Unit Plan -20th Century History - dmpshistory
advertisement
Unit Plan: The Cold War Driving Question: What Makes a War Cold? Table of Contents Content Page # Unit Framework Historical Background: The Cold War Timeline of the Cold War Lesson 1: Introduction to the Cold War Lesson 2: Postwar Threats and Compromises Lesson 3: The Cold War at Home Lesson 4: Communism- The Closest Threats Lesson 5: The Cuban Missile Crisis Lesson 6: The Geography of the War: What Was Containment? Lesson 7: Tear Down This Wall Lesson 8: Good Fences Make Good Neighbors? Lesson 9: Critical Decisions: Gulf of Tonkin Crisis Lesson 10: Vietnam: A Necessary War? Lesson 11: War Accountability Lesson 12: The End of the Cold War? Lesson 13: The Cold War No More? Appendix Document Workshop Protocol Assessment Ideas -Project Ideas -The GRASPS Approach -Document Based Questions Additional Resources 3-8 9-15 16-21 22-34 35-43 44-50 51-69 70-81 82-89 90-97 98-105 106-117 118-135 136-154 155-168 169-189 190-203 *For the following resources, go to www.dmpshistory.wikispaces.com Primary Source Analysis Worksheets Graphic Organizers Vocabulary Strategies Writing Strategies Social Studies Assessment Rubrics Reading Strategies in Social Studies Active Learning Strategies in Social Studies 2 Unit Framework Step 1: What is it we want students to understand, know, and be able to do? Unit Title: What Makes a War Cold? Timeframe: 3-4 weeks The student will come to understand that….. H-1: History is more than things happening in sequence; it’s about understanding connections across time. H-2: Order, power and systems of government have never been guaranteed. H-3: The identity of a society is a composite of other groups encountered, absorbed or conquered. H-5: Economic needs and wants determine individual and group decisions. H-7: Innovations influence the development, interactions and ultimately the success of societies. Driving Question(s) for the Unit: What makes a war cold? (The understandings serve as justification for the unit for our students. We know why we’re teaching it, but do they know? This should answer the question, “why is it so important that we study this stuff?” Significant content (the know) (Think “key vocabulary”- What terms would you hope students could discuss intelligently as a result of this unit?) Significant skills (the be able to do) (Sources: word-for-word from district curriculum maps as well as additional skills you might add that will provide evidence of understanding) Arms race Détente Deterrents Intelligence Organizations (CIA, KGB, etc.) Communism Capitalism NATO/Warsaw Pact United Nations Marshall Plan Truman Doctrine Brinksmanship Cuban missile crisis McCarthyism Proxy wars Domino theory 3 Determine the causes of global conflicts and their ultimate affects Evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, and suitability of various systems of government. Describe significant alliance systems Evaluate a society’s values and behaviors to determine its overall culture Evaluate components of different economic systems Analyze the impact of innovations on the world Step 2: What evidence will we accept that students actually do understand, know and are able to do that we established as goals for the unit? Authentic measures like performances, reflections, presentations, demonstrations and compositions tend to provide evidence of the types of skills that reveal understanding (analysis, synthesis, evaluation, creation, etc.) These are frequently culminating tasks, but do not have to be. Traditional measures like worksheets, objective tests, repetitive exercises and publisher-created materials, at best, get you only part-way there. Student Artifact 1: Evidence of (what new knowledge, skills or understanding?) Graphic organizer(s) Postwar threats and compromises analysis Containment map analysis Vietnam War primary source analysis Artifact 2: Evidence of: Cuban missile crisis simulation Analysis of Kennedy and Reagan speeches Gulf of Tonkin scenario activity and primary source analysis Analysis of the end of the Cold War today Artifact 3: Su Graphic organizer(s) Postwar threats and compromises analysis Analyze the impact of innovations on the world Evidence of: Graphic organizer(s) Late Cold War primary source analysis Written analysissupport opinion on the end of the Cold War Artifact 5: Evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, and suitability of various systems of government. Evaluate components of different economic systems Evidence of: Artifact 4: Determine the causes of global conflicts and their ultimate affects Describe significant alliance systems Evidence of: Completion of Cold War oral history project Communist hearings simulation Civil defense drill simulation 4 Evaluate a society’s values and behaviors to determine its overall culture Fallout shelter simulation Berlin Wall simulation My Lai court-martial simulation Step 3: What steps will our students take through the unit to lead up to the desired understandings at the end? (lesson plan) Step Lesson 1: Introduction to the Cold War Civil defense drill simulation Student does… Follows directions of civil defense drill Teacher does… Facilitates drill Civil defense drill discussion Engages in class discussion Facilitates class discussion about daily life during the 1950s Discussion questions Primary source analysis: Cold War Kids Analyzes primary sources Cold War Kids Reflection Respond to prompt Student journal Share Reflections/ Connections Voluntarily sharing reflections Facilitates analysis and discussion of Cold War Kids Teacher asks for examples and answers clarifying questions Facilitates and asks clarifying questions None KWL chart Complete KWL chart Facilitate completion of KWL chart Records key points Gives background using a graphic information about organizer or other the Cold War reading strategy. through informational reading, PowerPoint, etc. Brainstorm list of Describes project potential people for and gives examples oral history project of exemplary and practice projects in oral interview history techniques with classmate Students “scale” Teacher models best their familiarity practices in KWL graphic organizer Background reading/ PowerPoint, etc. Examples of oral history transcripts Best practices in taking oral histories Background information on the Cold War Introduce Cold War oral history project Introduce academic vocabulary 5 Resources needed Audio/video clip Visual of defense drill card Vocabulary notebooks Review of oral history questions with new vocabulary words Lesson 2: Postwar Threats and Compromises with vocabulary terms vocabulary instruction Students revise oral history questions based on introduction of new vocabulary Read and analyze primary and secondary sources Model and guide student oral history revisions Follows document workshop protocol (see appendix) Postwar threats document analysis Postwar compromises activity Lesson 3: The Cold War at Home Background information- The Arms Race Fallout shelter simulation Lesson 4: Communism- The Closest Threats Background informationCommunist Infiltration Dot game simulation Communist hearings simulation Lesson 5: The Cuban Missile Crisis- You Make the Call Background information- The Cuban Missile Crisis JFK decision simulation Lesson 6: The Geography of the List of academic vocabulary terms Primary source documents Secondary sources (see appendix for page correlations) Source analysis forms Postwar threats and analysis forms Work with a group to decide how key players could have compromised after WWII Read and analyze background information using a graphic organizer/ reading strategy Graphic organizer Secondary source Participates in simulation on fallout shelters Read and analyze background information using a graphic organizer/ reading strategy Facilitates simulation on fallout shelters Provide support for students in reading and analyzing background information Secondary source Graphic organizer Participates in dot game simulation Participate in communist hearings simulation Read and analyze background information using a graphic organizer/ reading strategy. Facilitates dot game simulation Facilitate communist hearings simulation Primary source documents Secondary source Graphic organizer Participate in JFK decision simulation Read and analyze background Facilitate JFK decision simulation Top-Secret Briefings Secondary source Graphic organizer 6 War: What Was Containment? Background informationContainment Map analysis Lesson 7: Tear Down This Wall Primary source document workshop (Kennedy/Reagan speeches) Lesson 8: Good Fences Make Good Neighbors? Background information- The Berlin Wall Berlin Wall simulation Lesson 9: Critical Decisions: Gulf of Tonkin Crisis Gulf of Tonkin scenarios Primary source analysis- Lyndon Johnson transcripts Lesson 10: Vietnam: A Necessary War? Primary source analysis- People’s voices of the Vietnam War Lesson 11: War Accountability Primary source analysis- My Lai massacre My Lai massacre courtmartial simulation Lesson 12: The End of the Cold War? Primary source analysis of late Cold War events Lesson 13: The Cold information using a graphic organizer/ reading strategy. Facilitate group work map activity Participate in Facilitate document document workshop workshop Primary source maps Primary sources Read and analyze background information using a graphic organizer/ reading strategy. Secondary source Graphic organizer Analyze maps Participate in simulation Act as a decision maker when given Gulf of Tonkin scenarios Facilitate simulation Facilitate discussion related to Gulf of Tonkin scenarios Gulf of Tonkin scenarios Analyze Lyndon Johnson transcripts Facilitate analysis of Lyndon Johnson transcripts Facilitate analysis of primary sources Primary source (Lyndon Johnson transcripts) Primary sources Facilitate discussion Primary sources (My Lai massacre) Facilitate discussion about the events of the late Cold War Primary source documents Facilitates Primary source Analyze documents from the experiences of various people during the Vietnam War Analyze documents related to the My Lai massacre. Decide who should be held accountable for the massacre. Participate in My Lai court-martial simulation Analyze late Cold War events and decide methods the U.S. used during the late Cold War Analyzes documents Facilitate courtmartial simulation 7 War No More? Document analysis using document workshop protocol Class discussion Class debate Research paper on closing topic and completes primary source analysis worksheet document workshop protocol Participate in class discussion Participate in class debate Research and report on closing topic Facilitate class discussion Facilitate class debate Introduce research project and provide best practices methods for writing a persuasive research paper. 8 documents Primary source analysis worksheets Discussion questions Project guidelines Rubric The Cold War- Historical Background Information Allies to Adversaries Just one month after President Harry S. Truman and Premiere Joseph Stalin met at Potsdam, two separate explosions were visible over the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These two atomic blasts ended the greatest war in the history of the world. World War II allies now became adversaries as they attempted to spread their influence over the rest of the world. The United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) had emerged from World War II as the world’s two superpowers. In 1946, Winston Churchill proclaimed that an “Iron Curtain” had fallen over Eastern Europe. In response to the spread of communism in Europe, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was signed by the U.S., Canada, and eight western European nations. NATO was a defense pact between nations and stated that an attack against one nation was an attack against all nations. Six years later, the Soviet Union and its eastern satellites (leaders who said and did whatever the Soviet Union wanted them to say and do) signed the Warsaw Pact, countering the NATO Treaty. The two superpowers confronted each other in trouble spots around the world, but they didn’t get into a direct military fight. For this reason, their struggle was called the Cold War. From the 1950s to the early 1990s, the Cold War dominated global politics. United States Influence Europe was devastated by World War II, with millions dead and billions of dollars in damage. In the hopes of rebuilding Europe, United States Secretary of State George C. Marshall envisioned massive financial aid for European nations willing to work together. Congress passed the Marshall Plan and promised more than 20 billion dollars in relief. Marshall also offered money to the Soviet Union. Stalin however, refused any assistance from the United States. Shortly after Stalin’s rejection of American aid, United States ambassador to the USSR, George Kennan, wrote that the foreign policy of the United States must be one that will prevent the spread of communism to any part of the world. Kennan’s “containment” theory became the focus of American foreign policy for the next 45 years. The first major test of containment came in Greece and Turkey in 1947. Both countries asked for economic assistance, so President Truman asked Congress for aid to these countries to defend against communist guerillas. This is known as the Truman Doctrine. The Truman Doctrine of aid to weakened countries began as one method of stopping communist influence. A year later, in 1948, the Soviets blocked all road and rail access to the western section of the city of Berlin. For the next 321 days, Allied planes flew over communist-held Germany and brought supplies to the citizens of West Berlin. In 1949, Mao Zedong (also known as Mao Tse-tung) drove the government of Chiang KaiShek out of the Chinese mainland and proclaimed China as a new communist state. Now the containment of communism in Asia became an issue for the American government. President Dwight Eisenhower’s Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, orchestrated the Southeast Asia Treat Organization (SEATO). Dulles also promoted the philosophy of 9 “brinkmanship,” or taking the fight against communism all the way to the brink of possible nuclear war. The Atomic Age The bombs used against Japan were evidence that the Manhattan Project achieved the goals set out by Robert Oppenheimer, James Byrnes, and Leslie Groves. The development and use of the most aggressive military weapon of its time had been completed, rendering catastrophic results. The Soviets now needed to develop an atomic bomb to counter the Americans. In 1949, the Soviets exploded their first atomic bomb. H-Bomb on Bikini Atoll (Library of Congress) Since the Manhattan Project was no longer a secret, the United States feared spies from the Soviet Union. In March 1951, two Americans were tried for passing secret atomic information to the Russians. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were found guilty and executed in June 1953. Both countries had atomic weapons and the missile platforms for launching these weapons. The United States increased spending on the Strategic Air Command (SAC) as a defense against a Soviet nuclear attack. The United States also developed the triad system. The triad defense system used bombers, submarines, and missiles as a means of defense and a possible first strike attack system, if needed. Citizens feared attacks from the Soviet Union and air-raid practice drills were conducted nationwide. Bomb shelters were built in many urban areas and some shelters were even built by private citizens. In 1964, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) detonated its first atomic bomb. That meant two enemies of the U.S. were now capable of launching an atomic attack against the country. Albert Einstein described the atomic age when he said, “I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” Fear of an atomic war was the centerpiece of government strategies and American fears. Fighting Communism at Home Prior to World War II, support for communism in the United States had been closely associated with the Socialist Party. Followers of Karl Marx’s ideology had organized labor groups. A socialist, Eugene Debs, ran for the American presidency multiple times from 1904 to 1920. However, after World War II the fear of a powerful Soviet Union and the spread of communism into the United States were frightening to the government and most citizens. As early as 1947, the United States government passed the national Security Act, created the National Security Council (NSC) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The NSC was led by ardent anti-communist leaders and they used the CIA as their proactive spy tool. Just two months after the creation of the NSC, Congressman J. Parnell Thomas reinstituted 10 the House Un-American Committee (HUAC) hearings. His committee began to interview Hollywood personalities that had attended Communist Party meetings during the 1930s and early 1940s. Some writers, directors, and actors named others in order to gain their own freedom. Other Hollywood personalities chose to say nothing. They refused to admit any ties to the Communist Party. Many of the latter group were sentenced to jail terms. In 1948, Congressman Richard Nixon used HUAC to investigate and accuse Alger Hiss, a former government official under Franklin Roosevelt, of being a communist agent. Although not found to be a spy, Hiss was convicted of perjury and sentenced to five years in prison. By early 1950, the hunt for communist agents in the United States had a new crusader, Joseph McCarthy. McCarthy claimed to have a list of known communist agents who were working in the U.S. State Department. Hearings began and nightly news reports kept McCarthy and the anti-communist fight in the public eye for months. In September 1950, Congress overrode President Truman’s veto and passed the McCarran Internal Security Act. Among other things, this act gave broad support to FBI programs of infiltrating and subduing members of “subversive” organizations. The most severe measure approved under the McCarran Act was the use of concentration camps to house subversive members in cases of “emergency situations.” Senator Joseph McCarthy (Library of Congress) In 1954, President Eisenhower signed a congressional bill that outlawed the Communist Party in the United States. During the 1960s, the FBI used a program of counterintelligence gathering on subversive groups. This program was code named COINTELPRO. The FBI focused their infiltrations on black civil rights groups, anti-war organizations, college student groups, and American Indian organizations. Critics of the McCarran Act, the HUAC hearing, and the COINTELPRO program argued that the United States government was ignoring fundamental constitutional protections. Armed Conflicts During the years of the Cold War, the United States and its communist adversaries carried out numerous indirect armed conflicts. The U.S., USSR, and the People’s Republic of China supplied advisors, weapons, financial aid, and manpower to various parts of the world in support of communist and anti-communist governments. In April 1950, the National Security Council wrote NSC-68. This called for a change in foreign policy from one of politics to one of military usage. Just two months later, communist North Koreans invaded South Korea. The United States, under the flag of the United Nations, entered into a threeyear battle against communist forces. After the Suez Canal uprising in 1956, Congress gave President Eisenhower the power to send troops to the Middle East to prevent any communist expansion into that region. This authorization became know n as the Eisenhower Doctrine. 11 The fear of a war against the Soviets and an attack on the United States became prevalent in October 1962. The news reported that the communist leader of Cuba, Fidel Castro, was building nuclear missile sites on the island. President Kennedy ordered a blockade of Cuba. U.S. Navy ships turned back Soviet cargo ships loaded with materials and weapons. After two very tense weeks, President Kennedy and Soviet Premiere Nikita Khrushchev were able to reach a compromise that avoided any direct military action. Fidel Castro (Library of Congress) As the tension between the Soviets and Americans subsided behind the walls of Eastern Europe, new hostility grew between communist and anti-communist forces in Asia. President Kennedy’s advisors argued that the United States needed to support the noncommunist government of South Vietnam. In 1954, Vietnam had been divided under the Geneva Accords into a communist North and a non-communist South. The Domino Theory was the belief that if one Asian country fell to communism all countries in the region would be in danger of collapsing. President Kennedy ordered military advisors to Vietnam in support of the South Vietnamese military. The first marine divisions landed in Vietnam in 1965. The Communist North was headed by Ho Chi Minh. The anticommunist South was led by Ngo Dinh Diem. Communist guerrillas called Viet Cong were supported by North Vietnam. They began fighting Diem’s troops. As the Viet Cong grew stronger American aid grew larger. President Johnson got Congress to pass the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. It allowed the president to take whatever military action he needed in Vietnam. At home in the United States, the war was very controversial. “Hawks” stressed the domino theory. The Vietnam War Some pushed for an even more aggressive land and air war against both the Viet Cong and North Vietnam. “Doves” disputed the domino theory. They said the struggle between the Viet Cong and South Vietnamese forces was a civil war. The war kept escalating and body counts mounted. But the U.S. wasn’t winning the war. In 1968, Richard Nixon was elected president. He began “Vietnamzing” the war. He withdrew U.S. troops from Vietnam in phases. At the same time, the U.S. built up South Vietnam’s own army. This actually escalated the war. Finally, in 1972, North Vietnam and the United States began peace talks. A treaty was arranged in January 1973. The Vietnam War was the longest military engagement in U.S. history. From the late 1970s until the early 1990s, the U.S. and the USSR waged covert operations against each other as well. Each country supported governments and/or guerrilla freedom fighters throughout various regions of the world. In 1979, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan and President Jimmy Carter ordered a U.S. boycott of Soviet goods. President Carter also 12 stopped U.S. grain sales to Russia and boycotted the Olympics held in Moscow. Carter also sent financial and military aid to the Taliban rebels fighting the Soviets. In 1980, President Reagan supported the rebel contras in their fight against the communist Sandinista government of Nicaragua. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush also used U.S. troops to invade the island of Grenada and the country of Panama respectively in a response to a growing concern over new communist-influenced governments in the Latin American region. The 1980s also saw an increase in armed altercations between U.S. troops and Soviet-armed Arab terrorists throughout the Middle East. The most devastating attack against U.S. forces came in October of 1983, when 241 American servicemen were killed in a bombing in Beirut, Lebanon. During the 45 years of the Cold War, the world did not engage in a major conflict, yet many thousands of soldiers and civilians were killed in armed conflict between communist and anti-communist forces. Détente and the End of the Iron Curtain In 1968, Cold War leaders were looking for ways to ease tensions and make the world safer. The United States, Soviet Union, and other nations signed the Nuclear Arms Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) beginning a concrete path toward dismantling nuclear arsenals. President Nixon also began open dialogue with Communist China. In 1971, the People’s Republic of China became the official United Nations representative for the Chinese people. In February of the following year, President Nixon made the first visit to China since it had become a President Ronald Reagan communist foe. Beginning with Nixon, (Library of Congress) American presidents embraced détente, or easing relations, as the new foreign policy. Presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Bush continued arms reduction talks under the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT) and the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China. One major detour from reducing arms and limiting defense came in 1983 when President Reagan proposed the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). SDI proposed placing defensive or possibly offensive weapons in space. This was unacceptable to the Soviets and in December 1983, the USSR suspended the START talks. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the SDI plans had limited review within the U.S. government. As détente moved ahead successfully, the next step to formalize good working relations came in the form of economic talks. Open trade and U.S. investment in communist nations became more frequent. In 1981, Lech Walesa, a Polish labor leader, defied the communist government of Poland and formed the Solidarity Union. Walesa organized the first worker’s strike in any communist country. Poland continued toward a more open economic reform program and by 1989, the government of Poland finally recognized the Solidarity Union as a political party. Other Soviet satellites now began to view the success of the solidarity movement and called for changes within their own countries. The next major action within the USSR was the selection of Mikhail Gorbachev as the new general secretary of the Communist Party in 1985. Gorbachev despised communism like it was 13 under the ruthless totalitarian regime of Joseph Stalin. Like Khrushchev, Gorbachev criticized old communism and said that a new form of communism would emerge. To create a new communist state, Gorbachev promoted three changes: glasnost (openness), perestroika (restructure), and democratzia (new democracy). The Soviet empire began to unravel as citizens began to speak freely without fear of reprisal, started to use some forms of open market capitalism, and elected new local leadership. Only four years after Gorbachev’s election, the first satellite countries began a break from the Soviet hold. Next, in November 1989, the Berlin Wall, the Cold War symbol of the 1960s came down. For the first time in over 25 years, relatives on both sides of Berlin visited together. Two years later, the Baltic states of the USSR sought their own independence from the Soviet Union. By December 1991, the USSR had transformed into the Commonwealth of Independent States. This commonwealth was a weak attempt by Gorbachev to hold some of the Soviet republics together. Realizing the commonwealth was doomed; Gorbachev resigned the presidency of the Soviet Union and transferred power to Boris Yeltsin, president of the Russian Federation. The commonwealth no longer exists and each of the 15 republics is now an independent country. In 1989, as Berlin was unifying, Chinese students began demonstrations for democratic and capitalistic change. For weeks in June, students and workers began gathering and protesting in Tiananmen Square. On June 4, by order of Premiere Deng Xiaoping, the military cleared the square. Somewhere between 300 and 500 people died, tens of thousands were injured, and thousands more were arrested. As the former communist nations of Europe moved toward open democracies and capitalism, China’s communist leaders refused to bend. Today, China’s economic programs mirror capitalism, but the communist political leadership remains fully in place. Domestic Life and Cold War Technology Life in the United States took a dramatic change during the post World War II years. American servicemen returned home to get married, find jobs, buy houses, and live more peaceful lives. The population of the U.S. increased and the children born between 1945 and 1964 became part of the post-war “baby boom” generation. The United States government supported the war veterans with lower home loan rates. Education for veterans was promoted through the GI Bill. For 10 years, beginning in 1948, the housing market exploded. Many families began moving to the suburbs. In 1956, Congress passed the Federal Aid Highway Act, which authorized the building of 41,000 miles of new highways. Driving became a favorite pastime for American families and the automobile industry in Detroit, Michigan, flourished. In 1957, the entire world watched as the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, the first orbiting space satellite. The space race was on and the U.S. government was determined to eventually surpass the Soviets in space technology. Sputnik I (NASA) 14 Four years later, the Soviets sent the first person into space. A month after that, Alan Shepard became the first American in space. After that, President Kennedy publically stated that America would continue to move ahead with the space program and within the decade would place an American on the moon. Kennedy’s prediction was realized in July 1969, when Neil Armstrong and Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin took that “giant leap for mankind.” The research for NASA’s space program had an influence on the daily lives of American’s as well. Some of the many space program inventions used in commercial products were transistors, satellite communication for TV and radio, freeze-dried food, and fireretardant clothing. This era also saw a changing medical world. In 1955, Dr. Jonas Salk developed a vaccine for polio, which was the number one crippling disease of baby boom children. In 1967, the World Health Organization (WHO) began a worldwide vaccine program for another major disease, smallpox. By 1980, WHO reported that smallpox had been eradicated throughout the world. However, the euphoria for eradicating one disease would be short-lived because the following year the first case of Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) was reported. The lives of Americans changed greatly in the 45 years after World War II. -Adapted from: The Cold War (Teacher Created Materials) -Adapted from: The Era of World War II Through Contemporary Times (Walch Publishing) 15 Time Line of the Cold War Date May 1945 June 1945 July 1945 July 1945 August 1945 September 1945 March 1946 June 1946 August 1946 March 1947 May 1947 June 1947 July 1947 September 1947 October 1947 December 1947 February 1948 April 1948 Event Germany army surrenders to Allied troops. United Nations Charter signed in San Francisco, CA. Potsdam Conference- Allies’ war focus is on the unconditional surrender of Japan. The United States tests the first atomic bomb, code name Trinity. The United States drops atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan surrenders, ending World War II. The United States and the USSR occupy Korea, divided at the 38th parallel. Ho Chi Minh’s troops proclaim an independent Vietnam. The French military sets up in Vietnam. Winston Churchill gives a speech in Missouri saying that an “iron curtain” has fallen over Europe. The United States creates an air defense called the “Strategic Air Command.” Poland approves communist reforms. The Atomic Energy Commission is created under the Atomic Energy Act. President Harry S. Truman asks for aid to Greece and Turkey to defend against communist guerrillas. This is known as the Truman Doctrine. President Truman creates a Loyalty Review Board and investigates over three million federal employees. Federal employees are forced to take a loyalty oath. Hungary becomes a communist state. Congress votes to give economic aid to a developing Western Europe. This becomes a program known as the Marshall Plan. George F. Kennan writes that U.S. foreign policy should focus on the “containment” of the USSR. The National Security Act is passed, created a National Security Council (NSC) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Congressman J. Parnell Thomas heads the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) hearings, interviewing Hollywood personalities. The United Nations authorize the creation of an Israeli state. Romania becomes a communist state. Czechoslovakia becomes a communist state. The USSR blocks all transportation routes into West Berlin. Western Allies begin a 321-day airlift to the citizens of West 16 May 1948 July 1948 August 1948 April 1949 August 1949 October 1949 January 1950 February 1950 April 1950 June 1950 September 1950 October 1950 March 1951 April 1951 November 1952 March 1953 June 1953 July 1953 August 1953 May 1954 Berlin. Israel declares itself independent. The U.S. military is desegregated. Alger Hiss is accused by Whitaker Chambers of being a communist spy. Congressman Richard Nixon becomes involved in the Pumpkin Papers controversy. South Korea and North Korea become independent countries. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is established as a defense pact against expanding communism in Eastern Europe. The USSR explodes their first atomic bomb. Mao Zedong drives the Nationalist Chinese Government to Taiwan and proclaims China a communist state, the People’s Republic of China. Alger Hiss is convicted of perjury. Senator Joseph McCarthy proclaims to have a list of known communists working within the state department. The Sino-Soviet Pact, a bilateral defense treaty, is signed between the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the USSR. The NSC writes NSC-68, which calls for changing foreign policies from political to military in combating Soviet aggression. North Korean troops cross the 38th parallel and invade South Korea. The United Nations, avoiding a Soviet veto in the Security Council, votes to send troops in support of South Korea. Congress overrides President Truman’s veto and passes the McCarran Internal Security Act. Chinese troops cross the Yalu River in North Korea supporting the northern forces. The trial begins for accused spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. They are accused of giving atomic bomb documents and information to the Soviets. President Harry S. Truman and General Douglas MacArthur disagree on the proper use of American military forces in Korea, prompting Truman to relieve MacArthur of his command. President Dwight D. Eisenhower is elected. Joseph Stalin dies and Nikita Khrushchev becomes the leader of the USSR. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg are executed. An armistice is signed ending the Korean U.N. action. North Korea and South Korea remain split at the 38th parallel. A U.S. backed coup d’etat overthrows Iranian leader, Mossadegh and replaced him with the ousted Shah. The French lose the decisive battle at Dienbienphu and pull out of 17 July 1954 August 1954 September 1954 December 1954 May 1955 July 1956 December 1956 January 1957 October 1957 January 1958 October 1958 January 1959 December 1959 May 1960 November 1960 December 1960 January 1961 April 1961 May 1961 August 1961 February 1962 October 1962 Vietnam. The Geneva Accords are signed, ending French colonialism in Vietnam and dividing Vietnam at the 17th parallel. President Eisenhower signs a bill to outlaw the Communist Party. The Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) is formed as a mutual defense organization between the U.S. and noncommunist countries of the region. The Senate formally condemns Joseph McCarthy, ending the McCarthy era. The Soviet Union and its satellites sign the Warsaw Pact to counter NATO. President Nasser of Egypt nationalizes the Suez Canal, prompting an invasion by Britain, France, and Israel. A cease-fire is established in Egypt, ending hostilities. Congress allows President Eisenhower to commit troops to the Middle East to prevent communist expansion. This will become known as the Eisenhower Doctrine. The Soviet Union launches Sputnik, the first orbiting space satellite. The United States launches its first orbiting satellite, Explorer I. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is established. Fidel Castro leads a communist revolution in Cuba. The Antarctic Treaty is signed, leaving the area free from military use. U2 PILOT Francis Gary Powers is shot down over the USSR. John F. Kennedy is elected president. Ho Chi Minh organizes guerilla movement to overthrow the U.S. supported government of South Vietnam. Diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Cuba are broken. In his farewell address, President Eisenhower warns of the buildup by the “military-industrial complex.” Soviet, Yuri Garagin, becomes the first person to orbit Earth. The Bay of Pigs invasion by CIA- trained Cubans, fails to unseat Castro. Alan Shepard becomes the first American in space, prompting President Kennedy to declare that the U.S. will place a man on the moon before the end of the decade. Kennedy authorizes sending advisors to South Vietnam. East Germany builds the Berlin Wall. John Glenn becomes the first American to orbit Earth. The U.S. deploys Minuteman I missiles and ICBM missiles in Western Europe. The U.S. blockades Cuba. The USSR and the U.S. agree to each 18 June 1963 November 1963 August 1964 October 1964 March 1965 January 1967 June 1967 January 1968 July 1968 November 1968 March 1969 June 1969 July 1969 November 1969 July 1971 November 1971 February 1972 May 1972 January 1973 October 1973 November 1973 August 1974 May 1975 July 1975 remove missiles from Cuba and Turkey, respectively. Kennedy visits Berlin and the Berlin Wall, stating “Ich bin ein Berliner.” Kennedy and Soviet Premiere Nikita Khrushchev agree to establish a direct “hot line” between the two countries. President Kennedy is assassinated. Congress approves the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, granting the president the right to take any necessary action against the forces of North Vietnam. Khrushchev is replaced as the leader of the USSR by Leonid Brezhnev. Communist China detonates its first atomic bomb. The first U.S. Marines land in Vietnam. By December, there will be 184,300 U.S. military personnel in Vietnam. The U.S. and the USSR sign the Outer Space Treaty, limiting the use of space for military purposes. The Arab-Israeli six-day war takes place. The Tet Offensive is launched against U.S. forces in Vietnam. The USS Pueblo is seized off the coast of North Korea. The Nuclear Arms Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) is signed by the U.S. and the USSR. Richard Nixon is elected president. The United States begins bombing Cambodia. Nixon orders troops to begin withdrawing from Vietnam. Neil Armstrong and Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin become the first people to walk on the moon. The USSR and the U.S. begin Strategic Arms Limitation talks. The 26th Amendment, granting 18 years olds the right to vote is ratified. The People’s Republic of China joins the United Nations, ending the seat of Nationalist China. Nixon visits communist China. The Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT) is signed by the U.S. and the USSR. The Paris Peace Agreement ends the Vietnam War. The Yom Kippur War begins between Egypt, Israel, and Syria. The War Powers Act passed, limiting presidential powers granted under the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Richard Nixon resigns as president of the United States. The U.S. ship Mayaquez, is seized off the coast of communist Cambodia. U.S. and Soviet astronauts link spacecrafts in space. The Helsinki Accords are signed by the USSR and the U.S., recognizing the current European borders. 19 September 1976 September 1978 December 1978 January 1979 July 1979 November 1979 December 1979 September 1980 November 1980 January 1981 June 1982 March 1983 September 1983 October 1983 December 1983 September 1984 March 1985 April 1986 March 1988 June 1988 July 1988 December 1988 April 1989 June 1989 September 1989 November 1989 December 1989 February 1990 Mao Zedong dies. Camp David Accords are signed between Egypt and Israel, bringing peace to the two nations. The U.S. and China announce the start of full diplomatic relations. The Shah of Iran flees Iran and Shiite leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, returns to take control of the government. Leftist, Sandinista guerillas overthrow the government of Nicaragua. Iranian militants seize the U.S. Embassy in Teheran and take 63 Americans hostage. Soviet troops enter Afghanistan. President Carter responds by ending grain sales to the Soviet Union, ending the SALT treaty process, and boycotting the Moscow Olympics. In Poland, Lech Walesa forms the Solidarity Union, in defiance of communist rule. Ronald Reagan is elected president. Lech Walesa leads Polish workers on an illegal strike. Americans taken hostage is Teheran are released. Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) negotiations begin between the USSR and U.S. President Reagan proposes the Strategic Defense Initiative. Korean Air flight 007 is shot down by Soviet jets. Terrorists attack the U.S. barracks in Beirut killing 241 Americans. The U.S. invades Grenada The USSR suspends the START talks. The U.S. Embassy in Beirut is bombed. Mikhail Gorbachev becomes the Soviet General Secretary. The U.S. bombs Libya in retaliation for terrorist attacks. Oliver North and John Poindexter are indicted on charges stemming from the Iran-Contra dealings. The Moscow Summit ends with Gorbachev and Reagan committed to START. The USS Vincennes shoots down an Iranian commercial plane. Pan Am flight 103 explodes over Lockerbie, Scotland. Libyan terrorists are suspected of planting the bomb. Poland recognizes the Solidarity Union and movement. Pro-democracy demonstrations begin in Beijing, China. The Chinese military cracks down on demonstrators in Tiananmen Square. The first Eastern European nations leave the USSR. The Berlin Wall is opened and East and West Berliners reunite. The U.S. invades Panama, overthrowing Manuel Noreiga. Nicaraguan President, Daniel Ortega, concedes defeat of his 20 Marxist Party. August 1990 Iraq invades Kuwait. October 1990 East and West Germany reunite as one country. December 1990 Solidarity leader, Lech Walesa, is elected president of Poland. January 1991 U.N. forces, led by the U.S., attack Iraq, beginning the Gulf War. March 1991 Iraq accepts the cease-fire terms to end the Gulf War. December 1991 The Commonwealth of Independent States is created in the former USSR. Gorbachev resigns as president of the USSR and transfers power to Boris Yeltsin, president of the Russian Federation. The U.S. recognizes six former Soviet Republics as independent states. -Adapted from: The Cold War (Teacher Created Materials) 21 Lesson Plan 1 Title: Introduction to the Cold War Essential Question: What is a cold war? Duration: 2-3 class periods Enduring Understanding: H-1: History is more than things happening in sequence; it’s about understanding connections across time. Historical Background Information: See pages 9-15. Materials: General: -Academic vocabulary list -Cold War Oral History Project- Getting Started -Handout: Cold War Oral History Project-Pre-Interview Handout -Cold War Oral History Project- Project Log -Handout: Cold War Oral History Project- Rubric -KWL chart (see packet entitled Graphic Organizers) -Vocabulary strategies (see packet entitled Vocabulary Strategies) Primary Sources: -Video clip: 1950s Civil Defense Drill- U.S. Under Attack http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V47Qs9Eyus -Video clip: Duck and Cover www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0K_ -Examples of Civil Defense Cards and Propaganda -Handout: Cold War Kids Secondary Sources: -Historical background information Additional Resources: -Oral History in the Teaching of U.S. History http://www.ericdigests.org/1996-4/oral.htm -Exploring Community Through Oral History http://memory.loc.gov/learn/lessons/98/community/teacher.html -A Guide to Using Oral History http://www.phschool.com/eteach/social_studies/2003_04/essay.html#Doing -Doing Oral History 22 www.doingoralhistory.org -Examples of Oral History Projects http://www.stg.brown.edu/projects/WWII_Women/ http://www.stg.brown.edu/projects/1968/ Procedure: Teacher 1. Hook students into the Cold War unit by doing a civil defense drill simulation. Show one or both of the civil defense drill video clips listed below. (These links can also be found at www.dmpshistory.wikispaces.com) Duck and Cover www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0K_ 1950s Civil Defense Drill http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V47Qs9 Eyus 2. Show students example of Cold War civil defense cards and propaganda. 