General Clinton’s inaction after General Washington’s force departure guaranteed the historical unfolding of the Siege of Yorktown. The largest contributor to this British disaster lay in the lacking of an analytical apparatus, which could have effectively processed and utilized British intelligence. General Clinton chose to focus more on salvation in the form of reinforcements from Britain than on the immediate steps he could implement in his intelligence war fighting function to cement victory. This overreliance on an ineffective logistical support chain, combined with poor strategy, toxic leadership, and indecisiveness, resulted in an overly defensive positon. This ineptitude set the stage for the loss of British populace support, costing him the war of attrition.
Bell furthers his argument by dismissing naval warfare as total war because Great Britain is the only country which experienced significant changes to its naval branch. His latter view can be easily dismissed as insufficient as he bases the premises of his book on solely France when it comes to land warfare. As for the former argument, this is a research question worth exploring: Did the
However, the author’s conclusion supports FDR when she wrote, “Almost everyone would acknowledge his spirited and forceful leadership during World War II…” and closing statement of, “...he had put his own personal stamp and signature on the nation and the world, and neither would ever be the same”. These things show the author’s bias in favor of Franklin D Roosevelt, while
This is President Warren G Harding 's innaugarual address, on March 4th 1921. It is addressed to the public of the United States and the nation as a whole. This document has been largely critized as one of the worst innaguaral addresses, simply because it is overly wordy, doesn 't say much, and mainly dances around issues instead of directly addressing them. This quote from a New Yorker article does a good job of putting a large public opinion about this document into words. "...The problem doesn’t lie in the length of their sentences or the number of their syllables.
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.
From the beginning, Paine made it clear that government was a necessary evil. But even more so, he made it clear how evil he thought British government was. Paine felt that the constitution of England, although it may have been necessary at the time it was created, was now “imperfect, subject to convulsions, and incapable of producing what it seems to promise…” (8) Moreover, Paine goes on to show his strong distaste for the idea of a king. He mentions how there was a time of no kings, during which there were also no wars. Holland is an example of this, in which he says the country has been without a king and has enjoyed more peace than any monarchial government in Europe.
Several historians argue that Louis XIV was a more despotic than absolutistic ruler. Adhering to the theory of the divine right of kings, Louis XIV “stretched the [monarchal] system to its limits,” ignoring the “traditional restraints recognized by most absolutists” (Beik 223; Fox 141). Although despotism and absolutism are incredibly similar in regards to exercising absolutistic rule, despotism is perceived to be a distinctly oppressive and cruel form of ruling. The “restraints” that William Beik mentions refer to attempts made by absolute leaders to distance themselves from cruel actions in order to retain popularity, an attempt that was not always made by Louis XIV. Academic historian Paul Fox similarly argues that “Louis XIV fitted into the despotic class of monarch,” as opposed to the “royal” class (Fox 138).
The Moral of the Story War is never poetic, however, Wilfred Owen England, author of Dulce Et Decorum Est, brings to life an experience he had at war. Although the language is gory and he refrained from niceties, the story he tells is vivid and makes you feel that you are there at the moment experiencing it with him. Makes one wonder why the title, which in translation means “It is sweet and fitting to die for one’s country”, is chosen when he experienced so much death around him. On the other hand, author Tim O’Brien begins to tell the story as though it is coming from a second party and gives it philosophical twist here and there, which creates an interesting telltale version of stories in How to Tell a True War Story. The story being told by Wilfred Owen sounds is more believable as he states it experiencing it firsthand.
Elizabeth criticizes the Imagery and Characterization of Passos “Three Soldiers”. She feels that in the novel he does not provide enough details and insight into how the soldiers are feeling. He states that the soldiers hate the war but never says why. I do agree with the criticism because he does not really explain a lot about how or why they hate the war and it makes it harder for the audience to get the full effect of the book. “It’s almost worth having been in the army for the joy your freedom gives you” (Passos).
