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.

Keegan; America and Armegeddon

Having read pages 372-414 from John Keegan's masterpiece The First World War, our goal is ultimately to establish a firm understanding of WHY/HOW the Allies were victorious in 1918. We know supplies were short and that the addition of the US meant that the Allies could sustain heavy losses and replace those losses but Germany could not, and that ultimately, this is why the Allies won. Let us now look deeper.

It is time for hypotheticals. Why, you might ask, would we discuss what did not happen if it indeed never happened? Good question! Our goal is to establish the importance of all the factors which contributed to theAllied victory, and determine their importance. For example, we often criticize the Germans for their mistakes (strategic, unrestricted submarine warfare, etc), but did they really matter? Or, was the outcome inevitable given the superiority of Allied supplies? If it doesn't matter, then why criticize them in the first place? If it does matter, than that criticism is very important. Make sense? So here is today's question; Could Germany have won World War I? If so, how? If not, why not? Be specific with references to the reading wherever possible, support your perspective with sound logic, and have fun!

Lastly, our previous posts and comments regarding land, sea, and homeland were excellent. Go back to your post, read the comment(s), add a comment explaining your current thinking, and then read and comment on at least three other blog posts.

The Fighters, the Strategy, or the People?

Based on the reading and your understanding of WWI at this point, which factor do you feel was the most significant in contributing to victory for the Allied Powers and defeat for the Central Powers: the war on land, the war at sea, or the war at home? The war on land refers to the actual fighting on the ground, the trench warfare, the majority of the fighting of WWI took place on land. The war at sea refers to naval strategies of both alliances, and in a war of attrition, this played a vital role. The war at home refers to the home front, contributions made by citizens as well as popular support for (or oppostition to) the war.

First, add a comment which provides your response to either the above question or to the posted comments.

Next, create a post using any of your questions posed on the homework (Gilbert 80-98).

Lastly, comment on/answer the questions of 3 of your classmates. Let me know in class if you are having difficulty posting comments.

Whose story of WWI? His story? Her story? No, historiography of WWI!

Having examined the main arguments of revisionist historian Sidney Bradshaw Fay and anti-revisionist historian Fritz Fischer, now it is time to formulate your own perspective. Is Germany primarily responsible for plunging the world into an horrific world war? Were they equally responsible but not primarily responsible? Or were they dragged into the war as a result of their alliance with Austria-Hungary? The facts agree, but the perspectives do not. Which perspective do you feel has more merit?

On your blog, create a post in response to the above questions. Be objective and balanced in explaining your perspective, meaning that you should not only explain why you agree with Fay or Fischer but also explain why you disagree with Fay or Fischer. Use their words and arguments as well as factual information to show how you have formed your own viewpoint, as your post should reflect an understanding of the opposing perspectives. Then, read and comment on at least 3 other blog posts. I am looking forward to reading your blogs!

Assignment

To prepare for tomorrow's discussion, you need to post a comment which relates to my post below titled "War is Outdated" (If it is not shown, click on "September" under "Blog Archive"). It can be a response to my post or it can be a response to a comment on that post. Second, you need to post on your blog a question, answer, or thought in reaction to the 4 major discussion questions listed here:
1. What force(s) is(are) driving the MAIN (Militarism, Alliances, Imperialism, Nationalism) causes of     WWI?
2. Why did Norman Angell's argument prove to be incorrect?
3. Assess the importance of the Agadir Crisis and the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
4. Why wasn't WWI prevented?
Lastly, read the blog posts of your classmates and comment on their thoughts or answer their question.

If you accomplish the above, tomorrow should be an incredible discussion in which all of you have answers to the questions and will have much to say. I am looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

War is Outdated

Norman Angell claimed in 1910 that a European war would be avoided because no nation would have anything to gain and everything to lose. It makes logical sense. I have always thought that there would be no World War III for the same reason; everyone would lose. When you closely examine the events leading up to World War I, you see that most political leaders believed that a world-wide war would not benefit their respective countries or empires. So why did war occur over an issue of relatively minor importance?

World War I was an entirely irrational war. It makes no sense. This got me to thinking; in the 20th and 21st century, are any wars "rational" or "logical". I would say "no". Wars of the past century as well as wars of the present are no longer rational, they are no longer in anyone's best interest. Do we fight wars today for resources? If so, is war the only, or the most effective, means of acquiring resources? It seems that too many resources are used for war and for militarism, which generates problems rather than solutions. A more rational approach seems to be one that considers that the entire planet will have to deal with the same issues of scarcity of food, water, as well as dwindling sources of energy, not to mention environmental decay.  If we all have these same basic challenges, it would benefit everyone to try to work together to solve them through trade and technological innovation. This may sound completely unrealistic, I know, but it is definitely rational and logical.

Review help...

If at any point there is something that you are having difficulty with, just post a comment and I will try to help. Any questions, information, confusion - I am happy to clarify.

