Haig Statue

Another source which supports the interpretation that British generals were incompetent is source B1. John Laffin worked as a tour guide in Australia. His parents both served witht he Australians in Gallipoli and France as nursing cops. Even though he didn’t have a history degree, he was a military historian who earned his living taking people on battlefield tours. He researched the war from the soldier’s viewpoint and wrote a successful history book titled “British Butchers and Bunglers of World War One” – a very emotive polemic title - which released to the public in 2003. The book aims to expose the guilt of ‘uncaring and stupid’ generals. The passage from the book says that Haig and other stupid generals must be blamed for ‘wilful blunders and wicked butchery’ and that there can never be forgiveness for their ‘sheer incompetence’. This source lacks reliability as it has been written in confidence with other sources he has researched online. Laffin only presents one side of the argument and doesn’t discuss the situation in Verdun. The passage of the book was written in 2003 – 80 years later from World War 1. However, his job as a tour guide in battlefields gives him an advantage over other historians. This source is supported by other historians (B8 an B1) and soldiers (B2). This interpretation is contradicted by sources like (B14).

The year was 1940; the world’s second great World War was in full swing, with Britain and Germany at the forefront. The fall of Britain’s closest ally, France, stunned the British Empire and threw it into disarray. Through the chaos, Winston Churchill emerged. Churchill would be an inspiring leader who was able to rally the entire nation in times of hardship. Through his leadership, the “British Bulldog” would face the Axis powers and come out victorious, as well as become a public hero for the British people. Yet, immediately after the war, Churchill did not return to the prime minister seat because of a shocking defeat in his re-election, despite his immense reputation he gained from the war. Though lauded by the British population for his prowess as a wartime leader, Churchill’s conservative politics were out of touch with a population ready for post-war relief and led to his defeat in the 1945 election.

On the brink of war, with the enemy force appearing impenetrable and unstoppable, new Prime Minister Winston Churchill has the daunting task to rally parliament to enter the war. While speaking to the House of Commons, the representing body in the United Kingdom, he must not only create a lasting impression, but illustrate the logistics of the meeting as well as the dire importance of victory for the Allies. He opens with the immediate facts to answer any of the parliament’s doubts or concerns, then he focuses his attention to unity and expands his audience to the entire country of the United Kingdom to express the sentiment of unity and the importance of the call to arms.

The United States entered World War Two in late 1941, and right away they were thrown into a conflict that involved making important decisions that would affect generations of people, in the United States and elsewhere, for years to come. A most notable decision by the Allies, namely the United States and Great Britain, was the combining of the American and British military chiefs of staff. This joint collaboration was appropriately titled the “Combined Chiefs of Staff”. They worked together as one body, and made war planning decisions and strategized together. This type of alliance was an innovation in war planning for the time, and the decisions made collaboratively by the two powers contributed greatly to the Allied victory in 1945. The relationships involved and the disputes that came up are worth noting, specifically the question of the Allies opening up a second front in the west, particularly titled “Operation Sledgehammer”. The relationship between President Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, as well as General George Marshall of the United States and General Sir Alan Brooke of Great Britain were the main actors involved in this undertaking, and they will be the main individuals discussed and analyzed for the purposes of this paper. Ultimately Operation Sledgehammer was delayed and no action was taken upon it. Even though it caused rifts between the USSR, for reasons that will be explained, and the Allies far into the future, in retrospect they may have been

There is no doubt that Edward Cornwallis statue has certain significance. Although the statue has been around for nearly 100 years, it is still intact. The statue of Cornwallis was created by the Scottish sculptor J. Massey Rhind and was unveiled at its eponymous park on June 22, 1931. It was considered the 182nd anniversary of Cornwallis’s arrival and watched as the natal day. (Announcement, 1931) The statue looks attentively to forward, wears a cloak, left hand clenches commanding sword, right hand holds a cocked hat, bronze figures throughout the mottled with grooves, eyes reveal that strong ambition and tenacity of one generation leader. The statue has a straight body, burly back symbolize the courage of Cornwallis and the magnificent imperialism. The statue is located at center of Cornwallis Park, the fields were lush with grass and flowers, and tall trees are in order, cluster of dandelion open in the thick grass, the birds singing on the branch, a group of pigeons were pecking at the crumbs that people spilled on the ground. Many tourists who drove to Halifax were watching the park and the statue through the window, and they often use the camera to record here. Five clean paths were staggered between the bright meadows in the park. Some of the entertainment devices such as swings and slides are built in the park for children to play and exercise. There are often many old people enjoying the afternoon sun in long deckchairs. It is hard to imagine that there is a lot of

