Cold war comparision video

This video goes over the threat that North Korea poses to the US as a country with Nuclear weaponry. It discusses how 2018 will mark the time when North Korea’s nuclear weapons will be able to reach US soil, and it goes over just how dangerous Trump’s actions could be at this time.


Cold war Definitions

Cuban Missile Crisis: The time when the US and the Soviet Union were the closest they had ever been to full out nuclear war. The Soviet Union promised to protect Cuba from the US at all costs, which resulted in them planting Nuclear Weapons in Cuba. The crisis came to an end when Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev promised to remove the missiles if the US would respect Cuba. This strengthens the relations between Russia and Cuba.  

NATO: The North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It is a military treaty between Several North American and European States. During the Cold War, Nato focused on limiting the spread of communism, especially after the onset of the Korean War. Today, Nato continues to work against Russia and try to prevent it from taking over European countries

NATO article 5: If a country attacks any NATO nation, they are attacking every member of NATO. US today is increasing military personnel in Slavic Nation, to protect them from any future threat from Russia.

Doomsday Clock: The doomsday clock is a representation of how far we are from nuclear annihilation. The clock was created by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists who were previously scientists working on the Manhattan Project back in 1945. In 2017, the clock was set to 2.5 minutes to midnight, the point of expected nuclear armageddon. (The Bulletin moved the clock down 30 seconds all because of Trump’s statements of deploying nuclear weapons) This was the closest the clock has been set since 1953 when it was down to 2 minutes. (Both the US and Soviets tested their first nuclear weapons within 6 months of each other)

Iron Curtain: The Iron curtain was the name for the boundary Europe into separate areas from the end of WWII in 1949 until the end of the Cold War in 1991. The term is a symbol for the efforts by the Soviet Union to block itself and its satellite states from open contact with the West and Non- Soviet- controlled areas.

Warsaw Pact: Warsaw pact is a military alliance of communist nation in eastern Europe. It was formed in 1955 in answer to NATO. The Warsaw pact included Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and the Soviet Union.

Nuclear Arms Race: During the Cold War the Soviet Union and the US were competing to become the most powerful country. To become the most powerful country US and USSR were producing warheads at an alarming pace, everyone was preparing that if one side started something, the other side could equally respond.

Mutually assured destruction: If one country attacks one, the other country will retaliate, resulting in utter annihilation. Basically, if they’re all going to die, might as well have the thrill of shooting your own nukes back and destroy any potential for survival. During the cold war, there was a huge rise in nuclear weaponry, the USSR and the US were constantly ready for the other one to attack. And if one did there would be bombardment right back on enemy territory.

Proxy Wars: When nation fund smaller regions to fight on their behalf, although indirectly. Vietnam and Korea were examples of proxy wars, where one side was supported by Communists while the other was supported NATO. USSR supported North Vietnam and North Korea, while the US-funded South Korea and South Vietnam.

Dissent: The Expression of opinions at variance with those previously, commonly, or officially held. In law a judicial opinion reaching a conclusion contrary to that reached by the majority of judges deciding a case; a minority opinion. Connected to the cold war, how the US wanted something else and how the Russians wanted something that was completely opposite and how they were not able to come to a dissent.

State-run Media: Where the country runs its media, it makes the people watch and listen what it wants them to listen. The state runs everything. F.E. Today North Korea has state-run media, the state controls and reviews everything that is broadcasted or published.

Propaganda: Mislead or biased information used to promote a particular political cause or point of view

Sanctions: a threatened penalty for disobeying a law or rule. With all the sanctions imposed on Russia, it is struggling to rebuild its economy. The Russian Ruble is on a constant drop, and Russian economy is destroyed,




WW2 questions

Pearl Harbor

  1. How would the events of WWII be different if Japan did not attack Pearl Harbor?  Use specific events and factual support to back up your argument.
    1. Before the attack on pearl harbor, the US was more isolationist and didn’t really want to involve themselves in the war. It is likely, that the US wouldn’t have involved themselves in the war for a much longer time if Japan had not attacked. The pearl harbor attack also gave the US populous a personal reason to hate the Japanese. This likely made many of them in favour of going to war. It may have also influenced the US populous’ reaction to the dropping of nukes in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If Japan hadn’t attacked the US, its people may have seen it as much more of a tragedy at the time.

