The Reasons Riots Occur and the History of the Boston Massacre

“This is a horrific day in Boston. My thoughts and prayers are with those who have been injured”. This is a quote from Deval Patrick about the Boston Massacre. This was certainly a horrific day and a day that would go down in history. The grim details will never be forgotten, as John Adams fights for justice in court, supporting the British soldiers. The Boston Massacre ended in, 5 dead civilians, 3 died on the scene and 2 died later. Yes, other events such as wars kill much more people, but justice had to be brought to this case since British soldiers had fired into a crowd of people, a controversy that erupted in the town of Boston.

Riots are an unlawful way to express how individuals feel. Riots happen for multiple reasons. One reason is large numbers of people have no or little faith in the current legal system. When people do not have faith in their legal system, they will think they know best on how to run the government and that causes rebellions. A second reason riots occur is usually they occur when groups of congregate, after scheduled gatherings, descend into unfocused action. It is easy to get a group of people to fight against authority when they are already riled up about it. Lastly, riots occur when there is damage to the social and economic stability of urban communities.

Riots did not just occur when America started out, when it was just a couple of colonies. A recent riot happened in Baltimore, after days of peaceful protest, rioting and looting began on Monday, April 27, 2015 following the death of Freddie Gray while in police custody. This started the same controversy that the Boston Massacre did, that people who are supposed to protect you actually kill you. The Boston Massacre started lots of controversy in how the British soldiers were “protecting” the citizens of Boston and this made the colonists not trust the soldiers causing them to hate them more.

The Boston Massacre occurred on March 5, 1770 when a crowd began to harass a British sentry, and when eight soldiers came to his aid, the crowd began throwing rocks and snowballs at them. The soldier’s response was firing into the crowd and, unintentionally, killing five men. The crowd shouted malicious sayings such as, “Come on you rascals, you bloody backs, you lobster scoundrels, fire if you dare, God damn you, fire and be damned, we know you dare not.” It occurred because it was the culmination of civilian-military tensions that has been growing since the royal troops first appeared in Massachusetts in October 1768. With all that was going on, it was hard to identify who was guilty and who was innocent of the attacks and since there was a lot of talk about what occurred, this had to go to court. This is where John Adams comes into play.

John Adams was asked to represent the British soldiers, despite that it would decrease Adams’ popularity. The emotion in his speech that John Adams ultimately beat was fear, and he fought that with logic during the trial in Boston. Emotions alone would not have been enough to prove to guilty innocent. During his final argument, he told the jury that, “Our wishes, our inclinations cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams used reasoning to convince the jury and townspeople that they British soldiers were innocent and that it was not their fault that the soldiers shot into the crowd. He pointed out solid facts that happened, such as the throwing of the snowballs, ice and oyster shells and how Captain Preston did not shout “Fire” into the crowd. He proves to the court that it was not entirely the soldiers fault for the shooting. This is the extent he had to go to, in order to win this case.

John Adams had different arguments to win this case. One argument he used was when in the crowd some else shouted “Fire”, and it was not Captain Preston and the second argument was the crowd assaulted the soldiers, causing the soldiers to fire. Newton Prince had been the witness that revealed this information of the crowd shouting “Fire” in court. In his testimony, he said, “Yes, they say fire, fire damn you fire, fire you lobsters, fire, you dare not fire”. Prince was quoting what he heard on the day of the riot. This was very valuable information used in court because this proved that Captain Preston did not intend to have his soldier’s fire, therefore shows that it was not Preston’s fault for the shooting of the soldiers.

Previous to Prince’s testimony, one of the townsman had accused Preston of telling his soldiers to fire, and he swore by this fact. When the information was found false, this made his seem unreliable because he lied about who shouted fire. The other argument he used was the crowd has assaulted the soldiers and they had acted on defense. Newton Prince also commented on what was being thrown at the soldiers, “Nothing but snow balls, flung by some youngsters”. John Adams also questioned Richard Palms and Palms said they crowd had clubs, snowballs and ice, all were being launched at the soldiers. John Adams say in court, “To attack a British post is illegal and they may defend themselves to the death of the people”. John Adams makes it seem that it is okay for the soldiers to defend themselves, even if they have to kill a couple of people. Those arguments changed how the town thought about the riot and the actions of the people and the soldiers.

The arguments relate to each other because they make the crowd seem at fault for the Boston Massacre. No matter how John Adams stats his facts, it kept coming back to the same point of the soldiers being innocent. The crowd throwing ice and snowballs, and the accusation of who cried out “Fire”, were similar because it tries to make the soldiers seem like the “bad guys”, when in reality, it was the other way around. This was easily proved by John Adams.

In John Adams speech using logic beat emotion when he was presenting his case by presenting all his facts he learned from the witnesses. John Adams really stressed certain parts of his arguments that justified the reason they fired into the crowd. He stressed the fact that Captain Preston did not shout “Fire” and proves that the witnesses lied in the court. He beat logic by proving Preston did not shout “Fire” with Newton Prince’s testimony, when he confirmed it true. Not only was he proving one of his points, but he showed that those witnesses were unreliable, which means their testimonies did not mean anything.

Everyone assumed anything they said was false, so that worked in John Adams’ favor. He also points out that the crowd has assaulted the British soldier and the shooting was just a form of self-defense and to get the attention of the crowd members. This beat emotion because no matter how it may be said, the facts, they are still there, and as truthful as ever. John Adams, as a part of his final argument, stats, “Our wishes, our inclinations cannot alter the state of facts and evidence”. This rendered true as no one looked at the pathos and they all focused on the logos in his arguments. John Adams spoke to defend the British soldiers and with the use of his persuasion skills and logic helped him win the case and prove the soldiers not guilty.

