The Five for Five Film Festival Kicks off with a Screening of James Moll's "The Last Days" Tuesday, March 17 at 2:30 pm in the Theater

Ladies and gentlemen, on Tuesday we will have a special screening of James Moll's 1998 holocaust documentary The Last Days. The film will be shown in the theater at 2:30pm. THERE WILL BE NO EXTRA CREDIT GIVEN FOR ATTENDING. This will be the first in a series of five films shown in celebration of our fifth and final season together. The remaining four titles will be announced soon. This screening is only for serious and mature students that truly want to learn more about the Holocaust through the words of Hungarians who actually lived it. For any student that plans to attend, please respect the follow rules of our screening:

ABSOLUTELY...

NO FOOD OR DRINK OF ANY KIND IS ALLOWED IN THEATER

NO TALKING OF ANY KIND WILL BE TOLERATED DURING THE FILM

NO TEXT MESSAGING WILL BE TOLERATED DURING THE FILM

NO WORK IS ALLOWED TO BE DONE FROM OTHER CLASSES (BY ALL MEANS IF YOU HAVE MATH HOMEWORK, DO IT, BUT AT HOME, NOT DURING OUR FILM)

NO CONSTANTLY GETTING UP AND DOWN DURING THE FILM

We ask that you please stay for the entire film, and if you cannot stay for the entire film, please do not come (this is not to be rude, but people leaving early does serve as a distraction). Anyone that does not comply with these rules will be immediately escorted out of the theater and barred from future events (there will be 4 more films screened this season). There will be no warnings given as this is the final warning and request. I hope to see you there. A trailer for the film can be viewed below. The runtime is 87 minutes, and the film is rated PG-13 for graphic images and descriptions of Holocaust atrocities.

Unit 12 Test Questions/Discussion

If you want to discuss any items on the study guide, this is the place to do it... cheers...

Hitler’s Dreams

Born the son of an Austrian customs official and is German wife in 1889, Adolf Hitler moved to Vienna at the age of nineteen to seek a career as an artist or architect. His efforts failed, however, and he lived at the bottom of Viennese society, drifting from one low-paying job to another. In 1912 he moved to Munich, where his life fell into the same purposeless pattern. Enlistment in the German army in World War I rescued Hitler, giving him comradeship and a sense of direction he had lacked. After the war a shattered Hitler returned to Munich, where in 1919 he joined the small German Workers’ Party, which in 1920 changed its name to the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, or Nazis.

After becoming leader of the National Socialists, Hitler staged an abortive coup d’état against the government of the German state of Bavaria in 1923. For this he was sentenced to a five-year prison term (serving only nine months), during which he wrote the first volume of Mein Kampf (My Struggle). You can read excerpts from his work by clicking here. To a remarkable degree this work, completed in 1925, provided the ideas that inspired millions of followers and guided the National Socialists until their destruction in 1945.

After reading Hitler’s words, I would like you to reflect on and discuss the following: What broad purpose does Hitler see in human existence? How, in Hitler’s view, are the Aryans and Jews dissimilar? What is Hitler’s view of political leadership? What role do parliaments play in a “folkish” state, according to Hitler? How does Hitler plan to reorient German foreign policy? What goals does he set for Germany, and how are they to be achieved? Based on these excerpts, what can you infer about his objections to the ideologies of democracy, liberalism, and socialism? How do Hitler’s view of race compare to those of von Treitschke? Your thoughts…

What is Fascism?

Fascism was a new political force that emerged in opposition to socialism during the post-WWI era. The term and ideology was invented and defined by Italian dictator Benito Mussolini in the 1920s. Mussolini came to power after the “March on Rome” in 1922, and was appointed Prime Minister by King Victor Emmanuel III. This ultimately resulted in his takeover of the Italian government, putting his Fascist Party in full control. While fascism can be rather difficult to define in simple terms, Mussolini wrote an entry for the Italian Encyclopedia on the definition of fascism in 1932. You can read fascism defined by Mussolini by clicking here.

After reading the document, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: According to Mussolini, fascism is not based on the belief of what? What is the idea of peace considered to be on the part of Fascists? What is the idea of war considered to be on the part of Fascists? How, in Mussolini’s opinion, is Fascism “the complete opposite of Marxian Socialism?” How does Fascism “combat the whole complex system of democratic ideology?” What were Mussolini’s predictions for the 20th century? Why? Was he correct in his assessment? Does Fascism allow for individual freedom? In what sense? What is the view of Fascists regarding imperialism? Your thoughts…

The Soviet Model of Economic Planning

Joseph Stalin, the son of a shoemaker from the Russian province of Georgia, was a candidate for the priesthood before he abandoned Christianity for Marxism and became a follower of Lenin in 1903. In 1917 he was named Bolshevik party secretary, an office he retained after the revolution. Following Lenin’s death in 1924, Stalin won the battle for party control with Leon Trotsky, the leader of the Red Army during the civil war and Lenin’s heir apparent. Shortly after taking power in 1928, Stalin launched a bold restructuring of the Soviet economy.

In 1928, the New Economic Policy (NEP), which Lenin had instituted in 1921, still guided Soviet economic life. Through the NEP, Lenin had sought to restore agriculture and industry after seven years of war, revolution, and civil strife. Although the state maintained control of banks, foreign trade, and heavy industry, peasants could sell their goods on the open market, and small businessmen could hire labor, operate small factories, and keep their profits. The NEP saved the Soviet Union from economic collapse, but its acceptance of private profit and economic competition troubled Marxist purists, and it did little to foster industrialization. Thus in 1928 Stalin abandoned the NEP and replaced it with the first Five-Year-Plan, which established a centralized planned economy in which Moscow bureaucrats regulated agriculture, manufacturing, finance, and transportation. In agriculture, the plan abolished individual peasant holdings and combined them into large collectives and state farms. This meant the obliteration of the class of prosperous and successful peasant farmers known as kulaks. In manufacturing, the plan emphasized heavy industry and the production of goods such as tractors, trucks, and machinery. Second and third Five-Year Plans were launched in 1933 and 1938.

Despite its enormous human costs, measured in terms of economic growth and industrial development, the Soviet experiment in central planning can be called a success. During the 1930s, when the Depression was devastating Western capitalist economies, the Soviet economy grew at an annual rate of 27 percent and achieved impressive increases in the production of iron and steel, oil and electricity, tractors, trucks, and chemicals. To many observers central planning seemed to be the solution to the challenge of rapid industrialization. In the second half of the twentieth century, it became the economic model throughout the communist world and for many newly independent states in Asia and Africa that were seeking rapid industrialization and economic development.

In the report I would like you to read, delivered to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in January 1933, Stalin outlines the goals and achievements of the first Five-Year Plan. You can read the report by clicking here.

