It's not a hot war without guns.

The cold was was very different from other wars we've seen in history for one simple reason: in other wars, you try to take down the enemy's people. In the cold war, countries tried to build up their own people. While it may seem like it amounts to the same thing, it really is quite different because there was not an emphasis on who had more powerful weapons or who had a stronger military. It was who could attract more people to their side and way of government. That being said, strength in numbers is the idea behind every war, the cold war just took a different approach.

Personally I think it was smart that the USSR and the US really took some time to think about what would happen if they started firing weapons. They knew that one gunshot would lead to a bomb which would lead to a nuclear bomb. And after two world wars in one generation, starting a nuclear war would just be pretty stupid.

Oh those Wars of mine

The Cold war was completely meaningless, the whole thing was just back and forth banter that really had no purpose it was really just a propaganda war. It was with one side verbally abusing the other and then the other verbally abusing them right and so on. The war does not even compare to international disputes between other countries like the ever lasting one between Britain and France, they have always been trying to out do the other such when it comes to colonizing (Africa) and other things such as trading and expansion .

These two countries went to war with each other in the 13th century and 14th century, which was the hundred year war and that war was all about their rivalry and out doing the other, they were flexing their muscles and seeing who was superior between the two of them. So compared to that rivalry there is absolutely no comparison like I said before the cold war was just a war of meaningless propaganda and empty threats, where as the rivalry between Britain and France actually had meaning

Comparing Cold War Rivalries to Other International Rivalries

The Cold War was ridiculous. It was a war of propaganda and stealth as opposed to a physical beat-down. The Cold War was similar to an internet cat-fight; the objective of each side was to tarnish the other sides reputation through propaganda and the support of other countries. If you were looking for a true, hate-filled rivalry, then just look at Japan and China. Those two countries genuinely despise each other and their not subtle about it. For example, the Japanese invaded China then proceeded to rape and murder more than 200,000 innocent people in what is referred to as the rape of nanking. There no rape of anything during the cold war, just empty threats and rumors. Overall, compared to other gruesome international rivalries, the Cold War seems insignificant.

Cold Rivalries

The Cold War was a not a war of bombs and guns, but a war of politics between rivaling countries. The USSR and the USA were two of the main players in the Cold War. The USSR established it's position of power in a very similar way to Germany at the start of WWII. It gained power over it's neighboring countries with treaties and kept them in check and subservient with force. This rise to power caught the USA's attention and raised tensions between the two countries. It also raised tensions with the Chinese, who also had joined the race for nuclear power. All three countries were jockeying for political and technological power.

A moment in history that the cold war brings us back to is the huge leaps in technology that came out of WWI. Both instances show how conflict is what really motivates countries to improve upon their technology. There is always a constant sizzle of innovation in the background of history, but it only really boils over when major powers go to war. In WWI we saw huge innovations in airplanes, bombs (including chlorine and mustard gas bombs), and weaponry in general. Again, in the cold war we see huge improvements in nuclear technology, all in effort to get ahead of rivaling countries.

Stone Cold Rivalries

The Cold War was a useless war that used propaganda to scare the enemy. It really shouldn't even be considered a war because there was not fighting, just threats. The Soviet Union and the USA did not like each other, though they were allies during World War 2, tried to create weapons to out do the opposition. Some of the time, this wasn't even true. These weapons were only used as threats and never actually used against the other side. It was a war of propaganda and nothing more. This rivalry is nothing compared to that of Germany and Russia, China and Japan, and Britain and France. These countries were rivals for a long time, and they actually got in physical conflicts with one another. Japan grew economically and with innovation and later invaded China and sparked a long standing rivalry between two eastern powers. In almost every war, Germany and Russia always fought against each other such as in World War 1 and World War 2. Britain and France was a huge rivalry in medieval times as they kept fighting to claim the crown of biggest superpower of Europe. One thing that makes these rivalries different from that of USA and USSR is geography. The aforementioned pairs were located near each other whereas the USA and USSR were located on opposite sides of a war. It is easier to sustain a rivalry when the two sides see each other a lot more.

Baby, It's Cold Outside

Though the main rivalry of the Cold War was that between the West and the East, or more specifically, the United States and the USSR, there were many other important ones that can be related to those that we studied previously. The tensions between countries in this time are most easily connected to those directly before World War II. In this metaphor, the USSR takes the place of Germany. As Germany did, the USSR allied itself with several countries over the course of its rising power. When these countries were no longer needed or put up rebellion, however, they were invaded in spite of agreements otherwise. Specifically, I relate the peace agreement between Germany, Britain, and France to that between Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and the USSR. The USSR's rivalry with other communist states can be related to the contention between differences between fascist nations, namely Germany and Italy. Despite having the same beliefs on government, cultural and geographical opposition between the USSR, China, and Vietnam caused dispute and brought threats of nuclear war (like fascist Japan and the United States). Though the latter pair never made it to the stage of blows, the inevitability of an eventual war between the two had they kept their power was great. So while different countries participated in each of these conflicts, this history is still one that reoccurs.

They're like siblings....but countries. YAY RIVALRIES!!

The rivalry of the Cold War resemble the pre- World War I rivalries between the major European powers. During the Cold War, America, China, and the Soviet Union were all up at arms about the nuclear crisis and each country had a different view on the matter. Though America was primarily against the use of nuclear weapons, it still made the point very clear that they would not be afraid to fight back if nuclear war ensued. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, saw almost no problem with using the weapons to start war if they had to (though in the end it was them that backed down). The worst of all was China, who saw no problem in the use of weapons and went as far as to criticize the USSR for backing down. And while this missile crisis was going on, each country, the USSR and the US in particular, were building up their armies so that they could be on top at all times. This resembles the German mindset during World War I. Germany was so set on being the best country that they fortified they spent all of their money fortifying their army. Even further, after World War I Hitler still tried to keep their army strong so that he could win.

Though the conflict inside of the Soviet Union between the communists and the rebels was not an international conflict per se, it still resembles the conflict between colonial countries in Africa and their European counterparts. During Cold War times in Russia, small bands of rebels in Hungary and Czechoslovakia were crushed quickly by the communist leaders of the USSR because they were scared of what could happen. This is very similar to the rebel movements in the African colonies that were quickly squashed because the Europeans were scared of losing control.

Brrr. It's Cold in Here.

Like many things in history, the Cold war is similar to previous international conflict. Parallels can bee seen in both world wars, as well as in ancient China.

The cold war is similar to World War I because there were many invasions. In WWI, it was a chain reaction of invasions that eventually lead to an international conflict. During the time of the cold war, China went to war against Vietnam, who then invaded Vietnam. Also, the Soviet Union invaded many countries, like Czechoslovakia and Hungary who were their supposed allies. This part of the cold war parallel the Manchu takeover of China. The Manchu kept control of the Ming Dynasty by force, like the Soviet Union kept control of it's invaded states.

There are also many similarities between the cold war and World War II. In each situation, technology played a major role. In World War II, whoever had the newest technology had the clear advantage in the war. Although no bombs or weapons were used in the cold war, technology still played an important part. Whoever had the most powerful nuclear weapons had the advantage.

MAP MAPS AND MORE MAPS

It was because the Nazi's had geographic advantage it allowed them to fight longer in the war then they did in World War I. One on the Geographic advantages is that they did not have concentration camps in Germany so it shows that they had they art of deception and that their enemies did not know where the camps were so it took them longer and made them fight Germany/Nazi's longer.

