Iran and Algeria: Same Vibration

SKIM the thesis, timeline, and SPECS table of the three other revolutionary groups. CHOOSE one of the revolutions and WRITE a comparison between it and the revolution you researched in class. POST this paragraph to the blog with the LABEL: Your first name, late 20th revs - 3

The Iranian Revolution and the Algerian Revolution had about the same amount of success: almost none. While the two revolutions differed in many ways, the outcomes were very similar, both literally and on a more analytical level.
While the Algerians were rebelling against their French colonizers, and the Iranians were rebelling against people of the same original nationality, both countries went from a Westernized government to a government controlled in some part by Islamic groups. In both cases, power changed hands many times, making the government very inconsistent and unstable. In Iran, people still fear the government to the point of completely losing hope. In Algeria, there has relatively recently been very large amounts of violence, so everything is still in turmoil.
Perhaps one of the largest indicators of failure is the collapse of both countries' economies. While an economic failure may seems small compared to massacres and violence, it can have much more devastating long-term effects. In Algeria, people are trying to escape their failed economy, only to be sent back home by their government. Violence can change governments very quickly, but a bad economy can ruin even the best.

Cold Rivalries

READ 678-681. WRITE a blog post in which you compare the rivalry of the Cold War (as outlined in the reading and in our in-class work) with other international rivalries we've studied this year.
LABEL: Your first name, cold rivalries

The rivalry of the cold war had many similarities and differences to the more traditional rivalries we studied earlier in the year. The "normal" rivalries typically consisted of dissent between adjacent nations, an arms race of some sort, perhaps a fortification of borders, and maybe even an attack. In this sense, the cold war was both traditional and not at the same time.
As most people know, the cold was was a major nuclear arms race between America and the Soviet Union. This type of arms race leading up t a war is completely normal, but in this case the arms race pretty much was the war. It was this nuclear presence that set the cold war so far apart from others. Because the US and Russia were across the seas from each other, the fortifications occurred in other countries in Europe, which was very unusual. And instead or making defenses for their own country, each side simply pointed progressively more nuclear weapons at the other side. The long range of the weapons was what created and international panic: now even countries on the other side of the world were a serious threat.
The "war" was the result in a difference of two ideals, those of communism and those of capitalism. This kind of cause is normal, although the two sides were not. While sometimes fighting may break out on one side of the argument, the communists weren't even CLOSE to unified, which is highly unusual for a war, and especially ironic, as the point of communism is everyone working together for a better future.
While you could argue that actually engaging is battle is not necessary for war, it seems that a term like "contretemps" may better fit the cold war.


Note: I am not trying to say the cold war wasn't an issue; I understand that it was very close to being World War III, and quite possibly the end of life in Russia and America, but I'm not sure it fits the definition o a war.

Important Stuff

I can't choose one most important thing I learned this year, but I can certainly choose two.

The first, which I know I will continue to flash around for the rest of my school days, is nationalism. Nationalism is pretty much the main theme throughout the year, and can explain the majority of history. This word definitely make sit onto the "impressive terms that make you sound smart" list, including other just as large terms like globalization and stoichiometry (Okay, so stoichiometry isn't such a great word, because no one knows it, but its still fairly intelligent sounding). I will definitely keep nationalism in mind as I continue to study history.

The second thing, probably even more important, is that HISTORY CAN BE FUN. Not just interesting and informative, but actually enjoyable to learn. From the first time I had Humanities in fifth grade, I always hated it, especially the history part. Freshman year history was alright, but this year was actually fun. I liked coming to class, as odd as that may sound coming from a high schooler. I never looked at my schedule and groaned inwardly because I had history. NOT ONCE. This class was great, and I'm kind of looking forward to US History next year.

That's all. This is the end of my last blog post (or at least what would be my last blog post, if I was up-to-date on all of my homework).

UN Paragraph revision

Despite the disorganized website, it is clear that the UN is a very good organization, and will not do any harm. One could argue that they are inactive, and cannot exert any justice on the world, but it urns out they are just what we needed. The UN has made may decisions for a long time, consistently, and employs their own peace corps, made up of soldiers from many of the different countries who hold seats at the UN. It is these many countries that give the UN its strength: strength not only in numbers, but also in the wide varieties of perspectives and cultures offered. This large array of countries will help the UN be successful, as if one countries breaks the peace, like Germany did, there are many, many other countries to help stop them. The League of Nations did not work because it had so few countries, so that when Germany decided to take over Europe, it was difficult to do anything. The humanitarian missions of the UN are perhaps even better than their declarations. Before the UN, it was up to small, private organizations to deliver assistance to those in need, and floundering countries were virtually left on their own. Gaining help from a large, unified organization can only improve impoverished or war-torn areas.

