MPPSHistory: 2019

Sunday 15 December 2019

rsr and documents 2020/2021

Tuesday 19 November 2019

Sinn Fein fortunes

http://ccea.org.uk/sites/default/files/docs/subsites/1917beyond/1918_Sinn_Fein_booklet.pdf
https://www.dropbox.com/s/i3e97v0h4pu26m0/sample-essay-what-factors-led-to-the-success-of-sinn-fein-in-the-1918-general-election.doc?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/a28oxevd09c1haj/whysf%20won%20the%201918%20election.doc?dl=0
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1h1l9A1TY08s-CEH4g0xVO0vS1j8AL8bq

Partition
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Qkh5qsGWAtN8buBKswwjo6OpL8wJGjAF
https://www.dropbox.com/s/284tmdcqi0se1wg/CRyan-Partition.doc?dl=0

Sunday 17 November 2019

Updated Sov & Partition questions

Ireland: Topic 3 The pursuit of sovereignty and the impact of partition, 1912-1949

Answer one of the following questions:

2019

1. What was the military and political significance of one or more of the following:

the 1916 Rising; the War of Independence; the Civil War? (100)

2. What were the main events of the Eucharistic Congress, 1932, and what was its significance for church and state? (100)

3. What was the impact on Northern Ireland of the world economic crisis of the inter‐war period and/or World War II? (100)

4. How did Anglo‐Irish relations develop during the period 1923‐1949?

2018

1. How did the Sinn Féin movement develop during the period 1912‐1923? (100)

2. Why were both the negotiations and the terms of the Anglo‐Irish Treaty, 1921,controversial? (100)

3. During the period 1922‐1945, how effective were the governments of both Cosgrave and de Valera in dealing with threats to the security of the state? (100)

4. During the period 1922‐1949, how successful were attempts to make independent Ireland a Gaelic and Catholic society?

2017

1. During the period 1912‐1920, which factors contributed most to the partition of Ireland? (100)

2. During the period 1922‐1939, who achieved more in Anglo‐Irish relations, Cosgrave or de Valera?Argue your case,referring to both. (100)

3. During the period 1922‐1949, how did the 1932 Eucharistic Congress and/or the state’s language and education policies contribute to Irish identity? (100)

4. What was the impact of World War II on Ireland, North and South?

2016

1. What were the main events in Dublin during the 1916 Rising, and was Ireland, in Yeats’phrase, ‘changed utterly’ as a result? (100)

2. Why did the conduct and outcome of the Treaty negotiations, October-December, 1921, prove contentious? (100)

3. During the period 1912-1940, what were the strengths and weaknesses of James Craig

as a political leader? (100)4. How well did Irish governments cope with the social and economic problems they faced, 1923-1945? (100)

2013

1. What were the fortunes of the Sinn Féin movement during the period 1912-1922? (100)

2. During the period 1922-1939, how successful were Irish governments in responding to the economic challenges they faced? (100)

3. How did Anglo-Irish relations develop under Éamon de Valera, 1932-1945? 4. What was the impact of World War II on Ireland, North and South? (100)

2012

1. How did the threat and use of physical force affect Ireland during the period 1912-1923? (100)

2. How did the government of Northern Ireland deal with economic problems and/or threats to security, 1920-1945? (100)

3. What was the significance of the Eucharistic Congress, 1932? (100)

4. How did Anglo-Irish relations develop during the period 1923-1949? (100)

2011

1. What did one or more of the following contribute to Irish affairs: Patrick Pearse; Arthur Griffith; Countess Markievicz?

2. How did the Irish government contribute to the consolidation of democracy, 1922-1932?

3. What were the strengths and weaknesses of Éamon de Valera as a political leader? (100)

4. What was the impact on Northern Ireland of international developments during the period 1932-1945?

2010

1. During the period 1912-1920, what factors contributed to the partition of Ireland?

2. Who handled Anglo-Irish relations better, W. T. Cosgrave or Éamon de Valera? Argue your case, referring to both.

3. To what extent did the 1932 Eucharistic Congress and/or the language and education policies of Irish governments promote Irish cultural identity?

4. How did the Unionist Party in power respond to the challenges posed by the existence of a substantial nationalist minority within Northern Ireland?

2009

1. Why were the Anglo-Irish Treaty negotiations controversial?

2. What were the main social and economic challenges facing Northern Ireland, 1920-1945?

3. During the period 1932-1945, which did Éamon de Valera manage better, the economy or Anglo-Irish relations? Argue your case, referring to both.

