Skip to main content

Full text of "Classroom bulletin on social studies"

See other formats




no. 6 


no. 6 






Xo. 6 

February, 1H6 

Price 10c 


W^ < 

i\ut ( ^m 


rtlF* | ALBERTA | 


mm <r 




This Bulletin has been specially prepared for the use of teachers of 

Social Studies, offering information re textbooks, 

reference books and procedures. 





'The Classroom Bulletin on Social Studies," which 
is published at frequent intervals, aims to assist teachers 
and students, particularly those who have not access to 
adequate library facilities. It is hoped that teachers 
wilt make full use of the possibilities offfered by the 
Bulletin. They may do so by submitting suggestions for 
future issues regarding topics or procedures which, in their 
opinion, should have a place in this publication. Ideally, 
the Bulletin should function as the clearing house for 
all materials and ideas that will serve to make social 
studies in the high school more meaningful and vital. 

Communications should be addressed to the Social 
Studies Bulletin, Department of Education, Edmonton. 

Further copies of the Bulletin may be had at 10 
cents per copy from the General Office of the Department 
of Education. 




(Current Events, Social Studies 1, 2and 3) 

Our last review of world affairs surveyed the events 
marking the rapid collapse of the Axis powers in 1945 — the 
125 tremendous days "that made even the biggest type in 
newspaper composing rooms seem inadequate." But the days 
since last August 15th — V-J Day — are no less important, 
though they may seem less spectacular. In brief, they give 
us a vivid idea of the painful difficulties lying ahead in the 
solution of our international post-war problems. 

Looking back over the 138 days from V-J Day to the 
end of 1945, we find that the following dates of this first 
phase of the post-war world stand out : 
August 16 — Russia and Poland signed a border treaty in 

which some territorial concessions were made to the 

August 21 — The United States ended lend-lease. 
August 27 — The first United States soldiers landed in Japan. 
September 2 — The Japanese signed formal surrender in Tokyo 

September 24 — Indo-China Annamites revolted against French 

October 2 — The Big Five foreign ministers' meeting ended in 

October 8 — The Palestine Jews staged a five-hour general 

October 13 — The Indonesians staged an uprising in Java. 
October 19 — The Canadian House of Commons ratified the 

United Nations' Charter. 
November 11 — The R.A.F. attacked Indonesians at Soerabaja. 
.November 15 — Truman, Attlee and King announced their 

proposal that the UNO devise atomic energy controls. 
November 20 — The trial of twenty leading Nazis started at 

November 27 — General George C. Marshall appointed United 

States Ambassador to China upon his retirement as 

Chief of Staff of the United States Army. 
December 2 — So-called "rebel democrats" seized Azerbaijan 

in Iran. 
December 6 — Anglo-American loan agreement announced. 
December 15 — The United States is chosen as the permanent 

home of the UNO. 
December 19 — The British House of Commons passed a bill 

for the nationalization of the Bank of England. 
December 22 — Britain and the United States recognized 

Tito's Yugoslavian government. 

December 27 — Big Three foreign ministers' conference came 
to a successful conclusion in Moscow. Canada and 
twenty-seven other nations signed the Bretton Woods 
monetary agreement. 

December 31 — The Chinese central government countered a 
Communist plan for a truce by proposing to bring 
General George C. Marshall into discussions for a 
cessation of hostilities and by asking the Communists 
to join a government which would unify China. 
From the above summary it is readily seen that the big 

issues which have stirred the world since V-J Day are: 

(1) The atomic bomb; 

(2) Anglo-Russian-American post-war co-operation 
which in turn involves these questions: 

(a) control of atomic energy; 

(b) Russian intentions in the Middle East and the 
Balkans ; 

(c) Allied control of Japan; 

(d) Relations with China and the questions of 
Korea and Manchuria; 

(e) Occupation policy in Germany. 

(3) Preparations for the UNO. 

(4) The Palestine dispute. 

(5) The Indonesian revolt. 

(6) The Chinese civil war. 

(7) The trial and punishment of war criminals. 

(8) Domestic policy of the British Labour Government. 

(9) Industrial unrest, particularly in the United States, 
Canada, Great Britain and Australia. 


Without involving ourselves in the very difficult details 
of the scientific development of the atomic bomb, it is sufficient 
to examine the consequences of this new warfare. "It would," 
as Max Werner in "Maclean's Magazine" for last October 
first points out, "change completely the basic picture of war, 
the very principles of strategy. The great battles of World 
War II: the Battle of Flanders, the Battle of Stalingrad, 
the Battle of the Ruhr, the Battle of Berlin were still fought 
on the pattern of the Battle of Cannae, which was won by 
IJannibal against the Roman legions in 216 B.C. 

"From the Battle of Cannae, to the Ruhr, Berlin and 
Okinawa, wars were waged by fighting forces. Army met 
army, and decision was reached in battle. The strategic and 
operational task was the same from Hannibal and Scipio to 
Eisenhower and Zhukov : to encircle and destroy the living 
force of the enemy. Manoeuvre and break-through on the 
battlefield were the main methods. These methods were 
perfected. What we called modern war was a German, 
Russian. British and American creation of 1935-45. German 
strategy worked out the operational design of offensive battle, 

of offensive co-operation of weapons. Soviet strategy 
developed the pattern of modern land war on a more solid 
and stable basis than did the German. British and American 
strategy enlarged modern war into three-dimensional war — 
on sea, on land, and in the air — with almost incredibly 
gigantic amphibious operations. 

'The atomic bomb can outstrip the latest achievements 
of modern strategy. It can supersede the entire pre-atomie 
strategy with a new and basically different kind of war. 

"Pure atomic war will be developed along the following- 
lines : atomic weapons with their range extended by rockets 
and made more precise by perfected Radar hit with lightning 
speed in the literal sense of the word, not figuratively like 
the German 'blitz.' They do not hit the fighting forces of 
the enemy, but his centres and vital material sources. The 
enemy is hit and destroyed, not by fighting forces, but by 
controlled energy, by super-weapons with a global range. The 
fight, the battle, is abolished. Army does not meet army, 
war becomes impersonal, waged without soldiers and beyond 
soldierly virtues. Manoeuvre is carried out not by armies 
but by trajectory of long-range missiles loaded with atomic 

It is not difficult, therefore, to understand why intense 
anxiety was felt in all countries at the awful prospect before 
humanity, if war between the Great Powers should break out 
again. Any relief that came with the sudden closing of the 
war and the bloodless occupation of the Japanese home islands 
was replaced by the realization that the world might at will 
destroy itself. This international tension rapidly mounted 
to an indescribable peak when the meeting of the Big Five 
foreign ministers in London ended in dismal failure. 