Iranian Issues

Question Numero Uno: What evidence is there for a nuclear program in Iran? (Clarification: nuclear *weapons* program)

Iran already has a nuclear program, which the government claims they are using solely for energy purposes. Many major western powers are trying to prevent Iran from gaining the power that comes with going nuclear.
A popular cleric in Iran claimed that Iran already had nuclear weapons, but I do not think that one man who speaks contrarily to everything his government says is likely to be entirely right. However, I do not think he is entirely wrong, either. If Iran already has nuclear power, there is very little doubt in my mind that they soon will or already to have nuclear weapons. This is mainly based on the nature of nuclear explosions: they are very powerful, and therefore can be tricky to contain and harvest usable energy from. It is much easier to make a big explosion than to contain one: the atomic bomb was created before nuclear energy was used as power.

Question Two:
How much of Iran actually gets internet and cellphone coverage? (I was interested because the article mentioned these two resources as methods of spreading the truth)

Iran has far less internet coverage than the US, with 10.8% of their population online as opposed to 68.6% in the United States. It is very interesting how even though the internet is not yet a part of every day life in Iran like it is in America, it still holds enough power to alter the course an entire country takes by making the suffering of a people known to the rest of the world.
According to this map (which does say it may not be correct, so don;t read too much into it), Iran has somewhere between 100,001 and 1,000,000 mobile cellphones in use. America is in the 'over 1,000,000' category, which is unsurprising. Iran, which has around 72 million people, therefore has at most 1.4% of its population using cell phones. AS with the internet, this is a relatively small number, yet it was still able to make a significant difference.

Is This Iran?

a.) Questions:

- Why did the Iranian government wish to put down the protesters?
- What did they hope to gain from violence? Did they think it would help them gain popularity?
- Why would the "crackdown" "heighten nuclear concerns?" Does the fact that they are dangerous one way make it more likely they are dangerous in another?
- What evidence is there for a nuclear program in Iran?
- Why is it usually the youth that protests against injustices, even when the older generation experiences a dramatic change as well?
- The government attempted to restrict information getting out- is this relatively easy to do in foreign countries compared with the US?
- How much of Iran actually gets internet and cellphone coverage?
- What actually happens when you get arrested in Iran?
- How does the Iranian justice system work?
- Was the vote actually rigged?
- Were the protests actually as peaceful as they are said to be?

b.) Connections:

- Restriction of information: we haven't studied it, but this is very similar to what is currently going on in China, and what has traditionally gone on in isolationist countries for centuries.
- Fast, brutal suppression very similar to that of the Hungarian revolution.
- Also, protesters were peaceful, young students.
- People protesting about lack of control over their own government

c.) Gut Reaction

The comics strip was pretty shocking. Over here in my isolated little world, I had no idea how intense an unprovoked attack like this could be. The strip was almost graphic, but left just enough to the imagination for the result to be rather horrifying. I know that people everywhere are fighting for freedom to choose their won government, but I did not realize how violently these governments are willing to respond to peaceful protests.

It all depends on your... WORLD VIEW!!!

What makes a culture successful? That's a very tricky question. I believe cultural success should be measured by the people for a certain culture, not outsiders. For instance, in capitalist, democratic America, we would consider our culture a success if our country has money, and everyone gets a vote and relatively equal rights.I am sure the ancient Mayans and Aztecs thought their culture was a brilliant success, even though from our standpoint ritually murdering others is not a good thing. So really, it depends on point of view. "Success" means the culture portrays its ideals, which is different not only between nations and cultures, but even form person to person. Although I could definitively answer this question, I can't.

"The (capitalist/communist) countries of the world were wrong to judge the (communist/capitalist) countries of the world based on outsider cultural knowledge. The only sound judgment comes from hard economic, political, or scientific facts."

This statement is not entirely valid, although it has truth. I think most of the first sentence is valid, in that you cannot judge another culture based on your own bias. However, a few things generally translate between cultures, and in this case (ideal) communism and capitalism both value human rights, and some degree of equality, so I think both cultures were perfectly justified in judging each other on the ideals they have in common. I disagree with the second sentence entirely, because I believe that there is no such thing as a hard fact. Excuse me while I go on a philosophical tangent, but your own existence isn't even a hard fact. For all you know, you entire world could simply be a dream. But anyways, back to the world where most people believe in their own existence. The use of "hard facts" as evidence against another culture is something done only in certain cultures. It seems a little funny to worry about how countries judge each other now, especially when a long time ago the way battles were fought was: "who has what I want? Can I kill them? Let's go!" So while maybe the "judging" might be sort of wrong by my standards (as someone in a capitalist culture), I think it it is not so much a judgment of culture that moves nations to act as a want for power or a want to remove power from others.

