Title of Performance Task or Task Question
Author: Shaina McQueen
Course/Level: US History
Materials: List any materials. Provide citations for documents and other materials
as appropriate.
HCPSS Curriculum Connections
This activity would be completed during Unit 4: Transformation of Modern America,
1950s to Present. This lesson would take place during an examination of President
Eisenhower’s foreign policy style or as an examination into the factors that contributed to
an antagonistic relationship between the United States and the USSR that fueled the Cold
War.
Learning Outcome(s): Identify the various phases in the dynamic relationship between
the United States and the Soviet Union from the end of the Korean War to the breakup of
the USSR.
Task Question:
The U-2 Incident: What really happened on May 1st, 1960?
Historical Thinking Skills Assessed:
Corroboration
Background for the Teacher
By May of 1960, the United States and Soviet Union had been engaged in the indirect
conflict known as the Cold War for thirteen years. Over the course of those thirteen
years, the tensions between the two superpowers had escalated through events such as the
Berlin Blockade and the Korean War. But in 1960, a relaxation of tensions seemed
plausible as the two nations prepared to meet in Paris for the Four-Power Conference set
to begin on May 16, 1960. At the time, President Eisenhower was hopeful that a
successful conference may pave the way for a personal visit to the Soviet Union and a
view behind the Iron Curtain.1 However, the hope for reduced tensions and improved
relations was dashed before the summit could even begin due to what is now known as
the U-2 Incident.
On May 1, 1960, a US spy plane known as a U-2 plane was shot down while flying a
covert reconnaissance mission over Soviet territory. When the plane did not return to
base as scheduled, US officials reacted by issuing a statements in which they claimed that
a weather research plane had gone missing while flying over Turkey. These statements
were soon revealed as blatant fabrications by the Soviets, who had recovered the downed
plan as well as the pilot, Francis Gary Powers. On the opening day of the conference,
Nikita Kruschev insisted that the United States apologize for the incident and publicly
admit to conducting clandestine operations. President Eisenhower refused any such
Dino Brigioni, Eyes in the Sky: Eisenhower, the CIA, and Aerial Espionage (Annapolis:
Naval Institute Press, 2010), 353.
1
apology, and the Four-Powers Summit Conference was effectively over before it could
even begin.2 The U-2 Incident, therefore, is an important milestone in the evolving
relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union and demonstrates the
important way in which a single event can shape history.
Context Setting -- The Hook
 Teacher should project an image of Nikita Khrushchev and President
Eisenhower during Khrushchev’s visit to the United States in 1959 (images
are available through the National Archives, The Washington Post, and USA
News online)
 Teacher will lead students through a visual discovery activity using guiding
questions. The following questions may be used as a guideline:
o Who do you see in the image?
o Where was the image taken?
o When was the image taken?
o What do you think the people in the image are doing?
 Teacher will explain the following to the students: In 1959, Soviet Premier
Nikita Khrushchev visited the United States. During this visit, the premier and
President Eisenhower pledged to meet and discuss ways in which the two
superpowers could reduce tensions and even planned for Eisenhower to visit
the USSR. But an event that occurred on May 1st, 1960, would ruin hopes for an
easing of tensions between the two nations and Eisenhower would never visit
the USSR.
 Have students predict what may have happened to damage the growing
relationship between Eisenhower and Khrushchev.
Document Analysis
 Explain to students that they will be analyzing two conflicting accounts of the
same event. It will be their job to decide what actually happened on May 1st,
1960, based on their reading of the two documents.
 Have students read Documents A and B and answer the Guided Questions.
This may be done in pairs or small groups.
 Lead a discussion of the documents and student answers to the questions,
clarifying information as necessary.
Corroborating Evidence and Constructing Interpretations -- Close Analysis
 Have students complete questions #1-3 on The U-2 Incident: What really
happened on May 1st, 1960? handout
 Ask students whose version of the story they think is the “true” story. Have
students who think the US is telling the truth stand on the right side of the
room and those who think the USSR is telling the truth stand on the left side
of the room.
 Teacher should serve as a moderator as students from each side of the room
take turns explaining their position and reasoning.
2
Ibid, 346-354.

Have students return to their desks to complete the rest of the activity.
Thoughtful Application
 Have students complete question #4 on The U-2 Incident: What really
happened on May 1st, 1960? handout. In this question students are asked to
create a textbook entry for the U-2 Incident. Their entry should be based on
corroboration of the evidence presented in both documents. Textbook
entries should be scored using the corroboration portion of the Historical
Thinking Skills Rubric developed by the HCPSS Secondary Social Studies
Office.
