Melissa Hwang U.S. History - KAS

HW4.5

2010-05-10T05:58:00.000-07:00

Did Reagan's policies fit the conservative "brand"?

INCREASED GOVERNMENT DEFICIT DID NOT FIT REAGAN'S "BRAND", BUT POWER DEVOLUTION WAS A POLICY WHICH FIT THE CONSERVATIVE "BRAND".

One of Reagan's "brand" was to reduce government spending, since the US had "piled deficit upon deficit" (Reagan's First Inaugural Address 1981), but he didn't fulfill his promise. Before Reagan, the budget deficit was below $75 billion, but by 1986, the deficit reached $221 billion, largely due to 85% increase in military spending.

Devolving power of federal government was one of Reagan's "brand" which he did fulfill. He promised to "curb the size and influence of the Federal establishment" (Reagan's First Inaugural Address 1981). Thus, he supported Nixon's New Federalism and issued block grants, allowing states to spend money on social programs as they saw fit.

HW4.4

2010-05-04T23:14:00.000-07:00

"Who is to blame for America's trend toward high divorce rates, starting in the 1970s?"

THE HIGH DIVORCE RATES STARTING IN THE 1970s ARE THE RESULT OF THE ACTIONS OF RICH MIDDLE-AGED MEN AND FEMINISTS WHO FOUGHT FOR NO-FAULT DIVORCE.

Rich middle-aged men who desired younger women were partly to blame. Caught up in "Jennifer Fever", many like Eugene McCathy and Wayne Hays in 1970s divorced their wives of many years and attracted younger women with their wealth. According to Wolfe, it became "normal behavior", and divorce rates rose rapidly.

The "me" attitude of wealthy, middle-aged men partly contributed to high divorce rates. Instead of being dutiful dads and husbands, many men said, "I've got only one life, let me live it as a..." According to Wolfe, wealthy middle-aged men "took [their] money and ran", contributing to high divorce rates.

Feminists who fought for no-fault divorce were partly responsible. Feminist groups like the National Organization for Women beginning in 1960s, pushed for no-fault divorce. But no-fault divorce became a "remarkable gift" to men. As getting divorces became easy and inexpensive, it contributed to more than 1.1 million divorces in 1979.

1970s TV programs show society was changing and feminists didn't need changes in divorce laws. In "All in the Family", the college-educated daughter got a job. This shows women's role outside home was already increasing in society. Thus, changes in divorce laws were unneeded. As daughter said, "Times have changed."

HW4.3

2010-05-01T22:39:00.001-07:00

"Who is to blame for America's trend toward high divorce rates, starting in the 1970s?"

THE HIGH DIVORCE RATES STARTING IN THE 1970s ARE THE RESULT OF THE ACTIONS OF RICH MIDDLE-AGED MEN AND FEMINISTS WHO FOUGHT FOR NO-FAULT DIVORCE.

Firstly, rich middle-aged men in the 1970s were caught up in "Jennifer Fever". Instead of staying home, they divorced their wives of many years in search of young women. With their wealth, they easily attracted these women. This resulted in the rising divorce rates.

These men were also immersed in the selfish thinking of the "Me" movement. Instead of being dutiful dads and husbands, they said, "I've got only one life, let me live it as a..." As Tom Wolfe said, wealthy middle-aged men "took [their] money and ran", resulting in high divorce rates.

Feminists who fought for no-fault divorce were also partly responsible. With their fervent protesting, no-fault was established, but it allowed men to free themselves from marriage without any legal consequences. As a result, from 1975 to 1983, the number of divorced women rose by 28% to more than 3 million.

HW4.2

2010-04-27T04:33:00.000-07:00

"Who is to blame for America's trend toward high divorce rates, starting in the 1970s?"

THE HIGH DIVORCE RATES STARTING IN THE 1970s ARE THE RESULT OF THE ACTIONS OF RICH MIDDLE-AGED MEN AND WOMEN WHO FOUGHT FOR NO-FAULT DIVORCE.