4. What attempts were made to promote cultural identity, North and South, during the period, 1912-1945?

2008

1. To what extent was the Anglo-Irish Treaty, 1921, responsible for the Irish Civil War?

2. What steps did Irish governments take to consolidate democracy, 1923-1945?

3. What was the significance of the Eucharistic Congress, 1932, for the Irish Free State?

4. How well did the Unionist Party manage the affairs of Northern Ireland, 1920-1939?

2007

1. What were the aims and achievements of Patrick Pearse?

2. How did Anglo-Irish relations develop during the period 1923 – 1949?

3. How was cultural identity promoted in Ireland, North and South, between 1920 and 1949?

4. Following the experience of war, to what extent was the Belfast of 1945 different from that of 1939?

2006

1. From 1912 onwards, what factors contributed to the partition of Ireland, 1920?

2. Between 1922 and 1932, what steps did the Cosgrave governments take to establish the Irish Free State on firm foundations?

3. How well did Ireland, North and/or South, deal with the social and economic problems presented by World War II?

4. To what extent were language, religion and education used to promote Irish cultural identity during the period, 1920 – 1949?

Cultural Identity and the Eucharistic Congress 1932

Sunday 3 November 2019

Moon landing notes and essays

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0685c9i9jv1ljjj/handout-the-moon-landing.doc?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/671f8yijd8rn0k5/TheMoonLanding-SummaryNotes.doc?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/jntcf72yu8lw4hk/moon%20landing%20essay.pdf?dl=0
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10ERgAqpWLBdpW_DN6_ArE_W5lSNn3A16/view

important:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18zLt72TXx20gGeZMRO6Rh-67BOTt0VcF/view
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1CgZHewWvViSxTdTKcSJ0DDjWyMaqznwc

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1WGL68RdHHnNDIL51beR-KKoEIAo6I5Ab

Wednesday 16 October 2019

Geneva Accords 1954: international agreement ending 8 year war between France and Vietnam. Vietnam divided along 17^th parallel, Viet Minh control the North, US backed Diem regime controlled the south. Elections due in July 1956 to unify state. No elections held in the south.

“Great Society” May 1964 at University of Michigan President Johnson set out his vision foe what he referred to as a “great society”, key element of his election campaign. Called for end of poverty and racism and aimed to address problems in cities, education and environment. GS included Medicare, Medicaid and civil rights legislation also the creation of a department of Urban housing and Development and the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities.

Gulf of Tonkin Resolution Following reports of unprovoked attacks by North Vietnamese torpedo boats on US destoryers Maddox and C Turner Joy in the Gulf of Tonkin on 2^nd and 4^th of August 1964 Congress passed a resolution giving the President the power to take “all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the U.S. and to prevent further aggression”. The resolution served as the principal constitutional authorization for the escalation of American military involvement in Vietnam. Repealed in 1970.

Ho Chi Minh Trail: elaborate system of paths and trails across mountains and jungles that was used by North Vietnam to supply the Viet Cong with troops and supplies.

Op. Rolling Thunder: codename for US bombing campaign against North Vietnam from March 1965 to October 1968.The attacks were intended to weaken the North and reduce their ability to wage war against the south. Shortly after the operation began Johnson committed the first ground troops to the war. While their initial mission was to defend US air bases in SV that were being used for the bombing raids, the troops’ role was soon expanded to include engaging the Viet Cong (VC) in direct combat. The war of attrition that resulted was a huge drain on both sides. Johnson finally called off the campaign in October 1968 and sought a negotiated settlement.

Protests against the Vietnam war marched on the Pentagon in October 1967.

The Pentagon Papers: In 1967, at a time when he was becoming increasingly sceptical about the role of the US in Vietnam, the Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, asked a team of analysts in his department to prepare a study of US involvement in Vietnam from WWII to present day. Top secret. Finished in 1969. leaked to papers in 1971 by Daniel Ellsberg. It showed that US presidents, including Johnson, had misled the public about the degree of US involvement in Vietnam.

Tet Offensive: Late January 1968, during the New Year “Tet” holiday, NV and VC launched coordinated attack against a number of targets in the South. US and SV military forces suffer heavy loses but repel attacks. But extensive television reporting of the offensive (Cronkite, CBS anchor) made it clear to the American public that victory in Vietnam was not imminent and public support for US involvement in the war suffered as a consequence. Protests against the war intensified and on 31 March, Johnson announced that he would not stand for re-election as president.

Viet Minh - Founded by Ho Chi Minh in 1941, North Vietnamese army.

Viet Cong - NLF National liberation front. South Vietnamese guerilla force opposed to the US backed south vietnamese government and in favour of reunification.

McGeorge Bundy [special assistant for national security affairs} Initially BUndy was a forceful advocate of expanding US involvement in Vietnam. Feb 1965, after a visit to SV he wrote a memorandum proposing a policy of “sustained reprisal”, including air strikes, against NV if it didn’t end its guerilla warfare against the SV gov. Late, when he left the administration, he advised Johnson against further escalation of the conflict.

Le Duan: Military leader of the NV.

