US History Notes

13 days

2004-05-21T09:32:00.000-05:00

kennedy on tv

unmitakable evidence established that there are missiles

quarintine

ships turned back

any misile launched cuba -> any western hem country = regarded as an attack on the us and will be

retaliated

if the ships do not stop or refuses, they are towed

fire warning shot across the bow if no stopping

kennedy = no shooting without his orders

commencing low level photography

directors protogative:
cheifs are attempting to start a war
they want a war

calls military guy and tells him not to get shot down because then he will have to respond with force

planes go launch

fwoosh

anti aircraft fine

hits plane, but it dosent go down

gets pics

gives thumbs up and fwoosh

they hit sparrows not anti aircraft fire

commander of flight goes to meeting

joint chiefs ask if they were shot at
commander "it was a cake walk"

vote of american states - unanimos

us detonated hydrogen bomb in test site

russia condemms it

guy talking to wife. tells her to keep the tv on

10:00 - commensment of quarintine

ship sees russian sub

sub between freighters and ship

pres calls captn of ship

cptn says he can bring the sub up. they can force it to surface

wants to get sub to surface

ships are slowing down

hold fire

ships are stopping and turing around

6 ships havent turned around

army brass raises it to defcon 2 from defcon 3

pres = very mad

joint cheifs just signaled escilation to ussr.

angry

guy wants us to remove missiles from turkey and negotiate

un - arguing about missiles

russia says that they have no evidence and

us sais they do

now ambassador says weapons do not exist

do you deny there are missiles?
i do not wish to respond to 'courtroom' questions

ussr ambassador presses for answer

releases pics of missiles in meeting

ship crosses quarantine line

lost ship in night

planes buzz the ship

navy goes up to ship

ship wont stop

loads guns

admiral wants to shoot ship

mcnimara is angry

what if soviets make mistake of taking warning shots as an attack

ship is being borded

get letter from krutchev

goes through someone in ussr

alexander fellman - source

war buddies with kruchev

kruchev is trusing old friend to carry message

letter thingy:
if missiles are removed from cuba. us wont invade cuba.
in 48 hrs missiles should be removed. un can oversee removal thing.

removal of missiles = no invasion

13 days

2004-05-20T09:37:00.000-05:00

oct 23 1962

u2. pictures.

guy in house with kid. tickles kid. kid asks to sign permission slip. actually grades. dad = mad

military place.

dad goes to militay place.

people looking at pictures.

dad pulls in.

guy sees missiles. bum bum bum.

guy walks in to pres office.

after talking to pres wife. she wants people invited to party or something.

people with pics of missiles. go insist to see pres.

pres yell at person on phone.

soviet medium range ballisitic missiles in cuba

1000 miles 3 megatons

movie goes to b & w

pres & men sit around and look worried

pres looks at kids. obviously thinking about missiles

goes to meeting

goes to shot of missiles being moved in

ss4 sandaw

is not believed that the missile warheads are operational yet

washington dc is in range

only 5 min of warning

~30 missiles

joint cheifs think that the ussr thinking is shifted to a first strike operation

estimates 10-14 days for the missiles to become operational

there may be more missiles

need more u2

diplomatic cons = bad.

must remove missiles

options:
1 pressure politically
2 air srike

rule: if we decide to strike, must strike before missiles become operational

must get missiles out

decide to make x-com

group of people to figure out what to do

if words gets out before us does anything, mass panic

diplomatic route wont work

planes are assembled

argue about whether or not to use planes

guy who is exper. reccomends air strike

might end up with nuclear weapons being used in berlin

pres dont seem too happy

kennedy worried about a repeat of bay of pigs

sneak attack - big country blasting a little country into the dust

guy brings up bay of pigs

arguing about whether or not there is nothing else

guy says they came up with another scenario

it calls for a blockade of cuba. he sais it is slow and dosent get rid of all the missiles

oct 18

count 40 missiles

longer ranges

irbm

seattle = only place safe

mobilization under cover of war games

army guys want to go in

missiles make nuke exchange more likely

if we attack

army guys says that soviets will do nothing

because 'the only option open to them is one they can choose'

kennedy dissagrees

kennedy does not want to do what army guys want. he thinks it will lead to total nuclear war.

pr guy wants to know about mil. excersises. pres blows him off

press presses for an answer about mil operations

ortsac - name of war games. castro backwards

russian ambassador lies to kennedy. tells him that there are no offensive weapons in cuba

press guy realises what is happening

consensus for blockade

pres cancells rest of trip. says he has cold

blockade = act of war

calls it quarintine

ships with weapons = turned back

if ussr does not pull back, us can strike

us ambassador thinks they should stike a deal. pull out of guantanamo. and turkey

pres disagress. asks people to write speech on both quarantine and air strike

times has story. they are going to run it tomorrow

kennedy calls papers

times guy agrees not to publiush intil mon

oct 21

army guys - 'i can get all of missiles we know about' 'i can get 90%'

kennedy is going to go onto tv

http://www.empereur.com/somaliaus.html

2004-05-18T09:49:00.000-05:00

The old Somali regime was loaded with Soviet’s weapons; it was estimated that the former Somali army had abandoned more than 40,000 weapons that were available for any Somalis. But the Somali people did not want firearms; the reason for them to hold the arms was essentially to secure basic foodstuffs for one’s family against the armed bandits. Many Somali leaders had requested United Nations (UN) assistance in disarming the population, and Somalis would voluntarily exchange their weapon for food. However, neither foreign governments nor international organizations were willing to attempt any food relief mission within such chaotic situation.

In theory, as the former Algerian diplomat Mohamed Sahnoun, then the Special Envoy of the UN argues in his book, "Somalia, the Missed Opportunities", there should have been enough international organizations and states who could help. For, Somalia was a member of the Islamic Conference, the League of Arab States, the Organization of African Unity (OAU), a former close ally of the United States (US), and maintained good relation with its two former main colonizers, Britain and Italy. And finally, Somalia was a member of the UN. Yet, as Sahnoun phased, " Sadly, none of these nations or institutions, all supposedly friends of Somalia and its people, moved seriously to help the country in its hour of need in a timely and efficient way." As Washington Post’s dateline of September 24 1992 points out, "Just thirty years after it officially became an independent nation, Somalia essentially has ceased to exist."

The Cause of Internal Conflict

I. From a Political Perspective

To understand the Somali Crisis of early 1990’s is to understand the geopolitics of the Horn of Africa. The reasons of Somali state’s collapse are complex. To summarize: it was due to both its historical and culture heritage.

As president Aden Abdille Osman declared in 1965, "Reunification of all Somalis is the very reason of life for our nation." During the second part of 19th century, the "Greater Somalia," the territory claimed by Somali nationalism was chopped up into five pieces under five different jurisdictions: British Somaliland (North), Italian Somaliland (South), French Somaliland (Djibouti), Ethiopia (Ogaden) and Kenyan Northern Frontier District (NFD). Hence, the modern Somali nationalism is argued by scholars as a unique case, for it is looking not only for self-determination but also reunification of Somalis’ inhabited territories. Consequently, from its independence in July 1960 until the late 1980s (in accordance Pan Somali Nationalism that has found the Somali State), the country was in a nearly continuous war with all its neighbors. Indeed, the reunification of all Somali people served as a principle and propaganda to legitimize the newly formed nation state. Yet, such pan-nationalism represents also a constant threat to all the neighboring countries, including Djibouti, Ethiopia and Kenya. Consequently, it weakened seriously Somalia’s regional economic development and its diplomatic relations. To counter Somalis’ threat, the Ethiopian regime, according to Somali sources for instance had manipulated the armed opposition groups that lighted the terrible Somali Civil War.

II. From a Cultural Perspective

One cannot search the intricacies of Somalia without being intrigued by the centrality of the clan to Somali culture, and unarguably to a certain degree it causes the Somali conflict. To briefly describe the essentials of Somali traditional polity, we shall argue that it depends, just like any other pre-industrialized civilizations, on the sense of collectivism rather individualism. Nevertheless, it too, has its own characteristic.

Sir Richard Burton’s famous story about the Bugandan sergeant (today’s Uganda) is a self-explained example. The Bugandan sergeant told to his officer: "Somalis, Bwana, they no good: each man his own sultan." Sir Burton himself argued that Somali nomads were a "fierce and turbulent race of republicans." In terms of Anthropology, kinship represents the only insurance for pre-capitalized nations, and the Somalis too, believe that the clan system is their safeguard, it makes them stronger against outsider nomads. Such belief gives to the Somalis a cascading lineage identity; a lineage based on a series of stages. In the Somalis’ term, "Myself against my family, my family against other families of my clan, my clan against all other clans, and all the Somalis against the rest of the world."

The root of the Somali Crisis is de facto generated by the clan rivalry based on cascading lineage identity. That regime of Siad Barre could maintain itself for so long was due precisely to that Barre was able to play the game of rivalries between clans. The major armed political groups too (USC, SSDF, SNM, SPF, SDA, SDM), are also purely clan based.

United Somali Congress (USC). The USC was created by the Hawiye clan in central Somalia around Mogadishu.
Somali Salvation Democratic Front (SSDF). The SSDF was created by the Majertain subclan of the Darood, who live in northeast Somalia.
Somali National Movement (SNM). The SNM was created by the Issaq clan of northwestern Somalia, it has proclaimed the independence of Somaliland.
Somali Patriotic Front (SPF). The SPF was founded by the Ogadeni, a subclan of Darood who live partly in southern and partly in central Somalia.
Somali Democratic Movement (SDM). The SDM is the movement of the Rahanwein clan, they live in southern and western Somalia.
Somalia Democratic Association (SDA). The SDA is the party of the Dir clan living in northwestern Somalia.
A more compelling answer concerning the clan based conflict lies also in the issue of invasion. Unlike northern Somalia, also known as the Somaliland which is composed of five districts but mainly inhabited by Issaq people, southern Somalia is not homogenous. The south and central Somalia regions are under conquest and occupation of different warring clan militias, which have no legitimate historical claims on the cities and agricultural land over which they have fought. Consequently, the local elders under "occupation" found themselves attempting to negotiate for peace with young militiamen and mobile bandits from distant clans who have no respect for elders. Since peace was obviously impossible to establish with the conquers, the native clan either fled away or got help from other sister clans.
III. The New Causes Since 1991

A. Barre and Darood Clan

The dictator Siad Barre left Mogadishu in a tank for his home country Gedo region on January 27, 1991. The Darood people, the traditional supporter of Barre government regrouped in Kismaayo and formed Somalia National Front (SNF). Barre’s son, General Maslah and son in law "Morgan" went abroad through Kenya on a military equipment purchasing mission. According to the report of The Minority Rights Group based in Britain "They purchased $27 Million worth of arms and petroleum at various black markets." From his new headquarters, Siad Barre planned to take back Mogadishu, yet his attack against USC’s positions failed. In May 1992, Barre fled into exile to Kenya in the face of a major military offensive lead by General Aided. Although Siad Barre later died in a misery condition, but the SNF remains active both in term of politics and military.

B. The Division between Ali Mahdi and Mohamed Aided

Just as one must understand the cultural context of a conflict, so too must one know the actors involved. The factions were at this stage obviously clan-based, the Hawiye clan based USC faction which is controlling the capital, Mogadishu is divided into two. The cause of internal dispute was not an ideological disagreement but subclan one over the issues of power and clan domination. Such division within the capital city area enhanced the already uncontrollable situation.

After Barre left Mogadishu, Ali Mahdi a member of Hawiye’s Abgal subclan was named very quickly by some USC civilian leaders as the new president without consulting any other clans and opposition groups. He sworn in on January 29 1992, and appointed a northerner, Umar Arteh Ghaalib, Barre’s last Prime Minister, as the new premier. However, although Mahdi was a successful businessman in the Motel Business, and his clan dominant surrounding Mogadishu area, Ali Mahdi himself had poor political authority. He was an unknown member of both the last elected parliament and the famous Manifesto Group (a group composed of ninety prominent Somalis elders, politicians, intellectuals and business people, it was establish in 1989, the purpose was to convince Siad Barre to resign); in addition, he did not contribute much militarily for the fall of Barre. As a result, when the USC leadership called for a national conference to draw up a new constitution, the idea was quickly rejected by other opposition forces.

General Mohamed Aided was a Hawiye of Habar Gidir subclan, which is located mainly at the outskirts of Bannadir and further north of the capital. By contrast with Mahdi, Aided fought against Barre. In fact Aided was one, if not the founder of USC. Therefore he believed that he had earned the legitimate right to rule Somalia. Beside the question on who should rule the country, the USC’s division lies also on the traditional clan rivalries. Mahdi’s Abgal subclan is a mainly sedentary life, and Aided’s Habar Gidir has a nomadic one. Some Somali scholars argue that the preliminary presidency of Mahdi reflects the fear of his clan vis-à-vis pastoral domination. Later, Aidid’s and Mahdi’s subclans tentatively agreed to power sharing. Aidid chaired the USC, while Mahdi stood as the Interim President.

Establish the Consensus

In October 1992, when food and UN military begun to arriving at the sea port of Mogadishu, due too a series of mistrust, misunderstanding and confusion, Aidid created his own military force, the Somali National Alliance (SNA), because he perceived that the UN troops favored Mahdi. As the result of such distrust, General Aided alienated himself from the UN further.

