Class Discussion Lead #2: Why Did the Allies Win World War II?

The Allies' victory in World War II is attributed to the sacrifice, perseverance, determination, strength, and raw willingness shown by the allied countries and their citizens.  The United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union put aside all political and financial grievances, to fight as one united army against Adolf Hitler.  Japan, also hoping to expand its territories, invaded and attacked numerous eastern countries during the same time that Hitler's army was wreaking havoc in Europe; thankfully, the two mass powers never joined forces.  Though Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese, the United States only put 15% of their army towards the Pacific battle, and 85% directed against Germany.  The US and its allies fought enemies with automobiles and in warplanes; they also united in providing food, gas, and ammunition to the soldiers.  The Eastern attacks and Western attacks were separate battles- but fought by a united front of the world's superpowers against the independent Japan and Germany.  The defeat of Hitler was the ultimate goal of the Allies, and truly the only thing that united the countries who found themselves working together.  Germany was defeated due to the united front shown by these three mass armies, though not without millions of deaths to remind us of the battle.

Questions:

1. How did the communist Soviet Union and the democratic countries (US, Britain) find themselves working as a "United Front"?
2. Do you think Japan and Germany would have defeated the Allies if they had worked together?

Class Discussion Lead #1: Adolf Hitler

Following its defeat in World War I, Germany experienced its own economic depression during the 1920s. Germany's Weimar government, a democracy, was unable to relieve the 50% unemployment rate and faltering currency. During this time, a young Adolf Hitler, rose to power with support of other conservative parties; he promised to bring order and power to the German people.

Hitler won support of his country as he opened up jobs for millions of out-of-work citizens; citizens who could now work as soldiers or as civilians making weapons for warfare. During this time Hitler also attacked, isolated, and murdered all who questioned his authority and growing power, as well as all who were deemed a risk to harm German bloodlines: this included Jewish citizens, disabled citizens, non-white citizens, homosexuals, chronically-ill citizens, etc.

Hitler's goal was to re-arm Germany and expand its territory to all of Europe. Many Germans supported Hitler due to his economic revival of the country, his dreams of world leadership, and his charismatic speeches and propaganda. Twelve years after Hitler rose to power, however, Germany was left in another tale-spin of economic and national ruin.

1. How and why could millions of "normal" German citizens fall for the murderous antics of Adolf Hitler?

2. "Adolf Hitler was a great leader." What does this statement mean to you, and why do you agree/disagree?

Text Analysis 2: "To Expose a Fool"

1.  What is the author arguing?

The author is Henry L. Mencken, a controversial journalist and author whose personal views lay in science, modernity, and urban sophistication of the 1920s.  The excerpt entitled "To Expose a Fool" is the obituary Mencken wrote in honor of late William Jennings Bryan, an outspoken Southern fundamentalist.  In this obituary Mencken not only slanders Bryan's person by making fun of Bryan's rural-class clothing, speech, intellectual and spiritual beliefs, but Mencken also attacks the memory and fire that Bryan's legacy may have placed in other fundamentalists:

"The evil that men do lives after them.  Bryan, in his malice, started something that it will not be easy to stop." (167).


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

After analyzing Mencken's writing, it was interesting to try and pinpoint where each of these strategies were used, because initially, Mencken's words seem to be simply a way of poking fun at a victory against a long-standing enemy; his words are full of sarcasm, superiority, and disdain.

After further review, however, I believe Mencken's words appeal to the logos in a manipulative way; Mencken labels Bryan as a crazy, dirty, countryman who lacked the worldliness to join civilization.  By labeling Bryan in this way, Mencken manipulates his readers so that they will not want to be categorized with Bryan.

I believe both the emotional quality and character of Mencken are best seen in the hatred he speaks of Bryan's life-meaning:  "...the ambition of a common man to get his hand upon the collar of his superiors, or, failing that, to get his thumb into their eyes." (166).   Through Mencken's use of Christian fables, he shows the reader he is knowledgeable of the fundamentalist religion, and may even be seen as more legitimate by his counterparts for this reason.  Mencken's attack of Bryan can be justified through his hatred of the Klan, and his passion for Americans to unite as a knowledgeable and civilized people.