Desmond Doss

  1. Desmond Doss believed that killing was wrong but he saved people so they could kill.  Was this breaking his belief? Explain.
    1. Looking at it from Doss’ point of view, he was essentially trying to give his fallen allies a second wind. Whatever they did with the opportunity that Doss gave them was up to them, and their responsibility completely. Looking at it from a professional point of view, it was Doss’ job to make sure everyone was fit to participate in war, so Doss should have known what he was doing. But, when it comes down to it, Doss was given the opportunity to save lives, it’s not as if he would let them die simply because they would kill. If Doss let them die when he could have saved them, you could argue that he was responsible for their deaths. In that case, the only way he could truly practice his beliefs was to avoid participating in any way, which would have been unpatriotic considering he was physically fit. So, regardless, I don’t believe this is a fair argument to make against Doss, and in the end, he did what he saw was right, which is what he set out to do in the first place.
  2. How has Doss influenced society with his religious beliefs?
    1. Being the first and only conscientious objector to receive the medal of honor during WW2, Doss, no doubt, inspired and empowered people who shared his faith and beliefs. Doss showed that it was okay to aid your country while retaining your personal belief system. His actions likely garnered respect from people of all walks of life, both religious and non religious. Furthermore, by giving all the credit for his actions to god, Doss likely strengthened the religious beliefs and convictions of many.
  3. How can a strict belief system lead to mistaken judgments and actions?
    1. Looking at some of the more extreme beliefs that people hold around the world, many people would put their faith above their own health or financial success. This could lead to people making decisions that prove detrimental, in hopes of preserving their faith or improving their spiritual standing or whatnot. For example, if a family decides they are not ready to raise a child and opt for abortion, their faith may prevent them from doing so. In this case, their child may grow up in a difficult environment. Alternatively, the family may put their child up for abortion, which their faith may also prevent. Using a belief system rooted in faith and guesswork is most often not a good method of decision making, but this doesn’t stop people from doing so and clouding their judgement.

