#2

1. The two accounts of being attacked by gas are similar in that they paint a vivid picture of destruction and pain. It is clear from the 1916 account and the 1987 one that poison gas is/was incredibly destructive and a painful way to die: one woman lost nine relatives in the 1987 bombing and described her children with "their eyes swollen, their skin blackened"; the man from the 1916 account describes a man dying from the gas, "[sinking] to the ground, clutching at his throat and after a few spasmodic twistings, [dying]". The accounts of those who felt the attacks of the gas both describe it as incredibly painful, but in the case of the 1987 account the effects were: blindness, burns and vomiting until there was nothing left to vomit but blood. The 1916 account describes the gas as creating a heavy pressure on the lungs, a dry throat, a swimming head, hallucination, the feeling that needles were pricking the skin, and finally unconsciousness. The differences in the effects of the different gas can probably be accounted for by the years between the attacks. In 1916, poison gas was a new technology that was being used for the first time in World War I; by 1987, the technology could have been more refined to cause more devastating and long-term effects to the survivors -- the man who was attacked in 1916 woke after 3 hours, whereas the woman in the 1987 attack was still badly wounded after 5 days.

2. I think that it can be surmised that the use of gas in the Iraqi bombing account was to inspire fear more than anything else. Saddam Hussein's attempts to stay in power were strengthened by the fact that he could and would beat any villagers into submission with only the threat of what he could do to them: the villagers had no defense against poison gas except to run to the caves, and the gas is described as being especially painful and devastating -- not only did it kill people, but it left a vivid mark on those who witnessed the attacks and experienced the pain of the gas but survived. The goals of the German army's use of gas seem to be weakening the defenses of the Allied armies. The gas was used to kill soldiers on the other side, an easy way to do so because the use of poison gas put the risk to soldiers on the side using the gas at a minimum; the men didn't have to be physically near the trenches and could let the wind do the work for them. Furthermore, it was used as a distraction to those who survived: the man in the 1916 account describes how "Fritz generally follows the gas with an infantry attack". The men who were left surviving the poison gas were in pain or were disoriented from trying to avoid the gas, which created an opportunity for the Germans to attack with minimal risk of efficient retaliation.

3. Gas may not have been used extensively in 20th century wars after 1918 for several reasons. For one, gas had an immense ability to backfire on the army using it: if the breezes changed, the poison gas would be brought to the trenches of the army that had released it, effectively incapacitating it and probably killing a great deal of its men. The ethical implications of using gas are also another consideration. Many new technologies were first born around the time of World War I and stay in use today: innovations such as barbed wire, machine guns and tanks are vital to modern warfare. And although these technologies are immensely destructive, they do not have the same capacity to cause immense pain to other human beings -- in an odd way, it may have been seen as inhumane to use it on a mass scale, similarly to how the nuclear bomb was not used after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, although using it ended World War II. After World War I, poison gas figured most prominently in events such as the Holocaust, where it was used in extermination camps to kill Jews en masse; the association between poison gas and cruelty became cemented at that point, I would think, and if the United States attempted to use it today in Iraq it would likely be met with public outcry due to the ethical questions of whether it is ever right to use weapons such as poison gas. Ethical considerations have changed since 1918.

Types of 20th Wars

War Years Type of War

World War I 1914-1918 Total

(Also partly Guerrilla)

World War II 1939-1945 Total

Russian Civil War 1917-1921 Civil, Guerilla

Chinese Civil War 1927-1950 Civil, Guerilla

Iran-Iraq War 1980-88 Total

Gulf War 1990-91 Limited

ToK Questions

1. Why study history?

It is important to study history because the only way to learn from past mistakes is to recognize the signs of similar occurences. Studying history does not guarantee that we will not make the same mistakes, but it can help in avoiding future ones and also helps the understanding of present situations. A good example of this is studying the mandate system put in place in the middle east under the treaty of versailles in 1919 which is a long term cause of the current problems between the US and the area. Arab countries distrust Western ones because of the mandate system, which among other things misplaced nomadic tribes and caused fighting between them, and because of that distrust it is easy for extremist groups to demonize western countries -- if not for the study of history, the cause of this resentment might not be known and therefore could not be properly resolved (not that it has been, but we can still hope). And by knowing why this happened, mandates can be avoided in the future.

2. Is knowledge of the past ever certain?

Knowledge of the past is never certain because there is no way to be sure of our ways of knowing. For example, governments, such as the fascist government of Stalin or Lenin over the USSR, can literally rewrite history and change facts in a way that benefits their regime. Lenin literally wrote Trotsky out of the history books, and so although Trotsky played a key role in the rise of communism in the USSR, he didn't exist to most of the country. The ways of knowing that the common people had were authority, which in this case was corrupt, and memory -- but at a certain point, those who remember what happened will die and memory will not justify the existence of Trotsky anymore. Furthermore, there is no way to record all that has ever happened or has impacted "history"; a lot of what we call "knowledge" of the past is interpretation, because there are different theories that exist. There is no concrete "truth", so our knowledge that is founded upon these truths is not certain either.