These men were also immersed in the selfish thinking of the "Me" movement. Instead of being dutiful dads and husbands, they said, "I've got only one life, let me live it as a..." Wealthy middle-aged men began chasing after their own dreams, leaving their wives, resulting in high divorce rates.

Women who fought for no-fault divorce were also partly responsible. With their fervent protesting, no-fault was finally established, but it allowed men a way to free themselves from marriage without any legal consequences. Men quickly took up this advantage and used it to its full potential. Thus, divorce rates skyrocketed.

HW8

2010-03-05T19:49:00.000-08:00

"Nonviolent resistance to injustice was a good strategy for southern civil rights leaders."

AGREE and DISAGREE (one paragraph each)

AGREE:

The Birmingham campaign in 1963 is an example of an effective nonviolent resistance to injustice. The Birmingham police's attacks on peaceful African American protesters shocked many Americans, drawing national attention to the injustice of segregation. As a result, desegregation of public facilities in Birmingham was achieved, without using violence.

DISAGREE:

Freedom Summer in Mississippi 1964 is an example where nonviolent resistance was a bad strategy. People in Freedom Summer used peaceful means to help African Americans participate in the government, but many were attacked and killed by the opposition. Sadly, these crimes went unpunished, showing the ineffectiveness of nonviolent resistance.

HW7

2010-03-01T03:51:00.000-08:00

Find two historians who disagree with each other about the answer to your question.

"How important was Joan of Arc to the successful ascension of Charles VII to the French throne in the 1430s?"

Joan of Arc is important to King Charles VII’s successful ascension. She brought about his coronation at Rheims, which dealt a heavy blow to England’s claim to the French throne, and she was Charles VII’s source of courage as he continued fighting for the throne after her death.

(Patterson, Gail. Joan of Arc: Historical Overview and Bibliography. Nova Publishers, 2002. Print.)

However, in another point of view, Joan was not very important. Even without Joan, Charles VII, who was still wealthy and supported by a large part of France, would have slowly recaptured French territories under English control. Charles’ men were not too successful in battle, but they were still fighting.

(Neillands, Robin. The Hundred Years War. Routledge, 1990.)

REPAIR

2010-02-11T05:52:00.000-08:00

"How real was the threat of Communist spies within the US?"

In 1950, US State Department official Algar Hiss was accused of passing information to the USSR. Hiss denied it, but in 1995 documents were revealed, indicating that Hiss was indeed a Communist spy. Therefore, the Algar Hiss Case in 1950 shows that the threat of Communist spies was real.

It was known that spies had passed helpful information about the atomic bomb to the USSR. In 1951, it was found that two Americans, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, was responsible for passing the atomic secrets. Thus, this shows that the threat of communist spies in the US was real.

From 1952 to 1954, Joseph McCarthy accused many people for supporting communism. However, his accusations were backed with no evidence, and he never managed to find a communist spy. Therefore, McCarthy's actions, or McCarthyism, is an example of the how the threat of communist spies in the US was unreal.

The threat of Communist spies was unreal because the US government was at fault for increasing the public's fear. Truman's Executive Order 9835 was a program designed to weed out any disloyal persons, but, sadly, it was "in large measure responsible for creating...hysteria" (Zinn 157).

"Is it fair to say that the anxiety caused in the US due to nuclear threat, was useful and 'healthy'?" (security of the nation = health)

The FCDA's Operation Alert, a civil defense drill, was inspired by the heightened state of fear for nuclear attacks. But, most Americans ignored the drill, rendering the FCDA's efforts useless. Therefore, the anxiety caused by nuclear threat was far from useful in the US.

The anxiety caused by nuclear threat was useful and healthy because it led to the growth of businesses in the 1950s. Atomic power fascinated people, and many businesses saw the potential of atomic power, as evident in the production of "fallout shelters", atomic tourism, and "atomic lunch-boxes".

Sem2.HW6

2010-02-05T21:14:00.000-08:00

What arguments could be made FOR and AGAINST this statment: "America's poor, in the mid 20th century, were mostly responsible for their own problems."

America's poor were not entirely responsible for their problems. Congress' termination policy in 1953 ended government aid to native Americans, forcing many natives to sell their land. As a result, poverty increased. The government's actions had made them even poorer.

