‘A strong alliance was the most important reason for a country to succeed in war’. To what extent do you agree with this view of the period from 1792 to 1945? When considering alliances it is important to note that whilst strong alliances can lead directly to success and mostly weak alliances are counter-productive, having a weak or strong alliance doesn’t equate firmly to success for either side. It would be fair to say however that not having an alliance has more of an impact than having one does as, especially in limited war, success can be achieved by the side who manages to isolate their enemy from having alliances with other countries, or simply weakening their current alliances; Austria and Hungary both became weaker as they drifted away from each other in World War One. 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.
Since the colonists were benefits from wartime funds, he thought that anglo-americans should pay the larger share to run the empire!! WOW! IDIOT!!!!! Theories of Representation So Grenville didn’t have a problem with taxing the colonies. He believed the
Paying less attention to armchair generals writing with the privilege of hindsight and precise archival evidence in favor of what the generals perceived would happen in 1914 (which incidentally is much closer to reality than is attributed...every serious thinker knew it would be a bloodbath) offers much more valuable insight into the crisis that faced the statesmen in July 1914. Michael Howard and Steve Van Evera (both found in Military Strategy and the Origins of the First World War) accurately conclude because the offensive was believed to a decisive advantage, if there was a window for a diplomatic solution, it was frighteningly small. Understanding the "Cult of the Offensive" is crucial for comprehending how quickly July 1914 destabilized; generals truly believed their empires would crumble if attacked and politicians were tempted by the notion that fortune favors the foolish. Finally, James Joll convincingly argues that the pervasiveness of the "cult of the offensive" and the glorification of military matters was implicit in a society replete with military
I believe he has a point about this statement that truth can absolutely be more powerful than violence. Even though that violence is more powerful in a physical way truth is more powerfully mentally. I think that he was meaning truth can be a tool to show that it is more powerful than hurting someone in a physical way. For example, going to war is violence physically but the truth about war is mentally which someone can have a positive belief about war and what they think about war and have a more powerful response for that than hurting someone to express how they feel about a situation. Buddhists believe all human life is precious and that all living beings are interconnected through his preciousness and that sooner or later truth will prevail and violence and hostility will loose.
What we don’t think about is the fact that most medical and quite a few technological advancements evolved because of war. Another fact is that, although it’s hard to believe, but war makes countries use their resources better, or at least find better ways to use them. Think about it, most countries try to win wars and to do that, you need to be better than the people that you are fighting, so we use our resources better. Another thing, without war, we might not have certain medical advancements at our disposal; such as penicillin, hydrogen peroxide, and antiseptics. Life would be a lot harder if these things had never been created, wouldn’t it?
As with other chapters’ reactions, I find this one to be of mild interest. I enjoyed reading about the colonists’ struggles and efforts, and was especially struck by the riot shout, “‘Tyranny is Tyranny let it come from whom it may’” (Zinn 75). It’s obvious that this time in history was very rocky. Turns out, the rich not only had the most wealth and influence, but when war came up, they could get out of being drafted by paying for substitutes. This just reflects on the attitude that the rich held and holds in higher contrast the dedicated drafted soldiers versus the rich who avoided injury.
He had incredible ideas of massive change for world peace and he found the conclusion of “The war to end all wars,” to be the best time to introduce his ideas and attempt to make the world safe for democracy. Wilson’s crusade for making the world safe for democracy led America to support the US’s entrance into the war. It was also seen by many Americans that France and Britain were fighting good fight against evil and America felt that they should be assisting, if not fighting that evil along side France and Britain. The desire to implement his ideas in the world influenced his decision to enter America into the Great War. When the war finally ended, many of his 14 points were rejected because of France and Britain’s need for revenge.
‘HHMM’, Hollywood, Harvard, McDonald’s, and Microsoft, were selling not only their products but also America's culture and values, the secrets of its success, to the rest of the world.' However, employing only hard power or only soft power in a given situation will usually prove inadequate. Nye utilizes the example of terrorism, arguing simply utilizing soft power resources to change the hearts and minds of the Taliban government would be ineffective and requires a hard power component. Nevertheless, in the Middle East, in the eyes of Islamic fundamentalists, the openness of Western culture is repulsive, which we have a term for it ‘anti-Americanism’. As a result, Joseph Nye, suggests that the most effective strategies in foreign policy today require a mix of hard and soft power resources, the ‘smart power’.
In the epic, the speaker tells Beowulf to choose “The better part, eternal rewards” (lines 1759-1760). Eternal rewards are specifically labeled as “better” than the results of another battle, which shows a preference to the poet’s take on achievement through personal salvation versus achievement through the heroic code. There are more important things in life than slaying monsters. As a result, the speaker attempts to convince Beowulf to strive for more substantial goals. Fame and glory are enjoyed momentarily, but eternal rewards are only available after death.
For example, Editha has just finished speaking to George about her feelings and thoughts on the war, when she has a thought; "but now, it flashed upon her, if he could do something worthy to have won her-be a hero, her hero-it would be even better than if he had done it before asking her; it would be grander" pg.55. In this quote Editha reveals her true feelings and objective towards George; she feels as a woman she is entitled to some grand performance of love and that as a man George should oblige. Editha's feelings towards George's manhood are extreme, but they are contemporary in some respects; in today's modern society women have placed a large number of expectations on men. Men are deemed weak if they are not aggressive, successful or virile; even our children stories place excessive standards on men they are supposed to be heroic rescuers who take care of the women's every whim. This relates to Editha because she displays the same imbalanced "macho" perspective on men that has been displayed throughout history and that is still displayed in American women