Analysis Of Two Friends By Guy De Maupassant

a toll not only on Hitler, but Germany as a nation. Germany was asking for a way out, and just

The German Command, in planning for a short and swift war, found themselves in a bind when the war started to prolong itself. From the very beginning, their plan started to fall apart, as Belgium, who they assumed would just let them march through to France, took up arms in resisting their approaches (Hull, 2005). The war would get longer and longer and seemed farther away from its conclusion as the months grew colder. As a result of this as well as their Prussian roots, they resorted to dangerously risky and destructive tactics, trying to bring the war to a quicker end while putting more of their resources in jeopardy, a move that eventually did not pay off and ended up leading to the German Empire’s demise (Hull, 2005).

Finally, there were Army leaders to be dealt with. They were to be taken into consideration for the army was one of the potential groups who was powerful enough to over through Hitler. These, however, were at the moment quite pleased with Hitler’s actions so far, for they shared conservative, antidemocratic and authoritarian views; but still a matter for their concern and distrust was the SA, a paramilitary army run by the Nazi Party which had a bad reputation for being badly disciplined, and particularly their leader being a heavy drinker, openly homosexual who was in charge of an army over 4 million men, and who was presumed to intend to make the SA a second German army and, what’s more, he was also believed to have plotted to over trough Hitler. To grant full support by the army leaders, Hitler sent the SS on a mission to kill Röhm and arrest SA leaders on what was known as the Night of the Long Knives. He made it look as if he had sacrificed a personal friend of his own

However, Ludendorff’s plan backfired when Wilson’s Points insisted that Germany lay down all arms and dissolved its army to no more than 100,000 troops, as well as all parties responsible resign (Peukert, 1987; 46). If Wilson’s constitutional reforms were to be implemented a democratic parliament could have been formed (Peukert, 1987; 24). Obviously Germany was reluctant, at first, to accept all of the responsibility of the war. To add to the attempt of keeping Germany a War state and its reluctant surrender, Keiser Wilhelm II ordered a last attempt by the German Naval Fleet to attack. This created a mutiny in Wilhelmshaven on October 28, 1918 and a sailor’s resurrection in Kiel on November 3rd and 4th (Peukert, 1987; 27). The peaceful revolutionary movement has begun in Germany and the citizens began expressing they wanted a new government. During the revolution the Weimar Republic was forming and it seemed to be doing so with little compromise from polar parties. Somehow, the Weimar Constitution was written and the new government began to practice democracy. Most of Germany, by now, wants to be a viable part of the world and achieve a better standard of living, the newly formed Weimar Republic and fragile economy will be tested with the Versailles Treaty.

In addition, the Battle of Stalingrad also caused great political unrest in Germany, causing many to question Hitler’s leadership. Hitler had the opportunity to withdraw his numerous troops after they were surrounded by the Russian army. However, against his Generals’ advice, he chose to let them die for so called ‘Glory’. Von Paulus radioed Hitler desperately informing

Aristotle once said, “Friendship is a single soul dwelling in two bodies.” There are many things that go into the process of friendship. Some people deal with friendship one way while others deal with it in another way. Cicero had a lot to say about the different aspects of friendship in his time, but how would he view modern friendship? Some friendships Cicero may not be proud of; like the common relationships that are forced on in a classroom or work place and the lack of allowing nature to take control and make the friendships that are meant to happen. However, Cicero would be happy with the way the higher level friendships have developed in virtue

Aldous Huxley exceptionally brings forth to readers the nature of friendship; this is viewed through the relationships of the characters introduced in his novel “Brave New World”. The relationships share commonalities beyond the general surface. Each character partakes a role of establishing a lack of emotional attachment and empathy towards the other in the friendship. There is also the subtle reoccurrence of character’s inducing comfort in others who share unorthodox values of the society. The reinforcement of the nature of these relationships alludes to through the social conformity between Lenina, Henry, Bernard, John, and Linda.

Almost in unification, the army praised the Night of the Long knives even though, general Kurt von Schleicher and Ferdinand von Bredow were among the many victims. The ill President Hindenburg, who was viewed as Germany’s military hero, sent a telegram expressing his “profoundly felt gratitude” and congratulated Hitler for, “nipping treason in the bud”. Although many Germans approached the official news of the events as described by Josef Goebbels with doubtfulness, many others though took the government at its word, and believed Hitler had saved Germany from chaos and destruction. The Night of the Long knives represented a triumph for Hitler and a turning point for the German government. It established Hitler’s image as “the supreme judge of the German people”. This event also sent a clear message to the public that even the most notable Germans were affected from arrest or even summary execution should the Nazi regime view them as a threat. Due to the Night of the Long Knives, it established a pattern of violence that would characterize the Nazi regime and desensitise the German citizens from executions of millions in the future.