To make matters worse, Foreign Commissar Molotov 
declared early in November on the twenty-eighth anniversary 
of the Bolshevik revolution that the loosing of atomic energy 
"should not encourage either a propensity to exploit the 
discovery in the play of forces in international policy or an 
attitude of complacency as regards the future of the peace- 
loving nations. ... It is not possible at the present time for a 
technical secret of any great size to remain the exclusive 
possession of some one country or some narrow circle of 
countries. . . . We (Russia) will have atomic energy and 
many other things too." At the same time he linked this 
challenge with a warning against anti-Soviet blocs in the 

To put an end to all anxiety as to what is to be done with 
the atomic bomb, Prime Minister Attlee of Great Britain and 
Prime Minister King of Canada conferred in Washington 
with President Truman for five days. On November 15th, it 
was announced that the Truman- Attlee-King proposals were : 

(1) The secrets of manufacturing the atomic bomb to be 


kept by America, Britain and Canada until adequate controls 
over atomic energy are set up; 

(2) A special commission of the United Nations 
Organization to establish these controls, outlaw the bomb as a 
weapon, and insure the use of atomic energy for peaceful 
purposes only. This commission would have the right of 
inspection in all countries to guard against violations of the 

In a speech after the announcement of this "tri-power" 
plan, Mr. Byrnes, the American Secretary of State, claimed 
that the government of the United States had never considered 
using the atomic bomb for political purposes. He stated 
further that the period of secrecy as to how the bomb was 
manufactured need not be "unnecessarily prolonged" and that 
the proposed control commission of the UNO could be 
functioning in two months. 

On December 27th, it was announced that in the eleven-day 
meeting of the Big Three foreign ministers in Moscow, Russia 
had agreed to join Great Britain and the United States in 
sponsoring a resolution in the United Nations which would 
establish a control commission responsible to the powerful 
eleven-member security council. This atomic commission 
would, it was stated, consist of representatives from the eleven 
countries holding council seats and Canada who shares atomic 
energy secrets. The commission would, furthermore, work 
toward the exact goals outlined on November 15th by Prime 
Ministers Attlee and King and President Truman. 

Thus the touchy question of the atomic bomb has been 
disposed of for the present. But it will undoubtedly be the 
biggest single problem for the United Nations to solve in 


In this aspect of international affairs since V-J Day no 
one will question the statement that the main problem has 
been Russian foreign policy. For Canadians, Russia's 
relations with the other great powers are of no small import- 
ance as Canada in the new air age finds herself central among 
the land masses of the globe and wedged in between two of 
the great powers, the United States and the Union of Soviet 
Socialist Republics. Of all the great powers, only one, the 
United States is nearer in miles than the U.S.S.R. Even 
Great Britain is farther away. 

As Vilhjalmur Stefansson points out, "Canadians are 
often told that they are a link between the U.S.A. and Great 
Britain. It is equally true that they are a link between the 
U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R.; perhaps more true, for nothing is 
truer than the fact that the earth is a sphere and that, for 
good or ill, peace or war, there are few airways between these 
two great powers that do not pass through Canada. Canada's 
knowledge of the United States is intimate, sympathies are 

warm, relations are close. Canada has every reason of self 
interest and world interest to strive for similar relations 
with the Soviet Union." 

Yet in any consideration of Russian foreign policy 
several other geographic fundamentals must be kept in mind. 
The U.S.S.R. is the second largest empire and the biggest 
continuous country in the world. Its territories comprise, 
according to Soviet authorities, one-sixth of the existing land. 
Regardless of fractions, the Soviet territories measure some- 
thing over 6,000 miles from east to west, and nearly 3,000 
miles from north to south. Statistically, this colossus seems 
overwhelming and would actually be so, were it not that many 
of its territories are unfit for habitation. Nevertheless, accord- 
ing to Haushofer, the geopolitical strategist of the Nazis, the 
great "Heartland of Eurasia" is the land pivot of the world. 
Therefore, in the Axis scheme Russia as a political entity was 
slated to disappear. The Germans and Japanese, Haushofer 
claimed, must conquer and divide this strategic centre before 
they could safely set out to loot what he called the "peripheral 
continents" of the Western Hemisphere. 

But, in spite of all this great land mass, it is a considerable 
strain on words to classify Russia as a two-ocean power. 
Their one real ocean is the Arctic, most of which is frozen 
tight for several months of the year. Soviet outlets on the 
Pacific are real enough, except that Vladivostok lies at the end 
of a long tongue of land stretching right around alien 
Manchuria, is badly threatened by Japan and closed in winter ; 
while Komsomolsk is situated miles up a frigid stream. Petro- 
pavlovsk, near the southern tip of the Kamchatka peninsula, 
is out in the fogs nearly a thousand miles from anywhere, 
in an almost totally uninhabited country and completely 
inaccessible by land. All of this makes it difficult for Russia 
to develop sea power in the Pacific. In the light of these facts 
it readily becomes clear why Russia since V-J Day has 
carefully established a sphere of influence in both Manchuria 
and Korea and has demanded a share in the Allied control of 
Japan. If the U.S.S.R. were able to obtain leases for naval 
bases in any or all of these areas, in addition to Port Arthur 
and Darien which China has already opened to her, Russia 
would be in an excellent position to contend for naval 
supremacy in the North Pacific. 

Russia's naval situation in Europe is hardly better than 
that we have sketched in the Far East. Murmansk, most 
westerly of Soviet norts on the Arctic, is kept fluid by the 
very tip of the Gulf Stream, but Archangel, further inland, 
is icebound each winter. Kronstadt, on the Gulf of Finland, 
is an opening on an alley. To reach the wide oceans of the 
world, Russian sailors have to pass Finnish Helsinki and 
then, although Esthonian Talinn and Latvian Riga a** now 
parts of the Soviet Union, they have only got into the "R^Hic, 
and there in normal times are dependent on the grooHwill of 
Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Great Britain. 


