Sem2.HW1

“could the US and the Soviet Union have avoided the Cold War?”

The cold war could have been avoided if Kennen had not sent the Long Telegram that put the USSR in a threatening and bad light. It fueled the uneasiness that US leaders already had

about the spread of Communism in Eastern Europe.

In 1946, the US conducted tests of two atomic bombs at Bikini Atoll. Had they taken steps to disarm after Hiroshima and Nagasaki instead of continued testing, the USSR would not have felt threatened and the arms race could have been avoided.

In 1946, the USSR refused to withdraw troops from Northern Iran, thus breaking an agreement made with Britain stating that both countries would withdraw within six months of the war’s end. Had they followed through with the agreement, tensions wouldn't have risen and the cold war could have been avoided.

Scholars debate that both sides didn't fully understand the motives and aims of the other. The US saw the USSR's actions as threatening democracy, while the USSR wanted to improve security. If they had communicated more openly and clearly, they could have resolved their problems.

The cold war could have been prevented if the Truman Administration hadn't "worked to create an atmosphere of crisis" (Zinn 1), with the goal of continuing the successful war-economy in the US. If the government hadn't actively made the USSR look like the enemy, the cold war could have been avoided.

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.