oil or the Gulf are very important. Bill
Clinton's personal crises -- the campaign-funding scandals, an impending trial
for sexual harassment, his various legislative and domestic failures -- require
him to look strong, determined and "presidential" somewhere else, and where
but in the Gulf against Iraq has he so ready-made a foreign devil to set off his
blue-eyed strength to full advantage. Moreover, the increase in military
expenditure for new investments in electronic "smart" weaponry, more
sophisticated aircraft, mobile forces for the world-wide projection of American
power are perfectly suited for display and use in the Gulf, where the likelihood
of visible casualties (actually suffering Iraqi civilians) is extremely small, and
where the new military technology can be put through its paces most
attractively. For reasons that need restating here, the media is particularly
happy to go along with the government in bringing home to domestic
customers the wonderful excitement of American self-righteousness, the proud
flag-waving, the "feel-good" sense that "we" are facing down a monstrous
dictator. Far from analysis and calm reflection the media exists mainly to
derive its mission from the government, not to produce a corrective or any
dissent. The media, in short, is an extension of the war against Iraq.

The saddest aspect of the whole thing is that Iraqi civilians seem
condemned to additional suffering and protracted agony. Neither their
government nor that of the US is inclined to ease the daily pressure on them, and
the probability that only they will pay for the crisis is extremely high. At least --
and it isn't very much -- there seems to be no enthusiasm among Arab governments
for American military action, but beyond that there is no coordinated Arab position,
not even on the extremely grave humanitarian question. It is unfortunate that,
according to the news, there is rising popular support for Saddam in the Arab
world, as if the old lessons of defiance without real power have still not been
learned. Undoubtedly the US has manipulated the UN to its own ends, a rather
shameful exercise given at the same time that the Congress once again struck down
a motion to pay a billion dollars in arrears to the world organization. The major
priority for Arabs, Europeans, Muslims and Americans is to push to the fore the
issue of sanctions and the terrible suffering imposed on innocent Iraqi civilians.
Taking the case to the International Court in the Hague strikes me as a perfectly
viable possibility, but what is needed is a concerted will on behalf of Arabs who
have suffered the US's egregious blows for too long without an adequate response.

*Copyright Edward W. Said, 1997.

http://cogweb.net/steen/Politics/Said_on_Iraq.html
 WWI Timeline: Unit 4-8
June 28, 1914 4-8 Aug 1, 1914 4-8 Aug 3, 1914 4-8 Aug 4, 1914 4-8

Germany invades
Belgium, British protest
Belgium's neutrality by
treaty, Germans reply “it is
Archduke Ferdinand is Germany declares war on nothing but a piece of
assassinated Russia paper”, British declare war
on Germany
Germany declares war on
France and Belgium

Jan 1915 4-8 May 7, 1915 4-8 Feb 21, 1916 4-8 July 1 – Nov 18,
1916 4-8

Lusitania is sunk
First German Zeppelin
raid on England
Battle of the Somme,
massive casualties, no
clear winner

Battle of Verdun

Early 1917 4-8 Mar 15, 1917 4-8 April 6, 1917 4-8 April 9, 1917 4-8

Canadian troops win

major victory at Vimy
Ridge
Tzar Nicholas abdicates
German ambassador
sends a telegram to
Mexico asking them to
declare war on the United US declares war on
States, the message is Germany
intercepted

Layers of Learning *All photos shared on Wikimedia under CC license

 June 25, 1917 4-8 July 6, 1917 4-8 Dec 26, 1917 4-8 Jan 8, 1918 4-8

British seize Jerusalem

Lawrence of Arabia leads
successful attack on the
port of Aqaba, Jordan

American troops land in

France
Woodrow Wilson reveals
his 14 Points

March 23-Aug 7, April 1, 1918 4-8 Nov 9, 1918 4-8 Nov 11 , 1918 4-8
1918 4-8

RAF (Royal Air Force) is Armistice is signed,

Germans shell Paris founded fighting ceases at 11 am

German Kaiser William II

abdicates, the Wiemar
republic is declared

Layers of Learning *All photos shared on Wikimedia under CC license

Name : VENN DIAGRAM

Math-Aids.Com
Venn Diagrams
 EUROPE

Ar cti c

Ci
rc

le
60°N

Norwegian
Sea
LEGEND
National boundary
N
National capital
W
km 0 200 400
E
S mi 0 200 400
North e
a

Sea c
S

lt i

a
50°N B

ATLANTIC
OCEAN

Bay of
Biscay

40°
N Black Sea
Adriatic
S
ea

10°W A e
Strait of Gibraltar g
e
a
n
S
e
a

Mediterranean Sea
0° 10°E 20°E 30°E
 Shifting Sands

Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988)

In September 1980,
Terms & People to Know Iraq’s leader, Saddam
Islamic Revolution Hussein tried to seize a
waterway (the Shatt al
Saddam Hussein
martyr Arab) that spilled into the
Persian Gulf and was
claimed by both Iran and
Iraq. He also wanted to stop Iran from spreading its
Islamic Revolution to Iraq threatening his power.

