Cold War-- Take Two

I think the origins of the Cold War began sooner than i originally believed. After thinking about it more, I believe that the Cold War originated with tensions that began at the end of World War I. World War I ended quite hostilely, sparking Germany to react violently. Tensions between the US and the Soviet Union started when the two allies had disagreements on how to handle Germany. Tensions heightened when the USSR knew for sure that the US was a threat, proved by the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan. Once the Cold War neared, economics became more of a factor in driving the Cold War. I still believe all the previously mentioned economic factors were a major cause of the Cold War.

The Cold War: Why?

                 The nuclear aspect of the Cold War began with the United State’s dropping of the atomic bomb to end World War II. This showed the rest of the world the devastation and power of nuclear weapons. It showed the world that nuclear warfare was a possibility, and created a lot of fear regarding the power of the United States.

                Other than the regards of nuclear power, economics were a major cause of the Cold War. Communism was not trusted by the West, and democracy not trusted in the East. Most would say this was a social problem, but in actuality it was a problem of economics. Capitalist nations such as the United States were more interested in international trade, were communist nations preferred to be isolated. It was this clash of systems that created the tension that caused the Cold War.

Intentions or Results?

I think intentions matter more than results. After all, good intentions are meant to produce good results. Without the proper intentions, the wanted results seem unlikely. The response of the world to Nazi genocide shows a case where certain intentions created other results that were indeed “good.” In the case of World War II, it’s not that the world response to Nazi aggression was wrong, or had bad intentions, it’s just that they reacted at a later time. The world went in with the intentions of putting a stop to Nazi aggression, and as a result stopped the genocide of World War II. So is the world worth of shame for not intervening earlier? After World War I, it makes sense why the world was staying out of foreign affairs, but I don’t think this justifies not acting in effort to stop inhumane atrocities.

In modern times, it’s easier to judge our acts by our intentions, because the results aren’t always fully played out. In the Middle East, for example, we brought in forces in an effort to set up democratic governments. Our intentions were right, but the wanted results seem intangible. Instead, we’ve caused the death of many soldiers and civilians.

"Motivating Students With Cash-For-Grades Incentive"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/21/world/middleeast/21iht-educLede21.html?pagewanted=1&ref=education

Motivating students seems to be a common frustration among teachers. How exactly do you get a student who doesn't care about school to care about getting good grades? When I first saw this, I thought, "An A=$$$," and wondered where all that money would come from. Our country is making education cuts as it is, so how are we going to afford to PAY students? In the United States now students are rewarded with scholarships to college for good grades. This fails to cover all exceptional students however, and straight up cash payments have been proposed. Say there was an endless pool of cash, would this even work? Consider the following video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc  ...it says that money motivators don't work for cognitive thinking. Surprised?
Beyond that, I don't think it would be a good idea to motivate students with money incentives. It would really change the way society worked. Students are reliant on their parents financially, but if students started getting paid, could this reliance reverse?
It's true that students need more motivation these days, but money doesn't seem to be the answer.

Gilbert 80-98

Why did military planners always hope, and plan for, an immediate defeat when in reality that seems unrealistic?

Fay makes the argument that all European countries are equally responsible for war. Each nation had its own role in causing World War I, and the blame cannot be placed solely on Germany. Fischer on the other hand places the majority of the responsibility on Germany. It's difficult to place that much blame on Germany, however, because other countries were also at fault. Serbia, for example, knew about the plan behind the assassination of the Arch Duke, but didn't take action to stop it. This shows that Serbia wasn't against war causing actions. Russia and France came together to form an alliance, showing their preparation for war. Britain didn't take any preventative measures when it appeared as if war might break out. More European nations that just Germany are responsible for the war. Germany can be held a tad more responsible, though. Germany itself admitted to war causing actions, and prepared for war more than any other country. Germany's alliance with Austria-Hungary may have "dragged" them into the war, but if it weren't for previous actions by Germany, the war may not have started. Fay is correct in that a number of countries hold some responsibility in causing the war, but Germany is more responsible than any other nation.

Dodged a Bullet.

If Archduke Ferdinand weren't assassinated, would World War I have started?

~I think that the assassination caused the war by spreading war feelings to a large amount of people. It was an attention grabber, and stirred up a lot of emotion around the world. I don't think that quarreling over colonies alone would have caused the outbreak of World War I. Say Ferdinand had dodged the bullet, and the assassination didn't happen... it would be easy to say no, the war would not have started, but I think it would have been just a matter of time. I think some event would have had to happen that caused a similar uproar for the war to start, however.. a war of that caliber would not have started based on previous events alone.