The Cold War

    I think both the US and the USSR share the blame for the Cold War. There was no primary cause but a combination of many things that contributed to the War. After the end of WWII relations between the countries were very strained. With economy in Europe being destroyed the US implemented the Marshall Plan to help countries recover. However, the USSR wouldn't allow the eastern bloc areas they controlled participate. The US also became economically and politically invested in Latin America. Fear of communism led the US to try to create democratic governments in countries where communism was rising. We feared that any communist country would be an ally of the USSR. Socially, USSR support of communist revolutions in poor countries really scared the US. The extreme fear of communism in the US led to the Red Scare, and tensions further increased. The differences between the US and the USSR were too extreme and the resulting competition made everyone nervous. Building up the supply of nuclear arms was theoretically supposed to make the country feel safer, but with both countries doing it, it just escalated political tensions. The combination of all these factors is responsible for causing the Cold War.

Prezi!

I think Prezi is my new favorite thing! Anyways, my prezi was about the Yalta Summit. Basically it was a meeting between FDR, Churchill, and Stalin. They had to decide what Europe was going to be like after the war and how to handle Germany and the Nazis.

Enjoy- http://prezi.com/z9-ehladlnmf/yalta-summit/

The Great Depression

I had a question about the depression. In class today Mr. Greary mentioned how you only ever see pictures of poverty but that is not all that's going on. This is kind of dumb, but what else was really happening? I mean, we never really focus on anything other than how bad it was for everyone, so how was it for the people who weren't as poor or in debt, etc. Were there people who actually maybe benifited from the great depression? Or was it just simply that some people were so rich that they were able to keep living normally despite the bad economy?

Left for Dead

      My book report was about the sinking of the USS Indianapolis, a warship during WWII. It's considered one of the greatest naval tragedies in histroy, but until I read this book I had never heard of it. I learned a lot about subwarfare during WWII from this book. I always new Japan was involved, but this book really explained what was going on at the time. I also learned about a boy who was researching the Indianapolis. He fought  to the clear the name of the captain who was blamed for the sinking of his ship. Also, the book gave me an idea about what is like for the men on the ship when it sank. Parts of it were written in first person from interviews with survivors. It was really interesting to hear what they had to say.

The League of Nations

    After WWI ended Wilson created his 14 Points,  one of which was the creation of a League of Nations. He believed that it was necessary to promote peace and help prevent future wars. But, even though he thought it was such a good idea, the US never joined. There was a lot of division in the US government over the issue. Some agreed with Wilson, that it would be a positive cooperation, but others opposed the idea. They thought it would make the US to involved and committed to European affairs. However, Wilson could have compromised with the opposition and gotten the US to join the League, but he didn't. If he believed it was so important, why didn't he work to make sure the US was a part of it?

The Sinking of the Lusitania

   Often the sinking of the Lusitania is listed as one of the factors that pushed the US towards war. It enraged the American people and provided a lot of popular support for the war. Hatred against Germany grew as people were horrified by their actions. However, I think it could be said that the US is partly to blame. Germany had sent out a warning saying that they were at war with Britain and British ships were in danger as targets of Germany's subs. At yet, US citizens decided to ignore the warning and take the risk of traveling on a British ship. Can we really be so enraged by a crisis that was partly our fault? While it may have been wrong for Germany to attack a passenger ship, I think it can be said that we were forewarned. If we had listened to the warning and the crisis had never occured, would the US have so readily gotten involved in the war?

World War I - Technology Taking Over

   WWI is often veiwed as a time of great advancement in technology. However, is it possible that the technology was too much. During WWI battle plans like the Schlieffen Plan failed. The course of a typical battle was more reliant on technology than on actual strategy. When both sides have artillery to bombard with, the battle because a stalemate. Pouring in reinforcements doesn't help when both sides are mowing soldiers down with machine guns. Better laid plans could have made a significant difference in the war. If more strategy was employed and less reliance on technology, it is possible that many lives could have been spared.
   While technological advancements are important, we can't rely solely on them. It is important to keep making improvements, and, in a time of war, not to fall behind the opposition, but other strategies must also be employed.