3. Does the study of history widen our knowledge of human nature?

The study of history widens our knowledge of human nature because there are patterns evident in human nature that manifest themselves in the choices we make that then create history. Many of the things we have studied in history present what appears to be a common need for scapegoats, for example. In the Treaty of Versailles, the War Guilt clause that Germany was forced to accept illustrates the need for a scapegoat, as does the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany. By looking at these examples which, though different, both demonstrate a seemingly common human failing, we can examine our current actions: is the war in the Middle East an attempt to use all Arabs as scapegoats for the 9/11 attacks? Does this pattern also manifest itself in other historical events? Our repeated actions reveal our ingrained tendencies, such as the desire not to take responsibility for mistakes made, and hopefully we can learn from them.

4. Can history help in understanding the present or predicting the future?

History can certainly help in understanding the present, because the conditions created in the past have given rise to the future. Again I will use the example of the Middle East and the mandate system: many Americans who aren't aware of the devastation of the mandate system on Middle Eastern tribes are quick to chalk the 9/11 attacks up to "jealousy of the American life" (i.e., we are better than them so they got mad and bombed us), and this simply is not an understanding of the situation. A much more honest and realistic answer would be that, by approving a corrupt mandate system, Western countries completely altered the lives of Arabs in a way that resulted in territory-wars and loss of identity (nomadic tribes were confined to certain boundaries, which obviously had an impact on those tribes); this led to resentment and then with the Gulf Wars to the rise of extremist groups such as the Taliban which were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. With the knowledge of the mandate system and the Gulf Wars, it is easy to see how our past has created our future. Predicting the future is harder -- it may be possible to create vague outlines of what may happen, for example using the rise and fall of the Roman Empire as a model for what will happen to America, to assume that there will be a general "peak and decline" pattern. However, the world is constantly changing with innovations such as new technology; we may be able to say that resentment bred in treaties such as Versailles will lead to war based on similar events in the past, but it wouldn't have been possible for a historian to predict the role that nuclear weapons would play in the end of world war II based on any past wars.

5. To what extent does emotion play a role in an historian’s analysis? Is (historical) objectivity possible?

I think that emotion plays a role in a historian's analysis to a great extent. First of all, every historian has opinions regarding the world outside of history, and is more likely to pick out their facts to create theories based on their personal beliefs. For example, Marxist historians favor the theory that economic competition and the naval and arms race between Britain and Germany were major causes of World War I, because these theories point out capitalism as the culprit. Confirmation bias is almost inevitable, because a historian has to pick what facts they factor into their assessments of the past -- they aren't likely to pick facts that support a theory they themselves oppose. This is not objective, and allows emotion to impact how they view historical facts. Furthermore, even if a historian is being objective, where they are from geographically and the "emotion" associated with historical events in that area paints what facts they get. An American historian during the Cold War would be unlikely to get the facts regarding the Rape of Nanking because knowledge of that incident was suppressed -- America was in a war on communism, and the government didn't want communist China viewed in a sympathetic light. As a result, a historian trying to be objective may be simply unable to get the facts because of how the people surrounding them feel. The closest thing I can think of to "objective" history is Positivism, which claims that history is only history if it is in the form of pure historical fact, without analysis and including ALL facts. This may be objective, but it simply cannot work because it is not possible for every single historical happening to be recorded -- it is inevitable that certain facts will be known, and what is known obviously impacts what we view as historical truth, whether or not it really is the truth.

6. Why do accounts of the same historical event differ? Whose history do we study?

Accounts of the same historical events differ for several reasons. One reason is that not every historian has access to the same facts; on two different sides of one war, different events will be more important to one side than to the other. Again, as with the Rape of Nanking, some information is simply not available because very few governments want to tell a truth that portrays them in a negative light. Furthermore, the winning side of a war has the power to dictate what is the historical truth. It is said that the victors are the ones who write history, and it's true: very few historians will support historical theories that portray them in a negative light, so the facts that are passed down are altered or completely omitted. In fascist regimes such as Communist China, the brutalities of the Guomingdang Government were used as justification for takeover, but the brutalities committed by Mao's armies didn't exist in the history books because it painted the Communists in a bad light; dissenters were sent to the country and "re-educated" after Mao's Hundred Flowers speech because, being the victor, Mao could decide what history and truth were.

7. What determines how historians select evidence and describe/interpret or analyse events?

There are many factors that determine how historians select evidence and analyze it. Geographical position can play a role, because a historian born and raised in, say the USSR, is likely to support Communism and therefore would be more likely to choose evidence and analyze that in a way that makes it seem as if Communism is superior to Capitalism. Geography can also impact what facts are made available to historians to analyze, particularly in single-party states. Similarly, personal convictions/emotions impact what evidence a historian will select and analyze; obviously, a Marxist historian would be more likely to pay attention to the importance of the economic race in the start of World War I and downplay the importance of the assassination of Franz Ferdinand (for example) because each historian is trying to prove a point: they have a theory as to why something happened which is born of their own personal convictions, and will try to prove their theory as right.

