Posting #10- Europe in Ruins

This is a picture of Gutte (goodness) looking down upon the city of Dresden (a centre of culture and art, considered a 'Florence on the Elbe') after the area bombing from the Allies which killed as many as 25,000 in one day.

One of the most obvious consequences of the Second World War was that Europe lay in Ruins. The material damage caused by the war was immense. Parts of the Soviet Union had been fought over four times. Warsaw was about three-quarters destroyed, and most of its people killed or dispersed. Germany had been heavily bombed and then fought over; Berlin was a scene of utter devastation. Casualties across the continent had been enormous; even greater than those which had been thought unbearable in the Great War of 1914-1918. War- related deaths in Germany were estimated at 6, 500,000, with another 374,000 in Austria, which was part of Germany for the whole of the war. Among Germany’s allies, Romania suffered some 500,000 dead and Hungary 430,000 - a high proportion of their populations. Among the victors, a commonly used figure for Soviet war dead is 20,000,000, though other estimates go as high as 25,000,000-27,000,000. Polish losses have been put at 4, 123,000, but were almost certainly higher. French losses were approximately 600,000, and those of the United Kingdom 350,000. The war deaths for the whole continent may be computed at a grievous total of something in and around 36,000,000.

At the end of the war Europe was in a state of economic dislocation and decay. Industrial production across most of the continent was low, and in some places non-existent. Transport was often at a standstill. Agricultural production could not feed the populations- food rations were low, and the northern Netherlands suffered severe famine in the winter of 1944-45. The end of the war brought a movement of peoples such as had not been seen in European history for fifteen hundred years. Between 10 and 12 million Germans (perhaps more) either fled or were driven from territories where they had lived for generations, so that east of the Oder-Neisse Line (West Poland/East Germany) and in the reconstituted Czechoslovakia only tiny German populations remained. Refugees, survivors of the death camps, slave labourers from the German war economy, and released prisoners of war wandered across lands which were sometimes almost empty of settled populations.

In the centre of this ruined continent the soldiers of the United States and the Soviet Union met. The fate of Europe was to be in their hands for a longer time than anyone could then foresee. Meanwhile, the vacuum left by the defeat and destruction of Germany had to be filled, and much would depend on how this was done. Before we move on to the long-term consequences of the war it is necessary to discuss the origins of the war, who was responsible and why things happened the way that they did. There have been revisionist and orthodox views on this subject published. Below are the major viewpoints from A.J.P Taylor’s classic book entitled The Origins of the Second World War.

His book was published in 1961, was immediately dubbed controversial, he was immediately considered a dissenter as his viewpoints of the war and Hitler seemed unbelievable. He claimed that Hitler was not an evil monster who moulded events to fit his master plan, but was a man of ‘improvisation’, ‘opportunism’ and ‘the spur of the moment bright idea’- an ordinary German statesman whose foreign policy differed little from that of earlier German governments. Taylor put forward and equally controversial view of appeasement, which he saw as being a logical and realistic assessment of the failings of the past, and as being a genuine attempt to solve them. What brought war was not appeasement, but the mistakes that Chamberlain made when he decided to abandon the policy. In Taylor’s view, war broke out not because of Hitler’s design, but because of Chamberlain’s blunders. Hitler’s foreign policy succeeded for a while, because of his ability to seize opportunities and profit from the mistakes of his opponents. These controversial views set the debate on the origins of the Second World War alight, and opened the way to a broader and less emotionally charged debate.


Research and find what percentage of the populations were killed during the second world war. Using the numbers that were given to you in the first paragraph, find population numbers pre-1939 and compile percentages. i.e war related deaths/population number pre-1939 x 100= %. Which two countries suffered the most losses as a proportion relative to their populations? Why would the estimates initially given regarding war related deaths in the Soviet Union and Poland be inaccurate as they were almost certainly higher? Why do you think that 10-12 million ethnic Germans would be in many cases forced to leave their homes in eastern Europe to forge a new life in a destroyed country such as Germany? Why were A.J.P Taylor's views considered controversial? Do you agree with him, why? Would the viewpoint outlined in his famous book be considered orthodox (traditional viewpoint) or revisionist (breaking away from mainstream/traditional) viewpoints? Support your answer. Why do you think Taylor labels Hitler as an ordinary/traditional German statesman? Do you agree?

This posting is now open and will close at 11pm on December 20th.  Any student who is not included in posting #1 or 2 will be doing this posting.

There has been lack of participation on this posting, as a result the deadline will be extended until December 31st.

Posting #9-The Warsaw Uprising

At the Tehran Conference in 1943 the ‘Big Three’ met to discuss Europe’s post war future. At this meeting Stalin stubbornly reiterated his intention to retain Russia’s territorial acquisitions of 1939-41 (under the Nazi-Soviet Pact) in Eastern Europe. The two western leaders (Roosevelt and Churchill) grudgingly gave way, on the condition that Poland’s territorial losses in the east to Russia would be compensated by the annexation of German territory in the west. No one thought to propose a plebiscite like the League of Nations did in the Saar, to consult the Poles earmarked for inclusion into the Soviet Union or the Germans to be incorporated in the reconstituted Polish state as it ‘moved west.’

