1. Identify the arguments for and against the actions of Bomber Command.
For;
-It shortened the war by six months and saved thousands from the gas chambers.
-It destroyed Hitler and those who sustained his war.
- It helped to powerfully bring about the post-war conversion to peaceful democracy for Germany.
Against;
- It was a moral crime and could be considered a mass murder of civilians.
- It was an example of brutality in war.
One side of the argument is that the bombing brought an end to the war and put a stop to Hitler and the Nazis and was the beginning of the conversion to a peaceful democracy for Germany. Thus it can be argued that although bombing, which kills a large number of people, is in and of itself a negative, it yielded positive long term results in this instance. The other side of the argument is that many innocent civilians lost their lives in a very brutal manner.
2. Explain President Herzog's comment that "history must be unified". Is it possible to unify history?
It is possible to "unify" history, meaning that one version of history is presented to all, in every country, independent of what each country feels that they did well. It is known through the viewing of textbooks in different countries, when seeing what is taught to students from around the world, that various events are told differently around the world, even though in reality, there was only one course of events. The perspective is what changes, with a country's biases coming into play when presenting history, that is to say that if a war took place, a country might present their actions as less destructive to the other side than they really were in order to make themselves look less like perpetrators. However it is unlikely that every country would agree to teach and identify with one standardized version/description of an event, so while it is indeed possible it is very unlikely that this will ever happen.
3. In your opinion was the bombing of German cities justified? How did the Allied bombing campaign support the Just War Theory? Do further research on the background to this theory.
In my opinion, the bombing of German cities was justified. Without the bombing it would have been far more difficult to bring Hitler and the Nazi's actions to a stop with regards to the atrocities they had committed. While bombing is destructive and takes the innocent lives of many people, the Nazis were also taking the lives of many innocent people by sending them to the gas chambers and killing them there. The bombings helped to shorten the war and bring these atrocities to a stop, so in my opinion the innocent lives that were lost, were not lost in vain.
Also, I think the Allied bombing campaign did support the Just War Theory. The criteria "Just cause" states that innocent life must be in imminent danger, and it was. The Nazis relocated many innocent people to gas chambers and were also a threat to the rest of Western Europe. Innocent lives were in danger at the Nazis expense.
Circumstances in which it is right to fight a war;
- Innocent life in danger
- A serious threat to a nation's security
- All other means of putting an end to some threat would be impractical or ineffective
- There are prospects of success.
- The use of arms must not produce more evil than the evils that are to be eliminated by using those arms.
Justifiable conduct during a war;
- Using the appropriate amount of force necessary to put a stop to unjustifiable evils.
- Defending innocent lives
- Putting an end to threats to innocent lives/nations.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
IRL - Women's rights in China today, 12/1/10.
URL; http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1451439/womens_rights_in_china_today.html
Women's rights in China today are not entirely well known to the rest of the world, because much of the information is classified as secret and not shared with the rest of the world. As a totalitarian state even today, where the Communist Party is the only political entity allowed to exist, this information isn't revealed. Since the 1980s it can be seen that China (given its increasing economy) has brought many people, including women, out of horrible conditions but not all women seemed to have benefitted.
Women's rights in China today, by law, sound good on paper; women have equality in marriage, education, rights and freedoms but in some rural areas these laws are ignored, and it is here that trafficking of women and children (especially girls) is a regular occurrence, as well as domestic abuse. Many of these cases are not dealt with either, so while women technically have all of the same rights as men, not all of them are able to enjoy these rights. Also, the One Child Policy affects women as well - baby girls are not valued the same way baby boys are and female newborns are often killed or abandoned, showing that there is not practiced equality between males and females. The One Child Policy also affects women further because to adhere to this policy, women are often forced to submit to abortions or sterilization, even if against their will.
This is related to what we have been studying in class in that in Mao's day and now, women technically did have rights and it would seem that they were treated equally; that is to say, on paper, men and women were equal, however in practice it is not always so. This is evident in the bias against daughters, the forcing of women to have abortions to adhere to the One Child Policy, and most horrifyingly, the trafficking of women and female children into the sex trade. The sexual aspect of this is actually carried over from the past, when brothels were set up by the CCP. It's horrifying but it's true.
This information is valuable because it demonstrates a clear continuity between the past and the present in China, and how women have rights that are often ignored and not carried out, and they are not truly treated as equal despite what the law says. However, since it does not include statistics and precise numerical data (which is ultimately a result of the fact that it is not released), this is a limitation to the reader's understanding, as we cannot get a clear picture of the extent of domestic abuse and human trafficking.
Women's rights in China today are not entirely well known to the rest of the world, because much of the information is classified as secret and not shared with the rest of the world. As a totalitarian state even today, where the Communist Party is the only political entity allowed to exist, this information isn't revealed. Since the 1980s it can be seen that China (given its increasing economy) has brought many people, including women, out of horrible conditions but not all women seemed to have benefitted.
Women's rights in China today, by law, sound good on paper; women have equality in marriage, education, rights and freedoms but in some rural areas these laws are ignored, and it is here that trafficking of women and children (especially girls) is a regular occurrence, as well as domestic abuse. Many of these cases are not dealt with either, so while women technically have all of the same rights as men, not all of them are able to enjoy these rights. Also, the One Child Policy affects women as well - baby girls are not valued the same way baby boys are and female newborns are often killed or abandoned, showing that there is not practiced equality between males and females. The One Child Policy also affects women further because to adhere to this policy, women are often forced to submit to abortions or sterilization, even if against their will.
This is related to what we have been studying in class in that in Mao's day and now, women technically did have rights and it would seem that they were treated equally; that is to say, on paper, men and women were equal, however in practice it is not always so. This is evident in the bias against daughters, the forcing of women to have abortions to adhere to the One Child Policy, and most horrifyingly, the trafficking of women and female children into the sex trade. The sexual aspect of this is actually carried over from the past, when brothels were set up by the CCP. It's horrifying but it's true.
This information is valuable because it demonstrates a clear continuity between the past and the present in China, and how women have rights that are often ignored and not carried out, and they are not truly treated as equal despite what the law says. However, since it does not include statistics and precise numerical data (which is ultimately a result of the fact that it is not released), this is a limitation to the reader's understanding, as we cannot get a clear picture of the extent of domestic abuse and human trafficking.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Ch 4.2, Mao, Lynch; Cultural Revolution, Key Questions.
1. The Cultural Revolution developed into a reign of terror because students and radical teachers, influenced by Lin Biao, began attacking the education system and its divergence from the revolutionary path. This chaos spiraled out of control so much that Deng Xiaoping and Liu Shaoqi were sent to contain the trouble. As a result of this issue and the fact that there was conflict between party factions and those who wanted to contain this trouble and wanted it to spread, violence began to increase and students took positions as 'Red Guards', inflicting terror in the streets.
2. Mao's Yangzi swim was so significant because it was a great symbolic gesture that excited all of China; in Chinese tradition the river was thought of as a life force and Mao swimming in it showed that he, a 73 year old, was very much alive and in control of events. Mao took advantage of his spectacular return and its impact on the people's thoughts and tightened his grip on the government and party, summoning a meeting of the Central Committee where he condemned revisionist tendencies.
3. The August rally was so significant in the history of the Cultural Revolution because it demonstrated that Mao had enough supporters that were very enthusiastic about him and his leadership, demonstrating that the cult of Mao had been developed so much Lin Biao and Chen Boda were able to assemble masses last minute of his supporters, which is exactly what he did; a large number of supporters were there, with their Little Red Books, screaming and praising their idol, who they referred to as the 'red sun rising in the east'.
4. Mao identified the following as targets for the attack (these were known as the 'Four Olds');
- Old ideas
- Old culture
- Old customs
- Old habits.
5. Mao's motives for subjecting his people to the Cultural Revolution was that it was to be his method for enforcing himself on the people of China, establishing power, and his way of asserting his authority on the CCP. Additionally, Mao wanted to prevent revisionism (which he accused the USSR and the West of), and he wished to renew the CCP's revolutionary spirit (he wanted a new generation of party members to be inspired to replace the old).
6. Mao's concern about younger members of the CCP was that they had not undergone the rigors and legendary experiences of the CCP (White Terror, Long March, anti-Japanese war, struggle against the GMD). He believed they needed hardening in the crucible of revolutionary struggle if they were ever going to be able to withstand a military attack from the West.
7. Mao intended to preserve the peasant character of the revolution and he held that as a class, the peasants were the main revolutionary force in China, although he often expressed contempt for them. He built his revolution on them, and this is why he made sure that affairs would not be run by bureaucrats and intellectuals in the cities.
8. Deng and Liu were attacked because they were accused of being the 'spearheads of the erroneous line'. Mao granted them the opportunity to correct their mistakes at first, but 2 months later at a Red Guard demonstration in Beijing, they were accused of being 'revisionists' and told they had adopted a 'bourgeois reactionary line' and they were dismissed from their positions in the government. He complained they treated him like their 'dead parent at a funeral'. Both men were denounced for their betrayal of Maoist thought. Liu and his wife were beaten by a mob and Deng's son was thrown out of a window by Red Guards.
9. China's young people proved so willingly to follow Mao's lead because students had been taught to see themselves as pioneers under Mao in the advancement of internal proletarian revolution. Additionally, the educational environment in China became increasingly influenced by revolutionary ideas and Maoist ways of thinking. The young were made to feel that they had a special role to play, not only in the regeneration of the nation but the creation of a new socialist world order.
10. Methods that the Red Guards used to terrify the population were a result of the fact that Mao said there was no moral restriction on what could be done in the name of the revolution. Students were taught to insult their elders, which was very significant in this society where traditionally, the young were taught to respect their elders (this is an example of Mao's wish to denounce old habits and customs). Anything that represented the past was labeled under the term 'Confucius and Co' and could be smashed or torn up. Temples, shrines, works of art etc. became targets. Many treasures of Chinese tradition and history were destroyed as well.
11. Several tactics were used to break the will of those who were arrested. They could be manhandled and publicly humiliated, and those who were denounced as 'bad elements' (schoolteachers, university staff, writers, and even doctors) were forced to publicly confess to their crimes. These tactics were used to provoke and stimulate guilt. The victims were also made to study Mao's writings followed by periods of self-criticism and confession, and the first confession was never accepted. Another tactic used was forcing the accused to adopt the 'aeroplane' position (head thrust down, knees bent, etc) and confess, and those who did not were kicked and beaten.
12. The statistic that demonstrates the destruction of China's ancient culture is that the Red Guards and other government-based groups flattened 4922 of Beijing's 6843 'places of cultural or historical interest'. Additionally, a group of Beijing University students and teachers went out and committed several acts of vandalism over a four-week period in November 1966, including the destruction of 929 paintings, 2700 books, 1000 statues and monuments, and 2000 graves.
13. The role that the PLA played in the Cultural Revolution is that it claimed a special relationship with Chairman Mao and with the Chinese people, which gave it the authority to tak over the Cultural Revolution. The PLA wanted credit for the Revolution and wanted to be seen as the driving force behind it. They took over from the Red Guards in hunting down and terrorizing 'counter-revolutionaries'.
14. The energies of the Red Guards were diverted in another direction because they were sent to the countryside to live as peasants in order to become closer to the Chinese people and become accustomed to a different way of life. This was supposed to have meant to deepen their understanding of the lives of 80% of the Chinese people and what they went through, but in reality it was carried out to rid the cities of troublesome youths.
15. The experience of the young people in the countryside reshaped their opinions of Mao in a bad way. Seeing that the people they were around, the peasants, had little food or opportunities and that they themselves were starving, they began to feel lied to by Mao. They began to feel as if they had been used by Mao and if everything they had stood for before was a lie. The students were homesick and very starving.
16. The ferocity of the Cultural Revolution was maintained by the PLA, who were in some ways more ferocious than the Red Guards. The CCRG, with Jiang Qing's Gang of Four playing a dominant role, began carrying out something that became known as 'cleansing the class ranks'. Their goal was to 'eradicate any sign of capitalism'. The result was killing and destruction more ferocious than what the Red Guards had done.
17. All of the blame attaches to Mao for what was done. Even though he himself jokingly stated that the Cultural Revolution had gone further than he initially intended and that some were more Maoist than he even was, everything was still done in his name, even if he had sat back and let the actions all unfold in front of him. He cannot be absolved from the blame just because he did not carry out every bad action with his own two hands.
18. The Lin Biao affair was a turning point in the Cultural Revolution to a significant extent because he had been becoming more influential in China and was named as the successor to Mao, and he even began to plot against Mao in secret.
19. The plot was to be an assassination of Mao.
20. The consequences that followed Lin Biao's disgrace were that people began to question if they could even trust the government ever again. It seemed ironic to many that Lin would have hatched a plot to kill Mao when he was the one who compiled the Little Red Book and distributed it, therefore he had increased Mao's popularity significantly. It didn't make a whole lot of sense to many people and they began to wonder if everything the government did or said was a lie. Lin was accused of being a Soviet spy and the greatest traitor to the nation, thus people did not know what to believe.