3. Hold a class discussion about the civil defense drill simulation. Some questions you might discuss include: What were the psychological affects of the civil defense simulation? Would civil defense drills be effective against a nuclear blast? Why or why not? Can you think of anything that we have today that is similar to the defense drills of the 1950s? 4. Introduce Cold War Kids primary source information. Discuss whether kids during the Cold War reacted the same way that kids today would react. In addition, discuss whether their experience as kids during the Cold War impacted them as adults. 5. Ask students to reflect (probably in a student notebook) on their experience participating in a civil defense drill. Ask students to compare the experience to a situation they have experienced in their own life. 6. Share reflections as a class. 7. Complete a KWL graphic organizer as a class. 23 Student 1. Watch video clips of a 1950s civil defense drill. 2. Analyze examples of Cold War civil defense propaganda. 3. Participate in a class discussion about the civil defense simulation. 5. Reflect on and record your experience during the civil defense simulation with an experience in your on life. 6. Share your reflection. 7. Complete a KWL chart. 8. Provide background information on the Cold War. This could be through the use of the background reading, PowerPoint, etc. If you choose to use a background reading, you might want to have students complete a graphic organizer or annotate the text. (see packet entitled Graphic Organizers for ideas) 9.Introduce Cold War oral history project. Ask students to brainstorm a list of people they could interview. (You might want to give students an idea of how old someone might be who was alive in the Cold War. They think we are all old.) Begin introducing the concept of oral histories. Show examples of oral history interviews to guide student thinking. Ask students to begin thinking of questions they could ask of the person they interview. 10. Introduce academic vocabulary. Ask students to “scale” their familiarity with each of the vocabulary terms (see packet entitled Vocabulary Strategies). Discuss as a class. 11. Revisit the questions students created for oral history interviews. This time, ask students to rewrite questions using the unit academic vocabulary. 12. Continue working on oral history project throughout the unit. Develop a timeline for completing pieces of the project. 8. Learn about key points of the Cold War. 9. Brainstorm a list of people that you could interview for an oral history project about the Cold War. Start thinking of questions that would be good to ask this person. 10. Write down unit academic vocabulary. “Scale” your familiarity with each word. Participate in a class discussion about the meaning of each word. 11. Review the questions you came up with for the oral history project. Revise or create new questions based on the introduction of the unit academic vocabulary. 12. Continue working on oral history project throughout the unit. Student Learning Evidence: Developing of oral history project questions Completion of oral history project Response to KWL chart Responses to introduction of academic vocabulary Civil defense simulation reflection and discussion -Adapted from: www.doingoralhistory.org -Adapted from: http://www.phschool.com/eteach/social_studies/2003_04/essay.html#Doing 24 Examples of Civil Defense Cards and Propaganda 25 Cold War Kids In the early 1950s, the Cold War was at its hottest. Schools reacted. Here are descriptions from kids of the fifties as they remember anti-Cold War measures taken at their schools. As before and as since, we had fire drills. When the alarm rang, we filled outside. But we also had nuclear-attack drills. The alarm would sound and we’d line up and file down to the basement cafeteria. The cafeteria had picture windows facing onto the woods behind the school. We’d sit on the floor with our backs against the wall, facing toward the windows. We had nuclear-attack drills too. In our school, we dropped to the floor and crouched under our desks to protect ourselves from nuclear bombs and fallout. My mom and other school mothers took turns in pairs manning the lookout on top of the school. They were supposed to look for Soviet planes coming in to drop nuclear bombs. We lived in a suburb near New York City, which people thought was a likely target for a nuclear attack. My town, like every town and city then, had buildings with fallout shelter signs. You were supposed to rush to them in case of nuclear attack. One of our neighbors built a nuclear attack bomb shelter in his backyard. This was supposed to keep him and his wife and children alive until the deadly radiation faded away and it was possible live outside the shelter again. (This was going to take several days or weeks.) Our neighbor made a great point of letting everyone nearby know that he had a gun in his bomb shelter. He said he would shoot to kill any neighbor or friend who tried to seek safety in the shelter with him and his family in the event of a nuclear attack. -Adapted from: The Era of World War II Through Contemporary Times (Walch Publishing) 26 Cold War Oral History Project Getting Started Developing Questions Some questions will be SUGGESTIVE. Example: You said you were involved in a quilting group. Could you tell me more about it? Suggestive questions also ask the narrator to reflect on an experience in more detail. Example: What else do you think the government could have done to protect us against communism? Some questions will be DESCRIPTIVE. Example: Could you describe the size of the crowd? Could you describe your injury? Some questions ask for a DEFINITION. Example: Would you tell me what McCarthyism is? Some questions need a FOLLOW-UP. Example: Could you tell me more about your experience as a rescue helicopter pilot? One of the hardest kinds of questions to ask is the NEGATIVE question. Example: Many people felt the war protesters were unpatriotic. What were your feelings? Be sure to advise students that sensitive issues can emerge when interviewing someone and getting to know about their life. Be sensitive to those issues. Open/Closed Questions When writing interview questions, students should write open questions whenever possible. To practice, have students identify which of the following questions are open questions and which are closed questions. _____ 1. Is basketball your favorite sport? _____ 2. Why is English your best subject? _____ 3. Is today Tuesday? _____ 4. What do you think about the decision the President made? _____ 5. Is chorus a fun course? _____ 6. How did you choose who to interview for this project? 27 Tips on How to Interview 1. LISTEN! An interview is not a dialogue. The whole point is to get the narrator to tell his/her story. Listen for clues and leads. Be alert and ready to follow up. 2. BE CURIOUIS! Ask the narrator to explain things to you; define words and phrases you are not familiar with; describe physical things, etc. 3. ASK ONE QUESTION AT A TIME! If the narrator hears a string of questions, he/she only answers the first or the last question. 4. SMILE AND NOD YOUR HEAD! Look at the narrator and encourage him/her with your eyes and body. If he thinks she is boring you, he’ll stop talking. 5. SILENCE CAN BE GOLDEN! Give your narrator a chance to think of what he/she wants to say. Keep quiet and wait- count to ten slowly before asking another question or repeating the question. Relax and write a few words in your notebook. 6. DO NOT INTERUPT A GOOD STORY! BUT, if the narrator digresses, guide him/her back to the topic as politely as you can. You might say, “That’s very interesting, but I would like you to talk about…” 7. DO NOT CHALLENGE OR CONTRADICT THE NARRATOR! The interview is not an interrogation. You are just collecting as much information as possible. 8. TRY TO AVOID “OFF THE RECORD” INFORMATION. Ask him/her to let you record the whole thing and promise the narrator the opportunity to edit the interview or have it erased later. 9. END THE INTERVIEW WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME. Always ask if there is anything else he/she would like to talk about or go back to. Pause before thanking him/her and turning the recorder off. 10. THANK THE NARRATOR! 28 Cold War Oral History Project Log Student Interviewee Historical Contextualization Transcript Analysis Thank you note Due: Due: Due: Due: 29 Cold War Oral History Project Pre-Interview Handout Student name __________________________________________________________________ The full name of the person you intend to interview ___________________________________________________________________ Interview topic __________________________________________________________________ Was the interviewee directly involved in the event? ______________ Yes _________________ No Date, time and location of interview __________________________________________________________________ Biographical data of interviewee Year and place of birth _________________________________________________________________ Places lived _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Married ________________ Yes _________________ No Children _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Education _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Work experience _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Nationality/Ethnicity _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Interests _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 30 Military service _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Additional information (Honors/awards, political affiliation, family history, etc.) _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Historical period or event the interview will focus on _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Why did you choose this interviewee and period of focus? _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Preliminary bibliography (List a minimum of three sources you have accessed that will help in your historical contextualization.) _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Preliminary questions _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ Student signature ________________________ Date _________________________________________________ Teacher signature ________________________ Date 31 Cold War Oral History Project- Rubric Category A (4) B (3) C (2) D (0/1) Biography Provides a strong sense of the interviewee’s background with extended use of dates, details and anecdotes to provide context. Interviewee’s past is clearly established in the context of the interview period. Establishes strong historical background for understanding the interview drawing evidence from a minimum of five primary and secondary sources (including “newspapers of the day”). Analysis considers both sides of the historical event or period that the interview covers. The final draft reflects revisions by the teacher and student. Provides a sense of the interviewee’s background with limited use of dates, details and anecdotes to provide context. Interviewee’s past is partially established in the context of the interview period. Provides an unclear sense of the interviewee’s background and does not include dates, details and anecdotes to provide context. Interviewee’s past is not established in the context of the interview period. Provides no sense of the interviewee’s background using dates, details and anecdotes for context. Interviewee’s past is not established in the context of the interview period. Historical background for understanding the interview uses some evidence from a minimum of five primary and secondary sources (including “newspapers of the day”). Limited use of dates to insure historical context and analysis. Considers only one side of the historical event or period that the interview covers. The final draft reflects a limited number of revisions. Establishes a weak background for understanding the interview drawing little evidence from a minimum of five primary and secondary sources (including “newspapers of the day”). Analysis considers only one aspect of the period or event in a general way or both aspects in a superficial way. History provides an ineffective context for understanding the interview. The final draft reflect a limited number of revisions. No historical background for understanding the interview is established. Contextualization does not use any evidence from primary or secondary sources. Establishes inadequate or inaccurate understanding of the period or event. The final draft reflects few or no revisions. Historical Contextualization 32 Category A (4) B (3) C (2) D (0/1) Transcription Minimum of fifteen, openended questions that reflect thoroughness of research and an ordered plan for conducting the interview. Follow-up questions are utilized to clarify points put forth by the interviewee’s responses. Approximately fifteen open-ended questions that might not reflect thoroughness of research and an ordered plan for conducting the interview. Limited use of follow-up questions to clarify points put forth by the interviewees response. Analysis Sophisticated thesis that clearly establishes historical value. Application of historical contextualizatio n in order to assess where the interview fits into the history of the particular period of event. Use of the interview, and quotations to support interviewer’s interpretations. The entire project contains minor technical errors. The project is clearly organized and well written. Contains a thesis statement that establishes historical value. To varied degrees historical contextualization is used in order to assess where the interview fits into the history of the particular period of event. Limited use of the interview and quotations to support interviewer’s interpretations. Less than fifteen questions that lack open-endedness and use of research. Questions are unorganized and at times do not remain focused on the period or event in question. Follow-up questions to clarify points put forth by the interviewee’s responses are missing. Presents a limited, confused and/or poorly developed thesis assessing historical value. Ineffective application of historical contextualization in order to assess where the interview fits into the history of the particular period of event. Interview and quotations are not effectively used to support interviewer’s interpretations. The entire project contains major mechanical errors. Less than fifteen questions are extended to the interviewee. Questions are not open-ended and not developed to clarify interviewee’s response. Questions are posed in an unorganized manner and do not relate to the period or event being examined. Contains no thesis or a thesis that does not address historical value. No or ineffective use of historical contextualization in order to assess where the interview fits into the history of the particular period of event. No or ineffective use of the interview and quotations to support interviewer’s interpretations. Mechanics The entire project contains a few errors. 33 The entire project is poorly organized and contains many errors. Academic Vocabulary 1. Arms race 2. Détente 3. Deterrents 4. Intelligence Organizations (CIA, KGB, etc.) 5. Communism 6. Capitalism 7. NATO/Warsaw Pact 8. United Nations 9. Marshall Plan 10. Truman Doctrine 11. Brinksmanship 12. Cuban missile crisis 13. McCarthyism 14. Proxy wars 15. Domino Theory 34 Lesson Plan 2 Title: Postwar Threats and Compromises Essential Question: How did the United States and the Soviet Union become Cold War adversaries? Duration: 1-2 class periods Enduring Understanding: H-5: Economic needs and wants determine individual and group decisions. H-7: Innovations influence the development, interactions and ultimately the success of societies. Historical Background Notes: See pages 9-15. Purpose: Students will explore the economic, political, and military situation of post World War II Europe and the need for United States intervention by ready excerpts from key documents and viewing images from the 1940s and categorizing them according to threat to the United States and its interests, or the USSR and its interests. Then student groups will negotiate a series of compromises from military and economic aid to the structures of governments in Eastern Europe. Materials: General: -Handout: Postwar Threats -Handout: Postwar Compromises Primary Sources -Document 1: George C. Marshall’s Speech Declaring Marshall Aid -Document 2: Berlin Blockade Ordered by Stalin, U.S. Airlift -Document 3: Truman Signs NATO Alliance -Document 4: Marshall Plan Propaganda Secondary Sources -None Procedure: Teacher 1. Explain to the class that the postwar era Student 1. Participate in class discussion. Record 35 was fraught with difficulties and challenges related to recovery and the growing tension between the remaining superpowers. Give students the following scenario: You enter the cafeteria and see two students fighting. One of them is a classmate who is recovering from a recent sports injury. The other student, a friend you no longer trust, is much larger. In fact, you think your friend has become a bully. How might you react? Option 1: Don’t get involved. Option 2: Get a couple of friends to work with you to help the students resolve their conflict. Option 3: Jump in and defend your classmate against your friend. Option 4: Attack your friend to show that you don’t tolerate that behavior. Discuss how this scenario is related to the post-WWII world. 2. Provide background information about the differences between the United States and the USSR and how each country viewed the challenges from their own perspective. 3. Divide the class into two teams. One team represents the United States and one team represents the USSR. Instruct students to sit with their team in one half of the room. Then, further divide each team into smaller groups of four or five so there are an equal number of United States and USSR teams. 4. Tell students that each of them will receive a handout to complete but will be working with other members of their group to organize and interpret documents through their country’s perspective. 5. Provide copies of each of the documents to each group. Give a copy of the handout entitled Postwar Threats to each student and read the instructions as a class. 6. Allow teams time to work. 7. Once teams are finished, cluster each U.S. group with a USSR group and provide them 36 key notes/information from background reading. 6. Complete handout and work cooperatively with members of your group in order to analyze and interpret primary source documents. 7. Work cooperatively with your combined group to comprise on postwar with the handout entitled Postwar Compromises. Instruct each combined group to use their rankings on the Postwar Threats handout to work together to achieve a satisfactory conclusion to each event or condition. issues. Respond to small group and large group discussion. Student Learning Evidence: Student responses to Postwar Threats handout Student responses to Postwar Compromises handout Participation in class discussion Participation in small group discussion -Adapted from: ABC-CLIO’s Defining Moments 37 Document 1: George C. Marshall’s Speech Declaring Marshall Aid Excerpt from George C. Marshall’s speech on June 5, 1947, Harvard University “I need not tell you gentlemen that the world situation is very serious…. The people of this country are distant from the troubled areas of the earth and it is hard for them to comprehend the plight and consequent reactions of the long-suffering peoples, and the effect of those reactions on their governments in connection with our efforts to promote peace in the world… In many countries, confidence in the local currency has been severely shaken. The breakdown of the business structure of Europe during the war was complete. But even given a more prompt solution of these difficult problems, the rehabilitation of the economic structure of Europe quite evidently will require a much longer time and greater effort than had been foreseen…” “It is logical that the United States should do whatever it is able to do to assist in the return of normal economic health in the world, without which there can be no political stability and no assured peace. Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine but against hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos. Its purpose should be the revival of working economy in the world so as to permit the emergence of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist. Such assistance, I am convinced, must not be on a piecemeal basis as various crisis develop. Any assistance that this Government may render in the future should provide a cure than a mere palliative. Any government which maneuvers to block the recovery of other countries cannot expect help from us. Furthermore, governments, political parties, or groups which seek to perpetuate human misery in order to profit therefrom politically or otherwise will encounter the opposition of the United States.” -Marshall, George C. Commencement Address, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA June 5, 1947 38 Document 2: Berlin Blockade Ordered by Stalin, US. Airlift Rows of C-47 Skytrain airplanes line up on a runway for use during the Berlin airlift. After the Soviet Union closed the borders of West Berlin in June 1949, Great Britain and the United States administered the aid program to supply two million residents of the U.S. and British sectors with food and other essential goods. (U.S. Air Force) 39 Document 3: Truman Signs NATO Alliance Harry S. Truman signs the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) treaty. He signed the treaty on July 25, 1949. (PBS) 40 Document 4: Marshall Plan Propaganda A worker shovels rubble during the rebuilding of West Berlin in front of a building adorned with a sign supporting the Marshall Plan. Introduced by the United States in 1947, the massive financial aid program allowed Germany not only to rebuild, but to surpass its prewar industrial production level. (National Archives) 41 Name_________________________________ Date___________________________________ Period________________________________ Postwar Threats Imagine that your team represents a high-level advisory panel responsible for guiding your government’s foreign policy in the immediate post-war era. For every event or condition in Europe, you must respond with a policy that protects your nation (either the U.S. or the USSR). Working as a team, read and view all documents provided to you. Each document represents one of these events or conditions. For each document, describe what you see or read, then explain how this might represent a threat to your country (the U.S. or the USSR). Then, rank the threats according to what you believe to be the 1 st priority, 2nd priority, and so on for your nation to deal with. Finally, write your ideas on how this situation should be resolved or what your nation’s response should be. Some documents will indicate an action by your own country. For these you should devise a policy for what to do next. You might recommend “no action” or “continue present policy” for some events. Team USA/USSR (circle one) Document # Describe the document and explain how the event represents a threat to your country. 1 2 3 4 42 Threat rank Detailed explanation of how your nation should respond. Name_________________________________ Date___________________________________ Period________________________________ Postwar Compromises Document # 1 Crisis Compromises U.S. USSR 2 U.S. USSR 3 U.S. USSR 4 U.S. USSR 43 Lesson Plan 3 Title: The Cold War at Home Essential Question: How did the anxieties raised by the Cold War affect life in the United States? Duration: 2-3 class periods Enduring Understanding: H-3: The identity of a society is a composite of other groups encountered, absorbed or conquered. Historical Background Notes: See pages 9-15, 47-48. Purpose: The Bomb Shelter game familiarizes students with the mind-set of everyday people in the United States during the arms race. Materials: General -Handout: Bomb Shelter Profiles -Handout: Bomb Shelter Selection -Measuring tape -Graphic organizer Primary Sources: -Photographs Secondary Sources: -Background Reading: The Arms Race Procedure: Teacher Student 1.Have students read The Arms Race. You may want to use a graphic organizer or another reading strategy. (see packet entitled Graphic Organizers for ideas) (2. Extension Activity- Have students (2. Extension Activity: Share your interview interview someone who remembers with someone who remembers participating in participating in an air-raid drill. an air-raid drill. Share your interview with the 44 Students should share interviews with the class.) 3. Ask students to imagine that their classroom is a fallout shelter. Have students brainstorm a list of supplies that they would need to store in the room. They should consider food and drinks as well as medical, comfort, and safety items. When finished with the brainstorming activity, have students analyze some of the responses. For example, did students list any foods that easily spoil? Also mention that more supplies means less room available for people. 4.Tell students the government recommended one person per 10 square feet (0.93 square meters) inside each shelter. Have students measure the classroom. Subtract 50 square feet (4.65 square meters) for supplies. Have students multiply the number of people in class by 10. Is there enough room in the classroom for everyone? What would happen if this were a real-life situation? 5.Divide the class into groups of four to five students each. 6. Tell students that they have control over a shelter that is 125 square feet (11.6 square meters). Twenty-five square feet (2.32 square meters) is taken up with supplies. Since the government allows only one person per 10 square feet (0.93 meters), the room can only fit 10 people. Each member of the group will be in the shelter. So, the group must decide who else will join them. 7.Distribute a copy of the Bomb Shelter Profiles and the Bomb Shelter Selection handouts to each group. The groups should read the profiles on the Bomb Shelter Profiles and make their selections about who they will choose to join them in their bomb shelter. On the Bomb Shelter Selection handout students class.) 3. Imagine your classroom as a fallout shelter. Brainstorm a list of supplies you would need in your fallout shelter. Consider food/drinks, medical, comfort, and safety items. When done, analyze your choices. 4.Measure the classroom and see if it all students could fit the government qualifications for a fallout shelter. 5. Get into groups of four to five students each. 6.Imagine you have control over your own shelter. Each member of the group can fit, but the group must decide who else will join them. 7. Read the Bomb Shelter Profiles. As a group, decide who will join you in your bomb shelter. Record your selection on the Bomb Shelter Selection handout. 45 should rank the profiles from one to five and identify why each was given its respective number. 8.When the groups complete their choices, gather the class together. Identify similar choices and discuss factors that led to the acceptance or denial of the profiled people. 8. Participate in a class discussion about why you accepted or denied people to join you in your bomb shelter. Student Learning Evidence: Group responses to Bomb Shelter Selection Participation in class discussion -Adapted from: The Cold War (Teacher Created Materials) 46 The Arms Race In August 1945, the United States dropped atomic bombs over the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These were the most powerful weapons ever used. President Harry S. Truman believed that an atomic weapon was the best defense in the United States. Joseph Stalin, leader of the Soviet Union, felt his country needed to build a bomb even more powerful. The Soviets tested their first atomic bomb in 1949. The race was on between the two superpowers of the world. For the next 40 years, each country tried to make more powerful weapons. They also worked at developing a more efficient delivery system. In 1945, the Enola Gay, a U.S. bomber, dropped its bomb over the Japanese city of Hiroshima. By the 1960s, the United States and the Soviet Union did not need to fly bombers over enemy country. Nuclear warheads were placed on Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs). These missiles could be launched from anywhere to target an enemy site in another part of the world. France, Britain, and China all had developed nuclear weapons by 1964. For the United States, defending against a nuclear attack became paramount. The United States Defense Department developed the “triad system.” This system of defense was based on stopping a “first strike” assault by the Soviets and then firing our own nuclear weapons at the Soviet Union. The triad created three separate nuclear platforms. The first platform was the use of traditional bombers flying with nuclear bombs on board. The second platform was the ICBMs located in underground missile silos around the United States. Finally, the United States placed nuclear missiles on submarines circling the globe. Cold War Fallout Shelter Protecting the United States and its citizens became another important goal of the government. In 1950, Congress passed the Federal Civil Defense Act. The government set up an early warning system in case of a Soviet attack. Radio, and later television, stations created the Emergency Broadcast System. This system warned Americans of an impending nuclear strike and gave citizens information on where to go for safety. Communities created fallout shelters and loaded the shelters with food, water, and medical supplies. The shelters were built to hold various numbers of people for up to two weeks. In determining the number of people to be housed in the shelter, the government allowed 10 square feet (0.93 square meters) per person. Schools ran air raid practice drills monthly. Students learned the “duck and cover” method of protecting themselves from an explosion. First, students got down on their knees under their desks. Next, students bent as far forward as possible and placed their hands over the backs of their heads and necks. 47 Finally, the U.S. and USSR agreed that the world was too dangerous. The Limited Test Ban Treaty of 1963 was an agreement to end nuclear tests that might create radioactive fallout reaching other countries. The ban was for testing in the atmosphere or underwater. Unfortunately, this ban did not stop underground testing within the boundaries of the country. The Non-Proliferation Treaty, or NPT, was signed in 1968. With the NPT, countries with nuclear weapons agreed not to sell or transfer nuclear materials or devices to any nonnuclear countries. Although a positive step, it is believed that this treaty has been violated by many of the nuclear-producing countries throughout the world today. President Richard Nixon and Soviet General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev signed the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT I) in 1972. The agreement called for halting the growth of first strike nuclear weapons and cutting the production of ICBMs produced by each country. There was to be a SALT II that would further diminish nuclear weapons, but after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, Congress refused to ratify the treaty. Relations between the Soviet Union and the United States deteriorated back to the low levels of the 1960s. President Ronald Reagan laid out plans for winning a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. He also asked for more than $1.5 trillion dollars to be spent on an arms buildup over five years. In 1983, President Reagan gave a speech calling the Soviet Union an “evil empire.” President Reagan also asked Congress for money to develop a new defense system that would be placed in outer space. The system was known as the Strategic Defense Initiative. Many people began to call the system the “Star Wars” defense system. Finally, in 1991, President George Bush and President Mikhail Gorbachev of the Soviet Union signed the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). The treaty called for the reduction of all nuclear arsenals and the dismantling of nuclear ICBMs. After the breakup of the Soviet Union, the new independent countries of Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan also signed the START treaty. Each of these republics held the nuclear ICMBs of the Soviet Union. An ironic twist to the Cold War arms race came in 1992. In that year, American scientists and arms experts assisted the Soviets in dismantling their nuclear weapons and taking some of the warheads back to the United States for storage. 48 President Ronald Reagan and General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev Bomb Shelter Profiles Person #1- Female, 22 years old, married, three months pregnant- She is currently employed as a retail store clerk. She has a high school diploma. Her husband is on a business trip away from the area. She is in good health. She has no other children. Person #2- male, 75 years old- He has been a widower for 10 years. He is retired. He spends most of his time training for the Senior Olympics. He is a world record holder for his age in thee swimming events. He has three children and seven grandchildren who all live in other parts of the country. Person #3- male, 45 years old, married with one child- He is the president of the largest bank in the area. He is in good health, working out daily. He coaches his daughter’s soccer team. He wants to be included with his wife and daughter. Person #4- female, 40 years old, married to person #3- She is a school librarian. She also volunteers in the community’s Food for Elders Program. This program delivers cooked meals to elderly people. She wants to be included with her husband and daughter. Person #5- female, 15 years old, daughter of person #3 and #4- She just completed her freshman year of high school. She is an average student and an excellent athlete. She plays varsity volleyball and soccer. She also works with her mother, volunteering with the Food for Elders Program. She wants to be included with her mother and father. Person #6- female, 62 years old, retired widow- She was a medical doctor in the community for 25 years. She has no children and no other living relatives. Two years ago she survived a stroke that left her with partial paralysis on her left side. She walks with a cane. Person #7- male, 33 years old, single- He has worked for the city’s fire department for the past five years. He is in excellent health. He is an atheist and the leader of a growing atheist social group within the community. Last year he led a group that petitioned for a parade permit for this cause. Person #8- male, 53 years old, single- He is a Catholic priest at one of the local churches. He has been the pastor for 10 years. He is in excellent health. His brother and parents live in another state. Person #9- male, 12 years old- He is moderately healthy. He has asthma and at times requires the use of an inhaler. His parents are divorced. He lives with his father. His father is a member of the United States Congress and is currently in Washington D.C. He has been staying with a paid live-in housekeeper. His mother lives out of state and he has not seen her in a year. Person #10-female, 29 years old, single- She has been a police officer for four years. She has just returned to the police force after a three-month medical leave. She was in an in-house treatment center for alcoholism. Other than her alcoholism, she is in good health. 49 Bomb Shelter Selection Directions: You have a bomb shelter. Your group will be safe from nuclear attack. You have the ability to select others to enter your shelter. Assume that everyone else in the United States may become a victim of the attack and only the people in your shelter may survive. After reading and discussing each of the profiles given to you, rank your selections 1-5. After each, identify why he or she was chosen. Person # Reason 50 Lesson Plan 4 Title: Communism- The Closest Threats? Essential Question: How did the anxieties raised by the Cold War affect life in the United States? Duration: 3-4 class periods Enduring Understanding: H-2: Order, power and systems of government have never been guaranteed. Historical Background Notes: See pages 9-15, 58-62. American socialism began to support the labor movement in the United States in the late 1880s. Beginning in 1904, Socialist Party political candidate, Eugene Debs, ran for the office of president multiple times. However, after the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, the United States government began to see socialists and communists as two groups whose purpose was to overthrow the United States government. Attorney General Mitchell Palmer tried to use members of the Department of Justice to infiltrate and subdue Communist Party members. Later, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), headed by J. Edgar Hoover, became the federal agency in charge of domestic protection from subversive organizations. During the war years, the FBI spent most of its investigative time on organized crime and domestic protection from Japanese infiltration. With the end of World War II and the emergence of the USSR as a world power, the United States once again feared the rise of socialism and communism. The House of Representatives renewed its investigations of subversive groups under the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). Using information provided by the FBI and by voluntary witnesses, HUAC began asking, “Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?” In 1947, President Harry S. Truman asked Congress for a law that mandated government employees to sign a loyalty oath. The Loyalty Oath Act also gave the government the power to investigate the backgrounds of government employees to check for communist ties. The Loyalty Oath Act was followed three years later with the Internal Security Act. The Internal Security Act said that American members of the Communist Party, “in effect repudiate their allegiance to the United States, and in effect transfer their allegiance to the foreign country…” The Attorney General’s Office, HUAC, and the FBI began to investigate suspected Communist Party members in earnest. Coinciding with the HUAC hearings, Senator Joseph McCarthy announced that he knew of 51 communist agents working in the United States State Department. McCarthy and others, including Congressman Richard Nixon, suspected that communist agents had worked within President Franklin Roosevelt’s administration. McCarthy conducted Senate hearings to question State Department and later U.S. military personnel. Senator McCarthy was unable to prove any substantial plot or infiltration of the government and the military. Ultimately, the Senate voted to censure Senator McCarthy. The HUAC and McCarthy hearings spawned great debate over the right of the government to identify organizations detrimental to U.S. security and the right of citizens to peacefully assemble and organize. Purpose: In this simulation, students will become members of a special committee appointed by the president to determine if the government acted appropriately in investigating, questioning, and prosecuting suspected Communist Party members during the years 1945-1953. The president wants the opinion of this group to help his administration deal constitutionally with subversive groups. Students will be given some background information to read. After reading, the students will be evenly divided into eight groups. Each group will be given a different perspective on the HUAC or McCarthy hearings. Prior to the committee hearing, a discussion of the First and Fifth Amendments should be conducted. During the simulated committee meeting, students will take turns acting as the spokesperson for each group. The other members will listen to the discussion and prepare to share further information. Only the speaker will be able to address other group members. The spokesperson’s position should rotate every five to ten minutes. It will be the role of the committee to make a final determination as to the legality of the HUAC and McCarthy hearings and to make a recommendation to the president. Materials: General -Handout: Perspectives on the Communist Hearings -Handout: Factors to Consider -Handout: Final Analysis and Evaluation -Dot Game Directions -Dot Game Historical Directions Primary Sources: -First and Fifth Amendments -Handout: Factors to Consider Secondary Sources: -Background reading: Communist Infiltration Procedure: Teacher 1. Distribute the background information, Communist Infiltration, and have students read the information. Use a graphic Student 1. Read background information entitled Communist Infiltration. You should also begin forming opinions on whether the HUAC, 52 organizer or other reading strategy during the reading. There are two versions of this reading. Level A is designated with a square and is intended for students on about a fifth grade reading level. Level B is designated with a triangle and is intended for students on about a ninth grade reading level.) Students should try to form opinions on whether the HUAC, McCarthy, and all acts and investigations were appropriate measures to take to stop communist organizations. 