Iran’s Islamic Revolution: a new

leader in Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini,
intended to transform Iran into a pure Islamic state. His wanted to
eliminate all Western popular culture in his country. Movies and
music were not allowed and women were ordered to cover
themselves from head to toe when they were in public.

Saddam Hussein’s strategy called for a quick

knockout blow, concentrating on Iran’s oil
facilities. Instead, Iraq’s invasion stalled. Iran counterattacked but
lacked the strength to defeat Saddam’s impressive military.

For the next eight years, the war seesawed back and forth. Iraq
had an advantage in air power, missiles, and even chemical
weapons.

Iran could count on millions of dedicated volunteers.

Tens of thousands of Iranian boys were killed in human-
wave attacks on Iraqi positions, often with plastic keys to
“heaven” dangling from their necks. They were told if they
were killed in the war, they would have their key to heaven
and directly go there because they were fighting for their
religion; they would be martyrs (individual who sacrifices
his or her life in order to further a cause or belief for many).

During the war, the administration of President Ronald Reagan remained

officially neutral. American uncertainty towards which side to support was summed
up by Henry Kissinger when the American statesman remarked that "it's a pity they
[Iran and Iraq] both can't lose."
 The United States started helping Iraq when Iran began attacking Kuwaiti oil tankers
in the Persian Gulf. The United States extended Iraq credit to buy advanced American
weapons and shared military intelligence.

President Ronald Reagan decided that the United States

"could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran", and
that the United States "would do whatever was necessary to
prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran."

By the time Iran and Iraq agreed to a cease-fire in 1988, the

war had claimed more than one million lives. Iraq had gained
the upper hand on the battlefield in the final months of the
conflict, in part through the use of chemical weapons, but
neither side could claim victory.

The United States looked on as Iraq used chemical weapons on the Iranians.
President Ronald Reagan and his aides were desperate to make sure Iraq did not
lose and overlooked the use of these “weapons of mass
destruction.”

The war ended when Iran accepted the United Nations

Security Council Resolution for a cease-fire in August 1988.

The war had huge financial consequences for Iran and Iraq.
Oil exports had been disrupted and Iraq was left with serious
debts to its former Arab backers. Iraq owed $14 billion to
Kuwait, which contributed to Saddam’s decision to
invade there in 1990. Iran’s oil production has yet to fully recover from the damages
of the war.
 Shifting Sands

The Persian Gulf War

On July 25, 1990, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq,

Terms & People to Know
Cold War
President George H.W. Bush
economic blockade
economic sanctions
coalition forces Osama
bin Laden
April Glaspie, met with Saddam Hussein at the
presidential palace in Baghdad. Their
conversation focused on Saddam’s complaint that
Kuwait was pumping oil that rightfully belonged
to Iraq from deposits along the Iraq-Kuwaiti
border. The Iraqi dictator also complained that
Kuwait was holding down oil prices to slow his
country’s economic recovery from the
Iran-Iraq War.

When Glaspie left the meeting, she believed that she

had clearly warned Saddam of the dangers of using force
to resolve his dispute with Kuwait. The conversation
didn’t make the same impression on Saddam Hussein.
Eight days later, 100,000 Iraqi troops poured across the
desert border into Kuwait.

In the late 1980s the rivalry between the United States

and the Soviet Union during the Cold War had given way to
a spirit of cooperation. Under Mikhail Gorbachev, the
Soviet Union had sought to build bridges to the West.
Moreover, the Soviet Union was beginning to fall apart under the weight of an ailing
economy.

Iraq had been a close ally of the Soviets during the Cold War. But within hours of
Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, Gorbachev stopped arms shipments to Saddam and joined the
United States in supporting a UN Security Council resolution demanding Iraq’s
immediate withdrawal from Kuwait. With the Soviets on his
side, President George H.W. Bush had an opportunity to steer
the international system in a new direction.