The evidence of the memorial is that it shows what really happened in the War and that things this extreme went on and how the camps were such a horrible place. There is definitely some bias because obviously they wanted to leave the camps as a memorial to show how evil Germany was and how far they really went to torture a group of people who were just used as a scapegoat for Germany's problems. The website in a way counts a monument because it is evidence of history and it shows what happened in World War II.

Revised Paragraph

The United Nations brings great things to the table. Yes everyone yearns for world peace, but we cannot achieve it by only caring for our respective countries. The U.N requires stronger countries to help empoverished countries . The U.N also provides organization that previously was unheard of. They provide a structured way to accomplish a goal as large as world peace. This is a huge improvement from wearing Tye-dye shirts and throwing up peace signs. The U.N is finally proposing a plan of action for achieving world peace, allowing its members to check in on the groups progress by checking the different sections of the U.N website. Overall, the good intentions of the U.N make it a good thing, but the organization that accompanies it gives us hope that the U.N can reach their goals with co-operation from all countries.

Unfortunately, Sir, it's a bit more complicated.

False promises have never done anybody any good. They build hope higher and higher until - bam. It all comes crashing down. When the UN uses phrases such as "WE CAN end poverty" or saying that "Falling short [of their Millennium Development Goals] would be an unacceptable failure." (The United Nation's MDGs) they are using false hope as a way to get people on their side. Ending poverty is a goal that is far too large for one organization, even as big as the UN, to take on. To say that they would be a failure to not achieve their goals automatically makes people think they will, without a doubt, achieve their goals. Upon looking more closely, an educated person knows the UN cannot, by any means, end poverty. Really what they are doing in this document is calling themselves a failure. Other documents, such as one by the General Assembly emphasizing anti-poverty, are no less hopeful, and no less unrealistic. When discussing how necessary it was to fund this cause, a representative said, "If you do not fund the Global Fund, [the impoverished children] die. If you fund the Global Fund, they survive. There is nothing complicated about this.” Unfortunately, Sir, it's a bit more complicated than that. How are you planning on dividing this fund equally among every child in the entire world who is dying of hunger? Will this fund be enough to cover food, extensive medical care, and everything else a child needs who has been living in poverty their entire life? The more people you give money to, the less money each person gets. There is nothing complicated about that.

In addition, it is unacceptable that the UN declares all humans equal rights , while not enforcing these rights. Of the 30 articles written, almost all of them mentioned equal rights to every race, gender, religious affiliation, political opinion, etc. However, most people know that all over the world, there are people being treated unequally for all of these reasons. My question is, if the UN is not going to follow up on a simple declaration of rights, how are they planning on maintaining what they emphasized so highly in the Charter: world peace?

Though credit has to be given to the UN for trying their best to make the world safe, I find it almost impossible to see the UN as actually being effective. They can make as many charters and declarations as they want and write as many formal papers about keeping the world safe as they deem necessary, but in the end those words aren’t going to prevent war. They said in the Charter that extreme actions would have to be taken to prevent war, but that seems to be ignoring the fact that extreme actions would in fact be war. Since the first Charter was done written after World War II, the UN has written more statements in the same manner, but still none of them are really taken to heart by the rest of the world. Further, their Security Council seemed to be created more to make a statement about who the UN thought the best nations were rather than who they thought could make sure the world was safe. After reading about the Security Council, though they seem to hold their personal decisions to a high level, they're decisions aren't publicized or really enforced. The Security Council isn't the only council with superficial sounding assignments. There is also an Economic and Social Council who is supposed to keep the world's economy and social problems under control. This doesn't even make sense because it is impossible for one group to keep hundreds of different economies and social climates under control. It's a fine idea, but practically impossible. Though it must be duly noted that the UN tries hard at maintaining peace, the UN is just pretty backdrop put in front international affairs so that the world doesn’t really see how dirty the countries of the world play negotiation games.

UN-successful

What the UN is trying to do is just too much they have to minimized their goals because they will undoubtedly fail and many countries will see that the UN wasn't going to live up to its expectations. If the UN would just lower their expectations then they will be successful and be able to command respect from all of the countries in the world. Also they are tying to get stability and peace from every country. which honestly is impossible there is absolutely no way it can keep everyone from getting into fights.

http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=475

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_declarations.htm

http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=233

Spend 20 minutes BROWSING the United Nations website. READ at least one declaration signed by the UN. Then, REVISE one of your paragraphs from class today, using information you learned from the UN site. Provide AT LEAST THREE LINKS within your paragraph.

My opinion of the Charter of the United Nations is that it is one of the best ideas to reach our goal for peace once and for-all. There is already too much war and bloodshed, which is causing countries to have grudges against each other. This charter will end the conflict and create peace within each country in every continent. I believe that it will it will give each person the rights of peace that they deserve. Some people may favor war, but who wants to have family and friends constantly dying? Why would you want to be another young man of thousands to die in a pointless war? The U.N. is made of the General Assembly, Security Council, Economic, and Social council. It develops friendly relations among nations and promotes social progress, better living standards, and human rights. The Charter of the United Nations is meant to help the countries and will create peace among all people of the earth.

Pirate Peace

The wold needs an organization like this now. After two world wars, the we know how bad the living conditions, death tolls, etc have gotten. They could get worse if we don't try to keep peace throughout the world. If we never aspire to have world peace, we never will. Although it's unlikely to keep the entire world at peace, it's the right idea to hope. This organization addresses more than one area that need peace and protection. They are making universal rules, "more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules" Nothing is forcing these countries to not break the rules, other than the honor code. The only thinkable punishment would be to go to war against that country, however, that is against the UN's goals. At least, there are hopes and goals that people can look to to feel bad about breaking.

Trying

The UN Charter has been going around for a bit yet we cannot feel any change in present times. Not that we expected anything to happen, but the UN is a seriously biased organization. The heads of council are all of the powerful allies that won, and thus everything must go their way. The peace that they have said is nothing better than the treaty for Germany after the first World War, when everything was blamed upon them. Germany was restricted of any offensive movements, which made their desire for revenge even deeper. What we are facing now is the pathetic consequence of their tries to keep peace, simply restricting everything and anything of war. It is the same now, only a temporary moment of silence as the fuse is burning, and soon one will blow. If then, others shall follow and the council that the UN has will also split. The world will then again commit to a silent war, but a war nonetheless.

The UN? Eh...

The UN's goals and ambitions are certainly ideal, but they are too idealistic. By promising to ensure world peace, the UN burdens itself with the problems of the world. It hopes to act as a type of "world police" that brings countries together (or apart) and tension to an end. However, the UN can only do so much as to determine nations and ensure their peace. In a sense, by intervening so much in international affairs, the UN limits other countries' freedom to self-determine. After all, doesn't that defy the very cardinal rule of the UN Charter?

Student Council? Earth Week?

Although uniting the nations of the world under a common goal of peace seems like a good idea in theory, the United Nations fails in the execution of the lofty moral guidelines that it champions. As a humanitarian organization, the UN appears completely philanthropic based on the official statements that they make about social injustice (genocide, violence against women) and seems, as a judge, a very powerful conscience to the world. However, it quickly becomes clear that the UN is more like a discussion about what should happen ideally; it lists the steps that need to be taken, but it refuses to take the initiative to make that happen. It seems like (rather appropriately this week) a student council candidate declaring passionately that the ice cream machine should be returned or that we should have more days that start late. Since their promises are clearly overambitious, it's almost expected that they fail to deliver. The same comparison can be made with environmental awareness groups (look at that...) who discuss the issues with the world that need to be fixed, but in the scheme of things, they hold no power over that workings of our vast planet. In official statements by the Security Council, the group of people that supposedly has the potentially to regulate other countries' actions, the opening sentence of each paragraph always seems to be, "The Security Council reiterates," 'The Security Council is alarmed," "The Security Council reaffirms," "The Security Council welcomes." Never is it stated, "The Security Council does." They only seem to look onto the actions of the outside world and either give the the thumbs up of affirmation or shake their head in disapproval. Articles, such as the recent earth day article, do seem like a community service organization, announcing ideals but never following through. The UN has the right idea, but their professed task to maintain absolute peace, freedom, and justice in the world is inherently impossible.

