Governments of countries for example often had to keep their peoples under control participating in the war and having mixed feelings/ opinions of the war. As front lines are filled with trenches interactions in this case refer to several things such as gunfire, bombing, and shouting of orders. These examples fall under the first category of Battles and are either physical or verbal. Throughout the war, diplomacy was an advantage to the allies. For example when faced with heavy casualties and problems at home, Russia withdrew from the war and instead the United States entered brining much needed support and troops to help win the war.
In Why Nations Go to War, Dr.John G Stoessinger talks about the role of individuals in starting wars. He is of the view that factors like economics, nationalism, alliance networks and even fate are often put forward as the primary reasons for the outbreak of a war, but the human element, the personalities, the hopes and fears and the particular worldview of the individual leaders of the country are not given nearly as much importance. The writer points out that wars are after all, started by people and to a large extent, the book deals with the lead up to the moment when people finally decide to go to war. The author holds a Ph.D. from Harvard and has taught at Harvard, M.I.T, Columbia and Princeton. He won the Bancroft Prize for his book, The Might of Nations and he has served as acting director for the political affairs division at the United Nations.
While the war itself is of course very fearful it is not the fighting that had to be feared. The thing that needed to be feared and was stressed the most was the fascist writing of history. As the government controls the media, history can be altered away from the truth. The people of the future could end up learning lies, because of what is written in newspapers or recorded by corrupted historians who have no other choice to record what the authority tell them to (Orwell 3-4). At a point in his essay, Orwell said “This kind of thing is frightening to me, because it often gives me the feeling that the very concept of objective truth is fading out of the
We have a statement from one of the Major Generals “It is much more civilised in this district no more inadequate behaviour.” My final point proving Cromwell to be a villain is when Cromwell used his army when he wanted to take power that he couldn’t get lawfully. One thing Cromwell could do is take advantage of what he had got, this was the army. For an example he disagreed with parliament twice so on both occasions he marched in to Parliament with his army behind ordering parliament to be shut down. This shows he would use his advantages to get what he wants without caring about the civilians who look up to him and think he is a
The implications of this on the services are far reaching due to the fact there is the ever current risk to the lives of serving soldiers who are in combat or an area of global instability. They may be seriously killed or injured by the enemy, by civilians who resent the military presence or even by friendly fire. There is also a huge impact on the family of military personnel who may experience extreme stress or anxiety about the welfare of their loved one. War is also a extremely expensive prospect and a war can quickly use up many types of resources including fighting vehicles, ammunition and protective equipment. Reserve
The Chamberlains being judged under a heavily biased jury influenced by the media, therefore shows the maltreatment of the case by the justice system and the society. In conclusion, the Lindy Chamberlain was NOT treated impartially by the society and the justice system. After evaluating the role of the media, nature of evidence and police investigation, it is determined that the Chamberlain case was not judged fairly. The evidence was lacking, unreliable and tampered with, there was no motive, society was exposed to one sided media and the jury was biased. Overall, the assessment of the case thus indicates that Lindy Chamberlain was indeed treated unfairly by the justice system AND the
‘Assess the impact of the war on the civilian population of Britain’ World War I not only became a war on the battlefield, but consumed every nations home front, as full support became priority during war. Civilian life in Britain was dominated by government influence and the introduction of political change instigated through DORA. The production of munitions, food supply, labour shortages and the role of women each brought significant economic change to people’s lives. Despite inclusive war time involvement some refused to be involved in the war. The war prompted the emergence of conscientious objectors and the fear of enemy aliens.
Ultimately however it must be said that throughout the period alliances change in their importance, but they generally become more decisive during longer conflicts, as alliances are helpful to sustain numbers of men, supplies going to them, and increasing the scale of your side of the war. Therefore I would say it is fair to argue that whilst alliances are crucial if you don’t have them, when you do other factors such as supplies, technology and the size of your army have to be right as well. The argument that alliances can make a real difference in whether or not you win or lose the war is well founded and has plenty of examples throughout the period to be made. In Napoleonic France there was the general issue that each country was fighting its own unilateral battle with Napoleon, and signed agreements individually with him, and not with each other. The individualistic nature of the fighting meant that the attack was easier for Napoleon to fight off, as he wasn’t overpowered by the scale, and could gather enough supplies to maintain it; whereas if he had fought all the countries at the
The goal of the war in the beginning, according to patriots, was to be listened to by Britain and in order to do that, they fought. The war was caused by many things but the three most substantial were the Navigation Laws, the Stamp and Sugar Acts and how Britain reacted to what the colonists did when they tried to enforce laws unliked in America. As Theodore Roosevelt later said, “Revolution broke out because England failed to recognize an emerging nation when it saw
Many individuals involved with the struggle had different feelings and ideas. Most common soldiers were excited and motivated to fight. The fact that their independence was just upon the horizon gave them the perseverance to keep battling on. In Narrative of Some of the Adventures, Dangers and Sufferings of a Revolutionary Soldier; Interspersed with Anecdotes or Incidents That Occurred within His