Watergate & the Constitution

1. It is August 9, 1974. Nixon has just resigned as president. You are a lawyer who has been asked to write a well-developed argument as to whether or not Nixon should be indicted and prosecuted as a civilian for crimes committed during the Watergate scandal. What is your opinion? Be sure to cite evidence from the two-page memorandum and appropriate clauses from the U.S. Constitution (over).

In order to maintain a fair democracy, Nixon must be indicted and prosecuted as a civilian for his crimes. As is shown in Article I, Section 3, Clause 7, presidents who are impeached are able to be indicted; it should be no different for a president who resigns. Once he resigned, he became a citizen of the U.S., just like any other citizen not holding public office; he relinquished his presidential privilege, and therefore deserves no special treatment. Nixon pledged to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" when he took his presidential oath (Article II, section 1, clause 8); rather than doing this, he let the entire nation down. He must be tried for these crimes - it matters not that he was president in the past, but only that he is president no longer.

2. It is September 8, 1974. Nixon has just been pardoned by President Gerald Ford. You are a lawyer who has been asked to write a well-developed argument as to whether or not Nixon should have been pardoned for any crimes committed while he was president. What is your opinion? Be sure to cite evidence from the two-page memorandum, appropriate clauses from the U.S. Constitution (over), and Ford’s pardon and explanation.

Nixon should absolutely not have been pardoned by President Ford. By doing so, Ford taught the nation that being holding power at one point in life made one untouchable; "normal" citizens could be tried and punished, but because he was an ex-president, Nixon was somehow above the rule of the law. Technically, according to Article II, section 2, clause 1, Ford had every right to pardon Nixon; however, I maintain that it spread the wrong message to the nation. Ford states many times, both in his official pardon and in his explanation, that he felt Nixon had suffered enough by resigning from he position of president. This, however, is not truly a punishment for a crime; rather, it is a source of embarrassment that Nixon brought on himself. After all the crimes that Nixon committed or allowed to commit, he should not have been pardoned; he should have been indicted just as any other citizen would have been.

3. Do you think Richard Nixon’s acceptance of Ford’s pardon was an admission of guilt? Explain.

Yes, I do believe that Nixon's acceptance of Ford's pardon was an admission of guilt. Nixon could, very conceivably, have ignored the pardon, under the grounds that he was not guilty, and therefore did not need to be pardoned for a crime he did not commit. By accepting the pardon, Nixon was admitting that he had done something that needed to be pardoned. While it was a flat out confession, it was the closest thing to a confession that Nixon had given over the course of the entire scandal.

United States v. Nixon

The Cover-up

1. Regardless of the outcome, should the President of the United States have a right to privacy in regards to the Oval Office tapes? Explain.

The President should not have the right to privacy in regards to Oval Office tapes. Clearly, the President does get more say than other citizens in what is government business and what is not - however, Presidential privilege should only be allowed to go so far. The President should not have to release tapes on a regular basis - or on the whim of the public of Congress - but if there is solid evidence that the President or his administration is involved in criminal activity, and evidence that the Oval Office tapes might be able to shed some light on the case, the tapes should absolutely not be private. In the case of Nixon, it was Alexander Butterfield's testimony (his saying "I was hoping you wouldn't ask that!" in response to Congress asking if there were Oval Office tapes) that led to the tapes needing to be investigated. In a case such as that, when there is suspected criminal activity with a logical basing, the tapes need to be made public. Not even the President can be entirely above the law.

2. Was President Nixon justified when he fired special prosecutor Archibald Cox? Explain.

Nixon was in no way justified in firing SP Cox. It appears - from the timing of the incident - that the only reason Nixon fired Cox was because Cox was closing in on making Nixon surrender the tapes. This is unjust; the president should not be able to fire someone simply because they are getting too close to uncovering unsavory information about said president. This was another clear example of Nixon's abuse of power; in order to keep himself looking innocent, he was ready and willing to fire anyone who got in his way.

3. Was Nixon creating a Constitutional crisis by refusing to hand-over the tapes? Explain.

Yes, he was. By refusing to hand over the tapes, Nixon raised the question of just how far presidential privilege goes. Up until the point of Watergate, presidential privilege had just been a general idea; once Watergate occurred, it was an issue that needed to be clearly decided. By refusing to hand over the tapes, and claiming that he was "not a crook", Nixon showed the public just how easy it would be for a president to be doing illegal activities and hide it from the public. This was, of course, a clear concern; the constitution gave much power to the president, yes, but clearly, exactly how far that power extended desperately needed to be defined.

Closure

4. Why do you think the American public was so outraged by Watergate?
The American public was outraged because something like this had never occurred on such a large scale before. Watergate was the first "-gate" - the first real presidential scandal. The public was shocked because they felt betrayed; they had poured their trust into Nixon and his administration by giving them their votes, and he simply abused his power and ignored what the public wanted him to do. At first, Nixon had seemed like such a saving grace with the situation in Vietnam; this only made the country feel all the more let down by Watergate.

5. Do you think President Nixon should have resigned? Explain.

Yes, Nixon should have resigned. He was behaving absolutely shamefully - from the beginning (letting the break in of the Democratic offices be organized in the first place) to the end (denying that he and his administration had any part in the scandal even after resigning). When he was sworn in, Nixon was making a promise to lead the country in an appropriate and honest manner; by abusing his power so blatantly, Nixon was clearly breaking oath, and therefore was unfit to maintain the presidency.

6. Do you think President Nixon should have been prosecuted? Explain.

Yes, he should have been prosecuted. Were he not prosecuted, it would have said to the country that the President was in such high standing that he was above the law. This was the issue with watergate in the first place - Nixon and his higher-ups felt that they were above the standing of the law. If Nixon had not been prosecuted, this would have reinforced that theory; it would have made him akin to a monarch, unable to be punished for any wrongdoing. In a democracy, the president should be treated just as any other citizen - because each and every citizen should be treated equally, no matter what official standing of office they do or do not hold.

Watergate: Nixon's Downfall

1. How were the "plumbers" connected to President Nixon?

The Plumbers, named thus because they were hired to "plug up" the leaking of information about the break-in to the public. The Plumbers were made up of many government officials, including E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Libby. Hunt was a former CIA member and then later worked under Nixon in the White House; Libby was a key member of the CRP and had worked for the Nixon administration for several years.

2. Who was the judge? Why did he hand out maximum sentences?

The judge was John Sirica; from the very beginning, he had been sure that the men who committed the break-in had not acted alone, and for that reason was never doubtful of any proof against Nixon and his men.

3. How were Mitchell and Dean connected to Nixon?
Mitchell was Nixon's former Attorney General; Dean was a presidential counsel.

4. How were Haldeman and Erlichman connected to Nixon?
Haldeman was the White House Chief of Staff; Erlichman was the Chief Domestic Advisor.