The long simmering dispute over the political future of Poland became the major bone of contention between the western and eastern members of the Grand Alliance at Yalta. In April 1943 Stalin had abruptly withdrawn diplomatic recognition of the pro-Western Polish government in exile headquartered in London when it appeared to give credence to Nazi accusations that Soviet military forces in Poland massacred ten thousand Polish officers during the period of Soviet cooperation with Germany. Shortly thereafter Stalin gave his official blessing to a rival group of Polish exiles in Russia that disputed the London Poles claim to political legitimacy (right to form a government when the war ended). On July 23 1944, a pro-soviet Polish Committee of National Liberation was established in the Polish city of Lublin after its capture by the Red Army. On August 1st, in response to an appeal from the London Polish group, the 46, 000 members of the Warsaw underground rose against the German occupation army and were joined by most of the city’s civilian population. At the time of the Warsaw uprising the Red Army had smashed through the German defenses to within 10km of the city while radio Moscow broadcast messages of support for the insurrection. But the Soviet forces abruptly halted their advance and stood by while the German Army of occupation brutally crushed the uprising by the end of September. Churchill’s appeal to Stalin for permission for Anglo-American planes based in Italy to land on Soviet airfields after bomb attacks and parachute drops in support of the uprising fell on deaf ears in the Kremlin (the Soviet Government Centre). The consequent death of thousands of Polish partisans wiped out the impressive political and military organization that the London Poles had succeeded in establishing in the occupied country, thereby paving the way for the pro-Soviet rival group that accompanied the advancing Red Army. In January 1945, with Soviet military forces in occupation of the entire prewar territory of Poland, the Kremlin installed the pro-Russian Polish faction in Warsaw and gave it formal diplomatic recognition.

Provide an assessment on the treatment of Eastern European countries before and during the Second World War. Do you feel the treament of Poland in 1939 and 1944 by Western Democracies and Soviet Communism was fair? Does the term 'self determination' apply to the way Stalin was allowed to deal with Poland? Sitzkrieg or a 'sitting war' has been used to describe the attitude of the major powers towards Poland in 1939 and 1944, explain. There is an abundant source of information regarding this topic online and in the Barrie Public Library. Do some research and see what you can find!

This blog posting is now open and will close on December 20th at 11pm

There has been lack of participation on this posting, as a result the deadline will be extended until December 31st.

The following students are included in this posting: Hailey Adam, Daniel Allen, Delaney Benoit, Chelsey Boutin, Megan Broe, Natasha DePass, Lexi Dimovski,

Posting #8-The Role of the Soviet Union in the Outbreak of WWII

In April 1939 Churchill said the guarantee system did not go far enough, and urged Chamberlain to seek an alliance with the Soviet Union. The vast majority of British and French public opinion supported this idea. But, Chamberlain, a lifelong anti-communist, had profound misgivings about concluding an Anglo-Soviet alliance. In the end, the weight of British opinion forced him to make a half-hearted attempt to gain an Anglo Soviet agreement. Chamberlain believed an alliance with the Soviet Union would arouse the suspicion of Poland and aggravate the hostility of Hitler. It was the gravity of the international situation, and the strength of public opinion which forced him to change course. In June 1939, a public opinion poll showed 84% of British people were in favour of an Anglo-Soviet Alliance. In these circumstances, Chamberlain, very reluctantly and with little real enthusiasm, agreed to open negotiations with the Soviet Union in the summer of 1939. Sir Anthony Eden offered to lead the negotiations but Chamberlain ignored the request. The diplomatic talks were conducted by Sir William Strang, a low ranking foreign office official and proved very slow and complex. The British military mission to the Soviet Union was headed by the virtually unknown Admiral Drax who took his time arriving (almost two weeks before he was in Moscow). The talks were cordial but broke down primarily because the Polish government steadfastly refused to allow Soviet troops to enter Polish territory in the event of war. However, the generally low key approach to the discussions by the British government was probably a fatal blunder which paved the way for the Nazi-Soviet Pact.


In the summer of 1939, the Soviet Union, ignored, isolated and mistrusted for most of the inter-war period, was now at the centre of European diplomacy. Everyone assumed, especially Chamberlain, that Hitler’s hostility to Soviet communism was so passionate that he would never contemplate a Nazi-Soviet Pact. This view ignored Hitler’s opportunism and his willingness to be flexible in pursuit of his foreign-policy aims. Hitler had already set September 1st 1939 as the date for the invasion of Poland, and knew that the Soviet Union was the only power which could offer and real assistance to Poland. With these considerations in mind, Hitler sent von Ribbentrop (the German foreign minister) to meet Stalin to conclude a pact with the Soviet Union. On August 23rd 1939, the Nazi-Soviet Pact was signed. Hitler saw the pact as a temporary measure, designed to frighten Britain and France out of their guarantee to Poland. For his part, Stalin was as indifferent to the fate of Poland as Chamberlain had been towards Czechoslovakia a year earlier, and wanted to keep the Soviet Union out of a war with Nazi Germany if at all possible.


