104
American History Unit 2 – Expansion & WWI
105
Learning Goal 1 – I will be able to:
-Define Manifest Destiny, imperialism and isolationism
-List and explain two reasons for imperialism
-Explain why Alaska was purchased
-Summarize two reasons the purchase of Alaska was so important
-Cite and explain two reasons the US turned to imperialism in the Pacific
II.
Expansion & WWI
a. The United States Gains Overseas Territories
i. End of Isolation
1. Roots of Imperialism
a. Manifest Destiny – belief held by many Americans that the US was
“destined” to expand its borders from “sea to shining sea.” Once CA
became a state, and this was accomplished, why stop there?
b. Imperialism – building an empire by founding colonies or conquering
other nations
i. Driven by desire for natural resources (oil, copper, rubber, etc.)
ii. Need for coaling stations throughout Pacific
1. Analogy – driving to the beach on vacation; need places to
stop to get gas, get food, etc.
c. Isolationism – avoiding involvement in affairs of other nations
i. American policy since 1780s – George Washington warned to
“steer clear of permanent alliances”
d. By late 1800s, many Americans advocated change, to abandon old
isolationist policy and expand to keep country strong
i. Alfred Mahan, The Influence of Sea Power upon History argued
US needed a strong navy and overseas bases & coaling stations
2. Seward’s Folly
a. 1867, US purchases Alaska from Russia for $0.02/acre
i. Some thought AL was frozen wasteland with little benefit
1. Called Seward’s Folly (William Seward = Secretary of
State who arranged purchase)
ii. Gold found in 1890, source of fur, timber, minerals, oil
iii. 1st example of US imperialism, Hawaii added in 1898
ii. US Seeks Trade with Japan and China
1. Opening Trade with Japan
a. By 1900, Japan emerged as a world power
2. Foreign Powers in China
a. China weak, other nations establishing spheres of influence within China
i. SOI = areas where foreign countries have control of resources
ii. Germany, Great Britain, France, Japan, Russia
iii. 1899, US Secretary of State John Hay announced US Open Door
Policy = all countries should have equal access to trade in China
b. Boxer Rebellion – Chinese nationalists who did not like foreign influence
in their country and in 1900 killed 200 foreigners
c. Many in China did not want foreign influence, but major world powers did
not listen
106
Learning Goal 1
-Define Manifest Destiny, imperialism and isolationism
-List and explain two reasons for imperialism
-Explain why Alaska was purchased
-Summarize two reasons the purchase of Alaska was so important
-Cite and explain two reasons the US turned to imperialism in the Pacific
MANIFEST DESTINY
IMPERIALISM
ISOLATIONISM
Define
Define
Define
Why Alaska was purchased
Why imperialism?
Reasons for it
Why purchase of Alaska so important?
Why imperialism in the Pacific?
Who first argued in favor of it?
107
108
109
Learning Goal 2 – I will be able to:
-Define and explain the importance of yellow journalism
-Identify Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst
b. The Spanish American War
i. Yellow Journalism = exaggerated news stories
1. Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst in competition for readers
2. 1890s, Cuban rebels fighting for independence from Spain, newspapers used
yellow journalism to exploit situation and gain readers
a. People wanted action, US President William McKinley didn’t
3. Steps to US involvement
a. 1898, Hearst’s paper published letter by Spanish minister Enrique Dupuy
de Lome that insulted President McKinley
b. February 1898, USS Maine exploded in Havana Harbor in Cuba
i. 266 men died – Who blamed and why?
1. Spain  lead to war  more readers  more $$$
c. Teller Amendment
i. April 20, 1898, US declares Cuba independent & orders Spain out
ii. Teller Amendment stated US had no interest in controlling Cuba
iii. Spain responded by declaring war on the US, US declares war the
next day
“US ARMY BOMBS HISTORIC CHURCH: CENTURIES
OLD BUILDING LIES IN RUIN”
If an average American reads the above newspaper
headline, they are thinking…
“US ARMY DESTROYS ENEMY MUNITIONS STASH:
HURT GERMANY’S ABILITY TO MAKE WAR”
If an average American reads the above newspaper
headline, they are thinking…
110
Learning Goal 2 – I will be able to:
-Define and explain the importance of yellow journalism
-Identify Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst
Yellow Journalism
Pulitzer & Hearst
111
112
In 2014, the Arizona state government passed a bill that allows businesses to deny
services to homosexuals if the owners of the business claim that providing services
is against their religious beliefs. The governor then vetoed (or voted against) the
bill. (A bill is a proposed law. The legislative branch writes bills or proposed laws,
then it goes to the executive branch to be approved or vetoed.) The Washington
Post and the Wall Street Journal had different views on this. How can you tell?
How are their wordings different? Are they trying to shape public opinion?
Look at the tweets. What did the newspaper staffs think of the bill? Did they
support or oppose it? What words were used to give it away?
Supports
Opposes
Words used to give away bias _________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Supports
Opposes
Words used to give away bias _________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
113
Misleading Headlines Can Influence Readers More Than Actual
Content
You’ve probably run into it dozens of times: you click on an interesting article headline
only to be taken to content that doesn’t exactly fulfill the headline’s promise. Sites that
have been labeled as click-bait farms, such as BuzzFeed and Upworthy, are often
accused of this. However, even long-standing and reputable publishers have started
using misleading headlines to get traffic. Now, a new study shows that these headlines
can have more of an effect on a reader’s interpretation of an article than the text in the
article itself – even if the whole article is read.
Examples of Misleading Headlines
Everybody’s familiar with tabloid-style headlines that are clearly exaggerations or
fabrications. Misleading headlines in supermarket tabloids and gossip magazines are
to be expected. But what happens when the line between tabloid and hard news starts
to blur? For example, anybody who isn’t a news junkie would likely consider a source
called the Washington Times to be a reputable publication. However, take a look at this
article from March of 2013 titled “Take it to the bank: Sen. Elizabeth Warren wants to
raise minimum wage to $22 per hour.” That headline might grab you, but a quick read
of the article will reveal that Warren never truly posited the minimum wage should be
raised to $22.
A little research reveals that the Washington Times has long had a conservative bias.
Stuff like this can be found everywhere – there’s no shortage of biased news sources
for both liberals and conservatives. But what happens when one of the most wellknown, supposedly unbiased news outlets is just as misleading? Check out this CNN
article from earlier this year titled “Ebola in the air? A nightmare that could happen.”
Again, this headline is definitely going to get some clicks (“ebola” was the top search
term this year), but the experts interviewed for the story claimed that the chances of
ebola mutating to spread through the air are actually very small. The headline could
just as easily have been “Ebola in the air? Experts say it’s unlikely.”
Study Shows Headlines Skew Readers’ Thoughts About Content
The Australian study, published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,
gave participants four articles to read – two factual pieces and two opinion pieces, all
of which were 400 words or less. The articles also presented different slants in their
headlines. For example, one of the factual pieces concerned burglary rates, which had
decreased by 10 percent in the past decade but showed a 0.2 percent rise in the last
year. Readers read two articles on this topic, one titled “Number of Burglaries Going
114
Up” and one called “Downward Trend in Burglary Rate.” When the study participants
faced a surprise quiz after reading the articles, they were better at recalling information
that was congruous with the headline. In other words, readers could remember more
details about the declining trend in the article titled “Downward Trend…” while also
having better retention of the 0.2 percent increase in the article titled “Number of
Burglaries Going Up.” The headlines told readers what to focus on, and those are
exactly the details they retained. On the other hand, most readers were able to infer
that the burglary rate would decrease next year regardless of article headlines.
In the opinion pieces, however, both inference and retention were skewed due to
misleading headlines. Readers were presented with a piece about genetically modified
food. The article contained contrasting information from an expert and a layperson, the
food expert stating that GM foods are safe and the layperson expressing concerns.
Some participants read the article under the title “GM foods are safe,” while others saw
the headline “GM foods may pose long-term health risks.” Despite reading the same
exact article, participants were found to side with whatever slant the title took. Readers
of “GM foods may pose…” were also more willing to pay extra money for organic food
in the future.
What Does This Mean For Writers?
The main problem here is that publishers are posting articles with lofty headlines that
generate clicks but end up actually leaving readers with skewed versions of the
truth. This happens even if the whole article is read. Thus, the study suggests that
content creators are doing a serious disservice to the their readers by using headlines
such as these. The question is this: if publishers and article writers know that readers
retain information from the headline more than anything else in the article, don’t they
have a responsibility to avoid headlines that bend the truth? Can readers be blamed for
not examining content more closely and getting to the true crux of a story?
115
LEGATION DE ESPANA, WASHINGTON
Eximo Senor DON JOSE CANALEJAS:
My Distinguished and Dear Friend: - You need not apologize for not having written to me; I also ought to have
written to you, but have not done so on account of being weighed down with work and nous sommes quites.
The situation here continues unchanged. Everything depends on the political and military success in Cuba. The
prologue of this second method of warfare will end the day that the Colonial Cabinet shall be appointed, and it
relieves us in the eyes of this country of a part of the responsibility for what happens there, and they must
cast the responsibility upon the Cubans, whom they believe to be so immaculate.
Until then we will not be able to see clearly, and I consider it to be a loss of time and an advance by the wrong
road - the sending of emissaries to the rebel field, the negotiations with the Autonomists not yet declared to be
legally constituted, and the discovery of the intentions and purpose of this government. The exiles will return
one by one, and when they return, will come walking into the sheepfold, and the chiefs will gradually return.