Another argument against this statement is the Housing Act of 1949, which included the urban renewal plan. The government demolished slums and built apartments but hundreds of thousands of poor people lost their homes. In the end, poverty increased and the government had simply worsened the poor's situation.

An argument for this statement is the massive migration of 5 million African Americans from 1945 to 1960 to northern cities. They were looking for manufacturing jobs, but industries had already relocated to the suburbs. Without jobs, poverty increased. If the African Americans hadn't migrated, their situation wouldn't have worsened.

Sem2.HW5

2010-01-22T02:02:00.001-08:00

"How real was the threat of Communist spies within the US?"

The Algar Hiss Case in 1950 shows that the threat of Communist spies in the US was real. State Department official Algar Hiss was accused of passing information to the USSR. Although Hiss denied it, in 1995 documents were revealed, indicating that Hiss was indeed a Communist spy.

McCarthyism is an example of the unrealistic threat of Communist subversion within the US. From 1952 to 1954, McCarthy accused innocent people for supporting Communism, increasing the public's fear of Communist spies. But his charges were backed with no evidence, and he never made a solid case against anyone.

"Is it fair to say that the anxiety caused in the US due to nuclear threat, was useful and 'healthy'?" (security of the nation = health)

It is not fair to say that the anxiety caused by nuclear threat in the US was useful and "healthy". The Federal Civil Defense Administration was established to prepare civilians to survive nuclear attacks, but as the arms race continued, the FCDA's methods turned out to be useless and ineffective.

Sem2.HW4

2010-01-21T03:24:00.001-08:00

"How does the CIA's activities in Iran show that the US behaves undemocratically in its foreign policy?"

The CIA’s use of bribery and corruption in the 1950s is an example of the US behaving undemocratically in its foreign policy. Instead of respecting the Iranians’ support for Mossadeq, the CIA buys off influential Iranian officials, religious leaders, and local gangs to undermine Mossadeq’s support and his power.

In Eisenhower's "The Chance for Peace" speech, he states that "any nation's attempt to dictate to other nations their form of government is indefensible." But in 1953, the CIA overthrows Mossadeq, the popular prime minister, reinstating the Iranian monarch. This shows the US's undemocratic behavior in its foreign policy.

SAVAK, an Iranian secret police trained and equipped by the CIA, is an example of the US's undemocratic behavior in its foreign policy. SAVAK consolidated and enforced the shah's rule. Instead of replacing Mossadeq with a democracy, the US had brought a dictator, an undemocratic demonstration during the Cold War.

Sem2.HW3

2010-01-15T04:17:00.000-08:00

How convincing was America's attempts to influence other parts of the world to side with them in the Cold War?

US's attempt to use foreign aid to gain other nations' support in the Cold War, like in Nicaragua and Haiti, was ineffective. The US gave aid to anticommunist dictators which used it to consolidate their power, oppressing the people. This promoted resentment towards the US among citizens of those nations.

The US used radio broadcasts in Europe to gain people's support, but these attempts were unconvincing. The 1956 Hungarian revolt against the Soviets was inspired by US-sponsored Radio Free Europe broadcasts. Many Hungarians expected the US's help, but the US was "unwilling to risk war" over a satellite like Hungary.

The US's covert actions in Guatemala in 1954 were unconvincing attempts to gain the support of Third World Countries. With its own interests in mind, the US overthrew the elected Guatemalan president and replaced him with a repressive military dictator. This led many Latin Americans to resent the US.

How wise were America's decisions to produce advanced weapons during the Cold War's first 20 years?

The US's decisions to produce advanced weapons during the Cold War were not wise. In 1954, China shelled Quemoy and Matsu, and to protect its influence in Asia, the US threatened China with nuclear attacks. Mao backed down, but if China didn't, it would've triggered a nuclear war, affecting millions.

US's unwise decision to produce advanced weapons instigated the USSR to do the same, taking the two nations to the brink of nuclear war. The 1950 US National Security Policy in the Cold War even stated that "development of increasingly terrifying weapons of...destruction [poses] the...possibility of annihilation..."

