Was the Great Society successful?

Great Society Speech, Lyndon B. Johnson, 1964 (Modified)
I have come today from the turmoil of your Capital to the tranquility (peace) of your campus to speak about the future of your country. . .
The Great Society rests on abundance and liberty for all. It demands an end to poverty and racial injustice, to which we are totally committed in our time. But that is just the beginning. . .
It is harder and harder to live the good life in American cities today. There is not enough housing for our people or transportation for our traffic. . . . Our society will never be great until our cities are great. . .
A second place where we begin to build the Great Society is in our countryside. We have always prided ourselves on being not only America the strong and America the free, but America the beautiful. Today that beauty is in danger. The water we drink, the food we eat, the very air that we breathe, are threatened with pollution. Our parks are overcrowded, our seashores overburdened. Green fields and dense forests are disappearing. . .
A third place to build the Great Society is in the classrooms of America. There your children's lives will be shaped. Our society will not be great until every young mind is set free to scan the farthest reaches of thought and imagination. We are still far from that goal. . . Poverty must not be a bar to learning, and learning must offer an escape from poverty. . .
For better or for worse, your generation has been appointed by history to deal with those problems and to lead America toward a new age. You have the chance never before afforded to any people in any age. You can help build a society where the demands of morality, and the needs of the spirit, can be realized in the life of the Nation.
So, will you join in the battle to give every citizen the full equality which God enjoins and the law requires, whatever his belief, or race, or the color of his skin?
Will you join in the battle to give every citizen an escape from the crushing weight of poverty?
Will you join in the battle to build the Great Society, to prove that our material progress is only the foundation on which we will build a richer life of mind and spirit?
Source: The speech above was delivered by President Johnson as a commencement (graduation) speech at the University of Michigan on May 22, 1964.

Major Great Society Programs
War on Poverty: forty programs that were intended to eliminate poverty by improving living conditions and enabling people to lift themselves out of the cycle of poverty.
Education: sixty separate bills that provided for new and better-equipped classrooms, minority scholarships, and low-interest student loans.
Medicare & Medicaid: guaranteed health care to every American over sixty-five and to low-income families.
The Environment: introduced measures to protect clean air and water.
National Endowment for the Arts and the Humanities: government funding for
artists, writers and performers.
Head Start: program for four- and five-year-old children from low-income families.
Sampling of the laws passed during the Johnson administration to promote the Great Society.

PREVENTION & ABATEMENT OF AIR POLLUTION
(THE CLEAN AIR ACT)
DEC. 17, 1963

VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965 AUG. 6, 1965
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT AUG. 10, 1965
PUBLIC WORKS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACT
AUG. 26, 1965
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT
SEPT. 9, 1965
NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS & THE HUMANITIES ACT
SEPT. 29, 1965
HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965 NOV. 8, 1965
CHILD NUTRITION ACT OF 1966 OCT. 11, 1966
CHILD PROTECTION ACT OF 1966 NOV. 3, 1966
NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH ACT MAY 8, 1968

VOCATIONAL DEC. 18, 1963
CIVIL RIGHTS JULY 2, 1964
URBAN MASS JULY 9, 1964
FEDERAL-AID AUG. 13, 1964

EDUCATION ACT
ACT OF 1964 TRANSPORTATION HIGHWAY ACT OF 1964

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT OF 1964 AUG. 20, 1964
FOOD STAMP ACT OF 1964 AUG. 31, 1964
NATIONAL ARTS CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1964
SEPT. 3, 1964
SOCIAL SECURITY AMENDMENTS JULY 30, 1965

Source: http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/gresoc.htm

 PRO: What Was Really Great About The Great Society (Modified)

