Battles

The Battle of Stalingrad was the bloodiest battle in the Second World War and marked one of its few major turning points. It was certainly the most decisive battle in the “Great Patriotic War” or the Second World War on the Eastern front. The battle lasted from 13 September 1942 until the final German surrender on 2 February 1943. A few months earlier, the Russian Red Army seemed to be on the verge of complete defeat and Hitler’s evil war machine seemed irresistible.

Though the German retreat from Moscow nine months earlier brought a much needed respite to the Russians, it did not bring any real hope. At Stalingrad, however, the tide turned dramatically. In the titanic struggle that raged on the shores of the River Volga, the German Wehrmacht faced a crushing and humiliating defeat from which it never managed to recover. To the Germans, Stalingrad was the single most catastrophic defeat ever, surpassing the annihilation of Prussian Army in the hands of Napoleon at Jena-Auerstadt in 1806.

To the Russians, it was more than their greatest battle victory ever, it represented a great symbol of hope, the triumph of Russian spirit over the most gruesome adversity that had fallen on them since the German invasion in June 1941. The War on the Eastern Front was a particularly brutal and destructive war, even by Second World War standards, unprecedented in its ferocity and lack of any moral constraint. This barbarized warfare exacted an immense death toll of 27-28 million people on the Soviet side, a majority of them being civilians.

According to one estimate, each minute of this war cost 9-10 lives, each hour 587, each day 14,000 for a total of 1,418 days. The unleashing of the “naked power of evil” that Hitler stood for resulted in untold pain and inconsolable grief for the people of Soviet Union, but it also provoked their indomitable fighting spirit that eventually led them to a great triumph. That fighting spirit fully asserted itself at Stalingrad. However, more than Russian valor, the chief cause for the Russian victory at Stalin was Hitler’s ineptness.

Stalin – the biggest enemy of the Red Army

In the summer of 1941, the Soviet Red Army was the largest in the world, but nowhere close to being the mightiest. It had significant weaknesses. Just a year or two earlier it had been humiliated by the Finnish army in the Russo-Finnish War. The chief reason for the debilitated condition of the Red Army was the ruthless purging undertaken by Stalin in late 1930s. A devastatingly large number of officers (estimated around 35,000), many of them belonging to the top echelons, were killed.

Only a handful of capable commanders such as Zhukov, Rokossovsky, Chuikov, Malinovsky and Eremenko were spared to execute the Great Patriotic War. Thus weakened, the Soviet army initially presented no effective opposition to the German onslaught in mid-1941. The Germans considered the Red army ill-suited to modern, mechanized warfare, so much so that Hitler did not think twice about opening a major offensive in the Eastern Front while simultaneously engaged on the Western Front with England and the Allies.

The Red Army was in fact very well equipped, but was reeling under the loss of most of its experienced and far-sighted leaders in the Great Purge (Zaloga & Volstad 3). Added to the continuing executions, there was paralyzing political interference. As a result of which, though it was well known that German army was headed towards Moscow, the Red Army was surprisingly unprepared. Its preparedness was indeed inexplicably but deliberately mitigated through political directives from Stalin. The invasion order of Hitler’s Directive No.

21, of 18 December 1940 decreed Operation Barbarossa, which was ‘to crush Soviet Russia in a rapid campaign’. Hitler intended for the Soviet Union to be destroyed and replaced by a group of colonies that would function under the Third Reich (Hoyt 35). By mid-May of 1941, Germany was all set to launch a vicious attack on the Soviet soil. The growing German deployments along the western borders of the Soviet Union were apparent, yet not until June 21, just one day before the actual German invasion commenced, were the border military districts alerted (Horner & Jukes 24).

Launched on 22 June 1941, Operation Barbarossa was the largest single military operation of all time. The number of troops involved, the scale of the operations, and the cruelty of German soldiers were all of appalling proportions. At the outset of the Great Patriotic War, the Soviet military were hopelessly unprepared for the chaos and turmoil of war. The ruthless speed of the German advance struck fear and panic in the Soviet people.

The road to Stalingrad

The Nazi army swiftly conquered vast areas of territory, killing and capturing hundreds of thousands of troops, pillaging, plundering and massacring civilian populations.

The Soviets retreated, and managed to move most of their heavy industry away from the front line, re-establishing it in more remote areas. Smolensk and Kiev fell in September. Leningrad was under siege. Over one million people died in Leningrad due to starvation and cold. The Germans were unstoppable; by October, they seemed to have broken their adversary on the Eastern Front. The German Army marched relentlessly on the road to Moscow, blazing a trail of destruction, murder and mayhem on its path. Hitler proudly declared, “The enemy has been routed and will never regain his strength” (Gilbert 242).

But Russia would not give up so easily. As the extent and reality of the German atrocities became widely known throughout Russia, the will to resist stiffened and the “patriotic war” became in reality a ‘people’s war’, but the cost to soldier and civilian alike was horrendous. ((Erickson & Erickson 72). As winter set in, tenacious defense prevented the Germans from capturing Moscow. However, the Russians found a surprising ally. The Germany army was ill-equipped to withstand the freezing severity of the Russian winter and was considerably weakened.