5. What did the following men tell the Senate about Nixon?

a. Dean

Dean told the Senate that Nixon had been firmly involved in the cover-up; he specifically mentioned one meeting during which he and the president and several other government higher-ups sat around planning strategies for continuing the cover-up.

b. Butterfield

Butterfield alerted the Senate the fact that Nixon taped all of his presidential meetings and conversations, allegedly to help him write his memoirs.

6. Who was fired or forced to resign in the "massacre"?

Attorney General Richardson resigned after Nixon ordered him to fire Cox, the prosecutor in charge of obtaining Nixon's tapes.

7. Why weren't investigators satisified with the transcripts?

The transcripts had been edited - who knows how much - and were therefore not truly useful. They wanted the unedited tapes, which would tell all.

8. What did the tapes reveal?

The tapes did have a few gaps - including one 18.5 minute one that was blamed on the secretary accidentally deleting it - but one tape, from 6 days after the break in, contained a conversation between Haldeman and Nixon that told the HJC exactly what they needed to hear. The president had both known about the roles that his members of office played in the cover-up, and had agreed to block the FBI's investigation of the break-in.

9. Why did Vice President Spiro Agnew resign?
It was revealed that, during his time as Governor of Maryland, he had accepted bribes from engineering companies.

10. What did the House Judiciary Committee charge President Nixon with?

The HJC charged Nixon with "obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress".

11. How did the Watergate scandal create a constitutional crisis?

Throughout his trials and the scandal, Nixon argued that releasing information would put national security at risk. This excuse, which he cited over and over again, created a constitutional crisis in that yes, it was the President's duty to protect national security at all costs; however, it was eventually ruled that even the President cannot hide evidence involving criminal activity.

Women Fight For Equality

Directions: As you read about the rise of a new women’s movement, take notes to explain how each of the following helped to create or advance the movement.

1. Experiences in the workplace: By the 1960s, 40% of American women worked for wages. However, they were still shut out of certain jobs that were considered "men's work", and were instead stuck doing lower-paying "women's jobs" like clerical work, retail sails, nursing, teaching, social work, and domestic service. Until 1961, when Kennedy created the Presidential Commission on the Status of Women. This committee reported 2 years later that women were being paid far less than men, often for the same jobs. Also, women were often passed over for promotions, even if they exceeded men in experience and ability.

2. Experiences in social activism: Even when participating in civil rights movements, women were discriminated against. Men led many of the civil rights organizations, and women were denied proper roles in them.

3. "Consciousness raising": This irony led to many smaller groups to be formed by women, in which their concerns about their treatment in society were discussed. In these "conscious raising" sessions, women banded together and discovered the overlying pattern of sexism that was running rampant in America at the time.

4. Feminism: Feminism was the founding theory behind the women's rights movement. It was the belief that women should have economic, social, and political equality with men.

5. Betty Friedan and The Feminine Mystique: Friedan's book, published in the late 50s or early 60s, called attention to a problem secretly sweeping the nation: millions of unsatisfied housewives, secretly wanting more out of life and not knowing how to get it. Friedan's book called attention to this issue, and soon, women began banding together to do something about it.

6. Civil Rights Act of 1964: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned discrimination based on religion, national origin, and gender, and formed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commision, which handled discrimination claims. Women were excited about this bill, because it dealt with gender, too, and the women's rights movement began picking up even more speed after the passage of this bill. However, the EEOC often did not deal fairly with women's rights issues, and women had to continue trying to find a way to get equality.

7. National Organization for Women (NOW): Created by 28 women, NOW was formed to "pursue women's goals". NOW petitioned for things such as adequate child care facilities so that mothers could join the workforce and become educated. They pressured EEOC to more fairly deal with the gender portion of the Civil Rights Act of '64; this resulted in EEOC declaring it illegal to create jobs for only one sec, and in the creation of guidelines that made it impossible for businesses to refuse to hire women for "men's jobs".

8. Gloria Steinem and Ms. Magazine: Steinem, an ardent feminist, was a very vocal fighter for women's equality. She helped to found the National Women's Political Caucus, which helped women run for political office. In 1972, she helped to create Ms. magazine, which gave the feminist perspective on everyday issues. The women's rights movement was pushing itself in the public eye more so than ever.

9. Congress: In 1972, Congress passed a bill that banned gender discrimination in "any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance". This resulted in many previously all-boys colleges beginning to accept women. Also, the powers of the EEOC were expanded, and working parents were given a tax-break which went to child care expenses, just as the feminists had been pushing for.

10. Supreme Court: The most famous women's rights Supreme Court case was Roe v. Wade. This case debated whether or not women have the right to have an abortion. The SC ruled that women do have the right to an abortion, but only during the first trimester. Some feminists were pacified, while others continued to fight the issue, thinking the ruling too weak.

11. The Equal rights Amendment would have guaranteed equal rights under the law, regardless of gender. Who opposed this amendment? Why?

Many conservative religious groups and prominent conservative figures, such as Phyllis Schlaffy, worried that this bill would lead to such things as the drafting of women into the army, the end of husband's feeling the need to provide for their family, same-sex marriage, and no more laws protecting housewives. Many anti-feminists, who thought the the women's rights movement was simply full of men and marriage haters, also opposed this amendment.

Why did the USA lose the Vietnam War?

Why did the USA lose the Vietnam War?

The Americans did not lose purely for military reasons. There were other factors as well.

Write an explanation AND cite a source which shows the importance of the following six factors:

1. US military tactics in Vietnam

The U.S. used a combination of bombing, chemical warfare, and search-and-destroy techniques when fighting the Viet Cong. (pg. 358-359, The Vietnam War). They went full frontal: bombing cities all over Vietnam, as well as Laos and Cambodia; using Agent Orange and napalm with no concern for damages to civilians or their dwelling place; implementing a severe lack of control during the search-and-destroy missions. All of these tactics, while they may have been effective at ratcheting up the number of Viet Cong casualties, also killed thousands of innocent civilians. This quickly turned the American populace against the war; without the support of its own people, there was no way the U.S. could have won.

2. The unpopularity of the South Vietnamese regime

Although the U.S. backed each and every South Vietnamese government, each and every one was corrupt. (pg. 354, The Vietnam War) The Vietnamese people had contempt for such governments, and were angry at them for not protecting their people more. It is highly difficult to institute an idea into a country when no one supports the idea in the first place; this is exactly what the U.S. was trying to do. They lost the war because no one - not the Vietnamese people, not the American soldiers - were really passionate about what they were fighting for; barely any Vietnamese wanted the Southern government in place anyways.