Informers were rewarded by the construction of the wall. Their lifestyle within East Germany was advantageous, as they were secured a state of superiority and their loved ones protected. They had nothing to fear, as they were given importance and a role in the sheltered social construct that was Stasiland. Proponents of Communism like the heavily supported and respected public figure Herr von Schnitzler were proud and protective of the Iron Curtain, and believed that its construction was beneficial for the population of East Germany. This biased view of Funder that The Wall benefitted Informers as they did not have to struggle or fear the manipulation and scrutiny of the Stasi themselves is also exemplified through the character of Herr Winz. Funder senses he misses his past life as he accuses the West of propaganda, obviously implying that Funder won’t provide an objective view of GDR history: ‘I am here to tell you about the excellent work—the masterful work—of the Stasi in counter espionage. That is where I spent my life’. These men’s views, professions, purposes and very existence were defined by the wall.

As the citizens of Germany endorsed Hitler’s new cutting-edge ideas, they gained enthusiasm and determination to regain their power. Germany came to the conclusion that war was the only solution to their problem when Hitler wrote, “No nation can remove this hand from its throat except by the sword” (Document A). These words reveal that Hitler’s thoughts and opinions affected those around him. By saying this, he suggested that he understood what Germany wanted and knew that they wouldn’t get it unless they followed his methods. People who read what Hitler wrote were hugely impacted by it, so much so that they began to think with their emotions instead of their heads.

I exhale a long, frustrated sigh as I look around the old, battered up, brown and decaying café. It was amidst the start of the French Revolution, and circumstances were heating up. Everyone were in a small groups chattering away at nothing in particular as I stand at the slightly raised platform, waiting for the last few representatives to come. I, Pascal Beaumont, was the organizer of the raid that will be held at the Bastille, in Paris, on July 14, 1789. Tomorrow was July 14, 1789, the big day. Such an evil thing to do, some might think, but not in my situation. I was thirsty for revenge, for the blood that belonged to the royalty, for death. That rascal, King Louis XVI would pay for the lives he took from the peasants. They would never

Although critical for the German war plan, the Schlieffen-Moltke plan was kept a secret to the public, and even staff members of the German Imperial Army. Moltke kept the Schlieffen Plan a secret throughout his service in the army. Even close staff members, such as General Gerog Graf von Waldersee, admitted they had never actually seen the blueprints for the plan. (Ehlert, 90, PPed). A reason that Moltke wished to keep the Schlieffen-Moltke plan a secret was for the reason of altering it if needed without objection from his staff members. Other commander’s opinions may have helped find a better strategy, as well as counter-arguments to flawed areas of the plan. Surprisingly, Moltke did not tell Schlieffen about the changes he had made to his plan. However, Schlieffen found out about his changes and questioned Moltke’s leadership out of spite. (Ehlert, 97, pped).

Too many people suffered during this horrible, tragic time full of only agony and sorrow. This was a hard moment in time for Germany. Why was this so sad? Well, this is sad because how many people weren’t divided because of the wall? Too many people had to suffer because of the communist leadership. Too many people at that time would have

Still, from Berlin, Hitler ordered the army to continue the fight and promised General Paulus that reinforcements would be sent. The Russian army would not give up. They trapped the weakened Germans in the city. In January, General Paulus sent a message to Hitler requesting permission to surrender. He knew any victory was impossible and the only thing certain for the Germans was death. Hilter denied his requesting saying that the German army had to stand firm until the last man. Hitler’s pride was one of the biggest reasons the German’s lost to Russia. Had he let his men retreat, regroup and fortify themselves they would have stood a much better chance. Hitler was operating solely on an out of control ego at that point and not rational thought.

Imagine your sole confidante, childhood playmate, personal comedian and physiologist disclosing your secrets to a stranger. Unfortunately, this stranger happens to be the person who enforce a form of punishment for the actions that were once a secret. Furthermore, this confidante is considered your friend. Does an instance of this friend disclosing your secret of immoral activities to a person of authority violate the success of the friendship? In fact, this act is not a violation of the laws of friendship. The ideas of friendship are subjective, and thus where you might think your friend’s actions are unjust, your friend is actually looking out for your best interest and security. Also, a good friend would not desire