TOK QUESTIONS:

1)It help save many thousands of lives from dying in the gas chambers, also put a halt to Germany's dominance in the war. It appeared to add morality because it shorten the war and help showed that the Americans and British could knock Germany out of the sky. The problems with it were that people though it was morally wrong and unjustifiable to destroy a city in such a way. They were no better than the Nazi's in mass murdering civilians especially ones caught off guard by the attack.

2)No bias history, the facts must be placed in the books, with reason and justifiable evidence. To unify a country it's history must be unify. But also if history isn't unified what is it then? It is facts supporting one side not another that may be supported but is unified with truths and counterpoints etc. It is very possible to unify history, but to do so bias, and pass events that may effect the unification must be put aside in order to make a truthful history. Of course counterpoints would be expected in any type of history but facts are what unified history and agreement.

3)No, because the mass murder of thousands of civilians was not called for even if it shorted the war 6 months. I feel even in war times we are still human and though the concept desperate times calls for desperate measures may apply to retreating in a war but not the mass murdering of a city. What makes it ethically right to do something like that, we are human, they are human. Honestly if France and Britain didn't spend the years appeasing Hitler, which helped him in consolidation of his power then this wouldn't have happened because world war II may have not lead to this extent. Pearl Harbor could be a factor of this because, the Japanese destroyed the naval bases in Hawaii and for retaliation the US was going to destroy one of the Japanese beautiful cities Hiroshima. This idea of "Just War Theory" and annihilation of Dresden because, it was also a get back at the other side move. They supported it because they believed it needed to be done as a last resort in order to start the offensive on Germany, not only did this give them leverage in the sky but also morality and essentially crippled Germany in away. The supported it by feeling thats it was ethically and justifiable right to bomb Dresden.

IRL: China Women

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/8393336.stm
News Story: BBC East

It connects to what we are studying in class because its a more current update on the sex slavery, that picked up in the 1950s during the Great Famine. And showing a new side of things then the 1950s when these brothels began. But this document is a update showing that the brothels and sex trading ideas coming from poverty and reasons like that are still around.

It add values to a new cultural value that occurred in China. During the Great Famine, selling children and wives to eat seem acceptable. And this is still happening today occurring to this document, families are paying off debts etc. by selling children and essentially keeping the brothels and the sex trades alive. It also adds value to the fact this can happen anywhere not just China.

Limitations faced with this document are, the document talks about evidence found on a raid that was significant to the article but shows none of the evidence making the source questionable.

Key Questions on China

What were Mao's motives for subjecting his people to the Cultural Revolution?
- Reassert his authority over China and the CCP,waging a war against the old and replacing it would the new would help the communist ideology in CCP.

What concerns did Mao have about the younger members of the CCP?
- That they were not strong enough because they had not suffered anything to tremendous in their lives, as Mao's generation had.

How did Mao intend to preserve the peasant character of the revolution?
- By leading the revolution around them, because he favored the peasant class and sought revenge for the other classes that he despised.

Why were Deng and Lui attacked?
- Because Mao saw them as revisionists and losing the Maoist ideologies. So once Mao denounce them, they were constantly and brutally attacked by the CCP.

Why did China's young people prove so willing to follow Mao's lead?
- Mao was able to use psychology in the education to essentially teach the younger people that they held a special role in making the society better and a new world order of socialists would emerge from this.

What methods did the Red Guards use to terrify the population?
- They were trained to insult and abuse their parents and teachers. A lost of respect and were obedient to their new master...MAO. They destroyed Chinese history; irreplaceable artifacts and arts.

What tactics were used to break the will of those arrested?
People were manhandled and humiliated in front of everyone. Red Guards also sent people like doctors and teachers to "struggle sessions".

What statistics illustrate the scale of destruction of China's ancient culture?
4922 of Beijings' 6843 "place of cultural or historical interest"

What role did the PLA play in the cultural revolution?
They encouraged the PLA into having students and workers fighting and revolting. They were also used to keep the people that participated in the revolution in control.

How were the energies of troublesome Red Guards diverted in another direction?
Mao urged them to move into the mountains with peasants and learn the traditions of peasants etc.

How did the experience of the younger people in the countryside affect their altitude towards Mao and the cultural revolution?
They began to doubt Mao and why they were fighting in the revolution.

How was ferocity of the Cultural Revolution maintained after the dispersal of the red Guards?
It was worse because the CCRG and the PLA took over and cleansing began.

How much of the blame attaches to Mao for the horrors of the Cultural Revolution?
It was Mao's idea however the plans and motivates were carried out by Jiang Quing because Mao decided to go underground again.

In what scene was the Lin Biao affair a turning point in the Cultural Revolution?
He gained more support and a bigger influence of the government which caused a threat for Mao which showed that Mao could loose control.

What form did the plot take?
The plot failed because the sister of Lin Biao leaked details about the assassination attempt on Mao which caused Mao to be be guarded and put safety away.

What consequences followed from Lin Biao's disgrace?
After his "disgrace" the people worried about who they could trust and had doubt to all government officials and what they could say.

Why did the intensity of the Cultural Revolution lessen 1972?
- A general uncertainty in the party about the ailings Mao's true intentions
- the effect 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 harmful effects of the Cultural Revolution.
- The wish to impress the USA, whose president, Richard Nixon, made an official visit to the PRC in 1972.

How did Lin Biao's fall benefit Zhou Enlai and Deng Xiaoping?
Enlai proved that he could hold the party together through the hardest part of the Cultural Revolution. Also he was a outstanding international statesman in the 1970s. Xiaoping "capitalist roader" helped him, and helped him fight the opposition.

What does the Cultural Revolution indicate about Mao's character and personality?
He couldn't carry it on his own, and caused him a lot of paranoia. Mao had the ideas but couldn't carry out them out on his own without the help of other people and he was forced to drive them with his enthusiasm.

