Therefore, Napole-ons approach to battle was unexpected and surprising to adversary. John R. Elting writes in his book that Napoleon’s favourite strategy was ‘to envelop one of the en-emy army’s flanks and threaten its rear and communications, forcing it either to retire hurriedly or turn and fight at disadvantage’ (1997, pp. 529 - 530). This might not be the precise practice Napoleon applied specifically fighting the Battle of Austerlitz; however, it illustrates Napoleon’s intention and military genius to exploit enemy weakness at the emergence of such opportunity. That was enabled by preposition-ing- and manoeuvrability of the French forces, and holding sufficient reserves, which were ordered to battle at the right moment.
The Casablanca conference was the most important allied meeting because it formalized the plan to defeat Germany. Admiral Stark and Major Wedemeyer framed the strategic problem by addressing what the end state would be. They both had very little guidance about what was to be achieved. Stark knew the United States and Britain’s fates were linked. In the “Plan
World leaders may argue justifiable reasons for war, including war being the most viable means to defeat an irrational, uncivilized common enemy; others, including those whose very lives are at risk, may define war was unreasonable, risky, and even absurd “in which human beings exist in an irrational, meaningless universe and in which human life has no ultimate meaning” (“The Absurd”). The fictitious novel, Catch-22 by Joseph Heller, describes the violent yet absurd and meaningless nature of World War II and the young men who are forced to sacrifice their sanity and lives to protect their countries. The novel weaves together a variety of loosely related stories that depict a war of irrational events, absurd characters who are driven to the point of insanity, and a satirical, senseless, commanding bureaucracy. Although the novel takes place during a violent, deadly war, the novel
The concurrent global aspects of the military confrontations facing England must be recognized to place the implications of the Yorktown defeat in context of why American independence was officially won with the Peace Treaty of 1783. Some overseas theaters are covered in the webpages on the World War Context of the American Revolution, Impact of French World-Wide Involvement in the War for American Independence, and French Naval Leaders in the War for American Independence. Links to these pages are given at the end of this page. The remarkably swift execution by the joint and combined military Franco-American forces, leading to the 1781 Yorktown victory has been difficult for some to accept as the result of evolving circumstances which were exploited by the exemplary, rapid decisions of the variously allied commanders. Rather, there has been spawned, though considerable incomplete knowledge, a legend that the Yorktown Campaign was
Why the Allies Won, Critical Book Review In Richard Overy’s, Why the Allies Won, Overy portrays his thoughts regarding the Second World War. He does so not telling the history of the war, stating “there are plenty of those already” (preface), but rather by explaining the outcome of it. He makes sure to focus on key points throughout the war that have caused great controversies over the years; specifically, Overy says that he focused first on combat, then on production, technology, politics, and morale. Chapter by chapter, Overy hits these key points by providing new logic and ideas to the reader. He gives a new outlook that expands further than just the fighting aspect that most rely on for an explanation.
Introduction Commonly referred to as the King of Battle, the Field Artillery branch has evolved into a powerful and multifaceted contributing member of today’s Army. The history of this evolution is a long and colorful one. Napoleon Bonaparte, an artilleryman himself, capitalized on the theory of massing the firepower of artillery at the proper time and place providing him a tactical advantage and allowed his maneuver teams to breakthrough enemy lines and secure their victory. As the Civil War approached, changes were being made that would have defining effects on the roles of Field Artillery. But when the war became a reality it was evident immediately that artillerymen were not ready to deal with close combat, and under General H.J Hunt would have to adapt their crew drills and reorganize if they were to survive and continue to be a contributing member of the force.
While storytelling can change and shape a reader’s opinions and perspective, it might also be the closest in helping O’Brien cope with the complexity of war experiences, where the concepts like moral and immorality are being distorted. “How to Tell a True War Story” and “Ambush” are stories that both explore on topics: truth, the real definition of a true war story, and the role of truth. O 'Brien starts off “How to Tell a True War Story” with “This is true.” Starting this story with such a bold sentence not only makes it seem more true, but to some extent, it acts as a comfort statement to the narrator’s own doubts, as if there were unspeakable uncertainties and lies of the narrator. The title of this story also comes into play, with a meta-fictional name “How to Tell a True War Story”, as if it were a guide, a manual, having a true war story tell the readers how to tell a true war story. However ironically, towards the middle of the story, us as
Dr.King also uses alliteration to bring focus to what he is saying. Dr.King tells: "It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military victory, do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat" (277-278).In other words, Dr.King uses alliteration to create and certain tone and rhythm for his speech. The use of alliteration brings out the important words and main ideas that Dr.King is
Militarism is the policy of glorifying military power and keeping an army prepared for war. The military defeats before World War I such as Russia’ defeat by Japan (Russo-Japanese War), France’s defeat by Germany (Franco Prussian War) and even costly victories such as the Boer War increased the calls for improvement of military. People wanted stronger military and arms. A powerful military, at that time, means manifestation for nations and imperial strength. It could protect homeland, deter threats and guarantee trade routes and interest.
In the nineteenth-century war novel The Red Badge of Courage, author Stephen Crane portrays a unique perspective on war uncommon for his time through the experiences of a young Union private, Henry. Crane boldly exposes the horrors of war rather than the commonly proclaimed glory and honor of war, as well as the idea that war allows everyday men “to take measure of themselves.” In the Civil War setting of The Red Badge of Courage, “taking measure of oneself” involves pushing oneself to the limit physically and mentally on the battlefield to determine how courageous or worthy an individual truly is, as demonstrated in the hardships Henry faced throughout the war. However, the idea of war being the true measure of a man holds little truth, as the concept only acknowledges courage in the face of physical danger, ignoring courage in other circumstances. Today’s society, embodied by individualism and diversity, would most likely reject Crane’s limited viewpoint on measuring an individual’s courage and worth. Stephen Crane’s support of the idea that war enables men “to take measure of himself” shows prominently through the many trials Henry faced during his numerous battles.
This statement epitomizes the second martial theory; the Heroes. The Heroes view war in the simplest of terms as armed conflict with the objective to conquering the enemy in which the human elements, military genius, courage, military experience, morale and discipline is paramount. From a Heroes perspective war is an armed conflict towards the achievement of a goal. The heroic sub-culture is best known for be able to adapt to separate the key information from the mundane, to be flexible and adaptable to the changing nature of warfare. Brian Linn gives the example of a hero as General George S. Patton who went from being a supporter of mechanized warfare, a cavalryman, and then finally becoming one of the greatest practitioners of maneuver warfare.
So, in 1914, Europe explodes into war, and Woodrow Wilson has to make a decision about what America is going to do. And his decision is to ask the American public to remain neutral in word as well as deed. And he has domestic reasons for doing this - the American opinion is divided, and he doesn 't really have concerns about American security. The war seems very far ways from American shores. But the big question that he has to answer is "what does it mean to be neutral?"