Friday, March 28, 2008

Owen's War Poetry

Owen's war poetry is a passionate expression of outrage at the horrors of war and of pity for the young soldiers sacrificed in it. It is dramatic and memorable, whether describing physical horror, such as in‘ Dulce et Decorum Est’ or the unseen, mental torment such as in‘ Disabled’. His diverse use of instantly understandable imagery and technique is what makes him the most memorable of the war poets. His poetry evokes more from us than simple disgust and sympathy; issues previously unconsidered are brought to our attention. One of Owen’s talents is to convey his complex messages very proficiently. In‘ Dulce et Decorum Est’–‘ If in some smothering dreams you too could pace / Behind the wagon that we flung him in’ the horror of witnessing this event becomes eternal through dreams. Though this boy died an innocent, war allowed no time to give his death dignity, which makes the horror so more poignant and haunting. This is touched on in‘ Mental Cases’–‘ Treading blood from lungs that had loved laughter / Always they must see these things and hear them’. Many of the sights which will haunt the surviving soldiers are not what the officials have ordered them to do, but what they have done to save their own lives. It is the tragedy of war that you are not able to stop to help a dying man. They then, not only physically scarred and mentally changed, carry remedyless guilt with them. They have survived, at the expense of others–‘ Why speak not they of comrades that went under?’ (‘Spring Offensive’). Another dimension is that even the enemy soldiers are just like them, it is the politicians and generals who have caused this war, not these ordinary men. This is explored in‘ Strange Meeting’ - the meeting of an enemy who is really a‘ friend’.

Many of Owen’s poems share resentment towards the generals and those at home who have encouraged war.‘ Disabled’ has a very bitter tone–‘ Aye, that was it, to please the giddy jilts’.‘ His Meg’ didn’t stay around after he joined to‘ please’ her– presumably she is with a‘ strong man’ who is‘ whole’. In‘ The Send Off’ and‘ Anthem for Doomed Youth’ the prayers and flowers for the soldiers are mocked– useless offerings to men who are being sent as sacrifices. In‘ Apologia pro Poemate Meo’ Owen again adopts a harsh tone to those at home -‘ You shall not come to think them well content/ By any jest of mine . . . They are worth your tears / You are not worth their merriment’. Much anger is directed towards those ignorant of the full implications of war, but, perhaps ironically, his poetry would serve to make them aware. The thought of killing, watching your comrades be killed and constantly trying to survive sounds horrific enough, but the precise detail of the emotions, thoughts and sights of the soldier, succeed to drive the full horror home. This is where much of Owen’s originality lies, not vague reporting, but deep cynicism and conveyance of the situations. Owen sympathises profusely with the vain young men who have no idea of the horrors of war, who are‘ seduced’ by others and the recruiting posters. He bitterly rejects the patriotic reasoning for war in‘ Dulce’. That they eagerly join up for vanities makes their situation all the more tragic– he‘ threw away his knees’.‘ Smiling they wrote his lie’ depicts officials who not only accept this under age boy, but smile knowingly while they do it. In‘ The Send Off’ a lack of support for these men is suggested. The young men are to give up their lives as a sacrifice for their country, but their leaving lacks passionate good byes as‘ they were not ours’. In‘ S.I.W’ the full impacts of social pressure are highlighted. Though the man’s family clearly love him, they would‘ sooner him dead than in disgrace’, leaving him only suicide to escape. This notion of escaping into hell from war is also in‘ Strange Meeting’.

A recurring theme in Owen’s poetry is the notion of unseen scars. Though the soldier may return alive or uninjured, their lives will never be the same. In‘ Disabled’ the pain of the man’s life is not his injury, but how others react to him. He will never feel love or live life to the full again. The moment when‘ the women’s eyes / Passed from him to the strong men’ is wonderfully picked out by Owen, the women’s embarrassment at staring, and the man’s misery at no longer being seen as a valid person. Though sleep is relief from his tortuous life in‘ Disabled’, sleep becomes a hell for many of the poems. In‘ Dulce et Decorum Est’–‘ In all my dreams . . . He plunges at me’ and in‘ The Sentry’ the persistent memories–‘ I try not to remember these things now’.

The detail in Owen’s poetry puts forward his scenes horrifically and memorably. His poems are suffused with the horror of battle, yet finely structured and innovative.‘ His bleeding cough’– a scene unimaginable by us, something only a true witness would see and‘ puckering foreheads crisp’– more than frozen to death, Owen acutely describes the impact on the skin and face. The scene witnessed by Owen is so detailed we feel familiar to it ourselves. As with the unseen scars, Owen delves beneath the surface of cover ups and expectations. As in‘ Disabled’ and‘ S.I.W.’, the full horror behind these unemotional terms is described.

The particular techniques adopted by Owen in his poetry underline his messages. His use of speech and present tense give his poems urgency and directness. All the senses are utilised by Owen, a constant input of sound, smell, touch as well as sight increase the dimensions of his images and overwhelm us as he must have been. Owen's appliance of half-rhyme gives his poetry a dissonant, disturbing quality that amplifies his themes. His stanzas jar, as war does.

Owen is more famous for his angry and emotional poems such as Dulce, though his quieter poems can pack just a strong a punch. Futility has a barely controlled emotion to it, we are used to Owen questioning war and people but here he questions life itself. His desperation and hollow lack of hope, so resigned against life, is intensely emotional, beyond anger and beyond help. His use of sounds and assonance give the poem a quiet tone, almost as if the speaker is whispering. There is no appeal to God or to anyone, he includes no physically horrific imagery, but mentally tormenting ideas.

Religion is a recurring theme in Owen’s war poetry. The intensity of war can either bring crisis of faith (Futility) or spiritual revelation -‘ I too saw God through mud‘’ (Apolgia Pro Poemate Meo). But most poems seem to question God–‘ For love of God seems dying’ (Exposure). Then in‘ Futility’ the Christian idea of God is ignored and a more pagan view of nature and life is turned to. Futility ultimately questions life’s motives and offers neither religious comfort nor reasoning for war. In‘ Spring Offensive’ some of the imagery used echos passages of‘ Revelations’ in the bible–‘ And instantly the whole sky burned/ With fury against them; earth set sudden cups / In thousands for their blood’. In this same poem he adopts a sneering tone about belief in God–‘ Some say God caught them even before they fell’. But though the Christian church officials are criticised as hypocrites, and the rituals of Christianity are rejected (Anthem for Doomed Youth) many of the Christian values are supported. The church officials are depicted as hiding behind the church, and encouraging the soldiers to fight. The soldiers are the only true supporters of Christianity - prepared to die, the ultimate sacrifice.

Understandability of his poems was Owen’s main objective– in a letter to his mother in 1918 Owen states "I don’t want to write anything to which a soldier would say‘ No Compris’." This is reflected in his very direct techniques. Instantly recognisable sounds and words– such as onomatopoeia are used frequently. In‘ The Sentry’–‘ And thud! Thump! Thud! Down the steep steps came thumping . . . The Sentry’s body’. This has the effect of appealing to more of our senses– we don’t just see the body falling, we hear it too. Alliteration and repeated sounds adds to the flow and images of the poem without compromising its clarity–‘ Slush . . . choked the steps / too thick with clay to climb’. We hear the clogging footsteps, see the mud and most of all feel the effort to walk through the mud. Though all the poems are understandable to most, Owen adds things, for example in‘ Inspection’, his use of the term‘ damnèd spot’ is a reference to Shakespeare’s Macbeth. If this is not picked up by the reader it doesn’t leave them at a loss, but if it is understood it enriches the poem further– adding the image of the guilt and frantic scrubbing at the blood. This creates layers in Owen’s poems, creating appeal through many groups of people.

The use of concrete, everyday material for his images creates great power in his poems. This application of common notions could account for the dismissive attitudes of some towards him. Yeat’s verdict was‘ mud and sucked sugar stick’ and promptly refused Owen recognition in his 1936 edition of the‘ Oxford book of Modern Verse’. This is to miss the point and the power of his poetry. He makes the situation real, dramatising the experiences, making us share his suffering. However full recognition as a highly esteemed poet did come, sadly after his death.

So many of Owen’s poems bring across poignant themes and images, which stay in the mind long after having read them. Though he states his primary aim is not poetry, but to describe the full horrors of war, he tells his experiences and opinions with such clarity and beauty– adding to the poignancy as war is so ugly and confused. I love to read his poems over many times, because each time I notice some new cleverness or point unseen before. His ability to pin point certain images and moments makes the moments recognisable, even to those who have never experienced war. He attempts to connect war with other aspects of human suffering, making him much more than simply a war poet.

by Anonymous Student

Treaty of Versailles

Jennifer R. Lindahl World Civilizations Mrs. Swartzell, Mr. Stefanich 22 April 2005 The Treaty of Versailles

When we think of different wars that have happened in the world most of the time at the end of them, a treaty is made. This is exactly what happened for World War I. The war had just ended on November 11, 1918, after four years of fighting, and most of Europe¡¦s farms, factories, and coalmines had been ruined. A lot of countries were mad at the Germans and decided to draft a treaty that would make the Germans have to pay for causing this war. The treaty that the countries drafted was called the Treaty of Versailles. The purpose of this paper is to inform the reader of the events around and the contents of the Treaty of Versailles. It will discuss what people thought of the treaty, what the treaty accomplished, and the treaty¡¦s faults.

On January 8, 1919, the representatives of thirty-two countries, including the United States, Great Britain, France, Italy, and Japan, met at the Paris Peace Conference to draft the Treaty of Versailles (Gelfand). The thirty-two countries that attended represented about seventy-five percent of the world¡¦s population (Spartacus). The German Republic and the Soviet Russia were not invited to attend the conference and they did not have any say in shaping the treaty (Nelson).