Using evidence such as, the throwing of ice, snowball and clubs and the false accusation of Preston calling out “Fire” to his men, he was able to bring justice to the case. Logos showed to be more relevant and a better way for Adams to win his case, rather than pathos. Even though the emotion of his speech was fear, he figured out of to use logic and facts to prove the Patriots wrong. And this kind of persuasion power is only within select people, such as John Adams.

Works Cited

  1. Hooper, Tom. “John Adams.” John Adams. HBO films. 16 Mar. 2008. Television.
  2. “Speech by John Adams at the Boston Massacre Trial.” 5 March 1770. Web. 27 October 2015.

Read more

Promotion of Manifest Destiny in the Spanish American War

Spanish American War manifest destiny America The Spanish-American war was just another attempt (and a successful one at that) to promote manifest destiny, American trade,and to become a world power. The war originated in the Cuban struggle for Independence from Spain that began in 1895. The conditions we (the Spanish) imposed on them were not that harsh but the American newspapers played them upto be more than they really were. This aroused a great deal of sympathy from the United States. In addition, the United States had a genuine economic interest in seeing our little island of Cubarndependent. Business involvements on the island were estimated at million of dollars, and trade with Cuban ports was valued at 100 million dollars yearly.

A large hunk of propaganda were the newspapers made by erlramRandolf Hearst, and Joseph Pulitzer, both who were hungry for warvvith Spain. Our beloved general Valeriano Weyler y Nicolau was dubbed by them “the butcher”, Nothing has been so far from the truth. All he did was take Cubans who were convicted of treason and put them in jail. I am not saying Jail life was cake and candy but as I recall neither was the American system, You were still going underpin reforms and from what I hear in my country you can get locked up for being a certain race and all you get is water and bread, We put our prisoners in camps and let them eat what they want. By 1896 there were American demands for intervention in the war between Cuba and Spain.

To appease both sides we did what England had done for your country. We offered them their own parliament and we even recalled our beloved general. How did Cubarespond? The insurgents demanded total independence! All attempts to end the struggle peacefully became futile. America sent the Marne, a big battleship, to Havana and there it blew up for some reason. I believe it was Hearst who had something to do with the explosion because right after it blew up he wired his correspondent in Cuba Frederic Remington and said “Please remain. You furnish the pictures and I’ll furnish the war” Enough said. On March 27th President Mc, Kinley sent an ultimatum to Spain offering American mediation. What they didn‘t tell you was that another letter was sent saying that nothing less than Cuban independence would be satisfactory. We were not going to take this sitting down from a country that only wants this Cuba because it can take it.

It was one of the few last colonies we had and we had a right to it. When the Teller amendment was passed we broke off diplomatic relations and declared war on April 24. On both fronts(the Caribbean and the Philippines which were ours too) we were defeated by the overpowering navy of the US in ten weeks. When the formal peace negotiations took place in Paris on Oct. 1, 1898, the American representatives committed themselves to a policy of imperialistic expansion and did so in the peace talks. They took the Philippines in exchange (although hardly fair) for 20 million dollars. In doing so Spain lost the last remnants of its world empire. The united states in contrast gained an empire. The Spanish-American war assured that the Panama canal would bebuilt (since the US now needed a two ocean navy) and thus commerce would flow both to the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. The war also advanced the career of the assistant sec. of the Navy who won the v. presidency in 1900 and became president in 1901 when Mc. Kinley was assassinated.

Read more

Joan of Arc as a symbol of France

Looking back sixty years before Joan was born, were nothing less than times of uncertainty. Besides the war, the plague of 1348-50 and its resurgence every couple of years had depleted the social and economic structures of Europe. Up to the 1380s, thousands of laborers, peasants and serfs had begun to revolt against the oppressive rule of lords, which ultimately ended serfdom in the west. The Church too, which had heavy influence for the past thousand years, providing hope for the population for just as long, was also in desperate times.This started when Pope Boniface VIII was facing the wrath of both his French and Italian allies after trying to revive the papal rule as early as 1303. Around 1425, the border regions experienced a series of attacks by mercenaries. There were several agreements made within smaller communities of France to agree to not cause damage within their allied communities. IIt was around this time that Domrémy was under attack and Joan began encountering the voices. She received her mission from God, gained the approval of the captain, and prepared to leave. As she prepared to leave for Vaucouleurs, Baudricourt gave Joan her first sword saying “go, go, and come what may”. She was accompanied by six men and spent eleven days passing through domestic territory, mostly at night, to avoid contact with the enemy. Joan would continue to motivate them through tribulation and also encourage them to attend mass as they traveled.

This seemingly small journey introduced her to a much larger world than she had ever imagined from her small village.Dressed in entirely mens armor, they arrived to Chinon, where she would have her first meeting with King Charles VII. This meeting took place in secret, which would concern the court, because this typically only occurred with his most trusted counselors, and though Charles was skeptical, he allowed the meeting to happen. This is where Joan would share with Charles her two orders from God: “to lift the English siege of Orléans,” which had begun six months earlier, and to “lead the king to Reins for his coronation and anointing”. This meeting could take place due to Baudricourt testifying to her miraculous crossing of enemy territories to get to the king. At this point several church-related programs would question her to try and unveil any impure motives. To the countless interrogations, her answers were non-changing and carried theological weight. Still the court and the king wanted a sign, so she boldly agreed that “if the king gave her even a small number of troops” that she guaranteed results in Orléans. After receiving prophecy of the sword hidden in St. Catherine, and the ‘miraculous’ discovery of the sword, Joan would be fully suited in cuirass armor and carried a standard, or flag, similar to the one we find in the illustration. This is said to be about 16 feet long and be made with white satin, painted with a fleur-de-lys, the symbol of the French kings, to display power.Orléans was a city with approximately twenty thousand inhabitants located on the Loire. This appeared as the gateway to the rest of France.The French abandoned Les Tourelles and destroyed the bridge as they retreated to prevent English crossing.