IRL: China's Cultural Revolution

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/country_profiles/1203355.stm
Time Line of Cuban History (Look at 1950s-1980s)
BBC

It connects to what we are studying in class because when Castro took over Cuba he sought to reform Cuba into a SPS. To which many older generations fled to American. Castro essentially wanted to erase the "old" just as Mao did, the old being the Batista era.

It enhances what we've learned so far because now we see another example of the a cultural revolution. Basically since newer generations had not known Batista they had only known Castro and a bias history of their country, making Castro look like a hero just like Mao. However older generations knew this not to be true and didn't like the reforms just like in Mao's China, so the easiest thing to do when the reforming process comes in is to manipulate the young and get rid of the old. This is why so many older people fled from Cuba to the US.

The source itself is highly useful, however since its only a brief history of Cuba, it can have faults. For example, since the source doesn't elaborate on things such as the release of convicts the source doesn't tell you why they were released. It's a good starting place source, but more detailed sources are needed in order to get elaborate understanding of Cuba. Also another limitation is with this IRL, the source doesn't especially say "cultural revolution" background knowledge and possible knowledge of another country can help find examples of cultural revolutions.

Tibet: Genocide

I feel the genocide was intentional by the PRC to the extent that it had more to do with just Mao taking control, but more both countries ethic routes. Historically, Tibetan dynasties often conflicted with Chinese dynasties. Culturally, Chinese people tend not to know the myths, religious symbols, or history of Tibet, nor do Tibetans tend to know those of the Chinese. "In 1949 the People's Republic of China began invading, occupying, and colonizing Tibet. China entered into Tibet immediately after the communist victory over the Chinese Nationalists, imposed a treaty of "liberation" on the Tibetans, militarily occupied Tibet's territory, and divided that territory into twelve administrative units. It forcibly repressed Tibetan resistance between 1956 and 1959 and annexed Tibet in 1965." The source used [http://www.enotes.com/genocide-encyclopedia/tibet] is limited with its views, because it is bias and puts the Chinese in a bad light only naming conflicts that the Chinese did to the Tibetan people and not if the Tibet did anything to them, besides the dynasty wars early on.

IRL: China

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/7326257.stm

News Story; BBC, Paul Mason

It shows the success of China today, 50 years after the Great Leap forwarded. "China's real leap forward is happening right now, as people's living standards rise, as the country bursts out into the global marketplace."

It adds value because I feel as if I've only learned China 1930s-1960s now I can broaden what we are learning and connect it. Perhaps to see if the communist rule had a tremendous effect on China 50 years later through Mao's policies.

Only shows the negative effects of the Great Leap forwarded, and then the present state of China, now parrells are clearly drawn between the two eras.

Brezhnev/Afghanistan Brezhnev/Poland

Brezhnev/Afghanistan

1. What 2 justifications did the Soviets publicly offer for their Afghan actions?
1) that Babrak had requested their military presence in Afghanistan in order to preserve his country for socialism, which allegedly was threatened by the United
States and China; and (2) that the threat to Afghanistan was also a threat
to the USSR. The Soviets emphasized that they would withdraw their military forces as soon as all external interference in Afghanistan's affairs.ceased.

2.What other factors may have motivated the USSR?
They provided substantial financial and economic investment in the country so when the leader was overthrown in a military coupe, by a pro-soviet by Nur Mohammad Taraki. On December 5, 1978, the USSR signed a twenty-year treaty of friendship and cooperation with the Taraki government, and in September, 1979. Also when Taraki was murdered by Amin the USSR had to kill him because Amin wanted to form relations with China and other non communist government.

3. What was the international reaction to Soviet policies in Afghanistan?
All countries of the non-Soviet world condemned Soviet behavior and activity in Afghanistan but they could not however solve the problem due to Soviet intransigence.

Brezhnev/Poland

1. What were the six areas of conflict between Poles/Soviets?

-It was a cultural confrontation between Roman Catholics and Russian Orthodox and Atheists.
-It was a massive withdrawal by Polish workers from the Soviet-imposed labor unions hence an "ideological deviation."
-It was a protest against and an expose of corruption of top Polish officials loyal to the USSR.
-It was a resistance to Soviet control and exploitation for Soviet ends of Polish economy, politics and destiny.
- It was a serious problem to the security of the USSR and to its interests throughout Eastem and Central Europe.
- Because it had many deep and diverse roots, the crisis there was potentially more
dangerous to Soviet interests.

2. What were the six events which precipitated the '80-'81 Polish crisis?

1) the growing nationwide disillusionment with the government's policies;
2) the government's failure to introduce genuine and desperately-needed economic reforms that would improve the low and precarious living standard;
3)the growing tension between political and religious leaders, which culminated in the government's refusal to allow Pope Paul VI to visit Poland in 1966 to help
commemorate the millennium of Polish Catholicism;
4) the arrest and trial of several young party intellectuals who were critical of the official establishment and its policies;
5) the government's stoppage (at the end of January, 1968) of a theater production of a poetic drama, Dziady (Forefathers), by Adam Mickiewicz, a 19th century Polish romanticist, because of its anti-Russian line;
6) the nationwide student unrest in March, 1968, which authorities put down with excessive force.

3. Which of the six areas for conflict (from #1) seem to be the most significant hindrance to Polish-Soviet relations?

It was a protest against and an expose of corruption of top Polish officials loyal to the USSR. Seems to be the most significant because if the Polish people are protesting against their own government, it seems the chances of a revolution would occur against the government, which would lead to a attempted coupe and cause the Soviet government to step in to protect her interests causing a a uprising of the Polish to fend off the USSR army.

4. Which of the six areas of conflict (from #1) seem to be the least significant hindrance to Polish-Soviet relations?

It was a massive withdrawal by Polish workers from the Soviet-imposed labor unions hence an "ideological deviation." This one seems to be the least significant to the hindrance to Polish-Soviet relations because the Soviets could just replace the Polish workers with Soviet workers and not have to worry about labor unions who are already under the impression of the soviet government.