In Defense of the UN

I believe the UN hasn't accomplished anything meaningful in terms of something concrete the UN has accomplished. They throw around big words like "international peace" and "Task Force on the Global Food Security Crisis," but this doesn't mean the UN has solved any problems. Sure the world hasn't launched any nukes at each other, but is that really the UN's doing? Countries like the United States and Russia reduced their arsenals but that was because Prez Obama wanted this to happen. The United Nations has admirably and foolishly taken on the task of being the world's largest philanthropic organization. They tackle every single problem and it results in no confirmed solutions. Last time I checked there are still billions of people without enough food, 1 million people a year dead from malaria and more civil wars than I can count. I see the UN as an idealistic group of people in a sweet blue building in New York City that took on more than they could handle.

Saving the World, One Document at a Time

The United Nations Charter to protect civilians is a well meaning but worthless endeavor. The only thing the countries truly agree upon is the fact that none of them want their citizens to get hurt. They have no true methods by which this can be accomplised, and no punishment for countries who break the rules. They also contradict themselves with talk of forceful peace-keeping and only taking up weapons when it is in the common interest.

This is what I felt before reading through the United Nations website. After browsing a bit, however, I realized that the United Nations are even more delusional than I had originally thought. In one article they talk about how outer space is to be used for peaceful and scientific endeavors only. However, the same exact problems present in the original charter are present here. There are no consequences, no concrete examples of how the peace will be kept. The United Nations basically decide something is good for everyone, and grandly tell everyone about their decision. In another article, they at least became a bit more proactive. The UN got all of the countries in the Middle East to vote on whether to establish an official nuclear-weapons-free zone. But once again, their plan has flaws. They agree that everyone wants a nuclear free zone, yet they do not specify where this zone is to be or what will happen if someone breaks the agreement. Plus, will one area that's free of nuclear weapons really do a whole lot to destroy the threat of a nuclear war? I feel that the UN is a group of pompous people who feel that they are doing a great deal of good, but are actually accomplishing nothing. Maybe if they just thought through their plans a little more thoroughly?

Nice Try, Guys.

What I noticed most about this charter was how much the United Nations wanted peace, and their lack of means by which to achieve it. The phrase "international peace and security" was repeated about 20 times, along with some contradicting lines about peace being maintained through force. They stated that peace was something everyone wanted, but they forgot that this is the only motivation to keep countries from attacking each other. They stated that any breach of the peace must be controlled, but they failed to state how they would control it. The UN seeked to stop inhumane treatment of civilians during wartime, and stop any descrimination between these civilians. This charter is well-meaning, but essentially useless. It's true that civilians shouldn't be harmed during war and that universal peace is in the interest of everybody. However, since when has a peace of paper stopped a country from starting a war? The Treaty of Versailles sure didn't work. When there are no consequences for broken rules, there is no reason for a country to follow the rules in the first place.

Swing and a Miss

Although the United Nations has honorable intentions to eventually make the world a better place, that is an impractical goal coming from an idealist organization. In the UN charter, they tried to create international peace. There is a lot of tension in the middle east, and that tension won't just go away as easily as the united nations says it will. In an article about Earth Day , they take about preserving mother earth, but they do not give any constructive advice on how to preserve the environment. Also, they talk about food shortages, but it is nearly impossible to rid the world of poverty and food shortages. Though it is a very good motive, it is an implausible goal.

UNsignificant

The UN will never truly make a difference in our world. First of all, the goals are implausible:

Target 1:
Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income is less than $1 a day

Target 2:
Achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all, including women and young people

Target 3:
Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger

How can the United Nations expect to accomplish these goals? To me it seems like the problems of poverty and hunger are only on the rise. The United Nations is unrealistic. MAYBE there is a chance that they can start to get things done once they talk about specifically what they are doing and start with goals that are just a step in the right direction. Perhaps instead of trying to achieve full employment, they could have a more reachable goal such as to employ a specific number of people and to have a method of achieving the goal. Secondly, how can people support the UN? By getting their voice heard? The UN isn't doing anything anyway, what makes anyone think that when they say some idea, it will suddenly get done. I'm not saying that it is necessarily the fault of the UN, as they have good intentions, but their goals are just simply unreachable.

Abracadabra.. hocus pocus.. WORLD PEACE!

1. When I first started annotating the paper, I highlighted words like "maintaining peace" and "equal rights" because those seemed like key ideas that would be important in the document and the tone that it set. Six pages later, peace and equality were still main ideas. In fact, they were the only ideas. The document continued to discuss these ideas, re-phrasing them in many different ways to get the point across. This is a pretty short paragraph summarizing what the document said, but in truth, it really didn't say that much.

2. The goal of the UN was made very apparent: prevent total war and chaos as they'd seen destroy their countries in both World Wars. In addition, and perhaps to help this cause, intolerance was to stop, and everybody was to be accepting of each other. It seemed to me that the goals of the UN were just a direct response to what happened in the world wars. They didn't really take anything else into account. At the beginning it even says, "To save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind," referring to both world wars. The tolerance idea would fix the problem of genocides and the peace idea would fix wars. Simple as that.

3. Maybe it seemed simple to the UN at the time, but they forgot to address how exactly they were going to reach these goals. I don't know what was going through these leaders' heads when they wrote this, but nobody can just say some magic words, rub their hands together and bring world peace. This was the main problem I saw. I had no idea how it would be possible to achieve the goals they set, and after reading through all of it, this question was never answered.

Damned If You Do

Though the United Nations may have good intentions, their charter will likely be an utter failure, promoting only the appearance of peace rather than the truth of it. First off, their laws are flawed; the articles are often vague and self-contradictory, leaving more than enough room for any country to go back on an agreement while staying within the bounds of their judgement system. For example, the second articles states that they should "settle their international disputes by peaceful means," but at the same time "take appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace." The only way to "strengthen peace" in the face of aggression is with equal or greater force. They also often promote equality of all kinds but give some countries more power on the Security Council than others. Kindly as they are, these rules are not restrictive of anything. Really, this group of self-proclaimed judges has no right to press their standards on other nations that have had no say, even if these standards are of the highest quality. From the creation of their laws can we see the failure already begin. For example, Article 23 of the Declaration of Human Rights states that all people have the right to equal pay, yet men are still paid more than women. From this instance and others we can see that there is no way for the UN to enforce their law other than by breaking their own pact of nonaggression or pledge to not interfere in the domestic affairs of any country. Really, this charter is only a spectator (of sorts) that encourages the nations of the world to act ethically and for the greater good rather than for self interest. Even this can cause some evil though; such a watcher only forces those with bad intentions to veil them even further so that none will suspect that they are not a true alliance. This follows the line of Hitler, who made nonaggression agreements with several countries before going back on them a few years later. The fact that he agreed to the treaties meant nothing to him and only succeeded in lulling his "allies" into a false sense of complacency. The same will be true of the United Nations. Countries will think that those involved are their supporters, while in truth it can be quite the opposite. In the end, this charter will cause countries to merely feign the appearance of friendship while hiding deceit.