The Soviets launched their first counter-attack on December 11, 1941. However, almost a year had to pass before the tide began to turn during the second phase of the Great Patriotic War. With the 1942-43 winter struggle at Stalingrad (along with the crushed German summer offensive at Kursk in 1943), the Soviet Union would consolidate its position and stand as a formidable adversary. The Battle of Stalingrad would mark the end of the German advance, and Soviet reinforcements in great numbers would gradually push the German armies back. 3. Stalingrad in 1941: a prime objective

Stalingrad, originally knownn as Tsaritsyn, had been a prosperous trading town on the Volga during the 19th century. During the Russian Civil War of 1918-21, the Reds had triumphed decisively at Tsaritsyn. Though Stalin’s contribution to the Reds’ success was not very significant, Stalin named the city after himself when he achieved supreme power in 1925. Subsequently, Stalin’s role in the victory of 1920 was enhanced through propaganda, and soon it was Stalin was officially recognized for his crucial role in both the October Revolution of 1917 and triumph of 1927.

Thus, Stalingrad came to be strongly associated with Stalin and Russian Revolution, a fact that added an important psychological dimension in showdown between Hitler’s and Stalin’s forces in the battle of Stalingrad. By 1941, Stalingrad was a city of 600,000 people. It had played an important role in Stalin’s industrial drive of the 1930s and is location on the Volga ensured that it was a significant player in the Soviet war economy. Hitler had set his sight on Stalingrad because it was a valuable political, economic, communications and psychological objective.

From the Soviet perspective, Stalingrad was important not only as a major industrial center but also as the major connecting point to any operations in the Caucasus.

Hitler – the Red Army’s biggest ally

The disaster for Germans at Stalingrad did not bring about immediate defeat of Germany, but, after February, 1943, few German officers genuinely believed in victory. The confidence of Hitler himself could not be shaken so easily, of course, one would think. The defeat at Stalingrad drastically widened the rupture of trust between Hitler and the army high command, which began at the battle of Moscow in December 1941.

The German defeat at Stalingrad in February 1943 was a heavy psychological blow to the Wehrmacht and to the Germany people who were accustomed to victory. It raised the first widespread doubts about Hitler’s leadership and the ability of Germany to win the war. After Stalingrad, Hitler himself was rarely seen in public and his outward behavior became relatively muted. In the mid-1942 the Germany army had already seemed to be in a more subdued condition as compared to its irrepressible aggressiveness an year ago.

The new Fall Blau (Case Blue) offensive was intended to be a resumption of the stalled invasion of Russia. Despite Hitler’s optimism, the 1941 Campaign — which opened along a 2,000 kilometer front and involved 148 combat divisions — failed to shatter Russia “to its roots with one blow. “… The summer campaign of 1942, although still immense, was necessarily less ambitious. (Hayward 7) Overriding his generals, Hitler gave the offensive two separate objectives on 90-degree divergent axes — the Caucasus oilfields and the Volga crossing at Stalingrad.

Fall Blau was deeply flawed by ambiguity of strategic aim. Further, Hitler’s amateurish attempts to control the deployment of his forces and his opportunistic changes of mind played an important part in compromising the campaign. For Hitler, Stalingrad had become the main objective of German effort; it was an obsession. Hitler was an amateurish strategist with an unshakeable faith in his own genius, which no facts from the real world could really affect. His campaigns were foredoomed by grand-strategic misjudgment, a prime example of which is his ‘no retreat’ policy in Russian from Stalingrad to Berlin.

In Hitler’s view the summer offensive of 1942 should bring about a final decision in the Russian campaign with the capture of Stalingrad on the Volga and Astrakhan on the Caspian Sea, and by occupying the oilfields in the Caucasus. The outskirts of Stalingrad were reached in August 1942, with the Germany forces already weakened, but the battle stuck in street and house-to-house fighting. Hitler’s front commanders did realize how much of a gamble the offensives towards Stalingrad and the Caucasus were.

They harbored fears about the strengths of the Russian reserves, and the weakness of the diverging German thrusts, dependent as they were for flank protection on the ill-equipped armies of Hungary, Italy and Romania. Most of them felt that Hitler’s tendency to underestimate the Russians was becoming dangerous. His leadership displayed a total lack of any understanding of the command machinery and its function. Colonel-General von Kleist warned Hitler against using the Hungarians, Italians and Romanians as flank protectors for the 6th Army during its struggle for Stalingrad, but the Fuhrer would not listen.

The Stalingrad catastrophe – a German perspective

The battle at Stalingrad was a vicious, close-quarter, street fighting. The 6th Army, commanded by Paulus, slogged on street by street, its flank protection entrusted by Hitler to Romanian troops. Paulus’s units were decimated at the rate of 20,000 casualties a week. By the end of October, however, only one tenth of Stalingrad still held out, in the north of the city. But the balance of strength was changing. The earlier German superiority had gone. Stalingrad was the first priority for Russian reserves.