3. The experience of the Viet Cong and the inexperience of the American soldiers

The Viet Cong quickly learned that, in order to terrify and confuse the U.S. troops to the maximum amount, guerilla tactics were the best tactics to use. The American soldiers were unused to this style of fighting; they became scared of every Vietnamese person they saw, sure that they were really a Viet Cong fighter. The U.S. morale plummeted. (pg. 356, The Vietnam War) Also, the Americans were not used to fighting in jungle conditions - diseases and fatigue wore down the troops nearly as efficiently as the Viet Cong did.

4. Domestic opposition to the war in the U.S.

As mentioned before, it was impossible for the U.S. to win the war when it had little to no support on the home front. The new major usage of media played a big part in this; people were watching on television the Vietnamese children burning from napalm, they were reading in the newspaper about Kent State; the news surrounded then. (pg. 360, The Vietnam War) Protests sprung up all over the U.S.; the reason the U.S. finally began to pull out of the war was because the level of public dissent had become unbearable.

5. Chinese and Soviet support for the Viet Cong

From the time of the Viet Minf, both the Chinese and the USSR were supplying money and supplies to the Viet Cong, enabling the Viet Cong fighters to be just as technologically advanced as the U.S. troops. (pg. 353, The Vietnam War) This meant that the U.S had very little upper hand; they had no tangible advantage. Also, it meant that the U.S. could not use nukes on Vietnam without fear of immediate retaliation. The U.S. lost the war in part due to the fact that the Viet Cong and the U.S. troops were fairly equally matched technology-wise; the Viet Cong were simply more passionate and better used to the conditions.

6. 'But did they really lose?' Summarize the argument put forward in Source 57, and your view on it.
Source 57 claims that from a few standpoints, America technically could not have lost the Vietnam War. From a military standpoint, the U.S. never actually lost any major battles. Also, the Fall of Saigon occurred after the U.S. had pulled out - by that point, it was completely South Vietnam's problem. Finally, most of the people who were forced to evacuate during the Fall of Saigon were Vietnamese people; it was not the American military being forced out.

While this seems to be a good argument in theory, it is an argument put together by looking through only a few loopholes. No, the U.S. did not lose any major battles, but they were constantly losing smaller battles every day; killing innocent civilians in an attempt to eradicate the Viet Cong cannot and should not be counted as a victory. The Fall of Saigon came after the U.S. left, yes, but that doesn't exempt the U.S. from any blame or ties to the war; there were, in fact, still American non-military personal still in Vietnam giving aid to the Vietnamese people at that time. The main issue with Source 57's argument is that if the U.S. could not decisively lose the Vietnam War, then they also could not decisively win the Vietnam War. There is nothing that suggests an American victory anywhere within Vietnam, and in my opinion, the immense loss of life, resources, and respect that the U.S. suffered cause the Vietnam War to be counted as a loss for America.

Vietnam War Opposition

1. Note all of the reasons why you feel the war in Vietnam is wrong.
-It was wasting millions of lives, and billions of dollars, with no end in sight
-It was hypocritical: the U.S. was saying that they were there to remove Communism, but they were backing far more corrupt governments in South Vietnam
-Vietnamese civilians were being killed by the thousands
-Containment was clearly not a successful policy; it had not worked in the past, and it certainly was not working in Vietnam
-the U.S. was too set on looking good to the world; by the time thigns started to turn badly for them in Vietnam, they were too proud (and too far in) to back out
-It was causing unrest within the U.S.; people were being killed at protests, and the government was more hated than it had been since Hoover was in office

2. Note what you re trying to achieve with this poster. (e.g. to convince people to write to their Congressmen to get the troops out.)
This poster would be trying to convince people to let their voice be heard via peaceful protest; while they often became dangerous, they were a powerful statement, and an effective way to draw attention to the cause.

3. List possible images for your poster. Think about: background (e.g. destroyed villages); the central image (e.g. picture of a young soldier); whether you will need words to explain your image.
Images of injured Vietnamese children; images from other peace rallies; images of the effects of Agent Orange/napalm; images of the U.S. soldiers in contrast to the Vietnamese soldiers; words may be necessary, but minimalism would be best.

4. List some possible slogans for your poster.
-Rally for peace, let freedom increase
-Raising voices brings more choices
-Protest today, get out of My Lai
-Search for solutions, destroy violence
-Reason with the Vietcong, peace and love is never wrong

Vietnam War Turning Points

1. Why was the Tet Offensive a turning point? Explain your answer.
The Tet Offensive was a turning point in the war; while not exactly a military turning point, it was a turning point in the attitude with which Americans perceived Vietnam. After the Tet Offensive, people became very angry; it appeared that the U.S. was wasting time, money and lives in a situation where they clearly had never had the upper hand. The Offensive destroyed an ancient city; this raised more questions, such as what other precious things the war would destroy if it was allowed to continue. The Tet Offensive was not a clear victory for either the U.S. or the Viet Cong, but it was definitely a turning point within the minds of Americans.

2. Are Sources 51 and 52 making the same point about the My Lai Massacre?
Sources 51 and 52 make similar points, but not exactly the same one. Source 51 carries more remorse; it acknowledges more of the fact that they weren't meant to go to Vietnam to kill anyone, let alone civilians. There is a lot of guilt evident in Source 51; it implies that once the soldiers got to Vietnam, their view of the situation became warped and they acted without thinking. Source 52, while it also points out that the soldiers were not originally sent there to kill humans, seems to be colder about the event; it states that the soldiers saw the Vietnamese not as people, but as people who carried an evil idea that they were ordered to eradicate.

3. Why do you think it took 12 months for anyone to do anything about the massacre?
The army is often very good at covering its mistakes. The army, and the government, would not have wanted news of the massacre to get out; soldiers might have been afraid to speak up in order to avoid retribution. Also, freedom of speech is limited in times of war; everyone works to protect their country and make it look good. Soldiers may have felt that it would hinder the war effort if they let the truth out.

4. Why was the massacre so shocking to the American public?
Up until this point, Americans had not been fully aware of the bloodshed going on in Vietnam. They knew civilians were being killed, yes, but they saw it as an accident. After the My Lai massacre, the people began to turn not only against the government but against the soldiers, as well; perfectly innocent civilians had been murdered, simply because the army did not know what it was doing.

The U.S Struggles Against the Communists in Vietnam

1a) Were the armies finely balanced or was the balance strongly weighted to one side or the other?

The war was weighted towards the Viet Cong. While the U.S. had better (and more) supplies and technology, they lacked a key component: their soldiers lacked the strong, passionate motivation that the Viet Cong had. The Viet Cong had good soldiers, effective tactics, support from the Vietnamese people, and motivated and committed soldiers. These things tipped the scales in their balance.

1b) Which quality was most important in determining who won the war? Was one feature so important that being ahead in that area meant that other advantages or disadvantages did not matter?