UN Charter

Much of my annotations were questions or protests against the UN and/or the countries in it. I made a lot of marks about the Cold War, which was between two permanent council members, and the Vietnam war, which completely and entirely went against everything the UN seems to be for. I noticed that there was a lot about doing things for "the common good" and "international peace," which seemed pretty vague to me. I also though it was interesting how the UN agreed not to get involved with internal affairs of a country, seeing as that some of the members of the UN (cough, cough, America) love messing with other peoples' governments, and also that allowing genocides to go on within one country would be against the values of the UN. In general, the UN is a group of nations (mainly Allied countries form WWII) that agreed to all be for peace. Yippee. They don't give any methods of how they plan to achieve world peace, and as most of the permanent members are anti-communist countries, there is obviously a lot of bias in one direction. I mean, everyone is biased, but its hard to try to make everyone agree if the people in charge can only see one side of any problem.

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.

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?

A-Bombs

I can understand why one would wait so long to air this TV show, although I am of the opinion it should have been shown sooner. In 1945, most people were unaware of the devastation and horrors the bomb caused, and undoubtedly would have felt less faith in their government had they known. From the standpoint of the broadcaster of the video, letting the topic "cool" was a good idea, as such shocking information could have caused viewers to take it out on the messenger, which would be bad for business. As the video seems to generally be against the bomb, with its description of the pain and suffering and testimonies from victims, it also makes sense that they may have waited to air it until there was more public support. What I find interesting, and disturbing, is that one of the American veterans says the bomb may have saved many lives, and that the invasion which otherwise would have happened would have killed tens or hundreds of thousands, which is the amount the bomb killed. The bomb (and radiation) killed 140,000 people within the first year, and many more afterwards. The story 1000 Paper Cranes, about a girl who suffered from radiation sickness but was born after WWII, is based on a real story, and tells of how radiation sickness continues to affect the Japanese people, in a very personal and real way. After reading the book, and seeing the casualty numbers, it is very difficult to justify dropping the atom bomb.

Research results

My research was a little haphazard. It turns out that the "credible" sites expect you to already know which countries were on which sides, even though Wikipedia will gladly tell you the basics. I got a few short answers to some questions, but for the most part was not able to find what I needed. I didn't know exactly what happened to Hitler at the end of WW2, and while I was fairly sure he died, it was interesting to find out that he had committed suicide. If anyone needs more proof that he was not fit to rule, he was so incapable he couldn't cope with defeat, and would rather end his life than be unsuccessful and dishonored.
One of my other main questions was about whether the battle tactics of WW2 were more humane than the trench warfare of WW1. I was able to get more information on the types of strategies used in WW2, but it is entirely a matter of opinion whether they are humane or not. WW1 was extremely tortuous and horrifying to the individual, whereas WW2 worked more on a larger scale. Bombing was the main tactic of WW2, and many un-militarized, civilian areas were completely obliterated. England and France weren't expecting any change in tactics form WW1, so they tried to fortify the Maginot line and took up defensive positions in Belgium, but Germany had only wanted them to think that and attacked them on their unguarded side.
The final thing I researched was the Enigma machine, which I had heard of before, but didn't know any specifics about. The Enigma machine was a typewriter-like device used by the Germans to both encode and decode messages, though a series of knobs that scrambled the typed message. AS soon as the British found out about it, they went straight to work on cracking it, but because of how complicated the device was it was very difficult. They were able to decode a fair amount of messages, albeit slowly, but had to pretend they didn't have the information, so the Germans would not be alerted to their open secret and change the device. Unfortunately, Germany found out and made the device even more complicated, but the capture of multiple German boats containing Enigma devices helped crack the code.

Munich Reconsidered

Dorothy Thompson was completely just in her description of the Munich Conference. We have essentially just handed the Germans exactly what they wanted, by saying that we will stand by and let them take whatever they need from whomever they wish. The "treaty" is not a treaty at all, and is entirely unfair to Czechoslovakia. Germany is putting on the appearance of giving them a say in the matter, but not only was there no representative from Czechoslovakia at the conference, but the alleged "vote" is merely a facade put on by the Germans to fool us into supporting them. The German people of Czechoslovakia have had many years since the end of the Great War to move back to Germany, so it makes no sense that now the Czechoslovakian people should have their lives and their land taken away from them. Germany is manipulating us, and I can tell that it is only a matter of time until they start asking for our own countries in addition to that of the Czechoslovakians. I can only hope that our leaders are able to see it coming, and protect us better than they did Czechoslovakia. I completely oppose this agreement and all of the terrible consequences it will bring.

