Next week you
will be debating with your partner on major WWII issues. Most of these topics
have been hotly debated in the years since WWII and now it is your chance to
get involved in the discussion.
Place your team's debate topic on this blog - there will be one pro comment and one con comment for each team. Further instruction will be given to you in class!
Do collaborators share in the responsibility for the Holocaust?
ReplyDeleteMadelis- Con
Samantha- Pro
I think that the collaborators should not share the responsibility for the Holocaust because:
•Hitler was the one who planned the extermination for the Jews in 1918 and the Holocaust started around 1938. Hitler spend around 20 years planning for the extermination of the Jews.
•Hitler planned this extermination and he was determined to make sure his planned happened. There are people that plan events but they never follow through with their plan, but Hitler was determined to make it happen.
•If it wasn't for Hitler starting the whole “I hate Jews” then there wouldn't have been no Holocaust because it was Hitler who hated the Jews first then he persuaded the other people to hate the Jews..
•Hitler put fear into the Nazis creating them to not help the Jews and stop the Holocaust.
I do believe that collaborators share the responsibility for the Holocaust.
Delete•The SA and SS were the personal army/body guards for Hitler. The SS were used especially to instill fear in many people. The SS, under the leaderships of Heinrich Himmler, took full control of the concentration camps throughout Germany in the years 134-1935 and used them to purge German society of Jews, gypsies, etc.
•The German government and Nazi party officials planned policies aimed at persecuting and murdering the Jews.
•Even normal German citizens contributed to the holocaust. Many German doctors and physicians participated in the T-4 euthanasia program where they murdered thousands of people who were “incurably sick”.
•There were people in top leadership who supported Hitler’s ideals on Jews. Joseph Goebbels, minister of propaganda in Nazi Germany, organized attacks on German Jews.
Jerilys Santiago & Shaquan Richards
ReplyDeleteIB World history
Ms.Noce
- Are Hitler and the Nazis solely to blame for the Holocaust?
CON’S ON WHO TO BLAME (Quan)
- Past events (Family background)
- People of Germany were to blame for the holocaust
- Who influenced Hitler’s rise
- Treaty of Versailles
- Relate it to the Manchurian Crisis
- You could blame France and England, as they allowed Hitler to take over Poland and kept allowing him to do stuff he wasn’t supposed to
PRO’S ON WHO TO BLAME (Jeri)
- Hitler was the one who came up with the idea.
- He set the idea in motion, and pretty much brainwashed millions of people to think like he did.
- Anyone in the country who spoke up against Hitler would have been thrown in a concentration camp and get killed.
- He used the Jews as a scapegoat for the awful Germany depression
- There is documentation in which it demonstrates that Hitler announced in December 1941 that the Jews were to be put to death as guerrillas (partisans)
- German soldiers killed the Jews because Hitler was in charge therefore, he is the one to blame.. I mean he was the one giving orders and convincing the soldiers to act the way they were acting
Junior FanFan
ReplyDeleteMs.Noce
IB History
February 3 2014
Was the Canadian government justified in interning Japanese Canadians during world war II?
Junior- Pro
Dinia- Con
Pro
The Canadians felt scared because their population was made up of 21,000 Japanese-Canadian citizens and immigrants.
The government felt that they were going to start an underground revolutionary group called the fifth column.
Many Japanese-Canadian immigrants could have been spies living among them.
America and Canada were allied countries.
Politicians felt that Japanese-Canadians were spies for japan.
It was mainly about the citizens safety that the Japanese were put into camps to protect the others from harm.
Japanese immigrants were discriminated everyday and weren’t able to do things others were able to do.
For example when they bomb copley square the government was scared that their was more people involved with them. so they started questioning family members and going into too old family history.
If the Japanese were to invade canada they felt that Japanese immigrants or citizens could have participated in the event because they felt bad for Japan.
Con
Japanese-Canadians were treated unjustly and were kept inside internment camps.
