During the Cold War one of the main fears for american was Communism within the U.S. This was known as the Red Scare and was caused by the growing power of communist countries after the Second World War. It began in the late 1940s and continued through to the mid 50s, and effected American Politics, culture and society. Americans were terrified of the american communists they felt were hiding among them.
One of these american communist couples were Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. In 1950 Julius was arrested, accused of passing atomic secrets to the soviets. After the Soviets had their first successful nuclear tests, people assumed it was due to Soviet spies, and all eyes turned to Julius. Soon after, his wife Ethel was also arrested, thought to have known about her husbands actions.
In 1951 their trial began, but the only evidence was the confessions of Greenglass. He claimed that Julius asked him to pass confidential instructions on how to make a nuclear bomb to him, which he could pass to the soviets.
Despite the lack of concrete evidence during the trial, the Rosenbergs both ended up getting convicted with the death penalty for committing espionage.
This trial is a representation of both the height of the Red Scare as well as the beginning of its end. Leading up to and during the trial, Americans were terrified of the concept of their fellow Americans sharing secrets with the soviets. The couldn’t believe this was happening and began doubting everyone around them.
However, once they were charged with the death penalty many Americans began rethinking their stance. Due to the lack of concrete evidence and the fact that the Rosenbergs continued claiming innocence until the very end, they began to sympathize with them. Many people began to rally against their execution, feeling that Americans didn’t deserve to die, and should be pardoned.
Both President Truman and President Eisenhower ignored the public’s pleas for the couple to be pardoned, and let the court’s decision stand. In the end, the couple ended up getting executed on June 19th, 1953, in the electric chair.
After this execution, it sent an electric shock through the whole american public, the realization that their fear of communism was causing the death of fellow American citizens. Many Americans began to rethink their fear, and realized it wasn’t as necessary as they may have thought. In the end, this execution ended up causing the Red Scare to begin to die down.
In then end, information confirming their espionage was released by the soviets after the end of the Cold War. It’s clear the Julius had been an avid communist and had been sharing information with the soviets for a while. Along with that, there is now solid evidence confirming Ethel knew about what her husband was doing.
Even to this day the Rosenbergs are a symbol for the height of the Red Scare, and their names will always be closely associated with communism.
So a few months ago in PLP (yes I’m just posting the blog post about it now…oops) we learned about World War II. During this we had a few different assignments to hand in which helped us with our learning.
First, we had been taking notes and then rewriting them in different formats, so by the time we got to WWII I had what I found to be the hardest one yet, a concept map. Concept maps honestly confuse me more than help me, but thinking about it did make me understand the ideas at least a bit better, although I know I won’t be doing another concept map anytime soon. Also this isn’t really a concept map but I tried, okay?
This concept map ended up being the basis of what I was going to learn in the weeks to come.
Leading up to World War II Europe was dealing with the issue of growing dictatorships. These dictators included Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. They caused fear in France and Britain through their increased power and how it looked to the citizens.
Our next assignment after the notes was to make a decision making model about what France and Britain’s options were in regards to growing dictatorships. We were forced to think about how they could solve this problem and keep their countries safe, and try to determine if there were other options than war. This activity was an interesting way to see that sometimes war is extremely hard to avoid and it’s hard to know what the best decisions is before taking action.
Afterwards we learned a bit about Britain’s appeasement policy. They had a theory that if they followed along with everything Germany said they wouldn’t start any conflicts. We read a few documents which talked about this policy and the effect it had in Britain and afterwards decided if we thought it was the right policy for Britain at the time. It was extremely interesting because at first we read two anti-appeasement documents, then three documents which were pro appeasement, which ended up changing my mind about it. Hearing different biases I feel helps me make a more educated decision, although sometimes I will take on their bias.
So once we finished learning about why the war began we got to start learning about the actual events of the war. Everyone got into groups and was assigned a specific topic which we were to research and present to the class. Kirby and I got assigned the Phoney War which was a period where war had been declared nothing had really happened yet. Both sides were hesitant to be the first side to attack and kept holding off. For this we created a document to present to the class which you can see below.
While all these events were being presented we had a document to fill out about the significance of each of these events. We were then tasked with deciding which was the most significant to history, and writing a paragraph about why. I chose the attack on Pearl Harbour, and you can read about why below.
We ended up finishing the WWII unit in a really cool way. At the very beginning we had to write down stuff about we knew about the war, and what we thought of when we thought of it. We all figured Ms. Willemse totally forgot about until she brought it up way after we did it. We then wrote down ideas in the same categories and connected the differences between our initial and final thoughts. This was a great way to reflect on what we learned in this extensive unit.