During the drafting of the treaty there were a few figures that played an important role in these negotiations. They were George Clemenceau of France, David Lloyd George of Britain, President Woodrow Wilson of the United States, and Vittorio Orlando of Italy (Spartacus). These important figures were known as the Big Four (Hay 9). The Big Four differed on their goals for the peace and they had many negotiations over this, but they were not the only ones (Hay 10).

At the Paris Peace Conference the Allies also had some trouble. Britain and France showed little sign of agreeing to Wilson¡¦s type of peace because they wanted ¡§to strip Germany of its war-making power¡¨ (World). The French were determined to punish Germany. Clemenceau said, ¡§That Germany needs to pay for the suffering that the war had caused¡¨ (World). The French, British, and the United States aims led to differences until them, along with The Big Four, made a compromise, which was the treaty (World). The Allies were determined to see that their enemy would never again be in the position to endanger them.

As the treaty was being made some, of the Big Four had their own thoughts on what they thought should happened to Germany. President Woodrow Wilson¡¦s main goal was to have the treaty provide for the formation of the League of Nations (Gelfand). One of the Big Four, who said a lot on what he thought should happen, was David Lloyd George. He told the rest of the representatives of the conference that he wanted ¡§Germany to pay and that he also wanted to leave Germany with enough resources for trade but not enough for waging war¡¨ (Gelfand). Lloyd said this because he was a politician and he needed the support of the public to succeed in elections (History). He knew if he was ¡§soft¡¨ on Germany he would have been voted out of office (History). George Clemenceau had two beliefs which were that he ¡§sought to cripple Germany economically, militarily, and territorially and that Germany should be brought to its knees so that she could never start a war again¡¨ (Gelfand).

The Treaty of Versailles was presented to the Germans on May 7, 1919, in the Trianon Palace in Versailles (Watt 405). The finished treaty was a thick white-covered book that had two hundred pages, four hundred and forty separate articles and seventy-five thousand words (Watt 405). On the cover of the treaty it had the words ¡§Conditions of Peace¡¨ printed in English and French (Watt 406). The Allies were the first to arrive at the Palace and following them were the Germans (Watt 408). The Germans were then taken to their seats, which would face Clemenceau (Watt 409). Clemenceau sat at the center of the main table, while Wilson sat at his right, and Lloyd George was at his left (Bailey 289). George Clemenceau was made the President of the peace conference and he was the one who conducted the meeting (Watt 409). The head of the German delegation was Count Brockdorff-Rontzau and he was in charge of telling the Allies if the Germans would sign the treaty (Bailey 289). When the Germans finally saw the terms of the treaty it was just weeks before they were due to sign it in the Hall of Mirrors (History). The treaty raised anger, indignation, and protest throughout Germany. One of these protests was the ten day campaign that was held for the proclamation that the treaty was totally unacceptable (Mayer 764). The Germans were threatening to not sign the treaty because they complained that they were promised a peace based on the Fourteen Points, which they claimed that many of the points had been broken (Bailey 297). The Fourteen Points that the Germans were talking about were series of proposals that President Woodrow Wilson had drawn up in January 1918 (World). The first five points included an end to secret treaties, freedom of the seas, free trade, and reduced national armies and navies (World). The fifth goal was the adjustment of colonial claims with fairness toward colonial peoples. The sixth through fourteen points (points six through fourteen?) were specific suggestions for changing boarders and creating new nations (World). The Allies denied what the Germans said by telling them that they had not broken any of the Fourteen Points (Watt 421). So, the Germans were told that they had fifteen days to file written objections to the terms of the treaty. On the following days ahead, the Germans were studying the treaty and preparing their replies (Bailey 294). On May 29th, the Germans finally handed in their counterproposals to the Allies (Watt 421).

The Allies would then go over the counterproposals and after they were done they would inform the Germans of any changes. After announcing any changes, a date for signing would then be announced (Watt 417). Even though the Germans had handed in their counterproposals, many of the German leaders still refused to accept the terms (Hay 17). The Germans believed that they had fought a just and honorable war and they complained that the treaty had been dictated to them (Spartacus). The Treaty of Versailles itself was an affair that few were happy with. Many thought that this treaty would cause another war to happen. One person who believed it would start another war was Marshal Ferdinand Foch, who was a French officer and a supreme commander of allied forces. Marshal said, ¡§Those who sign this treaty will sign the death sentence of many millions of German men, women, and children.¡¨ Well, he was right because World War I was not the ¡§war to end wars¡¨ since it led right into World War II (Hay 10). The treaty consisted of fifteen parts. The first section was the Constitution of the League of Nations, which had a provision made for the Permanent Court of International Justice (Greenfield). The eighth section of the treaty created the International Labor Organization (Greenfield). The other parts dealt with the boundaries of Germany, the establishment of new countries in Europe, war reparations, and other matters. The Constitution of the League of Nations was an international association whose goal would be to keep peace among nations (World). The United States, Great Britain, France, Italy, and Japan were the permanent members of the League¡¦s Executive Council whose general assembly consisted of representatives of thirty-two Allied and neutral nations (World). The two countries that were excluded were Germany and Russia (World). The Treaty of Versailles purpose was to officially end military actions against Germany in World War I. It provided an official peace between Germany and nearly all the thirty-two Allied and associated nations and it provided a reorganization of the boundaries of European nations and areas that they controlled in Africa, Asia, and the Pacific Ocean islands. It also provided a system for administering the former colonies of the defeated countries (Gelfand).

In the treaty there was some punishment terms that would tell Germany what they had to follow. These terms were territorial losses, military restrictions, reparations, and honor clauses. Germany lost a third of her coal fields, three quarters of her iron deposits, one third of her blast furnaces, and all of her merchant navy (Hay 28).

For the territorial losses, Germany lost some ,,² take out this word seventy-one thousand square kilometers, which is about twenty-seven thousand five hundred square miles or more than thirteen percent of its European domain (Nelson). When Germany surrendered its colonies, they all became territories under the supervision of the League of Nations. Tanzania went to Great Britain, Urundi and Ruanda went to Belgium, and Namibia went to South Africa (Nelson). Cameroon and Togoland were divided between Great Britain and France (Nelson). New Guinea was awarded to Australia, Samoa went to New Zealand, Nauru Island went to Great Britain, and the Pacific island north of the Equator went to Japan (Nelson). The German rights in Shantung province and China were also granted to Japan (Nelson).

Germany lost all her colonies -- however, she also had to loose her territories. The territories she lost in the treaty include Alsace-Lorraine, which went to France, the Eupen and Malmedy districts were awarded to Belgium, and West Prussia and most of Czechoslovakia (Encyclopedia). REWORD THE PART I HIGHLIGHTED IN RED BECAUSE IT DOESN¡¦T REALLY MAKE SENSE. Germany gave up the Memel district to the Allies that were later given to Lithuania (Encyclopedia). Saar Basin was placed under the League of Nations for fifteen years and Poland got the provinces of Posen and West Prussia (Nelson).

In the treaty, it had a term that discussed the military restrictions. It said that Germany was required to abolish all its military service and reduce its army to one hundred thousand officers and men (Nelson). Germany had to stop all importation, exportation, and all production of war material by October 1, 1919 (History). They also had to give up most of their coal, trains, and merchant ships (History). Germany was limited to six battleships, six light cruisers, and twelve torpedo boats (Nelson). The Germans could not have any submarines or U-boats at all and they could not make any more poison gas (Nelson). The navy was not allowed to exceed over fifteen thousand for the naval personnel and all types of air force were banned (Nelson).

Germany was required to pay reparations to the Allies for causing the war and that meant paying for the war¡¦s total cost. This part of the treaty was known as the ¡§War Guilt Clause¡¨ which was the harshest of all the punishments (World). It placed sole responsibility for the war on Germany and as a result they had to pay those reparations (World). Germany was forced to pay the Allies thirty-three billion dollars in reparations over thirty years (World).

The Germans had to pay the first payment of five billion dollars in gold marks between 1919 and 1921 (Hay 16). Germany told the Allies that it would be impossible to compute this exact sum for the damage of the war, but the Allies insisted that Germany must pay (World). The Allies insisted this because the treaty permitted them to take actions if Germany fell behind in payments (World). The reparations were made in the forms of money, ships, trains, livestock, and natural resources (Nelson).

The reasons the Germans were required to pay reparations were because of the dead and wounded, the people who had been orphaned, and the people who now stagger under war debts (Hay 33). Other reasons were for the millions of homes, lands, and property that Germany destroyed, and all the ruined industries, mines, and machinery of neighboring countries (Hay 33). In the treaty, the German government was forced to admit that Germany and its allies were solely guilty of causing the war (Nelson). Germany also had to agree to hand over anyone they decided to try as a war criminal, such as leading statesmen or military commanders, to the Allies (Hay 16). The Germans had to assist the Allies in compiling evidence against these people (Hay 16). After waiting for the Allies to give the date of when the signing would take place, the day was finally here. The peace treaty would be signed on June 28, 1919, in the great Hall of Mirrors in Louis XIV¡¦s Palace of Versailles (Bailey 302). There was about a thousand people in the audience because they were waiting to hear if the treaty would be signed and if so, when (Bailey 302). Most of these people were women and ladies who were all discussing the treaty (Bailey 303). When the German officials got to the Palace, they still strongly objected to the treaty, however, they were given two choices: they could sign the treaty or be invaded by the Allies (History). After a brief speech by Clemenceau, the German officials signed because they had no other choice (Bailey 303). The Allied agents signed next, but the Chinese never signed the treaty (Gelfand). Many of the German citizens felt that they were being punished for the mistakes of the German government, as it was the government that had declared war, not the people (History). When the signing was all over, the Treaty of Versailles went into effect on January 10, 1920, about a year later (Gelfand). In the years after the treaty was made, it was revised and altered in Germany¡¦s favor (History). By 1938, numerous concessions were made to Germany and only the territorial settlement articles remained (History). The Treaty left the German people in bitterness and hatred. This bitterness against the treaty turned them against America (Bailey 303). The Germans were particularly against Wilson and his name continues to be cursed in Germany today (Bailey 303). In summary, The Treaty of Versailles was regarded as only temporary and contained some of the most severe terms that one civilized nation has ever imposed on another. It humiliated and angered the Germans, but it also tried to permanently enchain them. The treaty ruined Germany financially, left them with no army or navy to defend them, and made them responsible for starting the war. The Treaty of Versailles may have contributed to the rise of the German dictator Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party during the 1930¡¦s. If you think about the Treaty of Versailles, it created more problems than it actually fixed. The Germans did pay some of the reparations, however, the treaty ended in 1931.