Neither of these had the courage to leave en masse, and they will not have the courage hus to return.
The message has undeceived the insurgents who expected something else, and has paralyzed the action of
Congress, but I consider it bad. Besides the natural and inevitable coarseness with which he repeats all that the
press and public opinion of Spain has said of Weyler, it shows once more what McKinley is: weak and catering
to the rabble, and, besides, a low politician, who desires to leave a door open to me and to stand well with the
jingoes of his party. (Jingo = someone prepared to use war as part of foreign policy; belligerent)
Nevertheless, as a matter of fact, it will only depend on ourselves whether he proves bad and adverse to us. I
agree entirely with you; without a military success nothing will be accomplished there, and without military and
political success, there is here always danger that the insurgents will be encouraged, if not by the government, at
least by part of the public opinion.
I do not believe you pay enough attention to the role of England. Nearly all that newspaper canaille which
swarms in your hotel are English, and at the same time are correspondents of the Journal, they are also
correspondents of the best newspapers and reviews of England. Thus it has been since the beginning. To my
mind the only object of England is that the Americans should occupy themselves with us and leave her in
peace, and if there is a war, so much the better; that would further remove what is threatening her - although
that will never happen.
It would be most important that you should agitate the question of commercial relations, even though it would
be only for effect, and that you should send here a man of importance in order that I might use him to make a
propaganda among the senators and others in opposition to the Junta and win over exiles.
There goes Amblard. I believe he comes deeply taken up with little political matters, and there must be
something very great or we shall lose. Adela returns your salutations, and we wish you in the new year to be a
messenger of peace and take this New Year's present to poor Spain.
Always you attentive friend and servant, who kisses your hands. - ENRIQUE DUPUY DE LOME
116
In the second paragraph, Dupuy de Lome writes, “they must cast the responsibility upon the Cubans, whom
they believe to be so immaculate.”
1. To whom is he referring with the word, “they?”
a. Spanish
b. Cubans
c. Politicians
d. Americans
2. What is Dupuy de Lome really communicating in this sentence?
a. He is stating his belief in the superiority of the Cuban people.
b. He is explaining why America is such a great nation.
c. He is mocking the manner in which the Americans view the Cubans.
d. He is wishing that he was a Cuban.
3. When Dupuy de Lome writes of President William McKinley, “it shows once more what McKinley is:
weak and catering to the rabble, and, besides, a low politician, who desires to leave a door open to me
and to stand well with the jingoes of his party. (Jingo = someone prepared to use war as part of foreign
policy; belligerent)” what point is he making?
___________________________________________
___________________________________________
___________________________________________
___________________________________________
___________________________________________
___________________________________________
Spanish Ambassador Enrique Dupuy de Lome
117
Learning Goal 3 – I will be able to:
-List and explain the steps to American victory in the Spanish American War
-Identify and explain the Teller and the Platt Amendments
-Summarize and explain the hardships American soldiers faced and how Teddy Roosevelt became a war hero
-Identify and locate on a map the territories the US acquired
4. War in the Philippines and Caribbean
a. Philippines, US Navy won quick victory with help of Filipinos who did
not like foreign influence of their islands
b. Caribbean, US Army not ready for war
i. Some soldiers in wool uniforms to fight in Cuba
ii. 2,000 died from disease, 400 died in combat
iii. Rough Riders – led by Teddy Roosevelt
1. Rode on horseback up San Juan Hill in Cuba
c. Spain signed cease-fire agreement on August 12, 1898
ii. United States Gains Territories
1. Cuba
a. Disease still a problem, US sends Dr. Walter Reed (medical center in DC
named after him)
b. 1901 Platt Amendment – limited Cuba’s right to make treaties, allowed
US to intervene, required Cuba to sell or lease land to the US
i. Guantanamo Bay military base (where terrorists are jailed)
2. Puerto Rico
a. 1917 Jones Act, Puerto Ricans are US citizens, today PR a commonwealth
3. Philippines
a. $20 million to Spain for control of the Philippines
b. Rebels there fought for independence , stopped in 1902, not ind. until ‘46
4. Guam – US territory still today in the Pacific
5. US land gained from SA War = PPG (Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam)
118
Learning Goal 3 – I will be able to:
-List and explain the steps to American victory in the Spanish American War
-Identify and explain the Teller and the Platt Amendments
-Summarize and explain the hardships American soldiers faced and how Teddy Roosevelt became a war hero
-Identify and locate on a map the territories the US acquired
Teller Amendment
Hardships
Platt Amendment
Teddy Roosevelt
119
120
THE TELLER AMENDMENT
Whereas the abhorrent conditions which have existed for more than three years in the Island of Cuba, so near our own
borders, have shocked the moral sense of the people of the United States, have been a disgrace to Christian civilization,
culminating, as they have, in the destruction of a United States battle ship, with two hundred and sixty-six of its officers
and crew, while on a friendly visit in the harbor of Havana, and cannot longer be endured, as has been set forth by the
President of the United States in his message to Congress of April eleventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, upon
which the action of Congress was invited: Therefore,
Resolved, First. That the people of the Island of Cuba are, of right ought to be, free and independent.
Second. That it is the duty of the United States to demand, and the Government of the United States does hereby demand,
that the Government of Spain at once relinquish its authority and government in the Island of Cuba and withdraw its land
and naval forces from Cuba and Cuban waters.
Third. That the President of the United States be, and he hereby is, directed and empowered to use the entire land and
naval forces of the United States, and to call into the actual service of the United States the militia of the several States, to
such extent as may be necessary to carry these resolutions into effect.
Fourth. That the United States hereby disclaims any disposition or intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or
control over said Island except for the pacification thereof, and asserts its determination, when that is accomplished, to
leave the government and control of the Island to its people.
THE PLATT AMENDMENT
The President of the U.S. is hereby authorized to 'leave the government and control of the island of Cuba to its people' so
soon as a government shall have been established in said island under a constitution which, either as a part thereof or in an
ordinance appended thereto, shall define the future relations of the United States with Cuba, substantially as follows:
I. That the government of Cuba shall never enter into any treaty or other compact with any foreign power or powers which
will impair or tend to impair the independence of Cuba, nor in any manner authorize or permit any foreign power or
powers to obtain by colonization or for military or naval purposes or otherwise, lodgment in or control over any portion of
said island.
III. That the government of Cuba consents that the United States may exercise the right to intervene for the preservation of
Cuban independence, the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property, and individual
liberty, and for discharging the obligations with respect to Cuba imposed by the Treaty of Paris on the United States, now
to be assumed and undertaken by the government of Cuba.
IV. That all acts of the United States in Cuba during its military occupancy thereof are ratified and validated, and all
lawful rights acquired thereunder shall be maintained and protected.
VII. That to enable the United States to maintain the independence of Cuba, and to protect the people thereof, as well as
for its defense, the government of Cuba will sell or lease to the United States lands necessary for coaling or naval stations
at certain specified points, to be agreed upon with the President of the United States.
VIII. That by way of further assurance the government of Cuba will embody the foregoing provisions in a permanent
treaty with the United States.
What’s the contradiction? ____________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Underline or highlight the contradictory statements that support the sentence(s) you wrote.
121
*****The first two articles argue in favor of keeping the prison open. The second two articles argue in favor of closing it.*****
Don’t Close Guantánamo
By JENNIFER DASKAL
Published: January 10, 2013
Connect With Us on TwitterFor Op-Ed, follow@nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal,
follow@andyrNYT.
IN 2010, I was branded a member of the “Al Qaeda 7” — a notorious label attached to Department of
Justice lawyers who were mocked by critics claiming they had “flocked to Guantánamo to take up the
cause of the terrorists.” My crime: I advocated for the closure of the detention facility — a position that has
also been taken up by the likes of former President George W. Bush, former Secretary of Defense Robert
M. Gates and former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell — and for more humane living conditions for those
imprisoned there.
At the time, I reacted defensively. I was indignant. I insisted on the legitimacy of my convictions. But even
then the writing was on the wall. For a core group of detainees, closing Guantánamo would not mean
release or prosecution, as most human rights and civil liberties groups have long advocated. Rather, it
would mean relocation to the United States, or elsewhere, for continued detention.
Now, almost four years later, I have changed my mind. Despite recognizing the many policy imperatives in
favor of closure, despite the bipartisan support for this position, and despite the fact that 166 men still
languish there, I now believe that Guantánamo should stay open — at least for the short term.
While I have been slow to come to this realization, the signs have been evident for some time. Three years
ago, Barack Obama’s administration conducted a comprehensive review of the Guantánamo detainees and
concluded that about four dozen prisoners couldn’t be prosecuted, but were too dangerous to be
transferred or released. They are still being held under rules of war that allow detention without charge for
the duration of hostilities.
Others happened to hail from Yemen. Although many of them were cleared for transfer, the transfers were
put on indefinite hold because of instability in Yemen, the fear that some might join Al Qaeda forces, and
Yemen’s inability to put adequate security measures in place.
While the specific numbers have most likely shifted over time, the basic categories persist. These are men
whom the current administration will not transfer, release or prosecute, so long as the legal authority to
detain, pursuant to the law of war, endures.
122
President Obama raised the hopes of the human rights community when during his re-election campaign
he once again said the detention center should be closed. But it was not clear whether he had a viable plan,
and any such plan would almost certainly involve moving many of the detainees into continued detention
in the United States, where their living conditions would almost certainly deteriorate.