2. Conduct the “dot game” simulation. This helps students understand what it feels like to be singled out and be in the minority. Discuss the implications of this experience with students and discuss the Historical Connections handout before beginning the committee meetings. 3. Explain to students that they will be simulating a hypothetical committee appointed by the president. The president would like to implement a congressional hearing on terrorism and terrorists within the United States. He wants to ensure that the rights of citizens are protected and at the same time, that the government is not in danger of infiltration or attack. 4. Divide the class into eight groups. Each group should be given a different perspective from the Perspectives on the Communist Hearings. Allow each group time to read and discuss the significance of its position. Each group should also plan the points they will raise. Remind students that some groups are being asked to protect the rights of those questioned. Other groups are being asked to look more closely at protecting the government. (Literature circle roles could be adapted for this section of the lesson.) 5. Remind groups to keep the First and Fifth Amendments in mind when reading McCarthy, and all acts and investigations were appropriate measures to take to stop communist organizations. 2. Participate in the “dot game.” Participate in class discussion. 4. You should work cooperatively with your group to read and discuss Perspectives on the Communist Hearings. After you are done reading and discussing, you need to plan the points you will raise in our large group discussion. Record these points within your group. 53 and discussing. 6. Project Factors to Consider. Ask the groups if there are some other factors that they think need to be addressed or considered. Record their suggestions. 7. Describe the committee meeting procedure to students (see below). Tell them they will sit in their groups. During the discussion, only the current spokesperson for each group may talk to other members of the committee. The spokesperson position will rotate between members every five to ten minutes. 8. Have each group write a thesis statement of the group’s position with at least three main points they will use to support their thesis. Each group will then show its thesis to you. This will help you check for understanding of the issue and individual positions. 9. Begin the committee meeting. 10. At the conclusion of the committee meeting distribute Analysis and Evaluation handout. Have students complete this in class or for homework. Discuss. 6. Look at Factors to Consider. Are there any points you would like to add or think should be considered? Record your suggestions. 8. Write a thesis statement that supports your group’s position with at least three main points that support your statement. 9. You will begin your role as a member of a congressional committee meeting. Follow proper committee procedure and roles. 10. Complete Analysis and Evaluation handout. Participate in discussion about handout. Student Learning Evidence: Participation in committee meeting Completion of Analysis and Evaluation form Participation in class discussion Participation in and analysis of dot game -Adapted from: The Cold War (Teacher Created Materials) -Adapted from: History Alive! Pursuing American Ideals 54 Dot Game Directions Object of the Game To being the game, give each student a slip of paper. Each paper should be either blank or have a red dot on it. Tell students to secretly check whether the paper is blank or has a red dot on it. Then, tell them to hide the paper in their pocket and DO NOT show it to anyone during the game. Nondots win the game by forming the largest group of students who are ALL nondots. Dots win the game by being the ONLY dot in a group. Procedure Once the game starts, you will have approximately five to seven minutes to form groups. You can ask others whether are dots or nondots, but players may not reveal their slips of paper during the game. You do not have to join a group, but you cannot win the game unless you are in a group of at least two people. You can be a part of a group only if that group agrees that you are a member. If you suspect that someone is a dot, report your suspicion to the teacher. He or she will deal with the accusation appropriately. Tips on Strategy During the game, you will have to ask classmates whether they are dots. Because everyone will deny being a dot, look for classmates who act suspiciously. If you are a dot, try to draw suspicion away from yourself and onto others. 55 Dot Game Historical Connections Dot Game Some students were dots. Most students were nondots. Students accused others of being dots even though they never saw other students’ slips of paper. Students were to report suspected dots to the teacher. Some students were purposely excluded from groups. Anxiety increased as students lost trust in one another. Historical Connection Some Americans during the Cold War were Communist Party members or Soviet spies. Most Americans were not Communist Party members or Soviet spies. HUAC, McCarthy, and others made accusations- often based only on suspicion-against Americans thought to be communists or communist sympathizers. Accusing individuals without evidence became known as McCarthyism. Americans were encouraged to report suspected communist activities. Those accused included Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs. Americans accused of being communists or communist sympathizers were often placed on “blacklists.” Anxieties were raised during the Cold War as Americans were concerned about the spread of communism and the possibility of a nuclear attack by the Soviet Union. 56 Holding the Committee Meeting 1. On the day of the committee meeting, have the students come in and sit with their assigned group. Each group should have paper and pencil so that they can communicate during the simulation without talking. 2. Review expectation of students during simulation activity. 3. Begin the committee meeting. Identify which group will start and move around clockwise to each group. Make sure that, as recommendations come forward, they are written on a chart/overhead, etc. The committee should discuss the merit of each recommendation. Recommendations can be altered or eliminated as the discussion continues. 4. The teacher should act as the facilitator of the groups. Try not to answer questions or intervene. Let the groups handle their problems. Take notes on key issues that were made for later class discussion. Make sure to check the time and rotate the students within each group. 5. Appoint one student as the class clerk. The clerk will write down the recommendations on chart/overhead, etc. He or she will also make corrections, amendments, or delete recommendations as the group dictates. 6. When it is time to switch spokespersons, give the groups a few minutes to discuss what they have heard in the speeches and relate this to their positions before continuing. 7. Make sure everyone has a chance to be his or her group’s spokesperson. When the discussion has reached an end, refocus the group to the chart of final recommendations. 57 Communist Infiltration The HUAC In 1937, the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) began to follow the activities of groups thought to be a danger to the country. The committee believed that the greatest threats to American security came from the American Communist Party and the American Socialist Party. Some congressmen even felt that people working within President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal programs were communist spies. Communism in Hollywood Congressman John Parnell Thomas, from New Jersey, became the head of HUAC in 1947. At that time, the committee began its investigation of the Hollywood movie industry. Actors, writers, and directors were closely studied. Forty-one people from Hollywood willingly went before the HUAC committees. These 41 were called “friendly witnesses.” Each witness was asked, “Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?” Some said “yes” and some said “no.” Most of these witnesses named other Hollywood friends they had seen at communist events. Ten of these “named” people called before HUAC refused to answer any questions. They also refused to name any other people. Each of them stated that the First and the Fifth Amendments of the Constitution protected them. These 10 people became known as the “Hollywood Ten.” Each of the 10 were found guilty of contempt of Congress. They were sentenced to jail for six to twelve months. HUAC, under Congressman Thomas, continued to investigate the movie industry. Before the committee ended its hearings, 320 Hollywood people were “blacklisted.” Blacklisted actors, directors, and writers found it difficult to find any work in Hollywood. Report Written by the Wives of the “Hollywood Ten” Two of the “blacklisted” men were Arthur Miller and Dalton Trumbo. Both of these men were writers. Miller was angry that HUAC accused him of crimes that he did not commit. He wrote a play called The Crucible, which dealt with the Salem witch-hunts. He felt that HUAC was leading a communist witch-hunt. Trumbo continued to write using a false name after becoming “blacklisted.” He won two Academy Awards while using his false name. In 1960, Trumbo decided to write under his true name again. He wrote Spartacus and became the first blacklisted writer to once again use his real name. Communism in the U.S. Government HUAC next turned its attention to the U.S. State Department. The committee feared that State Department workers were sending secret information to the Soviet Union. In 1948, Richard Nixon, a congressman from California, questioned many people who worked in the 58 State Department. He turned his information over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). This information led to the arrest of Alger Hiss, a State Department employee. Information from these investigations also led to the arrests of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. The Rosenbergs were accused of giving secret atomic bomb information to the Soviets. They were found guilty and executed in 1953. In 1950, Congress passed the Internal Security Act. This act required loyalty oaths for all government employees. Employees had to swear that they were not communists and would not help communists. The Rise and Fall of Senator McCarthy Beginning in 1951, Senator Joseph McCarthy shocked America by saying that he knew the names of 81 State Department employees who were communists. Senator McCarthy began months of Senate committee hearings investigating suspected communists. After three years of hearings, Senator McCarthy did not find any major communist spy network within the government. McCarthy then began to question members of the United States Army. President Dwight Eisenhower was a World War II army hero. Eisenhower was angry that McCarthy was questioning military officers and members of Eisenhower’s own staff. President Eisenhower asked Congress to stop Senator McCarthy. Congress voted to end Senator McCarthy’s hearings. The Senate also voted to censure the senator. A censure is a verbal or written criticism of a congressman’s actions. The End of the HUAC From 1947 to 1954, the House Un-American Activities Committee questioned thousands of suspected American Communist Party members. The committee looked into the private lives of many American citizens. Some said that HUAC was a “witch-hunt” and was unfair to Americans. Others believed that HUAC was useful in protecting the United States. From 1954 to 1975, HUAC continued to meet but discontinued hearings and investigations. The work of HUAC finally ended in 1975. 59 Communist Infiltration The HUAC In 1937, Congress began the process of investigating subversive groups within the United States. The committee to oversee the investigation was called the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). The committee believed that the greatest threats to American security came from the American Communist Party and the American Socialist Party. Some congressmen even felt that people working within President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal programs were communist spies. To these Congressmen, and many American citizens, the New Deal programs were contrary to American capitalism. Congress began to look closely at the ties between labor organizations and the Communist and Socialist Parties. From 1947 to 1954, the House Un-American Committee conducted investigations of suspected communist agents within the Hollywood movie industry, the U.S. State Department and the U.S. military. Communism in Hollywood Congressman John Parnell Thomas, from New Jersey, became the head of HUAC in 1947. His committee’s investigations into the Communist Party were directed at the Hollywood Motion Picture Industry. Actors, writers, and directors were closely studied. Forty-one people from Hollywood willingly went before the HUAC committees. These 41 were called “friendly witnesses.” Each witness was asked, “Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?” Some said “yes” and some said “no.” Most of these witnesses named other Hollywood friends they had seen at communist events. Ten of these “named” people called before HUAC refused to answer any questions. They also refused to name any other people. Each of them stated that the First and the Fifth Amendments of the Constitution protected them. These 10 people became known as the “Hollywood Ten.” Other actors supported the “Hollywood Ten” by forming the Committee for the First Amendment and traveling to Washington D.C. Some of the notable actors involved with the committee were Humphrey Bogart, Lauren Bacall, John Huston, and Gene Kelly. Chairman Thomas continued to press the “Hollywood Ten,” to denounce the Communist Party and to name others that had been involved in communist gatherings. Since they wouldn’t talk each of the 10 Report Written by were found guilty of contempt of Congress. They were the Wives of the sentenced to jail for six to twelve months. “Hollywood Ten” HUAC, under Congressman Thomas, continued to investigate the movie industry. Before the committee ended its hearings, 320 Hollywood people were “blacklisted.” Blacklisted actors, directors, and writers found it difficult to find any work in Hollywood. 60 Two of the “blacklisted” men were Arthur Miller and Dalton Trumbo. Both of these men were writers. Miller was angry that HUAC accused him of crimes that he did not commit. He wrote a play called The Crucible, which dealt with the Salem witch-hunts. He felt that HUAC was leading a communist witch-hunt. Trumbo continued to write using a false name after becoming “blacklisted.” He won two Academy Awards while using his false name. In 1960, Trumbo decided to write under his true name again. He wrote Spartacus and became the first blacklisted writer to once again use his real name. Communism in the U.S. Government HUAC next turned its attention to the U.S. State Department. HUAC’s investigation into spying within the State Department did not draw as much publicity as the Hollywood investigations. The committee feared that State Department workers were sending secret information to the Soviet Union. In 1948, Richard Nixon, a congressman from California, questioned Elizabeth Bentley and Whittaker Chambers about their associations with the American Communist Party. He turned his information over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). This information led to the arrest of Alger Hiss, a State Department employee. Information from these investigations also led to the arrests of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Harry Gold, and David Greenglass for treason. These four were accused of giving secret atomic bomb information to the Soviets. The Rosenbergs refused to admit any wrongdoing and were found guilty and executed in 1953. Gold and Greenglass, however, cooperated with the government and were sentenced to long prison terms. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg Upon reading Congressman Nixon’s investigation transcripts, members of Congress began to worry more about State Department infiltrations. In 1950, Congress passed the Internal Security Act. It is also called the McCarran Act, named after its author Senator Pat McCarran. This act required loyalty oaths for all government employees. Employees had to swear that they were not communists and would not help communists. The most controversial aspect of the act was the authorization of concentration camps to be set up for communist sympathizers. The camps were to be implemented during “emergency situations.” President Truman vetoed the McCarran Act, but Congress overrode the veto by large margins and it became law. The Rise and Fall of Senator McCarthy Another public phase of the HUAC investigation began in 1951 under the leadership of Senator Joseph McCarthy. McCarthy had shocked America by saying that he knew the names of 81 State Department employees who were communists. Senator McCarthy began months of Senate committee hearings investigating suspected communists. They were asked to denounce the Communist Party and to name other communist members that were 61 working for the United States government. After three years of hearings, Senator McCarthy did not find any major communist spy network within the government. McCarthy then began to question members of the United States Army. President Dwight Eisenhower was a World War II army hero. Eisenhower was angry that McCarthy was questioning military officers and members of Eisenhower’s own staff. President Eisenhower asked Congress to stop Senator McCarthy. Congress voted to end Senator McCarthy’s hearings. The Senate also voted to censure the senator. A censure is a verbal or written criticism of a congressman’s actions. The censure stated McCarthy was to be condemned for “conduct contrary to senatorial tradition.” The End of the HUAC From 1947 to 1954, the House Un-American Senator Joseph McCarthy Activities Committee questioned thousands of suspected American Communist Party members or associated. The committee looked into the private and public lives of many American citizens. Critics have argued that HUAC was a “witch-hunt” that violated the constitutional rights of Americans. Supporters said that America needed to be protected from anyone who did not support the anti-communist sentiments of the time. From 1954 to 1975, HUAC continued to meet but discontinued hearings and investigations. The work of HUAC finally ended in 1975. 62 Perspectives on the Communist Hearings Studio Executives Below is a statement made by the heads of the Motion Picture Studios and executives from the Motion Picture Industry. This statement was given to the press and to Congress. “Members of the Association of Motion Picture Producers deplore the action of the ten Hollywood men who had been cited for contempt… We will forthwith discharge or suspend without compensation those in our employ and we will not re-employ any of the ten until such time as he is acquitted or has purged himself of contempt and declares under oath that he is not a communist…. We will not knowingly employ a communist nor a member of any party or group which advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force or by illegal or unconstitutional methods… We will invite the Hollywood talent guilds to work with us to eliminate any subversives, to protect the innocent, and to safeguard free speech and a free screen wherever threatened.” Fellow Senate Members This is part of a speech given by Senator Margaret Chase Smith, June 1, 1950. The speech was made to condemn the abusive methods and actions of Senator Joseph McCarthy during the HUAC hearings. Six fellow Republicans signed on to her “Declaration of Conscience.” “The United States has long enjoyed world-wide respect as the greatest deliberative body in the world. But recently that deliberative character has too often been debased to the level of a forum of hate and character assassination sheltered by the shield of congressional immunity. It is high time that we all stopped being tools and victims of totalitarian techniques- techniques that, if continued here unchecked, will surely end what we have come to cherish as the American way of life.” 63 Naming of Names Edward Dymtryk was an original member of the Hollywood Ten. Unable to find work and fearing that he could not provide for his family, Dymtryk returned to HUAC and testified. He named other communist members within the Hollywood community. He also named other actors and writers who were not communist members but had attended social gatherings sponsored by the Communist Party. Edward Dymtryk made a statement about his change of position. “I had long been convinced that the fight of the Ten was political… I believed that I was being forced to sacrifice my family and my career in defense of the Communist Party, from which I had long been separated and which I had grown to dislike and distrust. I would have to name names, and I knew the problems this would cause… My decision was made easier by the fact that I couldn’t name anybody who hadn’t already been identified as a Party member. Weighing everything pro and con, I knew I had to testify. I did not want to remain a martyr to something that I absolutely believed was immoral and wrong.” Statement to HUAC Larry Parks was a member of the Hollywood Actors Guild. He was called before the House Un-American Activities Committee and questioned about his involvement with the Communist Party. He was asked by the committee to denounce his membership in the Communist Party and to name others that he knew had been communist members. Larry Parks gave this statement to the House Committee. “My people have a long heritage in this country. They fought in the Revolutionary War to make this country, to create the government to which this committee is a part. I have two boys…. Is this the type of heritage I must hand down to them? Is this the kind of heritage you want to hand down to your children? I think my career has been ruined because of this, and I would appreciate not having to testify. Don’t present me with the choice of either being in contempt of this Committee and going to jail or being forced to crawl through the mud and be an informer! I don’t think this is a choice. I don’t think this is American justice…. I beg you not to force me to do this. 64 Refusing to Name Names Dalton Trumbo, was a member of the Hollywood Ten. This excerpt is from a poem written while serving his time in prison for contempt of Congress. Say then but this of me: Preferring not to crawl on his knees In freedom to a bowl of buttered slops Set out for him by some contemptuous clown, He walked to jail on his feet. Dalton Trumbo, commenting on forgiveness of the committee versus wanting revenge, made reference to another of the Hollywood Ten, Lillian Hellman. “Lillian Hellman once said, ‘Forgiveness is God’s job, not mine.’ Well so is vengeance, you know.” Law Enforcement on Communism This testimony is taken from transcripts of FBI director, J. Edgar Hoover. The testimony was given to the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1947. “The mad march of Red fascism is a cause for concern in America. But the deceit, the trickery, and the lies of the American Communists are catching up with them. Whenever the spotlight of truth is focused upon them they cry Red baiting. Now that their aims and objectives are being exposed, they are creating a Committee for the Constitutional Rights of communists… They know that their backs will soon be to the wall…” 65 Loyalty Oaths Taken from the text of the Truman Loyalty Oath, 1947: “Whereas maximum protection must be afforded the United States against infiltration of disloyal persons into the ranks of its employees and equal protection from unfounded accusations of disloyalty must be afforded the loyal employees of the government… There shall be a loyalty investigation of every person entering the civilian employment of any department or agency of the executive branch of the Federal Government. Investigations of persons entering the service shall be conducted by the Civil Service Commission, except in such cases as are covered by a special agreement between the Commission and any given department or agency. Protection of the U.S. Taken from the text of the Internal Security Act of 1950 (also known as the McCarran Act): Sec. 1. (b) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize, require, or establish military or civilian censorship or in any way to limit or infringe upon freedom of the press or of speech as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. Sec. 2. (1) There exists a world Communist Movement which, in its origins, its development, and its present practice, is a world-wide revolutionary movement whose purpose it is, by treachery, deceit, infiltration into other groups (governmental and otherwise), espionage, sabotage, and terrorism and any other means deemed necessary, to establish a communist totalitarian dictatorship in the countries throughout the world through the medium of a world-wide communist organization. Sec. 2. (9) In the United States those individuals who knowingly and willfully participate in the world Communist Movement, when they so participate, in effect repudiate their allegiance to the United States, and in effect transfer their allegiance to the foreign country in which is vested the direction and control of the world Communist Movement. 66 Factors to Consider Directions: The following is a list of topics for consideration. The HUAC and Senate hearings created a dilemma for the United States government. Congressional chairmen had to weigh the need for the security of the United States and government protection against the constitutional rights of American citizens. 1. Fear of communist ideology 2. The time period (end of World War II and Korean conflict) 3. Motives of Chairman John Parnell Thomas and Senator Joseph McCarthy 4. The behavior of Chairman Thomas and Senator McCarthy 5. The power or influence of Hollywood 6. Embarrassment to Presidents Harry S. Truman and Dwight Eisenhower 7. Atomic weapons 8. First Amendment right of freedom of speech and assembly 9. Fifth Amendment right of due process and freedom from selfincrimination 10. Soviet sphere of influence in Eastern Europe and Asia 67 First and Fifth Amendments First Amendment Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Fifth Amendment No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. 68 Name________________________________ Date_________________________________ Period_______________________________ Committee Hearing Analysis and Evaluation 1. Were the rights of those questioned by HUAC protected? 2. Was the country safer as a result of the investigations? Why or why not? 3. Did the government act correctly in trying to halt the spread of communism in the United States? 4. Was the process of blacklisting people proper for studios to use and for the government to endorse? 5. Should the treatment of terrorist groups, such as Al-Qaida, be different from the treatment of the communist organizations of the 1950s? 6. Should constitutional protections be granted to all criminal suspects or only to United States citizens? 7. The president has said that he will accept only three recommendations from your committee. From the list of final recommendations, prioritize your top three and list them here. 1. 2. 3. 69 Lesson Plan 5 Title: The Cuban Missile Crisis- You Make the Call Essential Question: How does a leader show strength, while averting a war? Duration: 2-3 class periods Enduring Understanding: H-7: Innovations influence the development, interactions and ultimately the success of societies. Historical Background Notes: See pages 9-15, 72. Materials: General -None Primary Sources -None Secondary Sources -Handout: Overview of the Cold War, President Kennedy, and Cuba -Handout: Discovery of Missiles in Cuba (teacher background info) -Handout: Rapid Soviet Missile Buildup and Reaction (teacher background info) -Handout: Preparations for Soviet Response -Handout: Top-Secret Briefing A -Handout: Top-Secret Briefing B -Handout: Top-Secret Briefing C Procedure: Teacher Student 1. Divide students into groups of three. 2. Once students are in their groups tell 2. Find the key points of the Overview of the them they will learn about and assess the Cold War, President Kennedy, and Cuba U.S. government’s response to the Cuban background reading. missile crisis. To introduce students to the state of the Cold War on the eve of the Cuban missile crisis, pass out Overview of the Cold War, President Kennedy, and Cuba. Students should find the main points in the reading by highlighting the document 70 or completing a graphic organizer (see packet entitled Graphic Organizers). 3. Pass out Top-Secret Briefing A. Also, project the U-2 spy plane photograph of Soviet nuclear missile sites in Cuba. Have students examine the photograph and read Top-Secret Briefing A. 4. When students are done reading, have them discuss (as a group) the critical thinking question at the bottom of TopSecret Briefing A. Remind them to discuss the best possible response for the stated situation. 5. Direct students to record their proposed response in their notebook. 6. Appoint or ask for volunteers for a presenter for each group. Ask presenters to share their group’s proposed response with the class. 7. Use the teacher’s guide to reveal the way the U.S. government actually responded and what the results were. 8. Repeat this process for Top-Secret Briefing B and C. Rotate the role of presenter for each stage. 9.In their notebooks, have students draw a spectrum line. Ask students to write an X on the spectrum indicating the extent to which they think the U.S. response to the Cuban missile crisis should be praised or condemned. Below the spectrum, have students write a paragraph defending their evaluation. Paragraphs should include references to two or more actions the United States took during the crisis that support the student’s evaluation. (see below for example) 3. Examine U-2 spy plane photograph of Soviet nuclear missile sites in Cuba and read Top-Secret Briefing A. 4. Discuss with your group the critical thinking question at the bottom of Top-Secret Briefing A. 5. Record your group response to the question at the bottom of Top-Secret Briefing A in your notebook. 6. Share your group’s proposed response during whole-class discussion. 8. Repeat this process for Top-Secret Briefing B and C. 9. Draw a spectrum line in your notebook. Write an X on the spectrum indicating the extent to which you think the U.S. response to the Cuban missile crisis should be praised or condemned. Then, write a paragraph defending your evaluation. The paragraphs should include references to two or more actions the United States took during the crisis. Student Learning Evidence: Participation in small group discussion Participation in class discussion Written responses to critical thinking questions recorded in notebook Finding and recording key points from background reading -Adapted from: History Alive! Pursuing American Ideals 71 Overview of the Cold War, President Kennedy, and Cuba Superpower Relations Under Strain The late 1950s were marked by a series of Cold War crises that strained relations between the superpowers. In 1956, the Soviet Union brutally suppressed a democratic uprising in Hungary. The United States, although displeased, did not respond. It feared starting World War II. The next year, the Soviet Union tested the first intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of reaching U.S. soil. In 1958, an American U-2 spy plane was shot down while taking photographs of Soviet military installations. In 1960, at the dawn of the new decade, Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev threatened to start a war over control of the German city of Berlin. In the end, war was averted. However, under Soviet direction, the East Germans began building the Berlin Wall. Made of barbed wire and concrete, the wall divided democratic West Berlin from communist East Berlin. President Kennedy Takes a Stand for Freedom When President John F. Kennedy took office in 1961, he made clear that he would not back down before any Soviet threat. In his inaugural address, Kennedy declared that the United States would “bear any burden” and “pay any price” for the cause of worldwide freedom. He vowed to take the lead in the Cold War fight against the Soviet Union. By so doing, he continued the U.S. foreign policy, dominant since World War II, of containing communism around the globe. Tensions Flare Over Cuba At the time of Kennedy’s inauguration, perhaps the most serious Cold War tensions flared over the small island nation of Cuba. On New Year’s Day, 1959, Fidel Castro and his communist revolutionary followers had overthrown Cuba’s corrupt dictator. Castro had taken power. Weeks later, he had suspended most civil rights, established military rule, and embraced the Soviet Union and Communist China as allies. Thousands of Cubans who felt betrayed by Castro had subsequently fled north to the United States. During his first week in office, Kennedy learned of a plan to overthrow Castro. The plan called for the United States to sponsor a group of Cuban exiles who would invade Cuba at the Bay of Pigs. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had conceived of this plan toward the end of Eisenhower’s presidency. Kennedy’s key advisors suggested that the CIA plan would work and should go forward. Somewhat reluctantly, the president agreed. The Bay of Pigs operation proved to be a disaster. The CIA had assured the exiles that U.S. troops would support them. But Kennedy had pledged that he would not involve U.S. forces directly. The CIA believed that Kennedy would change his mind when American prestige was at stake, but the president did not. Less than 72 hours after the exiles landed at the Bay of Pigs, Castro’s soldiers, using Soviet-supplied tanks, guns, and ammunition, completely defeated them. The U.S. and USSR Reach a Crisis Point in Cuba The failure of the invasion embarrassed Kennedy. He later approved another plan, called Operation Mongoose, that would use the CIA to disrupt the Cuban economy and possibly to assassinate Fidel Castro. The Soviet Union and Cuba, meanwhile, were planning a secret military buildup on the island. In October 1962, the superpower competition erupted in what many experts call the most serious and dangerous crisis of the Cold War. 72 Discovery of Missiles in Cuba In the picture below, we see a U-2 spy plane photograph of Soviet offensive nuclear missile sites in Cuba. The picture, taken from about 70,000 feet above Cuba, left no doubt that the Soviets were placing nuclear weapons on the island. Missile transporters, erectors, and shelters are clear. President Kennedy’s top advisors agreed that the presence of missiles in Cuba represented a grave threat. In the early days of the crisis, General David Shoup, one of Kennedy’s advisors commented, “You are in a pretty bad fix, Mr. President.” To this Kennedy responded, “You are in it with me.” Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara alone argued that Soviet missiles in Cuba posed no more of a threat than Soviet missiles in the Soviet Union- and he soon changed his mind. The president and his advisors recognized that the missiles in Cuba radically altered the balance of power in the nuclear arms race. In October 1962, the United States held clear nuclear superiority over the Soviet Union. The United States had 172 intercontinental ballistic missiles aimed at the Soviet Union. The Soviets had only about 20 pointed at the United States. Thus the placement of Soviet missiles in Cuba addressed the imbalance by making nuclear missiles with shorter ranges a serious threat. Soviet medium range ballistic missiles (MRBMs) had a range of at least 200 miles- and possibly as much as 500 miles. Soviet intermediate range ballistic missiles (IRBMs) had a range of up to 2,200 miles. The Soviets could pack the island with missiles that could strike the United States with only a few minutes’ warning. Kennedy and his advisors were concerned that the president not appear weak to Soviet leaders. If Kennedy allowed the missiles to remain in Cuba, the Soviet Union might very well try to push the United States out of Berlin or throw its weight around in other Latin American countries. Thus Kennedy’s advisors encouraged continued acts of aggression. They considered a number of responses to the Soviet threat, including negotiation, surgical air strikes, and an invasion. As the crisis developed, U-2 spy planes flew frequent missions over Cuba to provide constantly updated intelligence to the president and his closest advisors, who came to be known as EX-COMM (short for Executive Committee). As intelligence poured in, this small group of men needed to make a quick decision about which response to pursue. 73 74 Rapid Soviet Missile Buildup and Reaction In the pictures below, we see the response to the rapid Soviet missile building. The first picture is a EX-COMM meeting discussing what to do about the Cuban missile crisis. The second picture is a Washington Post headline describing Kennedy’s response to the crisis. Members of EX-COMM met to discuss several proposed responses to Soviet missile buildup, including: Ignore the missiles. Initiate a naval blockade of Cuba to prevent Soviet ships from bringing additional supplies to the island. Invade Cuba. Launch a conventional air strike against the missile sites. Send an emissary to discuss the matter with the Soviet premier, Nikita Khrushchev. In the early EX-COMM meetings, those who advocated air strikes to take out the missiles dominated discussion. In the end, however, the president decided that a blockade was the best choice. Kennedy and his advisors deemed the other options too rash or risky. They ruled out air strikes for a number of reasons. First, the military could not assure the president that it could disable all the missiles. In addition, there was considerable concern about the prospect that air strikes would lead to the deaths of Soviet military personnel. No one could predict the Soviet response to such killing. Furthermore, with both air strikes and invasion, Kennedy was worried about the morality of striking first. Kennedy’s final decision allowed him to take a tough posture toward the Soviet Union while leaving Khrushchev time to consider the gravity of the situation. Kennedy chose to call the blockade that he settled on “quarantine”- a word that the committee considered less threatening in tone. 75 Meeting of EX-COMM to discuss what to do about the buildup of Soviet missiles in Cuba. Washington Post headline describing Kennedy’s reaction to the buildup of Soviet missiles in Cuba. 76 Preparations for Soviet Response The United States had to prepare for the fact that the Soviet Union might not honor the blockade. President Kennedy considered the following potential Soviet responses to the blockade: The Soviets attempt to break the blockade. The Soviet wait it out for weeks or months until the crisis subsides. Cuban commanders launch at the United States one of the missiles already in Cuba. The Soviets establish a blockade of Berlin. U.S. policymakers were under extreme pressure as the blockade was established. Many Americans left population centers in hopes of surviving a nuclear attack. Others readied fallout shelters. The U.S. military stayed on full alert. B-52 bombers loaded with nuclear weapons remained in the air at all times. When one landed, another took off. Millions of people waited anxiously to see what would come next. In the end, the Soviets honored the blockade. On Wednesday, October 24, at 10:32 a.m., 20 Soviet ships halted in the water just outside the blockade, and 12 ships turned around. One of Kennedy’s advisors, Secretary of State Dean Rush, commented, “We’re eyeball to eyeball and I think the other fellow just blinked.” Still, the question of the missiles already in Cuba remained. Whether or not the United States could convince the Soviet Union to remove them was an open question. The crisis continued. Finally, on Friday night, October 26, Khrushchev sent a letter to President Kennedy to tell him of the Soviet Union’s willingness to withdraw its missiles from Cuba if the United States removed the blockade and promised not to invade Cuba. The next morning, a Soviet radio station broadcast a slightly different letter, which demanded for the United States to withdraw its missiles from Turkey. President Kennedy willingly agreed to the first two demands. However, in his public response the president ignored the question of the missiles in Turkey. Khrushchev agreed to Kennedy’s terms. Neither man wanted to fight World War III and risk the use of nuclear weapons. On October 27, Attorney General Robert Kennedy met secretly with the Soviet ambassador and told him that the United States would remove the missiles from Turkey but that this action was not officially part of the agreement. On October 28, a Sunday morning, the crisis finally ended with the Soviet Union agreeing to remove the missiles from Cuba in exchange for an end to the blockade and American assurances that the United States would not invade Cuba. 77 Top Secret Briefing A To: President John F. Kennedy and advisors From: U.S. Intelligence Community Re: Nuclear missiles in Cuba, mid-October; 1962 Mr. President, on October 14, 1962, American U-2 spy plans photographed a missile launch pad under construction on the island of Cuba. This launch pad, when completed, will allow the firing of Soviet-supplied nuclear weapons with a range of more than 1,000 milesenough to put the lives of 80 million Americans at risk should the missiles be fired at the United States. In recent weeks, and on more than one occasion, Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev pledged not to put offensive nuclear missiles in Cuba. It is clear that Khrushchev was lying and cannot be trusted. The state of readiness of the launch pad indicates that the Soviets have been shipping nuclear missiles secretly for months. It appears they may be ready to fire very soon. The missiles in Cuba are part of what seems to be a huge arms buildup to shore up Communist control of Cuba. We believe there are between 10,000 and 20,000 Soviet “technicians” in Cuba at this time. The Soviets may be armed with tactical-small battlefield- nuclear weapons that are undetectable from the air. In addition, the Soviets have installed a ring of surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) that are capable of shooting down any aircraft the United States uses to maintain surveillance of the situation. As you and your advisors are aware, Mr. President, the United States maintains clear superiority over the Soviets in the nuclear arms race. The number of ICBMs in the U.S. arsenals is about double that of the Soviets. Also, the U.S. missiles in Turkey provide a distinct advantage. Remember, too, that a U.S. Navy submarine armed with nuclear missiles is about to be placed in the Mediterranean Sea to provide quick-strike capabilities. Why the Soviet premier has chosen this line of action at this time is not entirely clear- after all, there are already enough nuclear missiles in the Soviet Union itself to annihilate the United States. It appears that the Soviet premier may be attempting to gain an upper hand in the Cold War with one bold move. Question: You are a presidential advisor to President Kennedy. You must decide whether the president should be concerned about Soviet missiles and launch pads in Cuba. What do you advise the president to do? President Kennedy has asked you to brainstorm possible U.S. responses to the Soviet missile threat in Cuba. What will you include on your list? 78 Top Secret Briefing B To: President John F. Kennedy and advisors From: U.S. Intelligence Community Re: U.S. response to missile buildup in Cuba Since our last briefing, Mr. President, the Soviet buildup of missiles in Cuba has continued at a frantic pace. The missile launch site at San Cristobal, about 50 miles from the capital city of Havana, will be operational within about a week. When complete, the warning time for a missile attack against the United States will be cut from 15 minutes to between 2 to 3 minutes. U.S. cities from Washington, D.C. to Kansas City are at risk. Furthermore, some of our intelligence suggests that the Soviets are presently installing longer-range nuclear missiles. These missiles would leave only one major U.S. city outside their range: Seattle. Mr. President, you asked us to compile a list of options for you and your advisors to consider, keeping in mind your general goals: removing the missiles from Cuba, avoiding a nuclear exchange of any kind, preparing for Soviet moves elsewhere in the world (such as Berlin), and not losing face. As we see it, the United States can respond in at least five ways to the Soviet construction of missile sites in Cuba: 1. Ignore the missiles. 