Works Cited Bailey, Thomas. Woodrow Wilson and the Lost Peace. Chicago: Quadrangle

Books, 1963. Gelfand, Lawrence. ¡§Versailles, Treaty of.¡¨ World Book Online Reference Center

2005. World Book, Inc. 4, Apr. 2005. Hay, Jeff. The Treaty of Versailles. San Diego: Greenhaven Press Inc., 2002. Mayer, Arno. Politics and Diplomacy of Peacemaking. New York: Alfred A. Knoff Inc., 1967. Nelson, Otto. ¡§Treaty of Versailles.¡¨ EBSCOHOST. 2002. World Almanac Education Group, Inc. Funk and Wagnalls New World Encyclopedia. 29, March 2005. ¡§The Treaty of Versailles.¡¨ Greenfield History Site. 3, July 2004. Modern World History GCSE. 31, March 2005. ¡§The Treaty of Versailles.¡¨ History Learning Site. Aug. 2003. Modern World History. 3, April 2005. ¡§Versailles, Treaty of.¡¨ Encyclopedia Britanniva. 1997. ¡§Versailles Treaty.¡¨ Spartacus Educational. 11, Mar. 2005. School Net. 3, April

by Anonymous Student

Vietnam Essay Public Opinion the US withdrawal

Vietnam Essay - To what extent was lack of Public Support the main reason for the eventual US withdrawal from the Vietnam War?

America's involvement in Vietnam gradually escalated from 1945 to 1975. Historians debate over why America even got involved in Vietnam, however it is often explained by America believing it should fight against Vietnam because of what the Southeast Asian country stood for - Communism. Many believe if Vietnam fell to communism it would only be enforcing Eisenhower's domino theory. Kennedy's presidency saw an increased commitment to Vietnam with 12,000 advisors by 1962 and increased equipment. Under LBJ, Vietnam had around 200,000 US troops by 1965 . However, 1966 had increased domestic opposition to American involvement in Vietnam and as the war continued further, opposition to it grew. Although to what extent the lack of public support was the main factor to America `losing' the war is greatly debated. Whilst public opinion can be argued to be the most important reason for initial troop withdrawal in June 1969 to quieten opposition , other factors remain important. This includes America's military mistakes, North Vietnams strengths as opposed to South Vietnams weaknesses, and Presidential restraints and retreat.

Throughout the duration of the US's involvement in the Vietnam War, opposition existed within the home country. Sanders claims it is generally agreed that opposition to the war from the public and press was probably the main reason to why Johnson finally decided upon retreat. However the extent to which the public in America did oppose the war is greatly debated. Firstly, defining public opinion itself has problems. Polls conducted both by the government and the press found that the wordings of the question had dramatic effect on answers and what a respondent states in a hypothetical situation as opposed to a real situation can be very different. However, Mueller's data repeatedly asked the question form 1965 to 1971; Do you think the US made a mistake sending troops to fight in Vietnam?' The data showed that in 1965, 600f the public approved of troops in Vietnam, this figure had halved to 30 0n 3 years . This downhill trend demonstrates how public support for Vietnam fell from 1965 to 1971. Mueller's sources on public opinion are regarded as very reliable, most of it coming from Roper Public Opinion Research Centre at Williams College, Massachusetts .

The extent that this affected the eventual US withdrawal is debated, although it is clear that the public opinion was greatly affected by the press. Vietnam was known as the `Photographers war' in which journalists and photographers form all over the world flocked to Vietnam. Due to technology available, the press could bring images to the public eye as never before. Although, it was often misinterpretation of images that encouraged opposition at home. During the Tet Offensive 1968, a South Vietemese police chief executed a V.C. in Saigon . This image was shown worldwide however Sanders states it only emerged later that it was a death squad member who had just shot a relation of the general. The image damaged America's faith in their side as the `good guys'.' The images shown back home affected Americans because people knew relatives, family and friends who were dying like this. The extent to which the coverage upset the public contributed to eventual America withdrawal.

However whilst Mueller's statistics on public opinion show a clear decline between 1965 to 1971, it can be questioned who the main opposition to the war came from. Higgins orthodox view claimed the main opponents of the war were young however evidence suggests they were in fact just the most vociferous group. Contrary to Higgins, Mueller states that in Nov. 1966, under 30's were in fact the most supportive group of the war at 66% . Whilst the figure had dropped to 47 0n Feb 1969, it still remained higher than the over 49's Support at 31%. Karnow, an American journalist who visited Vietnam, also supports Mueller's findings with a survey conducted in 1967 which found `endorsement of the war was strongest among the college educated, middle classes' . Whilst in 1965 the opposition was a minority, it was a growing minority. Yet Johnson also suffered pressure from `hawks' that criticised him for not escalating enough, stating America never used more than ½ its tactical air power in Vietnam. Karnow also notes that hard liners such as Senator John Stennis who believed America should mobilise its full military, reflected a significant element of public opinion . Nixon recognised the home front problem and used tactics to keep the opposition quiet. This included a withdrawal of 60,000 troops in 1969, Nixon believing he had little other choice. This demonstrates how public opposition to the war led foreign policy for the US and how public opinion was a strong influential factor for the eventual withdrawal. Examples of protest include Oct 1969, in which the largest anti war protest in American History took place. Protestors took to the streets in every major city. Radicals even waved VC flags. Nixon rightly claimed their `numbers were a minority, but their numbers were growing' . Another example of protests was on the 5th May 1970 in which 4 students at Kent State University, Ohio were shot dead by National Guard . As a result, Nixon backed down and declared he would get American troops out of Cambodia by June. This demonstrates again how govt. policy was made in the streets. Although Sanders points out the pro-Nixon public, which in response to Nixon's decision, totalled 100,000 in New York . However Nixon's own views, like Johnson's, hindered public view and encouraged the divide between war supporters and protestors. During the Cambodian Offensive Nixon told a Pentagon employee `the boys in Vietnam are the greatest, unlike the bums blowing up the campuses.'

Another area of opposition came from what Higgens referred to as `Black Power' . Sanders claims black people resented the apparent disproportionate number of blacks on the front line and the high number of casualties. Martin Luther King became publicly critical in 1967 highlighting `the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same school's.' It is understandable to see that a war that caused so much controversy was opposed to such an extent. The military were also furious that opposition was having such an effect on their involvement in Vietnam. However Karnow claims Westmoreland's concept of search-and-destroy was flawed from the start . This was because Westmoreland believed these missions would gradually grind down the enemy, providing that he was given the battalions to do the job. Yet Americans at home refused to accept this `kill ratio' concept.

North Vietnam's Strengths compared to the South Vietnam's weaknesses can be argued as another important reason for eventual US withdrawal. The North Vietnamese always struggled for their existence. Most Vietnamese were peasants living in small villages and had poor standards of living. The Vietnamese's hard life reflected their determinism and heroism. Contrary to the US soldiers `365 day tour', the VC were enlisted for years . The Vietnamese also appeared to have an unusual amount of patience and determinism. This reflected on the Ho Chi Minh trail. American bombers continuously tried to obliterate the trail; however 50,000 women at any one time were employed to repeatedly repair the road , which had many branches in order to keep supplies continuing. America severely underestimated the communist determination. General Giap stated `we were not strong enough to drive out half a million American troops, but that was not our aim. Our intention was to break the will of the American Govt. to continue the war.' The North Vietnamese also appeared to be fighting a `different' war from the Americans, the VC felt it was a revolutionary war in which they were fighting for a belief, communism. This was opposed to many US Soldiers who felt they had no place being in Vietnam, this explaining their lack of determinism. The North Vietnamese more effectively won the hearts and minds of civilians. This was helped by the fact that they shared the same cultural values and beliefs, whilst the communists underground routes and guerrilla style warfare was also less disruptive on South Vietnamese villages compared to US tactics of `Search and destroy'. Although this links further to America's own military mistakes.

One of South Vietnams key `weaknesses' was the corruption and decay, most importantly in Saigon. As early as 1965 Ambassador Taylor stated it was hopeless to expect the South Vietnamese to improve. He could see nothing ahead but continued `political turmoil, irresponsibility and division' . As a result, Taylor believed there were two possible options, either ultimate withdrawal or to introduce a new element. This demonstrates how the lack of strength in South Vietnam, both politically and socially was a factor to why US could not progress in South Vietnam and therefore contributed to the eventual withdrawal. Sanders highlight's how the corruption and mismanagement of South Vietnams government naturally permeated its armed forces, this linking to military problems that existed between US soldiers and the ARVN .

North Vietnam also received Soviet and Chinese Aid, and as the war escalated after 1965, it relied increasingly on help from these countries . Karnow states conditions might have been appalling had the Soviet Union and China not provided assistance. This aid was crucial however; Buttinger calculated that during the course of the war, South Vietnam received from the US more than five times the amount sent to the Vietemese Communists by Moscow and Peking . This shows despite great financial assistance, North Vietnams determinism helped them overcome such financial disadvantages.