The problem of General Aidid with the UN happened later when the United Nations Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM) backed by the US was beginning to disarm Somali militias. The explanation for their distrust and fight is not the purpose of this research; however, the point is that during a period of anarchy, where weapon is synonym as event law, the international community has only few options within such chaotic case. Either the international community negotiates with the protagonists, and receives their consent for the humanitarian mission. Or the international community resembles all necessary means for the mission and makes it clear to the warlords about its determination. Meanwhile gives to the warlords certain material incentives to work with the humanitarian teams, such as non-lethal equipment and food because after all, without the cooperation of local warlords, a large scale humanitarian mission is impossible to be carryout. Either solution could work if the international community has a consensus about the agenda; one successful example could be the Persian Gulf War against Iraq in 1991. But Somalia of 1991 has no resemblance with Kuwait, Somalia is a mostly flat and arid region. After the fall of Berlin Wall, it represents no economic, military or political interests in terms of international politics. Therefore, except the UN, no one had a reason to go and help the Somalis.

International Environment

In January 1991, after the fall of President Said Barre, the situation in Somalia became total chaos. Violence and drought produced a terrible famine, northern Somalia declared itself independent, and fighting intensified in the south especially between the two factions of USC, General Aidid against Interim President Mahdi. Yet, unfortunately for the starving Somalis, the international communities including the UN were preoccupied by the Persian Gulf crisis, a conflict that had far more international significance.

One year later, in January 1st 1992, the Egyptian Boutros Boutros-Ghali became new UN Secretary General. Boutros-Ghali himself an African, has an extensive knowledge about Somalia and worked closely with Siad Barre. One of his first acts was to receive the report of Undersecretary James Jonah concerning the Somali crisis, and the meantime the Security Council invoked Chapter VII and imposed an arm embargo on Somalia. In the same month, the Security Council requested the Secretary General to prepare within six months an analysis and recommendations on ways of strengthening and making more efficient within the framework and provisions of the Charter the capacity of the UN for preventive diplomacy, for peacemaking and for peacekeeping. In February 12, Boutros Boutros-Ghali convened a conference (for consultation) in New York where representatives of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), the Arab League, Islamic Conference, and Somali factions of Aided and Mahdi signed preliminary cease-fire in New York. Later James Jonah arrived at Mogadishu on 29 February. He mediated, after 4 days of intensive negotiations, an additional cease-fire document, singed by the two on March 3, 1992. At the same time the Secretary General appointed David Bassiouni as Coordinator to oversee the delivery of the UN humanitarian assistance to the affected population in all parts of Somalia, in liaison with other international Humanitarian Organizations. Six weeks after the cease-fire has been signed in NY, in April UN created the United Nations Operation in Somalia.

Food Relief

I. The Result of Proliferation of Guns

Some analyses have emphasized the destructive impact of militarization in southern Somalia as an explanation for the non-intervention. Such argument lay on the issue of abandoned weapons. Intensive fighting destroyed the local economy. Armed gunmen robbed from farms and villages, taking livestock, corps and whatever else they needed for their own survival. Somalis trying to flee the clan warfare created hundreds of thousands of refugees, flocking along the border with Kenya. Although international food aid arrived in Somalia, the fighting interrupted the traditional distribution channels based on community and elder. When the relief agencies pass out food to vulnerable unarmed civilians, gunmen shoot them dead so they could have it. UN and other NGO aids’ convoys were also subject to looting by armed gunmen, it hence undermined the already inefficient relief mission. As the head of the Mogadishu port Mr. Hussein explained, "If I didn’t give them a bag of rice they would kill me. They are prepared to die for a bag of rice." The fact was that the cease-fire of March provided a precious opportunity for the international community to go further about peacemaking and disarming the clansmen, nevertheless, "after the cessation of hostilities UN senior diplomats foundered in the field, the Security Council dithered, and UN relief agencies squandered valuable time." Why this sudden disinterest vis-à-vis of Somalia?

II. The Consequences of a Weak US Assistance

Obviously, in order to be successful in the UNOSOM mission, the UN has to overcome about 5 main obstacles. For, there is no single explanation for the long delay of the UN deployment in Somalia.

1. The bureaucracy of the UN headquarters and branches

Because of disorganization in the UN, less than a third of the food that was needed has been delivered.
2. Inefficient UN troops
The UN armed troops from the Third World Countries such as Pakistan were not materially equipped to handle such task. The food relief operation requires a high level of armed protection, and strong in numbers, which only the US could provide.
3. Logistic and financial constrain of the UN
4. Balkans vs. Somalia

According to NY Times of August 3 1992, Boutros-Ghali was in dispute with Sec-Council. The Council just expanded UN operation in Yugoslavia but neglected Somalia, a Third World country.
5. First time for the UN to deal with a country that does not have a national government ton negotiate with.
At the meantime, the UN relief agencies were involved in other humanitarian crises including Bangladesh, Yugoslavia, and northern Iraq. The Europeans were also involved in those relief operations; however, they were much more concerned with what was happening in the Balkans as the Federation of Yugoslavia began to crumple. The disinterest of the Western European nations vis-à-vis Somalia has a reason, their action on Yugoslavia is under the name of NATO, which is responsible for security of Western Europe. Yugoslavia is an European state, it is also where the Great War started. Since Somalia is an African state, therefore, OAU should be concerned and do something about it. But OAU and African leaders take no action! As the executive director of the human rights group Africa Watch, Rakiya Omaar (a Somali) asked, "Why can’t an African leader go to Mogadishu? If young boys and girls working for aid organizations can go, why can’t African leaders go?"
Indeed, we can argue that if Africans don’t care about Africans why should other people do so?

Why were Africans disinterested about what was happening in Somalia? One explanation could be that member states of OAU don’t have means to do what European can do for Yugoslavia. Western States have the means, but there were preoccupied with problem of their owns, such legitimate argument was equally valid for the American administration of 1992.

Why the US Went to Somalia

The American political arena of 1992 was a burning one. The US was not only experiencing economic recession and a high budget deficit, but it was also a time of presidential election. During the campaigns, the potential winner President Bush had being accused by the challenger, Bill Clinton of paying more attention and money to foreign policy than to a declining US economic that affected the daily life of Americans. Beside of the presidential election and budgetary deficit, three additional reasons held back the US government from Somalia.

The Cold War was over, the US had no more strategic interest on Somalia. If Somalia faction leaders did not care about starving Somalis, nor other African, Arabic and Islamic leaders, why should the US? The problem in Somalia was not the US’s concern.
Militarily, the US troops just end the Gulf War, but still operating in northern Iraq in the Operation Provide Comfort. It is not militarily recommended to operate in several fronts.
All understood that a lasting solution to the problem in Somalia would have to go far beyond of emergency relief, it in reality requires the tasks of national reconciliation and the resuscitation of Somali government.
However, as the American public in general and mainstream society was becoming increasingly aware about the Somali Crisis, the Bush administration was forced to react. The pressures on President Bush came from three main sources, the media, the presidential election, and Houses of Congress.
As far as President Bush was concerned, his main objective was reelection; therefore, he must show initiative in cutting the budget deficit and unnecessary spending. Yet, despite the above political and economical reasons, voices urging the White House to implement a greater response to the crisis in Somalia was growing especially form the Houses of Representatives. The Democratic candidate Bill Clinton too, criticized President Bush for inaction in dealing with problems such as Bosnia, Somalia and for weak support of the UN. Television news bombarded American public with images of dying Somali women, elders and children. The mainstream newspapers such as New York Times, Washington Post, as well as other nationally distributed ones, kept their East African correspondents busy for "Top News". The Bush administration as the result began to sank itself into a dilemma. An active reaction to the Somali Crisis could cost Bush his reelection. A passive one would engender not only additional critics, destroy his reputation and legacy of international class leader forever.

I. Houses of Representatives

The 102nd (1991-1992) Congress played a crucial role in getting the US to act to save starving Somalis. As we know, divergence of opinions exists between the people in the White House and on the Hill. For, they do not see issues from the same perspective. As far as Somalia is concerned, both the White House and Houses of Representatives have had always a particular relation with it. Although the US foreign policy has traditionally been more focused towards Europe and the Middle East than to problems on the Black Continent, yet the Cold War gave to Somalia a special position from what to negotiate between the Soviet and the US. After the war between Ethiopia and Somalia over Ogaden in 1977-1978, Carter administration for pure strategic reason replaced Moscow and became the main partner of Siad Barre. A decade later in 1988, Mengistu Haile Mariam and Siad Barre ultimately concluded the war of 1978 in Djibouti by singing the peace accord. Yet, ironically for Somalia, this only worsened the crisis.

One of the two armed opposition groups located in Ethiopia, the Somali National Movement (SNM) attacked the Northern Somali region, formerly known as British Somali Land in May 1988. For the people in Pentagon, this was initially viewed as another cross border attack that warranting continuation of US military assistance. But the US embassy soon realized that the SNM had come home to stay. It became a civil conflict. Ambassador Crigler in June 1988 recommended freezing shipments of lethal weapon material to Somalia. In reaction, the Department of State of the US government sent a consultant, Robert Gersony, to Somalia to report the situation. At the meantime, US military assistance and joint training exercises continued until 1989.

Yet, unlike the White House, the US Houses of Representatives have taking an interest in Somali affairs from another perspective. The Congress was more concerned about democracy, famine and Human Rights issues in Somalia. Since 1991, members of committees have also sent numerous letters to the UN, Somali faction leaders, and Bush administration to express their concern about Somalia.

In July 14,1988, the House Subcommittee on Africa held a hearing after government troop’s killing in the Northern Somalia.
In 1989, President Bush from Congress’s pressure on the issue of the US military aid funds to Barre’s regime, had decided to end all aid to Barre’s regime..
After the fall of Siad Barre, Congress began to express concern on the Somali situation. In late April 1991, the Senate Resolution 115, introduced by Senator Nancy Kassebaum (R-Kansas), called on the president of the US to "lead a world wide humanitarian effort in Somalia to relieve the suffering and for the UN to make the humanitarian crisis in Somalia an item of high priority."
Andrew Natsios, the head of the USAID’s office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, testified before Congress in January 1992. He commented that Somalia was "the greatest humanitarian emergency in the World."
In March 1992, the Africa Subcommittee requested that the Congressional Research Service organizes a seminar on the Horn, the Sub-Committee held later its own hearing on all the Horn Countries. Senator Kassebaum and Paul Simon (D-IL), the chairman of the Africa Subcommittee argued for a more active role for the US, and criticized Bush for having "watered down" the UN Security Counsel resolution for the deployment of UN troop.
By the end of the second congressional session (Dec. 1992), a total of seven hearings had been held on Somalia.
In addition, Senator Kassebaum, as the first member of Congress to visit the southern Somalia, testified on the Committee, affirmed that "the situation has reached the point where the UN should go forward with the security force with or without General Aided or Ali Mahdi’s consent." The resolution was adopted by both houses of Congress within a week. Pressure also came from the Humanitarian relief community operating in Somalia. Representatives of US humanitarian agencies, including CARE and Save the Children met regularly in Washington with people from the State Department to transmit information on the ground. They met also people from Congress, such as the case of Natsios to testify on several committees to press for greater protection for their relief workers and supplies.
During the second session, new visits of congressional members to Somalia were able to transmit new information to the executive branch and could facilitate the president’s decision to send US troops to Somalia in early December 1992. At the meantime, Senator Simon also proposed along with other members a measure that would allow the Defense Department to pay up to $300 million US expenses for UN peacekeeping rather than the State Department. Such initiative had a purpose of to facilitate US involvement in UN peacekeeping missions during a period of budgetary constraints.

II. The Role of the Congressional Black Caucus

As Johnston and Ted Dagne have pointed out, The African American Congressional members were extremly active as the crisis worsened. In April 1992, the Black Caucus sent a letter to Secretary of State James Baker asking the US to take "the initiative in the UN in forcefully advocating a high level UN presence in Somalia." Representative Lewis introduced in October 1992 a resolution that demanded the US government to be more actively involved in Somalia through the UN, as it was authorized by the Security Council, in order to protect relief operations.

