Capitalist System Hates Communist System!

I think that the causes for the Cold War (economic, social and political) are all linked. It all stems from the United States' fear of communism. Socially, a communist system was not wanted in the states anymore- such fear is seen in McCarthyism. Politically, the United States feared communism- a rise in a communist system would uproot the current government. Economically, the people did not want communism- the majority of the people were overall pleased by the current status of capitalism. These fears of communism led to a hatred of the Soviet Union, who saught to spread communism. The Soviet Union knew about these fears through things such as the Truman Doctrine, and they in turn did not trust the United States for its dropping the atomic bomb without consulting the other allies. This eventually escalated into the Cold War.

Do I think that there is a primary cause for the Cold War? No. I believe that the Soviet Union and the United States had growing mistrusts of each other just because their two styles of economics and politics were so diametrically opposed, and both wanted to spread their way to the world. The growing mistrust is what led to the Cold War, not any single event.

I believe that both countries are to blame for starting the Cold War. It was their mistrust of each other that ultimately led them to compete for control of world politics. If they had each accepted the other country for its style of government and established a diplomatic relationship, neither country would have felt pressured into spreading its system.

Prezi

Here's the link all- I hope you enjoy!

http://prezi.com/evq2_fqvan_1/use-and-effectiveness-of-new-technology-in-the-pacific-theater-during-world-war-ii/

GCF, Equalities and If-Then Statements

I think that the greatest common factor between the different nations that brought corrupt politicians to power was the development of small yet powerful groups of people that were able to speak to the wills of the general public in their own countries. Additionally, the governments in these countries had to be weak enough to not stop these movements or hated enough to drive the vast majority of the general public to the opposite side. Germany is an example of the first (Hitler and the Nazis suspend a weak, powerless democratic government) and the USSR is an example of the second (Tsar Nicholas II's poor leadership drove the majority of the people to communism.)
There are similarities between 1933 and 2010. In both cases, the people, disliking their current government, have switched to supporting another group, promising a change. However, because the democratic government in the United States in 2010 is so strong, and not enough people have passionate enough of a hatred for the government, there is no "extreme" government taking power. Such parties are being created (Tea Party), but they aren't in much power.
Were Germans responsible for Hitler? Yes, but they didn't have much choice. If any country at that time, including the United States, was in as desparate of a situation as Germany, they would have turned to a Fascist leader too. Even now, with our government and economy in a MUCH better position than Nazi Germany, there are still radical groups developing.

United Nations

I think that Wilson's hopes for a more peaceful world through creation of a League of Nations was just ahead of its time. The United States was just too afraid of European conflict to actually get involved, and the Allied European nations were too scared of causing World War II to actually do anything about Germany's blatant disregard for its post-World War I treaties. However, this concept of a League of Nations wasn't a bad idea- it just didn't work in its time. The United Nations that developed after World War II was essentially the same thing as the League of Nations. The only difference was that it was part of a time that was better for such a concept. The United Nations kept a nuclear war from occuring, especially during events such as the Cuban Missile Crisis. In fact, if it wasn't for Wilson's creation of the League of Nations, the United States and Soviet Russia might not have been able to fix their problems, and a nuclear war could have started.

My Book Report

The book I did my book report on, Picturing the Bomb, was about the Atomic Bomb. (BIG surprise, right?) More specifically, the Manhattan Project. It was an in depth coverage of what happened at the testing facilities, with a lot of first-hand photographs of the secret military bases and other big Manhattan Project-relevant sites. The entire book is packed cover to cover of what life was like for the members of the Manhattan project, how the bomb developed, and one incredibly mind-blowing picture (the only known picture of the Atomic Bomb test at Trinity- in color). There's actually a lot more than simple science and military details of the building of the bomb in this book- it actually talks about the lives of scientists and their families living at Atomic Bomb testing grounds. It goes into every minute detail about the project, leaving no spare detail. It's really interesting getting some fresh perspective on this era of history, and the pictures really paint a vivid tale of their own.

The Great Depression: Would It Have Happened?

After World War I, the various countries of the world had a great imbalance of financial power. The United States was one country that had a riddiculous amount of money, especially compared to Europe. It was because of this imbalance of power and because of the poor economic system that was in the United States. The Depression, starting in the United States, soon spread to other countries due to the great amount of interdependency that was inherent of global trade.
Did World War I cause the Great Depression? It definately didn't help on the global scale. But what about in the United States? According to the text, the biggest problem in the states was the amount of reckless gambling on the stock market. After the crash in 1929, the amount of interdependency between countries, especially with the United States, caused the global market to shut down. Had World War I not occured, would the United States have had enough power globally to shut down the global economy? Would the United States have even been involved in such reckless spending? Another country could have been at the front of the economic world. Would that country have been the trigger for the Great Depression then? Or would there have been enough even distribution of resources that the failure of one country economically would just lead to its succession by another?

The Importance of "Minor" Nations in World War I

There were a lot more nations than just Germany, Britain, England, Russia and the United States that fought in World War I- for example, Roumania, Ireland, Albania, Turkey, to name a few. Each of these countries probably supplied a number of troops to their respective sides, however, I believe that the biggest support that each of the minor nations supplied to their respective sides was an additional front to fight on. For example, had the "Big" nations alone been fighting the Central Powers, the only point of attack on Austria-Hungary would be fighting through Russia. However, with Italy, Serbia and Roumania as additional fronts, Austria-Hungary had to fight on three sides of its borders, dividing their troops out over a much larger area. Likewise, the fact that Bulgaria was allied with the Central powers prevented Serbia and Roumania from allocating all of their troops to the Austria-Hungarian front. Were it not for these smaller countries, allocation of troops would have been easier, especially for the Central Powers, and that could have given them the edge in the war.