Discussion Question #1
Why do you think Harry Gold provided sensitive information to the Russians? Could there be spies in Crawford County collecting sensitive information for another country's benefit?
Why do you think Harry Gold provided sensitive information to the Russians? Could there be spies in Crawford County collecting sensitive information for another country's benefit?
Discussion Question #2
The chapter, “Quiet Fellow,” ends with the following statement: “It was a decision that would haunt him for the rest of his life.” What is the meaning of the word haunt as it is used in the previous sentence? Why do you think Sheinkin used this statement at this point in the book? What could he be telling his audience?
Discussion Question #3
On page 113, we learn that twenty-six Norwegian civilians were killed when Knut Haukelid and his commandos sank the ferry carrying the German heavy water. What are your thoughts and feelings about the loss of innocent lives during any war?
Discussion Question #4
Why is it important that you understand the different perspectives regarding the use of weapons of mass destruction?
Blog #1 : Group #15
ReplyDeleteHello Mr. Thompson. Shyanna, Zy, Landen, and I appreciate all your help with this blog.
Question #1
Harry Gold provided sensitive information to the Russians because Gold was thankful to Black for getting him a job in order to help his family with money problems, and Gold wanted to repay the debt. In the book, Bomb: The Race to Build-and Steal The World’s Most Dangerous Weapon, Steve Sheinkin explicitly stated on page twenty-three, “It all began one snowy night in February 1933, in the depths of the Great Depression. Like millions of Americans, Gold had been laid off from his job. His family was behind on rent and facing eviction from their apartment.” Sheinkin also states on pages twenty-four and twenty-five, “He was thankful to Black for getting him a job and wanted to repay the debt.” Even further, Sheinkin states on the same page, “Here was a chance to do something nice for Black and help the Soviet people.” These pieces of textual evidence back up our claim by proving why Gold was thankful and why he felt he needed to repay Black. Our group can infer that the effects of The Great Depression made people do things they would never think of doing, but it does not excuse the fact that Harry Gold betrayed us and our country. Shyanna, Zy, Trenton, Landen, and I understand that family always comes first and “Desperate times calls for desperate measures”, but Gold should have thought about other ways out and not betray our country. Really, in the end, Gold did not help his family; he hurt his family. What do you think about Gold and his choices?
Question #2
Shyanna, Zy, Trenton, Landen, and I decided that there could be spies in Crawford County collecting sensitive information for another country’s benefit. On the Flying S website, http://www.flying-s.com, it does not show the actual projects that the employees are working on. On the “Projects” page, it is restricted! That means that we cannot see what they are working on. Why? Why keep it restricted? Well, something must be secret. Our group knows that they build prototypes for NASA and the government, and this needs to be protected. Therefore, someone must want that information? Also, at Marathon Petroleum Corporation, there are certain security standards that people have to meet to be able to work in the plant. People cannot just walk in. At Marathon, petroleum is refined. Petroleum is also an energy source so this puts us as a target. Do you think we are correct? Could there be spies wanting information? Is this why so much money is spent on security?
Shyanna, Zy, Trenton, Landen, and I look forward to your responses.
P.S. Mrs. Thompson told us about the “Taco Gate”. We want you to know that she was 100% correct, and you were 100% wrong. Do you want to defend yourself?
Hello, Group15! You all had very good insights into Harry Gold’s reasoning for passing information to the Soviets. In the midst of the Great depression, people would do whatever was necessary to find employment. Gold should have realized that Tom Black had other motives when he told him at their first meeting that he was going to make a communist out of him too. He was motivated to move to Jersey City with hopes of supporting his family during the economic downturn. You can somewhat understand his willingness to help Black and the Soviet people since he was so thankful for the job. At that point I wish Harry Gold would have exercised what I call’ The Three Second Rule’. It was at that moment, when he was asked to steal industrial secrets, that he could have considered for three seconds the consequences of the action he was about to take and what the effects would have on him and everyone affected by his decision. That rule can be applied to every decision that we all make on a daily basis. If Harry Gold would have thought it through, he wouldn’t be the cowardly historical footnote that he is.
ReplyDeleteAs to potential espionage into local industry, I agree we do have several industries that would be of interest to foreign countries. As for Flying S, whenever you enter into a government contract, the company must pledge not to share the secrets of what they are working on. This is why the hiring process for these businesses are so strict. All petro/chemical facilities and aerospace companies delve deeply into federal background checks to try to seek out individuals applying that have any potential conflicts in their pasts that could exclude them from being hired. They all spend a tremendous amount of money on security to try to keep the company, community and country safe. And for good reason. All of these types of companies possess information and resources that are a target for spies and the governments that support them. Companies will pay for what is necessary to protect their resources and trade secrets.
As for the Great Taco Debate, it may taste a little better when the juices are flowing down your face, but I would suggest consulting a dietitian or cardiologist about that one before committing to not draining(twice)!
We appreciate your response and we will all take account of the three second rule when we are in a time where we need to make a good decision and a fast one.