By Joseph A. Califano Jr.
The Washington Monthly (online), October 1999
If there is a prize for the political scam of the 20th century, it should go to the conservatives for [claiming that the] Great Society programs of the 1960s were a misguided and failed social experiment that wasted taxpayers' money.
Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, from 1963 when Lyndon Johnson took office until 1970 as the impact of his Great Society programs were felt, the portion of Americans living below the poverty line dropped from 22.2 percent to 12.6 percent, the most dramatic decline over such a brief period in this century. . . If the Great Society had not achieved that dramatic reduction in poverty, and the nation had not maintained it, 24 million more Americans would today be living below the poverty level. . .
Since 1965 the federal government has provided more than a quarter of a trillion dollars in 86 million college loans to 29 million students, and more than $14 billion in work-study awards to 6 million students. Today nearly 60 percent of full- time undergraduate students receive federal financial aid under Great Society programs. . .
Head Start has served more than 16 million preschoolers in just about every city and county in the nation and today serves 800,000 children a year. . . . Lyndon Johnson knew that the rich had kindergartens and nursery schools; and he asked, why not the same benefits for the poor?
Is revolution too strong a word? Since 1965, 79 million Americans have signed up for Medicare. In 1966, 19 million were enrolled; in 1998, 39 million. Since 1966, Medicaid has served more than 200 million needy Americans. In 1967, it served 10 million poor citizens; in 1997, 39 million. . . Closely related to these health programs were efforts to reduce malnutrition and hunger. Today, the Great Society's food stamp program helps feed more than 20 million men, women, and children in more than 8 million households. Since it was launched in 1967, the school breakfast program has provided a daily breakfast to nearly 100 million schoolchildren.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965. . .opened the way for black Americans to strengthen their voice at every level of government. In 1964 there were 79 black elected officials in the South and 300 in the entire nation. By 1998, there were some 9,000 elected black officials across the nation, including 6,000 in the South. . . .
Source: Joseph Califano, Jr., became a special assistant to President Johnson in July 1965, and served as President Johnson's senior domestic policy aide for the remainder of Johnson's term.

Source:
1) Who wrote this?
2) What is his perspective?
3) What do you predict the author will say? 

4) What is the author’s main argument?

5) What are three pieces of evidence that the author uses to support his claims?

CON: War on Poverty Revisited (Modified)
By Thomas Sowell
Capitalism Magazine (online), August 17, 2004
The War on Poverty represented the crowning triumph of the liberal vision of society -- and of government programs as the solution to social problems. . .
In the liberal vision, slums bred crime. But brand-new government housing projects almost immediately became new centers of crime and quickly degenerated (declined) into new slums. . .
Rates of teenage pregnancy and venereal disease had been going down for years before the new 1960s attitudes toward sex spread rapidly through the schools, helped by War on Poverty money. These downward trends suddenly reversed and skyrocketed.
The murder rate had also been going down, for decades, and in 1960 was just under half of what it had been in 1934. Then the new 1960s policies toward curing the "root causes" of crime and creating new "rights" for criminals began. Rates of violent crime, including murder, skyrocketed.
The black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized (paid for) unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life. . .
The economic rise of blacks began decades earlier, before any of the legislation and policies that are credited with producing that rise. The continuation of the rise of blacks out of poverty did not -- repeat, did not -- accelerate during the 1960s.
The poverty rate among black families fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent in 1960, during an era of virtually no major civil rights legislation or anti-poverty programs. . . . In various skilled trades, the incomes of blacks relative to whites more than doubled between 1936 and 1959 -- that is, before the magic 1960s decade when supposedly all progress began. The rise of blacks in professional and other high-level occupations was greater in the five years preceding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than in the five years afterwards.

Source: Thomas Sowell is a conservative economist, author, and social commentator. He is currently a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. 

Source:
1) Who wrote this?
2) What is his perspective?
3) What do you predict the author will say? 

4) What is the author’s main argument?

5) What are three pieces of evidence that the author uses to support his claims?

Which author do you find more convincing and why? 

Was the U.S. planning to go to war with North Vietnam before the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution?

Most history books say that the United States war in Vietnam began in 1964, after Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. However, it’s no secret that the United States had been very involved in the region for at least a decade before. By the time JFK was assassinated in 1963, the United States had 16,000 military troops in Vietnam. Today we’re going to try to answer the question:
Was the U.S. planning to go to war in Vietnam before August 1964? 

 

Document A
1. According to this document, what did the North Vietnamese do?
2. Why did the United States feel compelled to respond at this point?
3. According to this document, was the U.S. planning to go to war in Vietnam
before August 1964? Explain your answer.

 Document B

1. When was this document written? Who wrote it?
   
2. What did Bundy suggest to the President?
   
3. What are three reasons why Bundy made this recommendation?
   
4. According to this document, was the U.S. planning to go to war in Vietnam
   before August 1964? Explain your answer. 
   

 Document C

1. When was this document written? Who wrote it?
2. How did Rusk feel about the South Vietnamese government’s ability to fight
the Communists? Support your answer with evidence.
3. Why did Rusk think attacking the North Vietnamese is not a smart idea? 4. According to this document, was the U.S. planning to go to war in Vietnam
before August 1964? Explain your answer. 

Document D

1. What type of document is this? How trustworthy do you think this type of document is?
2. What is the dilemma facing President Johnson?
3. According to this document, was the U.S. planning to go to war in Vietnam before August 1964? Explain your answer. 