21. The intensity of the Cultural Revolution lessened after 1972 because of;
- A general uncertainty in the party about the ailing Mao's true intentions
- The affect of the Lin Biao affair which led to a rethink in the CCP about how severe its policies should be
- An unacknowledged recognition by the party that the points made by critics such as Tu Deyong were an accurate description of the effects of the Cultural Revolution
- The wish to impress the USA, whose president Richard Nixon visited China in 1972
22. Lin Biao's fall benefits for Zhou and Deng were the enhancement of Zhou Enlai's position in the government and party, and Deng Xiaoping regaining his place as Party Secretary.
23. What the Cultural Revolution indicates about Mao's personal character is that he was a very paranoid person, as much of the idea behind the Cultural Revolution came from internalized hatred.
2. Mao's Yangzi swim was so significant because it was a great symbolic gesture that excited all of China; in Chinese tradition the river was thought of as a life force and Mao swimming in it showed that he, a 73 year old, was very much alive and in control of events. Mao took advantage of his spectacular return and its impact on the people's thoughts and tightened his grip on the government and party, summoning a meeting of the Central Committee where he condemned revisionist tendencies.
3. The August rally was so significant in the history of the Cultural Revolution because it demonstrated that Mao had enough supporters that were very enthusiastic about him and his leadership, demonstrating that the cult of Mao had been developed so much Lin Biao and Chen Boda were able to assemble masses last minute of his supporters, which is exactly what he did; a large number of supporters were there, with their Little Red Books, screaming and praising their idol, who they referred to as the 'red sun rising in the east'.
4. Mao identified the following as targets for the attack (these were known as the 'Four Olds');
- Old ideas
- Old culture
- Old customs
- Old habits.
5. Mao's motives for subjecting his people to the Cultural Revolution was that it was to be his method for enforcing himself on the people of China, establishing power, and his way of asserting his authority on the CCP. Additionally, Mao wanted to prevent revisionism (which he accused the USSR and the West of), and he wished to renew the CCP's revolutionary spirit (he wanted a new generation of party members to be inspired to replace the old).
6. Mao's concern about younger members of the CCP was that they had not undergone the rigors and legendary experiences of the CCP (White Terror, Long March, anti-Japanese war, struggle against the GMD). He believed they needed hardening in the crucible of revolutionary struggle if they were ever going to be able to withstand a military attack from the West.
7. Mao intended to preserve the peasant character of the revolution and he held that as a class, the peasants were the main revolutionary force in China, although he often expressed contempt for them. He built his revolution on them, and this is why he made sure that affairs would not be run by bureaucrats and intellectuals in the cities.
8. Deng and Liu were attacked because they were accused of being the 'spearheads of the erroneous line'. Mao granted them the opportunity to correct their mistakes at first, but 2 months later at a Red Guard demonstration in Beijing, they were accused of being 'revisionists' and told they had adopted a 'bourgeois reactionary line' and they were dismissed from their positions in the government. He complained they treated him like their 'dead parent at a funeral'. Both men were denounced for their betrayal of Maoist thought. Liu and his wife were beaten by a mob and Deng's son was thrown out of a window by Red Guards.
9. China's young people proved so willingly to follow Mao's lead because students had been taught to see themselves as pioneers under Mao in the advancement of internal proletarian revolution. Additionally, the educational environment in China became increasingly influenced by revolutionary ideas and Maoist ways of thinking. The young were made to feel that they had a special role to play, not only in the regeneration of the nation but the creation of a new socialist world order.
10. Methods that the Red Guards used to terrify the population were a result of the fact that Mao said there was no moral restriction on what could be done in the name of the revolution. Students were taught to insult their elders, which was very significant in this society where traditionally, the young were taught to respect their elders (this is an example of Mao's wish to denounce old habits and customs). Anything that represented the past was labeled under the term 'Confucius and Co' and could be smashed or torn up. Temples, shrines, works of art etc. became targets. Many treasures of Chinese tradition and history were destroyed as well.
11. Several tactics were used to break the will of those who were arrested. They could be manhandled and publicly humiliated, and those who were denounced as 'bad elements' (schoolteachers, university staff, writers, and even doctors) were forced to publicly confess to their crimes. These tactics were used to provoke and stimulate guilt. The victims were also made to study Mao's writings followed by periods of self-criticism and confession, and the first confession was never accepted. Another tactic used was forcing the accused to adopt the 'aeroplane' position (head thrust down, knees bent, etc) and confess, and those who did not were kicked and beaten.
12. The statistic that demonstrates the destruction of China's ancient culture is that the Red Guards and other government-based groups flattened 4922 of Beijing's 6843 'places of cultural or historical interest'. Additionally, a group of Beijing University students and teachers went out and committed several acts of vandalism over a four-week period in November 1966, including the destruction of 929 paintings, 2700 books, 1000 statues and monuments, and 2000 graves.
13. The role that the PLA played in the Cultural Revolution is that it claimed a special relationship with Chairman Mao and with the Chinese people, which gave it the authority to tak over the Cultural Revolution. The PLA wanted credit for the Revolution and wanted to be seen as the driving force behind it. They took over from the Red Guards in hunting down and terrorizing 'counter-revolutionaries'.
14. The energies of the Red Guards were diverted in another direction because they were sent to the countryside to live as peasants in order to become closer to the Chinese people and become accustomed to a different way of life. This was supposed to have meant to deepen their understanding of the lives of 80% of the Chinese people and what they went through, but in reality it was carried out to rid the cities of troublesome youths.
15. The experience of the young people in the countryside reshaped their opinions of Mao in a bad way. Seeing that the people they were around, the peasants, had little food or opportunities and that they themselves were starving, they began to feel lied to by Mao. They began to feel as if they had been used by Mao and if everything they had stood for before was a lie. The students were homesick and very starving.
16. The ferocity of the Cultural Revolution was maintained by the PLA, who were in some ways more ferocious than the Red Guards. The CCRG, with Jiang Qing's Gang of Four playing a dominant role, began carrying out something that became known as 'cleansing the class ranks'. Their goal was to 'eradicate any sign of capitalism'. The result was killing and destruction more ferocious than what the Red Guards had done.
17. All of the blame attaches to Mao for what was done. Even though he himself jokingly stated that the Cultural Revolution had gone further than he initially intended and that some were more Maoist than he even was, everything was still done in his name, even if he had sat back and let the actions all unfold in front of him. He cannot be absolved from the blame just because he did not carry out every bad action with his own two hands.
18. The Lin Biao affair was a turning point in the Cultural Revolution to a significant extent because he had been becoming more influential in China and was named as the successor to Mao, and he even began to plot against Mao in secret.
19. The plot was to be an assassination of Mao.
20. The consequences that followed Lin Biao's disgrace were that people began to question if they could even trust the government ever again. It seemed ironic to many that Lin would have hatched a plot to kill Mao when he was the one who compiled the Little Red Book and distributed it, therefore he had increased Mao's popularity significantly. It didn't make a whole lot of sense to many people and they began to wonder if everything the government did or said was a lie. Lin was accused of being a Soviet spy and the greatest traitor to the nation, thus people did not know what to believe.
21. The intensity of the Cultural Revolution lessened after 1972 because of;
- A general uncertainty in the party about the ailing Mao's true intentions
- The affect of the Lin Biao affair which led to a rethink in the CCP about how severe its policies should be
- An unacknowledged recognition by the party that the points made by critics such as Tu Deyong were an accurate description of the effects of the Cultural Revolution
- The wish to impress the USA, whose president Richard Nixon visited China in 1972
22. Lin Biao's fall benefits for Zhou and Deng were the enhancement of Zhou Enlai's position in the government and party, and Deng Xiaoping regaining his place as Party Secretary.
23. What the Cultural Revolution indicates about Mao's personal character is that he was a very paranoid person, as much of the idea behind the Cultural Revolution came from internalized hatred.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Cultural Revolution IRL, November 10, 2010
URL; http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/cultural_revolution.htm
According to this link, the Cultural Revolution, which lasted from 1966 to 1976, was Mao's attempt to reassert his authority and ideas in China where he was feeling competition from others and worried that he would lose his influence. A specific quote that shows this, is the following; "it was an attempt by Mao to re-impose his authority over the party and therefore the country."
This is significant to what we have been learning in class because much of what we have learned, particularly that of the famine and the fact that those that Mao appointed to helping fix the famine started to become more popular and influential, is context for the Cultural Revolution and puts it in perspective, at least from my viewpoint as a history student. Mao decided to reimpose his ideas at first by way of a speech given by Lin Piao that inspired Chinese youths to criticize the ideas of liberals in the Chinese Communist Party as well as those people whose ideas were influenced by Khrushchev from the USSR.
This goes along with what we learned in class, that there came to be a rejection of old ideas and customs and that Mao was trying to do away with these customs because they would lead people astray from the messages he wanted to convey and could potentially challenge his power. I find it remarkable (although not in a good way) that so many people could be turned against their own culture or that Mao himself would want to reject anything old given that he himself was old. It becomes clear to me the more I read, that Mao was simply power-hungry and did everything he could to maintain his control even though it resulted in extreme changes in China that have had a lasting impression today (customs, language etc.) and that he was able to manipulate others with his (irrational) ideas. The main limitation of this source is that it does not specifically outline the ways in which Mao went about the Cultural Revolution except for the influence he had over students and education, but it does not outline exactly what impact this had.
According to this link, the Cultural Revolution, which lasted from 1966 to 1976, was Mao's attempt to reassert his authority and ideas in China where he was feeling competition from others and worried that he would lose his influence. A specific quote that shows this, is the following; "it was an attempt by Mao to re-impose his authority over the party and therefore the country."
This is significant to what we have been learning in class because much of what we have learned, particularly that of the famine and the fact that those that Mao appointed to helping fix the famine started to become more popular and influential, is context for the Cultural Revolution and puts it in perspective, at least from my viewpoint as a history student. Mao decided to reimpose his ideas at first by way of a speech given by Lin Piao that inspired Chinese youths to criticize the ideas of liberals in the Chinese Communist Party as well as those people whose ideas were influenced by Khrushchev from the USSR.
This goes along with what we learned in class, that there came to be a rejection of old ideas and customs and that Mao was trying to do away with these customs because they would lead people astray from the messages he wanted to convey and could potentially challenge his power. I find it remarkable (although not in a good way) that so many people could be turned against their own culture or that Mao himself would want to reject anything old given that he himself was old. It becomes clear to me the more I read, that Mao was simply power-hungry and did everything he could to maintain his control even though it resulted in extreme changes in China that have had a lasting impression today (customs, language etc.) and that he was able to manipulate others with his (irrational) ideas. The main limitation of this source is that it does not specifically outline the ways in which Mao went about the Cultural Revolution except for the influence he had over students and education, but it does not outline exactly what impact this had.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Power Struggle Key Questions, November 9, 2010
1. Tensions developed within the CCP between 1962 and 1966. One of these was that since the Great Leap Forward failed to meet its goals, Mao adopted a less prominent place in the government and felt as if his colleagues would remove him from power if the opportunity arose. Mao felt a bit more insecure. His suspicions had some basis in fact, given that in the 1960s, the provinces of Gansu and Qinghai (supporters of Liu and Deng, ministers entrusted with fixing the famine that had been growing very popular) took over the local government and reversed collectivization.
2. Lin Biao helped to turn Mao into a cult by compiling the 'Little Red Book', a collection of ideas and sayings from Mao. It covered a wide range of ideas including 'The Communist Party', 'Classes and Class Struggle', etc. This book became like the secular bible of China and became a daily and compulsory part of military training. A copy was distributed to every soldier and eventually, 750 million copies were distributed throughout China. In schools and universities it became the prescribed source for every subject in the curriculum, and workers read it during their communal breaks. Also known as Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong, it became a necessity for every household to have a copy, and it defined all issues and settled all arguments.
3. The play 'The Dismissal of Hai Rui from Office' was so significant in the power struggle because it was set in the days of the Song dynasty (960-1279) and told the story of a court official Han Rui who was demoted and punished after defying the orders of the emperor, and since the writer of this play was thought to be critical of Mao Zedong and the play was believed to represent Mao's dismissal of Peng Dehuai for opposing the Great Leap Forward, it provided Lin Biao with pretext for moving against the anti-Maoist elements in the Communist Party.
4. The Wu Han affair revealed these differences of opinion within the CCP; there were 'reactionaries and revisionists' on the right of the party, and the Group of Five had the goal of making sure the party split did not widen, however Mao's wife wanted to denounce both of these groups. The other difference of opinion was moderation vs. ruthlessness, where the Group of Five were known for their moderation in dealing with issues at a time when some believed ruthlessness was the only way. The Gang of Four were the extreme wing of an extreme movement, and they on the other hand were feared for their ruthlessness. The Group of Five were also considered as taking the 'capitalist's road' and they were denounced.
