Wishlist/Location of Info

How did the financial and psychological effects of the Great Depression affect the working and lower classes' ability to effectively participate in a democracy?

Wishlist:

• Voter turnout during the 1928, 1932, and 1936 elections
• Percentage of children who attended school in the mid/late 1920s compared to the percentage who attended during the great depression
• Accounts of working/lower class people who lost faith in the government and democracy

Location of Information

• A historian most probably would have studied this already. Their purpose would have been to study how the GD affected how people voted. Time frame is 1920s-2930s. The information would be found in encyclopedias or history textbooks.
  
• The historian's purpose of writing about this was to see the effects the GD had on the education during that time. This information would be found in articles or short essays as it is quite a narrow topic.
  
• The historians purpose would have been to give the reader insight into the attitudes of the common person during the GD, and possibly go against the governments efforts. This information would probably be found in Zinn's book.

essay question

How did the financial and psychological effects of the Great Depression affect the working and lower classes' ability to effectively participate in a democracy?

Main Points of 32.2

-During the Depression, the rising unemployment rate badly affected Americans of all races and both genders
-Farmers, who were already in economic troubles before the Depression, were hit especially hard by the Depression
-Financial troubles caused psychological stress for many people, and made it hard for families to stick together
Basically, this section describes the detrimental effects that the Great Depression had on American Citizens.

HA/Zinn/Schweikart rewrite

History Alive shows that Nativists are banding together and attacking people of non-Anglo-Saxon heritage, and Zinn generally agrees. History Alive states that the “rising tide of immigrants triggered a resurgence of nativism along with calls for immigration restriction”, and Zinn writes that "Ku Klux Klan was revived in the 1920s, and it spread into the North. By 1924 it had 4M million members.” However, Schweikart significantly downplays the effect that these nativist groups had on immigrants. He writes that the KKK "had plummeted in membership since the 1920s", showing us that the KKK were not as worrisome as they appeared to be.

History Alive, Zinn, and Schweikart all agree that Liberals organized and took action to counter the nativist groups and defend non-white groups. HA mentions the formation of the ACLU, who “specialized in the defense of unpopular individuals and groups, including Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti.” However, Zinn believes that the Liberal groups formed during this time were not very effective. He writes that liberal organizations like the NAACP "seemed helpless in the face of mob violence and race hatred everywhere." Schweikart's view differs as well; he believes Liberals took actions, but questions their inner motives and integrity. He writes that "those northern white elites would enthusiastically and aggressively support the fight for civil rights in the South while carefully segregating their own children at all-white private schools.

Both History Alive and Zinn show us that the US government took the side of the nativists by passing laws that significantly reduced the number of immigrants allowed into the United States. HA tells us that “Congress responded to anti-immigrant pressure by passing the Emergency Immigration Act of 1921,” and “three years later… the Immigration Act of 1924”, which both restricted the total amount of immigrants allowed in the US per year. Zinn writes, “Congress, in the twenties, put an end to the dangerous, turbulent flood of immigrants… by passing laws setting immigration quotas.” However, Schweikart stays silent on the issue of government support of the nativists.

HA/Zinn/Schweikart

History Alive shows that Nativists are banding together and attacking people of non-Anglo-Saxon heritage, and Zinn generally agrees. History Alive states that the “rising tide of immigrants triggered a resurgence of nativism along with calls for immigration restriction”, and Zinn writes about the revival of the KKK in the 1920s, and how “The NAACP seemed helpless in the face of mob violence and race hatred everywhere.” However, Schweikart significantly downplays the effect that these nativist groups had on immigrants. He writes that the KKK "had plummeted in membership since the 1920s", showing us that the KKK were not as worrisome as they appeared to be.