Consider all the motivations for the following countries: Britain, France, Germany, Poland and the Soviet Union when responding:

What were the reasons that Britain and France forced Czechoslovakia to accept German demands? Was the Nazi-Soviet Pact the same sort of situation for Poland? Could the Poles have made better diplomatic decisions in order to prevent a future war (keep in mind the non-aggression pact signed between Poland and Germany in 1934)? What were the concerns for the Soviets during this period of time?

This Blog Posting in now open and will close on December 20th at 11pm

There has been lack of participation on this posting, as a result the deadline will be extended until December 31st.

The following students are included in this blog: Carly Dusome, Taylor Dylewski, Mitchell Hawthorne, Jennifer Huston, Adam Keating, Cameron Lejambe, Matty McLean, Brittney Murphy, Ally Musso.

Unit #2 Review

CHC 2D Unit #2 Review

People to Know:

Mackenzie King Joseph Stalin Arthur Meighan
Lord Byng Charles Dawes R.B Bennett
Tim Buck Frederick Banting Alexander G. Bell
Maurice Duplessis William Aberhart James s. Woodsworth
Adolf Hitler F.D.Roosevelt Neville Chamberlain
Lenin Famous Five

Terms to Know:

Stock Credit Buying on Margin
Depression Black Tuesday Black Thursday
Communism Poggy Bennett Buggy
Bennett Blanket Hobo Relief Payment
Treaty of Versailles Paris Peace Conference Social Credit
CCF Union Nationale Spanish Flu
Minority Government Majority Government Tariff
Dust Bowl Prohibition Speakeasy
Bootlegger Inflation

Topics to Consider:

Rise of Fascism in Ger. The Great Depression Industrialization of USSR
Alternate Political Parties in 30's Reasons for Stock Market Crash
Roaring Twenties Inventions of 1920's Political Parties of 1930's
Winnipeg General Strike Issues with Reparations


Major Themes:

• Germany Surrenders and the new Political/Economic situation in Europe 1919-1933

• The Treaty of Versailles as an Influential Factor in European Economics, Politics and Civil Unrest.

• The Cause/Effect of the Great War and the Stock Market Crash on Canadians: Politics, Economy, Laws and Lifestyle

• Life in Canada During the 1920's and 30's

Posting #7-The Approach of War

Please respond to the following primary sources dealing with the approach of a second world war. You may take your own approach or answer the questions provided:


President Roosevelt on international anarchy, 1937- "the quarantine speech"

The political situation in the world, which of late has been growing progressively worse, is such as to cause grave concern and anxiety to all peoples and nations who wish to live in peace and amity with their neighbours...Without a declaration of war and without a warning of justification of any kind, civilians, including women and children are being ruthlessly attacked and sunk by submarines without cause or notice. Nations are fomenting and taking sides in civil warfare in nations that have never done them any harm...The peace-loving nations must make a concerted effort in opposition to those violations of treaties, and those ignoring of humane instincts which are today creating a state of international anarchy and instability from which there is no escape through mere isolation or neutrality...There can be no stability or peace either within nations or between nations except under laws and moral standards adhered to by all. International anarchy destroys every foundation for peace. It is my determination to pursue a policy of peace and to adopt every practical measure to avoid involvement in war. We are determined to keep out of war, yet we cannot insure ourselves against the disastrous effects of war and the dangers of involvement... America hates war. America hopes for peace. Therefore, America actively engages in a search for peace.


Identify the main features of Roosevelt’s view in this speech made to the people of Chicago in 1937.



The Hossbach Memorandum, 1937- minutes of a conference held in the German Chancellory, taken by Colonel Hossbach, Berlin, 5 November 1937

The Fuhrer began by stating that the subject of the present conference was of such importance that its discussion would, in other countries, certainly be a matter for a full cabinet meeting...He wished to explain to the gentlemen present his basic ideas concerning the opportunities for the development of our position in the field of foreign affairs...The aim of German policy was to secure and preserve the racial community (Volksmasse) and to enlarge it. It was therefore a question of space...German policy has to reckon with two hate-inspired antagonists, Britain and France, to whom a German Colossus in the centre of Europe was a thorn in the flesh, and both countries were opposed to any further strengthening of Germany’s position either in Europe or overseas...Germany’s problem could only be decided by force and this carried attendant risk...If the Fuhrer was still living it was his unalterable resolve to solve Germany’s problem of space at the latest by 1943-1945...For the improvement of our politico-military position our first objective, in the event of our being embroiled in war, must be to overthrow Czechoslovakia and Austria simultaneously in order to remove the threat to our flank in any possible conflict against the west...Actually the Fuhrer believed that almost certainly Britain and France as well, had tacitly written off the Czechs and were reconciled to the fact that this question would be cleared up in due course by Germany.