Bush spoke of building a “new world order” in which the world’s

leading powers would work together to prevent aggression and
enforce the rule of law internationally. He intended to make Saddam
Hussein’s grab for Kuwait a test case. At the same time, America’s
traditional interest in oil and Israel continued to figure into Bush’s
considerations. Decisions made during the Persian Gulf crisis would
have a lasting effect on U.S. policy in the Middle East.
 In the days immediately following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, President George
H.W. Bush’s top priority was to prevent Saddam Hussein’s military from seizing the oil
fields of northeastern Saudi Arabia.

Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait had given him control of

1/4 of the world’s oil reserves. If Saddam was able to
occupy Saudi Arabia, he would have nearly half of the
world’s oil under his control. Bush rushed American
troops to the region to block the Iraqi army’s path.

Once Saudi Arabia was protected, the president

carefully built domestic and international support for
stronger measures against Iraq. First he pushed for an
economic blockade against Iraq. (A blockade is an
effort to isolate a particular area, by force. An economic blockade is a block or isolation
of a country so they couldn’t trade with other countries). In November 1990, Bush won
UN approval to use “all necessary means” to force Iraq out of Kuwait. A deadline was set
- January 15, 1991 - for Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait.

As the deadline approached, the United States

positioned 540,000 troops in Saudi Arabia. American’s
European allies, as well as several Arab states,
contributed forces as well. Bush favored attacking Iraq
quickly. He doubted that economic sanctions, or bans on
trade, alone would pressure Saddam Hussein out of
Kuwait.

President Bush also felt that the coalition of thirty-

nine nations he had assembled would not hold together
long. He was worried about Saddam’s appeal in the Arab
world and how this popularity would deepen hostility towards the United States
throughout the Middle East.

Within the United States, Americans were split about how the country should
respond to Iraq’s aggression. U.S. leadership was also divided. Opposition to using
force was especially strong from some U.S. military leaders concerned about possible
causalities (dead or wounded soldiers). Many warned that Iraq would use chemical
weapons if attacked. There were worries that Iraq might even possess nuclear bombs.
Others argued that economic sanctions should be given more time to take effect. When
Bush asked the Senate to approve military action, his request passed by only five votes.

In making his case, President Bush said, “Our jobs, our way of life and the freedom of
friendly countries around the world would all suffer if control of the world’s great oil
reserves fell into the hands of Saddam Hussein.”
 After the assault against Iraq began in mid-
January 1991, Americans quickly rallied behind the
war effort. Despite Saddam’s prediction of “the
mother of all battles,” his army proved no match for
the United States and its allies. For over a month,
coalition warplanes pounded Iraqi targets. By the time
allied ground troops moved forward in late February
1991, communication links within Iraq’s army had
been shattered. Coalition forces retook Kuwait’s
capital, Kuwait City, with little resistance.

After 100 hours, President Bush brought the ground war to a halt. He decided not to
destroy Iraq’s retreating army, believing that a weakened and contained Saddam was
better than an Islamic government in Iraq like the one in Iran.

The Persian Gulf War was one of the most lopsided conflicts in history. While Iraq
did launch Scud missiles into Israel and Saudi Arabia, they did not cause a lot of
damage.

Saddam inflicted his heaviest blows against the

environment by ordering Iraqi troops to set 700 Kuwaiti
oil wells on fire and to spill millions of gallons of oil into
the Persian Gulf creating the world’s largest
environmental disaster.

In all, 146 American troops were killed during the

war. (Coalition forces suffered a total of 260 deaths.)
Iraq lost as many as 100,000 people, both soldiers and civilians, in the war.

Through a combination of power and persuasion, the United States had won
greater influence in the Middle East. At the same time, there were fresh
responsibilities. Once the fighting in the Persian Gulf ended, leaders in the region
looked to the United States to maintain the new American-made order.

The war against Iraq elevated the region’s importance from the American
perspective. It also convinced Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the
smaller states of the Persian Gulf that an American military
presence was needed in the region to safeguard their own security.

Yet the presence of more than fifteen thousand American troops

in the Persian Gulf created tensions of its own. Unlike the people of
Western Europe, the Americans and the Arabs of the Persian Gulf
do not share common values and culture. For the United States,
increased involvement in the Middle East has not been without cost.