ReplyDeleteBlog #2 Group #15
ReplyDeleteThe word ‘haunt’ used in the following sentence, “It was a decision that would haunt him for the rest of his life.” means that Oppenheimer’s decision will terrorize him and the thought will never leave him. Sheinkin most likely used this statement at the end of the chapter to foreshadow Oppenheimer’s fall from grace. Oppenheimer did not tell his boss the truth so he looks untrustworthy, and this could create a problem. Steve Sheinkin explicitly stated on page sixty-five, “Oppenheimer chose not to tell General Groves that he’d been approached by the Soviets.” This textual evidence backs up our claim by proving that Oppenheimer tried to protect his job and his role as director of the Bomb Project. This also backs up our claim by proving that the thought of losing his position would never leave his mind. In our best judgement, Sheinkin is trying to tell his readers that in the world of spies, which we know we have even in our own community, that if people are approached and they are in a position of authority, they should always tell the truth and stay loyal to our country. What do you think?
Trenton, Shyanna, Landen, Zy, and I look forward to your response.
Hello again, Group 15! I think you’re onto something when you say that Oppie’s decision not to tell General Groves about being approached by the Soviets would terrorize him and ‘haunt’ him for the rest of his life. There are multiple ways the word ‘haunt’ can be used. In this case, I believe Sheinkin is using it to refer to something that persistently recurs and remains with you. With that usage, I believe you are correct that it is used to foreshadow his eventual fall from grace. I would think that with his level of education and intellect, it’s quite possible that his inflated ego got in the way of his ability to make the right decision in this situation. I also agree with you that his main goal at that moment was to protect his job as project director.
ReplyDeleteI can only imagine the frenetic world in 1942. It seems that hardly anyone could trust anyone else, especially in the intertwined worlds of academia, politics and espionage. I’m sure it was very difficult to know who to trust. I think you were right that Sheinkin is trying to tell his readers that even in the spy world, one should always tell the truth and stay loyal. Not only to one’s country, but also to one’s self. Remember, each of the characters in this book always thought they were the smartest and most clever person in the room. Again, I would say their egos got in the way of smart decision making. Something else you can learn when reading about the people in this book. An ego trip is a journey to nowhere.
Landen, Zy, Trenton, Shyanna, and I are thankful for your response. We really liked the last line, and we will watch out for those with big egos to see that they are going “nowhere”. We look forward to reading your next response.
DeleteBlog #3 Group #15
ReplyDeleteTrenton, Shyanna, Landen, and I started out with a disagreement whether if it is okay for civilians to be hurt or even killed during war or a conflict. Shyanna, Landen and I think that it is not okay for civilian people to die, but if this mission would not have been proceeded more people would have been hurt or killed. If Hitler would have gotten a hold of the heavy water, more lives would have been in a more serious position. On page 110 of Bomb, Race To Build and Steal The World’s Most Dangerous Weapon Steve Sheinkin explicitly stated, “The Germans knew an attack was likey. The barrels would travel under heavy guard and German planes would fly overhead to watch the land on either side of the track.” This evidence backs up our claim by proving that Hitler wanted the heavy water because they had big plans to use it to create a bomb that would kill many. Also, from past history lessons, we have learned that Hitler just wanted world domination over anything else. Hitler would put innocent people in terrorizing concentration camps just to get what he wanted. Just think what he would do if he had the world’s most dangerous and powerful weapon in his hands. This also backs up our claim by showing that more lives would have been on the line if they did not follow through with this mission. Shyanna, Landen and I can infer that if Hitler would have gotten the heavy water, it would have been easier for them to build an atomic bomb. In the end, losing innocent lives is a tragedy, although the mission was a success, still twenty-six lives were lost but millions were saved. Trenton, on the other hand, thinks that it is not okay for innocent lives to be lost, because he would not be able to kill innocent people. On page 110, Steve Sheinkin explicitly stated, “Haukelid relayed the details to British intelligence in London, saying that the job would be tricky and might result in the loss of civilian lives.” This back up his claim by proving that they knew innocent lives would be lost. He can infer that one out of ten soldiers could not kill innocent people because they were trained not to trust anyone. Trenton says he could not and would not kill innocent people; therefore, it is not okay for others.
What are your thoughts?
P.S. Mrs. Thompson was talking to our class about how you two were going somewhere on a plane and there was a crazy person on the plane and you were very frightened; we thought that it was very brave and touching that people in our world would still stand up for other lives to save more people.
Greetings once more, Group 15. I was anxious to read your thoughts on the difficult question asked for part 3. As expected, there was a division amongst yourselves when answering the question. That was not a surprise. I suspect any group, anywhere, of any age, would have a similar divide.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think either side could answer incorrectly. And, as usual, my awesome Group 15 presented clear and concise arguments on both sides of the issue. At what point is it okay to sacrifice the lives of innocents to protect the lives of others, no matter the number of lives involved? Some say never. Others say it’s the price some must pay to see a war to a victorious conclusion.
Remember. We were fighting the Japanese at the same time. Between the fanatical fighting in the Pacific and the Hitlerian freak-out in Europe, I would say most people of the time could understand civilian casualties were inevitable to try to bring some closure to the war effort. I suspect, if it broke out to that scale again, we would mostly feel the same way.
