HEY

If anyone gets this: I am not sure which conference the Napkin Agreement took place. If you could clarify that would be great!! Thanks!!!

Presentations

Buchenwald was a mean's concentration camp in 1937, and women were put there in '43 or '44.  They had barbed wire fences and the prisoners were confined to the north part of the complex.  Other parts were reserved for the riding academy, zoo and headquarters for the guards.  The Commandant's name was Koch.  The camp itself was located near the city but was in a forested area.  Prisoners were made to build roads as means for transport.  There were political prisoners, Jews, Gypsies, German army deserters, and officials from occupied countries held at Buchenwald.  The average workday was 14 hours long, roll call was 4 times a day, and the dead had to be taken to roll call.  When the war was ending, the Allies bombed near the camp.  Soon after, the prisoners were made to stand in the forested areas around the camp during bombings.  On the third day of this, the US bombed the camp instead of the area surrounding it.  It seems that the prisoners had a radio and were communicating with them.

FDR

One thing that this class has kind of shed light on, for me, is the fact that, as Strauss mentioned, you either loved or hated FDR as a President.  We've talked about the possibility that he was naive about the Soviets, and other things.

For me, I wonder what the exact motivations were for not having Truman in the loop at all for any of the actions taking place near the end.  I realize that no one really expected Roosevelt to die, but considering his position coupled with the notion that he was, in fact, sick, what was the deal?  Were there negative implications of having Truman more in the loop?

What If Roosevelt

This week in class we went over the fascinating and rather important but often overlooked section of the What If? of WWII. This form of study is useful, because not only does it force you to know events and possible deviations that may have occurred but didn't, and also to analyze the effects that said events and their alternatives may have had. As has been mentioned, so many events in WWII shaped policy, economy, and society for many years to come. I believe we still feel the echoes of the larger decisions made, especially towards the end of the war.

As for Roosevelt, I wonder how everything may have turned out if he had survived to the end of negotiations with the victors, specifically the Soviets. As it was, he has been accused of going too soft on what was an obvious threat to postwar freedom throughout the world. But knowing that FDR always played his cards close to his chest, I wonder if he didn't have something in the works that he went to his grave with before he could start of complete it. For sure he never shared such sentiments with Truman, but then again he didn't share much at all with his vice. What if ...

FDR

I think it is difficult to discount FDR and his actions of interpreted softness towards the soviets. Everyone had two things in mind: keep another war from happening, and do what's best for THEIR country. Some people may argue that FDR should have taken a more hard nose approach to Stalin and the Soviets but that could have produced future conflicts. Maybe Patton was right when he said we should have just kept moving East, but that would have obviously taken a lot and Russia would have been pissed regardless.
Though the cold war may have come as a result of the decisions made by FDR, I dont think he is to blame.
It also leads to a question of whether that is a bad thing. There were no large conflicts as a result of the cold war and there was a long period of relative peace after WWII. Had we tried to take out or diminish the power of the Soviet Union in WWII, given Stalin's policies, I think it could have led to more conflicts.

WHAT IF'S

Class in general this week was interesting due to the fact that Lon Strauss posed many questions, doubts, and what if's that one should always, not only address but also assess when so many lives are changed in a span of 5 years, and the economies became forever changed due to such events. Therefore when reflecting upon the battle of the bulge or the bombing of tokyo one must wonder not only how these decisions came to pass but also what brought on these decisions and like Lon said, are these decisions inevitable, NO, but what would we do today vs in  the 40's. IT is hard to say because much of those decisions were made by the high ranking officials but the carried out by many. Which comes into the factor of, Dont think just react, type of mentality. However still being rather ignorant on military tactics and strategies, I feel that you can strategize all you want but it comes down to the real time decisions that make and break battles.

Class

I thought the argument about FDR being naïve was fascinating because that was the first time I have ever heard that. I always thought everyone loved FDR but apparently not. However, regardless of FDR’s actions, a President will always have individuals that think they have done wrong regardless of what they did, because we know the outcome of their decisions. However, the one problem I do have with FDR is that it seems to me that he kept Truman out of the loop of information, especially about the Atomic bomb I have always found that to be interesting that the Vice-President did not even have a clue about the bomb until FDR died.

I thought the cartoons were very funny and offer a good insight to what the public may have been thinking. I think we should have watched at least one per class, but that is just my opinion. However, about the cartoon Private Snafu I wonder if they were made to break up the routine of Army training or if the Generals thought, the average GI was so dumb that the only way for them to learn was with cartoons? Just a thought.