Vietnam was a war in which it was claimed public opinion actually led Foreign Policy, rather than following it. As a result, during the war the President and Congress found it increasingly important to act with what the public wanted, this supporting the fact that lack of public support was an important reason for eventual US withdrawal. Between 1965 and 1968, Johnson's administration became slowly convinced that their aims and methods were inappropriate and Johnson would be forced to retreat . Despite pouring men into Vietnam between 1966-7, peaking with 540,000 in 1969 , there had been little desirable affect. Whilst Johnson's administration was also publicly optimistic, confidence within administration was suffering. This was hindered further with the loss of Secretary of Defence, McNamara in November 1967. Johnson had thought very highly of McNamara but by 1967 thought he had degenerated into an `emotional basket case' . Johnson received conflicting advice from both sides. On one hand he had Secretary of State, Rusk who was obsessive about continuing the struggle in South East Asia, compared to Senator Fulbright stating America should de-escalate. Johnson was faced with conflicting views on what should be done in Vietnam, this generally reflecting the mood on public opinion in America. Because of the worsening situation in Vietnam and domestic opposition, Sanders claims Congress began to press hard for retreat . On 25th March 1968 most advocated some kind of retreat, mainly due to public opinion polls worsening and the economic problem. In 1965 the govt. deficit was 1.6billion but by 1968 it was 5.3billion . Sources on Government spending are often unreliable to minimise hostility, however tax increases of 10 0n 1967 made the economic factor easily recognisable. However congress only input its first limitation on US military activities on Southeast Asia in 1969- a restriction on troop deployments in Cambodia and Laos. Only in 1973 did congress actually direct full opposition to a continued commitment when it voted to stop all bombing throughout Indochina . This shows that whilst both Johnson and Nixon were eventually restricted, congress was in fact short on action, and as Karnow claims, lagged behind public opinion.

When elected as President in 1969, Nixon pledged to `end the war and win the peace' . However Nixon is accused of escalating the war again due to bombing in Cambodia and Laos. Higgins is critical of Nixon stating he was not so much of a peacemaker but rather a pacemaker, by dropping more than the total tonnage of bombs expended by America during WW2 on Vietnam in his first 2 years of presidency . Although opinion polls in 1969 showed that most Americans were willing to give Nixon a chance to cope with Vietnam. Nixon hoped that if he applied both military and diplomatic pressure in the correct proportions, he would gain `peace with honour'. Thus, by using the Madman theory, Vietnamisation or bombing the Cambodian trail would achieve this. Nixon's pledge demonstrates how public opinion affected government policy. Whilst Karnow claims Americans were willing to give Nixon a chance, the mounting antiwar sentiment in the US meant Nixon could not afford to delay at least token American Troop withdrawals, the first being in September 1969 with an initial withdrawal of 60,000 troops. Kissenger claimed peace at hand by 1972 but negotiations were pressed due to lack of time and money. By 1972, Nixon's freedom was limited, with Congress cutting off funding in early 1973. This shows that Nixon was restrained and it could be questioned that had not mounting public opposition occurred joined with a worsening economic situation, Nixon would have pursued Vietnam further (if he remained in power) in 1975 when North took over South Vietnam.

Whilst public opposition to the war was one of the most influential factors in the US finally withdrawing, military tactics in Vietnam were also regarded as ineffective and a cause for failure. Canadian theorist and educator, Marshal McLuhan stated `Television brought the brutality of the war into the comfort of the living room. Vietnam was lost in the living rooms of America - not on the battlefields of Vietnam.' This source can be criticised for its validity as evidence shows America had key areas of disadvantages on the battlefields that contributed to the US withdrawal. Karnow states that by 1967, Johnson had been escalating the war with dismal results . One aspect of the military campaign was bombing Vietnam, most famously Rolling Thunder, which was one of the first escalatory steps in 1965 . However the Jason Study by the MIT in 1966 found that the bombing campaign was having no measurable direct effect on military activities, mainly because North Vietnam was an unrewarding target with a large agricultural economy. This source came from The Pentagon Papers ; sources by the government were often unreliable due to the uncertainty of the war. It was also hard to measure the affects of a communist force using guerrilla warfare. Sanders states the irony of American firepower being concentrated more on South than North Vietnam. The Jason study explains this because it was an `unrewarding target', guerrilla's in South Vietnam. Despite bombing increasing from 315,000 tons in 1965 to 1,388,000 tons in 1969 , McNamara's memorandum pointed out that the Communists had actually increased the Southward flow of supplies and manpower, with Hanoi's determination as strong as ever. This demonstrated that slow progress was being made with little effect. This links to one of North Vietnams strongest advantages of sheer determinism, Kissenger exclaiming `I can't believe that a fourth rate power like North Vietnam does not have a breaking point' . Vietnam was also an excellent example of how people are said to have triumphed over technology. Despite the finance, the US could not destroy key targets such as the Ho Chi Minh trail, which allowed supplies to reach the south.

Weaknesses in military tactics on the ground also greatly hindered progress, this leading to a long war and increasing public opposition. Sander's highlights the problems that US soldiers encountered in fighting in Vietnam. It is argued that whilst a vast amount of the soldiers were patriotic and fought hard, a large proportion believed they were fighting a war in which they did not believe, or felt America had no right to intervene. In 1966, an ex-Green Beret said he doubted Vietnam would be better off with Ho's communism, `but it is not for me or my government to decide.' This primary source taken from a reporter could have been exaggerated, this questioning its validity. Yet whilst it did not represent the majority of the soldiers, it represented a significant amount. Whilst many Americans found fighting conditions hard, one key disadvantage was not knowing which Vietnamese were the enemy. One Soldier recalled `you never knew who was the enemy and who was your friend, they all dressed alike. They were all Vietnamese...the enemy was all around you.' This primary source, giving a soldiers viewpoint, helps emphasise the military difficulties. Whilst Public Opposition was the main reason for the eventual withdrawal of troops, this mounting domestic opposition came about because Vietnam became a lengthy war in which American lives were being lost to a cause which wasn't considered valuable enough. The economic cost of the war also became an increasingly important factor, and Military tactics that McNamara described as `dangerous, costly and unsatisfactory' led Americans at home to believe they were fighting a war that could not be won.

In conclusion it can be said that lack of public support was the main factor in America's initial withdrawal, Nixon believing it would quieten opposition in September 1969. As well as congress, the majority of the American home front was in support for the war in his early presidential years. However Sanders considers 1967 as the crucial turning point in which substantial amounts of both press and public opinion turned from support to opposition . The reason for mounting opposition can be said to have resulted from the lack of progress being made in Vietnam itself. The social cost of the war meant that the people in America were not prepared to settle for what Westmoreland said `could go on indefinitely' . Johnson claimed that public opinion was the weakest chink in their armour and in a sense this is true. Enthoven claimed that North Vietnam knew they only had to wait for America's patience to wear thin and public rejection to the war would occur . Higgins states that by 1973, even Nixon was convinced that direct military intervention by the US should be abandoned . Yet progress of Vietnamisation also seemed hopeless in the long run, due Saigon's corruption. This showing that perhaps without domestic opposition, it would be ignorant to believe that continuation of the war would lead to any further progress. Whilst there were other significant weaknesses that led to America not being victorious, Public Opinion had the most significant effect which in turn helped change Congress' views and instigated military and presidential retreat Note: This is an A-level Coursework essay on Vietnam, asking the question `To what extent was lack of Public Support the main reason for the eventual US withdrawal from the Vietnam War?' The essay was unfortunately limited to 3000 words, unfortunately because with the amount of information and sources available it is extremely hard to cover all angles, this essay only covering a few. Of course this essay can be improved however it is hoped that to whoever uses it, it does give some understanding and help. Discovering its background and researching Vietnam opened up my mind to past events that had happened and the reasons as well as the build up still fascinates me. Vietnam was a personal option to study, just because it was a war in recent times that I felt I needed to know more about, especially with the conflict of opinions that revolve around it. I know I appreciated reading other essays on Vietnam so hope this provides a worthy view.

Dodge

I strongly recommend Stanley Karnow's book, `Vietnam, a History'. Chunky book, but definitely gives a lot of info. For basics I used: V. Sanders (1998) The USA and Vietnam, 1945-75. Hodder and Stoughton. Hopes this helps out anyone interested. For Statistics on Public Opinion in the Vietnam War you should use: John E. Mueller (1985) War, Presidents and Public Opinion. University press of America - well worth getting your mitts on.

If you have any comments feel free to email me at: dimondgeezer69 at hotmail.com.

by dimondgeezer69 at hotmail.com

The First and Second World Wars as Global Conflict

The First and the Second world wars were global conflicts in that it involved and affected the whole globe. The main differences lay in the development of older forms of technology, the vast implications it had on the people and the countries that were involved and the time span of the war, and ideologies concerned.

Firstly, global is defined as worldwide, affects the whole world and covering a wide scope.1 Conflict is defined as a state of open, often prolonged fighting, a battle or a war, a state of disharmony between incompatible or antithetical persons, ideas, or interests, clash, hostility, an open clash between two opposing groups, a hostile meeting of opposing military forces in the course of war.2 Therefore, global conflict can be defined as a war that is fought between two opposing sides, which affects the whole world and covers a wide scope of land and sea.

The First World War, rather known as the ‘Great War’ or ‘the war to end all wars’ was fought from 1914 to 1918, and affected or involved every part of the world in one way or another. There were two main opposing sides the Allies and the Central Powers, on one side stood Japan, United States, the British Empire, France, Italy, and the Russian Empire, while the other side, the Central Powers consisted of the German Empire, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire. As demonstrated the war involved more than half of the globe, in that the war brought in the superpowers of the world in war.