The right to a Habeas Corpus was dismissed. it means the right to brought in front of a judge and receiving trail only after physical evidence has been presented.
The Japanese were viewed as spies even though there weren’t any evidence behind it.
The Japanese immigrants were being discriminated against they had laws created to limit job opportunities to what jobs they can attain.
The war Measure Act gave the government the unlimited power to support the war.
The government wasn't justified in interning the Japanese because they had no basis behind it.
William Reis
ReplyDelete2/4/14
Ms.Noce
IB History
Are Hitler and Nazis solely to blame for World War 2?
Dimas- Con
William- For it
-Holocaust: The nazis had a strong racism towards the Jews, this hate towards the Jews was policy that must be followed if you were in the Nazi. the Holocaust event was an event in which the Nazis took over a region which had a high concentration of Jews and non-Jews. Hitler demanded to kill millions of innocents (Yes! Innocents!) and majority of them were Jews.
-Invasion of the Scandinavian Country: The Scandinavian country was a country consisted of Denmark, Sweden and Norway. During the World War two the three nations were invaded by the Nazis, ruled by Hitler. Denmark was attacked by the Nazis in 1940 due to richful resources Denmark had and on top of that, a point of interest to start an invasion in Norway. The Nazi owned Denmark for 5 long years which eventually the Nazi surrendered and Denmark no longer had control of Iceland which they became independent. Sweden on the other side remained completely neutral which they actually helped the Nazis by letting the troops travel through Sweden into Finland. Sweden also sold major resource of iron to the Germans which was a huge supply and this was a big assistance because when Germany started to lose power, Sweden helped them, Sweden didn't have a really bad outcome with the Nazis. Last, Norway was invaded the same year as Denmark was invaded in 1940 also for the same reason, resources. The Nazis also used Norway as a major naval base
-Hitler and his Group (Nazi) wanted to take over lands in Europe: Hitler wanted to expand the Nazism through out Europe. Hitler was that type of human being that was overwhelmed with the power he had in Germany. With this cause in his mind he just wanted to be more and more and more and more, you get the idea. By this mean, he believed the people that were a part of the Nazi (One of the Nazis Ideology.) group deserved more land to live in and what was the only way to gain land? By taking over other nation’s land.
-Violating the Treaty of Versailles: Hitler violated one of the term of the Treaty of Versailles which demanded Germany to lower their military to 100,000 man. When Hitler took over the Germany goverment he rearmed the military, making German's military powerful, but not as powerful as before.
DeleteDimas A. Amezquita
DeleteIB History
Ms. Noce
February 3, 2014
Are Hitler and the Nazis solely to blame for World War 2?
Con - Dimas
Pro - William R.
Cons:
Treaty of Versailles: The German people were very unhappy about the terms in the treaty and thought that it was too harsh. Land was taken away from Germany and given to other countries. Germany could not afford to pay the reparations and during the 1920's of the Great Depression, people in Germany were very poor, there were not many jobs and, the price of food and basic goods was high. If the Treaty of Versailles was fair with all the reparations that Germany had to pay and land that was taken from them and made agreements between the nations and Germany, then there wouldn't be any problems. It is not fair for one country to be blamed for a war that was mostly an international war, which many countries were involved.
The League of Nations: The Council of the League of Nations only met four times a year and decisions had to be agreed by all nations that hold discussions and gain the agreement of all members. The process of the League was not quickly enough to stop an act of aggression. If the League of Nations were not weak and been more helpful with Germany, then all the nations would have been happy with agreements that would have been fair for Germany. I thought the League of Nations was an international organization that could help on creating world peace? So why the League of Nations couldn't do something that would help Germany’s disagreements of the Treaty of Versailles?