8. What problems are posed for the study of history by changes in language and culture over time?

Changes in language make the study of history much harder to convey. Some issues, such as "untranslatable words" pose a threat to the understanding of concepts between languages; it may be possible to convey a point in Dutch with one word, but impossible to convey that same meaning in English because there is no English equivalent. Over time, as language changes concepts can be lost. Furthermore, when languages die, there is no way to translate them and so any history recorded in them will be lost until those languages can be translated again (an example of this would be the role of the Rosetta Stone in the understanding of ancient Egyptian heiroglyphic languages, which were untranslatable prior to its disovery). Culture changes cause problems for the study of history because the concept of what history changes with culture. In ancient Rome, often stories that were interspersed with mythology were taken as historical facts. In current American culture, although there is a faction of people who take the Bible as historical fact, religious mythology and 'stories' are not accepted as historical fact. So although "The Aeneid" may have been historical to the Greeks, in American culture it ceases to be history at all. This raises questions of whether our older histories can be relied upon as factual, and whether our current way of recording history will be historical a couple of thousand years into the future.

9. Can history be considered in any sense “scientific”?

History is in some senses scientific. There are many similarities between the historical and scientific processes: the historian, like the scientist, formulates a question such as "What were the main causes of World War I?", has a hypothesis, and conducts research that allows them to come to a conclusion. The main difference is that in science the evidence must be found through experiment, whereas in history the evidence already exists. History shares some flaws with science, such as the trouble of confirmation bias and the selection of evidence specifically to support a theory as well.

acronym!

Aims of Japan included control of German parts in China

Italy demanded control of the Fiume Territory and Port City.

Main British objective was to secure territory in the middle east, leading to the mandate system's establishment.

Some of Wilson's goals included the reduction of armaments and freedom of the seas.

One of the goals of the three main powers, France, Britain and the United States, was to cripple germany to keep it from growing too powerful and instigating another war: "stripped of her wealth and all her armed forces"

Feeling entitled to former German possessions because it had captured them, Japan demanded these as payment for their contribution to the war.

Victors of the war all had varying degrees of punishment in their goals: America was lenient, Britain moderate, France demanding compensation for the suffering and loss France had endured over the war.

It was one of Britain's goals in being more lenient with Germany that the country would not have bitterness towards the allies and potentially might serve as a barrier against Bolshevism.

Clemanceau's main goal in the Treaty of Versailles was to make Germany suffer for what it had done to France.

The 14 Points Speech was a basis for Wilson's goals for the Treaty, promoting a number of protocols that would keep another World War from breaking out.

Oil in the middle east!

Reparations were demanded to be paid by Germany, but Britain wanted to take only enough so that Germany would be able to consistently pay without occupation of their armies to ensure collection.

Systems for keeping peace such as the League of Nations were established-- an aim of Wilson's designed to ensure that nations would rule themselves as "open, democratic societies".

Quiz

3. Weakness of the Manchu Dynasty: The weakness of the Manchu Dynasty was a huge contributing factor to the beginning of the Civil War. China had been ruled by dynasties throughout its history, and (as with other imperialist regimes such as Russia and Germany's) the emperors of China towards the end of the 19th century. The Manchu Dynasty was already unpopular for allowing interference with other countries, such as the United States with the Open Door Policies, to impact life in China. After the Emperor, who wanted to give peasants more right for land, was overthrown by his aunt Empress Chianxi who nixed any hope of reform. This tension culminated in the Boxer Rebellion of 1901, in which martial arts warriors fought against European/Westerners and all Christians inhabiting China. Although the rebellion was muted with the help of other countries, the rebellion made a lasting impression upon the minds of the people. This was furthered when Chianxi was replaced by a 3 year old "emperor" upon her death.

People

Sun Yat-sen - Sun Yat-sen was a doctor and revolutionary who played an instrumental role in overthrowing the Manchu dynasty. He had been exiled for staging several failed coups, and in fact he was not directly involved in the October 10, 1911 Wuchang Rebellion that ousted the Manchus from power; upon hearing of the revolution he returned to China from the United States and was elected President of the Republic of China. Yat-sen was important because he was able to keep a large group of people with differing ideas for the republic united in its early years after the Manchu dynasty was overthrown.

HW 5

Identify at least one economic, social, political and foreign policy effect of Chinese Civil War. Refer to China Chapters 12 and 13 and The Lowe Text pages 415-419

Social:

Women's rights were prominent on the Communist agenda in the early years of its rule. In April 1950, the Marriage Law was introduced. This put a stop to arranged marriages, the marriage of children, murder of unwanted girl babies, and bigamy. Women were given more power, such as joint control over property with their husbands (rather than their husbands just having complete control), and divorce laws were updated (mutual consent in divorce was introduced). Another law in February of 1951 also introduced maternity leave and benefit, giving women two months wages after the birth of a child. There were 270 million women in China at the time, and before the Communist rule had virtually no rights and were subject to traditions such as footbinding that were ultimately harmful. This was the first step towards social equality between men and women.