Having motivated and committed soldiers was most important in determining who won the war. Yes, this feature was so important that other advantages/disadvantages did not matter; Tthe Viet Cong were fighting for a personal goal that they found to be incredibly and intrinsically important to them; they were willing to risk their lives for their ideals. This passion, shown through their ruthless guerilla tactics, terrified the U.S. soldiers, completely removing their morale.

2. Now write up your answer. Use this structure:
a. The U.S. weaknesses were that they lacked soldiers who truly believed in what they were fighting for; their tactics were not as effective as they had hoped they would be; they had little to no support from the Vietnamese people; their soldiers were, for the most part, not motivated or committed.

b. At the same time, the Communist strengths were that they had soldiers who were passionate about their cause; their guerilla tactics crushed the morale of the U.S. soldiers and allowed them to fight a large scale with a fairly small scale army; they had a great deal of support from the Vietnamese people; the Viet Cong soldiers were fighting for a personal cause, and were therefore highly motivated.

c. The U.S. forces did have some successes. For example, their technology far surpassed that of the Viet Cong. Chemical warfare helped the U.S. to make great strides in driving the guerilla soldiers out of the jungle, not to mention removing entire villages without soldiers actually having to enter the village. Also, the U.S. had a larger budget, and was much more well equipped; their soldiers had the latest technology, and enough of it. The U.S. tended to count their successes strangely: the massacre at My Lai, for example, was counted as a victory, as was the bombing campaign.

d. However, there were some major failures as well. Examples of these were the Tet Offensive, in which American troops were taken completely by surprise, and many Americans were killed. Another major failure was actually on the home front: after news of the My Lai massacre got out, the American public began to actively hate and protest the war. The Vietnam War had very, very little support from U.S. citizens.

e. The Viet Cong had some major successes, such as the Tet Offensive; what can be listed as a failure for the U.S. was a victory for them. Smaller, less specific victories include the winning over of the Vietnamese people, little by little, and the development of guerilla warfare tactics. By the end of the war, Americans were terrified of every Vietnamese person they saw; even children were perceived as the enemy. This was certainly a psychological success.

f. However, they also suffered defeats, for example the number of deaths that occurred as a result of search-and-destroy missions like the one at My Lai. Innocent civilians died in great numbers each day; the number of women and children killed by American warfare was definitely a defeat for the Viet Cong.

g. If I had to identify one major American weakness, it would be the lack of motivated soldiers, because without soldiers who truly believe in their cause, it is impossible to have effective troops. Morale was low, the U.S. could not win over the Vietnamese people, and soldiers deeply hated the war and their duties in it; all of these qualities added up to a poor army.

h. The key Viet Cong strength was their good soldiers because it was due to the passion and courage of the Viet Cong that their tactics proved so effective; it was because the Viet Cong were so impassioned about their cause that they were able to easily win over Vietnamese; it was because of the intensity of their soldiers that technology is not a valid part of the equation, because no matter how powerful the weapon, one simply cannot beat an idea with an army.

The U.S. Enters the Vietnam War

1. Many neutral observers in Vietnam were critical of US policy. Explain why.

For years, the U.S. had been spouting the view that "each and every country should be able to have free elections". However, in the case of Vietnam, America rushed in to prevent them from holding free elections, because the US was worried that said elections would go against their interests. To many outsiders, the U.S. policy appeared hypocritical; the U.S. was more willing to support twisted, corrupt governments than it was to allow the Vietnamese people to choose for themselves.

2. Explain how US politicians would have defended their policies.

The U.S. would have defended their decision by stating that it went with their policy of containment. They would also have said that if Vietnam was allowed to become Communist, the rest of Asia would soon follow suit. The U.S. backed up its policies by playing on the widespread fear of Communism.

3. The following events are not listed in correct date order. Place them in the correct chronological order. (Write the year inside the parenthesis, i.e. (1965). Then note the reason for each U.S. action, and how it brought the U.S. into deeper involvement in Vietnam.

The reasons you can choose from are: No direct involvement; financial support; political involvement; military involvement. Also, note what events triggered the increased involvement.

(1963) Assassination of JFK - Johnson becomes president political involvement Johnson was much more prepared to launch full out war against Vietnam than JFK had been.

(1955) Formation of South Vietnam financial support The U.S. now had government that it could send aid to and negotiate talks with; South Vietnam allowed the U.S. to have a firmer presence in Vietnam.

(1964) Gulf of Tonkin Incident military involvement After this incident, Congress passed a resolution that gave Johnson free reign to proceed as he pleased in Vietnam; this bill made the war possible.

(1962) Number of 'advisers' reaches over 11,500 military involvement The sheer amount of troops that JFK placed in Vietnam made the chance of violence all the more likely; the more troops that were sent in, the more hostile the Vietnamese became.

(1962) JFK sends military advisers military involvement JFK sending in military under the pretense of "advisors" set a tone for the war: the U.S. was going to get involved no matter what, even if they had to conceal it.

(1965) U.S. Marines land at Da Nang military involvement This was the first landing of official combative troops in Vietnam. With this move, the two countries were officially at war.

(1954) U.S. stops elections in Vietnam political involvement After making this move, America was intrinsically involved in the situation: they could not simply stop elections and then not stick around to support the remaining government.

(1963) U.S. supports South Vietnam government after army overthrow Diem political involvement Even though the governments were corrupt, the U.S. continued to support them. This involved them further in the conflict by

(1960) Viet Cong attacks on U.S. and South Vietnam bases military involvement After this, the U.S. could no longer deny that the situation required military involvement; the Northern Vietnamese were clearly hostile.

(1960) Viet Cong formed military involvement The Viet Cong represented a clear opposing force - the U.S. now had a more defined enemy to fight.

4. Choose two events that you think were critical in getting the U.S. involved in a war in Vietnam. Explain

your choice.

Two events that were critical in getting the U.S. involved in a war in Vietnam were JFK sending military "advisors" and the Gulf of Tonkin incident. JFK's "advisors" started off the landslide of troops that would soon pour into Vietnam; had the "advisors" never been there, a military situation might have more easily been avoided. The presence of said "advisors" threatened the Northern Vietnamese, making them more inclinced to behave with hostility. The Gulf of Tonkin incident is easy to mark as a catalyst; after the incident, Congress passed a bill letting Johnson take free reign with the situation in Vietnam. After this bill was passed, he nearly immediately declared war; the connection is not hard to make.

The Cuban Missile Crisis

1. Kennedy described Wednesday, Oct. 24 and Saturday, Oct. 27 as the darkest days of the crisis. Use the information on page 350 to explain why.

Wednesday, Oct. 24 was the beginning of the blockade: the first sign that the U.S. was truly getting involved in the crisis, the first point of action. After that, there was no turning back. Saturday, October 27 marked the first American casualty; Kennedy was forced to consider actually going to war.