Using all four documents, write a paragraph in response the question:
Was the U.S. planning to go to war in Vietnam before August 1964? 

How did Americans respond to President Truman’s decision to fire General MacArthur?

 Document A

1. Source: Who wrote this? When was this written (a long time or short time after Truman fired MacArthur)?
2. Does this person support President Truman’s decision to fire General MacArthur?
3. What are TWO reasons this person gives for either supporting or not supporting President Truman? 
4. What does this say about how the American public felt about Truman’s decision to fire MacArthur?
5. Did more people support or oppose Truman? How did this change over time? 

 Document B

1. Source: Who wrote this? When was this written (a long time or short time after Truman fired MacArthur)?
2. Does this person support President Truman’s decision to fire General MacArthur?
3. What are TWO reasons this person gives for either supporting or not supporting President Truman? 

Document C

1. Source: Who wrote this? When was this written (a long time or short time after Truman fired MacArthur)?
2. Does this person support President Truman’s decision to fire General MacArthur?
3. What are TWO reasons this person gives for either supporting or not supporting President Truman? 

Who started the Korean War?

Why might textbooks from different countries offer different versions of the same historical events? When textbooks offer conflicting accounts, how do you decide which textbook to believe? 

Textbook A
Upset by the fast and astonishing growth of the power of the Republic, the American invaders hastened the preparation of an aggressive war in order to destroy it in its infancy....The American imperialists furiously carried out the war project in 1950....The American invaders who had been preparing the war for a long time, alongside their puppets, finally initiated the war on June 25th of the 39th year of the Juche calendar. That dawn, the enemies unexpectedly attacked the North half of the Republic, and the war clouds hung over the once peaceful country, accompanied by the echoing roar of cannons.
Having passed the 38th parallel, the enemies crawled deeper and deeper into the North half of the Republic...the invading forces of the enemies had to be eliminated and the threatened fate of our country and our people had to be saved.

Textbook B
When the overthrow of the South Korean government through social confusion became too difficult, the North Korean communists switched to a stick-and-carrot strategy: seeming to offer peaceful negotiations, they were instead analyzing the right moment of attack and preparing themselves for it.

The North Korean communists prepared themselves for war. Kim Il-sung secretly visited the Soviet Union and was promised the alliance of the Soviets and China in case of war. Finally, at dawn on June 25th, 1950 the North began their southward aggression along the 38th parallel. Taken by surprise at these unexpected attacks, the army of the Republic of Korea (South Korea) fought courageously to defend the liberty of the country....The armed provocation of the North Korean communists brought the UN Security Council around the table. A decree denounced the North Korean military action as illegal and as a threat to peace, and a decision was made to help the South. The UN army constituted the armies of 16 countries—among them, the United States, Great Britain and France—joined the South Korean forces in the battle against the North. 

• According to each textbook, how did the Korean War start?
  
  Textbook A:
  
  Textbook B:
  
  
• Which of these textbooks do you find more trustworthy? Why?
  
• Where else would you look in order to figure out how the Korean War
  started?
  
• Which of these sources is for Textbook A and which is for Textbook B?
  
  Kim, Doojin. Korean History: Senior High. (Seoul, South Korea: Dae HanTextbook Co.), 2001.
  Textbook _______
  Provide language from the textbook excerpt to support your answer: 
  

How and why did the United States fight the Cold War in Guatemala? 

Two Textbook Accounts    

What happened in Guatemala?

Answer the questions below. Write (A) if the answer appears in textbook A; write (B) if the answer appears in textbook B; and write (A + B) if the answer appears in both textbooks.
1. Who was the leader of Guatemala in 1954? Which textbook contains this answer? 
2. Why did the United States oppose this leader? Which textbook contains this answer? 
3. What did the U.S. do to overthrow this leader? Which textbook contains this answer? 
4. What was the result of the U.S.’s actions? Which textbook contains this answer?

DECLASSIFIED CIA MEMO
"Guatemalan Communist Personnel to be disposed of during Military Operations of Calligeris"; origin deleted; undated.
This document is an assassination list compiled by the CIA and Carlos Castillo Armas (code-named "Calligeris"), who overthrew Arbenz Guzman.
The names of the agency's intended victims were divided into two categories: persons to be disposed of through "Executive action" (i.e., killed) and those to be imprisoned or exiled (sent away) during the operation.

Before declassifying and releasing this document to the public, the CIA deleted every name.

Guiding Questions

• What type of document is this?
  
• What does it say about the U.S. involvement in Guatemala?
  