Sufficient Russian troops were sent into the city to keep the fight going on there. As more Soviet troops were sent into the city, the fighting began to be a block-by-block slogging match, moving back and forth in bloody fighting. Heavy losses for both sides characterized the street fighting. In early November, the winter came. The temperatures would soon reach thirty below zero. In the middle of that month, Hitler sent Paulus a message urging one last effort to complete the capture of Stalingrad. By mid-November the Russians were strong enough to undertake a major offensive.

They had eleven armies, several mechanized, cavalry and tank corps, 900 tanks, 1,115 aircraft for the offensive. The were all set to destroy the German forces at Stalingrad (Hoyt 160). Generals Zhukov and Chuikov directed the defense of Stalingrad. Eremenko was also sent to command the Stalingrad front. Hitler staked more and more on Stalingrad’s capture, but Chuikov’s 62 Army refused to yield. On 19 November 1942, the Russian counter-strike forces under Zhukov smashed through the Romanians and on 22 November completed their encirclement of Paulus’s 6th Army.

On November 23 Moscow announced triumphantly that Russian forces had a great victory in the bend of the Don, and that the Germans were now entrapped in Stalingrad. That news convulsed the world… By November 28 the iron ring around Stalingrad had closed. (Hoyt 205) This was when a new deteriorating phase opened in Hitler’s relations with his generals — that of his utter refusal to face the realities of defeat, of inferior sources, and of the limits to even the German Soldier’s powers of endurance and fighting skill.

Hitler saw himself as an infallible military genius and blamed the incompetence and lack of willpower of his generals, or their disloyalty to their fuehrer, for all the failures of the German army on its bitter path back to Berlin in the aftermath of Stalingrad. The Russian attacks fell on weakly held sectors north and south of the city, manned mainly by Romanian forces in the north and by a mixture of further Romanians and units of the 4th Panzer Army in the south. The Russian plan was simply to encircle all of the German forces in the Stalingrad area.

The Russians soon broke through the thin defenses, particularly in the north. The 6th Army at Stalingrad was in serious danger. Decisive action at that time could have saved the situation for the Germans, however. If some units were sent north and south to hold the Russians while the bulk of the 6th army withdrew from the ruins of Stalingrad, it would have been saved. The catastrophe that finally overtook German army at Stalingrad in February 1943 stemmed largely from Hitler’s refusal to sanction an early break-out before the Russian ring could be consolidated.

Hitler ordered Paulus and his men to remain in Stalingrad as a forward ‘fortress’ until the following spring. When the Russians closed the ring on 23 November, Paulus was cut off. General von Seydlitz-Kurzbach, the most senior of the corps commanders at Stalingrad, urged Paulus to withdraw without delay before escape became impossible. But Paulus, obedient to his Fuehrer, refused to listen to him. From then on the Germans descended into catastrophe slowly. On January 8 1943 the Russians sent Paulus an ultimatum, offering the alternative of honorable surrender or complete annihilation.

Consulting Hitler, Paulus refused to surrender again. The Russians continued their attack. They advanced from west to east, pressing the Germans back into the city. They captured half of the pocked in the first week and then again paused to demand surrender. Again, Paulus consulted Hitler and refused. As long as there was still some hope for at least part of 6th Army breaking out, von Manstein, who commanded the relief efforts, supported Hitler in insisting that Paulus must continue to resist.

By 22 January, when the Russians had captured 6th Army’s only remaining airfield, Manstein supported Paulus’s request for permission to surrender, which Hitler refused. By the end of the month, it was nearly all over for Germans. Only a few units held out until February 1. On the 2 February 1943, the momentous battle of Stalingrad came to an end.

References

Erickson, John & Erickson, Ljubica. “Hitler Versus Stalin: The Second World War on the Eastern Front in Photographs. ” London : Carlton Books, 2004.

Gilbert, Martin. “The Second World War: A Complete History.” New York : Henry Holt and Company, 1989.

Hayward, Joel S. A. “Stopped at Stalingrad: The Luftwaffe and Hitler’s Defeat in the East, 1942-1943. ” Lawrence, KS : University of Kansas Press, 2001.

Horner, D. M. & Jukes, Geoffrey. “The Second World War (5) The Eastern Front 1941-1945. ” Oxford : Osprey Publishing, 2002.

Hoyt, Edwin P. “199 Days: The Battle for Stalingrad. ” New York : Forge Books, 1993.

Zaloga, Steven & Volstad, Ronald. “The Red Army of the Great Patriotic War 1941-45” (Men-at-Arms). Oxford : Osprey Publishing, 1984.

Remember when Grandpa used to tell stories of how gasoline cost $0. 10 a gallon when he first started driving? We laughed at the thought of anything costing less than a dollar, but with today’s national average for gas sitting at $3. 00 a gallon, the 300% price increase is no laughing matter (Benton, 2007).

If the price for gas continues to increase at the rate it is now, our children will be the one’s finding humor in our silly rants of paying $90. 00 to fill our SUV tanks. Gas hikes and price gouging are issues that most Americans would rather not be associated with.