Nor is it any different in the south-west. The Caspian 
is a briny lake; the Black Sea, a large bay tunneling into 
another inland sea, the Mediterranean, whose exits are also 
in the hands of alien peoples. In other words, except by 
world federation or gigantic conquests, Russia simply cannot 
reach the Atlantic. 

Thus until the extraordinary development of air power, 
Russia remained a continental country, with the advantages 
and disadvantages of the same. This is shown by its develop- 
ment; so long as history was the Eastern Hemisphere 
(Europe, Asia, Africa), Russia was a mighty force. When, 
during the nineteenth century, the centre of civilization 
shifted to the Atlantic, Russian inability to develop powerful 
war fleets and sail the seas showed itself a terrible handicap. 

Consequently, it remained for the aeroplane to give back 
to the Russians all that unlimited seafaring had taken from 
them. Aviation has not only turned their territories into a 
key area, but it is making their own country, for the first time, 
entirely accessible. In fact, by its unique location and area, 
its land access to most of Europe and every part of Asia, 
Soviet Russia is the air country of the Eastern Hemisphere 
par excellence. The airlines of the future will span the world, 
following the shortest distances. Most of the world's land 
and inhabitants are in the northern half. The Arctic area 
will become a centre of air traffic. Practically all Arctic 
routes touch Soviet territory at one point or another. 

But events since V-J Day have shown clearly that Russia 
is not going to depend on the aeroplane entirely — that she 
still permits the ' 'sea-power" concept to dominate her foreign 
policy. At the London conference of the Big Five foreign 
ministers in September those present and the whole world 
were startled to learn of Russia's intention to become a 
Mediterranean power in her own right with at least one port 
south of the Dardanelles. Molotov specified that Russia 
would like to serve as sole trustee in Libya with its big port 
of Tripoli and in Eritrea in the Red Sea. 

At the same time Russia asked that the policy in Greece 
be changed. British occupation, the Soviet Union claims, has 
pursued undemocratic ends and has forced an unpopular 
government on the Greek people. This claim naturally 
clashed with the Anglo-American opinion that Russia 
dominates the present governments of Rumania, Bulgaria, 
and Hungary. These governments, it is felt, are totalitarian 
and run by Communists who represent only a minority. 
During the London conference it was charged in reply ^ to 
Russian criticism of the Greek government that opposition 
parties in Rumania, Bulgaria and Hungary are being 
liquidated behind "the iron curtain" of which Winston 
Churchill spoke in the British House of Commons. It was 
maintained, further, at London that Russia's unilateral 
action in signing a five-year pact with Hungary, which gives 

it control of half that country's economy, proves the 
Hungarians are under the control of Moscow. 

Since that time Russian demands on Turkey as published 
in "Pravda" in December, coupled with the strong suspicion 
that the rebellion in Soviet-occupied northern Iran was 
inspired by Russia, indicate further that the ambitions of the 
U.S.S.R. far surpass the lines of Czarist expansion in the 

In addition to the geographical aspect of Russian foreign 
policy as it bears on Anglo-Russian-American co-operation, 
there is the ideological angle. Some believe that Russia still 
would like to "Communize" the world, though the Comintern 
has recently been abolished. Others point to Stalin's 
emphasis on "Socialism in a single state." Wherever the 
truth may lie in this dispute, it is interesting to note the 
following comment published in the Foreign Policy Bulletin 
for last November 30th: 

"Actually, this would be the worst possible moment at 
which to isolate Russia or permit Russia to withdraw into 
itself, as it has shown signs of doing, for at this very moment 
the Russians, through force of circumstances, have had to 
come into much closer contact with the Western world than 
they had done since 1917. And, at the same time, the 
Western world, seeing Russians at first hand, has had a 
better opportunity than since 1917 to appraise Russian ideas 
and practices by the harsh light of every-day life instead of 
the rosy glow of Utopian hopes. Not only in Germany and 
Austria, where the Russians must work directly with the 
Americans, British and French in Allied control councils, 
but also in eastern Europe and the Balkans, thousands of 
Russian soldiers have experienced a shock on coming into 
contact with peoples whose standards of living, while low 
compared to our own, are infinitely higher than those of 
Russia, especially now that its most advanced industrial 
areas have been devastated by the Germans. Returning 
soldiers bring back tales of their experiences, and their newly 
aroused aspirations for a fuller life may prove as explosive 
in the Russia of today as the new ideas brought back by the 
officers of Alexander I from the Napoleonic campaigns. 

"But just as the Russians are learning that the rest of 
the world is not living, as they had been taught, exclusively 
like the characters of The Grapes of Wrath,' so Westerners 
are learning that Russia is not the paradise some of them 
had believed it to be. One reason for this is that the flower 
of the Russian armies perished on battlefields from Moscow 
to Stalingrad. The soldiers now seen in Europe often lack 
training and discipline. In a sense, it would have been better 
for the Communists if Russia's armed forces had never 
appeared in the flesh and if Russia had remained a myth. 
Now Westerners who might have been tempted to turn to 
communism have been disheartened to discover what they 


should have known: that the Russians are still a relatively 
backward people, dazzled by Western civilization and often, 
for that reason, hostile to it ; and that the political, social and 
economic system they developed out of their own needs and 
traditions, effective as it has proved in the U.S.S.R., is not 
applicable to the vastly different conditions of the Western 
world. It is significant that the countries of Europe closest 
to Russia geographically are the ones which have shown the 
strongest trend toward moderate political regimes, as in 
Hungary where the Small Landholders' party won nearly 60 
per cent of the votes in the national elections of November 4th, 
and in Austria, where the moderate People's Party and the 
Social Democrats decisively defeated the Communists even in 
industrial centres in the national elections of November 25th. 
At the same time these elections, especially those held in 
Hungary, where the Russians alone are in control, offer 
striking evidence that the presence of Russian troops did not 
prevent free expression of public opinion. On the contrary, 
even anti-Soviet Hungarians outside the country readily 
concede that the elections of November 4th were the freest and 
most indicative of the true temper of the people to be held in 
Hungary since 1919. Whether or not Hungary or Austria 
can work out moderate political regimes in the midst of 
parlous economic conditions is a question the Big Three will 
have to answer through joint action." 