• What else was happening in 1954 that would have influenced the United
  States’s decision to use covert methods in Guatemala? 
  

Why did the Russians pull their missiles out of Cuba? 

Document A: Letter From Chairman Khrushchev to President Kennedy (Modified)
Moscow, October 27, 1962.
DEAR MR. PRESIDENT,
I understand your concern for the security of the United States...
You wish to ensure the security of your country, and this is understandable. But Cuba, too, wants the same thing; all countries want to maintain their security. But how are we, the Soviet Union, to [understand] the fact that you have surrounded the Soviet Union with military bases; surrounded our allies with military bases; placed military bases literally around our country; and stationed your missile armaments there? This is no secret. . . .Your missiles are located in Britain, are located in Italy, and are aimed against us. Your missiles are located in Turkey.
You are disturbed over Cuba. You say that this disturbs you because it is 90 miles by sea from the coast of the United States of America. But you have placed destructive missile weapons, which you call offensive, in Turkey, literally next to us.
I therefore make this proposal: We are willing to remove from Cuba the [missiles] which you regard as offensive. Your representatives will make a declaration to the effect that the United States, for its part, . . . will remove its [missiles] from Turkey.
We, in making this pledge, will promise not to invade Turkey. . .The United States Government will promise not to invade Cuba . . .
The greatest joy for all peoples would be the announcement of our agreement. These are my proposals, Mr. President.
Respectfully yours,
N. Khrushchev

Source: Letter from Soviet Chairman Kruschev to President Kennedy. U.S., Department of State, FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, 1961- 1963, Volume XI, Cuban Missile Crisis and Aftermath.

Guiding Questions 
Document A: Letter From Chairman Khrushchev to President Kennedy
1. What deal does Khrushchev propose to Kennedy?
2. What is the tone of this letter? Provide a quote to support your claim.
3. Do you think Khrushchev has the upper hand? Why or why not? 

Document B: Letter from President Kennedy to Chairman Khrushchev (Modified)
Washington, October 27, 1962
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I have read your letter of Oct. 26th with great care and welcomed the
statement of your desire to seek a prompt solution to the problem. As I read your letter, the key elements of your proposals...are as follows:
1) You would agree to remove these weapons from Cuba under appropriate United Nations observation and supervision; and halt the further introduction of such weapons systems into Cuba.
2) We, on our part, would agree...a) to remove promptly the [blockade] now in effect and (b) to give assurances against an invasion of Cuba, I am confident that other nations of the Western Hemisphere would be prepared to do likewise.
There is no reason why we should not be able to complete these arrangements and announce them to the world within a couple of days. The effect of such a settlement on easing world tensions would enable us to work toward a more general arrangement regarding "other armaments", as proposed in your letter.
But the first step, let me emphasize, is the cessation (end) of work on missile sites in Cuba . . . . The continuation of this threat by linking these problems to the broader questions of European and world security, would surely [be] a grave risk to the peace of the world. For this reason I hope we can quickly agree along the lines outlined in this letter and in your letter of October 26.
John F. Kennedy

Source: Letter from President Kennedy to Chairman Kruschev. New York Times, Oct 27, 1962, pg. 30. 
Guiding Questions

Document B: Letter from President Kennedy to Chairman Khrushchev
4. In this letter Kennedy restates Khrushchev’s proposals. Does Kennedy include everything Khrushchev proposed? If not, why might have he left something out?
5. What is the tone of this letter? Provide a quote to support your claim.
6. Do you think Kennedy has the upper hand? Why or why not? 

Document C: Russian Ambassador Cable to Soviet Foreign Ministry (Modified)
Dobrynin’s (Russia’s Ambassador to the United States) cable to the Soviet Foreign Ministry, October 27, 1962.
Late tonight Robert Kennedy (President Kennedy’s Attorney General) invited me to come see him. We talked alone.
Kennedy stated that, “The US government is determined to get rid of those bases [in Cuba]—up to, in the extreme case, of bombing them, since, I repeat, they pose a great threat to the security of the USA. In response I am sure the Soviets will respond and a real war will begin, in which millions of Americans and Russians will die. We want to avoid that in any way we can, I’m sure that the government of the USSR has the same wish.”
“The most important thing for us is to get an agreement as soon as possible with the Soviet government to halt further work on the construction of the missile bases in Cuba and take measures under international control that would make it impossible to use these weapons.”
“And what about Turkey?” I asked R. Kennedy
“If that is the only obstacle to achieving the rules I mentioned earlier, then the president doesn’t see any difficulties in resolving this issue” replied R. Kennedy. “The greatest difficulty for the president is the public discussion of the issue of Turkey. The deployment of missile bases in Turkey was officially done by special decision of the NATO Council. To announce now a unilateral (one-sided) decision by the president of the USA to withdraw missile bases from Turkey—this would damage the entire structure of NATO and the US position as the leader of NATO. However, President Kennedy is ready to come to agreement on that question with Khrushchev. I think that in order to withdraw these bases from Turkey we need 4-5 months. However, the president can’t say anything public in this regard about Turkey.”
R. Kennedy then warned that his comments about Turkey are extremely confidential; besides him and his brother, only 2-3 people know about it in Washington.
“The president also asked Khrushchev to give him an answer within the next day,” Kennedy said in conclusion.
Source: Russian Ambassador Dobrynin cable to Foreign Ministry, October 27, 1962. Russian Foreign Ministry archives; publicly released in the early 1990s.
Guiding Questions
 Document C: Russian Ambassador Cable to Soviet Foreign Ministry

