This would be his military successes. Between the years 1939 and 1941, Hitler enjoyed many battle victories. From his invasion of Poland in 1939, to the occupation of France in 1940 they were all looked upon as major successes for Hitler. He must have felt unstoppable, but he should of known with infinite successes come enormous failures. He was also successful in brainwashing the German children by rewriting German textbooks.
General George B. McClellan: A Critical Analysis There is perhaps no other military leader connected with the American Civil War that created so much interest and caused so much controversy as George B. McClellan. His ability to organize and build a military was among the best in history. However, his ability to lead and fight has always been seriously questioned. Because his legacy was so widespread, we will look at and compare the timeframe from his appointment to General of the Army of the Potomac/General in Chief to his relief from command by President Lincoln. The authors we will compare are; James McPherson, Stuart Sifakis, and Ethan S. Rafuse.
Study source W, X and Y How far do the sources X and Y challenge source W about the effective supplying of the army? The sources discuss the effective supplying of an army. Source W shows that the supplying was good to the army and that there didn’t seem to be any problems. However sources X and Y are opposite and suggest that the supplying of the army was poor and had a dramatic impact of the soldiers. They are all primary sources and source X and Y are more reliable based on the people who have written them.
Rather, it gives the honest truth of the military events leading up to the French armistice. Another crucial aspect of the book is that it was one of the first to highlight the fact that force levels often favored the allies in terms of both weapon and machinery, an example being the French's superior and more numerous tanks in the Battle of France. In previous historical accounts, the French credited their fall to the superiority in quality of the enemy tanks, but this was not the case. By emphasizing the inherent weakness of the Germans, the ingenuity of the Blitzkrieg
Also this source is unreliable because of what Haig was writing and who he was informing. This source was written to inform the British government, the Prime Minister, so consequently, Haig would put more optimism in the letters to avoid the blame for the failure of the war. Finally, he mention how the barbed wires were cut well, and how the battle was going like clockwork, when 60,000 were injured or dead and 20,000 plus were definitely dead. The statement of the barbwire being cut well is a lie as I know from my own contextual knowledge that the barbed wire was not penetrated due to its thickness and vastness. Source C is an interview with Private George Coppard, already making it more reliable than source B because Private George Coppard was present at the frontline, therefore, his information is firsthand.
With the number of personnel the rebels had vs union was little to none, they held off the north by smart tactics of well-trained officers. It should have been much easier battle based on the advantages he had at hand. I don’t know if the outcome would have been different had not Stonewell Jackson died, from my prospective he must have been a man who was looked up to with his military experience and victories. Once Lee and Davis surrendered and went home in peace it lifted much worry and weight off Lincoln’s shoulders. Over all I do think that Lincoln was overall the driving force who drove the country to unity once again, Could he have done better I do believe so.
The debate was very interesting. I thought that both sides had their pros and cons, but in the end, I thought that Joe Biden had the better argument, for multiple reasons. His speaking was very effective and, in my opinion, had a very influential argument. When he gave his points, he always seemed to have statistics to back up his argument. This made him more reliable as a candidate, because he has hard evidence, as opposed to Sarah Palin, who didn’t have many statistics at all.
After that in the last paragraph I will tell you if I think Richard the Lionheart was a good or bad leader. From the sources in the SHP book I can predict that Richard the Lionheart was a good leader because he spent most of his time fighting in wars and little time in England. But he did it to keep his country save. ” (Richard) spent little time in England. But he was regarded as a great English hero.” (Source 20).
The German’s got the British and French to split, this way it will make work easier for the German’s. The German’s were quick on the bombadert as they started around 4:30 am with as many as 6,000 German artillery pieces. The British disobeyed and laughed at their officers, they were not serious and this helped the German’s a lot because they will have the chance for reinforcement when they want to. The British and French were enemies and their commanders didn’t understand each other, this kept the Ludendorff offensive strong as they had more time to prepare for the war. They were very close because in the first 5 days they were doing so well.
This was a more successful achievement compared to the others because there weren’t as many negatives. Some say that the amount of deaths that happened as a result of the war weren’t worth the victory that came of it however Thatcher needed to take that risk of going to war in order to restore faith in her. With the EU for example, even though there were some successes, Thatcher did cause tensions with Europe because of her disagreements (as shown in her Bruges Speech 1988) whereas with the Falklands War, the only negative consequences were the 255 deaths which was inevitable when going to war to show that a country still had influence and