President John F. Kennedy Gives Man on the Moon Speech

President John F. Kennedy delivered this speech, Special Message to the Congress on Urgent National Needs, on May 25, 1961 before a joint session of Congress. In this speech, JFK stated that the United States should set as a goal the landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth by the end of the decade. Acknowledging that the Soviets had a head start in their space program, Kennedy urged the U.S. to work diligently to lead the achievements of space travel because in many ways [it] may hold the key to our future on earth. Full Text of the Man on the Moon Speech Given By President John F. Kennedy Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, my copartners in Government, gentlemen-and ladies: The Constitution imposes upon me the obligation to from time to time give to the Congress information of the State of the Union. While this has traditionally been interpreted as an annual affair, this tradition has been broken in extraordinary times. These are extraordinary times. And we face an extraordinary challenge. Our strength as well as our convictions have imposed upon this nation the role of leader in freedoms cause. No role in history could be more difficult or more important. We stand for freedom. That is our conviction for ourselves--that is our only commitment to others. No friend, no neutral and no adversary should think otherwise. We are not against any man--or any nation--or any system--except as it is hostile to freedom. Nor am I here to present a new military doctrine, bearing any one name or aimed at any one area. I am here to promote the freedom doctrine. I. THE GLOBAL STAGE The great battleground for the defense and expansion of freedom today is the whole southern half of the globe--Asia, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East--the lands of the rising peoples. Their revolution is the greatest in human history. They seek an end to injustice, tyranny, and exploitation. More than an end, they seek a beginning. And theirs is a revolution which we would support regardless of the Cold War, and regardless of which political or economic route they should choose to freedom. For the adversaries of freedom did not create the revolution; nor did they create the conditions which compel it. But they are seeking to ride the crest of its wave--to capture it for themselves. Yet their aggression is more often concealed than open. They have fired no missiles; and their troops are seldom seen. They send arms, agitators, aid, technicians and propaganda to every troubled area. But where fighting is required, it is usually done by others--by guerrillas striking at night, by assassins striking alone--assassins who have taken the lives of four thousand civil officers in the last twelve months in Vietnam alone--by subversives and saboteurs and insurrectionists, who in some cases control whole areas inside of independent nations. [At this point the following paragraph, which appears in the text as signed and transmitted to the Senate and House of Representatives, was omitted in the reading of the message: They possess a powerful intercontinental striking force, large forces for conventional war, a well-trained underground in nearly every country, the power to conscript talent and manpower for any purpose, the capacity for quick decisions, a closed society without dissent or free information, and long experience in the techniques of violence and subversion. They make the most of their scientific successes, their economic progress and their pose as a foe of colonialism and friend of popular revolution. They prey on unstable or unpopular governments, unsealed, or unknown boundaries, unfilled hopes, convulsive change, massive poverty, illiteracy, unrest and frustration.] With these formidable weapons, the adversaries of freedom plan to consolidate their territory--to exploit, to control, and finally to destroy the hopes of the worlds newest nations; and they have ambition to do it before the end of this decade. It is a contest of will and purpose as well as force and violence--a battle for minds and souls as well as lives and territory. And in that contest, we cannot stand aside. We stand, as we have always stood from our earliest beginnings, for the independence and equality of all nations. This nation was born of revolution and raised in freedom. And we do not intend to leave an open road for despotism. There is no single simple policy which meets this challenge. Experience has taught us that no one nation has the power or the wisdom to solve all the problems of the world or manage its revolutionary tides--that extending our commitments does not always increase our security--that any initiative carries with it the risk of a temporary defeat--that nuclear weapons cannot prevent subversion--that no free people can be kept free without will and energy of their own--and that no two nations or situations are exactly alike. Yet there is much we can do--and must do. The proposals I bring before you are numerous and varied. They arise from the host of special opportunities and dangers which have become increasingly clear in recent months. Taken together, I believe that they can mark another step forward in our effort as a people. I am here to ask the help of this Congress and the nation in approving these necessary measures. II. ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PROGRESS AT HOME The first and basic task confronting this nation this year was to turn recession into recovery. An affirmative anti-recession program, initiated with your cooperation, supported the natural forces in the private sector; and our economy is now enjoying renewed confidence and energy. The recession has been halted. Recovery is under way. But the task of abating unemployment and achieving a full use of our resources does remain a serious challenge for us all. Large-scale unemployment during a recession is bad enough, but large-scale unemployment during a period of prosperity would be intolerable. I am therefore transmitting to the Congress a new Manpower Development and Training program, to train or retrain several hundred thousand workers, particularly in those areas where we have seen chronic unemployment as a result of technological factors in new occupational skills over a four-year period, in order to replace those skills made obsolete by automation and industrial change with the new skills which the new processes demand. It should be a satisfaction to us all that we have made great strides in restoring world confidence in the dollar, halting the outflow of gold and improving our balance of payments. During the last two months, our gold stocks actually increased by seventeen million dollars, compared to a loss of 635 million dollars during the last two months of 1960. We must maintain this progress--and this will require the cooperation and restraint of everyone. As recovery progresses, there will be temptations to seek unjustified price and wage increases. These we cannot afford. They will only handicap our efforts to compete abroad and to achieve full recovery here at home. Labor and management must--and I am confident that they will--pursue responsible wage and price policies in these critical times. I look to the Presidents Advisory Committee on  Labor Management  Policy to give a strong lead in this direction. Moreover, if the  budget deficit  now increased by the needs of our security is to be held within manageable proportions, it will be necessary to hold tightly to prudent fiscal standards; and I request the cooperation of the Congress in this regard--to refrain from adding funds or programs, desirable as they may be, to the Budget--to end the postal deficit, as my predecessor also recommended, through increased rates--a deficit incidentally, this year, which exceeds the fiscal 1962 cost of all the space and defense measures that I am submitting today--to provide full pay-as-you-go highway financing--and to close those tax loopholes earlier specified. Our security and progress cannot be cheaply purchased; and their price must be found in what we all forego as well as what we all must pay. III. ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PROGRESS ABROAD I stress the strength of our economy because it is essential to the strength of our nation. And what is true in our case is true in the case of other countries. Their strength in the struggle for freedom depends on the strength of their economic and their social progress. We would be badly mistaken to consider their problems in military terms alone. For no amount of arms and armies can help stabilize those governments which are unable or unwilling to achieve social and economic reform and development. Military pacts cannot help nations whose social injustice and economic chaos invite insurgency and penetration and subversion. The most skillful counter-guerrilla efforts cannot succeed where the local population is too caught up in its own misery to be concerned about the advance of communism. But for those who share this view, we stand ready now, as we have in the past, to provide generously of our skills, and our capital, and our food to assist the peoples of the less-developed nations to reach their goals in freedom--to help them before they are engulfed in crisis. This is also our great opportunity in 1961. If we grasp it, then subversion to prevent its success is exposed as an unjustifiable attempt to keep these nations from either being free or equal. But if we do not pursue it, and if they do not pursue it, the bankruptcy of unstable governments, one by one, and of unfilled hopes will surely lead to a series of totalitarian receiverships. Earlier in the year, I outlined to the Congress a new program for aiding emerging nations; and it is my intention to transmit shortly draft legislation to implement this program, to establish a new Act for International Development, and to add to the figures previously requested, in view of the swift pace of critical events, an additional 250 million dollars for a Presidential Contingency Fund, to be used only upon a Presidential determination in each case, with regular and complete reports to the Congress in each case, when there is a sudden and extraordinary drain upon our regular funds which we cannot foresee--as illustrated by recent events in Southeast Asia--and it makes necessary the use of this emergency reserve. The total amount requested--now raised to 2.65 billion dollars--is both minimal and crucial. I do not see how anyone who is concerned--as we all are--about the growing threats to freedom around the globe--and who is asking what more we can do as a people--can weaken o r oppose the single most