Nevertheless, we all still have jobs to go to and errands to run. So, while some argue that the price increases are just a part of inflation, there are more arguing that gas pricing is a game of politics. Either way, we all will continue to pay what we have to go get from point A to point B. Targeting when gas hikes became such a hot issue dates back to the infamous “Katrina” disaster in August of 2005. In addition to the catastrophic storm, many claim that politics also play a part in price determination.

Whatever the reason, a solution must be sought. Thankfully, there are a few solution-seekers out there who are actively searching for ways to make living in the days of $3. 00 plus per gallon a bit more tolerable, albeit still an, ah-hem, unpleasant issue. Collaborations between companies, innovations in vehicles, and vehicle purchasing incentives are all ways businesses are working together to keep the bitterness at bay. Nevertheless, many of us won’t be happy until we are completely dependent on our own resources for the precious commodity.

So, while we will never see the same prices Grandpa paid for gasoline in our lifetime, reviewing the causes and finding solutions are the only ways we will avoid taking out a second mortgage just to put gas in the cars. Immediately after Hurricane Katrina, Americans panicked, and fearful gas retailers began a practice that was, for the most part, unheard of. Lines of gasoline-starved automobiles Battle at the Pumps 3 parked themselves at gas pumps, struggling to get every last drop of gas available before it was “all gone”.

Rumors of depleted gas barrel supply sent small town gasoline retailers, as well as few big city retailers into gouging mode. Within hours, prices went from $2. 00 to just over $3. 00 a gallon in states such as Texas and Louisiana, the states closest to the disaster (AP, 2005). Another spark contributing to the gas fire blazing at the pumps is the claim that election years tend to send gas prices into a rollercoaster pattern: down before elections, and up after elections. In fact, Joe Benton of ConsumerAffairs. com writes that pre-election gas prices averaged $2.

50 a gallon, and that gas prices “are sure to rise again…right after the midterm elections” (2006). Mr. Benton was correct. Just after the elections the national average for gas prices increased 12. 5 cents in December, and has steadily continued to rise. Though the decrease is unexplainable, rest assured that the elections have nothing to do with it. If they were the reason for the decreased gas prices, however, most Americans would vie for monthly elections! Unfortunately, for the disgruntled, the days paying less than $2. 00 a gallon for gasoline are long gone.

In fact, we drivers, bus riders, airline passengers and taxi goers must continue the suffrage, as melees to locate the best gas source is continued. Until one is found, companies, manufacturers and even the government are giving a go at attempts to soften the blows of outrageously priced “petro”. The battle of fair gas prices has produced an effort among many to seek ways around getting hosed at the pump. For example, John Wakefield of Murphy Oil Corporation, states that Murphy USA’s goal is to “be a low cost provider to the communities [they] serve” (2006).

To comply with this statement, Murphy USA has collaborated with discount retailer, Wal-Mart, in order to offer a minimum of a three-cent discount for those who purchase fuel with a Wal-Mart gift card. This allows Murphy USA to maintain its position in offering a below average price for Battle at the Pumps 4 gasoline throughout the nation (Wakefield, 2006). Additionally, manufacturers, such as Ford and Chevy, have joined in the labors of providing an alternative for gas guzzling vehicles. Their answer to the gas price dilemma has been to increase promotion of hybrid and flex-fuel vehicles.

Hybrid vehicles, although in existence for many years, have become a popular choice for saving dollars at the pump, as have flex-fuel vehicles. Hybrid vehicles combine both the gasoline-powered and electric powered sources under the hood in order to increase the distance between fill-ups, which, in turn, saves one from filling up as often as with a strictly gas-powered vehicle (Layton, 2007) Similarly, flex-fuel vehicles (FFV), which have been around for a number of years as well, are also designed to combine power sources in order save on gasoline usage.

In the FFV case, a combination of gasoline and E85 fuel work together to increase the number of miles driven between fill-ups, resulting in dollars saved (USDoE, 2007). The down side to both types of vehicles, however, is that they both cost a pretty penny, which brings us back to where we started: angry about spending mega-bucks just to drive. On the contrary, there is an up-side to the hybrid vehicle: The government offers a tax credit to those who purchase a hybrid (USDoE, 2007).

That’s great…if you can afford the high price tag attached to the hybrid. But if you can’t, what else is the government doing to ensure that we don’t go bankrupt at the pumps? Though they sometimes seem like the bad guys, the government is making attempts to keep Americans from going into boxing matches with gas station attendants. Along with offering incentives to those who choose to finance or straight-out purchase hybrid vehicles, they are also looking out for the little people…those who can’t afford to pay the $4.

00 per gallon price tag that has become a frequenter of many gas stations across America post Katrina. Price gouging, or pricing above the market when demand increases, was a practice few were aware of before Battle at the Pump 5 August of 2005. However, when disaster struck, gas retailers took action, regardless of who it would affect. Soon, consumers were left with no where to turn and had no choice but to pay for overpriced fuel. Thankfully “Super Government” with its flowing red, white and blue cape came to our rescue, regulating pricing among gas retailers.

Although there is no law against price gouging, suspicious pricing will entail an investigation. In August 2005, the Energy Department created a hotline for people who fell victim to price gouging (Pope, 2005). Though efforts have been made, without a law to formally enforce a “no price gouging allowed” law, the problem, though not as wide spread as it had been initially, still exists. Gradually, as demand has continues to outweigh the supply of gasoline available, price gouging has sneakily made itself an accepted practice.

