Answer Questions~

2. On p. 325, answer question 3 

 - Cold War: a conflict and fight between two countries, in this case it was between the 

Soviet Union and the United States. It is the opposite of a hot war.

3.  On p. 327, answer question 2 

 - In my opinion I think the 'Freedom from want...' is the one the Soviet Union believed

in the most because they didn't want the war being an open thing because they didn't 

want to frighten their people nor did they want to become a communist country.  

4.  On p. 329, answer questions 2 and 3 

 -I think one of the biggest issues for the Marshall Aid to tackle would be having no 

shelter and being homeless because the images shown in the bubbles show a family 

with bags on there backs and they're outside with nothing else but each other. Along with

that is an image with people going to a shelter which is also showing the poverty and 

how people have no where to stay because of money issues and having no jobs.  

5.  On p. 330, answer questions 2 and 3

 - In the image on page 330, there is one with Uncle Sam holding a bag of money over his 

back and holding a basket of money as well. A women with a cloth 'U.S. taxpayer' is saying 

"I love the guy, but sometimes I think he's too good!" Uncle Sam represents America and it's

kind of like how Americas trying to hard for it's country and the people are noticing what's going

on around them. Then in the next Source, it shows an anchor type thing being swung down 

which is held by the Marshall Aid Plan, and it's basically portraying how the plan is just being 

swung around for people to just get a hold of.

6.  On p. 330, complete the "focus task"  

- In the image next to the question there is a man holding out his arms, one arm represents the Marshall Aid Plan and one is the Truman Doctrine. It's showing soviet men talking over there decision to which hand they'll chose. I think the Soviets reacted in a surprised way because they had a new choice to chose from and help was being given to Europe as well. Communism was also a major issue at the time so it seems in the reading that they're trying to deal with that too. 

Potsdam~

2.Read Source 13. At Yalta, Churchill and Roosevelt had agreed with Stalin that eastern Europe would be a Soviet 'sphere of influence'. Do you think Source 13 is what they had in mind?
3.Would they agree with Stalin's views expressed in Sources 13 and 14? Explain your answer.
4.Explain how each of the three developments described in the text might affect relationships at Potsdam.

2.  In Source 13, Stalin is speaking about how War was & that they are occupying their territory. So to refer back to the 'sphere of influence' I'd say that he isnt being influential, he is bascially having control over Eastern Europe and trying to take ownership in what they're doing.
3. In both sources, 13 & 14, Stalin is referring back to how he feels about other countires and their leadership. In source 13 he is taling about there territory and system or power and in source 14 he is talking about Polands boundries. In both cases, Stalin speaks of having leadership rather than influence.
4. Each of the three delopments had an affect on the relationship at Postdam because Stalin's army was occupying East Europes territory, President Roosevelt had died, resulting not so great because Vice-President Truman then became President and he didn't like Stalin so much, he was very suspicious of him. And also at the start of the Postdam conference, Americans tested out an atomic bomb.

Chart - Focus Task

The war against Hitler had united Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill and at the Yalta
Conference they appeared to get on well. Source 2 illustrates the 'public' face of Yalta.
But what was going on behind the scenes? Sources 3-11 will help you decide.



Agreement

•  Source 4 - Roosevelt and Churchill agree on the idea of the Soviet Union being red.

Disagreement

•  Source 3 - Allies tricked Russia during WW1
                  - Churchill will steal a penny from you
• Source 4 -  Stalin disagrees with Churchill and Roosevelt
• Source 7 - Soviets don't really like Churchill.

Reliability 

• Source 3 - Yes -we think he's being honest, speaking to a fellow communist in a private conversation
• Source 4 - Yes- Milovan Djilas is writing about what happened in the hall when Stalin said that.
• Source 8 - Not reliable because it's from a textbook and different places have different views on things.

Artcile thingy

1. If I were a journalist in 1942, and I found out about the internment of the Japanese I would include some controversial issues in my article. I would talk about how it's a bit unfair for some of the Japanese people living in the area because they were already living there and then they had to get taken away from there homes and placed in a camp because Americans feared that the Japanese were making secret plans to attack. Some may fight over this because innocent people are being forced to live in camps with nothing to do because they were Japanese, but others may say that they're dangerous and could be planning to attack the Americans.
2. I wouldnt want to seem like I was taking sides or I would fear that people would accuse me of being biased, or of just saying certain things to seem like the good guy in the situation. I just wouldnt add it because I would be afriad of the consequence or if others would attack me for my opinions.

Focus Task!

1. Although racism was an everyday experience, many people tried to win equality for blacks. Soon enough, blacks got the right to vote despite the threat of violence. There were many campaigners trying to win equal rights for blacks. In the early 1950's a girl and her friends tried to integrate schools by going to schools for whites. There was a great amount of effort going on with blacks to have the same rights as whites. Integration was welcomed to schools in some states, after that case [Brown v. Board of Education]. Soon after this, boycotts took place to also help integrate buses. Also there were non-violent protests and conventions going on to help with civil rights during the early 1960's. Along with most blacks trying to make a difference, even some whites helping as well, Martin Luther King Jr. helped make peaceful speeches and helped in boycotts to help make a difference as well.  People were trying to make things equal!