Lyndon B Johnson: Passed more legislation through congress than most presidents did in two terms. Successes: Civil Rights Act 1964 and Voting Rights Act 1965. Social reforms re his “Great Society” eg medicare and medicaid. JOhnson came under pressure from MLK as money intended for socio-economic reform was diverted to finance the escalating US involvement in the Vietnam War. Ultimately it was Johnson’s management of the war in Vietnam that caused support to drain away from his presidency, as increasing numbers of American troops were used to try to secure a ‘knock-out’ blow against the NV forces. However, from the American ‘Rolling Thunder’ offensive of 1965 to the Tet Offensive by NV troops in 1968, American casualties mounted and, as hopes of victory receded, a growing protest movement at home made Johnson’s position increasingly untenable. In March 1968. he announced his intention to initiate peace talks with the NV and shocked people by announcing that he would not contest the upcoming presidential elections.

Robert McNamara: As Secretary of Defense, McNamara initially advocated the deepening military involvement of the US in Vietnam, publicly expressing optimism that the NLF and its NV allies would soon give up. He was the Governments chief spokesperson on day-to-day operations of the war and Johnsons principal deputy in carrying out the war strategy. However as early as 1965, McNamara had privately begun questioning the wisdom of US involvement and by 1967 he was openly seeking a way to get a peace negotiation underway. He set up a top secret investigation of US commitment to Vietnam (Pentagon Papers). HIs opposition to continued bombing of NV lost him influence in the Johnson administration, from which he resigned in February 1968.

William Westmoreland: 1963, He was set to Vietnam to work with US military advisors. Soon after the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in 1964 Westoreland was appointed commander of the US Military Assistance Command in Vietnam. His popularity at the time is evident in his being appointed a four-star general and being named Time magazine’s ‘Man of the Year’ for 1965. His war strategy in Vietnam has been described as a ‘war of attrition’, where the intention is to wear down the enemy by inflicting on-going heavy toll of casualties. The main criterion for success was the number of enemy troops killed (body counts). Over time the American public became sceptical of the figures issued by the US military and increasingly concerned about US casualties. In 1967 he was called back to the US to report to Congress on the conduct of the war. He promised congress that, with sufficient support, the US would win. Public opinion against the war continued to harden. Tet Offensive was the final straw for many Americans convincing them that the war was unwinnable. Westmoreland requested an additional 200,000 troops after Tet, Johnson initially deferred a response, then recalled Westmoreland to Washington to become army Chief of staff.

What changes in US policy towards Vietnam did Johnson make on becoming president?

l Even before the Gulf of Tonkin resolution of 10 August 1964, Johnson and his advisers had decided that greater American troop involvement was necessary.

l Johnson used the Gulf of Tonkin incidents to persuade Congress to grant him extraordinary powers to deal with enemy attacks and prevent further aggression against US forces.

l Operation Rolling Thunder represented a major escalation of the war, with bombing raids on NV.

l Ground troops becoming involved in direct combat.

S1: William Bundy memorandum to LBJ 10 June 1964: The immediate watershed decision is whether or not the Administration should seek a Congressional resolution giving general authority for action which the President may judge necessary to defend the peace and security of the area. (David M. Barrett (ed.) Lyndon B. Johnson’s Vietnam Papers: a documentary collection. College Station: Texas A&M University Press)

SS1: LBJ was determined that it would not be he who would ‘Lose’ Vietnam to communism. Without a formal declaration of war, LBJ used the Gulf of Tonkin resolution to intensify US involvement in Vietnam, mobilising regular troops for deployment. From that point forward the conflict became known to many as “Johnson’s War”. (Christopher B. Strain (2017) The Long Sixties: America, 1955-1973.)

SS2: Spring 1965 VC attacked US base at Pleiku, this angered Johnson. “I’m not going to be the first president to lose a war,” said LBJ, and he changed US policy by ordering Rolling Thunder.He also decided that the only way to avoid defeat was to change policy again, and he sent a few thousand Marines. Previously, US troops were there to advise ARVN. Now the Commander in Chief gave those 25,000 soldier new orders - they could conduct combat missions with ARVN to search and destroy the enemy. Opinion polls demonstrated that about 80% supported bombing the North. (Terry Anderson (1991) The Sixties. New York: Longman)

What developments in management of the Vietnam conflict from 1965 on created increasing difficulties for Johnson?

l Even before the launch of Operation Rolling Thunder, leading members of the administration had advised the president that the prospects for stability in South Vietnam were poor and relations with the SV government were somewhat strained.

l Although Operation Rolling Thunder helped to stave off defeat in the South, an increase in troop numbers was required to allow the Americans to take the offensive against VIet Cong and NV forces.

l As criticism of the war mounted in the US, the president decided it was necessary to exaggerate rates of progress in order to justify the case for keeping the war going. However, as the challenges faced by American forces became more evident and the number of US casualties increased, criticism of the president became more vocal and leading advisers either resigned or were forced to resign.