What is the German attitude towards the West and the East. In your opinion do they bear any similarity to that of the Kaiser 30 years prior? In your opinion has German foreign policy changed?



Neville Chamberlain defines his attitude towards Czechoslovakia, 20 March 1938- excerpt from Chamberlain’s diary.

You only have to look at the map to see that nothing France or we could do could possibly save Czechoslovakia from being overrun by the Germans, if they wanted to do it. The Austrian frontier is practically open; the great Skoda munitions works are within easy bombing distance of German aerodromes, the railways all pass through German territory, Russia is 100 miles away. Therefore we could not help Czechoslovakia- she would simply be a pretext for going to war with Germany. That we could not think of unless we had reasonable prospect of being able to beat her to her knees in reasonable time, and of that I see no sign. I have therefore abandoned the idea of giving guarantees to Czechoslovakia, of the French in connection with her obligations to that country.

Express the views of Neville Chamberlain in this diary excerpt. Do you agree with the position that he has taken. Try and respond as though you were in 1938 not 2008, as he unlike us, did not have the benefit of retrospect!



The Munich Conference, 1938: an Italian view- excerpts from the diary of Count Galeazzo Ciano, Italian foreign minister, 29-30 September 1938.

29-30 September. In the train the Duce [‘leader’, Mussolini] is in good humour...He criticises British and French policy severely...At Kufstein we meet the Fuhrer. We get into his carriage, where he spreads out on the table all the maps of the Sudetenland and the Western Fortifications. He explains the situation: he intends to liquidate Czechoslovakia as she now is...The Duce listens with concentration. The programme is now fixed: either the conference is successful in a short time or the solution will take place by force of arms. ‘Besides’, adds the Fuhrer, ‘the time will come when we shall have to fight side by side against England and France. All the better while the Duce and I are at the head of our countries, and still young and full of vigour.’ But all that seems superseded by the atmosphere which has been created- an atmosphere of agreement... After a brief stop at the palace where the Duce and I are staying, we go to the Fuhrerhaus [the leader’s house], where the conference will take place. The others have already arrived...The Fuhrer comes halfway down the stairs to meet us and, with the rest of his suite, singles us, the Italians, by a marked distinction of treatment. Brief cold handshakes with Daladier and Chamberlain - then the Duce goes over to a corner of the room where the Nazi leaders surrounded him...We enter the conference room...The Fuhrer speaks - a few words of thanks and then he raises his voice and beats his fist against the palms of his other hand...The Duce affirms the necessity for a rapid and concrete decision, and with this end in view proposed to use as a basis for discussion a document which has in fact been telephoned to us by our embassy the previous evening, as the expression of the desires of the German government...Chamberlain is inclined to linger over legal points. Daladier defends the cause of the Czechs without conviction, the Duce prefers to remain silent and draw conclusions...Daladier particularly is loquacious in personal conversations. He says what is happening today is due solely to the pig-headedness of Benes [the Czech president]...at last, at one in the morning, the document is complete. Everybody is satisfied, even the French, even the Czechs, according to what Daladier tells me.

What insights does Ciano provide regarding the attitudes of Hitler, Mussolini, Camberlain and Daladier towards the Munich agreement?



Hitler’s speech to the generals, August 1939- a speech made prior to Germany’s occupation of Poland.

The decision to atttack Poland was arrived at in the spring...Goering [the head of the Luftwaffe and rearmament program] has demonstrated to us his four-year plan is a failure and that we are at the end of our strength if we do not achieve victory in a coming war...Since the autumn of 1938 and since I realised Japan will not go with us unconditionally and that Mussolini is endangered by that nitwit King and the treacherous scoundrel of a crown prince, I decided to go with Stalin... As to what the weak Western European civilization asserts about me, that is of no account...I experienced those poor worms Daladier and Chamberlain at Munich. They will be too cowardly to attack. They won’t go beyond a blockade...Poland will be depopulated and settled with Germans. My pact with the Poles was merely conceived as a gaining of time. As for the rest, gentlemen, the fate of Russia will be exactly the same as I am now going through with the case of Poland. After Stalin’s death - he is a very sick man - we will break the Soviet Union. Then will begin the dawn of German rule of the Earth...Be hard, we without mercy, act more quickly and brutally than the others. The citizens of Western Europe must tremble with horror. That is the most humane way of conducting a war. For it scares the others off.

What impression of Hitler’s aims during the Second World War can be gained from this speech?



The German invasion of the Soviet Union: the evidence of a German general- statement of Franz Halder, chief of staff, German army (1938-42), military tribunal, Nuremberg, 22 November 1945.