From the Arab standpoint, the U.S. military presence represents

 a painful reminder of the Arab world’s weaknesses and
divisions. It also angered many people, including extremists
like Osama bin Laden and his followers, who believe that
foreigners do not belong in Islamic countries. Bin Laden
was especially upset over the presence of U.S. troops in
Saudi Arabia, the country where the prophet Muhammad
(the founder of Islam) was born.

In addition, the wealth that oil has brought to the

kingdoms of the Persian Gulf has brought resentment
from their Arab neighbors. For example, Kuwaitis did not
receive much sympathy from most of the Arab world after
their country was overrun by Iraq. At the time, more than
500,000 foreigners
performed most of the work in Kuwait. Since Iraq’s defeat, Kuwaitis have rebuilt
their country with labor from outside the Arab world, while counting on the
United States for protection.

In addition to the physical presence of U.S. soldiers, the Middle East is also
bristling with American weapons. The region is the world’s largest market for arms
exports, accounting for over half of the overseas sales of American weapons
manufacturers. The Persian Gulf states buy billions of dollars worth of weapons
every year.

Questions for Understanding:

1. Why did Saddam Hussein order his army to invade Kuwait?

2. How did Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev react when Iraq invaded Kuwait?

3. What was George H. W. Bush’s “new world order?”

4. Why did President George H. W. Bush immediately send troops to Saudi

Arabia after Iraq invaded Kuwait?

5. Why were some U.S. military leaders opposed to using force?

6. Why did President Bush decide to allow Saddam to stay in power?

7. What did the Iraqi troops do as they retreated from Kuwait?

8. Why does the presence of American troops in the Persian Gulf create tensions?

9. How do Arab nations regard the U.S. military presence?

10. Why was Osama bin Laden upset over the presence of U.S. troops?
Hitler Exhibition Explores a
Wider Circle of Guilt
By MICHAEL SLACKMANOCT. 15, 2010
Photo

Various busts of Adolf Hitler. CreditMichael Sohn/Associated Press

BERLIN — As artifacts go, they are mere trinkets — an old

purse, playing cards, a lantern. Even the display that
caused the crowds to stop and stare is a simple
embroidered tapestry, stitched by village women.

But the exhibits that opened Friday at the German

Historical Museum are intentionally prosaic: they
emphasize the everyday way that ordinary Germans once
accepted, and often celebrated, Hitler.

The household items had Nazi logos and colors. The tapestry,
a tribute to the union of church, state and party, was woven by
a church congregation at the behest of their priest.

“This is what we call self-mobilization of society,” said Hans-

Ulrich Thamer, one of three curators to assemble the exhibit
at the German Historical Museum. “As a person, Hitler was a
very ordinary man. He was nothing without the people.”

This show, “Hitler and the Germans: Nation and Crime,”

opened Friday. It was billed as the first in Germany since the
end of World War II to focus exclusively on Adolf Hitler.
Germany outlaws public displays of some Nazi symbols, and
 the curators took care to avoid showing items that
appeared to glorify Hitler. His uniforms, for example,
remained in storage.

Photo

An advertisement for the Hitler Youth program. CreditMichael

Sohn/Associated Press
Instead, the show focuses on the society that nurtured and
empowered him. It is not the first time historians have
argued that Hitler did not corral the Germans as much as
the Germans elevated Hitler. But one curator said the
message was arguably more vital for Germany now than at
any time in the past six decades, as rising nationalism,
more open hostility to immigrants and a generational
disconnect from the events of the Nazi era have older
Germans concerned about repeating the past.

“The only hope for stopping extremists is to isolate them

from society so that they are separated, so they do not have
a relationship with the bourgeoisie and the other classes,”
Mr. Thamer said. “The Nazis were members of high society.
This was the dangerous moment.

“This we have to avoid from happening.”

Increasingly, Germans have put the guilt of the past
behind them, reasserting their pride in national identity
in many positive ways. But there also have been troubling
signs seeping from the margins into the mainstream.

A best-selling book by a former banker promoted genetic

theories of intelligence and said that Muslims were
“dumbing down” society. A leading politician condemned
“alien cultures.” A new right-wing party recently attracted
hundreds to a speech by the far-right Dutch politician
Geert Wilders.

Even government officials say that immigrant children are

picking on native Germans. The media is filled daily with
reports of conflict between immigrants, especially
Muslims, and Germans.

The planners began discussing this kind of show 10 years

ago, Mr. Thamer said. An expert committee viewed it as
part of a continuum of penance and awareness that
historians say began with the Auschwitz trials.