Albert Goering

  1. We hear a lot about Nazi activity in Germany during World War 2, why don’t we hear much about anti-Nazi movements in Germany?
    1. Considering the fact that they lost the war, it is likely that the US and other countries on their side that tried to paint them as the enemy during the war, carried that mindset on afterwards. This would have lead to countries opposing Germany antagonizing them for years after the war. There are other reasons as well.
  2. Considering how much help Albert got from Herman’s influence, do you believe he should still get recognition for his actions?
    1. A lot of what he did was made possible by his brother’s position and how much his brother cared for him. Looking from his own point of view, he was manipulating and taking advantage of his brother. But, he should still get recognition for his actions since there was still a possibility that he could be imprisoned for them. All that it means is that he was in a position to act and he did, he was pretty much just using the resources at his disposal to help those around him, in this case, the resources being his brother.
  3. Why do you believe Germany did not recognize Albert’s actions after the war? Was it more about his actions or his brother’s?
    1. Not only was Albert against the German government, but he was related to a German officer, so there are two ways to look at this. Either, one, the Germans saw Albert as a traitor so they didn’t want to give him any recognition. Or, two, the Germans saw the error of their ways and decided to try to forget about Hermann and his brother completely.
  4. What does Germany’s treatment of Albert show about German culture after World War 2?
    1. Since no one wanted to hire him due to his relation to his brother, it shows that people in Germany were not so fond of the government and its actions during the war. This shows that many disagreed with what the government did. It may also show that people resented the government for the position they had gotten Germany in due to their actions which resulted in the war itself.
  5. Who is more representative of German culture during World War 2, Albert or Hermann? Why?
    1. Despite Albert’s efforts, I believe Hermann is more representative of German culture. While it is very likely that a large portion of German people didn’t agree with what Hermann was doing, he represented the government. The government is generally a representation of what the average person was like during the war. Furthermore, Albert was a bit of an anomaly, not really something many people could resonate with, being a relative to a Nazi general and all. It is likely that most people during world war 2 supported their government, and I see no reason for this to have been different in Germany.
    2. How did Albert’s efforts change the lives of hundreds of Jewish citizens?
      1. Through his efforts in sabotaging Nazi activity and aiding those around him, Albert was able to help countless Jewish people find refuge and escape Nazi controlled cities.
    3. Albert promoted small amount of sabotage against the Nazi’s. Why would he do this?
      1. Considering he had his brother to bail him out of any situation he trapped himself in, it was the most direct way he could hinder Nazi activity. It also wasted the time and resources of the people who had to deal with him afterwards.
    4. How did Albert’s story change your perception on powerful German figures, during WWII?
      1. Albert’s story humanized Hermann a little bit for me. Seeing that Hermann would go out of his way to help his brother who so clearly didn’t want him to succeed was a bit of a shock to me. Furthermore, the fact that he would continue to do so time and time again is just a testament to how much Hermann cared for his brother.
    5. How does recognition after death help with reconciliation?
      1. It allows people to look back and show that they were wrong in the past. For example, if Germany were to acknowledge Albert, it would be to show those around them that they resonate more with him now and that what they were doing in the past was wrong. Basically, Germany would be saying, “in hindsight this guy was right”.
    6. If you had to choose between what you believed and and your family, what would you choose?
      1. Of course, I would love to say I would choose what I believed in, but it is difficult to say what I would actually do. Of course it depends on exactly what we disagree on


The Final Solution

  1. What were the effects of the Final Solution?
    1. The final solution was the Nazi plan to exterminate the Jewish people. And while it wasn’t completely successful, the Nazis still managed to slaughter millions of people. They did this through the use of anti jew laws and legislation, and more directly, through the gassing, kidnapping, and murder of countless Jewish people.
  2. How was the Final Solution organized?
    1. The Final solution was in works for years before being finally implemented. One of Hitler’s goals during WW2 was of course the genocide and extinction of the Jews, so the Final Solution was sort of all of the things they did combined. Their first course of action was to implement bigoted laws against the Jews, and strip them of their rights, while having secret squads kill people in secret. Finally it boiled down to the concentration camps and kidnapping/hunting of Jewish people.
  3. How is the effect of the attempted extermination of the Jewish people still felt in today’s culture?
    1. Many of the people at the time lost relatives and close friends. Many people during the holocaust lost their own lives. And of course many people alive today had relatives who were directly affected or killed at the time.
  4. What were the different types of actions taken by the Nazis to torture Jews?
    1. Jews were gassed with carbon monoxide, killing them. Many Jews were taken to concentration camps where they were stripped of their basic human rights, and inhumanely treated for days, weeks, and months on end, before being killed.
  5. Why would Nazis possibly need to turn towards concentration and death camps?  Was stripping the Jews of their rights not enough?
    1. From the Nazi perspective, they were wiping out what they believed to be an inferior race of people. They wanted to be as thorough as possible, and nothing was more effective than isolating and killing the very people they wanted to rid the world of. While they weren’t doing the right thing, they did what they believed to be most effective.


Trump essay Draft 1


What conditions are making other countries turn towards authoritarianism?

In recent history, more and more countries are taking the authoritarian route with their government. In the past century the US, China, and North Korea have all adopted more authoritarian regimes, and most recently the US elected someone with such views in Donald Trump, a man who cares little for people’s freedom and personal rights. What conditions are causing countries around the world to adopt an authoritarian government? In China it was a result of internal conflict, in North Korea it was a result of the countries peers and surroundings, and in the US it was a result of people’s frustration.


