The arguments that come out of this book as delievered by Jon Krakauer center around Pat’s death while serving in the Army. Arguments arose about the way the government portrayed Pat Tillman’s death to his family and to the rest of the world. Pat Tillman’s death originally wasn’t accurately disclosed as being caused by friendly fire, in which it was, but rather it was told to have been caused by the natural evils of combat and of our countries enemies. President Bush used Pat’s story as a way to promote his administration’s foreign policy. Thus leaving American’s to become conspirious about the truths of war and ethics in the Federal Government.
Douglas Haig was leading the British, and was a very stubborn leader. Haig’s tactics were for the British to simply walk over to the German trenches. After the first day there were 60 000 casualties. Haig being the stubborn leader that he was did not change the tactics at all after losing all these men. Other then the fact that the British had an awful tactic, they did not have the right weaponry.
The Pilgrimage of grace failed for many reasons, however, I think it failed mainly due to poor leadership. This is because Robert Aske accepted the King’s pardon at the River Don and trusted that Henry was going to discuss their grievances in court. When they accepted the pardon they dispersed back to their homes, which meant that when Henry didn’t do anything about their grievances then it would be difficult for all the rebels to regroup. The rebellion was regionalised to the North of the country and was too far away from London go back after just coming back. M.L Bush said that ‘It was interconnected regional rebellions rather than one fluid movement’ because once the rebels had gone back to where they lived dotted across the North of England they would all have to meet up rather than go down to London in one group.
The English-Canadians sought after full conscription like Britain and the United States, while the French-Canadians still did not want any form of conscription. The countries unity was slowly crumbling but still Mackenzie King did not institute conscription. He felt there had to be other ways to solve the emerging problems then conscription. (Cruxton and Wilson, 263). In 1917, Borden felt the lack of troops was so awful that there was no choice but conscription.
Source 15 (people’s judgements of Haig) tells us of historian Sir Llewellyn Woodward’s opinion of Haig’s strategies, “Our high command had not advanced beyond the tactics of the Stone Age. They could not think of any other form of warfare, except to throw into battle large numbers of men, month after month.” This quote could be biased as it is not written by a witness nor is it a fact, however, you can cross-reference this with the view from Field Marshall Montgomery who was a chief for Britain’s army “Haig was unimaginative and dull.” Some share the view that Haig is the Butcher of the Somme because of his over optimistic attack and his unwillingness to change his out-of-date, useless tactics which were clearly causing the deaths and suffering of a large group of men. An argument against Haig being the emotionless and unsympathetic ‘Butcher of the Somme’ is that he was acting as a professional and obedient soldier, who, like his men, was taking orders from a higher authority and was attempting to listen to military advice. A great deal of pressure was on Haig by both the French and British government, for the attack to be
However, he doesn’t say he has no respect or admiration for Churchill, writing “never have I admired and despised a man simultaneously to the same extent. This suggests that he believes Churchill does play a crucial role during the war; it’s only his military influence which caused a problem. This source was produced by Sir Alan Brooke as a diary entry in September 1944. As the source was produced during the time, and was a diary entry, he would have had little time for any hindsight or reflection on the situation being discussed. This could affect the reliability of the source, with it possible that his true views have been influenced by the events of the day, making it possible he has been overly critical of Churchill due to the fact it is a diary entry.
There were many political reasons which influenced the increase of state control over society, for example the shell scandal. The nature of this total war left Britain unprepared, as it was nothing like expected, which left them ill-equipped in terms of ammunition supplies. The “shell scandal” of 1915 emerged due to a newspaper article suggesting that British troops had a lack of shells and so were unable to make headway. This called for greater control of labour and industrial war production rather than relying on private enterprise and the market economy to determine production, as this was clearly not working. This scandal also led to Asquith setting up a coalition government with the
In my opinion Operation Rolling Thunder (ORT) was a massive failure. As the US did not meet its official aims and objectives of stopping the spread of communism to Vietnam. It caused a lot of inexperienced soldiers to lose their lives. Also having a major effect on America its self as the country battled to juggle money to afford the cost of the war. But one of the hardest battle’s for the US was to keep their own countries support.
however in source 3 sergeant-majour Timothy Gowing describes the battle scene as a “ghastly site” this contradicts the picture which shows an obvious picture of the British dominating in the battle in source 1,i believe that the source 3 is more accurate as t was wrote by someone who was there and in the heart of the battle.However the drawing was posted in a British magazine may have been altered and changed to keep the public on lord Aberdeens side,who was not very popular as a prime minister. In source 2 , a poem from Alfred tennyson,,he writes “through the line they broke; Russian and Cossack” this informs us that the brits hit the russians hard in the battle killing the russians however in source 3 an opposing point which was wrote was “the brutal enemy hacking at the ounded” this shows the british in a different light,that they are being absolutely humiliated which contrasts the idea that we were beating the Russians in the attack. I believe that the 3rd source is more accurate as he is was actually there,and writing gory details like Gowing did would be seen as extremely disrespectful if it wasn't true. Furthermore source 2 was written in a british newspaper therefore they would of diluted the truth as the people reading it would not want to know
Throughout the article Saltzman brings up many examples of how the titles in news media are unfair and one sided rather than all around accurate. He states that rather than showing coverage of both sides of the war, the news used headlines such as “Collateral damage” in hopes to make it sound less horrific. Though in reality, they were referring to civilian casualties or civilians that were wounded by American bombs or ground fire (pg. 9). A strong suit of this article is his choice of words.