important program available for building the frontiers of freedom. IV. TOOLS FOR A GLOBAL STRUGGLE All that I have said makes it clear that we are engaged in a world-wide struggle in which we bear a heavy burden to preserve and promote the ideals that we share with all mankind, or have alien ideals forced upon them. That struggle has highlighted the role of our Information Agency. It is essential that the funds previously requested for this effort be not only approved in full but increased by 2 million, 400 thousand dollars, to a total of 121 million dollars. This new request is for additional radio and television to Latin America and Southeast Asia. These tools are particularly effective and essential in the cities and villages of those great continents as a means of reaching millions of uncertain peoples to tell them of our interest in their fight for freedom. In Latin America, we are proposing to increase our Spanish and Portuguese broadcasts to a total of 154 hours a week, compared to 42 hours today, none of which is in Portuguese, the language of about one-third of the people of South America. The Soviets, Red Chinese and satellites already broadcast into Latin America more than 134 hours a week in Spanish and Portuguese. Communist China alone does more public information broadcasting in our own hemisphere than we do. Moreover, powerful propaganda broadcasts from Havana now are heard throughout Latin America, encouraging new revolutions in several countries. Similarly, in Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Thailand, we must communicate our determination and support to those upon whom our hopes for resisting the communist tide in that continent ultimately depend. Our interest is in the truth. V. OUR PARTNERSHIP FOR SELF-DEFENSE But while we talk of sharing and building and the competition of ideas, others talk of arms and threaten war. So we have learned to keep our defenses strong--and to cooperate with others in a partnership of self-defense. The events of recent weeks have caused us to look anew at these efforts. The center of freedoms defense is our network of world alliances, extending from NATO, recommended by a  Democratic President  and approved by a Republican Congress, to SEATO, recommended by a  Republican President  and approved by a Democratic Congress. These alliances were constructed in the 1940s and 1950s--it is our task and responsibility in the 1960s to strengthen them. To meet the changing conditions of power--and power relationships have changed--we have endorsed an increased emphasis on NATOs conventional strength. At the same time we are affirming our conviction that the NATO nuclear deterrent must also be kept strong. I have made clear our intention to commit to the NATO command, for this purpose, the 5 Polaris submarines originally suggested by  President Eisenhower, with the possibility, if needed, of more to come. Second, a major part of our partnership for self-defense is the Military Assistance Program. The main burden of local defense against local attack, subversion, insurrection or guerrilla warfare must of necessity rest with local forces. Where these forces have the necessary will and capacity to cope with such threats, our intervention is rarely necessary or helpful. Where the will is present and only capacity is lacking, our Military Assistance Program can be of help. But this program, like economic assistance, needs a new emphasis. It cannot be extended without regard to the social, political and military reforms essential to internal respect and stability. The equipment and training provided must be tailored to legitimate local needs and to our own foreign and military policies, not to our supply of military stocks or a local leaders desire for military display. And military assistance can, in addition to its military purposes, make a contribution to economic progress, as do our own Army Engineers. In an earlier message, I requested 1.6 billion dollars for Military Assistance, stating that this would maintain existing force levels, but that I could not foresee how much more might be required. It is now clear that this is not enough. The present crisis in Southeast Asia, on which the  Vice President  has made a valuable report--the rising threat of communism in  Latin America--the increased arms traffic in Africa--and all the new pressures on every nation found on the map by tracing your fingers along the borders of the Communist bloc in Asia and the Middle East--all make clear the dimension of our needs. I therefore request the Congress to provide a total of 1.885 billion dollars for Military Assistance in the coming fiscal year--an amount less than that requested a year ago--but a minimum which must be assured if we are to help those nations make secure their independence. This must be prudently and wisely spent--and that will be our common endeavor. Military and economic assistance has been a heavy burden on our citizens for a long time, and I recognize the strong pressures against it; but this battle is far from over, it is reaching a crucial stage, and I believe we should participate in it. We cannot merely state our opposition to totalitarian advance without paying the price of helping those now under the greatest pressure. VI. OUR OWN MILITARY AND INTELLIGENCE SHIELD In line with these developments, I have directed a further