The Role of Taiwan in the Early Cold War

2010-01-14T05:56:00.000-08:00

Where are the islands of Quemoy and Matsu?

These islands are off the coast of mainland China.

Who is CKS and why did he come to Taiwan?

Chiang Kai-Shek is the leader of the Nationalists (KMT) who fought against the Communists led by Mao Ze-Dong. CKS fled mainland China after Mao and his Communists took over the nation in October of 1949, and he ended up here, in Taiwan.

Was CKS's move to Taiwan a sign that he and the KMT had decided to give up the fight against Mao and the Communists?

Why does the US change its mind about defending Taiwan?

Why doesn't Mao finish the Chinese Civil War by invading Taiwan in 1950?

Mao does not invade Taiwan and completely destroy any possibility of Nationalist uprisings on the island because his first priority was "to assist the [North] Koreans". Perhaps Mao believed that the issue of Taiwan could be dealt with later, since it really is a tiny island.

In what ways can we say that smaller allies like China and Taiwan were able to make the superpowers (the US and USSR) do things they did not want to?

Both China and Taiwan, represented respectively by Mao and Chiang, were using islands such as Quemoy and Matsu to manipulate the actions of the US and the USSR. Chiang was able to obtain a defense treaty which "bound the US to the defense of Taiwan", and later on, force the US to threaten Mao with the use of nuclear weapons to protect the offshore islands.

Sem2.HW2

2010-01-13T01:45:00.000-08:00

Were the Methods the US used to contain the spread of Communism justified?

US's use of espionage to contain the spread of Communism is not justified. Instead of having official talks, the US resorted to spying, such as the U-2 incident in 1960, to gather information about the USSR to stop the spread of Soviet Communism. This method to contain Communism is unjustified.

US's political and economic isolation of China in 1950 to contain the spread of Communism is unjustified. The US saw China as wanting to spread Communism like the USSR, but China pursued its own interests and rejected Soviet control. This attempt to stop the spread of Communism is unjustified.

Sem2.HW1

2010-01-11T02:55:00.000-08:00

"Could the US and the USSR have avoided the Cold War?"

The Cold War could have been avoided if the Truman administration didn't purposefully establish the USSR as an immediate threat, as evident in the 'Long Telegram', which states "there can be no ... peaceful coexistence [between the US and USSR]." The tension between the two nations could have been resolved.

(from the Cold War Files, George Kennan's Long Telegram)

The Cold War could have been avoided if the US gave up its nuclear weapons, instead of keeping them. According to Soviet delegate Andrei Gromyko, the USSR was willing to negotiate about arms control if the US's atomic weapons were destroyed. The arms race could have been avoided.

If the USSR kept its 1942 agreement to withdraw from Iran in the first place without US's pressure, the Cold War could have been avoided. The US's fear that the USSR was trying to expand its control beyond Eastern Europe would have lessened and the tension resolved.

The Cold War could have been avoided if the US and Britain didn't merge their occupation zones in Germany. This led to the Berlin Blockade in 1948, a high point in the Cold War. If the occupation zones remained separate, the tension between the US and USSR would have lessened.

Rough Draft of the Mini-Investigation Paper

2009-11-08T02:47:00.000-08:00

Melissa Hwang

U.S. History F Block

Rough Draft of the Mini-Investigation Paper

A. Plan of the Investigation

· Topic of the investigation: Economic inequality during the Great Depression

· How did economic inequality during the Great Depression challenge African Americans’ views on civil rights?

· I chose to write about this topic because I was curious about how the African Americans held onto hope during the Great Depression when President Roosevelt did little to help them and the white Americans chose to discriminate against them.

· I defined the important terms and phrases in my question before I began working on my wish list. With my wish list complete, I did not begin searching for the information immediately but thought of the possible locations of where I would find the facts. I considered Questia, Google books, and other online databases which were reliable, but I ended up using Questia for most of the time. I searched mostly in books because authors would usually have more time to investigate and study a particular topic than those who write short articles.