 Extension: For homework students are to read their textbook’s account of
the incident and compare it to their own.
Document A: United States Note to the U.S.S.R., May 6, 1960.
(Dept. of State Bulletin, May 23, 1960, p 818.)
The Embassy of the United States of America by instruction of its Government has
the honor to state the following:
The United States Government has noted the statement of the Chairman of the
Council of Ministers of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, N. S. Khrushchev, in
his speech before the Supreme Soviet on May 5 that a foreign aircraft crossed the
border of the Soviet Union on May 1 and that on orders of the Soviet Government,
this aircraft was shot down. In this same statement it was said that investigation
showed that it was a United States plane.
As already announced on May 3, a United States National Aeronautical Space Agency
unarmed weather research plane based at Adana, Turkey, and piloted by a civilian
American has been missing since May 1. The name of the American civilian pilot is
Francis Gary Powers, born on August 17, 1929, at Jenkins, Kentucky.
In the light of the above the United States Government requests the Soviet
Government to provide it with full facts of the Soviet investigation of this incident
and to inform it of the fate of the pilot.
Adapted from United States Note to the U.S.S.R., May 6, 1960.
Document B: Soviet Note to the United States, May 10, 1960
The Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics considers it necessary to
state the following to the Government of the United States of America.
On May 1 of this year at 5 hour 36 minutes, Moscow time, a military aircraft violated
the boundary of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics …The Government of the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics naturally could not leave unpunished such a
flagrant violation of Soviet state boundaries. When the intentions of the violating
aircraft became apparent, it was shot down by Soviet rocket troops…
As Chairman of the U.S.S.R. Council of Ministers N. S. Khrushchev made public on
May 7 at the final session of the U.S.S.R. Supreme Soviet, exact data from the
investigation leave no doubts with respect to the purpose of the flight of the
American aircraft which violated the U.S.S.R. border on May 1. This aircraft was
specially equipped for reconnaissance…over the territory of the Soviet Union. It had
on board apparatus for aerial photography for detecting the Soviet radar network
and other special radio-technical equipment…
Pilot Powers, about whose fate the Embassy of the United States of America
inquired in its note of May 6, is alive and, as indicated in the aforementioned speech
of Chairman of the U.S.S.R. Council of Ministers N. S. Khrushchev, will be brought to
account under the laws of the Soviet state. The pilot has indicated that he did
everything in full accordance with the assignment given him…
Adapted from Soviet Note to the United States, May 10, 1960
Guided Questions
Document A: US Note to the USSR
1. Sourcing Why did the US write this note to the USSR?
2. Close Reading According to the US, what happened on May 1st, 1960?
3. Contextualization Why would the Soviet Union shoot down an “unarmed
weather research plane”?
Document B: Soviet Note to the United States
1. Sourcing Why did the USSR write this note to the United States?
2. Close Reading According to the USSR, what were the intentions of the aircraft?
How were they known?
3. Corroboration How does the Soviet Union’s perspective differ from that of the
United States? Whose perspective do you find most convincing? Why?
Name: ________________________________
Date: _______________
The U-2 Incident: What really happened on May 1st, 1960?
1. Record each side’s version of the event in the chart below.
Document A: The US Perspective
Document B: The USSR Perspective
2. Given what you know about the sources of these documents, whose version of the incident do you
think is most trustworthy? Why?
3. Which source would benefit most from lying about what happened? Explain your answer.
4. Create a textbook entry for the U-2 Incident. Your entry must clearly describe the events that
took place on May 1st, 1960, and must include specific details from the documents.
The U-2 Incident
5. HOMEWORK: Read your textbook’s account of the U-2 Incident and compare it to your own.
What are the similarities and differences between your version and the one given in your
textbook? Answer in 2-3 complete sentences and include relevant details to support your answer.
HCPSS Secondary Social Studies Historical Thinking Rubric: Corroboration
Criteria
Corroboration
Constructs interpretation of
events using conflicting
information given about the
same topic in multiple texts.
4
3
Explains similarities and
differences by comparing
information and perspectives of
multiple documents.
Identifies similarities and
differences in information in
multiple texts.
2
1
Demonstrates little to no
attempt to examine documents
for corroborating or conflicting
evidence.