After reading the report, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: What were the overriding reasons, according to Stalin, for adopting the Five-Year Plan? Does socialist theory or the defense of the Soviet Union seem more important to him? Why, in the industrial area, was it necessary to concentrate on heavy industry? According to Stalin, why was the collectivization of agriculture such a key component of the Five-Year Plan? What were the main obstacles to the success of the Five-Year Plan, according to Stalin? In Stalin’s view, how have the Soviet people benefited from the Five-Year Plan? What sacrifices have they been asked to make? According to Stalin, how does the success of the Five-Year Plan prove that communism is superior to capitalism? Your thoughts…

The Nationalist Agenda in Japan

During the Meiji period traditional Japanese pride in their independence and cultural distinctiveness was transformed into something recognizable as modern nationalism as Japan competed for territory and markets in Asia and sought recognition as one of the Great Powers. In the 1920s and 1930s, Japanese nationalism gained broader support and, as in Germany and Italy, came to be identified with antidemocratic and antisocialist movements. Its appeal grew in response to several developments, including resentment of the West for its treatment of Japan after World War I, fears of a united China under Chiang Kai-shek and the Nationalists, opposition to “dangerous” ideologies such as socialism and communism, anxieties about Western influence on Japan, and most important, the effects of the worldwide economic depression of the 1930s. With the onset of the Great Depression Japanese exports declined by half, workers’ incomes fell, and unemployment reached 3 million. The failure of the rice crop in northern Japan in 1931 reduced families to begging, eating bark and roots, and selling daughters to brothel keepers. Facing economic catastrophe, increasing numbers of Japanese came to support the ultranationalist claim that authoritarian government and military expansion would solve the nation’s problems.

With strong support in the rural population and the army, ultranationalism became a major force between 1931 and 1936, when its disciples assassinated business leaders and politicians, including a prime minister, and plotted to overthrow the government. The most serious coup attempt took place in February 1936, when officers and troops of the First Division attacked and briefly occupied government buildings in downtown Tokyo. The government suppressed the rebellion and executed its leaders, but to many Japanese those executed were heroes not traitors. Constitutional government survived on paper, but when Japanese and Chinese troops clashed in the summer of 1937 near Beijing, the ensuing war between China and Japan put political authority firmly in the hands of militarists and nationalists.

The Black Dragon Society was one of the many nationalist organizations that flourished in Japan in the first half of the twentieth century. An offshoot of a secret society established in 1881 by former samurai, the Black Dragon Society was founded in 1901. Its original goal was to promote war with Russia as a means of expanding Japan’s influence on the Asian mainland. After the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905, which gave Japan a protectorate over Korea, the group advocated an aggressive foreign policy in Asia and denounced democracy, big business, Americanization, socialism, and party politics, all of which were viewed as threats to Japanese culture and their plans for military conquest. Although membership in the Black Dragon Society and similar organizations was small, their self-promotion, assassinations, and strong-arm tactics kept alive their brand of extreme nationalism, allowing it to flourish in the troubled atmosphere of the 1930s.

In 1930 the Black Dragon Society published a two-volume Secret History of the Annexation of Korea, in which it claimed a key role in inspiring early Japanese expansion. It concluded the second volume with the statement that you can read by clicking here.

After reading the document, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: What aspects of the Black Dragon Society’s philosophy caused it to support interventions in Korea, China, and the Philippines? In what ways, according to the authors of the document, has Japanese foreign policy been thwarted in the years since World War I? According to the Society, how has Japan’s domestic situation deteriorated? According to the Society, what are the causes of Japan’s problems, and what solutions does it offer? What might explain the appeal of such ideas to the Japanese populace? Your thoughts…

Is This Really Happening? World Bank Says Global Economy Will Shrink in ’09

I must honestly say that today's discussion of financial crisis was the most startling, sobering, and timely discussion I have ever had regarding economics in the 1920s after having taught this for a few years now. Again, history is not about the dead but about the living, and today certainly proved that. I just want to take a moment to post a newspaper article from the New York Times this morning that you may find interesting. It is regarding the report that the World Bank released today regarding the global economic slump. Again, the gist of the report is that the world economy is shrinking for the first time since WWII and that trade is down at its lowest level in 80 years (80 years ago takes us back to the year 1929 folks if you do the math). At any rate, the article is certainly sobering, and you can read it by clicking here. Of course, as always, the BBC has the best coverage of such issues. I can honestly say that they have the very best coverage of the global financial crisis, complete with background, interviews, etc. You can check that site out by clicking here. Public Radio International had an excellent piece this afternoon on their program The World that I heard driving home this afternoon. You can read the general contents of it or download the audio of the piece by clicking here. The piece mentions an interview with Warren Buffett that took place this morning on CNBC in which he mentions that the U.S. economy has "fallen off a cliff." Historic times indeed.

Economic Nationalism in Mexico

Following the overthrow of dictator Porfirio Díaz in 1911, instability and conflict among aspiring leaders marked the first decade of Mexico’s revolution, and it was unclear whether the revolutionary movement would survive. In 1917, however, a constitutional convention drafted a new charter for the nation that confirmed the principles of free speech, religious toleration, universal suffrage, the separation of powers, and the inviolability of private property. It also committed the government to social reform and greater control over foreign corporations.

Little changed, however, until the presidency of Lázaro Cárdenas from 1934 to 1940. In a series of bold steps he confiscated millions of acres of land from large estates for redistribution to peasants, introduced free and compulsory elementary education, and sponsored legislation to provide medical and unemployment insurance. His most audacious step, however, was the nationalization of Mexico’s oil industry. In 1936, a dispute between unions and the U.S. and British oil companies erupted into a strike, and in the ensuing legal battle, seventeen oil companies refused to accept the pro-union ruling of an arbitration board appointed by Cárdenas, even after the Mexican Supreme Court upheld the decision. In response, on the order of Cárdenas, the government seized the property of the oil companies. Cárdenas announced his decision on March 18, 1938, in a radio speech to the nation. In the excerpt from the speech that I would like you to read (you can read it by clicking here), Cárdenas, after recounting the events in the labor dispute, comments on the role of the oil companies in Mexico’s economic and social development.

After reading the speech, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: In the account of Cárdenas, which actions by the foreign oil companies forced him to nationalize the oil industry? According to Cárdenas, what truth is there in the oil companies’ claims that they have benefitted Mexico? According to Cárdenas, who is ultimately responsible for the actions of the oil companies? Which political activities of the oil companies does Cárdenas condemn? What hardships does Cárdenas anticipate for the Mexican people as a result of his decision? In what ways is Cárdenas’ speech an appeal to Mexican nationalism? You thoughts…

The Depression Hits Philadelphia

Disproving predictions that the economy would rebound quickly, the Great Depression was prolonged and pervasive. The banking system collapsed. Factories were overburdened with unsold merchandise. Prices plummeted. These economic problems had devastating effects on individuals. Millions lost their life savings when financial institutions failed. Unemployment reached 25% here in the United States. Urban families and those already living in poverty were particularly hard hit by the economic crisis. As the Depression paralyzed the American cities, Congress began investigating the dire conditions facing many urban families. In the document I would like you to read, Dorothy Kahn, executive director of the Jewish Welfare Society of Philadelphia, tells the Senate Subcommittee on Unemployment Relief about the difficulties facing the urban poor. You can portions of the testimony by clicking here.