Economic:

At the time of the Communist victory, China was very far behind most other countries economically. In addition, there was not enough food and a rapidly growing population; all things that led to economic strife. To combat this, the communists made major banks, the railway network, and a third of heavy industry into state property, the profits of which went straight to the State Treasury; this accounted for 2/3 of its yearly income. A People's Bank was opened in 1951 to replace private banks, and it had control of the issuing of money and over all transactions. This led to inflation being eradicated by the mid 1950s. Evidence of a single-party state's emergence was the treatment of food shortages: farmers had to sell 15 - 20% of their grain to the government at a fixed, low rate, and had to pay an agricultural tax.

Political:

Free speech was a casualty of Mao's single-party state. Due to the strain of the Five Year Plan, Mao's government became quite unpopular with the people. To combat this, Mao declared in his "Hundred Flowers" speech that his government was for the people and therefore it would be taking the complaints of the people and improving where they saw dissent. However, this ended in June 1957 when Mao swiftly took action against his critics. Some were fired from their jobs, others were sent to the country for "thought reform"; press was censored and free speech was banned. This is a sign of a dictatorship emerging.

Foreign Policy:

The PRC and the USSR entered a political relationship in 1949 after Mao came to power. Mao asked Stalin for financial help and, traveling to Moscow to talk to Staling, came to the Treaty of Friendship, Alliance and Mutual Assistance. This gave China both financial aid and "technical advice". Ultimately it was much more helpful to industry because it provided 10,000 engineers and planning experts who "planned China's economy"; the amount of money given was only $300 million over the course of 5 years, mostly in credits rather than cash. This relationship developed further under the influence of the Russian advisors with plans such as the First Five-Year Plan (1953-57).

HW 7

1. Identify and explain four of Mao's main aims as ruler of China (from notes also).

- Increase industrial output.

- Gain support from the USSR

- Rebuild China and build support from peasants and communes

- Get and maintain power

2. Identify and explain four major methods he used to try to achieve those aims. (think specific domestic policies)

- The Great Leap Forward: Mao's plan to make China into one of the world's leading industrial nations while improving agriculture. He hoped to overtake the English economy within 15 years and America's in 20 to 30 years. From 1958-1963.

-Communes: Mao reorganized the people into communes, which on average contained 5000 families who would give up land, animals and equipment to common ownership with everyone in the commune. Mao thought this would release the "tremendous energy of the masses" by increasing efficiency with things like communal eating halls (less time spent cooking by various people), and "houses of happiness" for the sick and infirm so that they wouldn't be a burden on their families.

-Propaganda: Posters, slogans and newspaper articles were used to make the chinese people enthusiastic about working long hours no matter the weather or bad conditions. Loudspeakers would play "revolutionary songs and stirring speeches" that encouraged the people to meet and exceed the goals for each target in the 5 Year Plan that was being implemented at the time. This essentially motivated people into achieving hefty tasks such as building a giant dam near Beijing.

- Backyard Steel Campaign: Emphasis on creating steel was heavy within the communes. 60,000 'backyard steel furnaces' were set up in towns and villages. Each one was only capable of making a couple tons of steel, but with the propaganda propelling people forward they were producing 11 million tons of steel, which was a 65% increase from the total in 1957.

3. Give examples of two legal methods and two examples of force Mao used to achieve his aims.

Legal:

-Propaganda

-The First Five-Year Plan

Force:

-Cooperatives: Families were forced into groups of 200-300 families. Families weren't paid for the use of their land, received wages only for their labor, were forced to surrender title deeds for their land and equipment and animals.

-Aftermath of 'The Hundred Flowers': Mao's critics while free speech was permitted were soon sent to camps in the country for "thought reform", some were fired from their jobs. Free speech was forbidden and press was censored.

4. Explain the cause-and-effect relationship between the "Great Leap Forward" and the "Three Bitter Years".

The basic problem of the "Great Leap Forward" was that it pushed for too much, and consequently things broke down. Overused factories lead to machines that were too old and overwork falling apart under strain, working falling asleep and being injured due to exhaustion-related accidents. The Backyard Steel campaign took a large number of workers, which took people out of the fields and reduced what could be grown; then, most of the steel produced was useless and had to be thrown away because the peasants didn't know how to produce it correctly. The coal that the B.S.C. took also lead to a shortage in the country's supplies, so railways were inoperative. The farming crisis also arose from the Great Leap Forward. The harvest in 1958 was poor because so many people were taken from the fields to pursue the new industrial goals, and because Party officials falsely claimed that the grain harvest was 260 million tons (perhaps to increase morale or appease Mao), which lead to communal eating halls giving peasants too-generous meals and using up food stocks. With the bad harvest of 1959 and all the chaos of the G.L.F.'s failure, there was a famine that killed 9 million people just in 1960.