5. The creation of the Central Cultural Revolution Group (CCRG), dominated by the Gang of Four, was so significant because it was the instrument through which Mao would run the Cultural Revolution. The CCRG was so influential that by the early summer of 1966, Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping found themselves outmanoeuvred and undermined. Through information given to him by the CCRG, Mao issued a 'notification' to the CCP through which he defined the enemy within (the representatives of the bourgeoisie who have sneaked into the party/government/army/various spheres of culture).
2. Lin Biao helped to turn Mao into a cult by compiling the 'Little Red Book', a collection of ideas and sayings from Mao. It covered a wide range of ideas including 'The Communist Party', 'Classes and Class Struggle', etc. This book became like the secular bible of China and became a daily and compulsory part of military training. A copy was distributed to every soldier and eventually, 750 million copies were distributed throughout China. In schools and universities it became the prescribed source for every subject in the curriculum, and workers read it during their communal breaks. Also known as Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong, it became a necessity for every household to have a copy, and it defined all issues and settled all arguments.
3. The play 'The Dismissal of Hai Rui from Office' was so significant in the power struggle because it was set in the days of the Song dynasty (960-1279) and told the story of a court official Han Rui who was demoted and punished after defying the orders of the emperor, and since the writer of this play was thought to be critical of Mao Zedong and the play was believed to represent Mao's dismissal of Peng Dehuai for opposing the Great Leap Forward, it provided Lin Biao with pretext for moving against the anti-Maoist elements in the Communist Party.
4. The Wu Han affair revealed these differences of opinion within the CCP; there were 'reactionaries and revisionists' on the right of the party, and the Group of Five had the goal of making sure the party split did not widen, however Mao's wife wanted to denounce both of these groups. The other difference of opinion was moderation vs. ruthlessness, where the Group of Five were known for their moderation in dealing with issues at a time when some believed ruthlessness was the only way. The Gang of Four were the extreme wing of an extreme movement, and they on the other hand were feared for their ruthlessness. The Group of Five were also considered as taking the 'capitalist's road' and they were denounced.
5. The creation of the Central Cultural Revolution Group (CCRG), dominated by the Gang of Four, was so significant because it was the instrument through which Mao would run the Cultural Revolution. The CCRG was so influential that by the early summer of 1966, Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping found themselves outmanoeuvred and undermined. Through information given to him by the CCRG, Mao issued a 'notification' to the CCP through which he defined the enemy within (the representatives of the bourgeoisie who have sneaked into the party/government/army/various spheres of culture).
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Evidence of Tibetan Genocide
- Dalai Lama - left Tibet in order to inform the world about the genocide and everything else that was going on in Tibet as a result of the Chinese.
- 1.2 million deaths occurred in Tibet as a result of the same policies that caused the famine in China.
EVIDENCE FOR GENOCIDE (CULTURAL);
- Chinese music videos today are almost exclusively in Chinese, with little evidence of native Tibetan culture or language.
- 6,000 monasteries destroyed. This demonstrates that the Chinese intentionally did try to remove aspects of Tibetan culture and replace them with Chinese customs.
- Today Tibetans form 90% of the population of Tibet but the other 10% is mostly Han Chinese which shows that settlement did take place.
- 1.2 million deaths occurred in Tibet as a result of the same policies that caused the famine in China.
EVIDENCE FOR GENOCIDE (CULTURAL);
- Chinese music videos today are almost exclusively in Chinese, with little evidence of native Tibetan culture or language.
- 6,000 monasteries destroyed. This demonstrates that the Chinese intentionally did try to remove aspects of Tibetan culture and replace them with Chinese customs.
- Today Tibetans form 90% of the population of Tibet but the other 10% is mostly Han Chinese which shows that settlement did take place.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Great Leap Forward IRL, 11/3/2010
URL; http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/960314/china.shtml
This is an article about Dali Yang, today an Assistant Professor in Political Science at the University of Chicago, who was born 3 years after the Great Leap Forward had ended. His parents worked in the field and were peasants, and Dali Yang heard many horrific stories from his parents about what they were experiencing. Yang says that the Great Leap Forward was one of the most influential moments in Chinese history. According to Yang, the initial goal for China to become prosperous but when Mao and other Chinese leaders fell out of touch with reality, the utopian dream of a surplus of food for everyone free of charge became a nightmare which lead to the famine that resulted in the loss of millions of lives. Between 16.5 million and 40 million people are estimated to have died.
The importance of this is that the role of the famine, according to Yang, has greatly demonstrated the role of the peasants in Chinese society, since the peasants are the masses and the leaders are few, thus it is through the peasants that Yang believes the leaders act. This is important to what we are learning in class because it puts another spin on the information given - Mao did not do all of the things he did by himself - he forced the peasants into submission and carried out his goals through the masses. This does not take the blame off Mao, however, in any way. But this is definitely significant also because Yang, who was born in China to two peasant parents, has a perspective on the famine that is somewhat based off personal experience or at least that of his parents, thus I believe that what he has to say is valuable as well. His parents saw people perish as a result of the famine, thus his words on it give me information that I can trust.
This is an article about Dali Yang, today an Assistant Professor in Political Science at the University of Chicago, who was born 3 years after the Great Leap Forward had ended. His parents worked in the field and were peasants, and Dali Yang heard many horrific stories from his parents about what they were experiencing. Yang says that the Great Leap Forward was one of the most influential moments in Chinese history. According to Yang, the initial goal for China to become prosperous but when Mao and other Chinese leaders fell out of touch with reality, the utopian dream of a surplus of food for everyone free of charge became a nightmare which lead to the famine that resulted in the loss of millions of lives. Between 16.5 million and 40 million people are estimated to have died.
The importance of this is that the role of the famine, according to Yang, has greatly demonstrated the role of the peasants in Chinese society, since the peasants are the masses and the leaders are few, thus it is through the peasants that Yang believes the leaders act. This is important to what we are learning in class because it puts another spin on the information given - Mao did not do all of the things he did by himself - he forced the peasants into submission and carried out his goals through the masses. This does not take the blame off Mao, however, in any way. But this is definitely significant also because Yang, who was born in China to two peasant parents, has a perspective on the famine that is somewhat based off personal experience or at least that of his parents, thus I believe that what he has to say is valuable as well. His parents saw people perish as a result of the famine, thus his words on it give me information that I can trust.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Hundred Flowers Campaign and Great Leap Industry, 10/26/10.
Hundred Flowers Campaign
1. Mao's motive for launching the Hundred Flowers Campaign was because he felt that he was in touch with the people and he thought it would be a good time to let people express their satisfaction and approval of Communist China. This shows that Mao wanted recognition and praise. Additionally he was trying to do everything he could to prove that Hu Feng's challenges of Marxist-Leninist values (who stated that Marxist-Leninist values were not the only criteria for judging artistic merit) were not true.
Great Leap industry
1. By the 'Great Leap Forward', Mao was referring to the second Five Year Plan of 1958-1962. His goal was to turn China into a modern industrial state, eventually to overtake the other major nations in production. The idea of a 'leap' forward is that China would become an industrial state in a short amount of time and not go through the steps toward getting there as slowly as the other great nations did.
2. Mao planned to achieve industrial 'lift-off' through the following; 1) The collectivized peasants, working in their communes, would produce a surplus of food. This food would be sold to other nations and the money would support the expansion of Chinese industry, and 2) The workers would create with their own hands a modern industrial economy which would be powerful enough to compete with the Soviet Union and the capitalist West.
3. With the second Five Year Plan, the term 'plan' was only somewhat accurate. Quotas and targets were set but these numbers did not have any economic value, that is, they did not have a realistic basis but were rather pulled out of the air randomly due to Mao's faith in Communist China's ability to produce. Since the provided figures were changed so frequently it can be said that there was only a vague plan to achieve some sort of quota or target but it wasn't really a plan because there was no set course of action that was supposed to take place.
4. The government's aim in introducing SOE's (state-owned enterprises) was to bring industry under total government direction. Existing firms and businesses could no longer be privately owned but now would work for the state. Prices, output targets, and wages were also to be fixed by the state - there was no negotiation. The purpose overall was for the government to have greater control over industry.
5. Mao did not achieve the Great Leap Forward because China lacked many essentials such as technical skills, managerial kn0w-how, efficiently run factories and plants, and an adequate transport system. Without these there was no chance of China becoming industrialized enough to overtake the rest of the world. Also, the output of industrial goods actually fell during this time period rather than achieving growth as hoped for.
6. Factors that prevented the Great Leap Forward from achieving its full targets were;
a) The quality of China's finished products fell a long way short of meeting its domestic industrial needs.
b) Political interference made the plan impossible to manage purely as an economic enterprise.
c) Officials issued demands and threats aplenty, but hardly any detailed instructions as to how things were actually to be done.
d) Despite the setting up of SOEs, so much was left to the local initiative that China really bever was operated as an integrated national plan.
e) As a result, quality control became difficult to manage and sustain,
f) In 1960 the USSR stopped providing financial assistance, and then China could not afford half of the 300 industrial plants that the Soviet Union had been sponsoring, including a number of steel mills.
7. The major limitations in Mao's economic thinking were the belief in applied Communism always being successful, as well as his unacceptance of the fact that his policies were at fault. Therefore, he would have been unable to make improvements if he did not even acknowledge that improvements could have been made. He didn't acknowledge failure as a result of Communist planning failing but he interpreted it as an intervention of the bourgeoisie and backsliders. His idea was to blame the messenger. It can be seen that his main limitation was that he blamed issues that he was responsible for, on outside factors that really were not relevant, thus no improvements could ever be made to any of his plans or goals.
1. Mao's motive for launching the Hundred Flowers Campaign was because he felt that he was in touch with the people and he thought it would be a good time to let people express their satisfaction and approval of Communist China. This shows that Mao wanted recognition and praise. Additionally he was trying to do everything he could to prove that Hu Feng's challenges of Marxist-Leninist values (who stated that Marxist-Leninist values were not the only criteria for judging artistic merit) were not true.
Great Leap industry
1. By the 'Great Leap Forward', Mao was referring to the second Five Year Plan of 1958-1962. His goal was to turn China into a modern industrial state, eventually to overtake the other major nations in production. The idea of a 'leap' forward is that China would become an industrial state in a short amount of time and not go through the steps toward getting there as slowly as the other great nations did.
2. Mao planned to achieve industrial 'lift-off' through the following; 1) The collectivized peasants, working in their communes, would produce a surplus of food. This food would be sold to other nations and the money would support the expansion of Chinese industry, and 2) The workers would create with their own hands a modern industrial economy which would be powerful enough to compete with the Soviet Union and the capitalist West.
3. With the second Five Year Plan, the term 'plan' was only somewhat accurate. Quotas and targets were set but these numbers did not have any economic value, that is, they did not have a realistic basis but were rather pulled out of the air randomly due to Mao's faith in Communist China's ability to produce. Since the provided figures were changed so frequently it can be said that there was only a vague plan to achieve some sort of quota or target but it wasn't really a plan because there was no set course of action that was supposed to take place.
4. The government's aim in introducing SOE's (state-owned enterprises) was to bring industry under total government direction. Existing firms and businesses could no longer be privately owned but now would work for the state. Prices, output targets, and wages were also to be fixed by the state - there was no negotiation. The purpose overall was for the government to have greater control over industry.
5. Mao did not achieve the Great Leap Forward because China lacked many essentials such as technical skills, managerial kn0w-how, efficiently run factories and plants, and an adequate transport system. Without these there was no chance of China becoming industrialized enough to overtake the rest of the world. Also, the output of industrial goods actually fell during this time period rather than achieving growth as hoped for.
6. Factors that prevented the Great Leap Forward from achieving its full targets were;
a) The quality of China's finished products fell a long way short of meeting its domestic industrial needs.
b) Political interference made the plan impossible to manage purely as an economic enterprise.
c) Officials issued demands and threats aplenty, but hardly any detailed instructions as to how things were actually to be done.
d) Despite the setting up of SOEs, so much was left to the local initiative that China really bever was operated as an integrated national plan.
e) As a result, quality control became difficult to manage and sustain,
f) In 1960 the USSR stopped providing financial assistance, and then China could not afford half of the 300 industrial plants that the Soviet Union had been sponsoring, including a number of steel mills.