As Salisbury, the highly regarded English general, looked out of the window across the river to produce a plan, a canon hit his location and ultimately resulted in his death. This would lead to a six-month standoff between the English and French. At this point, Joan would enter Orléans, when the Orléanais would feel defeated and afraid of the growing English power. While waiting to attack, she instilled in the locals and her troops the faith that she had carried throughout this entire journey. It is said that the bourgeoisie treated her like an angel and in response, she exhorted them to pray to God. Joan’s decisiveness and perseverance paved the way for victory at Les Tourelles. This victory occurred from the troops misunderstanding of of Joan seeing her standard in the hands of someone other than the squire, and began shouting. The troops rallied, and in a short amount of time, took the Les Tourelles.After the victory, Joan and the half-brother of the Duke arrived to the king’s chamber and begged for Charles to “help maintain the momentum by providing more soldiers” to retake Jargeau, Meung, and Beaugency. Within only a few months, English had been forced from these territories and had withdrawn. Due to these successes, Joan led an expedition that penetrated deep into Anglo-Burgundian territory and which culminated with Charles VII’scoronation at Reims on July, 17 1429. This was the peak of her career because shortly after an assault on Paris failed, Joan was wounded and very distanced from the royal court. She followed this with lesser campaigns before leading a small troop to advance along the River Oïse. In this campaign, the duke of Burgundy captured Joan at Compiègne on May 14, 1430. She was ransomed first to the English and then passed along to the Church to be tried. After a protracted trial, she was executed for heresy and was burned at the stake.

Read more

What Happened At the Tehran Conference In 1943?

What were the main problems and issues facing the Allies at the 1943 Teheran Conference (Eureka) and how were they dealt with? Intro The Teheran conference was the meeting of Joseph Stalin, Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt between November 28th and December 1st 1943. It was the first World War 2 (WW2) meeting amongst ‘The Big Three’ (Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt) in which Stalin was present. The principal aim of the Teheran conference was to firmly establish a global allied strategy for the duration of the war, and basic plans for the post war era.

Throughout the meeting the big three addressed many issues which were deemed to be preventing a global allied strategy. Chief discussion at the conference was centered on ‘Operation Overlord’ which incorporated the opening of a second front in Western Europe which the Big Three believed would be a decisive step to allied victory over Nazi Germany. At the same time the conference discussed how to deal with the escalating Mediterranean conflict, the territorial disputes on the Soviet/Polish frontier as well as discussing operations in Yugoslavia, relations with Turkey and Iran, and a separate protocol pledged to recognize Iran’s independence.

The varying success the Big Three had in resolving these issues at the Teheran conference is arguable. Issues concerning the swift conclusion of the War were often agreed upon mutually as it benefited all three nations, however issues which conflicted the self-interest of the Big Three often forced them to compromise on a successful resolution, one that was often questionable, but necessary for the development of the Grand Alliance and to achieve the primary objective of creating a global allied strategy.

The main problems faced at the Teheran conference were primarily concerned with the sole objective of defeating the Nazi and bringing the war to a rapid end. It is evident that conflict occurred in areas were hidden agendas and self-interest was bought by the Big Three. With hindsight the success of these resolves is questionable, it is clear that many issues which were deemed to be resolved at the Teheran conference in fact resurfaced in future conferences; such as Yalta and Potsdam. Operation Overlord 700 One of the chief focuses of the Teheran conference was the prospect of a second Western front in Europe.

The matter was known as ‘Operation Overlord’, and would entail the allied invasion of German-occupied Western Europe. The issue at the conference was not whether the Allies would launch Operation Overlord, but rather when it would be launched, as it conflicted with Winston Churchill’s wishes to invade Italy through the Mediterranean. The reason for Operation Overlord’s conception varied among the leaders but had the primary objective of ending the war as soon as possible. For Stalin one of the most fundamental reasons for creating a second front was to ease pressure on the Soviet army which were being pressed […] Page 356 The Big Three.

Churchill’s priorities throughout the beginning of the Teheran conference remained with his operations in the Mediterranean. He believed that continuing operations in the Mediterranean would not jeopardise the success of Operation Overlord, Churchill’s demands at the Conference were clear, he demanded landing craft for two divisions in the Mediterranean which could be used to facilitate the operations in Italy or to aid in the invasion of the Rhode Islands if Turkey would enter the war.

Churchill believed that from here Italy could be employed in support of Overlord. Roosevelt’s enthusiasm for the Mediterranean operations differed greatly from that of Churchill’s. For Roosevelt the dilemma was that in order to give enough landing craft to aid Churchill in the Mediterranean would mean delaying Overlord six to eight weeks, he insisted that increasing Anglo-American activities in Italy and the Mediterranean would cause a conflict in the build-up for a successful cross-Channel invasion (OVERLORD) in 1944. […] Page 91 Major problems of WW2.

At the Teheran conference it was concluded that, despite Churchill’s wishes, the cost of invading Italy via the Mediterranean would delay Overlord far more than both Stalin and Roosevelt thought was acceptable. Stalin gladly recognised the outcome of Overlords negotiation as it would guarantee his army the support they needed to fight off the German advance into the Soviet Union. Likewise Roosevelt embraced the outcome, his main priority was to find the quickest solution to the War’s end and he was advised by his Chiefs of staff; Operation Overlord was by far the quickest means of achieving this.

Churchill had never been against Overlord; his argument was simply that Overlord should not take away the importance of operations in the Mediterranean, Churchill accepted the resolution which was reached at the Teheran Conference and pledged full British support to any future Allied operations. Soviet involvement in Japan 400 One of Roosevelt’s main objectives whilst attending the Teheran conference was to gain Stalin’s support for the War in Japan.