2. Initiate a naval blockade of Cuba to prevent Soviet ships from bringing additional supplies to the island. 3. Invade Cuba. 4. Launch a conventional air strike against the missile sites. 5. Send an emissary to discuss the matter with Khrushchev. Question: You are a member of the Executive Committee, known as EX-COMM, a group of Kennedy’s closest advisors who have gathered to help him work through this crisis. The president has asked you to assess these five possible responses. How would you prioritize each of the possible responses? What are the positive and negative aspects of each? 79 Top Secret Briefing C To: EX-COMM Members From: President John F. Kennedy Re: Our response and Soviet reactions Since our last briefing by the U.S. Intelligence Community, you are well aware of the course of action that I have ordered: a naval quarantine, or blockade, of the island of Cuba. I decided to blockade Cuba because I believe that a U.S. air strike against Cuban missile sites might result in the death of Soviet soldiers in Cuba, and that loss would likely trigger World War III. As you know, however, the crisis with the Soviet Union over nuclear missiles in Cuba is far from over. On television on Monday, October 22, I informed our citizens of my intent to begin a blockade of all offensive military equipment being shipped to Cuba. I also stated that any missile launched from Cuba would be regarded as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States and would require our full retaliatory response. On Tuesday, Khrushchev sent me a letter stating that the Soviet Union would not observe the blockade, which he called illegal. The following day, I learned that 25 Soviet merchant ships were steaming toward Cuba, accompanied by as many as six Soviet submarines. These ships did eventually alter their course and remain outside the quarantine line. On Friday, U.S. ships stopped and boarded a Panamanian vessel heading toward Cuba and full of Soviet goods. As the vessel contained no military material, they allowed it to proceed. The same day, another ship was spotted heading toward Cuba, seeming ready to defy the blockade. More ominously, a Soviet surface-to-air missile shot down one of our U-2 spy planes over Cuba by early Saturday morning, and the American pilot died. The military generals who form my Joint Chiefs of Staff have recommended an immediate air strike on the missile sites- an action that would, I believe, very likely push us over the brink and into nuclear war with the Soviet Union. However, if I maintain the blockade despite the criticism of the military, I want to know what you think I should in several situations that could arise. What do you recommend I do if: 1. The Soviets attempt to break the blockade? 2. The Soviets wait it out for weeks or months until the crisis subsides? 3. Cuban commanders launch at the United States one of the missiles already in Cuba? 4. The Soviets establish a blockade of Berlin? Question: You are a member of EX-COMM. Respond to the four situations the president might face, keeping in mind his goals for the crisis as outlined in top-secret briefing C. Then offer your recommendation for what the president should do now. 80 Cuban Missile Crisis Response Spectrum The U.S. response should be praised. The U.S. response should be condemned. 81 Lesson Plan 6 Title: The Geography of the Cold War: What Was Containment? Essential Question: How does geography affect political decisions? Duration: 1-2 class periods Enduring Understanding: H-1: History is more than things happening in sequence; it’s about understanding connections across time. Purpose: After World War II, most of the countries in the northern part of the world divided themselves into two large groups or blocs. One bloc was communist and was dominated by Russia, the largest republic in the huge country called the Soviet Union. The other bloc was largely democratic and was led by the United States. The purpose of this activity is to have students analyze the geography of these blocs and what that meant for the containment or spread of communism. Historical Background Notes: See pages 9-15, 84. Materials: General -None Primary Sources: -Document A:Communist/Non-Communist Bloc map -Document B: Berlin Airlift map -Document C: 38th Parallel map -Document D: Cuban Missile Crisis map Secondary Sources: -Background information: The Geography of the Cold War: What Was Containment? Procedure: Teacher 1.Set up the class into 8 different stations. Make two copies each of documents A-D. Place one document at each station. Divide students into partners/small groups. Student 82 2. Read The Geography of the Cold War: What Was Containment? either as a class or in small groups/partners. This will provide background information on the U.S. policy of containment. Discuss the differences in the foreign policy of the United States versus the Soviet Union. 3.Direct students to rotate around the room in order to analyze documents A-D. Each group should analyze the map and answer the questions that go along with the map. (Students can answer questions in their notebook or directly on the document.) 4.Once students have rotated through each station, hold a class discussion about the foreign policy’s of the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Some questions you might ask: What did the analysis of documents AD tell you about the Cold War? What did the analysis of documents AD tell you about the U.S. attempt at its policy of containment? How was the foreign policy of the U.S. different from that of the Soviet Union? How did the economic systems of the U.S. and the Soviet Union differ? How did that impact their military policies? 2. Read The Geography of the Cold War: What Was Containment? Record key points about the differences in the foreign policy of the United States versus the Soviet Union. 3.Working with your group, rotate around the room to analyze documents A-D. Record your answer s to the document questions. 4.Participate in a class discussion about your analysis. Student Learning Evidence: Student responses to analysis of documents Participation in class discussion -Adapted from: Mini-Qs in American History (The DBQ Project) 83 The Geography of the Cold War: What Was Containment? It was a glorious meeting. On April 25, 1945, at the Elbe River in Germany, two powerful armies met. Coming from opposite ends of Europe, the Americans and Russians had cut Hitler’s Germany in two. Now at the Elbe, soldiers from the Red Army of the Soviet Union reached out their hands to their American counterparts. It was a time for great happiness. World War II, the deadliest war in all of human history, was nearly over. Unfortunately, the warmth of the handshakes did not last. The Soviet Union and the United States had serious differences. Their greatest difference was over a political and economic system called communism. In its pure form, communism is a belief that private property should be replaced by community ownership. In the Soviet Union this idea was not easily accepted by the people. Russian leaders Vladmir Lenin and Joseph Stalin were ruthless in their elimination of those who had different ideas about Russia’s future. It is estimated that in the 1930s, Stalin was responsible for killing more than 10,000,000 Soviet people who he believe were in his way. Soviet communists did not like capitalism. They opposed private ownership economies of the United States and its allies. Russian leaders believed that capitalism was doomed and that communism would spread throughout the world. This caused great tension and the emergence of a new kind of war, a Cold War. Mistrust ran deep. In the words of Winston Churchill, it was as if an “iron curtain” had been drawn between the Soviet-controlled countries in Eastern Europe and the Western democracies. The Soviets had suffered terribly in World War II, losing more than 27,000,000 soldiers and civilians. Stalin was determined that Germany would never be able to strike Russia again. To protect Russia, Stalin wanted a buffer zone in Eastern Europe. It was no secret that Stalin and his successors wanted to expand the Soviet Empire. If the Soviet policy was expansion, then the American policy was containment. Containment was the idea that the Soviet Union and Soviet communism should not be allowed to spread. One example of containment was the Truman Doctrine. In 1947, President Harry Truman declared that the United States would support “free peoples,” like those in Greece and Turkey, who were being threatened by communists. The Truman Doctrine was followed by the Marshall Plan, which gave over 12 billion dollars in aid to help rebuild European democracies like France and West Germany. The idea was to give these countries resources so that communist ideas would not be so attractive. By 1947 the United States and the Soviet Union were clearly on a collision course. Stalin and his successors were always looking for weak spots to push and probe, to test American commitment to containment. (This lesson features three occasions where Soviets tested American containment policy. Your task is to examine the maps, then answer the question, what was containment?) 84 Document A: Communist/Non-Communist Blocs 85 1. Including the Soviet Union, list two European countries in the communist bloc (Warsaw Pact). 2. Excluding the Soviet Union, list the Asian countries in the communist bloc. 3. List five North American and European countries in the non-communist bloc (NATO Treaty). 4. List three Asian countries in the non-communist bloc. 5. Why was the formation of alliances so important during the Cold War? 6. What role do you think European colonies played in the Cold War? 7. Imagine seeing this map at the height of the Cold War. With a partner discuss why the geography of the world at this time might make both Americans and Russians very nervous. Record your ideas. Russian Fears American Fears 86 Document B: Berlin Airlift Used from Mini Q’s in American History (The DBQ Project) 1. “In 1948, western Berlin was a pro-American island in a Soviet sea.” Explain. 2. What did the Soviets do between June 27, 1948, and May 12, 1949? 3. Why do you suppose the Soviets did what they did? 4. How did Britain, the United States, and France respond to the June 27th action? 5. How does this document demonstrate the American policy of containment? 87 Document C: 38th Parallel Used from Mini Q’s in American History (The DBQ Project) 1. On what date did North Korea first invade South Korea? 2. Who supported North Korea? Who supported South Korea? 3. North Korea only invaded when Stalin, the Russian leader, gave his approval. From what you know about Stalin, what was his motive? 4. Why might Communist China have decided to help North Korea? 5. How does this document demonstrate the American policy of containment? 88 Document D: The Cuban Missile Crisis Used from Mini Q’s in American History (The DBQ Project) 1. What was the date of Fidel Castro’s communist takeover in Cuba? 2. What is a quarantine? (Note: The Soviets had to look the word up.) 3. Using only information from the map, tell the Cuban Missile Crisis story. 4. How does United States action in Cuba demonstrate the policy of containment? 89 Lesson Plan 7 Title: Tear Down This Wall Essential Question: How can a wall both divide and unite people? Duration: 1-2 class periods Enduring Understanding: H-5: Economic needs and wants determine individual and group decisions. Historical Background Notes: See pages 9-15. Purpose: Students will compare John F. Kennedy’s 1963 speech at the Berlin Wall to Ronald Reagan’s speech at the Berlin Wall. Students will read excerpts from John F. Kennedy’s speech and Ronald Reagan’s speech and answer questions about the rhetoric, goals, and themes they observe. Materials: General -Speech A: Analysis Form -Speech B: Analysis Form -Document workshop protocol -Primary source analysis worksheets Primary Sources: -Speech A: President John F. Kennedy’s “I am a Berliner” speech -Speech B: President Ronald Reagan’s “Tear Down This Wall” speech Secondary Sources: -None Procedure: Teacher 1. Provide background information about the history of the Berlin Wall. Discuss the psychological implications of having a wall in the middle of your town. Student 1. Record any key information about the history of the Berlin Wall. Participate in class discussion about the implications of the Berlin Wall. 2. Divide the class in half. Pass out a copy of speech A to one half of the class. 90 Pass out a copy of speech B to the other half of the class. Tell students that half of the class has one speech and half of the class has another speech. (Eventually, students will read both speeches) 3. Although students will read the speeches independently, have them think of a partner for the purposes of discussion later. 4. Give students time to read. When students have completed reading, instruct them to answer the questions at the bottom of the appropriate speech analysis form. When they are done, instruct them to fold up the bottom of their paper and trade their paper with their partner. 5. Direct students to compare answers with their partner and discuss. 6. When the partners are done reading one speech, direct them to read the speech they have not yet read. Remind them to follow the same process as stated above. 7. When students are done reading both speeches, answering questions, and discussing, conduct a whole class discussion. Discuss questions students answered about the documents. Ask students which speech they think was by Reagan and which was by Kennedy. Ask them which speech they felt was more effective and why. 8. If desired, have students complete the extension activity. 3. Think about a partner you would like to work with for this activity. 4. Read one of the speeches provided. Answer the questions at the bottom of the appropriate speech analysis form. When you are done, fold up the bottom of your paper and trade your paper with your partner. 5. Discuss your thoughts about the speech with your partner. 6. Get a copy of the speech that you have not yet read. Repeat the same process as stated above. 7. Participate in a whole-class discussion about the documents you read. Student Learning Evidence: Participation in small group discussion Participation in class discussion Answers to document questions Completion of extension activity (if desired) -Adapted from: ABC-CLIO’s Defining Moments (“Tear Down This Wall”) 91 Speech A I am proud to come to this city as the guest of your distinguished Mayor, who has symbolized throughout the world the fighting spirit of West Berlin. And I am proud to visit the Federal Republic with your distinguished Chancellor who for so many years has committed Germany to democracy and freedom and progress, and to come here in the company of my fellow American, General Clay, who has been in this city during its great moments of crisis and will come again if ever needed. ….Two thousand years ago, the proudest boast was "civis Romanus sum.” [I am a Roman citizen] Today, in the world of freedom, the proudest boast is "Ich bin ein Berliner." [I am a citizen of Berlin] There are many people in the world who really don't understand, or say they don't, what is the great issue between the free world and the Communist world. Let them come to Berlin. There are some who say that communism is the wave of the future. Let them come to Berlin. And there are some who say, in Europe and elsewhere, we can work with the Communists. Let them come to Berlin. There are even a few who say that it is true that communism is an evil system, but it permits us to make economic progress. Let them come to Berlin. Freedom has many difficulties and democracy is not perfect. But we have never had to put a wall up to keep our people in to prevent them from leaving us. I want to say on behalf of my countrymen who live many miles away on the other side of the Atlantic, who are far distant from you, that they take the greatest pride, that they have been able to share with you, even from a distance, the story of the last 18 years. I know of no town, no city, that has been besieged for 18 years that still lives with the vitality and the force, and the hope, and the determination of the city of West Berlin. While the wall is the most obvious and vivid demonstration of the failures of the Communist system for all the world to see we take no satisfaction in it; for it is, as your Mayor has said, an offense not only against history but an offense against humanity, separating families, dividing husbands and wives and brothers and sisters, and dividing a people who wish to be joined together. What is true of this city is true of Germany: Real, lasting peace in Europe can never be assured as long as one German out of four is denied the elementary right of free men, and that is to make a free choice. In 18 years of peace and good faith, this generation of Germans has earned the right to be free, including the right to unite their families and their nation in lasting peace, with good will to all people. You live in a defended island of freedom, but your life is part of the main. So let me ask you, as I close, to lift your eyes beyond the dangers of today, to the hopes of tomorrow, beyond the freedom merely of this city of Berlin, or your country of Germany, to the advance of freedom everywhere, beyond the wall to the day of peace with justice, beyond yourselves and ourselves to all mankind. Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free. When all are free, then we can look forward to that day when this city will be joined as one and this country and this great Continent of Europe in a peaceful and hopeful globe. When that day finally comes, as it will, the people of West Berlin can take sober satisfaction in the fact that they were in the front lines for almost two decades. All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin. And, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words "Ich bin ein Berliner." 92 Speech B Our gathering today is being broadcast throughout Western Europe and North America. I understand that it is being seen and heard as well in the East. To those listening throughout Eastern Europe, a special word: Although I cannot be with you, I address my remarks to you just as surely as to those standing here before me. For I join you, as I join your fellow countrymen in the West, in this firm, this unalterable belief: Es gibt nur ein Berlin. [There is only one Berlin.] Behind me stands a wall that encircles the free sectors of this city, part of a vast system of barriers that divides the entire continent of Europe. From the Baltic, south, those barriers cut across Germany in a gash of barbed wire, concrete, dog runs, and guard towers. Farther south, there may be no visible, no obvious wall. But there remain armed guards and checkpoints all the same--still a restriction on the right to travel, still an instrument to impose upon ordinary men and women the will of a totalitarian state. Yet it is here in Berlin where the wall emerges most clearly; here, cutting across your city, where the news photo and the television screen have imprinted this brutal division of a continent upon the mind of the world. Standing before the Brandenburg Gate, every man is a German, separated from his fellow men. Every man is a Berliner, forced to look upon a scar. Where four decades ago there was rubble, today in West Berlin there is the greatest industrial output of any city in Germany--busy office blocks, fine homes and apartments, proud avenues, and the spreading lawns of parkland. Where a city's culture seemed to have been destroyed, today there are two great universities, orchestras and an opera, countless theaters, and museums. Where there was want, today there's abundance--food, clothing, automobiles--the wonderful goods of the Ku'damm. From devastation, from utter ruin, you Berliners have, in freedom, rebuilt a city that once again ranks as one of the greatest on earth. The Soviets may have had other plans. In the 1950s, Khrushchev predicted: "We will bury you." But in the West today, we see a free world that has achieved a level of prosperity and well-being unprecedented in all human history. In the Communist world, we see failure, technological backwardness, declining standards of health, even want of the most basic kind--too little food. Even today, the Soviet Union still cannot feed itself. After these four decades, then, there stands before the entire world one great and inescapable conclusion: Freedom leads to prosperity. Freedom replaces the ancient hatreds among the nations with comity and peace. Freedom is the victor. And now the Soviets themselves may, in a limited way, be coming to understand the importance of freedom. We hear much from Moscow about a new policy of reform and openness. Some political prisoners have been released. Certain foreign news broadcasts are no longer being jammed. Some economic enterprises have been permitted to operate with greater freedom from state control. Are these the beginnings of profound changes in the Soviet state? Or are they token gestures, intended to raise false hopes in the West, or to strengthen the Soviet system 93 without changing it? We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall! As I looked out a moment ago from the Reichstag, that embodiment of German unity, I noticed words crudely spray-painted upon the wall, perhaps by a young Berliner: "This wall will fall. Beliefs become reality." Yes, across Europe, this wall will fall. For it cannot withstand faith; it cannot withstand truth. The wall cannot withstand freedom. Thank you and God bless you all. 94 Name___________________________________ Name___________________________________ Date____________________________________ Period__________________________________ Speech A: Analysis Form You will receive excerpts of two speeches, one by President Kennedy in 1963 and one by President Reagan in 1987. Both speeches were given in English at the Berlin Wall in Soviet controlled East Germany. Your job is to read both speeches and answer questions about them. Once you are finished reading your first speech and answering the questions, fold the paper from the bottom up to cover your answers. You will now trade speeches and answer sheets with your partner. Student 2 Questions on Speech A: 1. Who is the intended audience of this speech? 2. What words or phrases does the speaker use to praise the people of Berlin? 3. What words or phrases does the speaker use to criticize the Soviet Union? 4. What words or phrases does the speaker use to describe the wall? 5. What does the speaker say in German? Why do you think he chose those words? 6. What is a specific sentence or argument the speaker makes that is especially successful or powerful? Student 1 Questions on Speech A: 1. Who is the intended audience of this speech? 2. What words or phrases does the speaker use to praise the people of Berlin? 3. What words or phrases does the speaker use to criticize the Soviet Union? 4. What words or phrases does the speaker use to describe the wall? 5. What does the speaker say in German? Why do you think he chose those words? 6. What is a specific sentence or argument the speaker makes that is especially successful or powerful? 95 Name___________________________________ Name___________________________________ Date____________________________________ Period__________________________________ Speech B: Analysis Form You will receive excerpts of two speeches, one by President Kennedy in 1963 and one by President Reagan in 1987. Both speeches were given in English at the Berlin Wall in Soviet controlled East Germany. Your job is to read both speeches and answer questions about them. Once you are finished reading your first speech and answering the questions, fold the paper from the bottom up to cover your answers. You will now trade speeches and answer sheets with your partner. Student 2 Questions on Speech B: 1. Who is the intended audience of this speech? 2. What words or phrases does the speaker use to praise the people of Berlin? 3. What words or phrases does the speaker use to criticize the Soviet Union? 4. What words or phrases does the speaker use to describe the wall? 5. What does the speaker say in German? Why do you think he chose those words? 6. What is a specific sentence or argument the speaker makes that is especially successful or powerful? Student 1 Questions on Speech B: 1. Who is the intended audience of this speech? 2. What words or phrases does the speaker use to praise the people of Berlin? 3. What words or phrases does the speaker use to criticize the Soviet Union? 4. What words or phrases does the speaker use to describe the wall? 5. What does the speaker say in German? Why do you think he chose those words? 6. What is a specific sentence or argument the speaker makes that is especially successful or powerful? 96 Extension Activity Now that you have completed an independent analysis of the two speeches, you are going to combine your impressions and quotes to write a short speech of your own. Workings with your partner, select phrases from both texts and together with your own words, create a mini-speech that conveys the same feeling as those by presidents Kennedy and Reagan. Focus on instilling pride in the people of Berlin while painting a similar picture of the Soviet Union. Likewise, attempt to use powerful and lofty language of your own that would inspire listeners. Remember, more than just the people of Berlin are listening. 97 Lesson Plan 8 Title: Good Fences Make Good Neighbors? Essential Question: How can a wall both divide and unite people? Duration: 1-2 class periods Enduring Understanding: H-5: Economic needs and wants determine individual and group decisions. Purpose: This activity shows students the effects the Berlin Wall had on the people of East and West Berlin. In this simulation, students will be divided in two groups depending on where they live in the school district. They will brainstorm ideas for survival and reflect on the repercussions of the wall. Historical Background Notes: See pages 9-15, 102-103. Materials: General -Handout: Brainstorming Questions Primary Sources: -Map: Divided Berlin -Map: Divided Germany Secondary Sources: -Background Reading: Berlin’s Dividing Wall Procedure: Teacher 1.Begin by asking students some of the following questions: Historically, why have groups of people built walls? (Examples: defense, safety, containment, etc.) Give examples of defensive walls that have been built throughout time. (Examples: forts, castles, Great Wall of China, etc.) Student 1.Participate in a class discussion about the purpose of “walls” throughout history. 98 2. Bring in a map of your school’s attendance area. Ask students to put their initials on the map, close to the place where they live. (If this is not feasible, randomly assign students to two separate groups) 3.Draw a “Berlin Wall” on the map. Try to have a fairly even amount of students on each side of the “wall.” 4.Direct students from one side of the “wall” to rearrange themselves on one side of the classroom. Direct students from the other side of the “wall” to go to the other side of the room. 5.Break students into smaller sub-groups of 3-4 students. Have each smaller group complete the Brainstorming Questions handout. Then, discuss questions as a class. 6.Give students background information reading entitled Berlin’s Dividing Wall. Ask students to complete a graphic organizer or do some other type of reading strategy. 7.Share the map of Divided Berlin and Divided Germany with students. Ask students to describe what they see on the map and its importance to people at that time. 8.Discuss various problems the residents of both sides of Berlin might have had over the 25 years of the wall’s existence. 9.Finally, ask students if they can think of any problems that might have arisen after the wall came down. (Some West Berliners today feel superior to the people of East Berlin. The people of the west look at those of the east as poor and lazy. Citizens in the west pay an additional tax to support the citizens and programs that are trying to bring up the standard of living in the east.) 2. Identify your home on a map of the school’s attendance area. 4. Go to your assigned side of the “wall.” 5. Work with your group to answer the Brainstorming Questions. Discuss. 6. Read Berlin’s Dividing Wall. 7. Analyze the maps entitled Divided Berlin and Divided Germany. What do you see? 8. Participate in class discussion. 9. Participate in class discussion. Student Learning Evidence: Class discussion Response to Brainstorming Questions 99 Reading of Berlin’s Dividing Wall Analysis of Divided Berlin and Divided Germany maps -Adapted from: The Cold War (Teacher Created Materials) 100 Brainstorming Questions 1. You may never see your friends on the other side of the wall again. What will you miss most about them? 2. Do you have any family members or other close family friends who live on the other side of the wall? If so, what will you miss most about them? 3. What changes will you and your family need to make now that some close friends or relatives are on the other side of the wall? 4. Would you risk severe punishment, or possible death, to sneak across the wall? 5. Identify some methods that you might use to help your friends get across the wall? 6. Why would a government feel the need to place a wall around its people? 101 Berlin’s Dividing Wall At the end of World War II, the four Allied powers of the United States, the Soviet Union, Great Britain, and France split Germany into four zones. Berlin, the capital of Germany, was also divided into four zones. The city was located within the Soviet region of Germany. Germany had been devastated by the war. Cities were in ruin and thousands of Germans were unemployed, homeless, and starving. To help the German economic recovery, the western allies created a new German currency. The Soviet Union was surprised by the actions of the allies and refused to accept the currency with their occupational zone. The Soviets wanted to force Germans to use Soviet money. In retaliation for the currency change, the Soviet Union blocked highway and rail transportation across their zone into Berlin. The United States organized an airlift over the blocked zone, brining food and supplies into Berlin. The Berlin airlift lasted for almost one year before the Soviet Union reopened roads and railways across East Germany and into Berlin. In 1949, Germany was divided into the two separate countries of West Germany and East Germany. For the next ten years, many East German citizens traveled to Berlin and crossed from the Soviet Berlin Zone into the American Berlin Zone. Upon arrival in the American zone, the East Germans would find new homes and work or would board transportation out of East Germany. By 1958, Berlin government officials asked the Soviet Union for help in stopping the migration of East German citizens. Nikita Khrushchev, leader of the Soviet Union, responded by sending military troops to Berlin. These troops placed barbed wire barricades around the American Berlin Zone. The Soviets also closed 67 roads that led from East Germany to West Germany and began searching all vehicles and trains leaving the Soviet zone. In 1961, the Soviet Union paid for a permanent wall to be built where the original barbed wire had been placed. The wall surrounded West Berlin in order to keep all East Germans from crossing into the free, American-occupied zone of the city. The wall had barbed wire strung across the top of it. Underwater rails, tied together with spikes, were placed in rivers, canals, and lakes. West Berlin became an island within communist East Germany. Even windows in homes and buildings that bordered the wall were boarded up. Barbed wire and electrical wire fencing were placed on the roofs of buildings that were next to the wall to prevent people from trying to jump over the wall. The construction of the Berlin Wall. In 1963, President John F. Kennedy made a historic trip to Berlin. He wanted to show the West Berliners that the U.S. supported them and to let them know that they were not list 102 within East Germany. Standing at the Berlin Wall Kennedy said, “All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and therefore as a free man, I take pride in the words, Ich bin ein Berliner [I am a Berliner].” Not until the 1970s did tension at the Berlin Wall subside. In 1971, an agreement was reached: West Germans could get visas to travel over to the eastern side for up to 30 days. Finally, in 1988, Mikhail Gorbachev informed the East German government that the Soviet Union would no longer use Soviet military to support the government of East Germany. Within a year, East and West German officials were talking of reconciliation between the two sections of the city and county. In November 1989, the Berlin Wall came down. After more than 25 years, Berliners could finally travel freely within their city. The Berlin Wall was a constant reminder of the Cold War. For Americans, it symbolized the struggles of people forced to live under a communist dictatorship. The Berlin Wall was built to keep people from traveling and living freely. From 1962 until 1989 many hundreds of people tried to get past the Berlin Wall into West Berlin. Some dug tunnels, many used ropes and ladders to scale the wall, two families built a hot-air balloon and flew over, and a few built small compartments inside trucks and cars. Almost 200 were killed while trying to escape and another 200 were shot or captured. Many historians have identified the demolition of the Berlin Wall as one of the greatest events of the twentieth century. 103 The destruction of the Berlin Wall. Divided Berlin 104 Divided Germany 105 Lesson Plan 9 Title: Critical Decisions: Gulf of Tonkin Crisis Essential Question: What critical decisions were made that pushed the United States towards war in Vietnam? Duration: 3-4 class periods Enduring Understanding: H-1: History is more than things happening in sequence; it’s about understanding connections across time. Purpose: Students will discover the series of cause-and-effect events that led to the escalation of the Vietnam War after the Gulf of Tonkin Crisis. They will do this through being presented a series of scenario cards. Students will be asked to select the actual historical response from the scenarios presented. Historical Background Notes: See pages 9-15. From the 1950s on, the United States, as a member of the South East Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO) pledged itself to support any nations resisting communist regimes in the region of Southeast Asia. By the early 1960s, presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy had already lent some military aid and government advisors to various countries in the area without making a substantial commitment. Likewise, by the early 1960s, the CIA had begun running operations in the region. Prior to August 1964, the North Vietnamese Government had been trying various methods to transform South Vietnam into a communist nation with the ultimate goal of reuniting north and south into one country. As part of its policy to counter North Vietnamese goals, the U.S. government was implementing a covert policy known as OPLAN 34-A. This was a program designed to provide military weaponry and intelligence to the South Vietnamese army, which would then attack targets on the North Vietnamese coast. At the time of the attacks on North Vietnam, the American destroyer USS Maddox was off the coast of North Vietnam conducting electronic surveillance. Two hours after the attacks, three North Vietnamese torpedo boats were sent in pursuit of the Maddox, presumably in retaliation. The USS Maddox opened fire on the North Vietnamese torpedo boats, sinking two and damaging the third. By August 4, 1964, the U.S. government was on high alert in the Gulf of Tonkin and a second destroyer, the USS C. Turner Joy was sent in. That night, a series of misread radio, radar, and sonar messages led the U.S. naval commanders in the region to believe they were under attack by the North Vietnamese. The president was informed of 106 multiple torpedo attacks and the U.S. aircraft carrier Ticonderoga sent out aircraft to defend the destroyers. Eventually, regional commanders began to retract their statements, expressing doubt that any attacks had occurred. Nevertheless, the president called in retaliatory missions including OPLAN 34-A and U.S. Air Force attack teams on North Vietnamese positions. Within a few days, President Johnson appealed to Congress for approval of his Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Congress approved the bill, giving President Johnson a free hand to escalate the war. Materials: General -Graphic organizer -Gulf of Tonkin scenario cards -Analysis Questions: President Johnson Transcripts Primary Sources: -Handout: President Johnson’s Phone Conversations -War Powers Act http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal22/warpow.htm Secondary Sources: -None Additional Sources: -The Fog of War http://www.sonyclassics.com/fogofwar/_media/pdf/lessonPlanFOG.pdf Procedure: Teacher 1. Read the following scenario to students: Working in pairs, you will play the part of President Lyndon Johnson. It is 1964, and you want to support the government of South Vietnam as it resists communist influences by North Vietnam. The Cold War is on and you fear that if South Vietnam becomes a communist country, the whole region could become communist. This would be contrary to the Policy of Containment the United States has been following since the end of World War II. I will provide you with a number of historical situations. Each time you must choose between A, B, or C. Keep track of your answers. At the end of each round, I will reveal the actual actions taken by President Johnson. 2. After the Cold War scenario activity, as a Student 1. Put yourself into the shoes of President Lyndon Johnson. Critical decisions have to be made. Ask yourself what you would do in his situation according to the scenarios the teacher provides. 2. Read the transcripts of President Lyndon 107 class or in groups have students read the excerpts of phone conversations from President Lyndon Johnson. You may want to use a jigsaw activity or graphic organizer to organize the information in the transcripts. 3.As a class or in groups have students answer guiding questions about the transcripts they read. 4.Distribute or project a copy of the War Powers Act. Choose whether each individual student will read the document or students will read the document in a group. 5.After the War Powers Act has been read, hold a class discussion about the implications of the Gulf of Tonkin scenario cards and the transcripts of President Lyndon Johnson. Some questions you may ask include: Was the Vietnam War an actual war or was it a police action? What are the implications of the War Powers Act? What does the Constitution say about who can declare war? Why do you think the War Powers Act was passed? What implications does the War Powers Act have on “wars” today? (Gulf War, Iraq/Afghanistan War, etc.) Johnson. 3. Answer questions about the transcripts of President Lyndon Johnson. 