5. Please give three examples from the reading of Mao using propaganda to achieve his aims.

- Lying about production: The government presumably lied about how much grain had been produced because it wanted to encourage the workers to do even more and exceed what they were doing at the time.

- Broadcasting: The use of loudspeakers playing patriotic songs and speeches that encouraged workers to meet and exceed the plans of the second 5 Year Plan was an effective propaganda method.

- Personal involvement: To make people even more enthusiastic about working for the Communists, Mao himself and members of the Politburo would come in and join in the work of building the dam in Beijing.

Mao's Aims

1. Increase industrial output

2. Make china a single party state

3. Gain support from the USSR

4. Rebuild China and build support from peasants and commoners

5. Improve agriculture so China can feed its people

6. Get and maintain power -->

7. Build China into a military superpower

Essay

"Mao's use of terrror and propaganda were his most effective methods of winning support from the peasants".

Based on the following sources, to what extent to you agree with that claim?

The sources presented give slightly different perceptions of how Mao won the peasants over, and it seems that each gives evidence for different parts of these claims. I agree with this claim to a great extent based on what these sources provide for historical facts.

According to chapter 10 of source A, "China Since 1900", Mao used propaganda to spread communist ideas in Northern China. For example, there is a propaganda poster issued in 1944 which shows peasants helping the Red Army in the war against Japan. This piece of propaganda would instill the idea that all peasants were eager and ready to serve the Communists, presumably because the Reds would help them in return. What could also be interpreted as evidence of propaganda is other movements that the source references, such as the "Women's Associations" which did things like helping women to free themselves of abusive husbands. It might have been in the dogma of the party, but it certainly didn't hurt the communists in winning support from women (peasant or not, one would think). However, this source makes it seem as if terror wasn't used to keep peasants in line at all: it specifically states that the Red Army "operated under strict discipline...never treating the peasants badly". It also states that when the people of Yanan were forced to flee to caves after the town was bombed, "the top leaders of the communist party lived in the caves and did not have any special luxuries that the common people did not have". So, this source indicates that while propaganda was used, terror was not.

This excerpt from "Modern World History" also indicates that terror was not used to keep the peasants in line. It states that the Communists won the people over by land reform instead: "they seized the estates of rich landlords and redistributed them among the peasants". It could be argued that Mao used violence to win support from the peasants, but violence (or force) against the landlords. Rich landlords had their land taken from them and the land was then redistributed to the peasants. This action makes sense with the Communist policy, so it doesn't qualify as propaganda; however, the fact that there was a series of droughts and bad harvests in 1930, and "plenty of rice and wheat being hoarded in the cities by profiteering merchants", so the timing of land redistribution was surely helpful to winning the people over. Not so much propaganda as strategically placed execution of policy.

Source C, an excerpt from "China Conquered", argues something quite different from sources A and B, claiming that Mao primarily used terror and violence in order to scare the peasants into supporting him. According to this source, anybody who was not with the Reds was a target for Mao's "mercilessness": an example of this was the blockade of Changchun, a nationalist-held city in Manchuria in 1948 which resulted in the deaths of 120,000 civilians (by the Communists' own watered-down count). In addition, young men were drafted forcibly into the Reds' army or into "hard, dangerous labor at the front". Many peasants lost their houses to the needs of the army such as fuel for fires and "materials for building bridges". There was also class warfare evident -- anybody who did not take place in the brutal violence against the landlords was considered a dissenter and would be punished accordingly: "anyone not active in denouncing landlords will be stoned to death". This source seems to say that propaganda was not necessary, because the peasants were terrorized into doing anything that the Communists wanted.

It is hard to come to a definitive conclusion based on these sources, because each seems to give a slightly different interpretation of what happened. However, based on them I would say that Mao used violence and propaganda as his main methods of winning peasants over.

HW #6

1. Explain three tactics/methods Mao used to conquer China and secure power acording to this source.

1

Starvation: In the city of Changchun, which was held by Nationalists, the Communists imposed a blockade. This led to the deaths of at least 120,000 people from starvation, citizens who were not necessarily Nationalists themselves. The only people allowed to go free were those of value to the Reds, usually rich people, doctors, etc. Mao used the starvation and deprivation to entice Nationalists over to the Reds.

Psychological Warfare: The Reds used loudspeakers to assault starving Nationalist soldiers, taunting them with the fact that they had food -- promising things like pancakes when the Nationalist soldiers were literally reduced to eating their own shoe soles and leather belts.

Class Warfare: Reds used the landlords as scapegoats to incite peasants in their favor. The "land reform" was actually as the source puts it, "violence against the relatively better-off". There were rallies where peasants were forced to watch terrible acts of violence against the landlords. Where there was no violence, obstruction of the land reform movement was cited as the reason.

2. What are three major differences between the way this source portrays the Communists' treatment of the common people with other sources we've read?

This source differs from the other sources we have studied in its basic depiction of the Communists.