Brezhnev Foreign Policies

1. In what ways was Czechoslovakia 68' similar to Hungary 56'?
- Soviet policies that were carried out by incompetent but arrogant native leaders.
- Both sought to introduce a progressive and humane element into the Communist way of life.
- Both were brutally suppressed by Soviet military might while the rest of the civilized world watched helplessly.
- both were forced to accept Soviet-appointed satraps-Janos Kadar in Hungary,
and Gustav Husak in Czechoslovakia.

2. What 3 demands did Czech. make of Dubcek?
-Abolishment of "the centralist model of society,".
-The elimination of "administrative and undemocratic interference in all
spheres of social and cultural life."
-And the removal of Novotny as president of the republic.

3.How did the Soviets respond to Czech judicial reform?
They accepted the Czech's judicial reform and electoral laws and also to examine the grievances of victims for past persecutions. But they were also alarmed by this so that they placed troops on the border of Czechoslovakia.

4.Why did the alleged defenestration of Jan Masaryk again become a issue.
Because this caused the resignation and/ or dismissal of many die-hard Czechoslovak Stalinists, created a demand for a thorough unbiased investigation of all past misdeeds by Czechoslovak and Soviet authorities in Czechoslovakia.

5.In August 1968, Warsaw Pact members signed a "broad statement of principles;" what were the Czech and Soviet perspectives on the content and purpose?
The Czech's saw this as adherence to and full compliance with all Soviet demands. The Soviets considered it a carte blanche for intervention in Czechoslovakia in order to
preserve the Soviet style of socialism.

6.How did the Czchs respond to Soviet Invasion? Why?
This dumbfounded the Czechoslovaks, who had for years entertained strong Pan-Slav sentiments and to some extent pro-Soviet views. So complete indeed was their shock and bewilderment that the Soviets were unable to find anyone willing to collaborate with them.

7.What were 2 of Dubcek's new (post invasion) policies?
Under Soviet pressure Dubcek now intensified censorship of the press and agreed to appoint pro-Soviet sympathizers to high posts in the party and government.
8.What was the ultimate outcome of the invasion for Czech?
Husak transformed Czechoslovakia into the most reactionary and the most oppressive state of Eastern Europe.

What problems faced Khrushchev in his efforts to reform the Soviet economy?

Key Question:
What problems faced Khrushchev in his efforts to reform the Soviet economy?
-Agriculture
Due to Stalin’s collectivization the grain amount and technology for farming were extremely low. When the plan to use the Virgin lands was put into place, it seemed to work except for the fact that the land and climate were not right for what the CCCP wanted to grow, the workers were inexperience with growing such crows thus finding it easier to grow easier to grow and manage crops such as maize. Also due to locations of storing crops and being misinformed Khrushchev could not get grain production up in virgin lands, then in the 60s it became worse when poor weather yielded poor soil for gowning crops. To avoid a famine grain had to be bought from the West which ruined Soviet plans to increase grain in order to beat the US grain rates.
-Industry
Upset the bureaucrats in the party who had been placed there by Stalin since Khrushchev’s industrial reforms would ruin the privileges they had. SYP succeeded in increasing consumer goods however it diminished the fact the Soviet still failed on grain and meat production and also the inability to deal with shortages.

IRL/TOK

Can one talk meaningfully of a historical fact? How far can we speak with certainty about anything in the past?

I don't think that one can talk meaningfully of historical facts only because we are humans and tend to pick a side. Like in my IRL 23 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/10219391.stm,) the news reporter’s only place the blame on the Israeli's when it's a historical fact that the activists attacked the Israeli's once boarding the ship. Also holding a personal grudged or bias on a side when commenting on historical fact that involves two sides, such as my IRL 20 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8650468.stm), it was one sided by BBC which may be due to the past difficulties between Nasser and the British and France during the Cold War. I think that we and I can speak with certainty about the past during to the extent of where we've grown up and what we believe from our culture.

For example my IRL 22 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6570903.stm) shows the Israeli's and the Palestinians' arguing and not being able to negotiate America is in the middle of this and trying to help be a peace maker, though this will probably never happen because the extent to which we can speak certainty depends on our cooperation with the opposing side that the past historical fact relates too, since in this case for IRL 22 all three sides will have opposing views which deteriorates the validity of the historical argument.

Truly I don’t know how far one can speak with certainty about anything in the past, by not being there one must judge the validity of all historical facts since depending on cultures will mostly be one sided. In my IRL 19 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7381364.stm) we see the historical fact of did Israel justify the 6 Day War, or not though both sides even including American will give different answers, do to their certainty on what they believe is truth and myth. So for someone to speak with that level of certainty I think it takes a lot of belief in something since one honestly doesn’t know the truth about a fact in some cases, like the fact of Israel’s strike on Egyptian airfields.

IRL 23

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/10219391.stm
New Story
BBC

It connects to what we are doing in class because it is a, recent event, that involed the Israelis and other nations in the crisis with Gaza. Which once again we see a more recent time where Israeli is defending their actions on attacking.

It ehnances because we see 60 years later the crisis in Gaza is still high and, Israel is worried that the terrorism in Gaza is to high, and that the Israeli once again went out and became offensive not truly knowning what was happening just like in the 6 Day War. Where Israeli went into international waters to handle the activists.

Limitaions of the document seem one sided only blaming Israel for the attack though in most recent web videos surfacing we see the activist's attacking the Israeli troops as they board the ship.

IRL 22

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6570903.stm

News story
BBC
We were studying the Arab-Israeli crisis and this relates to the crisis because it shwos a moment of peace between the nations where the tensions are seemingly high after 60 years of fighting but the peace aggreements are trying to prevail.
It's value that it adds is time, this article is some 60 years after the intial wars between Arab and Israeli states and it shows that they are trying to work out peace but it's hard due to the neogiations due to past cnoflicts.
Limiations faced with this source is that its from a third hand person, the british whom indirectly are/were pulled into the crisis meaning that they had taken a side, though this article only shows demands of the Arab states that make Israel look bad for doing all this to them but not explaning why they did this to the Palestinans.