After reading Kahn’s testimony, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: How did the Depression affect many families in Philadelphia? How did people respond to their economic troubles? How did the New Deal attempt to resolve the problems that Kahn describes? Your thoughts…

The Red Scare

A series of labor strikes convulsed the United States in 1919, and, influenced by the earlier Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, the American public came to believe that these strikes were the beginning of a communist revolution. When the U.S. Post Office discovered nearly 40 bombs addressed to various prominent officials (one was delivered and it exploded), many Americans were further convinced of a pending communist plot. These perceived communist tactics, the wartime hysteria against all things German (and foreign), the intolerance of dissenting opinions, and fervent nationalism all combined for an easy shift into the Red Scare in the United States. Recently appointed Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer led a nationwide witch-hunt to find the “Reds” and prevent the perceived revolution. The main targets of this effort were radicals, recent immigrants, and some labor union leaders and members. Under Palmer’s direction, the Justice Department launched several raids to round up and interrogate suspicious radicals and aliens. In excerpted article I would like you to read, journalist Frederick Barkley describes a Red Scare raid in Detroit for the news magazine, The Nation (you can read it by clicking here; read pgs. 22-23).

After reading the article, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: According to Barkley’s account, how were the alleged radicals treated? Does Barkley believe that a revolution was imminent? What does he fear may result from the raids? Why did the raids of the “Red Scare” cease? Your thoughts…

Ten Days that Shook the World

Early in 1917, Russian workers and soldiers rose up against their government and forced Czar Nicholas II to abdicate his throne. A temporary (provisional) government was established, but it soon lost the support of the people. In November 1917, Bolshevik Red Guards stormed the Winter Palace in Petrograd and kicked out the provisional government. An American journalist, John Reed, wrote the eyewitness account that I would like you to read (you can by clicking here; read from the bottom of page 131 - the top of page 135) of the storming of the Winter Palace.

After reading the document I would like you to consider and discuss the following: What were John Reed’s impressions of the Bolsheviks? What type of behavior was displayed by the Red Guard (Bolsheviks) while storming the Winter Palace? Why were members of the Red Guard ordered not to steal? What happened to the yunkers (provisional government officials) once the palace was seized? How does this revolution in Russia compare to the Mexican and Chinese Revolutions that occurred around the same time in history?

Lenin and the Russian Revolution

The year 1917 brought momentous change to Russia. Mass upheaval in the cities and the countryside, derived in part from suffering associated with World War I, led to the destruction of key elements of the old order: The Romanov dynasty and the landlord class, each of which had deep roots in Russian history, were swept away forever. These changes alone are important enough to place the Russian Revolution in the same category as the French Revolution. But the events of 1917 had an added significance, for the victorious Bolshevik revolutionaries did not seek to establish a Western-style middle-class society. Instead, they proclaimed socialism and communism as their goals.

If the meaning and legacy of the Russian Revolution have engendered much controversy, there is, nevertheless, widespread agreement on the central role played by Lenin (Vladimir Ilych Ulyanov), the indefatigable leader of the Bolshevik party and the first head of the new Soviet regime. Lenin’s leading role in the Russian Revolution is traceable to the force of his ideas and his organizing ability, illustrated in the documents I would like you to read from his works (you can read them all by clicking here). In reading the following excerpts from Lenin’s writings, note the way in which his thoughts embrace various tensions. Do you see elements of realism as well as utopianism in Lenin? Does his commitment to class struggle mesh with his desire to modernize Russia? Can Lenin’s desire for democracy be reconciled with his belief in the necessity of authoritarian rule?

After reading the excerpts, I would also like you to consider and discuss the following: According to Lenin, what were the main features of Marxism? Why was it a potent revolutionary doctrine? What were Lenin’s organizational contributions to revolutionary Marxism? What specific issues did Lenin face as leader of communist Russia? How did they relate to Marxist goals? How and why did Lenin approach the task of industrial and technological development? What was Lenin’s view of the place of Russia’s revolution in the larger international context? What did he think need to happen internationally to secure revolutionary gains? Do these documents provide evidence about Lenin’s individual qualities as a leader? Do they help explain why he played such a decisive role in Russian history? Your thoughts…

The Maoist Version of Marxism

Mao Zedong was born into a well-to-do peasant family in Hunan Province and as a university student participated in the anti-Qing revolution of 1911. During the next several years, while serving as a library assistant at Beijing University, he embraced Marxism and helped organize the Chinese Communist Party, which was officially founded in 1921. Originally given the task of organizing urban labor unions, Mao came to believe that the peasants, whose capacity for class revolution was discounted by orthodox Marxist-Leninists, were the force to lead China to socialism. He summarized his ideas in his “Report on an Investigation of the Peasant Movement of Hunan,” written in 1927.

After the break from the Guomindang, the Communists took their small army to the remote and hilly region on the Hunan-Jiangxi border, where in 1931 they proclaimed the Chinese Soviet Republic. In 1934 Chiang Kai-shek’s troops surrounded the Communists’ forces, but as they moved in for the kill, more than 100,000 Communist troops and officials broke out of the Guomindang encirclement and embarked on the Long March. This legendary trek lasted more than a year and covered 6,000 miles before a remnant found safety in the remote mountains around Yan’an in northern Shaanxi province. It was here that Mao, now the party’s recognized leader, rebuilt his army and readied himself and his followers for what would be fourteen more years of struggle against the Japanese and the Guomindang.

Mao was a prolific writer who produced many hundreds of treatises, essays, and even works of poetry. The two documents I would like you to read are drawn form two of his most important writings (you can read them both by clicking here). The first, his “Report on an Investigation of the Peasant Movement in Hunan,” was written in 1927 after he visited Hunan Province to study the activities and accomplishments of peasant associations, groups of peasants who with the help of Communist organizers, had seized land, humiliated or killed landlords, and taken control of their communities. In it Mao seeks to convince other party members that the peasants are the main source of revolution in China. The second document, from his “Strategic Problems of China’s Revolutionary War,” is based on a series of lectures presented at the Red Army College in late 1936. In it Mao assesses China’s military situation and outlines his strategy for victory over the Guomindang through guerrilla warfare.

After reading the documents, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: What specific developments in Hunan Province reinforced Mao’s convictions about the peasantry as a revolutionary force? What criticisms have been made of the Hunan peasant movement, and how does Mao attempt to counter these criticisms? What can be learned from these two writings about Mao’s views of the role of the Communist Party in China’s revolutionary struggle? According to Mao, what have been the sources of oppression of the Chinese people? Once these sources of oppression are removed what will China look like? According to Mao, what are the four unique characteristics of China’s revolutionary war, and how do they affect Mao’s military strategy? What are the characteristics of Mao’s “active defense” as opposed to “passive defense?” How do Mao’s ideas about revolution resemble and differ from those of Marx? How do they resemble and differ from those of Lenin? Your thoughts…

Chinese Revolutionary: Sun Yat-sen

The 20th century was one of the most tumultuous in the history of China. Buffeted by the shocks from Western and Japanese imperialism and unable to deal effectively with its many internal problems, the Qing dynasty finally collapsed in 1912. A republic was immediately declared, but a protracted period of instability and confusion ensued. For more than a decade warlords fought for control of the country. During this period Sun Yat-sen emerged as the leading advocate of a Western-style political system in China. Sun, who had been born near Hong Kong and educated in Western schools, founded China’s first real political party, the Nationalist Party, and became enormously popular as its leader. However, at the time of his death China’s crisis was far from resolved.

