Only relevant information like data of casualty, time, and involving parties should be preserved. In a nutshell, in this political charged era most of the universal education expect scholars in war only analyze the core causes of the war, which, as Clausewitz states, is politics, for war is essential an continuation of
Can an antiquated lens provide an adequate examination and understanding of modern warfare? The theories of Carl von Clausewitz retain remarkable contemporary merit and relevance in explaining the critical elements affecting warfare in the modern era. Carl von Clausewitz’s theories of war endeavor to be comprehendible, comprehensive, and strategic. Clausewitz contends that the conduct of war itself is without doubt very difficult. But the difficulty is not that erudition and great genius are necessary to understand the basic principles of warfare.1 Clausewitz 's 1812 essay, the Principles of War, offers military commanders, with little campaign experience, a comprehendible, comprehensive, and strategic model for attaining victory in battle.
The stage leading up to the outbreak of World War 1 featured incredibly impactful decisions that would eventually create the beginning of the Modern Era. However, diplomacy leading up to World War 1 created a negative impact on the war in that it was largely based upon a balance of power. Globally, this outdated diplomacy lead to the militarism of all countries involved, thus only heightening the tensions, and leading up to the outbreak of World War 1. By the end of the war, it is evident that many of the countries recognized their mistakes and attempted to find long-term solutions through extensive treaties and international humanitarian efforts. The diplomatic tendencies of many prominent leaders invited war.
He believed that war was not only compatible with but was sometimes required by all three forms of law: natural law, nations (international law) and divine law. He said “where judicial settlement fails, war begins” (De Jure Belli ac Pacis. II.1.2.1) Grotius believed that war was less to do with divine law, and more to do with international law (civil law). As such, positivism should be considered in deciding the constituents of a just war. His philosophical underpinning was that divine law should be omitted from the jus ad bellum process.
“ They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger?” this statement weakens the spirits within the colonist due to the intolerable acts. Although Britain thought the act would help them strengthen it was undermined by the presence of increasing the military activities. According to henry no matter what happens the war will come, “ The war is inevitable and let it come! I repeat it sir, let it come.” The main point of the speech is that the colonists must go to war to protect their own freedom.
Longstreet and Lee definitely do not see eye to eye on a lot of things when it comes to the war. The biggest thing that the two disagree about is the war strategy. Longstreet sees that the war is changing and he understands that if the Confederacy keeps using the same tactics for war that they will not come out on top at the end of this war. Longstreet is a firm believer in trench warfare and waiting for the enemy to come to him. Longstreet says at one point, when John Buford’s Calvary is on its way to sneak up on the Confederates, “Now all we have to do is swing around between him Washington and get astride some nice thick rocks and make him come to us, and we’ve got him in the open.” (p. 83).
The type of peace, temporary or more permanent, depends on how long it will last as conflict is a part of human nature, leading to the conclusion peace can lead to war. A temporary peace can be compared to putting a band-aid over a bullet hole; it might hold and stop the blood on the surface but there’s much more damage in the inside. The Treaty of Versailles was a band-aid to the other world problems after WW1. First when the treaty was being written the US, Britain and France could not agree to which degree the terms against Germany should be. The US wanted “peace without victory”, France wanted to cripple Germany and gain security from the treaty and Britain wanted middle ground of wat the US and Germany wanted (Treaty of Versailles: How America, France & Britain Benefited.).
The ARIS Primer on the Science of Resistance (CH 1) identifies the importance of redefining “resistance” due to the evolving nature of war’s evolution, tactics and outcomes. War • Civil wars have replaced interstate wars • Irregular warfare has overcome traditional warfare methods o Irregular warfare: “violent struggle among non-state actors for legitimacy and influence over the relevant population” (ARIS, Pg. 14, Para. 3, Lines 3-5) • Irregular warfare was a secondary concern for the military industrial complex Resistance • Resistance is when people oppose government or authoritative control • Begins in the human heart and manifests through protests, demonstrations, strikes clandestine organizations, underground newspapers, sabotage, subversion, guerrilla warfare and eventually civil war • Several definitions of resistance have existed to include non-violent and violent forms of resistance • Modern revolutionary warfare definition of resistance includes “velvet” revolutions • Velvet revolutions are begotten by entirely or predominately nonviolent means • ARIS definition of resistance: “a form of contention or asymmetric conflict involving participants’ limited or collective
Oxford’s dictionary defines War as “a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country.” This definition only states what war seems from the outside, a fight between two opposite forces. The impact of war is deeper and more long lasting then the war itself, especially on families and people in general. Wars are known for its danger, division, and the destruction that comes along with it. In the story, “The Sniper” by Liam O 'flaherty, the author uses irony, motivation, and mode to reveal the theme that war knows no limit. These three literary elements supports the theme of the story by making it evident and noticeable to the reader.
Both ‘The Soldier’ and ‘Dulce et decorum est’ express the authors perception of war. Owen describes the bitter reality of war, whereas Rupert Brooke expresses the glorification of war and fighting for your country. Alliteration is used in both poems to establish rhythm and reinforce the tone. For the two poems, the titles are misleading. They contradict what the poem is actually about.