The Evolution of your Thoughts

(1) Read the comments on your previous post. (2) Read the posts and comments on three classmates assigned to you. (3) Read or review your original index card, your class notes and homrwork, consider Kennan, Stalin's Election Speech and the Iron Curtain Speech, and think about the origins of the Cold War. (4) Create a new post which explains your progression of thinking: what you originally knew and believed, what insight or information has caused you to modify your thinking, and what you are currently thinking.

For those of you who are thinking, "I haven't changed my mind", that is okay. Still, your thinking must have evolved over the past few weeks.  If you haven't changed your mind, your reasoning must have been strengthened. Explain this process.

I am genuinely looking forward to reading your posts and comments.

Owning your thoughts...

First, create a blog post which explains why the Cold War occurred. Before you do this, consider that your response is something that belongs to you, something that you believe in, something that you will defend until you hear something that causes you to reconsider. This new reconsideration will then become your thoughts, that once again belong to you, and only you. You may find people that agree with you, and that you have the same thoughts as others, but your own personal thoughts and viewpoints are still your own. This is what (I think) it means to be a thinker; you are strong in your convictions yet open-minded, knowing that open-mindedness is the surest way to strengthen your convictions. Before you create a blog post, ask yourself if you actually believe what you are writing, if you do not, or only partially, then stop to revise your thoughts. Synthesize all of the arguments presented in class, draw your own conclusion. Do not treat the notes from yesterday like a shopping list, deciding which one(s) is(are) most easily supported. Combine and revise them as necessary, eliminating redundancies, so that as you read your post you honestly feel like you own something, your thoughts.

Then, comment on a minimum of 3other blog posts, or as many as you are willing. How do these posts compare with yours? Have they thought of something that you did not consider, and does this make your own blog post incomplete or inaccurate? Or are they posting something that you consider to be incorrect, faulty logic, or only partially correct? Be polite, since you are commenting to help them and yourself, not to disparage them.

Finally, go back to your own blog, having read the posts and comments of your classmates, and add a comment to your own blog, either modifying your original thoughts or justifying why you cannot modify your original thoughts. Please, please, please; don't just write it, believe it.

Your Views on the Historiography of the Causes of World War II

Listed below are 3 major areas of dispute held by historians regarding the causes of World War II. As you plan for your test, this historiographical overview will help you take your thinking a little deeper. Create a comment on this post which assesses what you believe to be the most significant area (Hitler, Appeasement, or the USSR), and then explain which side you agree with most closely. This should help you to form your perspective for the essay questions. If you have time, look at our previous posts, read and respond to comments on your blog, and add comments on the blogs of your classmates. It will help you and them! Lastly, this blog is focused on the war in Europe. Most of you stated that a war between the US and Japan was likely regardless of Europe, so in preparing for your test, do not neglect the power struggle (for economic benefits and military security) between the US and Japan over control of the Pacific.

The Hitler Factor:
Was World War II caused by Hitler's aggression? (Orthodox View)
Was World War II caused by political, social, and economic events that were manipulated by Hitler to create an opportunity for war? (Revisionist)

The Appeasement/Chamberlain Factor:
Was World War II caused by Chamberlain's policy of appeasement (ceding Austria and Czechoslovakia to Hitler)? (Orthodox View)
Was World War II caused by political, social, and economic events that caused Chamberlain to follow policies of appeasement (and France, as well as US isolation, for that matter)(Revisionist)

The Soviet Union Factor:
World War II was caused by Stalin's willingness to agree to a Nazi-Soviet Pact which gave Hitler the timetable necessary to conquer Europe, helping solve a key weakness of the Schlieffen Plan. (US/German View)
World War II was caused by the need for collective security, as Stalin signed the Nazi-Soviet Pact in response to French and British appeasement policies which showed the West was tolerant of Hitler as long as it contained communism and only threatened the East, thus the USSR could not rely on it's WWI allies France and Britain. As a result, it was better to establish friendly nations with the odd-man out: Germany. (Collective Security View)

Thanks to http://www.macgregorishistory.com/ for this condensed historiography!

A Real Pain in the Axis

Read below to create a post, then create 2 comments on topics other than your own.

Churchill opposed the Munich Agreement in 1938 and described Nazi Germany as having "the spirit of aggression and conquest, which derives strength and perverted pleaseure from persecution, and uses, as we have seen, with pitiless brutality the threat of murderous force. That power connot be the trusted friend of the British democracy."

Kevin B, Brianna, Steve, Perri, Abby -  Create a blog post which assesses this quote. Consider British control of and atrocities in India, and elsewhere, consider US control of and atrocities in the Philippines and interventions in Latin America and consider French control of Germany territory acquired at the Paris Peace Conference. Admittely, the Nazis, Italians, and Japanese pursued terrible policies of agression, but weren't they only catching up to the other world powers of the world?

Kevin H, Rebecca, Billy, Nicole, Liz - Create a blog post which answers the following question; What matters most - intentions or results? The world did not act to prevent genocide or atrocities in Europe and in China, rather, they acted in response to uncontrolled Nazi aggression, but in doing so, defeated the Nazis and Japanese and thus put a stop to genocide and the murder of millions of innocent Chinese. When determing your perspective on the causes of World War II, was the moral disregard of the atrocities worthy of shame, or is this forgiven in light of the results of our actions? Applying this universally, do you judge our actions today by our intentions or our results? Give examples

Rory, Hannah, Emma, Josh, Travis - Create a blog post which answers the following question; Would a war between the US and Japan be likely to have broken out, even without the events of Europe? What were Japan's long-term goals, what were the long-term goals of the US, and how did this generate conflict? Was Japan really being aggressive in the Pacific, or merely acting defensively to protect against the dominant American presence in the region? Lastly, and this is a tough one, would it be in a nation's own best interest to act not in their own national self-interest but in terms of what is best for the global population? Explain with evidence. 

False assumptions, national self-interest, and short-term solutions

According to Steve, Josh, and Kevin B, these were the fundamental reasons for the failure of post-war peacemakers. It was the false assumption upon which everything was based, endorsed by the historians and experts of the time, that Germany was completely to blame for the war. If you kept Germany down, conventional wisdom dictated, future wars would be avoided. (So ignorance of objective history contributes to the outbreak of wars; beat that one science and math!) National self-interests were placed ahead of world peace, nations refused to stand up to Hitler before he was too strong to be stopped. Further, nations opposed imperialism and supported national self-determination, but only when it meant rivals (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire) would lose colonies or be dissolved, and as a result, imperialism and militarism continued. Lastly, short-term solutions, like crushing Germany at the Treaty of Versailles. This was pursued largely out of revenge and thus greatly contributing to the rise of Germany once again.

On your blog, identify a current issue/policy/situation in which you feel the world or a nation is tackling a problem based on either false-assumptions, national self-interest over global security, and/or short-term solutions. What do you think will be the result of such mistakes? Lastly, what do you think is the "true" assumption, the global interest, or the long-term solution? You are not limited to the topic of peacemaking.

When complete, comment on a minimum of 3 other blogs. I look forward to reading your posts and comments! This will serve as the basis for our discussion on Monday.