World War 2

To what extent was World War Two an ethical war?

Pre-investigation response

What is your pre-investigation response to: To what extent was World War Two
an ethical war?

Post-investigation response

What is your post-investigation response to: To what extent was World War
Two an ethical war?

War as a Response to Ultranationalism

Read the article from Forbes and answer the following Questions

Many British and French political leaders had staked their hopes on appeasing Hitler to avoid
war. Appeasement was a fatally flawed policy. Churchill condemned appeasement as the
strategy of feeding a crocodile in the hopes it would eat you last. He recognized that Hitler was
insatiable, and each meal only made the crocodile more dangerous.

The infamous Munich Conference in late 1938 revealed the costs of appeasement. Hitler had
demanded an integral part of Czechoslovakia. Britain and France should have supported the
strong pro-Western democracy against Nazi aggression. Instead, they sold out the young nation
by accepting Hitler’s claims. The Czechoslovaks were not even invited to Munich. The Western
betrayal proved disastrous. Czechoslovakia lost its natural defenses and industrial areas,
rendering the nation helpless against further German expansion. Additionally, Britain and

1
France’s capitulation convinced other nations that Western leaders lacked the will to stop
Hitler.

British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain returned from Munich declaring that he had
obtained “peace for our time.” That peace would prove short-lived. Within a few months, Hitler
had swallowed up the rest of Czechoslovakia. Then, Germany demanded territory from
Lithuania and Poland. The Lithuanians gave in, the Poles did not. Hitler decided that Poland
must be destroyed. On the eve of his invasion, Hitler told his generals, “our enemies are…not
men of action, not masters. They are little worms. I saw them at Munich.” Appeasement had
backfired, confident of Western inaction, Hitler became more belligerent.

How did appeasement contribute to the start of WWII?

Ideas surrounding ethical actions

• Activity: Read each of the ideas and its definition below and answer the
following question
Genocide- refers to the killing of members of national, ethnic, racial, or religious
group; and deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring
about its physical destruction
Crimes Against humanity- refers to widespread or systematic attacks against
civilian population – murder, extermination, enslavement, imprisonment, torture,
rape, or sexual slavery.
War crimes- refers to willful killing, torture, or inhuman treatment; willfully
causing great suffering; and intentionally directing attacks against the civilian
population

2
 How might being aware of the above definitions help us in reaching an ethical position?

What is the Ethical Position?

▪ Ethical judgements about historical actions are decisions about the rights or wrongs of
those actions. Based on a set of principles

▪ The ethical dimension of history is to recognize that history always involves interpretation

▪ Records of the past are created by individuals who have interpreted the past and so hole
ethical positions about historical action, conveyed either explicitly or implied

• Activity: Analysis the quote using the ethical dimension of historical thinking by
answering the questions below.
“There is not home in Canada, no family and no individual whose fortunes and freedom are
not bound up in the present struggle….. I appeal to my fellow Canadians to unite in a national
effort to save from destruction all that makes life itself worth living and to preserve for future
generations those liberates and institutions which others have bequeathed to us”
~ Canadian Prime Minister William

Who are the possible heroes, villains, or victims? How do you know?

What message is the author sending? How do you know?

3
Total War
Activity 1- Read the passage below from the textbook (page 151), and answer the following questions
Canada’s national interest now focused on the war effort. With the declaration of war, the tone of the
language used to describe the country’s involvement in international affairs also changed. The government
began implying that Germany was the evil enemy, and Canadians were told that they were fighting for “the
freedom of mankind.”
Government policies focused on what King called “a total effort for a total war,” in which “the security of each
individual is bound up in the security of the nation as a whole.” Under conditions of “total mobilization,”
Canadians were encouraged to support the war effort by joining the armed forces or by working in essential
industries and other civilian activities.
By the end of September 1939, more than 58 000 Canadians had enlisted in the armed forces. Propaganda
campaigns were launched to recruit people and persuade them to invest in war bonds, which helped finance
the war effort. No employer was allowed to hire anyone who did not have a permit from an employment
office, and employment could be restricted to specific locations or industries considered essential to the war
effort.
Official censorship was also introduced to ensure that no essential information fell into the hands of the
enemy. Government censors, for example, approved every speech broadcast on the CBC and examined
stories.