In 1927, Chiang Kai-shek, Sun’s successor as head of the Nationalists, was able to impose a kind of unity on China from his capital in Nanjing. He remained the normal head of state in China until 1949, but his regime was corrupt and ineffective. When Japan invaded eastern China in 1937, the Nationalist government was unable to muster much of a defense. Chiang moved his capital deep into the interior of the country and became increasingly dependent on aid from the British and the United States.

The document I would like you to read is a series of passages taken from well-known lectures that Sun Yat-sen gave to Nationalist activists in 1924 (you can read them by clicking here; read pgs. 321-323). After reading the documents, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: Why did Sun Yat-sen think the Chinese people must “espouse nationalism?” According to Sun, how had China become strong since the Revolution of 1911? What did Sun mean by the term “hypo-colony?” What was Sun’s attitude toward China’s traditional Confucian culture? Your thoughts…

The Revolutionary Challenge in Mexico

Since their independence from Spain and Portugal, Latin American republics have experienced periods of severe political instability. From the 1830s to the 1860s caudillos, local military leaders left over from the wars of independence, often seized national office, pillaged the treasury, and were in turn deposed by others. During the late 19th century, when Latin America began exporting raw materials (metals, fertilizers) and food (sugar, coffee, wheat, bananas), oligarchial elites closely linked to the export economy consolidated stable political regimes. This stability was purchased by limiting the exercise of political power to a narrow few and excluding commoners through voting restrictions. At the beginning of the 20th century, population growth plus immigration from Europe greatly swelled the ranks of laborers, professionals, clerical people, and the urban poor. Most remained apolitical, but key groups such as railroad workers, dockworkers, and meatpackers formed unions, while professionals, small property owners, and clerical people formed middle-class political parties.

Social unrest along with often inflexible political regimes has led to a series of revolutions and other upheavals in 20th century Latin America. The document I would like you to read comes from the Mexican Revolution of 1910. It was issued by the most radical peasant leader, Emiliano Zapata. Zapata never seized control of the Mexican Revolution, but the radical economic demands of his Plan of Ayala (you can read it by clicking here) influenced the course of Mexican social development for the next 30 years.

After reading the document, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: The document offers a comparison with earlier grievances, when Latin American nations struggled for political independence. What has changed among the goals and actors on center stage? What are the goals of Zapata’s revolution? How much change would take place if they were implemented? Your thoughts…

“Africa for the Africans”

Marcus Garvey led the first large-scale Black Nationalist movement in U.S. history. Born in Jamaica, Garvey left school at the age of 14 and worked as a printer. He founded the United Negro Improvement Association (UNIA) as a fraternal organization. In 1916, he arrived in the United States. Enraged by the racial unrest of the World War I era, Garvey embraced racial separatism. He used his powerful oratorical skills to advocate black racial pride and economic self-sufficiency. Drawing as many as two million members, he established UNIA chapters in many U.S. cities. To finance and strengthen his movement, Garvey launched black-owned restaurants, stores, laundries, a hotel, and a toy factory that manufactured black dolls. In 1919, he incorporated Black Star Line, a shipping company for transporting blacks between America and Africa. The following year, Garvey hosted an international UNIA conference attended by delegates from twenty-five nations.

But Garvey’s successes proved short-lived. In 1922, following allegations of mail fraud in the Black Star operation, Garvey received a five-year prison term. After serving two years, his sentence was commuted by President Calvin Coolidge. In 1927, Garvey was deported as an undesirable alien and never returned to the United States. Although established black leaders such as W.E.B. DuBois and A. Philip Randolph harshly criticized him at the time, Garvey’s ideas profoundly affected future generations of black activists, including Malcolm X. You can read Garvey’s famous “Africa for the Africans” editorial by clicking here.

After reading the document, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: What are Garvey’s major objectives? How does Garvey respond to his critics? What is your opinion of Garvey’s ideas? Would they have resolved the racial problems of this era? Explain your answers.

A Vietnamese Condemnation of French Rule

After the French seized Vietnam’s three southernmost provinces, a region known as Cochin China, in 1862, they extended their authority over Tongking (northern Vietnam) and Annam (central Vietnam) in the mid 1880s. Convinced of their civilizing mission, the French sought to undermine Vietnam’s Confucian culture by creating a French-trained Vietnamese elite willing to cooperate with the colonial regime. Although some members of Vietnam’s upper-class resisted French rule (including the young emperor Duy-tan, whose plot to overthrow the French was uncovered in 1916), most at first sought some sort of compromise between Western culture and Confucianism.

Revolutionary nationalistic movements gained adherents in the 1920s, however, as more and more Vietnamese became incensed over continued economic exploitation and political repression, even though 90,000 Vietnamese troops and laborers had helped the French during World War I. The leading nationalist organization was the Viet Nam Quoc Dan Dang (Vietnamese Nationalist Party, or VNQDD), founded in 1927 by Nguyen Thai Hoc, a teacher from Hanoi. As a young man he sought to improve conditions in Vietnam through moderate reforms but became disillusioned with the French and turned to revolution. The VNQDD was modeled on Sun Yat-sen’s Nationalist Party and was dedicated to achieving an independent and democratic-socialist Vietnam. In 1929, with the VNQDD membership at about 1,500 its leaders plotted an anti-French insurrection. The uprising, known as the Yen Bay revolt, was crushed in 1930, and the VNQDD leaders were arrested and executed.

While awaiting his execution, Nguyen Thai Hoc wrote a letter to France’s parliament, the Chamber of Deputies (you can read the letter by clicking here). A defense of his actions and a denunciation of French colonialism, the letter was also released the Vietnamese public.

After reading the letter, I would like you to reflect on and discuss the following: In Nguyen Thai Hoc’s view, what are French intentions in Vietnam and what has been the effect of French occupation? How did Nguyen Thai Hoc evolve from a moderate reformer to a revolutionary? If implemented, how would his suggestions to Governor General Varenne have improved the lot of the Vietnamese people? What does the French response to the Yen Bay uprising reveal about the nature of French colonial rule? What do you suppose Nguyen Thai Hoc hoped to accomplish by writing this letter? Your thoughts…

Gandhi’s Vision for India

Mohandas Gandhi, the outstanding figure in modern Indian history, was born in 1869 in a village north of Bombay on the Arabian Sea. His father was a government official who presided over an extended family with strict Hindu practices. Gandhi studied law in England, and after failing to establish a legal practice in Bombay, he moved to South Africa in 1893 to serve the area’s large Indian population.

In South Africa, he became incensed over the laws that discriminated against Indians, many of whom were indentured servants employed by whites or petty Indian merchants. During his struggle to improve the lot of South Africa’s Indian population, Gandhi developed this theory of satyagraha, usually translated in English as “soul force.” Satyagraha sought justice not through violence but through love, a willingness to suffer, and conversion of the oppressor. Central to his strategy was nonviolent resistance: Gandhi’s followers disobeyed unjust laws and accepted the consequences—even beatings and imprisonment—to reach the hearts of the British and change their thinking.