7. What new information do you learn from Robert Kennedy?
8. Why do you think this exchange happened in a private meeting (rather than in an official letter)? [Remember, Document B was published in the New York Times].
9. How do you think Robert Kennedy felt during this meeting? Provide evidence. 

Who was primarily responsible for the Cold War – the United States or the Soviet Union?

Timeline of the Early Cold War
1945: February 4-11 - Yalta Conference
1945: August 6 - United States first used atomic bomb in war
1945: August 8 - Russia enters war against Japan

1945. 1945:  August 14 - Japanese surrenders, ending World War II
      
1946. 1946:  March - Winston Churchill delivers "Iron Curtain" speech
      
1947. 1947:  March - Truman announces Truman Doctrine
      

1947. 1947:  June - Marshall Plan is announced
      
1948. 1948:  February - Communist takeover in Czechoslovakia
      

1948. 1948:  June 24 - Berlin blockade begins
      
1949. 1949:  July - NATO treaty ratified
      

1949: May 12 - Berlin Blockade ends
1949: September - Mao Zedong, a communist, takes control of China
1949: September - Soviets explode first atomic bomb 1955: May – Warsaw Pact 

Document A: The Iron Curtain Speech (Modified)
It is my duty, however, to place before you certain facts about the present
position in Europe.
From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an iron curtain has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia; all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject, in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and in some cases increasing measure of control from Moscow.
In a great number of countries, far from the Russian frontiers and throughout the world, Communist fifth columns are established and work in complete unity and absolute obedience to the directions they receive from the Communist center.
I do not believe that Soviet Russia desires war. What they desire is the fruits of war and the indefinite expansion of their power and doctrines.
But what we have to consider here today while time remains, is the permanent prevention of war and the establishment of conditions of freedom and democracy as rapidly as possible in all countries.
Source: Excerpt from the “Iron Curtain Speech” delivered by Winston Churchill, March 1946 in Fulton, Missouri.

Guiding Questions

Iron Curtain Speech

1. Sourcing: Who was Winston Churchill? Why would Americans trust what he has to say about the Soviet Union?

2. Close reading: What does Churchill claim that the Soviet Union wanted? 

Document B: The Truman Doctrine (Modified)
The United States has received from the Greek Government an urgent appeal for financial and economic assistance...Greece is in desperate need of financial and economic assistance to enable it to resume purchases of food, clothing, fuel, and seeds.
The very existence of the Greek state is today threatened by the terrorist activities of several thousand armed men, led by Communists, who defy the government's authority. . . . Greece must have assistance if it is to become a self-supporting and self-respecting democracy. The United States must supply this assistance. . . . No other nation is willing and able to provide the necessary support for a democratic Greek government.
One of the primary objectives of the foreign policy of the United States is the creation of conditions in which we and other nations will be able to work out a way of life free from coercion.
It is necessary only to glance at a map to realize that the survival and integrity of the Greek nation are of grave importance in a much wider situation. If Greece should fall under the control of an armed minority, the effect upon its neighbor, Turkey, would be immediate and serious. Confusion and disorder might well spread throughout the entire Middle East. . . . Should we fail to aid Greece and Turkey in this fateful hour, the effect will be far reaching to the West as well as to the East.
The free peoples of the world look to us for support in maintaining their freedoms. If we falter in our leadership, we may endanger the peace of the world. And we shall surely endanger the welfare of this nation.
Great responsibilities have been placed upon us by the swift movement of events.