United Nations Doing Nothing

1. There is a recurring theme in my annotations; they all seem to point out that the united Nations sounds like a good idea, but has no action plan. Not once in the charter is their any mention of action, just obvious ways of keeping the peace.
2. The goals of the Charter are very clear. The charter is aiming to create world peace through allying countries through the United Nations. They hope to prevent the type of all out war that was experienced in the first two world wars.
3. The most glaring problem with the charter is that it has no action plan. It has good ideas but has no hints of ways to implement them. You cannot just snap your fingers and bring world peace.

The United Nations, Have They Actually Done Anything?

1.) The most interesting, surprising and important things I learned from the Charter of the United Nations were: Of course the main purpose of the charter was "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war." It was 1945, right after World War II had ended and the world didn't want to ever have its kids and grandkids partake in a war. The charter also said that both big and small nations would have equal rights. The charter said countries would "practice tolerance," which is a direct reference to the lack of tolerance Germans had for Jews, which resulted in the Holocaust. A weird thing I saw was that these countries would "employ international machinery" to help out their people. Seems kind of odd to put this in a peace charter. The charter said it would strive for the freedoms for everyone without distinguishing race, sex, language or religion, and I think especially in extreme Islamic countries this is definitely not followed today. Probably the most layered quote I found was that

All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventative or enforcement action.

2.) The main goal of the charter is to maintain peace for the future citizens of the world. The UN doesn't want any more huge wars, no more civilian casualties and no more genocides. The charter at the same time is working for the equality and general social improvement of citizens everywhere. By countries letting their citizens be equal and free, peace will be achieved.

3.) A big flaw I see in the Charter of the United Nations is that the permanent members are limited to the members that were listed back in 1945. Other countries can be members, but they are temporary. The world has changed in the last 65 years so it doesn't make sense for a document to set in stone the countries that are "permanent" members.

The charter also incorrectly assumes that countries in the United Nations will place a top priority on maintaining peace and loyalty to the UN. In my long quote earlier it shows that countries are bound by the charter "to give every assistance," and I just don't think it's realistic to think that these countries will care enough to follow this rule.

International Peace is Becoming Cliché

The United Nations charter promised unattainable goals and achieved nothing. It mentioned "international piece" numerous times throughout the document. International peace will never actually happen because you can't stop conflicts from occurring. Promises are often made but they are impossible to fulfill. There will never be an ideal society no matter how many times the UN says International peace. It would have been better if they had at least offered some constructive advice on how to reach this lofty goal.

UN Charter

1) The main goal of the United Nations is to universally promote freedom and justice to create an peaceful global environment. By uniting as one with this common cause, individual countries and their people can thrive without threats constantly looming over their head as was the case in both world wars. The United Nations declares that it has the power to keep other countries under control by suppressing any acts that they deem disrupt the global peace as a unified word of the law. However, this only focuses on international affairs, and they will not meddle in internal conflict in a single nation. It is stated that all members of the UN will be equal. Five countries are permanent members of the Security Council, which makes decisions regarding the well-being of the world, and ten members are temporarily elected to fill the fifteen positions. The International Court of Justice enforces the UN's goals of peace and freedom by acting as an international conscience.

2) The UN seeks to learn from the previous world wars and prevent anything from happening again on that scale by advocating for and enforcing peace and freedom. By essentially establishing an international police force, the UN ensures that no single nation has the possibility of "pulling a Germany," or turning power-hungry and expanding at the cost of other countries and their people. In addition, the UN seeks to maintain the status quo so that no extreme changes can occur and threaten the balance of peace. It does this by deciding on a set of moral guidelines and forcing the world to adhere to them. The Security Council consists of five permanent members in order to keep the power within their hands, allowing no room for other nations to usurp them and change the UN's principles. By keeping the pivot point of these nations, they secure their places as leaders of the world while still permitting other nations to have a voice, however temporary.

3) The primary problem with the charter lies in the appointment of permanent members to the Security Council. These nations are basically declaring that they are model nations - or they strive for positions of permanent influence - and don't allow equal representation while it is clearly stated that "The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members." In addition, there is the question of whether it is right to establish a moral code for the world. In the end, they are trying to maintain the status quo, but while maintaining the status quo may help protect world peace, it displays the centralization of power in the UN. Although it is said that it is for the greater good of the countries of the world, it forces other nations to conform to the laws that they set down.

The United Nations...with, you know, spirt fingers and stuff

1) The United Nations Charter was about maintaining international peace by ensuring that there was no more war and that all problems were taken care of in a thoughtful and safe way. It was also made to make certain that everyone everywhere was treated equally and fairly.

2) Basically, the Charter said the same thing in big words over and over again: peace good, fighting bad. Everything the United Nations wrote was pristine and careful. They wrote around the same point repeatedly to make sure that there were no loopholes, making for an incredibly repetitive read. What I found the most interesting was the bit about the Security Council. I found it very, well, thought-provoking (thank you thesaurus) that they only five countries that were permanently on the council were the Allies and China. Isn't the United Nations supposed to be neutral with the soul goal of making international peace. Because that was what they had been saying for the past three pages. Anyway, the choosing of the five countries seems incredibly biased to me. Was the United Nations trying to punish Germany and Japan? That would be understandable of course, but the United Nations Security Council doesn't seem like the most politically correct place to make a statement, especially such a political statement as that would be. But in the end, the UN just wanted to make sure that wars were prevented, and everything was taken care of peacefully. And if there were problems, those problems needed to be solved in a manner that would not disturb the peace world wide. Honestly, the said the word peace like 70 times.

3) I don't see any major problems, other than the fact that the five allied countries were singled out and the rest of the world had to try to get on the Security Council. That doesn't really seem fair. What makes those five countries better for security than the others? The fact that they have more war experience doesn't exactly make them better. A balanced council would have all different types of countries with all different types of security backgrounds. And besides, hadn't China just been invaded by Japan? Because that would pretty much be a security fail, which doesn't really help international security matters.

But seriously. If I see the term international peace one more time...

United States of Eurasia

Enlargement is the new hip fad that the Charter of the United Nations has expressed. Through the terms of the charter, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, and the General Assembly's amount of members have increased form 7 to 9. On a larger scale, 5 major powers (China, France, USSR, Great Britain, and the United States) have come together in hope to form one mega-nation that will bring eternal cooperation and peace to the world.

Why come together? Why now? All of these nations for the most part (except China) felt spent and vulnerable after the demands and disasters of WWII. Therefore, these nations needed to feel ensured again, and this goal could apparently be achieved by assigning more people to one job/council. Similar to how kids must find friends at a new school to avoid being called a "loser," the allied competitors in WWII needed to join a group of international friends to feel safe again. The United Nations served as this much needed group.

However, as appealing the United Nations seems, can every one of the goals mentioned in the charter be met? The United Nations establishes itself as a "world police," which places a heavy burden. Solving international crises and issues is another example of the genre of goals that the United Nations take on. Can the UN really follow through on all of these very demanding goals? What if a 3rd world country is struggling and expects to be aided, yet the UN never ends up helping? This very probable scenario is the very scenario that will not promote peace: it will promote conflict.