1. "China Since 1900" generally depicts the Communists as helpful to and admired by the peasants and commoners, leaving out details of mistreatment. For the most part, the book doesn't mention things such as the starvation of the city of Changchun and all the civilian casualties. According to the chapter "China Conquered", when a direct assault against Changchun failed Mao ordered his armies to starve it into surrender; he banned civilians from leaving the city, so attempts at evacuation were fruitless. Over 5 months, the civilian population had dropped to 170,000 from half a million; even the 'watered-down' estimates of the CCP put the deaths to 120,000 people. The intention of this was to force the defending troops to surrender, and it was a tactic used in multiple cities.

2. Exploitation of civilians is generally not recorded in "China in 1900"; the book claims that the Reds actually won civilians over by including them in the army, but "Mao" claims that civilians were forced. Accroding to the book, in Manchuria the Reds conscripted 1.6 million laborers. These people were used to do "frontline tasks" such as transporting ammunition and the wounded and dismantling fortifications. Women had to care for wounded, mend uniforms, make shoes and cook for troops and laborers. Households had to hand over a designated amount of food, which amounted to 225 million kg of grain just in the Huai-Hai Campaign.

3. The Red use of psychological warfare is not referenced in "China in 1900". Because nationalists were constanstly in short of food, they relied on unreliable methods of getting it, such as supplies brought by railway and airlifts. Nationalist Army members resorted to eating tree bark, killing each other for airlifted food, and eating their belts and shoe soles. To take advantage of this, the Reds used loudspeakers to entice the Nationalists, promising "pancakes" and other food.

3. Explain at least two practices of the Chinese Civil War you learned from this source.

1. Exploitation of peasants: Many peasants in addition to being drafted lost their houses, 'pulled down to provide fuel for cookies and materials for building bridges". I was under the impression that the Reds got the peoples' support through their policies and didn't exploit them.

2. Class Warfare as propaganda: The Reds essentially forced the peasants into "struggle against the landlords". There was organized violence against the relatively better-off, in which targets were made to stand facing crowds which were "psyched up to come forward and pour out their grievances against them...the crowds would then be led to shout slogans while brandishing fists and farm tools". If peasants weren't participating, they were considered reactionaries and would be punished. This also counts as terror as a method to control peasants.

4. The Communists fought a "total war." Cite two pieces of evidence from this passage that support that view.

1. Everyone was a target: The starvation of cities such as Changchun prove that the Communists were fighting a total war, because they didn't limit their targets to Nationalists alone. Civilians who could be uninvolved, nationalists, or even in support of the communists were starved because of their location, in an attempt by the Reds to subdue the Nationalists,

2. Economy/people re-geared towards war: The peasants' lives were changed drastically by the war, because the Communists brought them forcibly into the conflict: peasants in communist-run areas were conscripted as laborers for the army, crops went to the communists, and even houses were pulled down in order to provide for the needs of the communist army.

5. According to this source, what part of land reform really mattered to Mao?

According to this source, the real reason for land reform was to incite violence rather than to improve anybody's lot or redistribute land. The source claims that the appointment of Kang Sheng by Mao, "a man who was an expert not in agrarian reform, but in terror (and who knew nothing about land issues)" proves that Mao was not truly interested in creating land reform that was advantageous for the people.

6. Mao's main aim was to secure power, not to improve the lives of the peasants. To what extent do you agree with that claim?

Based on this source, I do agree with that claim to a great extent. Mao touted the Communist mantra of reform and doing things for the betterment of peoples' lives; however, peasants truly suffered just as much under Mao as they would under the Nationalists. Peasants were conscripted into the Red Army to do dangerous tasks; their supplies were taken to support the Reds, sometimes having their homes torn down for fuel and other needs; and peasants who didn't actively participate in "land reform" were killed just as if they were landowners. If Mao's true aim were to give the peasants better lives, then so many of them wouldn't have suffered in trying to attain that goal.

HW #2

For Tuesday, 2/2, identify three major land, air or sea practices of the Chinese Civil War. (Write a paragraph on each)

Reading to complete HW 2: China Since 1900 Chapters 5-11; Modern World History 409-414

Three Major Land Practices of CCW:

Taking Cities:

The Red army was inferior to the Nationalists in terms of manpower and supplies, which made them an easier target for the Nationalist Army. and had suffered through the war. In order to eliminate the Communist threat, Chiang Kaisheck would attack and capture Communist-held cities. The Guomingdang army attacked Red-controlled Shanghai, and Chiang Kaisheck ordered all the communists rounded up and killed. This happened again in Guangzhou later that year, and forced thousands of Communists into the country. This strategic use of the nationalist army's superior power led to Communists being expelled from nearly all the major cities. The Reds retreated to the Jiangxi and Hunan countrysides where they had less influence over government matters. This also put Chiang Kaisheck himself in control of cities and "at the head of the government in Nanjing, now... ready to conquer the rest of China.