I Franz Halder, being duly sworn, depose and say as follows: That on the first day of April 1938, I took over the supreme command of the German army, the position of first quartermaster general...I, furthermore state and affirm that in March 1941, before the start of the Russian campaign which happened June of that year, Hitler called the chiefs of command of the three parts of the armed forces and also high commanders to a conference in the Armed Forces Chancery...In that conference Hitler said as follows: ‘The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is a struggle of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. All officers had to rid themselves of obsolete ideologies. I know that the necessity of such means of waging war is beyond the comprehension of you generals, but I cannot change my orders and I insist my orders will be executed without contradiction. The commissars [heads of Soviet government departments] are the bearers of those ideologies of Russia and are directly opposed to National Socialism. Therefore they, the commissars, will be liquidated. For the German soldiers who are guilty in this fight of breaking international law, provided that breaking of civil law, such as murder, rape or robbery are not involved, then their breach of international law shall be excused. Russia has not participated in the Hague Convention, therefore has no rights under it’... When this talk given by Hitler was over, listeners on the part of the army were of course outraged by this speech of Hilter’s and some officers turned to Field Marshall von Braushitsch and gave expressions of feelings concerning it. Von Brauchitsch then assured them he was going to fight against this resolution.

What are the strengths and weaknesses of this testimony as a historical resource for explaining the actions of the German army during the campaign against the Soviet Union in 1941?

This posting is now open and will close on Nov 22nd.

The following students will participate in this posting: Taylor D, Carly D, Lexi, Natasha D, Megan B, Chelsey B, Delaney B, Daniel A, Hailey A.

Required reading: pg 129-138 in your text

Posting #6-Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party

Major Theme: The rise of fascism in Germany

The period from 1924 to 1929 is often as the 'golden age' of the Weimar Republic. German democracy seemed secure, the economy was showing promising signs of recovery, and reparations were no longer causing Franco-German antagonism (deep rooted ill-will). However, trouble was brewing under the surface: the German economic recovery was dependant on U.S loans; and many members of the middle class still harboured deep anger over the economic losses that they had suffered under the 'great inflation'. Another worrying sign for the future stability of the Weimar Republic was the election of Paul von Hindenburg, a hero of Kaiser Wilhelm's army, as president in 1925.  Does this sound like a man who is bent on change, on introducing new ideas? Think of the Kaiser and what we said about the political landscape of Europe preWWI in class. What would the presidents view on democracy be?

An even bigger potential danger to Weimar democracy was lurking about in the shadows. His name was Adolf Hitler. His personal views, as mentioned in Mein Kampf (part of today's note), as very important into understanding the origins of WWII.  How do the views laid down in Mein Kampf give us an understanding of why Germany went to war? To what extent to you believe the German people might have supported those views?


Hitler was born on April 20th 1889 in Branau-am-Inn, Austria, near the Austrian-German boarder. His father was a customs officer and his mother a traditional housewife. He attended private schools. After the death of his parents he moved to Vienna (1907) where he hoped to become a great artist. After several rejections from notable schools (some run by men who were Jewish) the most important of which was the prestigious Academy of Arts. He was never really down and out like some may have suggested, he was unemployed by choice, living on a large inheritance given to him by his parents. He visited the opera regularly and mostly hung out in expensive cafes, eating chocolate cake, drinking endless cups of coffee, and voicing his opinion to who ever would listen. By 1912 he was earning some money by selling a few drawings and paintings. in 1913 he fled across the boarder into Germany to avoid being conscripted into the Austrian army. When the first world war broke out he was in Munich, the capital of Bavaria, where he volunteered to join the German army. He had found his great two loves, the army and war. He served with distinction, being twice awarded the iron cross for bravery and was promoted to lance corporal.


On the Day that news came of the German defeat, Hitler was in hospital, recovering from a poison gas attack. He was utterly devastated and could not believe it. In July 1919, when he heard of the terms of The Treaty of Versailles, he decided to enter politics. His dream was to build a 'new Germany' under his own leadership, to overturn the Treaty and to establish Germany as a major European power. In 1919 he joined the NSDAP-National Socialist German Workers' Party. By 1920 he emerged as their leader. The early doctrine of the NSDAP called for a revision to the Treaty of Versailles, and aimed to replace democracy with a military dictatorship. To this end, Hitler organized a coup (an event to overthrow the government) designed to take control of Bavaria. The now called "Munich Beer Hall Putsch" of November 1923 as a failure, foiled by the loyalty of the German army and the local police force to the authorities. Hitler was jailed for five years on the charge of high treason yet only served 13 months in the comfortable surroundings of Landsberg prison. At this point his career seemed to be over but he used his time in the jail to write a new strategy for the Nazi party in Mein Kampf (my struggle). This was used as a bible for his followers. The party figured they would seize democratic power then destroy democracy 'from within'. Here are the four major points from this book:

. The destruction of the treaty of Versailles. This would allow Germany to rearm and recover lost territory.
. To gain territory or Lebensraum (livingspace) in Eastern Europe. This would involve a war with the USSR in order to defeat Russian Bolshivism.
. To include all German speaking people in the new 'Third Reich'. The focus would be those in the Sudetenland, Austria and Danzig.
. To create a racially pure German state what would be the most dominant power in Europe.

