World History Homework Twelve Answers - Student Four

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

AddisonDM 01:57, 1 May 2009 (EDT)

1.World War II began in the 1930s (1931 in Asia, 1938 in Europe) and ended in 1945. The war was fought in the Pacific Islands, Russia, Eastern and Western Europe, and England (through bombing raids). The Great Depression and the Treaty of Versailles helped Hitler gain power and the Treaty especially was a major reason he began the war in Europe. Japan’s reasons for fighting were its strong military, nationalistic character, and need for resources. Hitler led Germany, Hirohito led Japan, Stalin led Russia, Churchill led Britain, Mussolini led Italy, and Roosevelt led the USA.

Terrific answer! Model quality.

2.The greatest difference between communism and fascism is that communism is international while fascism is extreme nationalism. Also, communism does not focus on national identity but on equality among classes and all people. Fascism sees its nation as being above other nations, its people as above other people, and it encourages or at least does not interfere with class differences. But perhaps what unites them is greater than what divides them! Both stress the collective and squash individual freedom, both encourage some form of government control over the economy, both display a disdain for human rights, and both command complete allegiance to a dictator.

Wow, one of the best answers in the class all year. Will definitely use as a model. Great wikifying, by the way.

3.More even than Hitler’s vision of a supreme race, I think Hitler’s need for a scapegoat motivated his murder. By demonizing the Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and other groups he hated, he both unified his people and made them wary of anyone who was not like themselves. Perhaps the German people thought these groups really were responsible for the hardship in Germany, and so they saw Hitler as saving them. The public campaign against non-“Aryans” was in a sense the greatest created crisis ever. Of course, Hitler obviously hated these groups too, and that was a reason for his killing so many. Also, he apparently bought into the pseudo-scientific idea of self-directing human evolution, or eugenics.

Superb insight about scapegoating others. Hey, I wonder when "scapegoat" became a verb?! 1943!!!! Bingo - your argument is proven.

4.Chairman Mao’s reign over China essentially turned it into one big forced labor camp. With collective farming and housing, and the suppression of freedom and creativity, life under Mao was eerily close to the dystopian horror of 1984. Russia now had an ally, and now Eastern Europe, Russia, Southeast Asia, part of Korea, and all China were communist. Communist China backed the North Koreans and extended the Korean War, and deprived the US of Chiang Kai-shek as a powerful ally. In short, there were probably no good effects of China becoming communist.

Terrific.

5.The Korean War is the first time Americans and communists faced each other in a war. What’s more, it was only about 8 years after we concluded WWII in which the communist Soviets were our allies. It shows the danger and lack of trustworthiness of the communists.

Fantastic insight again.

6.The Allies (especially Britain) benefited from the development of radar. They also benefited from the skill of the mathematicians who helped break the Enigma code. MacArthur’s “Island hopping” strategy, while seemingly obvious, was a strategic insight. The atomic bomb was the greatest (or worst) technological advance of the whole war.

Superb again.

7.I think we should have entered World War II. Stalin, Hitler, and perhaps even Churchill were too crazed with war fever to leave Europe to them. If we had not entered, there might be no Europe at all today! Just as in World War I, we were able to finish up Europe’s mess. Within less than a year of D-Day, the war in Europe was over. Although I wonder if there were less deadly ways of ending the war all around, I think our intervention definitely shortened the war and as a net measure, saved lives.

Yes, you make your case very well.

Honors

1.First of all, while the number of people killed in 20th century genocides was greater than in the past, I wonder how much bigger the percentage killed is than in the past. But the reason genocide exploded in the 20th century was because of the spellbinding power of the fascist dictators, the communists’ fear of subversion leading to the purges, and the pseudo-scientific Social Darwinism movement. Also, the decline of Christianity played a part. Looking back, it seems like people were completely blind to the killing. This can only happen when 1) God is taken away, 2), replaced with something else (a dictator), and 3) an apparently logical or scientific system (Social Darwinism) dictates murder and cruelty.

Excellent, may use as a model.

3.Specifically, Churchill allowed an air attack on the city of Coventry rather than defend it so that the Germans would know we broke their code. At first, it seems that he could have warned the people but allowed the destruction of the city, although this would mean that some of the people would guess Britain had broken the codes! Or perhaps they could have ordered a mobilization of defense systems everywhere, including Coventry, to appear as a sudden, overarching order. But these and others do not guarantee that the Germans would not find out about the breaking of the code. It seems that allowing the attack is the only foolproof decision. While this seems cruel, and perhaps there is a solution I did not think of, my understanding of morality is that it is okay to do nothing, even if doing nothing results in death. Whether I’m right or wrong, I thank God I am not a head of state during wartime!

Superb analysis. Not sure it's always okay to do nothing, but it sure bolsters your argument!

5.The United Nations is your typical bureaucratic, money-squandering, scandal-ridden, power-hungry organization. You can bet that if it honestly advertised its real activities, such as usurping parental rights and handing out condoms in Africa, that even fewer people would support it than now do. While I don’t think an international organization is necessarily bad, the fact that the UN can make treaties and usurp national sovereignty makes it bad. And in addition to that, it’s essentially a propaganda arm for the leftist agenda. No thanks.

Excellent.

8.I'd just like to mention what I've learned in this course. Due in part to the creationist chronology in the first lecture, I've begun to study the creation-evolution issue, which has fascinating social, political, and historical elements as well as scientific ones. Based partly on the amazing insight of the Classical philosophers and mathematicians, I have started to think that rather than becoming ever more intelligent, that the human mind is actually experiencing progressive devolution, and that the more we discover, the less we are able to think and do things on our own and for ourselves. I have seen more clearly the connection between abandonment of faith and rise in violence and cruelty. I have learned once again that faith is greater than submission and freedom is greater than suppression. And the rest, of course, is history.

Very nice analysis, with a splendid finish! Yes, I think humans are devolving now also. I'm convinced that people were smarter earlier in time. Evolutionists will deny and censor that, but all the evidence is against them. Just read the quality of Civil War letters only a 150 years ago and compare that the writings of average people today. The Federalist Papers 220 years ago was merely a series of newspaper articles! Today it is a college or graduate text. But I digress. Superb answer with a poetic ending.
You answered one more than required, making this perhaps the best homework paper in the entire class all year. Great finish! 110/100.--Andy Schlafly 23:11, 2 May 2009 (EDT)
Personal tools