First class with more than 50% passed (70%) to pass wins!
First class with more than 50% passed (70%) to pass wins!
Congratulations! You are done! Come in tomorrow prepared to watch a historically based movie. Not “the interview” it’s just all I had in my inventory. Bring popcorn and water. It’s all over and the next few weeks will fly by. Hang in there!
So what is this “New World Order”? I am not inclined to give much credit to the boundless conspiracy theories but they do make for some humorous anecdotes (see Simpson’s “Stonecutter’s Song”).
Seriously though what would Kissinger say now, 23 years after the publication of this book, about the New World Order. There is an inescabably Eurocentric focus to his analysis of the periods of various World Orders, from the Peace of Westphalia to the Congress of Vienna. What did these conceptions mean to the populations of Southeast Asia, Africa or the Americas? Not much, thank you. If that is the case then, if Kissinger is really talking about European hegemony, and I think we could safely argue that the United States is a product of that, then is our current embroilment in the “war on terror” really much of a surprise?
As we conquered the west in the euphemism of “manifest destiny” the native American’s pushed back but could not prevail. As “we”, meaning the European history and culture of representative democracy, separation of church and state and free market systems, push into all corners of the globe, is it really surprising that some are pushing back? Is it surprising that some have acquired the means to really hurt us? Will 9/11 be regarded as a sort of modern battle of little bighorn? Was the Soviet retreat from Afghanistan like the Spanish retreat from the great Pueblo Revolt of 1680? Are the events in Syria and North Korea a Cold War 2.0?
By 2110 at least one other “New World Order” will have emerged by then according to Kissinger’s rubric, what will the students of this classroom refer to our time as? What do you think?
Kissinger’s assessment of Reagan is a riot I think. So unintellectual, so contradictory, so bombastic but also for HK, so effective. In the end even though RR skewered our dear Henry in his 76 presidential bid (running against incumbent Ford for nomination), Dr. K. cannot hold a grudge. All those recycled jokes and stories, though he was bored with the details of foreign policy (or perhaps just with Kissinger), Reagan wins the approval of our dear ex-secretary.
Another big part of the story here is of course the collapse of the Soviet Union. Why? It certainly was not Gorbachev’s intention. Why, according to Kissinger, did the USSR collapse?
Have you all seen these before? They’re called “Word clouds”. You can cut and paste text and the words will be randomized but also manipulated in size by their frequency. In other words in Reagan’s “Evil Empire” speech, above, he used “God” quite a bit and “communism” rather less so. I think they are interesting.
Here in Ambrose and Brinkley’s 15th chapter we have a marathon of words. 40+ pages! Note the 5th edition was published in 1988, the sixth in 1991. In one of those editions, the 6th I suspect, this chapter was new and a classic case of not having enough historical distance to weed out the significant from the non.
If I were hunting for terms I might choose Ambrose’s take in the Iran-Contra affair, Lebanon, Grenada and maybe the Falkland Islands.
So what do A&B think of old Ronnie? Good or bad or somewhere in-between?
OK Google site being weird. Scroll away;
Vietnam and beyond
1 – Assess the social and economic causes of one twentieth century war (Vietnam). (2005/2)
Prompt 1: Assess the social and economic causes of the Vietnam War.
The Vietnam war was mainly caused largely by social pressures in the form of imperialist and anti-communist sentiment on the part France and the US, as well as anti-colonialist attitudes of the Vietnamese.
Background / TLDR :
WHY DID THE WAR START
WHY DID THE US JOIN
Sort of counterpoint link below
2 – Explain the changing nature of the United States’ involvement in Vietnam between 1963 and 1975. (2013/02)
Vietnam and Beyond
Prompt 2: Explain the changing nature of the United States’ involvement in Vietnam between 1963 and 1975.
Thesis: During Kennedy’s presidency, US military involvement in Vietnam was at an all time high, and continued to increase as Johnson became president in 1963 despite disapproval from a large number of Americans. After Nixon became president in 1969 he implemented Vietnamization which gradually reduced US involvement in the war.
3 – “Although it began in Europe the spread of the Cold War to other regions was a much more dangerous development.” To what extent do you agree with this judgment? (2003/2)
4 – Evaluate the impact of Cold War tensions on two countries (one being Vietnam Steussy edit) ((excluding the USSR and the US legit IB edit) (2017/2)
5 – Analyze the political impact of the Vietnam War upon the United States between 1964 and 1974. (2001/3)
The Vietnam war impacted the politics of the United States to a great extent, including policies, foreign relations, and rights.
“New economic zones” was a program implemented by the communist government causing the migration of northern vietnamese to southern regions
6 – “Many twentieth century wars had the characteristics of both a limited and a total war.”. With reference to two wars (Vietnam being one) explain to what degree you agree with this statement. (2010)
7 – Compare and contrast the roles of Korea and Vietnam in the Cold War. (2008)
#7: Compare and Contrast the roles of Korea and Vietnam in the Cold War (2008)
Thesis: Although both conflicts in Korea and Vietnam were initiated mostly due to the western fear of communism spreading (domino theory), they differed in who gave aid, the ways the conflicts were physically fought and how they were resolved.
Korea: (never completely solved)
Vietnam: (american interest)
Hey gang. I uploaded some of the review records here. Enjoy!