Thank you for responding! We love all of your input and thoughts. We all enjoy reading your feedback since we all have different perspectives on the situation.
ReplyDeleteYour "Hitlerian freak-out" comment reminded us of a video we watched this week in history class with Mr. Jones. We attached the link below for your viewing. Let us know what you think.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVUAIPMsZ60
Blog #4 Group #15
ReplyDeleteIt is important that we understand the different perspectives regarding the use of weapons of mass destruction because these weapons create pure destruction. In the book, Bomb: The Race To Build and Steal the World’s Most Dangerous Weapon, Steve Sheinkin explains the following perspectives: scientific, military, political, and those of the Japanese civilians.
To begin, the scientific perspective of some scientists like Oppenheimer changed from the discovery of the atom splitting to the creation and to the use of the bomb. At first, they were thrilled due to the science, but the realization of its impact shocked them. Sheinkin points out Oppenheimer’s feelings. It is explicitly stated on page 216, “Truman wanted to discuss how scientists and the military could continue working together to make more atomic bombs, while Oppenheimer tried to steer the conversation to the topic of international cooperation, and the goal of stopping the arms race before it could begin.” This backs up our claim by proving by the end not all wanted more bombs and that we needed to stop the arms race. Our group can infer that Oppenheimer wanted to help save lives, but he did not want the discoveries to hurt or to kill other people. In the end, military leaders like Leslie Groves were ready to drop another atomic bomb on Japan and make them suffer from it, but scientists like Oppenheimer wanted to stay neutral and did not want an atomic war to happen.
Next, is the military perspective, and Sheinkin wanted us to know that it was rough for people and easy for others to kill all the people who lived in Japan with the dropping of the atomic bombs. The military also had to do whatever their commander said whether they wanted to do it or not. Steve Sheinkin explicitly states on page 197, ”A feeling of shock and horror swept over all of us.” This backs up our claim by proving how some military personnel were in shock of what they had done to the Japanese. Even though the mission was a success, it was still devastating. Landen, Shyanna, Trenton, and I can infer that it was very difficult for the armed forces to fight for our country because all of the pressure. In our best judgement, the armed forces face devastating challenges as they fight for our freedom, and we need to understand that especially when voting for our leaders.
ReplyDeleteOn the political side of things, our political party was not afraid of what could happen because they were confident that the Soviets would not get a bomb made, and President Truman just wanted to make sure that he had enough votes for the next election. Steve Sheinkin explicitly states on page 216, “Truman brushed this worry aside, asking when will the Russians be able to build a bomb? I don’t know , Oppenheimer answered.”
“I know”
“When”
“Never”
This backs up our claim by proving that the political party had enough confidence that the Soviets would not have time to build a bomb. We can infer that most people would think that the political party would be afraid of the Soviets building a bomb and using it to destroy our country. Again, it is important to understand a politician’s perspective because it tells his/her constituents where he/she stands on an issue. This, in turn, tells us how to vote.
The perspective of the Japanese civilians must be understood. We read an article from National Geographic about a girl who she survived the bombing at Hiroshima. She stated, ”I saw horrific things that day, so many dead bodies, so much destruction that I had to escape. This backs up my claim by showing how tragic this was to the Japanese. We can guess that the survivors of the bombing were truly terrified for the rest of their lives. This is so important to understand because when we understand the sufferings of others it helps us make decisions about the true impact of using weapons of mass destruction.
Point being, teens like us need to learn the different perspectives of weapons of mass destruction because it gives us a well-rounded view of the issue. Being aware of all the sides, helps us be aware of the true issue. In our opinion, bombing is not going solve world problems; weapons of mass destruction will just destroy our world more than it already is. “You can bomb the world to pieces but you can't bomb it into peace. Power to the peaceful,” -Michael Franti
What a great response to question #4! You are correct in your summation especially in regards to a voter's responsibility. Analyzing different perspectives is always important in all situations especially in one as serious as weapons of mass destruction.
ReplyDeleteThe quote you used is profound, and I think your perspective is on the mark. That was my favorite part of your response because it appears to me you truly understand the importance of understanding this topic.
I look forward to our last blog discussion. Have a great week!
Thank you for responding to blog 4. We appreciate your positive feedback, and we feel that we really do understand the book. It was very helpful that we closely read the book, heard Mr. Jones talk about parts of the book in his class, and learned from you. We look forward to blog 5.
ReplyDeleteBlog Question #5 Group #15
ReplyDeleteThis summary means that weapons of mass destruction are still in our lives today, and they are never going away. Steve Sheinkin explicitly states on page 236, “It’s a story with no end insight. And, like it or not, you’re in it.” This textual evidence backs up our claim by proving that deadly weapons are here to stay. Trenton, Landen, Shyanna, and I can infer that since other countries have these weapons, the United States needs to have them as well. Common sense tells us that if we have these weapons then we can protect our country. Sheinkin wanted us to be aware and proactive. He is also tell us that whenever we get older and are able to vote, we should think about how the political party would deal with these things.