Extermination Campaigns:

Kaisheck had not managed to gain control of the Jiangxi province, because when the Communists fled to the province they won the support of the peasantry. Chiang Kaisheck considered this even more of a threat to his power than warlords or bandits, so he launched the Extermination Campaigns (1930-34). His army outnumbered the Reds. The first four were failures because he sent his armies directly into Red territory, but in the fifth campaign he used a new method of attack advised to him from General Hans von Seeckt of Germany. This tactic was similar to the trench warfare of WWI: the Nationalist armies surrounded the Jiangxi soviet and slowly moved forward while building blockhouses and digging trenches and putting up barbed wire fences. This was highly successful, and by October 1934 the Communists had lost over half their territory, 60,000 soldiers, were running out of food and fuel and weapons and ammo, and their territory was still being taken.

Guerilla Warfare:

Although the Red Army was smaller than the Nationalist army, the first four Extermination Campagins against the Reds were failures because the Reds successfully employed guerilla warfare tactics. In the first four extermination campaigns, the Reds never fought the Nationalists head to head; rather they lured them into Communist territory and then attacked each Guomingdang unit separately, "knocking them out in deadly ambushes". Mao's guerilla tactics that he controlled his army with were:

1. "When the enemy advances, we retreat!"

2. "When the enemy halts and encamps, we trouble them!"

3. 'When the enemy seeks to avoid a battle, we attack!"

4. 'When the enemy retreats, we pursue!"

These tactics met criticism because they allowed the Nationalists to take peasant villages as they went through the territory, which ultimately led to the deaths of more than a million peasants. However, these tactics were highly effective because they were used to outwit the plans of the Nationalist Army successfully, even though the nationalists were superior in numbers.

In class 2/25

Political/Social Effects

Women's Rights:

1. The Marriage Law of 1950

Peasants:

1. 1950 agrarian Reform Law

Class Warfare:

1. Speak Bitterness Campaigns were part of the AFL in 1950

Economic:

1. The Peoples' Bank -- Gov't. takeover of banks

2. Govt. takes over railroads, heavy industry, etc. --> Command economy is established.

Social/Political:

1. Targeting of reactionaries (not truly free speech).

HW #3

3 Reasons That the Communists Won Rather Than the Nationalists:

1. The nationalists used poor tactics to win the people over --

There are several examples of this, the most prominent one being the "3 All Campaign". This movement by the nationalists proposed to turn the people against the communists in areas that the communists were supported by "killing all, burning all and destroying all"in 1941. They hoped that by murdering peasants, poisoning wells and burning homes they would be able to terrorize the peasants into supporting them, which really just instigated hatred of the nationalists. Other things, such as nationalist treatment of peasants (taking food and supplies, etc) did not endear them to the peasants.

2. Communists effective guerilla tactics --

The Communists, not as well equipped as the Japanese, were compelled to resort to guerilla tactics to win the war. For example, in the Hundred Regiment Battle of 1940 they crippled Japanese roads and traffic by attacking Japan's railway communications through north China.

This was even more helpful because when they were able to drive the Japanese back to Manchuria and then take over the land they had left. Before the war with Japan, the communists used guerilla tactics to combat the nationalists themselves -- for example, they thwarted the first 4 extermination campaigns by luring the Guomindang units into their territory and then suddenly attacked each unit separately, ambushing them.

3. The Nationalists were poorly organized and failed many of their goals --

The Nationalists tried to win the support of the people by passing laws that would help them, but all of these failed. For example, the Rural Service and the New Life Movement. The New Life Movement was regarded as being superficial (dealing with santitation, honesty, etc.). Chinese people felt like this did not deal with medical care, housing, and other pressing social issues. THe R.S. had little effect because it didn't reduce land taxes or help with the famine of 1932-33 which killed more than 2 million. Therefore, the peasants weren't convinced.

In class 2/21

Examples of Guerilla Warfare by Communists:

1. 1930-34 --> Communists use Guerilla tactics in response to the extermination campaigns.
Communists retreated to countryside (Jaingxi province, etc.). Commies would not fight nationalists head to head.
Ex) Jiangxi province

2) 100 Regiments Battle (1937-40)
-Communists attack Japanese in Northern China (railways, communications)
-Won support for Chinese communists

3) The Long March

2 Examples of Communists gaining peasant support

1) Making land reform -- The Land Laws: Taking land from rich people and redistributing it to the peasants (Land Law 1930)

2) Development of women's rights

Mistakes make by CHiang Kai Shek
1) The nationalists offered the New Life Movement and the Rural Service, but they had no tangible effect and were criticized; commies on the other hand actually did things with results the peasants could see.