III. Evolution on Administration’s Reaction

Vis-à-vis of the UN
For months, after the collapse of the Barre regime, the US did little in conflict resolution in Somalia. Despite the growing pressure for action, the US administration was still wary of entering what seemed as an open-ended dangerous situation. Nevertheless, it did support humanitarian food aid and the UN resolution on mandatory arms embargo to Somalia. However, the Bush administration before November 1992 had always avoided direct involvement in Somalia. Critics argued the US has a special responsibility in Somalia in view of its long cooperation with the dictatorship. But other argued that the US could have done nothing because the situation in Somalia deteriorated so swiftly. As the UN Year Book indicates, the UN’s Security Council members such as China and the General Secretary himself, Boutros Boutros-Ghali had called for international attention, the latter even accused the members of Security Council of fighting a rich man’s war in Yugoslavia while not carrying about Somalia. Yet, the reluctance from the US administration showed that the UN and the US approached the problem from different perspectives. They have different agendas, responsibility and obligation. The UN answers to member countries, the US to electorates. President Bush had to face reality. It is strategically unwise to engage in any foreign adventure when being heavily criticized for not caring about his US constituents. In a series of maneuvers, Bush administration successfully avoid to mixing itself with the Somali chaos. In April 1991, it objected to UN initiative of sending 500 armed blue beret, because of cost, $7.5 million. According to the New York Times, the US mission (Under Pickering) to the UN did not support Resolution 733, "due to fearing the financial obligation, so that it did not call for peacekeeping." The purpose of sending the Peacekeeping force was to broker a new cease-fire treaty between Ali Mahdi and General Aidid. The White House immediately sent US Assistant Secretary of State John Bolton to UN headquarters in New York to make clear that to UN officials that Bush administration due to voter and Congress objections in an election year could not support such decision. Moreover, the US military under General C. Powell did not like the way that Boutros-Ghali prepared UNSOM I. The US military experts estimated of at least 30,000 heavily armed troop to carry out such humanitarian mission, they were unhappy that Boutros-Ghali just picked 3,500 randomly.
For the Bush administration, the coast of Peacekeeping operation could be argued as one of the biggest obstacle. According to Paul Lewis, the US government already was $140 million in arrears on its peacekeeping account, and Secretary James Baker had received a cool reception when he asked Congress for another $810 million for 1992-93 peacekeeping operations, not counting the extra cost for Somalia.

Perhaps due to both internal and external pressures, on July 27, 1992, the State Department issued a public statement that supported the sending of armed UN security personnel to Somalia, the first US active statement since the beginning of the Somali Crisis. And finally, in September 1992, Bush’s address to the UN General Assembly confirmed the administration’s new tendency towards Somalia.

B. At Bureaucratic and Individual Level

It was obvious that the disagreement of opinion among Americans about Somalia existed not only between the Executive and Legislative branches, at the bureaucratic level too, they were split into two unequally weighted sides. The elements that traditionally are in favor of strong US leadership; such as USAID, Office for Disaster Relief, the African Bureau had less political chips to play during a election year than president’s advisers, such as Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs John Bolton, the National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, and Colin Powell who all were extremely cautious about further involvement. Consequently, Bush administration had decided not to be fully cooperative with the UN plan, but only in a passive way such as presidential order of air-lift food relief on August 14 1992. In November, CIA’s top official made clear that General Aidid could easily massacre the lightly armed UN force already present in Mogadishu, should he decide to do so. Smith Hempstone Jr., US ambassador to Kenya, then argued in one diplomatic cable that "If you liked Beirut, you’ll love Mogadishu." Obviously, he was referring to the disastrous US mission in Lebanon where 241 marines perished. Like lots US officials, Hempstone believed that without a fundamental change from the Somali side and consistent aid from the international community for Nation Rebuilding, a temporary engagement will probably just delay the death of unarmed Somali from 1993 to 1994. CIA as well as Pentagon presumably was suspecting any military plan that focused on a short and efficacy deployment in Somalia. The CIA director Robert Gates believed that "the anarchy in Somalia is so sweeping and the warring factions so firmly entrenched that the country will require long term international involvement." Just like Gates, another important figure, the National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, who was cautious about further involvement, believed that if the US decided to go to Somalia, the US would have to stay much longer than the necessary time for food distribution. However, unlike Gates, Scowcroft had also a pro military engagement side. As Cusimano point out, the latter as a believer on the New World Order doctrine perceived that "only the US could provide the international community with the leadership it needed. There were responsibilities intrinsic to being the world’s only remaining superpower." Hence only the US could deploy quickly and with impact in Somalia. Therefore, the US should intervene. Other people, who were close to the president see the Somali situation represented an occasion for Bush to leave office with another US historical triumph after Persian Gulf War after his election loss. However, they also believed that if so, the Bush’s administration must act quickly, for the Clinton team was coming in, and they would not have adequate people to deal with Somalia in the early months. Meanwhile, the USAID was reporting that one quarter of Somali children under age five had already died. As the degree of pressure for intervention has been increased since summer 1992, the non-intervention hard-liners began to change. "If you project out a thousand deaths a day over a year, you have an appalling situation," said one official of the Defense Department.

IV. The Consequence of a Weak US Support

At the meantime, people unanimously agreed about two things. Firstly, the result of Somali war was the famine, but the cause of Somalis’ massive death was due to lack of an adequate web of distribution, not the shortage of food. Despite international food aid, which were arriving from sea and air, Somalis were still dying out of starvation. Secondly, it was clear that by mid-1992 that the UN could not carry out the food relief mission. Its operation lacked the organizational resources and a coherent strategy. The US government was also aware that due to its limited participation, the food air-lift was just not working. Meanwhile the grounded UN troops could barely protect themselves from Somali gunmen. Without an adequate military protection, humanitarian ships were looted even before they could arrive in Mogadishu port, UN workers of Somali origin were killed, and relief workers had to pay gunmen with cars looked like the one of "Mad Max" to protect their relief missions. "Relief workers called these vehicles "technicals" because they were listed on their expense reports as "technical assistance." Such consequences were results of the UN’s inadequate logistical and financial resources, yet we have also to recognize that the Somali Crisis was beyond the UN experience. The Somali experience was unique, there was no government with which to negotiate but only armed men who had nothing else to lose. In sum, the reality from the ground gave the UN peacekeeping mission two options: to appease those with weapons or oppose them by bigger force, but such forces could only come from America.

Final Decision

Nevertheless, by all accounts, the decision had to be made by the president himself. In July, acting Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger informed his staff that the president wanted the department to be more cautious on Somalia. On July, the State Department supported publicly the peacekeeping mission in Somalia. On August 3, the government announced that it was prepared to send additional 80,000 metric tons of food to Somalia. The White House also announced that the US was ready to transport UN peacekeeping forces to Somalia, and the Department of Defense was instructed to begin an emergency food airlift to northern Kenya (from Mombassa) and Somalia. US ambassador to the UN Edward Perkins was authorized to hold consultations with Security Council members on additional measures to assure that humanitarian food relief could be delivered. USAID’s assistant Administrator Andrew Natsios was appointed the president’s special coordinator for Somali relief. Meanwhile the international NGOs were intensifying their campaign for further US and international action.

I. President Bush’s Final Decision After November 3rd

President Bush’s August decision to mount an airlift had shifted discussion within the US administration and created an "activist consensus" that had not existed previously. His speech to the UN General Assembly on September 21 had in addition an uncountable international impact. In this historical speech, Bush demonstrated that the end of the Cold War was changing the old US attitudes towards the UN peacekeeping missions, which was considered as off-limits by the US military. Such signal alerted the US military official, they knew that they had to be consistent with the commander in chief although they viewed the potentiality from a different position. But the real push form the top level did not came until after George Bush had lost his presidential reelection.

However, it is very questionable to argue that President Bush had decided to engage fully into the Somali Crisis because of his electoral defeat, for such argument is simply irresponsible and too speculative. We could suspect that if the Ross Perot, the Third Party candidate did not spend 60 million US dollar and did not won 19 per cent of election vote, President Bush might have won the election of 1992, since analysis show Mr. Perot had attracted more voters from Republican camp than Democrat one. Yet the result of election and Bush’s personal determination vis-à-vis of Somalia Crisis is rather two different issues. Does a correlation exist? An accurate answer requires another analytical work. As far as this research is concerned, it focuses only on the overall US administration and presidential leadership attitude toward Somali Crisis from an objective point of view based upon facts.

At any rate, after Bill Clinton had defeated George Bush in the US presidential election on November 3rd, 1992, in a series of moves, President Bush showed that he was no longer constrained by internal issues; he was ready to move if the national and international communities were behind him. For President Bush, to be involved in Somalia required several conditions. Internally, he must receive full support from the military, media, and the American people. Externally, he needed the UN to accept the US conditions which were absolutely necessary, base on standards of the Pentagon for the US military deployment.

On 21 November, the Deputies’ Committee of the National Security Council considered the options on Somalia and on the basis of a recommendation from the chief of staff, Colin Powell, decided conditionally in favor of intervention. On November 21, Admiral David Jeremiah, Powell’s representative stated that if the use of US forces was necessary for the mission, then the US military would do the job. On Wednesday morning, November 25, 1992, President Bush held an unusual National Security Council (NSC) meeting at the White House. The issue was about could and should the US do anything about the Somali Crisis. Such issue was not only about the Somalia, but also about the moral value of the US administration especially in the Post Cold War era. By the end of the meeting, Bush generally chose "the Desert Storm way of handling Somalia."

On the ground, such new policy as expected had received positive reaction from all horizons. From the Congress, although representatives such as then the Speaker of the House Thomas Foley (D-Wash) asked Bush to consult with a bipartisan group of legislators, or Representative John Murtha (D-Pa) criticized the UN inefficiency and lack of US interests, mostly in the Congress; however, approved the intervention. As the Senator Paul Simon pointed out, "we have to respond. You just can’t sit back and let hundreds of thousands of people die and say we have no interest in this." African American community leaders such as Reverend Jesse Jackson, who had traveled to Somalia earlier in 1992, called "A global Thanksgiving gesture to Somalia that affects the whole world." And the newly elected president, Bill Clinton too commented that he supports the action because he believe that the US should do more about Somalia.

At the meantime, a new CIA report showed that "clan forces were both poorly organized and trained, had inconsistent morale and motivation, had weapons that could be easily be overcome, and therefore did not pose a serious threat."

Although the CIA report did not show any signs of support for a use of US force, yet undoubtedly this report partly showed a possibility of defeating the clan forces quickly after all.

According to Natsios, another factor might also have influenced Bush. A week following the ground intervention, President Bush in a conversation in the Oval Office told Johnston President of CARE, and then acting director of humanitarian relief operations for the UN in Somalia, that the last time he had seen Johnston was in Sudan during the Sahelian famine of the mid-1980s at a feeding center for severely malnourished children. As Andrew Natsios phased, "Bush clearly troubled by his memory of that feeding center drew a direct parallel between that famine and Somalia."

Conclusion

I. What is the Moral of the Story ?

On December 4th, 1992, exactly a month after Bush’s defeat, he announced that the US was going to deploy a member of military force to Somalia in order to create a safe environment for the humanitarian aid mission. The deployment named Operation Restore Hope began on December 9, it peaked at about 25,800 US troops joined by thousands of other nationalities.

The documents that are available to the public today tend to demonstrate that before November 1992, President Bush was not able to be actively concerned about the Somali humanitarian crisis due to first of all, the financial constrain. The peacekeeping budget had already exceeded the initial limit for the fiscal year 1992, in addition of record high of trade deficits and unemployment rate, the Congress was consequently unwilling to increase the foreign intervention budget.

Secondly, President Bush was also concerned about his presidential reelection. Although his approval rate attained as high as 90% just after the "liberation" of Kuwait from Iraq in the early 1991, yet the economic recession and other internal policy failure had seriously jeopardized in 1992 his chance of reelection. Thirdly, precisely due to the economic recession, President Bush was criticized by the Democrat candidate Bill Clinton, and the Third Party Candidate Rose Perot of not paying enough attention to the US internal issues. Therefore, George Bush as a politician should by no account engage in any policy that would enhance his decreasing approval rate, and cause him to lose the reelection.

Nevertheless, we could also conclude that although President Bush before November 1992 was not able to deal with an active role about the Somali Crisis and UN’s early relief operation, he was nevertheless willing at least to help indirectly in terms of logistics. For instance, contribution of US food and airlift operations made possible by the US air force. Hence, before President Bush had lost his reelection, he was only able or willing to help with only a minimum participation in the respect to the US international position.

It is an intriguing question of why suddenly the White House had changed its policy vis-à-vis of UNOSOM, and who benefit from such policy shift? Different theories argue differently, some suspected it was purely a mastermind plan, a strategy that was designed by Bush and his people to leave to the young Bill Clinton an enormous consequence to deal with. Other suspected that the US was going to establish another military base in the Horn of Africa, and Somalia just like the Persian Gulf, had oil. Of cause, the reality shows that neither theory is credible. Somalia has no oil technically, may be except a potentiality in the Ogaden region. As far as the US position in the Horn is concerned, the example of the current warm US relationship vis-à-vis of Ethiopia and Eritrea could be argued as one concrete answer to the US hegemonic plan over the Red Sea. However, Eritrea was seceded from Ethiopia under Clinton’s presidency in 1993. Moreover, if President George Bush refused to overthrown Saddam Hussein of Iraq by force in 1991, and to establish a democratic regime in Iraq where the oil is, thus we could suspect that there was no reason for the US to takeover Somalia by engage itself into nation building and challenge an anarchy of tremendous violence.

So, if Somalia of 1992 did not represent any interests for the US government, why the winner of the Cold War was willing for the first time to be involved in an external crisis in which it did not have a direct national interest? One argument that what we could point out is President Bush’s final decision was rather about his vision of a New World Order, the U.S. foreign policy’s role and moral concerns in the post-Cold War world, and finally the administration’s own place in history. Consequently in accordance with his own doctrine, soon after his had lost the reelection in the early November, he was then free from all constrains and ready to use all of his power to order new initiatives toward Somalia famine.