reinforcement of our own capacity to deter or resist non-nuclear aggression. In the conventional field, with one exception, I find no present need for large new levies of men. What is needed is rather a change of position to give us still further increases in flexibility. Therefore, I am directing the Secretary of Defense to undertake a reorganization and modernization of the Armys divisional structure, to increase its non-nuclear firepower, to improve its tactical mobility in any environment, to insure its flexibility to meet any direct or indirect threat, to facilitate its coordination with our major allies, and to provide more modern mechanized divisions in Europe and bring their equipment up to date, and new airborne brigades in both the Pacific and Europe. And secondly, I am asking the Congress for an additional 100 million dollars to begin the procurement task necessary to re-equip this new Army structure with the most modern material. New helicopters, new armored personnel carriers, and new howitzers, for example, must be obtained now. Third, I am directing the Secretary of Defense to expand rapidly and substantially, in cooperation with our Allies, the orientation of existing forces for the conduct of non-nuclear war, paramilitary operations and sub-limited or unconventional wars. In addition our special forces and unconventional warfare units will be increased and reoriented. Throughout the services new emphasis must be placed on the special skills and languages which are required to work with local populations. Fourth, the Army is developing plans to make possible a much more rapid deployment of a major portion of its highly trained reserve forces. When these plans are completed and the reserve is strengthened, two combat-equipped divisions, plus their supporting forces, a total of 89,000 men, could be ready in an emergency for operations with but 3 weeks notice--2 more divisions with but 5 weeks notice--and six additional divisions and their supporting forces, making a total of 10 divisions, could be deployable with less than 8 weeks notice. In short, these new plans will allow us to almost double the combat power of the Army in less than two months, compared to the nearly nine months heretofore required. Fifth, to enhance the already formidable ability of the Marine Corps to respond to limited war emergencies, I am asking the Congress for 60 million dollars to increase the Marine Corps strength to 190,000 men. This will increase the initial impact and staying power of our three Marine divisions and three air wings, and provide a trained nucleus for further expansion, if necessary for self-defense. Finally, to cite one other area of activities that are both legitimate and necessary as a means of self-defense in an age of hidden perils, our whole intelligence effort must be reviewed, and its coordination with other elements of policy assured. The Congress and the American people are entitled to know that we will institute whatever new organization, policies, and control are necessary. VII. CIVIL DEFENSE One major element of the  national security program  which this nation has never squarely faced up to is civil defense. This problem arises not from present trends but from national inaction in which most of us have participated. In the past decade we have intermittently considered a variety of programs, but we have never adopted a consistent policy. Public considerations have been largely characterized by apathy, indifference and skepticism; while, at the same time, many of the civil defense plans have been so far-reaching and unrealistic that they have not gained essential support. This Administration has been looking hard at exactly what civil defense can and cannot do. It cannot be obtained cheaply. It cannot give an assurance of blast protection that will be proof against surprise attack or guaranteed against obsolescence or destruction. And it cannot deter a nuclear attack. We will deter an enemy from making a nuclear attack only if our retaliatory power is so strong and so invulnerable that he knows he would be destroyed by our response. If we have that strength, civil defense is not needed to deter an attack. If we should ever lack it, civil defense would not be an adequate substitute. But this deterrent concept assumes rational calculations by rational men. And the history of this planet, and particularly the history of the 20th century, is sufficient to remind us of the possibilities of an irrational attack, a miscalculation, an accidental war, [or a war of escalation in which the stakes by each side gradually increase to the point of maximum danger] which cannot be either foreseen or deterred. It is on this basis that civil defense can be readily justifiable--as insurance for the civilian population in case of an enemy miscalculation. It is insurance we trust will never be needed--but insurance which we could never forgive ourselves for foregoing in the event of catastrophe. Once the validity of this concept is recognized, there is no point in delaying the initiation of a nation-wide long-range program of identifying present fallout shelter capacity and providing shelter in new and existing structures. Such a program would protect millions of people against the hazards of radioactive fallout in the event of large-scale nuclear attack. Effective performance of the entire