Holocaust Article

The article "A Protestant Town's 'Conspiracy of Good' in Vichy France" discussed the importance of sharing stories of the Holocaust, especially the rescue stories, with school children. It told the story of people in the town on Chambon, France, who hid over 4,000 Jews, saving them from the concentration camps. The article claimed that this would be a great story to teach children in school. A great movie that also portrays a rescuer of the Jews from the Holocaust is Schindler's List, which tells the story of a man who saves hundreds of Jews by putting them to work in his factory.
I agree that children should be taught about the Holocaust and the people who put their lives on the line to save them. The Holocaust was one of the most horrific events in history, and the only way to prevent it from happening again is to educate people about it. If enough people learn about the horrors of the Holocaust and how some people stood up to it, then maybe if something like it ever started happening again, more people would stand up against it and quickly put an end to it.

Did Communism Threaten America's Internal Security After World War II?

I agree with historians John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr that communism did threaten American security after World War II. As uncovered by the messages decoded by the Venona Project's "code-breakers," there were hundreds of Communists in America who served as spies to the Soviet Union in the 1940's and 50's. Spies ranged from scientists to high government officials, and most were members of the American Communist Party. They uncovered domestic, military, and atomic secrets to the Soviet Union. Due to the espionage of scientists Klaus Fuchs, Theodore Hall, and David Greenglass, the Soviets were able to develop the atomic bomb years earlier and at a much lower cost than they would have been able to without that classified information. While people like Senator McCarthy took their "red hunt" too far, Communism, especially involving espionage, was a serious threat to American security after World War II.

Was dropping the atomic bombs justified? Why or why not?

Dropping the atomic bombs was necessary because otherwise the war would have taken much longer to end and hundreds of thousands of American lives would have been lost in the process. Americans wanted to end World War II as soon as possible, so they used the atomic bomb as soon as it was ready. Japan would not surrender, so on August 6, 1945, they dropped it on Hiroshima, killing or wounding 180,000 people. The Japanese would still not surrender, so America dropped another bomb on Nagaski on August 9th. Finally on August 14, the Japanese surrendered. Although, it is tragic that so many civilians had to die, many more Americans, Japanese soldiers, and some civilians would have died if the war had dragged on for months or years more. The Prime Minister of Britain Winston Churchill wrote, "The decision whether or not to use the atomic bomb to compel the surrender of Japan was never even an issue. There was a unanimous, automatic, unquestionable agreement around our table..." The world wanted a fast end to the war, and it got it with the use of atomic bomb.

World War I Diary Entries

October 21st, 1914
Yesterday and the day before we had to stand in our trenches as Mother Nature relentlessly rained down on us. The trenches, of course, quickly filled up to our chests with water and mud. We had to stand there for almost 2 days before they finally drained out. It was unbelievably cold and exhausting just standing there like that. At times, I felt like just giving up and letting the icy waters take me, but somehow I willed myself to keep going.
We have already lost quite a few men due to disease and bad conditions this month and the number keeps rising with each passing day. Some of them were comrades of mine, and I can't help but think that tomorrow that might be me. Sometimes I feel like I'll go crazy if I don't get out of these trenches. I love my country, Britain, but fighting the Germans here in France seems hardly worth it.

October 30th, 1914
My ears are still ringing with the sounds of shells blasting and bombs exploding. The sounds follow me around, I can never get away from them. The bright bursts of light and sudden bangs are terrifying and let you have no peace. There's never a break in the noise.
I don't know how much longer I can go on like this. I need silence. I need to live somewhere clean, away from the rats and the stench. I need a warm bed to fall asleep in. Is that too much to ask for?

November 12th, 1914
We are piling up thousands of casualties by the week. I try not to get to close to the boys around me because the next day they'll be dead. I'm positive that I'll be dead by the end of the year. I've seen such horrible things that all I want to do is forget. When will it ever be over? I only want to see my friends and family back home one more time. That's all I want.
It is freezing here all the time, especially at night. I wish I has a nice warm blanket and somewhere dry to sleep. The others in the trench and I huddle together to stay warm. It's going to be a long, long winter if I do make it through.