7. The major limitations in Mao's economic thinking were the belief in applied Communism always being successful, as well as his unacceptance of the fact that his policies were at fault. Therefore, he would have been unable to make improvements if he did not even acknowledge that improvements could have been made. He didn't acknowledge failure as a result of Communist planning failing but he interpreted it as an intervention of the bourgeoisie and backsliders. His idea was to blame the messenger. It can be seen that his main limitation was that he blamed issues that he was responsible for, on outside factors that really were not relevant, thus no improvements could ever be made to any of his plans or goals.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Brezhnev Questions
BREZHNEV/CZECHOSLOVAKIA;
1. In 1968 Czechoslovakia was similar to Hungary in the following ways;
i. Both were brought on by policies carried out by incompetent, arrogant native leaders.
ii. Both sought to introduce a humane, progressive element into the Communist way of life.
iii. Both were repressed by the might of Soviet military while the rest of the world ceased to help.
iiii. Both were forced to accept Soviet-appointed satraps (Kadar in Hungary, Husak in Czechoslovakia.
2. The three commands that the Czechs made of Dubcek were;
i. The abolishment of the ‘central model of society’.
ii. Elimination of ‘administrative and undemocratic interference in all spheres of social and cultural life’
iii. The removal of Novotny as president of the republic.
3. The Soviets responded to the Czech judicial reform in that they became alarmed and they ordered extensive troop movement along Czechoslovakia’s eastern frontiers.
4. The alleged defenestration of Jan Masaryk became an issue again because in 1948, he died mysteriously and then this led to an interrogation and because the Czechoslovaks refused to participate in the inquisition, their Eastern European clients sent them a letter of unparalleled insult.
5. The Czech and Soviet perspectives on the ‘broad statement of principles’ differed. The Czechs considered their signature of the document as compliance and adherence to all Soviet demands, while the Soviets considered it carte blanche for intervention in Czechoslovakia to maintain their style of Socialism there.
6. The Czech response to the Soviet invasion was that they were stunned, because they for years entertained pan-Slav sentiments as well as pan-Soviet sentiments.
7. Two of Dubcek’s new policies were; censorship of press, and appointed pro-Soviet sympathizers to highr positions in the government.
8. The ultimate outcome of the invasion for Czechoslovakia was that it became the most oppressive Communist state of Eastern Europe, as Brezhev and his government became increasingly entangled wit Czechoslovak politics.
BREZHNEV/AFGHANISTAN;
1. What two justifications did the Soviets publicly offer for their Afghan invasion?
One was that Babrak had requested their military presence in Afghanistan to preserve his country for socialism, which was threatened by the United States and China. The other was that the threat to Afghanistan was also a threat to the USSR.
2. Other factors that may have motivated the USSR are that they had been friendly with Afghanistan and had made substantial financial investments in the country, as well as that the Soviets had signed a twenty-year treaty of friendship with the Taraki government, which had introduced many Soviet political, economical, social, and cultural institutions in the country.
3. The international reaction to Soviet policies in Afghanistan was condemnation of Soviet behavior and activity. Efforts to solve the problem (for example, efforts of the United Nations) were fruitless because of Soviet intransigence.
BREZHNEV/POLAND;
1. The six areas of conflict between the Soviets and the Poles were;
i. Religion - Poles are largely Catholic while Soviets are largely Russian Orthodox.
ii. "ideological deviation" - Poles withdrew from Soviet labor unions.
iii. Resistance to Soviet control of the Polish economy and exploitation of their resources.
iv. The security of the USSR and to its interests in central and eastern Europe.
v. It was a historic challenge.
vi. It was a protest against corruption of top Polish officials loyal to the USSR.
2. The six events that precipitated the '80-'81 Polish crisis;
i. The growing nationwide disillusionment with the government's policies.
ii. The government's failure to introduce desperately needed economic reforms that would improve the low living standard.
iii. The growing tension between religious and political leaders, which culminated the government's refusal to allow Pope John Paul VI to visit Poland in 1966 to commemorate the milennium of Polish Catholicism.
iv. The arrest and trial of several young party intellectuals who were critical of the official establishment and its policies.
v. The government's stoppage of a theatre production of a poetic drama (Dziady) because of its anti-Russian lines.
vi. The nationwide student unrest in March 1968 which was put down with excessive force.
3. Of the six areas of conflict, the most destructive one to Soviet-Polish relations definitely related to the Polish withdrawal from Soviet trade unions and the results of this. Steep price increases caused demonstrations, protests, and work stoppages. Poland came close to a working-class insurrection, and attempts to fix the economy were difficult as officials did not know how to handle them, and strikers' demands such as family allowances, early retirement, etc. and the appearance of an independent trade union alarmed the Soviets, and the defiance of the Polish to Soviet authority in these areas caused the Soviets to act again in 1980.
4. The least significant hindrance to the Polish-Soviet relations was their difference in religion. While the Pope's visit to Poland did put pressure on both sides, it did not yield destructive results and there were no outbreaks of anti-Polish or anti-Soviet sentiments. On the other hand the other five areas of conflict (historical reasons, economical reasons, Polish withdrawal from Soviet trade unions, etc.) seemed to have a more direct impact on events to come, while religious differences did somewhat hinder relations but were not one of the core reasons for worsening of Polish-Soviet relations.
1. In 1968 Czechoslovakia was similar to Hungary in the following ways;
i. Both were brought on by policies carried out by incompetent, arrogant native leaders.
ii. Both sought to introduce a humane, progressive element into the Communist way of life.
iii. Both were repressed by the might of Soviet military while the rest of the world ceased to help.
iiii. Both were forced to accept Soviet-appointed satraps (Kadar in Hungary, Husak in Czechoslovakia.
2. The three commands that the Czechs made of Dubcek were;
i. The abolishment of the ‘central model of society’.
ii. Elimination of ‘administrative and undemocratic interference in all spheres of social and cultural life’
iii. The removal of Novotny as president of the republic.
3. The Soviets responded to the Czech judicial reform in that they became alarmed and they ordered extensive troop movement along Czechoslovakia’s eastern frontiers.
4. The alleged defenestration of Jan Masaryk became an issue again because in 1948, he died mysteriously and then this led to an interrogation and because the Czechoslovaks refused to participate in the inquisition, their Eastern European clients sent them a letter of unparalleled insult.
5. The Czech and Soviet perspectives on the ‘broad statement of principles’ differed. The Czechs considered their signature of the document as compliance and adherence to all Soviet demands, while the Soviets considered it carte blanche for intervention in Czechoslovakia to maintain their style of Socialism there.
6. The Czech response to the Soviet invasion was that they were stunned, because they for years entertained pan-Slav sentiments as well as pan-Soviet sentiments.
7. Two of Dubcek’s new policies were; censorship of press, and appointed pro-Soviet sympathizers to highr positions in the government.
8. The ultimate outcome of the invasion for Czechoslovakia was that it became the most oppressive Communist state of Eastern Europe, as Brezhev and his government became increasingly entangled wit Czechoslovak politics.
BREZHNEV/AFGHANISTAN;
1. What two justifications did the Soviets publicly offer for their Afghan invasion?
One was that Babrak had requested their military presence in Afghanistan to preserve his country for socialism, which was threatened by the United States and China. The other was that the threat to Afghanistan was also a threat to the USSR.
2. Other factors that may have motivated the USSR are that they had been friendly with Afghanistan and had made substantial financial investments in the country, as well as that the Soviets had signed a twenty-year treaty of friendship with the Taraki government, which had introduced many Soviet political, economical, social, and cultural institutions in the country.
3. The international reaction to Soviet policies in Afghanistan was condemnation of Soviet behavior and activity. Efforts to solve the problem (for example, efforts of the United Nations) were fruitless because of Soviet intransigence.
BREZHNEV/POLAND;
1. The six areas of conflict between the Soviets and the Poles were;
i. Religion - Poles are largely Catholic while Soviets are largely Russian Orthodox.
ii. "ideological deviation" - Poles withdrew from Soviet labor unions.
iii. Resistance to Soviet control of the Polish economy and exploitation of their resources.
iv. The security of the USSR and to its interests in central and eastern Europe.
v. It was a historic challenge.
vi. It was a protest against corruption of top Polish officials loyal to the USSR.
2. The six events that precipitated the '80-'81 Polish crisis;
i. The growing nationwide disillusionment with the government's policies.
ii. The government's failure to introduce desperately needed economic reforms that would improve the low living standard.
iii. The growing tension between religious and political leaders, which culminated the government's refusal to allow Pope John Paul VI to visit Poland in 1966 to commemorate the milennium of Polish Catholicism.
iv. The arrest and trial of several young party intellectuals who were critical of the official establishment and its policies.
v. The government's stoppage of a theatre production of a poetic drama (Dziady) because of its anti-Russian lines.
vi. The nationwide student unrest in March 1968 which was put down with excessive force.
3. Of the six areas of conflict, the most destructive one to Soviet-Polish relations definitely related to the Polish withdrawal from Soviet trade unions and the results of this. Steep price increases caused demonstrations, protests, and work stoppages. Poland came close to a working-class insurrection, and attempts to fix the economy were difficult as officials did not know how to handle them, and strikers' demands such as family allowances, early retirement, etc. and the appearance of an independent trade union alarmed the Soviets, and the defiance of the Polish to Soviet authority in these areas caused the Soviets to act again in 1980.
4. The least significant hindrance to the Polish-Soviet relations was their difference in religion. While the Pope's visit to Poland did put pressure on both sides, it did not yield destructive results and there were no outbreaks of anti-Polish or anti-Soviet sentiments. On the other hand the other five areas of conflict (historical reasons, economical reasons, Polish withdrawal from Soviet trade unions, etc.) seemed to have a more direct impact on events to come, while religious differences did somewhat hinder relations but were not one of the core reasons for worsening of Polish-Soviet relations.
Friday, June 11, 2010
IRL TOK, June 11, 2010.
* Can history provide a guide to understanding contemporary affairs? Can it provide a guide to the future? What might be “the lessons of history” for future generations?
History can provide a guide to understanding contemporary affairs. Knowing what happened in the past and why it happened can give insight into what is happening today, given the context of the original situation compared to those today. History can also provide a guide to the future but only to the extent to which we as people can predict it. It can give some insight but there will never be complete certainty as to what will happen in the future. "The lessons of history" for future generations might be to make similar decisions to ones which worked, and to not make the same mistakes as the past.
IRL 20 ( http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/The%20Balfour%20Declaration%20and%20its%20consequences.html) discusses the implications of the Balfour Declaration, its anbiguity in its message and the problems that this caused for Palestine, the Jews, the Arabs, and the British. The Balfour Declaration was the first instance of western support for a Jewish national home in Palestine, where the British stated that they supported a Jewish home in Palestine. However the British had also promised the Arabs independence, since they had helped them to fight against their Turkish rulers previously. The ambiguity of the Balfour Declaration, which stated that the British supported a Jewish national home in Palestine, did not state anything about what would happen to the Arabs, and was interpreted by the Jews as a sign of support in the case that they reestablished themselves in their ancient homeland, while the Arabs were certain the British would not allow the Jews to take over their country. This was the beginning of a conflict which can provide insight into the issues going on in the Middle East today - the Arabs believe that their interests were not taken into consideration and that their land was given over to the Jews, who did not rightfully belong there. The Jews believe they finally made it back to their rightful homeland, and this conflict extends back to the Balfour Declaration, when the two groups first started to have increased contact with one another. The lesson that can be learned from this is that ambiguous statements should not be made when regarding issues that pertain to two groups, as each will interpret it however they want and act on it, causing conflict. In addition, this issue shows clearly how one group reacts when another comes into their land and takes it over increasingly with time, showing the hostility and intense conflict, as well as issues of nationalism that result.
IRL 16 (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1155171.html) discusses a more recent issue, where the Israelis had approved the building of 1,600 new homes in a traditionally Arab/Muslim section of the city. This can be easily compared to past events, such as the invasion and massacre at Deir Yassin, where the Jews moved into an area that was not their own settlement and tried to force out the original group, making their presence there more stable. While there is no violence involved here (this is building new homes), it can be seen that historically and presently, the Jews in Palestine (today Israel) try to expand the area in which they occupy, especially extending into Muslim/Arab areas and switching them over. Looking at past events such as the Deir Yassin invasion, it should have been apparent that the Jews tend to not accept the amount of land they occupy and try to expand. The issue with this is that it does not take into consideration the wishes of the Arabs, or the agreements that were set as to who occupies what land, and this can be seen as a persistent issue that may continue into the future, assuming that these new homes are successfully built and purchased by Jewish people. The lesson that can be learned here is that when something is done successfully in the past, something similar (though in this situation to a MUCH lesser and less harmful extent) can also be carried out successfully, particularly if it is to a lesser extent.
While one can see the correlation between past and present, it is not always obvious, but looking more carefully into situations from both times can often show many similarities, with lessons to be learned from the past. As they say, the past does tend to repeat itself, and old issues often fuel present issues, assuming that the old issues were never solved, and issues relating to the Arab-Israeli crisis, overall, have never been "solved". Solutions have been attempted to be reached, but there has not yet been a solution that works for both sides. Anyone who knows about the history of modern Israel can see that situations similar to this (promising one group of people land on another peoples' land) is not a good idea and only leads to conflicts, and I sincerely hope that nothing like this ever happens again, given the number of reprocussions it has had in the Middle East today. I hope that people can see this as well, and know not to make the same mistakes in the future when it comes to land ownership.