IRL 21

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8659894.stm
News Story produced by the BBC.
It connects to what were learning in class because we haven't studied to much American involvement in the Arab-Israeli crisis but we get firsthand account of recent American involvement in keeping the peace in the Middle East.
It adds value because this is some 60 years later to what we've already studied and we still see there is no negotiation between either sides on trying to keep peace while the Americans are trying to help being a middle man.
Limitations faced with this source are there are no direct quote from the Palestinians only the Israeli’s and the Americans. I feel by using evidence such as a direct quote you further the point your trying to make and hence justify it. In this case the point trying to be made is that either side refuses to come to a agreement while the Americans are the middlemen trying to get each side to this place of agreement.

IRL 20

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8650468.stm

News Story

BBC

It connects to what we've studied in class because we've looked at the effects of the Israeli's expanding their territory as they win 'wars' and with them feuding with Egypt the Palestinians whom were pushed into the Gaza strip are feeling the effects.

I guess it adds more value because we usually see the Israeli's looking like bad guys, or the Arabs but we see them both looking cruel towards the Palestinians. It's also recent so we see the effects of the Crisis in the middle east now in 60 years ago.

Limitations faced with this news story are it's one sided, the interviews were only towards the Egyptians whom denied the all allegations while the reports could just have easy asked the Israeli's who would also have a 'motive' to harm the Palestinians and just as easily blocked the Palestinians smuggling area killing them.

IRL 19

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7381364.stm

BBC New Story depicting a Israel time line

We just finished studying the 6 Day War, this seems like a continuation of the fighting between Israel and the Arab Nations surrounding it. It also depicts Israels invasion like attacks without truly thinking it through the consequences such as looking cruel.

It enhances what I've already learned because besides the 6 Day War this event also makes Israel look bad and feel sympathy for the Arab states because Israel is doing this too them. Usually what we've seen is Arabs trying to destroy Israel for the good of Palestinians but here it is not the case.

Limitations faced with this document is its bias because it says that the Palestine guerrilla fighters were in Lebanon after being expelled though giving no further detail but sparing no details on making the Israel's look bad and the true aggressors in this situation.

"CME" Key Questions 45-50

1) By the end of 1949 700,000 Jews total, the ones whom were in the army were trained. They set up kibbutzim's which the Jewish immigrants worked and lived on co-operative farms in which everything was shared. With aid from USA and reparations from Germany Israel was able to irrigate and cultivate the land. In the 1950s and 60s Israel became very industrialized.

2) The Fatah were apart of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan they were also apart of the PLO which explicitly said they were going to eliminate Israel since it was really Palestinian land. The Fatah had raids on the Israeli's which enraged Israel to attack them back. Syria however added to this by supplying men and weapons to the Fatah in order for them to attack Israelis.

3) I think the USSR has a little blame in the war because they told the surrounding Arab states that Israel was planning a attack which was not the case. Also Egypt and all the Arab states which moved troops in dangerously close towards Israel, Nasser had the UN troops removed from the Sinai as well meaning they share part of the blame. Also Israel shares blame in the war because they decided to strike pre-emptively in fear that it would be a repeat of 1948, the air force decided to destroy the air fields of the other countries on June 5th before they'd be able to all attack Israel.

IRL 18

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/war/just/preemptive.shtml

Website

BBC

It connects to what we are doing in class because we see first hand how the world saw the pre-emptive strike by Israel and we also see the ethics and essential consequences of pre-emptive strikes.

It enhances because the article/website gives up the ethics of problems and solutions with pre-emptive strike. I also feel it enhances what we learned because we get a pretty good example which seems bias free giving the explanation to both the Arabs and the Israeli's but in this case.

The limitations of this article/website are it is essentially bias because it takes a side blaming the Israeli's because it talks about how some think its justifiable for their strike against the Egypt when Egypt hadn't made any attack on them first.

"CME" Key Questions 36-44

1)The causes of tension on Israel's borders were Arabs upset at the Western powers claiming they aided Israel to become independent. And the major tension was there was no treaty signed after the war and the ceasefire lines continue to have increasing tension were they was sometimes fighting. But with Jordan they had reprisals which were attacks from Palestine's whom fled to Jordan and reprisals from Israel.

2) The Egyptians resented the fact that British presence was in the country for several reasons; one because the Egyptians felt that the British were there to use the Suez Canal which the Egyptians built out of force labor. The Egyptians also resented them because the British were seen as bad along with the other western powers because of the creation of Israel and the fact that some Egyptians felt that the King was a push over for the British.

3) A bunch of educated officers called the "Free Officers" waited, plotted, and tried to gain support throughout the army without getting caught. Then in 1952 they easily took over the government buildings and announce that a general would be ruling.

4) To show up the leader and show he was weak and is army was the same. Israel also attacked Gaza because of the Palestinian raids on Israel.

5) They all decided to attack not essentially Egypt but its President Nasser, because he claimed and took over the Suez Canal, traded with communists, and the Israeli's were worried that his military combined with the other Arab nations would be to strong. So Israel invaded Egypt.

6) The Anglo-French told the Israeli's and the Egyptians both to withdraw from the area or they would be use force to get the Israeli's and Egyptians to leave. The Egyptians refused so they were bombed crippling their air force, so the Arab reaction was to halt Oil, American reaction was to cease aid to Britain.

7) The winners were the Egyptians and the Israeli's because Egyptians proved they could hold their own against Anglo-French and did't give up, even though they were attacked by Anglo-French and the Israeli's. The Israeli's also won because they claimed land and proved their deffence force to be the strongest in the Middle East, after this crisis the UN sent troops in order to protect Israel from the raids. While the Anglo-French were the losers of this crisis because they had failed to take control of the Canal and they also failed to overthrow Nasser.

IRL 17

http://middleeast.about.com/od/arabisraeliconflict/qt/me081115.htm

News Story

Pierre Tristam at About.com Guide

It connects to what we are studying in class because we just finished reviewing Israel becoming a recognize country. And how the Arabs were very upset by this and refused to acknowledge Israel as existing.