Fortunately, the year 1945 ended on a harmonious note 
with respect to Anglo-Russian-American co-operation. The 
Moscow conference, held in December, reached agreement on 
several important matters in addition to the atomic energy 
question previously mentioned. Yet many vexing problems 
remained unsettled and unmentioned when the conference 
broke up just before the beginning of the New Year. 
Among them are: the uprising in Soviet-occupied northern 
Iran ; the issue of access to the Dardanelles straits ; Germany's 
western border, and a common Big Three policy on the Franco 
government in Spain. The decisions that were reached at 
Moscow may be summed up as follows: 


For control of Japan, the Big Three foreign ministers 
agreed to establish in Tokyo a four-power council of the 
United States, Russia, Britain and China and an eleven- 
nation Far Eastern policy-making commission in Washington, 
to replace the ten-member advisory commission used after 
V-J Day. It is very likely that the latter body will become 
the new policy-making commission with the addition of 
Russia which previously refused to participate. 

The control council will meet at least every two weeks 
for the purpose of consulting with and advising the supreme 


commander on such matters as: carrying out the surrender 
terms; occupation and control problems, and the directives 
for solving them. Only if a council member disagrees with 
General MacArthur, who has been the administrator of 
policy in Japan, on "questions concerning a change in the 
regime of control, fundamental changes in the Japanese 
constitutional structure, and a change in the Japanese 
government as a whole," is the commander required to hold 
up his orders until the larger commission reaches agreement 
on the matter. 

In brief, the communique issued by the Moscow conference 
assigned the eleven-power commission authority to: 

(1) Draft policies to speed Japanese compliance with 
surrender terms; 

(2) Review, on the request of any member, any directive 
issued to General MacArthur or any action taken by 
him "involving policy decisions within the juris- 
diction of the commisson." 

(3) Consider other matters assigned to it by agreement 
of the member governments. 

Veto power given the United States, Russia, Great 
Britain and China would enable each to block any attempt to 
change any directives which have gone out to General 
MacArthur since the occupation began. 


The foreign ministers agreed on the need for "a unified 
and democratic China" under President Chiang Kai-Shek's 
national government. They said, moreover, that there 
should be a "broad participation by democratic elements" in 
the government and a complete end to civil strife. Molotov 
and Byrnes agreed that Russian and American troops should 
be withdrawn "at the earliest practicable moment consistent 
with the discharge of their obligations and responsibilities" 
under the Japanese surrender. 


A provisional democratic government will be established 
under the guidance of a Russian-American commission. A 
four-power trusteeship will be set up to function "up to five 
years," when independence presumably may be granted. It 
was agreed, further, that representatives of the United 
States and Soviet commands will confer two weeks after the 
conclusion of the Moscow conference to establish co-ordinated 
administration. Formerly, this has been impossible with the 
country divided rigidly into two occupation zones. 


Russia will now join Great Britain and the United States 
in giving King Michael the advice he asked last August 21st on 
how to broaden his government in order that it might win 


recognition by London and Washington. At that time Russia 
demurred on the contention that Great Britain and the 
United States had inspired Michael's request. 

The three powers will, therefore, now immediately send 
a commission to Bucharest to consult with the king. They 
will ask him : to include representatives of two parties not 
represented in his government at the present moment; to 
guarantee the basic freedoms of press, speech, religion and 
association; and to hold democratic elections. When all this 
has been done, the United States and Great Britain will 
recognize the Rumanian government already sanctioned by 


Russia will ask Bulgaria to bring two representatives of 
democratic groups into the provisional government dominated 
by the Fatherland Front. Once this is completed, the United 
States and Great Britain will grant recognition as Russia 
has already done. 

Peace Treaties 

The three powers will proceed with plans for concluding 
peace settlements with Italy, Rumania, Bulgaria, Hungary 
and Finland. 

It need hardly be added that one of the most interesting 
aspects of international affairs in 1946 will be the carrying 
out of all the above agreements. But it will be much more 
interesting to see what will be done about the subjects not 
mentioned in the official communique of the Moscow 


Much controversial material concerning Allied military 
rule in Germany has appeared in the press during recent 
months. Although many of the serious charges made cannot 
as yet be fully substantiated, it would appear, as the Foreign 
Policy Report (Foreign Policy Association) for last 
November 1st points out, that, "Six months after V-E Day . . . 
the Allies find themselves confronted in occupied Germany 
by a number of unsolved problems which fall under three 
main heads. In the first place, there are several inconsis- 
tencies among the various Potsdam plans for Germany that 
have made it difficult to carry out certain provisions of the 
settlement at any particular moment without interfering with 
the execution of other prescribed forms. The drastic terri- 
torial revisions in Germany's eastern frontiers have been 
accompanied by measures for industrial disarmament and 
wholesale reparations that are making it all the more difficult 
for Germany to support its population, particularly ^ since 
Germans in Czechoslovakia and Hungary, as well as in the 
areas ceded to Poland and Russia, are being deported to the 


Reich. At the same time, however, the Allies maintain that 
they do not want these measures to interfere with the main- 
tenance in Germany of a subsistence standard of living. This 
standard is obviously necessary . . . because of the political 
objectives set forth at Potsdam. . . . 

"Secondly, policies in the Allied zones of occupation 
appear to be diverging more and more, with the result that a 
united policy for Germany — on which so much depends not 
only in Germany but also in the realm of inter-Allied 
relations — is being seriously compromised. Although the 
official Allied plan is to maintain Germany as a unit, under 
the supervision of the Allied Control Council in Berlin, in 
practice Germany is partitioned into the four segments out- 
lined for purposes of military occupation. Between these 
military zones today there are distinct frontiers which are 
incompatible with the agreed policy of securing uniformity 
of treatment of the civilian population throughout Germany. 
Since it is French opposition to the Potsdam terms that 
constitutes the most important immediate obstacle to the 
successful operation of the central control machinery, efforts 
should be made to end the deadlock created by the French 
representative in the Allied Control Council. . . . 

"Thirdly, the gravest shortcoming of Allied policy in 
Germany, as revealed by the record of the first six months of 
occupation, is that there is an absence of any concerted 
measures to fill the gap created by the destruction of Nazism. 
The Russians obviously want a Left-wing government based 
on a land-holding peasantry and well-disciplined trade unions, 
while the British and Americans — who tend to regard the 
institutions of the Weimar Republic as the norm for Germany 
— have carried out no land reforms and given no definite 
encouragement to the re-establishment of unions. In order 
to co-ordinate these divergent views on the type of post-war 
regime Germany should have, it is of the greatest importance 
that all the Allies maintain prolonged control over the 
Reich. . . ." 