S6: Memo by McGeorge Bundy to P. LBJ, 27^th January 1965. Bob McNamara and I have asked for a meeting with you at 11:30 in order to have a very private discussion of the basic situation in Vietnam. Both of us are now convinced that our current policy can only lead to disastrous defeat. What we are doing now, essentially, is to wait and hope for a stable government. In the last six weeks that effort has been unsuccessful. The underlying difficulties in Saigon arise from the spreading conviction that our future is without hope for anti-communists. Our best friends have been somewhat discouraged by our own activity in the face of major attacks on our installations. The Vietnamese know just as well as we do that the VC are gaining in the countryside. They feel that we are unwilling to take serious risks. In one sense, all of this is outrageous, in light of all that we have done and all that we are ready to do if they will only pull up their socks. (David M. Barrett. LBJ’s Vietnam Papers: A Documentary Collection P101)

S7: McGeorge Bundy memo April 6^th 1965: President approved action: slow ascending tempo of Op. RT. Leaflet operations.

SS3: July 1965 LBJ americanize the war. Faced with the prospect of losing SV to the communists, the president announced that US combat strength would immediately be increased from 75,000 to 125,000 and that additional US forces would be sent when requested by field commander Gen. Westmoreland. LBJ travelled to Honolulu in Feb. 1966 to get a first hand assessment on the war’s progress from westmoreland and to secure commitments from SV PM Nguyen Cao Ky (New Yan Cow Koi). It was his first trip outside US since becoming president. Trip galvanized public attention and PM Ky on cover of Time Magazine. Westmoreland told LBJ that July troops staved off defeat but additional troops would now be needed to take the military initiative. LBJ reluctantly agreed to a dramatic increase in US troop strength from 184000 to 429000 by the end of the year. (Larry Berman (1989) Lyndon Johnson’s War: The road to Stalemate in VIetnam p9-10)

LBJ made 2 visits to Vietnam as president (26^th October 1966 and 23 December 1967).

8^th December 1965 McGeorge Bundy resigned as LBJ’s special assistant for National Security affairs.

SS4: LBJ’s policy was slowly slipping the war into a stalemate. A free press, the legitimacy of political opposition, and the attentive citizenry forced Johnson to exaggerate rates of progress in order to keep the war going. Operating under restraints imposed by the president, the military commanders recognized that Vietnam would be a long war. Stalemate was tantamount to victory for Hanoi. (Larry Berman (1989) Lyndon Johnson’s war: The Road to Stalemate in Vietnam)

SS5: A government-sponsored study of the effects of OP. RT concluded soberly that as of July 1966 “the US bombing of NV had had no measurable direct effect on Hanoi’s ability to mount and support military operations in the South at the current level.” It was estimated that it took an average of a hundred tons of bombs dropped along the {Ho Chi Minh} trail to kill a single NV soldier.

When Defense Secretary Robert McNamara read this report in the fall of 1966, it furthered his growing personal disillusionment with the war. Memo from him to LBJ May 1967: “There may be a limit beyond which many Americans and much of the world will not permit the US to go. The picture of the world’s greatest superpower killing or seriously injuring 1,000 non-combatants a week, while trying to pound a tiny backward nation into submission on the issue whose merits are hotly disputed, is not a pretty one. Pp183-4 Maurice Isserman and Michael Kalin (2012) America Divided’)

30^th November 1967 – Robert McNamara resigned.

What role did the Vietnam War play in Johnson’s decision of March 1968 not to seek another term as president?

· The worsening domestic divisions – caused by the mounting casualty list of US soldiers and the failure to make an effective military breakthrough – were emotionally draining for Johnson, who came to believe that these divisions could better be resolved if he did not seek another term as president.

· TV coverage of the Tet offensive persuaded Johnson that he was losing popular support for his war strategy

· Key advisers and former advisers, as well as friends in the media, told Johnson that his strategy was not working and that he needed to re-think his position.

· Recalling Westmoreland from Vietnam was an admission that the Administration’s policy on Vietnam needed re-thinking.

· In the Democratic Party primaries to choose a candidate for the 1968 presidential election, the performances of critics such as Robert Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy showed there was significant opposition to LBJ’s Vietnam policy within his own party.

· His response to the personal testimony of his own son-in-law, Capt Charles Robb, seemed to epitomize the enormous toll the strain of managing the war was having on Johnson’s health.

S14: 31 March 1968: LBJ “I shall not seek, and will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President”

Cronkite’s declaration that the war was a stalemate had huge impact on public opinion. Credibility gap. LBJ “If I’ve lost Cronkite then I’ve lost America”

S15: Letter from Drew Pearson, most popular newspaper columnist of his day, to LBJ 11 March 1968. Print p42

Westmoreland requested 200,000 more troops to win a total war.