B. Summary of Evidence

· 75% of the people applying for relief were unknown to relief agencies

· By 1932, black urban unemployment rate was over 50%, more than twice the rates of whites.

· “For black people, the New Deal was psychologically encouraging…but most blacks were ignored by the New Deal programs…Roosevelt, careful not to offend southern white politicians whose political support he needed, did not push a bill against lynching…And black workers were discriminated against in getting jobs. They were the last hired, the first fired.” (Zinn)

· “On March 19, 1935, even as the New Deal reforms were being passed, Harlem exploded…In the mid-thirties, a young black poet named Langston Hughes wrote a poem, “Let America Be America Again”.

· In northern cities, unemployment forced many black women to participate in the “slave market.” These women offered their services to white women, who drove up in their cars seeking domestic help.

· During the early years of the New Deal, African Americans constantly complained of their inability to secure relief.

C. Evaluation of Sources

To Make Our World Anew: A History of African Americans is one important source I used to investigate my topic and question. It was written by multiple authors, many of whom are history professors, and was published in 2000. The purpose of this book is to explore the history of African Americans and how their struggles to change their conditions affected our world.

With reference to the origin of this book, it is a valuable source because it provides more history and information than a primary document does of how the African Americans were treated during the Great Depression. The authors had more time to conduct a deeper research about the topic. Although time may offer objectivity, this book has a limitation, and that is, the authors are all African Americans. Since they were writing about their own race, it is possible that their work is not balanced. However, it could also mean that they might be able to feel some of the emotions and attitudes African Americans felt in the past.

With reference to the purpose of this source, it is valuable because in order to explain how African Americans changed our world, the authors have to provide readers with quotes or other forms of primary documents that represent the conditions of the African Americans back then. However, this source also has a limitation with reference to its purpose. Since only the history of African Americans was studied, the perspectives of other peoples were left out, and it is possible that inconvenient truths, or facts which the authors considered as not supporting the topic, may be left out.

D. Analysis

During the first few years of the Great Depression, with the economy plummeting, the first group of people to be laid off was the African Americans. They were always “the last hired, the first fired”. African American laborers experience difficulty in finding jobs, as white supremacy still dominated the society. To help support their family, African American women made sacrifices. They voluntarily participated in the “slave market”, offering their services to white women seeking domestic help. Some were paid as little as five dollars per week for full-time housekeeping. The work was difficult and tiring, and many detested it, as Millie Jones, a young black woman, expressed in a detailed description of her work for one family. But these women were willing to give up their freedom as long as they could earn the few dollars per week to scrape by. Economic inequality had driven some African Americans to such hopelessness that civil rights mattered no more.

In 1932, Franklin Roosevelt became the president and initiated the New Deal, a domestic program aimed to bring about economic relief during the Great Depression. The New Deal brought hope, but it benefitted only a portion of the peoples in the nation. Times were hard for the African Americans, and to them, the New Deal was merely psychologically encouraging. All federal relief was supposed to be “colorblind”, but African Americans repeatedly complained of their inability to acquire relief. Even in New York, about 75% of the African Americans applying for relief were unknown to relief agencies. This economic inequality was unfair, but they could do little about it. President Roosevelt refused to confront the problem of racial discrimination. In a sense, it seemed as if the civil rights of African Americans were non-existent. Some reacted with anger, such as the violence that broke out in Harlem on March 19^th, 1935, while others tried to express their desire to take back the freedoms that were rightfully theirs, as young Langston Hughes wrote in his poem, “Let American Be American Again”.

The facts in part B are not enough to provide a complete and final answer to my question because I need more of the actual views of the African Americans on civil rights during the Great Depression. I do not need the numerical information, but I need to know what the African Americans felt and thought.

Bibliography

Ferguson, Karen. Black Politics in New Deal Atlanta. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina, 2002. Print.

Bair, Barbara, et al. To Make Our World Anew: A History of African Americans. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Print.

Zinn, Howard. A People’s History of the United States. United States: HarperCollins, 2003. Print.