Munchen '38

I think that Dorothy Thompson was a little too harsh on our leaders. France and England are far too smart to be as easy manipulated as she says we were. While I think that the Czechoslovakian government should have been represented at the conference as well, I think most of her other points were irrelevant. For example, she stressed the language barrier. Why should we let our differences separate us? Isn't peace about everyone, no matter where they come from, working together to get along? Furthermore, she claims it is not actually a "diplomatic document," or a "normal treaty." What is a diplomatic document but an agreement between representatives of multiple countries? If a "diplomatic document" is actually something else, then I am afraid a great many people (and politicians) have been fooled for a very long time. She also claims it is not a "normal" treaty. The agreement is dealing with the ethnic aftermath of the Great War, which by all means was not an ordinary war, so it follows that any treaties regarding it are not normal either.
In general, the German race seems very proud an bellicose, so I consider it an achievement to get them to accept the terms in the document. The are giving the Czechoslovakian people a fair amount of choice in the matter, which rarely happens in situations such as these. They also have a fairly long time period in which to make their decision and move, so overall it is relatively fair, especially because there are more Germans who will benefit than Czechoslovakians who will suffer. If this agreement benefits so many, and in addition strengthens the bond between Germany, England, France and Italy, then I am in full support of it.

WW2

What I know is for the most part, from fiction (Sound of Music, Book Thief, Bed knobs and Broomsticks, first few minutes of Narnia, etc.)

-America was Allied with England (and some other people too, not really sure who..)
-Germany was the bad guy (sound familiar)
-HITLER
- He made life terrible in Germany
- He made life terrible for Jews everywhere (killed 6 million (or 600,000)
- Detainment camps
- Numbers tattooed on arms to keep track of prisoners
-gas chambers used for mass extermination (including children)
- Jews used for inhumane scientific experiments (testing poison, etc. )
- In some camps, they would kill people in the showers, by sending though acid rather than water, but you had no way of knowing.
- Prisoners sent on marches though the streets of Germany, to humiliate them.
- In Germany, if you weren't blond-haired and blue-eyed, you had to be VERY careful. It didn't entirely matter if you were actually Jewish or not.
- Lots of people hid refugees in their basements
- England suffered a lot
- Subject of a lot of bombing (especially London)
- Evacuated children to countryside
- Japan got involved (on Germany's side-I think they're called the Axis Powers, but I learned that today)
-Pearl Harbor
-Hiroshima- created a TON of long-lasting damage (I'm not even going to describe it)
- I forget the name of the island, but it was near Japan, and had a very long, bloody battle (may have been Iwo-Jima)

The Allied Powers won. The End (cue baby boom)

Q's:
What exactly happened to Hitler?
Who was on what side?
Were the battle tactics any more humane than WWI?
How exactly DOES a war boost the economy?

Animal Farm

Animal Farm could be an allegory for many different political things, but it is easiest to see the ties between it and Russian communism. As we decided, Major was a mixture of Marx and Lenin, and Napoleon is Stalin. I think that Snowball is definitely meant to be Trotsky, while Squealer is most likely one of Stalin's upper-class officials. I am fairly certain that George Orwell (actually Eric Blair) intended for Animal Farm to be an allegory for Russian Communism, especially because he was alive during the Russian revolution and rise of the communist regime. Animal Farm is similar to the French Revolution as well, but it probably bears many similarities to most revolutions, as it is the tale of the oppressed overcoming the oppressors, the ideal of any revolt.

(Commun+Fasc)*ism

Russian communism and German fascism both used violence and nationalism to gain and maintain control over their respective countries, but their ideals set them apart.
Nationalism was the main driving force behind Russian communism and German fascism, although the two were very different. In Germany, the focus was on bringing back the old "glory days," while in Russia, the focus was towards the future, and getting rid of old suppressors and hierarchies. Germany's nationalism was more of a nationalism by definition, as it was built on shared memories and a love for a common country. Russia's nationalism was based more on a common enemy, and the result was a rebellion.
Both the Fascists and the communists used violence in gaining control, although they were of a different nature. Fascist regimes are by definition militaristic, so most violence was orderly and war-like, however, there was some more "random" violence to anyone who was supposedly a communist. Russian violence was similar, being directed at those who opposed equality in everything, such as bosses and people with high positions in society.
The main thing that sets apart communism and fascism is their ideals. Fascists value a very traditional and strict hierarchy with women at the bottom. Fascism is about "being better than everyone else," while communism is more about being equal to everyone else, and spreading out the wealth. Fascism is a recipe for war, but I think that if communism were executed correctly, with an uncorrupted leader (those only exist in fairy tales and ancient history, which is just fairy tales), it could create a peaceful nation.