Investigations pending for suspected price gougers, the government is also seeking ways for America to become less dependent on international sources to keep America on the roads and in the air. As we wearily trudge to the pumps prepared to sacrifice our limbs just for a few gallons of gas, alternatives are being sought in order to use domestic sources for fuel. Biodiesel, a renewable fuel derived from sources such as vegetable oils and recycled restaurant greases, is just one of the alternative fuels being researched for common use among Americans.

In May of 2005, President Bush announced that efforts in making Biodiesel a main source for fuel were in the works, and estimated that by 2010, our country will become solely dependent on itself to fuel our vehicles, planes and trains (Bush, 2005). Upon receiving the news, farmers across America gained new hope in assisting in the effort to solve the ongoing problem of finding fuel alternatives. But one can’t help but wonder: What about those folks who can’t afford to transition into a vehicle that runs on the fuel alternatives soon to be available?

This is, indeed, has the Battle at the Pumps 6 potential to cripple hopes of becoming domestically dependent. Look around the next time you are on the road and you will see cars dating back to the early 60’s and beyond. For some people, driving these ‘vintage’ vehicles is a choice, but for others, it is unavoidable. It makes sense to assume that if we all had the money to drive a modern day vehicle, we would. But for those people who are stuck in that 1976 beat-up Nova, gas prices are still an issue that fuel alternatives won’t solve.

Needless to say, if President Bush is determined for America to depend on ourselves for fuel, tapping into the oil sources available on our own soil is required. This, however, presents another problem: Once the soil is broken, where do those who live on the land go? The vast lands of Alaska are notorious for housing thousands of acres of untapped oil reserves. However, on those acres, life exists. Caribou, bison, bears, elk and even people inhabit these lands. For years, these habitors have been the reason that the oil reserves Alaska has to offer have gone undisturbed.

Nature activists have long protested the spoiling of the majestic lands across the Artic coastline. For this, we have continued to rely on countries such as the Middle Eastern lands, for oil. Years of jokes, ridicule and mockery have been directed at presidents, past and present, as well as the government in general, for not making stronger efforts in aggressively utilizing this land, regardless of who is affected. With pretty much no choice, President Bush proposed a plan to break ground along the Artic coastline in order to make use of the untapped oil lying beneath the thick blankets of frozen land and fluffed snow (Rosen, 2003).

There continues, as expected, to be protests against the efforts, to include the protests of the Inupiat Eskimos, who strongly feel that none of the villages in this region of Alaska will support the proposed project. Ultimately, someone is going to be unhappy. Battle at the Pump 7 To those who have decided to put on party hats in celebration of the anticipated Alaskan oil tapping project: don’t mess up your ‘do’s just yet. The future in gas pricing will continue a long time pattern that Grandpa, Grandma, Dad and Mom have all had the unpleasant chore of experiencing.

The crystal ball of gas prices forecasts continued increases. While the rise may not be in fuel pricing, many will feel the impact of whatever solution is utilized to control this currently uncontrollable nuisance. While scientists are doing their best to resolve all issues with fuel alternatives, some alternatives, such as hydrogen, will pose an earlier predicted problem: older vehicles would have to undergo a complete replacement of their fueling systems. Alas, the efforts to seek out solutions must continue.

Though many efforts have been made to resolve the long time issue of inflated gas prices, as weeks go by, Americans resume the struggle with unfair gouging and seemingly unnecessary price hikes. It seems almost impossible to consider the alternatives of spending money on gas…heaven forbid we actually walk anywhere. Unfortunately, this horrible predicament we’ve found ourselves in appears to be without light. The only way to pleasantly endure the task of spending money is to…well…spend money.

To ensure that we survive this rain cloud, we can either cross our fingers for monthly elections (for the benefit of price drops), or we can purchase hybrid vehicles, stop in at the local Wal-Mart to purchase a gift cards, and gas up at Murphy USA. So, although solutions are being attempted, before you visit the gas pumps, be prepared to give up your first born child. References: 1. $3. 00 Gas Spreads to 7 States, D. C. (April 27, 2007) ConsumerAffairs. com: Benton, J. April 27, 2007. http://www. consumeraffairs. com/news04/2007/04/gas_prices141. html 2. Bush plans on drilling in untapped Alaskan oil reserve.

(Dec. 13, 2003) Reuters: Rosen, Y. April 27, 2007. http://www. commondreams. org/headlines03/1213-03. htm 3. Congress moves to outlaw gas gouging. (Sept. 19, 2005) SeattlePI. com: Pope, C. April 27, 2007. http://seattlepi. nwsource. com/national/241244_gouging19. html 4. Election loom; gas prices drop. (Sept. 13, 2006) ConsumerAffairs. com: Benton, J. April 27, 2007. http://www. consumeraffairs. com/news04/2006/09/big_oil. html 5. Flex-Fuel Vehicles. (2007) FuelEconomy. Gov: US Dept. of Energy (USDoE) April 27, 2007. http://www. fueleconomy. gov/feg/flextech. shtml 6.