History can provide a guide to understanding contemporary affairs. Knowing what happened in the past and why it happened can give insight into what is happening today, given the context of the original situation compared to those today. History can also provide a guide to the future but only to the extent to which we as people can predict it. It can give some insight but there will never be complete certainty as to what will happen in the future. "The lessons of history" for future generations might be to make similar decisions to ones which worked, and to not make the same mistakes as the past.
IRL 20 ( http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/The%20Balfour%20Declaration%20and%20its%20consequences.html) discusses the implications of the Balfour Declaration, its anbiguity in its message and the problems that this caused for Palestine, the Jews, the Arabs, and the British. The Balfour Declaration was the first instance of western support for a Jewish national home in Palestine, where the British stated that they supported a Jewish home in Palestine. However the British had also promised the Arabs independence, since they had helped them to fight against their Turkish rulers previously. The ambiguity of the Balfour Declaration, which stated that the British supported a Jewish national home in Palestine, did not state anything about what would happen to the Arabs, and was interpreted by the Jews as a sign of support in the case that they reestablished themselves in their ancient homeland, while the Arabs were certain the British would not allow the Jews to take over their country. This was the beginning of a conflict which can provide insight into the issues going on in the Middle East today - the Arabs believe that their interests were not taken into consideration and that their land was given over to the Jews, who did not rightfully belong there. The Jews believe they finally made it back to their rightful homeland, and this conflict extends back to the Balfour Declaration, when the two groups first started to have increased contact with one another. The lesson that can be learned from this is that ambiguous statements should not be made when regarding issues that pertain to two groups, as each will interpret it however they want and act on it, causing conflict. In addition, this issue shows clearly how one group reacts when another comes into their land and takes it over increasingly with time, showing the hostility and intense conflict, as well as issues of nationalism that result.
IRL 16 (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1155171.html) discusses a more recent issue, where the Israelis had approved the building of 1,600 new homes in a traditionally Arab/Muslim section of the city. This can be easily compared to past events, such as the invasion and massacre at Deir Yassin, where the Jews moved into an area that was not their own settlement and tried to force out the original group, making their presence there more stable. While there is no violence involved here (this is building new homes), it can be seen that historically and presently, the Jews in Palestine (today Israel) try to expand the area in which they occupy, especially extending into Muslim/Arab areas and switching them over. Looking at past events such as the Deir Yassin invasion, it should have been apparent that the Jews tend to not accept the amount of land they occupy and try to expand. The issue with this is that it does not take into consideration the wishes of the Arabs, or the agreements that were set as to who occupies what land, and this can be seen as a persistent issue that may continue into the future, assuming that these new homes are successfully built and purchased by Jewish people. The lesson that can be learned here is that when something is done successfully in the past, something similar (though in this situation to a MUCH lesser and less harmful extent) can also be carried out successfully, particularly if it is to a lesser extent.
While one can see the correlation between past and present, it is not always obvious, but looking more carefully into situations from both times can often show many similarities, with lessons to be learned from the past. As they say, the past does tend to repeat itself, and old issues often fuel present issues, assuming that the old issues were never solved, and issues relating to the Arab-Israeli crisis, overall, have never been "solved". Solutions have been attempted to be reached, but there has not yet been a solution that works for both sides. Anyone who knows about the history of modern Israel can see that situations similar to this (promising one group of people land on another peoples' land) is not a good idea and only leads to conflicts, and I sincerely hope that nothing like this ever happens again, given the number of reprocussions it has had in the Middle East today. I hope that people can see this as well, and know not to make the same mistakes in the future when it comes to land ownership.
Monday, June 7, 2010
IRl 23, June 7, 2010.
URL; http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_independence_war_diryassin.php
This is a very interesting perspective of the Deir Yassin massacre. This article has a definite pro-Jewish slant, which is very evident in the wording.
- "Dir Yassin was certainly not a massacre of a peaceful village, but rather was an Arab-Jewish battle with unfortunate civilian casualties."
The generally accepted viewpoint tends to be that the Jewish were trying to gain as much land as they could by taking over Arab towns, before the UN was to partition Palestine, so that the land held by the Jews would be significantly greater. This article would have one believe that Deir Yassin was attacked due to the actions of the villagers themselves, before the massacre even took place. For instance, this is also stated;
"Dir Yassin was a reasonable military target for Jewish forces, there was warning given before the battle, a fierce battle was fought with casualties on both sides. No massacre, no mutiliations, no atrocities."
This approaches the issue from the viewpoint that there were no atrocities from the Jews, contrary to the common viewpoint that the Jews attacked an innocent village.
Another example of a pro-Israeli slant here is;
"The use of the loudsepaker to warn the civilians to evacuate is a key point, certainly not the action of soldiers planning to murder the population"
The significance of this information to what we are studying in class is that it is a clear and concise example of how the same event can be told from two different perspectives. There is one point of view that the Jews viciously attacked an innocent village, and then there is the point of view expressed here, that the Jews gave advanced warning of what they were going to do and that it wasn't even a massacre, which can be determined from the article in that the word massacre is often put in quotation marks, showing that the writer did not consider it to be a true massacre and is mocking the notion that it was. The main limitation is that this article is definitely slanted toward pro-Jewish viewpoints, and therefore is not an accurate resource in itself for one who wants a balanced view of the Deir Yassin massacre.
This is a very interesting perspective of the Deir Yassin massacre. This article has a definite pro-Jewish slant, which is very evident in the wording.
- "Dir Yassin was certainly not a massacre of a peaceful village, but rather was an Arab-Jewish battle with unfortunate civilian casualties."
The generally accepted viewpoint tends to be that the Jewish were trying to gain as much land as they could by taking over Arab towns, before the UN was to partition Palestine, so that the land held by the Jews would be significantly greater. This article would have one believe that Deir Yassin was attacked due to the actions of the villagers themselves, before the massacre even took place. For instance, this is also stated;
"Dir Yassin was a reasonable military target for Jewish forces, there was warning given before the battle, a fierce battle was fought with casualties on both sides. No massacre, no mutiliations, no atrocities."
This approaches the issue from the viewpoint that there were no atrocities from the Jews, contrary to the common viewpoint that the Jews attacked an innocent village.
Another example of a pro-Israeli slant here is;
"The use of the loudsepaker to warn the civilians to evacuate is a key point, certainly not the action of soldiers planning to murder the population"
The significance of this information to what we are studying in class is that it is a clear and concise example of how the same event can be told from two different perspectives. There is one point of view that the Jews viciously attacked an innocent village, and then there is the point of view expressed here, that the Jews gave advanced warning of what they were going to do and that it wasn't even a massacre, which can be determined from the article in that the word massacre is often put in quotation marks, showing that the writer did not consider it to be a true massacre and is mocking the notion that it was. The main limitation is that this article is definitely slanted toward pro-Jewish viewpoints, and therefore is not an accurate resource in itself for one who wants a balanced view of the Deir Yassin massacre.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
IRL 22, May 27, 2010.
URL; http://www.zionism-israel.com/dic/Arab_Revolt.htm
This is an informative article which outlines and then describes the key information regarding the Arab Revolt/Great Arab Rebellion in Palestine, which took place between 1935-6 and 1939. This article relates mainly to the revolt as it relates to Zionism and to the Jewish people, which is the slant that the information presented here has, but it is still nonetheless valuable information, related to what we have been studying in class, as this rebellion is referenced.
It says here that this rebellion consisted of withholding taxes, acts of sabotage against British forces, and assassination of British officials, as well as the murder of Jewish civilians and other Arabs. These attacks were centered around the worry that the Arabs had about the large number of Jews that had immigrated to Palestine, worsening economic conditions due to the world depression.
Another valuable point mentioned here is that the Irgun, which was an Israeli 'secret police force' so to speak, was formed by the Jews in response to the violence that they had been enduring due to the Arabs' rebellion. The Haganah was also created as their military fighting force, and the end of the rebellion set the stage for the partition of Palestine and Israeli independence.
I also came to the conclusion on my own that the White Paper, issued by the British to pacify the Arabs' concerns about the large number of Jewish immigrants, must have been largely in response to their rebellion, and while I did know in the past due to what we've learned in class that the White Paper was one of the British attempts to not really take a definite stance on this, it must have largely been a result of the rebelling and the British would have wanted this to stop, as they would have been in the position of a mediator between the two sides.
The main limitation of this source is that there is so much information on it that for the purpose of completing this assignment or if I was looking for quick information, the first 10 or so paragraphs of text are all that are really going to be read, as it would take much more time to finish reading the page. There is so much information presented at once, whereas some people might be looking for a summary. Nevertheless, the information was very useful overall and amplified my understanding of the events happening between those years.
This is an informative article which outlines and then describes the key information regarding the Arab Revolt/Great Arab Rebellion in Palestine, which took place between 1935-6 and 1939. This article relates mainly to the revolt as it relates to Zionism and to the Jewish people, which is the slant that the information presented here has, but it is still nonetheless valuable information, related to what we have been studying in class, as this rebellion is referenced.
It says here that this rebellion consisted of withholding taxes, acts of sabotage against British forces, and assassination of British officials, as well as the murder of Jewish civilians and other Arabs. These attacks were centered around the worry that the Arabs had about the large number of Jews that had immigrated to Palestine, worsening economic conditions due to the world depression.
Another valuable point mentioned here is that the Irgun, which was an Israeli 'secret police force' so to speak, was formed by the Jews in response to the violence that they had been enduring due to the Arabs' rebellion. The Haganah was also created as their military fighting force, and the end of the rebellion set the stage for the partition of Palestine and Israeli independence.
I also came to the conclusion on my own that the White Paper, issued by the British to pacify the Arabs' concerns about the large number of Jewish immigrants, must have been largely in response to their rebellion, and while I did know in the past due to what we've learned in class that the White Paper was one of the British attempts to not really take a definite stance on this, it must have largely been a result of the rebelling and the British would have wanted this to stop, as they would have been in the position of a mediator between the two sides.
The main limitation of this source is that there is so much information on it that for the purpose of completing this assignment or if I was looking for quick information, the first 10 or so paragraphs of text are all that are really going to be read, as it would take much more time to finish reading the page. There is so much information presented at once, whereas some people might be looking for a summary. Nevertheless, the information was very useful overall and amplified my understanding of the events happening between those years.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
IRL 21. May 17, 2010.
URL; http://www.netanyahu.org/aliyah.html
One of the facts that was mentioned in my IA is that the name for a Jewish migration to Israel is known as an aliyah. I believe I specifically mentioned that the third of these, known as the Third Aliyah, resulted from harsh conditions in Russia that the Jewish people faced, and the support the Jews received through the Balfour Declaration encouraged them to make this migration.
This link above gives information on the religious significance of Jewish immigration to Israel. The Jews, according to this source, for centuries have viewed immigration back to the Promised Land as a religious obligation. In fact, the word aliyah itself means "ascent" or "pilgrimage", and those who make the aliyah are known as "olim", or "ascenders". There are many prayers that according to Jewish law, can only be prayed in Israel.
What I take from this is that I can now see that the land of Israel is not only culturally significant to the Jewish people and the land that they feel they deserve, but it is a key part of their religious life as well. How well could a group of people carry out their religion in another land if their traditions and traditional laws state that certain prayers can only be performed in one land? The land of Israel is very significant to the Jewish people in religious terms too - this fact corroborates the information I have formerly received that Israel was significant on many levels to the Jewish people, and I can now see another reason why they would strive to reestablish themselves there, which according to my research they did very successfully.
The only limitation of this source is that it does not give exact numbers as to how many Jews immigrated, but that is more a fact I want to know, and its exclusion does not detract from the overall purpose of the article.
One of the facts that was mentioned in my IA is that the name for a Jewish migration to Israel is known as an aliyah. I believe I specifically mentioned that the third of these, known as the Third Aliyah, resulted from harsh conditions in Russia that the Jewish people faced, and the support the Jews received through the Balfour Declaration encouraged them to make this migration.
This link above gives information on the religious significance of Jewish immigration to Israel. The Jews, according to this source, for centuries have viewed immigration back to the Promised Land as a religious obligation. In fact, the word aliyah itself means "ascent" or "pilgrimage", and those who make the aliyah are known as "olim", or "ascenders". There are many prayers that according to Jewish law, can only be prayed in Israel.
What I take from this is that I can now see that the land of Israel is not only culturally significant to the Jewish people and the land that they feel they deserve, but it is a key part of their religious life as well. How well could a group of people carry out their religion in another land if their traditions and traditional laws state that certain prayers can only be performed in one land? The land of Israel is very significant to the Jewish people in religious terms too - this fact corroborates the information I have formerly received that Israel was significant on many levels to the Jewish people, and I can now see another reason why they would strive to reestablish themselves there, which according to my research they did very successfully.