It enhances what we've learned because we've seen the before but not the after and this takes place in 1981 were the Saudi Arabians' are trying to bargain with the Israelis for them to relinquish the land they occupied after being attacked by the surrounding Arab nations. If the Israelis do give the land they occupy back then the Saudi Arabians will recognize Israels right to exist which is a first in Saudi Arabian history.

Limitations I saw in this new story is it does a good job describing and telling what the Saudi Arabians wanted and what they were willing to give up but I did not see in it anything about "why" the Israeli's were even occupying parts of the middle east in the first place.

Who was responsible for the creation of Israel?

The UNSCOP decided to remove the British mandates in 1948 and decided that the country known as Palestine would be divided up into parts for the Arabs and the Jews. The British were pressured by the Jewish but never got the job done and turned to the United Nations which formed the group UNSCOP a committee which reported that removing mandates was important and making Israel and Palestine separate states.

IRL 16

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1999/oct/17/balkans

News Story

John Sweeney of the Washington Observer

It connects to what we are studying in class because we have just finished learning about the Sino-American relations improving now a event like this would put a damper on their relationships since its said that the NATO bombed the Chinese embassy deliberately.

It enhances the value because we see it not as a black and white picture anymore because the relationship had its ups and nows, since beginning one in 1970s now in the 90s it could have been gone.

Limitations faced with this are that its from a American paper which means America was still apart of NATO and was trying to defend their actions by blaming the Chinese for helping the Yugoslavians.

SGQ14 Cuban Missiles and Detente

IBHL1 SGQ14

Guiding questions:

Why did the Cold War spread from Europe to other parts of the world after 1950?

Analyse the part played by Cuba in the development of the Cold War.

Compare and contrast the role of China and Cuba in the Cold War.

MWH p. 147-149 and 162-165

A. Why did Castro come to power? (p. 147)

1. Why did many Cubans resent America?

a. Americans owned/exploited much of Cuba.

b. President was going to stop exporting Cuban Sugar.

c.Bay of Pigs invasion of 1961 in order to get rid of Fidel Castro.

2. Economic problems

a.Huge unemployment rates.

b. Conflicts with US since their major export was exported by the US

c. Unindustrialized Cuba

3. Why was there no effective political system?

Because in 1933 there was a military coup by Batista in which he was able to control the government and

crush all opposition for a SPS.

4. How did Castro rise to prominence?

He was able to gain support throughout Cuba, and used military warfare to get Batista to flee once the Castro regime began to make its way to Havana.

5. How did the revolution eventually play out?

a. Bastista's actions - He was a cruel dictator who killed any opposition and left Cuba, unindustrialized, high unemployment, and without a government.

b. USA's role - They had controlled a lot of Cuba's exporting industry and had American companies all over Cuba.

B. What was the revolution's effect on Cuba's foreign relations?

1. with the USA - Rocky because American's essentially didn't trust Castro and tried to overthrow him in 1961, and slowly cut off relations.

2. with the USSR - They were happy to help Castro, by putting missiles on the island for protection and bought Sugar to help their economy.

3. with other Latin American countries - Since most governments in Latin America are right wing they felt high suspicions towards the Cuban, and then expelled them from OAS.

C. Castro's domestic problems

1. economic issues

a. Need of help for exporting

b. Unemployment

c. needed to be industrialized.

2. attempted solutions

a. Five year type plans

b. Collectivize farms

c. Soviets bought Sugar exports for them

3. successes

a. Little output success.

b. Was able to survive on the sugar export

c. Tourism to help bring in money to the island.

D. Reasons for detente (p.162)

1. issues for the USSR

a. Hard to keep up with the Americans expense wise was crippling.

b. Problems controlling the Satellite Nations

c. And the bad terms between Khrushchev and Mao

2. issues for the US

They had to find a better way to cope with communism since they failed in Vietnam.

3. issues for China

The Chinese were anxious about American intentions with them and with Vietnam and not happy with the worsened relations with them and Soviets.

4. issues for Western Europe

Worried about being the front line of a nuclear war.

e. What was the nature of detente between the US and the USSR?

1. arms limitations -1972 they signed SALT which limited AMB, ICBM, and SLBM each side could have.

2. Helsinki Agreement - acknowledging the countries drawn up in Eastern Europe after WWII, and the Satellite Nations get freedom of speech and human rights.

3. what setbacks prevented further cooperation?

a. Invasion of Afghanistan in 1979

b. 1980s spent building up arsenal on both sides.

c. Russians deployment of 150 new Russian SS-20 missiles and the Americans put 500 Pershing and Cruise missiles to protect Europe.

4. summarize the arms race during the 1980s:

Very intense with new weapons and built even more that could reach each other and they were scattered everywhere, but Americans had "Star Wars" to essentially fight in space.

f. What was the nature of detente between the US and China?

1. how did each side reach out to the other?

Nixon visited China and invited Americans to table tennis, following this Americans allowed Chinese to join UN

2. what was the primary reason for the lack of full cooperation?

Because China wanted Taiwan to be considered apart of communist China, not nationalist.

3. what was the climax of detente?

Once America and China decided to co-operate, and they felt they had good enough relations. But Chinese were worried that Vietnam type thing would occur again.

4. what issues arose and created more tension?

The Chinese putting down the demonstration in Tienanmen Square. And their naval exerices in the straits of Taiwan.

g. Sino-Soviet relations

1. why did relations between the Soviets and Chinese deteriorate?

a. Because of Khrushchev's views of Stalin and Mao's views of Stalin.

b. Ideological arguments on how to run a communist nation.

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?

Gorbachev made five year agreements on trade and economic co-operations, also Vietnam in 1989 withdrew troops from Kampuchea.

Sino-American Relations

"No great realignment." What evidence is contained in all of the Sources A-C that the changes in the relations between the USA and the PRG in 1971 were less fundamental than is sometimes supposed?

