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!