Who Was Responsible For the Cold War?

http://blog.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Cold-War-Flags.jpg

From the beginning of this unit on the Cold War a question has been in my head. Who was responsible for the so-called war? Since the war was between only two countries, there are only two options as to who started it. The USA or the USSR. It’s a hotly debated topic and one that has no correct answer. From my point of view it’s all about how you look at it, if you look at it one way you can find evidence to prove that that way is correct and the same goes for if you look at it a different way. However, my personal opinion on the matter is that the cold war was caused by the USSR. I take the traditionalist view, which states that the cold war was started by Stalin’s over aggressive policy towards expansion. After world war two, Stalin took control of the countries he had liberated and turned them into communist states of the USSR. America, understandably, did not like what it was seeing. I believe that America was merely acting out of concern for itself and its allies in Europe. Although allies in WWII, America and the Soviet Union both had very different ways of governing and America did not want communism forced upon them. America also knew how Stalin worked. He was confident but knew that the USSR would not survive an all out war with America. So by flexing its military muscle America was able to warn Stalin that it had no intention of becoming communist or letting its allies suffer a similar fate. I believe that the USA did the right thing by flexing its muscle. Sometimes the best defense is a good offense.

What Does Bin Laden's capture mean for the US.

On May 2nd 2011, the United Sates people were treated to news they had been waiting to hear for a while. Osama bin Laden, the leader of Al-Qeada and the man responsible for the September 11th attacks, had been killed. Shot in the head by a bullet fired from the M4 carbine of a US Navy SEAL, the terrorist crumpled to the floor. The news of his death was met with protests and cheering. The US was ecstatic and rightfully so. However, I couldn't help but wonder what this meant for the United States in the long run. Sure the man who approved the 9/11 attacks was dead but after some research I found out that the man who gave birth to the idea was not. Ayman al-Zawahiri, the creator of the attacks that killed so many people is still at large and free to conjure up more plots to kill Americans. To me al-Qeada is like a starfish in the sense that it can regenerate limbs. One might be able to wound this creature or organization but it can prove to be very difficult to kill. The only quick way to kill a starfish is to hit it right through the center. Was Osama bin-Laden the center? Only history will tell but I have a feeling that he is not. Along with al-Zawahiri, there are many other “qualified” people in al-Qeada who would be more than willing to take the place of bin-Laden. What worries me is that America does not understand this. We are a nation with a very short attention span. We can’t afford to let al-Qeada regroup, we must continue to hit them until we make sure that there is no chance of them being able to recover.

Communist China

When we discuss the reign of Chairman Mao in class, every time I find myself asking, was Mao Zedong a strong leader. There really is no simple answer to this question as Mr. Zedong has some pros going for him, but also has some serious cons. I guess we should start with the pros. Mao Zedong was responsible for the first five year plan in China (1953-58) , which is credited with getting the country off its feet and to an economically stable point. The first five year plan was so successful that China was able to take itself off the Soviet lifeline and support itself. Mao also upheld the traditional communist ideals that women are equal to men and should be treated as such. This lead to an increase in the population of women in the workplace. Unfortunately for Mao, the good things end there. After the success of the first five year plan, Mao was inspired to start the second one, more commonly known as the Great Leap Forward. It was this so called "Great leap" that was responsible for the deaths of millions. Mao was forcing people to meet impossible deadlines, in regards to agriculture production, so when it came time to collect the harvest, the peasants had to give it all away and had none for themselves. Mao is also responsible for the notorious re education through labour and his purging of his political enemies. This purging culminated during Mao's Cultural Revolution where millions more lost their lives. In my opinion, if a leader kills this many of his own people, no matter what he does to strengthen his country, he simply cannot be considered good.

Gandhi, a Success or Failure?

http://www.norcalblogs.com/post_scripts/gandhi.jpg

Mohandas Gandhi, the leader of the Indian independence and the founder of Satyagraha was, undoubtably, a great and virtuous man. He advocated constantly for the use of non violence instead of fighting and was responsible for many peaceful protests that might have otherwise been laden with violence. But when I think of Gandhi, one question really gets stuck in my mind. Although a great man and source of inspiration for many others, was Gandhi, as a leader and to himself, a failure? The question of whether he was a failure to himself has a very simple and short answer, yes. After the tragedy of Partition, where all his values were completely ignored, in my mind it would be impossible to continue to se yourself as a success. This is especially true for a man like Gandhi, who valued truth so much. He would never lie to himself or ignore the facts to create a false truth. With that part of the question answered, its time to address the more complicated of the two. Was Gandhi a failure as a leader. My personal outlook on this question is yes. Gandhi's values and rules, if you will, as a leader were no violence, at all. However, throughout the course of the Indian independence movement, these proved to be very far fetched and somewhat ineffective. After WWII, England was leaving India, no questions asked. That takes away the common misconception that Gandhi was responsible for the independence of India. After the British were out, Gandhi had one major goal, to get the new nation of India on its feet and walking. Well unfortunately for millions of Indians, something very grave was about to happen. As mentioned before, the tragedy of partition was about to take place. In this tragedy 500,000 people would lose their lives with another 1,000,000 displaced. It was Gandhi's duty as a leader to prevent this tragedy from happening. Seeing as he didn't prevent these thousand upon thousands of deaths, he failed. How could someone be considered a strong leader when they can;t protect their people from slaughter. In my humble and completely unqualified opinion, one cannot.