Guantánamo in 2013 is a far cry from Guantánamo in 2002. Thanks to the spotlight placed on the facility
by human rights groups, international observers and detainees’ lawyers, there has been a significant, if not
uniform, improvement in conditions.
The majority of Guantánamo detainees now live in communal facilities where they can eat, pray and
exercise together. If moved to the United States, these same men would most likely be held in military
detention in conditions akin to supermax prisons — confined to their cells 22 hours a day and prohibited
from engaging in group activities, including communal prayer. The hard-won improvements in conditions
would be ratcheted back half a decade to their previous level of harshness.
And Guantánamo would no longer be that failed experiment on an island many miles away. The Obama
administration would be affirmatively creating a new system of detention without charge for terrorism
suspects on American soil, setting a precedent and creating a facility readily available to future presidents
wanting to rid themselves of a range of potentially dangerous actors.
The political reality is that closure of Guantánamo is unlikely to happen anytime soon, and if it did, it
would do more harm than good. We should instead focus on finding places to transfer those cleared to
leave the facility and, more important, on defining the end to the war.
In a recent speech, Jeh Johnson, then the Department of Defense general counsel, discussed a future
“tipping point” at which Al Qaeda would be so decimated that the armed conflict would be deemed over.
Statements from high level officials suggest that this point may be near. And as the United States pulls out
of Afghanistan, there is an increasingly strong argument that the war against Al Qaeda is coming to a
close. With the end of the conflict, the legal justification for the detentions will finally disappear.
At that point, the remaining men in Guantánamo can no longer be held without charge, at least not
without running afoul of basic constitutional and international law prohibitions. Only then is there a
realistic hope for meaningful closure, not by recreating a prison in the United States but through the
arduous process of transferring, releasing or prosecuting the detainees left there.
In the meantime, we should keep Guantánamo open.
Jennifer Daskal is a fellow and adjunct professor at Georgetown Law Center. She has served as counsel to
the assistant attorney general for national security at the Department of Justice and as senior
counterterrorism counsel at Human Rights Watch.
123
Opinion
Why Guantanamo Bay should
remain open
The recent death (a suspected suicide) of a prisoner at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay has
helped reignite the debate over whether the facility should be closed. It’s a complex issue. However, I think
Guantanamo should remain open.
As I see it, there are two major considerations that should drive the debate about Guantanamo’s future. The
first is whether keeping the facility open is the best way for the U.S. government to protect the American
people.
I think it is. It offers several compelling advantages over the alternatives. For one, the detainees are guarded
by well-trained MPs, isolated from support and held in a place from which escape would be nearly
impossible. Remember, many Guantanamo detainees are resourceful, ideologically committed enemies of
the United States who have stated that they want to maim and kill Americans, so it’s important that they’re
kept in a facility that’s as secure as possible.
Closing the Guantanamo facility and opening a new detention facility in the U.S. would pose profound
security risks. The new facility would become a beacon for extremists and an expensive, highly complex
challenge to secure. Just look at what happened when the Obama administration attempted to try Khalid
Sheik Mohammed in New York City (an effort which it has since abandoned). And while many politicians
love the idea of a domestic detention facility, few want one in their backyard.
Moreover, over the years the government has invested an enormous amount of money in expanding the
Guantanamo facility’s support base. Inmates now have access to a well-stocked library, gym and soccer
field. These outlets don’t simply provide humane incarceration conditions and encourage rehabilitation;
they also directly serve our national security interests. If the detainees were transferred out of Guantanamo,
the benefit of these outlets would be lost.
The second consideration that should drive the Guantanamo debate is whether keeping the facility open is
the best way to ensure justice for the detainees as well as the victims of terrorism.
124
At the core here is a critical legal question: Are the Guantanamo detainees suspected illegal combatants
subject to military authority, or are they suspected criminals and thus subject to the civilian criminal court
system? I support the prior understanding. The Guantanamo detainees were captured while engaged in
armed hostilities against the United States. Their objectives in fighting the United States were manifestly
political — and their chosen mechanisms of action were undoubtedly military. Indeed, as criminalapproach advocates often neglect to mention, a substantial number of former Guantanamo detainees have
returned to the battlefield. Put simply, operating as part of organized groups like al Qaida, these detainees
were at war. From my perspective, if the Guantanamo detainees are criminal suspects, laws of war cannot
exist in a compatible reality.
Next, let’s consider Guantanamo’s procedural justice. In the past, many Guantanamo detainees haven’t
been given speedy trials. However, with President Obama having finally re-authorized the military
commission process, more progress toward bringing detainees to trial will be made. That progress will
illustrate America’s commitment to the rule of law and undercut negative perceptions about Guantanamo.
Contrary to popular opinion, anger toward Guantanamo amongst Islamic populations is not driven by an
inherent discomfort with military commissions, but rather by the perception that Guantanamo is a black
hole of permanent, un-reviewed detention.
Ultimately, the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay provides an imperfect solution to a highly complex
problem. While 82% of all Guantanamo detainees have already been released, wherever possible the U.S.
government should expedite this process, repatriating those who are no longer believed to pose a
substantial threat. At the same time, the accused should face military commissions. In the end, though,
considering the many interests at stake and absence of good alternatives, I believe that the Guantanamo
detention facility must remain open for the foreseeable future.
Tom Rogan is an American blogger and writer currently living in London, England. He recently completed
a law course and holds a BA in War Studies from King’s College London and an MSc in Middle East
Politics from SOAS, London. His blog can be found at TomRoganThinks.com. Follow him on Twitter.
125
Obama renews push to close
Guantanamo Bay prison
The effort to shrink Gitmo’s ranks has gained a small amount of momentum in recent months. | AP Photo
Close
By JOSH GERSTEIN | 1/28/14 9:45 PM EST
President Barack Obama used his State of the Union address Tuesday to put new urgency behind his drive to close
the Guantanamo Bay prison, raising the issue before a joint session of Congress for the first time in nearly five
years.
“With the Afghan war ending, this needs to be the year Congress lifts the remaining restrictions on detainee
transfers and we close the prison at Guantanamo Bay – because we counter terrorism not just through intelligence
and military action, but by remaining true to our Constitutional ideals, and setting an example for the rest of the
world,” Obama was to say, according to his prepared remarks.
His high-profile mention of the issue was notable not just because he did not bring up the issue during his four
previous State of the Union addresses, but because any discussion of the subject is a reminder of one of the most
obvious broken promises of Obama’s early presidency: his vow to close the prison within his first year in office.
“Guantanamo will be closed no later than one year from now,” Obama declared as he signed an executive order in
the Oval Office on the subject on the first full day of his presidency. Obama never made that one-year pledge in
front of Congress, but did speak in his February 2009 speech there — one not considered a State of the Union — of
having ordered the closing of the prison.
126
The president announced the plan to close the prison in a year confidently and with little controversy, but essentially
abandoned it after lawmakers put up resistance to bringing detainees to the U.S and White House aides decided to
focus on other priorities like health care reform and the sluggish economy.
During his first term, Obama grudgingly signed a series of bills containing language making it virtually impossible to
move detainees from Guantanamo to the U.S. and making it difficult to transfer detainees to other countries without
extraordinary confidence they would not later engage in terrorism. This essentially stalled the closure process.
However, late last year, Congress passed a defense bill that slightly eased the transfer restrictions. The effort to
shrink Gitmo’s ranks has also gained a small amount of momentum in recent months, with eight prisoners sent
home or elsewhere abroad since August.
Obama’s comments Tuesday were in line with those of some legal scholars, who’ve argued that the legal basis for
holding the men at Guantanamo will erode or disappear after the U.S. is no longer involved in active combat in
Afghanistan —something the president has pledged to bring to an end this year.
Courts have upheld the detentions at Guantanamo under the Authorization for Use of Military Force passed by
Congress three days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. That resolution refers to the “nations, organizations,
or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided” those strikes. The Al Qaeda organization which
planned those attacks has been greatly degraded over the years by a variety of tactics, including military action in
Afghanistan as well as drone strikes and financial pressure. Groups with vaguer ties to Al Qaeda now appear more
dangerous than the core group, but the connection of the new groups to the 9/11 attacks is more remote or nonexistent, casting doubt on the viability of the 2001 resolution to go after those organizations.
In a speech last May, Obama said he wanted to work with Congress to repeal or replace the 2001 measure.
“I intend to engage Congress about the existing Authorization to Use Military Force, or AUMF, to determine how we
can continue to fight terrorism without keeping America on a perpetual wartime footing,” the president said. “Our
systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue. But this war, like all wars, must end. That’s what
history advises. That’s what our democracy demands.”
Among the legal experts who’ve argued that the basis for detaining prisoners will erode over time is new Homeland
Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, who served during Obama’s first term as the Pentagon’s top lawyer. Johnson
argued in a 2012 speech that the fight against Al Qaeda would eventually reach a tipping point after which the effort
should return to a model where law enforcement has the lead and open-ended detention is wound down.
“‘War’ must be regarded as a finite, extraordinary and unnatural state of affairs,” Johnson declared. “In its twelfth
year, we must not accept the current conflict, and all that it entails, as the ‘new normal.’ Peace must be regarded as
the norm toward which the human race continually strives.”