The two really NEW dimensions of Hitler's policy were a desire to create a racially pure Germany and a virulent obsession with the Jews. However, in all fairness to many Germans, few realized that these new ideas would lead to the extermination of European Jewry. In the beginning the Nazi party was only able to get 2% of the popular vote. From 1929-1933 views changed and they won many more seats, Hitler was on the rise and soon would become Chancellor, eventually declaring himself Fuhrer. It must have taken a very spectacular event to cause German political opinions to change so quickly in just four years.  What was it that changed the voter's minds?  Please respond to this posting by way of making comments on the article or answering the questions.

This posting is now open and will close Nov 22nd at 11pm.

The following students will participate in this posting: Fernando Q, Cameron P, Hayden P, Dale N, Megan Muxlow, Aly M, Matty M, Cameron L, Adam K, Jenny H

Required Reading: pages 129-138 in your text

Posting #5 Prohibition

Major Theme: The rationale behind prohibition.

Rumblings of Prohibition were heard for decades in Canada and the United States in the 1800s. Early attempts to “dry out” both countries failed, but by the time World War One erupted in 1914, citizens took a different view of prohibition. Temperance groups, farmers, churches and women armed with new-found voting rights rallied together to fight for a ban on alcohol. Their campaigns, protests, parades and lobbying, plus the call to close “all distilleries and breweries as a non-essential industry for the war effort”, noted Art Jahns in WalkervilleTimes.com, led to bans on the importation, manufacture and transportation of liquor. The Canadian and provincial governments (except Quebec) enacted the new policies in 1918. The Volstead Act of 1919 in the United States enacted similar laws. The general public agreed.

Canadian law was reversed soon after, with a repeal of the wartime measures act in 1919. Distilleries and breweries reopened; Canadians were free to manufacture and sell liquor across the provinces and to countries without prohibition in force. As for America prohibition would not be repealed until 1933.

Was prohibition difficult to enforce?  

What effects did lobbyist groups like the WCTU have on implementing Prohibition?  What were the names of the other groups advocating for prohibition in Canada? What were their reasons for supporting such initiatives?

Do you feel that prohibition was a worthwhile initiative?  Would you support such a law in today’s society?  Are there currently countries in the world with prohibition style laws?  What about the use of marijuana, do you think that it should be legalized?

This blog posting is now open and will close Nov 14th at 11pm

The following students are to participate in this posting: Brittany M, Thomas S, Cameron W, Shayna W, Glen V, Uel S, Kate S, Luke R.

Required reading pages 87-89 in your text

WWI Review

WWI- Review

Famous People:

Clifford Sifton Laurier Borden
Sam Hughes Sir Arthur Currie David Lloyd George
Georges Clemenceau Woodrow Wilson Czar Nicholas II
King George V Kaiser Wilhelm II Franz Joseph I
Archduke Franz Ferdinand Gavrillo Princip Otto von Bismarck
Sir Douglas Haig Billy Bishop Roy Brown
Manfred von Richthofen Rasputin            

Terms to Know:

Mustard Gas Chlorine Gas Tank
Plane Machine Gun Ross Rifle
Lee Enfield Rifle Barbed Wire Over the Top
Maginot Line Alliance System Imperialism
Militarism Nationalism U-Boat
Dreadnought Destroyer Depth Charge
Trench Trench Foot Artillery
Shell Shock Lice Trench Fever
Black Hand Empire Bolshevik
Communism Romanov Blockade
Rats C.E.F B.E.F
War Measures Act

Countries and Regions to be Familiar With:

Germany Austro-Hungary Serbia
Great Britain France Russia
Italy Czechoslovakia Poland
Polish Corridor Rhineland The Saar
Yugoslavia (Boer War) Naval Race
Alaska Boundary Dispute Alsace/Lorraine Ottoman Empire
Bosnia Herzegovina Lithuania Latvia
Estonia

Some Questions to Consider:

1.) How and why was the Canadian West settled?  Who were the parties (people) invovled?

2.) What was the nature of Immigration to Canada in the late 19th century and the early 20th century?  Why did people come to Canada and what were some of the obstacles that they had to overcome?

3.) Who was the largest Empire in the World in 1900?  How did this empire influence the world and how did this affect Canadian life?

4.) What was life for the average person like in 1900?

5.) What were the long standing issues that plagued Europeans up to 1914?  What were the four causes for war in 1914?

6.) What was the July Crisis?  What exactly happened, who were the people involved and what choices were made?

7.) What is an alliance system?  What two alliance systems were formed before 1914 and who were the countries involved? How could an alliance be a cause for war and how could it prevent one?  Which alliance system was more successful and why?

8.) What were the reactions of Canadians to the Boer War and WWI? How might involvement in a European war be a “divisive issue” in Canada?

9.) What was the Schlieffen Plan?  Was the plan successful, why or why not?

10.) What were the contributions of Canadians during WWI?  How was this war significant to Canadians?

11.) What were some of the hardships faced by soldiers in the trenches?