4.Read War Powers Act. 5.Participate in class discussion. Student Learning Evidence: Class discussion based on Gulf of Tonkin scenario cards Class discussion based on War Powers Act Student responses to questions from President Johnson’s phone conversations -Adapted from: ABC-CLIO’s Defining Moments (The Vietnam War) 108 Gulf of Tonkin Scenario Cards Situation 1: You would like to discourage communist North Vietnam from interfering in America friendly South Vietnam. You: A. Declare war on North Vietnam and attack the nation using the U.S. Armed Forces. B. Secretly support the South Vietnamese government with weapons and advisors to attack North Vietnam. C. Refuse to interfere in the political balance of the region. Actual action: B Situation 2: To better support South Vietnam, you wish to gather intelligence that you can send to your South Vietnamese friends. You: A. Send an American ship to the coast of North Vietnam to engage in audio surveillance. B. Encourage the South Vietnamese to use their own ships and then to relay any information they discover. C. Refuse to violate North Vietnamese territorial waters. Actual action: A Situation 3: On the same day that you conduct audio surveillance, there are South Vietnamese attacks in the same region. Believing your U.S. Destroyer was responsible for the attacks, the North Vietnamese have launched several torpedo boats against you. You: A. Outrun the attacking crafts and head into international waters avoiding contact. B. Attack the small crafts as they reach your ship. C. Take advantage of your position to attack the North Vietnamese coast while eluding torpedoes. Actual action: B Situation 4: There have just been a series of hostile events between you and the North Vietnamese. You are aware that an open war might begin between the United States and North Vietnam if more events like this happen. You: A. Remove your ship from the region, favoring a covert approach to dealing with the North Vietnamese. B. Open formal negotiations with the North Vietnamese to end hostilities. C. Order more ships into the region to back up your destroyer. Actual action: C 109 Scenario 5: It has been two days since the first attack on your destroyer. You are certain that more attacks could follow. You: A. Design a response plan to further attacks that including hitting strategic targets on the North Vietnamese coast. B. Order your regional commanders to respond only to attacking craft. C. Launch a series of strikes on the North Vietnamese coast before they can launch a second attack. Actual action: A Scenario 6: You are receiving a series of reports from your commanders off the coast of North Vietnam that your ships are once again under attack. You: A. Order the immediate execution of preplanned strikes on North Vietnamese targets. B. Wait until it is morning in Vietnam before launching strikes so your commanders can confirm the attacks. C. Withdraw all U.S. naval craft from the region using air support for cover. Actual action: A Scenario 7: Now that the smoke has cleared, it seems that there was probably no second attack. Nevertheless, you have launched a series of retaliatory strikes on North Vietnam. You: A. Use the United States to make a formal apology for American attacks. B. Return to your previous policy of providing covert support to the South Vietnamese. C. Continue your aggressive response and request funding from Congress to increase your military efforts. Actual action: C 110 President Lyndon Johnson Transcripts Source 1: Monday, August 3rd, 9:46 A.M. President Johnson speaks to advisor Robert Anderson about the previous day’s attack in the Gulf of Tonkin. He is explaining the covert operations (OPLAN 34-A) that the United States has been conducting in the region. President Johnson: OK. Here’s what we did: We [were] within their 12-mile [territorial waters] limit, and that’s a matter that hasn’t been settled. But there have been some covert operations in that area that we have been carrying on- blowing up some bridges and things of that kind, roads and so forth. So I imagine they wanted to put a stop to it. So they come out there and fire and we respond immediately with five-inch guns from the destroyer and with planes overhead. And we cripple them up-knock one of them out and cripple the other two. And then we go right back where we were with that destroyer, and with another one and plus plenty of planes standing by. And that’s where we are now. 111 President Lyndon Johnson Transcripts Source 2: Monday, August 3rd, 10:30 A.M. President Lyndon Johnson is in a telephone conversation with Robert McNamara, secretary of defense, about the August 2nd attack on the destroyer USS Maddox by North Vietnamese torpedo boats. He and McNamara discuss an upcoming meeting with national leaders about the event. The men refer to the impact of OPLAN 34-A and President Johnson stresses his desire to look strong in the face of an attack. President Johnson: ….And we come in and you say, “They fired at us. We responded immediately. And we took out one of their boats and put the other tow running. And we kept our…, we’re puttin’ our boats right there, and we’re not running on in.” Secretary McNamara: And it’s hard to destroy. President Johnson: That’s right. Secretary McNamara: Right. And we’re going to, and I think I should also, or we should also at that time, Mr. President, explain this Op Plan 34-A, these covert operations. There’s no question but what that had bearing on. And on Friday night, as you probably know, we had four PT boats from Vietnam manned by Vietnamese or other nationals, attack two islands. And we expended, oh, a thousand rounds of ammunition of one kind or another against them. We probably shot up a radar station and a few other miscellaneous buildings. And following twenty-four hours after that, with this destroyer in that same area, undoubtedly led them to connect the two events… President Johnson: Now I wish that, uh, you’d give me some guidance on what we ought to say. I want to leave an impression on the background in the people we talk to over here that we’re gonna be firm as hell without saying something that’s dangerous. Now what do you think? Uh, uh, the people that are calling me up, I just talked to a New York banker, I just talked to a fellow in Texas, they all feel that the Navy responded wonderfully and that’s good. But they want to be dammed sure I don’t pull ‘em out and run, and they want to be dammed sure that we’re firm. That’s what all the country wants because Goldwater’s raising so much hell about how he’s gonna blow ‘em off the moon, and they say that we oughten to do anything that the national interest doesn’t require. But we sure oughta always leave the impression that if you shoot at us, you’re going to get hit. Secretary McNamara: Well I think you would want to instruct George Reedy this morning at his news conference to say that you personally have ordered the, the Navy to carry on the routine patrols, to provide an air cap, and to issue instructions to the commanders to destroy any, uh, force that attacks our force in international waters. 112 President Lyndon Johnson Transcripts Source 3:Monday, August 3rd, 1:21 P.M. President Lyndon Johnson speaks with Robert McNamara, secretary of defense, about the August 2 attack on the destroyer USS Maddox. The president discusses the best way to reveal his broad plan for attacking North Vietnam to congressional leaders while showing some concern about the press finding out. President Johnson wants to let key national leaders know that he has a detailed plan to attack North Vietnam while keeping it from the press. Secretary Robert McNamara: Mr. President, I set up those meetings for this afternoon with the Senate and House leaders and I thought if it was agreeable with you, I would say to them that some months ago you asked us to be prepared for any eventuality in the Southeast Asia areas and as a result of that we have prepared and just completed in great detail target analyses of the targets of North Vietnam. As a matter of fact in ten minutes I’m going over with the Chiefs [the Joint Chiefs of Staff] the final work on this. We have pictures, numbers of sorties, bomb loadings, everything prepared for all the target systems of North Vietnam, and I would describe this to the leaders, simply indicating your desire that we be fully prepared for whatever may develop. And furthermore we’ve prepared detailed movement studies of any contingency forces required, air squadrons, etc. President Johnson: So obviously now, if you go put this in the paper… Secretary McNamara: Yeah, and I, I’m going to tell ‘em that. President Johnson: and your enemy reads about it then he thinks we’re already taking off and obviously you’ve got us in a war. But I’ve got to be candid with you and I want to tell you the truth. Secretary McNamara: Exactly. I was going to start my remarks by that, but be damn sure it doesn’t, or try to be sure it doesn’t get in the paper. 113 President Lyndon Johnson Transcripts Source 4: Tuesday, August 4th, 9:43 A.M. President Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara have a conversation about what they feel is a likely new round of attacks in the Gulf of Tonkin. President Johnson shows a desire to retaliate vigorously to any new attacks, going beyond a simple response to North Vietnamese attack boats. He wants to have several OPLAN 34-A targets preplanned and ready to hit. President Johnson: What I was thinking about when I was eating breakfast, but I couldn’t talk about it- I was thinking that it looks to me like the weakness of our position is that, uh, we respond only to an action and we don’t have any of our own. But when they, when they move on us, and they shoot at us, I think we not only ought to shot at them, but almost simultaneously, uh, uh, pull one of these things that you’ve, you’ve been doing [OPLAN 34-A]… Secretary McNamara: Right President Johnson: on one of their bridges or something Secretary McNamara: Exactly. I, I quite agree with you, Mr. President. And I’m not, not sure that the response ought to be as Admiral Sharp suggests President Johnson: Well me not, I’m not either, I’m not either. I don’t know, unless I know what base it was… Secretary McNamara: Yes President Johnson: and what is compelled, but I wish we could have something that we already picked out, and uh… Secretary McNamara: We’ll see President Johnson: and just hit about three of them damned quick. Right after… Secretary McNamara: We will have that, and, and I, I’ve talked to Mac Bundy [national security advisor] a moment ago and told him that I thought that was the most important subject we should consider today, and, and be prepared to recommend to you a response, a retaliation move against North Vietnam in the event this attack takes place within the next six to nine hours. 114 President Lyndon Johnson Transcripts Source 5: Tuesday, August 4th 10:53 A.M. President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary McNamara discuss reports that new attacks have just occurred on August 4th. Secretary McNamara lists the newly deployed naval and aircraft teams as well as the possible plans for retaliatory strikes. Secretary McNamara: Mr. President, we had, just had a report from the commander of that task force out there that they might have sighted two unidentified vessels, uh, and three unidentified prop aircraft; and therefore the, uh, carrier launched, uh two F-8s, two A4Ds and four A-is, which are prop…. President Johnson: Go back over those again. What, what did we launch? Secretary McNamara: We launched to F-8 fighter aircraft, two A-which are jet attack aircraft, and four A-1Hs, which are prop-driven aircraft. So we have launched eight aircraft from the carrier, to, uh, uh, examine what’s in the vicinity of the destroyers and to protect the destroyers. The report is that they have observed, and we don’t know by what means, whether this is radar or otherwise- I suspect it’s radar- two unidentified vessels and three unidentified prop aircraft in the vicinity of the destroyers. President Johnson: What else do we have out there? Secretary McNamara: We have the, only the Ticonderoga, with its aircraft, uh, and a protective destroyer screen. I think there are three destroyers with the Ticonderoga. We have the Constellation [an aircraft carrier], which is moving out of Hong Kong, and which I, uh, sent orders to about an hour or two ago to move down towards South Vietnam. We don’t know exactly how long it’ll take; we guess about 30 hours. We have ample forces to respond not only to these attacks on the destroyers but also to retaliate should you wish to do so against targets on the land. And when I come over at noontime, I’ll bring you a list of alternative target systems. We can mine the Swatow [a type of North Vietnamese patrol vessel], bases, we can-and I just issued ordered to Subic Bay and the Philippines to fly the mines out to the carrier, so we’ll be prepared to do it if you want to do it. We can destroy the Swatow craft by bombing. There is a petroleum system that is concentrated, uh, uh…. [very faint whisper] seventy-two. Seventy percent of the petroleum supply of North Vietnam we believe is concentrated in three, uh, dumps, and we can bomb those, bomb or strafe those dumps and destroy the petroleum system, which would be the petroleum for the patrol craft. In addition, there are certain prestige targets that we’ve been working on the last several months, and we have target folders prepared on those. For example, there is one bridge that is the key bridge on the rail line south of uh, out of Hanoi, and we could destroy that. And there are other prestige targets of that kind. President Johnson: All right. Uh, good. 115 President Lyndon Johnson Transcripts Source 6: Tuesday, August 4th, 11:00 A.M. President Johnson and Secretary Robert McNamara discuss final confirmation that an attack is under way in the Gulf of Tonkin. Secretary Robert McNamara: Mr. President, we just had word by telephone form Admiral Sharp that the destroyer is under torpedo attack. I think I might get, uh, Dean Rusk and Mac Bundy and have ‘em come over here and we’ll go over these retaliatory actions. And then we ought to… President Johnson: I sure think you ought to agree with that, yeah Secretary McNamara: And I’ve got a category here. I’ll call the two of them. President Johnson: Now where are these torpedoes coming from? Secretary McNamara: Well, we don’t know. Presumably from these unidentified craft that I mentioned to you a moment ago. We thought that the unidentified craft might include one, uh, one PT boat, which has torpedo capability and two Swatow boats which we don’t credit with torpedo capability, although they may have it. President Johnson: What are these planes of ours doing around while they’re being attacked? Secretary McNamara: Well, presumably, the planes are attacking the, the ships. We don’t have any, uh, word from, from Sharp on that. The planes would be in the area at the present time. All, eight of them. 116 Analysis Questions- President Lyndon Johnson Transcripts 1. What seems to have been the initial cause of the attacks by the North Vietnamese on August 2? 2. How does President Johnson want to be perceived by the public? 3. What does President Johnson want to do in case of future attacks? 4. What role does OPLAN 34-A play in all of these events? 5. What evidence do President Johnson and Secretary McNamara have that a second round of attacks have taken place? 6. What sorts of targets does President Johnson want to attack in North Vietnam? 7. How does President Johnson see the news media? Useful? Dangerous? Explain. 8. What role, if any, does politics play in President Johnson’s decision- making? 117 Lesson Plan 10 Title: Vietnam: A Necessary War? Essential Question: What lessons for Americans emerged from the Vietnam War? Duration: 2-3 class periods Enduring Understanding: H-3: The identity of a society is a composite of other groups encountered, absorbed or conquered. Historical Background Notes: See pages 9-15. Materials: General: -Brainstorming graphic organizer -Graphic organizer Primary Sources: -Handout A: The Impact of the Vietnam War on African-Americans -Handout B: The Impact of the Vietnam War on Anti-war Protestors -Handout C: The Impact of the Vietnam War on Military Personnel in Favor of the War -Handout D: The Impact of the Vietnam War on Military Personnel Opposed to the War -Photograph 1 -Photograph 2 Secondary Sources: -None Additional Resources: -Martin Luther King Jr. speech- “Beyond Vietnam” http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkatimetobreaksilence.htm -Muhammad Ali speaks out against the Vietnam War http://www.aavw.org/protest/homepage_ali.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANciqN3lydI -Lyrics to the “Ballad of the Green Berets” http://kids.niehs.nih.gov/lyrics/greenberet.htm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnvG52osDm4 -Lyrics to “Bring ‘Em Home” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yApAg0hl490 118 Procedure: Teacher 1. Divide students into eight different groups. 2. Make two copies of handouts A-D. Set up your classroom into eight different stations. (This allows for smaller groups at each station.) Each group will cycle through handouts A-D. Ask students to read each handout and examine the corresponding photograph. 3. Give each group a brainstorming graphic organizer. While groups are reading and analyzing the documents, they should complete the graphic organizer. (The end goal is for students to create a product related to their experience of analyzing the documents. This could be a song, poem, exhibition, etc. You may want to tell them this ahead of time or wait until after they have analyzed the documents.) 4. After groups have rotated through each of the four handouts, bring them together for a whole class discussion. Some questions you may ask include: What are some ways in which the Vietnam War affected the different groups? Why did the war affect people so differently? Do you think each group understood how the war affected the others? If the groups understood the effects of the war on other groups, why do you think they pursued their own objectives? Overall, was the impact of the Vietnam War on the groups you examined positive or negative? Explain. In your opinion, was the Vietnam War necessary? 5. Show photographs 1 and 2 to students. You may want to provide them Student 2. Examine handouts A-D by reading each primary source and examining the corresponding photograph. 3. As a group, complete the brainstorming graphic organizer while reading and analyzing handouts A-D. 4. Participate in a class discussion about the primary sources you have just analyzed. 119 some background about these photographs. Also, be sure to caution them about the brutality of the photographs. Discuss the photographs. Some questions you might ask include: What do these photographs say about the impact of the war on the Vietnamese people? What impact did the war have on innocent civilians? Do you believe the war was necessary? Why or why not? 6. Explain that students will now use what they learned from their analysis of the primary sources to create a product that represents their experience. They can create a song, poem, collage, photo exhibition, etc. (You may want to have students listen to some songs about the Vietnam War or show them a poem to help them get started. See additional resources for ideas.) 6. Use what you learned from your analysis of the primary source documents to create a product related to your experience. This could be a song, poem, collage, photo exhibition, etc. Student Learning Evidence: Participation in class discussion Participation in small group discussion Analysis of primary sources using brainstorming graphic organizer Completion of product related to analysis of primary sources (song, poem, collage, exhibition, etc.) -Adapted from: The Era of World War II Through Contemporary Times (Walch Publishing) -Adapted from: History Alive! Pursuing American Ideals 120 Document A: Impact of the Vietnam War on African Americans African American’s experience during the Vietnam War was somewhat distinct from that of other ethnic groups. An inordinate number of the soldiers who fought and died in Vietnam were black. Although they represented only 11% of the U.S. population, they made up 1215% of the U.S. Army and an even higher percent of combat troops. In 1965, nearly one fourth of all U.S. deaths in Vietnam were of black soldiers. In addition, the Vietnam War coincided with a vigorous and increasingly angry civil rights movement in the U.S. The lack of equality and democracy for African Americans at home left many wondering why they were fighting a war for South Vietnamese freedom. The primary source documents that follow reveal some of the experiences and emotions of African Americans during the Vietnam War. Private Reginald “Malik” Edwards of Louisiana “When I went to Quantico [a Marine Corps Base in Virginia], my being black, they gave me the black squad, the squad with most of the blacks, especially the militant blacks. And they started hippin’ me. I mean I was against racism. I didn’t even call it racism. I called it prejudice. They hipped me to [made me aware of] terms like ‘exploitation’ and ‘oppression.’ And by becoming an illustrator, it gave you more time to think. And I was around people who thought. People who read books. I would read black history where the white guys were going off on novels or playing rock music. So then one day, I just told them I was black. I didn’t call them blanco [white], they didn’t have to call me Negro. That’s what started to get me in trouble. I became a target. Somebody to watch. Well, there was this riot on base, and I got busted. It started over some white guys using a bunch of profanity in front of some sisters. I was found guilty of attack on an unidentified Marine. Five months in jail, five months without pay… In jail they didn’t’ want us to read our books, draw any pictures, or do anything intellectually stimulating or what they thought is black. They would come in my cell and harass me.” Specialist 5 Harold “Light Bulb” Bryant, East St. Louis, Illinois “There was another guy in our unit who had made it known that he was a card-carrying Ku Klux Klan member. That pissed a lot of us off, ‘cause we had gotten real tight. We didn’t’ have racial incidents like what was happening in the rear area, ‘cause we had to depend on each other. We were always in the bush. Well, we got into a fire fight, and Mr. Ku Klux Klan got his little ass trapped. We were goin’ across the rice paddies, and Charlie [a member of the Viet Cong] just start shootin’. And he jumped in the rice paddy while everybody else kind of backtracked. So we laid down a base of fire to cover him. But he was just immobile. He froze. And a brother went out there and got him and dragged him back. Later on, he said that action had changed his perception of what black people were about.” 121 Specialist 4 Richard J. Ford III, Washington, D.C. “You know, they decorated me [awarded me for bravery] in Vietnam. Two Bronze Stars. The whiteys did. I was wounded three times. The officers, the generals, and whoever came out to the hospital to see you. They respected you and pat you on the back. They said, ‘You brave. And you courageous. You America’s finest. America’s best.’ Back in the States the same officers that pat me on the back wouldn’t even speak to me… The racial incidents didn’t happen in the field. Just when we went to the back. It wasn’t so much that they were against us. It was just that we felt that we were being taken advantage of, ‘cause it seemed like more blacks in the field than in the rear. In the rear we saw a bunch of rebel [Confederate] flags. They didn’t mean nothing by the rebel flag. It was just saying we for the South. It didn’t mean that they hated blacks. But after you in the field, you took the flags very personally.” Specialist 4 Stephen A. Howard, Washington D.C. I was going on nineteen when I got drafted… I was working as an engineering assistant in this drafting firm… I didn’t feel anything about Vietnam one way or the other. When you are black and you grow up in urban America in a low-income family, you don’t get to experience a lot- if your parents protect you well. My mother did… Mom is not college educated, so all she knows is what the propaganda situation is. She programmed us to be devoted to duty, to God, state, and country. She said you got to do all these good thingslike military service- to be a citizen here in America… I guess I knew that Martin Luther King was against the war. But I couldn’t relate to what he was doing about it or even about discrimination because I wasn’t old enough… I think we were the last generation to believe, you know, in the honor of war. There is no honor in war. My mama still thinks that I did my part for my country, ‘cause she’s a very patriotic person. I don’t. 122 African-American soldiers in Vietnam 123 Document B: Impact of the Vietnam War on Anti-War Protestors The Vietnam War produced some of the largest mass protests in U.S. history. Led mostly by students, anti-war protests grew steadily beginning in the early 1960s. Many young Americans felt the Vietnam War draft violated their basic rights. They questioned why an 18-year-old was deemed ready to be drafted but not to vote. Some burned their draft cards or fled to Canada to avoid the draft. Others opposed the war because they believed the true motivations for U.S. involvement was economic interests or imperialism. Protestors felt the United States had no right to fight someone else’s civil war. They also viewed the use of tactics such as saturation bombing, killing civilians, and using toxic chemicals like napalm as immoral. Protestors occupied university buildings, defied the police in sit-ins, marched with signs, and sometimes rioted in the streets. During an anti-war rally at Kent State University in Ohio, four students died at the hands of National Guardsmen. David Harris, draft resister “The war was an extraordinarily obvious violation of everything that I had been led to expect from the country I was a part of. I grew up in a family of a World War II veteran, watching ‘Victory at Sea’ [a documentary series on World War II] on television, and the message was quite clear that Americans fought for freedom, justice, and the rights of people everywhere to choose their own destiny. I even once wanted to go to West Point [the United States Military Academy]. But when my generation’s war showed up it turned out to be a propping up of petty dictators so they could keep a good portion of their population in servitude. That was a time, I think, that forced every potential soldier into a real dilemma of selfhood. Who am I? Am I the kind of person who does that, or am I not? I felt personally, having made a decision [to go to prison for resisting the draft] and carried it through, that I got a lot more closure if you will on the Vietnam experience than most of my contemporaries who didn’t go to Vietnam or prison.” Joan Baez, folk singer “Well it was funny. I was there on the very first marches and we were all beatniks [members of the Beat generation], Commies [members of the Communist Party], and hippies and weirdos and whatever. And then during the period when it [the protest movement] sort of cleaned up its own act we were joined by nuns and priests and housewives. But I never had any doubts that what I was doing [protesting against the war in Vietnam] was correct.” 124 Larry Martin, conscientious objector “I didn’t believe in killing. I came from no organized religious background, but my mother is so opposed to killing she’s been a vegetarian since she was fifteen. My father died when I was seven, so I was raised in a pretty pacifist home. I didn’t’ have toy guns or anything. When I was about sixteen, somebody came home in a box, a very early casualty. He was a friend of the neighbors. You’re fifteen, you see all the guys who are eighteen going off, it’s a lot of pressure to spend your teenage years under. I decided I didn’t want to go to Vietnam while I was still in high school in San Diego, I kept getting draft, and I kept appealing my classification as a C.O. [conscientious objector] and physically unfit from the residual effects of polio. I was called four times and each time I refused induction. In 1968 Selective Service said they were turning over my records to the FBI. In early ’69 the FBI came to the music store where I was working in La Jolla to arrest me. They gave me a few days. In the four years I was fighting the draft, all the time I was planning to go to jail. By chance, I’d read a pamphlet on how bad jail life was for C.O.’s so I decided on Canada. “ New York Times, November 16, 1969 “A vast throng of Americans, predominantly youthful and constituting the largest mass march in the nation’s capital, demonstrated peacefully in the heart of the city today, demanding a rapid withdrawal of United States troops in Vietnam… [and] aerial photographs would later show that the crowd had exceeded 300,000… At dusk, after the mass demonstration had ended, a small segment of the crowd, members of radical splinter groups, moved across Constitution Avenue to the Labor and Justice Department buildings, where they burned Untied States flags, threw paint bombs and other missiles and were repelled by tear gas released by police. There were a number of arrests and minor injuries, mostly the rest of the tear gas.” Joan Baez, folk singer “My perspective is a pacifist perspective. I don’t have any favorite wars. As a Quaker, we give up the right to take other people’s lives. So my work started before Vietnam and continues long after. When I was approached by some boat people [Vietnamese people who fled by boat] in 1979 about human rights conditions in Vietnam which were bad and terrible, it wasn’t surprising to me, because I feel as though we really fertilized the ground for more violence. The Japanese did it. The Chinese did it. The French did it. And we did it. I think we had a massive share in creating chaos. The Vietnamese people are suffering and, of course that was proven with the exodus of the boat people. Vietnam is not an open society. It’s a totalitarian state. It saddens me. On the other hand I would not retract anything I did in the sixties. We had no business being there.” 125 Vietnam War protestors 126 Document C: Impact of the Vietnam War on Military Personnel in Favor of the War For many members of the U.S. military, the war in Vietnam was like the war against Germany in the 1940s. In Europe, U.S. soldiers had fought against Nazism. In Vietnam, the fight was against communist repression. As the war went on, military leaders felt continual frustration over what they saw as poor decision-making by U.S. politicians. They believed that if the military, rather than politicians ran the war, an invasion of North Vietnam could succeed. In addition, the way the liberal media in the United States covered the war appalled many military personnel. It distressed them that news reports focused on a small number of atrocities that U.S. military personnel committed rather than on the bravery they exhibited in combat. Those who had courageously answered the government’s call to serve often felt anger or disappointment at the lack of understanding of and recognition for their efforts. They blamed the American public for not supporting U.S. troops in the field. General William C. Westmoreland “Press and television have created an aura not of victory but of defeat, which, coupled with the vocal antiwar elements, profoundly influenced timid officials in Washington. It was like two boxers in a ring, one having the other on the ropes, close to a knock-out, when the apparent winner’s second inexplicably throws in the towel.” John Muir, U.S. Marines “We did a fine job there. If it happened in World War II, they still would be telling stories about it. But it happened in Vietnam, so nobody knows about it. They don’t even tell recruits about it today. Marines don’t talk about Vietnam. We lost. They never talk about losing. So it’s just wiped out, all of that’s off the slate, it doesn’t count. It makes you a little bitter.” Luther C. Benton III, U.S. Navy “Being the only son in my family, I did not have to accept the order to Vietnam. I accepted the ordered because I wanted to see what the war was all about. And I thought that if we were there, then it must be right. We have to stop communism before it gets to America.” 127 Lieutenant Colonel Ruth Sidisin, U.S. Air Force “But I consider it an honor to have served in Vietnam. Even though… I think everybody’s son and daughter should have served equally. No, there was no excuse for some things that happened over there. But I’ve never regretted going into the Air Force or going to Vietnam… The gist of it is that I’m so glad they’re finally recognizing that there were women over there. And that the women saw as much as the guys did, but in a different way. This should finally end the idea that a woman is supposed to give and give and give, and make everything nice-nice, and be an Earth Mother and console everyone all the time without receiving emotional support themselves. Because if you believe women don’t need replenished you’re a fool. That kind of thinking is just a bunch of garbage.” First Lieutenant Archie “Joe” Biggers, U.S. Marines “I think they [the Viet Cong] should be eliminated. And they would have been if we had fought the war in such a manner that we could have won the war. I mean total all-out war. Not nuclear war. We could have done it with land forces. I would have invaded Hanoi so many times, they would have thought we were walking on water. The people in Washington setting policy didn’t know what transpired over there. They were listening to certain people who didn’t really know what we were dealing with. That’s why we had all those stupid restrictions. Don’t fight across this side of the DMZ [demilitarized zone], don’t fire at women unless they fire at you, and don’t fire across this area unless you smile first or unless somebody shoots at you. If they attack you and run across this area, you could not go back over there and take them out. If only we could have fought in a way that we had been taught to fight. But personally speaking, to me, we made a dent, even though the South did fall. Maybe we did not stop the Communist take-over, but at least I know that I did something to say hey, you shouldn’t do that. And personally I feel good about it. People like Jane Fonda won’t buy that, because they went over there and actually spent time with the people that were killing Americans. That’s why I feel I shouldn’t spend $4 to see her at the box office.” 128 U.S. Soldiers in Vietnam 129 Document D: Impact of the Vietnam War on Military Personnel Opposed to the War Members of the military have questioned no U.S. war more deeply than the Vietnam War. U.S. soldiers who went to Vietnam were concerned about the worldwide communist threat and wanted to do their part to defend Southeast Asia. But over time, many found the war increasingly disturbing. Ultimately, some concluded it was wrong. These soldiers questioned U.S. support for the corrupt South Vietnamese government and the South Vietnamese army, which fought with little passion. Indeed, those in combat discovered that many South Vietnamese opposed the U.S. war effort. Seemingly friendly women and children assisted the Viet Cong by helping kill U.S. soldiers. Moreover, U.S. military methods- napalm bombings, search-and-destroy missions, killing of civilians, and destruction of villages- proved demoralizing and ineffective. As anti-war protests intensified in the U.S. in 1968, many soldiers wondered why they should fight a war that much of their nation did not support. Private First Class Reginald “Malik” Edwards, U.S. Marines “All of a sudden, this Vietnamese came runnin’ after me, telling me not to shoot: ‘Don’t shoot. Don’t shoot.’ See, we didn’t go in the village and look. We would just shoot first. Like you didn’t go into a room to see who was in there first. You fired and go in. So in case there was somebody there, you want to kill them first. And we was just gonna run in, shoot through the walls. ‘Cause it was nothin’ to shoot through the walls of a bamboo hut… So he ran out in front of me. I mean he’s runnin’ into my line of fire. I almost killed him. But I’m thinking, what the hell is wrong? So then we went into the hut, and it was all these women and children huddled together. I was gettin’ ready to wipe them off the planet. In this one hut. I tell you, man, my knees got weak. I dropped down, and that’s when I cried. First time I cried in the ‘Nam. I realized what I would have done. I almost killed all them people… I was in Washington during the National Vietnam Veterans Memorial in 1982. But I didn’t participate. I saw all these veterans runnin’ around there with all these jungle boots on, all these uniforms. I didn’t want to do that. It just gave me a bad feeling. Plus some of them were braggin’ about the war. Like it was hip. See, I don’t think the war was a good thing. And there’s no memorial to Cam Ne, to My Lai [both Vietnamese villages massacred by U.S. troops]. To all those children that was napalmed and villages that were burned unnecessarily.” 130 James Webb “Back in the villes again. Somebody said it was an operation with a name. But it had its own name: Dangling the Bait. Drifting from village to village, every other night digging deep new fighting holes, everyday patrolling through other villes, along raw ridges. Inviting an enemy attack much as a worm seeks to attract fish: mindlessly, at someone else’s urging, for someone else’s reason.” Former Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke “I spent three and a half years in Vietnam and I spent another three and a half years working on the war when I was in Washington, not country when I was assistant secretary of state. Seven years of my life. I got shot at. I believed in the process at first. I saw it wouldn’t work. I have no quarrel with America’s objective out there. It was a valid objective. But the latter-day hawks [supporters of the war], who win the Tet offensive every time they go to a seminar in the 1980s, by and large are people who weren’t there and have no right to criticize those of us who spent years fighting that war and trying to make it work. It’s easy to be a hawk in the 1980s and win the war at a dinner party or in a lecture. [Journalist] George Will with his pompous and arrogant attacks on people who he thinks didn’t stand up for American- where was he when a lot of us got shot at? And where were [politicians] Dick Perle and Richard Burt and Pat Buchanan and David Stockman and [writer] Norman Podhoretz- or Rambo [actor] Sylvester Stallone, for that matter? Stallone was teaching English at a school for the children of the rich in Geneva, Switzerland. Stockman was hiding out in Pat Moynihans’ garage at Harvard as a divinity student. Yet they have made it appear that the war was lost by the people who were in fact the ones who had the courage to say ‘There’s something wrong here. It isn’t working.’ There are the guys who go around saying ‘If only we would’ve been tough we could have held on, and you guys wimped out’; but the press and the Congress lost us the war. This is the Nixon argument. And it’s utter nonsense. Specialist 5 Harold “Light Bulb” Bryant, U.S. Army “When I came to Vietnam, I thought we were helping another country to develop a nation. About three or four months later I found out that wasn’t the case. In high school and in the papers I had been hearing about Indochina, but I couldn’t find any Indochina on the map. I didn’t know anything about the country, about the people…. We weren’t getting any ground. We would fight for a hill all day, spend two day so two nights there and then abandon the hill. Then maybe two, three months later, we would have to come back and retake the same piece of territory…. I’ve talked to chaplains, talked to preachers about Vietnam. And no one could give me a satisfactory explanation of what happened overseas… I keep looking for the explanation. I can’t find it. I can’t find it. 131 Vietnam Veterans protesting the Vietnam War. 132 Brainstorming Graphic Organizer While examining handouts A-D, complete the graphic organizer about your analysis of each handout. What I felt What I experienced The Vietnam War What I heard What I saw 133 Photograph 1 134 Photograph 2 135 Lesson Plan 11 Title: War Accountability? Essential Question: Is all fair in [love] and war? Duration: 3-4 class periods Enduring Understanding: H-3: The identity of a society is a composite of other groups encountered, absorbed or conquered. Historical Background Notes: See pages 9-15, 140-143. Purpose This simulation deals with the court-martial of Lieutenant William Calley. Lieutenant Calley was the only officer found guilty of killing unarmed civilians on March 16, 1968. In 1971, Calley was sentenced to life in prison. However, in 1974 President Richard Rixon ordered Calley’s parole from prison. In this simulation, only three actual witnesses from the incident are named. These three are Calley, Captain Medina, and Lt. Col. Barker. All of the other witnesses in the simulation are a composite of soldiers who were present or were in Charlie Company at the time. You will be conducting a military trial against Lt. William Calley. Lt. Calley is being charged with the direct or indirect murder of more than 100 civilians in My Lai, Vietnam. Under the Geneva Conventions on the Law of War, “Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely.” Materials: General: -Graphic organizer Primary Sources: -Handout: Geneva Convention on the Law of War Secondary Sources: -Handout: My Lai Background Information -Handout: Witness Statements for the Prosecution -Handout: Witness Statements for the Defense 136 Procedure: Teacher 1.Have each student read the My Lai Background Information. Have students use a graphic organizer to analyze the information. (See packet entitled Graphic Organizers.) 2. Project Geneva Convention on the Law of War. Discuss the implications of this law on war. 3. Have a class discussion about their views on fighting wars. Some of the questions you may want to ask include: Are there innocent civilians in war? Can women and children be considered dangerous enemies? What is the difference between warfare and guerilla warfare? (You may want to discuss this term with students if you haven’t already done so.) Is war ever necessary? Is all fair in [love] and war? 4.Divide the class into three groups. One group will work to prosecute Lt. Calley for war crimes. One group will attempt to defend Calley. The third group will act as the military tribunal/jury. 5.For both the prosecution and defense teams, you will need: Three lawyers (four if you have a large number of students) Six witnesses One judge to facilitate the trial 6.After assigning positions, give the witnesses their specific witness statements. (Witness Statements for the Prosecution/Witness Statements for the Defense) 7.The witness should focus only on their own statement and points of view, but the lawyers and the tribunal should read all the witness statements. That way, they will be prepared to ask good questions. Student 1. Read My Lai Background Information. Complete a graphic organizer about the information you read. 2. Participate in class discussion about the Geneva Convention on the Law of War. 3. Participate in class discussion. 4. Work cooperatively as you are divided into one of the following groups: Lawyer Witness Tribunal member 6. If you are a witness, look over your specific statement. Become familiar with the statement and think of potential questions the prosecution and defense may ask you. 7. If you are a lawyer or a member of the tribunal, read over all of the witness statements. Begin developing questions to ask witnesses and questions that you think the opposing side will ask. 137 8.Give student groups time to work together to examine witness statements and prepare questions. 9.One lawyer from each group will also need to prepare an opening statement outlining what they hope to prove during the trial. At the end of the case, one lawyer will also make a closing statement asking for a conviction or acquittal. Give groups plenty of time to prepare for the trial simulation. 