The only limitation of this source is that it does not give exact numbers as to how many Jews immigrated, but that is more a fact I want to know, and its exclusion does not detract from the overall purpose of the article.
Friday, May 7, 2010
IRL 20, May 7, 2010.
URL; http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/The%20Balfour%20Declaration%20and%20its%20consequences.html
This is an article written by Avi Shlaim, explaining the ambiguity of the Balfour Declaration and how it was interpreted differently by the Jews and the Arabs. The Arabs believed, after the Balfour Declaration was written in 1917, that the interests of the Jews and the British goal to help them establish a national home would not conflict with Arab independence in Palestine. King Hussein was not opposed to Jewish settlement in Palestine, as he saw them as "People of the Book", meaning the Bible, but he was opposed to a Zionist takeover of Palestine. He did not want to see a Zionist agenda there.
The Jewish perspective is that they interpreted the Balfour Declaration as a sign that the British would be willing to support them in achieving their long-standing goal of re-establishing themselves in what they perceived to be their homeland once again, and eventually the Arabs there did see conflicting issues, and both sides eventually turned against the British, realizing that they could not depend on the British to achieve their goals.
The importance of this source to me is that it gives me some further background on one of the points I have made in my IA. In my IA, I analyzed the impact of the Balfour Declaration on the creation of an independent Israel, and like I discovered in my own research, this source backs up my point that although Israel was not established as a direct result of British actions, the issuing of the Balfour Declaration definitely contributed to Jewish immigration to Palestine, and allowed them to reestablish themselves there in larger numbers, feeling comfortable about doing so.
This is a sentence from the source above that demonstrates how the Balfour Declaration's impact on Jewish immigration angered the Arabs;
"The consequences of the Balfour Declaration were not confined to Palestine. The Declaration engendered anger towards Britain throughout the Arab world and at all levels of Arab society from the intellectual elites to the masses. "
The limitation of this source is primarily that it focuses more on the Arab perspective than the Jewish perspective, and apart from the fact that the Balfour Declaration inspired Jewish immigration, there is no explicit reference or quote to give the Jewish perspective in a more detailed manner than the generic one that I expressed above; Balfour Declaration gave the Jews the idea that Britain would support their endeavors.
This is an article written by Avi Shlaim, explaining the ambiguity of the Balfour Declaration and how it was interpreted differently by the Jews and the Arabs. The Arabs believed, after the Balfour Declaration was written in 1917, that the interests of the Jews and the British goal to help them establish a national home would not conflict with Arab independence in Palestine. King Hussein was not opposed to Jewish settlement in Palestine, as he saw them as "People of the Book", meaning the Bible, but he was opposed to a Zionist takeover of Palestine. He did not want to see a Zionist agenda there.
The Jewish perspective is that they interpreted the Balfour Declaration as a sign that the British would be willing to support them in achieving their long-standing goal of re-establishing themselves in what they perceived to be their homeland once again, and eventually the Arabs there did see conflicting issues, and both sides eventually turned against the British, realizing that they could not depend on the British to achieve their goals.
The importance of this source to me is that it gives me some further background on one of the points I have made in my IA. In my IA, I analyzed the impact of the Balfour Declaration on the creation of an independent Israel, and like I discovered in my own research, this source backs up my point that although Israel was not established as a direct result of British actions, the issuing of the Balfour Declaration definitely contributed to Jewish immigration to Palestine, and allowed them to reestablish themselves there in larger numbers, feeling comfortable about doing so.
This is a sentence from the source above that demonstrates how the Balfour Declaration's impact on Jewish immigration angered the Arabs;
"The consequences of the Balfour Declaration were not confined to Palestine. The Declaration engendered anger towards Britain throughout the Arab world and at all levels of Arab society from the intellectual elites to the masses. "
The limitation of this source is primarily that it focuses more on the Arab perspective than the Jewish perspective, and apart from the fact that the Balfour Declaration inspired Jewish immigration, there is no explicit reference or quote to give the Jewish perspective in a more detailed manner than the generic one that I expressed above; Balfour Declaration gave the Jews the idea that Britain would support their endeavors.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
IRL 19, April 27, 2010.
URL; http://www.adl.org/durban/zionism.asp
This is an article from the Anti-Defamation League, designed to "stop the defamation of the Jewish people ... to secure justice and fair treatment for all." This article is explaining Zionism, which is one of the aspects being acknowledged in my IA, in the process of determining to what extent Israel is a product of British involvement in the Middle East. Zionists, who are Jewish nationalists, were also one of the groups that contributed to Israel's development and establishment, so this serves as a background for me as to what Zionism really is, and when it became prominent.
It is described here as the Jewish national movement of rebirth and renewal in Israel, the birthplace of the Jewish people. Ever since the Jews were expelled from this land, the desire to return has been a key part of Jewish literature, prayer, ritual, and culture. Zionism emerged to prominence in the late 1800s as a result of anti-Semitism in Western Europe and persecution of Jews in Eastern Europe, and the "father" of modern Zionism was Theodor Herzl, an Austrian journalist who advocated for a Jewish state and homeland. Today, Zionism is a guiding national movement among many Jews, and some believe it is responsible for their determination to remain in Israel despite opposition among many.
The value of this information is that it shows me that in part, the establishment of Israel is in part due to intense Jewish nationalism, and the fact that the Jews have managed to fight opposition and remain established there for these turbulent 60 or so years shows me that they are a very proud and determined people, due to their desire to maintain their culture and establish a homeland for themselves once again. Zionism had been brought up in class and in my reading for my IA, but this clarifies for me what it actually means to the Jewish people.
This is an article from the Anti-Defamation League, designed to "stop the defamation of the Jewish people ... to secure justice and fair treatment for all." This article is explaining Zionism, which is one of the aspects being acknowledged in my IA, in the process of determining to what extent Israel is a product of British involvement in the Middle East. Zionists, who are Jewish nationalists, were also one of the groups that contributed to Israel's development and establishment, so this serves as a background for me as to what Zionism really is, and when it became prominent.
It is described here as the Jewish national movement of rebirth and renewal in Israel, the birthplace of the Jewish people. Ever since the Jews were expelled from this land, the desire to return has been a key part of Jewish literature, prayer, ritual, and culture. Zionism emerged to prominence in the late 1800s as a result of anti-Semitism in Western Europe and persecution of Jews in Eastern Europe, and the "father" of modern Zionism was Theodor Herzl, an Austrian journalist who advocated for a Jewish state and homeland. Today, Zionism is a guiding national movement among many Jews, and some believe it is responsible for their determination to remain in Israel despite opposition among many.
The value of this information is that it shows me that in part, the establishment of Israel is in part due to intense Jewish nationalism, and the fact that the Jews have managed to fight opposition and remain established there for these turbulent 60 or so years shows me that they are a very proud and determined people, due to their desire to maintain their culture and establish a homeland for themselves once again. Zionism had been brought up in class and in my reading for my IA, but this clarifies for me what it actually means to the Jewish people.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Key Issues, Pages 45-50 of "Crisis in the Middle East".
1. How did Israel develop into a strong, modern state?
The Israeli Army, which helped to not only protect the nation but to shape it as well, were a major contributing factor. The "Law of Return" gave Jews from all over the world the right to be a citizen, and as a result, nearly 700,000 new immigrants arrived. In the army, they all received a similar training and learned Hebrew. Army experience helped to make the immigrants true Israelis, and with financial aid from the United States and reparations from Germany, the Israelis had the money to cultivate vast areas of desert. Also, new industries formed in the 1950s and 1960s such as cars, chemicals, and defense, and much money was spent on the armed forces to defend the country. Also, high quality education helped to push the country forward.
2. What part did Fatah play in the developing conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors?
Fatah was part of the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization), whose aim was to win back the land that the Palestinians had lost to Israel. In 1965, Fatah carried out its first raid of Israel, and had its bases in Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon, all of which border Israel. The Jordanians and Lebanese tried to restrict PLO activities because they were afraid of Israeli reprisals, but the Syrians supported it and supplied men and arms.
3. Who was to blame for the outbreak of war in June 1967?
Neither side was to blame more than the other, as the region was sliding into a crisis that it could not control. Israel issued several threats to attack Syria if Syria did not stop supporting Palestinian attacks on Israel, and then on the other hand the USSR intervened on the side of Syria. The Soviets warned the Egyptians that Israel was planning to attack (which was untrue), causing Nasser to act in defense of Egypt. So really, neither side is to blame more than the other because there was a situation that could not be controlled all too well.
The Israeli Army, which helped to not only protect the nation but to shape it as well, were a major contributing factor. The "Law of Return" gave Jews from all over the world the right to be a citizen, and as a result, nearly 700,000 new immigrants arrived. In the army, they all received a similar training and learned Hebrew. Army experience helped to make the immigrants true Israelis, and with financial aid from the United States and reparations from Germany, the Israelis had the money to cultivate vast areas of desert. Also, new industries formed in the 1950s and 1960s such as cars, chemicals, and defense, and much money was spent on the armed forces to defend the country. Also, high quality education helped to push the country forward.
2. What part did Fatah play in the developing conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors?
Fatah was part of the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization), whose aim was to win back the land that the Palestinians had lost to Israel. In 1965, Fatah carried out its first raid of Israel, and had its bases in Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon, all of which border Israel. The Jordanians and Lebanese tried to restrict PLO activities because they were afraid of Israeli reprisals, but the Syrians supported it and supplied men and arms.
3. Who was to blame for the outbreak of war in June 1967?
Neither side was to blame more than the other, as the region was sliding into a crisis that it could not control. Israel issued several threats to attack Syria if Syria did not stop supporting Palestinian attacks on Israel, and then on the other hand the USSR intervened on the side of Syria. The Soviets warned the Egyptians that Israel was planning to attack (which was untrue), causing Nasser to act in defense of Egypt. So really, neither side is to blame more than the other because there was a situation that could not be controlled all too well.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
IRL 18. April 11, 2010.
URL; http://www.sixdaywar.co.uk/
On the menu on the left, is a link to a list of quotes of people from Israel and the Arab countries made during the time of this war or the time preceding it, compiledon a British website dedicated to the Six Day War and providing details about all aspects of it. These quotes give much insight into how the leaders in these countries felt in regards to the situation, and as this war has been discussed in class as well as a couple of quotes (one of which stated that the Syrians would not make peace with Israel and wanted to drench the land in their blood and toss them back into the sea), these quotes will further my understanding. The following quotes stood out to me as particularly significant;
"In view of the fourteen incidents of sabotage and infiltration perpetrated in the past month alone, Israel may have no other choice but to adopt suitable countermeasures against the focal points of sabotage. Israel will continue to take action to prevent any and all attempts to perpetrate sabotage within her territory. There will be no immunity for any state which aids or abets such acts." - PM Levi Eshkol speech
This quote is significant because it demonstrates the Israeli motive to fight for what they perceived as their need to survive in the Middle East. Mention is made of 14 incidents of sabotage and infiltration, which would've been the reasons they would have needed to fight; if they wanted to survive, they would need to make every attempt they could to protect themselves when every country around them is against them. Their fate depended on it.
“All Egypt is now prepared to plunge into total war which will put an end to Israel” - Cairo Radio
The significance here is that Egypt (and most likely other Arab nations who shared common goals) would do anything to eliminate Israel, showing the hatred these surrounding countries had for Israel and how they desperately wanted to destroy Israel.
The limitations of these quotes are that although they were made in context of this war, it is not guaranteed that EVERYONE in Egypt for instance hated Israel and wanted a 'total war' in order to end Israel's existence. These quotes reflect the beliefs of those who could publicize their beliefs. Someone else who would have had no way of letting their opinions reach the public might have disagreed. But these quotes do say much about the popular opinion at the time.
On the menu on the left, is a link to a list of quotes of people from Israel and the Arab countries made during the time of this war or the time preceding it, compiledon a British website dedicated to the Six Day War and providing details about all aspects of it. These quotes give much insight into how the leaders in these countries felt in regards to the situation, and as this war has been discussed in class as well as a couple of quotes (one of which stated that the Syrians would not make peace with Israel and wanted to drench the land in their blood and toss them back into the sea), these quotes will further my understanding. The following quotes stood out to me as particularly significant;
"In view of the fourteen incidents of sabotage and infiltration perpetrated in the past month alone, Israel may have no other choice but to adopt suitable countermeasures against the focal points of sabotage. Israel will continue to take action to prevent any and all attempts to perpetrate sabotage within her territory. There will be no immunity for any state which aids or abets such acts." - PM Levi Eshkol speech
This quote is significant because it demonstrates the Israeli motive to fight for what they perceived as their need to survive in the Middle East. Mention is made of 14 incidents of sabotage and infiltration, which would've been the reasons they would have needed to fight; if they wanted to survive, they would need to make every attempt they could to protect themselves when every country around them is against them. Their fate depended on it.