12.) Describe the nature of the different arenas of warfare: land, air, sea.

13.) Why was 1917 such an important year for the war?

14.) Give a complete analysis of the Russian Revolution: people involved, causes, affects.  Was this a negative or positive event in history?

15.) Why was conscription considered in Canada?  Was it a divisive issue, if so why?

16.) What was Canada’s involvement at the Paris Peace Conference?  Why?

17.) What were the terms of the Treaty of Versailles?  Could they be a cause for a future war or way to prevent one?  What were the major problems faced by the victorious nations at Versailles?

18.) What were the affects of a European War?  Think in terms of : geography, politics, military, economy, society.

Posting #3- The Paris Peace Conference

Major Theme: Post war peace negotiations

Please respond to each of the following primary sources dealing with the Paris Peace Settlement. You may take your own approach or answer the questions provided:


1.) Hitler's View of the Versailles Treaty (Written in Mein Kampf-My Struggle)

When in the year 1919 the German people was burdened with the peace treaty, we should have been justified in hoping that precisely through this instrument of boundless repression the cry for German freedom would have been immensely promoted. Peace treaties whose demands are a scourge to nations not seldom strike the first roll of drums for the uprising to come...We had to form a front against this treaty and engrave ourselves forever in the minds of men as an enemy of this treaty, so that later when the harsh reality of this treacherous frippery would be revealed in its naked hate, the recollection of our attitude at that time would win us confidence.

*What does this expert from Mein Kampf tell us about Hitler's reaction to the treaty? 


2.) The Economic Consequences of the peace: A British View (John Maynerd Keynes' View)

The treaty is no treaty, because it is now generally recognized that in truth it settles nothing...If you pledge a man to perform the impossible, you are no nearer a decision as to what in fact he has to do: for his pledge is, necessarily a dead letter. The reparations clauses of this treaty are its most important economic feature. But being composed of foolish, idle words, having relation to real facts, they are without practical effect, and they leave the prospects of the future undetermined...This treaty ignores the economic solidarity of Europe, and by aiming the economic life of Germany it threatens the health and prosperity of the Allies themselves...by making demands the execution of which is in the literal sense impossible, it stultifies itself and leaves Europe more unsettled than it found it.

* What are the major criticisms made of the Treaty of Versailles by John Maynard Keynes? Were his predictions true? 


3.) The Paris Peace Settlement: A British Assessment (a view from a British delegate at the conference)

The historian, with every justification, will come to the conclusion that we were very stupid men. I think we were...We came to Paris confident that the new world order was about to be established; we left it convinced the new order had fouled the old...We arrived determined that a peace of justice and wisdom should be negotiated: we left it conscious that the treaties imposed were neither just nor wise...It is impossible to read German criticism without deriving the impression that the Paris Peace Conference was guilty of disguising an imperialist peace under the surface of Wilsonism...Hypocrisy was the predominant and inescapable result...We had accepted a system for others which, when it came to practice, we should refuse to apply to ourselves.

*Does this impression of the treaty coincide (match) with your opinion of its clauses (e.g. limits on military, reparations etc.)


4.)Reparations against Germany: An American View (viewpoint of an American delegate at the Paris Peace Conference)

The magnitude of the reparations demanded of Germany under the treaty...placed great strain upon credit. Largely on this account there was a widespread collapse of the entire pre-war system of goods and services and investments. The pre-war gold system has collapsed and a large part of the world functions in terms of closed international dealings restricted to barter...The reparations clauses contributed largely toward a German psychology which has changed the political complexion of much of the world.

*According to this delegate what are the major weaknesses of the treaty? What is the American opinion of the treaty and what is the major effect they are concerned with?

Please read the following pages in your text: 129-130

Possible Essay Topics: Was the Treaty of Versailles a valuable tool to maintain peace in Europe?  Was the treaty a cause for a future war?

This posting is now open and will close on Oct 9th.  The essay is due on Oct 10th.  The following students will be asked to participate: Natalie N., Hayden P., Cameron P., Fernando Q., Luke R., Kate S., Uel S., Glen V., Shayna W., Alexandra W., Cameron W., Christi S.

Posting #2- The Bosnian Crisis

Major Theme: The Origins of the First World War.

The out break of war in 1914 grew out of a short term crisis in the Balkans. However one must take into account a number of long standing developments:

1.) A balance of power that was maintained in Europe for much of the nineteenth century (France/Britain) was crumbling

2.) European Powers viewed international relations (colonies) as a battle for survival and source of status

3.) The Rise of Germany as the second largest European power encouraged the growth of alliances

4.) Nationalistic groups demanding self determination/independence threatening old empires


On the morning of July 28th a young Bosnian nationalist Gavrillo Princip, backed by the 'black hand' walked through a mass of people in the crowded streets of Sarajevo. He approached the car of Archduke Ferdinand and the Duchess Sophia, pulled a hand gun and shot them both dead. The Austro-Hungarian government blamed the whole affair on Serbia who had been linked through an intercepted message. Within a matter of about a month the whole of Europe was embroiled in what was soon to be dubbed the Great War/WWI.