President Bush legitimized his final decision on a moral ground. As he announced on December 4th in his speech to the nation, "I understand the United States alone cannot right the world’s wrongs, but we also know that some crisis in the world cannot be resolved without American involvement, that American action is often necessary as a catalyst for broader involvement in the community of nations. Only the United States has the global reach to place a large security force on the ground in such a distant place quickly and efficiently and thus, save thousands of innocents from death."

We could also suspect that people in Washington, who are mostly bureaucrats believed that Somalia case was for them an opportunity to seize additional power during a period of transition. On the other words, the last moment of Bush’s presidency was a moment of power vacuum, and by creating the Somalia intervention, the bureaucracy who will remain in office would not only enhance their political position but accumulate supplementary responsibilities vis-à-vis of new Clinton team.

Overall, within one month, Bush’s people had to come out with not only plans but also logistical and human resources in order to realize such fantastic plan. And precisely, the failure of UNISOM II had a lot to do with unprepared people who are constrained by technical difficulties and the UN’s bureaucratic manners. One example was the misunderstanding or unclear agenda between American officials with the UN top officials. The timing was never setup clearly about when the UN troops will replace Americans and when the US troops will withdrew from Somalia. In addition, the issue of disarm Somalis was never quiet clear between the US and the UN team. UN Secretary general Boutros Boutros-Ghali strongly argued for disarmament as the primary objective for the American troops, yet American military officials including Powell were reluctant to believe on such possibility.

As the long term agenda between the US and UN differed. Hence, it could be suggested that the Operation Restore Hope and UNOSOM II were damned to fail because they were launched without international political consensus about its purpose and real long term objective. Both the top US and UN officials had their own personal agendas, and believed the Somali case was simply a means to achieve their power-seeking objective. Therefore, they could reach an agreement on the principal intervention objective, though knowing it lacked consensus.

Intervention.

2004-05-17T10:09:00.000-05:00

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/usinterventionism.html

Nuremburg Movie

2004-05-10T09:36:00.000-05:00

woman continuses to see person even though it is illigal

she kissed him. "he was like a father"

woman gets upset. defendand finally stops yelling.

berlin blockade

army people sit around and talk about it.

"we are committed to the trials, can we speed them up?"

defendand talks about being a german

says that the reason he went with the nazis because he loved his country

"what does it matter if a few extremists excersise their rights, what does it matter if a few minorities loose their rights"

"germany found itself as a powerful country"

man confesses. says that the trial of the man was fixed.

says that the germans were aware of the extermination of the 100s

"if we didnt know, it was because we didnt want to know.'

defense lawyer
american industrialists are to blame because they helped hitler

the whole world is guilty

army guys
"if berlin goes, germany goes, if germany goes, the rest of the world goes."

"we need the help of the german people. you cant win the people if you lock up their leaders"

defendat's final statements

hahn
i do not evade the responsibility of my actions. i will not say of our policy today when yesterday i said it was right. we were at war. i cannot say i am sorry. it was nessicary.

next one
i have served my country. i followed the concept that i believed. ask only what the law is. not to ask whether or not it is just. i beleive i am not guilty.

verder laughining???
your honors *very upset*

unsiangia??
i have nothing to add to what i just said

judge ends case

war crimes - people directly in charge of state. are responsible. they can be prosecuted

arguemnt about whether or not the men are responsible for their acts

ruling:
guilty.

everyone who is related to the crime is guilty.

hahn - life in prison
hofsteadder - life in prison
daniy - life inprisonment. (suprise)

other jugde says that the issue of what the defendants did for their county cannot be decided in a court

americans arent very popular

defendance lawyer. comes to judge. asks if dantiani can see him

movie

2004-05-07T09:57:00.000-05:00

prosecutior: talks about court. "showcase of socialism"

witness- talks about trial

witness - though worst of trial. because of prosecutor.
ansiani = good (judge)

prosecution calls irene hoffman maller

chick

prosecutor - asks about heldinstien

he was arrested.

friends with lady

owned building lady lived in

pros - what did you say to police about questions of intimate relations with guy

chick - i told them i didnt have any. prosecutor took chick into room and told her that nobody would beleive her. says prosecuror = hoffman

chick - prosecutor tries to get chick to say she had intimate relations

how did hahn conduct prosecution?

chick - he made a mockery of everything he said. audience laughed. trial lasted 2 days. verdict passed at end of trial. verdict = guilty sentence = death. woman sentenced to 2 years for purgury

judge = esleian??

prosecution shows orders signed by defendants - people suspected to being unpatriotic could be arrested and put in concentraton camps without trial

swears procecution lawyer

shows films of concentration camps

shows what happened

us military - hipoctritical. they knew about holocaust. yet they did not do anything

defendants - say that they are merely judges. not exectutioners.

defense lawyer - i am ashamed of the films as a german. they were bad. says it is unfair for prosecution to show films. says that brutalities brought about by "criminals and extremists" none of citizens knew.

defense says that defendants were brave for staying in germany. says the prosecution has only given one fact to support their oppinions

defense calls lady

lady says hofstien kissed chick that was called earlier. multiple times. woman says that chick sat on hophanstieden's lap.

prosecution - asks political offiliations

lady is member of nazi party. was not forced.

woman called. was aware that physical/social contact with jules was illigal. yet still continued.

Movie

2004-05-05T09:41:00.000-05:00

question: where is the line drawn of moral law. is it immoral to follow your countries laws even if they are immoral.

winners decide what is moral

us have done the same kinds of things.

Standards

2004-04-30T09:40:00.000-05:00

annabellum

examine differences between north and south

webster = north.. north = industry and strong central government

calhoun = south.. south = agriculture and states rights

henry clay.

missouri compromise - line

comp of 1850 - cali = free .. fugitive slave act .. slave trade outlawed in dc .. pop sovernty

kansas bleeding / kansas nebraska act = popular sovernghty .. stephen douglass

civil war

sumter - 1st

gettysbug - turning point

vicksburg - seals blockade

appomotox - surrender

reconstructuion

radical republicans 13 14 15 ammendments passed

13 frees slaves

14 due process (slaves = citizens)

15 blacks can vote

south reaction = black codes .. sharecropping .. kkk .. later plessy vs furgeson and jim crowe laws

impact of west on society

manifest destiny

farmers - big demand for land.. homestead act allows .. cheap land

cattle

railroad - unites america .. chinese = centeral pacific (cali eastward) .. union pacific = irish (west)

miners

other immigration = germas = farmers

domestic policies relating to immigration

keeping people out = when we are having economic problems

chinese exclusion act - prohibits almost all chinese from entering us

quota act of 20s

west

indian problem

involvement with calvary .. sitting bull .. ghost dance .. rally sou ... custer meets fate .. little bighorn .. military now taking agressive action against indians

wounded knee .. end of fighting

indians assimilated into american culture = missionaries = boarding schools

dawes act

industrial revolution

social changes

new inventions =

steel - cheap steel

lightbulb - production 24/7

morse/bell = communication - speeds up

railroads = transportation goods and services quick

second wave of immigration = eastern / southern europue (as oppsed to northern and western)

big bisness abuses immigrants with long hours and low wages

workers organise into unions

ugene b debbs - one of the first to organise workers

iww .. afl .. cio

muckrackers - upton sinclair .. exposed industry ..

causes progressive movement

womens suffrage = anthony

temperance movement

income tax starts

federal reserve

progressive movement - direct election of sentators .. state level = initiative petition .. refferendum . recall ..

ends things like tameny hall .. boss tweed

us role in world afairs at turn of century

manifest destiny

imperalism

keep up with other countries

go into hawaii .. end up taking it .. queen dosent want this .. fights, but loses

a splendid little war .. spanish american war .. teddy roosevelt ..

becoming world power.. panama.. big stick policy

big stick policy .. strength = works .. weakness = makes countries angry

dollar dipolmacy.. bribe dictators = people still suffer = still angry

ww 1

us tips balance

wilson comes up with great plan to keep us safe for demoracy

1 free trade
2 leauge of nations - congress turns down

people feel that only people that made money on war was bankers and munitions makers

trench warfare

inventions of sophisticated killing

airplane ect

return to isolationism

between wars

lost generation = writers leave to france.

harlem rennisanse

middle class .. people have time off

ammusement parks

sports

movies

forms of entertainment

prohibition - 20s

about crime

women take over jobs on home front on ww1 = get right to vote

21 = repeals 19th prohibitioni

depression - tax

industries.. multiplier industries.. 1920s dating changes

flapper

rising racial tenstions

tulsa race riots

competitions for jobs

african americans go to north and west looking for jobs during war

causes of unstable economy

depression

sick industries
installement
speculation
margin buying

bubble burst in 1929.. poor gvmnt policy

great depression

buisness policys

stock market crash

roosevelt highers new people with new ideas

borrows money to spurr economy

will rogers - makes fun of gvmnt

woodie guthrie

lindburg - national hero

roosevelt expaned gvmnt

ww2

was roosevelt leading us to war or trying not to?

d day

cold war

ussr vs us

berlin blockade

berlin airlift

cuba

cuba missile crisis

arms race

proliferation of arms

orginisations formed = nato, warsaw pact, ceto

kenans policy of contiainment

truman doctrine

koran war

vietnam

middle east policies

mcarthyism = fear of communism at home

brown vs board..

womens lib.. changing womens roles .. betty friednihan.. femmine mistique

civil rights movement..

more notes

2004-04-30T09:36:00.000-05:00

watergate

burgulars caught.

all people are former or current cia agents. found out that nixon orderd this.

nixon ends up resigning.

all president starting with kennedy had tape recorders in office.

nixon had tapes. they were subopenad. fought, but eventually gave in.

main theme = abuse of presidential power

2004-04-26T10:20:00.000-05:00

tanney court - pro southern

dredd scott decision- slaves are property

plessy vs furgeson - seperate but equal

brown vs board of education - overturnes plessy

civil rights act of 1964

voting rights act of 1965

fair housing act

miranda vs arizona

maranda rights

geidson vs waineright - couldnt afford a lawyer

Cuban Missile Crisis

2004-04-16T10:23:00.000-05:00

Quarintine - So that it isnt an act of war. Blockade = War

Cuban Missile Crisis: Timeline

2004-04-16T09:58:00.000-05:00

January 1, 1959 - Fidel Castro assumes power after the Cuban Revolution.

December 19, 1960 - Cuba openly aligns itself with the Soviet Union and their policies.

January 3, 1961 - The U.S. terminates diplomatic and consular relation with Cuba.

April 12, 1961 - President Kennedy pledges the U.S. will not intervene militarily to overthrow Castro.

April 17, 1961 - Backed by the U.S., a group of Cuban exiles invades Cuba at the Bay of Pigs in an attempt to trigger an anti-Castro rebellion. The invasion fails and more than a thousand Cuban rebels are captured by Castro's forces.

June 3-4, 1961 - Khrushchev and Kennedy hold summit in Vienna.

July 27, 1962 - Castro announces that Cuba is taking measures that would make any direct U.S. attack on Cuba the equivalent of a world war. He claims that the U.S.S.R. has invested greatly in helping defend his country.

August 10, 1962 - CIA Director John McCone sends a memo to Kennedy expressing his belief that Soviet medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBMs) will be deployed in Cuba
.
August 31, 1962 - Senator Kenneth Keating tells the Senate that there is evidence of Soviet missile installations in Cuba. Keating urges Kennedy to take action.

September 11, 1962 - In a speech to the UN, Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko warns that an American attack on Cuba could mean war with the Soviet Union.

October 9, 1962 - Kennedy orders a U-2 reconnaissance flight over western Cuba, delayed by bad weather until the 14th.

October 10, 1962 - Senator Keating charges that six intermediate-range ballistic missile bases are being constructed in Cuba.

October 14, 1962 - A U-2 flying over western Cuba discovers missile sites. Photographs obtained by this flight provide hard evidence that Soviets have missiles in Cuba.

October 15, 1962 - A readout team at the National Photographic Intelligence Center reviews photos taken during the U-2 flight and identifies objects similar to MRBM components observed in the U.S.S.R. at San Cristobal.
McGeorge Bundy decides after hearing about the discovery of missiles in Cuba not to inform the president until the next day.
McNamara is shown the photographic evidence of the MRBMs at San Cristobal.

October 16, 1962 - Bundy breaks the new to Kennedy who calls for a meeting of a group later to become know as EX-COMM.
At that meeting Kennedy and his advisors discuss possible diplomatic and military courses of action.

October 17, 1962 - Kennedy flies to Connecticut to campaign for the Democratic Party and congressional candidate Abe Ribicoff.
Robert Kennedy and Theodore Sorensen meet the President at the airport and fill him in on what he had missed during that day's deliberations. Throughout EX-COMM's discussions, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and especially the Air Force strongly argue for an air strike.
After another U-2 flight on the night of the 17th, the military discoveres intermediate range (IRBMs) SS-5 nuclear missiles.

October 18, 1962 - Gromyko and Kennedy meet for two hours. Reading from notes, Gromyko assures Kennedy that Soviet aid to Cuba has been only for the "defensive capabilities of Cuba."

October 19, 1962 - Kennedy departs Washington for scheduled campaign speeches in Cleveland and the West Coast.

October 20, 1962 - Kennedy's Press Secretary announces that the President is canceling the remainder of his campaign trip because of an "upper respiratory infection."
Kennedy meets with his advisors and orders a defensive quarantine instituted as soon as possible. The full operation is reviewed and approved, and the President's television address is scheduled for the next evening.