Gov urges gas-price investigation. (Sept. 21, 2005) CBS News: Associated Press (AP). April 27, 2007 http://www. cbsnews. com/stories/2005/09/21/katrina/main870784. shtml 7. How hybrid cars work. (2007) HowStuffWorks, Inc. : Layton, J & Nice, K. April 27, 2007. http://auto. howstuffworks. com/hybrid-car. htm 8. Murphy USA Refining and Marketing. (2006) Murphy Oil Corporation: Wakefield, J. April 27, 2007. http://murphyusa. com/rm/retail/ 9. President discusses biodiesel. (2005) The White House: Bush, G. W. April 28, 2007. http://www. whitehouse. gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050516. html

The primary objective of the Allied Forces in Africa was to make the most of ready Allied forces in an operation equal with current capabilities to relieve pressure on the Russians. “Other objectives of the operation were to gain French Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia as a base for enlisting the French colonial empire in the war, to assist the British in destroying Axis forces threatening Egypt and Suez, to open the Mediterranean to Allied shipping, to shorten the route to the Far East, and to prepare the way for further operations against the European Axis.

The objectives of Operation Torch were to secure French North Africa and then strike Eastwards and take Rommel’s German Italian Panzer Army in the rear. 1 With 65,000 Allied troops and around 650 Warships under the overall command of Commander In Chief Eisenhower it was to strike in French Morocco and Algeria and later link up with Montgomery’s Eighth Army. The North African Campaign of the Second World War was extremely important because it was the only land-based fight that the Allies could take to the Axis powers from September 1940 until the invasion of Sicily in July 1943.

It was very important in strategic terms with the Mediterranean, and the British African Empire at stake. The North African Campaign drew Axis forces away from the Eastern Front and Fortress Europe (Axis defenses against Allied invasion of European mainland from Britain), but for the Allies, it also served to delay the ‘Second Front’ that Stalin so desperately wanted to see. II Russia’s Strategy Against Germany Late in 1943, Stalin met with Roosevelt and Churchill for the first time — The Teheran Conference.

They agreed that the Western Allies would invade France in June 1944 and that when the invasion began the USSR would launch a new offensive from the east. On April 23, 1945, Soviet troops reached Berlin — with over one million men and more than 20,000 pieces of artillery. A few days later, Soviet troops advancing from the East met up with U. S. troops advancing from the west at the Elbe River. On April 23, 1945, Soviet troops reached Berlin — with over one million men and more than 20,000 pieces of artillery.

A few days later, Soviet troops advancing from the East met up with U. S. troops advancing from the west at the Elbe River. On April 30, as the Soviets were battling through the streets of his city, Adolph Hitler killed himself. On May 2, 1945, Soviet troops completed the capture of Berlin and all remaining German troops surrendered within a few days. The war in Europe was over III The Storming of Normandy On June 6, 1944 the Western Allies landed in northern France, opening the long-awaited “Second Front” against Adolf Hitler’s Germany.

Though they had been fighting in mainland Italy for some nine months, the Normandy invasion was in a strategically more important region, setting the stage to drive the Germans from France and ultimately destroy the National Socialist regime. The invasion of Normandy in 1944 was the conclusion of three years of planning by Allied forces in Britain. Landing in the face of determined German resistance, units of the British Commonwealth and U. S. armies established a beachhead, defeated German counter-attacks, and eventually broke out into an aggressive campaign to liberate France. “Commanded by U. S. Army General Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Normandy assault phase, code-named “” (the entire operation was “Overlord”), was launched when weather reports predicted satisfactory conditions on 6 June. Hundreds of amphibious ships and craft, supported by combatant warships, crossed the English Channel behind dozens of minesweepers.

They arrived off the beaches before dawn. Three divisions of paratroopers (two American, one British) had already been dropped inland. Following a brief bombardment by ships’ guns, Soldiers of six divisions (three American, two British and one Canadian) stormed ashore in five main landing areas, named “Utah”, “Omaha”, “Gold”, “Juno” and “Sword”. After hard fighting, especially on “Omaha” Beach, by day’s end a foothold was well established”.

The 1836 Battle of the Alamo is perhaps the most striking event in the history of Texas.  It was an event that changed the Texans’ lives.  Its battle cry “Remember the Alamo” is one the more famous war cries in the country.  To understand the importance of the Battle of the Alamo, it is important to trace back the events that took place prior to it.

Alamo is a mission-fortress in San Antonio Texas. Founded in 1718, it was initially known as the Franciscan mission of San Antonio de Valero.  It was speculated that the name was changed to Alamo because a military group from Alamo del Parras in Coahuila State once made it its base. Another theory was that there was an abundance of cottonwood or Alamo trees in the area.

Following the war in 1821, Mexico was granted its independence from Spain and made Texas, New Mexico and California their territories. About 4000 Mexicans settled in three towns in Texas- Goliad, Nacogdoches, and San Antonio. Furthermore, around 8000 Apache Indians also made Texas their home. Texas’ vast land, which could be planted with corn and cottonseeds made it attractive to outsiders, especially those from the South and Southwest part of the country. Thus, Mexico began offering public land grants to people with the condition that the settlers would adhere to Mexican laws, which included embracing the Roman Catholic religion.