2. Do you think that nuclear war was ever a possibility in this crisis?

I do not believe that nuclear war was truly a possibility in this crisis. Both countries knew that they had the power to wipe each other out completely; both were too afraid of retaliation to launch on the other. This crisis was more of a show of power - whoever could flex the bigger muscles would win.

3. Is Source 26 a Soviet or an American cartoon? Explain your answer by referring to the details in the cartoon.

This is an American cartoon. The biggest clue pointing to this is that JFK seems to be having less trouble than Khruschev - he is sweating less, implying that he has the upper hand. Also, more detail is shown in the drawing of Kennedy - the author clearly wanted to make him look good, whereas Khruschev is drawn much more simply.

4. Using Source 27 list any evidence you can find for and against each of the explanations.

Why did the Soviet Union place nuclear missiles on Cuba?

To bargain with the USA

-Neither country truly wanted war

-Bargaining could have avoided any violence

-Tensions were so high at this point that bargaining seemed unlikely to work

To test the USA

-The USSR was constantly trying to tell how powerful the US' weapons were

-This situation could have proven very, very dangerous for the Soviet Union

To trap the USA

-If the US struck first, the Soviet Union would look like the victim in the situation

-neither country wanted to provoke the other; no matter who struck first, there would still be terrible consequences

To get the upper hand in the arms race

-The Cold War was really just a power play

-It was more about impressions than actual fighting

-The USSR had a need to prove itself superior to the US

-Getting the upper hand would just cause the US to bump up their own arms supply

To defend Cuba

-The USSR woudl have been happy to have Communism spread so far across the globe

-The USSR had promised to support and protect any satellite nations

-The USSR was too busy dealing with the US to get involved in what could turn into a complicated civil war

5. Choose the explanation(s) that you think best fit what you have found out about the crisis. Explain your choice.

I believe that the USSR was trying to gain the upper hand in the arms race. The Soviet Union felt very threatened by the US missiles in Turkey; by placing missiles in Cuba, they threatened the US in the same way. The Cold War was all about getting the upper hand. The race to have more and better technology was constant. While the Soviet Union and the U.S. did not actually want war, both wanted to look better than the other; for this reason, it only seems logical that the USSR was motivated mainly by a need to gain an upper hand in the arms race.

The U.S. Attempts to Contain Cuba

1. Why was Cuba so important to the United States?
The US saw Cuba as a sphere of their own interests; from the Spanish-American war, they had many businesses set up there, as well as a large naval base. The US saw Cuba as nearly an extension of its own borders - while it wa not technically part of America, the US certainly liked to maintain a firm control there.

2. Why do you think the Americans chose to equip Cuban exiles rather than invading themselves?
By invading themselves, it would have looked much more severe. The Soviets would most likely have directly attacked; by using Cuban exiles, the US could always simply claim that they were just arming people who had motivations of their own. Also, the US was likely no inclined to risk American lives in such an attack.

3. Why did the invasion fail?
The exiled Cuban troops were vastly outnumbered by Castro's men. JFK did not plan for Castro to send such a large number of troops; although the exiles' military technology was on par with Castro's, they were simply overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude of Castro's army.

4. Compare Source 17 on page 345 (in the Arms Race.pdf reading) with Source 24 on page 348. Describe how the Soviet Union missiles on Cuba changed the Cold War balance of power.
While the U.S. had nuclear launch sites in Western Europe, close by to the USSR, the Soviet Union had previously been unable to place nuclear weapons anywhere near to the U.S. Now, with nuclear weapons in Cuba, the Soviet threat to the U.S. was much greater; they could launch an attack in minutes, where as in the past it would have taken up to 1/2 an hour for the missiles to hit.

The American Dream in the 1950s

For each term or name, write a concise sentence or two explaining its significance.

1. Baby Boom

After the soldiers returned home from WWII, there was an incredibly large rise in the US birth rate. 40 million children were said to be born during this "baby boom" - the largest generation in American history.

2. Dr. Jonas Salk

Salk developed the vaccine to prevent Polio - a disease that had been wreaking havoc on the nation. Salk's vaccine was incredibly effective; polio is practically nonexistent today.

3. Interstate Highway System

The Interstate Highway System was developed in response to the increase in car production (referred to as Automania). The highways, which stretched all over the country, encouraged much more personal travel, as well as the building of suburbs; however, the popularity of railroads severely decreased as more and more people began to use the highway system.

4. Franchise

Franchises, a form of business expansion in which a business sets up several stores all selling the same product in multiple different locations, represented the growing opportunities for jobs that were arising in the 1950s. There was a great feeling of being able to do anything one wanted to at the time - never-before-heard-of franchises, like fast food restaurants, reflected this feeling.

5. In a paragraph, describe in detail how Americans spent their leisure time in the 1950s

During the 1950s, due to a more relaxed lifestyle view and many time-saving technological advances, leisure time for Americans increased greatly. Americans turned to activities such as fishing, bowling, hunting, or golf; attendance to sports events such as baseball or basketball games went through the roof; many Americans began avidly watching TV; reading saw a huge jump in popularity. Americans would read everything from comic books to self-help books; projects that one could complete on one's own became very popular as well.

The Arms Race

1. Read Source 12. What methods do you think Dulles had in mind to 'liberate captive peoples' without a war?
Dulles may have been thinking of closing in tighter and tighter on the USSR - never actually sending armies against it, but creating more and more organizations to surround it and slowly strangle its power. Dulles may also have been referring to stockpiling nuclear weapons - surely there would be a point when the USSR would give in and admit that America simply had more bombs than they did.

2. Look at Source 13. Would you agree that the Communist world was encircled? Explain your answer.

The Communist world was not encircled, even with the visual proof of source 13. The Communist world was geographically encircled, yes, but that truly does not mean much. One cannot kill an idea with an army; the democratic world could not stop the spread of Communist ideas simply by locking down Communist leaders. The main Communist countries were surrounded by anti-Communist groups - there is no arguing that. However, ideas can pass straight through even the best miltary defenses; in a theoretical sense, the Communist world was not surrounded at all.

3. Carefully examine the verticle timeline on page 343. Then look back at Source 12. Do you think the development of nuclear weapons was what Dulles might have had in mind?

The development of nuclear weapons could certainly have been what Dulles had in mind. It allowed the US to flex its muscles without actually having to put them into use; in other words, nuclear development hoped to scare the Soviets away from ever attacking in the first place.