Source A states that China has had little experience of conducting diplomacy based on the sovereign equality of nations. It also states the China's attitude toward foreign countries retains elements of aloofness, suspicion and hostility. This shows that China was very inexperienced when forming relations with the US showing it was less than fundamental. In Source B, the US would react with force if any reputation of Republic of China is lost in the UN. This shows that's less fundamental because the UN would still not realize that the communist were in control but believe that the nationalists in Taiwan still had some power. Source B also shows that the US and China, have different fundamentally social systems that lead to fundamentally different governments. In source C, secret meetings were held, and the conversations made were not recorded therefore the only information we have for public statements are, "today our two people as hold in their hand the future of the whole world?" It's less fundamental because the foreign policy changes an the Chinese and Americans are not making public to the people.

IRL 15

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/29/newsid_3087000/3087171.stm

News Story

From BBC

It connects to what we are studying in class because, as a class we just finished discussing the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 and how it seemed we were doomed. This article relates because it shows how in 1960 Khrushchev was unpredictable and seem as irrational for freaking out on the UN.

It enhances what we've already learned in class because it essentially foreshadows events to come, seeing how unreasonable and irrational that he was, when he didn't get his way about the missiles being point at Turkey, it is a surprise that he and Kennedy were able to take a hot war and turn it back into a cold war again.

I don't see any really limitations besides the fact that it was by the British knowing their feelings towards the CCCP during the 1960s even with the close relationship the British and US had.

"Cold War in Europe" chapter 7

1. How much progress was made towards detente in Europe in 1963-69 and what problems had to be overcome?

a. describe two treaties - Test Ban treaty of 1963 set up to stop testing of nuclear weapons. And the Warsaw Treaty of 1970 most likely unifying USSR and her satellite states.

b. why had the US lost some of its moral authority?

They had failed in Vietnam, and distrust among NATO members.

c. what were the Europeans focused on during this time? what made their task easier?

To stay strong and regain their freedom from the war. Detente because its was a point when the cold war was even colder and nothing world ending happened.

d. how did Franc contribute to detente?

1. Withdrew from NATO

2. Alliance with West Germany

3. EEC

e. how did the Hamel Report define the role of NATO in the age of detente?

That it's members needed to stay unify in order to keep peace, that they basically had to trust each other.

f. what three factors combined to weaken Soviet control over the eastern bloc?

Clashes with China over communism, the production of the eastern bloc countries were behind, technology disadvantages, oil problems.

g. according to the Bucharest Declaration, what were the goals of the Warsaw Pact for detente?

Become advanced, essentially become more communist.

h. What three steps did Dubcek take in Czechoslovakia, which lead to the Prague Spring?

Invasion of Czechoslovakia, censorship of anti communist believes, and ganged up on them.

i. How did the Prague Spring end?

IT was seen that the USSR did have the right to do this because of the Brezhnev Doctrine

IRL 14

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4925262.stm

News Story

By: Stephen Gibbs

BBC News, Havana

It connects to what we are studying in class because it shows the anniversary of a major victory over the US in the Cold War. Kennedy tried to have a communist dictator in Cuba be overthrown which failed and made the US look week. Also we're learning how they tried to contain communism since 1945 though China, Vietnam, North Korea, and now Cuba have all become communist nations.

It adds value to what I've already learned because I see 15 years after the Cold War the only predominate Communist nation around still celebrates a time when Communism essential won, also it shows how easily things come have become and escalated into World War 3.

Limitations faced with this new story is it only tells what the US did, but not why they did this or what they were trying to do with Castro or for that matter what kinda of leader Castro was that his own people wanted to kill him.

IRL 13

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schoolradio/history/britainsincethe1930s_clip01.shtml

News story and video.

BBC.

It connects to what we are studying in class because were studying the Cold War, and the arms race and testing of nuclear weapons was important for both Western and Eastern powers. It enhances what we've learned in class because we see the accidents of using nuclear materials and what a few select countries were doing during the Cold War in their race. Some limitations of this are produced by BBC so their intentions may have been to make Britian and USA look better than USSR.

IBHL1 SGQ13

MWH p. 143-147
1. Background
a. Explain the evolution of control of Korea from 1910 to 1948-Korea was Originally controlled by the Japanesse but when they were defeated in WWII the US and USSR decided to divide Korea among the 38th pararellel Russia in the North and America in the south.
b. What was the leadership situation in Korea in 1949? The UN supervised elections in the south, were Syngman Rhee won as president for the independent Republic. Russian's created the Democratic People's Republic of Korea which Kim II Sung won.
2. Why did the North invade the South?
Possible answers:
a. Kim's idea - It was his own idea.
b. Chinese role - The new Chinese Communist government may have encouraged them.
c. Russian role - Stalin wanting to test Trumans determinatoin.
d. S. Korea's role - South Korea was blamed for it, that they crossed the 38th Parallel.
3. What did the USA do?
a. Why did Truman decide to intervene?
i. He believed it was Stalin's doing trying to spread communism.
ii. Some American's though the appeasement of aggressors would happen again.
iii. Truman wanted to support UNO since Leauge of Nations failed.
iv. He was loosing popularity since he was in the democratic party and the Republicans criticized him for not taking action.
b. What nations joined the US in support of S. Korea?- Japan, though 14 other countries senty troops that were all lead my American General MacArthur.
c. Briefly summarize the course of the war in 1950- The UN quickly cleared the communists out of the south before then end of the Setpember. Truman then ordered a invasion of North Korea so that it would be a united Korea with free elections.
d. How and why did China get involved?- Because they were afraid America would keep going once they took over North Korea.
e. How did the war end?- The Chinese had sent such large forces the only other way may have been to drop atomic bombs which would lead to a full scale war.
4. What were the results of the war?
a. Korea - Left 4 million dead and 5 million homeless the country was devastated.

b. the US - Divided among people, some felt that they did well, others though that they gave up a on a good chance of getting rid of communism.
c. the UN -should it would follow through.
d. China - It showed China was a formidable opponent with a powerful army. China had stopped Korea from being unified.
e. the Cold War - Caused more tenison with China interving and North Korea now communist. Truman's plan for containment was failing because communism was spreading throughout the world.