The Allies: Hitler and Germany were waiting for some group like the League of Nations to help them on agreeing on some terms with the allies that would be helpful to the treaty of Versailles and helping Germany’s economy, but not even one group tried to help Germany’s problems. Many of the Allied countries knew about Hitler’s attitude towards the way Germany is being treated by the terms of the Versailles treaty. So the German people knew that Hitler was the guy to bring back Germany from its troubles and make Germany a stronger nation. No one wanted to help Germany, which Hitler was very upset and he wanted to take the situation into his own hands and try to fix Germany’s problems. If the Allies already know about Hitler’s intentions to do something that could cause a war, why didn't they do something peacefully or change the terms of the Versailles treaty that would benefit on the problems that Germany is having economically?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCould ww2 have been prevented?- Erick Volquez
ReplyDeletePROS
• Germany was waiting for someone to stand and declare plans to help them get out of the great depression.
• Hitler had the attitude to bring the country upward and running. If he was not there then the country would have stayed in the same place waiting but keep-paying debts threw the treaty of Versailles.
• Japan wouldn’t have intervened with the war if they didn’t see a country like Germany who shared same ideals because they where out there in the east of Asia; the war started euro-centric which would serve as accelerator to Japan to think that they could make a move.
• No country can anticipate an enemies moves, but once knowing that a country like Germany tried to make a wrong move and having a man rise from the ashes to bring this country up; of course countries like the allies had the concept of Germany trying to start a war.
• Germany can be looked at like being in the edge of the Clift. If a man that didn’t have the character to take over the country and bring it to “power” the country would have rejected him because if they knew that this person would throw them over the Clift, he/she could have been assassinated.
• I definitely believe that the war wouldn’t have happened if the characteristic that Hitler brought were not there and even if he came into power, if Germany knew that he was going to bring them down even more he would have been slaughtered.
ReplyDelete• The only reason why Hitler rose into power was because more than half of the country had a figure of a messiah to free them and bring them out of misery to the point that they would do anything to get out of misery. Because of this, Hitler went to convince those who were pro-change and eventually rose into power but Germany knowing the future, they wouldn’t have accepted him.
• Everyone has different characteristics and since Hitler’s characteristics were very strong and straight forward, there was no one to say anything against him because having the Governmental and militaristic power was basically having complete control.
• You cannot determine someone’s future and someone’s fait. The only reason why we know that Hitler did this and destroyed that was because its history! But if we go back to before him rising to power having this knowledge already; (asking the whole class) Hitler would have been killed, Germany would have been grounded even more.
Closing statement: Germany in the treaty of Locarno around 1925 agreed to continue to pay the treaty of Versailles so, Germany would have continued to keep paying probably disappeared and not even be a country because of the great depression. Hitler suffered for his country but then after convincing these people, he saw that his plans (the holocaust) and other distortions toward building the perfect race took place. WW2 was caused by Hitler’s stubbornness and Germany following him; he was a big puzzle to the war and without him the country would have been kept in economical depression, land lost and mostly a non-refundable upraise return of the country.
Could WWII have been prevented?
ReplyDeleteCons:
· It could not have been anticipated and therefore any preemptive action would never have occurred. No country was expecting matters to escalate to that scale.
· Even if Hitler was recognized as a definite threat and ‘taken care of’, Germany would only have been susceptible to a similar figure starting WWII later on.
· Japan had a similar tradition of being suspicious or hateful of those they considered to be ‘others’ and would have created a similar national crisis on their own.
· Once Hitler gained power, he became unstoppable due to his skill with the utilization of propaganda. Any attempts to unseat Adolf would have resulted in a great uprising and there would be a different crisis on international hands.
· The policy of appeasement made it completely impossible to revert the direction of the war. When Germany was given leeway, they took that inch and ran a mile, making steps that couldn’t be reversed and bringing the world into war.
· As evidenced by the history of WWII, no one could have accurately foreseen the outcome of Hitler’s rise to power. While leaders ought to have been able to see that he was a potential threat, they could not have thought that he would become so influential.