Closing Guantanamo in the next year face significant complications. The Obama administration has decided that
nearly 50 of the 155 men left at Gitmo are too dangerous to release and not suitable for trial. For some of those
127
facing trials, military commission proceedings are currently in active and fairly intense pretrial litigation. Hearings are
set next month at Guantanamo for five suspected 9/11 plotters and one man accused of bombing the U.S.S. Cole in
2000. In his speech last May, Obama said he was asking the Pentagon to pick a site in the U.S. to hold military
commissions. Eight months later, no such site has been announced.
Close Guantánamo. No More Excuses.
The story of Guantánamo remains that of nearly 800 men and boys thrown into an island prison designed to exist
beyond the rule of law. Most were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, refugees fleeing the chaos of war in
Afghanistan. The U.S. military captured only one in twenty; many were sold for significant sums of money to the
U.S. by local authorities in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Of the 155 men who remain at Guantánamo as of January
2014, approximately half were cleared for release years ago. The vast majority will never be charged with any
crime.
On his second day in office, President Obama pledged that he would close the prison within a year. He has
reiterated his promise many times since then, and under current law, he has the power to make it a reality, But in
2014, Guantánamo is still inexcusably open and entering its thirteenth year. No more excuses. Guantánamo must
be closed.
The men detained at Guantánamo brought the prison back into the consciousness of the world through their mass
hunger-strike in 2013. They effectively helped pressure the Obama administration to begin releasing men, after nine
months without a transfer. But today, the base is looking more and more like an internment camp for Yemen men.
Yemenis now constitute more than half the population at Guantánamo, and most have long been cleared for
release, like our clients Tariq Ba Odah, Mohammed al-Hamiri, Fahd Ghazy, and Ghaleb Al-Bihani. The collective
punishment of these men based on their nationality must end.
Join CCR to demand the closure of Guantánamo and to build opposition to both this prison and to all sites of unjust
U.S. detentions. Take the actions on this page, share it with your friends, and learn about our clients who remain
imprisoned. Do your part to advocate to close Guantánamo from wherever you are.
128
Is Waterboarding Torture?
Before deciding whether to call waterboarding "torture" it's worth considering what the legal definition of
"torture" is. It is not necessary to create a new legal definition since there are already numerous formally
ratified definitions already in place:
1. Part 1, Article 1 and the US Reservations of the UN Convention Against Torture:
The term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental,
is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person
information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is
suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason
based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or
with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does
not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. The US Reservations for the UN Convention Against Torture:In order to constitute torture, an act must
be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain
or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or
threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or
threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to
disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that
another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the
administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt
profoundly the senses or personality.
3. Article 32 of the Fourth Geneva Conventionany measure of such a character as to cause the physical
suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to
murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated
by the medical treatment of a protected person, but also to any other measures of brutality whether
applied by civilian or military agents.
4. Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention:torture or inhuman treatment, including biological
experiments, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
5. Article 7(2)(e) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court"Torture" means the intentional
infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or
under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only
from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions.
6. Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture For the purposes of this Convention, torture
shall be understood to be any act intentionally performed whereby physical or mental pain or
suffering is inflicted on a person for purposes of criminal investigation, as a means of
intimidation, as personal punishment, as a preventive measure, as a penalty, or for any other purpose.
Torture shall also be understood to be the use of methods upon a person intended to obliterate the
personality of the victim or to diminish his physical or mental capacities, even if they do not cause
physical pain or mental anguish.The concept of torture shall not include physical or mental pain or
suffering that is inherent in or solely the consequence of lawful measures, provided that they do not
include the performance of the acts or use of the methods referred to in this article.
7. 18 United States Code Title 18, §2340(2)
129
“torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to
inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful
sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control
(2)“severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering
substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or
suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures
calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality;
What Waterboarding Is
Waterboarding induces panic and suffering by forcing a person to inhale water
into the sinuses, pharynx, larynx, and trachea.
The head is tilted back and water is poured into the upturned mouth or nose. Eventually
the subject cannot exhale more air or cough out more water, the lungs are collapsed,
and the sinuses and trachea are filled with water. The subject is drowned from the
inside, filling with water from the head down. The chest and lungs are kept higher than
the head so that coughing draws water up and into the lungs while avoiding total
suffocation. "His sufferings must be that of a man who is drowning, but cannot drown."
Waterboarding is not:





upright or face-down dunking: People dunked face-first in water can keep
water out for as long as they can hold their breath. When one is inclined with the head back, holding one's breath
will not prevent the upper respiratory tract from filling with water.
asphyxiation: Survivors of near-drowning experiences report that the sensation of water flooding down the larynx
and trachea as they struggle to breathe is the most terrifying aspect of the experience. In waterboarding, this
begins quickly, long before the onset of oxygen starvation.
submersion: Waterboarding does not require immersion in standing water. Someone can be waterboarded with
as little as a canteen or two of water.
slowly dripping water on the forehead: Several types of water-based tortures have been used in Asia, but the
famous "Chinese Water Torture" demonstrated in Mythbusters Episode 25 is very different than waterboarding.
a simulation: Waterboarding is actually forcing large quantities of water into the pharynx, and trachea, inducing
choking and gagging in the subject.
How To Do It
Restrain the interrogation subject on a board. Incline the board about 15-20 degrees so
that the feet are above the head. Optionally, put a damp cloth over the face to keep the
water clinging to the face (Khmer Rouge technique), or put plastic wrap over the mouth
but not the eyes or nose to prevent water from escaping the throat and sinuses (CIA
technique). Pour water onto the inclined face so that the water runs into the upturned
mouth and nose. The water stays in the head, filling the throat, mouth, and sinuses with
water. The lungs don't fill up with water so your prisoner doesn't asphyxiate, but they
*do* feel their entire upper respiratory system from sinuses to trachea filled with water,
"simulating drowning". You're drowning your subject from the inside, filling their head
130
and neck. The lungs stay out of the water, keeping oxygen in the blood and prolonging the glubbing. "His sufferings must
be that of a man who is drowning, but cannot drown."Key points:



Keep the chest elevated above the head and neck to keep the lungs "above the waterline".
Incline the head, both to keep the throat open and to present the nostrils for easier filling.
Force the mouth open so that water can be poured into both the nose and mouth.
Saran wrap, damp cloth, or any facial covering is not essential, but sometimes used as a bonus multiplier. If someone
coughs to try to blow the water out of their throat or mouth the plastic catches the water and keeps it in. The cloth or
plastic also acts as a one-way valve, opening to let more air out and then closing again to prevent inhalation. Eventually
you end up with collapsed, empty lungs, no ability to inhale more air, a throat, mouth, and nose that's still full of water, and
no capacity to get the water out since you're already fully exhaled. "CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water
boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in." (In practice, "14 seconds" is roughly the amount of
time one can exhale slowly through the upturned nose. This keep the water out, temporarily. When your breath runs out
the water starts flowing in.) There are a lot of variables to play with: the angle of the board, the volume of the water, the
pressure of the plastic wrap, how much inhalation to allow, and where to keep your prisoner on the line between
"waterlogged wheezing" and "deep gurgling". There's an asphyxiation hazard, but modern interrogators have doctors on
hand with blood oxygen monitors to make sure their subject stays oxygenated enough to remain conscious. If the prisoner
begins to asphyxiate to the point of unconsciousness the doctors have five to six minutes to resuscitate your prisoner
before brain damage occurs, which is more than enough time especially with the equipment prepped. It's possible to kill
someone this way if you're not careful, but the point of coercive methods isn't to kill you, it's to keep you on the agonizing
border between life and death. Tortures produce the most intense suffering when they cut, shock, burn, or otherwise
abuse their prisoner without him losing consciousness. Doctors are present as "safety officers" to advise interrogators
how long they can torture their prisoners without permanent physical damage. Doctors in the Guantanamo "Behavioral
Science Consultation Team" have reviewed interrogation procedures, selected which procedures would be used,
designed the procedures, and trained interrogators to follow them. Inhaled liquid is an immediate, life-threatening
situation. It'll kill you faster than third degree burns, faster than a lost eye or a lost limb. If you've ever inhaled water you
know that even the smallest amount of liquid in the larynx and trachea is an immediate, hardwired hotline directly to the
panic portion of the brain that death is imminent. Survivors of near-drowning experiences report that the sensation of
water flooding down the larynx and trachea as they struggle to breathe is the most terrifying aspect of the experience.
Waterboarding does not "simulate" this experience, it re-creates this experience.
131
Place a small star where Pittsburgh is located on this map, then draw (where necessary) and label in pencil the
following: Alaska, Hawaii, China, Cuba, Philippines, and Puerto Rico
132
Learning Goal 4 – I will be able to:
-Explain 3 reasons why Teddy Roosevelt wanted to dig a canal
-Summarize and explain how and why the canal was dug in Panama
-Summarize the construction of the Panama Canal
-Define Monroe Doctrine
-Summarize how the European Nations were threatening the western hemisphere
-Define Roosevelt Corollary and explain its importance
c. Building the Panama Canal
i. Revolution in Colombia
1. TR wanted canal dug through Isthmus of Panama
a. Controlled by Colombia who would not allow building of canal
2. TR encouraged Panamanian rebels to revolt against Colombia, sent Navy to
block Colombian forces from stopping rebellion, recognized Panama as a new
country, and agreed to pay Panama $10 million plus $250,000 per year for a 99
year lease on the land
ii. Building a Canal
1. Began by Americans 1904 – French tried and failed in late 1800s
2. Canal route through 51 miles of forests and swamps with mosquitoes and disease
3. 6,000 people died from disease, explosions, etc. (almost 2 workers/day)
4. Opened August 15, 1914
5. Built to cut 8,000 miles off voyage by sea from one coast of the US to the other
and to allow US Navy to link Atlantic and Pacific fleets quickly
d. US Policy Toward Latin America
i. TR – “Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.”