4. Look at Source 16. What is the Soviet cartoon saying about the U-2 plane?

The Soviet cartoon is marking the U-2 plane as an invasion of privacy. The U.S. at first denied that these planes were used for spying; this cartoon is implying that the planes were used to extend America's view into the USSR. The cartoon also seems to be saying that the use of such technology was unfair - the Soviets could do nothing to stop these planes from looking in on them without being downright aggresive, just as someone could not peacefully stop a stranger peering at them from across the street with a telescope.

5. Read the Factfile on page 344. Explain why the USSR was so angry about the US spy flights.

The USSR was angry at their privacy being invaded, when the U.S. condemned Soviet spying techniques within America. It did not help that the U.S. refused to apologize for the flights; it clearly did not help diplomatic negotiations, and the Soviets viewed it as a show of rudeness and stubborn behavior. Also, the U.S. was sending men onto their soil without Soviet consent - clearly not a peaceful gesture.

6. How would the USA justify this violation of Soviet territory?

The USA would justify this invasion of Soviet territory by pointing out the Soviet spies in America - the US was only looking out for its own interests! The US would also use the point that it was imperative for the US to stay on top of Soviet activity in order to prevent an attack on innocent civilians; it was a defensive method, not an offensive one.

7. If the USSR had had U-2 planes, do you think it would have used them? Why?

I do think that they would have used them. Even though they strongly condemned the US use of U-2 planes, that was simply because they did not have the technology to effectively retalitate. In times of war, morals often fly out the window. The USSR would most likely not have thought twice about using U-2 planes, if it would have given them an upper hand in the race to gather information.

8. Look at Source 17. Why do you think the USA had missiles based in Europe?

The USA most likely had missiles in Europe in order to be able to able to retaliate in minutes if the USSR was to launch missiles against the US. While missiles at sucha close proximity may have alarmed the Soviets, the US would have seen this as necessary. If the US kept all of its missiles within its own borders, it could take up to 30 minutes until a bomb struck back against the USSR; with missiles in Europe, the US could strike back within minutes.

9. Define the term 'nuclear deterrent' in not more than 20 words.

Nuclear deterrants are nuclear weapons that force the enemy into not launching their own weapons for fear of retaliation.

Eisenhower & The Cold War

How did the United States react to the following 7 events, and why?

1. The Soviet Union exploded its first atomic bomb in 1949.
After the explosion of the first Soviet atomic bomb, the U.S. immediately began planning an even larger, more deadly bomb. They did this in order to maintain the upper hand in the war - in order to feel secure, they needed to have the bigger weapons first. Development for the H-Bomb soon began, even though the morality of such an explosive was questioned; the H-Bomb was successfully exploded on November of 1952.

2. In 1951, the Iranian prime minister placed the oil industry in Iran under the Iranian government’s control.
When the Iran's oil indsutry became privatized, the U.S. decided to use the CIA to ensure that it's interests were upheld in Iran, and that Iran did not turn to the USSR for aid. The CIA gave millions of dollars to supporters of the pro-American Shah, who had been exiled; the plan was successful, and the Shah was able to return to power, and control of the oil fields was given back to the Western powers.

3. The Guatemalan head of government gave American-owned land in Guatemala to peasants.
The U.S. feared that this was a sign of Guatemala leaning towarsd Communism, and therefore decided to take action, once again via the CIA. The CIA organized and trained an army, which invaded Guatemala. The Guatemalan army would not defend its president, and he quickly resigned, leaving the leader of the Guatemalan forces to take power.

4. In 1956, Britain, France, and Israel invaded Egypt and occupied the Suez Canal.
After the U.N. stepped in, tensions died down quickly. However, the U.S. was horrified by the amount of Soviet involvement in the Middle East - the Suez War had been a good example of just how far the USSR was willing to go to gain support. In response, President Eisenhower issued a doctrine, which Congress soon approved; called simply the Eisenhower Doctrine, it stated that the U.S. would defend and country in the Middle East against a Communist attack.

5. Soviet tanks invaded Hungary and fired on protesters in 1956.
While the events in Hungary were shocking, the U.S. did nothing to aid the Hungarian government or people. Even with the Truman policy in place, the U.S. would not step in to push Soviet forces out of Hungary. This inaction most likely stemmed from fear of getting militarily involved so close in area to the USSR; that could be conceived as an act of war, and set off the tensions that were already close to overflow.

6. In 1957, the Soviet Union launched Sputnik.
After the Soviet launch of Sputnik, America began opuring money and effort into their own space program. Desperate not to be left behind in the dust, they began developing their own satellites and space crafts at a rapid pace. Though their first attempt was a failure, the U.S. successfully launched a satellite in January of 1958.

7. In 1960, the Soviet Union brought down an American U-2 piloted by Francis Gary Powers.
America staunchly denied that the U-2 had been on an espionage mission. When Khruschev demanded an apology, Eisenhower refused to give one - for that would mean admitting to spying, and that would raise the chance of starting a violent conflict. Eisenhower did, however, agree to stop the U-2 flights. Eisenhower's refusal to apologize only increased tensions tenfold.

The Red Scare (1950s)

For each term or name, write a concise sentence or two explaining its significance.

1. HUAC
The HUAC was one of several organizations that investigated Communist behaviors in the US. It specifically focused on targeting Communist suspicions in the movie industry, under the belief that Hollywood was putting subliminal Communist messages into its films.

2. Blacklist
The blacklist, originating in Hollywood, was a comprehensive list of people condemned of being Communist sympathizers. They were banned form working; the blacklist ruined hundreds of careers.


3. Alger Hiss

Hiss was one of two infamous spy cases that caused hightened anti-Communist panic in the US during the Cold War. Hiss, a State Department official, was accused of being a Soviet spy by a former Soviet agent; he was unable to be tried for espionage, but was able to be sent to jail for perjury.


4. Ethel and Julius Rosenberg

The Rosenbergs were accused of supplying information to the USSR about the American atomic bomb; this accusations were fueled by the early development of the Soviet atomic bomb. The Rosenbergs pleaded the Fifth, saying that they were not spies, but were simply being persecuted for being Jewish and holding radical beliefs. They were convicted and sentenced to death despite their pleas; they were the first U.S. citizens convicted for espionage.


5. Joseph McCarthy
McCarthy, a Republican senator from Wisconsin, was one of the most vocal and staunch proponents of the fight against Communism. Around the time Senate elections, McCarthy began adamantly professing that the Communists were taking over the government - and he would most certainly do something about it.



6. McCarthyism
McCarthyism refers to the practice of unfairly accusing someone without valid evidence or acceptable amounts of proof. The term first came into being when McCarthy began his anti-Communism campaign, as he made a habit of wildly accusing citizens and government officials of being Communist sympathizers, even when he did not have the proper proof to back up his claims; McCarthyism works off of people's paranoia and fear of the unknown.