October 21, 1962 - Kennedy is told by General Maxwell Taylor that an air strike could not guarantee to destroy all Soviet missiles in Cuba.
Kennedy decides on a quarantine of Cuba for the time being.
Kennedy requests that the press not deny him the "element of surprise" or he warns, "I don't know what the Soviets will do."
Another U-2 flight that day reveals bombers and Migs being rapidly assembled and cruise missile sites being built on Cuba's northern shore.

October 22, 1962 - Congressional leaders assemble at the White House for a meeting with Kennedy. They are shown the photographic evidence of the Soviet missile installations. The congressional leaders express support, but many advocate stronger action.
The President addresses the nation in a televised speech, announcing the presence of offensive missile sites in Cuba.
U.S. military forces go to DEFCON 3.
U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay is reinforced by Marines.

October 23, 1962 - Kennedy orders six Crusader jets to fly a low level reconnaissance mission.
Organization of American States (OAS) unanimously approves of the quarantine against Cuba.
By the end of the day U.S. ships had taken up position along the quarantine line, 800 miles from Cuba.
Late in the evening, the President sends Robert Kennedy to the Soviet embassy to talk with Ambassador Dobrynin.
Kennedy receives a letter from Khrushchev in which Khrushchev comments that there is a, "serious threat to peace and security of peoples."
President decides to give Khrushchev more time and pulls the quarantine line back to 500 miles.

October 24, 1962 - Soviet ships en route to Cuba with questionable cargo either slow down or reverse their course except for one.
Military forces go to DEFCON 2 the highest ever in U.S. history.

October 25, 1962 - Kennedy sends a letter to Khrushchev laying the responsibility for the crisis on the Soviet Union.
EX-COMM discusses a proposal to withdraw U.S. missiles from Turkey in exchange for the withdrawal of Soviet missiles in Cuba.

October 26, 1962 - The Soviet ship Marucla is cleared through the quarantine.
During an EX-COMM meeting, Kennedy says that he believes the quarantine alone can not force the Soviet government to remove its offensive weapons from Cuba.
A CIA report from that morning states that there was no halt in progress in the development of the missile sites and another reconnaissance flight reveals the Soviets were also attempting to camouflage the missiles.
Aleksandr Fomin, who was known to be the KGB station chief in Washington, requests a meeting with ABC News correspondent John Scali. Fomin proposes the dismantling of Soviet bases under U.N. supervision in exchange for a public pledge from the U.S. not to invade Cuba.
Khrushchev sends another letter to Kennedy proposing removing his missiles if Kennedy would publicly announce never to invade Cuba.

October 27, 1962 - A new letter from Khrushchev arrives, proposing a public trade of Soviet missiles in Cuba for U.S. missile in Turkey.
An American U-2 is shot down over Cuba killing the pilot, Major Rudolf Anderson.
U-2 accidentally strays into Soviet airspace near Alaska nearly being intercepted by Soviet fighters.
Dobrynin and Robert Kennedy meet and discuss the price of removing the missiles from Cuba.
Kennedy writes Khrushchev a letter stating that he will make a statement that the U.S. will not invade Cuba if Khrushchev removes the missiles from Cuba.

October 28, 1962 - Khrushchev announces over Radio Moscow that he has agreed to remove the missiles from Cuba.

Cuban Missile Crisis

2004-04-16T09:53:00.000-05:00

USSR shipping missiles into Cuba with nuclear warheads.

13 days.

Brinkmanship

Kenedy Administration

2004-04-16T09:48:00.000-05:00

Kenedy: youngest president. catholic.

Kenedy accused of being weak on communism

When he was elected, he wanted to show he was strong on communism

1959 - Cuba falls to communism

Kennedy advised by joint cheifs of staff. They wanted to use local rebels to take cuba back. Kennedy agrees.

DISASTER - Bay of pigs

Rebels attack. We, for whatever reason, werent there. Fails. World thinks we were trying to start a war against communism.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

USSR closed off east berlin. Kenedy "Ich bin ine berliner" (I am a berliner) He wont give up berlin. Or the UA wont win the cold war.

Cold war notes

2004-04-16T09:39:00.000-05:00

NSA-68 expanded military

arms race - deterrence

NATO - strengthen western europe's military power

USSR Tanks:US Tanks = 8:1

Warsaw Pact - Between USSR sattlites

Geuatemala - US Coup because we thought they were communist

Iran - US cou caused opec to be formed

US policy to stop communism

Stood behind it

Graph

2004-04-14T10:25:00.000-05:00

arms race

2004-04-14T10:11:00.000-05:00

cruchev - farmer

took over for stalin

arms race:

policy of deterrence -> keep other side from using nukes

nuclear proliforation

2004-04-14T09:32:00.000-05:00

us developed nuclear weapon

1949 makes nuclear weapon

in response, us develops hydrogen bomb

russia develops hydrogen bomb soon after.

1950 - strategic bombing (b-52) bombing

one b-52 loaded with nuclear weapons surpassed every explosion ever used in the world.

constantly b-52s in the air. always. so they could bomb ussr

sputnik
---------

primitive. however, us feeling that soviets surpassed US in technology. US space technology laggin behind.

us gets scared about ussr weapons

ICBM

missiles that carried nukes

Polaris

sub carry nuke missiles

tactical weapons: nukes that could be fired from a cannon

planed to be used in case of ussr invasion of berlin

arms race gets out of control

finally in 80s make agreement to scale back arms race

on result of arms race, is soviet breakup because it used all their money

macarthyism

2004-04-08T10:09:00.000-05:00

government created mass panic about communism

then macarthy says there are 200 communists in the state department

none ever revealed

"red scare"

Macartur

2004-04-08T09:44:00.000-05:00

korea -

"roll back" - to take previous area that was controlled by communism

truman gave macarthur to keep going, but dont use US troops.

macarthur, instead used un troops as well. got to yalu river

then, bombed chinese bridges

china gets involved

china pushes un tropps all the way back to seoul

macarthur writes a letter that says politicians are fighting the war not actions

macarthur fired. came back and gave speeches to congress ect. ego.

truman didnt want to get involved in all out war in korea because he dosent want to pull troops from occupied countries. then ussr would come in and take over these countries.

Cold War Notes

2004-04-06T10:15:00.000-05:00

marsal plan: economic aid to stop communism

HW

2004-04-06T10:13:00.000-05:00

READ DIGITAL HISTORY COLD WAR

Cold War

2004-04-05T09:33:00.000-05:00

post WW II US Policy

Cold War

Cold War - Intense global confrontation between US and USSR to keep eachother from expanding. Both countries beleived that the other was trying to take over the world.

US and USSR were the two world powers after WW II

you were either pro-US or pro-USSR

USSR had signed agreement with Germany during WW II.

US mistrusts USSR

Yalta Conference

Stalin + Roosevelt + Churchill (Big 3)

Made plans for what was going to happen once they one war:

Stalin wanted USSR to have full control of Poland. He was always fearful of an attack from the West. This would be a buffer zone for attacks. Poland had Danzig, a port that would be accesible year round.

Stalin wanted Hitler to pay for war. Atlatnic Charter said no spoils and such. This caused mistrust.

At the end of WW II, US wanted USSR to declare war on Japan. USSR refused to until Germany was deafeated.

At Postom conference, Truman changes mind about USSR attacking Japan. He tells USSR not to attack. He knows the US has atomic bomb, so no need for USSR. Stalin and Churchill know that we have atomic bomb through their intelligence. We dont tell them. Stalin then mistrusts the US.

Another reason Stalin mistrusts the US, was that we didnt open the second front untill well into war. Soviets lost 20 million troops.

Reason US mistrusts USSR. Stalin makes big speech saying Communism good, capitlism bad. Then, Stalin takes Hungary for a buffer like Poland was.

Reason US mistrusts USSR. Stalin demands that we split Germany into 4 occupation zones: USSR, US, France, UK.

Soviets wouldnt move out of Iran. Oil.

Churchill comes to US. Gives speech in Missourri. He predicts an "iron curtain" is forming in Euroupe. He says that a line will be drawn in Euroupe, and predicts the USSR will attempt to take over Euroupe.

Greece and Turkey. Enemies. GB has interests in these countries. GB has no more money to support countries. Truman gives speech to congress asking for $40 million so that he can keep USSR from intervening in Greece and Turkey. Truman writes speech that will be known as Truman doctrine. Goal of speech was to scare congress.

George Kenan was a US person in USSR. He wrote letter to US saying we should use containment. Domino Effect. But with Communism.

Truman Dorctine basically said that we would help any country that wanted to be free.

organizing for victory

2004-04-02T10:19:00.000-06:00

government and buisnesses worked together during ww 2

federal budget huge

taxes paid for most of the war

WPB awarded civilian contracts

gvmnt granted tax write offs for buisnesses that helped war

consumers had more income

prices went up

us economy wes primary reason that us won war again

draft

women filled jobs men left

Rough Draft

2004-04-01T14:25:00.000-06:00

At the time of the Korean War, North Korea was not industrialized and lacked major bombing targets. Thus, combined with the new technology of jet fighters led to a war that was fought in fundamentally different ways than preceding wars. The superb performance of the U.S. jets, and more specifically, the pilots were a major factor in ending the war.
The Korean War was different from the previous wars the U.S. had fought in that our adversary was not a highly developed country; as a result, the way the US Air Force fought the war was much different from previous wars. “The conflict in Korea was a war of firsts: the first jet war, […] the first major war against an agricultural nation, and the first war of the nuclear era” (Feltus 3). All of the previous wars had been fought during the last century were against much more developed nations. “Korea may have been America’s ‘forgotten war,’ overshadowed by World War II, but in retrospect it was clearly a pivotal event for the US military in general and the US Air Force in particular” (Grier 2). It brought about changes in the way the USAF (US Air Force) fought wars. Korea was a new type of war in relation to the previous wars fought, so the US Air Force was changed to a great extent.
Jet aircraft were essential in the new type of war fought in Korea. “Korea was the first conflict during which most of the aerial fighting was done by jets. There were still some propeller planes left, […] but it was the second-generation jets that ruled the skies, among them Lockheed F-80 Shooting Stars, MiG-15s, and North American F-86 Sabres” (Feltus 2). “It was found that because Korea was an agricultural nation with few industrial or military targets (North Korea received supplies from China and the USSR), strategic bombing would not affect the war” (Feltus 1). Due to the new type of war being fought, jet aircraft would become very important in the war.
The introduction of the Russian made MiG-15 fighter by North Korean and Chinese forces brought about changes in how the air war was being fought. “The entry of MiG-15s into Korean combat [on November 1, 1950] changed the air war. Eventually FEAF was forced to end most daylight bombing operations, and bomb at night” (Greer 7). “With […] the appearance of the MiG-15 as an offensive air element, ‘it appeared that air power would have to be employed much more broadly to reduce the numerical superiority of the Chinese,’ wrote General William Momyer” (Samuel 93). Thus, the introduction of the MiG brought around a massive change in the strategy of both sides.
The MiG brought around the introduction of what would be the US’s most effective fighter, the F-86. In order to counter the introduction of the MiG-15, the U.S. introduced the F-86 (Greer 8). “All USAF [US Air Force] aces of the Korean War flew Sabres. By war’s end, 439 F-86s were on hand in the Korean theatre, out of a total combat strength of 1,459” (Grier 8). The F-86 was introduced to combat the MiG; it would be the US’s most effective fighter aircraft during the war.
The US Air Force was more effective than its opposition in air-to-air combat, especially with the Sabre. The US won the first two jet battles of the war (Gunston 491). The kill ratio between the Sabre and the MiG-15 was around 7:1 in favor of the Sabre (Gunston 511). The Sabre, along with the rest of the US’s fighter aircraft was more effective than the MiG.
The reason the Sabre was more effective than the MiG was not because of any aircraft superiority on the part of the Sabre, but instead was because of the superiority and experience of the US pilots. “[The] Russian MiG-15 appears to be equal to [the] F-86 in all around performance” (Gt. Brit. Royal Air Force 1). The US pilots were mostly World War II veterans, while the North Korean and Chinese pilots had no combat experience (Feltus 2). The Sabre’s superiority to the MiG was because the U.S had better, more experienced pilots.
The Soviets began sending pilots to Korea even though they were not officially in the war because they thought air superiority was very important to achieve. In June of 1951, the Soviets began sending in pilots who were better trained and somewhat more effective (Feltus 2). “The Soviets wore North Korean uniforms and attempted to speak Korean while airborne, reading phrases off tablets carried in the cockpit” (Grier 7). As shown, Russia was willing to become involved in the Korean War in order to attempt to accomplish air superiority.
Jet aircraft played a major part in the US and its allies defeating the North Koreans. “Commander General Otto Weyland testified several years later that ‘we are pretty sure that the Communists wanted peace, not because of a two-year stalemate on the ground, but to get air power off their back’” (Feltus 3). “As a tactical weapon, jet aircraft proved superior to conventional types in all respects except for its limited endurance at low altitudes and its demands for greater logistics support” (Gt. Brit. Royal Air Force 1). Accordingly, jet aircraft were an essential to the US victory in Korea.
Thus, jets were a significant factor in ending Korean War; more specifically, the superiority of the U.S. pilots was a major factor in ending the war.