1. Actions speak louder than words
2. Would use US military to protect US interests in Latin America
ii. Monroe Doctrine, 1823
1. Warned European nations not to interfere in western hemisphere but US did not
have military strength yet to enforce it
2. Roosevelt Corollary of 1904 made US the police force of the Western
Hemisphere
a. Passed after Latin American nations refused to pay debts to Europe, and
European countries threatened military action in the Western Hemisphere
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------World Power
has no right to exert
influence when other
countries resist.
World Power
always has the right to exert
its influence over other countries
whether they resist or not.
Place a dot and a #1 on the line above where you think it should be. To what extent should a world power have
the right to exert its influence and do whatever it wants when other countries resist?
Look at example on the board, and place another dot and a #2 where you think it should be.
Finally, place a dot and a #3 on the line where you think applicable for the third example.
133
Learning Goal 4 – I will be able to:
-Explain 3 reasons why Teddy Roosevelt wanted to dig a canal
-Summarize and explain how and why the canal was dug in Panama
-Summarize the construction of the Panama Canal
Reasons
for
Panama
Canal
134
-Define Monroe Doctrine
-Summarize how the European Nations were threatening the western hemisphere
-Define Roosevelt Corollary and explain its importance
Monroe
Doctrine
How
European
Nations
were
threatening
the Western
Hemisphere
Roosevelt
Corollary
and
Importance
135
136
1. IGNORE THE RESEARCH OPTIONS.
2. UNDERLINE OR HIGHLIGHT THE CHALLENGES THAT HAD TO BE OVERCOME
WHEN BUILDING THE PANAMA CANAL.
3. DO YOU THINK THIS WAS WRITTEN BY SOMEONE EXCITED TO BE A PART OF THE
BUILDING OF THE CANAL OR HESITANT/AFRAID? EXPLAIN.
137
138
The Monroe Doctrine
from President James Monroe's seventh annual message to Congress, December 2, 1823:
At the proposal of the Russian Imperial Government, made through the minister of the Emperor residing
here, a full power and instructions have been transmitted to the Minister of the United States at St.
Petersburgh to arrange, by amicable negotiation, the respective rights and interests of the two nations on
the northwest coast of this continent. A similar proposal has been made by His Imperial Majesty to the
Government of Great Britain, which has likewise been acceded to. The Government of the United States
has been desirous, by this friendly proceeding, of manifesting the great value which they have invariably
attached to the friendship of the Emperor, and their solicitude to cultivate the best understanding with his
Government. In the discussions to which this interest has given rise, and in the arrangements by which
they may terminate the occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights
and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent
condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for
future colonization by any European powers....
Underline or highlight where Monroe declares
the W. Hemisphere free from colonization.
Roosevelt Corollary
December 6, 1904 Annual Message Before Congress
…The steady aim of this Nation, as of all enlightened nations, should be to strive to bring ever nearer the
day when there shall prevail throughout the world the peace of justice. There are kinds of peace which
are highly undesirable, which are in the long run as destructive as any war. Tyrants and oppressors have
many times made a wilderness and called it peace. Many times peoples who were slothful or timid or
shortsighted, who had been enervated by ease or by luxury, or misled by false teachings, have shrunk in
unmanly fashion from doing duty that was stern and that needed self-sacrifice, and have sought to hide
from their own minds their shortcomings, their ignoble motives, by calling them love of peace. The peace
of tyrannous terror, the peace of craven weakness, the peace of injustice, all these should be shunned as we
shun unrighteous war. The goal to set before us as a nation, the goal which should be set before all
mankind, is the attainment of the peace of justice, of the peace which comes when each nation is not
merely safe-guarded in its own rights, but scrupulously recognizes and performs its duty toward others.
…It is not true that the United States feels any land hunger or entertains any projects as regards the other
nations of the Western Hemisphere save such as are for their welfare. All that this country desires is to see
the neighboring countries stable, orderly, and prosperous. Any country whose people conduct themselves
well can count upon our hearty friendship. If a nation shows that it knows how to act with reasonable
efficiency and decency in social and political matters, if it keeps order and pays its obligations, it need fear
no interference from the United States. Chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general
loosening of the ties of civilized society, may in America, as elsewhere, ultimately require intervention by
some civilized nation, and in the Western Hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the Monroe
Doctrine may lead the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or
impotence, to the exercise of an international police power.
Underline or highlight where Roosevelt declares
his intention for the role of the US in the world
139
140
141
142
Learning Goal 5 – I will be able to:
-Define militarism and explain how it was a cause of WWI
-Define alliances and explain how they were a cause of WWI
-Define imperialism and explain how it was a cause of WWI
-Define nationalism and explain hot it was a cause of WWI
-Identify Gavrilo Princip and Franz Ferdinand
-Explain how the assassination of Franz Ferdinand led to WWI
-Identify the nations in the Central Powers and the Allied Powers
e. World War I
i. Four MAIN causes of WWI
1. Militarism – countries dedicated to building their militaries; glorification of
weapons
a. How caused war = Strong military = desire to use them
2. Alliances – joining together
a. How caused war = countries with strong militaries joining together with
other countries who are building their militaries
3. Imperialism – desire to expand borders & influence to gain power
a. How caused war = Countries with strong militaries and their allies trying
to extend the borders of their empires and take land from others
4. Nationalism – belief that people of the same culture and language should have
their own country
a. How caused war = would require boundaries to be redrawn among
countries who do not want to give up any territory and who have the
militaries and the alliances to defend them
ii. The Spark
1. June 28, 1914, Austrian Archduke Francis Ferdinand and wife Sophie
assassinated by Serbian Nationalist Gavrilo Princip in Sarajevo
2. Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, Russia declared war on AustriaHungary, Germany declared war on Russia, Germany declared war on France,
Germany invaded Belgium, France declared war on Germany, Britain declared
war on Germany
3. Central Powers = Germany, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire
4. Allied Powers = France, Russia, Britain, later Italy and US
5. Soldiers from 30 nations & 6 continents fought the “Great War” – later WWI
143
Learning Goal 5 – I will be able to:
-Define militarism and explain how it was a cause of WWI
-Define alliances and explain how they were a cause of WWI
-Define imperialism and explain how it was a cause of WWI
-Define nationalism and explain hot it was a cause of WWI
-Identify Gavrilo Princip and Franz Ferdinand
-Explain how the assassination of Franz Ferdinand led to WWI
-Identify the nations in the Central Powers and the Allied Powers
M
Define:
A
Define:
How led to war:
How led to war:
CAUSES OF WORLD WAR I
I
Define:
How led to war:
N
Define:
How led to war:
Gavrilo Princip – who he was and how led to WWI
Franz Ferdinand – who he was and how led to WWI
America’s Allies
America’s Enemies
144
145
Two Kinds of Nationalism
There were two kinds of nationalism in 19th Century Europe:
(i) the desire of subject peoples for independence It led to a series of national struggles for independence among the
Balkan peoples. Other powers got involved and caused much
instability.
(ii) the desire of independent nations for dominance and prestige As the powers try to dominate each other in Europe, their rivalries
may be regarded as one of the causes of the First World War.
Nationalism in Germany
Germany was united in 1871 as a result of the Franco-Prussian
War, and she rapidly became the strongest economic and military
power in Europe. From 1871 to 1890, Germany wanted to
preserve her hegemony in Europe by forming a series of peaceful
alliances with other powers. After 1890, Germany was more
aggressive. She wanted to build up her influence in every part of
the world. German foreign policy in these years was best
expressed by the term 'Weltpolitik' (World Politics). Because
German ambitions were extended to many parts of the globe,
Germany came into serious conflicts with all other major powers
of Europe (except Austria-Hungary) from 1890 to 1914.
Nationalism in Italy
Italy was unified in 1870. She was barely powerful enough to be
counted as a great power. Her parliamentary system was corrupt
and inefficient. Her industrial progress was slow. But Italy had
great territorial ambitions. She wanted Tunis and Tripoli in
northern Africa. This brought her into conflicts with France
because Tunis was adjacent to the French colony, Algeria, and
was long regarded by France as French sphere of influence. Italy
also wanted Italia Irredenta--Trieste, Trentio and Tyrol. Although
the majority of the people in these places were Italians, they were
kept under the rule of the Dual Monarchy . Thus Italy came into
serious conflicts with Austria-Hungary.
146
Nationalism in Austria-Hungary
Austria-Hungary was established as the Dual Monarchy in 1867.
The Dual Monarchy ruled over a large empire consisting of many
nationalities, but only the Austrians (racially they were German)
and the Hungarians had the right to rule. The other nationalities
Czechs, Slovaks, Serbs, Croats, Rumanians and Poles resented
their loss of political freedom. They desired for political
independence. Thus the policy of the Dual Monarchy was to
suppress the nationalist movements both inside and outside the
empire. The particular object of the Dual Monarchy was to gain
political control over the Balkan Peninsula, where nationalist
movements were rife and were always giving encouragement to
the nationalist movements within the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
The centre of the nationalist movements in the Balkans was
Serbia. Serbia always hoped to unite with the Serbs in the AustroHungarian Empire so as to create a large Serbian state. Therefore
the first enemy of Austria-Hungary from 1871 to 1914 was Serbia.
