CDL: Why Couldn't the United States Bomb Its Way to Victory in Vietnam

"Our airpower did not fail us; it was the decision makers," said Admiral U.S. Grant Sharp.  During the Vietnam war, President Johnson ordered the military to start bombing North Vietnam in February of 1965. But Johnsons strategy was called Operation Rolling Thunder which was a 3 and a half year bombin campaign. Military officials believed the campain should've been an all out massive bombing which would cause North Vietnam to be defeated with no sweat, but President Johnson wanted to balance military objectives against political considerations. He avoided action that could provoke intervention by the chinese who posessed nuclear weapons and he the desire to spare civillians. The U.S. focused destroying North Vietnam's indutry and transportation system thinking they could win that way since North Vietnam's had low economic development and a small military. But little did the U.S. know, Everything the U.S. destroyed, China and Soviet Imports replaced it all.China and the Soviets with things such as 600,000 tons of rice, small arms, ammunition, vehicles, tanks, fighter planes, and surface to air missles. That was about $2 billion in foreign aid which overpowered the effect of Operation rolling thunder.





Question 1: Why do you think China and the Soviets supported Vietnam during the war instead of the U.S.? Why would they support a third world country rather than try and gain a better relationship with the U.S.?
Question 2: How did the restrictions of Operation Rolling Thunder effect the war? Did President Johnson's restrictions positively effect the war?

CDL: Fascism: Adolf Hitler and National Socialism

In 1933, Adolf Hitler and his Fascist National Socialist Party(Nazis) came to power. They eliminated democracy and changed Germany completely by his facist dicatorship. Before he rose to power, there was hyperinflation, unemployment, and overall, an economic meltdown. Hitler blamed Communists and mostly jews for the lost of the war/post-war problems. Hitler then imprisoned and killed 100,000 of communists/socialists/union members/etc., punished anyone for questioning nazi rules, making military officials obide to Hitler, and basically prohibiting jews to be an accepted citizen of Germany. He basically made Germany abide to all Hitler's rules. He had spies, Nazi's organized boycotts, he made laws prohibiting jews and non-jews to get married. Hitler had this whole idea that even though 1% of German population were Jew's, they were "enemies of the people" just like Gypsies, homosexuals, and mentally/physically disabled, and chronically ill humans. Though his dicatorship was cruel, caused many deaths, and was very strict because he outlawed democracy and murdered thousands of people, he did reduce unemployment, and bring prosperity to Germans for a period of time.Even though it seemed like Hitler did a good job building up Germany, he also prepared for a war that would destroy Germany  12 years after he was the dictator.

What do you think would've happend to Germany back then and how do you think it could've changed how Germany is now, if Adolf Hitler never rose to power and eliminated democracy?

Looking at the picture of "Germans Salute a Nazi Parade", do you think most of the citizens of Germany were actually proud of their country or do you think they hated it and hated Hitler for killing so many people and being such a cruel dictator?

H.L.Mencken: To Expose A Fool (1925)

1. What is the author arguing?

H.L Mencken is arguing that William Jenning Bryan was an ignorant man who had bad intentions. That Bryan couldn't acknowledge new theories and views. Mencken had a lot of bad things to say about Bryan. Mencken questioned Bryan's actions and if his actions weren't sincere. Mencken also argues about how Bryan was able to relate to country people easier and was disliked by city people.

2. How does the author appeal to logos (logic), pathos (emotional quality), and ethos (the writer’s perceived character) with their argument?

Mencken appeals ethos when he said, "The truth is that even Bryan's sincerity will probably yield to what is called, in other fields, definitive criticism." It really shows what himself/others thought of Bryan. Mencken made it seem that, that's how the majority of people felt about Bryan. Mencken makes Bryan seem like a really unintelligent man that made all the wrong decisions.

He questions all of Bryans decisions by asking if Bryan made the right decision when he impposed imperialism in the Philippines, shoved Prohibitionists under the table, betraying Clark, etc. Mencken even talked about Bryan's funeral and how there wasn't anything significant to say about Bryan. The things people said were very cliche and just nice words because he died, not because he was a great man. (Logic) Then Mencken appeals pathos by giving a more personal opinion when he says that Bryan lived too long. Mencken gives off the vibe of disgust aboout Bryan. Mencken makes you really feel like Bryan really is the bad guy.

3. What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?

The historical signicance of the the document is that it's about the Scopes Trial in 1925. Which is Scopes vs. Tennessee. Bryan was against the Theory of Evolution by Charles Darwin to be taught in school. It significant because it shows how one trial could change the whole future. If the trial was different, and different sides were taken, our beliefs today could be completely different. 

4. Do you find the author’s argument convincing? Why or why not?

In ways I find this argument convincing. But I find it very hard to pick Mencken's side because he was very rude. He critisized majoirty of Bryan's actions. Though Bryan and Mencken have completely different views, I believe both had very good information and reasoning to back up their own views. In my opinion, one view wasn't better than the other. The one thing I agree with Mencken on is what he said about Bryan, "He couldn't be president, but he could at least help magnificently in the solemn business of shutting off presidency from every intelligent and self-respecting man."

P.S. This article was a little confusing, so correct me if I'm wrong with any of the parts I wrote about.

Defense of the League of Nations: Woodrow Wilson

1. What is the author arguing?

The author is arguing, well technically Woodrow Wilson. Wilson argued that the United States should be put into the League of Nations. League of Nations would be beneficial because it would preserve the liberty and peace of the world.

2. How does the author appeal to logos (logic), pathos (emotional quality), and ethos (the writer’s perceived character) with their argument?

 Wilson appeals to logic by explaining Article X. Article X "provides that every member of the League covenants to respect and preserve the territorial integrity..." And Article X would show how all nations would abide by it. Wilson then appeals pathos by talking about something more personal that is relatable to many people. It is how many soldiers die in war and families lose loved ones because of that. (pg 333). He says that those mothers of the soldiers really believe that their sons did a great deed. Wilson is the one that order those men over seas and they died. He appealed ethos when he talked about his own personal stories. The one that stood out to me the most was Decoration Day and talking to the French mothers. He stood at the cemetary staring at all the graves that belonged to American Soldiers. And the French mothers put flowers on the American Soldier's graves as if it was their own son. Then Wilson says, "I wish that the thought that comes out of those graves could penetrate their conciousness." All in all, Wilson not only cared about just the American's, he cared about everyone too. He cared for all the other nations. He knew that the League of Nations wouldn't make it war-free, but it's better to have a high chance of no war than no chance at all.

3. What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?

This document shows historical significance because Woodrow Wilson explains why he thinks that the United States should be apart of the League of Nations and why Turkey, Austria, Bulgaria, and Hungary should all join forces and make peace so there could be less war and they could easily solve problems just by talking it out.

4. Do you find the author’s argument convincing? Why or why not?

I found it very convincing because he put's a lot of thought in it. His words make it sound like he cares. He knows how to grab the attention of the audience with his words. He uses these metaphoric examples to make you think of ideas in different ways. One of my favorite examples he used was the last paragraph of page 350 where he described the settlement to a "house of cards". And how if you didn't have everyone united, the house of cards would collapse. Even on the last paragraph of page 351, he says, "blown away like bubbles".  It's as if he uses humor to convince you.