Outline

2004-04-01T06:43:00.000-06:00

Otis Chodosh
Miss Swagerty
PAP English II
30 March 2004

Outline

I. Introduction
Thesis: At the time of the Korean War, North Korea was not industrialized and lacked major bombing targets. Thus, combined with the new technology of jet fighters led to a war that was fought in fundamentally different ways than preceding wars. The superb performance of the U.S. jets, and more specifically, the pilots were a major factor in ending the war.
II. Difference between the Korean War and previous wars
A. Topic Sentence: The Korean War was different from the previous wars the U.S. had fought in that our adversary was not a highly developed country; as a result, the way the US Air Force fought the war was much different from previous wars.
1. “The conflict in Korea was a war of firsts: the first jet war, […] the first major war against an agricultural nation, and the first war of the nuclear era” (Feltus 3).
2. “Korea may have been America’s ‘forgotten war,’ overshadowed by World War II, but in retrospect it was clearly a pivotal event for the US military in general and the US Air Force in particular” (Grier 2).
B. Concluding sentence: Korea was a new type of war in relation to the previous wars fought, so the US Air Force was changed to a great extent.
III. Jets
A. Topic sentence: Jet aircraft were essential in the new type of war fought in Korea.
1. “Korea was the first conflict during which most of the aerial fighting was done by jets. There were still some propeller planes left, […] but it was the second-generation jets that ruled the skies, among them Lockheed F-80 Shooting Stars, MiG-15s, and North American F-86 Sabres” (Feltus 2).
2. “It was found that because Korea was an agricultural nation with few industrial or military targets (North Korea received supplies from China and the USSR), strategic bombing would not affect the war” (Feltus 1).
B. Concluding sentence: Because of the new type of war being fought, jet aircraft would become very important in the war.
IV. MiG
A. Topic Sentence: The introduction of the Russian made MiG-15 fighter by North Korean and Chinese forces brought about changes in how the air war was being fought.
1. “The entry of MiG-15s into Korean combat [on November 1, 1950] changed the air war. Eventually FEAF was forced to end most daylight bombing operations, and bomb at night” (Greer 7).
2. “With […] the appearance of the MiG-15 as an offensive air element, ‘it appeared that air power would have to be employed much more broadly to reduce the numerical superiority of the Chinese,’ wrote General William Momyer” (Samuel 93).
B. Concluding Sentence: Thus, the introduction of the MiG brought around a massive change in the strategy of both sides.
V. Sabre
A. Topic Sentence: The MiG brought around the introduction of what would be the US’s most effective fighter, the F-86.
1. In order to counter the introduction of the MiG-15, the U.S. introduced the F-86 (Greer 8).
2. “All USAF [US Air Force] aces of the Korean War flew Sabres. By war’s end, 439 F-86s were on hand in the Korean theatre, out of a total combat strength of 1,459” (Grier 8)
B. Concluding Sentence: The F-86 was introduced to combat the MiG; it would be the US’s most effective fighter aircraft during the war.
VI. Mig vs. Sabre
A. Topic sentence: The US Air Force was more effective than its opposition in air-to-air combat, especially with the Sabre.
1. The US won the first two jet battles of the war (Gunston 491).
2. The kill ratio between the Sabre and the MiG-15 was around 7:1 in favor of the Sabre (Gunston 511).
B. Concluding Sentence: The Sabre, along with the rest of the US’s fighter aircraft was more effective than the MiG.
VII. Pilots
A. Topic sentence: The reason the Sabre was more effective than the MiG was not because of any aircraft superiority on the part of the Sabre, but instead was because of the superiority and experience of the US pilots.
1. “[The] Russian MiG-15 appears to be equal to [the] F-86 in all around performance” (Gt. Brit. Royal Air Force 1).
2. The US pilots were mostly World War II veterans, while the North Korean and Chinese pilots had no combat experience (Feltus 2)
B. Concluding Sentence: The Sabre’s superiority to the MiG was because the U.S had better, more experienced pilots.
VIII. Soviet Airmen
A. Topic Sentence: The Soviets began sending pilots to Korea even though they were not officially in the war because they thought air superiority was very important to achieve.
1. In June of 1951, the Soviets began sending in pilots who were better trained and somewhat more effective (Feltus 2).
2. “The Soviets wore North Korean uniforms and attempted to speak Korean while airborne, reading phrases off tablets carried in the cockpit” (Grier 7).
B. Concluding Sentence: As shown, Russia was willing to become involved in the Korean War in order to attempt to accomplish air superiority.
IX. Jets
A. Topic Sentence: Jet aircraft played a major part in the US and its allies defeating the North Koreans.
1. “Commander General Otto Weyland testified several years later that ‘we are pretty sure that the Communists wanted peace, not because of a two-year stalemate on the ground, but to get air power off their back’” (Feltus 3).
2. “As a tactical weapon, jet aircraft proved superior to conventional types in all respects except for its limited endurance at low altitudes and its demands for greater logistics support” (Gt. Brit. Royal Air Force 1).
B. Concluding Sentence: Accordingly, jet aircraft were an essential to the US victory in Korea.
X. Conclusion
Restate Thesis: Thus, jets were a significant factor in ending Korean War; more specifically, the superiority of the U.S. pilots was a major factor in ending the war.

Final Wksht On Japanese Americans

2004-03-31T21:26:00.000-06:00

Racial Prejudice: Even before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Asians, the government discriminated against more specifically Japanese. San Francisco students Japanese were segregated in the schools. Californian Asians couldn’t own land. Immigration act terminated Japanese immigration to the US. This was all before Pearl Harbor.

Wartime Hysteria: After the war began, the American’s prejudice towards Asians elevated into mass hysteria. The Secretary of the Navy claimed that it was a Japanese “fifth column” caused Pearl Harbor. “Enemy aliens” were registered and fingerprinted. Roosevelt approved the Japanese-Americans’ “evacuation.”

Failure of Political Leadership: The political leaders of the U.S. failed to prevent the prejudice and hysteria from happening; worse than that, they brought about most of it. Many government officials stated that Japanese-Americans were responsible for Pearl Harbor including the Secretary of the Navy. Also, the pacific coast was declared a war zone.

Rough Draft Start

2004-03-31T13:48:00.000-06:00

The first war jet aircraft were predominatly used in was the Korean War. Becaue of differences between Korea and previous wars, namely that Korea was much less developed, aircraft were used much differently. Jet aircraft were very essential to each side in the war because Korea was less developed.

The Korean War Was different from the previous wars the U.S. had fought in that our adversary was not a developed country. "The conflict in the Korean war was one of firsts: the first jet war, [...] the first major war against an agricultural nation, and the first war of the nuclear era" (Feltus 3). Thus, unlike World War II the air force could not simply bomb political and military targets; instead, much of the air action was aircraft to aircraft fighting. "Korea may have been America's 'forgotten war,' overshadowed by World War II, but in retrospect it was clearly a pivotal event for the US military in general and the US Air Force in particular" (Grier 2).

Bginning of Jpanese Worksheet

2004-03-31T10:25:00.000-06:00

Holocaust worksheet

2004-03-31T09:45:00.000-06:00

1. One of the cultural factors was widespread anti-Semitism. One of the economic factors was a high unemployment rate causing anti-immigration attitudes; as an effect, the public did not want refugees coming to the U.S. One political factor was that Americans were skeptical about reports of the Holocaust because in World War I many atrocity reports had been exaggerated.
2. The United Sates can be held accountable for its inaction to stop the Holocaust. In 1942, the U.S. was the Riegner Report with evidence of the Nazi plan to exterminate the Jews. Also, In 1944 a report found the government “guilty not only of a gross procrastination and willful failure to act, and even of willful attempts to prevent action from being taken to rescue Jews from Hitler.” Additionally, the U.S. military bombed parts of Auschwitz in 1944, but did not try to bomb the gas chambers.
3. Roosevelt can be held accountable for the government’s inaction to save the Jews; he eventually did form an organization that attempted to save the Jews, but it was too late to prevent the Holocaust. While Roosevelt may not actually have formed the policies that led to the not helping the Jews, he delegated the responsibility to the State Department. Roosevelt wanted to save the Jews, but he did not try through bombing the gas chambers, instead insisting that winning the war was the only way to save the Jews. Roosevelt did create the WRB in 1944 that did attempt to save the Jews, but the damage was already done.
4. The United States should have bombed the concentration camps and asked Hitler to stop the killing of the Jews. Even though these may not have worked, some of the deaths in the holocaust may have been prevented.

Holocaust

2004-03-29T09:35:00.000-06:00

7 million jews and others

hitler

third rike

stalin killed over 20 million

genocide

Hitler's genocide:

at first - firing squad

--------------------

factors that slowed american intervention

why?

could the US have prevented this from happening

Speech

2004-03-27T10:12:00.000-06:00

1.     USA PATRIOT Act - Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism
2.     Rushed into place
     a.     Long Bill - Passed quickly
          i.     342 pages
          ii.     5 weeks between when it was introduced and when it was passed
          iii.     Some senators complain, they had almost no time to even read the bill much less debate it before it was voted on
          iv.     Many sections are appropriate and have viable relation to terrorism.
          v.     But many may not have been debated enough.
     b.     Expanded Search rights
          i.     Especially with information held by 3rd parties
          ii.     The government no longer has to show evidence that the subjects of search orders are an "agent of a foreign power,"
          iii.     All the government needs to do is say that the request is related to an ongoing terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation.
          iv.     Almost no Judicial oversight
               1.     The government must only tell a judge (no proof needed) that such a search meets the statute's broad criteria,
               2.     Judge cannot reject request
          v.     Surveillance orders can be based in part on the books they read, the Web sites they visit, or a letter to the editor they have written.
          vi.     Whoever is required to turn over the information, cannot tell anyone.
          vii.     Roving wire taps. Anyone can be monitored at any time.
          viii.     ISP’s have to hand over much more info with merely a subpoena.
     c.     "Domestic terrorism"
          i.     Changes protesters into terrorists if they engage in conduct that "involves acts dangerous to human life" to "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion."
          ii.     Greenpeace could be a terrorist organization.
3.     Many provisions not about terrorism.
     a.     No need for court order to spy on suspected hacker.
     b.     Anyone convicted of a crime of violence will be added to a DNA bank. (not just terrorists)
     c.     Wiretaps can be used for any suspected breaking of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
     d.     Computer Fraud and Abuse Act - penalties and scope are greater.
     e.     Partial Repeal of 1970s ruling meant to stop McArthy-like surveillance from happening.
4.     Unconstitutional
     a.     Fourth Amendment, which says the government cannot conduct a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime.
     b.     First Amendment's guarantee of free speech by prohibiting the recipients of search orders from telling others about those orders, even where there is no real need for secrecy.
     c.     First Amendment by effectively authorizing the FBI to launch investigations of American citizens in part for exercising their freedom of speech.
     d.     Fourth Amendment by failing to provide notice - even after the fact - to persons whose privacy has been compromised. Notice is also a key element of due process, which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
5.     What to do about PATRIOT
     a.     Join EFF
     b.     Join ACLU
     c.     Write to your Senator
          i.     Tell them to vote against the effort to make PATRIOT permanent

Atomic Bomb

2004-03-26T09:41:00.000-06:00

To Drop or Not to drop - How to end World War II - A Presidential decision
Dr. Farrington Daniels, the director of the Met. Lab at the University of Chicago, polled 150 scientists working on the atomic bomb, in order to get their views on how the bomb should be used. These were the choices they could vote upon:

1. Use the bombs in the manner that, from a military point of view, is most effective in bringing about prompt surrender at minimum human cost to U.S.

2. Give a military demonstration in Japan to be followed by renewed opportunity for surrender before full use of the weapon is employed.

3. Give an experimental demonstration in this country, with representatives of Japan present; followed by a new opportunity to surrender before full use of the weapon is employed.

4. Withhold military use of the weapon, but make a public experimental demonstration of its effectiveness.

5. Maintain as secret as possible all developments of our new weapons and refrain from using them in this war.

Using information from the briefing packet list pros and cons for each then make your decision. Justify your decision. Bomb chart

This is how the scientists voted on five different methods of using the bomb are listed on the questionnaire:

23 votes- Use the bombs in the manner that, from a military point of view, is most effective in bringing about prompt surrender at minimum human cost toU.S.

69 votes- Give a military demonstration in Japan to be followed by renewed opportunity for surrender before full use of the weapon is employed.

39 votes- Give an experimental demonstration in this country, with representatives of Japan present; followed by a new opportunity to surrender before full use of the weapon is employed.

16 votes- Withhold military use of the weapon, but make a public experimental demonstration of its effectiveness.

3 votes- Maintain as secret as possible all developments of our new weapons and refrain from using them in this war.

A SUMMARY OF THE ARTICLE
HIROSHIMA: WAS IT NECESSARY?

With the end of the European war, the Allies focused their efforts on Japan. Japan still fought fanatically, despite being badly hurt by bombing and blockade.

The Potsdam Proclamation, which demanded the unconditional surrender of Japan, was issued. It made no mention of Japan's central surrender condition: the status of the Emperor. Japan rejected the Proclamation.