The First World War was a war that had been coming for years but needed a force to start it. The First World War was triggered by the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, the Archduke of Austria and heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne who was assassinated in Sarajevo by Gavrilo Princip, a Bosnian Serb student on the 28th of June 1914. This event caused Austria-Hungary to declare war on Serbia on the 28th of June 1914 after it was not satisfied with the response of Serbia with the ultimatum it gave. This caused a wave of countries to get involved in the issue, due to the alliances the country had either with Austria-Hungary or Serbia or either with a country that had treaties or alliances with the country involved. Russia was the first country to mobilize its armies and defend Serbia and this caused Germany to issue an ultimatum to Russia to stand down, but this was futile and thus Germany declared war on Russia, which started the whole globe from supporting either side. Russia supported Serbia, France supported Russia, Germany supported Austria Hungary, Britain supported Russia, Japan supported Britain, and the Ottoman for Germany3

The First World War was a not only fought in Europe but was fought also in other countries. The war which originated from Europe and spread to the rest of the world, it was fought in Africa, the Pacific, the Atlantic, the Indian Ocean and the Middle East. Some of the very first actions of the war occurred far from Europe, in Africa and in the Pacific Ocean. In Africa for instance the continent was under European control of which Germany, Britain and France had neighboring territories. According to Carrie Africa became involved in the war because the continent was under European imperial control, and in that of the stalemate that existed African resources and materials were mobilized for the European war effort, this also was due to the stalemate in which the empires wanted too be much more superior the other with resources and allies.4 The war in Africa touched the lives of millions of Africans who were affected by its economic, social and political consequences5 also it was described as the most costly and destructive, in which the British had the Military advantage over the German with the control of the sea and larger military forces, which were drawn from India, South Africa, East and West Africa, the Belgian Congo, and Portuguese East Africa6. The Pacific and Asia were also involved in the war because according to Blum et al this was motivated by the desire for Japanese to take over German possessions in the Pacific and in China.7 Also in the Middle East the Arabs were beginning to have a nationalistic feeling of their imperial overlords the Turks, and this was to the negotiations between the British and the Sherif of Mecca, Hussein.8 In the Mediterranean it was all about the supremacy of the sea of both the British and the Germans, of which according to Carrie involved submarine warfare and the navy, in which it forced America to enter the war due to the Germans sinking of its ships. Also, Carrie states that the Allies were supreme in the sea, which enabled them to deprive the enemy of access of resources to the rest of the world9. The Second World War originated from the Germans taking over Poland, and began from 1939 to 1945, but there were other issues as well, totalitarian regimes, militaristic regimes in Germany, and in Italy and Japan also stemming from the Great Depression from World War One. The war was between the Allies and the Axis powers. The Treaty of Versailles was the main focus point of this issue. According the Blum et al, Hitler the furor created a crisis in Polish- Germany by demanding cession of the Free city of Danzig to Germany and rights of extraterritoriality for Germans in the Polish Corridor, the strip of Poland bordering the Baltic Sea, which separated East Prussia from the rest of Germany.10 This caused Britain and Germany to intervene and help Poland and began a negotiation with the Soviet Union for a common front against the Axis powers. 11 The Axis consisted of Germany, Japan and Italy under the Tripartite Agreement of 1940, while the Allies consisted of Britain and its colonies, France, Soviet Union and later the United States of America.

The Second World War happened across the globe, which included Europe, the Pacific, Africa, Mediterranean and Asia. The war can be seen as a global conflict since it did not only occur in Europe but also in Africa, which according to Blum Italy for instance attacked British possessions in Africa since Britain was concerned with protecting its homeland due to the invasion of Germany12. The Second World War was described by Werner as a global war, fought out between two worldwide coalitions, the Allies and the Axis13. Also Werner stated that the war at sea and air in the Mediterranean area in 1945 and 1942 with forces that were comparatively limited, the British navy enjoyed a tactical superiority, while the Italians had more cruisers and light naval forces. The war was conducted principally along communication lines, by submarine and air forces. 14 The war in Europe also saw the fall of France, the unsuccessful invasion of Britain and Russia. The event was unsuccessful due to the wrong time of invasion, which in Russia occurred when winter was approaching and in Britain in which the United States of America provided support in terms of vast amounts of food and military equipment, which according to Blum led Hitler to abandon plans for an invasion of Britain.15 In Asia the Japanese focused on enhancing its powers in Asia, and the control of Indochina due to the fall of France. The Japanese had an aim of controlling the Pacific and saw the United States of America as an obstacle to the complete domination of the Orient; this was due to their aims in expanding southward into Thailand and Indo-China16. So, Japan knew that the only means of deterring the United States of America was to weaken its navy and remove its naval bases in the Pacific, so it bombed Pearl Harbor, which according to Blum was the worst disaster to befall the United States in its history.16 Therefore, it can be seen from the spread of the war, that it involved countries from around the globe, and the conflict between the allies and the axis powers.

The differences around the world involved the time factor of each war, the technologies that were present in each war, the inclusion of countries in the war, and the effects it had globally. Firstly, a main factor that states the difference between the first and the Second World War was the time spent fighting the war, for the First World War it lasted for four years from 1914 to 1918 while the Second World War lasted for six years dating from 1939 to 1945. The time span of the second World War enabled the countless loss of lives than compared to the First World War, for example in the first World War the death rate stood at 8550000 which included Germany, Russia, France, Austria Hungary, British Empire, Italy, Ottoman Empire and the United States17, the Second World War tripled the casualties.

Secondly, the technologies in both wars differed markedly. The First World War included weapons which were not as destructive and lethal as those used in the Second World War. For example the atomic bomb used by the United States on Japan in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which flattened the city and killed thousands of peoples and affected the generations of those affected.17 Unlike the First World War, it used poisonous gases for the first time18, which was lethal at first, but was quickly overcome by gas masks, the atomic bomb on the other hand led to the surrender of a powerful axis member. According to Blum the technology that was involved in the Second World War relied

… on science as the basis of military technology, the extraordinary degree of regimentation and planning of the economy and society, and the refined and sophisticated use of propaganda both at home and abroad. In other respects it differed markedly from all previous wars.19

The new weapons included both offensive and defensive, ranging from radar to rocket bombs, jet propelled aircraft, atomic weapon and machine guns, torpedoes and explosives20. This was a deciding factor on the outcomes of the war, in which the Second World War had far more losses than the First World War. Thirdly the involvement of directly or indirectly of populations of every continent in the world, which unlike the First World War had been a war of position, it was a war of movement, on land, in the air and at sea. Also the difference in ideology of the war in which the First World War was about the usage of the resources of the colonies and the spread of nationalism away from Europe, the Second World War was about the expansion of territories and the building of weapons, which would bring their enemies to their knees. Nationalism was seen in the Arab countries where the Turks had controlled, and the extracting of resources included that of the colonies of Britain and Germany in Africa. Lastly, the expansion of empires was clearly seen in the movement of Germany to take over Poland and the regions in Europe, which included Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, and Rotterdam21 and the Japanese expansion into Asia and the Pacific.21. Furthermore, the First World War ideologies was the resources that can be obtained from the rest of the world, while the Second World War was about the expansion of ones territory and the spheres of influence it wanted to gain.

To conclude, the first and the second world wars were both global conflicts, in the sense that they both involved two main sides each of which consisted of the major powers of the world. The First World War saw the alliances of the Central powers that were Germany, Austria Hungary and the Ottoman Empire, while the Allies consisted of Russia, France, Britain and the United States of America. The Second World War consisted of the Allies and the Axis powers; the Allies consisted of Britain, France, Soviet Union and the United States, while the Axis powers consisted of Germany, Japan and Italy. The location of each war was fought around the globe but the Second World War proved to be more wide spread than the First World War. Each war used weapons to outdo their opponent but the Second World War proved to be more destructive as it was seen in the bombing of the two cities in Japan. Lastly the two wars differed in ideologies, the first included a materialistic war while the other included a war of power and expansion into the rest of the world. Furthermore, the two wars gave society and those affected that it was best to avoid war than to fight one, because the losses that comes with a war affects not only the country but the people and individuals themselves.

Bibliography H. Stranchaw. The First World War, Oxford University Press, New York, 1998.

H. Commager. The Story of the Second World War, Little Brown and Company, New Jersey, 1945.

J. Blum et al. The European World: A History, 2nd edition, Boston, Little, Brown and Company, 1970,pp.947-975. [Ch.36: The Second World War].

M. Chambers et al. The Western Experience, 2nd Edition. New York, Knoppf, 1979.

M. Werner. The Great Offensive, Richard Clay and Company Ltd, 1943.

P. Gove. Webster's third new international dictionary, Merriam-Webster Inc., 1986. R. Carrie. The Meaning of the First World War, Prentice-Hall Inc., New Jersey, 1965.

by Anonymous Student

humanslife war religion and the personality

Crippled by social hypocrisy, widespread infidelity and natal bankruptcy, I was initially mystified about life and its integral value and sole purpose.

But as I wade through life, I successively discover monumental despair and infinitesimal instantaneous relief, which have scarred me with a meticulous, adamant and skeptical personality.

And as I mobilize (activate) my thoughts, I have unearthed from this reality that ignorance is bliss and the best motivator, but simultaneously it blind you from the truth. And to be intellectually gifted is very psychologically excruciating. Wishing for a juvenile psyche so as not to be heckled by humanity's ignorance and brutality to each other and the environment. But at the same time fearing to be blinded by ignorance and becoming engulfed ignorant entities like them.

Inoculated with a perpetual love for the external world, have lead to my disorientation in a jungle of religion. This made me realize that religion is just to give man hope of something to look forward to and to keep occupied .For without hope humans will become suicidal beings. Therefore, refuge from hopelessness is impossible for someone who has no religion or to someone who does not believe in God.

They live their routine lives not thinking why they are here or about the future or about another person's feelings, they only care when it catches up with them. Their stereotype indigenous personalities prevent them from asking simple logical questions and thinking outside the barriers of orthodoxy, where the truth really lies. For it is a childish minds that ask and answer the questions of the cosmos.

Humanity will never become a supreme race, for they are constantly victims of their own inhumane activity, mindless religions, prejudicial democracy and pride.

Sub-consciously they hold the key to the doors of their own destruction.

Postnatal scrutinizing of the totality of life have intoxicated me with unsolicited wisdom of life .For what I have learn in eighteen years humanity will take eternity to learn.

As I mobilize and coalesce my thoughts, I begin to wonder if my authentic sanctity for life, ethical axiom on the way of life and noblemindness has lead to my ultimate insanity.