“All Egypt is now prepared to plunge into total war which will put an end to Israel” - Cairo Radio
The significance here is that Egypt (and most likely other Arab nations who shared common goals) would do anything to eliminate Israel, showing the hatred these surrounding countries had for Israel and how they desperately wanted to destroy Israel.
The limitations of these quotes are that although they were made in context of this war, it is not guaranteed that EVERYONE in Egypt for instance hated Israel and wanted a 'total war' in order to end Israel's existence. These quotes reflect the beliefs of those who could publicize their beliefs. Someone else who would have had no way of letting their opinions reach the public might have disagreed. But these quotes do say much about the popular opinion at the time.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
IRL 17, March 31, 2010
URL; http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/causes_suez-crisis-1956.htm
This is an outline of the Suez Canal War of 1956, which we have discussed in class. This page comes from a British site for history learning, and describes how the Suez Canal War ended the political career of Sir Anthony Eden (the British Prime Minister at the time) but advanced Gamal Abdel Nasser's reputation in the Arab world. It states here that the war began in 1956 when Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal, that is, took control of it and its profits and prevented Britain from benefitting. Britain had ruled Egypt for all of the 20th century and their presence in Egypt was not welcomed by many Egyptians, and Nasser's nationalization of the Suez Canal was one of the acts which drove the British out of Egypt, which many Egyptians wanted. After the British (and the French, who had joint control over the Canal) agreed to a ceasefire in the war and left the canal under Egyptian control, Nasser's reputation improved even more, while the British and the French, and by default, Eden were seen as international bullies. In order to further better the Egyptian economy, Nasser wanted to build what would become the Aswan High Dam, and wishing to regain some control in the region, both Britain and the United States agreed to support the project financially. The significance of this outline to what we have studied in class is that both support the idea that the Suez Canal War made relations between Britain and Egypt worse, portrayed Nasser as a hero in the Arab world for standing up to the British and the French (who they saw as oppressors), and made the British and the French appear to be international bullies. The main limitation with this source is that it does not specifically state how this incident ended Anthony Eden's political career, although it is stated in the first part of the reading that it did, and that information would be useful, since it effectively describes how Nasser's reputation improved due to the war.
This is an outline of the Suez Canal War of 1956, which we have discussed in class. This page comes from a British site for history learning, and describes how the Suez Canal War ended the political career of Sir Anthony Eden (the British Prime Minister at the time) but advanced Gamal Abdel Nasser's reputation in the Arab world. It states here that the war began in 1956 when Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal, that is, took control of it and its profits and prevented Britain from benefitting. Britain had ruled Egypt for all of the 20th century and their presence in Egypt was not welcomed by many Egyptians, and Nasser's nationalization of the Suez Canal was one of the acts which drove the British out of Egypt, which many Egyptians wanted. After the British (and the French, who had joint control over the Canal) agreed to a ceasefire in the war and left the canal under Egyptian control, Nasser's reputation improved even more, while the British and the French, and by default, Eden were seen as international bullies. In order to further better the Egyptian economy, Nasser wanted to build what would become the Aswan High Dam, and wishing to regain some control in the region, both Britain and the United States agreed to support the project financially. The significance of this outline to what we have studied in class is that both support the idea that the Suez Canal War made relations between Britain and Egypt worse, portrayed Nasser as a hero in the Arab world for standing up to the British and the French (who they saw as oppressors), and made the British and the French appear to be international bullies. The main limitation with this source is that it does not specifically state how this incident ended Anthony Eden's political career, although it is stated in the first part of the reading that it did, and that information would be useful, since it effectively describes how Nasser's reputation improved due to the war.
Monday, March 29, 2010
7 "Key Questions", pages 36-44 of "Crisis in the Middle East". March 29, 2010.
1. There were several causes for the tension along Israel's borders. The first is that after the Arabs had been defeated by the Israelis, the Israelis had militarized their border with Syria. The Syrian side was also militarized and there were other sources of tension as well, including an Israeli attempt to push Arabs across the border in order to create more Jewish settlements, and there were frequent incidents of shelling from both the Israeli and the Syrian sides. There were Israeli reprisals every time Jordanians crossed the border into Israel, where the Israelis targeted Arab villages. Many more killings occurred along Israel's border with Egypt than anywhere else, with raids and reprisals accompanying the killings.
2. Many Egyptians resented the British presence in their country because they felt they could only be truly independent after the British left, and they saw the British presence as imperialism. The Egyptians didn't like that the British had so many troops stationed along the Suez Canal and that the canal was so vital to the British, especially given that so many Egyptians had died in the process of its construction in the 1880s. They also saw their government as inefficient and they blamed its weakness on British influence, where they felt that King Farouk had been manipulated by the British. They accused their government of supplying them with limited and weak weapons, leading to their defeat by the Israelis.
3. The Egyptian monarchy was overthrown by a group of young officers, known as the Free Officers, who secretly plotted to overthrow the government and eventually succeeded. They built support within the army, taking their time while simultaneously avoiding being uncovered by the security police. In July of 1952 they took over key government buildings and announced the revolution's success by way of radio, and after allowing the king to flee the country, General Neguib was appointed head of the new government. When Egypt became a republic in 1953 he became president.
4. The Israelis attacked Gaza because they wanted to teach Nasser a lesson because Egypt encouraged Palestinian raids into Israel. They hoped to remove Nasser from power and wanted to expose him as militarily weak in the process. Israeli troops attacked the Egyptian army headquarters in Gaza and killed 35 Egyptian soldiers.
5. Britain, France, and Israel decided to attack Egypt because Nasser decided that he would nationalise the Suez Canal and that Egyptians would run it themselves. He said Britain and France could 'choke on their rage'. Britain and France were determined to stop this, and they were determined not to appease Nasser as they had Hitler in the 1930s, and one person even referred to Nasser as "Hitler on the Nile". The French also wanted to topple Nasser because they believed he had given aid to the Algerians in their fight for independence against the French themselves. Israel, a country with a close relationship to Britain, of course would share a similar viewpoint.
6. In the Suez War, Israeli forces invaded Egypt in October of 1956. The next day, the British and French ordered Egypt and Israel to each withdraw 10 miles from the canal and if either side refused, the British and French would use force. The Israelis agreed, the Egyptians refused. The British and French then destroyed most of the Egyptian air force, and bombed Port Said. Egypt responded by sinking their ships. The Arab states condemned this Anglo-French action and ceased sale of oil to the West, and the UN ordered the British and French to withdraw.
7. The Egyptians and the Israelis were winners of the war each in different ways. The Egyptians now had complete control of the Suez Canal, and Nasser now had the respect and admiration of many Arab states, because he had finally stood up to Britain and France, who had controlled the region for far too long. Nasser also could claim that the Egyptian army was only defeated by the Israelis due to British and French support. The Israelis' victory over Egyptian forces in the Sinai and in Gaza proved their Israeli Defense Forces to be the strongest in the Middle East, and UN forces now prevented further raids on Israel.
The losers of the war were Britain and France. They failed to overthrow Nasser and failed to regain control of the Canal. The Anglo-French domination of the Middle East was ending.
2. Many Egyptians resented the British presence in their country because they felt they could only be truly independent after the British left, and they saw the British presence as imperialism. The Egyptians didn't like that the British had so many troops stationed along the Suez Canal and that the canal was so vital to the British, especially given that so many Egyptians had died in the process of its construction in the 1880s. They also saw their government as inefficient and they blamed its weakness on British influence, where they felt that King Farouk had been manipulated by the British. They accused their government of supplying them with limited and weak weapons, leading to their defeat by the Israelis.
3. The Egyptian monarchy was overthrown by a group of young officers, known as the Free Officers, who secretly plotted to overthrow the government and eventually succeeded. They built support within the army, taking their time while simultaneously avoiding being uncovered by the security police. In July of 1952 they took over key government buildings and announced the revolution's success by way of radio, and after allowing the king to flee the country, General Neguib was appointed head of the new government. When Egypt became a republic in 1953 he became president.
4. The Israelis attacked Gaza because they wanted to teach Nasser a lesson because Egypt encouraged Palestinian raids into Israel. They hoped to remove Nasser from power and wanted to expose him as militarily weak in the process. Israeli troops attacked the Egyptian army headquarters in Gaza and killed 35 Egyptian soldiers.
5. Britain, France, and Israel decided to attack Egypt because Nasser decided that he would nationalise the Suez Canal and that Egyptians would run it themselves. He said Britain and France could 'choke on their rage'. Britain and France were determined to stop this, and they were determined not to appease Nasser as they had Hitler in the 1930s, and one person even referred to Nasser as "Hitler on the Nile". The French also wanted to topple Nasser because they believed he had given aid to the Algerians in their fight for independence against the French themselves. Israel, a country with a close relationship to Britain, of course would share a similar viewpoint.
6. In the Suez War, Israeli forces invaded Egypt in October of 1956. The next day, the British and French ordered Egypt and Israel to each withdraw 10 miles from the canal and if either side refused, the British and French would use force. The Israelis agreed, the Egyptians refused. The British and French then destroyed most of the Egyptian air force, and bombed Port Said. Egypt responded by sinking their ships. The Arab states condemned this Anglo-French action and ceased sale of oil to the West, and the UN ordered the British and French to withdraw.
7. The Egyptians and the Israelis were winners of the war each in different ways. The Egyptians now had complete control of the Suez Canal, and Nasser now had the respect and admiration of many Arab states, because he had finally stood up to Britain and France, who had controlled the region for far too long. Nasser also could claim that the Egyptian army was only defeated by the Israelis due to British and French support. The Israelis' victory over Egyptian forces in the Sinai and in Gaza proved their Israeli Defense Forces to be the strongest in the Middle East, and UN forces now prevented further raids on Israel.
The losers of the war were Britain and France. They failed to overthrow Nasser and failed to regain control of the Canal. The Anglo-French domination of the Middle East was ending.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Who was responsible for the creation of Israel? March 25, 2010.
The West, particularly the British, were responsible for the creation of Israel. For one, the Jews in Europe and particularly in Britain had been pushing for assistance in establishing a Jewish homeland, and when the British implied in a very vague and ambiguous manner in the Balfour Declaration that they would do such, this encouraged mass immigration to Palestine. The UN and Britain were responsible for the land being divided up amongst the Jews and Arabs and pretty soon, the United States expressed their support for Israel. The Jews gained military and experience from the British that they would later use in fighting for the land that they wanted, and they ended up getting that land, and eventually Israel was established. Without the Balfour Declaration to imply that the Jews could settle in Palestine, there would never have been a mass immigration there that would have been sufficient enough to develop a Jewish community that would push for their own country there, so that was the initial spark that enabled everything else to happen as it did. Without the British and their military training, the Jews could not have successfully fought against the Arabs and been able to get the land they wanted either. I see the West as a key reason why Israel was able to become what it is today.
Monday, March 22, 2010
IRL 16, March 22, 2010
URL; http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1155171.html
This is an article from the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, and much of it comes from the perspective of Joe Biden, our Vice-President, relating to the Israeli decision to approve 1,600 new homes in an ultra-Orthodox East Jerusalem neighborhood. This article is significant to what we were discussing in class today because our class is transitioning back into discussions about the Arab-Israeli crisis, and the mention of the plan to build Israeli homes in East Jerusalem, the traditionally Muslim part of the city, came up in class today. According to the article and Joe Biden, this plan to build Israeli homes in that area is "precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now", and the article also states that this action undermines Middle East peace talks. I believe that the Israelis are building homes here for a number of reasons; 1. to expand into other parts of the region and 2. to assert their authority in the area, and both of these ideas were brought up in class today. It is interesting to think that such an action like this could make problems worse in Jerusalem or the country as a whole, but it's very probable and the Israelis don't seem to care. I also found it interesting that Joe Biden says this, given that the United States traditionally supported everything the Israelis did. However I agree, I think that such an act will anger the Muslim/Arab/Palestinian population of East Jerusalem and will prevent cooperation. One limitation of this article is that it only gives one perspective, and it does not give the perspective of East Jerusalem residents to either back up Biden's claim that the Israeli homes being built will disrupt peaceful cooperation, or refute the idea.