2. Although there were people striving to make a difference, and protesting against the equality that wasn't quite there, I don't think there was enough going on. Yeah, there was non-violent protests, conventions, voting rights were enabled, peaceful speeches, and blacks fighting for integration, I personally don't think there was enough happening. I think there could've been more people striving for equal rights. Also, barely any whites were helping out with this, a lot of them were racist and against the idea of making things equal for everybody. Along with all of this, officers claimed to have helped stop attacks towards blacks, but in reality they were actually attacking them, themselves. So many blacks faced discrimination and didn't have the same opportunities as whites did. All in all, blacks weren't given have the respect as whites were given, and there wasn't enough people fighting for equality. 

3. I personally think that I would have been optimistic about everything because if you have the right state of mind, it can sometimes help, a lot. But then again there wasn't much respect and/or equality amongst everybody so it was a huge downfall on people's view towards the community they were living in or the environment people were growing up in. I think, thinking positively on everything could help a lot, but it doesn't always necessarily help major things, such as civil rights for blacks. So although it's good to stay optimistic, I think back then during the time of all this fighting for civil rights business, there was more things to be pessimistic about, rather than being optimistic. 


 

Economic Boom!! Disgaree or Agree?! :D

One historian said: "Without the new automobile industry, the prosperity of the 1920's would scarcely have been possible." 
Explain whether you agree or disagree with the statement. Support your explanation by referring to the Sources and information.

I agree with the statement to an extent because during the time of the economic boom the new ideas and industries really set a base for the time of the 1920's and really helped the U.S. develop. With the idea of building cars, industries took off and grew into something larger. Also with making cars it helped the U.S. explore new resources such as: steel, chemicals, glass, and machinery. This later became a foundation for an economic boom in consumer goods. The tariff made it so importing goods was more expensive, so if the U.S. was to sell cars they'd make money from other foreign countries. Also, for the 1920's up until 1929 the world industrial production and the U.S. industrial production went up, so it shows how this really helped the U.S. and the prosperity of the 1920's.

20-word definiton

The economic boom of the 1920's was a time when industries of America began to expand with luxury and consumer goods which helped benefit industries, homes, transportation and cities.

Organized Labor?!

Based on Sources A-I, organized labor was unsuccessful with improving the position of workers during the years of 1875-1900. Two sources were successful and seven sources were unsuccessful. According to Source C, the labor unions were badly influenced by communist and labors have discovered they're killing there source of wealth because of the communist. Along with that, Source G states that there was multiple deaths that occurred during strikes and a lot of violence went on as well. Then Source D stated that there were less jobs for labors which affected a lot of people during that time. Therefore, these three Sources basically say that organized labr was unsuccessful. It is unsuccessful because the assembly lines would have less people and also workers would be in danger and they'd possibly be risking there lives if they went on strike. Along with that if they listen to the communist they'd be cutting off there own source of wealth which would affect them. So, organized labor was unsuccessful.

Egypt!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12345656

In Egypt, Hosni Mubarak is the President and there is a group of people in support of Mubarak and a group of people against him. There has been multiple protests against Mubarak and the decisions he has made. He seems to be in control of only the country but not the army. In a sense, if the United States help Mubarak, it may help with some issues and if they don't help then violence will continue and so will much more conflict. So, i basically think the United States should help Egypt militarily and politically. If the U.S. helps make Egypt a democracy, it could help in a way to make things easier and let the people make decisions as well, and that might help the people become less angry. If the United States help militarily, it'll help the Egyptian army because nobody in the army will listen to what Mubarak says. Therefore, i think the United States should, in a way, help out Egypt.

Sharia!

Sharia, or Islamic law, influences the legal code in most Muslim countries. A movement to allow sharia to govern personal status law, a set of regulations that pertain to marriage, divorce, inheritance, and custody, is even expanding into the West. "There are so many varying interpretations of what sharia actually means that in some places it can be incorporated into political systems relatively easily," says Steven A. Cook, CFR senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies. Sharia's influence on both personal status law and criminal law is highly controversial, though. Some interpretations are used to justify cruel punishments such as amputation and stoning as well as unequal treatment of women in inheritance, dress, and independence. The debate is growing as to whether sharia can coexist with secularism, democracy, or even modernity. http://www.cfr.org/publication/8034/islam.html

-Sharia is enforced in Islamic countries and there is a movement that allows sharia to govern "personal status law", which includes marriage, divorce, inheritance and custody. Sharia has an influence on personal law as well as criminal law, and it has brought controversy. A lot of controversy is about punishments and problems with women that people find unequal.