One of the most significant events since V-J Day has 
been the arrest, trial and in some cases up to the end of 1945, 
punishment of collaborators and war criminals. The latter 
may be divided into three classes: 

(1) concentration camp overseers such as those who 
were in charge of Belsen and Dachau; 

(2) army commanders guilty of violations of the laws 
of war as set forth by the Hague Convention; 

(3) high government officials responsible for wars of 

Although the crimes of the first two classes have been 
revealed as the worst the world has ever seen, it is the trial 


and punishment of the last-named group which is the most 
important for future generations. At Nuernberg in Germany 
such notorious Nazi officials as Goering, Ribbentrop, Hess, 
von Papen, Rosenberg, Streicher, von Shirach, Funk, Schacht, 
Keitel, Jodl and Doenitz are on trial for having started and 
waged an aggressive war. To try men on such a charge as 
this is something entirely new in international law. After 
the First World War a "war guilt" clause was included in the 
Treaty of Versailles which officially blamed Germany as a 
whole for that conflict. But this time, war guilt is being 
made personal. If the Nazi leaders are convicted, a precedent 
of the greatest importance will be established. As Justice 
R. F. Jackson of the United States Supreme Court stated, 
"If we can cultivate in the world the idea that aggressive 
war making is the way to a prisoner's dock, rather than the 
way to honours, we will have accomplished something toward 
making peace more secure." In the opinion of some this 
would be far more valuable than the drawing up of the United 
Nations Charter. 


One of the aims of the Covenant of the League of Nations 
was to abolish the "secret diplomacy" which was an important 
factor in the course of international affairs during the years 
before the First World War. That the League was not 
entirely successful in this matter is common knowledge. Now 
that we have entered another post-war period, it is to be 
hoped that such diplomacy will disappear if we are ever to 
achieve the dream of Tennyson when he wrote: 

"Till the war-drums throb'd no longer, and 
the battle-flags were furl'd, 
In the Parliament of man, the Federation 
of the world." 

However, L. S. B. Shapiro, writing in "MacLean's 
Magazine" for last December first, takes a view which, if 
correct, may seriously jeopardize the peace so recently won. 
We quote in part: 

"Unashamed and unpurged, diplomacy has returned in 
exactly the same form as the world left it six years ago. It 
has apparently learned nothing in the six years that have 
elapsed since force took over its function of trying to make 
order in the troubled world. The face of the world has 
changed, and probably the mind of the world's people has 
altered by reason of the unprecedented strife and destruction. 
But, despite the physical wreckage and human tragedy which 
surround its chancelleries and conference rooms, diplomacy 
seems blithely unconscious that any change has occurred. 

"If the diplomatic reporter shuts his eyes and uses only his 
ears he finds himself back in 1938 and 1939. He hears the 
same timeworn protestations of high-minded motivates in 
public speeches and formal pronouncements, the same hopes 


beautifully expressed for co-operation among nations toward 
a goal of security and prosperity for all. He hears the same 
excuses for failure to reach agreement in the same old phony 
terms — "We concur in principle but must refer back to our 
governments on certain minor points." — "Conversations were 
conducted in a most cordial atmosphere but the agenda was 
improperly prepared." And' in outer lobbies of conference 
halls he hears the same diplomats talking off record in 
confession of abject failure, selfishness, stupidity, fear and 
lively suspicion. 

"There are two distinct forms of diplomatic activity 
rampant in Europe. The first is surface diplomacy — the sort 
of things you read about in newspapers — the diplomacy of 
conferences, communiques, banquets, and charming photos of 
statesmen smiling and armlocked. The other is inside 
diplomacy — the sort no one talks about publicly but that 
every student of international affairs knows or can learn 
about by travelling to certain capitals and mingling in certain 


As it has been rather wittily pointed out, "the 'Promised 
Land' has become the too-much-Promised Land. It was 
promised by the Bible to the Jews, by the Koran to the Arabs, 
and by the British government to both — the Jews and the 
Arabs." In recent months the question of Palestine's future 
has given rise to a series of riots and clashes in the Holy 
Land, Egypt and Tripolitania. Palestine is now a world 

The desperate plight of the surviving Jews in Europe is 
the main reason for the current outbreaks of violence. It is 
estimated that of Europe's Jewish population of 7,500.000 
before the Second World War, about 5,500,000 have died at 
the hands of Nazi Germany. It is the question of the 
remainder that is causing so much concern amongst Jewish 
leaders. Reports would indicate many of the survivors in 
Europe neither wish to live there nor indeed are wanted. 

Last August, it will be remembered that President 
Truman asked the British Government to admit what he called 
"100,000 stateless Jews" into Palestine. In November, 
Ernest Bevin, the British foreign secretary, announced that 
the United States and Great Britain had agreed to form a 
joint committee to inquire into the problem. Mr. Bevin 
stated further that Palestine would in time become a trustee 
state under the control of the United Nations Organization. 
Eventually, it would have self-government, although not as a 
Jewish state. In the meantime, Britain will maintain the 
present monthly quota of 1,500 immigrants. Some observers 
interpreted this statement as a rejection of the American 
request. But others, it should be noted, feel that President 
Truman was, in the first place, merely "passing the buck" to 


Britain and dodging the obvious fact that America herself 
might take in homeless European Jews. Be that as it may, 
the Bevin statement displeased both Jewish and Arab leaders. 
The Jews in Palestine protested by calling a general strike. 
Although it is not the function of the Social Studies 
Bulletin to express opinions on such current issues, it is 
possible to state facts that are undisputed and conceded by 
both sides. 

Despite the fact that present-day Palestine has an area 
of only 10,429 square miles, it is the birthplace of three 
religions — Christianity, Judaism and Mohammedanism — and 
the gateway to three continents — Europe, Asia and Africa. 
Moreover, it is not only an excellent outlet for the oil of the 
Middle East, but a strategic site for a naval base to guard 
the Mediterranean. 