Gandhi first wrote about his theories of satyagraha in 1908 after meeting with a group of Indians in England who favored force to oust the British. In response, he composed a pamphlet, “Hind Swaraj,” or “Indian Home Rule,” in which he explained his theory of nonresistance and his doubts about the benefits of modern civilization. Written in the form of a dialogue between a reader and an editor (Gandhi), “Indian Home Rule” was printed in hundreds of editions and still serves as the best summary of Gandhi’s philosophy. You can pull up the full text by clicking here, but I would like you to specifically read chapters 6, 10, 13, and 17 (don't worry, they're short).

After reading the document excerpts, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: What does Gandhi see as the major deficiency of modern civilization? How, according to Gandhi, has civilization specifically affected women? Why does Gandhi have faith that Hindus and Muslims will be able to live in peace in India? What, according to Gandhi, is true civilization, and what is India’s role in preserving it? What leads Gandhi to his conviction that love is stronger than force? Why did Gandhi’s attack on civilization gain him support among the Indian masses? Compare Gandhi’s view of progress with that of Condorcet. On what points do the two men disagree?

Spinning Wheels and Black Flags: Indian Nationalists Challenge British Rule

Major changes in British-ruled India toward the end of the long 19th century created the conditions for the emergence of the first modern nationalist movement in the colonial world. The expansion of railways, the establishment of postal and telegraph services, and the spread of printed materials (in both English and major Indian languages) helped to shape a stronger sense of “Indian-ness.” The founding of Indian-owned factories in textiles and metals marked the emergence of a prosperous urban Indian middle class and the beginning of a native working class. The inclusion of Indians in various representative councils and in the Indian Civil Service created a cadre of experienced administrators. The inauguration of the Indian National Congress, which met annually from 1885, provided a forum in which nationalist leaders from around India could develop and advance their goals.

In the immediate aftermath of World War I, the leaders of the Congress created the first mass-based nationalist movement outside the West. Many factors combined to produce this result. The ghastly intra-European bloodletting between 1914 and 1918, graphically illustrated in texts like All Quiet on the Western Front, undercut the argument that Westerns had come to Asia and Africa to raise moral standards. Proclamations by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson regarding the importance of national self-determination and by V.I. Lenin on the need to end colonial regimes were welcomed in India and throughout the colonial world. In addition, more than a million Indian men had served as soldiers under British command in the Middle East, North Africa and Europe during the war. Many came home with new confidence and a strengthened sense of national identity. Finally, the British combination of reforms and repression backfired, dramatically increasing the number of active (and passive) opponents of the colonial regime.

Central to this pivotal moment in the history of the Indian nationalist movement were the ideas and activities of Mohandas K. Gandhi, who returned to India in 1914 after spending twenty years in South Africa. Gandhi’s greatest achievement may have been his ability to persuade India’s prosperous middle classes to accept the rural and urban poor as allies in the fight against the British. In so doing, he transformed the Congress into the broad-based mass movement that eventually, in 1947, compelled the British to depart. Many of Gandhi’s admirers also revere him for his commitment to satyagraya (variously translated as “soul force,” “truth force,” nonviolent resistance, and civil disobedience) as well as his vigorous efforts on behalf of India’s untouchables, and his desire for harmony between Hindus and Muslims.

The documents I would like you to read come from the autobiography of an upper-class woman from north India, Manmohini Zutshi Sahgal, who followed her mother and older sisters into the nationalist movement in the early 1920s, all of them inspired by Gandhi. You can read excerpts from her autobiography by clicking here. How does this memoir illustrate the changes that were taking place in the struggle against the British in the decade after World War I?

After reading the documents, I would like you to reflect on and discuss the following: What did Gandhi mean by the strategy of “noncooperation”? What roles did women play in the protests of the early 1920s? How did the roles of women in the nationalist movement change by 1930? How do you explain this change? How do the passages by Sahgal reveal the complexity of the Indian social structure in the 1920s and 19030s? What is the relationship between this complexity and the eventual success of the Congress in winning independence? When people like Sahgal and her family began to join the nationalist movement in large numbers, why did the British not leave India? Was the argument of the “white man’s burden” still important to the British? Was it a matter of economic interest? Was it British pride? Your thoughts…

A Tale of Two Promises

World War I turned into an incredibly desperate situation for Great Britain. Because of troop and resource shortages, the British fell into the habit during the war of promising national groups independent states in exchange for support. Although these promises were not fulfilled, the most erroneous folly the British committed was the issuance of two conflicting promises of an independent state located in Palestine, both to Arabs and Jews. In 1915, British High Commissioner Sir Henry McMahon wrote a series of letters (known as the McMahon letters) to try to attract Arab support against the Ottoman Empire fighting on the side of the Central Powers. In a letter dated October 24, 1915 (you can read the letter by clicking here), McMahon clearly promises British support of an independent Arab state, and in an area that would include the land of Palestine.

In 1917, in order to generate Jewish support for the Allies, the British promised the creation of a Jewish state in the same area of Palestine an exchange for said support. This promise is clearly articulated in a letter from British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Lord Rothschild, a letter that is more commonly known as the Balfour Declaration (you can read it by clicking here).

Not only was neither promise fulfilled, but because of the conflicting promises issued, the British managed to essentially “double-book” Palestine, therefore creating a violent and volatile situation there. This indeed is viewed as the very root of the current ongoing Arab-Israeli Conflict, a conflict that is particularly hot in the Gaza Strip of Palestine as we speak. Ironically, after having the mistake called to their attention, the British subsequently refused to be a mediator in the conflict that it essentially created.

After reading both letters, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: How is British support of an independent Arab state implied in the McMahon Letter? For what reasons may Arthur James Balfour have been so eager to assist the Jewish population of Europe in attaining actual statehood in the traditional homeland of Palestine? How did the British manage to create anger against Britain itself in the Middle East? How did the British manage to create anger between Jews and Muslims in the Middle East? How did the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 further exacerbate, or intensify, the situation? How did the British try to justify their error in the British White Paper of June 1922? What do you predict such a situation could possibly lead to? Your thoughts…

A Call for Islamic Social and Political Action

Although the commitment to modernization advocated by Mustafa Kemal had supporters throughout the Middle East, it also had stanch opponents. Many Muslims—from all classes of society and across all educational levels—were alarmed by the prospect of a secularized, westernized future and sought instead to establish a true Islamic society guided by the Quran and conforming to Islamic law. In the interwar years their hopes were best represented by the Muslim Brotherhood, founded in 1929 by an Egyptian schoolteacher, Hasan al-Banna.

Born in a small town in the Nile Delta, Hasan al-Banna as a student in Cairo after World War I was deeply troubled by the factionalism, social conflict, poverty, and religious indifference he observed in Egypt. He concluded that British colonialism and the widespread acceptance of Western values had caused these ills and that a return to fundamental Islamic teachings would cure them. In 1927 he became a schoolteacher in the Sinai town of Ismailia, where he organized religious study groups and committed himself to Islamic renewal. In 1929 he founded the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization dedicated to the realization of Islamic government in Egypt and other Muslim lands.