7. In a paragraph, describe the motivations and actions of Joseph McCarthy during the 1950s. What prompted his actions? What did he do? What happened as a result of his actions?
McCarthy was prompted by a combination of his fear of not being re-elected as a Senator (he was a fairly ineffective holder of public office, and the public knew it) and an inherent hatred of Communists as a danger to the U.S.A. He convinced the public that he had information on thousands of Communist spies and sympathizers, and called out various people in the Senate as secretly working to forward the goals of Communism. As a result of his passionate crusade, the paranoia in the U.S. ratcheted up to unheard of levels; people accused their next door neighbors, their school teachers, their best friends of being Communist, simply because propganda had convinced them that the Communists were everywhere. Eventually, though, even this intense parnoia died down, and people began to see McCarthy for what he really was - an over-zealous man who ruined hundreds of careers in order to (ultimately unsuccessly) forward his own.

Korean War Lessons

Now that the war in Korea has effectively been ended, there are several lessons that we can take from it and apply to the future. In the following report, which will detail several aspects of the war, these lessons will be illuminated.

The US went into Korea in order to stop the spread of Communism. Stalin had already taken control of the satellite nations; shortly after that, China became Communist as well. It appeared that the Soviet's control was growing rapidly across the globe; the US felt that it was its duty to uphold democracy wherever possible. When Korea became threatened, America of course involved itself in order to further its goal of containment.

The UN was incredibly useful in the Korean War. Eighteen members of the United Nations contributed soldiers to the forces sent to Korea; the majority of these troops were still American, but the efforts of the other countries were still greatly needed. Without the support of the UN, the US would very likely not have been able to push back the North Korean forces at all.

The US did achieve its aims to a certain extent, but not to the extent that they had hoped. While North Korean forces (and, by that logic, Communist ideas as well) were purged fully form South Korea, Communism remains in the country to this day. The campaign in North Korea was unsuccessful, and had to be stopped before more danger arose; the danger of Communism was not removed from the country, and so Korea cannot be fully counted as a victory for democracy (or containment).

In regards to the North Korean invasion, it is apparent that MacArthur should not have been allowed to invade the North in the first place. He severely underestimated the fighting power of the Chinese - their technology was just as advanced as ours, and they had been trained to hate Americans deeply and passionately. The North Korean campaign did not accomplish much; a stalemate was reached, yes, but it was not worth the deaths caused and the angering of the Chinese.

The North Korean campaign is a good example of why MacArthur was removed: he was too ready to charge ahead into battle, without calculating the costs. After the campaign in the North, MacArthur was convinced that continuing the war (by invading China with the use of nuclear weapons) was the best option. Truman and the UN did not condone this action, but MacArthur ignored these orders: he openly threatened war against the Chinese, and was promptly removed from the situation and sent back to the US.

The Korean War ended with horrific costs, both to soldiers and civilians. The American and US forces lost 34,500 soldiers; the South Koreans lost 70,000 soldiers and 500,000 civilians; the North Koreans and the Chinese lost 780,00 soldiers and civilians. The death tolls, especially those of the civilians, are disturbing and shocking.

Overall, the Korean War was only a small victory. Millions of troop and civilians died, for little purpose - the wra caused tensions in Korea to skyrocket, and the policy of containment was not forwarded a significant amount. In the future, the US should be careful not to repeat the mistakes made in the Korean War: underestimating the enemy, and rushing in unawares.

Dropping the Atomic Bomb

Additionally, you are to read War in Pacific. It is .pdf file I've shared with you in your WWII file folder. After reading the three pages and studying the sources, answer the following questions and post them to your blog.

1. What factors have affected viewpoints on Truman's decision?
There are two main viewpoints on Truman's decision: the bombing was not justified, and the bombing was completely justified.
Those who believe that the bombing was not justified cite the thousands of Japanese deaths that occurred - not only from the bombs themselves, but also from the effects of radiation that occurred after the fact. They think that the war was already won; the bomb was not necessary for success. They also reason that the army was simply looking to test out its new "toy" and to scare the USSR.
Those who believe that the bomb was completely justified cite the fact that the bomb saved millions of U.S. lives, since a land invasion would have been extremely bloody. They also feel that Truman simply dropped the bomb to save U.S. lives - other allegations of ulterior motives are false.

2. Do you think he made the right decision? Give your reasons.
I believe that Truman made the wrong decision. Yes, the bomb may have saved millions of U.S. lives, but it murdered thousands of Japanese civilians in the process. One cannot condone the saving of lives that came from the deaths of others; it cancels itself out. Also, the bombing set a precedent. Because it worked so effectively, bombs quickly became the go-to solution in military situations. After WWII, bombs were major military tools - the consequences are overlooked, because the end result is so final and immediate.

War In the Pacific

1. What was the importance of the Battle of Midway?
The Battle of Midway had horrible results for the Japanese - they lost 250 planes and four aircraft carriers, not to mention a cruiser though. Many saw the Battle of Midway was "revenge for Pearl Harbor". The real importance of the Battle of Midway, though, is that it allowed the Allies to begin taking over one island after another; each island brought them a little closer to Japan.

2. What strategy did the United States adopt in fighting Japan?
In fighting Japan, the Allies went on the offensive. They would not sit around and wait for the Japanese to attack; they decided to be completely forthright.

3. Why did the Japanese fight so hard on Iwo Jima?
The Japanese were aware that Iwo Jima would be incredibly useful to the U.S., because they could use it to send off heavily armed bomber planes from. The Japanese also knew that if the Allies took Iwo Jima, Okinawa would be the only thing left to stop them from invading Japan.

4. Why did the Allies believe Okinawa was a foretaste of an invasion of Japan?
The Allies predicted that an invasion of Japan would cost millions and millions of British and American lives. So many casualties took place simply in trying to take Okinawa that it seemed to foreshadow what it would be like during the invasion of Japan.

5. What was the Manhattan Project?
The Manhattan Project was the code name for the U.S. program to design an atomic bomb. Over 600,000 people were involved, and yet it was kept highly secret.

6. Ultimately, why did President Truman decide to drop atomic bombs on Japan?
Truman had, according to himself, never had any doubts about using the bomb. He saw no other way to end the war against Japan; he did not want to waste millions of American lives in trying to invade the country by force. He had always seen the bomb as a "miltary weapon", and military weapons get used when necessary.

War for Europe & North Africa - Part II

6. What was D-Day?
D-Day was the first day of the Allies' invasion of Normandy. On D-Day, hundreds of American troops parachuted into German lines; they were joined hours later, in the early morning, by thousands of soldiers who had gotten there by naval transport.

7. What happened at the Battle of the Bulge?
The Battle of the Bulge occurred on December 16, 1944. German tanks broke through the American lines. The tanks pushed miles into the American lines, causing the troops to bulge back - this is where the name of the battle came from. The Germans captured 120 Americans early on in the battle; these soldiers were shot to death in an open field after being taken. The Battle of the Bulge went on for a month; though the Germans had lost little ground, they had lost massive amounts of men and supplies. After this battle, the war took a decidedly downward turn for Germany.