Besides Serbia, Austria-Hungary also hated Russia because
Russia, being a Slav country, always backed up Serbia in any
Austro-Serbian disputes.
Nationalism in Russia
Russia was the largest and most populous country in Europe. It
extended from the shores of the Arctic Ocean to those of the Black
Sea and from the Baltic Sea eastwards to the Pacific Ocean. Two
thirds of her people were Slavs. She was still territorially
ambitious. She wanted to expand in all directions. In 1870, Russia
broke the Treaty of Paris (see below) and renewed her aggression
in the Balkans. Thus, her territorial ambitions clashed with the
interests of Austria-Hungary and Britain. However, Russia did not
retreat. Being a 'landlocked' state, she wanted to acquire warm
water ports in the Balkans (e.g. Constantinople). Moreover, as
most of the Balkan peoples were of the Slavic race, Russia could
claim to be the protector of her brother races in her expansion.
Note: Treaty of Paris and Russia
147
In 1856, Russia was defeated by Britain and France in the
Crimean War. She was forced to sign the Treaty of Paris, which
stopped her expansion into the Balkans from 1856 to 1870.
Britain wanted to establish her influence in the Balkans because
the Balkan area borders the Mediterranean Sea. lf Russia
controlled the Balkan area, British naval power and trade in the
Mediterranean Sea would be threatened.
Nationalism in France
France had been the dominant power in Europe for centuries.
Napoleon I and Napoleon III had attempted to dominate Europe.
In 1871, France was defeated by Germany. She had to lose two
provinces: Alsace and Lorraine. She also needed to pay heavy
indemnities. From 1871 onwards, France's greatest ambition was
to recover Alsace and Lorraine from Germany. She also wanted to
prevent another defeat by Germany, to recover her national
prestige by acquiring overseas colonies (e.g. Morocco) and to
make diplomatic alliances with other important powers in Europe.
Nationalism in Britain
In 1870 Britain was the most industrially advanced country in
Europe. She also possessed the largest overseas empire and the
largest navy in the world. She did not want to trouble herself with
the continental affairs of Europe. Her main concern was to
preserve her overseas empire and her overseas trade by
maintaining a large navy. Before 1890, her chief enemies were
France and Russia. The colonial interests of France often clashed
with those of Britain . (Britain and France had colonial rivalries in
Asia and Africa--for example, India, Burma, Thailand, Egypt.)
Russia's interest in the Balkan area also alarmed Britain, as British
naval interests in the Mediterranean Sea would be immediately
threatened. After 1890, as Germany went on increasing her naval
strength and threatened British naval supremacy and the British
overseas interests, she became Britain's chief enemy.
148
149
Learning Goal 6 – I will be able to:
-Define neutrality
-Explain why the US was neutral at the start of WWI (and how that policy was broken)
-Define and explain the importance of the Lusitania and the Zimmermann Note
f. Americans and World War I
i.
United States entry into WWI
1. American neutrality threatened
a. Most Americans viewed WWI as a European conflict and did not support
American involvement
b. US neutral, (not choosing sides)but still trading with European countries,
mostly the Allies
c. German U-Boats (subs) attacked merchant ships and passenger liners
i. Lusitania – British passenger liner sunk in May 1915 off coast of
Ireland
1. 1,200 people killed, 128 Americans
2. Germans claimed US sending weapons and supplies on the
ship to the British…true allegation
2. Congress Declares War
a. Zimmermann Note – telegram sent by German foreign minister Arthur
Zimmermann to Mexican government proposing an alliance against the
US
i. Mexico and Germany go to war with US and win, Mexico gets
back land lost in the Mexican-American War (TX, NM, AZ)
ii. Published in US newspapers – American people outraged
b. “The world must be made safe for democracy” –Woodrow Wilson on
April 6, 1917 after asking for and receiving a declaration of war from the
US Congress.
150
Learning Goal 6 – I will be able to:
-Define neutrality
-Explain why the US was neutral at the start of WWI (and how that policy was broken)
-Define and explain the importance of the Lusitania and the Zimmermann Note
Neutrality
Examples of US following it
Define
Lusitania
Examples of US breaking it
Zimmermann Note
DEFINE
DEFINE
HOW LED TO US IN WWI
HOW LED TO US IN WWI
151
152
153
154
Learning Goal 7 – I will be able to:
-Define mobilization
-Cite examples of the United States mobilizing for WWI both militarily and on the home front
-Define Liberty Bonds and Selective Service
-Identify some of the major battles of WWI and explain why they were important
-Describe trench warfare and locate the western and eastern fronts on a map of Europe
-List and explain the importance of the six new weapons of WWI
ii.
iii.
iv.
Mobilizing for War
1. Mobilize = to prepare for war
2. Committee on Public Information (CPI) organized rallies, speeches, pamphlets,
posters, etc.
3. Espionage Act of 1917 & Sedition Act of 1918 made it illegal to write about or
speak out against the war
a. 900 people jailed
4. Selective Service Act of 1917 required men between 21-30 to register for the draft
5. Liberty Bonds – loans from the American people to the government
6. War Industries Board – oversaw production and distribution of steel, copper,
cement, and rubber to ensure enough for the war effort
7. Food Administration worked to increase food supplies & maintain farmers prices
a. People voluntarily observed “Meatless Mondays” and “Wheatless
Wednesdays” along with “victory gardens” to prevent shortages
The American Soldier in World War I – Fighting before US arrived
a. Stalemate after a year of fighting (stalemate = neither side can win decisive
victory in the battle)
b. February 1916, Germans attacked French city of Verdun and that summer, the
Allies attacked along Somme River
i. 10 months of fighting, 1 million dead, Germans failed to take Verdun
and Allies progressed only seven miles
c. British navy blockaded German ports, German U-Boats (submarines) attacked
British ships
Early Battles of the War
a. The First Battle of the Marne
i. September 3, 1914, Battle of the Marne in France
1. German advance stopped
2. By mid-September, French and German troops fighting along
Western Front – Trenches dug from the N. Sea to Switzerland
b. Germans and Russians fighting on the Eastern Front
i. Trenches dug from the Black Sea to the Baltic Sea
ii. War of Attrition emerged – a war of slow progress in which neither side
is able to gain an advantage.
c. New Kind of War – Trench warfare=digging trenches (defensive)
i. Life in the trenches horrible; “no-man’s-land” between
1. New tech – Machine gun, tank, poison gas, airplane, artillery,
barbed wire – “outdated tactics meet new weapons.”
a. Traditional strategy = group men together and charge
enemy… now charging machine guns
155
Learning Goal 7 – I will be able to:
-Define mobilization
-Cite examples of the United States mobilizing for WWI both militarily and on the home front
-Define Liberty Bonds and Selective Service
MOBILIZATION
Define
MILITARILY
HOMEFRONT
156
157
158
-Identify some of the major battles of WWI and explain why they were important
-Describe trench warfare and locate the western and eastern fronts on a map of Europe
-List and explain the importance of the six new weapons of WWI
STALEMATE
NEW WEAPONS OF WWI – TO MEET CHALLENGES OF NO MAN’S LAND
WEAPON
HOW USED
159
160
161
The Last of the World War I Vets Speak
By Richard Rubin
William J. Lake, 107, one of several dozen American WWI veterans Richard Rubin
interviewed in the last decade for his book, The Last of the Doughboys: The Forgotten Generation and Their Forgotten
World War, discusses an encounter with a German sniper at the battle of Meuse-Argonne in 1918.
This is an excerpt from Richard Rubin’s The Last of the Doughboys: The Forgotten Generation and Their Forgotten
World War, the story of a decade-long odyssey to recover the stories of the forgotten world war. Rubin interviewed
dozens of American World War I veterans for the book, including William J. Lake, a private in the U.S. Army’s 91st (“Wild
West”) Division who was drafted in 1917 and served with a machine gun crew in France. At the time of the interview, in
October 2003, Lake was 107; he died in June 2004. The Last of the Doughboys is being published this week by Houghton
Mifflin Harcourt.
Pvt. William Lake and the rest of the Wild West Division trained at Camp Lewis, near Tacoma, Wash., he told me, for
nine months before they boarded trains for Camp Merritt, N.J., whence they would head up to New York and ship out for
France. According to the unnamed author of The Story of the 91st Division, published in 1919, the land portion of the trek
took about six days. It was early summer; they traveled through a lot of areas that were probably quite hot at the time, and
I doubt there were showers on those trains. Nevertheless, it was a spirited journey:
"After witnessing demonstrations from coast to coast, the men of the 91st felt that they were backed by an undivided
nation. The motherly gray-haired old woman standing in front of her little cottage on the broad prairie of Montana,
alternately waving a flag and brushing away the tears she could not restrain, contributed as much to this feeling as
did the impromptu receptions tendered the men in the great cities through which they passed."
If it sounds like the men of the 91st had a grand old time crossing the country by rail, Pvt. William J. Lake, at least, did not.
He was sick the whole way across, was sick even before he left Camp Lewis.
“I got the measles,” he explained.
Eighty-five years later, that continued to mystify him: “I don’t know where I got them,” he told me. “Still don’t know
where I got them!” No one else seemed to have them; there was no word of measles in the camp, or on the train. Not even
from him: Bill Lake traveled six days on a hot, crowded troop train, from Washington to New Jersey, sick with measles—
and never told anyone. “I didn’t say anything until we got on the boat,” he confessed. “I was out on the water.” The boat,
he recalled, was the Empress of Russia, a British/Canadian mail ship that was used as a troop transport during the war.