IRL 12

http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/the_p_word/newsid_10000000/newsid_10002800/10002848.stm

News Report.

BBC's Duncan Crawford

It connects to what we are studying in class because we've just learned about the blockade on Berlin by Stalin that will eventually lead to the Soviets blocking off West and East Berlin with a wall.

It gives the perspective and history review of what happened in Berlin in 1961 and how some 20 years later since the wall's collapse how the people feel.

The only limitations I see are they don't say exactly who the world leaders were that came to Berlin to celebrate, making me wonder if the Russian Federation leaders were allowed.

SGQ 12 Origins of the Cold War

How did the Cold War develop?

MWH p. 117-140

1. What were the effects of WWII?

a. evidence of enormous destruction?

40 million people killed, destruction of lives, homes, industries, and communications.

b. no all-inclusive peace settlement - what was there?

Italy lost African colonies, USSR took land that Hitler invaded, Romania recovered Transylvania, Trieste became a free territory and Japan surrendered all Chinese territory.

c. examples social changes?

They put bout 10 million Germans from other German speaking places back into West Germany.

d. nuclear weapons - so what?

USSR and US saw how destructive they could be and wanted to avoid all costs from using it.

e. European domination of the world ended - why?

Due to costs of war it caused Germany, Italy, France, and Britain to become almost bankrupt

f. emergence of the superpowers - who?

USSR and US

g. decolonization - what happened to the territories?

They also suffered due to the colonizers fighting in war but they also pushed for being decolonized.

h. the United Nations - so what?

Was the successor of League of Nations and also their main gold was to keep the peace.

2. What caused the Cold War?

a. what are the differences of principle?

The communist system and the capitalist system.

b. what were Stalin's foreign policies?

To strengthen Russian influence in Europe by controlling as much as Germany as possible.

c. what were US and British policies?

To try to create a trust with the Soviets but also be able to defend themselves. But essentially contain communism in Russia.

3. How did the Cold War develop between 1945 and 1953?

a. what four things were agreed upon at the Yalta Conference?

i. United Nations

ii. Germany was divided into zones Russian, American, British zone while Berlin was split into corresponding zones.

iii. Free elections would be allowed in the states of eastern Europe.

iv. Stalin promised to join the war against Japan on condition that Russia received the whole of Sakhalin Island and some territory in Manchuria.

b. why were Germany and Poland the major concerns at the Potsdam Conference?

Because they didn't know whether to they would unite Germany again and what the consequences of causing the war would be. Also Poland had left a pro communist leader in charge which frighten the west.

c. how was Communism established in eastern Europe?

Pro-communist leaders were put in charge and anyone who opposed them were imprisoned or murdered.

d. how did Russia exert its influence in eastern Europe?

He promised all countries free elections though they were rigged so communist leaders could be put in place.

e. what were the Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan?

They were plans to help European countries come out of debt and paid back over time as long as the country promised to remain capitalist.

f. what was Cominform?

The soviet version of Marshall Plan to help gain support and spread of Communism

g. what happened to Czechoslovakia?

It became communist and had rigged elections and all other government members who were not communist were killed.

h. what happened in Berlin?

Closed off east and west Berlin over disagreements.

i. what is NATO?

North Atlantic Treaty Organization was a deffence group of countries against Communist threat.

j. what happened to Germany?

Split into West Germany and Eastern Germany controlled by super powers.

h. what developed with nuclear weapons?

The fear of nuclear war both super powers began building up arsenal of weapons.

4. To what extent was there a thaw after 1953?

a. why was there a thaw?

i.Death of Stalin

ii.New leader wanting peace.

b. how do we know there was a thaw?

i. Signing of peace agreements.

ii. The Russians made important concessions in 1955

1. They agreed to give up their military bases in Finland

2. They lifted their veto on the admission of 16 new member states to the UN.

3. The quarrel with Yugoslavia was healed when Khrushchev paid a visit to Tito

4. The Cominform was abandoned, suggesting more freedom for satellite states.

c. what evidence suggests only a partial thaw?

i. The Warsaw Pact (1955) signed between Russia and her satellite states.

ii. The Russians continued to build up their nuclear armaments.

iii. The situation in Berlin caused more tension.

iv. The most provactice action of all was when Khrushchev installed Soviet missiles in Cuba, less than a hundred miles from the American coast (1962)

v.

5. The nuclear arms race and the Cuban missile crisis

a. how did the arms race accelerate?

The making of new and powerful weapons than before.

b. what happened in Cuba? how was it resolved?

The Russian's put weapons on Cuba to launch, US and Soviets made piece with it.

c. what happened to the arms race in the 1970s?

Submarines that could fire powerful missiles.

d. how effective were anti-nuclear protests?

It worked but countries still refused to get rid of weapons fearing that once they put their guard down they'd be attacked.

IRL/TOK

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?