Moses Austin, an American cotton planter, received a land grant from the Mexicans and led Americans in the state.  When he died, his son Stephen took charge, guiding 300 families to settle near the Brazos River. Each family was granted 200 acres of farm land and around 4000 acres of stock grazing.  Each family paid Austin 12 ½ centavos per acre for his services. At that time, the US government was charging $1.25 per acre.With the growing number of Anglos or English-speaking whites, the difference between the Americans and Mexicans had started to surface.

Texas, as a territory of Mexico, was subjected to Mexican laws.  As such, Americans living in Texas had to abide with the laws. However, some Americans objected to some of it.  One example is the presence of slaves. While Mexican government deemed slavery as illegal, Americans believed otherwise. Mexico had long wanted to eradicate slavery but its efforts remained futile. By 1830, there were around 1000-1500 slaves in Texas. Differences in religion also became a problem in Texas.  Mexico was a Roman Catholic country and the US was a Protestant.  But since the Mexican government was lenient, these problems were manageable.

While Americans and Mexicans lived peacefully in Texas, US’ expansion fever had started to rise.  Expansion was Americans’ way of expressing freedom. In 1829, Spain attempted to regain Mexico as its colony. Spain’s effort proved futile as Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna successfully led a Mexican army in crushing the Spanish. Santa Anna soon became Mexico’s president in 1832.  Before Santa Anna became a president, the Mexican government ordered its soldiers to come to Texas and make the settlers obey them.

This resulted in more friction between American settlers and the Mexicans. Soon, the Mexican government closed the border to immigration from the US. By this time, the settlers had started to feel the need for independence. They sought the same rights American citizens in other states had, they wanted to be included in government decisions, they longed to have a freedom in religious expressions, and they desired to bring in slaves to help them.

Appointed as the group’s representative, Stephen Austin went to Mexico City carrying petition allowing Texas to become a separate state. The petition was not only rejected and Austin was sent to jail for treason. Chaos ensued, with protest meetings exploding in Texas. Austin was able to return to Texas in 1835. A new breed of settlers had come into Texas: people with strong personalities. Among them were Sam Houston, a former congressman from Tennessee, the brothers James and Rezin Bowie, the inventor of the fifteen-inch single-edge knife and Davy Crockett, a pioneer who served in Congress.These men believed that Texas should have been under the constituent of the United States and not Mexico.

The Battle of the Alamo would not have happened without the little cannon that started it all. The Battle of Gonzales served as a prelude to the grand Battle of the Alamo.  In 1831, the Mexican government allowed the people of Gonzales to the use iron cannon as defense against Indian attacks.  When the Mexican soldiers sought to take back the cannon, the people refused to.

Some women even made a battle flag, inscribed with a picture of the cannon and the words “Come and Take it.” Later on, around 300 Texans overthrew a Mexican army out of San Antonio. The group, led by Benjamin R. Milam, drove out around 1,100 soldiers including Mexican General Martin Perfecto de Cos. The defeat of General Cos distressed Santa Anna, causing him to send 6,000 Mexican soldiers to San Antonio. Around 145 Texans were left in San Antonio, including Colonel William Travis and James Bowie who knowing that they were outnumbered, retreated to the Alamo.  The Alamo fort used to be a Mexican military headquarters but was captured by Texans in December 1835.

Charles Esquivel Pritchett History 1301 Nov. 25th 2010 Civil War Project Located 50 miles northwest of Baltimore, the small town of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania was the site of the largest battle ever waged during the American Civil War. Fought in the first three days of July 1863, the Battle of Gettysburg resulted in a hallmark victory for the Union “Army of the Potomac” and successfully ended the second invasion of the North by General Robert E. Lee’s “Army of Northern Virginia”.

Historians have referred to the battle as a major turning point in the war, the “High Water Mark of the Confederacy”.It was also the bloodiest single battle of the war, resulting in over 51,000 soldiers killed, wounded, captured or missing(Coddington 21). 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 envelop the Federals, 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.By evening, the Federals retained Little Round Top and had repulsed most of Ewell’s men. During the morning of July 3, the Confederate infantry were driven from their last toe-hold on Culp’s Hill.

In the afternoon, after a preliminary artillery bombardment, Lee attacked the Union center on Cemetery Ridge. | | The Pickett-Pettigrew assault momentarily pierced the Union line but was driven back with severe casualties(Bachelder 47) . Stuart’s cavalry attempted to gain the Union rear but was repulsed. On July 4, Lee began withdrawing his army toward Williamsport on the Potomac River.His train of wounded stretched more than fourteen miles. | Gettysburg Campaign (June-August 1863) Battle: July 1-3, 1863 Principal Commanders: Maj. Gen.