The Japanese believed the Emperor to be a god (this is a key point).

The U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Russia declared war against Japan.

Japan, because of its military, still refused to surrender.

Japanese peace advocates, fearing the imminent destruction of the Emperor, prevailed upon the Emperor to break with tradition and make government policy by calling for peace now. The Emperor did so.

As the result of the Emperor's call for surrender, the entire Japanese cabinet, including the military, agreed to surrender. The cabinet saw that this would allow the Emperor to be retained.

Even Japan's doves would have fought to the death had they not felt the Emperor would be spared. They saw "unconditional surrender" as a threat to the Emperor.

President Truman had been advised of the importance of the Emperor to the Japanese.

Japan was seeking Russia's help to end the war in July 1945. The U.S. was aware of this at the time thru intercepted Japanese cables. But the U.S. did not keep up with this change in Japan's position.

The U.S. chose military methods of ending the war rather than diplomatic methods. The desire for revenge helped make military methods more attractive.

Was it necessary to use the atomic bomb on Japan to end the war without an invasion of the Japanese mainland? Quotes from historians who felt it was not necessary can be found in: Article. Quotes from prominent Americans who felt the atomic bombings were not necessary can be found in: Quotes.

We probably could have ended the war sooner with fewer deaths on all sides by using the full carrot and stick: 1) offer retention of the Emperor for a quick surrender; and 2) threaten Russian invasion and 3) atomic destruction as the alternative. None of these key incentives to surrender were used prior to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima.

Had the above method failed, and had the Russian invasion failed to bring surrender soon, the atomic bombs were still available - but as a last resort.

After the atomic bombings, Japan was allowed to retain their Emperor, anyway.

A PETITION TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

Discoveries of which the people of the United States are not aware may affect the welfare of this nation in the near future. The liberation of atomic power which has been achieved places atomic bombs in the hands of the Army. It places in your hands, as Commander-in-Chief, the fateful decision whether or not to sanction the use of such bombs in the present phase of the war against Japan.

We, the undersigned scientists, have been working in the field of atomic power. Until recently, we have had to fear that the United States might be attacked by atomic bombs during this war and that her only defense might lie in a counterattack by the same means. Today, with the defeat of Germany, this danger is averted and we feel impelled to say what follows:

The war has to be brought speedily to a successful conclusion and attacks by atomic bombs may very well be an effective method of warfare. We feel, however, that such attacks on Japan could not be justified, at least not unless the terms which will be imposed after the war on Japan were made public in detail and Japan were given an opportunity to surrender.

If such public announcement gave assurance to the Japanese that they could look forward to a life devoted to peaceful pursuits in their homeland and if Japan still refused to surrender our nation might then, in certain circumstances, find itself forced to resort to the use of atomic bombs. Such a step, however, ought not to be made at any time without seriously considering the moral responsibilities which are involved.

The development of atomic power will provide the nations with new means of destruction. The atomic bombs at our disposal represent only the first step in this direction, and there is almost no limit to the destructive power which will become available in the course of their future development. Thus a nation which sets the precedent of using these newly liberated forces of nature for purposes of destruction may have to bear the responsibility of opening the door to an era of devastation on an unimaginable scale.

If after this war a situation is allowed to develop in the world which permits rival powers to be in uncontrolled possession of these new means of destruction, the cities of the United States as well as the cities of other nations will be in continuous danger of sudden annihilation. All the resources of the United States, moral and material, may have to be mobilized to prevent the advent of such a world situation. Its prevention is at present the solemn responsibility of the United States -- singled out by virtue of her lead in the field of atomic power.

The added material strength which this lead gives to the United States brings with it the obligation of restraint and if we were to violate this obligation our moral position would be weakened in the eyes of the world and in our own eyes. It would then be more difficult for us to live up to our responsibility of bringing the unloosened forces of destruction under control.

In view of the foregoing, we, the undersigned, respectfully petition: first, that you exercise your power as Commander-in-Chief, to rule that the United States shall not resort to the use of atomic bombs in this war unless the terms which will be imposed upon Japan have been made public in detail and Japan knowing these terms has refused to surrender; second, that in such an event the question whether or not to use atomic bombs be decided by you in light of the considerations presented in this petition as well as all the other moral responsibilities which are involved.

Leo Szilard and 69 co-signers

Signers listed in alphabetical order, with position identifications added:

1. DAVID S. ANTHONY, Associate Chemist
2. LARNED B. ASPREY, Junior Chemist, S.E.D.
3. WALTER BARTKY, Assistant Director
4. AUSTIN M. BRUES, Director, Biology Division
5. MARY BURKE, Research Assistant
6. ALBERT CAHN, JR., Junior Physicist
7. GEORGE R. CARLSON, Research Assistant-Physics
8. KENNETH STEWART COLE, Principal Bio-Physicist
9. ETHALINE HARTGE CORTELYOU, Junior Chemist
10. JOHN CRAWFORD, Physicist
11. MARY M. DAILEY,Research Assistant
12. MIRIAM P. FINKEL, Associate Biologist
13. FRANK G. FOOTE, Metallurgist
14. HORACE OWEN FRANCE, Associate Biologist
15. MARK S. FRED, Research Associate-Chemistry
16. SHERMAN FRIED, Chemist
17. FRANCIS LEE FRIEDMAN, Physicist
18. MELVIN S. FRIEDMAN, Associate Chemist
19. MILDRED C. GINSBERG, Computer
20. NORMAN GOLDSTEIN, Junior Physicist
21. SHEFFIELD GORDON, Associate Chemist
22. WALTER J. GRUNDHAUSER, Research Assistant
23. CHARLES W. HAGEN, Research Assistant
24. DAVID B. HALL, position not identified
25. DAVID L. HILL, Associate Physicist, Argonne
26. JOHN PERRY HOWE, JR., Associate Division Director, Chemistry
27. EARL K. HYDE, Associate Chemist
28. JASPER B. JEFFRIES, Junior Physicist, Junior Chemist
29. WILLIAM KARUSH, Associate Physicist
30. TRUMAN P. KOHMAN, Chemist-Research
31. HERBERT E. KUBITSCHEK, Junior Physicist
32. ALEXANDER LANGSDORF, JR., Research Associate
33. RALPH E. LAPP, Assistant to Division Director
34. LAWRENCE B. MAGNUSSON, Junior Chemist
35. ROBERT JOSEPH MAURER, Physicist
36. NORMAN FREDERICK MODINE, Research Assistant
37. GEORGE S. MONK, Physicist
38. ROBERT JAMES MOON, Physicist
39. MARIETTA CATHERINE MOORE, Technician
40. ROBERT SANDERSON MULLIKEN, Coordinator of Information
41. J. J. NICKSON, [Medical Doctor, Biology Division]
42. WILLIAM PENROD NORRIS, Associate Biochemist
43. PAUL RADELL O'CONNOR, Junior Chemist
44. LEO ARTHUR OHLINGER, Senior Engineer
45. ALFRED PFANSTIEHL, Junior Physicist
46. ROBERT LEROY PLATZMAN, Chemist
47. C. LADD PROSSER, Biologist
48. ROBERT LAMBURN PURBRICK, Junior Physicist
49. WILFRED RALL, Research Assistant-Physics
50. MARGARET H. RAND, Research Assistant, Health Section
51. WILLIAM RUBINSON, Chemist
52. B. ROSWELL RUSSELL, position not identified
53. GEORGE ALAN SACHER, Associate Biologist
54. FRANCIS R. SHONKA, Physicist
54. ERIC L. SIMMONS, Associate Biologist, Health Group
56. JOHN A. SIMPSON, JR., Physicist
57. ELLIS P. STEINBERG, Junior Chemist
58. D. C. STEWART, S/SGT S.E.D.
59. GEORGE SVIHLA, position not identified [Health Group]
60. MARGUERITE N. SWIFT, Associate Physiologist, Health Group
61. LEO SZILARD, Chief Physicist
62. RALPH E. TELFORD, position not identified
63. JOSEPH D. TERESI, Associate Chemist
64. ALBERT WATTENBERG, Physicist
65. KATHERINE WAY, Research Assistant
66. EDGAR FRANCIS WESTRUM, JR., Chemist
67. EUGENE PAUL WIGNER, Physicist
68. ERNEST J. WILKINS, JR., Associate Physicist
69. HOYLANDE YOUNG, Senior Chemist
70. WILLIAM F. H. ZACHARIASEN, Consultant

Source note: The position identifications for the signers are based on two undated lists, both titled "July 17, 1945," in the same file as the petition in the National Archives. From internal evidence, one probably was prepared in late 1945 and the other in late 1946. Signers were categorized as either "Important" or "Not Important," and dates of termination from project employment were listed in many cases. It is reasonable to conclude that the lists were prepared and used for the purpose of administrative retaliation against the petition signers.

Hw

2004-03-25T22:34:00.000-06:00

Pacific Theatre:

Battle of Coral Sea: first aircraft carrier vs carrier battle. japan tries to take control of new guiniea. first real us opposition since beginning of war. diversion of japanese redources will have major influence in midway.

Battle of Midway: first time the us and japan had equal air forces. SUPERIOR US INTELEGENCE = US trap for japanese forces (suprise attack) soon afterward us gained equal air superiorority. us to offencive.

MacArthur: army 5 star general. lost battle for the philipines. then became supreme commander of allied forces in the pacific. took new guinea and eventually philipines in 1944. he recived japan's formal surrender in 1945.
Nimitz: commander and cheif of us naval forces in pacific. brilian tactician. immeaditly halted japanese advance after pearl harbor. then quickly began to attack back. captured many istlands. signed for us at japanese surrender.

Tstland Hopping: idea to capture istland by istland until we were in bombing range of Japan. Conquest of Phillipines brought US close enough to Japan to bomb.

Battle of Guam: 1941: japan took guam with about 2000 troops aginst the US's 200 marines. 1944: marines come back to reclaim guam. first (signifigant) recapturing of us teritory from japan. guam provided base for b-29 raids. and strong us morale boost.

WW 2

2004-03-25T09:36:00.000-06:00

why we fought in euroupe first:

our pacific fleet was destroyed. so we started in africa:

operation torch:

1st us battle
proving ground
practice
us and british fighting together. showed it would work

stalin upset.

second front in africa is not good for USSR

stalingrad - turning point

operation overlord - satisfies stalin with a second front

hitler is sandwitched between USSR and USA and GB

Battle of the Bulge - hitler attempts to break through american sector (creates "bulge" in american defences)

Largest land battle of WW 2 for the Americans

eisenhower - charge of allied command

Pacific Theatre:
battle of coral sea: first aircraft carrier vs carrier battle. japan tries to take control of new guiniea. first real us opposition since beginning of war.
battle of midway: first time the us and japan had equal air forces. (us trap for japanese forces) (suprise attack) soon afterward us gained equal air superiorority. us to offencive.
MacArthur:
Nimitz:
istland hopping: idea to capture istland by istland until we were in range of Japan. Conquest of Phillipines brought US close enough to Japan to bomb.
battle of guam:

2004-03-25T08:52:00.000-06:00

1.USA PATRIOT Act - Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism
2.Rushed into place
a. 342 pages
b. 5 weeks between when it was intoduced and when it was passed
c. Many sections appropriate. But many may not have been debated enough.
3. Expanded Search rights
a. Government can monitor internet/computer use by simply telling a judge the info is relevant to a investigation. The judge must grant this request. Person being monitored doent need to be notified.
b. Roving wire taps. Anyone can be monitored at any time.
c. ISP’s have to hand over much more info with merely a subopena.
d. Terrorism is too widely defined. Concerns that protests (especially if violence erupts) can be defined as terrorism.
4.Many provisions not about terrorism.
a. No need for court order to spy on suspected hacker.
b. Anyone convicted of a crime of violence will be added to a DNA bank. (not just terrorists)
c. Wiretaps can be used for any suspected abuse of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
d. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act - penalties and scope are greater.
e. Allows Americans to be More Easily Spied Upon by government
f. Increased information sharing between domestic law enforcement and intelligence. - Partial Repeal of 1970s ruling meant to stop McArthy-like survalence from happening.

WW 2

2004-03-24T09:56:00.002-06:00

why did the US attack in Europe instead of Japan?

operation torch - open new front. provided experience with US soilder. showed nazis they are vulnerable to ground attack.

operation overlord (know beaches) -

Battle of Stalingrad

Battle of the Bulge

Read DIGITAL HISTORY

WW 2

2004-03-24T09:56:00.001-06:00

why did the US attack in Europe instead of Japan?

operation torch

operation overlord

battle of stalingrad

WW 2

2004-03-24T09:56:00.000-06:00

why did the US attack in Europe instead of Japan?

ww 2

2004-03-23T10:06:00.000-06:00

alies
---
USSR (will change sides)
UK
USA

axis
---
Germany
Italy
Japan

churchil and roosevelt

atlantic charter

if US gets into war

plan is

euroupe 1st then japan

germans didnt attack us it was japan.. people are like ???

appeasement

2004-03-23T10:01:00.001-06:00

munich confrence

takes over austria

noone does anything about it = appeasement

takes over sudenteman

hitler took czechoslovakia and promised no more

appeasement

talked to stalin . agreed that hitler will attack poland, and if USSR doesnt react to it. USSR gets half of poland.

appeasement

2004-03-23T10:01:00.000-06:00

WW 2

2004-03-23T09:44:00.000-06:00

Japan invades China.