The Same Old Song and Dance

1) This document presents the standing charter of the United Nations, which has been amended four times (in Articles 23, 27, 61, and 109) since its creation in June 1945. It was created in June and was put into force in October of the same year. Note that all amendments to the charter took 2-3 years to be put into force. Evidently, the United Nations felt that there was some urgency to the enforcement of their charter. Articles 23, 27, and 61 were changed to enlarged both the memberships of the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council considerably (the first changing from 7 to 9, and the latter changing from 18 to 54). Article 109 was changed to compensate for these increases in the democratic choosing of a date to review the charter (to a 2/3 majority and the vote of 9 members instead of 7 on the Security Council). However, a reference to a 7 member vote was not removed in a later part of the article.
The purpose of the charter is to maintain peaceful and respectful relations between countries, to ally and unite UN members with the common goal of justice, and suppress violence when it arises in a peaceful manner if it is at all possible. The charter requests that member of the UN be given priority over the UN's enemies and that members resist the urge to assist others whose goals differ from those stated in the charter.
Within the articles, it is stated that there will be 6 permanent members (China, France, USSR, UK, Northern Ireland, and the U.S.) of the security council of 15 total. The remaining spots for members will be elected for two-year terms.

2) The charter seems bent on trying to prevent war or aggression in any shape or form, as well as anything that might provoke it. In the preamble, they specifically cite WWI and WWII, which they refer to as "the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind." The charter also seems to promote the ideal society in which all members truly are equal and the more powerful and technologically advanced countries help the poorer ones.

3) Problems:

• While the charter may believe that in the ideal world there should be perfect equality, it does not desire it enough to give all member countries the same opportunity for a place on the Security council. Of the only 15 spots available, 6 are automatically given to six countries, while the rest are given to elected officials. Somehow this is not concurrent with the goals that were previously stated giving "equal rights [to].... countries large and small." The number of available seats is limited enough without giving 6 to the same countries annually.
  
• Part 6 of Article 2 states that the UN will strive to make sure that all other countries act as follows the goals of the charter. Though there goals seem to be sound, it does not seem entirely right that countries that have made no agreement to follow these rules will be judged by them nonetheless.
  

Is Peaceful Peace-keeping Possible?

The document can be changed throughout time. What was written in 1945 was edited all the way in the early 1970s. The Preamble says the people of the U.N. are "determined." They have specific goals and ideas. They want to save the future generations from the terrors of war (like WWI and WWII). They also want to improve life for everyone. Voltaire comes to mind when they mention wanting to practice "tolerance." State Farm pops into my head when they wish to live as good neighbors. They want to unite their strength and exhibit their "full powers" to maintain peace in the world. Members of the United Nations must do as much as they can to prevent the disruptance of peace. Leaders are elected, and have one representative each. The Security Council must submit papers to make sure they are working well. Members sign to agree to any decision made by the Court. Any member of the Security Council or the General Assembly can ask for advice from the International Court of Justice.

The goals of the charter are to unite powerful nations, and maintain world peace. It tries to prevent war, and prove that it can be kept. It tries to be fair, and make the decisions equal for all members.

There are a few problems with this piece. Only members of six countries have members of the security council. That does not make up most of the world. The document's goal is to have world peace. However, it states that "armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest." If everybody wants to go to war, the country should go to war, according to this document. Throughout the charter, it instructs members to take necessary measures to maintain peace. However, it never states how to maintain peace peacefully. How can this be possible all the time? It needs to tell people how to avoid going to war to maintain peace.

United Nations Charter: What are the chances of it working?

WRITE a blog post in which you 1.) SUMMARIZE your annotations, rewriting them in your own words, 2.) DISCUSS what the goals of the charter are – what does the UN seek to prevent?, and 3.) EXPLAIN any problems you see in the plan proposed by the charter.

I found the U.N.’s solutions for the violence and problems in the world in the Charter of the United Nations very idealistic and unreal. I agree with all the problems that they address and how they exist in the world, but their solutions will just create more conflicts. They want no use of arms and to have peace within all countries around the world. The only problem with their solutions is that certain people in the world are bellicose. Therefore, the Charter, no matter what, cannot satisfy everybody in the world. It only takes one person or a small organization to initiate war between countries by murder, terrorism, or other uses of violence. The Charter’s solution for war and aggression is simply, peace. They don’t explain how they will reach the idealistic goal of “peace within all countries”. They want to develop friendly relations among all nations and achieve cooperation in solving worldwide problems. All of the Charter’s “solutions” will only lead to more chaos and violence. It is just a matter of time before the U.N. loses control of its people. Also, part of the plan says for other countries to look out for neighboring nations and for them to protect each other. The obvious problem with this so-called solution is simply “what if the countries don’t care about their neighboring countries?” The only way to force them to follow rules is violence. We have seen this in the French Revolution and the Great Terror. So since they have to use hostility to instill their rules, they are breaking their own guidelines of peace. Their plan is a spiral that may begin at a good and high point, but will have nowhere to go but down.

CHECK OUT the animated maps on the US Holocaust Memorial Museum website. WATCH at least five. TAKE NOTES on the history being presented. Note also the role of geography. Then ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

1. FORMULATE a thesis about the role of geography in the Holocaust that uses at least two of the maps as evidence. WRITE UP a defense of your thesis that explicitly references the information presented in the animated maps.

2. This resource comes to us from a museum – and a self-proclaimed memorial museum at that. What evidence of memorial do you see in these maps? What bias might the information be presented under? What assumptions, if any, is the website making about its visitors and what does that tell you about the memorial. Does a website – and a museum – count as a monument? WRITE UP your answer.

Europe, a large continent, has many countries. Because they are so close together, Germany and the Nazis were capable of slowly taking over the countries that surrounded Germany. Because they had their army prepared, they were able to take over Poland and France quickly. As the Nazis were uprising, they started the Holocaust and deported thousands of Jews to hundreds of different concentration camps. In the Warsaw Map, most Jews were occupied in Poland, or more specifically, Warsaw. When German forces took over in 1939, they forced the Jews into Ghettos where they had to struggle for survival everyday. In 1941, Jews were deported to the Ghetto from surrounding communities. In 1942, Germans forced massive deportations of the Jews to go to the Treblinka extermination camps, about 50 miles north of Warsaw. When the deportees got to the Treblinka camp, most of them were killed. As the war wore on, allied forces were able to take over some concentration camps and liberate the prisoners. For example, in the “Liberation of Nazi Camps” video, the Soviet Union advanced on Germany and took them by surprise. Because of the sudden attack, the Germans attempted to hide their brutalities by demolishing their camps. They were able to liberate Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor, and Belzec killing centers in 1944. Because Germany was between certain Allied Forces, they were able to liberate certain camps that Germans were just not able to protect. As the Liberators worked their way into Germany, the more camps they were able to free.

In all memorials and monuments, there is a bias to make the audience believe what is the artist’s belief. Even if the belief is true, it is a form of propaganda. The memorial is to show the people who visit how good or bad something is. For example, the Holocaust museum is obviously biased towards the Allied Forces, or the victors of World War II. It is biased in the way to make the viewer pity the victims of the Holocaust and glorify the allied forces. The images they show to the visitors at the museum are meant to make them feel disgusted at the German’s actions. I think that it is a monument because it respects all of the dead Jews who had to suffer through the viciousness of the Holocaust.