In the 1930s, the Brotherhood grew into a tightly knit, disciplined organization with a million members form all walks of life and a network of branches made up of numerous secret cells. It built mosques, schools, and small hospitals; sponsored youth programs, social clubs, and light industries; and publicized its religious message through preaching and publications. In the 1940s, with a great commitment to political activism, it clashed with British authorities and the Egyptian government itself. Linked to the assassination of several officials, the Brotherhood was outlawed by the Egyptian government in 1949, and Hasan al-Banna himself was assassinated by government agents in the same year.

The Brotherhood regained legal status in 1950 and since then has continued to be an important religious and political force in the Arab Middle East. It has branches in Sudan, Syria, and other Arab states, vast financial resources, and an estimated membership of 2 million. It has accomplished this despite attempts by the Egyptian government to suppress the organization on two occasions in the 1950s and 1960s after member of the Brotherhood were implicated in assassination plots and antigovernment conspiracies. The organization also has experienced bitter internal divisions between militants and moderates. In Egypt, the Brotherhood officially rejected violence in the 1980s in favor of advancing its program by winning elected office and increasing its commitment to social service activities. This moderate policy caused some of its members to defect to more militant groups. Organizations such as Islamic Jihad and Hamas, which are committed to the cause of Palestinian nationhood and oppose any compromise with Israel, are both offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The document I would like you to read is an excerpt drawn from a pamphlet issued by the Brotherhood in 1936. Directed to King Faruk of Egypt and other Arab leaders, it summarizes the goals of the Brotherhood in its early years of existence. You can read the document by clicking here.

After reading the document, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: How would you characterize the Brotherhood’s views on the purpose and goals of government? According to this document, what was the Brotherhood’s conception of the ideal government official? What does the document reveal about the Brotherhood’s attitude toward the West? Are there aspects of Western culture the Brotherhood finds acceptable? What role does the Brotherhood envision for women in Islamic society? According to the Brotherhood, what are the goals of education? How are they to be achieved? What policies does the Brotherhood propose to help the poor? What is there in the statement that might help account for the widespread support of the Brotherhood among Middle Eastern Muslims? Your thoughts…

Secularism and Nationalism in Republican Turkey

The archsymbol of secularism and nationalism in the Muslim world in the interwar years was Mustafa Kemal, who first achieved prominence as a military hero during World War I and went on to serve as first president of the Turkish republic. Disgusted by the Ottoman sultan’s acquiescence to the Greek occupation of the Turkish port of Smyrna (Izmir) in 1919, Kemal assumed leadership of a resistance movement that by 1923 had overthrown the sultan, defeated the Greeks, and won the annulment of the punitive Sèvres Treaty. Exercising broad powers as president of the new Turkish republic until his death in 1938, Kemal sought to transform Turkey into a modern secular nation-state. To accomplish this, he broke the power of Islam over education and the legal system, encouraged industrialization, accorded women full legal rights, mandated the use of a new Turkish alphabet, and ordered Turks to adopt Western-style dress. Directing all Turks to adopt hereditary family names, he took for himself the name Ataturk, or “Father of the Turks” (also translated Father Turk or Great Turk).

Having consolidated his authority, Kemal decided in 1927 to review his accomplishments and impress upon his subjects the need for continued support. He chose as the occasion the meeting of the People’s Republican Party, which he had founded and was Turkey’s only legal political party. Here he delivered an extraordinary speech (you can read excerpts from it by clicking here). Having worked on it for three months (in the process of exhausting dozens of secretaries), he delivered it over a period of six days.

In the excerpts you will read, he discusses Turkey’s past and future, explains his reasons for abolishing the caliphate, the ancient office of virtue of which Turkish sultans had been the theoretical rulers of all Muslims, and justifies his suppression of the Progressive Republican Party, which despite its name was a party of conservatives who opposed Turkey’s modernization.

After reading excerpts from Mustafa Kemal’s speech, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: What, according to Kemal, what were the “erroneous ideas” that had guided the Ottoman state in the past? Why does Kemal argue that nation-states, not empires, are the most desirable form of political organization? What is Kemal’s view of the West? What are his views of Islam? What arguments does Kemal offer against the continuation of the caliphate? How does Kemal justify his suppression of the Progressive Republicans? What, in his view, were the positive results of this step? Your thoughts…

The Emergence of Modern Turkey

Turkish nationalism emerged during the last quarter of the 19th century as the all-but-inevitable result of the decline of the multi-national Ottoman Empire. The new movement began among young Turkish writers living as political exiles in London and Paris who, influenced by Western European nationalist thinkers, began to consider what it meant to be a Turk (as opposed to an Ottoman) and to examine the relationships between Turkish culture, Islam, and the West. Soon they became known as the “Young Turks.” In 1908 a mutiny of reform-minded military officers who were loosely associated with the Young Turk movement succeeded in ending the autocratic regime of Sultan Abdul Hamid II who had been in power since 1876.

For most of the next, and final, decade of the Ottoman Empire, Young Turks from the army controlled the government in Istanbul. In 1915 they took the Ottoman state into World War I on the side of the Central Powers (Germany and Austria-Hungary), a policy that led to military defeat and economic catastrophe. By 1918, the once-vast Ottoman realm was no more. It had shrunk to little more than the borders of the Anatolian Peninsula. Moreover, because of fiercely contested territorial disputes with the Greeks, the fighting did not end for the Turks until 1922.

In 1923, Turkey was proclaimed a republic under the presidency of Mustafa Kemal, later called Ataturk meaning “Father Turk,” a general who had been active in the nationalist movement since 1905 and who had led the poster expulsion of Greeks from Anatolia. Mustafa Kemal was an authoritarian modernizer who in some ways resembled the Tanzimat reformers of the 19th century. He was both intolerant of political opposition and determined to bring about major economic, social, and cultural changes in Turkey. Under his leadership a program of industrialization was launched, the shari’a (the traditional Muslim legal code) was replaced by a secular system of laws, the Islamic Caliphate was abolished, numerous rights were accorded to women, the Arabic alphabet gave way to the Roman script, and the fez and the veil were outlawed as symbols of backwardness. At the time of Mustafa Kemal’s death in 1938 the new Turkish nation-state seemed to have become a successful model of modernity for the rest of the peoples of the Middle East.

The documents that I would like you to read (you can read them by clicking here) come from speeches by Mustafa Kemal during the early 1920s and from the writings of Ziya Gokalp, the most creative Turkish thinker of the late Ottoman/early republican period. Gokalp wrote mainly for newspapers and other periodicals. His ideas, especially his pleas for the Westernization of Turkey, were widely discussed by his contemporaries and were influential in the shaping of public policy during early years of the Turkish republic. How do these documents capture the dilemmas facing the Turks following World War I and collapse of the Ottoman Empire?

After reading both documents, I would also like you to think about and discuss the following: What are the main themes in the speeches of Ataturk? What did he think were the weaknesses of the Ottoman Empire? Why did Gokalp think that the Turks must adapt themselves to Western civilization? What was Gokalp’s of view of the Tanzimat reforms? In your opinion, must societies industrialize in order to achieve well-being? What is a nation in your opinion? Your thoughts…

The Peace that Failed

On January 19, 1919, thousands of diplomats, ministers, journalists, and observers gathered in Paris for the first session of the peace conference given the task of reordering the world after World War I. Participants included delegates from the thirty-two nations on the winning side, observers from the defeated Central Powers, and observers from numerous ethnic and religious groups—Arabs, Egyptians, Kurds, Irish, Zionists, Persians, Indians, Vietnamese, Africans, African-Americans, and Armenians. Women’s organizations and even supporters of the tsarist cause in Russia were also represented.