program not only requires new legislative authority and more funds but also sound organizational arrangements. Therefore, under the authority vested in me by Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1958, I am assigning responsibility for this program to the top civilian authority already responsible for continental defense, the Secretary of Defense. It is important that this function remain civilian, in nature and leadership; and this feature will not be changed. The Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization will be reconstituted as a small staff agency to assist in the coordination of these functions. To more accurately describe its role, its title should be changed to the Office of Emergency Planning. As soon as those newly charged with these responsibilities have prepared new authorization and appropriation requests, such requests will be transmitted to the Congress for a much-strengthened Federal-State civil defense program. Such a program will provide Federal funds for identifying fallout shelter capacity in existing, structures, and it will include, where appropriate, incorporation of shelter in Federal buildings, new requirements for shelter in buildings constructed with  Federal assistance, and matching grants and other incentives for constructing shelter in State and local and private buildings. Federal appropriations for civil defense in fiscal 1962 under this program will in all likelihood be more than triple the pending budget requests; and they will increase sharply in subsequent years. Financial participation will also be required from State and local governments and from private citizens. But no insurance is cost-free; and every American citizen and his community must decide for themselves whether this form of survival insurance justifies the expenditure of effort, time and money. For myself, I am convinced that it does. VIII. DISARMAMENT I cannot end this discussion of defense and armaments without emphasizing our strongest hope: the creation of an orderly world where disarmament will be possible. Our aims do not prepare for war--they are efforts to discourage and resist the adventures of others that could end in war. That is why it is consistent with these efforts that we continue to press for properly safeguarded disarmament measures. At Geneva, in cooperation with the United Kingdom, we have put forward concrete proposals to make clear our wish to meet the Soviets half way in an effective nuclear test ban treaty--the first significant but essential step on the road towards disarmament. Up to now, their response has not been what we hoped, but Mr. Dean returned last night to Geneva, and we intend to go the last mile in patience to secure this gain if we can.

The Legend Of Chun Hyang - 1119 Words

Comics, since their conception, have been seen as an immature media that is strictly pop culture without the ability to pass substantive messages. However, the quantities of people who read and share comic books provide open pathway to idea sharing. The Legend of Chun Hyang I is an example of this cultural messaging through this medium. Written in 1992, as Asian cultures were joining the globalizing world, this manga represented cultural hybridity as a Korean folktale being represented by a Japanese company. The storyline is relatable for young girls who want to be independent no matter which country they are from. Chun Hyang as a character in the work is not close to the actual Korean storyline. However, she is closer to the ideal manga heroine who is pretty but brave, and independent but in love. Chun Hyang represents the move towards a more universal Asian feeling and closeness between the Japanese and Korean pop cultures. Chun Hyang is the story of a young girl who grows up wit hout a father, her mother is a famous medicine woman. Chun Hyang, the main character, is a independent and strong willed young lady who fights back against the oppressive town head or Yang Ban. Chung Hyang meets a young man named Mong Ryong who ends up falling in love with her. After the Yang Ban kidnapped her, Chun Hyang s mother killed herself to protect herself and her daughter. Chun Hyang avenges her mothers death with the help of Mong Ryong as the Am-Hang-Osa, the highest ruler in the

First World War Sources Questions Free Essays

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. We will write a custom essay sample on First World War Sources Questions or any similar topic only for you Order Now 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 â€Å"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 â€Å"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 â€Å"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: â€Å"he did for them both by his plan of attack†. This agrees with sources 2 and 3 where Haig is called a â€Å"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 â€Å"grim determination† and â€Å"organisational ability† that the war was won. Source 4 agrees with this by saying he felt â€Å"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 â€Å"safely in the rear†, which is consolidated by source 3, which says that he lived â€Å"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 â€Å"organisational ability† and â€Å"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 â€Å"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 â€Å"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 â€Å"wise†. He also demonstrates intelligence by saying he doubts whether Germany are â€Å"sufficiently low yet†. He is also demonstrating humanitarianism by saying that he thinks that punishing Germany is a â€Å"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 â€Å"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 â€Å"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 â€Å"butcher† around 1917, which would be just after the major battles. Source 3 â€Å"I don’t think he knew what a trench was like†, while source 8 says the General was playing a â€Å"game of soldiers, and source 9- â€Å"the men who really did the job are dead and in their grave†¦Ã¢â‚¬ . 