Harry, Joseph, Dwight and Nikita

As we continue our study of the Cold War, we will be moving beyond the policies of Truman and Stalin and on to the policies of Eisenhower and Khrushchev. Please read below and comment to answer the 3 questions to the best of your ability.

Eisenhower extended Truman's policy of containment, particularly to the Middle East with the Eisenhower Doctrine. In this sense, Truman and Eisenhower were in agreement over foreign policy goals. Their methods, however, were largely different. Truman de-emphasized the use of atomic weapons in order to enforce containment and instead relied heavily on the use of conventional military force. Eisenhower viewed this as too costly and too timid, so he utilized the policy of massive retaliation. In your opinion, based on the short-term and long-term interests of the United States, which president had the better policy?

Stalin supported an expansionist foreign policy as a means of protecting the USSR from foreign invasion, but did so in a confrontational and forceful way. He provoked anti-Western attitudes in order to generate hostility and thus weaken the West, and was used to use brutality in crushing any opposition. Khrushchev's policy of peaceful coexistence encouraged non-aggressive competition between the two systems, and he believed that this competition would result in the spread of communism without generating conflict. His break from Stalin, however, gave the Soviet satellite states the impression that they could break away from Soviet control and resulted in a number of Soviet crackdowns, particularly in Eastern Europe. In your opinion but based on the short-term and long-term interests of the Soviet Union, which leader had the better policy?

Historians are divided over this next question, but give it your best shot. Did Khrushchev's policy of peaceful coexistence help reduce or expand the tensions of the Cold War?

Ice, Ice, Baby!

   With everything you have read and as we talk about the origins of the Cold War, I want to spend some time developing our understanding so we can begin to formulate our own perspectives. We will begin this process by identifying what you believe, at this point, to be the primary social, political, and economic causes of the Cold War. Second, in your view, is there a primary cause? If so, what is it? If not, why not? Third, is either the USSR to blame, the US to blame, both to blame, or is nobody to blame for causing the Cold War?

Since you may be thinking about this for the first time, your opinions may be subject to change over time, and that is okay. If your opinion does not change, that is fine as well. As long as your perspective is based on sound logic and fact, this is a success. To help facilitate this process, review and comment on a minimum of 3 of your classmates posts. This should help you question your own perspective and form a better, more conclusive understanding. I am genuinely looking forward to reading what you have to say!

Emperor Without His Clothes

After reading Bullock, pages 448-461, 3 of you will pose a question or provide your perspective or thoughts by Saturday at 5pm. The rest of the class will comment on each of the three posts by Tuesday.
Ben - post based on reading pages 448-452
Melissa - post based on reading pages 453-457
AJ - post based on reading pages 458-461

See you Tuesday!

"We have only to kick in the door"

For the Bullock reading, pages 381-400:
Abby - question/comment/thoughts on Germany vs. Russia
Alysa - question/comment/thoughts on "Monroe Doctrine for Europe" and the "European New Order"
Lauren - question/comment/thoughts on Hitler's war time leadership abilities or decisions

For the rest of the class, please comment on each of the above blogs. Thanks!

"How Many Died? Who Knows the Number?"

Once again, complete the Gilbert reading pages 301-319 and comment on/question/answer the follwing 3 questions: (1) Why did the Germans invest so much time and resources into rocket and jet technology? (2) Which was Hitler's priority in WWII: restoring German greatness, elimination of Europe's Jewish population, making a name for himself, or other? (3) Was the US decision (here you go Kaylan!) to drop the atomic bombs on Japan a justified military necessity?

"You Can't Smash Terror by Philosophizing"

As before, please read Gilbert 281-301 and comment/question/ or pose a thought in response to the following questions: (1) Is there really such thing as "war crimes"? If so, who determines guilt, and who determines what is a crime? (2) What would you identify as the official turning point of WWII and why? (3) Given the devastation suffered by the Russians during World War II, what would be their priorities after the eventual defeat of Germany in establishing a post-war settlement with the U.S. and Britain?

A Totally Total War

Read Gilbert 265-280 and respond to/question/or comment on the following 3 questions: (1) We know a lot about Hitler, but less about Stalin. Based on the reading, what do we know about Stalin and/or the intentions of the USSR? (2) World War II was entirely brutal, but the Eastern front was particularly horrific. Why? (3) Were both World Wars considered "total wars"? Please explain your reasoning.

Here we go again with another war!

Please comment on each of the following questions based on your reading of Goff 255-275. You can either answer my questions, respond to the comments of others, or ask a related question, but please comment in some form on each of the three. Do your best!

First, Hitler knew that a 2-front war should be avoided at all costs so he established the Nazi-Soviet Pact, guaranteeing that the USSR does not get involved. Why did he get attack the USSR, and should this be considered the turning point in the war? Second, would the US have entered WWII if there were no war in the Pacific (i.e. no attack on Pearl Harbor) Third, how had war "evolved" between WWI and WWII and what were the results?