Holocaust Maps

While it may have been German ideals that inspired and motivated the holocaust, it was their geography that allowed it to become so widespread and devastating. Had Germany been in a more isolated area such as Britain, the Holocaust would have been more like a civil war. However, the concentration camps would have been less easily liberated had Germany not been in so central a location.
The maps in "WWII and the holocaust" showed how Germany expanded out in virtually all directions around itself, stopping only where land borders or alliances prevented them. While Germany did , massively bomb England, on the map England remained blue, or Allied, the entire time. Because the Germans had to cross the channel to take England, it was much more difficult, and was not accomplished. However, they did control almost all of Western Europe. Because of this, they were perfectly set up for a mass genocide.
Because Germany controlled so much of Europe, they could go in and kill the Jews or deport them without any resistance from local government, because the Nazis made themselves the government everywhere.
When the camps were liberated (as shown in the "liberation" map), many different countries assisted, but all went from the outside in. Because so many of the camps were in northern Poland, it was closest to Russia, so they were the first to reach the camps.

The Holocaust museum is extremely biased towards the side of the winners of WWII, the Allies. I agree with their bias, but it is a bias nonetheless. A museum can be a memorial or monument, if it immortalizes an event, person, or group of persons. The Holocaust museum is exactly that. The whole point of the museum is to remember those lost in the Holocaust, which I think is enough to prove that it is a memorial. The website is biased the way you would expect an American museum about the Holocaust to be: it assumes the viewer dislikes the Nazis and regrets the Holocaust. This bias is apparent in the graphic images the choose to show of dead bodies stacked in piles, or lying in pits. The message presented is: "If you don't agree the Germans were wrong, you are a sick, twisted, homicidal maniac." (Well, its not quite so in-your-face, but it says that in a subliminal way.) However, most people probably don't notice, because the vast majority of the current world does not support the genocide of the Jews, at least in America, which is the most relevant as it is home to the museum.

The Holocaust

Since Europe is such a large but connected landmass, and the Germans possessed enough force to gradually spread throughout it, Germany was able to maintain control over the killings in its land without having to worry about enemies attacking from the sides. As illustrated by the World War II overview map, after Germany began to swallow up surrounding countries, it quickly moved into Poland, intimidated other surrounding countries into alliance, and quickly invaded France. Essentially, Germany had completely secured the entire continent, except for Britain which was an isolated island. With such a broad expanse of land and railroad systems running throughout it, Germany eliminated potential boundaries that come with controlling a continent in addition to making it relatively impenetrable from the outside. This also made it extremely difficult for anyone to immigrate from Germany in order to escape the Nazis' persecution. As shown by the voyage of St. Louis, people wanting to escape had to go to extreme measures and travel overseas to another country who would accept them. Even then, they were not accepted and forced back to Europe, where the Nazi party was rapidly gaining more power.

The Holocaust Museum displays a history of the Holocaust and memorializes it by retelling the horrors of the event. The museum clearly holds the view that genocide should never happen again like the Holocaust, which is a completely valid viewpoint given the its severity. However, the bias does show, from the negative light that the subject is constantly shown in to the inflation of less significant events - the Voyage of St. Louis made the consequences seem much more severe than reality - to the details that are presented - gloomy images and death counts. Again, this is the consensus that the general public has come to, but the museum does assume that people believe that the Holocaust is a touchy issue that we all deeply regret. The museum intends people to feel this regret by painting this negative picture of the Holocaust. At some rate, it is very difficult not to have this bias, but it doesn't interfere with the basic way the Holocaust is perceived or the facts that are taught. I believe that it does qualify as a monument because it commits the Holocaust to public memory as an atrocious crime against humanity, with an intended bias, regardless of the form that it's in.

Geography's Role in the Holocaust

1.Geography was very important in the Holocaust. Geography was utilized by Nazi's to hide the atrocities they were committing by committing them outside of Germany and far away from Berlin.The Auschwitz video shows that reveals that all of the death camps were in Poland instead of Germany. The Nazi's placed these camps outside of Germany in order to hide their evil deeds from German citizens. In the Holocaust video I found another example of Germans using geography to hide their atrocities. To quote the narrator,"The Germans established ghettos in occupied eastern territories, isolating and persecuting the Jewish population". The narrator tells us that the Germans established ghettos in foreign countries, not Germany. this is a prime example of Germans using geography to hide their sins.
2.The museum is definitely attempting to be a memorial with the somber tone of its videos, and thought provoking facts about the Holocaust. The use of pictures also gives the website memorial like qualities. The website clearly is a memorial to the suffering of the Jews during the Holocaust. The information may be presented under the bias of a Jew towards the holocaust. The website assumes that its visitors believe that the Holocaust was a real thing. A website does not count as a monument because it is easily erased from existence; It is much easier to delete a website than a statue. A museum is a monument because it is a physical specimen and more times than not it will be around for a while.

Geography. Monuments. Important Stuff.

Because European countries are situated so closely together, it made the annihilation of all Jews a comparatively simple process. All of the countries could be easily connected by railroads, as shown in the map WWII And The Holocaust. This made transportation and invasion very easy. The Germans were inclined to invade whichever countries were closest to them, because they were easy to get to. This meant that countries occupied by Germany and the Soviet Union slowly expanded out like a growing amoebea, and didn't jump around like they might have if they had been island hopping or using boats to reach their next target. Instead of carefully choosing the weakest place to strike, the Germans simply moved forward.

These maps memorialize the Holocaust by showing an obvious bias towards the Jews and other minorities who suffered and lost their lives during this mass genocide. Never once do the maps say something along the lines of, "Well, the Germans really did mean well." The museum assumes that all the visitors want to honor the memory of the victims by silently observing the cruelty of the Nazis and empathizing with their victims. My original reaction is that a website cannot be a monument, because it is not a physical entity. However, I suppose that if its sole purpose is to commemmorate a certain event or person, then it falls under our definition and is indeed a monument. A museum can be a monument, but only if it is a biased museum like the Holocausst Museum. A Museum showing soley concrete data about a certain event with absolutely no opinion is simply informative. A memorial must be honoring not only a certain event, but what that event means to the people.

Geography in the Holocaust

The Holocaust and Hitler's plan to control the world was heavily influenced by the geography of his surrounding area. His first claim to Poland and Czechoslovakia was based on their close proximity to Germany. As illustrated in the video "World War 2 and the Holocaust," Germany conquered and allied with all the countries surrounding it, slowly spreading it's influence to all surrounding areas. They didn't just shoot through one direction, but instead extended their power out in all directions until they were stopped and pushed back. It is important to note that many Jews were moved from the edges of German power to Poland which was closer to the center of their growing empire. This may also have been because the Jewish population in Poland was "relatively numerous and densely settled." As the Soviets started cutting into Germany's territory they began to pull people out of the extermination camps in the northeast and move them further into the center their territory. As shown in the video "Liberation," the marches and transportation methods to get the Jews to the center of Germany's power were brutal. Many referred to them as "death marches." These death marches and worsening conditions of the concentration camps as more and more people packed into fewer and fewer camps killed many, many more people.

There is always a bias in memorials and monuments. A memorial by default has a good connotation, even if it commemorates something bad. It demands respect for whatever it is memorializing, whether it be a person, place, or event. It does not necessarily demand an appreciation for whatever it memorializes, but it does demand recognition for it. Even if the respect is given towards something bad like the Holocaust, a monument still requires people to respect it.