China’s authoritarian government is a result of years of war, poverty, internal turmoil, and generally unfortunate events. Over the course of China’s extensive history, it was an imperial nation for a majority of its existence, like many nations were in the past. China followed a form of governance which centred around a single ruler, with the ruler’s son succeeding him each time. This state of government was not truly challenged until 1825 when opium was introduced to the Chinese people.[1] Europe, was one of China’s trade partners at the time, however, Europe needed something to export to China since they were buying Chinese merchandise and not selling enough of their own. Seeing recreational opium as a suitable option, the Europeans began exporting the substance to China. Opium was not new to China, but its use as a recreational drug was, and it quickly found its way into the hands of countless people. The government quickly placed bans on the drug, but, as we’ve seen many times throughout history, with the prohibition era, and the US’s own war on drugs, prohibiting drugs doesn’t work as well as people would hope. An underground opium trade developed just as quickly as China outlawed said drug and a tug of war between people trying to rid China of opium and those struggling to keep it began. This resulted in a series of battles and skirmishes between the Qing Dynasty ruled China and the western nations of Britain and later France, over trade rights, referred to as the “opium wars”. These wars ended with the fall of the Imperial era in China, and the Chinese were forced to establish many treaty ports and allow all merchants to trade with China. This all happened during China’s “Century of Humiliation” which saw China divided while struck with rebellion and losing practically every war it fought while having its territory occupied by foreign nations. One of the major struggles in this period was the Taiping Rebellion[2], a civil war between the Qing dynasty and the Taiping which coincided with one of the aforementioned Opium wars. This was just one of the rebellions which would eventually lead to the weakening and overthrowing of the monarchy in China. By the end of the “Century of Humiliation,” China had been invaded by foreign countries, attacked by its own people, and thoroughly embarrassed by their many, many military failures. It is no wonder why China decided to take a more nationalist approach with their government in the future. Too many people looking back on their history, China’s woes were a result of foreign intervention and corruption. However, in 1949 this nationalist government was overthrown by a communist government that has been in power ever since.[3] To this day, China has been dead set on avoiding the humiliation it faced during the “Century of Humiliation”, by any means, leading them to adopt a form of government that opts to control its citizens and have full power over whatever goes on within its borders.


Somewhat similarly to China, North Korea’s authoritarian government has its roots in North Korean history, specifically the countries surrounding North Korea during its conception and rise. At one point, Korea was a single nation that had been taken over by Japan for around 30 years by the end of the second world war.[4] After the war, Japan was forced to surrender the land it had captured in Korea, but since Japan had taken over all of Korea, the Korean empire was non-existent at the time. The UN decided to split the country into two sections. The US was to take over in the south and the USSR in the north. In South Korea, the US decided to call for elections and had someone elected to govern South Korea in a democratic fashion. In the north, however, the USSR decided to establish a communist state with Kim Il Sung as the leader of the country, establishing the Kim dynasty in North Korea. Eventually, the USSR ordered North Korea to invade the south with weapons provided by them, expecting little interference from the US or the UN. However, the UN decided to act and since the USSR was not present at the meetings to veto their decisions, they did. It was at this point that the US came in to aid South Korea in battle in what would be called the Korean War. North Korea continued to receive funding from the USSR but didn’t get direct help, since this was during the Cold War and neither the US or the USSR would have wanted to get into direct conflict with one another, considering their nuclear capabilities. In 1953, after many lead changes, an agreement was reached and the Korean War ended. After this point, North Korea continued being ruled by the Kim dynasty who decided to follow in the footsteps of their “big brothers” in the USSR and try to develop their own nuclear technology. So, in North Korea’s case, their authoritarian government was a result of the USSR’s influence over them and the strange conditions in which the country developed.