A change in policy: SS7: 23 March 1968 Westmoreland “kicked upstairs” (Larry Berman)

S16: Note from Lawrence O’Brien to LBJ: “I’ve spoke to many Democratic officials…people who are your supporters…and also without exceptions they express serious concerns about our current posture in Vietnam. These views are becoming more widespread”. (David M. Barrett 1997)

SS8 David L. Anderson (2005): the meetings of 26-27 March led him to sense that the V. enemy was too strong and the popular approval in the US to weak to continue the course he had been following. On 31 March he informed the nation via tv that he limited bombing and offered negotiations.

SS9: Christopher B. Strain (2017) the long sixties: Johnson was in fact a broken man by 1968. In his defense, Johnson was held responsible not only for his own mistakes but also for mistakes made by Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy, and if LBJ had been duped, then so too were America’s best strategists and military men. Johnson could neither end it or admit defeat, and such was his undoing. The decline of the Great Society unquestionably paralleled the failure of his efforts in Vietnam: the worse things got overseas, the more the war overshadowed his legacy of reform. As Martin Luther King Jr. lamented “The promises of the Great Society had been shot down on the battlefields of Vietnam”

SA: In the defense Johnson was held responsible not only for his own mistakes but also for mistakes made by Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy, and if LBJ had been duped, then so too were America’s best strategists and military men. Chris B. Strain (2017)

SB: Johnson’s decision to remove himself from the re-nomination race represented the ultimate recognition that the Vietnam war had become interwoven with his personality and his presidency. “I shall not accept” was the president’s admission that Vietnam had become, against his every desire, Lyndon Johnson’s war”. Larry Berman (1989)

SC:LBJ and his advisers began bombing NV in early 1965 in a desperate attempt to spur political resolve in SV. But their efforts boomeranged wildly. Rather than stabilising the situation, it instead unleashed forces that soon put Johnson at the mercy of circumstances, a hostage to the war’s accelerating momentum. Brian Van DeMark (1991)

SD: Johnson’s 31 March announcement of his political retirement… at the end of a speech on “our search for peace in Vietnam” was, in effect, clear evidence of the high correlation between his personal political leadership and the conduct of the American war. David L. Anderson (2005)

SE: The Johnson administration was bitterly divided over how to react to the enemy initiative. Not until 31 March - 2 months after the Tet Offensive began - did Johnson make a major statement on Vietnam. Chester J. Pach, Jr (1994)

SF: McNamara, Westmoreland, and Johnson - the architects of US policy in VIetnam - had fallen. Their departures reflected a recognition that the idea of military victory had been a ‘dangerous illusion’. Larry Berman (1989)

SG: President Johnson was being told by McNamara and the other foreign policy advisers he had inherited from JFK that, however unpromising the situation in SV appeared, the US had to stay the course. Maurice Isserman and Michael Kazin (2012)

SH: Enroute {to Cam Rahn Bay, October 1966} Johnson awarded Westmoreland the Distinguished Service Cross. Never, said the general, had Johnson tried to tell him how to run the war. Tactics and battlefield strategy were left to him. Vaughn David Bornet (1983)

Monday 30 September 2019

Moon documentary and documents

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcoIugXUKfM

Worth watching in your own time: all 4 parts of this 2005 BBC doc, esp. part 4:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZI8uLCsjlU

Moon Notes and documents

Glossary of terms:

1. When and why did the US begin its preparations for a manned landing on the Moon?

l In the context of the Cold War, the launch of Sputnik into space by the Soviet Union in 1957 made Americans fear that the Russians were overtaking them technologically, and this fear was increased when Russian cosmonaut, Yuri Gagarin, became the first man to orbit the Earth on the 12 April 1961.

l The new President, John F. Kennedy, believed it would take a dramatic achievement such as a manned Moon landing to assert America’s pre-eminence as the world’s major power. He announced his resolution that the US would land a man on the Moon by the end of the decade on 25 May, 1961.

l The development of rocket technology would be a major boost to the US, economically and militarily, and pioneers of rocket technology such as Wernher von Braun had been recruited by the American military to lead this development.

S1. government document “Reaction to the Soviet satellite: a preliminary evaluation” 17 October 1957.

One week after the USSR announced that it had launched an earth satellite, a number of broad major effects on world public opinion appeared clear: 1. Soviet claims of scientific and technological superiority over the West and especially the US have won greatly widened acceptance. 2. Public opinion in friendly countries shows decided concern over the possibility that the balance of military power has shifted or may soon shift in favour of the USSR. 3. The general credibility of Soviet propaganda has been greatly enhanced. 4. American prestige is viewed as having suffered a severe blow, and the American reaction, so sharply marked by concern, discomfiture and intense interest, has itself increased the disquiet of friendly countries and increased the impact of the satellite.