Geography's Role in the Holocaust

Geography played a role in determining the countries that were targeted by the Nazis, but improved transportation made geography less of a factor in the Holocaust. In the "WWII and the Holocaust" animated map, the Nazis first took over in countries southeast of Germany like Czechoslovakia and then moved east to capture Poland. Geography affected the countries that were taken over because Germany had to initially work away from Britain and France. The Fatherland also took over countries that were closer to its secretive ally at the time, the Soviet Union. Germany had to start out with the bordering countries and build a bigger empire before venturing across the many miles to take over France. We learned that during the Industrial Revolution Europe built many railroads. As shown by "Railroads," most of the extermination camps during the Holocaust were located close to cities with Jewish populations of over 40,000 and were in the thick of Europe's railroad system. The segment "Rescue" made me believe that during the 1930s and 1940s technology and transportation had improved enough to negate geographical advantages and disadvantages. Even though Denmark's government succumbed to Germany the Danish were still able to move many Jews to neutral Sweden by boat. There were also secretive escape routs all the way in France leading out to Spain. The great distances covered by the escapees and types of geography overcome show how the layout of the land (or water) was less of an issue.

I could definitely sense an aspect of memorial in the animated maps through the still images on screen. It's hard to believe but there are a lot of people who downplay the horrors of the Holocaust, and others don't even believe it happened. The USHMM assumes that the people who view the website see the Holocaust as a tragic event and, as shown by the definition of the Holocaust in the segment "WWII and the Holocaust" was the "systematic killing." Museums definitely count as monuments, probably more of memorials, but museums will have more bias than a more simple statue.

This represents exactly 30 minutes of work.

World War II: A Geographer's Delight

1. Geography played a large role in World War 2. The concentration camps and ghettos were already strategically located in barren wastelands. Germany was centered between many different European powers which gave them easy access to the places they wanted to fight, but also gave its enemies an easier chance to attack them. Germany controlled many areas throughout Europe, but obviously it wasn't enough since they lost the war.
Also in the liberation maps, each country liberated the camps that were closest to where they were fighting. Russia to the east, and England to the west. The USA, who were from far away helped out with camps all over europe.
2. A museum can be considered a memorial or monument because there are many historical artifacts at museums that remember the achievements, or in this case the tragedies of history. The US Holocaust Memorial Museum remembers all the people who were killed and how big of a tragedy it truly was. There is an american bias on the maps that I saw. In the liberation maps, it only briefly mentioned all the camps Russia helped with, but went in depth of all the camps that the USA helped. While the number was almost the same, the time that they talked about the USA was far more than the time it talked about Russia or England.

Geography and the Holocaust

1) While the Nazi Party hunted and rounded up Jews throughout Europe, they also had to fight a two front war between France and Russia. This circumstance made it essential that Germany place its concentration camps carefully. Since Jews were scattered throughout all of Europe, they set up "mini-camps" for Jew collection and then transported them on trains across Europe to the center concentration camps, such as Dachau and Auschwitz. Dachau was located in southern Gewrmany, while Auschwitz was located in west Poland. Germany located these camps in central Europe to increase their isolation and decrease their accessibility. Although the Allied forces continued to close in on both the west and eastern fronts, Germany's main camps remained in the middle, untouchable for a over a decade. This geographical tactic of the Germans also helped hide the numbers of Jews killed.

2) Clearly, the website containing these video-maps commemorates the Holocaust as a horrible tragedy. The US Holocaust Memorial Museum created/sponsors this website, implying that its features aim to reveal the evil nature of the Holocaust and the unfair treatment of Jews. The statistics that each video presents are valid and clearly emphasize that Jews and other minorities were immensely executed unjustly and savagely. However, were all of the people sent to these camps innocent? Most of them probably were, but there were surely German citizens who were sent as a punishment for their crimes. The videos assume that its viewers sympathizes towards the Holocaust (which the vast majority does indeed), which is a fair assumption (the videos were probably not created to prove anything to non-Holocaust-believers). The website and its contents definitely memorialize the Holocaust. The videos take on a somber tone and use statistics to cut to the bare truth: 6 million Jews were killed, along with millions more minorities. Monuments commemorate something - the website commemorates the Holocausts not with placards or statues, but with hard facts presented in video form on a museum's website. It is the same as a museum, only in electronic form. These very facts that make the Holocaust the horror as we remember it today.

Geography and the Holocaust

The geography in Europe made the Nazis' lives much easier during the Holocaust. There's no chance of even trying to control the world if you are not in contact with or in a very close proximity to the countries that are the first target. It makes it easier to invade a country when it is just a train ride away. "World War II and the Holocaust," displayed just how convenient it was to go to a surrounding country with the railroad situation. Germany never would have made it as far as they did in the war, or even attempted to do so if the geography were not more perfect for them. Germany was able to go in just about any direction, as there was nothing holding them back. The addition of a plan like Germany's and the perfect geographical situation made it possible for Germany to achieve what they did in WWII.

As it is difficult to present information about something as horrific as the Holocaust without a strong opinion about how it went, there is certainly a bias at the USHMM. Their website will of course display the same opinions that the creators have in the museum. I think that it is easy to look over the bias and disregard it because such a strong percentage of the viewers of the museum or the website most likely agree with what the people of the USHMM have to say. To show the Holocaust in a certain light and to go into grueling detail about how each person was brutally murdered during the Holocaust definitely presents bias. There are facts and statistics in the Holocaust that do not tend to have as much impact on people hearing about it, but they still do not lie, and they give a true understanding of just how bad the Holocaust was. I think the USHMM is a monument because it brings a memory of what happened during the Holocaust.

The Tear of Grief

1. What was the reason for the Russian to gift this statue to America?

2. Why does this statue continue to be moved from place to place in New York?

3. Why is the artist controversial?

4. Why is the statue not taken serious?

5. How does this statue describe the relationship between the U.S. and the Russian? 

6. What does this statue show about America?

Holocaust Museum Memorial Maps

The most important geography during the Holocaust was how Germany was laid out and where the Nazis strategically placed their concentration camps to ensure the most harm to the minorities. Most ghettos and concentration camps were located in the east, where they "isolated and persecuted the Jewish population." The fact that many concentration camps were located in Poland, away from central Germany, is significant because it is a way for the Germans to torture the Jews in these camps without drawing much attention to themselves. Had the camps been in the middle of a big city, Germans who were against Nazism would see the horrors being done, and most likely protest or cause another sort of trouble. Germans knew Jews were being tortured, but by having the concentration camps so far away, it was a very vague and distant idea, and the German citizens would not have believed anything could be done. In addition, the Germans had also smartly placed a larger concentration camp in the middle of German. When the German territory started to shrink when the Soviet Union and the Allied powers started to win the war, "transports from evacuated camps arrived continuously at Dachau," the central camp. The fact that Nazis put so much thought in their placement of the camps showed just how intent they were on harming the Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies and other minorities.

I thought it was very clear that the maps were from a Holocaust memorial site. A lot of what the videos said were horrific statistics ("two in every three Jews were killed") that showed just how terrible the Holocaust was. Not to mention the pictures shown of Jews being forced to work, dead bodies laying in a pile, and masses and masses of starving people. I think the website already assumed people knew about the Holocaust and knew it was bad, but wanted to show pictures and statistics to emphasize just how bad it really was. I think this is really common in what memorials do. The main goal of a memorial is to make people feel emotion for what is being commemorated. Some monuments are for specific people, and show all the great things this person has done, and therefore what a loss it is that they are dead. In this case, the USHMM does not memorialize one person, but rather the millions and millions of people who died. They emphasize the number of people dead so that visitors really the losses caused by the Holocaust.

Talking Maps

Thesis: While geography may still have played a consequential role in war-time strategy, this was significantly lessened by the efficiency and might of modern systems and technology that had, comparatively, only been hinted at by WWI.