Most recently, the US has elected a president with shockingly authoritarian views. While this shift may seem a little out of the blue, it has no doubt been years in the making. The US has been a historically powerful and prosperous nation. The people of the US, of course, have become accustomed to this type of political strength and fortitude. However, in recent years, the social state of the US has become increasingly toxic. Over that past two decades, the US and many of its allies have been the victim of terrorism of both large and small scale. The US government has used these events to antagonize the middle east and give the people a group to hate. Every time a new leader comes along, they say something or other about stopping these acts of terrorism for the betterment of the US and the world. Furthermore, the influx of immigrant minority groups into the country along with the uprising of social minorities and civil rights groups in the country, including the LGBT community, have left many citizens torn on what to support. To many, Trump seems like a safe haven, someone who is so extreme, and crazy to the point where his plans just might work. Trump appeals to the portion of the US population that is opposed to change.[5] In a study conducted by Vox, they found that authoritarian views are most present in people who are opposed to change which is why Trump was able to win the election. Trump resonates with people who are scared for their country’s future in the wake of all these emerging minority groups, people who would much rather just remove these people from their communities than accept them and have to deal with the potential consequences. The US has moved towards authoritarianism due to social turmoil within the country.


The conditions causing countries turn towards authoritarianism vary from place to place. China turned to it in hopes of avoiding the humiliation faced by the country and its citizens in the past. North Korea turned to it due to the USSR’s influence over what was at the time a young and budding nation. And most recently, the US has turned to it in hopes of combating the social turmoil plaguing the country.

Trump essay outline

  1. What conditions are making other countries turn towards authoritarianism?


Thesis(very basic at the moment): In recent history, more and more countries are taking the authoritarian route with their government. In the past century China, and North Korea have all adopted more authoritarian regimes, and most recently the US elected someone with such views in Donald Trump, a man who cares little for people’s freedom and personal rights. This sudden surge of authoritarian countries varies from country to country.  In China it was a result of internal conflict, in North Korea it was a result of the countries peers and surroundings, and in America it was a result of people’s frustration.




Paragraph 1: China’s authoritarian history.

China’s authoritarian government is the result of years of war, poverty, and internal turmoil.

  • Along with Russia, China has taken a more authoritarian approach to governance.
    • They are pretty communist/totalitarian
  • China’s governance and general state really took a turn for the worst, after opium was introduced as a recreational drug in 1825[1]
    • It was first introduced by Europe as an export since the Europeans kept buying Chinese merchandise and not selling enough of their own.
    • Opium was quickly outlawed, but since people had already become addicted an underground trade developed and the struggle to rid china of opium had begun.
    • This resulted in several wars and skirmishes fought between the west and China and eventually, in the early 1900s, the Imperial era in China ended
  • With the People’s’ Republic of China in place, China was in for a bit of trouble with the onset of 2 world wars.[2]
    • By the end of the two world wars, China was split into two factions, the Nationalists and the Communists.
  • The Communists won and China has been that way ever since 1942.

Paragraph 2: North Korea’s authoritarian history.

In North Korea’s case, authoritarianism rose due to its peers and allies during its conception.[3]

  • Korea is currently ruled over by Kim Jong Un of the Kim dynasty, which has been in power since 1948.
  • During North Korea’s War with South Korea, North Korea was sponsored by Russia and
    • During this time, North Korea was impoverished and opted to develop nuclear weapons instead of improving their citizens’ living standards
  • At the same time, South Korea was aided by the US
    • This meant that, along with gaining admiration for communist countries like China and Russia, North Korea developed a hatred for countries like the US, which was, at least at the time, democratic and more for the people.
  • In the end, China and Russia’s influence over North Korea caused it to adopt a very Authoritarian government, which is in fact, closer to a dictatorship.
  • Laws in North Korea, to this day, are very strict and inhumane.[4]
    • Three generations of punishment
    • Restrictions on non state regulated media.
    • Heavy Travel restrictions


Paragraph 3: The rise of authoritarianism in the US.