History Alive, Zinn, and Schweikart all agree that Liberals organized and took action to counter the nativist groups and defend non-white groups. HA mentions the formation of the ACLU, who “specialized in the defense of unpopular individuals and groups, including Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti.” However, Zinn believes that the Liberal groups formed during this time were not very effective. He talks about the nationalist movement led by Marcus Garvey which “preached black pride, racial separation…” but ultimately, “could not make much headway against the powerful white supremacy currents of the postwar decade.” Schweikart view differs as well; he believes Liberals took actions, but questions their inner motives and integrity. He writes that "those northern white elites would enthusiastically and aggressively support the fight for civil rights in the South while carefully segregating their own children at all-white private schools.

Both History Alive and Zinn show us that the US government took the side of the nativists by passing laws that significantly reduced the number of immigrants allowed into the United States. HA tells us that “Congress responded to anti-immigrant pressure by passing the Emergency Immigration Act of 1921,” and “three years later… the Immigration Act of 1924”, which both restricted the total amount of immigrants allowed in the US per year. Zinn writes, “Congress, in the twenties, put an end to the dangerous, turbulent flood of immigrants… by passing laws setting immigration quotas.” However, Schweikart stays silent on the issue of government support of the nativists.

P1, Q2 Rewrite

Both Von Spiegel's account and the Zimmerman Telegram show that in regards to U-boat warfare, the Germans wanted to inflict the least amount of damage possible, and only engaged in it because they had no choice. When seeing an enemy ship, Von Spiegel expressed regret about having to blow it up, saying, "What a pity... but it cannot be helped, war is war.” The Zimmerman Telegram expressed a similar sentiment, stating "the ruthless employment of our submarines now offers the prospect of compelling England in a few months to make peace."

The Zimmerman Telegram and Von Spiegel’s account differ in that the content in the Zimmerman Telegram focuses directly on how submarine warfare affected the US, while Von Spiegel’s account does not mention the US at all, but instead talks about the British. Germany needed to utilize submarine warfare to prevent supplies from reaching British troops. The telegram stated that "We shall endeavor in spite of this to keep the United States of America neutral" and continued with a proposal to Mexico that would be detrimental to the US if they were to join the war. However, Von Spiegel's account focuses entirely on Germany’s submarine warfare against the British, saying that “…every horse the fewer on the Western Front is a reduction of England’s fighting power.”

Von Spiegel's account is very detailed and personal; he writes about his own opinions and observations, such as his view about the horses on board the enemy ship; "Oh heavens, horses! What a pity, those lovely beasts!" He also describes the actual battle that takes place, writing about the explosion as well as the enemy crew members he could see that "rushed, ran, screamed for boats..." The Zimmerman Telegram however, is written in a formal, detached way. It speaks plainly about "reconquer(ing) the lost territory in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona" with the Mexicans, which is something that if carried out, would have inevitably caused a lot of conflict and bloodshed. Compared to Von Spiegel's account, the Zimmerman Telegram comes off as cold and calculating.

P1, Q2 - Style Response

Question: Compare and contrast the views expressed about submarine warfare in source A and source B.
Source A: Von Speigel's Account
Source B: Zimmerman Telegram

Both Von Spiegel's account and the Zimmerman Telegram show that in regards to U-boat warfare, the Germans wanted to inflict the least amount of damage possible, and only engaged in it because they had no choice. When seeing an enemy ship, Von Spiegel expressed regret about having to blow it up, saying, "What a pity... but it cannot be helped, war is war, and every horse the fewer on the Western front is a reduction of England's fighting power." The Zimmerman Telegram expressed a similar sentiment, stating "the ruthless employment of our submarines now offers the prospect of compelling England in a few months to make peace."

In the Zimmerman Telegram, alot of the content focused on how submarine warfare affected the US. Germany needed to utilize submarine warfare to prevent supplies from reaching British troops. The telegram stated that "We shall endeavor in spite of this to keep the United States of America neutral" and continued with a proposal to Mexico that would be detrimental to the US if they were to join the war. However, Von Spiegel's account makes no mention of the US whatsoever, and instead only mentions the British very briefly.