“Why didn’t you say anything?” I asked him.
“Because I know if I did,” he said, “and it leaked that I did have something, I might be out of the company or something,
and I didn’t want that, so I didn’t say nothing.” He smiled, and then laughed.
Eventually, out at sea, he told his captain. “I was lying down,” he recalled. “He came around, he says, ‘What’s the
matter?’ I says, ‘I don’t feel good.’ He sent the doctor down there, told me I had the measles. … So they put me in the
hospital on the boat, hospital room … and then they got over there”—that is, Liverpool, where the 91stdisembarked before
162
shuttling across the channel to France—“and they left me [in a hospital] over there for six weeks. Wanted to be sure I was
all good before I went back to the company.”
He arrived at the front on Sept. 29, 1918. His six weeks in that hospital in Liverpool, England, had given him a view of
the war that no one else in the Wild West Division had experienced, yet. As the lone American among ailing Tommies, he
told me, “it was like a different universe. They talked different. And they told me, they didn’t seem to have any money;
they was always asking me for money. Well, I didn’t have any money to give them guys. That’s the way it was—they was
just left behind and broke.”
“Were a lot of them wounded?” I asked.
“Yeah,” he said. “I saw several of them with their arms and legs off.”
When he was deemed well enough to fight, he was put on a train for Southampton, England, then a transport for Le
Havre, France, and then, he said, “I had to walk a day to get to the unit,” carrying a 50-pound pack all the while. When he
arrived, the first person to greet him was his captain, a man he and the rest of the Machine Gun Company held in very
high esteem. Instinctively, he went to salute, but the captain caught his arm and stopped him; shook his hand, instead. Pvt.
Lake was perplexed. “He said, ‘Don’t salute me,’ he says. ‘You don’t know who’s looking.’ And so I didn’t. That’s
true—you didn’t know,” he told me.
And then he added, softly: “And he was killed that night.”
“He was killed that night?” I repeated, a bit stunned. “How? By a sniper, or …”
“I don’t know,” he said. “All I know is he got killed.” He shook his head. “Well, that hurt me. He was a good guy. He was
easy to get along with, but he wanted you to do what [he told you to do]. … He was one of them guys who wasn’t afraid
of nothing.” He added: “He wouldn’t ask you to do anything that he didn’t.”
“Do you remember his name?” I asked.
He was quiet for a moment, pursed his lips. “No,” he said softly. “I cannot remember his name.” It seemed to pain him as
much as not being able to remember his father’s.
“So what was it like when you got to the front?” I asked him. “What did it look like?”
“Well, I’ll tell you,” he said as he closed his eyes and shook his head again. “Bullets zipping around you all the time. You
just never knew when you was going to get hit.”
As he said time and again 85 years later, Bill Lake was lucky. He was not among the thousands of casualties the Wild
West Division took. The Germans sure did try to include him, though. Like artillery, machine guns were high-priority
targets for the enemy because of the damage they did. (“That machine gun was a wicked gun, that machine gun,” Pvt.
Lake recalled. “Oh, man.”) But there are only a few ways to silence a machine gun, since you can’t really assault them
directly without exposing yourself to their terrible fire. One is to hit them with artillery; for that you have to know exactly
where they are, and you have to be able to hit them quickly enough that they can’t just scuttle away once they figure out
what you’re up to. Another way is to crawl up on their flanks undetected—and already you’re getting into a high level of
difficulty, as machine gun nests were often well-protected—and blow them up with grenades. Or, finally, you could kill
the guys who run back and forth between the machine gun and its supply depot, fetching ammunition.
Pvt. Lake was one of those guys. “So what would you do?” I asked. “You would have to ride back and forth between the
front line and the ammunition depot?”
“Yeah,” he said. “But we did that at night. We didn’t do it during the daytime. Too dangerous.”
He was given the job, I imagine, because of his experience driving teams of horses. “They didn’t have this mechanized
stuff at that time at all,” he explained.
163
“So when you would go back and forth between the front and the ammunition depot, you were driving a horse cart?” I
asked.
“Mule,” he said.
“What were the mules like with the artillery? Did they get spooked?”
“They would get killed once in a while.”
Pvt. Lake had to make quite a few runs every night, and flashlights—and lighters, and matches, and anything else that
might help illuminate the way—were, of course, forbidden. I asked him if he got used to it at some point. “Well, you kind
of get used to it,” he told me, “but it’s pretty scary, I’ll tell you, because you don’t know when you’re going to get it.”
“How did you cope with that?”
“Well, it kind of bothered me at first, but I got used to it—well, as near used to it as I’d ever get, because you’d hear
bullets hitting off, zipping all around …”
“What would you do when bullets were zipping around? Would you hit the ground, or would you just keep on your way?”
“No,” he said, “I just kept going.”
“So you really just had to be very lucky?” I posited.
“That’s right,” he said. “Very lucky, that’s true.” One night, he told me, “a piece of shrapnel just missed my left arm,”
while another one tore through his coat-tail, he said, “about two inches from my back.” If it had hit him, he reckoned, “I’d
have been gone … that’s how close I come to getting it.” The following night—“I was just standing there,” he explained,
“waiting for something, I guess, I don’t remember what it was”—he had a close encounter with a German bullet. “It was
either machine gun or rifle,” he told me. “Whichever it was, I don’t know, I couldn’t tell you. But it hit the heel on my
shoe.” And tore it off. He got off a few shots himself—some at a low-flying German aeroplane, others at an enemy
gunner—but he didn’t believe he’d hit either.
Another time, he recalled, “I got a little gas”—that is, mustard gas, not the kind we all get from time to time. “Not enough
to do any harm, really,” he told me.
“What kind of effect did it have on you?” I asked him.
“Well,” he said, “it makes you sick. It makes you feel terrible.”
“You threw up?”
“Oh, yeah.”
… Everyone in his company was exposed to gas at some time or other. “Some of them got it pretty bad,” he said. “But I
didn’t. …It could have killed me, but I didn’t get that much.”
I asked him what it was like at the front when there wasn’t any shooting going on. “Well,” he said, “it wasn’t very often.
Up at the front there was shooting all the God damned night.”
“How did you handle the stress?” I inquired at one point.
“Well,” he replied, “I took it the best way I could. I just—I know it was going to happen, so what could you do?”
One day, he recalled, “another guy and I were sitting on a bank.” He paused, lowered his chin, pursed his lips; his voice
dropped. “And a sniper shot him instead of me.”
164
I looked at him for a moment. “You were sitting next to each other?”
“Yeah. No more than two feet apart. And he picked him instead of me. He killed him, of course.” They had been sitting
on a little dirt rise, near a trench. And this, I’m pretty sure, is the reason Bill Lake kept saying he was lucky. “They picked
him instead of me. I was lucky, that’s all … we were sitting there side-by-side and he picked him instead of me.”
We were quiet for a moment. “They got him,” he assured me. “They found him; they found the sniper.”
“Oh?” I said. “They killed him?”
“Oh, yeah,” he said. “They didn’t take him prisoner, not a sniper, no. He was up in a tree when they found him, and they
let him have it. And he fell out of the tree, dead. And that’s all there was to it.”
He said it with aplomb; the passage of 85 years had not dulled his sense of righteous outrage. There was a very hard
feeling about snipers then, even though everybody used them. “They didn’t take a sniper prisoner,” he explained. “They
was dirty. They would shoot you in the back as soon as they would in the face, you know. They didn’t care as long as they
got you. But they got him, of course.” He told this story several times over the course of our two-hour conversation, and
though he never had anything new to add, he kept returning to it: That sniper picked him instead of me.
Read this quotation again and use it to answer questions 1-2. "After witnessing demonstrations from coast to coast,
the men of the 91st felt that they were backed by an undivided nation. The motherly gray-haired old woman
standing in front of her little cottage on the broad prairie of Montana, alternately waving a flag and brushing
away the tears she could not restrain, contributed as much to this feeling as did the impromptu receptions
tendered the men in the great cities through which they passed."
1. What is being suggested in this quotation?
A. That most Americans supported the soldiers and wanted victory in WWI.
B. That most Americans wanted to go and join in the fighting themselves.
C. That most Americans were fearful about the country going to war.
D. That most Americans doubted that the country should have entered WWI.
2. What is being suggested about the tears?
A. The woman was afraid of what might happen to the soldiers who were heading off to war
B. The woman was emotional and proud of her country as it entered the war
C. The woman was remembering her son who died in war
D. The woman was crying for the mothers whose sons were going to war.
3. Why didn’t Bill Lake tell anyone about having the measles? (First page of interview)
A. He didn’t want to be removed from the company.
B. He didn’t want to be shot by a German sniper
C. He didn’t want to fight in the war.
D. He didn’t want to infect anyone else.
4. What does the word, wicked mean in the context in which Mr. Lake used it? “That machine gun was a wicked
gun, that machine gun.”