In my IRL 11http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/league_nations_01.shtml it is an overview of League of Nations and United Nations. It shows that we as a country learned from our first mistakes in making a League of Nations and not being able to enforce any of its power or not having enough "major powers" involved. But after the Second World War we made the United Nations which has existed over 60 years to help keep the peace in the world. Yes using the League of Nations as a example it can be used as a guide for the future, the leaders in charge in 1919 helped essential pave the way for united nations so when the chance came again in the 40s to correct the mistakes and fix the problems so another world war never broke out again it was taken. The lessons of history is that the League of Nations were so afraid of another great war they were willing to use appeasement to satisfy the complaining countries who they tried to satisfy no matter what the demand but if Versailles had been a better written treaty Germany would have not gotten away with this. So the lesson is you can do something and hope for the best trying to satisfy both sides, you have to do it for the well being of every person.
In my IRL 09 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4436275.stm, the Holocaust is an important historical event to learn from because without learning what one length one Regime would go to rid the world of a race/ethnicity is important so it does not occur again. I think it can provide a guide to the future of what will happen the Nazi's killed 11 million people though some choose not to follow the guide in killing instead of following this tragic event and not killing. Stalin killed 3 times as much and the genocide Hitler committed is still going on some 60 years later in Africa, which shows some didn't learn from history and we are force to see it repeat again.
In my IRL 04 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6991349.stm shows the people in Germany still fear the rise of a single party state or more importantly a Nazi regime again. After the first Nazi regime fell in 1945 the world saw how far one man would go to make his country the best. Hitler paved the way with his ideology throughout history and some still see this as a positive direction to move the country in. It’s not only Germany and other European countries but there is a small but still there Neo Nazi party in America would love to make our Democracy a Single Party State but fortunately we haven’t gone through the “factors” that essential leads to a SPS. The Neo Nazi’s in Eastern Germany that the German people are afraid of either want to things, one they didn’t learn from Hitler with the Holocaust and World War II or two they some 60 years later they want to improve or learn from his mistakes to make his plan successful this is a scary thought to know that some people see Hitler’s Nazi regime in guiding the way in what the world should be. There are two lessons to be learned from Hitler, either to prevent genocide and the rise of a regime or learn from and resurrect the regime and learn from its flaws and mistakes.
In my IRL 02http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?l=1&id=1271, we’ve learned about the Arab-Israeli issue that’s been going on for over 60 years, it’s an issue over land essential. This started in the 1940s and worked its way up to 2009. It can be a guide to a positive future or a negative future when viewing this. Positive because we could learn about the extremes two countries will go to for land and a negative because this has occurred before them and certainly after them showing that history repeats itself, the war for land has been going on forever. It also has future lessons because we see that it’s involved other countries and this can be seen throughout the world with issues involving the Middle East.
Therefore these sources show that they can be used as an understanding for future lessons and a guide for contemporary affairs.

IB HL1 SGQ 11 Origins of WWII

IBHL1 SGQ11

Why was the time period 1933 to 1939 such a crucial era in world history?

MWH p.69-84

1. Relations between Japan and China

a. Japanese invasion of Manchuria

i. why?- Because there were important trading ports and Japan felt since they had put the money and effort into the place that should be able to control it.

ii. who supported them? who was opposed? British Foreign Secretary Supported them while the Chinese opposed this.

iii. what was done? Nothing was done.

b. Japanese advance from Manchuria

i. explain - In 2 years Japan had taken most of China which they had no claim over to begin with. They controlled it politically and commercially

c. Further invasions

i. explain - They planned to take over other parts of China.

ii. what did the League of Nations do? Although China complained no one could stop China they could only condemn them.

2. Mussolini's foreign policy

a. 1923-1934 (summarize)

i. He attended Locarno Conference but was upset that he wasn't guaranteed protection from Austria.

ii. He and other countries; Greece, Hungary, Albania, and Yugislavia signed agreements of economic and defense.

iii. He kept good relations with Britain

iv. Signed a non-aggression act with USSR in 1933

v. Tried to keep Austria non nazi.

b. after 1934 - how had Mussolini's attitude changed? examples:

i. Joined British and French in condemning German after they announced conscription.

ii. Invasion of Ethiopia

1. what did the League of Nations do? It condemned Italy as a aggressor and put a economic sanction on them.

iii. Tried to establish a 3 fascist state in Europe by helping Spain

iv. Roman - Berlin Axis

v. Munich agreement to help keep peace for his people

vi. Invasion of Albania

vii. Full Alliance with Germany (Pact of Steel) 1939. Promising Germany full military support if war came.

3. Hitler's foreign policy

a. aims

i. Destroy the Versailles settlement

ii. build up army

iii. recover lost territory

iv. bring all German speaking people inside the Reich.

b. successes

i. Removed Germany from World Disarmament Conference and League of Nations.

ii. Signed 10 year non aggression act with Poles

iii. Tried to form a union with Austria

iv. The Saar was returned to Germany

v. Conscription in 1935

vi. Anglo- German Naval Agreement

vii. Sent troops into demilitarized Rhineland

viii. Roman- Berlin Axis and Comintern Pact with Japan

ix. Joining of Germany and Austria in 1938

4. Appeasement

a. what is appeasement? summarize the two phases:

i. War must be avoided at all costs.

ii. Negotiation rather than force.

b. how was it justified?

i. Avoiding war at all costs.

ii. Revising the hated parts of Versailles.

iii. Personal contact between leaders.

iv. Economic co-operation between Britain and Germany

v. Preventing the fear of Communism

vi. Preventing full scale war

c. what was the role of appeasement leading up to WWII?

i. No action was taken to check the obvious German rearmament.

ii. The Anglo- German Naval Agreement did not include France and Italy.

iii. Half hearted British action towards Italian invasion.

iv. French were shocked to see German soldiers in Rhineland

v. Neither France nor Britain stepped in the Spanish Civil War.

vi. Divided on whether Germany and Austria should be rejoined.

5. Munich to the outbreak of war

a. Czechoslovakia - what were the three steps to the conquest of Czechoslovakia?

i. Taking of Sudetenland.

ii. Hitler set up a meeting with Britain and Italy but not the Czechs and told if they resisted Germany they would receive no help.

iii. Hitler was able to essential take 70% of Czech heavy industry.

b. Poland - what were the two steps to the conquest of Poland?

i. Hitler demanded back Danzig and British didn't find this unreasonable but promised to start a war if they did.

ii. The Polish were attacked from both sides which caused Britain to declare war on Germany.

IRL 11

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/league_nations_01.shtml

A news story.

Charles Townsend

We are briefly studying the causes and effects of World War II, and to do that we are going into the League of Nations after it was shown the League of Nations essential failed it was time to make a even better league of nations known as United Nations. This article also gives essential timelines and reasoning for the fact that it was nesseray to change.

It adds value because it tells what happen to the League of Nations and what improvements were made to make the Untied Nations strong and even what problems they face today.

Limitations are the author of this can state his own personal opinions or beliefs which may or not be relevant to the articles true importance.