HIST 2002-60 The World Wars

In at least 125 words, respond to one or more of the following topics.  You can reach the word count through original posts and/or replies.  If you post on the due date or later, you must reply to someone else. A.  In the past, what has been a point of entry for you into the study of the World Wars?  There might be more than one: books, film, other history classes, relatives who served, video games, etc. B.  What is a legacy of the World Wars that continues to this day?  You might consider ideas, technologies, phrases, countries, media, etc. C.  Why are the World Wars (especially WWII) such a popular topic to study?  Why aren’t there so many books/classes/films on other conflicts of the last 100 years?

For this discussion, you will not be able to see what others have posted until you post yourself.

1. Read the 4 documents from Emperor Wilhelm II and his son the Crown Prince and then answer the questions at the end of each in 2 or 3 sentences in a single post.
2. Once you have posted, you will be able to see other posts.  Reply to at least one other person and compare your answers with theirs in a couple of sentences.  Were all of your answers similar or different?

Take a look at the Timelines for the Crises of 1908 and 1914.  In the first crisis, Europe avoids war.  But in 1914, the First World War breaks out.  You will post 4 times, answering the following questions in 1-2 sentences each:

1. Which power is most to blame for risking war in 1908?  If someone has already posted the power you’ve picked, post a reply to them in support.
2.  Which power is least to blame for risking war in 1908?  If someone has already posted the power you’ve picked, post a reply to them in support.
3.  Which power is most to blame for starting the First World War in 1914?  If someone has already posted the power you’ve picked, post a reply to them in support.
4.  Which power is the least to blame for starting the First World War in 1914?  If someone has already posted the power you’ve picked, post a reply to them in support.

Read through the poetry/prose from Literature from the Trenches.  Then using the literature, answer one of more of the following questions in at least 125 words.  You don’t need citations.  You can reach this word count through multiple posts/replies.  If you post on the due date or after, you must post a reply to someone else as part of your answer. What was battle on the western front like? Can any of the poems be considered patriotic?  If patriotism is not at issue, then why do these soldiers fight? What problems might soldiers have returning home? How useful is poetry or fiction in examining the past?  What are the advantages over more conventional historical or personal accounts?

For this discussion you will have to first watch “Mayhem on the Eastern Front” from the series WWI in Colour (2003).  Then, answer one of more of the following questions in at least 125 words using the film.  You don’t need citations.  You can reach this word count through multiple posts/replies.  If you post on the due date or after, you must post a reply to someone else as part of your answer. How was warfare on the Eastern Front different from that on the Western Front? Why did Austria-Hungary and Russia both collapse?  What it something inherent to them, or some quality of the Eastern Front that is to blame? Was the fighting on the Eastern Front decisive for the outcome of the war?  In other words, did it matter, or was the outcome ultimately decided in the West? There is much less footage of the Eastern Front than of the Western Front.  What images from the film were most useful to see?  What images would be useful to have in addition to these?  

For this discussion you will first have to watch Triumph of the Will.  The film is 1 hour 44 minutes long and you can watch the whole thing if you like, but you can respond to one or more of the following questions based on the first 75 minutes.  Your post(s) should be at least 125 words and reference specifics of the film.  If you post on the due date or later, you must post a reply to someone else as part of your answer. There is relatively little speech in the film, so how are ideas conveyed to the viewer through images and music? When Nazi leaders speak, what promises do you think Germans would have been most excited to hear? How is Hitler depicted? What are some of the references to WWI?  Are there any indications that there will be a WWII?

For this discussion, you will need to watch Britain’s ITV documentary Cities at War: London (1968).  You may also reference the Week 11 Reading “Stories from the Blitz”.  Respond to one or more of the following questions in 125 words total in two posts: one original post and one reply to someone else. What are the most terrifying stories and/or images from the Blitz? Do you think the people of London were as resilient as the documentary suggests, or do you think a British documentary might make them look braver than they were? As bad as the Blitz was, what are some aspects of the war that British civilians did not have to suffer? What sacrifices or lifestyle adjustments made by Londoners during the Blitz would be the most difficult for Americans today to make?  

For this Discussion, you will have to take a look at the Minutes of the Wannsee Conference (1942), one of the few surviving high level documents about the planning of the Holocaust.  You will need to post twice, once as a reply to one of the “Page” threads and once as a reply to the “The Banality of Evil” thread.  Just 2-3 sentences are needed for each of your two posts.

For this discussion you will have to watch Know Your Enemy: Japan, an American propaganda film by Frank Capra.  It was supposed to come out in 1944, but due to production delays (the first version was thought to be too nice to the Japanese) it was released on August 9th, 1945, the day of the Nagasaki bombing.  The film was pulled quickly from release because of the American government’s interest in working with defeated Japan in the Cold War. Respond to one or more of the following questions in 125 words spread between two posts (one original post and one reply). According to the film, in what ways are the Japanese inferior to Americans?  What still makes them dangerous? What images or comments might make Americans most willing to fight Japan? Why do you think the film relies on bigotry to make its case for with Japan rather than emphasizing geopolitical reasons for war? Are there racist tropes from the film that might still figure into anti-Japanese or anti-Asian stereotypes in the US today?