How Will the Egyptian Revolution End?

http://www.jboitnott.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/egypt.jpg

The Middle East is at the moment, in a state of utter political chaos. The populations of many countries are fed up with the ways of their current "presidents" and the poor conditions and poverty that they have been dealing with for many years. What the revolutionaries are doing is certainly amiable but I can't help but wonder if it’s well thought out. Take Egypt as an example. To me it seems that the Egyptian people are riding the wave of Revolution, which can be a dangerous thing. The Egyptians seem to be inspired by the Revolution of Tunisia, its been reported that some protesters are marching with the flag of Tunisia as a symbol of their inspiration. This worries me. Much like the Tunisians, the Egyptians want their current president, Hosni Mubarak, out of office and are calling for his immediate resignation. Just like the Tunisians, the Egyptians have no real plan for what to do if he is ousted. In these revolutions there is no Toussaint L'ouverture, no Washington, and no clear leader who, once all is said and done, could organize the thousands of revolutionaries. Although they are all united now under one cause, the revolutionaries will ultimately have their differences and if there is no one to maintain order civil war could erupt, putting these countries in a worse off place than they were before the revolution started. Take Iraq for example. Millions of people are oppressed by the cruel reign Saddam Hussein. However, they catch a lucky break when America invades in 2003 and removes Hussein from power, freeing the Iraqis from dictatorship and putting the power in the hands of the people. What do the people do with this newfound freedom? If you guessed start a civil war based on slight religious differences then you are correct! The main point that I’m trying to address here is that these revolutions need to get organized if they want to succeed. You can’t have a successful revolution if you live in the present, you need to plan for the future.

Quality of Life During the Industrial Revolution.

The industrial revolution was a time of change for England and for the workplace. It introduced the concepts of large scale factories and mass production. Furthermore, the industrial revolution had a dramatic effect on cities and major towns. As workers flocked to them, the cities grew on an unprecedented scale. But as populations grew, the quality of life for most people in the cities started to change. At first it decreased but after a few decades it began to increase and eventually surpassed the old levels. This brings me to the question that I have in this blog post, was the industrial revolution a time of growth in terms of quality of life, or a stain on the way humans lived? The answer, in my opinion, is both. Like I stated before, the Industrial revolution initially brought on poverty and filth but later gave us the foundation for the standard of civilized living we have today. A prime example of this is housing in London during the revolution. In the beginning of the revolution many workers lived in crowded apartments with no regard for sanitation or health. People relieved themselves in outhouses that overflowed and spilled raw sewage into houses. However, this did not last. The industrial revolution can also be credited with providing London with a sewage system and aqueducts to give the population clean water. Another example of the Industrial Revolution going both ways is the topic of child labor in mines and factories. The revolution, while credited with employing children for long hours in deplorable conditions, is also credited with stopping this practice. Sometimes humanity needs to make mistakes and learn from them and in terms of quality of life, thats just what happened during the revolution.

During the late eighteenth century, the French colony of Saint-Domingue was going through a dramatic transformation. It was in full revolution, with the slaves rebelling against their cruel and unjust masters. A slave army lead by Toussaint Louverture swept the colony and secured victory over the white minority that had for so long kept them oppressed. Ultimately, Toussaint was outsmarted by Napoleon but not before he paved the way for Haiti gaining its independence. Through out this unit one question has plagued me, whether Toussaint was in fact a strong leader or merely a weak instrument of that the Haitian people used to achieve independence. Despite how I voted today in class, I feel that Toussaint was both. The challenge that he had was immense, to take an untrained army, put it against one of the most professional armies in the world and succeed. For the most part, Toussaint succeeded. He is credited with putting Haiti in a position to gain its independence form France. He used many clever tactics to secure his victory. Originally allied with the Spanish against France he abruptly switched sides and expelled the Spanish from Haiti, thereby forming a sort of truce between the French and Haitians. Once all was set and done France was in control of Haiti once more and Toussaint was its leader. It was here that Toussaint started making some flawed decisions. He appointed himself emperor for life and lost the respect and trust of his people. Then when Napoleon’s troops invaded, his people were not willing to back him and fight under him once more. It was due to this that Toussaint was ultimately had to surrender to Napoleon. So, although he may have started off strong, when he was truly put to the test, ultimately he failed.