Palestine contains some of the richest land in the world, 
and at the same time some of the most barren. The 
population consists of 1,100,000 Arabs and about 550,000 
Jews, both of whom belong to the same race — the Semites. 

Historically, Palestine was the home of the Jewish people 
from about 1400 B.C. to the destruction of the Hebrew state 
by Roman legions in 70 A.D. About 600 years later, the 
country was conquered by the Mohammedans. In 1516, it 
became part of the powerful Turkish Empire, where it 
remained until the First World War. As Turkey fought in 
that conflict as an ally of the Central Powers, Palestine was 
mandated to Great Britain at the Versailles Conference in 

Legally, the Jewish claim to Palestine depends on the 
declaration issued on November 2nd, 1917, by Lord Balfour 
who was then British Foreign Secretary. This famous 
Balfour declaration stated that: "His Majesty's Government 
view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national 
home for the Jewish people and will use their best endeavours 
to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly 
understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice 
the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish com- 
munities in Palestine . . ." In connection with this statement 
it is important to note that in 1896 Dr. Theodor Herzl founded 
a movement called Zionism which aimed at the establishment 
of a Jewish National Home in Palestine. 

The Balfour declaration was approved by President 
Wilson and endorsed by all the Allied powers. It was also 
included in the terms of the League of Nations mandate 
placing Palestine under British control. On June 30th, 1922, a 
unanimous vote of both houses of the American Congress 
approved the Balfour declaration. 

The Arabs, however, counter all these Zionist arguments 
by maintaining that possession is the traditional "nine-tenths 
of the law." Palestine is theirs, they claim, by right of 
conquest and of occupation; since 638 A.D. the Arabs have 


constituted a decided majority of the population. But the 
Arabian legal claim is somewhat vague. It is based on negotia- 
tions made by Colonel T. E. Lawrence in 1915 to Sherif 
Hussein of Mecca in which Great Britain promised the Arabs 
independence if they would revolt against the Turks. The 
terms of this alliance were contained in letters sent to Hussein 
in January, 1916, by General Sir Henry McMahon. Hussein 
was promised most of the Arab peninsula with the exception of 
"the portion of Syria lying to the west of the districts of 
Damascus, Home, Hama and Aleppo." 

During the years between the two world wars, British 
policy in Palestine varied somewhat. In 1937 when Arab- 
Jewish clashes were particularly violent, the British govern- 
ment offered to divide the country between the opposing 
groups. Neither Arabs nor Jews viewed the project favourably. 
In May, 1939, Great Britain issued a White Paper which is 
the immediate cause of the present unrest in the Holy Land. 
It fixed March 31st, 1944, as the date by which all Jewish 
immigration to Palestine must cease. Up to that date only 
75,000 more Jews would be allowed to enter Palestine. 

The Mandates Commission of the League of Nations 
rejected the White Paper as a contradiction of the British 
mandate over Palestine. The outbreak of the Second World 
War, however, forced the dropping of the issue and today the 
White Paper is still in effect. Nevertheless, Britain has 
permitted the present monthly quota of 1,500 immigrants to 

In the words of "Scholastic" for December 3rd, 1945, "The 
Jewish pioneers, backed by capital and modern science, have 
built modern cities on what used to be sand dunes, and 
prosperous farm colonies on newly irrigated lands. They 
have also built industries, universities and hospitals. The 
Jews claim that Arab health, education, and living standards 
have greatly benefited from Jewish enterprise. Arabs claim 
these gains result from British efforts." 

Whatever the political future of Palestine may be, the 
immediate issue is the unrestricted admission of European 


Only four months after V-J Day twenty per cent of the 
world's population was at war again in China. The Nationalists 
and Communists were at war. In order to understand the 
origins of this feud, it is necessary to refer back to the 
"double-ten" — the tenth day of the tenth month in the year 
1911. On that day a Chinese revolution led by Dr. Sun 
Yat-sen overthrew the Manchu dynasty and established a 

However, the new government lacked a strong, 
centralized administration. Several provincial regions were 


ruled by corrupt war lords. Dr. Sun, accordingly, founded 
the Kuomintang or Nationalist Party of China and drafted its 
programme known as the "Three People's Principles" — 
nationalism, democracy and livelihood. But to achieve these 
aims, it would, of course, be necessary first to unite the 
country. In 1924 Dr. Sun, therefore, entrusted one of his 
followers, Chiang Kai-Shek, with the organization of an army 
to defeat the reactionary war lords. By 1928 Chiang Kai- 
shek's forces established a new regime for the country the 
capital of which was now Nanking. 

In the meantime, Dr. Sun had accepted the co-operation 
of Communists sent to him from Moscow. These architects 
of world revolution so entrenched themselves in key posts in 
the army and the government that in 1928, three years after 
the death of Dr. Sun, a plot was uncovered to destroy the 
National Government and set up a Communist regime in 
China. The result was a civil war which lasted for ten years. 

As the majority of the Kuomintang party was anti- 
Communist and loyal to Chiang Kai-shek, the Communist 
minority was driven into south-eastern China, principally 
Kiangsi province where an independent Communist regime 
was set up. In 1934 Chiang Kai-shek drove the Communists 
from this base thus forcing them to take their famous 6,000- 
mile "Long March" to North-west China. There they 
established at Yenan a government which is entirely Chinese 
in origin, although strongly influenced by Communist doctrine. 

However, when the Japanese invasion commenced on 
July 7th, 1937, both Nationalists and Communists resisted the 
common enemy. But, naturally, when Japan was defeated in 
1945 the problem of unifying China again came up. Last 
August the U.S.S.R. signed a treaty with Chiang Kai-shek's 
National Government. Under this influence, Mao Tse-tung, 
the Communist leader, agreed to open negotiations with the 
National Government. On October 11th partial agreement was 
announced. Both factions expressed a common desire to avoid 
civil war and to attain "peace, unity and democracy" in build- 
ing a "new China" under the leadership of Chiang Kai-shek. 
They further agreed to call a council of all parties to discuss 
a constitutional congress that would end the one-party 
domination of the Kuomintang. All political parties would be 
recognized as equal. They also agree to guarantee freedom 
of speech and the press; to put an end to arrest and punish- 
ment by secret police; and to free political prisoners. But 
agreement could not be reached on two vital matters. The 
Communists wanted to keep control of forty-eight of their 
armv divisions, while the National Government was only 
willing to see them in control of twenty. The problem of 
which faction was to appoint governors in several of the 
northern provinces also could not be solved. 