Many in attendance hoped the postwar treaties would reflect the vision of the U.S. president, Woodrow Wilson, who in January 1918 had issued his famous Fourteen Points in regard to the peace. Wilson had called for open diplomacy, free trade, reduced armies, a “readjustment” of colonial claims, and national self-determination in Europe. Although Germany would be required to return Alsace-Lorraine to France and abandon conquered territories in Russia and Belgium, there was no talk of punishing Germany or blocking “in any way her legitimate influence and power.” Wilson also called for the founding of a “general association of nations” whose purpose would be to preserve peace and guarantee the integrity of great and small nations alike.

British Prime Minister David Lloyd George and French premier Georges Clemenceau had different ideas. Clemenceau wanted to protect French security by weakening and punishing Germany. Lloyd George was more flexible, but whatever moderate inclinations he might have had were outweighed by his recent election promises to “hang the emperor” and “squeeze the German lemon until the pips squeak.” Their views prevailed rather than Wilson’s, and the result was the harsh Treaty of Versailles, grudgingly signed by Germany on June 28, 1919.

Germany lost all of its colonies, 13 percent of its land, and 10 percent of its population. Alsace and Lorraine, won from France in 1871, were returned to France. Northern Schleswig went to Denmark (remember all these territory shifts from Season 4???), parts of Posen and West Prussia went to Poland, while smaller bits of territory went to Belgium and Czechoslovakia. The coal mines of the Saar Basin were given to France for fifteen years, at which time the German government could buy them back. The Saar region itself was to be administered by the League of Nations. East Prussia was cut off from the rest of Germany by territory ceded to Poland, and the largely German port of Danzig on the Baltic Sea came under Polish economic control. The Germans were permitted to have no air force, a navy of approximately two dozen ships, and a volunteer army of no more than 100,000 officers and men. Article 231, the “war-guilt” clause, held Germany and its allies responsible for causing the war. On the basis of this claim, Germany was held accountable for all Allied losses and damages, and would be required to pay reparations. In 1921 the sum was set at $31 billion. The humiliated Germans deeply resented the Treaty of Versailles. In the 1920s, nationalist and anti-democratic politicians learned to play on these resentments and in doing so undermined the democratic government that had signed the treaty. Of those politicians, the most successful was Adolf Hitler, whose Nazis took power in 1933.

The reasons for German anger are spelled out in the comments and observations I would like you to read (you can read them by clicking here). They were submitted in October 1919 by the German delegation to the Paris Peace Conference, which continued to meet after the signing of the Versailles Treaty until January 21, 1920.

After reading the German comments, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: In Germany’s view, how would the country have been treated differently if the principles they attribute to President Wilson had been applied? What does the document reveal about the difficulty of applying the principle of ethnic self-determination in Europe? To what higher “fundamental” laws does the document appeal in order to strengthen German assertions? What view of colonialism is expressed in the document? Why do the authors claim that Germany has a right to its colonies? According to the authors of the German complaint, how will various provisions of the treaty hurt Germany’s economy? Do you agree with the authors of the document that Germany was being poorly treated? What response to their complaints might defenders of the treaty have made? Your thoughts…

Opposition to the League of Nations

When the peace conference convened in France in 1919, President Woodrow Wilson attended and took an active role in negotiations in the hope of preserving his proposed idealistic blueprint for peacemaking, the Fourteen Points. The resulting Treaty of Versailles contained little of the original Fourteen Points except the League of Nations, which Wilson believed would correct the mistakes of the peace treaty. The heart of the new League of Nations was Article 10, which urged league members “to respect and preserve” the territory of members from external aggression. When Democrat Wilson submitted the treaty to the U.S. Senate for ratification, it came under the close scrutiny of Republican Henry Cabot Lodge, chair of the Foreign Relations Committee. Born in Massachusetts and Harvard educated (the first Ph.D. in political science), Lodge was known for his clear and forceful arguments in the 37 years he served in Congress. In a speech on the Senate floor (which you can read excerpts from by clicking here) Lodge offered his reasons for opposing the Treaty of Versailles (and the League of Nations). The Senate would defeat the treaty ratification in two separate votes, mainly along partisan lines.

After reading excerpts from Lodge’s speech, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: For what reasons does Henry Cabot Lodge oppose the treaty? What changes would he make to the treaty? How does he propose to maintain world peace? Is that possible? Is Lodge an isolationist? What is the significance of his opposition to the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles? Your thoughts…

Schedule Update/Revision For the Next Two Weeks (PLEASE READ AND RECORD CAREFULLY)

Folks, there have been several schedule changes over the next two weeks as a result of the weather day yesterday, club trips, etc., etc. At any rate, please pay close attention to this as 7TH PERIOD IS THE ONLY CLASS THAT GOT WORD ON THE FINISHED PRODUCT! So here it is for the next two weeks...

Tuesday, March 3: War Outside of Europe and Endgame (959-966)

Wednesday, March 4: Failed Peace and Nationalist Responses to WWI (966-973; 1005-1008;1014-1020)

Thursday, March 5: Nationalism Leads to Revolutions in Mexico and China (857-860; 1008-1012)

Friday, March 6: Russian Revolution (962-963 [you've already read this by now hopefully, but you may want to give it one more glance])

Monday, March 9: Global Depression and Effects on Latin America, Japan, and the USSR (985-989; 1020-1022)

Tuesday, March 10: Effects of Depression-- Fascism and Nazism (990-1000)

Wednesday, March 11: Unit 12 Test- World War I and Responses [no review day so study well]

Thursday, March 12: Change over Time Essay (Topic TBA)

Friday, March 13: Peer Review of Change over Time Essay

[FIRST PERIOD, LEAVE THE REST OF THE MONTH ALONE, I TINKERED WITH THE REST OF IT WITH YOU GUYS, BUT PLEASE DISREGARD ALL OF THAT NOW]

Wilson's Fourteen Points: The Plan for a New World Order After the Great War

In late 1917, as the U.S. troops began arriving in France, Woodrow Wilson was dismayed by events in Europe and Russia. On the Western Front, the Allies reported horrific casualties, starvation, and mutinies. Various peace proposals by Germany, Austria-Hungary, Britain, and Pope Benedict XV languished. At the same time, sweeping political changes hit Russia. In March 1917, rebels overthrew the monarchy and established a provisional government headed by Alexander Kerensky. Despite the poor condition of the Russian army, Kerensky refused to withdraw from the war. He soon faced a host of problems including a dispirited populace, the desertion of non-Russian peoples from the empire, and political opposition. In November 1917, Bolsheviks led by Vladimir Lenin ousted Kerensky and called for the creation of a workers’ state. They issued a unilateral cessation of hostilities against the Central Powers and published the secret treaties that had triggered the war. More on this on Friday!