10.Set a time for each witness to testify during the trial (suggested time is 5 minutes per witness). Then, set a time for each side to cross –examine the witness. You may choose to assign a “timer” position for this part of the simulation to ensure that each side gets the same amount of time. Decide how you will set up your room so that the witnesses are seated in the front of the room with the prosecution on one side of the room and the defense on the other side. At the opposite side of the room, also facing the witnesses, should be the tribunal members. BEGIN TRIAL 11.Begin by having the prosecution make an opening statement to the tribunal, followed by the defense opening statement. Then, the prosecution will begin with its first witness. The suggested format is as follows: The witness should answer questions asked by their lawyer. This is known as “direct examination.” After this is complete, the defense attorney will question the same witness. This is known as “crossexamination.” Proceed with the same format for all of the prosecution’s witnesses. 12.Next, the defense will present their witnesses. The suggested format is the same as that of the prosecution. 13.When both the prosecution and defense are done with “direct examination” and “cross-examination” of witnesses, the tribunal can ask any questions of the lawyers or witnesses. 14.When both sides are finished presenting evidence, each side will make a closing 8. Work cooperatively with your group to prepare questions. 9. If you are a lawyer work to prepare an opening and closing statement. BEGIN TRIAL 11.Prosecution makes an opening statement, followed by the defense opening statement. Then, begin questioning witnesses following specific outline provided by your teacher. 13. If you are a tribunal member, begin asking questions of lawyers or witnesses. 14. Each side makes its closing statement. 138 statement. 15.The tribunal should now proceed to talk about the evidence presented and decide on a verdict. It works best if the tribunal can discuss their findings without having the prosecution or defense listening. Since this is a military court-martial and not a civilian trial, a unanimous decision is not required. When at least three-fourths of your tribunal agrees with a verdict, a decision can be presented to the class. 16.Hold a class discussion about the decision of the tribunal. Some of the questions you may want to ask the tribunal include: Did you understand the testimony presented? How many of your questions were answered by the testimony? What evidence was most important in determining your decision? If Calley was found guilty, what should be the punishment? 17.Share the actual outcome of the Calley trial and sentencing with the class. (You may also want to follow up with having students research the trial further and the decision to allow Calley to be freed.) 15. If a tribunal member, discuss evidence and work together to decide a verdict. Present verdict to the court. 16.Participate in class discussion. Student Learning Evidence: Participation as a lawyer, witness, or tribunal member in court-martial simulation Participation in class discussion Participation in small group discussion -Adapted from: The Cold War (Teacher Created Materials) 139 Historical Background Information In July 1945, President Harry S. Truman and Soviet Premiere Joseph Stalin sat as allies at the Potsdam Conference. The United States and the Soviet Union, along with the United Kingdom, had defeated Adolf Hitler’s Germany and were turning their sights on defeating the Japanese Empire. Truman and Stalin shared toasts as Allied victors, while their advisors warned of impending troubles between the two countries. When the leaders returned home, they began planning programs aimed at stopped the ideological progress of their former ally. For the next 45 years, foreign policy decisions in the USSR and the U.S. centered on fighting against each other indirectly. The Cold War battles between these two former allies took place in other countries around the world. Unfortunately, many innocent civilians of these other countries suffered the consequences of war. In the 1990s, the Soviet Union and its new partner, Communist China, supported the North Korean advance into South Korea. The United States and other United Nations countries sprang to defend South Korea. As war waged in Korea, citizen refugees suffered under extreme hardships. Some Koreans in the direct path of the fighting became casualties at the hands of the soldiers. In July 1950, at a Korean bridge named No Gun-Ri, refugees were killed by U.S. machine gunfire. It was believed that North Korean soldiers had infiltrated the refugee groups and would use this camouflage as a means of attacking troops from behind the lines. The Hungarian Revolt Throughout the late 1950s and early 1960s, the Soviet Union implemented programs forcing citizens to stay behind the “iron curtain.” Premiere Nikita Khrushchev used the Russian military to stop students and workers from demonstrating in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and East Germany. More than 40,000 people died in the Hungarian revolt alone. In Germany, Khrushchev finally ordered the Berlin Wall to be built in order to keep the western influence away from communist citizens. Central America also became a stage for indirect battles between the Soviet Union and the United States. AS early as 1954, the CIA- assisted Guatemalan military leaders in the overthrow of President Jacobo Arbenz Guzman. The U.S. felt that President Guzman was too sympathetic to the wishes of the Soviet Union. Through the 1980s, the United States and the Soviet Union supported governments and rebel guerrilla groups that waged war and killed innocent civilians within Latin America. The most documented conflicts took place between the communist-backed Sandinista government of Nicaragua and the Contra 140 rebels backed by the Untied States. Hearings took place in Washington, D.C., to determine if President Ronald Reagan had violated U.S. law by supplying arms to the Contra rebels. The United States also set up the School of Americas at Fort Benning, Georgia. The school was used to train Latin American military leaders and units supportive of U.S. policy within the region. Critics claim that hundreds of civilians were tortured or killed by these trained military units. The most devastating military conflicts for the United States and the Soviet Union were Vietnam and Afghanistan, respectively. Both world powers spent 10 years fighting losing battles in countries outside their borders. In each conflict, the United States and the Soviet Union supported opposing sides with military advisors, military aid, financial aid, and/or fighting soldiers. In Vietnam, the United States supported the South Vietnamese government while the Soviets supported the North Vietnamese government and the Vietnamese guerillas, the Viet Cong. In Afghanistan, the Soviets supported the government of Babrak Karmal and the Americans supported the rebel guerillas, called the Mujahidin. As a result of these 20 years of battles, many thousands of innocent civilians were displaced, injured, or killed. 141 My Lai Background Information In 1967, a group of 60 draftees were sent together to Vietnam. They were known as Charlie Company, a part of the 20th Infantry. Most of the men were between the ages of 18 and 21. Charlie Company was sent to the central valley of Vietnam to fight against guerrilla forces. The guerrilla forces were known as the Viet Cong, VC, or Viet Minh. In January 1968, Charlie Company was sent to Quang Ngu Province in the hills of Central Vietnam. They were placed under the command of Captain Ernest Medina and Lieutenant William Calley. The men of Charlie Company were told that the entire province was under communist control. To Charlie Company this meant that all the Vietnamese people were either communist guerrillas or communist sympathizers. It was the job of Charlie Company to go out into the jungle hillsides and find the enemy. They were to kill the enemy, question citizens, and destroy any communist guerrilla strongholds. In the first month of Charlie Company’s operation, 42 The My Lai Massacre men had become casualties. All of the men had been victims of snipers, booby traps, or minefields. Some of the wounds were minor, some were major wounds requiring hospitalization. Six American soldiers died. They were out in the jungle for long periods of time. They became lonely, rarely receiving mail from loved ones. They were also hungry and tired. Most of the men slept for less than three hours per night while out in the jungle. They ate two cold rations (C-rations) and one hot meal each day. The hot meal was dropped each night to the men. On some nights the helicopters could not fly because of bad weather and Charlie Company had to go without dinner. In February 1968, Charlie Company found Viet Cong supplies in a village in the hills. They destroyed the supplies and burned the village. No Vietnamese were found in the village. While returning to their base, three members of Charlie Company stepped on booby traps. All three soldiers were injured. Four days later, Charlie Company was caught in an ambush that killed to more soldiers. The guerrillas escaped and Charlie Company found North Vietnamese military clothing on the ground. The members of Charlie Company believed that the enemy had changed into civilian clothes to escape. At the end of February, Charlie Company was on patrol near the village of Lac Son. Charlie Company walked into a minefield. Three soldiers died in the blast and Charlie Company froze in place. As Charlie Company lay still in the minefield, Viet Cong snipers began to shoot at the soldiers. More than 30 members of Charlie Company were wounded or killed. Captain Medina and three others received Silver Stars for bravery under fire. Another five members of Charlie Company received Bronze Stars posthumously. By the end of February, the surviving members of Charlie Company were frightened and angry. 142 On March 15, 1968, members of the 20th Infantry met with Lieutenant Colonel Barker. Lt. Barker came to discuss plans for a raid on the village area of My Lai. My Lai was believed to be a communist stronghold. The raid into My Lai began the next morning, and Charlie Company was the first group to enter the village, led by Lieutenant Calley. At the end of the day, Captain Medina wrote a report on My Lai. Medina identified 128 Viet Cong killed and three weapons confiscated. Private First Class (PFC) Carter of Charlie Company was the only American wounded. He accidentally shot himself in the leg. General Westmoreland, the U.S. commander in Vietnam, gave Charlie Company a letter of commendation for the battle of My Lai. PFC Ridenour, a member of the Charlie Company, wrote a letter about the killing of women and children in My Lai. He sent the letter to the Army, the president, and to members of Congress. Ridenour’s letter prompted an investigation into the attack on My Lai and the Army decided to prosecute Lt. William Calley for the murder of 109 innocent civilians. The Army said that Calley violated the Geneva Convention on the Laws of War. The convention makes it a crime to kill innocent civilians. 143 Lieutenant Colonel William Calley Witness Statements for the Prosecution Captain Ernest Medina As captain, I was in charge of the assault on March 16. We believed that our units would encounter a large force of VC and North Vietnamese soldiers. Nine troop-carrying choppers landed in a clearing far outside the village. I set up a command station at the landing zone. I radioed back that the zone was cold, which meant that we had received no enemy fire. I then heard on my radio from one of the choppers that the area was still hot and that the enemy could be seen near our position. I told the members of Charlie Company that our orders were still the same. My Lai was still a freefire zone. I was at the briefing the night before and knew that Lt. Col. Barker expected a large enemy fight. My concern was for the men. They saw so much death in the last months and they were quite frightened to enter another ambush area. Approximately one hour after Charlie Company left the landing zone, I heard gunfire ffrom the village. My company waited two hours before moving toward My Lai. As I entered the village from the north, I received a radio dispatch from a chopper. I was told that an armed VC was near my position. As I walked around a hut, I saw movement and instinctively fired. I walked over to the body and discovered that the villager had no weapon. At the time I shot, however, I could not be certain. I believed that every person in the village that day was armed and dangerous. I stayed outside the main grouping of hutches until late in the afternoon. I never gave a command to kill innocent civilians or to rape the women. I did not see any of my men kill civilians. I did see dead civilians scattered around My Lai. If Lt. Calley gave orders to kill, he did so on his own. The Army does not condone killing innocent noncombatants. Each ground officer has the right and the duty to change orders if need be. Lt. Calley should have changed the zone to cold when he realized that there were no enemy or weapons present. At the very least, Lt. Calley should have radioed back to me about the situation in My Lai. Lieutenant Colonel Harold Barker I was at the meeting on March 15. I was given orders from Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV) to attack the valley area near My Lai. This area covered approximately one square mile of huts and farmlands. The huts were grouped in circles of six to ten and scattered throughout the entire area. Cultivated fields connected each group of huts. Officers are trained to not only take orders but to change orders if the situation calls for it. Upon entering the village and seeing no enemy with weapons, Lt. Calley should have made a call to Captain Medina or myself. My Lai would have become a cold zone and prisoners might have been taken. The military does not condone the execution of innocent civilians. It is a violation of the Geneva Convention on Warfare. Late in the afternoon, my headquarters received a call from Charlie Company that the village had been secured and asked permission to burn the village. My intelligence reports indicated that the village was a supply base for guerrillas so I gave the order to burn the village. I knew nothing of the massacre until PFC Ridenour’s report was sent to Army headquarters. 144 Witness Statements for the Prosecution Sergeant Jim Wong I arrived in Vietnam in October 1967. I was working with another platoon in the eastern mountain region of the country. I am a Chinese American and I became fluent in some of the Vietnamese dialects. I was transferred to Charlie Company after the February 25 ambush. Charlie Company lost two sergeants and their translator. It is not easy to transfer into a new group. I could see that these guys were close. They were also edgy and frightened. We were all young and scared. These guys had been fighting against a rugged VC group. My job was to interrogate prisoners and find out any information on the leaders within the area. I entered My Lai on March 16. I was with Lt. Calley, Private Mellon, and PFC Cassidy. We immediately contacted about 20 people. All of them were women or children of various ages. I know that Mellon took a large group with him. I separated out some of the older women to interrogate. Minutes later I heard shooting. Lt. Calley came to my area and told me it was breaking up outside. He said to stay alert and to stay with the prisoners. He told me to try and find out if there was going to be an ambush. I asked Lt. Calley what he wanted me to do with the women when I was finished asking questions. He said, “You know what to do with them. There are no prisoners.” Approximately 20 minutes later I heard more firing. Lt. Calley then came back and asked me if I had learned anything about the VC. I told him that the women said that all of the military-age men had left the village months ago. Calley then said again, “Take care of them. No prisoners.” I said that I would not shoot unarmed civilians. Calley then ordered me out of the hut. He said to go and find some more prisoners. I left the hut and went to another part of the village. I don’t know what happened to the women I was questioning. I saw no direct shootings but I did see maybe 100 or more bodies around the village. I also saw another 30 to 50 bodies in a ditch. I know that I could have been reprimanded for not following Lt. Calley’s orders, but I was not going to kill innocent noncombatants. 145 Witness Statements for the Prosecution Private Jerry Mellon I joined Charlie Company during the training in Hawaii. We worked hard to become the best outfit in the 20th Infantry. Working and suffering alongside each other brought the group together. The Army said that we were the best they had. If any unit could do jungle counter-guerrilla activities it would be Charlie Company. We became the best killers any army could want. Following orders was stressed by all of the officers. I was at the briefing meeting on March 15. Lt. Col Barker, Capt. Medina, and Lt. Calley were also present. We were told that we would finally get to strike back at the 48th Local Force. The 48th was the VC group that ambushed us during February. We were told that there were many VC in My Lai and we could expect a huge firefight. Barker said that My Lai was going to be a hot zone, meaning that everyone in the village would be considered armed and dangerous. When asked about civilians, Capt. Median never said to kill women and children. After the meeting, spirits were high. We were going to take the war to My Lai. I entered My Lai on the 16th with Lt. Calley. We were ordered to round up people and bring them to the center of the group of huts. I saw maybe 50 people in the center. All of the villagers were women and children. No one was of military age. Lt. Calley walked up to me and said, “You know what to do with them, don’t you?” I thought I was to watch them. Then about 10 minutes later Calley returned and said, “Why haven’t you killed them?” I told him that I thought I was just to watch them. Calley then said, “No. I want them dead.” Lt. Calley then stepped back and began shooting the prisoners. I immediately opened fire on the group as well. I tried to block out their faces and remember my buddies that had been killed in February. About a half hour later Calley came over to me and said, “Mellon, we have another job to do.” I followed Calley to a ditch where close to 70 people were hiding. I knew that Calley wanted these people killed also. We stood up on the ditch and fired down at the group. I feel bad about the shootings, but I believed that these people were the enemy and that I was to follow orders. 146 Witness Statements for the Prosecution Captain Charles Greg I am the pilot of an attack helicopter. My job is to give low height cover for ground troops. I work as a decoy for enemy fire and as an observer for ground troops. On March 16, I was assigned to fly cover over My Lai. Around 10 AM, I could see Charlie Company throughout the village. I was surprised that I did not see the normal VC activity around a village of this size. Usually I see VC setting traps and ambushes. This morning I saw no VC infantry. Charlie Company was in the process of rounding up civilians into large groups. I thought that they were holding the civilians so they could sift through the huts for VC regulars. As my chopper turned back around I no longer saw the civilians standing. I could see that they were in a pile down in a ditch. I did not see how they were killed, but I knew that they were dead. At this point I set my chopper down between six soldiers and another group of five civilians. I could see that one of the Americans was waving me away. I yelled at the American soldiers to stay away. One of the soldiers yelled that all of these people were the enemy and that they had orders to take care of them. I gave an order to my door gunner to shoot the American soldiers if they continued to advance on my chopper or the civilians. I loaded all the civilians into my chopper and left without any further incident. The civilians said that there were no VC in the village. I don’t know if I believed that only innocent civilians lived in My Lai, but I do know that I saw no hostile fire or activity that day. I did not say anything to my superiors because I am an American soldier. It was not my job to question orders given to others. I acted only as a human being on that morning. I could not kill fleeing citizens and I was not going to let anyone else kill these people. 147 Witness Statements for the Prosecution Private First Class Larry Carter I was a member of Charlie Company ever since the training in Hawaii. The members of Charlie Company are my brothers. We suffered a great deal and we saw too many of our brothers injured or killed. February was a terrible month for us. I was at the meeting on March 15. All the high-ranking officers said that we could expect some heavy fire coming from My Lai the next day. We were also told that the village was the headquarters of the 48th Local Force. The next morning I was dropped into My Lai. I was with one of the first groups to enter the village. Captain Medina waited with the second group at the landing zone. Medina told the lieutenants to sweep the village and then report back to him. As we moved into the village, Calley gave orders to round up the people and bring them to the center of the various groups of huts. I began to pull people out of the huts and ordered them into the assembly area. I found about 20 boys in one hut. They were between the ages of 7 and 12. They were crying and trying to hide their heads. They reminded me of the story of the ostrich hiding its head, thinking no one could see it. Lt. Calley came over and said, “They all must go.” I asked Calley where they were to go. He said, “no they must go! Kill them all.” Just then, out of the corner of my eye I saw a woman running toward a ditch. I thought she was carrying explosives, and I fired. When I walked over to her body, I saw that what she was carrying was a baby. My shots had killed her and the baby. I walked back over to where Calley and the boys were and Calley said, “Do them all.” I just opened fire on the group of boys. I am sure that Calley was taking orders from medina, and Medina must have been taking orders from Barker. I was surprised that we did not meet the heavy enemy fire we were told about at the briefing. I sat down to clean my weapon just in case of a surprise ambush. While cleaning my weapon, I accidentally shot myself in the leg. Doc White came over to fix me up and evacuate me from the area. I never saw enemy guns or heard enemy fire, but on that morning I thought these people were the enemy. 148 Witness Statements for the Defense Lieutenant William Calley I had flunked out of college and joined the Army. I went to Officer Candidate School and became a lieutenant. I was assigned to Charlie Company and met them when they arrived in Quang Ngu Province. Charlie Company had the toughest time of any group that I commanded in Vietnam. Being infantry soldiers, the men saw the blood, mud, and the faces of death each day. In 1967 and 1968 there was a game among units in the valley of who could kill the most VC. The U.S. position was not one of conquering territories. Our objective was to kill the enemy and make them not want to fight any longer. After the February minefield ambush, Charlie Company became a walking ghost company. Soldiers saw the faces of their dead buddies. All of us were ready to take revenge on the VC in the area. On March 15, I was at the briefing with Colonel Barker and Captain Medina. I was told my company would be the first to enter My Lai. I felt that we deserved the right to finally get back at the VC and their sympathizers. This was the first briefing that Barker ever attended so it gave the mission a higher priority. Barker and Medina both said that we should expect heavy fire from the enemy. As we entered My Lai, I gave the order to round up anyone hiding in the huts. We began to interrogate some of the civilians. I became increasingly concerned that we were getting set up for an ambush. I told my men to take care of the prisoners and, if they felt threatened, the orders were to destroy the village. I believe I was following the orders of my superiors to destroy the VC villages. I believe that my actions saved the lives of my unit. The high command also must have believed this because General Westmoreland gave our unit a letter of commendation for the assault on My Lai. I regret that there is ever a loss of life but my first concern was my men. I lost more than 20% of my unit in the 30 days prior to the attack on My Lai and I lost no men on March 16. I do not deny killing Vietnamese on that day but I believe that I followed orders and killed the enemy. 149 Witness Statements for the Defense Private John Berg On March 15, I was involved in the My Lai briefing. We were told that two intelligence officers, an army photographer, and a reporter would be coming with us to My Lai. They were going to record the great battle. They were going to record Charlie Company’s final revenge on the 48th Local Force. We were told at the briefing that all innocent civilians would be out of the village and only VC would be around. I was scared and I didn’t want to go. I knew if I didn’t go that I would be court-martialed. In the morning we learned that Medina would be coordinating the assault from the landing zone. All of the men liked Medina. When he gave an order we all followed it, no questions asked. On the other hand, when Calley gave an order everyone just nodded. No one took Calley seriously until he threatened us with punishment. My squad was not to enter My Lai. We were the back support, in case the VC tried to escape from the village. We also had the photographer with us and the brass back at command did not want him shot. I finally entered My Lai in the late afternoon. No VC had tried to escape in our direction. I thought that this was strange because I had heard so many weapons fire early in the morning. I saw that the village was burning. We were never allowed to burn an entire village until we received clearance. It was known as “political clearance.” I figured that Medina or Barker had given the okay for Charlie Company to set the fires. 150 Witness Statements for the Defense Private First Class Thomas Jefferson I was one of the early members of Charlie Company. I worked hard and tried to help my buddies to be the very best during our training in Hawaii. During training, we worked hard but also played hard. We had a great time and thought that we were going to single-handedly win the war. Once we shipped out to Vietnam, things changed. We found that the Vietnamese did not fight fairly. One day they would be friendly and the next day they were setting up ambushes. One time a young boy rode up to a group of soldiers offering a fish for dinner. The boy tossed the fish to the soldiers and inside was a grenade. The grenade went off and killed or injured all of the GIs. The worst day for Charlie Company had to be February 25. We were going through a swampy area and someone stepped on a mine. We all dove for cover and as we did some of the other men hit mines as well. We all froze, afraid of setting off more mines. Just then, the VC opened fire on our position. We were out in the open and they just started spraying us with fire. We finally repelled the attack and were able to reassemble out of the minefield. The VC had fled the area. Just like the ambush a couple days earlier, we found military uniforms on the ground. We knew that these people were changing from military clothing to civilian clothing. Everyone felt that we had to watch our backs. Nowhere was safe and anyone not in Charlie Company was the enemy. I did not get a chance to go to My Lai because I was wounded three days earlier. I know that no member of our company would kill innocent people, so they must have truly thought that these villagers were the enemy. They even received commendations from General Westmoreland. Doc Kip White I was a trained medic assigned to Charlie Company. I was assigned to the unit just before training started in Hawaii. I was older than most of the boys in the unit and they either called me “doc” or “dad.” I became a medic because I wanted to try and save lives, not take lives. The boys of Charlie Company were young and scared. Those long nights out on patrol had a terrible effect on everyone. The enemy was everywhere and we were constantly running into ambushes. The VC never staged a fight like a military unit. They would hit us quick and then flee back into the jungle. Charlie Company was good. They had been trained to kill and kill they did. They had killed more of the enemy than any other group in the region. In order to kill they had to build up hatred toward everyone. They made up derogatory names for the enemy. I don’t think anyone was racist. They just tried to picture their enemy as something other than human. These boys did care. Once we entered a Buddhist temple and everyone was so quiet. They were trying to show respect. No one in our unit understood the religion but everyone kept stepping over and around the graves. They did not want to disturb the holy place. I did not go into My Lai until called to look after PFC Carter. He accidentally shot himself in the leg. Once inside the village, I saw there were many dead villagers scattered about. I did not see any actual shootings but I can only assume that our unit inflicted the damage on the people of the village. 151 Witness Statements for the Defense Corporal Lewis Van I went to Hawaii with the rest of Charlie Company. We trained hard and were ready to do our part for the war effort. The night before we left for Vietnam, we all sat around and said that if we had to go we might as well be the best unit the U.S. had fighting over there. We felt that we were going to be the ones to end this war. I remember Lieutenant Calley and Captain Medina. Calley worshipped Medina. He tried to be just like him. When Medina got mad and screamed you knew that 10 minutes later Calley would be yelling and screaming. As hard as Calley tried, he was never like Captain Medina. The Captain looked out for us. Medina always let the enlisted men get food before the officers. I think that the lieutenants also respected Medina. They followed his orders to the letter. No one ever questioned Medina. It was the job of the officers to bring us back alive. We were all so frustrated that in a month we had not made visual contact with the enemy but still had lost 20% of our platoon. Most of the casualties were from booby-traps, mines, or snipers. Usually the night before a big raid Medina and Calley met and went over strategy. I know that Calley would never make a decision unless Medina approved it first. I was not in My Lai. I had lost the bottom of my foot during the minefield explosions in February. Charlie Company was massacred on February 25 and I am glad they were able to return the favor on March 16. 152 Witness Statements for the Defense Sergeant Ben Cassidy I was one of six sergeants assigned to Captain Medina’s group. I worked directly under Lieutenant Calley. I found Calley to be generally even-tempered. He believed in the army and the code of military conduct. He believed that soldiers did not question orders and it was the duty of the officers to bring their men back alive. I was at the March 15 briefing as well. I was surprised that Lt. Colonel Barker was present and that he had brought in people who were going to report to the battle of My Lai. We were told to expect heavy enemy fire and that everyone in the village was a VC or a sympathizer. I was told that my platoon would hit the most isolated group of huts. On the morning of March 16, my platoon assembled and we were told by Calley to keep radio silence. I understood the order to mean that we should only use the radio if we were in danger. I took my group to the outer section of the village. We entered the circle of huts and immediately saw a rifle standing against a hut. I gave the order to divide up and sweep each of the huts. I told the men to go in low and fire. My men followed my orders and we hit the huts quickly. At the time, I believed that the only reason we did not receive enemy fire was because we were swift in our actions. The only weapon that my unit recovered was the rifle we saw upon entering. After my unit’s attack was completed, we stayed in the area anticipating a VC assault staged from outside the village. I did not go down to the main area of My Lai on March 16. I believe we all followed orders and that these people were the enemy. I also agree with Lieutenant Calley when he said, “They sent us here to fight communism, and communism doesn’t have a face or an age.” I remember Lieutenant Calley also telling the sergeants that, as leaders, our primary goal was to bring our men back alive. I am proud to say that, at least on March 16, no American soldiers died. 153 Geneva Convention on the Law of War August 12, 1949 Common Article 3, sub-clause 1 “Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of the armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat* by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely.” *Hors de combat is French for “out of combat.” 154 Lesson Plan 12 Title: The End of the Cold War? Essential Question: Were the methods used by the United States to contain communism justified? Duration: 2-3 class periods Enduring Understanding: H-2: Order, power and systems of government have never been guaranteed. H-5: Economic needs and wants determine individual and group decisions. Historical Background Notes: See pages 9-15. Purpose: Students will analyze eight events from the late Cold War (1970-1990) to understand U.S. methods for combating the spread of communism around the world. Students will examine visual and written information about eight late Cold War events- such as the civil war in Angola, the Reykjavik summit, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Materials: General -Handout: U.S. Methods During the Cold War -Handout: Analyzing Late Cold War Events Primary Sources: -Photographs Secondary Sources: -Handout A: Pinochet’s Coup in Chile -Handout B: Nixon’s Policy of Détente -Handout C: Civil War in Angola -Handout D: Carter’s Human Rights Initiatives -Handout E: The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan -Handout F: Reagan’s Defense Buildup -Handout G: Revolution in Nicaragua -Handout H: The Reykjavik Summit 155 Procedure: Teacher 1. Arrange the classroom into 16 stations. Put students into partners/small groups. Make two copies of Handouts A-H. Place one copy of each handout throughout the 16 stations. 2. Tell students they will analyze eight events from the late Cold War to understand U.S. methods for combating the spread of communism around the world. 3.Pass out the handout entitled U.S. Methods During the Cold War. Introduce students to the various economic and military methods the United States used to combat the spread of communism during the Cold War. 4.Next, pass out the handout entitled Analyzing Late Cold War Events. Ask group to create a newspaper headline summarizing the event and record it in the appropriate section of the handout. Next, have each group identify and circle on their handouts the U.S. methods they think are reflected in the event. (You may want to demonstrate this process for students once before they begin.) 5.Continue this process until groups have visited analyzed all eight handouts. 6.Once groups have visited all eight stations, have them decide which handout they would like to present to the class. Have each group give a minipresentation to the class about the handout they chose to present. 7.Once presentations are done, hold a class discussion about the methods the U.S. used during the Cold War. The following are ideas of questions that could be used: What methods did the United States use most often during the late Cold War? Why do you think policymakers Student 4. Work with your group to create a newspaper headline summarizing the handout you are analyzing. In addition, identify the U.S. method you think is reflected in the event. 5. Analyze all eight handouts by rotating through eight stations. 6. As a group, decide which handout you would like to present to the class. Give a minipresentation about the handout you chose. 7.Participate in a class discussion about the methods the U.S. used during the Cold War. 156 used so many different methods to combat communism? Which methods do you think were most appropriate? Why? Which methods do you think were least appropriate? Why? Which methods seem contradictory? Do you think the United States lived up to its democratic principles during the Cold War? Why or why not? Do you think the United States should be praised or condemned for the methods it used during the Cold War? Explain. Student Learning Evidence: Analysis of handouts A-H Answers to Analyzing Late Cold War Events handout Group mini-presentation on handout analysis Participation in class discussion -Adapted from: History Alive! Pursuing American Ideals 157 Handout A: Pinochet’s Coup in Chile In 1970, the people of Chile elected Salvador Allende, a socialist, to be president. The Soviet Union supported the Chilean Socialist Party. Because of this, U.S. President Richard Nixon felt that Allende’s elected represented a communist threat. Working through the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Nixon and his national security advisor, Henry Kissinger, authorized a “destabilization” strategy. As part of this, the CIA disrupted the Chilean economy. It also supported anti-Allende propaganda efforts. And it encouraged Chilean military officers to organize a coup d’état, or violent overthrow of the government. In fall 1973, Allende died in a suspected assassination. His successor, General Augusto Pinochet, established a brutally repressive, but pro-U.S. dictatorship. The new government jailed or killed thousands of Allende’s supporters. Over the 17 years of Pinochet’s rule, the United States provided varying levels of military and economic support to his government. At times, it more forcefully protested Chile’s human rights violations than at others. President H.W. Bush shaking hands with the former Chilean president, Augusto Pinochet, in 1990 in Santiago, Chile. 158 Handout B: Nixon’s Policy of Détente During his presidency (1969-1974), Richard Nixon pursued a foreign policy designed to promote a global balance of power. Henry Kissinger, who served as national security advisor and secretary of state under Nixon, was instrumental in shaping this foreign policy. Central to their strategy was a policy known as détente, from the French word meaning a “relaxation of tensions.” Détente called for a peaceful, friendly coexistence with the Soviet Union and China. In the spirit of détente, Nixon ended three decades of hostility with Communist China by making a historic trip there. In February 1972, he met with Chinese Communist Party leader Mao Zedong and prime minister Chou En-lai. During the friendly visit, the two countries agreed that the Soviet Union should not be allowed to expand its power in Asia. Also as part of the détente, the Nixon administration expanded trade relations with the Soviet Union. Nixon hoped that limited cooperation with the USSR would help check Soviet expansion. In addition, in May 1972, Nixon initiated the Strategic Arms Limitations Talks (SALT) with the Soviet Union. He intended for these talks to help restrict the Soviet arms buildup and the costly nuclear arms race. Indeed, the talks resulted in a treaty that limited the development of systems of defense against nuclear attack. They also placed a five-year freeze on the number of offensive missiles each side could maintain. President Richard Nixon shaking hands with the Soviet Communist Party chairman, Leonid Brezhnev, after signing one of several agreements made during their seven-day summit meeting in Moscow in 1974. 159 Handout C: Civil War in Angola After Angola won independence from Portugal in 1975, a civil war erupted among several groups vying for power. The Soviet Union provided military support to a group pushing for a communist government. The USSR also backed thousands of Cuban troops, who aided the communist group in its efforts to take power. Meanwhile, President Gerald Ford continued a policy of Nixon’s of secretly providing aid to anticommunist forces in Angola. He worked through the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), without the knowledge of Congress. The Untied States also supported South African troops who helped in the fight against communism. Early in 1976, after discovering these secret operations, Congress voted to deny all funding for the anticommunist forces in Angola. Many members of Congress believed that the United States should have first tried diplomacy- that is, negotiations between countries- in Angola. They also felt that the United States should not align itself with the white supremacist government of South Africa. That same year, the communists seized power of Angola. They maintained control of the government through the 1980s. However, the fighting did not stop. In the late 1980s, the United States continued to support the anticommunist forces. It also pushed for a ceasefire, which the opposing factions signed in 1991. During the course of the war, the United States also worked to improve its position in the rest of Africa. It supplied arms and economic assistance to friendly states. As well, it distanced itself from the white minority governments in Rhodesia and South Africa. Angola anti-government guerrilla troops, called UNITA, in front of a picture of their leader, Jonas Savimbi. The United States provided clandestine support to Savimbi in his struggle against the communist government. 160 Handout D: Carter’s Human Rights Initiative During his presidency (1977-1981), Jimmy Carter made respect for human rights the centerpiece of his foreign policy. He was outspoken in denouncing political repression, imprisonment without trial, torture, and official murder across the globe. For example, in 1977 Carter significantly reduced U.S. financial and military aid to Argentine, a country friendly to the United States. He did so to protest that government’s violent repression of its people. At home, he beefed up the State Department’s recently formed Bureau of Human Rights. Carter hoped to continue Nixon’s policy of détente- a relaxation of tensions- with the Soviet Union. However, his sharp criticism of Soviet human rights violations angered the Soviet Union. In particular, Carter condemned the USSR’s suppression of dissent or criticism of the government- especially as that suppression affected the right of Jewish citizens to leave the Soviet Union. He also openly supported Soviet dissidents. Carter’s attack on human rights violations won him international praise. Yet some critics faulted him for doing little to halt the spiraling arms race. Other frowned on his continuation of U.S. support for repressive dictators, such as the Shah of Iran, who were friendly to U.S. interests. President Jimmy Carter and Pope John Paul II during a visit the pope made to the United States in 1979. Both men were important promoters of human rights. 