In 1975 the Oxford University Press published the first edition of The Great War and Modern Memory written by Paul Fussell. As Fussell states in the opening line, “this book is about the British experience on the Western Front from 1914 to 1918.” In this paper I will argue, that despite the numerous literary awards this book has won, it contains historical inaccuracies and shortcomings in relation to the accurate information provided that takes away from the prestige of the book. Despite the numerous negative aspects of the book, this paper will also briefly highlight the few positive areas of the book, therefore providing an in-depth analysis of the book.

Whitney, Craig R. “World War I Why It Still Matters.” New York Times Upfront 4 May 2009: 24-27. Print.

Last year, on the 25th of April was the centenary of the Gallipoli landing. Which, according to the Australian Defence force website, was to be for Australians, “one of the most significant commemorations to take place during their lifetime.” With the centenary looming in the backs of the minds of the Australian people, it is unsurprising that great pains have been taken to construct a three year long celebration that would “encompass a number of historical milestones on Australia 's involvement in conflicts”, such as both World Wars, Korea and Vietnam.

'Funeral Service of the Unknown Australian Soldier', was addressed by Paul Keating as an individual, as well as the Australian Prime Minister, the representative of the entire nation. The purpose was to pay respect to Australians who had fallen in battle with the dedication of a monument, without glorifying or celebrating Australia's participation in war. As it was addressed to a mixed audience, the wider Australian community, the themes remained universal, to be easily appreciated with minimal knowledge and understanding of Australia and it's history in war. "This unknown Australian is not interred here to glorify war over peace; ... or of one generation above any that has or will come later" reflects on Keating's anti-war perspective which is contextually proven, as he was well known for being extremely critical of war and Australia's participation in it as an ally. Without the knowledge of Keating's anti-war ethics, the speech was often thought to celebrate war and Australia's participation in it, thus creating a divided reception of the speech by the audience. Despite this, Keating had substantial social respect because of his title as prime minister, which resulted in the audience readily accepting his point of view.

George S. Patton was one of the most highly regarded and successful military leaders in the history of the United States. His military career spanned from the expedition into Mexico throughout WWII. His ability to inspire his troops with his profane filled speeches and his position of always leading from the front gained him vast popularity and fame. Many political leaders considered him too controversial and intemperate at times. This reputation often overshadowed his determination and success as a commander. His bravery and many contributions to several of America’s war efforts has established him as one of the greats in American military history.

In his speech he announced to the public that he knew it was going to be hard to announce and speak on the greatest military disaster in the history of Britain. His ability to be sensitive and honest in his challenges creates a powerful bond between his message and the audience. His use of rhetoric helped bring about a final victory after all the disasters caused by the Nazis.

Even before the climactic World War II, Churchill’s mental war starts with the Indian Independence movement. Churchill was brusque about his opinion on the movement, knowingly showing his opposition to the public. “To Churchill, all Indians were the pedestal for a throne. He would have died to keep England free, but was against those who wanted India free.(Tondon, n.d.)” With this ornery still in the mind of the public and government officials, Churchill’s 1940 election was met with opposition. In Churchill and Orwell, “Peter Eckersley, a Tory MP, predicted that “Winston won’t last five months.”(Ricks, pg. 91)” The general public were critical of such a disposition leading the United Kingdom during a time struggle. Even with the public’s pessimistic prospect of him, Churchill’s resilience will become a favorable trait to exhibit in this psychological war.

Although, their conclusions can still be questioned, they have applied intensive and through analysis to their material, widening their subjects and have given legitimate reasoning for their views. While Brown has proven how terms such as War Hawks can be misleading, Horsman has provided enough evidence to prove that the War Hawks did exist and has successfully defined the term War Hawk with greater accuracy than other historians. Both the essays exhibit how historians should be aware of the material they use and careful about their generalizations when explaining such broad

This would apparently mean that Haig's only shortcoming

Winston Churchill’s headstrong resiliency in the face of danger defined his career as a war leader. Former Prime Minister David Cameron states,” He was an incredible leader for our country, and indeed for the whole free world, at an impossibly difficult time.” (1). Five months before his inauguration, Churchill gave his speech “House of Many Mansions” wherein he urged the then Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and other world