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 â€Å"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 th e 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- â€Å"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 â€Å"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 â€Å"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 â€Å"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 â€Å"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: â€Å"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 â€Å"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 â€Å"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 â€Å"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, â€Å"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 â€Å"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 â€Å"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, â€Å"Haig did not win, he was there at the finish†. How to cite First World War Sources Questions, Essays

Creative Writing- Story Behind I Will Never Forgive You free essay sample

You killed my father, and for that you shall never be forgiven. As she was trying to open her eyes Her Blair’s vision was blurry; Blair was trying to open her eyes. A weird and sickening smell filtered in her nostrils, and it was awkwardly familiar. She was trying to clear her mind and started wondering: â€Å"where am I ? † but could hear no answer. Blair was finally able to get a vision of her surroundings. She was still under the shock of the accident and did had not recognized her mother sitting next to her and holding her hand. â€Å"It’s me darling, everything’s going to be okay†. Oddly enough, the more she came round, the more she drowned in her thoughts, in her consciousness. She could see the whole thing again. It upset her so much that her vital signs dropped. Nurses rushed into the room, only to see Blair going crazy and shouting her fathers’ name out loud. We will write a custom essay sample on Creative Writing- Story Behind I Will Never Forgive You or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page She was babbling words no one could understand, but all she wanted was to see her father, to make sure he was okay. Very quickly, She was sedated and put to sleep. A day has passed and Blair still hasn’t hadn’t woken up. When she finally did, she decided to tell her mother and her sister what had happened. Two weeks earlier, Elie had undergone an opened-heart surgery and a post-surgery checkup was scheduled on the fifth of December. Blair was taking her father to the hospital. On their way, the weather degraded and it started raining cats and dogs, plus, the it was so foggy that her vision was impaired. Despite that, Blair stepped on the accelerator for fear of missing the doctors’ appointment. They were about to reach the hospital when she drifted to the opposite lane and crashed into a huge truck. It all came back to her very quickly. Suddenly, she had trouble breathing, her vision went blank and she passed out. Three days later, Blair opened her eyes again; she had passed out twice in the last four days. No one was in the room, but Blair’s alone time but that did not last long. Her mother and her sister soon came in the room followed by a doctor. Both women were in tears; the girl’s expression was quizzical, wanting to know what it all was about. After hesitating for a a moment of hesitation, the doctor broke the bad news on Blair: that her father had to be taken off life support system since keeping him alive with some machines won’t save him as he had no chance to survive and he was in unbearable pain. Blair busted burst in tears, and Renee being so close to her father ever since she was born shouted: â€Å"I will never forgive you for what you did Blair†, then she sprinted rushed to her father’s room to see him one last time. This day was by far the worst day the three women had ever gone through. The priest was saying a prayer in at Elie’s funerals so thatfor his soul can could rest in peace. But Renee was not listening. All the beautiful memories of the best moments spent with her father were flashing back in her head. Tears were racing down her cheeks; her eyes were bloody red and her skin extremely pale. She couldn’t accept the fact that her father wasn’t going to be around her anymore; she needed him next to her in her life, to protect her from everything that could harm her. She then went in front of everybody to say a word about her father, her voice was shaking: â€Å"Dad, you have always had your arms wide-opened for me to come protect myself me in-between them, but now that you’re gone, I wish you’d be my guardian angel and protect me from above†.