Source: Excerpt from the “Truman Doctrine Speech,” delivered by President Truman to Congress on March 12, 1947.
Guiding Questions

Truman Doctrine
1. Close reading: Why did Truman believe Greece needed American aid in 1947?
2. Context: What does Truman mean when he claims, “Should we fail to aid Greece and Turkey in this fateful hour, the effect will be far reaching to the West as well as to the East”?
3. Close reading: Does Truman present American policy as offensive or defensive? What words or phrases does Truman use to present policy this way?

Record your first hypothesis: Who was primarily responsible for the Cold War - the United States or the Soviet Union? 

Document C: Soviet Ambassador Telegram (Modified)
The foreign policy of the United States, which reflects the imperialist tendencies of American monopolistic capital, is characterized in the postwar period by a striving for world supremacy. This is the real meaning of the many statements by President Truman and other representatives of American ruling circles; that the United States has the right to lead the world. All the forces of American diplomacy -- the army, the air force, the navy, industry, and science -- are enlisted in the service of this foreign policy. For this purpose broad plans for expansion have been developed and are being implemented through diplomacy and the establishment of a system of naval and air bases stretching far beyond the boundaries of the United States, through the arms race, and through the creation of ever newer types of weapons. . . .
During the Second World War . . . [American leaders] calculated that the United States of America, if it could avoid direct participation in the war, would enter it only at the last minute, when it could easily affect the outcome of the war, completely ensuring its interests.
In this regard, it was thought that the main competitors of the United States would be crushed or greatly weakened in the war, and the United States by virtue of this circumstance would assume the role of the most powerful factor in resolving the fundamental questions of the postwar world.

Source: Excerpt from a telegram sent by Soviet Ambassador Nikolai Novikov to Soviet Leadership in September 1946.
Guiding Questions

Soviet Ambassador Telegram
1. Sourcing: Who was Nicholas Novikov? When did he write this telegram?
2. Close reading: How does Novikov describe the United States? What evidence does he use to support his description?
3. Context: What does Novikov claim the United States planned during the Second World War?

Document D: Henry Wallace (Modified)
I have been increasingly disturbed about the trend of international affairs
since the end of the war.
How do American actions appear to other nations? I mean actions [like] the Bikini tests of the atomic bomb and continued production of bombs, the plan to arm Latin America with our weapons, and the effort to secure air bases spread over half the globe from which the other half of the globe can be bombed. I cannot but feel that these actions must make it look to the rest of the world as if we were only paying lip service to peace at the conference table.
These facts rather make it appear either (1) that we are preparing ourselves to win the war which we regard as inevitable or (2) that we are trying to build up a predominance [largest amount] of force to intimidate the rest of mankind.
Our interest in establishing democracy in Eastern Europe, where democracy by and large has never existed, seems to [the Soviets] an attempt to reestablish the encirclement of unfriendly neighbors which might serve as a springboard of still another effort to destroy [them].

Source: Secretary of Commerce and former Vice President Henry A. Wallace letter to President Harry S. Truman, July 23, 1946. Truman asked Wallace to resign shortly after this letter.
Guiding Questions

Henry Wallace Letter
1. Sourcing: Who was Henry Wallace? When did he write this letter?
2. Close Reading: What is Wallace’s main argument?
3. Corroboration: How does Wallace’s description of American foreign policy compare to Truman’s and Novikov’s?

Record your second hypothesis: Who was primarily responsible for the Cold War - the United States or the Soviet Union? 

How should we remember the dropping of the atomic bomb? 

Two Historical Narratives

Source: Excerpts from “Three Narratives of our Humanity” by John W. Dower, 1996. The following is from a book written by a historian about how people remember wars. John W. Dower explains the two different ways that the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is remembered.

Hiroshima as Victimization
Japanese still recall the war experience primarily in terms of their own victimization. For them, World War II calls to mind the deaths of family and acquaintances on distant battlefields, and, more vividly, the prolonged, systematic bombings of their cities.
If it is argued that the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima was necessary to shock the Japanese to surrender, how does one justify the hasty bombing of Nagasaki only three days later, before the Japanese had time to investigate Hiroshima and formulate a response?

Hiroshima as Triumph
To most Americans, Hiroshima—the shattered, atomized, irradiated city – remains largely a symbol of triumph – marking the end of a horrendous global conflict and the effective demonstration of a weapon that has prevented another world war.

It is hard to imagine that the Japanese would have surrendered without the atomic bomb. Japanese battle plans that were in place when the bombs were dropped called for a massive, suicidal defense of the home islands, in which the imperial government would mobilize not only several million fighting men but also millions of ordinary citizens who had been trained and indoctrinated to resist to the end with primitive makeshift weapons. For Japanese to even discuss capitulation (surrender) was seditious (against the law).    