Goff, Brent, et al. History Alive! Pursuing American Ideals. United States: Teachers Curriculum Institute, 2008. Print.

Meltzer, Milton. A History in Their Own Words: The Black Americans. New York: HarperCollins, 1984. Print.

Wishlist and Suggested Location of Information

2009-11-04T01:11:00.000-08:00

Question: How did economic inequality during the Great Depression challenge the African American's view on civil rights?

Wishlist:

African American civil rights laws before and after 1929
Violence towards African Americans, such as lynchings, due to job competition that went unnoticed or were ignored during the Great Depression
Unemployment rates of African Americans before and after Great Depression (1928, 1933)
percentage of African Americans listed on government relief rolls (Roosevelt's New Deal) and the percentage of African Americans that actually benefited from these governmental relief programs
social discrimination in New Deal agencies (racial segregation)
average income of African Americans before and during Great Depression (1928, 1933)
African Americans who fought for their civil rights during the Great Depression but was oppressed by the white majority

Suggested Location of Information:

historian's purpose: to document African American civil rights movement before Martin Luther King Jr. (1900 to around 1960s)
limits: historian does not go in depth about how African American civil rights movement was affected by Great Depression
the information I am looking for should be in a book
historian's purpose: hate crimes committed from 1900 to 1950 (violence against African Americans)
limits: may not provide how other African Americans felt about these violent acts
the information I am looking for should be in a book
historian's purpose: to study unemployment rates before and during the Great Depression (History Alive! provides limited info on this topic)
limits: does not give info about how this affected African Americans' attitude or emotions about the hardships during the Great Depression
the info I am looking for should be in an article (economic or historical)
historian's purpose: the impact of the New Deal on African Americans(Roosevelt's actions to improve the economic situation)
limits: may include more info about the "success" of the New Deal
the information I am looking for should be in a book
historian's purpose: to explain how the New Deal attempted to resolve the financial crisis (ex. who the New Deal benefited, why, and how the New Deal actually helped people during the Great Depression)
limits: may focus on how New Deal affected the white majority
the information I am looking for should be in a book
historian's purpose: to show the standard of living of African Americans before and during Great Depression
limits: the historian should focus on the standard of living of African Americans as a whole
this piece of information should be in an article
historian's purpose: significant African Americans during the 1900s that fought for African American civil rights
limits: may be overly focused on the African American civil rights leaders in the mid-1900s (the time when Martin Luther King Jr. was around)
this piece of information should be in a book

32.2 Main Points

2009-10-27T05:04:00.000-07:00

The main points of section 2 of chapter 32:

During the Great Depression, unemployment rate rose rapidly, driving thousands of people into poverty.
Unemployment affected people from all classes, races, ages, and sexes both financially and mentally.

Comparison of 3 Sources (revised)

2009-10-22T22:13:00.000-07:00

There were three major social issues in the United Statesduring the 1920s. One of these issues concerned nativist organizations and the attacks on “non-white” groups. According to History Alive and Zinn, nativist organizations, such as the Ku Klux Klan, had growing political influence in the United States. By 1924, the membership of the KKK had reached four million, and politicians supported by the Klan were winning state legislatures in many states. Both sources also show that non-nativists faced “mob violence and race hatred everywhere”, as many “non-white” communities were terrorized by the KKK. Schweikart, however, has a different view. Although the nativists were attacking “non-white” immigrants, he claims that they were not a worry, since the "organization [KKK] had plummeted in membership since the 1920s".

Another post-WWI social issue in the United States was the “liberal” organizations which defended the “non-whites”. History Alive gives a balanced view point on this issue and thus, only provides enough information to verify that it agrees with it. Zinn and Schweikart both acknowledge that the liberal groups were active during this time period, but according to Zinn, liberal groups “seemed helpless” and ineffective against the strong discrimination towards “non-whites”. Organizations such as the NAACP could do very little for African Americans in the face of “the powerful white supremacy.” On the other hand, Schweikart spends time attacking the motives and characters of the liberals who supported and protected the rights of immigrants. Schweikart describes them as “…well-meaning whites…who practiced a quiet, and perhaps equally systematic, racism.”