You’ll never guess where I got to go with my class late April/early May of this year! Actually, you probably already did from the title of this, but in case you couldn’t guess, we went to Cuba! Wait, what was a high school history class doing in Cuba, you may be wondering. Well, as I’m sure you’re at least somewhat aware, Cuba has such an interesting history, and we were lucky enough to get to learn about it first hand rather than with some lessons, that don’t mean nearly as much. Along with that, being in Cuba while learning about their history really made us think about everything around us and how their history still effects us today.
In preparation for the trip we watched a documentary series called Cuba Libre (available on Netflix). This documentary gave us a solid foundation on Cuban history, but the majority of learning ultimately ended up occurring on the trip.
It was such an incredible experience getting to be in Cuba and seeing how different their life style is from ours. I learned so much about socialist societies and seeing it first hand made it seem so much more real. I am never going to forget this incredible experience.
During the 16 day trip we got to travel to many different cities. Starting in Havana we next visited Cienfuegos, Trinidad, Santa Clara, Viñales and then back to Havana. After visiting these educational cities we spent the last days relaxing (and doing homework we missed) in a resort in Varadero.
During our trip we made daily journals where we wrote about our experiences each day. It helped force us to think about what we were seeing around us and make connections we may not have thought about before. I used these journals to create a book with pictures and my experiences from each day.
*insert journals*
In every city we got to stay with a local Cuban family, which was honestly probably my favourite part of the trip. It was so great getting to attempt to communicate with them and getting to see examples of Cuban houses and breakfasts. Of course, I realize that the income from running a home stay allows for them to have much nicer houses than many Cuban houses would be, but it was still a great look into their lives.
We were in Cuba over May 1st which was for sure the most incredible experience of the trip, and one of the most memorable experiences in my life so far. If you aren’t aware, May 1st is a socialist holiday, May Day. It is one of the only days practically everyone gets off work (at least in the morning). There is a huge parade in every major city, where people march in and show their pride to be Cuba. Marching in Havana, we were also lucky enough to be in the city major political figures come to watch the parade. Miguel Díaz-Canal was watching, along with Raul Castro.
The rally is a show of support for the Cuban Revolution. The streets are completely full, everyone so excited to be there, pushing on each other wanting to not get lost from their people, and wanting to get the best spot. Being surrounded by people waving their Cuban Flags, glowing their various noise makers as loud as they can and cheering for a country they truly believe in was something I never would have been able to imagine. Honestly, I still can’t put into words what I experienced that day, but it was an event I will never forget.
Of course I also enjoyed all the entertainment based things we did in Cuba as well, such as visiting night clubs, zip lining, swimming in caves and horse back riding. While, yes we did go horse back riding to a waterfall (my Chemistry/Calculus teacher’s new favourite joke), it was also an extremely educational trip. From countless museums to historic sites we got to learn so much during this trip. Having a tour guide with us the whole time (a man named Alistair who in fact did exist!) allowed us to go on walking tours and have a more personalized experience in Cuba. He knew of all the sites, even the non-touristy ones (including the bunkers from the Cuban Missile crisis which you will not find in any guide book) which really allowed for us to get so much out of the trip. Along with that, his extensive knowledge of Cuba, while having perfect English (he’s British) allowed for an easy person to interview and get information from for our projects.
Of course, it being PLP (and just like school in general) we had a project to complete while we were there. The 12 students who came to Cuba were assigned with making a book about the Cuban Revolution, each section talking about a different event, using a different *historical lens*.
For my section of the book I was working with Stanfield, and we chose to do the bay of pig invasion for our section, using the lens cause and consequence. It was interesting doing the Bay of Pigs because we actually got to go to the Bay of Pigs and swim in it. We also went to a museum about the invasion. It was kind of hard getting information from the museums due to the fact that everything was in Spanish, but we were able to interview our tour guide about the invasion and it’s impact on Cuba, and its relationship with both the United States and Russia. Luckily through talking to people, and learning enough about the after effects, such as the major one, them allying with the soviets, we were able to create a timeline of events which were directly and indirectly caused by the invasion.
*inset book*
All in all going to Cuba was an incredible experience and I am so thankful I got this opportunity. If you are looking for a trip to go on I would 10/10 recommend Cuba!
So recently we were assigned to write a short paragraph responding to a thought prompt we came up with during our lessons about the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s. I decided for mine I wanted to talk about the media, specifically to prove that growing media changes the way people view and understand the world.