Reaction Essay to World War I packets

While many people and governments in the U.S. and other countries debated and negotiated, the soldiers of World War I were living in a nightmare. From living in horrible trenches, to being exposed to gas that made your death excruciatingly slow and painful, to the psychological damage of "shell shock", the World War I soldier exhibited great bravery and risked their lives and well being for their countries.
During World War I, most soldiers had to live and fight in trenches which were dug into the ground and lined with sandbags. While in the trenches, they had to endure loud bangs, bright flashes, extreme cold, a terrible stench, and pain. When it rained, the men would have to stand up to their wastes or armpits in mud, sometimes for several days! Some even drowned in the muddy water. Having to stand for days in the wet trenches also caused "trench foot." Trench foot caused the foot to go numb, turn red or blue, and sometimes gangrene would set in. Many soldiers had to have toes or whole feet amputated because of trench foot. Rats, lice, nits, and other disease-carrying pests were in abundance. Soldiers also had to worry about chlorine, mustard, and other gases used by the enemy. Chlorine gas slowly strangled them, and mustard gas rotted the body. Soldiers often were driven insane by the "shell shock" caused by these abominable conditions and constant danger and stress.
The soldiers of World War I had to not only worry about being shot or bombed by the enemy, but also the danger of disease and insanity. The terrible living conditions took their toll and caused many of the deaths of the war. Those that made it out alive were usually never the same afterwards. Life in the trenches was for the soldiers of World War I a living hell.

Which criticism of the Turner Thesis seems most valid?

The view of the "New Western" historians seems the most valid. In contrast to Turner's theory that the frontier was the principal shaper of the nation's and region's character, they believe that a variety of factors including ethnic and racial issues, big businesses, government, and climate and landscape shaped the West and the country's character. This view makes sense because big corporations and railroads were a big part of bringing population and wealth to the West. Different ethnic and racial clashes throughout the West and the rest of the country also molded our country. Clashes between Native Americans and the U.S., blacks and whites, new immigrants and old immigrants, all molded the country and greatly influenced the West. Railroads were also heavily relied upon by Western settlers, making them very powerful. While the frontier did play an important role in our nations history, Turner's Thesis doesn't take into acount all of the other factors that shaped the West and the nation.

Martin Luther King article

The article "Popular view of King ignores his complexity" from The Duluth News Tribune was about the fact that most Americans don't know much about Martin Luther King, Jr. Almost everyone knows that he stood for civil rights and gave his famous "I Have a Dream" speech from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, but few know much more about him. Before reading this article, I didn't know that King also was working on anti-poverty and anti-war issues. He wanted peace and equality not only between races, but between all people, rich and poor. I also didn't realize just how unpopular King was at the time of his death. I knew that the KKK and other racist groups obviously didn't like him, but the hatred was more widespread than I thought it was. The article helped me to see how important it is to not limit our knowledge to certain events or facts because it we do, we will never be able to see the full picture.

Was Reconstruction a "splendid failure"?

In The New View of Reconstruction, Eric Foner says that even though Reconstruction failed to meet the goals of Radical Republicans, painlessly rebuild the South, and give the freed blacks complete rights and opportunities, Reconstruction did give African Americans some new chances and a brief taste of a free society. Political, social, and economic progress was made by blacks through the 14th and 15th amendments. Good things came out of the chaotic period of Reconstruction. The South actually was made more democratic than ever before. Public schools for blacks were established, blacks were granted full citizenship, and a small fraction of political offices were also held by blacks. Many whites in the North and South supported civil rights amendments and wanted to help the blacks. Foner believes that Reconstruction was a "splendid failure".
LaWanda Cox, however, disagrees. In Reflections on the limits of the Possible, she states that even Lincoln might not have been able to make the period of Reconstruction successful. It was a time of economical hardships for both blacks and whites in the South. A combination of poor crops and not enough land for the African Americans made many go into subsistence farming, which was a vicious cycle of poverty. There was much distrust in Congress and many different opinions, so it would have taken a very talented person such as Lincoln to handle the situation.
I agree with LaWanda Cox that Reconstruction was not a "splendid failure". Although, some blacks were able to get involved in politics, many lived in poverty and didn't have the skills of a certain trade or education to get themselves out of the situation. It took more than 100 years after the end of the war for blacks to receive all of their rights. Some good things did come from the war, but the economical situation of the South and the painful way they were brought into the Union caused hostile feelings to go on for generations. There wasn't very much that was "splendid" about the Reconstruction period. Poor leadership from Andrew Johnson, distrust, bad feelings, racism, and the economical hardships all combined to make the Reconstruction period fail to reach the high goals of equality and forgiveness.