S2: The Irish Times 3 March 1958: A man will definitely be put into outer space within the next ten years, said Dr Wernher von Braun, American’s leading rocket scientist in the interview last night on British television.

S3: The Irish Times 13 April 1961. The great space race between Russia and the US, on which thousands of millions of roubes and dollars have been spent, ended yesterday with the news that Russia ha successfully launched the recovered a man from space, following a 108 minute orbit of the earth. The Soviet Union went wild with joy over the epoch-making voyage of the “cosmonaut”, 27 year old Yuri Gagarin, described by Moscow Radio as “the Colombus of interplanetary space”.

S4: The Irish Times 26 May 1961: President Kennedy went before a joint session of Congress yesterday to deliver what he called “a special message on urgent national needs”. He called for greatly increased expenditure on the US space programme, on arms, foreign aid, and a renewed attack on unemployment. America, he said, should commit itself to landing a man on the Moon by 1970 and returning him safely to earth. This project alone would cost an extra £189,000,000 this year and from £2,500,000,000 (2.5 Billion) to £3,200,000,000 over the next 5 years. In a very real sense it will not be one man going to the moon: it will be the entire nation,” Mr. Kennedy said, “for all of us must work to put him there.”

SS1: News of Sputnik and subsequent Soviet conquests of space jarred the American people. What might the Russian actually do with the capability to send payloads into orbit? Would future rockets carry warheads? Could the Russians establish military outposts on the moon - or even deeper in space? The implications were depressing. The US needed to overtake and surpass the Russians; second place in this conquest could have dire consequences. On May 25, 1961, President Kennedy made a special address to a joint session of congress in which he discussed the new “space race” within the context of Cold War rivalry with the Soviet Union and other communist nations. “Now it is time to take longer strides - time for a great new American enterprise - time for this nation to take a clearly leading role in space achievement which in many ways may hold the key to our future on earth.”……He then proposed a shockingly improbable goal, one more ambitious than any before it. “I believe we should go to the moon,” he stated simply. (Christopher B. Stain. The Long Sixties, 2017)

What actions did the US take, and what resources did it commit, in making plans for a Moon landing during the 1960s?

l Project Gemini (1962-1966) was set up to investigate the operational and practical aspects of working ans living in outer space.

l The Apollo Program (1961-1972) focused on the challenge of landing a man on the Moon, including the development of space ships and computerised systems that could carry out the series of complex manoeuvres that would be required.

l The Apollo Program alone cost between $25 billion and £35 billion dollars. Each trip to the Moon cost around half a billion dollars.

l The preparations for a Moon landing involved the biggest scientific and technological undertaking in history. It has been estimated that three hundred thousand engineers and other technical staff were involved and many entirely new inventions were developed to meet the challenges of space travel. Computer programmer Margaret Hamilton and other women played important roles.

SS2: Between 1962 and 1966, Project Gemini was tasked with developing “operational capacity in space” and investigating “the problems of working and living in space” as NASA continued to assemble the necessary talent and materials to chase a dream. Under the longer-running Apollo Program (1961-1972) - with its thirty-three flights, eleven of which were manned - NASA focused on the task of actually landing on the moon via lunar rendezvous and coupling, in which a smaller lander leaves the main spacecraft in orbit, descends to the moon’s surface, then returns to lunar orbit to re-dock with the bigger craft to return to Earth. The work involved was almost unimaginable, constituting the largest scientific and technological undertaking in history. Three hundred thousand engineers and technical staff persons, working for 20,000 contractors, made entirely new inventions - from cordless tools to freeze-dried foods - to accomplish the task. The entire science of transistors, integrated circuits, and computer microchips had to be invented and debugged before rocket experts could plan launches and recovery. Working feverishly, NASA scientists and engineers boldly went where none had gone before - and spent tens of billions of dollars in the process. (Chris B. Strain, 2017)

S5: The Irish Times 17 June 1963: Only last week, the US announced the end of Project Mercury, under which four men went into orbit. On paper, its achievements have been less impressive than the Soviet Union’s. Project Gemini, which will put two men into space, has already been started on. The first tests are announced for the end of the year, and the first manned flight in the programme is expected to take place at the end of 1964 leading to further flights of up to two weeks’ duration.

S6: The Irish Times 9 April 1964: The US successfully put into orbit this morning an unmanned Gemini space capsule, designed eventually to carry two men into space for periods as long as a fortnight. The second generation of manned space programmes thus got off to a perfect start and the Titan rocket, which as developed as an intercontinental ballistic missile, proved its versatility. The 29 astronauts, from whom the Gemini’s first passengers will be chosen later this year, watched the 90 feet Titan roar away after a perfect countdown, its first stage engine generating 430,000 lb. Of thrust. Their interest, like that of the many other space scientists gathered at Cape Kennedy, Florida, was focused primarily on the first five minutes and 35 seconds of flight - the time it took for the Titan to exhaust the fuel in its two stages and inject the capsule into orbit - and a variety of measurements were made to ascertain the temperature, pressure and noise to which future astronauts will be subjected.