Guiding Questions
1. In 1-2 sentences each, explain the two narratives (stories) about Hiroshima.
2. Which narrative do you agree with more? Why?

Document A: Textbook
Even before the bomb was tested, American officials began to debate how to use it. Admiral William Leahy, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, opposed using the bomb because it killed civilians indiscriminately. He believed that an economic blockade and conventional bombing would convince Japan to surrender.
Secretary of War Henry Stimson wanted to warn the Japanese about the bomb while at the same time telling them that they could keep the emperor if they surrendered. Secretary of State James Byrnes, however, wanted to drop the bomb without any warning to shock Japan into surrendering.
President Truman later wrote that he “regarded the bomb as a military weapon and never had any doubts that it should be used.” His advisers had warned him to expect massive casualties if the United States invaded Japan. Truman believed it was his duty as president to use every weapon available to save American lives.

Source: American History Textbook, American Vision, pg. 615.

Document B: Thank God for the Atomic Bomb
My division, like most of the ones transferred from Europe was going to take part in the invasion at Honshu (an island of Japan). The people who preferred invasion to A-bombing seemed to have no intention of proceeding to the Japanese front themselves. I have already noted what a few more days would mean to the luckless troops and sailors on the spot.... On Okinawa, only a few weeks before Hiroshima, 123,000 Japanese and Americans killed each other. War is immoral. War is cruel.

Source: Paul Fussell, a World War II Soldier, Thank God for the Atom Bomb, 1990.

Document C: Stopping Russia
“[Byrnes] was concerned about Russia's postwar behavior. Russian troops had moved into Hungary and Romania, and Byrnes thought it would be very difficult to persuade Russia to withdraw her troops from these countries, that Russia might be more manageable if impressed by American military might, and that a demonstration of the bomb might impress Russia.”

Source: James Byrnes was one of Truman's advisors on the atomic bomb. In addition to defeating Japan, he wanted to keep the Soviet Union from expanding its influence in Asia and to limit its influence in Europe. Manhattan Project scientist Leo Szilard met with Byrnes on May 28, 1945. Leo Szilard wrote about his meeting with Byrnes in 1980.

Document D: Survivor
One of my classmates, I think his name is Fujimoto, he muttered something and pointed outside the window,saying, "A B-29 is coming." He pointed outside with his finger. So I began to get up from my chair and asked him, "Where is it?" Looking in the direction that he was pointing towards, I got up on my feet, but I was not yet in an upright position when it happened. All I can remember was a pale lightening flash for two or three seconds. Then, I collapsed. I don’t know much time passed before I came to. It was awful, awful. The smoke was coming in from somewhere above the debris. Sandy dust was flying around. . .
I crawled over the debris, trying to find someone who were still alive. Then, I found one of my classmates lying alive. I held him up in my arms. It is hard to tell, his skull was cracked open, his flesh was dangling out from his head. He had only one eye left, and it was looking right at me. . . . he told me to go away.
I, so, was running, hands were trying to grab my ankles, they were asking me to take them along. I was only a child then. And I was horrified at so many hands trying to grab me. I was in pain, too. So all I could do was to get rid of them, it s terrible to say, but I kicked their hands away. I still feel bad about that. I went to Miyuki Bridge to get some water. At the river bank, I saw so many people collapsed there. . . I was small, so I pushed on the river along the small steps. The water was dead people. I had to push the bodies aside to drink the muddy water. We didn't know anything about radioactivity that time. I stood up in the water and so many bodies were floating away along the stream.

Source: Yoshitaka Kawamoto was thirteen years old. He was in the classroom at Zakoba-cho, 0.8 kilometers away from the hypocenter. He is now working as the director of the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum, telling visitors from all over the world what the atomic bomb did to the people of Hiroshima.

Document E: Hiroshima and Nagasaki Casualties

TABLE A: Estimates of Casualties

TABLE B: Cause of Immediate Deaths

Japanese Experience Experts
You and your group are historians who specialize in Japanese history. In particular, you are very familiar with the Japanese experiences of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Directions:

• To prepare for a discussion with a group of American experience historians, go through the Atomic Bomb Documents packet.
  
• As you re-read with your group, highlight or underline quotes, facts, images, information, etc. that supports the “Hiroshima as Victimization” narrative. In other words, look for information that proves that America was wrong to drop the atomic bomb.
  
• Record your main points in the space below. 
  