The Communists hold military and political control in the 
four key provinces of North China — Jehol, Hopeh, Chahar 


and Shantung. Most of Communist China is north of the 
Yellow River and separates the Nationalist area from 
Manchuria. It was for this reason that undeclared civil war 
broke out in eleven of China's twenty-eight provinces. The 
centre of the disturbance was naturally the rich north-eastern 
provinces leading into Manchuria. Russia was withdrawing 
from that region and both sides rushed in troops. The result 
was not only war but a series of repercussions in international 
diplomacy. Charges, difficult as yet to prove, were made to 
the effect that Russia had stirred up the civil conflict, that 
the American soldiers stationed in China were helping the 
Nationalists, and that the government of Chiang Kai-shek was 
not sincere in its expressed desire for a democratic China. 
All this was high-lighted by the sensational resignation of 
Major General Patrick Hurley as United States ambassador 
to China. In his letter of resignation he protested that 
American "career" diplomats were openly favouring the 
Communist government at Yenan. 

Whether Hurley's charge was true or not, his resignation 
inadvertently resulted in a concrete step toward Chinese 
national unity. General George C. Marshall, who had just 
retired as United States Army Chief of Staff, was immediately 
appointed by President Truman to replace Hurley. With the 
appearance of a man of Marshall's calibre on the scene as an 
intermediary between the disputing Chinese group's, another 
conference of Nationalist and of Communist leaders was 
readily arranged just before the close of 1945. Latest 
reports would indicate that definite progress will now be 
made in setting up a democratic Chinese government and in 
ending all civil strife. 

In connection with the question of democracy in China, 
it should be pointed out that the Nationalist Government of 
Chiang Kai-shek is very definitely not democratic. The 
Kuomintang leaders, themselves, have admitted as much. 
Their regime, for the most part, has been a one-party 
dictatorship. There is strict censorship and government 
control of education and the press. A secret police is main- 
tained, although a habeas corpus act was recently adopted to 
do away with imprisonment without trial. The peasantry are 
in impoverished condition and the working classes are under- 
paid, while inflation is reaching fantastic heights. It is 
reported that General Ho Ying-chin, the Nationalist Army 
Chief of Staff, is the largest land owner in Kweichow 

But the situation in Yenan is no better. Steffan Andrews 
in a disnatch (quoted in "Scholastic" for November 26th, 
1945), from Communist-controlled Kalgan on October 11th, 
had this to say: 

"Communism in China is essentially an application of 
the age-old doctrine that the end justifies the means. The 
Communists feel that since the program they favour is, by and 


large, economically good for the down-trodden Chinese 
peasantry, they are justified in using any means to attain it — 
even suppression of the peasant's liberty. 

'There is tremendous good, however, in the program to 
improve the living conditions of coolies and farmers . . . and 
to free them from some of the vicious corruption that is part 
of China's social fabric. . . . For the peasant they have 
cancelled loans, reduced interest rates, instituted a progressive 
tax system and divided the produce of the land more equitably 
by limiting the landlord's take from sharecroppers. 

"But the price in terms of personal liberties that the 
Communists exact from these reforms is staggering. As soon 
as they take over a town they kill off independent thought, 
set up rigid press control, let loose an army of secret police, 
and shoot all political opponents who might even attempt to 
dissent . . ." The Communists "operate in a political atmos- 
phere sodden with distrust, suspicion, and regimentation that 
puts every law-abiding citizen in fear of his life. 

"The democracy and 'people's' government they set up 
would be considered sheer dictatorship' by any American 
standard. . . . Freedom means only freedom to conform to the 
party line. If you conform, you are a democrat; if you don't, 
you are a traitor." 


As after the First World War, strikes have become a 
major post-war problem, especially in the United States. 
However, Great Britain, Canada and Australia have by no 
means avoided serious industrial unrest in the months after 
V-J Day. Broadly speaking, the causes are: 

(1) A "now-or-never" feeling among union leaders and 
members ; 

(2) Grievances felt during war time by the workers are 
now being aired as the patriotic appeal to stay on 
the job has been removed; 

(3) The cost-of-living, notably in the United States, has 
gone up with the close of hostilities rather than 

Commenting on the strike at Windsor, Ontario, which 
figured so prominently in Canadian news in the closing 
months of 1945, "Maclean's Magazine" stated in part in an 
editorial on December 15th: 

"... All conciliators agree that the first and worst cause 
of trouble was 'bad blood between the Ford Company and the 
union.' Both sides share blame for this, but a primary 
responsibility for creating and maintaining good will is on 
the employer. . . . 


"United Auto Workers, on their side, neither recognized 
nor discharged their equally grave responsibility for the 
observance of law. 

"From the outset of the strike the union broke the law, 
written and unwritten. It broke the written law when it 
refused Ford executives their legal right to enter their own 
offices. It broke the unwritten law of accepted strike 
practice by calling out the powerhouse workers and thus 
endangering the maintenance of the Ford plant. It broke 
union law by calling out Local 195, the auto workers in other 
than Ford plants, after the UAW international executive 
had refused to sanction this strike. Finally, by seizing 
private automobiles to barricade the entrance to the Ford 
factory, it violated a fundamental right of the citizen. . . . 

"The basic point in dispute at Windsor was union security, 
meaning the union shop and the check-off. This is an area 
of fundamental disagreement between employers and 
employees in Canada. The great majority of employers are 
against any formula which would compel any of their 
employees to become or remain union members as a condition 
of employment. The great majority of unions are deter- 
mined to have it. 

"At present no law governs or even guides a conciliator 
in this matter. A few years ago the same was true of union 
recognition — most strikes were fought to establish the right 
to bargain. This situation has been cleared up by legis- 
lation. . . . 

"Now it seems about time for a similar definition of 
public policy on the issue of union security. Is the union shop 
justified in any circumstances? If so, in what circumstances? 
If not. let it be declared beyond the law. 

"Unless this issue is clarified it will be the subject of 
labor struggles that will cost the nation millions of dollars 
and cause untold misery." 