Manchurian

Roosevelt comes up with quarintine speech

wants to not trade with either

1939 hitler invades poland very quickly

almost year with little fighting

hitler attacks netherlands and france

blitz kreig - areoplanes then troops

hitler moves fast

1940. almost all of western euroupe under hitler's control

wants UK

britan is hurting

lack of supplies

roosevelt gives speech saying the US should help britan

gets approval

1941 - lend lease act

england needs ships

cant sell or give

trades for ports

congress doesnt know

unconstitutional???

janurary 1641

1942
congress declares war after pearl harbor

only one person voted against war

1st draft of essay

2004-03-13T12:34:00.000-06:00

The new deal was an attempt to fashion a more stable economy, and create a more equitable society. Three of the measures of the new deal that helped accomplish this goal, was the AAA (Agricultural Adjustment Act), the NLRA (Wagner Labor Relocating Act), and the Social Security act.

The farmers were suffering greatly because of the depression, because they had overproduced their crops, while the demand had decreased. Consequently, the price of crops dropped greatly; what was almost $3 worth of wheat in 1920 sold for $1 in 1929 and 30 cents in 1932. One of the ways Roosevelt’s new deal attempted to help the farmers was through the AAA. The AAA paid farmers to not grow some of their crops, so the supply would decrease, and the price of crops would rise. This was effective, but it hurt tenant farmers and sharecroppers more than it helped them. Landowners would receive the money from the government, and use it to buy more farm equipment, reducing the need for tenant farmers or sharecroppers. As a result, many of the tenant farmers were evicted. While the AAA helped establish a more stable economy, it failed to help the sharecroppers who were hit hardest by the depression. Thus, the AAA did not accomplish its goal of a more equitable society. The AAA was ruled unconstitutional, because it imposed a tax on the producers to give to the farmers. However, later AAA was passed that still remains today.

Another measure of the new deal was the NLRA. The NLRA sought to change the fact that workers could be fired for being in a union. This was especially a problem in the great depression, as there were so many people out of work that it was easy to replace a fired worker. Because of this, few workers were in union; in 1933, only 10% of workers were in unions. The NLRA sought to create a more equitable society, by giving workers an opportunity to make changes in the workplace. Also, it stabilized the economy by helping to ensure that people had a steady job. After the NLRA was passed, union membership went up; by 1945, 35% of workers were unionized. The NLRA even benefited women, as by the end of the 30’s, women’s union membership had tripled.

One of the other measures of the new deal was the Social Security Act. It was created to create a more equitable society, by providing money to the elderly, dependent children, and the handicapped. It was a very controversial part of the new deal. Some argued that this was a step towards socialism. Others argued that a large burden was placed on the poor through taxes for the social security. In spite of the criticism, the Social Security Act was a success. It helped stabilize the economy, and form a more equitable society. Because of this, it still remains today.

Thus, the new deal was created to form a more stable economy, and create a more equitable society. It was successful in many cases, but often minorities suffered from the changes. Overall however, the new deal was a success.

Digital History

2004-03-13T09:03:00.000-06:00

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/

minorities

2004-03-11T10:18:00.000-06:00

african american sharecroppers suffer from new deal (AAA)

roosevelt not for civil equality because he would not have won

elanor balanced this out

minor things that happened

digital history hw

last 5

know if new deal is sucess..

Elanor Roosevelt

2004-03-11T09:33:00.000-06:00

Elanor Roosevelt Resignation

She recived thousands of letters asking for financial help ect.

Helped in other ways. Child care.

She was often seen with black children at picknics.

Press didnt like this.

Patriot Act Leadership

2004-03-11T08:56:00.000-06:00

Text of Patriot Act

ANTI:
EFF analysis of Patriot Act

CCR (Center for Constitutional Rights)

Argument Because of International Students loss of rights under Patriot Act

Free Expression Policy Project (think tank) views, more..

PRO:
Life & Liberty (Find out for sure what exactly this is)

OTHER:
NYT article about making the Patriot act permanent

Google Directory on Patriot Act

Court Case as Reference

Hw

2004-03-10T09:52:00.000-06:00

Relief:

Emergency Relief Banking Act: The banks had a problem. According to livinghistoryfarm.org, during the first 10 months of 1930, 744 banks failed. 9,000 banks failed during the decade of the 30s, by 1933, $140 billion of investor’s money was lost. There was a lack of regulation on banks. The banks were failing, and around 15% of people’s life savings had lost. Roosevelt closed all banks temporarily. They then passed the Emergency Relief Banking Act. It would reopen banks, as soon as government decided they were financially secured, or solvent. According to digital history, within 3 days, 5000 banks were reopened. This worked, as when the banks reopened, there were more deposits than withdrawals.

finish. do reform, recovery.

http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/Lesson_86_Notes.htm

http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe30s/money_08.html

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/resource_guides/content_sources.cfm?tpc=24

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=468

links depression

2004-03-10T09:35:00.000-06:00

Rosevelts Critics

Roosevelt’s Court packing plan

2004-03-09T19:08:00.000-06:00

A move by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to increase the size of the Supreme Court and then bring in several new justices who would change the balance of opinion on the Court. Roosevelt proposed to pack the Court in the 1930s, when several conservative justices were inclined to declare parts of his program, the New Deal, unconstitutional. Congress would not allow the number of justices to be increased, and Roosevelt was criticized for trying to undermine the independence of the Court.

hw

2004-03-09T10:24:00.000-06:00

paragraph. rosevelts court packing plan.

Great Depression.

2004-03-09T09:42:00.000-06:00

scheter vs united states

complaint that the NRA was illigal

NRA = the National Recovery Administration (NRA), which sought to revive industry through rational planning. The idea behind the NRA was simple: representatives of business, labor, and government would establish codes of fair practices which would set prices, production levels, minimum wages, and maximum hours within each industry. The NRA also supported workers' right to join labor unions. By ending ruinous competition, overproduction, labor conflicts, and deflating prices, the NRA sought to stabilize the economy.

court agreed: In its famous "dead chicken" decision, Schechter v. the U.S., the court agreed, declaring that Congress had delegated excessive authority to the president and had improperly involved the federal government in regulating intrastate commerce. Complained Roosevelt, "We have been relegated to the horse-and-buggy definition of interstate commerce."

"black mark against new deal program"

us vs butler

suit aginst AAA

pocessors angry because they are getting no money

Supreme Court agrees

changes how money is transfered in AAA

before

processor taxes -> farmers

processor taxes -> government -> farmers

20s -> 30s
lazeferre twoards government -> radical shift twoards "progressivism" (new deal)

Three R's

2004-03-08T09:44:00.000-06:00

releif: help people in depression

reform: prevent future problems

recovery: get out of slump

Great Depression

2004-03-03T09:33:00.000-06:00

8 reasons why:

1. sick industries - textile, mining, agriculture - collapsed (farmers)
2. maldistribution of wealth of country - rich people put money in stock market (rich people have all money)
3. Underpayment of workers (workers are getting less, and the money is being put in the stock market)
4. Underconsumption - surpluses (people were not making enough money to buy stuff)
5. Oligopolies - corporations get together to raise prices on their comoddities (higher prices)
6. Speculative investments - speculators put money into stock market, then pull out and make money -stock market is inflated (inflation because people play stock market to make money quickly)
7. credit bubble - "buy now pay later" - people put money in stock market - buying on the margin (borrow money, invest in stock market) (stock market is inflated)
8. Interest Rates - irrisponsible government (government does little to solve problems)

1920, 1930 -> Now
small government -> huge buracracy

Homework:
read first 7 articles under digital history 1930s textbook

1920s.. and womens rights

2004-02-25T09:38:00.000-06:00

if you have a nice car ect, nobody cares where the money came from
you get a high social status

people are starting to be judged by what they have, not what they are

big rise in KKK. because it is victorian vs new values

KKK = victorian

they want to keep way it is

consumer values prominent

women promoted this lots

women:
secraterys
store clerks
ect

still on the bottom rung of jobs

new age women = seen having fun

unchaperoned dating -> automobile

modern women wanted to be morally free

bobbed hair, smoked cigarettes in public

new youth culture emerges

jazz, modern dancing

leisured housewife = middle class

end of 1920s = great depression.

1940s WW II

women basically take over the entire economy

african american women go north, and are hired for good money

government says go back to houses after war

baby boomer

1946 - 1954

soilders come home, marry sweetharts and have kids

1950s - cult of domesticity

leave it to beaver.. ect.. shows to promote dometicity - no sexuality shown whatsoever

cold war

womens liberation movement of the 60s
50s = conformity
60 s = decent

feminnie mistique : "june cleaver was living in a comfortable concentration camp"

national discrimination act - no descrimination based on race, sex, or religion

NOW - national orginisation of women
radical group
pro abortion
anti miss america
wanted womens rights

title 9 - cannot deny applications to college based on gender

backlash to this:
fundamentalists - right wing of republicans
"movement was breaking down american family"
"working women dont teach kids properly"
ect..
also think "gay movement destructive to society"

today - return to family values

Anti suffrage:

2004-02-24T10:22:00.000-06:00

Farmers

Liquor Manufacurers

Link

2004-02-24T09:55:00.000-06:00

Decloration of Sentience by Suffragist

Senica Falls

2004-02-24T09:32:00.000-06:00

In July 1848 more than 300 men and women assembled in Seneca Falls, New York, for the nation's first women's rights convention. Elizabeth Cady Stanton documented the historic 1848 meeting by compiling this scrapbook of contemporary newspaper clippings. Years later Stanton's daughter Harriot enhanced the scrapbook with several additions, including this photograph of a clipping depicting her mother in the controversial bloomer outfit. Stanton's cousin Elizabeth Smith Miller introduced the outfit and editor Amelia Bloomer publicized its healthful and liberating benefits in her newspaper The Lily.

Susan B Anthony makes womens bible. Very radical. Asked for right to vote. Say religion opresses women.

New group joins with them

National Suffrage Association

Cat and Shaw

until 1896 - no progress

'doldrum period'

wyoming colarado idaho and utah.. women get right to vote by 1896.

why: bring women there. miners and cowboys need to become civilized.

utah exeption: Mormons. women make 50% of population. nonmormons are coming in, mormons fear loss of control.

quakers. most women suffrage were quakers. belived in equality

progressivism - turn of century

figure out: what argument for womens right to vote

ways to accomplish suffrage:

political cartoons

campaign for laws granting women voting rights

picket

hunger strikes

rallies

marches

Why right to vote:

women are not less equal than men to vote

virtue of the nation

south "equalize the colored vote"

blacks right to vote, why not women?

look at corruption, women are said to be virtuous, why not right to vote?

educators, nurses. suited for helping america

arguemnt: women could counter outside vote, and keep a wasp (white anglo saxon protestant) majority

however. women do not get right to vote just yet.

Women's Rights Cont...

2004-02-23T10:19:00.000-06:00

1

2

Women's Rights Cont...

2004-02-23T10:04:00.000-06:00

Betty Friedan-

in grad school to get PhD in psycology when quit school, got maried and had three kids

1957 she sent out questionares to women graduates from her class

Again and again, she found women suffering from "a sense of dissatisfaction."

many women feel "incomplete"

CBS broadcast a television documentary entitled "The Trapped Housewife."

nations "happy" housewife "dissatisfied with a lot that women of other lands can only dream of. Her discontent is deep, pervasive, and impervious to the superficial remedies which are offered at every hand."

Friedans Book - The Femminine Mistique

helped launch new movement for women's liberation

Here

Women's Rights

2004-02-23T09:36:00.000-06:00

Be able to evaluate the sucesses of the women's liberation movement, and the changing roles of women in America.

john adams: wife outspoken. .. no rights for women in constitution..

why the changes?

prior to industrial revolutuion

farmers

women role hammered into stone

women roles:

cook

garden

make clothes

raise kids (big family)

clean

take care of produce

worked alot

then came industrial revolution

rural to urban

changes for women

industrialization created a middle class

middle class women: role change

home is not central to survival (unlike farm)

work is now central to survival

middle class wanted certian status: wife no longer needed to work

people striving to make $ to hire servants

imigrant people had to work

wife not work = middle class

wife work = lower class

middle class women not tied to economics in any way

cult of domesticity- women should stay home. function to rear children (created by middle class men) (they thought that women were "different" than men)

men were seen as agressive and rational.

women were seen as morally pure. women = virtue

women seen as irrational and emotinal (suited to raise children)

Turn of century- men repressed women

this does not apply to agricutural life.

fundamentalists - farm society

middle class women look down on working women

women liberation movement - 2 main thoughts

1) women = men (in ability) - women can do whatever men can
2) women != men (in ability) - women and men are diff

VOTE- big deal

many women were abolitionists

women thought that women and blacks were "slaves together" effectively

after 13 14 15 ammendment women devide from abolitionists

women:

couldnt vote
couldnt own property
couldny get kids

women known for:
nurses, caregivers
teachers

Suffrage:
Susan B Anthony
Sojurner Truth
elizabeth katie stantion
lucritia mott

cenica falls

new york

fredric douglass - speaker