Defense: Of course, geography still controlled the form in which governments would plan an offensive, be it by land, sea, or air, but the important point was that geography no longer proved an insuperable obstacle. Wars could be launched across oceans with full expectation of success. This itself is proven by the U.S. attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki; in two sittings, the Americans destroyed their enemy's morale and ensured that the war was won for them, all done with only a handful of airplanes and a couple of ships. The Japanese were cowed into submission by the shock of such horrific and advanced weaponry, the atrocity that such a thing was possible. Though this situation was by far the best example of long-distance war-fare, similar things could be said of Germany (annexed Austria; invaded France, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Yugoslavia, and Greece; attempted to take the USSR; "allied" itself with Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Finland, and Croatia) and the USSR (annexed northeaster Romania; attacked Finland; occupied Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia.); they annexed, invaded, and allied, with whole mouthfuls of countries, between the two of them almost engulfing Europe (see map of WWII and the Holocaust). For this they crossed puddles, rivers, oceans, you name it. Overall, it was as if political and physical geography did not exist within central Europe. Of course, the matching technology in Britain, with the help of the English Channel, was enough to hold the Germans at bay. Still, both were able to push on with remarkable successful offensives against each other with the use of Jets and bombs. An example of this would be the fire-bombing of Dresden by the British air force. From afar they completely destroyed a city, literally razing it to the ground. Not only with war was geography negligible, but with transportation too. Jews and other "lesser races" were shipped from all over Europe to extermination and labor camps centered mostly in Poland. Again, the geography was not an issue, mostly due to the German organization and efficient construction of trains and train tracks that criss-crossed the continent. So while, geography still held its own in places of middling to high technology and severe topography, it was no longer the maker and the breaker that it was before the 20th century.

Extra Points:

• Controlled the discovery of German actions - only as the USSR swept into POLAND from the North-east could they find evidence of the death camps
• Restricted liberation - those in the middle of German territory had to wait longer to be freed and helped
• Highlights the conditions that Jews had to live with - Warsaw contained 350,000 people, 30% of which were Jews. This population and more was held within 2.4% of the city of Warsaw- 400,000 at height.
  

The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is certainly successful as a memorial: it is a strong reminder of the Holocaust simply as a general event; it focuses into more detail, giving specific data on every possible point; there are stories chronicling the short lives of some Holocaust victims. Each of these things were represented within the maps, from numbers to personal anecdotes. Obviously, in such a memorial, there will be a bias. In this case it is towards the victims of the Holocaust and against the Germans, done by paying closer detail to the atrocities that were inflicted. I noted also that while the Germans were often subtly or tacitly rebuked, no such feeling was given towards those who were allied with Germany. Perhaps the makers of the website were a little to focused on those who they felt bore the blame. I am not sure, however, that this memorial assumes anything about the audience that views the site. Obviously, it would be a less argument-arousing experience should the person viewing the maps happen to agree on the guilt of the Nazis. I do believe that while there is a slight bias, it is fairly negligible. Even did I believe differently (which I don't) this site would still be a good source of information. As it is, the Holocaust is memorialized well in this website, a form that the modern world is more likely to connect to.

Speaking Slowly

Geography plays a huge role in the Holocaust. In May of 1939, many Jewish refugees decided to flea the Nazis. The St. Louis left Hamburg taking 937 passengers to Havana, Cuba, all the way across the Atlantic Ocean to get away from the Nazis. Cuba was an ocean away from Nazi Germany; there was very little chance Germany would be able to take over Cuba. Since the vast majority were rejected from Cuba and the United States, the St. Louis returned to Europe, where the remaining refugees went to France, Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Belgium. Here, because these countries were so close to Germany, the refugees were not completely safe. When the Nazis took over France, Belgium, and the Netherlands, many of the refugees were "again trapped under Nazi rule." They were not physically far enough away to escape the Germans. Because France, the Netherlands, and Belgium border Germany, they were at risk of being taken over.

Concentration and extermination camps were present throughout Europe, mostly in Germany and Poland. Six extermination camps were set up in Poland, since that's where many Jews lived. These camps were set up near where the most Jews lived so that the Germans did not have to transport them far from their homes. Ghettos were also set up where the most Jews resided. Warsaw and Lodz, first and second with most Jews, respectively, had the two largest ghettos. The Germans did not have to transport them far to contain them in designated areas. Once they gathered the Jews together, it was easier to transport them to concentration camps and extermination camps.

Unlike the concentration camps, resistance to the Nazis could be found all around Europe. Both Jewish and non-Jewish resistance organizations were running throughout Europe. There were may uprisings in ghettos and concentration camps, which were calmed by the Nazis. Resistance wasn't all violent. There were members of the resistance who hid Jews, and smuggled them to neutral territory. They were able to get the Jews out of the occupied countries nearby to safety.

There is definitely a huge bias against the Nazi's on the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum website. Nonetheless, the maps provide useful information with real numbers, and maps that explain what happened. The speaker speaks slowly and clearly, so that everybody can understand him, even if they don't know anything about the Holocaust. The website believes that the visitors to the website are against Nazism, and are curious to find out more about the Holocaust. The maps suggest that the museum is interactive and easy to understand. The museum counts a memorial but the website does not. The museum is tangible, and has actual artifacts in it. The website just has pictures and videos, but nothing to touch. No real artifacts can be found on the site.

Christ the Redeemer

Monument: Christ the Redeemer
1. Does the statue have any significance in Brazilian history?
2. Is there any significance of when it was built?
3. What does Jesus Christ's position in the statue portray?
4. What was religion like in Brazil before and after the
5. Why did they build it on Mt. Corcovado?

Genghis Khan Questions

1. What exactly were the exploits of Genghis Khan that made him so famous?

2. How have Mongolian views of Genghis Khan changed over the years, and what are they currently?

3. Why is Genghis Khan's image ubiquitous in Mongolia? Why is he so famous now, hundreds of years after his death?

4. Why is the equestrian statue so excessive?

5. How does the western world see Khan and why do we know so little about him?

6. What is the importance of Genghis Khan's legacy to the Mongolians of today?

What we Want to Know

Monument: The Children's Holocaust Memorial (from the movie Paper Clips)

What is the significance of all the details of the monument (what they put inside, how they decorated it, etc.)

What else is inside besides paper clips?

How does this monument differ from other Holocaust monuments?

What is the significance of the place the monument was built (small-town Tennessee)

Does the fact that the monument was built by children make it any different than a regular monument?

Did anyone in the town object to the monument being built?

The follow-up story: what happened after they made the movie? Has the school done anything else to commemorate more events in history?

Why paper clips? (i know we read a little bit about this)
Did they have extra paper clips?

How long did it take?

How many visitors do they get a year? avg

Angel of Grief

Questions:

What does it commemorate?

Why was it moved to Stanford (or why was the replica created for Stanford)?

Who built it (the original) and why?

When and where was it built? Why was this time and place significant?

Does it have any historical significance?

Why is it called the angel of grief? significance?

Woman and angel-> significance?

Is it well known?

Trench of Bayonets

-Why are WWI monuments so overshadowed by WWII?
-How did an impromptu grave/battleground turn get turned into a monument? Who made the decision, and why?
-How does our what we want to hear in a story affect our memories? Why are both stories about the existence of the Trench of Bayonets both so persistent?
-How is this monument any different from the "Tombs of the Unknown Soldier" that litter Europe?
-Why is it less remembered than they are?