So here is my think paragraph:
The way we can get information with just a few clicks and know news the minute it happens is taken for granted by my generation. We can’t imagine not having almost unlimited resources at our disposal, but we also don’t know what it’s like to suddenly begin learning all the horrors of the world. As media began to pick up, the way people viewed and understood the world began to shift. People never fully understood the horrors of war, for example, until news reporters went to Vietnam and broadcasted what was happening. This war, and its media coverage is what turned veterans from heroes into “baby killers”. These videos are what made people start protesting wars and what made it unsafe for Vietnam veterans to wear their uniforms when they got home. As people began to realize the power of media, they learned how to use it to their benefit. Terrorists knew that highlighting their cause on live television would be the best way to become known and get the attention they desired. During the Middle East conflict, and the hijackings, the terrorists were able to televise their cause, spreading fear through the world, and showing that they were a force to be reckoned with. This fear made people realize they couldn’t feel safe at home and began to realize that threats were everywhere. As media grows, it illuminates issues, and makes people begin to realize the true horrors in the world they live in. Many of us still don’t know all of the horrors of the world, but it’s more of a choice, how we choose not to do the digging, yet we still have access to it when we decide we want to shift our views.
Here is an American news broadcast from during the Vietnam War to help show how it may make the american public feel.
Recently in PLP every Friday we’ve been having these sessions where a few people take turns leading discussions with the whole class. We each chose a week and a topic, and during our presentations we at first did a brief explanation of our topic, then ask the class questions meant to invoke thought and start a discussion among them.
For my presentation I talked about the Watergate scandal. I had started researching this scandal a bit before we learned about it in class, but honestly whenever I hear about it or read about it, it seems pretty confusing, so I decided to wait for the class in which we learned about it to figure out what I wanted to go more in depth into.
Luckily for me, in the class we learned about watergate it was taught in a way I found was extremely effective, and when I talked to my classmates they seemed to agree. We got split into five groups and each group was assigned a paragraph to read about a step in the scandal. Then there were figures (pictures, cartoons, etc.) which corresponded to different sections, so we had to guess which was/were ours. Afterwards we all presented our sections and figures to the whole class.
Here is the document my group read, and our corresponding figure.
,
When preparing my questions I reread all of the sections and jotted down any general questions to form into real questions at the end. By the end I had quite a few questions I felt may work. I decided, to narrow down the questions to a few solid ones, I should test them on people and see how much they had to say. My grandparents were over when I was working on these, so I tested them on them, which helped me get rid of a few questions, and fix a few others.
Once I had my questions pretty much figured out I started planning out the whole presentation. Luckily, I felt I didn’t need to go into too much detail when re-explaining my topic, due to the effectiveness of the class and the fact that everyone I talked to and asked how much detail they felt they may need said they remembered most of it. This allowed for more time for questions, which is the real point of these discussions.
When finishing up my script however, I realized that the way I organized my questions meant I would likely not get off of the topic of media with the question, considering my first three were about that. I got rid of the weakest, bumping up one of my stronger questions into the first three. I actually had like six questions, but put the worst ones at the end because I doubted I’d reach them.
The questions I ended up asking were:
1. How do you think watergate would have played out if not for the media?
2. How do you think this scandal could have played our differently in this day and age, with social media and our current mistrust of politicians?
3. Do you think him losing to Kennedy in 1960 helped to cause this scandal? If so, how
I also had a few other questions in my presentation I would have been able to ask if there was time, but I made sure to put the ones I felt I should be sure to cover first. You can see these questions in the slide show below.
*insert link*
I feel like my first question was a bit basic and I could have gone straight to my second question, but it ended up being a good warm-up. My favourite question was the third one I asked. Beforehand I talked about why Nixon felt the election in 1960 should have gone to him and I was happy to hear people making the connections about him becoming paranoid, feeling like if Nixon could get away with it, why couldn’t he, and wondering what George McGovern, the democratic candidate, could have been trying to pull.
In the end I felt my presentation went decently well. I felt like I talked way too fast during my information part, and I honestly don’t know if I went into too much or too little detail. I feel like I probably should have chosen one aspect to go deeper into, rather than covering the whole thing.
Going through the basics of the whole event took up too much time and it would have ended up being a lot more interesting for my class if I had gone over a specific aspect of the event that they didn’t know as much about. The way I did it, sure they got to think about things they may not have thought about before, but unfortunately they didn’t really get to learn anything new.
Another thing I think I should have done better is the answers to my questions were maybe a bit too obvious and easy, so they didn’t create quite as deep discussion. Everybody agreed on the answers for the most part which took away a certain depth from the discussion.