Roosevelt felt that with the intervention of Stalin not only would it bolster his resources in the far east but it would also speed up the inevitable allied victory in Japan (Click) Stalin however would only consider invading Japan once Germany had been defeated as he did not want to risk spreading his army in addition. Stalin pledged to assist in the war against Japan after Germany was defeated and expressed his wish that, after the war, the 1941 USSR borders with Finland and Poland be restored; he also requested many War reparations such as key railroads in Manchuria to compensate his intervention in Japan. Click) it was agreed that Stalin would declare war on japan 3 months after the defeat of Germany. Post War Germany 400 Turning to the question of the division of post-war Germany the discussion centred on whether or not to split up Germany. (Click) Churchill was primarily more interested in seeing Prussia, the core of German militarism, separated from the rest of Germany. (Click) On the other hand Roosevelt had a plan for the division of Germany in six parts. These six parts were: 1. All Prussia to be rendered as small and weak as possible. 2. Hanover and Northwest section. . Saxony and Leipzig area. 4. Darmstadt 5. South of the Rhine 6. Bavaria, Baden, and Wurttemberg Roosevelt’s proposal stated that these six areas should be self-governed and that there should be two regions under some form of International control. These were: 1. The area of the Kiel Canal and the City of Hamburg. 2. The Ruhr and the Saar, the latter to be used for the benefit of all Europe. (Click) Stalin agreed with both Churchill and Roosevelt as he felt that to contain military threat Germany may pose in the future the only solution would be to completely divide it.

However, Stalin felt that Churchill’s idea to divide Germany into 2 large states would merely offer an opportunity for Germany to revive as a great State and therefore preferred Roosevelt’ plan to dissect Germany into 6 self-governed areas and 2 areas under allied control. Yugoslavian partisans 400 After an attack by German, Italian and Hungarian forces against Yugoslavia on the 6th April 1941, the kingdom of Yugoslavia collapsed. This resulted in King Peter and his government to flee the country.

On 27 June 1941, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia appointed Tito Commander in Chief of all project national liberation military forces. Originally two groups emerged in the Yugoslavian resistance movement, the chetniks commanded by Draza Mihailovic and the partisans commanded by Tito. (Click) Initially both resistance movements operated in parallel, but by late 1941 began fighting each other in the attempt to gain control of the area following the end of the war. Stalin, who already supported Tito, wanted Roosevelt to recognize the partisans as the official resistance in Yugoslavia, rather than support Mihalovic. Click) Roosevelt up to this point had continued to aid the Chetniks as they fought against Germany but also against the partisans. (Click) Churchill advised Roosevelt that all support should go to Tito and that “complete chaos” would ensue if the Americans also backed Mihailovic. (Click) Stalin and Churchill were able to gain Roosevelt’s support for Tito and the partisans in the form of supplies and equipment and also by commando operations. Soviet/Polish border disputes 400 A key reason for Stalin to attend the Teheran conference was his hope to gain Roosevelt and Churchill’s support for his territorial disputes with Poland.

Stalin believed that the Polish Government in exile were closely connected with the Germans He stated that Russia, probably more than any other country was interested in having friendly relations with Poland, since the security of Soviet frontiers was involved. He said the Russians were in favour of the reconstitution and expansion of Poland at the expense of Germany and that they make distinction between the Polish Government in exile and Poland. (Click) Roosevelt said it was his hope that negotiations could be started for the re-establishment of relations between the Polish and Soviet Governments.

He felt that the re-establishment of relations would facilitate any decisions made in regard to the questions at issue. He said he recognized the difficulties which lay in the way. (Click) Churchill said he would like to obtain the views of the Soviet Government in regard to the frontier question, and if some reasonable formula could be devised, he was prepared to take it up with the Polish Government in exile, and without telling them that the Soviet Government would accept such a solution, would offer it to them as probably the best they could obtain.

If the Polish Government refused this, then Great Britain would be through with them and certainly would not oppose the Soviet Government under any condition at the peace table. (Click) To solve the issue Churchill suggested that Poland’s western borders would be extended east into Prussia to compensate for their eastern borders being reduced. Future of Iran 250 Future of Finland 250

Read more

Why did the First World War end when it did?

This was war on a scale that the world had never seen before, and Hough It would never see again. However, a question that Is often glossed over Is why the war ended on Armistice Day, at the eleventh hour. It is a combination of different events, all leading to the fact that Germany ran out of food, supplies, and manpower, and had to surrender. Furthermore, as America had entered the war the previous year, the Germans realized that they were going to lose, and that drawing it out would only Increase casualties and long-term effects. One of the reasons Germany was ‘bled white’, to use their own term, was the successful British Naval

Blockade, which caused mass starvation, and turned the country on itself with riots and the naval mutiny. The American president, Woodrow Wilson, had been campaigning for a ceasefire, which led to the US invasion of Germany, and when Kaiser Wilhelm abdicated on the 9th November, the war was all but over. To begin with, the main reason for the end of the war was a simple lack of supplies on all sides, but Germany had especially been hit hard. Although both sides launched renewed offensives In early 1918 In a desperate attempt to win the war, both efforts failed.

The fighting between exhausted, demoralized troops continued to approach a stalemate until the Germans lost a number of individual battles and very gradually began to be pushed back. A deadly outbreak of influenza, meanwhile, took heavy casualties on both sides. Eventually, the governments of both Germany and Austria-Hungary began to lose control as both countries experienced multiple mutinies from within their military structures, and due to mass starvation, many call riots were held In Berlin. The naval war Is generally considered a side show In world

War l: in fact it was a critical part of the war, with especially the naval blockade of Germany being hugely important. If the Germans were to be stopped it would have to be done by the French Army, but what the British did have was the Royal Navy. The Government ordered the Royal Navy to immediately cut the flow of raw materials and foodstuffs to Germany, which would not affect the German offensive, but it was the launch of a war of attrition which would ultimately play a major role In the Allied victory. Another factor that contributed to the end of the war was the introduction of

American troops into the fighting. On April 2, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson asked a special session of Congress to declare war on the German Empire, saying “We have war in a positive light, claiming it would “make the world safe for democracy” and that it would be a “war to end war”. On April 6, 1917, Congress declared war, and in the end it was Germany’s use of U-boats that pushed America into a corner and ultimately to declare war: on February 4th, 191 5, Germany announced that merchant shipping in a specified zone around Britain would be legitimate targets.