 American Experience Experts

You and your group are historians who specialize in American history. In particular, you are very familiar with the American experiences during WWII and President Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bomb.
Directions:

• To prepare for a discussion with a group of Japanese experience historians, go through the Atomic Bomb Documents packet.
  
• As you re-read with your group, highlight or underline quotes, facts, images, information, etc. that supports the “Hiroshima as Triumph” narrative. In other words, look for information that proves that America was right to drop the atomic bomb.
  
• Record your main points in the space below. 
  

What caused the Zoot Suit Riots?

What caused the Zoot Suit Riots?    
Document A (Modified)
Near-martial law in L.A. riot zones
Los Angeles Daily News
June 9, 1943
Harold Tabor, 32, Long Beach sailor, was severely beaten by a gang of zooters at 103rd and Graham St. He suffered a broken nose and serious facial cuts.
"I was passing a poolhall on the way to a grocery store when the gang hopped (jumped) me, " he said.
Two soldiers and a Negro zoot suiter were taken into custody after a riot at the corner of Second and Spring streets. Police continued to search for others. Police ordered groups of more than three to "break it up" everywhere in the downtown area. Police officers were stationed on every corner and the city resembled martial law rule. Squads of riot breakers roamed the city, trying to solve the zoot suit problem.
Navy shore patrol officers walked in and out of bars, dancehalls, drugstores, bus stations.
One of the most serious outbreaks of terrorism occurred in Watts. There, three trains were stoned by pachucos. One person was cut seriously. A few minutes later, nearly every window of an outbound Long Beach two-car train was smashed when it was caught in a crossfire of pachuco stoning.
Gangsterism in Watts continued into the early hours of today. Twelve Negroes ambushed a 17-year-old white high school student, asked him if he was a "zoot suiter" and when he said "no" the fight started. The victim, Joe M. Steddum of 8834 Banders St., Watts, received a five-inch cut on his left forehead.
A Navy commander of the 11th Naval district in San Diego stated the following:
"Until further notice, except for special occasions approved by the commanding officer, the city of Los Angeles will be out of bounds for all enlisted personnel of the naval services not attached to the stations within this city, or in travel status.
Zoot suiters are being arrested in all parts of L.A. County. Many have been caught with weapons such as knives hidden in their pants. Many sailors and servicemen have victims of violence and casualties from the pachuco hoodlums.

Vocabulary
Pachuco: Mexican-American zoot suiter 

Document B (Modified)
The Battle Between Marines and Pachucos
La Opinión
June 9, 1943
The Coordinator of Latin-American Youths . . . informed us . . . that during a meeting in which the situation created by the riots between the "pachucos" and the marines was discussed, a decision was reached to send the following telegram to the Head of the Office of War Information in Washington and to the Head of the Division of Foreign Languages, of the same office, and to President Roosevelt at the White House. Here is the message:
Since last Thursday evening various groups of marines and soldiers have attacked Mexican zoot suiters throughout the city of Los Angeles. Although the youth did nothing to provoke the attack or for that matter to resist the attack, many were severely wounded, including women and children. Supposedly the attack has been motivated by past conflicts between the two groups and has been amplified by the press claiming that Mexican youths have been disrespectful toward the servicemen, a claim without any foundation.

Despite precautions taken on the part of the military police and local authorities to control the situation, the servicemen continue to walk the streets of Los Angeles armed with clubs and appear to be tacitly supported by many city and local officials in charge of keeping the peace; their attacks have now expanded to include blacks. This situation, which is prompting racial antagonism between the Mexican, Anglo-Saxon and Black communities will undoubtedly have grave international repercussions which will inevitably damage the war effort and thwart the gains made by the Good Neighbor policy. We urge immediate intervention by the Office of War Information so that it moderates the local press which has openly approved of these mutinies and which is treating this situation in a manner that is decidedly inflammatory.

Vocabulary
Good Neighbor Policy: Foreign policy adopted by the U.S. under President Franklin Roosevelt in which the U.S. said it would not intervene in Latin American countries’ affairs.
mutiny: rebellion by soldiers against the orders of their officers 

0. Discussion:
   
   • According to Document A, who caused the riots? (pachucos)
     
   • According to Document B, who caused the riots? (servicemen and the
     press)
     
   • Is one more reliable than the other?
     
   • Does Document A support the claim that the press was, in fact, “decidedly
     inflammatory”? How?
     
   • Why did the Coordinator of Latin American Youth decide to send a
     telegram to the Office of War Information? What does this tell you about the seriousness of the riots? How could this have affected U.S.-Mexico relations?
     
   • How did the context of WWII influence the riots?
     
   • What more would you want to know about this time period to understand
     what happened better?