Naturally immune to emotions, but mortally immunize with morals, have made me unlimited in mental strength.

Wounded by the thought, may be God is remunerating me with this malediction of underprivilegedness, for some deed that I have forsaken. Or may be this is gift from God, for if I had everything, I would not be appreciative, and self mutilation and destruction would have followed.

by fareedlawrymeah at hotmail.com

Devils nest Ratko Mladic wanted for war crimes

Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it!

The people of Serbia know what happened in Bosnia and Kosovo. They know that genocide occurred and that the Muslims of Bosnia and Kosovo were the primary victims. Why then do they refuse to extradite Karadzic and Mladic? Why are they refusing to admit the truth about the gruesome massacre in Srebrenica? Is the whole world conspiring against the Serbian people and more important is there a covert Western campaign to dehumanize the Serbian people? The present author will attempt to explain why Serbia keeps providing shelter for notorious war criminals, such as Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic.

Even though he has been accused of committing egregious atrocities in Bosnia, Mladic is still hiding in Serbia under the protection of the Serbian authorities. Considered a national hero in Serbia, Mladic commands great respect and admiration. How does one explain the non-compliance of the Serbian authorities to accommodate the international community?

According to some estimates, more than 50% of the Serbian population still believes that there was no massacre in Srebrenica. The figure is probably much higher among the Bosnian Serb population. I recently watched a debate on Serbian TV about Mladic’s role in the Srebrenica massacre. The central question of the debate was whether or not the massacre in Srebrenica had actually taken place. One participant remarked that there had been no massacre in Srebrenica and that Mladic has always been a Serbian hero. When asked why she believed in Mladic’s innocence and why she held him in such high regard, she replied that Mladic had been killing “bloody Turks” in Srebrenica. She seemed completely oblivious to the fact that more than six hundred years have passed since the Turkish presence in the Balkans. In order to understand the root causes of the Serbian nationalism we will have to return to year 1389. It was in this year that the infamous battle between the Turks and the Serbs took place in Kosovo, the outcome of which had come to play a pivotal role in the rise of the Serbian nationalism. Considered God by many Serbs, Prince Lazar’s death probably still constitutes the most significant event in the Serbian history. Islam has ever since been viewed as Serbia’s primary enemy in spite of the fact that more than six centuries have passed since Lazar’s death. This enormous hatred of the Turks was easily transferred onto the Muslims of Bosnia and Kosovo, even though their only common denominator was Islam. In point of fact, many Serbs still make no distinction between the Turks and the Bosnian Muslims. In contemporary Serbian literature, Muslims are frequently portrayed as backward, uncivilized and belligerent savages, for corroboration see for example books by Vuk Draskovic and Njegos. Paradoxically, despite their grossly distorted let alone parochial views of Islam, Draskovic and Njegos have many readers in Serbia. What better way to mislead the public than to have “experts” like the notorious Serbian ultra-nationalist Draskovic spread vicious anti-Islamic propaganda? Once these so called experts had managed to create a sense of “victimization” in the Serbian people, justifying a war to defend the Serbian people from the “Islamic threat” and “Albanian nationalism” was easy. Of course, there were no such threats, if anything, the situation was reversed. The Albanians in Kosovo had been suffering from Serbian repression for years. The Muslims of Bosnia were and still are the most secularized Muslims in the world so all talk of the Islamic fundamentalism in Bosnia has always been nonsensical and completely groundless. For a thorough analysis of Islam in Bosnia see Noel Malcolm’s Bosnia a Short History. Thus, it is clear that the Serbian nationalism has always been fuelled by myths (see Michael Sells’s brilliantly researched The Bridge Betrayed for a comprehensive analysis of the root causes of the Serbian nationalism).

The principal reason Serbia refuses to turn over Ratko Mladic to the War Tribunal in The Hague is the ancient Serbian dream of a “Greater Serbia”. Many Serbs believe that Mladic was fighting for a creation of the “Greater Serbia” and for that reason they tend to deny or at best downplay his atrocities. I think that this also explains the Serbian unwillingness to admit the truth about the Srebrenica massacre. Acknowledging the truth about Mladic’s role in Srebrenica massacre would have severe repercussions for Serbia. First, the Serbian people would finally realize that their government had been deceiving them all the time about the war in Bosnia and Kosovo. More important, they would learn that the Serbs were not the victims as their government had been telling them from the very beginning of the war in Bosnia.

This paper is dedicated to my grandfather Alija Salihovic who was killed in the gruesome massacre in Srebrenica. May his soul rest in peace and may the people of Bosnia never forget the egregious atrocities perpetrated by the Serbian aggressors.

by Anonymous Student

Civil War Era

Historians have yet the answer the question of why, exactly, the Civil War started. In less than 80 years, 31,400,000 (approx.) came to distant land for a chance at a new life. All of them brought with them their own beliefs, religions, and views on life. This created a colossal clash of cultures. For this very reason, people of similar beliefs settled in the same area. The one issue that has caused the United States to erupt in civil war, slavery, had its advocates in the South and its adversaries in the North. Slavery is the only ostensible cause for the Civil War.

Whether or not slavery is the cause, the majority of learned Americans, including myself, will commonly agree that, in retrospect, going to war posed the most advantages over any other avenue. Early action of the North proved as a disciplinary action. Allowing the South to secede would have created two different nations, neither with the intent of helping each other, with half of every (e.g. military power). This would leave them both vulnerable to attack from foreign countries, such as England or Spain.

The leader of the true United States, Abraham Lincoln, was elected in 1861. Knowing Lincoln’s views, the South viewed his election as an immediate danger to their ability to maintain their ways of slavery. Lincoln stated that he posed no threat to slavery, but was firm in letting the South know secession is illegal. On February 9, 1861, a constitutional convention at Montgomery, Alabama named Jefferson Davis as president of the Confederate States of America and he was inaugurated on February 18. It is said by some that Davis was opposed to secession from the get-go. One of his first actions was to appoint a peace commission to resolve the conflict without secession. After the failure of his peace commission he appointed General Robert E. Lee to serve as the general of the South’s main army.

The first battle of the Civil War took place on July 21, 1861, near the Bull Run River. Confederate forces, led by P. G. T. Beauregard, smashed through Northern troops commanded by Irvin McDowell. Confederates were too disorganized to follow up their victory with another push north; none-the-less, panic managed gripped to Washington. The battle had little practical impact, with exception of boosting southern morale.

Gen. Robert E. Lee concentrated his full strength against Maj. Gen. George G. Meade's Army of the Potomac at the crossroads county seat of Gettysburg. On July 1, Confederate forces converged on the town from west and north, driving Union defenders back through the streets to Cemetery Hill. During the night, reinforcements arrived for both sides. On July 2, Lee attempted to encircle the Confederates, first striking the Union left flank at the Peach Orchard, Wheatfield, Devil's Den, and the Round Tops with Longstreet's and Hill's divisions, and then attacking the Union right at Culp's and East Cemetery Hills with Ewell's divisions.

The Northern Army of the Cumberland, some 58,000 strong, was moving toward Chattanooga under the command of General William S. Rosecrans in the early fall of 1863. General Braxton Bragg, the Southern commander, removed his forces from the city and marched southward. Rosecrans reasoned that the Confederates were headed for Atlanta, but he badly misunderstood the situation. Bragg’s forces received reinforcements and managed to spring a trap on their opponents in an encounter along the Chickamauga Creek, about 10 miles south of Chattanooga. Both sides suffered heavy losses due to the lack of expecting resistance.

by Anonymous Student

War Brings out the Best and Worst

(Essay done on novel: The Wars) War brings out the best and worst.

War brings out the best - and the worst - in human nature. Of course it does. There is no doubt about it. War is clearly a test of human nature. We have war heroes and we have war criminals and we also have war cowards. The heroes obviously bringing out the best in human nature and the criminals bringing out the worst.

It's really quite simple. All that we need to do is look at war mongrels. People such as Hitler need to be analyzed. Some of Hitler's ideas as a civil activist were, on a political level only, well thought of. Hitler's ideas of Ethnic cleansing is what makes him a bad person and therefore brought out the worst in him. Hitler's followers had no idea of how powerful he would become and when he got all the power, he did not use it appropriately.

When talking about soldiers, bringing out the best would be running through a field and picking up a wounded soldier. This shows the best in human nature and that humans are caring and sensible people. When soldiers follow unlawful commands or commit mass genocide and brutal murders, that's when we see the worst in human nature. As of the end of World War II, obeying orders was no longer a defence for soldier's because they should know the difference between right and wrong.

I think it would be safe to say that war brought out the best in Robert Ross. He understood that thousands of lives were depending on him and he came through. He showed that humans can be compassionate, caring, and emotional people. He also died saving all the horses.

There are so many events that can bring out the best or worst in humans. It's not only war, but any time or high stress situation. I think that a time of civil disobedience would bring out the best and worst. I think we find though as humans, we have our own fine line of what's right and wrong and usually this line takes us in the right direction. Chuck Krangle (I have submitted this essay to other sites and someone plagiarized it, could you please give credit where credit is due and at least quote and leave my name for people to see)

by ckrangle at hotmail.com

The Civil War:(The Crisis of War)

Why did the Civil War occur? The Civil War was a crisis of growth. In less than three quarters of a century, thirteen old British colonies created a nation with a powerful economy.

The young U.S profited from their colonial past as well as the land which procured immense amount of resources and possibilities. The history of the U.S from 1789 to 1865 showed problems of men and resources and the economic boom will increase differences inside the different parts of the Union. The civil war could have been avoided, because the American nation gradually took conscience of itself, and nationalism had been resisted by the second war of independence.

The difficulty of the American political system: (federal and republican system) will bring with itself the problem of union and liberty. The anti federalists also known as republicans blame the government for its attachment to Europe and criticised the reinforcement of the federal power. Another source of problem is the economic differences; near 1860 two America appeared: The North, a country with much activities, and the South, a country of slavery plantations, attached to the past.