What does PM Mackenzie King mean when he says, “a total effort for a total war”?

Is Mackenzie Kings decision to engage in “a total effort for a total war”, an appropriate response?
And is the resulting burden this place on Canadian citizen ethical?

4
Activity 2-anyalize the Canadian War time poster image, and answer the following questions

Who are the possible heroes, villains, or victims? How do you know?

What message is the author sending? How do you know?

5
Conscription crisis
Activity- read the below passage, then watch the short video. Once down
answer the following questions

In 1941, as recruitment slowly

progressed, more people spoke out in favour of conscription, among English-speaking
Canadians in general. To appease supporters of conscription, Prime Minister William Lyon
Mackenzie King decided to hold a non-binding referendum asking Canadians to release
the government from its anti-conscription promises.

In Quebec, the Ligue pour la défense du Canada was established in order to campaign for
the “no” side. On 27 April 1942, 72.9 per cent of Quebec residents voted “no.” In all other
provinces the “yes” vote triumphed by some 80 per cent. The government then passed Bill
80, authorizing conscription for overseas service if it was deemed necessary.
Quebec’s Bloc populaire, formed in response to the Mobilization Act, continued to fight
against conscription by presenting candidates for the August 1944 provincial elections and
the June 1945 federal elections.

In 1944, J.L. Ralston, the minister of national defence, was convinced of the need for
overseas conscription. Unexpectedly high casualties on the front, combined with a large
commitment of manpower to the Royal Canadian Air Force and Royal Canadian Navy, left
the Canadian Army short of recruits.

King, who had hoped he would not have to invoke Bill 80, replaced Ralston with
General A.G.L. McNaughton, who did not support conscription. On 22 November,
however, the Prime Minister acknowledged the open pro-conscriptionist sentiments of
many of his anglophone Cabinet ministers (who threatened to resign over the matter) and
reversed his decision. He announced that conscripts would be sent overseas.

• https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2193779462

Is conscription an appropriate action in wartime?

How are national interest and conscription related?

6
Interment Camps
Activity 1- watch the following video and answer the questions below.
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUGM7EfwwU8&feature=emb_ti
tle *if links do not work contact your teacher

Who are the possible heroes, villains, or victims? How do you know?

Is interment camps an appropriate action in wartime?

Activity 2- Watch the video in the link and answer the question below.
• https://www.britannica.com/video/180234/Discussion-POWs-
German-Soviet-World-War-II *if links do not work contact your
teacher
Is it fair to compare Canadas treatment of Canadians of Japanese descent with Joseph Stalin’s actions in
the Soviet Union or Adolf Hitler’s actions in Germany?

7
Case study: Atomic Bomb
Activity- Read the following two passages and answer the following questions regarding, the concept of “What is
the Ethical Position?”. From www.historicalthinking.ca

Passage One
American scientists with the aid of British and European colleagues had developed a new bomb
of unprecedented destructiveness. Two of these atomic bombs were dropped on the Japanese,
ending their fanatical resistance and beginning a new nuclear age where the human species
had, for the first time, the technological means of obliterating itself.
~ Roberts, M. (2001). Britain 1846-1964: the challenge of change.

Who are the possible heroes, villains, or victims? How do you know?

What message is the author sending? How do you know?

8
 Passage two
The Postdam Declaration, made in the names of the U.S., Britain, and China, called for Japan to
surrender and submit to democratization. However, the Japanese government ignored the
declaration. However, the Japanese government ignored the declaration and urged the
Japanese people towards a fight to the finish.
As a result, the U.S., which had succededed in experiments to create the world’s first aromic
bomb and motivated also by the desire to come out of the war more powerful thatn the Soviet
Union, dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima on Aug 6th, and another one on Nagasaki on
Aug 9th. Both cities were annihilated in a flash. By 1950, it was estimated that more then
200,000 people in Hiroshima and 140,000 in Nagasaki had died as a result of the atomic
bombings, making this the worst tragedy in the history of mankind.
~Japan in modern history, junior high school textbooks. (1994).
Tokyo: International Society for Educational Information, 515

Who are the possible heroes, villains, or victims? How do you know?

What message is the author sending? How do you know?

What might explain the differences and similarities in the interpretations of the authors of these two
passages?