In the fourth issue of the Social Studies Bulletin a 
review of the Subcommittee's Report on Education was 
presented; in the fifth the usefulness of the Subcommittee's 
Report on Social Welfare to the teacher was outlined. Now 
in this issue of the Social Studies Bulletin we shall indicate 
the possibilities for use in Social Studies classes of three 
shorter reports of the Post- War Reconstruction Committee — 
those dealing- with Agriculture, Industry, and Natural 
Resources of Alberta. 

The Report of the Subcommittee on Agriculture. 

The membership of this Subcommittee was as follows: 

FRANK LAUT, M.L.A., who succeeded the late Alfred 
Speakman, acted as Chairman; 

DR. ROBERT NEWTON, President of the University of 
Alberta, who has had lifelong experience in scientific 
agriculture as well as education, and is a member of both 
the National Research Council and the Research Council 
of Alberta; 

ROBERT GARDINER, who died about the time of the 
completion of the Report, was a former M.P. represent- 
ing a farming constituency, and, as President of the 
U.F.A., was known throughout the Province as a fearless 
advocate of the farmers' cause; 

0. S. LONGMAN, B.S.A., Deputy Minister of Agriculture, 
who has had many years of administrative experience in 
various branches of the service; 

H. E. NICHOLS, who replaced James Jackson, the President 
of the Alberta Farmers' Union, as a member of the 

The various sections of the report — post-war agricul- 
tural programs, co-ordination of research and experimentation, 
crop insurance as a means of reducing the effects of crop 
hazards, agricultural education, district agriculturist service, 
agricultural lands, land policies and tenure, planning and 
utilization of trees, marketing agricultural products, health 
of animals, soil conservation and weed control, water resources, 
report of the St. Mary and Milk Rivers Water Development 
Committee, costs of irrigation, irrigation research, and rural 
betterment — will be found helpful in the following units of 
the high school Social Studies programme: 

(a) Social Studies 1 : Unit V, "Provincial and Com- 
munity Problems," Unit VIII; "Employment," Unit 
X, "Changes in Agriculture" ; 

(b) Social Studies 2: Unit IX, "Provincial and Com- 
munity Problems." 


Last September the Survey Management Committee of 
the Post-War Reconstruction Committee published its 
"Report of the Survey of Agricultural Plans and Intentions." 
The material in this second appendix to the Report of the 
Subcommittee on Industry will be found very useful for all 
of the above units. It may be had free of charge from either 
the Post-War Reconstruction Committee or the Department 
of Economic Affairs in the Parliament Buildings. 

The Report of the Subcommittee on Industry. 

The membership of this Subcommittee was as follows: 

HON. C. E. GERHART, who succeeded the Hon. E. C. 
Manning as Minister of Trade and Industry, was 

CARL BERG, who is a well known labour leader and an 
official of both the Alberta Federation of Labour and the 
Edmonton Trades and Labour Council ; 

W. I). KING, the Deputy Minister of Trade and Industry: 

HOWARD STUTCHBURY, who represented Alberta Industry 
on the Subcommittee, is a past president of the Alberta 
Branch of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. 

The various sections of the Report — present industries, 
conversion of war industries, establishment of new industries, 
markets and inter-provincial trade, industrial electrification, 
tourist industry, stabilization of industrial employment, 
collective bargaining and labor-management relations, wages 
and working conditions, training for industrial employment — 
will be found helpful in the following units of the high school 
Social Studies programme : 

(a) Social Studies 1: Unit V, "Provincial and Com- 
munity Problems," Unit VIII, "Employment"; 

(b) Social Studies 2: Unit IX, "Provincial and Com- 
munity Problems" ; 

(c) Social Studies 3: Unit IV, Section C, Division 
3 (b). 

It should also be noted that Appendix I ("Tourism in 
Alberta") to the Report of the Subcommittee on Industry 
has been published. This pamphlet of eleven pages, which 
deals more comprehensively with the subject of post-war 
tourist travel in relation to Alberta than does the Report 
on Industry, will be found useful for all of the above units. 
It may be had free of charge from either the Post-War 
Reconstruction Committee or the Department of Economic 
Affairs in the Parliament Buildings. 

The Report of the Subcommittee on Natural Resources. 

The membership of the Subcommittee was as follows : 

HON. N. E. TANNER, who acted as Chairman, is Minister 
of Lands and Mines; 


H. E. TANNER, M.A., who was also the representative of all 
ex-servicemen's organizations on the Committee, is a well- 
known science teacher in the City of Edmonton High 
Schools ; 

C. STUBBS, of Calgary, is Secretary of the Western Canadian 
Bituminous Coal Operators' Association; 

H. R. MILNER, K.C., is President of Northwestern Utilities 
Limited ; 

ALEX GREIG, who replaced William Anderson, is connected 
with the lumber firm of Anderson and Greig. 

The various sections of the Report — oil, natural gas, 
bituminous sands, salt, coal, other minerals, forests, water- 
sheds, lands, fish, fur bearing animals, game birds, surveys, 
recommendations — will be found helpful in the following units 
of the high school Social Studies programme: 

(a) Social Studies 1: Unit V, "Provincial and Com- 
munity Problems"; Unit VI, "Economic Geography 
of Canada"; 

(b) Social Studies 2: Unit IX, "Provincial and Com- 
munity Problems." 


This is the title of an illustrated booklet about our 
Province recently published by the Government Publicity 
Bureau. The many maps, illustrations and charts, as well as 
the printed commentary, deal with Alberta's geography, 
agriculture, natural resources, transportation, power, industry 
(including industrial relations) and plans for the post-war 
period. The publication is not only an excellent supplement 
to the Alberta Post-War Reconstruction Committee Reports 
reviewed above, but will be particularly useful in the following 
sections of the Intermediate and high school Social Studies 
Programmes : 

Intermediate Social Studies: Problem VII of Section B. 
"Our Own Province" ; 

Social Studies 1: 

Unit V, "Provincial and Community Problems"; 
Unit VI, "Economic Geography of Canada"; 
Unit VII, "Employment"; 

Unit IX, "Social Security" (Provincial Social Legis- 
lation) ; 

Social Studies 2 : 

Unit IX, "Provincial and Community Problems" ; 
Social Studies 3 : 

Unit IV, "Canada in the Post-War World." Section 
C, Division 3 (Employment) ; Section D 
(Social Security). 

H". 69: 133 NO-B 1946 

39561088 CURR HIST 

-0000 30H 86880-