The last social issue concerns the U.S. government. According to History Alive, the U.S. government took the side of the nativists, and Zinn seems to agree with this. This is evident in the Congress’ decision to pass immigration laws, such as the Immigration Act of 1924, which, according to Zinn, “put an end to the dangerous, turbulent flood of immigrants.” These laws favored Anglo-Saxons and attempted to keep out the “non-whites”. Zinn goes even further in stressing this point by providing specific quantitative data. Unlike History Alive and Zinn, Schweikart is silent on this issue. He neither agrees nor disagrees that the U.S. government was supporting the nativists in the 1920s.

Comparison of 3 Sources

2009-10-21T22:30:00.000-07:00

There were three major social issues in the United States during the 1920s. One of these issues concerned nativist organizations and the attacks on “non-white” groups. According to History Alive and Zinn, nativist organizations, such as the Ku Klux Klan, had growing political influence in the United States. By 1924, the membership of the KKK had reached four million, and politicians supported by the Klan were winning state legislatures in many states. Both sources also show that non-nativists faced “mob violence and race hatred everywhere”, as many “non-white” communities were terrorized by the KKK. Schweikart, however, has a different view. Although the nativists were attacking “non-white” immigrants, he claims that they were not a worry, since the "organization [KKK] had plummeted in membership since the 1920s".

Paper 1, Question # 2: Von Spiegel's Account vs. Zimmermann Telegram

2009-09-26T17:50:00.000-07:00

Sources A and B, von Spiegel's account and the Zimmerman Telegram, agree on the subject of the necessity of Germany's U-boat warfare. In Captain von Spiegel's journal entry, he specifically expresses his views towards war, stating that, "War is war, and every horse fewer on the Western front is a reduction of England's fighting power." The captain understands that despite the cruelty of sinking neutral merchant ships with innocent civilians on board, it cannot be helped. Von Spiegel has to sink those ships because he has the responsibility to help his country and his fellow countrymen who are fighting in the horrible trenches in Europe. The Zimmerman Telegram also conveys a similar message, that Germany is only committing to unrestricted submarine warfare because it is necessary and the nation has little choice. The Germans cannot fight Britain's blockade and prowess at sea if they do not engage in submarine warfare; it iss perhaps the most effective way of reducing Britain's advantage at sea. And, although there iss the danger of provoking the United States, Germany can only hope that Mexico will accept their offer detailed in the Zimmermann Telegram.

In contrast to Source A, von Spiegel's account, Source B, the Zimmerman Telegram, expresses a different purpose for submarine warfare. According to the telegram, Germany uses submarine warfare because they do not want the balance of power to change in favor of the Allied powers; the Germans wish to keep the United States neutral and out of the war. This is stated specifically in the Zimmerman note: "We [the Germans] shall endeavor...to keep the United States of American neutral." Captain von Spiegel does not bring up anything about the U.S. in his journal entry but seems to be exceedingly honest and open about his infatuation towards beautiful horses. Also, unlike the Zimmerman telegram, von Spiegel's account emphasizes the reduction of "England's fighting power" on the Western front to protect Germany and her people.

Source A disagrees with Source B in the way that von Spiegel's account shows the humanity and compassion in the Germans. Not only does Captain von Spiegel show remorse for the lives he takes when he bombs the passenger ship, but he cannot bear to watch all the men, women, and animals scrambling about, terrified, knowing that their ship is sinking and death is just around the corner. As recorded in his journal, "At that point I could not bear the sight any longer, and I lowered the periscope and dived deep." However, the Zimmerman Telegram shows the Germans as impersonal and calculating. No where in the telegram mentions the casualties that unrestricted submarine warfare will cause, the civilians that will die. The Germans seem to be only worried about the possibility of the United States entering the Great War and the impact it will make.

Chapter 23 sections 1 - 3 HW

2009-09-25T04:23:00.000-07:00

How did the Great War change American (USA) internally?