These differences and divergences reflect on the political view of a nation.

However, this new country could have avoided the Civil War, because at the beginning, pioneering' spirit was very positive; it had brought down class barriers. Another advantage of that time was to occupy lands or gain possession of it at low prices, to access to all the jobs. Taxes were not high. The U.S had the chance to know a great increase of their population (In 1860 the population is 8 times greater than the one of 1790). Food is easy to find, and the jobs are abundant. The lack and the high price of the labour, partly explain the maintenance of slavery, and made immigration necessary. On the economic point of view, independence had made the situation better because the old colonies stayed dependent upon Europe and mainly England, but in fact, the chances and advantages of the Americans were considerably high: virgin land with tremendous amount of resources.

All kinds of transports developed (roads, canals,) for example: the canal Erié built up in 1825 permitted to reduce 90% the price of transportation of the ton of their merchandise between Buffalo and New York. The same year, steam boats enabled to transport a better market at a better price. In 1830, the way up of the Mississippi, from New Orleans to Luisville, did not necessitate 4 months anymore, but only 8 days. Also the railroads were developed and with the telegraph, the railroads consolidated the political unity of the Union.

The development of this new country is astonishing: with the republicans another good point is achieved: the decrease of the taxes, and the adoption of the universal suffrage (everybody is allowed to vote).

When the nationalism spirit succeed against the English, literature will reflect the American power but will not be strong enough to exceed the difficulties between the North and the South. The differences of interests were the following: the South reproached to the North the customs tariffs, the monetary political. The North considered the economy of the South as out of date, a dead weight which slowed down the course of history; the incompatibility of temperament and a common hate. The reasons of this divorce are of course as well the problem of slavery. For the South, slavery was essential for their life style: slaves do not cost anything except the food and the surveillance. The North considered slavery as a shameful act. The expansion to the West made worse the conflict between the North and the South on the problem if the new States added in the Union will become states with or without slaves starting in 1850. The abolitionists, inspired by the Quakers made a huge propaganda which increased the number of the abolitionists. Also, writers like Beecher-Stowe's book "Uncle Tom's Cabin" motivated many readers. The Dread Scott's affair as well as John Brown's affair stirred up the public opinion on both sides. In 1860 Abraham Lincoln is elected president and will face opposition with the divided nation. For the South this election is a declaration of war, he secedes and engages the hostility. The Civil War happened as a result of a divorce. And this divorce could have been avoided. The South did not seem to weight a lot in front of the North agricultural and industrial made of 22 millions habitants. But the South had professionals officers, and the war lasted for years with more than 100 battles and 600 000 killed. The Southerners felt anger which divided the South from the North for years. The Civil War brought so many ruins, but the Union was saved, and the thirteen amendment of the Constitution abolished slavery.

Causes of The First World War

The first World war bought about a lot of surprise and went on for so much longer than people thought, but there were so many different reasons for the happening of this war, that it should have been foreseen earlier. Some were short-term affects and others were long term. Two alliances - The Triple Alliance (Germany, Italy and Austria-Hungary) and The Triple Entente (Great Britain, Russia and France) fought, but why were these countries with and against each other? These points shall be covered and in this essay I shall also compare the long-term and short-term happenings.

I find that the trigger of World War|would be the event that occurred on the 28th June 1914. Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne and wife Sophie [who was expecting her fourth] were assassinated. He - shot in the neck and dead some tenminutes later and she in the stomach killing both foetus and mother almost immediately. It was the marriage anniversary for the Archduke and his spouse who were celebrating fourteen years of marital bliss. Gavrilo Princip, member of the anonymous terrorist group - The Black Hand and Bosnian Serb, took the plunge and shot twice at point blanc range from outside a sandwich bar while the archduke’s driver took a wrong turn and got the gears jammed. Coincidence? We will never know, but for a long time, Austria-Hungary and Serbia had disliked each other because Serbia, like Bosnia, wanted to be free from the rule of the Austro-Hungarian empire, they wanted independence. It was because of this that Austria-Hungary was happy to have the chance and blamed Serbia for what had happened to the couple, this was the escalation, using what had happened on the 28th as an excuse, a month later (the 28th July) Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. Belgrade [the capital] was attacked - the first fighting.

On the 29th July, the Russian army prepared to help defend Serbia against the Austro-Hungarian attack but on the 30th July, Russia received a message from Germany ordering it not to help Serbia, Russia ignored the message.

On the 1st August 1914, Germany avowed war on Russia and also began moving its army towards France and Belgium. On the 2nd August, the French army was put on war alert, ready to fight any German invasion. The French army was lined up roughly around the border between France and Germany. On the 3rd and 4th August, Germany declared war on France, but in order to avoid the French army, Germany invaded a disengaged Belgium to reach France, this was a clever a idea but the wrong idea, Britain was now involved. Britain instructed Germany to leave Belgium alone, when Germany refused, Britain professed war. The war officially started and the picture finally completed on August 6th 1914 when Austria-Hungary declared war on Russia. The countries separately becoming involved and anything ensuing in the year 1914 were all short term reasons for the war starting.

For a while before the war jigsaw began to make sense, Germany and Britain had been competing to have the most powerful navy in the world, this created tension in Europe. This was a long-term cause of the first world war and this conflict was unpleasant between the two countries. The alliance systems in actual created a lot of mistrust and suspicion and the fact that they were also set up to prevent war meant that any major political disagreements would inevitably lead to a large rather than a small conflict.

There was colonial rivalry: Germany was envious of the empires made by Britain and France, there were also economic disputes between Britain and Germany, Britain’s lead in world production was being eroded by Germany (and the USA.) The French were very distrustful of the Germans as a result of the war in 1870-1871 that the Germans had won.

There was a strong desire for independence. many people in Europe lived in countries that were part of empires. They didn't all like being ruled by people with different languages and religions and this led to conflicts that could (and did) involve other nations. There was also the matter subject to nationalism.

The fears, ambitions and jealousy between the separate countries had been going on long before 1914 and were all long-term causes of the first world war, it was (as aforementioned) the assassination in Sarajevo that escalated out of the control, it was as though the entire war was a large bonfire, the long-term causes were the sticks in the pile, and the short-term causes were the sparks that lighted the fire, without the stick (long-term causes) there would be nothing to light and the arrangement wouldn’t work, but without the sparks, there is no bonfire!

In conclusion to what I have stated, I believe that the main cause of the war was the incident that happened on the 28th June 1914 but the long-term causes were important in contribution to wards the warfare as well, the recent events and the previous fitted together as a jigsaw to create what we remember at 11:00am on the 11th of November (the eleventh month.)

by ze_sugar_plum_fairy at hotmail dot com

Causes Of World War One

World War 1 was triggered by many events leading to war such as Franz Ferdinand the archduke of Austria, the growth of M.A.I.N and, all these events and the people involved all contributed to the causes of World War 1.

Many events contributed to the causes World War 1 but one of the major events that caused World War 1Such as in June 28th 1914 Franz Ferdinand; France Ferdinand was the archduke of Austria and he plays a major role in the causes of World War 1. The reason why Franz Ferdinand plays a big role in the causes of World War 1 is because Franz Ferdinand was a threat to a terrorist group called the “black hand” from Serbia, the person who controlled the “black hand” was a colonel named Dragutin Dimitrijevic and the reason why Franz was a big threat to the terrorist group is because Dragutin Dimitrijevic was worried that Ferdinand's plans to grant concessions to the South Slavs to make an independent Serbian state would be more difficult to achieve, so Dragutin send three members of “Black hand” to assassinate Franz Ferdinand. The assassination of Franz Ferdinand was a great success and a victory to Dragutin and because of this Austria demanded revenge, so the Austrians declared war against Serbia by joining alliance with Germany and Hungary, this made it more complicated for the British army with an additional country as an enemy Austria and also made it more difficult for the Germans because Austria has made alliance with Germany meaning Germany has to fight Serbia as well and because of these events this is one of the causes of World War 1.

Another factor that caused World War 1 was M.A.I.N., Militarism, Alliance, Imperialism and Nationalism. Militarism was a cause of world war one because the British Empire had a very strong Navy and Germany also wanted a great navy and France and Germany were competing for a great Army and other countries and nations were to do the same as them. Alliance was another cause of World War 1 because countries all around Europe wanted to make an alliance to countries around them because if they are at war with another country the allies have to help them in the war as well. This is just what happened when Austria-Hungary went into war against Serbia. Also in the summer of 1914 there were two made alliance one was the triple alliance which had Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy and the other was the triple entente which contained Britain, France, and Russia. Also another cause was Imperialism which was that European countries would rule smaller countries this was called colonies and competed with one another to reach much more colonies, by then colonies were now to be called imperialism. Both Britain and France had many colonies in Asia and Africa now and Germany and Italy wanted to have colonial empire too. The last part of M.A.I.N was Nationalism was include when political conflicts, the causes of the which include Nationalism-Patriotism led European nation competed to have the largest army and navy or greatest industry development which made counties in Europe push themselves to make more resources to build a better colony or large army which would lead to more conflict to cause world war one.

by Anonymous Student

War is Inevitable

Throughout the history of mankind, wars and conflicts had arisen numerous times among all civilizations. Be it the huge Chinese Empire, the British Empire or the Spainish Empire, armed conflicts had always flared up no matter what forms of government, democratic or a dictatorship, a country belongs to. Strangely, it is only in humans do we see such large-scale slaughtering of each other. The reason for this is because we are sociable organisms and live in groups instead of individually. Humans also create distinctions within themselves and this is the origin of inequality. Being unequal, humans fight and reign supreme over each other on the basis that they are different. Humans also fight over resources with one another. Therefore, due to these reasons, war is inevitable among humans.