They added hat this would include neutral ships because many Allied ships had taken to flying the flag of a neutral nation to assist its safety. America’s military build-up was (relatively) slow: General Perishing demanded a million men, to which the American Congress replied it could gather 420,000 by spring 1918. However, the anticipated influx of military supplies from America never materialized. For the most part the troops fought with equipment supplied by the Allies (including the recognizable helmet). American troops saw their first action in May 1918 in fighting alone at the Manner River.

In June 1918, Perishing ordered an all-out attack in the Saint-Mile area of Eastern France. Casualties were high but the attack forced a German retreat that (combined with other Allied offensives along the Western Front) put the entire German army on the back foot. In early October, the Americans pushed through the Argonne Forest. The German High Command began to crack in the face of the persistent Allied onslaught. General Ultrasound was forced to resign and flee to Sweden, a feeling of mutiny spread among the Kaiser’s naval units, and the Kaiser myself was forced to abdicate on November 9.

On the other hand, the American assistance nearly came too late: as both sides desperately tried to gain the upper hand in 1918, Germany very nearly won an attack, as the American troops were delayed. Fortunately, Willow’s men eventually arrived, and this attack can be regarded as the tipping point that signaled the final stages of the war. The war ended for a number of different reasons, all leading to the fact that there was no longer anything to fight with, or anyone to Join the German army.

Many Americans live that America won the war, and the truth is much more subtle: it is true that the war would have lasted longer without the Allied support of Woodrow Wilson, but it was not a war of tactics, but of attrition. There is no denying that the First World War was a catastrophic failure of humanity, and the questions of motivation have been analyses endlessly. I believe that the reasons for the peace treaty are equally interesting, and as it shows that some good can come from four years of atrocities, it is clear why we remember all those who have died in war on the 1 lath of November. Word count: 1019 Ben Phillips

Read more

First World War Sources Questions

The sources 8,9 and 10 can all be used as evidence about the role of generals in the First World War. However, the reliability of the sources can be questioned. Source 8 is in the form of a novel. This could mean, as the source is not entirely genuine, that some of the information is exaggerated. Another reason why this source may not be correct is the date that it was written. By 1989 many of the memories and much of the information has become distorted or ‘hazy’. This could mean that, again, the information in the source is not wholly correct. Source 9 is a soldiers song from the war.

This kind of song is usually extremely biased, as it often shows the true feelings of the soldiers who wrote and sang it. Also it maybe exaggerated and may not indicate actual information, affecting how reliable it is as evidence. However, songs and poems can give us an accurate representation of soldiers feelings about the subject. This is due to the fact that, although letters and the like are censored for content considered to be delicate or critical, songs and poems are not usually censored. This is strengthened by the fact that it agrees with sources 2 and 3, which are soldiers views of Haig. In addition, this song is primary information and the views will not have been changed over time.

However, it does not agree with source 12, by Marshall Foch, who worked with Haig, and says he was “wise, loyal and energetic”, contradicting evidence from the song about how Haig did not actually contribute to the war effort. Source 10 is written as a poem. It was written during the war by a soldier who fought in the war, and therefore would be accurate and unchanged. However the soldier, Siegfried Sassoon, was injured in the Battle of Arras, and therefore would have bitter feelings, and would possibly even feel vengeful of the leadership of the army.

Sassoon also protested against the war after speaking to two pacifists and was sent to a wartime mental institute to recover from shellshock, to cover up the protest, instead of the usual punishment for that kind of thing. This source was also written after the major battles of 1916 and 1917, when the attitude towards General Haig had changed somewhat, because of the mass fatalities and casualty numbers.

Source 9 says that Haig “boasts and skites”. This indicates that Haig is arrogant and boastful, a suggestion which is mirrored in sources 2 and 3 which criticise Haig’s leadership, and source 8, when the clearing of the dead from the battlefield at night is likened to “clearing the table ready for the Generals next game of soldiers”. This is seen as an everyday thing which does not require much thought. This also suggests that Haig was childish and incompetent, as a game of soldiers is associated with childhood games. The suggestion of incompetence is confirmed by source 10: “he did for them both by his plan of attack”.

This agrees with sources 2 and 3 where Haig is called a “butcher”. However, this is again disputed by source 12, but also by source 13, which shows Haig to be thoughtful and wise. Source 11, also, says that it was due to Haig’s “grim determination” and “organisational ability” that the war was won. Source 4 agrees with this by saying he felt “quite sad” about the deaths of the men. However, this suggests that he is unfit to lead the army as he cannot plan an efficient attack which minimises the numbers of casualties. As these sources tend to agree on these subjects, it suggests that the sources are more reliable.

Source 9 says that Haig was “safely in the rear”, which is consolidated by source 3, which says that he lived “50 kilometres behind the line”. This also suggests that the source is more reliable as it is backed up by other sources.

6. (a)

Sources 11, 12 and 13 all complement Haig as being a very worthy leader of the British army. Source 11 begins by saying how David Lloyd George, the British Prime Minister did not have a lot of faith in Haig’s ability, and that he removed the Generals command. This shows that other people did not believe that Haig was a good general. However, source 11 goes on to say that Haig worked with the Allied commander, Foch. The source says that it was due to Haig’s “organisational ability” and “grim determination” that the German army was eventually defeated. This shows that Haig had the skills required to be a good general, and that he had the ability to lead the British army.