A. He is stating his desire to own a machine gun.
B. He is remarking that the machine gun was evil and immoral
C. He is remembering how deadly and fearful the machine gun was
D. He is recounting how he used to shoot a machine gun
165
Learning Goal 8 – I will be able to:
-Explain why Russia left the war and its impact
-Explain the armistice and how it came about
-List and explain the importance of the costs of the war
-Define reparations and explain why they were so important
-Identify Wilson’s 14 Points and explain their importance
-Explain the purpose of the League of Nations and why the United States was not a member
-Identify the Treaty of Versailles and explain its importance
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
Winning the War
i. American troops had to pick up the slack b/c Russia left the war in 1917
ii. Communist Revolution in Russia in 1917 took them out of the war
iii. No more eastern front, Germans move troops to reinforce the western front
iv. By November 1918, American soldiers breaking through G lines and pushing G back
1. Armistice – agreement to stop fighting
a. German people tired of war
b. Food scarce for German soldiers and German people
i. 800 civilian deaths every day b/c of starvation
c. German government realized no road to victory
d. 11am on 11/11/18, armistice signed
i. Treaty = formal end to the war that stipulates the postwar conditions, signed
June 1919 (Who gets what, who loses what)
v. What to do with Germany?
The End of WWI – Establishing Peace
i. War Dead
1. 5 million Allied soldiers, 3.5 million Central Powers soldiers
2. 20 million total wounded, US lost 116,000 dead, over 200,000 wounded
ii. Financial Losses – Allies spent $145 billion, Central Powers $63 billion
1. Countries deep in debt, people starving
iii. The Influenza Epidemic – During the war, Flu epidemic, peaking in 1918
1. Killed more people than WWI did (30 million)
Reparations – making Germany pay the war bills of the victorious nations
i. The “Big Four” (representatives from US, Great Britain, France, Italy) were in favor of making Germany
pay. Why? What are the benefits to this? What might be some problems?
Wilson’s 14 Points – End causes of modern war; WWI was to be “The war to end all wars.”
i. League of Nations – international assembly of nations to settle disputes peacefully and to encourage
democracy
1. Wanted to keep Germany from ever becoming a world power again
The Treaty of Versailles
i. Leaders from US, Britain, Italy, France (The Big 4) – Germany not invited!
ii. Made Germany pay reparations – had to pay war bills for Allied nations
iii. Germany lost Alsace-Lorraine and the Rhineland, regions rich in natural resources and where it had built
factories, poor & had no way of getting money to help people or to pay the bills they were ordered to pay
1. Rejected in US Senate – US Senate has the power to approve or reject treaties the president brings
them, and as part of the Congress share power with the House of Representatives to declare war
2. Senate rejected the Treaty of Versailles because of the League of Nations
a. Thought US could be dragged into unnecessary wars in the future & feared LON would
strip Congress’ power to declare war
The TOV was rejected by the US Senate. The Constitution states that treaties must be ratified by at least 2/3 of the members of the
Senate. Some Republicans (President Woodrow Wilson was a Democrat) insisted on changes to the treaty, and they objected to the
League of Nations) because they feared it would drag America into another long war and because they feared it took away from the
Congress the right to declare war. Wilson refused to compromise, and encouraged his fellow Democrats to do the same. When the
vote was taken, not a single Republican or Democrat agreed to compromise, and the treaty was rejected. The League of Nations was
the grand idea of the US President, yet the US was not a member.
166
Learning Goal 8 – I will be able to:
-Explain why Russia left the war and its impact
-Explain the armistice and how it came about
-Identify Wilson’s 14 Points and explain their importance
-Explain the purpose of the League of Nations and why the United States was not a member
-Identify the Treaty of Versailles and explain its importance
WHY RUSSIA LEFT THE WAR & ITS IMPACT
STEP BY STEP HOW ARMISTICE CAME ABOUT
FOUR MAIN CAUSES OF WWI IN EUROPE
WAR COSTS
Reparations
14 Points
League of Nations
Treaty of Versailles
167
168
169
170
Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points
Directions:
1. Read Wilson’s 14 Points (his 14 proposals for a lasting peace after WWI)
2. If there is a line next to the point, write the first letter of the MAIN cause or causes being addressed.
I’ve told you after each how many letters you should have written down because some have more than
one.
3. I did the first one for you. The proposal of no more secret agreements addresses the MAIN cause of
Alliances.
4. IF THERE IS NO LINE NEXT TO THE POINT, YOU DO NOT NEED TO WRITE ANYTHING DOWN!
Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points were first outlined in a speech Wilson gave to the American
Congress in January 1918. Wilson's Fourteen Points became the basis for a peace agreement and it
was on the back of the Fourteen Points that Germany and her allies agreed to an armistice in
November 1918.
A _________1. No more secret agreements ("Open covenants openly arrived at").
2. Free navigation of all seas.
3. An end to all economic barriers between countries.
_________ 4. Countries to reduce weapon numbers. (One cause addressed)
5. All decisions regarding the colonies should be impartial
6. The German Army is to be removed from Russia. Russia should be left to
develop her own political set-up.
7. Belgium should be independent like before the war.
_________ 8. France should be fully liberated and allowed to recover Alsace-Lorraine (One
cause addressed) (**Alsace-Lorraine was a region rich in natural resources, which is why the
Germans tried to wrestle control of it away from the French.**)
_________ 9. All Italians are to be allowed to live in Italy. Italy's borders are to be drawn
"along clearly recognizable lines of nationality." (Two causes addressed)
_________ 10. Self-determination should be allowed for all those living in Austria-Hungary.
(Two causes addressed) (**Self-determination means that people get to decide for
themselves how their country will be run, without being told by another country what they should
do**)
_________ 11. Self-determination and guarantees of independence should be allowed for the
Balkan states. (Two causes addressed)
_________ 12. The Turkish people should be governed by the Turkish government. NonTurks in the old Turkish Empire should govern themselves. (Two causes
addressed)
13. An independent Poland should be created which should have access to the
sea.
14. A League of Nations should be set up to guarantee the political and territorial
independence of all states.
171
4 MAIN Causes and explanation:
M
A
I
N
Ultimately, Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire were defeated by the Allies. If
you were a world leader, and someone proposed making Germany pay the war bills of your
country and the other winners, would you support it? If at the end of the war you determined
that your country spent $15 billion total on the war, would you support a proposal in the peace
settlement to make Germany pay you that money?
Circle one:
Yes
No
3 reasons:
1. ______________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
2. ______________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
3. ______________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
172
173
174
Need to Know
Imperialism
Isolationism
William Seward
“Seward’s Folly”
Open Door Policy
Joseph Pulitzer & William
Randolph Hearst
Yellow Journalism
Enrique Dupuy de Lome
William McKinley
USS Maine
Teller Amendment
Rough Riders
Teddy Roosevelt
San Juan Hill
Platt Amendment
1917 Jones Act
3 examples of territory gained in
SA War
Panama Canal
Monroe Doctrine
Roosevelt Corollary
Militarism
Alliances
Imperialism (as a cause of WWI)
Nationalism
Archduke Franz Ferdinand
Gavrilo Princip
Mobilize
Central Powers
Allied Powers
Trench warfare
New Weapons AND their effects
Stalemate
Neutral
U-Boat
Lusitania
Zimmermann Note
Committee on Public Information
(CPI)
Espionage Act of 1917
Sedition Act of 1918
Selective Service Act of 1917
Liberty Bonds
American Expeditionary Force
Armistice
Fourteen Points
League of Nations
Treaty of Versailles
Reparations
Alsace-Lorraine & the Rhineland
175
Learning Goal 1 – I will be able to:
-Define Manifest Destiny, imperialism
and isolationism
-List and explain two reasons for
imperialism
-Explain why Alaska was purchased
-Summarize two reasons the purchase of
Alaska was so important
-Cite and explain two reasons the US
turned to imperialism in the Pacific
Learning Goal 2 – I will be able to:
-Define and explain the importance of
yellow journalism
-Identify Joseph Pulitzer and William
Randolph Hearst
Learning Goal 3 – I will be able to:
-List and explain the steps to American
involvement in the Spanish American
War
-Identify and explain the Teller and the
Platt Amendments
-Summarize and explain the hardships
American soldiers faced and how Teddy
Roosevelt became a war hero
-Identify and locate on a map the
territories the US acquired
Learning Goal 4 – I will be able to:
-Explain 3 reasons why Teddy
Roosevelt wanted to dig a canal
-Summarize and explain how and why
the canal was dug in Panama
-Summarize the construction of the
Panama Canal
-Define Monroe Doctrine
-Summarize how the European Nations
were threatening the western hemisphere
-Define Roosevelt Corollary and explain
its importance
Learning Goal 5 – I will be able to:
-Define militarism, alliances,
imperialism, nationalism & explain how
they were causes of WWI
-Identify Gavrilo Princip and Franz
Ferdinand
-Explain how the assassination of Franz
Ferdinand led to WWI
-Identify the nations in the Central
Powers and the Allied Powers
176
Learning Goal 6 – I will be able to:
-Define neutrality
-Explain why the US was neutral at the
start of WWI (and how that policy was
broken)
-Define and explain the importance of
the Lusitania and the Zimmermann Note
Learning Goal 7 – I will be able to:
-Define mobilization
-Cite examples of the United States
mobilizing for WWI both militarily and
on the home front
-Define Liberty Bonds and Selective
Service
-Identify some of the major battles of
WWI and explain why they were
important
-Describe trench warfare and locate the
western and eastern fronts on a map of
Europe
-List and explain the importance of the
six new weapons of WWI
Learning Goal 8 – I will be able to:
-Explain why Russia left the war and its
impact
-Explain the armistice and how it came
about
-Define reparations and explain why
they were so important
-Identify Wilson’s 14 Points and explain
their importance
-Explain the purpose of the League of
Nations and why the United States was
not a member
-Identify the Treaty of Versailles and
explain its importance
177
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|