I think that the idea that he does not deserve his reputation is solely for argument, because some people love the feeling of making other people angry. So Alexander made some mistakes and maybe he killed people, just because he had the authority, but no one is perfect and you can’t argue that he does not deserve this title because he made these mistakes. Every human person has made mistakes because no one human has any faults in their history. If you look at other great leaders, they all had a weakness and eventually led to their downfall, but just because they had weaknesses does not mean that they should not be honored for their accomplishments. I think that ‘defaming’ Alexander the Great does not prove the ‘no’ side in any way, because he did many things to help his empire and even though he was the cause of many deaths to the native people of their homelands, he did what he thought was best for his people.
In result of this, this cause loads of deaths. To conclude the actions from the officers were a very important factor in causing a high death toll in World War One. This was mainly down to their naivety, ineptness and how out of touch they really were. There loss of seeing things for how they really were, was another reason why there army lost so many of their men. In some cases it seemed the army were being sent in blind, as the officers refused to change their old fashioned
‘Conscies’ as they were known in the time of war would refuse to fight because of several reasons. Either, they were against war and killing other people, they didn’t believe that Germany was their real enemy, or because of their religious beliefs. Overall, it must have taken great courage to refuse to serve a country which every other citizen is. What also shows their bravery was that in 1916, a conscription was made saying that every made had to ‘do their bit’ in helping Britain through the war. There were some who offered to work in the background, but most refused to even get involved.
I don't support the troops, America, and neither do you. I am tired of the ruse we are playing on these brave citizens in our armed forces. And guess what -- a lot of these soldiers and sailors and airmen and Marines see right through the bull**** of those words, "I support the troops!," spoken by Americans with such false sincerity -- false because our actions don't match our words. These young men and women sign up to risk their very lives to protect us -- and this is what they get in return: 1. They get sent off to wars that have NOTHING to do with defending America or saving our lives.
This is one thing many military leaders wanted to forget because the P.O.W. is a negative in the eyes of the country. A soldier is supposed to look like a figure that would never fall to the enemy, but, a P.O.W. is ultimately depending on the enemy for survival. Therefore, this is a huge negative for what the U.S. stands for.
As the people would not have known how they were to achieve there aims or believed in them enough to pursue them. The beliefs of many people involved in the revolution were key a contribution to the failure of the 1905 revolution. There was no alliance between peasants, workers and liberals and therefore lacked unity, they had no common aims so it was difficult for them to fight there causes as they all contradicted one another. (Figes- the movements “had all followed their separate rhythms and failed to combine politically.”. The fact that the Tsar stood up to resistance and had strong beliefs was also a reason that the revolution failed, he was persistent in that he would not allow it.
Was the League of Nations a failure? The League of Nations is thought to be a failure by many, because of hard irony and limitation on military might. The League accomplished very little in stopping wars and conflicts while having very little power. Often they just shook fists at ruthless, evil dictators such as Germany’s Adolf Hitler and his conquests, without intervening. Another Major flaw was that “the country, whose president, Woodrow Wilson, had dreamt up the idea of the League - America -, refused to join it.” The league’s most powerful militaries Britain and France not only suffered casualties, but also economically as they were greatly in debt to the United States.
My position on whether or not the “conscientious objector” is a valid one for opting out of battle is determined by many different factors. For instance if I was forced to fight in a similar battle such as the civil war with the possibility of fighting against my own family, then yes I do believe “conscientious objector” might be a good reason. However, if I believed in reincarnation as in the story of the “Philosophy and spiritual discipline” then “conscientious objector” would not necessarily apply. Reincarnation does not mean death; if anything you are doing your victims a favor. “it is not born, it does not die; having been, it will never not be; unborn, enduring, constant, and primordial , it is not killed when the body is killed.” (Paragraph 19) As far as the opinion of homosexuality being an abomination and used as “conscientious objector” I don’t agree this is a good enough reason.
The Russian People were both annoyed and embarrassed by the Russo-Japanese war. There had been many embarrassing defeats, and they were not going to win. The Population knew this, and they wanted it to end. There was no point fighting a war, which there was no reason for, other than the Tsar wanted to prove to the world how big and powerful Russia was. The war, so far, wasn't working out for anyone.
Just think about it ladies and gentlemen. I feel that war is not about victory or defeat. It is about the total failure of a human spirit. Wars can't be justified, people can fight over religion, power, land, oil or freedom but really most people want more than they need and are greedy. People die every day just to fight for their country and live a normal life.