All in all however, I’m proud of my discussion because everyone seemed to be interested in the topic and had lots to say, many people even went beyond the mandatory 2 comments, during my session alone!
Earlier this year we learned about different political ideologies and their importance in society. While there is no defined definition of an ideology, they often take on the forms of “ism”s such as liberalism, conservatism and socialism. These “ism”s are a political belief system which represent the world views of a particular social class or group.
Believing in an ideology is like wearing a pair of goggles, it changes the way one sees the world through their bias. Even if we don’t realize it however, we are all wearing these goggles. We all have our own beliefs that give us different views of the world from each other. Once we realize how our beliefs effect our world views however, we can begin to get a clearer vision of the world and try to see things in other perspectives.
Instead of listing of and just barely touching on many different ideologies I will go more in depth into one ideology and explain how this one would shape one’s world view, as an example.
So what is Nationalism?
Definition: an extreme form of patriotic feelings, principles or efforts, especially marked by a feeling of superiority over other countries.
All throughout history Nationalism has been an ideology with a great effect. It leads for people to do radical things, trying to protect their country, or gain independence for their nation. One major example of this is the start of WWI. While nationalism can unify a country, it can also divide others. Nationalism was extremely popular in Europe prior to WWI, with all nations attempting to further their own interests without considering how this may impact internal affairs. This nationalism grew dangerous as neighbours became rivals, and every nation believed they had the strongest military. Slavic groups created a form of Nationalism called Pan-Slavism, which aimed to make Serbia better for the Slavic people. This situation ended up leading to the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand which ended up sparking the First World War.
If one is extremely nationalistic they may do anything to further the needs of their own country, even if it harms another. Along with that, no matter what their country does, they will likely go along with it and support the decision. There is nothing wrong with being patriotic, Nationalism however is when you blindly support a country no matter what happens.
Here is a trailer Maria and I made to kind of show what Nationalism is. I hope you enjoyed.
In the 19th century imperialism was still going strong through most of the world, and these tendencies didn’t disappear at the turn of the century. In fact, during the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 most of the great powers, with the exception of the United States were still using the goals of imperialism to shape what they were fighting for.
First let’s talk about David Lloyd George, the Prime Minister of Britain’s goals when it came to the Peace Conference. By the end of the war Britain owed tremendous debts, especially to the USA, but gained German colonies and most of the Ottoman Empire. Along with that it became a naval superpower, being mainly in control of the seas. During the negotiations Britain was fighting to maintain naval supremacy, to get Germany to pay reparations with which Britain could pay off their debts, and to expand at the expense of Germany, gaining more colonies.
Britain, wanting to maintain their naval power believed this could happen if they got all of Germany’s colonies, obtaining all the ports, making it almost impossible for any sort of naval power within Germany.
Similarly, Italy had hoped to gain colonies from the treaty they were working on. Italy, when joining the war only chose to do so after being promised colonies. They had wanted to gain the Italian speaking Austria-Hungary territories, wanting to create an Italian empire. Considering why Italy ended up joining the war, their main goals during the conference were also territorial. In the Treaty of London, the treaty made convincing Italy to join the war, they were promised large sections of Italian speaking Austria-Hungary land. During the peace conference they were mainly fighting to obtain what they were promised, as well as reparations from Germany.
France had lost territory which they believed should be theirs, which they were able to gain back through the Treaty of Versailles. During the conference however, their other main goal was more taking colonies away from Germany and making them their own countries. France believed that creating Poland out of Germany territory would balance out Germany’s power, and letting the Rhineland become hindependent would weaken Germany’s economy, taking away important resources. Along with this of course, France also hoped that French territories could be made with land in the Ottoman Empire.
However, Woodrow Wilson had much different plans for the peace conference. He believed it would be much more beneficial to create smaller countries rather than empires, allowing for more nationalistic feelings, and creating nations of people with similar beliefs, customs and languages. Along with this, he created his 14 points which he believed would make it much more likely to obtain world peace, and force Germany to agree.
As you can see, all the countries wanted Germany to pay for the war, however they had different ideas of how this should be done. France, Italy and Britain all seemed to think they could gain the most from Germany by obtaining more colonies and expanding. The United States on the other hand, agreed with some of this, but more than anything just wanted to ensure world peace. You can see from their goals that all of the countries involved, except for the United States, were still acting like imperial powers, through their requests and goals. Wanting to expand their empires and power is similar to how they acted in the 19th century. The United States however, instead focused less on empires and more on creating individual countries.