George G. Meade, US; Gen. Robert E. Lee, CS Forces Engaged: 158,300 total (US 83,289; CS 75,054) Estimated Casualties: 51,000 total (US 23,000; CS 28,000) The Battle of Gettysburg began on July 1, 1863, when a Confederate brigade searching for a badly needed supply of shoes in the small town of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, ran into Union cavalry(Nielsen 12).After the three days of battle were over, Union forces claimed victory, although both sides suffered heavy casualties. | | While Grant slowly strangled Vicksburg and Rosecrans feinted Bragg halfway across Tennessee, Lee decided to march his troops north toward Pennsylvania. There were several reasons for this bold move.

The Confederate government hoped that a decisive victory on Northern soil would win foreign recognition of the Confederacy. In addition, Lee argued that an invasion of the wealthiest urban area of the North would probably lessen the pressure on Confederate forces in Tennessee and at Vicksburg.Perhaps most important, the lush Cumberland Valley would yield food and clothing for Lee’s ragged and hungry army(Fransanito 6). On June 3, 1863, Lee began to move his Army of Northern Virginia across the Rappahannock. Hooker, who was aware of Lee’s movements, shifted the Army of the Potomac northward, using it as a shield between Lee and the capital at Washington. Late in June, Hooker resigned his command, convinced that he had lost the confidence of the administration. On June 28, General George G.

Meade replaced Hooker. Meade had been one of Hooker’s corps commanders.On July 1 advance units of the two armies stumbled into each other near the little town of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, 16 km (10 mi) north of the Maryland border. Both Lee and Meade realized that a battle was unavoidable. Fighting began that day. Union troops, after early reverses, managed to hold a strategic position on Cemetery Hill. The second day, July 2, saw confused fighting on both Union flanks.

Generals Longstreet and John B. Hood assaulted high ground at the Peach Orchard and Little Round Top, but by night the Federals held key positions.The most dramatic action of the battle came on the third day, when General George E. Pickett led a gallant but hopeless charge against the Union center, “the bloody angle. ” (Nielsen 184) Pickett’s drive tried to charge across an open field at Cemetery Ridge, but concentrated Union fire stopped him. The battle was a decisive Union victory, but both armies suffered very heavy losses. Meade’s casualties numbered 23,000 and Lee’s about 25,000.

Lee began his retreat on July 4. | To the great disappointment of President Lincoln, Meade did not pursue the Confederate army and make Lee stand and fight(Coddington 12).By July 14 the Confederate commander had brought the remnant of his army back to the safety of Virginia. Gettysburg had been a severe defeat for the South, both in terms of men lost and the army’s morale. In November 1863 President Lincoln dedicated a national cemetery to those who had died in the Battle of Gettysburg. His speech, known as the Gettysburg Address, became famous as an expression of the democratic spirit and reconfirmed Lincoln’s intention to reunite the country.

Case Study: Battle of the Beers Q1: what attributes are the most important in determining beer purchasing decisions? How does this vary by market segemts? The various attributes are Aroma Appearance Taste Aftertaste or finish Aroma A beer’s aroma is extremely important to its overall taste. The aroma determines the purchase decision of a beer. The market segments that use this attribute to purchase a beer are mostly experienced. The experience and the age determine the attribute. Appearance: The process of buying a beer begins with its visual appearance.

Many people make hasty judgments of taste (food or drink) based entirely on sight alone. But as far as appearance goes, what you’re looking for are color, clarity, and head retention. The companies need to focus on these attributes in order to determine a valid taste for beer buyer preference. Taste: Taste is one of the most important things which determine the purchase of the beer. The repeat purchase takes place when the taste of the beer suits a customer. A taste test would be the ideal test to be performed to exactly know what the preference of the customers is.

Aftertaste: (Finish) The term aftertaste is not a negative thing like many would believe. An aftertaste can be bad, or it can be good. It all depends on your personal preference. The aftertaste will magnify the good and the bad qualities a beer will possess. These are the four attributes which are important in determining the purchase decision of a beer. Q3: should television networks and stations accept advertising using comparative ad’s? what standards (and do) they use in making decisions? Standards of Beer advertising

Beer advertising should not suggest directly or indirectly that any of the laws applicable to the sale and consumption of beer should not be complied with. Brewers should adhere to contemporary standards of good taste applicable to all commercial advertising and consistent with the medium or context in which the advertising appears. Advertising themes, creative aspects, and placements should reflect the fact that brewers are responsible corporate citizens. Brewers strongly oppose abuse or inappropriate consumption of their products. The standards the television networks should follow are

Beer advertising and marketing materials should not portray, encourage, or condone drunk driving. Although beer advertising and marketing materials may show beer being consumed (where permitted by media standards), advertising and marketing materials should not depict situations where beer is being consumed rapidly, excessively, involuntarily, as part of a drinking game, or as a result of a dare. Beer advertising and marketing materials should not portray persons lacking control over their behavior, movement, or speech as a result of consuming beer or in any way suggest that such conduct is acceptable.

Beer advertising and marketing materials should not portray other brands of beer as low quality and standard than there beer. This technique should not be used only while advertising their product. Beer advertising and marketing materials should not portray beer drinking before or during activities, which for safety reasons; require a high degree of alertness or coordination. Retail outlets where beer is served or sold portrayed in advertising should not be depicted as unkempt or unmanaged.