The Great Depression, like all economic crises, was an optimal reason for the war that so many were itching for. WWII was bound to happen with all of the tensions and fears of the world’s top nations.
ReplyDelete· The Treaty of Versailles made WWII an inevitable occurrence. Germany’s traditional mindset and prideful history would not have allowed them to let the brutal blame-setting and monstrous fines slide with no consequences for the former Allies.
· Some bring up the idea that Adolf Hitler could have been assassinated before he rose to power. This, while a fantastical solution, is as impossible as the prevention of WWI would have been. There was no way to know what he would become and no one would waste such resources on a mere boy or young man with no proof of the threat he posed to Germany.
· It is well said that we learn from history so as not to repeat it, but there had been no such example before Hitler. No historian, academic or politician could have recognized the pattern of events and compared it to a previous occurrence that would guide their actions. While we have this knowledge now, nothing can give it to anyone who might have changed the outcome of the war.
· Ever since the Balkan Crisis, WWII was a decided event. The depression and humiliation that resulted from it could not be left unresolved by war. The attitude of the leaders of the time made them yearn for a productive war to solve their political and economic problems.
Jack Roberts
Germairy Roman
ReplyDeleteMs. Noce
IB History 11
2/3/14
Debate Topic: Should awareness of other minorities persecuted by the Nazis be popularized during Holocaust Memorials?
PROS - Germairy CONS - Stephanie
-Minorities executed during the Holocaust will be acknowledged if they are popularized at Holocaust Memorials
-Since many people were tortured and suffered because of the holocaust I believe they deserve recognition
-Will show that Germans were not "racially superior" and Jews were not "inferior"
-Many groups of people were executed including Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, the mentally and physically disabled and more
-The population of Jews in Europe was nine million in 1933 but by 1945 two thirds of European Jews were killed by Germans
-Minorities suffered at concentration camps which was where they were imprisoned and had to do forced labor and were then executed
-11 million people were killed during the Holocaust and 6 million of those people were Jews
Cons:
Delete-Minorities persecuted by the Nazis during World War I were known as homosexuals, Jews, disabled, gypsies, jehovah witnesses, African Americans, etc.
-Miniorities weren't allowed to be a part of the new 'radically pure' Germany
-Nazi saw many groups as 'undesireable' : Jews, Roma, Black Germans, homosexuals, Jehovah witnesses and the mentally and physically disabled
-Nazis viewed mixed race children as 'inferior' to the Aryans
-Victims were tortured before being murdered
-Guards in concentration camps condone physical violence such as: beating on a daily basis
-Nazis carried out deadly medical experiments on prisoners, including children
-The final solution was to place people in concentration camps to keep political and ideological opponents
I am CON
ReplyDelete-US intervention was not necessary, Russia would have dominated Germany in the long run.
-Germany could have never taken over the world
-If the situation was left to the Europeans, Russia would have ultimately won and left weak so the Cold War would have never happened.
-US intervention lead to the development of the atom bomb, if it had never been developed then the Cold War and Cuban Crisis would have been avoided.
-Pearl Harbor attack was not a true attack that drove the US into war, it was provoked. USA cut supplies to Japan and stopped importing Japanese products, Japan had to ally to the Axis and finally attacked the US in retaliation.
Pros:
Delete- Japan attacked Pearl Harbor
* 20 american naval vessels were destroyed (including 8 enormous battleships) and almost 200 airplanes
* 2,000 American sailors and soldiers died; 1,000 were wounded
- America had to defend itself
- The United States would've looked weak if they did not respond to the attack
- Hitler was posing a threat to the safety of the world
- Threat of anti-Semitic (hating Jews) fascism taking control of Europe/the world
- Could save the vote of the people and society
- Germany and Japan had goals that threatened national and individual freedom
- Democracy and freedom were at risk throughout the world
Topic: Should the United States have entered WWII?
Victor Harris
ReplyDelete2/3/14
Blog Pros and Cons
Should Canada declared war on Germany in World War 2?