This is an article from the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, and much of it comes from the perspective of Joe Biden, our Vice-President, relating to the Israeli decision to approve 1,600 new homes in an ultra-Orthodox East Jerusalem neighborhood. This article is significant to what we were discussing in class today because our class is transitioning back into discussions about the Arab-Israeli crisis, and the mention of the plan to build Israeli homes in East Jerusalem, the traditionally Muslim part of the city, came up in class today. According to the article and Joe Biden, this plan to build Israeli homes in that area is "precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now", and the article also states that this action undermines Middle East peace talks. I believe that the Israelis are building homes here for a number of reasons; 1. to expand into other parts of the region and 2. to assert their authority in the area, and both of these ideas were brought up in class today. It is interesting to think that such an action like this could make problems worse in Jerusalem or the country as a whole, but it's very probable and the Israelis don't seem to care. I also found it interesting that Joe Biden says this, given that the United States traditionally supported everything the Israelis did. However I agree, I think that such an act will anger the Muslim/Arab/Palestinian population of East Jerusalem and will prevent cooperation. One limitation of this article is that it only gives one perspective, and it does not give the perspective of East Jerusalem residents to either back up Biden's claim that the Israeli homes being built will disrupt peaceful cooperation, or refute the idea.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
SGQ14, March 17, 2010
MWH p. 147-149 and 162-165
A. Why did Castro come to power? (p. 147)
1. Why did many Cubans resent America?
a. They believed there was too much American influence in the country that dated back to the Spanish-American War.
b. American troops were needed to maintain stability, and American financial aid and investment was behind the Cuban economy.
c. The USA controlled the Cuban economy in many ways, and the Americans held controlling interests in all Cuban industries such as sugar, textiles, iron, tobacco, cooper, rum, etc. All of this would not have resulted in resentment if it led to a successful Cuba, but it did not for the Cubans.
2. Economic problems
a. The economy was too dependent on the export of sugar, and the wealth was only concentrated in the hands of a few.
b. Unemployment was a serious problem, and at some parts of the year was as much as 30%.
c. There was no unemployment benefit and trade unions did nothing to help. Social tensions were high due to the dramatic difference in wealth from rich to poor.
3. Why was there no effective political system?
Fulgencio Batista seized power in a military coup and he introduced no reforms, and focused too much on foreign affairs and not enough on what was going on inside Cuba itself. His regime was also brutal and corrupt. 4. How did Castro rise to prominence?
In 1953 he was thrown in jail due to an unsuccessful attempt to overthrow Batista but after the two years of jail time, he began a campaign of guerrilla warfare and sabotage in the cities, and the rebels eventually controlled the east and the north of the country. His land reform policy also won support in the mountainous areas. 5. How did the revolution eventually play out?
a. Bastista's actions - He took savage reprisals against the guerrillas and tortured and murdered suspects. The middle class saw him as a brutal dictator and supported Castro in hopes that Batista would be overthrown. The Cuban army crumbled in 1958 after a poor attempt to defeat Castro's forces.
b. USA's role - The USA was embarrassed by Batista's actions and cut off arms and supplies, which was a blow to Batista's prestige. Batista fled from Cuba after a small rebel force under Che Guevara drove him out by moving in on Santa Clara, and a liberal government was set up with Castro as its head.
B. What was the revolution's effect on Cuba's foreign relations?
1. with the USA - Most Americans saw Castro as a social democrat so they were prepared to give him a chance, and at first there were no issues. However he nationalized American-owned estates and factories, enraging the US. When President Eisenhower threatened to stop importing Cuban sugar, Castro signed a trade agreement with Russia.
2. with the USSR - The USSR promised to buy Cuban sugar and signed a trade agreement with Cuba. The Russians supplied economic aid as well.
3. with other Latin American countries - They expelled Cuba from the Organization of American States (OAS), which made Cuba more dependent on the USSR.
C. Castro's domestic problems
1. economic issues
a. The economy relied too heavily on the sugar industry and was at the mercy of the fluctuations in world sugar prices.
b. There was serious unemployment and poverty.
c. The whole government and administration was riddled with corruption.
2. attempted solutions
a. Social reforms, such as to improve education, housing, health, medical facilities and communications began.
b. Agricultural land was taken by the government and collective farms were introduced.
c. Factories and businesses were nationalized.
3. successes
a. There were equalities for black people and more rights for women.
b. All children were now recei9ving some education.
c. Sanitation, hygiene, and healthcare were improved, with unemployment and corruption reduced. There were also touring cinemas, theatres, concerts, and art exhibitions.
D. Reasons for detente (p.162)
1. issues for the USSR
a. The USSR was finding the expense of keeping up with the Americans to be crippling.
b. There was unrest in Poland in the early 1970s which threatened to destabilize the Communist bloc.
c. The Russians were on bad terms with China, and did not want to be left out when relations between China and the US began to improve.
2. issues for the US
Americans realized that there must have been a better way of containing Communism than the way that was failing in Vietnam. 3. issues for China
The Chinese were anxious about their isolation and not happy about their worsening relations with the USSR. 4. issues for Western Europe
Western Europeans were worried because they would be in the front line if nuclear war broke out. Willi Brandt, chancellor of West Germany since 1969, worked for better relations with Eastern Europe, a policy known as Ostopolitik.e. What was the nature of detente between the US and the USSR?
1. arms limitations - The US and USSR signed, in 1967, an agreement to ban the use of nuclear weapons in outer space. Also they signed the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty which decided how many weapons each side would have, and although this did not reduce the number of armaments, it slowed the arms race down.
2. Helsinki Agreement - The USA, Canada, the USSR and most European states signed it and accepted the European frontiers which had been drawn up after World War II, recognizing the division of Germany. The communists agreed to allow people their 'human rights' including freedom of speech and freedom to leave the country.
3. what setbacks prevented further cooperation?
a. In 1979 NATO became nervous at the deployment of 150 new Russian SS-20 missiles, so they decided to deploy over 500 Pershing and Cruise missiles in Europe in 1983 as a deterrent to a possible Russian attack on western Europe.
b. The US Senate decided not to accept a SALT 2 treaty which would limit the number of MIRVs.
c. The Russians invaded Afghanistan on Christmas of 1979 and replaced the president with one more favorable to them.
4. summarize the arms race during the 1980s:
Both sides spent the early 1980s building up their nuclear arsenals, and President Reagan initiated the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) known as the 'Star Wars'. This was meant to destroy ballistic missiles in flight from space.f. What was the nature of detente between the US and China?
1. how did each side reach out to the other?
China invited an American table tennis team to visit China in 1971, and following that, the USA responded by calling off their veto of Chinese entry into the United Nations. 2. what was the primary reason for the lack of full cooperation?
There was still the problem of Taiwan that soured the relationship; the US had at one point supported the Nationalists and they still lived on the island. 3. what was the climax of detente?
President Carter in 1979 gave formal recognition of the People's Republic of China, and ambassadors were exchanged. Good relations were maintained through the 1980s. 4. what issues arose and created more tension?
In 1989 the Chinese government used troops to disperse a student demonstration in Tiananmen Square, Beijing. At least a thousand students were killed and/or executed and this brought worldwide condemnation.g. Sino-Soviet relations
1. why did relations between the Soviets and Chinese deteriorate?
a. The Chinese did not approve of Krushchev's policies, particularly his belief of 'peaceful co-existence', and his claim that it was possible to achieve communism without violent revolution.
b. The Chinese believed these new ideas and policies went against those of Lenin, and the Chinese accused the Russians of 'revisionism'. The Russians also reduced their economic aid to China and Krushchev was accused of being 'soft' to the USA.
2. what were Chinese grievances towards the USSR in 1984?
a. The presence of Russian troops in Afghanistan
b. Soviet backing of the Vietnamese troops in Kampuchea
c. The Soviet troop build-up along the Chinese frontiers of Mongolia and Manchuria
3. how did tensions ease after 1984?
Mikhail Gorbachev was determined to begin a new era in Sino-Russian relations and so five-year agreements on trade and economic cooperation were signed in 1985 and regular contact took place between their governments. In 1989 Vietnam removed their troops from Kampuchea so the relationship with China improved.
Mikhail Gorbachev was determined to begin a new era in Sino-Russian relations and so five-year agreements on trade and economic cooperation were signed in 1985 and regular contact took place between their governments. In 1989 Vietnam removed their troops from Kampuchea so the relationship with China improved.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Question 5, March 12, 2010
'No great realignment.' What evidence is there contained in all of the sources A-C that the changes in the relations between the USA and PRC in 1971 were less fundamental than sometimes assumed?'
In sources A through C it is clear that the US-Sino relations in the early 1970's underwent no major fundamental changes, but there was a general warming in the relations between the countries.
American policies towards Chinese ideology remained primarily the same accoring to source A. The US still did not accept communism. US still refused to accpet China's hegemany of Asia.
Source C (i) and (iii): Expresses the suspicion held by the Soviet Union that the US has realized that Communist China's power will be more beneficial to them than that of the Soviet Union, and also the secrecy that the US and China developed relations with.
In source B it states that the Us would allow the PRC to enter the UN, but they could not be deprived of any representation becuase the US feared that they would need to use force against China, which in turn would ruin the relations. The US felt it better to leave the governments as they were, both mutual respect for each other but were completely different in social systems.
Source C(i) states that the Soviet Union sees the People's Republic of China as the rightful representatives of the country on an international level, such as in the United Nations, into which the US had allowed admittance of China. The relations between the US and China have improved enough that the US had begun to accept that the situation in China was not going to change, but these are signs that the tensions were being eased and there were no real reasonss for concern like it may have been assumed. However, the relationships between China and Russia might not have been too terrible. When China joined the UN, it would bring mutual understanding and peace bwtween people.
In sources A through C it is clear that the US-Sino relations in the early 1970's underwent no major fundamental changes, but there was a general warming in the relations between the countries.
American policies towards Chinese ideology remained primarily the same accoring to source A. The US still did not accept communism. US still refused to accpet China's hegemany of Asia.
Source C (i) and (iii): Expresses the suspicion held by the Soviet Union that the US has realized that Communist China's power will be more beneficial to them than that of the Soviet Union, and also the secrecy that the US and China developed relations with.
In source B it states that the Us would allow the PRC to enter the UN, but they could not be deprived of any representation becuase the US feared that they would need to use force against China, which in turn would ruin the relations. The US felt it better to leave the governments as they were, both mutual respect for each other but were completely different in social systems.
Source C(i) states that the Soviet Union sees the People's Republic of China as the rightful representatives of the country on an international level, such as in the United Nations, into which the US had allowed admittance of China. The relations between the US and China have improved enough that the US had begun to accept that the situation in China was not going to change, but these are signs that the tensions were being eased and there were no real reasonss for concern like it may have been assumed. However, the relationships between China and Russia might not have been too terrible. When China joined the UN, it would bring mutual understanding and peace bwtween people.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
IRL 15, March 10, 2010
URL; http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/detente.htm
This is a general outline relating to detente, the period of relaxation of tension in the Cold War between the East and the West. According to this source, detente is associated with the relations between the US, the USSR, and China, and all three countries had their own way of carrying this out. One of the reasons is tied in somewhat with what we have learned in class - between East and West was a fear of nuclear holocaust, and the countries wished to prevent this and ease tensions. It says here that the horrors of Vietnam were one of the contributing factors to detente and the wish to carry it out, but this was never mentioned in class, at least not yet.
It says here China was worried about her relations with the USSR and what the US was going in Vietnam, the US found better ways of containing communism (peaceful relationship with USSR), and the USSR wished to improve her relationship with China, since the US was as well. Some ways in which these things were carried out were an establishment of a hot-line between the USSR and USA after the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1963, Strategic Arms Limitation Talks begin, and Nixon, who was later president, visited Moscow. The significance of this to what we've learned in class is that it gives me a better idea of what exactly detente was and that it was more a collection of actions taken to better world relations rather than one specific act or a state of mind, which was my original interpretation. The main limitation of this source is that it mentions nothing of the other European countries involved in the process, such as Germany and France, and only mentions the big three. The other details are important as well, as the whole picture is needed for better understanding of what exactly detente meant to Europe.
This is a general outline relating to detente, the period of relaxation of tension in the Cold War between the East and the West. According to this source, detente is associated with the relations between the US, the USSR, and China, and all three countries had their own way of carrying this out. One of the reasons is tied in somewhat with what we have learned in class - between East and West was a fear of nuclear holocaust, and the countries wished to prevent this and ease tensions. It says here that the horrors of Vietnam were one of the contributing factors to detente and the wish to carry it out, but this was never mentioned in class, at least not yet.
It says here China was worried about her relations with the USSR and what the US was going in Vietnam, the US found better ways of containing communism (peaceful relationship with USSR), and the USSR wished to improve her relationship with China, since the US was as well. Some ways in which these things were carried out were an establishment of a hot-line between the USSR and USA after the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1963, Strategic Arms Limitation Talks begin, and Nixon, who was later president, visited Moscow. The significance of this to what we've learned in class is that it gives me a better idea of what exactly detente was and that it was more a collection of actions taken to better world relations rather than one specific act or a state of mind, which was my original interpretation. The main limitation of this source is that it mentions nothing of the other European countries involved in the process, such as Germany and France, and only mentions the big three. The other details are important as well, as the whole picture is needed for better understanding of what exactly detente meant to Europe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)