In turn this also makes the public understand that there is nothing glorious about war in any way. It is exhausting, inhumane and brutal and therefore anyone who glorifies war should be criticised. In conclusion the poem Dulce et Decorum est written by Wilfred Owen is about the harsh brutalities of war, which should never be encouraged to be deemed as a great and glorious act by anyone. Which is what Owen was trying to get across to the public, which was reinforced through three language features, similes, onomatopoeia and negative connotative language. Even after 100 years, we can’t help but feel the pain and suffering for these brave men, who risked their lives for the love of others and their
In his goal to show how the realities of Bolivar’s revolutionary army differ from the common beliefs of historians Mackenzie has a tendency to focus nearly exclusively on the flaws of the army while ignoring the positive sides of the army and campaign. Even when he did acknowledge positive aspects of the army he would follow this with derisive attacks on the positives. An example of this can be seen after he admitted the usefulness of foreign soldiers, “But it is worth noting that in the early days one of the generals, Rafael Urdaneta, claimed that he preferred ten battles to one march with the British legionnaires.”(Cite, 62) This clear bias is likely caused partly by the fact that Mackenzie lacks a sufficient number of primary sources for the work. However, given that his sources include the books by Masur and Madriaga which show both the pros and cons of the revolutionary armies, it is impossible to argue that some of Mackenzie’s bias was an intentional bias by commission that actively sought to ignore facts that disagreed with his
The validity of the above arguments is predicated on the assumption British strategy failed because they did not understand the true nature of the war combined with incoherent strategies led by singular field commanders making poor decisions. In fact, the British were engaged in a world war and had to shift gears toward other war torn parts of the world such as the West Indies and France. (Weigley, p. 24) The above paragraphs also fail to mention the superior tactical performances by brilliant field commanders such as Clinton and Cornwallis in major battles such as New York and Charleston. They were not inept commanders but lacked the personnel and resources necessary to decidedly defeat the far less capable forces of the Americans. If
The dealings by Britain were never in favor of those working alongside the great power rather for improving Britain self interest. The multiple contradictions that Britain promised lead to geopolitical instability within the MIddle East and its Arab populations. With the Sykes Picot agreement drawings the lines of the modern Middle Eastern states so crudely; the Balfour declaration creating a divide between the Jewish and Palestinian populations that lead to violent outburst and the continuation of the argument of who rightfully owns the area of Palestine. The husayn McMahon correspondence by Britain created disagreements and confusion that resonates through modern times of why the British backed out from their promise of Independence and confusion for what amount of land would be placed for the Arab nation. Following the failures of Britain executing their promises the great power ensured a future of instability within the region of the Middle East for generations, all caused by a developing and evolving self interest that would impact the world through nearly a
Throughout the tour, the guide offered little explanation of the British sentiment and did not speak of the retaliation Gage and Pitcairn faced as they attempted to enforce the legislation such as the Coercive Acts, Government Act, and Port Act, mandated by the British government. While there were numerous reasons for the Intolerable Acts other than irking the colonists, the only reason for the legislation mentioned in the tour was the British punishing New England for the Boston Tea Party, making the British seem manipulative, exploiting the colonists for apparently no reason. Instead of explaining the British thought process of collecting public stores of weapons and gun powder to protect from further violence and retaliation, the guide emphasized the secretive nature of the plans and the preposterous actions of Gage and Pitcairn trying to take arms, even though the colonists were subject to the crown’s rule. Lastly, while guide spoke in Paul Revere and Dr. Joseph Warren’s perspectives to retell the beginning of the revolution, they never once offered the viewpoint from Gage or Pitcairn, making the Freedom trail tour an incomplete historical account. Clearly, the story of the American Revolution would be incomplete with the British, making them a critical component of the historical event.
For example, a previous history teacher of mine claimed that the US had indeed come out of the Vietnam War unscathed. We had various discussions from different perspectives about history, but when it came down to Vietnam there was only one victor. It is irrelevant to him that the overwhelming majority of evidence surrounding the war is in opposition of his point of view, he focuses on the hypothesis that wars were won by inflicting the most damage on the enemy. Because the definition of winning a war is so broad, his claim could be supported by evidence of casualties. In this situation, he is taking on a tunnel vision perspective and ignoring surrounding evidence therefore inhibiting his pursuit for