Gonna start a revolution...

Answer the following question in a blog POST: Strayer asserts that the Russian revolutionaries took the French Revolution of 1789 as their model; to what extent is this true? Reference specific facts and concepts from each revolution to defend your answer.

The Russian revolutionaries may have taken a few ideas from the French revolution, but they did not model their uprising around it.
Many of the peasant rebellions were against bosses, overlords, and similar figures, in an attempt to gain greater rights and more equality, similar to in the French revolution. However, it would be nearly impossible to find any major uprising in which people did not mass together and attack those above them, because you only rebel when you are unhappy, and in general, it is either correct or easiest to blame those more powerful than you. It is entirely possible that any similarities between the two revolutions were entirely coincidences due to the nature of rebellions.
In any case, the Russian revolutionaries would not have wanted their evolution to have the same outcome as the French revolution. While the French did achieve greater equality and democracy for a short time, they lost their power to Napoleon relatively quickly. Any self-respecting rebel (perhaps excluding anarchists) wants not only to gain power, but to keep it. By the mere fact that communism stayed in Russia, it is apparent that they did not try to match their revolution to France's, and if anything learned from others mistakes.

fTaAsLcIiBsAmN?

While fascism and the Taliban may have many similarities, they are very separate form each other. The methods employed under a Fascist rule and the methods employed by members of the Taliban differ far too much for one to say that the Taliban is a fascist group. While they both are violent, traditional, and xenophobic, saying they are the same would be like saying a banana slug and a redwood tree are identical because they are alive, move slowly, and thrive in northern California.
Both fascist countries and the Taliban are very traditional, but in different ways. While both are sexist, encouraging/forcing women to be docile housewives, the traditionalisms of Islam and Europeans cultures are different, and serve different purposes for the Taliban and fascism. In fascism, traditionalism serves as a way to take you back to “the glory days.” Most things seem better in hindsight, and many people are happy to take the well-worn cultural path of their ancestors, especially if their leaders tell them it will bring them glory and joy. The traditionalism of the Taliban is, obviously, far more religiously based, having roots in Islam. While fascist leaders encourage traditionalism to gain overall support and willing submission from their subjects, the Taliban is traditional because they believe that Islamic tradition is morally, perfectly, and unarguably right. While the control they gain from the forced submission may aid their cause, the Taliban ultimately enforces Islamic values not only because they wish to control others, but also because they believe they are doing what is absolutely best for everyone.
The violence of the two is more similar, yet still different. Fascist regimes have the organized military strategy that the Taliban appears to lack. However, both have some unorganized violence. In Nazi Germany, Jews were terrorized and attacked much in the way the Taliban attacks and publicly beats their opposers. Both fascism and the Taliban use xenophobia to rationalize violence, but while the Taliban uses violence to wipe out those who oppose them, fascist regimes discriminate in order to gain willing support from the majority.
Both fascist regimes and the Taliban serve as ways to satisfy the disgruntled or unhappy. However, the Taliban takes mostly young men unable to get a start in life, while fascism provided a promise of hope to ex-soldiers and unemployed. The Taliban provides an outlet for the dissatisfied, but fascism specifically attempts to use them.

Image Analysis

I was unable to find any images in the databases, however the image I found appears to be from a reliable source, as it is from an online gallery from the University of Wisconsin, and contains several of the images we looked at yesterday in class.The image is s spread celebrating the successful conquest of the capital of Ethiopia by Italy. All of the small dots in the center of the image are soldiers, with guns and tanks, looking very victorious. Together with the other parts of the image, the war theme is very celebrated, and fascist ideals are evident in the image. The door, which looks very heavy, possibly to symbolize the difficulties Italy has undergone in the aftermath of WWI, is being opened by an angel. The angel not only softens the picture, making the guns and violence suggested by the background less noticeable, but also serves to make the fight seem more noble, as if Italy is so rightful and their intent so pure that even the angels come down to Earth to aid them in their cause. In the background is a Greek or Roman temple (most likely Roman, as this IS Italy). Going back to the glory days... way back, that is. The Ro man Empire was so widespread and successful that anything Roman is automatically associated with glory, especially if you are living amongst the remains of their society, so the Temple in the top of the image serves to further justify the war. Upon close inspection, the soldiers lookr ather violent and modern, but because the human eye is naturally attracted to white your attention is drawn mainly to the angel and the temple, stressing goodness and success rather than simply violence.