I. Political Effects of Chinese Civil War
A. People's Republic of China was formed, October 1, 1949
B. China becomes a single-party state
i. Mao becomes leader of the state
C. China is isolated politically (except for USSR)
D. Fear and suspicion between the US & PRC
i. Adds to Cold War tension
E. Establishment of a Nationalist Government in Taiwan
F. Affects on US Foreign Policy
1. US does not recognize the PRC until the 1970s.
2. US establishes military and economic relationship with Taiwan
a. Give military tech and weapons
b. "Understanding" that US will protect Taiwan from PRC
3. US "containment" of Communism Policy after WWII.
I. Long term effects include
a. Korea war 1950-52
b. Vietnam War 1965-75

OPVL -- unfinished

3. The origin of Source A is that it is an excerpt from Chiang Kaishek's diary, quoted in a high school textbook. Its purpose is presumably for the leader of the Guomindang party to reason through the various things happening in his government -- in it, he admits that his party is corrupt and "degenerate", so the entry is intended to record his personal thoughts. This has value for several reasons: it is from the leader of the Guomindang party, the party that opposed the Communists. It can be assumed that Kaishek would have known the most about the party and its weaknesses. He says that the group is "lacking standards of right and wrong" among other deep flaws that go down to the spirit of the people involved and their dedication to the cause. It can also be assumed that this journal entry is very candid, because Kaishek would be unlikely to say such negative things about his party if he thought it would be published -- therefore, what he recorded can be taken as his very honest opinion, and Kaishek's opinion drove the party. A limitation of this source is that it is shows a limited perspective. Kaishek's opinion is important in understanding why the party did what it did, but it doesn't give any facts, figures or historical facts. It is only Kaishek's opinion that Guomindang was corrupt, and so the reader cannot draw specifics from it. It doesn't give the important perspective of the people, or even of an analyst: rather, it is the opinions of a military leader.

The origin of the excerpt from "Mao: The Unknown Story" is that it is a book written by Jung Chang, an author who lived in Mao's China, and Jon Halliday, who has "written or edited 8 previous books". The purpose of this excerpt is to demonstrate practices of the Chinese Civil War in the early 1930s


1. The woodcut on page 22 is meant to convey the cruelty of the Guomindang tax collectors. The woodcut depicts a collector leading away the last hope of food from a starving, suffering family: there is a man crouching on the ground of a scattered cottage with a hand to his head, holding a baby that is reaching out to the goat the collector is leading away. An old man in the corner stares balefully at the floor, and the family is left in darkness. What this shows is the inhuman cruelty of the party that is willing to condemn innocents to death by starvation while they are well-dressed and well-equipped.

2. The message being conveyed by the Communist Party Poster is that all Japanese peasants were willing and happy to help

IC #3

Practices of CCW

Kidnapping: Kiang Incident -- example of mistakes by Shek.
-Shek does not fight the Japanese in 1936 - focuses on communists still.
- Goes kidnapped by a warlord Zhang Xuelang
-Communists and Russians help negotiate his release; Shek looks weak, commies look good.
- Chiang Kai Shek promises United Front vs. Japanese, Commies &
fight together vs. Japanese.

Communists occupy areas vacated by Japanese in the 1930s --> Puts the commies in a strong position for after WWII to win their civil war
Destroy All Campaign: "Kill all, burn all, destroy all", aiming to turn the people against the communists in areas which supported them by burning down all their villages and crops, slaughtering their animals, poisoning their wells and murdering their peasants.

1940 - Hundred Regiments Battle
Guerilla warfare
disrupt railways and communications of Japanese
Mistakes by Japanese that Commies took advantage of:
1941 - Japanese "3 All" Campaign, use of terror to turn peasants against commies.

HW 13

HW 13 - Read Chapter 13 "Defeat of the Axis," the materials on Bob Stewart and pages 102-104 and answer the following question: How important was Allied air power in helping to defeat Germany in WWII?


Based on chapter 13 (I wasn't here for Bob Stewart's presentation), air power was key to defeating Germany in WWII. Operation Thunderclap seems to have been one of the final straws for Germany and continuing to struggle through the war -- starting in February 1945 the Allies started to destroy German cities with a massive bomber offensive. Over half a million bombs were dropped on the mostly wooden city of Dresden over 2 days in February, and this created a firestorm that killed at least 35,000 people. This went on, and by April almost all German cities were in ruins, and 305,000 German civillians had been killed. It wasn't the reason that Germany surrendered, because the people were still willing to fight and it didn't manage to destroy the economy. However, it did make the job much easier for the troops on the ground, which proceeded to make the final attack. In April, after Hitler's suicide, Germany surrendered. So, although air power was not the thing that caused Germany to surrender directly, Germany wouldn't have been weakened so much if allied air power didn't allow for such massive, violent attacks with high casualty rates.

HW 18

What were the WWII death tolls for the following countries?
Russia: 20 million
Poland: 5,620,000
Germany: 6,633,000
Great Britain: 449,800
China: 10,000,000 to 20,000,000
Japan:2,700,000
France: 567,600
USA: 418,000

Name two economic effects of the war: Italy was completely bankrupt; many of Germany's major cities were destroyed and had to be rebuilt.

Name two social affects of the war: Naziism was ended when Germany was defeated; There was a lot of relocation because of destruction of major cities in Germany, USSR --> Refugees and displacement.

Name two political effects of the war: It was the end of Europe's domination of world affairs, because Britain was so far in debt and Germany was ruined, other countries such as Italy were bankrupt and millions of European men had died. The U.S. instead emerged as a major world power and ended isolationism. Another effect was that the UN was born in the peace talks.