As the textbook mentions, the Great War was a war of firsts for United States. Before the war, the U.S. military was composed of about 200,000 volunteers soldiers with low pay, few equipment, and little experience in combat. When it was certain that the United States was entering the war, the military needed more troops. As a result, Congress passed the Selective Service Act in May 1917, requiring all men from 21 to 30 years of age to register for military service. Also, prior to the war, the U.S. government had upheld the policy of avoiding "entangling alliances" in Europe. However, with President Wilson and General Pershing's decision to let the AEF remain separate from the rest of the Allied armies, the U.S. illustrated its desire to play a greater role in the peacemaking process after the war. This desire might have originated from the nation's interest in enhancing their political, and perhaps economic, influence on the European participants of the war.

Not only did the Great War change American internally in a political and militaristic way, but it also slightly affected how the normal citizens of the U.S. perceived the African Americans. When U.S. first joined the war, African American troops were kept segregated in the military and no blacks had the opportunity to receive an officer training. However, people in the U.S. began to publically protest against this. To the African Americans, this was a significant step towards racial equality.

How did the Great War change the way war was fought, in general?

Before, wars were personal. Combatants physically faced off against their enemies with rifles or handguns, but the Great War changed the way war was fought, making it increasingly impersonal and deadly. Soldiers were able to kill without having to even see the enemy's face. The invention of machine guns, large cannons, and improved flame throwers introduced a new type of combat called trench warfare. Soldiers could no longer charge across open fields because machines guns could easily mow them all down. In addition, with the invention of machine-gun firing airplanes and German zeppelins, the sky became a new battlefield for the Allied and Central powers.

Compare and contrast the views about submarine warfare expressed in the Zimmermann Telegram and the graph on pg. 286

2009-09-24T05:10:00.000-07:00

The Zimmermann Note and the graph on page 286 both illustrate Germany's desperation to keep United States out of the Great War as a result of submarine warfare. Germany understood that if such a powerful and industrialized nation joined the war on the side of the Allies, the chance of the Allied powers winning would increase dramatically. However, Germany was at a disadvantage against the British at sea, so the nation's only option was to rely on submarine warfare. This act shows how desperate Germany, supposedly the most powerful European nation at that time, actually was. Although the nation itself was suffering from the lack of trade due to Britain's blockade, Germany went so far as to offer Mexico financial support and supplies in exchange for their alliance. Essentially, Germany made Mexico a hollow promise. Also, according to the graph, between 1914 and 1916, trade between Germany and the United States drastically decreased, while United States' trade with the Allies skyrocketed. With the U.S. supplying weapons, bullets, and other necessities to the Allies, Germany had no choice but to turn to submarine warfare.

Importance and Authenticity of the Zimmermann Note

2009-09-22T02:20:00.000-07:00

The Zimmermann Note was a coded telegram sent by the German foreign minister Arthur Zimmermann to the German minister in Mexico proposing that if the U.S. entered the war, Mexico and Germany should become allies, and Germany would then help Mexico regain their lost territory in the U.S. The "lost territory" includes New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona. Anti-German feelings quickly arose among the American people This note is very important because it influenced the United States to declare war on Germany several weeks later.

The coded telegram, consisting of seemingly random series of numbers, was deciphered by British cryptographers. The British did not release the note to the United States immediately after it was de-coded; the British waited until the relationship between Germany and the United States was at an all-time low to release the telegram to American newspapers.

I can't help wondering did the British make a mistake during the deciphering process? And how long did it take them to decode the whole note? Was their interpretation accurate?

History Alive's View on United States' Decision to Enter the Great War

2009-09-22T01:04:00.001-07:00

History Alive! provides the basic reasons behind United States' decision to enter the Great War. United States was propelled to join the Allied Powers because of Germany's continuous attacks on neutral merchant ships with Americans on board (Germany's unrestricted submarine warfare), Britain's successful use of propaganda, such as the Bryce commission's report, and the Zimmerman note. The majority of Americans supported President Wilson's decision to take action against the Central Powers, specifically Germany, but some said that the United States was "going to war for economic reasons only."

Although the text does not clearly state whether or not it supports the United States' decision, it seems as if History Alive! suggests that the decision is understandable and perhaps, good.