Think back ten thousand years ago and you would find mankind still in a primitive state. They are unable to comprehend terms such as ‘language’, ‘town’, ‘agriculture’ or ‘government’. This time period was what Jean-Jacques Rousseau would have called the ‘natural state’ of humans in which the concept of society did not exist. Humans in that time period had to fend for themselves and only the strongest would survive. In this state, war could not have developed due to the fact that humans could only satisfy their basic needs and act according to their instincts. However, when humans start to gather to form towns and later, cities, there was a sharp increase in the amount of violence occurring within and between these settlements. This is due to the appearance of greed and selfishness in humans because they no longer had to meet their needs themselves. They are able to obtain clothes, food, and house from various merchants and other types of professions. Quarrels between the residents of the villages could turn into riots and eventually, war. This is only possible owing to the formation of social association among humans. War is the result of society and it could occur in any social association. In the ‘natural state’, grudges can only last for as long as it takes an organism to meet its basic living requirements. However, grudges in society can leave a deep imprint on both sides of the conflicts (e.g. U.S. vs. Soviet Union) lasting decades or even centuries long. An individual is not capable of starting a war but a collective group of people such as those present in nations have the power and influence to cause large-scale conflicts. Since all humans presently live in societies, war is not preventable because society is the origin of all wars.

With the formation of society come fractions and differences among humans. This will result in prejudice, discrimination and violence. Inequality among humans will cause discord and war with one another. The source and origin of inequality resides in the very characteristics that defines and distinguishes us as a human. The amount of diversity and distinction exists more in humans than any other species. Nationality, gender, race, social status are just some of the many things that are attributed to humans. All of this has helped each human being to be unique but it has also caused segregation and groups to form. In the past, nations had been created or destroyed by those whose citizens were different from them in respect to religion, culture and languages. Countries such as Britain (Protestants) and France (Catholics) had fought each other on numerous occasions during their history. Humans instinctively recognize our close blood relations as kin, while differentiating them from others. When humans start to live close together, ‘kin’ would extend to areas such as sharing a common language or religion. We can all learn from history the various mass killings or the horrific genocides that occurred during wartime. Many of these genocides happened because of the simple reason that the two conflicting sides had different beliefs and cultural practices. The Bosnia war in Yugoslavia, the genocide in Rwanda, the Nazi persecution of Jews and the massacre of ethnic Chinese by Japanese forces in WWII illustrated my points clearly. The very attributes that made us human beings had brought pain and suffering onto countless people.

Despite the benefits of society and the characteristics that labeled us as separate individuals, humans still requires the basic items that can only be obtained from nature. Among these things includes food, water, oil etc. These natural resources assisted in the growth of the human civilization and we would not be present today had these necessities not been present. Regardless of large quantity, there is a limit to the amount of natural resources that are present at any given time. By considering how much each human being consumes everyday and the enormous population; it is no wonder that global warming is taking place at an ever-increasing rate. One raises the question of how the resources should be distributed amongst the 180+ nations around the world. Unfortunately, there are only limited resources available and war is the only solution to decide who gets them. Many nations had fought over control of natural resources and draws up boundaries for their water channels, forests and oil fields. The Iraq invasion of Kuwait and the aggressive policies of the U.S. to meet its demand for oil had gave rise to various conflicts centered in the Middle East. Nations worldwide had often fought over mineral ores and in some extreme cases in some African nations, even water. Technology has also further enhanced the amount and ways that resources are found and harnessed. From simple tools such as a plow to high tech computers, these technological equipments had brought agriculture and industrialization to humans. This has a dramatic increase in the amount of valuable output from lands and other natural resources. In spite of these developments, humans consumed limited resources at a faster rate than the environment that could renew it. Thus, war is the only way to determine who could acquire these precious resources.

Some people argue that war is preventable because the choice to go to war lies in our own hands and many people does not want to go to war. However, as mentioned in the above stated arguments, that choice lies beyond the hands of an individual. The need for living necessities such as food and water and our instinctive tendency to be people similar to us had drove us closer to war. Of course, as civilized individuals, we would rather mediate and reach a decision by consensus. In any nation, the general will and interest of the people have always been directed towards the good and peace. However, this general will is fallible and it could be distorted and twisted in accordance to the interests of an individual or a group of people. It is very easy to broadcast propaganda and radical ideas through the media to influence and ‘brainwashed’ the way a citizen thinks. This was seen commonly in Nazi Germany in WWII and in the Soviet Union during the cold war. Once again, spreading propaganda through the media (e.g. newspaper, radio etc.) is only possible as a result of the close association that humans had established for each other in the ‘civilized state’. Despite the efforts of peace-loving groups such as the anti-war demonstrations around the world, they are not capable of challenging the aggressive policies and dictators of nations around the world. Despite the efforts to stop racial discrimination and other forms of bias, we have seen recently an increase in the number of racial violence in the world. Even in a peacekeeping nation such as Canada, it had been plagued with violence such as ‘the Bloody Sunday’, ‘The FLQ crisis in 1970’ and participations in the world wars, the Korean war and the Iraq war. For the people who think that war is preventable, let it be known to them that there is not a single country in the world that did not go to war.

Try as we may, there are no solutions to prevent war erupting in the human race. We could postpone it, mediate it, or discuss alternatives to war, but in the end, war would still fall on our heads. Society is the cause of it and it does not seem realistic that we would return to the ‘natural state’. The differences among humans such as race or religion would only quicken the pace of war from happening. Technology and competition for resources only reinforces my thesis and arguments further. At the present moment, we should continue to inform and educate ourselves to prepare for the time when the inevitable arrives.

by Anonymous Student

Causes of World War 1

Although there were many reasons the European Nations first broke out in war, the fighting of Austria-Hungary and Serbia contributed to the expansion of the war. This war was resulted by the aggression of European countries that strived to be the best. These country’s nationalism, militarism, imperialism and alliances escalated into the spreading of war. (The Great War 1)

Imperialism was at the hands of Germany during the outbreak of war. Germany was not far-gone when it came to taking over territories in Africa. They had to compete against France and Great Britain to gain control of this territory. This competition spelled out war between these European countries. Germany’s intent here was to better their own country, and prove that their country was better than all the rest. The extreme nationalism led European nations to compete for the largest army and navy, or for the greatest industrial development. This proves that not only does Germany use imperialism, but they use nationalism as well. Territorial disputes were an ongoing problem for many European countries. The leaders of these countries always wanted more land to make them better than all the rest, but the leaders did not know who owned this land because it was always being taken. As we know, Germany declares war on France on August 3rd, 1914 claiming that France came upon their territory. Once this happened, many other countries got involved. Once Germany declared war on France, they moved into Belgium where they took over. Great Britain sent an ultimatum to Germany stating if they didn’t withdraw from Belgium, they would have to enter the war. (Germany during World War One 3)

In 1879, Germany and Austria-Hungary formed a Dual Alliance. In 1882 this became the Triple Alliance when Italy joined in. Each country established that they would assist one another if attacked by either France or Russia. Accepting Italy was because they did not want Italy choosing sides with Russia. Austria-Hungary and Russia are not the greatest of friends after an alliance with them broke apart in the Balkans. The alliance caused a major stir up when each country had a treaty with another country. Since Germany declared war on Russia, France had to come in and defend Russia because a treaty bound them together. Germany was to go through Belgium to get to France, and since Britain was allied to France, Britain had to not only defend France, but also provide assistance for Belgium. These alliances caused for the confusion between all of the countries, because nobody knew what to do and where to go. To make matters worse, and mix up the alliances, Italy was committed to defend Germany and Austria-Hungary only I the event of a defensive war. Offended by the actions of Germany and Austria-Hungary, Italy proposed a policy of neutrality. The next year in 1915, Italy joined back into the mess siding with the Allies! Italy is pretty much backstabbing her two former allies, Germany and Austria-Hungary. (Triple Alliance 4) (The Causes of World War One 3,4,5)

Besides nationalism and imperialism, another cause to the war originated in the Balkans. The Balkans is the historic name given to the states in southeastern Europe. Only five states in the Balkans were free from being ruled by Turkey. The people that lived in these areas were considered Slavs. Once Turkey stopped ruling these five states, they wanted to save the remaining states under Turkish rule. The movement was called the Pan-Slavism movement. This movement wanted to unite all of the Slavs including Russia, and break down Turkey and Austria-Hungary. Because Austria wanted to disable the movements of Slavs, they annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina. These two countries had a large population of Serbs, which are also Slavs. Because the Slavs got so furious of the Austria-Hungarian actions, another cause to the outbreak of war erupted. (The Causes of WW1 5)

During this time there was a constant battle between Britain and Germany for the best Navy in Europe. The constant battling led to a fierce rivalry between Britain and Germany. The British Empire spanned across more than 11,400,000 square miles of land, making it the largest empire in the whole world. A very large navy of many modern battleships and crusisers protected them all. However by 1914, Britain was not the leader in the navy department. The German Navy was the biggest threat to Britain after they formed the Triple Alliance. Because both France and Britain felt threatened by Germany and the Triple Alliance, they formed the Triple Entente including Russia. Russia joined in because they too felt threatened by the Triple Alliance. The formation of the Triple Entente

by nicklax871 at aim dot com

Friday, March 28, 2008

Owen's War Poetry

Owen's War Poetry

Treaty of Versailles

Treaty of Versailles

Vietnam Essay Public Opinion the US withdrawal

Vietnam Essay Public Opinion the US withdrawal

The First and Second World Wars as Global Conflict

The First and Second World Wars as Global Conflict

humanslife war religion and the personality

humanslife war religion and the personality

Devils nest Ratko Mladic wanted for war crimes

Devils nest Ratko Mladic wanted for war crimes

Civil War Era

Civil War Era

War Brings out the Best and Worst

War Brings out the Best and Worst

The Civil War:(The Crisis of War)

The Civil War:(The Crisis of War)

Causes of The First World War

Causes of The First World War

Causes Of World War One

Causes Of World War One

War is Inevitable

War is Inevitable

Causes of World War 1

Causes of World War 1

Free Essay website

Readers

Categories

Counter

Feed

Directories