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.
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.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing such valuable information.Keep posting such great info for us thanks
ReplyDelete