Source 12 describes Haig’s policy as being “wise, loyal and energetic”. This means that the Allied Commander believed fully in the General. This shows that Haig was intelligent and that he was devoted to his country.

Source 13, by Haig himself, highlights qualities in Haig. He says “I think this is a mistake, because it is merely laying up trouble for the future”. This shows that he is looking to the future, and using foresight. This agrees with the previous source, which said that Haig was “wise”. He also demonstrates intelligence by saying he doubts whether Germany are “sufficiently low yet”. He is also demonstrating humanitarianism by saying that he thinks that punishing Germany is a “mistake”. This evidence all shows that Haig is a wise, worthy leader.

6. (b)

There is an important reason why the views expressed in sources 11, 12 and 13 are different to those expressed in sources 8, 9 and 10. This is because the writers of these sources have entirely different perspectives of the war. In sources 8, 9 and 10, the writers all have very narrow perspectives of the war. Source 8 is written from a soldiers point of view. This means all the soldier would see and think about would be his own trench, the bad conditions, and the amount of people dying around him. He would also see horrific diseases, such as trench foot, knee deep mud and rats. Therefore, from this, the soldier may blame the commanders, as they are seen as living “50 kilometres behind the line”, (source 3), in relative luxury. Sources 9 and 10 would also have this attitude as they are also written by, or about soldiers.

Sources 11, 12 and 13 are all written by socially higher, higher ranking people, or, in the case of source 11, an historian with a wider perspective and hindsight. These people have a different view to that of the soldiers in that they weigh up land gained against the number of casualties. From this point of view, the General would not seem as bad as from the perspective of the soldiers, who only see terrible conditions and men being killed around them, as in, for example, the battle of the Somme, where conditions were terrible, and huge amounts of men were dying. The General also had a political agenda, and had other things to think about other than conditions of trenches and the things that concerned the men. All the writers of these sources are from similar social classes, and would probably ‘stick together’. This may provide another explanation for the attitude taken.

In source 11, it mentions that David Lloyd George, the British Prime Minister at the time, did not have as much faith in Haig as, for example, Foch. Lloyd George did not bestow this confidence on Haig because of the heavy losses at Passchendaele. Therefore, it could be said that Lloyd George is agreeing with the like of the writers of sources 8, 9 and 10, and supporting their ideas. This is also suggesting that Haig executed wrong decisions, and his leadership should be questioned, in accordance with the soldiers views.

7.

There are a number of factors which could make it seem that the allied victories of 1918 were gained “against overwhelming odds”. To begin with, the Bolshevik revolution in Russia meant that Russia left the war, causing an influx of German soldiers leaving the Russian front line, and arriving at the Western front. This would mean, that if the battles were won, they would have been won against overwhelming odds due to the sheer numbers of troops on the Western front line. In addition to this, Turkey was also repelling troops away from its fronts, adding to the problems and odds of British victory.

The Battle of the Somme was seen as one of the worst battles during World War One. Thousands of men were killed on the first day alone. However, there was very little land gained from the battle. The reason that the offensive was such a failure was that the artillery fire which was supposed to destroy all German forces and bunkers failed. As this failed, as soon as the artillery barrage ceased, the Allied troops went to the German strongholds where they expected there to be little or no resistance.

However, the German machine gun posts had been set up, and the men were killed by the hundred. Also, the barbed wire, which was supposedly cut very well, was cut in scarce places, so that the machine gunners merely had to point at a single place and fire. This meant that casualty numbers were enormous. However, the British army learnt many lessons from this battle and were, it is said, transformed into professionals from this battle. Thus, battles such as the Battle of Cambrai, in 1918, were won easily and effectively with low numbers of casualties. Therefore, the battles could be seen to have been won against overwhelming odds.

However, there was a bad effect on morale due to the losses of the Battle of the Somme, and also due to battles such as Ypres and Passchendaele. This can be seen from sources 2,3,8 and 9. Source 2 says that Haig was known as the “butcher” around 1917, which would be just after the major battles. Source 3 “I don’t think he knew what a trench was like”, while source 8 says the General was playing a “game of soldiers, and source 9- “the men who really did the job are dead and in their grave…”. The soldiers are all are very bitter and angry towards Haig and the leadership. This was because weapons were not integrated into tactics properly (like the tank at the Battle of the Somme), the tactics were poor, and bad decisions were made on the part of the Generals, such as where to fire the artillery at the Somme. Therefore this shows that the battles that were won in 1918 were won against overwhelming odds due to low morale, bad tactics, and badly integrated weapons.

There were other problems with British tactics. One was that the British leader’s mentality was that of offensive warfare, they had an ‘attacking mentality’. This meant that they did not believe in defence, and because the Germans used the machine gun so effectively, there were huge odds against the British troops gaining any ground at all. Also, the British did not properly utilise the machine gun to its full capacity, and therefore were not as defensively capable as the Germans. As a result of this, the German Ludendorff offensive, operation Michael, very nearly succeeded, with the allies only just managing to hold their line. The allies learnt important lessons from this, and were much more defensive. Tanks were also a failure in their trial run, as sources 6 and 7 support. Source 6 says that “twenty-eight broke down… and the remaining thirty-two scurried into the mud”. Overall, much of the new British weaponry was not properly blended with the tactics. This meant that it was very unlikely that any land could be gained.

There are, however, reasons which make it seem that the battles were not so difficult, and that the odds were easy. One important factor which supports this is that America joined the war. By doing this they brought with them money, expertise, and overall, more troops. This boosted morale, and the numbers of troops on all fronts was increased.