The rise of authoritarianism is a result of multiple social factors influencing the state of the country.[5]

  • The US is a powerful country.
    • The people of the US have grown accustomed to their status as the most powerful country in the world.
  • In recent years, social norms and the state of the US as a whole have been challenged by minority groups in the country.
    • Many of these groups are portrayed in negative connotation and the general populous has grown to oppose their growth.
      • One such group is the immigrant population, consisting of muslims, mexicans, indians, africans, italians, and so on.
    • The publication of media focusing on said groups has lead many to believe that their growth would impact the US negatively.
    • For these reasons, people who oppose change seek to take power away from said groups.
    • According to studies published by Vox in the article linked above, people who support authoritarianism are much more opposed to change, such as the growth/empowerment of minority groups.
  • Due to the increasingly volatile social landscape of the US, people who oppose change are desperate to take the US back to a more isolated, and frankly more “white” country.
    • For this reason, Trump was able to win the election, having resonated with said people through his own authoritarian views.


Trump Essay Questions

  1. Why is the Republican electorate supporting a far-right populist without any real political experience, who has extreme and often bizarre views? How has Donald Trump, suddenly become so popular?
  2. If this rise in American authoritarianism is powerful enough to drive Trump’s rise, then how else might it be shaping American politics?
  3. How has Trump’s use of the term “Fake news” been used to silence and discredit news outlets, small or big?
  4. Why doesn’t the US have state media?      
  5. Does Donald Trump realize the consequences of his wrongdoings, or is he oblivious?

Trumps International Relations

Trumps international relations

Britain First: Britain first is an extremely nationalist political group in the UK. This was the group that Donald trump retweeted.

Retweets: the act of retweeting refers to sharing another person’s tweets on your account so that they appear on your feed and your followers can view them.

The Special Relationship: Refers to the diplomatic and political relationship between the US and Britain. It is special because of the unique and somewhat odd conditions that forged said relationships, from the conception of the thirteen colonies to the American revolution.

Incitement: provoking unlawful behaviour in another party or person.


The relationship between the US and the UK has been historically unique. For as long as the US has existed, it has been intertwined with the UK like no other country. The US exists as the UK’s rebel son, having been created for a different purpose than what it eventually turned into. The US was initially seen as a source of resources for the UK, which eventually caused the two to have several disagreements leading to the US seeking independence through whatever means necessary. And, despite the level of violence both countries experienced at each other’s hands, the level of cooperation between the two has remained unparalleled. It is for these reasons, that in 1946, Winston Churchill referred to the connection between the US and the UK as a “special relationship”. However, the UK and the US have not always been buddy-buddy in recent years, bringing us to our topic of discussion. Late in the month of November, US president Donald Trump retweeted a video from a video from the twitter page of a far right nationalist group’s leader.[1] Jayda Fransen, the deputy leader of Britain First, the nationalist group in question, posted a video portraying muslims in a negative way. Donald Trump retweeted said video allowing his own followers to see it on his page. Trump has spoken about his anti muslim beliefs in the past and it is clear that he does not like the prospect of Muslim immigrants coming to the US. The people of the UK were outraged by Trumps actions and his promotion of a fascist hate group. Considering how close the UK and US are, Trump’s promotion of “Britain First” alone could cause turmoil within the UK. Furthermore, Trump has continued to Tweet about the UK’s “Muslim Problem”[2] Tweeting “Don’t focus on me, focus on the destructive Radical Islamic Terrorism that is taking place within the United Kingdom” to Theresa May, the UK’s Prime Minister. There are many possible repercussions to Trump’s actions. For example, he could simply motivate the people of the UK to take violent action against the Muslim minority living in their country. Or, he may damage the relationship the has defined the UK and the US’s connection throughout history. This means the US could lose a valuable trading partner, or a powerful political ally. Regardless, Trump needs tread carefully and try to avoid antagonizing the UK like he has been recently.



Create a free website or blog at

Up ↑