161 Handout E: The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan In December 1979, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. It did so to support the weak communist government then in control of the country. The United States viewed the Soviet invasion as a serious threat. It placed the Soviets much closer to Middle Eastern oil resources and ports on which the United States relied. From 1980 to 1981, President Jimmy Carter pressured the Soviets to withdraw from Afghanistan. He stopped the export of grain and high-technology equipment to the Soviet Union. He arranged an international boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow. Carter also suspended nuclear arms reduction talks. And he pressed for a UN resolution condemning the invasion. However, Carter’s efforts met with little success. During the 1980s, under President Ronald Reagan, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) worked out a secret deal with Pakistan to provide arms to a group of anti-communist forces in Afghanistan called the mujahedeen. The United States also encouraged arms shipments to the mujahedeen from Saudi Arabia. Over the course of 1988 and 1989, the Soviets finally pulled out of Afghanistan. By that time, more than 1 million Afghanis had lost their lives. Afghan guerrilla fighter during the Soviet invasion. 162 Handout F: Reagan’s Defense Buildup In the early 1980s, during the presidency of Ronald Reagan (1981-1989), U.S.-Soviet relations grew increasingly tense. Reagan declared that the Soviets were prepared to “commit any crime” to spread communist across the globe. He asserted that the Soviet Union was the “focus of evil in the modern world.” Reagan believed that a massive U.S. military buildup would strengthen the U.S. position if a war with the Soviet Union unfolded. He felt it would also intimidate the Soviets into negotiating on terms favorable to Americans. Thus, he pushed Congress to approve the largest peacetime military spending program in U.S. history. Reagan’s defense budget funded plans for a new generation of long-range bombers called B1s and a moveable and deceptive missile system called the MX. Reagan’s most ambitious and controversial plan was the 1983 Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), dubbed “Star Wars.” SDI would include a satellite and laser shield set up in space to detect and intercept incoming missiles. Reagan claimed SDI would make nuclear war obsolete. However, many scientists doubted it would work. Ronald Reagan on the cover of Time magazine. 163 Handout G: Revolution in Nicaragua In 1979 in Nicaragua, communist revolutionaries called Sandinistas overthrew a U.S. backed dictatorship led by Anastasio Somoza. Somoza’s family had ruled Nicaragua through military terror and corruption for more than 40 years. Though antidemocratic, Somoza’s government had long had friendly relations with the United States. To promote U.S. interests, President Ronald Reagan attempted to overthrow the Soviet-and Cuban-backed Sandinista government by supporting Nicaraguan counterrevolutionaries called Contras. During the 1980s, under Reagan’s guidance, the United States supplied arms and training to the Contras. It also mined a Nicaraguan harbor and cut off economic aid to the Nicaraguan government. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) carried out most of the U.S. actions secretly from a base in neighboring Honduras. The discovery in 1984 that the CIA had provided an assassination manual to the Contras caused public outcry. Reagan’s policies as well as the methods of the CIA and the Contras concerned many members of Congress. Thus Reagan often conducted clandestine negotiations. Illegally, and without consent from Congress, his administration secretly sold arms to Iran and diverted the profits to the Contras. In the late 1980s, the Sandinistas agreed to hold free elections. The presidential election took place in 1990. Violeta Chamorro, an opposition candidate, won. A former Sandinista leader herself, Chamorro supported a more balanced economic plan than that of the Sandinistas. Nicaraguan Contra rebels who were supported by the United States. 164 Handout H: The Reykjavik Summit At the start of his presidency in 1981, Ronald Reagan denounced the Soviet Union as an “evil empire.” He pushed for a massive arms buildup aimed at fighting the spread of communism and militarily intimidating the Soviets. Despite growing international concern over the nuclear arms race, Ronald Reagan gave arms control little priority. He refused to meet with Soviet leaders throughout his first term in office. In March 1985, the Soviet Communist Party elected a new leader, Mikhail Gorbachev. Gorbachev introduced reforms that promoted economic restructuring and a more open society. His actions signaled to the Reagan administration that Cold War differences might be lessening. As a result, tensions between the superpowers began to ease. In fall of 1985, Reagan and Gorbachev met in Geneva for the first superpower summit since 1979. There, they agreed on the goal of reducing their nuclear arsenals by at least 50 percent. The two continued negotiations the following year in Reykjavik, Iceland. However, disagreement over the future of the United States’ Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) abruptly halted this second summit. Still, 14 months later, Reagan and Gorbachev signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF). This agreement eliminated U.S. and Soviet intermediate-range nuclear missiles based in Europe. The treaty was the most significant arms control accord since the start of the Cold War. Reagan and Gorbachev signing the INF Treaty. (1987) 165 U.S. Methods During the Cold War Cold War Method Symbol Explanation Boycotts and Economic Sanctions Attempting to destabilize a communist country by limiting or withdrawing the exchange of goods, knowledge, technology, or cultural contact. Allocating a large percentage of the U.S. budget to the construction of nuclear arms and a powerful military to counter the Soviet defense buildup and discourage Soviet aggression. Working in secret, often through the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), to fix elections or conduct assassinations, coups, or smear campaigns to keep communist leaders from rising to power. Providing a country with funds, expert advice, or humanitarian aid to promote its economic health and political stability and to foster positive feelings toward the United States. Creating strong relationships in which the United States and other countries pledge to support each other in efforts to prevent the spread of communism and promote the spread of democracy. Providing weapons and military advice to a country to help it defend itself against the threat of communism from either external influences or internal communist revolutionaries. Building up Defenses Clandestine Operations Economic Aid Forging Alliances Military Aid Negotiations Talking with Soviet or communist leaders to arrive at agreements that reduce the communist threat by lessening the Soviets’ military threat or political influence. Promoting U.S. Business Interests Maintaining stable, friendly relations with a country to promote the interests of U.S. corporations doing business there. Proxy Wars Avoiding direct conflict with the Soviet Union by providing military and economic aid to countries, or groups within countries, who were willing to fight against communism; in such cases, the United States and the Soviet Union provided military support to opposing groups in a warring nation so as to influence the outcome of the war without actually fighting each other and bringing on nuclear war. 166 Name_________________________________ Date___________________________________ Period________________________________ Analyzing Late Cold War Events For each Cold War event, carefully examine the image and read the information. Then, with your partner, create and record a newspaper headline summarizing the event. Finally, circle the U.S. Cold War method or methods that you think are reflected in the event. Event Newspaper Headline Cold War Method (s) 167 Event Newspaper Headline Cold War Method(s) 168 Lesson Plan 13 Title: The Cold War No More? Essential Question: Is the Cold War still cold today? Duration: 2-3 days Enduring Understanding: H-1: History is more than things happening in sequence; it’s about understanding connections across time. Historical Background Notes: See pages 9-15. Materials: General: -Document workshop protocol -Primary source analysis worksheets Primary Sources: -Handout 1: Press Conference on the Results of the G20 Heads of State Meeting (Dmitry Medvedev- President of Russia) -Handout 2: Press Conference on the Results of the G20 Heads of State Meeting (Barack Obama- President of the United States) Secondary Sources: -None Procedure: Teacher Student 1. Introduce the following idea to students: the Cold War has officially ended, but we are going to examine whether it actually ended or still continues (in some other form) today. 2. As a class, or in small groups, have 2. Read and analyze handouts 1 and 2. students read handouts 1 and 2. (These handouts are the press conferences of the President of Russia and the President of the United States after the 2009 G20 Summit. The complete versions of these 169 handouts are attached so please provide excerpts to students.) 3. Follow the document workshop protocol and complete a primary source analysis worksheet (see packet entitled Primary Source Analysis Worksheets) based on the documents. 4. Hold a class discussion about the documents. Some of the questions you may want to ask include: What is the tone and mood of the documents? How does each leader speak about other countries and the rest of the world? Based on these documents do you think the Cold War has ended or does it still go on (in some aspect) today? 5. Divide the class into two groups. Hold a class debate. Assign one group to the side that believes the Cold War continues today. Assign the other group to the side that believes the Cold War is over. (Some students may not agree with their side.) Give students guidelines on the proper way to debate. 6. Follow up the debate with a class discussion. Some of the questions you might want to ask include: What were the results of the Cold War? If the Cold War had continued (as it was) what might have happened? What other technologies might have been developed? Do you think President Truman was responsible for starting the Cold War because of his decision to drop the atomic bomb? 7. As an extension activity (or culminating assessment) have students write a research paper defending their position on whether the Cold War has ended or continues today. 3. Participate in the document workshop protocol and complete a primary source analysis worksheet. 4. Participate in class discussion. 5. Participate in a class debate over whether the Cold War has ended or continues today. 6. Participate in class discussion 170 Student Learning Evidence: Participation in class discussion Completion of primary source analysis worksheet Participation in class debate Completion of extension activity 171 Handout 1: Press Conference on the Results of the G20 Heads of State Meeting Dmitry Medvedev (President of Russia) QUESTION: Were any decisions made today regarding the new global financial architecture, and how fair were those decisions, in your opinion, also considering, for example, that, as I understand it, the global reserve currency issue was not discussed? PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA DMITRY MEDVEDEV: First of all, I would like to begin by expressing my gratitude to the British side. They conducted some very major work, including Gordon Brown himself, as the Prime Minister of Great Britain. Organising this kind of summit featuring the world’s leading economies is no easy task – since we are not talking about the Group of Eight, but rather, the Group of Twenty. Moreover, rather than dealing with global topics, the summit addresses general issues, and is dedicated to the most difficult, urgent issues – namely, the crisis. That is why I would like to note both the high level of organisation and the brilliant preparation done by the government of Great Britain. Speaking about the results, we mean the result of collective work, not the work of just one government or several governments. And I must say this honestly and directly: I feel that the governments demonstrated a rather responsible approach. I will go even further and say that the first summit in Washington was, to a certain extent, an introductory one. Even though it was a direct reaction by the world community to the global financial crisis, some of the things we discussed there really were somewhat general in nature, and ultimately, the declaration adopted there was simply a set of topics and agreement to act on the basis of specific principles. This summit, however, is entirely different: the declaration, or rather, the communique that was just issued, contains a series of fairly specific resolutions for tackling the global financial and economic crisis. In this sense, I suppose, the work that was done yielded results. This is a step forward, a step in the right direction. Of course, we could not resolve all the issues, and that was not our goal, but we looked at the situation from the 2009 angle, we looked at the situation as it is developing. And all the decisions that were made in regard to financial support, stabilisation of our national markets, protectionism, individual states’ responsibility for their macroeconomic policies, and the future of financial institutions – all these are fully specific, serious resolutions addressing the future. This does not mean that these decisions are in every way resolutions for direct action, although they do include some resolutions of this sort; yet, it means that in the course of our further work, which will continue, we may already prepare international agreements on this issue. In response to the last part of your question about a “supranational currency,” “supercurrency,” or “international reserve currency,” I would like to say that, indeed, this subject is not simple, and it is certain that no one expected us to make decisions about it. The goal right now is for our national currencies to normalise. The key goal is for international reserve currencies to also be predictable. But that does not mean that we 172 are happy overall with the situation regarding national reserve currencies. This means that we must subject this situation to the most serious analysis. And today, in principle, this was done. I would like to note that the respective position was even added to Paragraph 12 of the communique: that we will make all the necessary efforts to conduct a balanced monetary and credit and fiscal policy. This suggests (because this was done at the suggestion of the Russian delegation) that we will get back to this issue and discuss it on the level of the International Monetary Fund and within the G20 framework. This work will continue. QUESTION: It would be a “crime” not to ask this question. You met with the United States President Barack Obama. You were able to look him in the eyes. Did you see anything there? DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Ok, it is good that we stick to the pre-established procedure regarding eyes and everything else. You know, I am really happy that I met the President of the United States. It was a good meeting, and it seemed to me that we succeeded in making contact. Of course, it was our first meeting, and we will have another meeting in Moscow coming up this summer, but I can absolutely say that we see many issues the same way. However, the well-known differences between out countries remain. I cannot say that we made good progress on the most difficult issues, but that was never expected. Most importantly, and I would specifically like to mention that, the President of the United States of America is able to listen and give valid answers to specific questions. I think this is a brilliant asset for any leader, especially for the leader of the United States of America. We shall see. In any case, I am looking forward to a visit from my American colleague. I am sure that the meeting will be interesting and productive, especially since we have good plans. You know about them: drafting a framework agreement on limiting strategic offensive arms and several other things. So we shall see. I am happy with our meeting. QUESTION: The summit communique states that the G20 countries will spend five trillion dollars by the end of next year on the development of their economies. Could you explain how this figure came about, what do you see as Russia’s contribution to this amount, and whether anyone has made any specific commitments regarding the figures? DMITRY MEDVEDEV: If you had a chance to look at the communique, this is the text that was just recently elaborated, it does indeed talk about the financial support to various governments and the measures to be taken at the level of international financial institutions. Overall, these programmes do indeed add up to five trillion, but this is an estimate made by experts, and it includes, of course, a variety of national programmes that exist in all the countries, including the United States of America, the European Union, the People’s Republic of China, and our country. This is a collective estimate which, of course, can be broken down into support for the banking system, support for national businesses, all that we call the real economy, and these are programs that are already being implemented. 173 As for the volume of assistance agreed upon today for international financial organisations – first and foremost, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, – this assistance makes up 1.1 trillion dollars and can also be broken down into several components. It includes direct assistance agreed upon by the governments, assistance in the form of the so-called SDRs (special drawing rights), and several other forms of assistance, but naturally, the criteria and mechanism for rendering such assistance are yet to be determined. All the more so as we are talking about very big money, and naturally, before such assistance is rendered, we would like for the International Monetary Fund to change some of its features, in order for it to become slightly different, to change its functions and decision-making procedures. But, nonetheless, we really did reach an agreement on this kind of assistance. As for our input, we formulated our position on this issue a long time ago: we will provide assistance in the amounts that are still subject to final agreement, but we can already say that a significant portion of that assistance will flow through the so-called EurAsEC anti-crisis fund, which, as you know, is currently being formed and its total volume is fixed at 10 billion dollars. It will also flow through our bilateral agreements with the states with which we maintain such contacts, with governments that have credit lines from the Russian Federation and that are in need today of assistance since their economies are in a rather difficult situation. These are usually neighbouring countries. We are assuming that this kind of aid will count as part of the overall assistance being provided by the entire international community. That is today’s situation. QUESTION: Under the previous president of the United States, the problems in RussianAmerican relations in many ways were smoothed over partially thanks to the good personal relations between the leaders. During the hour and a half when you met with President Obama, did you establish good personal relations? And in addition to this question – little was said about the anti-missile defence: perhaps you see some progress on the issue? DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Regarding good relations – I would like to count on that. Of course, personal relations between government leaders are rather important, and it is true, but that is not all. You can have fantastic personal relations and rather complicated governmental relations. We know of cases when this has happened, sometimes even in recent history. Nevertheless, good personal relations are a very favourable background for developing intergovernmental relations. I enjoyed the conversation I had with the President of the United States of America. He is easy to talk to. I will say it again, he is able to listen and give a comprehensive, detailed answer, and be completely honest in answering even the most difficult questions. Because we have discussed everything, including the issues on which our countries have serious differences. We spoke about the anti-missile defence; we spoke about NATO expansion, and about the August 2008 events. We spoke honestly. I told the US President about what preceded all those events. I do not know how novel this information was for him, but I do hope that he will remember some of it as well. So, I feel that the beginning of these relations is positive and pleasant. 174 As for the ABM issue, this is, of course, one of the most difficult topics. We touched upon this subject and agreed that the discussions will continue. In any event (I already said that after my first conversation with US President Barack Obama, when we spoke on the telephone), I felt, at the very least, that our partners on this issue are not taking any primitive position, but instead, are ready to discuss various alternatives. And that is important, because, before, we were hearing something entirely different: what difference does it make, there are just several dozens of missiles, we have already made the decision, come, if you want to, and see what we will be doing there, if, of course, they let you in, otherwise, it is over, nothing more to discuss. Today, the issue is presented in a different way, with a totally different approach to discussing it, and I am very happy with that. QUESTION: All summit participants agreed that we need to be more open and we need to disclose information about companies’ owners, transactions, mergers and acquisitions, including bonuses paid to company management. The United States has already adopted the bonus taxation initiative. Maybe Russia should think about introducing legislative limitations on bonuses in the companies that have received government assistance? DMITRY MEDVEDEV: You know I feel this is a very good topic, and in our communique, we did state that in accordance with the financial standards currently accepted, these parameters must be monitored. This was done in the United States of America and in several European countries, and I feel that it is absolutely correct. During the crisis, when everyone is having a hard time, especially our people with ordinary incomes – this is not the time to pay out such enormous bonuses. We know about the bonuses that were paid abroad. This, in fact, played a well-known part in the unfortunate demise of several financial and credit institutions. We too have examples of some rather high bonuses. That, of course, is the business of the company, but if a company gets support from the state, or if it is a state- or semi-state-owned company, I feel that our esteemed managers, CEOs of those companies, should be reasonable and opt for self-limitation. Even if they have already approved the pay-out of large compensations for themselves, they can change the decision. Once I am back to Russia, I will certainly make these recommendations to the Government and, accordingly, to state- and semi-state-owned companies, and the companies receiving the relevant support from the state. We must act properly in this kind of situation. QUESTION: Before the G20 summit everyone seemed to be asking this question: are the decisions made here the beginning of the end of the crisis, or yet another step in preparation, the development of something. What should people expect? Is this the beginning of the end of the crisis, or not? DMITRY MEDVEDEV: You know I would like to say that this is the turning point, but being a responsible man, I will not. Because – and we have spoken about that on multiple occasions, and I have to say that once again, - nobody knows how this crisis will develop. Nevertheless, a range of trends in the financial sector, in manufacturing, which exist in most countries, indicate that we 175 are not only rolling downhill, but in some sectors, we can already observe certain stabilisation. So far this does not involve the economy at large, and unfortunately, does not improve the living standards or the income levels, but nonetheless, in some places, in some blocks stabilisation is occurring. If this is the case, we have a chance at some point to take on a whole set of resolutions that will help us come out of this crisis nosedive. I will not go so far as to say that after today’s resolutions, the situation will change radically. Today, in many ways, we are patching up the gaps that formed in the financial credit system and the global economy in general, three, four, or five years ago, but we should not have let our economies overheat to such an extent, since this ultimately led to a halt in financial life and, most sadly, a loss of confidence and a drop in the living standards of millions of people. Therefore, the recovery will most likely take longer than we would like. But the fact that we met today and specifically discussed these issues is a good start. And there is one other thing that I would like for all participants to note: twenty to twenty-five years ago, it was impossible to imagine a situation in which such different states with such different economies, different mentalities, and historical traditions, would sit down at the same table and be able to agree on how to act in such a difficult situation – and in fact, we were able to agree quite quickly. Today, we recalled the lessons of the Great Depression – it all started in the 1920s, but the agreements were reached only at the end of World War II. It took 15 years and one severe war to understand that the depression did affect all of the world’s economies, all the more so since many governments did not participate in those discussions. The pace of our actions suggests, at the very least, that many of our resolutions will be quite effective. QUESTION: We know that today at the summit you spoke about the problem of protectionism and even said that Russia is ready to renounce such measures. What were you talking about: the measures that have already been taken, or that we will elect not to introduce any other protective duties or that we will be looking at how other countries deal with this? DMITRY MEDVEDEV: You know, protectionism is a hard topic, since practically all countries swear to be committed to anti-protectionism, they reject it, yet they actually continue to take protective measures. And it is quite easy to explain the reasons behind such decisions: when problems affect a specific company, a specific workforce, most national leaders, state leaders, opt for national interests. But overall, protectionism is harmful to the global economy. Everyone understands this perfectly well. That is why special declarations on protectionism were made as part of the communique we have signed. What does that mean? It means that we must refrain from taking primitive protective measures blocking business activity and impeding market operation. We must be careful with the measures already taken. If these measures prove inefficient, and this applies to everyone, including Russia, then those measures should be given up. Yet, in some cases – and we spoke about openly, and this is what I said to my colleagues, - we need to once 176 again make sure that such measures are not working, they are inefficient or, on the contrary, hurt the interests of foreign manufacturers or foreign governments. That is why the issue of protectionism is an absolutely specific one, related to specific situations. I will give no common examples, but it is clear that since the Washington summit we have witnessed between one hundred and seven hundred instances of protectionism around the world. That means that life takes its own course. Nonetheless, the position of government leaders is simple: protectionism during the crisis is, altogether, harmful, and should be curtailed. Thank you very much. Source: http://www.kremlin.ru/eng/ 177 Handout 2: Press Conference on the Results of the G20 Heads of State Meeting Barack Obama (President of the United States) SPEAKER: PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA [*] OBAMA: Good afternoon, or good evening. We're running a little bit late. Earlier today, we finished a very productive summit that will be, I believe, a turning point in our pursuit of global economic recovery. By any measure, the London summit was historic. It was historic because of the size and the scope of the challenges that we face and because of the timeliness and magnitude of our response. The challenge is clear: The global economy is contracting. Trade is shrinking. Unemployment is rising. The international finance system is nearly frozen. Even these facts can't fully capture the crisis that we're confronting, because behind them is the pain and uncertainty that so many people are facing. We see it back in the United States. We see it here in London. We see it around the world: families losing their homes, workers losing their jobs and their savings, students who are deferring their dreams. So many have lost so much. Just to underscore this point, back in the United States, jobless claims released today were the highest in 26 years. We owe it to all of our citizens to act, and to act with a sense of urgency. In an age where our economies are linked more closely than ever before, the whole world has been touched by this devastating downturn. And today the world's leaders have responded with an unprecedented set of comprehensive and coordinated actions. Now, just keep in mind some historical context. Faced with similar global challenges in the past, the world was slow to act, and people paid an enormous price. That was true in the Great Depression, when nations prolonged and worsened the crisis by turning inward, waiting for more than a decade to meet the challenge together. Even as recently as the 1980s, a slow global response deepened and widened a debt crisis in Latin America that pushed millions into poverty. Today we've learned the lessons of history. I know that, in the days leading up to the summit, some of you in the press, some commentators, confused honest and open debate with irreconcilable differences. But after weeks of preparation and two days of careful negotiation, we have agreed on a series of unprecedented steps to restore growth and prevent a crisis like this from happening again. Let me outline what I think has been most significant. Number one, we are committed to growth and job creation. All G- 20 nations have acted to stimulate demand, which will total well over $2 trillion in global fiscal expansion. The United States is also partnering with the private sector to clean out the troubled assets, the legacy assets that are crippling some banks, and using the full force of the government to ensure that our action leads 178 directly to loans to businesses, large and small, as well as individuals who depend on credit. And these efforts will be amplified by our G-20 partners, who are pursuing similarly comprehensive programs. We also agreed on bold action to support developing countries so that we aren't faced with declining markets that the global economy depends on. Together, the G-20 is tripling the IMF's lending capacity and promoting lending by multilateral development banks to increase the purchasing power and expand markets in every country. We've also rejected the -- the protectionism that could deepen this crisis. History tells us that turning inward can help turn a downturn into a depression. And this cooperation between the world's leading economies signals our support for open markets, as does our multilateral commitment to trade finance that will grow our exports and create new jobs. That's all on the growth front. Next, we made enormous strides in committing ourselves to comprehensive reform of a failed regulatory system. And together, I believe that we must put an end to the bubble-and-bust economy that has stood in the way of sustained growth and enabled abusive risk- taking that endangers our prosperity. At home, back in the states, our efforts began with an approach that Secretary Geithner proposed last week, the strongest regulatory reforms any nation has contemplated so far to prevent the massive failure of responsibility that we've already seen. Today these principles have informed and enabled the coordinated action that we will take with our G-20 partners. To prevent future crises, we agreed to increase transparency and capital protections for our financial institutions. We're extending supervision to all systemically important institutions, markets and products, including hedge funds. We'll identify jurisdictions that fail to cooperate, including tax havens, and take action to defend our financial system. We will re-establish the Financial Stability Forum with a stronger mandate. And we will reform and expand the IMF and World Bank so they are more efficient, effective and representative. Finally, we are protecting those who don't always have a voice at the G-20, but who have suffered greatly in this crisis. And the United States is ready to lead in this endeavor. OBAMA: In the coming days, I intend to work with Congress to provide $448 million in immediate assistance to vulnerable populations from Africa to Latin America and to double support for food safety to over $1 billions that we are giving people the tools they need to lift themselves out of poverty. We will also support the United Nations and World Bank as they coordinate the rapid assistance necessary to prevent humanitarian catastrophe. I have to say, though, that this is not just charity. These are all future markets for all countries and future drivers of world economic growth. And let me also underscore my appreciation to Prime Minister Brown, his entire team, and all my colleagues from around the world who contributed to the summit's success. You know, it's hard for 20 heads of state to bridge their differences. We've all got our own national policies. We all have our own assumptions, our own politically cultures. But our citizens are all hurting. They all need us to come together. So I'm pleased that the G-20 as agreed to meet again this fall because I believe that this is 179 just the beginning. Our problems are not going to be solved in one meeting. They're not going to be solved in two meetings. We're going to have to be proactive in shaping events and persistent in monitoring our progress to determine whether further action is needed. I also want to just make a few remarks about additional meetings I had outside of the G-20 context. While here in London, I had the opportunity to hold bilateral meetings with leaders of Russia, China, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, and India as well as Great Britain. These discussions were extraordinarily valuable and productive. Of course, we spoke about additional steps to promote economic recovery and growth, but we also discussed coordinated actions on a range of issues: How we could reduce the nuclear threat, how we could forge a coordinated response to North Korea's planned missile launch, how we can turn back terrorism and stabilize Afghanistan, how we can protect our planet from the scourge of climate change. I'm encouraged that we laid the groundwork for real and lasting progress on a host of these issues. Ultimately, the challenges of the 21st century can't be met without collective action. Agreement will almost never be easy, and results won't always come quickly. But I am committed to respecting different points of view and to forging a consensus instead of dictating our terms. That's how we made progress in the last few days. That's how we will advance and uphold our ideals in the months and years to come. You know, at home, I've often spoken about a new era of responsibility. I believe that this era must not end at our borders. In a world that's more and more interconnected, we all have responsibilities to work together to solve common challenges. And although it will take time, I am confident that we will rebuild global prosperity if we act with a common sense of purpose, persistence, and the optimism that the moment demands. So I appreciate your attention. And I'm going to take a few questions. I've got a list of a few people I'm going to call on, and then I will intersperse some folks I'm calling on randomly. Helene Cooper? QUESTION: (OFF MIKE) OBAMA: Well, I -- I -- I think we did OK. You know, when I -- when I came here, it was with the intention of listening and learning but also providing American leadership. And I think that the document that has been produced as well as the concrete actions that will follow reflect a range of our priorities. We wanted to make sure that we had a strong, coordinated response to growth, and that's reflected in the document and in the actions that will be taken. We thought it was important to make sure that we had a strong, coordinated regulatory response. And many of the details of the regulatory response draw from principles that we had developed prior to coming here. We felt that it was very important to strengthen our international financial institutions because developing countries, emerging markets are threatened even though they not have been the cause of this crisis, they are threatened by capital flight, they're threatened by reduced trade finance, drops in consumer demand in developed countries that were their export markets, and so we knew that it was going to be important to provide those countries with assistance. And we have created as -- as fundamental a reworking of the resources available to these international financial institutions as anything we've done in the last several decades. So, overall, I'm pleased with the product. And I'll leave it to others to determine whether me and my team had anything to do with that. All right. Chuck Todd? Chuck? 180 QUESTION: What concrete items that you got out of this G-20 can you tell the American people back home who are hurting, the family struggling, seeing their retirement go down, or worrying about losing their job, what happened here today that helps that family back home in -- in the heartland? OBAMA: Well, as I said before, we've got a global economy. And if we're taking actions in isolation in the United States but those actions are contradicted overseas, then we're only going to be halfway effective, maybe not even half. You've seen, for example, a drastic decline in U.S. exports over the last several months. You look at a company like Caterpillar, in my home state of Illinois, which up until last year was doing extraordinarily well. In fact, export growth was what had sustained it even after the recession had begun. As a consequence of the world recession, as a consequence of the contagion from the financial markets debilitating economies elsewhere, Caterpillar is now in very bad shape. So if we want to get Caterpillar back on its feet, if we want to get all those export companies back on their feet so that they are hiring, putting people back to work, putting money in people's pockets, we've got to make sure that the global economy as a whole is successful. And this document, which affirms the need for all countries to take fiscal responses that increase demand, that encourages the openness of markets, those are all going to be helpful in us being able to fix what ails the economy back home. All right. You know, let me -- let me mix in a -- Justin Webb, BBC. Where's Justin? There he is. Go ahead. QUESTION: Mr. President, in the -- the spirit of openness (OFF- MIKE) OBAMA: Why don't you get a microphone, so -- see, everybody's complaining. I'm sure that's all your fellow British journalists. (LAUGHTER) QUESTION: They're extraordinarily well behaved, Mr. President. In the spirit of openness with which you say you're going to run your administration, could you give us an insight into an area or areas where you came to London wanting something and didn't get it, where you compromised, where you gave something away to achieve the wider breakthrough agreement? OBAMA: Well, I think that, if you look at, you know, the language of the document, there are probably some areas where it wasn't so much of a sacrifice as it might not have been our number-one priority, but it became clear that it was very important to certain other actors. I'd rather not specify what those precise items would be, because this is a collective document. But there's no doubt that, you know, each country has its own quirks and own particular issues that a leader may decide is really, really important, something that is non- negotiable for them. OBAMA: And what we tried to do as much as possible was to accommodate those issues in a way that didn't -did not hamper the effectiveness of the overall document to address what I think are the core issues related to this crisis. Now, keep in mind, I think that this kind of coordination really is historic. I said in the meeting that if you had imagined ten years ago or 20 years ago or 30 years ago that you'd have the leaders of Germany, France, China, Russia, Brazil, South Africa, a president of the United States named Obama, former adversaries, in some cases, 181 former mortal enemies negotiating this swiftly on behalf of fixing the global economy, you would have said that's crazy. And yet it was happening, and it happened with relatively little -- relatively few hiccups. And I think that's a testimony to the great work that Gordon Brown did and his team in organizing the summit, the collective work of our teams in doing some good preparation, some good groundwork. So I'm very proud of what's been done. This alone is not enough. And, obviously, the actions that each of us take in our individual countries are still absolutely vital. So we have a set of principles, for example, around dealing with systemic risk that I think will be very important in preventing the kinds of financial crisis that we've seen. That does not entirely solve the problem of toxic assets that are still in U.S. banks and certain British banks and certain European banks. And how each individual nation acts to deal with that is still going to be vitally important. How well we execute the respective stimulus programs around the world is going to be very important. The quicker they are, the more effective they are at actually boosting demand, the more all of us will benefit. The more encumbered they are by bureaucracy, mismanagement, and corruption, that will hamper our development efforts as a whole. So this is not a panacea, but it is a critical step, and I think it lays the foundation so that should the actions that we've taken individually and collectively so far not succeed in boosting global demand and growth, should you continue to see a freezing of credit or a hemorrhaging of jobs around the world, I think we've created a good foundation for this leadership to come back together again and take additional steps until we get it right. OK. Michael Sheerer (ph)? Where's Michael? QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. I wonder if you view this trip that you're on and the actions that you've taken here at the G-20 and with the bilateral meetings that you've had as representing a break from the foreign policy of your predecessor. And if so, could you describe where you see and how you see the principles that guide a different view of the world? OBAMA: Well, you know, I did not accompany President Bush on his various summits, so I don't know how he was operating. And I won't -- you know, I won't warrant a guess on that. I can tell you that what I've tried to do since I started running for president and since I was sworn in as president is to communicate the notion that America is a critical actor and leader on the world stage and that we shown be embarrassed about that. But that we exercise our leadership best when we are listening, when we recognize that the world is a complicated place, and that we are going to have to act in partnership with other countries, when we lead by example, when we show some element of humility and recognize that we may not always have the best answer but we can always encourage the best answer and support the best answer. So I think that's the -that's the approach that we've tried to take in our foreign policy since my administration came in. Now, we come in at extraordinarily challenging times. And -- and -- and yet I actually think that that calls for this type of leadership even more. But, you know, ultimately, you know, we won't know how effective we are until we look back a year from now, or two years from now, or three years from now, and -- and see if it worked. And what the American people care about I suspect are the same thing that the British people care about, and that is, are you putting people back to work? Are businesses growing again? Is business -- is -- is credit flowing again? And, you know -- and that's just true with respect to this summit. 