Von Spiegel's account is very detailed and personal; he writes about his own opinions and observations, such as his view about the horses on board the enemy ship; "Oh heavens, horses! What a pity, those lovely beasts!" He also describes the actual battle that takes place, writing about the explosion as well as the enemy crew members he could see that "rushed, ran, screamed for boats..." The Zimmerman Telegram however, is written in a formal, detached way. It speaks plainly about "reconquer(ing) the lost territory in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona" with the Mexicans, which is something that if carried out, would have inevitably caused a lot of conflict and bloodshed. Compared to Von Spiegel's account, the Zimmerman Telegram comes off as cold and calculating.

The Great War

How did the Great War change America (USA) internally?
It was during the Great War that the US first agreed to send soldiers to fight in a far-away war. In May 1917 Congress passed the Selective Service Act, which was a national draft that required all men aged 21-30 to join the army. A major propaganda campaign was initiated in order to encourage citizens to comply with the draft. It was considered a success, with around 10 million people registering with the army. Also during the war, 400,000 African-Americans joined the army. At first they were barred from becoming officers but later a separate camp was set up in order to train them as officers. The 369th Regiment, which consisted of black men, was highly praised by the French army, and were awarded with highest military honors.
This shows that the Great War was the first time the US participated in a major international conflict, and also helped African Americans gain more respect.

How did the Great War change the way war was fought, in general?
New advancements in technology led to the Great War being fought in a drastically different way than before. One of the biggest changes was the decrease in face-to-face and hand-to-hand combat, caused in most part by the development of machine guns, howitzers, and tanks. Machine guns in particular had a major impact on military strategy. Armies that attacked their enemies head on were now at a huge disadvantage, since machine guns could inflict a lot of casualties. Also, improved cannons like howitzers now had a farther range, were more accurate, and more dangerous as they could be loaded with poison gas.
Because of these developments, soldiers could no longer charge against each other on the battlefield, unless they wanted to be killed instantly. Instead they dug trenches, which led to a new kind of warfare called trench warfare. In between the two sides' trenches was usually a stretch of land called no-man's-land, which proved impossible to cross, and thus caused a long stalemate. The Great War also saw the beginning of the use of airplanes in the war. Germans used large airships called Zeppelins, and the British developed fighter planes. In eventual wars planes would play even greater roles.

Compare and Contrast

The Zimmerman Note and the graph both show Germany's desperation during the Great War. In the Zimmerman Note, Germany proposes that Mexico should ally with them in exchange for money and supplies. In reality, Germany was being blockaded at the time by the British, so there was no way this would have been possible. In the graph, German desperation is also shown because US exports to the Central Powers, which was already low to begin with, decreased even more from 1914-1916. This along with the British blockade further weakened Germany. In both these instances, they turned to unrestricted submarine warfare as a last resort.

Zimmerman Telegram

In 1917, a note in code, written by German Minister Arthur Zimmerman and sent to Mexico, was discovered by the British. The note suggested that if the US were to enter the Great War, Germany and Mexico should become allies, and Germany would help them regain lost territory in New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona. Predictably, this discovery created even more anti-German feelings. Previous incidents such as Germany's use of unrestricted submarine warfare had already stirred the American public, and the Zimmerman note probably pushed these anti-German feelings over the tipping point, and therefore became one of the reasons why the US declared war.

HA!'s views as to whether or not the US should have entered the Great War.

History Alive generally agrees with the decision for the US to enter the Great War. It presents the idea that neutrality was good in theory but practically it was not so. One-third of Americans at the time (around 32 million) were either foreign-born or children of foreign-born parents. They found it hard to remain neutral as they still had close ties with their homelands. German and Austrian Americans were sympathetic to the Central Powers while others favored the Allies because of similar ancestry, language, and democratic ideas. Remaining neutral also became difficult when the Germans began attacking boats that had American citizens on them. Their use of unrestricted submarine warfare resulted in forced promises such as the Sussex Pledge, which they broke. Another reason as to why the US entered the war was to end the stalemate that had occurred in Europe. The Zimmerman Note (a telegram from Germany to Mexico that said if the US entered the war, Germany and Mexico should become allies) also pressured Congress to go to war.