*Many historians blame the outbreak of war on this July Crisis: the actions of Princip and the reactions of the Serbians and Austro-Hungarians. Do you believe that the war could have been prevented given this assassination had never happened? Remember to use supporting information from your notes, the Internet, class discussions and the online lecture for unit one (if you have time to listen to the first 20 min or so. The following website should give you a more thorough understanding of the causes for a European conflict:

http://www.firstworldwar.com/origins/causes.htm

Please read the following pages in your text pg-32-37

This posting is now open and will close on October 9th, the essay is due Oct 10th.  The following students are asked to participate: Mitchell H., Jennifer H., Adam K., Cameron L., Matty M., Alyssandra M., Megan M., Dale N.

Possible Essay Topics: Was the murder of Ferdinand and his wife the cause of war in 1914?  Would war have broken no matter what the outcome of the Bosnian Crisis?  What was the most important cause of the First World War?

Posting #1- The Naval Race

Britain vs. Germany

By the end of the twentieth century Britain, as you can see on page 22 in your history text, had the largest empire in the world.  It was described as “the empire on which the sun never sets”.  Think about why it was given this description.

Britain also had the largest navy.  This large navy was necessary for the following reasons:

1.) To protect the empire.
2.) To protect food supplies coming across the oceans.  Britain could not grow enough food to feed her crowded population.
3.) To protect her trade routes.  Britain’s wealth depended on selling her manufactured goods.
4.) To protect her against invasion from the mainland of Europe.

In contrast Germany’s strength lay in her army.  The great nineteenth century German statesman, Otto von Bismark, believed that Germany and Britain should be friends.  He said, “a land rat has no quarrel with a water rat.”  However, in 1890 the young German emperor (Kaiser Wilhelm II) dismissed his most trusted, experienced and level headed chancellor, Bismark.  The Kaiser was said to be an arrogant, unpleasant man who hated the idea of Britain being so much stronger on the oceans than Germany.  He therefore ordered a massive increase in the German navy.

The naval race had now begun as Britain and Germany entered a great battle to build more and better warships.  In 1906 Britain launched the first of a new kind of super-battleship, called the H.M.S Dreadnought.  All ships of this kind were became known as ‘Dreadnoughts’.  Many people in Britain became worried about the German naval threat.  They were concerned that Germany would build more Dreadnoughts than Britain.

Please read the following excerpt from a British Newspaper and decide which of the statements below, you can agree with.  Be sure to give solid reasons for your decision.

“After a long interval devoted to more controversial but less important subjects, the House of Commons today resumes the discussion of the Navy Estimates, and it is believed that Mr. McKenna will announce the decision to lay down four additional Dreadnoughts.  This decision will be welcomed throughout the Empire.  We should all of us be glad if it were possible to dispense with the proposed increase in the navy, and still more glad if it were possible to reduce the present vast expenditure.  But nations, like individuals, have to take facts as they find them; and the dominating fact of the existing situation is the unconcealed desire of Germany to challenge out naval supremacy.  That desire is quite intelligible.  The Germans are a great people, and they wish to be second to none either on land or sea.  We, however, are compelled to look at the problem from our point of view, and not from theirs.  To us, sea supremacy is a necessary of national life; to Germany it is a luxury of Imperial ambition.  If we lost the command of the sea our commerce could be destroyed and our industries brought to a standstill, and the overwhelming German army could affect landing where it listed.  Germany runs no such risk.  The utmost injury we could inflict upon her would be to blockade Hamburg and Bremen, and force her to send overland that portion of her foreign commerce which now passes through these ports.  Her ordinary industrial life would continue almost unaffected.  The stakes are, therefore, not even.  She is playing for pride, we are playing for life- and we mean to win.”

(Daily Graphic, 26 July 1909)

1.) Read the following extract and decide with which of the statements below it you can agree.  Give the reasons for your decisions.

a) The writer believed that other countries as well as Britain would benefit from extra Dreadnoughts.

b) It was not necessary for Germany to have a large navy.

c) Because this extract comes from a British newspaper it is bound to be a fair summary of the matter.

2.) Do you believe that the naval race was a cause for war in 1914?  What role did technology and the industrialization of Europe play in the outbreak of war?  If you were a British subject living in Canada would you support the war effort?  Would you expect that the Canadian government ‘follow suit’ with Great Britain and enter a European conflict? (see pages 21-30 and 32-40 in your text)

Possible Essay Topics: a) Great Britain was the cause of the Naval Race before 1914. b) Germany was the aggressor during the Naval race before 1914.  c) The Naval Race was a result of the industrialization of Europe before 1914.  d) The Naval Race was the result of centuries of Imperialism.

This posting is now open and will close on Oct 10th.  The essay for this posting is due Oct 9th.  The following students will be involved with this posting: Hailey A., Daniel A., Delaney B., Chelsey B., Megan Broe., Natasha D., Lexi d., Carly D.