This shows a lack of care or consideration from the leaders for their troops as they are willing to allow their soldiers out in these conditions whilst knowing how bad they were. In contrast to source 1’s report on the conditions of the trenches source 2 is a private letter written in reply to Queen Victoria. Lord Raglan was a commander in chief of the British army, as a high ranking officer he needs to be seen as involved and accountable for the actions of others. Whereas in this letter he appears to be highlighting the lack of concern for the troops by staff but also stating he has no power in changing this. He recognises their efforts but speaks of their duties rather than praise or reward.
I am going to argue that sources 10 & 11 agree that the Amritsar Massacre created widespread and long-lasting hostility among Indians towards British rule. In contrast, I will argue that source 12 disagrees and that the Indian people appreciated British rule. Source 11 strongly highlights widespread hostility towards the British. The source uses words such as ‘dishonest’ and ‘evilly manned’[1]. This shows the lack of respect the Indian people were beginning to progress against the British Government.
However it wasn’t just Trotsky’s misjudgements that accounted for his failure it was the strength of Stalin that undermined Trotsky’s power and the opposition of both Kamenev and Zinoviev that made Trotsky weak. It was his misjudgement in failing to act against Stalin criticizing destroying him that was his weakness allowing Stalin to topple him. Trotsky had many misjudgements that made him weak and disliked, his opinion over the NEP put him in a very difficult situation he believed that the NEP was a reverse in Bolshevism and that it wasn’t a very good policy for Russia to obey if it were to turn communist, but Trotsky’s opinion wasn’t very respected due to him not being a Bolshevik from the beginning and having a sense of betrayal to the Russian people. Trotsky also only attacked the party bureaucracy which Lenin
How far do sources 2 and 3 challenge the view given in source 1 that the officers commanding the British Army in the Crimean War were unfit for the position? Sources 2 and 3 both agree with each other as they are giving a similar impression that the officers commanding the British Army were being unfairly criticised during the Crimean War. On the other hand, Source 1 suggests that the commanders of the British Army during the Crimean War were unfit for position. Source 2 was part of a judges summing case supporting the Earl of Cardigan (who had commanded the Light Brigade at Balaclava). The source states that any criticism of Cardigan should be ‘generous and sympathetic’ and gives the impression that he was a courageous officer as the judge stated ‘not one that should seek to cast a stain upon his courage and his personal honour as an officer’.
FAVORITISM WITHIN THE MILITARY 1 Favoritism Within The U.S. Military: An Ethical Dilemma 04/01/2012 FAVORITISM WITHIN THE MILITARY 2Favoritism Within The U.S. Military: An Ethical DilemmaThesis: Favoritism in the U.S Military constitutes the unequal treatment of soldiers. Military leaders are charged with leading and developing soldiers and to do that effectively they must adhere to the values and ethics set fourth by government. Even the slightest perception of favoritism from a leader can demoralize a unit and cause distrust within the ranks. Favoritism Within The U.S. Military: An Ethical Dilemma The Ethical Issue: Seeing workplace favoritism whether in the military or not may be one of the most demotivating things you will ever experience. it can refer to when someone - or perhaps a group of people - appear to be treated better than others and not necessarily for reasons related to their performance.
This essay will explore this interpretation of Haig and the generals, but in order to provide a balanced view, I will also consider the positive interpretations of Haig as a leader, as many sources from the time and recently praise him as a good leader. At the time of the war and after, soldiers criticised Haig and the generals , Haig was criticised because he made commands without being in trenches. In source B2 a soldier who had watched his friends die around him due to Haigs incompetence and bad planning, wrote “it was pure bloody murder. Douglas Haig should have been hung, drawn and quartered for what he did on the Somme. The cream of British manhood was shattered in less than 6 hours.” This suggests that he wanted Haig to be punished due to his loss of so many of his own men, but also due to his own resentment towards him.
In terms of reliability source 4 is very reliable. This is because it is a personal letter between Anne and Wolsey. This means that there is no audience for anyone to act in front of or exaggerate to, it will all be truth. Source 5 also agrees with the view that Wolsey's fall from power was mainly the result of Anne Boleyn's hostility towards him. This is because Anne wouldn't promise to speak to the King for him.
9, The colonists were very angry at the stationing of a permanent British army in the colonies. The colonies knew that it was just a gesture to intimidate them and was not really for their protection. Plus, the added insult of being forced to house and feed these troops made them even more resentful over the abuse of power by England. In answer to this the Constitution in article 1, section 10, which states; “No soldier shall, without the consent of congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, of ships of war in time of peace. And lastly in the Bill Of Rights, amendment 3, “No soldier shall, in the time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
After reading the article, named “The Truth about Lying” by Judith Viorst, I was wondering whether these lie is a protective lie or a trust-keeping lie. I tell this kind of lie not to protect myself because I know she won’t scold me or give me any punishment for being late. I tell these lie to keep my mother away from worrying about me. Again, my mother trusts me a lot. She believes that I can never lie to her, I can never do anything wrong behind her back.
| |- I greatly believe that there is not enough advertisement about how terribly soldiers are treated and there is not enough attention brought to the posttraumatic| |stress that soldiers suffer from. | |-I believe that war is a subject taken to lightly, there should be more support and effort put into helping troops | | /4 Possible Thesis (use parallel structure) | |The porpoise of this report is to show the readers that war holds a number of negative effects on soldiers such as; physical lifelong and life changing injuries,| |mental disabilities such as posttraumatic stress, emotional instability causing harm to themselves and others around them, also the many health problems that | |soldiers develop because of the poor circumstances that they are forced to live in.