Searching for a higher purpose to the war’s unprecedented carnage and a way to undermine the international appeal of communism, Wilson offered bold plans for ending the conflict and reshaping international relations (you can read the Fourteen Points by clicking here). Beginning with the Fourteen Points, Wilson made numerous speeches calling for open diplomacy, free trade, resolution of territorial disputes, and disarmament. In October 1918, after the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm II and the establishment of a republic, the German government approached Wilson with a peace proposal based on the Fourteen Points. Although Britain and France had reservations about freedom of the seas and reparations, they accepted the terms and an armistice ended World War I on November 11, 1918.

After reading the Fourteen Points, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: What are the major elements of the Fourteen Points? Why did they represent such a major shift in foreign affairs? Why do you think that the Fourteen Points inspired so many people? How did the Versailles Treaty differ from the goals of the Fourteen Points? Your thoughts…

Total War: The Cost of Unlimited Conflict

War, of course, has always been destructive. But until the late eighteenth century, practical constraints limited its scale and the devastation it caused. The emergence of modern society, which allowed nations to overcome so many traditional limitations, freed them from most of the old constraints on warfare as well. When World War I erupted in 1914, people were unprepared for what was to follow—over four exhausting years of carnage in the very heart of the “advanced” world. When analyzing the after-effects of World War I, the focus should be not just on the immediate cost to the losers—or the winners—for the impact of total war cannot be measured solely by the number of the dead and the defeated. Total war deeply affected the living and the victors too, and in ways far beyond their immediate losses. The economic, social, psychological, and moral effect these wars had on those who survived them must be taken into account, along with the legacy they left to all who came after them later in the twentieth century.

The war consumed unprecedented quantities of funds too, and hard-pressed governments appealed to their people for wartime loans to finance soaring budgets. France, known for its artists, benefited from their help in launching poster campaigns in 1915 to bring this appeal to the masses. Soon other governments followed suit, using propaganda posters like the ones we looked at in class and on this blog last week, to raise funds, solicit enlistment, and boost morale. The document I would like you to read now helps to explain why such measures were needed in order to sustain popular support for the war. Taken from the final dispatch written by the head of the British Expeditionary Forces on the western front, Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig, at the war’s end, it outlines the overall scope and nature of the conflict (you can read this document by clicking here). Often called “the butcher of the Somme” because of his willingness to expend so many forces in that battle, Haig here details the enormous needs of an army fighting a modern mass war of attrition.

Field Marshal Haig’s final dispatch, as commander of the British Expeditionary Force, offers a broad assessment of the first total war. As Haig explains, by 1916 and 1917 the war had lapsed into a series of “indecisive battles” waged only to “wear down” the enemy through attrition. What did he find so unique about this war, leading him to think that Britain’s “existence as an empire and civilization itself…were at stake?” Think about the “factors peculiar to modern war” that he lists, as well as his comments of the “mechanical contrivances” introduced in the war and the complications occasioned by the size of the armies. What is Haig referring to in those remarks? His remark about the way women bolstered “our declining man power” merits attention too. Women gained the vote in England and other democratic nations right after the war. How might total war have hastened this change? Your thoughts…

The Armenian Genocide of 1915: The Forgotten Genocide

Genocide is a word that was not coined until the 20th century (in late 1942 to be exact), but because of new and unusual human behavior the term was coined to describe systematic mass murder. There have been only 3 events that have been officially declared by the United Nations as genocides (Armenia 1915, the Holocaust, and Rwanda 1994) although one could certainly make a good case for several more (Cambodia in the 1970s, Bosnia in the 1990s, Darfur now, just to name a few). The first officially declared genocide, the mass killing of Armenians by the Ottomans in retaliation for their suspected collaboration with the Russians during WWI, tends to be forgotten. This is an even that is chilling and disturbing, both in its ruthlessness and in its organization. It certainly underscores the shift in human behavior that has developed by means of nationalism and made possible by industrialization. You may want to take the time to investigate this event further. The Armenian National Institute has an excellent website that you can access by clicking here. As always, the BBC has some excellent information on the genocide as well that you can access by clicking here.

An American Soldier on the Western Front

The First World War witnessed unprecedented bloodshed. New weapons including poison gas, airplanes, and submarines made mass killing easier. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers died in ghastly trench warfare. Although it took the United States several months to recruit, train, and deploy an army, the American Expeditionary Force (AEF) played an important role in the Allies’ victory. In May 1918, AEF forces helped to stop German advances at Château Thierry and Belleau Wood. Four months later, 1.2 million Americans joined Allied troops in the bloody battles of Meuse-Argonne. At the same time, the U.S. Navy aided the British in a transatlantic convoy system and mining the North Sea. Their combined efforts defeated the German submarine campaign against Allied merchant ships.

In an excerpt from his diary, Clarence J. Richmond, a Marine private, describes his combat experiences in France. You can read this excerpt by clicking here.

After reading from Richmond’s diary I would like you all to reflect on and discuss the following: How does Richmond portray conditions at the front? What are his duties? How does Richmond seem to feel about combat? Do you think his response was common? Explain. In your opinion, what would be the most difficult aspect of combat? Are there any positive aspects? Your thoughts…

Woodrow Wilson's Declaration of War Message

When war erupted in Europe during the summer of 1914, few Americans were eager to participate. President Woodrow Wilson declared the United States neutral “in thought as well as in action.” But maintaining neutrality proved quite difficult. Powerful cultural and family ties connected many Americans to Great Britain. Financiers and industrialists viewed European trade as the key to boosting a slow economy. At the same time, millions of Americans of German or Irish descent felt no affinity for the British. Pacifists, progressives, and socialists opposed war on moral grounds and feared that U.S. entry into the conflict would end social reforms at home.

Although Americans remained divided in their opinions of the war, the desire for expanded international trade and a bias against the Central Powers soon drew the United States into the conflict. German U-Boat attacks, especially the sinking of the Lusitania, generated popular demands for vengeance. At first, the Wilson administration persuaded the Germans to suspend unrestricted submarine warfare against ships traveling to Great Britain. In 1916, Wilson won reelection vowing to keep America out of the war. Within months, however, desperation compelled the Germans to resume unrestricted submarine attacks. Convinced that U.S. involvement in the war could ensure a “peace without victory” (and angered over the Zimmerman Telegram), Wilson asked Congress for a declaration of war on April 2, 1917. You can read this declaration by clicking here.

After reading Wilson’s declaration I would like you all to consider and discuss the following: Why does Wilson believe that the United States must enter the war? How does Wilson describe the Germans? Why does he distinguish between the German government and the German people? According to Wilson, what are America’s war aims? Your thoughts…

Enjoy the Surprise Day Off... See You Tomorrow

Well I didn't even know snow was in the forecast yesterday until around 10am. Apparently some parts of Gwinnett received 5 inches of snow yesterday, but it was the ice this morning that resulted in school cancellations it seems. At any rate, it seems that the make-up day will be next week, the 13th, as we had a workday planned for that day and you all had a day off. If that remains the case, go ahead and push everything on the calender down and a day until March 13th. In the meantime, you can check at the scenery from yesterday below...