There were other major factors which possibly helped the allies to win victories. The German troops were hit by Spanish Influenza, causing them to lose many men before they even got to the fronts. This reduced the numbers of opposing troops, and so allowed the allies easier victories.

In addition to this, Italy left Germany’s side, and, as a result, Germany had less troops, and the allies had more. This hindered Germany, and coupled with the loss of troops through Spanish ‘Flu, caused a large problem.

Another problem for the German’s was the submarine blockade by the allies, which meant that they were running low on supplies, and were struggling to keep going on the supplies they had.

Although the Tank was used poorly in the Somme, it was greatly improved, and used to it’s full potential in the Battle of Cambrai in 1918. This gave the allies a huge advantage, and weakened the odds against victory. This is backed by historian Gary Sheffield- “the British army is an effective fighting machine”. In source 7, it justifies Haig’s use of Tanks because of the need to break the stalemate on the western front. In addition there is the need for an actual trial run to test the tanks on the battlefield. –

John Terraine also says that the Allied leaders deserve more credit than they were given. This can be justified and refuted by a number of points.

Firstly, the allied leaders were criticised for using bad tactics, and for not caring about men’s lives. However, if the leadership was so terrible, why were the generals not replaced? Also, the generals were given rewards at the end of the war, and this may not have happened if the leaders were as bad as is said. The leaders were seen as terrible because of the nature of the job they did. Whatever they did, men would die, and Haig saw this. Also, the Generals were under tight scrutiny, and what they did was being seen for the first time, so naturally people were shocked. However, Haig could not have been sacked due to the huge amount of public scrutiny. If he was sacked, there would be an outcry that the army was being led by an incapable leader, and this would lead to lower morale, and men would stop joining up. Haig was also good friends with the King and was in a high up social position.

Therefore it would be hard to sack him. There was also no-one to replace him that was seen to be well enough qualified. However, if Haig just took for granted that whatever he did, men would die, then possibly he would not try to prevent this. Haig’s plan was “to kill more Germans than they could kill British”. These are terrible tactics to employ, but that was the way he was taught to look at it. Also, there was no evidence that British losses were any higher than those of the other countries. Therefore there is evidence for and against the argument of whether the generals have been given enough credit.

One of the major criticisms displayed in the sources written by soldiers is that Haig lived so far behind the line. Source 3 says “he lived almost 50 kilometres behind the line”. However, there was no need for him to live close to the line. He was required to have a wide perspective of all the fronts and living close to the front line would not allow this. He also thought that he needed to distance himself from his officers, so as to inspire confidence. However, the criticism against this is that as a result of this, he had “no idea of what he was sending men into”, says Laffin, a reliable historian.

This would affect his judgement, and it could be said that he did not care about his men if he did not even know where he was sending them. This is backed by source 3 which says “I don’t think he knew what a trench was like”. It is also backed by source 4, which says I feel quite sad at times when I see them march past me”, and source 10: “When we met him last week on our way to the line”. This shows that he is not very sad about the fact that these men will probably die. Also, it agrees with the fact that he lives a long way behind the line.

A point which backs Haig’s tactics is that Haig was taught to lead the way he lead. At school, Haig was taught to attack, and not defend, thus it can be understood why he did not properly know how to use weapons like the machine gun. Also, he was using the 1900 cavalry training manual, considered to be standard military doctrine, which concentrates a lot on horses and cavalry, rather than new, more modern techniques. This is strengthened by sources 6 and 7, which say that he hoped to use the tanks he had to “give him the edge”. However, he should possibly have made the effort to change the ways he commanded the army, in line with the modern advances in weaponry. Also, although Haig was taught to always attack, and that defence was cowardly, tactics change, and he possibly should have adapted to counter the changes.

Haig was taught to compare the land gained to the men lost. He was also taught to not be bothered by large numbers of deaths so long as it was justifiable. A possible reason for this is that he believed very strongly in the presence of God at his side. Although rather optimistic, he believed that God would see him through and help him to win the battle. He also believed that men that died on the battlefield for their country went merely to “a different room”, and that because they had died patriotically that they would be greatly honoured in death.

Haig was seen to be a good commander who motivated his officers, although one of his main failings was that he did not correct mistakes, he merely stood back and let them continue, a failing that is very significant when training officers. Haig said that it was not his job to direct the army, that that was the job of his subordinates, and that he just trains and prepares the army. However, if he does not correct mistakes, then he cannot be training the army very well.

Haig was heavily criticised for the mass fatalities at the battle of Passchendaele. Many men died there, and Haig lost a lot of credibility from the failure. Objectives were not met either, although there could be an explanation for Haig’s failure here and at the Somme and Ypres. Haig’s Chief of Intelligence continued to tell him that the German’s were on the brink of defeat, and that one more wave of men would finish them. This was not always entirely true, although Haig had no evidence to suggest otherwise.

Therefore, the fact that tactics were repeatedly bad, and that many men lost their lives could be explained. However, Haig repeatedly went against the advice of his second-in-command, and the government, especially about the Somme. He was advised about which areas of the Somme to bomb, and he also was advised to call off the Somme offensive. It was said that it was not even realistically possible to gain any land from the Somme campaign anyway. This could, however, be explained by the feed of wrong intelligence mentioned earlier.

There was a wide perception that the war would be “over by Christmas”. The Generals had to try and make this a reality, if not by Christmas, then as soon as possible after. This is shown in source 7, “I shall use what I have got, as I cannot wait any longer for them”. Therefore another reason can be offered to justify why the Generals sent in as many men as possible and bad tactics were repeated.

Haig was removed temporarily and replaced by the French commander, Foch, who Haig collaborated well with. Haig was removed by Lloyd George, the British prime minister, who had very little experience of the war and had only visited the front line once, to see the son of a fellow politician in a field hospital. Therefore he could not really have made the decision of whether Haig should have been removed of not. Foch said Haig was “wise, loyal, and energetic”. Therefore the commander who Haig was replaced by says that he was a worthy commander, meaning that surely he is.

