World+War+1

​ 1)

 * 1) Imperalism
 * 2) No international peace organisation
 * 3) Nationalism
 * 4) Militarism Armis Race
 * 5) Alliances
 * 6) Entangling Alliances
 * 7) Economic Competitions
 * 8) International Disquit

==I think (how you can see in the list) that the real reason for that war was that each country thought about theirselves. For example how they can improve everthing to earn more power and money ( enhance army, ecomony and alliances). And on their way they don't care about the others and becoming proud about what they already changed.==

2)

Today I see definitely the ecomonic competitions. The nature souces are going to be exhausted and these are becoming expenisver, an example would be oil. In addition, the Alliances are playing a big role, too. For example when America went to war, Britain followed. Maybe I could also see war caused by increasing the military standarts. By the fact that some countries still product uranium and the UNO called them to stop it. Maybe the international disquit could be another reason, that we don't trust eacht other (for example with the uranium, that somepeople are preparing theirselves for a war).

3) Do you see any of these causes with the U.S. war with Iraq?

Yes, how I said, Britain helped because of the Alliances. Besides the ecomonomic Competitions, ok they don't said it, but I think that the oil problem was one more reason. In addition, the international disquit, after the 11th of september.

//Assigment 2//
Suppose World War 1 had expendet to the United States, what would be the consequenses?

First of all if the war had been expending the USA, they would have been becoming weaker, had to accept the lost of thousands of inhabitants and the economy would have been decreasing. Maybe they would not be as powerful as today. And other coutries would not think of America as strong nation. ​ Do you think the settlement would have been the same? Would the U.S. be treated the same as Germany was after the war? Would the Allies have won the war? ​ I could imagine that the hole situation could have been different. Maybe the US would have been divided into different pices like it was likewise with Germany after world war two. And the different seperations would be ruled by european countries who take the taxes and force money from the country.After a period of time the american people would try the get their country back and this would force a lot of power amd to stay tuned to...

would you feel if you were the torpedo that hit the Lusitania?

I would feel terrible because I know that because of my suicide other people would have been killed. And that I can never change the fact that I am the reason for all bad that happenes on that day in that area. In addition, it is bad enough that I killed persons or hurt them, but for my disadvantage this human had families and friends who are left back. And this tragic is just my falt and in the last seconds I would probably wish I did not decided to do that. Think about the effects of this torpedo. What happened as a result of this? Casualties?

How would you feel if you were the newspaper announcing World War 1?

Even if it was a bad event for the human history, it changed the life all over the world and in this way we would feel important. Otherwise, I think that I would feel sad because I have to tell the people that a war is coming and that a lot of people are going to die, in one way the postman of the bad news. Besiedes I am under pressure because people will read and believe in that what they get to know. In this way I could manipulate them in the false way if I do not stay honest. A bear the brunt of the work. Poeple think that the newspaper would be honest they believe in what it writes. Besides, there were not so many different ways to hear about the war and its truths. Me as a writer, I could just let things out and just write about bad things or good. Give some specific examples of this. How are you influencing people specifically? Are you pressuring people to be in favor of the war or the opposite?

What would happen if the Central Powers had won World War I ?

If the Central Powers, England and France had won the World War 1, they would have earned a lot of power and the United States would have been loosing a lot their stability (economy and military). But for their luck the Central Powers did not won and in this way they had to accept the loss of money, military and fame. Like I asked above, Would the U.S. and any of the Allies been treated the same as the Central Powers were after the war? Probably, Yes I think so.

How is the Sedition Act like a sock?

People were not allowed to talk about the war in a bad way. So that they do not give the military any reason to be in doubt with it. The sock is in this task a kind of abstract idea. When we think of a sock, we realize that a sock covers our feet, that can be sometimes really smelly. But because of the sock the shoe does not smell after wearing like it would smell if we would not wear the sock. In this way other do not realize if we put off the shoe that there is something "not likly". In this way the bad smell is covered. If we now thing of the war it becomes obvious that the "sock" should just let it look as if we are all satisfied with our situation, that we all stand behind it. And because of this fact the military stays stronger and so the nation because the others think that there is everything allright.

**//Assignment 3//**
===Listen to Bruce Springsteen's song "War." which is found above. You will have to open another tab but also read the lyrics found [|here]. - Research anti−war protests during World War I, World War II, the Vietnam War, Persian Gulf War and the War in Iraq.===

1) How are these protests similar and how are they different? In addition, there is another part in the song that describes the similarities really good:" Peace love and understanding,There must be some place for these things today,They say we must fight to keep our freedom, But Lord there's gotta be a better way, That's better than War", this quotation shows that almost everyperson goes after that what other say ("They say we must fight for our freedom"), and this happens almost everywhere, not all people are into the topic. But after time they are asking theirselves if it is worth it because they are just tired about it or they lost so much people, are desperate and do not know what to do now. In the other way, the protest are different because the backrounds are different. I mean some happen because of disadvantages or deep arguments about some topics, but there are also war backrounds like Iraq that did not need to happen in this way. There are still people dying and at the same moment family members are breaking together because of their lost.
 * Similar, in this way that they are all connected with war and with the loss of people. The Song of Bruce Stringsteen underlines my idea. With the sentences "** it means destruction of innocent lives, it means tears in thousands of mothers' eyes, When their sons go out to fight to give their lives".

2) How does this song by Bruce Springsteen encompass what these protestors believed?

It just sum up everthing. He ennummerates a lot of facts and they are true no matter how you change the situation people are dying "For it means destruction of innocent lives". Today, people also believe that the war in Iranq has no sence and the song says "War, What is it good for, Absolutely nothing", this makes it obvious that the songtext matches to the opinion of the protestors very good.