S7: The Irish Times 16 December 1965: ASTRONAUTS HOLD SPACE RENDEZVOUS SIX-FOOT GAP SEPARATES SPACECRAFT. The two astronauts, Walter Schirra and Thomas Strafford, made a successful take-off from Cape Kennedy yesterday abroad Gemini 6 and approached to within six feet of Gemini 7, which has been orbiting the earth for 12 days. The close approach was made 185 miles above the Mariana Islands, north of Guam, while the two vehicles were orbiting at more than 17,000 miles an hour. US scientists consider that the operation was an important step towards the time when large laboratories will orbit the earth and serve as bases for space research.

S8: The Irish Times 3 March 1966: An important first step towards putting a man on the moon was taken at Cape Kennedy, Florida, on Saturday. The new American Saturn 1-B rocket dispatched an unmanned Apollo spacecraft on a 39-minute sub-orbital flight to a landing 5,300 miles away in the South Atlantic. The launching followed more than four years of preparation and preceded by less than four years the scheduled first lunar landing by American astronauts. The preparations began in May 1961 when defence and space officials gathered in the Pentagon office of the US Defence Secretary, Mr Robert McNamara, to consider a project that would challenge the US and excite all mankind.

Apollo 1 crew: Gus Grisson, Ed White and Roger Chaffee, died in a fatal accident in a pre-launch test of the spacecraft, 27 January 1967.

S9: The Irish Times 26 August 1967: Article entitled: “Is there still a moon race?” by Kenneth W. Gartland, then vice-president of the British Interplanetary Society and Editor of Space Flight.

When the space race claimed its first victims earlier this year, America and Russia were on the brink of exciting new ventures. At Cape Kennedy astronauts were preparing to test their Apollo spacecraft in Earth-orbit. Soviet cosmonauts were in the last stages of training for similar test-flights in the Soyuz (Soviet) spacecraft. The first tragedy came in America when a fire swept the Apollo capsule during the launch pad rehearsal on January 27^th, kiing Virgil Grisson, Edward White - experienced astronauts - and Roger Chaffee. The disaster immediately set back America’s moon programme a year. Modifications required to make the spacecraft “safe” are extensive. They include changing to less flammable materials in the cabin, provision of a quick-release hatch, new fire-resistant spacesuits and modifications to launch facilities at Cape Kennedy. When changes in spacecraft manufacture and delivery schedules are taken into account. The cost is estimated at around $75 million.

Note: The victim of the Russian tragedy mentioned above was Colonel Vladimir Komarov, who plunged to his death on 24^th April whilst returning to Earth in there-entry capsule of Soyuz 1. According to the Soviet authorities, the tragic accident was due to entanglement of the shroud lines of the landing parachute.

S10: The Irish Times 22 October 1968: Article entitled “How Americans plan to land on the moon” by Arnold Whittaker and Thomas Kelly, leading engineers on the team that developed the lunar module.

Altogether about 2,000 spacecraft hours and some 5,000 astronaut hours are scheduled to be logged before America’s lunar mission takes place. We’re hoping this comes off in 1969 but are prepared to live with unforeseen delays that will push us into 1970. Since 1962, NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) has followed the concept that the lunar orbit rendezvous mode is the best way of getting a team of men on the moon and our LM (Lunar Module) is a result of this decision. It is really the world’s first true spacecraft, designed to operate solely as a ferry between a spacecraft orbiting the moon and the moon surface. Once it brings the astronauts back up into space, it will be left like a piece of junk while its passengers return to the earth. It is probably the ugliest-looking thing American engineering has ever built - but we’re very proud of it. The basic outward design of the LM hasn’t changed appreciably since 1964. It’s basically two units in one - a descent stage with landing gear to drop the men on the moon and an ascent stage to get them off again. Its weight at earth launch is 32,000 pounds, approximately three quarters of which is fuel.