182 When it comes to our Afghanistan policy, you know, the question is going to be, have we made ourselves safer? Have we reduced the risks and incidents of terrorism? And so, you know, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. But, hopefully, I think at least we've set a tone internationally where people don't -- where -- where they give us the benefit of the doubt. They're still going to have their interests, and we're going to have ours. There are going to be tough negotiations, and sometimes we're going to have to walk away from those negotiations, if -- if we can't arrive at a common accord. There are going to be real dangers that can't always be talked through and have to be addressed. But at least we can start with the notion that we're prepared to -- to listen and to work cooperatively with countries around the world. All right. Let me -- let me sprinkle in another -- it's got to be an international person. All right, this young lady right there. Yes. QUESTION: Mr. President, Emma Alberici from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. At the moment, in the U.S., the U.K., and in Australia, executive salaries and bonuses are decided in the boardrooms of major publicly listed companies. Who will be making those decisions on salaries and bonuses as a result of the agreement you've made here today? And if it is still the boards, will they be guided by principles or legislation? OBAMA: The principles that we outlined, I think, put in place or move us in the direction of what I consider to be best practices, which is that there is some accountability with respect to executive compensation. Now, theoretically, that should be the shareholders. But the way that too many corporations have operated for too long is that you have a CEO who basically selects his board. The board, in a fairly cozy relationship oftentimes with the executive, hires an executive compensation firm, which surprisingly tends to think that it's necessary to retain the best talent to pay people $20 million or $30 million a year. And we -- we get into the kinds of habits and practices that I think have -- have not been -- have not served shareholders well, I think ultimately distort the decision-making of many CEOs. When I was in the United States Senate, I actually worked on a piece of legislation that would make the simple proposition that executive compensation should be subject to a shareholder vote, even if it was non-binding, so that there was transparency and accountability and perhaps a shame function that would take place. OBAMA: And that principle, I think, is reflected in these guidelines. What it says is, is that, you know, if -- if you get shareholders involved and those shareholders are given a set of principles and best practices by which they can judge executive compensation, then you can still have outsized rewards and success for successful business people, but it'll be based on not short-term performance, not three-month performance, not your ability to flip quick profits off products like derivatives that don't turn out to be particularly productive to the company, but based on sustained effective growth. And that's what's embodied in these documents. And I think that you're going to see a lot of countries trying to encourage that kind of transparency and accountability. It doesn't mean the state micromanaging -- excuse me. I've been fighting this all week. It doesn't mean that we want the state dictate the salaries. We don't. We -- I strongly believe in a free-market system, and as I -- you know, as, I think, people understand in America at least, people don't recent the rich; they want to be rich. And that's good. 183 But we want to make sure that there's mechanisms in place that holds people accountable and produces results. OK. Got to go back to my crew. Jake Tapper (ph)? QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. Two questions. One can you say with confidence that the steps the G-20 nations are taking today, to committing to today, will help the world or will prevent the world to avoid a depression or a deeper recession? And, two, your friend and ally, Prime Minister Brown, said that the old Washington consensus is over; today, we have reached a new consensus. Is he right? And what do you think he meant by that? OBAMA: In life, there are no guarantees. And in economics, there are no guarantees. The people who thought they could provide guarantees, many of them worked at AIG, and it didn't work out so well. So there are always risks involved. I have no doubt, though, that the steps that have been taken are critical to preventing us sliding into a depression. They are bolder and more rapid than any international response that we've seen to a financial crisis in memory. And I think that they will have a concrete effect in our ability individually, in each nation, to create jobs, save jobs that exist, grow the economy, loosen up credit, restore trust and confidence in the financial markets. So these steps -- another way of putting it is I think the steps in the communique were necessary. Whether they're sufficient, we've got to -- we've got to wait and see. I'm actually confident, though, that given the common commitment in the United States and in the other G-20 countries to act rapidly and boldly, that if we see other inklings of panic in the marketplace or things unwinding, that this group, once again, will respond as needed. So I guess maybe just to use an analogy that was used several times in this meeting, an analogy that I've used in the past, you've got a sick patient. I think we applied the right medicine. I think the patient is stabilized. There's still wounds that have to heal. And, you know, there's still -- you know, there's still emergencies that could arise. But I think that you've got some pretty good care being applied. You had a second follow-up question? Oh, the Washington consensus. Well, the Washington consensus, as I'm sure you're aware, Jake, is sort of a term of art about a certain set of policies surrounding globalization and the application of a cookie-cutter model to economic growth, trade liberalization, deregulation that, you know, was popular and did help globalize and grow the economy and was led by some of our leading economists and -- and policymakers in Washington. OBAMA: I think that there's always been a spectrum of opinion about how -- how unfettered the free market is. And along that spectrum, I think there have been some who believe in very fierce regulation and are very suspicious of globalization, and there are others who think that it's always -- that the market is always king. And I think what we've learned here -- but if anybody had been studying history, they would have understood earlier -- is that the market is the most effective mechanism for creating wealth and distributing resources to produce goods and services that history has ever known, but that it goes off the rail sometimes, that if it's completely unregulated, that if -- if there are no thoughtful frameworks to channel the creative energy of -- of the market, that it can end up in a very bad place. And so, in that sense, I think that we just went through a couple of decades where there was an artificial complacency about the dangers of -- of markets going off the rails. And -- and to the crisis -- a crisis like this reminds us that we just have to put in some commonsense rules of the road, without throwing out the enormous benefits that globalization had brought, in terms of improving living standards, reducing the cost of goods, and bringing the world closer together. All right. I've got time for just a couple more questions. I'm going to find a journalist here. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) 184 (CROSSTALK) OBAMA: All right. Here, I'm going to call on this gentleman right here. He's -- he's been very persistent. QUESTION: Ray Chi Gou (ph) of China Central Television. It seems the world leaders have been talking about increasing the voice and voting rights of developing countries. I would like to ask two questions instead of just one. First one, on behalf of China... OBAMA: I may choose which one I want to answer. (LAUGHTER) QUESTION: Oh, of course. OBAMA: That's always the danger of asking two questions. QUESTION: First one, you've had a very fruitful meeting with our president. And during the Clinton administration, U.S.-China relationship was characterized, in Clinton's words, "strategic, constructive partnership." During the Bush era it was -- the catchphrase, quote, unquote, "stakeholder." The Bush administration expects China to -- to become a responsible stakeholder in international affairs. Have you come up with a catchphrase of your own? And, certainly, it is not the G-2, is it? And my second question is, on behalf of the world, politics is very local, even though we've been talking about global solution, as indicated by your recent preference over American journalists and British, which is OK. How can you make sure that you will do whatever you can so that that local politics will not trump or negatively affect good international economics? Thank you, Mr. President. OBAMA: Well, those -- those are excellent questions. On -- on the first question, your American counterparts will tell you I'm terrible with those little catchphrases and sound bites. So I haven't come up with anything catchy yet, but if you have any suggestions, let me know. (LAUGHTER) I'll be happy to use them. In terms of local politics, look, I'm the president of the United States. I'm not the president of China; I'm not the president of Japan; I'm not the president of the other participants here. OBAMA: And so I have a direct responsibility to my constituents to make their lives better. That's -- that's why they put me in there. That accounts for some of the questions here about how concretely does me being here help them find a job, pay for their home, send their kids to college, live what we call the American dream. And I will be judged by my effectiveness in meeting their needs and concerns. But in an era of integration and interdependence, it is also my responsibility to -- to lead America into recognizing that its interests, its fate is tied up with the larger world, that if we neglect or abandoned those who are suffering in poverty, that not only are we depriving ourselves of potential opportunities for markets and economic growth, but ultimately that despair may turn to violence that turns on us, that unless we are concerned about the education of all children, and not just our children, not only may we be depriving 185 ourselves of the next great scientist who's going to find the next new energy source that saves the planet, but we also may make people around the world much more vulnerable to anti-American propaganda. So -- so if I'm effective as -- as America's president right now, part of that effectiveness involves holding a -providing Americans insight into how their self-interest is tied up with yours. And -- and that's an ongoing project, because it's not always obvious. And there are going to be times where short-term interests are going to differ; there's no doubt about it. And protectionism is the classic example. You can make arguments that if you can get away with protecting your markets as long as the other folks don't protect theirs, then, in the short term, you may benefit. And, you know, it then becomes important not only for me to try to give people a sense of why over the long term that's counterproductive, but also it becomes important for me to put policies in place in the United States that provide a cushion, provide support for those people who may suffer local dislocations because of globalization. And that's something that I think every government has to think about. There are individuals who will be harmed by a trade deal. There are businesses who will go out of business because of free trade. And to the extent that a government is not there to help them reshape their company or retrain for the new jobs that are -- that are being created, over time you're going to get people who see -- who rightly see their personal self-interest in very narrow terms. OK, two more questions. Jonathan Weisman? QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. During the campaign, you often spoke of a diminished power and authority of the United States over the last decade. This is your first time in an international summit like this and I'm wondering what evidence you saw of what you spoke of during the campaign. And specifically, is the declaration of the end of the Washington Consensus evidence of the diminished authority that you feared was out there? OBAMA: Well, first of all, during the campaign, I did not say that some of that loss of authority was inevitable. I said it was traced to very specific decisions that the previous administration had made that I believed had lowered our standing in the world. And that wasn't simply my opinion; that was, it turns out, the opinion of many people around the world. I would like to think that, with my election and the early decisions that we've made, that you're starting to see some restoration of America's standing in the world. And although, as you know, I always mistrust polls, international polls seem to indicate that you're seeing people more hopeful about America's leadership. OBAMA: Now, we remain the largest economy in the world by a pretty significant margin. We remain the most powerful military on Earth. Our production of culture, our politics, our media still have -- I didn't mean to say that with such scorn, guys. (LAUGHTER) You know, I'm teasing. Still have enormous influence. And so I do not buy into the notion that -- that America can't lead in the world. I wouldn't be here if I didn't think that we had important things to contribute. I just think in a world that is as complex as it is, that it is very important for us to be able to forge partnerships as opposed to simply dictating solutions. You know, just a -- just to try crystallize the example, there's been a lot of comparison here about Bretton Woods. Oh, well, you know, last time you saw the entire international architecture being remade. Well, if it's just Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy, you know, that's a -- that's an easier negotiation. 186 (LAUGHTER) But that's not the world we live in. And it shouldn't be the world that we live in. And so, you know, that's not a loss for America. It's -- it's an appreciation that, you know, Europe is now rebuilt and a powerhouse. Japan is rebuilt, is a powerhouse. China, India, these are all countries on the move. And that's good. That means there are millions of people, billions of people who are working their way out of poverty. And over time, that potentially makes this a much more peaceful world, and that's the kind of leadership we need to show. One that helps guide that process of orderly integration without taking our eyes off the fact that it's only as good as the benefits of individual families, individual children. Is it giving them more opportunity? Is it giving them a better life? If we judge ourselves by those standards, then I think America can continue to show leadership for a very long time. I'm going to call one foreigner -- actually, I'm the foreigner. That's why I smiled. One correspondent not from America, and then I will... (AUDIENCE): India. You know, we're not doing bidding here. (LAUGHTER) Come on. But I also want it make sure that I'm not showing gender bias. So this young lady right here. Not you, sir. I'm sorry. (LAUGHTER) QUESTION: Hi, Mr. President. OBAMA: How are you? QUESTION: Thank you for choosing me. I'm very well. I'm (inaudible) from the Times of India. OBAMA: Wonderful. QUESTION: You met with our Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. What did you -- what are you -- what is America doing to help India battle terrorism emanating from Pakistan? OBAMA: Well, first of all, your prime minister is a wonderful man. QUESTION: Thank you. I agree. (LAUGHTER) I agree. OBAMA: You know, did you have something to do with that? (LAUGHTER) You seem to kind of take credit for it a little bit there. (LAUGHTER) QUESTION: We're really proud of him, so... OBAMA: Of course. You should be proud of him. I'm teasing you. I think he's a very wise and decent man and has done a wonderful job in guiding India, even prior to being prime minister, along a path of extraordinary 187 economic growth that is a marvel, I think, for all the world. We did discuss the issue of terrorism. And we discussed it not simply in terms of terrorism emanating from Pakistan, although, obviously, we are very concerned about extremists and terrorists who have made camp in the boarder regions of Pakistan as well as in Afghanistan. But we spoke about it more broadly in terms of how we can coordinate effectively on issues of counterterrorism. We also spoke about the fact that in a nuclear age, at a time when perhaps the greatest enemy of both India and Pakistan should be poverty, that it may make sense to create a more effective dialogue between India and Pakistan. But, obviously, we didn't go in depth into those issues. We talked about a whole range of other issues related to, for example, energy and how important it is for the United States to lead by example in reducing our carbon footprint so that we can help to forge agreements with countries like China and India, that on a per capita basis have a much smaller footprint and so justifiably chafe at the idea that they should have to sacrifice their development for -- for our efforts to control climate change, but also acknowledging that if China and India, with their populations, had the same energy usage as the average American, then we would have all melted by now. And so that was a very interesting conversation that I will be pursuing not just with India, but hopefully with China and with other countries around the world. In some ways, our -- our European counterparts have moved more quickly than we have on this issue, but I think even the Europeans have recognized that it's not easy. It's even harder during times of economic downturn. And so we're going to have to combine the low-hanging fruit of energy efficiency with rapid technological advances. And to the extent that in some cases we can get international cooperation and pool our scientific and technical knowledge around things like developing coal sequestration, for example, that can be extremely helpful. OK, I'm going to call on my last -- last American correspondent. Chip? And, Chip, my heart goes out to you. QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I appreciate that. OBAMA: I just heard about that. QUESTION: Certainly, there is a lot of sentiment in G-20 countries that the United States was a major cause of the global economic meltdown. To what degree did that topic come up in your discussions? Did it make it difficult for some countries to accept advice from the United States when they blame the United States and its economic system for causing this in the first place? And how do you respond to people who do blame America? OBAMA: Well, you know, I don't think that -- I think my colleagues in the G-20 were extraordinarily gracious about my participation. I think that they continue to express the desire to work with America, admiration about many things American. There were occasional comments, usually wedged into some other topic, that indicated from their perspective that this started in America, or this started on Wall Street, or this started with particular banks or companies. You know, perhaps what helped was my willingness to acknowledge that -- and it's hard to deny that some of this contagion did start on Wall Street. 188 And as I've said back home, as I've said in public, and as I would say in private, we had a number of firms that took wild and unjustified risks. We had regulators that were asleep at the switch. And it has taken an enormous toll on the U.S. economy and has spread to the world economy. Now, I think that part of the reason people didn't give me too hard a time is because, if you look at European banks or Asian banks, that they've had their own issues, both in the past and in the future. And I think there was a very constructive discussion about the fact that, given global financial flows, that unless we've got much more effective coordinated regulatory strategies, supervision, standards, that these problems will appear again. OBAMA: You know, money is -- you know, can move around the globe in a second. And it will seek out the highest returns. And if those highest returns end up being built on a house of cards, then we're going to be seeing another threat to the world financial system, wherever that house of cards might be. And so, overall, I think there was an extraordinarily constructive approach among all the leaders. I was very impressed with them; I'm very grateful to them. And -- and I'm excited about the ability not just to help heal this economy, but also to make progress on a sustainable model of economic growth that relies less on a cycle of -- of bubble and bust, something that I've spoken about back home. All right? Thank you, everybody. Appreciate it. Source: www.washingtonpost.com 189 Appendix 190 Document Workshop Protocol 1. Model the process with short, relevant document (change format across unit… photos, artifacts, letters, etc.) Complete NARA analysis forms together. 2. Divide class into groups to rotate through each document or to focus on a single document. 3. 1st interaction with document is individual/personal. After reading, viewing, listening, or holding document develop and post a question that you would like to ask the originator of that source. 4. Send students to documents in groups to extract the strongest two-three questions for further study. (Two-three questions carry over to document analysis form and all posted on board) 5. Students will complete document analysis form in groups OR individually. a. Leave time for like groups to share analysis ideas 6. Mixed groups form to develop answers to original 2-3 questions for the documents. 7. Teacher facilitates question and answer session to identify possible answers to original two-three questions. 8. Class identifies lingering questions to guide future study 191 Unit Assessment Ideas Project Ideas Research and report on the “list” that McCarthy said he had in his hand when he delivered his speech. What was he actually holding? Where did McCarthy get the names on his “list”? Research and report on how the lives of at least five actual people were affected by McCarthy-era accusations that they supported Communism or associated with Communists. Include at least one person from the film community, one member of the military, and one government employee. Compare the Truman Doctrine and the Eisenhower Doctrine with other U.S. foreign policy “doctrines” – the Monroe Doctrine, the Roosevelt Corollary, the Stimson Doctrine, etc. Have students read Albert Einstein’s Letter to President Roosevelt. This letter informs Roosevelt of the possibility of nuclear bombs. Acting as Einstein, have students rewrite the letter emphasizing important viewpoints that support their personal opinions about the bomb. Have students create rules for running both East and West Berlin that would mirror the governments of the cities. Have students create and design a memorial for the Korean or Vietnam War. Research the history of espionage in the United States. What was the last act of espionage committed against the United States? Have students create “diary” entries that Truman, Stalin, Castro, etc. might have made. Have students create a short documentary about the “red scare” or McCarthyism. Research and report on Tse-tung’s years as a leader in comparison with that of Saddam Hussein or another oppressive leader in world history. Research and report on the espionage trial of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. Research the development of comic book heroes such as The Incredible Hulk or Spiderman. Research their connection with the 1950s and the Cold War. Research the various nuclear weapons treaties signed during the Cold War and their implications. Research the long-term affects of the Cold War. How did the Cold War change the United States and the world? 192 The GRASPS Approach Goal: What is the purpose, challenge, or problem (to persuade, to inform, to entertain, to sell)? Role: What real-world role will the student assume (editorial writer, museum director, artist, business owner)? Audience: For whom is the student working (newspaper reader, museum visitor, viewer, client/customer)? Situation: What is the situation or context (a controversial community issue that must be resolved)? Product/Performance: What will students make or do to accomplish the goal (a letter to the editor, display, mural, business proposal)? Standards: How will the product or performance be judged as successful? 193 Assessment Ideas Using the GRASPS Approach Goal Inform Role Editorial Writer Audience Newspaper Readers Situation Write a newspaper article informing reader about the tough decision JFK made with the Cuban Missile Crisis. Include all possibly decisions and possible results, along with the decision he made and the result it had. Product Newspaper Article Standards Rubric Goal Sell Role Business Owner Audience The American Home Owner Situation The importance of building a fallout shelter for your family’s protection. 1. Product Standards 2. 3. Advertisements to inform your target consumers about your service and the importance it has for their family. Catalog of what is offered at the store including supplies, building manual, etc. Website for your business. Rubric for each product above. 194 Document-Based Questions Document: Testimony of Ring Lardner Jr., before the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC), October 27, 1947 Richard Stripling (HUAC counsel): Mr. Lardner, the charge has been made before this committee that the Screen Writers Guild which, according to the record, you are a member of, whether you admit it or not, has a number of individuals in it who are members of the Communist Party. This committee is seeking to determine the extent of Communist infiltration in the Screen Writers Guild and in other guilds within the motion-picture industry. Lardner: Yes Stripling: And certainly the question of whether or not you are a member of the Communist Party is very pertinent. Now, are you a member or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party? Lardner: It seems to me you are trying to discredit the Screen Writers Guild through me and the motion-picture industry through the Screen Writers Guild and our whole practice of freedom of expression. Stripling: If you and others are members of the Communist Party you are the ones who are discrediting the Screen Writers Guild. Lardner: I am not trying to answer the question by stating first what I feel about the purpose of the question which, as I say, is to discredit the whole motion picture industry. Chairman (J. Parnell Thomas): You won’t say anything first. You are refusing to answer this question… Lardner: I could answer exactly the way you want, Mr. Chairman…. Chairman: It is not a question of our wanting you to answer that. It is a very simple question. Anybody would be proud to answer it- any real American would be proud to answer the question, “Are you or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party” – any real American. Lardner: It depends on the circumstances. I could answer it, but if I did I would hate myself in the morning. Chairman: Leave the witness chair. Lardner: It was a question that wouldChairman: Leave the witness chair. Lardner: Because it is a questionChairman: (pounding gavel) Leave the witness chair. Lardner: I think I am leaving by force. Chairman: Sergeant, take the witness away. -Adapted from: Document Based Assessment (Prentice Hall) 1. What question did HUAC members want Ring Lardner Jr., to answer? 2. What is Lardner’s attitude toward the HUAC? 3. Why might the HUAC have been concerned that some members of the Screen Actors Guild were communists? 4. What would you have done if you had been in Lardner’s situation? 195 Document: Albert Einstein’s Letter to President Roosevelt 196 1. In what ways is this letter from Albert Einstein convincing? 2. Do you believe his name is important and will convince President Roosevelt to begin the Manhattan Project (the building of nuclear weapons)? 3. If Einstein had left out the last paragraph of the letter, would the situation have seemed less urgent? Why or why not? 4. What would you have done as a result of this letter if you were Roosevelt? 5. Einstein later said, “I made one great mistake in my life, when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made, but there was some justification- the danger that the Germans would make them.” Do you believe Einstein made a mistake? Why or why not? 197 Document: Statement of President Harry S. Truman, June 27, 1950 In Korea, the Government forces, which were armed to prevent border raids and to preserve internal security, were attacked by invading forces from North Korea. The Security Council of the United Nations called upon the invading troops to cease hostilities and to withdraw to the 38th Parallel. This they have not done, but on the contrary, have pressed the attack. The Security Council called upon all members of the United Nations to render every assistance to the United Nations in the execution of this resolution. In these circumstances, I have ordered United States air and sea forces to give the Korean Government troops cover and support. The attack upon Korea makes it plain beyond all doubt that communism has passed beyond the use of subversion to conquer independent nations and will now use armed invasion and war…. In these circumstances, the occupation of Formosa (Taiwan) by Communist forces would be a direct threat to the security of the Pacific area and to United States forces performing their lawful and necessary functions in that area. Accordingly, I have ordered the Seventh Fleet to prevent any attack on Formosa… I have also directed that United States forces in the Philippines be strengthened and that military assistance to the Philippine Government be accelerated. -Adapted from: Document-Based Assessment (Prentice Hall) 1. How did President Truman try to help the government of South Korea? 2. How did President Truman see the invasion of South Korea as important turning points in communist efforts to spread communism around the world? 3. What other steps did President Truman announce in this statement, and why did he decide to take these steps? 4. Would you have made this statement if you were Truman? Why or why not? 198 Document: Letter to the editor of the New York Times, from Lewis Mumford, a prominent historian, sociologist, and philosopher, March 28, 1954. The power of the hydrogen, bomb has, it is plain, given pause even to the leaders of our government. Their very hesitation to give away the facts in itself gives away the facts. Under what mandate, then, do they continue to hold as secret the results we may expect from the use of weapons of extermination- not merely on our own cities and people but on all living organisms; not merely on our present lives but on the lives of countless generations to come?.... There are many alternative courses to the policy to which we have committed ourselves, practically without debate. The worst of all these alternatives, submission to Communist totalitarianism, would still be far wiser than the final destruction of civilization. As for the best of these alternatives, a policy of working firmly toward justice and co-operation, and free [association] with all other peoples, in the faith that love begets love as surely as hatred begets hatred- this would, in all probability, be the one instrument capable of piercing the strong political armor of our present enemies. Once the facts of our policy of total extermination are publicly canvassed, and the final outcome, mass suicide, is faced, I believe that the American people are still sane enough to come to a wiser decision than our government has yet made. They will realize that retaliation is not protection; that total extermination of both sides is not victory; that a constant state of morbid fear, suspicion, and hatred is not security; that, in short, what seems like unlimited power has become impotence [powerlessness]. -Adapted from: Document-Based Assessment (Prentice Hall) 1. To what policy of the U.S. government did Lewis Mumford object? 2. What alternative policy did Mumford suggest the U.S. government pursue? 3. What was a critical assumption that Mumford made about the U.S. policy in place when he wrote this letter? 199 Document: Excerpt from Robert S. McNamara, In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam, 1995 As we learned in Vietnam, military force has only a limited capacity to facilitate the process of nation building. Military force, by itself, cannot build a “failed state.”…. At times U.S. military intervention will be justified not on humanitarian or peacekeeping grounds but on the basis of national security. Clearly, if a direct threat to this nation emerges, we should and will act unilaterally- after appropriate consultation with Congress and the American people. If the threat is less direct but still potentially serious… how should we respond? I strongly urge that we act only in a multilateral decision-making and burden-sharing context- another lesson of Vietnam. The wars we fight in the post-Cold War world are likely more often than not to be “limited wars,” like Vietnam…. Certainly Vietnam taught us how immensely difficult it is to fight limited wars leading to U.S. casualties over long periods of time. But circumstances will arise where limited war is far preferable to unlimited war. Before engaging in such conflicts, the American people must understand the difficulties we will face; the American military must know and accept the constraints under which they will operate; and our leaders- and our people- must be prepared to cut our losses and withdraw if it appears our limited objectives cannot be achieved at acceptable risks or costs… Finally, we must recognize that the consequences of large-scale military operationsparticularly in this age of highly sophisticated and destructive weapons- are inherently difficult to predict and to control. Therefore, they must be avoided, excepting only when our nation’s security is clearly and directly threatened. These are the lessons of Vietnam. Pray God we learn them. -Adapted from: History Alive! Pursuing American Ideals 1. In this excerpt, former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara describes four lessons to be learned from the Vietnam War. Briefly summarize each of these lessons. 2. Chose one of these four lessons. Tell whether you agree or disagree with McNamara’s view. Support your opinion with evidence from your study of the Vietnam War. 3. Do you think McNamara’s lessons are relevant to today? Why or why not? 200 Additional Resources A History of US *The following chapters from A History of US are related to the Cold War. A History of US: All the People (Book 10) Chapter 4: A Curtain of Iron Chapter 5: The Marshall Plan Chapter 7: Spies Chapter 8: Tail Gunner Joe Chapter 11: French Indochina Chapter 18: Being President Isn’t Easy Chapter 24: Salt and Pepper the Kids Chapter 27: War in Southeast Asia Chapter 28: Lyndon in Trouble Chapter 36: Nixon: Vietnam, China, and Watergate Chapter 38: Taking a Leading Role Chapter 40: The End of the Cold War Chapter 41: A Quilt Not a Blanket Choices Program *The following components of the Choices program are related to the Cold War. The Limits of Power: The United States in Vietnam The Challenge of Nuclear Weapons The Origins of the Cold War: U.S. Choices After World War II The Cuban Missile Crisis: Considering Its Place in Cold War History The Americans *The following sections from The Americans are related to the Cold War. Chapter 26: Cold War Conflicts (pg. 764-793) Chapter 28: The New Frontier and the Great Society (pg. 832-841) Chapter 30: The Vietnam War Years (pg. 882-917) Chapter 32: An Age of Limits (pg. 951-952, 964-967) Chapter 33: The Conservative Tide (pg. 996-1003) World History: The Human Journey *The following sections from World History: A Human Journey are related to the Cold War. Chapter 31: Europe and North America in the Postwar Years (pg. 818-842) Chapter 32: Asia Since 1945 (pg. 844-874) Chapter 35: Superpowers in the Modern Era (pg. 938-970) 201 Websites: DMPS History www.dmpshistory.wikispaces.com (All links and more can be found at this site.) Vietnam www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/vietnam/index.html The Corner http://www.thecorner.org/home.htm Global Security www.globalsecurity.org Cold War Museum www.coldwar.org Diary of a Naval Officer (Cold War Years 1955-1964) http://www.usssoley.org/ Truman Library www.trumanlibrary.org Cold War International History Project http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=topics.home&topic_id=1409 Muhammad Ali- Against the Vietnam War http://www.aavw.org/protest/homepage_ali.html Teaching with Documents- Telegram from Senator McCarthy to President Truman http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/mccarthy-telegram/ Teaching with Documents- The United States Enters the Korean Conflict http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/korean-conflict/ Teaching with Documents- Photographs and Pamphlets about Nuclear Fallout http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/fallout-docs/ Teaching with Documents- Memo of a Conference with President Eisenhower about Sputnik http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/sputnik-memo/ Teaching with Documents- The War in Vietnam: A Story in Photographs http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/vietnam-photos/ Martin Luther King Jr.'s "Beyond Vietnam" Speech http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkatimetobreaksilence.htm Ronald Reagan's "Evil Empire" Speech http://www.milestonedocuments.com/document_detail.php?id=81&more=fulltext The Fog of War http://www.sonyclassics.com/fogofwar/_media/pdf/lessonPlanFOG.pdf 202 Video/Audio Resources: Make Mine Freedom- Created in 1948, this cartoon colorfully spells out some of the dangers that would face the United States if it became Communist. It also touts the virtues of the capitalist economic system of the United States. www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5eqNai4zhQ Duck and Cover- Actual video shown to school-age children to show them what to do in case of a nuclear attack. www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0K_LZDXp01 He May Be a Communist- Video clip that taught citizens "how to spot a communist." www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWeZ5SKXvj8&feature=related Are you a Commie, or a citizen?- Outlines how communist forces may hurt the American way of life, and how to prevent them. www.youtube.com/watch?v=w86QhV7whjs&feature=related The Millionaire (Soviet cartoon, 1963)- Soviet critique of American capitalistic system. www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3ezma9cLEs&feature=related John F. Kennedy (Speech: I am a Berliner) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hH6nQhss4Yc John F. Kennedy (Speech: Address to the Nation about the Cuban Missile Crisis) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W50RNAbmy3M HUAC Hearing, 1947 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoGDMR9Ui7E&feature=related Katherine Hepburn's Speech Against HUAC http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqEjFusgUh0&feature=related Julius and Ethel Rosenberg Trial http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pt2J2HHZIkk&feature=related 1950s Civil Defense Drill- U.S. Under Attack http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V47Qs9Eyus Muhammad Ali- Against the Vietnam War http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANciqN3lydI HUAC Hearings- Dr. Welch (Have you no decency sir) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Po5GlFba5Yg 203