The process did not always go smoothly. A 1995 exhibition

in Hamburg was widely condemned for showing that the
Wehrmacht, or regular army, committed atrocities on the
eastern front, just like the SS, the Nazi special police. The
public was not ready to widen the sense of responsibility for
Nazi-era wrongs.

But for this show, museum officials thought the time

would be right. And in the end, they said, the timing
added special value.

“It would be presumptuous to say that an exhibition could

counter the radiance of populism,” said Rudolf Trabold,
spokesman for the museum. “We try to achieve what we
can afford, and to achieve our mission. But if that
outshines the populist power of a Geert Wilders, I myself
would not presume to say.”

As he walked through the exhibit on Friday, Eric Pignolet, a

Belgian who has lived in Berlin for 22 years, said he was
pleased that Germans were no longer saying, “I didn’t
know.” But he said he was troubled by parallels between
then and now.

“I think if you had someone like him today, it could be

very dangerous,” he said halfway through his walk
through the displays about Hitler. “There are a lot of
people out there who want jobs, who are not happy with
the political leadership, who would vote for someone like
him if he came along.”
The line had already formed when the museum doors opened
at 10 a.m. An estimated 3,000 visitors paid the $8.40
admission fee to see the nearly 1,000 items, including
photographs, videos, uniforms and a narrative that explained
the early appeal of a man and a party that offered jobs, pride
and a sense of purpose, while employing wholesale violence
and brutality to those who did not go along.

“This exhibition is about Hitler and the Germans — meaning

the social and political and individual processes by which
much of the German people became enablers, colluders, co-
criminals in the Holocaust,” said Constanze Stelzenmüller, a
senior trans-Atlantic fellow with the German Marshall Fund
of the United States in Berlin. “That this was so is now a
mainstream view, rejected only by a small minority of very
elderly and deluded people, or the German extreme right-
wing fringe. But it took us a while to get there.”

The museum placed the display downstairs, below street

level, so it was dark and silent. Three images of Hitler
projected on a mesh screen opened the show; behind them
were pictures of cheering crowds, marching soldiers and
other demonstrations of popular support. Around the
corner were details of how Hitler was embraced early on, by
the elite in Munich. “The wives of entrepreneurs, such as
Elsa Bruckhmann, vied to be the first to drag Hitler” to a
social event, one display said.

“Our teachers in the past were integrated in that system,

and I can remember they wanted to tell us that the German
people became the first victim of Hitler, that they were
practically mugged,” said Klaus Peter Triebel from Seefeld,
near Munich.

The exhibit explains the early appeal of the Nazis, who

demonstrated a keen appreciation for the politics of
populism’s creating a sense of unity and purpose: “Attending
popular sports events, film premiers, they dedicated
autobahns and new industrial builds,” read a display.

There were also the familiar striped uniforms forced

on prisoners in the concentration camps, and the cold
calculation in maps that showed the division of
Poland between Germany and Russia.

But over and over, the point was spelled out clearly in the
exhibit’s plaques like one, near letters written by children
who were sent off to concentration camps, that said:
“Hitler was able to implement his military and
extermination objectives because the military and
economic elites were willing to carry out his war.”
 The exhibit, with all its photographs of young and old
adoring Hitler, also sought to dispel the notion that the
Nazi spirit was simply impossible to resist. It held up
Johann Georg Elser as proof that “it was possible for an
individual to develop into a resistance fighter.”

Mr. Elser was a carpenter who tried to kill Hitler at

the outset of the war and was shot to death in the
Dachau concentration camp for his actions.

His story, however, left some viewers to wonder why

their parents and grandparents had not rejected Hitler.
Why everyone went mad.

“My father was a Hitler Youth,” said Gutfreund Keller, as

she walked through the exhibit with her husband and two
daughters. “It’s hard to understand.”

Correction: November 9, 2010

An article on Oct. 16 about a new exhibition at the German Historical

Museum in Berlin that focuses on how German society accepted, nurtured
and often celebrated Hitler misstated the method by which Johann Georg
Elser, a celebrated Nazi-resistance fighter, was executed. Mr. Elser, a
carpenter who tried to kill Hitler at the start of World War II, was shot to
death in the Dachau concentration camp. He was not hanged.
Stefan Pauly contributed reporting.

A version of this article appears in print on October 16, 2010, on page A1 of

the New York edition with the headline: Hitler Exhibit Explores a Wider Circle
of Guilt. Order Reprints| Today's Paper|Subscribe