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

Prior to Bryan's death, he had hopes of political glory.  After failing to become President, Bryan took it upon himself to raise fundamentalist support in the South.  The weeks leading up to Bryan's death, he participated in a trial to fight evolutionary teaching from being used in Southern schools, and the judge did grant Bryan's wish in the end.  Mencken believes, however, that the trial set the stage for Bryan's death because of the humiliation Bryan experienced while being questioned as to his reasoning for disagreeing with evolution:

"Upon that hook, in truth, Bryan committed suicide, as a legend as well as in the body.  He staggered from the rustic court ready to die..." (166).

Mencken's use of the word "suicide" is ironic as suicide is considered to be one of the worst sins to commit by Christian beliefs.


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

I find Mencken's writing extremely amusing, and more shocking, than convincing.  I naturally agree with Mencken's standpoint on fundamentalists, however, I don't think he portrayed this message in the most tactful of ways.  I hesitate to say that today, this would never have been printed.  I believe the personal attack on Bryan took away from the legitimate points Mencken made, and he would have produced a stronger argument had he left his personal feelings towards Bryan out of the equation.

Text Analysis: Woodrow Wilson's Defense of the League of Nations, 1919

1.  What is the author arguing?

In order to understand the speech in which President Wilson pleas to the American people to support the League of Nations, I believe some history must be taken into account:  After World War I, Wilson traveled to Paris to partake in the "Peace Conference" at which the powers of the world discussed post-war bargaining, treaties, and boundary disputes.  Wilson compromised on many of the "Fourteen Points" that Americans believed he would accomplish, however, he did pass an agreement that stated all powerful countries would form a group that would provide "collective security and order" for the world at large (Roark 810).  After coming home to a society made up of a mixing pot of nationalities, Wilson discovered many in the United States were infuriated with the proposals he agreed to while at the Paris Peace Conference; he did not stand true to his "Fourteen Points", and he took freedoms away from nations that were once home to US citizens.  Wilson therefore spent 1919, touring the nation in order to build support in the Senate for their upcoming vote on the issue of whether the US would join the upcoming League of Nations.  Wilson believed the League of Nations could rectify all wrongdoing he may have done at the Peace Treaty, and he felt it important to explain to the US citizens the necessity of joining the League in order to maintain peace, freedom, and independence for all nations on a world-wide scale.


2.  How does the author appeal to logos (logic), pathos (emotional quality), and ethos (the writer's perceived character) with their argument?
 
President Wilson is one of the most emotionally driven speakers I have ever studied.  The League of Nations speech appeals to the readers' pathos by his ability to make his argument relateable to all.  Wilson's desperate plea to support the dead soldiers' mission by not allowing their sacrafice for freedom to go to waste, clearly hits home to all Americans.  Wilson then goes on to appeal to our logos by explaining why a united front by all powerful nations is necessary; it will stop unnecessary and impassioned warfare from taking place because all problems will be faced by all countries, and therefore will not be hidden, ignored, or have rash decisions be made.  Wilson's moral fiber is seen throughout this speech in that he clearly wants to make his dream of an end to all wars a reality.  I believe Wilson conveyed his message to the people effectively, as his speech appeals to the heart and mind of the reader.



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

President Wilson's crusade toured him throughout the country, and shortly after giving this speech, he suffered a debilitating stroke that left him bed-bound.  To his dismay, the Senate did not pass his bill, and the United States did not join the peace efforts of the League of Nations.  It is hard to say whether the US's presence would have stopped the bloodshed of the upcoming WWII, however, it is clear that without the support of the United States, the League was not all it could have been.



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

I think the speech itself is very well written, and is clearly an earnest plea from a man who sees the importance in the League.  After compromising away many of the "Fourteen Points" that Wilson went to Paris to ensure, I think it is likely that the citizens of the United States ran out of trust in Wilson's idealistic view of the future.  As a reader of his speech today, I do believe his argument is convincing because he foresaw another world war without the League initiating cooperation and respect by all powers of the world- and clearly, his foresight was not incorrect.