William P.-Pro
Victor H.-Con
Victor's Con
-Germany's army was growing over time, went to 100,000 to over several million people.
-Canada had 1.1 million people in the army in total, but only 50,600 was in the regular which didn't compare to Germanys army.
-Canada's men were scared and discouraged, Canada wasn't mental and physical ready for war.
-In 1939 Canada fund was only 35million, and Hitler as we know was trying to make Germany better and become stable again. Germany was one of the very few armies that were elite.
- Only following the French and Britain, because they were already declaring war on Germany.
-Over the course of the war 45,000 were killed and about 54,000 were wounded. This wasn't good because Germany had over-whelming numbers
Pros:
Delete• Canada had made alliances with Great Britain, France, Poland, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and the Soviet Union. Plenty of backup if Germany wanted to attack them.
• There was also a chance that Hitler would also attacked Canada and the United States if he had succeeded with his plans, so by Canada declaring war on Germany Canada prevented a future attack from Germany.
• Even though many were killed during the war in the end Canada had gained confidence and national pride.
• Canada’s industrial and naval base was expanded
Jalexis Ruiz
ReplyDeleteMs.Noce
IB History
February 3, 2014
Question - Is the use of propaganda ethical during wartime ?
Pro :
Propaganda give’s countries a view of how the war is. That is because propaganda is a form of communication. They utilized information to individuals so that they will know about what is going on in wartime
Due to this, all types of information were controlled and therefore , the media was being controlled by the government. That is a good thing because who would want their information to be out there and for everyone to know about it ?
Propaganda was reasonable because it influences the mindset of the humans if its reasonable enough for people to follow for example the Germans.
It was a good thing for Germany to be missgiving information about spreading propaganda because they had to win the war somehow so with there lies everyone would believe them but germany was really giving them false imformation
Propaganda was used for people to rally on which is a good thing because they helped when people need it propaganda is all around is in the aspects of life
Miladys Florentino
DeleteMs.Noce
Debate - Con’
Is the use of Propaganda ethical during wartime?
Meaning: The genuine Latin stem propagand - passes on a feeling of “ That which should be spread ”
Propaganda was utilized within World War I to guarantee that individuals just got to realize what their gov’t wanted them to know
Propaganda destroyed the outcome of the public
Propaganda was used to recruit for the U.S army they weren’t given them the whole picture and therefore, only gave information in which would brainwash humans to believe only what they hear/see.
In Germany, they had no ethical misgivings about spreading propaganda which they themselves knew to the false and in fact spreading deliberately false data was some piece of a regulation reputed to be the Big Lie.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMu Ying Yu
ReplyDeleteNaomie Bourdeau
IB World History
Ms. Noce
February 2, 2014
Should Auschwitz have been bombed?
Naomie Pros --- I think Auschwitz should have been bombed because
* Was the largest concentration camp of the Nazi campus during that time. So if we bombed one of the camps then we can take down other concentration camps.
* If the US Congress and the WRB forwarded requests to bomb Auschwitz to the US war department. Then why not bomb it,they wanted it bombed in the first place.
* No disrespect ,but its better to die a quick death,then a tormented one.
Mu Ying Cons --- I think Auschwitz should not been bombed because
* You are killing innocent people from the concentration camp. 1500 people killed every 30 minutes.
* Even if we take down one camp there is still many others out there killing more jews. So theres no point.
* Feared of the death toll
* The US authorities decided not to bomb Auschwitz,so we shouldn't bomb it. Because the Anglo-American air forces had developed the capacity to hit targets in Silesia.
* Barracks located not far from the gas chambers
* The US Army Air Force carried out heavy bombing of the I.G. Farben synthetic oil and rubber works near Auschwitz III. The bombing drop nearby gave the prisoners hope to be free. And actually some of the prisoners alive and saying they are no longer afraid of death.