S11: The Irish Times, 14 March 1969: Less than six hours after the perfect return of Apollo-9 and its three astronauts, NASA announced in Houston Texas, that Apollo 11 would take off for the moon on July 15^th and two men would make a lunar landing on July 19^th. General Samuel Phillips, manager of the Apollo programme, said that, in May, Apollo-10 would orbit the moon with the lunar module descending to within nine miles of the moon’s surface. Yesterday the capsule carrying the Apollo-9 astronauts,

Manned Apollo missions

Mission	Date(s)	Outcome
Apollo 1	1967, 27 January	Pre-launch test leads to accidental death of 3 astronauts
Apollo 7	1968, 11 October	First Apollo mission to carry a crew into space
Apollo 8	1968, 21 December	First space flight to orbit the Moon
Apollo 9	1969, 3 March	First Manned flight test of lunar module
Apollo 10	1969, 8 May	‘Dress rehearsal’ for lunar landing
Apollo 11	1969, 20 July	First Moon landing

S12

SS3:

What was the impact of the Moon landing, 1969?

l Up to a quarter of the world’s population watched the event on television.

l For Americans, there was relief and deep satisfaction that the US had got to the Moon before the Soviet Union.

l The event was seen as a significant marker in humankind’s technological progress and ability to explore space - by Americans and by many people worldwide.

l Some of the reaction at the time was ‘over the top’ - and the event did not lead on to further achievements in space in the way that some people had anticipated.

l Some Americans criticised the vast sums of spent on sending men to the Moon while poverty and social inequalities were neglected.

l The event helped to increase interest in the ecology movement, as images of the Earth from outer space increased people’s environmental consciousness of Earth’s finite resources and cosmic vulnerability.

S13: The Irish Times 21 July 1969: At 20 seconds after 3.56 A.M. (Irish time) today, the first man set foot on the Moon. He was Neil Armstrong, commander of the Apollo-11 mission who, almost seven hours earlier at 9.17 and 45 seconds - had piloted the lunar landing module, Eagle, to an almost perfect landing in the Sea of Tranquility. At 4.14 he was joined on the surface of the Moon by his companion in the module, Edwin Aldrin. Armstrong’s first words on the moon were: “That’s one small step for man. One giant leap for mankind.” The hatch of the lunar module opened at 3.40. But before placing his foot on the top rung of the descent ladder, Armstrong stood on the threshold and communicated his first impressions of lunar gravity and what he could see back to Earth. A short way down the ladder, he said: “Okay, I’m going to pull it down.” He referred to the instrument pack containing the television camera. At the bottom, Armstrong said his foot sank into the surface very, very slightly, “but I can see my footprint.” “There seems to be no difficulty in moving around,” he said, as he moved away from Eagle’s leg. “It’s a very soft surface, but here and there where I poke with the sample collector I run into a very hard surface,” even though “it appeared to be the same material.” The Moon “has a harsh beauty all its own,” he reported. “It looks like the desert of the US, but it is very beautiful.” In Houston, Space Centre surgeons said that “data is good and Moon crew doing well,” as Armstrong took his historic steps and Aldrin took pictures.

S14: Ground Control called the two into camera range for a conversation with President Nixon, who said: “This must be the most historic telephone call ever made.” “Because of what you have done,” Mr. Nixon told them, “the heavens have become part of the Earth. For the first time in the history of man, all the people on this Earth are truly one.” Armstrong replied with thanks saying that it was “a great honour and privilege for us to be here, representing not only the US but men of peace of all nations.”

Plague: HERE MEN FROM THE PLANET EARTH FIRST SET FOOT UPON THE MOON JULY 1969, A.D. WE CAME IN PEACE FOR ALL MANKIND.

S15: Throughout my childhood in the 1950s, Americans regarded science and medicine with a respect bordering on reverence. American technology and science were given the lion’s share of the credit for Allied victory in the Second World War, and few ordinary Americans doubted either the wisdom or the morality of the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki that finally brought an end to the fighting in the Pacific. As far as the public was concerned, American preeminence in science was a given until the Soviet Union launched Sputnik in 1957, but fear that the Russians might win the space race actually raised the prestige of science by providing a rationale for large increases in government spending on basic scientific research and science education. The moon landing in 1969 would probably never have happened without the blow to America’s sense of superiority twelve years earlier. Neil Armstrong’s walk on the moon, however, represented more than a national and nationalistic achievement: it was a unique moment in which not only technological prowess but the imaginative possibilities of science and exploration were illuminated for Americans and millions of others around the globe.

Useful Websites

https://www.sites.google.com/site/stconlethshistory/sample-essays

https://sites.google.com/site/scchis/thepursuitofsovereigntyandtheimpactofpar

http://pdst.ie/sc/history/curriculumresources/thepursuitofsovereigntyandtheimpactofpartition

https://operationhistory.wordpress.com

http://historyjk.blogspot.ie/

http://leavingcertificatehistory.blogspot.com/

http://www.hist.ie
http://www.htai.ie
http://www.examinations.ie
http://multitext.ucc.ie/
http://sites.google.com/site/scchis/
https://sites.google.com/a/mounttemple.ie/historyleavingcert2014/system/app/pages/sitemap/hierarchy
http://www.riversdalecc.com/subjects/history/history.html
http://www.historyvault.ie/leaving-cert-history
http://www.stkevinscollege.com/leavingHistory.html

MPPSHistory

Search This Blog