8. What did Allied troops find in Germany?
When the troops pushed through into Germany, they came upon the proof of the Holocaust. They soon stumbled upon the Nazi death camps - they found millions of starving people, emaciated beyond belief, as well as inconcievable amounts of dead bodies, and the methods that were used to kill them - gas chambers, crematoria, and other murderous devices too horrible to imagine.

9. What happened to Hitler? What happened to F.D. Roosevelt? Who became U.S. President?
Hitler shot himself in a bunker on April 30, 1945, the day after marrying Eva Braun. His body, as well as his wife's, was burned in the streets. FDR suffered a stroke on April 12; he did not live to see the official end of the war. His Vice-President, Harry S. Truman, became president.

War for Europe & North Africa

1. To what did Roosevelt and Churchill agree early in the war?

Early on in the war, Roosevelt and Churchill agreed to accept only unconditional surrender from the Axis powers; all terms that the Allies set forth had to be met before surrender would be accepted.

2. Why was winning the Battle of the Atlantic so crucial to the fortunes of the Allies?

The Atlantic provided the main route for getting supplies from the U.S. to Great Britain and the Soviet Union. had German u-boats continued to gun down cargo ships, Great Britain would quickly have starved to death, and the Axis powers would easily have won the war.

3. Why was the Battle of Stalingrad so important?

First, it marked a major victory for the USSR and for the Allies as a whole; the Allies came out firmly on top, and German forces had been severely weakened. Also, from Stalingrad, the Soviet army began to shift westwards into Germany.

4. What happened in the war in North Africa?

About 107,000 American troops landed in Oran, Casablanca, and Algiers. They pushed the German troops eastwards, until finally, after months of heavy combat, the German troops surrendered in May 1943.

5. What happened after the Allies invaded Italy?

Soon after the Allies invaded Italy, they captured Sicily. The Italian government, horrified by this turn of events, forced Mussolini to resign. He was quickly arrested and stripped of all power. The Allies thought they had won, but their battles were not over; Hitler launched attacks within Italy to avoid battles on German soil. One battle, near Rome, ended with tens of thousands of casualties to each side. Italy was not freed until 1945.

Mobilizing for WWII

Read Chapter 25-1: Mobilizing for War and note how each of the following contributed to that effort.

1. Selective Service System
Although 5 million Americans willingly volunteered to join up, it was simply not enough. The SSS enlarged the draft, which turned up 10 million more men to fill out the army's needs.

2. Women
Women helped the war effort. They were able to help within the military in any non-combat roles, thanks to the Women's Auxiliary Army Corps. They also filled thousands of service jobs in factories - without the new women's partition of the workforce, it is unlikely that the U.S. would have had enough civilian power to create both a functioning army and factory force.

3. Minorities
Just as with women, minorities contributed invaluable manpower to the war effort. They filled many necessary places in the military forces, as well as filling important factory jobs. Thanks to anti-segregation legislations, African-Americas, Native-Americans, Chinese-Americans, Mexican-Americans, and even Japanese-Americans were able to join the armed forces.

4. Manufacturers

Many manufacturers shifted the purpose of their factories to those that aided the military. Factories that had formerly filled soft-drink bottles now filled shells with explosives, and former mechanical pencil factories now made bomb parts. Thanks to these changes, military supplies were produced at much faster rates.

5. Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD)
The OSRD made several strides in the scientific aspects of the war effort. Radar and sonar technologies were improved; DDT was developed to fight off insects; penicillin became more widely used. Most famously, though, the OSRD began racing against Germany to develop the first atomic bomb.

6 Entertainment industry

The entertainment industry rapidly began producing propaganda films to incite patriotism in Americans. These films focused either on portraying the Axis powers in a negative light, or on glorifying the war and the duty of soldiers. These films were quite popular.

7. Office of Price Administration (OPA)

The OPA fought off inflation that was sure to occur during wartime. The OPA froze rents, wages, and prices, and set up rations on staple items like shoes, meat, and vegetables. Thanks to the OPA, inflation during WWII did not rise above 30%.

8. War Production Board (WPB)

The WPB, similar to the OPA, rationed items for the war effort. Unlike the OPA, though, the WPB rationed items such as rubber, heating oil, metals, and plastics. These items could be used to build military technology.

9. Rationing

Rationing, as mentioned above, was a huge effort during WWII. Not only did it let Americans feel like they had a hand in the war effort, it really did support the troops - rationing meant that there was extra food, leather, rubber, metal, etc. that could go to troops overseas. Rationing prevented consumer waste.

Japan and U.S. Relations in 1941

Japan and U.S. Relations in 1941

Document A

-Japan hoped that by advancing into the South, they could help Germany and Italy take England (a U.S. ally)

-Japan thought it likely that they could defeat China and the USSR (both of whom were trading with the U.S.)

-By attacking the South, Japan would be able to cut off supplies to America

-Japan thought that by defeating England, America would be more likely to give in to Japan's demands

Document B

-FDR paid little attention to Japan
-Japan was being treated like a small, bratty, weak child

-Japan was dissatisfied with not being taken seriously

-Tojo was running circles around the U.S.

-FDR thought he had a handle on the Pacific situation, but in reality, the situation was out of his control

-The U.S. had turned their backs to Japan, enabling Tojo to sneak up on them

Document C

-Japan saw the U.S. proposal (for peace in the Pacific) as unfair and embarassing

-They thought the U.S. had reached their decision unexpectedly

-Japan was completely unwilling to accept any of America's suggestions for negotiation

-They were ready to end the negotiations, but did not want America to know this

- Japan was under the impression that they had already suffered enough for the "sake of peace in the Pacific"
- They thought that the U.S. had been inflexible in negotiations

Document D
- Japan saw the upcoming attack as being either their downfall of the beginning of an era of glory

-Tojo acted in order to please the Emperor

-There was a certain amount of fear of retribution from the Emperor driving each of Japan's attacks

-Japan's goals were to "bring the Government and the military ever closer" and "repay" their "obligations" to the Emperor

-Japan planned to make an "all-out effort" against the Allies

Document E

- The U.S. thought that it had been in a state of peace with Japan up until the attack

-The U.S. had still been negotiating with Japan when the attack was launched

-They had, in fact, been looking towards a peaceful solution for the Pacific

-Japan sent the U.S. a response an hour after the attack on Oahu occurred

-Said response was perfectly peaceful and contained no hints at war

-Due to logistics, Japan's attacked must have been planned "days or even weeks ago"

-Japan had deliberately been deceiving the U.S.

-The U.S. declared war on Japan