There are many arguments for and against whether the victories of 1918 were won against overwhelming odds. However, from all the evidence, and the sources, the verdict can be reached that they were not. This conclusion is reached mainly because of all the hindrances upon the German army, coupled with the changing of sides by Italy, and the joining of the United States of America. All these things added together meant that although the battles of 1918 were difficult, they were not gained against “overwhelming odds”. The British army had had time to prepare, and was ready for the battles.

There are also discussions about whether the Allied leaders really deserve more credit than they have already had. Again, from all the sources and evidence, the conclusion can be made that they do not deserve more credit. This is due to the fact that Haig’s tactics were dated, he did not integrate new weaponry he was given, and he did not care enough for the men’s lives that he sent into battle. Although he was given exaggerated information, and he could not have been sacked for various reasons, as Laffin said, “Haig did not win, he was there at the finish”.

Read more

BlackHawk War And Seminole War

Two monumental wars began because of these disagreements, the Black Hawk War and the Second Seminole War. With these two wars the Tribal Indians classical fought on the grounds where they didn’t feel it was right they as the land owners would be kicked off their rightful land because the government wanted it for their own use. The Second Seminole War was lead by an Indian named Solaces (Hatch, 2012). Solaces was the son of a white man and Indian women.

Solace’s father would beat his mother in front of him often until one day she chose to run (Chance, 2003). Solaces was captured one time after running which gave him a greater hatred for the ones he called “The White Man” (Chance, 2003). In 1819 Spain had turned Florida into the Unites States and the Native Americans that had fled south Were Once again caught in U. S territory who they knew would try to relocate them away from their home. Solaces was a part of one of the tribes, the “Seminole” tribe that was going to have to move towards the Mississippi.

Solaces did not want him or his people to have to move, so when there was a meeting that was going to be held most of the other tribes signed their treaties agreeing to move their tribes out of Florida, but the Seminole tribe refused to move, Solaces stated as he stood up at the meeting with a knife in his hand “This is the only treaty I will make with the whites” (Hatch, 2012). From that point on it was a war between the government and the Seminole. For years the Generals could not take over the Seminole Tribe.

The tribe was strong like their leader Solaces and the tribe knew the area well to know how to take advantage of anyone coming to hurt them or their people (Hatch, 2012). The Seminole Tribe fought many small wars and never lost until their leader got very sick with malaria and became very weak (Hatch, 2012). Solaces had two leaders under him which guided and ran the troops, but the tribe depended on Solace’s strength and when he got weak so did all of his Indian Army.

Towards the end of the war a General Hernandez was allowed to come to the Seminole camp, the Seminole hung its white flag at half mass as it’s flag of truce, but since the Seminole had such a stubbornness to them when it came to the Generals and their Army, General Hernandez had his men silently surround the camp and when given the sign they took it over and the invincible Solaces was captured and imprisoned (Hatch, 2012). A year later Solaces died and when he died about only 100 Seminole were left in Florida (Hatch, 2012).

The Blackjack War also happened during the sass’s. Black Hawk himself as one of the Auk Indians. Two chiefs had agreed to a treaty that the Auk Indians would leave the land east of the Mississippi and let the government have it. Back Hawk and other Auk Indians did not believe these chiefs had the right to give this land away (Wisconsin, 2014). A quarter century later settlers began to start taking over the land with no respect for any treaties at the time and the Auk Indians thought it was futile to resist the overwhelming white forces (Wisconsin, 2014).

Black Hawk decided to lead 1,200 Auk’s in the hope of reoccupying their home and land (keep in mind Black Hawk didn’t hind the treaty was real and thought it was fraudulent because of who had did the signing) and if anything bad Was to happen the British would come to his aid (which they did not) (Wisconsin, 2014). In 1832 for 16 weeks Black Hawk and his followers had plans. The warriors would fight and the non- combatants would try to find ways across the Mississippi River to safety.

Many died from hunger, thirst, exhaustion, and were buried on the trail (Wisconsin, 2014). Troops were able to attacks when the Auk’s Indians reached the banks of the Mississippi near the mouth of the Bad Axe River Wisconsin, 2014). In the end Black Hawk left his followers to surrender and only 150 Indians survived out of the 1,200 that began with Black Hawk. The two tribes didn’t want to just give up land they believed was there, but who can blame them.

Imagine if someone came into your home and said they were going to take it and you had to move with your family. These two tribes suffered a great deal and the families all suffered with so many dead. There is one big difference between the two wars though. Each tribe had one main leader Solaces and Black Hawk. Solaces did retreat as did Black Hawk, but Black Hawk just ended up giving up on his followers completely where Solaces didn’t. Solaces tried to finally work with the military and come up with a treaty for his followers.

Solaces didn’t just give up and walk away from his followers in hopes they make it. Regardless of all the history, all the Indian tribes were treated unfairly and were always bullied by the government to due whatever the government thought was best (which was always best for the government, not everyone involved). The Tribes did fight and did try to stand their ground and hold onto their land. In the end the tribes just weren’t strong or big enough to fight off he militias and troops involved against them and lost both battles.

Read more
OUR GIFT TO YOU
15% OFF your first order
Use a coupon FIRST15 and enjoy expert help with any task at the most affordable price.
Claim my 15% OFF Order in Chat
Close

Sometimes it is hard to do all the work on your own

Let us help you get a good grade on your paper. Get professional help and free up your time for more important courses. Let us handle your;

  • Dissertations and Thesis
  • Essays
  • All Assignments

  • Research papers
  • Terms Papers
  • Online Classes
Live ChatWhatsApp